body:
Like how Wikipedia was supposed to be a development grounds for
Nupedia?  My point is that a "Crappopedia" could open a very large can
of worms.

--Ryan

On 11/29/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> I was thinking of an idea that articles could be trimmed down to what's been
> sourced and the longer (albeit unsourced) article could go to some sort of
> Crappopedia where it awaits confirmation. Stuff that is confirmed with a
> source could be added back. That way, Wikipedia could maintain integrity and
> the other wiki could be a development grounds.
>
> On 11/29/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 11/30/06, Daniel P. B. Smith <wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com> wrote:
> > > e) Once tagged, there should be no big rush about deleting the
> > > material, but it should not remain indefinitely, either. How long?
> > > Assuming that there's no specific reason to doubt the material,
> > > months and months.
> > >
> > > The _only_ objections to this I can think of is that that the tags
> > > are ugly--which is true but susceptible to a technical fix--or that
> > > we are not serious about verifiability and don't truly want to
> > > restrict Wikipedia content to things that are supported by published
> > > material.
> >
> > I don't think deleting accurate, high-quality, unreferenced material
> > is in Wikipedia's best interests. Asking for a source, yes. Adding
> > sources, yes. But *deleting* good material? No.
> >
> > Steve
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: The Cunctator

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletions, lists, etc?

body:
I'm mildly sorry for taking the shortcut of asking the list about things I
could figure out by wading through the insanely complicated policy pages,
but here goes-- if you think a page that went through the AfD process was
wrongly deleted, what is the proper action?

How wrong is it for an admin to undelete a page?

Also, are we trying to get rid of all "list" pages?


from_name: Ryan Wetherell

subject: [WikiEN-l] The new non-stupid wiki-en thread

body:
Same here, and of course I'm usually on the beat for fixing "External
links" headings that only have one external link. ;)

--Ryan

On 11/28/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> Steve Bennett wrote:
> > So, anyone greatly improved an article lately?
> >
>
> I've been adding to our forest of redirects...
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Jeff Raymond

subject: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!

references:
<mailman.12918.1164754449.9606.wikien-l@Wikipedia.org>
	<456CC545.1090709@earthlink.net>
	<456CE040.6000105@internationalhouseofbacon.com>
	<f6srm215dks88erf3kjolnmouhdctrmcru@4ax.com>

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 20:20:00 -0500, Jeff Raymond
> <jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:
>
>>The only roadblock we have regarding blogs as sources is that some are
>>more reputable than others, and filtering the wheat from the chaff is
>>important.  However, we do that with magazines, books, and journals
>>already, so it can't be *that* difficult.
>
> Um.  There are many fewer unreliable magazines, due to the non-zero
> bar to publication.

That's not entirely true, though.  Magazines aren't considered "reliable"
due to the said "non-zero bar" factor, but rather because of their
history.  People are afraid of blogs, even though there are many blogs
that are just as reliable - even perhaps more reliable - than many
otherwise "trusted" magazines.  With very little exception, we'd accept a
magazine source, with proper attribution, in a non-controverisial
instance, and let the reader make the decision regardless of their
knowledge of the source.  There's absolutely no reason we couldn't do that
with blogs, too.

-Jeff

--
If you can read this, I'm not at home.


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Timwi

subject: [Wikitech-l] [MediaWiki-CVS] SVN: [17983] trunk/phase3/includes

body:
Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
>
> A member variable avoids putting in any ugly "if db == postgres" lines,
> and allows easy future handling of other date issues. I'm not sure what
> function you are saying should be overridden?

I believe the idea is to have separate _classes_ for each DB system, so
"db == postgres" would not be necessary because you'd have a separate
class for PostgreSQL. In that class, you should simply override the
function realTimestamps() and plainly return true. That would be proper
object-oriented design, and it's a very common practice.

Timwi


subject: [WikiEN-l] Handling unreferenced but likely-valid material

body:
Eventually, maybe, sure.  I'd rather have them stay closer to
Wikipedia proper, though.  I guess it depends on how quickly users
wade through it. But how do we know that moving them anywhere will get
those statements sourced/referenced/cited/etc. any faster than if they
were staring viewers right in the face?

--Ryan

On 11/29/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> Which could be used to catch a very large amount of fish.
>
> On 11/29/06, Ryan Wetherell <renardius at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Like how Wikipedia was supposed to be a development grounds for
> > Nupedia?  My point is that a "Crappopedia" could open a very large can
> > of worms.
> >
> > --Ryan
> >
> > On 11/29/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I was thinking of an idea that articles could be trimmed down to what's
> > been
> > > sourced and the longer (albeit unsourced) article could go to some sort
> > of
> > > Crappopedia where it awaits confirmation. Stuff that is confirmed with a
> > > source could be added back. That way, Wikipedia could maintain integrity
> > and
> > > the other wiki could be a development grounds.
> > >
> > > On 11/29/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 11/30/06, Daniel P. B. Smith <wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com> wrote:
> > > > > e) Once tagged, there should be no big rush about deleting the
> > > > > material, but it should not remain indefinitely, either. How long?
> > > > > Assuming that there's no specific reason to doubt the material,
> > > > > months and months.
> > > > >
> > > > > The _only_ objections to this I can think of is that that the tags
> > > > > are ugly--which is true but susceptible to a technical fix--or that
> > > > > we are not serious about verifiability and don't truly want to
> > > > > restrict Wikipedia content to things that are supported by published
> > > > > material.
> > > >
> > > > I don't think deleting accurate, high-quality, unreferenced material
> > > > is in Wikipedia's best interests. Asking for a source, yes. Adding
> > > > sources, yes. But *deleting* good material? No.
> > > >
> > > > Steve
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Trivial categories

body:
Huh. Just because one can't think of a reason that it would be of interest
to have a list of mathematicians of Erdos Number 3 doesn't mean that noone
can. Wikipedia ain't paper.

On 10/15/06, Bogdan Giusca <liste at dapyx.com> wrote:
>
> Monday, October 16, 2006, 12:40:59 AM, Phil wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Does everyone in your profession have a "Papal Number", talk about it
> >> sometimes over beer, and sometimes put it in resumes?
> >>
>
> > No.
>
> > Does the Erdos number matter to any sorts of decisions or evaluations
> > in mathematics? That is, is a mathematician defined by his Erdos
> > number in any way? Nobody is disputing that [[Erdos number]] should
> > exist... just whether it's a useful way to classify mathematicians in
> > an encyclopedia.
>
> If you know someone's Erdos number, you know exactly his Erdos number.
> Nothing more.
>
> Nobody goes looking in categories after people with "Erdos number 3",
> so there's no point in having a category.
>
> There's no real corelation between the Erdos number and the notability
> or influence of a person. People who have published papers with many
> collaborators and people who work in the same fields as Erdos have
> more chances of having a lower number, but that's all.
>
> There are thousands of non-notable mathematicians having
> numbers 1 and 2, while Alan Turing (one of the greatest mathematicians
> of the century) has Erdos number 5 and Paul Dirac has number 4.
>
> Mathematicians seem to like this piece of trivia because it makes them
> feel like they belong in a community. And since the CfD is a
> "popularity contest", not a debate, the categories were kept, despite
> all the arguments brought.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: David Gerard

body:
On 29/11/06, Daniel P. B. Smith <wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com> wrote:

> d) So, the unreferenced material should be tagged. That calls the
> reader's attention to the fact that the material is untraceable, and
> its accuracy is hard to judge. Equally important, it also calls
> everyone's attention to the fact that verifiability is policy, and
> that it is taken seriously.

{{unreferenced}} isn't a horribly ugly tag, and it does serve the
reader without gutting the article.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!

body:
I actually went through a process similar to this some weeks back, in
order to get a claim rather relevant to [[The Melancholy of Suzumiya
Haruhi]] cited as far as the episode in which the claim was made.  It
wasn't the most pleasant thing to have to go , but it seems to work
well enough.

Ryan

On 11/29/06, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
> George Herbert wrote:
> > On 11/29/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 18:28:49 -0800, "George Herbert"
> >> <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> the vast majority of popular culture items have not been subjected to
> >>> independent research and are not documentable other than the particular
> >> item
> >>> of culture itself.
> >> I quite agree.  And this is, for me, a major problem, in that it sends
> >> all the wrong messages about original research.
> >>
> >
> > In particular to the editors working on those articles.
> >
> > I was wondering if it would be a positive step to strongly encourage the
> > popular culture articles to move towards at least citing the (potentially
> > unreliable) primary pop culture source for various factoids (for example,
> > "Character did X" <ref episode XYZ>).  Whether we treat those topics as
> > having any reliable sources or not (by normal WP standards), referencing the
> > primary source extensively would set a good example.
>
> We've started doing this at the comic project, but it is taking us time
> to get there.  We have a cite issue template.  As you say, it's the
> first step on introducing a lot of editors to the concepts of sourcing,
> original research and point of view.  We can say, okay, The Hulk lost
> his shoe laces, can you tell us in which issue this happened?  You can,
> great, now, can you tell us why that's important?  You can, that's
> great, now, can you tell us if you've seen anyone else say that?  You
> can, that's great, now, we need to work out if this snippet is relevant
> at all to the coverage Wikipedia aims for, being a reference work aimed
> at a general audience.  Why do you think a general audience would be
> interested?  They wouldn't?  Well, have you met the Marvel Wikia?
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.19/556 - Release Date: 28/11/06
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Time for preformatted empty articles?

body:
The AFC template is great.  As far as IP users go, it's a surefire way
to tell if they're serious about making an article, not serious, or
just confused.

Ryan

On 11/29/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> We should probably still kill a lot of unsourced edits. Such a preload
> template is already in use at AFC and it is routinely ignored, but better to
> try and convince some people to follow it. It didn't solve the problem, but
> it cut back on problem cases slightly.
>
> Mgm
>
>
> On 11/30/06, Ryan Wetherell <renardius at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > This would need at least some more planning that what Wikinews offers,
> > since the range of article types is vastly different on Wikipedia.
> > But not at all a bad idea if it can be done well.
> >
> > Ryan
> >
> > On 11/29/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Rather than going on a campaign to kill all new articles without
> > > sufficient sourcing, would it be time to introduce article prefilling,
> > > using the <inputbox> extension?
> > >
> > > For an example, go to en.wikinews.org, type something into the "Start
> > > a new article" box and hit "Create article". This example is created
> > > using the wikitext:
> > >
> > > <inputbox>
> > > type=create
> > > preload=Template:New_page
> > > editintro=Template:New_article_intro
> > > width=25
> > > bgcolor=#f0f0ff
> > > </inputbox>
> > >
> > > Presumably we'd need this switched on for en:wp if it isn't already.
> > >
> > >
> > > - d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletions, lists, etc?

body:
On 11/29/06, Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/29/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'm mildly sorry for taking the shortcut of asking the list about things
> I
> > could figure out by wading through the insanely complicated policy
> pages,
> > but here goes-- if you think a page that went through the AfD process
> was
> > wrongly deleted, what is the proper action?
> >
> > How wrong is it for an admin to undelete a page?
>
>
> It is a cardinal sin.  If a page is deleted as a result of *fD it MUST go
> through DRV - despite the fact that "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy",
> undeletion can only be done if the correct forms are filled out in
> triplicate, lost, found again... (I can't remember the rest of how that
> goes, but you end up having your house bulldozed).
>
> In addition, DRV is the place where people comment, not on the merits of
> the
> deletion, but on whether the deletion was "in process" or "out of
> process".
> It doesn't matter if the article was about [[World War II]] and the
> discussion only involved three people would voted delete on the grounds of
> "never heard of it", DRV is supposed to comment on process, not merits of
> deletion (you'll be told "that's what *fD is for, and you should have
> commented when you had the chance).

That's total bullshit.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Trivial categories

body:
That's the type of reasoning that I find convincing with respect why it
would be a bad idea to try to do explicit Erdos number categories.

On 11/29/06, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com <
charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> "The Cunctator" wrote
>
> > Huh. Just because one can't think of a reason that it would be of
> interest
> > to have a list of mathematicians of Erdos Number 3 doesn't mean that
> noone
> > can. Wikipedia ain't paper.
>
> Trouble is: I have checked that my own Erdos number is at most 4. Knowing
> that it is exactly 4, rather than 3, is equivalent to knowing a huge amount
> about collaborative papers ... which is a needle-in-haystack search.
>
> Charles
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
> Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
> Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Rob Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] [Arbcom-l] Fwd: simple example

references:
<4ADF33D3-6590-4C45-8329-16DA4ABD593C@waterwiki.info>
	<52a8cf060611271749s79bd0c37k3ed563a22022bfec@mail.gmail.com>
	<sdcpm25i9llqd0ennn8kncnid4f17011vd@4ax.com>
	<52a8cf060611281423m36a5d93cte770010d160b16c0@mail.gmail.com>
	<t2fpm2tc73db6j7mvpj1hl1hcnn8k5k3dd@4ax.com>
	<52a8cf060611281511m627c9782qa363bc3fb8b759ed@mail.gmail.com>
	<odorm2h38fi788dlhoc2r6oveu2tb0jlfo@4ax.com>
	<7861E6BB-91DB-4641-9FFF-78D291DA4BE9@waterwiki.info>
	<tm2sm290q44pha9jvc4ogvs96ji6sk4suc@4ax.com>
	<fbad4e140611291439j7b8a460ajaeb09fec6b9fa34c@mail.gmail.com>

body:
I submitted an AMA request and pledge not use the account for other
purposes outside an Appeal.

Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/November 2006/Nobs02

On 11/29/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 29/11/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 14:05:47 -0700, Fred Bauder
> > <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
>
> > >Limited editing for such a purpose is not an issue, IMO.
>
> > Ditto my opinion.  But use of an alternate account for this turns out
> > to be rather unpopular, per the admin noticeboard.  There must be a
> > better idea somewhere.
>
>
> Blocked editors can email the arbcom. Such email is in fact read - as
> a listadmin, I let through pretty much anything that's actually for
> the arbcom.
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


references:
<4ADF33D3-6590-4C45-8329-16DA4ABD593C@waterwiki.info>
	<sdcpm25i9llqd0ennn8kncnid4f17011vd@4ax.com>
	<52a8cf060611281423m36a5d93cte770010d160b16c0@mail.gmail.com>
	<t2fpm2tc73db6j7mvpj1hl1hcnn8k5k3dd@4ax.com>
	<52a8cf060611281511m627c9782qa363bc3fb8b759ed@mail.gmail.com>
	<odorm2h38fi788dlhoc2r6oveu2tb0jlfo@4ax.com>
	<7861E6BB-91DB-4641-9FFF-78D291DA4BE9@waterwiki.info>
	<tm2sm290q44pha9jvc4ogvs96ji6sk4suc@4ax.com>
	<fbad4e140611291439j7b8a460ajaeb09fec6b9fa34c@mail.gmail.com>
	<52a8cf060611291445x38f59e8fp1a7ac7f403177e3a@mail.gmail.com>

body:
I submitted an AMA request and pledge not use the account for other
purposes outside an Appeal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance/Requests/November_2006/Nobs02


subject: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!

body:
Removing it is good with the reasons you gave.  We don't need lists of
in-jokes.  There's still quite a few on [[4chan]], but luckily we've
directed a lot of traffic to external sites that, er, specialize in
that.

Ryan

On 11/29/06, niht-hr?fn <nihthraefn at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 29, 2006, at 18:48, Anthony wrote:
> <snip />
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncyclopedia#Main_Page_holidays is most
> > likely not covered by any reliable third party sources at all, let
> > alone ones off the Internet.  That section I'd advocate dropping
> <snip />
> > Anthony
>
> That section was removed (as superfluous and "not verifiable") when I
> rewrote the article, although regretfully because the information
> isn't kept in any one place elsewhere. It is however easily verified
> by checking http://uncyclopedia.org/index.php?
> title=Main_Page&action=history (a perfectly valid source and 100%
> accurate, a higher accuracy rate than any (most) third party), but
> that'd never fly with the RS whores (please excuse my French).
> Anyhow, it's been readded, and I'd predict future attempts to remove
> it will be similarly reverted and I personally don't think the drama
> is worth it.
>
> --Keitei
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!

body:
George Herbert wrote:
> On 11/28/06, Tony Jacobs <gtjacobs at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What definition of "notable" are you using?  The only definition of that
>> word that matters at Wikipedia is: "A topic is notable if it has been the
>> subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are
>> independent of the subject itself."  That's not true of GNAA, ergo they're
>> not "notable", which simply means that it's impossible to write a properly
>> verifiable article about them.  We don't want to keep an unverfiable
>> article
>> around, no matter how much "consensus" may hoot and holler for it, so we
>> delete it.
>>
>> People who want to know about GNAA can still look them up at ED, which has
>> no problem covering topics that we eschew.
>>
>
> The problem with this trend is that it relegates certain aspects of internet
> culture which tend not to get press coverage into the dustbin.
>
> As much as I hate GNAA and everyone involved in it, it IS notable among the
> realm of internet troll activities.
>
> If we have the (harmless, real, but equally badly documented)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt.fan.warlord entry....
>

(Offline at the moment, so I can't read the article) - Was Warlord from MIT?

--
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: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061129/e2ceb852/attachment.pgp


body:
On 29/11/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:

> Although I think we'd gain more through more agressive approaches, the
> liberal application of an unref notice would at least give much of
> wikipedia the work-in-progress look that it deserves.

Every time I hit an article without references, sources or even
external links listed, I put an unref tag on it.

- d.


body:
Rather than going on a campaign to kill all new articles without
sufficient sourcing, would it be time to introduce article prefilling,
using the <inputbox> extension?

For an example, go to en.wikinews.org, type something into the "Start
a new article" box and hit "Create article". This example is created
using the wikitext:

<inputbox>
type=create
preload=Template:New_page
editintro=Template:New_article_intro
width=25
bgcolor=#f0f0ff
</inputbox>

Presumably we'd need this switched on for en:wp if it isn't already.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletions, lists, etc?

body:
On 11/29/06, Matthew Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/29/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > That's total bullshit.
>
> Alas, it's only a slight exaggeration of procedure-as-normal.
>
> However, I suspect that you meant bullshit as in 'I believe you, but
> it's ludicrous' rather than 'I don't believe it' ...

Yup.


subject: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!

references:
<fb7fdd9c0611281355i47eec99ei9bfb83797c5fedc@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY109-F396B8E5B25B935BB8C02BBCAE50@phx.gbl>
	<dfd0b40611281454g186439b3k552e9fe6e8990338@mail.gmail.com>
	<4srrm29of7is0mt5dhf8kvpjv4irhrlp10@4ax.com>

body:
On 11/29/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 17:54:05 -0500, "The Cunctator"
> <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >If the source is a blog, the reader can supply his
> >judgment in how much credence to give the source
>
> But if the *only* sources are blogs we clearly have a problem.

Why?


subject: [WikiEN-l] Trivial categories

body:
I wouldn't worry so much about keeping things *out* of Wikipedia. Better for
your health and sanity to worry about all the information that's missing.

On 11/29/06, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com <
charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> "The Cunctator" wrote
>
> > That's the type of reasoning that I find convincing with respect why it
> > would be a bad idea to try to do explicit Erdos number categories.
>
> The 'categories-for-deletion' vote to rid ourselves of those failed. So we
> have them. Nemmind, we can try again some time.
>
> You can't tag a category with {{fact}}, which is a bummer.
>
> Charles
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
> Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
> Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moldovan Wikipedia (sry)

body:
So what is it? What is your native language? You said it was Moldovan,
I guessed it was French, and now you are telling me I have poor
English. Make a choice, sir.

Mark

On 29/11/06, Liviu Andronic <landronimirc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 11/29/06, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't know how organised it is, but there is certainly a semi-united
> > effort against the wiki.
> Normal. It is supposed to be so.
>
>
> >
> > Most of the activity happens at the actual Wiki, with people blanking
> > pages and saying nasty comments on talkpages
> Personally, I'm against such practices. It's stupid and worthless.
>
>
> , with very little of the
> > activity carrying over to wikipedia-l.
> >
> > The thing is, Liviu's assertions simply don't stand.
> Could you please zero in on this. It's a bit vague for me..
>
>
> It would seem
> > that the average Moldovan simply doesn't care. There have been several
> > posts about it at moldova.net.
> >Some people are outraged, others think
> > it is "cool", and others don't seem to care much one way or the other.
> I didn't check the posts myself, so that I don't really cosider seriously your comments.
>
>
> >
> > The agitations we have seen in Wikimedia are mostly repeated attempts
> > from the same few people. Most of them are Romanians: Bogdan Giusca,
> > Ronline, Danutz, Dpotop, AdiJapan, Bonaparte, etc., all with varying
> > positions but all leaning towards the deletion of that Wiki.
> >
> > Our lovely Moldovans here are Liviu, Vania (aka TSO1D), and Oleg
> > Alexandrov. Oleg Alexandrov took a very middle-of-the-road position
> > (he believed it should exist, but that it wouldn't ever work because
> > there would never be enough competent contributors)
> Not exactly correct. Last time I talked to him he was on a position (in my words; it's _not_ a quote): "I don't care if it continues to exist or not. But if does, it should be on mo-cyr".
>
> BTW, as to moving mo to mo-cyr. I understand that it is technically not acceptable, but I honestly believe that it would solve this controversy to an acceptable extent (that is, very little probability of any more reports on this list). People are deranged by the confusion: the language and script on mo.wiki is _not_ actively used in public life in Moldova.
>
>
> , but he seems to
> > have given up completely any involvement he had.
> >
> > Everyone else has just popped in occasionally for votes, or to make a
> > single comment.
>
> And "agitations", "lovely Moldovans" - you really have a problem with choosing words..
>
> Liviu
>
> > Mark
> >
> > On 29/11/06, Liviu Andronic <landronimirc at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > I'm starting to get the feeling that these messages to the mailing
> > > > list are an organised campaign against mo.wikipedia.
> > >
> > > I honestly doubt about the existance of "an organised campaign against
> > mo.wikipedia". Simply, there are people interested in this matter and that
> > are quite not OK with the current status-quo. And they present you with
> > their opinion.
> > >
> > > There were three-four such sparkling discussions on this list, and at
> > least in two cases the discussions were started by persons that I've never
> > seen neither on the list, nor on talk pages. And I'm advocating for a
> > status-quo change for quite some time.
> > >
> > > When people see something wrong on Wikipedia (in their opinion of course;
> > > not to be entirely neglected in this case, as it is the opinion of people
> > who speak this language; I am yet to see one Moldovan publicly supporting
> > this mo.wikipedia on this list); so when there is something wrong on
> > Wikipedia, the first natural reaction is to report it to the mailing list,
> > with the appropriate arguments. So that I do not see anything wrong with
> > this. If this problem isn't solved in a year or two, it's quite normal that
> > reports will keep coming in. One way or another there will be people finding
> > out about this Wikipedia and writing to the list.
> > >
> > > Moldovans never asked for this Wikipedia and they are quite negatively
> > intentioned towards its existance. And it's about their language that we are
> > talking about. But then, they cannot do much other than report. They cannot
> > nor make a decision, nor implement existing decisions.
> > >
> > >
> > > My brief remarks,
> > > Liviu
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
> --
> Liviu
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] CC-BY-SA suitable for Wikipedia?

body:
Who really knows what the GFDL actually means in a legal sense. It hasn't
been tested. So all of our opinions are just that.

On 10/28/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/28/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> [snip]
> > I fail to see how articulating the intentions of the license will
> > create more misunderstanding than resorting only to terse legalese,
> > but I suppose this is a different of opinion.
>
> Yes it is, but for the benefit of the audience the argument against
> mixing non-binding text with binding text goes something like this:
>
> Consider two people:
> Person A: No ability to understand the legalese at all.
> Person B: Able to understand the legalese without difficulty.
>
> Both A and B are going to reprint a highly enhanced subset of a free
> encyclopedia where all the articles have been edited for accuracy.
>
> We'll consider two licenses:
> X: "Collective Work" means a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology
> or encyclopedia, in which the Work in its entirety in unmodified form,
> along with a number of other contributions, constituting separate and
> independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective
> whole.
> Y: "Collective Work" means a work in which the Work in its entirety in
> unmodified form,
> along with a number of other contributions, constituting separate and
> independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective
> whole.
>
> Lets assume the free encyclopedia is licensed under Y.
> Person A reads Y, decides he can't understand it.. and either gives up
> or consults an attorney.
> Person B reads Y, understands it, and realizes this section is not
> excusing him from conformance.
>
> Now lets assume license X.
> Person A reads X. sees the word encyclopedia and can't understand the
> rest. He is either mislead into thinking that since he's printing an
> encyclopedia he's a collective work and doesn't have to distribute the
> whole under the terms of the license... Or he worries that he didn't
> quite understand it, and consults his attorney.
> Person B reads X, understands the legalese, and gets it right.
>
> So the argument is that the explanatory language doesn't help the
> clueless because they are insufficient to covey the complete meaning
> of the license, so you must still always understand the rest and that
> the existence of null effect language can create confusion.
>
> Of course, the world isn't so black and white and people exist on a
> continuous spectrum between A and B. There are pros and cons to each
> style, and either kind of language could be selected by a rational and
> informed license author.
>
> In any case, I hope I've cleared up any confusion brought by The
> Cunctator's inaccurate claim about the GFDL as there isn't a material
> difference between the CC-By-SA and the GFDL in the permissions
> granted with respect to aggregations.
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Anthony

subject: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!

body:
On 11/29/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/29/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 17:54:05 -0500, "The Cunctator"
> > <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >If the source is a blog, the reader can supply his
> > >judgment in how much credence to give the source
> >
> > But if the *only* sources are blogs we clearly have a problem.
>
> Why?

Doesn't the "No Original Research" policy say that sources need to be
"reliable" sources?  I think a blog would be fine, if the author was
generally acknowledged to be a reliable reporter on the subject
matter.  Of course, under such a rule we might have to leave out
certain popular newspapers as sources considering their track record
of getting things wrong.

Anthony


from_name: Steve Block

body:
David Gerard wrote:
> On 29/11/06, Daniel P. B. Smith <wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com> wrote:
>
>> d) So, the unreferenced material should be tagged. That calls the
>> reader's attention to the fact that the material is untraceable, and
>> its accuracy is hard to judge. Equally important, it also calls
>> everyone's attention to the fact that verifiability is policy, and
>> that it is taken seriously.
>
>
> {{unreferenced}} isn't a horribly ugly tag, and it does serve the
> reader without gutting the article.

God yes.  I remember when I worked on the Tintin article, I had a whole
paragraph which was all sourced from the one source, so I cited that
source at the end of the paragraph, and someone came along and stuck a
cite template halfway in the middle of the paragraph.  I think the best
thing is to use the unreferenced tag and copy the sentences that one is
questioning to the talk page, where someone can dig a source out and
work out the best way to cite it.  I'm finding I'm writing some awful
articles in the sense of referencing tags at the minute.  I rescued
Kieth Chapman from csd recently, and find I reference the same source 6
times in the one article.  It just feels like overkill, but I can't
really work out how to best cite.

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.19/556 - Release Date: 28/11/06


from_name: Fred Bauder

references:
<4ADF33D3-6590-4C45-8329-16DA4ABD593C@waterwiki.info>
	<52a8cf060611271749s79bd0c37k3ed563a22022bfec@mail.gmail.com>
	<sdcpm25i9llqd0ennn8kncnid4f17011vd@4ax.com>
	<52a8cf060611281423m36a5d93cte770010d160b16c0@mail.gmail.com>
	<t2fpm2tc73db6j7mvpj1hl1hcnn8k5k3dd@4ax.com>
	<52a8cf060611281511m627c9782qa363bc3fb8b759ed@mail.gmail.com>
	<odorm2h38fi788dlhoc2r6oveu2tb0jlfo@4ax.com>
	<7861E6BB-91DB-4641-9FFF-78D291DA4BE9@waterwiki.info>
	<tm2sm290q44pha9jvc4ogvs96ji6sk4suc@4ax.com>
	<fbad4e140611291439j7b8a460ajaeb09fec6b9fa34c@mail.gmail.com>
	<52a8cf060611291445x38f59e8fp1a7ac7f403177e3a@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On Nov 29, 2006, at 3:45 PM, Rob Smith wrote:

> I submitted an AMA request and pledge not use the account for other
> purposes outside an Appeal.
>
> Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/November 2006/Nobs02

Looks good to me.

Fred


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Single user login status

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

Brion Vibber wrote:
> I'm currently doing a test run of pulling migration data from the user
> tables; the slow part currently seems to be getting the edit counts.

A couple quick stats:

Migration pass 0 (collecting user data for each wiki) takes about 2
hours. On the live run this may require locking out new user
registrations temporarily.

Migration pass 1 (zipping through combined account data, trying to
automatically merge) takes about 5 hours. It should be possible to run
these on-demand also, so new registrations and logins during the batch
process are possible.

The pass-1 checks are without user interaction, so cannot do
same-password verification; thus the number of remaining conflicts
remains artificially high before interactive logins have a chance to
merge more accounts.

| NULL                |   134242 |
| primary             |  4457075 |
| empty               |   373044 |
| mail                |   205084 |

4,457,075 primary accounts (most edits for that username)
  373,044 non-primary accounts auto-merged as unused
  205,084 non-primary accounts auto-merged due to matching e-mail
  134,242 non-primary accounts left unmerged at this stage

71,741 unique usernames have accounts left unmerged.

Migration pass 2 involves the interactive checks when you log in, so can
also merge accounts with matching passwords.

> In a day or two I'll set up test.wikipedia.org for interactive migration
> testing. This will allow people to try out the UI, and give a chance to
> see how it looks so we can make sure the UI translations get done soon...

Will try fiddling with this tonight...

- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFbiG6wRnhpk1wk44RAjojAKDbIqqEWpJEVpNUXZlA/QPmZ8R0/gCdEL2N
4m2WEeOJFX96Wz5S6M0DNoQ=
=C/nW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright Violation Bot

body:
Earle Martin wrote:
> On 28/11/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>> There is somewhere a pretty complete list of WP mirrors, official and
>> otherwise. It was intended as a data file to a greasemonkey scrpt, to
>> filter these results from Google searches. You could probably adapt
>> it, using my incredibly helpful and explicit directions to find it.
>
> Aha, it looks like you're talking about this:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mirror_filter
>
> Thanks very much, I'll work it in.
>

The other page, useful for when you find non-compliant mirrors, is
[[Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks]] (or similar).

--
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: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061129/962f0a93/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] Non-stupid wikien-l thread

body:
dmehkeri at swi.com wrote:
<snip>
>
> [2] Maybe. Some suspect we are the latest victim of [[:fr:Censure en
> Tunisie#Internet|internet censorship in Tunisia]]. Someone suggested even we
> ought to tone down some sensitive articles in response, [[:fr:project:Le
> Bistro/27 novembre 2006|I am not kidding]]. Of course they were shouted down.
>
>

Will someone please write a Wikitext parser extension for Thunderbird?

--
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: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061129/c0226ec0/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] Community Sanction

body:
David Gerard wrote:
> On 27/11/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>
<snip>
>> So far the proposed community bans haven't been that controversial,
>> but it's going to happen eventually.
>
>
> Good thing the RFA process protects against such blithering idiocy.
>

For a moment I thought you said "Good thing the RFA blithering idiocy
protects against..."

--
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: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061129/27c4dfb4/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] Community Sanction

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 17:23:39 -0800, Luna <lunasantin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think the idea with community bans is that the person in question is
>> believed to be *beyond* any significant hope of rehabilitation or
>> compliance. In practice, though, is there really much difference between
>> one-year and indefinite blocks? Few accounts return from either, and both
>> can be evaded with socks.
>
> Indefinite <> permanent.  The former can be lifted if there is
> credible evidence of intent to reform, the latter comes I think only
> from ArbCom or Foundation.  A community ban is defined for practical
> purposes as a ban which no admin is prepared to lift; the real problem
> here is RFA, which tends to ensure that the "cabal" remains a cabal
> and is not diluted by "dangerous" inclusionists.
>

RFA as a cabalist institution is a failure; the presence of
inclusionists and clueless twits in the ranks of adminship is proof of this.

--
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: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061129/4cc00490/attachment.pgp


from_name: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com

subject:
[WikiEN-l] "Reliable sources" guideline being treated
	as	absolute policy

body:
"MacGyverMagic/Mgm" wrote

> If forcing people to write
> down what they read to get the information drives people away there's
> something wrong with their attitude.

Sure. And wiki can't possibly work.

This takes us absolutely back to basics. Wiki is about lowering the barriers to entry, right to the ground. I'm not a 'purist' - I don't say that every way in which WP practice differs from wiki theory is a blemish - but I do recognise a cost attached.

There must be something wrong with _our_ attitude if RS policy is both so contentious (see another thread) and required to define where we set the bar for entry-level editing, rather than post-moderation. Not in fact a simple matter: someone writes here based on something from a blog, and they will not have a good time.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


body:
charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com wrote:
> Why is this thread being allowed to continue on this list?
>

The listmods aren't oppressive censors and/or can't be bothered doing
anything about it.

--
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: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061129/4646904f/attachment.pgp


body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> So, anyone greatly improved an article lately?
>

I've been adding to our forest of redirects...

--
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: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061129/f85abd34/attachment.pgp


subject:
[WikiEN-l] "Reliable sources" guideline being treated
 as	absolute policy

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> That wording seems to change from day to day. I'm not sure where the
> discussion about its wording is held. For a while it insisted on
> copyright violations. Sometimes it mentions nonsense, sometimes it
> does. Sometimes it says "may be deleted", other times it's "will".
>

Does it have one of those {{#option}} and {{#random}} thingies in it?

--
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: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061129/2ffa3796/attachment.pgp


list: foundation-l

from_name: Darko Bulatovic

subject: [Foundation-l] Vandalism and small wikis

body:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Darko Bulatovic schreef:
>
>> Yann Forget wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Some wikis are plagued with vandalism, spams and non sense. Moldavan
>>> Wikipedia seems the worst at this time, but there have been others too.
>>> These projects do not bring any free knowledge to anybody, just a lot of
>>> works for volunteers (hopefully there are great volunteers like Pill)
>>> and stewards.
>>>
>>> Regarding the Moldavan Wikipedia (http://mo.wikipedia.org), the
>>> administrators election was already cancelled twice because of massive
>>> attacks. Sincere editors have been discouraged and have left. So the
>>> wiki is just a battle field for vandals, trolls and sockpuppets. There
>>> is no expected improvement in the near future because the language
>>> itself is in the middle of a political controversy.
>>>
>>> I forsee the same situation for the Montenegrin Wikipedia if it is
>>> created. These wikis only give a bad image of Wikimedia. I think that
>>> the Foundation should take its responsibilities and take some decisions.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Yann
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I cant believe my eyes that you Yann say this. How in the God sake you
>> can forsee such thing about Montenegrin wikipedia? Montenegrin wikipedia
>> gives bad image of Wikimedia? This statement that you did give bad image
>> to WMF.  You don't have any  argument to say this and to support your
>> statement.
>> Please elaborate this on Montenegrin request for Wikipedia.
>>
>> Wikipedia is multilingual and multicultural project, without that WMF
>> don't have right to use that statement. What was done with Montenegrin
>> request is just showing what kind of lobbying is possible on WMF.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Darko bulatovic
>> President of IT Association of Montenegro
>>
> Hoi,
> Wikipedia is in its manifestations very much a multilingual project and
> very much not a multicultural project. Cultural and political reasons
> are not a reason to start another project. When you read the article
> about Montenegrin, the language on the English Wikipedia, it explains
> quite clearly that elements that are to make Montegrin special can be
> found outside of Montenegro as well. This means that from a linguistic
> point of view the case for a Montenegrin Wikipedia is pretty weak.
>
> There are languages where the cultural and political differences are
> quite big while there is no call for a split project. The Chinese and
> the Dutch wikipedias are good examples for this. It would be a good
> thing if you could find it in you to consider this and retract the
> application for a Montenegrin Wikipedia.
>
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
Gerard,

I don't understand why you mis interpret my statement. Please notice
"and". Who advice you on this meter? Political background of languages
is undiscussable . There must be political background of language, as
there must be political will to make standard from people language.
Linguistics rules are just political will on people language. If you
ignore this your opinion will not be righteous. I will repeat my sentence:
- Wikipedia is multilingual and multicultural project.

As I sad, culture is connected with language, and culture is spread by
communication, beside other ways of communication language is primary one.

 >.When you read the article
 >about Montenegrin, the language on the English Wikipedia, it explains
 >quite clearly that elements that are to make Montegrin special can be
 >found outside of Montenegro as well.

Do you know what you talk about? Do you know who write those articles?
Do you know anything about specifics of Montenegrin dialect of south
slavenian languages?

Split of project is not our concern (As Montenegrin people are never
participated on this projects or they tried on marginal level), you know
well  why is was divided on Balkan, but you stay quiet on this. Special
regarding Serbian. Wikipedia is used for spreading of nationalism and
now when Montenegrin wish to have their own wikipedia on their own
language, it become problem. AND yes it become POLITICAL problem for WMF
or one part of their members. I am aware that Serbian community is very
strong on WMF. But to this aspect of discussion is not place here. My
question is what argument do you have on this? Did you check them or you
just used POV to discuss on this topic?

Please, English is not my native language, and I don't see how you could
miss interpret my statement about multilingual and multi cultural nature
of wikipedia. Every language bring up cultural aspect and I don't see
how you could by-pass this.

And again please return to the topic explain to me how you can be that
CLAIRVOYANCE and  assume that Montenegrin wikipedia will bring such bad
image to WMF . You don't have arguments for that. This is just showing
to me that you take POV. You just assume this with (for me) no
particular reason. So I can just guess here why you are doing this.
Please be more specific about your goals here, so I don't assume that
you just take POV here.

I am ready to participate on any level of discussion but please don't
make assumptions as that will bring bad connotation to your willingness
to do right thing in this case.

Thank you,
Darko Bulatovic
President of  IT Association of Montenegro


list: wikimedia-l


body:
"Rob Smith" wrote

> Does anyone look at the histories before nominating for deletion?  I
> could cite a couple of dozen similiar examples.

The onus is on the deleting admin to check the history, with due diligence.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


subject:
[WikiEN-l] "Reliable sources" guideline being
 treated	as	absolute policy

body:
charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com wrote:
> "Stephen Bain" wrote
>> But I think his point was something in the interface saying that
>> completely unsourced articles are likely to be deleted is prudent,
>> since everyone agrees that having no sources at all is bad.
>
> What is bad, to look at what WP:RS itself, is having material 'likely
> to be challenged' without support. I don't agree that a page of
> college-level calculus, known and uncontroversial for two centuries,
> should be deleted for the pedantic reason that it isn't referenced.
>

... I'll have to go borrow myself a college-level (/me presumes that
means "University" not "secondary school") calculus textbook and put
some references in, then. (Very few students actually buy the things
because the material in them is available via lecture notes, MathWorld,
Wikipedia, or the copy in the library...)

--
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: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061129/4dc44dec/attachment.pgp


body:
Guy Chapman wrote

>  We have WP:V and WP:NPOV
> and WP:NOR - we absolutely must have a decent, working definition of
> what defines a source, so that we can apply these.

It's the carpet we sweep the dust under. Which makes the rest of the place look a damn sight tidier. Remember, though, that it is the wikilawyers who run this 'you haven't defined your terms' riff into the ground, for their own sordid 'gain'. I'm happy enough that articles which, after best efforts to add reliable sources, do not have much to show, should be deleted at AfD.

I think we should admit that the pool of 'reliable sources' is dynamic, and certain things that are premature creations at the moment will in the future be much easier to source. This kind of argument helps keep us straight on celebrity (Warholinan 900 seconds) versus notability; and that WP cannot, be definition, itself be the pioneer reliable source on anything.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


from_name: George Herbert

body:
On 11/29/06, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com>
wrote:
>
>
> Steve Block wrote:
>
> > God yes.  I remember when I worked on the Tintin article, I had a whole
> > paragraph which was all sourced from the one source, so I cited that
> > source at the end of the paragraph, and someone came along and stuck a
> > cite template halfway in the middle of the paragraph.  I think the best
> > thing is to use the unreferenced tag and copy the sentences that one is
> > questioning to the talk page, where someone can dig a source out and
> > work out the best way to cite it.  I'm finding I'm writing some awful
> > articles in the sense of referencing tags at the minute.  I rescued
> > Kieth Chapman from csd recently, and find I reference the same source 6
> > times in the one article.  It just feels like overkill, but I can't
> > really work out how to best cite.
>
> One thing I continued from college is rampant overciting, to the point
> where you have articles like [[Kroger Babb]] where the <ref> tags are used
> with the same book 20 times, and it's either make the reference section
> 100 lines long of have a half-a-page-width of letters referring to each
> use of the book.
>
> I will say, though, I had the same problem with the whole paragraph issue
> (my general training was to worry about new referencing when you came to a
> new statement), but the only way to solve this in any particular way would
> be to mandate a certain type of referencing, something I'm extremely
> opposed to at this point.
>
> Damned if we do, damned if we don't, I suppose.
>
> -Jeff

I think it would be far preferable for the project goals to be arguing from
a position where articles are generally overreferenced down, trying to trim
for stylistic reasons.

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


from_name: Matt R

subject: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!

body:
--- Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:

> There are some subjects that an encyclopedia can not and should not
> touch because there is simply no real research on the subjects yet.

It may be a definitions thing, but I think an encyclopedia can contain original
research and/or rely on non-"reliable" sources and still be an encyclopedia.
Wikipedia is not such an encyclopedia, and for good reason, but it's not a
totally invalid thing to want to do in general.

I support its deletion, but it's true that [[GNAA]] was useful to people even
though it wasn't verifiable, and even though they could get the same info from
other places on the Web. A lot of people find Wikipedia articles useful even
when they're not supported by sources. "Encyclopedic" style -- you know,
concise, formal tone, lack of opinionated waffling etc -- is an efficient way
of getting across the raw facts, and we're usually fairly accurate and neutral
(at least when measured against the wider Web).

Should Wikipedia accept original research or use less-than-ideal sources in
cases where there is little or no existing literature? Nope: the reader would
have no way to establish whether they could trust an article's contents. It
might work if you had those articles controlled by verifiable experts, but
again, Wikipedia's not that encyclopedia.

-- Matt

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto
Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com

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


body:
On 11/29/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I was thinking of an idea that articles could be trimmed down to what's
> been
> sourced and the longer (albeit unsourced) article could go to some sort of
> Crappopedia where it awaits confirmation. Stuff that is confirmed with a
> source could be added back. That way, Wikipedia could maintain integrity
> and
> the other wiki could be a development grounds.
>
> On 11/29/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 11/30/06, Daniel P. B. Smith <wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com> wrote:
> > > e) Once tagged, there should be no big rush about deleting the
> > > material, but it should not remain indefinitely, either. How long?
> > > Assuming that there's no specific reason to doubt the material,
> > > months and months.
> > >
> > > The _only_ objections to this I can think of is that that the tags
> > > are ugly--which is true but susceptible to a technical fix--or that
> > > we are not serious about verifiability and don't truly want to
> > > restrict Wikipedia content to things that are supported by published
> > > material.
> >
> > I don't think deleting accurate, high-quality, unreferenced material
> > is in Wikipedia's best interests. Asking for a source, yes. Adding
> > sources, yes. But *deleting* good material? No.
> >
> > Steve

>From a top-down point of view, a free open encyclopedia based on a free open
knowledgebase, with "interesting notable facts" with supporting citations
and references and the like, would be an interesting project.

It is not, alas, the structure of Wikipedia, and I suspect it's not
something WP can easily graft on the side.

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

body:
Darko Bulatovic schreef:
> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>
>> Darko Bulatovic schreef:
>>
>>
>>> Yann Forget wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Some wikis are plagued with vandalism, spams and non sense. Moldavan
>>>> Wikipedia seems the worst at this time, but there have been others too.
>>>> These projects do not bring any free knowledge to anybody, just a lot of
>>>> works for volunteers (hopefully there are great volunteers like Pill)
>>>> and stewards.
>>>>
>>>> Regarding the Moldavan Wikipedia (http://mo.wikipedia.org), the
>>>> administrators election was already cancelled twice because of massive
>>>> attacks. Sincere editors have been discouraged and have left. So the
>>>> wiki is just a battle field for vandals, trolls and sockpuppets. There
>>>> is no expected improvement in the near future because the language
>>>> itself is in the middle of a political controversy.
>>>>
>>>> I forsee the same situation for the Montenegrin Wikipedia if it is
>>>> created. These wikis only give a bad image of Wikimedia. I think that
>>>> the Foundation should take its responsibilities and take some decisions.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Yann
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I cant believe my eyes that you Yann say this. How in the God sake you
>>> can forsee such thing about Montenegrin wikipedia? Montenegrin wikipedia
>>> gives bad image of Wikimedia? This statement that you did give bad image
>>> to WMF.  You don't have any  argument to say this and to support your
>>> statement.
>>> Please elaborate this on Montenegrin request for Wikipedia.
>>>
>>> Wikipedia is multilingual and multicultural project, without that WMF
>>> don't have right to use that statement. What was done with Montenegrin
>>> request is just showing what kind of lobbying is possible on WMF.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Darko bulatovic
>>> President of IT Association of Montenegro
>>>
>>>
>> Hoi,
>> Wikipedia is in its manifestations very much a multilingual project and
>> very much not a multicultural project. Cultural and political reasons
>> are not a reason to start another project. When you read the article
>> about Montenegrin, the language on the English Wikipedia, it explains
>> quite clearly that elements that are to make Montegrin special can be
>> found outside of Montenegro as well. This means that from a linguistic
>> point of view the case for a Montenegrin Wikipedia is pretty weak.
>>
>> There are languages where the cultural and political differences are
>> quite big while there is no call for a split project. The Chinese and
>> the Dutch wikipedias are good examples for this. It would be a good
>> thing if you could find it in you to consider this and retract the
>> application for a Montenegrin Wikipedia.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>     GerardM
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>
>>
> Gerard,
>
> I don't understand why you mis interpret my statement. Please notice
> "and". Who advice you on this meter? Political background of languages
> is undiscussable . There must be political background of language, as
> there must be political will to make standard from people language.
> Linguistics rules are just political will on people language. If you
> ignore this your opinion will not be righteous. I will repeat my sentence:
> - Wikipedia is multilingual and multicultural project.
>
With your blanket statement that "political background of languages is
undiscussable" you indeed end the discussion. In this you are wrong.

The Mapuche people are going to court because the Chilean government and
the Microsoft company insist on a given orthography. The Mapuche live in
Chile and Argentina. This proves very much that the insistence of making
a language a people "owned" by a country is very much not universal. If
your POV was shared by the Wikimedia Foundation there would be a project
specific to US English. By having one English Wikipedia the quality is
much better and the POV of the project is very much more a NEUTRAL POV
than it would otherwise be.
Thanks,
    GerardM


body:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Darko Bulatovic schreef:
>
>> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Darko Bulatovic schreef:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Yann Forget wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Some wikis are plagued with vandalism, spams and non sense. Moldavan
>>>>> Wikipedia seems the worst at this time, but there have been others too.
>>>>> These projects do not bring any free knowledge to anybody, just a lot of
>>>>> works for volunteers (hopefully there are great volunteers like Pill)
>>>>> and stewards.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regarding the Moldavan Wikipedia (http://mo.wikipedia.org), the
>>>>> administrators election was already cancelled twice because of massive
>>>>> attacks. Sincere editors have been discouraged and have left. So the
>>>>> wiki is just a battle field for vandals, trolls and sockpuppets. There
>>>>> is no expected improvement in the near future because the language
>>>>> itself is in the middle of a political controversy.
>>>>>
>>>>> I forsee the same situation for the Montenegrin Wikipedia if it is
>>>>> created. These wikis only give a bad image of Wikimedia. I think that
>>>>> the Foundation should take its responsibilities and take some decisions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Yann
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I cant believe my eyes that you Yann say this. How in the God sake you
>>>> can forsee such thing about Montenegrin wikipedia? Montenegrin wikipedia
>>>> gives bad image of Wikimedia? This statement that you did give bad image
>>>> to WMF.  You don't have any  argument to say this and to support your
>>>> statement.
>>>> Please elaborate this on Montenegrin request for Wikipedia.
>>>>
>>>> Wikipedia is multilingual and multicultural project, without that WMF
>>>> don't have right to use that statement. What was done with Montenegrin
>>>> request is just showing what kind of lobbying is possible on WMF.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Darko bulatovic
>>>> President of IT Association of Montenegro
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Hoi,
>>> Wikipedia is in its manifestations very much a multilingual project and
>>> very much not a multicultural project. Cultural and political reasons
>>> are not a reason to start another project. When you read the article
>>> about Montenegrin, the language on the English Wikipedia, it explains
>>> quite clearly that elements that are to make Montegrin special can be
>>> found outside of Montenegro as well. This means that from a linguistic
>>> point of view the case for a Montenegrin Wikipedia is pretty weak.
>>>
>>> There are languages where the cultural and political differences are
>>> quite big while there is no call for a split project. The Chinese and
>>> the Dutch wikipedias are good examples for this. It would be a good
>>> thing if you could find it in you to consider this and retract the
>>> application for a Montenegrin Wikipedia.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>     GerardM
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Gerard,
>>
>> I don't understand why you mis interpret my statement. Please notice
>> "and". Who advice you on this meter? Political background of languages
>> is undiscussable . There must be political background of language, as
>> there must be political will to make standard from people language.
>> Linguistics rules are just political will on people language. If you
>> ignore this your opinion will not be righteous. I will repeat my sentence:
>> - Wikipedia is multilingual and multicultural project.
>>
>>
> With your blanket statement that "political background of languages is
> undiscussable" you indeed end the discussion. In this you are wrong.
>
> The Mapuche people are going to court because the Chilean government and
> the Microsoft company insist on a given orthography. The Mapuche live in
> Chile and Argentina. This proves very much that the insistence of making
> a language a people "owned" by a country is very much not universal. If
> your POV was shared by the Wikimedia Foundation there would be a project
> specific to US English. By having one English Wikipedia the quality is
> much better and the POV of the project is very much more a NEUTRAL POV
> than it would otherwise be.
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
Gerard you really make your position on this clear. If you check
requirements for ISO you will see that for language code it will need a
Government support. So language is political and ethnic question, but
you seems that don't have that wide understanding of history of
languages. I know the history of my language and that give me quite wide
understanding of political background. So please don't be that narrow in
understanding.

Thank you
Darko Bulatovic


from_name: Kurt Maxwell Weber

subject: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!

body:
On Wednesday 29 November 2006 01:25, Bogdan Giusca wrote:
> Tuesday, November 28, 2006, 10:45:22 PM, Taco wrote:
> > I applaud the culture shift that has taken place on Wikipedia that has
> > allowed [[Gay Nigger Association of America]] to be deleted due to
> > verifiability concerns--after seventeen unsuccessful deletion
> > nominations.
>
> BTW, if we started this, maybe we should delete 90% of
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Webcomics and
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Websites
>
> Most of those articles cannot be verified from reliable sources.

Don't give the deletionist vandals any ideas...

--
Kurt Weber
<kmw at armory.com>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061129/0e4ded25/attachment.pgp


from_name: Marco Chiesa

body:
Darko Bulatovic wrote:

>
>
>
Please, can you avoid quoting the whole thread at each reply unless it's
really necessary? It becomes unreadable for people who read digests (and
makes the text unnecessarily long).

Thanks,
Marco/Cruccone


from_name: The Cunctator

subject:
[WikiEN-l] "Reliable sources" guideline being treated as
	absolute policy

body:
You know, it's not that damn critical to have people include sources when
they add something to Wikipedia. In my experience, 99% of the time a quick
google finds a source for info (that isn't just obvious opinion).

It's not that big a deal.

On 11/28/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I see no reason why we should be flexible about sources. If it hasn't got
> sources it can be deleted, regardless whether this is a policy or a
> guideline. It may be kept if someone bothers to find the sources the
> author
> should have included, but that might not happen.
>
> The only way to make people use sources is hammering it in, because no
> matter how many times it is said, people will ignore it. Perhaps deletion
> will get some backsides into gear.
>
> Mgm
>
>
> On 11/28/06, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 11/28/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > That wording seems to change from day to day. I'm not sure where the
> > > discussion about its wording is held. For a while it insisted on
> > > copyright violations. Sometimes it mentions nonsense, sometimes it
> > > does. Sometimes it says "may be deleted", other times it's "will".
> >
> > It's in [[MediaWiki:Newarticletext]]. There may be some discussion on
> > the talk page there.
> >
> > --
> > Stephen Bain
> > stephen.bain at gmail.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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
A7? God, I hate jargon.

On 11/29/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 00:04:16 -0700, Bryan Derksen
> <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> >There is no criterion for speedy deletion related to the absence of
> >references. Any article listed for speedy deletion on that basis should
> >simply be delisted.
>
> Indeed.  Absence of any claim to validity is what is at issue, and the
> absence of any sources is one of the diagnostic factors.  very few
> sourced articles are flagged for A7.
>
> Guy (JzG)
> --
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Ray Saintonge

body:
charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com wrote:

>Ray Saintonge wrote
>
>
>>The most effective solution for dealing with a bad thread is the onset
>>of boredom.  Eventually they all come to an end.
>>
>>
>Actually, they don't, and trolls don't always go back under bridges. It only takes two folk who won't concede the last word.
>
They may not go back under bridges, but they do cast new fishing lines
(threads) with fresh bait.

>Ray, where does this bottomless pit of generalisations come from?
>
What proportion of threads have a time span of more than one week
between the first and last message?  Even the two determined combatants
seldom hold out for a week.

Ec


body:
"Daniel P. B. Smith" wrote

> a) Most of the unreferenced material in Wikipedia is accurate. What
> do I mean by "most?" 90%? 95%? 99%? Something like that.

My thinking has shifted a bit after three years at the coal face. Strange errors do get in. And, as one of the world's great historians of science convinced me, the historical truth is just about always stranger than you'd imagine.

But I say citation practices should go 'horses for courses'. The 'course' is per topic area, not per article, naturally.

> c) Everything in Wikipedia should eventually be referenced or
> removed.

Nah. There's even an interesting reason, which is that with exponential growth the boundary (wild wiki frontier) is always of size very significantly large with respect to the central 'core' of must-have articles. What we actually need is a _targeted drive_ to bring up the quality of the core articles, and that must include fact-checking and all the other good things. Tagging just everything creates work, and implies work only likely to be done sporadically.

Wikipedia has been on a billion-second spree (roughly). What is needed is a kind of kneading or churning motion where editors don't just follow the ribbon development.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


from_name: Bryan Derksen

body:
David Gerard wrote:
> Every time I hit an article without references, sources or even
> external links listed, I put an unref tag on it.

That's long been my habit too, but I've actually started skipping that
in some cases now that I've had some unpleasant experiences with
articles going up for deletion on the basis of WP:RS. If the article
looks reasonable enough to me but hard to reference within a five-day
deadline I don't consider it worth the risk.

I still do {{citation needed}} when I hit statements that seem dubious,
though, since that seems less likely to bring ruin on the article as a
whole.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061129/dac80016/attachment.pgp


from_name: James Hare

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletions, lists, etc?

body:
Think about it this way...

In English Wikipedia's pool of 1.5 million articles, would Wikipedia really
be better if it kept an article about an association that no authority in
that field cared to do a bit of research about?

On 11/29/06, Silas Snider <swsnider at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/29/06, Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 11/29/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm mildly sorry for taking the shortcut of asking the list about
> things I
> > > could figure out by wading through the insanely complicated policy
> pages,
> > > but here goes-- if you think a page that went through the AfD process
> was
> > > wrongly deleted, what is the proper action?
> > >
> > > How wrong is it for an admin to undelete a page?
> >
> >
> > It is a cardinal sin.  If a page is deleted as a result of *fD it MUST
> go
> > through DRV - despite the fact that "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy",
> > undeletion can only be done if the correct forms are filled out in
> > triplicate, lost, found again... (I can't remember the rest of how that
> > goes, but you end up having your house bulldozed).
> >
> > In addition, DRV is the place where people comment, not on the merits of
> the
> > deletion, but on whether the deletion was "in process" or "out of
> process".
> > It doesn't matter if the article was about [[World War II]] and the
> > discussion only involved three people would voted delete on the grounds
> of
> > "never heard of it", DRV is supposed to comment on process, not merits
> of
> > deletion (you'll be told "that's what *fD is for, and you should have
> > commented when you had the chance).
> <snip />
>
> Wait...
> I went and read our policy on undeletion ([[WP:UNDEL]]) , and it
> definitely lists "If the article has been wrongly deleted (i.e. that
> Wikipedia would be a better encyclopedia with the article restored). "
> as a valid reason for undeletion (in fact, as the first reason). Given
> that we 'know' that DRV is only for process auditing, I looked farther
> down... behold! there is a section entitled "To request that a page
> (or image) be restored", except that this section only tells you to
> list the page on DRV... Catch -22 anyone?
>
> Either we need to change WP:UNDEL to conform to current practice, or
> we need to give quite a few people a cluebat beating.
>
> Sincerely,
> Silas Snider
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Silas Snider is a proud member of the Association of Wikipedians Who
> Dislike Making Broad Judgements About the Worthiness of a General Category
> of Article, and Who Are In Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad
> Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They are Deletionist
> (AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD) , and the Harmonious
> Editing Club of Wikipedia.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com wrote:
> "Daniel P. B. Smith" wrote
 >> c) Everything in Wikipedia should eventually be referenced or
>> removed.
>
> Nah. There's even an interesting reason, which is that with
> exponential growth the boundary (wild wiki frontier) is always
> of size very significantly large with respect to the central 'core'
> of must-have articles. What we actually need is a _targeted drive_
> to bring up the quality of the core articles, and that must include
> fact-checking and all the other good things. Tagging just
> everything creates work, and implies work only likely to be done
> sporadically.

What I would love to see is version-tagging implemented and then in
addition to the basic "not vandalised" tag having a "has adequate
verification" tag. If there were some way to make it easy to cull out
"more finished" stuff from the "less finished" stuff there might be less
pressure to delete work in progress in order to make Wikipedia as a
whole "more finished".

Maybe have a tag for each of the other major policies too, while we're
at it. Last time I heard how development on version tagging was going I
heard it was going to be quite flexible in allowing multiple types of tags.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061129/3f8c9c92/attachment.pgp


body:
Darko Bulatovic schreef:
> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>
>> Darko Bulatovic schreef:
>>
>>
>>> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Darko Bulatovic schreef:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Yann Forget wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some wikis are plagued with vandalism, spams and non sense. Moldavan
>>>>>> Wikipedia seems the worst at this time, but there have been others too.
>>>>>> These projects do not bring any free knowledge to anybody, just a lot of
>>>>>> works for volunteers (hopefully there are great volunteers like Pill)
>>>>>> and stewards.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regarding the Moldavan Wikipedia (http://mo.wikipedia.org), the
>>>>>> administrators election was already cancelled twice because of massive
>>>>>> attacks. Sincere editors have been discouraged and have left. So the
>>>>>> wiki is just a battle field for vandals, trolls and sockpuppets. There
>>>>>> is no expected improvement in the near future because the language
>>>>>> itself is in the middle of a political controversy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I forsee the same situation for the Montenegrin Wikipedia if it is
>>>>>> created. These wikis only give a bad image of Wikimedia. I think that
>>>>>> the Foundation should take its responsibilities and take some decisions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yann
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> I cant believe my eyes that you Yann say this. How in the God sake you
>>>>> can forsee such thing about Montenegrin wikipedia? Montenegrin wikipedia
>>>>> gives bad image of Wikimedia? This statement that you did give bad image
>>>>> to WMF.  You don't have any  argument to say this and to support your
>>>>> statement.
>>>>> Please elaborate this on Montenegrin request for Wikipedia.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wikipedia is multilingual and multicultural project, without that WMF
>>>>> don't have right to use that statement. What was done with Montenegrin
>>>>> request is just showing what kind of lobbying is possible on WMF.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Darko bulatovic
>>>>> President of IT Association of Montenegro
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Hoi,
>>>> Wikipedia is in its manifestations very much a multilingual project and
>>>> very much not a multicultural project. Cultural and political reasons
>>>> are not a reason to start another project. When you read the article
>>>> about Montenegrin, the language on the English Wikipedia, it explains
>>>> quite clearly that elements that are to make Montegrin special can be
>>>> found outside of Montenegro as well. This means that from a linguistic
>>>> point of view the case for a Montenegrin Wikipedia is pretty weak.
>>>>
>>>> There are languages where the cultural and political differences are
>>>> quite big while there is no call for a split project. The Chinese and
>>>> the Dutch wikipedias are good examples for this. It would be a good
>>>> thing if you could find it in you to consider this and retract the
>>>> application for a Montenegrin Wikipedia.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>     GerardM
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>>> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Gerard,
>>>
>>> I don't understand why you mis interpret my statement. Please notice
>>> "and". Who advice you on this meter? Political background of languages
>>> is undiscussable . There must be political background of language, as
>>> there must be political will to make standard from people language.
>>> Linguistics rules are just political will on people language. If you
>>> ignore this your opinion will not be righteous. I will repeat my sentence:
>>> - Wikipedia is multilingual and multicultural project.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> With your blanket statement that "political background of languages is
>> undiscussable" you indeed end the discussion. In this you are wrong.
>>
>> The Mapuche people are going to court because the Chilean government and
>> the Microsoft company insist on a given orthography. The Mapuche live in
>> Chile and Argentina. This proves very much that the insistence of making
>> a language a people "owned" by a country is very much not universal. If
>> your POV was shared by the Wikimedia Foundation there would be a project
>> specific to US English. By having one English Wikipedia the quality is
>> much better and the POV of the project is very much more a NEUTRAL POV
>> than it would otherwise be.
>> Thanks,
>>     GerardM
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>
>>
> Gerard you really make your position on this clear. If you check
> requirements for ISO you will see that for language code it will need a
> Government support. So language is political and ethnic question, but
> you seems that don't have that wide understanding of history of
> languages. I know the history of my language and that give me quite wide
> understanding of political background. So please don't be that narrow in
> understanding.
>
> Thank you
> Darko Bulatovic
Hoi,
What ISO language standard are you talking about ? As far as I am aware
you are talking ISO-639-1/2. ISO-639-3 is quite different, ISO-639-6
will be different again.

It is rich that you inform me that I am clueless about languages and
standards. Maybe you have to do some research yourself. You did puff
yourself up by stating that you are the "President of IT Association of
Montenegro". I have been active in the IT business myself and, /that
/does not qualify me as either a linguist or as a politician. It does
qualify me to know if an IT person is qualified being either; it does
not implicitly.

Again, in your argument you value the political background. When it
comes to a vote in the language sub committee, I will vote against the
creation of a Montenegrin because the arguments provided are political
and not linguistics. By your very arguments it seems impossible that a
neutral point of view would be forthcoming. My advise is that for as
much as a Montenegrin orthography exists, it should be permitted in the
sr.wikipedia.org.

Thanks,
   GerardM

Some more motivation::
http://www.tol.cz/look/CER/article.tpl?IdLanguage=1&IdPublication=14&NrIssue=47&NrSection=5&NrArticle=9309


from_name: gabriela sanhuezagaray

subject: [Wikipedia-l] (no subject)

body:
Mas adelante les mandare un email con los objetivos de nuestra organizaci?n
RED DEL MEDIO AMBIENTE DE LA FLORIDA

_________________________________________________________________
Las mejores tiendas, los precios mas bajos, entregas en todo el mundo,
YupiMSN Compras: http://latam.msn.com/compras/


body:
Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:
>> From: "Steve Bennett" <stevagewp at gmail.com>
>
>> I don't think deleting accurate, high-quality, unreferenced material
>> is in Wikipedia's best interests. Asking for a source, yes. Adding
>> sources, yes. But *deleting* good material? No.
>
> Unsourced material is not high-quality material.

It can be, depending on the circumstances. This isn't something on which
categorical statements can be made (or at least one can't expect
anything close to consensus on such statements). For example, consider
the articles where we imported masses of unreferenced material from the
1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. That's not even high quality stuff by
today's standards but it's served as a good foundation for further work.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061129/540478dd/attachment.pgp


body:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Darko Bulatovic schreef:
>
>> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Darko Bulatovic schreef:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Darko Bulatovic schreef:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yann Forget wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Some wikis are plagued with vandalism, spams and non sense. Moldavan
>>>>>>> Wikipedia seems the worst at this time, but there have been others too.
>>>>>>> These projects do not bring any free knowledge to anybody, just a lot of
>>>>>>> works for volunteers (hopefully there are great volunteers like Pill)
>>>>>>> and stewards.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regarding the Moldavan Wikipedia (http://mo.wikipedia.org), the
>>>>>>> administrators election was already cancelled twice because of massive
>>>>>>> attacks. Sincere editors have been discouraged and have left. So the
>>>>>>> wiki is just a battle field for vandals, trolls and sockpuppets. There
>>>>>>> is no expected improvement in the near future because the language
>>>>>>> itself is in the middle of a political controversy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I forsee the same situation for the Montenegrin Wikipedia if it is
>>>>>>> created. These wikis only give a bad image of Wikimedia. I think that
>>>>>>> the Foundation should take its responsibilities and take some decisions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yann
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I cant believe my eyes that you Yann say this. How in the God sake you
>>>>>> can forsee such thing about Montenegrin wikipedia? Montenegrin wikipedia
>>>>>> gives bad image of Wikimedia? This statement that you did give bad image
>>>>>> to WMF.  You don't have any  argument to say this and to support your
>>>>>> statement.
>>>>>> Please elaborate this on Montenegrin request for Wikipedia.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wikipedia is multilingual and multicultural project, without that WMF
>>>>>> don't have right to use that statement. What was done with Montenegrin
>>>>>> request is just showing what kind of lobbying is possible on WMF.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Darko bulatovic
>>>>>> President of IT Association of Montenegro
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Hoi,
>>>>> Wikipedia is in its manifestations very much a multilingual project and
>>>>> very much not a multicultural project. Cultural and political reasons
>>>>> are not a reason to start another project. When you read the article
>>>>> about Montenegrin, the language on the English Wikipedia, it explains
>>>>> quite clearly that elements that are to make Montegrin special can be
>>>>> found outside of Montenegro as well. This means that from a linguistic
>>>>> point of view the case for a Montenegrin Wikipedia is pretty weak.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are languages where the cultural and political differences are
>>>>> quite big while there is no call for a split project. The Chinese and
>>>>> the Dutch wikipedias are good examples for this. It would be a good
>>>>> thing if you could find it in you to consider this and retract the
>>>>> application for a Montenegrin Wikipedia.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>     GerardM
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>>>> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>>>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Gerard,
>>>>
>>>> I don't understand why you mis interpret my statement. Please notice
>>>> "and". Who advice you on this meter? Political background of languages
>>>> is undiscussable . There must be political background of language, as
>>>> there must be political will to make standard from people language.
>>>> Linguistics rules are just political will on people language. If you
>>>> ignore this your opinion will not be righteous. I will repeat my sentence:
>>>> - Wikipedia is multilingual and multicultural project.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> With your blanket statement that "political background of languages is
>>> undiscussable" you indeed end the discussion. In this you are wrong.
>>>
>>> The Mapuche people are going to court because the Chilean government and
>>> the Microsoft company insist on a given orthography. The Mapuche live in
>>> Chile and Argentina. This proves very much that the insistence of making
>>> a language a people "owned" by a country is very much not universal. If
>>> your POV was shared by the Wikimedia Foundation there would be a project
>>> specific to US English. By having one English Wikipedia the quality is
>>> much better and the POV of the project is very much more a NEUTRAL POV
>>> than it would otherwise be.
>>> Thanks,
>>>     GerardM
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Gerard you really make your position on this clear. If you check
>> requirements for ISO you will see that for language code it will need a
>> Government support. So language is political and ethnic question, but
>> you seems that don't have that wide understanding of history of
>> languages. I know the history of my language and that give me quite wide
>> understanding of political background. So please don't be that narrow in
>> understanding.
>>
>> Thank you
>> Darko Bulatovic
>>
> Hoi,
> What ISO language standard are you talking about ? As far as I am aware
> you are talking ISO-639-1/2. ISO-639-3 is quite different, ISO-639-6
> will be different again.
>
> It is rich that you inform me that I am clueless about languages and
> standards. Maybe you have to do some research yourself. You did puff
> yourself up by stating that you are the "President of IT Association of
> Montenegro". I have been active in the IT business myself and, /that
> /does not qualify me as either a linguist or as a politician. It does
> qualify me to know if an IT person is qualified being either; it does
> not implicitly.
>
> Again, in your argument you value the political background. When it
> comes to a vote in the language sub committee, I will vote against the
> creation of a Montenegrin because the arguments provided are political
> and not linguistics. By your very arguments it seems impossible that a
> neutral point of view would be forthcoming. My advise is that for as
> much as a Montenegrin orthography exists, it should be permitted in the
> sr.wikipedia.org.
>
> Thanks,
>    GerardM
>
> Some more motivation::
> http://www.tol.cz/look/CER/article.tpl?IdLanguage=1&IdPublication=14&NrIssue=47&NrSection=5&NrArticle=9309
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
Gerard,

you just change topic when you dint have any arguments. I am topic? :) I
am totally apolitical personally but I rty to be realistic about this
meter. I dont see what is your point?
You will vote against ? I will take this statement here officially.

I don't see in any of your points here to be neutral you are POV all the
time.

 >You did puff
 >yourself up by stating that you are the "President of IT Association of
 >Montenegro". I have been active in the IT business myself and, /that
 >/*does not qualify me as either a linguist or as a politician*.

But you will vote against? Right? Ha.

I understand you very well here.

So you don't have any argument but you will still vote against the proposal.

Thank you for your honesty,

Darko Bulatovic
My statement to be president of ITAM is just my official role nothing
more nothing less. So don't be bothered by that.


from_name: geni

body:
On 11/29/06, Darko Bulatovic <mail at itam.ws> wrote:
> I don't understand why you mis interpret my statement. Please notice
> "and". Who advice you on this meter? Political background of languages
> is undiscussable . There must be political background of language, as
> there must be political will to make standard from people language.

Not so much. there are a number of different forms of English and yet
it is accepted that there is only one language. In some areas "thou"
still exists. In others colour is spelled color. What standisation
there is is often not goverment mandated.

> Linguistics rules are just political will on people language. If you
> ignore this your opinion will not be righteous.

The oxford manual of style is not writen by the goverment.

>I will repeat my sentence:
> - Wikipedia is multilingual and multicultural project.
>
> As I sad, culture is connected with language, and culture is spread by
> communication, beside other ways of communication language is primary one.
>
>  >.When you read the article
>  >about Montenegrin, the language on the English Wikipedia, it explains
>  >quite clearly that elements that are to make Montegrin special can be
>  >found outside of Montenegro as well.
>
> Do you know what you talk about? Do you know who write those articles?
> Do you know anything about specifics of Montenegrin dialect of south
> slavenian languages?
>
> Split of project is not our concern (As Montenegrin people are never
> participated on this projects or they tried on marginal level), you know
> well  why is was divided on Balkan, but you stay quiet on this. Special
> regarding Serbian. Wikipedia is used for spreading of nationalism

It shouldn't be

>and
> now when Montenegrin wish to have their own wikipedia on their own
> language, it become problem.

Well yes because we are yet to establish that the language exists.

>AND yes it become POLITICAL problem for WMF
> or one part of their members. I am aware that Serbian community is very
> strong on WMF.

Not really. the WMF is based in the US the board is mostly from the US
and most significant non US chapter is prbably germany.

--
geni