subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Cleaning up Wikibooks

body:
Robert Scott Horning wrote:
> Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
>> Robert Scott Horning wrote:
>>
>>> There is a general tolerance of new content that goes onto Wikibooks, in
>>> part because it is a smaller project and we are trying to attract and
>>> keep contributors even if they add content that perhaps should be there.
>>>
>>
>>
>> This is a mistake, actually.  The best way to attract and keep new
>> contributors is to have a clean and passionate mission which is kept as
>> simple as possible.  Seeing tolerance for a "white power" racist tract
>> (which went through a long vfd before finally being deleted after I saw
>> it and complained, rather than deleting on sight and banning the creator
>> as a racist vandal...) is a great way to drive away contributors -- the
>> same goes for other cruft like "How to get a girl".
>>
> This is one area that we very much disagree.  I did not like this
> Wikibook in particular, and I'd also like to note that the time from
> when the VfD discussion started to when it ended was among one of
> shortest in the history of Wikibooks, not the longest.  I think this is
> a classic example of precisely how the Wikibooks community is working
> rather than how it is failing, as you seem to mention.  Also, I don't
> remember you complaining about this Wikibook at all until after it was
> already deleted.  BTW, have you seen the Wikipedia article on [[w:White
> nationalism]]?  Using this same logic, this article on Wikipedia should
> be deleted on the spot and all of the participants banned as well.
>
> The "How to get a girl" debate is more a good example of how a VfD
> should not be handled, as it was against a particular section of a
> Wikibook than the whole project, and only part of it was deleted.  Most
> of the debate over that Wikibook was from before I became an admin and a
> regular participant on Wikibooks.  In many ways I'm sorry you were
> dragged into that argument.
>
>>> "I'm happy to give more time, but these books are already candidates for
>>> speedy deletion. The point is that, to give on example which was
>>> thankfully already deleted, a racist white-power book is not a textbook,
>>> never will be a textbook, and should have been deleted on site and the
>>> creator banned for vandalism on site. --Jimbo Wales
>>> <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales> 21:03, 13 November 2005
>>> (UTC)"
>>>
>>> The user that added this white power book has otherwise done Wikibooks
>>> quite a bit of good, and banning him would only make an enemy rather
>>> than a useful contributor.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I very strongly disagree.  Wikibooks does not need such books, and it
>> was an is an embarassment to see such a thing.
>>
>> --Jimbo
>>
>>
> So, do you have a personal beef against [[b:User:Zondor]]?  He has been
> active on both Wikipedia and Wikibooks, making some very useful
> contributions.  Perhaps a warning on his user talk page would be
> warrented, but to out right ban him ignoring the rest of his
> contributions?  I admit that the way he started this particular Wikibook.
>
> Also, are you aware of the firestorm that this whole action has caused?
> I want to share a couple of comments that have come my way from users
> looking to me for some leadership on Wikibooks:
>
>
>    Future of Wikibooks...
>
> Okay, I really /did/ get here at the wrong time. When Jimbo comes in to
> say something like he did, I assume he speaks for the entire Board.
> Unless another member of the Board comes in to refute Jimbo, I will
> continue to assume that this is the way the Wikimedia Foundation wants
> Wikibooks to go. I will not fight for something that I cannot see a good
> point fighting for. There is just so much /crap/ here. Even the mailing
> list couldn't provoke a Board member's opinion on the matter. I am just
> so fed up with all this crap. I /do/ think that you fail to assume good
> faith on Jimbo's part by saying it may be financially motivated. I just
> hate all this infighting and can't really keep it up. But until there is
> a definite ruling, I can't completely give it up either. I am so torn on
> this issue. And I am not sure that the community at-large can "overrule"
> Jimbo on this matter either. If we overrule him, why wouldn't he just
> say, "Okay, there is no more Wikibooks. Sorry. Shoulda played by the
> rules." and then just shut it off? Who knows. I'll be back later I
> guess. This whole thing stinks on ice. --LV
> <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User:Lord_Voldemort> ^(Dark Mark)
> <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User_talk:Lord_Voldemort> 16:04, 21
> November 2005 (UTC)
>
>
>    Settle this!!
>
> You guys (Horning and friends) appear to be about as close to the center
> of decision making as we peons can access. I have't figured out how to
> contact Mr. Wales. At this point I almost don't care what the decision
> is about what is allowed and what is not, but I think in fairness to
> everyone, we need a decision and a clear definition of where lines will
> be drawn /*and enformcement from day one.*/ Any other way, we get people
> like myself wasting our time. What can I do to press for a decision????
> Frog One <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User:Frog_One> 00:43, 23 November
> 2005 (UTC)
>
>
> I'm just a humble admin trying to keep this project together and to make
> this community something that we can all be proud of.  I have been
> vocal, and indeed I even went and deleted one of the Wikibooks that you,
> Mr. Wales, railed against and suggested that it be deleted at once?  Do
> you know what I got for my efforts at trying to delete [[b:Naturism]]?
> The book was undeleted and now I am in an edit war with another admin
> over wheither this Wikibook should be restored.  My status as an admin
> is even being called into question, for enforcing a decision that _YOU_
> made.  I guess I should have let you use your newly given admin status
> and waited for you to do the deletion yourself rather than taking arrows
> in my own back.
>
> The #1 complaint I have here about this whole thing is not so much what
> you've done, but how you've done it, particularly in regard to changing
> policy without really explaining this policy change.  These decisions
> seem arbitrary, and now the community really doesn't know where to go
> from here.  I am asking you, Mr. Wales, to try and help smooth down the
> discussion, and help to determine just who and how community decisions
> to keep or delete content on Wikibooks should happen.  If you want to
> become more involved in that process, you are welcome, but I do think
> you should trust the participants who have spent many years working on
> this Wikimedia project.  Know that the future of this project is at
> stake as well, based on your actions here.
>

Uh ?

I have not followed that thread at all in the past few days and decided
just this morning to give it a quick look, and the second mail I find is
this one...

So, I will say only two things, because without being aware of the full
discussion, I could just fall short.

First point : I know Wikibooks very little. I know it mostly from two
perspectives. One perspective is Wikiversity. The second perspective is
the cookbook.

The cookbook : I had a long time fight with Gentgeen, when he started
moving all (or nearly all recipees) away from en.Wikipedia. I tried
desperatly to keep them in Wikipedia, but most were moved nevertheless I
think. I did not oppose recipees being in Wikibooks, but simply, maybe
because french, I consider many recipees are "cultural", so have their
place in an encyclopedia.
In case (I do not know), Wikibooks is listed in the books to be deleted,
because it is *not* a textbook, I would be happy to know. Because I will
oppose the deletion.

Wikiversity : is supposed to be dedicated to e-teaching material... part
of it being on Wikibooks. It was obvious in my mind that Wikibooks was
welcoming ... traditional (academic) material (suitable to be used
within Wikiversity) as well as any other types of wikibooks (such as
cookbooks, howtos, guides, wikijuniors etc...). I think should be within
wikibooks things such as "how to repaint your house", "how to build an
electricity solar system", "The European Community for kids",
"Vegetarian Recipees for everyday life", "First help for injured people"
or "Best practices to avoid catching AIDS".

Second point : I have not read the wikibooks discussion specifically, so
can not say whether I agree with Jimbo or not on this specific point. I
most of the time agree with Jimbo, but sometimes have a different opinion.

I would like to make it clear that Jimbo's opinion should be his
opinion, unless specifically said to be board opinion. Angela, I,
Michael and Tim, we are all human beings with our own opinions on things
and unless we are specifically asked our opinion, I do not think it is
okay to consider that what Jimbo's say, we necessarily go along with. By
default, we are separate people. Similarly, this is not because we do
not say anything on a topic, that we necessarily agree with the only one
talking. We may disagree and decide not to say anything or we may not be
aware of the issue at all. I think it is important not to make these
types of confusions.

Ant


list: wikimedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Anthere


list: foundation-l

from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Anthere wrote:

> Robert Scott Horning wrote:
>
>> Jimmy Wales wrote:
>>
>>> Robert Scott Horning wrote:
>>>
>>>> There is a general tolerance of new content that goes onto
>>>> Wikibooks, in
>>>> part because it is a smaller project and we are trying to attract and
>>>> keep contributors even if they add content that perhaps should be
>>>> there.
>>>
>>> This is a mistake, actually.  The best way to attract and keep new
>>> contributors is to have a clean and passionate mission which is kept as
>>> simple as possible.  Seeing tolerance for a "white power" racist tract
>>> (which went through a long vfd before finally being deleted after I saw
>>> it and complained, rather than deleting on sight and banning the
>>> creator
>>> as a racist vandal...) is a great way to drive away contributors -- the
>>> same goes for other cruft like "How to get a girl".
>>
>> This is one area that we very much disagree.  I did not like this
>> Wikibook in particular, and I'd also like to note that the time from
>> when the VfD discussion started to when it ended was among one of
>> shortest in the history of Wikibooks, not the longest.  I think this
>> is a classic example of precisely how the Wikibooks community is
>> working rather than how it is failing, as you seem to mention.  Also,
>> I don't remember you complaining about this Wikibook at all until
>> after it was already deleted.  BTW, have you seen the Wikipedia
>> article on [[w:White nationalism]]?  Using this same logic, this
>> article on Wikipedia should be deleted on the spot and all of the
>> participants banned as well.
>>
>> The "How to get a girl" debate is more a good example of how a VfD
>> should not be handled, as it was against a particular section of a
>> Wikibook than the whole project, and only part of it was deleted.
>> Most of the debate over that Wikibook was from before I became an
>> admin and a regular participant on Wikibooks.  In many ways I'm sorry
>> you were dragged into that argument.
>>
>>>> "I'm happy to give more time, but these books are already
>>>> candidates for
>>>> speedy deletion. The point is that, to give on example which was
>>>> thankfully already deleted, a racist white-power book is not a
>>>> textbook,
>>>> never will be a textbook, and should have been deleted on site and the
>>>> creator banned for vandalism on site. --Jimbo Wales
>>>> <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales> 21:03, 13 November
>>>> 2005
>>>> (UTC)"
>>>>
>>>> The user that added this white power book has otherwise done Wikibooks
>>>> quite a bit of good, and banning him would only make an enemy rather
>>>> than a useful contributor.
>>>
>>> I very strongly disagree.  Wikibooks does not need such books, and it
>>> was an is an embarassment to see such a thing.
>>> --Jimbo
>>
>> So, do you have a personal beef against [[b:User:Zondor]]?  He has
>> been active on both Wikipedia and Wikibooks, making some very useful
>> contributions.  Perhaps a warning on his user talk page would be
>> warrented, but to out right ban him ignoring the rest of his
>> contributions?  I admit that the way he started this particular
>> Wikibook.
>>
>> Also, are you aware of the firestorm that this whole action has
>> caused? I want to share a couple of comments that have come my way
>> from users looking to me for some leadership on Wikibooks:
>>
>> The #1 complaint I have here about this whole thing is not so much
>> what you've done, but how you've done it, particularly in regard to
>> changing policy without really explaining this policy change.  These
>> decisions seem arbitrary, and now the community really doesn't know
>> where to go from here.  I am asking you, Mr. Wales, to try and help
>> smooth down the discussion, and help to determine just who and how
>> community decisions to keep or delete content on Wikibooks should
>> happen.  If you want to become more involved in that process, you are
>> welcome, but I do think you should trust the participants who have
>> spent many years working on this Wikimedia project.  Know that the
>> future of this project is at stake as well, based on your actions here.
>>
> Uh ?
>
> I have not followed that thread at all in the past few days and
> decided just this morning to give it a quick look, and the second mail
> I find is this one...
>
> I would like to make it clear that Jimbo's opinion should be his
> opinion, unless specifically said to be board opinion. Angela, I,
> Michael and Tim, we are all human beings with our own opinions on
> things and unless we are specifically asked our opinion, I do not
> think it is okay to consider that what Jimbo's say, we necessarily go
> along with. By default, we are separate people. Similarly, this is not
> because we do not say anything on a topic, that we necessarily agree
> with the only one talking. We may disagree and decide not to say
> anything or we may not be aware of the issue at all. I think it is
> important not to make these types of confusions.

As I see it this was an example of overreacting with regards to a book
on white power that probably should have been deleted.  Had Jimbo simply
said we need to get rid of this book because it is completely
objectionable, and acted accordingly the collateral damage would have
been minimal.  Some of the other books to which Jimbo objected were
already under discussion in the Wikibooks deletion process.  One thing
to remember is the general attitude of panic that prevails around the
English Wikipedia AfD has not taken over on many other projects.  This
may give the impression of slow country cousins (des paysans simples),
but in most cases people reach some kind of arrangement that they can
live with.  That's well within the spirit of wiki.

When someone like Jimbo goes into a project and execises force majeure
it needs to be done so as a measured act designed to minimize damage and
new confusion.  I don't know if the writer of the white power book
deserves some kind of serious discipline; I've never had any dealings
with him.  There is more that can go into such an act that a black and
white decision based on one book.

The most controversial matter was to unilaterally and arbitrarily change
the definition of what books belong on Wikibooks.  This would change
that definition from any non-fiction book that one might find in a local
library to something that is more strictly a "textbook".  Unfortunately,
"textbook" is not a clear term; it makes the definition of the Wikibooks
content less clear, because it interrupts a mutual (even if unwritten)
understanding of what is acceptable.

Every project develops its own leadership patterns and its own leaders.
This is often without any appointments, without any votes, without any
titles. Those leaders just lead, often with the tacit support of the
community.  The community trusts the leader not to take that community
into a radical new direction without the consent of the community.  That
trust allows the leader to take unilateral action in many circumstances,
including disputed ones where the only solution lies in an act of
decisiveness.

Improperly applied force majeure undermines those lines of trust.
Contributors who have found an acceptable level of comfort with their
work and its acceptability are cast into uncertainty.  Some may feel
that their perfectly acceptable efforts are now put into doubt.  As this
project scales up into an unbelievably large volunteer mega-project we
need to be attentive to scaling up the human relations that have made
Wikipedia what it is today.  In the English Wiktionary, the project
where I am most active, recently passed the 100,000 entry milestone, and
is the ninth largest project.  It has double the number of entries that
were on Wikipedia when I first joined.  The arbitrary interruption of
the lines of trust on such a project can have unexpected effects.

Ec


list: wikien-l

from_name: Ilya

subject: [WikiEN-l] Administrative power misuse

body:
Hello, Ilya!
You wrote to <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org> on Sat, 5 Nov 2005 04:43:28 +0300:

 I> The user Dbachmann blocked me for two days using his administrative
 I> powers for contributing to an article Proto-World language, where he is
 I> also a contibutor.

 I> He argued that I had violated the 3RR rule.

 I> This is not true because I added in my version the phrase that he
 I> insisted, but he refused to dicuss and talk in the talk page.

 I> Another user, probably, his friend continued to revert my contibution,
 I> without any comment, in spite I asked him to discuss the revertion in
 I> the talk page.

 I> Dbachmann did block me for the second time in two or three days, first
 I> time for the Proto-Indo-European language article, also without
 I> violation of the 3RR rule, in that article he was also a contributer.
 I> As so, he received warning for edit warring in his talk page by another
 I> administrator.

 I> It seems he just reverting any edits of mine.
 I> Also, he commited some personal attacks on me in the
 I> Proto-Indo-European language talk page.

 I> Please, unblock me and make him to discuss the edits.

UPDATE:
1. I am Nixer
2. The user that unjustly reverted my edits is Izehar
<j.spahis at btinternet.com>,
he recently e-mailed me his apologies:
===
> I have checked your edits on "Proto-World language" again, and they
> appear to not be vandalism - I apologise to you for reverting you and
> suggesting that you were vandalising the article. I shouldn't have got
> involved.
===

Also he leaved a message in the Administrator's notice board, asking to
unblock me
because I was blocked by Dbachmann for 48 hour, which violated the
Wikipedia's rule.

So, Please unblock me!

With best regards, Ilya.  E-mail: neptunia at mail.ru


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Andre Engels

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: User Jcb deleting articles in ia.wikipedia.org

body:
On 11/24/05, ilooy <ilooy.gaon at gmail.com> wrote:

> The fact remains that hundreds and
> hundreds of articles were missing and
> at that no record of deletions. But
> contributors would make new entries
> and these would disappear. It has
> happened to me and to several
> strong contributors on ia.wiki who
> are disgusted with the project now.
> But you notice, I haven't given up and
> I am active in several wikis and I am
> asking for a resolution to the matter.

This I find hard to believe. If it is really the case, then you should
get the programmers of the Wikimedia software. Undoubtedly they would
be very interested to hear of even ONE article being lost without a
trace, let alone if it happens regularly as you claim.

> > There was a whole lot of inappropriate material added (articles in
> > other languages, year pages that contained no text except for on each
> > page the same explanation of what Interlingua was, entries with
> > nothing but a single translation, empty pages, vandalism), and there
> > was no sysop to clean it up. Then someone took on the job (I don't
> > remember who, but it was a German and I helped him) and deleted it all
> > in less than a week. Thus, for that month (August 2004) the number was
> > indeed negative.
>
> So hundreds of thousands of words.
> This is definitely not some articles
> with a few words each, and definitely
> some articles with a lot of text. Are
> you telling me that you and this German
> collaborator of yours decided to delete
> willy-nilly without discussion and with
> only the traces of Statistics Tables
> to show your massive deletions?

The Wiki was mostly dead at the time. There was nobody to discuss with. I had

> But actually you could have had a
> discussion with several of us admins,
> why didn't you? Why not?

Because there were no sysops around at the time.

> ...Actually there were sysops around.

Who?

> ...And stuff was getting cleaned up also

Nope, was not.

> ...And vandals blocked. And what is your
> relationship to Interlingua and who is
> this German fellow who you were
> collaborating with? Why didn't you
> discuss with some of the admins in
> ia.wiki?

As I said before, there were none.

> Actually, I didn't get rid of anything after all,
> did I, and now it seems you had a hand in
> ia.wiki all along without discussing anything
> with any admins that I know of. So I'm
> pleased that things are coming out now.
> BTW who is the German fellow you were
> collaborating with? And why isn't he
> communicating with the admins either?

For the last time, there were none.

--
Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels


from_name: Mark Williamson

body:
> > People had been putting up the complete text of books of the Bible,
> > the book of Mormons and the Koran. Those have been deleted by
> > Dissident in February.
>
> These texts were discussed and moved
> to Wikisource. Then they were moved
> off Wikimedia and onto discussions on
> YahooGroups. I kept in touch with Ensjo,
> Dissident, and Almafeta about some of
> these issues.

Yes, but in the process of transwikiing, the articles at some point
have to be DELETED FROM THE WIKI. If it's huge huge huge texts such as
the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the Qur'aan, then IT'S NO WONDER
THAT HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF KILOBYTES OF TEXT AND SO MANY WORDS
DISAPPEARED!!!

> The fact remains that hundreds and
> hundreds of articles were missing and
> at that no record of deletions. But
> contributors would make new entries
> and these would disappear. It has
> happened to me and to several
> strong contributors on ia.wiki who
> are disgusted with the project now.
> But you notice, I haven't given up and
> I am active in several wikis and I am
> asking for a resolution to the matter.

"Hundreds and hundreds of articles" -- why not give some EXAMPLES so
people can check out your unbelievable story?

To everybody else, it seems like you're blaming Jcb for something he didn't do.

> > There was a whole lot of inappropriate material added (articles in
> > other languages, year pages that contained no text except for on each
> > page the same explanation of what Interlingua was, entries with
> > nothing but a single translation, empty pages, vandalism), and there
> > was no sysop to clean it up. Then someone took on the job (I don't
> > remember who, but it was a German and I helped him) and deleted it all
> > in less than a week. Thus, for that month (August 2004) the number was
> > indeed negative.
>
> So hundreds of thousands of words.
> This is definitely not some articles
> with a few words each, and definitely
> some articles with a lot of text. Are
> you telling me that you and this German
> collaborator of yours decided to delete
> willy-nilly without discussion and with
> only the traces of Statistics Tables
> to show your massive deletions?

Yes, and what's wrong? THEY WERE ALL APPROPRIATE DELETIONS.

> But actually you could have had a
> discussion with several of us admins,
> why didn't you? Why not?
> ...Actually there were sysops around.
> ...And stuff was getting cleaned up also.
> ...And vandals blocked. And what is your
> relationship to Interlingua and who is
> this German fellow who you were
> collaborating with? Why didn't you
> discuss with some of the admins in
> ia.wiki?
>

... I don't know about his relationship to Interlingua, but he is a
STEWARD. That means he has special privelages. He has a licence to
kill, so to speak, and you do not. He is trusted by the community, if
he sees a massive base of articles he feels need deleting, he can just
delete them without asking anybody. If somebody complains at a later
date, other stewards will check their complaints, and if it seems he
made an inappropriate judgement, his action would be reversed.

> That of course was a matter of speech.
> Jcb did unblock himself right away.
> But I did post messages on discussion
> pages on his own Dutch page and on
> my discussion page and elsewhere on
> ia.wiki and want the situation to be
> resolved.

A situation that you can't prove is his fault!!!

> Actually, I didn't get rid of anything after all,
> did I, and now it seems you had a hand in
> ia.wiki all along without discussing anything
> with any admins that I know of. So I'm
> pleased that things are coming out now.
> BTW who is the German fellow you were
> collaborating with? And why isn't he
> communicating with the admins either?

That German fellow WAS an admin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Only admins
and stewards and developers and bureaucrats can delete
pages!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

...

Ahh, and you said something about ME starting to annoy YOU. Well, you
have a really absurd attitude in this thread -- you've blocked a good
administrator because you _think_ he _may have_ deleted lots of
articles of which there is no record. If you don't know what was in
these articles, how do you know it wasn't appropriate to delete them?
AND MOST OF ALL, YOU YOURSELF ADMITTED YOU DON'T KNOW FOR SURE THAT HE
DID IT!!!!!!!! You requested recently to be sysop at lad.wiki. I think
it's safe to say that's not going to happen anytime soon.

Mark

--
"Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin


body:
On 11/24/05, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:

> "Hundreds and hundreds of articles" -- why not give some EXAMPLES so
> people can check out your unbelievable story?

Yes! Call the Mediawiki software guys, because here is something
impossible happening! Show them what articles disappeared, and let
them be puzzled about how they disappeared without anything being
shown in the logs.

> ... I don't know about his relationship to Interlingua, but he is a
> STEWARD. That means he has special privelages. He has a licence to
> kill, so to speak, and you do not. He is trusted by the community, if
> he sees a massive base of articles he feels need deleting, he can just
> delete them without asking anybody. If somebody complains at a later
> date, other stewards will check their complaints, and if it seems he
> made an inappropriate judgement, his action would be reversed.

Well, we are supposed to only work based on what the local wikipedias
want. However, as I stated, there WAS no local wikipedia community at
the time. There were 117 total edit actions in July. The number of new
articles a day had not gotten above 0,5 for months.

> That German fellow WAS an admin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Only admins
> and stewards and developers and bureaucrats can delete
> pages!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually, he was made an admin especially for this occasion, because
these articles were hanging around on the wiki, and there was no admin
at the time to do the work. He volunteered, and he got the job. He did
not discuss with the admins because there WAS no admin to discuss
with. And there wasn't much of anyone else either.

--
Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels


body:
On 11/24/05, ilooy <ilooy.gaon at gmail.com> wrote:

> So hundreds of thousands of words.
> This is definitely not some articles
> with a few words each, and definitely
> some articles with a lot of text. Are
> you telling me that you and this German
> collaborator of yours decided to delete
> willy-nilly without discussion and with
> only the traces of Statistics Tables
> to show your massive deletions?

I checked some records, and it seems my memory was faulty here:

The German I was talking about was Fire, and the deletions I was
talking about were NOT those of August 2004, but those of April 2004.
I apologise for the confusion caused.

--
Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: Some Wikipedia writers cover up for Nazism on
	Wikipedia

body:
Matt R wrote:

>--- Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"Rex" <rexy at ij.net> wrote in message
>>[snip]
>>
>>
>>>...  They cover up discoveries by the historian Rex Curry.
>>>
>>>
>>Just checking: are you actually "the historian Rex Curry"?
>>
>>
>Not just that, but his own website modestly proclaims that:
>
>"RexCurry.net is a familiar voice of freedom for millions. As an international
>businessman, worldwide correspondent, journalist, distinguished lecturer,
>political scientist, consultant, author, and activist, Rex operates a think
>tank and pressure group to promote liberty."
>
>Ah, I love the Internet...
>
>-- Matt
>
>
A "pressure group to promote liberty"!?  Wow! :-\

Ec


list: wikitech-l

subject: [Wikitech-l] Immediate request for wiki set-ups

body:
No -- with 3 oppose votes, the Dutch LS Wiki should NOT be created. 2
votes was one thing; 3 is quite a different thing.

Mark

On 24/11/05, Servien Ilaino <servien at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to request the immediate set-up for the following wikis.
> These wikis have been waiting for quite a while and should be created
> as soon as possible!!
>
> 1. Banyumasan (8)
> 2. Nedersaksisch/Dutch Low Saxon (21 support; 3 oppose [thereof 2
> anonymous votes])
> 3. Ripuarian (18 support [thereof 2 anonymous votes]; 2 oppose)
> 4. Samogitian (?emait??ka) (11)
> 5. Vlax Romany (11 support, 1 oppose [anonymous])
>
> More info on: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Approved_requests_for_new_languages
>
> Kind regards,
> Servien Ilaino; and the
> Meta-Wiki community
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>

--
"Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Lauritsen speedy deletion??

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

geni stated for the record:

> The whole point of speedy deletion is that the cases are
> striaghtforward enough that they don't require any real judment.
>
> --
> geni

I don't know what kind of judgement they require, but it's pretty clear
what kind they get.  --Or lack thereof.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | I'd like to buy the Internet.
 sean at epoptic.org | Do you know how much it is?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDhjZhMAt1wyd9d+URAm7hAJ9tdEiKk8qZmvy/K5BaJxqlob+IpQCeK/Z+
QOyJ1nBdODg+tz7ybaVfPfQ=
=N/Zo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Re: <link> elements for
	interlanguage	link	information

body:
Magnus Manske wrote:
> We're already using two different URLs to display REDIRECT pages.
>
> Using the redirect : .../wiki/The_Redirect
> shows the page The_Redirect redirects to.
>
> Showing the redirect: .../w/index.php?title=The_Redirect&redirect=no
> shows the page containing the redirect.
>
> Not that I have a strong opinion about using 301s, but couldn't we just
> turn the former link "style" into 301 and the latter not?

No, because then you have no idea how you got to that page, and have to dig
through stuff to find out.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20051124/28f5d683/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Peter Mackay

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's provable anti-expertise bias

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Jimmy Wales
>
> The proper role is what Tony describes here -- you use the
> encyclopedia to get started, to get an overview, and *then*
> you do your homework, and hopefully a lot more effectively
> than you would if you took a random stab at the library catalogue.

Google is the catalogue, but we are the guidebook.

Peter (Skyring)


from_name: Matt R

subject: [WikiEN-l] Some Wikipedia writers cover up for Nazism on Wikipedia

body:
--- Rex <rexy at ij.net> wrote:

>  There are some regular writers on Wikipedia who knowingly engage in
> personal attacks and deletions (even of links) of anyone who explains the
> connection between Edward Bellamy and his cousin Francis Bellamy (author > of

> the pledge of allegiance) and National Socialism. Some of the worst
> falsifiers on Wikipedia are Stormie, Lupo, and Matt Crypto. They were
> challenged to respond to the facts that they suppressed or to concede,

<screed snipped>

For those who are interested, I blocked Rex (User:66.234.65.222) for 48 hours
for spamming this literate essay on "Wikipedia's lying liars & their lies" to
numerous talk pages and article pages, even after being warned. (He's also seen
fit to spam my blog, too).

I don't altogether know what he's on about; something about the US pledge of
allegiance?

-- Matt

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto
Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com

___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com


from_name: John Haselden

subject: [Wikitech-l] Static HTML tree dumps for mirroring or CD distribution

body:
Hello all,

I was reading the Wikibooks:Database_download page and there is a section titled
"Static HTML tree dumps for mirroring or CD distribution". This section states
that if anyone would "like to help set up an automatic dump-to-static function,
please drop us a note on the developers' mailing list".

Is there a HTML tree dump project in the works that I could contribute to?

Many thanks,
John Haselden


body:
> 2 anonymous votes that basically disqualify themselves.. Great to know that
> you are there on your own Mark. So there is one qualified vote and two
> unqualified votes, three is a different thing. As to the proposed ideas of
> Jimmy, both Stellingwerfs, Gronings and Veluws could get their own
> Wikipedias as well. I am sure you would support that as well. If you don't
> then basically you agree with me that Jimmy's proposal has its fair share of
> problems.

How do anonymous votes disqualify themselves? Wikimedia voting policy
is very clear. Anon voting is allowed unless local policy specifically
dictates otherwise.

> There is no such thing as an objective way of saying what a language is. You
> can come close but as long as people are willing to go on their hobby horse
> or fight from their ivory tower you will have for many languages controversy
> because they might be a dialect.

...

> For me having new projects is not a problem as long as people put sincere
> effort in their project.  Yes, I have moved my position more and more
> towards allowing for most efforts. I am also not really afraid of hoaxes,
> when we find them we delete them if we are able and willing to come to such
> a decision. What is there to lose but the effort that a new community can
> put into a project that will be one of our projects?

I for one don't think that's particularly relevant. What _is_
relevant, is that even when the vote was at 15-4, Servien tried to
shove it through even though by ALL definitions that is absolutely not
consensus.

> As to shifting position, even when a dialect gets its wikipedia, it will
> reflect the culture that is part of the people that speak it. When people of
> other dialects read this, they will find the pecularies of these people and
> find the differences and similarities. It will be a kind of information that
> will be hard to get in any other way.

I don't think it's relevant. 3 oppose votes.

Mark

--
"Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin


from_name: Servien Ilaino

body:
Hi,

I'd like to request the immediate set-up for the following wikis.
These wikis have been waiting for quite a while and should be created
as soon as possible!!

1. Banyumasan (8)
2. Nedersaksisch/Dutch Low Saxon (21 support; 3 oppose [thereof 2
anonymous votes])
3. Ripuarian (18 support [thereof 2 anonymous votes]; 2 oppose)
4. Samogitian (?emait??ka) (11)
5. Vlax Romany (11 support, 1 oppose [anonymous])

More info on: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Approved_requests_for_new_languages

Kind regards,
Servien Ilaino; and the
Meta-Wiki community


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] complaints of admin actions on wikien-l

body:
Matt Brown wrote:

> I'm also not sure that WikiEN-l is the best place to attempt dispute resolution.

On the block message, wikien-l is one of the listed places to complain
about blockings.

- d.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] User Jcb deleting articles in ia.wikipedia.org

body:
2005/11/24, ilooy <ilooy.gaon at gmail.com>:

> To you it SEEMS???
>
> Where are my articles Mark???
>
> Where are my edits Mark???
>
> Why does http://en.wikipedia.org/wikistats/EN/TablesWikipediaIA.htm
> show negative growth by several hundred articles
> between July and August of 2004.
> The table shows a loss from 339k
> word count to 240k words, that's almost
> a hundred thounsand words. So is that
> one or two 5 word articles to you???

Wake up! You are talking July and August _2004_ here! That's not last
week, not last month, that's more than one year ago! And those
deletions were not done by Jcb, he was not even on Wikipedia then!

> You seem too eager to criticize and
> don't seem patient enough to listen.

Well, that same can be said about you.

> I'm telling you that I want to know what
> happened to my edits and you tell me
> that there are no edits. Well what about
> everyone elses edits? Why do hundreds
> of articles disappear??? And you get
> all too silly with your REALLY knowing
> what's going on... You don't know anything
> Mark because you don't know what's
> been going on.

And apparently YOU don't know what's been going on either.

> BTW you're starting to annoy me Mark.

And you're starting to annoy me. You find a sysop deleting pages, and:
1. You DON'T talk with him
2. You DON'T ask for his removal
3. You DON'T bring the pages back
4. You DO block him,

That's one wrong thing done, two right things not done.

Then you throw shouts at those who notify that.

And then you give him blame for things he cannot possibly have done!

The facts of the matter are:
* Jcb has deleted some pages
* ILVI has blocked Jcb

That's about the only thing we can be sure of.

Also some things that definitely are NOT true, but that ILVI has claimed:
* Jcb did NOT do the deletions of July-August 2004. He has been a
moderator only since February/March 2005
* Jcb did NOT delete anonymously. Deleting anonymously is simply impossible.

--
Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels


body:
2005/11/24, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com>:

> And you're starting to annoy me. You find a sysop deleting pages, and:
> 1. You DON'T talk with him
> 2. You DON'T ask for his removal
> 3. You DON'T bring the pages back
> 4. You DO block him,
>
> That's one wrong thing done, two right things not done.

Sorry, three right things not done. And I can add a fourth: Actually
check WHAT has been deleted and if it were rightly done so, although I
guess that falls under #3 above.

--
Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels


from_name: geni

body:
On 11/24/05, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
> I'm kinda shocked how few "I've been blocked!" messages we receive that
> *don't* follow the above instructions.

That id because if you feel otherwise you are likely to contact the
admin by email or sit the block out.

--
geni


body:
Andre Engels wrote:

>Yes, there have been deletions going on. Apparently that's a bad
>thing. And apparently you consider Jcb to blame for that. It's the way
>things go at Wikipedia - sometimes articles would do better to be
>deleted. And then they are.
>
I'm sorry that I can't help with this discussion.  I have a lot of work
to do to get rid of a long list of translations into "Ekspreso".  See
[[en:wiktionary:Ekspreso]] for the origins of that "language". :-)

Ec


from_name: Andrew Gray

body:
On 24/11/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:

> > I _always_ tag images for deletion rather than delete them directly
> > myself. That's usually the case with articles too, the only ones I just
> > outright delete are history-free redirects that are in the way of a move
> > operation.
>
> uh hu and when did you last clear out catigory candidates for speedy
> deletion? you've just doubled the number of admin hours needed to get
> things done.

Cat:CSD isn't bad at all. I do it regularly, at random times; I've
never seen more than a screenful of stuff there. Pick a swathe, delete
about half, leave a quarter tagged but undeleted where I'm unsure, and
the rest either untag as not a CSD, resend to AfD or make a rediurect.
Quick and simple, and I've never seen much of a backlog - if you're an
admin, it's about the simplest maintenance task going.

I delete a small number of articles on sight - ones where the total
content is "asdf" or "jimmy sux cok heh heh" but otherwise tag for
speedy deletion - it's good practice, it takes a trivial amount of
time, and what do we lose by it?

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] How is validation supposed to work?

body:
On 11/24/05, Magnus Manske <magnus.manske at web.de> wrote:
> All of the above *might* happen. Which is why we have a test phase. If
> the voting trolls really turn out to be a problem, we could restrict
> viewing of the individual votes to admins (to check for bot abuse and
> the like). Or each user could chose to hide his/her votes individually.
>
> In the test setup, everything goes. Even anons (or whatever they're
> called now :-) can vote. This might or might not be a good idea in the
> long run. But there's only one way to find out.
>
> By trying.
>
> Magnus
>

oh it all those things will probably happen. But we will be able to
handle it (we've pretty much managed to deal with everything else).

> P.S.: What's so bad about knowing that people like our article about
> exploding whales?

Because it would mean they were not that interested in our articles on canals.

--
geni


body:
Magnus Manske wrote:

>geni wrote:
>
>
>>On 11/24/05, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 24/11/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>P.S.: What's so bad about knowing that people like our article about
>>>>>exploding whales?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Because it would mean they were not that interested in our articles on canals.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>There's an awful lot of articles on the net about canals. There's
>>>entire academic courses at MIT you can go and read about canals, or a
>>>thousand and one good bits of writing, pitched at the right level,
>>>discussing canals. There's one good article on the net about exploding
>>>whales.
>>>
>>>Why be ashamed we have that one good article that they *can't* go
>>>elsewhere and read?
>>>
>>>
>>Because you can never have too many pages on canals.
>>
>>
>Relating to a recent thread on wikipedia-l, I hereby demand an article
>on every canal in the world, present or past!
>
Obviously the one on root canal should be a candidate for feature
article. :-)


from_name: Joanot Martorell

subject: [Foundation-l] A proposal for new language creation

body:
2005/11/22, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com>:

> 2.  To discourage the creation of new Wikipedia editions in dialects
> which do not significantly differ from existing Wikipedias.  We want to
> keep from being hoaxed, and from falling into political traps.
>
> For dialects, then, we want to require a much higher threshold before
> allowing the wikipedia -- we need a good reason to start it.  A
> "Bavarian" Wikipedia proposal would need a much much stronger rationale
> before we start it than "German".  Obviously.

This point isn't enough to clarify when whe should or should not create a new
dialect wikipedia, because it's using the unique criteria of interlegibility.
By exemple, Catalan (my native lang) and Occitan are mutually interlegible in
text written, or between Neapolitan and Italian. And for some persons
Portuguese and Spanish are interlegible too, but they are considered as
independent languages. I think that perhaps the point to consider the inclusion
of a new dialect wikipedia would be better moving around the
exclusionist-inclusionist poles.

I mean when you want a new wiki in a dialect with important linguistic
particularities that today are being actually assumed as "proper" of another
language, so you wouldn't need a Wikipedia if there exists a Wikipedia in those
language. In this case, wikimedia should adopt an exclusionist attitude.

But when you want a new wiki in a dialect with particularities wich are being
rejected (or considered as "bizarre", etc.) or aren't assumed as "proper" by
the most nearest languages, perhaps you and your linguistic community would
need a Wikipedia. In this case, wikimedia should adopt an inclusionist
attitude.

Let's see a practical and real exemple. If we see the cases about a new
wikipedias proposals in Murcian and in Andalusian, most people who are opposing
these are Spanish-speakers, but the reasons are different. In the case of
Andalusian, Spanish-speakers opposers are saying that "Andalusian was always
considered as a developed form of Spanish" (that is, the most possible future
form of Spanish language). They are being "inclusionist" with Andalusian
dialect, accepting the andalusian particularities as proper. In opposition of
it, about Murcian, Spanish-speakers opposers are saying that writting "Murcian
is a bizarre/coloquially/speech/deformed Spanish used in Murcia region". It
would mean also that they perhaps have some interlegibility difficulties, and
aren't assuming as "proper" form. So they are being "exclusionist" with
Murcian.

And, according to exclusionist-inclusionist poles, Wikimedia would be able to
have a exclusionist attitude with Andalusian, but being inclusionist with
Murcian. Of course, it's only my own opinion.

Cheers!

Joanot Martorell,
(not real name, but real person)

--
Viquip?dia, l'enciclop?dia lliure.
http://ca.wikipedia.org


body:
Magnus Manske wrote:

>geni wrote:
>
>
>>On 11/24/05, Magnus Manske <magnus.manske at web.de> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Relating to a recent thread on wikipedia-l, I hereby demand an article
>>>on every canal in the world, present or past!
>>>
>>>Magnus
>>>
>>>
>>I'm working on it. Just not very quickly.
>>
>>
>Damn, I was trying to get the last word on this by suggesting you write
>[[Root canal]], but it's already there :-)
>
>Magnus
>
Sorry, I didn't read this before I made my comment on this important
topic. :-)

Ec


body:
On 24/11/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:

> > P.S.: What's so bad about knowing that people like our article about
> > exploding whales?
>
> Because it would mean they were not that interested in our articles on canals.

There's an awful lot of articles on the net about canals. There's
entire academic courses at MIT you can go and read about canals, or a
thousand and one good bits of writing, pitched at the right level,
discussing canals. There's one good article on the net about exploding
whales.

Why be ashamed we have that one good article that they *can't* go
elsewhere and read?

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


body:
On 11/24/05, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> Cat:CSD isn't bad at all. I do it regularly, at random times; I've
> never seen more than a screenful of stuff there. Pick a swathe, delete
> about half, leave a quarter tagged but undeleted where I'm unsure, and
> the rest either untag as not a CSD, resend to AfD or make a rediurect.
> Quick and simple, and I've never seen much of a backlog - if you're an
> admin, it's about the simplest maintenance task going.
>
> I delete a small number of articles on sight - ones where the total
> content is "asdf" or "jimmy sux cok heh heh" but otherwise tag for
> speedy deletion - it's good practice, it takes a trivial amount of
> time, and what do we lose by it?

Imagain the catigory getting burried as everyone on RC patrol stops
speeding. Add in a few more people like [[User:Zunaid]] and you have a
problem. The speedy system works for the most part (it would work
better if people stoped trying to apply IAR to it). It is one of the
few bits of janitorial work on wikipedia that isn't weighed down by
bureaucracy. If you want a second pair of eyes on deletion you are
free to add them at [[Special:Log]]. Otherwise ponder the wisdom of
meta:instruction creep.

The whole point of speedy deletion is that the cases are
striaghtforward enough that they don't require any real judment.

--
geni


from_name: Phil Boswell

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Add namespace parameter to _What links here_

body:
"Phil Boswell" <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote
in message news:djaql9$r3f$1 at sea.gmane.org...
> Would it be especially complicated to add the namespace=? parameter to the
> "What links here?" mechanism?
>
> I would be quite happy to add it to the URL manually at first, but this
> would be most useful ploughing through huge lists of links trying to make
> out whether something is actually being linked to meaningfully.

Did I miss an answer to this question I wrote back in October?

This functionality would really be very useful for what I'm wanting to do
right now...
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


body:
2005/11/24, ilooy <ilooy.gaon at gmail.com>:
> 2005/11/24, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com>:
> > Wake up! You are talking July and August _2004_ here! That's not last
> > week, not last month, that's more than one year ago! And those
> > deletions were not done by Jcb, he was not even on Wikipedia then!
>
> That was one example of massive deletions.
> There are other deletions which went on
> on a regular basis which meant many
> times there were minus new entries,
> figure that one out on the tables.

Yes, there have been deletions going on. Apparently that's a bad
thing. And apparently you consider Jcb to blame for that. It's the way
things go at Wikipedia - sometimes articles would do better to be
deleted. And then they are.

> > And apparently YOU don't know what's been going on either.
> > And you're starting to annoy me. You find a sysop deleting pages, and:
> > 1. You DON'T talk with him
> > 2. You DON'T ask for his removal
> > 3. You DON'T bring the pages back
> > 4. You DO block him,
>
> I've written before that this was going on.
> I posted messages everywhere I could
> to tell Jcb I was blocking him only until
> the situation was resolved.

That's an awfully bad way to try to resolve a situation. Jcb had to
unblock himself to even help in resolving.

> There are
> no records I can find of who or what
> bot has been making deletions other
> than Jcb.

Almafeta deleted a whole lot of pages on August 31, and a few in the
months before that. Dissident did so on 24-25 February. Easy to see
from the deletion log.

> And he is the only other
> sysop I didn't know well enough at
> the wiki. He also has a bot at work
> on the wiki, and no other admins do.

What does having a bot have to do with it?

> I wanted to put a stop to the situation
> and look into it.

Looking into a situation is best done by contacting the people who are
involved, not by blocking them away from the wiki.

> No, I noticed that he was the admin who
> was actively deleting pages. I noticed that
> he was the only admin claiming to have
> a bot at work in the wiki.

And so you blame him for everything that goes wrong.

> And why are there so many negative
> messages regarding this matter? What
> would other wikis who have had this
> unexplained disappearences have done?

1. TALK! ASK!
2. Seeing that you are an admin yourself, you could have checked the
deleted pages to see whether the deletions were right or wrong, and
maybe undelete them.

You do neither of this. Instead you get into a rage against the person
that you *think* is to blame, and you are deaf to any suggestion that
the situation might be different than you thought, or that you might
better have done differently even IF it is as you thought.

--
Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels


body:
On 24/11/05, Leon Planken <leon at ch.tudelft.nl> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'll step in here and try not to cause too much of a fuss.
>
> I just want to notice here that every time this debate comes up, the
> only one who voices objections is Mark, the only non-anonymous voter
> against the new language Wikipedia.  (I may remember this selectively
> though.)  Of course, the people that most eloquently *support* the
> creation probably voted for it too.

Yes, to a certain degree; but how many people asked for its creation
on-list? So far, Servien and Arbeo and perhaps Gerard M. So just as
it's not fair to apply 3 to a full count of voters, I don't think it's
fair to do the same for 1.

Mark

--
"Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin


body:
On 11/24/05, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 24/11/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > P.S.: What's so bad about knowing that people like our article about
> > > exploding whales?
> >
> > Because it would mean they were not that interested in our articles on canals.
>
> There's an awful lot of articles on the net about canals. There's
> entire academic courses at MIT you can go and read about canals, or a
> thousand and one good bits of writing, pitched at the right level,
> discussing canals. There's one good article on the net about exploding
> whales.
>
> Why be ashamed we have that one good article that they *can't* go
> elsewhere and read?
>

Because you can never have too many pages on canals.

this site appears to provide a reasonable level of information

http://www.theexplodingwhale.com/

--
geni


body:
2005/11/24, ilooy <ilooy.gaon at gmail.com>:
> 2005/11/24, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>:
> > Before you start engaging in drastic or punitive actions it helps to
> > discuss the problem with him first..  Negotiation can be a wonderful tool.
>
> Well, it was maybe a matte of
> shoot first then ask questions.

It's unlikely for a dead man to answer...

> I had asked about the situation
> before from others, and no one
> seems to know why there were
> so many deletions and why the
> article counts were so screwy.
> Like a hundred thousand words
> deleted. That wasn't just a few
> articles with "stubs". And that's
> only one instance.

People had been putting up the complete text of books of the Bible,
the book of Mormons and the Koran. Those have been deleted by
Dissident in February.

> There are
> negative new article entries???
> What's up with that?

There was a whole lot of inappropriate material added (articles in
other languages, year pages that contained no text except for on each
page the same explanation of what Interlingua was, entries with
nothing but a single translation, empty pages, vandalism), and there
was no sysop to clean it up. Then someone took on the job (I don't
remember who, but it was a German and I helped him) and deleted it all
in less than a week. Thus, for that month (August 2004) the number was
indeed negative.

> And the complaints from disgusted
> contributors who kept wondering
> where were articles that they'd
> edited? And I've experienced it
> myself. Sometimes I'd think that
> they were problems with the software,
> that perhaps there were upgrades,
> or shutdowns which required the
> reloading of a database... and what
> else... I don't know... no one seems
> to know obviously.

No, and apparently if Jcb can't say anything about it, you suddenly
get to know it?

> What I did find was that Jcb was
> deleting articles. And he did have
> a bot active on the wiki. So I posted
> that I was blocking him until the
> matter could be resolved with the
> deletions going on in ia.wiki
> and that's the situation up to now.

Shoot first, ask questions later, and then complain when you are
blamed for shooting, in other words.

Get rid of the only person actually doing moderator work. Excellent
way of improving your wiki...

--
Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels


from_name: Magnus Manske

body:
geni wrote:

>On 11/24/05, Magnus Manske <magnus.manske at web.de> wrote:
>
>
>>Yeah, just putting new toys online to see what happens is really a
>>stupid idea.
>>
>>Thankfully, we never tried such nonsense at Nupedia. Who knows what we
>>would have ended up with, instead of the twenty-plus high-quality
>>articles we now have after years of hard labor.
>>
>>Magnus
>>
>>
>
>
>Well I supose we could have a go at guessing in advance:
>
>Validation wars with forums ganging up to vote for/against certian
>articles. evidence (no way should it be rated that high:
>
>http://newgrounds.com/portal/view/276616
>
>Trolls will follow around users they don't like rateing their articles to zero.
>
>An equiverlent of schoolwatch will turn up and start rateing all of a
>certian type of article to exelent
>
>The anglo-american spelling war will use article validation as a new
>battle field.
>
>We will disscover that our articles on pokemon and explodeing wales
>are our most valued.
>
>at least one arbcom case will result from the switching on of this feature.
>
>So all in all bussiness as usal and nothing to worry about (well no
>more than there normaly is). People will use it to cause trouble but
>unless we lock the database people are always going to be able to
>cause trouble.
>
>
>
All of the above *might* happen. Which is why we have a test phase. If
the voting trolls really turn out to be a problem, we could restrict
viewing of the individual votes to admins (to check for bot abuse and
the like). Or each user could chose to hide his/her votes individually.

In the test setup, everything goes. Even anons (or whatever they're
called now :-) can vote. This might or might not be a good idea in the
long run. But there's only one way to find out.

By trying.

Magnus

P.S.: What's so bad about knowing that people like our article about
exploding whales?


from_name: Grease Monkee

subject: [WikiEN-l] extremely weak dispute resolution mechanisms

body:
On 11/17/05, JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I will simply re-iterate that there are far more seriously damaging and
> "poisonous" things happening on Wikipedia, and they are related to
> extremely
> weak dispute resolution mechanisms.
>
> Jay.
>
>
This is so true, Jay. We squander huge amounts of time and energy dealing
with disputes. Do you have any suggestions to improve our dispute resolution
mechanisms?

Ok, here is my suggestion. This is a stratagy for dealing with disruptive
editors who might turn into good contributers if treated right.

First, a simple example;
1) Newbi is a disruptive moron, HardAss(admin) gives him simple clear
instructions on how not to be disruptive moron, once.
2) Newbi replies to HardAss(admin); "Fuck You", and continues to disrupt.
3) HardAss blocks Newbi and gives another short, clear lecture on how to
behave
4) Newbi replies by spitting venom and calling for justice over his violated
civil rights.
5) Cycle repeats, escalating each time in the tone of rhetoric and length of
blocks.
6) Along comes NiceGuy(admin) who sticks up for Newbi, telling him
"..listen, I will unblock you, but you gotta do x,y and z..." Thereby
supplying a face saving mechanism for Newbi.
7) Newbi either starts to behave, or gets blocked for longer and longer
periods

The most common mistake made implementing this strategy is that NiceGuy is
overly critical of HardAss, not realising that his mentorship of Newbi won't
work without the threat of HardAss looming. Likewise, HardAss often takes it
personally when NiceGuy unblocks someone, not realising it as a face saving
feature that allows Newbi to behave.

Variation- If Newbi(moron) fails to respond to the first NiceGuy, then both
admins proceed to wail on him with a clue stick, until HiceGuy2 comes along
:|| (repeat as needed).

Some of the nice things about this strategy are;
*Self checking (admins constantly are reviewing each other during
implementation)
*If done right, Newbi receives repeated, clear instruction on behavior,
backed up with blocks
*The more idiotic the Newbi, the more effective this strategy
*There is room for lots of different authoritarian/mentorship roles here
*It can really be fun when done right

see also;  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_cop_bad_cop

Happy Thanksgiving!


body:
"Rex" <rexy at ij.net> wrote in message
news:017401c5f057$e6e33c80$6401a8c0 at rexyhp...
[snip]
> ...  They cover up discoveries by the historian Rex Curry.

Just checking: are you actually "the historian Rex Curry"?

If so, are you sure you have checked the Wikipedia policy against "original
research"?

* Go to any Wikipedia page, type "WP:NOR" into the search box and click
"Go".
* Read carefully

HTH HAND
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


from_name: Matt Brown

body:
On 11/24/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On the block message, wikien-l is one of the listed places to complain
> about blockings.

Ah.  Never having been blocked, I have never had cause to read the
instructions on what to do next!

(and please, don't take this opportunity to show me!)

-Matt


from_name: Timwi

body:
>>Would it be especially complicated to add the namespace=? parameter to the
>>"What links here?" mechanism?
>>
>>I would be quite happy to add it to the URL manually at first, but this
>>would be most useful ploughing through huge lists of links trying to make
>>out whether something is actually being linked to meaningfully.
>
> Did I miss an answer to this question I wrote back in October?

There hasn't been a reply. But the answer to your question is "no, it
wouldn't be especially complicated", especially since you stress that
you don't need a UI for it.

To find someone to code it may be the harder part. Last time I did
something like this it was reverted with a snide remark from Brion, so
I'm not doing this again.

Timwi


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: <link> elements for interlanguage link information

body:
> It just makes it a lot harder to deal with such pages: if you
> HTTP-redirect straight to the target page you're missing the link back
> to the redirect page. (And that is *crucial* for editing work and
> vandalism cleanup. It is non-negotiable.)

I feel I should point out an implicit fallacy in this. It is
non-negotiable that we need a link to the redirect page. It is *not*
non-negotiable that we can't return a 301 HTTP redirection.

The only other way I can think of that you can get from a page to
something that redirects to it, is via Whatlinkshere. This is useful,
but not perfect because you may have to browse through long lists to
find the redirect you're looking for.

My suggestion would be to add a list of "redirects to here" to the Edit
page of any article. We already have a "Templates used by this page"
list; this would be a useful complement.

Once we've done that, we can renew the discussion about HTTP redirects,
because now the "Redirected from" link is no longer strictly needed.

There's also the hacker's non-UI option of allowing "?redirect=no" at
the end of /wiki/ URLs (rather than only /w/index.php URLs). Then
technical/experienced users won't even need to go to the Edit page.

Timwi


body:
?var Arnfj?r? Bjarmason wrote:
> On 11/18/05, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
>
>>>I think it'd be useful for most multilingual MediaWiki installations
>>>that use interlanguage links to have such hidden <link> elements.
>>
>>Speaking of which - this reminds me of an idea I had a while ago and I
>>was wondering if anyone would be interested to hear this. Currently many
>>Wikipedia pages in Google search results are redirects [snip]
>
> I've never understood why people think this is a problem.

It's a problem at least at Google because it means the Google rankings
of several articles are split across various URLs that "contain" the
same article. If these rankings were funnelled to a single canonical
URL, article ratings would be much higher, and Google search results
would be more relevant.

> If I search for a term in a search engine I think it increases the
> value of the search if I get a redirect under the title I searched
> for rather than a synonym for the term which I may or may not be
> familiar with.

But you *won't* get a search result under the title you searched for (at
least not in Google). Google for "nonogram". The window title (and hence
the Google search result) displays "Paint by numbers" because that is
the title of the article. Except in the URL and in the article's first
paragraph, you don't see the word "nonogram".

Timwi


subject: [WikiEN-l] Some Wikipedia writers cover up for cranks on Wikipedia

body:
Phil Boswell wrote:
>"Rex" <rexy at ij.net> wrote:

>> ...  They cover up discoveries by the historian Rex Curry.

>Just checking: are you actually "the historian Rex Curry"?
>If so, are you sure you have checked the Wikipedia policy against "original
>research"?

    http://rexcurry.net/

It's an ... amazing page.

- d.


from_name: ilooy

body:
2005/11/23, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com>:
> "Articles they were working on"... last time I checked, the Great
> Purges at ia.wiki were all of itty-bitty articles, some less than 5
> words. Find me one that was more than a paragraph, and I'll be
> surprised.

Mark, in one article you say one
thing in your last one you say another
I've been asked to back off and not
continue this "war" with you.

Well, I now have some information
thanks to Andre Engels I know
more about what happened and why
a lot of articles disappeard and without
discussions at that. Now I'm getting
the heat from a User Waerth who
is vowing to leave nl.wiki due to
censorship and who still claims
to be a steward. Why is he posting
on my discussion page with such
venom and spunk??? What is there
between ia.wiki and nl???

The whole Bible in Interlingua for one
could not be on ia.wiki the reason,
it hasn't been translated yet.

BTW Mark, do any of these IP's belong to you?

24.251.68.75
86.195.145.5
86.195.145.115
203.173.177.79

That may also tell me "volumes".

Anyway, I'm done with this discussion.
I've found out somethings several of us
at ia.wiki were wondering about and
will probably discuss over at Interlng.

My apologies to Jcb who was scape
goated by me... it was so as to
flush out information on this matter.
Also to Mithridates/Torquil who also
got pricked in my poking about for
answers and had nothing to do with
the strage stuff going on at ia.wiki

And Mark, mind your tone and don't
burn any bridges, I'm taking my own
counsel to heart, as well.

With regards,
Jay B.
[[ia:User:ILVI]]

--
ilooy.gaon at gmail.com


body:
--- Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:

> "Rex" <rexy at ij.net> wrote in message
> [snip]
> > ...  They cover up discoveries by the historian Rex Curry.
>
> Just checking: are you actually "the historian Rex Curry"?

Not just that, but his own website modestly proclaims that:

"RexCurry.net is a familiar voice of freedom for millions. As an international
businessman, worldwide correspondent, journalist, distinguished lecturer,
political scientist, consultant, author, and activist, Rex operates a think
tank and pressure group to promote liberty."

Ah, I love the Internet...

-- Matt

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto
Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com

___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: People editing their own Wikipedia articles.

body:
Tom Cadden wrote:
> But what if an article contains a widely believed 'fact' that
> actually is bullshit.
>
> eg,
>
> Michael was born in Toronto in 1956 and moved to Atlanta in 1961.
>
> But Michael finds the article and knows that he was born in Ottawa
> but his family moved to Toronto some months after his birth. Plenty
> of internet sites say Toronto but he knows for a fact that it is
> wrong. Can he correct that, or does he need to produce his birth
> certificate to correct an error about himself? lol

I know this posting is a bit old, but I just wanted to say something
here. People always act like there are only two possibilities. In this
case, the perceived two possibilities are either the article says
"Toronto" or the article says "Ottawa". If you think about it, though,
you'll see that if hundreds of sources on the Internet say Toronto it
makes perfect sense to state explicitly that those websites are wrong.
This will show a reader that the author of the Wikipedia article --
whether it be that very Michael or not -- is aware of the fact that
other sites claim "Toronto" and that the author still thinks Ottawa is
right. That's much more convincing than just seeing it say "Ottawa" and
all other easy-to-find sources say "Toronto", which makes it look much
more like a simple mistake.

Timwi


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Usability

body:
ABCD wrote:
> Looking through the Helpdesk-l mailing list, it seems that some people
> are having a hard time finding the edit link at the top of the page,
> although they can find the edit links for the sections.  Should
> something be done about this?

I find it amazing that people on this mailing list -- who are familiar
with Wikipedia -- find it so hard to acknowledge that the "edit this
page" link is really invisible to people who are not familiar with it
and don't already know that the link exists, much less where it is.

Just look at the page. Look at any article. What do you look at? You
look at the article, obviously. You don't look at the little boxes on
the left unless you're specifically looking for something. You
absolutely totally especially don't look at the things at the top.
They're just visual sugar, they don't exist until you know they actually
serve a purpose. Most users won't even look for the edit link, and if
they do, they would be looking for it in the toolbar on the left. Since
it's not there, they would conclude they can't edit the page they're
currently looking at, unless it has sections.

It has been suggested before to move the section edit links to _below_
each header because with the current layout most newbies assume the link
lets them edit the section _above_ it. An "edit this page" (or "edit
this article") link should then be placed directly underneath the main
article heading. _Not_ above it where no-one looks.

Timwi


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wiki about every person in the world

body:
On 11/24/05, Magnus Manske <magnus.manske at web.de> wrote:
> . .. ...herebox.org... .. . wrote:
> > on en:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kmweber/List_of_Everyone_Who_Has_Ever_Lived
> >
> > disambiguation is one of many problems.  ~12 billion entries is likely
> > well beyond the scalability of the software.  Indeed even ~1 billion
> > entries.
> >
> > In my opinion, this belongs in a genealogy targetted database.
> > http://www.google.com/search?q=genealogy
> >
> No problem, just wait for WikiData!
>
> Should be right here.
>
> Any minute now. ;-)
>
> Magnus

I'm sure it'll be ready before we have time to write a billion
encyclopedia articles on people!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kmweber/List_of_Everyone_Who_Has_Ever_Lived?
 No, it's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_by_name.

Worst case scenario name, birthdate, and place of birth is pretty much
always unique.  But disambiguation is something best worked out as you
go.  This is really the lamest of the arguments against this.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Preserving GFDL requirements when splitting articles

body:
On 11/23/05, M. Creidieki Crouch <creidieki at gmail.com> wrote:
> Okay, this debate has gotten very abstract, and no one seems to be
> coming to any firm conclusions.  Let me try to be more concrete.
>
> Current en practice is to simply place a note in the "edit summary"
> field, to the effect of "this material copied from [[foo]]."
>
> 1)  Does anyone object to me codifying this practice in the documentation?
> 2)  If so, what other practice should I recommend instead?
>
> -- Creidieki

The best way to see if anyone objects to you codifying the practice in
the documentation would be...to codify the practice in the
documentation.

But anyway, if you want to state in the docs that this is what people
do, that's fine.  If you want to say that it's a good idea to place
such a note in the edit summary, that's a good idea too.  But if you
want to say that doing so satisfies the requirements of the GFDL,
well, that would be adding lies to the documentation.

Anthony


body:
On 11/24/05, Magnus Manske <magnus.manske at web.de> wrote:
> Relating to a recent thread on wikipedia-l, I hereby demand an article
> on every canal in the world, present or past!
>
> Magnus

I'm working on it. Just not very quickly.

--
geni


from_name: Jamie Bliss

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Suggestion for Category links

body:
Phil Boswell wrote:
> [note cross-posting and prune as appropriate]
>
> How difficult would it be to add <<title>> attributes to the Category links
> which appear at the bottom of articles?
>
> I was thinking it might be a good idea to have some way to display the "sort
> key" without having to delve into edit mode, so I wondered if this could be
> displayed as a "tool-tip" when hovering over the link, in the same way as
> the destination article is shown for a regular wikilink. Is this an idea
> which might be helpful, or am I getting punch-drunk after a difficult day?

Shouldn't it be the other way? Display the sort key in the page itself
and put the real title in the title="" attribute (no humor intended).

-- Jamie
-------------------------------------------------------------------
http://endeavour.zapto.org/astro73/
Thank you to JosephM for inviting me to Gmail!
Have lots of invites. Gmail now has 2GB.


references:
<djaql9$r3f$1@sea.gmane.org> <dm4nb3$i4i$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<dm4qvq$teu$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
Timwi wrote:
> To find someone to code it may be the harder part. Last time I did
> something like this it was reverted with a snide remark from Brion, so
> I'm not doing this again.

To get someone to _code_ it should be easy (just ask here and
mediawiki-I). To get someone to commit it to CVS could be more challenging.

You wouldn't believe the number of RFEs/bugs I've submitted to
mediazilla with patches.
<http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&email1=Astronouth7303%40gmail.com&emailtype1=exact&emailassigned_to1=1&emailreporter1=1>
The only one that was integrated into CVS was #1328, for eAccelerator
shm support, and I had to really push for that one in IRC until Brion
commited it.

-- Jamie
-------------------------------------------------------------------
http://endeavour.zapto.org/astro73/
Thank you to JosephM for inviting me to Gmail!
Have lots of invites. Gmail now has 2GB.


body:
. .. ...herebox.org... .. . wrote:
> on en:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kmweber/List_of_Everyone_Who_Has_Ever_Lived
>
> disambiguation is one of many problems.  ~12 billion entries is likely
> well beyond the scalability of the software.  Indeed even ~1 billion
> entries.
>
> In my opinion, this belongs in a genealogy targetted database.
> http://www.google.com/search?q=genealogy
>
No problem, just wait for WikiData!

Should be right here.

Any minute now. ;-)

Magnus


body:
geni wrote:
> On 11/24/05, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 24/11/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> P.S.: What's so bad about knowing that people like our article about
>>>> exploding whales?
>>>>
>>> Because it would mean they were not that interested in our articles on canals.
>>>
>> There's an awful lot of articles on the net about canals. There's
>> entire academic courses at MIT you can go and read about canals, or a
>> thousand and one good bits of writing, pitched at the right level,
>> discussing canals. There's one good article on the net about exploding
>> whales.
>>
>> Why be ashamed we have that one good article that they *can't* go
>> elsewhere and read?
>>
>>
>
> Because you can never have too many pages on canals.
>
Relating to a recent thread on wikipedia-l, I hereby demand an article
on every canal in the world, present or past!

Magnus


body:
geni wrote:
> On 11/24/05, Magnus Manske <magnus.manske at web.de> wrote:
>
>> Relating to a recent thread on wikipedia-l, I hereby demand an article
>> on every canal in the world, present or past!
>>
>> Magnus
>>
>
> I'm working on it. Just not very quickly.
>
Damn, I was trying to get the last word on this by suggesting you write
[[Root canal]], but it's already there :-)

Magnus


from_name: GerardM

subject: [Wikitech-l] Immediate request for wiki set-ups

body:
Mark,
2 anonymous votes that basically disqualify themselves.. Great to know that
you are there on your own Mark. So there is one qualified vote and two
unqualified votes, three is a different thing. As to the proposed ideas of
Jimmy, both Stellingwerfs, Gronings and Veluws could get their own
Wikipedias as well. I am sure you would support that as well. If you don't
then basically you agree with me that Jimmy's proposal has its fair share of
problems.

There is no such thing as an objective way of saying what a language is. You
can come close but as long as people are willing to go on their hobby horse
or fight from their ivory tower you will have for many languages controversy
because they might be a dialect.

For me having new projects is not a problem as long as people put sincere
effort in their project.  Yes, I have moved my position more and more
towards allowing for most efforts. I am also not really afraid of hoaxes,
when we find them we delete them if we are able and willing to come to such
a decision. What is there to lose but the effort that a new community can
put into a project that will be one of our projects?

As to shifting position, even when a dialect gets its wikipedia, it will
reflect the culture that is part of the people that speak it. When people of
other dialects read this, they will find the pecularies of these people and
find the differences and similarities. It will be a kind of information that
will be hard to get in any other way.

So yes, bring on nds-nl :)

Thanks,
    GerardM

On 11/24/05, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> No -- with 3 oppose votes, the Dutch LS Wiki should NOT be created. 2
> votes was one thing; 3 is quite a different thing.
>
> Mark
>
> On 24/11/05, Servien Ilaino <servien at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'd like to request the immediate set-up for the following wikis.
> > These wikis have been waiting for quite a while and should be created
> > as soon as possible!!
> >
> > 1. Banyumasan (8)
> > 2. Nedersaksisch/Dutch Low Saxon (21 support; 3 oppose [thereof 2
> > anonymous votes])
> > 3. Ripuarian (18 support [thereof 2 anonymous votes]; 2 oppose)
> > 4. Samogitian (?emait??ka) (11)
> > 5. Vlax Romany (11 support, 1 oppose [anonymous])
> >
> > More info on:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Approved_requests_for_new_languages
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Servien Ilaino; and the
> > Meta-Wiki community
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> "Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>


body:
geni wrote:

> Well I supose we could have a go at guessing in advance:

I've added this to [[m:Article validation possible problems]].

> So all in all bussiness as usal and nothing to worry about (well no
> more than there normaly is). People will use it to cause trouble but
> unless we lock the database people are always going to be able to
> cause trouble.

Indeed :-)

- d.


subject:
[Wikitech-l] Re: <link> elements for interlanguage
	link	information

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> Timwi wrote:
>
>>> It just makes it a lot harder to deal with such pages: if you
>>> HTTP-redirect straight to the target page you're missing the link back
>>> to the redirect page. (And that is *crucial* for editing work and
>>> vandalism cleanup. It is non-negotiable.)
>>>
>> I feel I should point out an implicit fallacy in this. It is
>> non-negotiable that we need a link to the redirect page. It is *not*
>> non-negotiable that we can't return a 301 HTTP redirection.
>>
>
> The only fallacy is yours, you invented some claim that I said 301s can't be
> used. This is false; if you had read my message you'd have seen that my point
> was using a 301 would require sending additional parameters to avoid making
> redirect cleanup work hugely annoying, and this would destroy any benefit that
> would allegedly come from using an HTTP redirect to the direct target URL (since
> you can't do it, you'd have to use a different URL).
>
We're already using two different URLs to display REDIRECT pages.

Using the redirect : .../wiki/The_Redirect
shows the page The_Redirect redirects to.

Showing the redirect: .../w/index.php?title=The_Redirect&redirect=no
shows the page containing the redirect.

Not that I have a strong opinion about using 301s, but couldn't we just
turn the former link "style" into 301 and the latter not?

Magnus


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: User Jcb deleting articles in ia.wikipedia.org

body:
Jay, one comment,

What differentiate a bot from a regular admin is that what a bot does is
not visible in recent changes. But a bot can not do anything more than a
regular editor. In particular, it can not delete article, unless it is
an admin as well (it is not the case I think).

If you wish to see the bot activity, type :
http://ia.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Recentchanges&hidebots=0
(caused me troubles to find this link, add it on your recent changes cap
if you are worried)

Mark, please stop shouting. And stop putting so many !

ant


from_name: Michael Snow

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: A proposal for new language creation

body:
Joanot Martorell wrote:

>2005/11/22, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com>:
>
>
>>2.  To discourage the creation of new Wikipedia editions in dialects
>>which do not significantly differ from existing Wikipedias.  We want to
>>keep from being hoaxed, and from falling into political traps.
>>
>>For dialects, then, we want to require a much higher threshold before
>>allowing the wikipedia -- we need a good reason to start it.  A
>>"Bavarian" Wikipedia proposal would need a much much stronger rationale
>>before we start it than "German".  Obviously.
>>
>>
>This point isn't enough to clarify when whe should or should not create a new
>dialect wikipedia, because it's using the unique criteria of interlegibility.
>By exemple, Catalan (my native lang) and Occitan are mutually interlegible in
>text written, or between Neapolitan and Italian. And for some persons
>Portuguese and Spanish are interlegible too, but they are considered as
>independent languages. I think that perhaps the point to consider the inclusion
>of a new dialect wikipedia would be better moving around the
>exclusionist-inclusionist poles.
>
>
I don't think we're talking about an interlegibility criterion here, at
least that's not how I understand Jimbo's proposal. Certainly nobody
objects to separate wikis for the Scandinavian languages. The issue is
not whether native speakers of one language can read material in another
language. It's whether there are native speakers who actually read and
write in this as a literary language at all, as opposed to reading and
writing in some "other" language of which theirs is merely a dialect.

Expanding on Jimbo's point, here's the problem with dialect Wikipedias
(leaving aside, for a moment, the thorny problem of deciding whether
something is a dialect or a language). Dialects tend to be in a similar
position to constructed languages, in that they have no pre-existing
literature and their orthography has to be invented to a significant
degree. When the standards these establish are missing, we really have
no factual basis from which to write in such a language. Inventing
spelling or grammar while you write the encyclopedia, just like
inventing facts while you write the encyclopedia, is perpetrating an
intellectual fraud and a hoax.

However, both dialects and constructed languages of long standing may
develop their own literature and a more or less standard orthography,
which would enable us to accept them as potential Wikipedia languages.

--Michael Snow


from_name: Mathias Schindler

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Static HTML tree dumps for mirroring or CD
	distribution

body:
On 11/24/05, John Haselden <john at abstractec.co.uk> wrote:

> Is there a HTML tree dump project in the works that I could contribute to?
>

/maintenance/dumphtml.php

and

static.wikipedia.org

Mathias


body:
On 11/24/05, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:

> Did I miss an answer to this question I wrote back in October?

I filed a mediazilla feature request for this.

Mathias


from_name: Leon Planken

body:
Hi,

I'll step in here and try not to cause too much of a fuss.

I just want to notice here that every time this debate comes up, the
only one who voices objections is Mark, the only non-anonymous voter
against the new language Wikipedia.  (I may remember this selectively
though.)  Of course, the people that most eloquently *support* the
creation probably voted for it too.

I wanted to write a conclusion here but couldn't really think of any.
Just wanted to let you know that this struck me.  The rest of the
mailing list doesn't seem to want to get involved.

Regards,
Leon

--
I really didn't foresee the Internet. But then, neither did
the computer industry. Not that that tells us very much, of
course - the computer industry didn't even foresee that the
century was going to end.   --  Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)


from_name: S. Woodside

subject: [Wikitech-l] scalability design ideas

body:
I discussed some ideas a few days ago on #wikimedia-tech, here's a
summary email about that.

overall goals:
- preserve all wikipedia functionality
- make it more resistant to scaling forces
- highly modular - reduce interdependence
- identify core "must have" functionality
- push everything else out to the edge as far as possible
- cache as much as possible at every level - design caching into the
system

Five logical components I'm focusing on:
- the article (all articles = the content)
- a content cache
- authentication server(s)
- UI server(s)
- squid cache(s)

As I understand the architecture today, several of these functions
are currently being performed monolithically by the appservers... so
in part I'm proposing a refactoring where the core functions
(article, content cache, authentication) are protected from traffic
by a ring of "defenses" in the UI servers and squid caches. Here's a
breakdown of each layer:

ARTICLE
- for storing the content
The unit of content is a 3-tuple: {wikitext, red coloured links,
templates}
- each time I am edited:
--- change my content
--- if I'm a new/moved article, change colour of links in articles
that reference me
--- if I'm a template, change each article that uses me

- goal:
--- when I'm edited, propagate those changes as *efficiently* as
possible to my fellow articles
--- insist that when I'm changed, directly or indirectly, I am only
read *once* by the Content cache
--- insist that I'm only changed by the authentication server

CONTENT CACHE
- for caching articles for browsing
- goal:
--- I only hit an article *once* for each change to that article
--- no one else ever *reads* from the articles but me

AUTHENTICATION SERVER
- for authenticating users for editing
- goal:
--- I'm only involved when you have to be *certain* of a user's ID
--- that is, first log-in, and when they submit an edit
--- no one else ever *writes* to the articles but me (once I've ID'd
the user)

UI SERVER
- for serving up HTML pages
- goal:
--- for browsing, I read from content cache, add user dressing, and
serve
--- for submitting edits, I send them to authentication server

tricks:
- could get into tricks with javascript, IFRAMEs, whatever to push
work farther to the edge
- could create a distributed UI server system that can be replicated
and run by universities, etc.

SQUID CACHE
- for especially non-logged in users
- goal:
--- remove browsing load from the UI server

--
http://simonwoodside.com


subject: [Wikitech-l] six wikipedia conjectures, and slowness

body:
On Nov 22, 2005, at 3:44 PM, Anders Wegge Jakobsen wrote:

> "Andrew" == Andrew Venier <avenier at venier.net> writes:
>
>> S. Woodside wrote:
>>> Conjecture 4. That the development of a wikipedia article over time
>>> occurs in a manner consistent to the biological evolution of a
>>> species.
>>>
>
>> I would be rather surprised to hear that our articles are
>> reproducing.
>
>  The original list of "Wikipedians who <foo>" has cloned itself
> numerous times. You may argue that it's nothing more than a parasite
> feeding on the host organisms desire to be part of as many groups as
> possible, but vira are also a result of evolution.

Exactly. There's a bunch of ways to approach it. One is the concept
of Speciation. This is the process whereby a single species turns
into multiple species. Perhaps there's a new uncross-able river that
shows up between two populations of the species, they diverge over
time, and eventually they become two species. The same thing might be
seen to have with wikipedia article where the article splits in two
or more to cover variations on the topic in greater details.

--simon

--
http://simonwoodside.com


body:
On Nov 22, 2005, at 2:35 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:

> On 11/22/05, S. Woodside <sbwoodside at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Conjecture 2. That wikipedia is sufficiently formal and complete that
>> you could build a useful general purpose AI knowledge base using it.
>
> On a more constructive note, If you're interested in AI taught using
> wikipedia... you should take a look at the state of the art in English
> parsers (such as [[Link Grammar]]) and how they fair on Wikipedia.
> Impressive that it works at all, but I don't think we need to worry
> about a hostile takeover of the planet by a self-aware encyclopedia
> any time soon.

I'm googling a little bit now for wiki-related AI projects... What
stuck in my mind for conjecture 2 was the Loebner Prize, where you
create these chatbots to try to win a "Turing Test" style
competition. One of the biggest challenges they have is to come up
with a good knowledge base, and since Cyc isn't free, well, that's a
challenge. Could you build a good Loebner competitor using wiki? I
have no clue. :-) But if someone put a gun to my head that's probably
the track I'd go down.

It's not like I think I'm some kind of scientific genius but I did
run these conjectures by a friend of mine who I think is a genius and
he seemed sufficiently interested that I thought I'd spam the world
with them ;-)

--simon

--
http://simonwoodside.com


body:
On Nov 22, 2005, at 2:50 AM, Mark Williamson wrote:

> What about:
>
> Conjecture 8. Regardless of the final result, the inner workings of
> Wikipedia are so chaotic and at times unpleasant that most readers
> would rip all of their hair out if they watched a documentary about
> the creative process behind the articles.
>
> Fair?

but hard to prove :-)

simon

>
> Mark
>
> On 22/11/05, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/22/05, S. Woodside <sbwoodside at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Conjecture 1. That the distance between any two wikipedia pages,
>>> randomly chosen, as measured by wikilinks, is on average 6.
>>>
>>> Conjecture 2. That wikipedia is sufficiently formal and complete
>>> that
>>> you could build a useful general purpose AI knowledge base using it.
>>>
>>> Conjecture 3. That wikipedia has low information entropy.
>>>
>>> Conjecture 4. That the development of a wikipedia article over time
>>> occurs in a manner consistent to the biological evolution of a
>>> species.
>>>
>>> Conjecture 5. That the relationship between the amount of
>>> material in
>>> wikipedia and the number of article views is exponential.
>>>
>>> Conjecture 6. That wikipedia is, on average, factually accurate.
>>
>> Ohoh ! can I produce one?
>>
>> Conjecture 7. The amount of wanky conjectures produced by bloggers is
>> bound only by the number of sites that will allow them to spam their
>> URLs.
>>
>> Do I get a prize? ;)
>>
>> On a more constructive note, If you're interested in AI taught using
>> wikipedia... you should take a look at the state of the art in
>> English
>> parsers (such as [[Link Grammar]]) and how they fair on Wikipedia.
>> Impressive that it works at all, but I don't think we need to worry
>> about a hostile takeover of the planet by a self-aware encyclopedia
>> any time soon.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikitech-l mailing list
>> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>>
>
>
> --
> "Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

--
http://simonwoodside.com


from_name: Mark Gallagher

subject: [WikiEN-l] complaints of admin actions on wikien-l

body:
G'day David,

> On the block message, wikien-l is one of the listed places to complain
> about blockings.

Well, that makes sense.  Does it include a template, too?

"When you've been blocked, go to wikien-l and ask for an admin to assist
in unblocking you.  Note that you're unlikely to get any attention
unless you explain that the block was part of a POV-pushing censorship
attempt, and that the blocking admin should be de-sysopped at once for
abuse of powers."

I'm kinda shocked how few "I've been blocked!" messages we receive that
*don't* follow the above instructions.

Cheers,

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

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.7/180 - Release Date: 23/11/2005