from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [Wikitech-l] templatelinks-related changes

body:
The new template inclusion tracking code is now live. Here's the
description of it from RELEASE-NOTES in case you missed it:

* Added templatelinks table, to track template inclusions. User-visible
effects
   will be:
   * (inclusion) tag for inclusions in Special:Whatlinkshere
   * More accurate list of used templates on the edit page
   * More reliable cache invalidation when templates outside the template
     namespace are changed

There were a few teething problems when it was introduced. The following
are now fixed:
* Random fatal errors from OutputPage.php line 230, BoardVote.php line 6
and LinksUpdate line 158 due to sync problems on srv11, srv50 and some
other server. Root cause unclear.
* Save and some other functions broken on yaseo wikis (ja, th, ms and ko
wikipedia), forgot to apply schema update.
* Missing page list from category pages, due to index.php being pinned
at version 1.111 in the live copy.
* Missing or broken category list on image pages, redirects and preview
pages, bug.
* Undelete broken, bug.
* Special:Whatlinkshere for certain templates showing only half the
requested number of pages, bug.

Please mark any related bug reports (on or off bugzilla) as resolved,
unless they can be reproduced at the present time.

The (inclusion) tag in [[Special:Whatlinkshere]] is currently based on
whether the target page is in the template namespace or not. This will
progressively be fixed over the next week or so, as refreshLinks.php
works its way through several million articles.

Here's the more technically-oriented commit message describing my changes:

* Added templatelinks table. The table currently represents a literal
list of templates included from each article. That is, the table
contains pages which were actually loaded during parsing, not the markup
which went into resolving their names.
* Ended the role of $wgLinkCache in link updates. Instead, links (and
related entities) are registered in the ParserOutput object during a
parse. The LinksUpdate constructor now takes a ParserOutput object as a
parameter. $wgLinkCache is still used, but only as a cache of article IDs.
* Because the link list is now saved and restored in the parser cache,
meta tag keywords now work on parser cache hits. Some refactoring took
place in this area.
* Rendering of the HTML for category links has moved from Parser to
OutputPage.
* Did some general pottering around in Article.php, such as allowing an
Article object to be created with a specified revision ID, thereby
optionally removing the dependence on $wgRequest. Not used at the
current time.
* A few documentation tweaks.

-- Tim Starling


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Nick Boalch

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Ads on Wikipedia?

body:
Anthere wrote:
> However, current advertisement models show that the best revenues are
> gathered from targetted advertisement.

To be honest, it's this aspect and its various implications that worries
me the most.

Let's say McDonald's pays us $500,000 to put an ad on [[Fast food]]. Is
that compliant with [[WP:NPOV]]?

What happens if McDonald's will pay us $500,000 to put an ad on [[Fast
food]], but only if we nix the 'Nutritional value' section?

Cheers,

N.

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


list: foundation-l

from_name: Sam Korn

subject: [Foundation-l] Happy new year

body:
??????????? ?? ??? ????!
Feliz Ano Novo!

On 1/2/06, Aphaia <aphaia at gmail.com> wrote:
> ?????????????????
> Frohes jeue Jahr zu uns allen und der ganzen Welt (knuddeln)
> Buon nuovo anno a tutti (baccioni)
>
> Aphaia / Kizu Naoko

--
Sam


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Happy new year


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Jeremy Dunck

subject: [Wikitech-l] Suggestion for future fundraisings

body:
This comment on slashdot isn't ignorant:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=172759&cid=14379365
"
I've donated to Wikipedia twice in a year. At this point, I've given
probably four times the amount of money that I would for, say,
Encarta. I love Wikipedia, but 1) I don't have a permanent copy of it
on a DVD, like I would for Encarta, and 2) I feel like I'm being
"forced" to buy the latest upgrade of Wikipedia when they set up these
pleas for donations, since the performance of my encyclopedia directly
depends on these fund drives.
"

I know there's been a lot of discussion about making a WP 1.0 of
reviewed articles, but what do people think of giving out a DVD of
current text for donations over, say, $50?

This would be whatever's current at a point in time, with no guarantee
about the content accuracy.

I know there'd be some initial hardware cost for a mass burner and
some admin overhead, but I can see the point that donating to a
service is something done a little skeptically.

Thanks,
  Jeremy


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [Wikipedia-l] List of authors for each article

body:
On 1/2/06, Robert Bamler <Robert.Bamler at gmx.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm working on a Wikipedia reader for the Apple iPod. To minimize the data
> size occupied on the iPod I will only store the current articles on the
> device (no "old"-table). However, the GFDL requires to mention the authors of
> an article. Thus, each article on the iPod should contain a list of all
> Wikipedia-users that appear in the revision history.
>
> So, finally, my question is: Is there a way to get a list of the authors of
> each article without having to download the (extremely large) xmldump of all
> wikipedia-articles ever written since the beginning of time? I've already
> tried the online SQL querying mechanism, but it seems to limit queries to
> 1000 results and to not support queries on the "old"-table.
>
AFAIK there is no easy way to do this on a per-article basis.  You
could get the information for a copy of Wikipedia that's a few months
old at http://static.wikipedia.org/en/index.html .  Or you could write
a parser to scrape the action=history info.  Or you could download the
entire old table dumps and then parse them.  But none of these are
very easy or convenient.

Of course the GFDL allows aggregation of multiple GFDLed works into
one - if you want the list of all contributors to Wikipedia you can
get it at http://www.wikipedia.org/wikistats/csv/StatisticsUsers.csv .
 I've found this to be the only reasonable way to become compliant
without resorting to scraping.

> By the way, another question comes to my mind: If a contributor to an article
> wasn't logged in, do I have to mention his IP-number in the list of authors?
> I don't think this would make much sense, but perhaps it's legally required
> by the GFDL. Or is it sufficient to make the reader application display the
> string "There might be other (anonymous) contributors to this article"?
>
> I'm looking forward to your replies,
> Robert

Personally I take the position that someone who contributes to
Wikipedia without providing a name or pseudonym has waived her right
to attribution under the GFDL.  That may or may not be a correct
interpretation of the law.  But anonymous contributions are legally so
dubious anyway - a third party has basically no evidence that the
content was ever released under the GFDL in the first place.  If
someone complains about an anonymous contribution you've basically got
to just meet their demands or remove the contribution, hope they don't
sue you for past damages, and hope that if they do sue you that you
can convince the judge to award some miniscule amount in damages.
Frankly, if someone complains about a non-anonymous contribution you
should probably do the same thing.  Relying on a third party
click-through licensing agreement is not likely to hold up in court.

Anthony


from_name: Rob

subject: [WikiEN-l] Ads and image licensing

body:
On 1/2/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/2/06, Rob <gamaliel8 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > It's good that we're aware of the potential downfall of ads, but I'm not
> > sure a lot of these negative
> > scenarios are relevant.  I'd think WP would be in a strong enough
> position
> > to dictate terms to prevent flashy obtrusive blinking ads which would
> slow
> > down the servers.
>
> Not really. The people who buy advertiseing space want ads that work.
>

Google seems to do a good job of avoiding these pitfalls, I don't see why we
couldn't do the same if WP chose to run ads.


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Foundation-l] MediaWiki Handbook, i.e. Help pages

body:
Robert Scott Horning wrote:

> I've been trying to find out the origin of a "policy" on Wikimedia
> projects, and I'd like some help to see just where the discussion
> about this is at and where the origins of the policy came from.  Most
> of the Wikimedia projects copy the help pages from Meta, usually with
> a strong disclaimer that you shouldn't edit the copied pages but
> instead try to contribute to the pages on Meta.
>
> My question is this:  Why are the pages copied to the other projects
> at all?  Is there a strong technical reason to have this content
> duplicated multiple times across multiple projects?  Who made the
> decision to have all of this content duplicated?  Where is an
> appropriate forum for even discussing this policy and where is the
> policy even written down?

The same thing has been happening at Wiktionary with the same bot has
been doing this on Wiktionary as on Wikibooks.  It seems to have started
about a month ago but I did not notice it until recently.  That comes as
no surprise since experienced participants don't normally have a need to
look at the help pages.  If I hadn't wanted to do some editing of
newcomer information it could have gone on unnoticed mudh longer.  I
have thus far blanked the disclaimer template.  Until this can be
resolved Wiktionarians should feel completely free to edit these pages,
and overwriting their edits with this bot should be subject to being
reverted.  I have also asked the owner of the bot to stop.  If need be I
will have no qualms about blocking the bot if it does any further importing.

It would make sense to use such pages on a new project that has not yet
established its own procedures; that project could then feel free to
modify these pages as its circumstances required.  As you can see I
attach very high importance to the autonomy of the projects, and except
for a few obviously necessary principles such as NPOV, each project
should be free to set its own policies.

In theory the discussion would be taking place on some Meta page, and
all the people who regularly participate in Meta would have the right to
have input into the policy.  Extending the theory further the least that
should happen if you are going to have these policies affect other
projects is to notify the separate communities that the discussion is
about to take place.  This has not been done at Wiktionary, and it is
apparent that it has not been done at Wikibooks either.  Even if the
discussins were to take place on Meta, what provisions would there be to
prevent a "tyranny of the majority" from imposing its views on projects
that may be doing things differently.  Wikis depend very much on
respecting the rights of members to establish their own rules, and
policies.  By making these pages effectively uneditable by anyone in the
project (by saying that any edits will be ignored and botted over) this
person has clearly gone against the openness that characterizes a wiki.

> I got into an editorial dispute with another admin on Wikibooks, where
> I was having the help pages simply redirect to Meta (including the
> MediaWiki:Edithelppage location) to point users directly to the
> original source rather than trying to duplicate the content on
> Wikibook.  These changes were reverted back, so I started a VfD on
> Wikibooks over this whole thing to get community input on the
> concept.  So far, it is accepted as gospel fact that this content must
> be duplicated, but I am challenging that assertion and trying to find
> out why it is done in this manner.

I've just read through the Wikibooks VfD discussion on this, and find it
unfortunate that this was the avenue chosen for this discussion.  I
don't think that it's a deletion issue at.  Some of the pages are
probably very useful; if one of them fills a policy hole I don't mond
it's staying there for the time being.  It's really a question of
project members' rights to edit the pages.    A see also link to the
corresponding page in Meta should be adequate for having access to the
information there.

> My main argument for getting rid of these pages on Wikibooks (and
> perhaps other Wikimedia projects) is that not only do they take up
> server space, but they are also vandalism targets and seldom on the
> watchlist of any users.  In addition, because the editorial effort is
> taking place on Meta they tend to go stale rather quickly and don't
> the the attention of the active regular users on the project.  Making
> the help pages protected may be an option, but that keeps the pages
> "frozen" with no ability to update the content if it improves on Meta
> except through direct admin intervention.  I am not advocating the
> removal of the Help namespace, just the end of duplication of the
> MediaWiki handbook.
>
> Right now a user on Wikibooks has created a 'bot (without the bot flag
> in place as well... another issue for another day) that occasionally
> duplicates the help content on Meta and copies it over to Wikibooks
> and other Wikimedia projects as well.  As this is just a single user's
> pet project, there is no scheduled update for transfering the help
> pages either.  This also causes problems typical of a 'bot like
> overwriting talk page discussions, but it does help keep the help
> pages coordinated.

The operation of these rogue bots is another issue.  The purpose of bot
flags has been only to prevent these edits from appearing on Recent
Changes.  Bots often continue to function without approval as long as
its edits come within easily achived guidelines for frequency of use.  I
think that projects need to develop much tighter controls over the
operation of bots, but that's a major other topic.

> Mind you, I'm not trying to disparage the very valiant effort of those
> who have been writing this content for the MediaWiki handbook.  This
> is a largely thankless job that is critical to all of the MediaWiki
> users, beyond just the Wikimedia sister projects.  Steady improvements
> in the content have occured over this past year, together with minor
> changes in the MediaWiki software that have generally been reflected
> in the documentation as well.  A general thank-you to all who have
> been involved with its development is certainly in order.

I agree with you there too.  Most of the content is indeed very good and
useful. It's the duplication that is mindless, along with the total lack
of provision to change or even comment about it on the talk page.

Ec

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Ads and image licensing

body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:

>On 1/1/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I think what you are trying to ask -- and I don't know the answer --
>>is whether or not a not-for-profit organization in the U.S. would be
>>allowed to generate revenue by hosting advertising. I can't imagine
>>Mediawiki would even consider something which would endanger its
>>not-for-profit status so I doubt this is a problem. It'd still be
>>"non-commercial" in both a legal and ethical sense.
>>
>>FF
>>
>>
>If the WMF just started slapping ads on Wikipedia and generated tens
>of millions of dollars of revenue they'd be in a precarious situation
>when tax time rolled around.  I'm sure the directors of the foundation
>would get professional legal advice and possibly an official IRS
>private letter ruling, before they'd do such a thing.
>
There are indeed many IRS intricacies relating to the operation of
nonprofit societies.  I'm sure too that if ads were a realistic
considerations we would take all necessary steps to ensure that the
status would be protected.  A Private Letter Ruling may be a little over
the top in what needs to be done.

The debate is over whether to have ads at all.  The tax situation is not
relevant to that question.

Ec


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia vs CNN

body:
--- Ben Yates <bluephonic at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hmm -- doesn't look like alexa lets you link to comparisons (or if it
> does, I don't know how) -- type cnn.com into the box below the graph
> to see the dethroning. :p

You have to hack the url:
http://traffic.alexa.com/graph?w=940&h=580&r=6y&y=p&u=wikipedia.org/&u=cnn.com

-- mav

__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com


from_name: Brock Batsell

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Developer help
	needed

body:
Fred Bauder wrote:
> The problem is that semi-protection as now coded relies on % of users
> rather than on measurement of edits. This permits stockpiling of
> sleeper accounts which can later be activated as sockpuppets defeating
> semi-protection.
Semi-protection relies on time of registration (I believe it currently
prevents accounts registered in the previous 4 days from editing
semi-protected pages), but the point is still the same, as vandals could
employ the same mechanism (simply waiting out the 4 days).  Number of
edits would be a good measure.

--
Regards,
[[en:User:Bbatsell]]


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Ads on Wikipedia?

body:
Peter Mackay wrote:

>>From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
>>[mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Stan Shebs
>>
>>charles matthews wrote:
>>
>
>>>(i) If the market is really saying that there is a huge revenue
>>>available since people 'in general' don't mind ads (the good French
>>>verb is 'mithridatiser', I recall), why is no corporation not
>>>sincerely chasing this money with a high-quality WP clone?
>>>
>>Since there are already mirrors with ads, yes, there are
>>people chasing that money now. A high-quality clone that
>>could compete with WP's name recognition would require
>>significant investment up front, and take several years to
>>establish itself in the public's mind;
>>
>
>Your idealism and loyalty is laudable, but remember that in terms of
>quality, a teenager with a bit of Linux knowledge can download the whole lot
>for free and get it operational in an afternoon.*
>
That would be the "low-quality" clone. One Linux box is easily
slashdotted; the current WP installation laughs at Slashdot,
or so I'm told. Our teenager would have to buy 100+ machines
and get them all working in concert before going live.

>
>And I rather suspect that our "name recognition" is due more to being up
>near the top of Google search results than any other single factor. If
>Google developed their own product, I can confidently predict that it would
>be way cooler than WP, and that they would bump their own results above WP's
>in Google searches.
>
Well, their motto is supposedly "don't be evil", but of course if
they *were* truly evil, they would lie about their motto. :-)

Stan


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Ads on Wikipedia?

body:
Peter Mackay wrote:

> Your idealism and loyalty is laudable, but remember that in terms of
>
>quality, a teenager with a bit of Linux knowledge can download the whole lot
>for free and get it operational in an afternoon.*
>
We're not all teenagers.

Ec


from_name: Peter Mackay

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia micronation - Tirben

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Ray Saintonge
> Sent: Monday, 2 January 2006 13:57
>
> > In 2006, WPAir - the only national airline where the
> passengers are in
> > charge, and the planes are reconfigured by complete
> amateurs from the
> > moment of take-off.
>
> Every flight an adventure.  You never know where it's going to land.

Land? Every time we think the flight is complete, someone hauls back on the
stick, gooses the throttle and we're off again!

Pete (Skyring)


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Happy new year

body:
Jean-Christophe Chazalette wrote:
> Bonne annn?e 2006 ? tous ! Et pour Foundation, plus de transparence, plus de
> sinc?rit? et longue vie ! villy ~~Jean-Christophe

Hmmm, speaking of diplomacy here... I think it best to do as if mute and
deaf to your "kind" wishes. But please, in the future, address criticism
in an appropriate language, such as english, that all board members and
officers can understand.

--------

I will mostly wish for all wikipedians to keep full of energy,
motivation and free time, to go on offering dedication to wikimedia
projects with happiness.

I also hope to each of you to receive more thank you notes than criticism.

Along with health, friends, family and wealth, feeling useful should
help each of you to have a really great new year :-)

ant


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Happy new year


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Re: Tasks extension can now create tasks upon article
	creation

body:
Frando wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've just tested the tasks extension (btw: amazing work so far, should
> be launched in the wikipedias ASAP!) and found a rather important bug
> in Opera 8.1:
> On the "Tasks"-page on any article, the SELECT-List containing the
> task types for creating a new task is just not visible ;)
> It's visible on the left side in firefox and IE, but in opera there's
> just a white space...
Opera doesn't do "height=100%" correctly. Fixed in both CVS HEAD and
test site.
>
> So what has still to be done until it can be launched?
Well, for one thing it's not a priority, but lots of other stuff is. On
the other hand, it doesn't affect any of the "normal" wiki operations.
> Just testing or are still features missing?
Depends. Are there any features missing? :-)

I thought about a selector to specify a "subtype". So, if the task is
"expand", it would equal the "stub" template. But there are a gazillion
of stub templates; so the taks should get a "subtype" (e.g. "history")
to limit searches to history stubs ("Expand" tasks with subtype "history").

Or would that be overkill? We don't have to use the tasks for stubs,
after all.

Magnus


subject: [WikiEN-l] Ads and image licensing

body:
On 1/2/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/2/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > "I can't imagine Mediawiki would even consider something which would
> > endanger its not-for-profit status so I doubt this is a problem."  The
> > thing is, I doubt very many people are aware of all the intricacies of
> > US non-profit tax laws.  Most people don't know what UBTI even is.
>
> Why would WMF worry about not being not-for-profit if it were getting
> all its money from ads?  Is there some other benefit apart from being
> tax-exempt?  If the net financial gain would still be an increase in
> income, the paying tax seems irrelevant.
>
> Or have I missed something crucial?  (Note that I am British and take
> pride in knowing very little of the intricacies of US law.)
>
> --
> Sam

The excise taxes on running a non-profit organization as a for-profit
corporation go up to 200% if you don't eventually correct the
situation.  Yes, 200%, that means if you make $100 in net profits you
owe $200 in taxes.  You're much better off dissolving the non-profit
and forming a for-profit corporation than running a non-profit as a
for-profit :).

Of course in reality what would happen far before any of that took
place is that the WMF could form a for-profit company which would pay
taxes and would be owned by the non-profit.  That's how the IRS wants
you to do things, in essence it's how they force you to do things.

Anthony


from_name: Dariusz Siedlecki

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: CheckUser log

body:
2006/1/2, Rob Church <robchur(at)gmail.com>:
> Someone asked [1] if the log could be formatted in reverse order. I've
> implemented this in the CheckUser extension, but I've no idea what the
> done thing is when coaxing people to synchronise from the extensions
> module.
>
> Anyway, done that.

I missed the last discussion you linked, so let me give my quick comment here.

The log for CheckUser is awful right now. Here's an example of three
entries (IPs and usernames blanked):

18:30, 30 gru 2005 XXX got IPs for ZZZ
18:32, 30 gru 2005 XXX got edits for 127.0.0.1
20:15, December 30, 2005 YYY got edits for 127.0.0.1

First of all, there's no information on the project where the check was done.

Secondly, the dates are in the local format of the wiki on which the
check was done.

Third, you can't search the log.

Well, that's it. So... Could any developer take care of this, or
should I submit a bug to bugzilla?

--
Pozdrawiam,
Dariusz "Datrio" Siedlecki


from_name: Peter Jacobi

subject: [Wikitech-l] Unblockable usernames?

body:
There's an impersonator on dewiki who added NBSP (U+00A0) to another user's
username. The impersonator's account seems to be unblockable by normal means
as the trailing NBSP at some stage of blocking gets stripped and the
legitimate user is blocked.

Is this problem known?

Is there a known workaround?

Regards,
Peter Jacobi

--
10 GB Mailbox, 100 FreeSMS/Monat http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail
+++ GMX - die erste Adresse f?r Mail, Message, More +++


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Ads on Wikipedia?

body:
On 1/2/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:

> If McDonalds got everybody at "Hamburger U" to spend five minutes of their
> day massaging the article the way they wanted, they would quickly 3RR any
> opponents into the ground and then devote themselves to stressing out the
> more dedicated defenders at admin and ArbCom level.

Very true, but McD's would open themselves up to potentially a whole lot of
negative publicity that would make McLibel look trivial in comparison.


from_name: Ben Yates

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia vs CNN

body:
Hmm -- doesn't look like alexa lets you link to comparisons (or if it
does, I don't know how) -- type cnn.com into the box below the graph
to see the dethroning. :p

On 1/1/06, Milos Rancic <millosh at mutualaid.org> wrote:
> CNN goes to history, too ;)
>
> http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&range=2y&size=large&y=r&url=wikipedia.org#top
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>
>

--
Ben Yates
Wikipedia blog - http://wikip.blogspot.com


from_name: Lisa Thurston

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Ads on Wikipedia

body:
I'm absolutely opposed to ads appearing anywhere on Wikipedia or any
commercially-influenced content for that matter. Jimbo says that people will
question "why miss out on all that revenue?" To me this is a backwards way
of looking at the question of ads. I say "why risk introducing ads if they
are not really needed?" Some argue they are "needed" because the foundation
needs more money. If this is the case, then the question should be "how can
Wikimedia generate revenue?"

Given the large number of reasons why there should not be ads (I won't
repeat all of them), Wikipedia and the Wikimedia foundation should be funded
by donations or other sources which can have no special influence over the
content. The donors ought to including big corporations, again with no
special privileges to commercially influence Wikipedia. These corporations
would be ones which derive value from Wikipedia by the mere fact that it
exists and has thousands of editors worldwide; whose business model depends
on the existence of Wikipedia, and the Wikipedia community which encourages
many individual contributions. [Recently, Lisa Lynch blogged about why
Google and Yahoo commercially benefit from Wikipedia and this is a very
important perspective. Wikipedia is very useful for microscale data
mining/analysis (regardless of what value it might have for the individual
readership)<http://www.futureofthebook.org/blog/archives/2005/12/why_google_and.html>].
Why shouldn't the companies making money from the Wikipedia data at the
microscale should be the primary funders of Wikipedia?

Lisa


subject: [WikiEN-l] Personal donations to Wikipedia

body:
Further to my email about ads on Wikipedia, I want to point out some
concerns I have about the current Wikimedia fundraising drive too.

Why haven't tax professionals been consulted to specify exactly what the
tax-deductibility status donations to Wikipedia have in the top donor
countries? It should be found out and explictly specified on the home page.
I for one won't donate without knowing my donation is tax-deductible in
Australia. And if, for instance, it did say "tax deductible in Australia"
Aussies *would* notice it instantly seriously consider donating!

In fact, if the answer for Australia or Canada or Sweden or whatever is "not
deductible" then Wikipedia should make a request for Wikipedians in those
countries to form local chapters to obtain the NGO/charity status. This
wouldn't just help Wikimedia out by generating more revenue, but create a
stronger Wikipedian community outside US and central Europe.

Lisa


from_name: Edward Z. Yang

subject: [Wikitech-l] WMF Exploits and MediaWiki

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

It seems like the subject as been brought up everywhere (such as English
Wikipedia's Village Pump and a Wikinews talk page), but it hasn't been
breached on wikitech-l yet. So that's what I'm going to do. It appears,
from [[wikinews:Talk:Microsoft Windows metafiles are a vector for
computer viruses]] that Commons accepts wmf files masquerading as ogg
files. The security of MediaWiki installations on Windows platforms is
also dubious.

For information purposes, what are the developers doing about it?
- --
 Edward Z. Yang      Personal: edwardzyang at thewritingpot.com
 SN:Ambush Commander Website: http://www.thewritingpot.com/
 GPGKey:0x869C48DA   http://www.thewritingpot.com/gpgpubkey.asc
 3FA8 E9A9 7385 B691 A6FC B3CB A933 BE7D 869C 48DA
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFDuahdqTO+fYacSNoRAlElAJ9/1vR8R65atXpBn3c1t7wCYQj3KwCfd3Q7
jar/kDpR87SF0jGXufv7Z8E=
=ObbN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Ads on Wikipedia

body:
Yes, perhaps I'm suggesting a bit of a radical approach to funding and
economics isn't my strong point, but just take a moment to really think
about how certain web-oriented companies would survive without Wikipedia...

From: "Peter Mackay" <peter.mackay at bigpond.com>
>
> Much as I appreciate and admire your principles, what you are proposing
> makes little sense if you go to the other side of the boardroom table. You
> might as well ask "Why don't individuals benefiting from Wikipedia
> contribute?", because a company is just a group of individuals, namely the
> shareholders. You are surely not suggesting that we have a log on screen
> so
> that anybody who might get a benefit from WP enter their credit card
> details
> before being granted access.

No I'm not suggesting that, Peter. I'm suggesting that, if Wikipedia was
genuinely threatened with collapse because of money issues, donations, both
corporate and personal would naturally flow in because they know how
important it is.

If, as you say, some large companies derive a commercial benefit from WP and
> should fund us, then what is to stop them from downloading MediaWiki,
> hiring
> some professionals, and building their own encyclopaedia, perhaps as a
> joint
> effort with Google along with toolbars and popups and so on? That way,
> they'd get the same benefits as well as control over the operation and a
> more focused product.

These companies have a vested interest in keeping the content in one format
and one space. While it's impractical to assume there will never be
special-interest web encyclopaedias, Wikipedia is clearly a very large and
well-read resource with possibly more contributors than any other
collaborative web space. As one of the "big players", Wikipedia, without any
commercial loyalties, will be favoured over other collaborative
encyclopaedias by both individual contributors and corporate donors.

Lisa


from_name: Johan Bos

body:
I would be very surprised when the mayority of the Dutch Wikipedia would
want Walter desysopped! Well, he is quite special, sometimes responding
vehement. So what! If you now him long enough, you will respect him as a
very valuable Wikipedia.

Greetz,

Johan Bos (nl:User:Jcb)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Walter van Kalken" <walter at vankalken.net>
To: <wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org>; "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
<foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 9:37 PM
Subject: [Foundation-l] I expect a desyssoppingprocedure soon

> I have totally had it with the dutch wikipedia so in a reactio today I
> let myself go and told them how I felt. I expect the quite large
> political correct brigade on nl.wikipedia to desyssop me soon. In which
> case I will voluntarily step down from all my work in wikimediaprojects.
> I am getting sick and tired of the debateclimate that seems to become
> more and more common. To spoil the fun of the political correct brigade
> here is the dutch original and english translation of what I said:
>
> /English:
> The guidelines suck they leave us no room to deal with pissheads like
> Verrekijker/Versieck. And on top of that someone threatened to desyssop
> me. Walter please mail that person that they have to do what they cannot
> let go. Please. I am sick and tired of the threatening behind my back,
> No one can blackmail me. I am doing everything that I feel is necessary
> to keep nl: wiki a good place voor the users that come here to edit and
> write an encyclopedia (99,99% of the users) and that they have
> discussions every now and then ... that is normal, it goes with the
> territory. I do not give a flying fuck though for the ruleinterpreters,
> the talkpage knights who only discuss because they like to discuss and
> the trolls. I hope that their computers will give them a deadly
> powershock.  We have only one rule as far as I am concerned and that is
> that we are writing an encyclopedia and everyone who is not helping with
> that can go to hell as far as I am concerned.
>
> Dutch original:/
> /De richtlijnen zuigen en laten ons totaal geen ruimte om adequat met
> etterbakken als Verrekijker/Versieck en anderen te dealen. En dan is er
> iemand die gedreigd heeft met een desysopprocedure voor mij. Walter mail
> die persoon dat ze vooral hun gang moeten gang. Alsjeblieft. Ik ben het
> eeuwige achter mijn rug gedreig zat. Ik ben niet chanteerbaar. Ik doe
> alles wat ik nodig acht om de nl: wiki een goede plaats te houden voor
> de gebruikers die hier serieus komen om te editten (dus 99,99%) en dat
> die wel eens een discussie hebben ach wat dat is normaal dat hoort
> erbij!..... ik geef echter geen ene malle moer om de
> regeltjesinterpreteerders de overlegridders die overleggen voor het
> plezier en de trollen. Ik hoop dat die allemaal een dodelijke
> stroomschok krijgen vanachter hun computer. We hebben hier maar een
> regel en dat is dat we een encyclopedie aan het schrijven zijn en
> iedereen die daar niet aan meedoet kan wat mij betreft naar de hel lopen.
>
>
> Waerth/Walter
> /
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] I expect a desyssoppingprocedure soon


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Ads on Wikipedia

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Thurston

> Why shouldn't the companies making money from the Wikipedia
> data at the microscale should be the primary funders of Wikipedia?

Much as I appreciate and admire your principles, what you are proposing
makes little sense if you go to the other side of the boardroom table. You
might as well ask "Why don't individuals benefiting from Wikipedia
contribute?", because a company is just a group of individuals, namely the
shareholders. You are surely not suggesting that we have a log on screen so
that anybody who might get a benefit from WP enter their credit card details
before being granted access.

And even if we accept the premise that Bill Gates the individual be allowed
free access but Microsoft the corporation should pay megabucks, just how do
we enforce it? We cannot. And what commercial enterprise with a
responsibility to its shareholders is going to shell out money they don't
need to?

If, as you say, some large companies derive a commercial benefit from WP and
should fund us, then what is to stop them from downloading MediaWiki, hiring
some professionals, and building their own encyclopaedia, perhaps as a joint
effort with Google along with toolbars and popups and so on? That way,
they'd get the same benefits as well as control over the operation and a
more focused product.

Peter (Skyring)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Ads on Wikipedia?

body:
Nick Boalch wrote:
> Anthere wrote:
>
>>However, current advertisement models show that the best revenues are
>>gathered from targetted advertisement.
>
>
> To be honest, it's this aspect and its various implications that worries
> me the most.
>
> Let's say McDonald's pays us $500,000 to put an ad on [[Fast food]]. Is
> that compliant with [[WP:NPOV]]?
>
> What happens if McDonald's will pay us $500,000 to put an ad on [[Fast
> food]], but only if we nix the 'Nutritional value' section?
>
> Cheers,
>
> N.

I agree. This is the most worrying situation.

Putting on the ads ONLY in exchange of removing Nutritional Value of the
CheeseBurger in the article is a total NONO. It is absolutely not
negociable.

Imho, even putting an ad for the CheeseBurger on FastFood would be a
very bad idea.

ant


from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Personal donations to Wikipedia

body:
Lisa Thurston wrote:
> Further to my email about ads on Wikipedia, I want to point out some
> concerns I have about the current Wikimedia fundraising drive too.
>
> Why haven't tax professionals been consulted to specify exactly what the
> tax-deductibility status donations to Wikipedia have in the top donor
> countries? It should be found out and explictly specified on the home page.
> I for one won't donate without knowing my donation is tax-deductible in
> Australia. And if, for instance, it did say "tax deductible in Australia"
> Aussies *would* notice it instantly seriously consider donating!
>
> In fact, if the answer for Australia or Canada or Sweden or whatever is "not
> deductible" then Wikipedia should make a request for Wikipedians in those
> countries to form local chapters to obtain the NGO/charity status. This
> wouldn't just help Wikimedia out by generating more revenue, but create a
> stronger Wikipedian community outside US and central Europe.

We discussed this on foundation-l in August. See this post and the rest
of the thread:

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2005-August/003884.html

If my reading of the ATO website is correct, donations to Wikimedia are
not tax deductible in Australia. In fact, donations to any entity which
primarily aims to maintain an international website will not be
considered tax-deductible in Australia, whether the organisation is
based in Australia or not. This is because the activities being
supported are not "in Australia", and they don't qualify under either of
the exception categories. See http://tinyurl.com/c3rdc under "What does
in Australia mean".

Sorry to disappoint you, but you'll have to pay your taxes even if you
do give money to Wikimedia.

-- Tim Starling


from_name: Jamie Bliss

subject: [Wikitech-l] gmane e-mail address obfuscation

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

Is there any reason why gmane encrypts the e-mails on WikiMedia lists? I
would think that since the official archives don't do it, gmane
shouldn't either.

(I believe if you contact them about it, they can change it.)

- -- Jamie
- -------------------------------------------------------------------
http://endeavour.zapto.org/astro73/
Thank you to JosephM for inviting me to Gmail!
Have lots of invites. Gmail now has 2GB.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDubY3hSTbi9X4m60RAvnuAKCMMAwkkqaC9JKq5r/z/P48m+KZ1wCfeFIP
nbXiuoVs0DlqOaNUCeEAIXI=
=biqC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Robert Bamler

body:
Hi,

I'm working on a Wikipedia reader for the Apple iPod. To minimize the data
size occupied on the iPod I will only store the current articles on the
device (no "old"-table). However, the GFDL requires to mention the authors of
an article. Thus, each article on the iPod should contain a list of all
Wikipedia-users that appear in the revision history.

So, finally, my question is: Is there a way to get a list of the authors of
each article without having to download the (extremely large) xmldump of all
wikipedia-articles ever written since the beginning of time? I've already
tried the online SQL querying mechanism, but it seems to limit queries to
1000 results and to not support queries on the "old"-table.

By the way, another question comes to my mind: If a contributor to an article
wasn't logged in, do I have to mention his IP-number in the list of authors?
I don't think this would make much sense, but perhaps it's legally required
by the GFDL. Or is it sufficient to make the reader application display the
string "There might be other (anonymous) contributors to this article"?

I'm looking forward to your replies,
Robert


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [WikiEN-l] Ads and image licensing

body:
On 1/2/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/2/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > The excise taxes on running a non-profit organization as a for-profit
> > corporation go up to 200% if you don't eventually correct the
> > situation.  Yes, 200%, that means if you make $100 in net profits you
> > owe $200 in taxes.  You're much better off dissolving the non-profit
> > and forming a for-profit corporation than running a non-profit as a
> > for-profit :).
>
> That's, um, startling.  However, I actually meant the WMF just getting
> rid of its tax-exempt status.
>
I'm not sure it's possible do that.  What would the WMF do with all
its assets (domain names and servers being the most valuable ones)?
The govt would probably want them to transfer it all to a charity
organization.  Maybe it's possible to do it retroactively, and just
pay penalties and interest on all the previous deductions.  Of course
then you'd be left with a strange non-profit organization that isn't
tax exempt in any way whatsoever.  I have to say I have absolutely no
idea how that'd work.

This is, of course, ***purely hypothetical speculation***.  I don't
see any reason the WMF would *want* to lose its tax-exempt status.
See the paragraph below...

> > Of course in reality what would happen far before any of that took
> > place is that the WMF could form a for-profit company which would pay
> > taxes and would be owned by the non-profit.  That's how the IRS wants
> > you to do things, in essence it's how they force you to do things.
>
> Obey the US federal government, I shall.
>
> --
> Sam


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Ads on Wikipedia

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Thurston
> Sent: Monday, 2 January 2006 18:09
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Ads on Wikipedia
>
> Yes, perhaps I'm suggesting a bit of a radical approach to
> funding and economics isn't my strong point, but just take a
> moment to really think about how certain web-oriented
> companies would survive without Wikipedia...

I have really thought about it:
1. If commercial enterprises can get it for free, they will.
2. If they have to pay a lot of money, enough to fund WP, then they might as
well start up their own similar operation and have control.

Perhaps what you are really suggesting is some form of sponsorship or
partnership deal.

What I like is your idea of making it easy to donate, by giving Australians
(and others) the ability to deduct donations from their tax. That would
help.

Another possibility is to go the route that BookCrossing.com and
NaNoWriMo.org go, namely to provide some sort of on-screen recognition. In
the case of BookCrossers, little golden wings appear each side of their
screen-name for a month. NaNoWriMos get golden halos.

Peter, fluttering his wings and flashing his halo


from_name: Brion Vibber

body:
Fred Bauder wrote:
> Nevertheless, some are better than others. Certainly an option
> susceptible to the easy creation of sleeper accounts is worse than the
> other alternatives. I am somewhat at a loss as to how a threshold based
> on an edit count could be easily gamed as we could all at least look at
> the record. Building up a thousand edits just so you can vandalize an
> article seems like an awful lot of work.

Not a lot of work for a persistent vandal. A simple bot can make a thousand
"spelling corrections" and "formatting tweaks" easy enough. You're already
talking about having the foresight to make sleeper accounts, and you're going to
tell me that a few non-suspicious edits first are unthinkable?

It *can* be gamed. The question is just whether it will be enough of a speed
bump to be worth it without seeming like a barrier to gleefully jump over.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060102/b4a25bb7/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Liam McDade

subject: [Wikipedia-l] (no subject)

body:
Hi (Hylo)

My name is Liam McDade.

I wish to set up a wikipedia website in the Dyslexican Language. Spoken by
100 people in southern Ireland. How would we (The Dyslexican language board
/ Le Board Dyslexic?n) set up the wiki pedia site in our language? we need
no help with translation.

Thanks and Gooday!
Gurath ma hguite ? gudai.

_________________________________________________________________
Are you using the latest version of MSN Messenger? Download MSN Messenger
7.5 today! http://messenger.msn.co.uk


from_name: Rob Church

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: CheckUser log

body:
I envision a minor interface and logging overhaul. Not too difficult
either. Searchable logs might take a bit more work, but not a lot.

I'm up for it.

Rob Church

On 02/01/06, Dariusz Siedlecki <datrio at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2006/1/2, Rob Church <robchur(at)gmail.com>:
> > Someone asked [1] if the log could be formatted in reverse order. I've
> > implemented this in the CheckUser extension, but I've no idea what the
> > done thing is when coaxing people to synchronise from the extensions
> > module.
> >
> > Anyway, done that.
>
> I missed the last discussion you linked, so let me give my quick comment here.
>
> The log for CheckUser is awful right now. Here's an example of three
> entries (IPs and usernames blanked):
>
> 18:30, 30 gru 2005 XXX got IPs for ZZZ
> 18:32, 30 gru 2005 XXX got edits for 127.0.0.1
> 20:15, December 30, 2005 YYY got edits for 127.0.0.1
>
> First of all, there's no information on the project where the check was done.
>
> Secondly, the dates are in the local format of the wiki on which the
> check was done.
>
> Third, you can't search the log.
>
> Well, that's it. So... Could any developer take care of this, or
> should I submit a bug to bugzilla?
>
> --
> Pozdrawiam,
> Dariusz "Datrio" Siedlecki
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
Nevertheless, some are better than others. Certainly an option
susceptible to the easy creation of sleeper accounts is worse than
the other alternatives. I am somewhat at a loss as to how a threshold
based on an edit count could be easily gamed as we could all at least
look at the record. Building up a thousand edits just so you can
vandalize an article seems like an awful lot of work.

Fred

On Jan 2, 2006, at 7:46 PM, Brion Vibber wrote:

> Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>> Please consider my request at Wikipedia:Requests for
>> arbitration/Developer help needed
>>
>> The problem is that semi-protection as now coded relies on % of users
>> rather than on measurement of edits. This permits stockpiling of
>> sleeper
>> accounts which can later be activated as sockpuppets defeating
>> semi-protection.
>>
>
> There is *no* anything to do with percentage at this time. Nothing
> at all.
>
> At the moment, the automated confirmation criteria is based on time
> since
> registration. Other criteria such as edit counts can be added (but
> all of them
> can be gamed).
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


from_name: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: CheckUser log

body:
Is there any reason why this shouldn't log to the local log with the
IP addresses munged?


from_name: Someone

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Conditional templates

body:
(Sorry; reposting with correct subject.)

> Everything else is
> too complex for authors anyway.

Clearly people want features in the software that the developers are
too busy or unmotivated to implement.  The barrier to becoming a
Mediawiki developer is high, but the barrier to creating a conditional
template is not.  Authors/editors/endusers *don't need* to edit the
complex templates; they need to edit the articles, which are becoming
more and more daunting the more features are added to the syntax.  If
the intermediately-skilled programmers can make editing simpler and
easier for the end users, isn't that a good thing?

Of course, the best solution would be to implement infoboxes and the
like directly in the Mediawiki software, in a way that doesn't require
end users to code anything.  But until that happens, people are going
to use as many shortcuts as they can to make it easy on newcomers.

> What the **** is that? We don't need geek-features but a simple solution.
>
> > (warning: obscene code alert).

Stop being so hostile to people trying to improve the Wikipedia.

Do they unnecessarily load down the servers?  Fine.  Then they should
be killed, for now.  (But don't call it "killing" and don't be an ass
about it.)  Is the code obscene?  Fine, but don't call it "obscene".
These people are just trying to help, in ways that you are unable or
unwilling to do.  Be nice.


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Ads on Wikipedia?

body:
> > * I think that "targetted" schemes along the lines of
> Google Adsense
> > are a bad idea. If we have ads, they should be as little
> connected to
> > the content being viewed as possible, as a matter of integrity.
> > Article content and article titles should have NO relation to
> > advertising content. If it does, we are not only inviting
> some raised
> > eyebrows about content validity, but we're inviting people
> to try and
> > game the system by modifying articles in oh-so-clever and
> minor ways
> > to get their specific advertisements listed first.

I'm not sure I agree. A user visits [[Skiing]]. Ads for Rossignol,
Oakley and The North Face are shown. Where's the crime? The user
obviously has some interest in skiing - wouldn't he rather see ads for
big skiing brands, rather than ads for say, Volkswagen, ING and "Save
the bears from exploitation"?

> Well, current appeal could be called "begging". As Mav explained
> already, we are far from having enough right now to fulfill our first
> trimester needs. And we finished the year on our reserves.
> So, "begging"
> makes sense.

Sensible, but tacky. (IMVHO).

> The problems associated with "selling hard copies" are
> * making a partnership with a firm or organisation to
> "produce the hard
> copy" and then to "distribute" the content. Or should we set
> up another
> organisation to do that ourselves ?

Surely online publishers would lap it up if someone did the hard work of
filtering and cleaning up first.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Ads on Wikipedia?

body:
Sounds good. Contribute or suffer the ads. :)

Steve

> Might another solution in the future be to really have two
> websites. One
> "stable", for readers only (a mirror we would run ourselves)
> with light
> advertisement. And the editable one with no ads (and much
> less traffic) ?


from_name: Axel Boldt

subject: [Wikitech-l] Some Wikipedias not accessible through anonymouse.org

body:
Anonymouse.org is a proxy popular with Chinese users to circumvent
censorship. Unfortunately, not all Wikipedias are accessible through
it. I just tried a large sample, and I found that the following do
*not* work: ja, ko, zh, mr, th. What happens is that anonymouse
redirects the main page of these Wikipedias back to the main page,
resulting in an infinite loop.

The brokenness of zh is of particular concern, for obvious reasons.

It might be a unicode issue, but ar, he, ru all work fine. I doubt that
is is a bug in anonymouse that affects only certain unicode characters.

I was also thinking that it might have to do with the Korean cluster,
but I belive ms is housed there, and it works fine through anonymouse.

I used wget -S --spider to look at the return values of our servers,
and I can't find a relevant difference between zh and he, say. However,
anonymouse probably uses a special user-agent in order to get a simple
page layout; I don't know which one that is so I can't compare what
exactly anonymouse sees. Could someone with access to the logs check
the user-agent of anonymouse?

Thanks,
  Axel

The fact that zh doesn't work is particularly unsettling, for obvious
reasons.

Axel

__________________________________
Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year.
http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [Foundation-l] Day 18 Fund Drive Report

body:
Copied from:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fund_drives/2005/Q4/Day_18
--------------------------------------------------------------

=Monday 2 January=
An all time record of 1361 donations were made through PayPal on '''Day 18''', yielding the
equivalent of an amazing $38,443.05 USD. This is about $16,000 more than the Day 17 and an all
time record for any day in any drive the Wikimedia Foundation has ever had (the previous all time
record was yesterday)! Much of the increase is likely due to the fact that Jimmy Wales' [[Personal
Appeal]] was linked all day and due to press coverage about the appeal from Slashdot. The average
donation this day was $28.25.

Grand total at end of day: '''241,229.77'''

Breakdown of Day 18 PayPal donations:
 AUD     1,063.02     (797.79 USD)
 CAD 	1,577.45     (1,298.10 USD)
 EUR 	6,102.54     (7,412.69 USD)
 GBP 	1,409.44     (2,527.55 USD)
 JPY 	33,103.00    (299.09 USD)
 USD 	26,107.83
 Total 	38,443.05 USD

==Special thanks to those who gave large donations==
Wesley Boyd and an anonymous donor both gave 1000 USD, the largest donation this day. There were
also many donors who gave the equivalent of about $100 or more (listed in no particular order);
Rodney A Olsen, James A Rogers, Wilma Leung, Scott Volk, Willem Van Ingen, Jorg Willekens, J W
BARON V HEEMSTRA, Wolfgang Slany, Francisco Javier Aranda Granda, Justin Petszaft, TJ Wilson,
Christopher Liao, Eric Yu, Arne Eide, Emmanuel Benazera,  Paul Scott, christoph messmer, Michel
Machado, Christian Hultner, Erard Gilles, Pomin Wu, Michael Mage, John C Partin, william n melton,
John Bresee, Imre Simon, William Lachance, Chris Brookins, Doug Young, Simon Willison, Peter
Lacey, Wayne A Lown, James Gettys, Per Franck, Charles Haynes, Kevin Watt, Sebastian Kun, Carl
Shapiro, Dick Van kirk, Daniel Urman, Debra S Travis, Dave Menconi, Henry Laxen, Brady Jarvis,
Anthony Niesz, Oliver Steinmeier and 53 anonymous donors.

:<small>Note: While large donations are great, it should be noted that about 70% of all the money
donated to the Wikimedia Foundation comes from donations that are the equivalent of $50 or less
and the average donation is about $25.</small>

==Selected donor comments==
Let's all thank everybody who donated on this day by reading their comments.

:Full listing at: http://fundraising.wikimedia.org/2005q4/index.php/2006-01-02/detail/

*"Christmas money for Wikimedia, please continue like that!!" by Christoph Helms
*"This is truly one of the most important projects currently in existence - long may it continue."
by Justin Petszaft
*"With hope that this donation will contribute in the struggle to make the knowledge of the world
freely available and neatly packaged." by Henrik Persson
*"You are redefining the social concept of an encyclopaedia, please go on!" by Imre Simon
*"Comme au poker... je mise pour voir ce que sera Wikip?dia dans 10 ans, dans 50 ans." by
anonymous
*"Even MediaWiki alone is worth this let alone the Wikimedia Sites" by Aron Rubin
*"Wikipedia is important, and represents the great potential of a global network for social
advancement. Carry on!" by Michael Tyson
*"May the force be with Wikimedia. Greetings from India." by Chandan Haldar
*"When I need background info, Wikipedia is the first place I look." by Rob Manuel
*"Wikipedia is having a huge impact already, and brings me great hope for the future." by Jason
Woofenden
*"Este proyecto demuestra que nos podemos salir del modelo capitalista en la gestion de la
informaci?n" by Jose Manuel Perez Pita
*"The best site on the internet bar none. A bottomless source of information and knowledge.
Simply, wikid!" by anonymous
*"Wikipedia is the Internet at its best" by Rodney A Olsen
*"Per la conoscenza libera!" by Nicola Ruggero
*"Wikipedia, where else can you get information on ANY topic you come across?" by Berend van
Berkum
*"いつも参考にしてます。" by
anonymous
*"want to see more of Indian language content!!!" by Rajidhar Etta
*"My own finances aren't too good at the moment, but Wikipedia is one of the things that make life
worth living." by anonymous
*"I'd vote for a UK government forward thinking enough to give Wikipedia funding of ?1m per year."
by David Boden
*"Wikipedia is het instrument voor spreiding van kennis" by anonymous
*"Since the wikipedia is becoming my first place to go to for info i thought i'd donate" by
Clayton Parker
*"All wiki's doing, is providing the access; you however will provide everything else." by
anonymous
*"Free textbooks, yes, please." by John Toby Knudsen

Some of my personal favorites:
*"I?m doing this for my own daughter, who I hope will grow up in a world where culture is free" by
Khalid Alyahya
*"Wikimedia - The real Internet within the Internet." by Robert Harambura
*"As a teacher, Wikipedia represents the complete and fundamental change in the way I work with
students. Keep up the great work everyone. Pay a little, get a lot!!!" by Jay Kennard
*"Years from now historians will dedicate careers studying the impact of the Wikipedia. If we are
lucky enough to maintain it." by Charles Amrhein
*"Every time you criticize Wikipedia, God kills a kitten. Please, think of the kittens!" by Peter
Hare
*"I really think this is the greatest, most ambitious site on the internet. Keep up the good
work!" by anonymous
*"Thank you for giving us the opportunity to contribute." by Richard G Brooks
*"Wikipedia has the potential for being an extraordinary resource, akin to the Encyclopedia
Galactica. But just as 'eternal vigilance is the price of liberty', we all need to get personally
involved!" by anonymous
*"Wikipedia is such an important dream that we should all try to make it come true" by Traci
Loudin
*"Wikipedia got me through school!" by anonymous
*"Freedom isn't free. Support Wikimedia!" by Stephen W Wood

-- Daniel Mayer

__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com


subject: [Foundation-l] Day 18 Fund Drive Report


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Day 18 Fund Drive Report


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Ads on Wikipedia?

body:
> Let's say McDonald's pays us $500,000 to put an ad on [[Fast
> food]]. Is that compliant with [[WP:NPOV]]?

Yes.

>
> What happens if McDonald's will pay us $500,000 to put an ad
> on [[Fast food]], but only if we nix the 'Nutritional value' section?

Then we say, "See [[WP:NPOV]]". Or perhaps "we" nix that section and
someone else puts it back. This is a bit of a strange argument that has
been made a few times. WP is WP. I don't think anyone is proposing
changing its core principles simply because we start taking ads. And
again, I don't see how placing ads on WP is compromising any of WP's
principles in any way.

I'm not especially in favour of ads, but let's at least be sensible in
discussing the possibility. :)

Steve


from_name: Sam Korn

subject: [WikiEN-l] Ads and image licensing

body:
On 1/2/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> "I can't imagine Mediawiki would even consider something which would
> endanger its not-for-profit status so I doubt this is a problem."  The
> thing is, I doubt very many people are aware of all the intricacies of
> US non-profit tax laws.  Most people don't know what UBTI even is.

Why would WMF worry about not being not-for-profit if it were getting
all its money from ads?  Is there some other benefit apart from being
tax-exempt?  If the net financial gain would still be an increase in
income, the paying tax seems irrelevant.

Or have I missed something crucial?  (Note that I am British and take
pride in knowing very little of the intricacies of US law.)

--
Sam


subject:
[Wikitech-l] Re: Tasks extension can now create tasks upon
	article creation

body:
On 1/2/06, Magnus Manske <magnus.manske at web.de> wrote:
> I thought about a selector to specify a "subtype". So, if the task is
> "expand", it would equal the "stub" template. But there are a gazillion
> of stub templates; so the taks should get a "subtype" (e.g. "history")
> to limit searches to history stubs ("Expand" tasks with subtype "history").
>
> Or would that be overkill? We don't have to use the tasks for stubs,
> after all.

How about enabling searching within categories?  Maybe I'll give you a
few years...

--
Sam


subject: [WikiEN-l] Ads and image licensing

body:
On 1/2/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> The excise taxes on running a non-profit organization as a for-profit
> corporation go up to 200% if you don't eventually correct the
> situation.  Yes, 200%, that means if you make $100 in net profits you
> owe $200 in taxes.  You're much better off dissolving the non-profit
> and forming a for-profit corporation than running a non-profit as a
> for-profit :).

That's, um, startling.  However, I actually meant the WMF just getting
rid of its tax-exempt status.

> Of course in reality what would happen far before any of that took
> place is that the WMF could form a for-profit company which would pay
> taxes and would be owned by the non-profit.  That's how the IRS wants
> you to do things, in essence it's how they force you to do things.

Obey the US federal government, I shall.

--
Sam


from_name: Peter Mackay

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of charles matthews
> Sent: Monday, 2 January 2006 21:28
> To: English Wikipedia
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia micronation - Tirben
>
> > And what happens when the passengers run out of gas? :-)
> >
> > Ec
>
> A big discussion: if we painted a Window on the tail, perhaps
> Gates would arrange mid-air refuelling?

No doubt about it. But we'd see MySQL replaced by SQL Server, PHP by Visual
Basic...

Pete


from_name: Tels

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Wikitech-l Digest, Vol 30, Issue 2

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Moin,

On Monday 02 January 2006 20:55, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Jon B wrote:
[snipalot]
> >
> >Stop being so hostile to people trying to improve the Wikipedia.
> >
> >Do they unnecessarily load down the servers?  Fine.  Then they should
> >be killed, for now.  (But don't call it "killing" and don't be an ass
> >about it.)  Is the code obscene?  Fine, but don't call it "obscene".
> >These people are just trying to help, in ways that you are unable or
> >unwilling to do.  Be nice.
>
> I agree.  "Obscure" would be a much nicer term than "obscene"

As a programmer, I have to disagree. This code can only be called obscene
or worse things.

A frozen, glittering turd is still a turd, even though you use it
for-whatever because you got nothing else handy.

(Read: This doesn't imply anything about the people using these templates
except that instead of working towards a real solution they use (albeit
clever, one must admit) hacks. Read whatever you want into that :-)

So, we either throw these templates out and replace them with something
simpler something mere mortals can understand, or we risk a maintance
nightmare. If the template system isn't sufficient enough to that now,
that means:

* people overengeneer things, and/or do things that wikipedia isn't meant
to provide (read: E.g. it is a Enceclopedia, not a programming language
with a Web-IDE and embedded documentation system tacked on, nor a
database where you can represent arbitrarily complex data structures)
* OR, the software behind the scenes need to be improved to provide what
people want

It is usualy a combination of the two, but by tackling stuff like the
aforemention template code on top of the system you do not solve the
underlying problem - instead, you create new issues like maintainance,
security, stability etc).

The complexity of wikipedia is reaching enourmous levels and anyone
unfamiliar with it will be quickly lost. I wouldn't even know which
templates to use or even exist, less alone be able to find my self in a
sea of recursive, conditional templates with a programming logic behind
them.

So, I have to repeat myself:

* Wikipedia is an enceclopedia. It is not meant to be a database.
* Mixing code and data is the number #1 of all-times No-Nos.

My 0.02?.

Happy new Year to all, btw,

Tels

- --
 Signed on Mon Jan  2 21:22:18 2006 with key 0x93B84C15.
 Visit my photo gallery at http://bloodgate.com/photos/
 PGP key on http://bloodgate.com/tels.asc or per email.

 "I can imagine what you're thinking though: this girl keeps her brains
 in her backside! But actually only the more primitive parts of my brain
 are in my butt. The more interesting parts are kept in a PC - my spinal
 cord is actually an RS232 lead!" - Lucy, the OrangUtan Robot Girl
 http://tinyurl.com/3fv6z

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iQEVAwUBQ7mO/XcLPEOTuEwVAQFTvQf+KKl2VKaUgcmT9Am9LJ6O6xsBX07qBKjl
mfE7NgUO6Iq5ZkmBrfpKpjDOBmeL6t07q5QYMAga6k648Oo+ioD6W2Lf//AokZMX
MERlP+y5eZnjcB6qAwRR0dAizNFdr+kRIpze6bcFgFItyZkn5kKmQTLXEf+RoQKk
l6gKsQykaK0HdGNqEGokMJfWPfOomi6Wp8wVtgEm5UbrCWH7dKXRPUG6CoTBwUig
eWk92fTRReK9BlNWROFPtpfKiFXlZhd0rPrIEpz4jeoMZTavGy07qeiWuVcB0iBQ
mVtq4kXdHDUqja/xivOyKSmQ6Drm5dBa7/ICsRT7GWYsZqlpXi0PDw==
=tWXS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Ben Emmel

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Ads on Wikipedia

body:
On 1/2/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:

> I don't think Google would have any trouble attracting "a few thousand
> ambitious know-it-alls". Surely you don't think that WP has cornered the
> market on such people?
>
> Peter (Skyring)
>

I actually think that people would go to a Googlepedia pretty quickly.
There's always that prestige associated with saying to someone "I work with
Google." With the strength of its name alone, Google could attract a
sizeable population in a matter of months. How it would work out, I'm not
sure. Isn't Google a supporter of Wikipedia though, in terms of server space
and PageRank?

--
Ben Emmel
Wikipedia - User:Bratsche
bratsche1 at gmail.com
"A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees."
-- William Blake


from_name: Dariusz Siedlecki

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Suggestion for future fundraisings

body:
When we'll finally get a DVD version of the English Wikipedia, that's
a great idea - after all, the DVD would probably be licensed under
GPL/GFDL, so... For the future, that's a really good idea.

Best regards,
Datrio

2006/1/2, Jeremy Dunck <jdunck at gmail.com>:
> This comment on slashdot isn't ignorant:
> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=172759&cid=14379365
> "
> I've donated to Wikipedia twice in a year. At this point, I've given
> probably four times the amount of money that I would for, say,
> Encarta. I love Wikipedia, but 1) I don't have a permanent copy of it
> on a DVD, like I would for Encarta, and 2) I feel like I'm being
> "forced" to buy the latest upgrade of Wikipedia when they set up these
> pleas for donations, since the performance of my encyclopedia directly
> depends on these fund drives.
> "
>
> I know there's been a lot of discussion about making a WP 1.0 of
> reviewed articles, but what do people think of giving out a DVD of
> current text for donations over, say, $50?
>
> This would be whatever's current at a point in time, with no guarantee
> about the content accuracy.
>
> I know there'd be some initial hardware cost for a mass burner and
> some admin overhead, but I can see the point that donating to a
> service is something done a little skeptically.
>
> Thanks,
>   Jeremy
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>

--
Pozdrawiam,
Dariusz "Datrio" Siedlecki


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: CheckUser log

body:
Bung it in the logging table and just not show it on the ordinary
Special:Log pages, perhaps?

Rob Church

On 02/01/06, ?var Arnfj?r? Bjarmason <avarab at gmail.com> wrote:
> Is there any reason why this shouldn't log to the local log with the
> IP addresses munged?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>


from_name: Robert Scott Horning

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:

> Robert Scott Horning wrote
>
>> I got into an editorial dispute with another admin on Wikibooks,
>> where I was having the help pages simply redirect to Meta (including
>> the MediaWiki:Edithelppage location) to point users directly to the
>> original source rather than trying to duplicate the content on
>> Wikibook.  These changes were reverted back, so I started a VfD on
>> Wikibooks over this whole thing to get community input on the
>> concept.  So far, it is accepted as gospel fact that this content
>> must be duplicated, but I am challenging that assertion and trying to
>> find out why it is done in this manner.
>
>
> I've just read through the Wikibooks VfD discussion on this, and find
> it unfortunate that this was the avenue chosen for this discussion.  I
> don't think that it's a deletion issue at.  Some of the pages are
> probably very useful; if one of them fills a policy hole I don't mond
> it's staying there for the time being.  It's really a question of
> project members' rights to edit the pages.    A see also link to the
> corresponding page in Meta should be adequate for having access to the
> information there.

The reason I chose a VfD was because it was a reversal of a previous
position on Wikibooks (I'm still trying to find the discussion that now
appears to be wiped from the current forums) that all of the Help pages
were to be hosted on Meta directly and not even dealt with on Wikibooks.
 There have also been several Wikibook proposals to write about how to
edit Wikimedia projects, and most recently I started a Wikibook about
how to admin Wikimedia projects.  That one got a VfD within less than a
day of creation, and a violation of Wikibooks policies at least for how
quickly the VfD was applied.  The main philosophy that has been used in
the past to get rid of such Wikibooks is that it is a duplication of
effort detracting from the effort to create the MediaWiki handbook, and
that the effort to create such how-to books should be done on Meta
instead.  I'm starting to strongly question that line of reasoning, and
I feel that it is a loss to the community as a whole that this is a
forbidden subject on Wikibooks... especially when I can't find any
formal policy anywhere on either Meta or Wikibooks that addresses the
topic... even as a proposed policy.  I've even had a hard time trying to
find this idea suggested on a talk page somewhere.

The point of deletion is to reverse this "spamming" of Wikibooks with
duplicate content from Meta and revert to the previous state of having
the help pages being hosted on Meta directly.  I don't consider this to
be vandalism in the traditional sense, but it does cause headaches for
admins when it would be better spent trying to deal with other issues on
the smaller projects.

--
Robert Scott Horning


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Ads on Wikipedia?

body:
Fastfission wrote:
> Just a few thoughts on advertising:
>
> * It wouldn't have to be banner ads in the obnoxious sense. Surely
> there could be some sort of quality control and discreteness about it.
> I'm sure we could find someone willing to shell out a lot of funding
> for a small ad on the lower left hand corner of each page. If every
> set of advertisements had to be approved by some small board of
> thoughtful people, it would probably keep out the "You may be a
> winner!" and "Mortgage your house online!" ads.
>

Will NPOV apply to ads? :)

> * What if ad content could be controlled through user CSS pages? Those
> who are 'in the know' could outright disable them without difficulty.
> People without accounts could never disable them. What's the ratio of
> logged-in to non-logged in page hits?
>

Already doable on Wikicities etc. Someone complained to Angela that I
was doing this, and was told that it was OK so long as I didn't do it to
an entire Wikicity or anything :)

> * I think that "targetted" schemes along the lines of Google Adsense
> are a bad idea. If we have ads, they should be as little connected to
> the content being viewed as possible, as a matter of integrity.
> Article content and article titles should have NO relation to
> advertising content. If it does, we are not only inviting some raised
> eyebrows about content validity, but we're inviting people to try and
> game the system by modifying articles in oh-so-clever and minor ways
> to get their specific advertisements listed first.
>

I wonder, is there anything that community consensus (shudder) would
determine would be a "good cause" to run ads for?

> * Perhaps there are other revenue models we should consider first
> before advertising. At the moment the only ones on the table seem to
> be 1. selling hard-copies, 2. begging, and 3. advertising. I have the
> business acumen of a pigeon but surely there must be alternatives to
> these three.
>

Given that Jimbo et. al. chose the GFDL to put everything under Way Back
When, hard copies seems like the perfect choice - it even tells you how
to do it! :)

PS. Is WikiProject No Ads still running? Or have things changed a whole
heap since the Answers.com proposal?

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 556 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060102/fba829ee/attachment.pgp


body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Peter Mackay wrote:
>
>>> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
>>> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Ray Saintonge
>>>
>>>
>>>> In 2006, WPAir - the only national airline where the
>>>
>>> passengers are in
>>>
>>>> charge, and the planes are reconfigured by complete
>>>
>>> amateurs from the
>>>
>>>> moment of take-off.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Every flight an adventure.  You never know where it's going to land.
>>>
>>
>> Land? Every time we think the flight is complete, someone hauls back
>> on the
>> stick, gooses the throttle and we're off again!
>>
> And what happens when the passengers run out of gas? :-)
>

Some new ones hop aboard mid-flight, of course...

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 556 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060102/4866e3ad/attachment.pgp


from_name: Thomas Gries

subject: [Wikitech-l] WMF Exploits and MediaWiki

body:
At least:
* check, whether the antivirus signatures are up-to-date (ClamAV or
whatever is used on your servers)
* F-Secure (for example) seems to detect them already
http://www-f-secure.com http://www.f-secure.com/weblog/

Tom

Edward Z. Yang schrieb:

>It seems like the subject as been brought up everywhere (such as English
>Wikipedia's Village Pump and a Wikinews talk page), but it hasn't been
>breached on wikitech-l yet. So that's what I'm going to do. It appears,
>from [[wikinews:Talk:Microsoft Windows metafiles are a vector for
>computer viruses]] that Commons accepts wmf files masquerading as ogg
>files. The security of MediaWiki installations on Windows platforms is
>also dubious.
>
>For information purposes, what are the developers doing about it?
>


from_name: Brock Batsell

body:
Axel Boldt wrote:
> Anonymouse.org is a proxy popular with Chinese users to circumvent
> censorship.
Is it possible that it's blocked for being an open proxy?  That doesn't
sound like what should happen if an open proxy is blocked, but it's just
a thought.

--
Regards,
[[en:User:Bbatsell]]


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Ads on Wikipedia

body:
Peter Mackay wrote:
>>From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
>>[mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Thurston
>
>
>>Why shouldn't the companies making money from the Wikipedia
>>data at the microscale should be the primary funders of Wikipedia?
>
>
<snip>
> If, as you say, some large companies derive a commercial benefit from WP and
> should fund us, then what is to stop them from downloading MediaWiki, hiring
> some professionals, and building their own encyclopaedia, perhaps as a joint
> effort with Google along with toolbars and popups and so on? That way,
> they'd get the same benefits as well as control over the operation and a
> more focused product.
>

There's one thing they wouldn't get - control of the community. Yes, WP
is primarily an encyclopedia, but it wouldn't be /anything/ without its
contributors.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 556 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060102/f0ada5a8/attachment.pgp


subject: [Wikipedia-l] (no subject)

body:
???????????????????????

???????????????????????????????
???????4.54?????????????????????????
????.AD.???????????????????????????
?????????????????????????

http://ja.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:%E3%83%90%E3%82%B0%E3%81%AE%E5%A0%B1%E5%91%8A&oldid=494923

???????1?????????????????????????Ghaz???????
??????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????

(English)

Hello. Thanks for your detailed description of the bug/trouble.

I felt that I've heard of that bug, and so did a little searching myself.
Would you please read the section 4.54 "TOC part missing." Isn't that the
same troube as you are experiencing? If so, your Norton Anti-Virus software
is misrecognizing a line on TOC with ".AD." in it as an advertisement,
and preventing it from being displayed.

The discussion of the bug happened a year and half ago, but Ghaz, who
brought the answer to the question is still around and active on Japanese
Wikipedia. If you need more information on this, perhaps you can ask him.

Cheers,

Tomos


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Ads on Wikipedia

body:
Peter Mackay wrote:

>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
>>[mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Alphax
>>(Wikipedia email)
>>
>>
>>>Granted, but I'm quite sure that recruiting a few thousand
>>>
>>>
>>ambitious
>>
>>
>>>know-it-alls isn't as big a task as you might imagine. In fact, I
>>>think Googleopedia or Wikiexpedia would merely have to open their
>>>doors and they would instantly get tens of thousands of enthusiastic
>>>
>>>
>>>contributors and media exposure that we can only dream about. Remember
>>>
>>>
>>>all that fuss when Gmail began and Gvites were being
>>>
>>>
>>auctioned on eBay for sizable amounts?
>>
>>
>>So what can (insert name of commercial fork here) offer that WP can't?
>>
>>
>I don't think Google would have any trouble attracting "a few thousand
>ambitious know-it-alls". Surely you don't think that WP has cornered the
>market on such people?
>
He-he.  We also haven't cornered the market for trolls and vandals.  The
first ones they would get would be the ones we got rid of, and who are
now looking for a place to carry on their activity. 8-)

Ec


from_name: Brion Vibber

body:
Fred Bauder wrote:
> Please consider my request at Wikipedia:Requests for
> arbitration/Developer help needed
>
> The problem is that semi-protection as now coded relies on % of users
> rather than on measurement of edits. This permits stockpiling of sleeper
> accounts which can later be activated as sockpuppets defeating
> semi-protection.

There is *no* anything to do with percentage at this time. Nothing at all.

At the moment, the automated confirmation criteria is based on time since
registration. Other criteria such as edit counts can be added (but all of them
can be gamed).

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060103/cd7c9953/attachment.pgp>


body:
Jeremy Dunck wrote:
> This comment on slashdot isn't ignorant:
> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=172759&cid=14379365
> "
> I've donated to Wikipedia twice in a year. At this point, I've given
> probably four times the amount of money that I would for, say,
> Encarta. I love Wikipedia, but 1) I don't have a permanent copy of it
> on a DVD, like I would for Encarta,

I have on in my hand right now!

However, it's in German. The English-language market is missing out...

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060103/95b4f0a2/attachment.pgp>


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: WMF Exploits and MediaWiki

body:
Tim Starling wrote:
> In the meantime, site administrators can apply the following patch to
> their 1.5 or 1.6 installations:
>
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/mediawiki-cvs/2006-January/013086.html
>
> Users of 1.4 should either upgrade to 1.5 or disable uploads.

Since the default upload filetype whitelist includes only some image types which
are verified at upload time with getimagesize() type checking, the default
configuration plus uploads enabled should not allow for such uploads.

If you have added other extensions to the whitelist which aren't recognized
internally (eg, OGG), then you should be careful as above.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060103/121abb2a/attachment.pgp>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Ads on Wikipedia

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Alphax
> (Wikipedia email)
> Sent: Tuesday, 3 January 2006 00:09
> To: English Wikipedia
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Ads on Wikipedia
>
> Peter Mackay wrote:
> >>From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> >>[mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Thurston
> >
> >
> >>Why shouldn't the companies making money from the Wikipedia data at
> >>the microscale should be the primary funders of Wikipedia?
> >
> >
> <snip>
> > If, as you say, some large companies derive a commercial
> benefit from
> > WP and should fund us, then what is to stop them from downloading
> > MediaWiki, hiring some professionals, and building their own
> > encyclopaedia, perhaps as a joint effort with Google along with
> > toolbars and popups and so on? That way, they'd get the
> same benefits
> > as well as control over the operation and a more focused product.
> >
>
> There's one thing they wouldn't get - control of the
> community. Yes, WP is primarily an encyclopedia, but it
> wouldn't be /anything/ without its contributors.

Granted, but I'm quite sure that recruiting a few thousand ambitious
know-it-alls isn't as big a task as you might imagine. In fact, I think
Googleopedia or Wikiexpedia would merely have to open their doors and they
would instantly get tens of thousands of enthusiastic contributors and media
exposure that we can only dream about. Remember all that fuss when Gmail
began and Gvites were being auctioned on eBay for sizable amounts?

Peter


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
I guess we are just fucked if we can't get your cooperation.

Fred

On Jan 2, 2006, at 8:23 PM, Brion Vibber wrote:

> Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>> Nevertheless, some are better than others. Certainly an option
>> susceptible to the easy creation of sleeper accounts is worse than
>> the
>> other alternatives. I am somewhat at a loss as to how a threshold
>> based
>> on an edit count could be easily gamed as we could all at least
>> look at
>> the record. Building up a thousand edits just so you can vandalize an
>> article seems like an awful lot of work.
>>
>
> Not a lot of work for a persistent vandal. A simple bot can make a
> thousand
> "spelling corrections" and "formatting tweaks" easy enough. You're
> already
> talking about having the foresight to make sleeper accounts, and
> you're going to
> tell me that a few non-suspicious edits first are unthinkable?
>
> It *can* be gamed. The question is just whether it will be enough
> of a speed
> bump to be worth it without seeming like a barrier to gleefully
> jump over.
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Ads on Wikipedia?

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Stan Shebs
>
> charles matthews wrote:

> > (i) If the market is really saying that there is a huge revenue
> > available since people 'in general' don't mind ads (the good French
> > verb is 'mithridatiser', I recall), why is no corporation not
> > sincerely chasing this money with a high-quality WP clone?
>
> Since there are already mirrors with ads, yes, there are
> people chasing that money now. A high-quality clone that
> could compete with WP's name recognition would require
> significant investment up front, and take several years to
> establish itself in the public's mind;

Your idealism and loyalty is laudable, but remember that in terms of
quality, a teenager with a bit of Linux knowledge can download the whole lot
for free and get it operational in an afternoon.*

And I rather suspect that our "name recognition" is due more to being up
near the top of Google search results than any other single factor. If
Google developed their own product, I can confidently predict that it would
be way cooler than WP, and that they would bump their own results above WP's
in Google searches.

Peter (Skyring)

*dealing with success and bandwidth might be a problem, however


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Ads on Wikipedia?

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Anthere

> Nick Boalch wrote:

> > What happens if McDonald's will pay us $500,000 to put an
> ad on [[Fast
> > food]], but only if we nix the 'Nutritional value' section?
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > N.
>
> I agree. This is the most worrying situation.
>
> Putting on the ads ONLY in exchange of removing Nutritional
> Value of the CheeseBurger in the article is a total NONO. It
> is absolutely not negociable.

Why on earth would they pay half a million for something that's a freebie?

Just quietly, but anyone with an internet connection can delete a whole
section of an article.

If McDonalds got everybody at "Hamburger U" to spend five minutes of their
day massaging the article the way they wanted, they would quickly 3RR any
opponents into the ground and then devote themselves to stressing out the
more dedicated defenders at admin and ArbCom level.

If they wanted to.

Pete, no fan of McDonalds


from_name: James D. Forrester

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: CheckUser log

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

?var Arnfj?r? Bjarmason wrote:
> Is there any reason why this shouldn't log to the local log with the
> IP addresses munged?

Err. Yes, yes there is. Read, well, every single bloody "oh, but please,
why not make the CheckUser logs public?!? OK, in obfuscated form, then?
Why not? Umm!?" discussion spread over meta, foundation-l, etc. for the
past few months for an at-length treatise, but, essentially: that checks
are carried out is privileged information. There is nothing that can be
logged (even down to "User XYZ made <number> CheckUser checks on
<date>") that doesn't undermine the usefulness of CheckUser in both
technical and (especially) sociological senses. Further, logging with IP
addresses munged would certainly not be releasable information under the
privacy policy, so it would serve no point. Local logging could work, I
suppose, but would make it more complicated to follow the actions of one
CheckUser user.

OTOH, using the proper standard logging facility but in a shared manner
across all wikis, with restrictable fields (wiki, time frame, user, IP
range matching, CheckUser user, etc.) would be ideal. But quite a lot of
work, I'd imagine.

Yours,
- --
James D. Forrester
Wikimedia : [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]
E-Mail    : james at jdforrester.org
IM (MSN)  : jamesdforrester at hotmail.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDui2ikn3kUxZyJx0RAqigAJ9+c4xmfSVWZTZNx/nLRqRF3SXRFACfZJ5W
CjNlwiHtiWn12jm0s27tFXw=
=q0Cc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


body:
I don't like begging.

Fred

On Jan 3, 2006, at 8:06 AM, Rob Church wrote:

> That's a nice attitude you've got yourself.
>
>
> Rob Church
>
> On 03/01/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>
>> I guess we are just fucked if we can't get your cooperation.
>>
>> Fred
>>
>> On Jan 2, 2006, at 8:23 PM, Brion Vibber wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Fred Bauder wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Nevertheless, some are better than others. Certainly an option
>>>> susceptible to the easy creation of sleeper accounts is worse than
>>>> the
>>>> other alternatives. I am somewhat at a loss as to how a threshold
>>>> based
>>>> on an edit count could be easily gamed as we could all at least
>>>> look at
>>>> the record. Building up a thousand edits just so you can
>>>> vandalize an
>>>> article seems like an awful lot of work.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not a lot of work for a persistent vandal. A simple bot can make a
>>> thousand
>>> "spelling corrections" and "formatting tweaks" easy enough. You're
>>> already
>>> talking about having the foresight to make sleeper accounts, and
>>> you're going to
>>> tell me that a few non-suspicious edits first are unthinkable?
>>>
>>> It *can* be gamed. The question is just whether it will be enough
>>> of a speed
>>> bump to be worth it without seeming like a barrier to gleefully
>>> jump over.
>>>
>>> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikitech-l mailing list
>>> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikitech-l mailing list
>> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: The Cunctator

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Ads on Wikipedia?

body:
Every two to three years Jimbo flips his opinion on the advertising
issue, which I suppose is good, as long as we never have ads.*

I think there are better revenue streams for the Wikimedia Foundation
to be pursuing, in particular CD/DVD dead-tree versions of
Wikipedia/Wikibooks, although those will corrupt the nature of the
project too, perhaps in worse ways, so who really knows.

But then I like the idea of free public libraries, which makes me
something of a Communist in the eyes of free-market techno-capitalist
libertarians these days.

Note:

In 2001 Jimbo wrote this:
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising_on_Wikipedia

Someday, there will be advertising on Wikipedia. Either that, or we
will have to find some other way to raise money, but I can't think of
any.

In 2003 Jimbo wrote in this thread:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-June/thread.html#3975

Toby Bartels wrote:
> I interpreted that page as very old, only historical.

*Very* historical.  I'm now of the opinion that advertising is not
likely to ever be a viable or sensible revenue source for wikipedia.

One frame of reference -- at the time that was written, I was paying
$100k a year for ongoing expenses (programming, editor-in-chiefing,
etc.) for Nupedia.  Wikipedia has no similar expenses.

Bandwidth and hardware are cheap, and so we have no particular need of
money for what we're doing right now.

--Jimbo

* But then, I guess we probably will in a few years, which is when the
Inevitable Fork will happen.


from_name: Milos Rancic

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia vs CNN

body:
Today, Wikipedia is on the 24th place. I went to Alexa when I saw that
we have hardware problems again ;) The next two interesting sites for
this year are microsoft.com and amazon.com (MS is better now, but I
think that Amazon would be better in the near future). It seems that
Wikipedia would be in the top 10 sites at the end of this year.

In the next few weeks Wikipedia would be in the top 20 sites:

BBC: http://traffic.alexa.com/graph?w=940&h=580&r=6y&y=p&u=wikipedia.org/&u=bbc.co.uk
AOL:
http://traffic.alexa.com/graph?w=940&h=580&r=6y&y=p&u=wikipedia.org/&u=aol.com
Go: http://traffic.alexa.com/graph?w=940&h=580&r=6y&y=p&u=wikipedia.org/&u=go.com

BUT, there are some interesting sites which have the similar
exponential growth, such as Blogger.com:
http://traffic.alexa.com/graph?w=940&h=580&r=6y&y=p&u=wikipedia.org/&u=blogger.com

(BTW, yes, links are not working well. I realized it now.)

On 1/2/06, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Ben Yates <bluephonic at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hmm -- doesn't look like alexa lets you link to comparisons (or if it
> > does, I don't know how) -- type cnn.com into the box below the graph
> > to see the dethroning. :p
>
> You have to hack the url:
> http://traffic.alexa.com/graph?w=940&h=580&r=6y&y=p&u=wikipedia.org/&u=cnn.com
>
> -- mav
>
>
>
> __________________________________________
> Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about.
> Just $16.99/mo. or less.
> dsl.yahoo.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Deathphoenix

subject: [WikiEN-l] The userbox fad

body:
I didn't mind them so much: I got into it late, but found them to be a
source of fun. However, I agree with you: these userboxes have gotten a
little out of hand. There's no need to make a separate [[Template:User
some_obscure_thing]] for every little thing. The userboxes that state
language and other skills are innocuous enough, but userboxes stating
religion, political affiliation, race, etc., are really pushing it, I think.

Tony Sidaway wrote:

>December 2005 saw a fivefold increase in edits on pages in template
>space whose titles started with the characters "User_".  From about
>1200 in November, the number of such edits rose to 6100.
>
>Userboxes started innocously enough, first seeing widespread use with
>the Babel project, intended to inform users of one another's language
>skills.  But they haven't stayed that way.  From helping editors to
>locate one another by skill, they have evolved into a way for editors
>to group by conviction.  Last month one editor used userbox
>information to locate dozens of people who shared his religious
>persuasion in an overt attempt to destroy the consensual
>decision-making process of Wikipedia.  The religious userbox page
>(yes, such a page exists) lists some fifty userboxes intended to
>identify and group editors by expressed religion.  There is also a
>page for grouping according to political ideology.
>
>The scope for abuse  of these userboxes has been amply demostrated.
>They fulfil no function useful to the encyclopedia that isn't done
>equally well by simply stating one's affiliations on one's user page.
>They must die.
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Ads on Wikipedia?

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Rob

>
> On 1/2/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> > If McDonalds got everybody at "Hamburger U" to spend five
> minutes of
> > their day massaging the article the way they wanted, they would
> > quickly 3RR any opponents into the ground and then devote
> themselves
> > to stressing out the more dedicated defenders at admin and
> ArbCom level.
>
> Very true, but McD's would open themselves up to potentially
> a whole lot of negative publicity that would make McLibel
> look trivial in comparison.

Only if they went about it in a hamfisted way.