from_name: Justin Cormack

body:
On 10 Nov 2005, at 23:41, Tom Cadden wrote:

> A number of problems are cropping up with the deletion
> of images.
>
> 1. Many of the images being deleted are valid but
> simply wrongly categorised. Often the problem is
> simply that the information requested at the time was
> less detailed than what we rightly request now. (for
> example {{fairuse}} rather than {{fairusein| }} )

There have been a lot of complaints of this. I have myself
never seen one; I guess it does happen occasionally and
these are probably slightly harder images to retrieve.
I dont think I have ever seen an old image in a speedy
delete category though. Being labelled {{fairuse}}
rather than {{fairusein| }} is not currently a reason
to delete - there is just a warning on {{fairuse}}
that it is obsolete.

> 2. Some people doing deletions aren't checking to make
> sure that the deletion will not make a mess of some
> articles. Is it that hard to clean up problems a
> deletion may leave in individual articles?

The suggestion is that articles should have the image
removed; I always do with article space (though not
always I admit with user galleries and suchlike).
With tens of thousands of images needing deleting a
few failures to remove from articles are ind of
excusable. Not ideal.

> For example, all images in a template were deleted
> because they were down as fairuse. They were simply
> wrong categorised. They should have been in as
> crowncopyright given the source that was listed on the
> image, and crowncopyright images are explicitly
> allowed to be used in templates under their legal
> conditions. A whole series of templates were turned
> into blank boxes with red names by the failure of the
> deleter to simply checking the sources of the images
> first. (It took 30 seconds to establish that all the
> images were from the same source, which was
> crowncopyright.) But by then a template used widely
> was a mess, and the pages it was in turned into an
> amateurish shambles. (The deleter didn't even bother
> to remove the template from pages.)

I dont think crown copyright images should be in templates
either. Anything in template space should be free.

> Another example, a featured article lost a series of
> fine images taken by the article writer simply because
> as a newbie, though he had explicitly 'given' the
> images to WP, they were categorised as source unknown.
> All the deleter had to do was read what was in the
> file to know the user meant them to be covered by
> GDFL. (The information could be read on a copy of our
> page, still with the images in situ, on another
> website.)

There should be enough people reviewing in FA to sort
out newbie errors.

> Can we please remind the deleters that
> (a) old images may be valid but were downloaded when
> the commands weren't as informative as we have now.
> They can easily be fixed in ten seconds, rather than
> blanket deleted. Check to make sure there really are
> copyright problems.

No they cant. I often leave them, but often they have
absolutely no source information that anyone can make
any reasonable judgement from. We cannot read the mind
of the downloader.

> (b) have some cop-on about sources. A user may have
> innocently used the wrong category. (I rarely download
> images but at this stage I know in many cases
> automatically if the source of a politics or history
> image is genuinely fair use, should be crown
> copyright, or is clearly a copyright breach.)

There is no automatic fair use. Crown copyright is
in many cases non commercial and not allowed.

> (c) For God's sake read the notes people have typed in
> the file. The copyight category is often wrong. If in
> doubt check a source.

If people have written notes I usually recategorise
rather than delete. Usually however this just means I
move from {{nosource}} to {{unknown}} as there may
be a source but no actual details so it is a speedy
delete a week later.

> (d) if you delete images, remove them from articles
> first. Otherwise you'll leave articles in a mess with
> red boxes where an image once was.  Too many articles
> are being turned into messes because no-one bothered
> to do any follow up when an image was deleted.

Most people do this. Complain to them personally if they
dont.

I have seen this complaint before. Please name names and
pages if this is a real problem. There are many
thousands of images to delete on current policy so
vague accusations dont help.

Justinc


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Tom Cadden

subject:
[WikiEN-l] check information & fix any problems left in articles
	after deletion

body:
--- Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com>
wrote:

> I dont think crown copyright images should be in
> templates
> either. Anything in template space should be free.

The legal position is clear. CC images can be used in
any medium or format once the legal conditions, which
cover things like accuracy and acknowledgement, are
covered. So once one doesn't disrepect the image by
using them in a POV manner (eg, creating a "War
mongering bastards" template and put a CC image of
Blair in, or create a 'murderers of Diana" template
and put the Prince of Wales in it), and the image when
one enters it contains all required info (an
acknowledgment that it is CC, etc) then its usage is
fully legal under the relevant legislation. WP's legal
interpretation of the law on fairuse for templates is
questionable.

CC is an open and shut case. Once the legal
requirements of CC are met (and in templates they are
dead easy to meet, because one is creating a template
heading so one can ensure it avoids POV) CC images are
OK for templates. So one can, for example, create a
template for UK prime ministers in the 20th century
and legally use CC images once they are of PMs from
the UK in the timespan covered, and the images have
the required info in the files when one hits the
images. One would only be breaching CC if the image
was not of a PM from the UK in the 20th century in
that case (which would fall foul of our own accuracy
rules anyway), if the template was POV (which would
break our own NPOV rules) or if it wasn't recorded as
a CC image, which also would break our rules. If we
follow OUR own rules, CC images are covered totally
for such usage.

___________________________________________________________
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Milos Rancic

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Status of Serbia and Montenegro chapter

body:
You didn't read last messages well? ;)

Mark said that he supported Zlatiborian hoax because of fun.

On 11/10/05, Arbeo M <arbeo_m at yahoo.de> wrote:
> Mark Williamson wrote:
>
> >It wasn't a real problem until Milos and the other
> >anti-Zlatiborians decided to make a big fuss to try
> to >prevent the glorious people of Zlatibor from
> getting the >Wikipedia they so richly deserve in their
> beautiful >native language, and for petty political
> reasons.
>
> Hi Mark!
>
> The other day I wrote that Milos ought to be a little
> bit more tolerant of various opinions (including
> yours) here.
>
> On the other hand, I don't think using words like
> "nationalists", "oppressors" or "anti-Zlatiborians"
> will help establishing a good atmosphere of discussion
> here when the issues themselves are difficult enough.
>
> Best,
>
> Arbeo
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - Jetzt mit 1GB Speicher kostenlos - Hier anmelden: http://mail.yahoo.de
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


body:
Sorry, Mark, I understud different...

So, does anyone think that we should change something with new
language policy? Note that some of us said and that some of others
think: "Djordje wants his own Wikipedia? Why not to give it to him?".

On 11/11/05, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> When did I say that? I never said that.
>
> Although others accused me of trying to joke, I have been entirely
> serious all along.
>
> The day of reckoning will come, Milos, and all of the
> anti-Zlatiborians will not be judged kindly.
>
> Mark
>
> On 10/11/05, Milos Rancic <millosh at mutualaid.org> wrote:
> > You didn't read last messages well? ;)
> >
> > Mark said that he supported Zlatiborian hoax because of fun.
> >
> > On 11/10/05, Arbeo M <arbeo_m at yahoo.de> wrote:
> > > Mark Williamson wrote:
> > >
> > > >It wasn't a real problem until Milos and the other
> > > >anti-Zlatiborians decided to make a big fuss to try
> > > to >prevent the glorious people of Zlatibor from
> > > getting the >Wikipedia they so richly deserve in their
> > > beautiful >native language, and for petty political
> > > reasons.
> > >
> > > Hi Mark!
> > >
> > > The other day I wrote that Milos ought to be a little
> > > bit more tolerant of various opinions (including
> > > yours) here.
> > >
> > > On the other hand, I don't think using words like
> > > "nationalists", "oppressors" or "anti-Zlatiborians"
> > > will help establishing a good atmosphere of discussion
> > > here when the issues themselves are difficult enough.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > Arbeo
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ___________________________________________________________
> > > Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - Jetzt mit 1GB Speicher kostenlos - Hier anmelden: http://mail.yahoo.de
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
> --
> "Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


list: foundation-l

from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikinews is giving out press credentials

body:
--- SJ <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, Elisabeth Bauer wrote:
> > case of press credentials but it stays their decision. If the wikinews
> > community wants to hand out press credentials, they should submit their
> > policy to the foundation and have it approved by the foundation. Since the
>
> You could make exactly the same claim about any editorial policy on
> Wikipedia.  The effects of a change in tagging, AFD, NPOV, or other
> quality-related policy on EN:WP likely has far more of an effect on the
> external perception of the Wiki[pedia] trademark than a press credential
> policy (be it on WP, WN, or even Commons).

Those policies only relate to what happens within Wikipedia. So I don?t see how
that applies to cases where the Wikinews name and logo are used in the real
world. That may not be a trademark issue, but it does bear on the reputation of
Wikinews and the foundation to the outside world. ?Press Credentials? also has
a very specific meaning in many countries and legislation of those countries
and/or press union rules provide guidelines that organizations need to follow
to give out credentials.

> Once you stop trusting the community to develop sensible processes, every
> policy on every project eventually needs to be vetted by the foundation
> (whatever that means - special weekly Board sessions to review new
> processes?  expedited treatment of minor process updates?).  Every policy,
> no matter how small, affects Wikimedia trademarks in some way -- and the
> way they are percieved in some external relations.

Nobody here that I?ve seen is advocating changing the already developed
Wikinews accreditation policy. All I want are some high level safeguards built
in so that the foundation can protect its good name and for the foundation to
give its permission for its marks and logos to be used on press badges.

-- mav

__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com


list: wikimedia-l


body:
--- Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Daniel Mayer wrote:
> > What is not clear is if those people who are accredited have permission to
> > use the Wikinews name and logo on badges.
>

> It may be not clear to you, but when a process is explicitly seen as a
> process that is owned by a project and implicitly endorsed by the board,
> how can it not be permitted to use the logo and badges of that project ?
> Who else is to determine how the paraphernalia of a project are to be
> used but the project itself ?

Implicit permission, by definition, is not clear. Use outside of the project is
also something very different than internal use.

-- mav

__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Some corporate bias to watch out for

body:
On 11/11/05, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> Fastfission wrote:
> > It's cute that they announced it, though. If only all POV-pushers were
> > so convenient. It's also somewhat cute that they "joined the authoring
> > ranks of Wikipedia" -- as if it takes active membership and not just
> > clicking on the "Login" button.
> >
>
> Hrm, I wonder if they will just as noticably "join the ranks of banned
> users at Wikipedia"... :-P

I hope not. Personly I suspect that once they find out how hard it is
to push their POV they will give up.

--
geni


body:
--- Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> Would the policy at
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews_accreditation_policy settle
> this situation? It requires accreditation policies to be approved by
> the Board before press badges can say "Wikinews".

Absolutely brilliant! That is exactly what I wanted. Thank you Angela! :)

-- mav

__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com


from_name: Kelly Martin

subject: [Foundation-l] CheckUser questions

body:
On 11/11/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> Is this now going to be held up by another subgroup wanting to
> re-committee the entire issue from top to bottom? I'd hope not.

Yes, it is.

Since people are objecting to my inclusion in the list of people who
Jimbo has already approved receiving checkuser, I will withdraw my
name from consideration at this time if it'll speed the process of
getting more checkuser people on en.  Better to have four now than six
never.

This process has been dragged out interminably.  Jimbo, *please* do
something about this.

Kelly


subject: [Foundation-l] CheckUser questions


from_name: Michael Noda

subject: [Foundation-l] Help page mirroring and non-GFDL projects

body:
On 11/10/05, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
> Michael Noda wrote:
> > As I first started poking around these pages on behalf of a non-WMF
> > MediaWiki instance that would also like to mirror Help pages from Meta
> > locally, I would appreciate it if the general case of a non-GFDL wiki
> > using GFDL help pages could be addressed, and not just the particular
> > instance of Wikinews.  Since we're brand-new and haven't chosen a
> > license yet, this will influence our direction in coming to a decision
> > there.
>
> There is some talk that a public-domain or non-viral free-use-and-
> derivatives license would be better for a set of redistributable help
> pages, since unlike traditional documentation (eg a separate manual or
> book) they are integrated with the user's content.
>
> The current help pages on meta are not really appropriate for
> distribution or use, and we don't have any redistributable packages for
> them at this time. (Additionally there are several competing
> organization schemes, they're mixed with other pages, they aren't clear
> who they're targetted for, they use templates outside the help
> namespace, they use images with no obvious way how to package them, it
> isn't clear what versions they apply to, etc etc.)

Thanks, we're aware that the pages have their shortcomings, but as
they're better than anything we could write ourselves, it would be
helpful to at least derive from them as a source.  Which returns us to
the original question: how can they be used legally, both at Wikinews
and elsewhere?

-- Michael Noda


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

body:
On 11/11/05, Michael Noda <michael.noda at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks, we're aware that the pages have their shortcomings, but as
> they're better than anything we could write ourselves, it would be
> helpful to at least derive from them as a source.  Which returns us to
> the original question: how can they be used legally, both at Wikinews
> and elsewhere?
>
> -- Michael Noda

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html

Specifically, see "7. AGGREGATION WITH INDEPENDENT WORKS".

Anthony


subject: [Foundation-l] Vote to create Wikiversity Vote

body:
On 11/11/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> >You misquoted me. I never said donations should only be used for Wikipedia.
> >But instead of repeating myself I'll be precise: "The specific purpose for
> >which [Wikimedia] is organized is: to create and freely distribute freely
> >licensed encyclopedias, textbooks, reference works, and other literary,
> >scientific, and educational information in all languages of the world."
> >That's straight from the amended articles of incorporation. To spend any
> >significant portion of donations on anything else is at best unethical.
> >
> I don't see a Wikiversity as going beyond the quoted mandate.  Teaching
> is a way of distributing information..  Trying to impute restrictions
> into donors' minds is pointless.  How many donors have actually stated
> such restrictions?

I see teaching as going beyond distributing information.  Maybe you're
right that it isn't my place to speak for others.  But if so, I'm not
sure what the purpose is of having this discussion in the first place.

> >>Most of what Wikiversity is going to be doing on the website anyway is
> >>writing curriculum standards, course syllibi, instructional examples,
> >>and testing materials. How is that any different from writing books or
> >>encyclopedia articles. Besides, all of these tasks have been happening
> >>on Wikibooks anyway. The only real debate is if these tasks should
> >>happen as a seperate project or if it is something that belongs within
> >>Wikibooks.
> >>
> >>
> >I already said I have no problem as long as the purpose of Wikiversity is
> >limited to creating and distributing learning materials, and doesn't include
> >actually using those materials to teach.
> >
> If that were all it did it would be pointless to have the project.  My
> own resistance is based in part on on the concern that it might be
> limited to the kind of sterile role that you imagine.

I assume you agree that it's not pointless to create and distribute
learning materials, in which case you're saying it's pointless to do
this as part of a project separate from Wikibooks.  Anyway, if this is
what you're saying, I agree...

> >In any case, I think the project should stay within Wikibooks.
> >
> There is certainly no urgency for moving it out of Wikibooks
>
> Ec

There's enough urgency in the minds of some people that it has been
listed on their VFD page.

Anthony


from_name: Daniel R. Tobias

subject: [WikiEN-l] disputing block: 69.108.172.162, lysdexia

body:
On 9 Nov 2005 at 16:22, Autymn D.C. <lysdexia at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Anglo-Saxon?  No, it's English.  What people speak today is a mutt of
> English, Latin-French-English, and Greek-Latin-English.  And I'd write
> "pure" as "sheer".  A lone language has only one word for the same
> meaning.  Other words with the same meaning are from other languages,
> by space or time.  But none of writing this is making me feel better
> for being wrongfully kicked off Wikipedia by a liar for doing what I
> hold is riht.

English has been such a "mutt" since at least 1066, when the Norman
French mixed their language (already a "bastard" French mixed with
Norse) with an Anglo-Saxon which already had some "corruption" of
Latin from the Romans.  Are you attempting to undo a millennium of
linguistic intermixing?

And, while "riht" may have been the correct spelling of that word in
the form of English spoken 500 years ago, this too has changed, and
it is now considered wrong.

--
== 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/


body:
--- Jean-Baptiste Soufron <jbsoufron at gmail.com> wrote:
>

> And this leads to my third and more important point. Accreditating
> people will transform the Foundation from being a publisher to becoming
> an editor... which means that we will now be liable for any content
> written on the website by anyone else.
>
> Are you sure that the Foundation is ready to become liable for anything
> written on Wikinews ?
>
> If yes, I think this would be a major change of the Foundation policy.

Let me be clear. The foundation *would not* be accrediting anybody. Period. All
the foundation would do is give permission for those people who have gone
through a *community run* and accreditation process to use the Wikinews name
and logo on press badges.

-- mav

__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com


from_name: Andre Engels

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Status of Wikimedia

body:
2005/11/11, Zordsdavini iz Litvy <zordsdavini at gmail.com>:

> The domain is "bat-smg" or if You like only local domains - 'qsm".
> Interface could be Lithuanian at thirst. There is only one little
> problem about one letter which isn't in other languages (but it
> doesn't change the facts - Samogitian wp have to be created).

A letter that does not exist in other languages is no problem, as long
as this letter has a UTF-8 code. We have languages that have a whole
alphabet for themselves.

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


body:
--- Delphine M?nard <notafishz at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/11/05, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> In short, you're saying that this (from meta):
> "This accreditation process is overseen by the Wikinews community,
> though the **Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation have
> overall responsibility for the system**. In order to use the term
> "Wikinews" (a trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation) on **press
> badges**, approval of the process by the Board must be sought. This is
> done by submitting a summary of the Accreditation policy of the
> Wikinews edition seeking approval in English to the
> board at wikimedia.org address.
>
> The criteria for accreditation will be documented on the relevant
> editions on Wikinews. **The Board may at any time revoke the
> accreditation of any Wikinews user, or even revoke approval of the
> project's accreditation process**."
>
> ...does not make the Foundation liable (my **tagging**)?

That is a very good point. The policy needs to be rewritten to say that the
foundation is not accrediting the individuals, it is just giving those
individuals who have gone through a community-run and board-approved process
permission to use the Wikinews name and logo on press badges. To be even more
clear those badges should have a disclaimer on them saying that the foundation
is *not* vouching for that person's credentials and accepts no responsibility
for anything that person does.

In fact, it may be safer (at least clearer) to drop all mention of
accreditation or credentials. Just use a different word for it like "community
approved Wikinews reporter" or something like that.

-- mav

__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Kurdish Wikipedia blocked in Iran (Censorship)

body:
Would it be an idea to put a message on the Farsi equivalent of the
village pump? That will be the place where you see most Iranian
Wikipedians, who then can be of help by checking whether the block is
there in all of Iran, or only in specific areas or ISPs. You might
also be able to find people who know the best way to proceed with
regard to the Iranian censors.

Andre Engels

2005/11/10, Erdal Ronahi <erdal.ronahi at gmail.com>:
> Hi,
>
> my friend in Iran confirmed that at least two ISP in Teheran block the
> Kurdish Wikipedia (http://ku.wikipedia.org). The identical message on
> both is:
>
> Access Denied!
>
> This page will not be accessible for the reason that in our database it
> has been assinged to the category of blocked contents .
>
> In the event the URL does not contain materials that are forbidden by
> laws, please fill this form out then hit send.
>
>
> However, one user from another part of Iran was able to reach it. The
> mentioned form has meanwhile been filled and sent, but there is no
> reaction yet.
>
> I think that even a partial censoship against Wikipedia is of interest
> for the community. The Kurdish Wikipedia is frequently attacked by
> political vandalizm of Turkish writing users, who want to see all Kurds
> "wiped out", but this is relatively easy to handle. There have been
> reports before that Internet Cafe owners in Turkey are forced to install
> software that blocks Kurdish content, including Wikipedia. This is the
> first time we hear about such an incident from Iran.
>
> Regards,
> Erdal
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

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


from_name: Zordsdavini iz Litvy

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Status of Wikimedia

body:
hello

I'm onw of these who can't get wp for 4-5 monthes (since the middle of June) :(
Couse we are small community (about 0.5 mln) my plan is:
   when wp will be created I will give report about it to Samogitian
Cultural Society. I think I will have some conversations with young
people and government of Samogitian Cultural Society and here I hope I
will find big help (about 80%).
   in the begining this wp would be for samogitian subjects (culture
and like that)
That's it.
The domain is "bat-smg" or if You like only local domains - 'qsm".
Interface could be Lithuanian at thirst. There is only one little
problem about one letter which isn't in other languages (but it
doesn't change the facts - Samogitian wp have to be created).

respectfully
Arns Udovi??
icq-194843258

2005/11/11, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com>:
> On 10/11/05, Arbeo M <arbeo_m at yahoo.de> wrote:
> > Sadly, it's a fact that roughly half of all Wikipedias
> > are clinically dead at present. Being enthusiastically
>
> And I do think that right now, our _top_ priority should be to find
> ways to populate these barren WPs.
>
> Some ideas:
>
> - Find language activists, or people who have a website about the language
> - Find people on ICQ who claim to speak the language, and let them
> know about that WP
> - Let governmental or other official or authoritative organisations
> know about that WP
> - Get grant money to initially pay people to write good articles /
> translate articles, especially in countries with a low per-capita
> income (sub-saharan Africa, for example), and when a sizable article
> base has been established, it will be much easier to attract new
> editors. This includes having people write articles offline, and then
> typing it up yourself.
> - Depending on the size of the WP and the narrowness of its reader
> base, you can put a sitenotice up at one WP that another WP exists --
> the Romanian WP did something similar for a proposal for a Vlax Romany
> WP, and it was relatively successful.
>
> These are all things that have worked in the past. There are obviously
> many more possibilities.
>
> Mark
>
> --
> "Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
Ok^ ek^ besla ikv Olmok Vzauep^evk
:)


body:
--- Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > That is a very good point. The policy needs to be rewritten to say that the
> > foundation is not accrediting the individuals, it is just giving those
> > individuals who have gone through a community-run and board-approved
> process
> > permission to use the Wikinews name and logo on press badges.
>
> But you don't need permission to use the Wikinews name and logo on press
> badges.

What? That needs a good deal of explanation. How could somebody legally and/or
morally be able to do that? I just can?t use the name and logo of any
organization I may volunteer for or give money to on badges meant to gain
access.

> Wikimedia and indeed the reporter emself rarely have any control over
> what is printed on a press badge in the first place.

Community created policy will say what will be on the badges.

> And your position is that someone needs the permission of the board in
> order to call themselves a "community approved Wikinews reporter"?
> That's completely out of touch with reality.

That is a absurd mischaracterization of what I?m advocating. The community
controls who can validly say that. What the community does not control is the
use of the Wikinews name and logo in a way that may get the foundation in
trouble.

-- mav

__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com


body:
--- Jean-Baptiste Soufron <jbsoufron at gmail.com> wrote:
> The means of this accreditation has nothing to do with it : a press
> accreditation is a press accreditation. Whether it is community-based or
> centralized. The Foundation will be described as a press editor
> accreditating its members, with all the implied obligations within !
>
> The Foundation could argue against it, but I don't know whose story a
> judge would buy !
>
> And from my legal point of view there is much opportunity that the
> Foundation would be found liable.

I don't understand how a community run process to issue press badges can
implicate the foundation as an editor. The *only* part I'd like the foundation
to play is to give permission to use the Wikinews mark and logo on the badges.
The foundation would play no part in selecting who gets the badges (if needed
it could even not be responsible for ever revoking any badge rights if that is
deemed necessary to keep the foundation legally safe).

Are you saying that the foundation should play no part whatsoever in the badge
giving process, for that process to change its name and add all kinds of
disclaimers, and/or for the whole thing to be stopped completely?

If the foundation is responsible for the acts of its editors in this case, then
what about other cases such a liable and slander?

-- mav

__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com


body:
--- Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> --- Jean-Baptiste Soufron <jbsoufron at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The means of this accreditation has nothing to do with it : a press
> > accreditation is a press accreditation. Whether it is community-based or
> > centralized. The Foundation will be described as a press editor
> > accreditating its members, with all the implied obligations within !
> >
> > The Foundation could argue against it, but I don't know whose story a
> > judge would buy !
> >
> > And from my legal point of view there is much opportunity that the
> > Foundation would be found liable.
>
> I don't understand how a community run process to issue press badges can
> implicate the foundation as an editor. The *only* part I'd like the
> foundation
> to play is to give permission to use the Wikinews mark and logo on the
> badges.
> The foundation would play no part in selecting who gets the badges (if needed
> it could even not be responsible for ever revoking any badge rights if that
> is
> deemed necessary to keep the foundation legally safe).
>
> Are you saying that the foundation should play no part whatsoever in the
> badge
> giving process, for that process to change its name and add all kinds of
> disclaimers, and/or for the whole thing to be stopped completely?
>
> If the foundation is responsible for the acts of its editors in this case,
> then
> what about other cases such a liable and slander?
>
> -- mav

argh

s/liable/libel

__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Status of Wikimedia

body:
this letter couls be written: 0116 0305 and 0117 0305. And looks like:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/%C5%BDemaitiu_ra%C5%A1%C4%ABba
But UTF-8 on some browsers doesn't looks so nice

Arns

2005/11/11, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com>:
> 2005/11/11, Zordsdavini iz Litvy <zordsdavini at gmail.com>:
>
> > The domain is "bat-smg" or if You like only local domains - 'qsm".
> > Interface could be Lithuanian at thirst. There is only one little
> > problem about one letter which isn't in other languages (but it
> > doesn't change the facts - Samogitian wp have to be created).
>
> A letter that does not exist in other languages is no problem, as long
> as this letter has a UTF-8 code. We have languages that have a whole
> alphabet for themselves.
>
>
> --
> Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
> ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>
>

--
Ok^ ek^ besla ikv Olmok Vzauep^evk
:)


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

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

body:
> Daniel Brandt is far from the first subject of a Wikipedia
> article to come along, find the article, and try to 'fix' it,
> edit it, delete it, or even boost themselves on it. And he
> won't be the last. As Wikipedia becomes more and more in the
> public eye, and as well-known people become more and more
> familiar with online things, we'll see it quite often.
>
> We should be more prepared for this. Do we even have a page
> to point people at if they are themselves the subject of a
> Wikipedia article, explaining how Wikipedia works when it
> comes to biographies of living persons, and how they should
> engage with Wikipedia to improve articles on themselves? If
> not, we should.
>
> We should also try and interact better ourselves with these
> people, and recognise that in most cases their intentions are
> not evil. They simply don't understand Wikipedia or the way
> it works, and thus misread and misinterpret what's going on.

[snip]

>
> -Matt

I spent a considerable amount of time helping physicist Jack Sarfatti
with precisely the same issue. He got banned twice before he got the
hang of it. I used the telephone to verify his identity and also clue
him in. He didn't realize that Usenet newsgroup customs do not apply to
Wikipedia. After a couple of false starts, he got with the program and
the [[Jack Sarfatti]] article is stable - with [[user:JackSarfatti]]
contributing as a peer.

I spent so much time on this, because like Matt I am looking ahead to
the future. We are "merely" a top-40 web site. What will happen when we
begin to challenge Google, or network TV or major newspapers as "the
place where people come for timely, reliable information"?

I'm planning to give a talk at Wikimania in Boston next summer (July or
August 2006) on the topic, "Harmonious online interactions as a key to
creating a high-quality collaborative product".

Uncle Ed


from_name: Robert Scott Horning

body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:

>On 11/11/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>>
>>>In any case, I think the project should stay within Wikibooks.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>There is certainly no urgency for moving it out of Wikibooks
>>
>>Ec
>>
>>
>
>There's enough urgency in the minds of some people that it has been
>listed on their VFD page.
>
>Anthony
>
>
The main point of the VfD on Wikibooks is to establish for once and all
that Wikibooks is not a project incubator Wiki for new Wikimedia Sister
projects.  Or is it?  That was the whole point of the VfD to debate and
discuss that whole issue, which is an issue that can and ought to be
discussed on a larger basis with the whole of the Wikimedia users as
well.  Most VfD discussions on Wikibooks at least are dealing with
people pushing the boundaries for what is acceptable and what is not on
Wikibooks, and to get a larger community opinion on killing a Wikibook
project.  Some very substantive policy changes have resulted from the
VfD discussions on Wikibooks, for good or ill.

It has been discussed many times on this list as well, and the general
concensus I got from contributors to this mailing list as well as on
Meta was that Wikibooks is not intended to become that Wiki incubator
like Wikicities.  If that is the case, projects like Wikiversity and
eventually Wikijunior need to go.  This also allows Wikibooks to focus
its mission to dealing with non-fiction books (a general community
concensus was reached on that point as well) having a general NPOV
format and developed through a collaborative Wiki process.  How does
Wikiversity fit into that role?  Wikiversity can and ought to be much
more than what Wikibooks is generally restricted to in terms of just
writing books about learning.  There is also a fairly healthy user
community working on Wikiversity that is for the most part independent
of the rest of the Wikibooks community.  Yes, there are users involved
with both, as there are participants from Wikipedia that help write
Wikibooks.  That is a good thing as well.

You have your opinion on the matter, and a general Wikimedia community
poll was taken on the subject with the additional ability to offer
comments on the topic and voice opinions.  The whole point of this
thread is that the poll has happened and now it is time for the
Wikimedia Foundation board to decide based on this very large body of
opinion on the topic covering almost every permutation on the issue.  If
anything, the problem is that many of these written opinions have been
scattered across many places including the Wikiversity page on both Meta
as well as Wikibooks, the voting pages, and the VfD discussion on
Wikibooks, not to mention this mailing list as well.  If you printed all
of this stuff out, you could end up with a book by itself with over 100
pages of just opinions on Wikiversity.

--
Robert Scott Horning


from_name: Erdal Ronahi

body:
Hi Andre,

you are right, but I didn't find an equivalent and also no Farsi embassy on
meta. I will write on some discussion pages.

Erdal

Would it be an idea to put a message on the Farsi equivalent of the
> village pump? That will be the place where you see most Iranian
> Wikipedians, who then can be of help by checking whether the block is
> there in all of Iran, or only in specific areas or ISPs. You might
> also be able to find people who know the best way to proceed with
> regard to the Iranian censors.
>
> Andre Engels
>
> 2005/11/10, Erdal Ronahi <erdal.ronahi at gmail.com>:
> > Hi,
> >
> > my friend in Iran confirmed that at least two ISP in Teheran block the
> > Kurdish Wikipedia (http://ku.wikipedia.org). The identical message on
> > both is:
> >
> > Access Denied!
> >
> > This page will not be accessible for the reason that in our database it
> > has been assinged to the category of blocked contents .
> >
> > In the event the URL does not contain materials that are forbidden by
> > laws, please fill this form out then hit send.
> >
> >
> > However, one user from another part of Iran was able to reach it. The
> > mentioned form has meanwhile been filled and sent, but there is no
> > reaction yet.
> >
> > I think that even a partial censoship against Wikipedia is of interest
> > for the community. The Kurdish Wikipedia is frequently attacked by
> > political vandalizm of Turkish writing users, who want to see all Kurds
> > "wiped out", but this is relatively easy to handle. There have been
> > reports before that Internet Cafe owners in Turkey are forced to install
> > software that blocks Kurdish content, including Wikipedia. This is the
> > first time we hear about such an incident from Iran.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Erdal
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
> --
> Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
> ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>
>


from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Hosting scans of the 1911 Britannica on Wikimedia

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Like Lars, I don't see the point of a separate domain for this.  I agree
> that Wikipedia has benefitted greatly from it, but it has benefitted
> from many other works as well.  With the scanned pages on Commons they
> will still be easily available to the several projects that you have in
> mind.  Easily editable and Wikified texts will continue to belong on
> Wikisource.

Why are you still talking about a separate domain? That's ancient history. I
suggested a compromise, why aren't you talking about that?

-- Tim Starling


from_name: Sabine Cretella

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Promoting Wikipedia/Wikimedia projects (Status of
	Wikimedia)

body:
Well I read some very interesting mails so far about "everyone knowing"
Wikipedia and minority/rare languages. And I read that "anyone" knows
wikipedia.

The reality is somewhat different ...

About anyone knowikg Wikipedia:
It is the period of the year when in many places in the world people
create cribs. Here in Maiori there is a long tradition and they indeed
started. So I thought it would be a good idea to pass these (for now)
three cribs and take photos while they are being built:
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Il_presepe_napoletano_a_Maiori (I already
have some more pictures and if I have time this week-end I'll upload
them). So I thought I should take the printout of the article as well as
some other related articles with me and hand them over to the groups.

These groups who build cribs are mainly composed of young people between
15 and 30 years of age: the typical user group of wikipedia one might
think ... well ... surprise: NONE of them knew about wikipedia - neither
about the Italian one nor the Neapolitan one. It took me quite a lot of
time to explain what wikipedia is and is about and that everyone can
contribute and ... and ... and ... and this four times (four times
because one of these printours was handed over to a Neapolitan writing
traffic warden).

What to do about this? Well I have my ideas ... and I am doing already
some stuff... see below.

Now languages of minorities: Neapolitan is not really a minority
language it is spoken by over 7 million people, it is written, but it is
not considered to be a high level language. People tell their kids to
talk "correctly" meaning that they should speak Italian instead of
Neapolitan ... and indeed many young people speak some kind of hybrid
Neapolitan/Italian language, but none of both in everyday life. Now
Neapolitan is not declared to be an endangered language by the UNESCO,
but it is indeed one if no-one starts making facts. There were already
some improvements started by the Accademia Napulitana, but due to the
lack of co-operating people they stopped.... well this is something that
does not make sense. If a project does not work, you have to understand
the reasons and then search solutions to get rid of that problems. As
for Neapolitan we have some regular editors, but well: we are not known
and when you go to institutions and ask them for help they don't help
you because they don't know about Wikipedia ...

Not a funny situation, but this is the facts.

Now my first cold shower about how good Wikipedia in general is known
came down this week ... we need to do loads of work on that ...

Steps that are useless at the very beginning
1) talk to authorities
2) talk to language institutions

Steps that are needed:
1) printout articles people can read anywhere - so "space" for articles
on blackboards (yes they still exist down here) that are interesting and
attracting to people.
2) printout articles to be given to schools
3) newsletters (anyone who is interested in how such a newsletter looks
like: send me an e-mail and I send you an example)
4) talk, talk, talk personally

Once you have some representative contents and a nice bunch of editors:
1) contact clubs about various themes where there is already an article
and ask them to improve it
2) contact institutions that care about that language
3) contact schools and ask for "specific" co-operation
and many, many other ways

It is useless to talk on the wikipedia lists about your ideas - you must
get out of it to contact other people speaking the language you want to
promote. Talking only here means that you restrict your message to those
people who anyway know about wikipedia and about your project - it does
not help you to get further help to create what you are aiming for.

You need people, the right people, and therefore you must create a
network for YOUR language or the language you want to support. Many
single people will help you to reach out to even more people and this
will help you to reach the ones in every city that speak that specific
language. Once you have these contacts and your wikipedia is started
create projects that are feasible for almost everyone.

1) History of your town
2) Churches of your town
3) Traditions of your town
4) Monuments of your town
5) photos
6) legends
and whatever - but give people a definite thing they can work on - at
the beginning new contributors often don't know where to start - so you
must give them some kind of "way" and you must take everyone by the hand.

You will find people that give you articles written in a word document
or even by hand on a piece of paper: insert it, print it out and give it
back to them. If possible create a user account for these peope and add
the articles with the name of the person who created it. Give them
something back where they can be proud of.

Be sure: you will not be able to create editors by only talking - there
is much of yourself involved - you need to live your project and
represent it fully with yourself otherwise you will not be convincing.

If you have problems to get your wikipedia started: well, start to write
articles even in txt format - make them GFDL put them at disposal
anywhere - if you have contents and if you show how important a project
for you is: no-one will be able to say no, you may not create your own
wikipedia. You can get it, but talking alone is not enough.

As to myself: I am not a 100% Wikipedian - I feel more at home with
Wiktionary, but I love the Neapolitan language (as well as Sicilian :-)
and some others. That's why I wantedt nap.wikipedia.org to start. We
have it there - I do myself what I can and we are getting forward step
by step. Be not astonished if at a certain point I will try to pull up
another wikipedia ... but that one will be much more difficult for me
since I cannot do any direct "marketing" to people - Griko Salentino -
inbetween there is Ultimate Wiktionary that will require really a lot of
my time, but things are feasible. For now Griko is still quite far away
since first of al nap.wikipedia needs to be a really "living" project
with a certain number of regular editors and reading people, otherwise
it would not make sense to work on it.

So please do things - if I can help you in some way: just tell me.
Please, instead of discussing things over and over again: just sit down
on your computer and write the first articles if you want a wikipedia in
that language and you cannot get it. Do your things by e-mail, within a
yahoo-group (maybe an already existing one considering that specific
language) - if you live in the region: reach out to poeple - make them
dream your dream. And go :-)

Well I hope this helps - in particular those who want their wikipedia
and seem to have no chance (you have a chance - a unique one - go and do
things and you will see things happen).

Have a great week-end!

Ciao, Sabine

___________________________________
Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB
http://mail.yahoo.it


from_name: Jtkiefer

subject: [WikiEN-l] caught in a floating ip ban, no way to contact an admin

body:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

>According to the block log your IP has been unblocked.
>23:36, 10 November 2005 Jtkiefer unblocked User:192.88.124.202
>(improper indef. block of an IP)
>
>Usually IPs shouldn't be blocked indefinitely and I'm pretty sure
>Bluemoose will be reminded of that.
>
>--Mgm
>
>
Yeah, I unblocked the IP and left a note on Bluemoose's talk page
reminding him that indef. blocks on IP's are outside of policy unless
the IP is an open proxy, especially since this is a college IP and may
be a shared computer.

-Jtkiefer


body:
Jean-Baptiste Soufron wrote:

> Second, if there is any wrongdoing made by someone with an accredited
> pass, the Foundation will now be liable for it. I mean its liability
> will come first, even before the liability of the author of the
> article. This is a famous mechanism meant to protect journalists :
> instead of pursuing them, it is mandatory to sue their editors first.
> And if we accreditate people, we will be assimilated to editors,
> becoming liable at first.
>
> And this leads to my third and more important point. Accreditating
> people will transform the Foundation from being a publisher to
> becoming an editor... which means that we will now be liable for any
> content written on the website by anyone else.
>
> Are you sure that the Foundation is ready to become liable for
> anything written on Wikinews ?
>
> If yes, I think this would be a major change of the Foundation policy.
>
> Jean-Baptiste Soufron, Legal Officer
>
I am familiar with newspapers that have a very clear distinction between
the publishers and the editorial board.  There are several right where I
live right now.  In fact, in Salt Lake City there are two major
newspapers who have the same distribution agent (read publisher) but
very different editorial policies and very seperate editorial boards.
 To make an even further distinction, the "owners" of the newspapers
also try to keep a hands-off approach to editorial decisions, and there
is a clear legal seperation between the two entities even for liability
purposes.

How is Wikinews different than this situation?  The problem with
Wikinews in this sense is that there are no "leaders" or
editors-in-chief who can take the legal arrows, so to say.  In this case
I think it would be more the administrators who are maintaining and
verifying the credentials of Wikinews reporters who would have the legal
liability.

Not necessarily something pleasant to think about for that matter, and
dangerous in a volunteer organization.  Certainly something to
discourage you from becoming an admin on Wikinews.  Having the Wikimedia
Foundation take the heat instead would help insulate the admins and
others on Wikinews but opens up other issues as you have suggested.  The
real question then is who has the certifying authority and who has the
liability for the problems?  The two go together.

There is a need for accredited reporters, as there are some news media
events that can clearly be covered only by accredited press members.  In
the USA in particular, the government has no role in the accreditation
process and instead it is from the authority of the news agency they are
working for.  This is the real meat of this issue, and to decide on how
the accreditation will happen.

BTW, I was turned down from one media event already where I tried to
cover the event as a Wikinews reporter but lacked credentials.  There
will be other opportunities in the future, but this is a real situation.

--
Robert Scott Horning


from_name: Matt Brown

body:
We should be careful to make such guidelines reflect the fact that MOST
people who discover an article about themselves don't have bad intentions. I
last read it a few days ago, before David's modifications, but it seemed to
be rather biased towards the view that most such persons will be either (a)
those who are too unremarkable to have a Wikipedia article but self-create
one, or (b) those wanting to use the article for self-promotion, delete
verifiable and honest criticism, or don't want an article about themselves.

Basically, it represents the viewpoint (largely true in the past) that most
such people who come to Wikipedia are crackpots or scarcely notable. Our
notability/notoriety has now gone beyond that, and I suspect we will see
much more of this in the future.

-Matt


from_name: David Gerard

body:
Morven wrote:
>On 11/10/05, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:

>> [[WP:AUTO]].

>WP:AUTO addresses creating an article about yourself. It doesn't address
>finding an article about yourself on Wikipedia nearly so well. Perhaps I'll
>start such a guideline, if it turns out there isn't one.

It doesn't need a new guideline, just adding to that one. Common-sense
guidelines should do it:

* Please don't edit the article about yourself directly. It would
probably be appropriate to add relevant information to the article's
talk page for other editors to decide on.
* You don't get to judge whether you are an encyclopedic subject.
[rephrase in diplomatic]
* If you don't like the photo, please do contribute a good photo under
a free license.
* ...

- d.


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia:Editor_tags

body:
Tags that warn an article is disputed or subject to controversy need
to be on the article page to inform the casual passerby who doesn't
think of checking the talk page. And having certain tags on the
article itself will also make the fact they need to be improved more
visible and may speed that process up.

Shouldn't we be trying to fix the articles to get rid of these tags
entirely. If we do, there'd be no discussion on where to put them.

--Mgm

On 11/10/05, steve v <vertigosteve at yahoo.com> wrote:
> This is a summary of the criticism of the WP:ET idea's
> at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Editor_tags
>
> # Template messages should be bigger! -
> ## Too small!
> ## Readers should read (and understand) them, not just
> editors
> ### Not appropriate for NPOV / POV tags (OK for
> others)
> ### Appears to "cover up" any disputes
> ### Suggests the talk page is in dispute as opposed to
> the article itself.
> ### "They should be like a big honking stopsign to the
> reader"
> ### "they warn readers and tell them to not read the
> article."
> #### "If they do, then they'll get false information."
> # "Messes up categorizations"
> # I dont like it!
>
> ROFL
> SV
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
> http://farechase.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [WikiEN-l] Horrible Grammar

body:
On 11/10/05, Freya <cybercat at redjellyfish.net> wrote:
> We need a committee to check the grammar in Wikipedia articles and
> make corrections! We need some really picky people on this committee
> too - and I will be glad to help.
>

English grammar is very flexible, so if you find something that
doesn't look right to you it's probably better to fix it yourself--if
it's really that important to you--than to hope for some committee to
come up with the One True Wikipedia Grammar (which is feasible) and
impose it on all of Wikipedia (which is a bit pie-in-the-sky).

The other day someone came on IRC moaning about the use of "which" in
nonrestrictive clauses, which is apparently a heinous crime in
American English but perfectly acceptable (and even sometimes
prefered) in most other forms.  My take on this--as with most style
questions--is that we have thousands, of regular editors, and while
it's nice to have stuff like our Manual of style, and Strunk and
White, Fowler, etc as guides, we will probably have to permit our
normal editing processes to take care of the question of grammar.  We
have enough silly edit wars about whether or not to use emdashes and
whatnot. A crusade on the nonrestrictive clause would not be of much
use to Wikipedia if it drove away good people, as such battles
invariably do.


body:
David Gerard:
>Morven wrote:

>>WP:AUTO addresses creating an article about yourself. It doesn't address
>>finding an article about yourself on Wikipedia nearly so well. Perhaps I'll
>>start such a guideline, if it turns out there isn't one.

>It doesn't need a new guideline, just adding to that one. Common-sense
>guidelines should do it:

I've just edited WP:AUTO adding a bit about "If you already have an
article about you". (I also tightened the waffly writing considerably
and removed the "Disputed" notice - if it's so very hotly disputed, it
would have seen some talk page action in the last six months.) Further
tweaks would probably be a good idea, keeping in mind [[m:Instruction
creep]].

- d.


subject:
[Foundation-l] Incubator Wiki for New Wikimedia Projects (was Vote
	to create Wikiversity Vote)

body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:

>Maybe we need an incubator Wiki for potential new sister projects.
>Wikicities is certainly not the solution for that.  Wikicities is a
>for-profit project complete with advertising being run by a for-profit
>company whose only tie to Wikimedia is that its two founders are on
>the board of directors of Wikimedia (one of whom is the founder of
>Wikipedia).
>
>Anthony
>
>
I would agree that there is a need for an incubator project.  Clearly
the jump from minor discussion on this list and a minor writeup on the
Meta Wiki to turning on a seperate Wiki domain is much larger than
comparable projects on Wikicities, just for instance.  As far as
Wikicities not being the correct solution, I would have to in general
agree but from everything I've seen that is the current recommended
solution with just about everybody strongly pushed onto Wikicities if
their content doesn't fit a current Wikimedia project.  Even the new
projects proposal page strongly recommends Wikicities.

I do want to emphasis, however, that Wikibooks is not the place to do
this either.  This is a need for a whole new project altogether.  Are
you interested in helping me with organizing that project?  The
Foundation board has talked about this issue from time to time, but
there is a need to really sit down and try to come up with the
guidelines for when a project can be started on the incubator/test wiki.
 This is a policy issue rather than a technical issue.  This is also
something that rather than an abstract idea, there needs to be something
written as a formal proposal with debate over the principle ideas for
how the whole process would work.  Eventually it would also require a
change in the New Projects policy as well, with the ability to both
create and cull projects from the incubator Wiki.

--
Robert Scott Horning


body:
On 11/11/05, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Jean-Baptiste Soufron <jbsoufron at gmail.com> wrote:
> > ?
> > And this leads to my third and more important point. Accreditating
> > people will transform the Foundation from being a publisher to becoming
> > an editor... which means that we will now be liable for any content
> > written on the website by anyone else.
> >
> > Are you sure that the Foundation is ready to become liable for anything
> > written on Wikinews ?
> >
> > If yes, I think this would be a major change of the Foundation policy.
>
> Let me be clear. The foundation *would not* be accrediting anybody. Period. All
> the foundation would do is give permission for those people who have gone
> through a *community run* and accreditation process to use the Wikinews name
> and logo on press badges.
>
> -- mav

Wouldn't Wikimedia need permission from those who issue the press
badges before it could do that?


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [WikiEN-l] Daniel Brandt rattles sabre

body:
Geoff Burling wrote:
> And if one has sufficient attention, then it would benefit that person
> to try to play nice with Wiipedia. Ask for help with editting that
> article. Offer images under GFDL. Create some goodwill so that editors
> who spend a lot of time will help watch over the article.

Yes.

But of course I hope that we, being Wikipedians, will offer very warm
goodwill to Daniel Brandt, despite the fact that his primary
contribution to the article has been to attempt to suppress perfectly
valid links to sources which are critical of him.

The article should be neutral, clear, high-quality, and on many many
people's watchlists, and whenever Brandt interacts with any of us, he
should be treated with the utmost courtesy, kindness, and respect, no
matter how he chooses to behave himself.

This might be difficult, but we're Wikipedians.  It's what we do.

--Jimbo


body:
Christopher Larberg wrote:
> I don't see what's so bad about having subjects of articles edit their
> own articles. They may be able to add information unobtainable elsewhere
> (after all, you can't get a much better source than the subject matter
> his/herself).

One problem with this, one which I have faced myself, is that
information about myself which is unobtainable elsewhere is also
unverifiable and therefore can't be added.  Therefore, even when it is
at it's best (with unverifiable speculation removed), it's still a very
very strange representation of who I am.  (Though it has gotten better
over time as I have been more open with reporters about myself so that
there's more verifiable information out there.)

I think people should generally be discouraged from editing articles
about themselves, even though I have on occassion done it myself.  It is
a very very stressful thing to do for a person of goodwill.  I've no
interest in removing criticism of me or whatever, but still for the most
part I prefer to just NOT READ the article about me.

But reporters are always asking me about stuff they read in that
article, and if it's some totally made up original research (which
happens unfortunately often), I have to admit that, well, uh, the
Wikipedia article about me is just plain -wrong-.  And that's
embarassing too. :-)

--Jimbo


subject: [Foundation-l] CheckUser questions

body:
Ec wrote:
>daniwo59 at aol.com wrote:

>>Although I have not been following this discussion, I was asked this  evening
>>to grant 5 arbitrators on the English Wikipedia CheckUser powers.

>Are that many really needed?

Six would be nice, yes please, kthx.

Is this now going to be held up by another subgroup wanting to
re-committee the entire issue from top to bottom? I'd hope not.

- d.


subject: [Foundation-l] CheckUser questions


body:
On 11/11/05, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Delphine M?nard <notafishz at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 11/11/05, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In short, you're saying that this (from meta):
> > "This accreditation process is overseen by the Wikinews community,
> > though the **Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation have
> > overall responsibility for the system**. In order to use the term
> > "Wikinews" (a trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation) on **press
> > badges**, approval of the process by the Board must be sought. This is
> > done by submitting a summary of the Accreditation policy of the
> > Wikinews edition seeking approval in English to the
> > board at wikimedia.org address.
> >
> > The criteria for accreditation will be documented on the relevant
> > editions on Wikinews. **The Board may at any time revoke the
> > accreditation of any Wikinews user, or even revoke approval of the
> > project's accreditation process**."
> >
> > ...does not make the Foundation liable (my **tagging**)?
>
> That is a very good point. The policy needs to be rewritten to say that the
> foundation is not accrediting the individuals, it is just giving those
> individuals who have gone through a community-run and board-approved process
> permission to use the Wikinews name and logo on press badges.

But you don't need permission to use the Wikinews name and logo on press badges.

> To be even more
> clear those badges should have a disclaimer on them saying that the foundation
> is *not* vouching for that person's credentials and accepts no responsibility
> for anything that person does.
>
Wikimedia and indeed the reporter emself rarely have any control over
what is printed on a press badge in the first place.

> In fact, it may be safer (at least clearer) to drop all mention of
> accreditation or credentials. Just use a different word for it like "community
> approved Wikinews reporter" or something like that.
>
> -- mav

And your position is that someone needs the permission of the board in
order to call themselves a "community approved Wikinews reporter"?
That's completely out of touch with reality.

Anthony


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
> --- Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I've made my position clear already - I think the process is fine and
>> that you don't need any more input from the Board. If the rest of the
>> Board decline to comment, I'd take that as silent approval. All
>> members of the Board, if they're at all following what's going on here
>> or in the state of the wiki reports which already explained this, are
>> well aware of the accreditation scheme, and none have objected to it.
>>
>
> What is not clear is if those people who are accredited have permission to use
> the Wikinews name and logo on badges.
>
> -- mav
Hoi,
It may be not clear to you, but when a process is explicitly seen as a
process that is owned by a project and implicitly endorsed by the board,
how can it not be permitted to use the logo and badges of that project ?
Who else is to determine how the paraphernalia of a project are to be
used but the project itself ?
Thanks,
   GerardM


body:
On 11/11/05, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
> The main point of the VfD on Wikibooks is to establish for once and all
> that Wikibooks is not a project incubator Wiki for new Wikimedia Sister
> projects.  Or is it?  That was the whole point of the VfD to debate and
> discuss that whole issue, which is an issue that can and ought to be
> discussed on a larger basis with the whole of the Wikimedia users as
> well.  Most VfD discussions on Wikibooks at least are dealing with
> people pushing the boundaries for what is acceptable and what is not on
> Wikibooks, and to get a larger community opinion on killing a Wikibook
> project.  Some very substantive policy changes have resulted from the
> VfD discussions on Wikibooks, for good or ill.
>
> It has been discussed many times on this list as well, and the general
> concensus I got from contributors to this mailing list as well as on
> Meta was that Wikibooks is not intended to become that Wiki incubator
> like Wikicities.  If that is the case, projects like Wikiversity and
> eventually Wikijunior need to go.  This also allows Wikibooks to focus
> its mission to dealing with non-fiction books (a general community
> concensus was reached on that point as well) having a general NPOV
> format and developed through a collaborative Wiki process.  How does
> Wikiversity fit into that role?  Wikiversity can and ought to be much
> more than what Wikibooks is generally restricted to in terms of just
> writing books about learning.  There is also a fairly healthy user
> community working on Wikiversity that is for the most part independent
> of the rest of the Wikibooks community.  Yes, there are users involved
> with both, as there are participants from Wikipedia that help write
> Wikibooks.  That is a good thing as well.
>
> You have your opinion on the matter, and a general Wikimedia community
> poll was taken on the subject with the additional ability to offer
> comments on the topic and voice opinions.  The whole point of this
> thread is that the poll has happened and now it is time for the
> Wikimedia Foundation board to decide based on this very large body of
> opinion on the topic covering almost every permutation on the issue.  If
> anything, the problem is that many of these written opinions have been
> scattered across many places including the Wikiversity page on both Meta
> as well as Wikibooks, the voting pages, and the VfD discussion on
> Wikibooks, not to mention this mailing list as well.  If you printed all
> of this stuff out, you could end up with a book by itself with over 100
> pages of just opinions on Wikiversity.
>
> --
> Robert Scott Horning

Maybe we need an incubator Wiki for potential new sister projects.
Wikicities is certainly not the solution for that.  Wikicities is a
for-profit project complete with advertising being run by a for-profit
company whose only tie to Wikimedia is that its two founders are on
the board of directors of Wikimedia (one of whom is the founder of
Wikipedia).

Anthony


from_name: Aphaia

subject: [Foundation-l] CheckUser questions

body:
On 11/11/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

> Taking the tool away after it has been used seems to defeat the original
> purpose of this discussion.  What's the difference between finding a
> steward to grant CheckUser privileges and finding one to simply run the
> CheckUser himself?

Very diffrent. It isn't always expected a steward then available can
read the language of project in investigation and it is very hard to
caliculate and  determine if some edits likely belogns to one same
editor. A checkuser priviledged editor from that project could however
be expected to be fluent in its language.

In adition, checkuser hasn't been a part of originally concerning
stewards' tasks, and the requests for not only checkuser but also for
other permissions has been growing in number due to our rapid and
constant growth.  It is therefore reasonable in my opnion to find
people who take care of that task.

--
Aphaea@*.wikipedia.org
email: Aphaia @ gmail (dot) com


subject: [Foundation-l] CheckUser questions


from_name: Daniel Mayer

body:
--- Samuel Klein <sjklein at hcs.harvard.edu> wrote:
> Soufron's points suggest the foundation avoid approving accreditation or
> similar processes; leaving it entirely to community groups.  If someone
> wanted to sue the 'editors' for actions by someone with a press pass, they
> would have to do exactly that -- just as one would have to sue individual
> encyclopedia editors for libel.

To me they suggested that the whole process should be entirely removed. I asked
of clarification on that point.

-- mav

__________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page!
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

body:
On 11/11/05, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > > That is a very good point. The policy needs to be rewritten to say that the
> > > foundation is not accrediting the individuals, it is just giving those
> > > individuals who have gone through a community-run and board-approved
> > process
> > > permission to use the Wikinews name and logo on press badges.
> >
> > But you don't need permission to use the Wikinews name and logo on press
> > badges.
>
> What? That needs a good deal of explanation. How could somebody legally and/or
> morally be able to do that? I just can't use the name and logo of any
> organization I may volunteer for or give money to on badges meant to gain
> access.
>
You might have a hard time getting the badge in the first place, but
that's something you need the permission of the entity issuing the
badge for, not the permission of the organization whose name happens
to be printed on the badge.

> > Wikimedia and indeed the reporter emself rarely have any control over
> > what is printed on a press badge in the first place.
>
> Community created policy will say what will be on the badges.
>
Community created policy can say whatever it wants to say.  The entity
issuing the badge is going to decide what will be on the badge.

> > And your position is that someone needs the permission of the board in
> > order to call themselves a "community approved Wikinews reporter"?
> > That's completely out of touch with reality.
>
> That is a absurd mischaracterization of what I'm advocating. The community
> controls who can validly say that. What the community does not control is the
> use of the Wikinews name and logo in a way that may get the foundation in
> trouble.
>
> -- mav

No one controls who has the right to make a such a perfectly valid
statement.  With the logo maybe you're entering grey area, but most
press badges don't have the logo of the news organization on them
anyway.


from_name: Jean-Baptiste Soufron

body:
Please...

Giving out press credentials has nothing to do with trademark law,
copyright or policy. Most countries regulate the right for organization
to act as press organizations. For example, the french status of press
journalists is regulated by a law of 1935, and its conditions are very
strict.

First, I don't think that wikinews would like to engage its liability by
issuing false press credentials when they don't have the right to do so.

Second, I don't think that wikinews would like to enrage journalist
unions that control the issuing of these credentials.

If you want to issue press credentials there are strict steps to follow,
and they have nothing to do with trademark law or whatever : they depend
on national press legislations. Press organizations have special
privileges related to press, but they also have special obligations to
fulfill, and special liabilities !

As of today, Wikinews is not such a press organization and cannot
benefit of their privileges !

I can provide more help on this if you are interested.

The French law related to this is pretty much a good example of what is
needed :

http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/texteconsolide/PCEAA.htm

and

http://mapage.noos.fr/odalage/monde/statut.html

for policy-related and historical explanations of the status of
journalists.

JBS, working in parisian caf?s

Elisabeth Bauer wrote:
> Delirium wrote:
>
>> I agree oversight is necessary, but disagree that the Foundation is
>> the proper entity to provide it---the Wikinews community is the only
>> entity that should or can legitimately do so. The Foundation can, of
>> course, step in in an emergency if necessary (which has always been
>> the case on all projects), but pre-approval should not be necessary,
>> nor should that authority be used in any case except a true emergency.
>>
>> I don't see the importance of the outside vs. inside distinction in
>> this case. It is entirely proper for a Wikinewsie to be given the
>> authority to represent themselves to the outside world as "vouched for
>> by Wikinews" if, in fact, they are vouched for the Wikinews community.
>> So long as they are not presenting themselves as representatives of
>> the Wikimedia Foundation, I don't see the need for Foundation approval.
>
> Okay, I do. The foundation as the owner of the name Wikinews is the
> ultimate instance to decide who is allowed what to do with this name. It
> can decide to delegate this decision to the community, even for outside
> relations as in the case of press credentials but it stays their
> decision. If the wikinews community wants to hand out press credentials,
> they should submit their policy to the foundation and have it approved
> by the foundation. Since the policy seems quite okay, I see no reason
> why the foundation shouldn't accept it, but there's certainly a need for
> approval as they want to use the trademark in external relations.
>
> greetings,
> elian
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Clare-Marie White

body:
on 11/11/05 12:54 pm, Daniel Mayer at maveric149 at yahoo.com wrote:

> ?Press Credentials? also has
> a very specific meaning in many countries and legislation of those countries
> and/or press union rules provide guidelines that organizations need to follow
> to give out credentials.

I think there is certainly a double use of the word credential that applies
to both uses.

In Britain, if you join the National Union of Journalists you get a press
card which is nationally recognised, you are put on a database held by the
police and you are supposed to be accepted as a journalist by official state
institutions including the army. To get this, by the way, you just have to
be a paying member of the NUJ and while you will have been nominated there
is no way for these officials to know that you are actually a good
journalist working for anyone.

Now, many organisations will give out separate press credentials to those
who apply, many of whom will not have an official press card. You simply
need to persuade them to that you work for the person you say you are and
this is usually done by the publication in question giving you an
accreditation letter.

Wikinews's scheme is exactly the same as that: it shows simply that a
wikinewsy is trusted by the community which in an organisation where anyone
can write is vital for the organisation to build a level of credibility by
producing first hand reporting.

I think for an international website, the system is as good as it can be -
it doesn't make any false promises and it doesn't supercede any national
laws in place, it is simply a tool for wikinewsies and press officers.

> All I want are some high level safeguards built
> in so that the foundation can protect its good name and for the foundation to
> give its permission for its marks and logos to be used on press badges.

Well, can we apply to the board for approval of the system as it is and for
them to say they are happy for the community to run it (or with amendments
that could be discussed), with a named board member to turn to should
anything get nasty?

Clare (Cmwhite)


from_name: Delphine Ménard

body:
On 11/11/05, Jean-Baptiste Soufron <jbsoufron at gmail.com> wrote:

> Giving out press credentials has nothing to do with trademark law,
> copyright or policy. Most countries regulate the right for organization
> to act as press organizations. For example, the french status of press
> journalists is regulated by a law of 1935, and its conditions are very
> strict.

Yes, I was going to say something along those lines, but I wanted to
find more information about other countries and their specific
legislations. I failed to find any relevant information concerning the
issuing of press credentials in North America for one. Maybe someone
could help out here? Michel Neige perhaps? Others for other countries?
Or is France a stand alone in that situation?

> First, I don't think that wikinews would like to engage its liability by
> issuing false press credentials when they don't have the right to do so.
>
> Second, I don't think that wikinews would like to enrage journalist
> unions that control the issuing of these credentials.
>
> If you want to issue press credentials there are strict steps to follow,
> and they have nothing to do with trademark law or whatever : they depend
> on national press legislations. Press organizations have special
> privileges related to press, but they also have special obligations to
> fulfill, and special liabilities !
>
> As of today, Wikinews is not such a press organization and cannot
> benefit of their privileges !

No, but maybe it could could become one? However, that would probably
require a completely different way of doing it, which would probably
entail the Wikinews community and the Foundation to engage in the
proper recognition process. And where? In the US? Worldwide? There are
millions of questions tied to such a process.

> I can provide more help on this if you are interested.
>
> The French law related to this is pretty much a good example of what is
> needed :
>
> http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/texteconsolide/PCEAA.htm
> http://mapage.noos.fr/odalage/monde/statut.html
>
> for policy-related and historical explanations of the status of
> journalists.

Just to point out, the French law for example explicitely mentions
that to hold "carte de presse", you must derive at least 50% of your
income from writing for the press. Which would make it very hard for
fr wikinewsies to ever have one, I suppose... Hopefully other
legislations are not as compelling.

Delphine
--
~notafish


from_name: Delirium

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:

>--- Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I've made my position clear already - I think the process is fine and
>>that you don't need any more input from the Board. If the rest of the
>>Board decline to comment, I'd take that as silent approval. All
>>members of the Board, if they're at all following what's going on here
>>or in the state of the wiki reports which already explained this, are
>>well aware of the accreditation scheme, and none have objected to it.
>>
>>
>
>What is not clear is if those people who are accredited have permission to use
>the Wikinews name and logo on badges.
>
>
No, it's quite clear that they do.

Consider what would be necessary for the opposite to be true: Could the
Wikimedia Foundation actually win a trademark-violation lawsuit against
Wikinewsies for representing themselves as Wikinewsies using the logo
and name of the project they work on?  I would submit that it is very
unlikely that such a suit would succeed.

This ignores the fact that such a suit would never be filed anyway,
making the entire trademark issue moot.  Trademark law is only as good
as your willingness and ability to file and win lawsuits.

-Mark


from_name: Angela

subject:
[WikiEN-l] commercial link spam in
	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venice

body:
On 11/10/05, Noluogo <noluogo at gmail.com> wrote:
> Request for to insert in
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venice
> this code in all links:
>
> rel="nofollow"
>
> is possible? thanks!

There was already a vote on this at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Nofollow/Vote

If you see spam on a page, just remove it.

Angela.


body:
Jean-Baptiste Soufron wrote:

> If you want to issue press credentials there are strict steps to
> follow, and they have nothing to do with trademark law or whatever :
> they depend on national press legislations. Press organizations have
> special privileges related to press, but they also have special
> obligations to fulfill, and special liabilities !

So an organization cannot, without permission of government-sanctioned
bodies, send people to observe and report on events?  We're not talking
about official government press passes here (the U.S. analog is
state-issued passes), simply a piece of paper that indicates the person
in question has the sanction of Wikinews to report on their behalf.
People are free to ignore that piece of paper of course, and demand
something government-issued, but are you saying that the mere act of
issuing that piece of paper is illegal, even if it is not represented as
an official government-sanctioned press pass?

I know in the U.S. at least this is perfect legal, and any attempt to
/require/ press credentials be granted through a government agency would
be explicitly unconstitutional (violating the First Amendment).  A
particular event can of course specify that they only accept
state-issued press credentials for entry of journalists, or impose even
more stringent requirements (White House press briefings require their
own approval process), but that's a separate matter---nobody is
expecting that Wikinewsies will be allowed in /everywhere/ that other
journalists are, at least not in the near future.

-Mark


body:
According to the block log your IP has been unblocked.
23:36, 10 November 2005 Jtkiefer unblocked User:192.88.124.202
(improper indef. block of an IP)

Usually IPs shouldn't be blocked indefinitely and I'm pretty sure
Bluemoose will be reminded of that.

--Mgm

On 11/10/05, Mike <cautioniamboozer at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
> I am a student at the University of Miami, and it seems that the entire university has been IP banned from wikipedia.
>
> I noticed this yesterday when I was looking at your entry for Led Zeppelin on wiki. I noticed that for no reason at all, the picture of the band had one of the members listed as "Leigh Limbrick" when it should have been John Paul Jones. "Gadzooks!" I exclaimed to myself. In an outrage, I clicked the edit button, only to be greeted with a page stating that I was a warned vandal and that bluemoose had given me the boot.
>
> I haven't really ever vandalized everything, but I can take this to mean that someone at the university here has spoiled it for all of us and gotten the entire college blocked. I can see how this might happen, having adminned several sites, forums, the like, myself.
>
> The catch 22 here is that the only way to resolve the issue is to contact Bluemoose, which I can't do, because I don't have a username. I also can't create a new account, edit Bluemoose's talk page, or edit my ip's talk page, because of this IP ban. You may want to modify your blocking policy, as this catch-22 makes it very difficult to report when such occurances arise.
>
> I would appreciate it if the IP ban could be lifted, or if perhaps I could make an account which would be an exception to the IP ban. I have on occasion contributed anonymously to wiki (under different IP's), and have always enjoyed contributing to such an effort.
>
> The IP in question is 192.88.124.202.
>
> Thank you,
> Mike Battaglia
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Is Wikimedia a publisher?

body:
On 11/11/05, Jean-Baptiste Soufron <jbsoufron at gmail.com> wrote:
> Unions accreditating journalists will certainly be mad at it (as in
> France), and it would picture the foundation as a liable editor rather
> as a not-liable publisher.

I thought it was the position of the foundation that it wasn't even a
publisher, but rather an ISP, essentially a common carrier.


from_name: Jason Y. Lee

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion, & recreation

body:
Since when it has become standard to keep articles and delete recreations on sight?  Whatever happen to the philosophy we had on allowing an article to be deleted so that someone with the proper knowledge can properly write the introduction of the article?

--
Jason Y. Lee
AKA AllyUnion


from_name: M. Creidieki Crouch

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: Policy on including templates in automatic
	categories

body:
> You know, I don't get why this was never done. Back when categories were
> first introduced, I expected this to be an obvious thing. I expected
> there to be at least eight new namespaces: 'Category', 'Image category',
> 'Wikipedia category' and 'User category', plus all their corresponding
> Talk namespaces.

I think this would help a lot.  We've already seen a lot of Categories
and Templates that are used primarily for organizing users and user
pages, so that we can find Wikipedians by language or interest.  The
CSD debates that I've been in seemed to show that other users were
against users having categories for their user subpages
(Category:User:Creidieki/Sandbox4 and related debates).

It would be nice to have a namespace distinction between the
categories "Articles about Japanese people" and "Wikipedia users who
speak Japanese".

-- Creidieki


from_name: Mark Wagner

subject: [WikiEN-l] Totally unscientific investigation...

body:
On 11/8/05, kosebamse at gmx.net <kosebamse at gmx.net> wrote:
> ...regarding the quality of our work:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kosebamse/Twenty-random-pages_test

On this subject, I recently did a survey of 100 randomly-selected
articles.  The results are at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Carnildo/The_100

Of the articles, there were two that I speedy-deleted, two that I
listed on VfD, one that I tagged as a copyvio, and one that someone
else had already tagged.  There were nine articles I would classify as
"good" and 14 that I considered as having covered most of the basics.
There were 44 I would consider stubs, and 20 one-line or two-line
substubs.  There were six disambiguation pages, three lists, and four
articles I couldn't classify.  There were no articles I would be
willing to list on FAC, although one came close.

Of articles in need of sourcing, 14 out of 90 had some form of source
information.  There were 33 sources listed at the ends of articles,
although 14 of those came from a single article.

In the good news department, free images outnumbered non-free by 2:1,
while only about 15% were effectively unsourced. Almost half of them
could be developed into featured articles without too much difficulty.

In terms of article subjects, there were four articles on fictional
subjects, three of them on Digimon.  There were ten articles related
to popular music: four bands, four musicians, one album, and one
record label.  There were ten cities, only one of which was a Rambot
stub.  There were two schools.

I'll be updating the survey every month or two.  It'll be interesting
to see how the articles change over time.

--
[[User:Carnildo]]


body:
Would the policy at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews_accreditation_policy settle
this situation? It requires accreditation policies to be approved by
the Board before press badges can say "Wikinews".

Angela


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Daniel Brandt rattles sabre

body:
Matt Brown wrote:
> On 11/10/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I urge you to look at the page he has there. You may care to take a
>>dated archival copy in case of any of the threatened lawsuits
>>eventuating.
>>
>
>
> Ah, more comedy lawyer threats.
>
> What I especially love about Daniel Brandt is the fact that he has made
> revealing inside and private information about people and companies his
> life's work - but somehow when it's about HIM, it's all different.
>

He wouldn't happen to live in TRENTON, NEW JERSEY would he? :)

--
This email message contains boring stuff of no interest to anyone
(possibly even including the intended recipient(s)). If you are a nosey
parker, and are reading my emails CUT IT OUT IMMEDIATELY! I'd threaten
you with assorted legal lead-pipe clauses if I thought there was any
point to it. If you have the poor judgement to be running some version
of Windows, and catch a virus from this email, it serves you right.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 546 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20051111/a8291774/attachment.pgp


from_name: SJ

body:
Soufron's points suggest the foundation avoid approving accreditation or
similar processes; leaving it entirely to community groups.  If someone wanted
to sue the 'editors' for actions by someone with a press pass, they would have
to do exactly that -- just as one would have to sue individual encyclopedia
editors for libel.

> And this leads to my third and more important point. Accreditating people
> will transform the Foundation from being a publisher to becoming an editor...

The foundation is not a publisher afaik, and I don't see how any policy
decided by community members would make it an editor.

SJ

(ps - If you write for EB or publish an article in the Boston Globe, there
  is someone out there protecting you from personal liability.  Not so with
  Wikipedia and sister projects; perhaps we need a neon warning on the edit
  screen, just below the DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION.)


body:
Fastfission wrote:
> It's cute that they announced it, though. If only all POV-pushers were
> so convenient. It's also somewhat cute that they "joined the authoring
> ranks of Wikipedia" -- as if it takes active membership and not just
> clicking on the "Login" button.
>

Hrm, I wonder if they will just as noticably "join the ranks of banned
users at Wikipedia"... :-P

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 546 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20051111/07c40993/attachment.pgp


body:
Matt Brown wrote:
> Daniel Brandt is far from the first subject of a Wikipedia article to come
> along, find the article, and try to 'fix' it, edit it, delete it, or even
> boost themselves on it. And he won't be the last. As Wikipedia becomes more
> and more in the public eye, and as well-known people become more and more
> familiar with online things, we'll see it quite often.
>
> We should be more prepared for this. Do we even have a page to point people
> at if they are themselves the subject of a Wikipedia article, explaining how
> Wikipedia works when it comes to biographies of living persons, and how they
> should engage with Wikipedia to improve articles on themselves? If not, we
> should.
>

[[WP:AUTO]].

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 546 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20051111/478219ac/attachment.pgp


body:
Mark Williamson wrote:
> When did I say that? I never said that.
>
> Although others accused me of trying to joke, I have been entirely
> serious all along.
>
> The day of reckoning will come, Milos, and all of the
> anti-Zlatiborians will not be judged kindly.
>

Well, on the day of judgement, you're going to burn in Hell for all
eternity. And unlike you, I have sources to back up my claim.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 546 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20051111/7bbf49bc/attachment.pgp


from_name: Andre Engels

subject: [Wikipedia-l] 'Proper' languages and bumper stickers

body:
2005/11/11, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com>:

> The main requirement, IIRC, is that there be at least 50 documents in
> the language at any library.

50 different documents spread over 5 libraries is also considered sufficient.

> That wrongfully excludes many languages which are written but rarely
> published, or which are written but only have very minor publications.

They are excluded, but I'm not sure whether that would be
"wrongfully". Not that I want to exclude such languages from
Wikipedia, but I would not mind if for those languages a more
stringent test were required than for others.

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


list: wikitech-l

from_name: John Anthony Hartman

subject: [Wikitech-l] Job Opportunity

body:
Job Description

Wanted: an experienced programmer with a background in the MediaWiki code
base.

ManyOne Networks has been tasked by a client to build an encyclopedia in a
wiki format. The wiki platform we are using is MediaWiki, the same
underlying platform as Wikipedia. Our client is aiming, like Wikipedia, to
build a large body of freely available content developed in a massively
collaborative mode via a wiki. Unlike Wikipedia, this client is working in a
specific topic area and with a specific (though large) body of potential
contributors.

Because of these (and other) differences, we find ourselves in need of
someone who can work with us on making some changes or enhancements to the
underlying MediaWiki code. It is our intent, by the way, that changes made
be offered back as open source to the MediaWiki developers. Some of the
areas where we hope to get help include:
- Content replication across wiki namespaces;
- area of registration and authentication;
- role-based access control.

Interested applicants should contact Mike Matthews at ManyOne Networks with
resume and contact information.

Contract to hire possibilities.

Mike Matthews
ManyOne Networks
100 Enterprise Way, Suite G-370
Scotts Valley, CA 95066
831-438-9800 ext 132
mike at manyone.net

I figured this list would be a great place to find this person.

 ___________________________________________________
John Anthony Hartman
website: http://www.websage.org
podcast: Multi-Media Me- http://pmo.websage.org
 "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. "
--Arthur C. Clarke