from_name: Dirk Riehle

subject: [Wikitech-l] WikiSym 2007 paper submission deadline coming up!

body:
WikiSym 2007 paper submission deadline is upon us in 6 weeks!

Please consider submitting a paper, panel, workshop, etc.

Dirk

---

WikiSym 2007

CALL FOR PAPERS

2007 International Symposium on Wikis (WikiSym 2007)
Wikis at Work in the World:
Open, Organic, Participatory Media for the 21st Century

October 21-23, 2007, Montreal, Canada
Co-located with ACM OOPSLA 2007
In cooperation with ACM SIGWEB

See http://www.wikisym.org/

Archived * Peer Reviewed * ACM Sponsored

OVERVIEW

The 2007 International Symposium on Wikis brings together wiki
researchers, practitioners, and users. The goal of the symposium is to
explore and extend our growing community. The symposium has a
rigorously reviewed research paper track as well as plenty of space
for practitioner reports, demonstrations, and discussions. Anyone who
is involved in using, researching, or developing wikis is invited to
WikiSym 2007!

We recognize the online world is always evolving, and we also welcome
contributions which are about other online media consistent with the
wiki philosophy of being open, organic and participatory.

We are seeking submissions for

    * research papers (long and short): due 7 May 2007
    * workshops: due 7 May 2007
    * panels: due 7 May 2007
    * posters: due 9 July 2007
    * demonstrations: due 9 July 2007

Given the interdisciplinary nature of wikis, we invite contributions
from researchers and practitioners in a wide range of fields
including:

    * business, marketing, law
    * communications and media studies
    * computer science, human-computer interaction
    * history, political science, geography
    * information and library science
    * linguistics, discourse analysis, language studies
    * natural sciences, medicine

Topics of interest to the symposium include, but are not limited to:

    * wiki technologies and implementations
    * wiki in the workplace; for business use
    * wiki as social software for collaboration and work group processes
    * wiki user experiences, usability, discourse analysis
    * wiki for non-text media (images, video, audio) and spatial systems
    * wiki content dynamics and evolution, wiki metrics
    * wiki journalism; wiki archiving
    * wiki reputation systems, quality assurance processes
    * wiki administration, processes, dealing with abuse
    * wiki scalability, social and technical
    * wiki and the semantic web, knowledge management, tacit-knowledge
    * wikis for specific domains (education, genomics, politics, etc.)
    * wikis written by and for small audiences (ex: family wikis)
    * wiki legal issues (copyright, licensing)
    * wiki translation and multilingual wiki content

SUBMISSION DETAILS

Research papers will be reviewed by the Program Committee to meet
rigorous academic standards of publication. Research papers are
expected to advance the state of the art by describing substantiated
new research or novel technical results or by reporting on significant
experience (including case studies) or experimentation. They will be
reviewed both with respect to conceptual quality and clarity of
presentation. Note that authors of accepted papers are expected to attend
the conference and present the paper, otherwise publication will be
canceled.

Accepted research papers will be provided as part of the conference
proceedings. They will be put into the ACM Digital Library and can be
referenced as papers that appeared in the "Proceedings of the 2007
International Symposium on Wikis (WikiSym 2007)". We invite full papers
(recommended length of 10 to 15 pages with maximum of 20 pages, and a 30
minute
presentation time) and short papers (maximum 6 pages, with a 15 minute
presentation time). Papers should use the ACM SIG Proceedings Format,
see:  http://www.acm.org/sigs/pubs/proceed/template.html

Workshop and Panels submissions will be reviewed and selected for
their interest to the community. A submission should consist of two
pages describing what you intend to do and how you meet this
criterion. It should include a 100-word abstract and one-paragraph
bios of all people relevant to the submission. Workshops will be
allocated a half-day or a full-day and a room of their own (depending
on your request). Panels will be given a 90 minutes time slot and a
room of their own.

Poster submissions will be reviewed on their merits and may describe
research projects or experience reports. A submission should consist
of two page extended abstract outlining the content of the
poster. Successful applicants will be invited to bring a poster for
display at the symposium. Posters must be flat and within 1mx2m in
size.

Demos will be reviewed based on their relevance to the community. A
submission should be one page in length, with a title, a short
description of the demo, as well as a description of any special
technical needs you may have (ex: wireless connectivity).

Please submit your papers or proposals in PDF format by the respective
deadline through our submission system, which will be available
through the WikiSym website. Questions should be directed respectively
at papers at wikisym.org (research papers and practitioner reports),
workshopsandpanels at wikisym.org (workshops and panels), or
demosandposters at wikisym.org (posters and demos).

SYMPOSIUM LOGISTICS

The 2007 International Symposium on Wikis will be held at the Palais
des Congrs in Montreal, Canada, October 21-23, 2007.  A special hotel
rate has been negotiated at the Hyatt Regency Montreal. WikiSym 2007
will be co-located with the ACM OOPSLA 2007 conference, and
participants may register for the symposium alone, or may jointly
register for WikiSym and OOPSLA 2007. Registration is handled through
the ACM OOPSLA website: http://oopsla.org/

If you have any questions, please contact Alain Desilets through
chair at wikisym.org.

SYMPOSIUM COMMITTEE

Alain Dsilet, NRC-CNRC, Canada (Symposium Chair)
Robert Biddle, Carleton University, Canada (Program Chair)

Phoebe Ayers, U. of California Davis, USA (Wikimedia Liaison and
Publicity)
Angela Beesley, Wikia / Wikimedia, USA (Posters and Demos Chair)
Mark Bernstein, Eastgate Systems, USA (Panels and Workshops Chair)
Ward Cunningham, Eclipse Foundation, USA (Honorary Chair)
Ted Ernst, Open Space World (Open Space Chair)
Andrea Forte, Georgia Institute of Technology, USA (Publicity Chair)
Dirk Riehle, SAP, USA (Treasurer and Corporate Sponsorships)
Peter Thoeny, TWiki.org and StructuredWikis LLC, USA (Web Master)

PROGRAM COMMITTEE

Ademar Aguiar, Universidade do Porto, Portugal
Phoebe Ayers,  University of California Davis, United States
Angela Beesley, Wikimedia / Wikia, United Kingdom
Amy Bruckman,  Georgia Institute of Technology, United States
Mark Bernstein,  Eastgate Systems, United States
Robert Biddle,  Carleton University, Canada
Sally Jo Cunningham, University of Waikato, New Zealand
Alain Dsilets, National Research Council, Canada
Mark  Gaved,  The Open University, United Kingdom
Brian Greenspan, Carleton University, Canada
Beat Doebeli Honegger,  UAS Northwestern, Switzerland
Matthias Jugel,  Fraunhofer FIRST, Germany
Elizabeth Da Lio,  Marche Polytechnic University, Italy
Ann Majchrzak,  University of Southern California, United States
Sky Marsen, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand
James Noble,  Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand
Michele Notari, University of Applied Sciences Berne, Switzerland
Alejandro Ramirez, Carleton University, Canada
Dirk Riehle, SAP Research, United States
Hugh Robinson, The Open University, United Kingdom
Cristoff  Sauer,  Hochschule Heilbronn, Germany
Till Schuemmer, FernUniversitaet in Hagen, Germany
Sunir Shah, BibWiki.com, Canada
Robert Tolksdorf,   Freie Universitaet Berlin, Germany
Brion Vibber, Wikimedia Foundation, United States
Max Vlkel, FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik Karlsruhe, Germany
Jacob Voss,  Wikimedia Deutschland, Germany
Christian  Wagner,  City University of Hong Kong, China


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Radical redefinition of OR

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>
>>The lawsuit here is not a matter of having been so unfortunate as to be
>>caught driving drunk pure and simple.  The issues relate to how Langan
>>presents himself to the world in relation to those issues and
>>organizations which make him encyclopedic and/or notable.  The
>>references to the judgements may very well havew come from his opponents
>>in the case, but that is not the same as systematically sifting through
>>court records to find dirt on the guy
>>
>>
>This is exactly what makes it original research.  You have looked at his
>life story, and looked at this lawsuit, and drawn the original
>conclusion (perhaps plausible, perhaps even correct!) that the case
>reflects negatively on him, showing perhaps something bad about how he
>presents himself to the world, etc.
>
I can draw the conclusion that the case reflects negatively on the
person on the mailing list, but that does not imply that this would need
to be said in the article.  There, to avoid original research, we can
say that he lost the case, and beyond that we are limited to what is on
the face of the decision.  The matter of how he presents himself to the
world was there to distinguish this from a drunk driving charge.  One
relates to his public persona, the other strictly to his private life.

>That might mean that the lawsuit would make a fine basis for original
>research, to be published as investigative journalism in a newspaper,
>magazine, or book.
>
>But it certainly means that it is original research: a novel conclusion
>being drawn from primary sources.
>
If one is using the case to draw novel conclusions then yes, it should
not be used that way.

>>I've taken time to think about this before answering, and I keep
>>arriving at the conclusion that it is not correct to suppress this
>>information.
>>
>>
>Wikipedia is in no position to "suppress" information.  It is in the
>public record.
>
It is that, nothing more, nothing less.

>Should someone who is working at an institution which is
>properly tasked with doing original research want to do so, they are
>welcome to do so at any time, and we do not stand in their way.
>
No problem there.

>But the fact still remains that this sort of thing is unquestionably
>original research of _precisely_ the kind that we need to avoid for the
>obvious reasons having to do with what makes an encyclopedia an
>encyclopedia, what kind of resources we have to vet such things, and
>what kind of door we open to crackpots, cranks, and POV pushers, if we
>came to the conclusion that original research is allowed in Wikipedia,
>in case we don't like the person involved. (!)
>
It seems that the one common difference to this exchange is one of
whether we can separate the document itself from the conclusions that
some may draw from it

>>I had never heard of Langan before this came up.  Going
>>through the long talk page attached to his article I get the impression
>>that this guy is a streetfighter who is ready to do whatever it takes to
>>win his point.
>>
>>
>Your not liking him is not a good reason for us to throw out one of our
>fundamental policies so that people with an axe to grind can dig up
>negative information about him.
>
I've never said whether I liked him or not.  I've drawn a preliminary
conclusion from  reading the material in the least few days, but I could
probably draw the same conclusion about his opponents.  Disagreeing on
what a fundamental policy means or should mean says nothing about
throuwing out that policy.  It is also inappropriate to impute any
motives that I may have to dig up negative information about Lnagan.  I
very much prefer to be radically neutral in these kinds of situations.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Radical redefinition of OR

body:
K P wrote:

>>There are many, many such inventions that drove the industrial age.
>>Many of them are now taken for granted, and many more got absolutely
>>nowhere.  Descriptions, such as those in Scientific American, should
>>satisfy those concerned with notability, but a fair description of these
>>devices will still require reference to the originall documents.
>>
>>
>I don't think so at all.  For one thing the device as eventually used may
>differ substantially from the patent application, particularly for a large
>machine.  Patent descriptions are not informative in a way that makes them
>usable by the layman, by which I mean any human not seeking directly to
>profit off producing the patented item.  In addition, it is, for the
>purposes of producing a Wikipedia article, rather like describing a
>scientist's work on elucidating a genetic novelty by going to her raw data
>tables.  It's not only not necessary, it will work against you.  The
>implementation of the patent is what succeeds or fails, and the
>interpretation of the data is what is published or not.
>
It all depends on the underlying purpose for writing about these
things.  Realistically, very few of these inventions are likely to ever
be mentioned in the forseeable future.  Most of them have gone beyond
the point where there would be used for anything useful.  We no longer
have steam railway engines, so any invention designed to improve their
operation would now be useless.

Perhaps the best use for these documents is historical.  How do
otherwise obscure patents enlighten us about the ideas prevailing when a
more successful invention was produced?  What other things did a more
famous inventor design?  This will still mean that only a small sampling
of the patents will ever be referenced.

The US Patent Office records are fully available on line back to the
1830s.  Earlier files are incomplete because of a fire at the patent
office.  There is no question of referring to private raw data.
Scientific disputes over these documents is unlikely.

Ec


from_name: Matthew Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikimedia Foundation sued

body:
On 3/25/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> This is one of those things that is obvious if you're in the SF field
> - i.e., the Nielsen-Haydens are highly respected editors, and their
> blog is not your average blog any more than Groklaw is.
>
> Just how far out of our way should we have to go to justify references
> to those ignorant of the field who still consider their proudly
> ignorant opinion is just as valid on AFD as that of someone who
> actually has half a clue what they're talking about?

On the other hand, it never hurts to make the notability of the source
clear - because some readers won't be in the field.  Often, on
WIkipedia, you don't have to do that much - a link would do most of
it.

-Matt


subject: [WikiEN-l] ArbCom pages and Google

body:
On 3/25/07, Ruud Koot <r.koot at students.uu.nl> wrote:
> Do we want ArbCom pages where the accused's real identity is revealed
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Carl_Hewitt)
> to appear on Google, especially given the fact that searching for the
> accused's name will result in this page appearing as the second entry
> (just after the Wikipedia article on him?)

I don't think we should delete this information, and certainly not
oversight it.  On the other hand, it should probably not be indexed in
Google.

-Matt


from_name: Andrew Gray

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikimedia Foundation sued

body:
On 25/03/07, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
> Apparently, literary agent [[Barbara Bauer]] has sued a number of
> people and organizations, including the Wikimedia Foundation, for
> defamation because of their involvement in making or publicizing
> allegations that Bauer's services are a scam because she insists on
> payment up front from authors (where normal industry practice is for
> agents to collect only after the author's works sell) and has
> apparently sold few or none of her clients' works to anything other
> than vanity presses.  She has made it onto the Science Fiction
> Writers of America's "20 worst agents" list (they're another of the
> defendants in the suit).  She has a long record of threatening suits
> against sites and forums that criticize her, at one point demanding a
> billion dollars for unauthorized use of her name as the title of a
> forum thread asking a question about her business practices.
> http://forums.writersweekly.com/viewtopic.php?p=44820
>
> If anybody's interested, the suit is docket number L-001169-07 in
> Monmouth County, New Jersey, where it can be looked up here:
> http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/acms/disc/CV0227W0E.ASP
> It's one of the many court sites that make it a pain to link to their
> stuff because they use a form-post interface for document retrieval.

The "notification" we got (I assume formal will follow later) was
someone posting the following to [[Barbara Bauer]]:

----

On March 23, 2007, Bauer filed a suit with the Superior Court of
Monmoth, New Jersey, asserting claims for defamation and interference
with prospective business advantage.  Wikipedia is among the 15
defendants named in the suit.  Docket Number L-001169-07 Bauer etal vs
Glatzer etal, http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/acms/disc/CV0227W0E.ASP

----

Note the details of the allegations aren't available, just the bare
facts of the docket. We're in good company - the other fourteen named
defendants include the two Nielsen-Haydens, the Science Fiction and
Fantasy Writers of America (membership 1500), and various other people
working in the field of "anti-scammer activism" (as it were). As far
as I can tell, we're the only ones to simply report on it who are
listed. I don't envisage the suit being successful.

[Bauer's page has since been deleted as "a bloody disgrace. Full of
'allegations" of who said what on message boards", a viewpoint which
certainly has some merit.]

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


list: commons-l

from_name: bawolff

body:
I'm waiting for wikipedia encyclopedia. I hear its going to be very
in-depth with lots of articles!

-bawolff

Message: 4
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 01:14:02 +1100
From: "Brianna Laugher" <brianna.laugher at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Getting our content out there
       (openstockphotography.org)
To: "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List"
       <commons-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID:
       <d20d84ea0703240714i6ff06172x93434e4908438889 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

On 25/03/07, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/24/07, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Ubuntu desktops:
> > http://art.ubuntu.com/main.php?g2_itemId=592
> > (although 'Wikipedia Commons'... argh...almost!)
>
> I suspect thats a battle that we're not going to win. ;)
> Perhaps we should change our name to match perceptions?

>I agree. And also 'Wikipedia Books', 'Wikipedia Source Library',
>'Wikipedia News', 'Wikipedia Dictionary' and of course all managed by
>the 'Wikipedia Foundation'.

:)

>--~~~~


from_name: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia - An infinite number of lists

body:
Michael Santora wrote

> The number of articles which Wikipedia can have is
> limited by the number of at least marginally notable
> and verifiable things which exist.

Or have existed. Let's not be presentist.

> On the other hand, the potential number of lists is
> almost infinite, as there are a virtually unlimited
> number of ways of slicing up portions of reality.

Well, only two to the power of the number of things (unordered subsets).

> End result: en.Wikipedia, in the year 2050, will have
> 5 million articles, and 500 million lists.

On a rough calculation at the first London meet-up, I thought 7 million articles was a reasonable estimate of the number, if we simply covered the rest of the world in the detail given currently to US placenames. We could get there by 2015, rather than 2050.

But these estimates have always missed quite how deep the pockets of the academic literature have become. One million compounds in organic chemistry: pretty much a drop in the ocean. In the humanities, there are thousands upon thousands of secondary figures, about whom decent papers have been written and published in respectable journals. How many myths are there? And how many mythical characters?

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam


from_name: geni

body:
On 3/25/07, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com
<charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:

> But these estimates have always missed quite how deep the pockets of the academic >literature have become. One million compounds in organic chemistry: pretty much a drop >in the ocean.

yes but most of those chemicals will only get mentioned in maybe one
or two papers.

> In the humanities, there are thousands upon thousands of secondary figures, about >whom decent papers have been written and published in respectable journals. How many >myths are there? And how many mythical characters?
>

Astroids have burned through a fair chunk so probably not that many.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Just what *is* Jimbo's role anyway?

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote

> If I went bonkers and banned someone who had done absolutely nothing
> wrong other than disagree with me in some way, I hope that the ArbCom
> would quietly and firmly tell me that I am bonkers.  I would listen.

I can see the headlines now: Pedia Arbs Lash Wiki Tsar Over Ban Gag - Wales Flips Wig, Gerard Speechless Shock.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia has no policy on word articles

body:
On 3/25/07, bobolozo <bobolozo at yahoo.com> wrote:
> One way or another, some sort of policy would be
> better than "Rewrite into a non-word article.  If not
> possible, delete if short, keep if long and nice looking".

Yes, I agree with this. Our "policy" regarding "dictionary
definitions" is pretty flawed. Let's have a look: [[WP:NOT]]:

--
Wikipedia is not a dictionary, usage or jargon guide. Wikipedia
articles are not:
   1. Dictionary definitions. Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary,
please do not create an entry merely to define a term. An article
should usually begin with a good definition; if you come across an
article that is nothing more than a definition, see if there is
information you can add that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia.
An exception to this rule is for articles about the cultural meanings
of individual numbers.
--

We're not supposed to "create an entry merely to define a term"?
Sorry, but I've frequently broken this rule. Looking through my own
contributions, here are some articles I obviously shouldn't have
created:
* [[M-ratio]]
* [[Optical sine theorem]]
* [[Octave species]]
* [[Exposing to the right]]
* [[Heaving to]]
* [[Slope rating]]
...and many others. Are these really in violation of the rule?

--
   2. Lists of such definitions. There are, however, disambiguation
pages consisting of pointers to other pages; these are used to clarify
differing meanings of a word.
--

What is [[Chess terminology]] if not a "list of such definitions"?
Check out [[List of glossaries]] for more.

--
   3. Usage guides or slang and idiom guides. Wikipedia is not in the
business of saying how words, idioms, etc. should be used. We aren't
teaching people how to talk like a Cockney chimney-sweep, or a British
gent. However, it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia
article to describe just how a word is used to distinguish among
similar, easily confused ideas, as in nation or freedom. In some
special cases an article about an essential piece of slang may be
appropriate.
--

Trivially, *all* guides are explicitly disallowed by Wikipedia. So
what are we trying to say about "slang and idiom guides"? Perhaps we
mean that [[List of slang names for poker hands]] should be deleted?

In general, I try to pretend that this very broken "policy" doesn't
exist. When someone can come up with a reasonable policy that can
distinguish between dictionary entries and encyclopaedia entries,
without using the self-referential terms "dictionary definition" or
"encyclopaedic", then perhaps it will serve some purpose.

Steve


body:
"David Gerard" wrote

> Lists these days need to be of value by order
> and/or annotation.

Or by selection ('basic topics'). Or by the inclusion of (wow!) red links so we get missing articles written. Etc.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam


from_name: Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)

subject: [WikiEN-l] ArbCom pages and Google

body:
Fred, if the Arbitration Committee authorizes, the Clerks can set up a
procedure for dealing with such pages.  Please advise how the committee
would like this handled.

Newyorkbrad

On 3/25/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
>
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Ruud Koot [mailto:r.koot at students.uu.nl]
> >Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 03:30 PM
> >To: 'English Wikipedia'
> >Subject: [WikiEN-l] ArbCom pages and Google
> >
> >Do we want ArbCom pages where the accused's real identity is revealed
> >(
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Carl_Hewitt
> )
> >to appear on Google, especially given the fact that searching for the
> >accused's name will result in this page appearing as the second entry
> >(just after the Wikipedia article on him?)
> >
> >--Ruud
>
> Probably not. You have picked a good example, but there are others.
>
> Fred
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Eugene van der Pijll

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikimedia Foundation sued

body:
Daniel R. Tobias schreef:
> Apparently, literary agent [[Barbara Bauer]] has sued a number of
> people and organizations, including the Wikimedia Foundation

And it worked, the article has been deleted.

Eugene


body:
On 3/25/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:

> In general, I try to pretend that this very broken "policy" doesn't
> exist. When someone can come up with a reasonable policy that can
> distinguish between dictionary entries and encyclopaedia entries,
> without using the self-referential terms "dictionary definition" or
> "encyclopaedic", then perhaps it will serve some purpose.

Oh, it exists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary

Interesting.

Steve


body:
bobolozo wrote

> Wikipedia has only one article on a topic, no matter
> how many synonyms there are for the major word we use
> to entitle the article.
>
> Synonyms for stupid: brainless, dense, doltish, dopey,
> dorky, dull, dumb, fatuous, half-witted, mindless,
> oafish, obtuse, senseless, simple, slow, thick,
> thickheaded, unintelligent, vacuous, weak-minded,
> witless.  Related terms: feebleminded, retarded,
> simpleminded; foolish, idiotic, imbecilic, moronic.
>
> These terms can't all have their own articles to
> contain their etymologies, they would mostly redirect
> to "Stupidity" on wikipedia if anyone bothered to make
> redirects for them all.  If we determine that the
> etymologies are notable, where do they go?  Clearly
> none of them would belong in the "Stupidity" article.

Wikithesauroetymologodinopedia. Why 'dino'? Because it means 'terrible', etymologically, and this is a terrible idea ...

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam


subject: [WikiEN-l] ArbCom pages and Google

body:
In one prior case, the Evidence and Workshop pages were archived to history
and protected in that form, meaning that the text can be read by interested
Wikipedians using the edit history but would not show up in a Google
search.  I do not know if this has been done before with a final decision,
however.

Is it possible to mark a specific page no-follow to put it outside the
parameters for a Google scrape of the site?

Newyorkbrad

On 3/25/07, Ruud Koot <r.koot at students.uu.nl> wrote:
>
> How should such cases be handled? Deleting the page, blanking it
> (completely or only leaving a link to a previous version behind?) Maybe
> administrators should have an option to "protect" the page from being
> indexed by search engines.
>
> --Ruud
>
>
> Fred Bauder wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Ruud Koot [mailto:r.koot at students.uu.nl]
> >> Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 03:30 PM
> >> To: 'English Wikipedia'
> >> Subject: [WikiEN-l] ArbCom pages and Google
> >>
> >> Do we want ArbCom pages where the accused's real identity is revealed
> >> (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Carl_Hewitt
> )
> >> to appear on Google, especially given the fact that searching for the
> >> accused's name will result in this page appearing as the second entry
> >> (just after the Wikipedia article on him?)
> >>
> >> --Ruud
> >
> > Probably not. You have picked a good example, but there are others.
> >
> > Fred
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Rob Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] ArbCom pages and Google

body:
I would like to formerly request an unblock for the limited purpose to
Appeal before ArbCom making a separation of the unfounded smears that my
name is associated with he Lyndon LaRouche movement. <
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance/Requests/November_2006/Nobs02#unfounded_allegations
 >

Google Nobs01+LaRouche brings up 226 Google hits. <
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Nobs01%2BLaRouche >

ArbCom has twice failed to rectify this injustice, despite (a) Mr. Fred
Bauder admitting five times the smear is unfounded; (b) the perpetrator
himself has made statements that the allegation is false. <
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Workshop&diff=next&oldid=30398271
 >

Thank you,

Rob Smith
aka User:Nobs01 and Nobs02


subject: [WikiEN-l] Radical redefinition of OR

body:
Sheldon Rampton wrote

> The problem that Ray imagines is therefore not really a problem.

I have come to think that Ray Saintonge should get some kind of award. For the sheer number of his subtly misleading posts to this list.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam


from_name: Daniel P. B. Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] Citizendium to launch this week

body:
> From: bobolozo <bobolozo at yahoo.com>

> In other words, anyone can sign up, claim their name
> is John Johnson from Wisconsin, submit a fake bio, and
> be an editor.

My name is Yon Yonson, I come from Visconsin, I vork in a lumbermill
dere;
De people I meet ven I valk down the street, they say "Vat's your
name?" and I say
"My name is Yon Yonson, I come from Visconsin, I vork in a lumbermill
dere;
De people...

NOOOO!  NOOO!! Make it stop!

Maybe I can exorcise it:

Conductor, when you receive a fare,
Punch in the presence of the passenjare!
A blue trip slip for an eight-cent fare,
A buff trip slip for a six-cent fare,
A pink trip slip for a three-cent fare,
Punch in the presence of the passenjare!
Punch, brothers! punch with care!
Punch in the presence of the passenjare!"


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Robert Leverington

subject: [Wikitech-l] Saving pages from WP with stylesheet

body:
I am not experiencing this problem, are you using any custom CSS or
JavaScript on your PC or on the wiki via the User:Example/example.ext
pages.
Robert.

On 25/03/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Whenever I save a page from Wikipedia, or any other MW site, using
> Firefox, the resulting HTML loses its screen stylesheet. This seems to
> be due to the way we are embedding the stylesheet, i.e.:
>
> <style type="text/css" media="screen,projection">/*<![CDATA[*/ @import
> "/skins-1.5/monobook/main.css?61"; /*]]>*/</style>
>
> This appears to cause Firefox to not treat the stylesheet as part of
> the page it needs to retrieve. Is there a way to avoid this behavior,
> either on the client or on the server side?
>
> --
> Peace & Love,
> Erik
>
> DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
> the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
>
> "An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
> free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: Rob Church

body:
On 25/03/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Whenever I save a page from Wikipedia, or any other MW site, using
> Firefox, the resulting HTML loses its screen stylesheet. This seems to
> be due to the way we are embedding the stylesheet, i.e.:
>
> <style type="text/css" media="screen,projection">/*<![CDATA[*/ @import
> "/skins-1.5/monobook/main.css?61"; /*]]>*/</style>
>
> This appears to cause Firefox to not treat the stylesheet as part of
> the page it needs to retrieve. Is there a way to avoid this behavior,
> either on the client or on the server side?

Is it happening with any other browsers? I seem to vaguely recall some
previous discussion on this problem, possibly late last year.

Rob Church


list: foundation-l

from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Foundation-l] Language Prevention Committee created

body:
On 25/03/07, Arbeo M <arbeo.wiki at googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hello everybody!
>
> On 11/13 last year the formation of a subcommittee concerning the approval
> of wikis in new languages etc. was announced on this list.
>
> Back then, I was pleased to see that a few users committed themselves to
> taking care of multilingualism issues in Wikimedia's projects.
>
> Today, I am disappointed to see that the committee is inoperable.
>
> It is a pitiful fact that since its creation the language subcommittee has
> achieved virtually *zero *as to the advancement of multilingualism (which is
> a central pillar in Wikimedia's mission to spread knowledge worldwide).
>
> Even without counting the huge number of requests for new languages the
> subcommittee simply swept away upon its formation, despite the fact that
> some of them had previously been approved by the Community (cf.
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Old_requests_for_new_languages),
> requests are just piling up big time and nothing ever happens (cf.
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages).
>
> One of the main arguments in favor of having a small group of specialized
> people instead of the whole community decide certain things would be to make
> things run more efficiently, in other words: speedier. Yet what's really
> happening is exactly the opposite: we're about to see *the longest period
> without a single new Wikipedia ever!!*
> **
> What has happened?
>
> Has the number of requests for new languages dropped significantly? - Not
> really. Wikipedia's reputation around the world is steadily rising and more
> and more people from various regions of the globe want to start an edition
> in their own language (but we don't let them).
>
> Are the requests sloppier than they used to be? - Quite the contrary! The
> quality of most requests is higher than ever before (just have a look at how
> requests looked three years ago, let alone the Incubator activities) and
> editors are now preparing new editions with a lot of conscientiousness (yet
> we don't value that).
>
> So what *is *the reason for this total deadlock? In plain words, I would say
> it is *a language subcommittee not caring enough *about our fellow users who
> want to increase the value of Wikimedia's projects and help us on our
> mission for free knowledge by providing content in additional languages.
> What good is a language committee that never ever enables new languages?
>
> What do I mean by "not caring enough"? - I mean that obviously the
> subcommittee or most of its members 1. seem to applying the (all-in-all
> sensible) rules they set up too morosley (i. e. not for the benefit of but
> rather against multilinguistic progress) and 2. seem to be failing in
> adequately supporting people who want to start new wikis. Because if it
> weren't that way highly promising projects like the e. g. Kabyle, Sakha or
> Crimean Tatar Wikipedias would long be up and running and would be valuable
> new members of the Wikimedia family of projects by now.
>
> What's even worse is that the subcommittee members themselves don't agree on
> which rules are in force (cf.
> http://langcom.wikimedia.org/wiki/Archives/2007-03-23). Pathoschild holds
> that full localization is not mandatory before final approval (and luckily
> he still seems to remember what Wikipedia is all about and that we're
> supposed to be an open project, even to those who don't happen to have a
> computer science diploma), Berto d'Sera takes a "localization or death"
> stand and GerardM writes something secret.
>
> Dear Language Subcommittee Members, please stop preventing multilingualism
> and start enabling and supporting it!
>
> Thank y'all for taking the time to read this!
>
> Arbeo
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

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


list: wikimedia-l


body:
I agree totally.

I posted an earlier message about this.

While we do need to deal with certain issues, specifically Belarusan,
it seems in all other cases with existing Wikis status quo is best
(Siberian and Moldovan) because these at their hearts are two very
different types of conflicts (one is for replacement or augmentation
of existing Wiki, other is for deletion of valid existing Wikis).

But for new languages, I do not think it is a good idea anymore to
have a committee. I supported the idea in the beginning, but I have
seen NO REAL ACTION and 0 agreement between members. No new Wikipedias
have been formed since the creation of this committee, while certain
test Wikis are bursting at their seams!!! (Kabyle, Latgalian, Lower
Sorbian, Crimean Tatar, Saterfrisian).

The Incubator Wiki was not made to hold such large projects. It was
made to hold proto-projects, not a web of standalone projects (like
Wikia).

Also, I am strongly against the "new proposal policy" by Pathoschild.

While I do see a problem with a voting system, I ALSO see a problem
with a system where it takes ten thousand years for a Wiki to get
approved!!!

Mark

On 25/03/07, Arbeo M <arbeo.wiki at googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hello everybody!
>
> On 11/13 last year the formation of a subcommittee concerning the approval
> of wikis in new languages etc. was announced on this list.
>
> Back then, I was pleased to see that a few users committed themselves to
> taking care of multilingualism issues in Wikimedia's projects.
>
> Today, I am disappointed to see that the committee is inoperable.
>
> It is a pitiful fact that since its creation the language subcommittee has
> achieved virtually *zero *as to the advancement of multilingualism (which is
> a central pillar in Wikimedia's mission to spread knowledge worldwide).
>
> Even without counting the huge number of requests for new languages the
> subcommittee simply swept away upon its formation, despite the fact that
> some of them had previously been approved by the Community (cf.
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Old_requests_for_new_languages),
> requests are just piling up big time and nothing ever happens (cf.
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages).
>
> One of the main arguments in favor of having a small group of specialized
> people instead of the whole community decide certain things would be to make
> things run more efficiently, in other words: speedier. Yet what's really
> happening is exactly the opposite: we're about to see *the longest period
> without a single new Wikipedia ever!!*
> **
> What has happened?
>
> Has the number of requests for new languages dropped significantly? - Not
> really. Wikipedia's reputation around the world is steadily rising and more
> and more people from various regions of the globe want to start an edition
> in their own language (but we don't let them).
>
> Are the requests sloppier than they used to be? - Quite the contrary! The
> quality of most requests is higher than ever before (just have a look at how
> requests looked three years ago, let alone the Incubator activities) and
> editors are now preparing new editions with a lot of conscientiousness (yet
> we don't value that).
>
> So what *is *the reason for this total deadlock? In plain words, I would say
> it is *a language subcommittee not caring enough *about our fellow users who
> want to increase the value of Wikimedia's projects and help us on our
> mission for free knowledge by providing content in additional languages.
> What good is a language committee that never ever enables new languages?
>
> What do I mean by "not caring enough"? - I mean that obviously the
> subcommittee or most of its members 1. seem to applying the (all-in-all
> sensible) rules they set up too morosley (i. e. not for the benefit of but
> rather against multilinguistic progress) and 2. seem to be failing in
> adequately supporting people who want to start new wikis. Because if it
> weren't that way highly promising projects like the e. g. Kabyle, Sakha or
> Crimean Tatar Wikipedias would long be up and running and would be valuable
> new members of the Wikimedia family of projects by now.
>
> What's even worse is that the subcommittee members themselves don't agree on
> which rules are in force (cf.
> http://langcom.wikimedia.org/wiki/Archives/2007-03-23). Pathoschild holds
> that full localization is not mandatory before final approval (and luckily
> he still seems to remember what Wikipedia is all about and that we're
> supposed to be an open project, even to those who don't happen to have a
> computer science diploma), Berto d'Sera takes a "localization or death"
> stand and GerardM writes something secret.
>
> Dear Language Subcommittee Members, please stop preventing multilingualism
> and start enabling and supporting it!
>
> Thank y'all for taking the time to read this!
>
> Arbeo
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

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


list: wikipedia-l

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Fwd: censership (from Yiddish Wikipedian)

body:
Dear all, I received the following message regarding censorship from a
fellow Wikipedian (from the Yiddish Wikipedia) commenting on the
chilling effects of censorship (in this case religious censorship).

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: willi boy <boywilli at gmail.com>
Date: 25-Mar-2007 10:53
Subject: censership
To: Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com>

i saw your comments on the mailing list. this censorship think is
frightening can we maybe make use of the new times in wikimenia
foundation like the resignation of danny and the hiring of bastiqe

because this will eventually hit the yiddish wiki as well since most
speakers are religious.

yours trully

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


from_name: Arbeo M

body:
Hello everybody!

On 11/13 last year the formation of a subcommittee concerning the approval
of wikis in new languages etc. was announced on this list.

Back then, I was pleased to see that a few users committed themselves to
taking care of multilingualism issues in Wikimedia's projects.

Today, I am disappointed to see that the committee is inoperable.

It is a pitiful fact that since its creation the language subcommittee has
achieved virtually *zero *as to the advancement of multilingualism (which is
a central pillar in Wikimedia's mission to spread knowledge worldwide).

Even without counting the huge number of requests for new languages the
subcommittee simply swept away upon its formation, despite the fact that
some of them had previously been approved by the Community (cf.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Old_requests_for_new_languages),
requests are just piling up big time and nothing ever happens (cf.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages).

One of the main arguments in favor of having a small group of specialized
people instead of the whole community decide certain things would be to make
things run more efficiently, in other words: speedier. Yet what's really
happening is exactly the opposite: we're about to see *the longest period
without a single new Wikipedia ever!!*
**
What has happened?

Has the number of requests for new languages dropped significantly? - Not
really. Wikipedia's reputation around the world is steadily rising and more
and more people from various regions of the globe want to start an edition
in their own language (but we don't let them).

Are the requests sloppier than they used to be? - Quite the contrary! The
quality of most requests is higher than ever before (just have a look at how
requests looked three years ago, let alone the Incubator activities) and
editors are now preparing new editions with a lot of conscientiousness (yet
we don't value that).

So what *is *the reason for this total deadlock? In plain words, I would say
it is *a language subcommittee not caring enough *about our fellow users who
want to increase the value of Wikimedia's projects and help us on our
mission for free knowledge by providing content in additional languages.
What good is a language committee that never ever enables new languages?

What do I mean by "not caring enough"? - I mean that obviously the
subcommittee or most of its members 1. seem to applying the (all-in-all
sensible) rules they set up too morosley (i. e. not for the benefit of but
rather against multilinguistic progress) and 2. seem to be failing in
adequately supporting people who want to start new wikis. Because if it
weren't that way highly promising projects like the e. g. Kabyle, Sakha or
Crimean Tatar Wikipedias would long be up and running and would be valuable
new members of the Wikimedia family of projects by now.

What's even worse is that the subcommittee members themselves don't agree on
which rules are in force (cf.
http://langcom.wikimedia.org/wiki/Archives/2007-03-23). Pathoschild holds
that full localization is not mandatory before final approval (and luckily
he still seems to remember what Wikipedia is all about and that we're
supposed to be an open project, even to those who don't happen to have a
computer science diploma), Berto d'Sera takes a "localization or death"
stand and GerardM writes something secret.

Dear Language Subcommittee Members, please stop preventing multilingualism
and start enabling and supporting it!

Thank y'all for taking the time to read this!

Arbeo


from_name: The Cunctator

subject: [WikiEN-l] BJAODN

body:
I really hope I'm being had by an early April's Fool's joke. If so, I
tip my hat to JzG.

On 3/25/07, SJ <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
> As Rich notes, this thread has its own ironic value, just in time for
> the one-year anniversary of the first successful BJAODNFD...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bad_Jokes_and_Other_Deleted_Nonsense
>
> SJ
>
> On 3/25/07, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm sorry, but this is the most annoying and depressing thing that
> > Wikipedians have done. It's certainly predictable, of course.
> >
> > BJAODN serves an important purpose for the encyclopedia and the community.
> >
> > If you can't appreciate it, ignore it.
> >
> > Please, I beg of you.
> >
> > Stop this.
> >
> > Please.
> >
> > On 3/23/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> > > Kingboyk and I thought the time had come to prune the 'pedia of the
> > > sixty pages of often acutely unfunny vandalism preserved under the
> > > general heading of BJAODN.  Not remove BJAODN, a collection of
> > > genuinely if often unintentionally funny edits, but the 59 subsequent
> > > archives.  The mechanism we employed was to MfD the current one,
> > > because it did not seem worthwhile tagging nearly sixty articles if
> > > there was clear consensus to keep.  That didn't work: a lot of people
> > > think we want to delete all BJAODN (we don't, just prune it down to a
> > > rational size); some people want it kept outright as "harmless" or
> > > whatever; some say they won't advocate deletion of one, only if the
> > > whole lot is bundled.  It's a mess.  We'd like to know what, of
> > > anything, is the best way forward.  We are both still of the opinion
> > > that keeping copies of many hundreds of decisively atrocious edits,
> > > the majority of which do not rise above the level of childish, is
> > > probably not worth the server resources committed to it.  Plus, the
> > > insane mountain of crap makes it hard to sot the genuinely creative
> > > and funny ones, which was the point.  I also feel that some editors
> > > deliberately introduce nonsense in the hope of making BJAODN, but
> > > that's an aside.
> > >
> > > The debate is at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Close
> > > Encounters of the Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense Kind]] if
> > > anyone wants to pitch in there, but there may be a better place to
> > > discuss this.
> > >
> > > Guy (JzG)
> > > --
> > > http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
> --
> ++SJ
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Just what *is* Jimbo's role anyway? -
	personality	cult

body:
Seth Finkelstein wrote

> 3) How silly it is for anyone to speak of the good Wikipedia like the bad cults

Not silly. Just wildly inaccurate. WP's growth by sheer word-of-mouth would impress any proseltysing organisation. But I think nothing much is promised to our volunteers. We're a club that would have accepted Groucho Marx as a member; the project has always been under-resourced and internal discussions tend to be somewhat off-putting. All we offer is an unlimited drain on your free time.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam


from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
Whenever I save a page from Wikipedia, or any other MW site, using
Firefox, the resulting HTML loses its screen stylesheet. This seems to
be due to the way we are embedding the stylesheet, i.e.:

<style type="text/css" media="screen,projection">/*<![CDATA[*/ @import
"/skins-1.5/monobook/main.css?61"; /*]]>*/</style>

This appears to cause Firefox to not treat the stylesheet as part of
the page it needs to retrieve. Is there a way to avoid this behavior,
either on the client or on the server side?

--
Peace & Love,
Erik

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [WikiEN-l] Radical redefinition of OR

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> The lawsuit here is not a matter of having been so unfortunate as to be
> caught driving drunk pure and simple.  The issues relate to how Langan
> presents himself to the world in relation to those issues and
> organizations which make him encyclopedic and/or notable.  The
> references to the judgements may very well havew come from his opponents
> in the case, but that is not the same as systematically sifting through
> court records to find dirt on the guy

This is exactly what makes it original research.  You have looked at his
life story, and looked at this lawsuit, and drawn the original
conclusion (perhaps plausible, perhaps even correct!) that the case
reflects negatively on him, showing perhaps something bad about how he
presents himself to the world, etc.

That might mean that the lawsuit would make a fine basis for original
research, to be published as investigative journalism in a newspaper,
magazine, or book.

But it certainly means that it is original research: a novel conclusion
being drawn from primary sources.

> I've taken time to think about this before answering, and I keep
> arriving at the conclusion that it is not correct to suppress this
> information.

Wikipedia is in no position to "suppress" information.  It is in the
public record.  Should someone who is working at an institution which is
properly tasked with doing original research want to do so, they are
welcome to do so at any time, and we do not stand in their way.

But the fact still remains that this sort of thing is unquestionably
original research of _precisely_ the kind that we need to avoid for the
obvious reasons having to do with what makes an encyclopedia an
encyclopedia, what kind of resources we have to vet such things, and
what kind of door we open to crackpots, cranks, and POV pushers, if we
came to the conclusion that original research is allowed in Wikipedia,
in case we don't like the person involved. (!)

>  I had never heard of Langan before this came up.  Going
> through the long talk page attached to his article I get the impression
> that this guy is a streetfighter who is ready to do whatever it takes to
> win his point.

Your not liking him is not a good reason for us to throw out one of our
fundamental policies so that people with an axe to grind can dig up
negative information about him.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Radical redefinition of OR

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> That means that every addition and every removal brings at least the
> suspicion of outside influence by POV-pushers.  I am very much with
> the "plague on both their houses" camp on this one.

Indeed.

> The lawsuit appears important only to the two parties, nobody else.

Indeed.

--Jimbo


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Just what *is* Jimbo's role anyway? -	personality
 cult

body:
Marc Riddell wrote:
>> Wikipedia is really interesting in a way, since it doesn't
>> have any physical aspect, so it has to rely entirely on psychological
>> aspects. Which, in fact, means the leader putting up with a lot of crap.
>
> OK, Seth, I will (predictably) bite :-) - what psychological aspects are you
> speaking of?

Oh, he is talking about how I manipulate and control people in the cult
through an environment of... well, it isn't intimidation and fear I
think we all agree... it's manipulation and control through... uh...
being mostly friendly and trying to see the best in everyone, with some
failures from time to time, and a willingness to apologize for that, and
encouraging other people to do the same, as best as we can, because we
are here to try to do something we think is useful and good.

Dastardly, dastardly. :)

Seriously, the whole "personality cult" thing loses all meaning if it
automatically applies to anyone who has successfully led anything.
Surely there must be some sort of leadership which involves something
other than encouraging "cult" behaviors.

--Jimbo


from_name: Seth Finkelstein

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Just what *is* Jimbo's role anyway? - personality
	cult

body:
> Marc Riddell
> I guess I came late to the party, or haven't been paying attention, or
> - something. What is you basic beef, Seth?

	Do you mean the specific or the general? The specific was:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-March/066381.html

"David, if you take a swipe that arguably includes me, I think it's
fair to do a "Marshall McLuhan right here" bit, and correct the ideas."

	Which was in reply to:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-March/066339.html
"It surprises me when our odder critics claim Wikipedia is the
personality cult of Jimbo Wales. I really can't imagine L. Ron Hubbard
putting up with the crap Jimbo does ..."

	Note I was *not* the person who introduced the word "cult"
into the thread. I did change the subject line then to indicate a
subthread, but that was in *response*, not an original assertion.

	I was responding to a mischaracterization of critic's points
about Wikipedia and cults. The strawman is that cults are only
apocalyptic and doomsday, hate and fear. That's false. Transcendent
purpose, internal status, love and belonging, are all possible
aspects of a cult. Cult leaders sometimes *do* take lots of crap.
(starting a cult can entail playing father-figure to a bunch of
complaining dysfunctional neurotics - that can't be fun!)

	Look at *how* *many* *times* I've had to repeat that little
point, which should be utterly straightforward, and how it was
immediately met with a platoon of strawman in the above. Can you see
why I might honestly not want to spend all day in a flame-war writing
messages "I didn't say that, I didn't mean that, that's not so ..."?

	I have many general concerns about Wikipedia, relating to
everything from my criticism of digital sharecropping to my belief that
popularity data-mining businesses are not a good model for civic society.
However, they're beyond the scope of this message.

> Gwern
> I think he's also trying to follow up on Jaron Lanier's 'Wikipedia Is
> Communism^WDigital Maoism' thesis, particularly the personality
> cult accusation part.

	For the record, I think Lanier's thesis is problematically
phrased, though my thoughts have some similarity to his.

http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/archives/001083.html

"The problem is that we don't have a good rhetorical shorthand for
"negative effects of a communal activity", so it tends to come out as
But-That's-Communism. I try to address this by drawing analogies to
multi-level marketing, pyramid schemes, lotteries (which note are
capitalism). But that has its own rhetorical downside for harshness."

	Note the "personality" aspect is just one element, not a
be-all and end-all.

[reordered] > In what way does Wikipedia differ from any large-scale volunteer
> charitable organization with even a hint of an ideological motivation?

	It's variable, not binary. Wikipedia is by no means on the
most extreme end of the scale. But it's also further along than might
be comfortable.

> I have to agree with Gerard here: I'm not seeing much of substance
> in your emails except a vacuously expansive definition of cults.

	I have conceded. Gerard has found me out. Can't get anything
past him. I am *not* going to do a detailed elaboration here of
"Why I Think Wikipedia Is A Cult", in 25,000 words or more. It
wouldn't do anyone any good.

--
Seth Finkelstein  Consulting Programmer  http://sethf.com/
Infothought blog - http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/
Interview: http://sethf.com/essays/major/greplaw-interview.php


from_name: Ron Ritzman

subject: [WikiEN-l] Out of process deletions

body:
On 3/25/07, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com
<charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> "Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)" wrote
>
> > I think we need some input from the Office as to how this situation should
> > be handled on-wiki.
>
> Maybe. But the deletion of a badly-sourced attack piece biography would not be the       > problem.

And that's exactly why we have CSD, AFD, PROD etc.

"Out of process" deletions have their uses and the ability to do them
is a necessary tool in fighting the firehose of crap but I offer this
proposal to avoid any more Brandt type wheel wars..

If an admin makes an "out of process" deletion, then any other admin
if free to restore the article without prejudice. If restored, it
cannot be deleted again by anyone without going through one of the
established deletion processes. (AFD, CSD, etc) If the admin who
originally deleted it, deletes it again, he is subject to the
immediate loss of his admin privs. If deleted by another admin, he is
informed that it is a contested "out of process" delete and the
article is restored again. If he deletes it again, he could lose his
privs.

This protection shouldn't last forever though. After a certain amount
of time has passed, perhaps a month or 3 (that can be determined by
consensus) someone can try to "OOP" it again.


from_name: Sage Ross

body:
On 3/25/07, Keith Old <keithold at gmail.com> wrote:

> Folks,
>
> It is now live with 1,100 articles.
>
> http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Main_Page
>
> Further, there are red links on the main page in areas such as earth
> sciences, theater, education, sports, architectecture, visual arts,
> journalism, military and the media. It is probably where Wikipedia was in
> early 2001.

So now they're live, and they still have decided what license to use.

http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/03/23/we-are-definitely-undecided-about-the-license/

If you follow that all the way to the forums and their on-wiki
discussion page, you'll find a lot of sloppy reasoning salted with
just a bit of sense.  Some of them seem to think it would be a good
idea to take Wikipedia content and relicense it under CC-by-nc so that
Wikipedia couldn't reincorporate their changes.  Many more think it
will be desirable to at least cut Wikipedia off from any use of what
Citizendium produces from scratch.  And in order to avoid the license
complications, they're talking about the possibility of authors having
to share copyright with Citizendium, so that Citizendium could work
out individual commercial deals.  (One of the few well-informed
discussants brought up the possibility that doing so might make
Citizendium liable for their content and bypass the safe-harbor
provision, but no one seems to be worried about that.)

One interesting possibility (if unlikely) they discussed would be to
intentionally misinterpret/reinterpret/ignore the GFDL by relicensing
Wikipedia content under CC-by-sa, with the hopes of establishing
compatibility in court.  I know little about the legal aspects or the
chances of success, but if it worked it would be nice for us... it
would give a chance to switch licenses without having to take the
legal risk.

Also check Sanger's snarky manifesto "We Aren't Wikipedia":
http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/03/21/we-arent-wikipedia/

-Sage


from_name: Gwern Branwen

body:
"Sage Ross" <ragesoss+wikipedia at gmail.com> writes:
....
> One interesting possibility (if unlikely) they discussed would
  be to
> intentionally misinterpret/reinterpret/ignore the GFDL by
  relicensing
> Wikipedia content under CC-by-sa, with the hopes of establishing
> compatibility in court.  I know little about the legal aspects
  or the
> chances of success, but if it worked it would be nice for
  us... it
> would give a chance to switch licenses without having to take
  the
> legal risk.
>
> Also check Sanger's snarky manifesto "We Aren't Wikipedia":
> http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/03/21/we-arent-wikipedia/
>
> -Sage

While we're on the topic of changing licenses, does anyone know
whether any further information has come to light about whether
Wikipedia could relicense under the [[GNU Simplified Free
Documentation License]]? I haven't seen any new news for the last
several months, and when I asked him about it, Brad said to wait
for new news - but nothing's been said AFAIK, and now Brad's
gone...

--
Gwern
Inquiring minds want to know.


body:
Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:
> Jimbo's role seems to be that of a strange attractor.

And a Very Strange attractor at that. ;-)


from_name: Cary Bass

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikimedia Foundation sued

body:
Florence Devouard wrote:
>
>
> Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
> > I think we need some input from the Office as to how this situation
> should
> > be handled on-wiki.
> >
> > Newyorkbrad
> >
> >
> > On 3/25/07, Jeff Raymond
> > <jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Ron Ritzman wrote:
> >>
> >>> Correct me if I'm wrong but shouldn't that comment be in an AFD
> >>> nom or is this another one of those "Danial Brandt" deletes?
> >> Yes.
> >>
> >> -Jeff
> >>
> >> --
> >> If you can read this, I'm not at home.
> >>

I will say this much.  In a cursory review of the situation, nothing should
be done with regard to the restoration of this article until the Wikimedia
Foundation office has had a chance to look at it in an official capacity; no
matter what consensus Deletion Review may encounter.  This will occur some
time after 13h00 (UTC) Monday, March 26, when the office is open.

Discussion aside, without being able to discuss the matter from a legal
standpoint, there's no case in restoring the article with the questionable
content.

Cary Bass
---
~ bastique


from_name: K P

subject: [WikiEN-l] Radical redefinition of OR

body:
On 3/25/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
> >>Point remains, we don't use primary sources in the plant articles, such
> as
> >>the original research of a scientist published in a primary resource
> >>otherwise known as a peer-reviewed journal article, but rather we use
> the
> >>secondary information from the primary source, the primary source's
> >>introductory material or background material used in its conclusions,
> and
> >>use review articles (which, although this may be changing, not that I've
> >>seen) rather than conclusions originally and solely drawn in primary
> >>sources.
> >>
> >>
> >You could use primary sources, though. There is no rule against that.
> >(You have to be careful to keep things neutral, but that shouldn't be
> >too hard with papers about plants - just be careful if there is
> >disagreement in the scientific community about something.) There is a
> >rule against OR, which is why it's important to distinguish between
> >the two.
> >
> The official description of a species is a primary source.  If the
> description has been accepted by the governing international society
> there is no question of disagreement from the scientific community.  The
> merger principle suggests that these definitions many not even be
> copyrightable.  If they are to be meningful at all these descriptions
> will not change.
>
> Ec

This is not correct, at least in botany, that if a species description is
accepting by the ICBN, there is no question of disagreement, because the
plant is not only about its description.  That's what the journal Taxonomy
publishes, in fact, the disagreements precisely of this nature.  The
morphological descriptions of the plants themselves don't change that much.
There are a few exceptions.  However, in zoology, this is not the case, due
to the greater diversity of cellular structures and cell types found in
animals compared to plants.

But I don't know that the point to all of this is.  The descriptions of
plants from their primary sources are not generally used as sources for
Wikipedia articles.  For one thing, they're written in botanical Latin.  KP


from_name: Steve Bennett

body:
On 3/25/07, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> Seriously, the whole "personality cult" thing loses all meaning if it
> automatically applies to anyone who has successfully led anything.
> Surely there must be some sort of leadership which involves something
> other than encouraging "cult" behaviors.

Yeah. I could have bought the "personality cult" thing if Wikipedia
was like 100 people. But at the size we are, it's grasping at straws.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Out of process deletions

body:
On 3/25/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:

> No, that's why we have BLP. Malicious material may be reverted and deleted without limit > by any user.

And if it's deleted for that reason and no other admin restores it then fine.

Quoting BLB 3

"Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and
controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to,
should delete the article without discussion"

I'm assuming that admins are reasonable people, otherwise they
shouldn't be admins. Therefore, if admin Foo, speedy deletes a bio
because he feels that there is no NPOV version to revert to and that
deletion is reverted by admin BAR, then admin BAR reasonably  believes
that the bio can be made NPOV.

At this point what would be better, to discuss the deletion "in
process" or have wheel war with the article being deleted and restored
over and over again?


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikimedia Foundation sued

body:
On 3/25/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 25/03/07, K P <kpbotany at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Only the last part is problematic, why are we quoting blogs making
> > allegations about somebody?  Teresa Nielsen Hayden should be
> specifically
> > identified in the text of the article, who she is, what her notability
> is
> > for saying this, and her page wikilinked.
>
>
> This is one of those things that is obvious if you're in the SF field
> - i.e., the Nielsen-Haydens are highly respected editors, and their
> blog is not your average blog any more than Groklaw is.
>
> Just how far out of our way should we have to go to justify references
> to those ignorant of the field who still consider their proudly
> ignorant opinion is just as valid on AFD as that of someone who
> actually has half a clue what they're talking about?
>
>
> - d.

Wikipedia is not a specialized encyclopedia with little subcultures limited
to their own reading, it is a general encyclopedia, and as such, I should be
able to read an article about a topic without knowing much about it, like
who the insiders are, and who the major players are.  This is, again, one of
those things that folks fight against tooth and nail on FAC, but when they
rewrite the articles for a general audience at my insistence (for the few
unlucky ones whose articles  I edit), they ALL agree the articles are better
and more appropriate and more in line with Wikipedia policies and
guidelines.  In addition this takes care of BLP issues.  It takes care of a
lot, most of all it makes Wikipedia in line with its goals: being a general
encyclopedia.

This article is not written FOR readers of Science Fiction.  It is written
for users of Wikipedia.

KP


from_name: Jeff Raymond

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikimedia Foundation sued

body:
Cary Bass wrote:

> I will say this much.  In a cursory review of the situation, nothing should
> be done with regard to the restoration of this article until the Wikimedia
> Foundation office has had a chance to look at it in an official capacity; no
> matter what consensus Deletion Review may encounter.  This will occur some
> time after 13h00 (UTC) Monday, March 26, when the office is open.

DRV won't conclude until Thursday, so there's no concern there of any
restoration happening before then.

-Jeff

--
Name: Jeff Raymond
E-mail: jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com
WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com
IM: badlydrawnjeff
Quote: "I was always a fan of Lisa Loeb, particularly
	because you kind of get the impression she
	sang every song either about or to her cats.
	They seem to be the driving force in most of
	her creative process."     - Chuck Klosterman


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] ArbCom pages and Google

body:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ruud Koot [mailto:r.koot at students.uu.nl]
>Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 03:30 PM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] ArbCom pages and Google
>
>Do we want ArbCom pages where the accused's real identity is revealed
>(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Carl_Hewitt)
>to appear on Google, especially given the fact that searching for the
>accused's name will result in this page appearing as the second entry
>(just after the Wikipedia article on him?)
>
>--Ruud

Probably not. You have picked a good example, but there are others.

Fred


from_name: Andrew Gray

body:
On 25/03/07, bobolozo <bobolozo at yahoo.com> wrote:
> In case anyone is interested, I ended up writing an
> essay about this, at [[Wikipedia:Articles about
> words]], attempting to explain in an objective and
> not-so-critical way what our non-policy is on articles
> about words.

Inclusion policy is, broadly speaking, descriptive; so a bizzare and
arcane non-policy is, basically, just a somewhat confusing practical
implementation of a policy... :-)

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


from_name: Nick Wilkins

body:
On 3/25/07, Keith Old <keithold at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Associated Press  reports that Citizendium will launch this week.
>
> <snip>
>
> It will be interesting to see what they actually deliver as opposed to
> talking about delivering.
>
> <snip

My first click of the "random page" button brought me to
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Choosing_a_horse.

My second brought me to http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Liechtenstein, which
is clearly taken directly from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liechtensteinwithout any attribution
whatsoever.  They've even left in most of the image
links and template calls, not to mention the great mass of red at the bottom
where our interwiki links are.

-- Jonel


subject: [WikiEN-l] Radical redefinition of OR

body:
On 3/21/07, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> Steve Bennett wrote:
> > What the hell is going on here? Some of the sentences Jimbo removed:
> > "In 2002 the owners of the Mega Society, a high IQ society, filed suit
> > against Langan and his wife, Gina LoSasso, for unauthorized use of the
> > society's trademarks and trade names.[29][30][31]"
> >
> > This is original research?
>
> Yes.  To my knowledge, this has never been written up in any newspaper,
> magazine, or book.  It was discovered by reading websites that I think
> we would all agree are not themselves reliable sources and by
> referencing official court documents.  The case, what happened in it,
> the outcome, are all matters of interpretation involving original
> research, and indeed the question of whether or not this is important
> enough to include (raising questions of undue weight) is in this case
> original research.

I objected to the removal of two pieces of information:
1) About the history of the organisation, as claimed by the
organisation itself. You don't offer any explanation for removing
this.
2) The fact of the lawsuit taking place. I can see how the outcome
could be subject to interpretation, but what's to interpret about
"Party A sued Party B?"

Now, obviously this whole matter arose out of some kind of complaint,
so we're working backwards. Had we not known that there would be a
complaint, would we really have removed these statements? It's easy to
come along afterwards and say "that's OR! we must remove it!" But if
we went through Wikipedia removing every statement of that kind, there
wouldn't be all that much.

This is my objection to what I called Jimbo's "drive by" style:
someone calls his attention to a problem, and he says "this should
never have been allowed". But the rest of us don't have this power of
hindsight: we have to make decisions in advance of any complaint
directed against the Foundation. And the policies, including WP:OR,
just aren't that helpful.
 So the vast majority of the time we err on the side of
informativeness: it's informative to say "X was a splinter group that
broke off from Y, then Y's founder sued X's founder."[1]

[1] I've probably got this all wrong. Pity it's not written up
somewhere in a freely available encyclopaedia.

>I made no policy declarations.  I responded to an ACTIVE WP:BLP
complaint by taking an action perfectly within policy

Policy that only serves to hit us over the head rather than guide us
is not good policy. WP:OR is great for explaining what we did wrong.
But it doesn't help us write a good encyclopaedia.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] ArbCom pages and Google

body:
Matthew Brown wrote:
>
> On 3/25/07, Ruud Koot <r.koot at students.uu.nl> wrote:
> > Do we want ArbCom pages where the accused's real identity is revealed
> >
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Carl_Hewi
> tt)
> > to appear on Google, especially given the fact that searching for the
> > accused's name will result in this page appearing as the second entry
> > (just after the Wikipedia article on him?)
>
> I don't think we should delete this information, and certainly not
> oversight it.  On the other hand, it should probably not be indexed in
> Google.
>
> -Matt
>

I believe we request a feature that allows the pages to be available to
logged in users only.  This would prevent Google spidering while allowing
the pages to be seen by any logged-in user.

Cary


from_name: Earle Martin

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikimedia Foundation sued

body:
On 25/03/07, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:
> Here's the cache version so people know what we're running from:
>
> http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:q77ZSufuJzMJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Bauer+%22Barbara+Bauer%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us

Hell hath no fury like a cabaret singer scorned.

--
Earle Martin
            http://downlode.org/
http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/


from_name: Rob Church

body:
On 25/03/07, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
> Is it happening with any other browsers? I seem to vaguely recall some
> previous discussion on this problem, possibly late last year.

Opera seems to be capable of resolving the CSS link and downloads the
CSS files when using the "save as [with images]" option; IE 7 behaves
like Firefox, and doesn't seem to cope.

Rob Church


body:
On 25/03/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Jesus and Mohammed have each had over a billion recruited into their
> cults, and they are no longer in a position to do anything about it.

Can people kindly satisfy themselves by inviting flame wars about
religion somewhere else than on this list, please? Thanks.

--
Earle Martin
            http://downlode.org/
http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/


subject: [WikiEN-l] ArbCom pages and Google

body:
On 25/03/07, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) <newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> Fred, if the Arbitration Committee authorizes, the Clerks can set up a
> procedure for dealing with such pages.  Please advise how the committee
> would like this handled.

Most obvious solution would be to blank it, label as archived, and
leave a link to the most recent revision.

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


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] ArbCom pages and Google

body:
On 3/25/07, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) <newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> In one prior case, the Evidence and Workshop pages were archived to history
> and protected in that form, meaning that the text can be read by interested
> Wikipedians using the edit history but would not show up in a Google
> search.  I do not know if this has been done before with a final decision,
> however.
>
> Is it possible to mark a specific page no-follow to put it outside the
> parameters for a Google scrape of the site?
>

sure move it to wikipedia:articles for deletion/whatever.

--
geni


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikimedia Foundation sued

body:
On 25/03/07, K P <kpbotany at gmail.com> wrote:

> Only the last part is problematic, why are we quoting blogs making
> allegations about somebody?  Teresa Nielsen Hayden should be specifically
> identified in the text of the article, who she is, what her notability is
> for saying this, and her page wikilinked.

This is one of those things that is obvious if you're in the SF field
- i.e., the Nielsen-Haydens are highly respected editors, and their
blog is not your average blog any more than Groklaw is.

Just how far out of our way should we have to go to justify references
to those ignorant of the field who still consider their proudly
ignorant opinion is just as valid on AFD as that of someone who
actually has half a clue what they're talking about?

- d.


from_name: ikiroid

body:
Well, they appear to have a nice system worked out, for example:
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Category:Linguistics_Workgroup
They've outlined some nice methods of communication, and it's all very
user-friendly and aesthetic.

If I wasn't so speculative about its licensing and paranoid about my
identity, I would set up an account.


from_name: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikimedia Foundation sued

body:
"Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)" wrote

> I think we need some input from the Office as to how this situation should
> be handled on-wiki.

Maybe. But the deletion of a badly-sourced attack piece biography would not be the problem.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam


body:
Gwern Branwen wrote

> Heck, just biographies alone could get us to dozens or hundreds of
> millions of articles:
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Piotrus/Wikipedia_interwiki_and_specialized_knowledge_test>

Well, not 100,000,000, surely. But currently we only have a proportion of the names in any serious academic text, say around 50%.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam


from_name: NSLE (Wikipedia)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikimedia Foundation sued

body:
Probably a bit out-of-place humour, but...

Too bad it wasn't in Trenton, New Jersey.


from_name: Ruud Koot

subject: [WikiEN-l] ArbCom pages and Google

body:
Do we want ArbCom pages where the accused's real identity is revealed
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Carl_Hewitt)
to appear on Google, especially given the fact that searching for the
accused's name will result in this page appearing as the second entry
(just after the Wikipedia article on him?)

--Ruud


from_name: Rory Stolzenberg

body:
On 3/25/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You don't have to be an expert to write perfectly fine articles as long as
> you know how to research.
> All Citizendium's requirements will do is stem the incoming flow of
> editors.
>
> Mgm

Citizendium doesn't require all editors to be experts; anyone can sign up.


from_name: Ron Ritzman

body:
On 3/25/07, Rory Stolzenberg <rory096 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Citizendium doesn't require all editors to be experts; anyone can sign up.

Actually "editors" on CZ do have to be experts. "Authors" don't.


subject: [WikiEN-l] ArbCom pages and Google

body:
How should such cases be handled? Deleting the page, blanking it
(completely or only leaving a link to a previous version behind?) Maybe
administrators should have an option to "protect" the page from being
indexed by search engines.

--Ruud

Fred Bauder wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ruud Koot [mailto:r.koot at students.uu.nl]
>> Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 03:30 PM
>> To: 'English Wikipedia'
>> Subject: [WikiEN-l] ArbCom pages and Google
>>
>> Do we want ArbCom pages where the accused's real identity is revealed
>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Carl_Hewitt)
>> to appear on Google, especially given the fact that searching for the
>> accused's name will result in this page appearing as the second entry
>> (just after the Wikipedia article on him?)
>>
>> --Ruud
>
> Probably not. You have picked a good example, but there are others.
>
> Fred
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
This part of their policy is almost funny seeing how much we all just
"love" WP:TLAs

"No initialisms. The Policy pages of the Citizendium may not contain
any three-letter "initialisms." For example, "IAR," "NOR," and "AFD"
are three letter initialisms. These expressions are a considerable
problem for new users who are unfamiliar with them. The first time a
user introduces such an expression in a policy page, he/she will be
warned and the expression removed. The second time a user repeats this
offense, he will be banned for a suitable amount of time.?


body:
On 3/25/07, Ron Ritzman <ritzman at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/25/07, Rory Stolzenberg <rory096 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Citizendium doesn't require all editors to be experts; anyone can sign
> up.
>
> Actually "editors" on CZ do have to be experts. "Authors" don't.

Technically true, but I don't think Mgm meant editors in the CZ sense, I
think he meant "people who edit."


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikimedia Foundation sued

body:
She may have filed a suit, but she's never going to follow through with it,
because if she does Writer Beware (the anti-scammer bit of the Science
Fiction Writers of America) have a nice big file of people who can give
evidence against her and who she still owns a lot of money. This is never
going to fly.

I'd like to see her article kept with the most proper of citations, but if
it stays deleted, I won't cry much. I Google search on Bauer will yield the
searcher Writer Beware info if there's no Wikipedia page.

I'll await the outcome of this eagerly. Writer Beware put a scammer behind
bars recently and I know they'll make the best of efforts to stop Bauer too.

Mgm


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Radical redefinition of OR

body:
Delirium wrote:

>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>
>>Delirium wrote:
>>
>>
>>>That is no more useful or desirable than going to
>>>[[Neutrino]] and seeing original physical research that some physics
>>>crank has decided to publish on Wikipedia.  If you've made novel
>>>historical discoveries by digging through primary sources, then great,
>>>but Wikipedia is not the place to publish them any more than it's the
>>>place to publish your novel physics discoveries.
>>>
>>>
>>The difference is the one betwen invention and discovery, and the
>>physics example is one of invention, not discovery.  In discovery we
>>find what was already there, and invention only becomes a factor in
>>historical research when the authenticity of the documents is disputed.
>>
>>
>This seems like a strange distinction to me. I have never heard of
>physics discoveries being referred to as "inventions"; one might invent
>a machine that helps in making those discoveries, but the discoveries
>are simply finding what is already there.
>
I wouldn't consider the crackpot ideas in physices to be discovering
what was already there

>What makes it original
>research is that you're the first to have claimed to find it.  In such
>cases (whether in physics or history), the proper place to put forth
>your claimed discoveries is in a journal or some other such place where
>they can be evaluated (and possibly refuted) by others.
>
If I read that strictly not even Hansard or The Congressional Record are
acceptable sources.  In fact there are many old collections of documents
that have been published without being vetted by the history establishment.

>As for whether the authenticity of documents is disputed, that's exactly
>the sort of thing we should be relying on secondary sources to
>determine.  If I find some random archival document that *appears* to
>say something about World War II, it would be inappropriate for me to
>start relying on it in the article by citing it; I should instead see
>what historians have said about it, how it's been interpreted before, if
>there is consensus or disagreement on its authenticity or implications,
>etc.  If it's never been mentioned before, I would have to conclude that
>its authenticity and implications are unknown.  There are many journals
>devoted to hashing out that sort of thing, and we shouldn't be
>replicating their work on talk pages, imo.
>
My reference to invented or forged documents was as an exception.
Otherwise respectable professionals are frequently bambozled as was the
case with Die Stern a few years ago over certain WWII era diaries.  For
the sake of clarity let's confine the discussion to documents about
which authenticity is not a factor.

There are more documents (good documents) languishing in archives than
can ever be processed by an army of historians.  Part of our mission is
to make knowledge freely available to all.  This may or may not be in
anencyclopedic format; if not then it belongs in some other
wikiproject.  There is also much more to history than the broad brush
strokes of global events  The histories of all those Rambot included
towns are also worth including, and the corpus of that material is
growing faster than the number of historians available for writing it up.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikimedia Foundation sued

body:
I'm impressed, this is the first message I get about a possible Bauer
lawsuit. Normally I get this info from writing related sites, but so far
none of the ones I frequent mention it. You've got a scoop.

Mgm


subject: [WikiEN-l] ArbCom pages and Google

body:
Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
> Is it possible to mark a specific page no-follow to put it outside the
> parameters for a Google scrape of the site?

I filed a feature request: http://bugs.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9415

--Ruud


subject: [WikiEN-l] Radical redefinition of OR

body:
> It's hard to know what brought on this personal attack.  If there is
> anything "subtly misleading" in my posts let him present the facts that
> support that.  Otherwise, I can only assume that Charles' statement was
> made out of the sheer pleasure of being argumentative.
>
> Ray

Went through my Trash folder, results appended (my comments in [ ]).

Charles

*We have no need to be strict about notability. [Oh really]

*Having "non-encyclopedic topics" (whatever that means) does not make us a worse encyclopaedia. [Not ?whatever that means?]

*>>Scientific papers are secondary sources. The experimental or
>>observational data that the papers draw on are the primary sources.
>>
>>
>The data is usually published in the paper, so the paper is the primary source.

Another non-sequitur. [Silly quibble with Thomas Dalrton.]

*Idolatry is not a valid basis for argument.  [Personal attack on Steve Bennett or stevertigo, or someone]

*I think your response is just another way of saying that you do not know. [Sort of personal attack or sniping at stevertigo]

*Much of what is said to the media in a first instance (is) off the cuff and not necessarily supported by a broad consensus. [Well, an individual is being interviewed.]

*Stonewalling is indeed an effective tactic.  The only problem with it is that it pisses people off just as effectively. [Silence is golden, you know. Contradicts the ?off the cuff? comment, too.]

*[>Because the topic of Wikipedia's governance and processes of control
>are typical fodder for trolls, who are far more interested in hurting
>the project than helping it.

That's like saying that democracy is too precious to be put under the
control of the general population. [Oh really. Arguing with stevertigo again. Trolls really do go wild about constitutional definitions.]

*>And indeed, a constitutional monarchy is the best analogy for the
>English Wikipedia at the moment.

Charles I discovered the hard way that there are limits to monarchy. [He wasn?t  a constitutional monarch, as you know. Seems to be sniping at Jimbo now.]

*When a process becomes backlogged it is evidently not scaling well. [No.]

*>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons
>suggests that whether or not primary sources can be used depends on
>how public the figure is. For non-public figures, it says "material
>from primary sources should generally not be used," whereas for public
>figures it says "material from primary sources should be used with
>care" though that is under the heading "Presumption in favor of
>privacy".

Court judgements (and, for that matter, court filings by the disputants,
and even trial transcripts) are a matter of public record.  This is an
important component to maintaining the transparency of the judicial
system.  Privacy should not be a factor with this kind of material. [Privacy is written into WP:BLP, so this is not the point at all.]

*Being "not supposed to do it" is not a strong enough excuse for not
doing it.  One shouldn't become doctrinnaire about sources when an
article is just started; that only quashes the inspiration to do
something. [Wrong. And somewhat wrong.]

*Fractal systems incorporate a lot of randomness. [Tosh. They may or may not.]

* I do not believe that reliability should be or even can be one of our goals. [Really.]

*The queen retains her power by not exercisiing it. [Bad history ? 1973 general election.]

*A statistical mathematical model should be capable of marginalizing the effect that idiots have on the article. [Or not.]

*The alternative would be for the reporters to learn what putting Wikipedia in proper perspective means.  They might even have to check their facts. That would not be the easy way out for them. [Implication that our coverage suffers from a lack of professionalism. Anyone believe this is helpful?]

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam


subject: [WikiEN-l] Out of process deletions

body:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ron Ritzman [mailto:ritzman at gmail.com]
>Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 05:33 PM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] Out of process deletions
>
>On 3/25/07, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com
><charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> "Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)" wrote
>>
>> > I think we need some input from the Office as to how this situation should
>> > be handled on-wiki.
>>
>> Maybe. But the deletion of a badly-sourced attack piece biography would not be the       > problem.
>
>And that's exactly why we have CSD, AFD, PROD etc.
>
>"Out of process" deletions have their uses and the ability to do them
>is a necessary tool in fighting the firehose of crap but I offer this
>proposal to avoid any more Brandt type wheel wars..
>
>If an admin makes an "out of process" deletion, then any other admin
>if free to restore the article without prejudice. If restored, it
>cannot be deleted again by anyone without going through one of the
>established deletion processes. (AFD, CSD, etc) If the admin who
>originally deleted it, deletes it again, he is subject to the
>immediate loss of his admin privs. If deleted by another admin, he is
>informed that it is a contested "out of process" delete and the
>article is restored again. If he deletes it again, he could lose his
>privs.
>
>This protection shouldn't last forever though. After a certain amount
>of time has passed, perhaps a month or 3 (that can be determined by
>consensus) someone can try to "OOP" it again.

No, that's why we have BLP. Malicious material may be reverted and deleted without limit by any user. There will be no penalty forthcoming from the arbitration committee for such actions. Normal penalties will apply to users restoring such material.

Fred


body:
You don't have to be an expert to write perfectly fine articles as long as
you know how to research.
All Citizendium's requirements will do is stem the incoming flow of editors.

Mgm

On 3/25/07, Daniel P. B. Smith <wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com> wrote:
>
> > From: bobolozo <bobolozo at yahoo.com>
>
> > In other words, anyone can sign up, claim their name
> > is John Johnson from Wisconsin, submit a fake bio, and
> > be an editor.
>
> My name is Yon Yonson, I come from Visconsin, I vork in a lumbermill
> dere;
> De people I meet ven I valk down the street, they say "Vat's your
> name?" and I say
> "My name is Yon Yonson, I come from Visconsin, I vork in a lumbermill
> dere;
> De people...
>
> NOOOO!  NOOO!! Make it stop!
>
> Maybe I can exorcise it:
>
> Conductor, when you receive a fare,
> Punch in the presence of the passenjare!
> A blue trip slip for an eight-cent fare,
> A buff trip slip for a six-cent fare,
> A pink trip slip for a three-cent fare,
> Punch in the presence of the passenjare!
> Punch, brothers! punch with care!
> Punch in the presence of the passenjare!"
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [Wikitech-l] strange data loss from recentchanges table

body:
On 26/03/07, Nino Novak <nino at kflog.org> wrote:
> Any possible (automated?) script which deletes recent changes table?

It happens every few requests; the software itself deals with it.

> Which one? (And why?)

Prune the table to keep it free of expired data.

> Any possibility to rebuild recent changes table from page history data?

maintenance/rebuildRecentChanges.php, although it might ignore the
entries if MediaWiki has deleted them for being "old" - you could
raise the $wgRCMaxAge value (or whatever it's called...check
DefaultSettings.php)

Rob Church