from_name: NSLE (Wikipedia)

body:
Just FYI, running the IP through RIPE's Whois database returns info about a
couple of people based in Luxembourg... the name would suggest a company
rather than an ISP, although I'm probably wrong on that count...

--NSLE

On 4/8/06, Ben McIlwain <cydeweys at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Please see here:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Gator1
>
> The short story: Gator1, an admin, blocked a user for 3RR on Phaistos
> Disc.  The user retaliated by posting a message threatening to make life
> miserable for Gator1 and then followed up on it, sending a letter to
> Gator1's employer that caused lots of problems, and also caused him to
> delete his user and talk page and leave the project.
>
> Obviously, what this person did to attempt to ruin Gator's life is
> entirely unacceptable.  What can we do about it?  We have the IP address.
>
> - --
> Ben McIlwain ("Cyde Weys")
>
> ~ Sub veste quisque nudus est ~
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32)
>
> iD8DBQFENzIrvCEYTv+mBWcRAlxLAJ0ehMJFJMyE1/WkKWpiLwOBaD1M8wCfV0EU
> QqOsJEGUo/+OAIvl7XjpLOY=
> =9XA0
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

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

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

k

On 4/8/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Katefan0 stated for the record:
>
> > Please -- be realistic.  Nobody has that kind of money.
> >
> > k
> >
> >
> > On 4/8/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk>
> wrote:
> >
> > Like being sued for unfair dismissal or aiding and abetting harassment
> > of employees you mean?
> >
> > Cynical
> >
> > Katefan0 wrote:
> >
> >>Don't count on it.  Companies have their own reputations and bankrolls
> >
> > to
> >
> >>protect, anything that could possibly open the company up for harm I
> >
> > promise
> >
> >>they take very seriously.
> >
> >>k
>
> I suspected that you were clueless when you made promises about
> companies you have nothing to do with.  When you said that nobody has
> the kind of money to bring unfair dismissal suits (which in fact are
> filed by the myriads every week) I became sure you have not the
> slightest idea what you are talking about.
>
> - --
> Sean Barrett     | We completely deny the allegations, and
> sean at epoptic.org | we're trying to identify the alligators.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFEN+06MAt1wyd9d+URAqq4AJ9sGPQ0B5lGSTz/LQ/jm91Jt5HYEACdHMYF
> TFAK+WqFvaZkLPZvh69xL90=
> =ioMp
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Sam Korn

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
On 4/8/06, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
> So "you know it when you see it"?

To an extent, yes.  But it should be pretty damned clear that most
people would think of the image as child pornography.

>  But people's standards are not
> necessarily consistent, or objective.

No, so you make sure that the majority of people would consider
something child pornography.

--
Sam


body:
>From AN/I, a message from Gator (sent through MONGO):

I really don't want to bring it up with them again. If I can get through
this week without being fired, I'm happy. I am watching the AN/I page and I
did give you the IP range, to do with as the community feels is appropriate.
To clarify: this nutcase sent an actual snail mail letter directly to the
firm, not an e-mail. Which only made it worse I think. It stated that a made
up committee in Luxembourg had nominated me for some sarcastic award for
blocking the IP range, that the committee was going to go to court and make
a stink about it in the papers and wanted to know if I was acting as an
associate of the firm or by myself (which freaked them out the most).
Anyway, I'll lt you know what my job does with me. I'd just like to know how
he got my name. Thanks, G

k

On 4/8/06, Katefan0 <katefan0wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Very kind.  Thanks for your constructive comments -- they have raised the
> level of discourse on this serious topic.
>
> k
>
>
> On 4/8/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Katefan0 stated for the record:
> >
> > > Please -- be realistic.  Nobody has that kind of money.
> > >
> > > k
> > >
> > >
> > > On 4/8/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Like being sued for unfair dismissal or aiding and abetting harassment
> >
> > > of employees you mean?
> > >
> > > Cynical
> > >
> > > Katefan0 wrote:
> > >
> > >>Don't count on it.  Companies have their own reputations and bankrolls
> > >
> > > to
> > >
> > >>protect, anything that could possibly open the company up for harm I
> > >
> > > promise
> > >
> > >>they take very seriously.
> > >
> > >>k
> >
> > I suspected that you were clueless when you made promises about
> > companies you have nothing to do with.  When you said that nobody has
> > the kind of money to bring unfair dismissal suits (which in fact are
> > filed by the myriads every week) I became sure you have not the
> > slightest idea what you are talking about.
> >
> > - --
> > Sean Barrett     | We completely deny the allegations, and
> > sean at epoptic.org | we're trying to identify the alligators.
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
> > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> >
> > iD8DBQFEN+06MAt1wyd9d+URAqq4AJ9sGPQ0B5lGSTz/LQ/jm91Jt5HYEACdHMYF
> > TFAK+WqFvaZkLPZvh69xL90=
> > =ioMp
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>


from_name: David Alexander Russell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

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

So, in other words, we need an accepted definition for what constitutes
deletable child porn on Wikipedia. Something like

Any image, whether a photograph, drawing, or render, which depicts
minors engaged in sexual activity or sexually suggestive poses.

Could be made an addition images CSD criterion. This would enable the
deletion of child porn without censoring other sexually explicit images.

Cynical

Sam Korn wrote:
> On 4/8/06, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
>> So "you know it when you see it"?
>
> To an extent, yes.  But it should be pretty damned clear that most
> people would think of the image as child pornography.
>
>>  But people's standards are not
>> necessarily consistent, or objective.
>
> No, so you make sure that the majority of people would consider
> something child pornography.
>
> --
> Sam
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>

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

iD8DBQFEN78Mg8fvtQYQevcRAgnSAJ9OSguey1iteqB15AUsSvnJvDSbkgCcDC5x
NtK5BzgCv6GooA8Jw6uPPCg=
=ApxA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Tim Starling

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

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

Please don't use $wgTitle in parser hook functions, it will break the job queue, and anything else
that wants to parse more than one article. runJobs.php is set up to die with a backtrace if anyone
attempts it. Instead, take a parser object as the third parameter, and use the $parser->mTitle
member variable. Like this:

function DynamicPageList2( $input, $params, &$parser ) {
	...
	$ns = $parser->mTitle->getNamespace();
	...

As Brion points out, using $wgOut won't work either, because data sent to $wgOut won't be saved in
the parser cache. That's why all data generated in parser hooks needs to find its way into the
ParserOutput object. Put an array of head items there, have the parser hook add one, maybe via an
accessor in Parser. Then have OutputPage copy those items to itself in
OutputPage::addParserOutputNoText(). Then it will all work with the parser cache.

-- Tim Staring


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
On 4/8/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:
> Any image, whether a photograph, drawing, or render, which depicts
> minors engaged in sexual activity or sexually suggestive poses.

Without wishing to be querulous, we then need to define "sexually
suggestive poses".

--
Sam


from_name: Keith Old

subject: [WikiEN-l] Illegal sources

body:
On 4/8/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
> Keith Old wrote:
>
> >Of course, there are materials that are illegal to view in one country
> that
> >are perfectly legal in another. It is probably illegal to view neutral
> >accounts of the Tianenmen Square protests in 1989. It is not in most
> other
> >countries and would obviously considered as verifiable material.
> >
> >However, I understand that there is an Optional Protocol to the
> >International Convention on the Rights of the Child see (
> >http://www.law-ref.org/CHILDPROTOCOL2/index.html ).
> >
> >Perhaps it should be considered a banning offence to provide links to
> >materials that contravene this protocol or to upload images that
> contravene
> >it. As it is an international agreement, it might be considered as more
> of
> >an international standard. Such materials should certainly not be
> considered
> >to be verifiable and editors should be encouraged to remove it on sight.
> >
> This suggestion is over the top.  Who makes the decision about whether
> some site is illegal?  Who verifies that?  It's frightening to think
> that some Big Brother is sitting in a tower somewhere making that kind
> of decision that would affect us all.
>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

What is over the top about it? We have admins making decisions everyday to
remove copyvios which are in violation of the law.  We have people who
remove perceived link spam which isn't problematic legally but we deem
inappropriate to list on our site.

I am talking about links to a cache on the then LS studios article to
material that had allegedly been the subject of an FBI raid. I removed it
and nominated it for deletion. Why would we want to keep these links on our
servers either in an article or on a talk page?

We need to take interests in what is in the best interests of Wikipedia.
Having links to illegal material is clearly, in my view, not in the best
interests of Wikipedia. I attached links to an international protocol so
that it was not based on standards in one country in international law.

Regards

Keith Old


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

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

Hadn't thought of that. Posing with any sex toy should definitely be
included, but anything else would be a matter of context, which gives us
an ambiguous policy and the sort of arguments we have seen over T1
(whoever thought people could violate WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and
WP:DICK in one sentence by arguing over what constitutes 'divisive'?).
Don't know how to do it in a way that isn't open to interpretation (and
thus, flamewars)

Cynical

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

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

iD8DBQFEN8Jsg8fvtQYQevcRAjFtAJ4yiZDIvLYFq/YWAFMflfCStR1tFACgmAMr
7JqIEI6G8fmeLU/JnTs3hT4=
=pJ/U
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

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

Yeah, that's the balance that any policy change would have to find  -
banning the teddy bear picture Sam Korn deleted while not affecting the
sorts of stuff you mentioned.

Cynical

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

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

iD8DBQFEN8R0g8fvtQYQevcRAtjOAJ9ED7sEf/I/S/KX9O/t5N9JkE+gtQCdHXWz
vqoXu07/AY4qDpzgQ+bM1rk=
=x14F
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:

>On 8 Apr 2006 at 10:41, "Sam Korn" <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On 4/8/06, SPUI <drspui at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The definition of "child pornography" differs from country to country.
>>>
>>>
>>Yes, in terms of laws.  This image might not fall under child
>>pornography rules in some country or another, but that doesn't
>>actually stop it being child pornography.
>>
>>
>So "you know it when you see it"?  But people's standards are not
>necessarily consistent, or objective.  Do any of you remember the
>flap a few years ago when Oklahoma City banned the award-winning film
>"The Tin Drum" as child porn, and the cops there confiscated all
>copies of it?  This is a movie that the MPAA had rated "R" (mature
>but not pornographic), and it won an Oscar and a Cannes film festival
>award.
>
There was a time when having a book "Banned in Boston" (Ulysses, Lady
Chatterley's Lover) would be a great way to increase sales. :-)

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
David Alexander Russell wrote:

>If pictured by themselves, clearly part of a ball bearing, if pictured
>with a child then the point is moot - can you honestly see a situation
>where a child posing with 1-inch diameter metal balls is relevant to a
>Wikipedia article (unless, say, it's in a lolicon article in which case
>the image would obviously be sexual)
>
Yes.  He's using it as a shooter in a marbles game.  An object like that
is an all-purpose one that could have many uses.  Jumping to the
conclusion that it would be used sexually is unwarranted.  This is a bit
like countries who would ban the export of life-giving medicines to
another out of fear that those medicines might be turned into
biochemical warfare agents.

Ec


from_name: Andrew Gray

body:
On 08/04/06, Katefan0 <katefan0wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> The only possible problem I can see is if Gator was editing Wikipedia while
> at work.  That potentially raises liability and reputation issues for the
> company since he was doing whatever this letter accused him of doing, on
> company time.
>
> Otherwise, it's just embarrassing -- anything that makes a company take the
> time to say "what in the world is this?" brands someone as a potential
> problem employee, even if the action taken really does no harm to the
> company itself.  I mean really, would YOU want to be sitting in your HR
> office explaining why someone wrote a nasty letter to your company about
> you?

My understanding was that it's the latter - but, god knows, that would
be enough for *me* to say "screw this, I don't have to invite this
kind of abuse".

Do bear in mind this was written by an upset crank. I don't
particularly want to imagine what they claimed he got up to...

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


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
On 4/8/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> So, in other words, we need an accepted definition for what constitutes
> deletable child porn on Wikipedia.

No.  That would give the campaigners and trolls a target to try to game.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
David Alexander Russell wrote:

>Well obviously if it is clearly a child's toy, then it would not meet my
>suggestion ('posing with a _sex_ toy').
>
When it comes to that disputed lolicon picture I would not independently
have noticed that the teddy bear had an erection.  It only became
apparent when I was told.  How many of us noticed that without being told.

The Danish cartoons that caused the fuss among Muslims could not have
been obvious representations of the prophet until somebody said so.
Nobody knows what Mohammed really looked like because there were no
cameras in the 7th century.

A picture of a child holding a big cigar is not implicitly a
representation the child's erotic fantasies about his or her father
until somebody says so.  As Freud said :"Sometimes a cigar is only a cigar"

A good writer or artist can bring out the erotic in situations where you
would never imagine it possible.  Companies spend enormous amounts of
money trying to achieve software security, but the hackers still find
their way around the protection.

Ec


from_name: Philip Welch

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
On Apr 8, 2006, at 1:12 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:

> Let's be stronger: Any image containing:
> - elements of erotica,
> - and depictions of people, real or fictitious, apparently under 18.
>
> I don't really see the argument for being inclusionist. Keeping
> borderline cases causes us problems, and causes us to have to justify
> those inclusions.

We don't need to make a policy because of this single specific case,
because we're not deluged by child pornography. If this case recurs,
then we can deal with it the same way we dealt with this one. When
mass uploads of child porn take place, then and only then should we
develop  policy.

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


from_name: Sydney Poore

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
Yes, I like that better. It is less specific but a strong statement. Be
prepared for the argument that child erotica is different from child
porn. I'm having that problem on the Child modeling (erotica) article
now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_modeling_%28erotic%29
Sydney

Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 4/8/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> So, in other words, we need an accepted definition for what constitutes
>> deletable child porn on Wikipedia. Something like
>>
>> Any image, whether a photograph, drawing, or render, which depicts
>> minors engaged in sexual activity or sexually suggestive poses.
>> Let's be stronger: Any image containing:
>> - elements of erotica,
>> - and depictions of people, real or fictitious, apparently under 18.
>>
>> I don't really see the argument for being inclusionist. Keeping
>> borderline cases causes us problems, and causes us to have to justify
>> those inclusions.
>>
>> Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Illegal sources

body:
Keith Old wrote:

>On 4/8/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Keith Old wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Of course, there are materials that are illegal to view in one country that
>>>
>>>
>>>are perfectly legal in another. It is probably illegal to view neutral
>>>accounts of the Tianenmen Square protests in 1989. It is not in most other
>>>
>>>
>>>countries and would obviously considered as verifiable material.
>>>
>>>However, I understand that there is an Optional Protocol to the
>>>International Convention on the Rights of the Child see (
>>>http://www.law-ref.org/CHILDPROTOCOL2/index.html ).
>>>
>>>Perhaps it should be considered a banning offence to provide links to
>>>materials that contravene this protocol or to upload images that contravene
>>>
>>>
>>>it. As it is an international agreement, it might be considered as more of
>>>
>>>
>>>an international standard. Such materials should certainly not be considered
>>>
>>>
>>>to be verifiable and editors should be encouraged to remove it on sight.
>>>
>>>
>>This suggestion is over the top.  Who makes the decision about whether
>>some site is illegal?  Who verifies that?  It's frightening to think
>>that some Big Brother is sitting in a tower somewhere making that kind
>>of decision that would affect us all.
>>
>>
>What is over the top about it? We have admins making decisions everyday to
>remove copyvios which are in violation of the law.  We have people who
>remove perceived link spam which isn't problematic legally but we deem
>inappropriate to list on our site.
>
>I am talking about links to a cache on the then LS studios article to
>material that had allegedly been the subject of an FBI raid. I removed it
>and nominated it for deletion. Why would we want to keep these links on our
>servers either in an article or on a talk page?
>
>We need to take interests in what is in the best interests of Wikipedia.
>Having links to illegal material is clearly, in my view, not in the best
>interests of Wikipedia. I attached links to an international protocol so
>that it was not based on standards in one country in international law.
>
It's easy enough to establish at least o strong prima facie case that
something is a copyvio by simply comparing the material on Wikipedia and
the other site.  Link spam is an annoyance that's obvious in it's own
right.  I can't comment on the specific site that you mention regardiong
the FBI raid; I haven't seen it.

A simple reference to the protocol is not enough to determine what would
be illegal within its terms.  What's over the top is leaving it to
specific individuals to decide that something is illegal over a broad
range of different laws in different places, not just kiddie-porn.  What
worries me is people who arrogate upon themselves ondividually the right
to decide what is in the interests of Wikipedia.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

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

Not if we wrote it properly. The only way a policy can be 'gamed' if it
is written ambiguously or in a way that is down to interpretation (e.g.
CSD T1 - what exactly 'divisive' means is down to the individual, and
two people acting in good faith can interpret it in completely different
ways). If, for example, we simply wrote it as:

Any image depicting children engaged in sexual intercourse or posing
with sex toys

There is nothing in that (that I can see) which could possibly be
'gamed' or misinterpreted.

Cynical

Tony Sidaway wrote:
> On 4/8/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> So, in other words, we need an accepted definition for what constitutes
>> deletable child porn on Wikipedia.
>
> No.  That would give the campaigners and trolls a target to try to game.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>

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

iD8DBQFEN99rg8fvtQYQevcRApx8AJ9lMyReZBKLlA076Y6L+DVzrLAbWgCggSOP
1UIaI71ZIq0B3MoPMkGtuy4=
=BJPL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


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

Like being sued for unfair dismissal or aiding and abetting harassment
of employees you mean?

Cynical

Katefan0 wrote:
> Don't count on it.  Companies have their own reputations and bankrolls to
> protect, anything that could possibly open the company up for harm I promise
> they take very seriously.
>
> k
>
>
> On 4/8/06, Chris L?er <chris at zandria.net> wrote:
>> At 10:49 AM 4/8/2006, Katefan0 wrote:
>>
>>> Otherwise, it's just embarrassing -- anything that makes a company take
>> the
>>> time to say "what in the world is this?" brands someone as a potential
>>> problem employee, even if the action taken really does no harm to the
>>> company itself.  I mean really, would YOU want to be sitting in your HR
>>> office explaining why someone wrote a nasty letter to your company about
>>> you?
>> Of course not. But I'm pretty sure that the HR department has better
>> things to do...
>>
>>         Chris
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>

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

iD8DBQFEN9+0g8fvtQYQevcRAmjEAJ9iiDQbPAuTmItkABL3C0neJb8fjACdFiqB
MrnHIFL/ECRg7FLCXfTuf9Q=
=fmmf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
On 4/8/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:
> Not if we wrote it properly. The only way a policy can be 'gamed' if it
> is written ambiguously or in a way that is down to interpretation (e.g.
> CSD T1 - what exactly 'divisive' means is down to the individual, and
> two people acting in good faith can interpret it in completely different
> ways). If, for example, we simply wrote it as:
>
> Any image depicting children engaged in sexual intercourse or posing
> with sex toys
>
> There is nothing in that (that I can see) which could possibly be
> 'gamed' or misinterpreted.

Apart from people finding an image of child pornography that doesn't
fit into the narrow bands.  It needs to be generally worded, but
explicit inclusions are possible.  For example:

"Any image of child pornography, whether photography, drawing or
computer-generated, including but not limited to any image depicting
children engaged in sexual intercourse or posing with sex toys."

And people wonder why I don't write articles... (they don't, actually,
but it suits my rhetorical point to say they do)

--
Sam


from_name: Ben McIlwain

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

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

Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 4/8/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:
>> So, in other words, we need an accepted definition for what constitutes
>> deletable child porn on Wikipedia. Something like
>>
>> Any image, whether a photograph, drawing, or render, which depicts
>> minors engaged in sexual activity or sexually suggestive poses.
>
> Let's be stronger: Any image containing:
> - elements of erotica,
> - and depictions of people, real or fictitious, apparently under 18.
>
> I don't really see the argument for being inclusionist. Keeping
> borderline cases causes us problems, and causes us to have to justify
> those inclusions.

Your criteria are ridiculous.  You know how much perfectly legal anime
(which airs on Cartoon Network, among other things) you just made
"illegal" with your broad brush stroke?

Am I the only one who finds it ludicrous to talk about whether a drawn
image on a piece of paper looks like it is depicting someone over the
age of 18?!

- --
Ben McIlwain ("Cyde Weys")

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

iD8DBQFEOCcZvCEYTv+mBWcRAqw2AJ9JAc7a+1xVLnkmxc0AoYuYYkVuHwCfTgsM
yVdNeB8WvnGIp8rRnRtKcWc=
=Baga
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


body:
Wrongful dismissal cases are often on a contingency basis.
Ec

Katefan0 wrote:

>Please -- be realistic.  Nobody has that kind of money.
>
>k
>
>
>On 4/8/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>Hash: SHA1
>>
>>Like being sued for unfair dismissal or aiding and abetting harassment
>>of employees you mean?
>>
>>Cynical
>>
>>Katefan0 wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Don't count on it.  Companies have their own reputations and bankrolls to
>>>
>>>
>>>protect, anything that could possibly open the company up for harm I promise
>>>
>>>
>>>they take very seriously.
>>>
>>>k
>>>
>>>On 4/8/06, Chris L?er <chris at zandria.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>At 10:49 AM 4/8/2006, Katefan0 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Otherwise, it's just embarrassing -- anything that makes a company take the
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>time to say "what in the world is this?" brands someone as a potential
>>>>>problem employee, even if the action taken really does no harm to the
>>>>>company itself.  I mean really, would YOU want to be sitting in your HR
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>office explaining why someone wrote a nasty letter to your company about you?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Of course not. But I'm pretty sure that the HR department has better
>>>>things to do...
>>>>
>>>>


body:
On 08/04/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Like being sued for unfair dismissal or aiding and abetting harassment
> of employees you mean?

In the US, where the situation being discussed has arisen, employee
protection against being fired is... remarkably limited, from a
European perspective.

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


from_name: Matt Brown

body:
On 4/8/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Wrongful dismissal cases are often on a contingency basis.

Often, but not always; it depends on your actual chances of winning.
A friend of mine worked for a while at a law firm that handled these
cases; most they did NOT take on contingency, but charged.  It seems
that enough people are steamed enough at their former employer to pay
to sue them.

For most employees in many US states, wrongful dismissal suits are
hard.  Most of us are employees 'at will' - our contracts say we can
be fired at any time and quit at any time, no obligation either way.
With such a contract, you can only sue for wrongful dismissal if you
were fired because of 'protected status' - racial discrimination,
gender discrimination, or other particular cases that are illegal.

Of course, it's possible in almost any dismissal to allege that it was
due to illegal discrimination.  Some companies will settle an
aggressively brought case regardless of merit, rather than face the
chances of losing at trial.

-Matt


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

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

I agree that we need it to be broad, but including 'but not limited to'
is leaving it open to interpretation - giving us the same problems of
CSD T1 /et al/ in that there can be significant confusion as to what is
or is not deletable.

Cynical

Sam Korn wrote:
> On 4/8/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:
>> Not if we wrote it properly. The only way a policy can be 'gamed' if it
>> is written ambiguously or in a way that is down to interpretation (e.g.
>> CSD T1 - what exactly 'divisive' means is down to the individual, and
>> two people acting in good faith can interpret it in completely different
>> ways). If, for example, we simply wrote it as:
>>
>> Any image depicting children engaged in sexual intercourse or posing
>> with sex toys
>>
>> There is nothing in that (that I can see) which could possibly be
>> 'gamed' or misinterpreted.
>
> Apart from people finding an image of child pornography that doesn't
> fit into the narrow bands.  It needs to be generally worded, but
> explicit inclusions are possible.  For example:
>
> "Any image of child pornography, whether photography, drawing or
> computer-generated, including but not limited to any image depicting
> children engaged in sexual intercourse or posing with sex toys."
>
> And people wonder why I don't write articles... (they don't, actually,
> but it suits my rhetorical point to say they do)
>
> --
> Sam
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>

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

iD8DBQFEN/eyg8fvtQYQevcRAk5kAJ9ZIOzfe45VQaas9YdfWCTA6scFVQCgilad
m+Dp3Oe+qBl737GARp6W8vc=
=BD02
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

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

Would be covered by '...minors engaged in sexual activity...' -
masturbation is a sexual activity (no room for interpretation)

Cynical

Sydney Poore wrote:
> Many of them fall outside of
> that definition. For example, very young children masturbating for
> sexual gratification. I think Tony is right. If the description is too
> specific then people will try to game it.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEN/gMg8fvtQYQevcRAtSMAJ40olce/zttXMouEgYyUOX4UZvU4QCfcQPk
aFgTTisLg6MT9XecvmEjWMA=
=RMeu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
Mark Gallagher wrote:

>G'day Steve,
>
>
>>I don't really see the argument for being inclusionist. Keeping
>>borderline cases causes us problems, and causes us to have to justify
>>those inclusions.
>>
>>
>Hmm.  Where does a screenshot from /Lolita/ stand under this criteria?
>
>(Having neither read the book nor seen the movies, I apologise if this
>question is irrelevant.)
>
Nabokov was a masterful writer and craftsman, and the movie was also
well done.  Movies at that time would have been far less likely to be
openly sexual than anything produced today.  I saw it shortly after it
came out, and remember that the background to the titles was a very
erotic sequence of Lolita painting her toenails.  It was erotic without
being sexual.  The story is really about one man's obsession, and even
the simple fact of it being a black and white film brings that theme
out.  By all means do both.

Ec


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

Ah... that could be a problem.

Cynical

Andrew Gray wrote:
> On 08/04/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Like being sued for unfair dismissal or aiding and abetting harassment
>> of employees you mean?
>
> In the US, where the situation being discussed has arisen, employee
> protection against being fired is... remarkably limited, from a
> European perspective.
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
>   andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>

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

iD8DBQFEN/gyg8fvtQYQevcRAtc7AKCGNzHY+v7FkAWyEBAnBpeFC/CUggCeKvij
eum6+50UbtiO08B7qwl6FFg=
=xfGh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

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

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

Cynical

Sean Barrett wrote:
> David Alexander Russell stated for the record:
>
>>> Not if we wrote it properly. The only way a policy can be 'gamed' if it
>>> is written ambiguously or in a way that is down to interpretation (e.g.
>>> CSD T1 - what exactly 'divisive' means is down to the individual, and
>>> two people acting in good faith can interpret it in completely different
>>> ways). If, for example, we simply wrote it as:
>>>
>>> Any image depicting children engaged in sexual intercourse or posing
>>> with sex toys
>>>
>>> There is nothing in that (that I can see) which could possibly be
>>> 'gamed' or misinterpreted.
>>>
>>> Cynical
>
> A pair of one-inch diameter metal balls.  Sex toy, or parts of a bearing?
>
> --
>  Sean Barrett     | We completely deny the allegations, and
>  sean at epoptic.org | we're trying to identify the alligators.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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

iD8DBQFEN/iwg8fvtQYQevcRAlyCAKCXU1d3c91iUTtEH8UHf358eiUhiQCfbNUU
9mxzJpQnO3s8+BIJXOyJqLc=
=bXvT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Ilmari Karonen

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

body:
Tels wrote:
> On Thursday 06 April 2006 21:35, Ilmari Karonen wrote:
>
>>This is all very well, except that it means
>>anyone who wants to develop such an extension must first figure out how
>>to set up a local MediaWiki installation, including installing MySQL
>>and a webserver (usually Apache).  And configuring those to be secure,
>>since the default configuration for webservers tends to expose them to
>>any hacker or spammer that happens by.
>
> Nonsense, to hack or develop for wikipedia you do not need a public wiki.
> (my test wiki isn't public and yet I created an extension)

Neither is mine, but if I didn't have a firewall in place, the default
Apache config would've been open to anyone who knew or guessed my IP.

I know about such things, of course, and so do you, but most people who
would just like to create a new infobox on Wikipedia don't.

>>And it means they must learn,
>>even for the simplest of things, a significant subset of the MediaWiki
>>internals, which are even worse documented than template syntax.
>
> Or they could ask a developer.

We don't have enough devs.

>>And it means they must be much more careful, since a MediaWiki extension
>>can screw up the system in lots of ways that a template can't.
>
> I do think you are in for a surprise here, because templates that
> "compute" can be far more dangerous than you think.

Are you actually arguing against Tim's new syntax here, or against some
hypothetical straw-man scenario?  Tim's proposal includes conditionals
and simple arithmetic expressions -- it does not allow loops nor
recursion.  MediaWiki syntax isn't Turing-complete, and I believe there
is a rather firm consensus to keep it that way.

> But there are only a few really usefull features, like you said,
> infoboxes. You can put the common ones into an extension or mediawiki
> feature, and real software developers will care for them, they will write
> testcases for them, they will be secured etc etc, e.g. everything that is
> done with code today.

I don't think there's enough common logic in the various infobox
templates to usefully refactor into a generic extension.  Or are you
proposing separate MediaWiki extensions for every single infobox, from
{{taxobox}} all the way down to {{Harry Potter character}}?

And what exactly are those security risks that you think an infobox
might have, with or without Tim's new syntax?

--
Ilmari Karonen


from_name: Daniel R. Tobias

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
On 8 Apr 2006 at 22:12, "Steve Bennett" <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:

> Let's be stronger: Any image containing:
> - elements of erotica,
> - and depictions of people, real or fictitious, apparently under 18.

If text of this nature were covered as well, you'd encompass a good
deal of Harry Potter fanfic!

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


list: foundation-l

from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject: [Foundation-l] Next step in the spam arms race.

body:
Seems like the spammers have found the web equivalent of an smtp open relay.

For example:
[http://wiki.cs.uiuc.edu/VisualWorks/DOWNLOAD/sb/index.htm sitz bath]
[http://www.buddy4u.com/view/?u=monophonic+ringtone monophonic ringtone]
[http://www.buddyprofile.com/viewprofile.php?username=nextelringtone
nextel ringtone]

These are links to legitimate sites that perform poor input
validation... The spammers have managed to convert the pages into http
redirects.

Because of how the various search engines work a link to a redirect
page is just as good as a link to the redirect target.

Since the spammers can make an infinite number of unique URLs at these
sites, blocking the exact URL is pointless. So right now our only
choices are to block legitimate sites because their poor hygiene
allows them to be used as a spam-bouncer, or allow ourselves to be
spammed with these sites and contribute to the declining usefulness of
the internet.

Things like this make nofollow more attractive all the time.  Has
there ever been any discussion on perhaps allowing a white-list for
non-spam sites that we won't no-follow?  This would be useful for
wikis who don't want to kill all their externals with no-follow.


list: wikimedia-l


subject: [Wikitech-l] Next step in the spam arms race.


from_name: Ryan Delaney

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

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

If that's the standard it takes to get that image deleted, I will accept it.

Smug jabs aside, here's the point; you and I might disagree about whether we
should call that image "pornography", but that's a subjective disagreement
about word meanings. I wouldn't like to have the rule be "No pornography
allowed in Wikipedia", because although I agree with the proposition, what
would happen is that people would go around calling random stuff
"pornography" and demanding that it be deleted. That's what's going on here
-- word meanings are fluid, vague, and different people interpret them
differently. When I say "That image is pornography", I express a true
proposition. When you say "That image is not pornography", you also express
a true proposition; because what we mean by "pornography" is evidentally
different.

The real issue here is whether we want that image in Wikipedia, given the
legal and moral lines we would be walking by including it. I don't think a
reasonable argument could be made in favor, either legally, morally, or in
terms of benefit to the encyclopedia. At best, we've saved the WMF
foundation and many thousands of readers from legal liability for copyright
infringement and posession of child pornography. At worst, we've lost an
image that was slightly more illustrative of the subject matter than the
free, legal one we have now. Is it really worth all this argument? Let's get
back to work on the encyclopedia.

Ryan


from_name: Mark Gallagher

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia broken

body:
G'day David,

> But that's exactly my point. _What the policy says_ is (ie 'if this
> happens, in this way, then this is the consequence') _all_ that achieved
> consensus (and therefore all the is enforceable) - anything above and
> beyond that is not endorsed by the community (or, in the case of
> decrees, not endorsed by Jimbo unless he subsequently says so) and
> therefore is not policy. Taking your example, if there was community
> consensus to extending the 3RR to 25 hours then it would be amended as such.

1) Policy is descriptive --- it *describes* what we already do, it
    attempts to document consensus.  When we look to policy, it's because
    we're not sure what to do or, unfortunately rather commonly, because
    we want a bat to hit our opponents with and can't come up with a
    logical argument (see also "wikilawyering").  As a natural
    consequence, what policy says necessarily lags behind what we
    actually do --- as someone wise, or possibly Raul654, said, "do what
    needs to be done, and eventually someone will rewrite policy to
    suit".  Or words to that effect.  There will always be some activity
    on the edges where, if a bloke confines his understanding to policy
    (rather than to *Wikipedia*), he'll always be uncertain about what's
    happening.

2) The 3RR is a good example.  Someone who reverts four times in 25
    hours (or, indeed, 24 hours and 30 seconds) is no different from
    someone who reverts four times in 23 hours (or 23 hours and 59
    minutes 30 seconds).  They're all edit warriors, and those who happen
    to wait an extra minute for "their revert limit" to reset itself are
    doing what's called "gaming the 3RR" or, bluntly, being dicks (that's
    WP:DICK, which process wonks always seem to want to get rid of).

    The only reason we say "three reverts in 24 hours" is because you
    have to draw a line, however fuzzy, somewhere.  You can't accuse
    someone of edit warring who made three reverts in nine months, nor
    can you take someone who makes twelve reverts in an hour and say
    they're not really warring, it's just healthy boyish aggression.  3RR
    gives a basic definition.  But at the edges ... if I make four
    reverts in 25 hours, I'm as bad as someone who does it in 24.  Now,
    what if I make three reverts every day for two weeks?  Is my
    behaviour appropriate?  Am I entitled to whine about my inevitable
    block, because "process says I have to revert four times a day before
    you can block me!"?  Bollocks, I am.

    People are blocked all the time for gaming the 3RR.  The 3RR
    description itself says "this is not an entitlement".  3RR is about
    discouraging and, in some cases, ending revert wars.  I suggest
    unblocking someone I (or any other sensible admin) blocked for four
    reverts in 25 hours would be a very, very silly thing to do.

--
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.0/304 - Release Date: 7/04/2006


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
On 4/8/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> So, in other words, we need an accepted definition for what constitutes
> deletable child porn on Wikipedia. Something like
>
> Any image, whether a photograph, drawing, or render, which depicts
> minors engaged in sexual activity or sexually suggestive poses.

Let's be stronger: Any image containing:
- elements of erotica,
- and depictions of people, real or fictitious, apparently under 18.

I don't really see the argument for being inclusionist. Keeping
borderline cases causes us problems, and causes us to have to justify
those inclusions.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
G'day BJ?rn,

> Something I feel have been missed is Sam Korn's original assertion
> that "[The image deletion] process is demonstrably broken" because
> this image was not deleted by it. I believe the process is not broken
> at all, but that Sam's approach to it was wrong. If he had stuck with
> the 100% demonstrably true facts; 1. the image is not free, 2. there
> is a free replacement, then I believe the image could have been
> deleted without much fuss. But when you use emotional arguments ("This
> image is extremely harmful to Wikipedia..."), expect a filibuster.

I just had this amazing flash of insight!  Like many amazing flashes of
insight, it may be off-target, so feel free to correct me.

Let's step back in time, and give Sam his time over again.

(SK = "smoddy", LT = "Lolicon Trolls" because I couldn't think of
anything better on the spur of the moment, SP = "FloNight", FL =
"freedom lovers")

SK: Hi, I'm smoddy.  I think you should delete this image because it's
     an unnecessary fair use image and there's a better free image
     available.
LT: Actually, in the free image you don't quite get the same close up of
     sickeningly inappropriate child porn.  Also, some of the magazines
     in the free image print drawings of adults, which is clearly wrong.
SP: I agree with Sam!
LT: FloNight agrees?  That proves this is all about censorship!
FL: AAARGH!  WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CENSORED!  I haven't even seen this image,
     but we *cannot* delete it!  You monsters!  You're just like the
     Communists!  Or was it Fascists?!

The moral of the story and, incidentally, the only part of this email
that's serious, is that certain images will attract a crowd of
anti-censorship Wikipedians regardless of what reasons we have for deletion.

--
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.0/304 - Release Date: 7/04/2006


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

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

Well obviously if it is clearly a child's toy, then it would not meet my
suggestion ('posing with a _sex_ toy').

Cynical

Sean Barrett wrote:
> David Alexander Russell stated for the record:
>
>>> If pictured by themselves, clearly part of a ball bearing, if pictured
>>> with a child then the point is moot - can you honestly see a situation
>>> where a child posing with 1-inch diameter metal balls is relevant to a
>>> Wikipedia article (unless, say, it's in a lolicon article in which case
>>> the image would obviously be sexual)
>>>
>>> Cynical
>
> An article on "Magz," which is a toy based on magnetic sticks and steel
> balls.  The balls are smaller than an inch, but my point is that someone
> out to game the system can game any standard you set up.
>
> --
>  Sean Barrett     | We completely deny the allegations, and
>  sean at epoptic.org | we're trying to identify the alligators.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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

iD8DBQFEOCdsg8fvtQYQevcRAhXTAJ9wBkMsbs99BIuJ3JdgXaz9BMgtGACfRhP9
4d6ZPo/V3iHz4R2WbdUHvDM=
=Buvb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

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

I agree, but my suggestion was aimed at creating an objective criterion
which could not be 'gamed' (whereas there could be endless arguments
about what constitutes 'erotica')

Cynical

Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 4/8/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> So, in other words, we need an accepted definition for what constitutes
>> deletable child porn on Wikipedia. Something like
>>
>> Any image, whether a photograph, drawing, or render, which depicts
>> minors engaged in sexual activity or sexually suggestive poses.
>
> Let's be stronger: Any image containing:
> - elements of erotica,
> - and depictions of people, real or fictitious, apparently under 18.
>
> I don't really see the argument for being inclusionist. Keeping
> borderline cases causes us problems, and causes us to have to justify
> those inclusions.
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>

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

iD8DBQFEOCfYg8fvtQYQevcRAlCsAJ0X1wxRnQEXF7GuXtqtcvaZPlGSZQCfSRQ9
VbeaN1Z1Q5tSUZrJXoEK7b4=
=Wky2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
G'day Phil,

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

There's objective fact, and then there's the Phil Welch approach to
reality.  Well done.

On a certain level, you do have a point.  For instance, take NPOV.  We
write from a neutral point of view not because that's the best kind of
POV there is (it's not).  The best kid of POV, in my opinion, is Mark
Gallagher's Point of View.  Ryan Delaney would probably consider his own
POV the best one.  I'm certain you think your POV is the best POV.
Since I don't want your POV to be the Official Voice of Wikipedia, and
you don't want mine, we compromise on NPOV.  On many potentially
subjective issues, consensus is the way to go.  If Jimbo were to declare
tomorrow that Mark Gallagher's POV replaces NPOV, I would be happy, and
certain Wikipedia articles would undoubtedly improve out of sight ...
but many editors would leave, if only because they don't like the idea
of what our article "American English" now says.

On points of objective fact, however, there's really not that much room
for differing viewpoints (except, perhaps, to point out that those views
are wrong).  We have an image, which is a) pornographic and b) depicts a
child.  There really aren't too many ways you can combine 'a' and 'b'
without coming up with kiddie porn which is, I know you'll agree, a Bad
Thing.

> "Imagine a world in which Ryan Delaney has free access to the sum of
> human knowledge..."

Heh, I must admit, that's a good line.  Well done!

--
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.0/304 - Release Date: 7/04/2006


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-04-09

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

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

Passed 300 of 303 tests (99.01%) FAILED!


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
Fred Bauder wrote:
> On Apr 8, 2006, at 8:07 AM, Sydney Poore wrote:
>> Sam Korn wrote:
>>> On 4/8/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Any image, whether a photograph, drawing, or render, which depicts
>>>> minors engaged in sexual activity or sexually suggestive poses.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Without wishing to be querulous, we then need to define "sexually
>>> suggestive poses".
>>>
>>
>> Minors engaged in sexually suggestive poses is too broad Too many
>> movie posters and CD (album) covers would be eliminated. Key to
>> this is age appropriate sexual activity. Depictions of teens or
>> pre-teens acting sexually suggestive towards each other is okay.
>>
>
> You are pointing to an important problem, mildly suggestive images
> are used by the mainstream media to say nothing of the obvious fact
> that it is normal for children to engage in innocent sexual behavior.
>
> I think what we are after is those images (and sites) that cross over
> a poorly defined line into sexual exploitation of children. I would
> say that if some of our readers find an image or link objectionable,
> we should not include it. "Some" being a substantial fraction. We
> should not be mislead by our own reactions to an image. Having viewed
> goatse, our perspective is a bit warped.
>

Not just goatse, but autofellatio too...

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 554 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060409/a88cd366/attachment.pgp


from_name: Carl Fûrstenberg

subject: [WikiEN-l] Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act

body:
Don't know what to do, as I was wikify articles, I came to this one. as
usual I searched for copyvios and found http://www.complianceit.net/?p=31

The problem is that that page have copied wikipedia data without saying so,
as IANAL I ask you what to do.

/Carl


subject: [WikiEN-l] request to Jimbo for out-of-process deletion of image

body:
>
> Such results are plausible, but establishing a series of rules just to
> deal with trolls and POV pushers is not likely to be productive.

That's absolutely right, and that's why we didn't create a bunch of new
rules
in this case. We just did the right thing -- out of process. Process has
worked
fine for almost every other case, but it wasn't working here, so we skipped
it.
No new rules are necessary.

Ryan


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
On 4/9/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
>
> We don't need to make a policy because of this single specific case,
> because we're not deluged by child pornography. If this case recurs,
> then we can deal with it the same way we dealt with this one. When
> mass uploads of child porn take place, then and only then should we
> develop  policy.
>

Precisely.  This is a case that had been festering for well over a
year until someone dealt with it, and now that it's happened nobody
seems to be mad keen to restore the picture, so it seems apparent to
me that all that was missing was a bit of guts.

We really haven't got a child porn problem, and if at some point we
ever should, we could then develop a policy on the basis of a spread
of different cases about which we could reach a reasonable agreement.


from_name: 田中 万太郎

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

body:
Hello

I send this mail again because site is still there.

> this site http://www.stadtspiegel-netzwerk.de/ seems to
be
> mirroring the Wikipedia contents live, in the different
> languages. For example:
>
http://www.stadtspiegel-netzwerk.de/cgi-bin/enz.pl?SDT=1&ROOT=3&Query=Special:Recentchanges&LAN=en

It is also hotlinking to the image files.

Please, can someone block the site?

Thankyou

TANAKA

--------------------------------------
Celebrate Yahoo! JAPAN 10th Anniversary
http://pr.mail.yahoo.co.jp/10thann/


from_name: Stephen Bain

body:
On 4/8/06, Tels <nospam-abuse at bloodgate.com> wrote:
>
> (Ok, ok, i just might it try instead of buggering you :)

The devs do tend to be more productive when they aren't being sodomised :)

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


from_name: Robert Scott Horning

body:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:

>Seems like the spammers have found the web equivalent of an smtp open relay.
>
>For example:
>[http://wiki.cs.uiuc.edu/VisualWorks/DOWNLOAD/sb/index.htm sitz bath]
>[http://www.buddy4u.com/view/?u=monophonic+ringtone monophonic ringtone]
>[http://www.buddyprofile.com/viewprofile.php?username=nextelringtone
>nextel ringtone]
>
>
>Things like this make nofollow more attractive all the time.  Has
>there ever been any discussion on perhaps allowing a white-list for
>non-spam sites that we won't no-follow?  This would be useful for
>wikis who don't want to kill all their externals with no-follow.
>
>
As a general policy, this would be inappropriate use of user pages on
Wikimedia projects and I wouldn't hesitate to delete conent of this
nature immediately if found, block the user account, and seek a
checkuser scan to block the IP address as well (if it were initiated
from a registered user account).  Link spamming has been a persistant
problem on Wikimedia projects anyway, although there has been some
efforts to try and root that problem out by preventing new users and
anonymous ip addresses from adding external links to pages.

In term of general spamming and such, yeah, the internet is a far
different place than it was 15 years ago when I got my first regular
internet e-mail account and was involved with USENET.  Spam has all but
completely killed that service.  I wish the various ISPs were more
agressive in policing their users against this sort of activity, but it
is economically useful to ignore that spamming even occurs with their
accounts.

--
Robert Scott Horning


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Policy clarification: Undue weight

body:
This is an on-going problem. It is done both by those who
misunderstand the policy and by those with a point of view agenda.
The only reasonable recourse is to patiently discuss the policy. I'm
not sure the section on undue weight could be made any clearer. If
you are unable to negotiate successfully with those who have a point
of view agenda please use the dispute resolution procedure. Please
don't edit war with them.

Fred

On Apr 9, 2006, at 9:09 AM, Ian Tresman wrote:

> Significant material is sometimes excluded from some articles on the
> grounds of undue weight. Can someone clarify whether the policy on
> NPOV Undue weight is being misinterpreted, and if so, whether it can
> be clarified?
>
> NPOV Undue weight states:
>
>          * "... the article should fairly represent all significant
> viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each". See
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_Point_of_View#Undue_weight
>
> But if the perceived prominence is very low, the proportion is
> rounded down to zero, and material excluded, regardless of the
> significance? The policy goes on to say:
>
>          * "To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or
> to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape
> of the dispute."
>
> In other words, the mere mention of a significant-minority view may
> be misleading, not whether we write that text in a neutral point of
> view?
>
> But I also note from the NPOV tutorial:
>
>          * Editors may unwittingly or deliberately present a subject
> in an unfair way [.. by] Entirely omitting significant citable
> information in support of a minority view, with the argument that it
> is claimed to be not credible.
>          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial
>
>
>
> I have examples of material being excluded from several articles on
> the grounds of Undue weight, though the material is peer-reviewed,
> citable and verifiable. In some cases, there are dozens of citations.
>
> The result is that anonymous and accountable editors may by
> consensus, completely exclude verifiable material from credible,
> career scientists; yet "Consensus should not trump
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV>NPOV (or any other official
> policy)" See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus
>
> Shouldn't we be open and inclusive, so that "Readers are left to form
> their own opinions" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> Neutral_Point_of_View ]
>
> I'd like to see a clarification that significant minority views, in
> which prominent adherences can be verified (eg. as peer-reviewed
> authors), should not be excluded from an article on the grounds of
> undue weight; their views may be summarised, though detailed in an
> article of their own.
>
> Examples on request.
>
> Regards,
> Ian Tresman
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Gavin Chait

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

body:
Actually the bullet points were from the SA constitution.  Any comments on
the sanctity of Gaddafi are my own.

Extending my suggestion on the "rules" for wikibooks could have a simple
statement of what the purpose of books is to serve, and then specify that
any and all books will be evaluated by a special executive.  Books found to
be against the spirit of wikibooks will be removed and the subject listed on
a banned list.  An appeal should be allowed during which the people behind
the controversial book may submit their reasoning as to why the book should
remain.  Once heard the executive should have a set period to decide.  Once
a decision is made, however, it is final.

For instance:

"Wikibooks are to offer specific guidance, education or knowledge on any
topic with the specific limitation that the subject be one likely to benefit
society.  Where a subject is likely to cause harm (material or otherwise)
then such a subject will be reviewed by the wikibooks executive.  A current
list of subjects specifically banned from wikibooks is as follows:

- how to rape
- how to commit an act of terrorism
- .... and so on"

The executive and other terms in the above can be defined and agreed upon.
That way one person doesn't get saddled with making all the decisions, and -
most importantly - there is a context to the decision making process and
precedents can be set.

---
Gavin


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
G'day Steve,

> On 4/8/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>So, in other words, we need an accepted definition for what constitutes
>>deletable child porn on Wikipedia. Something like
>>
>>Any image, whether a photograph, drawing, or render, which depicts
>>minors engaged in sexual activity or sexually suggestive poses.
>
> Let's be stronger: Any image containing:
> - elements of erotica,
> - and depictions of people, real or fictitious, apparently under 18.
>
> I don't really see the argument for being inclusionist. Keeping
> borderline cases causes us problems, and causes us to have to justify
> those inclusions.

Hmm.  Where does a screenshot from /Lolita/ stand under this criteria?

(Having neither read the book nor seen the movies, I apologise if this
question is irrelevant.)

--
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.0/305 - Release Date: 8/04/2006


from_name: NSLE (Wikipedia)

body:
Just FWIW, SlimVirgin has created a new page (shortcut [[WP:AMDB]]
[[Wikipedia:Admins willing to make difficult blocks]]).

--NSLE


body:
Point of view editing is not a content dispute. The policy is clear,
but some chose not to implement it. Without looking at the articles
involved it is impossible to tell what is going on.

Fred

On Apr 9, 2006, at 10:14 AM, Ian Tresman wrote:

> At 16:28 09/04/2006, you wrote:
>
>> This is an on-going problem. It is done both by those who
>> misunderstand the policy and by those with a point of view agenda.
>> The only reasonable recourse is to patiently discuss the policy. I'm
>> not sure the section on undue weight could be made any clearer. If
>> you are unable to negotiate successfully with those who have a point
>> of view agenda please use the dispute resolution procedure. Please
>> don't edit war with them.
>>
>
>
> This is the one policy where I have had almost a year of
> "discussion". I have tried various dispute resolution processes, and
> am invariably told that it is a content dispute (presumably because
> nearly all policy relates to content).
>
> It seems to me that policy should be sufficiently clear for editors
> to implement, not decide by consensus?
>
> Regards,
> Ian Tresman
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Mathias Schindler

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fatally Flawed, part II: The Economist corrects itself

body:
The Economist, April 8, 2006

In "Open, but not as usual" (March 18th), we said non-registered users
could not modify most Wikipedia entries; they can, save for some
controversial ones. Also, a chart of Wikipedia's articles and
contributors incorrectly showed a downturn in December 2005, because
we used incomplete data. We apologise.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
G'day Dan,

> On 8 Apr 2006 at 22:12, "Steve Bennett" <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Let's be stronger: Any image containing:
>>- elements of erotica,
>>- and depictions of people, real or fictitious, apparently under 18.
>
> If text of this nature were covered as well, you'd encompass a good
> deal of Harry Potter fanfic!

Ah, a bonus!

--
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.0/305 - Release Date: 8/04/2006


from_name: Jay R. Ashworth

body:
On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 09:03:28AM +1000, Stephen Bain wrote:
> On 4/8/06, Tels <nospam-abuse at bloodgate.com> wrote:
> > (Ok, ok, i just might it try instead of buggering you :)
>
> The devs do tend to be more productive when they aren't being sodomised :)

Well, in *my* experience of open source developers over 20 years, some
of them *like* it.  :-)

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

     A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
     Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

     A: Top-posting.
     Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet and in e-mail?


from_name: Ray Saintonge

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

body:
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:

>On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 06:32:01PM -0700, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>
>>Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 18:32:01 -0700
>>But Joe User still needs to plug information into the template.  Or in
>>the course of ordinary editing he runs into a template which is not
>>suitable to his subject, but it's beyond his technical capacity to trace
>>the problem.  It's easy to say that he should ask someone more
>>experienced in thee things, but that detracts from his editing
>>experience and the genuine value that he has as a content provider.
>>
>>
>That sounds like an argument in favor of penalizing smart users at the
>expense of stupid users -- worse, making it harder for the smart users
>to *help* the stupid users.
>
>That way lies madness, and sweaty palms.
>
The word that describes that attitude is "arrogance".  It's on a par
with a politician saying, "Trust me."

As you stated elsewhere you may very well 25 years of experience in
computer systems; I don't dispute that.

Others may have spent 25 years developing their experience in other
areas of knowledge, with only negligible experience in computer
systems.  That does not make them "stupid", and should not qualify them
for such insults.  Without the content, the Wikipedia that you envision
would be nothing more than an empty shell.

Ec


from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Wikitech-l] Real-time mirrors as a net revenue _source_?

body:
I don't think the idea was to charge generally for a subscription, but
rather to include ads.

However, unlike most mirrors, it would hopefully make it quite clear
that it was a MIRROR and that it was possible to view the content
without ads if one so desires.

Provided that the ads are not popups, and provided I can choose
whether or not I get flash ads (I hate the damned things), I would be
willing to do all of my Wikipedia browsing that way because I would be
happy to give that much-needed boost to WMF.

Mark

On 09/04/06, Ivan Krstic <krstic at fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
> Neil Harris wrote:
> > Good idea, or bad idea?
>
> It presupposes that users of real-time WM content would pay for the
> privilege given the chance; as far as I can tell, that assumption is
> incorrect in the majority of cases.
>
> --
> Ivan Krstic <krstic at fas.harvard.edu> | GPG: 0x147C722D
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>

--
"Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Fatally Flawed,
	part II: The Economist corrects itself

body:
link?

On 4/9/06, Mathias Schindler <mathias.schindler at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The Economist, April 8, 2006
>
> In "Open, but not as usual" (March 18th), we said non-registered users
> could not modify most Wikipedia entries; they can, save for some
> controversial ones. Also, a chart of Wikipedia's articles and
> contributors incorrectly showed a downturn in December 2005, because
> we used incomplete data. We apologise.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: maru dubshinki

body:
On 4/9/06, Mathias Schindler <mathias.schindler at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/9/06, Carl F?rstenberg <azatoth at gmail.com> wrote:
> > link?
>
> It should be in the dead-tree US edition.
>
> The Graph in the original article seems to be corrected as of today:
>
> http://www.economist.com/images/20060318/CSF428.gif
>
> It still states:
>
> "And after the furore over the biographical entry last year, Wikipedia
> changed its rules so that only registered users can edit existing
> entries, and new contributors must wait a few days before they can
> start new ones."
>
> http://www.economist.com/business/displayStory.cfm?story_id=5624944

That's not the only problem. They are also using a very misleading
article count- we don't have three million. We only have 3M if one
counts every last entry and redirect as an article.

~maru


body:
I would say that the vast majority of people who abuse it are people
with an agenda.

The point of it is so that we don't have pages and pages of Alex Chiu
crap in [[immortality]] and [[teleportation]] and the like, or two
entire books full of "how to goodbye depression" and "internal fenix"
(sic) crap in the [[Eric Castenada]] article.

The point is not so that we don't have two sentences about Flat
Earthers or so that we don't have two sentences about people who
believe GWB sucks.

Mark

On 09/04/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> This is an on-going problem. It is done both by those who
> misunderstand the policy and by those with a point of view agenda.
> The only reasonable recourse is to patiently discuss the policy. I'm
> not sure the section on undue weight could be made any clearer. If
> you are unable to negotiate successfully with those who have a point
> of view agenda please use the dispute resolution procedure. Please
> don't edit war with them.
>
> Fred
>
> On Apr 9, 2006, at 9:09 AM, Ian Tresman wrote:
>
> > Significant material is sometimes excluded from some articles on the
> > grounds of undue weight. Can someone clarify whether the policy on
> > NPOV Undue weight is being misinterpreted, and if so, whether it can
> > be clarified?
> >
> > NPOV Undue weight states:
> >
> >          * "... the article should fairly represent all significant
> > viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each". See
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_Point_of_View#Undue_weight
> >
> > But if the perceived prominence is very low, the proportion is
> > rounded down to zero, and material excluded, regardless of the
> > significance? The policy goes on to say:
> >
> >          * "To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or
> > to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape
> > of the dispute."
> >
> > In other words, the mere mention of a significant-minority view may
> > be misleading, not whether we write that text in a neutral point of
> > view?
> >
> > But I also note from the NPOV tutorial:
> >
> >          * Editors may unwittingly or deliberately present a subject
> > in an unfair way [.. by] Entirely omitting significant citable
> > information in support of a minority view, with the argument that it
> > is claimed to be not credible.
> >          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial
> >
> >
> >
> > I have examples of material being excluded from several articles on
> > the grounds of Undue weight, though the material is peer-reviewed,
> > citable and verifiable. In some cases, there are dozens of citations.
> >
> > The result is that anonymous and accountable editors may by
> > consensus, completely exclude verifiable material from credible,
> > career scientists; yet "Consensus should not trump
> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV>NPOV (or any other official
> > policy)" See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus
> >
> > Shouldn't we be open and inclusive, so that "Readers are left to form
> > their own opinions" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> > Neutral_Point_of_View ]
> >
> > I'd like to see a clarification that significant minority views, in
> > which prominent adherences can be verified (eg. as peer-reviewed
> > authors), should not be excluded from an article on the grounds of
> > undue weight; their views may be summarised, though detailed in an
> > article of their own.
> >
> > Examples on request.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Ian Tresman
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
"Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin


body:
On 4/9/06, Carl F?rstenberg <azatoth at gmail.com> wrote:
> link?

It should be in the dead-tree US edition.

The Graph in the original article seems to be corrected as of today:

http://www.economist.com/images/20060318/CSF428.gif

It still states:

"And after the furore over the biographical entry last year, Wikipedia
changed its rules so that only registered users can edit existing
entries, and new contributors must wait a few days before they can
start new ones."

http://www.economist.com/business/displayStory.cfm?story_id=5624944


from_name: Ivan Krstic

body:
Neil Harris wrote:
> Good idea, or bad idea?

It presupposes that users of real-time WM content would pay for the
privilege given the chance; as far as I can tell, that assumption is
incorrect in the majority of cases.

--
Ivan Krstic <krstic at fas.harvard.edu> | GPG: 0x147C722D


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

body:
Conrad Dunkerson wrote:

>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>
>>Or in
>>the course of ordinary editing he runs into a template which is not
>>suitable to his subject, but it's beyond his technical capacity to trace
>>the problem.
>>
>>
>In which case they ALSO wouldn't have been able to figure out the markup
>which the template has replaced/simplified. No, we can't anticipate
>everything that every user might want to do and have a nice simple
>pre-packaged way of making that happen all ready for them.... but that
>strikes me as an illogical reason for not setting up utility templates at all.
>
In many places typing in the plain text would be much simpler.  Many
people use templates to impose some kind of uniformity.  In these
situations it takes considerable effort to root out the desired
template, and determine how to disagregate the content to make it fit
the template.

>I'll never understand the 'it might be too complex so let's not do it'
>argument... setting aside that this just ISN'T complicated stuff, even if
>it WERE it doesn't TAKE AWAY anything. All the older methods of doing
>things are still there. Just now there are additional ways of getting
>things done - and if not everyone understands those, so what? It isn't
>hurting the people who don't.
>
Fine, then nobody should bitch when someone uses plain text.  It's an
"older method" that remains just as valid.

>The 'we are building an encyclopedia not programming' argument is equally
>unmoving to me. Ok then... get rid of all HTML font settings, colors,
>tables, CSS, templates, et cetera.
>
I agree there are several of those that we could easily get rid of.

Ec


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

body:
On 4/9/06, Neil Harris <neil at tonal.clara.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> However; why not turn this on its head, and offer a real-time, or
> near-real-time, Wikipedia feed service to paid-up subscribers?
[snip]

What makes you think that something which is effectively this, isn't
already being done?


subject: [WikiEN-l] Real-time mirrors as a net revenue _source_?

body:
On 4/9/06, Neil Harris <neil at tonal.clara.co.uk> wrote:
> Real-time mirrors seem to be a recurring phenomenon. They are a drain on
> Wikipedia's resources, and hunting them and shooting them down is a
> continuing battle.
>
> The reasoning behind these mirrors appears to be:
>
> 1 putting up a Wikipedia mirror with ads will make money...
> 2 too lazy to set up a proper mirror...
> 3 instead, set up a script that queries Wikipedia in real time...
> 4 profit!
>
> However; why not turn this on its head, and offer a real-time, or
> near-real-time, Wikipedia feed service to paid-up subscribers?
...
> Good idea, or bad idea?
>
> -- Neil

>From a business perspective, what is to stop a site from sucking in
just enough to mirror in real-time, and then turning around and
forwarding it to other mirrors? In an extreme case, there would be
only one customer of this service (paying say $1000) and they in turn
might have multiple customers of their own (say 11m paying say $100);
the original customer will turn a profit just from reselling the feed,
the secondary customers will save major amounts of money, and all
benefitting from advertising. I doubt we could prohibit it
contractually, and even if we could, suing fly-by-night outfits would
be tough, even in addition to the PR aspects.

~maru


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Outage

body:
PowerMedium had some sort of network and/or power outage for about an hour from
circa 19:20 UTC. We've been working on getting things back online since power
and network became available again.

Will post more about cause when we know more.

We've got a guy at the colo helping out and Kyle's in there also. Unless there
are other major problems we should be back online soon.

-- 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/20060409/1f367cfb/attachment.pgp>


from_name: ting wang

subject: [Wikitech-l] how to use Group class

body:
Hi all,
I am working something about the access right control with mediawiki :

   - MediaWiki <http://www.mediawiki.org/>: 1.5.7
   - PHP <http://www.php.net/>: 5.0.4 (apache2handler)
   - MySQL <http://www.mysql.com/>: 4.1.13-nt

During the work I found a useful class "Group" in Group.php. It seems that
this class is never used.
In order  to use this class  I have to make a corresponding database, but I
don't know what is the schema of
the database. According to the class Group the following columns are
necessary:
        name
        id
        description
        dataLoaded
        rights

Are these columns complete?
Which data types are used for the corresponding columns?

Any answers are appreciated.

Thanks a lot

Ting Wang


subject: [Wikitech-l] Outage

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> PowerMedium had some sort of network and/or power outage for about an hour from
> circa 19:20 UTC. We've been working on getting things back online since power
> and network became available again.
>
> Will post more about cause when we know more.

Apparently an 800-amp breaker in the main PDU failed.

The database servers are currently starting up; this takes a little while, but
hopefully should be all done within the hour.

-- 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/20060409/7dace8fe/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Daniel P. B. Smith

body:
I say it's a bad idea. I don't know much about the phenomenon and are
trusting to your description of it. From your description, the people
this doing this are being fundamentally dishonest.

I believe that it is difficult for people who are fundamentally
honest to make a profit by serving people who are fundamentally
dishonest.

To put it more neutrally, the benefit to a transaction is likely to
be apportioned in a very lopsided way unless both parties are
following roughly comparable rules. When you are dealing with a lion,
he will get the lion's share, which will be close to 100% unless you,
too are a lion.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Metaphors

body:
Why am I talking about lion's shares if we are dealing with
metaphorical leeches? I shouldn't undercut my own argument just for
the sake of wisecracking, but I can't resist saying "If life gives
you leeches, make hirudin."

See also

http://www.news.wisc.edu/releases/6900.html

http://www.news.wisc.edu/newsphotos/leech.html

But I think the University of Wisconsin may find that their leech
exceeds their grasp.


from_name: Minh Nguyen

body:
Neil Harris wrote:
> Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>> On 4/9/06, Neil Harris <neil at tonal.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>>> However; why not turn this on its head, and offer a real-time, or
>>> near-real-time, Wikipedia feed service to paid-up subscribers?
>>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> What makes you think that something which is effectively this, isn't
>> already being done?
>>
>>
> Would this be Answers.com?
>
> -- Neil

According to <http://www.answers.com/Answers.com#Wikipedia>, they use a
cached version of Wikipedia, not the most recent version.

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


subject: [Wikitech-l] Outage

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> Brion Vibber wrote:
>> PowerMedium had some sort of network and/or power outage for about an hour from
>> circa 19:20 UTC. We've been working on getting things back online since power
>> and network became available again.
>>
>> Will post more about cause when we know more.
>
> Apparently an 800-amp breaker in the main PDU failed.
>
>
> The database servers are currently starting up; this takes a little while, but
> hopefully should be all done within the hour.
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

Don't we have some sort of "power failures corrupt absolutely" message
to put up for occasions like this? :P

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


from_name: Ian Tresman

body:
Significant material is sometimes excluded from some articles on the
grounds of undue weight. Can someone clarify whether the policy on
NPOV Undue weight is being misinterpreted, and if so, whether it can
be clarified?

NPOV Undue weight states:

         * "... the article should fairly represent all significant
viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each". See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_Point_of_View#Undue_weight

But if the perceived prominence is very low, the proportion is
rounded down to zero, and material excluded, regardless of the
significance? The policy goes on to say:

         * "To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or
to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape
of the dispute."

In other words, the mere mention of a significant-minority view may
be misleading, not whether we write that text in a neutral point of view?

But I also note from the NPOV tutorial:

         * Editors may unwittingly or deliberately present a subject
in an unfair way [.. by] Entirely omitting significant citable
information in support of a minority view, with the argument that it
is claimed to be not credible.
         http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial

I have examples of material being excluded from several articles on
the grounds of Undue weight, though the material is peer-reviewed,
citable and verifiable. In some cases, there are dozens of citations.

The result is that anonymous and accountable editors may by
consensus, completely exclude verifiable material from credible,
career scientists; yet "Consensus should not trump
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV>NPOV (or any other official
policy)" See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus

Shouldn't we be open and inclusive, so that "Readers are left to form
their own opinions" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_Point_of_View ]

I'd like to see a clarification that significant minority views, in
which prominent adherences can be verified (eg. as peer-reviewed
authors), should not be excluded from an article on the grounds of
undue weight; their views may be summarised, though detailed in an
article of their own.

Examples on request.

Regards,
Ian Tresman


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
On 4/8/06, Ben McIlwain <cydeweys at gmail.com> wrote:
> Your criteria are ridiculous.  You know how much perfectly legal anime
> (which airs on Cartoon Network, among other things) you just made
> "illegal" with your broad brush stroke?
>
> Am I the only one who finds it ludicrous to talk about whether a drawn
> image on a piece of paper looks like it is depicting someone over the
> age of 18?!

Don't forget, I'm not trying to draw a moral or legal line here. I'm
trying to draw a line for what material we can comfortably defend our
inclusion. Obviously 18 is a ludicrous hard limit, but that's the one
that most (Americans) believe in.

Steve


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
On 4/9/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
 Obviously 18 is a ludicrous hard limit, but that's the one
> that most (Americans) believe in.

It's an unnecessary limit.  The picture in question depicts someone
who is obviously a very young child, and the juxtaposition with a
dildo makes the picture explicitly sexual.  Depiction of sexuality in
teenagers has long been acceptable; the example of Kubrick's Lolita
(who in the film is fourteen, somewhat older than Nabokov's Lolita)
painting her toenails would be acceptable because, although erotic, it
is not sexually explicit and doesn't involve a young child.


from_name: Daniel Mayer

body:
--- Neil Harris <neil at tonal.clara.co.uk> wrote:
> Note that the users of the real-time mirrors are _not_ being charged for
> use of the GFDL content, which remains freely available as before; they
> are being charged for real-time access to WP data, with no need to run a
> modified copy of MediaWiki in order to run their service.
>
> Administration of the scheme could be made automatic, by allowing the
> existing credit-card interface to be used to for payment, and entering
> an IP address or addresses to be authorized, an E-mail address for
> contact, and getting an authorization key mailed back.
>
> As a result:
> * Wikipedia remains ad-free
> * the WF gets revenue
> * the advertisers still get to make (slightly less) money, but this time
> without leeching unauthorized resources.
>
> The feed could be provided from the existing software, only with a "null
> skin" that produced only the rendered page content, thus both slightly
> reducing the load of producing it (eg. no check for messages, greater
> possibility for caching), and, at the same time, making the page content
> easier to re-use, by removing the need to strip the user-interface from
> around the page contents.
>
> With other changes, for example, not checking for red/blue links,
> serving costs could probably be reduced even further, and quote possibly
> WF could charge more than $ 2 x 10^-4 per hit. Given the number of
> mirrors around, setting up this scheme might pay for itself in a month
> or less.
>
> Good idea, or bad idea?

Very good idea. We are already doing that somewhat via RSS feeds but we have not publicized the
option and the few companies that have signed up did not use the service for long (or maybe we
just forgot to send them invoices...). Either way, we really do need to maximize that revenue
source and clamp down real tight on parasitic mirrors. Hiring another developer to manage the
service and kill parasitic mirrors would likely get us a bunch of net revenue.

-- mav

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


subject: [Wikitech-l] Where the hell is the donation form? (was Re: Outage)

body:
--- Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
> PowerMedium had some sort of network and/or power outage for about an hour from
> circa 19:20 UTC. We've been working on getting things back online since power
> and network became available again.
>
> Will post more about cause when we know more.
>
> We've got a guy at the colo helping out and Kyle's in there also. Unless there
> are other major problems we should be back online soon.

Argh - For the 20th time over the last 3 years: CAN SOMEBODY PLEASE PUT A DONATION FORM ON THE
WIKIDOWN PAGE!!!

Presenting tens of thousands of people with a donation link that WE KNOW WILL NOT WORK WHEN THE
MESSAGE IS DISPLAYED not only looks stupid, but is preventing many thousands of potential
donations.

Please, do something: we are pissing away thousands of dollars of potential donations and looking
like fools in the process.

Also, if we have a donation form, then these outages would be mostly self-correcting since the
extra revenue will help us to add more redundancy to the system so we can at least go read only
until we are completely back up.

-- mav

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


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

body:
Ben McIlwain wrote:
> Steve Bennett wrote:
>> On 4/8/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:
>>> So, in other words, we need an accepted definition for what constitutes
>>> deletable child porn on Wikipedia. Something like
>>>
>>> Any image, whether a photograph, drawing, or render, which depicts
>>> minors engaged in sexual activity or sexually suggestive poses.
>>
>> Let's be stronger: Any image containing:
>> - elements of erotica,
>> - and depictions of people, real or fictitious, apparently under 18.
>>
>> I don't really see the argument for being inclusionist. Keeping
>> borderline cases causes us problems, and causes us to have to justify
>> those inclusions.
>
> Your criteria are ridiculous.  You know how much perfectly legal anime
> (which airs on Cartoon Network, among other things) you just made
> "illegal" with your broad brush stroke?
>
> Am I the only one who finds it ludicrous to talk about whether a drawn
> image on a piece of paper looks like it is depicting someone over the
> age of 18?!
>

I agree. We're very rapidly heading towards a slippery slope...

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 554 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060409/94721be3/attachment.pgp


subject: [Wikitech-l] Outage

body:
--- Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
> Brion Vibber wrote:
> > PowerMedium had some sort of network and/or power outage for about an hour from
> > circa 19:20 UTC. We've been working on getting things back online since power
> > and network became available again.
> >
> > Will post more about cause when we know more.
>
> Apparently an 800-amp breaker in the main PDU failed.
>
>
> The database servers are currently starting up; this takes a little while, but
> hopefully should be all done within the hour.

I thought each db server was on a UPS? If not, then why not? I also thought we had the capability
to go read only from the other server farms when the Tampa farm went down. If not, then why not?

We are a top 20 website that makes more than enough money to hire enough people to make sure
services decay gracefully and to make sure we have adequate redundancy. I'm working on the current
year budget. Please start thinking about your staffing and equipment needs for the rest of the
year.

-- mav

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