from_name: Ben Emmel

subject: [WikiEN-l] And yet more fallout

body:
On 12/18/05, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:

> Is there a standard reply to such things now? Do you recommend that the
> aggrieved parties edit the pages themselves, or is it always "we'll get
> someone onto it straight away"?
>
> Steve

I don't think that we should point them to the article, and tell them to
"get to it." To many , that would be akin to going back and fixing the food
you just sent back to the kitchen. Instead, just fix the birthdate, or
whatever. Even better, post the incorrect info somewhere, and give us the
chance to fix it. Unfortunately, that would probably just give us yet
another backlog, and a serious one at that.

--
Ben Emmel
Wikipedia - User:Bratsche
bratsche1 at gmail.com
"A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees."
-- William Blake


list: wikitech-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: David Gerard

subject: [Wikitech-l] {{if}} is dead on en:

body:
Killed with an axe, {{qif}} is next.

If you see the end of [[WT:AUM]], you will see User:Adrian crowing about
the possibilities of DOS attacks. Jamesday pointed out to him this was
somewhat unseemly.

AzaToth has some code at [[m:User:AzaToth/Logic]] which makes the
functions Mediawiki builtins and so isn't a Stupid Template Trick; now
he wants to know (1) if this feature has a snowball's chance in hell (2)
if this code is suitable.

- d.


subject: [Wikitech-l] {{if}} is dead on en:

body:
David Gerard wrote:

> If you see the end of [[WT:AUM]], you will see User:Adrian crowing about
> the possibilities of DOS attacks. Jamesday pointed out to him this was
> somewhat unseemly.

Sorry, sorry - [[:en:User:Adrian_Buehlmann]].

- d.


list: wikien-l

from_name: Conrad Dunkerson

subject: [WikiEN-l] Improper block

body:
Kelly Martin wrote:
> On 12/17/05, Kurt Maxwell Weber <kmw at armory.com> wrote:
>>Yesterday, I was blocked for four months by karmafist for using the phrase
>>"deletionist vandals" on a few AfD entries.

> Actually, you were blocked for one month by Zoe.
> Please try to report the truth henceforth.

Actually, it looks like he did;

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Karmafist

Not sure why that top entry (as of now) shows an indefinite block from
Karmafist but there is no such listed on Weber's block log, but... it is
there. Also no entry on WP:AN/I despite the note to check there in
Karmafist's log.


from_name: FxParlant

subject: [Wikitech-l] Session handling

body:
has anybody an idea why this code doesn't work ?

$sess_key_name = "veriword"; // Don't change this
$authimage =  'extensions/authimage-inc/image.veriword.php';

function checkAICode($code)
{
  global $sess_key_name;

  require_once("extensions/authimage-inc/class.verificator.php");
  $veri = new VeriFicator($code);
  $verified = $veri->verified();

  $return = ($verified == 1) ? 1 : 0;
  if(!isset($_SESSION[$sess_key_name])) {
    $return = 0;
  } else {
     unset($_SESSION[$sess_key_name]);
    //session_unset();
    //session_destroy();
    //session_start();
  }

  return $return;
}

Fran?ois


subject: [WikiEN-l] Improper block redux

body:
Stephen Bain wrote:
> On 12/19/05, Kurt Maxwell Weber <kmw at armory.com> wrote:
>
>>karmafist has now re-blocked me, this time indefinitely.  He and David Gerard
>>both base their actions on totally baseless assumptions about my psychology,
>>motives, and intentions.

> <snip all the ranting>

> You don't seem to have been blocked indefinitely:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AKmweber

Kmweber's block log seems to show a different history of events than
Karmafist's user log:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Karmafist

The latter has both the four month and indefinite blocks which Kmweber
has complained about here:

2005-12-18 19:09:49 Karmafist blocked "User:kmweber" with an expiry time
of indefinite (See WP:AN/I)

2005-12-16 22:20:07 Karmafist blocked "User:kmweber" with an expiry time
of 4 months (Spree of afd npa vios after being blocked for the same
thing, WP:POINT, WP:NOT vio)


from_name: Modemac

subject: [WikiEN-l] The recent "wiki pedophile" press release

body:
Here's something interesting: a blogger did some detective work and put
two and two together to come up with a possible reason for the bogus
"wiki pedophile" press release].  See here:

  http://www.ridingsun.com/posts/1134805044.shtml

It might (emphasis on ''might'') be some petty revenge for the QuakeAID
scandal early this year that was exposed to the public, thanks to
Wikipedia! (See the Wikipedia entry on QuakeAID for more information
about that.)

--
                        The High Weirdness Project
                          http://www.modemac.com


from_name: Andrew Gray

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Defamatory Biographies - another problem looming
	forWikipedia?

body:
On 18/12/05, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>   Do we have a foolproof way of iterating over all biographies of living
> people? If not, is it time we introduced a flag, or even just a category
> "Living person", to do so?

Hum.

For all bios with categories, then if it's in [[Category:xxxx births]]
where xxxx is greater than 1890, but not in any [[Category:yyyy
deaths]], they're either alive or need updated.

We can catch another batch by searching anything with a bio-stub tag
and categorising them, then rechecking. Anything else we have no real
way of finding, since there's nothing to define an article's content
without actually reading it.

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


from_name: Abigail Brady

body:
On 18/12/05, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> We can catch another batch by searching anything with a bio-stub tag
> and categorising them, then rechecking. Anything else we have no real
> way of finding, since there's nothing to define an article's content
> without actually reading it.

It's a bit silly isn't it, that the stub sorting project is doing
better at categorising
stubs than the rest of the project is at categorising articles?  I'm
not sure exactly how many stubs vs articles there are totally, but
that sort of metholodogy,
where they try to generally categorise what sort of topic something is
in, for everything, rather than randomly adding categories like
"Category:People who
met JFK" and suchforth, seems to be working really well.

So I wonder if we could find a way to use this sort of methodology, of sorting
things into more specific categories when needed, for regular
articles.  Obviously
this would be done as well as the existing bottom-up approach.

But it would be a really useful feature to be able to tell
progamatically whether
an article (any article) is about a place, or a person or a group or a concept,
or whatever.  And the current model has no way of doing that - even
recursively looking inside [[Category:People]] doesn't work because
then you end up finding  [[Category:John Lennon]] and then get to
things like [[251 Menlove Avenue]], which is evidently not a person.

--
Abi


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Defamatory Biographies - another problem looming for
	Wikipedia?

body:
To excise all defamatory bios I would tend towards deleting any
defamatory material which is not properly cited (and cannot be with a
quick Google/Google news search, just to avoid these kinds of
problems. They can always be reinserted if sourced, but potentially
libellous material should be allowed to stay if not sourced.

Mgm

On 12/18/05, Keith Old <keithold at gmail.com> wrote:
> We have a real problem with unsourced defamatory biographies.
>
> This morning, while working on the Help desk, I responded to a letter from
> Lucianne Goldberg, who wrote seeking a deletion or correction to what she
> considered to be two highly offensive paragraphs in her biography. I looked
> at the article and saw that there were severe problems with some of the
> material in it.
>
> I have edited the article and sourced it as well as replying to her
> attaching a copy of the article as rewritten by me. I am awaiting her advice
> as to the specific information that was of concern to her. Once I have the
> specifics, I will advise further on the matter.
>
> However, the matter that I believe likely to be of most concern was in the
> original version of the article and has survived for nearly two months with
> multiple edits. There were no sources provided for the allegation. Frankly,
> this problem has the potential to be another big problem with Wikipedia.
>
> We need to pay particular attention to the biographies of contemporary
> biographies especially of controversial figures. In particular, we need to
> ensure that our articles are scrupulous in citing sources. We need to give
> instructions to recent changes patrollers to be on the lookout for
> biographies making negative claims without proper sourcing.
>
> Regards
>
>
> Keith Old
>
> Keith Old
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
On 18/12/05, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 18/12/05, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >   Do we have a foolproof way of iterating over all biographies of living
> > people? If not, is it time we introduced a flag, or even just a category
> > "Living person", to do so?
>
> Hum.
>
> For all bios with categories, then if it's in [[Category:xxxx births]]
> where xxxx is greater than 1890, but not in any [[Category:yyyy
> deaths]], they're either alive or need updated.
>
> We can catch another batch by searching anything with a bio-stub tag
> and categorising them, then rechecking. Anything else we have no real
> way of finding, since there's nothing to define an article's content
> without actually reading it.

To point out the problems with the latter; the deleted form of the
Seigenthaler article wasn't categorised by anything, wasn't tagged as
a stub, and wasn't phrased in the standard fashion for a biography
("[name] (year-year) [is/was]")... so there's no obvious automated way
of picking it up.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Please Help

body:
I may be wrong, but apparently a decision hasn't been reached yet.
If you disagree, appeal to Jimbo. I don't see how posting to the
mailing list is going to help.

Mgm


from_name: daniwo59 at aol.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 29, Issue 189


from_name: charles matthews

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Defamatory Biographies - another problem
	loomingforWikipedia?

body:
How about building up 'keywords': e.g. "defrauded".  It is very easy to
Google the site for such a thing.

Charles


from_name: Tony Sidaway

body:
On 12/18/05, Keith Old <keithold at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> We need to pay particular attention to the biographies of contemporary
> biographies especially of controversial figures.

This is so head-poundingly obvious that I'm quite shocked that it's
being described as "another problem looming for Wikipedia."  It's a
constant problem for any information conduit, whether a magazine
publisher, a corporate email system, or a radio station.

What do you do?  You run a help desk, you take notice of complaints.
If your operation has American users, you make sure nobody who thinks
he has a first amendment right to keep on inserting unfounded nonsense
into articles remains able to do so.

Every publishing concern the size of Wikipedia has been sued.  Often.

Raise a legal fund.


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: [Wikitech-l] Review feature

body:
Am Sonntag, den 18.12.2005, 17:07 +0000 schrieb David Gerard:
> Magnus Manske wrote:
>
> > I would like to announce that I have begun a complete rewrite of the
> > validation function. The new one is hereby called "Review feature" and
> > is implemented as an extension. Eventually, I will remove the
> > SpecialValidation.php file and all related code from the phase3 module.
> > The sole technical purpose of this rewrite is to give Brion peace of
> > mind :-)
>
>
> OK ... any idea on time for this one?

Right about ... now!

OK, basic functionality is working:
* You can review versions of a page, it will merge your other reviews
into it where you leave it on "no opinion".
* There's statistics per page, page revision, user, user per page

What's not (yet) working:
* A "real" page for review (currently, it's only in the sidebar). Do we
need that?
* A checkbox where you can turn off merging (which is the only way to
blank your review again:-) Simple, but I'm too tired right now...
* Merging is done even when you review an older version than the last
one you reviewed. So, you have reviewed version #100 already, now you
review version #5. Your review of version #100 gets merged into that of
#10 and deleted. This behaviour might actually make sense, though.

All these are easy to fix, though.

> *sigh*
>
> (and avoiding the XSS vulnerabilities of the last one?)

Now with "X-Files paranoia level" :-)

Magnus


subject: [Wikitech-l] Review feature

body:
Am Sonntag, den 18.12.2005, 20:59 +0200 schrieb Andy Rabagliati:

> May I commend Magnus for his tenacity in this much-needed feature of
> mediawiki - which I have not tried. Maybe the plugin will make that easier.

Thanks!
Just follow the instructions on top of "Review.php" (CVS HEAD,
"extensions" module, "Review" directory). Copy the whole directory to
the "extensions" directory of your MediaWiki installation.

I left two dummy topics in CVS so you'll see a demo immediately :-)

Magnus


from_name: Steve Bennett

body:
Hello,
  Do we have a foolproof way of iterating over all biographies of living
people? If not, is it time we introduced a flag, or even just a category
"Living person", to do so?  Then we could at least start the laborious
process of visiting every living person page and detecting potentially
libellous material and removing it (eg, turning it into a comment asking
for sources).  Once we'd caught up there could be a revolving door type
process to ensure every page gets looked at every month or so.

"Random page" is a nice button. But what might be even nicer might be
"next unchecked bio", that takes you to the "next" living bio that
hasn't been edited in a month or so.  Random selection is pretty
inefficient.

Steve

> -----Original Message-----

> However, the matter that I believe likely to be of most
> concern was in the original version of the article and has
> survived for nearly two months with multiple edits. There
> were no sources provided for the allegation. Frankly, this
> problem has the potential to be another big problem with Wikipedia.
>
> We need to pay particular attention to the biographies of
> contemporary biographies especially of controversial figures.
> In particular, we need to ensure that our articles are
> scrupulous in citing sources. We need to give instructions to
> recent changes patrollers to be on the lookout for
> biographies making negative claims without proper sourcing.


body:
Maybe we can have User:Humanbot programmed to cycle biographies and
have people read them as a check?

Mgm

On 12/18/05, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 18/12/05, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >   Do we have a foolproof way of iterating over all biographies of living
> > people? If not, is it time we introduced a flag, or even just a category
> > "Living person", to do so?
>
> Hum.
>
> For all bios with categories, then if it's in [[Category:xxxx births]]
> where xxxx is greater than 1890, but not in any [[Category:yyyy
> deaths]], they're either alive or need updated.
>
> We can catch another batch by searching anything with a bio-stub tag
> and categorising them, then rechecking. Anything else we have no real
> way of finding, since there's nothing to define an article's content
> without actually reading it.
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
>  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
On 18/12/05, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > To point out the problems with the latter; the deleted form
> > of the Seigenthaler article wasn't categorised by anything,
> > wasn't tagged as a stub, and wasn't phrased in the standard
> > fashion for a biography ("[name] (year-year) [is/was]")... so
> > there's no obvious automated way of picking it up.
>
> On the category, you have just defined a "suspicious article" haven't

Yes and no. I've defined a suspicious article. I haven't at all
defined a *suspicious biography*, though, which is the key here...

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


body:
Hi,

> To point out the problems with the latter; the deleted form
> of the Seigenthaler article wasn't categorised by anything,
> wasn't tagged as a stub, and wasn't phrased in the standard
> fashion for a biography ("[name] (year-year) [is/was]")... so
> there's no obvious automated way of picking it up.

On the category, you have just defined a "suspicious article" haven't
you?  Particularly the "wasn't categorised by anything" bit.

Steve


from_name: Brock Batsell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Improper block redux

body:
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:

>As I see it, there are two questions that need to be settled here:
>1) Is it acceptable to refer to people who actually are vandals as such?
>2) If so, then are deletionists vandals?
>
>
1) is obviously true. 2) depends entirely on your definition of
"deletionists". I visited AN/I to see the basis for Karmafist's block
and checked the diffs provided. All of them were to AfDs, were "block"
messages (the same message copied/pasted from page to page), and clearly
were not made with respect to the actual content of the article, but
were made in order to make a WP:POINT. Nominating articles for deletion
because they don't meet the long-established guidelines of WP for
notability does NOT make someone a deletionist, nor a vandal. It makes
them attentive editors who pay attention to the guidelines. A
deletionist, in my book, is someone who deletes content that is
informative and helpful, and meets WP guidelines, for the sake of making
a point or otherwise - as such, what they advocate is as bad as what
you're doing at the moment. I strongly urge you to take a step back. The
purpose of AfD is not to allow editors to make a point, but to analyze
each article's content and its meeting of Wikipedia's guidelines. If it
does not meet them, it should be removed until it CAN meet WP's guidelines.

However, I do NOT feel that it was appropriate for a single
administrator to block a user for four months (in fact, I couldn't find
any justification for blocking for WP:PA unless it places another user
in danger ? I think we can all agree that is not the case here). That
type of block is, in my opinion, pretty clearly meant to only be handed
down by the ArbCom. The WP:BP makes provisions for if a user's block is
agreed to by consensus, but that is clearly not the case here, since
Karmafist re-blocked Kurt even after he was unblocked by an admin
uninvolved with the conflict.

Regards,
[[User:Bbatsell]]


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] And yet more fallout

body:
On 12/19/05, Michelle <jareth at crimsonblade.net> wrote:
> We're getting more and more of these emails every day to the helpdesk --
> everyone and their brother is screaming libel and demanding we delete
> everything remotely related to them, their brother and their pet pig
> once removed.  Fun.  Think it'll die down after a while or are we in for
> constant legal threats from now on?
>
> Jareth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jareth)

Pretty much. Point them in the direction of the foundation. There is
nothing we can do or say about this.

--
geni


from_name: Lars Aronsson

subject: [Wikitech-l] text mining and automatic linking

body:
For Google-style page ranking, it is supposedly important to have
links from one page to another.  If the word "Colombia" is
mentioned in the article about "Bogota" but not linked, this
relationship will be missed in the ranking.  One way to avoid such
misses would be for a robot to take the list of article titles and
search for their occurance in the text body of all articles, and
insert brackets where they are missing.

No, I don't suggest that such a robot should be used in Wikipedia.
For one thing, we do have articles about many common words and for
every year in history, but it would not make sense to make a link
for every mentioning of a year or such common words.

What I would like to ask is whether this kind of text mining is
common and has a name?  So this is more of a general question
about information retrieval (IR) in large text corpuses than about
Wikipedia.  Are there arithmetic rules for when such links should
be avoided?

One place where such automatic linking could be interesting is a
scanned paper encyclopedia, where no links exist beforehand, e.g.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_New_Student%27s_Reference_Work

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] And yet more fallout

body:
> information regarding Ms. Ford.  From our investigation, I have
> concluded that your website does indeed publish materially
> false information regarding Ms. Ford.
>
> Specifically:
> You publish an incorrect birthdate for Ms. Ford
> You publish other incorrect biographical information
> regarding Ms. Ford.
>
> Now that you know by my admonition to you above, that this
> information
> you publish is *patently false,* I hope that you will follow
> what I recommend as the simple resolution of this Libel
> situation: that you remove all reference to Ms. Ford from
> your website.

Is this a form letter?  How could it be faster for him to type all that
than to say "Ms. Ford's birthday is actually xx/xx/xxxx"?

In any case, I don't see how you can demand removal of all reference to
something from a website. In the case of wikipedia, that's a poor
solution - the information would just come back, unwatched.

>
> If you persist and continue to patently publish false and misleading
> information that continues to be injurious to my client, then

How can an incorrect birthdate be injurious? What is the unspecified
other "incorrect information"?
> Federal laws. I attached an article from CNN.com that I am
> certain your legal
> department is aware.
> http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/11/wikipedia.ap/index.html

He didn't read this bit? "Seigenthaler said he doesn't plan to pursue
legal action against Chase." And in that case the information actually
is defamatory.

Is there a standard reply to such things now? Do you recommend that the
aggrieved parties edit the pages themselves, or is it always "we'll get
someone onto it straight away"?

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Improper block redux

body:
Brock Batsell wrote:

> However, I do NOT feel that it was appropriate for a single
> administrator to block a user for four months (in fact, I couldn't find
> any justification for blocking for WP:PA unless it places another user
> in danger ? I think we can all agree that is not the case here).

There is also a provision under 'Disruption' for blocking someone whose
personal attacks are SO pervasive that they disrupt wikipedia. I believe
some admins blocked Bigdaddy777 under that provision. However, that has
a maximum duration of one month even after repeated offenses.


from_name: Sam Spade

subject: [WikiEN-l] Please Help

body:
Sorry, I didn't know what else to do.

As far as no one being willing to help, I've made it my habit to help
others ever since I came here. I'm sorry I projected that attitude
onto you, I'll try not to make that mistake again.

Sam Spade

On 12/19/05, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
>
> G'day Jack,
>
> > What I am worried about is defendants being punished based on having
> > disagreed with the outcome of their cases. That is something I won't
> > tolerate.
>
> Indeed?  What do you propose to do about it?
>
> Wikipedia is not the real world.  We are not building a model community
> here; we're building (or trying to build) an encyclopaedia.  The
> Arbitration Committee is not a real world court, and real world
> procedures do not apply.  Also unlike the real world, there's nobody
> waiting to swoop in and see that your "rights" aren't violated.
>
>
> (By the way, do you think you could kinda try to stop top-posting?
> That'd be, ahem, tops.  Thanks.)
>
>
> --
> Mark Gallagher
> "What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
> - Danger Mouse
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.1/206 - Release Date: 16/12/2005
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Properly-licensed images deleted without warning?

body:
Someone just informed me that most of the images in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyeglass_prescription have been deleted.
These were all my original artwork. Image deletion being what it is, I
apparently have no way to review the edit history, but my possibly
faulty recollection is that they were all uploaded using what was the
proper licensing language at the time; that is, I _believe_ that they
all said "Copyright ?1998 by Daniel P. B. Smith and released under the
terms of the Wikipedia license."

At the time, people were told to use the specific language "terms of the
Wikipedia license," not "GFDL."

If this is true, then I am annoyed that the images were deleted without
notifying me first, as it should have been clear that they were
properly licensed. Yes, I should have remembered to tag them, but
whoever reviewed the images could have let me know... or, for that
matter, could have tagged them GFDL based on the language in the image
description.

Yes, I will reload the images when I get around to it.

I think people deleting images should be requested not to delete
immediately untagged images if they say "released under the terms of
the Wikipedia license."


from_name: sydney poore

subject: [WikiEN-l] Proposed policy on biographies: input sought

body:
slimvirgin at gmail.com wrote:

>[[User:WAS 4.250]] and I have been working on a proposed policy
>regarding Wikipedia biographies at [[Wikipedia:Biographies on living
>persons deserve a special sensitivity]]
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_on_living_persons_deserve_a_special_sensitivity
>
>It deals with the need to be respectful of subjects, which policies
>are particularly important, what they say, and what to do in the event
>of a legal threat. Any input would be appreciated, particularly from
>editors who are familiar with [[WP:NOR]] and [[WP:V]], who have worked
>a lot on biographies, who have legal backgrounds, members of the
>arbcom who have dealt with some of these issues recently in cases, and
>editors who themselves have Wikipedia entries and who know what it
>feels like to be the subject of a biography.
>
>Sarah
>
        Sarah,

        Good work. Need to add policy that prevents people involved in a
        legal dispute from editing articles related to people in the
        legal dispute. There is documented bias in these cases.

        People have the right to sue each other, but they have no right
        to edit Wikipedia.

        Sydney


from_name: Kelly Martin

subject: [WikiEN-l] Why was i blocked that's all i ask

body:
On 12/19/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/17/05, YamiTakashi2 at aol.com <YamiTakashi2 at aol.com> wrote:
> > What are you tlaking about? I just want to know why i was blocked stop
> > trying to go over my head with some good faith tlak please just give me a clear
> > answer.
> I'd love to answer, but unless you share your username and IP (which
> you can see if you read the message you get when you try to edit), I
> can't help you.

Editor is posting from AOL, so it was probably collateral damage.

Kelly


from_name: Keith Old

body:
We have a real problem with unsourced defamatory biographies.

This morning, while working on the Help desk, I responded to a letter from
Lucianne Goldberg, who wrote seeking a deletion or correction to what she
considered to be two highly offensive paragraphs in her biography. I looked
at the article and saw that there were severe problems with some of the
material in it.

I have edited the article and sourced it as well as replying to her
attaching a copy of the article as rewritten by me. I am awaiting her advice
as to the specific information that was of concern to her. Once I have the
specifics, I will advise further on the matter.

However, the matter that I believe likely to be of most concern was in the
original version of the article and has survived for nearly two months with
multiple edits. There were no sources provided for the allegation. Frankly,
this problem has the potential to be another big problem with Wikipedia.

We need to pay particular attention to the biographies of contemporary
biographies especially of controversial figures. In particular, we need to
ensure that our articles are scrupulous in citing sources. We need to give
instructions to recent changes patrollers to be on the lookout for
biographies making negative claims without proper sourcing.

Regards

Keith Old

Keith Old


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Wikitech-l] Namespace changes ready for code review

body:
Brion et al.,

I'm through my to-do list for the namespace changes. They reside in the
WIKIDATA branch.

a) Please review these changes and point out any remaining issues that
need to be addressed.

b) Which branch should these changes be merged into once fully reviewed?
HEAD or a separate release branch?

Best,

Erik

= The changes in a nutshell =

== Backend ==

- All namespace definitions are stored in the database (cached using
memcached if available). Namespaces are objects stored in a global
array, $wgNamespaces, and generally easier to deal with.
- Any namespace can have an arbitrary number of names. This includes the
canonical English name, the local translation, and synonyms.
- Every namespace has a default name to which all other names redirect.
- By default, "Image:" is now accessible through File:, Image:, Video:
and Sound:.
- Namespaces can have a default link prefix. Every unprefixed link in
those namespaces will be treated as if it was prefixed with it. Example:
In namespace [[Cookbook:Fish]], [[Pig]] could become [[Cookbook:Pig]].
The edit page in the namespace contains a notice to this effect.
- Namespaces can be hidden from most selection lists, to make managing a
site with hundreds of namespaces feasible.
- The relationship between namespaces and talk pages is no longer
hardcoded. Theoretically, we can relatively easily implement support for
multiple talk pages associated with a namespace, for example.

== Namespace manager ==

- All the attributes of namespaces which are changeable can be changed
through the namespace manager ([[Special:Namespaces]]).
- The namespace manager allows merging "pseudonamespaces" into real
ones. For example, Wikibooks uses a prefix "Cookbook:" for its Cookbook
pages; the namespace manager provides a facility for merging all pages
with this prefix, as well as the talk pages, into a real namespace.
- By default, users in the 'bureaucrat' group have the necessary rights.
We take some reasonable security precautions:
   - Deletions are not possible if a namespace contains pages.
   - System namespaces expected by MediaWiki can never be deleted.
   - Additions that would hide "pseudonamespaces" (hardcoded prefixes in
     page titles) or Interwiki links are not possible.
   - A separate permission exists for merging pseudonamespaces into
     non-empty real ones, since this action can be essentially
     irreversible.
   - It should not be possible to make changes which leave the database
     in an inconsistent or illogical state. No operation is performed
     unless all its parts can be completed.
- Namespace additions, deletions, conversions and changes are logged.
The logging of namespace changes could be improved, but should be
sufficient for now.

== Install and Upgrade process ==

- When installing MediaWiki for the first time, the namespace
definitions are loaded in the appropriate language.
- When upgrading MediaWiki using update.php, any existing custom
nanemspace definitions and settings (subpages etc.) should be imported.

== Page titles ==

- The page title is now passed to the skin in its components (action,
namespace, title, suffix) rather than as a single string. These can be
styled differently. In MonoBook, for example, the namespace component is
now smaller and in italics.
- This has resulted in some simplified interface messages.

== Future features ==

Some ideas for things that could be implemented:

- Read/write permissions associated with namespaces.
- Namespace icons that are rendered as part of the page tite.
- Complex namespace hierarchies.
- Default "preload" template for a namespace.
- Namespace view filters for users. This could make it feasible to use a
single installation to set up a wiki farm.
- And, of course, association of namespaces with Wikidata schemas. :-)


from_name: Jim

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia in the news - WSJ Article

body:
Here is a tiny url for the WSJ article which is in it's free features
section:
http://tinyurl.com/8dwbt

Excerpts:

*Wikipedia's Woes*
It's been a strange couple of weeks for
Wikipedia<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page>.
To say the least.
...
First the online, volunteer-created encyclopedia was blasted by a retired
newspaper editor who found a phony bio about himself in its listings. That
controversy soon became a furor in which Wikipedia's entire workings were
put on trial. While the debate was still going on, Wikipedia then got an
unexpected boost from a venerable science publication ...

At the heart of this is the fact that at a very basic level, Wikipedia
*is*out of control ... The important thing to note is that this
self-correcting
mechanism also depends on Wikipedia's being fundamentally out of control.
Whether you find that basic truth invigorating or frightening is something
of a Rorschach test for how you feel about the Internet as a whole.

Check out Wikipedia's entries on
deconstructionism<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstructionism>,
the history of records <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramophone_record>, or the
Replacements <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Replacements>, then consider
that those entries and some 868,000 others are the work of volunteers. I
find that impressive -- revolutionary, even. And if you follow those links
and find something you know is wrong, fix it.

As has been done with the entry for John
Seigenthaler<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr.>
.
--REAL TIME  By JASON FRY
--
Jim (trodel at gmail.com)


from_name: Phil Boswell

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Obstetrician needed for 7 new Wikipedias

body:
"Gerard Meijssen" <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>
wrote in message news:43A41BF4.2090608 at gmail.com...
> Domas Mituzas wrote:
>> > Therefore capitalisation is a sure method of preventing conflicts.
>> If our software does not take this capitalisation into account, it is our
>> code that is at fault.
>>
>> Was this... a... joke? :)
>>
>> Since when domain names are case sensitive?
>>
>> Domas
> Hoi,
> It is not a joke. When we use SIL codes and intermingle them with ISO-639
> codes, it is our responsibility that we ensure the right distinction. You
> cannot mix two standards and expect them to be correct blindly. It is our
> software that implements standards and consequently when yet another
> standard makes that we cannot do it implicitly we have to do it
> explicitly.

If someone else has already pointed this out, then sorry for duplicating the
effort, but I'm afraid the "joke" is on you.

You are suggesting that we distinguish between "SIL" and "ISO" codes for new
languages by using lowercase for the former and UPPERCASE for the latter.

These codes will be used to specify the sub-domains for the wikipedia
concerned (e.g. ISOCODE.wikipedia.org, silcode.wikipedia.org).

Brace yourself, here comes the "joke": domains are CaSe-InSeNsItIvE by
design, always have been, likely always will be.

Therefore EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG == en.wikipedia.org ==EN.wikipedia.ORG ==
En.WiKiPeDiA.oRg and so on for any combination you could ever make up.

This a fundamental part of the Internet and has been since inception.

Nothing we could ever do within the Mediawiki code could ever do anything
about it, explicitly or implicitly.

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


from_name: Jonathan Leybovich

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Namespace changes ready for code review

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
[snip]
>
> == Future features ==
>
> Some ideas for things that could be implemented:
>

Also, perhaps add a 'Review' flag for namespaces so that pages within it
are reviewable or not using Magnus's page review feature.  I think right
now it is hard-coded to only operate on the main ('0') namespace.


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Stan Shebs

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: [Wikitech-l] How's image undeletability going?

body:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:

>
>Your language shows the sort of disrespect common from those who are
>unconcerned about the legal status of our project.  There is no rabid
>frenzy to delete the image, rather, the deletions are going
>unacceptably slowly.
>
>
Just as a meta-comment, I think it's to be expected that people will
be unhappy; now that I've crunched through a bunch of old images, I
can see where there has been a lot of wishful thinking - "WP is a
good cause, and this photo is perfect for my article, ergo it must be
fair use". But all we need is for some professional sports photographer
to see a pile of his/her work gracing articles uncredited (and
unpaid-for), and we could have a Seigenthaler-type scandal on our hands.

So the process is going to be painful, and there will be mistakes, but
we'll be glad we did it sooner rather than later. People who have images
they care about can help out by going back to them and making sure they
are brought up to present-day standards. Also, commons is now big enough
that it frequently has good replacements; the "commoners" are steadily
discovering new ways to collect free-license images, and so many of the
old fair-use pics have no further value to us.

Stan


from_name: Jan Vanoverpelt

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Cannot change content of navigation bar because
	$wgUseDatabaseMessages=false

body:
Dear,

After installation of the Mediawiki-software, I changed the default
"English" language into Dutch by changing $wgLanguageCode in
localsettings.php AND by setting $wgUseDatabaseMessages=false in
defaultsettings.php (the latter had to be done in order to see the changes,
like is indicated in the Mediawiki-FAQ).

My problem is that because $wgUseDatabaseMessages=false, I cannot display
the page "special:allmessages" anymore, neither can I change the content of
the navigation bar. As a solution for this problem, the FAQ-answer proposes
to run the script rebuildMessages.php in the maintenance-folder. I did this
by running an FTP-program, selecting the remote file and pressing "execute"
but without any results.

Does anyone know how I can fix this problem so I am allowed to see the page
special:allmessages and change the content of the navigation bar while I
still have my wiki-site in the Dutch language?

thanks in advance!


from_name: JAY JG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Improper block redux

body:
>From: Brock Batsell <wikipedia at theskeptik.com>
>
>However, I do NOT feel that it was appropriate for a single administrator
>to block a user for four months (in fact, I couldn't find any justification
>for blocking for WP:PA unless it places another user in danger ? I think we
>can all agree that is not the case here). That type of block is, in my
>opinion, pretty clearly meant to only be handed down by the ArbCom. The
>WP:BP makes provisions for if a user's block is agreed to by consensus, but
>that is clearly not the case here, since Karmafist re-blocked Kurt even
>after he was unblocked by an admin uninvolved with the conflict.

[[Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption]]:

"Sysops may, at their judgement, block IP addresses or usernames that
disrupt the normal functioning of Wikipedia. Such disruption may include
changing other users' signed comments, making deliberately misleading edits,
and excessive personal attacks. Users should be warned before they are
blocked. For dynamic IPs, such blocks should last 24 hours. For static IPs
and user names, such blocks should initially last 24 hours, but repeat
violators may be blocked for a maximum of one month."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption

Jay.


from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: Defamatory Biographies - another problem
	loomingforWikipedia?

body:
Phil Boswell wrote:

>I was going to suggest that {{lifetime}} and/or {{lived}} could be modified
>so that the death date was optional, and lack thereof would put the article
>into [[Category:Living people]], but given the recent furore over
>conditional templates, maybe now is not the time...:-(
>
>Also, I note that these templates have been listed for instant Substitution,
>so the information wouldn't actually stick anyway :-(
>
>
What? Why, and where? The whole reason I use those templates instead of
just putting in categories is for their potential future mutability, for
_exactly_ the possibility you just mentioned.


from_name: charles matthews

subject: [WikiEN-l] Small keywords survey

body:
I have been searching the site with a few keywords, to get an idea on
unsourced and potentially libellous things.  For example, 'embezzled' gets
120 or so hits, with a small percentage of some concern.

Some findings:

Embezzler: [[Lawrence King]] was uncategorised, serious allegations not
sourced

Embezzled

-[[Mary Manin Morrissey]] - poor writing

-[[Miami-Dade County Public Schools]] - unsourced story

- [[Megatech]], [[Anwar Ibrahim]] unsourced about Indonesian corruption

-[[Jonathan Moyo]]

Nothing was ever proved: [[La Costa]] had a massive copyvio

Nothing was ever proven: [[Know Talent]]

Uncategorised:  [[Teamstergate]] had no category.

Charles


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

body:
Phil Boswell wrote:
> "Gerard Meijssen" <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>
> wrote in message news:43A41BF4.2090608 at gmail.com...
>
>> Domas Mituzas wrote:
>>
>>>> Therefore capitalisation is a sure method of preventing conflicts.
>>>>
>>> If our software does not take this capitalisation into account, it is our
>>> code that is at fault.
>>>
>>> Was this... a... joke? :)
>>>
>>> Since when domain names are case sensitive?
>>>
>>> Domas
>>>
>> Hoi,
>> It is not a joke. When we use SIL codes and intermingle them with ISO-639
>> codes, it is our responsibility that we ensure the right distinction. You
>> cannot mix two standards and expect them to be correct blindly. It is our
>> software that implements standards and consequently when yet another
>> standard makes that we cannot do it implicitly we have to do it
>> explicitly.
>>
>
> If someone else has already pointed this out, then sorry for duplicating the
> effort, but I'm afraid the "joke" is on you.
>
> You are suggesting that we distinguish between "SIL" and "ISO" codes for new
> languages by using lowercase for the former and UPPERCASE for the latter.
>
> These codes will be used to specify the sub-domains for the wikipedia
> concerned (e.g. ISOCODE.wikipedia.org, silcode.wikipedia.org).
>
> Brace yourself, here comes the "joke": domains are CaSe-InSeNsItIvE by
> design, always have been, likely always will be.
>
> Therefore EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG == en.wikipedia.org ==EN.wikipedia.ORG ==
> En.WiKiPeDiA.oRg and so on for any combination you could ever make up.
>
> This a fundamental part of the Internet and has been since inception.
>
> Nothing we could ever do within the Mediawiki code could ever do anything
> about it, explicitly or implicitly.
>
> HTH HAND
>
Hoi,
Actually you misunderstand me. When you mix standards and the difference
between those standards disappears because of restraints that YOU are
under, it means that what you do is not up to standard. Consequently it
cannot be said that we implement the ISO-639 codes. When we adopt the
ISO-639-3 codes we have the SIL information included. It is a custom to
keep the two character ISO-639-1 codes as well. This is in my opinion
the only way out of this mess. NB We have been using these codes already
for over a year in Wiktionary.

Yes I know. URL's are case insensitive. We can implement ISO-639-3 and
we should do this. NB there are even standard formats to indicate that a
certain script is used as there are ISO codes for those too (ISO 15924).

So we either adopt a standard and do it right or we should not say that
we adopt a standard. If you want an official statement as to the
stability of the ISO-639-3, I think that I can get you that.

Thanks,
    GerardM


from_name: Stephen Bain

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Stupid Mediawiki Tricks: logical templates

references:
<439A1430.5050100@thingy.apana.org.au> <dnk5ht$8e6$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<dnkdt4$8af$1@sea.gmane.org> <200512122140.11728@bloodgate.com>
	<dnl1fq$f60$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<f30e42de0512130040w38c1ff72v6832ceaa41b5efab@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On 12/13/05, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
> It might be a good idea to protect all of those templates to prevent
> horrible consequences in the event of vandalism. If the syntax is
> really stable, then there shouldn't be any problems with that.

I've now started a proposal to protect all these horrible templates at:
[[Wikipedia:High-risk templates]]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:High-risk_templates

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [WikiEN-l] And yet more fallout

body:
On 12/18/05, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
> Here's my list of people, companies, and organizations I know of that
> have raised some sort of complaint or objection regarding the
> articles about themselves, presented with no value judgments as to
> whether the complaints were justified and whether the actions taken
> by these parties in furtherance of the issues and the response by
> Wikipedians were reasonable.

IIRC, Jimmy and Angela belong in that list.


body:
> On 12/19/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/18/05, Keith Old <keithold at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > We need to pay particular attention to the biographies of contemporary
> > biographies especially of controversial figures.
>
>
> This is so head-poundingly obvious that I'm quite shocked that it's
> being described as "another problem looming for Wikipedia."  It's a
> constant problem for any information conduit, whether a magazine
> publisher, a corporate email system, or a radio station.
>
> What do you do?  You run a help desk, you take notice of complaints.
> If your operation has American users, you make sure nobody who thinks
> he has a first amendment right to keep on inserting unfounded nonsense
> into articles remains able to do so.
>
> Every publishing concern the size of Wikipedia has been sued.  Often.
>
> Raise a legal fund.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

Folks,

I think that the problem has been sorted out. Nevertheless, it could have
been a sizable problem for us.

Nevertheless, we have a responsibility to ensure that our processes are as
good as we can get them. Taking notice of complaints is not always
sufficient. Jimmy Wales took notice of the Siegenthaler matter as soon as he
became aware of it. Nevertheless, it didn't stop it from becoming a problem
for us in the media. While a legal fund is worthwhile, we don't want to
spend money on defending cases in court that could go towards buying more
servers.

We need mechanisms to pick up problem articles as soon as possible. Further,
we need to look at warning people about inserting defamatory material into
Wikipedia every time they edit.

Regards

*Keith Old*

Keith Old


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

body:
On 12/19/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>     http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-December/035512.html
>
> In the rabid frenzy to cleanse the image database, mistakes are made.
> How are we going on some way to recover from them?

At this point, the best solution is for people to tag things or delete
things to save the darn images. This requires no modification to the
mediawiki software, nor does it carry with it the naming or storage
implications of a full undeletion system... plus, it is available
right *now*.

Your language shows the sort of disrespect common from those who are
unconcerned about the legal status of our project.  There is no rabid
frenzy to delete the image, rather, the deletions are going
unacceptably slowly.

There have been multiple responsible users, who ensured the images
they deleted or tagged were unrecoverable, who have been chased away
from the image cleanup process by user overwhelmed with anger,
distrust, and disrespect.

As such I have no hesitation in saying that the unrecoverability of
the few incorrectly deleted images is entirely the fault of the people
who attack people for cleaning up images. Good job.


subject: [Wikitech-l] How's image undeletability going?


from_name: Mark Gallagher

subject: [WikiEN-l] Improve quality by reviewing all new articles

body:
G'day Rob,

> Interesting you should mention biology, as there are
> few things on the planet Earth I know less about than
> that.  But I'm sure most of us could, with a modest
> amount of effort, compose a plausible article in our
> own subject specialties that would pass a cursory new
> pages patrol check.

Golly, there's times --- usually after a couple of hours of RC patrol,
when the morale is wearing *really* thin --- when *any*
properly-wikified article gets the metaphorical New Page Stamp of
Approval(TM), simply because of the sheer relief of coming across an
edit that isn't utterly awful in every possible way.

<snip />

> But I honesty don't believe that you need any
> specialized knowledge of US history or the JFK
> assassination to spot a whopper like the one in the
> Seigenthaler article. This isn't an article carefully
> crafted by an expert to slip under the radar, it's a
> prank that a UPS guy tossed off on his coffee break.
> Are we really so easily fooled?  All that we need to
> spot things like that is a critical, skeptical eye.

One might say that it's an American thing.  But we've heard Americans
say they wouldn't notice it, too.  Seigenthaler isn't JFK, he's not Lee
Harvey Oswald, he's not Jack Ruby.  The vast majority of Americans have
never heard of Seigenthaler even now (and certainly hadn't heard of him
before the controversy); what hope has some random RC/cleanup patroller,
who could be of any age, or from any country?

I pride myself on my knowledge of American history (it beats your
knowledge of Australia, guaranteed), but there's no way in hell I'd have
found anything suspect in him being implicated in the JFK assassination.
   Thousands of alternative theories have been proposed, and how should
a university student from Australia know if the name of some obscure
American was or was not included amongst those theories?  How about
someone from Canada, the UK, Romania, France, New Zealand, South Africa,
Brasil, Russia ... ?  How --- *why* --- should we know?

If I were to say to you that George R. Viscome was for a time considered
a suspect in the murder of Salman ibn Hamad al-Khalifa, but that no
credible charges were laid and Mr Viscome's name was cleared, what would
you say?  Would you say "that's nonsense, Salman ibn Hamad al-Khalifa
wasn't assassinated!"?  Or "that's nonsense, Viscome has never been
suspected of any criminal activity in his life!"?  Could you say either
without doing research?  If you need to perform research before you know
you need to perform research, it's safe to say an error isn't obvious
enough for an RC patroller or article-cleaner-upper to notice.

Cheers,

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

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.1/206 - Release Date: 16/12/2005


from_name: SJ

subject: [Wikitech-l] wikitext markup specification

body:
On 12/19/05, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
> According to James Day, Brion and Tim are likely to be the best candidates
> because the information is partially stored in their heads (quote from
> [[en:template talk:qif]]):
> ::See mediawiki.org and the brains of Brion and Tim Starling. Note that
> changing what is at mediawiki.org without changing those brains would just
> result in inaccurate documentation. [[User:Jamesday|Jamesday]] 20:19, 18
> December 2005 (UTC)

James, brilliant quote... --SJ


body:
On 12/19/05, charles matthews <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> David Gerard wrote
>
> >And I see someone on the talk page already thinks this is a cue to abandon
> >NPOV.
>
> Which is what we don't do.  I agree generally with David: this page need
> not, should not put us on the defensive side of biography.  I also think the
> page should be shorter; it should not intimidate biographers by sheer volume
> of considerations.
>
> Charles

The re-emphasis of NPOV within the page should do the trick.  I agree
the page should be very short, and directed towards editors; info on
legal troubles should be on a separate legal page; advice on
biographical style should be on the biography part of the style giude
(but linked from here)...

--
++SJ


subject: [WikiEN-l] Parascience subst. pseudoscience

body:
G'day Ray,

> Karl A. Krueger wrote:
>> Yup.  See also [[euphemism treadmill]].  Creating a politically-correct
>> neologism won't change the situation:  People who are misleading the
>> public (by pretending to scientific research they aren't doing) don't
>> like having the fact pointed out.
>
> 20,000 Google hits is not a characteristic of a neologism.

So it's a euphemism, not necessarily a neologism.  A slight improvement;
like being rescued from the fire and dumped into the frying pan.

> The difference is that "parascience" assumes good faith;
> "pseudoscioence" does not.

Assume Good Faith is a community tool, not an explanation of how to
achieve NPOV.  Describing astrology, Intelligent Design[0], the healing
power of magnets[1], etc. as "pseudoscience" is entirely accurate.

Describing it as "alternative science" is adopting a label that
fraudsters and dupes (e.g. I've no doubt many astrologers really believe
they're telling the truth, which makes them more dupes than liars
themselves) would prefer, conjuring up as it does positive thoughts of
the spiritual knowledge of the Ancients of the Orient, as with
"alternative medicine".

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia.  Encyclopaedias are expected to tell the
truth, whether they do so in a neutral tone of voice or not.  It is not
POV to call a liar a liar; it is not NPOV to refuse to do so.  NPOV does
not oblige us to give all sides a fair hearing.  That's called
"journalistic balance", and it's an ethically bankrupt concept which
inevitably hands victory to the biggest liar.  We're obliged to be
truthful, and neutral; we're not obliged to be "balanced".  We should be
careful that, in our rush to give pseudoscience a fair hearing, we do
not start POV-pushing for them.

Someone, I think it was David Gerard, said recently that we won't get
into trouble if we lean too far towards what Jack Lynch calls "SPOV":
'tis better to be thought of as scientifically accurate than to be
considered a haven of confused POV-pushing liars.  If it was him, he's
exactly right.

[0] That is, the American extremist Christian fraud "Intelligent
     Design", not the concept of an intelligent designer

[1] By which I mean those who promise to send you a motivational VHS
     tape and a packet of fridge magnets for just $199.95 (+ $4.95 p&s)
     and if you pay NOW by credit card you'll get not one, not two, but
     FOUR free sets of steak knives ...

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

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.1/206 - Release Date: 16/12/2005


from_name: David Gerard

body:
SlimVirgin wrote:

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_on_living_persons_deserve_a_special_sensitivity
>It deals with the need to be respectful of subjects, which policies
>are particularly important, what they say, and what to do in the event
>of a legal threat. Any input would be appreciated, particularly from
>editors who are familiar with [[WP:NOR]] and [[WP:V]], who have worked
>a lot on biographies, who have legal backgrounds, members of the
>arbcom who have dealt with some of these issues recently in cases, and
>editors who themselves have Wikipedia entries and who know what it
>feels like to be the subject of a biography.

It reads too much like an attempt to invalidate Neutral Point Of View
and instead install Sympathetic Point Of View for living subjects.

If a fact or incident is notable and well documented, it belongs in
the article, whether the subject likes it or not. Look at the stupid
shit we've had people demanding we do to their articles since the
Seigenthaler controversy.

I've added explicit note of NPOV to the intro; let's see how long it lasts.

- d.


from_name: Brion Vibber

body:
Phil Boswell wrote:
> James Day has asked (here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Qif)
> for documentation on the interesting behaviour of the "Parameter Default"
> feature, the mainstay of operation for [[en:Template:qif]] which has
> recently caused so much stir.
>
> I have been able to locate [[m:Help:Parameter default]] but this seems to be
> an after-the-fact description of how the system behaves, rather than a
> before-the-fact specification, which seems to be what James is after.
>
> Does anybody know where such a beast might be hiding (possibly in plain
> sight :-) ?

Probably doesn't exist. If you hadn't noticed, our wikitext format doesn't have
a spec and things have generally gotten grafted on with little thought for
correctness or consistency.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20051219/99370664/attachment.pgp>


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

body:
On 12/17/05, YamiTakashi2 at aol.com <YamiTakashi2 at aol.com> wrote:
> What are you tlaking about? I just want to know why i was blocked stop
> trying to go over my head with some good faith tlak please just give me a clear
> answer.
I'd love to answer, but unless you share your username and IP (which
you can see if you read the message you get when you try to edit), I
can't help you.

Mgm


subject: [Wikitech-l] Request for a status of Regular User

body:
Fred Bauder wrote:
> Please consider my request at:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Developer_help_needed#Open_requests

Are you referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Semi-protection_policy ?

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20051219/76dba179/attachment.pgp>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Please Help

body:
G'day Jack,

> What I am worried about is defendants being punished based on having
> disagreed with the outcome of their cases. That is something I won't
> tolerate.

Indeed?  What do you propose to do about it?

Wikipedia is not the real world.  We are not building a model community
here; we're building (or trying to build) an encyclopaedia.  The
Arbitration Committee is not a real world court, and real world
procedures do not apply.  Also unlike the real world, there's nobody
waiting to swoop in and see that your "rights" aren't violated.

(By the way, do you think you could kinda try to stop top-posting?
That'd be, ahem, tops.  Thanks.)

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

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.1/206 - Release Date: 16/12/2005


subject: [WikiEN-l] more Kennedy assassination fun

body:
G'day Steve,

<snip />

> Deletionism is evil when it makes claims to being an
> editorial decision. Willy on Wheels could have done
> the same thing. The issue (for anyone who considers
> making any change to any artice) is: are you helping
> to develop it or are you claiming to be in an
> editorial position to simply scuttle it?

YAKWAICM5GBP.

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

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.1/206 - Release Date: 16/12/2005


subject: [WikiEN-l] Improper block redux

body:
On 12/19/05, Kurt Maxwell Weber <kmw at armory.com> wrote:
> karmafist has now re-blocked me, this time indefinitely.  He and David Gerard
> both base their actions on totally baseless assumptions about my psychology,
> motives, and intentions.

<snip all the ranting>

You don't seem to have been blocked indefinitely:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AKmweber

Unless your IP was blocked for trying to circumvent a block. If you
want to dispute the block then take it to the proper channels, don't
try to get around it.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Day 1 Fund Drive report

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:

> And my personal favorite:
> "I call you my husband's mistress because you get his attention much of the time..." by anonymous
> "^_^" by anonymous

Also my husband's favorite...
He is actually thinking of a "speech" at next wikimania, focusing on the
sociological impact of Wikipedia on families and in particular on spouse...


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
Please consider my request at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/
Developer_help_needed#Open_requests

Fred


from_name: slimvirgin at gmail.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Proposed policy on biographies: input sought

body:
On 12/19/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> That was it. Initiatives like this seem to think NPOV is optional
> rather than, say,  the Number One Policy On The Site.
>
I haven't looked at the proposal for a few hours so I don't know what
it currently says, but when I wrote it, I was aiming for "empathetic
point of view," not sympathetic. But I take your point about NPOV,
David. I tried to make it clear that NPOV applies to biographies as
much as to any other type of article.

But I'd like to add that it may be misleading to say that NPOV is the
number one policy on the site. And please don't everyone throw up your
hands in horror. The NPOV and NOR policies work together, but if one
of them has to be prioritized, I would argue that it's NOR. For
example, supposing a well-known nun and aid worker dies. All she had
ever done was help people in developing countries and we have
countless newspaper articles about that. Let's suppose we can't find a
single word of criticism about her, and let's further suppose she
worked independently and not for any of the usual aid agencies that
are often criticized.

Because lots of editors focus on the centrality of NPOV, they feel
they have to include a criticism from somewhere, anywhere, and you end
up with an article that reads like this: "Jane Doe (born 1938) was a
Roman Catholic nun and aid worker, described by the New York Times as
'the embodiment of Christ on earth.' The Roman Catholic church has
been heavily criticized for the willingness of its followers to
interfere in the affairs of the developing world, according to
Militant Magazine."

It may be a form of NPOV, but it's poor writing and a violation of
NOR, because it's putting together a synthesis of published material
in a novel way in order to build a case.

Based on examples like this, I argue that, although NPOV and NOR are
inseparable, when push comes to shove, NOR is actually prioritized. Or
perhaps more accurately, NPOV is interpreted in a way that prioritizes
NOR. We publish only what other reputable/credible publications have
published (NOR) and we try to reflect the same mix of positive and
negative published material (NPOV), but in so doing, we must be
careful to stick closely to the parameters of the subject matter (NOR)
and not attempt to build a case of our own (NOR).

Sarah


from_name: Keith Old

subject: [WikiEN-l] Defamatory biographies--a response

body:
On 12/19/05, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
>
> Going through some of the recent emails on WikiEN, I noticed an email
> discussing how to respond to a lawyer's letter to the help desk, asking
> that the
> biography of an actress (Maria Ford) be taken down because it contained
> inaccurate material. In the event that you receive such emails from
> lawyers  claiming
> to represent living individuals, I ask that you do NOT answer.
> Instead,  send
> them to the OTRS queue. Alternately, send the email to me at
> _danny at wikia.com_ (mailto:danny at wikia.com) . I will then be able to
> handle  it immediately or
> forward it to the appropriate people.
>
> Danny
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

Danny,

I have forwarded this to the help Desk so that others are aware of this.

I assume that the same applies to individuals contacting the help desk with
the same message.

Regards

*Keith Old*

Keith Old


subject: [WikiEN-l] Digital Universe

body:
First heard about it at
http://news.com.com/Wikipedia+alternative+aims+to+be+PBS+of+the+Web/2100-1038_3-5999200.html

Looks like it's going to be a collection of lots of works with varying
licenses, a good alternative to a collection of information from a
bunch of people who have no business writing an encyclopedia.

>From the FAQ: "Many of the Digital Universe activities, such as
Explore, Inform, and Contribute will be free to the public. Premium
services may be offered in the future to access content with protected
intellectual property."

On 12/19/05, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/19/sanger_onlinepedia_with_experts/
>
> Anyone know any more about this?
>
> No mention of licensing terms I see on www.digitaluniverse.net
>
> Justinc
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] A newbie on article prefill templating

body:
me: "I have put forward the idea of a prefilled article template for
new articles, instead of an empty edit box - show newbies what we
expect from an article. Thoughts?"

Malkin: "Actually, I think that's a great idea. It took a lot of work
to figure out what needed to be there - jumping around to figure out
how to add categories and sources, and that's with a fair amount of
familiarity with what it should look like in the first place. A
template would've been much easier to start from than an empty box."

Look at User:Malkin's edits and you'll see how she slowly constructed
the article. Prefill would have been just the thing to lead this
newbie the right way. She did OK anyway, but it would have helped
greatly and made the blank edit box a lot less intimidating.

- d.


body:
Fred Bauder wrote:
> Not really, but I think a lot of us are casting about for some
> alternatives. I am looking at it as a possible arbitration committee
> remedy.

In that case I have no idea what you're talking about.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20051219/5969f628/attachment.pgp>


body:
    http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-December/035512.html

In the rabid frenzy to cleanse the image database, mistakes are made.
How are we going on some way to recover from them?

- d.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Skins for deletion: Amethyst

body:
If there's no objection, I'm going to remove the Amethyst skin from the default
set. It's very buggy, and also, um, kinda ugly IMHO. :)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20051219/810f4f4e/attachment.asc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20051219/810f4f4e/attachment.pgp>


body:
Not really, but I think a lot of us are casting about for some
alternatives. I am looking at it as a possible arbitration committee
remedy. I like the coding even if semi-protection is rejected as a
policy. We have certain situations we can't solve in a reasonable
way. Making the editing by administrators only is way too
restrictive, leaving it open to the unlimited unblockable sockpuppets
some folks are willing to employ is just nonsense when there is a
history of months of senseless edit warring.

Fred

On Dec 19, 2005, at 1:20 PM, Brion Vibber wrote:

> Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>> Please consider my request at:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/
>> Developer_help_needed#Open_requests
>>
>
> Are you referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Semi-
> protection_policy ?
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


from_name: Andrew Gray

subject: [WikiEN-l] Properly-licensed images deleted without warning?

body:
On 19/12/05, wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com <wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com> wrote:

> These were all my original artwork. Image deletion being what it is, I
> apparently have no way to review the edit history, but my possibly
> faulty recollection is that they were all uploaded using what was the
> proper licensing language at the time; that is, I _believe_ that they
> all said "Copyright (c)1998 by Daniel P. B. Smith and released under the
> terms of the Wikipedia license."

You can review the edit history, but it's a little contrived. Go to
answers.com and find the page; load those images; follow the Wikipedia
link, and you'll be able to read the deleted revisions of the image
description, at least if you're an admin. (The "upload this file"
thing at Wikipedia makes getting this option tricky)

All seem to have been tagged "For a forthcoming article on eyeglass
prescriptions". The only one to have a copyright description as above
(well, 2004 not 1998) was also tagged {{GFDL}}, and is still there.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] WP in the FT

body:
Becoming routine, I know. Wikipedia article on the front page of today's
Financial Times (content same old same old), and op-ed piece by Michael Earl
of Templeton College.

Charles


subject: [WikiEN-l] Improper block redux

body:
G'day Stephen,

> On 12/19/05, Kurt Maxwell Weber <kmw at armory.com> wrote:
>
>> karmafist has now re-blocked me, this time indefinitely.  He and
>> David Gerard both base their actions on totally baseless
>> assumptions about my psychology, motives, and intentions.
>
> <snip all the ranting>
>
> You don't seem to have been blocked indefinitely:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AKmweber
>
> Unless your IP was blocked for trying to circumvent a block. If you
> want to dispute the block then take it to the proper channels, don't
> try to get around it.

Difficult as it is to defend Kurt, I was under the impression that this
*was* one of the proper channels.

Don't we tell people, if you can't get a different admin to unblock you
probably deserve to be blocked?  Seems a bit unfair to then say to a
blocked user that he shouldn't have come to a list he knows
admins-other-than-the-blocker read and ask to be unblocked.

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

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.1/206 - Release Date: 16/12/2005


from_name: Mathias Schindler

subject: [WikiEN-l] Weird survey about wikipedia

body:
Hi,

 a German magazine editor recently ranted a little bit about wikipedia
(on the occasion of the Nature publication).
(http://www.spektrumdirekt.de/artikel/796177&template=d_nd_y)

However, there is some kind of "survey" online:

http://www.umfragendienst.de/form/wikipedia

Feel free to answer these totally unbiased questions :)

Mathias

1. How often do you use wikipedia?
- never
- less then once a month
- 2-3 times a month
- 2-3 times a week
-daily

2. Have you ever created or edited articles on wikipedia?

- no
- once
- 2-10 times
- 10-50 times
- more often

3. Did you ever find an error in an wikipedia article?

- no
- yes, once
- more often
- very often

4. If the answer on 3. is yes, did you correct the mistake? [note:
yes, it is a singular here]

- yes
- no, because I did not now how to do it
- no, because I was not sure wheter I knew it better
- no, because I did not have any time or interest in it

5. Rate the following statements (left= I totally agree  / right= I
totally disagree)

- "Wikipedia has the same quality like an encyclopedia that is managed
by a staff"
- "Wikipedia is a grassroots form of spreading Knowledge"
- "Wikipedia will be able to remain backed up by donations and will be
free from ads"
- "Wikipedia is providing enough protection for rights of persons and
copyrights"
- "Anomity and lack of responsibility are a problem of wikipedia"


body:
I looked at partial protection. It is the same thing although I had
not been aware of it. I want the coding so we can use it as a
possible arbitration committee remedy. I haven't thought through the
proposed policy and don't know if it is a good idea or not, but the
arbitration committee needs it.

Fred

On Dec 19, 2005, at 2:28 PM, Brion Vibber wrote:

> Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>> Not really, but I think a lot of us are casting about for some
>> alternatives. I am looking at it as a possible arbitration committee
>> remedy.
>>
>
> In that case I have no idea what you're talking about.
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] Proposed policy on biographies: input sought

body:
On 12/19/05, slimvirgin at gmail.com <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [[User:WAS 4.250]] and I have been working on a proposed policy
> regarding Wikipedia biographies at [[Wikipedia:Biographies on living
> persons deserve a special sensitivity]]
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_on_living_persons_deserve_a_special_sensitivity
>
> It deals with the need to be respectful of subjects, which policies
> are particularly important, what they say, and what to do in the event
> of a legal threat. Any input would be appreciated, particularly from
> editors who are familiar with [[WP:NOR]] and [[WP:V]], who have worked
> a lot on biographies, who have legal backgrounds, members of the
> arbcom who have dealt with some of these issues recently in cases, and
> editors who themselves have Wikipedia entries and who know what it
> feels like to be the subject of a biography.
>
> Sarah
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

Sarah,

Thank you for this work. It sums up my views perfectly.

Just one suggestion which I will make on the talk page is in relation to
impacts on third people and reliability of biographers such as Kitty Kelly
who make allegations in juicy salacious books that are not supported by more
respectable works.

Our articles should aim to inform not to titillate. Inclusion of material
that is meant for salacious value rather than encyclopedic value should be
strongly discouraged.

Regards

*Keith Old*

Keith Old
User:Capitalistroadster


subject:
[WikiEN-l] I just did another interview - Dublin NewsRadio 106,
	2:20pm.

body:
Done at forty minutes' notice, courtesy of an email from Danny - sorry
I didn't have time to let Irish readers of wikien-l know. I did the
interview on my mobile in a stairwell, so it probably sounded like
sh*te ...

* Started with what we want to produce; I talked about the de: DVD, in
its 3rd edition, and how we want to do that with en:.
* Then issues of bios, defamation and Seigenthaler; I said that we
catch errors when we spot them, but we've lately been working on
actively fact-checking biographies of living people.
* We can't keep a certain noise level of rubbish out, but we have lots
of people who want to do good.
* They crossed to Michael Earl who wrote the FT piece. He said how
he'd edited the piece on his college to fix an error.
* I said we want to put an encyclopedia in every schoolroom in Africa,
paper or DVD, maybe on $100 laptops.
* I finished that we're not a finished product but pretty good if you
read critically.

It seemed to go nicely. I acknowledged a weakness, that we had stuff
to fix on living people's bios, the rest was a big ad for Wikipedia.

And apparently I'm the UK Editor of Wikipedia. I didn't know I made
*that* many edits ...

I'm now really hoping someone captured the audio stream, or that it's
retrievable at a later date!

 -d.


body:
But yes they seem to have agreed on semi-protection on that page.
Please implement that coding. We will use it in a different way, but
the coding is the same.

Fred

On Dec 19, 2005, at 2:28 PM, Brion Vibber wrote:

> Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>> Not really, but I think a lot of us are casting about for some
>> alternatives. I am looking at it as a possible arbitration committee
>> remedy.
>>
>
> In that case I have no idea what you're talking about.
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


list: foundation-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Donations: anonymous. vs. real name

body:
kmf164 wrote:
> Is there a way to make a donation, under my Wikipedia user name?  Using
> Paypal, it only gives the option of making an anonymous donation or using my
> real name.  I would like to make a donation, but definitely not under my
> real name.  I rather make an anonymous donation then nothing.  But, would
> greatly prefer to attribute my donation to my wikipedia name,
> Kmf164<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kmf164>.
> Is it feasible to add this third option for donations through Paypal?

There is a comment field, which is public; they're listed at the daily
fundraising progress reports at http://fundraising.wikimedia.org/2005q4/

If you like you could put your username in there and mark it as anonymous to
hide your real name from the public lists.

> Aside from my personal preference, I think donations to Wikimedia would
> increase if they were noted somewhere, along with users' edit histories and
> contributions.  Wikipedia, (as with open source software, in general), is
> based on a "gift economy" (in both time and treasure).  People give of their
> time and knowledge; in exchange they get credit in their edit history and
> elsewhere associated with their username.  Monetary contributions are yet
> another way for people to support the project, who might not have as much
> time to contribute.
>
> I think it is important for Wikipedia to also tie financial donations to
> usernames, so that Wikipedians are recognized for those contributions, as
> well as those of time and knowledge.

On the other hand we really don't want to have people going around saying "I
donated a bajillion dollars, therefore my version of this article should be kept
instead of yours". :)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20051219/d59578d4/attachment.pgp


body:
kmf164 wrote:
> Is there a way to make a donation, under my Wikipedia user name?  Using
> Paypal, it only gives the option of making an anonymous donation or using my
> real name.  I would like to make a donation, but definitely not under my
> real name.  I rather make an anonymous donation then nothing.  But, would
> greatly prefer to attribute my donation to my wikipedia name,
> Kmf164<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kmf164>.
> Is it feasible to add this third option for donations through Paypal?

There is a comment field, which is public; they're listed at the daily
fundraising progress reports at http://fundraising.wikimedia.org/2005q4/

If you like you could put your username in there and mark it as anonymous to
hide your real name from the public lists.

> Aside from my personal preference, I think donations to Wikimedia would
> increase if they were noted somewhere, along with users' edit histories and
> contributions.  Wikipedia, (as with open source software, in general), is
> based on a "gift economy" (in both time and treasure).  People give of their
> time and knowledge; in exchange they get credit in their edit history and
> elsewhere associated with their username.  Monetary contributions are yet
> another way for people to support the project, who might not have as much
> time to contribute.
>
> I think it is important for Wikipedia to also tie financial donations to
> usernames, so that Wikipedians are recognized for those contributions, as
> well as those of time and knowledge.

On the other hand we really don't want to have people going around saying "I
donated a bajillion dollars, therefore my version of this article should be kept
instead of yours". :)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20051219/d59578d4/attachment-0001.pgp


list: wikimedia-l

body:
kmf164 wrote:
> Is there a way to make a donation, under my Wikipedia user name?  Using
> Paypal, it only gives the option of making an anonymous donation or using my
> real name.  I would like to make a donation, but definitely not under my
> real name.  I rather make an anonymous donation then nothing.  But, would
> greatly prefer to attribute my donation to my wikipedia name,
> Kmf164<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kmf164>.
> Is it feasible to add this third option for donations through Paypal?

There is a comment field, which is public; they're listed at the daily
fundraising progress reports at http://fundraising.wikimedia.org/2005q4/

If you like you could put your username in there and mark it as anonymous to
hide your real name from the public lists.

> Aside from my personal preference, I think donations to Wikimedia would
> increase if they were noted somewhere, along with users' edit histories and
> contributions.  Wikipedia, (as with open source software, in general), is
> based on a "gift economy" (in both time and treasure).  People give of their
> time and knowledge; in exchange they get credit in their edit history and
> elsewhere associated with their username.  Monetary contributions are yet
> another way for people to support the project, who might not have as much
> time to contribute.
>
> I think it is important for Wikipedia to also tie financial donations to
> usernames, so that Wikipedians are recognized for those contributions, as
> well as those of time and knowledge.

On the other hand we really don't want to have people going around saying "I
donated a bajillion dollars, therefore my version of this article should be kept
instead of yours". :)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20051219/d59578d4/attachment.pgp>


body:
kmf164 wrote:
> Is there a way to make a donation, under my Wikipedia user name?  Using
> Paypal, it only gives the option of making an anonymous donation or using my
> real name.  I would like to make a donation, but definitely not under my
> real name.  I rather make an anonymous donation then nothing.  But, would
> greatly prefer to attribute my donation to my wikipedia name,
> Kmf164<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kmf164>.
> Is it feasible to add this third option for donations through Paypal?

There is a comment field, which is public; they're listed at the daily
fundraising progress reports at http://fundraising.wikimedia.org/2005q4/

If you like you could put your username in there and mark it as anonymous to
hide your real name from the public lists.

> Aside from my personal preference, I think donations to Wikimedia would
> increase if they were noted somewhere, along with users' edit histories and
> contributions.  Wikipedia, (as with open source software, in general), is
> based on a "gift economy" (in both time and treasure).  People give of their
> time and knowledge; in exchange they get credit in their edit history and
> elsewhere associated with their username.  Monetary contributions are yet
> another way for people to support the project, who might not have as much
> time to contribute.
>
> I think it is important for Wikipedia to also tie financial donations to
> usernames, so that Wikipedians are recognized for those contributions, as
> well as those of time and knowledge.

On the other hand we really don't want to have people going around saying "I
donated a bajillion dollars, therefore my version of this article should be kept
instead of yours". :)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20051219/d59578d4/attachment-0001.pgp>


subject: [WikiEN-l] WP in the FT

body:
>Becoming routine, I know. Wikipedia article on the front page of today's
>Financial Times (content same old same old), and op-ed piece by Michael Earl
>of Templeton College.

    http://news.ft.com/cms/s/3d31eddc-6ff8-11da-a1f7-0000779e2340.html

The two paras on the web (I should grab the paper) look like he's
opining off the top of his head. But he did say in the radio interview
he'd fixed an error in the article on Templeton College. You can read
the whole thing from the search page:

http://search.ft.com/search/totalSearch_Form.html?vsc_appId=ts&symb=&ftsite=FTCOM&searchtype=equity&vsc_query=wikipedia&x=0&y=0&searchOption=news

    http://news.ft.com/cms/s/7b55e078-7034-11da-a1f7-0000779e2340.html

- this front page article is subscribers only.

- d.


body:
Right.

Fred

On Dec 19, 2005, at 2:51 PM, Stephen Bain wrote:

> On 12/20/05, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> Fred Bauder wrote:
>>
>>> Not really, but I think a lot of us are casting about for some
>>> alternatives. I am looking at it as a possible arbitration committee
>>> remedy.
>>>
>>
>> In that case I have no idea what you're talking about.
>>
>
> I think what he means is creating a new user group (maybe called
> "trusted" or something) which has privileges to edit some articles
> which have been protected. There would also need to be more levels of
> protection, so admin-only, admin-and-trusted, unprotected. Is this
> what you mean?
>
> --
> Stephen Bain
> stephen.bain at gmail.com
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] The noble Heliobacter Pylori

body:
On "Noble minds", a BBC/SVT program, they had a roundtable of 2005
nobel laureates last week; Medicine prize-winner Barry Marshall
mentioned the Wikipedia article about his  discovery (heliobacter
pylori) and said even [he and fellow Nobelist Robin Warren] couldn't
write a better article.

And, well.... there's no good way to describe the Helicobacter
Foundation site.  It's the strangest I've seen in a while:
http://www.helico.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicobacter_pylori
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Helicobacter_pylori#Barry_Marshall_on_this_page
http://nobelprize.org/nobel/nobel-foundation/press/2005/2005_english.pdf

++SJ


subject: [Wikipedia-l] The noble Heliobacter Pylori


body:
Steve Bennett wrote:

>> And apparently I'm the UK Editor of Wikipedia. I didn't know I made
>> *that* many edits ...

>Only the UK Editor? Pfft, I'm a global editor.

As opposed, of course, to our many lunar editors.

- d.


from_name: Phil Boswell

body:
James Day has asked (here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Qif)
for documentation on the interesting behaviour of the "Parameter Default"
feature, the mainstay of operation for [[en:Template:qif]] which has
recently caused so much stir.

I have been able to locate [[m:Help:Parameter default]] but this seems to be
an after-the-fact description of how the system behaves, rather than a
before-the-fact specification, which seems to be what James is after.

Does anybody know where such a beast might be hiding (possibly in plain
sight :-) ?

According to James Day, Brion and Tim are likely to be the best candidates
because the information is partially stored in their heads (quote from
[[en:template talk:qif]]):
::See mediawiki.org and the brains of Brion and Tim Starling. Note that
changing what is at mediawiki.org without changing those brains would just
result in inaccurate documentation. [[User:Jamesday|Jamesday]] 20:19, 18
December 2005 (UTC)

I have tried to search at mediawiki.org, but I always seem to end up at the
meta page I refer to above.

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


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] And yet more fallout

body:
> Nevertheless, if any fact is wrong, we should certainly fix it.  But
> demanding that all references to the person be removed is not
> something this lawyer has any business doing.

We should always fix any fact we find to be wrong. Is there any reason
to prioritise such requests when made by lawyers, other than as a bit of
nice PR?

Steve


body:
I wrote:
>SlimVirgin wrote:

>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_on_living_persons_deserve_a_special_sensitivity
>>It deals with the need to be respectful of subjects, which policies

>It reads too much like an attempt to invalidate Neutral Point Of View
>and instead install Sympathetic Point Of View for living subjects.

And I see someone on the talk page already thinks this is a cue to abandon NPOV.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: [Fwd: Getting Unblocked at Wikipedia]

body:
This seems to be a general problem re: internal TOR nodes; can we set
up a policy specifically addressing this case?

On 12/17/05, Brian C <brianwc at ocf.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Jimmy Wales wrote:
> > Brian, I'm forwarding your email to the wikien-l group, and someone will
> > be able to help you promptly.
>
> Charles tried to assist me nearly a month ago. Still didn't work. Here's
> our latest correspondence. If someone who has "a bit more technical
> savvy" as Charles puts it, would contact me privately, I'll send along
> the problem IP.
>
>  > I am still blocked from editing from this IP, even if I log in.
> However, when I search for my IP in the block list, I cannot find it.
>  >
>  > Brian
>
> That is correct - the IP number should not be blocked.
>
> You really need to talk to some admin who has a bit more technical savvy
> about this.
>
> Charles
>
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Getting Unblocked at Wikipedia
> > Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 14:22:09 -0800
> > From: Brian C <brianwc at ocf.berkeley.edu>
> > Reply-To: or-talk at freehaven.net
> > To: or-talk at freehaven.net
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I like to occasionally contribute to the Wikipedia. I also run a tor
> > server. I do not want a Wikipedia username, and so I always just
> > contribute anonymously.
> >
> > During the recent fracas about tor and Wikipedia, my static IP address
> > from which I run my tor server was blocked for an "infinite" time
> > period. I have since decided that until I get more than one static IP, I
> > will only run my tor server in "middle-man" mode, so it is not presently
> > possible that defacement of Wikipedia (or Slashdot, or the Gentoo
> > Forums, etc.) is exiting from my IP address.
> >
> > I was able to email Slashdot and can login there again, and I don't
> > presently contribute to the Gentoo Forums often enough to worry about
> > it. However, I am finding it impossible to correct the Wikipedia block,
> > because without a username the only way to contact an admin is to edit
> > their "talk" page, but I am forbidden from editing any page because of
> > the block. A vicious cycle.
> >
> > Does anyone have any experience with this such that they could direct me
> > to an actual email address of a Wikipedia admin who could remove the
> > block or otherwise advise me on how to proceed? Thanks.
> >
> > Brian
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
++SJ


subject:
[WikiEN-l] I just did another interview - Dublin NewsRadio
	106,2:20pm.

body:
> And apparently I'm the UK Editor of Wikipedia. I didn't know I made
> *that* many edits ...

Only the UK Editor? Pfft, I'm a global editor.

:)

Steve


from_name: Brock Batsell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Improper block redux

body:
JAY JG wrote:

> [[Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption]]:
>
> "Sysops may, at their judgement, block IP addresses or usernames that
> disrupt the normal functioning of Wikipedia. Such disruption may
> include changing other users' signed comments, making deliberately
> misleading edits, and excessive personal attacks. Users should be
> warned before they are blocked. For dynamic IPs, such blocks should
> last 24 hours. For static IPs and user names, such blocks should
> initially last 24 hours, but repeat violators may be blocked for a
> maximum of one month."
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption
>
> Jay.

Indeed.  I realize that that policy is there, but in my opinion, this
was not a case of 'excessive personal attacks'; in fact, the attacks
were far from personal considering they were form letters.  This was a
case of abusing WP:POINT.  I'm most certainly not arguing against a
block, one is necessary.  A block of 4 months, however, is clearly out
of line and against policy.

Regards,
[[User:Bbatsell]]


from_name: charles matthews

body:
David Gerard wrote

>And I see someone on the talk page already thinks this is a cue to abandon
>NPOV.

Which is what we don't do.  I agree generally with David: this page need
not, should not put us on the defensive side of biography.  I also think the
page should be shorter; it should not intimidate biographers by sheer volume
of considerations.

Charles


body:
"David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote in
message news:fbad4e140512190755y2b5766e3heb00ce715a733fd3 at mail.gmail.com...
> I wrote:
> >SlimVirgin wrote:
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_on_living_persons_deserve_a_special_sensitivity
> >>It deals with the need to be respectful of subjects, which policies
> >It reads too much like an attempt to invalidate Neutral Point Of View
> >and instead install Sympathetic Point Of View for living subjects.
> And I see someone on the talk page already thinks this is a cue to abandon
> NPOV.

If that's a reference to my comment, I'm not advocating any such thing. I
merely want to make sure that the risks of harming an innocent third party
should be carefully considered.

OTOH, if it's the section further down commenced by [[en:user:Stevage]],
then I take your point: ".placating potentially injured parties, even if
that involves a minor violation of NPOV" is a slippery slope we should not
be allowing anywhere near us. If it's been published in a newspaper, then
the facts themselves are fair game, even if the subject is not: I would have
thought that a biography stating "X was the subject of a malicious
allegation of misbehaviour in Y newspaper which turned out to be fabricatory
cobblers" might actually be doing the subject a favour...neutrally of course
:-).

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


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: Defamatory Biographies - another problem
	loomingforWikipedia?

body:
"Andrew Gray" <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote in
message news:f3fedb0d0512181443q5805d6fdq at mail.gmail.com...
> On 18/12/05, Steve Bennett
> <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> >   Do we have a foolproof way of iterating over all biographies of living
> > people? If not, is it time we introduced a flag, or even just a category
> > "Living person", to do so?
> For all bios with categories, then if it's in [[Category:xxxx births]]
> where xxxx is greater than 1890, but not in any [[Category:yyyy
> deaths]], they're either alive or need updated.

I was going to suggest that {{lifetime}} and/or {{lived}} could be modified
so that the death date was optional, and lack thereof would put the article
into [[Category:Living people]], but given the recent furore over
conditional templates, maybe now is not the time...:-(

Also, I note that these templates have been listed for instant Substitution,
so the information wouldn't actually stick anyway :-(
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]