from_name: Gregory Maxwell

body:
On 7/23/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.com> wrote:

> The license is {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}}, created by an employee of the
> US Navy during the course of his duties.  I copied the SWFs from
> https://ile-lms.nko.navy.mil/Details.asp?CourseRef=32077 , a CBT course
> entitled "Surface Warfare Officer School (SWOS) Shiphandling."

Fantastic.
Was the one I posted acceptable to you?

If so, I'll go convert the rest....

If not, tell me what to change. It would be easy to crop it
differently, change the size, or change the speed..


list: wikitech-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Warhog (aja Julian Fleischer)

subject:
[Wikitech-l] written an enhancement for an extension for mediawiki
	(ParserFunction)

body:
Hello,

I'll apologize in advantage if this is the wrong mailinglist or if i've
done anything wrong.. i've never used something like that before and was
not going to before i wrote that patch :D

I've filed a Bug in MediaZilla
(#6794 -> http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6794) and
written a patch for it which is pretty working and (in my opinion) no
work needs to be added for it (except for one hebrew language string or
whatever that is, i think). You might want to take a look at the patch,
it's uploaded as an attachment to the bug, an explanation also goes there.

It's about the ParserFunctions, also used in Wikipedia (I honestly hope
this one will be used there :-) ), a new one -> {{for: }}. This might be
very usefull to clean up things like {{Babel-1}} {{Babel-2}} ... {{Babel-n}}

By the way, can anyone of you maybely answer and send me a link, maybely
to a tutorial, or explain how that participation-thing works? I'm
willingly to do some developing but honestly do not have the time to
learn all that CVS, NNTP and whatever stuff (although i do see that it
won't be possible not to care about that for longer time...) - just for
the beginning ;) - thank you in advance.

with kind regard, Warhog


list: wikien-l

from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] POV fork anyone? (coca cola)

body:
Hi,
  I'm surprised no one else has noticed this one. We have an
archetypical POV fork (see [[Wikipedia:POV fork]]) at [[The Coca-Cola
Company]]. I was suspicious that it's so positive ("Corporate
citizenship" and all the rest of it). It turns out all the criticism
has been moved to [[Criticism of Coca-Cola]]. And to top it off, the
criticism article isn't even linked from the main one!

Anyone feel like investigating a bit? How did this come to be? I'd
love a good conspiracy theory...

Steve


from_name: Gregory Szorc

subject: [Wikitech-l] Proposal for Formalized Extensions System

body:
In case anyone hasn't noticed, the number of MediaWiki extensions in
existence has soared in the previous year.  They are scattered all around
the internet and it is a chore to make sure all of your extensions are up to
date.

In an attempt to alleviate the confusion of managing extensions, I propose a
more formal extension system.

Step 1:  Overhaul how MediaWiki deals with extensions.  Loading an extension
via 'require_once' is silly and has all sorts of limitations (for example,
if your extension file which modifies $wgExtensionFunctions is loaded from
within a function, $wgExtensionFunctions won't actually get modified unless
it is brought into scope of the calling function).  In addition, there is no
easy way to tell if an extension is a special page extension, parser hook
extension, combination, etc.  In my proposed system, MediaWiki extensions
would all be derived from a base 'Extension" class.  There would be
interfaces that would allow extensions to become a SpecialPage extension,
parser extension, hook extension, etc.  Furthermore, if extensions were
packaged as a class, we could give the base extension class useful
variables, such as "sourceURL" which would allow developers to provide a URL
to the most up-to-date version of an extension.  Of course, the ultimate
benefit to turning extensions into classes is that it would make developing
extensions easier since OOP gives you a building block for your work, not a
clean slate.

Step 2:  Write a manager for MediaWiki that allows you to load and upgrade
extensions remotely.  Want to upgrade an extension?  Just go to a special
page, hit the button to refresh the list for updates, and click the checkbox
next to the extension you want to update.

Critics out there will retort that this will slow things down.  Yes, it
won't be as fast as explicitly typing require_once in LocalSettings.php.
However, the system could also be designed with speed in mind.  For example,
it would be possible to serialize all the loaded extension objects into a
file (or shared memory) which is loaded for every page request.  I take this
approach with my new Farmer extension (
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:IndyGreg/Farmer), which allows you to
specify which extensions are loaded via a web interface.  The performance
hit is negligible.

Thoughts?

Greg


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject:
[WikiEN-l] The wiki Paradoxes from my perspective (was
 Re:	Uploading images should be a privilige, not a right)

body:
Oldak Quill wrote:

>On 21/07/06, Michael Hopcroft <michael at mphpress.com> wrote:
>
>
>>My point remains -- what precisely is the point of research and writing
>>an article that can be completely dismantled or deleted at whim by
>>anyone with a dial-up connection and an ax to grind? And what is the
>>point of reading a "factual"  article whose contents change constantly
>>even when the subject of the article does not? Novels and plays may be
>>constantly re-interpreted, but only in an Orwellian world can they be
>>un-written. Destroying every copy of a film that could conceivably exist
>>does not mean the film was never made. An event that took place at a
>>specific time in the past does not suddenly revert to not having taken
>>place because people no longer want to think about it. You cannot unkill
>>John Lennon., any more than you can entirely erase him from the past
>>even if you somehow manage to destroy all traces of every note and word
>>he ever sang, played or wrote. Yet someone could go to Wikipedia and, if
>>he is especially unlucky and a vandal has been especially resourceful,
>>he might find that the biographical article on John Lennon is an
>>argument that there never was such a person and that the Beatles and
>>their recordings never existed in the first place. Although hopefully
>>the community would jump all over such blatant and irrational
>>revisionism, the fact that such a thing is even conceivable is
>>compelling argument against the concept of Wikipedia.
>>
>>
>Perhaps the problem is that you need order. Wikipedia isn't fixed and
>predictable - it exists in an equilibrium. Luckily, it is such that
>enough good faith edits exist to keep the equilibrium in line with our
>aims.
>
>If you aren't happy to contribute to something that is so
>unpredictable and changeable, then nothing can be done. This is
>Wikipedia.
>
Nothing is forever.  Every time the rock would roll back down the
mountain Sisyphus would happily go back down to the bottom to restart
the process.  Eventually the Sun will burn itself out, and probably take
out the earth with it, including Wikipedia.  Life's like that.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] POV fork anyone? (coca cola)

body:
On 7/23/06, Bogdan Giusca <liste at dapyx.com> wrote:
> Anyway, since the [[Criticism of ***]] appear to be accepted, there
> are now dozens of articles, springing up in all domains:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Islam
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Pope_John_Paul_II
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Family_Guy
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_software_engineering
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Soka_Gakkai
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Franklin_D._Roosevelt
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_debt

I'm stunned. I've started [[Wikipedia:List of POV forks]] to deal with
this. This is a really serious violation of NPOV, far more so than
quibbles over whether individual sentences of individual articles
contain the correct tone or not.

Steve


from_name: Oldak Quill

subject: [WikiEN-l] POV fork anyone? (coca cola)

body:
On 2006-07-23, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm stunned. I've started [[Wikipedia:List of POV forks]] to deal with
> this. This is a really serious violation of NPOV, far more so than
> quibbles over whether individual sentences of individual articles
> contain the correct tone or not.

I think I remember participating in a discussion about one such
article. Those who were for the existence of the article made the
point that "criticism" doesn't necessarily imply that the commentary
is negative (although it is often used in this way). Therefore a
"Criticism of..." article should cover views both pro- and contra-.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: Daniel R. Tobias

subject: [WikiEN-l] POV fork anyone? (coca cola)

body:
On 23 Jul 2006 at 19:13, Bogdan Giusca wrote:

> Anyway, since the [[Criticism of ***]] appear to be accepted, there
> are now dozens of articles, springing up in all domains:

Don't forget
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia

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


from_name: Bogdan Giusca

subject: [WikiEN-l] POV fork anyone? (coca cola)

body:
Sunday, July 23, 2006, 6:49:23 PM, you wrote:

SB>   I'm surprised no one else has noticed this one. We have an
SB> archetypical POV fork (see [[Wikipedia:POV fork]]) at [[The Coca-Cola
SB> Company]]. I was suspicious that it's so positive ("Corporate
SB> citizenship" and all the rest of it). It turns out all the criticism
SB> has been moved to [[Criticism of Coca-Cola]]. And to top it off, the
SB> criticism article isn't even linked from the main one!

SB> Anyone feel like investigating a bit? How did this come to be? I'd
SB> love a good conspiracy theory...

I think it's OK to speak in separate articles about individual issues
(like the Coca-Cola labor practices in Colombia), while mentioning and
linking them in the main article, but [[Criticism of ***]] articles
are clearly POV forks.

Some time ago, I tried to avoid the POV fork of Wal-Mart, but I got
a bunch of "Wal-Mart associates" insulting me and demanding me to stop
editing [[Wal-Mart]], because I'm a non-American who knows nothing on
what Wal-Mart really is. Eventually, I gave up, although the issue
did make the Slashdot main page:

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/28/1331232
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wal-Mart

Anyway, since the [[Criticism of ***]] appear to be accepted, there
are now dozens of articles, springing up in all domains:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Islam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Pope_John_Paul_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Family_Guy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_software_engineering
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Soka_Gakkai
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Franklin_D._Roosevelt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_debt

...etc...


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Tech help: Video format conversion

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

Gregory Maxwell stated for the record:
> On 7/23/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.com> wrote:
>
>
>>The license is {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}}, created by an employee of the
>>US Navy during the course of his duties.  I copied the SWFs from
>>https://ile-lms.nko.navy.mil/Details.asp?CourseRef=32077 , a CBT course
>>entitled "Surface Warfare Officer School (SWOS) Shiphandling."
>
>
> Fantastic.
> Was the one I posted acceptable to you?
>
> If so, I'll go convert the rest....
>
>
> If not, tell me what to change. It would be easy to crop it
> differently, change the size, or change the speed..

What you did was great -- please do the rest just like it.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | She got her good looks from her father.
 sean at epoptic.com | He's a plastic surgeon. --Groucho Marx
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFExDSBMAt1wyd9d+URAt4dAJ9XVT8YbjQtxHT/Ody0VKX315m1QwCfZ+92
rC2MqOioXoPNP/updjTdlQQ=
=0eLH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: SPUI

subject: [WikiEN-l] Categories for deletion/discussion issues

references:
<54f6f2050607201453q7dadfa66q5e192a5906e69a35@mail.gmail.com>	<44BFFC89.4050602@gmail.com>	<v371c25v1ogtqc3lg9io7ouoslunibu3rm@4ax.com>	<44C0DA22.7010101@gmail.com>	<5r22c2lloamb9tnmirb5bbiecoijgqau5p@4ax.com>	<44C1205A.60401@gmail.com>	<rcc2c2tucivskf153iojiohrjoame3bkq2@4ax.com>	<44C142F1.5050502@gmail.com>	<dh74c21cg2v6bh13j5qtdaa439pnlqu38l@4ax.com>	<44C254B3.2080608@gmail.com>	<4k95c2hlb233blv58k743klg8r2k3mon0v@4ax.com>	<44C3E0D2.4030706@gmail.com>
	<e4q7c2ds2hv4iiq60qvatjvpak3uvjs6g8@4ax.com>

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 16:49:22 -0400, SPUI <drspui at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>So instead you prefer a term which has *no* meaning in *most* places?
>
>
>>Yes, because its meaning is consistent. [[Category:Elevators]] includes
>>lifts.
>
>
> [[WP:NBD]].  My kids know what an elevator is, they don't know what a
> freeway is.  Given that the words for this type of road in just about
> every other language I can think of translate to "motor road" or
> "motor way" perhaps that would be the least ambiguous thing.  But
> limited-access highway, or restricted access highway, is also
> unambiguous without carrying the usual overtones of America = The
> World, per the World Series etc.

I've already explained that limited-access highway is ambiguous.


from_name: Phoebe Ayers

subject: [WikiEN-l] References for the technically challenged

body:
On 7/21/06, Magnus Manske <magnus.manske at web.de> wrote:
> Oldak Quill wrote:
> > Are you planning on expanding it to cover other cite templates such as
> > books and websites? Will you be introducing more fields (I notice that
> > the access date is lacking).
> >
>
> The tool page links to
>     http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=MakeRef/En
> where anyone can add new templates and change existing ones.
>
> Likewise,
>     http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=MakeRef/De
> would be for a German version etc.
>
> Magnus

This is awesome. Thank you! Referencing has always been difficult to
figure out, which is a pretty major downfall for something that we
want everyone to do...

-- phoebe (brassratgirl)

--
phoebe s. ayers
http://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org


from_name: Edward Z. Yang

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

A lot of the stuff sounds cool, so don't take it personally if I'm
harsh. I'm presenting logical concerns as I see it.

Gregory Szorc wrote:
> In case anyone hasn't noticed, the number of MediaWiki extensions in
> existence has soared in the previous year.  They are scattered all around
> the internet and it is a chore to make sure all of your extensions are up to
> date.

Well, perhaps one should be a bit more discerning on which MediaWiki
extensions to pick. If they're pre-beta and don't have an update
announce-list, is this something you really want to be running?

> Step 1:  Overhaul how MediaWiki deals with extensions.  Loading an extension
> via 'require_once' is silly and has all sorts of limitations (for example,
> if your extension file which modifies $wgExtensionFunctions is loaded from
> within a function, $wgExtensionFunctions won't actually get modified unless
> it is brought into scope of the calling function).

That shouldn't be a problem: the includes should be done unconditionally
and the registered extension functions should serve only to initialize
the extension.

> In addition, there is no
> easy way to tell if an extension is a special page extension, parser hook
> extension, combination, etc.

I agree, that is troublesome, and is addressed below.

> In my proposed system, MediaWiki extensions
> would all be derived from a base 'Extension" class.  There would be
> interfaces that would allow extensions to become a SpecialPage extension,
> parser extension, hook extension, etc.  Furthermore, if extensions were
> packaged as a class, we could give the base extension class useful
> variables, such as "sourceURL" which would allow developers to provide a URL
> to the most up-to-date version of an extension.  Of course, the ultimate
> benefit to turning extensions into classes is that it would make developing
> extensions easier since OOP gives you a building block for your work, not a
> clean slate.

I'm not the Extension supertype would make much sense, as extensions in
different areas of MediaWiki have radically different needs/APIs. As for
SpecialPage, there's already the class you describe. sourceURL is
already implemented with $wgExtensionCredits['extension-name'][] =
array( 'url' => 'URL' ); (this needs to be better documented).

Overall, read Tim Starling's recent proposal (
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.technical/25050
) to overhaul large sections of code into modules in order to improve
performance. Also, read about one developer's sentiments on breaking
backwards compatibility with extensions (
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.technical/25045
). Work will move forward, albeit slowly. Tread carefully.

> Step 2:  Write a manager for MediaWiki that allows you to load and upgrade
> extensions remotely.  Want to upgrade an extension?  Just go to a special
> page, hit the button to refresh the list for updates, and click the checkbox
> next to the extension you want to update.

This, of course, would be an extension itself.

I would argue that such a feature, though neat, would never see the
light of day in svn.wikimedia.org, because there are far too many
implications:

* Extension trust - what this essentially means is that you give a group
 (often one person) rights to arbitrarily write code on your server.
Sure, we could implement code diffs, but not everyone has the expertise
to audit everything that goes on their server. Existing systems like the
PEAR installer go through a regulatory system, and plus appeal mainly to
people savvy enough to get PEAR installed in the first place.

* PHP code is writeable - It is often a good idea not to give your PHP
scripts write access to the web directory. This prevents someone from
exploiting a script installed and then writing something else into a
directory. Granted, however, that this is only for those who keep an eye
on security, the rest will just 777 their web directories...

* Running off the web is awkward - There's a reason why MediaWiki's
upgrade.php is meant for command line: upgrading can take a long time,
and it's not good for web scripts to just hang like that when you need
to upgrade.

* You can already do it via Subversion - `svn up` anyone? (Of course,
you need SSH access though, but it's mind-numbingly easy. I use this
method to keep a tip-top development copy of MediaWiki and its
extensions on my computer as well as production installation on a public
website (Dreamhost for the win!)).

> Critics out there will retort that this will slow things down.  Yes, it
> won't be as fast as explicitly typing require_once in LocalSettings.php.
> However, the system could also be designed with speed in mind.  For example,
> it would be possible to serialize all the loaded extension objects into a
> file (or shared memory) which is loaded for every page request.  I take this
> approach with my new Farmer extension (
> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:IndyGreg/Farmer), which allows you to
> specify which extensions are loaded via a web interface.  The performance
> hit is negligible.

Tim Starling's proposal! Although: serializing the extension objects
into a file doesn't prevent the need for require'ing them. That's
irrelevant, however, because if includes are the issue, you really ought
to install a compiler cache.

> Thoughts?

You asked, I gave 'em. Feel free to retort!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFExC2rqTO+fYacSNoRAtv2AJ9m3caxTWDmH9wIU1WU3AJ2k1tNLQCfc/Sv
x+ngxpppK7lgig5i06r0nGo=
=0RpS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] POV fork anyone? (coca cola)

body:
On 23/07/06, ScottL <scott at mu.org> wrote:
>    I have seen a number of cases where (usually as a way to resolve a
> protracted content dispute) all criticism or dissenting views are first
> segregated into a section on criticism and then later removed to a
> totally different article with no summary of that article left in the
> original.

This wouldn't be done with a "History" section, so shouldn't be done
with a "Criticisms" section.
--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

references:
<54f6f2050607201453q7dadfa66q5e192a5906e69a35@mail.gmail.com>	<44BFFC89.4050602@gmail.com>	<v371c25v1ogtqc3lg9io7ouoslunibu3rm@4ax.com>	<44C0DA22.7010101@gmail.com>	<5r22c2lloamb9tnmirb5bbiecoijgqau5p@4ax.com>	<44C1205A.60401@gmail.com>	<rcc2c2tucivskf153iojiohrjoame3bkq2@4ax.com>	<44C142F1.5050502@gmail.com>	<dh74c21cg2v6bh13j5qtdaa439pnlqu38l@4ax.com>	<44C254B3.2080608@gmail.com>
	<4k95c2hlb233blv58k743klg8r2k3mon0v@4ax.com>
	<44C3E0D2.4030706@gmail.com>

body:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 16:49:22 -0400, SPUI <drspui at gmail.com> wrote:

>> So instead you prefer a term which has *no* meaning in *most* places?

>Yes, because its meaning is consistent. [[Category:Elevators]] includes
>lifts.

[[WP:NBD]].  My kids know what an elevator is, they don't know what a
freeway is.  Given that the words for this type of road in just about
every other language I can think of translate to "motor road" or
"motor way" perhaps that would be the least ambiguous thing.  But
limited-access highway, or restricted access highway, is also
unambiguous without carrying the usual overtones of America = The
World, per the World Series etc.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


subject: [WikiEN-l] POV fork anyone? (coca cola)

body:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 18:52:21 +0100, "Oldak Quill"
<oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:

>I think I remember participating in a discussion about one such
>article. Those who were for the existence of the article made the
>point that "criticism" doesn't necessarily imply that the commentary
>is negative (although it is often used in this way). Therefore a
>"Criticism of..." article should cover views both pro- and contra-.

This is fair; perhaps it should be "media discussion of foo" or some
such?

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


subject: [WikiEN-l] POV fork anyone? (coca cola)

body:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 13:56:38 -0700, "Matt Brown" <morven at gmail.com>
wrote:

>Now it IS a big problem that sometimes the criticism of something
>weights an article too much - that is best solved with good editing
>and more facts.

See [[Lance Armstrong#Allegations of drug use]].  A masterpiece of
innuendo and guilt-by-association.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


subject: [WikiEN-l] POV fork anyone? (coca cola)

body:
On 7/23/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think I remember participating in a discussion about one such
> article. Those who were for the existence of the article made the
> point that "criticism" doesn't necessarily imply that the commentary
> is negative (although it is often used in this way). Therefore a
> "Criticism of..." article should cover views both pro- and contra-.

It's almost always used that way on Wikipedia. Terms like "critical
review" or "critical appreciation" are more ambiguous, but "criticism"
is pretty unambiguously negative.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] POV fork anyone? (coca cola)

body:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 14:37:35 -0700, ScottL <scott at mu.org> wrote:

>I like "Public perception ..." in cases where appropriate, and perhaps
>"Media discussion of ...." in others.  I do not think we should go for
>(another) one size fits all.  One of the reasons I think these are out
>of hand is that the naming of the article frames the content for these
>rather than vice versa.  These should be named on a case by case basis
>with a perhaps a section on how to do them added to the MOS.  They
>should be framed so that they are not one sided.

<AOL>

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


subject: [WikiEN-l] POV fork anyone? (coca cola)

body:
On 7/23/06, Bogdan Giusca <liste at dapyx.com> wrote:
> The idea behind this is to take all the negative facts and opinions
> and put them outside of the main page, so people won't see them.

Yes, that's exactly why they do it. The whole "criticism of X" concept
is pretty flawed. It's just not a good subject. "Lawsuits against
Microsoft" would be far more interesting and encyclopaedic. But for an
article about public opinion of a thing, having only one side
represented is dangerous and not useful. Much better to have a bit of
"opinion" in the main article, and if there's really so much to be
said, make "perceptions of X" or something, where opinions positive
and negative can be collected. It should still be a rare occurrence.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Uploading images should be a privilige, not a right

body:
Oldak Quill wrote:

>On 21/07/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On 7/21/06, Mark Wagner <carnildo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>By making image uploading a privilege to be earned rather than a right
>>>conferred by registering an account, we can relax the policy and deal
>>>with uploaders individually, rather than automated notification of
>>>problems and nearly-automated deletion of problematic images.
>>>
>>>
>We have already stripped new users and anons of far too many rights.
>We have already gone through the creation of semi-protection, the
>prevention of page creation, and now we have a suggestion that we
>prevent them uploading! It is an utter disgrace that we still refer to
>ourselves as an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit".
>
>It is clear that we have completely lost sight of the original aims of
>Wikipedia.
>
An important and valid point.  The erosion has come gradually.  It's
naturally frustrating when the silly kids keep doing the same thing, but
patient explanations and discussions can still be more fruitful than
citing rules.

Ec


body:
> Please read my own proposal for reworking the extension interface at:
>
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-July/037035.html
>
> Posted to this list 10 days ago.

Forgive my ignorance.  I read the first few paragraphs of the post when it
was originally sent and ignored the rest, just thinking it was another
Wikipedia-only message.  Now, having read it...

I do like your proposal for static objects being initialized as-needed.
There is great power in the just-in-time object::getInstance() method.
However, one of my criticisms of MediaWiki's architecture has always been
the over dependence on global objects, which are in some ways like static
classes using the Singleton pattern (see
http://blog.case.edu/gps10/2006/07/22/why_global_variables_in_php_is_bad_programming_practicefor
why I don't like global objects).  I would much rather see the Wiki
class contain these "global objects" as static variables which can be
accessed via a just-in-time getObject() static call to the Wiki class.  This
sounds like the same approach as the proposed wfGetFoo() methods (it
basically is), but polluting the global symbol table with objects and
functions not belonging to classes is unecessary when these could all belong
to a master Wiki class.  If you don't buy the "don't do it because you'd be
polluting the symbol table" argument, do it for the sake of keeping
everything organized into classes.  Do wfGetFoo() functions really belong in
the global namespace, or do they belong to a class representing a wiki?
Hell, if you get rid of all the global functions and attach them to existing
classes, that is one less file to include!  </rant on global objects>

If you are talking about 500us, why are there still require and require_once
calls in the trunk?  These both require system calls (require_once actually
requires an additional one and hence is slower).  I know work has been done
developing the __autoload function (if you ever commit to 5.1,
spl_autoload_register() is preferred), but at the level of commitment you
give to performance, every require_once has to seem like a monkey on your
back.

Also, how do you accurately profile MediaWiki?  I've used xdebug and
Kcachegrind to profile scripts before, but it always bothers me because I
cannot use xdebug alongside APC or eaccelerator to get results reflective of
my production deployment.  I know APC and eaccelerator completely change the
chokepoints, but it is impossible for me to see what the new chokepoints
are!  Can you feed MediaWiki's internal profiling output into Kcachegrind?

Now, getting back to the topic of extensions.  For a base extension class, I
was thinking of an abstract class that has numerous methods,
providesSpecialPage(), providesHook(), providesWhichHooks(),
providesParserTags(), etc.  Let's say we establish a defined extensions root
directory.  When MediaWiki loads, it periodically checks this directory for
all files representing extensions and loads them (perhaps this is triggered
manually via CRON, Special Page, filemtime(), etc).  When the extensions are
loaded from the directory, a map is established that records the abilities
of each.  This map is serialized for quick retrieval.  Whenever MediaWiki
loads, it just goes to the map and loads extensions just-in-time.  This
would require an extension manager class that would initialize extensions as
called for by the map.  For example, when the parser sees a tag it doesn't
recognize, it would go
ExtensionManager::getExtensionForParserTag($foo)->parse($content);  Or, when
a special page is called, we have
ExtensionManager::executeSpecialPage($foo);  For hooks, the same deal.

I like the idea for a map between capabilities and callbacks, etc, but I
don't like the idea of a module specification file.  Why should you need to
provide a specification file when the same information can be obtained from
methods inherited from a base extension class?  As long as you cache the
output of these methods, there is zero performance overhead and extensions
have the added bonus of being much more structured.  Yes, it would break
existing functionality.  But if you are already talking about making
just-in-time calls to instantiate global objects like $wgTitle, $wgOut, etc,
then many existing extensions will be broken anyway.  Sometimes you just
have to make sacrifices for the sake of progress.

Just my $0.02

Greg


body:
Anthony wrote:

>On 7/21/06, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com> wrote:
>
>
>>If you have a suggestion that doesn't involve large numbers of
>>nonexistent volunteers working all hours to keep WP out of
>>legal peril, feel free to enlighten us.
>>
>>
>Here's one: when people send in a DMCA takedown notice, remove the
>material, notify the uploader that her materials have been removed
>(via their talk page and email if the address is known), and provide
>them with an opportunity to send a written notice to the service
>provider stating that the material has been wrongly removed.  If the
>uploader provides a proper "counter-notice" claiming that the material
>does not infringe copyrights, then promptly notify the claiming party
>of the individual's objection.  However, only restore the image if
>there is also a consensus that the image is "free enough" within the
>project's guidelines.
>
I've been saying something like this all along.  The law requires that
the uploader be notified anyway.  Furthermore, all others who have added
to the article have had their work deleted too, so they too should be
notified.  A counter-notice can be issued by anyone; there is no need to
have standing as there is to issue a takedown notice.  Better to make
the text of all takedown notices public.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] POV fork anyone? (coca cola)

body:
OQ> I think I remember participating in a discussion about one such
OQ> article. Those who were for the existence of the article made the
OQ> point that "criticism" doesn't necessarily imply that the commentary
OQ> is negative (although it is often used in this way). Therefore a
OQ> "Criticism of..." article should cover views both pro- and contra-.

Well... the main article should cover both views. Currently, all
of those 50 articles listed at [[Wikipedia:List of POV forks]]
include negative facts and/or opinions (a few do have rebuttals).

The idea behind this is to take all the negative facts and opinions
and put them outside of the main page, so people won't see them.


body:
Mark Wagner wrote:

>On 7/21/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
>
>>Wait a second, are we talking about copyright infringement,
>>plagiarism, or legal use of non-free content?  These are three
>>separate problems.  I thought the original post was talking about
>>copyright infringement, but this new post talks about "taking somebody
>>else's writing and passing it off as their own".
>>
>>
>Most people don't distinguish between "plagiarism" and "copyright
>infringement" when it comes to writing: the school system is very
>effective at training people that simply copying the contents of the
>Encyclopedia Britannica isn't an acceptable way of writing a report,
>which is why we don't get very many instances of copyright violations
>with text.
>
Using the work of a PD author without credit would still be plagiarism,
but not copyvio.

A straight translation of copyright text from any other language would
still be infringement, but very hard to detect.

Ec


from_name: ScottL

subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
> I agree with this to a large extent.  But I think when you write about
> a work using only the work itself as a source you necessarily *do* put
> forward this sort of synthesis.  Otherwise, what is the point of
> mentioning the fact?

   I have noticed you say this or something like it a few times.
Throughout this thread you seem to be arguing that you cannot use a work
as a source for itself.  But, every time someone points out an instance
where you clearly can, you revert to "... write about a work using only
the work itself as a source ....".  Which is your position?  I agree
that is almost every case, you are right with the modified "only
source".  It would not make much of an article if you simply said very
shortly what happened and which characters where there etc. However,
that is quite a different thing from using it as a source for individual
facts--which characters where present in the first episode as compared
to the last, how many seasons the show ran, etc--and using other sources
for the other facts needed to make the article readable.

Dalf


subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
Michael Hopcroft wrote:
> It may be possible, but in the case of literary criticism what would be
> the point if the works themselves are accessible?

   I think the point is that we are not suppose to be writing "literary
criticism", or at least not *originating* it.  That would be OR!  FOr
the parts of the articles that consist of literary criticism we are
suppose to be summarizing not creating.

   However, an article on a fictional work is not a literary critique,
it has some of that in it.   However in this case it is an encyclopedia
article and depending on the work may include a lot more, some of which
are facts that can (only?) be verified from the original work.

   Though I think your point still stands that summarizing the critiques
that are out there would be much more difficult for someone totally
unfamiliar with the original work.

Dalf


body:
Mark Wagner wrote:

>On 7/21/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
>
>>On 7/21/06, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If you have a suggestion that doesn't involve large numbers of
>>>nonexistent volunteers working all hours to keep WP out of
>>>legal peril, feel free to enlighten us.
>>>
>>>
>>Here's one: when people send in a DMCA takedown notice, remove the
>>material, notify the uploader that her materials have been removed
>>(via their talk page and email if the address is known), and provide
>>them with an opportunity to send a written notice to the service
>>provider stating that the material has been wrongly removed.  If the
>>uploader provides a proper "counter-notice" claiming that the material
>>does not infringe copyrights, then promptly notify the claiming party
>>of the individual's objection.  However, only restore the image if
>>there is also a consensus that the image is "free enough" within the
>>project's guidelines.
>>
>>
>Or in other words, stick our heads in the ground and pray that
>everyone opens fire with a takedown notice rather than a lawsuit.
>Even if the law protects Wikipedia from liability when a user
>infringes copyright, that still needs to be proven in front of a
>judge, and even an immediate dismissal requires thousands of dollars
>in lawyers' fees.
>
Defeatism? or copyright paranoia?  Try being realistic.  It's also going
to cost the plaintiff to mount the suit, and he has the burden to prove
that there was an infringement.  It will probably cost the plaintiff
more to prosecute the suit than for any of us to defend; a sane lawyer
will probably try to talk him out of it unless there really is a lot
involved.  There are still nutcases who will go ahead, but their
knoledge of copyright law is matched by their knowledge of legal
procedure.  I am not afraid of lawsuits.

Ec


from_name: Michael Hopcroft

subject: [WikiEN-l] technical Issue with Firefox 2.0 beta

body:
The Firefox 2.0 beta is a superb engine for editing Wikipedia. Among
other things, it features something web browsers have traditionally
lacked -- an internal spell checker that actually works. the utility fo
this for a wikipedia editor should be obvious -- it eliminates the
neccesity to go to a second application for spell checking which would,
in turn, foul up the wiki formatting.

However, this might be why Firefor 2 seems to crash when switching to
the edit view on very large articles. Has anyone else had a similar
experience when switching to edit view on a very large page?


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: mboverload

subject: [Wikipedia-l] The New Yorker on Wikipedia

body:
By far the best article I have ever read about Wikipedia.

On 7/23/06, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> FYI,
>
> The latest piece about Wikipedia from The New Yorker:
> http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060731fa_fact
>
> Generally great expository that aptly captures Wikipedia's most
> interesting
> corners. But this deserves a big whaaa?
>
> "Wales?who resembles a young Billy Crystal with the neuroses neatly tucked
> in?recalls the enchantment of pasting in update stickers that
> cross-referenced older entries to the annual supplements."
>
> -Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-07-24

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

Running test Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)... FAILED!
Running test Link containing double-single-quotes '' (bug 4598)... FAILED!
Running test Template with thumb image (wiht link in description)... FAILED!
Running test message transform: <noinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)... FAILED!
Running test message transform: <onlyinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled... FAILED!
Running test Language converter: output gets cut off unexpectedly (bug 5757)... FAILED!
Running test HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test Parsing optional HTML elements (Bug 6171)... FAILED!
Running test Inline HTML vs wiki block nesting... FAILED!
Running test Mixing markup for italics and bold... FAILED!
Running test 5 quotes, code coverage +1 line... FAILED!
Running test HTML Hex character encoding.... FAILED!
Running test dt/dd/dl test... FAILED!

Passed 409 of 426 tests (96.01%) FAILED!


body:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:

>On 7/21/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
>
>>Here's one: when people send in a DMCA takedown notice, remove the
>>material, notify the uploader that her materials have been removed
>>(via their talk page and email if the address is known), and provide
>>them with an opportunity to send a written notice to the service
>>provider stating that the material has been wrongly removed.
>>
>>
>[snip]
>
>Making this our practice for handling copyright would put us in a weak
>position in several respects.
>
>1) It is ethically questionable. When we distribute someone's
>commercial work tagged as free content, we risk seriously letting the
>genie out of the bottle. It would do us no good to gain a napster-like
>reputation.
>
What makes it unethical?  Is it any more ethical to deprive people of
due process if they can make a reasonable legal case.  This is not a
matter of agreeing to every stupid argument that comes along.  This has
nothing to do with genies or Napster.

>2) It creates panic-intensive situations.... When a violation is found
>it's likely that there will be a lot of them creating a lot more work
>to quickly clean up.
>
If the copyright paranoiacs want to put themselves into a panic, why
should the rest of us fall into line with them.  Each case needs to be
judged on its own merits.

>3) If we do enough of it, it wouldn't be hard to convince a judge that
>our behavior is negligent (we already have a lot of egregious
>infractions and we're trying.. I can only imagine what we'd have if we
>didn't try) and get a lovely injunction issued that required us to
>remove all images that we can't prove are free. :(
>
Each incident is separate, and other instances would be inadmissible as
evidence to prove that a specific incident is an infringement.  This
position is pure speculation.

>But most importantly:
>4) Wikipedia is intended to be and advertised to be Free Content. By
>only removing copyright violations that people have complained about
>we would be choosing to fail at this goal... and in doing so we would
>make the fruits of our labor less useful to the world.
>
Ultimately, only a judge can decide whether a contribution is in fact a
coyright violation.  We may suspect copyright violations; we may demand
that a contributor accept responsibility (and define what that means),
but we can rarely make a definitive statement that a particular writing
or image is in fact a violation.

>In short, while being a nice legal fall-back, the safe harbor terms
>are not anything we want to rely on in terms of our copyright policy.
>
It's not merely a fall back, but a first step in arriving at a formal
decision.  When a properly composed notice is issued we must remove the
offending material.

Ec


body:
Oldak Quill wrote:

>On 22/07/06, Mark Wagner <carnildo at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>[[Category:Promotional images]]
>>
>>By 22:00 UTC tomorrow, I expect you to have checked every image on the
>>first page of that category.  For the images that did not actually
>>come from a [[press kit]], I expect you to remove the license tag from
>>the image, retag it as {{subst:nld}}, and explain to the uploader why
>>their image is not really a promotional image.  If the image also
>>doesn't have proper source information, add the {{subst:nsd}} tag as
>>well, and explain why images need source information.  You don't need
>>to remove the images from articles using them, since OrphanBot will
>>get around to it in a few days, but you do need to watchlist all the
>>images to make sure nobody puts an incorrect license tag on before the
>>image is deleted.
>>
>>Congratulations, you will have reduced the total number of improper
>>{{promophoto}} claims by 0.1%!
>>
>>
>We could always go the German way and prevent all non-copyleft images.
>
>PS. I just wanted to check I was accurate in making this statement. I
>decided Coca Cola would be a good article to use to check
>(http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca_Cola) as they are presumably unable
>to display the logo. They do show the logo in the form of photographs
>of the side of lorries showing the logo and practically nothing else.
>Surely such a photo can't be claimed to be copyleft?
>
>
I would be very surprised if the Coca-Cola Company has ever complained
about the use of its logo in any informative material.  They're smart
enough to know that showing the logo is good advertising for them.

Ec


body:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:

>On 7/21/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
>[snip]
>
>
>>We could always go the German way and prevent all non-copyleft images.
>>
>>PS. I just wanted to check I was accurate in making this statement. I
>>decided Coca Cola would be a good article to use to check
>>(http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca_Cola) as they are presumably unable
>>to display the logo. They do show the logo in the form of photographs
>>of the side of lorries showing the logo and practically nothing else.
>>Surely such a photo can't be claimed to be copyleft?
>>
>>
>In germany they have a legal concept called "right of panorama" which
>appears to be intended to address cases of incidental inclusion (as
>we'd know them in the US).  The idea is that the fact that the
>populated world is saturated with copyrighted works shouldn't inhibit
>you from taking pictures in public...
>
>
In the US much of this would be covered by the "sc?nes ? faire" doctrine.

Ec


body:
Anthony wrote:

>On 7/21/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On 7/21/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 7/21/06, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>If you have a suggestion that doesn't involve large numbers of
>>>>nonexistent volunteers working all hours to keep WP out of
>>>>legal peril, feel free to enlighten us.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Here's one: when people send in a DMCA takedown notice, remove the
>>>material, notify the uploader that her materials have been removed
>>>(via their talk page and email if the address is known), and provide
>>>them with an opportunity to send a written notice to the service
>>>provider stating that the material has been wrongly removed.  If the
>>>uploader provides a proper "counter-notice" claiming that the material
>>>does not infringe copyrights, then promptly notify the claiming party
>>>of the individual's objection.  However, only restore the image if
>>>there is also a consensus that the image is "free enough" within the
>>>project's guidelines.
>>>
>>>Anthony
>>>
>>>
>>I'm not sure the DMCA system exists under England and Wales law and
>>the evidece suggests the courts will think wikipedia is within their
>>juristiction. You are reduced to gambleing on their being no way for
>>the foundation to suffer any monitery hurt from the uk.
>>
>>What about the Netherlands? Or france? Or Korea. Do they follow the DMCA system?
>>
>>
>Fair enough.  Of course, short of shutting down the Internet (or at
>least refusing to serve content to countries with ridiculous copyright
>laws), I'm not sure what can be done.
>
In the absence of some willingness to confront these issues, we keep
issuing our own judgements against ourselves.  This can only lead to
being bogged down in a legal web of our own making.  We don't need to
defend every last claim of copyvio that comes along, but showing a litle
courage would be nice.

Ec


body:
=D

See, that's what we need.  We need people to be surprised at how good our
content is.  That is a great quote, and I hope his article goes untouched by
vandals (l'll be watching).

This IS a great, information, long article.  It would be a good article to
show friends or such to explain what you do all day =D

On 7/24/06, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Another nice quote:
>
> When I showed the Harvard philosopher Hilary Putnam his entry, he was
> surprised to find it as good as the one in the Stanford Encyclopedia of
> Philosophy. He was flabbergasted when he learned how Wikipedia worked.
> "Obviously, this was the work of experts," he said.
>
> -Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
>
>
> On 7/24/06, mboverload <mboverload at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > By far the best article I have ever read about Wikipedia.
> >
> > On 7/23/06, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > FYI,
> > >
> > > The latest piece about Wikipedia from The New Yorker:
> > > http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060731fa_fact
> > >
> > > Generally great expository that aptly captures Wikipedia's most
> > > interesting
> > > corners. But this deserves a big whaaa?
> > >
> > > "Wales?who resembles a young Billy Crystal with the neuroses neatly
> > tucked
> > > in?recalls the enchantment of pasting in update stickers that
> > > cross-referenced older entries to the annual supplements."
> > >
> > > -Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


body:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:

>On 7/24/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>1) It is ethically questionable. When we distribute someone's
>>>commercial work tagged as free content, we risk seriously letting the
>>>genie out of the bottle. It would do us no good to gain a napster-like
>>>reputation.
>>>
>>>
>>What makes it unethical?  Is it any more ethical to deprive people of
>>due process if they can make a reasonable legal case.  This is not a
>>matter of agreeing to every stupid argument that comes along.  This has
>>nothing to do with genies or Napster.
>>
>>
>There is nothing unethical about removing content from our site which
>is in clear violation. Submitters of content are not entitled to due
>process. Wikipedia is not a courtroom.
>
Of course you have arrogated upon yourself the role of being the arbiter
of violations.  Just because you oppose any kind of fairness in these
issues, does not imply that this is a universal sentiment.

>It is, however, clearly unethical to distribute the copyrighted
>content of others without their authorization.
>
At the rate you're going it would be unethical to quote anybody without
their authorization.

>>If the copyright paranoiacs want to put themselves into a panic, why
>>should the rest of us fall into line with them.  Each case needs to be
>>judged on its own merits.
>>
>>
>We can not afford, in terms of liability or available resources, to
>make a legally sound deep analysis for every image on a case by case
>basis. A simplified approach is required. Fortunately our project
>isn't centered around distributing legally questionable content, so
>rules which are more conservative then they need to be legally are
>generally acceptable.
>
Why would you want to make these analyses on "every" Image?  My
complaint is that you wouldn't want to make it on any.  Your approach
isn't simplified; it's simplistic.  A certain degree of conservatism is
beneficial, but there still needs to be room for reasonably
knowledgeable people to defend what they fairly believe not to be
infringement.

>>Each incident is separate, and other instances would be inadmissible as
>>evidence to prove that a specific incident is an infringement.  This
>>position is pure speculation.
>>
>>
>Do you honestly believe that a judge would ignore evidence supporting
>a continued and willful violation of the law in making a
>determination?
>
Wilfulness is the element that distinguishes criminal from civil
infringement; criminal infringement requires a much higher standard of
proof.  Until now there has not been a single charge laid so there is no
evidence for continued violation.  Proving continued violation presumes
that every alleged infringement in the series be proven to be an
infringement in its own right.

>>Ultimately, only a judge can decide whether a contribution is in fact a
>>coyright violation.  We may suspect copyright violations; we may demand
>>that a contributor accept responsibility (and define what that means),
>>but we can rarely make a definitive statement that a particular writing
>>or image is in fact a violation.
>>
>>
>It's a dangerous game you propose here.
>
What's so dangerous about insisting that contributors accept
responsibility for their action, and that WMF clarify its role as an ISP.

>A majority of items taken down for copyright infringement are fairly
>clear cut: the submitter uploaded content for which he is not the
>copyright holder, no license grant has been provided by the copyright
>holder, and the material is clearly new enough to be covered by
>copyright.
>
A lot of them are clear cut; I'm not disputing that.  It will probably
also be that many of the apparent violators will not be willing to do
what it takes to accept responsibility for their material.  Simply
making a bald and unsubstantiated claim of fair use is not enough.  Some
reasonable legal rationale for inclusion would be needed.  This would
apply to other reasons too, not just fair use.

>It would seem that you are proposing in these cases that we ignore the
>obviousness of the violation and wait for a properly formed DMCA
>takedown notice before taking action.  Since you're so sure that this
>is an acceptable solution are you able to provide the Wikimedia
>Foundation with indemnity from losses resulting from taking your legal
>advice?
>
Obviousnous is not obvious to everybody.  That term is primarily
rhetorical.  In _some_ cases waiting for some kind of DMCA notice would
be the proper course of action, though I suspect that many of these
alleged infringements will be taken down long before we get that far anyway.

The losses up to the time of receiving and complying with a takedown
order are solely a figment of your imagination, so it would be
impossible to determine the value of the indemnity that you want.

>>>In short, while being a nice legal fall-back, the safe harbor terms
>>>are not anything we want to rely on in terms of our copyright policy.
>>>
>>>
>>It's not merely a fall back, but a first step in arriving at a formal
>>decision.  When a properly composed notice is issued we must remove the
>>offending material.
>>
>>
>It seems to me that you've forgotten that one of the two primary goals
>of Wikipedia is to provide Free Content.  We have failed at that goal
>when our site contains a huge number of copyright violations waiting
>for their DMCA notice to come in...
>
How many is that?  How did you arrive at that figure?

>So while it is necessary that we remove content once properly noticed,
>it is not sufficient for us to wait for that to happen.
>
A large part probably would still be removed if no one accepts
responsibility for it.  And if it stays long enough the Statute of
Limitations may apply.

Ec


body:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:

>On 7/24/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I would be very surprised if the Coca-Cola Company has ever complained
>>about the use of its logo in any informative material.  They're smart
>>enough to know that showing the logo is good advertising for them.
>>
>>
>We can't permit users to use "no one will complain" as a justification
>in our policy because we can not expect a substantial percentage of
>the editing community to be qualified to make such judgements.
>
>We have, in fact, had places where people claimed that "no one would
>complain" when later the copyright holder did end up finding the
>violation and issuing a complaint.
>
>Even cases that would seem safe to well considered analysis are not
>always so sound. A "it's free promotion" argument quickly turns to
>dust when our NPOV article fairly covers the latest scandal that the
>subject would like hidden under a rug... and their "they won't
>complain" quickly turns into prosecution.
>
We are talking about logos here, and logos are designed to put forth the
company's brand.  There can even be an argument that logos are not
copyrightable, but are covered by trademark law instead.  In any event
the Coca-Cola logo came on the market before 1923, and would be in the
public domain for the purpose of copyright.

Do you have any case law to support your position on logos.

Ec


from_name: SonOfYoungwood at aol.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
In a message dated 7/24/2006 1:52:48 AM Central Standard Time, scott at mu.org
writes:

I think the point is that we are not suppose to be writing  "literary
criticism", or at least not *originating* it.  That would  be OR!  FOr
the parts of the articles that consist of literary  criticism we are
suppose to be summarizing not  creating.

However, an article on a fictional work is not a  literary critique,
it has some of that in it.   However in this  case it is an encyclopedia
article and depending on the work may include a  lot more, some of which
are facts that can (only?) be verified from the  original work.

Though I think your point still stands that  summarizing the critiques
that are out there would be much more difficult  for someone totally
unfamiliar with the original  work.

Dalf

I see no issue in citing scripts for summarizing a series of facts  for a
plot synopsis in an RPG (such as, "After Galbadia invaded Dollet, the  parliament
dispatched a request for aid [1]."). Heck, in a situation where  one has to
show a character changing over time, citing the RPG game script at  multiple
points may be considered 'common sense synthesis' and not OR. I really  think
it's a case by case basis, and must ask: how far out of context does  the
Wikipedia synopsis take the original source? Moreover, I feel that finding a
reliable summary or two may help round out the sources and give the Wikipedia
synopsis more "freedom". A synopsis should list the events.

| Tyler | Zorin Deckiller |
| Wikipedia Administrator |  Former SWU member |
| _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Deckiller_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Deckiller)   |
| _http://www.myspace.com/redsectora_ (http://www.myspace.com/redsectora)   |


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

body:
On 7/24/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> >1) It is ethically questionable. When we distribute someone's
> >commercial work tagged as free content, we risk seriously letting the
> >genie out of the bottle. It would do us no good to gain a napster-like
> >reputation.
> >
> What makes it unethical?  Is it any more ethical to deprive people of
> due process if they can make a reasonable legal case.  This is not a
> matter of agreeing to every stupid argument that comes along.  This has
> nothing to do with genies or Napster.

There is nothing unethical about removing content from our site which
is in clear violation. Submitters of content are not entitled to due
process. Wikipedia is not a courtroom.

It is, however, clearly unethical to distribute the copyrighted
content of others without their authorization.

> If the copyright paranoiacs want to put themselves into a panic, why
> should the rest of us fall into line with them.  Each case needs to be
> judged on its own merits.

We can not afford, in terms of liability or available resources, to
make a legally sound deep analysis for every image on a case by case
basis. A simplified approach is required. Fortunately our project
isn't centered around distributing legally questionable content, so
rules which are more conservative then they need to be legally are
generally acceptable.

> Each incident is separate, and other instances would be inadmissible as
> evidence to prove that a specific incident is an infringement.  This
> position is pure speculation.

Do you honestly believe that a judge would ignore evidence supporting
a continued and willful violation of the law in making a
determination?

> Ultimately, only a judge can decide whether a contribution is in fact a
> coyright violation.  We may suspect copyright violations; we may demand
> that a contributor accept responsibility (and define what that means),
> but we can rarely make a definitive statement that a particular writing
> or image is in fact a violation.

It's a dangerous game you propose here.

A majority of items taken down for copyright infringement are fairly
clear cut: the submitter uploaded content for which he is not the
copyright holder, no license grant has been provided by the copyright
holder, and the material is clearly new enough to be covered by
copyright.

It would seem that you are proposing in these cases that we ignore the
obviousness of the violation and wait for a properly formed DMCA
takedown notice before taking action.  Since you're so sure that this
is an acceptable solution are you able to provide the Wikimedia
Foundation with indemnity from losses resulting from taking your legal
advice?

> >In short, while being a nice legal fall-back, the safe harbor terms
> >are not anything we want to rely on in terms of our copyright policy.
> >
> It's not merely a fall back, but a first step in arriving at a formal
> decision.  When a properly composed notice is issued we must remove the
> offending material.

It seems to me that you've forgotten that one of the two primary goals
of Wikipedia is to provide Free Content.  We have failed at that goal
when our site contains a huge number of copyright violations waiting
for their DMCA notice to come in...

So while it is necessary that we remove content once properly noticed,
it is not sufficient for us to wait for that to happen.


body:
On 7/24/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> I would be very surprised if the Coca-Cola Company has ever complained
> about the use of its logo in any informative material.  They're smart
> enough to know that showing the logo is good advertising for them.

We can't permit users to use "no one will complain" as a justification
in our policy because we can not expect a substantial percentage of
the editing community to be qualified to make such judgements.

We have, in fact, had places where people claimed that "no one would
complain" when later the copyright holder did end up finding the
violation and issuing a complaint.

Even cases that would seem safe to well considered analysis are not
always so sound. A "it's free promotion" argument quickly turns to
dust when our NPOV article fairly covers the latest scandal that the
subject would like hidden under a rug... and their "they won't
complain" quickly turns into prosecution.


body:
On 7/24/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> In the absence of some willingness to confront these issues, we keep
> issuing our own judgements against ourselves.  This can only lead to
> being bogged down in a legal web of our own making.  We don't need to
> defend every last claim of copyvio that comes along, but showing a litle
> courage would be nice.

Courage?

Courage is when we step up and delete material which is not free
content, material which is questionably legal.  Courage is trusting
our contributors to create content which is clearly and confidently
free. Courage is knowing that a loss of content will not be permanent
because we can create our own and that we are not so unskilled that we
must better our project by taking from others.

Should we ever do as proposed and try to hide behind legal loopholes
and legislated mandated snipe hunts in order to continue to distribute
content which our contributors did not create, content which violates
our goal of Free content... than I would call that cowardice indeed.


body:
On 7/24/06, Domas Mituzas <midom.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> > Also, how do you accurately profile MediaWiki?  I've used xdebug and
> > Kcachegrind to profile scripts before, but it always bothers me because
> I
> > cannot use xdebug alongside APC or eaccelerator to get results
> reflective of
>
> Strange, I use xdebug alongside APC. And we use that when we do xdebug
> profiling runs on cluster.

So what is this warning, straight from xdebug's site about:

Xdebug does not work together with the Zend Optimizer or any other Zend
extension (DBG, APC, APD etc). This is due to compatibility problems with
those modules. We will be working on figuring out what the problems are, and
of course try to fix those.

That was scary enough for me to avoid the combination.

Greg


from_name: ericlewisii at aim.com

subject:
[Wikitech-l] PHP/MediaWiki Programmer Needed for Security Modeling
	Project

body:
Folks

I am working on a project that would add some really exciting capabilities to the MediaWiki. I am looking for a developer who knows the source code base interesting in consulting on this project.
I?ve been working on modeling threats to election systems, the value of having a paper trail as well as other means to prevent election fraud.

The results are here:
http://www.brennancenter.org/programs/dem_vr_hava_machineryofdemocracy.html
We have budget to add threat modeling capabilities to the MediaWiki which could be used for lots of other modeling tasks.

The work involves taking our catalogs of attacks on voting systems and representing them in ways that are more understandable, editable, augmentable, and still easy to manipulate and analyze automatically.
Anyone out there want to get paid to add some cool capabilities to the MediaWiki? You will get to work with and perhaps publish with some of the major names in computer security and perhaps develop a new methodology for decision making in the IT security space.

Send an email if there is ANY chance you would like to help, either take the lead and get paid or consult and support our work to protect democracy as a volunteer.

The ideal candidate would know something about computer security.

Please write to ericlewisii at aim.com directly on this.

Eric
________________________________________________________________________
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection.


from_name: Jim

subject: [WikiEN-l] Lawsuit Prank - on Google News

body:
Did anyone else catch this news article:

*Catholic* high school sues over Wikipedia
posting<http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=:ePkh8BM9E2IFGm_AAqJKDJhAVBKQAlsCZJcbMIKoVAMmmB1GAg4fPNt9N8h_CUvPO3Rqxpy5AEQnD14/0-0&fp=44c4f6b2e92f353a&ei=v77ERLDhFoGaHKza5YYC&url=http%3A//www.fremontneb.com/articles/2006/07/22/ap-state-ne/d8j16tdo0.txt&cid=0&sig2=651yd3EMEvoxXfo_JkdjHw>
Fremont Tribune, NE - Jul 23, 2006
OMAHA, Neb. - *Skutt* Catholic High School has filed a lawsuit over an edit
posting on Wikipedia, the online, publicly compiled encyclopedia. *...* That
opinion showed up in June on http://www.*wikipedia*.org. And
*Skutt*officials say there have been three other objectionable entries
since
February. *...*

The link is gone now but it still shows up on a google search:
http://news.google.com/news?sourceid=mozclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&tab=wn&q=wikipedia+skutt&btnG=Search+News
and on yahoo search
http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/search?p=wikipedia+skutt&c=

However, an article claiming it is from the AP wire still exists here:
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/jul/23/high_school_sues_over_wikipedia_posting/?state_regional

--
Jim (trodel at gmail.com)


from_name: maru dubshinki

body:
On 7/24/06, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih at gmail.com> wrote:
> FYI,
>
> The latest piece about Wikipedia from The New Yorker:
> http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060731fa_fact
>
> Generally great expository that aptly captures Wikipedia's most interesting
> corners. But this deserves a big whaaa?
>
> "Wales?who resembles a young Billy Crystal with the neuroses neatly tucked
> in?recalls the enchantment of pasting in update stickers that
> cross-referenced older entries to the annual supplements."
>
> -Andrew (User:Fuzheado)

You're right in that it's pretty good- the level of quality and quiet
humor one expects from the New Yorker.

But there are a few oddities; like for instance, "He [Sanger] left
Wikipedia in March, 2002, after Wales ran out of money to support the
site during the dot-com bust. "  I think this part may be wrong - I
thought Wales had money for the site, but not for Sanger's salary? I
mean, Wikipedia didn't go off the internet at this point.

Or: ""It's a perfectly reasonable power in any other situation, but
completely antithetical to this project," said Jason Scott, a longtime
contributor to Wikipedia who has published several essays critical of
the site."
Jason Scott == longtime contributor? Sure, he has ~200 edits, but most
seem to center around himself and his article, and 200 edits isn't the
sort of magnitude or long-term participation I'd characterize as "a
longtime contributor".

Or: "According to the survey, Wikipedia had four errors for every
three of Britannica's, a result that, oddly, was hailed as a triumph
for the upstart." <-- Why is it so odd? I mean, almost everybody said
that this was good news for Wikipedia because it showed that we
weren't *that* bad. Critics were expecting it to be much much worse
than it was.

But despite the occasional cluelessness or error, there are some
genuinely interesting bits in there, even for a hardened editor like
meself:
"Wattenberg and Vi?gas, of I.B.M., note that the vast majority of
Wikipedia edits consist of deletions and additions rather than of
attempts to reorder paragraphs or to shape an entry as a whole, and
they believe that Wikipedia's twenty-five-line editing window deserves
some of the blame."

~maru


list: foundation-l

from_name: Essjay

subject: [Foundation-l] Board election update

body:
Kim Bruning wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 21, 2006 at 10:21:02PM -0700, Michael Snow wrote:
>
>
>> They should have more information for us in the near future, and will
>> let candidates know how to go about declaring themselves.
>>
>>
>
> How do you become a candidate in the first place, I wonder?
>
> read you soon,
> 	Kim Bruning
>
You will fill out an entry, just as in past years, assuming the Board
approves the process.

Essjay
(As himself, not as an Election Official)

--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay
Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia
http://www.wikipedia.org/


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Board election update


from_name: Abigail Brady

subject: [WikiEN-l] So you think you can be a Wikipedia article

body:
On 7/23/06, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
> Do we have any chance whatsoever of finding out what happens to any of  these
> people? Will we know five years from now if they are even alive? Can any  of
> these articles ever hope to become a featured article, if the sole  criterion
> for inclusion is appearing (not even winning) a realilty show.  This isnt Dr
> Joyce Brothers we are talking about (American TV personality who  began her
> career winning the $64,000 Dollar Pyramid game show)--and I challenge  anyone to
> tell me who she played against on the show. Even she is only included  because
> of the role she played later as a TV shrink.

I've often thought it would be useful to ask the question: will we
find out about it when they die?  Are they important or famous enough
that there will be an obituary anywhere (even in the specialist
press)?  Obviously this is somewhat crystal-ball-gazing, but if
someone's death goes unnoticed, we'll be left with biographical
articles lacking basic details...

--
Abi


from_name: Ilmari Karonen

body:
Oldak Quill wrote:
>
> I would suggest we stop claiming that "anyone can edit" the project.
> It is a misleading and false.

This has been suggested quite often.  We even have a concrete proposal
for the new slogan, based on the one used on the German Wikipedia: "good
authors are always welcome".

I expect it'll eventually get changed, once the organizational inertia
is overcome.  Not necessarily to the version propsed above, but to
_something_ other than the current slogan.  The one we've got now isn't
really very good, for precisely the reason quoted above; it also tends
to get interpreted by some people as "anything goes" or "no editorial
control", which can create an unfavorable first impression.

--
Ilmari Karonen


body:
On 7/24/06, Berto <albertoserra at ukr.net> wrote:
> >But despite the occasional cluelessness or error, there are some
> >genuinely interesting bits in there, even for a hardened editor like
> >meself:
> >"Wattenberg and Vi?gas, of I.B.M., note that the vast majority of
> >Wikipedia edits consist of deletions and additions rather than of
> >attempts to reorder paragraphs or to shape an entry as a whole, and
> >they believe that Wikipedia's twenty-five-line editing window deserves
> >some of the blame."
>
> Yeah... structure is an issue. Section edit makes it easy to work quick, but
> it gives no general structure to the work.I guess we should have people
> specialising in structuring voices for better readability.
>
> B?rto

I don't think specialists are the answer here; just like for
verifiability, this is too big a task to be feasible for a small group
of people, since just about every article could use a better
"structure". What is needed is a better general awareness, and perhaps
tools. For example, if the edit window is a part of the problem, then
why not have the window auto-resize to fit the screen, instead of a
fixed width and height? Or perhaps we could bring it to people's
attention that the size of the edit box is customizable? &etc.

~maru


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] POV fork anyone? (coca cola)

body:
On 7/23/06, ScottL <scott at mu.org> wrote:
>   The first bit I think makes for bad articles but is the only solution
> that can reach consensus on some topics.  But, the second is pretty
> horribly POV and usually happens when their is an obvious majority on
> one side but a sizable and tenacious group on the other.
>
>   Now my question, I know that splinting an article and not linking
> them is bad.  But, I also don't like the case where a whole section of
> an article consists only of an instance of the {{mainarticle}} template
> or whatever its called.  Is that also frowned on (I guess I can just be
> bold and do the frowning on it myself, but I was wondering if ht had
> been discussed).

{{main}} is best used with a summary, like this:

==Legal action==
{{main|Legal cases against Coca Cola}}
Over the decades, more than 100 lawsuits have been launched against
Coca Cola. The most high profile have been X, Y and Z, the latter of
which led to the...As of 2006, case A is still outstanding.

etc.

Steve


from_name: Justin Cormack

body:
On 24 Jul 2006, at 10:02, Ray Saintonge wrote:

>
>>> Ultimately, only a judge can decide whether a contribution is in
>>> fact a
>>> coyright violation.  We may suspect copyright violations; we may
>>> demand
>>> that a contributor accept responsibility (and define what that
>>> means),
>>> but we can rarely make a definitive statement that a particular
>>> writing
>>> or image is in fact a violation.
>>>
>>>
>> It's a dangerous game you propose here.
>>
> What's so dangerous about insisting that contributors accept
> responsibility for their action, and that WMF clarify its role as
> an ISP.

One important reason is that the foundation does take an editorial
interest,
indeed employs people to deal with content issues, so cannot just
claim to
be an ISP. Another is that they (or other people) intent to publish
print
copies and copies in other forms, where liability is clear, and there
is no
common carrier type argument.

And the whole point was to create a free encyclopaedia remember. Non
free
content has no place in a free encyclopaedia.

Justinc


from_name: Domas Mituzas

body:
Hi!

> Also, how do you accurately profile MediaWiki?  I've used xdebug and
> Kcachegrind to profile scripts before, but it always bothers me because I
> cannot use xdebug alongside APC or eaccelerator to get results reflective of

Strange, I use xdebug alongside APC. And we use that when we do xdebug
profiling runs on cluster.

> my production deployment.  I know APC and eaccelerator completely change the
> chokepoints, but it is impossible for me to see what the new chokepoints
> are!  Can you feed MediaWiki's internal profiling output into Kcachegrind?

I'm not sure if there'd be lots of sense there. Of course, one can write
compatible trace log, but number of events is carefully crafted to
provide with general overview rather than what one would do with
kcachegrind+xdebug.

Cheers,
Domas

-- http://dammit.lt/ or [[user:midom]]


from_name: henna

body:
dunno, but for comparison with sofware open source projects, I would
like to see such figures :)

henna

On 7/24/06, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
> Nice. But "80 percent of users are male", where was the figure plucked
> from exactly?
>
> cheers,
> Brianna
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
"Maybe you knew early on that your track went from point A to B, but
unlike you I wasn't given a map at birth!" Alyssa, "Chasing Amy"


from_name: Oldak Quill

body:
On 24/07/06, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
> Nice. But "80 percent of users are male", where was the figure plucked
> from exactly?

Sadly, I'd be surprised if the figure were this low.
--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: Greg Sabino Mullane

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

...
> Especially since many extensions are unreleased, their versions unnumbered.

Ugh. Perhaps we can strongly encourage extensions to have a standard (x.y.z)
version string returned via a version() function? Or perhaps mandate use of
the version element inside of wgExtensionCredits?

- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg at turnstep.com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200607240757
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFExLubvJuQZxSWSsgRAro+AKD745brRzbqWcVe2nLMb0amm5zx4QCfWQNs
/G3hPwhK97bRiIqFS60Uvc8=
=mdX/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: stevertigo

body:
--- Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> Step up.

By this, I assume youre expressing your vote of confidence.
Its much appreciated and certainly returned.

SV
 For sale: One Spider-Man costume.
           Good for climbing historically
           inflammatory institutions.

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


from_name: Dirk Riehle

body:
As an anecdote, when I asked for representatives of the major
Wikipedias to be interviewed for the How and Why Wikipedia Works
interview (
http://www.riehle.org/computer-science/research/2006/wikisym-2006-interview.html
) I only got women's names. Must have to do with the inborn shyness
of males to promote themselves.

Dirk

At 24.07.2006, Brianna Laugher wrote:
>Nice. But "80 percent of users are male", where was the figure plucked
>from exactly?
>
>cheers,
>Brianna
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
On 7/24/06, ScottL <scott at mu.org> wrote:
>   I think the point is that we are not suppose to be writing "literary
> criticism", or at least not *originating* it.  That would be OR!  FOr
> the parts of the articles that consist of literary criticism we are
> suppose to be summarizing not creating.
>
>   However, an article on a fictional work is not a literary critique,
> it has some of that in it.   However in this case it is an encyclopedia
> article and depending on the work may include a lot more, some of which
> are facts that can (only?) be verified from the original work.

This is totally correct.

Steve


body:
On 24/07/06, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
> First you have to agree on a definition of a contributor. Having a
> username? Having at least one edit? Or at least 50, 100, 500? (So,
> count anons?) Having some level of community interaction beyond
> OrphanBot warnings?
>
> Does a leading contributor necessarily participate in formal
> structures, hold admin status, collect barnstars, vote on polls &
> requests, write on mailing lists?
>
> So many unanswered questions!

I would say a contributor is anyone with at least a single edit, anon
or not. Your point shines through though: there are too many variables
to make sweeping assumptions.
--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: Tim Starling

body:
Gregory Szorc wrote:
> In case anyone hasn't noticed, the number of MediaWiki extensions in
> existence has soared in the previous year.  They are scattered all around
> the internet and it is a chore to make sure all of your extensions are up to
> date.
>
> In an attempt to alleviate the confusion of managing extensions, I propose a
> more formal extension system.
>
> Step 1:  Overhaul how MediaWiki deals with extensions.  Loading an extension
> via 'require_once' is silly and has all sorts of limitations (for example,
> if your extension file which modifies $wgExtensionFunctions is loaded from
> within a function, $wgExtensionFunctions won't actually get modified unless
> it is brought into scope of the calling function).  In addition, there is no
> easy way to tell if an extension is a special page extension, parser hook
> extension, combination, etc.  In my proposed system, MediaWiki extensions
> would all be derived from a base 'Extension" class.  There would be
> interfaces that would allow extensions to become a SpecialPage extension,
> parser extension, hook extension, etc.  Furthermore, if extensions were
> packaged as a class, we could give the base extension class useful
> variables, such as "sourceURL" which would allow developers to provide a URL
> to the most up-to-date version of an extension.  Of course, the ultimate
> benefit to turning extensions into classes is that it would make developing
> extensions easier since OOP gives you a building block for your work, not a
> clean slate.
>
> Step 2:  Write a manager for MediaWiki that allows you to load and upgrade
> extensions remotely.  Want to upgrade an extension?  Just go to a special
> page, hit the button to refresh the list for updates, and click the checkbox
> next to the extension you want to update.
>
> Critics out there will retort that this will slow things down.  Yes, it
> won't be as fast as explicitly typing require_once in LocalSettings.php.
> However, the system could also be designed with speed in mind.  For example,
> it would be possible to serialize all the loaded extension objects into a
> file (or shared memory) which is loaded for every page request.  I take this
> approach with my new Farmer extension (
> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:IndyGreg/Farmer), which allows you to
> specify which extensions are loaded via a web interface.  The performance
> hit is negligible.
>
> Thoughts?

Please read my own proposal for reworking the extension interface at:

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-July/037035.html

Posted to this list 10 days ago.

500us per extension at startup time is too slow, I'm aiming to make
extensions much faster than they are at the moment, not slightly slower.
Under your proposal, serializing extension classes doesn't help much, since
the code would still have to be loaded before unserialization could take
place. You describe no system for registering capabilities, besides a vague
suggestion that there would be an "interface" for various things. When a
request comes in for Special:Whatchmacallit, or the parser encounters a
{{#foo:xyz}} tag, how does it determine what function it needs to call? If
everything about the extension is embodied in functional interfaces of the
extension object, then hundreds of lines of code will need to be executed on
startup to provide for registration. This is unacceptable. My suggestion is
to use a module specification file to provide:

a) a map between capabilities and callbacks
b) a map between classes and files, for autoloading

The classes containing the hook functions could be derived from some common
Extension parent class, assuming some use could be found for such a
paradigm. Since the essential thing which turns a class into an extension
would be the specification file, there might not be much need for
functionality in a common base class.

-- Tim Starling


from_name: Stan Shebs

body:
stevertigo wrote:

>--- Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>
>>Step up.
>>
>
>By this, I assume youre expressing your vote of confidence.
>Its much appreciated and certainly returned.
>
To be a little more constructive :-), I see the leadership vacuum
too. I think there are many editors who would like to lead in one
way or another, in fact many of them are on this mailing list at
least partly in the hopes of exerting some influence.

But I don't think there's a whole lot of incentive or reward for
leadership, so attempts tend to be brief and unsuccessful. Even if
one manages to organize several like-minded editors into a
cooperative effort, the newest of newbies can still come in and
disrupt, oftentimes with the support of onlookers shrieking about
cabals, and the would-be leader sees his/her investment in WP come
to naught. It's as if you were to get elected as prime minister,
but any recent immigrant could unilaterally nullify any action you
took and blacken your name in the papers - who would even bother to
run for the position?

WP's anarchy doesn't always work in the service of the goal of
producing the free encyclopedia, but with so many anarchists
ideologically committed to working against effective governance,
it's hard even to discuss how the situation might be changed for
the better.

Stan


subject: [Wikitech-l] Date formats

body:
I've removed almost all of the time and date functions from the
Language*.php files of my working copy (now checked in as the
localisation-work branch), replacing them by format strings in the style of
PHP's date() function. They're much easier to understand than PHP code, so
hopefully this will encourage people to review and edit them.

There is a chance that I made a transcription error during this process, and
there is also the chance that the original language files had an incorrect
or non-ideal date format to start with. So I invite everyone to have a look
at them. I formatted the date "15 January 2001, 12:34" in every defined date
format in every language, and put all the resulting strings at:

http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Date_formats

One deliberate difference since the previous version of MediaWiki is to make
our ISO 8601 formats technically correct. This format had been labelled "ISO
8601" since I introduced it to the wikitext date formatter, but somehow when
it was copied to the language files, and a time format added, someone forgot
to include the "T" separator between time and date. The ISO 8601 format was
originally requested by Ray Saintonge in the interests of standardisation,
and I would like to see MediaWiki remain true to that goal.

You can find the format strings themselves in the Messages*.php files at:

http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/branches/localisation-work/phase3/languages/

In other news, I think the localisation-work branch is now ready for beta
testing.

-- Tim Starling


body:
The observation itself I find interesting. Would you agree or
disagree that the number of leading women in Wikipedia is
disproportionaly larger in comparison to the overall Wikipedia
contributor population?

> >
> http://www.riehle.org/computer-science/research/2006/wikisym-2006-interview.html
> > ) I only got women's names. Must have to do with the inborn shyness
> > of males to promote themselves.
>
>Er, what? As opposed to women's innate abillity to brag? Since when
>are men typically shy?
>
>Sample size of 3 doesn't tell you much except about those three people.

Well, I may or may not have learned something about those who I asked
to make a recommendation, and I may or may not have learned something
about those they recommended. But I did learn something about humor
on mailing lists (and this after 15 years in the business).

Dirk


from_name: Andrew Lih

body:
FYI,

The latest piece about Wikipedia from The New Yorker:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060731fa_fact

Generally great expository that aptly captures Wikipedia's most interesting
corners. But this deserves a big whaaa?

"Wales?who resembles a young Billy Crystal with the neuroses neatly tucked
in?recalls the enchantment of pasting in update stickers that
cross-referenced older entries to the annual supplements."

-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)


from_name: Mathias Schindler

body:
On 7/24/06, Jim <trodel at gmail.com> wrote:
> Did anyone else catch this news article:
>
> *Catholic* high school sues over Wikipedia
>

It will be covered in this week's Wikipedia Signpost:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Michael_Snow/Skutt_suit


body:
Oldak Quill wrote:

>
>I see the equality between the old boys and the newbies as one of
>Wikipedia's greatest assets for the reasons I state above. It prevents
>anyone from becoming over-mighty and abusing their power and damaging
>Wikipedia. Leaders shouldn't come to the job because of the perks and
>benefits - they should fight for it because they truly want it and
>believe in the project.
>
That's a nice fantasy, but nobody works for no reward at all. For
instance, we reward random editors by letting their contributions
appear on a top-20 website; editors who continually have all their
edits reverted eventually get the hint and go away. If every policy
I propose gets shot down or subverted, how long do you think I'm
going to keep doing it?

Stan


from_name: Kim Bruning

subject: [Foundation-l] Board election update

in_reply_to:
<44C1B5BE.7080403@earthlink.net>;
	from wikipedia@earthlink.net on Fri, Jul 21, 2006 at 10:21:02PM
	-0700

body:
On Fri, Jul 21, 2006 at 10:21:02PM -0700, Michael Snow wrote:

> They should have more information for us in the near future, and will
> let candidates know how to go about declaring themselves.
>

How do you become a candidate in the first place, I wonder?

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


subject: [Foundation-l] Board election update


from_name: Andrew Gray

body:
On 24/07/06, Jim <trodel at gmail.com> wrote:
> Did anyone else catch this news article:
>
> *Catholic* high school sues over Wikipedia
> posting<http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=:ePkh8BM9E2IFGm_AAqJKDJhAVBKQAlsCZJcbMIKoVAMmmB1GAg4fPNt9N8h_CUvPO3Rqxpy5AEQnD14/0-0&fp=44c4f6b2e92f353a&ei=v77ERLDhFoGaHKza5YYC&url=http%3A//www.fremontneb.com/articles/2006/07/22/ap-state-ne/d8j16tdo0.txt&cid=0&sig2=651yd3EMEvoxXfo_JkdjHw>
> Fremont Tribune, NE - Jul 23, 2006
> OMAHA, Neb. - *Skutt* Catholic High School has filed a lawsuit over an edit
> posting on Wikipedia, the online, publicly compiled encyclopedia. *...* That
> opinion showed up in June on http://www.*wikipedia*.org. And
> *Skutt*officials say there have been three other objectionable entries
> since
> February. *...*
>
> The link is gone now but it still shows up on a google search:
> http://news.google.com/news?sourceid=mozclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&tab=wn&q=wikipedia+skutt&btnG=Search+News
> and on yahoo search
> http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/search?p=wikipedia+skutt&c=
>
> However, an article claiming it is from the AP wire still exists here:
> http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/jul/23/high_school_sues_over_wikipedia_posting/?state_regional

It was in the city newspaper - there's a link from the talk page of the article.

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


from_name: Ilia Alshanetsky

subject: [Wikitech-l] PHP 5.2.0RC1 testing

body:
Hello!

You are receiving this email because your project has been select to
take part in a new effort by the PHP QA Team to make sure that your
project still works with PHP versions to-be-released. With this we
hope to make sure that you are either aware of things that might
break, or to make sure we don't introduce any strange regressions.
With this effort we hope to build a better relation between the PHP
Team and the major projects.

If you do not want to receive these heads-up emails, please reply to
me personally and I will remove you from the list; but, we hope that
you want to actively help us making PHP a better and more stable tool.

The first release candidate of PHP 5.2.0 was released today, it can
be downloaded from http://downloads.php.net/ilia/. This release
incorporates a large number of changes and new features so don't be
surprised if you come across a few bugs. If you discover any (we hope
not) please notify PHP's QA team at "php-qa at lists.php.net".

In case you think that other projects should also receive this kinds
of emails, please let me know privately, and I will add them to the
list of projects to contact.

Best Regards,

Ilia Alshanetsky
5.2 Release Master


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [WikiEN-l] ref generator update

body:
Due to repeated requests, my reference generator tool
    http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/makeref.php
can now parse BibTex input. Example is in place for the "paper in a
journal" type.

Magnus

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060724/a24b4046/attachment.pgp


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject:
[Wikitech-l] PHP/MediaWiki Programmer Needed for
 Security	Modeling Project

body:
Edward Z. Yang wrote:
> ericlewisii at aim.com wrote:
>>> We have budget to add threat modeling capabilities to the MediaWiki
>>> which could be used for lots of other modeling tasks.
>
> Just a note, this work is already ongoing with LiquidThreads.

That's *thread*ed discussions, not *threat* modeling.

I haven't the slightest idea what threat modeling has to do with MediaWiki, though.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060724/d1c016de/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Dariusz Siedlecki

subject: [Foundation-l] Board election update

body:
On 7/24/06, Kim Bruning <kim at bruning.xs4all.nl> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 21, 2006 at 10:21:02PM -0700, Michael Snow wrote:
>
> > They should have more information for us in the near future, and will
> > let candidates know how to go about declaring themselves.
> >
>
> How do you become a candidate in the first place, I wonder?

You decide that you want to be one ;).

We're still clarifying how will listing yourself as a candidate work,
but it shouldn't change much from last year.

If everything will go well, we'll announce the rules for this year's
election in the next two-three days. We're already seeking translators
(check the Election page on Meta).

--
Pozdrawiam,
Dariusz Siedlecki


subject: [Foundation-l] Board election update


from_name: Arwel Parry

subject: [WikiEN-l] Interesting "New Yorker" article about Wikipedia

body:
I just found a very long and interesting article about Wikipedia on the
"New Yorker" website ("KNOW IT ALL: Can Wikipedia conquer expertise?").
Seems pretty fair, overall, lots of quotes including from Jimbo, Essjay,
William Connolley...

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060731fa_fact

--
Arwel Parry
http://www.cartref.demon.co.uk/


body:
On 24/07/06, maru dubshinki <marudubshinki at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think specialists are the answer here; just like for
> verifiability, this is too big a task to be feasible for a small group
> of people, since just about every article could use a better
> "structure". What is needed is a better general awareness, and perhaps
> tools. For example, if the edit window is a part of the problem, then
> why not have the window auto-resize to fit the screen, instead of a
> fixed width and height? Or perhaps we could bring it to people's
> attention that the size of the edit box is customizable? &etc.

A few suggestions like these are floating around at the moment that
may affect the edit screen. The whole <ref> and upcoming Semantic
additions are leading to quite cluttered views. It has been suggested
that we add syntax highlighting features including hiding some
elements as per preferences (with options running from all WikiSyntax
to just <ref>).

I suggest an alternate "paragraph" view may be quite useful where the
article appears as it does to the normal reader except the editor is
able to drag blocks of text (paragraphs), infoboxes and images around
and drop them where they are better suited. Perhaps they could then
double click on one of these elements to edit it. This may lead to a
rise in aesthetic and paragraphing editing which is needed. One
problem is that it would probably take a lot of work.
--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


body:
Another nice quote:

When I showed the Harvard philosopher Hilary Putnam his entry, he was
surprised to find it as good as the one in the Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. He was flabbergasted when he learned how Wikipedia worked.
"Obviously, this was the work of experts," he said.

-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)

On 7/24/06, mboverload <mboverload at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> By far the best article I have ever read about Wikipedia.
>
> On 7/23/06, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > FYI,
> >
> > The latest piece about Wikipedia from The New Yorker:
> > http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060731fa_fact
> >
> > Generally great expository that aptly captures Wikipedia's most
> > interesting
> > corners. But this deserves a big whaaa?
> >
> > "Wales?who resembles a young Billy Crystal with the neuroses neatly
> tucked
> > in?recalls the enchantment of pasting in update stickers that
> > cross-referenced older entries to the annual supplements."
> >
> > -Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>