body:
Should be fixed now (try a shift/ctrl-reload if not).

// E23

Alwin Meschede ameschede-at-gmx.de |wikipedia| wrote:

> David Friedland schrieb:
>
>> test.wikipedia.org seems to be sending compressed data incorrectly,
>> as both Safari and Firefox just display a bunch of garbage, but it
>> works fine in Mac IE 5.2.
>>
>> Sorry, can't test any other browsers as all I have is a Mac.
>
>
> I can confirm this for Konqueror, Lynx, Mozilla and IE6 :-(
> Someone should really fix that, because I'd love to have the testwiki
> available for some bug chasing...


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: John C. Penta

body:
I like this. We should use it.

My vocabulary is stunted tonight. Who stole my brain?:-)

John

----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Starling <ts4294967296 at hotmail.com>
Date: Saturday, February 14, 2004 10:13 pm
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Anonymous proxies (was Re: Desysop Morwen)

> Sunir Shah has suggested a method for making it blindingly obvious
> that a
> user is about to edit anonymously. Specifically, if the user is
> logged out,
> a username/password box is shown on the edit page. I made a mockup
> of this
> for demostration purposes, at:
>
> http://www.ph.unimelb.edu.au/~tstarling/EditPage_with_login.html
>
> -- Tim Starling


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikipedia-l] image copyright

body:
On Feb 15, 2004, at 19:44, Anthere wrote:
> By the way, is it okay that I relicense all the images I offered
> wikipedia as copyright by Anthere with permission, with a link to my
> user page, instead of under gfdl ?

You can choose to allow that use _as well as_ the GFDL you've already
agreed to. But, once given, I'm not sure you can withdraw the GFDL
permission without cause. (IANAL!)

Keep in mind that if you were to withdraw the GFDL license, the images
would be removed from Wikipedia.

> Because, if I am glad to offer my images under gfdl as a recognised
> author, I do not agree that my images are now registered as under
> copyright by Anthony DiPierro, with my name gone, perhaps for him to
> make money over my work.

Please take that up with Mr. DiPierro.

> I will now put all my images under copyright with permission for
> Wikipedia only. But can I do it with the old images as well ?

Giving permission to Wikipedia only won't satisfy Wikipedia's GFDL
requirements for 3rd-party redistribution, so we'll have to remove any
such images.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20040215/8e3d2148/attachment.pgp


from_name: Rick

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wik, yet again.

body:
Wik has announced on his Talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Wik&oldid=2408864) that he plans on reverting all of Anthony DiPierro's edits on sight.  Considering that Anthony is not a blocked user, this is unacceptable behavior, and should result in Wik being banned.  I intend to revert and page protect every page Wik does this on.

RickK

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040215/6723ce77/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] OK, I blocked Wik.  So sue me.

body:
After my last posting in which he said he would revert Anthony DiPierro on sight, he then went and blanked the content of [[What Would Brian Boitano Do?]], apparently solely because Anthony created it, regardless of the fact that other people had edited it since the initial creation.

RickK

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040215/4fc4b227/attachment.htm


from_name: zero 0000

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Anonymous proxies (was Re: Desysop Morwen)

body:
--- Tim Starling <ts4294967296 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> zero 0000 wrote:
> > I think it should look like this (propery fomatted):
> >
> >    In order to edit Wikipedia pages you need to log in.  If you
> > don't have an account you are very welcome to create one.
> > This would deter more casual vandalism than any suggestion I have
> > seen and be of trivial consequence for genuine users.  Is there
> > really a good reason we don't do this?

Tim, Thanks for your reply.  However, I don't find your arguments
convincing.

> Yes, there are two reasons. Firstly, it's not a trivial consequence
> for
> some genuine users. Many people make casual corrections without
> logging
> in, and the deterrent effect against this would be the same as for
> casual vandalism.

This suggests that casual vandals have the same degree of
motivation as people wanting to make casual corrections.
Is that true?

> Some Wikipedians report having started with this kind
> of casual contribution, and say they would never have become active
> if  there were barriers to entry.

The barrier would be reduced to almost nothing if an account creation
option was provided in the edit process.

> There is also an inexplicable association in some peoples' minds
> between
> being logged out and being "anonymous", and such people see the
> requirement to log in as a threat to anonymity.

This is very strange.  I would think that a greater number of
people realise that the opposite is true.   One of the reasons
I first adopted a username was in order to become more
anonymous!

> The second reason is that vandalism is easier to spot when it comes
> from  users who are logged out.

Yes, I'm sure that is true, but how can this be weighed against the
overall reduction in vandalism that would result?  Which of the two
tendencies would be the greatest?  I predict (admittedly on little
basis) that casual vandalism will overall drop by several times,
moreover that most of the residual casual vandalism will still be
easy to spot because the vandals will create usernames like aaaa
and qwert, and also because of junk edit summaries.

Zero.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


from_name: Michael Snow

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: trust metrics

body:
Elisabeth Bauer wrote:

> Another idea: a system where you can rate users, but the results are
> not shown directly. Instead, a score for the articles a user worked on
> is calculated. the results are printed on the article page, such that
> you can see: on this article worked people with a very high (or low)
> rating.

Why not just rate the articles directly, instead of the users? I would
be much more comfortable with this kind of system. It's less vulnerable
to the kind of personal animosity that promotes negative feedback wars.
And suppose you want to consider the relative value of individual
contributors to an article, as Delirium suggested. If the ratings are
preserved and tracked on the page history, you could see whether a
user's contributions generally improved the ratings or not. That's
actually better information than you could get from giving ratings to
users. A user could have a great rating, but not necessarily be the best
informed on that particular subject.

It could be like some companies set up help pages, something along the
lines of, "Please rate this article: How useful was the information to
you?" Has the idea of rating articles been discussed before? It could
also provide additional information for selecting featured articles.

--Michael Snow


from_name: Dan Miller

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: login box

body:
>
> I like this. We should use it.
>
> My vocabulary is stunted tonight. Who stole my
> brain?:-)
>
> John

I agree.

=====
Kiss Me I'm Irish!

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: login to edit?

body:
>This would deter more casual vandalism than any
>suggestion I have
>seen and be of trivial consequence for genuine
>users.  Is there really
>a good reason we don't do this?

>Zero.

I think the problem with this is that there are too
many false negatives and false positives--too many
anon edits which are solid contributions, and too many
logged-in users who use their accounts for vandalism.
I think there's only one reason that there are so many
calls for this: most of us never actually see
Wikipedia as it was meant to be seen.  Out of 200,000
articles, most of them are pretty good--it constantly
amazes me the sheer mass of information.  The problem
is that most of the things on Cleanup, VfD, and Recent
Changes are the things that need work.  Thus, regular
users get very biased views of Wikipedia, since they
only see the very worst of it.  As a resource as a
whole, the problems are not very severe.  Just my two
cents, anyway.

Meelar

=====
Kiss Me I'm Irish!

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


from_name: anti anti

subject: [WikiEN-l] BAN HEPHAESTOS (ban anti anti (was YHBT))

body:
>From: John Robinson <john at freeq.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] ban anti anti (was YHBT)
>Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 11:29:11 -0600
>
>anti anti writes:
> >[incoherent all-caps diatribe elided]
>
>I thought this list was moderated.
>
>I consider myself a firm believer in the wiki concept of AssumeGoodFaith,
>in fact I have tried to incorporate an identical philosophy into my daily
>life since long before I discovered wiki.  On the other hand, I have seldom
>come across a group of people who blindly cling to it in the face of the
>bloody obvious so tenaciously as the folks who run Wikipedia.  I believe
>this to be one of the root causes of our recent troubles.
>
>-Hephaestos
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

BAN HEPHAESTOS!

YOU CANNOT BAN ME - YOU MUST PROVE I AM A TROLL BEFORE BANNING ME - AND YOU
CANNOT PROVE THAT 'CAUSE THERE IS NO DEFINITION OF A TROLL.

WIKIPIDIA HAS BECOME NAZIPIDIA!

ANTICAPITALIST

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail


body:
>From: Daniel P.B.Smith <dpbsmith at verizon.net>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Anticapi--examples of good work?
>Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 07:06:12 -0500
>
>>Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 06:30:47 +0000
>>From: "anti anti" <anticapi at hotmail.com>
>
>>INFROGMATION BANNED ME AGAIN WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION BECAUSE I WAS TRYING TO
>>HELP WIKIPIDIA BY WRITING USEFUL LEGITIMATE ARTICLES. SHOULDN'T THEY BE
>>BANNED FOR ABUSING SYSOP PRIVILEGES?
>>
>>A GOOD SYSOP SHOULD UNBAN ME ASAP! I WANT HELP WIKIPIDIA AND WRITE USEFUL
>>ARTICLES, REALLY. I AM A CONTRIBUTOR, NOT A TROLL.
>
>"Anti anti," what's your Wikipedia user name, and some Wikipedia articles
>which you would point to as examples of good work?
>
>--
>Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith at world.std.com alternate: dpbsmith at alum.mit.edu
>"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
>Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
>Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

I CREATED LEGITIMATE USEFUL ARTIKLES SUCH AS [[LIST OF DEAD PORN STARS]] AND
[[LIST OF PORN STARS DIED ACCIDENTALY]] ETC! THEY BANNED MY USERNAME
ANTICAPITALIST3 AND VOTED TO DELETE MY HARD WORK! NOW ALL MY ARTICLES ON
VFD! WHAT A SHAME!

PLEASE UNBAN ME OR GIVE ME SYSOP STATUS SO I CAN BAN THEM.!

ANTICAPITALIST

_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963


from_name: Delirium

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: Arbitration: Case of Theresa Knott and Mr. Natural
	Health

body:
Anthere wrote:

> > * This revocation to include all Wikimedia wikis, and enforced using
> technical measures only if necessary.

This probably shouldn't have been there.  Since this was our first case,
and decided before our rules were even in place, it was done in a
somewhat ad-hoc fashion.

I'll propose to the arbitration committee that we amend the decision to
remove that clause.

-Mark


from_name: Elisabeth Bauer

subject: [Wikipedia-l] trust metrics

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

> I am not advocating anything in this post, I'm just sharing some of my
> thoughts over the past few days.

So I add some thoughts to the idea of a trust system. I am not entirely
comfortable with the idea of rating other users - it's to easy to use as
a tool for revenge acts and I fear sysops doing at the moment necessary
tasks which annoy some users may get "punished" by such a system and
become frustrated by such bad feed back.

Another idea: a system where you can rate users, but the results are not
shown directly. Instead, a score for the articles a user worked on is
calculated. the results are printed on the article page, such that you
can see: on this article worked people with a very high (or low) rating.

Connect this with a real "web of trust", i.e. ratings by users which
have good ratings themselves count more - and you get a nice system to
measure the quality of our articles.

greetings,
elian


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: Arbitration: Case of Theresa Knott and Mr.
	Natural Health

body:
Clearly we overstepped our bounds... We will be careful to not issue such
sweeping judgments in the future. As to publishing this decision on all
Wikipedias... Please tell us if he makes trouble over in France.

Fred

> From: Anthere <anthere8 at yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: anthere8 at yahoo.com, English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 04:57:00 +0100
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Arbitration: Case of Theresa Knott and Mr. Natural
> Health
>
> Something suddenly spring to my mind...
>
> What do you mean all wikimedia wikis ?
> When was it decided that the english arbitration committee would decide
> who is allowed to edit or not to edit on another language wikipedia ?
> How do you plan to tell other languages of your decisions ?
> How do you plan to inforce us to obey the english committee decisions ?
> What does happen if say...Lir was writing french, and french people
> decided to ban him...would you all accept that naturally our decision to
> ban him is necessarily a decision that all wikipedias immediately have
> to respect ?
> What about local rights ?
>
> Of course, you may argue that the committee was chosen by Jimbo, and
> that as such, it takes decisions over all wikipedias...but then...why
> would only the english have this right ? And again, how do you plan to
> communicate (I saw no communication on the matter) and to inforce this
> decision of you ?


from_name: Allan Crossman

subject: [WikiEN-l] Anonymous proxies

body:
>> How about requiring users from known anonymizers to
>> login? This still allows for legitimate uses of the
>> anonymizers, but helps to restrict vandals.
>
> This is already how it works: if a user is IP-banned, he or she can
> still log in by creating an account.

Technically this is true, it's still possible to log in. But if your
IP is banned, you don't get to edit, logged in or not.

--
Allan Crossman - http://dogma.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
PGP keys - 0x06C4BCCA (new) || 0xCEC9FAE1 (compatible)


from_name: James Rosenzweig

subject: [WikiEN-l] Everything in Specific

body:
I will attempt to respond briefly to all the concerns
that apparently have taken flight this weekend, should
anyone care what I think.

1. Don't desysop Morwen, but do run ANTICAPITALIST off
for a while.  We need good anti-corporation dialogue
to keep articles honest, but if we shone sunlight on
this fellow, he'd turn to stone (Tolkien reference).

2. Frankly, I don't understand the "secrecy"
hullabaloo over the arbitration committee.  I know and
trust half the people on there, and if they're willing
to serve with the people I don't really know (who
comprise the other half) then I don't care if they
choose to go by a pseudonym.  If the issue is secret
deliberation, I wonder if anyone has considered what
public deliberation would look like on a wiki?
Forgive my stodgy conservatism, but I'm most happy
with a committee that can talk things over in private.
 Without a reasonably sensible method of dealing with
the troubles we have, Wikipedia will crumble.  I would
go so far as to say I'd prefer this current system
even if it banned me: at least I'd understand that a
group of editors with the trust of a large percentage
of the people here had come to a considered agreement.
 If we don't like the makeup of the
committee.....well, that's what the annual changing of
the guard will alter.  The committee's individual
members will come and go, and hopefully their common
desire to make Wikipedia a better place will be
sufficient guide.  I trust it more, I feel compelled
to say, than whatever the hell we've been doing since
January.  Anthere, I am sure the AC misspoke, as we
have no right to ban anyone on fr.wikipedia.org.
Certainly we at "en" take too little notice of or
concern with the other languages, and this needs to
change (in fact, I believe it is changing).  I hope
the AC will apologize, and I hope you will forgive
them.  I think there are bigger fish frying, but then
that's my opinion.

3. If someone wants to go to the trouble of
anonymizing proxies to mess with us, I say we've been
big enough to stop them before, and I'd gladly suffer
dozens of such miscreants to offer free speech to one
oppressed voice from the darker corners of this world.
 If we go about blocking anonymous proxies wholesale,
I will thrash about loudly, and doubt I will be alone.

4. As a more general plea, I would like to say that
working on this encyclopedia is a lovely thing (thank
you, Jimmy, by the way -- I've never said so to you
directly before), and meeting all of you (even those
with whom I have had horrible disagreements) has been
a remarkably life-enriching, mind-expanding gift to
me, and I wish the squabblers wouldn't break this
thing when I've just really settled down to enjoying
it.  It is a most selfish reason, I admit.  But I am
desperate to remind those who need reminding that at
the core of this place is a working, breathing
encyclopedia whose immense worth and whose vast amount
of good information has lifted it out of the reach of
a few vandals or cranks seeking to destroy.  Even at
their absolute worst, Wik and Anthony left a thin
trail through a Recent Changes page filled with the
contributions of logged-in and anonymous users from
around the world who are possessed of the crazy and
reckless notion that knowledge ought to be free, and
it is a gift thoroughly worth giving the human race to
add one's own limited experience to this place.  All I
really want to say in my ramble and bluster is that I
don't care terribly much who decides who's banned and
how we structure HTML tables or whatever it is we are
arguing about this week as long as we don't lose sight
of what this place is and is becoming.  As noted
above, if this community thought banning me would make
Wikipedia a better place, I would accept it -- there
is something happening here more important than one
person's ability to edit.  I would be personally
mortified, and probably quite upset, but in the long
run I would not cease to admire this work, or
recommend it to others.  I consider myself lucky to
have been given the opportunity to contribute as much
as I have: words I wrote are adding to the knowledge
of others daily in small ways, which makes me feel
quite proud and humble all at once.  Perhaps my
motivations aren't so selfish after all.  You may
decide, and I promise not to be offended if you think
me puffed with conceit.

Apologies for this lengthy post.  I'd avoided the
mailing list for months because I was sure it would
lead me to.....well, to do exactly what I'm doing now.
 I recognize that there is likely not one good
practical idea here for resolving the issues of the
present day, and admit that I said it all primarily
because I felt someone ought to.  I promise to be
quiet a good long while now.  Peace to you, and please
don't forget this marvelous thing that has brought us
together,

James Rosenzweig (Jwrosenzweig)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


list: wikitech-l

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Opteron's here to battle the evil forces of the
	Decepticons

body:
Couple of things off the top of my head:

Suda is currently running on 32-bit Linux. At least under the present
configuration, MySQL will crash unless we keep it tuned to memory usage
under 2GB. (We had to reduce the InnoDB page space by about 500MB from
the config file we used on Gunther, which was running 64-bit.) The
remaining 2GB are in use as disk cache, but it'd be nice to let MySQL
handle its needs more directly. E23 thinks we can upgrade just the
kernel and libc and maybe make things work... I dunno. Anyway we'll
probably just keep moving on what we've got until we've got the other
Opteron in florida to take over from it.

The load average tends to be 4-ish; a bit higher than I'd like. Search
is still off, but updates to the search tables on edit are active. When
I briefly tried enabling search it was _very_ sluggish. We'd probably
want to expand the key buffer size from its current 128MB, as the
english search index alone is over 300 megs. But, see our current
memory problems above.

Disk space: it's a little tighter than I'd like but not fatal.
(Currently 12ish gigs free out of 68ish on main partition.) I'm
currently running the batch compression on old revisions which should
save 10-15GB (est), but this space can't be reclaimed without dumping
and restoring the databases. That would require several hours'
downtime, or waiting until we've got a replicated slave to take over.
It may or may not be worth the trouble of reclaiming the space anyway,
as it'll just get filled up again eventually. ;) However the innodb
space currently is split over three files because they were copied from
a system that had to split over partitions. I don't know if that has
any performance penalty for files sitting on one (virtual) disk, or if
fragmentation is an issue.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040216/1b2bdf1a/attachment.pgp>


subject: [Wikitech-l] Squid death

body:
Squid on browne died a few minutes ago. This was in the log around the
time of death, not sure if it's relevant:

2004/02/16 08:12:48| assertion failed: filemap.c:78: "fm->max_n_files
<= (1 << 24)"

Back running now.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040216/ea4f45b9/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Webs of trust are a better idea (was: trust metrics)

body:
Brion wrote:
>On the contrary it's very easy to game: create a bunch of
>sock puppet accounts to give each other feedback. On E-Bay
>you'd have to go to the trouble of faking some auctions to
>yourself, but nothere...

Yes - that would be bad. Here is a simple solution that goes along with what I
thought trust metrics would do:

There are a bunch of people I trust on Wikipedia - I never check their edits
for vandalism, bad edits, or overt POV because, in my experience, they have
very rarely if ever done any of those things. There are others who I trust in
the same way expect in some categories and on particular articles. And then
there are the people who I don't trust at all.

What I would like is the ability to say that I trust user x. Presto! Edits by
user x are either no longer displayed in a special recent changes list that
only I can see or their edits are turned into small gray text on my regular RC
list (I like this second option better). Once a category system is up and
running I would like to refine that for some users (who I do not trust only
when they edit certain categories of articles).  I would also like the ability
to explicitly say that I don't trust somebody - their edits on RC would be
bolded.

Then to create a web of trust I would like to tell MediaWiki that I trust the
opinions of user x. Presto! Any edits by a user on user x's white list will be
either removed from my special RC list or made small and grayed out on my
regular RC list (and watchlist for that matter).

That would prevent any incentive to create sock puppets since my selections
only affect what *I* see and what the people who trust my judgment see (if they
set their preferences accordingly).

-- mav

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


body:
Tim Starling wrote:
> Some Wikipedians report having started with this kind
> of casual contribution, and say they would never have
> become active if  there were barriers to entry.

I wouldn't have ever become a Wikipedian if I had to log-in first. I already
have too many user accounts on different websites so I only create new accounts
where I think the service is worth it. It took me a day editing as an anon to
figure that out for Wikipedia. So anon editing is a very useful recruitment
tool.

The major charm of Wikipedia is that it is open to anybody to edit - anytime.
Forcing logins will only result in logged-in vandals (logging-in doesn't
prevent trolling on Slashdot). None of the developers seem at all interested in
this. So barring a major user revolt I don't think this is something that we
need to spend a lot of time arguing over.

Better to set-up webs of trust and other ways to filter edits. I would,
however, still like to force anons to preview articles before saving them
(reasons given in a previous post). That should at least slow anon vandals
down.

--mav

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


from_name: Timwi

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: trust metrics

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

> Some possible downsides, and there are many...
>
> 3.  People might be incentivized to create sham accounts just to give
> themselves positive feedback.

Additionally, I think, people might be incentivised to create sham
accounts just to give negative feedback to someone else.

As has already been said, eBay doesn't have this problem because in
order to leave feedback you have to enter a transaction with the other
user. Edits don't make a good analogy because it's not a transaction
between two users who can then rate each other.

I think it should indeed be made so that a "thumbs-up" from someone with
a good rating counts more, and the ratings given by sham accounts would
have no effect. I'm even thinking effectively giving someone positive
feedback if someone with a negative rating gives negative feedback.

Now, I agree that having just "thumbs up", "thumbs down" and "neutral"
makes the system pretty simple. But it's not very flexible. Example:
Suppose I think someone is a really good contributor in the sense of the
content they deliver, but a rather lousy person to discuss things with.
I would want to be able to weigh these concerns against each other.

What I'm proposing is the ability to give users a rating from 0 to 10,
or perhaps from -5 to 5. That would give me eleven levels at which to
rate people. Every user would then have a weighted average rating,
weighted by the rating of the raters.

I could envision something on every User page:
      +--------------------------------------+
      | User rating:      4.7                |
      | Rate this user: [ 5 (very good) |v]  |
      +--------------------------------------+

Just a suggestion.
Timwi


subject: [WikiEN-l] Page footers, layout question

body:
Hi,

perhaps some of you have already noticed that people have started using
the MediaWiki namespace to create page footers. For an example, see the
bottom of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany, which has a box with
links to the other European Union countries.

Unfortunately, not everybody seems to be happy with the look of these.
There is a dispute on which of these layouts to use:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=MediaWiki:East_Asia&oldid=2406134

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=MediaWiki:East_Asia&oldid=2406149

I would like there to be a vote so that we can determine which of the
layouts is generally preferred, and then we can make it a Manual of
Style policy to use one layout consistently.

Where and how can I call for such a vote?

I have asked about this on the Village Pump, but got no replies.

Thanks,
Timwi


subject: [Wikitech-l] Squid death

body:
On Feb 16, 2004, at 00:18, Brion Vibber wrote:
> Squid on browne died a few minutes ago. This was in the log around the
> time of death, not sure if it's relevant:
>
> 2004/02/16 08:12:48| assertion failed: filemap.c:78: "fm->max_n_files
> <= (1 << 24)"

The assert of course is what kills the squid. We've found a possible
issue: the squid's cache directories were not writable by the squid
user. Since it didn't store anything, apparently it got confused...
this may or may not have anything to do with the above error. We'll see
if it recurs.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040216/d98faa97/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Hr. Daniel Mikkelsen

subject: [Wikipedia-l] trust metrics

body:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004, Brion Vibber wrote:

> > For us, we have nothing like a 'transaction', but the system could be
> > generalized from that.  Each person could assign positive or negative
> > feedback to others.
> ...
> > 2.  Difficult to game -- it is NOT automated, so there's no way to
> > game the system by engaging in repetitive actions to score points.

> On the contrary it's very easy to game: create a bunch of sock puppet
> accounts to give each other feedback. On E-Bay you'd have to go to the
> trouble of faking some auctions to yourself, but not here...

If you do it properly, it's not this easy. Look at advogato - they use a rating
system where close to half the users can be fake, and they still won't get
credit. Instead of simple cross ratings, they use a network, and calculate from
that.

(I'm against ratings on Wikipedia.)

-- Daniel


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Wikipedia-l] And what do we do now ?

body:
I had very good holidays, in a white and blue country, which seduced me
for its beauty and silence. It was real good.

Now, I come back. I see a horrible number of fights.

I saw a user I strongly did not want to be made sysop, was made sysop
during my not being there.

I see that at least 2 french web sites are quietly violating our copyright
I see Anthony fork
I see some people feel like stopping contributing if such things are
done with our collective work

It is not because we work together, because our work benefit of the
collective, that we individuals are no-ones.

I see Alex756 left, probably because some here did confuse attacking the
bearer of bad news, from the one responsable of bad news
I wonder if people think it is better now that we have no lawyer and
reasonable man to help us
I wonder how serious it is to desperate good people so much that they
loose courage. And give up.
I wonder if some people feel proud, or pained, or sad, or feel a tiny
bit of compassion.

I saw as well that 168 was unsysoped. I wonder if it is even worth to
propose my help now between Mav and him.
I know one thing. When I disagreed with RK, two people jumped in to
help; I knew none of them then. But they soothed the conflict. And we
got out of it decently.
Will the unsysoping of 168 solve the issue he has with Lir ?

To me, it looks like we always forget to thank those who did good
things, but very well remember to spank the ones who appeared to have
failed, while they tried to make a point.

And what do we do now ?

Yes, I had good holidays :-)


subject: [WikiEN-l] And what do we do now ?


subject: [Wikipedia-l] image copyright

body:
By the way, is it okay that I relicense all the images I offered
wikipedia as copyright by Anthere with permission, with a link to my
user page, instead of under gfdl ?

Because, if I am glad to offer my images under gfdl as a recognised
author, I do not agree that my images are now registered as under
copyright by Anthony DiPierro, with my name gone, perhaps for him to
make money over my work.

I will now put all my images under copyright with permission for
Wikipedia only. But can I do it with the old images as well ?


body:
uninvited at nerstrand.net a ?crit:
> The arbitration committee has issued these findings in the matter of Theresa knott and Mr-Natural-Health:
>
> * we find that Mr-Natural-Health has behaved inappropriately on a consistent and excessive basis
> * we find that Mr-Natural-Health has made personal attacks in violation of Wikipedia's policy
> * we find that Mr-Natural-Health has misused edit summaries in an effort to intimidate other editors
> * therefore, Mr-Natural-Health?s privilege to edit Wikipedia be revoked for a period of 30 days, effective beginning 11 Feb 2004 00:25
> * This revocation to include all Wikimedia wikis, and enforced using technical measures only if necessary.
> * Further, all editors are encouraged to revert any questionable edits made by Mr-Natural-Health without discussion or concurrence of the community for a period of 30 days following his return to the community at the end of the revocation period.
>
> This, together with the discussion history and vote tally, is available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration
>
> Respectfully submitted
>
> UninvitedCompany

------

 > * This revocation to include all Wikimedia wikis, and enforced using
technical measures only if necessary.

Something suddenly spring to my mind...

What do you mean all wikimedia wikis ?
When was it decided that the english arbitration committee would decide
who is allowed to edit or not to edit on another language wikipedia ?
How do you plan to tell other languages of your decisions ?
How do you plan to inforce us to obey the english committee decisions ?
What does happen if say...Lir was writing french, and french people
decided to ban him...would you all accept that naturally our decision to
ban him is necessarily a decision that all wikipedias immediately have
to respect ?
What about local rights ?

Of course, you may argue that the committee was chosen by Jimbo, and
that as such, it takes decisions over all wikipedias...but then...why
would only the english have this right ? And again, how do you plan to
communicate (I saw no communication on the matter) and to inforce this
decision of you ?


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [Wikitech-l] [llywrch@agora.rdrop.com: Help with Mediation]

body:
Can we help Geoff with this?  I will personally help him if
necessary, if someone will tell me where the relevant files are?

----- Forwarded message from Geoff Burling <llywrch at agora.rdrop.com> -----

From: Geoff Burling <llywrch at agora.rdrop.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 16:28:05 -0800 (PST)
To: Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com>
Subject: Help with Mediation

Hi Jimbo, sorry to bother you with this . . .

BUT I've solicited help twice on the developer's list (at least I
hope it's the right place) for some help to look up some IP numbers,
& I haven't heard a peep back from anyone. Not a "Yes, I'll help",
nor "You can do it youself, this is how" -- not even a "No, and
go away."

I've gotten a tentative agreement between the two which depends on
proving one way or the other whether alleged "sockpuppets" actually
were, based on the IP numbers of certain accounts. I only intend
on sharing the results with the two involved.

Can you give someone with the skill & access a friendly nudge to
help me with this? Seeing how I'm involved in one of the few ongoing
mediations, it would help Wikipedia with its credibility.

Geoff

----- End forwarded message -----


body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> Suda is currently running on 32-bit Linux.

I will find out the status on Geoffrin from Jason later today and
report back to you all.  Jason went to San Diego on Friday, and so my
belief is that Geoffrin is now at his house.  We're going to do some
telephoning with Penguin tech support to see what they recommend vis a
vis the old memory issues, and if they can't talk him through some
kind of solution that will give us 100% error free on memtest86, we're
giving the machine back.

Either way, i.e. whether the repairs are done by Jason at his house,
or by Penguin at their facility, the machine will next be sent to me
here and I'll install it alongside suda.  We can at least
theoretically put any OS we want on there at that time, and of course
we'll run tons of tests before we put that machine back into service.

But that'd probably be a good time to move to 64 bit.

After we're comfortable on geoffrin, which is a better machine and has
lots of hard drive space, I can take suda down for a reinstall of a 64
bit OS there as well.  At that point, we'll have 2 64 bit machines
perking along happily, and they can share the load, so it all should
be delightful.

The site is currently very fast for both reading and editing, though,
so Brion's concerns -- while valid -- are not cause for us to worry SO
much.  :-)  The teeming masses are quiet for now.

--Jimbo


from_name: Edward Senft

subject: [WikiEN-l] Danny blocks me

body:
I did nothing wrong.  I was blocked by danny.  if I become blocked just by defending myself, I dont know what to do. Here is the last edit I made:

   Please stop lying Alex. My IP does not show my surname. You got that information from someone on IRC. It also has no connection whatsoever with any church! And the implication that you made with respect to that was completely false. Finally, the statement you made about the man I live with is certainly not available from my IP. I told you that in a private message. I can not take your apology seriously when you are going around lying about how you obtained this information. Angela. 02:10, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
   Wrong. I typed your IP into my web browser and it redirected me to http://fused.org/ . Your church or something was in the "hosted sites" section. I clicked on it and it had a link to your page and said "hosted by angela". Publicly on the IRC channel, you said "My roomate hosts sites" or something when you were talking about a firewall blocking your connections. (I could take the time to find it in the log) Since the guy at fused.org was named wayne, it was obvious that he was your roomate. The only thing that somoeone on IRC told me was that you were active in the dmoz project and I didn't make that public. So you can see, anyone could have found out that information, regardless of wether or not I posted it. Also, a google of fused.org shows your site: [1]. And regarding the church, one can clearly see that you are the one lying as your webpage links to a church site with a webmaster named Angela. --Ed Senft! 14:58, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040216/f0daf8d5/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Danny blocks me

body:
I would like to add that this block is against policy as it doesnt fall under the category of :

Sysops can block and unblock IP addresses. This is meant to be used solely to deal with persistent vandalism. IP banning is not meant to be used against unpopular opinions, non-persistent vandalism, etc.

The only way to respond to angela's allegations was to explain what I did, and that is definately not vandalism.  I request that the arbitration comittee look into the desysopping of danny.
Edward Senft <edwardsenft at yahoo.com> wrote:I did nothing wrong.  I was blocked by danny.  if I become blocked just by defending myself, I dont know what to do. Here is the last edit I made:

   Please stop lying Alex. My IP does not show my surname. You got that information from someone on IRC. It also has no connection whatsoever with any church! And the implication that you made with respect to that was completely false. Finally, the statement you made about the man I live with is certainly not available from my IP. I told you that in a private message. I can not take your apology seriously when you are going around lying about how you obtained this information. Angela. 02:10, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
   Wrong. I typed your IP into my web browser and it redirected me to http://fused.org/ . Your church or something was in the "hosted sites" section. I clicked on it and it had a link to your page and said "hosted by angela". Publicly on the IRC channel, you said "My roomate hosts sites" or something when you were talking about a firewall blocking your connections. (I could take the time to find it in the log) Since the guy at fused.org was named wayne, it was obvious that he was your roomate. The only thing that somoeone on IRC told me was that you were active in the dmoz project and I didn't make that public. So you can see, anyone could have found out that information, regardless of wether or not I posted it. Also, a google of fused.org shows your site: [1]. And regarding the church, one can clearly see that you are the one lying as your webpage links to a church site with a webmaster named Angela. --Ed Senft! 14:58, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040216/24b5e849/attachment.htm


from_name: Brion Vibber

body:
On Feb 16, 2004, at 05:08, Alwin Meschede wrote:
>  You also would have to recompile MySQL for 64 bit in order to use
> more than 2 GB RAM -->

MySQL provides handy precompiled binaries for AMD64. :)

>  need to install a complete 64 bit toolchain and whatnot... I think it
> would be easier if you start from scratch by installing a pure 64 bit
> distro, but that would mean downtime. We should wait with this until
> the other Opteron is in place.

Yes, that's my preference; no big rush.

The SuSE that came with Geoffrin and Gunther seemed functional enough
(geoffrin's memory problems aside), perhaps we could install a second
copy of that when we've got the opportunity.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040216/3f803d83/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Nick Reinking

body:
> The site is currently very fast for both reading and editing, though,
> so Brion's concerns -- while valid -- are not cause for us to worry SO
> much.  :-)  The teeming masses are quiet for now.

Rabblerabblerabblerabble!  Anyways, thanks for your hard work, everybody -
using Wikipedia is a lot more pleasant now.

--
Nick Reinking -- eschewing obfuscation since 1981 -- Minneapolis, MN


subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki 1.2.0 release soon

body:
On Feb 16, 2004, at 07:50, Yann Forget wrote:
> Some people have mentioned that from Wikisource, links like
> [[[[wikipedia:xx:Article]] with xx != en do not work. It works for en:
>
> cf.
> http://sources.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikisource:
> Scriptorium#cross_languages_links

Whoops! Should work now.

(That's not actually a MediaWiki issue at all, but an Apache
configuration issue.)

For future reference, when people mention that things don't work,
PLEASE report it immediately. Not every problem we hear about is fixed
right away, but problems we don't hear about *never* get fixed.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040216/fec1ab6d/attachment.pgp>


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: image copyright

body:
Brion Vibber a ?crit:
> On Feb 15, 2004, at 19:44, Anthere wrote:
>
>> By the way, is it okay that I relicense all the images I offered
>> wikipedia as copyright by Anthere with permission, with a link to my
>> user page, instead of under gfdl ?
>
>
> You can choose to allow that use _as well as_ the GFDL you've already
> agreed to. But, once given, I'm not sure you can withdraw the GFDL
> permission without cause. (IANAL!)
>
> Keep in mind that if you were to withdraw the GFDL license, the images
> would be removed from Wikipedia.

I have doubts. Many images are indicated copyrighted, but that the
author gave permission for use. And they are in Wikipedia.
When we wrote the images copyright pages with Alex, this case was
mentionned, and we have some images under that copyright. Again, we
think that it is better than no image at all, and better than image
under fair use.

So, where would be the difference ?

There is perhaps another possibility as well. That the description page
of the image contains automatically the name of who uploaded it. At
least, it would require that Anthony remove manually this information
from all description pages before being able to claim copyright on them.

>> Because, if I am glad to offer my images under gfdl as a recognised
>> author, I do not agree that my images are now registered as under
>> copyright by Anthony DiPierro, with my name gone, perhaps for him to
>> make money over my work.
>
>
> Please take that up with Mr. DiPierro.

Sure, I will contact a french lawyer, pay him 2 months worth salary, for
him to tell me in 2 years, that though I am the owner of the copyright,
I can sit on it, and look at someone else claiming he is.

What are my legal rights upon contents on a website hosted in another
country ? They are null, and I cannot do anything.
That is equal, we can just pretend there is no problem, but keep on
asking people to contribute freely their work under public domain at
least. It will be more honest.

>> I will now put all my images under copyright with permission for
>> Wikipedia only. But can I do it with the old images as well ?
>
>
> Giving permission to Wikipedia only won't satisfy Wikipedia's GFDL
> requirements for 3rd-party redistribution, so we'll have to remove any
> such images.
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

We have thousand of images to remove then. Let's start now.


from_name: Yann Forget

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: image copyright

body:
Hi Anthere and all,

> Brion Vibber a ?crit:
>> On Feb 15, 2004, at 19:44, Anthere wrote:
>>
>>> By the way, is it okay that I relicense all the images I offered
>>> wikipedia as copyright by Anthere with permission, with a link to my
>>> user page, instead of under gfdl ?

No, that's not OK. Permission from the author means permission to put the
image under GFDL. And as said Brion, that's may not even but legal for
images already on Wikipedia.

>> Keep in mind that if you were to withdraw the GFDL license, the images
>>  would be removed from Wikipedia.
>
> I have doubts. Many images are indicated copyrighted, but that the
> author gave permission for use. And they are in Wikipedia.
> When we wrote the images copyright pages with Alex, this case was
> mentionned, and we have some images under that copyright. Again, we
> think that it is better than no image at all, and better than image
> under fair use.

And no, it is not better than fair use, it is worse.
I would tolerate fair use, because the law gives us the right to use the
image *without* consent from the author. I won't tolerate a status where
the author can change his/her mind at will. That's not acceptable for
Wikipedia.
And I would delete images under this kind of status.

> So, where would be the difference ?
>
> There is perhaps another possibility as well. That the description page
> of the image contains automatically the name of who uploaded it. At
> least, it would require that Anthony remove manually this information
> from all description pages before being able to claim copyright on them.

That would help sort out the images as I am trying to do on fr:
And I feature to list one's own images would be most helpful.
Or even to list all images from any author.

>>> Because, if I am glad to offer my images under gfdl as a recognised
>>> author, I do not agree that my images are now registered as under
>>> copyright by Anthony DiPierro, with my name gone, perhaps for him to
>>> make money over my work.

Now that's very bad. we should take this case (and others of the same
kind) seriously.

>>> I will now put all my images under copyright with permission for
>>> Wikipedia only. But can I do it with the old images as well ?
>>
>> Giving permission to Wikipedia only won't satisfy Wikipedia's GFDL
>> requirements for 3rd-party redistribution, so we'll have to remove any
>>  such images.
>>
>> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
>
> We have thousand of images to remove then. Let's start now.

We should at least give a proper status for all images because a lot of
them may be used legally but we can't tell because there is no mention of
the source nor the status.

Any way, I hope you had nice holidays Anthere. ;o)

Yann
--
http://non-violence.org Site coop?ratif sur la non-violence
http://forget-me.net Alternatives et non-violence
http://fr.wikipedia.org Encyclop?die libre
http://forget-me.net/pro/ Formations et services Linux


from_name: Tomasz Wegrzanowski

body:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 12:46:16AM -0800, Daniel Mayer wrote:
> Brion wrote:
> >On the contrary it's very easy to game: create a bunch of
> >sock puppet accounts to give each other feedback. On E-Bay
> >you'd have to go to the trouble of faking some auctions to
> >yourself, but nothere...
>
> Yes - that would be bad. Here is a simple solution that goes along with what I
> thought trust metrics would do:
>
> There are a bunch of people I trust on Wikipedia - I never check their edits
> for vandalism, bad edits, or overt POV because, in my experience, they have
> very rarely if ever done any of those things. There are others who I trust in
> the same way expect in some categories and on particular articles. And then
> there are the people who I don't trust at all.
>
> What I would like is the ability to say that I trust user x. Presto! Edits by
> user x are either no longer displayed in a special recent changes list that
> only I can see or their edits are turned into small gray text on my regular RC
> list (I like this second option better). Once a category system is up and
> running I would like to refine that for some users (who I do not trust only
> when they edit certain categories of articles).  I would also like the ability
> to explicitly say that I don't trust somebody - their edits on RC would be
> bolded.
>
> Then to create a web of trust I would like to tell MediaWiki that I trust the
> opinions of user x. Presto! Any edits by a user on user x's white list will be
> either removed from my special RC list or made small and grayed out on my
> regular RC list (and watchlist for that matter).

There is very serious problem with this approach - the trust is not transitive
at all, especially wrt POV issues.


from_name: daniwo59 at aol.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Danny blocks me

body:
At this point, no reply is necessary.

Danny
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040216/b2457899/attachment.htm


from_name: Andre Engels

subject: [Wikipedia-l] image copyright

body:
"Brion Vibber" <brion at pobox.com> schrieb:

> Giving permission to Wikipedia only won't satisfy Wikipedia's GFDL
> requirements for 3rd-party redistribution, so we'll have to remove any
> such images.

Then again, reality is that we don't. We don't even remove images of
which it is very likely that we are not allowed to either use or
redistribute them. Someone uploads, and we keep it. Someone doubts,
someone else mumbles 'fair use', and we keep it. I would favor removing
all images of which the origin is not clear, except when they are old
enough that copyright can be assumed to have been expired.

Andre Engels


from_name: Rick

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wik

body:
Could the person who unblocked Wik tell us why they did it?

RickK

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040216/6613cfbf/attachment.htm


from_name: Camille Constans

subject: [Wikitech-l] Wikistats

body:
Wikistats are back on http://www.wikipedia.org/wikistats/EN/Sitemap.htm from the last dump

There's a little bug on size distribution page, Erik, if you have any idea ? I took the Perl script on your website to generate the stats. CVS files seems ok.

Shaihulud


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: image copyright

body:
Yann Forget a ?crit:
> Hi Anthere and all,
>
>
>>Brion Vibber a ?crit:
>>
>>>On Feb 15, 2004, at 19:44, Anthere wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>By the way, is it okay that I relicense all the images I offered
>>>>wikipedia as copyright by Anthere with permission, with a link to my
>>>>user page, instead of under gfdl ?
>>>
>
> No, that's not OK. Permission from the author means permission to put the
> image under GFDL. And as said Brion, that's may not even but legal for
> images already on Wikipedia.

Okay. So another option I see to ensure the gfdl is respected is to
embbed gfdl copyright and author name in any picture uploaded.
That was what Aoineko was initially doing, and I thought it a strange
idea, but it may not be so strange after all.

Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ACopyrights we write

That is to say, Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and
redistributed so long as the new version grants the same freedoms to
others and acknowledges the authors of the Wikipedia article used (a
direct link back to the article satisfies our author credit requirement).

We mislead people in thinking that this is true, when clearly this is not.

And actually, when an author credit is *not* satisfied, we just say
"well, your problem, you were nice to contribute. No, Wikipedia will not
respect its engagement, you have to fight for your rights alone"

Look, I spend hours in november and december writing the ecology article

Look at the credit given to the five main authors

http://www.slashdotsucks.com:8080/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=Ecology&action=history

That is interesting no ?

Or why is the article on wheat entirely writen by one person ?
http://www.slashdotsucks.com:8080/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=Wheat&action=history

Finally, there no references to authors, no reference to wikipedia, and
no clear reference to gfdl, and that is ok ? And we should individually
defend our rights, and the project, with no collective help whatsoever ?

Sorry, but if we work together on a project, we somehow share both the
benefits and the troubles together. We are stronger to defend ourselves
together as well.
Answering to people who stupidely read a sort of "charter" that well,
yes, this is your problem right, won't make it.

We know gfdl is broken, but when someone suggest to change it, people
say, "oh but we can't do that to old contributors". True; So, to
preverse a couple of old contributors, we just let the project be
stripped. Right now, we need people to know us more, we need more
contributors, we need to be trusted. Is telling contributors to take
care of the infrigments all by themselves a good way to show that we
care about them ? I do not think so.

Is listing as the 5 (well 6) main contributors of the Antony project are

by Daniel Mayer, Andre Engels, Bryan Derksen, Brion Vibber,
Michael Hardy, Anthony DiPierro

a good way to show people that we care about them, that we value their
contributions ?

I do not think so.

But I am glad to discover that I am totally minor contributor compared
to Anthony DiPierro. May I also attack him for violation of the gfdl as
he is probably a lesser contributor than I ? Is it not a violation to
just cite 6 people among thousands ? How did he judged these 6 people
are the main authors of the encyclopedia ?

I hope the 5 listed people feel confortable and happy at least.

>>>Keep in mind that if you were to withdraw the GFDL license, the images
>>> would be removed from Wikipedia.
>>
>>I have doubts. Many images are indicated copyrighted, but that the
>>author gave permission for use. And they are in Wikipedia.
>>When we wrote the images copyright pages with Alex, this case was
>>mentionned, and we have some images under that copyright. Again, we
>>think that it is better than no image at all, and better than image
>>under fair use.
>
>
> And no, it is not better than fair use, it is worse.
> I would tolerate fair use, because the law gives us the right to use the
> image *without* consent from the author. I won't tolerate a status where
> the author can change his/her mind at will. That's not acceptable for
> Wikipedia.
> And I would delete images under this kind of status.

I disagree. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ACopyrights if you
read it, allows that type of mention.
You also know that fair use does not exist in France for example. Now,
if National Geographic allow us to use 500 absolutely great pictures we
can't find anywhere else, I would support this use. When someone offers
you something, you do not frown the nose.
I think it is more reasonable to use a copyrighted images offered by its
  original author, that to just ask nothing, use it and hope that no one
will ever discover the use in question.

Changing minds is another issue.

>>So, where would be the difference ?
>>
>>There is perhaps another possibility as well. That the description page
>>of the image contains automatically the name of who uploaded it. At
>>least, it would require that Anthony remove manually this information
>>from all description pages before being able to claim copyright on them.
>
>
> That would help sort out the images as I am trying to do on fr:
> And I feature to list one's own images would be most helpful.
> Or even to list all images from any author.

That would indeed be a great feature :-)
I support this.

>
>>>>Because, if I am glad to offer my images under gfdl as a recognised
>>>>author, I do not agree that my images are now registered as under
>>>>copyright by Anthony DiPierro, with my name gone, perhaps for him to
>>>>make money over my work.
>>>
>
> Now that's very bad. we should take this case (and others of the same
> kind) seriously.

Taking it seriously should mean taking position all together as a group.
Not just answering people it is their problem.

>>>>I will now put all my images under copyright with permission for
>>>>Wikipedia only. But can I do it with the old images as well ?
>>>
>>>Giving permission to Wikipedia only won't satisfy Wikipedia's GFDL
>>>requirements for 3rd-party redistribution, so we'll have to remove any
>>> such images.
>>>
>>>-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
>>
>>We have thousand of images to remove then. Let's start now.
>
>
> We should at least give a proper status for all images because a lot of
> them may be used legally but we can't tell because there is no mention of
> the source nor the status.
>
> Any way, I hope you had nice holidays Anthere. ;o)
>
> Yann

Yes, but the pictures will be less nice with a huge gfdl embedded
mention in the middle of them :-)


from_name: Viajero

subject: [WikiEN-l] Anonymous proxies (was Re: Desysop Morwen)

body:
On 02/15/04  at 05:45 PM, John Robinson <john at freeq.com> said:

> zero 0000 writes:

>  >Please explain how you would have noticed an anonymizer being used in
> > such a fashion.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/65.110.6.34
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/66.36.249.149
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/207.44.154.35
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/65.161.65.104

> 100% vandalism, all of them.

I don't think you understood Zero's comment. In an earlier message, you
wrote:

> I think if a repressive regime wants to track the Internet writings of
> people living there, an anonymous web proxy is not going to stop them.

> If I had ever once seen an anonymizer used in such a manner on
> Wikipedia, I would agree with Erik that it is worth putting up with the
>  extra vandalism.  However, I never have.

What zero was asking about (I think) and what I also wondered about is
whether we have any way of determining whether the anonymizers are being
used in a positive way. In other words, how do we know that anonymizers
are not being used constructively by users on Wikipedia?

V.


body:
Fred Bauder a ?crit:
> Clearly we overstepped our bounds... We will be careful to not issue such
> sweeping judgments in the future. As to publishing this decision on all
> Wikipedias... Please tell us if he makes trouble over in France.
>
> Fred

Who ? Lir ? :-) No.
Mr Natural Health ? Not that I am aware.

I wonder if we might not say that such decisions cover all wikimedia
project of similar language for example. Usually, the contributors are
more or less the same, and it would be losing time to judge the case
again with the same parties, just because it is over another project I
suppose.

thanks for the removal


from_name: Geoff Burling

body:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004, zero 0000 wrote:

>
> --- Tim Starling <ts4294967296 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > zero 0000 wrote:
> > > I think it should look like this (propery fomatted):
> > >
> > >    In order to edit Wikipedia pages you need to log in.  If you
> > > don't have an account you are very welcome to create one.
> > > This would deter more casual vandalism than any suggestion I have
> > > seen and be of trivial consequence for genuine users.  Is there
> > > really a good reason we don't do this?
>
> Tim, Thanks for your reply.  However, I don't find your arguments
> convincing.
>
> > Yes, there are two reasons. Firstly, it's not a trivial consequence
> > for
> > some genuine users. Many people make casual corrections without
> > logging
> > in, and the deterrent effect against this would be the same as for
> > casual vandalism.
>
> This suggests that casual vandals have the same degree of
> motivation as people wanting to make casual corrections.
> Is that true?
>
> > Some Wikipedians report having started with this kind
> > of casual contribution, and say they would never have become active
> > if  there were barriers to entry.
>
> The barrier would be reduced to almost nothing if an account creation
> option was provided in the edit process.

Again, I would like to suggest that the interface be changed so if a
non-logged-in user makes an edit, they must review their alterations first;
logged-in users can directly save their changes. I feel that this is a
reasonable restriction that would deter multiple acts of vandalism on
one hand, while encouraging first-time users to create accounts & join the
community.

[snip]
>
> > The second reason is that vandalism is easier to spot when it comes
> > from  users who are logged out.
>
> Yes, I'm sure that is true, but how can this be weighed against the
> overall reduction in vandalism that would result?  Which of the two
> tendencies would be the greatest?  I predict (admittedly on little
> basis) that casual vandalism will overall drop by several times,
> moreover that most of the residual casual vandalism will still be
> easy to spot because the vandals will create usernames like aaaa
> and qwert, and also because of junk edit summaries.
>
We could still spot serial vandalism by the fact the vandals would not
add comments to explain their changes, & the link to their home page would
show as a dead link.

If I may address the subject line of this thread, how about this suggestion:
should we block anonymizing servers, could we make an offer to potential
contributors with legitamite reasons for anonymity that any sysop would be
happy to act a proxy & make the edits/add the material desired?

Geoff


subject: [Wikipedia-l] trust metrics

body:
I wrote:
> >2.  Difficult to game -- it is NOT automated, so there's no way to
> >game the system by engaging in repetitive actions to score points.

Brion Vibber wrote:
> On the contrary it's very easy to game: create a bunch of sock puppet
> accounts to give each other feedback. On E-Bay you'd have to go to the
> trouble of faking some auctions to yourself, but not here...

That's a good point, but I think there are easy ways to deal with it.

I do agree, absolutely, that for any proposed system, dealing with the
prevention of gaming behavior is essential.

1.  The giving of feedback could be reserved to those who have gotten
at least 3 or 5 or whatever independent feedbacks.  If you're so new
that you haven't been noticed...

2.  The giving of feedback could be reserved to those who have been
around for more than X number of days, say 7, perhaps.

3.  Roundabout systems can help to a degree -- if feedback from
trusted users counts more than feedback from untrusted users, it makes
it more difficult to get a 'sock puppet circle' off the ground.

But of course your point is well-taken.  We absolutely don't want to
encourage the creation of sockpuppet accounts.  That's just stupid and
annoying.

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: trust metrics

body:
Timwi wrote:
> Jimmy Wales wrote:
> >3.  People might be incentivized to create sham accounts just to give
> >themselves positive feedback.
>
> Additionally, I think, people might be incentivised to create sham
> accounts just to give negative feedback to someone else.

Yes, that's a good point.  We certainly don't want there to be an
incentive for people to make multiple accounts.

> As has already been said, eBay doesn't have this problem because in
> order to leave feedback you have to enter a transaction with the other
> user. Edits don't make a good analogy because it's not a transaction
> between two users who can then rate each other.

Right, I agree that edits are not a good analogy to transactions.  We
don't really have anything quite like a transaction.

> Now, I agree that having just "thumbs up", "thumbs down" and "neutral"
> makes the system pretty simple. But it's not very flexible. Example:
> Suppose I think someone is a really good contributor in the sense of the
> content they deliver, but a rather lousy person to discuss things with.
> I would want to be able to weigh these concerns against each other.
>
> What I'm proposing is the ability to give users a rating from 0 to 10,
> or perhaps from -5 to 5. That would give me eleven levels at which to
> rate people. Every user would then have a weighted average rating,
> weighted by the rating of the raters.
>
> I could envision something on every User page:
>      +--------------------------------------+
>      | User rating:      4.7                |
>      | Rate this user: [ 5 (very good) |v]  |
>      +--------------------------------------+

I'm not sure what additional levels of gradation add, though, not
really.  It all comes out in the wash.

--Jimbo


body:
Tim Starling wrote:
> Would there be any objections to systematically blocking all anonymous
> proxies on a site-wide basis?

There are absolutely no objections from me.  I'm all for it.

In general, I like living in a world with anonymous proxies.  I wish
them well.  There are many valid uses for them.  But, writing on
Wikipedia is not one of the valid uses.

--Jimbo


references:
<zmZ9EDRgcrLAFwWb@cartref.demon.co.uk>
	<c0mj8b$jh3$1@sea.gmane.org> <402ED470.90901@sympatico.ca>

body:
Charles Podles wrote:
> Are there any *valid* uses for anonymizing proxies, or are they used
> only to vandalize, troll, and dodge hard bans? Can anyone think of a
> situation in which someone might have a legitimate purpose for such
> a tool? Since I can't, I wouldn't object to a permanent block of any
> and all anonymous proxy services.

Some people who are engaged in controversial conversation that may
endanger their lives may very well feel the need for the protection of
an anonymous proxy.  An example might be a Chinese dissident operating
secretly from within China to rally pro-democracy, pro-freedom support
overseas.

Another example might be users of a message board dealing with
sensitive personal issues like rape, incest.  The victims may fear
further victimization if their identity is known.

None of those kind of uses applies in the case of Wikipedia.  If you
have such a severe personal situation that editing Wikipedia with the
level of anonymity provided by an ip number is dangerous to you, well,
I guess you shouldn't edit wikipedia.

--Jimbo


body:
zero 0000 wrote:
> I would object to it being done without a study to determine how many
> genuine editors use anonymizers.  There are quite legitimate possible
> reasons.  One is an editor who writes in Wikipedia from work but
> doesn't want his/her employer's IP to be associated with it.  Another
> is someone who wants to be anonymous on Wikipedia but has a fixed IP
> address that uniquely identifies him/her.  We should not ban this
> practice unless we have a global policy that anonymity is forbidden.
>
> That's not to say that I don't sympathize with the problem you
> describe.  On the other hand, how much of this problem would
> exist if it wasn't for the practice of allowing people to edit
> articles without logging in?  Every time this matter is raised there
> are screams about the sky falling in, but I have yet to see a single
> convincing reason why we can't restrict editing to logged-in users.

In this particular case, the case of "anti-capitalist", the user in
question did log in.

The most convincing reason why we ought not to restrict editing to
logged-in users is that it doesn't appear to solve any problems that
we actually have.

--Jimbo


from_name: Sascha Noyes

subject: [Wikitech-l] sysops giving others admin status

body:
Hi

In a conversation on #wikipedia someone suspected that a user that doesn't
have sysop status seemed to be doing things restricted to sysops. Now that
sysops can give other users admin status, is there some kind of log where
such actions are recorded? This IMO is definitely needed.

Best,
Sascha Noyes
--
Please encrypt all email. Public key available from
www.pantropy.net/snoyes.asc


subject: [WikiEN-l] anti anti moderated

body:
I have set the 'mod' flag on the email address anticapi at hotmail.com.
This means that any further posts by that email address will have to
be approved by a moderator.  That's ed.poor at att.net,
dairiki+wpadmin at dairiki.org, and me.

I don't really care what the other two do -- as always, I trust them
to use their best judgment -- but as for me, I intend to just
summarily delete anything further from this person unless there's a
remarkable change in tone.

I also fully support sysops who ban/revert as necessary to deal with
this.

Anticapitalist, if you really want to discuss these issues further,
you may email me personally at jwales at bomis.com, and we can have a
civil discussion about it.  Your current behavior is completely
unacceptable.  And this has nothing at all do with your political
positions, and everything to do with your violation of community
standards.

--Jimbo


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Wikipedia-l] image copyright

body:
Andre Engels wrote:

>"Brion Vibber" <brion at pobox.com> schrieb:
>
>
>
>>Giving permission to Wikipedia only won't satisfy Wikipedia's GFDL
>>requirements for 3rd-party redistribution, so we'll have to remove any
>>such images.
>>
>>
>
>Then again, reality is that we don't. We don't even remove images of
>which it is very likely that we are not allowed to either use or
>redistribute them. Someone uploads, and we keep it. Someone doubts,
>someone else mumbles 'fair use', and we keep it. I would favor removing
>all images of which the origin is not clear, except when they are old
>enough that copyright can be assumed to have been expired.
>
>
>
Once upon a time ;-) I implemented a checkbox system where the uploading
party has to choose "GFDL/PD/fair use/something else" upon upload. Would
be nice to automatically categorize images, or at least assign blame to
a specific user ;-)

Or we just ignore the issue until the images have passed into the PD, in
a few hundred years or so...

Magnus


from_name: Peter Jaros

subject: [WikiEN-l] Desysop Morwen

body:
On Feb 15, 2004, at 1:36 AM, anti anti wrote:

> I AM NOT A VANDAL, NEITHER A TROLL. THEY JUST SHARE THE SAME IP. I
> KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THE INCIDENTS YOU DESCRIBED.
>
> ANTICAPITALIST

Hehe.

Just in case you're actually serious in all this, you should know that
no one's really taking you seriously.  At least I don't think so.  Not
at this point.

BTW, guys, I think I just got the joke.  ANTICAPITALIST.  Get it?  No?
Trust me, it's funny.

But not worth the time.

Peter

                                  -- ---<>--- --
                        A house without walls cannot fall.
           Help build the world's largest encyclopedia at Wikipedia.org
                                  -- ---<>--- --


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Trust metrics

body:
Michael Snow wrote:
> Wikipedia could turn into a place where the content is largely a
> tasteless, watery gruel because everyone is on pins and needles to
> avoid provoking negative responses.

Well, that would make me very happy.  This is an encyclopedia, after
all.

BrilliantProse, good writing, need not be controversial or
antagonizing at all.  A well written article can be lively,
interesting, well-organized, etc., while at the same time in a very
encyclopedic fashion present the facts in a sufficiently neutral
manner that all sides to a dispute, if they are working in good faith,
can agree that it's a good presentation.

--Jimbo


from_name: Alwin Meschede

body:
Brion Vibber schrieb:
> Suda is currently running on 32-bit Linux. E23 thinks we can upgrade just the
> kernel and libc and maybe make things work...

I wouldn't recommend that. It might work, or you might run into strange
problems, depending on the tolerance of the software. Some 32 bit
programms behave very bad if they notice that the underlying kernel and
libc are not i686 but amd64, despite the theoretical compatibility. This
"multi-arch" stuff is essentially what the Debian amd64 people wanted to
achive, but even they have given up and now recommend either running a
pure 64 bit environment or pure 32 bit, but not mixed. You also would
have to recompile MySQL for 64 bit in order to use more than 2 GB RAM
--> need to install a complete 64 bit toolchain and whatnot... I think
it would be easier if you start from scratch by installing a pure 64 bit
distro, but that would mean downtime. We should wait with this until the
other Opteron is in place.

Alwin Meschede


body:
Anthere wrote:
> What do you mean all wikimedia wikis ?
> When was it decided that the english arbitration committee would decide
> who is allowed to edit or not to edit on another language wikipedia ?

Anthere is right.  The arbitration/mediation committees are an
experiment in en: land, not globally.  I would anticipate that at some
point, each language will elect it's won arbitration/mediation
committees.  Until then, the existing practice (which varies to a
degree according to local custom there) will be fine.

--Jimbo


from_name: Daniel Mayer

body:
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wote:
>There is very serious problem with this approach - the
>trust is not transitive at all, especially wrt POV issues.

Yeah it is - did you not read the part where I stated that users can trust by
proxy? That makes it transitive without any possibility of people gaming the
system through sock puppets.

-- mav

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


body:
Brion Vibber schrieb:
> I'd like to get the dev branch cleaned up and packaged as a 1.2.0
> release in the next few days. Any outstanding serious bugs should be
> fixed right quick...

Not really important, but I noticed that no one has done it until now:
The attached patch fixes the interwiki links to the IMDB movie database;
they use a different format for their URLs now. This closes Wikipedia
bug #856707.

Alwin Meschede
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: imdb-patch.diff
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040216/c3e9501f/attachment.ksh>


from_name: Tim Starling

body:
zero 0000 wrote:
> I think it should look like this (propery fomatted):
>
>    In order to edit Wikipedia pages you need to log in.  If you don't
> have
>    an account you are very welcome to create one.  It is free,
> immediate,
>    and you don't need to give any personal information.
>
>     -- then boxes for creating a username and password just like
>     -- on the account creation page.  After the form is filled in,
> return
>     -- the user automatically to the edit page.
>
> This would deter more casual vandalism than any suggestion I have
> seen and be of trivial consequence for genuine users.  Is there really
> a good reason we don't do this?
>

Yes, there are two reasons. Firstly, it's not a trivial consequence for
some genuine users. Many people make casual corrections without logging
in, and the deterrent effect against this would be the same as for
casual vandalism. Some Wikipedians report having started with this kind
of casual contribution, and say they would never have become active if
there were barriers to entry.

There is also an inexplicable association in some peoples' minds between
being logged out and being "anonymous", and such people see the
requirement to log in as a threat to anonymity.

The second reason is that vandalism is easier to spot when it comes from
users who are logged out.

-- Tim Starling


from_name: Jimmy Wales

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
> That would prevent any incentive to create sock puppets since my
> selections only affect what *I* see and what the people who trust my
> judgment see (if they set their preferences accordingly).

I think that's really fascinating.  The incentive only arises if the
web of trust is "summed up" across different people to arrive at an
overall "score".

As long as we don't do that, there's no incentive for sock puppetry.

So, hmm, why did I want to do it that way in the first place?  Well, a
"summed up" score could be really handy for certain types of decision
making.  It could provide people with feedback on their overall
behavior.

But the real point is just to find a way for us to scale better as the
number of editors grows, to ensure that newcomers are assisted, that
vandalism is properly watched for, etc.

I like your idea a lot.

--Jimbo


body:
On Monday 16 February 2004 01:53 pm, Sascha Noyes wrote:
>Now that
> sysops can give other users admin status, is there some kind of log where
> such actions are recorded?

OK, Angela has pointed me to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrat_log

Best,
Sascha Noyes
--
Please encrypt all email. Public key available from
www.pantropy.net/snoyes.asc


body:
Jimbo wrote:
>So, hmm, why did I want to do it that way in the first place?
>Well, a "summed up" score could be really handy for certain
>types of decision making.  It could provide people with
>feedback on their overall behavior.

The 'web of trust' scheme that I proposed could be extended in the future to do
that (if a lot of users with high scores trust you and trust your judgment,
then you get a larger score). But we would first need to develop a way to
greatly reduce sock puppet-type abuse. In the meantime, it could be used to
help filter RC for those who set up their own webs of trust.

>I like your idea a lot.

Thanks!

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


from_name: Edward Senft

subject: [WikiEN-l] Danny blocks me

body:
If you wanted to ask me something, you could have done
so without publicly disclosing my information on a
mailing list.  Its ironic that you complain about me
publicly disclosing information when you could have
privately emailed me with your concern.  Mabye there
is a reason I want to stay anonymous, and mabye, just
mabye, I didn't want people to know who I was and what
my hometown was.  Is this a double standard? Sysyops
can disclose information about users without anyone
batting an eye, but the minute anyone says anything
about another sysop, that user gets blocked.  I only
gave information that was discernable from Angela's
IP.  That is exactly what you did to me, but you did
it on a mailing list which cannot be reverted.
--- Viajero <viajero at quilombo.nl> wrote:
> On 02/16/04  at 07:35 AM, Edward Senft
> <edwardsenft at yahoo.com> said:
>
> > The only way to respond to angela's allegations
> was to explain what I
> > did, and that is definately not vandalism.
>
> Well, you should have explained it to her privately
> OR done so on the
> Conflicts page without /again/ revealing personal
> information about her.
>
>
> V.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


from_name: Timwi

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: MediaWiki 1.2.0 release soon

body:
Alwin Meschede wrote:

> -('IMDB','http://us.imdb.com/Title?$1',0),
> +('IMDB','http://us.imdb.com/title/tt$1',0),

The old IMDB URLs looked like this:

http://akas.imdb.com/Title?Gone%20with%20the%20Wind%20%281939%29

and these links still work. They redirect to the new ones. The new ones,
however, look like this:

http://akas.imdb.com/title/tt0031381/

So, if we have Inter-Wiki links somewhere that say, for example,
[[imdb:Gone with the Wind (1939)]], then they still work now, but your
patch will break them because then they'd go to

http://akas.imdb.com/title/ttGone%20with%20the%20Wind%20%281939%29

which does not work.

P.S.: Can we use akas.imdb.com instead of us.imdb.com?

Timwi


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wik (and now 168)

body:
Wik has been discussed and discussed ad nauseum.  His reversions of valid data and his deletion of valid article pages were clearly vandalism.  We wouldn't have put up with an anonymous user doing it, but just because Wik is a logged in user, we have to put up with his repeated vandalism?  Now that you've unblocked him, he's immediatley gone back to his previous behavior, causing several pages to have to be protected today.  This has gone far enough.  Jimbo, can we PLEASE ban Wik?

And now, can we disucss 168?  He keeps deleting other people's comments on [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/168]].  Can we do something about him besides just revoke his sysop rights?

RickK

Caroline Ford <caroline at secretlondon.me.uk> wrote:
Rick wrote:

> Could the person who unblocked Wik tell us why they did it?
>
> RickK
I have admitted it was me. I object to sysops banning logged in users
without discussion.

SEcretlondon

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040216/890dc8da/attachment.htm


from_name: zero 0000

body:
--- Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> wrote:
>
> Some people who are engaged in controversial conversation that may
> endanger their lives may very well feel the need for the protection
> of
> an anonymous proxy.  An example might be a Chinese dissident
> operating
> secretly from within China to rally pro-democracy, pro-freedom
> support overseas.

> None of those kind of uses applies in the case of Wikipedia.

This is an incorrect argument.  In fact, for someone living in a
typical repressive regime, writing articles that we would all
agree are NPOV is quite good enough reason to get into
trouble.

Let me now reveal my personal interest in this issue.  While I'm
at home I use my family ISP with no special anonomity except a
made-up username.  When I'm at work, I use an anonymizer.
I can't claim that this is seriously important, but for reasons I
don't choose to explain I think I would stop writing from work if
this method became unavailable.  I'd be surprised if I'm alone
in this.

In addition, I have not yet seen a case being made that an
anonymizer is essentially different from an ISP that assigns
dynamic IP numbers.  As far as Wikipedia is concerned,
what distinguises someone editing through an anonymizer
and someone with an IP randomly assigned from a pool of
IPs belonging to a large ISP?  In the latter case it may be
possible to determine the approximate geographical location,
but why does that matter?  I suggest that there is no essential
difference at all.

Zero.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] ISBN links

body:
On Feb 16, 2004, at 12:07, Tomos at Wikipedia wrote:
> I noticed that the list of booksources at Special:booksources is
> editable - it is linked to the content of Wikipedia:Book sources. Is
> this a recently-introduced function at en.? Are other wikipedias also
> equipped with the same function?

Introduced a long time ago. Works on every wikipedia. The name of the
page should be in Wikipedia: namespace with the title that shows up
when you go to [[Special:Booksources]].

Note that currently the customized version doesn't show up if an ISBN
number isn't shown. This is a bug, but a minor one since people
shouldn't generally end up there.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040216/45150ccf/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Yann Forget

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: image copyright

body:
Hi,

>>>I have doubts. Many images are indicated copyrighted, but that the
>>> author gave permission for use. And they are in Wikipedia.
>>>When we wrote the images copyright pages with Alex, this case was
>>> mentionned, and we have some images under that copyright. Again, we
>>> think that it is better than no image at all, and better than image
>>> under fair use.
>>
>> And no, it is not better than fair use, it is worse.
>> I would tolerate fair use, because the law gives us the right to use
>> the image *without* consent from the author. I won't tolerate a status
>> where the author can change his/her mind at will. That's not
>> acceptable for Wikipedia.
>> And I would delete images under this kind of status.
>
> I disagree. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ACopyrights if you
> read it, allows that type of mention.
> You also know that fair use does not exist in France for example. Now,
> if National Geographic allow us to use 500 absolutely great pictures we
> can't find anywhere else, I would support this use. When someone offers
> you something, you do not frown the nose.
> I think it is more reasonable to use a copyrighted images offered by its
>   original author, that to just ask nothing, use it and hope that no one
> will ever discover the use in question.

Then, for the end user, what is the difference with fair use?
You should look at the small argument I had with Rinaldum about this:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%E9dia:Pages_soup%E7onn%E9es_de_copyright

>>>>>Because, if I am glad to offer my images under gfdl as a recognised
>>>>> author, I do not agree that my images are now registered as under
>>>>> copyright by Anthony DiPierro, with my name gone, perhaps for him to
>>>>> make money over my work.
>>
>> Now that's very bad. we should take this case (and others of the same
>> kind) seriously.
>
> Taking it seriously should mean taking position all together as a group.
>  Not just answering people it is their problem.

I agree with that. What do we do now?
Yann

--
http://non-violence.org Site coop?ratif sur la non-violence
http://forget-me.net Alternatives et non-violence
http://fr.wikipedia.org Encyclop?die libre
http://forget-me.net/pro/ Formations et services Linux


from_name: Delirium

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: image copyright

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

>I see three possibilities:
>1) Waste much of our time arguing with Anthony about his FDL
>interpretation, possibly hire a lawyer, possibly go to court, possibly
>lose.
>2) Name clear conditions for how individual articles must be licensed. If
>Anthony refuses to comply, permanently ban him from editing Wikipedia.
>3) Do nothing.
>
>Option 2) seems the wisest to me. Anthony is clearly a troll who, like a
>vampire, wants to suck energy from us and our project. We should not give
>him what he wants. His "fork" seems to have no intention other than to
>piss people off. It will likely fade away into the darkness as he himself
>does.
>
>
I guess I'm confused about option 2.  How does banning him from editing
Wikipedia in any way damage his ability to fork it?

-Mark


from_name: A

from_email: A

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re:Edward Senft

body:
Edward Senft wrote: "[Viajero] publicly disclos[ed] my
information on a mailing list."

-------------
There needs to be some way to remove personal
information from the wikipedia. My name has been
plastered all over the wikipedia, to the point that
Google informs the world that I am the king of trolls.

I did not introduce my name, diary, hometown,
education, etc -- sysops, such as Viajero, have used
sysop powers (such as IP and email viewing capability)
to "research" me -- I, and other users, would like for
the public display of personal information to be
halted.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


body:
Zero wrote:
>I can't claim that this is seriously important, but for
>reasons I don't choose to explain I think I would stop
>writing from work if this method became unavailable.
>I'd be surprised if I'm alone in this.

Unless your employer is paying you to edit Wikipedia, then you should not be
using the computer equipment and network resources at work to edit.

--mav

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


body:
Hi,

Some people have mentioned that from Wikisource, links like
[[[[wikipedia:xx:Article]] with xx != en do not work. It works for en:

cf.
http://sources.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium#cross_languages_links

(or Wikitravel, but that's maybe another problem there through it looks
like it is the same).

It would be nice to fix this.

Thanks,
Yann

--
http://non-violence.org Site coop?ratif sur la non-violence
http://forget-me.net Alternatives et non-violence
http://fr.wikipedia.org Encyclop?die libre
http://forget-me.net/pro/ Formations et services Linux


from_name: Gabriel Wicke

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Re: Opteron's here to battle the evil forces of
	the	Decepticons

body:
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:08:33 +0100, Alwin Meschede wrote:

 This
> "multi-arch" stuff is essentially what the Debian amd64 people wanted to
> achive, but even they have given up and now recommend either running a
> pure 64 bit environment or pure 32 bit, but not mixed.

I'm following the debian 64-bit mailing list (see
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.ports.amd64) for a while now and
didn't get this impression. There is the issue to get multi-arch support
into apt, and there's a pretty comprehensive effort for pure amd64 by John
Goerzen. The latter seems to be the one with the most progress by far, but
this doesn't say much about the feasibility of a mixed setup.

Afaik gentoo's 64bit support is quite good, and i think it's not pure
64bit. Suse is the other notable alternative, but then of course there's
the plague of an rpm-based distro ;-)
--
Gabriel Wicke


subject:
[Wikitech-l]
	Re: [llywrch-Qu4QxZL4TvpxkX0N3edXGeJ67MHkkIEDeC7auClQ49yHs3N/1jzLjA@public.gmane.org

body:
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 06:00:56 -0800, Jimmy Wales wrote:

> Can we help Geoff with this?  I will personally help him if necessary, if
> someone will tell me where the relevant files are?

The files (squid logs) are on coronelli in /var/log/squid, the current
ones mostly on browne, same dir. Tim has done some ip investigations
already, filtered files on coronelli.

I can grep the logs for dates, ips or titles as well, contact me if needed.
--
Gabriel Wicke


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: image copyright

body:
Anthere-

> And actually, when an author credit is *not* satisfied, we just say
> "well, your problem, you were nice to contribute. No, Wikipedia will not
> respect its engagement, you have to fight for your rights alone"

> Look, I spend hours in november and december writing the ecology article

> Look at the credit given to the five main authors

> http://www.slashdotsucks.com:8080/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=Ecology&action=histo
> ry

> That is interesting no ?

> Or why is the article on wheat entirely writen by one person ?
> http://www.slashdotsucks.com:8080/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=Wheat&action=history

As I've said before, I consider Anthony's fork in violation of the FDL.
Alex does not agree with me, at least not to a sufficient degree to see
any legal recourse. So what can we do?

I see three possibilities:
1) Waste much of our time arguing with Anthony about his FDL
interpretation, possibly hire a lawyer, possibly go to court, possibly
lose.
2) Name clear conditions for how individual articles must be licensed. If
Anthony refuses to comply, permanently ban him from editing Wikipedia.
3) Do nothing.

Option 2) seems the wisest to me. Anthony is clearly a troll who, like a
vampire, wants to suck energy from us and our project. We should not give
him what he wants. His "fork" seems to have no intention other than to
piss people off. It will likely fade away into the darkness as he himself
does.

Either he adjusts his behavior and can be unbanned, or he does not and he
cannot. Whatever he does, we win: We either get rid of a persistent troll,
or we get our interpretation of the FDL confirmed.

In my opinion, this is a decision Jimbo should make, as this is clearly a
Wikimedia issue. I can only attribute his silence on the matter to him not
haven taken notice of the fork and related discussion yet.

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Viajero

subject: [WikiEN-l] Danny blocks me

body:
On 02/16/04  at 07:35 AM, Edward Senft <edwardsenft at yahoo.com> said:

> The only way to respond to angela's allegations was to explain what I
> did, and that is definately not vandalism.

Well, you should have explained it to her privately OR done so on the
Conflicts page without /again/ revealing personal information about her.

V.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: trust metrics

body:
On Feb 16, 2004, at 4:44 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:

> Timwi wrote:
>
>> As has already been said, eBay doesn't have this problem because in
>> order to leave feedback you have to enter a transaction with the other
>> user. Edits don't make a good analogy because it's not a transaction
>> between two users who can then rate each other.
>
> Right, I agree that edits are not a good analogy to transactions.  We
> don't really have anything quite like a transaction.

So how's this: each user gets one "opinion" of each other user.  The
opinions can be changed at any time.  An opinion is positive, negative,
or neutral.  The individual opinions are private, and accessible only
by the users who hold them.  This encourages honesty and avoids flame
wars.  Each user has a reputation rating based on other users' opinions
of them.  Opinions are weighted: opinions held by users with higher
reputations have greater influence.

As a completely separate piece, I don't think that ratings, whatever
form they take, should be used to enforce limitations automatically.
These just seems too dangerous and un-wiki-like

Peter

                                  -- ---<>--- --
                        A house without walls cannot fall.
           Help build the world's largest encyclopedia at Wikipedia.org
                                  -- ---<>--- --