body:
Puddl Duk (puddlduk at gmail.com) [050413 02:36]:
> On Apr 12, 2005 8:35 AM, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:

> > > ...invasion of privacy by potentially removing anonymity from the use of
> > > Wikipedia. Please let this tool be a last resort in serious cases.

> > Precisely. That's why anyone using it needs to have an awareness of these
> > issues and proceed with extreme caution.

> Guarantees of restraint from the current users of this feature are
> fine, I'm sure that Tim and David are trustworthy, but that's the here
> and now. The feature needs some built in oversight.

Those with access to it see all uses, ever. Tim has also made this list
available to others.

> Users should be notified when CheckUser is run on them (something like
> a message notice, that only they can see).   Waerth noted that this
> will cause some controversy with users when they see they have been
> investigated, which is true. But this makes a good deterrent of abuse.
>  Anyone who runs it will have a damn good reason, knowing that they
> may have to explain themselves.  Also, many requests for sockpuppet
> checks are public, so informing the users who were checked isn't any
> different in these cases.

You're writing the code to do this, then?

> Waerth also notes on, meta, that 90% of the checks will be on innocent
> users. If this is the case, then I have to question how solid the
> reasoning is for checking those 90%.

One thing I've just asked on [[m:CheckUser]] is for ideas on what the
criteria should be. As I noted, spurious allegations of sockpuppetry are de
rigeur on en: arbitration cases. One thing that frustrates me at present is
there are quite a few I think I should *maybe* look into but don't feel
certain enough to because there isn't a clear case to hand.

> Finally, notifying a registered user when their identity is checked is
> just a decent thing to do.

There is that. OTOH, when I was investigating the socks of the 'Baku Ibne'
troll, I came across use of the same IPs by good users and checked their
IPs as well. Now, should we be revealing too much information to them about
an ongoing investigation?

And also: any website will look through the logs in detail if they suspect
abuse. The devs do this *all the time already*. And they *do not* notify
anyone in particular. The key to this feature is not doing anything that
isn't done already, it's giving access to a small subset of it to people
who aren't actually Wikimedia system administrators, mostly so the system
administrators can get on with running the site.

- d.


list: wikimedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: David Gerard

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] Expanding CheckUser permissions


list: wikipedia-l


list: wikien-l

subject: [WikiEN-l] templates boxes: multiplying like rabbits

body:
Viajero (viajero at quilombo.nl) [050413 04:33]:

> For example, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erskine_Hamilton_Childers
> Five template boxes, and then of course the categories.
> Are all these really necessary? Given the space they take up, the
> template boxes appear more important than the text itself.
> Does anyone else feel this feature is getting out of hand?

This is already listed on the [[WP:CLS]] guideline as a time when editors
should consider making the templates into categories. Also see disadvantage
2 of templates.

- d.


from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Expanding CheckUser permissions

body:
David Gerard wrote:
> Ray Saintonge (saintonge at telus.net) [050413 02:35]:
>
>>David Gerard wrote:
>>>I should also point out that I *barely* use it - its availability to the Ac
>>>directly is somewhat controversial, but I've some experience of net-abuse
>>>tracing and know what the results mean or don't, and I only use it when
>>>there's clearly some important issue. (Last use was to check on an apparent
>>>sock of Rienzo. Use before that was to check the zillion abusive socks in
>>>the Baku Ibne arb com case.) I get a lot of people asking me to check
>>>something casually and I have to say "no". Although if people on en: think
>>>it's relevant to an arb com case, the "Requests for clarification" section
>>>on WP:RFAr is the right place to suggest. The edit evidence had better be
>>>there, though, I'm not going on fishing expeditions.
>
>
>>This sounds like a wise approach.  Some ultra-zealous vandal chasers are
>>much too quick to jump to conclusions when finding fault.
>
>
>
> The problem I find in practice is that there is no guideline, and I'm not
> quite sure sometimes myself. I've added a question to [[m:CheckUser]]
> asking for suggestions on when it's appropriate to look this stuff up.
> Then I'll probably take those and see if something that's clearly good
> sense emerges from them.
>
>
> - d.

People who've asked me for sock puppet checks in the past probably know
that I'm much more permissive than this. My personal guidelines have been:

1. Only research bad people. The first thing I do when I get a request
is to look up the user's contributions and make sure that they have
indeed been vandalising. The privacy of good users should be sacrosanct,
even if they are using sock puppets. (The exception to this is RFA)

2. Do not give away IP addresses unless it's necessary. In 90% of cases
I interpret the IP evidence myself and give the requester a statement
such as "yes they are probably the same person" or "they share the same
ISP".

There are two cases where it is necessary to give away IP addresses. One
is where an anonymous (logged-out) user is involved, and a link between
the anonymous contributions and the logged-in contributions is required.
The other is when there is a desire to make a complaint to the user's
ISP. I encourage this course of action in extreme cases, despite the
fact that it has never actually worked. There's at least a slight chance
that the vandal will see some real-life consequences for their actions,
even if it's just a stern phone call from their ISP.

I've always been sympathetic to requests for sock puppet checks, because
shortly before I got shell access, I was nearly driven crazy by a user
with 9 sock puppets, each claiming to be a separate person. Each would
demand my attention, make their own arguments and even post bogus real
names and addresses to "prove" their identity. All these identities were
active in the same week. It's hard to describe how hard this was for me,
but suffice to say looking up the guy in the apache logs was the first
thing I did when I got shell access. I resolved at that point to try to
help anyone who was in a similar situation.

Requests to fulfill curiosity might seem gratuitous, but it's amazing
how much a simple yes or no can do for the sanity of an embattled
Wikipedian. Even if you give them no solid evidence that they can repeat
publically, it's still enough to allow them to deal with the problem
rationally rather than be overwhelmed with uncertainty.

In recent times, the number of requests for sock puppet checks has been
rising, and I've had less time on my hands, so I've had to ignore many
of them. I'd be very happy if a small group of users, with public
logging for oversight, could take over the role that I've been filling.

There are many dangers; like Ray says, some people are very quick to
jump to conclusions. The danger comes when you present tenuous evidence
of sock puppetry as ammunition in an argument -- that should be avoided
at all costs. People with checkuser access should be careful to
emphasize the uncertain nature of IP evidence.

-- Tim Starling


list: foundation-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: TheWorldForum.org adds Wikinews logo

body:
Sj wrote:
> Does anyone know of other uses of a globe icon rotated to that longitude?

An amusing example:

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm

"Uncle Joe (Stalin), Churchill, and Roosevelt laid the master plan to
bring in the New Age under the United Nations," Johnson discloses with
confidence. "The world ruling power was to be right here in this
country. After the war, the world would be declared flat and Roosevelt
would be elected first president of the world. When the UN Charter was
drafted in San Francisco, they took the flat-earth map as their symbol."


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Thomas Gries

subject:
[Wikitech-l] a few more details of ENOTIF and EAUTHENT 3.05-alpha
 for Mediawiki 1.4.1 (REL1_4)

body:
I suggest this as 1.4.1 - it is fully based on REL1_4 .

E-Mail Notification for page and user-page changes and E-Mail-Address
Authentication. Many further innovative features such as direct links to
difference view between current and last-seen versions (of watched pages).

See http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=454 for
further information and http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enotif (download,
installation instructions, screenshots, documentation - there are
already many pages; the pages refer to the last version but will be
updated in the forthcoming days)

Comes with full installer and updater code, as usual.

Implementation details: It fully uses DATETIME type for timestamps.
It uses again the effective user_newtalk table, which allows efficient
memcaching for newtalk signalling. Sysops, Developers and Bureaucrats
need _not_ to authenticate their e-mail addresses, when they enter or
change them (for convenience; this can be switched on or off in
DefaultSettings as many other options). On the Create Account screen you
can now also enter the email address as you create the new account (this
is an old bug of mediawiki, but solved within my ENotif patch).

Please may I ask you, that you add your e-mail address to the CC list of
http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=454 , if you want kept
up-to-date ? This saves my time for writing to the many different
"channels".

Avoid the most common pitfalls when you want to test E-Mail
Notifications as a newbie to it:
=====================================================================
1. Do not forget to enter an e-mail address (user preferences) !!
2. Be aware, that you never receive an notification for your own changes
(you need to log in as another user B to invoke and check ENotifs sent
to watching user A )
3. ENotifs are sent only for the first change on a page you are watching
4. ENotifs are automatically retriggered when the watching users visits
the current version - may be direct or indirectly by visiting the
difference to it.


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Foundation-l] Did I just violate the GFDL?

body:
A link in the edit summary
	GFDL, copied from http://__.wikipedia.org/wiki/____
should be sufficient in cases where display of the notice in the body is
clearly impractical.

Erik


from_name: Nikola Smolenski

subject: [Wikitech-l] Different alphabets for the same language

body:
On Tuesday 12 April 2005 23:39, Milos Rancic wrote:
> in Latin alphabet (in Serbian). A lot of people don't contribute to
> Serbian Wikipedia because we are waiting for Latin implementation...

How do you know about this?


body:
On Tuesday 12 April 2005 22:46, Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Apr 12, 2005 11:51 PM, Nikola Smolenski <smolensk at eunet.yu> wrote:
> > Frankly, to me this entire conversation sounds like much ado about
> > nothing. Even on Serbian Wikipedia noone actually said that he actually
> > needs Latin alphabet, and a few people said that they are for Latin
> > because maybe someone would need it. So I don't see why introducing it.
>
> This is not true. We voted about it last summer. One person explicitly
> asked for Latin alphabet [[sr:????????:Sergivs]], two said that it
> should be used, six voted against (seventh person voted after the

You don't say. Well, as I said, and you confirmed, noone said that he actually
NEEDS Latin alphabet. Yes, some WANTED it, but noone NEEDED it. Noone
complained of not being able to see Cyrillic or write in Cyrillic or about
anything else. In addition, the vote was about "inclusion of Latin pages",
not about whether each and every page would be in Latin!

> conclusion of voting). I asked about consequences of voting at
> wikimeda-l list and answer was clear: if Latin alphabet wouldn't be
> included into sr.wikipedia, it would be tyranny of majority. After

I am reading that thread right now and I can say you salted it really fine.
"In this moment we have very strong xenophobic movement. A lot of them are
very active on Internet and on Wikipedia, too. They do not accept Latin
alphabet as "Serbian"."

Tyranny of majority is better than tyranny of minority.

> all, we can vote about it again and situation in this moment would be
> more pro-Latin.

Could we vote if it would be more pro-Cyrillic?

> Nikola, your political reasons for obstruction of introduction of
> Latin alphabet into Serbian Wikipedia are clear. But, Serbian

Well if they are so clear perhaps then you can explain them to me because I
don't see them so well, and other people on this list might not see them too.

> Wikipedia should be used by all Serbian speaking people, not only by
> one political faction.

What prevents Serbian Wikipedia from being used by all Serbian speaking people
right now?

(Milos sent this message to me, and CCed it to Wikitech list; perhaps the CC
is the reason for it didn't appear on the list.)


from_name: Taco Deposit

body:
Sourced breaking news is still breaking news. What I'm talking about is this
trend away from the idea that Wikipedia should wait until something is
published in major news outlets, and toward the idea that it's great when we
can scoop said news outlets. If that's the case, the maybe "What Wikipedia
is not" should be updated.  That's all I'm saying.

TD

-----Original Message-----
From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org]
On Behalf Of MacGyverMagic/Mgm
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 2:17 AM
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia - first with the news

Course not. As long as we can cite sources, we should try to include
breaking news into our articles. [[Andrea Dworkin]] shows it's
possible to actually beat the media while still sourcing stuff.

--Mgm

On 4/13/05, Taco Deposit <tacodeposit at hotmail.com> wrote:
> So is it time to remove "breaking news" from "What Wikipedia is not" yet?
>
> TD
>


from_name: Faraaz Damji

subject: [WikiEN-l] Trouble connecting

body:
Stacey Greenstein wrote:
> Anyone else having troubles?

Nope, it seems to be working fine for me.  I can't access the off-site
status page right now, but in the future, you can check Wikipedia's
status at: http://openfacts.berlios.de/index-en.phtml?title=Wikipedia_Status

Blog: http://frazzydee.ca

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS d? s:- a--- C+++ UL++ P+ L+ E---- W++ N+ o+ K+ w+
O? M-- V? PS++ PE Y PGP++ t 5-- X+ R tv b++ DI++ D+
G++ e- h! !r !z
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------


from_name: Walter van Kalken

subject: [Foundation-l] Talking about stewards

body:
With all the talk about stewards ...... I thought the stewardcollection
would be expanded in March? Either through election or by Jimbo's choice?

Waerth/Walter


subject: [Foundation-l] Talking about stewards


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Talking about stewards


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [WikiEN-l] Nude Kate Winslet Picture

body:
Kevin Rector said:
> I've come to the realization that people
> are searching out nude pictures to put in the 'pedia. They are looking
> to stir up trouble, mostly to make a point.

I take this very seriously.  What's your supporting evidence?


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Nude Kate Winslet Picture

body:
For me, the largest part of the problem with the Kate Winslet nude is
that it renders all of Wikipedia non-work-safe.  You can defend the
autofellatio picture by asking "why are you looking at an article
about sucking your own dick while at work?" but if any article that
mentions any person can have a nude picture of that person, I don't
dare use Wikipedia anywhere but in the privacy of my own bedroom, with
the shades drawn.

Right now, anyone at my place of work who happens to look up Kate
Winslet will be disciplined.  If he then inadvertently trips over
another Wikinude, he'll be fired.  In other words, Wikipedia is now
unusable in a buttoned-down professional environment.

Some of you, of course, think that makes Wikipedia a better thing.

--
 Sean Barrett     | There is no cause for alarm --
 sean at epoptic.com | but there probably will be.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Nude Kate Winslet Picture

body:
> Er, the Kate Winslet nude is only marginally "nude". If it's such a
> problem, use a tabbed browser or disable images.

How does using a tabbed browser save me from having a nude appear on
my screen?

> Why are you looking up Kate Winslet at work anyway? Why aren't you working?

Believe it or not, we have good reasons to look things up while at work,
including articles about people.  If any biographical article can have
a nude of that person, however, we won't be using Wikipedia to do so.

> >Some of you, of course, think that makes Wikipedia a better thing.
> >
> Better go around that bridge when the Billy Goats Gruff get to it.

I agree that many of these non-work-safe pictures are trolling
efforts, but I think we're already on the bridge, jumping up and down.

--
 Sean Barrett     | There is no cause for alarm --
 sean at epoptic.com | but there probably will be.


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Foundation-l] PixelAche

body:
First, thanks for the public and private support you
offered me. I feel better now, and physically, things
look okay now.

Just a short word as the museum is closing soon and I
am on a loaned computer (really nice guy left it to me
for a little while).

The presentation today in Helsinki went very well.
Wikipedia was offered a full hour for presentation and
questions, very generous time ;-) Most of the audience
was Nokia, plus some artists, people from the museum
and organisers. 40 or 50 people I think. The Nokia
organiser is setting up a wiki himself, so we also
discussed mediawiki and community building privately
afterwards.... busy building human network ;-)

I wish that more of you live this kind of experience,
because it is always great to present Wikipedia, as
most of the audience (everyone today probably) is SO
excited by the whole project. It is really a very
powerful experience. There is a third presentation on
saturday, which should be the largest one by far.

There would be plenty of things to relate, but...short
of time.

One funny thing happened yesterday in Stockholm. There
was a french correspondant for Le Figaro, and she
absolutely tried to know what was Jimbo opinion on
politics, what was his religion... it seems she was
trying to uncover a huge conspiracy.... so... Jimbo, I
blew up your cover sorry, I admitted you were a
communist muslim under cover, trying to throw a world
revolution....

Journalists have so strange ideas sometimes.... she
just could not imagine this could be done.... just
because it is worth it in itself.... rather than to
push a specific pov... (though freeing information is
in itself a pov... but well...)

more seriously, I was absolutely amazed by the
confusion in people minds (even those who claim to
work on free and/or open projects) of what is open,
what is free, what do licences mean... I think we have
a lot of work to do to explain those things.... BEFORE
we can go ask to... for example... governmental
organisations to "please, free content". While even
those who are near professionals of libre, gratis and
open are confused, I do not think officials are neatly
informed to a sufficient level about the implications
for us, them and everyone, to take a fully informed
decision on freeing content.

Anyway, that was my philosophical thought tonight....
now I will go for a beer.

My best to all of you.

/me under cover, preparing revolution with Naeem (http://www.disappearedinamerica.org/)

__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail Mobile
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail


subject: [Foundation-l] PixelAche


from_name: Kevin Rector

subject: [WikiEN-l] Nude Kate Winslet Picture

body:
What Geni said.

-Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of geni
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 8:21 AM
To: minorityreport at bluebottle.com; English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Nude Kate Winslet Picture

> I take this very seriously.  What's your supporting evidence?

The suspicious speed they have been turning up since the clitorsis
incerdent. Not that I really care. Sonner or latter this will be
settled because everyone will be totaly fed up (the power of apathy to
settle dissputes)

--
geni
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Talking about stewards

body:
Mark Williamson wrote:

>I was pretty sure there were going to be elections, but I don't
>remember anything about them being in March... I thought it was may or
>july or something.
>
>
>
You are confusing the board elections Mark

Waerth/Walter


from_name: Angela

subject: [Foundation-l] TheWorldForum.org adds Wikinews logo

body:
On 4/12/05, Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:
> I've given Drog the go-ahead to link to Wikinews using our logo on the
> frontpage.

http://www.theworldforum.org/

World Forum is not just using the logo. It is also claiming to be "In
Association With Wikinews", which implies a lot more than simply
making use of our content.

The logo appears directly underneath a "Visit our advertisers" notice.
This needs to be removed to prevent people being misled into thinking
that their donations to the Foundation are being wasted on paying for
advertising on such sites.

Something stating that _some_ content is from Wikinews would be more
appropriate. At the moment, the Wikinews logo appears more prominently
than the site's own logo, giving the impression that Wikinews has far
more influence over the site than it does.

Angela.


from_name: Rick

subject: [WikiEN-l] Nude Kate Winslet Picture

body:
--- Kevin Rector <krector at Compco.com> wrote:
> The fact that the Wikipedia "community" won't
> resolve these problems,
> and the fact that the community so proudly proclaims
> that "Wikipedia is
> not censored" while ignoring the fact that
> "Wikipedia is quite
> dysfunctional" has made me realize that I need to
> re-evaluate if this is
> a project that I want to be a part of.

The community HAS resolved this non-problem.  It has
decided, by consensus, that there is nothing wrong
with having images like this.  Just because it hasn't
acceded your point of view on a topic which many think
is much ado about nothing, doesn't mean that the
community is dysfunctional.

Maybe you'd be more comfortable at something like
yahooligans.

RickK

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 21, Issue 44

body:
It would have to be a moderated newsgroup, to keep out
the trolls and vandals.

RickK

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/


subject: [WikiEN-l] Nude Kate Winslet Picture

body:
--- David 'DJ' Hedley <spyders at btinternet.com> wrote:
> > Believe it or not, we have good reasons to look
> things up while at work,
> > including articles about people.  If any
> biographical article can have
> > a nude of that person, however, we won't be using
> Wikipedia to do so.
>
> The above alone, I think, is good enough reason to
> ban nude pictures when
> sufficient non-nude imagery is present.

What a frightening prospect.  And what gives you the
idea that the photo is of a nude anything?

RickK

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia

body:
Too bad my system is ancient and hasn't got the capabilities to record
anything due to missing software and microphones. I do encourage the
project, though.

--Mgm

On 4/12/05, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
>
> Hi.
>
> Following the example of the German Wikipedia, I have tentatively
> created a page for a Spoken Wikipedia project on en:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spoken_Wikipedia
>
> We might need some ideas and discussion to get this going, but of course
> the best way of getting it going is to start recording things. :-)
>
> Have fun,
> Timwi
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
Course not. As long as we can cite sources, we should try to include
breaking news into our articles. [[Andrea Dworkin]] shows it's
possible to actually beat the media while still sourcing stuff.

--Mgm

On 4/13/05, Taco Deposit <tacodeposit at hotmail.com> wrote:
> So is it time to remove "breaking news" from "What Wikipedia is not" yet?
>
> TD
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org]
> On Behalf Of Arwel Parry
> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 9:49 AM
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia - first with the news
>
> This item
> [http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/internet/2005/04/12/wikipedia_fir
> st_with_the_news.html]
> from todays' Guardian notes that we had the correct details for [[Andrea
> Dworkin]]'s death date over 24 hours before the mainstream media, and
> also points to the discussion on the talk page when we weren't sure if
> the rumours were true.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Nude Kate Winslet Picture

body:
I have ZERO desire to get into a legal debate wherein I have to waste my
time "gathering evidence" and defending my accusation. Heck, I wasn't
even making an accusation, I was making an observation. My observation
may not be correct, but I have this "gut feeling" that there are people
who are uploading nude images to either 1) prove a point or 2) cause
trouble

Here's the thing Tony. By honing in on that one statement, you
completely missed my point. Now I may not have communicated my point
clearly, I often don't. Let me restate my point:

Wikipedia is a community and an encyclopedia. We should be about the
business of making a community and an encyclopedia (probably in that
order since a good community will make a good encyclopedia but a good
encyclopedia will not make a good community -- although it does help to
draw people to the community).

When something disrupts the building of community and when that
disruption provides less benefit than the potential harm to the
community (and the encyclopedia) then that something should be removed.

When images or other media files offend the sensibilities (or have a
realistic change of offending the sensibilities) of a significant
portion of our audience (or our community) then those media files should
be removed for the sake of community building. If our goal were to fight
censorship at all cost this would not be the case, but our goal is to
make an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias do not need media files; they are
nice, but ancillary.

Whether the image is good, bad, indifferent, harmful, artistic, etc. is
irrelevant. What is relevant is that is hurts our community and
therefore it hurts our encyclopedia. This is especially true if there
are viable alternatives as is the case with this picture.

-Kevin Rector

-----Original Message-----
From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Tony Sidaway
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 8:47 AM
To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Nude Kate Winslet Picture

Kevin Rector said:
> What Geni said.

Well what Geni said seemed rather vague, but your accusation sounded to
me
rather more specific.  Which particular incidents of alleged "searching
out" are you referring to?

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] Some people just have no sense of humor

body:
Yes, it's probably a little harsh. Any newbie would've gotten away with it.
But it's not April Fool's Day anymore. Why should we have a sense of
humor about this?

--Mgm

On 4/13/05, SPUI <drspui at gmail.com> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AN/I#User:SPUI
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Trouble connecting

body:
Wikipedia was briefly down for me yesterday, but otherwise I have no
problems connecting.

--Mgm

On 4/13/05, Jack Lutz <jack-lutz at comcast.net> wrote:
> >Anyone else having troubles?
>
> No, but you can always check the "Wikipedia Status" page at
>    http://openfacts.berlios.de/index-en.phtml?title=Wikipedia_Status
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Nude Kate Winslet Picture

body:
> X-Original-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 16:23:47 +0100 (BST)
> From: "Tony Sidaway" <minorityreport at bluebottle.com>
> X-Priority: 3
> Importance: Normal
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> Reply-To: minorityreport at bluebottle.com,
>    English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Sender: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (2004-09-13) on orwen.epoptic.com
> X-Spam-Level:
> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=4.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
> 	version=3.0.0
>
> Sean Barrett said:
> >
> >> Why are you looking up Kate Winslet at work anyway? Why aren't you
> >> working?
> >
> > Believe it or not, we have good reasons to look things up while at
> > work, including articles about people.  If any biographical article can
> > have a nude of that person, however, we won't be using Wikipedia to do
> > so.
>
> Why not?

Corporate policy prohibits all images of nudity, out of fear of sexual
harassment lawsuits.  Repeat offenses result in termination.  I love
Wikipedia, but I'm not going to lose my job because the Wikipedia
community feels it necessary to show bare boobies.

--
 Sean Barrett     | Hostes alienigeni me abdxerunt. Qui annus est?
 sean at epoptic.com


from_name: Tom Haws

subject: [WikiEN-l] Nude Kate Winslet Picture

body:
Rick wrote:

>The community HAS resolved this non-problem.  It has
>decided, by consensus, that there is nothing wrong
>with having images like this.
>
I hope this is not so.  I don't tend to be vocal in these debates, but I
will feel a strong regret if the encyclopedia becomes the bulletin board
for such a community.

I would like to suggest from my own experience a possible factor that
tends to consistently skew debates on these subjects.  Some of you may
be surprised, but most of you will sympathize with the idea that I find
the mere subject line of the current thread to be embarrassing and
discouraging to my participation.  I am very hesitant to visit, even for
the noblest reasons, some of the arenas where these debates have run
(autofel..., clit...).  I am a father, a brother, a husband, a church
elder, an engineer, and many other roles in which I am loathe to be
associated with the subjects of these debates.  I suggest that many,
many others like me who have opinions that there is something wrong with
including images like this also have various reasons to be discouraged
from participating in debates about the same images.  I am very sorry
that we are absent from such debates, but it just happens that they are
framed in ways and carried on in places that discourage our active
participation.

Tom Haws


subject: [WikiEN-l] VfD relisting time

body:
I certainly don't approve of it. Unless it's blatantly obvious no
concensus was reached. There should be at least a month between VFD
nominations. Of course, this requires the nominator to know it was
nominated before. Did they vote in the previous vote? And was the
result noted on the talk page?

--Mgm

On 4/13/05, Stephen Adair <SWAdair at computermail.net> wrote:
> There is currently a vote underway on an article that was relisted for VfD seventeen hours after the previous VfD was closed.  I originally voted to delete based on content (IMO, non-notable autobiography), but now I am voting to keep based on principle.  It just survived VfD.  Community consensus means nothing if we only abide by it when things go our way.
>
> This article was returned to VfD less than a day after the previous VfD was closed.  IMO, that showed a disregard for process, for community consensus, for the opinions of those who had voted, and for the spirit (if not the letter) of Wikipedia policy.
>
> By relisting the article almost immediately, the lister unilaterally forced an extension of the VfD debate, without regard to anyone else's wishes and without regard to standard practice (no consensus to delete means keep).  If someone thinks an article should be deleted, they should not simply keep relisting it until it eventually gets deleted.  I had originally voted to delete, but I draw the line at this.
>
> Obviously, by drawing attention to this, I'm hoping that enough people get involved and vote to keep on principle.  How long do we respect a VfD result?  Until the next time we log in?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Grant_Neufeld
>
> Thank you,
> Stephen W. Adair
> (User:SWAdair)
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
If there's too much vandalism and POV running rampant, then it should
be easy enough to fix it instead of complaining about it. That's why
it's a wiki.

--Mgm

On 4/13/05, Tim Starling <t.starling at physics.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
> SPUI wrote:
> > Alphax wrote:
> >
> >> Blair P. Houghton wrote:
> >>
> >>> Sorry about the subject lines...this mailing list really needs to be
> >>> turned into a newsgroup.
> >>>
> >> Newsgroups are not accessable to those without news servers. Email is
> >> available to anyone with Web access.
> >>
> > Not necessarily; it could be set up on a Wikipedia server to which
> > anyone could connect.
>
> Gmane is such a server, it's news.gmane.org. It's not part of USENET so
> it's not included in the Google index. Anyone with access to NNTP (on
> port 119) and a newsreader (Outlook Express, Thunderbird, etc.) can
> access it.
>
> I use Gmane, with my mailing list subscriptions set to "nomail" in my
> mailman preferences.
>
> -- Tim Starling
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [Wikitech-l] [[m:CheckUser]]

body:
Special:CheckUser is the IP-to-username checker Tim Starling implemented
for en:. Those able to use it are him and me, and I hardly dare touch the
thing :-)

There's talk of allowing it on other Wikipedias. There's a discussion page
at [[m:CheckUser]] and some of the tinfoil hattery makes my head hurt. I
would welcome contribution from those who already have this power and more.
Particularly for "What circumstances merit checking?" which is the big
question for me. I've been *very* conservative in using the tool, possibly
too conservative, and am looking for guidelines to a sensible policy
guideline.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Nude Kate Winslet Picture

body:
On 4/13/05, Richard Holton <richholton at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/12/05, Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:
> > I was expecting to find a nude photo in the article about [[Kate
> > Winslet]], which would be appropriate (out of context, misleading).
> > However, the photo is a very tasteful nude shot from the film
> > ''Titanic'', and is used to enrich that article's narrative about the
> > movie - not to mention that it's a partial nude, with only a left breast
> > visible.
> >
> > I don't know the uploader's motivation, and I share your suspicion that
> > many people might try to cause disruption by uploading such photos.
> > However, the best response to that, in my opinion, is to have clear
> > policies on the matter. Then the trolls can do whatever they want, and
> > we just decide quickly how to deal with the matter. Such policies might
> > evolve out of precedents like Autofellatio and this photo.
> >
> > Erik
>
> Frankly, I see nothing particularly offensive about the photo. I see
> no need to have it deleted on the spot as pornographic or anything
> like that.
>
> However, I also believe that there is room for constructive discussion
> about its use on any particular article. I'm one of the three people
> in the US who have not seen this movie, so I cannot comment on this
> particular scene's importance to the overall movie.
>
> What does concern me is the tone that is used by some people on each
> side in these conversations. One one hand we have people who want no
> nudity in Wikipedia at all, and who seem to consider almost any nudity
> as offensive. On the other hand, we have those people who consider
> almost any discussion about such images as being extreme prudism or
> attempted censorship. From both sides there is name-calling and
> labeling.
>
> I take it as a given that we don't want to encourage censorship on
> Wikipedia. There is significant weight to the argument that "when you
> go to an encyclopedia article about the penis, you should expect to
> see a penis," though some "decency" advocates will insist otherwise.
>
> On the other hand, I also take it as a given that we want to encourage
> good editorial judgment on wikipedia. If I go to an encyclopedia
> article about a kneecap, I don't expect to see a penis along with the
> kneecap. I fear that, if some "free-speech advocates" have their way,
> removing such a photo from the Kneecap article would be dubbed as
> censorship.
>
> Somewhere in between those two examples lie situations such as the
> Winslet (partial) nude being used on the [[Titanic (1997 movie)]]
> article. People of integrity, intelligence and good intention can
> disagree about it.
>
> Can we do so without hurling vitriol at one another?
>
> -- Rich Holton
>
> [[W:en:User:Rholton]]

Hear, hear. You worded it exactly right. I totally agree.
--Mgm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Nude Kate Winslet Picture

body:
> X-Original-To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
> Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 09:27:34 -0700
> From: Tom Haws <hawstom at sprintmail.com>
> X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Sender: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (2004-09-13) on orwen.epoptic.com
> X-Spam-Level:
> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=4.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
> 	version=3.0.0
>
> Rick wrote:
>
> >The community HAS resolved this non-problem.  It has
> >decided, by consensus, that there is nothing wrong
> >with having images like this.
> >
> I hope this is not so.  I don't tend to be vocal in these debates, but I
> will feel a strong regret if the encyclopedia becomes the bulletin board
> for such a community.

Hear him, hear him!

> I would like to suggest from my own experience a possible factor that
> tends to consistently skew debates on these subjects.  Some of you may
> be surprised, but most of you will sympathize with the idea that I find
> the mere subject line of the current thread to be embarrassing and
> discouraging to my participation.  I am very hesitant to visit, even for
> the noblest reasons, some of the arenas where these debates have run
> (autofel..., clit...).  I am a father, a brother, a husband, a church
> elder, an engineer, and many other roles in which I am loathe to be
> associated with the subjects of these debates.  I suggest that many,
> many others like me who have opinions that there is something wrong with
> including images like this also have various reasons to be discouraged
> from participating in debates about the same images.  I am very sorry
> that we are absent from such debates, but it just happens that they are
> framed in ways and carried on in places that discourage our active
> participation.

Not to mention the fact that anyone who simply explains that, for
whatever reason, he is made uncomfortable or inconvenienced by such
pictures or discussions is personally attacked and ridiculed for being
at best a childish person who should be spending his time at
Yahooligans, probably an advocate of oppressive censorship, and at
worst a psychotic.

Those personal attacks, especially those from privileged characters
who are absolved from censure, have a strong chilling effect on the
conversation.

--
 Sean Barrett     | Too low they build, who build
 sean at epoptic.com | beneath the stars. --Edward Young


body:
Tim Starling (t.starling at physics.unimelb.edu.au) [050413 05:49]:

> People who've asked me for sock puppet checks in the past probably know
> that I'm much more permissive than this. My personal guidelines have been:
> 1. Only research bad people. The first thing I do when I get a request
> is to look up the user's contributions and make sure that they have
> indeed been vandalising. The privacy of good users should be sacrosanct,
> even if they are using sock puppets. (The exception to this is RFA)
> 2. Do not give away IP addresses unless it's necessary. In 90% of cases
> I interpret the IP evidence myself and give the requester a statement
> such as "yes they are probably the same person" or "they share the same
> ISP".

Please do add the text of this message to [[m:CheckUser]].

- d.


from_name: Puddl Duk

body:
On 4/12/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> Puddl Duk (puddlduk at gmail.com) [050413 02:36]:
> > On Apr 12, 2005 8:35 AM, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
>
> > > > ...invasion of privacy by potentially removing anonymity from the use of
> > > > Wikipedia. Please let this tool be a last resort in serious cases.
>
> > > Precisely. That's why anyone using it needs to have an awareness of these
> > > issues and proceed with extreme caution.
>
> > Guarantees of restraint from the current users of this feature are
> > fine, I'm sure that Tim and David are trustworthy, but that's the here
> > and now. The feature needs some built in oversight.
>
> Those with access to it see all uses, ever. Tim has also made this list
> available to others.
>
>
> > Users should be notified when CheckUser is run on them (something like
> > a message notice, that only they can see).   Waerth noted that this
> > will cause some controversy with users when they see they have been
> > investigated, which is true. But this makes a good deterrent of abuse.
> >  Anyone who runs it will have a damn good reason, knowing that they
> > may have to explain themselves.  Also, many requests for sockpuppet
> > checks are public, so informing the users who were checked isn't any
> > different in these cases.
>
> You're writing the code to do this, then?

No, I'm not. You've a suggestion for user notification that doesn't
require code?

>
> > Waerth also notes on, meta, that 90% of the checks will be on innocent
> > users. If this is the case, then I have to question how solid the
> > reasoning is for checking those 90%.
>
> One thing I've just asked on [[m:CheckUser]] is for ideas on what the
> criteria should be. As I noted, spurious allegations of sockpuppetry are de
> rigeur on en: arbitration cases. One thing that frustrates me at present is
> there are quite a few I think I should *maybe* look into but don't feel
> certain enough to because there isn't a clear case to hand.
>
>
> > Finally, notifying a registered user when their identity is checked is
> > just a decent thing to do.
>
> There is that. OTOH, when I was investigating the socks of the 'Baku Ibne'
> troll, I came across use of the same IPs by good users and checked their
> IPs as well. Now, should we be revealing too much information to them about
> an ongoing investigation?
>
> And also: any website will look through the logs in detail if they suspect
> abuse. The devs do this *all the time already*. And they *do not* notify
> anyone in particular. The key to this feature is not doing anything that
> isn't done already, it's giving access to a small subset of it to people
> who aren't actually Wikimedia system administrators, mostly so the system
> administrators can get on with running the site.
>
> - d.
>

Sure, dev's do this *all the time already*, but were talking about
expanding a new feature to non-devs. There should be transperency and
accountability to check possible abuse.


from_name: Andre Engels

body:
On 4/13/05, Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:
> A link in the edit summary
>        GFDL, copied from http://__.wikipedia.org/wiki/____
> should be sufficient in cases where display of the notice in the body is
> clearly impractical.

Better would be to give the usernames of the main authors as well.

Andre Engels


from_name: Richard Holton

subject: [Wikitech-l] REDIRECT to anchor

body:
On 4/13/05, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
> [[m:Help:Redirect#A redirect to an anchor]] states that:
> ----
> An example of this:
>  <nowiki>#REDIRECT [[definitions#G]]</nowiki>
> This is not possible. You will still be redirected to
> <nowiki>[[definitions]]</nowiki> but you will not be sent to the #G anchor.
> This feature '''will not''' be implemented in the future, so such redirects
> should not be used.
> ----
> When was that last sentence added, and by whom, and on what authority?
>
> There is minimal discussion on the talk page, which ends with one of the
> participants declaring their intent to drop a Feature Request on
> [[m:MediaWiki feature request and bug report discussion]], but nothing is
> said about any decision to forbid this change.
>
> Did I miss something?
> --

The edit summary for the change in question reads: Making desc. of
anchored redirects match "How to edit a page"

Apparently, this refers to [[W:en:wikipedia:How to edit a page]].
Perhaps there you can find more information.

-- Rich Holton

[[W:en:User:Rholton]]


from_name: Chris O'Regan

body:
>From: Blair P.Houghton <blair at houghton.net>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 21, Issue 44
>Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 00:35:38 +0000 (UTC)
>
>Seth Ilys <seth.ilys at ...> writes:

> > However, if you have evidence that POV and vandalism are running
> > rampant and unchecked on the 'pedia, I'd love to see it. I rather
> > think you're being alarmist, Blair.
>
>Go read some articles.  If you don't see the POV and fallacy,
>question the depth of your own knowledge.

This argument is rather fallacious. If POV and poor quality are as rampant
as you suggest, it should be easy enough for you to provide us with numerous
examples. It's not a basis for proof of your allegation that only you and
certain others are smart enough or realistic enough to see that it is true.
Particularly, the idea that vandalism, in general, is unchecked, rather than
in certain instances, would require some substantiation.

--Lacrimosus.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Nude Kate Winslet Picture

body:
On 4/13/05, Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Maybe you'd be more comfortable at something like
> yahooligans.
>

Comments like the above really to not contribute to the discussion.

-- Rich Holton

[[W:en:User:Rholton]]


from_name: Chad Perrin

subject: [WikiEN-l] Nude Kate Winslet Picture

body:
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 02:47:28PM +0100, Tony Sidaway wrote:
> Kevin Rector said:
> > What Geni said.
>
> Well what Geni said seemed rather vague, but your accusation sounded to me
> rather more specific.  Which particular incidents of alleged "searching
> out" are you referring to?

I hope KR doesn't take your bait on this.

While I'm inclined to agree with your sentiment on this matter, at least
moreso than the converse, it seems blindingly obvious to me that the
"accusation" in question was meant as an expression of a perceived
trend, from one person's perspective.  I think the word "accusation" is
a misrepresentation of what was intended.  If you want to dispute that
intended statement, perhaps it would be more productive to simply
dispute it by saying "That hasn't been my experience at all," rather
than trying to set anyone up for a rhetorical spanking.

Correct me if I'm wrong in any of my suppositions, please.

--
Chad Perrin
[ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]


subject: [WikiEN-l] Nude Kate Winslet Picture

body:
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 09:18:50AM -0500, Kevin Rector wrote:
> I have ZERO desire to get into a legal debate wherein I have to waste my

[snip]

Whoops.  This is what I get for not reading the rest of the thread
before I reply to something.

On one hand, I'm glad you didn't take the bait in TS's email.  On the
other hand, I think you're overreacting to the possible implications of
the Winslet image.

Of course, I don't actually (personally) have a specific stance on the
image itself; perhaps something else would be more fitting for the
article in question, but until it comes along I don't see why that image
won't do.  My major concern is that I don't want to see a matter of
official policy arise from something like this that, in the future,
might turn out to have been ill-conceived, but might become entrenched
nonetheless.

--
Chad Perrin
[ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]


subject: [WikiEN-l] Nude Kate Winslet Picture

body:
> The community HAS resolved this non-problem.  It has
> decided, by consensus, that there is nothing wrong
> with having images like this.  Just because it hasn't
> acceded your point of view on a topic which many think
> is much ado about nothing, doesn't mean that the
> community is dysfunctional.

No Rick, the community spends considerable (mind blowing amounts really)
of energy bickering, arguing, and fighting instead of doing constructive
work. That's dysfunction.

>
> Maybe you'd be more comfortable at something like
> yahooligans.

Ah Rick, that was such a clever and subtle insult. If I called you out
for being a jerk you'll say something like, "well you don't want to see
boobs and they don't have any at Yahooligans". So you can hint that
perhaps I'm just being childish without actually saying it. That was
very clever indeed.

-Kevin


from_name: Wouter Steenbeek

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Conflict between two Wikipedias

body:
This is familiar kind of problem, remember the quite recent controversy with
Serbocrotian on the one, and Serbian, Croatian and Bosniak on the other. I,
as a Western European, could easily dismiss claims on speaking a separate
language as politically inspired nonsense, but in countries like these with
a heavily charged recent past, questions like these are controversial. On
the other hand, this discussion is also current in Moldovia itself, I heard.
I propose that you allow Latin script Moldavian on ro: only, and that you
look for five enthousiasts (including you yourself, of course) for the
Moldovian-only Cyrillic version, not to be allowed on ro:, since virtually
no Romanians can read it. The rest of the procedure must be familiar to you,
I suppose. This leaves only the question of the name: ro-cy or mol-cy. Do
you consider this an appropriate solution?

Wouter

_________________________________________________________________
Direct antwoord op je vragen: gebruik MSN Messenger http://messenger.msn.nl/


subject: [WikiEN-l] Kate Winslet Picture

body:
> I hope this is not so.  I don't tend to be vocal in these debates, but
I
> will feel a strong regret if the encyclopedia becomes the bulletin
board
> for such a community.
>
> I would like to suggest from my own experience a possible factor that
> tends to consistently skew debates on these subjects.  Some of you may
> be surprised, but most of you will sympathize with the idea that I
find
> the mere subject line of the current thread to be embarrassing and
> discouraging to my participation.  I am very hesitant to visit, even
for
> the noblest reasons, some of the arenas where these debates have run
> (autofel..., clit...).  I am a father, a brother, a husband, a church
> elder, an engineer, and many other roles in which I am loathe to be
> associated with the subjects of these debates.  I suggest that many,
> many others like me who have opinions that there is something wrong
with
> including images like this also have various reasons to be discouraged
> from participating in debates about the same images.  I am very sorry
> that we are absent from such debates, but it just happens that they
are
> framed in ways and carried on in places that discourage our active
> participation.
>
> Tom Haws

Well said, I sorry for having not taking that into consideration for the
subject line when starting the thread.

-Kevin


from_name: Rowan Collins

subject: [Wikitech-l] wiki 2 html converter

body:
On 4/13/05, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
> Trying to create a separate program from scratch seems a bit silly, I'm
> not sure why people keep doing it over and over when it's fairly trivial
> to make a maintenance script for MediaWiki that runs the parser on each
> page and dumps the output.

For some of the many attempts people *have* made, see
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Alternative_parsers

But yeah, for just dumping, I guess command-line access to the "real
thing" makes a lot more sense.

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


from_name: Snowspinner

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: VfD relisting time

body:
My feeling is usually that it's inappropriate to relist an article for
any form of deletion unless there is either new reason to delete ("Oh
shit, it's copyvio too.") or unless there is some sign that there's
been a significant change in community consensus (As happened with
autofellatio.jpg). Conceivably this could happen within 17 hours, but
the odds seem against it.

-Snowspinner

On Apr 13, 2005, at 10:54 AM, David Gerard wrote:

> David 'DJ' Hedley (spyders at btinternet.com) [050414 01:50]:
>
>> If there is no consensus then a quick re-listing is fine. Of course
>> theres
>> re-listing vandalism, but that is dealt with.
>
>
> The default on VFD is to keep unless there's a consensus to delete.
>
> Relisting seventeen hours later is obvious gaming of the system. That
> the
> article is a crappy semi-autobiography doesn't change that.
>
>
> - d.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Charles Matthews

subject: [WikiEN-l] Alexa breakout

body:
Not Kate Winslet, but easy on the eye:

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&range=3m&size=large&compare_sites=&y=t&url=en.wikipedia.org

Charles


subject: [WikiEN-l] Nude Kate Winslet Picture

body:
Wikipedia is not censored for minors. However, we tend to pick the best
image for a situation. In the case of [[Clitoris]], there's a very
strong case for this involving, well, the clitoris. In the case of
[[autofellatio]] there's a good case.

I'm not convinced that a screen capture from Titanic is the best image
for [[Kate Winslet]] - for one thing, Leonardo DiCaprio is in that
shot. Then again, the picture is in [[Titanic (1997 movie)]], not in
[[Kate Winslet]]. And there I think the picture is considerably more
reasonable - it is a major scene in the film.

What is neither reasonable nor helpful is when these discussions turn
into endless referendums on boobies. The fact that Wikipedia will
contain boobies, as well as other naughty bits, is pretty much evident.
The general and philosophical polemics are not helpful. The relevant
question and discussion is whether the image is the best choice FOR A
GIVEN ARTICLE. And that discussion, surely, is better suited to, oh,
say, the article talk page than to the mailing list.

Really. We don't need to come running here every time we see a nipple.

OMG NIPPLE!

-Snowspinner


from_name: Karl A. Krueger

subject: [WikiEN-l] Nude Kate Winslet Picture

body:
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 09:18:50AM -0500, Kevin Rector wrote:
> Wikipedia is a community and an encyclopedia. We should be about the
> business of making a community and an encyclopedia (probably in that
> order since a good community will make a good encyclopedia but a good
> encyclopedia will not make a good community -- although it does help to
> draw people to the community).
>
> When something disrupts the building of community and when that
> disruption provides less benefit than the potential harm to the
> community (and the encyclopedia) then that something should be removed.

I see a real problem with that argument:  it can be applied to, well,
just about anything.  There are people who are offended by explicit
religious content.  There are people who are offended by claims that the
Nanjing massacre or the Armenian genocide took place.

(By the way -- don't view the [[Nanjing massacre]] article with image
display turned on unless you are willing to see highly disturbing images
of massacre victims.  And do not *read* that article at all unless you
are willing to read disturbing descriptions of war crimes.)

There are people who are apparently offended by frank discussions of the
beliefs of the inner circles of the Church of Scientology.  Some of
these people have made it their modus operandi to disrupt "communities"
where those beliefs are discussed.  Would it be preferable to exclude
this content and thereby avoid provoking such people to do things that
"harm the community"?  Jimbo apparently didn't think so when he approved
the use of [[Xenu]] as a feature article of the day.

Once you make the argument that material that offends someone can be
considered "disrupting Wikipedia" because it provokes that person to
make an unpleasant fuss that "harms the community", where do you stop?

I suggest that it is a much better rule that people who are easily
offended should instead take responsibility for their own exposure to
the kinds of material that they know offend them.  They should be
expected to know themselves -- [[Gnothi seauton]] -- and conduct
themselves in a manner that does not lead to them disrupting the
encyclopedia project.

It seems to me that if anyone here is in the habit of "disrupting
Wikipedia to make a point" it is those who persist in calling for the
deletion of images on no other grounds but their own personal dislike.

--
Karl A. Krueger <kkrueger at whoi.edu>


from_name: Steve Rapaport

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: foundation-l Digest, Vol 13, Issue 12

body:
PixelACHE 05 Stockholm Panel, April 12 2005
Finnish Embassy, Stockholm

Our own Anth?re was on a panel of 4 speakers, on the topic of
"Dot-org Boom": How internet organizations are taking their place alongside
journalists and experts. She spoke on the history and success of Wikipedia.

Judging by the comments, Wikipedia was definitely the star of the day.
Attendance<http://gmail.google.com/gmail?view=att&disp=thd&attid=0.4&th=1033adf97eac808c>included
Lars Aronsson, the founder of "Project Runeberg" (the swedish
Project Gutenberg) and "susning.nu", a Swedish project similar to Wikipedia
that had great success during 2001-2002 before the Swedish wiki started to
pick up steam.

The panel
http://gmail.google.com/gmail?view=att&disp=inline&attid=0.8&th=1033adf97eac808cincluded
Naeem Mohaiemen
(from New York, London and Bangladesh) who spoke on a combination of
participatory websites and art installations he has created to draw
attention to the American muslim community and the gap between their
perception in America and the reality.

There were thre more speakers:
Robert Stachel (Austria, topic:
community tv and radio), Kai Kuikkaniemi (Finland, topic:
digitalopenandfree.org <http://digitalopenandfree.org>), Juha Huuskonen
(Finland, topic: electronic
subcultures).

I think I can confidently say that Florence's talk was the best received and
the most relevant to the audience, at the end of the day. She's an excellent
speaker, by the way.

If there's interest I can write more about the 4 speeches.

Steve Rapaport

On 4/13/05, foundation-l-request at wikimedia.org <
foundation-l-request at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> Send foundation-l mailing list submissions to
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> foundation-l-request at wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> foundation-l-owner at wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of foundation-l digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. TheWorldForum.org <http://TheWorldForum.org> adds Wikinews logo (Erik
> Moeller)
> 2. Re: Comment on Copyright Orphans (Ray Saintonge)
> 3. Re: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Expanding CheckUser permissions
> (David Gerard)
> 4. Re: TheWorldForum.org <http://TheWorldForum.org> adds Wikinews logo
> (Sj)
> 5. Re: TheWorldForum.org <http://TheWorldForum.org> adds Wikinews logo
> (Tim Starling)
> 6. Re: Re: TheWorldForum.org <http://TheWorldForum.org> adds Wikinews logo
> (Ray Saintonge)
> 7. Talking about stewards (Walter van Kalken)
> 8. Did I just violate the GFDL? (Richard Holton)
> 9. Re: Did I just violate the GFDL? (Erik Moeller)
> 10. Re: TheWorldForum.org <http://TheWorldForum.org> adds Wikinews logo
> (Angela)
> 11. Re: Did I just violate the GFDL? (Andre Engels)
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 19:19:06 +0200
> From: Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de>
> Subject: [Foundation-l] TheWorldForum.org <http://TheWorldForum.org> adds
> Wikinews logo
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>,
> wikinews-l at wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <425C030A.9040109 at gmx.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
>
> Hi,
>
> for the last couple of months, Wikinews and The World Forum
> (www.theworldforum.org <http://www.theworldforum.org>) have enjoyed a very
> productive cooperation. TWF
> reposts Wikinews stories (allowing us to appear on the news.google.com<http://news.google.com>
> frontpage several times), and the editor, "Drog", has now also started
> submitting his own stories to Wikinews as public domain.
>
> I've given Drog the go-ahead to link to Wikinews using our logo on the
> frontpage. I thought that given the recent discussions about logo
> copyright & licensing, it might be a good idea to report this here.
>
> (On a related note, I feel that David Vasquez has done an excellent job
> refining the logo. It looks much more optimistic and welcoming than the
> logos of most news sites.)
>
> All best,
>
> Erik
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:41:11 -0700
> From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Comment on Copyright Orphans
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <425C1647.5040606 at telus.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
>
> Yann Forget wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >Le Tuesday 12 April 2005 16:35, The Cunctator a ?crit :
> >
> >
> >>We should be making an official comment on the issue of copyright
> orphans
> >>now before the U.S. Copyright Office. The deadline is May 9.
> >>
> >>From http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/:
> >>
> >>
> >(...)
> >
> >
> >>This is clearly something the Wikimedia Foundation should officially
> weigh
> >>in on.
> >>
> >>
> >I totally agree with this.
> >
> I already put my previous submissions into the mailing list. It's No.
> 697 in the records of the Copyright Office. All 714 submissions may be
> read as pdf files. Is there a way to do a text search for all those pdf
> files to see if any other submissions used the string "wiki"?
>
> The current round of submissions is for responses to what has already
> been submitted. In the sampling that I have looked at there seems to be
> a very strong something-needs-to-be-done trend.
>
> One observation that I have made about the submissions favouring the
> status quo is the emphasis on the rights of current authors, and seem
> not to mention the rights of the author's descendants at all. Having
> Life + 70 really doesn't do anything for the authors themselves. More
> ironic is their tendency to view proposed changes to the copyright
> regime as attempts by corporate interests to undermine the rights of
> authors and artists. It seems to me that the corporate interests have
> sold them a bill of goods.
>
> Another important article to read from "Wired" is this by Julian
> Dibbell: http://wired-vig.wired.com/wired/archive/12.11/linux.html
> There is a lot for many of us to learn from what is going on in Brazil.
>
> Ec
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 04:43:36 +1000
> From: David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] Expanding CheckUser
> permissions
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>,
> wikipedia-l at wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <20050412184336.GP23009 at thingy.apana.org.au>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Puddl Duk (puddlduk at gmail.com) [050413 02:36]:
> > On Apr 12, 2005 8:35 AM, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
>
> > > > ...invasion of privacy by potentially removing anonymity from the
> use of
> > > > Wikipedia. Please let this tool be a last resort in serious cases.
>
> > > Precisely. That's why anyone using it needs to have an awareness of
> these
> > > issues and proceed with extreme caution.
>
> > Guarantees of restraint from the current users of this feature are
> > fine, I'm sure that Tim and David are trustworthy, but that's the here
> > and now. The feature needs some built in oversight.
>
> Those with access to it see all uses, ever. Tim has also made this list
> available to others.
>
> > Users should be notified when CheckUser is run on them (something like
> > a message notice, that only they can see). Waerth noted that this
> > will cause some controversy with users when they see they have been
> > investigated, which is true. But this makes a good deterrent of abuse.
> > Anyone who runs it will have a damn good reason, knowing that they
> > may have to explain themselves. Also, many requests for sockpuppet
> > checks are public, so informing the users who were checked isn't any
> > different in these cases.
>
> You're writing the code to do this, then?
>
> > Waerth also notes on, meta, that 90% of the checks will be on innocent
> > users. If this is the case, then I have to question how solid the
> > reasoning is for checking those 90%.
>
> One thing I've just asked on [[m:CheckUser]] is for ideas on what the
> criteria should be. As I noted, spurious allegations of sockpuppetry are
> de
> rigeur on en: arbitration cases. One thing that frustrates me at present
> is
> there are quite a few I think I should *maybe* look into but don't feel
> certain enough to because there isn't a clear case to hand.
>
> > Finally, notifying a registered user when their identity is checked is
> > just a decent thing to do.
>
> There is that. OTOH, when I was investigating the socks of the 'Baku Ibne'
> troll, I came across use of the same IPs by good users and checked their
> IPs as well. Now, should we be revealing too much information to them
> about
> an ongoing investigation?
>
> And also: any website will look through the logs in detail if they suspect
> abuse. The devs do this *all the time already*. And they *do not* notify
> anyone in particular. The key to this feature is not doing anything that
> isn't done already, it's giving access to a small subset of it to people
> who aren't actually Wikimedia system administrators, mostly so the system
> administrators can get on with running the site.
>
> - d.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 12:32:26 -0700
> From: Sj <2.718281828 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] TheWorldForum.org <http://TheWorldForum.org>adds Wikinews logo
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <742dfd0605041212321c49fd1e at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Yes, M. Vasquez managed to polish a vaguely worrisome logo into a
> world-class one. And with the wikinews skin redesign approaching...
> the *fully operational* wikistar will be beautiful as well.
>
> SJ
>
> > (On a related note, I feel that David Vasquez has done an excellent job
> > refining the logo. It looks much more optimistic and welcoming than the
> > logos of most news sites.)
>
> Does anyone know of other uses of a globe icon rotated to that longitude?
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 05:55:10 +1000
> From: Tim Starling <t.starling at physics.unimelb.edu.au>
> Subject: [Foundation-l] Re: TheWorldForum.org <http://TheWorldForum.org>adds Wikinews logo
> To: foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <d3h8t4$9ke$1 at sea.gmane.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Sj wrote:
> > Does anyone know of other uses of a globe icon rotated to that
> longitude?
>
> An amusing example:
>
> http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm
>
> "Uncle Joe (Stalin), Churchill, and Roosevelt laid the master plan to
> bring in the New Age under the United Nations," Johnson discloses with
> confidence. "The world ruling power was to be right here in this
> country. After the war, the world would be declared flat and Roosevelt
> would be elected first president of the world. When the UN Charter was
> drafted in San Francisco, they took the flat-earth map as their symbol."
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 13:30:36 -0700
> From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Re: TheWorldForum.org<http://TheWorldForum.org>adds Wikinews logo
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <425C2FEC.8030504 at telus.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>
> Tim Starling wrote:
>
> >Sj wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Does anyone know of other uses of a globe icon rotated to that
> longitude?
> >>
> >>
> >An amusing example:
> >
> >http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm
> >
> >"Uncle Joe (Stalin), Churchill, and Roosevelt laid the master plan to
> >bring in the New Age under the United Nations," Johnson discloses with
> >confidence. "The world ruling power was to be right here in this
> >country. After the war, the world would be declared flat and Roosevelt
> >would be elected first president of the world. When the UN Charter was
> >drafted in San Francisco, they took the flat-earth map as their symbol."
> >
> LBJ could only wish so much.
>
> Some of his successors still believe that they have been elected leaders
> of the free world.
>
> Ec
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 07:42:40 +0700
> From: Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net>
> Subject: [Foundation-l] Talking about stewards
> To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org, Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <425C6B00.2010405 at vankalken.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>
> With all the talk about stewards ...... I thought the stewardcollection
> would be expanded in March? Either through election or by Jimbo's choice?
>
> Waerth/Walter
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 22:45:34 -0500
> From: Richard Holton <richholton at gmail.com>
> Subject: [Foundation-l] Did I just violate the GFDL?
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <4a37983b0504122045749fab74 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> I just copied the contents of [[template:inuse]] from en:wikipedia to
> meta, to a page of the same name. Do I also need to copy the edit
> history? Or do I need to link back to the en page? Or just mention
> that it came from the en wikipedia?
>
> Should I sleep with my boots on in case the GFDL police come beating on my
> door?
>
> --Rich Holton
>
> [[W:en:User:Rholton]]
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 06:13:44 +0200
> From: Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Did I just violate the GFDL?
> To: Richard Holton <richholton at gmail.com>, Wikimedia Foundation
> Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <425C9C78.8010007 at gmx.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> A link in the edit summary
> GFDL, copied from http://__.wikipedia.org/wiki/____
> should be sufficient in cases where display of the notice in the body is
> clearly impractical.
>
> Erik
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 08:40:09 +0200
> From: Angela <beesley at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] TheWorldForum.org <http://TheWorldForum.org>adds Wikinews logo
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <8b722b80050412234028ab80c1 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On 4/12/05, Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:
> > I've given Drog the go-ahead to link to Wikinews using our logo on the
> > frontpage.
>
> http://www.theworldforum.org/
>
> World Forum is not just using the logo. It is also claiming to be "In
> Association With Wikinews", which implies a lot more than simply
> making use of our content.
>
> The logo appears directly underneath a "Visit our advertisers" notice.
> This needs to be removed to prevent people being misled into thinking
> that their donations to the Foundation are being wasted on paying for
> advertising on such sites.
>
> Something stating that _some_ content is from Wikinews would be more
> appropriate. At the moment, the Wikinews logo appears more prominently
> than the site's own logo, giving the impression that Wikinews has far
> more influence over the site than it does.
>
> Angela.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 10:19:23 +0200
> From: Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Did I just violate the GFDL?
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <6faf39c9050413011943a43041 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On 4/13/05, Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:
> > A link in the edit summary
> > GFDL, copied from http://__.wikipedia.org/wiki/____
> > should be sufficient in cases where display of the notice in the body is
> > clearly impractical.
>
> Better would be to give the usernames of the main authors as well.
>
> Andre Engels
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
> End of foundation-l Digest, Vol 13, Issue 12
> ********************************************
>
>

--
\Steve


body:
Not with a name like MacGyverMagic. With a name like that you should be
able to take some table salt, a shoe, a Swiss Army knife, and some duct
tape and make a microphone and recording software. :)

-Kevin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-
> bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of MacGyverMagic/Mgm
> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 12:23 PM
> To: English Wikipedia
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia
>
> Is being broke enough of an excuse?
>
> On 4/13/05, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> > MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
> > > Too bad my system is ancient and hasn't got the capabilities to
record
> > > anything due to missing software and microphones. I do encourage
the
> > > project, though.
> >
> > Headsets with microphones are available for a child's pocket money.
> > Recording software is available for free (for Windows, for example,
> > Audacity). You have no excuse! ;-)
> >
> > Timwi
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Nude Kate Winslet Picture

body:
Tom Haws wrote:

> Rick wrote:
>
>> The community HAS resolved this non-problem.  It has
>> decided, by consensus, that there is nothing wrong
>> with having images like this.
>
> I hope this is not so.  I don't tend to be vocal in these debates, but
> I will feel a strong regret if the encyclopedia becomes the bulletin
> board for such a community.
>
> I would like to suggest from my own experience a possible factor that
> tends to consistently skew debates on these subjects.  Some of you may
> be surprised, but most of you will sympathize with the idea that I
> find the mere subject line of the current thread to be embarrassing
> and discouraging to my participation.  I am very hesitant to visit,
> even for the noblest reasons, some of the arenas where these debates
> have run (autofel..., clit...).  I am a father, a brother, a husband,
> a church elder, an engineer, and many other roles in which I am loathe
> to be associated with the subjects of these debates.  I suggest that
> many, many others like me who have opinions that there is something
> wrong with including images like this also have various reasons to be
> discouraged from participating in debates about the same images.  I am
> very sorry that we are absent from such debates, but it just happens
> that they are framed in ways and carried on in places that discourage
> our active participation.

I have no problem admitting that I am on the permissive end of this
issue.  At the same time I recognize that some people find certain
images to be offensive.  Thus I have no problem with a solution that
would provide opportunities for some people to be spared from having to
see these images.

What is most disturbing about some others at my end of the spectrum is
that their motivation with such images is more rooted in trying to prove
a point than in providing relevant illustrations for an article.  The
movie was "Titanic",  not "Tit-anic".  It would be nice if the people
who put up these pictures were as mature as their content, and if they
stopped encouraging arguments between the offended and the offensive.

Ec


from_name: Tony Sidaway

body:
Alphax said:
> Tim Starling wrote:
>
>>I use Gmane, with my mailing list subscriptions set to "nomail" in my
>>mailman preferences.
>>
>>-- Tim Starling
>>
>>
> I don't have access to NNTP.

It's not mandatory to use NNTP.  You can also access this list via normal
SMTP or you can read it by browsing new entries in the archive by HTTP.
As of this email, the latest item in the archive is timestamped ten
minutes ago and corresponds to the latest entry in my mailbox.  You can
only post using SMTP and NNTP, however.


from_name: Nicolay A. Vasiliev

subject: [Wikitech-l] Wikipedia images

body:
Hello there!

Explain me please where can I get image files for Wikipediia to install
it to my site?

TIA


subject: [Wikitech-l] Language conversion

body:
Milos Rancic wrote:

>On 4/13/05, Milos Rancic <millosh at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Serbian word for "milk" is in ekavian "mleko", but in iyekavian it is
>>"mlijeko". So, with some markup can bi written like "ml{e|ije}ko";
>>"bred" is "hleb" in ekavian and "hljeb" in iyekavian, so it should be
>>written like "h{l|lj}eb". No one should be forced to use markup, but
>>there are some people at sr: who would do that.
>>
>>
>My English is bad... Sentence "No one should be forced to use markup,
>but there are some people at sr: who woudl do that." should be "No one
>should be forced to use markup, but there are some people at sr: who
>would markup texts." :)
>
I am sure that there are some people who would both use the markup and
try to force others to do it too. :-)

While I recognize that there are long established traditions favouring
the two script approach to Serbian, I think that the ekavian/iyekavian
distinction is going too far.  It makes the idea of a single Serbian
language a joke, and shows the language as incapable of establishing
standards.  If the variants in Republika Srpska and Montenegro insist on
their own varieties it turns the whole idea of Serbian nationalism into
a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta.

For the English Wikipedia to work it had to come to terms with the
differences between British and American English as well as many other
varieties of English.  Canadian English, for example, uses a combination
of the two main forms of the language.  The same is true of the other
European languages whose native form has varied considerably from what
has become the standard in geographically distant former colonies.  The
places that use these other varieties of Serbian are at least contiguous
with the Serbian heartland.

The rest of the world doesn't give a damn about this petty whining
between Serbian nationalist factions.  Maybe they should just learn to
get along with each other.

Ec


from_name: Delirium

subject:
[Foundation-l] Re: [Wikinews-l] TheWorldForum.org adds Wikinews
	logo

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

> Erik Moeller wrote:
>
>> I've given Drog the go-ahead to link to Wikinews using our logo on
>> the frontpage. I thought that given the recent discussions about logo
>> copyright & licensing, it might be a good idea to report this here.
>
>
>
> Erik, you had absolutely no right to do this.  Please and politely let
> them know that they do not have authorization to use the logo in this
> fashion, and please acknowledge to us that you realize that you should
> not have done this.

While the current placement doesn't qualify, I don't see why they need
"authorization" to use the logo to link to Wikipedia.  That's a clearly
factual use of the logo covered by fair use, and in fact we do the same
thing with other companies' logos in thousands of Wikipedia articles.

-Mark


subject: [Wikitech-l] Wikipedia images

body:
On 4/13/05, Nicolay A. Vasiliev <nvasiliev at whiteriversoft.com> wrote:

> Explain me please where can I get image files for Wikipediia to install
> it to my site?

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking for, but I'll try and answer anyway:
* if you mean the software that runs Wikipedia, you want to download
MediaWiki - see http://mediawiki.org
* if you mean the database of articles from a particular Wikipedia, go
to http://download.wikimedia.org and see also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_download Beware - the
database for larger wikis is fairly large...
* if you mean literal actual images, I'm not sure if there is a way -
unlike the text of the articles, images are submitted under various
different licences, so offering bundles for download is fairly awkward
* if you mean something else, you'll have to try and describe it more fully

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


from_name: Blanke, Tobias

subject: [Wikitech-l] html img tag

body:
Hello,

i want to add images to my wikipages with the html tag

<img ...>

I can't find the position in the source code for modifying

the mediawiki. Can someone help me and give a short

instruction to me. It's for my own wiki I need this feature!

Thanks a lot


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

body:
Me neither. Why can't we have both?

On 4/13/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> Tim Starling wrote:
>
> >SPUI wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Alphax wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Blair P. Houghton wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Sorry about the subject lines...this mailing list really needs to be
> >>>>turned into a newsgroup.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>Newsgroups are not accessable to those without news servers. Email is
> >>>available to anyone with Web access.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Not necessarily; it could be set up on a Wikipedia server to which
> >>anyone could connect.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Gmane is such a server, it's news.gmane.org. It's not part of USENET so
> >it's not included in the Google index. Anyone with access to NNTP (on
> >port 119) and a newsreader (Outlook Express, Thunderbird, etc.) can
> >access it.
> >
> >I use Gmane, with my mailing list subscriptions set to "nomail" in my
> >mailman preferences.
> >
> >-- Tim Starling
> >
> >
> I don't have access to NNTP.
>
> --
> Alphax
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
> There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.' - C. S. Lewis
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [Wikitech-l] html img tag

body:
On 4/13/05, Blanke, Tobias <T.Blanke at bls-hh.de> wrote:
> i want to add images to my wikipages with the html tag
> <img ...>
> I can't find the position in the source code for modifying
> the mediawiki. Can someone help me and give a short
> instruction to me. It's for my own wiki I need this feature!

It looks like you could add to the list of  "allowed tags" in
includes/Parser.php, in the removeHTMLtags() function. You'll also
need to think through what attributes you're hoping to use and make
sure they're included in getHTMLattrs()

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


from_name: Alphax

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: templates boxes: multiplying like rabbits

references:
<425C145D.4000604@quilombo.nl> <d3ha9e$ffq$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<425C625F.3000302@shaw.ca> <d3hoqp$q1b$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
Arwel Parry wrote:

> Bryan Derksen wrote:
>
>> Arwel Parry wrote:
>>
>>> In this particular case, I'd say we could dispense with  the
>>> succession box for "T?naiste", whose data is put in better context
>>> by the "T?naistithe na h?ireann" template at the bottom, and the
>>> "President of Ireland" succession box, whose only improving feature
>>> over the infobox at the top of the page is that it actually shows
>>> pictures of his predecessor and successor as President.
>>>
>> I've consolidated all the succession boxes into one succession box
>> group, how's it look now? I think the redundancy is a price worth
>> paying for the standardization of succession boxes like this, it
>> allows one to quickly click one's way through the Tanaiste and
>> Presidents in order without having to search through the list each time.
>
>
> Looks neater - you've got rid of a lot of wasteful white space. I was
> just thinking that maybe we need a [[Template:Uachtar?in na h?ireann]]
> in the same style as [[Template:T?naistithe na h?ireann]]...
>
Yes, still ditch the T?naiste succession box, and the President
succession box. I think.

--
Alphax
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.' - C. S. Lewis


body:
Blair P. Houghton wrote:

> Sorry about the subject lines...this mailing list really needs to be
> turned into a newsgroup.
>
Newsgroups are not accessable to those without news servers. Email is
available to anyone with Web access.

--
Alphax
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.' - C. S. Lewis


from_name: Tom Haws

subject: [WikiEN-l] Kate Winslet Exposure

body:
Zoney wrote:

>Why cause offence even to a minority when it
>is trivial to avoid doing so without comprimising the article (or
>perhaps even improving it)?
>
>
This reminds me of nagging concerns I have had about many of the images
I have seen used to illustrate human private parts.

First, in too many cases they are, quite simply put, ugly or gross
images.  I realize that we specialize in harnessing dilettantism, and
that means we often get whatever can be produced off-the-cuff in a
moment or two, but we are not winning any awards in the quality
department with ugly snapshots of private parts. See [[Mull of Kintyre
rule]].  Have we no airbrushes or line-drawing artists "on staff"?

Second, also related to our dilettantism, many of the images fail to
illustrate well the subject.  At [[Nipple]] there was a profile of a
female human nipple, but there was no cross-sectional line drawing.  We
came off looking like, well, a dilettantism-driven and troll-infested Wiki.

Is an ugly or gross and controversial image better than no image at all?

Tom


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Nude Kate Winslet Picture

body:
> I take this very seriously.  What's your supporting evidence?

The suspicious speed they have been turning up since the clitorsis
incerdent. Not that I really care. Sonner or latter this will be
settled because everyone will be totaly fed up (the power of apathy to
settle dissputes)

--
geni


from_name: Puddl Duk

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia sock puppet subscribing me to junkmail

body:
On 4/13/05, Christiaan Briggs <christiaan at last-straw.net> wrote:
> Recently I have had a deluge of junkmail, and I have a pretty good idea
> who it is. One of emails (below), from LeadFactory.com, included the IP
> address of the person who subscribed me.
>
> I had a hunch, considering, one, a lot of it is right-wing U.S. and
> Israeli email (of which related articles I've been editing lately) and,
> two, it's the first junkmail I've ever received at this address. So I
> plugged the address into Wikipedia and whatta ya know, a probable sock
> puppet who has been especially abusive to me recently:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:
> Contributions&target=155.84.57.253
>
> You might also like to check out some of the sock puppet's responses to
> requests to stop vandalism and 3RR:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:155.84.57.253
>
> I also did a geographic trace on the IP and they're from Houston Texas.
>
> Can this IP address be permanently banned or something? Is there anyone
> who can check the address against other usernames?
>
> Christiaan

I get a different loaction for this ip;
http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=155.84.57.253

http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=155.84.57.253&email=on

(US Army Corps of Engineers?, Am I doing this wrong.)

Anyway, maybe an email to the address in the second link showing what
this person is doing during company time might have some effect.


from_name: Lars Aronsson

body:
Tim Starling wrote:
> shortly before I got shell access, I was nearly driven crazy by
> a user with 9 sock puppets, each claiming to be a separate
> person. Each would demand my attention, make their own arguments
> and even post bogus real names and addresses to "prove" their
> identity. All these identities were active in the same week.
> It's hard to describe how hard this was for me, but suffice to
> say looking up the guy in the apache logs was the first thing I
> did when I got shell access. I resolved at that point to try to
> help anyone who was in a similar situation.

I think it would help if we could separate these "hard cases" from
the everyday spam and edit wars.  I predict that sociology and
psychology (or psychiatry?) is the next thing in wiki studies,
because only now do we have the size of community where these
things happen.  Has anybody compiled a list of the "worst" cases
and how they were dealt with?

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


body:
Chuck MATTSEN wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 13:41:02 +0930
>Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> typed:
>
>
>
>>Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Sorry about the subject lines...this mailing list really needs to
>>>be turned into a newsgroup.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Newsgroups are not accessable to those without news servers. Email is
>>available to anyone with Web access.
>>
>>
>
>Aren't most of the newsgroups accessible, both for reading and posting,
>via Google now?
>
>
>
Really? How?

--
Alphax
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.' - C. S. Lewis


body:
Yep, as long as we can source it, I'd be happy to be scooping major
news outlets :)

--Mgm

On 4/13/05, Taco Deposit <tacodeposit at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Sourced breaking news is still breaking news. What I'm talking about is this
> trend away from the idea that Wikipedia should wait until something is
> published in major news outlets, and toward the idea that it's great when we
> can scoop said news outlets. If that's the case, the maybe "What Wikipedia
> is not" should be updated.  That's all I'm saying.
>
> TD
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org]
> On Behalf Of MacGyverMagic/Mgm
> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 2:17 AM
> To: English Wikipedia
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia - first with the news
>
> Course not. As long as we can cite sources, we should try to include
> breaking news into our articles. [[Andrea Dworkin]] shows it's
> possible to actually beat the media while still sourcing stuff.
>
> --Mgm
>
> On 4/13/05, Taco Deposit <tacodeposit at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > So is it time to remove "breaking news" from "What Wikipedia is not" yet?
> >
> > TD
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Nude Kate Winslet Picture

body:
geni said:
>Tony Sidaway said:
>>Kevin Rector said:
>> I've come to the realization that people
>> are searching out nude pictures to put in the 'pedia. They are looking
>> to stir up trouble, mostly to make a point.
>> I take this very seriously.  What's your supporting evidence?
>
> The suspicious speed they have been turning up since the clitorsis
> incerdent. Not that I really care. Sonner or latter this will be
> settled because everyone will be totaly fed up (the power of apathy to
> settle dissputes)

Which clitoris incident are you referring to?  According to evidence I
prepared for Arbcom for the Dr Zen case, there has been an inline
photograph on Clitoris ever since Anthere replaced the linked image by an
inline in May, 2004.

Could you give examples from the upload log?  Something demonstrating that
there is a person or a number of persons uploading nude images in a way
that suggests that people are actually "searching out nude pictures to put
in the 'pedia?"  I'd expect to see a pattern of certain people uploading
more than one such picture and trying to sneak it into an article in an
inappropriate way.  Do we in fact have good evidence of this?
You mention a "suspicious speed"?  What is your estimate for the rate at
which nude photographs are being uploaded to Wikipedia?


subject: [WikiEN-l] Nude Kate Winslet Picture

body:
Kevin Rector said:
> What Geni said.

Well what Geni said seemed rather vague, but your accusation sounded to me
rather more specific.  Which particular incidents of alleged "searching
out" are you referring to?


from_name: Neil Harris

subject: [Wikitech-l] Language conversion

body:
zhengzhu wrote:

>I have started to write some documentation about the Chinese
>conversion system at meta:
>
>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chinese_conversion
>
>People interested in implementing conversion systems for other
>languages should take a look at it. Note that most features
>implemented are not Chinese specific.
>
>
>
Fantastic work!

Regarding the word segmentation problem: Googling for "Chinese word
segmentation" gives a large number of references to various interesting
research on this field. There seems to be a lively research community in
this field: perhaps some of them might want to earn kudos points by
collaborating on improving the performance of this module by tackling
some of the common segmentation issues.

Dynamic programming and Hidden Markov methods seem to be popular, and we
must, by now, have a quite large corpus of our own in the zh: wikipedia.

-- Neil


from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: [[m:CheckUser]]

body:
Ben Brockert wrote:
> YA-feature request: how about making it more private for the users?
> Instead of the utility taking one username and giving IP addresses, have
> it take two usernames and have it say whether or not they are the same
> IP? Or the same /24, to catch the dialup users. I don't think all sysops
> should have access to all user's IPs (I say that as a sysop, not as a
> tinfoil'd user), but I also think kicking sockpuppets should occur well
> before arbitration.

Unfortunately the situation is more complex than that. Many users are
behind proxies, either mandated by their ISP or by choice. Occasionally
two legitimate users may use the same public or school computer. Partial
IP matches, such as someone using the same regional ISP, are very useful
despite not being certain. Two users using regional ISPs from different
regions is an excellent indication that they are not the same person.
Dialup pools and DHCP pools for DSL users are usually larger than /24.
If we could make a magic script that somehow compared two IP addresses
and produced a percentage likelihood that they were the same person,
then maybe we could avoid releasing IP addresses. But at present,
allowing competent humans to compare hostnames and traceroutes, check
for open ports, request whois information, visit ISP webpages, etc. is
the only way to produce useful information.

-- Tim Starling


from_name: Elisabeth Bauer

body:
Hello,

Thanks for the report :-)

Steve Rapaport wrote:
> PixelACHE 05 Stockholm Panel, April 12 2005
> Finnish Embassy, Stockholm
>
> Our own Anth?re was on a panel of 4 speakers, on the topic of
> "Dot-org Boom": How internet organizations are taking their place alongside
> journalists and experts. She spoke on the history and success of Wikipedia.

[...]

> If there's interest I can write more about the 4 speeches.

Yes, please do so!

greetings,
elian