from_name: André Müller

subject: AW: [Wikipedia-l] RE: Welcome to the "Wikipedia-l" mailing list

body:
Ron H wrote:
> Although the *media* reports the use of Klingon more frequently than
Quenya,
> I've seen no data to back this up. A quick google search pulls up
133,000
> hits for Quenya, but only 14,000 hits for tlhIngan (the Klingon
language).
> That's a considerable difference.

You shall not misinterpret Google to your own advantages. Using Google I
come up with 121,000 "Quenya" results and 983,000 "Klingon" ones. Now
*that* is even more of a difference, isn't it?

And I have to agree with Mark that there are in all likelyhood more
speakers of Klingon than of Quenya (and perhaps even Sindarin). Randomly
running into a Klingonist is more likely than finding someone who can
really say something in Quenya (that is to say, more than just some
phrases from the movies or the books).

Uhm... I might have to add that I'm not really against a Wikipedia in
Quenya, but I fear that in future more and more conlangs might ask for a
Wikipedia. Certainly Esperanto, Volap?k or Interlingua isn't point of
objection, but I understand that Klingon was (although I support it
widely).

I was once one of the contributers to the tlhIngan Hol wIqIpe'Diya, and
I must admit that it somewhat lost its appeal for me, for no special
reason. It's not difficult or hard to translate or write articles in
Klingon, it's fun, it's widening one's knowledge of the language and I
actually did enjoy writing articles for it. I'd still do, but private
reasons keep me from that... and I wonder why other Klingonists don't
contribute (or seldomly do).

There is no guarantee that it'll be different for the Quenya Wikipedia.
It was the same for the Volap?k one (for which I also wrote some
entries), as well as for many natural language.

*My* biggest problems with the Klingon Wikipedia were the following two
issues:

a) What to do with proper names like "America", "Peking" or "George
Bush"? Should they be kept in their English equivalent (since in Star
Trek, Klingons had more contact with English speakers) and just be
italicized or marked {otherwise}? Or should they be klingonified and
adepted to the Klingon way of syllabic writing, such as "'amerIqa",
"peyqIng", "jorIj buS"? And if yes, then should geographic names be
klingonified in their own language's way or by the English way? Should
it be "peyqIng" and "'InDIya" or "beyjIng" and "barat" instead?

b) What to do with words that don't exist in Klingon/Quenya? I usually
tried to make them up from other words, like "browser" ---> "page
viewer" and so on. Using loan words like "bIrawSer" or even "browser" I
consider inappropriate.

Granted, these issues need not come up until the Wikipedia is created
and editable, but I think it's worth mentioning...

That's all, just wanted to bring up some constructive criticism.

- Andr? (N-true)


list: foundation-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Sulev Iva

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] Võro Vikipeediä

body:
Dear members of Wikipedia-l and Foundation-l,

I asked for creation of V?ro Wikipedia last month in foundation-l and request page:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages#V.C3.B5ro_Wikipedia.
Angela forwarded it also to the Wikipedia-l.

It was proposed in the discussion that the code for V?ro Wikipedia could be for the first time "fiu-vro" or "fiu-voro". There
was no serious objections against creating.

Does somebody know when the V?ro Wikipedia will be created?
(By the way: on what the creation depends, who and when decides it?)
What else should be done by me before?

Regards
Sulev (V?rok)

2.02.2005 20:11:58, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> kirot':

>Forwarding from foundation-l to wikipedia-l since there was no
>reaction on that list....
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>From: Sulev Iva <juvasul at ut.ee>
>Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 19:43:52 +0200
>Subject: [Foundation-l] V?ro Vikipeedi?
>To: foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>
>
>Dear members of the foundaton,
>I'm a user of Estonian (V?rok) and English Wikipedia (V?rolang) and a
>native speaker,
>researcher and activist of the V?ro language spoken in Estonia. V?ro
>(native name V?ro
>or V?ro kiil?) belongs to the Finnic branch of the Finno-Ugric
>languages. It has about
>70.000 speakers mostly in southern Estonia.
>Language codes (not yet official) are Vro and Vr. See more about V?ro in
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V?ro and http://www.wi.ee/.
>
>I and my friends would like to begin with V?ro language Wikipedia. We
>can translate
>Estonian language file to V?ro (actually we have already started) and begin with
>creation of new articles. Of course your objection may be that there are too few
>speakers of V?ro. Yes, but the speakers are quite active and
>computerized people and
>the V?ro language community needs an encyclopedia in their own
>language. I'm sure the
>number of potential editors in V?ro is not smaller than the Kashoub,
>Cornish, Gaelic,
>Faroese or Saami's or many other small languages' one. I have
>discussed the idea of
>V?ro Wikipedia with Estonian Wikipedia developers: Andres, Ker, Klaus etc.
>(http://et.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikipeedia:Community_Portal#V.C3.B5rukeelne_Wikipedia).
>They are supporting the idea and will help us. I hope you will support us too.
>Best regards, V?rolang -- 80.235.61.143 11:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


list: wikimedia-l


list: wikipedia-l

subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Võro Vikipeediä


list: wikien-l

from_name: Nicholas Knight

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: Writing about sexual topics responsibly is not
	censorship

body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
> Nicholas Knight said:
>
>>Tony Sidaway wrote:
>>
>>>I agree that, at most, it's a nice-to-have.  But really the users
>>>should be taking this issue up with the designers of their browsers,
>>>not the producers of content.  http is not a push medium.
>>
>>And yet I don't think it's unreasonable to expect to be able to browse
>>an encyclopedia with images on and not run across disgusting crap that
>>adds no value to the article whatsoever.
>
>
> You should never encounter disgusting crap that adds no value to an
> article.  If you find any, remove it.

*points at [[Autofellatio]]*


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Wikipedia-l] public service ads in Wikipedia?

body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:

>Ray Saintonge said:
>
>
>>NSK wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Friday 11 February 2005 02:37, Mark Williamson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Showing ads for, for example, anti-patent groups, gives the idea that
>>>>Wikipedia supports these groups.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>There are anti-smoking, education, science/math or anti-discrimination
>>>ads,  too. I think it would be safe to show these ads.
>>>
>>>
>>Even in this "safe" group there could be difficulties.  Surely, there
>>must be some smokers in the membership.  Others may have problems with
>>the role of commercial enterprises in education.  The gay marriage
>>issue  has two sides that look at discrimination in very different
>>issues.
>>
>>
>Wikipedia material is GFDL. Wikimedia Foundation can and should employ
>whatever fundraising methods it thinks are optimal.  Anybody who doesn't
>like the methods still gets to use the product on their own fork.  Free as
>in speech.
>
This kind of "my way or the highway" attitude misses the point
entirely.  If these kinds of ads were shown as the necessary and best
alternative they would no doubt have wide support.  The issue is not
about the Foundation's right to do what it pleases.  It's about being
sensitive to the opinions of a broad range of committed contributors.
Your recognition of the right to free speech equates to telling people
to go to the Speakers' Corner of Hyde Park where nobody will listen to
them.  People stay when their opinions are respected, and not ignored.
Respecting an opinion does not imply that it must be adopted as policy.

Ec


from_name: Chad Perrin

body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
> Chad Perrin said:
>
>>Daniel Mayer wrote:
>>
>>>--- Tony Sidaway <minorityreport at bluebottle.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Wikipedia material is GFDL. Wikimedia Foundation can and should employ
>>>>whatever fundraising methods it thinks are optimal.  Anybody who
>>>>doesn't like the methods still gets to use the product on their own
>>>>fork.  Free as in speech.
>>>
>>What if those ads contain bias toward strict intellectual property
>>rights to the exclusion of such efforts as those behind the GFDL?
>
>
> They're ads.  By definition they don't reflect the views and opinions of
> Wikimedia Foundation.  This should be taken into account during
> negotiation, but if the content isn't affected I don't think it's any
> concern of mine, particularly since I always block all ads.

Fair enough.  The question, then, becomes one of whether the risk of
perception of bias on the part of Wikipedia is a valid barrier to
acceptance of advertising revenue.

--
Chad


subject: [WikiEN-l] On the blocking of anonymous proxies

body:
Charles Podles wrote:
> An anonymous user posted the following on
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy :
>
> == Blocking anonymizer's proxies is unconstitutional ==
>
> *'''The right to anonymous free speech is protected by the 1st
> amendment of the US constitution.'''

This is a privately-run encyclopedia, not a public forum. The First
Amendment protects us, it does not obligate us.

> *'''Anonymity--the ability to conceal one's identity while
> communicating--enables the expression of  political ideas and the
> practice of religious belief without fear of intimidation or public
> retaliation.'''

Anyone that thinks they're any safer editing through an open proxy than
registering an account with Wikipedia to hide their IP that way is
either delusional or lacks basic knowledge of how the Internet functions.

> :''Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse.

Wikipedia is neither a democracy nor a forum for discourse.

> Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express
> critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny
> of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill
> of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect
> unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an
> intolerant society.''
> :<small>Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission,
> 1995.</small>

SCOTUS decisions on the First Amendment do not obligate Wikipedia to do
anything at all.

> Some Wikipedia members (sysops) have implemented a policy to routinely
> block users that choose to post using an anonymous proxy
> ([[Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Anonymous_and_open_proxies]])

General Wikipedia policy is to block open proxies, period. This is not a
blocking of the user, it is a blocking of a proxy. The user is free to
find alternate ways to edit Wikipedia.

> These members of Wikipedia have decided to block the ability of people
> to the right of anonymity giving reasons related to the need to curb
> vandalism of articles.

No one has any right to edit or even access Wikipedia, only privileges.
These privileges have conditions attached to them, and may be revoked
for any or no reason. Wikipedia is not a government project, nor is it a
forum. It is an encyclopedia.

> These are not sufficient reasons to limit my liberties and the
> liberties of others. The WP community is strong enough to withstand
> vandalism, without resorting to these measures.

No, it is not. Declining to block open proxies will result in machine
vandalism that cannot be stopped. Whoever wrote this has not even a
rudimentary understanding of computers.

> Case in point: On February 9, [[User:David.Monniaux]] blocked IP
> address 168.143.113.125 (anonymizer.com), a respected and paid service
> for anonymous browsing. This IP address was used by hundreds of WP
> users that wanted to protect their anonymity.

Good.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=168.143.113.125.
> The steps taken by David Monniaux in blocking of that IP address have
> been disputed by me.
> ([[Talk:French_legislation_against_cult_abuses#Controversy_with_an_anonymous_user]].
>
> I kindly request Wikipedia editors to re-open the debate about the
> right of the people to contribute to Wikipedia while protecting their
> rights to free speech, and to curb sysop powers to utilize blocking
> policies.

No one has any right to contribute to Wikipedia. It is a privilege
granted by a private organization, and may be revoked at will.

> Copies of the above have been sent to:
> * The Electronic Privacy Information Center http://epic.org/
> * The Electronic Frontier Foundation http://www.eff.org/
> * The American Civil Liberties Union http://aclu.org/

All of whom will, if they respond at all, patiently explain that
Wikipedia is not a public forum under government control, and is not
required to allow anyone to write anything at all.


from_name: Sj

subject: [Foundation-l] IFAP

body:
For more information about this grant (which you can actually read and
edit), see
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants/IFAP.

Another proposal for the UNESCO grant, suggested to me by some
librarian friends of mine, is also listed on that Meta: page.  Please
discuss the relative merits of the two proposals on the discussion
page.  I worry that the wiktionary proposal is not closely-enough
aligned with the current grant goals... though of course it is in line
with the much vaguer and more general IFAP goals.  The primary goals
for the current grant are more about educating professionals than
about producing content :

[ ] Promoting information literacy, through capacity building
particularly for information professionals
[ ] Strengthening awareness about the importance of preservation of
information of all kinds
[ ] Promoting a better understanding of the ethical, legal and
societal implications of ICTs

( ICTs : Information and Communication Technologies )

--SJ

PS -- please develop basic grant proposals on meta, since not everyone
has access to the grants wiki (and it is mainly for the rare bits of
information which for whatever reason shouldn't be public and
googlable).

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 22:39:04 +0100, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> I have written a proposal on grants.wikimedia.org In it you find a
> proposal for spending as much as we can get from UNESCO under their IFAP
> program. To ask for this grant we HAVE to apply before the 20th of Februari.
>
> http://www.unesco.org/webworld/ifapprojects/manuals/instructions.pdf is
> the PDF with the instructions that we have to comply with.
>
> One issue is that we have to involve the national IFAP committees .. :(
> I do not see how this can be done practically) This will have to be
> discussed how this is to be done practically..
> One answer that can be given is, that we are already working towards our
> goals.


subject: [Foundation-l] IFAP


from_name: AndyL

subject: [WikiEN-l] Software glitch?

body:
 I've noticed today that with a few articles I've edited it appears when I
check back that my edits haven't been implemented (but in fact they have).
I've also seen a few other complaints on talk pages about edits and comments
being "erased" though it seems that, in fact, this hasn't happened, it's
just that the editor in question cannot see their own edits.

Is there some sort of glitch in the software when it comes to "updating"
articles or to the ability of some accounts to "see" updated articles?

Andy


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia in the news

body:
Today's Toronto Star has a very nice NYTimes article on wikipedia and
wikinews including a large photo of Jimmy Wales. A week or so ago, by the
way, the Toronto Globe and Mail (a "quality broadsheet") had an article on
Barbados' plans to ditch the monarchy which included a sidebar on
"Commonwealth Realms". At the bottom of the sidebar was a credit line
listing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_realms as the sidebar's
source.

Andy


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Potential UNESCO grant

body:
Please take a look at the meta-discussion of an upcoming UNESCO grant
which is relevant to Wikimedia:
   http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants/IFAP

This particular grant targets proposals which
* Promote information literacy, particularly by training information
professionals
* Strengthen awareness about the importance of preservation of information
* Promote better understanding of the ethical, legal and societal
implications of ICTs

(ICTs : Information and Communication Technologies)

Since in addition to creating fantastic content, Wikipedia is a source
of practical evangelism about the advantages of open licenses and open
access -- particularly as open access relates to empowering people to
preserve information -- we have a good match for the first two of
these goals.

Thoughts on how we should approach this grant are welcome.  Note,
unfortunately, the near deadline : February 20.  On the upside, the
application they require is very short and general; filling out a
short web form (perhaps only the first stage of the approval process).
 The components of the web form are also listed on the meta: page
above.

--
+sj+


body:
Chad Perrin wrote:
> Nicholas Knight wrote:
>
>> Tony Sidaway wrote:
>>
>>> Nicholas Knight said:
>>>
>>>> Tony Sidaway wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I agree that, at most, it's a nice-to-have.  But really the users
>>>>> should be taking this issue up with the designers of their browsers,
>>>>> not the producers of content.  http is not a push medium.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And yet I don't think it's unreasonable to expect to be able to browse
>>>> an encyclopedia with images on and not run across disgusting crap that
>>>> adds no value to the article whatsoever.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You should never encounter disgusting crap that adds no value to an
>>> article.  If you find any, remove it.
>>
>>
>>
>> *points at [[Autofellatio]]*
>
>
> Now we've returned to the very subjective realm of trying to define
> "disgusting crap".  I don't know whether the image in question added
> value to the article.  I am largely neutral on the subject.  I am,
> however, extremely concerned with matters such as how we deal with the
> problem of potentially "disgusting crap" images because whatever
> mechanisms are put in place will also run the risk of getting false
> positives.
>
> Some people clearly believe your pointing constitutes a false positive.
>  Others do not.  A reasonable mechanism (whether technical or a matter
> of policy) for sorting the issue out would be desirable, here.

I see nothing wrong with an encyclopedia having a blanket policy that
sexually explicit photographs not be displayed in articles. You can
argue relativism, subjectiveness, and "censorship" all you want, we both
know it's crap. We're here to provide an educational resource. Inlined
explicit photographs of sex acts as a whole do little to educate that a
line drawing wouldn't do, and only turn people off to Wikipedia as an
educational resource. Crap like the autofellatio image is even worse.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Autofellatio - NO to that image

body:
David Gerard wrote:
> csherlock at ljh.com.au (csherlock at ljh.com.au) [050214 11:23]:
>
>>Arno M wrote:
>
>
>>>I'd like to put my reply to sannse's e-mail here.
>>>That autofellatio image should go - and go immediately.
>>>People have the right to go through this wikipedia without being confronted
>>>with this kind of pornographic material without warning.
>
>
>>Out of interest Arno, why are you looking at the Autofellatio article if
>>you risk getting offended?
>
>
>
> I too would like to know the answer to this question.

A textual description and even line drawing of a disgusting act do not
have the offensive and shock value that a photograph does.


from_name: steven l. rubenstein

subject: [WikiEN-l] Admins who abuse their powers

body:
Sarah is right, and raises an important question.

After considerable discussion a quite sizable majority voted to delete
"Jewish ethnocentrism"  People discussed the specific contents of the
article, and the very notion of an article on this topic.

Mikkalai is now making the argument that a specific article was deleted,
but that a new article could be written in the same name-space.  The
opportunity for abuse is clear.

If the only problem with an article is its contents, then there is no need
to delete it -- editors can delete the contents that is inappropriate or
bad, and put in good contents.

It logically follows that if people believe an article must be deleted, it
is because they -- or many of them -- consider the article unsalvageable;
no amount of editing content can save it.

It seems pretty obvious to me that Mikkelai's claim that the name-space was
not deleted, so he can write a new article in it, is just an attempt to
circumvent the vote for deletion.  Not only does this demonstrate bad
faith; it sets a bad precedent.  Anyone who was invested in any deleted
article can just bring it back and write some more.  And others would once
again go through the lengthy process of a vote for deletion.

Perhaps we need not always permanently delete a name space -- maybe in some
cases, a moratorium of half a year or a year would suffice.  But I think we
need a clear policy on this: the name spaces of articles deleted are either
deleted as well, or protected for some significant period.

In the meantime, what kind of action can be taken in this case?  The
standard cycle of attempts -- RFC, mediation, arbitration -- will take a
lot of time, if the policy is unclear.  If the policy is clear, then we
should be able to resolve this immediately.

Steve

Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701


from_name: Charles Podles

body:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 15:05:28 -0700, slimvirgin at gmail.com
<slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> This is a request for clarification about admins and their powers.
>
> There's  been a clear case today and yesterday of an admin abusing his
> powers (unprotecting a page he wanted to edit), and engaging in what
> could be argued amounts to vandalism. Complaints about this have met
> with the response that, though it's agreed that this admin abused his
> powers, there's nothing that can be done about it, because admins
> aren't allowed to block other admins for an abuse of power. All
> editors can do in a case like this, we're being told, is begin the
> long process of RfCs, mediation, and arbitration.
>
> Regardless of the details of this particular case, is it true that
> admins are not allowed to block other admins for an abuse of power?
>
> If this is true, how do we go about getting that changed?

It's not allowed, yes: the blocking policy does not cover abuses of
admin powers. In any case it would be pointless to block admins for
such reasons, as they can unblock themselves and likely will if they
don't think they were abusing their powers. (I can only remember one
case of deliberate, admitted abuse of admin powers, and the sysop who
did that was trying very hard to make a point about the handling of
problematic users.) Then, too, if a sysop is consciously abusing his
powers, then what's to stop him from abusing them further in order to
unblock himself? Blocking for abuse of sysop powers would be
pointless.

Last, I'm not sure unprotecting a page in order to edit it even
qualifies as an abuse of admin powers---articles are meant to be
edited, and unprotecting a page opens it to editing by all.

--Charles P. ([[en:User:Mirv]])


body:
Skyring wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 01:21:02 +0000, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Incerdently how many people saw this (the link contains the image in question)
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Recentchanges&oldid=10224385
>
>
> I saw it. The discussion here led me to it. I think it's a pretty good
> illustration for the article - and I note that it has been replaced by
> a line drawing - but it is exactly the sort of thing that wowsers
> would use to criticise Wikipedia, on any number of levels.

Uh, look at the URL a little closer. Geni is pointing out that someone
put that image up on the Recentchanges page.


from_name: Ron H

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Quenya language

body:
>You shall not misinterpret Google to your own advantages. Using Google I
come up with 121,000 "Quenya" results and 983,000 "Klingon" ones. Now
*that* is even more of a difference, isn't it?

No, it isn't, Andre :) . It's a difference of a factor of 10, which is the
same as my results. Only thing is: "Klingon" is the name of both the *race*
and the *language*. Quenya is only the name of the language. So naturally
'Klingon' gets more hits. To me, THAT seems a misinterpretation.

I was discussing with Mark the number of *fluent* speakers of Quenya vs
*fluent* speakers of Klingon. Naturally, fluent speakers are more likely to
use the Klingon word for "Klingon", just as fluent speakers of Quenya are
more likely to refer to 'Quenya' rather than "Elf-latin" (the English term
for Quenya).

In other words, "Quenya" (the word for Tolkien's elf-latin IN elf-latin)
returns 121,000 results, and the the word for "Klingon" IN Klingon returns
far, far fewer results. I don't think that's a misinterpretation, as I was
simply discussing the number of fluent speakers of each language. I speak
Spanish, and when I'm speaking Spanish, I say "Hablo espa?ol,", not "Hablo
Spanish."

I actually tried this google search with several words in both languages.
"Macil" (Quenya for "sword") returned 10,200 results. "Makil", an alternate
spelling, returned 6,440 results. "Hyanda", another alternate, returned
3,430 results. " 'etlh", the Klingon word for sword, returned just 3,430
results.

"Aur?", Quenya "day" returned 4,350 results. "DaHjaj" ("today" in Klingon)
returned just 1,360 results.

I considered testing more words (for example, 'east', 'west', 'north' and
'south'), but Klingon doesn't have words for most of these directions. And
some Klingon words return results for Hebrew or Asian languages. Same for
Quenya. Which somewhat defeats the point of searching for results on google.

>And I have to agree with Mark that there are in all likelyhood more
speakers of Klingon than of Quenya (and perhaps even Sindarin). Randomly
running into a Klingonist is more likely than finding someone who can
really say something in Quenya (that is to say, more than just some
phrases from the movies or the books).

I'm not sure I agree with this. Though the television media has always
mentioned Klingon frequently, it's important to note that Klingon was
*invented* by the television mass-media. So there's bound to be a bias.
Plus, your statement ignores the thousands of Russian Tolkien liguists (and
there *are* thousands).

>Uhm... I might have to add that I'm not really against a Wikipedia in
Quenya, but I fear that in future more and more conlangs might ask for a
Wikipedia. Certainly Esperanto, Volap?k or Interlingua isn't point of
objection, but I understand that Klingon was (although I support it
widely).

I can certainly understand that fear. Let me ask: how many conlangs have
devoted followings with workable languages (ie, a fairly full vocabulary:
approximately 10,000 words) and enough scholarly source material
(dictionaries, primers, etc) to back up translations? And people who speak
the tongue fluently who are willing to contribute many articles to
wikipedia? I actually don't know, but I suspect there can't be very many.
All JMHO, of course. And I could be wrong.

>*My* biggest problems with the Klingon Wikipedia were the following two
issues:

a) What to do with proper names like "America", "Peking" or "George
Bush"? Should they be kept in their English equivalent (since in Star
Trek, Klingons had more contact with English speakers) and just be
italicized or marked {otherwise}? Or should they be klingonified and
adepted to the Klingon way of syllabic writing, such as "'amerIqa",
"peyqIng", "jorIj buS"? And if yes, then should geographic names be
klingonified in their own language's way or by the English way? Should
it be "peyqIng" and "'InDIya" or "beyjIng" and "barat" instead?

>b) What to do with words that don't exist in Klingon/Quenya? I usually
tried to make them up from other words, like "browser" ---> "page
viewer" and so on. Using loan words like "bIrawSer" or even "browser" I
consider inappropriate.

These are good questions. As far as *Quenya* goes, I've always tried to NOT
translate proper names ("George Bush", etc), but whenever possible try to
find a workaround for words such as "browser", and most Quenya linguists are
the same, at least in that last respect.

>Granted, these issues need not come up until the Wikipedia is created
and editable, but I think it's worth mentioning... That's all, just wanted
to bring up some constructive criticism.

And I appreciate your criticism. Thanks.

Ron (firsfron on wikipedia) :)


body:
Andr? M?ller wrote:
> Ron H wrote:
>
>>Although the *media* reports the use of Klingon more frequently than
>
> Quenya,
>
>>I've seen no data to back this up. A quick google search pulls up
>
> 133,000
>
>>hits for Quenya, but only 14,000 hits for tlhIngan (the Klingon
>
> language).
>
>>That's a considerable difference.
>
>
>
> You shall not misinterpret Google to your own advantages. Using Google I
> come up with 121,000 "Quenya" results and 983,000 "Klingon" ones. Now
> *that* is even more of a difference, isn't it?

Something to keep in mind is that various Google user settings and other
circumstances can modify the number of hits you'll receive for a given
search.  By default, for instance, Google image search supposedly
filters out porn, but this can be altered.  This might fall under the
heading of "assume good faith" when your experience disagrees with the
numbers presented for a Google search.

--
Chad


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [WikiEN-l] More thoughts on the 3-revert rule

body:
JAY JG said:
> But there are many editors (admittedly usually newer
> ones) who are  not committed to these principles, and with them Talk:
> is often useless.   And you'll tend to find those kinds of editors on
> hot-topic pages.

I've run into people like that, I'm sure we all have.  But I really don't
understand why you would claim that using talk with newcomers and
mavericks is useless.
Newcomers need to be handled gently and with understanding, as your aware.
 Mavericks can only really be dealt with via dispute resolution, which
requires us to assume good faith and try to use persuasion in the first
instance.  Give a troll a chance and he'll hang himself.  A maverick with
clue can be an asset, up to a point.  Either way we don't want to let them
drag us into pointless edit wars.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Goodbye

body:
Rick wrote:

> Jimbo has made it clear that my presence in Wikipedia is not wanted. [...]

How cool it must to get such a ringing endorsement of ones controversial
editing style from the founder of the project. How typical of Rick,
bless 'im, to interpret it in such a peculiarly negative way.

For what its worth, I believe the action-hero analogy is wrong, and too
kind to Rick.

See for example the thread just up the page from this one called
"Blocked ISP Proxy". The action hero equivalent of blocking a proxy to
ban one vandal is blowing up a bus full of innocents just to get to the
one bad guy. Hardly something Keanu or Bruce would ever do?

Pete


body:
Chad Perrin wrote:
> Nicholas Knight:
>
> I don't see anything wrong with "an encyclopedia" having such a blanket
> policy, either.  On the other hand, I do have a problem with the idea
> that my favorite encyclopedia might suddenly become less informative due
> to strict implementation of a policy enforcing cultural taboos that

I'm the last person to be substantially influenced by cultural taboos. I
just don't want to see a picture of a guy sucking himself off.

> interfere with the ability to provide useful, factual, relevant

_*How is the image useful*_?

> information.  As such, I don't think I can in good conscience support
> such a policy for Wikipedia.  One of the problems with "blanket"
> policies like that is that they tend to cover good things as well as bad.

Can you give me a single example of a case where a PHOTOGRAPH of a
sexual act is meaningfully more useful than a line drawing?

> If it's pertinent and not gratuitous, I don't tend to have a problem

It IS gratuitious.

> with it.  In cases where a substantial demographic does, it might be
> reasonable to move it off-page without removing it entirely, if some
> simpler visitor-controlled mechanism for "censoring" the visible content
> is not available.
>
> Don't fool yourself, though -- claiming that something is "indecent"

I never said anything was indecent. I said it was crap.

> just because it's graphic is a matter of personal perspective, not of
> absolutist principles.

Most people do not want to see photographs of explicit sex acts when
browsing an encyclopedia. Given the lack of educational value such
images have, I see no reason to drive those people, including me, off
with such images.


from_name: slimvirgin at gmail.com

body:
Bjorn, the page in question [[Jewish ethnocentrism]] was the page
Stormfront and the other white-supremacist websites were discussing in
terms of creating user accounts to have the vote changed. It was
therefore a sensitive page, with arguably anti-Semitic content and,
also arguably, a POV title. There was a vote 48-13 to delete it. You
were one of those wanting to keep it. It was therefore deleted,
entirely properly. Another editor took it through a vote to undelete
it. The "keep delete" vote was decisive. There were only two votes to
keep, one from the editor who proposed it at VfU, and one from you as
User:Palestine-info. And yet a few days later, an admin took it upon
himself to recreate it; at first just as a redirect to another article
containing some of the same anti-Semitic content, but he later started
to rewrite it; and then he hampered all attempts by other admins to
delete it again. It isn't right that someone should do this just days
after two solid votes; otherwise there's no point in having the votes.
And the planned interference of Stormfront makes the issue more
sensitive than it would otherwise be.

Sarah

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 01:02:26 +0100, BJ?rn Lindqvist <bjourne at gmail.com> wrote:
>  I do think it is OK for someone to create an article with
> the same name as a previously deleted one as long as the new article
> isn't more or less a copy of the deleted one.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Autofellatio - NO to that image

body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
> I would say that if a user presses the random page button and gets a page
> he didn't expect, then the button is probably working as advertised.  We
> should perhaps put a reminder to read our content disclaimer just under
> the button.

That strikes me as an eminently reasonable way to handle it, if there's
real concern over possible offense.  If not (if, for instance, it was
only brought up as a hypothetical complaint and nobody really cares),
there may not be any need to even do that much.

The existence of a randomization button doesn't strike me as a reason to
ban certain classes of articles or restrict legitimately informative
content in those articles, though.  That doesn't mean there aren't valid
reasons to restrict such articles or their contents, but I don't think
the random button qualifies as one of these.

--
Chad


body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
> Nicholas Knight said:
>
>>Can you give me a single example of a case where a PHOTOGRAPH of a
>>sexual act is meaningfully more useful than a line drawing?
>
>
> I can.  A photograph of autofellatio convincingly demonstrates that this
> extraordinary act is achievable by some men.  A line drawing can only give
> an artist's impress of how perhaps it *might* be done, should it be
> possible.

If Wikipedia has to rely on photographs to say something is possible, a
critical credibility problem exists.

And even IF you're correct, that does not in any way require an inlined
image.


body:
Robert wrote:

> Skyring writes:
>
>>And the end result would be that thousands of schools
>>would ban Wikipedia, which would be a shame. Is there
>>some way that we can find a technological solution?
>>Have a "splash screen" that warns of explicit images?
>>A cookie that prevents download of "adult content"?
>>Something that will pop up when the casual user
>>navigates to Autofellatio? All we really need is some
>>sort of hurdle that must be leapt, some button that must
>>be pressed, some door that must be opened.
>
>
>
> This is an excellent idea (and is in no way censorship.)
> This is not only a good idea for sex-related articles, it
> also would be a good idea for any surgery-related articles,
> or articles on forensics.  I don't want to see one of my
> students loosing their lunch...again.
>
> I have taught many high school students about
> fertilization, fetal development and birth.  (It is
> shocking how little so many of our 16 year olds actually
> know about their own bodies.)  Most students were alright
> with all of it, even the videos, but some students screamed
> with genuine horror at seeing a woman actually give birth.
> One of them threw up!  Granted, this wouldn't happen in
> some other cultures where birth is treated as just another
> fact of life, but where I live most people don't see such
> things, and some do not want to!
>
> If I read an article where something "really gross" might
> be explained in a photo, I'd want an option to see it, and
> not have it forced on me.  Given my student's reactions, I
> am not alone!
>
> Finally, professional line-drawings (as opposed to photos)
> are apparently less of a problem. They are nearly
> universally considered less offensive (and/or gross) and
> are more often perceived as academic and professional (when
> drawn and labeled well.)
>

Speaking merely as a fairly independent individual, I am not interested
in seeing explicit video or photographic stills of the birth process.  I
have seen such video before, and I have no interest at this juncture to
repeat the experience.  I'm also not interested in watching it in person.

That aside, however, I would like the ability to watch such things if I
were to change my mind.  It might be viewed as "horrifying", but it
might also be viewed as "informative" or "educational".

As such, any solution that does not bar explicit content (as long as
it's not gratuitous), but does allow for opting into a blocking
mechanism (reversible on a case-by-case basis) if that is desired,
sounds like a great idea for me.  My question is this:

Is there anyone that finds that sort of "fix" to the issue
inappropriate, inapplicable, incomplete, or otherwise objectionable?  Is
there any reason to force either visible presence or complete absence of
such content on people?

--
Chad


body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
> Nicholas Knight said:
>
>>Tony Sidaway wrote:
>>
>>>Nicholas Knight said:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Can you give me a single example of a case where a PHOTOGRAPH of a
>>>>sexual act is meaningfully more useful than a line drawing?
>>>
>>>
>>>I can.  A photograph of autofellatio convincingly demonstrates that
>>>this extraordinary act is achievable by some men.  A line drawing can
>>>only give an artist's impress of how perhaps it *might* be done,
>>>should it be possible.
>>
>>If Wikipedia has to rely on photographs to say something is possible, a
>> critical credibility problem exists.
>
>
> It doesn't have to rely on them, but they're very effective for this
> purpose.  I've got blind colleagues who manage very well without being
> able to see a thing, but this doesn't mean that sight isn't also useful.
>
>>And even IF you're correct, that does not in any way require an inlined
>> image.
>
>
> I agree.  It does not.  But if it's a useful illustration, why not?

I continue to see no usefulness in it, and the "why not" is because
people _will not use wikipedia_, and quite likely, existing editors
would leave. I certainly would if this became an accepted part of
Wikipedia. It would be a final demonstration that the people here are
not the least bit interested in constructing a useful educational
resource, but seek only to shove a social agenda down other's throats.


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: Writing about sexual topics responsibly is  not
	censorship

body:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
> At 05:26 PM 2/13/2005 -0800, Nicholas Knight wrote:
>
>> I see nothing wrong with an encyclopedia having a blanket policy that
>> sexually explicit photographs not be displayed in articles. You can
>> argue relativism, subjectiveness, and "censorship" all you want, we
>> both know it's crap.
>
>
> You _think_ it's crap. Others obviously think otherwise, or there'd be
> no ongoing debate.

Guess what? They're wrong. I'm right.

There, I said it.

It's CRAP. Everyone here KNOWS it. Stop pretending this is a grey area,
it's not.


body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
> Nicholas Knight said:
>
>>It's CRAP. Everyone here KNOWS it. Stop pretending this is a grey area,
>> it's not.
>
>
> This attitude isn't going to impress people who disagree with you.

My goal in life, believe it or not, has nothing to do with impressing
people that disagree with me.


body:
Chad Perrin wrote:
> Nicholas Knight wrote:
>
>> I continue to see no usefulness in it, and the "why not" is because
>> people _will not use wikipedia_, and quite likely, existing editors
>> would leave. I certainly would if this became an accepted part of
>> Wikipedia. It would be a final demonstration that the people here are
>> not the least bit interested in constructing a useful educational
>> resource, but seek only to shove a social agenda down other's throats.
>
>
> Now you've really lost me.  Who seeks "only to shove a social agenda
> down other's [sic] throats"?  What social agenda do you mean?  This
> isn't some kind of moral objection to the act of autofellatio, is it?

No, it's an objection to shoving explicit and disgusting images in what
is supposed to be an encyclopedia for the purpose of trying to force the
world to somehow "de-prudify" itself.


body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
> Chad Perrin said:

>>Is there anyone that finds that sort of "fix" to the issue
>>inappropriate, inapplicable, incomplete, or otherwise objectionable?
>>Is  there any reason to force either visible presence or complete
>>absence of  such content on people?
>>
>
> We already have this capability built into our browsers.  For those who
> can't or are simply unwilling to learn how to use their browsers, however,
> it would be easy enough to adapt MediaWiki to suppress or display all
> image content by default per user, reversible on a case-by-case basis. I
> downloaded a copy of MediaWiki the other day and if I find the time I'll
> write a patch for that.
>

The statement that "we" already have this capability built into "our"
browsers assumes some things about visitors to the site that are not
necessarily true.  For instance, w3mmee (if I recall correctly) is
capable of rendering images and does not include any means of blocking
images based on the likelihood of being offensive, even indirectly.
Besides, anything less than a one-click method of blocking all images is
unlikely to make blocking all images palatable to anyone using a
graphical browser.  As such, I think that addressing the matter from the
server side is rather important, in the long run.

--
Chad


body:
David, that wasn't the case here. The admin looking after the vote
explained that a "delete and redirect" or "merge" vote would count as
keep. The subsequent vote to delete was clear, as were the comments.
Only two editors voted to redirect. Most felt that no matter what
anyone tried to do with this title, it would always be a target for
anti-Semitic content, particularly as the expression is used largely
by neo-Nazi followers of a psychologist with some odd ideas about
Jews; hence the Stormfront interest in it. In addition, the vote
closed only a few days ago. This was an admin simply trying to ignore
community consensus, and misusing his admin powers to do it; yet there
is no way of censoring him short of RfC, mediation, arbitration.

Sarah

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 12:49:09 +1100, David Gerard
<fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> In practice, you'll see a lot of deletion votes that say "there could be a
> good article about this but this isn't it and can't be made into it." So
> in practice, an article may well be deleted and new text with the same name
> created there.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Coolcat and Kurds

body:
Nicholas Knight said:
> Coolcat is running roughshod over Kurd-related articles (notably
> [[Kurdistan]] and [[Kurds]]) apparently unopposed.
>
> I'm not about to start fighting with him, but someone else might want
> to.

I had a look and I agree that these edits should be queried.  His edits
did seem to be quite extensive and not too well thought out.  Mostly
opinion, not much fact. Some apparent facts removed without discussion.
Poor grammar and spelling, too.  I reverted the edits on both articles
after posting an explanatory message on each talk page inviting him to
justify the edits.  I'll also leave a message on his user talk page.


body:
Chad Perrin wrote:
> Tony Sidaway wrote:
>
>> Nicholas Knight said:
>>
>>> It's CRAP. Everyone here KNOWS it. Stop pretending this is a grey area,
>>> it's not.
>>
>>
>>
>> This attitude isn't going to impress people who disagree with you.
>
>
>
> I think he's of the impression that nobody actually disagrees with him
> on whether or not it's "crap", for some mostly unspecified reason (aside

On this list I've seen exactly one argument, and that rather
half-hearted, as to why it's not crap. I'm of the impression, due to
their own statements, that nobody here is thrilled with the image, and
are simply labouring under some sort of impression that Wikipedia has
some bizarre obligation to provide it.

> from the fact that he doesn't want to see it).  He seems to think that,
> rather than disagreeing, others are lying.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Goodbye

references:
<20050213065615.72377.qmail@web60606.mail.yahoo.com>	<cuo4nf$hv1$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<420FA0F2.3070208@runawaynet.com> <cuo96b$vgq$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
Pete/Pcb21 said:
> Nicholas Knight wrote:
>
>> Rick did not know it was a proxy (how could he have?) [..]
>
> So you are saying blocking an IP about which you know nothing is _not_
> a  problem?

If we're talking about Rick K I presume it's the NTL proxy that Rick K
blocked the other day, and I emailed here asking if it could be unblocked.
 The IP number looked new to me--I'm a NTL user and it was not a proxy
number I recognised from previous IP blockings.  The user page has been
edited since then to place a proxy message.


body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
> Nicholas Knight said:
>
>>No, it's an objection to shoving explicit and disgusting images in what
>> is supposed to be an encyclopedia for the purpose of trying to force
>>the  world to somehow "de-prudify" itself.
>
>
> Who has advanced this argument for including the picture?

No one. If you'll look back at the exact sequence of the conversation,
you'll understand where this came from. It's predicated on images like
the autofelleto one becoming accepted parts of Wikipedia, and is not
specific to the photograph in question.


from_name: Robert Scott Horning

subject: [Foundation-l] Shavian Wikis

body:
Joe wrote:

>On 2/11/05 5:50 PM, "Brion Vibber" <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Tok Pisin is a creole language which is spoken natively by actual
>>people. The 'Simple English' Wikipedia was created long, long ago and to
>>this day it's unclear what its intended mission is.
>>
>>
>
>If the English loanwords in Tok Pisin were spelled the same as their English
>origins, much of it would be mutually intelligible.  Besides the slight
>difference in grammar and various words from other languages, the biggest
>difference is in spelling.  This isn't meant to be an exact match,
>though--just an example.  I recognize the difference.
>
>
>
I've had a chance to hear native speakers of Tok Pisin.  For a native
English speaker, it is a really bizzare experience, because you start
listening to them speak, and you think you understand about 50%-60% of
what they are speaking due to familiar words.  Then suddenly as you
start listening a bit more you discover that you are completely lost and
don't even have a clue as to what is being said.  From my own linguistic
experience, I would have to say that I understand a native German
speaker due to cognates better than I understand a native Tok Pisin speaker.

If you are trying to determine if a language is truly unique enough to
justify having it as a seperate language wiki on Wikipedia, Tok Pisin
clearly fits the bill with some very different language structures than
are commonly found in English, and IMHO qualifies as a seperate
language.  Certainly as different as between Dutch or German or between
Spanish and Portuguese, and perhaps more so.

The only hesitation to creating it as a language Wikipedia is sheer
number of participants able to contribute content, and at the moment I'm
not volunteering.  It does appear, however, that roughly 26 people have
already volunteered to add content to the current Tok Pisin Wikipedia
and about 60 articles. ( http://tpi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page )

--
Robert Scott Horning
218 Sunstone Circle
Logan, UT 84321
(435) 753-3330
robert_horning at netzero.net


subject: [Foundation-l] Shavian Wikis


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Goodbye

body:
Nicholas Knight wrote:

> Rick did not know it was a proxy (how could he have?) [..]

So you are saying blocking an IP about which you know nothing is _not_ a
problem?

 > and has apologized. What exactly is your problem?


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Quenya language

body:
And if we have a mikipedia (miniwikipedia, the name is just silly) or a
thekipedia (thematic wikipedia, also silly) about Quenya, Toki Pona,
Kinglon, etc? I mean a wikipedia that covers only quenya stuff in quenya.
No real-earth cities or subjects, but only middle-earth cities and
subjects. I could be hosted at an old or new wikibooks project or at a new
multi-language wikibooks or anywhere else. I do not know if it fits, but I
would like it, more than a (incomplete) wikipedia.

Anyway, I think Wikimedia should allow someone to write in these languages
somewhere.

Also I am not against a Wikipedia or a Wikibooks in these languages. A
wikibooks could host such thematic wikipedia and other books.

e2m.


from_name: Sean Barrett

body:
Charles Podles stated for the record:

> An anonymous user posted the following on
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy :
>
> == Blocking anonymizer's proxies is unconstitutional ==
>
> *'''The right to anonymous free speech is protected by the 1st
> amendment of the US constitution.'''

The First Amendment of the US Constitution binds only the various
governments of the US.  It does not bind me; on my servers you have only
the privileges I choose to give you.

--
  Sean Barrett     | Let me put it this way: have you heard of
  sean at epoptic.com | Plato, Aristotle, Socrates? Morons. --Vinzini


from_name: kylelutze

subject: [Foundation-l] On the blocking of anonymous proxies (pt. 2)

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

well, here's my question then, if you don't want to block proxies, then
what is your suggestion to take care of the massive ammount of spam?
wikipedia isn't ment to be an opinion based site for people to express
their views, it's meant to be an encyclopedia, stating only the facts,
so why would people need to be anonymous when editing or adding new
articles, unless trolling?

On another point, for blocking proxies, it may be nice to somehow take
advantage of the abusive host blocking list (ahbl.org, hosted by
sosdg.org). I believe that's the one for blocking proxies, etc. or there
may be another one on that site. I personally believe that proxies
shouldn't be used for going to wikipedia as you can hide your IP by
creating an account.

Kyle

Charles Podles wrote:
| (Last message accidentally sent prematurely---sorry. Continued:)
|
| Is s/he just blowing smoke, or is this a serious issue? What is the
| relationship between the policy of each Wikipedia and the policies of
| the Foundation in general?
| _______________________________________________
| foundation-l mailing list
| foundation-l at wikimedia.org
| http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCEB3XqTDXh8jUGRYRAhUdAJ9ymdOsr4OohxP+jsakQ7Fu7pqZmwCfdRoU
6kBndC8WvyqKarYJFCAveFQ=
=gr19
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [Foundation-l] On the blocking of anonymous proxies

body:
An anonymous user posted the following on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy :

== Blocking anonymizer's proxies is unconstitutional ==

*'''The right to anonymous free speech is protected by the 1st
amendment of the US constitution.'''

*'''Anonymity--the ability to conceal one's identity while
communicating--enables the expression of  political ideas and the
practice of religious belief without fear of intimidation or public
retaliation.'''

:''Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse.
Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express
critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny
of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill
of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect
unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an
intolerant society.''
:<small>Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission,
1995.</small>

Some Wikipedia members (sysops) have implemented a policy to routinely
block users that choose to post using an anonymous proxy
([[Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Anonymous_and_open_proxies]])

These members of Wikipedia have decided to block the ability of people
to the right of anonymity giving reasons related to the need to curb
vandalism of articles.

These are not sufficient reasons to limit my liberties and the
liberties of others. The WP community is strong enough to withstand
vandalism, without resorting to these measures.

Case in point: On February 9, [[User:David.Monniaux]] blocked IP
address 168.143.113.125 (anonymizer.com), a respected and paid service
for anonymous browsing. This IP address was used by hundreds of WP
users that wanted to protect their anonymity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=168.143.113.125.
The steps taken by David Monniaux in blocking of that IP address have
been disputed by me.
([[Talk:French_legislation_against_cult_abuses#Controversy_with_an_anonymous_user]].

I kindly request Wikipedia editors to re-open the debate about the
right of the people to contribute to Wikipedia while protecting their
rights to free speech, and to curb sysop powers to utilize blocking
policies.

Copies of the above have been sent to:
* The Electronic Privacy Information Center http://epic.org/
* The Electronic Frontier Foundation http://www.eff.org/
* The American Civil Liberties Union http://aclu.org/

 --[[User:38.119.107.72|38.119.107.72]] 23:53, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)


body:
Chad Perrin said:
> Tony Sidaway wrote:
>> I've run into people like that, I'm sure we all have.  But I really
>> don't understand why you would claim that using talk with newcomers
>> and mavericks is useless.
>
> I don't think that's what was being said at all.  My interpretation of
> phrasing was not that "using talk with newcomers and mavericks is
> useless," but rather that there is a statistical trend of "useless"
> effect to discussion with certain demographics.  That doesn't mean that
>  one shouldn't try talking to members of such demographics, but rather
> that one should understand that sometimes such attempts at reasonable
> discussion are more prone to failure than with other people.

I think my phrasing was sloppy.  I meant that I don't think discussion is
*ever* useless.  There is simply no point at which, in my opinion, it is
acceptable to resort to edit warring--certainly not to the level where one
editor alone is in danger of breaching the 3RR.


body:
(Last message accidentally sent prematurely---sorry. Continued:)

Is s/he just blowing smoke, or is this a serious issue? What is the
relationship between the policy of each Wikipedia and the policies of
the Foundation in general?


subject: [WikiEN-l] On the blocking of anonymous proxies (pt. 2)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] NYTimes.com: Google may host encyclopedia project

body:
Mark Williamson wrote:
> Of course.
>
> But a more complete democracy would've been better.
>

This touches, somewhat, on political philosophy, both in theory and in
practice.  As such, and because I pay probably more attention to
political philosophy than many people would consider healthy, I have a
fair number of strong opinions on such matters as this.

In this particular case, I have to say that I disagree that "a more
complete democracy" would necessarily be "better".  In my opinion,
democracy should be used to allow consensus to have influence in
administrative matters, and not to allow consensus to CONTROL
administrative matters.  If "democracy" were "complete" in the running
of Wikipedia, it may well end up being voted out of "wiki" status and
become a hierarchically managed academic project.

That sort of risk of rampant popular whim having direct control over
something is precisely the reason the early US government ratified the
Constitution, and particularly the Bill of Rights.  There is a set of
rules for the organization of the effort that are largely inaccessible
to the public, democratic will, precisely to protect the ideals of the
organization from the whims of its constituency.  While Wikipedia isn't
a government, it too needs (in my opinion, at least) a separation
between the democratically expressed will of its "public" and the Big
Decisions, though probably with a strong set of rules in place to limit
the liberties that can be taken within the range of whatever mechanism
is implemented to maintain that separation.

Pure democracy can be viewed in as unflattering a light as pure
authoritarianism.  If the most important part of the endeavor is its
ideals, we should aim to support those ideals over any superficial
methodologies of implementation.

--
Chad

(PS:  prior statements quoted below for context)

>>Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>What worries me is that the final say rests with a small-but-trusted
>>>group of individuals, not with the community. This is the trouble of
>>>our switch from a complete democracy to a not-so-representative
>>>democracy (only two of the board members were elected) - we have to
>>>trust that these people will be gentle with our future.
>>
>>I think you're idealizing the 'primeval' state of Wikipedia. Wikipedia, as
>>a web site (with its attendant collection of computers, DNS registrations,
>>and other unique features) was never owned or operated by some sort of
>>collective you could describe as a 'complete democracy'. It was run by
>>Jimbo Wales, and he had the final say in everything- he was just nice
>>enough to defer to the community in most matters. If Google had proposed a
>>deal with Wikipedia before the WMF was founded, then the final say would
>>rest with him just as much as it currently rests with the Board of
>>Trustees of the Wikimedia foundation.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Quenya language

body:
e2m wrote:
> And if we have a mikipedia (miniwikipedia, the name is just silly) or a
> thekipedia (thematic wikipedia, also silly) about Quenya, Toki Pona,
> Kinglon, etc? I mean a wikipedia that covers only quenya stuff in
> quenya.  No real-earth cities or subjects, but only middle-earth cities
> and  subjects. I could be hosted at an old or new wikibooks project or
> at a new  multi-language wikibooks or anywhere else. I do not know if it
> fits, but I  would like it, more than a (incomplete) wikipedia.
>
> Anyway, I think Wikimedia should allow someone to write in these
> languages  somewhere.
>
> Also I am not against a Wikipedia or a Wikibooks in these languages. A
> wikibooks could host such thematic wikipedia and other books.
>
> e2m.

That sounds like a stellar idea to me.  Granted, I haven't thought
through the ramifications very clearly, and I'm sure that if some people
object there will be some good reasons for some of those objections.

--
Chad


from_name: Bryan Derksen

body:
At 05:32 PM 2/13/2005 -0800, Nicholas Knight wrote:
>Uh, look at the URL a little closer. Geni is pointing out that someone put
>that image up on the Recentchanges page.

Is there anyone (aside from the vandal that first put it there) advocating
that a photograph of autofellatio adds to the value of the recentchanges
page? I'm not sure what the point of mentioning this is, otherwise.

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 2/10/2005


subject: AW: [Wikipedia-l] Quenya language

body:
Ron H wrote:

> No, it isn't, Andre :) . It's a difference of a factor of 10, which is
the
same as my results. Only thing is: "Klingon" is the name of both the
*race*
and the *language*. Quenya is only the name of the language. So
naturally
'Klingon' gets more hits. To me, THAT seems a misinterpretation.

[...]

Hmm... okay, I see your point. But then again, I think it's difficult in
that matter to really estimate how many resources on the net mention the
Klingon language and which one mention Quenya as a language.
Quenya refers only to the language, so it's valuable. Klingon refers to
the language, the species, the individuals and it's the general adverb
as well. In fact, the word "tlhIngan" does this as well (just in another
language), but "Quenya" covers the name for the language in most other
languages (it's Quenya in English, Quenya, German, French, etc.) while
"tlhIngan (Hol)" is only in the Klingon language. And on the other hand,
it's "Klingonisch" in German and as far as I know, other language also
have different names for it.
I think Google doesn't prove much here.

As for the words, thing is that many Quenya sites just list the words or
some of them just for interest. You know, for those who want to have an
Elvish name. For Klingon that's seldom the case, I'd say. I'm also sure
that counterproofs can be found, which have more hits in Klingon than in
Quenya.
So Google might not be that helpful here, either.

> I can certainly understand that fear. Let me ask: how many conlangs
have
devoted followings with workable languages (ie, a fairly full
vocabulary:
approximately 10,000 words) and enough scholarly source material
(dictionaries, primers, etc) to back up translations? And people who
speak
the tongue fluently who are willing to contribute many articles to
wikipedia? I actually don't know, but I suspect there can't be very
many.
All JMHO, of course. And I could be wrong.

Hm, 'fullness' (is that a word?) of vocabulary isn't always the main
point. Volap?k has a quite large vocabulary, also modern words. I own a
good (but antique) Volap?k dictionary myself. Still there are more
Klingon entries than Volap?k ones, although Klingon only has about 2750
words. Probably because Volap?k isn't very well-known, not sure...

And the next question:
If you support a Quenya Wikipedia, would you also vote for a Sindarin
one? That might be soon point of discussion too, if the Quenya one will
be granted.

I'm not really sure if I should be for or against it, but in my opinion,
Quenya and Sindarin have about the same status as Klingon.

Greetings,
- Andr?


body:
Charles Podles wrote:
> (Last message accidentally sent prematurely---sorry. Continued:)
>
> Is s/he just blowing smoke, or is this a serious issue? What is the
> relationship between the policy of each Wikipedia and the policies of
> the Foundation in general?

I can't really comment on policies with any authority, but the implied
premise of the complaint is flawed.  The Constitutional protection of
anonymous free speech is directed at governmental and public issues of
censorship, while Wikipedia is (believe it or not) a more "private"
enterprise.  The rules of Wikipedia are internal to Wikipedia, and users
give de facto agreement to such rules when they set virtual foot within
its borders.  No inherent rights are being violated.

On the other hand, I'm of the belief that Wikipedia darn well SHOULD
protect anonymous free speech, insofar as it is not harmful to the
premises and implementations of Wikipedia itself.  That's more a matter
of personal preference and beliefs as regards what makes the most
effective approach to managing the project, though, and not of an
ethical adherence to ideals of natural human rights.  I think.

I reserve the right to change my opinion(s) later, if I should suddenly
consider new angles on the matter that had not previously occurred to me.

--
Chad


body:
At 05:26 PM 2/13/2005 -0800, Nicholas Knight wrote:
>I see nothing wrong with an encyclopedia having a blanket policy that
>sexually explicit photographs not be displayed in articles. You can argue
>relativism, subjectiveness, and "censorship" all you want, we both know
>it's crap.

You _think_ it's crap. Others obviously think otherwise, or there'd be no
ongoing debate.

>We're here to provide an educational resource. Inlined explicit
>photographs of sex acts as a whole do little to educate that a line
>drawing wouldn't do, and only turn people off to Wikipedia as an
>educational resource.

Perhaps you could provide a line drawing to substitute for it? Back when I
first notice the poll on this thing before it had erupted onto the mailing
list, someone suggested that the photograph was unacceptable but that we
should find a piece of "artwork" to substitute, and I jokingly suggested
running the photograph through Photoshop's brushstroke filter. Maybe an
edge filter could turn it into a line drawing and actually be a way to
resolve this.

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 2/10/2005


body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
> Chad Perrin said:
>
>>The statement that "we" already have this capability built into "our"
>>browsers assumes some things about visitors to the site that are not
>>necessarily true.
>
>
> Well you had to dig pretty deep for a not-very-convincing example. :)

That wasn't "digging pretty deep": it was speaking from experience.
I've had occasion to use w3mmee, even as my primary browser under
certain circumstances (now thankfully behind me).  The point still
stands, though -- some people don't have the options you seemed to
assume were universal.

>>Besides, anything less than a one-click method of blocking all images
>>is  unlikely to make blocking all images palatable to anyone using a
>>graphical browser.  As such, I think that addressing the matter from
>>the  server side is rather important, in the long run.
>>
>
> I agree that, at most, it's a nice-to-have.  But really the users should
> be taking this issue up with the designers of their browsers, not the
> producers of content.  http is not a push medium.

I both agree and disagree with that.  I agree that users should be
taking it up with the browser designers, rather than the content
providers, but I also believe that, in absence of specific reasons to do
otherwise, content providers should perhaps address the matter as well.
  In particular, I think it's an idea that should be addressed by
Wikipedia, because of the goals pursued by the Wikipedia endeavor (both
in theory and in practice).  Making a universally accessible
encycolpedia implies making an encyclopedia that strives to be as close
to universally palatable as is practicable, as well, without betraying
the needs of encyclopedic quality.

--
Chad


body:
Bjorn, you're simply trying to engage in the dispute again, but it has
been settled and voted on twice. Here is the first vote with the
comments http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Jewish_ethnocentrism/previous

As you can see, several people voted with respect to its perceived
anti-Semitism, and that this title will inevitably attract it. There
were ten sockpuppets, presumed Stormfront-related. One editor, not a
known sockpuppet, admitted that he had alerted Stormfront, so that's
11 if you count him, though not necessarily 11 separate people.

Here's the vote for undeletion, again decisive
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion#Jewish_ethnocentrism

Sarah

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 03:54:51 +0100, BJ?rn Lindqvist <bjourne at gmail.com> wrote:
> . . . Stormfront (which was the only racist group
> voting) did have little or no impact on what happened on Wikipedia. . .
> I couldn't spot anyone arguing that the article contained "hostility
> towards Jews."


body:
Nicholas Knight wrote:
> Tony Sidaway wrote:
>
>> Nicholas Knight said:
>>
>>> Tony Sidaway wrote:
>>>
>>>> I agree that, at most, it's a nice-to-have.  But really the users
>>>> should be taking this issue up with the designers of their browsers,
>>>> not the producers of content.  http is not a push medium.
>>>
>>>
>>> And yet I don't think it's unreasonable to expect to be able to browse
>>> an encyclopedia with images on and not run across disgusting crap that
>>> adds no value to the article whatsoever.
>>
>>
>>
>> You should never encounter disgusting crap that adds no value to an
>> article.  If you find any, remove it.
>
>
> *points at [[Autofellatio]]*

Now we've returned to the very subjective realm of trying to define
"disgusting crap".  I don't know whether the image in question added
value to the article.  I am largely neutral on the subject.  I am,
however, extremely concerned with matters such as how we deal with the
problem of potentially "disgusting crap" images because whatever
mechanisms are put in place will also run the risk of getting false
positives.

Some people clearly believe your pointing constitutes a false positive.
  Others do not.  A reasonable mechanism (whether technical or a matter
of policy) for sorting the issue out would be desirable, here.

--
Chad


body:
David Gerard wrote:

> Advertising on wikipedia tends to be treated as one of the Worst Ideas Ever
> because when it was first even *mooted*, the Spanish wikipedia promptly
> forked. Producing the Enciclopedia Libre and taking a large chunk of the
> userbase with it. A truly pointless fork, because it's got pretty much the
> same goals.
>
> So the question would be whether it would risk a similar effect.
>

Interesting.  I wasn't familiar with the details of that particular bit
of Wikipedia history.

In that case, I'd say that AdCouncil ads on Wikipedia would be an
EXCEEDINGLY BAD IDEA at this time.

--
Chad


body:
At 10:08 PM 2/13/2005 -0500, Chad Perrin wrote:
>Bryan Derksen wrote:
>
>>Perhaps you could provide a line drawing to substitute for it? Back when
>>I first notice the poll on this thing before it had erupted onto the
>>mailing list, someone suggested that the photograph was unacceptable but
>>that we should find a piece of "artwork" to substitute, and I jokingly
>>suggested running the photograph through Photoshop's brushstroke filter.
>>Maybe an edge filter could turn it into a line drawing and actually be a
>>way to resolve this.
>
>Last I checked, it had already been "resolved" by getting replaced with a
>line-drawing, actually.  We're mostly just arguing the principle at this
>point, I think, though I suppose the original photo might eventually be
>replaced on the page.

Ah, I see. I hadn't gone back to the debate since I cast my votes so I had
assumed nothing much had changed. I think that if the image remains hidden
by the "linkimage" template then there should be no reason _not_ to switch
back to the original photo, or another photo if that one turns out to be a
copyvio; that was one of the two options being voted over last I checked
and linking the image was slightly ahead in the poll. But I'm willing to
trust the process on it at this point and leave the vote to resolve as it may.

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 2/10/2005


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Quenya language

body:
>And the next question:
If you support a Quenya Wikipedia, would you also vote for a Sindarin
one? That might be soon point of discussion too, if the Quenya one will
be granted.

Sindarin? Eww. ;)

At this time, I have no interest in a Sindarin Wikipedia. I don't speak the
language (aside from a few simple phrases). Of Tolkien's many fictional
languages, only Sindarin and Quenya are complete enough to compose Wiki
articles. So Orquin (as the Orcish language is called in "The Lost Road")
isn't viable as a wikipedia language. Only S and Q.

Yet I have no interest in Sindarin, and would like to tackle just the Quenya
language (one project seems enough). I wouldn't *oppose* a Sindarin
Wikipedia, but I couldn't work on it.

Ron :)


body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
> Chad Perrin said:
>
>>Making a universally accessible
>>encycolpedia implies making an encyclopedia that strives to be as close
>> to universally palatable as is practicable, as well, without betraying
>> the needs of encyclopedic quality.
>
>
> Yes.  A balance must be struck.  As I indicated earlier, I'm a programmer
> and will tinker with image suppression if I get the time.
>

Good deal.  I'm glad to hear it (both your agreement and your intent to
work on the matter).  I may even someday get around to familiarizing
myself enough with the Wikipedia code to do stuff like that as well, but
it won't happen in the immediate, forseeable future.

Good luck with that.

--
Chad


from_name: JAY JG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Coolcat and Kurds

body:
>Nicholas Knight said:
> > Coolcat is running roughshod over Kurd-related articles (notably
> > [[Kurdistan]] and [[Kurds]]) apparently unopposed.
> >
> > I'm not about to start fighting with him, but someone else might want
> > to.
>
>I had a look and I agree that these edits should be queried.  His edits
>did seem to be quite extensive and not too well thought out.  Mostly
>opinion, not much fact. Some apparent facts removed without discussion.
>Poor grammar and spelling, too.  I reverted the edits on both articles
>after posting an explanatory message on each talk page inviting him to
>justify the edits.  I'll also leave a message on his user talk page.

Oh, it's more than just "not too well thought out".  It's quite obviously a
pro-Turkish anti-Kurdish POVing.  He's done the same on "Turkey" and
"Kurdistan Workers Party", which I've more or less reverted.  It will be
interesting to see how your policy of "talk nicely and don't revert" works
with him.

Jay.


from_name: Mark Williamson

body:
So, you think it's good that the majority of the board members were
not voted in but rather chosen silently by Jimbo? I said "more
complete democracy", not "completely direct democracy".

Mark

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 19:47:59 -0500, Chad Perrin <perrin at apotheon.com> wrote:
> Mark Williamson wrote:
> > Of course.
> >
> > But a more complete democracy would've been better.
> >
>
> This touches, somewhat, on political philosophy, both in theory and in
> practice.  As such, and because I pay probably more attention to
> political philosophy than many people would consider healthy, I have a
> fair number of strong opinions on such matters as this.
>
> In this particular case, I have to say that I disagree that "a more
> complete democracy" would necessarily be "better".  In my opinion,
> democracy should be used to allow consensus to have influence in
> administrative matters, and not to allow consensus to CONTROL
> administrative matters.  If "democracy" were "complete" in the running
> of Wikipedia, it may well end up being voted out of "wiki" status and
> become a hierarchically managed academic project.
>
> That sort of risk of rampant popular whim having direct control over
> something is precisely the reason the early US government ratified the
> Constitution, and particularly the Bill of Rights.  There is a set of
> rules for the organization of the effort that are largely inaccessible
> to the public, democratic will, precisely to protect the ideals of the
> organization from the whims of its constituency.  While Wikipedia isn't
> a government, it too needs (in my opinion, at least) a separation
> between the democratically expressed will of its "public" and the Big
> Decisions, though probably with a strong set of rules in place to limit
> the liberties that can be taken within the range of whatever mechanism
> is implemented to maintain that separation.
>
> Pure democracy can be viewed in as unflattering a light as pure
> authoritarianism.  If the most important part of the endeavor is its
> ideals, we should aim to support those ideals over any superficial
> methodologies of implementation.
>
> --
> Chad
>
> (PS:  prior statements quoted below for context)
>
> >>Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>What worries me is that the final say rests with a small-but-trusted
> >>>group of individuals, not with the community. This is the trouble of
> >>>our switch from a complete democracy to a not-so-representative
> >>>democracy (only two of the board members were elected) - we have to
> >>>trust that these people will be gentle with our future.
> >>
> >>I think you're idealizing the 'primeval' state of Wikipedia. Wikipedia, as
> >>a web site (with its attendant collection of computers, DNS registrations,
> >>and other unique features) was never owned or operated by some sort of
> >>collective you could describe as a 'complete democracy'. It was run by
> >>Jimbo Wales, and he had the final say in everything- he was just nice
> >>enough to defer to the community in most matters. If Google had proposed a
> >>deal with Wikipedia before the WMF was founded, then the final say would
> >>rest with him just as much as it currently rests with the Board of
> >>Trustees of the Wikimedia foundation.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


body:
Nicholas Knight:

I don't see anything wrong with "an encyclopedia" having such a blanket
policy, either.  On the other hand, I do have a problem with the idea
that my favorite encyclopedia might suddenly become less informative due
to strict implementation of a policy enforcing cultural taboos that
interfere with the ability to provide useful, factual, relevant
information.  As such, I don't think I can in good conscience support
such a policy for Wikipedia.  One of the problems with "blanket"
policies like that is that they tend to cover good things as well as bad.

If it's pertinent and not gratuitous, I don't tend to have a problem
with it.  In cases where a substantial demographic does, it might be
reasonable to move it off-page without removing it entirely, if some
simpler visitor-controlled mechanism for "censoring" the visible content
is not available.

Don't fool yourself, though -- claiming that something is "indecent"
just because it's graphic is a matter of personal perspective, not of
absolutist principles.

--
Chad

(PS:  I'm breaking with my usual standard of bottom-posting for clarity,
here.  The reason is simply that I don't want to cut out context, but
also don't want to force anyone to scroll a page and a half down to find
my response.  My apologies for top-posting.)

Nicholas Knight wrote:
> Chad Perrin wrote:
>
>> Nicholas Knight wrote:
>>
>>> Tony Sidaway wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nicholas Knight said:
>>>>
>>>>> Tony Sidaway wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree that, at most, it's a nice-to-have.  But really the users
>>>>>> should be taking this issue up with the designers of their browsers,
>>>>>> not the producers of content.  http is not a push medium.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And yet I don't think it's unreasonable to expect to be able to browse
>>>>> an encyclopedia with images on and not run across disgusting crap that
>>>>> adds no value to the article whatsoever.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You should never encounter disgusting crap that adds no value to an
>>>> article.  If you find any, remove it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *points at [[Autofellatio]]*
>>
>>
>>
>> Now we've returned to the very subjective realm of trying to define
>> "disgusting crap".  I don't know whether the image in question added
>> value to the article.  I am largely neutral on the subject.  I am,
>> however, extremely concerned with matters such as how we deal with the
>> problem of potentially "disgusting crap" images because whatever
>> mechanisms are put in place will also run the risk of getting false
>> positives.
>>
>> Some people clearly believe your pointing constitutes a false
>> positive.  Others do not.  A reasonable mechanism (whether technical
>> or a matter of policy) for sorting the issue out would be desirable,
>> here.
>
>
> I see nothing wrong with an encyclopedia having a blanket policy that
> sexually explicit photographs not be displayed in articles. You can
> argue relativism, subjectiveness, and "censorship" all you want, we both
> know it's crap. We're here to provide an educational resource. Inlined
> explicit photographs of sex acts as a whole do little to educate that a
> line drawing wouldn't do, and only turn people off to Wikipedia as an
> educational resource. Crap like the autofellatio image is even worse.


from_name: Paweł 'Ausir' Dembowski

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Portal namespace

body:
Could a new namespace in Wikipedia be created for thematic portals
(e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiportal )? IMHO they
don't really belong in the Wikipedia namespace (like in en: and fr:)
nor to the main one (like in de: or pl:).

--
Ausir
mailto:fallout at lexx.eu.org
http://fallout.scifi.pl
ICQ 41090834 GG 2730728


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: IFAP

body:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 23:31:34 +0100, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hello
>
> Just in case some people wonder where this comes from...
> We had a grant meeting today on irc (as announced a couple of days ago
> on this list).  It lasted nearly three hours, and was extremely fruitful.

Speaking of meetings, will there be another meeting to discuss NEH
grants and searching for further applicable grants?

> Meanwhile, any feedback is welcome on meta.

Where on meta should people give general feedback on Grants?
Is there a place to suggest new grants, or to suggest project proposals
for which we should find a suitable grant?

Cheers,
     +sj+


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: IFAP


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Quenya language

body:
>>There is IMHO not enough official Quenya vocabulary to create an
encyclopedia. A Wiktionary would be OK, but a Wikipedia would have to
use a lot of words made up by the fans - it's a bad idea for me.

Prior to 1998, Ausir, you'd be right. Up until that year, only around 1,000
Quenya words were known. These were published in Nancy Martsch's "Basic
Quenya" book. However, with the publication of the Qenya Lexicon in 1998,
thousands of additional entries (4,109) were added. These entries are, I
assure you, quite official, and fully authorized by the Tolkien estate. But
if you are basing your opinion on the old situation, I hope you will
consider a visit to some Tolkien language sites. Yes, of course, there are
still a few gaps in the vocabulary. There are not, however, many words made
up by fans in any of the translations I have seen, such as the Bible
translations I linked to yesterday, or in other translations.

A 900-word vocabulary was deemed sufficient enough in the early 1980's for
Quenya language lessons to be published, and the amount of published Quenya
and Sindarin vocabulary has now reached roughly 12,000 words (source:
http://www.uib.no/People/hnohf/vice.htm ). Roughly half of this vocabulary
is Quenya; most of the rest is Sindarin. That's certainly more than enough
to not have to rely on fan-coined words.

Anyway, take care.

Ron (Firsfron on Wikipedia) :)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Quenya Language response

body:
Mark Williamson napisa?u:

>> I decided to wait a few days before responding to any of the threads. I've
>> read all your comments, and would like to briefly respond.
>>
>> 1. I am not opposed to Quenya articles in Wikibooks, but how does one even
>> go about *that*?

> I'm not sure it would be allowed on the English Wikibooks.

>> 2. The Tengwar do not need to be used: Tengwar and Quenya are independent of
>> one another-- Tengwar is simply the type of script, and is not part of the
>> language itself. So any objections to Quenya based on problems associated
>> with Tengwar are easily solved by using the Roman alphabet, as many Quenya
>> speakers already do.

> I don't believe there were any actual objections on the basis of the Tengwar.

>> 3. There seem to be two (very opposite!) objections to Quenya: one that it
>> would "never grow large", and the other that it would "take up too much
>> valuable resource space". These two points of view seem quite contrary to
>> me. Either it would take up too much space, or it wouldn't ever take up
>> "enough" space. I don't see Quenya language on wikipedia growing huge.
>> However, I think there is always too much focus on Wikipedia for largesse
>> "We're currently working on 455,000 articles!". An encyclopedia doesn't have
>> to have a million articles to *be* an encyclopedia!

There is IMHO not enough official Quenya vocabulary to create an
encyclopedia. A Wiktionary would be OK, but a Wikipedia would have to
use a lot of words made up by the fans - it's a bad idea for me.

--
Ausir
Wikipedia, wolna encyklopedia
http://pl.wikipedia.org


from_name: Arkady Rose

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Writing about sexual topics responsibly is not
	censorship

body:
Robert wrote:
> In any case, our encyclopedia is useless if people refuse
> to read it...and thousands of schools will ban its use if
> it continues to offer pornographic images (and eventually,
> videos.)  What good is our work if few people can access
> it?  Even if it is not officially banned by entire schools,
> many teachers will tell their students that Wikipedia is
> not reliable or professional if we continue this course of
> extreme sexual explicitness.

Jimbo himself has said that one of his dreams is to have a copy of
Wikipedia on the desk of every schoolchild in Africa. That won't
happen whilst Wikipedia is being used as a repository for images
which those schoolchildrens' teachers will view as pornographic. It
is perfectly possible to present matter-of-fact information about
such articles by the use of description and, if need be, a simple
line drawing.

I'm sure there must be enough talented artists contributing to WP
who would be more than capable of producing such an image (if indeed
one is *really* needed, which in the case of [[Autofellatio]] I
would disagree) specifically for WP.

Personally I think people ought to be bearing in mind that WP is
*not* a sex manual and as such, perhaps it out to be rethought as to
exactly how explicit such articles should be in the first place.

regards,
Arkady


from_name: Rick

body:
In a similar vein:

We spent a great deal of time dealing with a User who was insistant on creating a vanity article at Shawn Mikula, pumping up his notability and recreating the article despite several attempts by admins and a VfD process to delete.  It was finally recreated as an empty article and protected, so it could not be created again.

Another User then asked for it to be undeleted on the Votes for Undeletion page, and the votes were clearly in favor of Keep Deleted.

So, the second User has now recreated the article in his User space.

I am aware that we pretty well let Users do whatever they want to do in their User space, but this seems like a violation of consensus and Wikiquette.  Am I wrong?

RickK

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'


body:
I am stunned by this logic.

How is this any different from an admin protecting a page so that nobody else can edit it?

RickK

Charles Podles <charles.podles at gmail.com> wrote:
Last, I'm not sure unprotecting a page in order to edit it even
qualifies as an abuse of admin powers---articles are meant to be
edited, and unprotecting a page opens it to editing by all.

--Charles P. ([[en:User:Mirv]])

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: RK welcome

body:
The Block log showing his attempts at re-editing every day is my facts.  It does not show people who just view articles.

RickK

Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
I have no idea whether the block log mentions or not attempts to editing or.

And I frankly do not think it matters.

The infringment would be to actually edit. No edits were made under his
user name.

If he actually edited under another user name under another ip range,
nobody noticed, which means the contributions were all good :-)

If some attempts were made to edit, it does not mean these were RKs. If
they were RKs, all that mean is that he was suffering from
wikipediholism :-)

But I do not believe RK is stupid. Him trying to edit every day just in
case for some reasons the software be bugged and let him go through
seems to me to be an unreasonable assertion.

I would add Rick, that you did not provided any facts.

So, sorry, your disagreement does not seem to hold much sense.

As I said, since RK had finished his ban time, I really really hope that
he will have the opportunity to edit in peace, so I expect good will
and constructive attitude of *all*.

Anthere

Rick a ?crit:
> I disagree with this action.
>
> RK continued to attempt to edit during his ban,
as is evident by a practically daily entry into the block log showing
that he had done so. He did not serve his ban appropriately,
and the ban should have been reinstated from the date he last attempted
to edit.
>
> RickK, who had no opinion on either side of RK's banning

> Anthere wrote:
> I received a mail from RK today, telling me his ban
> was over, but he was still banned.
>
> The ac decision was made on the 14th, but he was
> apparently notified on the 15th (after being blocked I
> fear), so it seems to me that he should be unblocked
> today;
>
> Accordingly, I unblocked him. I however asked him to
> edit his personal space today, in case some people are
> nosy enough to say it is the 14th rather than 13th.
>
> RK served his time very well. He did not try to cheat
> at all. He apparently went on reading what was going
> on, since we could see him write to this mailing list,
> in a very reasonable tone, from time to time.
>
> I hope that everyone will take heart to welcome him
> back and hope that we can all work together in good
> faith and peace.
>
> Anthere
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
> http://my.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.


body:
Chad Perrin said:
> Daniel Mayer wrote:
>> --- Tony Sidaway <minorityreport at bluebottle.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Wikipedia material is GFDL. Wikimedia Foundation can and should employ
>>>whatever fundraising methods it thinks are optimal.  Anybody who
>>>doesn't like the methods still gets to use the product on their own
>>>fork.  Free as in speech.
>>
>
> What if those ads contain bias toward strict intellectual property
> rights to the exclusion of such efforts as those behind the GFDL?

They're ads.  By definition they don't reflect the views and opinions of
Wikimedia Foundation.  This should be taken into account during
negotiation, but if the content isn't affected I don't think it's any
concern of mine, particularly since I always block all ads.


from_name: Christiaan Briggs

body:
Delirium wrote:

> To quote the OED's first definition:
> 1. a. Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence
> or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder.
>  b. A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person
> or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without
> implication of disorder).

Well apart from it not simply being a theoretical social state (it has
existed to some degree throughout human history), the use of the word
to describe anything other than a lack of authority is usually not a
good use of the word as there are usually more precise words to use.

The problem with these multiple meanings that have been attached to the
word anarchy is that they usually contradict each other. 1b, for
instance, clearly contradicts 1a above. One purports disorder while the
other implies the opposite.

It's not surprising that the etymology of anarchy is controversial. A
lot of powerful people have much to lose were anarchy to be adopted on
mass. It works in their favour for the word anarchy to be a pejorative
term.

> You seem to be talking of 1.b., but "anarchy" can also refer to simple
> lawlessness, as in Somalia, or chaotic celebrations following a sports
> victory.

Somalia might be better described as anomy and chaotic celebrations
following a sports victory might be better described as, well, chaotic.

Christiaan


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

sorry, I didn't know that was the situation for people there, in that
case I think we need to come up with a better alternative solution,
what, I don't know yet

Walter van Kalken wrote:
| kylelutze wrote:
|
|> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
|> Hash: SHA1
|>
|>
|> well, here's my question then, if you don't want to block proxies, then
|> what is your suggestion to take care of the massive ammount of spam?
|> wikipedia isn't ment to be an opinion based site for people to express
|> their views, it's meant to be an encyclopedia, stating only the facts,
|> so why would people need to be anonymous when editing or adding new
|> articles, unless trolling?
|>
|> On another point, for blocking proxies, it may be nice to somehow take
|> advantage of the abusive host blocking list (ahbl.org, hosted by
|> sosdg.org). I believe that's the one for blocking proxies, etc. or there
|> may be another one on that site. I personally believe that proxies
|> shouldn't be used for going to wikipedia as you can hide your IP by
|> creating an account.
|>
|> Kyle
|>
| Well if you propose blocking these you propose blocking ME and a couple
| of hundred thousand Thai's who are with True / Asia internet as the
| provider forces us to use open proxies. I am one of the most active
| editors on nl.wikipedia. So they will be glad to hear you think that.
| For your info I cannot change internet ISP. I wonder how many other
| people this is the case for!
|
| Walter van Kalken (Waerth)
| _______________________________________________
| foundation-l mailing list
| foundation-l at wikimedia.org
| http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCED3rqTDXh8jUGRYRAte1AJ0VgHa6voX2AipdmEznPD6JG2w/lgCeK68W
Oevt6XMIkF4lIkYcVY3bPtk=
=E2BX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


body:
Skyring said:
> If you want
> Autofellatio, you have to find it for yourself. You can't honestly
> expect to be offended by something you have gone out of your way to
> find.

At this point somebody can be relied upon to object to this statement on
the grounds that pressing the random article button may deliver and
article that X or Y user thinks outrages public decency.


subject: [WikiEN-l] [[Talk:Autofellatio]] - Poll

body:
Puddl Duk wrote:

> Christiaan Briggs <christiaan at last-straw.net> wrote:
>> What I would find most interesting in such debates would be
>> statistics allowing us to analyse any systemic bias. Unfortunately we
>> don't have the data to carry out such analysis.
>
> I would be interested in these statistics too. I'll bet the supporters
> of these images have a systemic bias along the lines of; male,
> adolescent or college age, no children.

Who knows, we don't have the data.

> Christiaan, you have been slapping lables on people who don't vote
> your way with the zeal and relish of a [[Fire and brimstone]]
> fundamentalist; "...the prude crusaders", "...puritan cultural POV.."
> (see the vote pages). I don't appreciate being labled as such.

Well that's my point of view. You're welcome to argue to the contrary.

> Nobody likes censorship. But we always need editorial judgement.  If
> we don't keep our own house, we risk far greater censorship by others
> (schools, work places, etc).

I would rather see a technical solution to this.

Christiaan