subject: [Wikipedia-l] html emails

body:
Chad Perrin wrote:

>On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 03:09:11AM +0930, Alphax wrote:
>
>
>>Chad Perrin wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>I currently use Mutt (a CLI email client), but not long ago I was
>>>getting list traffic through Thunderbird (a GUI email client).  Even so,
>>>I was using "simplified HTML" settings that did not display images at
>>>all.  The end result was that all that prettified HTML formatting
>>>spammers used was gone, as were inlined images.  Although Thunderbird
>>>did a reasonably good job of turning HTML email into what looked like
>>>text-only email, it still rendered some HTML-formatted email into
>>>gibberish.  Luckily, what it handled fairly well was email produced in
>>>email clients that had HTML formatting turned on by default -- which is
>>>all I really needed it to do, so that I could read emails from people
>>>who just didn't know any better.
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Spam filters are fairly good these days. Thunderbird disables all images
>>in HTML by default, unless you click "display" or add the sender to your
>>address book, and HTML is disabled in spam by default.
>>
>>
>
>. . . and I always check the directory to which I redirect spam to
>ensure that nothing in there is something I should actually be
>receiving.
>
>In what version of Thunderbird do these default settings occur?
>
>
Well, I think it's the default - I'm using Thunderbird version 1.0
(20041206), but maybe I had to enable it in Options/Advanced/Privacy.

My supply of spam seems to have dried up. Lucky me.

--
Alphax
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.' - C. S. Lewis


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Matt R

subject: [WikiEN-l] Opus Dei - have we become their publishing house?

body:
--- Alex Regh <Alex.Here at gmx.net> wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Today I wanted to read [[Opus Dei]] - and frankly, I didn't exactly like what
> I saw...
<snip>
> Given that people still hit us with that one "checking" of WP where we didn't
> call the disputed birth date of somebody I never heard of "disputed" [1],
> well, if those people find that article, we will never hear the end of it -
> besides the minor problem of the article not exactly being up to WP
> standards,
> like NPOV.

I wouldn't lose sleep over critics "having a field day" on any particular weak
article. Sad to say, if people really want to find problematic material in
Wikipedia, then they won't have to look very hard, regardless of the quality of
any individual article like [[Opus Dei]]. Wikipedia is, effectively,
permanently "under construction" -- although the increasingly large set of core
articles is becoming pretty solid, it's always going to be easy to find an
embarrasingly-naff entry somewhere.

> Something should be done, but as I said, I don't really feel I
> should do a rollback on my own.

Have you raised your concerns on the Talk page?

-- Matt
[[User:Matt Crypto]]

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: htmltidy on new (european)? webserver

body:
John Fader wrote:
> Hi,
>   We've had a couple of instances over the last day or so (on en
> wikipedia) where users signatures (that have naughty unbalanced html
> tags) are messing up the page.  I guess one of the webservers doesn't
> have htmltidy set up.
>
> Two of the users are in europe, one in the US, so ''maybe'' it's one
> of the european servers (I can supply deltas if that will help).
>
> And yes, all the offending users are in the process of being hectored
> about sanitary html practices...
>

Tidy was turned off experimentally for a brief period, it was using
about 45% of the average request time. The general idea of wikitext is
that it's not XHTML, it's meant to be more user-friendly than that. I
don't support chastising users for not using correct XHTML.

There are no european webservers at present.

-- Tim Starling


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Sanger's memoirs

body:
Larry should be given credit for staying on as a volunteer for a long as he
did and for advocating his positions in good faith.

There was a poisonous athmosphere which surrounded Larry as he tried to whip
us into shape. Part of the problem is that he was breaking rules (assume
good faith, be courteous, avoid personal attacks) at the same time he was
enforcing them (no personal research (in my case at least)).

It is not surprising that he lost patience, most of us have at one point or
another.

I can remember having real fear that he would manage to put in some
authoritarian system that would destroy the openness of the project.

I guess, bottom line, if you think that sort of stuff works, you should go
and do it.

But of course it does work, it is called academia and is very well funded,
but generally lacks an internet presence. There is no Harvard or Yale or
even Oxford encyclopedia. Perhaps there ought to be. But how do you
translate the undoubted expertise of $200,000 a year professors into freely
accessible knowledge?

It is academia which dropped the ball, we just found it laying out on the
highway.

Fred

> From: Phil Sandifer <sandifer at sbcglobal.net>
> Reply-To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 23:37:44 -0500
> To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Sanger's memoirs
>
> Equally curiously, it took you a few years yourself to
> change from leaving because you weren't getting paid anymore to leaving
> because of a poisonous social atmosphere.


from_name: Jeffrey Johnson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] wiki -> pdf

body:
Interesting idea, but where are the PDF's?

Getting articles...

Getting page en:Dutch_Golden_Age
Getting image en:OudeRijnLeiden.jpg url
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:OudeRijnLeiden.jpg
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "./wiki2latex.py", line 497, in ?
    tex_code += doWiki(wikicode)
  File "./wiki2latex.py", line 448, in doWiki
    text = doImages(text)
  File "./wiki2latex.py", line 423, in doImages
    getpage.getImage(code, im, sys.argv[3])
  File "/data/harko/wiki.auf-trag.de/www/html/wikipdf/src/getpage.py",
line 92, in getImage
    uri = name2url(get_host_part(config_baseurl[code]) + url.group(1))
AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'group'

Making PDF...

...................

Not Found
The requested URL /wikipdf/tmp/1114006231-874180198/t.pdf was not
found on this server.

On 4/20/05, Tony Sidaway <minorityreport at bluebottle.com> wrote:
> Anthere said:
> > http://wiki.auf-trag.de/
> >
> > Could that help ?
>
> Needs work.
>
> Getting page en:George_W._Bush
> Getting image en:Bush_daughers.gif url
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bush_daughers.gifTraceback (most recent call last):
>   File "./wiki2latex.py", line 497, in ?
>     tex_code += doWiki(wikicode)
>   File "./wiki2latex.py", line 448, in doWiki
>     text = doImages(text)
>   File "./wiki2latex.py", line 423, in doImages
>     getpage.getImage(code, im, sys.argv[3])
>   File "/data/harko/wiki.auf-trag.de/www/html/wikipdf/src/getpage.py",
>   line 92, in getImage    uri = name2url(get_host_part(config_baseurl[code]) + url.group(1))
> AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'group'
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [WikiEN-l] Links to porn sites

body:
Chad Perrin said:
>
> Of course, the very existence of a pay-site might be informative to the
> reader, in that it says something about the person who runs the site.

Yes, that he produces something people think is worth paying for.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: prudishness and censorship

body:
> Tony wrote:
> I think you're devaluating the term "censorship".

I disagree.  I think you're trying to equivocate in order to avoid using a
word that you dislike strong,

 You have not
> responded to my observation that internal control of content is not
> strictly "censorship"

That was my response.  I think your observation is fictitious.


from_name: lmsanger at sbcglobal.net

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Sanger's memoirs

body:
Jimmy wrote:
> Gee, settle down.  I'm not accusing anyone of lying about
> anything.  I'm just adding an interesting bit of historical trivia.

Jimmy, I'm calm enough, just very disillusioned.  The above is disingenuous,
because you wrote:

> The original idea for a wiki for Wikipedia was not proposed by Larry,
> but by Jeremy Rosenfeld.

This implies that a Jeremy Rosenfeld actually caused the precursor of
Wikipedia to come into existence on January 3 or 4.  In fact, the idea came
out of my head; if Jeremy Rosenfeld told you anything, that had no causal
influence on the development of Wikipedia, which would not have happened had
I not had the idea.  You certainly never gave *me* the idea, and you never
mentioned that anyone had ever even told you about the existence of wikis
before January 3.

So when you now write "The original idea for a wiki for Wikipedia was not
proposed by Larry," you are not "just adding an interesting bit of
historical trivia"; you are saying something false, which does a
considerable disservice to me.  Indeed, it makes a liar out of me and out of
the Wikipedia history page as it has existed since 2001.

If Jeremy Rosenfeld's telling you anything had any effect on the situation,
which I have to doubt given the fact that you've never mentioned it until
now, it was that it made you well disposed to agree to set up a wiki for me
to start working on and organizing, which we certainly would have pursued
after I had made the proposal--after all, it was easy to set up and I was
excited about it, so you could scarcely refuse.

But it was I who made the proposal which led to Wikipedia, and I who
organized the whole thing.  I even named the damned thing.  You *know* all
this, Jimmy.

You also wrote, very misleadingly:

> Larry wrote: "Jimmy then started a specialized policy page he
> called 'Neutral Point of View'" and goes on to explain that
> he feels that the term became popular because it was used "by
> Wikipedians wanting to seem hip" -- failing, I think, to
> recognize the special innovation that NPOV is (as a social
> concept of co-operation which avoids some philosophical
> dilemmas posed by such concepts as 'biased'), instead
> assuming that this is just a cute phrase of hipsters.
>
> Larry might be right or wrong about his disapproval of NPOV
> of course.

Of course I have always supported a neutrality policy.  Jimmy, how can you
imply otherwise?  This is all very disillusioning.  If anything, I had to
persuade *you* to support the neutrality policy.  (I know, anyway, that I
had to persuade Tim.)

You neglected to quote the preceding paragraphs, which make it perfectly
clear that it is the wording, the phrase, "the neutral point of view," that
I object to.  The *policy* is one that I supported and indeed insisted on,
more strongly than anyone, for both Nupedia and Wikipedia.  You fail to
quote the part that explains that there was a nonbias policy on Wikipedia
for some time before you happened to set up the "NPOV" page.  You also fail
to quote the part that explains why I object to the phrasing "the neutral
point of view."

Also, this needs some explanation:

> We argued constantly during the era of Nupedia,
> with me pressing for more openness, and he pressing for more
> academic standards -- and I let him win those arguments
> because _knowing what we knew then_, he was drawing the
> correct conclusions.  Knowing what we know now, of course,
> his design for Nupedia was a failure.  But that's easy to
> criticize in retrospect -- Larry deserves credit for it
> despite the failure because we did _not_ know what we know now.

We did not "argue constantly" during the era of Nupedia.  We negotiated to a
mutually satisfactory solution.  Then, we *agreed* that the Nupedia
project--which was not designed by me alone, but, like Wikipedia, with the
help of the users--was way too slow and not open enough.  Moreover, we
*agreed* (no argument here) that a new system needed to be set up.  I solved
the problem by getting the idea for Wikipedia and getting it started, under
the broad set of policy guidelines under which it still operates.  I also
deserve credit for that, Jimmy, and I had been given credit, until recently.

That's one of the reasons I wrote my memoir in the first place, where all of
this is explained.

This whole thing makes me sick to my stomach, really.  Literally.  I had a
Pepcid when I got up this morning.

--Larry


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Sanger's memoirs

body:
Mark Williamson wrote:

> It's a good thing you're back, Larry.
>
> I had begun to tire of Phil Sandifer's endless attacks on
> your character. I don't believe these will continue in your presence.
>
> Welcome back
>
> Mark

Thanks, Mark, but I'm not back.  I just joined the list to correct Jimmy on
that one point.  I don't know who Phil Sandifer is, I don't know what he's
been saying, and frankly I don't care.  Phil, whoever he is, may carry on!
The truth will out, eventually.  I am disappointed if I still have such
vocal detractors among Wikipedians (that, by the way, would be another one
of my coinages--for that matter, I set up this list), but frankly, I'm not
surprised, either.

*cackle, cackle*

:-)

--Larry


from_name: Richard Holton

subject: [WikiEN-l] Links to porn sites

body:
On 4/20/05, Tony Sidaway <minorityreport at bluebottle.com> wrote:
> Chad Perrin said:
> >
> > Of course, the very existence of a pay-site might be informative to the
> > reader, in that it says something about the person who runs the site.
>
> Yes, that he produces something people think is worth paying for.
>

Thanks for speaking on behalf of the generic "reader" of Wikipedia,
Tony. I know I for one would not have expressed that idea anywhere
near as well as you did -- in fact I don't think I would have
expressed it at all.

It's sure nice having someone think and respond for us all.

</sarcasm>

-- Rich Holton

[[W:en:User:Rholton]]


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Sanger's memoirs

body:
To Andrew Lih: Andrew, let me throw this back at you: who has ever proven
that all of the bulleted items *were* essential to the success of Wikipedia?
Why assume without argument that they were?  Making unwarranted assumptions
is the enemy of critical thinking and problem solving.

--Larry


body:
Alex Regh said:

On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opus_Dei

> Given that people still hit us with that one "checking" of WP where we
> didn't call the disputed birth date of somebody I never heard of
> "disputed" [1], well, if those people find that article, we will never
> hear the end of it - besides the minor problem of the article not
> exactly being up to WP standards, like NPOV. Something should be done,
> but as I said, I don't really feel I should do a rollback on my own.

Yes, I think I see your point.  Here's on paragraph that caught my eye:

For those who keep on talking about the secrets of the Work, Escriva has
this answer: "The secret of Opus Dei is prayer, and also work turned into
prayer." If Christians are not men and women of deep interior life, souls
of prayer and sacrifice, he warned the church officials who visited him
during the Second Vatican Council, then instead of putting society and the
family in order, they will just add their own disorder to the disorder
that is already there. (Berglar 1994, p. 248) This is the same teaching
indicated by John Paul II in Novo Millennio Ineunte as regards how to
reach the goal of holiness: "a training in the art of prayer."
This would certainly be appropriate for Opus Dei's own publications, but
in my opinion it's a bit too much of a recruitment manual to be
appropriate to Wikipedia.  Opus Dei's chief encyclopedic attributes, in
any case, are its influence within the Catholic Church, in secular life,
and the controversies surrounding it (not that fictitious nonsense Dan
Brown wrote, of course).


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Sanger's memoirs

body:
Mathias Schindler wrote:
> (under what license is your text on /., by the way?)

All contributions to *Open Sources 2.0* will be open content/free.  I'm not
sure what license, precisely; the same one used by *Open Sources*, perhaps,
but I never bothered to find out.

--Larry


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Sanger's memoirs

body:
Lars Aronsson a ?crit:
> Brion Vibber wrote:
>
>>I've only skimmed these posts, but they seem to boil down to historical
>>trivia ("we had 24 articles not 12!") and saying we should do things
>
>
> Actually the article is a lot better than that.  It's an important
> piece of history in the writing.  I'm looking forward to the book.
> Larry is very careful to point out that he is Wikipedia's friend
> and I see no conflict.
>
> He started it as a test, and it snowballed out of control. Nobody
> could predict its popularity.  Larry to me seems like a hesitant
> Martin Luther who says "wait, I didn't want to start a new church,
> only reform the old one!"  But nobody wants to wait.

Yo, I personally added the link to the retro page on meta two days ago.
I think it is an important part of our history. Pov yes, but interesting.

Ant


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Sanger/Wales wars continued

body:
Delirium a ?crit:
> Brion Vibber wrote:
>
>> I don't think any reasonable person would object to calling Larry a
>> "co-founder of Wikipedia". To call one troll on a blog comment a
>> "debate" is to blow things extraordinarily out of proportion.
>
>
> Since Jimbo has explicitly objected to calling Larry a "co-founder of
> Wikipedia" several times, including in replies to one of Larry's
> Kuro5hin articles, I'm not sure how it's just "one troll".  According to
> Jimbo, Larry neither co-founded Wikipedia nor proposed the idea of a
> wiki-based encyclopedia, but was merely an employee tasked with starting
> it up.
>
> -Mark

Guys....

If it is to write in meta, just write Jimbo founded Wikipedia.

If it is to write in encyclopedia, respect NPOV and properly attribute
opinion to each relevant person.

Use NPOV, even to report on us :-)


from_name: Thomas Gries

subject: [Wikitech-l] Remove Wikicode

body:
Graham Neubig schrieb:

>I'm planning on using the text of Wikipedia for research purposes but
>I would like to remove the Wikicode, leaving only plain text. Does
>anyone know of scripts or programs that do this automatically?
>
Grahan,
you could perhaps use
http://www.yourserver.com/yourwiki/index.php?action=raw&title=Pagetitle
to get a raw dump of that page


from_name: Rick

subject: [WikiEN-l] Links to porn sites

body:
--- Tony Sidaway <minorityreport at bluebottle.com>
wrote:
> Kevin Rector said:
> >
> > Yes, I do believe that if a non-nude can
> illustrate an article as well
> > as a nude can then the non-nude should be used.
>
> Why in this case, though?  The whole point was that
> she posed nude wearing
> the Heart of the Ocean for Jack, and the treasure
> hunters looking for the
> diamond found the picture.  That is the McGuffin
> that holds the whole
> story together.  You get that contrast, the many
> contrasts in that movie.
> Great opulence above decks, poverty below.  A naked
> young girl full of the
> promise of life, an ancient old woman at the end of
> it.  Also it's a very
> pretty picture.

I wish we could get an image of Jack's drawing to use
as an illustration.  THAT shows her completely nude,
instead of just one breast.  But then, it's a drawing,
and not a photo, so apparently that's more palatable.

RickK

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


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Maybe both Larry and Jeremy had the idea?

body:
Probably, Bjarte, hundreds of people had the idea about a wiki encyclopedia
before Wikipedia got started, and even told each other about it.

But it was the idea I had, while tasked with solving Nupedia's problem, that
actually and directly led to the development of Wikipedia.  That is a matter
of historical fact, in living memory of several people--including Jimmy,
whether he admits it or not.

--Larry


subject: [WikiEN-l] Prudishness and censorship

body:
--- Theo Clarke <wiki at tignosis.com> wrote:
> Rick: Do you object to the principle of providing a
> mechanism that permits users to prevent the display
> of some images?

No, not at all.  So long as it is not imposed on
everybody else.

> Note that I am asking if the very idea is a problem
> so that we know whether it is the concept or the
> details of the mechanism that exercises you.
>
> Theo

I don't want to be forced to go to a link every time I
want to see an image.  If there were some way to do it
in the Preferences, then I have no problem at all.

RickK

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


from_name: BJörn Lindqvist

body:
> Today I wanted to read [[Opus Dei]] - and frankly, I didn't exactly like what
> I saw. The article reads like it was written by the Opus Dei. Checking the
> history, I found that mainly two IPs have been editing the article a *few*
> times, spamming it with Opus Dei POV, and completely drowning the remaining
> bits of criticism. .

But to be fair, you must admit that these two IPs that have been
"spaming it with Opus Dei POV" also has added lots of valuable
information, right?

--
mvh Bj?rn


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject: [WikiEN-l] Critics & weak articles

body:
> I wouldn't lose sleep over critics "having a field day" on
> any particular weak article. Sad to say, if people really
> want to find problematic material in Wikipedia, then they
> won't have to look very hard, regardless of the quality of
> any individual article like [[Opus Dei]]. Wikipedia is,
> effectively, permanently "under construction" -- although the
> increasingly large set of core articles is becoming pretty
> solid, it's always going to be easy to find an
> embarrasingly-naff entry somewhere.

This is like the people who test "machine translation" by tossing odd
phrases it at, until they find some idiom that trips it up:

* "blood, sweat and tears" into Russian (and back) produces something
like "bleeding, bile and body water"

Then, like the vultures they are, they pounce: "See? It's inaccurate?"

Remember, these are the same journalists who play gotcha with presidents
they don't like (see [[Bushisms]]). If you look hard enough, you can
always find some embarassing phrase or incident, to help you make your
target look bad (so you can discredit him).

This is the sort of thing that drove away Larry Sanger (in part): lack
of respect for accomplishment, diligence and solid scholarship. You try
to find some small thing to pick on, and then (illegitimately) imply
that it's representative of the whole. (I started to write an article on
[[damaging quotation]]s one time.)

To make Wikipedia really solid, SOMEBODY has to start verifying and
endorsing Article Versions. I still credit Larry Sanger as the
originator of the "sifter project", and I eagerly wait integration of
Magnus's software updates.

We need to be able to identify stable versions of articles - especially
important articles. I want to see tags such as:

* copy-edited by Vicki R.
* vandalism-patrolled by maveric149
* NPOV-checked by Anthere

Sure, multiple people can add their endorsements. I don't want to see a
"tag war" start, where one person adds the NPOV-dispute tag, and another
removes it. If someone *I* respect says the article passes or fails the
NPOV test, then that's all I care about. If someone *you* respect tags
it a certain way, that's all *you* care about.

Uncle Ed


from_name: mbecker ™

subject: [Wikitech-l] hardware order

body:
Just an initial suggestion...
Maybe we could order a couple AMD machines (i.e. 2 or 3) and test them
out as apaches against the current apahes. If they don't seem to give
us as much preformance/price on apache and search, we just get P4's
for the other 2 or 3. Even if the AMD's are a little lower in
performace (which all AMD benchmarks I've seen in the past 2 years
seem to disagree with) they still might save us enough money to allow
us to justify getting them over the P4s. Of course, we could try and
find volenteers with the exact hardware we want to try and benchmark
the prociessors for us, but I don't think that will happen.

Also, a little off topic, but have we considered using CentOS on our
machines? I just found out about it recently. Basically, it's a
redistribution of redhat enterprise. It's more stable than Fedora so
it might be worth using.

On 4/19/05, Chad Perrin <perrin at apotheon.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 11:02:20PM -0700, Brion Vibber wrote:
> >
> > Note that my own personal prejudice runs in favor of AMD; I buy Athlons
> > for my home PCs and hiss and boo Intel at every opportunity. But if
> > we're going to make purchasing decisions explicitly based on a
> > price/performance claim I think we need something more than warm fuzzy
> > feelings of fighting The Man.
>
> Plus, y'know, Intel may be The Man in this comparison, but AMD is The
> Other Man.
>
> --
> Chad Perrin
> [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]

--
Michael Becker


from_name: Andrew Lih

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Sanger/Wales wars continued

body:
On 4/20/05, Phil Sandifer <sandifer at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Hasn't Jimbo indicated a preference for not calling Larry a co-founder?

FWIW,

"It is not correct to say that 'With Larry Sanger, Wales in 2001
founded...' I founded Wikipedia, Larry just worked for me. The idea
for using a wiki orginally came to me from an employee -- Jeremy
Rosenfeld. I am adding a note to the Bomis article's talk page about
this one as well." --Jimbo Wales 18:52, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jimmy_Wales#I_wa%20s_.2Athis_close.2A_to_editing_myself

> On Apr 19, 2005, at 5:40 PM, Brion Vibber wrote:
>
> > Pete/Pcb21 wrote:
> >> Larry Sanger has again written at length about the history of
> >> Wikipedia
> >> in two articles posted on Slashdot.
> > [snip]
> >> - including a follow-up by Sanger, giving his take on the "was he or
> >> wasn't he the co-founder" debate, in particular
> >
> > I don't think any reasonable person would object to calling Larry a
> > "co-founder of Wikipedia". To call one troll on a blog comment a
> > "debate" is to blow things extraordinarily out of proportion.
> >
> > Larry hasn't been involved in the project in some three years (3/4 of
> > its lifetime), and most Wikipedians today have had little or no
> > interaction with Larry. As a result, he's seen now as an outsider, and
> > his criticisms are easily (mis)interpreted as attacks against a
> > community he's not part of.
> >
> > I've only skimmed these posts, but they seem to boil down to historical
> > trivia ("we had 24 articles not 12!") and saying we should do things
> > that are already on the roadmap (eg, a more formally-vetted release in
> > addition to the rough-and-tumble development Wikipedia).
> >
> > It'd be nice if people could avoid making a mountain out of a molehill
> > over this. Larry's not our enemy.
> >
> > -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Sanger's memoirs

body:
--- lmsanger at sbcglobal.net wrote:
> This implies that a Jeremy Rosenfeld actually caused the precursor of
> Wikipedia to come into existence on January 3 or 4.  In fact, the idea came
> out of my head; if Jeremy Rosenfeld told you anything, that had no causal
> influence on the development of Wikipedia, which would not have happened had
> I not had the idea.  You certainly never gave *me* the idea, and you never
> mentioned that anyone had ever even told you about the existence of wikis
> before January 3.
>
> So when you now write "The original idea for a wiki for Wikipedia was not
> proposed by Larry," you are not "just adding an interesting bit of
> historical trivia"; you are saying something false, which does a
> considerable disservice to me.  Indeed, it makes a liar out of me and out of
> the Wikipedia history page as it has existed since 2001.

Hi Larry - As one of the few people left that was here while you were still
around on Wikipedia, I?d just like to say that I think your contribution to the
project during its first year was invaluable - vital even. As I said shortly
after you posted your letter of resignation, I feel that you were the main
person that held things together long enough for the community to be strong and
oriented enough to take care of things on its own. That fact is, IMO, vastly
more important than who did or did not think of the idea of Wikipedia first.

At the time of your resignation you didn?t seem be as optimistic about
Wikipedia?s future as I was, however, saying that more paid editors like
yourself would be needed to make sure the project would not go awry (IIRC).
>From that point our views have diverged, but that does not diminish the high
regard I - and I suspect many others - have for what you did.

-- mav

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


from_name: Domas Mituzas

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Can I use MySQL and PHP without HTTP server to read
	info from wikipedia database?

body:
> I am thinking about using CPP program to access data or/and PHP.
> Running Linux since January and still not starting to work with PHP I am

I don't think you need to play too much with non-PHP stuff
as all major code is already written. As one of my experiments
I did embed HTTP server itself into MediaWiki PHP framework.
 It was fast, though, had some of issues to solve, like too many
'exit' points. Though, for read only operations there are not too
many of them. As for direction of development I'd choose as
Brion advised some scripts in maintenance/, and make them
export data suitable for easy embedding to your software.
Or even use PHP Gtk :)

Domas


from_name: Charles Matthews

body:
BJ?rn Lindqvist wrote

>But to be fair, you must admit that these two IPs that have been
"spaming it with Opus Dei POV" also has added lots of valuable
information, right?

I had a look at it just now - temporarily it's a mess.  In general it seems
to need first an organisational edit; it has grown by accretion.  It does
read in parts like a tract, but I see no reason to despair of the page.

Charles


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Sanger's memoirs

body:
lmsanger at sbcglobal.net wrote:
> To Andrew Lih: Andrew, let me throw this back at you: who has ever proven
> that all of the bulleted items *were* essential to the success of Wikipedia?
> Why assume without argument that they were?  Making unwarranted assumptions
> is the enemy of critical thinking and problem solving.

The interesting point, to attempt to return this discussion to something
useful, is that many of us have slightly different but largely similar
theories about which "bullet points" actually were essential to the
success of Wikipedia.  Larry's list is one which, by and large, I agree
with, although I would omit a couple and add a couple of others.

I suppose one might be inclined to wonder if there wasn't some magic in
the interaction between my personality and Larry's personality which
gave the project a boost in the beginning months and years.  Anyone
reading these threads can readily discern a difference in style, and of
course both styles have value and usefulness in a community project.

Larry, I am not going to respond in detail to your other message,
becuase it seems that you're agitated today to the point of taking
Pepcid, and I don't mean to upset anyone.

I'll just restate my point, which is that the first person to propose
that we move to a wiki system to resolve the problems of Nupedia was
Jeremy Rosenfeld.  I just think this is an interesting bit of historical
trivia which in no way detracts from your _causal_ role in the founding
of Wikipedia.  I apologize most sincerely if my saying so has upset you;
it was not my intention.

(And of course you never opposed _neutrality_, my point was that you
never were happy with NPOV _as a technical term to describe a social
concept of co-operation_.  You said so yourself the other day, and I
think that's great.)

--Jimbo


body:
lmsanger at sbcglobal.net wrote:
> But it was the idea I had, while tasked with solving Nupedia's problem, that
> actually and directly led to the development of Wikipedia.  That is a matter
> of historical fact, in living memory of several people--including Jimmy,
> whether he admits it or not.

Of course I "admit" it.  :-)

--Jimbo


from_name: Jakob Voss

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikimetrics

body:
Just an announcement:

I started a blog about Wiki research: http://wm.sieheauch.de

I welcome comments and contributions also at
[[m:Research]] and [[m:Wiki Research Bibliography]].

I'm really looking forward to Wikimania - we have some interesting
submissions and Call for Papers is still going on.

Greetings,
Jakob


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Sanger's memoirs

body:
Lars Aronsson wrote:

>Brion Vibber wrote:
>
>>I've only skimmed these posts, but they seem to boil down to historical
>>trivia ("we had 24 articles not 12!") and saying we should do things
>>
>
>Actually the article is a lot better than that.  It's an important
>piece of history in the writing.  I'm looking forward to the book.
>Larry is very careful to point out that he is Wikipedia's friend
>and I see no conflict.
>
The entire discussion is a perfect illustration of why we
want to have a historian assemble all the individual and
sometimes-conflicting accounts into a coherent story, publish
it, then summarize *that* for WP's article about itself. Even
though the events happened only a couple years ago, some of the
relevant documents have apparently already disappeared, and
everybody is having to dredge through their personal memories,
which are less reliable.

Stan


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Sanger's memoirs

body:
On 4/20/05, lmsanger at sbcglobal.net <lmsanger at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> But seeing Jimmy's
> comment impelled me to rejoin the list, for the sole purpose of confirming
> what has been on record for five years.

Larry, welcome and might I say, how brave of you. :)

As for, "Who was co-founder of Wikipedia?" I'll wait until Jimbo responds.

However, I'd like to challenge some assertions in Part 2 of your
Slashdot memoir. You list several alternatives the project could have
taken and conclude, "These differences would not have threatened the
basic principles that made the project work, listed above." I'm
skeptical because you don't provide any proof or logical reasoning to
back up the claim, or relate it to accepted scholarship about the
nature of commons-based peer production (eg. Coase's Penguin).

These alternatives you stated:

* "For instance, radical openness, that is, being open even to those
who brazenly flouted and disrespected the project's mission, was
surely not necessary; after all, without them, the project would have
been more welcoming to the many people who felt they could not work
with such difficult people."

* "And if we had required people to sign in, that would not have made
very much difference (although it probably would have made some in the
beginning; the project wouldn't have grown as fast)."

* "Of course we didn't have to use the GNU FDL for the license."

* "The project could have officially encouraged and deferred to
experts. An article approval process could have been adopted without
threatening the principle of posting unedited content for
collaboration."

Again, your conclusion was, "These differences would not have
threatened the basic principles that made the project work, listed
above."

If any of these ideas were floated on the list today, there would be
an outcry and threats of desertion by the community. In fact
"requiring people to sign in" comes up nearly every month or so on the
list and is quashed within a day.

So I'm wondering whether you could elaborate on this, because I found
it quite hard to swallow this paragraph as a given.

-Andrew Lih (User:Fuzheado)
University of Hong Kong

Link: http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/19/1746205&tid=95&tid=149&tid=9


from_name: Chad Perrin

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Sanger's memoirs

body:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 07:35:23AM -0400, lmsanger at sbcglobal.net wrote:

[snip]

After everything that both you and Jimbo have said in this discussion so
far, Larry, it looks to me like he has a not invalid perspective on the
matter that perhaps grants you slightly less credit than other not
invalid perspectives might, but that you in turn are presenting your own
perspective that gathers more credit to you than most of these
perspectives would grant.  If you want to have a less stressful and more
productive discussion than you've been having, I'd recommend aiming for
a middle ground somewhere.

Every single point of dispute you've brought up so far looks like
nothing more than a difference in perspective, and thus a difference in
terminology used comes into being.  I don't think anyone has to be a
liar for the other to be right from his given perspective in this
matter.  I think it's much more likely that, in your excitement over the
idea of a wiki-based encyclopedia, you missed Jimbo's offhand comment
about someone else that you apparently didn't know well enough to even
remember having mentioned wikis as a model for encyclopedia development.

I prefer to think that neither of you are lying, and there's a simple,
easy, reasonable explanation for how all this disagreement might have
arisen from nothing but a difference of perspective.  In fact, the very
existence of this disagreement as it is occurring seems further evidence
that it's nothing but a difference in perspective, from where I'm
sitting, because Jimbo is trying to point out where the two of you have
a difference of perspective and you're arguing that only one of you can
be right.  This seems to be a fairly good indicator that, from Jimbo's
perspective, what you called amicable discussion he might have seen as
arguments that he let you win back in the days of Nupedia.  You seem
argumentative to me, on this, and if your social proclivities run this
way I'm not surprised that Jimbo would have called policy discussions
"argument", even if you did not -- and if he "let [you] win" these
arguments, whether for the peace or for reason of coming to agree with
you, I'm not surprised that you might have seen the exercise as being
more agreeable and less argumentative.

So, again, perhaps you should aim to balance biases, perspectives --
points of view -- in this matter.  Try to see the other guy's side of
things.  From what I've seen here, it looks like Jimbo is doing so
already, though he clearly doesn't feel constrained to adopt your view
as his own, which is fine: he does seem quite willing to acknowledge
that you have a valid perspective, though, while you insist on
failing to acknowledge the same about his perspective.  That, I think,
is what sustains this unnecessary debate, and it suggests immediately to
me how to smooth the troubled waters: see, acknowledge, and respect the
differing perspective.

You know -- like an NPOV solution, despise the term though you might.

Then again, that could just be me.

--
Chad Perrin
[ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Sanger's memoirs

body:
Jimmy wrote:
> I'll just restate my point, which is that the first person to
> propose that we move to a wiki system to resolve the problems
> of Nupedia was Jeremy Rosenfeld.

What does "propose" mean, then?  I suppose you mean he mentioned such an
idea to you.  Well, so what?  That didn't lead to the creation of Wikipedia,
did it?  You're implying that it did.  But it didn't.

I mention *all sorts* of ideas to other people, and other people have
mentioned zillions of ideas to me.  This doesn't make any such person,
somehow, "the first person to propose" the idea, in the sense of being
creditable with formulating the project that actually came into being.

And why, again, Jimmy, did you take four years to mention this, if it's
worth mentioning at all?  Why did you never tell me, or Wikipedians, before?
Why is it worth mentioning just now?

> I just think this is an
> interesting bit of historical trivia which in no way detracts
> from your _causal_ role in the founding of Wikipedia.

But to say that Jeremy Rosenfeld was "the first person to propose" a wiki
encyclopedia is precisely to imply, isn't it, that he played the seminal
causal role in founding Wikipedia--which is just false.  It isn't just
"another perspective."

> (And of course you never opposed _neutrality_, my point was
> that you never were happy with NPOV _as a technical term to
> describe a social concept of co-operation_.  You said so
> yourself the other day, and I think that's great.)

The social concept of co-operation was always my idea of the purpose of the
neutrality policy, as well.  That was quite explicit in Nupedia's policy
statement, drafted by me, as well as the longer statement of Wikipedia's
policy on the NPOV page, which I drafted.

I disagree with the exact formulation of the words, "the neutral point of
view."  I personally advocated everything else about the policy, more
strenuously than anyone else did; and if I had not done so, Wikipedia might
not now be committed to its neutrality policy.

> I apologize most sincerely if my saying so has upset you; it
> was not my intention.

You don't need to apologize, condescendingly, for upsetting me, Jimmy;
obviously, that's just a further insult, as it puts attention on the fact
that I am upset.  Sure I am.  Kind of you to observe that.  If I were to
say, "Jimmy really had nothing to do with Wikipedia.  When I asked him to,
he compliantly set up a wiki, and I proceeded to do virtually everything to
get the project started and set it up to become a success; he was on the
sidelines most of the time; and, of course, he paid me"--you would be upset,
too, I suspect.  But I do not say this, out of respect.

I am upset, and also disappointed and severely disillusioned.  But if for
anything, you need to apologize for implying something false, which, if
passed around much, would create entirely the wrong impression among your
many admirers in the Wikimedia community: "The original idea for a wiki for
Wikipedia was not proposed by Larry, but by Jeremy Rosenfeld."  That's an
apology that I would find valuable.

I see that someone has already made use of your declaration to say something
completely wrong on my Wikipedia user page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Larry_Sanger

I expect that your perfectly innocent comment will now be repeated, with
perfect innocence, to journalists.  Then this and other such historical
revisionism on your part will help ensure that I will in the future be
portrayed as (1) not the person who came up with the idea of Wikipedia, (2)
merely and singlehandedly responsible for the "miserable failure" that was
Nupedia, and who was fired because it was a failure, (3) on Wikipedia,
merely an employee taking orders and not really responsible for any of the
policy of the project, (4) opposed to an open project altogether, and (5)
opposed to neutrality.  That, at least, is how it seems some of my
detractors want me to be portrayed, even though my memoir shows every part
of it to be outrageously false.

And after this, instead of treating me as a person with a legitimate,
well-founded complaint, I imagine that you will respond by implying that I
am "upset," and that you "apologize that I am upset."  That's mighty big of
you, Jimmy.

--Larry
The memoir's location again:
http://features.slashdot.org/features/05/04/18/164213.shtml
http://features.slashdot.org/features/05/04/19/1746205.shtml


subject: [WikiEN-l] Links to porn sites

body:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 07:32:32AM +0100, Tony Sidaway wrote:
> Chad Perrin said:
> >
> > Of course, the very existence of a pay-site might be informative to the
> > reader, in that it says something about the person who runs the site.
>
> Yes, that he produces something people think is worth paying for.

I don't presume to define what conclusions other people will draw,
though I might be perfectly willing to argue the matter once they tell
me what those conclusions are.  That is, however, certainly a possible
conclusion to be drawn from that piece of evidence and, from my
perspective at least, the most obvious such conclusion.

--
Chad Perrin
[ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]


subject: [Wikitech-l] hardware order

body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
> mbecker ? said:
>>Also, a little off topic, but have we considered using CentOS on our
>>machines? I just found out about it recently. Basically, it's a
>>redistribution of redhat enterprise. It's more stable than Fedora so it
>>might be worth using.
>
> For stability, really it's hard to beat BSD if it'll talk to your hardware.

Do we have any practical problems with OS stability?

--Jimbo


from_name: Graham Neubig

subject: [Wikitech-l] ERROR at line 1035:

body:
I just got the same problem, here's how you fix it:

open /etc/my.cnf in your favorite editor
under the heading [mysqld] add the term "max_allowed_packet=16M" (if
you are using a version before version 4, "set-variable =
max_allowed_packet=16M")
restart mysqld

If you want to restart from the beginning (the easiest way), open
mysql and delete cur then start again

If you want to try to start from where you left off, type:
wc -l 20040817_cur_table.sql
this will give you a line count, now subtract 1035 from that line
count to get the number of lines left in the file that need to be
processed, we'll call this "linesleft". now type the below command
replacing lines with linesleft
tail 20040817_cur_table.sql --lines=(linesleft) >> newtable.sql
now type:
mysql -u root -p<password> wiki-en < newtable.sql;
As I said before, just deleting the data and restarting is easier

Hope this helps

On 4/20/05, mm <mt1900 at rdslink.ro> wrote:
> I am trying to load cur_table.sql
> mysql -u root -p<password> wiki-en < <directory>/20040817_cur_table.sql;
> ERROR at line 1035:
> I get this error after 1.5 hour. I try this 3 time and with 2 copy of sql file from two distinct DVD.
> I want to know if i can do something to skip the error and execute the rest of the script.
> I want to know how much of the job have been done.
> If anyone can help please do it.
> Thanks,
> MM
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


body:
Alex Regh wrote

>I might mention that since I moved lots of stuff from the talk page to the
archive, I noticed that this article has obviously been the aim of the OD
itself since 2003 - similar complaints since then. We do mind if Sollog
spams
the article on him, I think we should mind here just as much.

Alex, you do need to moderate your language on this.  The aim is to have an
article everyone can live with.  I have encountered what could be called
Catholic POV pushing before (eg at [[Hilaire Belloc]]).  For what it's
worth, it didn't lead me to feel that there was any insoluble difficulty, or
need to take it to an adversarial plane.

Charles


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Sanger's memoirs

body:
lmsanger at sbcglobal.net wrote:
> Jimmy wrote:
>
>>I'll just restate my point, which is that the first person to
>>propose that we move to a wiki system to resolve the problems
>>of Nupedia was Jeremy Rosenfeld.
>
>
> What does "propose" mean, then?  I suppose you mean he mentioned such an
> idea to you.  Well, so what?  That didn't lead to the creation of Wikipedia,
> did it?  You're implying that it did.  But it didn't.

It means he came to my office and said something to the effect "I know
you've complained about the slow process of Nupedia, and I wonder if
you've seen this, it's called a wiki.  Maybe we could use something like
this?"

> And why, again, Jimmy, did you take four years to mention this, if it's
> worth mentioning at all?  Why did you never tell me, or Wikipedians, before?
> Why is it worth mentioning just now?

Well, because we're having this interesting discussion about the history
of Wikipedia, and I think it's interesting.  There are many interesting
stories that could be told, and none of them would in any way detract
from your role.

>>I just think this is an
>>interesting bit of historical trivia which in no way detracts
>>from your _causal_ role in the founding of Wikipedia.
>
>
> But to say that Jeremy Rosenfeld was "the first person to propose" a wiki
> encyclopedia is precisely to imply, isn't it, that he played the seminal
> causal role in founding Wikipedia--which is just false.  It isn't just
> "another perspective."

No, it doesn't imply anything beyond what it says.  Jeremy was the first
person to propose to me that we use a wiki to solve the problems of
Nupedia.  That's just a simple plain statement of fact.

> You don't need to apologize, condescendingly, for upsetting me, Jimmy;
> obviously, that's just a further insult, as it puts attention on the fact
> that I am upset.

Ok, then. I, uh, apologize for apologizing?

It seems you are in a mood to be mad at me no matter what I say, so
maybe I better just step away now.

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikitech-l] Remove Wikicode

body:
> I don't think this is what I'm looking for, in fact I want exactly the opposite.
> I already have the Wikicode in my database, and I want to get rid of the
> Wikicode tags. The raw function returns the code in its original format
> (Wiki tags included) without turning it into HTML, right?

A very very raw function for doing that is done by SearchUpdate.
Though it sucks for presentation. The best I could advise would
be removing HTML tags from already wiki-parsed text. :)

Cheers,
Domas


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Sanger's memoirs

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
> Hi Larry - As one of the few people left that was here while you were still
> around on Wikipedia, I?d just like to say that I think your contribution to the
> project during its first year was invaluable - vital even. As I said shortly
> after you posted your letter of resignation, I feel that you were the main
> person that held things together long enough for the community to be strong and
> oriented enough to take care of things on its own.

Please allow me to enthusiastically second this.

--Jimbo


from_name: Sabine Cretella

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Article on Wikipedia in Italian - where to
	insert/link it?

body:
Hi, could you please tell me where I should link an article of an
Italian daily newspaper that wrote an article about Wikipedia?

Somewhere on meta.wikimedia.org I suppose, but where?

Thank you!

Ciao, Sabine


from_name: Delirium

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Sanger's memoirs

body:
lmsanger at sbcglobal.net wrote:

>And why, again, Jimmy, did you take four years to mention this, if it's
>worth mentioning at all?  Why did you never tell me, or Wikipedians, before?
>Why is it worth mentioning just now?
>
>
Since you may not be familiar with general practice here, I should point
out that this sort of credit-assignment isn't what we spend most of our
time doing.  In fact, until you came out of nowhere years after the fact
talking about your seminal role in Wikipedia, I don't recall a single
discussion taking place on this mailing list about who should get credit
in "founding" Wikipedia.  Frankly, we have more important things to
worry about (such as actually creating an encyclopedia).

For what it's worth, my view on it is that who gets the credit is pretty
meaningless.  As can be seen by the fact that many people suggested it,
the idea of a wiki-based encyclopedia by the time Wikipedia was started
was becoming fairly obvious, so eventually someone had to start it.  If
you were the first one to actually bite the bullet and do so, great, but
I don't particularly care.

Look, you have not been a part of the Wikipedia community since early
2002, and now you reappear three years later talking about your
importance in the "founding" of Wikipedia, pimping a book, and writing
screeds about what's wrong with it while at the same time not actually
participating in any of the policy discussions, and indeed explicitly
saying you "don't have time" to actually discuss any of the issues [1].
Even your brief reappearance here is apparently entirely to defend your
claimed credit, not to actually discuss how to improve Wikipedia, an
endeavor in which you claim to be interested.

If your view is that you're some sort of god-king who can write screeds
that then get implemented without dirtying your hands with the business
of discussing the best course of action with us common folk, then I
think you're mistaken.  If you're just trying to pump up sales for your
book or get some sort of a tenure-track position, well, carry on.

-Mark

[1] http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2004/12/30/142458/25/194#194 -- "I
don't have time to reply to the many comments on this forum."


from_name: Alex Regh

body:
Hi!

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 09:13:07 +0200, BJ?rn Lindqvist wrote:

>But to be fair, you must admit that these two IPs that have been
>"spaming it with Opus Dei POV" also has added lots of valuable
>information, right?

Well, most seems to be just copied out of OD publications, which could just as
well be linked instead. Not to mention that they also removed or drowned
information, so, overall, those were hardly valuable edits.

However, The Anome has now reset the article "to a version before the
astroturfing", and methinks there are a few more people now watching it, so,
hopefully, this does not become such a problem in the future.

I might mention that since I moved lots of stuff from the talk page to the
archive, I noticed that this article has obviously been the aim of the OD
itself since 2003 - similar complaints since then. We do mind if Sollog spams
the article on him, I think we should mind here just as much.

Alex
--
If you don't go over the top,
you can't see what's on the other side.
        --- Jim Steinman ---

Alex' Assorted Homepages: www.alexsite.de


from_name: Mathias Schindler

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Sanger's memoirs

body:
lmsanger at sbcglobal.net wrote:

> The truth will out, eventually.

Sounds like a man on a mission...

Mathias
(under what license is your text on /., by the way?)


from_name: Delphine Ménard

body:
Hi ho Sabine.

You probably want to add a link to the Italian Wikipedia's Press
coverage page here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Press#Press_coverage

Ciao,

Delphine
--
~notafish


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [WikiEN-l] Links to porn sites

body:
Richard Holton said:
> On 4/20/05, Tony Sidaway <minorityreport at bluebottle.com> wrote:
>> Chad Perrin said:
>> >
>> > Of course, the very existence of a pay-site might be informative to
>> > the reader, in that it says something about the person who runs the
>> > site.
>>
>> Yes, that he produces something people think is worth paying for.
>>
>
> Thanks for speaking on behalf of the generic "reader" of Wikipedia,
> Tony.

Please be careful about the inferences that *you* draw. It is a fact that
a pay site indicates a product being sold, and this implies potential
buyers.  The inference that I spoke on anyone's behalf, or purported to do
so, is incorrect.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] wiki -> pdf

body:
Anthere said:
> http://wiki.auf-trag.de/
>
> Could that help ?

Needs work.

Getting page en:George_W._Bush
Getting image en:Bush_daughers.gif url
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bush_daughers.gifTraceback (most recent call last):
  File "./wiki2latex.py", line 497, in ?
    tex_code += doWiki(wikicode)
  File "./wiki2latex.py", line 448, in doWiki
    text = doImages(text)
  File "./wiki2latex.py", line 423, in doImages
    getpage.getImage(code, im, sys.argv[3])
  File "/data/harko/wiki.auf-trag.de/www/html/wikipdf/src/getpage.py",
  line 92, in getImage    uri = name2url(get_host_part(config_baseurl[code]) + url.group(1))
AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'group'


from_name: Theo Clarke

subject: [WikiEN-l] Prudishness and censorship

body:
Rick: Do you object to the principle of providing a mechanism that permits users to prevent the display of some images?

Note that I am asking if the very idea is a problem so that we know whether it is the concept or the details of the mechanism that exercises you.

Theo

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 20:21:09 +0100, Rick wrote:
>?--- jfdwolff at doctors.org.uk wrote:
>>?Avoiding these images, or having a Preferences key
>>?to prevent their display, is NOT censorship. It is
>>?part of achieving the goal of Wikipedia, as I have
>>?argued above. It is also not a violation of NPOV, as
>>?an image is not a POV. It is being plain sensible,
>>?sensitive and broad-minded.
>>
>?I love how those who are trying to censor Wikipeida
>?are calling THEMSELVES broad-minded.
>
>?And they continue to fail to address where the line is
>?drawn. ?The author contends that we should cater to
>?the millions of people worldwide who would be offended
>?by Ms. Winslet's blurry breast, but makes no
>?suggestion to remove all images of women's faces,
>?which would obviously offend our Muslim readers. ?Or
>?the images of the massacre of Nanking, or the image of
>?the naked girl running from napalm. ?Or the image of a
>?man with a gun to his head. ?Or the image of Rachel
>?Corrie about to be mowed down by a bulldozer.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Sanger's memoirs

body:
On 4/20/05, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>
>
> I think people are unfortunately eager to see a war where there isn't
> one -- at least not from my side. Larry deserves credit for his work,
> and no less.

Perhaps that's the Crossfire culture we live in these days. As John Stewart
would say, egging this debate on is "hurting Wikipedia."

I'm glad you brought up NPOV vs. unbiased. In the essay, Larry mentions that
this newfangled NPOV as a term was unnecessary, as the term unbiased would
suffice. I disagree. I'm glad the project uses NPOV and created its own
vision for the concept, because journalists in general scoff at the idea of
an unbiased writer, reporter or editor. It would make Wikipedia more
assailable.

Making NPOV a term the project could define and make its own was a
good-thing.

-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Prudishness and censorship

body:
Theo Clarke said:
> Rick: Do you object to the principle of providing a mechanism that
> permits users to prevent the display of some images?

Why just *some* images?  Who chooses which images?


body:
Alex Regh wrote

>Since you got involved in
the editing as well, you ought to be able to understand that, so what
exactly
is your personal criticism aimed at?

Well, you have The Anome and you have me, now, trying to sort out the page.
We have around 67000 edits between us, so I don't think we are going to get
thrown by any little thing.  However, the talk around the page is clearly
very volatile.  Your language on the talk page seemed a little too sharp for
the requirements of the situation.  I prefer to bring this up here, rather
than anywhere else.

Charles


subject: [WikiEN-l] Critics & weak articles

body:
Ed Poor wrote

>This is the sort of thing that drove away Larry Sanger (in part): lack
of respect for accomplishment, diligence and solid scholarship.

I have tried to edit some of the Larry's Text articles.  Please don't give
me that.  Larry wanted/wants people to defer to authority.  It was the wrong
way to go then, as it is now.

Charles


from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia-l Digest, Vol 21, Issue 53

body:
Pippu,

As far as I know, Bomis is a very informal environment.

And there is a little semi-secret that many people don't know: Bomis
is in the business of pornography (though, to be fair, they also do
other things).

So most of the funding for Wikipedia came directly or indirectly from
a pornography business.

The point being, it's a small business which I don't think ever had
more than 30 or so employees at one time. From what I can tell, the
occurances are just Larry walking up to Jimmy in his office saying "Yo
Jimbo, I been thinkin yo, howzabout we try that wicked Wikiwiki
soffware wit Nupedia? Whatcha think bout that man?" and Jimmy saying
"Yo Larry my man, dat is a wikked awesome idea!"

Mark

On 20/04/05, Giuseppe DAngelo <pippudoz at yahoo.it> wrote:
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 12:16:46 -0400
> From:
> Subject: RE: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Sanger's memoirs
> To:
> Message-ID: <000001c545c4$5fc48b70$830ffea9 at ls>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Jimmy wrote:
> > I'll just restate my point, which is that the first person to
> > propose that we move to a wiki system to resolve the problems
> > of Nupedia was Jeremy Rosenfeld.
>
> What does "propose" mean, then? I suppose you mean he mentioned such an
> idea to you. Well, so what? That didn't lead to the creation of Wikipedia,
> did it? You're implying that it did. But it didn't.
>
> I mention *all sorts* of ideas to other people, and other people have
> mentioned zillions of ideas to me. This doesn't make any such person,
> somehow, "the first person to propose" the idea, in the sense of being
> creditable with formulating the project that actually came into being.
>
> And why, again, Jimmy, did you take four years to mention this, if it's
> worth mentioning at all? Why did you never tell me, or Wikipedians, before?
> Why is it worth mentioning just now?
>
> > I just think this is an
> > interesting bit of historical trivia which in no way detracts
> > from your _causal_ role in the founding of Wikipedia.
>
> But to say that Jeremy Rosenfeld was "the first person to propose" a wiki
> encyclopedia is precisely to imply, isn't it, that he played the seminal
> causal role in founding Wikipedia--which is just false. It isn't just
> "another perspective."
>
> > (And of course you never opposed _neutrality_, my point was
> > that you never were happy with NPOV _as a technical term to
> > describe a social concept of co-operation_. You said so
> > yourself the other day, and I think that's great.)
>
> The social concept of co-operation was always my idea of the purpose of the
> neutrality policy, as well. That was quite explicit in Nupedia's policy
> statement, drafted by me, as well as the longer statement of Wikipedia's
> policy on the NPOV page, which I drafted.
>
> I disagree with the exact formulation of the words, "the neutral point of
> view." I personally advocated everything else about the policy, more
> strenuously than anyone else did; and if I had not done so, Wikipedia might
> not now be committed to its neutrality policy.
>
> > I apologize most sincerely if my saying so has upset you; it
> > was not my intention.
>
> You don't need to apologize, condescendingly, for upsetting me, Jimmy;
> obviously, that's just a further insult, as it puts attention on the fact
> that I am upset. Sure I am. Kind of you to observe that. If I were to
> say, "Jimmy really had nothing to do with Wikipedia. When I asked him to,
> he compliantly set up a wiki, and I proceeded to do virtually everything to
> get the project started and set it up to become a success; he was on the
> sidelines most of the time; and, of course, he paid me"--you would be upset,
> too, I suspect. But I do not say this, out of respect.
>
> I am upset, and also disappointed and severely disillusioned. But if for
> anything, you need to apologize for implying something false, which, if
> passed around much, would create entirely the wrong impression among your
> many admirers in the Wikimedia community: "The original idea for a wiki for
> Wikipedia was not proposed by Larry, but by Jeremy Rosenfeld." That's an
> apology that I would find valuable.
>
> I see that someone has already made use of your declaration to say something
> completely wrong on my Wikipedia user page:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Larry_Sanger
>
> I expect that your perfectly innocent comment will now be repeated, with
> perfect innocence, to journalists. Then this and other such historical
> revisionism on your part will help ensure that I will in the future be
> portrayed as (1) not the person who came up with the idea of Wikipedia, (2)
> merely and singlehandedly responsible for the "miserable failure" that was
> Nupedia, and who was fired because it was a failure, (3) on Wikipedia,
> merely an employee taking orders and not really responsible for any of the
> policy of the project, (4) opposed to an open project altogether, and (5)
> opposed to neutrality. That, at least, is how it seems some of my
> detractors want me to be portrayed, even though my memoir shows every part
> of it to be outrageously false.
>
> And after this, instead of treating me as a person with a legitimate,
> well-founded complaint, I imagine that you will respond by implying that I
> am "upset," and that you "apologize that I am upset." That's mighty big of
> you, Jimmy.
>
> --Larry
> The memoir's location again:
> http://features.slashdot.org/features/05/04/18/164213.shtml
> http://features.slashdot.org/features/05/04/19/1746205.shtml
>
 I was just wondering, coming in cold and knowing bugger all about
anything, but wouldn't there exist documentation, like internal memos,
minutes, or whatever the company/firm/sweatshop used in its day to day
business dealings and communications.  Or was this some casual chit
chat standing around the water cooler with everyone saying: great
idea! Drop everything and get to it.  Or did it occur during a 5
minute smoko break - or maybe walking back together with your cups of
latte from the local stucko bucko thingo, etc.  Or maybe you were all
having lunch at Antonio's and you had a mouthful of focaccia and no
one heard you...

 pippu
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Nuovo Yahoo! Messenger E' molto pi? divertente: Audibles, Avatar, Webcam, Giochi, Rubrica? Scaricalo ora!
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE


from_name: Lars Aronsson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Sanger's memoirs

body:
lmsanger at sbcglobal.net wrote:

> I remember very clearly the evening when I got the idea for
> Wikipedia.  It was January 2 and Ben Kovitz and I were eating at
> a Mexican restaurant just around the corner from the old Bomis
> office.  (I could point out the place, if it still exists, but I
> forget the name.)

We should hang a gilded plaque there and make it a place of
pilgrimage, obviously.  (Especially since San Diego in January is
a nice escape from northern climates.)  That doesn't mean it need
to be the only such place.  Such dates and places are the best we
have, because we can seldom explain exactly how, when or why
certain thoughts came into our heads.

As I described in my 2002 paper (aronsson.se/wikipaper.html) I
think I first learned of wikis when the Seattle Wireless wiki was
slashdotted on March 22, 2001.  However, a programming colleague
of mine (P?r Fornland) has later reminded me that he tried to make
me grasp the concept of c2.com already in 1999/2000.  It is quite
possible that this early input was resting in my subconscious and
provided a necessary fertile soil for the impressions I received
in the spring of 2001.  (I don't keep detailed records of all
impressions and ideas, but maybe I should.  I have this idea of an
always-on digital video camera on my eyeglasses, so I can go back
and search and replay any earlier part of my life.)

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


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Sanger's memoirs

body:
Delirium wrote:

> It's quite clear that Larry Sanger has not put in a minute on
> Wikipedia for which he was not paid.  He resigned and ended all
> involvement with the project immediately after he stopped
> receiving a paycheck for it,

So would I have done under the same circumstances.  Anything else
would indeed have been more strange.  When you take employment,
you negotiate with your employer to get the right job description,
title, and salary, and your negotiation power comes from your
ability to walk away.  If the employer suddenly cuts your salary,
you walk away, and don't continue to do the same work for free.
Because if you cannot walk away, you are in fact a slave.

Since Wikipedia was still a .com in 2001, it is fair to include
Larry in the number of dotcom layoffs.

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


body:
Hi!

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 12:54:17 +0100, Charles Matthews wrote:

>Alex, you do need to moderate your language on this.  The aim is to have an
>article everyone can live with.

Errr ... yes, well, I think the very same thing; only I have my doubts about
this being easily achieved. From what I know about the OD, they sure don't
hold with such modernist views as NPOV. (And I have read a triffle more than a
tabloid article or two, as well; oh, and I am catholic, so no misunderstanding
there, please, too.) The history of the article and the talk page are a case
to the point, hence my widespread alert yesterday. Since you got involved in
the editing as well, you ought to be able to understand that, so what exactly
is your personal criticism aimed at?

Alex
--
If you don't go over the top,
you can't see what's on the other side.
        --- Jim Steinman ---

Alex' Assorted Homepages: www.alexsite.de


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Wikipedia-l] wiki -> pdf

body:
http://wiki.auf-trag.de/

Could that help ?

Ant


from_name: Phil Boswell

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: html emails

body:
"Chad Perrin" <perrin at apotheon.com> wrote in
message news:20050419170832.GA5455 at apotheon.com...
[snip]
> These days, HTML email with inline images and fancy formatting is almost
> universally the territory of spammers, in my experience.

On the basis of a quick scan through my Gmail folders, I can expect to
receive this kind of email from:
* Amazon
* Shockwave
* AbeBooks
* The Book People
* Genes/Friends Reunited
* PayPal

Happily Gmail's default is to switch the images off. It also has the nice
touch of checking whether any links have different base URL's to the email
originator...at least I assume that's how it knows to warn me about possible
phishing...

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


from_name: Frieda Brioschi

body:
Hi Sabine,
I put a link o http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Rassegna_stampa_di_it.wiki
on meta (tnx Notafish!)
Ciao,
Frieda

On 4/20/05, Delphine M?nard <notafishz at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi ho Sabine.
>
> You probably want to add a link to the Italian Wikipedia's Press
> coverage page here:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Press#Press_coverage
>
> Ciao,
>
> Delphine
> --
> ~notafish
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Uwe Baumbach

subject: [Wikitech-l] Managing multilanguage wikis - with common

body:
Dori,

with "different language instances" I mean use of different languages in article texts (e.g. wikipedia) and system messages (languageXY.php).

We want to economize space for language independant parts (for instance images) using a "common area".
--?
Ich?freue?mich?auf?Deine/Ihre?Antwort!

Uwe?Baumbach
U.Baumbach at web.de

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
In?meinem?Postfach?ist?ein?Anti-Spam-Filter?aktiv.
Um?Fehler?zu?minimieren?daher?bitte?unbedingt?
jede?Mail?an?mich?mit?einem?korrekten?Betreff?versehen?
und?bitte?sowohl?im?Betreff?als?auch?im?Mailtext?
die?bekannten?"schlechten"?Worte?vermeiden.
Vielen?Dank!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

______________________________________________________________
Verschicken Sie romantische, coole und witzige Bilder per SMS!
Jetzt bei WEB.DE FreeMail: http://f.web.de/?mc=021193


subject: [Wikitech-l] hardware order

body:
mbecker ? said:
>
> Also, a little off topic, but have we considered using CentOS on our
> machines? I just found out about it recently. Basically, it's a
> redistribution of redhat enterprise. It's more stable than Fedora so it
> might be worth using.

For stability, really it's hard to beat BSD if it'll talk to your hardware.


from_name: Joseph Reagle

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Sanger's memoirs

body:
On Wednesday 20 April 2005 02:31, Andrew Lih wrote:
> I'm glad you brought up NPOV vs. unbiased.

The term is what it is, though in coming to understand it, and now explain
it, it is off.  Though, it is off in a useful way, it provides a nice
sedgeway into what it *is*. (e.g., "A chickpea is neither a chick nor a
pea. Discuss.")

> In the essay, Larry mentions
> that this newfangled NPOV as a term was unnecessary, as the term unbiased
> would suffice.

Neither is appropriate; rather, without slipping into relativism it
abstracts to a meta level of representing what people think they know
(i.e., a consensus theory of truth) rather than what is (i.e., a strict
objectivist stance.)

http://reagle.org/joseph/2004/agree/wikip-agree.html#heading8
[[[
A misunderstood notion about Wikipedia is that much contention arises from
its Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) policy (Wikipedia 2004wnp): that debates
arise from this seemingly impossible requirement to remain objectively
neutral. Yet, the NPOV policy is quite the opposite and instead recognizes
the multitude of viewpoints and provides an epistemic stance in which they
all can be recognized as instances of human knowledge ? right or wrong.
The NPOV policy seeks to achieve the "fair" representation of all sides of
the dispute such that all can feel well represented. Articles should
explain without advocating, characterize without engaging, and honor the
intellectual independence of the readers by refraining from dogmatism.
Hence, the clear goal of providing an encyclopedia of all human knowledge
explicitly avoids many entanglements. ... Consequently, while the
perception is that NPOV is the source of much debate, it may act rather as
a heat shield: reducing conflict and otherwise channeling outstanding
arguments in the productive context of the primary goal of developing an
encyclopedia that is representative of many viewpoints.
...
It is important to note that this stance does have important ethical
implications. The policy of only reporting on what it is well-known has
significant implications for minority views. This is acknowledged and
debated within the Wikipedia community and the present norm is that
Wikipedia should be fairly representative and proportional to the
phenomenon it seeks to capture.
]]]


from_name: Leon Weber

subject: [Wikipedia-l] wiki -> pdf

body:
Jeffrey Johnson schrieb:

>Interesting idea, but where are the PDF's?
>
>Getting articles...
>
>Getting page en:Dutch_Golden_Age
>Getting image en:OudeRijnLeiden.jpg url
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:OudeRijnLeiden.jpg
>Traceback (most recent call last):
>  File "./wiki2latex.py", line 497, in ?
>    tex_code += doWiki(wikicode)
>  File "./wiki2latex.py", line 448, in doWiki
>    text = doImages(text)
>  File "./wiki2latex.py", line 423, in doImages
>    getpage.getImage(code, im, sys.argv[3])
>  File "/data/harko/wiki.auf-trag.de/www/html/wikipdf/src/getpage.py",
>line 92, in getImage
>    uri = name2url(get_host_part(config_baseurl[code]) + url.group(1))
>AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'group'
>
>Making PDF...
>
>...................
>
>Not Found
>The requested URL /wikipdf/tmp/1114006231-874180198/t.pdf was not
>found on this server.
>
I tried this tool sometimes, too, but alway got the same error.

Leon


subject: [Wikipedia-l] The Onion on Peer Review

body:
Given the latest fire-storm on questions of authority and peer review, this
might make some smile! :):)

*Fifth-Grade Science Paper Doesn't Stand Up to Peer Review*

A three-member panel of 10-year-old Michael Nogroski's fellow classmates
at Nathaniel Macon Elementary School unanimously agreed Tuesday that his
327-word essay "Otters" did not meet the requirements for peer approval.

Read the rest: http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4116&n=3


from_name: Rebecca

subject:
[WikiEN-l] The horror of it all (was: Suggestions for a work-safe
	encyclopedia)

body:
On 4/20/05, Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> And by the same reasoning, we should remove all images
> of animals, so as not to tempt the people who are
> trying to overcome their bestiality.  And the images
> of people, so as not to tempt those who are trying to
> avoid the voices in their heads which are telling them
> to murder people.

It's nice to see us in agreement again.

-- ambi


subject: [Wikipedia-l] de: DVD sold 10,000 in two days?!

body:
David Gerard wrote:
> I just read that on Angela's blog. Now, that indicates a ready and willing
> market.

I agree. That also indicates a ready and willing market for en.wikipedia.

> Is there a page detailing the process? Even one in German would be good to
> see.

This is for the Fall-2004-CD:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia-CD/Erfahrungsbericht

This is for the Spring 2005-CD/DVD
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia-Distribution/Erfahrungsbericht_Erstellung

> How did they do the sifting? Did they do any sifting? etc.

You don't want to read that :)

> Specifically, I'm wondering how possible it is to do something like this
> for en: before MediaWiki 1.5 (when the ratings system goes live) and 1.6
> (when we might actually do something with the data).

Ask Magnus Manske for his code.

You have actually two problems regarding text:
* Is the article itself "fit" for the DVD/CD?
* Was it vandalized recently?

Besides several hundred smaller issues (Template Tags, Links to another
namespaces..)

Mathias

(we are still on sales rank 2 on amazon.de in the software category)


body:
David Gerard wrote:

>>I agree. That also indicates a ready and willing market for en.wikipedia.
>
>
>
> That's precisely what I'm thinking ;-)

So en.wikipedia should start adding Personendaten tags to articles about
people. You will need them at least for the standard Lemma sorting
(Wales, Jimmy instead of Jimmy Wales).

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Personendaten

Mathias


from_name: mm

subject: [Wikitech-l] ERROR at line 1035:

body:
I am trying to load cur_table.sql
mysql -u root -p<password> wiki-en < <directory>/20040817_cur_table.sql;
ERROR at line 1035:
I get this error after 1.5 hour. I try this 3 time and with 2 copy of sql file from two distinct DVD.
I want to know if i can do something to skip the error and execute the rest of the script.
I want to know how much of the job have been done.
If anyone can help please do it.
Thanks,
MM


from_name: Viajero

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia: "Viscious, greed-driven,
 megalomaniacal fascists, fairy thugs, censors, and gay dogs"

body:
An anon user named Jeff Sense kept inserting an article he wrote into
[[Mario Lanza]] and various of us reverted him because the text was
highly POV (it is supplied as a external link though). He takes his
revenge on us in a Lanza fan forum (Derek is new user User:Derekmcgovern):

"As you know, Derek and those he is defending - his associates-in-hiding
- are chortling with delight as they continually delete my bio in their
morbid dictating of what people may and may not read and consider about
Mario's life and career. Derek's defense of this gay group's behavior is
beyond redemption. Fascists are fascists. Censorship is censorship.

My bio has been deleted from Wikipedia nearly a dozen times now. Their
games continue. Viscious, greed-driven, megalomaniacal fascist thugs and
censors will not go unchallenged. The EXACT same kind of maggots fed off
Mario and his talent in life, and this current coterie of diseased,
limp-wristed parasites are doing the exact same thing today. They are
but gay dogs scurrying about urinating their pathetic liquid egos,
conceit and arrogance on all things Lanza.

Those who hide - and have hidden for years in the Lanza world under
rocks and behind aliases - are of the dark side...fairies who seek to
present themselves as the only true 'authorities' on the life of Lanza
and to oppress all those who would stand up to them. The transparent
attacks on this site in the past, the fake names, the pornographic
posts, the aliases, all come from the same mindset...all from the same
psychopaths who live in gratuitously deluded worlds of self-importance.

We know who you are and you are the most vile, despicable alleged 'fans'
of Mario Lanza one could ever imagine."

http://www.quicktopic.com/30/H/ECKcxtRbxUTNy

LOL - the only thing he left out was our proclivity for autofellatio.

V.


from_name: Sabine Cretella

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Article on Wikipedia in Italian - where
	to	insert/link it?

body:
Ciao Frieda,

thanks! In the meantime someone else already added the link - great :-)

But it is important that I know the page for further reference.

Ciao, Sabine

Frieda Brioschi wrote:

>Hi Sabine,
>I put a link o http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Rassegna_stampa_di_it.wiki
>on meta (tnx Notafish!)
>Ciao,
>Frieda
>
>
>


from_name: Richard Holton

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Sanger's memoirs

body:
On 4/20/05, Rowan Collins <rowan.collins at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/20/05, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> > For what it's worth, my view on it is that who gets the credit is pretty
> > meaningless.  As can be seen by the fact that many people suggested it,
> > the idea of a wiki-based encyclopedia by the time Wikipedia was started
> > was becoming fairly obvious, so eventually someone had to start it.
>
> I think this comment (which Bjarte Sorensen also made, in different
> words) bears repeating, and expanding upon. The way in which the
> concept of wikis grew slowly for years and then boomed (take a look
> around, they're everywhere now) suggests to me that they were "an idea
> whose time had come". It also seems reasonable that Wikipedia itself
> was an idea whose time had come - being, as it was, the culmination of
> all sorts of attempts at an online encyclopedia, of which Nupedia was
> a drop in the ocean (see, for instance,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_encyclopedia_project)
>
> As such, I think the problem we are all struggling with is this:
> -> "What does it mean to 'create' an idea?"
> Like "Who invented the telephone?" the question of "Who invented
> Wikipedia?" may be best viewed as an unanswerable question, as it is
> simply too easy to redefine. Thus Larry is defining it in such a way
> that the answer is "Larry", and Jimbo is defining it in such a way
> that the answer is "Jeremy, and Jimbo, and also Larry". Obviously, if
> you assume these are answering the same question, they are conflicting
> answers; but it seems to me that they're not.
>
> BTW, I now notice, after already drafting most of the above, that
> [[Telephone]] on Wikipedia includes this statement:
> > It is important to note that there is no "inventor of the telephone." The modern telephone is the result of work done by many hands, all worthy of recognition of their addition to the field. <
> I couldn't have put it any better myself.
>
> Which brings me to my next point - note the phrase "all worthy of
> recognition". If you accept my reasoning that "who created Wikipedia?"
> is a meaningless question, then you can see that the key point is how
> we frame things. Nobody is denying that Larry had an extremely
> important role in the early development of Wikipedia; and nobody is
> claiming that Jeremy had more than a fleeting role in the idea. So,
> the following should, I think, be uncontroversial:
>
> * Jeremy and Larry both independently had the idea of using a wiki to
> replace or complement Nupedia.
> * They both mentionned this to Jimbo, who felt this better matched his
> original "vision"
> * It was Larry, however, that saw the idea through, and who was
> extremely important in the early development of Wikipedia
> * It is Jimbo who has stuck through, and worked on the project from
> before it began to the present day
>
> But the million-dollar question is apparently "was Larry a
> co-founder?". I'd say "yes", in that he was part of the core that made
> it happen. The problem is, if somebody came along just days after the
> wiki was "switched on", and became an influential part of the
> decision-making process, were they also a "co-founder"? Again, the
> question is hard to frame. [I wasn't "there" anywhere near the time, I
> should point out, so I am being purely hypothetical]
>
> My conclusion?
> "Jimbo Wales had a vision for a free online encyclopedia; he and his
> employee Larry Sanger worked up Nupedia as a first stab at this
> vision; after hearing about wikis - which Jimbo had also recently
> discussed with another employee, Jeremy Rosenfeld - Larry laid down
> the first strokes of what would become Wikipedia."
>
> Sorry this has turned into such a ramble, but I hope it is of some
> value to someone.
> --

Thanks, Rowan. I found this very helpful.

-- Rich Holton

[[W:en:User:Rholton]]


subject: [Wikipedia-l] 100 000 articles for the french wikipedia

body:
We have the regret to say that during our (much disputed and very
friendly) contest for the 99 999th and the 100 000th articles on the
french wikipedia, the charge under which the server found itself,
ermmmm, just... resulted in the whole system blowing off somewhere
between 99 985 and 100 000 when we all ... errr, tried to save a couple
of "la '''sapotille''' est un [[fruit]]"

Depending on people, various messages appeared, but the most likely to
be understood by everyone is

"fr.wikipedia.org is unreachable"

We regret our loss and hope the french wikipedia will be able to
overcome it and the team to make it in the 100 000 big club.

Amen

Antfish


from_name: Matt R

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Sanger's memoirs

body:
--- Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> Look, you have not been a part of the Wikipedia community since early
> 2002, and now you reappear three years later talking about your
> importance in the "founding" of Wikipedia, pimping a book, and writing
> screeds about what's wrong with it while at the same time not actually
> participating in any of the policy discussions, and indeed explicitly
> saying you "don't have time" to actually discuss any of the issues [1].
> Even your brief reappearance here is apparently entirely to defend your
> claimed credit, not to actually discuss how to improve Wikipedia, an
> endeavor in which you claim to be interested.

Hmmm...yes. While I do feel a little uncomfortable about bad-mouthing seminal
figures in Wikipedia's history, I'm afraid to say that I've not found Larry
Sanger's recent comments about Wikipedia to be particularly profound at all
— certainly not warranting quite so much widespread publicity. For sure,
the Slashdot-posted "memoirs" of the early history of the project were quite
interesting, but there's something about the way they were written that left a
bad taste in my mouth. It would certainly help Sanger's credibility a lot,
particularly for people who've never encountered him on Wikipedia before, if he
did the following:

  1) If he actually dirtied his hands and got involved with the project again.
Something doesn't fit right here. Larry Sanger claims he "still loves"
Wikipedia and "wants only the best for it" — well if so, you think he'd
actually contribute to the project from time-to-time, no? One of Sanger's
criticisms is about Wikipedia's treatment of experts. However, it's not clear
that Sanger himself is any longer an expert on Wikipedia, the project having
moved on after he left. What are Sanger's credentials for commenting on
Wikipedia's dynamics *today*, as opposed to how it was over three years ago?

  2) If he stopped fighting so hard for his share of the "glory" of founding
Wikipedia, which seems a little unseemly, at least to me.

-- Matt
[[User:Matt Crypto]]

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com


from_name: James D. Forrester

subject: [Wikitech-l] hardware order

body:
On Wednesday, April 20, 2005 2:55 PM, mbecker T <wikimb at gmail.com> wrote:

> Of course, we could try and find volenteers with the exact hardware
> we want to try and benchmark the prociessors for us, but I don't
> think that will happen.

Well, the first step in that regards would be an easy way to come up with
numbers for comparison; if there was a little (or not so little) PHP test
script that I could run on the command line of any machine of mine with
Apache/PHP/MySQL installed, that might be helpful. I dunno, maybe not.

Yours,
--
James D. Forrester -- Wikimedia: [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]

Mail: james at jdforrester.org | jon at eh.org | csvla at dcs.warwick.ac.uk
IM  : (MSN) jamesdforrester at hotmail.com


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki 1.4.2 and 1.3.12 released

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

MediaWiki 1.4.2 is a security and bug fix release for the 1.4 stable
release series.

A cross-site scripting injection vulnerability was discovered, which
affects only MSIE clients and is only open if MediaWiki has been
manually configured to run output through HTML Tidy ($wgUseTidy).

Several other bugs are fixed in this release.

All new installations are highly recommended to use 1.4.2 instead of
1.3.x; existing 1.3.x users should consider upgrading for bug fixes and
new features. A 1.3.12 maintenance release is available with the Tidy
fix; the relevant change is in includes/Parser.php.

=== Changes from 1.4.1 to 1.4.2 ===

* Fix math options in Finnish localization
* Use in-process Tidy extension if available when $wgUseTidy is on
* (bug 1933) Fix PATH_INFO usage under IIS with PHP ISAPI module
* (bug 1188) <nowiki> in {{subst:}} includes fixed
* (bug 1936) <!-- comments --> in {{subst:}} includes fixed
* Fix a potential MSIE JavaScript injection vector in Tidy mode

Release notes for 1.4.2:
http://sourceforge.net/project/shownotes.php?release_id=322146

Download:
http://prdownloads.sf.net/wikipedia/mediawiki-1.4.2.tar.gz?download
http://prdownloads.sf.net/wikipedia/mediawiki-1.3.12.tar.gz?download

Before asking for help, try the FAQ:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_FAQ

Low-traffic release announcements mailing list:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-announce

Wiki admin help mailing list:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l

Bug report system:
http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/

Play "stump the developers" live on IRC:
#mediawiki on irc.freenode.net

- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCZxJewRnhpk1wk44RAj0EAKCKfIGUwsFpSZySXIUFLvqIpXGavgCeIFrN
dEbjqvbZHQBzvfg/+WixDL4=
=5TdO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [Wikitech-l] hardware order

body:
Jimmy Wales said:
> Tony Sidaway wrote:
>>
>> For stability, really it's hard to beat BSD if it'll talk to your
>> hardware.
>
> Do we have any practical problems with OS stability?

If not, stick with what you have.


from_name: BJörn Lindqvist

subject: [WikiEN-l] Links to porn sites

body:
> Thanks for speaking on behalf of the generic "reader" of Wikipedia,
> Tony. I know I for one would not have expressed that idea anywhere
> near as well as you did -- in fact I don't think I would have
> expressed it at all.

Enough. You have already publicly posted two mean-spirited emails
directed against Tony Sidway. Now stop it.

--
mvh Bj?rn


subject: [WikiEN-l] Prudishness and censorship

body:
> Rick: Do you object to the principle of providing a mechanism that permits users to prevent the display of some images?

I can't answer for RickK, but since I also would like to view
Wikipedia articles with illustrations, let me offer my view. The
problem with any mechanism that enables users to filter images is that
that mechanism threatens to become default. Noone has a problem with
someone choosing not to see certain images, but (almost) everyone has
a problem with someone telling US which images we should see. Noone
has explicitly or implicitly stated that image filtering should be a
default. But if it is not default, then the feature is worthless. At
most 1% of all Wikipedia visitors has registered an account, and at
most 10% (guesses) of those that has, has changed their preferences.
It is only those few that would benefit from this feature if it was
optional. Sure, it would help a few like the guy who said he risked
losing his job because he surfed on Wikipedia, but the vast majority
would gain no benefit at all.

--
mvh Bj?rn


from_name: lmsanger at sbcglobal.net

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Sanger's memoirs

body:
Richard Holton wrote:
> > My conclusion?
> > "Jimbo Wales had a vision for a free online encyclopedia;
> he and his
> > employee Larry Sanger worked up Nupedia as a first stab at this
> > vision; after hearing about wikis - which Jimbo had also recently
> > discussed with another employee, Jeremy Rosenfeld - Larry laid down
> > the first strokes of what would become Wikipedia."
> >
> > Sorry this has turned into such a ramble, but I hope it is of some
> > value to someone.
> > --
>
> Thanks, Rowan. I found this very helpful.

Yes, it sounds very reasonable--for someone who wasn't there.
Unfortunately, it is still very misleading.

Since I was there and I know precisely how it started, apparently unlike
*ANYBODY* writing about this subject here, let me rewrite your conclusion:

"Jimbo Wales had a vision for a free online encyclopedia; he hired Larry
Sanger to be the project's editor-in-chief, and he, with a voluntary
advisory board, worked up Nupedia as a first stab at this vision.  There
were problems with Nupedia's system, which Larry was tasked to solve.  Larry
heard about wikis one evening over dinner and the very next day, or the day
after, as a direct and sole result, laid down the first strokes of what
would become Wikipedia.  Jimmy said later, in 2005, as an interesting bit of
historical trivia, that someone else first suggested a wiki encyclopedia to
him.  This suggestion, however, had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with
the origination of Wikipedia, nor did Jimmy mean to suggest that it did."

That would not be misleading.  I mean, of course Jimmy did not mean to
suggest that Jeremy Rosenfeld's saying anything to him actually *led to* the
creation of Wikipedia, did he?  I'm not sure Jimmy has been perfectly clear
about this point.

What some people seem to want to be true is this: "Jeremy Rosenfeld got the
idea for Wikipedia, which he conveyed to Jimmy.  Jimmy then told Larry to
start it, which he did."  That is completely false.  No:

"Larry got the idea; Larry asked Jimmy to set up the wiki software on the
server, which he (or Jason Richey) did; then Larry got to work."

I noticed that someone has put the following words into my mouth on my user
page,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Larry_Sanger

"My name is Larry Sanger. I was Jimbo Wales' employee when Jeremy Rosenfeld
had the idea to start the encyclopedia, and the first (and so far only)
editor-in-chief of Nupedia."

I am not going to get into an edit war with some person who knows nothing
about what he is trying to make me say.  Will someone please revert the
page?  Thanks in advance.

--Larry (unsubscribing now, hopefully)


from_name: Charles Matthews

subject: [WikiEN-l] Alexa breakout

body:
Rollercoaster - the Alexa numbers are back up again today, breaking fresh
ground (into the top 60 sites).

No wonder WP is a bit slow.  I feel like Scotty in Star Trek - Captain, I'm
not sure the servers can take much more of this ...

Charles