from_name: Michael Snow

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Casting call

body:
Because of my work on The Wikipedia Signpost, somebody once playfully
suggested that I should be in charge of "Wikipedia: The Movie". I don't
anticipate this happening any time soon, as it would take a lot more
skills than mine to pull off. But since it's awards season for the film
industry, I thought I'd offer for your enjoyment part of the lineup I
would pick to star in this film.

Jimmy Wales - [[Paul Giamatti]]
Angela Beesley - [[Kristin Scott Thomas]]
Florence Devouard - [[Carole Bouquet]]
Larry Sanger - [[Colin Firth]]
John Seigenthaler - [[Jon Voight]]
Brion Vibber - [[Martin Freeman]]
Daniel Mayer - [[Philip Seymour Hoffman]]
Andrew Lih - [[Chow Yun-Fat]]
Danny Wool - [[Geoffrey Rush]]
Delphine M?nard - [[Charlotte Gainsbourg]]
Tim Starling - [[Heath Ledger]]
Elisabeth Bauer - [[Alexandra Maria Lara]]
Erik M?ller - [[Sean Bean]]
Jean-Baptiste Soufron - [[Olivier Martinez]]
David Gerard - [[Pete Postlethwaite]]

Brackets indicate that you can look all of these actors up, at least on
en:, though pictures are not necessarily available there. Lest any of
the subjects be offended by my choices, I'm not necessarily saying you
look like these people. My focus was on picking capable actors who could
be made to look more or less like you. This is for entertainment value only.

However, I'm happy to entertain ideas for suggested replacements and
additional members of the cast. But keep in mind that the only way to
ensure you will be played by the actor of your choice is to foot the
bill for that actor's salary.

--Michael Snow


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Sean Barrett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Here's an interesting one

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

Jon stated for the record:

> It looks like WP's in danger of letting the lunatics run the asylum. Time for some commonsense intervention from Jimbo?
>
>   Jon
>   (jguk)

Can't hurt, but may not help.  These process fetishists see nothing odd
about claiming that Jimbo has no idea what Wikipedia is all about ...
which almost makes sense when you wrap your mind around the fact that
they think Wikipedia is entirely an exercise in Holy Process, regardless
of result, and that those of us who are here to build an encyclopedia
are at best weirdos and at worse blasphemers and schismatics (with maybe
an apostate or two throw in for leavening).

David understates the case, by the way:  It is hilarious to watch them
arguing over the correct procedure to "get" Tony, when it's obvious that
they haven't even begun the process for developing the plan to generate
a schedule to outline [[Wikipedia:Requests for Lynching]]  ([[WP:RfL]]).

- --
 Sean Barrett     | Nanotechnology can do *anything*, just
 sean at epoptic.org | like atomic power could in the 1950s.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFD4Mx7MAt1wyd9d+URAmmaAJ0fWLomSbEzJ94kw8pRMhKc4WzCrgCdFUs1
E1J7N09UThr2N8CS5oae33s=
=qYIp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: US Congress Staff Editing Wikipedia

body:
On 1/31/06, Michael Snow <wikipedia at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Tim Starling wrote:
>
> >Michael Snow wrote:
> >US fair use legislation is already among the most generous in the world. Coupled with US-centric
> >Wikipedia policy, this has the effect that anyone attempting to distribute Wikipedia offline outside
> >the US risks being sued for copyright infringment. I'd prefer it if US fair use legislation was
> >brought into line with the rest of the world, i.e. made more restrictive not less.
> >
> >
> You mean this seriously? You'd rather make fair use in the US more
> restrictive than make fair use/dealing/practice/whatever in other
> countries less restrictive?
>
> I understand the concern about Wikipedia policy vis-a-vis the laws of
> nations generally, and personally I think we should avoid relying on
> fair use if at all possible, but that's not what I was getting at. The
> point was that asking for more clarity on these issues from Congress, or
> any other body where rights organizations wield their influence, would
> likely only result in making it more clear when the answer is "No."
>
I wouldn't go so far as to say that I'd like to see the US make fair
use more restrictive - although frankly it probably wouldn't matter
all that much in my daily life.

But making it more clear when the answer is "No."  That'd be
tremendously helpful to Wikipedia, in that it'd resolve a lot of
conflict, and I really don't see how it'd hurt anything.

Anthony


list: foundation-l

subject:
[Foundation-l] Re: Outsiders on the Board? (was Re: Poll for
	Wikistandards)

body:
On 1/30/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> > As I understand things, there are two types of people in the Wikimedia
> > Foundation and its projects.
> >
> >    * There are the person with an official role; they are appointed or
> >      chosen to their function.
> >    * There are the persons with no official status as far as the WMF is
> >      concerned. These include stewards, bureaucrats, admins and users.
> >
> > Only the first two groups have any protection for what they do within
> > the Wikimedia Foundation. They have this protection as they represent
> > the Wikimedia Foundation in an official capacity. When something is done
> > on any of the projects that results in a legal situation, it is the
> > person who will be, when identified, be the one prosecuted. Depending on
> > the situation the Wikimedia Foundation or a chapter may involve itself,
> > this is not a given.
> >
> > When a person in his official position gets into a legal situation, it
> > typically is the organisation, here the Wikimedia Foundation, who will
> > be prosecuted. It is only when a person is criminally negligent or
> > involved that there is a ground to prosecute an individual.
> >
> > This is my understanding of how these things work. The consequence is
> > that officers of the WMF or of chapters have protection that all other
> > WMF volunteers lack. The fact that statutory laws exist for '''gross'''
> > mismanagement is something that we should welcome. Typically it takes
> > some effort to qualify as gross mismanagement. Given the people that we
> > currently have in official positions this is unlikely to happen.
> >
> > The only group of people for whom it is not entirely clear to me what
> > their status is, are the people who help out on OTRS. Yes, I do know how
> > careful these people try to do their job.. :)
> >
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
>
>
> My apologies Gerard, but all this seems to me to be a misconception of
> the whole issue. Not even erroneous, but dangerous actually.
>
> I think it is incorrect to imply that those elected/appointed are
> somehow "protected" by their position in the Foundation (ie, the
> Foundation will be prosecuted rather than them as individuals) while
> "regular editors" lack protection.
>
> I would like to ask Brad here to clarify this issue publicly for you,
> and for all those who read your statement. Brad, can you help ? Thanks
> in advance :-)
>
>
> Anthere

It seems to me that he is basically right.  The doctrine is
[[respondeat superior]], and it typically applies only to people
working in an official capacity.

Anthony


list: wikimedia-l


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Rob Church

subject: [Wikitech-l] Need help making categorization heading work

body:
You appear to be getting confused about how categories and subcategories work.

a. Pages are added to categories when editing them. You might add
[[Category:Bar]] to a page, for instance. When viewing that category,
you'll see that page listed.

b. Categories can also be added to categories, in the same manner;
when editing the description page for that category, you might add
[[Category:Foo]] to it.

When viewing the category tree, you would click on Foo and see all the
pages and subcategories within it, including Bar. If you click on Bar,
you would then see all the pages and subcategories within that,
including the page from example A.

I appreciate the wording is a little off, but I hope this helps.

Rob Church

On 01/02/06, rmFine32 at aol.com <rmFine32 at aol.com> wrote:
> Using MediaWiki version 1.5.6
>
> I created [[:category:country]]
> and in the page of category a I create a subcategory city
> [[:category:country:city]]
>
> In city, there is at the top of the page "Category:country" as text
> instead of a link back to the parent category (country). Is this the
> proper behavior?  How do I get the automatic top heading be links to
> parent categories?
>
> I tried setting $wgUseCategoryBrowser in the defaultsettings.php to
> true, but it did not do anything. It did not even show the DMOZ like ..
> ">" .. headings.
>
> Thanks for any guidance.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


body:
On 2/1/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> It seems to me that he is basically right.  The doctrine is
> [[respondeat superior]], and it typically applies only to people
> working in an official capacity.
>
> Anthony
>
Doing more research, there is also, under United States federal law,
the [[Volunteer Protection Act of 1997]].  It's arguable how much it
would apply to Wikipedians, since it requires the volunteer to be
"acting within the scope of the volunteer's responsibilities".  The
best case could be made for those arbitrators appointed by Jimbo.  In
terms of editors, admins, even beurocrats, it'd be a tougher argument.

Of course, the act only applies to volunteers, people who aren't paid.
 And looking further into the doctrine of respondeat superior,
apparently that doctrine is about giving the employer liability rather
than about giving the employee protection.  In practice if I for
instance make a mistake on someone's tax return at work and cost the
taxpayer $1000 in penalties my employer is going to get sued, and I
probably won't be.  But I can't find any definitive answer that this
is an actual part of the law, and I could in theory be sued for (for
example) making a mistake while performing my duties at work (that'd
be somewhat shocking and dismaying if it turns out to be true).

Anthony


subject: [WikiEN-l] Here's an interesting one

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

David Gerard stated for the record:

> Kirill Lokshin wrote:
>
>>On 2/1/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
>>>David understates the case, by the way:
>
>>I suspect there would be three schools of thoughts on this:
>
>
> Could you please both post these messages on WP:ANI.

My half is added (at the current bottom) slightly edited to flow better
.... Kirill, would you please add your "three schools of thought" as a
reply to my comment?

- --
 Sean Barrett     | Nanotechnology can do *anything*, just
 sean at epoptic.org | like atomic power could in the 1950s.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFD4NkcMAt1wyd9d+URAioOAJ9kQL80gVIU9Of5m/v0PX4zdCxwfACfbpRv
7nb7DFRwwJjlMizM2SWqNc4=
=QGjO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Phil Boswell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: A quick references survey

body:
"geni" <geniice at gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f80608430601311503x28b13a09v85f5172993c15c5d at mail.gmail.com...
[snip]
> Softwear exists. Currently not in use for a number of reasons.

I h?d a n?ce j?mper b?t the m??se ?te it.
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]
...like a straight line like that is resistable?


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: John Platt

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: nl problem

body:
On 1/31/06, Giuseppe DAngelo <pippudoz at yahoo.it> wrote:
>
>   It's been clear to me for a while that the large wikipedias are as much
> about furthering western hegemony as anything else.  NPOV generally means
> making western civilisation look like the absolute pinnacle, POV is when one
> dares challenge this hegemony.  Write about vikings or celts and you can say
> anything you want without ever being challenged, dare suggest that something
> originated in the mediterranean, and all hell breaks loose.
>

My participation has generally been limited to the English Wikipedia.  20th
Century Science Fiction and fantasy media including pulp magazines comic
books and comic strips.  I also did one stub on a prominent Wiccan which was
amended because he was also a gay activist, and I just did a stub for the
late activist Stew Albert based on two Newspaper accounts and Jerry Rubin's
book Do It!.  I'm not saying this just to toot my own horn, but to specify
one of two limited areas I have experience in.  The other is Nigerian
Literature (don't ask).

Within these limited areas I see a very different Wikipedia from the one
which you describe.  Influential but obsure writers such as the Nigerian
Cyprian Ekwensi have their stubs, and the Mexican comic book Fantomas is
described fairly in the larger Fantomas article.

Off-hand,  I would say that while the English Wikipedia often uses the
language of Western Hegemony, it is actually very good and constantly
improving in its presentation of Third World Issues as they appear to the
people who live with them on a day-to-day basis.

I don't believe in objectivity, even as the Wikipedia defines it, which is
why I've posted in my user profile the specific request that anyone who
reads my posts be aggressive in their rewriting.  Most people from third
world countries and cultures I've met (including family) use the language I
grew up with and which you are attacking quite comfortably.  I find myself
having fewer qualms about using it myself as I get older.  However, when I
listen to them or to myself, I find we are all saying things which are quite
new.  I don't believe in objectivity but I do believe in some kinds of
courtesy and accuracy which for the most part I do see in the Wikipedia.
>From this perspective, points of view exist and cannot be excised totally,
but this is as true of efforts to edit the Wikipedia as it is of specific
contributions.

Such sweeping statements don't help because they identify specific markers
as representing a point of view (Imperialist).  My experience, following
mainly African and Latin American voices who are exerting more and more of a
voice on American Culture, specifically and also within the Wikipedia
itself, is that many of those who are directly exposed to the effects of
this Hegemony, and who are not happy with it, express themselves very well
using phrases which, if I understand you correctly, you would have a problem
with because of their historical identification with the North.


from_name: Stephen Bain

subject: [WikiEN-l] Policy on putting email addresses on wiki pages

body:
On 1/31/06, Tom Steinberg <tom at tomsteinberg.co.uk> wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> We've been mulling dumping all the Northern Ireland Assembly member's
> email addresses onto the relevent page on wikipedia, and then writing
> a scraper script to keep our own WriteToThem systems up to date.
>
> This raises a policy question:
>
> Is it permissable to put email addresses on wikipedia, if they're
> already public?

If opening up a regular encyclopaedia, and browsing the article on a
person, would you expect to find their email address? I don't think
so.

Moreover, if you want to keep your own software up to date, please use
your own facilities for this, rather than exploiting Wikipedia. The
developers do not take kindly to scripts scraping content off the
Wikimedia sites.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Update: Floricic vs Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.

body:
On 2/1/06, Mathias Schindler <neubau at presroi.de> wrote:
>
> Does anyone know any other person by the name of Floricic?

IP Australia has a surname search faciliity, which counts the number
of times a given surname appears in census data:
http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/atmoss/falcon_search_tools.Main?pSearch=Surname
This is useful for trademark research, and such. I don't read German,
so someone who does might like to have a look for a similar tool on a
government site in Germany (either at an equivalent body, or at the
census bureau, etc)?

(For the record, there are no Floricics in Australia.)

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


from_name: rmFine32 at aol.com

body:
You are correct. Creating a page "test" and adding to the page
[[Category:Bar]] does exactly what I want. That is, it creates two
links above my text "Category : Bar" each pointing back to Category and
Bar category pages.

The problem I am trying to solve is to have this done automatically by
MediaWiki without me having to do anything.  The MediaWiki
documentation says I can create a subcategory by prefixing a colon to
the category tag as in [[:Category:Bar:]] and saving the page, which I
am doing. Then, when I go to the page "test", and add content to it and
save it, just below the tabs menu on top of the page, the text
"Category:Bar" appears. I would have thought that MediaWiki is smart
enough to make these texts into links, the same way as if I have
inserted in the page "test" the tag [[Category: Bar]]".

I don't know if MediaWiki is capable of this, or I need a templates
with parameters, etc.  I hope I made the idea clear. To create a
subcategory from the parent category, and to have a link back to the
parent category be added automatically.

I was under the impression that it is possible to do this. But I could
be mistaken.
On Feb 1, 2006, at 2:24 AM, Rob Church wrote:

> You appear to be getting confused about how categories and
> subcategories work.
>
> a. Pages are added to categories when editing them. You might add
> [[Category:Bar]] to a page, for instance. When viewing that category,
> you'll see that page listed.
>
> b. Categories can also be added to categories, in the same manner;
> when editing the description page for that category, you might add
> [[Category:Foo]] to it.
>
> When viewing the category tree, you would click on Foo and see all the
> pages and subcategories within it, including Bar. If you click on Bar,
> you would then see all the pages and subcategories within that,
> including the page from example A.
>
> I appreciate the wording is a little off, but I hope this helps.
>
>
> Rob Church
>
> On 01/02/06, rmFine32 at aol.com <rmFine32 at aol.com> wrote:
>> Using MediaWiki version 1.5.6
>>
>> I created [[:category:country]]
>> and in the page of category a I create a subcategory city
>> [[:category:country:city]]
>>
>> In city, there is at the top of the page "Category:country" as text
>> instead of a link back to the parent category (country). Is this the
>> proper behavior?  How do I get the automatic top heading be links to
>> parent categories?
>>
>> I tried setting $wgUseCategoryBrowser in the defaultsettings.php to
>> true, but it did not do anything. It did not even show the DMOZ like
>> ..
>> ">" .. headings.
>>
>> Thanks for any guidance.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikitech-l mailing list
>> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [WikiEN-l] The deletion paradox

body:
On 2/1/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, it is described in many places that potentially libellous
> material does not belong. But there is a difference between "it
> doesn't belong" and "actively look for it and destroy it unless it has
> rock solid references".
>

I thought it didn't need to be described, I assumed it to be
commonsense.  But perhaps it does need to be spelled out.

If there is an item of any kind that contains unverified potentially
libellous statements, it's probably best to delete it and put a note
about what you've done on [[WP:AN]].  Someone can look at the history
and see if it contains salvageable early revisions.


from_name: Tim Starling

body:
Michael Snow wrote:
> Tim Starling wrote:
>
>> Michael Snow wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Bryan Derksen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> My secret dream is to see the United States Congress hauled up before
>>>> the Arbitration Committee. Maybe we could get them to pass clearer
>>>> fair-use legislation as part of their parole.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Clearer fair use legislation is not likely to do us any good. What we
>>> want is *more generous* fair use legislation.
>>>
>>
>> US fair use legislation is already among the most generous in the
>> world. Coupled with US-centric
>> Wikipedia policy, this has the effect that anyone attempting to
>> distribute Wikipedia offline outside
>> the US risks being sued for copyright infringment. I'd prefer it if US
>> fair use legislation was
>> brought into line with the rest of the world, i.e. made more
>> restrictive not less.
>>
>>
> You mean this seriously? You'd rather make fair use in the US more
> restrictive than make fair use/dealing/practice/whatever in other
> countries less restrictive?

We were talking about what we'd like the Congress to do, not WIPO. Come to think of it, there's a
step Congress could take towards harmonization that would be more useful for us: to reduce the term
of copyright to the Berne Convention minimum of life + 50 years.

-- Tim Starling


from_name: Kirill Lokshin

subject: [WikiEN-l] Here's an interesting one

body:
On 2/1/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
>
> David understates the case, by the way:  It is hilarious to watch them
> arguing over the correct procedure to "get" Tony, when it's obvious that
> they haven't even begun the process for developing the plan to generate
> a schedule to outline [[Wikipedia:Requests for Lynching]]  ([[WP:RfL]]).

I suspect there would be three schools of thoughts on this:

The first would argue that, to follow proper process, Tony should be
listed on [[Wikipedia:Users for lynching]] and lynched after consensus
is achieved over a period of seven days.

The second will point out that, as Tony qualifies as a Rouge Admin
(see [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy lynching]]), he can be lynched
immediately without the need for a full discussion.

The third will argue that, while Tony may not meet the criteria for
speedy lynching per se, IAR allows lynching him immediately and
listing him on [[Wikipedia:Lynching review]] to see if anyone
disagrees.

Kirill Lokshin


from_name: Delirium

subject: [WikiEN-l] Here's an interesting one

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>Eventually producing a good encyclopedia is _exactly_ what I'm talking
>about.  That's why it's better to delete crap than keep it.  Having tons
>and tons of junk articles does not help us create a good quality
>encyclopedia; it encourages more of the same.
>
>
It depends on what you mean by "junk article".  If it's an article that
cannot possibly prove useful to a future editor, then yes, it should be
deleted.  Most stubs aren't in this category, though.

If it's an article that is not good *now* as an article, but might be
useful to a future editor, then it shouldn't be deleted---instead we
should develop some sort of labeling system so a reader who stumbles
onto it is properly notified that this article is very much a
work-in-progress and not yet ready for serious use as a reference.

-Mark


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] The deletion paradox

body:
> It can be, yes.  But as in the Siegenthaler incident, there
> are cases where there is an unsourced negative claim that
> anyone could easily spot and remove.  You don't need to be an
> expert in anything to know that claiming someone was briefly
> suspected of an involvement in the Kennedy assassinations
> requires a source and should be instantly removed if there is
> no source.

> Right, but this wasn't a "potentially libelous" or negative
> article, I assume?  If it says "Such and such is a journalist
> in India, he worked here, he worked there" then fine, tag it
> {{POV-check}} and ask for sources.  If it says "Such and such
> is a NeoNazi activist..." or "Such-and-such was convicted of
> rape..." then if there is no source, blank it!
>
> --Jimbo

It strikes me that you are giving directives which are not spelt out
in [[WP:V]] (or would it be [[WP:BLP]]. They sound very reasonable,
but perhaps this new policy of "delete all unsourced potentially
libellous material no matter what" should be made more public.

Yes, it is described in many places that potentially libellous
material does not belong. But there is a difference between "it
doesn't belong" and "actively look for it and destroy it unless it has
rock solid references".

>From an earlier post:
>Totally!  What you do in such a case is give the article an aura of
>having been checked or written by real Wikipedians, when it's still the
>same crap some anon stuck in there in the first place.

This is another argument for having proper quality tags/stable
versions/verified versions. There are many people who make formatting
changes to articles without reading them, such as the various
wikiprojects for punctuation etc. I don't think we should discourage
them. The software should simply make a clearer distinction between "X
looked at this article, thought it was ok, and added a full stop" and
"X simply added a full stop".

Hell, even a couple of extra edit summary tags would help. We have
"minor edit", why not "proofread", "checked sources" or "checked for
unsourced libellous material"?

Steve


from_name: Dan Jacobson

subject: [WikiEN-l] IMG/ALT double vision etc.

body:
Your IMG/ALT code produces double vision for users who don't use the images:
$ lynx http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_stop
   A typical bus stop in Singapore. These bus stops are all flag stops.
   Enlarge
   A typical bus stop in Singapore. These bus stops are all flag stops.

P.S., Often one must have to click a link to find out what some
acronym is all about. E.g., ASBO on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed-circuit_television. But we might
already be offline so can't click.

This 'star of life' is confusing for non image using users:
$ lynx -dump http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_hormone|grep -i star
   [47]Star of life This [48]medical article is a [49]stub. You can
  47. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Star_of_life2.png


subject: [WikiEN-l] Here's an interesting one

body:
On 2/1/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
>
> David Gerard stated for the record:
>
> > Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> >
> >>On 2/1/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
> >>>David understates the case, by the way:
> >
> >>I suspect there would be three schools of thoughts on this:
> >
> >
> > Could you please both post these messages on WP:ANI.
>
> My half is added (at the current bottom) slightly edited to flow better
> .... Kirill, would you please add your "three schools of thought" as a
> reply to my comment?

Done.

Kirill Lokshin


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: Using material on Wiki with permission,
	but with restrictions

body:
"STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA"
<wizzard_bane at yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20060201104705.82718.qmail at web52309.mail.yahoo.com...
[snip: he found an article which looks good]
> ... Another thing that I would like to know, and which
> relates to this case, is whether we can credit the
> article to the author who wrote it.

Paraphrase the article that you found, with maybe a few quotes if there's a
particular way of saying something which doesn't condense well, and include
a link to the original in your ==References == section.

This should be OK regardless of how the original article was licensed.

HTH HAND
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


from_name: Carl Fûrstenberg

subject: [WikiEN-l] US Congress Staff Editing Wikipedia

body:
Any "big" reporters?

On 1/30/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>
> Steve Bennett wrote:
> > My reaction seems to be unique so far. I would think it much better
> > for the Wikipedia project that we do not publicise that we know
> > exactly who is doing this. It is fascinating to watch the congress
> > staffers at work. It is just a pity that shortly they will smarten up
> > and be doing this with proper accounts via different IPs.
> >
> > If there have only been a thousand changes so far, most of which were
> > positive, this does not seem to be a "major" problem. Certainly not
> > compared to the information we're gleaning from this. So, by all
> > means, let's continue to revert the particularly obnoxious changes,
> > but asking them to "stop it" will simply make it invisible.
>
> A little late for that since my phone is ringing off the hook with
> reporters interested in the story.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Oscar Quintanilla

subject: [Wikitech-l] How to contribute new features

body:
--- Manuel V?zquez Acosta <mva.led at gmail.com> a
?crit?:

> Hi all,
>
> A few weeks ago I was asked to set up a wiki, I
> choose mediawiki (1.5.3 was
> the stable version these days) as the software. As I
> worked on the
> project customers asked me for some modifications. I
> want to share
> those with the comunity. Currently the patch is for
> version 1.5.3, but
> if you think features are worthy I can create a
> patch for version
> 1.5.6 (current stable).
>
> The patch is available in
>
http://www.chasqui.cu/staff/manu/2006/mediawiki/mediawiki-1.5.3-manu.bz2
>
>
> This a sumary of features:
> 1.  Added a initTemplate(&$tpl) method in
> SkinTemplate in order to
> give a chance to subclases to initialize
> QuickTemplates in several ways.
> 2. Added 2 global vars to keep category pages from
> displaying the
> header "Articles in category XXX" and no articles at
> all.
> 3. Added a 'talk' permission to allow wiki admins to
> restrict
> anonymous access to pages in NS_TALK namespace.
> 4. Added 1 global var to control how firstChar()
> should behave in
> order to create index entries in category page's
> listings. This, I
> think, should be done other way, please read the
> comments in the
> patch.
>
> Files modified:
> 1. CategoryPage.php
> 2. DefaultSettings.php (in order to set the
> introduced permission and
> global vars to current default values, this is, as
> if they never
> existed)
> 3. SkinTemplate.php
> 4. Title.php (permissions are granted here)
> 5. Language.php and LanguageUtf8.php  (firstChar
> mod, see above)
> 6. LanguageEs.php (disposable)
> escribir en franc?s o en espanol por favor ya que no
comprendo ingl?s
>
> I would like to hear comments.
>
> Regards,
> Manuel.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>

___________________________________________________________________________
Nouveau : t?l?phonez moins cher avec Yahoo! Messenger ! D?couvez les tarifs exceptionnels pour appeler la France et l'international.
T?l?chargez sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Re: A quick references survey

body:
"Alphax (Wikipedia email)"
<alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote in message
news:43E0A142.2010709 at gmail.com...
> Phil Boswell wrote:
> "geni" <geniice at gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:f80608430601311503x28b13a09v85f5172993c15c5d at mail.gmail.com...
> >> [snip]
> >>Softwear exists. Currently not in use for a number of reasons.
> > I h? a n?e j?per b? the m?se ?e it.
> The moose put pictograms in your jumper?

Near enough for jazz, or indeed for government work :-)

The people responsible for encoding the previous message have been fired,
BTW :-)
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Using material on Wiki with permission,
	but with restrictions

body:
On 2/1/06, STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA <wizzard_bane at yahoo.com> wrote:
> "This paper was developed by a student taking a
> Philanthropic Studies course taught at the Center on
> Philanthropy at Indiana University. It is offered by
> Learning To Give and the Center on Philanthropy at
> Indiana University. This page may be reproduced for
> educational, noncommercial uses only, all other rights
> reserved."

To add to what Phil said, the solution is simple: Don't reproduce the
text. Refer to it in the text, and paraphrase or quote as necessary.
The terms on that page are no different from any other copyrighted
work - you simply can't wholesale copy the text.

Steve


from_name: Mark Wagner

subject:
[OT] Jimbo Wales' edit count (was: Re: [WikiEN-l] Here's an
	interesting one)

body:
On 2/1/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> >1890 edits at a very low edit rate. Little evidence of vandle fighting and has
> >failed to create any featured articles. The distibution of edits is
> pretty good although
> >a little low on article space. Would probably get through RFA but
> would not be completely clear cut.
>
> In another 30 edits, that could be describing me :)
>
> Seriously though:
>
> Username        Jimbo Wales
> Total edits     1890
> Image uploads   9 (7 cur, 2 old)
> Distinct pages edited   727
> Edits/page (avg)        2.60
>
> First edit      2001-03-27 20:47:31
>
> Articles        417
> Talk    211
> User    128
> User talk       809
> Project 198
> Project talk    62
>
> 1 in 4 edits actually in the article space, and  twice as many on user
> pages? Not to mention 128 edits to his own user page? I'm not sure
> what measure you use to judge "pretty good" edit distribution - the
> guy is clearly not here to create an encyclopaedia :)

On the other hand, the high number of "talk", "user talk", and
"wikipedia" edits could indicate that the user is pretty good at
calming down edit wars -- exactly the sort of person we want as an
admin.  You'd have to check a sample of his edits to determine this.

--
Mark Wagner
[[User:Carnildo]]


from_name: Pawe³ Dembowski

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Insulting the islam is allowed on nl: wikipedia

body:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) napisa?u:

> Actually when I first saw the cartoons I thought we would have a repeat
> of the autofellatio debate where the end result was that regardless of
> decency, offense or censorship, the images were copyvio :)

Wasn't the original autofellatio one also a copyvio?

--
Ausir
Wikipedia, wolna encyklopedia
http://pl.wikipedia.org


subject: [Wikitech-l] Password security

body:
A question, all those sockpupped accounts (Willy, the North Carolinan
Communist etc...), do they use passwords?

On 1/31/06, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
>
> I've disabled the ability to use blank passwords on wiki accounts.
>
> For a long time we treated accounts very laxly in this regard; there
> generally
> wasn't _that_ much reason to secure a casual account unless you were one
> of the
> tiny number of sysops.
>
> In recent years though the number of sysops has exploded, and we've added
> customization features like the user javascript which are cool but
> potentially
> really annoying if someone gets into your account and messes with them. As
> a
> small concession to security and accountability, it's time for blank
> passwords
> to go.
>
> While running some password security checks, I found that a handful of
> sysop
> accounts had blank passwords. Probably some non-sysop accounts also had
> blanks.
>
> Affected accounts can reset the password by the automated e-mail password
> gadget
> on the login form, unless of course they didn't put in an e-mail.
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>
>


subject: [Wikitech-l] Password security

body:
I'd guess most of them do use a shared password.

Rob Church

On 01/02/06, Carl F?rstenberg <azatoth at gmail.com> wrote:
> A question, all those sockpupped accounts (Willy, the North Carolinan
> Communist etc...), do they use passwords?
>
> On 1/31/06, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> > I've disabled the ability to use blank passwords on wiki accounts.
> >
> > For a long time we treated accounts very laxly in this regard; there
> > generally
> > wasn't _that_ much reason to secure a casual account unless you were one
> > of the
> > tiny number of sysops.
> >
> > In recent years though the number of sysops has exploded, and we've added
> > customization features like the user javascript which are cool but
> > potentially
> > really annoying if someone gets into your account and messes with them. As
> > a
> > small concession to security and accountability, it's time for blank
> > passwords
> > to go.
> >
> > While running some password security checks, I found that a handful of
> > sysop
> > accounts had blank passwords. Probably some non-sysop accounts also had
> > blanks.
> >
> > Affected accounts can reset the password by the automated e-mail password
> > gadget
> > on the login form, unless of course they didn't put in an e-mail.
> >
> > -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


body:
Brion, please unsubscribe chicoguerra58 at yahoo.fr from this and other
mailing lists. With all due respect to Mr. Quintanilla, his responses
seem to all demand that messages be translated into French or Spanish,
and we can't expect that each poster will be willing or able to do
that.

Rob Church

On 01/02/06, Oscar Quintanilla <chicoguerra58 at yahoo.fr> wrote:
> --- Manuel V?zquez Acosta <mva.led at gmail.com> a
> ?crit:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > A few weeks ago I was asked to set up a wiki, I
> > choose mediawiki (1.5.3 was
> > the stable version these days) as the software. As I
> > worked on the
> > project customers asked me for some modifications. I
> > want to share
> > those with the comunity. Currently the patch is for
> > version 1.5.3, but
> > if you think features are worthy I can create a
> > patch for version
> > 1.5.6 (current stable).
> >
> > The patch is available in
> >
> http://www.chasqui.cu/staff/manu/2006/mediawiki/mediawiki-1.5.3-manu.bz2
> >
> >
> > This a sumary of features:
> > 1.  Added a initTemplate(&$tpl) method in
> > SkinTemplate in order to
> > give a chance to subclases to initialize
> > QuickTemplates in several ways.
> > 2. Added 2 global vars to keep category pages from
> > displaying the
> > header "Articles in category XXX" and no articles at
> > all.
> > 3. Added a 'talk' permission to allow wiki admins to
> > restrict
> > anonymous access to pages in NS_TALK namespace.
> > 4. Added 1 global var to control how firstChar()
> > should behave in
> > order to create index entries in category page's
> > listings. This, I
> > think, should be done other way, please read the
> > comments in the
> > patch.
> >
> > Files modified:
> > 1. CategoryPage.php
> > 2. DefaultSettings.php (in order to set the
> > introduced permission and
> > global vars to current default values, this is, as
> > if they never
> > existed)
> > 3. SkinTemplate.php
> > 4. Title.php (permissions are granted here)
> > 5. Language.php and LanguageUtf8.php  (firstChar
> > mod, see above)
> > 6. LanguageEs.php (disposable)
> > escribir en franc?s o en espanol por favor ya que no
> comprendo ingl?s
> >
> > I would like to hear comments.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Manuel.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> >
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Nouveau : t?l?phonez moins cher avec Yahoo! Messenger ! D?couvez les tarifs exceptionnels pour appeler la France et l'international.
> T?l?chargez sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: Sander Spek

body:
* Walter van Kalken:
> Ermmm probably you didn't read about already one good user
> ..... who is a muslim ..... has left nl: over these remarks
> ..... and you say let this user stay on ?? Is there something
> wrong there? We will loose more users than this one who insults
> all who bring us. Are you on nl: wikipedia by any chance :|

It's also the constant pressure of people wanting to ban users
for their opinions that has made at least one user leave, so
please do not see it al so black-white.

When I read the discussions about WP-NL on this list, I see a lot
of biased information, or stories that give only a part of the
truth. (Not that I would be able to do it better, though.)
Therefore I ask outsiders who want to have an opinion, to make a
small study of the history over there, instead of shouting things
based on messages on this list.

It's a complicated world out there...

   Sander Spek


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

body:
Craig Franklin wrote:
> Walter,
>
> This chap sounds like quite the fool.  If he's actually putting this in
> articles (I do not read Dutch well, so I don't know exactly what was
> written), then it is POV rubbish and should be reverted like any common
> vandalism.  Saying "Allah Akhbar is almost the same as Heil Hitler" is quite
> clearly POV.
>
Hoi,
It depends on how you want to read it. When you read it as "Allah
Akhbar"  and "Heil Hitler"  are used in a similar way, as a greeting
that also expresses something that is believed in, it should be possible
to make this remark. It is however to be seen in the light of the
context of what is to be achieved. When this remark is made in order to
denigrate Muslims or Islam or push anti Islam sentiments it is wrong and
it deserves action including a ban.

The problem in the Dutch Wikipedia is an increasing amount of POV
pushing, this POV is obviously seen as necessary by the pusher. However
"what is good for the goose is good for the gander", both sides of the
spectrum are increasingly intolerant, vocal and drastic in their
actions. When Wikipedia is to be a civil place, it is necessary to act
against this pushiness never mind what side of an argument is being
pushed. It is necessary to be even handed never mind who transgresses.

Thanks,
   GerardM


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] Here's an interesting one

body:
Jimbo wrote:

>I think a few people have gotten quite confused about the role of admins
>due to the excessive rules lawyering.  Maybe they are the ones who need
>to rethink it.

See [[WP:ANI]] - a lynchmob of process-obsessives attempting to
discuss the process for a lynching. It's almost amusing.

(Apparently referring to discussion on wikien-l means I'm purporting
to speak for the Foundation. Huh?)

- d.


from_name: Matt Brown

body:
On 2/1/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> I dunno I seem to recall he mentioned haveing a life outside wikipedia
> as one point.

Removed as unverified, possibly libellous ;)

-Matt


body:
Walter van Kalken wrote:

> Ermmm probably you didn't read about already one good user ..... who
> is a muslim ..... has left nl: over these remarks ..... and you say
> let this user stay on ?? Is there something wrong there? We will loose
> more users than this one who insults all who bring us. Are you on nl:
> wikipedia by any chance :|

This is unfortunate, but in combatting a problem we have to make sure we
don't introduce a worse one.

Consider a vaguely similar situation on en: at least one American user I
know of has left (at least temporarily) after some non-Americans made
particularly vociferous anti-American comments, along the lines of
"Americans are bigoted idiots who voted in a fascist president and don't
know anything about world affairs" (paraphrase).  Should we ban people
for making such comments?  I think they should be discouraged, and
people should be banned if they're being disruptive (e.g. going around
specifically to make offensive comments), but being too ban-happy is
problematic also.

-Mark


from_name: Jon

subject: [WikiEN-l] Here's an interesting one

body:
It looks like WP's in danger of letting the lunatics run the asylum. Time for some commonsense intervention from Jimbo?

  Jon
  (jguk)

David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
  Jimbo wrote:

>I think a few people have gotten quite confused about the role of admins
>due to the excessive rules lawyering. Maybe they are the ones who need
>to rethink it.

See [[WP:ANI]] - a lynchmob of process-obsessives attempting to
discuss the process for a lynching. It's almost amusing.

(Apparently referring to discussion on wikien-l means I'm purporting
to speak for the Foundation. Huh?)

- d.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---------------------------------
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Here's an interesting one

body:
On 2/1/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> Jimbo wrote:
>
> >I think a few people have gotten quite confused about the role of admins
> >due to the excessive rules lawyering.  Maybe they are the ones who need
> >to rethink it.
>
>
> See [[WP:ANI]] - a lynchmob of process-obsessives attempting to
> discuss the process for a lynching. It's almost amusing.

It's okay.  I just told them I would stay away from DRV for a bit, and
wouldn't do any article undeletions or template deletions for a while.
 They may a tree, but I just took away their rope.


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: [OT] Jimbo Wales' edit count

body:
Mark Wagner wrote:
> On the other hand, the high number of "talk", "user talk", and
> "wikipedia" edits could indicate that the user is pretty good at
> calming down edit wars -- exactly the sort of person we want as an
> admin.  You'd have to check a sample of his edits to determine this.

His editing pattern is suspiciously similar to trolls.  Also, notice
some of those recent edits -- it seems like every time there's a
controversial biography he comes along and blanks the page.

tsk tsk, a sure troublemaker
;-)

--
#######################################################################
# irc: jwales on irc.freenode.net | http://www.wikicities.com/        #
# office: +1-727-231-0101         | Free Culture Communities          #
#######################################################################


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Here's an interesting one

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

grm_wnr stated for the record:

> I have blocked both of you for off-site editing coordination.
>
> (that's a joke , in case anyone is wondering)
>
> grm_wnr

Y'know, if [[User:the Epopt]] were blocked, I'd create a sockpuppet and
have the time of my life.  You'd never catch me, because I'd edit a
completely different set of pages.  I'd never touch RfAr -- I'd stay
away from Crap for Deletion -- I'd even avoid making fun of Process That
Is Important -- instead, I'd actually edit articles!

Mmm ... articles ... <Homer Simpson drool>

- --
 Sean Barrett     | Nanotechnology can do *anything*, just
 sean at epoptic.org | like atomic power could in the 1950s.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFD4UA8MAt1wyd9d+URAp+0AJ0Zpqx8hkhK2TF7kt4mdzPEJX0ZbQCfbHkJ
hsV1buendW4uUagcjmyTopE=
=+cdz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Walter Vermeir

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: announce-l and "Wikizine"?

body:
Brion Vibber <brion at ...> writes:
[cut]
> * It looks like Walter Vermeir owns this wikizine.org domain himself. What's
the
> status of it? If Walter loses interest will it continue? Who'll be responsible
> for renewing it?

To my surprise the domain wikizine.org was not yet taken. A .org is not
expensive, so I have paid for it and I will continue to pay for it so long I am
interested.

I am actively involved since early 2002 with Wikipedia so I would say it is not
very likely that I will lose interest soon.

> * I received a request to make a mailing list for a Romanian-language
Wikizine.
> Are we going to add more such lists, and if so should we do so under the
> 'announce' name set or 'wikizine'?

If the realy wish to call it "Wikizine", so be it. But it would prefer if the
did not do that. To use the same name can give confusing.

If it is only a translation of Wikizine then it make sense to also use that
name. Best can the contact me to see what there plans are and how we can work
together.

> * Some 'marketing' ;) This has been going on for two or three months and I
never
> noticed. Was I just asleep at the wheel, or are a lot of people missing out
who
> might be interested?

Number -5 until number 0 was experimental and not announced anywhere. On 2005-
11-16  I have send an announcement to the mailing lists about Wikizine but not
to Wikitech-l.  It was my idea to send a special version to Wikitech-l about it
but I never came to it yet.

Walter


from_name: Nick Boalch

subject: [WikiEN-l] Here's an interesting one

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
>> I strongly disagree with that; eventually producing a good encyclopedia
>> ought to take precedence over immediately gaining good PR (or avoiding
>> bad PR).
>
> Eventually producing a good encyclopedia is _exactly_ what I'm talking
> about.  That's why it's better to delete crap than keep it.  Having tons
> and tons of junk articles does not help us create a good quality
> encyclopedia; it encourages more of the same.

It rather depends on what you mean by 'crap' and 'junk articles', I
think. Some clarification of this would be appreciated.

Personally I think that, for any topic, a one-line stub is better than
no article at all (and this is certainly the position adopted by
[[Wikipedia:Replies to common objections]], a 'party line' I have been
toeing at info-en@ correspondents for some time).

Cheers,

N.

--
Nicholas Boalch
School of Modern Languages & Cultures       Tel: +44 (0) 191 334 3456
University of Durham                        Fax: +44 (0) 191 334 3421
New Elvet, Durham DH1 3JT, UK               WWW: http://nick.frejol.org/


subject: [WikiEN-l] Here's an interesting one

body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
> The reason for this is that DRV is not consensus-based; discussions are effectively
> votes and a tally is made.  At the end, the decision is overturned if there is a 75%
> vote to overturn it.

I've often wondered why DRV is set up this way, since it seems to be the
only thing on Wikipedia that runs on voting rather than consensus (at
least in theory). Was there a reason?

Cheers,

N.

--
Nicholas Boalch
School of Modern Languages & Cultures       Tel: +44 (0) 191 334 3456
University of Durham                        Fax: +44 (0) 191 334 3421
New Elvet, Durham DH1 3JT, UK               WWW: http://nick.frejol.org/


subject: [WikiEN-l] Here's an interesting one

body:
Kirill Lokshin wrote:
>On 2/1/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:

>> David understates the case, by the way:  It is hilarious to watch them
>> arguing over the correct procedure to "get" Tony, when it's obvious that
>> they haven't even begun the process for developing the plan to generate
>> a schedule to outline [[Wikipedia:Requests for Lynching]]  ([[WP:RfL]]).

>I suspect there would be three schools of thoughts on this:

Could you please both post these messages on WP:ANI.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Here's an interesting one

body:
I would ask, where does writing material for the encyclopaedia come in all of this, but I guess I already know the answer :(

Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com> wrote:  On 2/1/06, Sean Barrett wrote:
>
> David understates the case, by the way: It is hilarious to watch them
> arguing over the correct procedure to "get" Tony, when it's obvious that
> they haven't even begun the process for developing the plan to generate
> a schedule to outline [[Wikipedia:Requests for Lynching]] ([[WP:RfL]]).

I suspect there would be three schools of thoughts on this:

The first would argue that, to follow proper process, Tony should be
listed on [[Wikipedia:Users for lynching]] and lynched after consensus
is achieved over a period of seven days.

The second will point out that, as Tony qualifies as a Rouge Admin
(see [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy lynching]]), he can be lynched
immediately without the need for a full discussion.

The third will argue that, while Tony may not meet the criteria for
speedy lynching per se, IAR allows lynching him immediately and
listing him on [[Wikipedia:Lynching review]] to see if anyone
disagrees.

Kirill Lokshin
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Photos ? NEW, now offering a quality print service from just 8p a photo.


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Search engine optimizing Wiktionary

body:
Christophe Millet wrote:
> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Beer_parlour#How_about_search_engine_optimizing_Wiktionary.3F
> *
> *A "Yahoo! Search" engineer is proposing some ways to better index
> Wiktionary.

You probably should have them talk to our existing contacts at Yahoo! so any
actual information gets to us through normal channels.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060201/aafeeeac/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Guettarda

body:
On 2/1/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>

Username        Jimbo Wales

<snip>

>
> Articles        417
> Talk    211
> User    128
> User talk       809
> Project 198
> Project talk    62
>
> 1 in 4 edits actually in the article space, and  twice as many on user
> pages? Not to mention 128 edits to his own user page? I'm not sure
> what measure you use to judge "pretty good" edit distribution - the
> guy is clearly not here to create an encyclopaedia :)
>
> Steve (who has 18 times more edits in the template namespace, so must
> be 18 times cooler...)
>
>
Not to be nitpicky (ok, to be nitpicky and absolutely nothing else), 18 x 0
= 0.  So why not say you have 18,000 times as many edits (once you're
multiplying by zero, who cares?)


from_name: Phil Boswell

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Casting call

body:
"Michael Snow" <wikipedia at earthlink.net> wrote in
message news:43E0CAAD.5060606 at earthlink.net...
[snip]
You do realise that the challenge was simply too much for resistance to be
of any use at all, right?

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

I know the title sucks, that's what the "move" facility is for :-)

HTH HAND
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


subject: [WikiEN-l] Here's an interesting one

body:
>It depends on what you mean by "junk article".  If it's an article that
>cannot possibly prove useful to a future editor, then yes, it should be
>deleted.  Most stubs aren't in this category, though.
>If it's an article that is not good *now* as an article, but might be
>useful to a future editor, then it shouldn't be deleted---instead we
>should develop some sort of labeling system so a reader who stumbles
>onto it is properly notified that this article is very much a
>work-in-progress and not yet ready for serious use as a reference.

Perhaps we could put a template of some sort on it. How about
{{stub}}? We could develop a system of subtypes if that category gets
too full to work with.

- d.


from_name: Sabine Cretella

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Casting call

body:
Well I suppose it would then be the first film released under GFDL ... ???

;-)

Ciao, Sabine

Michael Snow wrote:

> Because of my work on The Wikipedia Signpost, somebody once playfully
> suggested that I should be in charge of "Wikipedia: The Movie". I
> don't anticipate this happening any time soon, as it would take a lot
> more skills than mine to pull off. But since it's awards season for
> the film industry, I thought I'd offer for your enjoyment part of the
> lineup I would pick to star in this film.

......

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Here's an interesting one

body:
On 2/1/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> geni wrote:
> > On 2/1/06, grm_wnr <grmwnr at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> To begin with, it's a major strain on the servers.
> >>
> >> grm_wnr.
> >>
> >
> > Strangly no. Due to the way the servers are set up editor traffic
> > doesn't have nearly as much impact on viewing speeds for non editors
> > as you would expect.
> >
>
> Perhaps it would be optimal to switch Wikipedia over to _write_-only
> mode. Get rid of all those freeloading readers who don't contribute. :)

Perhaps Wikipedia should have a minimum [[share ratio]]. :-)

--
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]


from_name: Robert Scott Horning

body:
Anthere wrote:

> Now, what I think bother Gerard is this : what if a volunteer answers
> in OTRS and does so in the name of the Foundation, even though he has
> received no authority/delegation to do so? Will he be protected ?
> Probably not. He is even liable to the Foundation and should the
> Foundation be threatened by the answer given by the volunteer, the
> Foundation could indeed defend itself by suing the volunteer. In that
> sense, yes, the volunteer is *less* protected than the board
> member/officer. But here, I think the volunteer must use common sense
> and not "imply" he is talking in the name of the Foundation when he is
> not. Or if he does so, it is best he be careful of his answer.
>
> ant

Now this is an interesting situation.  Bureaucrats and admins are asked
to "speak on behalf of the Foundation" in regards to enforcing policies
on each of the seperate projects.  Largely they do request community
input, but not all of the time.  For example, I routinely delete content
due to it being offensive or simply inappropriate to the projects I am
an admin on.  For blatant cases I don't even wait for a VfD or some
other community mechanism.. I just delete it without even a second
thought.  The same with blocking some users who are substantially
crossing the line.  There are policies that I am governed by, but who is
to stop the legal liability for an admin that deleted something which
some other 3rd party felt should be there, or worse in the Seigenthaler
situation where admins would be held liable and resonsible for allowing
inappropriate content to remain, especially if it was illegal to keep
that content.  Child pornography would be an example of a situation like
this, where admins clearly need to get rid of that sort of content from
all Wikimedia projects.  There shouldn't even be the need to have a vote
to remove that sort of content.  Yes, I'm using this example as an
extreme situation, but there are other similar situations where the line
is considerably closer to hesitation on removal.

So are we telling admins that they become an admin on a Wikimedia
project at their own legal and financial risk?  And in the capacity as
an admin I do feel I should be empowered to at least act on behalf of
the Foundation so far as the project policies are concerned in this area
of controlling site content.  The fact that stewards and ultimately the
board itself has oversight on the capacity to accept or reject admins
(currently through appellate juristiction in most cases) imply some
authority has been delegated to admins and bureaucrats, and other
special privileges not normally granted to the typical user.

I admit that I can't speak on behalf of the Foundation in regards to
accepting grants or buying servers, but in this very limited area I can
speak that we don't allow point of view content, or content that
violates copyright.

--
Robert Scott Horning


subject: [WikiEN-l] Here's an interesting one

body:
Though there is a new proposal [[Wikipedia:Off-site policy discussions considered harmful]] (or something like that) which David and Kirill are in clear breach of!!!! :)

  I'm still waiting for [[Wikipedia:Creating or constructively editing articles considered harmful]].

  Jon

grm_wnr <grmwnr at gmail.com> wrote:
  Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> On 2/1/06, Sean Barrett wrote:
>
>> David Gerard stated for the record:
>>
>>
>>> Kirill Lokshin wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 2/1/06, Sean Barrett wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> David understates the case, by the way:
>>>>>
>>>> I suspect there would be three schools of thoughts on this:
>>>>
>>> Could you please both post these messages on WP:ANI.
>>>
>> My half is added (at the current bottom) slightly edited to flow better
>> .... Kirill, would you please add your "three schools of thought" as a
>> reply to my comment?
>>
>
> Done.
>
> Kirill Lokshin
>

I have blocked both of you for off-site editing coordination.

(that's a joke , in case anyone is wondering)

grm_wnr
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---------------------------------
Win a BlackBerry device from O2 with Yahoo!. Enter now.


from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Here's an interesting one

body:
geni wrote:
> On 2/1/06, grm_wnr <grmwnr at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> To begin with, it's a major strain on the servers.
>>
>> grm_wnr.
>>
>
> Strangly no. Due to the way the servers are set up editor traffic
> doesn't have nearly as much impact on viewing speeds for non editors
> as you would expect.
>

Perhaps it would be optimal to switch Wikipedia over to _write_-only
mode. Get rid of all those freeloading readers who don't contribute. :)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Here's an interesting one

body:
Delirium wrote:
> instead we should develop some sort of labeling system so a reader who
> stumbles onto it is properly notified that this article is very much a
> work-in-progress and not yet ready for serious use as a reference.
>
> -Mark
Ermmm....

Have you heard of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub types ?

grm_wnr


subject: [WikiEN-l] Here's an interesting one

body:
Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> On 2/1/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
>
>> David Gerard stated for the record:
>>
>>
>>> Kirill Lokshin wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 2/1/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> David understates the case, by the way:
>>>>>
>>>> I suspect there would be three schools of thoughts on this:
>>>>
>>> Could you please both post these messages on WP:ANI.
>>>
>> My half is added (at the current bottom) slightly edited to flow better
>> .... Kirill, would you please add your "three schools of thought" as a
>> reply to my comment?
>>
>
> Done.
>
> Kirill Lokshin
>

I have blocked both of you for off-site editing coordination.

(that's a joke , in case anyone is wondering)

grm_wnr


subject: [WikiEN-l] Here's an interesting one

body:
Jon wrote:
>
>   I'm still waiting for [[Wikipedia:Creating or constructively editing articles considered harmful]].
>
>   Jon
>
To begin with, it's a major strain on the servers.

grm_wnr.


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Here's an interesting one

body:
On 2/1/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/1/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Jimbo wrote:
> >
> > >I think a few people have gotten quite confused about the role of admins
> > >due to the excessive rules lawyering.  Maybe they are the ones who need
> > >to rethink it.
> >
> >
> > See [[WP:ANI]] - a lynchmob of process-obsessives attempting to
> > discuss the process for a lynching. It's almost amusing.
>
> It's okay.  I just told them I would stay away from DRV for a bit, and
> wouldn't do any article undeletions or template deletions for a while.
>  They may a tree, but I just took away their rope.

Well you were given the rope in the first place so it is a bit hard to
complain. Still remember that due to elephant syndrome the tree will
always be waiting for you.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Here's an interesting one

body:
On 2/1/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Jon stated for the record:
>
> > It looks like WP's in danger of letting the lunatics run the asylum. Time for some commonsense intervention from Jimbo?
> >
> >   Jon
> >   (jguk)
>
> Can't hurt, but may not help.  These process fetishists see nothing odd
> about claiming that Jimbo has no idea what Wikipedia is all about ...
> which almost makes sense when you wrap your mind around the fact that
> they think Wikipedia is entirely an exercise in Holy Process, regardless
> of result, and that those of us who are here to build an encyclopedia
> are at best weirdos and at worse blasphemers and schismatics (with maybe
> an apostate or two throw in for leavening).

1890 edits at a very low edit rate. Little evidence of vandle fighting
and has failed to create any featured articles. The distibution of
edits is pretty good although a little low on article space. Would
probably get through RFA but would not be completely clear cut.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Here's an interesting one

body:
On 2/1/06, grm_wnr <grmwnr at gmail.com> wrote:
> Jon wrote:
> >
> >   I'm still waiting for [[Wikipedia:Creating or constructively editing articles considered harmful]].
> >
> >   Jon
> >
> To begin with, it's a major strain on the servers.
>
> grm_wnr.

Strangly no. Due to the way the servers are set up editor traffic
doesn't have nearly as much impact on viewing speeds for non editors
as you would expect.

--
geni


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

body:
On 2/1/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>
> > It seems to me that he is basically right.  The doctrine is
> > [[respondeat superior]], and it typically applies only to people
> > working in an official capacity.
> >
> > Anthony
>
>
> I looked at the article [[respondeat superior]]. It typically applies
> only to people in a relationship of employer/employee.
>
> "is a legal doctrine which states that an employer is responsible for
> employee actions performed within the course of the employment."
>
> The problem is that there are only two people in that type of situation.
> Others are not a relationship of employer/employee. Neither the board
> members, nor the officers (except possibly Danny, but he is not employed
>   as an officer).
>
> So, I am not sure how this doctrine exactly applies to us.

Well, you're probably right.  I thought this discussion was more
focussed on potential future outsiders.  Outsiders of course are going
to want to be compensated, and most likely in an employer/employee
relationship in terms of officers.

All that said, within the US volunteer officers are likely protected
under the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997.  But, of course, you and
many officers/board members aren't in the US.  I don't know very much
about non-US jurisdictions (I believe the doctrine of respondeat
superior does exist in a broad range of jurisdictions though).

When it comes to directors (which I would term as different from
"officers", though some people may be both, for instance Jimbo is
President (an officer position) and Director, the liability
limitations can even vary somewhat drastically from state to state.
Florida is not a very popular place for incorporation, and there isn't
nearly as much case law as there is in for instance Delaware or
Nevada.

> Now, what I think bother Gerard is this : what if a volunteer answers in
> OTRS and does so in the name of the Foundation, even though he has
> received no authority/delegation to do so? Will he be protected ?
> Probably not. He is even liable to the Foundation and should the
> Foundation be threatened by the answer given by the volunteer, the
> Foundation could indeed defend itself by suing the volunteer. In that
> sense, yes, the volunteer is *less* protected than the board
> member/officer. But here, I think the volunteer must use common sense
> and not "imply" he is talking in the name of the Foundation when he is
> not. Or if he does so, it is best he be careful of his answer.
>
Yeah, I have no idea.  I thought y'all were talking about something
completely different, really :).  I should probably just bow out of
this one.

Anthony


from_name: Walter van Kalken

body:
Ermmm probably you didn't read about already one good user ..... who is
a muslim ..... has left nl: over these remarks ..... and you say let
this user stay on ?? Is there something wrong there? We will loose more
users than this one who insults all who bring us. Are you on nl:
wikipedia by any chance :|

Waerth/Walter


from_name: Andrew Gray

subject: [WikiEN-l] Here's an interesting one

body:
On 01/02/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> (Apparently referring to discussion on wikien-l means I'm purporting
> to speak for the Foundation. Huh?)

Clearly you didn't get the memo.

[[Wikipedia:Off-Wiki policy discussion considered harmful]]

(Next up: someone to argue speeding laws don't count because they were
passed by people who were stationary at the time.)

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


from_name: Uwe Brauer

subject:
[Wikitech-l] email notification and how to contact a wiki author
	via email

body:
Hello

I am sorry for such an elementary questions.

    - On the wikipedia page which configures my personal setting,
      I  can see an  option that it would  be possible that users
      could contact me  via email (without  that I have to reveal
      my email address) and   presumably  I could contact   other
      users as well but the question is HOW?

    -  I also read it should be possible that I receive an email
       notification if articles in my watchlist (or articles
       edited by me) are modified. Again how is this done. That
       question appears in the FAQ but there is no answer.

Thanks

Uwe Brauer


from_name: Alfio Puglisi

body:
On 2/1/06, Uwe Brauer <oub at mat.ucm.es> wrote:
>
>
> Hello
>
> I am sorry for such an elementary questions.
>
>     - On the wikipedia page which configures my personal setting,
>       I  can see an  option that it would  be possible that users
>       could contact me  via email (without  that I have to reveal
>       my email address) and   presumably  I could contact   other
>       users as well but the question is HOW?

Using the "E-mail this user" link that appears on the leftbar of each
userpage. Unless the user disables it in his preferences.

>     -  I also read it should be possible that I receive an email
>        notification if articles in my watchlist (or articles
>        edited by me) are modified. Again how is this done. That
>        question appears in the FAQ but there is no answer.

AFAIK email notification is not enabled on wikipedia sites.

Alfio


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [WikiEN-l] Here's an interesting one

body:
On 2/1/06, Nick Boalch <n.g.boalch at durham.ac.uk> wrote:
> Tony Sidaway wrote:
> > The reason for this is that DRV is not consensus-based; discussions are effectively
> > votes and a tally is made.  At the end, the decision is overturned if there is a 75%
> > vote to overturn it.
>
> I've often wondered why DRV is set up this way, since it seems to be the
> only thing on Wikipedia that runs on voting rather than consensus (at
> least in theory). Was there a reason?

I think there was a fear that every failed AfD would end up on Votes
for Undeletion (the original forum that was superseded by Deletion
review).  So there was a requirement for a majority vote plus a quorum
of pro-undelete voters.

Deletion review kept the idea of hard numerical boundaries, but
changed it to 50% to confirm a result (of what ever type) and 75% to
overturn.  There had lately been so many good articles slipping
through the cracks that I had taken to just picking up the obvious
ones, undeleting them (sitting out the odd block or two) and taking
them to AfD, where the result was as often as not a near-unanimous
keep.

It's a sick process. I think it needs to be killed. Any administrator,
on his cognizance or at the request of a user, should be able to
evaluate a deleted  article, and if he thinks it was deleted by
mistake he can clean it up, and if he thinks necessary he can take it
through AfD. Having a forum for the purpose just creates a focal point
for all the bad faith in the wiki in one oozing cesspit.

There are problems with the above idea.  We don't want administrators
fecklessly undeleting copyright infringing material and defamation, or
for that matter anything resembling a steaming pile of crap.  But an
administrator misbehaved in this way could be stopped.


subject:
[Wikitech-l] Re: email notification and how to contact a wiki
	author via email

body:
   Alfio> On 2/1/06, Uwe Brauer
   Alfio> <oub at mat.ucm.es> wrote:
   >>
   >>
   >> Hello
   >>
   >> I am sorry for such an elementary questions.
   >>
   >> - On the wikipedia page which configures my personal setting,
   >> I  can see an  option that it would  be possible that users
   >> could contact me  via email (without  that I have to reveal
   >> my email address) and   presumably  I could contact   other
   >> users as well but the question is HOW?

   Alfio> Using the "E-mail this user" link that appears on the
   Alfio> leftbar of each userpage. Unless the user disables it in his
   Alfio> preferences.

Ok thanks. I use the MonoBook skin and there this link is indeed very
tiny. Anyhow I sent a message to myself. But did not receive it till
now. Since in my preference page I specified my (real) email address I
assume that I receive in there or anywhere at wiki?

Pity that notifications are not enabled.

Thanks

Uwe


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: interview about the evolution of wikipedia

body:
This is the podcast interview I did last Thursday. I haven't listened
yet myself ... hope I suitably calmed the slightly annoyed AFD subject
and his fans!

- d.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mark Fonseca Rendeiro
Date: 01-Feb-2006 20:40
Subject: Re: [Ticket#2006010210002589] interview about the evolution
of wikipedia
To: David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>

Hey David.. the show has been up for a few days and its getting good
feedback and of course, lots of downloads.  Thanks again for taking
the time... best of luck to you and Im sure we'll see each other
around the internet.

http://bicyclemark.org/blog/2006/01/bm99-behind-wikipedia/

On 1/24/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> ok!
>
> On 23/01/06, Mark Fonseca Rendeiro <bicyclemark at gmail.com> wrote:
> > UK time is what I meant. Speak to you thursday!
> >
> >
> > On 1/23/06, David Gerard < dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 23/01/06, Mark Fonseca Rendeiro <bicyclemark at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >  My best time to talk is five oclock on thursday afternoon.. or late
> > around
> > > > ten thirty in the evening. either day.
> > >
> > >
> > > 10:30pm Thursday evening (is that UK or NL time?) is fine by me! Call
> > > me on the home number, 020 8523 2302.
> > >
> > >
> > > - d.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -Mark
>

--
-Mark


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Fwd: interview about the evolution of wikipedia


body:
>>>>> "Alfio" == Alfio Puglisi
>>>>> <alfio.puglisi at gmail.com> writes:

   Alfio> On 2/1/06, Uwe Brauer
   Alfio> <oub at mat.ucm.es> wrote:

   Alfio> Using the "E-mail this user" link that appears on the
   Alfio> leftbar of each userpage. Unless the user disables it in his
   Alfio> preferences.

Ok I sent 3 messages, 1 I received. Thanks

Uwe


from_name: Craig Franklin

body:
Walter,

This chap sounds like quite the fool.  If he's actually putting this in
articles (I do not read Dutch well, so I don't know exactly what was
written), then it is POV rubbish and should be reverted like any common
vandalism.  Saying "Allah Akhbar is almost the same as Heil Hitler" is quite
clearly POV.

That said, if he's just hitting up talk pages and his own user page with
this sort of nonsense, I'd let it slide.  Yes, it stinks, and yes, I
disagree with it, but it's better to let him make a fool of himself than
start censoring.  It's a slippery slope from "no racist comments" to "don't
question Jimbo Wales IX, Supreme Overlord and God-Emperor of Wikipedia!".

This also works in reverse, so all of the nonsense on the talk page of
[[en:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons]] about getting rid of images that
are potentially offensive to Muslims is rubbish.  There is no room on
Wikipedia for self-censorship to pander to any minority group, be they
Muslims or racists.

Regards,
- Craig Franklin [[en:Lankiveil]]

-------------------
Craig Franklin
PO Box 764
Ashgrove, Q, 4060
Australia
http://www.halo-17.net - Australia's Favourite Source of Indie Music, Art,
and Culture.

----- Original Message ----- >
> Message: 10
> Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 22:59:23 +0700
> From: Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net>
> Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Insulting the islam is allowed on nl: wikipedia
> To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org, Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <43DF895B.90409 at vankalken.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>
> On nl: wikipedia we have a user (Torero) who under him quoting the
> rights of freedom of speech is insulting the islam and everyone who
> doesn't think like him on a regular basis.
>
> Today he wrote:
>
>
http://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Overleg:DemoCrates.net&diff=301155
1&oldid=3011315
>
> Allah Akbar is almost the same as Heil Hitler.
>
> This is not the first time he did this. He has insulted the islam and
> muslims on multiple occasions. Also he constantly accuses people of
> being leftwing etc.
>
> Unfortunately this is "tolerated" on nl: by the mods and anyone else who
> do not dare to pose an opposition against these kind of users. And
> everytime he apologises some time later. But what does an apology count
> for if he keeps on repeating himself time and time again. And again a
> user who happens to be muslim is going on wikibreak because of this.
>
> Freedom of speech ?????
>
> Waerth/Walter
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>
> End of Wikipedia-l Digest, Vol 30, Issue 40
> *******************************************
>
>


body:
On 2/1/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
I think Jimbo is perfectly fit to be admin...:)
>
> Steve

I dunno I seem to recall he mentioned haveing a life outside wikipedia
as one point.

--
geni


from_name: Steve Bennett

body:
>1890 edits at a very low edit rate. Little evidence of vandle fighting and has
>failed to create any featured articles. The distibution of edits is
pretty good although
>a little low on article space. Would probably get through RFA but
would not be completely clear cut.

In another 30 edits, that could be describing me :)

Seriously though:

Username	Jimbo Wales
Total edits	1890
Image uploads	9 (7 cur, 2 old)
Distinct pages edited	727
Edits/page (avg)	2.60

First edit	2001-03-27 20:47:31

Articles	417
Talk	211
User	128
User talk	809
Project	198
Project talk	62

1 in 4 edits actually in the article space, and  twice as many on user
pages? Not to mention 128 edits to his own user page? I'm not sure
what measure you use to judge "pretty good" edit distribution - the
guy is clearly not here to create an encyclopaedia :)

Steve (who has 18 times more edits in the template namespace, so must
be 18 times cooler...)


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

body:
Clear case of editcountitis.
Jimbo does work to promote Wikipedia outside of things that are recorded in
edit counters.
This is a clear example of why edit counts don't say everything.

Mgm

On 2/1/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >1890 edits at a very low edit rate. Little evidence of vandle fighting
> and has
> >failed to create any featured articles. The distibution of edits is
> pretty good although
> >a little low on article space. Would probably get through RFA but
> would not be completely clear cut.
>
> In another 30 edits, that could be describing me :)
>
> Seriously though:
>
> Username        Jimbo Wales
> Total edits     1890
> Image uploads   9 (7 cur, 2 old)
> Distinct pages edited   727
> Edits/page (avg)        2.60
>
> First edit      2001-03-27 20:47:31
>
> Articles        417
> Talk    211
> User    128
> User talk       809
> Project 198
> Project talk    62
>
> 1 in 4 edits actually in the article space, and  twice as many on user
> pages? Not to mention 128 edits to his own user page? I'm not sure
> what measure you use to judge "pretty good" edit distribution - the
> guy is clearly not here to create an encyclopaedia :)
>
> Steve (who has 18 times more edits in the template namespace, so must
> be 18 times cooler...)
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
On 2/1/06, Mark Wagner <carnildo at gmail.com> wrote:
> On the other hand, the high number of "talk", "user talk", and
> "wikipedia" edits could indicate that the user is pretty good at
> calming down edit wars -- exactly the sort of person we want as an

Or participating in them :)

> admin.  You'd have to check a sample of his edits to determine this.

Fascinating. My brief sample reveals frequent page blanking. Actually
what's fascinating about that is that's one of the first things I did
when I got my account and I got rapped over the knuckles for it :)

Lest there be any confusion at all, I'm pursuing this conversation
only in an ironic spirit, I think Jimbo is perfectly fit to be
admin...:)

Steve


from_name: Heinz

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Update: Floricic vs Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.

body:
I forward it to the de.wp list, whose readers may be interested by the
issue as well.

heinz

Anthere schrieb:
> Thanks for the update Presroi.
>
> I forward it to the foundation list, whose readers may be interested by
> the issue as well.
>
> Ant
>
> Mathias Schindler wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> today there was a hearing at the Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, Berlin
>> (municipal court) about the preliminary injunction against the German
>> Verein. The injunction was prohibiting Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. to
>> redirect wikipedia.de to the German Wikipedia as long as the full
>> civil name of a dead hacker ([[en:Tron (hacker)]]) is shown at
>> de.wikipedia.org.
>>
>> In the hearing, the judge gave more than just a hint that he does not
>> agree with the argument from Tron's parents that telling a (already
>> publicly known) civil name is violating the post-mortem
>> Pers?nlichkeitsrecht (right of personality).
>>
>> The decision, whether the preliminary injunction is withdrawn will be
>> announced on thursday at 9 a.m. (CET).
>>
>> Here are two reports from the court hearing:
>>
>> http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/69056 (the author was present
>> at the hearing)
>>
>> http://www.golem.de/0601/43060.html (I am not sure if he was there)
>>
>>
>> There is one question left and I would love to see some research from
>> you. Ivo Floricic, the owner of the trademark "Tron" and father of
>> Boris Floricic (aka. [[en:Tron (hacker)]] claims that he thinks that
>> he is the only one with the name "Floricic" in Germany and these
>> special circumstances would somehow violate his rights if wikipedia is
>> mentioning the full name of Tron.
>>
>> Does anyone know any other person by the name of Floricic?
>>
>> According to Google, there is an artist "Alen Floricic" from Croatia
>> who might be notable (if he is notable, it would be nice to consider
>> taking the CV from certain sites and write an article about him).
>> There is also a professor of linguistics, Franck Floricic from France.
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Mathias
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Update: Floricic vs Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Casting call

body:
I must say.... Carole Bouquet looks quite as a compliment to me :-)
(especially right now, where I feel I look like a balloon while she is a
previous James Bond girl...

Thanks :-)

ant

Michael Snow wrote:
> Because of my work on The Wikipedia Signpost, somebody once playfully
> suggested that I should be in charge of "Wikipedia: The Movie". I don't
> anticipate this happening any time soon, as it would take a lot more
> skills than mine to pull off. But since it's awards season for the film
> industry, I thought I'd offer for your enjoyment part of the lineup I
> would pick to star in this film.
>
> Jimmy Wales - [[Paul Giamatti]]
> Angela Beesley - [[Kristin Scott Thomas]]
> Florence Devouard - [[Carole Bouquet]]
> Larry Sanger - [[Colin Firth]]
> John Seigenthaler - [[Jon Voight]]
> Brion Vibber - [[Martin Freeman]]
> Daniel Mayer - [[Philip Seymour Hoffman]]
> Andrew Lih - [[Chow Yun-Fat]]
> Danny Wool - [[Geoffrey Rush]]
> Delphine M?nard - [[Charlotte Gainsbourg]]
> Tim Starling - [[Heath Ledger]]
> Elisabeth Bauer - [[Alexandra Maria Lara]]
> Erik M?ller - [[Sean Bean]]
> Jean-Baptiste Soufron - [[Olivier Martinez]]
> David Gerard - [[Pete Postlethwaite]]
>
> Brackets indicate that you can look all of these actors up, at least on
> en:, though pictures are not necessarily available there. Lest any of
> the subjects be offended by my choices, I'm not necessarily saying you
> look like these people. My focus was on picking capable actors who could
> be made to look more or less like you. This is for entertainment value
> only.
>
> However, I'm happy to entertain ideas for suggested replacements and
> additional members of the cast. But keep in mind that the only way to
> ensure you will be played by the actor of your choice is to foot the
> bill for that actor's salary.
>
> --Michael Snow


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: A quick references survey

body:
Phil Boswell wrote:
> "geni" <geniice at gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f80608430601311503x28b13a09v85f5172993c15c5d at mail.gmail.com...
> [snip]
>
>>Softwear exists. Currently not in use for a number of reasons.
>
>
> I h? a n?e j?per b? the m?se ?e it.

The moose put pictograms in your jumper?

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 556 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060201/c1a55d0a/attachment.pgp


body:
Craig Franklin wrote:
> Walter,
>
> This chap sounds like quite the fool.  If he's actually putting this in
> articles (I do not read Dutch well, so I don't know exactly what was
> written), then it is POV rubbish and should be reverted like any common
> vandalism.  Saying "Allah Akhbar is almost the same as Heil Hitler" is quite
> clearly POV.
>

Well, they are both the war cries of fanatical extremists, so it's not a
minority POV, and is therefore mentionable as part of NPOV.

> That said, if he's just hitting up talk pages and his own user page with
> this sort of nonsense, I'd let it slide.  Yes, it stinks, and yes, I
> disagree with it, but it's better to let him make a fool of himself than
> start censoring.  It's a slippery slope from "no racist comments" to "don't
> question Jimbo Wales IX, Supreme Overlord and God-Emperor of Wikipedia!".
>

Oh how I wish we did the latter more often... maybe a little more sanity
would prevail?

> This also works in reverse, so all of the nonsense on the talk page of
> [[en:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons]] about getting rid of images that
> are potentially offensive to Muslims is rubbish.  There is no room on
> Wikipedia for self-censorship to pander to any minority group, be they
> Muslims or racists.
>

Actually when I first saw the cartoons I thought we would have a repeat
of the autofellatio debate where the end result was that regardless of
decency, offense or censorship, the images were copyvio :)

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 556 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20060201/c38d8a70/attachment.pgp


from_name: Walter Vermeir

references:
<87hd7i7upl.fsf@mat.ucm.es>	<4902d9990602011131w75b468c6na9b4575045abf7a1@mail.gmail.com>
	<87mzha6ekm.fsf@mat.ucm.es>

body:
Uwe Brauer schreef:
>>>>>>"Alfio" == Alfio Puglisi
>>>>>><alfio.puglisi at gmail.com> writes:
>
>
>    Alfio> On 2/1/06, Uwe Brauer
>    Alfio> <oub at mat.ucm.es> wrote:
>
>    Alfio> Using the "E-mail this user" link that appears on the
>    Alfio> leftbar of each userpage. Unless the user disables it in his
>    Alfio> preferences.
>
> Ok I sent 3 messages, 1 I received. Thanks
>
> Uwe

The will come. It can takes days before e-mail send by the
Wikimedia-systems arrive, just like postings to these mailing lists. My
personal record is 21 days. Normally the arrive directly or after a
couple of hours. Longer is more exceptional.

--
Contact: walter AT wikizine DOT org
Wikizine.org - news for and about the Wikimedia community


from_name: Christophe Millet

body:
Hello,

I'd like to have your opinion about the following discussion:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Beer_parlour#How_about_search_engine_optimizing_Wiktionary.3F
*
*A "Yahoo! Search" engineer is proposing some ways to better index
Wiktionary.
Is there something we can do about it in MediaWiki?

Thanks,
Christophe (aka Kipmaster).


from_name: Andre Engels

body:
2006/2/1, Craig Franklin <craig at halo-17.net>:

> This chap sounds like quite the fool.  If he's actually putting this in
> articles (I do not read Dutch well, so I don't know exactly what was
> written), then it is POV rubbish and should be reverted like any common
> vandalism.  Saying "Allah Akhbar is almost the same as Heil Hitler" is quite
> clearly POV.

No, it has been put on a talkpage.

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


subject:
[Foundation-l] Re: Outsiders on the Board? (was Re: Poll for
	Wikistandards)

body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:

> It seems to me that he is basically right.  The doctrine is
> [[respondeat superior]], and it typically applies only to people
> working in an official capacity.
>
> Anthony

I looked at the article [[respondeat superior]]. It typically applies
only to people in a relationship of employer/employee.

"is a legal doctrine which states that an employer is responsible for
employee actions performed within the course of the employment."

The problem is that there are only two people in that type of situation.
Others are not a relationship of employer/employee. Neither the board
members, nor the officers (except possibly Danny, but he is not employed
  as an officer).

So, I am not sure how this doctrine exactly applies to us.
But let's imagine that for some reason, it actually applies to us.

What is missing is Gerard argument (which is to claim that board members
and officers are better protected than volunteers) is the field of
application of the protection.

What would be the field of application ? it would be the activities
directly in relation with the Foundation itself. And only those
activities. So, I do not see where the comparison stands.

Editorial field : If a board member edits an article and adds defamatory
content, he is responsible just as a regular volunteer. This activity is
unrelated to the Foundation activities and I doubt much the board member
(or the officer) will be more protected than any one else. This is his
own responsability to add defaming content to an article imho.

However, if a board member makes a real bad decision in terms of
allowing expenses, it is normal that he holds a certain responsability.
A volunteer not involved in the Foundation can *not* take that decision,
so there is no reason why he would be held responsable. Hence, the first
may be protected by the Foundation, but there is no reason to protect
the second person from a decision he can not be involved. There is no
lack of equality or unfairness, since the field of application only
applies to the first person.

Now, what I think bother Gerard is this : what if a volunteer answers in
OTRS and does so in the name of the Foundation, even though he has
received no authority/delegation to do so? Will he be protected ?
Probably not. He is even liable to the Foundation and should the
Foundation be threatened by the answer given by the volunteer, the
Foundation could indeed defend itself by suing the volunteer. In that
sense, yes, the volunteer is *less* protected than the board
member/officer. But here, I think the volunteer must use common sense
and not "imply" he is talking in the name of the Foundation when he is
not. Or if he does so, it is best he be careful of his answer.

And... for those of you who do not have access to OTRS, any message sent
through info-en contains at its bottom the following message :

Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and
responses are not to be considered an official statement of the
Wikimedia Foundation. For official correspondence, you may contact the
site operators at <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>.

So, the risk is very limited indeed. It mostly relies on common sense
and good faith from both parties.

ant


subject:
[OT] Jimbo Wales' edit count (was: Re: [WikiEN-l] Here's
	aninteresting one)

body:
> > Steve (who has 18 times more edits in the template
> namespace, so must
> > be 18 times cooler...)
> >
> >
> Not to be nitpicky (ok, to be nitpicky and absolutely nothing
> else), 18 x 0 = 0.  So why not say you have 18,000 times as
> many edits (once you're multiplying by zero, who cares?)

I actually trimmed a few bits before I pasted. Jimbo has 3 edits in the
template namespace, I have 54.

Steve


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Here's an interesting one

body:
On 2/2/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> geni wrote:
> > On 2/1/06, grm_wnr <grmwnr at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> To begin with, it's a major strain on the servers.
> >>
> >> grm_wnr.
> >>
> >
> > Strangly no. Due to the way the servers are set up editor traffic
> > doesn't have nearly as much impact on viewing speeds for non editors
> > as you would expect.
> >
>
> Perhaps it would be optimal to switch Wikipedia over to _write_-only
> mode. Get rid of all those freeloading readers who don't contribute. :)

Can't a lot of our servers are not sutible to be database servers.
--
geni


from_name: Kim Bruning

subject: [Foundation-l] Copyright complaints

body:
Are there any (hopefully public) statistics/numbers/guesses as to
how many copyright complaints the foundation gets per $time_period?

If not, is there any guess, rule of thumb, estimate, or ballpark figure
available, or could anyone dare give me a guesstimate?

read you soon,
	Kim Bruning

--
[Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment]
gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key  FEF9DD72
5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A  01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72


subject: [Foundation-l] Copyright complaints


from_name: Sherool

body:
On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 21:52:34 +0100, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> This is the podcast interview I did last Thursday. I haven't listened
> yet myself ... hope I suitably calmed the slightly annoyed AFD subject
> and his fans!
>
>
> - d.
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Mark Fonseca Rendeiro
> Date: 01-Feb-2006 20:40
> Subject: Re: [Ticket#2006010210002589] interview about the evolution
> of wikipedia
> To: David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>
>
>
> Hey David.. the show has been up for a few days and its getting good
> feedback and of course, lots of downloads.  Thanks again for taking
> the time... best of luck to you and Im sure we'll see each other
> around the internet.
>
> http://bicyclemark.org/blog/2006/01/bm99-behind-wikipedia/

He didn't seem that upset and my impression was that the deletion of his
article was a minor footnote in the whole thing. Other than a slightly
anoying laugh (no offense) I think you did great :)

--
[[User:Sherool]]


from_name: James R. Johnson

body:
May I ask... are anti-American or anti-Christian statements going without
notice/care/concern?  Some articles on the German wiki could be biased,
then...

James

-----Original Message-----
From: wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Delirium
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 2:01 PM
To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Insulting the islam is allowed on nl:
wikipedia

Walter van Kalken wrote:

> Ermmm probably you didn't read about already one good user ..... who
> is a muslim ..... has left nl: over these remarks ..... and you say
> let this user stay on ?? Is there something wrong there? We will loose
> more users than this one who insults all who bring us. Are you on nl:
> wikipedia by any chance :|

This is unfortunate, but in combatting a problem we have to make sure we
don't introduce a worse one.

Consider a vaguely similar situation on en: at least one American user I
know of has left (at least temporarily) after some non-Americans made
particularly vociferous anti-American comments, along the lines of
"Americans are bigoted idiots who voted in a fascist president and don't
know anything about world affairs" (paraphrase).  Should we ban people
for making such comments?  I think they should be discouraged, and
people should be banned if they're being disruptive (e.g. going around
specifically to make offensive comments), but being too ban-happy is
problematic also.

-Mark

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


from_name: sara karimi

subject: [WikiEN-l] request

body:
    hi, how are you?my name is maryam oroojeni,Im a chemist in iran .Im searching about Bisphenol A and methods of synthesis,I'd like to use your information about it ,could you send for me any articles about it?thank u ,good luck. bye

---------------------------------

 What are the most popular cars? Find out at Yahoo! Autos