from_name: Jim Wilson

subject: [Wikitech-l] An RSS extension I'd like to see

body:
I've written an extension that does something similar to what you're
asking.  It's called WikiArticleFeeds:

http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:WikiArticleFeeds

It's not exactly what you want - but the syntax is really easy (I'm
combining an example with a description of what it does, hope it makes
sense):

----------------------------------------------
Text in page before feed - ignored for RSS/Atom purporses.
<startFeed />

Any text before the first Heading becomes the description of the feed (this
text).

== Item Two ==

Typically it's good practice to list feed items in reverse chronological
order (newest on top).

--[[User:Someuser|Someuser]] 08:52, 5 December 2006 (MST)

== Item One ==

The extension picks out the "highest" level Heading as the Item level.

=== So this third-level heading ===

And this text both belong to Item One.

--[[User:Someuser|Someuser]] 08:42, 4 December 2006 (MST)

<endFeed />

Note that both startFeed and endFeed are self-closing tags with no internal
text or arguments.

This text (and the preceding note) are again ignored by the extension since
they're not in the start/end blocks.

<startFeed />
== Item Three ==

Since this page has two startFeed/endFeed pairs, the resulting RSS/Atom
feeds will contain all items from both sections.

This means that you could have a series of disperate feeds that you
transclude together on one page for aggregation.

--[[User:Someuser|Someuser]] 18:42, 6 December 2006 (MST)

== Item Four ==

The publication dates and authors for feed items are taken from the first
instance of ~~~~ in the item.

Also, you may know that RSS/Atom feeds can have associated URLs.
WikiArticleFeeds will look for the first link (internal or external, as long
as it's not part of a ~~~~ segment) and use that URL as its own link.

If your feed item has no links, it defaults to [[#ITEM TITLE]]  which in
this case would be "Item Four".

--[[User:Someuser|Someuser]] 08:48, 7 December 2006 (MST)
<endFeed />
----------------------------------------------

Also, please note that the parsing for feed Items that WikiArticleFeeds does
occurs AFTER mediawiki has converted the wikitext into HTML.  This means
that it (should be) totally agnostic towards templates and custom parser
functions (though I haven't extensively tested this yet).

If you decide to use it, I'd love to hear your feedback.  Thanks!

btw - if you want to see an example site, I'm currently using this to power
my Blog:

http://jimbojw.com/wiki/index.php?title=Blog

-- Jim R. Wilson (jimbojw)

On 2/17/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> Wikipedia has hundreds of wonderful portals on every imaginable topic.
> These are perhaps one of the most underexposed treasures on the site.
> It would be lovely if people could subscribe to a portal feed, or
> individual "boxes" (typical portal arrangement is into rectangles with
> different content). Example:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Free_software
>
> How could this be achieved? One way would be to support an RSS
> extension that would operate as follows:
>
> 1) You put something like
>
> <makefeed>
> title=Selected article on free software
> addto=freesoftware.xml
> addto=freesoftware-sel.xml
> </makefeed>
> <feedicon>
> feed=freesoftware-sel.xml
> </feedicon>
>
> inside a template, or indeed any page.
>
> 2) When a user edits a page, the extension checks for the presence of
> <makefeed> in the wikitext. If it is present, it adds a
>
> ( ) Add as new item to RSS feed
> ( ) Update most recent RSS feed item for this page
> (x) no change
>
> selection to the page, below where the minor edit checkbox is. This
> selection should only be available to users with a definable
> permission level (e.g. autoconfirmed).
>
> 3) The feeds could be directly updated/written on the disk, in the
> images/ directory. In any case, the <feedicon> tag would generate a
> pretty link to a feed with a given name.
>
> The feed content would be the action=render output for the page where
> the <makefeed> instruction is found (ideally sans noinclude). It could
> also include the edit summary.
>
> Given that a feed could be accessed from multiple pages, you could
> build aggregated feeds (in the above example, freesoftware.xml would
> be a feed for the whole free software portal) and individual ones
> (freesoftware-sel.xml would only be the selected article box). You'd
> have to do some clever scanning of the file on disk to make safe
> updates, but it shouldn't be too hard.
>
> Any conceptual flaws? Any takers? I think this could really make a big
> difference for content re-use, not just in the context of Wikipedia.
> But the portals seem like a particularly attractive target application
> to me.
> --
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Parker Peters

subject: [WikiEN-l] WelcomeCommitteeBot?

body:
Has been suggested numerous times.

Is a wonderful idea.

Will probably be rejected yet again, for no reasonable basis.

Parker

On 2/16/07, A <jokestress at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Seeing the wide variety of welcome templates used and some recent
> interactions with new IP editors have me thinking about this as an option.
>
> The basics:
>
> 1. Would post a welcome message the first time an IP address or registered
> account is used to edit.
> 2. Would explain key policies.
> 3. Would encourage the IP editors to register a username.
> 4. Would indicate a place where any questions could be directed.
>
> This automated message would have a few benefits:
>
> 1. It would reach people immediately after they make their first edit.
> 2. It might help some editors avoid common issues with first edits:
> original
> research, copyright issues, POV, verifiability.
> 3. It might cut down on some of the other misunderstandings novice editors
> have.
>
> Interested editors could sign on when they are available to take questions
> from novices, or the new editors could be sent to a page where they could
> ask any questions and get a fairly quick response.
>
> If it seems it might be more personal, maybe the bot could randomly assign
> an experienced editor to each welcome message, someone signed up on the
> welcoming committee.
>
> It seems that this might cut down on much of the back and forth
> experienced
> editors have with new editors, and it might encourage more people to
> register. Sometimes editors get welcomed immediately, and other times it
> takes months.
>
> Thoughts?
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>


list: foundation-l

from_name: Łukasz Garczewski

subject: [Foundation-l] The Chinese New Year Wikipedia Logo

body:
On 2/16/07, THD <theodoranian at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2 days later, it will be the Chinese New Year, and some Chinese Wikipedian
> has made the Chinese New Year celebration Wikipedia logo. During the Chinese
> New Year period (Feb. 18 to 23), I think Chinese Wikipedians are proposing a
> celebration of new year on Chinese Wikipedia. You can take a look of this
> logo, http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wiki_pig.png

[cut]

> Please comment.

I am strongly opposed to altering the logos of Wikimedia projects for
whatever reason or occasion. Here's why:

== Unified look ==

Obviously we will not change the logos on all the projects or even on
all the language versions of one project (say Wikipedia) for any given
occasion. If we allowed alternative logos, some would be altered, some
not. A mess.

Furthermore, the quality of altered logos and the way they fit in with
other logos in the Wikimedia family may differ greatly. I am not sure
we want that.

== Country-specific POV ==

Notice, that alternative logos will further the misconception that
pl.wikipedia.org is "The Polish Wikipedia" and zh.wikipedia.org is
"The Chinese Wikipedia". They are not -- they are the "Polish-language
Wikipedia" and "Chinese-language Wikipedia" respectively.

That a holiday is observed by 100% of Wikipedians contributing to a
given language version, say Swahili, doesn't mean that Wikipedia in
Swahili should change because of that. It should still be
international and neutral in nature.

== Further POV changes ==

Introducing alternative logos for holidays and such will encourage
people to propose logo changes for other reasons, like national

I had to explain again and again why we cannot and will not have a
black ribbon on the logo when John Paul II died. I do NOT want to go
through that again.

== Community vs no community ==

www.google.com is a great site, but there is no community behind it.
It displays custom logos to say 'Look! We're alive too! The logo has
changed! We celebrate Christmas/New Year." Most major portals do that
for the same reason -- to look more human.

We DO NOT need that. We are a living, thriving community. And the
community doesn't have to be reminded that it's [insert your favourite
holiday], does it?

Nothing holds any of the communities back from celebrating on meta
pages, user talk pages (Christmas wishes, new year wishes, etc.) and
so forth. That's enough for me as a member of those communities.
Anything more is unnecessary.

== Conclusion ==

Alternative logos are not really necessary, they further POV on many
levels and could damage our visual identity (if done incorrectly).
Please, lets not introduce them. Please.

--
?ukasz 'TOR' Garczewski


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Anthere

body:
As I said, "I know that some people are not favorable to festive logo"
(and I have seen the issue being discussed many times already -- jeee, I
feel old saying this)

?ukasz Garczewski wrote:

== Community vs no community ==
>
> www.google.com is a great site, but there is no community behind it.
> It displays custom logos to say 'Look! We're alive too! The logo has
> changed! We celebrate Christmas/New Year." Most major portals do that
> for the same reason -- to look more human.
>
> We DO NOT need that. We are a living, thriving community. And the
> community doesn't have to be reminded that it's [insert your favourite
> holiday], does it?

But still... it happens !

'cause we are humans ;-)

ant (running away before the wave hits her)


list: commons-l

from_name: peter green

subject: [Commons-l] Making a home wiki field in user login

body:
> Idea is nice, but we could use categories/userpages for that.
> Dont forget, we are just another wiki.
and some people do use thier userpage for that, but the vast majority don't.

we need to get the home wiki information at signup time because with drive by users we may not get another chance.

i think we may even need to go as far as making it mandatory to specify username, password and wiki for an account on another wikimedia wiki at signup time. If we don't make it mandatory then the very people we need the info for the most are the type that are least likely to give it to us.


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [WikiEN-l] Brainstorming: Donation appeal

body:
I'd like to invite you to contribute to a little brainstorming
session, to see if we can come up with a better text than "Your
continued donations keep Wikipedia running!" for the site notice shown
to unregistered users:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Donation_appeal_ideas

Several people have also complained that the text is too small. I tend
to agree and think that it would be fine in normal size, perhaps in a
different color than the main article text.
--
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: [Foundation-l] Announcement: Chief Research Coordinator

body:
This is an official WMF announcement.

The Board of Trustees accepts the resignation of James D. Forrester in
the volunteer role as Chief Research Officer. James has the gratitude
of the Board for volunteering his time and ideas to the projects in
the friendly, creative, skilled and professional manner that we have
come to know and appreciate him for.

The Board of Trustees has decided to rename the role to "Chief
Research Coordinator," and to appoint Gregory Maxwell to the volunteer
position. Gregory has long time experience working with and analyzing
Wikimedia data and interacting with others who do the same, is
familiar with both the internals of the projects and the workings of
the community, and is deeply committed to our values and principles.

A description of the role can be found at:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Chief_Research_Coordinator

If you find out of date pages that need to be updated, please be bold and do so.

Erik M?ller
Executive Secretary, Wikimedia Foundation


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Andy Spencer

subject: [Wikitech-l] Distributed content hosting

body:
Recently I have read several news reports regarding funding for the
wikimedia foundation. Regardless of whether the foundation is in need
of a little cash I believe that it would be possible to greatly reduce
the costs of operation by divvying up some of the server load to
volunteers.

This would be done in a way analogous projects such as SETI at home,
where anyone with access to a server could install a client and host
data. For instance: I, as a student in college sometimes feel bad for
not being able to contribute monetarily to the fundraising campaigns.
I do however have access to a server that's using roughly 0.5% it's
CPU and 1.5% of it's allocated bandwidth and would be more than
willing to contribute those resources if it were possible.

I'm raising this topic from the standpoint of the 'idea' and would be
most interested in discussion based on based around the assumption
that it would be trivial to implement such a system. Whether or not
that is the case is something to be explored as well, however I'd
rather not get bogged down in implementation before discussing the
concept.

If anyone has any suggestions or would be interested in helping please reply.
I'm new around here so I'm not exactly sure what the next step should be :)


body:
Wikipedia has hundreds of wonderful portals on every imaginable topic.
These are perhaps one of the most underexposed treasures on the site.
It would be lovely if people could subscribe to a portal feed, or
individual "boxes" (typical portal arrangement is into rectangles with
different content). Example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Free_software

How could this be achieved? One way would be to support an RSS
extension that would operate as follows:

1) You put something like

<makefeed>
title=Selected article on free software
addto=freesoftware.xml
addto=freesoftware-sel.xml
</makefeed>
<feedicon>
feed=freesoftware-sel.xml
</feedicon>

inside a template, or indeed any page.

2) When a user edits a page, the extension checks for the presence of
<makefeed> in the wikitext. If it is present, it adds a

( ) Add as new item to RSS feed
( ) Update most recent RSS feed item for this page
(x) no change

selection to the page, below where the minor edit checkbox is. This
selection should only be available to users with a definable
permission level (e.g. autoconfirmed).

3) The feeds could be directly updated/written on the disk, in the
images/ directory. In any case, the <feedicon> tag would generate a
pretty link to a feed with a given name.

The feed content would be the action=render output for the page where
the <makefeed> instruction is found (ideally sans noinclude). It could
also include the edit summary.

Given that a feed could be accessed from multiple pages, you could
build aggregated feeds (in the above example, freesoftware.xml would
be a feed for the whole free software portal) and individual ones
(freesoftware-sel.xml would only be the selected article box). You'd
have to do some clever scanning of the file on disk to make safe
updates, but it shouldn't be too hard.

Any conceptual flaws? Any takers? I think this could really make a big
difference for content re-use, not just in the context of Wikipedia.
But the portals seem like a particularly attractive target application
to me.
--
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


body:
On 2/17/07, ?ukasz Garczewski <lgarczewski at gmail.com> wrote:
> Obviously we will not change the logos on all the projects or even on
> all the language versions of one project (say Wikipedia) for any given
> occasion. If we allowed alternative logos, some would be altered, some
> not. A mess.

People will scream when it goes too far. It is pretty much
self-regulating. Yes, it tends to be culture-centric and POV, but as
long as it is generally considered non-offensive and non-divisive,
that should not be a problem.

To every rule, there can be an exception.

I do appreciate being notified here beforehand, and I think that
should be general practice. I might have been slightly surprised
seeing a deeply red Chinese Wikipedia logo otherwise ..
--
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


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

body:
Hoi,
I have always been in favour of pigs. They are intelligent animals..
They serve an interesting role in nature...
So the year of the pig has started :)
Thanks,
    GerardM

Sources:
    http://www.omegawiki.org/User:GerardM

Erik Moeller schreef:
> On 2/17/07, ?ukasz Garczewski <lgarczewski at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Obviously we will not change the logos on all the projects or even on
>> all the language versions of one project (say Wikipedia) for any given
>> occasion. If we allowed alternative logos, some would be altered, some
>> not. A mess.
>>
>
> People will scream when it goes too far. It is pretty much
> self-regulating. Yes, it tends to be culture-centric and POV, but as
> long as it is generally considered non-offensive and non-divisive,
> that should not be a problem.
>
> To every rule, there can be an exception.
>
> I do appreciate being notified here beforehand, and I think that
> should be general practice. I might have been slightly surprised
> seeing a deeply red Chinese Wikipedia logo otherwise ..
>


from_name: James Forrester

body:
On 17/02/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> This is an official WMF announcement.
>
> The Board of Trustees accepts the resignation of James D. Forrester in
> the volunteer role as Chief Research Officer. James has the gratitude
> of the Board for volunteering his time and ideas to the projects in
> the friendly, creative, skilled and professional manner that we have
> come to know and appreciate him for.
>
> The Board of Trustees has decided to rename the role to "Chief
> Research Coordinator," and to appoint Gregory Maxwell to the volunteer
> position. Gregory has long time experience working with and analyzing
> Wikimedia data and interacting with others who do the same, is
> familiar with both the internals of the projects and the workings of
> the community, and is deeply committed to our values and principles.
>
> A description of the role can be found at:
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Chief_Research_Coordinator
>
> If you find out of date pages that need to be updated, please be bold and do so.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Board for the
opportunity to serve, as well as the many members of the community who
have helped and supported me in my role.

I wish Greg the very best in his new position, which I know from my
own experience of his sterling efforts will be absolutely fantastic.

Yours,
--
James D. Forrester
jdforrester at wikimedia.org | james at jdforrester.org | jdforrester at gmail.com
[[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]


body:
Hoi,
The idea is not exactly new. It is also rather complicated. The idea is
cool enough that some real brains are working on it, it will however
take its time. In the mean time Wikipedia grows exponentially. This is
good in one way; it means we are fulfilling our mission. It is
problematic in others, the organisation is to scale in the same way.
Thanks,
    GerardM

Andy Spencer schreef:
> Recently I have read several news reports regarding funding for the
> wikimedia foundation. Regardless of whether the foundation is in need
> of a little cash I believe that it would be possible to greatly reduce
> the costs of operation by divvying up some of the server load to
> volunteers.
>
> This would be done in a way analogous projects such as SETI at home,
> where anyone with access to a server could install a client and host
> data. For instance: I, as a student in college sometimes feel bad for
> not being able to contribute monetarily to the fundraising campaigns.
> I do however have access to a server that's using roughly 0.5% it's
> CPU and 1.5% of it's allocated bandwidth and would be more than
> willing to contribute those resources if it were possible.
>
> I'm raising this topic from the standpoint of the 'idea' and would be
> most interested in discussion based on based around the assumption
> that it would be trivial to implement such a system. Whether or not
> that is the case is something to be explored as well, however I'd
> rather not get bogged down in implementation before discussing the
> concept.
>
> If anyone has any suggestions or would be interested in helping please reply.
> I'm new around here so I'm not exactly sure what the next step should be :)


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Liviu Andronic

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Conspicuous only in its absence (was Moldavian)

body:
Hello

As you perfectly understand, even supposing that we will ever reach the
> point in which you and I will say "Ok, deal", there will be NO WARRANTY
> whatsoever that ro.wiki will accept what you and I propose.
>
This is true. However, a poll organized
somewhere<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects>on
meta might help. Even if the outcome were negative,
this would at least sensitize the Romanian Wikipedia community of the
existence of such a
possibility. And who knows? Maybe in a year or two, installing a conversion
script would actually be acceptable for the community..

If and when ro.wiki will want to host cyrillic on their pages they will
> issue an official claim for it.

Again, a poll might be helpful..

In the meantime... I will NOT continue on
> this subject, since it's leading absolutely nowhere.

Agreed. In the meantime, I'll see what can be done about the script, so as
to get it to a working condition.

And hopefully there'll be some reaction to the issues you've recently raised
regarding the Eastern European wikis.

Regards,
Liviu


from_name: Florian Straub

body:
"bawolff" <bawolff+wn at gmail.com> wrote on Saturday, February 17, 2007 5:08
AM:

> On 2/16/07, Florian Straub <flominator at gmx.net> wrote:
>> "bawolff" <bawolff+wn at gmail.com> wrote on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 1:54
>> AM
>>
>> > That's what I meant. You have the field, and it automatically (through
>> > js magic?) puts a template on your userspace which the image warning
>> > bots recognize.
>>
>> What about http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Notify_me ?

> Thats exactly what I meant. The only problem is no one knows it exists.

Maybe that's because I created it about 12 hours ago? ;)

Now we need a "javascript magician" to include in in the registration
process ....

Regards,

Flo


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] WelcomeCommitteeBot?

body:
Yes, it sounds bad for a lot of editors, but IP editors are extremely hard
to catch in time.
As long as it is restricted to IP editors I'm okay with such a bot.

Mgm

On 2/17/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/17/07, A <jokestress at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Thoughts?
>
> A bot to add a personal touch? Um...
>
> If the problem is people getting missed by the welcoming committee for
> a few months, then fix the process. An automated welcome by a bot
> sounds bad.
>
> Steve
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Ray Saintonge

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Deletions - do we cut a bit of slack for the Third
 World

body:
Ken Arromdee wrote:

>On Fri, 16 Feb 2007, Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
>
>
>>Should we, as I suggest there, cut a bit of slack for artciles about
>>something in the Third World, or do we just accept the "no reliable
>>third party sources for notability" mantra.
>>
>>
>This is a special case of a fundamental problem with Wikipedia: the demand
>for sources and notability produces a heavy bias towards things which are on
>the Internet and can be easily found.
>
>I'd say to accept it, but I'm hard pressed to find a reason to do so other
>than IAR.  (Which proves that IAR can apply to *anything*...  how many of
>you thought there would ever be a case where it needs to be used to ignore
>notability?)
>
I support "Ignore All Rules", but I don't see that as being applicable
here.  It looks too much like the easy way out.  One does not deal wih a
fundamental problem by ignoring it.

I agree with the importance of sources, but if we truly want this to be
a project for the world we need to avoid imposing western
Aristotelianism in places where it was not the cultural norm.  That
would just be another form of imperialism that we made ourselves believe
was gone when Europe's former colonies became independant.

We do Wikipedia a disservice when we insist on a rigorous interpretation
of reliability.  Sources allow us to trace the origins of concepts that
are expressed in an article; having them implies nothing about the
validity of the concept. There is certainly no necessity that a source
be on the internet, and some benefit might be derived from insisting on
at least one source that is not from the internet.  There is certainly
no necessity that a source even be in English (or whatever other
language is used in the Wikipedia inquestion); somebody who understands
the source language can always translate it later.

Ec


from_name: Stephen Bain

subject: [WikiEN-l] Requirements for Adminship

body:
On 2/16/07, Keitei <nihthraefn at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Therefore, admin candidates must:
>         demonstrate they can participate in discussions in which they have
> no personal invested interest, with positive effect to those who do
> have personal invested interest
>         demonstrate they know the difference between their opinion,
> consensus, and the Truth (which doesn't exist on wiki)
>         demonstrate they recognize their own bias and will refuse to act
> upon it

I for one think this is a pretty good summary of the sorts of things
we should be looking for in candidates. Not necessarily formal
criteria, but guidelines of what a nominator or candidate should be
trying to demonstrate to the community at RFA.

I would much more readily support a candidate who can link to, say, a
couple of talk page discussions where they were able to contribute
constructively even when people disagreed with them, or even better,
discussions where they provided a third opinion which helped in a
dispute between two parties, than I would a candidate who can only
show me how many edits they made in a given namespace.

I would much more readily support a candidate who can link to some
discussions where they've shown a good understanding of policy, for
example, than a candidate who can only demonstrate they know how to
use "VandalWhacker 2.0" or whatever software is popular these days.

That sort of thing.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Requirements for Adminship

body:
On 2/16/07, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
>
> Keitei wrote:
> > Admins must:
> >       be neutral, above all else.
>
> This is already wrong. An admin who does not do any blocking, protecting
> or deleting, is by definition harmless, but they need not be neutral (in
> what they secretly believe would deserve deletion or protection). You
> would be denying adminship to such a person even though it would not
> cause any harm, therefore you are turning adminship into the "big deal"
> again that we are trying hard not to make it.

I think you've misread what was written. Here's a longer quote:

> Admins must:
>         be neutral, above all else.
>                 when they block
>                 when they protect
>                 when they delete

So what this means is that whenever an admin uses the tools, they must
use them in a neutral fashion. This is nothing new, and is merely the
first step in the logical chain from which Keitei derives her "things
we should look for in an admin".

> This is clearly wrong. What you are saying is that someone who cannot
> demonstrate that they would be a good admin before they're actually an
> admin, can't become admin. Catch-22!

You don't need the buttons to show that you can behave neutrally and
civilly, acknowledge your own biases etc. These are all qualities we
can look for in people's editing activities.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


body:
Delirium wrote:

>Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
>
>
>>On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 09:05:44 -0800 (PST), Ken Arromdee wrote:
>>
>>
>>>This is a special case of a fundamental problem with Wikipedia: the demand
>>>for sources and notability produces a heavy bias towards things which are on
>>>the Internet and can be easily found.
>>>
>>>
>>It's called FUTON bias and it doesn't only affect Wikipedia.
>>
>>
>In some corners of academia, particularly computer science, this is
>sometimes seen as a positive phenomenon.  Papers freely available on the
>internet are cited more frequently (controlling for other factors) than
>papers that are only available in print or from pay archives [1].  This
>provides a nice bit of pressure for authors to put their papers on their
>homepages, and for journals to make their archives publicly accessible.
>... The result is more information available to everyone, not only
>the wealthy or those who have affiliations with wealthy first-world
>universities---a goal that seems rather in keeping with Wikipedia's spirit.
>
>-Mark
>
>[1] S. Lawrence. Online or invisible? _Nature_ 411, 2001. Online
>version: http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/online-nature01/
>
I grok the idea but am unfamiliar with the acronym.

Computer science is a relatively recent field of study, so the
positivity of the phenomenon makes more sense there than it would in
most other fields.  In older disciplines entire archives of material
have never been digitized at all, and I can't help but be concerned
about the control on knowledge exercised by those who choose what to
digitize.  Affordability is a major factor, but it's far from being the
only one.  I'm far more concened by who don't bother to look beyond the
internet, and what that's doing to the general state of knowledge.

Ec


from_name: Angela

subject: [WikiEN-l] Extended Toolbar

body:
On 2/14/07, Jonathan Buck <jonathanpbuck at gmail.com> wrote:
> In the tables page of the meta.wikimedia site, the example shows a toolbar
> with many more buttons.  Is this custom work, or a flag somewhere?

One way of adding these is to add Mark's XEB script to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Mypage/monobook.js

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MarkS/Extra_edit_buttons

Angela


from_name: Berto 'd Sera

body:
Hi!

> I think the case of "local political extremism" is actually the most
> clear-cut case in which we *must not* have two separate Wikipedias.
> That is a recipe for a non-neutral encyclopedia, akin to having an
> encyclopedia for a particular political party, which is contrary to our
> basic goals.

In principle I can only agree. I'm currently studying a number of eastern
European wikies and I hope to publish some first results pretty soon. They
are quite scary, indeed.

Anyway, as a matter of fact, we do have but two ways out this:
1) two separate independent and opposed fields
2) brute force (an international "protectorate"?)

As for WMF, principles are principles, too bad we also have facts, of which
reality is made. And reality is that WMF hosts:
1) sr.wikipedia.org
2) hr.wikipedia.org
3) sh.wikipedia.org

Which one(s) should be deleted, redirected, enclosed in another, if any?

We are also hosting a be.wiki.org whose graphic conventions are not
corresponding to the ISO code it uses (actually there is no ISO code for the
version we host, since it's not even the pre-revolutionary graphic
convention, and an ad-hoc code should be requested for it), while we keep
waiting until forever in the incubator the version in the official graphic
convention.

It's lots of interesting things we do, apart from having MO-RO carnivals...
What we mostly miss is a policy regarding our pillars. We do have wikies
that publish calls to racial hatred and we do absolutely nothing about it.
As a result, we have full admin structures taking up a totalitarian control
of entire cultures (within wmf). Why? The answer is simple: because we don't
care.

All that is interesting to us is whether we are the 6th or the 7th place in
the Alexa bar, and how much money Coca Cola will give us for that. So it's
no wonder if in the end such embarrassing things happen and never get
solved. It's not about single people; this is what is interesting to the
community itself, as it becomes evident by analyzing what is DONE, and not
just what is said.

It's normal. A wiki reflects the culture writing it. Most westerners do not
give a damn about anyone but themselves. And this is the outcome. Can't see
why one should be astonished this...

Berto 'd Sera
Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri)
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html


from_name: Bradypus

subject: [Foundation-l] About rumors...

body:
Anthere,

Thank you for clarifying that point.
However, on a different subject, I note that the page you refer us to begins
with:
"the Wikimedia Foundation - which owns the online encyclopedia Wikipedia"

Owns? O_o  [sigh]

Bradipus

----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthere" <Anthere9 at yahoo.com>
To: <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 11:21 AM
Subject: [Foundation-l] About rumors...

> RUMORS
>
> I was away from my computer for 4 days last week, to participate to a
> conference (LIFT) in Switzerland. During this conference, the organiser
> asked me questions about the financial situation of the projects. I
> answered with plain honesty and unfortunately with some words which
> raised the attention of a blogger in the room.
>
> Never mind that the words were taken out of context, never mind the
> smiles that went with the words, the words were out. Twisted.
>
> So, if some of you have heard that Wikipedia might close in 4 months due
> to financial difficulties, these are the words I am talking about.
>
> For more on the discussion on the matter, please see the blog of Mr
> Guissani. I had a long discussion with him on financial matters on
> friday morning.
>
> http://www.lunchoverip.com/2007/02/the_wikimedia_c.html
>
> I think that summarize things pretty well.
>
> ---------
>
> BEING INFORMED
>
> The day the WMF will plan to close Wikipedia for lack of funds, believe
> me, you'll know. Before the press.
>
> Will Wikipedia close in 4 months ? NO. NO. AND NO.
>
> ---------
>
> TRANSPARENCY AND FIGURES
>
> All of our financial statements for year 2004, 2005 and 2006 are public
> and audited. Please find them here:
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Finance_report#Audited_financial_statements
>
> We also have a page where we state our needs for the coming 6 months.
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/What_we_need_the_money_for.
>
> (as a reminder, our fiscal year goes from june to june)
>
> TO make it short, we currently have above 1 million (exact figures to
> pick up from Carolyn, perhaps 1,5) in bank, available for use.
>
> Current monthly expenses as of today are about 75 000 dollars.
> We had an (optimistic goal) of hardware investment of 1,6 million before
> june. We can expect bandwidth and hosting costs to naturally follow. We
> also need more human help, at least hiring a permanent executive
> director, a CTO and probably more developers.
>
> Just have a look at the page and do count yourself. If you add current
> daily operations + hardware investment + increase in bandwidth +
> increase in hosting + 3 to 5 additional employees, we are already over
> that 1.5 millions that we have in hand.
>
> So, as of today, I think we can quietly say that
>
> "yes, we have about 3-4 months of operations at hand". Not 6 months. Not
> 1 year. Not 2 years. Roughly 3-4 months.
>
> If you look at the bottom of this page,
> (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/What_we_need_the_money_for#Retained_revenue)
> you'll see that the recommandations of auditors is always to try to have
> 6 months of reserve. We are far from it. We have roughly 4 months.
> Having 6 months of reserve is financially wiser.
>
> Did you have a way to know this previously ?
> Yes you did. It was listed in the site notice during the full month of
> fundraising. So, there is nothing new to wikipedians. There might be
> something new to press though.
>
> ---------
>
> IS THAT A BIG DEAL ?
>
> I repeat, we are not going to disappear. We have been in worse state in
> the past. Well, in december 2006, some expenses were delayed, delayed
> till the money from the fundraising was flowing in, and we could pay the
> bills.
>
> Someone mentionned image server a few days ago. Image server was planned
> in september hardware quote. But purchase was delayed till december.
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution_Hardware_sept_2006
> Because given our cashflow situation, it would have been unreasonable to
> buy the image servers.
>
>
> This should not happen. We should not come to the point where we delay
> hardware investment. We should aim to provide the best service, not just
> the service we can afford.
>
>
> We should not try to pretend we do not need money. We do need more
> money. People at the Foundation are trying to find creative ways to
> collect more, with services (datafeed), royalties from brand use
> (Wikipedia in particular), matching donations etc... but raising the
> money for the projects should not become only the business of 10 or so
> employees. This should be many people concern. Because Wikipedia is not
> the website of a few people, not even the website of the community, it
> is a common good.
>
> ant
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] About rumors...


from_name: Earle Martin

subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin burnout (deputy admins)

body:
On 16/02/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
> >>Nieve?  Obsolete Scottish dialect for clenched fist?  Spanish for snow?
> >>
> >In what way does a sarcastic comment about my spelling make a useful
> >contribution to this conversation? It was obvious what I meant.
> >
> It was perfectly obvious that no rational person knew what the fuck you
> meant with that collection of letters.

I recognised it as "naive" instantly. I am sure that many others did.

> Recognizing that would be more appropriate than trying to justify a misspelling.

No. What is inappropriate is your grossly insulting and offensive
language as quoted above.

Moderators, please consider putting this person on moderation. I do
not see how posts such as the one quoted improve the level of
conversation in this forum.

--
Earle Martin
            http://downlode.org/
http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/


from_name: Sherool

body:
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 08:06:03 +0100, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org>
wrote:

> Wikipedia has hundreds of wonderful portals on every imaginable topic.
> These are perhaps one of the most underexposed treasures on the site.
> It would be lovely if people could subscribe to a portal feed, or
> individual "boxes" (typical portal arrangement is into rectangles with
> different content). Example:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Free_software
>
> How could this be achieved? One way would be to support an RSS
> extension that would operate as follows:
<snip>

This is not exactly what you asked, but if you don't mind manualy editing
the feed (you can use templates to ease the work). It's perfectly possible
to create custum RRS feeds within the existing MediaWiki software. Just
create a page (or subpage) somewhere with the raw XML code for the feed,
then link to it with the options:

  &action=raw&ctype=application/rss+xml

added to the end of the URL. See for example the "podcast" RRS put togeter
by the English Wikipedia spoken articles project:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spoken_Wikipedia/rss&action=raw&ctype=application/rss+xml>

The "normal" version of the page is here
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spoken_Wikipedia/rss>,
the XML looks like crap in HTML view naturaly, but with the added raw and
content type parameters set it works like a charm (asuming you have a OGG
capable software that can subscribe to feeds (I use Winamp)).

--
[[:en:User:Sherool]]


from_name: Brianna Laugher

body:
I think it should be red and gold, but I like it :)

??????????

Brianna
user:pfctdayelise

On 16/02/07, THD <theodoranian at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2 days later, it will be the Chinese New Year, and some Chinese Wikipedian
> has made the Chinese New Year celebration Wikipedia logo. During the Chinese
> New Year period (Feb. 18 to 23), I think Chinese Wikipedians are proposing a
> celebration of new year on Chinese Wikipedia. You can take a look of this
> logo, http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wiki_pig.png
>
> There are 2 changes:
> 1. The logo is using red color which means happiness and celebration in
> Chinese community.
> 2. The logo is changing the original Chinese character ?? to ?i??the later one
> ?i means pig. This year is the year of pig.
>
> Please comment.
>
> THD
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Anthony

body:
On 2/17/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> The idea is not exactly new. It is also rather complicated. The idea is
> cool enough that some real brains are working on it, it will however
> take its time.

Who is working on this?  Is any of the process public?

Anthony


from_name: NSLE (Wikipedia)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedian Rhapsody

body:
Can we PLEASE put him on mod now?

On 17/02/07, Flame Viper <flameviper12 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> The story of Flameviper, told through song...
>
>
>
> Is this the real life, is this just a wiki
> Caught in a landslide, no escape from reality
> Open your Firefox, look up at the blocks and see
> I'm just a vandal, I need no sympathy
> Because I'm easy come, easy go, little high, little low
> Anyway the block blows, doesn't really matter to me
> ...to me
>
> ArbCom, just made attacks, put my fingers to the keys
> Typed a message, now it's free
> ArbCom, WikiLife had just begun
> But now I've gone and thrown it all away
> ArbCom, oooh... Didn't mean to make you fry
> If I'm not logged on this time tomorrow
> Carry on, carry on, as if nothing really matters
>
> Too late, my block has come, sends shivers down my spine
> Laptop's aching all the time
> Goodbye everybody, I've got to go
> Leave this all behind and face the Net
> ArbCom, oooh (anyway the block blows)
> I don't want to be banned, I sometimes wish I'd never edited at all
>
> I see a little silhouetto of a ban
> Yank-a-sox, Yank-a-sox, will you do the vendetta
> Blocked at speed of lightning, very very frightening me
> All the sysops (all the sysops)
> All the sysops (all the sysops)
> All the sysops, Jimbo Wales (Magnifico)
> But I'm just a vandal and nobody loves me
> He's just a vandal with a trolling history
> Spare him his computer from this monstrosity
> Easy come easy go, will you let me go
> Flameviper! No, we will not let you go, let him go
> Flameviper! We will not let you go, let him go
> Flameviper! We will not let you go, let me go
> Will not let you go, let me go
> Will not let you go, let me go
> No, no, no, no, no, no, no
> On IRC, on IRC, on IRC let me go
> Jimbo Wales has an unblock put aside for me, for me, for me
>
> So you think you can troll me and spit at my reply
> So you think you can block me and leave me to die
> Oh Wiki, can't do this to me wiki
> Just gotta get out, just gotta get right out of here
>
> Nothing really matters, anyone can see
> Nothing really matters, nothing really matters to me
> Any way the block blows....
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.
> Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Keith Old

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Analysis: Google traffic to Wikipedia up 166% year over
	year

body:
G'day folks,

I have attached an analysis of Wikipedia's traffic from Google.

http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2007/02/16/analysis-google-traffic-to-wikipedia-up-166-year-over-year

Apparently, we were there number 3 downstream site after Google Images and
Myspace.

Regards to all,

Keith Old


from_name: Neil Harris

subject: [Wikitech-l] Applying for a toolserver account

body:
I'd like to apply for a toolserver account, in order to run an article
rating experiment with similar aims to the IWLC. Who do I apply to?

-- Neil


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Foundation-l] About rumors...

body:
That's a blog, right ?

Just leave a comment :-))

ant

Bradypus wrote:
> Anthere,
>
> Thank you for clarifying that point.
> However, on a different subject, I note that the page you refer us to begins
> with:
> "the Wikimedia Foundation - which owns the online encyclopedia Wikipedia"
>
> Owns? O_o  [sigh]
>
> Bradipus
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Anthere" <Anthere9 at yahoo.com>
> To: <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 11:21 AM
> Subject: [Foundation-l] About rumors...
>
>
>
>>RUMORS
>>
>>I was away from my computer for 4 days last week, to participate to a
>>conference (LIFT) in Switzerland. During this conference, the organiser
>>asked me questions about the financial situation of the projects. I
>>answered with plain honesty and unfortunately with some words which
>>raised the attention of a blogger in the room.
>>
>>Never mind that the words were taken out of context, never mind the
>>smiles that went with the words, the words were out. Twisted.
>>
>>So, if some of you have heard that Wikipedia might close in 4 months due
>>to financial difficulties, these are the words I am talking about.
>>
>>For more on the discussion on the matter, please see the blog of Mr
>>Guissani. I had a long discussion with him on financial matters on
>>friday morning.
>>
>>http://www.lunchoverip.com/2007/02/the_wikimedia_c.html
>>
>>I think that summarize things pretty well.
>>
>>---------
>>
>>BEING INFORMED
>>
>>The day the WMF will plan to close Wikipedia for lack of funds, believe
>>me, you'll know. Before the press.
>>
>>Will Wikipedia close in 4 months ? NO. NO. AND NO.
>>
>>---------
>>
>>TRANSPARENCY AND FIGURES
>>
>>All of our financial statements for year 2004, 2005 and 2006 are public
>>and audited. Please find them here:
>>http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Finance_report#Audited_financial_statements
>>
>>We also have a page where we state our needs for the coming 6 months.
>>http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/What_we_need_the_money_for.
>>
>>(as a reminder, our fiscal year goes from june to june)
>>
>>TO make it short, we currently have above 1 million (exact figures to
>>pick up from Carolyn, perhaps 1,5) in bank, available for use.
>>
>>Current monthly expenses as of today are about 75 000 dollars.
>>We had an (optimistic goal) of hardware investment of 1,6 million before
>>june. We can expect bandwidth and hosting costs to naturally follow. We
>>also need more human help, at least hiring a permanent executive
>>director, a CTO and probably more developers.
>>
>>Just have a look at the page and do count yourself. If you add current
>>daily operations + hardware investment + increase in bandwidth +
>>increase in hosting + 3 to 5 additional employees, we are already over
>>that 1.5 millions that we have in hand.
>>
>>So, as of today, I think we can quietly say that
>>
>>"yes, we have about 3-4 months of operations at hand". Not 6 months. Not
>>1 year. Not 2 years. Roughly 3-4 months.
>>
>>If you look at the bottom of this page,
>>(http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/What_we_need_the_money_for#Retained_revenue)
>>you'll see that the recommandations of auditors is always to try to have
>>6 months of reserve. We are far from it. We have roughly 4 months.
>>Having 6 months of reserve is financially wiser.
>>
>>Did you have a way to know this previously ?
>>Yes you did. It was listed in the site notice during the full month of
>>fundraising. So, there is nothing new to wikipedians. There might be
>>something new to press though.
>>
>>---------
>>
>>IS THAT A BIG DEAL ?
>>
>>I repeat, we are not going to disappear. We have been in worse state in
>>the past. Well, in december 2006, some expenses were delayed, delayed
>>till the money from the fundraising was flowing in, and we could pay the
>>bills.
>>
>>Someone mentionned image server a few days ago. Image server was planned
>>in september hardware quote. But purchase was delayed till december.
>>http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution_Hardware_sept_2006
>>Because given our cashflow situation, it would have been unreasonable to
>>buy the image servers.
>>
>>
>>This should not happen. We should not come to the point where we delay
>>hardware investment. We should aim to provide the best service, not just
>>the service we can afford.
>>
>>
>>We should not try to pretend we do not need money. We do need more
>>money. People at the Foundation are trying to find creative ways to
>>collect more, with services (datafeed), royalties from brand use
>>(Wikipedia in particular), matching donations etc... but raising the
>>money for the projects should not become only the business of 10 or so
>>employees. This should be many people concern. Because Wikipedia is not
>>the website of a few people, not even the website of the community, it
>>is a common good.
>>
>>ant
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>foundation-l mailing list
>>foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>


subject: [Foundation-l] About rumors...


subject: [Foundation-l] About rumors...

body:
A comment? Hey, why not :-)
I didn't think of that, I was looking for the "modify" button ;-)

Done:
http://www.lunchoverip.com/2007/02/the_wikimedia_c.html#comment-60768236
(I sure hope I did no make any mistake in my comment)

Bradipus

----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthere" <Anthere9 at yahoo.com>
To: <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 2:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] About rumors...

> That's a blog, right ?
>
> Just leave a comment :-))
>
>
> ant
>
>
> Bradypus wrote:
>> Anthere,
>>
>> Thank you for clarifying that point.
>> However, on a different subject, I note that the page you refer us to
>> begins
>> with:
>> "the Wikimedia Foundation - which owns the online encyclopedia Wikipedia"
>>
>> Owns? O_o  [sigh]
>>
>> Bradipus
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Anthere" <Anthere9 at yahoo.com>
>> To: <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 11:21 AM
>> Subject: [Foundation-l] About rumors...
>>
>>
>>
>>>RUMORS
>>>
>>>I was away from my computer for 4 days last week, to participate to a
>>>conference (LIFT) in Switzerland. During this conference, the organiser
>>>asked me questions about the financial situation of the projects. I
>>>answered with plain honesty and unfortunately with some words which
>>>raised the attention of a blogger in the room.
>>>
>>>Never mind that the words were taken out of context, never mind the
>>>smiles that went with the words, the words were out. Twisted.
>>>
>>>So, if some of you have heard that Wikipedia might close in 4 months due
>>>to financial difficulties, these are the words I am talking about.
>>>
>>>For more on the discussion on the matter, please see the blog of Mr
>>>Guissani. I had a long discussion with him on financial matters on
>>>friday morning.
>>>
>>>http://www.lunchoverip.com/2007/02/the_wikimedia_c.html
>>>
>>>I think that summarize things pretty well.
>>>
>>>---------
>>>
>>>BEING INFORMED
>>>
>>>The day the WMF will plan to close Wikipedia for lack of funds, believe
>>>me, you'll know. Before the press.
>>>
>>>Will Wikipedia close in 4 months ? NO. NO. AND NO.
>>>
>>>---------
>>>
>>>TRANSPARENCY AND FIGURES
>>>
>>>All of our financial statements for year 2004, 2005 and 2006 are public
>>>and audited. Please find them here:
>>>http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Finance_report#Audited_financial_statements
>>>
>>>We also have a page where we state our needs for the coming 6 months.
>>>http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/What_we_need_the_money_for.
>>>
>>>(as a reminder, our fiscal year goes from june to june)
>>>
>>>TO make it short, we currently have above 1 million (exact figures to
>>>pick up from Carolyn, perhaps 1,5) in bank, available for use.
>>>
>>>Current monthly expenses as of today are about 75 000 dollars.
>>>We had an (optimistic goal) of hardware investment of 1,6 million before
>>>june. We can expect bandwidth and hosting costs to naturally follow. We
>>>also need more human help, at least hiring a permanent executive
>>>director, a CTO and probably more developers.
>>>
>>>Just have a look at the page and do count yourself. If you add current
>>>daily operations + hardware investment + increase in bandwidth +
>>>increase in hosting + 3 to 5 additional employees, we are already over
>>>that 1.5 millions that we have in hand.
>>>
>>>So, as of today, I think we can quietly say that
>>>
>>>"yes, we have about 3-4 months of operations at hand". Not 6 months. Not
>>>1 year. Not 2 years. Roughly 3-4 months.
>>>
>>>If you look at the bottom of this page,
>>>(http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/What_we_need_the_money_for#Retained_revenue)
>>>you'll see that the recommandations of auditors is always to try to have
>>>6 months of reserve. We are far from it. We have roughly 4 months.
>>>Having 6 months of reserve is financially wiser.
>>>
>>>Did you have a way to know this previously ?
>>>Yes you did. It was listed in the site notice during the full month of
>>>fundraising. So, there is nothing new to wikipedians. There might be
>>>something new to press though.
>>>
>>>---------
>>>
>>>IS THAT A BIG DEAL ?
>>>
>>>I repeat, we are not going to disappear. We have been in worse state in
>>>the past. Well, in december 2006, some expenses were delayed, delayed
>>>till the money from the fundraising was flowing in, and we could pay the
>>>bills.
>>>
>>>Someone mentionned image server a few days ago. Image server was planned
>>>in september hardware quote. But purchase was delayed till december.
>>>http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution_Hardware_sept_2006
>>>Because given our cashflow situation, it would have been unreasonable to
>>>buy the image servers.
>>>
>>>
>>>This should not happen. We should not come to the point where we delay
>>>hardware investment. We should aim to provide the best service, not just
>>>the service we can afford.
>>>
>>>
>>>We should not try to pretend we do not need money. We do need more
>>>money. People at the Foundation are trying to find creative ways to
>>>collect more, with services (datafeed), royalties from brand use
>>>(Wikipedia in particular), matching donations etc... but raising the
>>>money for the projects should not become only the business of 10 or so
>>>employees. This should be many people concern. Because Wikipedia is not
>>>the website of a few people, not even the website of the community, it
>>>is a common good.
>>>
>>>ant
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>foundation-l mailing list
>>>foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>>>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] About rumors...


from_name: Jay R. Ashworth

subject: [Wikitech-l] Exporting sections of pages

body:
On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 10:18:14AM +1100, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 2/16/07, Jay R. Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote:
> > There was a fairly extensive discussion on this list a couple weeks ago
> > -- which I thought you had participated in -- about microformats (I
> > think the buzzword was) which amounted to "custom-made attributed to
> > HTML tags which would be usable for semantic extraction, but ignored by
> > browsers".
>
> I'm sure I've never heard that term before, but fortunately
> [[Microformats]] got me up to speed. (Is there anything Wikipedia
> can't do :))
>
> > This topic, and the approach you and I forsee, is sort of an offshoot
> > thereof...
>
> I guess. What would the syntax look like to the user?

Well, one suggested solution was piping the

==section header tag|secthead==

but while I understand why that is most intiutive to people who *get*
Wikipedia, I suspect it's a bit too breakable when confronted with
people who don't--and there are a lot more of them.  So I like a
template or parser function that takes an argument and expands to the
appropriate hidden markup to support the pointer, myself.

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274


subject: [Commons-l] One new and one old tool

body:
"Brianna Laugher" <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote on Saturday, February
17, 2007 12:23 PM:

> On 06/02/07, Florian Straub <flominator at gmx.net> wrote:

>> * Flinfo fetches a complete picture description from Flickr by a given
>> picture ID like 151898652:
>> http://wikipedia.ramselehof.de/flinfo.php
>

> Flinfo is planned to be used in a new version of Special:Upload:
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload?uselang=fromflickr

Great :)

It would be useful if a few things were changed:
> * possibility to input image url instead of image ID. (shouldn't be
> that hard...)

It could be difficult, since there are various kinds of image urls at
flickr, but I'll see what I can do.

> * include the {{flickrreview}} template in the pastable output (I
> thought it used to?)

For admins it already does :)

> * make translatable, since if other langs update their special:Upload
> forms, they will want to link to a version in their language

 What exactly should be translateable?

Best regards,

Flo


from_name: Bryan Tong Minh

body:
On 2/17/07, Sherool <jamydlan at online.no> wrote:
>
>   &action=raw&ctype=application/rss+xml
>

I get

Content-Type: text/x-wiki; charset=utf-8

as header. This might cause some RSS clients to fail.

Bryan


body:
See [[m:Toolserver/New accounts]]

Bryan

On 2/17/07, Neil Harris <usenet at tonal.clara.co.uk> wrote:
> I'd like to apply for a toolserver account, in order to run an article
> rating experiment with similar aims to the IWLC. Who do I apply to?
>
> -- Neil
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Your comments on wikien-l regarding adminship

body:
Timwi wrote:

>geni wrote:
>
>
>>>>Because that has been what has happened with 100% of our vandals so far.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Yes, precisely.
>>>
>>>
>>[[Irony]]
>>
>>
>The irony lies in the fact that your ironically-meant statement is
>actually true. (Well, almost. Of course there are negligible numbers of
>people who are truly persistent. But on the whole, very close to 100% of
>all vandals give up.)
>
Most vandals have one character trait that works in our favour - their
short attention span.

Ec


from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
On 2/17/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> I would like a better understanding of the Wikimedia Foundation's
> actual financial position and objectives first.

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/What_we_need_the_money_for
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Finance_report

The fundraising link is the status quo, and generating significant
monthly donations (which, yes, are very much needed as the above
reports show). I am only asking for ideas to change it, not for a
debate about fundamentals.

--
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


from_name: David Gerard

subject:
[WikiEN-l] corporate "problems with articles" seems to be
	working a bit

body:
On 16/02/07, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:

> I read David's email as saying only that the requests posted at the Help
> Desk page <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk> have been
> dealt with properly, not that requests sent via email also have.

Yeah, that's what I meant. If some people feel otherwise, that's important too.

Someone from OTRS said the "article problems" sorta queue was a little
less overwhelming, which is good.

(I have DSL again so may catch up on my mail this week.)

- d.


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Requirements for Adminship

body:
Thomas Dalton wrote:

>>There is no such consensus.  The RfA system works for you because you
>>use it, as do all the others who participate.  There are far more people
>>who just wash their hands of it, and just limit their activities to
>>some narrow topic.
>>
>>
>On Wikipedia "consensus" is used to mean "consensus of people that
>decided to express an opinion". We don't hold referendums on policy
>decisions. Every time a proposal for a new system of selecting admins
>has been discussed, it has been rejected. That is a consensus to keep
>things pretty much as they are. It's possible that some new proposal
>might gain approval, but none have so far.
>
I made no mention of referenda.  Your highly questionable interpretation
of "consensus" should probably have the words "at that time" added to
it.  In many of these decisions the attitude is, "If you didn't know the
discussion was going on, too bad, you've forfeited your right to
participate anyway."

It's no wonder that any attempts at improving admin selection are
rejected.  Those who have a vested interest in the way things are, or
who participate regularly in the RfA cabal keep a close watch on the
current rules.  Those who would like improvement include many who
consider the present state of things hopeless, and thus never bother
looking there.  If a good rule change is proposed they simply don't know
about it, even if there are more of them.  Any suggestion that the
decision making process that happens there is consensus is a load of crap.

Ec


from_name: Daniel Arnold

body:
On Saturday 17 February 2007 14:35:03 Steve Bennett wrote:
> True. Some wikipedias (like FR) show a link to the relevant portal on
> article pages. For example:
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimie
>
> That would also be an improvement.

I don't want to talk much about Wikipedia and content here on this technical
list but I had to comment that.

Links from article namespace into other namespaces are EVIL.

Why?

MediaWiki introduced namespaces in order to separate content and content
management. Portals are content management not core content themselves.
That's why portals were moved into their own namespace. And yes we even have
an own special page in order to find such wrong page links:
Special:CrossNamespaceLinks

Now imagine a Wikipedia DVD with lots of strange links into other namespaces.
I certainly want a DVD that does not contain the online Wikipedia specific
portal pages (which contain things such as news, calls for reviews and not et
existing articles).

So BURN all portal links in article namespace NOW. Portals are useful but not
everyhwere.

Arnomane
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20070217/cd433143/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Rich Holton

subject: [WikiEN-l] Requirements for Adminship

body:
Timwi wrote:
> MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
>> You don't need to be an admin to prove you'd be a good one. If you edit well
>> as a regular editor, people have plenty to look at to see if a candidate is
>> reliable.
>
> That's assuming that everyone is actually interested in editing
> regularly and actually interested in putting actual effort into
> demonstrating anything about themselves to other people for the express
> purpose of gaining adminship privileges.
>
> 99% of the people who would be useful admins do not fit that (quite
> demanding) criterion.
>
> Timwi
>

Assuming your figure of 99% is not intended as an exact numerical value,
I agree with this 100%! And I think this is the key point that is often
overlooked/ignored. You can be a useful admin even if you don't spend
the bulk of your time doing admin-only tasks.

-Rich


from_name: Timwi

body:
Andy Spencer wrote:
>
> This would be done in a way analogous projects such as SETI at home,
> where anyone with access to a server could install a client and host
> data.

There is very little analogy between your suggestion and SETI at home (or
Folding at home or distributed.net or any other distributed computing
project). Those distribute only CPU usage (and possibly RAM), but not
bandwidth usage.

Your idea necessitates that users (who are trying to read an article)
would be redirected to some random volunteer computer that is running an
HTTP daemon. But what do you do when it goes down? The central server
that does the redirecting would take a while to determine that you are
down, and until then, would continue to redirect requests to it.
Wikipedia would become very unreliable.

> I do however have access to a server that's using roughly 0.5% it's
> CPU and 1.5% of it's allocated bandwidth and would be more than
> willing to contribute those resources if it were possible.

You may consider donating the CPU to a distributed computing project of
your choice. As for the bandwidth, I'm sure there are services on the
net that are trying hard to find people to mirror their large files
(download sites, for example).

Timwi


subject: [WikiEN-l] Short-lived retreat

body:
William Pietri wrote:

>Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>
>>>I believe his point is that until Wikipedia proved it could work,
>>>allowing everybody to edit was seen as impossible, as way too risky to
>>>work.
>>>
>>>I know you don't like to hear it, but to me, as somebody who started
>>>pushing wikis before Wikipedia existed, your arguments against the
>>>possibility of broadening adminship sound regrettably like the arguments
>>>I used to get (and, amazingly, still get) about how open-to-anybody
>>>editing is impossible.
>>>
>>>
>>I understand what you're saying, but I think I've found the flaw in
>>your argument. You are saying that Wikipedia has proven all the people
>>that said a wiki could never work wrong - I'm not sure that's the
>>case.
>>
>>Wikipedia has shown that a pure wiki doesn't work (beyond a certain
>>size). We've had to introduce blocks and protection, both of which go
>>against the idea of a wiki. We've compromised, and as such have
>>managed to make a viable website.
>>
>>
>Well, actually, I don't think that was my point. My point was about the
>right attitude to risk.
>
Risk is a part of life.  Some youth take on risks that would make
grown-ups say, "Are you crazy?"  Maybe too that's why they are so well
suited to be soldiers; an older person knows better than to put himself
in harm's way.  The Cult of Certainty would have us believe that with
enough order andt stucture, with enough insurance, and blame, and
revenge everything can be put right.

>I'm not sure there ever was such a thing as a "pure wiki" in the way
>that you describe it. Ward, after all, had root and wasn't afraid to use
>it; he's a pretty pragmatic guy. Regardless, that sort of idealistic
>purity is not something I've argued for or am arguing for here.
>
In Frankfurt I had the pleasure of sitting with Ward Cunningham and
Sunir Shah for a couple of hours of good German beer.  I might as well
have been a fly on the wall.  The tone of that exchange was consistent
with what you say now.

>Just to be clear, I agree that having some number of trusted people with
>some limited set of special powers is probably necessary. And I agree
>that some of the various proposals are unlikely to work as offered. But
>I'm not particularly focused on any of them.
>
Again yes.  We also need to remember that no trust is absolute.  Leaders
of countries have been revered until they achieved power and betrayed
that trust.  Consistently bad behaviour may be a strong indicator of how
a person may act in the future, but good behaviour is not a good
indicator of how that person will respond to stress.

>My point is that the particular solution we have now is unlikely to be
>the right one for the next couple of hundred years, and I don't think
>it's even a great one for the next year. Given the necessity of change,
>I'm concerned about attitudes and arguments that seem to apply more or
>less equally against any sort of innovation.
>
>Maybe that's not how you're intending to come across. However, in
>describing Wikipedia as a "well-established institution", in claiming
>"our aim is to reduce risk to the minimum
>possible," and arguing against proposed changes without offering
>alternatives or constructive criticism, that's the impression I'm getting.
>
With enough rules and restraint any leading-edge project can regress
into becoming a well-established institution.  Today happens to be the
fifth anniversary of my first official edit.  During that time there
have been changes, and not all for the good.  The worst ones seem to be
directed at maintaining some kind of reputation, or confronting a fear
that the whole project will fall apart if there is not enough order.
There are bad things that absolutely need to be cleaned up, but we don't
need such a broad brush to do that.

>>There have been multiple requests for evidence that opening up
>>adminship won't work - pre-admin Wikipedia is that evidence. It didn't
>>work, and that's why admins were created in the first place.
>>
>>
>I think that's evidence that getting rid of admins won't work. I agree,
>and I don't think anybody is advocating that. But it's not proof that
>opening up adminship to any degree along the spectrum won't work.
>
>Did you happen to see this bit on semi-protection?
>
>http://blog.jimmywales.com/index.php/archives/2006/06/17/the-new-york-times-gets-it-exactly-backwards/
>
>I think this is the right spirit to bring to these discussions on
>administrative power, not just editing power. If we're looking for a
>direction to move in, I think the default bias should be to seek more
>openness, and that we should move in more closed directions only with
>reluctance and a sense of (hopefully temporary) defeat.
>
It strikes me that there is a direct parallel between this and events in
the real world.  Fear, whether founded or not, is a great motivator.
When we start restricting freedoms in the name of terrorists who would
allegedly destroy our way of life we, and not the terrorists are
destroying our way of life.

Ec


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] WelcomeCommitteeBot?

body:
On 2/17/07, A <jokestress at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thoughts?

A bot to add a personal touch? Um...

If the problem is people getting missed by the welcoming committee for
a few months, then fix the process. An automated welcome by a bot
sounds bad.

Steve


from_name: Alfio Puglisi

body:
On 2/17/07, Daniel Arnold <arnomane at gmx.de> wrote:
> Links from article namespace into other namespaces are EVIL.
>
> [...]
>
> So BURN all portal links in article namespace NOW. Portals are useful but not
> everyhwere.

Check out the main pages of en: (top-right), de:, fr:, it: and so
on...   the most prominent links are portal links.

Ciao,
Alfio


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

body:
Anthony schreef:
> On 2/17/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hoi,
>> The idea is not exactly new. It is also rather complicated. The idea is
>> cool enough that some real brains are working on it, it will however
>> take its time.
>
> Who is working on this?  Is any of the process public?
>
> Anthony
Hoi,
It is a research project of the Vrije Universiteit of Amsterdam.. Andrew
Tannenbaum is part of that department .. He and the people at the VU do
qualify as real brains. The process is as far as I understand not public.
Thanks,
     GerardM


from_name: Gwern Branwen

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Fwd: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered
	by JPGordon

body:
Please do not send *8* messages in a row. If you must write so much,
consider consolidating messages into, I don't know, something less than
a power of 2?

Incredibly rude to other readers of wikien-l. I hope you get put on
moderation for this; maybe then you will learn the difference between
uses and abuses of email.

"Samuel L Bronkowitz" <countpointercount at gmail.com> writes:

> One of the abusive editors who was involved in the false accusations has now
> decided he has the right to remove unblock requests from my talk page.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACountPointercount&diff=108663911&oldid=108662520
>
> This is beyond abusive by him, but as I am seeing from the treatment I am
> receiving, too typical of how wikipedians behave.
>
> "Thanks" for nothing but the abuse you have now heaped upon me.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Samuel L Bronkowitz <countpointercount at gmail.com>
> Date: Feb 16, 2007 1:08 PM
> Subject: Fwd: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon
> To: wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>
> One final update: Yamla, who I note has a long history of rubber-stamping
> abusive blocks, has done so on my request for unblock.
>
> I must consider this systematic abuse by administrators at this point.
>
> I will consider my options carefully, but you have done nothing to prove to
> me that Wikipedia is worth any contribution any more. You have likely lost
> the contribution of a 3+ year veteran, and I will probably start going in
> and removing articles I have previously contributed. You have no right to
> them any more.
>
> "Thank you" for nothing but abuse. It has really shown me what Wikipedia is
> about and how worthless it is.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Samuel L Bronkowitz <countpointercount at gmail.com>
> Date: Feb 16, 2007 12:49 PM
> Subject: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon
> To: wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>
> The bad "discussion closed" code has now been placed around the new
> discussion: one ReyBrujo "restored" the template to the wrong discussion
> thread due to the hyperactive bot which removed still-ongoing threads from
> the page.
>
> This is a big problem, people trying to close off discussions relevant to
> Wikipedia and to the actions of Wikipedian editors and administrators
> without answering the concerns being addressed.
>
> I have no idea whether my questions are actually reaching the list, either.
> This is most disconcerting.
>
> I am requesting an answer, but having received none, and having now seen how
> Wikipedia's administrators are more than content to let abuse of this sort
> go on with no answer, I am 90% certain that I will be leaving Wikipedia. I
> will not make things worse or vandalize articles, but I cannot say that the
> thought of doing so did not cross my mind. As I travel quite extensively, it
> would be very easy for me to acquire a new IP address every time that I go
> somewhere and damage Wikipedia a little bit just for the fun of doing so,
> since constructive editing and the right to defend myself against basely
> false accusations are being denied me.
>
> Since I have apparently not had any of your time, I shall not thank you for
> it in this missive any more.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Samuel L Bronkowitz <countpointercount at gmail.com>
> Date: Feb 16, 2007 12:26 PM
> Subject: Fwd: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon
> To: wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>
> This has also had the unintended effect of SERIOUSLY messing up the page, as
> it appears every thread below it is "archived" due to the bad coding left
> behind on the out-of-process closed discussion from earlier as well.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Samuel L Bronkowitz < countpointercount at gmail.com>
> Date: Feb 16, 2007 12:24 PM
> Subject: Fwd: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon
> To: wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>
> Additional issue:
>
> It appears someone's bot is doing damage, removing threads that are not
> remotely irrelevant:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=108652761&oldid=108652596
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Samuel L Bronkowitz <countpointercount at gmail.com>
> Date: Feb 16, 2007 12:22 PM
> Subject: Fwd: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon
> To: wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>
> I am filing one more update. I do not know if any of these will get through,
> but I am trying my best.
>
> I have filed a request for Unblock as noted in the blocking notes page:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACountPointercount&diff=108652004&oldid=108617558
>
> I also must note that, now that I am blocked, there is constant posting of
> libelous statements about me to the earlier discussions. It seems that now
> that JKelly has abusively blocked me, a large number of people wish to
> ingratiate themselves somehow by piling on.
>
> It saddens me that this is the atmosphere of wikipedia. I may very well
> simply leave, for this is showing me a bad side I had not seen before, and
> Wikipedia is fast becoming something I do not wish to be a part of if this
> is the true feeling and mentality of the editors here.
>
> In sincerity,
> Thank you for your time.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Samuel L Bronkowitz < countpointercount at gmail.com>
> Date: Feb 16, 2007 12:05 PM
> Subject: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon
> To: wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>
> I wish to update my earlier message; the two users who filed this CheckUser
> request are now spending quite a bit of time making false charges at me at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#How_RunedChozo_was_and_should_be_handled,and a third has jumped in who is just making accusations over and
> over.
>
> I find this highly unfair, as I have no relation to any of this or the pages
> in question beyond my stated opinion that administrator and editor
> misbehavior has occurred and that the case's resolution was not conducted in
> proper respect for policy and civility.
>
> User JKelly has now acted on these false accusations and banned me from
> editing, as well as defacing my user page with a Scarlet Letter harassment
> token.
>
> You can see my edit history for yourself. I have not done anything bad to
> warrant this kind of abuse, yet I have received it from multiple users and
> at least one trigger-happy administrator now, as well as one administrator
> willing to completely misrepresent CheckUser results.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/CountPointercount
>
> This comment was left, but I'm now unable to respond in my own defense
> thanks to the abuse by JKelly.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=108647990&oldid=108647687
>
> This is blatantly unfair practice. Since JKelly and other abusive
> administrators and editors are more than willing to behave in this manner, I
> have no choice but to come here for redress.
>
> Thank you for your time.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Samuel L Bronkowitz < countpointercount at gmail.com>
> Date: Feb 16, 2007 9:48 AM
> Subject: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon
> To: wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>
> Hello,
>
> I've been editing Wikipedia for quite a while, but decided to make an
> account recently and signed up. I continued my normal editing (mostly typo
> and fixes on random articles, which seems to be a way to find a lot of your
> mistakes) but noticed a problem on the Administrators' Noticeboard and left
> my opinion there.
>
> A user included me in a CheckUser for speaking up on the issue. They accused
> the user PSPMario, who seems to have edited only on the Playstation 3 and
> Playstation Portable articles, of being a sockpuppet of someone after he
> reported two users he suspected of being a sockpuppet.
>
> I find it a very bad precedent to immediately accuse someone of being a
> sockpuppet, for trying to report a potential problem themselves. I find this
> equally problematic to say that "identical additions of info" happen when we
> give users the tools in difference comparison to easily copy content from an
> earlier edit to a later edit. PSPMario says he was replacing something he
> saw that was missing when he returned to the page, and I believe him,
> because there is no reason for me not to believe him.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#I_think_I_see_a_sockpuppet
>
> The result of the Checkuser came back as "likely."
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/RunedChozo
>
> I am not sure what this means. I know I am no sockpuppet, and given the
> writing style of PSPMario, I am reasonably certain he is not a sockpuppet
> either.
>
> I do not know when we started using weasel words for CheckUser, which ought
> to be a yes or no answer, but this sets a very bad precedent for abuse of
> the CheckUser system. Additionally, we have users trying to get everyone
> they can blocked, no matter what their edits or edit history, based on the
> results of weasel-worded RFCU postings.
>
> This situation is a detriment to Wikipedia.
>
> Thank you for your time.
> _______________________________________________
> 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

--
Gwern
Inquiring minds want to know.


from_name: Andrew Gray

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Analysis: Google traffic to Wikipedia up 166% year
	over year

body:
On 17/02/07, Keith Old <keithold at gmail.com> wrote:
> G'day folks,
>
> I have attached an analysis of Wikipedia's traffic from Google.
>
> http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2007/02/16/analysis-google-traffic-to-wikipedia-up-166-year-over-year
>
> Apparently, we were there number 3 downstream site after Google Images and
> Myspace.

Good lord. Two things that stand out...

a) 50% of our traffic is from Google; then 11% Yahoo Search, 4% MSN
Search, 2% ask.com. 66% of inbound traffic from just four search
engines. A further 2.5% is from Myspace (!)

b) We apparently get 2% of Google's total outbound traffic. One in
fifty (chosen) Google search results is us? Whoa.

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


subject: [Foundation-l] Feb 21+: Nonprofit Software Development Summit

body:
http://www.aspirationtech.org/events/devsummit

This should be of interest to anyone involved in both Wikimedia
Foundation issues and open source technology. Sorry for the late
notice, I just found out about it. Aspiration has a couple of other
cool projects, such as their index of nonprofit tools (some of them
open source, some of them not):

http://www.socialsourcecommons.org/

As well as Penguin Days:

http://www.penguinday.org/

--
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] Feb 21+: Nonprofit Software Development Summit


from_name: Daniel R. Tobias

body:
On 17 Feb 2007 at 19:42, Gwern Branwen <gwern0 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Please do not send *8* messages in a row. If you must write so much,
> consider consolidating messages into, I don't know, something less than
> a power of 2?

Technically speaking, 1 is actually a power of 2 (2 to the zeroth)...

> Incredibly rude to other readers of wikien-l. I hope you get put on
> moderation for this; maybe then you will learn the difference between
> uses and abuses of email.

Yes... and quoting back all of the preceding messages in the set as
part of each subsequent one, and quoting back the whole stinkin' mess
when complaining about it, is also an abuse of email.

(My partial quoting below is for the purpose of specific commentary,
as follows:)

> "Samuel L Bronkowitz" <countpointercount at gmail.com> writes:
>
> > I will consider my options carefully, but you have done nothing to prove to
> > me that Wikipedia is worth any contribution any more. You have likely lost
> > the contribution of a 3+ year veteran, and I will probably start going in
> > and removing articles I have previously contributed. You have no right to
> > them any more.

Actually, when you submit content under the GFDL, they do have the
right to use it, and continue to use it regardless of any changes of
heart you might have subsequent to your original submission.

> > I am requesting an answer, but having received none, and having now seen how
> > Wikipedia's administrators are more than content to let abuse of this sort
> > go on with no answer, I am 90% certain that I will be leaving Wikipedia. I
> > will not make things worse or vandalize articles, but I cannot say that the
> > thought of doing so did not cross my mind. As I travel quite extensively, it
> > would be very easy for me to acquire a new IP address every time that I go
> > somewhere and damage Wikipedia a little bit just for the fun of doing so,
> > since constructive editing and the right to defend myself against basely
> > false accusations are being denied me.

Threatening to vandalize Wikipedia is a great way to convince people
you're a good contributor who's being unjustly treated, isn't it?

> > Since I have apparently not had any of your time, I shall not thank you for
> > it in this missive any more.

As far as this list is concerned, the first anybody has apparently
heard of you is in your barrage of messages, culminating in your
threats to quit and/or withdraw your contributions and/or become a
vandal... all posted here before anybody has even had a chance to
react to your issues or concerns.

--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/


from_name: Daniel P. B. Smith

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Fwd: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by
	JPGordon

body:
> From: Samuel L Bronkowitz <countpointercount at gmail.com>
>  I will probably start going in
> and removing articles I have previously contributed. You have no
> right to
> them any more.

Unfortunately, we do. If you did not intend for your work to be an
unconditional gift to Wikipedia, you should not have contributed it.

You agreed to give your work to Wikipedia when you clicked "save"
under the edit box, where it says plainly "You agree to license your
contributions under the GFDL."

(I wish I could remember what the old wording used to be... to tell
the truth, it used to be much clearer).


from_name: Brianna Laugher

subject: [Commons-l] One new and one old tool

body:
Hey,

Flinfo is planned to be used in a new version of Special:Upload:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload?uselang=fromflickr

(note: this is in addition to the standard form, not to replace it)

It would be useful if a few things were changed:
* possibility to input image url instead of image ID. (shouldn't be
that hard...)
* include the {{flickrreview}} template in the pastable output (I
thought it used to?)
* make translatable, since if other langs update their special:Upload
forms, they will want to link to a version in their language

that's it :)

thanks
Brianna
user:pfctdayelise

On 06/02/07, Florian Straub <flominator at gmx.net> wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I just wanted to share two of tools with you:
>
> * Flinfo fetches a complete picture description from Flickr by a given
> picture ID like 151898652:
> http://wikipedia.ramselehof.de/flinfo.php


body:
Timwi wrote:

>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>
>>That's why I suggested a random sample of 100 - subject only to some
>>fairly low level conditions that indicate a willingness to stick around,
>>and no obvious signs of dementia.
>>
>>
>But that way you are already skewing the statistics. Someone who is
>*not* intending to stick around, but would still end up sticking around,
>would fall through your sieve.
>
Are you suggesting no conditions at all?  What I'm suggesting is really
low level stuff.  If somebody stuck around for 2 or 3 daya a month ago,
and maybe put together a good series of edits, but we haven't seen him
since what's the point of making him an admin if we're not going to see
him around again.

I'd like to see the whole system liberalized so that it works.  I'm sure
willing to allow a few easy conditions for the sake of having it
happen.  That's a lot more important than making some ideological point.

Ec


body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
> That's why I suggested a random sample of 100 - subject only to some
> fairly low level conditions that indicate a willingness to stick around,
> and no obvious signs of dementia.

But that way you are already skewing the statistics. Someone who is
*not* intending to stick around, but would still end up sticking around,
would fall through your sieve.

Timwi


subject: [WikiEN-l] Requirements for Adminship

body:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
>
> You don't need to be an admin to prove you'd be a good one. If you edit well
> as a regular editor, people have plenty to look at to see if a candidate is
> reliable.

That's assuming that everyone is actually interested in editing
regularly and actually interested in putting actual effort into
demonstrating anything about themselves to other people for the express
purpose of gaining adminship privileges.

99% of the people who would be useful admins do not fit that (quite
demanding) criterion.

Timwi


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Fwd: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered
 by JPGordon

body:
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:

>>"Samuel L Bronkowitz" <countpointercount at gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>>Since I have apparently not had any of your time, I shall not thank you for
>>>it in this missive any more.
>>>
>>>
>As far as this list is concerned, the first anybody has apparently
>heard of you is in your barrage of messages, culminating in your
>threats to quit and/or withdraw your contributions and/or become a
>vandal... all posted here before anybody has even had a chance to
>react to your issues or concerns.
>
All of his emails were sent within a period of four hours.  When I read
the first one I was somewhat sympathetic, but became less so as I read
the additional ones.  He has a problem with patience.

It doesn't help him much that Saturdays tend to be the lowest traffic
day on this mailling list.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Requirements for Adminship

body:
Stephen Bain wrote:
>
>>Admins must:
>>        be neutral, above all else.
>>                when they block
>>                when they protect
>>                when they delete
>
> So what this means is that whenever an admin uses the tools, they must
> use them in a neutral fashion.

I know this is what Keitei meant, and I'm saying this is wrong. An admin
using the tools wrongly *DOES NOT* have the potential to bring the
entire project down in a large explosion before getting de-adminned.

> This is nothing new,

Indeed, it's a pretty firmly established misconception.

Timwi


subject: [WikiEN-l] Requirements for Adminship

body:
Stephen Bain wrote:
>
> You don't need the buttons to show that you can behave neutrally and
> civilly, acknowledge your own biases etc.

And you don't need to show that you can behave neutrally and civilly or
that you can acknowledge your own biases in order to quality as someone
who simply won't abuse the "buttons".

Timwi


subject: [WikiEN-l] Requirements for Adminship

body:
Stephen Bain wrote:
>
> I would much more readily support a candidate who can link to, say, a
> couple of talk page discussions where they were able to contribute
> constructively even when people disagreed with them, or even better,
> discussions where they provided a third opinion which helped in a
> dispute between two parties, [...]

And by doing that, you are slightly skewing the permissible sets of
attitudes in admins towards what *you* consider "constructive" or "an
option which helps in a dispute". This is how we got into the current
situation where newcomers perceive the community of admins as an abusive
cabal.

Timwi


from_name: zero 0000

subject: [WikiEN-l] Increasing press interest in Wikipedia

body:
Factiva is a very large database of press articles
covering many newspapers, magazines, wire services,
etc..  Here are the number of articles that hit the
search key "wikipedia":

2000 - 0
2001 - 13
2002 - 26
2003 - 97
2004 - 543
2005 - 2729
2006 - 9717

This is not entirely scientific since the coverage
of Factiva increases over the years. It gives a
fair indication of Wikipedia's increasing presence
in the press, though.

Zero.

____________________________________________________________________________________
Don't pick lemons.
See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html


body:
On 2/17/07, Earle Martin <wikipedia at downlode.org> wrote:
> Moderators, please consider putting this person on moderation. I do
> not see how posts such as the one quoted improve the level of
> conversation in this forum.

Yes, would you both please quit this bickering and discuss something
vaguely on topic?

Thanks,
Steve


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2007-02-18

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

This is MediaWiki version 1.10alpha (r19982).

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!


subject: [WikiEN-l] Brainstorming: Donation appeal

body:
On 2/17/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> I'd like to invite you to contribute to a little brainstorming
> session, to see if we can come up with a better text than "Your
> continued donations keep Wikipedia running!" for the site notice shown
> to unregistered users:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Donation_appeal_ideas

I would like a better understanding of the Wikimedia Foundation's
actual financial position and objectives first. It would be dishonest
to ask people to "keep Wikipedia running" if its continued operation
is not actually in jeopardy.

So:
 - why is the WF fundraising?
 - what proportion of its annual income comes from donations of this type?[1]
 - what would happen if no one donated this way?

Steve
[1] As opposed to named donations like that Virgin one...


subject: [Wikitech-l] An RSS extension I'd like to see

body:
On 2/17/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Wikipedia has hundreds of wonderful portals on every imaginable topic.
> These are perhaps one of the most underexposed treasures on the site.

True. Some wikipedias (like FR) show a link to the relevant portal on
article pages. For example:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimie

That would also be an improvement.

Steve