subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Bylaws Part IV

body:
From: "Anthere" <anthere8 at yahoo.com>
> Ray Saintonge a ?crit:
> > Anthere wrote:
> >
> >> Section 4.2. WRITTEN RESIGNATION.
<..snip..>
> I understand the intent, but...why may the board decide to remove the
> account of a user upon the reason he resigned from the association ? A
> resignation is a voluntary act, not the act of a banned user or a
> vandal. So, it is up to the wikipedian to ask the deletion of his
> account if he wishes so. No ?

Who does the account belong to?  It is something that is owned by the web
site, not the user of the web site; like the credit card is owned by the
bank or the passport is the property of the government that issued it.  Only
they have the right to take it back. Any user account does not belong to the
user, this is why
Jimbo was able to "freeze" the mediator role account. If Wikimedia turns off
the servers and erases the user pages they are gone and so are the user
accounts.

Also, all text on Wikipedia is released under the GFDL so the user cannot
really request that any text that they have input on Wikipedia be removed,
no?  I know user talk sub pages are an exception to this and if someone
posts personal information they can also get the page history blanked for
privacy reasons, but isn't the information that users post done so under the
GFDL?

It is really even a violation of the Board of Trustees to remove it (but let
them get sued by someone for violating the GFDL, not the member). I am sure
that if someone asked to have it removed for a good reason the Board of
Trustees would remove it. It seems to me that what it is really about is to
protect the user so that no one can accuse them of violating the GFDL, just
my opinion though, maybe we should ask Jimbo to submit this to a panel of
Florida judges and get them to figure out what it all means!

Alex756


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Stan Shebs

subject: [WikiEN-l] maverick

body:
John C. Penta wrote:

>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com>
>Date: Saturday, January 24, 2004 7:54 pm
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] maverick
>
>
>
>>Don't laugh too much, military personnel often have a terrible
>>time
>>getting good
>>information. Remember the tank guy calling the SCO help line from
>>his M1A1
>>in Desert Storm?
>>
>
>Say WHAT?
>
>You simply must tell this story, Stan.
>
Risks Digest, Volume 11, Issue 10
(http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/11.10.html),
from Steve Elias. Seems not to be anything about this beyond the
original report,
so not really solid enough to enshrine anywhere in WP.

Stan


from_name: Robert

subject: [WikiEN-l] Martin Harper is again censoring Wikipedia

body:
Martin Harper (MyRedDice) is again censoring the article,
"Palestinian views of the peace process". Instead of
deleting the entire article, Martin Harper has deleted most
of the (verfied) facts and quotes, leaving a skeleton
article with vietually no content!

This specific problem was already discussed in detail a few
weeks ago. It was decided that when Danny mass deleted this
vast amount of information, it amounted to vandalism, or
censorship. It was decided that when Zero did the same
thing, this too was censorship.

Jimbo, some anonymous folk, and myself made many arguments
on simple points: One may not delete verified historical
facts and quotes simply because it makes them
uncomfortable. You cannot push your political agenda by
deletin facts that are inconvenient.

Please re-read Jimbo's many posts on this issue. We cannot
have any kind of encyclopedia at all if we mass delete huge
amounts of facts and quotes to push political agendas.

Jimbo was very clear that the problem was not one of NPOV,
but one of people trying to avoid discussion of certain
points altogether. Instead of improving an article, people
were trying to make it disappear. That is uncalled for.

I am trying to mitigate the damage caused by Martin, but he
is really making a one person censorship campaign his full
time job. I am requesting mediation. However, we require
mediators who are _not_ avowedly anti-Israel and
pro-Arafat, because that is precisely the problem.

We should be discussing _how_ to present facts, not _if_ we
should present them!  For shame.

Robert (RK)

=====
"I prefer a wicked person who knows he is wicked, to a righteous person who knows he is righteous".
The Seer of Lublin [Jacob Isaac Ha-Hozeh Mi-Lublin, 1745-1815]

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/


subject: [WikiEN-l] No, I don't think censorship is too strong a word

body:
In regards to the article, ""Palestinian views of the peace
process", Martin Harper is still censoring historical facts
and verified quotes. Instead of working with others to make
improvements, he is hiding facts that he finds
inconvenient. This is totally unacceptable.

On Fri Jan 9 14:48:08 UTC 2004 Jimbo writes about this very
situation:

"But in tems of actual content, I don't see the problem.
There is no question that a full understanding of the
Palestinian situation requires understanding what
Palestinian views of the peace process actually are. There
is no question that one point of contention is whether
Palestinian leaders, in particular, view the peace process
as "permanent and irrevocable" (or similar) or whether they
view it merely as a short-term negotiating tactic in a
longterm effort to destroy Israel. Simply omitting
information on that question is unacceptable. This is an
important part of one of the major questions of our time."

On Fri Jan 9 16:24:36 UTC 2004 Jimbo also wrote:

"I don't really see how it's original historical research
in any way shape or form. Palestinian attitudes are well
documented and discussed -- except on Wikipedia, where
people have chosen to delete rather than work for
neutrality." (End quote)

The problem is that certain people here are violating NPOV
by only mentioning viewpoints from a limited number of
people, in a limited number of situations. Viewpoints that
he disagrees with, even if they are mainstream and majority
views, are censored and deleted.

In stark contrast, the material I have contributed shows a
wide range of views from a wide range of Palestinian
leaders, so that Wikipedia readers can read the range of
views and make up their own mind. In the recent past,
others have mass-deleted all this material. Today Martin
Harper is doing this all over again. That is unfortunate.

In support of the range of views presented within the
article, Jimbo writeson Fri Jan 9 17:11:56 UTC 2004

"The text could be improved, of course. But it is very good
precisely becasue it presents "balanced and balancing
viewpoints with the proper historical context". The quotes
are dated and exact references are given. Alternative views
and background information is given.

Many in the West are uncomfortable with this kind of
information because it doesn't comport well with the
prevailing liberal view that the Palestinians are solely
victims. Rationally, of course we can say that Palestinians
are indeed victims while simultaneously holding and
expressing reprehensible views. What we must not do is
simply omit information about Palestinian attitudes because
it doesn't match up too our rosy view of noble rebels
fighting a racist apartheid state. What I'm primarily
arguing, though, is not the content of the material. I
think that the material is good, though not excellent, but
my real point is that it can in no way be characterized as
something that ought to be simply *deleted* outright. It
should be *improved*.

In the present case, we see why deletion is bad. We are
left with a horribly broken presentation in which readers
are unable to discover why it might be that, despite the
PLO officially no longer calling for the destruction of
Israel, and Arafat himself announcing a right to exist, the
majority of Palestinians polled support the destruction of
Israel.

We can only come to understand that better when we come to
understand Arafat's duplicity, and the anti-Israel
propaganda that is rampant in the Palestinian culture. But
because some supporters of Palestine are uncomfortable with
that material, it is censored from Wikipedia. No, I don't
think censorship is too strong a word."

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/


from_name: Daniel Ehrenberg

subject: [WikiEN-l] Using language which represents events

body:
>Instead of using the words "inadmissible evidence" I
>could have said,
>"during arbitration the users shouldn't be able to
>drag in everything
>that
>happened during mediation", but the short phrase
(from
>law, after all I
>was
>a lawyer) serves. It doesn't imply all the bullshit
>that goes with
>formal
>court proceedings, after all we are talking about
>mediation followed by
>arbitration for participants in a voluntary
>cooperative effort.
>Nevertheless
>it is useful to use short hand exppressions which
>represent events or
>things
>which otherwise have to be spelled out at length.
>Having to reinvent a
>new
>language for our particular proceeding would be quite
>burdensome
>although we
>probably will develop some language unique to our
>situation.

I wasn't talking about semantics, it's just that when
you start bringing in formalities like making people
redo their entire testemony in arbitration that they
already did in mediation, it makes the whole thing a
lot less efficient.

LDan
Fred

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/


from_name: Ira Stoll

subject: [WikiEN-l] Should the content of articles be subject to arbitration?

body:
>Whether we deal with article-based disputes is a close issue. While I see
>the need and advocate it, I recall great reluctance on the part of the
>mailing list to allow arbitration of article content. I'm also posting this
>to wikien-l for further comment by the mailing list.
>
>Fred

I feel very strongly that article disputes be settled by arbitration, or
some other time consuming process where the issue is well thought over and
researched, rather than decided by poll. To be honest, I have a rather
contentious issue that I would like to have arbitrated, assuming it is still
a concern by the time the arbitrators are ready to start taking cases (and
also assuming it is decided that they will handle article disputes :)
JackLynch

_________________________________________________________________
Find high-speed ?net deals ? comparison-shop your local providers here.
https://broadband.msn.com


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Playing to the Audience

body:
When folks in mediation begin planing their moves in order to influence the
arbitration procedure rather than actually trying to come to agreement
neither mediation or arbitration is going to work well.

Fred

> From: Daniel Ehrenberg <littledanehren at yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 07:34:41 -0800 (PST)
> To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Using language which represents events
>
> I wasn't talking about semantics, it's just that when
> you start bringing in formalities like making people
> redo their entire testemony in arbitration that they
> already did in mediation, it makes the whole thing a
> lot less efficient.
>
> LDan


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Karl Eichwalder

subject: [Wikitech-l] Server shuffle

body:
Sounds good, thanks.  What's up with uploading to 'de'?

Is it possible to make images uploaded to 'en' visible on other WPs?
How?  Thus far I wasn't able to display 'de' picture on 'en' inline.  I
tried something as follows:

[[w:de:Bild:Nuernberg-burg-mitteltrakt-v-sw-unten-klein.jpg]]

--
                                                         |      ,__o
                                                         |    _-\_<,
http://www.gnu.franken.de/ke/                            |   (*)/'(*)


from_name: Daniel P.B.Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Unobstrusive ways of citing authority

body:
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Unobtrusive Ways of Citing Authority
>
> There are several ways of adding citations that do not clutter up the
> text.
>
> 1. A superscript which point to a footnote.
>
> 2. A hypertext link to the source like
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_wet] which will display [1].
>
> 3. Using comments while editing that do not show up in the displayed
> text:
>
> <!--  via Wikipedia: Pierre de Fermat
>
>       last updated: 2004-01-01T18:44:37Z
>       193.230.240.14

Yes. Perhaps nothing more is needed. The paucity
of citations is mainly due to custom and/or preference
rather than to technology. However...

1) is, as far as I know, currently hard to achieve
conveniently and reliably. Internal Wiki links have
to point to a section (and break if the article is
reorganized or the section heading is changed).
This can be done in HTML but I've gotten spoiled
by Wiki markup and am unlikely to put in the effort
myself. Furthermore, how do you keep the superscript
numerals sequential as the article gets edited?

2) only works for Website references, and there
seems to be disagreement about whether it is
proper to include these within the body of an
article. There is certainly a preference for putting
them all in an == External Links == section.
(By the way: current custom is to name the
section "External Link" when there's only one
and pluralize it as soon as there are two, meaning
a Wiki-link to this section is guaranteed to break).

1 and 2 also have the problem of how to
return to where you were in the text after you
read the reference. So, they're too obtrusive if
you wanted to ignore the reference... and even
more obtrusive if you want to read it.

3) is fine, and I'm starting to use this myself,
EXCEPT that a) the presence of references
isn't visible, and b) it is necessary to edit the
article to see the reference.

--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith at world.std.com alternate:
dpbsmith at alum.mit.edu
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/


from_name: Anthere

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: copyrights issues

body:
Anthere a ?crit:
> Could someone give us a link to a draft page of emails to send to
> someone using wikipedia content without respecting the terms of the
> licence ?
>
> I saw several times great emails examples published on the list (the
> last one was really good). Does someone know the link ? Or is there
> somewhere a page from which we can inspire ourselves to make a standard
> copyright violation notice ?
>
> Thanks

Thanks Mav and Mark. I copied the english version, and lauched a
campaign of collaborative translation/adaptation on fr: :-)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Unadmissible Evidence (dan)

references:
<40123CD5.4080503@yahoo.com>
	<BC37AB1A.984%fredbaud@ctelco.net>	<401261F9.3000801@yahoo.com>
	<vhIsdqY67dTD-pn2-bMdEoxt4s3xs@localhost>

body:
Dan Drake a ?crit:
> On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 12:15:53 UTC, Anthere
> <anthere8 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Just thought of mentionning that thought the below mail make it so
>>appear I wrote that comment, I did not.
>>
>>I agree with Fred entirely.
>>
>>Anthere
>
>
> Me too (pardon the expression). It hadn't been clear to me that this was
> part of the package.

Dan...why do you write "pardon the expression". Is that not correct to
write "me too" ?


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: Decisions, Opinions,
	Precedents and Learning from Experience

body:
We need to get information of this sort before the genaral audience of users
so that they have an informed opinion when they vote on arbitrators.

Fred

> From: Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org>
> Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 08:42:13 -0800
> To: arbitration at nerstrand.net
> Subject: Re: Decisions, Opinions, Precedents and Learning from Experience
>
>> I suggest that on any matter each arbitrator first state a conclusion such
>> as accept or don't accept then a brief (or lengthy as it suits them)
>> explanation of why.
>
> I agree with you, Fred, but as I am demonstrating at the moment, if an
> arbiter's opinion is thought to be "incorrect", there will be
> immediate calls for his/her removal for thoughtcrime.  A chilling
> effect might be seen.
>
> --
> Sean Barrett     | Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change.
> sean at epoptic.com |


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 6, Issue 109

body:
> Message: 6
> Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 20:36:45 -0500
> From: Sascha Noyes <sascha at pantropy.net>
> Or my personal favourite:
>
> <sup>[[Articlename#References|<nowiki>[</nowiki>1<nowiki>]</
> nowiki>]]</sup>

Quibble 1: How do you keep the numerals in sequence
if you are editing it and need to insert another citation?

Quibble 2: Less important because less likely, but
how do you keep the link from breaking
if the name of the References section is changed?

Quibble 3: There are probably those who find even
a superscript footnote or endnote too intrusive when
casually reading the article, so ideally there would be
some kind of "show/hide references" mechanism.

Quibble 4: For those who WANT to see the reference,
when you click on the reference you lose your place in
the text you were reading.

--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith at world.std.com alternate:
dpbsmith at alum.mit.edu
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Michael Snow

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Stop for a moment, please

body:
Ulrich Fuchs wrote:

>Wikimedia, on the other hand, would be the organization that actually *is the
>project* (not the service). That organization needs to be
>*   democratically organized
>*   global
>*   bound now and for all future to the common goal of creating free content
>without paying authors or officials; however we must consider that there
>might be a need in the future to have employees, if the project get's Big
>with a capital B.
>*   allowing a country substructure for better fundraising and representation
>*   allowing a project substructure for setting project policies and
>representation (these are two different things, it might be a necessary to
>speak for the *german language Wikipedia* at one time and for the *german
>Wikimedians" at another time
>*   organized in a way that these local chapters and subproject chapters form
>the organization bottom up and not top down.
>
>
Currently, Wikimedia (the umbrella for the Wikipedia and other projects)
is organized based on consensus, if you ignore the largely unused
dictatorial powers. Consensus is not the same thing as democracy.

Wikimedia is already global. The various substructures are not fully
developed yet, but they will be. We barely have the scaffolding of the
superstructure itself at this point, with a not-fully-constituted Board.
The rest will take a little time - consensus always takes time.

Wikimedia is bound to free content by the GFDL. The freedom is more
important than the principle of democracy (which will be generally
respected through the consensus process anyway, since so many of us
believe in democratic government in some fashion).

I'm not sure if paying skilled authors for content is fundamentally
objectionable, but the model suggests that it's unnecessary anyway.
Other employees, including officials, might need to be paid for their
services. The "Service Provider" would also be an employee in this sense.

I do agree that we need to consider how to ensure effective
representation of different languages in the Wikimedia organization.
Certainly the Board should not always consist only of English-speakers.
Because of this issue, it seems that Wikimedia may eventually need to
pay for some translation services. For now, perhaps bilingual members
could bridge the gap.

--Michael Snow


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [Wikitech-l] European squid

body:
I'm pretty sure their servers are in Europe -- after all, this was the
whole point of the conversation I had with them.  I will check to be sure
that we are talking about a machine physically sitting in Europe, because
what you're telling me is a real surprise.

Jens Frank wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 01:25:53PM -0800, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> > I've made arrangements with the European Graduate School,
> > http://www.egs.edu/ for them to host a squid proxy box for European
> > visitors.  I assume we're not 100% ready to move to that solution, but
> > we're close, right?
>
> You're sure their machines are in Europe? Traceroute tells me that they are
> even further away from me than wikipedia, but both are in California.
> I checked their mail gateways, too, same CoLo in California.
>
> $ traceroute www.egs.edu
> traceroute: Warning: www.egs.edu has multiple addresses; using 207.155.248.4
> traceroute to www.egs.edu (207.155.248.4), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
>  1  gw-prtr-66-a.schlund.net (217.160.223.253)  0.357 ms  0.240 ms  0.199 ms
>  2  v999.gw-core.bs.ka.schlund.net (212.227.125.1)  0.331 ms  0.317 ms  0.298 ms
>  3  ge-230.gw-backbone-a.bs.ka.schlund.net (212.227.121.231)  0.412 ms  0.385 ms  0.370 ms
>  4  so-3000.gw-backbone-a.ffm.schlund.net (212.227.112.125)  5.143 ms  5.076 ms  5.090 ms
>  5  sl-gw20-fra-2-3.sprintlink.net (217.147.97.57)  5.073 ms  5.051 ms  5.025 ms
>  6  sl-bb21-fra-9-0.sprintlink.net (217.147.96.226)  5.468 ms  5.347 ms  5.328 ms
>  7  sl-bb20-par-14-0.sprintlink.net (213.206.129.65)  15.398 ms  15.345 ms  15.374 ms
>  8  sl-bb21-par-15-0.sprintlink.net (217.118.224.34)  54.755 ms  15.576 ms  21.009 ms
>  9  sl-bb20-lon-13-0.sprintlink.net (213.206.129.69)  22.431 ms  22.314 ms  22.496 ms
> 10  sl-bb21-lon-15-0.sprintlink.net (213.206.128.38)  22.446 ms  22.362 ms  22.385 ms
> 11  sl-bb21-tuk-10-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.19.69)  91.185 ms  91.264 ms  91.219 ms
> 12  sl-bb20-tuk-15-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.20.132)  188.716 ms  91.376 ms  91.426 ms
> 13  sl-bb21-rly-15-1.sprintlink.net (144.232.20.120)  95.213 ms  96.459 ms  95.141 ms
> 14  sl-bb22-rly-13-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.7.254)  95.212 ms  95.755 ms  95.180 ms
> 15  sl-bb26-rly-12-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.14.174)  246.570 ms  249.159 ms  267.609 ms
> 16  sl-st21-ash-11-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.20.134)  96.783 ms  96.571 ms  97.099 ms
> 17  sl-xocomm-5-0.sprintlink.net (144.223.246.50)  96.287 ms  95.969 ms  96.081 ms
> 18  p5-0-0.RAR2.Washington-DC.us.xo.net (65.106.3.137)  97.304 ms  97.130 ms  97.156 ms
> 19  p0-0-0-0.RAR1.Washington-DC.us.xo.net (65.106.1.13)  119.466 ms  98.296 ms  115.247 ms
> 20  p1-0-0.RAR1.SanJose-CA.us.xo.net (65.106.0.38)  175.654 ms  175.684 ms  175.690 ms
> 21  p1-0.DCR1.DC-SanJose-CA.us.xo.net (65.106.2.170)  176.560 ms  176.591 ms  176.520 ms
> 22  repulse.concentric.net (207.155.248.4)  176.791 ms !A  176.379 ms !A  176.509 ms !A
>
>
> Compare to wikipedia:
>
> $ traceroute www.wikipedia.org
> traceroute to www.wikipedia.org (130.94.122.199), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
>  1  gw-prtr-66-a.schlund.net (217.160.223.253)  0.337 ms  0.142 ms  0.210 ms
>  2  v999.gw-core.bs.ka.schlund.net (212.227.125.1)  0.464 ms  0.295 ms  0.290 ms
>  3  ge-42.gw-backbone-b.bs.ka.schlund.net (212.227.121.232)  0.386 ms  0.251 ms  0.251 ms
>  4  pos-80.gw-backbone-b.ffm.schlund.net (212.227.112.127)  2.931 ms  2.851 ms  2.859 ms
>  5  212.162.44.157 (212.162.44.157)  3.281 ms  3.089 ms  3.151 ms
>  6  ae-0-51.mp1.Frankfurt1.Level3.net (195.122.136.1)  3.756 ms  3.551 ms  3.534 ms
>  7  so-2-0-0.mp2.Amsterdam1.Level3.net (212.187.128.94)  9.978 ms  9.830 ms  9.875 ms
>  8  ge-6-1.core2.Amsterdam1.Level3.net (213.244.165.86)  10.127 ms  10.139 ms  10.183 ms
>  9  Verio-Level3.Level3.net (213.244.165.242)  29.867 ms  29.875 ms  29.825 ms
> 10  p16-2-0-0.r01.amstnl02.nl.bb.verio.net (129.250.2.135)  30.196 ms  30.145 ms  30.099 ms
> 11  p16-1-0-0.r80.asbnva01.us.bb.verio.net (129.250.5.87)  94.213 ms  94.210 ms  94.943 ms
> 12  p16-1-2-0.r21.asbnva01.us.bb.verio.net (129.250.2.44)  94.294 ms  94.089 ms  94.223 ms
> 13  p16-0-1-2.r20.plalca01.us.bb.verio.net (129.250.2.192)  155.130 ms  155.034 ms  155.005 ms
> 14  p64-0-0-0.r20.snjsca04.us.bb.verio.net (129.250.2.71)  155.133 ms  155.038 ms  155.055 ms
> 15  xe-0-2-0.r21.snjsca04.us.bb.verio.net (129.250.2.73)  155.166 ms  155.108 ms  155.102 ms
> 16  p16-1-1-1.r21.lsanca01.us.bb.verio.net (129.250.2.186)  162.134 ms  162.104 ms  162.046 ms
> 17  p16-3-0-0.r01.sndgca01.us.bb.verio.net (129.250.2.159)  165.694 ms  165.634 ms  165.600 ms
> 18  ge-1-2.a03.sndgca01.us.da.verio.net (129.250.27.100)  165.764 ms  165.610 ms  165.663 ms
> 19  ge-2-1.a04.sndgca01.us.da.verio.net (129.250.27.101)  165.776 ms  165.714 ms  165.713 ms
> 20  larousse.wikipedia.org (130.94.122.199)  163.567 ms  163.522 ms  163.480 ms
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Arbitration progress report #2

body:
Do you suggest that any arbitrator have '''no''' right to participate to
building policies from now on ?

I suppose that similarly mediators have no right to participate in edit
wars from now on as well ?

Just as Jimbo has no right to edit articles ?

If so, we might just forget the whole process entirely.

Rick a ?crit:
> I request Sean Barrett's removal from the arbitration committee.
>
> RickK
>
> Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
>
>      > I question your suitability for the role of arbitrator based on your
>      > condescention towards those who want the wikipedia policies enforced.
>
>     You told me to work to have the policy changed; I tell you to work to
>     have me removed. Jimbo appointed me; convince him to remove me. As
>     an alternative, if a simple majority of my fellow arbiters ask me to
>     step down, I will.
>
>      > The only argument you have given
>      > against enforcing such rules is that your time is too precious.
>
>     I haven't even given that argument, and I don't intend to give any
>     arguments. I simply refuse to be compelled to arbitrate the way you
>     think I should.
>
>      > So would it be correct to conclude that you either you think that
>     nobody will
>      > be driven away by person al attacks, or it is not worth your time
>     to retain
>      > these contributors?
>
>     Co nclude what you like. I am a free man. You cannot compel me to
>     rule on a case I don't choose to rule on. I encourage you, however,
>     to work on impeaching me from the arbitration committee.
>
>      > I will also put to you my opinion that in cases where
>      > there has been a gross violation of policies such as "no personal
>     attacks",
>      > all the arbitration committee will have to do is the following:
>
>     And I suspect that in cases where there has been a gross violation of
>     the "no personal attacks" policy, there will be contemporaneous
>     violations such as edit warring, which I agree rise to a level
>     requiring arbitration.
>
>      > Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
>
>     Don't forget to inform the arbitration committee of my dereliction of
>     duty, and impress upon Jimbo the urgency of appointing arbiters who
>     will always rule the way you tell them to.
>
>     --
>     Sean Barrett | To bite off your shadow is neither easy
>     sean at epoptic.com | no r painless. It
>     demands a single-mindedness
>     | that is almost unknown in this day.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=21608/*http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Sascha Noyes

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Should the content of articles be subject to
	arbitration?

body:
On Sunday 25 January 2004 09:28 am, Ira Stoll wrote:
> >Whether we deal with article-based disputes is a close issue. While I see
> >the need and advocate it, I recall great reluctance on the part of the
> >mailing list to allow arbitration of article content. I'm also posting
> > this to wikien-l for further comment by the mailing list.
> >
> >Fred
>
> I feel very strongly that article disputes be settled by arbitration, or
> some other time consuming process where the issue is well thought over and
> researched, rather than decided by poll. To be honest, I have a rather
> contentious issue that I would like to have arbitrated, assuming it is
> still a concern by the time the arbitrators are ready to start taking cases
> (and also assuming it is decided that they will handle article disputes :)
> JackLynch

And I feel equally strongly that our articles, particularly not our
contentious articles should be written by any committee which issues a decree
about what is and is not "fact", what does and does not merit inclusion in a
particular article, etc.

Arbitration should be about enforcing policies and not making editorial
decisions about particular articles or disputes.

Best,
Sascha Noyes
--
Please encrypt all email. Public key available from
www.pantropy.net/snoyes.asc


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: copyrights issues

body:
This said...this is not the first time that happens. Usually, the
mention the text is gfdl is there.

But usually as well, there is no mention of Wikipedia, no mention of any
  author, no link to wikipedia itself, no link to the article or to the
article history.

In short, the text is considered public domain, since there is no
respect for who wrote it. So...that is nice, since the text is being
used by others. But our project is not gaining anything. No reputation
as it is not considered the origin of the text, and no new contributors,
since there are no links.

Each time I raise the topic on fr, a contributor answers that no where
in the license is it written that wikipedia name itself should be
mentionned. And that the projet itself could disappear, hence making
disappear the names of the contributions. So that it is not worth it to
ask for a link to be put back to wikipedia itself

Conclusions are that the names of the contributors themselves only
should be mentionned (on the site using the content - which is totally
impracticable), or that we should ask a link to the history of the
article (which is imho, bound to let many readers of the site in
question quite abashed and wondering what is that stuff about).

Consequently, no one is doing anything, and sites are beginning to use
our content without any recognition of our rights.

This is ***seriously*** beginning to bug me.

Anthere a ?crit:
>
>
> Anthere a ?crit:
>
>> Could someone give us a link to a draft page of emails to send to
>> someone using wikipedia content without respecting the terms of the
>> licence ?
>>
>> I saw several times great emails examples published on the list (the
>> last one was really good). Does someone know the link ? Or is there
>> somewhere a page from which we can inspire ourselves to make a
>> standard copyright violation notice ?
>>
>> Thanks
>
>
> Thanks Mav and Mark. I copied the english version, and lauched a
> campaign of collaborative translation/adaptation on fr: :-)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Unadmissible Evidence (internet language)

body:
k. lol.

Delirium a ?crit:
> Anthere wrote:
>
>> Dan Drake a ?crit:
>>
>>> Me too (pardon the expression). It hadn't been clear to me that this
>>> was part of the package.
>>
>>
>> Dan...why do you write "pardon the expression". Is that not correct to
>> write "me too" ?
>
>
> In internet culture, "me too" has come to be a somewhat notorious phrase
> associated with AOL users and other "internet newbies".  It comes from
> AOL message boards (and possibly Prodigy or other message boards before
> that) where often when someone would post something about how they liked
> a movie or song or something, there'd be 10 replies that basically just
> said "me too".  Sometimes in more words ("I also like that!" or
> something), but the effect was the same, so these became known as "me
> too" posts.
>
> -Mark


from_name: Delirium

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Should the content of articles be subject
	to	arbitration?

body:
Sascha Noyes wrote:

>On Sunday 25 January 2004 09:28 am, Ira Stoll wrote:
>
>
>>I feel very strongly that article disputes be settled by arbitration, or
>>some other time consuming process where the issue is well thought over and
>>researched, rather than decided by poll. To be honest, I have a rather
>>contentious issue that I would like to have arbitrated, assuming it is
>>still a concern by the time the arbitrators are ready to start taking cases
>>(and also assuming it is decided that they will handle article disputes :)
>>JackLynch
>>
>>
>
>And I feel equally strongly that our articles, particularly not our
>contentious articles should be written by any committee which issues a decree
>about what is and is not "fact", what does and does not merit inclusion in a
>particular article, etc.
>
>
I guess I'm split on this, and don't like either solution.  Our current
process seems to have two main ways of resolving contentious disputes:
* Whoever is most persistent wins, as eventually his opponent goes away
and he reverts to his preferred version without anyone noticing
* Whichever position is most popular wins, as it wins the vote (even if
it's grossly incorrect)

I'm not sure whether "committee decree" is better or worse than these,
as none of the three options are very good.

-Mark


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Bylaws

body:
Ray Saintonge a ?crit:
> Anthere wrote:
>
>> We are currently trying to translate the bylaws (thanks Jeff !)
>>
>> A paragraph raised my attention
>>
>> A. CONTRIBUTING ACTIVE MEMBERSHIP: Active membership in this
>> Foundation shall be limited to volunteers who have contributed to any
>> Wikimedia project prior to the election ballot request deadline after
>> their application for membership and payment of annual dues. All
>> active members shall have the right to vote in this Foundation at any
>> membership vote for the Contributing Active Member Representative to
>> the Board of Trustees.
>>
>> Why shall only those contributing before the election be considered
>> members ? What about all those who will join next month ? Did I
>> misunderstand something here ?
>
>
> I think that this paragraph in the draft was needlessly convoluted.  If
> one basically defines an "active member" as a person who has contributed
> to any Wikimedia project article, a "paid-up member" is then an active
> member who has paid annual dues.  Defining "members" is more direct than
> defining "memberships" since the latter is nothing more than the status
> of being a member.  We also need to avoid confusion between the words
> "contributor" and "donor", and that distinction should be made clear in
> a definitions article.  Our practice has been to use "contributor" for a
> person who has written or edited articles, and to use "donor" for a
> person who has given money.  I had to read the second sentence several
> times to make sense of it; whet it seems to say is that every member,
> wheteher or not he has paid dues, has the right to vote for this position.

I agree it was perhaps unclear...since the difference between the two
types of contributors have been raised in the talk page on fr:

It is apparently still unclear

Here is a pasted comment from fr

Question : quelle diff?rence entre "membre actif contributeur" et
"membre actif volontaire" ?

Answer 1 :  premiers payent leur droit de cotisation et peuvent voter,
les second ne payent pas et ne peuvent pas voter

Answer 2 : ce n'est pas cela: dans les statuts tels qu'ils sont propos?s
il y a 2 administrateurs repr?sentant des membres. les membres actifs
volontaires ne peuvent participer au vote que d'un seul, les membres
actifs contributeurs peuvent voter pour les 2. jeffdelonge

> A provision that limits voting rights to those who were members when the
> election is called, or who have been members at least 30 days (or some
> other appropriate time period) is reasonable.  It helps in preventing a
> flood of last minute members whose only purpose for joining is to
> support some person in his election bid.
>
> Ec

agreed


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Bylaws Part IV

body:
Ray Saintonge a ?crit:
> Anthere wrote:
>
>> Section 4.2. WRITTEN RESIGNATION. Any member may resign from the
>> Foundation by submitting a written resignation to the Secretary. Such
>> resignation shall be effective as of the date received by the
>> Foundation, unless said resignation specifies another date. The Board
>> at its sole discretion may maintain or remove any such users account
>> from any of its projects upon such resignation.
>>
>> Wait a minute there...Why should resignation from the wikimedia
>> foundation have ANY sort of relation with the fact of being allowed to
>> contribute to Wikipedia ?
>>
>> Are we writting here that the board may have the right to erase a user
>> account from Wikipedia, just upon the argument that the user in
>> question decided to resign from the foundation ?
>>
>> Are we saying that the board of the foundation is having any power as
>> to decide who is allowed or not allowed to have an account ?
>
>
> Perhaps the problem here is with the words "at its sole discretion".
> Most of these accounts would be removed as a result of a request by the
> resigning person.  Placed where it is, it only applies to persons who
> have resigned.  Presumably the issue would be considered elsewhere if it
> referred to a banned user.  It is also possible that the person may wish
> to return with a different identity.  Thus someone who has been active
> in our internal politics may decide to come back with a less conspicuous
> identity and limit his edits to a few non-controversial areas without a
> lot of hassle.
>
> Ec

But that is a bit problematic I think. Any wikipedian may be, or may not
be part of the foundation, right ?

So, why is resignation as a foundation member confused with the
resignation as a wikipedian ?

I understand the intent, but...why may the board decide to remove the
account of a user upon the reason he resigned from the association ? A
resignation is a voluntary act, not the act of a banned user or a
vandal. So, it is up to the wikipedian to ask the deletion of his
account if he wishes so. No ?


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: bylaws part II

body:
Delirium a ?crit:
> Alex T. wrote:
>
>> That process would seem to indicate that you could require the application
>> to be
>> verified by a notary, thus ensuring that it is from a distinct individual.
>> That is usually
>> what NPO membership coordinators due is verify membership status, so it is
>> not
>> outrageous to ask someone to fill out a form, get it notarized and mail it
>> to someone
>> to be entitled to vote.

A notary ?!?
Well...I never had the use of a notary, even to receive an heritage :-(
I suspect we will have to find easier ways to prove we are real
citizens. Perhaps an id number, perhaps a copy of an official letter,
perhaps a web site with enough standing references to prove we exist...


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Bylaws V

body:
Ray Saintonge a ?crit:
> Anthere wrote:
>
>> Section 1. POWERS. The powers of the corporation shall be exercised,
>> its properties controlled, and its affairs conducted by a Board of
>> Trustees to be comprised initially of five trustees. All trustees must
>> be active (contributing or volunteer) or life members of the Foundation.
>>
>> What is the difference between a corporation and a foundation ?
>
>
> "Corporation" is a broader term that includes "foundation".  More
> generally incorporation is what gives an organization the legal status
> to be treated as a person.  There is some variation in the use of the
> term "foundation" in various jurisdictions.  Here it seems to be used in
> the sense of a general non-profit corporation that is doing good for the
> benefit of the community.  In other places the use of the term
> "foundation" is restricted to those organizations whose primary function
> is the distribution of funds for charitable purposes, often as the
> result of a large bequest.

Okay. So, I presume we can safely translate it as "association" everywhere

>> When the next elections take place, will there be 2 trustees to elect,
>> or 4 ?
>
>
> Two (2) to be elected.  If there were any more there would be a serious
> risk that democratic control would subvert the purposes of the organization.

You are right.

French people are also asking who the two other people are ?

>> Do members have any other role than electing trustees to decide of
>> everything for them ?
>
>
> Ingrate!  You should be thankful when Big Brother relieves you of the
> stress of participating in mind-numbing decisions. ;-)
>
> Ec

I would love it if Jimbo were bilingual english/french...;-)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Bylaws VI

body:
Ray Saintonge a ?crit:
> Anthere wrote:
>
>> These bylaws may be altered, amended or repealed and new Bylaws may be
>> adopted by a majority of the entire Board of Trustees at any regular
>> meeting or special meeting, provided that at least ten days written
>> notice is given of intention to alter, amend or repeal or to adopt new
>> Bylaws at such meeting.
>>
>> Do I understand well when reading that all powers are in the hands of
>> the board only, that only board has the power to empeach one of the
>> board member if necessary, that the board will then replace the
>> missing member, and that only board decide of any bylaws modifications ?
>
>
> Yeh, what did you expect?  There is nothing in that section about
> impeachment, or replacing members.

Remind me, next time I am jobless, not to take the job of a translater
and interpretator of any legal text.

Could anyone remind me as well, to try to find a lawyer among french
contributors asap.

> (BTW Anthere. Thanks for breaking up your comments on the by-laws into
> smaller eMails.  As much as I often agree with you, I do find some of
> your postings a little long.  The effect is often that I put those aside
> for later response.  I have some of those left in my "in box" from last
> year that are still waiting until I have enough free time to answer them
> with appropriate consideration.)
>
> Ec

;-) I know. I apologize. This is why I tried to break any point in a
separate mail.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: bylaws III

body:
Brion Vibber a ?crit:
> On Jan 24, 2004, at 11:00, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>>  There is also nothing in the by-laws to define "Board of Directors".
>> The simple fact that the term was used suggests that it is at least
>> something different from the Board of Trustees.
>
>
> Florida statutes section 617.01401, paragraph 2: '"Board of directors"
> means the group of persons vested with the management of the affairs of
> the corporation irrespective of the name by which such group is
> designated, including, but not limited to, managers or trustees.'

So, it seems to be two terms for one group only. Oki

> (Out of curiosity, why aren't we using the wikilegal-l list? It's there
> for a reason; in no small part for future reference via the archives.)
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

You are right :-)
Is there a gname adress for wikilegal-l ?


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: bylaws III

body:
Ray Saintonge a ?crit:
> Brion Vibber wrote:
>
>> On Jan 24, 2004, at 11:00, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>
>>>  There is also nothing in the by-laws to define "Board of
>>> Directors".  The simple fact that the term was used suggests that it
>>> is at least something different from the Board of Trustees.
>>
>>
>> Florida statutes section 617.01401, paragraph 2: '"Board of directors"
>> means the group of persons vested with the management of the affairs
>> of the corporation irrespective of the name by which such group is
>> designated, including, but not limited to, managers or trustees.'
>
>
> I'm not challenging Florida law on this.  Rather the point is that if
> only one Board exists in an organization, the same name should be used
> consistently.  Having two separate Boards with different duties is a
> real possibility, and the use of both terms lends support to that.  I
> raised the issue last summer with the suggestion that a Board of
> Trustees would be charged with maintaining  the focus and integrity of
> the project, and insuring that it adheres to a few key principles.  The
> Board of Trustees in the by-laws seems to do that.  A "Board of
> Directors" would have broader responsibilities relating to the general
> management of the project.  The Trustees would have the power to
> overrule the Directors on matters that violated key principles.

You mention a sort of council then ?


from_name: Marco Krohn

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Server shuffle

references:
<841B8EBE-4EDD-11D8-A361-000A95DAA284@pobox.com>
	<shn08cv4av.fsf@tux.gnu.franken.de>
	<34B4BA0C-4F0F-11D8-A361-000A95DAA284@pobox.com>
	<opr2bo1wt7thl5ts@localhost>

body:
Ivan Krstic wrote:

> Brion,
>
> On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 00:19:33 -0800, Brion Vibber
> <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
>> The Big Master Plan is to set up a central shared image handling system
>> of some sorts. I dunno if that'll happen in a timely fashion, though.
>
> do you need any help with this? I'm sure there's a few of us that would be
> glad to help out so all the work doesn't fall on your shoulders.

I would love to see something like this. There is some discussion about this
on

http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiImages.org

Hopefully someone starts with coding soon :-)

best regards,
  Marco


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: bylaws III

body:
Alex T. a ?crit:
> From: "Ray Saintonge" <saintonge at telus.net>
>
>>Anthere wrote:
>>
>>>What do we define as approval by the general membership ?
>>
>>Normally this would refer to a meeting of all members;  including this
>>reference suggests that a vote at other times, such as by a general vote
>>on a Meta page, would not be valid.
>
> <..snip..>
>
> Why can't members vote without a meeting? It says the board may vote
> without a meeting in art. IV, sec. 4 then members can vote without a meeting
> too.  We have already had voting on meta, there is nothing here that says
> we can't continue to do that as long as some kind of balloting process is
> respected.

I certainly hope we can vote without physical meeting. Or there would be
no vote at all :-)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: bylaws III

body:
Daniel Mayer a ?crit:
> Ray Saintonge wrote:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2004-January/014005.html
>
> I responded on Wikilegal-l:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikilegal-l/2004-January/000255.html
>
> Please continue thread there.
>
> -- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

what is the gname adress of that list ?


from_name: Sean Barrett

in_reply_to:
<200401251326.05972.sascha@pantropy.net> (message from Sascha
	Noyes on Sun, 25 Jan 2004 13:26:05 -0500)

body:
> That is nonsense. As I have replied in the correct thread:
>
> 1. I did not call for your removal
> 2. The reason I criticised you was that you were (you agreed) condescending
> towards others.

Then you should not take my comment to Fred as a reaction to you.  You
haven't, but others have explicitly called from my removal.

> I feel that your concern of not wanting to get involved in every name-calling
> dispute is a valid one, and should be discussed. I asked you numerous times
> to give reasons for holding the views you do, but you declined to give them.

Then I made a mistake.  I took the ... um ... urgency of your request
for discussion to be more accusatory than it appears I should have.  I
am willing to discuss the issue with anyone prepared to consider the
possibility that my position has valid aspects to it; I am not willing
to defend my position against charges that I seek to destroy civiliz-
...  I mean, Wikipedia as we know it.

Give me a moment to prepare a cogent statement, and the discussion can begin.

--
 Sean Barrett     | Ah-ha! They take me for the
 sean at epoptic.com | fool I am! --Groo the Wanderer


body:
Perhaps the arbitration committee can look for these patterns and attempt to
fashion some remedy that deal with them. Really if this is happening it
needs to be part of the complaint...err "Request for arbitration".

Fred

> From: Delirium <delirium at rufus.d2g.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 11:29:16 -0800
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Should the content of articles be subject
> to arbitration?
>
> Our current
> process seems to have two main ways of resolving contentious disputes:
> * Whoever is most persistent wins, as eventually his opponent goes away
> and he reverts to his preferred version without anyone noticing
> * Whichever position is most popular wins, as it wins the vote (even if
> it's grossly incorrect)


from_name: Elly Waterman

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: look, that is funny

body:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Optim" <optim81-/E1597aS9LT10XsdtD+oqA at public.gmane.org>
Newsgroups: gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.misc
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2004 5:11 AM
Subject: Re: look, that is funny

> the server is down at 06:11AM UTC+02 = 04:11AM
> UTC.

Temporarily, I put it from my windows cache down here:
http://www.geluidnieuws.nl/TEMP/ircgraph.png

But please, don't call me stupid or lazy anymore, I think its unwikipedian
to
criticize the way another person does his or her wikiwork! (Re: Wikitech
Minor Changes).

Elly Waterman


body:
"arbitration at nerstrand.net" I guess that is the 'secret' email list, eh?
(secret as in "archives are not world-readable")

> > I agree with you, Fred, but as I am demonstrating at the moment, if an
> > arbiter's opinion is thought to be "incorrect", there will be
> > immediate calls for his/her removal for thoughtcrime.  A chilling
> > effect might be seen.

That is nonsense. As I have replied in the correct thread:

1. I did not call for your removal
2. The reason I criticised you was that you were (you agreed) condescending
towards others.

I feel that your concern of not wanting to get involved in every name-calling
dispute is a valid one, and should be discussed. I asked you numerous times
to give reasons for holding the views you do, but you declined to give them.

Your calling my criticisms against you an enforcement of "thoughtcrime" is
rather ridiculous given the fact that I *want*  to discuss the issue and you
quite evidently don't.

Best,
Sascha Noyes

Anyway,

On Sunday 25 January 2004 12:01 pm, Fred Bauder wrote:
> We need to get information of this sort before the genaral audience of
> users so that they have an informed opinion when they vote on arbitrators.
>
> Fred
>
> > From: Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org>
> > Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 08:42:13 -0800
> > To: arbitration at nerstrand.net
> > Subject: Re: Decisions, Opinions, Precedents and Learning from Experience
> >
> >> I suggest that on any matter each arbitrator first state a conclusion
> >> such as accept or don't accept then a brief (or lengthy as it suits
> >> them) explanation of why.
> >
> > I agree with you, Fred, but as I am demonstrating at the moment, if an
> > arbiter's opinion is thought to be "incorrect", there will be
> > immediate calls for his/her removal for thoughtcrime.  A chilling
> > effect might be seen.
> >
> > --
> > Sean Barrett     | Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change.
> > sean at epoptic.com |
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

--
Please encrypt all email. Public key available from
www.pantropy.net/snoyes.asc


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Time to set up Wikimedia ProjectCommittees

body:
Elisabeth Bauer a ?crit:

> The wikimedia foundation is for keeping the servers running, collecting
> funds and defending the projects against legal threats, but not for
> enforcing rules (or a however defined code of ethics) upon all projects.
>
> greetings,
> elian

Hummm....plus perhaps, what Jimbo has been defining from the very
beginning of the project : a certain number of *core* issues which make
all of us part of ONE big project, not a collection of loose ones.

To my opinion, as respect wikipedia itself (it might be slightly
different for other projects)
* it is a generalist encyclopedia, meant to gather free knowledge (-> gfdl)
* it will make that information freely available to anyone (readers do
not pay to read wikipedia)
* in as many languages as possible
* with free participation (everyone is welcome, regardless of his
nationality, sex, color, age, education, and no one has to pay to
participate)
* with participants bound to be respectful of copyright issues, of
neutrality requirement, and of other participants (three types of
violation which are likely to grant banning)

And...I think that is just about it.

That is what Jimbo (and other core contributors) has been repeating over
  and over in the past three years. And I think that should be what the
board job should also be about (on top on promotion, representation, and
technical issues).

A guarantee that these core issues are always respected, no matter what.
  That no wikipedia will ever change the copyright, will ever ban people
for their political opinion, will ever refuse participations from people
with less than a phD...whatever

For this reason, articles such as Section 4.4., which states that

	the Board of Trustees shall be empowered to order suspension of
membership or the suspension of particular or specific user privileges
at its sole discretion of any member upon receipt of a verified
complaint of misconduct;

is not clear enough.

I think again at what I have been expecting (and what I still expect)
from Jimbo as help.

I will only give one example : it is up to each local wikipedia to
ensure that no disruptive individual mess things up. So, it is to each
local wikipedia to decide who should be banned; Not to any board, whose
members will not know the specificities of the local wikipedia, nor the
bottom line of the issues at stack.
However, if anyone does believe the banning was wrong, not in line with
wikipedia core principles (such as banning someone for holding an
undesirable political opinion), the issue should be brought in front of
the board, and the board study the case, and eventually have the person
unbanned.

Or declare that a wikipedia is not part of the wikipedia project if it
is no more following the gfdl requirement.

That means in effect, that only few, but major decisions, should be
taken by the board itself, as regards policies. Minor policies are not
part of those. Perhaps, that should be explained more clearly in the
current document.


from_name: ilya n.

subject: [WikiEN-l] Saved Watchlist

body:
I keep getting 'this is a saved version of your watchlist' whenever I open
my watchlist. How do I get the real version (editable)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Bylaws Part IV

body:
Sorry, but I still do not understand why it is there at all (I mean
under the paragraph about resignation as a member of the association)

What you say is that at any time, Jimbo (or the board) can just delete
any one account. I agree with this naturally. But that is true of
absolutely any user. Be it a trusted user, a new user, a bugging user, a
banned user, or a vandal. And be him registered in the association or
not registered.

This is true for everyone, for any user.

So, why is this only mentionned under the paragraph about those who are
just resigning from the association ? Either this is mentionned for
absolutely all users, or it is not mentionned at all.

Say, if I register to the association next month.

Then, for some personal reasons, I decide to unregister (for example, if
I wish not that my name appear in the list any more), why should I have
my account on wikipedia itself deleted ? Why more than right now as I am
not a member at all ? What is the difference ?

Alex R. a ?crit:
> From: "Anthere" <anthere8 at yahoo.com>
>
>>Ray Saintonge a ?crit:
>>
>>>Anthere wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Section 4.2. WRITTEN RESIGNATION.
>>>
> <..snip..>
>
>>I understand the intent, but...why may the board decide to remove the
>>account of a user upon the reason he resigned from the association ? A
>>resignation is a voluntary act, not the act of a banned user or a
>>vandal. So, it is up to the wikipedian to ask the deletion of his
>>account if he wishes so. No ?
>
>
> Who does the account belong to?  It is something that is owned by the web
> site, not the user of the web site; like the credit card is owned by the
> bank or the passport is the property of the government that issued it.  Only
> they have the right to take it back. Any user account does not belong to the
> user, this is why
> Jimbo was able to "freeze" the mediator role account. If Wikimedia turns off
> the servers and erases the user pages they are gone and so are the user
> accounts.
>
> Also, all text on Wikipedia is released under the GFDL so the user cannot
> really request that any text that they have input on Wikipedia be removed,
> no?  I know user talk sub pages are an exception to this and if someone
> posts personal information they can also get the page history blanked for
> privacy reasons, but isn't the information that users post done so under the
> GFDL?
>
> It is really even a violation of the Board of Trustees to remove it (but let
> them get sued by someone for violating the GFDL, not the member). I am sure
> that if someone asked to have it removed for a good reason the Board of
> Trustees would remove it. It seems to me that what it is really about is to
> protect the user so that no one can accuse them of violating the GFDL, just
> my opinion though, maybe we should ask Jimbo to submit this to a panel of
> Florida judges and get them to figure out what it all means!
>
> Alex756


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: bylaws part II

body:
Alex R. a ?crit:
> From: "Anthere" <anthere8 at yahoo.com>
>
>>
>>Delirium a ?crit:
>>
>>>Alex T. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>That process would seem to indicate that you could require the
>>>
> application
>
>>>>to be
>>>>verified by a notary, thus ensuring that it is from a distinct
>>>
> individual.
>
>>>>That is usually
>>>>what NPO membership coordinators due is verify membership status, so it
>>>
> is
>
>>>>not
>>>>outrageous to ask someone to fill out a form, get it notarized and mail
>>>
> it
>
>>>>to someone
>>>>to be entitled to vote.
>>>
>>A notary ?!?
>>Well...I never had the use of a notary, even to receive an heritage :-(
>
>
> Ant, in the United States a "Notary" is not the same this as a "Notaire"
> under the civil law.  A Notary Public is someone who takes oaths and
> verifies the identities of individuals. They usually perform this service
> for a small sum, you can usually go to a public shop such as a pharmacy or
> perhaps a bank or savings and loan assocation or credit union and for a
> couple of dollars they will verify your identity.  In Quebec we call this a
> "Commissioner of Oaths".

We have no such thing in France. We show our identity card, a copy is
provided if necessary.

Until recently, we could go to the city hall, and have an official copy
of it for case such as this one, but the practice is now bogus.

There is no other way to prove our identity than to show an identity
card, or to request a birth statement from where we born. Which is
rather infrequent.


from_name: Ilya N.

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re:Saved Watchlist

body:
It usually popped up with a thing that says "your watchlist is ... pages excluding talk pages. Click 'here' to see the full list and edit"

But now it simply tells me "This is a saved version of your watchlist"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040125/bf76f9cd/attachment.htm


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Still problems with the servers?

body:
On Jan 25, 2004, at 10:24, Yann Forget wrote:
> Are there still problems with the servers?

We've still got occasional slowdowns with the database, which we're
trying to track down.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040125/01b37a07/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Bylaws V

body:
Anthere wrote:

> Ray Saintonge a ?crit:
>
>> Anthere wrote:
>>
>>> Section 1. POWERS. The powers of the corporation shall be exercised,
>>> its properties controlled, and its affairs conducted by a Board of
>>> Trustees to be comprised initially of five trustees. All trustees
>>> must be active (contributing or volunteer) or life members of the
>>> Foundation.
>>>
>>> What is the difference between a corporation and a foundation ?
>>
>> "Corporation" is a broader term that includes "foundation".  More
>> generally incorporation is what gives an organization the legal
>> status to be treated as a person.  There is some variation in the use
>> of the term "foundation" in various jurisdictions.  Here it seems to
>> be used in the sense of a general non-profit corporation that is
>> doing good for the benefit of the community.  In other places the use
>> of the term "foundation" is restricted to those organizations whose
>> primary function is the distribution of funds for charitable
>> purposes, often as the result of a large bequest.
>
>
> Okay. So, I presume we can safely translate it as "association"
> everywhere

Yes "association" or "soci?t?" are both frequently used terms.

Ec


from_name: Evan Prodromou

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Minor changes by anonymous user

in_reply_to:
<91TxwRvxpVB@erik_moeller> (Erik Moeller's message of "24 Jan
	2004 21:22:00 +0100")

body:
>>>>> "EM" == Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> writes:

    EM> On which basis should you be trusted?

On the same basis as _EVERYONE_ is trusted on Wikipedia.

Wiki is an exercise in trust. It's finding out that if you open the
doors and let everyone in, 99% of them are going to be good-hearted,
hard-working, and well-meaning. And you can collectively deal with the
other 1% quickly and effectively.

Casual and anonymous editors are the lifeblood of any wiki --
including Wikipedia -- and we restrict their privileges at our own
peril.

~ESP

--
Evan Prodromou <evan at wikitravel.org>
Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/
The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Bylaws VI

body:
Anthere wrote:

> Remind me, next time I am jobless, not to take the job of a translater
> and interpretator of any legal text.
>
> Could anyone remind me as well, to try to find a lawyer among french
> contributors asap.

M?me une traduction du fran?ais normal au fran?ais juridique ne serait
pas un cadeau. :-)

Ec


body:
On Sunday 25 January 2004 10:20 am, you wrote:
> > Message: 6
> > Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 20:36:45 -0500
> > From: Sascha Noyes <sascha at pantropy.net>
> > Or my personal favourite:
> >
> > <sup>[[Articlename#References|<nowiki>[</nowiki>1<nowiki>]</
> > nowiki>]]</sup>
>
> Quibble 1: How do you keep the numerals in sequence
> if you are editing it and need to insert another citation?
>
> Quibble 2: Less important because less likely, but
> how do you keep the link from breaking
> if the name of the References section is changed?
>
> Quibble 3: There are probably those who find even
> a superscript footnote or endnote too intrusive when
> casually reading the article, so ideally there would be
> some kind of "show/hide references" mechanism.
>
> Quibble 4: For those who WANT to see the reference,
> when you click on the reference you lose your place in
> the text you were reading.

#1: Plain old "hard work".

#2: keep the article on my watchlist [;-)], and put an html comment in the
article not to change the section name (which I shall now do)

#3: I don't find footnote numbers the least bit intrusive. As a matter of
fact, I'm quite perturbed when I read a non-obvious claim stated as fact
without references.

#4: No, at least not in konqueror or Firebird. If I click on the link (on eg.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_d'Holbach) I can simply click the "back"
browser button and return to the exact position where I was when clicking the
link.

There is obviously a common theme in your quibbles. One with which I am in
total agreement: This scheme could be a whole lot better. It is just that,
for me personally, the scheme I have presented is the best one possible with
the current software. I also think that it is important not to bury
referrences in html comments, because non-editors are also interested in the
references used to back up claims (and whether there are any)

Mav has put up some suggestions on meta
(http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Footnotes) which looks interesting. I have
yet to respond because I couldn't think of a brilliant way to handle
footnotes (yet) ;-)

Best,
Sascha Noyes
--
Please encrypt all email. Public key available from
www.pantropy.net/snoyes.asc


subject: [WikiEN-l] Saved Watchlist

body:
On Sunday 25 January 2004 02:29 pm, ilya n. wrote:
> I keep getting 'this is a saved version of your watchlist' whenever I open
> my watchlist. How do I get the real version (editable)

Your watchlist should not be editable. You add and remove stuff by visiting
the individual pages and clicking the appropriate link at the bottom.

IIRC, the watchlists are refreshed every hour.

Best,
Sascha Noyes
--
Please encrypt all email. Public key available from
www.pantropy.net/snoyes.asc


from_name: Rick

body:
Mediators certainly have a right to discuss the creation and repeal of policies.  But once policies are in place, they should be expected to enforce them.

RickK

Anthere <anthere8 at yahoo.com> wrote:
Do you suggest that any arbitrator have '''no''' right to participate to
building policies from now on ?

I suppose that similarly mediators have no right to participate in edit
wars from now on as well ?

Just as Jimbo has no right to edit articles ?

If so, we might just forget the whole process entirely.

Rick a ?crit:
> I request Sean Barrett's removal from the arbitration committee.
>
> RickK
>
> Sean Barrett wrote:
>
> > I question your suitability for the role of arbitrator based on your
> > condescention towards those who want the wikipedia policies enforced.
>
> You told me to work to have the policy changed; I tell you to work to
> have me removed. Jimbo appointed me; convince him to remove me. As
> an alternative, if a simple majority of my fellow arbiters ask me to
> step down, I will.
>
> > The only argument you have given
> > against enforcing such rules is that your time is too precious.
>
> I haven't even given that argument, and I don't intend to give any
> arguments. I simply refuse to be compelled to arbitrate the way you
> think I should.
>
> > So would it be correct to conclude that you either you think that
> nobody will
> > be driven away by person al attacks, or it is not worth your time
> to retain
> > these contributors?
>
> Co nclude what you like. I am a free man. You cannot compel me to
> rule on a case I don't choose to rule on. I encourage you, however,
> to work on impeaching me from the arbitration committee.
>
> > I will also put to you my opinion that in cases where
> > there has been a gross violation of policies such as "no personal
> attacks",
> > all the arbitration committee will have to do is the following:
>
> And I suspect that in cases where there has been a gross violation of
> the "no personal attacks" policy, there will be contemporaneous
> violations such as edit warring, which I agree rise to a level
> requiring arbitration.
>
> > Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
>
> Don't forget to inform the arbitration committee of my dereliction of
> duty, and impress upon Jimbo the urgency of appointing arbiters who
> will always rule the way you tell them to.
>
> --
> Sean Barrett | To bite off your shadow is neither easy
> sean at epoptic.com | no r painless. It
> demands a single-mindedness
> | that is almost unknown in this day.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040125/59708aa9/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] slooooooooooow!

body:
Is it just me or is Wikipedia going very slow lately?

Is it purposefully slowing down for 56k modems? It may be okay for people used to 56k speeds, but I've got a DSL connection and I wanna use it!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040125/ea670ab6/attachment.htm


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: bylaws III

body:
Anthere wrote:

> Ray Saintonge a ?crit:
>
>> Brion Vibber wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 24, 2004, at 11:00, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>>
>>>>  There is also nothing in the by-laws to define "Board of
>>>> Directors".  The simple fact that the term was used suggests that
>>>> it is at least something different from the Board of Trustees.
>>>
>>> Florida statutes section 617.01401, paragraph 2: '"Board of
>>> directors" means the group of persons vested with the management of
>>> the affairs of the corporation irrespective of the name by which
>>> such group is designated, including, but not limited to, managers or
>>> trustees.'
>>
>> I'm not challenging Florida law on this.  Rather the point is that if
>> only one Board exists in an organization, the same name should be
>> used consistently.  Having two separate Boards with different duties
>> is a real possibility, and the use of both terms lends support to
>> that.  I raised the issue last summer with the suggestion that a
>> Board of Trustees would be charged with maintaining  the focus and
>> integrity of the project, and insuring that it adheres to a few key
>> principles.  The Board of Trustees in the by-laws seems to do that.
>> A "Board of Directors" would have broader responsibilities relating
>> to the general management of the project.  The Trustees would have
>> the power to overrule the Directors on matters that violated key
>> principles.
>
> You mention a sort of council then ?

Sort of, yes.  The approach that was taken to the by-laws was bound to
create a furor.  People who have bought into an intellectually free
environment are bound to react badly when a proposed governance is seen
as being imposed in a top down matter, and they see themselves as
powerless when it comes to real decision making.  In most organizations
people can't run away fast enough when the time comes to discuss
by-laws, but they are quick to complain when the by-laws as adopted work
to their disadvantage.  In other situations one person is under pressure
to produce something, and he writes up an incomplete or inadequate
document.  This is then adopted by a small group of people who are
anxious to get the whole thing behind them.

A common result is then that an organization is shaped by its by-laws,
when the reverse should be happening.  When a dispute arises in relation
to a by-law matter those with a passion for acting lawfully will tend to
read by-laws very literally without regard to the intent of the
drafters, assuming that that intent can be determined at all.  If what
was actually written in the by-laws conflicts with the intent of the
drafters that's too bad.  We do well to try avoiding that situation.

The by-laws document that has been presented to us is credible as a
first draft.  To have any kind of progress at all it takes one person to
sit down and write such a draft.  This gives a basic structure to the
overall document, and initiates most of the points that need to be
included.  That becomes the basis for further discussion.

Many valid concerns have been raised about this first draft.  That was
to be expected from this fractious community.  Among the important
issues have been the general role of the membership in the broad
governance of Wikimedia Inc., and the autonomy of the separte projects
within the family.

The three areas that require addressing:
    1. The core values and how to protect them, including a statement pf
principles.
    2. The general administrative operations affecting all projects
    3. The issues that that are best decided at the project level

The by-laws should define these respective roles as clearly as possible.

Ec


from_name: Ulrich Fuchs

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Stop for a moment, please

body:
I think, before we go into any detail on chapters, influence of locals, set
and elected trustees and so on we should spend a little more time and think
of what is actually needed if we talk about a global structure pushing the
wikipedia/wikimedia idea forward. The following are a few thoughts, open for
comment. I am using "Wikimedia" here in this posting not as a name for the
current foundation, but for the big-picture-project, that we all feel part of
and that was founded as "Wikipedia" by Jimmy and later extendend to cover all
sort of wikibased content ("Wikimedia").

We will all agree that there needs to be one organization that runs servers
and acts as a service provider, because otherwise there would be no Wiki.
That organization obviously needs to have the final decision making on what
is on the servers, because the people running that service will be
responsible for the content. However, we don't want to have that control
extended in a way that the people running the server are able to enforce
general guidelines and rules on the Wikimedia project and it's subprojects as
such. Much of the current headaches some people have with the current bylaws
arise from that intermingling of service and project.

The best way to deal with that issue would be two seperate the corporation
running the wiki service from the corporation being "Wikimedia". Wikimedia
would just buy in (or get donated, we don't need to discuss that in detail
already at this point) the *service* to run the wiki from that other
corporation (I call that one "Service Provider" for now). This way, the
service provider has full control of the user accounts, can block users if
the put copyright violating content on the servers and so on. But if the
service provider blocks users for reasons, that are not understood by
Wikimedia, Wikimedia can just go ahead and find another service provider.

Wikimedia, on the other hand, would be the organization that actually *is the
project* (not the service). That organization needs to be
*   democratically organized
*   global
*   bound now and for all future to the common goal of creating free content
without paying authors or officials; however we must consider that there
might be a need in the future to have employees, if the project get's Big
with a capital B.
*   allowing a country substructure for better fundraising and representation
*   allowing a project substructure for setting project policies and
representation (these are two different things, it might be a necessary to
speak for the *german language Wikipedia* at one time and for the *german
Wikimedians" at another time
*   organized in a way that these local chapters and subproject chapters form
the organization bottom up and not top down.

Lars Aronssen mentioned on the german list the "Medizins sans frontiere" (is
ist "medicines without frontieres" in english?). As far as I can see, they
are a network of local organizations, there is no superstructure, however,
they operate together without breaking up since 1971 and even got the peace
nobel price. I think organizing that way would be a very good thing.

What they have is a common, but very short "charta" that fixes four major
points one and forever. That charta is declared as part of the local and
project organization bylaws, but - apart from that - those organizations are
legally independant.

However, I do not think that we can do completely without some sort of
superstructure. That superstructure is probably needed to sign contracts with
the service provider mentioned above (it could also be done by the local
chapter of the country the service provider resides in), to draw up general
rules and to change the charta in case of need (consider a drastical
technological or copyright law change in 20 years from now that would have a
dramatic impact). Such a change of the charta would have to be adopted by the
local and project chapters. But it's very likeley that they will adapt it,
since they had influence on the revision. Third, those superstructure would
have the rights on the Wikipedia/Wikimedia names.

To avoid a "democratic takeover" of that superstructure by a single interest
group, and to avoid language barriers for members, this should have no
individual persons as members - only project and local suborganizations (It
will be a hard thing to tune the voting influence, but I think it's
feasable). Those local and project organizations would have to send
representatives, if a physical meeting is needed for some reason.

Probably I should draw a nice ASCII art image somewhere, but I think you got
the picture: If we start to think really global now, we must go in the
direction outlined above and seperate the "to-do's" that are needed to keep
our idea working into seperate organizations. Organizations that act
together, but still control each other in a way that no single person with
superpowers is needed to keep the Wikimedia idea alive.

Uli


references:
<BC39446D.A7A%fredbaud@ctelco.net>
	<200401251326.05972.sascha@pantropy.net>
	<200401252043.i0PKhApp016132@orwen.epoptic.com>

body:
On Sunday 25 January 2004 03:43 pm, Sean Barrett wrote:
> Then I made a mistake.  I took the ... um ... urgency of your request
> for discussion to be more accusatory than it appears I should have.  I
> am willing to discuss the issue with anyone prepared to consider the
> possibility that my position has valid aspects to it; I am not willing
> to defend my position against charges that I seek to destroy civiliz-
> ...  I mean, Wikipedia as we know it.

I do apologise for being too accusatory and implying that you were trying to
destroy civilisation.  :)

Best,
Sascha Noyes
--
Please encrypt all email. Public key available from
www.pantropy.net/snoyes.asc


from_name: Martin Harper

subject: [WikiEN-l] Robert's request for mediation

body:
Robert wrote:
> I am requesting mediation.

I'm delighted to accept mediation, as and when the mediation committee is in a
position to handle the matter. Accordingly, I have left a very brief comment on
"requests for mediation".

If anyone is paying any attention to Robert's posts and wants me to respond to
his accusations publically or privately, then I will be delighted to do so.
Otherwise I shall not bother.

-Martin "MyRedDice" Harper


from_name: Alex T.

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Stop for a moment, please

body:
From: "Lars Aronsson" <lars at aronsson.se>

> I also learned that the Wikimedia Foundation is not a "foundation" in
> the European sense of the word.  Swedish law defines different cases
> for non-profit membership organizations, for-profit membership
> organizations (coops) and foundations.  Foundations are inherently
> void of democracy, since they cannot have members.  A typical Swedish
> foundation is the Nobel Foundation, formed according to the will of
> Alfred Nobel.  In Sweden, churches, political parties, and trade
> unions are defined as non-profit membership organizations.  Naively I
> had assumed that the German "e.V." was a direct equivalent of the
> Swedish non-profit membership organization.  However, I was told that
> in Germany, churches, political parties, and trade unions are not at
> all of the "e.V." form, but organizations of other kinds, defined in
> separate laws.

Yes, Foundations have an ancient origin in Roman/Eclessiastical law in
the European civilian legal tradition in that the foundation was usually
tied
to an "endowment" of some sort most commonly used to perpetuate the
legacy of a donor or family so that a religious institution might prosper
under such patronage.

In the United States the law of "private foundations" is primarily federal
tax law that has to do with the status of an organization that has funding
from one or a limited number of sources and the requirement that  the
"private foundation" spend some of its income each year in order to keep
its tax exempt status.

However, the law of not-for-profit entities is within the jurisdiction of
each
state and, as far as I know, there is no restriction on using the word
"foundation" to mean organizations that are funded by a private
philantropist
rather than a "public charity" (that is what the Wikimedia Foundation Inc.
hopes to be) funded by a great number of persons. Some public charities
adopt such a name as it seems to lend them creedance upon benefactor
as the word has an air of permanance about it in American English.

So while in Europe one would expect, as you have stated Lars, that the
foundation is an endowment, in the United States a foundation can be
a membership organization, or quasi-membership organization such as
Wikipedia (it is not truly a membership organization as not all the board
members are elected by members, only a minority are so voted at the
inception of the organization according to the Bylaws).

Alex R. (en:user:alex756)


body:
Sascha Noyes wrote:
> Arbitration should be about enforcing policies and not making
> editorial decisions about particular articles or disputes.

It is worth mentioning in this context that we do have policies and
guidelines regarding how to write articles on Wikipedia. For
example, the naming conventions. What do you feel about these
cases, Sascha?

-Martin


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Stop for a moment, please

body:
From: "Ulrich Fuchs" <mail at ulrich-fuchs.de>

The best way to deal with that issue would be two seperate the corporation
running the wiki service from the corporation being "Wikimedia". Wikimedia
would just buy in (or get donated, we don't need to discuss that in detail
already at this point) the *service* to run the wiki from that other
corporation (I call that one "Service Provider" for now).

You raise some interesting point Ulrich that are worth considering.
I have previously mentioned the issue of the informal association of
Wikipedians
on meta: http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Wikimedians
and I am glad you recognized a main point, just because there is a legal
entity
that does not define all the activities of all the members. Just think of
some
organization that allows people to use its facilities, i.e. a club or
recreational
centre for instance. There are rules, i.e. only members can use it, they can
only use if for legal purposes. There may also be costs for membership dues
or even pay per use service fees, i.e. you want eat in the club restaurant,
you
have to pay for your food (perhaps at a subsidized or profit free rate).

I see Wikimedia/Wikipedia the same way.  There are things members can do,
i.e. create accounts, edit pages. Create their own language Wikipedia or
other
Wikimedia project.  However, there are community wide standards, i.e. no
advertising, no personal attacks, etc.. There is structure to each project
as well.
We even have a cafe on some Wikipedias like the Francophone Bistro! (though
coffee and sandwiches are not yet available there ;).  Anyone can start a
trust fund
or a private foundation whose purpose would be to donate money to Wikimedia
to support its worthy endeavors. There does not need any permission to do
that
from Wikimedia or Jimbo, just as no permission is needed to create a user
account
or edit anywhere in the Wikimedia universe, so each individual Wikimedia has
autonomy and it could not be otherwise, but there is an overarching
structure, the
original data is all on a set of computers owed by Wikimedia. It must
maintain
standards in order to convince the tax authorities in the US that it has a
valid
not-for-profit charitable purpose and it must maintain some control over its
members.

All membership organizations do that if they mention it in their bylaws or
not.
Just read Robert's Rules of Order that is the standard rule for
parliamentary
bodies and associational organizations in the United States.  It is an
inherent right
of an organization to have some body that is able to remove members for some
reason as well as discipline them. Why not have it stated and codified
rather than
remain an undocumented right.  It seems good to me that it is stated in the
bylaws
because then members can argue about it, put pressure on the board to change
it and make sure that it is only used for proper purposes so as not to
subvert the
goals of the organization.


from_name: elwp at gmx.de

subject: [Wikitech-l] incremental backups

body:
Two recent posts about incremental backups:

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2003-September/006036.html
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2003-December/007134.html

Is anyone still working on it? Incremental backups would be very useful
for people like me who have a monthly transfer limit.

xdelta seems to be good for small files. But it has a 2 GB file size
limit. As I didn't manage to install xdelta2, I can't tell if that
version can handle larger files. With two 1.6 and 1.9 GB files
(uncompressed) xdelta starts, but it needs more than 500 MB main memory
and is very slow (10 MB output after approx. 2 hours when I stopped it;
my computer has 1 GB main memory, so swapping is not the problem).

There may also be other suitable programs like rdiff, but the users
have to install them (and may fail as I did with xdelta2). Some of these
programs may not be available for non-Unix operating systems.

It's also possible to extract the difference information for the old
table from the binary log, but for cur this is impractical because there
are often multiple updates of the same article within a short period of
time.

In my opinion, the most natural file format is a sequence of SQL
statements that can be sent dircetly to the database to update it,
whether extracted from the binary log or from the dumps.

I've written two simple programs that use the dumps (see attachment).
Only Perl is needed to run them. "wsqlpatch" is for programs that read
the dumps directly. It produces an exact copy of the newer dump that
was used by wsqldiff. So the users can compare the MD5 sums to check if
the update was successful.

Here are the results of some tests:

Test files (German database):
20040109_cur_table.sql.bz2:  33.7 MB
20040117_cur_table.sql.bz2:  34.9 MB
20040109_old_table.sql.bz2: 429.9 MB
20040117_old_table.sql.bz2: 450.1 MB

export LANG=C   # otherwise the umlauts get converted :-(

wsqldiff 20040109_cur_table.sql.bz2 20040117_cur_table.sql.bz2 |
	bzip2 -c9 > cur_diff.sql.bz2
(17 min, Athlon XP 2400+)

wsqldiff 20040109_old_table.sql.bz2 20040117_old_table.sql.bz2 |
	bzip2 -c9 > old_diff.sql.bz2
(117 min)

cur_diff.sql.bz2:  7.8 MB
old_diff.sql.bz2: 22.1 MB

wsqlpatch 20040109_cur_table.sql.bz2 cur_diff.sql.bz2 |
	bzip2 -c9 > 20040117_cur_table2.sql.bz2
(10 min)

wsqlpatch 20040109_old_table.sql.bz2 old_diff.sql.bz2 |
	bzip2 -c9 > 20040117_old_table2.sql.bz2
(80 min)

Memory usage of wsqldiff is moderate (64 MB for the German old-table,
so prabably about 300 MB for the English old-table). wsqlpatch needs
much less memory (about 10 MB, largely independent of the file sizes).

The perl scripts are quite slow, but maybe fast enough for the cur
tables. I'd like to know what is planned for the old tables. Will
they be dumped periodically in the future or is that only a temporary
solution? If I understand it correctly, dumping means that the
database must be locked, which is bad unless the dump is made on a
replicated server.

As an alternative, the binary log could be archived. But in this
case someone who has access to it on the Wikipedia server will have
to write a program that extracts the statements that alter the old table,
which probably involves nothing more than selecting lines that start
with "INSERT INTO old" or "DELETE FROM old" or "UPDATE old"
(using mysqlbinlog of course).

BTW, when I wrote the programs I noticed that in
maintenance/tables.sql the last two fields of the cur table
are cur_touched and inverse_timestamp in that order, whereas in the
dumps the order is reversed.

de:Benutzer:El

--
+++ GMX - die erste Adresse f?r Mail, Message, More +++
Bis 31.1.: TopMail + Digicam f?r nur 29 EUR http://www.gmx.net/topmail
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: wsqldiff
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 1420 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040125/d55161d4/attachment.obj>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: wsqlpatch
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 1715 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040125/d55161d4/attachment-0001.obj>


from_name: Karl Eichwalder

subject: [Wikitech-l] incremental backups

body:
elwp at gmx.de writes:

> Two recent posts about incremental backups:
>
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2003-September/006036.html
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2003-December/007134.html
>
> Is anyone still working on it?

This all is much to complicate and resource hungry.  Simply dump the raw
article (plus meta info) into a CVS system and let the user fetch the
files with a simple "cvs up".  And a simple shell script
(awk/sed/python) can fetch the local CVS files into the database.

Also rsync can save bandwidth as we all know.

Otherwise your solution looks interesting.

--
                                                         |      ,__o
                                                         |    _-\_<,
http://www.gnu.franken.de/ke/                            |   (*)/'(*)


from_name: Till Westermayer

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Toolbar

body:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . till we *) . . .

((Sorry for only writing and sending this now))

Hi Erik,

I'm happy that this invention is at least discussed properly now.

One thing I want to do is to hint you to read

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usability

not because I think you don't know about usability, but because I think
it is helpful to be remembered once and then that an important point
about usability is that it isn't about "using the <whatever> right", but
about: "doing the <whatever> in a way that it is used right with minimal
learning in every condition". And if the condition is so that a special
<whatever> isn't possible, it just isn't possible. No workaround ;-)

>I still would like to suggest that we wait for some general
>feedback regarding the "Click + get example text" feature before
>deciding to show no toolbar at all for some browsers, i.e. that we
>run it for a trial period of a couple of weeks.

The bar with the example text field works in ((Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U;
Win98; de-DE; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120)) Netscape/7.01, which I am
using. If it is used as an "example-repositiory", this could be made
more obvious (what about a "WIKI HELPBAR" in front of the buttons?). The
examples could be improved -- "<math>Insert formula here</math>" should
inform about using TeX syntax, and "<nowiki>Insert non-formatted text
here</nowiki>" maybe is more informativ if it sounds "<nowiki>Insert
text here ignoring wiki syntax</nowiki>"?

If this should work in a help-bar mode and in an edit-bar mode, it
should be made obvious which mode one is in (for example: at my
workplace, I use (have to use) IE, at home I use Netscape or Mozilla. If
it works differently on different browsers, that should be made clear,
or confusion will arise). Maybe even an IE user would find the help bar
mode more helpful and wants to turn it to this?

Another idea: Make the help-bar CSS/Javascript-enable-able on the edit
page. So, if you edit something, the first thing you see is only
something like a "HELP BUTTON" (dont panic in large friendly letters).
If you press the "HELP BUTTON", a help area is made visible in the edit
page above the text edit field. This help area consists of three
elements: the help bar, labeled as such with the icons (and even some
more?), an example display area, and a larger help text area. The help
text area reads texts on the specific topic from the Wikipedia
namespace.

For example (you have pressed the "IMG" button):

   [HELP BAR] [B] [/A/] [_U_] ... [IMG]
   [  [[Image:Example-Image.jpg]]          ]
   [ If you want to use images on a page,  ]
   [ you use the [[Image:...]] syntax. For ]
   [ proper formating the image, put some  ]
   [ <div style:...> in front and after the]
   [ img ...                               ]

This text could be extracted from a standard editable wikipedia page,
say "Wikipedia:Edithelp on Images" ((I took this example, because I
often forget how I move an image to the left or right side, and have to
wade thru lots of help text until I find it. Same with math syntax ...))

What do you think?

 __ .
 / / / /                            ... Till Westermayer - till we *)
. .
  . mailto:till at tillwe.de . www.westermayer.de/till/ . icq 320393072
  . Habsburgerstr. 82 . 79104 Freiburg . 0761 55697152 . 0160 96619179
  . . . . .


from_name: Erik Zachte

subject: [Wikitech-l] incremental backups, alternative

body:
Here is an alternative solution.

We could split the x Gb dump file in 50 Mb chunks.

As long as the database format does not change all but the last chunk
will be unaltered on subsequent runs.

For example

Dump and split in week 10 produces Chunk_1 up to Chunk-39 (all but the
last are 50 Mb in size)

Dump and split in week 11 produces Chunk_1 up to Chunk-40 (only 39 has
changed, 40 is new)

So only 2 chunks need to be downloaded after the last run.
Then a join operation on all files produces an up to date dump file.

A small script to manage this process would come in handy.

Erik Zachte

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040125/80aec414/attachment.html>


body:
> Here is an alternative solution.
>
> We could split the x Gb dump file in 50 Mb chunks.
>
> As long as the database format does not change all but the last chunk
> will be unaltered on subsequent runs.

That doesn't account for page moves and deletions. All chunks would be
altered.

de:Benutzer:El

--
+++ GMX - die erste Adresse f?r Mail, Message, More +++
Bis 31.1.: TopMail + Digicam f?r nur 29 EUR http://www.gmx.net/topmail


from_name: Alwin Meschede

subject: [Wikitech-l] incremental backups

body:
Karl Eichwalder schrieb:
> This all is much to complicate and resource hungry.  Simply dump the raw
> article (plus meta info) into a CVS system and let the user fetch the
> files with a simple "cvs up".  And a simple shell script
> (awk/sed/python) can fetch the local CVS files into the database.

Your proposal sounds very interesting to me. But did I get the point
right that you also want CVS as a way for writing to the database? That
would be a great thing for offline editing, but makes mass vandalism
possible. Simply fill in random crap in your local files, say "cvs
commit" and voil?, you've ruined a whole wiki...

Alwin Meschede


subject: [Wikitech-l] incremental backups

body:
> elwp at gmx.de writes:
>
> > Two recent posts about incremental backups:
> >
> >
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2003-September/006036.html
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2003-December/007134.html
> >
> > Is anyone still working on it?
>
> This all is much to complicate and resource hungry.  Simply dump the raw
> article (plus meta info) into a CVS system and let the user fetch the
> files with a simple "cvs up".  And a simple shell script
> (awk/sed/python) can fetch the local CVS files into the database.

I wonder how fast CVS is with so many small files. And I doubt that the
scripts
that have to be develped to mirror the database to CVS on the server and
to put the files back to the database on the client machine are much simpler
than my programs, but you are welcome to write them, of course. :-)

de:Benutzer:El

--
+++ GMX - die erste Adresse f?r Mail, Message, More +++
Bis 31.1.: TopMail + Digicam f?r nur 29 EUR http://www.gmx.net/topmail


subject: [Wikitech-l] incremental backups

body:
Alwin Meschede schrieb:
> Karl Eichwalder schrieb:
>
>> This all is much to complicate and resource hungry.  Simply dump the raw
>> article (plus meta info) into a CVS system and let the user fetch the
>> files with a simple "cvs up".  And a simple shell script
>> (awk/sed/python) can fetch the local CVS files into the database.
>
> Your proposal sounds very interesting to me. But did I get the point
> right that you also want CVS as a way for writing to the database? That
> would be a great thing for offline editing, but makes mass vandalism
> possible. Simply fill in random crap in your local files, say "cvs
> commit" and voil?, you've ruined a whole wiki...

Oh, I see it was the other way round... Writing to the *local* database
is OK.

Alwin Meschede


from_name: sannse

body:
Anthere wrote:

> Do you suggest that any arbitrator have '''no''' right to participate to
> building policies from now on ?
>
> I suppose that similarly mediators have no right to participate in edit
> wars from now on as well ?
>
> Just as Jimbo has no right to edit articles ?
>
> If so, we might just forget the whole process entirely.
>

I'm wondering at the moment whether mediators will have /time/ to get
involved in edit wars from now on

 ;)

--sannse