subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
On 7/22/06, Michael Hopcroft <michael at mphpress.com> wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
> > This is somewhat confusing to me, because it seems so obvious to me
> > that watching a TV show and then writing about it is original
> > research.  Anyway, here's what I found about what is a primary source:
> >
> >
> Yet defining it as such creates innumerable practical problems when
> doing articles on television and film.
>
Well, after reading the argument about Shakespeare's works over again,
I have to say that I'm probably wrong that this falls explicitly under
the WP:NOR policy.

Of course, I still think it's a bad idea, to use a fictional work as a
source for itself.

> There is also a logical contraction: you seem to be asking people to
> write articles on movies and TV shows they HAVE NOT SEEN, which of
> course is as much a total absurdity as asking a literary scholar to
> write a thesis on novels and plays he has never himself read, based
> solely on previously-existing external scholarship. The idea is
> unrealistic nearly to the point of psychotic detachment.

Well, you're not exactly getting what I was saying accurate.  I don't
think people should only write articles on movies and TV shows they
haven't seen.  I think it's fine if they do so, but they don't have
to.

I think you're missing an important point too.  Most Wikipedians
aren't literary scholars, and Wikipedia articles aren't thesis papers.
 Furthermore, Wikipedia isn't set up to easily distinguish between
literary scholars and crackpots.  Wikipedia is written by and large by
non-experts, and that's the context you have to put the rules about
original research into.

But again, I capitulate that the "no original research" rule probably
doesn't explicitly bar this type of statement.

Anthony


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

subject: [WikiEN-l] insist on sources

body:
On 7/20/06, Michael Snow <wikipedia at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Garion96 wrote:
>
> > A counter example. I recently requested a source on the fact that a
> > person
> > (living person) is blind. (Not Stevie Wonder). But it was deemed so
> > obvious
> > that it was ixnayed. Correct or wrong? My sentiment is that even if it
> > is so
> > obvious, why not source it anyway.
>
> The fact that the person is blind may be common knowledge, but it's
> inadequate information. A proper treatment would need to address whether
> they were born blind, or how they became blind. That kind of detail
> needs a source, and it follows that it also serves as a source for the
> more general fact.
>
> If all you've got is obvious information that doesn't require a source,
> then you haven't got an encyclopedia article.
>
> --Michael Snow

Almost the whole article is unsourced. But I think I will leave it alone for
now. A couple of editors are having too much unsourced and NOR fun. I will
look it up in a month or so when they are finished and try to clean it up.
And who knows, they might have done a good job by then.

Garion


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
Oldak Quill wrote:

>On 20/07/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
>
>>Not all articles use something as a source for itself (e.g., using an
>>episode of Friends as a source on what happened in an episode of
>>Friends).
>>
>>
>We never copy an account word-for-word. Even published synopses have
>to be summarised by our editors. I cannot see the fundamental
>difference between summarising an episode and summarising a summary of
>an episode. This must be original research by your standard too?
>
It's important to remember that the original purpose of the no original
research rule was to thwart screwball scientific theories.  These
episodes are fictitious to start with so summarizing them directly or
from another summary shouldn't matter.  It's a misapplication of the
idea of no original research.  If something in the only available
summary is dead wrong are you still going to accept the validity of the
summary over the real episode?

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:

>On 7/21/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
>
>>Not all articles use something as a source for itself (e.g., using an
>>episode of Friends as a source on what happened in an episode of
>>Friends).
>>
>>
>An article about an episode that cites nothing but the episode itself
>is a poor article. It amounts to an article about the Mona Lisa simply
>putting a high resolution copy of the image and saying "you can see
>for yourself".
>
Sometimes that's the only valid thing you can say.  Whether it's a poor
article depends on the writing style, and what you want to accomplish.

>In order not to violate NOR, we could say very little
>about the episode. We couldn't say if it was good or bad. We couldn't
>say what fans thought about it. We couldn't say if the jokes were
>funny. We couldn't say it was the first time Rachael kissed Ross.
>
Some of these would be contrary to NPOV anyway. :-)   Apart from that
some of this information could always be added later.

>We could say "The episode lasted 23 minutes". We could offer a plot
>summary. We could describe some of the gags. How boring.
>
Yeah!  Facts can be boring.

Ec


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
On 7/22/06, Michael Hopcroft <michael at mphpress.com> wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
> > On 7/21/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 7/21/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Anthony wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> As I explained in my other post, my comments were much more
> >>>> restrictive than that.  If you have to resort to original research in
> >>>> order to create a plot synopsis, *that* is what I have a problem with.
> >>>>
> >>> The only way I can see needing original research to come up with a plot
> >>> synopsis would be to go on set and observe the filming of the show, or
> >>> maybe personally interview the scriptwriter or something. Once the
> >>> show's been broadcast or put on DVD it's a published primary source.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> It's a primary source on what?  Not on itself.
> >>
> >>
> >>> I think we're at the point where we're just repeating ourselves at each
> >>> other, but I'm about to leave on vacation so someone else will have to
> >>> take over repeating for me here. :)
> >>>
> > This is somewhat confusing to me, because it seems so obvious to me
> > that watching a TV show and then writing about it is original
> > research.  Anyway, here's what I found about what is a primary source:
> >
> >
> Yet defining it as such creates innumerable practical problems when
> doing articles on television and film.
>
> There is also a logical contraction: you seem to be asking people to
> write articles on movies and TV shows they HAVE NOT SEEN, which of
> course is as much a total absurdity as asking a literary scholar to
> write a thesis on novels and plays he has never himself read, based
> solely on previously-existing external scholarship. The idea is
> unrealistic nearly to the point of psychotic detachment.

Really? It would be quite posible for me to write articles on canals
I've never seen nor ever will see (since they are now under a city or
the like).

--
geni


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Tech help: Video format conversion

body:
On 7/22/06, Nathan <lists at home.nathanr.com> wrote:
> I'm getting rather sick of the argument, myself.

Then why did you said you'd convert it then fail to do so?!?!

I'm not arguing, I'm telling you what format it must be in in order to
upload the files to Wikipedia.

I'd offered to convert it myself, but doing so would require
non-trivial effort on the shockwave side from me... since you said you
had tools to do it, I figured I'd let you do it.   When it sounded
like you might not know how to convert an AVI that your tools produced
to Ogg/Theora I offered to do that for you.

I don't see what the problem is... Are you going to convert the file
to at least AVI?   Or should I figure out how to do it?


from_name: Matt Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
On 7/22/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:

> Of course, as far as I'm concerned I wouldn't be terribly sad if all
> the articles about non-free fictional works moved to Fictionpedia.
> Especially the plot summaries, which are really non-free derivative
> works in themselves, though they generally fall under fair use of
> course.

Plots are generally not copyrightable, although character names may be.

-Matt


subject: [WikiEN-l] So you think you can be a Wikipedia article

body:
Well, notability is not policy, merely a (very argued-about) guideline
that not everybody believes in anyway.

With that out of the way, I can't see any reason why the short amount
of verifiable information about these contestants can't be inside the
article for this season's So You Think You Can Dance, or inside [[So
You Think You Can Dance 2006 contestants]], with redirects (or
disambiguations) from the individual's names to sections within it.  I
think that these people are not sufficiently interesting outside the
context of the competition, and that having seperate articles for them
merely encourages unsourced, unverifiable cruft.

-Matt


from_name: Michael Hopcroft

subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
geni wrote:
> On 7/23/06, Matt Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/22/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Of course, as far as I'm concerned I wouldn't be terribly sad if all
>>> the articles about non-free fictional works moved to Fictionpedia.
>>> Especially the plot summaries, which are really non-free derivative
>>> works in themselves, though they generally fall under fair use of
>>> course.
>>>
>> Plots are generally not copyrightable, although character names may be.
>>
>>
>
> Could you patent them?
>
>
You can TRADEMARK them, which is nearly the same thing, and almost
everyone does if they can afford the fees.

Sometimes this can cause confusion. Superman the comic book character is
a trademark, superman the philosophical term is not. James Bond 007 is a
trademark, but James Bond the famous ornithologist after whom Ian
Fleming named him is not.

What's really confusing is that it is almost impossible to come up with
a name for a fictional character in the normal sense that is not being
used by some real person somewhere in the world.   Spock is a fictional
alien, but Dr. Benjamin Spock is a pioneering writer on pediatrics and
childrearing. There are probably hundreds of people named Malcolm
Reynolds living in the English-speaking world right now who are, of
course, totally unconnected to the protagonist of the television series
Firefly.

And there is actually a wikipedia article on Michael Hopcroft -- the
English physicist, not myself (a Portland, Oregon based Sf and RPG writer).


from_name: Nathan

body:
Alright, let's clear a few things up, as there appears to be some sort of
miscommunication:

* Yes, I have the tools to convert Shockwave files into other formats. -At
the time-, I did not have tools to convert anything into OGG/Theora. I do now.
* No, I do not have the tools to edit Shockwave files and remove certain
things that he'd like removed.
* I'm not here to argue this with you.
* I asked him for the list again and I will attempt it. I don't appreciate
the argumentative tone. Let's please keep arguments off the list; I have
no personal problems with you, please don't make one with me as it will
be ignored. I didn't subscribe to this list to argue with people. Please
assume good faith. Kindly do not argue with me.

- Nathan

On Sat, 22 Jul 2006, Gregory Maxwell wrote:

> On 7/22/06, Nathan <lists at home.nathanr.com> wrote:
> > I'm getting rather sick of the argument, myself.
>
> Then why did you said you'd convert it then fail to do so?!?!
>
> I'm not arguing, I'm telling you what format it must be in in order to
> upload the files to Wikipedia.
>
> I'd offered to convert it myself, but doing so would require
> non-trivial effort on the shockwave side from me... since you said you
> had tools to do it, I figured I'd let you do it.   When it sounded
> like you might not know how to convert an AVI that your tools produced
> to Ogg/Theora I offered to do that for you.
>
> I don't see what the problem is... Are you going to convert the file
> to at least AVI?   Or should I figure out how to do it?
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Daniel R. Tobias

subject: [WikiEN-l] Quackpotwatch AfD

body:
On 21 Jul 2006 at 17:58, Mark Gallagher wrote:

> Funnily enough, there's a case on RfD of the inverse of that --- an
> article was AfDed, and someone came along later and created a redirect
> where the article used to be.  The redirect is now up before the full
> panel of RfD, facing charges of ignoring consensus with malice
> aforethought.  One hopes it'll receive a fair trial, but early reports
> indicate that General Melchitt has already been approached to write the
> majority opinion.

Unfortunately, there are a number of different possible logical
interpretations of what an AfD deletion outcome means, and no
shortage of anal-retentive wiki{judge|lawyer|executioner}s determined
to enforce any and all of them in the most draconian possible way.

The two main conflicting interpretations are:

1) That a particular bunch of text should be deleted from Wikipedia
and not allowed to resurface anywhere in the site;

2) That a particular article title should be removed, and not allowed
to have any article at that title for any reason or with any content;

People voting to delete might actually mean either or both or neither
of these, but once the outcome is in favor of deletion there are
those who insist that neither the text nor the title of the article
ever be allowed to come back in any context.  Thus, when an article
on a traffic circle in New Jersey was deleted as unworthy of an
article in its own right, some admins took it onto themselves to
remove any text mentioning it in other articles such as the one on
the township it was in, on the basis of "enforcing the AfD outcome."
And, when an article on an unreleased independent film was deleted,
admins made a stand for a while not only against recreation of the
article on the film a few months later when it had been released and
won a film-festival award, but even against creation of an article on
an urelated album that happened to have the same name.

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


list: foundation-l

from_name: Marie Flynn

subject: [Foundation-l] Finding ways to rasie funds

body: I am sending my e-mail as suggested


list: wikimedia-l

body: I am sending my e-mail as suggested


body:
On 7/22/06, Nathan <lists at home.nathanr.com> wrote:
> Alright, let's clear a few things up, as there appears to be some sort of
> miscommunication:
>
> * Yes, I have the tools to convert Shockwave files into other formats. -At
> the time-, I did not have tools to convert anything into OGG/Theora. I do now.
> * No, I do not have the tools to edit Shockwave files and remove certain
> things that he'd like removed.
> * I'm not here to argue this with you.
> * I asked him for the list again and I will attempt it. I don't appreciate
> the argumentative tone. Let's please keep arguments off the list; I have
> no personal problems with you, please don't make one with me as it will
> be ignored. I didn't subscribe to this list to argue with people. Please
> assume good faith. Kindly do not argue with me.

I'm completely confused by you.  I have no idea why you think that
there is any sort of argument going on.  I've just been answering
questions and I see you jumping up and down about an argument .. and
I'm just totally baffled.

If you need any help with Theora encoding, just let me know.


from_name: stevertigo

body:
--- Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 7/22/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.com> wrote:
> > All of this is very interesting (and believe it or not, I'm not being
> > sarcastic).  However, can anyone actually help convert these SWFs?  I've
> > installed ffmpeg2theora, but that seems to only change the question to
> > "how do I convert a SWF to MPEG2?"
>
> You can use xvidcap to record the running SWF under linux. The convert
> the result to Theora.  ... I dont think the image quality of these
> SWF's are great to begin with, but the result seems okay:
>
> http://myrandomnode.dyndns.org/pics/video_test.ogg

AIUI, there is no such thing as an SWF video format, and the SWF is just a container to
allow portability and some play control buttons. Use some kind of SWF decompiler, and
the video inside will be in something easy enough to convert.

SV

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


body:
--- Peter Ansell <ansell.peter at gmail.com> wrote:
> Why don't more people focus on the core policies like verfiability
> more when they attempt to address so called "notability" issues? :)

Because Wikipedia has no leadership. It has 1000 sysops who are just "janitors"
according to the dominant view, no editorial core, and a founder who has had
argued enough with trolls and has gone wandering off into the land of politics.

SV

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


body:
On 7/22/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm completely confused by you.  I have no idea why you think that
> there is any sort of argument going on.  I've just been answering
> questions and I see you jumping up and down about an argument .. and
> I'm just totally baffled.
>
> If you need any help with Theora encoding, just let me know.

Okay I just got an offlist message pointing out that Nathan is some
kind of insane troll with links to his screeds elsewhere, I had no
clue... I was unaware of Nathan, and was assuming good sanity.   I
feel much better knowing now.

In the future, if anyone on the list sees me walking in circles due to
a similar lack of knowledge, an offlist ping would be greatly
appreciated.  There are just too many people involved in Wikimedia for
me to keep track of who is sane and who isn't, and I'd rather spend my
time trying to help people who are sane.


body:
I'm not "jumping up and down" about anything.

You ended a statement with "?!?!?!". Your tone was off, and it was
bordering on incivil. How am I supposed to react to that, hmm?

I read the e-mail as not assuming good faith and it looked like (from your
perspective and the way you worded it) that I wasn't really offering my
help and was just waffling on about doing something I had no intentions of
doing which is totally not the case.

- Nathan

On Sat, 22 Jul 2006, Gregory Maxwell wrote:

> On 7/22/06, Nathan <lists at home.nathanr.com> wrote:
> > Alright, let's clear a few things up, as there appears to be some sort of
> > miscommunication:
> >
> > * Yes, I have the tools to convert Shockwave files into other formats. -At
> > the time-, I did not have tools to convert anything into OGG/Theora. I do now.
> > * No, I do not have the tools to edit Shockwave files and remove certain
> > things that he'd like removed.
> > * I'm not here to argue this with you.
> > * I asked him for the list again and I will attempt it. I don't appreciate
> > the argumentative tone. Let's please keep arguments off the list; I have
> > no personal problems with you, please don't make one with me as it will
> > be ignored. I didn't subscribe to this list to argue with people. Please
> > assume good faith. Kindly do not argue with me.
>
> I'm completely confused by you.  I have no idea why you think that
> there is any sort of argument going on.  I've just been answering
> questions and I see you jumping up and down about an argument .. and
> I'm just totally baffled.
>
> If you need any help with Theora encoding, just let me know.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: daniwo59 at aol.com

body:
I just came across [[Category:So You Think You Can Dance contestants]].  This
has gone beyond ridiculous. Are we so hard pressed for article? Are we  going
to have a category for contestants on the Price is Right or Jeopardy too?
How about a nice table for people who were on Let's Make a Deal, which lists
whether they chose door number one, two or three, and what costume they  wore in
the audience.

Do we have any chance whatsoever of finding out what happens to any of  these
people? Will we know five years from now if they are even alive? Can any  of
these articles ever hope to become a featured article, if the sole  criterion
for inclusion is appearing (not even winning) a realilty show.  This isnt Dr
Joyce Brothers we are talking about (American TV personality who  began her
career winning the $64,000 Dollar Pyramid game show)--and I challenge  anyone to
tell me who she played against on the show. Even she is only included  because
of the role she played later as a TV shrink.

With 1.25 million articles, our criteria for inclusion must be a tad more
stringent, before we end up tossing Notability out the window.

Danny


from_name: Anthony

subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
On 7/22/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Steve Bennett wrote:
> >In order not to violate NOR, we could say very little
> >about the episode. We couldn't say if it was good or bad. We couldn't
> >say what fans thought about it. We couldn't say if the jokes were
> >funny. We couldn't say it was the first time Rachael kissed Ross.
> >
> Some of these would be contrary to NPOV anyway. :-)   Apart from that
> some of this information could always be added later.
>
Whether it was good or bad violates NPOV.  What the fans think about
it would be fine, if there was a published story which said what fans
thought about it.  Obviously if not it would either be non-verifiable
or violate NOR, right?  Whether or not the jokes were funny violates
NPOV.  Whether or not it was the first time Rachael [sp?] kissed Ross
would be the part that I personally still don't think should be in
there without a source other than the episodes themselves.  But that
would require using every single episode previously run as a "source".
 Personally I'd say to find a reliable source which states that that
was the first time they kissed, or else the world has to do without
that useless bit of information.

Of course, as far as I'm concerned I wouldn't be terribly sad if all
the articles about non-free fictional works moved to Fictionpedia.
Especially the plot summaries, which are really non-free derivative
works in themselves, though they generally fall under fair use of
course.

Anthony


subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
Michael Hopcroft wrote:

>Bryan Derksen wrote:
>
>
>>Anthony wrote:
>>
>>
>>>There are a number of reasons to do this.  One is that it helps lessen
>>>the amount of "fancruft".
>>>
>>>
>>First it behooves to demonstrate what's actually wrong with "fancruft"
>>before trying to come up with arbitrary limitations intended to reduce it.
>>
>>For quite a while now I've been using Wikipedia first before IMDB when I want to know whether a movie or TV show is worth watching, a synopsis is rather important in that regard.
>>
>>
>As anyone who's been in a college literature course can tell you, there
>are many important things to ask about any work of art that go well
>beyond what happened in it and who was involved in tis creation. "why is
>this important?" "why do people talk about it, and what about it do they
>discuss?" "what does it mean, both intrinsically and in the context of
>the times and situation in which it was created?" "what reasons do those
>who dislike or dismiss it have for doing so, and how valid are those
>reasons today?" "has the way the work has been percieved changed
>signficantly between the time in which it was created and now?" The same
>can be said in many respects for the creators of a work; "Why was
>Shakespeare?" and "Why does Shakespeare matter?" are even more vital
>questions for a scholar (and encyclopedia writing is an essentially
>scholarly exercise) as "Who was Shakespeare?"
>
I don't dispute that, but in a site such as this the information is
layered.  It will begin with rudimentary information about the person's
vital statistics, his field of importance.  In the case of a writer, his
most important works will be listed.  Ideally, as others become involved
the article will grow to include the kind of documented analysis that
you describe.  Lesser luminaries are less likely to receive that kind of
treatment, but their more limited biographies still have a place in
Wikipedia.

>There are many things that would be readily accepted in an article about
>Macbeth that would dismissed as "fancruft" in an article about The
>Sopranos -- but there is no fundamental difference between the purpose
>of those two articles. None at all. "Why does The Sopranos matter?" is
>just as important a question as "Why does Macbeth matter?", just as "Why
>is The Sopranos the way it is?" is just as important a question as "Why
>did Shakespeare write macbeth the way he did?". Just because a work is
>newer, is less mainstream, or is more poorly regarded in the mainstream
>does not make it any less worthy of this sort of examination. Sometimes
>quite the contrary, at times: if one is writing an article on Plan Nine
>from Outer Space, the low-budget science-fiction film of legendary
>shoddy awfulness, it is important to provide some reason WHY it is worth
>talking about -- as an example of delusional hubris on the part of the
>idiot auteur Ed Wood, or perhaps as an example of the perseverance and
>improvisation that enabled Wood to complete the film in the face of
>innumerable obstacles like the death of his only remotely qualified actor.
>
If an author's significance endures more becomes available with time.
One could dispute the importance of the porter in "Macbeth", but De
Quincey's essay does much to focus on his significance.  Unamuno's "Our
Lord Don Quixote" is reverence at its best.  When dealing with the arts
and literature of our time it would be presumptuous of us to prejudge
the importance of any specific work or artist.  It takes time.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
On 7/22/06, Michael Hopcroft <michael at mphpress.com> wrote:
> geni wrote:
> >> There is also a logical contraction: you seem to be asking people to
> >> write articles on movies and TV shows they HAVE NOT SEEN, which of
> >> course is as much a total absurdity as asking a literary scholar to
> >> write a thesis on novels and plays he has never himself read, based
> >> solely on previously-existing external scholarship. The idea is
> >> unrealistic nearly to the point of psychotic detachment.
> >>
> >
> > Really? It would be quite posible for me to write articles on canals
> > I've never seen nor ever will see (since they are now under a city or
> > the like).
> >
> >
> It may be possible, but in the case of literary criticism what would be
> the point if the works themselves are accessible?
>

That is somewhat different from the original assertion which would
have suggested that [[Q document]] was imposible to write.

> It would, of course, be necessary in the case of LOST works of which
> there are no extant copies. But if the book, or the play, or the film is
> still extant, not to mention easily obtainable,  there is no reason for
> a scholar not to refer to it. And what would he gain from REFUSING to do so?

Since we are not meant to be reporting on the film it self rather
people's responces to it and how they recored it (NPOV) it could
provide useful self disserplin.

>  How can one gain a useful interpretation of a film he has not seen?

You are not meant to.

--
geni


body:
On 7/22/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.com> wrote:
> All of this is very interesting (and believe it or not, I'm not being
> sarcastic).  However, can anyone actually help convert these SWFs?  I've
> installed ffmpeg2theora, but that seems to only change the question to
> "how do I convert a SWF to MPEG2?"

You can use xvidcap to record the running SWF under linux. The convert
the result to Theora.  ... I dont think the image quality of these
SWF's are great to begin with, but the result seems okay:

http://myrandomnode.dyndns.org/pics/video_test.ogg

If you want, and confirm for me that the copyright on these are
kosher, I'll go ahead and convert the rest.

Really I suspect we could just recreate them and get better resutlts
than working with these SWFs, but as long as the copyright is okay ..
It turns out that they are easy enough to convert.


subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
Anthony wrote:

>On 7/21/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>Steve Bennett wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 7/21/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>For quite a while now I've been using Wikipedia first before IMDB when I
>>>>want to know whether a movie or TV show is worth watching, a synopsis is
>>>>rather important in that regard.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>No one, but no one, is claiming that synopsises of TV shows are
>>>fancruft.
>>>
>>>
>>Anthony apparently does. Here's what he wrote in the email this was a
>>response to:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I think summarizing something directly (e.g. using a Friends episode
>>>as a source for facts about itself) is, by its very definition,
>>>original research.  The Friends episode isn't even a primary source in
>>>this case - the Friends episode is the subject, and the summary would
>>>be the primary source.
>>>
>>>There are a number of reasons to do this.  One is that it helps lessen
>>>the amount of "fancruft".
>>>
>>>
>>I was mainly disagreeing with the notion that the episode itself isn't
>>an acceptable source for a description of the episode, but this other
>>notion about the summary being fancruft seems implied as well.
>>
>>
>*Some* synopses of TV shows are what I think Jimbo is referring to
>when he uses the term "fancruft".  *Some* aren't.  One (reasonable, in
>my opinion) way to draw the line is whether or not another respectable
>source has talked about the episode.
>
If we waited for these books to be published we would never be up to
date.  At best a book of the episodes will be published at the end of
the season.  One important question is what does the reader want.  He
may be sitting with a group of friends talking about a favorite TV
programme, and as a result want to settle an argument about some
particular episode.  He's not looking for an academic thesis about the
show; he just wants to check out some basic facts.  He doesn't give a
tinker's dam about where WE got the information from the episode itself
or a book about it.  If he feels that our information is accurate he's
happy.

>This goes for Shakespeare as well as for Sopranos (*).  Both can be
>the subject of perfectly acceptable scholarly research.  But
>Wikipedians shouldn't be the ones doing the research, Wikipedians
>should be making an article which organizes the research done by
>others.
>
>(*) I doubt you'd find a published work of Shakespeare that *hasn't*
>been examined by multiple other sources, though.
>
That's because they've had 400 years to do it.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
Bryan Derksen wrote:

>Anthony wrote:
>
>
>>As I explained in my other post, my comments were much more
>>restrictive than that.  If you have to resort to original research in
>>order to create a plot synopsis, *that* is what I have a problem with.
>>
>>
>The only way I can see needing original research to come up with a plot
>synopsis would be to go on set and observe the filming of the show, or
>maybe personally interview the scriptwriter or something. Once the
>show's been broadcast or put on DVD it's a published primary source.
>
>
That seems to sum it up very well.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
Anthony wrote:

>"The distinction between types of sources can get tricky, because a
>secondary source may also be a primary source. Garry Wills' book about
>Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, for example, can looked at as both a
>secondary and a primary source. The distinction may depend on how you
>are using the source and the nature of your research. If you are
>researching Abraham Lincoln, the book would be a secondary source
>because WIlls is offering his opinions about Lincoln and the
>Gettysburg Address. If your assignment is to write a book review of
>Lincoln at  Gettysburg, the book becomes a primary source, because you
>are commenting, evaluating, and discussing Garry Wills' ideas."
>
Fortunately, Wikipedia did not exist in 1863.  Had you been at
Gettysburg then and writing about it, NOR would have prevented America
from ever hearing about Lincoln's speech. :-)

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
ScottL wrote:

> The problem with fancruft** is one of distraction and dilution. I
>
>think the best way to sum this up is that in almost every case the
>reader has come looking for something else and the fancruft gets in the
>way.  For the enthusiastic fan it is likely that they already knew this
>bit of trivia (or in the case of our Harry Potter articles actively
>disagrees with the crufty bits added by someone else so they need to add
>a crufty counter example).  It is rather like the Monty Python sketch
>that gave unsolicited commercial email its name when it starts to spread
>out into other articles.
>
Monty Python did indeed do a sketch on the matter, but they did not
originate the term, and they built upon a previously known and highly
dispersed product.

>Fancruft if about wishing everyone though the things you like are as
>important as you think they are. In some cases this leads to a desire to
>have an article on every little detail as proof of its importance.  But,
>the results are bad for wikipedia and they are bad for the coverage of
>the show or book.  The rounding up and merging of Harry Potter articles
>that has been going on has had a very significant impact on the quality
>of our HP coverage.
>
>** I am using the term fancruft to mean the inclusion of specific
>details of a fictional universe where they are not necessary or even
>detract from the encyclopedic point being made.  Especially when found
>in articles on unrelated subjects.
>
This may be a better explanation of the concept than many others that I
have read in this thread.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
>
>
>>On 7/19/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
>>I actually cringed when Jimbo used the word fancruft because of this very
>>reason. Him using the word, will give Pokemon/Simpsons/SpongeBob hating
>>editors yet other ammo to claim anything related to them is fancruft. Don't
>>have the word fancruft around.
>>
>>
>Maybe this will help: anyone who starts an argument with "Jimbo said..."
>is guilty of Jimbocruft, which is worse than fancruft. :)
>
>
That's reminiscent of the children's game "Simon says take two giant
steps".  If you simply followed the instruction, "Take two giant steps,"
you would be out of the game.  The only difference is that Simon has
been replaced by Jimbo.  :-)

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
Matt Brown wrote:

>On 7/22/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
>
>>Of course, as far as I'm concerned I wouldn't be terribly sad if all
>>the articles about non-free fictional works moved to Fictionpedia.
>>Especially the plot summaries, which are really non-free derivative
>>works in themselves, though they generally fall under fair use of
>>course.
>>
>>
>Plots are generally not copyrightable, although character names may be.
>
Single words or names aren't copyrightable.  Perhaps Perrault might have
tried with Rumplestilskin, but that was long enough ago that it would
have gone into the public domain by now. :-)

Ec


body:
daniwo59 at aol.com wrote:

>I just came across [[Category:So You Think You Can Dance contestants]].  This
>has gone beyond ridiculous. Are we so hard pressed for article? Are we  going
>to have a category for contestants on the Price is Right or Jeopardy too?
>How about a nice table for people who were on Let's Make a Deal, which lists
>whether they chose door number one, two or three, and what costume they  wore in
>the audience.
>
>Do we have any chance whatsoever of finding out what happens to any of  these
>people? Will we know five years from now if they are even alive? Can any  of
>these articles ever hope to become a featured article, if the sole  criterion
>for inclusion is appearing (not even winning) a realilty show.  This isnt Dr
>Joyce Brothers we are talking about (American TV personality who  began her
>career winning the $64,000 Dollar Pyramid game show)--and I challenge  anyone to
>tell me who she played against on the show. Even she is only included  because
>of the role she played later as a TV shrink.
>
She was on "The $64,000 Question", not the "$64,000 Pyramid"  I remember
watching the shows when she was on.  Her topic was psychology, and she
didn't play against anybody.  Was that intended to be a trick question?

Separate articles for each contestant seems beyond the pale, but lists
of the contestants will thrill the heart of tivia buffs.

Ec


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: filihau at uvea-mo-futuna.com

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Add a new language - faka'uvea (Wallisian)

body:
Hi there,

I want to create a new Wikipedia in Wallisian (faka'uvea) which is not
listed in your list.

Please let me know how to proceed.

Thanks

Filihau


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
On Jul 22, 2006, at 9:25 PM, stevertigo wrote:

> --- Peter Ansell <ansell.peter at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Why don't more people focus on the core policies like verfiability
>> more when they attempt to address so called "notability" issues? :)
>>
>
> Because Wikipedia has no leadership. It has 1000 sysops who are
> just "janitors"
> according to the dominant view, no editorial core, and a founder
> who has had
> argued enough with trolls and has gone wandering off into the land
> of politics.
>
> SV

Step up.

Fred


from_name: Guettarda

body:
On 7/22/06, Matt Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Well, notability is not policy, merely a (very argued-about) guideline
> that not everybody believes in anyway.
>
> With that out of the way, I can't see any reason why the short amount
> of verifiable information about these contestants can't be inside the
> article for this season's So You Think You Can Dance, or inside [[So
> You Think You Can Dance 2006 contestants]], with redirects (or
> disambiguations) from the individual's names to sections within it.  I
> think that these people are not sufficiently interesting outside the
> context of the competition, and that having seperate articles for them
> merely encourages unsourced, unverifiable cruft.
>
> -Matt

Actually there's nothing wrong with this category, assuming that the people
in the category are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles.  It's
probably a useful tool to find articles to {{prod}} or {{afd}} ;)


from_name: Mark Williamson

body:
Hi, do you speak this language?

If so, you may start building the Wikipedia here:
http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Test-wp/wls/

Once you build a certain number of pages, a "real" Wikipedia will be
created for you.

Mark

On 22/07/06, filihau at uvea-mo-futuna.com <filihau at uvea-mo-futuna.com> wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I want to create a new Wikipedia in Wallisian (faka'uvea) which is not
> listed in your list.
>
> Please let me know how to proceed.
>
> Thanks
>
> Filihau
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

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


list: wikitech-l

from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-07-23

body:
An automated run of parserTests.php showed the following failures:

Running test Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)... FAILED!
Running test Link containing double-single-quotes '' (bug 4598)... FAILED!
Running test Template with thumb image (wiht link in description)... FAILED!
Running test message transform: <noinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)... FAILED!
Running test message transform: <onlyinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled... FAILED!
Running test Language converter: output gets cut off unexpectedly (bug 5757)... FAILED!
Running test HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test Parsing optional HTML elements (Bug 6171)... FAILED!
Running test Inline HTML vs wiki block nesting... FAILED!
Running test Mixing markup for italics and bold... FAILED!
Running test 5 quotes, code coverage +1 line... FAILED!
Running test HTML Hex character encoding.... FAILED!
Running test dt/dd/dl test... FAILED!

Passed 409 of 426 tests (96.01%) FAILED!


body:
On 7/22/06, stevertigo <vertigosteve at yahoo.com> wrote:
> AIUI, there is no such thing as an SWF video format, and the SWF is just a container to
> allow portability and some play control buttons. Use some kind of SWF decompiler, and
> the video inside will be in something easy enough to convert.

See the beginning of the thread. Shockwave is, effectively, a
programming environment. Some times it's used as a container for
video,

In this case the 'video' isn't even a video at all.. it's a shockwave
animation.  Nothing 'easy to (directly) convert about it'.  The best
way to convert it to video is to record shockwave executing it... or
recreate it in an animation enviroment that allows video output. :)


subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
On 7/23/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> It's important to remember that the original purpose of the no original
> research rule was to thwart screwball scientific theories.  These
> episodes are fictitious to start with so summarizing them directly or
> from another summary shouldn't matter.  It's a misapplication of the
> idea of no original research.  If something in the only available
> summary is dead wrong are you still going to accept the validity of the
> summary over the real episode?
>
> Ec

If there is only one summery I would dig out WP:V combien it with
WP:NPOV and list it for deletion.

--
geni


subject: [Foundation-l] Help requested on Commons copyright woes

body:
On 7/22/06, Michael Snow <wikipedia at earthlink.net> wrote:
> They have? If so, could you point one out? So far, I know that people
> have pointed to a statutory definition of photographs as artistic works
> in their own right under UK law. But beyond that argument, which doesn't
> seem to clearly settle the matter, I'm not aware of anything that
> addresses the precise issue in Bridgeman v. Corel under UK law. Indeed,
> the famous Bridgeman opinion was only issued after the court originally
> decided the case based on its understanding of UK law (with the same
> result), and was persuaded to reconsider and concluded that US law
> applied, thus more clearly stating how this principle operates for US
> law. Now a US court is certainly not the final word on UK law, but I'd
> like to know more if there really is a conflicting decision out there.

Pinging James F, since he was the one that told me about this during
our meeting in London. My attention to all things UK is lacking.


from_name: Angela

subject: [Wikitech-l] Wikimania moderators

body:
Sorry to those who already read this on wikimania-l, but I'm
especially looking for people who will understand the tech sessions at
Wikimania to act as moderators for those.

If you would like to volunteer, please let me know as soon as possible.

Moderating basically involves introducing the speaker and then making
sure they finish on time, and sometimes handling questions from the
audience at the end when there's time for a Q&A session. You will also
need to find the speaker before the event and make sure they're happy
with the arrangements and know where they're going.

The "Technical infrastructure" sessions that need moderating include:

Session 4 (Saturday)
    * Brion Vibber: Hacking MediaWiki
    * Hacking days review

Session 6 (Saturday)
    * Christoph Sauer: What you see is wiki - Questioning WYSIWYG in
the internet age
    * Darniet Jennings: Why WYSIWIKI?
    * Timothy Chklovski: Collecting Computer-useable knowledge from
volunteer contributors
    * Chris Luer: Disambiguation: the key to information architecture?

Session 7 (Sunday)
    * Technical lightning talks/future of search
    * Paul Sponagl: Device independent access to Wikipedia
    * Kasper Souren: Wikipedia on the Nokia 770

Angela


body:
I am confident, and you should be as well, that any natural language,
especially one such as Wallisian where there are no possible conflicts
(such as there is between Upper Silesian/Polish or Murcian/Spanish),
will quickly get overwhelming support if there already exists a
substantial test-wiki when the request is posed.

Really, if we are seeking to create viable Wikipedias, it makes more
sense to direct people initially to create test-wikis, and then to
craft proposals once they have developed them a little.

That way, there is little debate, and most decisions are likely to be
more definitive.

Besides, if I told a developer "Here is a request for a Wikipedia in
Wallisian. No request has been crafted, but it has a test Wikipedia
with 500 good articles, and here are the Ethnologue and Wikipedia
articles which show its status as the main language of Uvea Island",
I'm guessing they would create it on their own judgment.

The requests process on Meta really has nothing to do with building a
successful Wikipedia. It's really paperwork and bureaucratic red-tape.
If you are requesting a potentially controversial Wikipedia, that is
one thing, and it may be best to craft a request first, but if you are
requesting a Wikipedia that will probably not be controversial, such
as Shan or Hiligaynon or Li or Yucatec or Wallisian, it is quite
another and it will probably be best in the long run to begin building
the site first, and when it is ready to move, craft the request.

Mark

Mark

On 22/07/06, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Well Mark,
> You know VERY well, that the procedure at META is very much part of the
> process. The suggestion that all it takes is to produce an arbitrary number
> of articles and a new Wikipedia will be created is patently false.
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
>
> On 7/23/06, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, do you speak this language?
> >
> > If so, you may start building the Wikipedia here:
> > http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Test-wp/wls/
> >
> > Once you build a certain number of pages, a "real" Wikipedia will be
> > created for you.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > On 22/07/06, filihau at uvea-mo-futuna.com <filihau at uvea-mo-futuna.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Hi there,
> > >
> > > I want to create a new Wikipedia in Wallisian (faka'uvea) which is not
> > > listed in your list.
> > >
> > > Please let me know how to proceed.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Filihau
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
On 7/23/06, Matt Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/22/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
> > Of course, as far as I'm concerned I wouldn't be terribly sad if all
> > the articles about non-free fictional works moved to Fictionpedia.
> > Especially the plot summaries, which are really non-free derivative
> > works in themselves, though they generally fall under fair use of
> > course.
>
> Plots are generally not copyrightable, although character names may be.
>

Could you patent them?

--
geni


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Job queue stuck?

body:
Timwi wrote:
> How do you ensure, though, that the rate of emptying the queue is
> overall less than the rate of filling it? In other words, can you
> guarantee that no matter how full it gets it will eventually empty?

By hitting it with a rock until it goes back down. ;)

If we should find that it empties too slowly, we'll just add another machine to
run on the queue.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060723/77ad095b/attachment.pgp>


body:
In a message dated 7/23/2006 1:55:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
saintonge at telus.net writes:

She was  on "The $64,000 Question", not the "$64,000 Pyramid"  I remember
watching the shows when she was on.  Her topic was psychology, and  she
didn't play against anybody.  Was that intended to be a trick  question?

It was, indeed, before my time. The article about her says Boxing, which
shoudl be corrected then. Should be interesting to find out which is  correct.

My point with the others is that I hav no problem with a list. I do have
problems with bios, especially considering that the sole resource for these bios
is a network PR firm. "She has a dog named Dexter," or "He was dancing  since
he was three" cannot be verfied anywhere except through the publicity  agent
who is trying to make them overnight heroes. They are not notable because
none of the information is independently verifiable.

Danny


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

body:
filihau at uvea-mo-futuna.com wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I want to create a new Wikipedia in Wallisian (faka'uvea) which is not
> listed in your list.
>
> Please let me know how to proceed.
>
> Thanks
>
> Filihau
Hoi,
The Wallisian langauge (ISO-639-3 wls)
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=wls is spoken according
to Ethnologue by some 9617 people. The procedure is first of all to
propose the new (wikipedia) project on Meta
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages .

Really relevant is the requirement to have people who speak the language
natively as part of the initial group of people who are interested to
work on the new project.

Thanks,
    GerardM


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Categories for deletion/discussion issues

references:
<44BFF5C8.1050903@gmail.com>	<54f6f2050607201445u2a4976cci9108b52da661d0ff@mail.gmail.com>	<54f6f2050607201453q7dadfa66q5e192a5906e69a35@mail.gmail.com>	<44BFFC89.4050602@gmail.com>	<v371c25v1ogtqc3lg9io7ouoslunibu3rm@4ax.com>	<44C0DA22.7010101@gmail.com>	<5r22c2lloamb9tnmirb5bbiecoijgqau5p@4ax.com>	<44C1205A.60401@gmail.com>	<rcc2c2tucivskf153iojiohrjoame3bkq2@4ax.com>	<44C142F1.5050502@gmail.com>
	<dh74c21cg2v6bh13j5qtdaa439pnlqu38l@4ax.com>
	<44C254B3.2080608@gmail.com>

body:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 12:39:15 -0400, SPUI <drspui at gmail.com> wrote:

>I'm arguing that we should not use a term that has different meanings in
>different places.

So instead you prefer a term which has *no* meaning in *most* places?

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


from_name: Sean Barrett

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

Gregory Maxwell stated for the record:

> On 7/22/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.com> wrote:
>
>>All of this is very interesting (and believe it or not, I'm not being
>>sarcastic).  However, can anyone actually help convert these SWFs?  I've
>>installed ffmpeg2theora, but that seems to only change the question to
>>"how do I convert a SWF to MPEG2?"
>
>
> You can use xvidcap to record the running SWF under linux. The convert
> the result to Theora.  ... I dont think the image quality of these
> SWF's are great to begin with, but the result seems okay:
>
> http://myrandomnode.dyndns.org/pics/video_test.ogg
>
> If you want, and confirm for me that the copyright on these are
> kosher, I'll go ahead and convert the rest.
>
> Really I suspect we could just recreate them and get better resutlts
> than working with these SWFs, but as long as the copyright is okay ..
> It turns out that they are easy enough to convert.

The license is {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}}, created by an employee of the
US Navy during the course of his duties.  I copied the SWFs from
https://ile-lms.nko.navy.mil/Details.asp?CourseRef=32077 , a CBT course
entitled "Surface Warfare Officer School (SWOS) Shiphandling."

- --
 Sean Barrett     | She got her good looks from her father.
 sean at epoptic.com | He's a plastic surgeon. --Groucho Marx
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEw5hFMAt1wyd9d+URAt6bAJ43O1RykJs2BiTotxr9H4U0WxKmOACggHZl
8dW4w+64iZSnowuY5wptS0A=
=wnFZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: GerardM

body:
Well Mark,
You know VERY well, that the procedure at META is very much part of the
process. The suggestion that all it takes is to produce an arbitrary number
of articles and a new Wikipedia will be created is patently false.
Thanks,
    GerardM

On 7/23/06, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi, do you speak this language?
>
> If so, you may start building the Wikipedia here:
> http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Test-wp/wls/
>
> Once you build a certain number of pages, a "real" Wikipedia will be
> created for you.
>
> Mark
>
> On 22/07/06, filihau at uvea-mo-futuna.com <filihau at uvea-mo-futuna.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi there,
> >
> > I want to create a new Wikipedia in Wallisian (faka'uvea) which is not
> > listed in your list.
> >
> > Please let me know how to proceed.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Filihau
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
> --
> Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] POV fork anyone? (coca cola)

body:
On Jul 23, 2006, at 9:49 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:

> Hi,
>   I'm surprised no one else has noticed this one. We have an
> archetypical POV fork (see [[Wikipedia:POV fork]]) at [[The Coca-Cola
> Company]]. I was suspicious that it's so positive ("Corporate
> citizenship" and all the rest of it). It turns out all the criticism
> has been moved to [[Criticism of Coca-Cola]]. And to top it off, the
> criticism article isn't even linked from the main one!
>
> Anyone feel like investigating a bit? How did this come to be? I'd
> love a good conspiracy theory...
>
> Steve

Let's do Communism and Criticisms of communism first. Coke is just
colored sugar water. I don't know why we even have an article.

Seriously, looks like the PR department has been at work.

Fred


body:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 22:54:49 -0700, Ray Saintonge
<saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

>Separate articles for each contestant seems beyond the pale, but lists
>of the contestants will thrill the heart of tivia buffs.

As long as we have reliable secondary sources, of course...

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


from_name: Peter Ansell

subject: [WikiEN-l] "Exclusion" essay

body:
On 21/07/06, Mark Wagner <carnildo at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/20/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > So what do you define as excessive fancruft? Surely  a [[Bulbasaur]] article
> > isn't considered fancruft? I'm afraid that personal hate of the subject and
> > reputation paranoia are in fact the number 1 reasons for calling something
> > fancruft. Any valid reason to exclude or delete such items could be
> > explained with the regular policies without dumping the fancruft label on
> > it.
>
> Any article on a fictional subject written largely as if the author
> were living in the fictional universe in question is fancruft.
>

Encyclopedic articles should not be in the first person though, and
hence the position of the author should not be identifiable. Still
seems like a roundabout definition to me. Also, what policy requires
that the author be living in the "real universe" for their
contribution to be accepted.

Peter Ansell


body:
On 23/07/06, Matt Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, notability is not policy, merely a (very argued-about) guideline
> that not everybody believes in anyway.
>
> With that out of the way, I can't see any reason why the short amount
> of verifiable information about these contestants can't be inside the
> article for this season's So You Think You Can Dance, or inside [[So
> You Think You Can Dance 2006 contestants]], with redirects (or
> disambiguations) from the individual's names to sections within it.  I
> think that these people are not sufficiently interesting outside the
> context of the competition, and that having seperate articles for them
> merely encourages unsourced, unverifiable cruft.
>

Why don't more people focus on the core policies like verfiability
more when they attempt to address so called "notability" issues? :)

Peter Ansell


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Wikipedia and books for African children

body:
Anthere wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Let me forward this email to Foundation-l for other
> people feedback, and let's keep in touch with this in
> any case :-)
>
> Florence Devouard
>
>
> --- Marlies Klooster <marliesklooster at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>This is the e-mail I meant.
>>
>>Thank you!
>>
>>Marlies
>>
>>Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>
>>>From: Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com>
>>>Date: 17 July 2006 2:21:43 PM
>>>To: Marlies Klooster <marliesklooster at gmail.com>
>>>Subject: Re: Wikipedia and books for African
>>
>>children
>>
>>>Thank you! :) You might consider sending this
>>
>>email as well to
>>
>>>foundation-l at wikimedia.org so that more people in
>>
>>our community will
>>
>>>see
>>>it and learn about this wonderful organization.
>>>
>>>
>>>Marlies Klooster wrote:
>>>
>>>>Dear Mr Walsh,
>>>>
>>>>I am impressed by the work and initiatives of
>>
>>Wikimedia, especially
>>
>>>>Wikipedia. You developed something that is truly
>>
>>unique for our times
>>
>>>>and I want you to compliment for that. Recently I
>>
>>read an interview
>>
>>>>with
>>>>you in the Dutch newspaper NRC (www.nrc.nl) in
>>
>>which you made the
>>
>>>>intriguing remark that if Wikipedia were ever to
>>
>>make money from
>>
>>>>advertisements, you would want this money to go
>>
>>to books for children
>>
>>>>in
>>>>Africa.
>>>>
>>>>As a volunteer and fundraiser for Biblionef I
>>
>>feel I should tell you
>>
>>>>about this great book organization I know:
>>
>>Biblionef. This NGO donates
>>
>>>>new storybooks--free of charge--to needy
>>
>>children?s organisations
>>
>>>>throughout South Africa. (There are more
>>
>>Biblionefs in other
>>
>>>>countries,
>>>>see http://www.biblionef.org/). Since 1999
>>
>>Biblionef South Africa only
>>
>>>>has donated over 250.000 books. Their target
>>
>>group comprises children
>>
>>>>living in disadvantaged communities who have no
>>
>>access to books.
>>
>>>>Biblionef is unique in South Africa in the sense
>>
>>that the books they
>>
>>>>donate are in each child?s own language, which
>>
>>means they cover all of
>>
>>>>South Africa?s eleven languages.
>>>>
>>>>In South Africa over 60% of schools have no
>>
>>library and at least half
>>
>>>>of
>>>>them is located more than 40 miles away from a
>>
>>public library. The
>>
>>>>main
>>>>aim of Biblionef?s work is to establish a culture
>>
>>of reading. This is
>>
>>>>only possible when the books have an impact on
>>
>>children. That is why
>>
>>>>Biblionef carefully collects the books that will
>>
>>be donated. In doing
>>
>>>>so
>>>>Biblionef closely cooperates with local
>>
>>publishers in various ways.
>>
>>>>Publishers donate newly published storybooks in
>>
>>the African languages
>>
>>>>to
>>>>Biblionef. For other projects Biblionef initiates
>>
>>reprints or
>>
>>>>publications. Whenever possible Biblionef links
>>
>>its donation to
>>
>>>>existing
>>>>reading initiatives or plans.
>>>>
>>>>I personally worked with Biblionef for over a
>>
>>year, during which we
>>
>>>>created the website (www.biblionefsa.org.za) and
>>
>>during which I had
>>
>>>>the
>>>>chance to visit a great number of schools and
>>
>>libraries who had (or
>>
>>>>asked for) Biblionef books. Some were really
>>
>>small, some had hardly
>>
>>>>any
>>>>books but they were always FULL with children.
>>
>>You have to visit an
>>
>>>>African library to understand its importance in a
>>
>>world deprived of
>>
>>>>information and quiet workspace. A number of
>>
>>those libraries is in the
>>
>>>>process of getting computers and internet
>>
>>connection, too. But doesn't
>>
>>>>all learning and reading start with colourful
>>
>>stories conveyed in
>>
>>>>quality books? If you ever have the opportunity
>>
>>to donate toward books
>>
>>>>for children in Africa, I strongly hope you will
>>
>>think of Biblionef.
>>
>>>>Thank you so much for your time and
>>
>>consideration.
>>
>>>>Kind regards,
>>>>
>>>>Marlies Klooster
>>>>for: Biblionef South Africa
>>>>http://www.biblionefsa.org.za
>>>>
>>>>Biblionef is a member of the American Fund for
>>
>>Charities, a 501(c)(3)
>>
>>>>public charity that allows American individuals
>>
>>and companies to make
>>
>>>>tax-deductible donations to Biblionef SA through
>>
>>their fund.
>>
>>>>"Motho ke motho ka batho babang" (A person is a
>>
>>person because of
>>
>>>>others)

Dear Marlies,

We look forward collaborating with initiatives such as yours.
I presume you are familiar with the concept of our project, collecting
and organising information, which may be used or reused by anyone. The
ultimate idea being to help increase access to information to anyone in
the world, regardless of his country, race, gender, age, financial
situation etc...

The fact is that we are good at collecting information. We are good at
organising it. We are frankly not very good at publishing it on a medium
other than internet. And we are not good at all at distributing it
(except that through internet channel).
In short, creating content is one job. Publishing/distributing is a
different job. And one which requires for us to set up collaborations,
in particular when distribution is done in countries where rather few of
us live (such as South Africa) or in specific situations (such as
distribution in school).

To make it clear immediately, we do not give money to organisations. All
what we collect ourselves is needed to make our own organisation run.

Quick overview of the South African initiatives.
Basically, three projects are of a size which might interest you.
Wikipedia (encyclopedia), Wikibooks (textbooks and manuals) and
Wiktionary (dictionary).

Only two of your languages are decently covered in wikipedia as far as I
know : english and afrikaans. If other languages exist, they are
probably essentially inactive due to lack of participants. I do not
think we could trigger translations initiatives in other languages due
to the lack of human force :-) (your help would be welcome :-)).

As for Wiktionary and Wikibooks, you may consider they only exist in
english for now.

English wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org (roughly one million articles)
Afrikaans wikipedia : http://af.wikipedia.org (roughly 5000 articles)

If you are looking for a kid version of an encyclopedia, there was
recently an initiative by SOS Children (contact Andrew Cates).
See here for more :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia-CD/Download

That's actually a selection of articles, not articles written for
children. It is in HTML version, may be downloaded for print. But it
will not constitute a book per se. Still, it may interest you.

More interesting probably are what we call wikijuniors. These are books
developped on Wikibooks. As all of our content, these are free to use.
These books are developped specifically for children. They are partially
or totally translated in other languages (probably not those which
interest you at this point).
I invite you to have a look at this initiative.
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikijunior

There are rather few books for now, but the concept is now set up and
there is no limit to what we could do. I'll add that knowing that a book
is used, in particular to children in need, is a great incentive for an
author. Most of the content originates from Wikipedia, but is re-worked
to fit kids needs.

You will notice that some of those books are now "finished". Some are
currently in the works.
Amongst those finished, there is one which may be purchased as a print
version by LULU (please see http://www.lulu.com/content/346504 for
reference).

To realise these Wikijunior, we got financial support from an american
Foundation. This support was just renewed, so that we could push forward
this initiative. I consequently expect that we'll get more books soon in
the future. It would actually be interesting to have a feedback from an
organisation from yours as to which books would be most necessary.

So, at one end of the rope, we have content. At the other end of the
rope, we have Biblionef. What we need in between is a publisher and
money to publish.

I actually went to South Africa in september 2005, to participate to
discussions over FLOSS (free and open software/content) in South Africa,
and in my case, over the creation of a Wikiversity project
(http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiversity)

During these discussions
(http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Conference_reports/FLOSS%2C_South_Africa_2005/Workshop_2),
I remember a presentation about the HP i-communities initiatives
(http://h40058.www4.hp.com/icommunity2/index.asp) and discussions over
printing issues in South Africa by an SA publisher, further discussed in
Wikimania
(http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2005_Presentations#Wikimedia_in_the_Developing_World
for general overview), where legal issues over teaching text printint in
South Africa where raised by Achal
(http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Transwiki:Wikimania05/Presentation-AP1).

... which lead me actually wondering if any printing in South Africa
would be a good idea :-) but also suggest that we have many contacts and
several potential sponsors for projects in that country (which we
absolutely don't for projects in say... Algeria or Nigeria).

I'll be interested by your thoughts on the matter, such as which types
of books would be most necessary for kids (and problematic for you to
get by other means). If you would be interested by collaborating with us
(which would imply finding a publisher to produce some of the
wikijunior, and of course cash to produce them). Of course, this would
not happen in 3 months of time, but I doubt the issue of kids needing
books badly will be solved by the end of the year.

I look forward to your answer.

Anthere / Florence Devouard

PS : I presume other initiatives might be of interest, but these are
those at the top of my mind. I also remember south african editors
working on a books dealing with mathematics (or was is physics ?) at
high school or university level, but I lost memory of those. Maybe
someone will remember a link or two as well.


from_name: Timwi

subject: [Wikitech-l] Job queue stuck?

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> Christopher Beland wrote:
>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics
>>
>>The job queue length on the English Wikipedia is high and has been
>>rising continuously.  I suspect that something is stuck.
>
> The job queue is a _queue_.
>
> You may indeed see it high for a couple hours before the job runners get back
> around to that wiki.

How do you ensure, though, that the rate of emptying the queue is
overall less than the rate of filling it? In other words, can you
guarantee that no matter how full it gets it will eventually empty?

Timwi


subject: [WikiEN-l] "Exclusion" essay

body:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 14:00:51 +0200, "Steve Bennett"
<stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:

>It's apparently very difficult to define the problem with
>fictional universes, besides the fact that people are biased against
>them.

I know at least one major problem: the lack of objective external
coverage.

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


body:
Forwarded to Marlies, as it seems gmane did not get it when I added him
in the cc... my message at the end of yours Marlies.

By the way... for those of you who wonder why the name of their
organisation is Biblionef... it seems to be originally a french initiative..

A "Biblioth?que" is a library in french. And the little buses
circulating to bring books in villages are called "bibliobus".

Anthere

PS : this was the little cultural minute.

Anthere wrote:
> Anthere wrote:
>
>>Hello,
>>
>>Let me forward this email to Foundation-l for other
>>people feedback, and let's keep in touch with this in
>>any case :-)
>>
>>Florence Devouard
>>
>>
>>--- Marlies Klooster <marliesklooster at gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>This is the e-mail I meant.
>>>
>>>Thank you!
>>>
>>>Marlies
>>>
>>>Begin forwarded message:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>From: Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com>
>>>>Date: 17 July 2006 2:21:43 PM
>>>>To: Marlies Klooster <marliesklooster at gmail.com>
>>>>Subject: Re: Wikipedia and books for African
>>>
>>>children
>>>
>>>
>>>>Thank you! :) You might consider sending this
>>>
>>>email as well to
>>>
>>>
>>>>foundation-l at wikimedia.org so that more people in
>>>
>>>our community will
>>>
>>>
>>>>see
>>>>it and learn about this wonderful organization.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Marlies Klooster wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Dear Mr Walsh,
>>>>>
>>>>>I am impressed by the work and initiatives of
>>>
>>>Wikimedia, especially
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Wikipedia. You developed something that is truly
>>>
>>>unique for our times
>>>
>>>
>>>>>and I want you to compliment for that. Recently I
>>>
>>>read an interview
>>>
>>>
>>>>>with
>>>>>you in the Dutch newspaper NRC (www.nrc.nl) in
>>>
>>>which you made the
>>>
>>>
>>>>>intriguing remark that if Wikipedia were ever to
>>>
>>>make money from
>>>
>>>
>>>>>advertisements, you would want this money to go
>>>
>>>to books for children
>>>
>>>
>>>>>in
>>>>>Africa.
>>>>>
>>>>>As a volunteer and fundraiser for Biblionef I
>>>
>>>feel I should tell you
>>>
>>>
>>>>>about this great book organization I know:
>>>
>>>Biblionef. This NGO donates
>>>
>>>
>>>>>new storybooks--free of charge--to needy
>>>
>>>children?s organisations
>>>
>>>
>>>>>throughout South Africa. (There are more
>>>
>>>Biblionefs in other
>>>
>>>
>>>>>countries,
>>>>>see http://www.biblionef.org/). Since 1999
>>>
>>>Biblionef South Africa only
>>>
>>>
>>>>>has donated over 250.000 books. Their target
>>>
>>>group comprises children
>>>
>>>
>>>>>living in disadvantaged communities who have no
>>>
>>>access to books.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Biblionef is unique in South Africa in the sense
>>>
>>>that the books they
>>>
>>>
>>>>>donate are in each child?s own language, which
>>>
>>>means they cover all of
>>>
>>>
>>>>>South Africa?s eleven languages.
>>>>>
>>>>>In South Africa over 60% of schools have no
>>>
>>>library and at least half
>>>
>>>
>>>>>of
>>>>>them is located more than 40 miles away from a
>>>
>>>public library. The
>>>
>>>
>>>>>main
>>>>>aim of Biblionef?s work is to establish a culture
>>>
>>>of reading. This is
>>>
>>>
>>>>>only possible when the books have an impact on
>>>
>>>children. That is why
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Biblionef carefully collects the books that will
>>>
>>>be donated. In doing
>>>
>>>
>>>>>so
>>>>>Biblionef closely cooperates with local
>>>
>>>publishers in various ways.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Publishers donate newly published storybooks in
>>>
>>>the African languages
>>>
>>>
>>>>>to
>>>>>Biblionef. For other projects Biblionef initiates
>>>
>>>reprints or
>>>
>>>
>>>>>publications. Whenever possible Biblionef links
>>>
>>>its donation to
>>>
>>>
>>>>>existing
>>>>>reading initiatives or plans.
>>>>>
>>>>>I personally worked with Biblionef for over a
>>>
>>>year, during which we
>>>
>>>
>>>>>created the website (www.biblionefsa.org.za) and
>>>
>>>during which I had
>>>
>>>
>>>>>the
>>>>>chance to visit a great number of schools and
>>>
>>>libraries who had (or
>>>
>>>
>>>>>asked for) Biblionef books. Some were really
>>>
>>>small, some had hardly
>>>
>>>
>>>>>any
>>>>>books but they were always FULL with children.
>>>
>>>You have to visit an
>>>
>>>
>>>>>African library to understand its importance in a
>>>
>>>world deprived of
>>>
>>>
>>>>>information and quiet workspace. A number of
>>>
>>>those libraries is in the
>>>
>>>
>>>>>process of getting computers and internet
>>>
>>>connection, too. But doesn't
>>>
>>>
>>>>>all learning and reading start with colourful
>>>
>>>stories conveyed in
>>>
>>>
>>>>>quality books? If you ever have the opportunity
>>>
>>>to donate toward books
>>>
>>>
>>>>>for children in Africa, I strongly hope you will
>>>
>>>think of Biblionef.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Thank you so much for your time and
>>>
>>>consideration.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Kind regards,
>>>>>
>>>>>Marlies Klooster
>>>>>for: Biblionef South Africa
>>>>>http://www.biblionefsa.org.za
>>>>>
>>>>>Biblionef is a member of the American Fund for
>>>
>>>Charities, a 501(c)(3)
>>>
>>>
>>>>>public charity that allows American individuals
>>>
>>>and companies to make
>>>
>>>
>>>>>tax-deductible donations to Biblionef SA through
>>>
>>>their fund.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>"Motho ke motho ka batho babang" (A person is a
>>>
>>>person because of
>>>
>>>
>>>>>others)
>
>
> Dear Marlies,
>
> We look forward collaborating with initiatives such as yours.
> I presume you are familiar with the concept of our project, collecting
> and organising information, which may be used or reused by anyone. The
> ultimate idea being to help increase access to information to anyone in
> the world, regardless of his country, race, gender, age, financial
> situation etc...
>
> The fact is that we are good at collecting information. We are good at
> organising it. We are frankly not very good at publishing it on a medium
> other than internet. And we are not good at all at distributing it
> (except that through internet channel).
> In short, creating content is one job. Publishing/distributing is a
> different job. And one which requires for us to set up collaborations,
> in particular when distribution is done in countries where rather few of
> us live (such as South Africa) or in specific situations (such as
> distribution in school).
>
> To make it clear immediately, we do not give money to organisations. All
> what we collect ourselves is needed to make our own organisation run.
>
> Quick overview of the South African initiatives.
> Basically, three projects are of a size which might interest you.
> Wikipedia (encyclopedia), Wikibooks (textbooks and manuals) and
> Wiktionary (dictionary).
>
> Only two of your languages are decently covered in wikipedia as far as I
> know : english and afrikaans. If other languages exist, they are
> probably essentially inactive due to lack of participants. I do not
> think we could trigger translations initiatives in other languages due
> to the lack of human force :-) (your help would be welcome :-)).
>
> As for Wiktionary and Wikibooks, you may consider they only exist in
> english for now.
>
> English wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org (roughly one million articles)
> Afrikaans wikipedia : http://af.wikipedia.org (roughly 5000 articles)
>
> If you are looking for a kid version of an encyclopedia, there was
> recently an initiative by SOS Children (contact Andrew Cates).
> See here for more :
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia-CD/Download
>
> That's actually a selection of articles, not articles written for
> children. It is in HTML version, may be downloaded for print. But it
> will not constitute a book per se. Still, it may interest you.
>
>
> More interesting probably are what we call wikijuniors. These are books
> developped on Wikibooks. As all of our content, these are free to use.
> These books are developped specifically for children. They are partially
> or totally translated in other languages (probably not those which
> interest you at this point).
> I invite you to have a look at this initiative.
> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikijunior
>
> There are rather few books for now, but the concept is now set up and
> there is no limit to what we could do. I'll add that knowing that a book
> is used, in particular to children in need, is a great incentive for an
> author. Most of the content originates from Wikipedia, but is re-worked
> to fit kids needs.
>
> You will notice that some of those books are now "finished". Some are
> currently in the works.
> Amongst those finished, there is one which may be purchased as a print
> version by LULU (please see http://www.lulu.com/content/346504 for
> reference).
>
> To realise these Wikijunior, we got financial support from an american
> Foundation. This support was just renewed, so that we could push forward
> this initiative. I consequently expect that we'll get more books soon in
> the future. It would actually be interesting to have a feedback from an
> organisation from yours as to which books would be most necessary.
>
> So, at one end of the rope, we have content. At the other end of the
> rope, we have Biblionef. What we need in between is a publisher and
> money to publish.
>
> I actually went to South Africa in september 2005, to participate to
> discussions over FLOSS (free and open software/content) in South Africa,
> and in my case, over the creation of a Wikiversity project
> (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiversity)
>
> During these discussions
> (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Conference_reports/FLOSS%2C_South_Africa_2005/Workshop_2),
> I remember a presentation about the HP i-communities initiatives
> (http://h40058.www4.hp.com/icommunity2/index.asp) and discussions over
> printing issues in South Africa by an SA publisher, further discussed in
> Wikimania
> (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2005_Presentations#Wikimedia_in_the_Developing_World
> for general overview), where legal issues over teaching text printint in
> South Africa where raised by Achal
> (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Transwiki:Wikimania05/Presentation-AP1).
>
> ... which lead me actually wondering if any printing in South Africa
> would be a good idea :-) but also suggest that we have many contacts and
> several potential sponsors for projects in that country (which we
> absolutely don't for projects in say... Algeria or Nigeria).
>
> I'll be interested by your thoughts on the matter, such as which types
> of books would be most necessary for kids (and problematic for you to
> get by other means). If you would be interested by collaborating with us
> (which would imply finding a publisher to produce some of the
> wikijunior, and of course cash to produce them). Of course, this would
> not happen in 3 months of time, but I doubt the issue of kids needing
> books badly will be solved by the end of the year.
>
> I look forward to your answer.
>
> Anthere / Florence Devouard
>
> PS : I presume other initiatives might be of interest, but these are
> those at the top of my mind. I also remember south african editors
> working on a books dealing with mathematics (or was is physics ?) at
> high school or university level, but I lost memory of those. Maybe
> someone will remember a link or two as well.


from_name: Matt Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] POV fork anyone? (coca cola)

body:
On 7/23/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> It's almost always used that way on Wikipedia. Terms like "critical
> review" or "critical appreciation" are more ambiguous, but "criticism"
> is pretty unambiguously negative.

Agreed.  'Criticism' sections and articles are pretty much always
about negative criticisms; sometimes they are written by the
opposition, and sometimes not (e.g. the [[Criticisms of Software
Engineering]] is actually a pro- article, essentially there simply to
rebut common criticisms).

Now it IS a big problem that sometimes the criticism of something
weights an article too much - that is best solved with good editing
and more facts.

-Matt


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] "Exclusion" essay

body:
On 7/22/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Definitely a constructive approach.  Can we read something into the fact
> that all the heavy discussion in this thread has focussed on only one of
> the four areas outlined in the essay?

Yes. It's apparently very difficult to define the problem with
fictional universes, besides the fact that people are biased against
them. I, too, am biased against them, but can't find many decent
reasons for that.

Steve


body:
On 7/23/06, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
> I just came across [[Category:So You Think You Can Dance contestants]].  This
> has gone beyond ridiculous. Are we so hard pressed for article? Are we  going
> to have a category for contestants on the Price is Right or Jeopardy too?
> How about a nice table for people who were on Let's Make a Deal, which lists
> whether they chose door number one, two or three, and what costume they  wore in
> the audience.

I don't know about So You Think You Can Dance, but I say that the
final twelve contestants on Australian Idol etc are probably
noteworthy.  Definitely the final three or four, who generally end up
at least getting a single out or something.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Quackpotwatch AfD

body:
On 7/23/06, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
> Unfortunately, there are a number of different possible logical
> interpretations of what an AfD deletion outcome means, and no
> shortage of anal-retentive wiki{judge|lawyer|executioner}s determined
> to enforce any and all of them in the most draconian possible way.
>
> The two main conflicting interpretations are:
>
> 1) That a particular bunch of text should be deleted from Wikipedia
> and not allowed to resurface anywhere in the site;

I think this is a bad one. "bad text" is a problem that can be dealt
with easily, and locally, without dragging it through AfD.

>
> 2) That a particular article title should be removed, and not allowed
> to have any article at that title for any reason or with any content;

That's the literal interpretation of "this subject is annappropriate
for a Wikipedia article". Either because it's too trivial, or just
wrong (why George Bush sucks...)

> ever be allowed to come back in any context.  Thus, when an article
> on a traffic circle in New Jersey was deleted as unworthy of an
> article in its own right, some admins took it onto themselves to
> remove any text mentioning it in other articles such as the one on
> the township it was in, on the basis of "enforcing the AfD outcome."

That's not a job for admins. They really should stick to carrying out
the parts of a decision that can't be carried out by non-admins.

> And, when an article on an unreleased independent film was deleted,
> admins made a stand for a while not only against recreation of the
> article on the film a few months later when it had been released and
> won a film-festival award, but even against creation of an article on
> an urelated album that happened to have the same name.

Heh.

Steve


from_name: ScottL

subject: [WikiEN-l] POV fork anyone? (coca cola)

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> Hi,
>   I'm surprised no one else has noticed this one. We have an
> archetypical POV fork (see [[Wikipedia:POV fork]]) at [[The Coca-Cola
> Company]]. I was suspicious that it's so positive ("Corporate
> citizenship" and all the rest of it). It turns out all the criticism
> has been moved to [[Criticism of Coca-Cola]]. And to top it off, the
> criticism article isn't even linked from the main one!
>
> Anyone feel like investigating a bit? How did this come to be? I'd
> love a good conspiracy theory...
>
> Steve

   I have seen a number of cases where (usually as a way to resolve a
protracted content dispute) all criticism or dissenting views are first
segregated into a section on criticism and then later removed to a
totally different article with no summary of that article left in the
original.

   The first bit I think makes for bad articles but is the only solution
that can reach consensus on some topics.  But, the second is pretty
horribly POV and usually happens when their is an obvious majority on
one side but a sizable and tenacious group on the other.

   Now my question, I know that splinting an article and not linking
them is bad.  But, I also don't like the case where a whole section of
an article consists only of an instance of the {{mainarticle}} template
or whatever its called.  Is that also frowned on (I guess I can just be
bold and do the frowning on it myself, but I was wondering if ht had
been discussed).

Dalf


from_name: Mark Gallagher

subject: [WikiEN-l] "Exclusion" essay

body:
G'day Peter,

> On 21/07/06, Mark Wagner <carnildo at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Any article on a fictional subject written largely as if the author
>>were living in the fictional universe in question is fancruft.
>
> Encyclopedic articles should not be in the first person though, and
> hence the position of the author should not be identifiable. Still
> seems like a roundabout definition to me. Also, what policy requires
> that the author be living in the "real universe" for their
> contribution to be accepted.

Fuck policy.  Policy is just a stick to beat those people silly enough
to refuse to do the Right Thing until we can point out "what policy
requires that" ... oh, I see.  Ho hum.

There's three approaches I've seen taken towards fictional worlds:

* The GUNDAM approach.  This is: "Here, have some stastistics about our
   ships. which are really cool.  They do 120 points of damage each
   throw!"

* The STAR WARS approach.  This is: "Okay, we all know that /Star Wars/
   isn't real, and our guidelines on context and dealing with fiction
   oblige us to tell you that.  Nevertheless, we'll pretend that it is,
   so you will not be able to understand this article unless you're
   prepared for that.  Now, here's what the books tell you about /Star
   Wars/ --- what, you didn't know the books were more important than the
   films?  You silly sausage!  What follows is a biography of Wedge
   Antilles, who you've probably never even heard of, you prat."

* The DOCTOR WHO approach.  This is: "/Doctor Who/ is a television
   programme.  One of its fictional creatures is a Dalek.  The Dalek
   design was inspired by a pepper pot, or something, I dunno, and it's
   significant in the real world for <X reasons/>.  In the /Doctor Who/
   universe, the Dalek is <explain Dalek on-show/>."

Now, the GUNDAM approach is impossible to understand if you aren't
already a die-hard freak.  The STAR WARS approach meets our guidelines
(therefore, your "what policy?" approach is well satisfied) but is
bloody difficult for someone who hasn't read the novels, watched the
cartoons, and studied the website as if prospecting for gold, to
understand --- imagine a /Star Trek/ article that gave Captain Kirk's
birth and time-of-thriving only as stardates and based his early life
"biography" on obscure comments from Gene Roddenberry.  The DOCTOR WHO
approach is *exactly* what we want to see: non-fans are able to find out
what the hell is going on, and not required to live in the fictional
universe the article describes, but those who want to read about the
Fourth Doctor's exploits on the planet QXYTWLAZZXYX, where he first
uncovered F9, his purrfect robot companion, may also do so.

The approach names, of course, aren't meant as (much of) a slur on the
authors of the respective universe articles.  There's presumably one or
two decent /Gundam/ articles around the place (it's rather improbable we
could have so many, and all be crap), I just haven't seen them.  And the
/Star Wars/ folk are at least trying, but I'm sure they have the wrong
approach (particularly when they spend ages arguing over how to list the
credits for one movie, or adding screenshots to articles not to improve
the articles but to Prove A Point).  Finally, of course, there *are*
crap /Doctor Who/ articles out there --- but on the whole, when someone
gets it right, it's /Doctor Who/.  (I note /Star Wars/ had an FA
recently, and it was decent, too; good stuff --- now let's see
"Lightsabre" raised to something approaching that.)

--
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse


subject: [WikiEN-l] POV fork anyone? (coca cola)

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 7/23/06, Bogdan Giusca <liste at dapyx.com> wrote:
>> Anyway, since the [[Criticism of ***]] appear to be accepted, there
>> are now dozens of articles, springing up in all domains:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Islam
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Pope_John_Paul_II
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Family_Guy
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_software_engineering
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Soka_Gakkai
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Franklin_D._Roosevelt
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_debt
>
> I'm stunned. I've started [[Wikipedia:List of POV forks]] to deal with
> this. This is a really serious violation of NPOV, far more so than
> quibbles over whether individual sentences of individual articles
> contain the correct tone or not.
>
> Steve

I was about to do this but one look at this query:

http://www.google.com/search?as_q=%22Criticism+of%22&num=100&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=en.wikipedia.org&as_rights=&safe=images

and I realized it would take a very long time.  Looks like there may be
hundreds of these.

SKL


subject: [WikiEN-l] POV fork anyone? (coca cola)

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 18:52:21 +0100, "Oldak Quill"
> <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think I remember participating in a discussion about one such
>> article. Those who were for the existence of the article made the
>> point that "criticism" doesn't necessarily imply that the commentary
>> is negative (although it is often used in this way). Therefore a
>> "Criticism of..." article should cover views both pro- and contra-.
>
> This is fair; perhaps it should be "media discussion of foo" or some
> such?
>
> Guy (JzG)

I like "Public perception ..." in cases where appropriate, and perhaps
"Media discussion of ...." in others.  I do not think we should go for
(another) one size fits all.  One of the reasons I think these are out
of hand is that the naming of the article frames the content for these
rather than vice versa.  These should be named on a case by case basis
with a perhaps a section on how to do them added to the MOS.  They
should be framed so that they are not one sided.

SKL


subject: [WikiEN-l] POV fork anyone? (coca cola)

body:
Oldak Quill wrote:
> On 23/07/06, ScottL <scott at mu.org> wrote:
>>    I have seen a number of cases where (usually as a way to resolve a
>> protracted content dispute) all criticism or dissenting views are first
>> segregated into a section on criticism and then later removed to a
>> totally different article with no summary of that article left in the
>> original.
>
> This wouldn't be done with a "History" section, so shouldn't be done
> with a "Criticisms" section.

Ok good! :)

Dalf


from_name: Brian Chau

subject: [WikiEN-l] Q.: How to add received emails as attachments

body:
Dear all,

Does anyone know how to send an email which has already approached my email
programme as an attachment? I mean the way that the list sends emails to
users choosing the 'digest' mode. Those emails will provide users the mails
of the day in attachment form. I wonder how to do this.

>From B.C.


from_name: Brianna Laugher

body:
On 22/07/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Brianna Laugher wrote:
>
> >On 21/07/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>So, you wouldn't allow photos of buildings where a company's logo was
> >>>on their building?
> >>>http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:NYC_Top_of_the_Rock_Pano.jpg
> >>>is a featured image on commons and has logos, even if they are a bit
> >>>blurry. A clearer example is
> >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Melb_cbd.jpg
> >>>
> >>>
> >>If we can be sure that we aren't breaking the law, then I'd be very
> >>happy for Commons to house such images. I really can't say whether
> >>we're breaking the law to copyleft an image with a copyrighted logo in
> >>it, I certainly hope law isn't that restrictive.
> >>
> >>
> >The feeling at the moment tends to be: it's *in context* so it's OK.
> >We have quite a few images that have a mishmash of logos. But if you
> >crop any of those photos to just show one logo only, then that crop
> >would not be free.
> >
> "May" not be free, not "would" not be free.  There is no basis for such
> certainty.

OK, whatever. My point was: it would probably get nominated for
deletion and that would probably succeed.

> In any event, why would anyone want to use a low resolution crop, when
> better pictures of the logo are probably more easily found?

Because they're a user from a non-fair use/commons-only project who
doesn't understand copyright very well.

Brianna


body:
On 22/07/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> WMF would probably do best to distance itself from these issues.  It has
> too much to lose from a wrong decision.  The fundamental premise should
> be that the uploader of material has the primary responsibility for
> establishing the copyright status of what he provides.  At the same time
> it needs to safeguard its founding principle that it is providing an
> free access resource.  I certainly have ideas for attempting to
> reconcile these concepts, but I'll save them for another time.

Well, the thing is, a huge part of Commons' role is to play Media
Copyright Police. And as this thread has shown it is really, really,
hard. The same issues keep coming up again and again, no satisfactory
results, it's like arguing with windmills. Having the same debates
again and again is very weary-making. It's easy enough to upload at
Commons then forget about it, but each project is only as strong as
its weakest link, and then it comes to copyright, that could well be
Commons. So this thread is me asking for help. Is it not the WMF's
role to support and help its projects?

Regards,
Brianna


body:
On 22/07/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> >Why?  None of these are cut and dry.  If we limit ourselves to only
> >the images that are zero risk we would have a LOT less content... and
> >we'd have to reject a lot which will be free for all meaningful
> >purposes.     When it comes down to it, most of these things can only
> >be decided in a court, and courts rule in strage ways.    An official
> >statement by the foundation would be risky and without much gain...
> >after all, what would a statement really accomplish that we couldn't?
> >
> Individual responsibility!  Otherwise there are problems at both ends of
> the scale.

The cases I have mentioned are not about uploaders who don't care
about copyright. They're about good uploaders who don't happen to be
aware of every nook and cranny of copyright of every country whose
laws might apply to their images. They are being as responsible as
they know how. Who would've thought a statue in the public might not
be allowed to be photographed? Who would've thought a PHOTO of a
pokemon toy (not the toy itself) would be copyrighted? Who would've
thought a Flickr user whose photo says CC-BY didn't really mean it, as
it turns out? etc. So IMO this doesn't have a lot to do with
uploaders.

Brianna


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
daniwo59 at aol.com wrote:

>In a message dated 7/23/2006 1:55:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>saintonge at telus.net writes:
>
>She was  on "The $64,000 Question", not the "$64,000 Pyramid"  I remember
>watching the shows when she was on.  Her topic was psychology, and  she
>didn't play against anybody.  Was that intended to be a trick  question?
>
>It was, indeed, before my time. The article about her says Boxing, which
>shoudl be corrected then. Should be interesting to find out which is  correct.
>
Sorry!  Maybe you are right about the boxing?? :-( :-[   I also remember
Peter Freuchen (the Seven Seas) and Vincent Price (cooking) being
contestants.

>My point with the others is that I hav no problem with a list. I do have
>problems with bios, especially considering that the sole resource for these bios
>is a network PR firm. "She has a dog named Dexter," or "He was dancing  since
>he was three" cannot be verfied anywhere except through the publicity  agent
>who is trying to make them overnight heroes. They are not notable because
>none of the information is independently verifiable.
>
Those who appeared in the 1950s aren't being promoted anymore. ;-)

Ec


from_name: SPUI

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 12:39:15 -0400, SPUI <drspui at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I'm arguing that we should not use a term that has different meanings in
>>different places.
>
> So instead you prefer a term which has *no* meaning in *most* places?

Yes, because its meaning is consistent. [[Category:Elevators]] includes
lifts.


body:
Steve Bennett wrote:

>On 7/23/06, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I just came across [[Category:So You Think You Can Dance contestants]].  This
>>has gone beyond ridiculous. Are we so hard pressed for article? Are we  going
>>to have a category for contestants on the Price is Right or Jeopardy too?
>>How about a nice table for people who were on Let's Make a Deal, which lists
>>whether they chose door number one, two or three, and what costume they  wore in
>>the audience.
>>
>>
>I don't know about So You Think You Can Dance, but I say that the
>final twelve contestants on Australian Idol etc are probably
>noteworthy.  Definitely the final three or four, who generally end up
>at least getting a single out or something.
>
There are dozens of versions of "Idol" like [[SuperStar]].  It's much
easier for singers to put out CDs than dancers. ;-)

Ec