subject: [WikiEN-l] Illegal sources

body:
On 4/7/06, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
> But would the picture under recent debate count as "child porn" under
> that protocol?  The definition there is:
>
>   (c) Child pornography means any representation, by whatever means,
>   of a child engaged in real or simulated explicit sexual activities
>   or any representation of the sexual parts of a child for primarily
>   sexual purposes.
>
> The picture was a cartoon.  This was clearly not "real".  Maybe it

"any representation, by whatever means" seems ot cover cartoon to me.

> can be argued to be "simulated", but only in a cartoony manner, not
> anything approximating a realistic simulation.  The girl in question
> was pulling down her pants, but no "explicit sexual activities" were
> actually shown.  Is her bare (cartoon) butt a "sexual part"?

Um, look closer at teddy.

> If you start defining things based on what the viewers of the picture
> think about (are they sexually aroused, or do they just find it
> humorous?) then you get in the territory of "Thought Crime".  If
> enough people get aroused by the Sears lingerie catalog, should that
> be classified as pornographic too?

It has nothing to do with thought crimes. This photo came from an
erotic/pornographic magazine - I don't think the magazine makes any
bones about that fact.

But yeah, this isn't my favourite topic. If you don't see any shame in
Wikipedia making that image publicly visible, then we're just in
disagreement.

Steve


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
On 4/7/06, BJ?rn Lindqvist <bjourne at gmail.com> wrote:
> Why is it a bad thing that detractors have an easy way to rubbish
> Wikipedia? Doesn't detractors already have about one million other
> things about Wikipedai that they can complain about? Quality not
> popularity.

When people like Jimbo have to spend their time defending Wikipedia
rather than working on achieving its goals, that harms the
encyclopaedia. Child porn is such an awful label, we should do almost
anything to avoid it.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Illegal sources

body:
I think if you went to the website specifically with the intention of
viewing this material, you would be in an iffy position with regards
to "posessing". If it's in your browser cache, do you not "possess"
it?

Steve

On 4/7/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> The exact language in the protocol is that the following activities
> ought to be prohibited:
>
> (c) Producing, distributing, disseminating, importing, exporting,
> offering, selling or possessing for the above purposes child
> pornography as defined in article 2.
>
> Article 2:
>
> (c) Child pornography means any representation, by whatever means, of
> a child engaged in real or simulated explicit sexual activities or
> any representation of the sexual parts of a child for primarily
> sexual purposes.
>
> The claim that one is just researching pornography can only go so
> far, but viewing is not listed. I think the duty of the viewer is to
> recognize it "when they see it" and then refrain from doing such bad
> things as publishing it, disseminating it or downloading it.
>
> Fred


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Tels

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Mathematical expressions and conditional
	constructs, now implemented

body:
Moin,

On Friday 07 April 2006 16:02, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 10:43:33AM +0200, Tels wrote:
> > Moin,
>
> Huh?  Excuse me: "Moin is the name of another wiki software,
> occasionally considered to be competitive with MediaWiki.  Are you
> using it's name here repeatedly as a form of address to be
> provocative?"

No, I use it as a form of greeting since like, oh, a decade.

> > On Friday 07 April 2006 04:27, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 06:42:51PM +0200, Tels wrote:
> > > > Exactly, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a distributed
> > > > programming contest, whose ouput accidentily looks like an
> > > > encyclopedia :)
> > >
> > > But, as is frequently pointed out, Mediawiki is not *only*
> > > wikipedia, even if you only take WMF projects into account.
> >
> > Yes, that was my point, too. How do you intent to distribute all the
> > wonderfull little "code-snippets" written on wikipedia to other
> > wikis?
>
> I'm becoming more and more certain that you're merely trolling;

I hope not. :-( I am writing about these issues because I see problems
arise and want them to be avoided before it's to late. Handwaving and "I
dont see this as a problem" will not make problems go away, and I'd
rather have a discussion about potential designs and solutions _before_
they are implemented.

> this
> question is completely orthogonal to the issue at hand, and appears to
> be merely intended to be provocative as well.

No, it is an issue I consider very important. There is a difference
between adding something like {{yesterday}} as a feature to the mediawiki
software, or creating a template for it. In the later case you get all
sorts of issues, like I described earlier.

As I said before, these requested features should be added to the software
side, and not be created by creating a new template-language with all the
problems that arise from that.

I hope that clears it up.

Best wishes,

Tels

--
 Signed on Fri Apr  7 16:07:27 2006 with key 0x93B84C15.
 Visit my photo gallery at http://bloodgate.com/photos/
 PGP key on http://bloodgate.com/tels.asc or per email.

 "I intend to live forever, or die trying." -- Groucho Marx

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 481 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060407/aaf2203a/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Nick Jenkins

subject: [Wikitech-l] Towards arbitrary client-side JavaScript execution

body:
> Also, one other bit of strangeness:
> ---------------------------------
> {|
> | http://a|
> ---------------------------------
>
> HTML output:
> ---------------------------------
>

>

> " class='external free' title="http://a|" rel="nofollow">http://a|
> ---------------------------------
> Note that somewhere along the line the Parser eats the ' href="http://a' string. Available online at
> http://nickj.org/MediaWiki/Parser13

Similar to the above is this:
--------------------------
{|
!https://||||||
--------------------------

Which in MediaWiki 1.6.1 also eats the "<a href" part, giving:
--------------------------

|||||" class='external free' title="https://||||||"
rel="nofollow">https://
--------------------------

Available online at http://nickj.org/MediaWiki/Parser16 , and full
list at http://nickj.org/MediaWiki

Also, I have no idea if multi-line HREF URLs should be allowed:
http://nickj.org/MediaWiki/Parser20  . It passes W3C validation, but
the link doesn't work (at least in Firefox), so I can't decide if it
should be considered wrong or not.

I must say though, it seems to me that 1.6.1 has improved a lot on the
Parser areas that could potentially have a security impact as compared
to 1.5.8.

All the best,
Nick.


from_name: David Alexander Russell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Illegal sources

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

There are presumably objective pieces of information in such reports
that do not require interpretation before they can be used - for example
if an FBI report into a child porn ring stated the X people were
involved in the porn ring, Y number of children were abused, Z million
dollars were involved, then there is surely no original research
involved in using that information in a Wikipedia article about the
child porn ring and citing the FBI report?

Cynical

slimvirgin at gmail.com wrote:
> On 4/7/06, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Here's a problem: what happens when the contents of an article can
>> only be verified by relying on sources which are illegal to view?
>>
> Hi Stephen, the article should cite third-party sources about the
> contents of the material. If Wikipedians have to look at the material
> themselves, that constitutes original research, because it would
> involve them relying on their own interpretations of it. If there are
> no third-party descriptions, then the material shouldn't be described
> in our article about it.
>
> Sarah
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFENouIg8fvtQYQevcRAljeAJwLnZXRBy0iif/pwJDMHwI5bb59HwCff0FS
Lf0axl+IoS4AfaXaCgBySkc=
=I+/P
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia broken

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:

>On 4/7/06, Matt Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Good luck on getting consensus on that.  Attempts to define notability
>>have been rather unsuccessful.  Projects to define notability in
>>particular subject areas, rather than globally, have had more success,
>>but are still controversial and are explicitly guidelines rather than
>>policy - because of the simple fact that any mechanical process like
>>that will have false positives / negatives.
>>
>
>If we can't agree on even basic principles of notability, something is
>wrong. We must be able to explain why we don't want 50 articles on the
>same pokemon character. Even in broad, general, non-mechanical terms,
>there must be *some* binding common principle.
>
Welcome to one of the big unsolved problems of Wikipedia.

If it's any consolation, the problem is not unique to us. For
example, the vaunted 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, where
notability was decided by the top experts in the various fields,
has almost no articles on corporations, even though many were
already bestriding the world by 1900, and were rather more
important than the subjects of many of the articles that EB did
include.  The brief references to corporations that you'll find
are either connected with the biographies of the founders, or
are in some articles on locations and products relevant to the
business. So even what seems like a very solid approach, the
consensus of experts, can have blind spots.

Per-project criteria seems to be our best bet for now. It would
be useful to encourage projects to write down more of the criteria
they use informally now, and then to have some generalist-type
person collect the successful criteria and assemble into a sort of
meta-guideline that could be consulted when thinking about what to
do for new areas.

Stan


list: foundation-l

from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Foundation-l] Adult and Illegal content on Wikimedia

body:
Gavin Chait wrote:

>>opinions like this that seem to encourage this type of content to remain
>>
>>
>from Robert Horning
>
>
>>The problems with such an article is more likely to be in its effect on
>>the copycats and other unprofessional idiots.
>>Calling on Jimbo to decide on something is a cop-out.  It's a sad
>>admission that the community isn't strong enough to settle its own
>>problems.
>>
>>
>from Ray Saintonge
>
>Which is precisely why I suggested having a constitution of some
>description.
>
The best constitutions deal in broad strokes.  Our constitution could
very well put forth that NPOV is a fundamental concept, but going into
too much detail would detract from the dynamism of such a concept.

>If you don't want this type of content on wikibooks then you have to give up
>neutrality.  And you're going to have to be very specific.
>
I agree that any kind of such ban will compromise neutrality, and that
exceptions to a constitution  need to be specific.

>I am working on
>a wiki project that educates how to start businesses.
>
>I would hate for someone later on to declare that "capitalism is theft" and
>then go on to use that as a reason to remove my project.
>
There are times when I may be sympathetic to that slogan, but it would
be abusive to use it as an excuse to stop the project that your
describe.  At times too, I can feel that starting your own business is a
good way of avoiding capitalist theft. :-)

>NPOV may be adequately defined.  A textbook on how alarm systems work, how
>they're installed and how they may be disabled is not advocacy to break into
>homes, but it can be used that way.
>
>There are two ways of defining rules:  everything is allowed unless
>specifically forbidden; everything is forbidden unless specifically allowed.
>You may wish to adopt the former.
>
Indeed.

>How about a growing list that starts with the following:
>- No book may describe how to perform any of the following actions:
>        i)     torture
>        ii)    murder
>        iii)   all forms of violence from either public or private sources
>        iv)   cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
>        v)    xenophobia or discrimination based on gender, age, sex,
>pregnancy, race, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual
>orientation, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language or
>birth
>
This is a sweeping list that can have many loopholes.  In a few
jurisdictions assisted suicide is perfectly legal, but there are still
many people that consider it to be murder.  At the other end of the
issue we could still describe sabotage that does not cause injury to any
people.

>You can discuss torture in an entirely neutral way (how to use a battery,
>water and jumper leads to cause pain, for instance), but the discussion of
>torture (as above) can be banned outright.  I would suggest that the list
>itself needs to be maintained by someone with an international legal
>background (no good having laws specific to any country) to offer guidance
>and a small team to act as "constitutional court" to decide on changes to
>these rules.  And don't defer to the Human Rights Commission, you may find
>that Libya is in charge of it again.
>
>The above - by the by - is paraphrased from the South African constitution.
>
Why would South Africa make a reference to Libya in its constitution?

Ec


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Tim Starling

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Texvc (was Re: Mathematical expressions and
 conditional constructs, now implemented)

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 4/7/06, Nick Jenkins <nickpj at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Which currently returns this HTML:
>>-----------------------
>>
Failed to parse (syntax error):
>>\\&2/x[]

>>-----------------------
>
>
> Yes, what an evil message that one is :( Is there any way it could
> provide more feedback? Or can someone tell me how to embed double
> quotes in <math> tags? :)

Texvc works by giving a very short return code on stdout to indicate success or failure. It throws
away the output from latex itself, there's no way to return it to MediaWiki. Rethinking that
interface is probably the way to go.

As for double quotes, I'm not sure there's a way to do it. In TeX outside math mode it's just `` and
", but I don't think there's a way to get outside of math mode, or a way to generate those
characters inside math mode using the whitelisted control codes.

-- Tim Starling


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Delphine Ménard

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Language versions' popularity vs. number of
	articles (vs. number of speakers)

body:
On 4/6/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Alexa...
>
> http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=&url=www.wikipedia.org
>
> And as I already said, results are questionable :-)

If that is the case, basing a "study" on those figures is probably
indeed questionnable.

Alexa only provides their toolbar, (with which they collect data) [1]
in English. And only for Internet Explorer.

Which probably gives a good overview of the English part of
Wikipedia/Wikimedia projects, but definitely gives only a partial, or
even totally biased view of other languages and websites. And leaves
out a pretty good section of the population using other browsers than
Internet Explorer.

This said, I find the idea behind the "study" definitely interesting,
and it *does* call for *real* statistics... ;-)

Delphine

[1]About the Alexa Toolbar
Alexa could not exist without the participation of the Alexa Toolbar
community. Each member of the community, in addition to getting a
useful tool, is giving back. Simply by using the toolbar each member
contributes valuable information about the web, how it is used, what
is important and what is not. This information is returned to the
community as Related Links, Traffic Rankings and more.
from http://pages.alexa.com/company/index.html
--
~notafish


from_name: Stephen Bain

subject: [WikiEN-l] Illegal sources

body:
Here's a problem: what happens when the contents of an article can
only be verified by relying on sources which are illegal to view?

The issue has arisen in the context of the article currently known as
[[2004 Ukranian child pornography raids]]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Ukranian_child_pornography_raids>.

The article has changed now, but much of the content (describing the
pornography-producing organisation, aswell as describing the actual
material produced) was based on the assertions of those who had viewed
the content. On a couple of occasions, when sources were asked for in
relation to particular claims in the article, users provided links to
the Internet Archive's stored copy of the pornographic website.

Based on the descriptions given in the news sources, it would be
illegal for me (and for most others) to view this content, and thus it
would be illegal for me to verify the article. Thus, from my
perspective, the article is unverifiable.

I think it would be very much a matter of common sense to alter
[[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]] to prohibit the use of illegal sources to
verify articles. But the question is where should the line of
definition be drawn? Laws vary substantially across jurisdictions.
Should we prohibit reliance on sources which are illegal to view in
Florida? Laws are much stricter in other countries: New Zealand
springs to mind as an example, but there are other countries where I
am sure the laws are even stricter.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


from_name: Daniel R. Tobias

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia broken

body:
On 7 Apr 2006 at 15:30, "Steve Bennett" <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:

> - Our natural bias against popular culture

Since when do we have *that*?

--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia broken

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

Yes, but the difference is that verifiability is a policy requirement,
whereas notability is not (although notability is often used as a reason
for delete votes in Afd)

Cynical

Mark Wagner wrote:
> On 4/7/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 4/7/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> We require not only verifiability, but notability. I can create
>>> something today and document it today, but - save in rare
>>> circumstances - I cannot prove its importance today.
>> If something is referenced by a third-party reliable source today,
>> chances are it's important.
>
> I'd strongly dispute that.  Because of the ease and speed of
> record-keeping and publishing, it's very easy to get third-party
> information on something.
>
> For example, I could create thousands of stub articles on small
> private schools in Michigan.  But I'd describe them as extremely
> non-notable: every last one of them has students from only a single
> family, often only a single student, and exists as a "private school"
> with significant government records only because of a quirk in the
> Michigan homeschooling law.
>
> --
> Mark
> [[User:Carnildo]]
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFENq8Tg8fvtQYQevcRAsjDAJ9dNjIbBgEFPgjn7BWBjlTbBil1GgCfd/kI
AKBVPMs2gxD97cKeMAITJvI=
=6rqo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Keith Old

subject: [WikiEN-l] Illegal sources

body:
On 4/7/06, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Here's a problem: what happens when the contents of an article can
> only be verified by relying on sources which are illegal to view?
>
> The issue has arisen in the context of the article currently known as
> [[2004 Ukranian child pornography raids]]
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Ukranian_child_pornography_raids>.
>
> The article has changed now, but much of the content (describing the
> pornography-producing organisation, aswell as describing the actual
> material produced) was based on the assertions of those who had viewed
> the content. On a couple of occasions, when sources were asked for in
> relation to particular claims in the article, users provided links to
> the Internet Archive's stored copy of the pornographic website.
>
> Based on the descriptions given in the news sources, it would be
> illegal for me (and for most others) to view this content, and thus it
> would be illegal for me to verify the article. Thus, from my
> perspective, the article is unverifiable.
>
> I think it would be very much a matter of common sense to alter
> [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]] to prohibit the use of illegal sources to
> verify articles. But the question is where should the line of
> definition be drawn? Laws vary substantially across jurisdictions.
> Should we prohibit reliance on sources which are illegal to view in
> Florida? Laws are much stricter in other countries: New Zealand
> springs to mind as an example, but there are other countries where I
> am sure the laws are even stricter.
>
> --
> Stephen Bain
> stephen.bain at gmail.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

I think that content that cannot be verified other than by accessing illegal
materials is unverifiable. As well, our policy on sourcing requires reliable
third-party sources. Thus a Reuters report for example on the raids would be
deemed to be a reliable source. A cached copy of the material is not a
reliable third party source quite apart from its illegality.

Of course, there are materials that are illegal to view in one country that
are perfectly legal in another. It is probably illegal to view neutral
accounts of the Tianenmen Square protests in 1989. It is not in most other
countries and would obviously considered as verifiable material.

However, I understand that there is an Optional Protocol to the
International Convention on the Rights of the Child see (
http://www.law-ref.org/CHILDPROTOCOL2/index.html ).

Perhaps it should be considered a banning offence to provide links to
materials that contravene this protocol or to upload images that contravene
it. As it is an international agreement, it might be considered as more of
an international standard. Such materials should certainly not be considered
to be verifiable and editors should be encouraged to remove it on sight.

Regards

Keith Old

Keith Old
User:Capitalistroadster


subject: [Wikitech-l] new features for exention developers

body:
Moin,

On Friday 07 April 2006 19:05, Brion Vibber wrote:
> Tels wrote:
> > as an extension developer I'd like to have two new features. I looked
> > at the doc, the code the FAQ etc but I couldn't find out if it is not
> > already possible to achive that:
>
> $wgOut->addScript( "<style>....</style>" );

Ah cool, thanx.

> Note that this applies only to the current HTTP invocation. At this
> time there's not a clean way to attach headers or external style sheets
> to a *parser hook* extension other than adding it to every page
> invocation in your setup function.

I am a bit confused about this comment:

Here is a snippet from DynamicPageList2:

// The callback function for converting the input text to HTML output
function DynamicPageList2( $input ) {
	...
	global $wgTitle;
	global $wgOut;
	$ts = mktime();
	$now = gmdate("YmdHis", $ts + 60);
	$ns = $wgTitle->getNamespace();
	$ti = wfStrencode($wgTitle->getDBkey());
	... [snip]
	$wgOut->addMeta("http:Pragma", "no-cache");
	...

When I add $wgOut->addScript( "<style>....</style>" ); here, would that
add the style to every page in the wiki, or only pages that have a <DPL>
tag on it (which triggers that extension).

The later would be just what I want :)

As for the cache, I don't intent to do the "no-cache" etc, so, if I added
AddScript(), would the added style get cached or would it disappear when
someone views a cached copy?

(Ok, ok, i just might it try instead of buggering you :)

Thanx a lot!

> > Likewise, I would like something along the lines of:
> >
> > 	__NOCATEGORIES__	(or __NOCAT__
> > 	__NOMENU__
> > 	__NOTOOLBOX__
> > 	__NOSEARCH__
> > 	__NOFOOTER__
>
> Vandals would love this!

That's why I said it is probably not usefull for wikipedia. However, on
small or closed wikis, it would be incredible usefull for some pages.

> However it would not be generally useful on a
> wiki, so I'd recommend against.

Er, it would be on mine :) Just think about: "setup a small test wikion a
laptoo, take it to a conference, make a presentation." There is no
vandalism to worry about, because you (and maybe your coworkers) are the
only one allowed to edit it.

> (You could make a custom skin which works this way.)

But that would change all pages. What I want to achive is that everypage
is normal, even the first page of a presentation (the table of contents),
and when you switch to the second one, only the navigation box remains
and the menu etc disappears, making more space available for the actula
slide.

Sure, one could switch skins forth and back, but thats very awkward.

If the CSS trick works, one could achive this with CSS and an extension,
probably.

best wishes,

tels

--
 Signed on Fri Apr  7 19:29:38 2006 with key 0x93B84C15.
 Visit my photo gallery at http://bloodgate.com/photos/
 PGP key on http://bloodgate.com/tels.asc or per email.

 Morton's Law: If rats are experimented upon, they will develop cancer.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 481 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060407/ca7de4f7/attachment.pgp>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Funny joke...

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

Perhaps this could be solved by a very specific addition (whether by
consensus or Jimbo's decree) to CSD, along these lines:

Any image which, in the opinion of at least three administrators, is a
real or simulated depiction of child pornography, can be speedily deleted.

Since publishing child porn (actual or drawn) poses very serious legal
problems for the Wikimedia foundation, this addition would solve the
problem without leaving a loophole for abusive deletions.

I don't think there is a need for a more generalised 'anti-obscenity'
policy (WP:NOT censored for minors) but in a case such as this, where
(quite apart from the moral objections to child porn) even accessing the
image could land someone in jail as a sex offender, there is a need to
deal with it regardless of censorship concerns.

Cynical

Ray Saintonge wrote:
> geni wrote:
>
>> On 10/18/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I fail to see the connection between the principle of keeping
>>> discussions open forever, and your anti-obscenity project.  Your
>>> response is a total non-sequitur.
>>>
>>>
>> If you look at that case it caused a lot of problems. Fortunety there
>> was a built in time limit on the process which ment that ultimetly it
>> was self limiting. You wish to take that away. You are failing to
>> think through the consiquences of your proposals.
>>
> The problem is in letting a particular issue guide the more general
> policy.  That is bound to create injustices in places where they are
> unforseen.  I did personally delete the now famous lolicon image from
> Wiktionary, and I'm in constant debate with people who want to generate
> lists of unverified "naughty words".  But I would not be so na?ve as to
> blindly resist any community consensus to keep these.
>
> At the same time I believe in perpetually open process that can change
> results with the times without the need for newcomers to feel left out
> of the decisons.  If there is a general consensus that pedophilic images
> should be banned from the project I don't think that leaving that debate
> open is going to change anything; it is reasonable to expect that
> newbies will divide in the same ratio as established editors.
>
> There is an unfortunate tendency in established communities to believe
> that what has happened in a community up to a given point in time is the
> best that could be.  A really open Wiki community needs to leave room
> for new ideas, and needs to be open to changing virtually all policies.
> This is especially important for policies where the support for either
> side is marginal
>
> Now that Wikipedia has become such a huge Wiki it is important to have
> decision-making become scalable.
>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFENrMeg8fvtQYQevcRAgy5AJ9EiJOa3LLuwcQcH1blPtQJgOg7wgCcC2i1
LO1sgqwAB+qmebKzcZm7mmQ=
=6zpW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Illegal sources

body:
Keith Old wrote:
> On 4/7/06, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Here's a problem: what happens when the contents of an article can
>> only be verified by relying on sources which are illegal to view?
>>
>> The issue has arisen in the context of the article currently known as
>> [[2004 Ukranian child pornography raids]]
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Ukranian_child_pornography_raids>.
>>
>> The article has changed now, but much of the content (describing the
>> pornography-producing organisation, aswell as describing the actual
>> material produced) was based on the assertions of those who had viewed
>> the content. On a couple of occasions, when sources were asked for in
>> relation to particular claims in the article, users provided links to
>> the Internet Archive's stored copy of the pornographic website.
>>
>> Based on the descriptions given in the news sources, it would be
>> illegal for me (and for most others) to view this content, and thus it
>> would be illegal for me to verify the article. Thus, from my
>> perspective, the article is unverifiable.
>>
>> I think it would be very much a matter of common sense to alter
>> [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]] to prohibit the use of illegal sources to
>> verify articles. But the question is where should the line of
>> definition be drawn? Laws vary substantially across jurisdictions.
>> Should we prohibit reliance on sources which are illegal to view in
>> Florida? Laws are much stricter in other countries: New Zealand
>> springs to mind as an example, but there are other countries where I
>> am sure the laws are even stricter.
>>
>
> I think that content that cannot be verified other than by accessing illegal
> materials is unverifiable. As well, our policy on sourcing requires reliable
> third-party sources. Thus a Reuters report for example on the raids would be
> deemed to be a reliable source. A cached copy of the material is not a
> reliable third party source quite apart from its illegality.
>

Wouldn't it also count as Original Research?

--
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: 554 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060407/e672adec/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia broken

body:
On 4/7/06, Mark Wagner <carnildo at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd strongly dispute that.  Because of the ease and speed of
> record-keeping and publishing, it's very easy to get third-party
> information on something.
>
> For example, I could create thousands of stub articles on small
> private schools in Michigan.  But I'd describe them as extremely
> non-notable: every last one of them has students from only a single
> family, often only a single student, and exists as a "private school"
> with significant government records only because of a quirk in the
> Michigan homeschooling law.

Noted, my statement was vaguer than I meant. I meant, if a newspaper
article is published today about an event or entity that happen/was
created today, then the chances are, that thing is notable. Otherwise
it would take longer than 24 hours for it to become newsworthy.

Steve


from_name: Jay Whetherspoon

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
That's ridiculous. Ten minutes of research, even, will clarify to anyone who
viewed the image that it is _not_  legally child pornography, no matter how
you interpret the PROTECT Act's constitutionality. There's no legal reason
to remove a completely legal image.

And morality is entirely subjective. Arguing that a certain image  is
"immoral" is *not* a valid argument in the context of Wikipedia, because we
have to adhere to WP:NPOV. You, personally, see this drawing as morally
wrong. I do not.

I *do* think censorship is morally wrong, though...

Jay

On 4/7/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Exactly. Child porn images shouldn't be included for moral and legal
> reasons but ordinary sexual images (where they are relevant to the
> article of course) are perfectly fine. WP:NOT censored for minors.
>
> Cynical
>
> Philip Welch wrote:
> > On Apr 7, 2006, at 5:40 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> >
> >> I'm not convinced there's much reason to include *any* images of *any*
> >> sex acts, involving children or otherwise. Does Britannica?
> >
> > We're not just trying to replace Britannica; we're trying to replace
> > specialized encyclopedias as well. I'm sure that an encyclopedia of
> > sexual behavior would include sketches of varying sexual positions
> > much like our own.
> >
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFENt3Ig8fvtQYQevcRAnatAJ43HQBncdoAz7JKBoyh3JsY0sILlgCffOwo
> 9WJLsFIDsFl9n1a6HaFGyjg=
> =ebNJ
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Illegal sources

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:

>I think if you went to the website specifically with the intention of
>viewing this material, you would be in an iffy position with regards
>to "posessing". If it's in your browser cache, do you not "possess"
>it?
>
If you were hit with a pop-up that was saved without your knowledge you
would still be guilty of possessing it.  At that rate when you are
charged, maybe Microsoft should be made a co-defendant.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Illegal sources

body:
Keith Old wrote:

>Of course, there are materials that are illegal to view in one country that
>are perfectly legal in another. It is probably illegal to view neutral
>accounts of the Tianenmen Square protests in 1989. It is not in most other
>countries and would obviously considered as verifiable material.
>
>However, I understand that there is an Optional Protocol to the
>International Convention on the Rights of the Child see (
>http://www.law-ref.org/CHILDPROTOCOL2/index.html ).
>
>Perhaps it should be considered a banning offence to provide links to
>materials that contravene this protocol or to upload images that contravene
>it. As it is an international agreement, it might be considered as more of
>an international standard. Such materials should certainly not be considered
>to be verifiable and editors should be encouraged to remove it on sight.
>
This suggestion is over the top.  Who makes the decision about whether
some site is illegal?  Who verifies that?  It's frightening to think
that some Big Brother is sitting in a tower somewhere making that kind
of decision that would affect us all.

Ec


from_name: Sam Korn

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
On 4/7/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
> So it's not whether the *public* would perceive it to be child porn--
> it's whether *Ryan Delaney* would perceive it to be child porn.

Please give a definition under which it is *not* child porn.

--
Sam


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

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

I think the point that he was making is that perceptions are not the
main problem in a case such as this - many child porn laws make no
distinction between real and simulated child porn images, so
*objectively* these images *are* child porn

Cynical

Philip Welch wrote:
> On Apr 7, 2006, at 4:33 AM, Ryan Delaney wrote:
>
>>> Some of us feel that even if the image had been free, it still should
>>> never have been included in Wikipedia. Concentrating on its copyright
>>> status is ignoring the real debate, rather than deciding once and for
>>> all how to deal with images that would be perceived by the public to
>>> be child porn.
>> It's not even that the public would perceive that image to be child
>> porn. It
>> is child porn.
>
> So it's not whether the *public* would perceive it to be child porn--
> it's whether *Ryan Delaney* would perceive it to be child porn.
>
> "Imagine a world in which Ryan Delaney has free access to the sum of
> human knowledge..."
>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFENtzpg8fvtQYQevcRAmutAKCTPKlj0Vjo0faEOLxcqCU3At5ySACePCQ+
zS3xvFZQqdNqp74x3XClXos=
=s3/o
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

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

Exactly. Child porn images shouldn't be included for moral and legal
reasons but ordinary sexual images (where they are relevant to the
article of course) are perfectly fine. WP:NOT censored for minors.

Cynical

Philip Welch wrote:
> On Apr 7, 2006, at 5:40 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
>
>> I'm not convinced there's much reason to include *any* images of *any*
>> sex acts, involving children or otherwise. Does Britannica?
>
> We're not just trying to replace Britannica; we're trying to replace
> specialized encyclopedias as well. I'm sure that an encyclopedia of
> sexual behavior would include sketches of varying sexual positions
> much like our own.
>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFENt3Ig8fvtQYQevcRAnatAJ43HQBncdoAz7JKBoyh3JsY0sILlgCffOwo
9WJLsFIDsFl9n1a6HaFGyjg=
=ebNJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki 1.6.2 released

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

MediaWiki 1.6.2 makes some additional fixes to the spring 2006 release branch:

* Further improvements to Hebrew localisation
* Fix 'copyright' message for Romanian
* (bug 5476) Invalid xhtml in German localization
* (bug 5479) Id translation for preferences tabs caption
* (bug 5493) Id translation for special pages
* Additional path fixes in the updater
* (bug 5344) Fix regression that broke slashes in extension tag parameters

Full release notes:
http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/tags/REL1_6_2/phase3/RELEASE-NOTES
http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/tags/REL1_6_2/phase3/HISTORY

Download:
http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/wikipedia/mediawiki-1.6.2.tar.gz

MD5 checksum:
mediawiki-1.6.2.tar.gz  9faa1353990950ee927ceeeb65ad3ecf

Before asking for help, try the FAQ:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_FAQ

Low-traffic release announcements mailing list:
(Please subscribe to receive announcements of security updates.)
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-announce

Wiki admin help mailing list:
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l

Bug report system:
http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/

Play "stump the developers" live on IRC:
#mediawiki on irc.freenode.net

- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEN05IwRnhpk1wk44RAjfCAKDQ1EY/Aj30CjxlZzgcZCFoTqG88wCgmTDf
tFuL3IckwyKCnbLZHzMX8Ms=
=jfZR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
On 4/7/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
> Easily: child pornography is visual material that depicts explicit
> sexual activity involving children. My understanding (albeit unclear,
> as I've never seen the image in question) is that the image did not
> portray sexual activity.

It wasn't explicit, but it was very, very strongly implied.
Wikipedia's article on [[pornography]] says "Pornography ... is the
representation of the human body or human sexual behaviour with the
goal of sexual arousal".  This image very clearly fits into this.

> You could also define child pornography as visual material that
> documents actually-occurring explicit sexual activity involving
> children. Since it's a fantasy sketch, not a photograph, there's no
> clear evidence that the image documents any actually-occurring
> activity either. Under US law, as well as the laws of several
> nations, erotic materials depicting children are perfectly legal so
> long as no children were harmed in their production--i.e., so long as
> they do not depict any actually-occurring activity.

Child pornography isn't ipso facto illegal, nor was it deleted on
those grounds.  It was deleted because child pornography is completely
inappropriate for a serious encyclopaedia.

--
Sam


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
On 4/7/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:
> WP:NOT censored for minors.

No, but it is censored *by* minors (i.e. me).

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

--
Sam


subject: [WikiEN-l] Illegal sources

body:
Sam Korn wrote:
> On 4/7/06, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
>> If you start defining things based on what the viewers of the picture
>> think about (are they sexually aroused, or do they just find it
>> humorous?) then you get in the territory of "Thought Crime".  If
>> enough people get aroused by the Sears lingerie catalog, should that
>> be classified as pornographic too?
>
> No, things should be defined based on what the creators intended the
> viewers of the picture to think about.  Otherwise you delete pictures
> of sheep on account of the Welsh.
>
>

Well, I guess we'll have to delete all the pictures of sheep uploaded by
New Zealanders then.

--
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: 554 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060407/d72b6f9c/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
BJ?rn Lindqvist wrote:
> Sam Korn wrote:
>> BJ?rn Lindqvist wrote:
>>> Would you please mind telling a curious reader how this image either
>>> is harmful to Wikipedia or has the potential to harm Wikipedia?
>>
>> In that it provides an easy way for detractors to rubbish Wikipedia,
>> in that it has the potential to make Wikipedia harder to access for
>> some people (particularly children with parental control programs) and
>
> Why is it a bad thing that detractors have an easy way to rubbish
> Wikipedia? Doesn't detractors already have about one million other
> things about Wikipedai that they can complain about? Quality not
> popularity.
>

We're less likely to be sued?

>>> This seem to indicate that people disagree with you, why do they do that?
>>
>> As far as I can tell, a good number (*not* all) of the people
>> discussing the matter on IfD were POV-pushing trolls.  IfD has long
>> shown itself incapable of deleting anything where there is a vague
>> controversy and where groups of POV-pushers are manifesting
>> themselves.
>
> You lost when you started to apply denigrating labels on people. I
> don't think it is strange that you thougth that "the process was
> demonstrably broken" when you belittled those you were supposed to
> work with.
>

*cough*

He said the /process/, not the people running it (although apparantly,
*I* have made attacks on those lowlife scum at xFD, yada yada...).

--
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: 554 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060407/468132a9/attachment.pgp


from_name: Ben McIlwain

subject: [WikiEN-l] User harrassed in real-life at work for admin actions

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

Please see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Gator1

The short story: Gator1, an admin, blocked a user for 3RR on Phaistos
Disc.  The user retaliated by posting a message threatening to make life
miserable for Gator1 and then followed up on it, sending a letter to
Gator1's employer that caused lots of problems, and also caused him to
delete his user and talk page and leave the project.

Obviously, what this person did to attempt to ruin Gator's life is
entirely unacceptable.  What can we do about it?  We have the IP address.

- --
Ben McIlwain ("Cyde Weys")

~ Sub veste quisque nudus est ~
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFENzIrvCEYTv+mBWcRAlxLAJ0ehMJFJMyE1/WkKWpiLwOBaD1M8wCfV0EU
QqOsJEGUo/+OAIvl7XjpLOY=
=9XA0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia broken

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

The problem is that most 'notability standards' are completely
arbitrary. For example, why is a band that has released two albums on a
major label notable, while a band that has released one album on a major
label is not? (WP:MUSIC) To be honest, I don't see why we need any other
standard than 'can we write a sufficient amount of verifiable, NPOV
information about this topic?'

Cynical

Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 4/7/06, Matt Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Good luck on getting consensus on that.  Attempts to define notability
>> have been rather unsuccessful.  Projects to define notability in
>> particular subject areas, rather than globally, have had more success,
>> but are still controversial and are explicitly guidelines rather than
>> policy - because of the simple fact that any mechanical process like
>> that will have false positives / negatives.
>
> If we can't agree on even basic principles of notability, something is
> wrong. We must be able to explain why we don't want 50 articles on the
> same pokemon character. Even in broad, general, non-mechanical terms,
> there must be *some* binding common principle.
>
>> Thus an informal rule of notability: if not enough people are
>> interested in writing about it, it's probably not notable enough, at
>> least yet.
>
> Maybe...when talking about ancient history topics, most people would
> agree that "the more the better", even if each only gets two edits per
> year.
>
>>> - We do have physical standards
>> Clarify?
>
> I meant physical limits. :)
>
>>> - Articles on trivial topics damage the credibility of the
>>> encyclopaedia as a whole
>> Controversial - and attempts to codify that have been roundly rejected.
>
> Ah, any examples?
>
>> I believe one of Wikipedia's /strengths/ is its breadth of topics;
>> people come to us partly because we have obscure articles.
>
> On ancient Babylonian vase patterns, sure.  On pro-pedophilia blogs
> no. On different nomenclature systems for describing 3 or 4 toed tree
> frogs, sure. On the initiation rituals of a fraternity in an
> unremarkable university in Wisconsin, no.
>
>>> Then we need to explain how we determine notability, and how we decide
>>> what's in and what's out:
>>> - For recent creations of mankind, newspaper articles are virtually a
>>> requirement
>> Strongly disagreed.  Many topics are outside the scope of newspapers.
>>
>> If you extend that to the technical and specialist press, you have a
>> stronger case, but still, I am very uneasy about that as an absolute
>> requirement.
>
> I'm just trying to make a starting point. What's the nearest statement
> you could make to mine that you would agree with?
>
>>> - For societies, clubs etc, longevity and true notability compared to
>>> peers are required
>> Agreed here - and some might be worthy of mention as a list item only.
>
> Agree. I don't like the culture of "that's not worthy of an article,
> nuke from space". A better "vote" would be "how much space do we
> dedicate to this topic? two words? ok!"
>
>>> - Our natural bias against popular culture
>> Please say 'my' rather than 'our' here.  A casual study of Wikipedia
>> would probably show a bias /towards/ popular culture.
>
> Oh it's not "mine". People will "nn" a pop culture article more easily
> than a science, geograhy or literature topic, no?
>
>
>> SOME Wikipedia editors have a bias against popular culture.  These
>> people may even be quite influential.  However saying that there is a
>> CONSENSUS bias against popular culture is incorrect.
>
> I need more convincing.
>
>>> It seems like it might not be a bad idea to establish some precedents
>>> or borderline cases. "If your website is not at least as notable as
>>> foofoo.com, which has been repeatedly rejected, don't even bother".
>> Useful, but I feel it just moves the goalposts; there's no way to
>> objectively reduce notability to a number for numeric comparisons
>> against other subjects.
>
> Tell me, you want to write about a topic, but fear it may not be
> notable. Short of asking someone, how do you find out?
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFENuvpg8fvtQYQevcRAsrpAJ9zeutL/hEndPvS00fDVnV+mLnPGACfWZtc
RnsyRc/SC5MswdubOMmPMzU=
=VdiS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia broken

body:
David Alexander Russell wrote:
<snip>
>
> I'm not seeking a reconsideration of the userbox 'issue' here (thank
> God/[insert alternative deity of your choice here] that's over), but
> it shows just how easy it is to ignore policy if you characterise
> those seeking to uphold policy as trolls, wikilawyers and process
> wonks.
>

There's a difference between process wonks and policy wonks:

- Process wonks favour process over policy
- Policy wonks favour policy over process

A process wonk will often get the wrong result using the right method. A
policy wonk will get the right result using the wrong method. Remember,
it's not the letter of the rules which counts, it's the spirit of the
rules; hence, making 4 reverts in 25 hours counts as breaking 3RR.

--
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: 554 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060407/518f27de/attachment.pgp


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-04-08

body:
An automated run of parserTests.php showed the following failures:

Running test Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)... FAILED!
Running test Magic Word: {{NUMBEROFFILES}}... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled... FAILED!

Passed 300 of 303 tests (99.01%) FAILED!


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia broken

body:
On 4/7/06, Matt Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> Good luck on getting consensus on that.  Attempts to define notability
> have been rather unsuccessful.  Projects to define notability in
> particular subject areas, rather than globally, have had more success,
> but are still controversial and are explicitly guidelines rather than
> policy - because of the simple fact that any mechanical process like
> that will have false positives / negatives.

If we can't agree on even basic principles of notability, something is
wrong. We must be able to explain why we don't want 50 articles on the
same pokemon character. Even in broad, general, non-mechanical terms,
there must be *some* binding common principle.

> Thus an informal rule of notability: if not enough people are
> interested in writing about it, it's probably not notable enough, at
> least yet.

Maybe...when talking about ancient history topics, most people would
agree that "the more the better", even if each only gets two edits per
year.

> > - We do have physical standards
>
> Clarify?

I meant physical limits. :)

>
> > - Articles on trivial topics damage the credibility of the
> > encyclopaedia as a whole
>
> Controversial - and attempts to codify that have been roundly rejected.

Ah, any examples?

>
> I believe one of Wikipedia's /strengths/ is its breadth of topics;
> people come to us partly because we have obscure articles.

On ancient Babylonian vase patterns, sure.  On pro-pedophilia blogs
no. On different nomenclature systems for describing 3 or 4 toed tree
frogs, sure. On the initiation rituals of a fraternity in an
unremarkable university in Wisconsin, no.

> > Then we need to explain how we determine notability, and how we decide
> > what's in and what's out:
> > - For recent creations of mankind, newspaper articles are virtually a
> > requirement
>
> Strongly disagreed.  Many topics are outside the scope of newspapers.
>
> If you extend that to the technical and specialist press, you have a
> stronger case, but still, I am very uneasy about that as an absolute
> requirement.

I'm just trying to make a starting point. What's the nearest statement
you could make to mine that you would agree with?

>
> > - For societies, clubs etc, longevity and true notability compared to
> > peers are required
>
> Agreed here - and some might be worthy of mention as a list item only.

Agree. I don't like the culture of "that's not worthy of an article,
nuke from space". A better "vote" would be "how much space do we
dedicate to this topic? two words? ok!"

> > - Our natural bias against popular culture
>
> Please say 'my' rather than 'our' here.  A casual study of Wikipedia
> would probably show a bias /towards/ popular culture.

Oh it's not "mine". People will "nn" a pop culture article more easily
than a science, geograhy or literature topic, no?

> SOME Wikipedia editors have a bias against popular culture.  These
> people may even be quite influential.  However saying that there is a
> CONSENSUS bias against popular culture is incorrect.

I need more convincing.

>
> > It seems like it might not be a bad idea to establish some precedents
> > or borderline cases. "If your website is not at least as notable as
> > foofoo.com, which has been repeatedly rejected, don't even bother".
>
> Useful, but I feel it just moves the goalposts; there's no way to
> objectively reduce notability to a number for numeric comparisons
> against other subjects.

Tell me, you want to write about a topic, but fear it may not be
notable. Short of asking someone, how do you find out?

Steve


from_name: Kernigh

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikibooks portal http://www.wikibooks.org

body:
The Wikibooks portal, http://www.wikibooks.org, is a redirect to the
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks_portal which is maintained by the
sysops of the English Wikibooks. However all language editions of Wikibooks
should have opportunity to request updates or redesigns of this portal.

At March 2006, the English Wikibooks sysops redesigned the portal to feature
the top ten language editions, as does http://www.wikisource.org. Recently
an anoymous user noted that the Swedish edition reached 10th place.
However, when I checked the stats [1], Swedish had 11th place and Hebrew at
10th. Thus I would remove Hungarian and add Hebrew.
  [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikibooks

Instead, because positions 10, 11, and 12 seemed unstable, but there was a
larger gap between 12 and 13, I unilaterally increased the number of
featured editions to 12, thus retaining Hungarian and adding both Hebrew
and Swedish. However I do not have translations for "open-content
textbooks" and "modules" in those languages.

Thus, I need someone to provide the messages in Hebrew and Swedish. I also
want everyone to check translations for languages that they read, and
provide changes if necessary. Please also alert us if an edition is missing
from the list of "All Languages". You can use the talk page at
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Talk:Wikibooks_portal or reply to this
message.
  --[[Wikibooks:en:User:Kernigh]], sysop


list: textbook-l

subject: [Textbook-l] Wikibooks portal http://www.wikibooks.org


from_name: amgine at saewyc.net

body:
> ...I do not have translations for "open-content
> textbooks" and "modules" in those languages.

There is an effort begun on Meta at [[m:Slogans]]
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Slogans> to document each project's logo,
description, and slogan in each language. These are the descriptions and
slogans by each language/project, since these do not always translate
readily and because different communities may have developed their own
self-identifying phrases.

It would be great if people could add the text for their projects there.

Amgine


from_name: SPUI

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
Ryan Delaney wrote:
> On 4/7/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Some of us feel that even if the image had been free, it still should
>>never have been included in Wikipedia. Concentrating on its copyright
>>status is ignoring the real debate, rather than deciding once and for
>>all how to deal with images that would be perceived by the public to
>>be child porn.
>
> It's not even that the public would perceive that image to be child porn. It
> is
> child porn. It's an image of a child created for the sole purpose of
> producing
> pleasurable sexual excitation in the viewer. Child + porn = child porn.
> Process
> isn't relevant when it comes to stuff like this. Whether we should host
> child
> porn on WMF servers is not something that is up for a vote.

There's no child, only a drawing. No child + porn = no child porn.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
Sam Korn wrote:
> On 4/7/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
>
>>So it's not whether the *public* would perceive it to be child porn--
>>it's whether *Ryan Delaney* would perceive it to be child porn.
>
> Please give a definition under which it is *not* child porn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography#Definitions

The definition of "child pornography" differs from country to country.
Most prohibit visual depictions of sexual activities involving actual
children under a specified age. Some countries go further and prohibit
all depictions of nudity of minors, whether or not the minor is depicted
in an erotic pose or as engaging in a sex act. The broader prohibitions
have led to controversy over pictures that are considered to have
artistic merit; works by several prominent photographers, including
Sally Mann and Jock Sturges, have been challenged as child pornography
and sometimes banned. Still, in some countries, naturist magazines with
depictions of nude children do not fall under the definition of child
pornography, and are easily available.

Some countries prohibit visual depictions even when no actual children
were involved in the making of the image. Such depictions may including
paintings, drawings, or computer-generated images. (See "Simulated child
pornography" below.) In some countries, not only visual depictions but,
also, written works may fall within the definition of child pornography.

The minimum legal age for a depicted person varies from country to
country. Some countries set one age for "hardcore" pornography and
another for "softcore" pornography.

Most countries' laws provide an exception for materials that have
artistic merit. Some prominent examples of this principle are Romeo and
Juliet (the play and films), and Lolita (the novel and films).
Subsequently, "lolita" has become a common codeword for child
pornography, legal or not.


from_name: Minh Nguyen

subject: [Wikitech-l] finer control of Hover Box?

body:
Rich Morin wrote:
> I would like to be able to put arbitrary text into a
> hover box (aka, HTML title tag), to give the user a
> short precis of where a link will go.  Looking at
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Link, I don't see
> any way to do this.
>
> If I'm missing something, please let me know.  If not,
> perhaps we should discuss the possible syntax for this.'
>
> -r

You can stick a  tag inside the link text, like so:

[[XHTML|XHTML]]

(It'd be nice if we could use <acronym> tags for this though, for full
semantic effect.)

I'd suggest not using this technique very often, as users of MediaWiki
software have come to expect the tooltip to tell them exactly where the
link leads.

--
Minh Nguyen <mxn at zoomtown.com>
AIM: trycom2000; Jabber: mxn at myjabber.net; Blog: http://mxn.f2o.org/


from_name: Mongo Montana

body:
Gator was merely doing his "job" as an admin...after responding to AN/I
  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=prev&diff=42067478&title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents

  Gator issued blocks on a wide range of IP's thatwere violating 3RR and using the numerous IP's to evade a block. He was threatened that his life would be made miserable and the same vandal also demanded to know where Gator worked and what his lawyers license was as Gator is an attorney. Gator had blocked numerous accounts on 3/28/06
  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&user=Gator1&page=&limit=250&offset=0
  all related to this incident. His payback for doing his job was to have his employers contacted and his privacy invaded. Gator also recieved an email from another Wikipedian that had run afoul of this vandal that also had their personal information posted in talk pages. This other Wikipedian was considering leaving the project and apparently told Gator in email that he knew who this vandal was. Apparently, the information provided to Gator stated (I was forwarded the email) that the vandal had a long history in Usenet circles for pushing the same POV in the same areas of interest, had invaded other's privacy and even filed lawsuits just to stir up trouble. The vandal is in Luxembourg and may post from work but more likely from somewhere else.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


from_name: Chris Lüer

body:
Ben McIlwain wrote:
>Please see here:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Gator1
>
>The short story: Gator1, an admin, blocked a user for 3RR on Phaistos
>Disc.  The user retaliated by posting a message threatening to make life
>miserable for Gator1 and then followed up on it, sending a letter to
>Gator1's employer that caused lots of problems, and also caused him to
>delete his user and talk page and leave the project.

The most relevant piece of information is missing: what was said in
that letter? I can't really imagine why an employer would get upset
about what goes on at Wikipedia. At an article about ancient history.

I disagree with those who suggest to protect one's anonymity better
because of this. It seems to me that hiding would be the worst
possible response. If someone wants to use their real name on
Wikipedia, they should be able to.

         Chris


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
You are pointing to an important problem, mildly suggestive images
are used by the mainstream media to say nothing of the obvious fact
that it is normal for children to engage in innocent sexual behavior.

I think what we are after is those images (and sites) that cross over
a poorly defined line into sexual exploitation of children. I would
say that if some of our readers find an image or link objectionable,
we should not include it. "Some" being a substantial fraction. We
should not be mislead by our own reactions to an image. Having viewed
goatse, our perspective is a bit warped.

Fred

On Apr 8, 2006, at 8:07 AM, Sydney Poore wrote:

> Minors engaged in sexually suggestive poses is too broad  Too many
> movie
> posters and CD (album)  covers would be eliminated. Key to this is age
> appropriate sexual activity. Depictions of teens or pre-teens acting
> sexually suggestive towards each other is okay.
>
> Sydney
>
> Sam Korn wrote:
>
>> On 4/8/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Any image, whether a photograph, drawing, or render, which depicts
>>> minors engaged in sexual activity or sexually suggestive poses.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Without wishing to be querulous, we then need to define "sexually
>> suggestive poses".
>>
>> --
>> Sam
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Sydney Poore
>
> Go Bengals!
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Sean Barrett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Illegal sources

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

Fastfission stated for the record:
> If I were somebody with access to U.S. military secrets and I posted
> them to Wikipedia, I would certainly be *personally* legally
> accountable for having them up. Because Wikipedia is in the U.S., it
> too would probably be legally accountable as well under U.S.
> classification laws. But what if they were, say, Iranian military
> secrets? The contributor, if they were Iranian, would probably be
> personally accountable still. But since it is unlikely that Iranian
> classification laws apply to entities in the U.S., there would be no
> legal issue for Wikipedia to have them up (unless they in some way
> fell under U.S. law, which a few categories of information still
> would).
>
> (The WP:V question is different entirely, of course.)

Except that the WP:V question is the crux of the matter!  Those Iranian
military secrets would either be entirely unverifiable, and thus
un-Wiki-able, or they would be verifiable, and so not secret.

I just went through this loop a few times personally -- I posted details
about the [[S8G reactor]] plant back in the days before WP:V was
enforced.  Recently, a newbie popped up and accused me of endangering
the lives of his shipmates and threatening to have me arrested.
Hilarity ensued, until I added the sources I had omitted earlier.
Obviously a secret widely available on the Web (including, as I recall,
a Russian Web site) is not much of a secret.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | We completely deny the allegations, and
 sean at epoptic.org | we're trying to identify the alligators.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEN9lnMAt1wyd9d+URAnynAJ46uhYzCgCJ4DKhJYKi5c0HZlLFUACeJ63I
EDC0dPYI9yExthgtZK2NRqQ=
=1Vwz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Conrad Dunkerson

body:
Ben McIlwain wrote:

> The short story: Gator1, an admin, blocked a user for 3RR on Phaistos
> Disc.  The user retaliated by posting a message threatening to make life
> miserable for Gator1 and then followed up on it, sending a letter to
> Gator1's employer that caused lots of problems, and also caused him to
> delete his user and talk page and leave the project.

I suspect that it was the indefinite block Gator1 placed, for threats of
real world retaliation (mail to employer) on another contributor to the
'Phaistos Disc' article, which really set the person off rather than the
short term 3RR block.

People who subscribe to disputed scientific theories (the 'Proto-Ionian
culture' in this case) receive alot of ridicule and can become very
obsessive, somewhat paranoid, and volatile. It might have helped to note
that Gator1 really didn't have a choice... Wikipedia policy mandates an
indefinite block when there are threats of real world retaliation.

That being said, the only things we could 'do' about the situation now are
try to get the person to retract their actions, respond in kind, or offer
Gator1 any support he needs and move on. The first likely has small chance
of success, the second would in my view be wrong and only make things
worse, and the third is inadequate but likely the best course.


from_name: Daniel R. Tobias

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
On 8 Apr 2006 at 10:41, "Sam Korn" <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 4/8/06, SPUI <drspui at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The definition of "child pornography" differs from country to country.
>
> Yes, in terms of laws.  This image might not fall under child
> pornography rules in some country or another, but that doesn't
> actually stop it being child pornography.

So "you know it when you see it"?  But people's standards are not
necessarily consistent, or objective.  Do any of you remember the
flap a few years ago when Oklahoma City banned the award-winning film
"The Tin Drum" as child porn, and the cops there confiscated all
copies of it?  This is a movie that the MPAA had rated "R" (mature
but not pornographic), and it won an Oscar and a Cannes film festival
award.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tin_Drum

--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

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

David Alexander Russell stated for the record:

> Not if we wrote it properly. The only way a policy can be 'gamed' if it
> is written ambiguously or in a way that is down to interpretation (e.g.
> CSD T1 - what exactly 'divisive' means is down to the individual, and
> two people acting in good faith can interpret it in completely different
> ways). If, for example, we simply wrote it as:
>
> Any image depicting children engaged in sexual intercourse or posing
> with sex toys
>
> There is nothing in that (that I can see) which could possibly be
> 'gamed' or misinterpreted.
>
> Cynical

A pair of one-inch diameter metal balls.  Sex toy, or parts of a bearing?

- --
 Sean Barrett     | We completely deny the allegations, and
 sean at epoptic.org | we're trying to identify the alligators.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEN+xXMAt1wyd9d+URAnv6AKCFLEK0jHaNwUOwCLYTFRMXAKKk9QCbBKdl
yOOkMpWLHAct05WLLaTd+JY=
=twe1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


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

Katefan0 stated for the record:

> Please -- be realistic.  Nobody has that kind of money.
>
> k
>
>
> On 4/8/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Like being sued for unfair dismissal or aiding and abetting harassment
> of employees you mean?
>
> Cynical
>
> Katefan0 wrote:
>
>>Don't count on it.  Companies have their own reputations and bankrolls
>
> to
>
>>protect, anything that could possibly open the company up for harm I
>
> promise
>
>>they take very seriously.
>
>>k

I suspected that you were clueless when you made promises about
companies you have nothing to do with.  When you said that nobody has
the kind of money to bring unfair dismissal suits (which in fact are
filed by the myriads every week) I became sure you have not the
slightest idea what you are talking about.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | We completely deny the allegations, and
 sean at epoptic.org | we're trying to identify the alligators.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEN+06MAt1wyd9d+URAqq4AJ9sGPQ0B5lGSTz/LQ/jm91Jt5HYEACdHMYF
TFAK+WqFvaZkLPZvh69xL90=
=ioMp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Sydney Poore

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
Minors engaged in sexually suggestive poses is too broad  Too many movie
posters and CD (album)  covers would be eliminated. Key to this is age
appropriate sexual activity. Depictions of teens or pre-teens acting
sexually suggestive towards each other is okay.

Sydney

Sam Korn wrote:
> On 4/8/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Any image, whether a photograph, drawing, or render, which depicts
>> minors engaged in sexual activity or sexually suggestive poses.
>>
>
> Without wishing to be querulous, we then need to define "sexually
> suggestive poses".
>
> --
> Sam
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>

--
Sydney Poore

Go Bengals!


from_name: Fastfission

subject: [WikiEN-l] Illegal sources

body:
I think there might be two issues here -- that of the legality of the
contributor and the legality of Wikipedia's hosting of the content.

If I were somebody with access to U.S. military secrets and I posted
them to Wikipedia, I would certainly be *personally* legally
accountable for having them up. Because Wikipedia is in the U.S., it
too would probably be legally accountable as well under U.S.
classification laws. But what if they were, say, Iranian military
secrets? The contributor, if they were Iranian, would probably be
personally accountable still. But since it is unlikely that Iranian
classification laws apply to entities in the U.S., there would be no
legal issue for Wikipedia to have them up (unless they in some way
fell under U.S. law, which a few categories of information still
would).

(The WP:V question is different entirely, of course.)

FF

On 4/7/06, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
> Here's a problem: what happens when the contents of an article can
> only be verified by relying on sources which are illegal to view?
>
> The issue has arisen in the context of the article currently known as
> [[2004 Ukranian child pornography raids]]
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Ukranian_child_pornography_raids>.
>
> The article has changed now, but much of the content (describing the
> pornography-producing organisation, aswell as describing the actual
> material produced) was based on the assertions of those who had viewed
> the content. On a couple of occasions, when sources were asked for in
> relation to particular claims in the article, users provided links to
> the Internet Archive's stored copy of the pornographic website.
>
> Based on the descriptions given in the news sources, it would be
> illegal for me (and for most others) to view this content, and thus it
> would be illegal for me to verify the article. Thus, from my
> perspective, the article is unverifiable.
>
> I think it would be very much a matter of common sense to alter
> [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]] to prohibit the use of illegal sources to
> verify articles. But the question is where should the line of
> definition be drawn? Laws vary substantially across jurisdictions.
> Should we prohibit reliance on sources which are illegal to view in
> Florida? Laws are much stricter in other countries: New Zealand
> springs to mind as an example, but there are other countries where I
> am sure the laws are even stricter.
>
> --
> Stephen Bain
> stephen.bain at gmail.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Sam Korn

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
On 4/7/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
> You asked for "a definition", not "Wikipedia's definition".

Fair enough; point conceded.

> The image in question was completely inappropriate for a serious
> encyclopedia. Whether it was really child pornography or not is an
> academic question of little interest to us now.

Although it is useful to discuss so that we know what to do next time.

--
Sam


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
On 4/8/06, SPUI <drspui at gmail.com> wrote:
> The definition of "child pornography" differs from country to country.

Yes, in terms of laws.  This image might not fall under child
pornography rules in some country or another, but that doesn't
actually stop it being child pornography.

--
Sam


body:
The only possible problem I can see is if Gator was editing Wikipedia while
at work.  That potentially raises liability and reputation issues for the
company since he was doing whatever this letter accused him of doing, on
company time.

Otherwise, it's just embarrassing -- anything that makes a company take the
time to say "what in the world is this?" brands someone as a potential
problem employee, even if the action taken really does no harm to the
company itself.  I mean really, would YOU want to be sitting in your HR
office explaining why someone wrote a nasty letter to your company about
you?

k

On 4/8/06, Chris L?er <chris at zandria.net> wrote:
>
> Ben McIlwain wrote:
> >Please see here:
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Gator1
> >
> >The short story: Gator1, an admin, blocked a user for 3RR on Phaistos
> >Disc.  The user retaliated by posting a message threatening to make life
> >miserable for Gator1 and then followed up on it, sending a letter to
> >Gator1's employer that caused lots of problems, and also caused him to
> >delete his user and talk page and leave the project.
>
> The most relevant piece of information is missing: what was said in
> that letter? I can't really imagine why an employer would get upset
> about what goes on at Wikipedia. At an article about ancient history.
>
> I disagree with those who suggest to protect one's anonymity better
> because of this. It seems to me that hiding would be the worst
> possible response. If someone wants to use their real name on
> Wikipedia, they should be able to.
>
>         Chris
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Robert Scott Horning

body:
Kernigh wrote:

>The Wikibooks portal, http://www.wikibooks.org, is a redirect to the
>http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks_portal which is maintained by the
>sysops of the English Wikibooks. However all language editions of Wikibooks
>should have opportunity to request updates or redesigns of this portal.
>
>At March 2006, the English Wikibooks sysops redesigned the portal to feature
>the top ten language editions, as does http://www.wikisource.org. Recently
>an anoymous user noted that the Swedish edition reached 10th place.
>However, when I checked the stats [1], Swedish had 11th place and Hebrew at
>10th. Thus I would remove Hungarian and add Hebrew.
>  [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikibooks
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
I'd like to add that I created that list of Wikibooks on Meta precisely
because the list on Wikibooks (and similar lists on Meta) were
incredibly out of date and didn't take into account some Wikibooks
projects that were growing but not being noticed.  Instead, I tried to
go through all of the various Wikibooks projects and tried to identify
all of the projects that

1) Had any registred users
2) Had *something* on the "main page" of the project other than the
standard new Wikimedia project starter content

That is a pretty low standard to use, and I think I got all of the
Wikibooks projects listed now that fit this criteria, although it would
be useful to conduct a new survey in a few months or so.  That should
easily catch all of the Wikibooks projects that have over 100 book
modules, which was my main goal, and to see which projects were getting
close to the 100 module mark.  Serbian is likely to be the next 100+
module Wikibooks project.

BTW, I don't know if anybody noticed, but well over 50% of all Wikibooks
content is now in languages other than English, with German being the #2
language, accounting for about 15% of the total Wikibooks content.  This
IMHO is a significant development, and something to keep in mind that
en.wikibooks is not even the majority player in the Wikibooks community
any longer, even if it still is the largest project.

--
Robert Scott Horning


body:
It could turn into a problem for the employer if they continue to
receive letters or phone calls complaining about Gator1. They may have
to take action to stop them.
Sydney

Katefan0 wrote:
> The only possible problem I can see is if Gator was editing Wikipedia while
> at work.  That potentially raises liability and reputation issues for the
> company since he was doing whatever this letter accused him of doing, on
> company time.
>
> Otherwise, it's just embarrassing -- anything that makes a company take the
> time to say "what in the world is this?" brands someone as a potential
> problem employee, even if the action taken really does no harm to the
> company itself.  I mean really, would YOU want to be sitting in your HR
> office explaining why someone wrote a nasty letter to your company about
> you?
>
> k
>
>
>


body:
Or get rid of the offending employee.  Gator at least is a lawyer and
therefore a professional whose company probably has a lot invested in him
personally, but imagine if this were someone with less professional cred?
Easy hire, easy fire; why put up with the hassle?

Anyway, it's all wholly inappropriate, and exactly the sort of situation
that makes me nervous about contributing here.  God knows what that letter
said; Andrew's right, this person is a crank after all.

k
On 4/8/06, Sydney Poore <poore5 at adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> It could turn into a problem for the employer if they continue to
> receive letters or phone calls complaining about Gator1. They may have
> to take action to stop them.
> Sydney
>
> Katefan0 wrote:
> > The only possible problem I can see is if Gator was editing Wikipedia
> while
> > at work.  That potentially raises liability and reputation issues for
> the
> > company since he was doing whatever this letter accused him of doing, on
> > company time.
> >
> > Otherwise, it's just embarrassing -- anything that makes a company take
> the
> > time to say "what in the world is this?" brands someone as a potential
> > problem employee, even if the action taken really does no harm to the
> > company itself.  I mean really, would YOU want to be sitting in your HR
> > office explaining why someone wrote a nasty letter to your company about
> > you?
> >
> > k
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Philip Welch

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
On Apr 8, 2006, at 2:40 AM, Sam Korn wrote:

>> The image in question was completely inappropriate for a serious
>> encyclopedia. Whether it was really child pornography or not is an
>> academic question of little interest to us now.
>
> Although it is useful to discuss so that we know what to do next time.

The standard in that case is not "child pornography", but rather
"likely to bring disrepute to the project".

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


body:
At 10:49 AM 4/8/2006, Katefan0 wrote:

>Otherwise, it's just embarrassing -- anything that makes a company take the
>time to say "what in the world is this?" brands someone as a potential
>problem employee, even if the action taken really does no harm to the
>company itself.  I mean really, would YOU want to be sitting in your HR
>office explaining why someone wrote a nasty letter to your company about
>you?

Of course not. But I'm pretty sure that the HR department has better
things to do...

         Chris


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Live mirror still running!

body:
?? ??? wrote:
>> this site http://www.stadtspiegel-netzwerk.de/ seems to
> be
>> mirroring the Wikipedia contents live, in the different
>> languages. For example:
>>
> http://www.stadtspiegel-netzwerk.de/cgi-bin/enz.pl?SDT=1&ROOT=3&Query=Special:Recentchanges&LAN=en
>
> It is also hotlinking to the image files.
>
> Please, can someone block the site?

Done.

-- 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/20060408/3c34813d/attachment.pgp>


body:
Don't count on it.  Companies have their own reputations and bankrolls to
protect, anything that could possibly open the company up for harm I promise
they take very seriously.

k

On 4/8/06, Chris L?er <chris at zandria.net> wrote:
>
> At 10:49 AM 4/8/2006, Katefan0 wrote:
>
> >Otherwise, it's just embarrassing -- anything that makes a company take
> the
> >time to say "what in the world is this?" brands someone as a potential
> >problem employee, even if the action taken really does no harm to the
> >company itself.  I mean really, would YOU want to be sitting in your HR
> >office explaining why someone wrote a nasty letter to your company about
> >you?
>
> Of course not. But I'm pretty sure that the HR department has better
> things to do...
>
>         Chris
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Tels

body:
Moin,

On Saturday 08 April 2006 06:49, Tim Starling wrote:
> Tels wrote:
> > Here is a snippet from DynamicPageList2:
> >
> > // The callback function for converting the input text to HTML output
> > function DynamicPageList2( $input ) {
> > 	...
> > 	global $wgTitle;
> > 	global $wgOut;
> > 	$ts = mktime();
> > 	$now = gmdate("YmdHis", $ts + 60);
> > 	$ns = $wgTitle->getNamespace();
> > 	$ti = wfStrencode($wgTitle->getDBkey());
> > 	... [snip]
> > 	$wgOut->addMeta("http:Pragma", "no-cache");
> > 	...
>
> Please don't use $wgTitle in parser hook functions, it will break the
> job queue, and anything else that wants to parse more than one article.
> runJobs.php is set up to die with a backtrace if anyone attempts it.
> Instead, take a parser object as the third parameter, and use the
> $parser->mTitle member variable. Like this:
>
> function DynamicPageList2( $input, $params, &$parser ) {
> 	...
> 	$ns = $parser->mTitle->getNamespace();
> 	...
>
>
> As Brion points out, using $wgOut won't work either, because data sent
> to $wgOut won't be saved in the parser cache. That's why all data
> generated in parser hooks needs to find its way into the ParserOutput
> object. Put an array of head items there, have the parser hook add one,
> maybe via an accessor in Parser. Then have OutputPage copy those items
> to itself in OutputPage::addParserOutputNoText(). Then it will all work
> with the parser cache.

Could you give some short example of how that would be written?  Also does
this need 1.6 or would it work with 1.5.x too?

I intend to write a FAQ about all this later, and toy around with it. That
is certainly underdocumented and thus done wrong by some extensions. :)

Thanx for the time and explanations,

Tels

--
 Signed on Sat Apr  8 12:07:00 2006 with key 0x93B84C15.
 Visit my photo gallery at http://bloodgate.com/photos/
 PGP key on http://bloodgate.com/tels.asc or per email.

 "A bus station is where a bus stops. A train station is where a train
 stops. On my desk I have a work station." -- Unknown

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 481 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060408/e6f323ce/attachment.pgp>


body:
Moin,

On Friday 07 April 2006 21:26, Brion Vibber wrote:
> Tels wrote:
> > Here is a snippet from DynamicPageList2:
> > // The callback function for converting the input text to HTML output
> > function DynamicPageList2( $input ) {
> > 	...
> [snip]
> > 	$wgOut->addMeta("http:Pragma", "no-cache");
> > 	...
> >
> > When I add $wgOut->addScript( "<style>....</style>" ); here, would
> > that add the style to every page in the wiki, or only pages that have
> > a <DPL> tag on it (which triggers that extension).
>
> That would only add the style when the <dpl> tag gets parsed and
> rendered; it looks like a bug in the extension code.
>
> It would, for instance, *not* add the style when the page containing
> the tag is shown if the HTML is pulled from the parser cache (as it
> would be, most of the time.)

Ah. That really smells like a bug.

[snip]
> >> (You could make a custom skin which works this way.)
> >
> > But that would change all pages. What I want to achive is that
> > everypage is normal, even the first page of a presentation (the table
> > of contents), and when you switch to the second one, only the
> > navigation box remains and the menu etc disappears, making more space
> > available for the actula slide.
>
> Let me be more specific. :) You could make a custom skin which responds
> to the custom signals you add in your extension.

Ah. Thanx. I wil toy around and see how to get it best working,

Tels

--
 Signed on Sat Apr  8 12:09:50 2006 with key 0x93B84C15.
 Visit my photo gallery at http://bloodgate.com/photos/
 PGP key on http://bloodgate.com/tels.asc or per email.

 "To get something done, a committee should consist of no more than three
 persons, two of them absent." -- Unknown

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 481 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060408/342bc71e/attachment.pgp>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
The image boards with lolicon have images that are clearly
inappropriate  for display on Wikipedia. Many of them fall outside of
that definition. For example, very young children masturbating for
sexual gratification. I think Tony is right. If the description is too
specific then people will try to game it.

Some of the images are too disgusting to describe here. That is the
reason that I don't think we should have external links to them. I don't
have a problem with naming the image boards in the article and even
giving the site http.  But I don't think we should have active links to
them. There is a low grade edit dispute about this at Lolicon article now.
Sydney

David Alexander Russell wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Not if we wrote it properly. The only way a policy can be 'gamed' if it
> is written ambiguously or in a way that is down to interpretation (e.g.
> CSD T1 - what exactly 'divisive' means is down to the individual, and
> two people acting in good faith can interpret it in completely different
> ways). If, for example, we simply wrote it as:
>
> Any image depicting children engaged in sexual intercourse or posing
> with sex toys
>
> There is nothing in that (that I can see) which could possibly be
> 'gamed' or misinterpreted.
>
> Cynical
>
> Tony Sidaway wrote:
>
>> On 4/8/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> So, in other words, we need an accepted definition for what constitutes
>>> deletable child porn on Wikipedia.
>>>
>> No.  That would give the campaigners and trolls a target to try to game.
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFEN99rg8fvtQYQevcRApx8AJ9lMyReZBKLlA076Y6L+DVzrLAbWgCggSOP
> 1UIaI71ZIq0B3MoPMkGtuy4=
> =BJPL
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>

--
Sydney Poore

Go Bengals!


body:
Please -- be realistic.  Nobody has that kind of money.

k

On 4/8/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Like being sued for unfair dismissal or aiding and abetting harassment
> of employees you mean?
>
> Cynical
>
> Katefan0 wrote:
> > Don't count on it.  Companies have their own reputations and bankrolls
> to
> > protect, anything that could possibly open the company up for harm I
> promise
> > they take very seriously.
> >
> > k
> >
> >
> > On 4/8/06, Chris L?er <chris at zandria.net> wrote:
> >> At 10:49 AM 4/8/2006, Katefan0 wrote:
> >>
> >>> Otherwise, it's just embarrassing -- anything that makes a company
> take
> >> the
> >>> time to say "what in the world is this?" brands someone as a potential
> >>> problem employee, even if the action taken really does no harm to the
> >>> company itself.  I mean really, would YOU want to be sitting in your
> HR
> >>> office explaining why someone wrote a nasty letter to your company
> about
> >>> you?
> >> Of course not. But I'm pretty sure that the HR department has better
> >> things to do...
> >>
> >>         Chris
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> >> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> >
> >
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFEN9+0g8fvtQYQevcRAmjEAJ9iiDQbPAuTmItkABL3C0neJb8fjACdFiqB
> MrnHIFL/ECRg7FLCXfTuf9Q=
> =fmmf
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Deleting the Lolicon picture

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

David Alexander Russell stated for the record:

> If pictured by themselves, clearly part of a ball bearing, if pictured
> with a child then the point is moot - can you honestly see a situation
> where a child posing with 1-inch diameter metal balls is relevant to a
> Wikipedia article (unless, say, it's in a lolicon article in which case
> the image would obviously be sexual)
>
> Cynical

An article on "Magz," which is a toy based on magnetic sticks and steel
balls.  The balls are smaller than an inch, but my point is that someone
out to game the system can game any standard you set up.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | We completely deny the allegations, and
 sean at epoptic.org | we're trying to identify the alligators.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEOBWKMAt1wyd9d+URArpbAJ9I687BvGSOtYjEXFCB0bvMe2DI1gCfaPLJ
uIBquKU/h+FVMN52xCYw8Mg=
=UxsQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


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

Katefan0 stated for the record:

> Very kind.  Thanks for your constructive comments -- they have raised the
> level of discourse on this serious topic.
>
> k

Kindness has nothing to do with it.  The statement
	"Please -- be realistic.  Nobody has that kind of money."
(in reference to "being sued for unfair dismissal") is absurdly wrong
and contributes nothing to the analysis of a real, on-going problem.

What's next?  IANALs giving legal advice?  Oh, wait....

- --
 Sean Barrett     | We completely deny the allegations, and
 sean at epoptic.org | we're trying to identify the alligators.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEOBdUMAt1wyd9d+URAk3jAJwOn7I3Gkgq1OwJj1/Nk5nTM3qMcgCfXAvP
KY/PvzOM66IkOyZwO+0HCDc=
=AP9Y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----