from_name: Zordsdavini iz Litvy

subject: [Wikipedia-l] new wikis

body:
But what You could suggest for approved languages? Why people have to wait
so much time. They will run away.

Arns Udov???

2007/1/12, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
>
> Hoi,
> Singlish was denied in the past.. I do not know why you would suggest
> Singlish in the first place. It is not recognised as a language, it has
> the status of "invented" language, it does not have the same notability
> as Ido Interlingua Esperanto ..
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
>
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Chinglish
>
> J.L.W.S. The Special One schreef:
> > I'd suggest a Singlish Wikipedia and Singlish Wiktionary.
> >
> > On 1/10/07, Dan Collins <en.wp.st47 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Zordsdavini iz Litvy wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hello,
> >>> I don't understand why new wikis are nor been creating. The people
> will go
> >>> out of this because some of them are waiting for the year...
> >>>
> >>> Arns Udov???
> >>>
> >>>
> >> If you wnat to make a new wiki with the WikiMedia foundation, visit
> >> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_new_projects
> >>
> >> --
> >> GnuPG key ID is 0x84189146 on subkeys.pgp.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
Ok^ ek^ besla ikv Olmok Vzauep^evk
:)


list: wikipedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] new wikis

body:
Indeed. Singlish was denied by a thin margin of voters. Besides, teh
"new process" for approving languages, which was implemented
unilaterally by a Meta admin, does not rely on votes, but rather on
arguments.

Singlish is NOT a constructed language. It is the native language of
hundreds of thousands of Singaporeans, and a second language for
millions more. Most young Singaporeans today are learning Singlish as
their native language.

Singlish is an English-based creole language with strong influence
from Southern varieties of Chinese, as well as Malay and Indic
languages.

Unfortunately there is no standard written form of Singlish, however
this does not stop bloggers from writing in it (the vast majority of
Singaporean bloggers write in some form of Singlish or another).

Mark

On 12/01/07, J.L.W.S. The Special One <hildanknight at gmail.com> wrote:
> From that discussion, it appears that most opposed Chinglish, but
> Singlish had considerable support.
>
> With several million native speakers, Singlish has its own unique
> grammar and vocabulary.
>
> On 1/12/07, Zordsdavini iz Litvy <zordsdavini at gmail.com> wrote:
> > So, when these 8 wikipedies will be created?
> > And second question: where can I read more about these ISO-CD-639-6.
> >
> > Arns Udov???
> >
> > 2007/1/12, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > Hoi,
> > > People can always start on the Incubator and show that they have what it
> > > takes. The notion of the Incubator is that by working on the Incubator
> > > there will be something that will indicate that it is just a flash in
> > > the pan.. Someone saying: "Would it not be nice" and then doing nothing.
> > > We have asked Brion to include the "BetaWiki" functionality so that
> > > people can start on the localisation of that language and for all
> > > projects to maintain the localisation of MediaWiki on a MediaWiki server.
> > >
> > > Brion indicated that it can get on his "to do" list after release 1.9
> > > (done) and SUL (his current priority). When the language files are
> > > ALWAYS generated for new languages, we will not get the sad situation of
> > > the Marathi projects where the localisation is said to be overwritten
> > > with new releases. Localisation will be done at Incubator and, new
> > > messages once translated there can be exported to at least all the
> > > Wikimedia Foundation projects. External projects will benefit with new
> > > releases.. :)
> > >
> > > For languages that do not have an ISO-639 code, the notion of granting a
> > > project is problematic. We hope to announce within the month much of the
> > > content that is in the ISO-CD-639-6 AND a procedure in which you will be
> > > able to get recognition under the standard that is being worked on. NB
> > > this standard will have some 25.000 linguistic entities to start off
> > > with and many of them are spoken only or signed languages.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >      GerardM
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Zordsdavini iz Litvy schreef:
> > > > But what You could suggest for approved languages? Why people have to
> > > wait
> > > > so much time. They will run away.
> > > >
> > > > Arns Udov???
> > > >
> > > > 2007/1/12, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
> > > >
> > > >> Hoi,
> > > >> Singlish was denied in the past.. I do not know why you would suggest
> > > >> Singlish in the first place. It is not recognised as a language, it has
> > > >> the status of "invented" language, it does not have the same notability
> > > >> as Ido Interlingua Esperanto ..
> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >>     GerardM
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Chinglish
> > > >>
> > > >> J.L.W.S. The Special One schreef:
> > > >>
> > > >>> I'd suggest a Singlish Wikipedia and Singlish Wiktionary.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On 1/10/07, Dan Collins <en.wp.st47 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Zordsdavini iz Litvy wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> Hello,
> > > >>>>> I don't understand why new wikis are nor been creating. The people
> > > >>>>>
> > > >> will go
> > > >>
> > > >>>>> out of this because some of them are waiting for the year...
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Arns Udov???
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>> If you wnat to make a new wiki with the WikiMedia foundation, visit
> > > >>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_new_projects
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> --
> > > >>>> GnuPG key ID is 0x84189146 on subkeys.pgp.net
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ok^ ek^ besla ikv Olmok Vzauep^evk
> > :)
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
> --
> Written with passion,
> J.L.W.S. The Special One
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

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


list: wikien-l

from_name: James Hare

subject: [WikiEN-l] (no subject)

body:
I think the WikiProjects should set the standards -- people generally
involved in the WikiProjects are knowledged in the field and know what
separates the boys from the men (and the girls from the women).

Wait a darn second, doesn't that happen already? Ah, but yes, other people
have a say as well. It's part good and part unfortunate.

On 1/12/07, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:
>
>
> James Hare wrote:
>
> > Hopefully, through this, closing AFDs will be based less on vote
> counting
> > and more on evaluating the opinions of people.
>
> I can see it now - Librarian badlydrawnjeff notes that over 10k books
> generally meet our standard in a given year, and a shitstorm ensues.
>
> A good idea that will never, ever happen.
>
> -Jeff
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: gwern branwen

subject: [WikiEN-l] (no subject)

body:
On 1/12/07, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> I've been thinking of searching through the deletion logs, taking everything
> that's not "JOSH LIKES MEN LOLOLOL" and putting it on a website so if
> Wikipedia wants it again or an independent wiki they can look at it then
> I'll ship off the good stuff to them.
>
> Even if some things are a bit too... specialist, they could go on a Wikia
> wiki.

I'm afraid [[Clifford A. Pickover]] has already beaten you to that,
although I am unsure how comprehensive his [[Wikidumper.org]] is.

--Gwern


from_name: Rob Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] (no subject)

body:
On 1/12/07, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I suggested something on another thread that stated that only people with
> background in a certain field should be qualified to judge notability.
> Chemists determine chemical notability, Finns determine notability of
> Finnish folk, the list goes on. Perhaps it's time to give AFD a good ol'
> reworking to separate the opinions of people who are qualified to speak
> about the subject's notability and outsider's opinions (both are
> important,
> but we can't put the fingers of clueless people on the red button).
> Hopefully, through this, closing AFDs will be based less on vote counting
> and more on evaluating the opinions of people.

Somethig like this should apply to RfC's as well; for example when an RfC on
an historical subject is hung out in politics to invite input from partisan
users with no understanding of the issues involved.

Rob Smith
aka nobs


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Simetrical

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki 1.9.0 released

body:
On 1/12/07, Jay R. Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote:
> So... what's the next quarterly release?
>
> 1.10, right?  :-)

Yes.  I wonder what will trigger us to go to 2.0 . . . I can foresee
1.35 down the road here.  :)


from_name: Guettarda

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Ethnicity inhabited region categories,
	religion inhabited region categories

body:
On 1/12/07, Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu- <tariqabjotu at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> That does not seem logical to me at all. I'm sure 99.99999% of readers
> will be wondering how the heck New York is an "African inhabited
> region." Like me... how the heck is New York an "African inhabited
> region"?
>
> -- Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu-

It's all a matter of perspective... there are Africans in New York, after
all, none of use is more than a few hundred (maybe a thousand or two max)
generations removed from Africa :)

But seriously - is there any nationality not represented in New York, or
London, or... It strikes me as a hopelessly broad series of categories, and
also terribly trivial.

Ian

Cool Cat wrote:
> > Is it logical to categories states, cities, provinces based on religion
> or
> > ethnicity? (ex: tagging New York state being a part of
> [[Category:African
> > inhabited region]] and etc)
> >       - Cool Cat
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: K P

subject: [WikiEN-l] editorial oversight, re: afd, fac, etc.

body:
On 1/12/07, Keitei <nihthraefn at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jan 12, 2007, at 16:11, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> > I suppose now might be a decent time to trot out an old idea: what
> > about giving WikiProjects a greater role in the deletion process?
> > They are already (for the most part) the natural gathering places for
> > people with some interest in a particular topic (and, by association,
> > some degree of knowledge of it); presumably, we could therefore expect
> > that the consensus of participants in a WikiProject would thus be a
> > little more informed on topics within that project's scope than the
> > consensus of randomly selected editors.
>
> I wonder if holding deletion debates within WikiProject space would
> be a feasible or good idea. The idea would be creating consensus over
> whether something was notable/verifiable enough among those familiar
> with the topic, so as to create a more nuanced debate. A time limit
> would probably be not such a great idea, but once consensus was
> reached, deletion could be requested. Of course there isn't a
> WikiProject for every topic, and not every nominator knows where to
> find relevant WikiProjects. However, this would curb uninformed drive-
> by votes and make deletion discussions hopefully more debate and less
> polling. It'd also be a huge reform to deletion process, which is
> entirely unwanted if I read community feeling correctly. Oh well.

 I find the WikiProjects feel they own the articles and don't want to delete
anything in their area.  This can be problematic also.

A couple of times when articles have come up for discussion in areas in
which I have a lot of expertise, the other editors agreed with what I
suggested by done based on this.

The problem, imo, is the number of seriously contentious editors who know
nothing about a topic, but want the article deleted because there were few
google hits or they didn't understand the article.  Google simply isn't the
source for everything, especially in the sciences.  One concept with few
google hits was a major climatic term.  Another issue that arrises is that
contentious editors want poorly sourced or unreferenced articles deleted for
OR rather than tagged requesting it be references properly (Rock climbing
being the extreme of that one).  One article on a major topic was up for
discussion because the editor posting the AfD had never heard of the term.
He/she didn't bother to do a Google search and get the 1.2 million hits,
apparently.

Yes, it seems that there are a lot of editors with limited knowledge who
consider that anything they haven't heard of should be deleted.  Someone was
arguing on a page today/yesterday that because he had never heard of Lech
Walesa, Walesa might not be very notable.

There are just too many uninformed drive-by votes for me to continue in AfD,
though, it's too contentious, the guidelines are ignored, editors make up
reasons for deletion, and well-sourced articles on major topics are liable
to be deletely simply because a small group of editors have never heard of
some obscure world-leader Nobel laureate.

KP Botany


from_name: Kenny Barney

subject: [Wikitech-l] Website remote loading English Wikipedia

body:
I was searching Google, and found a website (
http://tramadol.tfres.net/wiki/Main_Page) that, when visited, loads a live
page from Wikipedia, and puts a large number of Google Ads at the top of
each page. According to a relevant page on Wikipedia (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:FORK#Remote_loading), this, and the irc
channel #wikimedia-tech, is the place to report this.

I first reported this on #wikimedia-tech. The first reply said to just "post
to mailing list", while the second said to go to bugzilla. Is this the right
place?

[attempt 2, hope it gets through this time]


subject: [WikiEN-l] (no subject)

body:
Cunning website! Maybe I'll get in touch with him...

On 1/12/07, gwern branwen <gwern0 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/12/07, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I've been thinking of searching through the deletion logs, taking
> everything
> > that's not "JOSH LIKES MEN LOLOLOL" and putting it on a website so if
> > Wikipedia wants it again or an independent wiki they can look at it then
> > I'll ship off the good stuff to them.
> >
> > Even if some things are a bit too... specialist, they could go on a
> Wikia
> > wiki.
>
> I'm afraid [[Clifford A. Pickover]] has already beaten you to that,
> although I am unsure how comprehensive his [[Wikidumper.org]] is.
>
> --Gwern
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu-

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Ethnicity inhabited region categories,
 religion inhabited region categories

body:
That does not seem logical to me at all. I'm sure 99.99999% of readers
will be wondering how the heck New York is an "African inhabited
region." Like me... how the heck is New York an "African inhabited region"?

-- Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu-

Cool Cat wrote:
> Is it logical to categories states, cities, provinces based on religion or
> ethnicity? (ex: tagging New York state being a part of [[Category:African
> inhabited region]] and etc)
>       - Cool Cat
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>


from_name: Christopher Thieme

body:
> Message: 10
> Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:19:31 -0500
> From: "James Hare" <messedrocker at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] (no subject)
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:  <43348cda0701120919k15954458g636078210a2adede at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> I suggested something on another thread that stated that only people with
> background in a certain field should be qualified to judge notability.
> Chemists determine chemical notability, Finns determine notability of
> Finnish folk, the list goes on. Perhaps it's time to give AFD a good ol'
> reworking to separate the opinions of people who are qualified to speak
> about the subject's notability and outsider's opinions (both are
important,
> but we can't put the fingers of clueless people on the red button).
> Hopefully, through this, closing AFDs will be based less on vote counting
> and more on evaluating the opinions of people.

I'd have to agree with James on this one.  This could also be a boon for FA
and GA promotions.  It would diminish the tendancy for voting at AFD, FAC,
etc. to look like a division of "i don't like it" and the "i like it" camps.

Several months ago, an AFD came up for "Amafanius", an early Roman Epicurean
philosopher whose works, while unfortunately lost to the ages, were
discussed at length in the works of Cicero (who trashed Amafanius with
glee), and in Michel de Montaigne.  Because of their referencing,
the philosophical offerings of Amafanius can actually be reconstructed...but
only in broad strokes.  As someone who studied classics at Rutgers and am
well-versed in this area, I recognized that he was notable and should have a
place here at Wikipedia.  Thankfully, because a few others were just as
well-versed, we were able to save the article.

But, unfortunately, as it typical around here,  a large number of users who
obvious appeared to be the tech-saavy, internet-raised Pokemon-crowd for
whom nothing exists before, say, 20 years ago, voted for "Delete".

One of the failings, one that probably contributes to some of the negative
reputation Wikipedia has earned, is that it does not have any expert
oversight.  Perhaps some sort of prominent, scholarly, editorial advisory
board would be in order?  Even if loosely bureaucratic, it would add a
little more weight to the credibility of the encyclopedia that would be a
worthwhile step in counteracting an image diminished by our pop-culture
heaviness (pokemon, star trek, etc.) and "anyone can edit (read:
vandalise/insert false information)" repuation.

Regards,
Christopher D. Thieme
User:ExplorerCDT


from_name: Gregory Kohs

subject: [WikiEN-l] (no subject)

body:
James Hare writes:

>> I've been thinking of searching through the deletion logs, taking
everything
>> that's not "JOSH LIKES MEN LOLOLOL" and putting it on a website so if
>> Wikipedia wants it again or an independent wiki they can look at it then
>> I'll ship off the good stuff to them.
>>
>> Even if some things are a bit too... specialist, they could go on a Wikia
>> wiki.
Actually, since Wikia has its own restrictive standards (
http://wikia.com/wiki/Wikia_creation_policy) about what content is
acceptable in their space, and Wikia keeps all of the Google ad revenue for
itself; wouldn't it be even better to encourage such content to find a home
on Centiare.com, which is much less restrictive, and where the contributor
can keep 100% of the Google AdSense revenue (and Amazon Affiliate revenue,
for that matter) for their own?  If the topic is about a legal entity, the
contributor "owns" the article.  If the topic is general, it's subject to
community editing.

James, there was some talk about Wikimedia Foundation trying to separate the
use of Foundation space to "sell" the concept of Wikia; so, when you mention
Wikia as a viable alternative, it would probably help them (from a conflict
of interest standpoint) to mention some other possibilities, too -- such as
Centiare, PBwiki, etc.

--
Gregory Kohs
Cell: 302.463.1354


subject: [WikiEN-l] (no subject)

body:
Darn it, you foiled my plans to totally screw around with people's lives!
SARCASM ASIDE, I think I would've stayed away from the quagmires even if you
hadn't told me how it presents a pickle.

The stuff I'd resurrect would be things deleted for non-notability -- things
that are still information albeit not to Wikipedia's standards.

On 1/12/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/12/07, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I've been thinking of searching through the deletion logs, taking
> everything
> > that's not "JOSH LIKES MEN LOLOLOL" and putting it on a website so if
> > Wikipedia wants it again or an independent wiki they can look at it then
> > I'll ship off the good stuff to them.
> >
> > Even if some things are a bit too... specialist, they could go on a
> Wikia
> > wiki.
> >
>
> You realise that can get you de-admined? Need to be careful about why
> stuff was deleted.
>
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [Wikipedia-l] new wikis

body:
So, when these 8 wikipedies will be created?
And second question: where can I read more about these ISO-CD-639-6.

Arns Udov???

2007/1/12, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
>
> Hoi,
> People can always start on the Incubator and show that they have what it
> takes. The notion of the Incubator is that by working on the Incubator
> there will be something that will indicate that it is just a flash in
> the pan.. Someone saying: "Would it not be nice" and then doing nothing.
> We have asked Brion to include the "BetaWiki" functionality so that
> people can start on the localisation of that language and for all
> projects to maintain the localisation of MediaWiki on a MediaWiki server.
>
> Brion indicated that it can get on his "to do" list after release 1.9
> (done) and SUL (his current priority). When the language files are
> ALWAYS generated for new languages, we will not get the sad situation of
> the Marathi projects where the localisation is said to be overwritten
> with new releases. Localisation will be done at Incubator and, new
> messages once translated there can be exported to at least all the
> Wikimedia Foundation projects. External projects will benefit with new
> releases.. :)
>
> For languages that do not have an ISO-639 code, the notion of granting a
> project is problematic. We hope to announce within the month much of the
> content that is in the ISO-CD-639-6 AND a procedure in which you will be
> able to get recognition under the standard that is being worked on. NB
> this standard will have some 25.000 linguistic entities to start off
> with and many of them are spoken only or signed languages.
>
> Thanks,
>      GerardM
>
>
>
> Zordsdavini iz Litvy schreef:
> > But what You could suggest for approved languages? Why people have to
> wait
> > so much time. They will run away.
> >
> > Arns Udov???
> >
> > 2007/1/12, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
> >
> >> Hoi,
> >> Singlish was denied in the past.. I do not know why you would suggest
> >> Singlish in the first place. It is not recognised as a language, it has
> >> the status of "invented" language, it does not have the same notability
> >> as Ido Interlingua Esperanto ..
> >> Thanks,
> >>     GerardM
> >>
> >>
> >>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Chinglish
> >>
> >> J.L.W.S. The Special One schreef:
> >>
> >>> I'd suggest a Singlish Wikipedia and Singlish Wiktionary.
> >>>
> >>> On 1/10/07, Dan Collins <en.wp.st47 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Zordsdavini iz Litvy wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hello,
> >>>>> I don't understand why new wikis are nor been creating. The people
> >>>>>
> >> will go
> >>
> >>>>> out of this because some of them are waiting for the year...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Arns Udov???
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> If you wnat to make a new wiki with the WikiMedia foundation, visit
> >>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_new_projects
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> GnuPG key ID is 0x84189146 on subkeys.pgp.net
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
Ok^ ek^ besla ikv Olmok Vzauep^evk
:)


list: foundation-l

from_name: Aude

subject: [Foundation-l] NEH grant

body:
One of the greatest shortcomings I see with Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects
is with our use of maps and geospatial data.  I have seen ideas here and
there on this mailing list and other places, but it's a big issue to work
through.

I have background in geography/GIS, ability to use state-of-the-art software
such as ArcGIS (http://www.esri.com) that is generally beyond the means of
consumers, and knowledge/skills on how to use it to make maps for
Wikipedia.  But, the potential demand for maps on Wikipedia is very high,
the process of making them can be time consuming, and the number of
Wikipedians to fulfill it is limited.  I did one a while back for Shoshone
National Forest.  I could refine the look of this map, come up with some
standard, and given lots of time could make one for every protected area in
the U.S. (and then there's Canada and other countries). Despite this
possibility (with significant effort), I'm not entirely sure having only
static, non-interactive maps (quickly can become outdate) is the way to go.
I could probably write scripts on the GIS-end of things to help automate it,
and a bot on the wiki-end to ease the process. I have also played around
with the MediaWiki source code and been learning about writing extensions.

Also it would be fantastic to be able to use resources such as the
"collection of rare maps of Africa, dating from 1530 to 1915" that's been
mentioned.  Depending on the map, sometimes it is helpful to georeference
them (geoTIFF is the format for this).  Also, check out
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/faq.html#3.html (see "Where are the rest of
your maps?")  And, the map library at Penn State (
http://www.libraries.psu.edu/maps/) is quite extensive.

I know it's a significant undertaking to develop/integrate any capability
beyond static maps.  It's beyond the scope of what Brion and the current
developers can handle, given our current resources.  But, I think we could
use some discussion to learn what kind of maps/mapping/geospatial data
capability that people would like to see with Wikipedia?  If given more
resources, such as support from a grant, along with well developed and
thought out ideas, and interest from the community, I think there is
possiblity to improve from the status quo.

I have put some more detailed thoughts about this issue here -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AudeVivere/GIS
I mention issues concerning locator maps for articles, offline
maps/resources, GIS data resources available, copyright issues with data
from some sources, open source mapping/GIS capabilities that exist,
previous/current efforts - such as geocoordinates in articles, and other
ideas. Feedback welcome!

If this interests people, I think we could work to develop specific,
feasible ideas.  I also have knowledge about writing grant applications and
would be glad to help.


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] NEH grant


from_name: Jeff Raymond

body:
Christopher Thieme wrote:

> One of the failings, one that probably contributes to some of the negative
> reputation Wikipedia has earned, is that it does not have any expert
> oversight.  Perhaps some sort of prominent, scholarly, editorial advisory
> board would be in order?  Even if loosely bureaucratic, it would add a
> little more weight to the credibility of the encyclopedia that would be a
> worthwhile step in counteracting an image diminished by our pop-culture
> heaviness (pokemon, star trek, etc.) and "anyone can edit (read:
> vandalise/insert false information)" repuation.

Here's the problem, though - even with those, you're still going to get
people who see a philosopher like what you said and bring it up for
deletion, even if it's well-sourced.  Really, a board doesn't need to be
in order as much as an escape from "notability" as a criteria at all,
instead focusing on other rationales for inclusion.

I don't know if there's a perfect system, in any regard.  People ignore
the "notability" criteria as is, and not having any criteria in place will
certainly eliminate otherwise necessary/good/great/featured articles due
to their overall lack of significant rememberance.  Perhaps Fred's idea
has some merit as well, but I'm not sure there's a good way to assure that
the articles we should have stay, and the articles we shouldn't get
deleted.

-Jeff


subject: [WikiEN-l] (no subject)

body:
I am sorry for providing only a basic idea of what I was looking for.

No, I am not limiting the people of a niche for discussion. Anyone can
discuss things. However, more weight should be given to the opinions of the
people who KNOW what they're talking about -- this should be reflected by
their article contributions. That is what I consider "qualified." Now, if we
were to make cabals of people who can verifiably be considered experts (like
how Citizendium has Editors), then they sure could be able to speak but let
them yield not so much power because everyone is important. This gives me an
idea...

Let's not talk about countries or things like that -- topics are topics.
Cornwall is Cornwall, Scotland is Scotland, Egyptian literature is Egyptian
literature, things of that nature. I define a topic as something that has a
main article and more articles expanding on the idea (remember: strict
definitions are instruction creep).

On 1/12/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/12/07, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I suggested something on another thread that stated that only people
> with
> > background in a certain field should be qualified to judge notability.
> > Chemists determine chemical notability,
>
> Define your terms
>
>
> > Finns determine notability of
> > Finnish folk,
>
> Um trying that with the countries around the balkans would be um
> interesting if you were at a safe distance.
>
>
>
> >the list goes on.
>
> Not really since you have failed to define what the list was of.
> Countries? So only australians can talk about [[Ball's Pyramid]]. How
> are you defineing Countries anyway? Does scotland count? What about
> cornwall?
>
> > Perhaps it's time to give AFD a good ol'
> > reworking to separate the opinions of people who are qualified to speak
> > about the subject's notability and outsider's opinions (both are
> important,
> > but we can't put the fingers of clueless people on the red button).
>
> Define qualified.
>
>
> > Hopefully, through this, closing AFDs will be based less on vote
> counting
> > and more on evaluating the opinions of people.
> >
>
> Or you could try going to AFDs and commenting rather than voteing.
>
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] (no subject)

body:
I've been here for a while and yes, I should know what the problems are.
Copyvios, attack pages, personal information, negative things about living
people that cannot be attributed to a source, oh my some people don't get
the clue that this is an encyclopedia.

On 1/12/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/12/07, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Darn it, you foiled my plans to totally screw around with people's
> lives!
> > SARCASM ASIDE, I think I would've stayed away from the quagmires even if
> you
> > hadn't told me how it presents a pickle.
> >
>
> Do you know where they are? are you sure? are you really sure?  Do you
> not wish to be an admin?
>
> Ah paranoia can be a wounderful thing
>
> > The stuff I'd resurrect would be things deleted for non-notability --
> things
> > that are still information albeit not to Wikipedia's standards.
>
> You mean all the quagmires that got hidden as a standard A7 delete?
>
> Lets just say that both  policy and practice in this area are rather
> inconsistant so you may wish to be careful.
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Kirill Lokshin

body:
On 1/12/07, Christopher Thieme <cdthieme at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Message: 10
> > Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:19:31 -0500
> > From: "James Hare" <messedrocker at gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] (no subject)
> > To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Message-ID:  <43348cda0701120919k15954458g636078210a2adede at mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> >
> > I suggested something on another thread that stated that only people with
> > background in a certain field should be qualified to judge notability.
> > Chemists determine chemical notability, Finns determine notability of
> > Finnish folk, the list goes on. Perhaps it's time to give AFD a good ol'
> > reworking to separate the opinions of people who are qualified to speak
> > about the subject's notability and outsider's opinions (both are
> important,
> > but we can't put the fingers of clueless people on the red button).
> > Hopefully, through this, closing AFDs will be based less on vote counting
> > and more on evaluating the opinions of people.
>
> I'd have to agree with James on this one.  This could also be a boon for FA
> and GA promotions.  It would diminish the tendancy for voting at AFD, FAC,
> etc. to look like a division of "i don't like it" and the "i like it" camps.
>
> Several months ago, an AFD came up for "Amafanius", an early Roman Epicurean
> philosopher whose works, while unfortunately lost to the ages, were
> discussed at length in the works of Cicero (who trashed Amafanius with
> glee), and in Michel de Montaigne.  Because of their referencing,
> the philosophical offerings of Amafanius can actually be reconstructed...but
> only in broad strokes.  As someone who studied classics at Rutgers and am
> well-versed in this area, I recognized that he was notable and should have a
> place here at Wikipedia.  Thankfully, because a few others were just as
> well-versed, we were able to save the article.
>
> But, unfortunately, as it typical around here,  a large number of users who
> obvious appeared to be the tech-saavy, internet-raised Pokemon-crowd for
> whom nothing exists before, say, 20 years ago, voted for "Delete".
>
> One of the failings, one that probably contributes to some of the negative
> reputation Wikipedia has earned, is that it does not have any expert
> oversight.  Perhaps some sort of prominent, scholarly, editorial advisory
> board would be in order?  Even if loosely bureaucratic, it would add a
> little more weight to the credibility of the encyclopedia that would be a
> worthwhile step in counteracting an image diminished by our pop-culture
> heaviness (pokemon, star trek, etc.) and "anyone can edit (read:
> vandalise/insert false information)" repuation.
>
> Regards,
> Christopher D. Thieme
> User:ExplorerCDT

I suppose now might be a decent time to trot out an old idea: what
about giving WikiProjects a greater role in the deletion process?
They are already (for the most part) the natural gathering places for
people with some interest in a particular topic (and, by association,
some degree of knowledge of it); presumably, we could therefore expect
that the consensus of participants in a WikiProject would thus be a
little more informed on topics within that project's scope than the
consensus of randomly selected editors.

--
Kirill Lokshin


body:
I've suggested that each individual WikiProject establish the notability
standards, so naturally I guess they'd be involved in deletion, too. We
already have Deletion Sorting, which is a blessing.

On 1/12/07, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/12/07, Christopher Thieme <cdthieme at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Message: 10
> > > Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:19:31 -0500
> > > From: "James Hare" <messedrocker at gmail.com>
> > > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] (no subject)
> > > To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> > > Message-ID:  <
> 43348cda0701120919k15954458g636078210a2adede at mail.gmail.com>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> > >
> > > I suggested something on another thread that stated that only people
> with
> > > background in a certain field should be qualified to judge notability.
> > > Chemists determine chemical notability, Finns determine notability of
> > > Finnish folk, the list goes on. Perhaps it's time to give AFD a good
> ol'
> > > reworking to separate the opinions of people who are qualified to
> speak
> > > about the subject's notability and outsider's opinions (both are
> > important,
> > > but we can't put the fingers of clueless people on the red button).
> > > Hopefully, through this, closing AFDs will be based less on vote
> counting
> > > and more on evaluating the opinions of people.
> >
> > I'd have to agree with James on this one.  This could also be a boon for
> FA
> > and GA promotions.  It would diminish the tendancy for voting at AFD,
> FAC,
> > etc. to look like a division of "i don't like it" and the "i like it"
> camps.
> >
> > Several months ago, an AFD came up for "Amafanius", an early Roman
> Epicurean
> > philosopher whose works, while unfortunately lost to the ages, were
> > discussed at length in the works of Cicero (who trashed Amafanius with
> > glee), and in Michel de Montaigne.  Because of their referencing,
> > the philosophical offerings of Amafanius can actually be
> reconstructed...but
> > only in broad strokes.  As someone who studied classics at Rutgers and
> am
> > well-versed in this area, I recognized that he was notable and should
> have a
> > place here at Wikipedia.  Thankfully, because a few others were just as
> > well-versed, we were able to save the article.
> >
> > But, unfortunately, as it typical around here,  a large number of users
> who
> > obvious appeared to be the tech-saavy, internet-raised Pokemon-crowd for
> > whom nothing exists before, say, 20 years ago, voted for "Delete".
> >
> > One of the failings, one that probably contributes to some of the
> negative
> > reputation Wikipedia has earned, is that it does not have any expert
> > oversight.  Perhaps some sort of prominent, scholarly, editorial
> advisory
> > board would be in order?  Even if loosely bureaucratic, it would add a
> > little more weight to the credibility of the encyclopedia that would be
> a
> > worthwhile step in counteracting an image diminished by our pop-culture
> > heaviness (pokemon, star trek, etc.) and "anyone can edit (read:
> > vandalise/insert false information)" repuation.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Christopher D. Thieme
> > User:ExplorerCDT
>
> I suppose now might be a decent time to trot out an old idea: what
> about giving WikiProjects a greater role in the deletion process?
> They are already (for the most part) the natural gathering places for
> people with some interest in a particular topic (and, by association,
> some degree of knowledge of it); presumably, we could therefore expect
> that the consensus of participants in a WikiProject would thus be a
> little more informed on topics within that project's scope than the
> consensus of randomly selected editors.
>
> --
> Kirill Lokshin
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Jon Noring

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Total size of the Wikipedia (snapshot)?

body:
I'm curious as to the size (in bytes) of the current Wikipedia.

That is, if one took a snapshot of the Wikipedia in web form (including
markup, images, multimedia, etc.), how large would it be? If the web
documents were compressed, then how large would it be? (This would not
include edit history information which I assume is substantial -- only
interested in a snapshot of the current pages.)

Referring to:

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

I see the following statistics:

Total text (no markup): 3 gigabytes (rough estimate)
Photos/illustrations: 726,000

I don't have a good feel for the size of a typical photo/illustration.
Assuming the display version (in jpeg) is typically 10 kbytes, then
the size would be approximate 7 gigabytes.

I also don't have a feel for what the text would compressed to
(including some sort of markup), but with added markup plus
compression, the overall size would remain the same, or maybe a little
smaller.

So it looks like 10 gigabytes is a very rough estimate.

Am I anywhere close? Or am I forgetting something?

Thanks.

Jon Noring


from_name: Matthew Brown

subject: [Foundation-l] Board meeting in Rotterdam later this week

body:
On 1/12/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/12/07, Marco Chiesa <chiesa.marco at gmail.com> wrote:
> > So, when is the English wikipedia planning to get rid of  the
> > noncommercial and wikipedia-only images that are still in use.
>
> less than 1000 of each less

And the list is being whittled down all the time.  The commitment to
get rid of them is there.

> >And what
> > about fair use, which to me sounds like wikipedia-only but without
> > asking permission?
> >
>
> That isn't quite the case.

Fair use is an important freedom under US law that many on the English
wikipedia are loath to abandon.  There is always going to be fair use
in Wikipedia, and we are unlikely to want to eradicate it entirely -
for one thing, pretty much all language versions of Wikipedia use fair
use text quotations (or whatever the local legal equivalent is).

-Matt


from_name: Luna

body:
On 1/12/07, Jon Noring <jon at noring.name> wrote:
>
>
> So it looks like 10 gigabytes is a very rough estimate.
>
> Am I anywhere close? Or am I forgetting something?

Other important factors might include whether we'd be including page
histories and logs in the size estimate -- page history, of course, includes
every version of a page ever produced, so I'd imagine the amount of
available text would see a pretty big increase. Deleted edits (or even
media) would likewise make a pretty decent jump, I bet, but the case for
including those is a bit more slim.

But overall, the specifics on this subject are pretty far from the sort of
things I really know about.

-Luna


from_name: Brianna Laugher

subject: [Foundation-l] NEH grant

body:
On 11/01/07, teun spaans <teun.spaans at gmail.com> wrote:
> This suggestion looks worth to investigate. As for commons, certain
> areas are weakly covered, there might be some people willing to
> purchase a collection into the public domain. I'll ask a question
> there.
>
> teun

Note that the funds specifically cannot be used to purchase
collections, and the proposal must specifically include a
collaborative partner such as a university, library, some institution
basically. I think it does seem worth our time investigating though.

cheers,
Brianna
user:pfctdayelise


subject: [Foundation-l] NEH grant


from_name: Evan Prodromou

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki 1.9.0 released

body:
On Fri, 2007-12-01 at 13:52 -0500, Simetrical wrote:

> > So... what's the next quarterly release?
> >
> > 1.10, right?  :-)
>
> Yes.  I wonder what will trigger us to go to 2.0 . . . I can foresee
> 1.35 down the road here.  :)

I figure 2.0 will be phase4.

-Evan

________________________________________________________________________
Evan Prodromou <evan at prodromou.name>
http://evan.prodromou.name/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20070112/f2ca9708/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Keitei

body:
On Jan 12, 2007, at 16:11, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> I suppose now might be a decent time to trot out an old idea: what
> about giving WikiProjects a greater role in the deletion process?
> They are already (for the most part) the natural gathering places for
> people with some interest in a particular topic (and, by association,
> some degree of knowledge of it); presumably, we could therefore expect
> that the consensus of participants in a WikiProject would thus be a
> little more informed on topics within that project's scope than the
> consensus of randomly selected editors.

I wonder if holding deletion debates within WikiProject space would
be a feasible or good idea. The idea would be creating consensus over
whether something was notable/verifiable enough among those familiar
with the topic, so as to create a more nuanced debate. A time limit
would probably be not such a great idea, but once consensus was
reached, deletion could be requested. Of course there isn't a
WikiProject for every topic, and not every nominator knows where to
find relevant WikiProjects. However, this would curb uninformed drive-
by votes and make deletion discussions hopefully more debate and less
polling. It'd also be a huge reform to deletion process, which is
entirely unwanted if I read community feeling correctly. Oh well.


from_name: Thomas Dalton

subject: [WikiEN-l] (no subject)

body:
> I suggested something on another thread that stated that only people with
> background in a certain field should be qualified to judge notability.

Who determines someone's qualifications? I can claim to be an expert
on any topic I like, that doesn't make it true.


from_name: John Barberio

subject: [Foundation-l] Copyright issue with external links

body:
Hi,

Over on Wikipedia, there's a significant group of editors who've decided
that current copyright policy doesn't go far enought, and are rewriting
the external linking guidelines to require 'copyright verification' and
'due care to verify copyright' on external links. This is because they
feel we are risking threat of suit due to linking to the likes of YouTube.

No, I'm not suggesting we should allow links to copyvio, it's clear that
we shouldn't. But it's my understanding that the proposed changes would
be poor ones to make for various reasons.

Primarily because we don't have the resources to take 'due care' and
'verify copyright'. True copyright verification needing lawyers time and
money, it's not something that's in our grasp at all.

At the moment, copyright policy says not to 'knowingly and
intentionally' link to violations of copyright. And I believe this is
pretty much the best standard we can claim without introducing
unattainable burdens.

Additionally, my lay understanding of the legal implications is that
claiming we can and do verify copyright status of external links may
well open us up to liability rather than reduce it.

I've tried to explain this in discussion, but the discussion has gotten
a bit overheated. It appears no one is going to calm down over this
until there's a clarification of copyright policy by the foundation.

I hope this can be clarified by the foundation.

   - John


from_name: Alai Wiki

subject: [Wikitech-l] Data dumps again...

body:
If I'm reading the timestamps at:
        http://storage2.wikimedia.org/enwiki/20061230/
and:
        http://storage2.wikimedia.org/hewiki/20070111/
correctly, it looks like both of these dumps have
paused/stalled/crashed.  If so, can someone give them a poke, or
restart them, or whatever is required exactly?  If not, please
ignore...  Thanks.

Cheers,
Alai.


subject: [Foundation-l] NEH grant

body:
I went through the application information and I think we could
definitely be a strong contender, if we had a good partner and a sound
project.

Please contribute ideas here:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/NEH_Advancing_Knowledge_grant

Basically, we can't use it to purchase existing collections, and we
need to have a specific project with a partner such as a library,
museum or archive. So we need to brainstorm on either what good
projects would be (and then, who would be good to approach as a
partner?) or on who good partners would be (and then, what would make
sense as a collaborative project?).

After mulling over this a bit, it just screams LIBRARY + WIKISOURCE to
me. We need a partner who is sympathetic to open content and not
putting restrictions on public domain material.

If you have ideas for good partners and/or projects, please put them
on the meta page!

thanks,
Brianna
user:pfctdayelise


subject: [Foundation-l] NEH grant


list: commons-l

from_name: Samuli Lintula

subject: [Commons-l] We'd like a better template message transclusion.

body:
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 00:04:26 +0200, Robin Schwab <contact at robinschwab.ch>
wrote:

> Cool Cat schrieb:
>> I have actually been working on just that for some time now. All I
>> currently have is javascript hacks which would not even work if the
>> person does not have javascript enabled. Javascript is also slow,
>> another reason to avoid it. But I share your reason. See [[ User
>> talk:Cool Cat/Sandbox
>
> I saw the example, nice tool but it has a principal hook:
> Each user downloads all languages which will generate huge traffic on a
> template like Template:GFDL
>
> So I think we need another technology. Daniel Arnold has a proposal that
> works, see
>
> http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8287

This may not be the right mailing list but... I like this solution because
it's server side.

--
Yst?v?llisin terveisin,
Samuli Lintula


from_name: Neil Harris

subject: [Foundation-l] UK government information changes on the way?

body:
The BBC is carrying an interesting story on possible changes in the
attitude of the UK government to the free use of government information.
At the moment, the Statute Law Database is Crown Copyright, as is nearly
all UK government information, with a commercial licence needed for any
use other than private study or non-commercial research.

According to the BBC, this may be about to change, and the changes may
be part of a wider change in attitude to the free reuse of government data.

Is this something that the Foundation or other interested Wikipedians
might be interested in pursuing with the UK government?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6255321.stm

-- Neil


subject: [WikiEN-l] UK government information changes on the way?


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] (no subject)

body:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen [mailto:cimonavaro at gmail.com]
>Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 09:14 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] (no subject)
>
>I personally fear systemic bias on wikipedia is being squeezed from
>two directions concurrently at the moment.
>
>The way AFD currently works means that pages which are not on many
>users watchlists is uniquely vulnerable to AFD-wonks predation. So
>that means that the bias stemming from our communitys composition not
>only affects what gets created but also what gets deleted. This
>two-way squeeze worries me.
>
>Although I commend in general terms the drive to emphasize quality
>over quantity, to me at least that does not extend so far as to
>emphasizing removal of content over creation of it. And this is a
>question that should at least be addressed. I think it would be useful
>if the board and or Jimbo uttered something on the matter to let us
>know how they view the question in general on this mailing list.
>
>I do not wish to make this a discussion of specific examples but
>rather a more general definition of guiding principles. But if
>necessary for illustrating the reality of the issue, I will find some
>examples to ground it in reality. I really don't think such is
>necessary, and would much prefer to discuss the matter under a "veil
>of ignorance" about which particular areas are most vulnerable, and in
>the abstract.
>
>So how about it? Even if we accept that quantity is *less* important
>than the quality, is creation still preferred over removal?
>
>--
>--
>Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

I'm with you on this, although my position is much more liberal than most. I think it is a shame that people's good work about significant subjects is routinely discarded.

Fred


subject: [WikiEN-l] (no subject)

body:
>I think it is a shame that people's good work about significant
subjects is routinely discarded.

I think everyone would agree with that. The issue is over the
definition of "significant".


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] Yes, it's Esperanza again

body:
The AFD was for the organization, not the all the programs contained in it.
Treating the subpages individually is no more than logically.

Mgm

On 1/12/07, Dan Collins <en.wp.st47 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> NSLE (Wikipedia) wrote:
> > Yeah, this time it's a deletion review, as apparently some admins
> > unilaterally deleted the history of Esperanza's subpages against
> consensus
> > established at the MFD.
> >
> > [[WP:DRV/EA]] is already a working shortcut.
> >
> > --Chacor
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> my god, why won't they just die out.
>
> --
> GnuPG key ID is 0x84189146 on subkeys.pgp.net
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
>


from_name: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen

subject: [WikiEN-l] (no subject)

body:
I personally fear systemic bias on wikipedia is being squeezed from
two directions concurrently at the moment.

The way AFD currently works means that pages which are not on many
users watchlists is uniquely vulnerable to AFD-wonks predation. So
that means that the bias stemming from our communitys composition not
only affects what gets created but also what gets deleted. This
two-way squeeze worries me.

Although I commend in general terms the drive to emphasize quality
over quantity, to me at least that does not extend so far as to
emphasizing removal of content over creation of it. And this is a
question that should at least be addressed. I think it would be useful
if the board and or Jimbo uttered something on the matter to let us
know how they view the question in general on this mailing list.

I do not wish to make this a discussion of specific examples but
rather a more general definition of guiding principles. But if
necessary for illustrating the reality of the issue, I will find some
examples to ground it in reality. I really don't think such is
necessary, and would much prefer to discuss the matter under a "veil
of ignorance" about which particular areas are most vulnerable, and in
the abstract.

So how about it? Even if we accept that quantity is *less* important
than the quality, is creation still preferred over removal?

--
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]


from_name: Jay R. Ashworth

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki 1.9.0 released

body:
On Sat, Jan 13, 2007 at 12:09:51AM +0100, Jens Frank wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 10:35:51AM -0500, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 01:10:21PM -0800, Brion Vibber wrote:
> > > MediaWiki 1.9.0 is the quarterly release snapshot for Winter 2007. While
> > > the code has been running on Wikipedia for some time, installation and
> > > upgrade bits may be less well tested. Bug fix releases may follow in the
> > > coming days or weeks.
> >
> > So... what's the next quarterly release?
> >
> > 1.10, right?  :-)
>
> The next release should be MediaWiki 10

Yeah; Java is *my* favorite thing, too.

Cheers,
-- jr 'or was that a Polaris joke?' a
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274


subject: [WikiEN-l] (no subject)

body:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: James Hare [mailto:messedrocker at gmail.com]
>Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 10:19 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] (no subject)
>
>I suggested something on another thread that stated that only people with
>background in a certain field should be qualified to judge notability.
>Chemists determine chemical notability, Finns determine notability of
>Finnish folk, the list goes on. Perhaps it's time to give AFD a good ol'
>reworking to separate the opinions of people who are qualified to speak
>about the subject's notability and outsider's opinions (both are important,
>but we can't put the fingers of clueless people on the red button).
>Hopefully, through this, closing AFDs will be based less on vote counting
>and more on evaluating the opinions of people.
>

That is the essence of the matter. People who don't recognize the significance of a subject having a veto power. Let's allow any article to remain that can garner support from 5 active users.

Fred


from_name: Marc Riddell

body:
> From: "K P" <kpbotany at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 15:01:30 -0800
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] editorial oversight, re: afd, fac, etc.
>
> On 1/12/07, Keitei <nihthraefn at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 12, 2007, at 16:11, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
>>> I suppose now might be a decent time to trot out an old idea: what
>>> about giving WikiProjects a greater role in the deletion process?
>>> They are already (for the most part) the natural gathering places for
>>> people with some interest in a particular topic (and, by association,
>>> some degree of knowledge of it); presumably, we could therefore expect
>>> that the consensus of participants in a WikiProject would thus be a
>>> little more informed on topics within that project's scope than the
>>> consensus of randomly selected editors.
>>
>> I wonder if holding deletion debates within WikiProject space would
>> be a feasible or good idea. The idea would be creating consensus over
>> whether something was notable/verifiable enough among those familiar
>> with the topic, so as to create a more nuanced debate. A time limit
>> would probably be not such a great idea, but once consensus was
>> reached, deletion could be requested. Of course there isn't a
>> WikiProject for every topic, and not every nominator knows where to
>> find relevant WikiProjects. However, this would curb uninformed drive-
>> by votes and make deletion discussions hopefully more debate and less
>> polling. It'd also be a huge reform to deletion process, which is
>> entirely unwanted if I read community feeling correctly. Oh well.
>
>
>
> I find the WikiProjects feel they own the articles and don't want to delete
> anything in their area.  This can be problematic also.
>
> A couple of times when articles have come up for discussion in areas in
> which I have a lot of expertise, the other editors agreed with what I
> suggested by done based on this.
>
> The problem, imo, is the number of seriously contentious editors who know
> nothing about a topic, but want the article deleted because there were few
> google hits or they didn't understand the article.  Google simply isn't the
> source for everything, especially in the sciences.  One concept with few
> google hits was a major climatic term.  Another issue that arrises is that
> contentious editors want poorly sourced or unreferenced articles deleted for
> OR rather than tagged requesting it be references properly (Rock climbing
> being the extreme of that one).  One article on a major topic was up for
> discussion because the editor posting the AfD had never heard of the term.
> He/she didn't bother to do a Google search and get the 1.2 million hits,
> apparently.
>
> Yes, it seems that there are a lot of editors with limited knowledge who
> consider that anything they haven't heard of should be deleted.  Someone was
> arguing on a page today/yesterday that because he had never heard of Lech
> Walesa, Walesa might not be very notable.
>
> There are just too many uninformed drive-by votes for me to continue in AfD,
> though, it's too contentious, the guidelines are ignored, editors make up
> reasons for deletion, and well-sourced articles on major topics are liable
> to be deletely simply because a small group of editors have never heard of
> some obscure world-leader Nobel laureate.
>
> KP Botany

Don't forget the human factor involved here. When a person finds they
actually have a voice in a crowd, they may use it simply to be heard; and to
call attention to the fact that they are there.

Marc Riddell
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Łukasz Garczewski

body:
On 1/12/07, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> Let's send everyone involved in the argument on a trip to Hawaii.

Where can I get invloved in the argument? ;)

--
?ukasz 'TOR' Garczewski


from_name: teun spaans

subject:
[Foundation-l] Turkish Wikipedia won Golden Spider- 2006 Best
	Content Prize

body:
Congratulations to all Turkish wikipedians!

On 1/12/07, A. ?zg?r Erdemli <dbl2010 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> I wanted to share a great news with all wikimedians. Although it is not
> officially announced yet I got an email today from the Golden Spider Web
> Awards Organization. Turkish Wikipedia won Golden Spider- 2006 Best Content
> Prize. The Golden Spider award is a nation wide, most famous and most
> reputable web award organization in Turkey.
>
> Couple pictures from previous years ceremonies:
> http://www.ntvmsnbc.com/news/90164.jpg
> http://www.telepati.com.tr/agustos05/gorsel/spider.jpg
> http://www.telepati.com.tr/temmuz05/gorsel/Turkcell-AltinOrumcek.jpg
> http://www.turkline.com/altinorumcek.php
>
> The ceremony will be held on 25 January 2007. We are currently trying to
> figure it out, who will go get the prize, since there is no Turkish chapter
> yet. Probably some old Wikipedia fellow will go and get it and send to
> Wikimedia Foundation and WMF keep the prize safe until "Wikimedia Turkiye"
> go live. That what I am thinking.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Dbl2010
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Delirium

subject: [Foundation-l] On hard-to-read usernames

body:
Kim Bruning wrote:

>Kuro5hin was deliberately designed with less (gamable) metrics and thus lasted a while longer.
>
>
If by "a while longer" you mean "seven years and counting", well then yes...

-Mark


from_name: Rob Church

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki 1.9.0 released

body:
On 12/01/07, Domas Mituzas <midom.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
> Distributed p2p b2b ajax cms xml mq mediawiki, without any doubts.

Don't forget the "Enterprise edition" suffix. Dead important for
businesses, enterprisey stuff.

Rob Church


from_name: Steve Sanbeg

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki 1.9.0 released

body:
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 19:49:08 +0000, Rob Church wrote:

> On 12/01/07, Domas Mituzas <midom.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Distributed p2p b2b ajax cms xml mq mediawiki, without any doubts.
>
> Don't forget the "Enterprise edition" suffix. Dead important for
> businesses, enterprisey stuff.
>
>
> Rob Church

I'd assume thats just the "home edition" bundled with all the standard
extensions from the official projects (as opposed to the unofficial
contributes extensions from the media center edition, I guess)


from_name: Domas Mituzas

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki 1.9.0 released

body:
Hi!

> Yes.  I wonder what will trigger us to go to 2.0 . . . I can foresee
> 1.35 down the road here.  :)

Distributed p2p b2b ajax cms xml mq mediawiki, without any doubts.

Domas
-- http://dammit.lt/


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] (no subject)

body:
On 1/12/07, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> I've been thinking of searching through the deletion logs, taking everything
> that's not "JOSH LIKES MEN LOLOLOL" and putting it on a website so if
> Wikipedia wants it again or an independent wiki they can look at it then
> I'll ship off the good stuff to them.
>
> Even if some things are a bit too... specialist, they could go on a Wikia
> wiki.
>

You realise that can get you de-admined? Need to be careful about why
stuff was deleted.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] (no subject)

body:
On 1/12/07, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> I suggested something on another thread that stated that only people with
> background in a certain field should be qualified to judge notability.
> Chemists determine chemical notability,

Define your terms

> Finns determine notability of
> Finnish folk,

Um trying that with the countries around the balkans would be um
interesting if you were at a safe distance.

>the list goes on.

Not really since you have failed to define what the list was of.
Countries? So only australians can talk about [[Ball's Pyramid]]. How
are you defineing Countries anyway? Does scotland count? What about
cornwall?

> Perhaps it's time to give AFD a good ol'
> reworking to separate the opinions of people who are qualified to speak
> about the subject's notability and outsider's opinions (both are important,
> but we can't put the fingers of clueless people on the red button).

Define qualified.

> Hopefully, through this, closing AFDs will be based less on vote counting
> and more on evaluating the opinions of people.
>

Or you could try going to AFDs and commenting rather than voteing.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] (no subject)

body:
On 1/12/07, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> Darn it, you foiled my plans to totally screw around with people's lives!
> SARCASM ASIDE, I think I would've stayed away from the quagmires even if you
> hadn't told me how it presents a pickle.
>

Do you know where they are? are you sure? are you really sure?  Do you
not wish to be an admin?

Ah paranoia can be a wounderful thing

> The stuff I'd resurrect would be things deleted for non-notability -- things
> that are still information albeit not to Wikipedia's standards.

You mean all the quagmires that got hidden as a standard A7 delete?

Lets just say that both  policy and practice in this area are rather
inconsistant so you may wish to be careful.
--
geni


from_name: Tuvic

body:
Hey, that's really a rude one: on top of the page there's a big notice:
"You can help us clicking these ads" and then a bunch of Google Ads.

Looks like they're trying to take advantage of the funds drive.

Tuvic.

2007/1/12, Kenny Barney <kwbWiki at gmail.com>:
> I was searching Google, and found a website (
> http://tramadol.tfres.net/wiki/Main_Page) that, when visited, loads a live
> page from Wikipedia, and puts a large number of Google Ads at the top of
> each page. According to a relevant page on Wikipedia (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:FORK#Remote_loading), this, and the irc
> channel #wikimedia-tech, is the place to report this.
>
> I first reported this on #wikimedia-tech. The first reply said to just "post
> to mailing list", while the second said to go to bugzilla. Is this the right
> place?
>
> [attempt 2, hope it gets through this time]
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] (no subject)

body:
On 1/12/07, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> I am sorry for providing only a basic idea of what I was looking for.
>
> No, I am not limiting the people of a niche for discussion. Anyone can
> discuss things. However, more weight should be given to the opinions of the
> people who KNOW what they're talking about -- this should be reflected by
> their article contributions.

So the closeing admin has to dig through a load of contribution
histories before closeing an AFD?

> Let's not talk about countries or things like that -- topics are topics.
> Cornwall is Cornwall, Scotland is Scotland,

Why is Scotland Scotland but Cornwall not England (assume this isn't a
test of knowlage on UK constitutional law)

> Egyptian literature is Egyptian
> literature,

> things of that nature. I define a topic as something that has a
> main article and more articles expanding on the idea (remember: strict
> definitions are instruction creep).
>

By that logical I can't vote on subjects relating to chemistry which I
am qualified in but could  vote on subjects releated to american
canals something I know nothing about (we have an article on canals
and I have a fair number of edits in that area).

--
geni


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Entries for deletion.... Notability

body:
Ian Tresman wrote:

>>>Technically all Wikipedia editors are outside their field since they
>>>are all generally anonymous. That leaves common sense which is
>>>generally described in WP:NOTABLE.
>>>
>>>
>>That is a remarkably illogical non-sequitur.  Being anonymous does not
>>imply that one loses all connection with his fields of interest.
>>
>>
>No, it means that it is not verifiable.
>
>I've invited experts in their field to contribute their expertise to
>Wikipedia, only to have it vetoed by an anonymous editor who claim to
>be a professor and an expert in his field.
>
>You would think that two verifiable experts in their field would have
>sway over an anonymous unverifiable editor.
>
This makes so little sense that I wonder whether we are talking about
the same thing.  What I have been talking about is having editors with a
common interest having the strongest influence on determining the
notability of an article.  This has nothing to do with inviting experts
to contribute.  It has to do with ignoramuses using their cookie-cutter
interpretation of notability (or verifiability ) to delete articles
about which they know nothing.

Ec


from_name: Thomas Dalton

subject: [WikiEN-l] (no subject)

body:
> However, more weight should be given to the opinions of the
> people who KNOW what they're talking about -- this should be reflected by
> their article contributions.

The only people that can judge qualification by looking at article
contributions are those that are qualified in the subject themselves.
Your definition is circular.


subject: [WikiEN-l] African maps

body:
My point was not about permissions.  It even assumes that we will
receive all the permissions we want.  It's about why we are better
suited to carry this material than Northwestern U.  It's about the
ethics of a Borg-ism that indiscriminately vacuums up all the material
it can find.

Ec

MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

>I think Nina Stratton was going to ask, but I could've misunderstood what
>she was talking about.
>Perhaps it would help to ask someone with more press experience to talk to
>them, so they may have heard about the Wikipedian: David?
>
>On 1/12/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On 12/01/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>What I do wonder about is the ethical question around wholesale copying
>>>of another site filled with free material.  They have a role too in
>>>whatever niche they find.  They are already in compliance with our
>>>mission to keep such information free. They have a role in the open
>>>access market.   There can be valid reasons for the wholesale copying.of
>>>these databases; preservation redundancy could be one.  Still, just
>>>because an act is legal does not mean that that same act is ethical.
>>>
>>>
>>Has anyone, uh, called them up, said "hi" and asked for anything
>>important we would need to know to mirror the maps on Commons? I would
>>be very surprised if we didn't have a pile of contributors and
>>supporters at any university of decent size ...
>>
>>Of course, attribution as reasonably desired would be polite to detail
>>on the image page - "thank you" costs very little and goes a long way.
>>


subject: [WikiEN-l] (no subject)

body:
Thomas Dalton wrote:

>>I suggested something on another thread that stated that only people with
>>background in a certain field should be qualified to judge notability.
>>
>>
>Who determines someone's qualifications? I can claim to be an expert
>on any topic I like, that doesn't make it true.
>
You can establish your expertise through your participation in the
relevant WikiProject.

Ec


from_name: Cool Cat

body:
Is it logical to categories states, cities, provinces based on religion or
ethnicity? (ex: tagging New York state being a part of [[Category:African
inhabited region]] and etc)
      - Cool Cat


subject: [Foundation-l] NEH grant

body:
I woul consider integration of wikimedia projects with geographical
information a major asset.

When I go to flickr.com, I can go add my photos to the map and see
what other pix have ben taken in the neighbourhood. To have a similar
facility would enable commons to become a major player along with
flickr.com.
Also the integration with the wikipedias could enable visitors to see
what has ben written about subjects in the neighbourhooud. We would
become a major travellingguide, and more than that. Ithink we would
become a major researchtool. Wikiversity would have a possibly to see
what other researches have been carried out in, for example, the same
nature reserve.

On 1/12/07, Aude <audevivere at gmail.com> wrote:
> One of the greatest shortcomings I see with Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects
> is with our use of maps and geospatial data.  I have seen ideas here and
> there on this mailing list and other places, but it's a big issue to work
> through.
>
> I have background in geography/GIS, ability to use state-of-the-art software
> such as ArcGIS (http://www.esri.com) that is generally beyond the means of
> consumers, and knowledge/skills on how to use it to make maps for
> Wikipedia.  But, the potential demand for maps on Wikipedia is very high,
> the process of making them can be time consuming, and the number of
> Wikipedians to fulfill it is limited.  I did one a while back for Shoshone
> National Forest.  I could refine the look of this map, come up with some
> standard, and given lots of time could make one for every protected area in
> the U.S. (and then there's Canada and other countries). Despite this
> possibility (with significant effort), I'm not entirely sure having only
> static, non-interactive maps (quickly can become outdate) is the way to go.
> I could probably write scripts on the GIS-end of things to help automate it,
> and a bot on the wiki-end to ease the process. I have also played around
> with the MediaWiki source code and been learning about writing extensions.
>
> Also it would be fantastic to be able to use resources such as the
> "collection of rare maps of Africa, dating from 1530 to 1915" that's been
> mentioned.  Depending on the map, sometimes it is helpful to georeference
> them (geoTIFF is the format for this).  Also, check out
> http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/faq.html#3.html (see "Where are the rest of
> your maps?")  And, the map library at Penn State (
> http://www.libraries.psu.edu/maps/) is quite extensive.
>
> I know it's a significant undertaking to develop/integrate any capability
> beyond static maps.  It's beyond the scope of what Brion and the current
> developers can handle, given our current resources.  But, I think we could
> use some discussion to learn what kind of maps/mapping/geospatial data
> capability that people would like to see with Wikipedia?  If given more
> resources, such as support from a grant, along with well developed and
> thought out ideas, and interest from the community, I think there is
> possiblity to improve from the status quo.
>
> I have put some more detailed thoughts about this issue here -
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AudeVivere/GIS
> I mention issues concerning locator maps for articles, offline
> maps/resources, GIS data resources available, copyright issues with data
> from some sources, open source mapping/GIS capabilities that exist,
> previous/current efforts - such as geocoordinates in articles, and other
> ideas. Feedback welcome!
>
> If this interests people, I think we could work to develop specific,
> feasible ideas.  I also have knowledge about writing grant applications and
> would be glad to help.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] NEH grant


from_name: J.L.W.S. The Special One

subject: [Wikipedia-l] new wikis


from_name: Andrew Dunbar

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki hook questions

body:
On 1/7/07, Andrew Dunbar <hippytrail at gmail.com> wrote:
> I want to preprocess the wikitext of articles adding
> info found by a database lookup based on the article
> name.
>
> The best place for preprocessing is in the parser so
> I've hooked ParserBeforeStrip but the parser works
> in chunks of wikitext rather than in articles. I've been
> able to filter out the chunks which are not part of the
> article because $parser->getVariableValue('revisionid')
> will return 0 for those.
>
> But long artices can cause more than one chunk of
> wikitext to be sent to the parser and since I only
> want to add to the top of the article I need to detect
> these chunks and ignore them.
>
> Another problem is that I also want to add to the top
> of the 'noarticletext' page which is displayed when
> the user enters a URL for a page which doesn't exist.
> There is currently no hook for this. I've tried adding
> one which works for me but there are actually 3
> places in the code which can result in this page.
> I'm not sure that I need to hook the other two since
> they appear to be edge cases.
>
> One final question is on sharing data between my
> hooks for ArticleAfterFetchContent and
> ParserBeforeStrip. I'm using a global variable but
> maybe there's a better way. ArticleAfterFetchContent
> seems to be the best place for doing the database
> lookup based on the article name to work nice with
> the cache.
>
> Andrew Dunbar (hippietrail)

Just a note that the following bugs are relevant:

Bug 8136: Missing hooks: Undelete (restore) + Rollback

Bug 8560: TitleMoveComplete hook cannot detect redirects

Andrew Dunbar (hippietrail)

--
http://linguaphile.sf.net


from_name: Matthew Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] African maps

body:
On 1/12/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> My point was not about permissions.  It even assumes that we will
> receive all the permissions we want.  It's about why we are better
> suited to carry this material than Northwestern U.  It's about the
> ethics of a Borg-ism that indiscriminately vacuums up all the material
> it can find.

I'm not sure that this is a matter of us thinking we're a better host
than Northwestern U for anyone else.  It's us thinking that for our
own use, we're a better host than them, because having a local copy is
good.  Because they might move their stuff in future or even take it
down.  Lots of reasons that for our own purposes, taking our own copy
is useful.

-Matt


from_name: Bryan Tong Minh

subject:
[Commons-l] Fwd: [Foundation-l] UK government information changes
	on the way?

body:
Forwarding message to Commons-l

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Neil Harris <usenet at tonal.clara.co.uk>
Date: Jan 12, 2007 6:49 PM
Subject: [Foundation-l] UK government information changes on the way?
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>, Wikimedia
Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>

The BBC is carrying an interesting story on possible changes in the
attitude of the UK government to the free use of government information.
At the moment, the Statute Law Database is Crown Copyright, as is nearly
all UK government information, with a commercial licence needed for any
use other than private study or non-commercial research.

According to the BBC, this may be about to change, and the changes may
be part of a wider change in attitude to the free reuse of government data.

Is this something that the Foundation or other interested Wikipedians
might be interested in pursuing with the UK government?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6255321.stm

-- Neil

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


body:
Yes,

Tariq Americans with African heritage do live in New York. The point is
categorizing New York as a "bla inhabited region" is essentially redundant
and trivial since we would probably have pages of categories.

The problem I am having is with [[Category:Kurdish inhabited regions]]. I
think the category is problematic, trivial and redundant. Such categories
often fail to meet [[WP:V]].

I also have problems with a [[Category:Religion in Kurdistan]] and its
subcats. Not only are they underpopulated, but also they fail to meet
[[WP:V]].

   - Cool Cat

On 1/12/07, Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/12/07, Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu- <tariqabjotu at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > That does not seem logical to me at all. I'm sure 99.99999% of readers
> > will be wondering how the heck New York is an "African inhabited
> > region." Like me... how the heck is New York an "African inhabited
> > region"?
> >
> > -- Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu-
>
>
> It's all a matter of perspective... there are Africans in New York, after
> all, none of use is more than a few hundred (maybe a thousand or two max)
> generations removed from Africa :)
>
> But seriously - is there any nationality not represented in New York, or
> London, or... It strikes me as a hopelessly broad series of categories,
> and
> also terribly trivial.
>
> Ian
>
> Cool Cat wrote:
> > > Is it logical to categories states, cities, provinces based on
> religion
> > or
> > > ethnicity? (ex: tagging New York state being a part of
> > [[Category:African
> > > inhabited region]] and etc)
> > >       - Cool Cat
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
Congrats! Please don't forget to make pictures!

On 1/12/07, teun spaans <teun.spaans at gmail.com> wrote:
> Congratulations to all Turkish wikipedians!
>
> On 1/12/07, A. ?zg?r Erdemli <dbl2010 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi everybody,
> >
> > I wanted to share a great news with all wikimedians. Although it is not
> > officially announced yet I got an email today from the Golden Spider Web
> > Awards Organization. Turkish Wikipedia won Golden Spider- 2006 Best Content
> > Prize. The Golden Spider award is a nation wide, most famous and most
> > reputable web award organization in Turkey.
> >
> > Couple pictures from previous years ceremonies:
> > http://www.ntvmsnbc.com/news/90164.jpg
> > http://www.telepati.com.tr/agustos05/gorsel/spider.jpg
> > http://www.telepati.com.tr/temmuz05/gorsel/Turkcell-AltinOrumcek.jpg
> > http://www.turkline.com/altinorumcek.php
> >
> > The ceremony will be held on 25 January 2007. We are currently trying to
> > figure it out, who will go get the prize, since there is no Turkish chapter
> > yet. Probably some old Wikipedia fellow will go and get it and send to
> > Wikimedia Foundation and WMF keep the prize safe until "Wikimedia Turkiye"
> > go live. That what I am thinking.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Dbl2010
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


body:
John Barberio wrote:

>Over on Wikipedia, there's a significant group of editors who've decided
>that current copyright policy doesn't go far enought, and are rewriting
>the external linking guidelines to require 'copyright verification' and
>'due care to verify copyright' on external links. This is because they
>feel we are risking threat of suit due to linking to the likes of YouTube.
>
>No, I'm not suggesting we should allow links to copyvio, it's clear that
>we shouldn't. But it's my understanding that the proposed changes would
>be poor ones to make for various reasons.
>
>Primarily because we don't have the resources to take 'due care' and
>'verify copyright'. True copyright verification needing lawyers time and
>money, it's not something that's in our grasp at all.
>
That's the whole thing there.  They are requiring the impossible.
Except for the occasional obvious link there is no way to tell whether
something is a copyvio.  In the absence of that one is not "knowingly"
committing a contributory infringement.  Policy should not be based on a
presumption of guilt, rather it should be up to those claiming a
violation to make a reasonable case for it, not an air-tight one just a
reasonable one.  That would begin the discussion about that allegation.
It seems, however, that this gang is exhibiting the usual traits of
paranoia and laziness that we have encountered in many other situations
where deletion was demanded.

>At the moment, copyright policy says not to 'knowingly and
>intentionally' link to violations of copyright. And I believe this is
>pretty much the best standard we can claim without introducing
>unattainable burdens.
>
>Additionally, my lay understanding of the legal implications is that
>claiming we can and do verify copyright status of external links may
>well open us up to liability rather than reduce it.
>
This is possible.  Saying that you just don't know is far more honest
than any claim either way about the copyrights of of someone else's
site.  The simple fact that the other site has attached some sort of
copyright notice cannot be taken as evidence of anything.  The material
may be partially copyright, and the rest not copyrightable in the first
place.  When we say that we definitely know we are likely to be
intentionally misleading our readers.

>I've tried to explain this in discussion, but the discussion has gotten
>a bit overheated. It appears no one is going to calm down over this
>until there's a clarification of copyright policy by the foundation.
>
>I hope this can be clarified by the foundation.
>
Unfortunately such a determination should not come from the Foundation.
It is up to the community of editors on a project to sort it out.  The
Foundation can adopt general policy against copyright infringement on
all Projects.  It can demand reasonable care from all Projects and
editors.  This is consistent with its mission.

As an ISP it cannot monitor and respond on every detail in every
Project; it cannot draft meticulous rules to define what is and isn't a
copyright violation.  It should not be micromanaging in this way.  By
accepting such a greater degree of responsibility in the matter it
exposes itself more, not less.

To be legal the Foundation absolutely needs to respond to formal
complaints by specific people with a specific interest.  Legal cases
depend on there being an affected person whose own rights are being
violated.  None will depend solely on the claims of third parties who
love to stick their noses into other people's business, and who have
taken upon themselves the role of a white knight with a mission to
purify the internet of copyright violation.

It's up to the en:wp community to find its own consensus on this, and
that won't happen unless others actively resist this attempt to enforce
idiosyncratic misinterpretations of law.

Ec


from_name: Jens Frank

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki 1.9.0 released

body:
On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 10:35:51AM -0500, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 01:10:21PM -0800, Brion Vibber wrote:
> > MediaWiki 1.9.0 is the quarterly release snapshot for Winter 2007. While
> > the code has been running on Wikipedia for some time, installation and
> > upgrade bits may be less well tested. Bug fix releases may follow in the
> > coming days or weeks.
>
> So... what's the next quarterly release?
>
> 1.10, right?  :-)

The next release should be MediaWiki 10

-- jens


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2007-01-13

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

This is MediaWiki version 1.10alpha (r19199).
Reading tests from "maintenance/parserTests.txt"...

Reading tests from "extensions/Cite/citeParserTests.txt"...

Reading tests from "extensions/Poem/poemParserTests.txt"...

  19 still FAILING test(s) :(
      * TODO: Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)
      * TODO: Link containing double-single-quotes '' (bug 4598)
      * TODO: message transform: <noinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)
      * TODO: message transform: <onlyinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)
      * BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled
      * TODO: HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)
      * TODO: HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)
      * TODO: HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)
      * TODO: HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)
      * TODO: Parsing optional HTML elements (Bug 6171)
      * TODO: Inline HTML vs wiki block nesting
      * TODO: Mixing markup for italics and bold
      * TODO: 5 quotes, code coverage +1 line
      * TODO: dt/dd/dl test
      * TODO: Images with the "|" character in the comment
      * TODO: Parents of subpages, two levels up, without trailing slash or name.
      * TODO: Parents of subpages, two levels up, with lots of extra trailing slashes.
      * TODO: Don't fall for the self-closing div
      * TODO: Always escape literal '>' in output, not just after '<'
Passed 484 of 503 tests (96.22%)... FAILED!


subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki as a Wikimedia project

body:
On 13/01/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> There are two ways in which you can read a proposal for change. You can
> read it as a criticism and you can read it as a possible road forward
> that intents to allow us to do even better in the future. With a person
> that would be tasked to support people new to MediaWiki, it is not at
> all a good idea to have this person be the only person that these new
> people are exposed to. Development is done best when there is a
> community of people working together. This will not change, what would
> change is the scale of the influx of people. You may already notice that
> the amount of people working on the MediaWiki code is increasing. You
> may have noticed that some aspects of the MediaWiki code are actively
> developed but are of no relevance to other groups that do not have an
> interest. This means that we now have several sub communities of
> developers all involved in MediaWiki all being part of the MediaWiki
> ecology.
[snip the rest]

What part of Phil's post, or my post, was in any way counter to this
general feeling that "more developers == good"?

Rob Church


body:
Jeff V. Merkey wrote:

>Expect big changes in the next 24 months on internet copyright and usage
>in the United States Congress and Senate. Congress has been getting too
>many people complaining. One sad note is that Slashdot is no longer
>"news for geeks" but "news for hackers, and software pirates". The
>pendulum is starting
>to swing back the other way and unfortunately, it may swing too far to
>the right. Experimental internet IP litigation is where WE DO NOT
>WANT TO BE in the line of fire.
>
>Anything folks can do to limit our exposure here is a good thing. For
>the most part, WMF and its policies err on the side of caution, and this
>is a very
>good thing. The more prudent we can be in this area, the better. There's
>just been too much abuse of the current copyright laws by the internet
>community as a whole.
>
Some would say the pendulum's already swung too far to the right; it
needs to become more free.  In some ways I feel that the term extension
to 95 years helped to awaken the open access community, as did the
Ashcroft vs. Eldred case..

I think that copyrights became favorable to the publishing industry
because it had no significant opposition.until relatively recently.
Previously, serious copyright infringement was primarily an economic act
that required a significant capitalization before it could happen  Now,
everybody has the capacity to infringe just by banging away on his
keyboard; that requires almost no capitalization at all because the home
computer was likely already bought for other perfectly legitimate uses.
With the heightened awarenes of open access, I expect that the lobbying
efforts will be more balanced between the two sides than they have ever
been.  Congress still needs to deal with the problem of orphan copyrights.

All that being said, I don't consider it wise to base policy on
speculation about what the politicians may or may not do.  When almost
any laws are passed they include an effective date which is only
exceptionally retroactive.  My observation is that copyright enactments
are usually made effective at the end of the current calandar year.

I can't comment about Slashdot  because I don't participate there.  I
agree that there is rampan abuse of copyright laws on the net, and that
swings both ways.  Some are obviously violating the copyrightsd of
others, but so too are there numerous people claiming copyrights to
which they have no right.

I have no dispute with being cautios.  I believe in pushing the limits,
but I also believe that there is a point beyond which pushing those
limits is stupidity. Taking prudence to excess, however, is also a
mistake.  There is a point (that remains to be defined) beyond which
copyright laws stifle creativity in a way contrary to the US
constitution.  We owe it to ourselves to encourage a favorable
definition of that point.

Ec


from_name: Mark Williamson

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Entries for deletion.... issues from the Third
	World

body:
It's only hopelessly obscure if you're looking at it from the first world :-)

On 13/01/07, Steve <subsume at gmail.com> wrote:
> Some questions.
>
> Is the procedure really failing? Are we all just nava-gazing? Is it as
> simple as David Goodman suggested several thousand words back when he
> explained that the important articles can only be saved by active,
> interested participation? Are we fighting for a hopelessly obscure minority?
>
> -S
>
> On 1/12/07, Confusing Manifestation <confusingmanifestation at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > What nobody seems to have mentioned is the fact that in AfD
> > discussions admins are *supposed* to look at all the votes and the
> > reasonaing behind them, and make an informed decision based on that
> > (which is exactly what several posts have said should be done). Of
> > course there are probably a fair few who don't, and in any case the
> > informed decision is still liable to have a bit of bias behind it, but
> > just saying "a thousand 'delete, nn' shouldn't count as much as one
> > 'keep, here's a bunch of references'" isn't actually adding anything
> > to the procedure that isn't (theoretically at least) already there.
> >
> > CM
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

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


from_name: NSLE (Wikipedia)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Yes, it's Esperanza again

body:
Yeah, this time it's a deletion review, as apparently some admins
unilaterally deleted the history of Esperanza's subpages against consensus
established at the MFD.

[[WP:DRV/EA]] is already a working shortcut.

--Chacor