from_name: Tim Starling

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Our server setup in a sentence (was Is wikipedia
	using MogileFS?)

body:
David Gerard wrote:
> On 04/03/07, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
>> howard chen wrote:
>
>>> so what kind of hardware/software are being used by wikipedia to host
>>> images or other resources?
>
>> NFS -> a box with a lot of disks -> lighttpd -> squid
>> Terrifying, isn't it? :D
>
>
> I got asked by a journalist to describe our technical setup the other
> day (after I'd pointed out we're the only top-20 website hosted by a
> nonprofit with therefore no resources by definition).
>
> I said "In Tampa there's lots of big disks, these go to three big
> database servers - one for English Wikipedia, two for the other 200+
> projects - and these go to hundreds of webservers and caches and
> proxies in Tampa, Paris, Amsterdam and Seoul."
>
> Is that about right as a one-sentence description of our setup?

It's close. There are three master database servers, but they're not any
bigger than the 12 or so slave database servers, so it might be more
accurate to just say that we have 15 database servers. Caches aren't on
dedicated servers, so I would say "webservers and caching proxies" rather
than "webservers and caches and proxies", leaving the role of the various
backend caches unsaid. We no longer have any active servers in Paris.

A tier you didn't mention, which the journalist may or may not find
interesting, is that our load balancing frontend is LVS-DR on commodity
servers, with geographic DNS to balance between clusters.

-- Tim Starling


list: wikitech-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Jim Wilson

subject: [Wikitech-l] "Planet" feed aggregators

body:
> It would be nice to get Wikimedians to more actively demand the
> inclusion of useful MW extensions on Wikimedia servers

I doubt most Wikimedians even know that the inclusion of new extensions
would be considered.  I certainly didn't - until you just said something.

Is there a sounding-board somewhere that people can make these suggestions
and the community can discuss it?

> If it gets too technical, we may want to split things up, but let's be
> inclusive in the first iteration.

Sounds good to me - we'll have to see whether there are enough technical
blogs to warrant a separate list.  It may be a very small percentage.

-- Jim

On 3/5/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> On 3/5/07, Jim Wilson <wilson.jim.r at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I often blog about extensions that I've written or ways to
> > hack/bypass/modify/deal with MediaWiki.
>
> I think MediaWiki-related blog posts should be fine. It would be nice
> to get Wikimedians to more actively demand the inclusion of useful MW
> extensions on Wikimedia servers, and if they hear about that through
> the feed, so much the better. If it gets too technical, we may want to
> split things up, but let's be inclusive in the first iteration.
>
> > I wouldn't mind serving in this facility - but I'm biased since I hope
> to
> > have my own content included in the aggregate.  Would the person in
> charge
> > of approving/monitoring* feeds necessarily have to be an unbiased
> > third-party?
>
> Nope. There are enough people who can kick you if you do something
> unreasonable. ;-)
> --
> Peace & Love,
> Erik
>
> DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
> the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
>
> "An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
> free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


list: wikien-l

from_name: Stephen Park

subject: [WikiEN-l] Essjay RFC deleted

body:
On 3/5/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/5/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > William Pietri wrote:
> >
> > > > This especially concerns me as you used your administrative powers to
> > > > enforce your minority view in a disagreement in which you were very
> > > > actively involved. Wouldn't it have been better to let somebody who had
> > > > less involvement decide the outcome?
> >
> William, I understand that feelings are running high and people feel
> they need an outlet. Still, we have a very serious situation here
> where the subject has left Wikipedia and yet is continuing to be
> attacked. Bear in mind that he's being discussed by what we believe to
> be his real name, so BLP kicks in here, and we have to be careful what
> we say, and respectful of his right to get on with his life. It's
> important to discuss the political fall-out so we can work out what
> the lessons are, but comments about the person aren't necessary. As
> David said, it was an uncertified RfC, and he was within his rights to
> delete it.
>
> Sarah
>

Let's ban the New York Times as well.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/05/technology/05wikipedia.html?ref=business

March 5, 2007
A Contributor to Wikipedia Has His Fictional Side
By NOAM COHEN

In a blink, the wisdom of the crowd became the fury of the crowd. In
the last few days, contributors to Wikipedia, the popular online
encyclopedia, have turned against one of their own who was found to
have created an elaborate false identity.

Under the name Essjay, the contributor edited thousands of Wikipedia
articles and was once one of the few people with the authority to deal
with vandalism and to arbitrate disputes between authors.

To the Wikipedia world, Essjay was a tenured professor of religion at
a private university with expertise in canon law, according to his
user profile. But in fact, Essjay is a 24-year-old named Ryan Jordan,
who attended a number of colleges in Kentucky and lives outside
Louisville.

Mr. Jordan contended that he resorted to a fictional persona to
protect himself from bad actors who might be angered by his
administrative role at Wikipedia. (He did not respond to an e-mail
message, nor to messages conveyed by the Wikipedia office.)

The Essjay episode underlines some of the perils of collaborative
efforts like Wikipedia that rely on many contributors acting in good
faith, often anonymously and through self-designated user names. But
it also shows how the transparency of the Wikipedia process ? all
editing of entries is marked and saved ? allows readers to react to
suspected fraud.

Mr. Jordan's deception came to public attention last Monday when The
New Yorker published a rare editors' note saying that when it wrote
about Essjay as part of a lengthy profile of Wikipedia, "neither we
nor Wikipedia knew Essjay's real name," and that it took Essjay's
credentials and life experience at face value.

In addition to his professional credentials and work on articles
concerning Roman Catholicism, Essjay was described in the magazine's
article, perhaps oddly for a religious scholar, as twice removing a
sentence from the entry on the singer Justin Timberlake, which "Essjay
knew to be false."

After the article appeared, a reader contacted The New Yorker about
Essjay's real identity, which Mr. Jordan had disclosed with little
fanfare when he recently accepted a job at Wikia, a for-profit
company.

In an e-mail message on Friday, The New Yorker's deputy editor, Pamela
Maffei McCarthy, said: "We were comfortable with the material we got
from Essjay because of Wikipedia's confirmation of his work and their
endorsement of him. In retrospect, we should have let our readers know
that we had been unable to corroborate Essjay's identity beyond what
he told us."

The New Yorker editors' note ended with a defiant comment from Jimmy
Wales, a founder of Wikipedia and the dominant force behind the site's
growth. "I regard it as a pseudonym and I don't really have a problem
with it," he said of Mr. Jordan's alter ego.

On Thursday, Mr. Wales, who is traveling in Asia with intermittent
Internet connections, stuck by that view. In a statement relayed
through Wikipedia's public relations officer, he said that at that
time, "Essjay apologized to me and to the community at large for any
harm he may have caused, but he was acting in order to protect
himself.

"I accepted his apology," he continued, "because he is now, and has
always been, an excellent editor with an exemplary track record."

But the broad group of Wikipedia users was not so supportive. Mounting
anger was expressed in public forums like the user pages of Mr. Wales
and Essjay. Initially, a few people wrote to express support for
Essjay, along the lines of WJBscribe, who left a message saying: "Just
wanted to express my 100 percent support for everything you do around
here. I think you were totally entitled to protect your identity.
Don't let all the fuss get you down!"

By Saturday, the prevailing view was summarized in subject lines like
Essjay Must Resign, and notes calling Mr. Jordan's actions "plain and
simple fraud."

Some Wikipedia users argued that Essjay had compounded the deception
by flaunting a fictional Ph.D. and professorship to influence the
editing on the site.

"People have gone through his edits and found places where he was
basically cashing in on his fake credentials to bolster his
arguments," said Michael Snow, a Wikipedia administrator who is also
the founder of The Wikipedia Signpost, the community newspaper for
which he is covering the story. "Those will get looked at again."

In a discussion over the editing of the article with regard to the
term "imprimatur," as used in Catholicism, Essjay defended his use of
the book "Catholicism for Dummies," saying, "This is a text I often
require for my students, and I would hang my own Ph.D. on it's
credibility."

Over time, Wikipedia users said, Essjay did less editing and writing
and spent more time ensuring that the encyclopedia was as free of
vandalism and drawn-out editing fights as possible.

By Saturday, Mr. Wales changed his mind about the episode. He cleared
off the "talk" section of his own Wikipedia user page ? usually
cluttered with personal requests, policy debates and compliments ? so
that "this statement gets adequate attention" and announced that he
had "asked Essjay to resign his positions of trust within the
community." He said "that my past support of Essjay in this matter was
fully based on a lack of knowledge about what has been going on."

Complicating matters for Mr. Wales was that Essjay had been hired as a
community manager by Wikia, which Mr. Wales helped to found in 2004.
Mr. Jordan no longer works for Wikia, the company said.

Mr. Snow said the Essjay case "is about the community, the trust the
community depends on in terms of being able to review the work we each
do."

"Even though you don't necessarily know these people personally," he
added, "you see the work enough times and get to know that work."

Mr. Jordan announced his resignation from Wikipedia on his Essjay user
page on Saturday night. In a brief note below, he said simply, "It's
time to make a clean break."

That page had been a model of industry, with tallies of the more than
20,000 articles he edited and statements of personal philosophy and
Wikipedia policy. Where there had been the motto in Latin, "Tu ne cede
malis sed contra audentior ito" ("Yield not to misfortunes, but
advance all the more boldly against them," according to some
translations), there is a stark rectangular black box with the word
"retired" written in white capital letters.

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Puppy

subject: [WikiEN-l] a final word on Essjay

body:
I should probably state somewhere for the record that I am not a small
canine, I am actually a human being. Just in case anyone was wondering,
the image on my Userpage is also not a picture of me.

Stan Shebs wrote:
> Ken Arromdee wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 SonOfYoungwood at aol.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I find it sickening that he lost his job at Wikia over this issue.
>>>
>>>
>> Why?  What would happen if you got hired for a job and then it was discovered
>> that you falsified your resume?
>>
>>
> To Whom It May Concern:
>
> My Wikipedia user page is not my resume.
>
> Stan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>


list: foundation-l

from_name: George Herbert

subject: [Foundation-l] Update of Foundation organization

body:
On 3/5/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 05/03/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > An employee brings minimally as his/her commitment to work 40 hours a week.
> > An employee can be told to do what is deemed necessary by the organisation.
> > An employee is part of an hierarchy and he/she does not have the option to
> > say "Sorry, but like you I am a volunteer".
> >
> > These are all things that are really relevant differences. Strange that I
> > did not have to think hard nor long to come up with just this initial list.
> > When I think of it, a professional can be hired to do the things where we do
> > not have the volunteers to do these tasks.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >     GerardM
>
> Based on the fact that Wikimedia Foundation has such a large pool of
> volunteers, I think the 40 hour week difference makes little
> difference. Is there a reason why Wikimedia Foundation can't contract
> volunteers (as charity shops do)? Similarly, there is no reason why
> the Foundation can't give official positions to volunteers who can be
> trusted to work a minimum number of hours a week (with or without a
> contract). Such volunteers would be given a job description and be
> asked to do things by the Foundation in the way an employee would.

The efficiency difference between an internal, dedicated employee and
a sea of part time volunteers is immense.  The board is quite right
that having internal employees for coordination roles will help
overall capabilities immensely.

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: David Gerard

body:
On 05/03/07, Tim Starling <tstarling at wikimedia.org> wrote:

> > I said "In Tampa there's lots of big disks, these go to three big
> > database servers - one for English Wikipedia, two for the other 200+
> > projects - and these go to hundreds of webservers and caches and
> > proxies in Tampa, Paris, Amsterdam and Seoul."
> > Is that about right as a one-sentence description of our setup?

> It's close. There are three master database servers, but they're not any
> bigger than the 12 or so slave database servers, so it might be more
> accurate to just say that we have 15 database servers. Caches aren't on
> dedicated servers, so I would say "webservers and caching proxies" rather
> than "webservers and caches and proxies", leaving the role of the various
> backend caches unsaid. We no longer have any active servers in Paris.

"A bunch of disks serving three master database servers - one for
English Wikipedia, two for the other 200+ projects - going to hundreds
of webservers and proxy servers around the world, in Tampa, Amsterdam
and Seoul."

The DB split is useful info because en:wp is such a huge bugger.

> A tier you didn't mention, which the journalist may or may not find
> interesting, is that our load balancing frontend is LVS-DR on commodity
> servers, with geographic DNS to balance between clusters.

He was going "wow" about a non-profit running a top-10 site on no
money, and it was the best not-quite-technical answer I could give him
that I thought would be reasonably robust against a journalistic game
of telephone :-)

- d.


body:
On 3/5/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 05/03/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > There may be many people volunteering their time. There is a great lack of
> > people for specific functions.
> >
> > Yes, volunteers are given tasks/responsibilities. It is however up to them
> > to decide what they want to do and when they do them. They are volunteers,
> > they cannot be told. The notion of relying on a specific task to be done in
> > a certain time frame is something you CAN demand of an employee not from a
> > volunteer.
> >
> > PS I have some sort of official capacity; I am a member of the language
> > committee. Some people say that we take our time. I would argue that this is
> > not necessarily a bad thing.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >     GerardM
>
> I understand what you're saying about volunteers not being obligated
> to the foundation and that even trusted volunteers may have a tough
> time justifying getting out of bed in the morning for the Foundation,
> but I think the level of obligation many of our users feel to the
> project is comparable to the the obligation felt by an employee and
> could be put to use.
>
> If a volunteer strongly believes in the work of the foundation, has
> shown commitment to the project through positions of trust, has shown
> that they will do at least X hours a day, and has assumed much
> responsibility then I think they could be trusted with a position.
>
> I agree, there are some critical jobs with time-sensitivity that
> cannot be left to volunteers, but volunteers should be used as
> extensively as possible.

In my opinion, there's no question but that volunteers who are able to
consistently deliver can accomplish many things.

There are also things that they can't reliably accomplish, because
family, work, and other aspects of "having a life" will prevent them
from focusing 20-30 hours on a particularly hard problem.  There are a
few exceptions - retired people, independently rich people, and
unemployed spouses come to mind - but in general, we cannot expect
people to dedicate work-like effort to the project on a volunteer
basis.

Adding internal employees is not taking work away from volunteers,
it's enabling the community as a whole to get some things done that
require more time and focus than volunteers can bring to the role.

Charitable nonprofits, even those with large volunteer pools, use full
time paid employees.  They do so for very good reasons...

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] AFDs on featured articles

body:
On 05/03/07, Ron Ritzman <ritzman at gmail.com> wrote:

> [[Memory_alpha]], which is a previous featured article, is up for
> deletion. Putting the question of wp:snow and wp:point aside I was
> wondering. Has a featured article ever been deleted?
> The only way I can see it happening is if the article is later
> revealed to be a hoax or a copyvio.

I !voted "delete nominator".

- d.


subject:
[Wikitech-l] Reordering Navigation,
	Search and Toolbox in Wiki Skin

body:
It may or may not be possible to do this via CSS - but if you're comfortable
with PHP, hacking the skin is probably the best option.

I'd suggest that you probably make a duplicate skin ("MyMonoBook" or
similar) and then hack that one instead.  This will make future upgrades
easier.

-- Jim R. Wilson (jimbojw)

On 3/5/07, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 05/03/07, Kutler, Christopher
> <Christopher.Kutler at nationalarchives.gov.uk> wrote:
> > At the risk of receiving RTFMs, does anyone know if there is a way of
> changing the order of the Navigation, Search and Toolbox in Wiki Skin so
> that the Search box comes first, followed by the Nav box then the Toolbox. I
> was going to just change the order of the code in MonoBook.php, but I'm
> wondering whether this can be done via one of the stylesheets or something
> like that.
>
> Nope, that's more or less the correct method.
>
>
> Rob Church
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: Anthony

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Accountability: bringing back a proposal I made
	nearly 2 years ago

body:
On 3/5/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> On 3/5/07, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> > The point is to make sure that people are being honest with us and with
> > the general public.
>
> I would modify the proposal: You only need to verify the credentials
> if you're in a position of trust (adminship or higher).

There are two parts to the suggestion: 1) marking some statements with
a "verified credentials" tag, and 2) a "policy of gentle (or firm)
discouragement for people to make claims like those that EssJay made,
unless they are willing to back them up".

So is your modification that part 1 would be available to everyone,
but part 2 would be only necessary for admins?

This could be seen to some extent as an extension of policy that is
already in place.  Recently a user came to the unblock list because
she was blocked for using the name of a college professor.  She was
given the choice to verify that she was indeed that college professor,
or to create an account under a different username.

Anthony


from_name: Simetrical

subject: [Wikitech-l] "Planet" feed aggregators

body:
On 3/5/07, Jim Wilson <wilson.jim.r at gmail.com> wrote:
> I doubt most Wikimedians even know that the inclusion of new extensions
> would be considered.  I certainly didn't - until you just said something.
>
> Is there a sounding-board somewhere that people can make these suggestions
> and the community can discuss it?

As far as I've seen, it's mostly harassing Tim and/or Brion until they
give you an answer.


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Wikipedia-l]Hidden tragedy: requests in limbo (dezas sekrè: demand nan okenn kote)

body:
I'm not complaining about be.wp, I know that is a difficult situation
and I do not expect that it can be resolved soon.

It doesn't appear that anybody told any of these people that they are
required to have a message file.

These requests are simply sitting there, nobody has actually told
these people "We do not see ____, when you get that we will proceed
further with considerations for your Wiki."

These people are very dedicated, I am sure if anyone had actually told
them what exactly it is that they need to do to move forward, they
would do it right away. I am sure the messages file would be
translated into Kabyle, for example, in less than a week, if anyone
had ever actually informed those people that it is needed.

- Wls - if there is "no reasonable support", the number of speakers is
entirely irrelevant, of course the project is not viable since it has
0 articles in the incubator and nobody currently asking for its
creation (there was only one person who did).
- Twd - this case needs to be probed further to see how much Twents
people would support it as a Wiki separate from nds-nl. There are
already over two hundred articles in it, but the majority are at
nds-nl.wp. User:Tubantia indicated preliminary support of such a
request some time ago, so it needs to be re-investigated to see if
this is a viable project or not, and whether the needs of
Twents-speakers are currently being surved by our existing project
(nds-nl)
- Stq - this is obviously a viable project. There is support of native
speakers, many many pages and very active on the incubator. So you
want a message file. Why didn't you tell the people working on this
project? I am sure they would prepare it in several days.
- Pfl - this project appears to still be in the early stages of
incubator development. At this point in time, I don't expect it to be
approved by anyone.
- Lld - same as pfl, except I do not expect its development soon.
Someone needs to investigate how well existing users are served by
rm.wp and fur.wp.
- Kok - although this is a major language of India with millions of
speakers, it is a problem that there are currently no articles. I'm
sure Frederick Noronha could remedy this, though; in the meantime, I
agree and do not think it would be reasonable to approve the project.
- Kab - same as stq.

Others you failed to mention:

- Bat-ltg/lv-ltg - same situation as stq.
- Crh - same situation as stq.
- Dsb - same situation as stq.

It seems that if your rules mean that these Wikis are not able to be
created now, it is not necessarily the case that there is no
opposition (although it may be), the case currently is that _nobody
knows about the rules_. When you have a new policy with as much impact
as this one, it is imperative that it be solicited to all the persons
and communities to whom it is relevant, and their opinion awaited.
This is a Wiki, I am sure that even people who support the policy will
have suggestions for its improvement, but so far very few have shown
up because you have not advertised it much.

Mark

On 05/03/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Mark Williamson schreef:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Perhaps some of you are aware of the formation of the Langcom.
> >
> > Also, you may be aware of the recent reform of the language proposal process.
> >
> > However, what you may not be aware of is that the Language Committee
> > is taking a while to actually get underway and to the point where they
> > can excersise control over the creation of new Wikis.
> >
> > Despite that, it seems that they are already looked to as an authority
> > in this area, while they do not act as such.
> >
> > There are several new Wikipedia requests which were uncontroversial
> > when first posed. Many of dozens of voices of support, and have
> > thriving tests on the Incubator.
> >
> > However, their requests were deleted by PathosChild who said that they
> > would have to remake them, which they have. So far, no proposals for
> > Wikipedias in new languages have been _approved_ under the new
> > proposal process, despite its having been around for several months
> > now. They just sit there. And sit there. And sit there some more.
> >
> > I think it's about time something happened. I think it's about time we
> > welcomed these people -- the Kabyles, the Latgalians, the Lower
> > Sorbians, the Crimeans, and all the others -- into our Wikipedia
> > family. They have waited long enough. Why can't somebody do something?
> > Why do they have to wait for the langcom to get underway? For all we
> > know, that could take years.
> >
> > Mark
> Hoi,
> The language committee has proposed things. It does not have the power
> to force issues. We are now at the stage where we have published our
> guidelines. We have given warning that we do adopt these guidelines as a
> rule if there was no indication of opposition to this. This has not
> happened. From our POV the rules as we published them apply.
>
> All projects for a new language that do not have a work in progress in
> the Incubator are denied. Starting in the Incubator is mandatory.
> Working on the localisation is a strong factor in favour for granting a
> new language a project.
>
> We have some questions outstanding with the board; particularly about
> the Belarus Wikipedia. In our opinion only the official Belarus
> Wikipedia has the right to the be.wikipedia label. We have asked at
> least a month ago for a resolution of this issue from the board. We do
> not want to take up new things that much if open things do not get
> resolved. It is a waste of our time otherwise.
>
> We have already denied one proposal for an artificial languages that has
> no wide support. That one was obvious.
>
> *The wls project has no reasonable amount of support at the moment,
> there are only 29,768 people speaking it .. Is this a reasonable proposal ?
> *The twd project has no reasonable amount of support at the moment,
> there is not even an estimation how many people are speaking it .. Is
> this a reasonable proposal ?
> *The stq project does not have a message file.. so we cannot assess the
> localisation of the messages
> *The pfl project does not have a message file.. so we cannot assess the
> localisation of the messages. There are insufficient articles of a
> sufficient length.
> *The lld project does not have a message file.. so we cannot assess the
> localisation of the messages. There are insufficient articles of a
> sufficient length.
> *The kok project does not have a message file.. so we cannot assess the
> localisation of the messages. There are no articles
> *The kab project does not have a message file.. so we cannot assess the
> localisation of the messages.
>
> So basically from our point of view, it seems that the message files are
> not there. They are required.
>
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.


body:
On 3/5/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> I wanted to bring this up because, as a charity with limited
> resources, it is something that should be explored and discussed. I am
> aware that some employees are necessary: some tasks are too critical,
> time sensitive or large to be left to volunteers. Where do we draw
> this line? When does it become too much work to use volunteers for a
> particular task?

As a first answer, when the Board figures that it needs something done
badly enough to start suggesting that they need to hire someone.  8-)

The Board can explain in more detail their thinking on this, and it's
probably a good idea for them to do so.  My impression from the
outside is that they're probably right and that it's probably about
time to do so, if not past it.  But I'm not involved in a lot of the
community activities intimately, so I don't know how accurate my
impression is.

I agree that this is a good conversation to have.  Both more employees
and more effeciently focused volunteer efforts on problem areas will
both help.  Information flow on the percieved trouble spots helps
everyone see what needs to be done.

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


subject: [Wikitech-l] "Planet" feed aggregators

body:
On 3/5/07, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
> You oversimplify too greatly.

Well, I never meant to go into the *criteria* for acceptance, just the
*process*.  Which, more or less, consists of bugging Brion or Tim,
unless we lesser devs can intimidate the sillier requesters into not
bothering them in the first place.  As for the criteria, yeah, I think
you summarized those nicely.

As for chances of making it in, it's perhaps instructive to notice
that on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Version, I count 17/22
written by either core devs or ex-core devs with at least shell access
(Brion, Tim, Avar, Erik; I don't know if Avar/Erik qualify as ex-core
devs, but from what I've seen they appear to), and at least three of
the remaining five written by non-core devs (Duesentrieb and you).
The last two are by Eric Zachte and Guillaume Blanchard, who for all I
know were also devs, and those are two of the very oldest extensions.

So . . . make of that what you will.  And be sure to add the numerous
extensions by various devs that have *not* been enabled anywhere yet,
despite requests.  Probably Labeled Section Transclusion will be
accepted at some point in the not-too-distant future, and
ProofreadPage on Wikisource is by ThomasV, so it's not like the
chances of getting a third-party extension enabled are zero or
anything . . . you just need to be persistent.


from_name: Matthew Brown

subject:
[WikiEN-l] [Foundation-l] Accountability: bringing back a
	proposal I made nearly 2 years ago

body:
On 3/5/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> I'm not sure I've provided enough context to fully explain the
> proposal. The idea is not to _require_ anything, but to only ask for
> confirmation if people make the claim _themselves_, and then only for
> people in positions of trust, or those whose credentials have been
> called into question. Anyone is free to reach any level of trust
> without professional credentials.

Frankly, this proposal is impractical and unworkable.  I am not about
to go through all this nonsense to verify stuff - all it's going to do
is to make people less willing to state things about themselves on
their user pages.

For instance, I have a B.Eng. in Computing from Imperial College,
London.  I have stated this on every job application I've submitted
throughout my professional career (thirteen years or so by now) and
have NEVER been asked to verify it.  To be honest, I'm not sure I
could, easily; I don't know where my actual degree certificate is.  I
suspect my parents have it, actually.  I guess I could phone up the
college and ask them to fax something, but this is way too much of a
pain in the behind to actually be worth doing for uncompensated
volunteer effort at Wikipedia, especially since it's of complete
irrelevance to what I'm actually doing here.

If we start requiring that admins must verify every single statement
about themselves they make - or even if this is restricted to only
claims of professional expertise - this is going to result in the
following:

1. Admins will simply remove any statements that aren't worth the
effort of verifying. Net gain for the project: zero.
2. People with expertise won't want to become admins, widening an
already-existing gulf.  The perception in some circles that people
become admins because they don't write articles will increase.
3. Only those seeking greater authoritativeness than their writing and
argumentative skills already command will find the cumbersome process
attractive.  Thus, the querulous, the trolls, and those with dubious
qualifications will be the ones getting that 'verified' badge to wear
to use as a stick in arguments.

I am, since I occupy a position of responsibility, quite willing to
verify my identity to the Foundation/Jimbo in private - but verifying
other stuff is frankly not worth my scarce time and effort.

-Matt


body:
On 3/5/07, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/5/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> [snip]
> > I wanted to bring this up because, as a charity with limited
> > resources,
> [snip]
>
> Perhaps "a charity with limited resources" is the wrong mindset to an
> extent. "A charity which is not yet effective at bringing in
> supporting funding given its exposure" is probably a lot more
> accurate.
>
> It's true that all charities need to be wise with their spending, but
> the same is also true of virtually all businesses.  I like to think of
> our position as unusually 'poor' to be more of a temporary situation
> which we should be attempting to cure.   Once past that hump we can
> stop letting "how can we best save money" get in the way of "how can
> we best perform our mission" in the situations where those two goals
> diverge.
>
> I welcome off-list data on the viewer/donation and fund drive take
> rate ratios of other NPOs. :)

Good points.  In business, one is usually held to account for
overspending available funds.

But it's not well understood that in many cases, it's just as
important to spend money and get things done, and underspending is
more dangerous than over.

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


body:
I'm not protesting it, I am simply saying that obviously nobody is
aware of this requirement.

The people who are working on these projects are very dedicated, if
they knew that this requirement existed, you can be sure that it would
be fixed right away.

Mark

On 05/03/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> We are now at the stage where we have a policy. We are not interested in
> talking the proposal to death. We are first going to see how it functions.
> When we find that it does not work, we will tweak things carefully. The lack
> of having message files for all languages is one of the major shortcomings
> in the current localisation procedures.
>
> You may think of it as a technicality or not fair. The point is that the
> developers proved to be unwilling to remedy things in the past (for instance
> for Marathi). The only consequence can be that new projects have to
> have message
> files from the start. It is not fair to start new languages that are
> incomplete; it is not fair to require the localisation to be done again when
> a new project is requested in the same language.
>
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
>
>
>
> On 3/5/07, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'm not complaining about be.wp, I know that is a difficult situation
> > and I do not expect that it can be resolved soon.
> >
> > It doesn't appear that anybody told any of these people that they are
> > required to have a message file.
> >
> > These requests are simply sitting there, nobody has actually told
> > these people "We do not see ____, when you get that we will proceed
> > further with considerations for your Wiki."
> >
> > These people are very dedicated, I am sure if anyone had actually told
> > them what exactly it is that they need to do to move forward, they
> > would do it right away. I am sure the messages file would be
> > translated into Kabyle, for example, in less than a week, if anyone
> > had ever actually informed those people that it is needed.
> >
> > - Wls - if there is "no reasonable support", the number of speakers is
> > entirely irrelevant, of course the project is not viable since it has
> > 0 articles in the incubator and nobody currently asking for its
> > creation (there was only one person who did).
> > - Twd - this case needs to be probed further to see how much Twents
> > people would support it as a Wiki separate from nds-nl. There are
> > already over two hundred articles in it, but the majority are at
> > nds-nl.wp. User:Tubantia indicated preliminary support of such a
> > request some time ago, so it needs to be re-investigated to see if
> > this is a viable project or not, and whether the needs of
> > Twents-speakers are currently being surved by our existing project
> > (nds-nl)
> > - Stq - this is obviously a viable project. There is support of native
> > speakers, many many pages and very active on the incubator. So you
> > want a message file. Why didn't you tell the people working on this
> > project? I am sure they would prepare it in several days.
> > - Pfl - this project appears to still be in the early stages of
> > incubator development. At this point in time, I don't expect it to be
> > approved by anyone.
> > - Lld - same as pfl, except I do not expect its development soon.
> > Someone needs to investigate how well existing users are served by
> > rm.wp and fur.wp.
> > - Kok - although this is a major language of India with millions of
> > speakers, it is a problem that there are currently no articles. I'm
> > sure Frederick Noronha could remedy this, though; in the meantime, I
> > agree and do not think it would be reasonable to approve the project.
> > - Kab - same as stq.
> >
> > Others you failed to mention:
> >
> > - Bat-ltg/lv-ltg - same situation as stq.
> > - Crh - same situation as stq.
> > - Dsb - same situation as stq.
> >
> > It seems that if your rules mean that these Wikis are not able to be
> > created now, it is not necessarily the case that there is no
> > opposition (although it may be), the case currently is that _nobody
> > knows about the rules_. When you have a new policy with as much impact
> > as this one, it is imperative that it be solicited to all the persons
> > and communities to whom it is relevant, and their opinion awaited.
> > This is a Wiki, I am sure that even people who support the policy will
> > have suggestions for its improvement, but so far very few have shown
> > up because you have not advertised it much.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > On 05/03/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Mark Williamson schreef:
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps some of you are aware of the formation of the Langcom.
> > > >
> > > > Also, you may be aware of the recent reform of the language proposal
> > process.
> > > >
> > > > However, what you may not be aware of is that the Language Committee
> > > > is taking a while to actually get underway and to the point where they
> > > > can excersise control over the creation of new Wikis.
> > > >
> > > > Despite that, it seems that they are already looked to as an authority
> > > > in this area, while they do not act as such.
> > > >
> > > > There are several new Wikipedia requests which were uncontroversial
> > > > when first posed. Many of dozens of voices of support, and have
> > > > thriving tests on the Incubator.
> > > >
> > > > However, their requests were deleted by PathosChild who said that they
> > > > would have to remake them, which they have. So far, no proposals for
> > > > Wikipedias in new languages have been _approved_ under the new
> > > > proposal process, despite its having been around for several months
> > > > now. They just sit there. And sit there. And sit there some more.
> > > >
> > > > I think it's about time something happened. I think it's about time we
> > > > welcomed these people -- the Kabyles, the Latgalians, the Lower
> > > > Sorbians, the Crimeans, and all the others -- into our Wikipedia
> > > > family. They have waited long enough. Why can't somebody do something?
> > > > Why do they have to wait for the langcom to get underway? For all we
> > > > know, that could take years.
> > > >
> > > > Mark
> > > Hoi,
> > > The language committee has proposed things. It does not have the power
> > > to force issues. We are now at the stage where we have published our
> > > guidelines. We have given warning that we do adopt these guidelines as a
> > > rule if there was no indication of opposition to this. This has not
> > > happened. From our POV the rules as we published them apply.
> > >
> > > All projects for a new language that do not have a work in progress in
> > > the Incubator are denied. Starting in the Incubator is mandatory.
> > > Working on the localisation is a strong factor in favour for granting a
> > > new language a project.
> > >
> > > We have some questions outstanding with the board; particularly about
> > > the Belarus Wikipedia. In our opinion only the official Belarus
> > > Wikipedia has the right to the be.wikipedia label. We have asked at
> > > least a month ago for a resolution of this issue from the board. We do
> > > not want to take up new things that much if open things do not get
> > > resolved. It is a waste of our time otherwise.
> > >
> > > We have already denied one proposal for an artificial languages that has
> > > no wide support. That one was obvious.
> > >
> > > *The wls project has no reasonable amount of support at the moment,
> > > there are only 29,768 people speaking it .. Is this a reasonable
> > proposal ?
> > > *The twd project has no reasonable amount of support at the moment,
> > > there is not even an estimation how many people are speaking it .. Is
> > > this a reasonable proposal ?
> > > *The stq project does not have a message file.. so we cannot assess the
> > > localisation of the messages
> > > *The pfl project does not have a message file.. so we cannot assess the
> > > localisation of the messages. There are insufficient articles of a
> > > sufficient length.
> > > *The lld project does not have a message file.. so we cannot assess the
> > > localisation of the messages. There are insufficient articles of a
> > > sufficient length.
> > > *The kok project does not have a message file.. so we cannot assess the
> > > localisation of the messages. There are no articles
> > > *The kab project does not have a message file.. so we cannot assess the
> > > localisation of the messages.
> > >
> > > So basically from our point of view, it seems that the message files are
> > > not there. They are required.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >     GerardM
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Conspicuous only in its absence (was Moldavian)

body:
Liviu Andro nic schreef:
> Hello,
>
> Verbosity is a prerequisite for my arguments to be understood. Otherwise
> these are simply skipped.
>
>
.... Really ? ...
> 2. According to the recently adopted Language proposal
> policy<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WM:LPP>- that I suppose can be
> applied to existing wikipedias to determine their
> "validity" - there are three "essential" requisites that can be verified: a
> valid ISO-639 code, language singularity and a viable community and
> audience.
>
Hoi,
You are plain wrong. You are also wrong in applying the policy in this
way. The policy determines how new languages are to be accepted. The
Moldovan Wikipedia already exists and it does have a valid ISO 639 code.
Thanks,
    GerardM


from_name: Delirium

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Is editing for payment a fundamentally	problematic
 conflict of interest?

body:
William Pietri wrote:
> Right. And although the questions are endlessly complicated, I think the
> solution is simple. Interests are fine, especially when declared.
> Conflicts of interest, real or apparent, are forbidden. In practice,
> this means that if anybody raises a reasonable conflict-of-interest
> concern, especially one with a pecuniary motivation, the editor steps
> back and makes their suggestions on the talk page. And that we rule out
> obvious conflicts from the beginning, in exactly the same way the
> various journalistic codes of ethics I linked to do now.
>

My point, though, is that there are *almost always* conflicts of
interest, especially with the sort of qualified editors we would most
like to attract.  Someone who does extensive work in CS and holds an
academic job in that position has a conflict of interest when it comes
to editing CS-related articles, especially any related to his area of
research... but we hardly want to ban experts in CS from editing
CS-related articles!  I don't see monetary influence as being a worse
sort of conflict (except for PR reasons).  My proposal instead would be
to simply ask editors to disclose potential conflicts of interest and be
cautious when editing articles to which they might apply.  Thus when
editing machine-learning-related articles, I would disclose that I
research in the area and mostly publish in the statistical side of the
statistical-vs-symbolic split, but this wouldn't disqualify me from
editing machine-learning-related articles, either of the statistical or
symbolic variety.

-Mark


from_name: Slim Virgin

subject: [WikiEN-l] Essjay RFC deleted

body:
On 3/5/07, William Pietri <william at scissor.com> wrote:
> [snip] ... Second, BLP rightly doesn't apply to talk pages. BLP is to prevent our
> hopefully neutral, factual articles from being distorted with opinion
> and lies.

Just a quick FYI, William. BLP applies throughout the website.

Sarah


from_name: Jim Hu

subject: [Wikitech-l] "Planet" feed aggregators

body:
On Mar 5, 2007, at 1:10 PM, Rob Church wrote:

> On 05/03/07, Simetrical <Simetrical+wikilist at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 3/5/07, Jim Wilson <wilson.jim.r at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I doubt most Wikimedians even know that the inclusion of new
>>> extensions
>>> would be considered.  I certainly didn't - until you just said
>>> something.
>>>
>>> Is there a sounding-board somewhere that people can make these
>>> suggestions
>>> and the community can discuss it?
>>
>> As far as I've seen, it's mostly harassing Tim and/or Brion until
>> they
>> give you an answer.
>
> You oversimplify too greatly.
>
> A huge proportion of the extensions out there are written by, if I may
> be frank, amateurs.

Indeed...this describes me pretty well. I believe "rank amateur"
comes closer.

> They may be quick and dirty solutions to fulfill
> people's needs at the time. They may not be compatible with the newest
> versions of MediaWiki, or may use appallingly bad and even unsafe
> practices to get things done, which may lead to the inclusion of
> security vulnerabilities; commonly XSS and SQL injection.

For example, I'm pretty sure I used some appalling practices (like
saving state by serializing data into the page output itself instead
of to a session or cookie) in the Table Edit extension I just wrote...

But then I don't think it should actually be enabled on the Wikimedia
cluster.  Since extensions like these are being written by us
amateurs to get things done on our own wikis, it would be nice to get
feedback on which of our appalling practices to look out for.
Perhaps someone with more expertise than the likes of me can add some
more information to the sections on mediawiki.org about writing
extensions and special pages.

But I'm NOT expecting the main devs to have the time to do that.

Jim

>
> If we're to enable an extension on the Wikimedia cluster, then we have
> to be reasonably sure that we can trust the code. This means we have
> to review it for security and for sanity, and for performance. This
> takes time. Time which we don't have, on the whole.
>
> Some of this can be skipped when the extension is written by an
> experienced and trusted developer and uses appropriate techniques to
> do things, although there is still a phase of review which (rightly)
> needs to take place, so it's still not instantaneous.
>
> Another big problem is that people request the installation of the
> most ridiculous and pointless little extensions. There are vast
> arguments over how complex wiki text should be, and internally there
> is a ripple of discontent over how complex it has become. A lot of the
> community's thirst for nonsense was slaked in an efficient and
> effective manner by Tim Starling with the introduction of
> ParserFunctions. Unfortunately, now they want more. Variables. Arrays.
> All sorts of nonsense which, frankly, they *do not need* to write an
> encyclopaedia.
>
> The community frequently bitches at the development and system
> administration teams to do things faster, but it is the development
> and system administration teams which have a responsibility to keep
> the sites alive, and which will take the flak - oh yes, there's a lot
> of flak to come from all our users - when the shit hits the fan, as it
> might do without the proper processes.
>
>
> Rob Church
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


body:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> It is my understanding that if we have true employees in a nation that
> our organization will have a legal presence in that nation. If we have
> a legal presence in that nation, we will be subject to the
> jurisdiction of that nation.
>

It would definitely require us to have someone familiar with the
relevant laws, both U.S. and international, go over such a proposal and
tell us what its legal implications are.  In particular, employment law
is complicated.  From a legal perspective, a U.S. entity hiring a
foreign employee could be considered outsourcing, and there are some
U.S. laws designed to discourage outsourcing which may or may not
apply.  We would also need to be familiar with employment-related laws
in the hiree's country of residence, and plan for them appropriately;
for example, countries differ greatly in how easy it is to fire people,
and in the kinds of additional requirements or obligations incumbent on
employers.

-Mark


body:
Mark Williamson schreef:
> Hello,
>
> Perhaps some of you are aware of the formation of the Langcom.
>
> Also, you may be aware of the recent reform of the language proposal process.
>
> However, what you may not be aware of is that the Language Committee
> is taking a while to actually get underway and to the point where they
> can excersise control over the creation of new Wikis.
>
> Despite that, it seems that they are already looked to as an authority
> in this area, while they do not act as such.
>
> There are several new Wikipedia requests which were uncontroversial
> when first posed. Many of dozens of voices of support, and have
> thriving tests on the Incubator.
>
> However, their requests were deleted by PathosChild who said that they
> would have to remake them, which they have. So far, no proposals for
> Wikipedias in new languages have been _approved_ under the new
> proposal process, despite its having been around for several months
> now. They just sit there. And sit there. And sit there some more.
>
> I think it's about time something happened. I think it's about time we
> welcomed these people -- the Kabyles, the Latgalians, the Lower
> Sorbians, the Crimeans, and all the others -- into our Wikipedia
> family. They have waited long enough. Why can't somebody do something?
> Why do they have to wait for the langcom to get underway? For all we
> know, that could take years.
>
> Mark
Hoi,
The language committee has proposed things. It does not have the power
to force issues. We are now at the stage where we have published our
guidelines. We have given warning that we do adopt these guidelines as a
rule if there was no indication of opposition to this. This has not
happened. From our POV the rules as we published them apply.

All projects for a new language that do not have a work in progress in
the Incubator are denied. Starting in the Incubator is mandatory.
Working on the localisation is a strong factor in favour for granting a
new language a project.

We have some questions outstanding with the board; particularly about
the Belarus Wikipedia. In our opinion only the official Belarus
Wikipedia has the right to the be.wikipedia label. We have asked at
least a month ago for a resolution of this issue from the board. We do
not want to take up new things that much if open things do not get
resolved. It is a waste of our time otherwise.

We have already denied one proposal for an artificial languages that has
no wide support. That one was obvious.

*The wls project has no reasonable amount of support at the moment,
there are only 29,768 people speaking it .. Is this a reasonable proposal ?
*The twd project has no reasonable amount of support at the moment,
there is not even an estimation how many people are speaking it .. Is
this a reasonable proposal ?
*The stq project does not have a message file.. so we cannot assess the
localisation of the messages
*The pfl project does not have a message file.. so we cannot assess the
localisation of the messages. There are insufficient articles of a
sufficient length.
*The lld project does not have a message file.. so we cannot assess the
localisation of the messages. There are insufficient articles of a
sufficient length.
*The kok project does not have a message file.. so we cannot assess the
localisation of the messages. There are no articles
*The kab project does not have a message file.. so we cannot assess the
localisation of the messages.

So basically from our point of view, it seems that the message files are
not there. They are required.

Thanks,
    GerardM


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Intervening in an edit war

body:
Andre Engels schreef:
> I have been asked to look at a page where there has been an edit war for
> half a year as an 'impartial outsider'. Does anyone have experience with
> doing that? I have not started yet, but I fear that the outcome will be one
> of the following three:
>
> * I consider myself too little known about the subject to say anything
> useful
> * I agree with one of the parties, and get shit on by the other parties
> * I agree with neither party, and get shit on by both.
Hoi,
This is one of the dubious advantages of being a member of an
arbitration committee. :)
Thanks,
    GerardM


from_name: Marc Riddell

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Is editing for payment a fundamentally
	problematic	conflict of interest?

body:
on 3/5/07 10:59 AM, William Pietri at william at scissor.com wrote:

> Down the line, I think we'll run of gas some with we hobbyists. Not that
> we won't get and use a ton of that, just that the quality level and
> topic focus will leave gaps that will become more and more obvious. I
> think the step over that will either be through advertising on Wikipedia
> or through large donations from tech billionaires creating an endowment.
> Either one will result in the Foundation hiring people full time to work
> on the content. This will expand the caste system in a way that will
> involve much wailing and gnashing of teeth in the community, but people
> will eventually get over it because it will actually make the
> encyclopedia better.

This is very much the way a hospital functions: A combination of paid staff
and volunteers working together to accomplish the same goal - the best
patient care possible. How these two groups get along in there interactions
is what a culture is all about. Acceptance of this culture requires maturity
on the part of the individual participants - and care and nurturing by all.

Marc


body:
I take it, then, that you have informed these people of the reason
their requests are not approved yet?

We can't expect them to be telepathic, after all.

Mark

On 05/03/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> I will be happy to see that you are right once the message files exist.
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
>
> On 3/5/07, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'm not protesting it, I am simply saying that obviously nobody is
> > aware of this requirement.
> >
> > The people who are working on these projects are very dedicated, if
> > they knew that this requirement existed, you can be sure that it would
> > be fixed right away.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > On 05/03/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hoi,
> > > We are now at the stage where we have a policy. We are not interested in
> > > talking the proposal to death. We are first going to see how it
> > functions.
> > > When we find that it does not work, we will tweak things carefully. The
> > lack
> > > of having message files for all languages is one of the major
> > shortcomings
> > > in the current localisation procedures.
> > >
> > > You may think of it as a technicality or not fair. The point is that the
> > > developers proved to be unwilling to remedy things in the past (for
> > instance
> > > for Marathi). The only consequence can be that new projects have to
> > > have message
> > > files from the start. It is not fair to start new languages that are
> > > incomplete; it is not fair to require the localisation to be done again
> > when
> > > a new project is requested in the same language.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >     GerardM
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 3/5/07, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm not complaining about be.wp, I know that is a difficult situation
> > > > and I do not expect that it can be resolved soon.
> > > >
> > > > It doesn't appear that anybody told any of these people that they are
> > > > required to have a message file.
> > > >
> > > > These requests are simply sitting there, nobody has actually told
> > > > these people "We do not see ____, when you get that we will proceed
> > > > further with considerations for your Wiki."
> > > >
> > > > These people are very dedicated, I am sure if anyone had actually told
> > > > them what exactly it is that they need to do to move forward, they
> > > > would do it right away. I am sure the messages file would be
> > > > translated into Kabyle, for example, in less than a week, if anyone
> > > > had ever actually informed those people that it is needed.
> > > >
> > > > - Wls - if there is "no reasonable support", the number of speakers is
> > > > entirely irrelevant, of course the project is not viable since it has
> > > > 0 articles in the incubator and nobody currently asking for its
> > > > creation (there was only one person who did).
> > > > - Twd - this case needs to be probed further to see how much Twents
> > > > people would support it as a Wiki separate from nds-nl. There are
> > > > already over two hundred articles in it, but the majority are at
> > > > nds-nl.wp. User:Tubantia indicated preliminary support of such a
> > > > request some time ago, so it needs to be re-investigated to see if
> > > > this is a viable project or not, and whether the needs of
> > > > Twents-speakers are currently being surved by our existing project
> > > > (nds-nl)
> > > > - Stq - this is obviously a viable project. There is support of native
> > > > speakers, many many pages and very active on the incubator. So you
> > > > want a message file. Why didn't you tell the people working on this
> > > > project? I am sure they would prepare it in several days.
> > > > - Pfl - this project appears to still be in the early stages of
> > > > incubator development. At this point in time, I don't expect it to be
> > > > approved by anyone.
> > > > - Lld - same as pfl, except I do not expect its development soon.
> > > > Someone needs to investigate how well existing users are served by
> > > > rm.wp and fur.wp.
> > > > - Kok - although this is a major language of India with millions of
> > > > speakers, it is a problem that there are currently no articles. I'm
> > > > sure Frederick Noronha could remedy this, though; in the meantime, I
> > > > agree and do not think it would be reasonable to approve the project.
> > > > - Kab - same as stq.
> > > >
> > > > Others you failed to mention:
> > > >
> > > > - Bat-ltg/lv-ltg - same situation as stq.
> > > > - Crh - same situation as stq.
> > > > - Dsb - same situation as stq.
> > > >
> > > > It seems that if your rules mean that these Wikis are not able to be
> > > > created now, it is not necessarily the case that there is no
> > > > opposition (although it may be), the case currently is that _nobody
> > > > knows about the rules_. When you have a new policy with as much impact
> > > > as this one, it is imperative that it be solicited to all the persons
> > > > and communities to whom it is relevant, and their opinion awaited.
> > > > This is a Wiki, I am sure that even people who support the policy will
> > > > have suggestions for its improvement, but so far very few have shown
> > > > up because you have not advertised it much.
> > > >
> > > > Mark
> > > >
> > > > On 05/03/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Mark Williamson schreef:
> > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Perhaps some of you are aware of the formation of the Langcom.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also, you may be aware of the recent reform of the language
> > proposal
> > > > process.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However, what you may not be aware of is that the Language
> > Committee
> > > > > > is taking a while to actually get underway and to the point where
> > they
> > > > > > can excersise control over the creation of new Wikis.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Despite that, it seems that they are already looked to as an
> > authority
> > > > > > in this area, while they do not act as such.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are several new Wikipedia requests which were
> > uncontroversial
> > > > > > when first posed. Many of dozens of voices of support, and have
> > > > > > thriving tests on the Incubator.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However, their requests were deleted by PathosChild who said that
> > they
> > > > > > would have to remake them, which they have. So far, no proposals
> > for
> > > > > > Wikipedias in new languages have been _approved_ under the new
> > > > > > proposal process, despite its having been around for several
> > months
> > > > > > now. They just sit there. And sit there. And sit there some more.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think it's about time something happened. I think it's about
> > time we
> > > > > > welcomed these people -- the Kabyles, the Latgalians, the Lower
> > > > > > Sorbians, the Crimeans, and all the others -- into our Wikipedia
> > > > > > family. They have waited long enough. Why can't somebody do
> > something?
> > > > > > Why do they have to wait for the langcom to get underway? For all
> > we
> > > > > > know, that could take years.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mark
> > > > > Hoi,
> > > > > The language committee has proposed things. It does not have the
> > power
> > > > > to force issues. We are now at the stage where we have published our
> > > > > guidelines. We have given warning that we do adopt these guidelines
> > as a
> > > > > rule if there was no indication of opposition to this. This has not
> > > > > happened. From our POV the rules as we published them apply.
> > > > >
> > > > > All projects for a new language that do not have a work in progress
> > in
> > > > > the Incubator are denied. Starting in the Incubator is mandatory.
> > > > > Working on the localisation is a strong factor in favour for
> > granting a
> > > > > new language a project.
> > > > >
> > > > > We have some questions outstanding with the board; particularly
> > about
> > > > > the Belarus Wikipedia. In our opinion only the official Belarus
> > > > > Wikipedia has the right to the be.wikipedia label. We have asked at
> > > > > least a month ago for a resolution of this issue from the board. We
> > do
> > > > > not want to take up new things that much if open things do not get
> > > > > resolved. It is a waste of our time otherwise.
> > > > >
> > > > > We have already denied one proposal for an artificial languages that
> > has
> > > > > no wide support. That one was obvious.
> > > > >
> > > > > *The wls project has no reasonable amount of support at the moment,
> > > > > there are only 29,768 people speaking it .. Is this a reasonable
> > > > proposal ?
> > > > > *The twd project has no reasonable amount of support at the moment,
> > > > > there is not even an estimation how many people are speaking it ..
> > Is
> > > > > this a reasonable proposal ?
> > > > > *The stq project does not have a message file.. so we cannot assess
> > the
> > > > > localisation of the messages
> > > > > *The pfl project does not have a message file.. so we cannot assess
> > the
> > > > > localisation of the messages. There are insufficient articles of a
> > > > > sufficient length.
> > > > > *The lld project does not have a message file.. so we cannot assess
> > the
> > > > > localisation of the messages. There are insufficient articles of a
> > > > > sufficient length.
> > > > > *The kok project does not have a message file.. so we cannot assess
> > the
> > > > > localisation of the messages. There are no articles
> > > > > *The kab project does not have a message file.. so we cannot assess
> > the
> > > > > localisation of the messages.
> > > > >
> > > > > So basically from our point of view, it seems that the message files
> > are
> > > > > not there. They are required.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >     GerardM
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.


from_name: River Tarnell

subject: [Wikitech-l] Commons image archive

body:
Brianna Laugher:
> > Wouldn't offering it as both be a good way to see what users will prefer?

Gregory Maxwell:
> Users would probably prefer the http/ftp download link option. It's
> simple, easy and fast.. at least it is so long as we have enough
> bandwidth to support it.

> I don't believe that anyone thinks otherwise. But user preference is
> irrelevant if the cost of bandwidth causes us to choose to not make
> such things available.

we don't currently pay for bandwidth at knams (which includes hemlock),
so if you want to offer HTTP download as well, i don't see that being a
problem.

of course not many people are going to bother with BT if there's an
HTTP alternative ;-)

	- river.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20070305/01feada3/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

body:
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 14:53:49 +0100, "Erik Moeller" <erik at wikimedia.org>
wrote:

>> The point is to make sure that people are being honest with us and with
>> the general public.
>
>I would modify the proposal: You only need to verify the credentials
>if you're in a position of trust (adminship or higher).

I'd start with admins, but if it is not onerous open it to others.
There is definite value in being able to establish your bona-fides. It
also helps us to check for subtle bias.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


subject:
[Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] Accountability: bringing back
 a	proposal I made nearly 2 years ago

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> On 3/5/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Oh man please no. Way too buracratic. People wanting to avoid it will
>> would have to remove such claims even when true before running for
>> adminship which wont look good.
>>
>
> Why won't it look good? I don't believe there's a problem with
> removing claims, or perhaps adding an {{UnverifiedCredentials}}
> template.
>

I would be opposed to either one of those.  My user page currently
states that I'm a PhD student in computer science, and it would be quite
a deviation from our normal practice---and not particularly nice---if
someone were to remove that sentence, or tag it with some sort of
"WARNING: USER MIGHT BE LYING" template.  I'd be okay with not being
able to put an "Officially Verified" tag on it (though I think that has
downsides for other reasons), but I would be much less okay with someone
actively removing or tagging it as a possible lie when they had no
reason to believe it to be false.

Mandatory verification for claims of being a specific person has a
little more going for it IMO... impersonating "Professor Foo of College
X" could damage the reputation of Professor Foo, a specific actual
human, so the claim might warrant a higher bar for reasons similar to
the Biography of Living Persons concerns.  Plus, verification that
someone is a specific person requires far fewer judgment calls than
credential verification.

-Mark


from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
On 3/5/07, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> The point is to make sure that people are being honest with us and with
> the general public.

I would modify the proposal: You only need to verify the credentials
if you're in a position of trust (adminship or higher).
- Reduces the number of necessary verifications
- Has less of an impact on the social dynamics of Wikipedia
- Gives us a good response to media ("user was not in a position of
trust") when other editors use fake credentials
- Gives editors a sense of perspective when looking at userpages
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic


subject: [WikiEN-l] Essjay RFC deleted

body:
# 15:01, 5 March 2007 David Gerard (Talk | contribs | block) deleted
"User talk:Essjay/RFC" (talk page of deleted RFC)
# 15:00, 5 March 2007 David Gerard (Talk | contribs | block) deleted
"User:Essjay/RFC" (uncertified RFC, not requested 'kept' by the
subject; deleted per RFC policy and for the precise reasons contained
in that policy)

I eagerly await an RFC and arbcomming over an in-process deletion ...

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Essjay RFC deleted

body:
On 3/5/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 18:06:49 +0000, "David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >It's hit DRV, where the lynch mob are now asserting that anyone who
> >doesn't agree with them is too biased to comment:
>
> Interesting.  What issue is the RfC going to solve?  What ongoing
> editing problem with Essjay is it trying to fix?  What is the desired
> outcome?  A community ban of a departed editor?  An ArbCom case to
> desysop someone who's already desysopped?  Or perhaps just to gaze
> deeper still into our Wikinavels?

You can't reason people out of being upset and wanting to talk or vent about it.

The emotional halflife of a serious problem varies, but it typically
on the order of many days to a week or so.

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Essjay RFC deleted

body:
On 05/03/07, William Pietri <william at scissor.com> wrote:

> Hi. I requested on the talk page that rather than deleting it, it be
> moved back out to community noticeboard. Others, if I recall rightly,
> asked the same. Could you tell me more about your reasoning for deleting
> it instead?

Just because people want it around is not a justification to keep an
uncertified RFC around. Uncertified RFCs are exercises in
reputation-trashing. That's *why* they get deleted.

> Regardless, would you mind sending me a copy of it? As I mentioned
> before, I think in a couple of months when people have cooled down, it's
> worth coming back to see what we can learn  of all this. However, the
> vigor with which people are deleting the record is going to make that
> harder than I'd like.

I have to say "too bad, that's not what RFCs are for."

- d.


from_name: Angela

subject: [WikiEN-l] AFDs on featured articles

body:
On 3/5/07, John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:
> It could also be that the admin has a grudge against Wikia and was
> hoping to sneak it through while lots of other noise was occupying
> people, or just to create more controversy.

More likely a grudge against wikis than Wikia specifically. Of the 5
wikis he listed for deletion yesterday, only two of them are hosted by
Wikia. The others were the Valve Developer Community, Wikocracy, and
Openpolitics.ca.

Angela


from_name: Robth

subject: [WikiEN-l] Essjay RFC deleted

body:
On 3/5/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> It's hit DRV, where the lynch mob are now asserting that anyone who
> doesn't agree with them is too biased to comment:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_March_5#User:Essjay.2FRFC
>

Can we please ditch the emotionally charged metaphors?  Yes, saying
"lynch mob" is quick and snappy, but it diminishes the efficacy of
what you're saying (if you actually make an attempt to describe the
behavior and emotions of the group you're talking about instead of
just spouting a cliche, you've conveyed much more information) and
devalues the term used.  Lynch law is a brutal and calculating system
of social control under which any member of a subordinated group who
challenges the economic, social, or political status quo is punished
with death.  Taking the term and applying it to a situation in which,
well, a bunch of people got angry at some guy for claiming to possess
credentials he didn't possess, and then signed their names under
statements asking him to resign his official positions on a website
(or whatever)--that's silly, and it in no way illuminates the actual
social psychology of what's going on here.  Sure, it wasn't the
specific example Godwin picked, but doing it still makes you look
immature.

--
Robth
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Robth)


from_name: Gwern Branwen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Essjay RFC deleted

body:
"Stephen Park" <stephenpark15 at gmail.com> writes:

> On 3/5/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 3/5/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > William Pietri wrote:
>> >
>> > > > This especially concerns me as you used your
administrative powers to
>> > > > enforce your minority view in a disagreement in which you
were very
>> > > > actively involved. Wouldn't it have been better to let
somebody who had
>> > > > less involvement decide the outcome?
>> >
>> William, I understand that feelings are running high and people
   feel
>> they need an outlet. Still, we have a very serious situation
   here
>> where the subject has left Wikipedia and yet is continuing to
   be
>> attacked. Bear in mind that he's being discussed by what we
believe to
>> be his real name, so BLP kicks in here, and we have to be
careful what
>> we say, and respectful of his right to get on with his
   life. It's
>> important to discuss the political fall-out so we can work out
   what
>> the lessons are, but comments about the person aren't
   necessary. As
>> David said, it was an uncertified RfC, and he was within his
rights to
>> delete it.
>>
>> Sarah
>>
>
> Let's ban the New York Times as well.
>
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/05/technology/05wikipedia.html?ref=business
>
> March 5, 2007
> A Contributor to Wikipedia Has His Fictional Side
> By NOAM COHEN
>
> In a blink, the wisdom of the crowd became the fury of the
  crowd. In
> the last few days, contributors to Wikipedia, the popular online
> encyclopedia, have turned against one of their own who was found
  to
> have created an elaborate false identity.
>
> Under the name Essjay, the contributor edited thousands of
  Wikipedia
> articles and was once one of the few people with the authority
  to deal
> with vandalism and to arbitrate disputes between authors.
>
> To the Wikipedia world, Essjay was a tenured professor of
  religion at
> a private university with expertise in canon law, according to
  his
> user profile. But in fact, Essjay is a 24-year-old named Ryan
  Jordan,
> who attended a number of colleges in Kentucky and lives outside
> Louisville.
>
> Mr. Jordan contended that he resorted to a fictional persona to
> protect himself from bad actors who might be angered by his
> administrative role at Wikipedia. (He did not respond to an
  e-mail
> message, nor to messages conveyed by the Wikipedia office.)
>
> The Essjay episode underlines some of the perils of
  collaborative
> efforts like Wikipedia that rely on many contributors acting in
  good
> faith, often anonymously and through self-designated user
  names. But
> it also shows how the transparency of the Wikipedia process
oe??? all
> editing of entries is marked and saved oe??? allows
readers to react to
> suspected fraud.
>
> Mr. Jordan's deception came to public attention last Monday when
  The
> New Yorker published a rare editors' note saying that when it
  wrote
> about Essjay as part of a lengthy profile of Wikipedia, "neither
  we
> nor Wikipedia knew Essjay's real name," and that it took
  Essjay's
> credentials and life experience at face value.
>
> In addition to his professional credentials and work on articles
> concerning Roman Catholicism, Essjay was described in the
  magazine's
> article, perhaps oddly for a religious scholar, as twice
  removing a
> sentence from the entry on the singer Justin Timberlake, which
  "Essjay
> knew to be false."
>
> After the article appeared, a reader contacted The New Yorker
  about
> Essjay's real identity, which Mr. Jordan had disclosed with
  little
> fanfare when he recently accepted a job at Wikia, a for-profit
> company.

A pity they didn't bother to name Daniel Brandt as that
reader. You know it was him, I know it was him, but not naming him
means we can't mention it in his article as yet another
interesting/notable thing Brandt has done, even though we know
perfectly well who that "reader" is.

General thoughts: this actually isn't too hostile to Wikipedia,
especially given that The New Yorker said "neither we nor
Wikipedia", specifically exculpating Wikipedia in general. We come
off looking perhaps overly trusting or naive, but what
questionable actions there seem to fall under the Essjay and Wikia
rubrics.

--
Gwern
Inquiring minds want to know.


from_name: George Herbert

subject: [WikiEN-l] Essjay RFC deleted

references:
<fbad4e140703050711o45cde41fid4db190e07f14200@mail.gmail.com>
	<45EC3843.6070000@scissor.com>
	<3459.69.21.252.114.1173108951.squirrel@www.internationalhouseofbacon.com>
	<fbad4e140703050751m6f15e790j891ded3052f3c436@mail.gmail.com>
	<45EC3EEB.4070804@scissor.com>
	<bdhou2l6mb6bvmm6kicjn6h9v30lrpo3su@4ax.com>
	<fbad4e140703051006l68381a9aybcc2d20e59cd98c0@mail.gmail.com>
	<o38pu21qcm2nc14jai6rb7h6rl6uvbrsdn@4ax.com>
	<38a7bf7c0703051505t63473e1aw1a1fb4068046c508@mail.gmail.com>
	<oq8pu295hvu0hfal4ee1ctdtis138qb4hd@4ax.com>

body:
On 3/5/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 15:05:03 -0800, "George Herbert"
> <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >You can't reason people out of being upset and wanting to talk or vent about it.
>
> But not on an RfC.  RfCs are for fixing problems with editor
> behaviour.  This editor has left the building, what problem can we
> fix?

One could generalize the problems to include "...and community reaction".

I don't really personally care what form it takes (as I said, I'd
personally like it to go away, too, it's unseemly), but realistically
it's representing upset feelings and as such there should be someplace
for it to happen.

What's ended up happening is, perhaps both typically and tragically,
Wikipedia standard controversy reaction - it's up, it's down, it's
back up, it's moved, it's moved again, it's speedy deleted then
restored then deleted and up for DR and sideways with sugar on top and
can I please have a little more, sir?

I begin to wonder just how badly we are our own worst enemies...

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


from_name: Sean Whitton (Xyrael)

subject:
[Foundation-l] [Toolserver-l] Possible changes regarding *all*
	Wikimedia IRC bots

body:
> For those of us that had our bots cloaked only recently, do we need to worry
> about this?
It'd be helpful if you sent it in as I intend to produce a pretty
tabulated information page on meta. Also, if you are using
yourcloak/bot/botnick then this needs to be changed.

On 3/5/07, Peter M Dodge <twicescorned at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 04/03/07, Sean Whitton (Xyrael) <sean at silentflame.com> wrote:
> >
> > For clarification, I refer to freenode bots only, not any of the other
> > IRC-related things we are involved in. Sorry for the confusion :-)
> >
> > On 3/4/07, Christian Thiele <apper at apper.de > wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Am 04.03.2007, 18:32 Uhr, schrieb Sean Whitton (Xyrael)
> > > <sean at silentflame.com>:
> > >
> > > > * That all operators of IRC bots contact me via e-mail telling me
> > > > their bot nickname, what is does and what it is cloaked with, as well
> > > > as a note if it uses an o:line. I can then recloak them with your
> > > > assistance. This also has the purpose of weeding out inactive bots (no
> > > > action being taken yet, though).
> > >
> > > could you please precise this? You wrote you're a freenode staffer, so
> you
> > > only mean IRC bots in freenode? I think most people (especially on the
> > > toolserver mailing list) have their bots in irc.wikimedia.org (where
> > > current changes in wikimedia projects are posted). Am I right, that
> these
> > > are not meant? Or do you also maintain irc.wikimedia.org?
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > > Christian Thiele
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > ?Sean Whitton (Xyrael/xyr)
> > sean at silentflame.com
> > http://xyrael.net/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Toolserver-l mailing list
> > Toolserver-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
> >
>
>
> For those of us that had our bots cloaked only recently, do we need to worry
> about this?
>
> - Peter M Dodge aka Wizardry Dragon
>
> _______________________________________________
> Toolserver-l mailing list
> Toolserver-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
>
>

--
?Sean Whitton (Xyrael/xyr)
sean at silentflame.com
http://xyrael.net/


from_name: GerardM

subject: [Wikitech-l] Commons image archive

body:
Hoi,
The fact that we do not pay now only means that we have to be a good
guardian of someone else's money. Money is being paid for the band width. It
is good to be frugal because we do not pay now, will this remain the case ??

We are doubling in size regularly so it pays to be good.
Thanks,
    GerardM

On 3/5/07, River Tarnell <river at attenuate.org> wrote:
>
> Brianna Laugher:
> > > Wouldn't offering it as both be a good way to see what users will
> prefer?
>
> Gregory Maxwell:
> > Users would probably prefer the http/ftp download link option. It's
> > simple, easy and fast.. at least it is so long as we have enough
> > bandwidth to support it.
>
> > I don't believe that anyone thinks otherwise. But user preference is
> > irrelevant if the cost of bandwidth causes us to choose to not make
> > such things available.
>
> we don't currently pay for bandwidth at knams (which includes hemlock),
> so if you want to offer HTTP download as well, i don't see that being a
> problem.
>
> of course not many people are going to bother with BT if there's an
> HTTP alternative ;-)
>
>         - river.
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFF7CZ9rCkrk04PPEoRAgbrAJ9CxJsd4g9YZUu+Qhc+5uK/CnZc1ACfcHgU
> ub7JOcyBAwoIdiyigAOzr3Y=
> =gIzy
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

body:
On 3/5/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> An employee brings minimally as his/her commitment to work 40 hours a week.
> An employee can be told to do what is deemed necessary by the organisation.
> An employee is part of an hierarchy and he/she does not have the option to
> say "Sorry, but like you I am a volunteer".
>
> These are all things that are really relevant differences. Strange that I
> did not have to think hard nor long to come up with just this initial list.
> When I think of it, a professional can be hired to do the things where we do
> not have the volunteers to do these tasks.

Tying in the "hire vs volunteer" and the "hire outside the US" issues...

GerardM is on the money with respect to the values of hiring people.

Of course, this results in one of the problem we have hiring people...
The roles we need to hire the most are often the ones that do the jobs
that our existing volunteers do the poorest... so that makes hiring
first from the volunteer pool more of a challenge.

When we talk about hiring people from outside of the US, but when we
are not talking about hiring from the volunteer pool, what we're
talking about is effectively outsourcing, or at least it  could be
seen that way by the huge portion of our our editing pool and donors
which are in the US (which is the majority, at least to a first order
approximation, based on donated currency and edit counts).  So thats
another area to be sensitive about... Despite low and declining
performance in the sciences, the US still regards itself as an
intellectual powerhouse, and hiring a lot of knowledge workers outside
of the US for reasons outside community involvement (er.. i.e. pay
scale) may not settle to well with some.

Though I think this factor far less important than the jurisdiction
issues. But it's perhaps an interesting point, cultural sensitivity
has to work in all directions.


from_name: Rob Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] Essjay RFC deleted

body:
On 3/5/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> There's no point to this RFC.
> Jimbo is handling the Essjay situation himself.
> It's already been discussed and an RFC will have no useful effects apart
> from destroying what dignity he's got left. We should just let it die. If
> we
> allow endless discussions about this our critics are gonna have us for
> lunch.
>
> Mgm

Yeh kinda reminiscent of 'ol Reagan falling asleep at cabinet meetings while
underlings did the dirty work.