from_name: Platonides

subject: [Wikitech-l] multiple wikis, single MediaWiki file tree

body:
I'd probably set one starting file for  radioscanningtw.jidanni.org and
another for taizhongbus.jidanni.org, containing its respective
LocalSettings code:

define( 'MEDIAWIKI', true );
require_once( 'mediawiki/StartProfiler.php' );
require_once( 'mediawiki/includes/Defines.php' );

<Your LocalSettings content>

require_once( 'mediawiki/includes/OutputHandler.php' );
ob_start( 'wfOutputHandler' );

require_once( 'mediawiki/index.php');

Commenting from index.php require_once( './includes/WebStart.php' ); and
adding to the top of the per-server file, the bunch of checkings
includes/WebStart does.
Our devs opinion will be more useful, as i'm sure the apaches doesn't
have a mediawiki copy per wikipedia ;)

> default:
>    $wgDBserver="mysql.$wgServerName";
> So what do you think? Asking for trouble? Will be sorry later? Heading
> for a fall?

I suppose you know what will be happening if someone finds a way to
overwrite your $wgServer variable...


list: wikitech-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Virgil Ierubino

subject: [Wikitech-l] AJAX and .aspx as technologies for MediaWiki?

body:
On 06/03/07, Platonides <Platonides at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If you want to do something at least as good as the current engine, you
> will need to understand how it works. To understand it you will need to
> understand PHP. When you finish doing it, you will be able to write php
> code too, so you won't need to stuck with aspx ;)

Actually I do understand PHP, I just wondered whether .aspx was okay as it
seemed to be easier to write in (when using Visual Web Developer).


list: wikien-l

from_name: David Gerard

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Is editing for payment a fundamentally problematic
	conflict of interests?

body:
http://www.comics.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert-20070222.html

(spotted by Anthere)

- d.


from_name: xaosflux

subject: [WikiEN-l] Rename admins to janitors

body:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ray Saintonge" <saintonge at telus.net>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 6:07 PM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Rename admins to janitors

> MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
>>
> The name change process should not be a problem, as it would happen
> gradually.  Admins did used to be called sysops, and that term has not
> completely died out.  Applying to be a jamitor could be renamed "Request
> for Brooms".

I'd be fine with renaming it back to sysop if it would help specify that it
is more of a technical role then a management one.
X


body:
On 06/03/07, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What I don't see here is much evidence of you actually voicing said
> opinion. You've basically, in this thread, implied that a complete
> rewrite would be needed. You haven't begun to put forward what's wrong
> with MediaWiki, nor have you put forward any areas for improvement.
> Just that "it's bad, and we need a big rewrite".

No I haven't put forward the ideas yet because this thread was intended
merely to ask about what technologies were suitable. I'm scaling my
suggestions and ideas to the answers.

> As I stated in a previous post on this thread, a large-scale rewrite
> is a bad way to approach many of these problems. The model we have
> now, where new features are developed and continuously integrated,
> works best with our peculiar arrangement - MediaWiki is an open source
> project, but unlike many, doesn't exist to provide a product for
> mass-use.
>
> Why can such improvements not be integrated? Why discard the enormous
> investment that so many people have already put into the software?

Well said. Any "rewrites" would obviously have begun with the original
MediaWiki, changed bits here and there - both core and trivial bits - and
added lots. But as a few others on the thread have pointed out, in genuinely
creating an engine with features that are a superset of the current
MediaWiki, you'd basically be adding onto the current code anyway. The end
result would be the same as if it had been done with incremental
integration. So I guess major rewrites are silly after all - I just have
lots of ideas for additions and changes, then.

The reason I suggested a rewrite was that I've heard over and over how the
code is terribly difficult and messy, and is a bit dodgy. For instance, the
parser (I'm told) is a set of regular expressions, and whilst this works it
does not make it easy to add to the syntax, change syntaxes, can be buggy,
etc etc. It would be good if the parser worked by generating a genuine DOM
tree for the document, and then translating that into the output. This is
just one example of where (I've heard that) a core part of the software
needs major reworking.

Another reason for a rewrite (of some core parts) is that MediaWiki was
written when Wikipedia first began, but the uses and functions of Wikipedia
- and other projects - today, were very much unforeseen back then, so the
software wasn't streamlined for those functions. It seems we keep having to
work around the software to achieve simple things in a difficult way - e.g.
voting/commenting pages on Wikipedia (Featured Article Candidates, for
instance), which are a very simple idea, become difficult for new users to
understand and contribute to. If these were streamlined directly from the
core code, (add your comment/vote forms, etc), this commonplace function
would work much better.


body:
On 06/03/07, Ivan Krsti? <krstic at solarsail.hcs.harvard.edu> wrote:

> You understand ".aspx" is a file extension, not a language, and that it
> undermines your credibility to keep talking about writing something in it?

 I don't think I actually mentioned writing this myself did I?

Yes I understand that, but I wasn't actually sure what to call the language.
ASP .NET? Like I say, I've never claimed to be a whizz on the coding. I have
a basic understanding of how the technologies all work and what they can do,
so I'm working off that to make more sensible suggestions... when I do.


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: GerardM

subject: [Wikipedia-l]Hidden tragedy: requests in limbo (dezas sekrè: demand nan okenn kote)

body:
Hoi,
The language committee is about languages. When a language is proposed for
the first time, we have certain requirements. I do not care at all what
project is proposed as the first project for a language. From my pov that a
Wikipedia is asked for most often is incidental.

You expect that there is a precise definition of what is required. It is not
clear to me why this is a good thing. What we are looking for in a project
is that it is a good start for a new language and that it is inviting for
new people to join. The localisation of the UI is part of that. Some really
well written articles are part of that. They are needed so that an expert of
such a language can assess if it is indeed that language. When the language
is a dead or artificial language, the requirements will be even higher.

There is no precise determination and that is imho a good thing; there is
this commission that has been asked to decide on these issues. When need be
we will ask specialists to assess the language used. We will take our time
and this is also dependent on the cooperation we get in doing our job.

Thanks,
    GerardM

On 3/6/07, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I don't see the line in the new policy adopted by the langcom that
> says "Anyone with a proposal for a new Wikipedia should read
> wikipedia-l", nor do I see the line that enumerates the policy you
> have just stated to me about having complete interface translations.
>
> If you are going to have a policy or expectation, you cannot expect
> people to guess it, it needs to be enumerated in the policy document.
>
> I originally subscribed to this list because I was told that zh-tw was
> being discussed here; but this was only after I asked where the
> decisions were being made. This mailing list may be public, but it is
> not as if it is advertised on the main Wikipedia portal. And even
> people who are subscribed to this ML are unlikely to read every post.
>
> Mark
>
> On 05/03/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > No,
> > But I can expect them to read the mailing list.
> > Thanks,
> >     GerardM
> >
> > On 3/5/07, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I take it, then, that you have informed these people of the reason
> > > their requests are not approved yet?
> > >
> > > We can't expect them to be telepathic, after all.
> > >
> > > Mark
> > >
> > > On 05/03/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > I will be happy to see that you are right once the message files
> exist.
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >     GerardM
> > > >
> > > > On 3/5/07, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not protesting it, I am simply saying that obviously nobody is
> > > > > aware of this requirement.
> > > > >
> > > > > The people who are working on these projects are very dedicated,
> if
> > > > > they knew that this requirement existed, you can be sure that it
> would
> > > > > be fixed right away.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mark
> > > > >
> > > > > On 05/03/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Hoi,
> > > > > > We are now at the stage where we have a policy. We are not
> > > interested in
> > > > > > talking the proposal to death. We are first going to see how it
> > > > > functions.
> > > > > > When we find that it does not work, we will tweak things
> carefully.
> > > The
> > > > > lack
> > > > > > of having message files for all languages is one of the major
> > > > > shortcomings
> > > > > > in the current localisation procedures.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You may think of it as a technicality or not fair. The point is
> that
> > > the
> > > > > > developers proved to be unwilling to remedy things in the past
> (for
> > > > > instance
> > > > > > for Marathi). The only consequence can be that new projects have
> to
> > > > > > have message
> > > > > > files from the start. It is not fair to start new languages that
> are
> > > > > > incomplete; it is not fair to require the localisation to be
> done
> > > again
> > > > > when
> > > > > > a new project is requested in the same language.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > >     GerardM
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 3/5/07, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm not complaining about be.wp, I know that is a difficult
> > > situation
> > > > > > > and I do not expect that it can be resolved soon.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It doesn't appear that anybody told any of these people that
> they
> > > are
> > > > > > > required to have a message file.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > These requests are simply sitting there, nobody has actually
> told
> > > > > > > these people "We do not see ____, when you get that we will
> > > proceed
> > > > > > > further with considerations for your Wiki."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > These people are very dedicated, I am sure if anyone had
> actually
> > > told
> > > > > > > them what exactly it is that they need to do to move forward,
> they
> > > > > > > would do it right away. I am sure the messages file would be
> > > > > > > translated into Kabyle, for example, in less than a week, if
> > > anyone
> > > > > > > had ever actually informed those people that it is needed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - Wls - if there is "no reasonable support", the number of
> > > speakers is
> > > > > > > entirely irrelevant, of course the project is not viable since
> it
> > > has
> > > > > > > 0 articles in the incubator and nobody currently asking for
> its
> > > > > > > creation (there was only one person who did).
> > > > > > > - Twd - this case needs to be probed further to see how much
> > > Twents
> > > > > > > people would support it as a Wiki separate from nds-nl. There
> are
> > > > > > > already over two hundred articles in it, but the majority are
> at
> > > > > > > nds-nl.wp. User:Tubantia indicated preliminary support of such
> a
> > > > > > > request some time ago, so it needs to be re-investigated to
> see if
> > > > > > > this is a viable project or not, and whether the needs of
> > > > > > > Twents-speakers are currently being surved by our existing
> project
> > > > > > > (nds-nl)
> > > > > > > - Stq - this is obviously a viable project. There is support
> of
> > > native
> > > > > > > speakers, many many pages and very active on the incubator. So
> you
> > > > > > > want a message file. Why didn't you tell the people working on
> > > this
> > > > > > > project? I am sure they would prepare it in several days.
> > > > > > > - Pfl - this project appears to still be in the early stages
> of
> > > > > > > incubator development. At this point in time, I don't expect
> it to
> > > be
> > > > > > > approved by anyone.
> > > > > > > - Lld - same as pfl, except I do not expect its development
> soon.
> > > > > > > Someone needs to investigate how well existing users are
> served by
> > > > > > > rm.wp and fur.wp.
> > > > > > > - Kok - although this is a major language of India with
> millions
> > > of
> > > > > > > speakers, it is a problem that there are currently no
> articles.
> > > I'm
> > > > > > > sure Frederick Noronha could remedy this, though; in the
> meantime,
> > > I
> > > > > > > agree and do not think it would be reasonable to approve the
> > > project.
> > > > > > > - Kab - same as stq.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Others you failed to mention:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - Bat-ltg/lv-ltg - same situation as stq.
> > > > > > > - Crh - same situation as stq.
> > > > > > > - Dsb - same situation as stq.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It seems that if your rules mean that these Wikis are not able
> to
> > > be
> > > > > > > created now, it is not necessarily the case that there is no
> > > > > > > opposition (although it may be), the case currently is that
> > > _nobody
> > > > > > > knows about the rules_. When you have a new policy with as
> much
> > > impact
> > > > > > > as this one, it is imperative that it be solicited to all the
> > > persons
> > > > > > > and communities to whom it is relevant, and their opinion
> awaited.
> > > > > > > This is a Wiki, I am sure that even people who support the
> policy
> > > will
> > > > > > > have suggestions for its improvement, but so far very few have
> > > shown
> > > > > > > up because you have not advertised it much.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mark
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 05/03/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Mark Williamson schreef:
> > > > > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Perhaps some of you are aware of the formation of the
> Langcom.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Also, you may be aware of the recent reform of the
> language
> > > > > proposal
> > > > > > > process.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > However, what you may not be aware of is that the Language
> > > > > Committee
> > > > > > > > > is taking a while to actually get underway and to the
> point
> > > where
> > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > can excersise control over the creation of new Wikis.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Despite that, it seems that they are already looked to as
> an
> > > > > authority
> > > > > > > > > in this area, while they do not act as such.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > There are several new Wikipedia requests which were
> > > > > uncontroversial
> > > > > > > > > when first posed. Many of dozens of voices of support, and
> > > have
> > > > > > > > > thriving tests on the Incubator.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > However, their requests were deleted by PathosChild who
> said
> > > that
> > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > would have to remake them, which they have. So far, no
> > > proposals
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > Wikipedias in new languages have been _approved_ under the
> new
> > > > > > > > > proposal process, despite its having been around for
> several
> > > > > months
> > > > > > > > > now. They just sit there. And sit there. And sit there
> some
> > > more.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I think it's about time something happened. I think it's
> about
> > > > > time we
> > > > > > > > > welcomed these people -- the Kabyles, the Latgalians, the
> > > Lower
> > > > > > > > > Sorbians, the Crimeans, and all the others -- into our
> > > Wikipedia
> > > > > > > > > family. They have waited long enough. Why can't somebody
> do
> > > > > something?
> > > > > > > > > Why do they have to wait for the langcom to get underway?
> For
> > > all
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > know, that could take years.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Mark
> > > > > > > > Hoi,
> > > > > > > > The language committee has proposed things. It does not have
> the
> > > > > power
> > > > > > > > to force issues. We are now at the stage where we have
> published
> > > our
> > > > > > > > guidelines. We have given warning that we do adopt these
> > > guidelines
> > > > > as a
> > > > > > > > rule if there was no indication of opposition to this. This
> has
> > > not
> > > > > > > > happened. From our POV the rules as we published them apply.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > All projects for a new language that do not have a work in
> > > progress
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > the Incubator are denied. Starting in the Incubator is
> > > mandatory.
> > > > > > > > Working on the localisation is a strong factor in favour for
> > > > > granting a
> > > > > > > > new language a project.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We have some questions outstanding with the board;
> particularly
> > > > > about
> > > > > > > > the Belarus Wikipedia. In our opinion only the official
> Belarus
> > > > > > > > Wikipedia has the right to the be.wikipedia label. We have
> asked
> > > at
> > > > > > > > least a month ago for a resolution of this issue from the
> board.
> > > We
> > > > > do
> > > > > > > > not want to take up new things that much if open things do
> not
> > > get
> > > > > > > > resolved. It is a waste of our time otherwise.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We have already denied one proposal for an artificial
> languages
> > > that
> > > > > has
> > > > > > > > no wide support. That one was obvious.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > *The wls project has no reasonable amount of support at the
> > > moment,
> > > > > > > > there are only 29,768 people speaking it .. Is this a
> reasonable
> > > > > > > proposal ?
> > > > > > > > *The twd project has no reasonable amount of support at the
> > > moment,
> > > > > > > > there is not even an estimation how many people are speaking
> it
> > > ..
> > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > this a reasonable proposal ?
> > > > > > > > *The stq project does not have a message file.. so we cannot
> > > assess
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > localisation of the messages
> > > > > > > > *The pfl project does not have a message file.. so we cannot
> > > assess
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > localisation of the messages. There are insufficient
> articles of
> > > a
> > > > > > > > sufficient length.
> > > > > > > > *The lld project does not have a message file.. so we cannot
> > > assess
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > localisation of the messages. There are insufficient
> articles of
> > > a
> > > > > > > > sufficient length.
> > > > > > > > *The kok project does not have a message file.. so we cannot
> > > assess
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > localisation of the messages. There are no articles
> > > > > > > > *The kab project does not have a message file.. so we cannot
> > > assess
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > localisation of the messages.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So basically from our point of view, it seems that the
> message
> > > files
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > > not there. They are required.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > >     GerardM
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > > > > > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > > > > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > > > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
> --
> Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


body:
On 06/03/07, Ivan Krsti? <krstic at solarsail.hcs.harvard.edu> wrote:

> A "basic understanding of the technologies" doesn't cut it today for
> writing non-trivial patches or extensions to be included in MediaWiki
> mainline, and it's *certainly* not going to cut it for magically writing
> a new MediaWiki from scratch tomorrow.
>
> MediaWiki is a complex piece of software. Some of this complexity is
> because of hysterical raisins, lots are because it offers a large amount
> of functionality that's anything but simple.

 Please refer to the part of my message where I emphasised that **I never
mentioned writing anything myself**.

"Hysterical raisins" was done on purpose, right?


from_name: Rob Church

body:
On 06/03/07, Virgil Ierubino <virgil.ierubino at gmail.com> wrote:
> The reason I suggested a rewrite was that I've heard over and over how the
> code is terribly difficult and messy, and is a bit dodgy. For instance, the

You've heard this over and over. Have you actually looked at it?

Sometime either just before or just after Christmas or New Year (don't
recall which), I had an interesting little discussion with Tim
Starling, where we came to the conclusion, to some extent, that a lot
of the code base had significantly improved over a period of months -
thanks in no small part to the tremendous refactoring effort of a
number of developers.

> parser (I'm told) is a set of regular expressions, and whilst this works it
> does not make it easy to add to the syntax, change syntaxes, can be buggy,
> etc etc. It would be good if the parser worked by generating a genuine DOM
> tree for the document, and then translating that into the output. This is
> just one example of where (I've heard that) a core part of the software
> needs major reworking.

Yes, that's quite correct. You haven't, it seems, been taking part in
the other threads where this keeps getting discussed, however. The
current problem is to define our parser's behaviour, which is proving
to be a stressful and difficult task.

> Another reason for a rewrite (of some core parts) is that MediaWiki was
> written when Wikipedia first began, but the uses and functions of Wikipedia

No, Wikipedia began in 2001. MediaWiki as it is now has been around
since ~ 2003.

> - and other projects - today, were very much unforeseen back then, so the
> software wasn't streamlined for those functions. It seems we keep having to
> work around the software to achieve simple things in a difficult way - e.g.
> voting/commenting pages on Wikipedia (Featured Article Candidates, for
> instance), which are a very simple idea, become difficult for new users to
> understand and contribute to. If these were streamlined directly from the
> core code, (add your comment/vote forms, etc), this commonplace function
> would work much better.

You run the risk of upsetting large numbers of people who believe such
things are not "votes"...however, I don't like to do the politics
dance, so that's all I'll say on that aspect.

I don't see that it would be too hard to write a decent extension to
do proper polling; you could have a fancy custom "poll" namespace,
pages in which would appear as polls, rather than conventional
articles, with ordinary (for some definition of ordinary) talk pages
to aid discussion.

I say "some definition of ordinary" above because you must also have
missed the tremendous work that David McCabe put in to developing
LiquidThreads as part of his Summer of Code work. Dave's effort was
superb, and I liked all the betas I saw...at the moment, development
has stopped, although I heard rumours Wikia was going to ask him to
continue the work. In my view, Wikimedia must absolutely get this one
back on the tracks again as soon as possible.

Before I get to my flamboyant little finish; someone's mentioned AJAX
in this thread. That's all well and good, and AJAX is useful when
applied appropriately, consistently and *done properly*...so have a
rummage around for my previous opinion-bashing on that one.

All in all, though, it looks like you're merely blissfully ignorant of
a lot of discussions and "what if" thinking going on in the
background. That's not necessarily a problem, but when you start
whipping out talk of a rewrite without realising how much we *are*
discussing things, then it becomes a little unnerving.

I can guarantee that pretty much every user we have has his or her own
pet little wish list for things that we "should" add to the software.
I can guarantee that a lot of them will overlap, e.g. single sign-on,
which some are saying will herald the Second Coming, WYSIWYG, etc.
These features would be nice, and will happen, given Linus' law, but
what people have got to realise is there are several prerequisites to
us implementing these. Every time we have to stop and explain this
sort of thing, it pauses our efforts in doing so.

Nevertheless, your enthusiasm for the Foundation's future, goals and
missions will earn you many allies on this and other mailing lists,
and you seem to be here to bounce ideas off people, which is one of
the purposes of this list. So, welcome aboard.

Rob Church


from_name: David Goodman

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Look Who's Using Wikipedia

body:
Well, using "we" in a more specific sense, we librarians mostly teach
the use of Wikipedia as a convenient first step, in order to get basic
information which can then be used to select the proper index or other
resource. I personally teach it using the concept of it as a filter to
the web.
In addition to printed books,  I try to add links   to the best
available online material, and also to the best available online
material that is available without subscription.

On 3/6/07, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> I really don't think "we" all in agreement on what "we" want.
>
> I do not have a problem with people using Wikipedia as a primary
> source for information. When it comes to certain topics, I would
> encourage it because I have confidence in our accuracy and wide
> coverage.
>
> However, I would not encourage people to stake their fortune or their
> health on Wikipedia at all, and there are certain topics that I would
> discourage people from using Wikipedia as a primary source or in some
> cases even a secondary source for (pretty much anything related to
> Eastern Europe, all of which is still definitely a Work In Progress
> when it comes to POV).
>
> Mark
>
> On 06/03/07, Stan Shebs <stanshebs at earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > As students begin their online research, they could view the
> > > prevalence of Wikipedia references in Google as proof of the accuracy
> > > and reliability of the source. Given the search exposure and sheer
> > > volume of data available on the site, they might fall into the trap of
> > > relying on a single source for their education.
> > What we *really* want is for people to pass through WP on the way to our
> > sources and references and external links, and use those for citations
> > instead of WP. I think we say that somewhere, but what else can we do to
> > drive home the point? I've added some really topnotch books as
> > references for articles, and yet when I go back to the library, those
> > books are still sitting on the shelves, when they should be checked out
> > nonstop.
> >
> > Stan
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
> --
> Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.


list: commons-l

from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Commons-l] Audio file sizes

body:
On 3/6/07, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> Then we would, either via an automatic transcoding bot or via an
> upload enhancement to mediawiki automatically generate 40kbit/sec
> (dialup) and 96kbit/sec (broadband)  versions from the lossless. These
> versions are what we'd link from our other projects.

According to your own reference, the threshold where most listeners
cannot detect the difference between compressed and uncompressed is
128 kbit/s. This, then, should be the default quality threshold we
serve, if we use lossless as a basis for conversion. I am opposed to
accepting detectable quality degradation for marginal bandwidth
savings. We're not YouTube; we should try to set a standard for video,
audio and image quality.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic


subject: [Wikitech-l] [Commons-l] Audio file sizes


body:
On 06/03/07, Simetrical <Simetrical+wikilist at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> For future reference, Virgil: programmers' hackles tend to raise when
> you talk about languages being "easy" to write in, because that
> generally means "people who write in this language have no real
> knowledge of programming because the language is designed to be easily
> accessible, and so their easily-written code turns into an
> unmaintainable mess with no coherent structure and tons of stuff done
> in crazy or unsafe ways".  When programmers like a language, they call
> it something like simple, elegant, or powerful . . . not easy.  Good
> programming is never easy and can never be easy, because it
> intrinsically involves careful thought and a great deal of background
> knowledge and experience.

Sure sure, I didn't realise I was conversing with a group of super elite
hax0r programmers. I'm a novice with ASP .NET and various other languages,
better with PHP, but fully fledged in other stuff like Visual Basic. I do
know what makes good programming. As far as being an elite programmer, I
don't cut it because I still enjoy rapid development platforms like VB. Ease
is good to me when writing. But by this I certainly don't mean to sacrifice
quality, structured and bugless code. Nevertheless, I wasn't suggesting I
did any MW coding myself *anyway*, so why all this fuss?


body:
On 06/03/07, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:

> You've heard this over and over. Have you actually looked at it?

Been trying to work out forever how the software is structured and where to
look at it, etc. Yes I think I've seen a bit

> You haven't, it seems, been taking part in the other threads

 where this keeps getting discussed, however. The current
> problem is to define our parser's behaviour, which is proving
> to be a stressful and difficult task.
>

Define it how? And what other threads on what other mailing lists?

>  You run the risk of upsetting large numbers of people who believe such
> things are not "votes"...
>

Yes I wrote "votes/comments" specifically because of that.

 I don't see that it would be too hard to write a decent extension to
> do proper polling;
>

Wouldn't it be vastly better if the functionality were built into the core
code rather than having a miniscule base and a thousand extensions?

 you must also have
> missed the tremendous work that David McCabe put in to developing
> LiquidThreads
>

I saw this. Implementing LiquidThreads or something similar was one idea I
had in mind that appeared to me to require major rewriting.

 All in all, though, it looks like you're merely blissfully ignorant of
> a lot of discussions and "what if" thinking going on in the
> background. That's not necessarily a problem, but when you start
> whipping out talk of a rewrite without realising how much we *are*
> discussing things, then it becomes a little unnerving.
>

Apologies! Please direct me to where I can view this background before
commenting.

 Nevertheless, your enthusiasm for the Foundation's future, goals and
> missions will earn you many allies on this and other mailing lists,
> and you seem to be here to bounce ideas off people, which is one of
> the purposes of this list. So, welcome aboard.
>

You have me figured out. Thanks :).


from_name: Ron Ritzman

subject: [WikiEN-l] Rename admins to janitors

body:
On 3/6/07, xaosflux <xaosflux at gmail.com> wrote:

> I'd be fine with renaming it back to sysop if it would help specify that it
> is more of a technical role then a management one.

I'd go for that. On some multi user systems, the "administrators" set
policy and it's carried out by "operators" with elevated privileges.
Still, even if you were to call them "bananas", the title would still
be a big deal to some degree.


from_name: Sebastian Moleski

body:
On 3/6/07, Virgil Ierubino <virgil.ierubino at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I don't think I actually mentioned writing this myself did I?
>
> Yes I understand that, but I wasn't actually sure what to call the
> language.
> ASP .NET? Like I say, I've never claimed to be a whizz on the coding. I
> have
> a basic understanding of how the technologies all work and what they can
> do,
> so I'm working off that to make more sensible suggestions... when I do.

For the purposes of education: ASP.NET works primarily with C# or VB.NET.
All three have fairly good Wikipedia articles about them, if you want to
know more.

Regards,

Sebastian

P.S. I also want to add that I find some of the comments here regarding open
source and ASP.NET a little peculiar. Choosing a tool set and an
infrastructure should be based on merit, not dogma. If there's an open
source tool that does the best job, Wikimedia should use it. If there's
another one that's proprietary and does a better job, all else being equal,
Wikimedia should take that one.


from_name: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Is editing for payment fundamentally a
	problematic	conflict of interests?

body:
"Mercenary Wikipedian" wrote

> So
> long as paid contributors stick to notable, verifiable information, cite
> their sources, and maintain an NPOV while using the encyclopedic voice,
> though, I don't understand what the problem is.

On Utopipedia, no one who did those things, as best they understood, would ever get into any conflict editing. On the actual Wikipedia, you can't just airbrush conflict out of the picture. How do people behave when their interests are at stake, in an edit war? Better or worse than usual? I believe the answer is known.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: John Lee

subject: [WikiEN-l] Rename admins to janitors

body:
On 3/6/07, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:
>
> Erik Moeller wrote:
>
> > Why don't we do the same thing with administrators? No need to do a
> > global search & replace, just change the key pages and MediaWiki
> > messages and leave old mentions of "adminship" on talk pages and such
> > around. But change it to something like "janitor". Or at least
> > something less formidable than "administrator", like "trusted user."
>
> The problem isn't what we call them, it's what the worst of them do.  We
> can't keep renaming things or trying to figure out a better way to
> identify people if it doesn't get to the root of the problem.
>
> Seriously.  This has probably been the worst 4-6 weeks I've seen on this
> site since I started contributing, both on a personal and a social
> level.  I don't care to contribute anymore due to the culture, people
> are dropping the site left and right (admin Doug Bell is on a wikibreak
> now because of the Essjay situation (not that he's part of the
> solution), Doc glasgow's scaled back considerably following the
> Essjay/Peppers fiascos, Alkivar's gone, a number of lower level users
> are giving up, who knows who else that I DON'T know about).  And why?
> Because whatever you want to call them can't do their simple jobs
> properly (and who cares if they volunteer or not - if you can't do it
> right, don't do it), it gets nasty when they get called out on it,
> WP:IAR is being embraced like never before, causing massive internal
> strife, and ArbCom's only called upon to do something about it when
> there's a wheel war, ignoring the other issues.
>
> I'm not sure how much more can be taken.  We're at a record level of
> contributing and of attention, and it feels like the damn project is
> imploding.  It needs to be fixed, and it needs a massive cleansing, not
> some cosmetic "hey, let's change the names of who runs the site" nonsense.
>
> -Jeff
>
>
> --
> Name: Jeff Raymond
> E-mail: jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com
> WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com
> IM: badlydrawnjeff
> Quote: "As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the
>         Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else."
>         - Sen. Rick Santorum on the war in Iraq.

I don't know how much of this is a warranted reaction and how much is an
overreaction. I would definitely agree that there are major problems with
our culture when it comes to meta/policy issues, because those involved with
this backend crap burn out so damn easily - but then again, it's difficult
to imagine many backbreaking backend jobs in any organisation where people
wouldn't burn out easily. Still, the way we handle things in this area isn't
helping.

At the same time, I think it's important to recall that WP is about the
encyclopaedia, and that all else is peripheral. Vandal-fighters, RC
patrollers, mass deleters, etc. come and go, but as long as there is a new
supply of eager young admins to step into the breach (and there's no reason
to foresee a lack of such poor bright-eyed young 'uns in the near or medium
future), a high turnover rate would not be very distressing. What would be
more distressing is a high turnover rate of article editors, since those are
most important.

I don't see the need to get all worked up about this crap related to meta
policy. I learnt a long time ago that it's not worthwhile obsessing about
this stuff. The only time I deal with any process at all these days is when
I want to get an article to FA status, and even then, I can't be arsed to do
the work required anymore. Minor tinkering at the edges is less stressful,
more fun, and even in the end, it adds up to a substantial amount. Working
on the encyclopaedia and doing any odd jobs as you stumble on them through
your wiki-ing travails/travels is much more fun and almost as helpful as
focusing single-mindedly on trying to push through some massive but in the
long run pointless policy change.

I mean, just look at all the crap some of our best minds once devoted
themselves to. The inane problem of userboxes. All the hot air about that
Siegenthaler issue. All the fuss about attempting to delete some random meta
pages that some people have a problem with, whether they're titled
[[WP:SNOW]] or [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Essjay]].

To me, in the long run, this ain't worth two turds. The work we do on WP
that will still matter in one year, two years, or ten years, will not be a
snarky comment left on a talk page or a massive rebuttal to someone who is
obviously in the wrong but just won't listen. The work that matters is the
encyclopaedia.

You can argue that the meta stuff we do is essential to the encyclopaedia in
the long run. But honestly, it doesn't matter to me whether we merge
[[WP:V]] with [[WP:ATT]] or we delete some stupid RfC about a departed user,
because I'll still be working on the encyclopaedia even if these things
happen. And so will many others.

It's true that some meta-side stuff is inevitable. But what I'm saying is we
can't let it distract us from the encyclopaedia, and I'd say the
encyclopaedia's doing pretty darn well.

I'm not sure what else has happened in the past month or so that's so
terrible, besides this uproar about Essjay and the usual wheel warring that
seems to be ingrained in WP culture now. What I am sure of is that most
editors aren't really aware of these issues, and that these things haven't
affected them one bit.

I've seen a lot of people come and go in my time here. Mentioning the
departure of people like Doc glasgow or Alkivar - that doesn't surprise me
one bit (especially since these same people have left and returned in the
past, IIRC). If anything, the past month seems to have been par for the
course for WP.

Of course, that isn't an argument against raising the par (although if we
want to literally apply golfing terms, I think the correct word would be
lowering). But let's keep some perspective. Getting worked up over this
stuff isn't going to be of much worth in the long run. We, and the project,
will move on.

Johnleemk


subject: [WikiEN-l] Rename admins to janitors

body:
On 3/6/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> When the role of "bureaucrat" was created, the name was chosen
> > specifically so that people would not treat it as a status symbol. It
> > should be something nobody really _wants_ -- something people do
> > because it needs doing, not because it gains them credibility and
> > influence. This seems to have worked reasonably well for the most
> > part.
>
>
> Seeing as how the word "bureaucrat" appears to be connected with
> "bureaucracy" I can't see how it could have been carefully chosen.

I thought the idea was to give the role negative connotations to ensure only
those who really want the extra tools got them.

Johnleemk


from_name: Edward Z. Yang

subject: [Commons-l] Audio file sizes

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

Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> What I'd like to see us do instead, is to ask uploaders to send us
> losslessly compressed Ogg/Flac files instead. Lossless compression
> because disk space isn't totally irrelevant and to avoid people
> downloading insanely huge wavs just because they don't want to use the
> java player or install a codec.  We already permit uploading these
> lossless audio files they can be easily transcoded to Ogg/Vorbis while
> preserving all metadata. [snip]

I think this is a great idea and should definitely be investigated. However:

1. Encoding audio in a lossless codec seems, at least from my
experience, to be a very CPU intensive process.  WIth our equipment,
this may or may not be a problem.

2. If we encourage losslessly compressed audio, we will probably want to
increase our maximum upload size. Longer audio clips will easily exceed
20 MB, and Spoken Wikipedia usually *must* split up their audio files in
order to upload them in (whether for better or worse). This also runs up
with some of HTTPs limitations when it comes to file uploads. An
anonymous FTP server would be pretty neat, but I doubt it's going to happen.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFF7iqPqTO+fYacSNoRAnfgAJ9KbUjnqicz68Yo+hw4cMT2O0LmtACfT5Kr
XKGozCqZEeb0/dv5vllcS/o=
=L87N
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [Wikitech-l] Audio file sizes


from_name: Ronald Chmara

body:
On Mar 6, 2007, at 9:16 PM, Frederick Noronha wrote:

> Could someone hazard a guess on which areas the Wikipedia is strong
> in, and which areas it is still lacking? FN

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BIAS

-Bop


list: foundation-l

from_name: Cormac Lawler

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikiversity research - IRC meeting

body:
Hi all - this is to let you know that there will be an IRC meeting
about Wikiversity research this Saturday (10th) @ 22:00 UTC in
freenode channel #wikiversity. This is in advance of the board's
meeting about Wikiversity (scheduled to take place the following
Friday, 16th), and is a crucial aspect to Wikiversity's move out of
its "beta phase". Board members are, as ever, particularly welcome.
:-)

Further details of the meeting are at:
<http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:IRC_meeting_about_research>.
Links to relevant work-pages to be edited and discussed can be found
there. For info on timezones, see:
<http://worldtimeserver.com/current_time_in_UTC.aspx> and/or
<http://www.worldtimezone.com>.

Hope to see you there - if you can't make it, and want to add
something to the agenda, please do so at the page given above.

Cheers,

Cormac

http://cormaggio.org
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Cormaggio


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Conservapedia

body:
On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 16:23:02 +0000, <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com>
wrote:

>That's a cool page. The rest of NATO and the Warsaw Pact have vanished from history. China is nowhere. And they require you to log in, but still get silly vandalism.

On the plus side, they really *really* believe that a senile bi-part
actor single-handedly saved the planet form the forces of Communism -
so much more Conservative than giving credit to Gorbachev :-)

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Correction to New Yorker Article

body:
On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 07:27:54 -0700, "Rob Smith" <nobs03 at gmail.com>
wrote:

>> Because he's an obsessive, and given his occupation why would that
>> surprise us?

>There's an element of truth to this; Brandt may have a habit of reacting
>impulsively prior to analysing a situation.  Given the nature of the
>invidious smear leveled at him, how would any one else have reacted?

Sure, nobody would be happy about that.  Where I come from, one
measure of the quality of an organisation is how it handles a civil
complaint.  I'm not sure Brandt ever tried a civil complaint, but I
think we're pretty hard on crap in biographies of living individuals
these days.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Conservapedia

body:
On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 15:34:41 -0700, "Rob Smith" <nobs03 at gmail.com>
wrote:

>http://www.conservapedia.com/Articles_for_Deletion

Hmmm.  The article on Massachusetts Liberal is a classic!

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Rename admins to janitors

body:
On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 08:25:43 -0500, Jeff Raymond
<jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:

>Seriously.  This has probably been the worst 4-6 weeks I've seen on this
>site since I started contributing

Quite so.  We can't even nuke an RfC on a user who has left, where the
requested remedies have already been met or exceeded, which was never
certified, and which has no evidence of any attempts at resolving the
supposed dispute, because some users are absolutely determined to keep
discussing it despite the fact that it is an unprecedented situation
in respect of an editor who has left with his reputation very publicly
destroyed, to the point where his job became untenable and future
employment may well be problematic.  So much for human decency -
sickening indeed.

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


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] Rename admins to janitors

body:
I have just read the other x messages in this thread, so I don't know who
said it, but I do think I should respond. I'm all for relaxing the "rules"
for administratorship, but you can't just pick 100 random users who haven't
been in trouble. One can edit perfectly fine but have absolutely no need for
admin functions and some people simply have no desire to do the job or some
will crumble under the pressure.

As for renaming, I think adminship/sysophood is aptly named. It closely
mirrors the role of system administrators in computer networks. Admins have
the powers to do things regular users can't so their name should reflect
that.

If people misunderstand this role, we need to investigate how this happens
and find ways to inform readers and editors better by placing information on
the pages were they look for it. It should go two ways, not just tell them
what admins do, but also say who makes editorial decisions and on what
basis.

Mgm


from_name: Mark Williamson

subject:
[Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] Accountability: bringing back a
	proposal I made nearly 2 years ago

body:
Really, making up fake credentials is only relevant if you try to use
it in an argument.

If I said I had a Ph.D in Astronomy for any reason (main reason I can
think of for that would be enhanced anonymity), it would be totally
irrelevant because I have been involved in 0 astronomy-related
articles, I simply do not edit them because I am not interested in
that topic.

Even if I were to become an admin on a large wiki, I don't think it
would be relevant. I think it only matters if you are a steward,
developer, or working for the foundation or somesuch.

Mark

On 05/03/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> On 3/5/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 2) Making up professional credentials is prohibited, and may result in
> > > a ban. (This may or may not be covered by existing policy, but judging
> > > from the Essjay case, it is probably not sufficiently clear.) This is
> > > independent of whether or not the user asks for credentials to be
> > > verified. We may investigate claims that are dubious when they are
> > > pointed out to us.
>
> > No. No community support for this and appears to be policy cruft.
> > Better to go with. "makeing up credentials mad result in bad things
> > happening please don't".
>
> I don't think community support can be gauged fairly from the response
> to the Essjay situation. Essjay was a highly respected contributor,
> and many were inclined to respect and defend his desire to create a
> fake identity without an informed debate about the nature of
> credentials, and why it is important that we treat such statements
> with care.
>
> I believe this debate needs to take place now, independently of the
> Essjay incident.
>
> > Oh man please no. Way too buracratic. People wanting to avoid it will
> > would have to remove such claims even when true before running for
> > adminship which wont look good.
>
> Why won't it look good? I don't believe there's a problem with
> removing claims, or perhaps adding an {{UnverifiedCredentials}}
> template.
> --
> Peace & Love,
> Erik
>
> DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
> the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
>
> "An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
> free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

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


body:
On Mar 6, 2007, at 10:19 PM, Mark Williamson wrote:
> The worst of all is that anyone who mentions the increasingly
> hierarchial structure of our communities and the virtual impunity
> afforded to certain persons (especially admins in medium-sized Wikis,
> who often rule like dictators), they are instantly perceived as
> anti-Wiki and/or paranoid.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:IAR> exists for a reason, and for
me, that reason is to totally bypass bureaucratic wonks and trolls
who get their rocks off from wiki-lawyering, and constantly
complaining about process, pet projects, pet issues, etc.

> The simple fact is, there _is_ a cabal now. In fact, there are
> multiple cabals. They just call themselves different things. The
> Board, Arbcom, etc. etc. etc., the number of admins now is so great
> that it really is almost like real life, where people are divided by
> class. Will people inherit admin accounts from their parents?
> (kidding... mostly)

IAR.

We have people who jaywalk in real life, who deviate above the speed
limit, etc. We also have murderers and pedophiles on wikipedia.
Nature of the beast.

> Ever since I joined, the community has been moving more and more in
> this direction. I did not take things totally seriously here until it
> was suggested in a serious tone that if I were just a couple of years
> older, I should be _killed_ for the whole Zlatiborian fracas and that
> it was "people like me" who were responsible for the turbulent recent
> history of Southeast Europe.

I take it you haven't been on the internet for very long.

> Our community has faced several major trials, and we have pulled
> through all but (an early) one of them almost completely intact.
> However, I am afraid that will not always be the case. Although we're
> growing larger, it doesn't seem to me that we're growing much smarter,
> and I think we will end up with mass exoduses and large portions of
> our community breaking off and forming similarly-sized competing
> projects. I do not think this future is in the best interests of the
> movement, it does not fit our aims, surely divided we shall fall.

<Insert ranting counter-slogan here.> Whatever. I don't have any
reason to care. I'm not writing or editing for "wikipedia", I'm
writing and editing for people 300, 800, years from now. If we have a
break into, oh, a wikia community of people obsessed with Manga,
great! Less noise! Break into "vettedscholarpedia", cool! I only care
that we have more vehicles for carrying information.

> And I know most of you will blow this off as utter nonsense, you will
> say it's not going to happen, but if we continue on our present course
> I promise you it will for the wicked are among us and it is only a
> matter of time before the Wiki-empire falls into tiny pieces. Mark my
> words, in two months, six months, two years, however long it takes for
> us to crumble, if anyone remembers this e-mail they will know that I
> was right.

Sweet. Now, mark *my* words: The reason a species dies out is because
something else, or having nothing else, is better. I *hope* that
either wikipedia, or something 10 times better, is around in 300-800
years. I don't give a damn what rules it has, or what it's called, or
who runs it, or how (I plan on being dead by then). The Library of
Alexandria wasn't built because text authors gave a damn about what
the politics of turkey would be like in 300 years. Heck, with forks
in the empire, we have even *more* survivability over the next 800
years.

I just don't have the vanity, or smug self importance, left, to think
that I'm anything more than just another contributor to a possible
vast knowledge base for the future.

-Bop


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] [WikiEN-l] Accountability: bringing back a
	proposal I made nearly 2 years ago

body:
I think the point is that academic or other formal credentials should
be verified if they are to be listed. But how would we know whose to
challenge? I would have seen no reason to challenge in the recent
instance. So it would be necessary to require it of everyone.

And unless this is accompanied by a policy of using true names, it
won't amount to much. Verifying credentials behind the scenes for
people using anon names is probably more complicated than it sounds,
and still will not convince a skeptic.

Maybe a policy of true names throughout WP would make more sense. We
all know the reasons why we don't , but I think it may be the only way
to restore trust. -- DGG

On 3/5/07, Stan Shebs <stanshebs at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Erik Moeller wrote:
> > On 3/5/07, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> >
> >> There are two parts to the suggestion: 1) marking some statements with
> >> a "verified credentials" tag, and 2) a "policy of gentle (or firm)
> >> discouragement for people to make claims like those that EssJay made,
> >> unless they are willing to back them up".
> >>
> >
> > I'm cross-posting this to wikipedia-l and foundation-l, because it may
> > very well become a Foundation-level issue at some point.
> >
> > I would support the following:
> >
> > 1) Any user can ask for his or her professional credentials to be verified.
> >
> In principle this makes sense; but limiting to verifiable bits is going
> to make it a short list - degree X, licensed Y, employed by company Z
> between dates W. How do you verify a carpenter, or "freelance
> consultant", aka euphemism for being unemployed? :-)
>
> Stan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Conservapedia

body:
On 3/6/07, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com>
wrote:
>
> Puppy wrote
>
> > Oh please. Have you clicked "Random entry" there? See
> > http://www.conservapedia.com/Cold_War  for an example of the "quality" -
> > or Richard Nixon, unless its been fixed.
>
> That's a cool page. The rest of NATO and the Warsaw Pact have vanished
> from history. China is nowhere. And they require you to log in, but still
> get silly vandalism.
>
> Charles

Interesting to compare Wikipedia's first draft of the cold war article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_War_%281947-1953%29&oldid=241400

Garion96


from_name: Platonides

body:
Virgil Ierubino wrote:
> Rob Church wrote:
>> The current
>> problem is to define our parser's behaviour, which is proving
>> to be a stressful and difficult task.
>>
>
> Define it how? And what other threads on what other mailing lists?

You *are* missing a lot of things. So i'll try to summarize this before
Rob reads your answer ;)
How wikitext should be treated is not defined. We all know its basic:
'''Bold''', ''Italic''... but there are a number of undefined cases:
what should ''It'''''s''nice generate? What when the syntax is invalid?
What did the user try to make?
Currently, the only 'correct' output is what the parser gives you. Even
if that output is not intuitive or came up as a bug which then started
being used (think in {{qif}}).
So there's a continuous saying, we must define our grammar, so some
wikitext must adhere to some rules, giving only one output. Then other
people can make other parsers on different languages using the same
rules, not copying parser behaviour: Wiki interpreting at client side
with JavaScript, converting Wikitext to other formats like pdf, client
software...
Now, parser treats the text on some way, then passes along other check,
and new tags may emerge when outopput is cleaned to be correct xhtml.

> Wouldn't it be vastly better if the functionality were built into the core
> code rather than having a miniscule base and a thousand extensions?

If all code is in extensions, you can plug them in and out easily. Less
need to hack the core code. Very similar on how GNU/Linux works:
microkernel + losts of daemons.


body:
I was thinking he meant subject areas, but you are right here.

The worst of all is that anyone who mentions the increasingly
hierarchial structure of our communities and the virtual impunity
afforded to certain persons (especially admins in medium-sized Wikis,
who often rule like dictators), they are instantly perceived as
anti-Wiki and/or paranoid.

The simple fact is, there _is_ a cabal now. In fact, there are
multiple cabals. They just call themselves different things. The
Board, Arbcom, etc. etc. etc., the number of admins now is so great
that it really is almost like real life, where people are divided by
class. Will people inherit admin accounts from their parents?
(kidding... mostly)

Ever since I joined, the community has been moving more and more in
this direction. I did not take things totally seriously here until it
was suggested in a serious tone that if I were just a couple of years
older, I should be _killed_ for the whole Zlatiborian fracas and that
it was "people like me" who were responsible for the turbulent recent
history of Southeast Europe.

Our community has faced several major trials, and we have pulled
through all but (an early) one of them almost completely intact.
However, I am afraid that will not always be the case. Although we're
growing larger, it doesn't seem to me that we're growing much smarter,
and I think we will end up with mass exoduses and large portions of
our community breaking off and forming similarly-sized competing
projects. I do not think this future is in the best interests of the
movement, it does not fit our aims, surely divided we shall fall.

And I know most of you will blow this off as utter nonsense, you will
say it's not going to happen, but if we continue on our present course
I promise you it will for the wicked are among us and it is only a
matter of time before the Wiki-empire falls into tiny pieces. Mark my
words, in two months, six months, two years, however long it takes for
us to crumble, if anyone remembers this e-mail they will know that I
was right.

Mark

On 06/03/07, Steve <subsume at gmail.com> wrote:
> Strong: revolutionary format. collaboration gone right. very decent
> end products. FREE.
>
> Weak: Entrenched in committess and committees and committees.
> Overemphasis on Western and internet culture. Emergent 'Elite Class'
> of editors and admins who not only know the ropes, but create the
> ropes.
>
> -S
>
> On 3/7/07, Frederick Noronha <fred at bytesforall.org> wrote:
> > Could someone hazard a guess on which areas the Wikipedia is strong
> > in, and which areas it is still lacking? FN
> >
> > > On 3/6/07, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I really don't think "we" all in agreement on what "we" want.
> > > >
> > > > I do not have a problem with people using Wikipedia as a primary
> > > > source for information. When it comes to certain topics, I would
> > > > encourage it because I have confidence in our accuracy and wide
> > > > coverage.
> > > >
> > > > However, I would not encourage people to stake their fortune or their
> > > > health on Wikipedia at all, and there are certain topics that I would
> > > > discourage people from using Wikipedia as a primary source or in some
> > > > cases even a secondary source for (pretty much anything related to
> > > > Eastern Europe, all of which is still definitely a Work In Progress
> > > > when it comes to POV).
> > > >
> > > > Mark
> >
> >
> > --
> > FN M: 0091 9822122436 P: +91-832-240-9490 (after 1300IST please)
> > http://fn.goa-india.org  http://fredericknoronha.wordpress.com
> > What bloggers are saying about Goa: http://planet.goa-india.org/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

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


from_name: Dan Jacobson

body:
Gentlemen, what do you think of my single MediaWiki file tree for both
my wikis, which must not only work on localhost, but on the production
server too,

drwxr-xr-x 16 1024 2007-03-06 04:22 mediawiki
lrwxrwxrwx  1   17 2007-03-06 04:22 radioscanningtw.jidanni.org -> mediawiki
lrwxrwxrwx  1   17 2007-03-06 04:23 taizhongbus.jidanni.org -> mediawiki

$ cat mediawiki/LocalSettings.php
...
#combined taizhongbus and radioscanningtw LocalSettings.php
$jidanni_R='radioscanningtw.jidanni.org';
$jidanni_T='taizhongbus.jidanni.org';
#So works with web pages and maintenance scripts:
$jidanni_haystack=$_SERVER['SCRIPT_FILENAME'].$_SERVER['PWD'];
if(strpos($jidanni_haystack, $jidanni_R)){
    $wgScriptPath="/$jidanni_R";
    $wgSitename='??';
    $wgLogo="$wgScriptPath/skins/common/images/ar-3000a.png";
    $wgProxyKey=...
    $wgDBname=...
}elseif(strpos($jidanni_haystack, $jidanni_T)){
    $wgScriptPath="/$jidanni_T";
    $wgSitename='??';
    $wgLogo="$wgScriptPath/skins/common/images/tzbus.png";
    $wgProxyKey=...
    $wgDBname=...
}else{
    trigger_error(" Website broken again,
    please telephone me, (04)25854780. --- Wrong \$jidanni_haystack:
    \"$jidanni_haystack\"", E_USER_ERROR);
}
...
switch ($wgServerName){
case 'localhost':
   $wgDBserver='localhost';
   $wgDBuser=...
   $wgDBpassword=...
   $wgDBprefix=...
   break;
default:
   $wgDBserver="mysql.$wgServerName";
   $wgDBuser=...
   $wgDBpassword=...
   $wgDBprefix=...
   break;
}
Similarly in AdminSettings.php.

So what do you think? Asking for trouble? Will be sorry later? Heading
for a fall?


from_name: David Gerard

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Accountability: bringing back a proposal I made
	nearly 2 years ago

body:
On 06/03/07, Sheldon Rampton <sheldon at prwatch.org> wrote:

> The solution: WIKIPEDIA NEEDS AN HONESTY POLICY. It needs to state

Can I just say this is a brilliant idea, per Bruce Schneier's paper on
this style of security:

    http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/02/cya_security_1.html

I would also like to propose new rules in a similar vein, since
(thankfully) you can in fact change people's thought processes by
altering text on a policy page:

* Don't Rob Banks And Send The Money To The Foundation To Make A Point
* Don't Kill Your Fellow Wikipedians And Eat Their Brains To Make A Point
* Don't Climb The Reichstag Dressed As Spiderman To Make A Point
* Don't Shove Beans Up Your Nose

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Rename admins to janitors

body:
On 06/03/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

> "Janitors" is somewhat self-deprecating; "administrators" can seem
> pompous.  If we are able to laugh at ourselves, that can be a very
> attractive feature.

If you imagine a janitor with a semi-automatic mop ...

- d.


from_name: Sheldon Rampton

body:
David Gerard wrote:

> Can I just say this is a brilliant idea, per Bruce Schneier's paper on
> this style of security:
>
>     http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/02/cya_security_1.html

My proposal is not a "security" proposal. (Maybe Jimbo's scheme is.)
It's a proposed policy stating clearly that Wikipedians are expected
to be honest. David evidently thinks this is absurd and unnecessary.
I would have thought so myself until I saw the parade of people
defending deception as acceptable in the case of Essjay on grounds
such as "he had to do it to protect himself from all the wackos on
Wikipedia" or "he only did it on his user page" or "I like him, so
it's okay."

> I would also like to propose new rules in a similar vein, since
> (thankfully) you can in fact change people's thought processes by
> altering text on a policy page:
>
> * Don't Rob Banks And Send The Money To The Foundation To Make A Point
> * Don't Kill Your Fellow Wikipedians And Eat Their Brains To Make A
> Point

We don't need rules to cover either of these situations, because
fortunately every civilized nation on earth has already enacted rules
in the form of laws. Evidently every legal system in the world is
designed by people who are idiots like me. If only they were
brilliant like David, they would know that rules don't influence
behavior and would immediately repeal their pointless little policies
on murder and theft.

> * Don't Climb The Reichstag Dressed As Spiderman To Make A Point
> * Don't Shove Beans Up Your Nose

We don't need rules against these actions. It's perfectly fine with
me if David does them.

--------------------------------
|  Sheldon Rampton
|  Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org)
|  Author of books including:
|     Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
|     Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
|     Mad Cow USA
|     Trust Us, We're Experts
|     Weapons of Mass Deception
|     Banana Republicans
|     The Best War Ever
--------------------------------
|  Subscribe to our free weekly list serve by visiting:
|  http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html
|
|  Donate now to support independent, public interest reporting:
|  https://secure.groundspring.org/dn/index.php?id=1118
--------------------------------


subject: [WikiEN-l] Conservapedia

references:
<20070306162302.MSIB17393.aamtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@smtp.ntlworld.com>
	<6gqru2th5pod6i1n39ol9i93tc4pp02ao2@4ax.com>
	<52a8cf060703061434g27ed39bayb06a28a7010010da@mail.gmail.com>
	<43sru2dfpk5pmdpuu9q7eg7of0h3lur5cr@4ax.com>
	<52a8cf060703061459u5ff58104w51039d67f08fc682@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 15:59:50 -0700, "Rob Smith" <nobs03 at gmail.com>
wrote:

>I thought it was conservatives who wanted to take away peoples
>rights.

Always baffles me, how the need for a well-regulated militia equates
in some people's minds to the right to pack heat at all times :-)

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


from_name: geni

body:
On 3/6/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> * Don't Kill Your Fellow Wikipedians And Eat Their Brains To Make A Point

That would be covered under [[WP:NPA]]

> * Don't Climb The Reichstag Dressed As Spiderman To Make A Point

It's worked so far although I would suggest holding wikimania in
Berlin might be a bad idea.

> * Don't Shove Beans Up Your Nose

Page still has no pics of the activity mentioned so must be a sucess
to some degree.

--
geni


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject: [Commons-l] New Java audio player, now with video.

body:
Greetings. Tonight I setup a test version of a new Java based
install-free player for our Ogg files.

Unlike the prior version it also supports Ogg/Theora Video. It also
should improve compatibility with some Java implementations such as
the old Microsoft JVM, and it should have working buffering which
should make it useful for people with slow or intermittent links where
the prior player was not.

I was planning on testing it out for a few days before taking it live,
but the database feel over on toolserver which broke the old player
anyways. The new player setup is a little more robust against database
failures.

We still have a server problem which causes large media files to get
stuck in the cache as zero byte files. If a particular file doesn't
play for you, it's very likely that the file has been hit with this
caching bug. This is a long standing bug, but we know the general
cause now. It just is not fixed yet.

Here is a video example:
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/commonsJOrbisPlayer2.php?path=Vibraphone_Orchestra,_early_1940s.ogg

See, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Video for more.
Unfortunately most do not yet have a template which provides a direct
link to the player.

Here is an audio only example:
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/commonsJOrbisPlayer.php?path=Scarborough+Fair.ogg&wiki=en

Feedback is appreciated.


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Stan Shebs wrote:

>>As students begin their online research, they could view the
>>prevalence of Wikipedia references in Google as proof of the accuracy
>>and reliability of the source. Given the search exposure and sheer
>>volume of data available on the site, they might fall into the trap of
>>relying on a single source for their education.
>>
>>
>What we *really* want is for people to pass through WP on the way to our
>sources and references and external links, and use those for citations
>instead of WP. I think we say that somewhere, but what else can we do to
>drive home the point? I've added some really topnotch books as
>references for articles, and yet when I go back to the library, those
>books are still sitting on the shelves, when they should be checked out
>nonstop.
>
As the messengers we can very well say, "Don't shoot the messenger."
Anyone whose not a virgin newbie to Wikipedia is aware of the
limitations that you state.  I generally agree with those teachers who
reject Wikipedia as the sole source on which students base their
articles, but it would be inappropriate to downgrade an essay simply
because it uses Wikipedia as one source amoung others.

The real failing is with those educational establishments who have
neglected to give students, from a very early stage, the tools with
which to critically evaluate the information that they receive.  Instead
of viewing the internet as a source of mischief to be turned off, it is
important that teachers and parents alike recognize it as a primary
source of information for students.  The paradox that educators find
themselves in is that the student who makes judgements about the
information he receives online is also likely to use the same criteria
for making similar judgements about information provided by the educators.

Ec


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2007-03-07

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

This is MediaWiki version 1.10alpha (r20187).

Reading tests from "maintenance/parserTests.txt"...
Reading tests from "extensions/Cite/citeParserTests.txt"...
Reading tests from "extensions/Poem/poemParserTests.txt"...

  18 still FAILING test(s) :(
      * URL-encoding in URL functions (single parameter)  [Has never passed]
      * URL-encoding in URL functions (multiple parameters)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Link containing double-single-quotes '' (bug 4598)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: message transform: <noinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: message transform: <onlyinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)  [Has never passed]
      * BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Inline HTML vs wiki block nesting  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Mixing markup for italics and bold  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: 5 quotes, code coverage +1 line  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: dt/dd/dl test  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Images with the "|" character in the comment  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Parents of subpages, two levels up, without trailing slash or name.  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Parents of subpages, two levels up, with lots of extra trailing slashes.  [Has never passed]

Passed 493 of 511 tests (96.48%)... 18 tests failed!


from_name: Steve

body:
Strong: revolutionary format. collaboration gone right. very decent
end products. FREE.

Weak: Entrenched in committess and committees and committees.
Overemphasis on Western and internet culture. Emergent 'Elite Class'
of editors and admins who not only know the ropes, but create the
ropes.

-S

On 3/7/07, Frederick Noronha <fred at bytesforall.org> wrote:
> Could someone hazard a guess on which areas the Wikipedia is strong
> in, and which areas it is still lacking? FN
>
> > On 3/6/07, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I really don't think "we" all in agreement on what "we" want.
> > >
> > > I do not have a problem with people using Wikipedia as a primary
> > > source for information. When it comes to certain topics, I would
> > > encourage it because I have confidence in our accuracy and wide
> > > coverage.
> > >
> > > However, I would not encourage people to stake their fortune or their
> > > health on Wikipedia at all, and there are certain topics that I would
> > > discourage people from using Wikipedia as a primary source or in some
> > > cases even a secondary source for (pretty much anything related to
> > > Eastern Europe, all of which is still definitely a Work In Progress
> > > when it comes to POV).
> > >
> > > Mark
>
>
> --
> FN M: 0091 9822122436 P: +91-832-240-9490 (after 1300IST please)
> http://fn.goa-india.org  http://fredericknoronha.wordpress.com
> What bloggers are saying about Goa: http://planet.goa-india.org/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Oldak Quill

subject: [Foundation-l] Update of Foundation organization

body:
On 05/03/07, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> On 3/5/07, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> > If it's a job that *has* to be done every single week
> > reliably, then an unpaid volunteer is not necessarily the best choice.
>
> Not necessarily, but possibly.  I used to be an unpaid volunteer
> firefighter, and there were lots of things we did that *had* to be
> done every single week reliably.
>
> One difference with Wikimedia projects is that the job is not as
> important - lives don't literally hang in the balance.  But another
> difference which could more easily be made a similarity is that
> Wikimedia volunteers aren't as effectively organized.  Volunteer
> firefighters were unpaid, but we still had a boss, we still had rules,
> we still had to submit applications, and go to meetings, etc.  When it
> came time to send out fundraising letters, we were expected to put in
> our time and do it, even though few of us would have volunteered to do
> *that* job.  Our boss (the fire chief), was paid, but not as a
> full-time salary, and he had a full time job too.
>
> For most Wikimedia volunteers, none of this formality is necessary, of
> course.  But for some other things it might work.  If a competent
> person is hired as volunteer coordinator I'm sure this will become
> much more clear.

The life-and-death aspect of volunteer firefighting is not the only
aspect of the job that makes you feel obligated to fulfilling it as if
it were a paid position. Contracts are signed, uniforms are worn,
there is a work place: cues and mechanisms associated with a paid job.
Not all of these cues are necessary to highly obligated and committed
volunteers: contracted workers who do not wear uniforms, save lives or
attend a workplace feel obligation to fulfil their duties. Similarly,
Wikimedia Foundation does not need to put all of these cues in place
to develop a more robust volunteer base.

There are many steps which the Foundation could take to make
volunteers feel the obligation and commitment of a contracted worker.
For example, volunteer co-coordinators (who may themselves be
volunteers) would be a big step to drawing a reliable group of
volunteers out who could fulfil complex and time-consuming tasks.
These co-coordinators give volunteers a point-of-contact; they also
help to keep volunteers focused on tasks, &c. There are many similar
mechanisms the Foundation could put in place to develop a workable
volunteer-based infrastructure.

As Erik says, though we may be relatively unique, we can still learn
from other organisations who rely on volunteers in a way we should do.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: Frederick "FN" Noronha

body:
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1595184,00.html

Look Who's Using Wikipedia
Thursday, Mar. 01, 2007 By BILL TANCER
The Wikipedia home page

Poor Wikipedia. Professional Golfer Fuzzy Zoeller is suing one of its
contributors for a defamatory cyber-attack. And last year, television
host and comedian Stephen Colbert urged his audience to vandalize a
Wikipedia entry about elephants to prove the point that in a model
where any user can edit encyclopedia entries, those entries are only
as good as their source. Take the case of retired journalist John
Seigenthaler, a former assistant to Attorney General Robert Kennedy,
who was wrongfully accused of involvement in the assassination of
Robert and John Kennedy by an anonymous Wikipedia contributor in 2005.
Given the controversy stirring around Wikipedia, the history
department at Middlebury College has banned its use as a research
source. When did the online form of the dust-covered encyclopedia
become such a magnet for drama?

Academics are split on the usefulness of Wikipedia, which bills itself
as "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." The sheer volume of
content (Wikipedia claims over 5.3 million entries, 1.6 million in
English) is partly responsible for the site's dominance as an online
reference. When compared to the top 3,200 educational reference sites
in the U.S., Wikipedia is #1, capturing 24.3% of all visits to the
category, according to Hitwise data. But as the recent drama
illustrates, a body of online knowledge built by an army of 75,000
volunteer, anonymous contributors and editors is prone to anything
from simple benign errors to outright information vandalism.

Search and Internet behavior data provide alarming insight into this
powerful but volatile resource ? alarming because one of the core
groups of Wikipedia users are school children.

Determining the extent to which students leverage Wikipedia requires
some data detective work. The search terms that users enter to
navigate to the site are the most revealing. Along with searches for
various anime cartoons, sex topics and information on the most
recently shorn, exposed or departed celebrities, the majority of top
terms bear a close resemblance to elementary school homework and
research projects. During the month of February, which is also Black
History month, three of the top 20 terms sending traffic to Wikipedia
were for prominent black historical figures, while two other searches
were likely motivated by President's Day. In fact, changing
time-frames to any other month during the school year reveals a
similar result. (Source: Hitwise)

Along with the impressive growth in visits to the site, 680% in two
years, charting those visits over time confirms student activity. Over
the last three years of growth, traffic dipped during the summer
months and the weeks of spring break and winter vacation.

One of the reasons for Wikipedia's stellar growth rate in visits is
all the traffic it receives from search engines, over 64% last week.
In fact, due to Google's algorithm for displaying search results and
the abundance of links in any given entry, Wikipedia has become the #1
external site visited after Google's search page.

As students begin their online research, they could view the
prevalence of Wikipedia references in Google as proof of the accuracy
and reliability of the source. Given the search exposure and sheer
volume of data available on the site, they might fall into the trap of
relying on a single source for their education. Hopefully their
research projects won't involve elephants or professional golfers.

Bill Tancer is general manager of global research at Hitwise.
--
FN M: 0091 9822122436 P: +91-832-240-9490 (after 1300IST please)
http://fn.goa-india.org  http://fredericknoronha.wordpress.com
What bloggers are saying about Goa: http://planet.goa-india.org/


body:
On 06/03/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> This is naive.  I am very much in support of of maximum volunteer
> inpout.  You cannot oblige anybody to work a specified number of hours
> per week unless they are getting something out of it.  That something
> may still be intangible, like personal satisfaction, instead of money;
> pure altruism is unlikely to be enough.

Surely those who volunteer their time and energy to Wikimedia projects
are in some way committed to what the Foundation is trying to achieve?
If this is the case, then most of our volunteers *do* get satisfaction
out of their work. I don't think this satisfaction would disappear if
they started being asked to do tasks rather than electing to do them.
Volunteers would volunteer to their own areas of interest, after all.
Perhaps I misunderstand you?

> When you start to hassle them
> by phone or whatever they're more likely to say, "Screw you!" and go
> away.

If someone volunteers to a position that involves phone communication
then they I would guess that they'd understand why it was necessary.
I'm not denying that they'd sometimes get annoyed.

I'm involved with a political party and although I'm not paid or
contracted, I feel obliged to fulfil certain tasks. Even though the
task in particular may not be of especial interest to me, I take part
because I'm furthering the party. Sometimes I get called and am
disgruntled that I'll be standing outside for a couple of hours, but I
feel committed enough to do it.

Similarly, I feel committed to what the Foundation is aiming to
achieve. I started to get involved with Wikimedia by editing articles
on Wikipedia. I was pleased to be adding to a free encyclopedia. I
loved the fact that what I added could be adapted and reused without
ever becoming unfree. I slowly began to appreciate the aims of the
Foundation on a far more philosophical level. It is this kind of
philosophical commitment that allows me to stand in the cold for a
couple of hours and would allow me to be relied upon in a specified
voluntary position.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Rename admins to janitors

body:
Ron Ritzman wrote:

>On 3/6/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>jamitor
>>
>>
>Now there's an idea for a name. Play nice, follow our policies and
>don't be a dick or we will "JAM" you :)
>
:-(   Ooops!  Looks like our very own garage band.is out of the closet. ;-)

Ec


from_name: Frederick Noronha

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia doesn't get enough respect

body:
http://media.www.kstatecollegian.com/media/storage/paper1022/news/2007/03/01/Opinion/Wikipedia.Doesnt.Get.Enough.Respect-2751676.shtml

Wikipedia doesn't get enough respect
By: Jonas Hogg
Issue date: 3/1/07 Section: Opinion

Staff Editorial
Daily Forty-Niner (Cal State-Long Beach)

Among the many under-appreciated and misunderstood resources in our
world, Wikipedia.com ranks high on the list.

It is abused by college students, damned by professors and generally
shunned among the 30-and-older intellectual crowd. Now, according to
an article in the Feb. 21 issue of The New York Times, it has been
banned altogether from a history department at Middlebury College in
Vermont. This move, while shocking, is disappointing for the wrong
reasons - students should never use this Web site as their sole
source.

It is a bit embarrassing that college students would even dare to use
Wikipedia as their only source. For those readers who are not yet up
to speed on the hotly debated Web site, Wikipedia is an online
voluntary encyclopedia that allows readers to submit their own entries
and alter others, usually without restriction. The "voluntary" aspect
is what doesn't jibe with many academics who believe the openness of
Wikipedia can cause incorrect information to seep into the site,
corrupting its validity.

In the case of Middlebury College, the misinformation already has
infiltrated the Web site and, consequentially, students' papers.
According to the article, six students allowed an egregious historical
error into their papers by using Wikipedia for their papers on the
Shimabara Rebellion of 17th-century Japan.

The mistake these students made was not their use of the Web site, but
that they used it as their only source. Wikipedia is a fantastic
resource for primary information and a great starting place for
research.

If users need a brief overview of an issue, they often can find it on
Wikipedia and get a very basic and superficial understanding of a
topic, which can help when doing further research. Some entries,
however, go into greater detail than some Wikipedia skeptics might
give them credit for.

Also, many of Wikipedia's entries are sourced from other, incredibly
useful links to credible Web sites that could be used in essays as
valid sources. Some even copy information from reliable sources and
paste it onto Wikipedia pages. Both Wikipedia's fatal flaw and its
charm are rooted in the same characteristic: the ease with which
readers can change the content of the Web site.

According to a July 31, 2006, article in The New Yorker, Wikipedia's
millionth entry was one sentence on Jordanhill, an obscure train
station in Glasgow, Scotland. According to the article, within 24
hours, the entry was edited more than 400 times by dozens of people
who knew obscure information, like the fact Jordanhill train station
is the "1,029th busiest train station in the United Kingdom" and that
it "no longer has a staffed ticket counter."

One aspect of Wikipedia that might be hard to change is that certain
subjects are not well-known, and people with expertise probably aren't
devoting much time to updating a Wikipedia entry, as was the case with
Middlebury College and 17th century Japanese history.

But, according to the entry on Wikipedia, "An investigation by Nature
(a scholarly journal) compared Wikipedia to the Encyclopaedia
Britannica and suggested a similar level of accuracy."

The only solution to the poor editing and lack of content for which
Wikipedia is criticized is for more people to use it. The more people
use the Web site, the more people may feel compelled to improve its
content and coverage of an issue.
--
FN M: 0091 9822122436 P: +91-832-240-9490 (after 1300IST please)
http://fn.goa-india.org  http://fredericknoronha.wordpress.com
What bloggers are saying about Goa: http://planet.goa-india.org/


subject: [Wikipedia-l] The Anarchy of Wikipedia

body:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/contentions/index.php/johnson/202

The Anarchy of Wikipedia
Daniel Johnson - 3.1.2007 - 9:13AM

Michael J. Lewis makes a fair point about Wikipedia: we have all used
it as a short-cut from time to time, and, provided that information
from it is checked and cross-referenced, it has its legitimate uses.
But he does not go far enough in commenting on its accuracy.

The site is the repository not merely of inaccuracy but of
disinformation on a vast scale. It is a minefield for those whom
Nietzsche called "die Halbgebildeten," the half-educated. According to
Tom Gross, Wikipedia recently deleted an entry that claimed "the bones
of Palestinian children" were one of five ingredients used by Jews to
make unleavened bread for Passover. Though the editors promised to be
more vigilant in the future, it is troubling that an Islamist version
of this ancient anti-Semitic blood libel could be posted on this most
popular of online resources for any length of time at all.

By chance, I discovered that the entry about me also included hostile,
anonymously authored material. At my request, it was removed without
question by the editors of Wikipedia. But what if I had not noticed
it, or had been dead or otherwise unable to lodge a protest?

I am alarmed by the notion that authoritative reference works such as
Britannica have been replaced by a "people's encyclopedia" based on a
primitive form of epistemological and moral relativism. Some people
know more than others, and works of reference are there to disseminate
the knowledge of the few to the many. In the realm of truth, Wikipedia
has replaced democracy with anarchy.

--
FN M: 0091 9822122436 P: +91-832-240-9490 (after 1300IST please)
http://fn.goa-india.org  http://fredericknoronha.wordpress.com
What bloggers are saying about Goa: http://planet.goa-india.org/


from_name: Jared Williams

subject: [Wikitech-l] Audio file sizes

body:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikitech-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
> [mailto:wikitech-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
> Brion Vibber
> Sent: 06 March 2007 17:40
> To: Wikimedia developers
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Audio file sizes
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> [snip]
> > Thoughts on this?  On using a bot vs some native support?
>
> Definitely prefer native support, as with images.
>
> The way we handle thumbnailing with arbitrary sizes kind of sucks,
> though: making only specific versions, and probably
> generating them on upload, would be most sensible.
>

The ogg vorbis file wrapper looks good.

http://devzone.zend.com/manual/view/page/oggvorbis.usage.html

Jared


from_name: Oskar Sigvardsson

subject: [WikiEN-l] Conservapedia

references:
<20070306162302.MSIB17393.aamtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@smtp.ntlworld.com>
	<6gqru2th5pod6i1n39ol9i93tc4pp02ao2@4ax.com>
	<52a8cf060703061434g27ed39bayb06a28a7010010da@mail.gmail.com>
	<43sru2dfpk5pmdpuu9q7eg7of0h3lur5cr@4ax.com>
	<52a8cf060703061459u5ff58104w51039d67f08fc682@mail.gmail.com>
	<k8vru21jknpk0scld3cnucp7d97lod6r9v@4ax.com>

body:
On 3/7/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> Always baffles me, how the need for a well-regulated militia equates
> in some people's minds to the right to pack heat at all times :-)

You know what is even more baffling? They have a discussion about
whether the ruthless slaughter of people based solely on their
religion is a good thing or a bad thing:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Crusades..._Good_or_Bad%3F

It's an interesting read, their discussion topics:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate_topics

Example:
"30. How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?"

Maybe you should start by renaming it.

--Oskar


body:
On 05/03/07, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> On 3/5/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Academic credentials seem to me to have little to do with many of the
> > skills necessary to being a Wikipedian (even less so when it comes to
> > positions of trust)
>
> But if you feel that way, then wouldn't it be accurate to say that
> they shouldn't be on a user page in the first place?  User pages are
> supposed to be for helping build the encyclopedia, after all.  If
> credentials aren't helpful, and they're potentially harmful, then by
> all means get rid of them.

I think a little personal information on a profile that isn't relevant
to the project or the user's work is great. It helps develop a
community and relationships between developers.

Also, although the credentials of the lead contributor shouldn't have
any impact on an article (it, theoretically, being thorougly
referenced), this kind of information can be useful. Learning that a
user has credentials in a particular area may encourage me to ask them
about a particular reference rather than anyone else. On the other
hand, I may ask the same question to a user with no credentials listed
on his/her user page because they seem particularly knowledgeable.
Since, ideally, the use of credentials on Wikipedia should be limited
to this, the Foundation should not need to verify them.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Rename admins to janitors

body:
On 3/7/07, Ron Ritzman <ritzman at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> In any "social system", if it's necessary to give some people "special
> powers", then those people will be seen to have a "special status" and
> ordinary users will desire that status and some will even hate people
> who have that status. The effect can be minimized but it will always
> be a "big deal" It's just the nature of the beast.

Well said.

Mgm


body:
> I just don't have the vanity, or smug self importance, left, to think
> that I'm anything more than just another contributor to a possible
> vast knowledge base for the future.
>
> -Bop

Maybe, but at least you have enough smug self importance left to show
be utterly dismissive.

Enjoyed the rant. Thanks for emphasizing IAR. You're obviously
glossing over lots but I'm pretty sure that was half way your
intention.

-S


from_name: Marc Riddell

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Accountability: bringing back a proposal I
	made	nearly 2 years ago

body:
on 3/7/07 12:37 AM, Sheldon Rampton at sheldon at prwatch.org wrote:

> It's a proposed policy stating clearly that Wikipedians are expected
> to be honest. David evidently thinks this is absurd and unnecessary.

David isn't the only one having a problem with this. Are you talking about a
"policy" that would be suggested be followed - or a "rule" that, if broken,
would carry punitive consequences?

Marc Riddell

--
The culture's gonna get us before the climate ever does.


from_name: Anthony

body:
On 3/6/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> The life-and-death aspect of volunteer firefighting is not the only
> aspect of the job that makes you feel obligated to fulfilling it as if
> it were a paid position. Contracts are signed, uniforms are worn,
> there is a work place: cues and mechanisms associated with a paid job.

This is true to some extent, except for the contract part.  I never
signed a written contract with the fire department.  The rest is only
partly true, though.  We didn't wear always wear a uniform while we
washed the equipment, and washing the equipment was by no means a
life-and-death job.  The fact that there was a work place wasn't the
reason I did this either.  No, washing the equipment was just
something that we were required to do by the chief, and that's the
reason we did it.

Anthony