from_name: Christopher Thieme

subject: [WikiEN-l] Moving the Main Page

body:
> Trying to enforse the "rules" on the main
> page is nothing short of distruption to make a point (WP:POINT).

WP:POINT, WP:DICK, WP:FUCK are for people who can't argue, refuse to argue,
or are incapable of making sound points to counteract a rather sound
argument with which they disagree.

In other words, it's a cop-out.

To negate the argument.  If you're going to make rules for other people to
abide by, you better abide by them yourself.  That's just a matter of
courtesy.

Otherwise, at the macrocosmic scale, it makes your authority illegitimate
and then you can be dragged out into the street and executed like Mussolini
(hanged), or Ceau?escu (shot), Robespierre (beheaded) or any other
historical figure or government that ruled arbitrarily with a "do as I say,
not as I do" style of governance.

As to other links in print sources.  Whoever wrote up marketing materials
with " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page " on it should be dragged into
the street and shot, or at least fired because anyone in ad copy will tell
you to state shorter URLs on such materials, or your target audience won't
find it or (worse) they'll ignore it.  Heck, I type en.wikipedia.org each
time I get to Wikipedia, but I'm not most people.  Most people don't think
when looking at or responding to ads, written materials, etc.  Any smart
marketing/adcopy person would have told you to get put together materials
saying " www.wikipedia.com "

Jimbo, if that's the case, fire the marketing department.

...and switch the damn Main Page already.

A hard redirect could fix this faster than I can fix a cheap boxed brownie
mix from duncan hines.

Regards,
Christopher D. Thieme
User:ExplorerCDT
cdthieme at gmail.com


list: wikipedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Cascading protection

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

J.L.W.S. The Special One wrote:
> Does this mean that if a page receives cascading protection, all
> templates/images on it will be automatically protected (and will be
> automatically unprotected when removed from the page with cascading
> protection)?

Yes.

> This would completely eliminate Main Page vandalism.

Doubtful, but it's supposed to help a lot. :)

- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFqsFHwRnhpk1wk44RAq11AJ4uQNYhxnYOQVl4OxizLZVJ9jE2YACgnSDh
S66PQcuAw3dFOp8VQ0ba7V8=
=p+sA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


list: wikien-l

from_name: Daniel P. B. Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] "Reliability" and "usefulness"

body:
> From: Eugene van der Pijll <eugene at vanderpijll.nl>

> This is part of a wider trend towards
> "reliability" at the cost of "usefulness". By deleting uncontroversial
> but unsourced statements and articles, of course we increase
> Wikipedia's
> reliability, because a part of this unsourced information is not true.
> But most of that deleted material is true, and useful for the
> reader of
> that article.

The Battle of Hastings was fought in 1064.
The Battle of Hastings was fought in 1065.
The Battle of Hastings was fought in 1066.
The Battle of Hastings was fought in 1067....

Applying reductio ad absurdam, and cribbing from the Kurd Lasswitz
story "The Universal Library," we can maximize the "usefulness" of
Wikipedia by having a computer generate every possible combination of
English words and submitting it as an article.

This procedure will guarantee that Wikipedia contains _every_
possible item of true information, and thus be more "useful" than any
other encyclopedia.

It will, of course, also contain every possible erroneous and
misleading item of information, but no matter. We can, if we wish,
solve  that problem by having the computer tagging every sentence as
needing a citation, and by supplying an appropriate disclaimer.

Readers, can, of course, always distinguish the accurate article by
consulting the convenient [[List of accurate articles]], which this
universal Wikipedia is guaranteed to contain, if, of course, they can
figure out which of the googol or so articles entitled [[List of
accurate articles]] is actually the real list of accurate articles.

No, a mix of accurate and inaccurate information is not very "useful."

It is like Lewis Carroll's clock that does not run at all and is thus
right twice a day. Such a lock is not very useful because there is no
way to tell _when_ it is right.

The "law of recycling" states that the value per pound of a mixture
of recycled material is equal to the value per pound of the least
valuable material in the mixture. To at least a first approximation,
the value of Wikipedia is set by the value of the least accurate
material in Wikipedia.


from_name: Jeff Raymond

subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7 and software programs

body:
Eugene van der Pijll wrote:

> That is no problem however, because if this fact was really important
> for me, I wouldn't trust Wikipedia anyway, whether it is tagged or not.
> "Let the reader beware" should be the attitude for all of Wikipedia;
> sources cited or not.

Exactly, and not only all of Wikipedia, but for any source of information.

-Jeff

--
Name: Jeff Raymond
E-mail: jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com
WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com
IM: badlydrawnjeff
Quote: "As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the
	Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else."
	- Sen. Rick Santorum on the war in Iraq.


from_name: Keitei

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Navigation popups (was: Re: Wikipedia with
	geo-browsing and AJAX)

body:
On Jan 14, 2007, at 10:20, Steve Bennett wrote:

> On 1/15/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation_popups
>
> Oh wow, just tried this, it's brilliant. Could we please seriously
> consider making this the default for all users? It makes navigating
> Wikipedia so much more pleasant.

If we do make it a default, can we make it less of a javascript hack
and more of an integrated feature? My computer and/or browser has
difficulty loading popups, whereas it has no difficulty with similar
popping up action on other sites (such as livejournal and.. other..
sites..).

--keitei


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] Moving the Main Page

body:
You make it sound like there are more reasons it should be moved, when
really, your first two points are the same.

Mgm

On 1/14/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/14/07, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com> wrote:
> > There are none really. Not even consitency, because there is another
> > exception that NO one wants moved out of the main name-space, namely
> > the shortcut-redirects (like [[WP:RFA]], [[WP:AFD]], etc.) If we're
> > going to be completely anal about the rules, shouldn't those go
> > aswell? There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to move the main
> > page.
>
> Well, no, there are clearly lots of good reasons to main page should
> not be in main article space. Unfortunately there are also lots of
> reasons why moving it is a bad reason. It's always sort of a bad sign
> when the reasons for/against doing something are predominantly based
> on the cost of doing it, not on the desirability of the end result.
>
> Anyway, reasons Main Page should not be in article space:
> - It's not an article
> - It's a portal
> - If ever there is a thing called Main Page that needs to be
> described, things are going to get awkward
>
> Reasons Main Page should be in article space:
> - It's there now and it's a major hassle to change it.
>
> The exceptions like WP:RFA etc have a good reason for being in article
> space: their existence would be pointless if they weren't.
>
> Steve
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Moving the Main Page

body:
I doubt there's ever going to be something called Main page, but if there
is, shouldn't we handle that when it happens rather than trying to solve a
problem (the main page blocking a possible article) that doesn't exist yet?

Mgm


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7 and software programs

references:
<71cd4dd90701140534l1a963b66ua0b41d4b8ccc15b5@mail.gmail.com>
	<9rdkq2p0cojb39nffar0sjg920p85i8017@4ax.com>
	<45AA3CBD.50805@internationalhouseofbacon.com>
	<l9hkq2t5oiahd5pl0b5q546o2otre0dekc@4ax.com>
	<45AA46B9.4020000@internationalhouseofbacon.com>

body:
G11 might well apply depending on the article, but in case of doubt, just do
AFD.
You can't be accused of abusing CSD if you use AFD instead.

Mgm

On 1/14/07, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:
>
> Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> > On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 09:22:53 -0500, Jeff Raymond
> > <jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:
> >
> >> It has nothing to do with "Wikilawyering."  CSD A7 does not allow for
> >> speedying of software, and to do so is abusing the CSD criteria.
> >
> > Like I said, a blatantly non-notable SourceForge project may well be
> > speedied under A7 or G11.  You can Wikilawyer about it, but in the end
> > most of us don't actually think it's worth spending five days to get
> > three !votes on AfD, all of which endorse the blindingly obvious.
>
> Most of you are wrong, then.  This is a great example of why A7 is an
> abject failure.  And yes, I've done the newpage thing.
>
> > Your favourite guideline, [[WP:SNOW]], applies.
>
> This is also untrue.
>
> -Jeff
>
> --
> Name: Jeff Raymond
> E-mail: jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com
> WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com
> IM: badlydrawnjeff
> Quote: "As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the
>        Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else."
>        - Sen. Rick Santorum on the war in Iraq.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Rich Holton

subject: [WikiEN-l] Moving the Main Page

body:
en: Firefoxman wrote:
> I agree. I can't see why anyone would be opposed to the move. I have yet to
> see a good argument against moving.
>

I can't see why anyone would support such a move. I have yet to see a
good argument for moving it.

-Rich


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Simetrical

subject: [Wikitech-l] Cascading protection

body:
On 1/14/07, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
> We could play minesweeper.
>
> With a real minefield.
>
> That would be entertaining.

Be my guest!

http://www.goarmy.com/


from_name: Alex Powell

subject: [Wikitech-l] Falcon

body:
Interesting, if what you say is true. I assumed that limits and indexes were
done by the primary mysql engine, not at the data container level. I also
noted from another email about datadumps that the Wikipedia was moving
filesystem based for article storage - makes sense to extend the
message-handling-from-file code to cover articles too into the future. This
would leave the DB primarily as an index.

Something that occured to me that might be a good idea (TM) is to link up to
subversion for the file repositories. This would have big space benefits, as
only deltas would be stored, and give a more powerful view to the data. Link
this up with file based articles and you have the potential to (relatively)
easily produce a standalone wiki engine that could work remotely, much as
devs do. I guess the benefits for the wikipedia is slight, so it probably
wouldn't happen in MW...

On 1/13/07, Domas Mituzas <midom.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Alex,
>
> I was reading about MySQL's Falcon engine (which appears to have reached
> an
> > alpha branch), and was wondering if anyone had tried it with Mediawiki,
> > and
> > for that matter the whole Wikipedia dataset. Curious to know how it
> > behaves,
> > and how much efficiency the compressed storage engine gets...
>
>
> Falcon isn't suitable for now to run Wikipedia dataset. It doesn't have
> covering indexes (all reads hit data rows), it doesn't have 'ORDER BY ...
> LIMIT' optimization, it is hungry for filesorts, etc.
>
> Mediawiki's primary engine is InnoDB, then some sites may attempt to use
> MyISAM, though that isn't well supported...
>
> For some wikipedias though, BLACKHOLE seems to be the best engine MySQL
> has
> produced.
>
> Domas
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7 and software programs

body:
RoboGeo: the sources include two articles that are not written by its
creators.
One of those is even a book. I don't like how there's little content there
and how it has a big "download here" sign, but I'd give it a chance due to
the fact it has independant sources.

The software guidelines probably need to be stricter and more specific so
for example random flash games without a lot of visitors and/or a widespead
cult status are excluded.

Mgm

On 1/14/07, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
> On 1/14/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> > On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 08:34:54 -0500, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Are software programs potential candidates for speedy deletion under
> > >CSD A7?  The criterion states that potential candidates are a "real
> > >person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content", which
> > >doesn't explicitly include software programs.
> >
> > Depends if you're Wikilawyering or not.  A blatantly non-notable
> > SourceForge project may well be speedied under A7 (or G11) rather than
> > waste everybody's time with a longer process.
> >
> What makes a software program "blatantly non-notable"?  The one I have
> in mind is not a SourceForge project.  To give an example, what about
> [[RoboGEO]]?
>
> > >What must an article about a software program do to "assert the
> > >importance or significance of its subject"?
> >
> > See [[WP:SOFTWARE]]
> >
> Are you saying you agree with that proposed guideline?  It doesn't
> seem like many software programs fall under it.  If I pick a random
> software program from download.com, should it probably be in, or
> probably be out?
>
> Anthony
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Moving the Main Page

body:
Argh! Saying there are no counter arguments don't make them invalid.
The difficulty of actually moving it should be reason enough. There's no
advantage to moving the main page except to fit the perceived requirement to
follow some rule that has a specific exception for the main page.

Mgm

On 1/14/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/15/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> > You make it sound like there are more reasons it should be moved, when
> > really, your first two points are the same.
>
> Heh, just like how consensus on Wikipedia isn't about counting votes,
> counting arguments is pretty pointless. I'm repeating myself, but it
> boils down to that there is no good reason for Main Page to be in main
> article space other than the difficulty of actually moving it. So the
> number of arguments for it being in the wrong space is sort of
> irrelevant, as there are no counter arguments.
>
> As to whether there would ever be anything called Main Page...if we
> *didn't* have that as the title of our top-level portal, we would
> probably redirect Main Page and Main page to homepage or index.html or
> something.
>
> Steve
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Mr. B.B.C.

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Somehow survey: interactive graphics,
	JavaScript in Wiki

body:
Well, you might not understand the text but the sense:

This is what you can create with JavaScript:
http://www.mrbbc.org/files/de/cloudlevels.htm

Simply imagine the graphic above at this place:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolke#Internationales_System

Should we include such JavaScript features and graphics and animations
into MediaWiki ?

Unlike Flash or SVG this solution should work for most visitors. This
state of JavaScript is directly supported from all current browsers
since above 4 years or more. - SVG isn't far enough yet. You can view
static vector graphics, but animations AFAIK only with special plugins.

---

My technical recommendation would be to implement an additional
parameter for links that is filled into the onmouseover- and onmouseout
attribute of the created HTML elements, i.e. the <a> and <area> tags,
see http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ImageMap

Further you should include a JS file with standard functions that could
be used for interactive graphics. And last but not least you may have to
add some HTML elements and CSS formatting into every Wiki page.

---

* TOOLTIPS

There should be several kinds of tooltips. First the most simple one
only containing text, second text and graphic like mine, and third only
a graphic, maybe without this tooltip border stuff.

Let us name them e.g. tt1, tt2 and tt3 or better ttt(ext),
ttt(ext_and)i(mage) and tti(mage), maybe also ttit when the image should
be on the left side... So in the JS file you've get functions named
tttshow(content), tttishow(content, image) and so on, further of course
ttthide(), tttihide() or simply (and more safe) tthide() which hides all
tooltip boxes.

- Or maybe the only one (or both) when you make a flexible tooltip,
where you change the whole parameters of the inner table. (the second
tooltip box might be the one that only contains an image and therefore
needs not to be changed except of the shown image)

The size of the images should be further fixed - e.g. 120x90, which
might be adapted for ridiculuted displays by using maybe CSS. On the
other hand... someone who can afford a 12 inch display with 1680 by 1050
pixels should also have enough money for a magnifying glass...

---

A Wiki link with tooltip will for example look like this:

[[Cirrus||Tooltip:Cirrus (Ci), auch:
Federwolke#Image:Cirrus_over_Warsaw%2C_June_26%2C_2005.jpg]]

(I assume the third column of a Wiki link is not yet used; an empty
column will be ignored, i.e. if the link would be written out, the
content of the first column will be used instead)

- You might also put such scripts into the description column, but then
you can't put a tooltip above the text of a link (although this might
not be sensible anyway).

The HTML generator can be intelligent enough to determine which tooltip
function is to be called, i.e. what to fill in the onmouseover and
onmouseout attributes...

I made my first hypertext experiences with ST Guide; there you could not
only define full articles (called node) but also small descriptions
(called p(opup)node), that popped up in a small box when you clicked
them. Maybe you might define in a Wikipedia article also small
explanations for the respective term that are then inserted as a tooltip
above any link in other articles linking to that term...

I.e. for example when you move your mouse cursor above the word
"atavism" a tooltip pops up e.g. with the text "evolutional throwback to
older forms". So you won't have to click the link when you only need to
know what a term means to understand the statement. - Just a suggestion.
I know that this increases the server load (everytime when the Wiki
syntaxis is translated into HTML).

---

* ANIMATIONS

That's too much for me now. I think of course you may make something
like with the ImageMap extension:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ImageMap

where you write down in principle a list of movable pictures their
positions and movement...

There are only two types of animations to support: silhouette animations
and slide shows. For videos the only sensible way is a video file format
like MPEG. But maybe you might also draw lines and simple geometric
forms inside this animations...

First draft:

<animation>
Image:Foo.jpg|640px|picture of a foo
#0
show 1 0 0 Image:bar.png|32px
hide 2 0 0 Image:bar2.png|32px
#1 2
move 1 32 0
desc A bar goes its way...
pause 60
desc
wait
</animation>

First line is the main picture/background and description of the animation.

#0 introduces the base animation frame. Maybe there you've got to
specify all used images

show/hide are specifing movable images; "1" and "2" are for adressing,
"0 0" are their initial coordinates in pixel relatively to the
background image.

#1 is the second animation frame that appears when you run the animation

the second number is the time in deciseconds that all images moved
inside this frame will need to reach their destination coordinates

move moves an image; the first number/letter etc. addresses the image,
the following numbers are destination coordinates where the image will
move linearly...

desc displays a text in the description block of an animation; a single
desc in the line will clear the description block, it does not reset
simply with the next frame. Along with desc you might also play a wave
file that "reads" the same text.

pause waits for the next frame n deciseconds, wait stops the "animation"
until the user hits the mouse button or a key.

END OF LINE


from_name: Markus Krötzsch

subject: [Wikitech-l] Category Intersections: "Proof of Concept

body:
On Thursday 11 January 2007 18:31, Aerik Sylvan wrote:
> Markus Kr?tzsch wrote:
>
> I did not follow this discussion, but it seems appropriate to point to the
>
> > Semantic MediaWiki extension, which computes "implied categories"
> > like "American actors" on request (it can combine unions, intersections,
> > namespace membership, and further "semantic properties").
> >
> > We will assist in any effort towards developing an efficient way of doing
> > this, since our current implementation is probably not fast enough for
> > large
> > wikis.
>
> Hi Markus.  The semantic mediawiki extension is very cool, but I think the
> main issue at this point is exactly what you said in your second paragraph:
> An efficient way to do the data retrieval portion of this stuff
> (specifically, for me, category intersections).  There are a few very neat
> extensions (semantic mediawiki, DPL, a home brewed category intersections
> special page I did for media wiki 1.4x) but they are not fast enough for a
> large wiki.  This is the problem I'm trying to solve (for category
> intersections, anyway), and then we can hash out interfaces etc.  I've got
> a test script using a MySQL fulltext index that may be good enough, and if
> it isn't, I'll do one using Lucene (the php version).
>
> Maybe though, it's appropriate to talk about what features category
> intersections and semantic mediawiki share, and see if we can't find (data
> retrieval) solutions for both.  I'm not familar with the backend of
> semantic mediawiki at all, so I can't comment on that.

SMW's backend trivially extends the DB layout to add some tables for storing
all semantic information. This is fast enough for small wikis, and only for
those. Querying generates a lot of joins among a few large tables, quite
similar to the situation with category intersections.

SMW differs from category intersection problem in that it also considers other
properties (in addition to "is element of category"). In general, it stores
data of the form

A has_property B with value C

i.e. triples. Out current storage model is a so called "single table
approach": have (essentially) one large table with (essentially) three
columns A, B, and C. Another approach is to have one table for each B, with
two columns A and C. This generates smaller tables but you can get large
numbers of tables. There are hybrid approaches that are better. But it seems
that smart caching strategies, and a not-quite-realtime computation could be
more robust solutions to achieve practical scalability.

Considering text-indexing for category intersection, I do not see how this
could be used for SMW, since the property (B) is implicit. A typical
SMW-search would be: give me all As with a property B1 with unknown value X
that has a property B2 with value C, i.e. search for the pattern "A -B1->
* -B2-> C" (example: give me all cities which have a mayor that is a member
of the democratic party). Not an easy task.

Anyway, if you have results for category intersections we would be interested
to hear about them. We can also provide our not-too-slow Wikipedia
test-server for large scale experiments.

Regards,

Markus

>
> Best Regards,
> Aerik
>
> Best Regards,
> Aerik
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

--
Markus Kr?tzsch
Institute AIFB, University of Karlsruhe, D-76128 Karlsruhe
mak at aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de        phone +49 (0)721 608 7362
www.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/WBS/     fax +49 (0)721 693  717
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20070114/e992ffc4/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Thomas Dalton

subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7 and software programs

references:
<71cd4dd90701140534l1a963b66ua0b41d4b8ccc15b5@mail.gmail.com>
	<9rdkq2p0cojb39nffar0sjg920p85i8017@4ax.com>
	<45AA3CBD.50805@internationalhouseofbacon.com>

body:
> It has nothing to do with "Wikilawyering."  CSD A7 does not allow for
> speedying of software, and to do so is abusing the CSD criteria.

So use your choice of [[WP:SNOW]], [[WP:IAR]],
[[WP:TRUST_ADMINS_TO_KNOW_WHAT_THEY'RE_DOING_AND_LET_THEM_GET_ON_WITH_IT]]...

Generally when I speedy something I don't specify a particular CSD
criterion, I just say why I'm deleting it (comes under the "make
delete summaries understandable by non-wikipedians" instruction). The
person reading it can make it fit whatever criterion they like - I
know it should be deleted and is completely uncontroversial, so I
delete it. Call it playing by the spirit of the rules rather than the
rules themselves, if you like.


from_name: Anthony

subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7 and software programs

body:
On 1/14/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> The multiple non-trivial sources thing is to shut out self-promotion and ad
> campaigns.
> Unfortunately a neccesary evil.

Well, it's not *necessary* to shut out self-promotion and ad
campaigns, if by that you mean useful neutral information related to
the subject of the article which might cause some people to buy some
things.

> The point I'm trying to make is that your
> unsourced info may be accurate and useful, but it would be indistiguishable
> from spam or a hoax if you don't cite it.

If it takes 5 seconds to type the subject of the article into Google
and see that it's not a hoax, then it's *not* indistinguishable from a
hoax.

> You'd effectively be making others spend more time tracking down sources you
> presumably have readily available. Do you really want to give others 15
> minutes of work when you can fix it yourself in less than 5?
>
A valid point, but 1) not everyone knows this or thinks of this, in
part because *it isn't a rule and in fact was rejected as a rule*; and
2) people sometimes forget.  If we really want a source for every new
article, why not force people to write down a source when they create
an article.  Yes, some people will write "sadkjfhuks isdiof" as their
source - requiring them to write *something* doesn't cure
maliciousness, but it does solve those cases where the person just
didn't think to write a source.

Anthony


subject: [WikiEN-l] Moving the Main Page

body:
If someone else Journal of American History, bloggers, etc. made the mistake
(or in the past) have put out the full
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page it shouldn't be our problem.

When you get a dead link to something you know is not dead, what do you do?

I go to google.

It is far unlikely that Google will get it wrong or that Wikipedia will
disappear from any search engine's results.

And we should not be taking on responsibility for other people's failings,
mistakes, or trying to make up for what _they_ may have written in the
past.  In this case, we are not our brother's keeper.

We also can't expect to hold back progress, or refuse to comply with our own
standards (even if they are seemingly arbitrary), because of things we
cannot control (i.e. the past, other people's writings).

That's a lack of resolve, a culture of making excuses to justify inaction
when action is called for, which is unforgiveable.

Regards,
Christopher D. Thieme


from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7 and software programs

body:
K P wrote:
> At some point, though, Wikipedia has to decide what it is, a reliable source
> of information on the Internet, or a place for its editors.  At one of the
> top 10 sites, it should be leaning towards the former, with, eventually, all
> information reliable and sourced.

I think that misses the whole point of Wikipedia. We're here primarily
to create the content for reuse by other people, it's why we use a free
license rather than something site-specific.

Mirrors who publish Wikipedia's content already cull out stuff like talk
pages and old versions of articles, they can cull out the uncited stuff
too if it's really a problem for them. I'm hoping version flagging will
help with this as well once it's implemented.

> Right now there is a place for some unsourced information, namely in
> articles tagged that they're unsourced, or "let the reader beware."

According to the disclaimer linked to on every Wikipedia article the
reader should beware of _everything_ in Wikipedia to some degree or
another. The site is a work in progress, not a finished product. If
being one of the top 10 sites is hindering that then perhaps "being a
top 10 site" is the problem in need of fixing.

> A lot of the obvious solutions (all information has to be sourced) detract
> from what I see as the primary Wikipedia force that will eventually make it
> THE most useful site on the Internet: anyone can edit.

Indeed. Sourced information is an improvement over unsourced
information, but unsourced information is still usually an improvement
over a blank space.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Proposed change to "Naming conventions (common names)"

body:
After discussing this with a few users at various locations, I've proposed a
significant amendment to the "Common Names" naming convention.

Please jump in the new discussion here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28common_names%29&action=edit&section=13

To sum it up in a gist, basically the amendment comes down to solving an
age-old debate about "accuracy" versus "popularity"

Regards,
Christopher D. Thieme
User:ExplorerCDT
cdthieme at gmail.com

P.S. if anyone wants to transport this discussion in part to the mailing
list, go right ahead.


from_name: en: Firefoxman

subject: [WikiEN-l] Moving the Main Page

body:
I agree. I can't see why anyone would be opposed to the move. I have yet to
see a good argument against moving.

Firefoxman

On 1/14/07, Christopher Thieme <cdthieme at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If someone else Journal of American History, bloggers, etc. made the
> mistake
> (or in the past) have put out the full
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page it shouldn't be our problem.
>
> When you get a dead link to something you know is not dead, what do you
> do?
>
>
> I go to google.
>
> It is far unlikely that Google will get it wrong or that Wikipedia will
> disappear from any search engine's results.
>
> And we should not be taking on responsibility for other people's failings,
> mistakes, or trying to make up for what _they_ may have written in the
> past.  In this case, we are not our brother's keeper.
>
> We also can't expect to hold back progress, or refuse to comply with our
> own
> standards (even if they are seemingly arbitrary), because of things we
> cannot control (i.e. the past, other people's writings).
>
> That's a lack of resolve, a culture of making excuses to justify inaction
> when action is called for, which is unforgiveable.
>
> Regards,
> Christopher D. Thieme
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Moving the Main Page

body:
but it works!

Firefoxman

On 1/14/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/14/07, Christopher Thieme <cdthieme at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Any smart
> > marketing/adcopy person would have told you to get put together
> materials
> > saying " www.wikipedia.com "
> >
>
> We are not a .com.
>
>
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>


body:
Why not make it an opt-in on your userprefs page?

Firefoxman

On 1/14/07, Keitei <nihthraefn at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Jan 14, 2007, at 10:20, Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> > On 1/15/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation_popups
> >
> > Oh wow, just tried this, it's brilliant. Could we please seriously
> > consider making this the default for all users? It makes navigating
> > Wikipedia so much more pleasant.
>
> If we do make it a default, can we make it less of a javascript hack
> and more of an integrated feature? My computer and/or browser has
> difficulty loading popups, whereas it has no difficulty with similar
> popping up action on other sites (such as livejournal and.. other..
> sites..).
>
> --keitei
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Lars Aronsson

subject: [Foundation-l] Diversity and NC images - Board meet

references:
<eoa8nj$ncb$1@sea.gmane.org> <45A8CF34.2050707@gmail.com>
	<eoapfs$u2o$1@sea.gmane.org> <45A94D9C.5010305@gmail.com>
	<eocm2g$au7$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0701141129550.10590@localhost.localdomain>
	<eodd3r$4j0$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
luke brandt wrote:

> In theory your point seems to have merit, but I wonder what
> would happen in practice if we were to change the license,
> assuming a new license has the same 'freedom' objective but is
> better suited to our purpose.'

Lest you actually try this, it remains a pointless theory.  You
could just as well say "what would happen if pigs could fly". So
to get from theory to reality, I suggest you make a try. Take a
copy of Wikipedia's contents and release it on your own website
under another license that you think is appropriate.  Go ahead.

--
  Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se


list: wikimedia-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] Moving the Main Page

body:
It is in violation of [[WP:NAME]]

Firefoxman

On 1/14/07, Rich Holton <richholton at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> en: Firefoxman wrote:
> > I agree. I can't see why anyone would be opposed to the move. I have yet
> to
> > see a good argument against moving.
> >
>
> I can't see why anyone would support such a move. I have yet to see a
> good argument for moving it.
>
> -Rich
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Foundation-l] Board meeting in Rotterdam later this week

body:
senpai wrote:

>May be they cant' be so much thing in other country... but they can be in
>italy. I don't know if u know well or not the basics rules of procedural
>penal "civil law" system. In genral... if an italian people upload some
>images (like the one that u have take for the example) on commons, and that
>images must have an authorization, is not important if the commons servers
>are in florida or in italy or in another country, the italian people is
>under the italian penal law. Idem if an american people upload that images
>on commons and an italian people use this images.... U can't upload somthing
>with "PD" or CC-by (for example), on commons if not in all states u can use
>that materials. Commons, for that reason, had deleted all images that was
>tagged with "PD-Italy"... than... wich is the difference ?
>
Commons is a different project, and there is some sense to their
stricter rules.  Unless I misunderstand something "PD-Italy" means that
it is in the public domain in Italy.  (Has Italy accepted for copyrights
to last for life + 70 years, like the rest of the EU, or is it still
life + 50?)  If it is in the public domain in Italy I don't see why you
can't just upload it directly to it:wp instead of putting it into
commons.  If Italian law does not allow you to photograph a painting by
Botticelli in the museum in Florence this has nothing to do with
copyright, but is something else.

>For other thing... i qoute Snowdog, if u want a free wikipedia, REALLY
>free... ok  u have to abandon the fair use, and we will abandon all not free
>images.
>
>
I think that many people will not accept that because they see it as
some kind of blackmail.  What the Italian language project does, and
what the English project does have nothing to do with each other.  In
Mexico copyrights last for 100 years after a person's death.  Keeping
everyone back because one country has such a longer term makes no sense.

Ec


from_name: Marc Riddell

subject: [WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR (contd)

body:
> From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 13:45:31 -0800
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR (contd)
>
> Marc Riddell wrote:
>
>>>>>>> I admit I am also frustrated by the countless hours editors spend
>>>>>>> weeding
>>>>>>> out countless incidents of nonsensical, and at times malicious,
>>>>>>> vandalism.
>>>>>>> My background is sixties Berkeley - I am the antithesis of autocratic
>>>>>>> bullshit. Yet, I believe, some parameters must be set to achieve a goal.
>>>>>>> A
>>>>>>> protest without some order is merely chaos - and achieves nothing. And,
>>>>>>> ultimately, what or who you are protesting wins.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems like Mario Savio became discouraged and frustrated a long time
>>>>>> ago.  If a vandal's goal is to sow chaos he is accomplishing that very
>>>>>> well..  Surely some vandals may be performing an act of protest, but I
>>>>>> don't think that that tranche provides the really tenacious vandals who
>>>>>> just get a thrill out of competing in a cat and mouse game.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sticking to principles consistent with what the new left wanted in the
>>>>>> 60s was not an easy task.  Principles served on a plate of squalor can
>>>>>> be very unappetizing.  It's amazing how over the long run the
>>>>>> establishment absorbs it all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Mario Savio and I were close friends - and, emotionally, still are. He was
>>>>> frustrated every moment that I knew him - it was his fuel. But, he was
>>>>> never, never, discouraged.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> No offense intended.  As a person who is Savio's junior by only two
>>>> months, that seems close enough to make us contemporaries.  The general
>>>> points in his famous speech did resonate well-beyond UC Berkeley.  If I
>>>> try to reflect on those times now all I get is questions.
>>>>
>>>>
>> Are you still asking them?
>>
>> M
>>
>>
> I had to reflect on that.  Sometimes these short sharp questions are
> more effective that way than the self-justifying diatribes intended to
> lead people to the answer that the questioner wants to hear.  I even had
> to dismiss the notion that it was a trick question from a professional.
>
> My reflective answer is, "Yes."  When you factor out the effects of
> technological advance the world hasn't changed a hell of a lot.  A
> strictly logical analysis doesn't add a hell of a lot of hope.  But as
> Camus concluded, one must imagine Sisyphus happy.
>
> There is a demanding kind of happiness that derives from remaining true
> to what one believes.
>
> Ec

Ec,

I agree. The human being hasn't changed much, only the complexity of what
they have to cope with to survive - much less thrive.

Beliefs are a result of learning and, in a way, are like clothing: they
protect us from the elements, and may need to be altered as we grow. But, in
the end, it is we, the wearer who needs to be happy and comfortable in them.

Marc

>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Moving the Main Page

body:
On 1/14/07, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com> wrote:
> There are none really. Not even consitency, because there is another
> exception that NO one wants moved out of the main name-space, namely
> the shortcut-redirects (like [[WP:RFA]], [[WP:AFD]], etc.) If we're
> going to be completely anal about the rules, shouldn't those go
> aswell?

Than one would be fairly trivial to fix by adding a read WP namespace.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Moving the Main Page

body:
Yes, but we at least should change the code so that it displays Wikipedia,
the free encyclopedia with out the words "Main Page"
 in the title!

On 1/14/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 14/01/07, en: Firefoxman <enwpmail at gmail.com> wrote:
> > It is in violation of [[WP:NAME]]
>
> ...something we ourselves invented and applied.
>
> We're writing an encyclopedia here. We're working for the convenience
> of our readers and editors. We're not attempting to work on a giant
> self-consistent logical proof; we're not writing a legal system or
> playing a game of nomic. If a "rule" for articles conflicts with the
> sensible thing to do for the encyclopedia, we ignore the rule.
>
> I am amazed people fall over themselves to comply with constraints
> that simply don't matter.
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
>   andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>

--
Firefoxman


from_name: Daniel R. Tobias

subject: [WikiEN-l]  Moving the Main Page

body:
On 14 Jan 2007 at 15:46, "Christopher Thieme" <cdthieme at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Any smart
> marketing/adcopy person would have told you to get put together materials
> saying " www.wikipedia.com "

That would just show their cluelessness, since we're a noncommercial
project that is quite properly under .org.  (But "clueless marketing
type" is a redundancy...)

--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/


subject: [WikiEN-l] Holding deletion discussion in WikiProject space

body:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

>>From where I stand, people should always do research before commenting in a
>deletion debate, or nominating an article for deletion. No idea how to
>enforce it,but it would be a good thing for the encyclopedia. Obviously
>notable stuff wouldn't get deleted. Non-notable stuff would get truly
>vetted.
>
Great!  At least we agree to something on the level of theory.

Ultimately, there is no doubt that the burden of establishing the
sourcing for something is primarily on the person uploading the
information, but not exclusively so.  If people making nominations were
a little less mechanical in their activity, and took the trouble to look
for the easy to find sources of verification this issue would not be as
much of a problem as it has been for such a long time.

Ec


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [Foundation-l] free access to the sum of all human knowledge

body:
>Getting a bit more detailed and realistic, I imagine a website that
>allows its visitors to find information about virtually anything, one
>which allows its visitors to *easily* add knowledge that isn't yet
>assimilated....
>Anthony

Wikipedia does not permit publication of knowledge that isn't yet assimilated. Wikinfo does, but there are several problems. First, very few people are actually capable of generating such knowledge, at least beyond a trivial level, Second, they tend to be both talented and well paid, consequently resistant to doing hard work for free, and third, those who think they can generate such knowledge, generally can't.

I do think Wikipedia should loosen up a bit, especially with regard to popular culture, where there really are no peer reviewed sources. How about it? Nobody does their dissertation on Star Trek insignia, but it is entertaining...

Fred


subject: [WikiEN-l] IAWTC

body:
> What's a hotlinker? The first one was tres funny.

Hotlinking is linking directly to something on someone else's site
(particularly images), rather than linking to the site itself (so the
right person gets credit, ad revenue, control over their own
bandwidth, etc.).


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7 and software programs

body:
It appears to be more of an article about the demo than the actual
program...

On 1/14/07, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
> On 1/14/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> > RoboGeo: the sources include two articles that are not written by its
> > creators.
> > One of those is even a book.
>
> Well, the originally CSDed article didn't contain those sources.  The
> current article does.
>
> However, this seems to suggest that any article which doesn't contain
> two sources (or at least claim that two sources exist) is a CSD.  In
> that respect it seems too easy to remove any article (speedily, at
> that) by wikilawyering about lack of sources.
>
> > I don't like how there's little content there
> > and how it has a big "download here" sign, but I'd give it a chance due
> to
> > the fact it has independant sources.
> >
> > The software guidelines probably need to be stricter and more specific
> so
> > for example random flash games without a lot of visitors and/or a
> widespead
> > cult status are excluded.
> >
> They also need to be a lot less strict for software which does
> something useful, in my opinion.  [[RoboGEO]] doesn't seem like it
> would pass [[WP:SOFTWARE]] by any stretch of the imagination (it most
> likely isn't the subject of any published works aside from some
> websites, and it's Windows software so it has no prayer of being
> included in a major operating system distribution).
>
> Of course, maybe there is a consensus that only the most famous
> software programs belong in Wikipedia.  If that's true, then
> WP:SOFTWARE should just be made a policy, as opposed to a proposed
> guideline, and people who wish to write wiki articles about non-famous
> software can move somewhere else.  Incidentally, does anyone know of
> some good wikis that definitely do allow this sort of thing?
>
> Anthony
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Gurch

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Cascading protection

body:
J.L.W.S. The Special One wrote:
> Does this mean that if a page receives cascading protection, all
> templates/images on it will be automatically protected (and will be
> automatically unprotected when removed from the page with cascading
> protection)? This would completely eliminate Main Page vandalism.
>
> I understand that consensus is against semi-protection of Main Page
> Featured Articles, but recent statistics have shown that Main Page
> Featured Articles are in a vandalised state for 6-10% of the 24-hour
> duration that they are on the Main Page (the actual figures are likely
> to be higher, as template vandalism and vandalism by registered users
> was not counted). Hence, we should seriously consider applying
> cascading semi-protection to Main Page Featured Articles.
>
> On 1/14/07, Luna <lunasantin at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ohh, I just tested this a bit. Works pretty much the way I was hoping for.
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Only thing I might bug ye about -- what are the relevant MediaWiki messages?
>> The main one, I think, would be whatever indicates the page has been
>> affected by cascading protection.
>>
>> Hm, I also see that it shows up, when using &action=protect -- are there any
>> other circumstances in which the cascading effect will be apparent? I'm
>> mainly thinking of non-admins, here. Unless we're planning on using this
>> infrequently enough that this isn't a major issue.
>>
>> -Luna

I'm not quite sure what *cascading* semi-protection would achieve here.
All templates transcluded onto Today's Featured Article are routinely
fully protected now (semi-protection is no use against the kind of
vandal that hunts down unprotected templates), so this would only have
the same effect as normal semi-protection, which is already applied if
vandalism gets particularly bad.

-Gurch


references:
<eoa8nj$ncb$1@sea.gmane.org> <45A8CF34.2050707@gmail.com>
	<eoapfs$u2o$1@sea.gmane.org> <45A94D9C.5010305@gmail.com>
	<eocm2g$au7$1@sea.gmane.org> <45A9EBE6.7030503@gmail.com>
	<eocsq7$nj8$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<f80608430701140208k559f9776m9bff53bdd6b093a0@mail.gmail.com>
	<eodat4$tt8$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
On 1/14/07, luke brandt <shojokid at gmail.com> wrote:
> geni wrote:
> > On 1/14/07, luke brandt <shojokid at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> My reply is that I asked (on 8 November 2006) whether the Wikimedia
> >> Foundation has a preferred license for its projects. The answer then
> >> appeared to be 'no.'
> >
> > Not exactly:
> >
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-May/023760.html
> Yes, that posting by Jimmy Wales is relevant to NC images and By
> Permission images, but I'm sure that people like Eric and Angela and
> Gerard were familiar with it when they replied, even though it was
> posted 18 months previously.

Which was when for the most part the issue was settled.

> It is still true that the answer to my
> question appeared to be 'no;' that is: there is no preferred license by
> the Wikimedia Foundation. There are a plethora of licenses to choose
> from, or we could formulate a custom one.

Wikinews suggested that one. I think the response was please no. At
least partly because of the shear number of existing free lisences.

> Now the current meeting could
> maybe choose a preferred license if it wanted.....

That would be politicaly unwise since we would either upset the FSF or
CC. The case of lisences we can use is already defined.

> I said we should think things through for ourselves - surely that's
> right to do. We are in a unique situation.
>

Not really. Lots of people have delt with free lisence issues and we
can't afford many lawyers

> Right - I would prefer people with deep knowledge on those topics as
> well, but there you go...However I wasn't only referring to copyright in
> that comment. I was referring to a whole gamut of issues, thinking
> particularly about China and how things are developing there.

I think we largely ignore china.

> Be more specific, please.

The actions rather than the theory of WP:OFFICE. Certian actions by
people acting for the foundation. I'm not going to dig up the details
of my past clashes with the foundation.

> Could you perhaps be more specific please...why does NC fail in such an
> objective.

Companies have quite a good record of spreading knowlage when they can
make money off it. The record of doing so when they cannot is rather
less good.

>.this link may be of use:
>
> http://cites.boisestate.edu/v6i3e.htm
>

Red hat makes a fair amount of money. Acording to that article that is
imposible. With errors of that scale I don't think further examination
is likely to reveal useful results.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Moving the Main Page

body:
It just looks better in the search engine.

On 1/14/07, Matthew Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/14/07, en: Firefoxman <enwpmail at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yes, but we at least should change the code so that it displays
> Wikipedia,
> > the free encyclopedia with out the words "Main Page"
> >  in the title!
>
> I don't see why that's a problem.  It is the 'Main Page', not the
> entire encyclopedia, after all.
>
> -Matt
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>

--
Firefoxman


subject: [Wikitech-l] Cascading protection

body:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>
> It's a bit unfortunate.. the feature is too blunt. Now LOTS of
> templates pages are protected because one of their many including
> pages are protected. Since a lot of protections are there to dampen
> content disputes and simplistic vandalism, this is unnecessary.
>
> Should we instead just protect the entire template namespace?
>

I don't quite follow your point here. Cascading protection is an
*optional* feature when protecting a page which as far as I know has so
far only been applied to the Main Page. Since all templates used on the
Main Page would have been protected anyway, I don't see how the number
of protected template pages has increased. Virtually all full and
semi-protections will continue to affect only the page to which they are
applied.

-Gurch


references:
<eoa8nj$ncb$1@sea.gmane.org>	<45A8CF34.2050707@gmail.com>	<eoapfs$u2o$1@sea.gmane.org>	<45A94D9C.5010305@gmail.com>	<eocm2g$au7$1@sea.gmane.org>	<45A9EBE6.7030503@gmail.com>	<eocsq7$nj8$1@sea.gmane.org>	<f80608430701140208k559f9776m9bff53bdd6b093a0@mail.gmail.com>	<eodat4$tt8$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<45AA31B0.2000203@gmail.com>

body:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:

>Hoi,
>If you want the board to pronounce its opinion, I would be utterly and
>utterly surprised when the official position is anything but a
>resounding NO to non commercial stuff. In diplomacy they say that you
>should not ask a question if you cannot life with the answer. I can, but
>can you ?
>
I apologize for agreeing with you again. :-)

It frequently happens that someone asks for a Board ruling on some
debateable issue.  They tend to be confident that they are right and
that the Board will agree with them.  They are sometimes disappointed.
Every such official proclamation has implications that may not be
obvious to the person making the request.  The Board should not be
making editorial policies unless it has no other choice.  Saying that we
must all follow NPOV is one thing, but trying to provide a lot of
detailed rules to define what it means may be contrary to NPOV.

Ec


list: commons-l

subject: [Commons-l] IAWTC

body:
On 1/14/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>   http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l214/Ymdar/Motivator/webmunchkin.jpg
>
> And Wikipedia critic Jason Scott wins the Nobel Prize for dealng
> conclusively and terminally with hotlinkers:
>
>   http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/000278.html

Considering the demand for goatse images his bandwidth bill may not go down.

--
geni


references:
<eoa8nj$ncb$1@sea.gmane.org>	<45A8CF34.2050707@gmail.com>	<eoapfs$u2o$1@sea.gmane.org>	<45A94D9C.5010305@gmail.com>	<eocm2g$au7$1@sea.gmane.org>	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0701141129550.10590@localhost.localdomain>	<eodd3r$4j0$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<45AA390D.7080108@gmail.com>

body:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:

>luke brandt schreef:
>
>
>>I'll put to you another case.. Suppose someone offers you some fish. Do
>>you say "I can only accept if I'm allowed to resell the fish, and for a
>>profit." Or do you say "Thank you sir." - luke
>>
>>
>Hoi,
>When I am hungry and someone offers me a fish, and insists on telling me
>a long winded story with what I can and cannot do with the fish, I will
>wait and salivate from hunger. I will say thank you .. and think: "what
>an arrogant prick".. he knows I am hungry .. I want to grill, cook it
>with herbs and butter.. I am HUNGRY why does he not allow me to go home
>and cook !!
>
There's a difference when you want to sell it instead of eat it.  If you
live in a landlocked country where fish is not normally eaten you may
even think that it stinks and you cannot possibly hold it down in your
stomach.  You may know someone else who is willing to take your fish
intrade for "real food".  Where does that put you if this is not allowed
by the donor?

Ec


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Moving the Main Page

body:
On 1/14/07, Gary Kirk <gary.kirk at gmail.com> wrote:
> Someone's got into their head that having it in mainspace is a
> "violation of Wikipedia policy", and suggests it be moved into the
> comparatively new Portal namespace, like [[Current events]] was.

*Moving* the main page may be problematic, but it's pretty clear that
it shouldn't be in main article space, as it's not an article about
anything. If for some reason we didn't have one, and a proposal was
put forward today, it would almost certainly be put in either
Wikipedia: or Portal: space. Thus, not so much a "violation of
Wikipedia policy", as being inconsistent with existing naming
conventions and namespace conventions.

Steve


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Playing Wikipedia

body:
David Gerard wrote:
> On 13/01/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
>
>> 'I recall a blog post about people who were "playing wikipedia" as a game. Much
>> like trolls feed off forum flamewars, they fed off engaging in wiki-politics, powertrips
>> and drama.'
>
>
> Wikipedia is the finest free MMORPG available. I'd rename it "Zeroth
> Life" but I think that's IRC.
>

... shall we make a Game: of it on Uncyclopedia? :)

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 542 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20070114/e8eb05b5/attachment.pgp


from_name: Kat Walsh

body:
There are a lot of points here worth mentioning... the Board has just
finished 3 very long days of discussion in Rotterdam but we have not
yet finished talking about this issue.

Since I'm sure everyone is wondering if we have been paying attention,
I just wanted to mention that we have taken note of the questions and
concerns in this thread and in other discussions about image
licensing, and will have something more to say in the near future.

Cheers,
Kat

--
Wikimedia needs you: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising
* *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | (G)AIM:Mindspillage
mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net | email for phone


subject: [WikiEN-l] Moving the Main Page.

body:
Luna wrote:
> On 1/13/07, Christopher Thieme <cdthieme at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think I'm going to write a novel (under pseudonym, so it won't screw up
>> the quality literary pursuits I'll eventually get around to publishing)
>> called "Main Page"...probably about a murder mystery where one irate
>> editor
>> murders another over some personal attacks and edits to an article he
>> considered owned and sacrosanct from others interference.
>
>
> And then it can be a movie starring Tom Hanks. Ooh.
>
>

Ahh, you'll need to write it under the pseudonym "Dan Brown" then :)

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 542 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20070114/0029517e/attachment.pgp


from_name: Eugene van der Pijll

subject: [WikiEN-l] IAWTC

body:
Steve Summit schreef:
> What I was wondering is, what's "IAWTC"?  ("I Agree With This
> Comment, maybe, but d. usually has much droller observations.)

According Wikipedia (an online encyclopedia), it's either that or "I Am
the World Trade Center".

Eugene


from_name: Dan Jacobson

subject: [Wikitech-l] how to stop that gaping mouth of an edit box?

body:
Is there any way I can stop that gaping mouth of an edit box on empty
category pages??

P.S., I will see you here in Taiwan at WikiMania, 8/2007.

function fnmybla($text,$title)
{
    if (   ( NS_CATEGORY == $title->mNamespace )
        || ( NS_CATEGORY_TALK == $title->mNamespace ) )
    {
        $text = "(Please don't edit any Category pages on this wiki.
They are ment to have members, but no text bodies, on purpose. I
cannot figure out any way to stop the big edit window from opening
below. I wish when one visits action=edit on category pages, it would
act like action=view. I could have \$wgHooks['userCan'] return false,
but then the user is given 'This page has been locked to prevent
editing...' and must click an additional time to see what are the
member categories.

makeBrokenLinkObj() has no hook to stop making them &action=edit links
for empty categories. I wish I had a way to change them to
action=view, i.e., no action= parameter at all.)";

    }
}
$wgHooks['EditFormPreloadText'][]='fnmybla';

function fnmyEdit(&$this  )
  {
#gave up due to not being a php phd
	global $wgUser, $wgOut, $wgRequest, $wgContLang;
	global $wgEnableParserCache, $wgStylePath, $wgUseRCPatrol, $wgParser;
	global $wgUseTrackbacks, $wgNamespaceRobotPolicies;
        global $wgArticle, $wgTitle;
	$sk = $wgUser->getSkin();

    wfDebug("qq$wgTitle->mNamespace $wgTitle->mTitle\n");
    if (   ( NS_CATEGORY == $wgTitle->mNamespace )
        || ( NS_CATEGORY_TALK == $wgTitle->mNamespace ) )
    {
#maybe these will do what I want, except I don't know how to invoke them.
        CategoryPage::view();
        #CategoryPage::doCategoryMagic();
        return false;
#you see, I want the user to see just what he would if action=view,
though he did HTTP GET action=edit.

#no, Article::view(); won't get the category links shown.

    }
    return true;
}

$wgHooks['AlternateEdit'][]=fnmyEdit;

As you can see I want to contain all this inside LocalSettings.php.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Moving the Main Page

body:
{{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Special:Undelete|
|{{#if:{{{nosubst|}}}|
}}
{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}||{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}|= |#default={{error:wrong
namespace}}
}}|{{error:not
substituted|AFD}}
}}}}
{{#if:{{{nosubst|}}}|

}}

'''This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with
Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deletion
policy]][[Template:Afd|.]]'''

You may share your thoughts on the matter at '''[[Wikipedia:Articles for
deletion/{{{1|Main Page (movie)}}}|this article's entry]]''' on the
[[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion|Articles for deletion]] page.

Please improve the article if possible, but the article must not be
blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is
closed. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the
article during the discussion, read the [[Wikipedia:Guide to
deletion|guide to deletion]].

----
''[[Template:AfD footer|Steps to list an article for deletion]]:
<nowiki>{{</nowiki>subst:afd}} ?
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=Template:Afd2+starter&editintro=
Template:Afd3+starter&title=Wikipedia:Articles+for+deletion/{{PAGENAMEE}}
Preloaded debate] ''OR''
<nowiki>{{</nowiki>subst:afd2|pg={{PAGENAME}}|cat=|text=}}
<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> ? <nowiki>{{</nowiki>subst:afd3|pg={{PAGENAME}}}}
[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Articles for
deletion/Log/{{CURRENTYEAR}}_{{CURRENTMONTHNAMEGEN}}_{{CURRENTDAY}}|action=edit}}
log]

{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}||{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}|= |#default=
}}|
}}
{{{category|[[Category:Articles for deletion]]}}}

{{unreferenced}}
{{importance}}
{{infobox film}}

'''Main Page''' is a movie released in [[2008]].  It starred [[Tom
Hanks]] as a U.S. [[United States Congress|congressman]] who gets
embroiled in a sex scandal when he is suspected of having
inappropriate relations with a teenage page.

== Plot ==
{{spoiler}}

Representative Tom Richards ([[Republican Party (United States)|R]],
[[Florida|FL]]) is a staunch proponent of conservative family values.
However, a tabloid breaks the story that he is allegedly having a
[[homosexuality|homosexual]] affair with the 16-year-old page Chad
([[Jason Dolley]]).  This is false -- Richards is not having such an
affair and is not even [[gay]] -- but unfortunately, if he exposes
enough of his private life to scrutiny that he can disprove this affair,
it is likely that this would expose the ''actual'' affair he is having
with intern Kenzie ([[Hilary Duff]]).  While this is not technically
illegal, because Kenzie is of legal age, it would likely be ruinous to
his political career if it got out.

To complicate matters, unknown even to Richards, Chad actually does have
a strong crush on the congressman, and wishes to become involved with
him.  However, so does another page, Michael ([[Jacob Smith (actor)|]]),
and they have been involved in a complex rivalry behind Rep. Richards'
back trying to win his affection, to which Richards has been completely
oblivious.

== External links ==
* [somespamsite.com CLICK HERE!]
* [freeipods.com FREE IPODS!]

[[:Category:2008 films|{{PAGENAME}}]]

[[de:Hauptseite (Film)]]

testestestsetste
'''Bold text'''bob is gay

Fixed that for you.

-Gurch


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7 and software programs

body:
Anthony schreef:
> On 1/14/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> > RoboGeo: the sources include two articles that are not written by its
> > creators.
> > One of those is even a book.
>
> However, this seems to suggest that any article which doesn't contain
> two sources (or at least claim that two sources exist) is a CSD.  In
> that respect it seems too easy to remove any article (speedily, at
> that) by wikilawyering about lack of sources.

In another thread, Jeff Raymond wrote (about [[Wikipedia:Speedy deletion
criterion for unsourced articles]]):

"The chance of that gaining consensus are next to nil."

Nevertheless, this example shows that there are a number of people who
already seem to follow WP:CSDUA.

<rant>
This is part of a wider trend towards
"reliability" at the cost of "usefulness". By deleting uncontroversial
but unsourced statements and articles, of course we increase Wikipedia's
reliability, because a part of this unsourced information is not true.
But most of that deleted material is true, and useful for the reader of
that article.

For me, it is fun to write an article (probably a stub) about a topic I
know nothing about. A large part of the fun is to find reliable sources
with Google, and I have no problem citing them.

It is fun to write an article about a topic I know a lot about as well.
But I don't need sources for that, so if I have to go look for them, I'd
only do that pro forma, to make the article look good to the
"reliability cabal". That is not fun. So I leave those articles
unsourced.

There are people who think this is a bad thing. IT IS NOT! Adding
unsourced information to Wikipedia is a good thing. It improves the
usefulness of the encyclopedia for its readers. (As long as it isn't
nonsense, of course. So we'll have to trust our editors to a degree. And
we'll have to be very clear to our readers that nothing on Wikipedia is
guaranteed accurate. Just like all competing encyclopedias, in fact.)

I'd rather have an encyclopedia that has few sources but has 95%
relevant and useful information on 100% of the subjects, that I can use
as a starting point for real research if the veridity of the material is
really important for me, than an encyclopedia that claims to be 100%
verified, but with only 10% of the content.

Unfortunately, it seems to me that there is a lot of pressure to move
towards the wrong side of the scale. It is understandable.
Citizendification of Wikipedia look attractive. But it's the wrong way
to go. IMHO.
</rant>

Sorry about the length of my post. It's just something I'm noticing more
and more. But maybe it's just me.

Anyway. Adding unsourced information to Wikipedia is a good thing. That
is really all I wanted to say.

Eugene


body:
Wouldent it be difficult to do in wikicode?

On 1/14/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/15/07, en: Firefoxman <enwpmail at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Why not make it an opt-in on your userprefs page?
>
> Why not opt-out? If it's a good feature, we should take the step of
> giving it to people by default. If it's too intrusive, perhaps we can
> finetune it?
>
> Steve
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>

--
Firefoxman


from_name: Rich Holton

subject: [WikiEN-l] Moving the Main Page

body:
en: Firefoxman wrote:
> It is in violation of [[WP:NAME]]
>

If that is the limit of your argument, then I remain unconvinced. It
"outranks" [[WP:NAME]] in every way that counts.

-Rich


from_name: theProject

subject: [WikiEN-l] Merging policy

body:
Our merging policy currently states that text-dump mergers are considered as
acceptable progress, although this was met with criticism last time it was
brought up on the mailing list. Is such procedure still acceptable? My
thoughts are that if text dump mergers are acceptable, then perhaps
significant headway could be made into the merge backlog with a semi-bot of
some sort. Please comment.

--
theProject


subject: [WikiEN-l] Moving the Main Page

body:
Andrew Gray wrote:

>On 14/01/07, en: Firefoxman <enwpmail at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>It is in violation of [[WP:NAME]]
>>
>>
>...something we ourselves invented and applied.
>
>We're writing an encyclopedia here. We're working for the convenience
>of our readers and editors. We're not attempting to work on a giant
>self-consistent logical proof; we're not writing a legal system or
>playing a game of nomic. If a "rule" for articles conflicts with the
>sensible thing to do for the encyclopedia, we ignore the rule.
>
>I am amazed people fall over themselves to comply with constraints
>that simply don't matter.
>
In a well ordered universe aesthetic sensitivities will occasionally be
offended by irregular procedures.  Sounds like an exciting game of
[[Whac-A-Mole]].

Ec


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7 and software programs

body:
How is someone else to know your information is reliable when you don't cite
your sources? Readers can't see the difference between an expert and someone
pretending to be one when they're reading.
And while you may well know something, it's easy to make mistakes with
information you think you remember. It has happened to me personally that
what I thought was true was in fact an urban legend or a misunderstanding on
my part. Really, citing sources is better for the reliability of the
article. If you don't feel like using citation templates on the sentences,
at least put a few links and titles in a references section.

Mgm

On 1/14/07, Eugene van der Pijll <eugene at vanderpijll.nl> wrote:
>
> Anthony schreef:
> > On 1/14/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > RoboGeo: the sources include two articles that are not written by its
> > > creators.
> > > One of those is even a book.
> >
> > However, this seems to suggest that any article which doesn't contain
> > two sources (or at least claim that two sources exist) is a CSD.  In
> > that respect it seems too easy to remove any article (speedily, at
> > that) by wikilawyering about lack of sources.
>
> In another thread, Jeff Raymond wrote (about [[Wikipedia:Speedy deletion
> criterion for unsourced articles]]):
>
> "The chance of that gaining consensus are next to nil."
>
> Nevertheless, this example shows that there are a number of people who
> already seem to follow WP:CSDUA.
>
> <rant>
> This is part of a wider trend towards
> "reliability" at the cost of "usefulness". By deleting uncontroversial
> but unsourced statements and articles, of course we increase Wikipedia's
> reliability, because a part of this unsourced information is not true.
> But most of that deleted material is true, and useful for the reader of
> that article.
>
> For me, it is fun to write an article (probably a stub) about a topic I
> know nothing about. A large part of the fun is to find reliable sources
> with Google, and I have no problem citing them.
>
> It is fun to write an article about a topic I know a lot about as well.
> But I don't need sources for that, so if I have to go look for them, I'd
> only do that pro forma, to make the article look good to the
> "reliability cabal". That is not fun. So I leave those articles
> unsourced.
>
> There are people who think this is a bad thing. IT IS NOT! Adding
> unsourced information to Wikipedia is a good thing. It improves the
> usefulness of the encyclopedia for its readers. (As long as it isn't
> nonsense, of course. So we'll have to trust our editors to a degree. And
> we'll have to be very clear to our readers that nothing on Wikipedia is
> guaranteed accurate. Just like all competing encyclopedias, in fact.)
>
> I'd rather have an encyclopedia that has few sources but has 95%
> relevant and useful information on 100% of the subjects, that I can use
> as a starting point for real research if the veridity of the material is
> really important for me, than an encyclopedia that claims to be 100%
> verified, but with only 10% of the content.
>
> Unfortunately, it seems to me that there is a lot of pressure to move
> towards the wrong side of the scale. It is understandable.
> Citizendification of Wikipedia look attractive. But it's the wrong way
> to go. IMHO.
> </rant>
>
> Sorry about the length of my post. It's just something I'm noticing more
> and more. But maybe it's just me.
>
> Anyway. Adding unsourced information to Wikipedia is a good thing. That
> is really all I wanted to say.
>
> Eugene
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: George Herbert

subject: [WikiEN-l] Rampant deletionism

body:
[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Un-Named Carnival Ship]]

It's just a stub now, but the ship's been ordered and will start being
built soon.

They will be the worlds' largest cruise ships when it and its
sistership launch and enter service in 2009 and 2010, which would seem
to make them notable.

Aparently, that's not good enough for some people...

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Rampant deletionism

body:
On 1/14/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> They will be the worlds' largest cruise ships when it and its
> sistership launch and enter service in 2009 and 2010,

Correction, I misremembered relative sizes, there are larger ships in
service now.  I keep mixing up "gross registered tons" and
"displacement".

They'll still be in the top 10 size-wise.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7 and software programs

body:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm schreef:
> How is someone else to know your information is reliable when you don't cite
> your sources?

Yes, that is a good example of the emphasis on reliability at the cost
of usefulness.

> Really, citing sources is better for the reliability of the
> article.

Yes. Citing sources is better. That in no way contradicts my main point:

> > Adding unsourced information to Wikipedia is a good thing.

Eugene


from_name: Rob Church

subject: [Wikitech-l] Cascading protection

body:
On 14/01/07, Simetrical <Simetrical+wikitech at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/14/07, Andrew Garrett <andrew at epstone.net> wrote:
> > I lack the sysop bit to do it myself.
>
> Surely you mean "sysop row"?  :P

user_groups row, if we want to try to be clever and make crappy in-jokes.

Rob Church


from_name: Brianna Laugher

subject: [Wikitech-l] Creating a XP Publishing Wizard thing for Commons?

body:
Hello,

I have just noticed that all my favourite Web 2.0 sites (:)) have
these nifty files to allow easy mass uploading from Win XP folders to
their servers, a la http://www.flickr.com/tools/wizard_howto.gne .

There is a GPL program http://tim.digicol.de/xppubwiz/ which seems to
offer a starting point for creating one of these registry files to
allow users to upload to your own server.

As I'm uploading photos to Flickr, I'm thinking gee, it would be nice
to be able to do this for Commons... I know the potential pitfalls of
allowing mass uploads, but it's not like we would link to it on the
sidebar. Would it be possible to create one of these registry file
things for Commons?

cheers,
Brianna
user:pfctdayelise


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Moving the Main Page  - sequel

body:
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:

> > '''Main Page''' is a movie released in [[2008]].  It starred [[Tom
> > Hanks]] as a U.S. [[United States Congress|congressman]] who gets
> > embroiled in a sex scandal when he is suspected of having
> > inappropriate relations with a teenage page.
>
>Some more of the article:
>
>== Plot ==
>{{spoiler}}
>
>Representative Tom Richards ([[Republican Party (United States)|R]],
>[[Florida|FL]]) is a staunch proponent of conservative family values.
>However, a tabloid breaks the story that he is allegedly having a
>[[homosexuality|homosexual]] affair with the 16-year-old page Chad
>([[Jason Dolley]]).  This is false -- Richards is not having such an
>affair and is not even [[gay]] -- but unfortunately, if he exposes
>enough of his private life to scrutiny that he can disprove this affair,
>it is likely that this would expose the ''actual'' affair he is having
>with intern Kenzie ([[Hilary Duff]]).  While this is not technically
>illegal, because Kenzie is of legal age, it would likely be ruinous to
>his political career if it got out.
>
>To complicate matters, unknown even to Richards, Chad actually does have
>a strong crush on the congressman, and wishes to become involved with
>him.  However, so does another page, Michael ([[Jacob Smith (actor)|]]),
>and they have been involved in a complex rivalry behind Rep. Richards'
>back trying to win his affection, to which Richards has been completely
>oblivious.
>
In the [[2009]] sequel, [[Hanging Chad (movie)]], well-hung Chad wins
the affection of a 2008 presidential candidate, played by [[Dame Edna
Everage]].  This time he works behind the candidate's back to guide him
to oblivion.

Ec


subject:
[WikiEN-l] FYI - Labor organization "campaign" advice regarding
	Wikipedia...

body:
This was forwarded to me:

http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20070114054249892

Quote:
"So while demonstrating the use of Google ads to my colleague
yesterday, I suggested that we click on the link to the page about
this company on the Wikipedia ? and that we include our own subversive
message there."

Most of the article is more balanced (they actually recommend that
Union members sign up, learn about Wikipedia, and the author says he
donated to WP and urges others to, too), but there are a few "hey,
this can be a propaganda tool!" recommendations in there...

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


from_name: Jeff Raymond

subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7 and software programs

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

> Process versus policy.  Policy states we can't have articles on
> unverifiable subjects written in biased terms.  Process in this case
> would, if applied legalistically, impede the inevitable and desirable.
> Standard disclaimers apply, but I don't see a problem here.

I'm with you.  But process AND policy and whatever else don't let you
just junk an article based on sourcing alone, as sourcing could be
found.  Part of that five day thing, etc.

You'll never see me complain about losing an article because sources
weren't found for it (although I have my opinions on reliable sources in
general), but I will complain if a simple effort can't be made.

-Jeff

--
Name: Jeff Raymond
E-mail: jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com
WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com
IM: badlydrawnjeff
Quote: "As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the
	Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else."
	- Sen. Rick Santorum on the war in Iraq.


from_name: Matthew Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] Rampant deletionism

body:
The issue is that there is very little actually known about the ship
yet.  It's not, as far as I can tell in the article, even in the
building phase yet.  Is there anything public about them other than
the order being placed?

I think that many are concerned about articles created about things
that don't exist yet and for which not much in the way of plans have
been released, and feel that the right time to write this article
would be when more information is available.

-Matt


subject: [WikiEN-l] Little Napoleans

body:
On 1/14/07, Gurch <matthew.britton at btinternet.com> wrote:
> Indeed. I'd say it's spent more time being grey than blue, recently.
> Miserable weather...

If only it was the weather. Around here (Melbourne), it's nearby
bushfires filling the sky with smoke and haze. Blue would be a nice
change!

Steve


from_name: Andrew Gray

subject: [WikiEN-l] Moving the Main Page

body:
On 14/01/07, Christopher Thieme <cdthieme at gmail.com> wrote:

> As to other links in print sources.  Whoever wrote up marketing materials
> with " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page " on it should be dragged into
> the street and shot, or at least fired because anyone in ad copy will tell
> you to state shorter URLs on such materials, or your target audience won't
> find it or (worse) they'll ignore it.  Heck, I type en.wikipedia.org each
> time I get to Wikipedia, but I'm not most people.  Most people don't think
> when looking at or responding to ads, written materials, etc.  Any smart
> marketing/adcopy person would have told you to get put together materials
> saying " www.wikipedia.com "
>
> Jimbo, if that's the case, fire the marketing department.

This isn't "the marketing department". It's the public. The one
academic article I can remember offhand - in the Journal of American
History - which deals with us does indeed, footnote ".../Main_Page".
It's all the newspaper stories which talk about us and give the
mainpage URL at the end. It's the thousands, tens of thousands, of
people who link into us from the rest of the web, and dutifully - and
sensibly - do so to the URL we give as our front page. We have all
these things pointing to "Main_Page". None of them are going to go
away. There is no pressing reason to move the page; so why do it?

There is nothing to me that seems more futile than making a vast fuss
about changing something to fit into an arbitrary scheme which we
ourself chose to impose. We wrote these rules. We are perfectly
capable of exercising our common sense in choosing when they apply.

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk


subject: [Wikitech-l] Cascading protection

body:
On 14/01/07, Simetrical <Simetrical+wikitech at gmail.com> wrote:
> Is there any alternative?  :D

We could play minesweeper.

With a real minefield.

That would be entertaining.

Rob Church


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Moving the Main Page

body:
On 1/14/07, Christopher Thieme <cdthieme at gmail.com> wrote:
> Any smart
> marketing/adcopy person would have told you to get put together materials
> saying " www.wikipedia.com "
>

We are not a .com.

--
geni


from_name: Andrew Garrett

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Cascading protection

body:
Hi all,

Brion's just enabled a feature of mine called "Cascading Protection". Simply
put, this automagically applies temporary full protection to any page
included on a page protected or semi-protected with the "cascading bit".
Brion has so far protected the Main Page of en.wikipedia with this feature,
which should eliminate main-page vandalism, except of images on commons;
which could be uploaded by a bot, protected manually, or protected on
commons. I would also strongly recommend protecting Main Page/Tomorrow, or
equivalent on other projects, but I lack the sysop bit to do it myself. Any
sysop is free to activate or deactivate this on a page that appears to
require it; within whatever decision-making processes exist on the target
wikis.

Please note that the edit and move tabs will appear as normal to save
performance, however a warning indicating where the cascading protection
comes from will appear when sysops try to edit, and an error will appear
when regular users try to edit these pages.

Take care,

Andrew Garrett

(werdna)


subject: [Wikitech-l] Cascading protection


from_name: Caroline Shurrab

subject: [WikiEN-l] disenroll from mailing list

body:
Please disenroll my email address from your mailing list.......thank you.

---------------------------------
Finding fabulous fares is fun.
Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains.


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] (no subject)

body:
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 09:32:47 -0800 (PST), Caroline Shurrab
<isisandankh at yahoo.com> wrote:

>I'm sorry, did I miss something? What on earth are you talking about?

You need a threaded mail client :-)

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7 and software programs

body:
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 10:05:29 -0500, Jeff Raymond
<jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:

>> Like I said, a blatantly non-notable SourceForge project may well be
>> speedied under A7 or G11.  You can Wikilawyer about it, but in the end
>> most of us don't actually think it's worth spending five days to get
>> three !votes on AfD, all of which endorse the blindingly obvious.

>Most of you are wrong, then.  This is a great example of why A7 is an
>abject failure.  And yes, I've done the newpage thing.

Process versus policy.  Policy states we can't have articles on
unverifiable subjects written in biased terms.  Process in this case
would, if applied legalistically, impede the inevitable and desirable.
Standard disclaimers apply, but I don't see a problem here.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7 and software programs

body:
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:29:35 +0100, Eugene van der Pijll
<eugene at vanderpijll.nl> wrote:

>This is part of a wider trend towards
>"reliability" at the cost of "usefulness"

Indeed.  Terrible, how they've made [[WP:V]] a policy while
[[WP:USEFUL]] is only listed as an argument to avoid in deletion
debates.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7 and software programs

body:
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 16:36:06 +0100, "MacGyverMagic/Mgm"
<macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:

>RoboGeo: the sources include two articles that are not written by its
>creators.

So, an article was tagged for speedy which said, in its entirety,
"RoboGEO is a program to synchronize a GPS tracklog with a collection
of time-coded pictures. A demo is available for download on the
Internet. It intentionally adds errors of around a kilometer into the
data."

It was created by an account "Iwanttocreateanarticle", whose
contributions to that date were precisely nothing other than this
article.  Since creating RoboGeo, that editor has added a new
category, Category:Demoware, which currently has one article
(RoboGeo), and added links to RoboGeo in [[TopoFusion]], [[Google
Earth]] and [[Geocoded photo]].  There are some evil-hearted bastards
who would call that a single-purpose account.

It's certainly not especially surprising that someone was a bit
suspicious, is it?  And frankly if the article *had* been speedied and
then re-created as it is now, with sources, it would not have been
speedied again. As it is, *it was never deleted*.

I think we should be very wary of inferring anything from the tagging
(and non-deletion) of this article.

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


body:
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 21:57:22 +0100, "MacGyverMagic/Mgm"
<macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:

>And to tell you the truth, I don't think unreliable info is useful to begin
>with.

Precisely.  If you want unreliable info, uncyclopaedia has much which
is authoritatively unreliable.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7 and software programs

body:
K P schreef:
> Right now there is a place for some unsourced information, namely in
> articles tagged that they're unsourced, or "let the reader beware."

That is encouraging a dangerous perception: the place for unsourced
information is in articles with {{unsourced}} on top, and therefore
Wikipedia guarantees that articles that do not have a template are
correct.

Let's take a random article: [[Shoshone National Forest]]. It contains
in the first sentence the assertion that it "spans nearly 2.5 million
acres (10,000 km?)". This "fact" is not cited, is not repeated (and
cited) later in the article, and cannot be found on any of the sites in
"General references". In other words, it is unsourced, even though the
article is not tagged (presumably; I have made the {{unsourced}}
template invisible in my personal css).

That is no problem however, because if this fact was really important
for me, I wouldn't trust Wikipedia anyway, whether it is tagged or not.
"Let the reader beware" should be the attitude for all of Wikipedia;
sources cited or not.

> A lot of the obvious solutions (all information has to be sourced) detract
> >from what I see as the primary Wikipedia force that will eventually make it
> THE most useful site on the Internet: anyone can edit.

"eventually"? It may already be. Because anyone can edit.

Eugene


subject: [WikiEN-l] African maps

body:
On 1/14/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> geni wrote:
> IOW you support indiscriminate inclusio.

Not exactly. I don't support say radom party photos. However scans of
historic documents are worth includeing.

>The action of The Borg is
> justifiec because it is gentler than that of The Daleks.
>

Daleks don't appear in star treck.

> You want them to have more?

Giveing a choice between not includeing information and have more
people dislike us? Well it is irrelivant we passed the point of no
return on that one somewhere around 28 January 2006.

>
> Some do so ethically, and some don't.  Whether any of them are acting
> legally would be a different question.  The loss that the original host
> may suffer is an intangible one.  We strip them of their
> competitiveness.

Who are they competeing with?

>When they produce material, and we scoop it all we are
> telling them that their effort is not important.

No we tell them we like it so much we want to include it.

> We care only about
> their end result.  This strikes me as a powerful disincentive to further
> efforts on their part.  A major university is more likely to take that
> in stride than an individual who has poured his heart into his efforts.
>

And if we don't take it the person feels ignored and gives up.

> One common practice that I have observed in the software industry (and
> others as well) is the tendency to let the little guy expend the risk
> capital needed to bring an idea into reality.  If the idea fails it's
> his loss.  If the idea succeeds Big Co. can pay handsomely for the
> results to insure that it does not have to deal with this innovator as a
> competitor.  This process saves Big Co. the need to fund risky ventures.
>

I've been uploading map scans before the university did. Sure I can't
match the qualitity or historical importance but we got there first.

> We are not offering payouts.  But we need the little collaborator as
> much as he needs us.

Little? the university will have 100 times our budget what defintion
of little are you useing here?

>His survival is an integral part of our mission.

Universities are unlikely to go anywhere any time soon.

> Following a policy of taking just because the law says that we have that
> right is not the way to build a collaborative environment.
>

An not takeing because of unsuported worries about giveing offence
isn't a great way of progressing. Did the university ask the original
authors of the maps?

> You confuse morality and ethics.

Nyet you do.

>  Circumscribing ethics into a "system"
> imposes an undue restriction on them.

Asking that something be internaly consistant is not an undue restriction.

--
geni


subject: [Wikitech-l] Cascading protection

body:
On 14/01/07, Simetrical <Simetrical+wikitech at gmail.com> wrote:
> Be my guest!
>
> http://www.goarmy.com/

It's likely not a unique cynical idea, but fifty points to anyone who
actually understood the obscure reference to the bizarre short
point-and-click adventure game...

Rob Church


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

body:
Hoi,
The German chapter has been taken to court in the past on matters of law
in Germany. It is not as simple as you suggest. The Italian chapter is
another entity that plays its part in the whole mess that is the law.
The British say it nicely: "the law is an arse". Do you know what your
personal legal status is when you edit an existing article with a
legally problematic picture or whatever in it.. Are you responsible,
maybe. Can you be taken to court, certainly.

The biggest error that I see is that people with not enough knowledge
about the law make the policy. What I believe in is that we know as an
organisation what our message is about all this. That we take our
position judiciously as the many organisations that are the WMF and its
chapters. This way we protect the most vulnerable, our editors. This way
we may be able to resist the continuing land grab of the proprietary
stake holders.

Thanks,
    GerardM

PS this is not a Wikipedia issue .. :(

David Strauss schreef:
> The biggest error I see here is that people are trying to limit language
> versions of Wikipedia so that they comply with the laws of the country
> where the language is primarily spoken. But that's fruitless. The
> Italian Wikipedia (hosted in Florida) isn't under Italian law just
> because it's in Italian. Nor are Italian citizens liable for something
> on the Italian Wikipedia just because the page is in Italian.
>
> There seems to be a plausible argument that Italian citizens cannot
> upload normally copyrighted material under the fair use exception. But
> there's a huge difference between what the Italian Wikipedia can host
> and what Italian citizens may post to it.
>
> And if you think that you can fix the problem by making the Italian
> Wikipedia have policies that fit within Italian law, what about Italians
> who edit the English or other Wikipedias? They're not suddenly exempt
> from Italian law because they're working in another language.
>
> Perhaps we should put together guides for legal interaction with
> Wikipedia. For example, Wikipedia editors in Italy must obtain
> permission for Wikipedia to use the content from the copyright holder
> *and* post a fair-use justification for use in jurisdictions with fair
> use or similar exceptions.
>
> We must distinguish between language editions of Wikipedia and national
> borders.
>
> rfrangi at libero.it wrote:
>
>>> David Strauss wrote:
>>> You're arguing from the ridiculous premise that Wikipedia must be legal
>>> in every country. Even the topics of some articles aren't legal in some
>>> countries.
>>>
>> No, I'm not. I'm aware that this is impossible. But when you say that anyone should be able to reuse a whole Wikipedia article as is, you are making a ridiculous premise, because the very fact that Wikipedia can't be legal in every countru makes this impossible. Unless you intended "a US commercial organization can at least take whole Wikipedia pages and re-use them"
>>
>
> Many countries have analogues of fair use:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing
>
> The English Wikipedia allows only a relatively safe subset of fair use,
> so another country's system need not allow everything the U.S. does to
> make use English Wikipedia materials.
>
>
>> Now please, consider the following two as being the same image (they are not, but for the sake of exemplification they are).
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Microsoft_Office_Word_2007.png
>>
>> http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immagine:MS_Office_Word.JPG
>>
>> The image on en.wiki ?qualifies as fair use
>>
>> The image on it.wiki is tagged as copyrighted and used with permission (based on what's written here http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/permissions/default.mspx#ELC)
>>
>> The image on it.wiki should be removed right?
>>
>
> Assuming the person posting the material lives in Italy, the image
> should probably carry the Microsoft "used with permission" template
> *and* the fair-use justification. The former is to protect the person
> posting the material; the latter is to protect re-use of the content
> where fair use or fair dealing are allowed.
>
> If the person posting the material lives in the U.S., they would only
> need to post the fair-use justification because that covers their use,
> Wikipedia's, and future organizations'.
>
> Notice that I don't care to what language edition the person is posting.