body:
Sj wrote:
> Stuart, do you know of a place to get free content movie information?
> There are lots of older movies we have nothing on; it would be useful
> to snarf up an old database that's public domain.

Since information cannot be copyrighted, there is nothing wrong with
taking names of directors, writers, actors, or information like dates,
times, classifications, languages, etc. from IMDb.

The only problem is wholesale copying, and of course verbatim copying of
the plot summaries is taboo.

Timwi


list: wikipedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Steve Lefevre

subject: [Wikipedia-l] pitching an idea

body:
Fred Bauder wrote:

>This is a new guy to me who as far as I know has never edited on Wikinfo.
>Basic idea is same though.
>
>
>
Are you referring to me? Yes, I am a new goy to the wikipedia-l list. I
think wikinfo might be exactly what I'm describing. I'll check it out
and come back with a list of improvements ;)


from_name: Timwi

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Encarta goes wiki - sort of...

body:
Hey ... you know what I just realised? The analogy of "Encarta goes
wiki" would be "Wikipedia goes peer-review". And hey, what do you, we
already have it. :-)


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Rahul Sinha

subject: [Wikitech-l] Remote Editing support

body:
Hi there,

Both to increase submission volume/quality and to benefit
Mediawiki-using sites, are there any plans to develop an XMLRPC style
external editing protocol, such that editors like MarsEdit and ecto can
interface with Mediawiki?

Ideally they would be able to:
Search for articles
Edit the text of articles
start new ones
get internally generated lists (such as new articles, recently edited
articles)
revert pages, get access to previous versions' texts

Any thoughts on whether this would be worthwhile?  Any other features
which might be useful?

-RS


from_name: V. Ivanov

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Ossetic again (bugs, bugs, bugs...)

body:
How the things are going about the interwiki link updater?

On 4/11/05, Brion Vibber wrote:
>> The interwiki link updater system seems to be broken, so it's waiting
>> until somebody has the chance to go over it.
>>
Alexander Sigachov  <sas at ponyexpress.ru> wrote:
> Is it posible to look at it? Where?

So?..

Sl.
--
Esperu cxiam!


list: wikien-l

from_name: Geoff Burling

subject: [WikiEN-l] Titanic, illustrated

body:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, Rick wrote:

>
> --- Richard Holton <richholton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I suspect that if someone posted to this list being
> > scornful or
> > mocking of, say, Muslim culture, they would get
> > slapped down hard, and
> > likely be banned from the list if they persisted. Is
> > my suspicion
> > wrong?
> >
> > Yet we're very tolerant of this sort of culture
> > bashing when it comes
> > to conservative Christian culture. You don't have to
> > agree with
> > someone's culture to respect that culture and
> > members of it. Let's all
> > try to show a little more respect for each other.
> >
> > --Rich Holton
>
> Very good question, Rich, and I'll answer it from my
> perspective.
>
> Because the Christian culture, at least in the United
> States, DEMANDS, that ONLY their particular cultural
> sensitivities and prejudices be catered to.  There is
> no "If you don't want to see it, don't look at it."
> No, rather, it's "I don't want to see it, so you
> can't, either."
>
Who is this "Christian culture" in the United States you
speak about? And are you implying that the Christian religion
has a monopoly on intolerant & zealous people -- so that
objections from people professing other beliefs alone should
always be assumed to offer objections in good faith?

I would like to assume this is not an example of the ad
hominem attacks alleged to have been levelled during this
extended discussion, but I am finding it hard to read this
post otherwise.

Geoff


from_name: Bjarte Sørensen

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Quoting in posts to this e-mail list

body:
Dear all,
This is just an encouragement to everyone to try to refrain from
quoting more than necessary in their posts to this e-mail list.
Cheers,
Bjarte Sorensen


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Idea for a new Wikipedia

body:
Angela wrote:
> On 4/15/05, Wouter Steenbeek <musiqolog at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>? the existance of a Simple
>>English wikipedia justifies a Simple German wikipedia anyway.
>
> That might be the case if the Simple English Wikipedia had been a
> success, but, in my opinion, it has not. The project still has very
> unclear goals, and few guidelines about which level editors should be
> writing at. It is not even clear whether the wiki is meant for
> children or learners of English as an additional language.

Exactly. I think naming is everything. "Simple English", to me, sounds
silly, and an invitation to participate in it can even be regarded as
slightly condescending. If it had instead been called "Children's
Wikipedia", I would be much more willing to participate.

Unfortunately, "Children's Wikipedia" itself is ambiguous: Does it mean
the content is aimed at children, or it is intended to allow children to
collaborate? I fear the term "Children's Wikipedia" would attract more
child contributors, which in turn might discourage adult editors because
the social dynamics are vastly different (and probably "too childish"
for most grown-ups).

These are just some thoughts; this is not intended to imply that I am
advocating (or opposing) the creation or deletion of any Wikipedias or
any other projects.

Timwi


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: pitching an idea

body:
Chad Perrin wrote:

>On Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 01:35:41PM -0400, Steve Lefevre wrote:
>
>
>>Timwi wrote:
>>
>>And here's the troll pit:
>>_John Kerry_ ( 1 author, 1 signature, score of 1, weighted score of 1)
>>    George W. Bush stole the election from Kerry through illegal vote
>>manipulation in Ohio...
>>_John Kerry_ ( 1 author, 1 signature, score of 1, weighted score of 1)
>>   John Kerry is technically the current U. S. president, succeeding Al
>>Gore as the next president-in-exile...
>>
>>
>Don't forget this one:
>
>_John Kerry_ ( 1 author, 1 signature, score of 1, weighted score of 1)
>   John Kerry attempted to take the White House in the name of Godless
>sodomites and unpatriotic Atheists...
>
>Heh.  This is fun.  Maybe we should write more, on both sides.
>
>
This seems to be developping into the new Multiple Point Of View
(MPOV).  It will ensure that with enough versions available any reader
will be able to find one that tells the true story. :-)

Ec


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki 1.4.1 released

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

MediaWiki 1.4.1 is a bug fix release for the 1.4 stable release series.
All new installations are highly recommended to use 1.4.1 instead of
1.3.x; 1.3.x users should consider upgrading for bug fixes and new features.

1.4.0 and 1.4 beta or release candidate users should upgrade to this
release for relevant bug fixes; see the changelog.

=== Changes since 1.4.0 ===

* (bug 1720) fix genitive month names for uk
* (bug 1704) fixed untranslateable string in Special:Log
* (bug 1638) Added Belrusian language file
* (bug 1736) typo in SpecialValidate.php
* (bug 73) Upload doesn't run edit updates on description page (links,
~  search index and categories)
* (bug 646) <math> fails to recognize \ll and \gg
* (bug 926) \div element from TeX not supported in <math> element
* (bug 1147) add \checkmark to whitelist in texutil.ml
* (bug 937) \limits function from LaTeX not supported in <math> element
* Support for manually converting article title to different Chinese
~  variants (for zh)
* (bug 1488, bug 1744) Fix encoding for preferences, dates in Latin-1
~  mode
* (bug 1042) Fix UTF-8 case conversion for PHP <4.3 with mbstring
~  extension
* Fix code typo that broke article credits display
* Installation fixes for running under IIS
* (bug 1556) login page tab order. "remember" checkbox now come after
~  password.
* SQL debug log fixlets
* (bug 1815) Fix namespace in old revision display with mismatched title
* (bug 1788) Fix link duplication when edit/upload comment includes
~  newlines
* Change default on $wgSysopUserBans and $wgSysopRangeBans to true
* Fix link conversion for URL request
* (bug 1851) Updated download URL for the SCIM packages used by zhtable
* (bug 1853) Try stripping quotes from term for 'go' title match
* Fix missing function in Latin1 mode
* (bug 1860) Anchors of interwiki links did not get normalized
* (bug 1847) accept lowercase x in ISBN, do not accept invalid A-W,Y,Z
* Fix link conversion for URL request, hopefully without breaking the
~  wiki
* (bug 1849) New option allows to consider categorized images as used on
~  Special:Unusedimages
* Localized category namespace for ka (Georgian)
* (bug 1107) Work around includes problem in installer when parent dir
~  is not readable by the web server

Release notes:
http://sourceforge.net/project/shownotes.php?release_id=321333

Download:
http://prdownloads.sf.net/wikipedia/mediawiki-1.4.1.tar.gz?download

Before asking for help, try the FAQ:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_FAQ

Low-traffic release announcements mailing list:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-announce

Wiki admin help mailing list:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l

Bug report system:
http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/

Play "stump the developers" live on IRC:
#mediawiki on irc.freenode.net

- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCYvS3wRnhpk1wk44RAuuWAJ0UTCcqhySiixX9wqPC3UoSgr7GZgCePGWm
s+JFQI56cB10geYUWZqvc4w=
=i3qQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


body:
David 'DJ' Hedley wrote:
>
> You would think that, being 16, you'd oppose an '8 to 16' project. 16 year
> olds are capable of using Wikipedia. A, lets say, 7-12 years old based
> project is much more efficient.

What's the purpose of the lower bound? ;-)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] pitching an idea

body:
Wouter Steenbeek wrote:

>> Wouter Steenbeek (musiqolog at hotmail.com) [050418 03:20]:
>>
>> > Steve's proposal is interesting and can be defended from a
>> philosophical
>> > point of view. Indeed most philosophers involved with science agree
>> that
>> > objectivity is an illusion, and the quasi-objectivity we reach in e.g.
>> > encyclopaedias is only a broad consensus within one culture.
>>
>> Except the ones who are actually scientists. "Sorry, evolution has been
>> voted out of science."
>
> You didn't get the point! Indeed, scientists are given a big
> authority, so people, especially encyclopaedia-makers, use their
> theories to form their opinion. So, in our culture, the view of
> scientists is especially favoured among encyclopaedia-makers, because
> they are supposed to have justificated their views by means of an
> elaborate dialectic process, not by dogmatic tradition. On the other
> hand, for other people the Bible might have a bigger authority. They
> form a different image of the world around us than we do, and than
> most scientists do.

This is a classic battle between two claimants to infallibility.

Ec


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: pitching an idea

body:
Steve Lefevre wrote:
>
> I'm pitching an idea for a postmodern wikipedia. What I mean by that is
> that there are multiple concurrent versions of an article.

Good idea!

SEXUAL INTERCOURSE
-----------------------------------------------------
from Wikipedia, the free postmodern encyclopedia

If you are under 16 years of age, see [[sex (child version)]].
If you are over 16 years of age, see [[sex (adult version)]].

JOHN KERRY
-----------------------------------------------------
from Wikipedia, the free postmodern encyclopedia

If you live outside the US, please view [[John Kerry (non-US view)]].
If you are a Republican, please view [[John Kerry (Republican view)]].
If you are a Democrat, please view [[John Kerry (Democrat view)]].

ABORTION
-----------------------------------------------------
from Wikipedia, the free postmodern encyclopedia

If you are religious, please view [[abortion (anti-abortionist)]].
If you are atheist, please view [[abortion (pro-abortionist)]].

ADOLF HITLER
-----------------------------------------------------
from Wikipedia, the free postmodern encyclopedia

If you are a Nazi...

Need I go on?
Timwi


subject: [Wikipedia-l] pitching an idea

body:
David Gerard wrote:

>Wouter Steenbeek (musiqolog at hotmail.com) [050418 04:17]:
>
>
>>You didn't get the point! Indeed, scientists are given a big authority, so
>>people, especially encyclopaedia-makers, use their theories to form their
>>opinion. So, in our culture, the view of scientists is especially favoured
>>among encyclopaedia-makers, because they are supposed to have justificated
>>their views by means of an elaborate dialectic process, not by dogmatic
>>tradition. On the other hand, for other people the Bible might have a
>>bigger authority. They form a different image of the world around us than
>>we do, and than most scientists do.
>>
>>
>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=2&articleID=000E555C-4387-1237-81CB83414B7FFE9F
>was supposed to be humour ...
>
>
We recently had a long debate that established that Wikipedia is a
serious encyclopedia which does not engage in the kind of tomfoolery
found in that magazine. :-)

Ec


from_name: Till Westermayer

subject: [Wikipedia-l] pitching an idea

body:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . till we *) . . .

>Steve Lefevre (lefevre.10 at osu.edu) [050417 16:39]:

>> I'm pitching an idea for a postmodern wikipedia. What I mean by
>> that is that there are multiple concurrent versions of an
>> article. Instead of a zero-sum game where only one text can
>> inhabit a title at any time, a user can choose from different
>> branches. The user basis this decision on who the authors are,
>> and how many people agree with the text. The immediate wikipedia
>> problems that this solves are: - Edit wars. This is common with
>> articles covering controversial topics, such as abortion.
>> Proponents of different truths will build and maintain their
>> side of the story, including counter arguments, instead of
>> trying to destroy the other side. There is no negative sign-off,
>> so the only thing the article measures is how many people agree
>> with it, not how many disagree.

>Multiple forks save edit wars, but I'm entirely unconvinced
>they're a good thing for the reader. I think NPOV is Wikipedia's
>really startling and useful innovation, on a par with attempting
>to write an encyclopedia by the wiki process.

Isn't Wikinfo (Infopedia?, what was the name) a Wikipedia fork trying to
do something like, although without the technological base?
 __ .
 / / / /                            ... Till Westermayer - till we *)
. .
  . mailto:till at tillwe.de . www.westermayer.de/till/ . icq 320393072
  . Hirschstra?e 5. 79100 Freiburg . 0761 55697152 . 0160 96619179
  . . . . .


list: foundation-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: 501(c)(3) status granted to Wikimedia Foundation

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
>> Quoting from a letter from the IRS:
>>
>> We are pleased to inform you that upon review of your application for
>> tax exempt status we have determined that you are exempt from Federal
>> income tax under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Codfe.
>> Contributions to you are deductible under section 170 of the Code.
>> You are also qualified to receive tax deductible bequests, devises,
>> transfers or gifts under section 2055, 2106 or 2522 of the Code.
>> Because this letter could help resolve any questions regarding your
>> extempt status, you should keep it in your permanent records.
>
> I presume that "extempt" is your typo rather than something that was in
> the letter from the IRS. :'(

Is that really the only typo you noticed? :-)


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Alexa breakout

body:
Yes, this drop is mirrored by newyorktimes.com. But what websites pick up
the slack and increase traffic over the weekend? There must be some as there
is an actual drop in rank, not just usage.

Fred

> From: Timwi <timwi at gmx.net>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 23:51:50 +0100
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Alexa breakout
>
> Charles Matthews wrote:
>> Not Kate Winslet, but easy on the eye:
>>
>> http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&range=3m&size=large&compar
>> e_sites=&y=t&url=en.wikipedia.org
>
> I don't see the problem? This is normal fluctuation that occurs in Alexa
> all the time (look further left in the graph). This same drop is
> happening to all other sites (just type a few domain names in the box
> under the graph). I doesn't really say anything about Wikipedia's
> popularity or reachability.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Wouter Steenbeek

body:
>Exactly. I think naming is everything. "Simple English", to me, sounds
>silly, and an invitation to participate in it can even be regarded as
>slightly condescending. If it had instead been called "Children's
>Wikipedia", I would be much more willing to participate.

On the Requests site, someone dropped a similar critical note, proposing a
Wikijunior project. Moreover, this was the original aim of the proposer,
wasn't it? What about trying to reanimate the simple-project by mutation
simple.wikipedia.org into en.wikijunior.org and creating a website
de.wikijunior.org rather than einfach.wikipedia.org?

I propose that we try to raise these two wikijunior projects to adulthood
first, since too many projects at once will lead to a certain chaos. On the
other hand, it's just children who are usually unable to read another
language than their native one, of course.

Wouter

_________________________________________________________________
Gebruik MSN Messenger en krijg direct antwoord http://messenger.msn.nl/


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Suggestions for a work-safe encyclopedia

body:
geni wrote:

>>If the picture in question still exists, it
>>will be shown in the disposition suggested by the version being viewed,
>>not in the supposedly "work-safe" disposition of the current version.
>>The only solution is to let the users take control of their own browsers.
>>They know what they do and do not what to see.
>>
>>
>As I showed no they don't. In that version there was no way to know
>what they are going to see if they allow the image through. Uniformed
>choice is meaningless.
>
Uninformed choice is also meaningless.

Ec


from_name: David 'DJ' Hedley

subject: [Wikipedia-l] pitching an idea

body:
> Does the 'history' function maintain separate forks? I haven't really
> looked at it, but it doesn't seem to really jump out at the user. When I
> read a wikipedia article, I see only one text under a title at any given
> time. I can't choose between different competing articles.
>
> What I am suggesting is something like this: when a user looks up, say,
> "Abortion", they are presented with a listing of high-rated articles to
> choose from, probably with a summary or something to help them make
> their decision about what to read.

Wikipedia is a collaborative project. With this system, articles would not
be of as high a quality. Your not considering quality over quantity. Why
have 10 good articles to choose from when you can have one excellent one?


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [WikiEN-l] Suggestions for a work-safe encyclopedia

body:
Rebecca said:
> On 4/16/05, Tony Sidaway <minorityreport at bluebottle.com> wrote:
>> Andrew Cranwell said:
>> Unless you see it and react to it, how can you know that you'll be
>> offended by it?  Don't ask me to second-guess your reaction if you
>> don't know yourself.
>
> Fallacious reasoning. There are some things which are reasonably
> likely to offend the vast majority of people on this Earth. Goatse is a
> fine example. Autofellatio is, most probably, another. It's hardly
> extreme to note that these are thus quite likely to offend people, and
> to link them accordingly.

That may be true of goatse and even possibly autofellation.  But a nude
scene from a PG13 movie?  I could not have guessed at the extreme
reactions it has provoked from people.
You have not demonstrated any fallacy.


subject: [WikiEN-l] On cultural sensitivity

body:
Rebecca said:
> On 4/17/05, Tony Sidaway <minorityreport at bluebottle.com> wrote:
>>
>> Exactly.  There's nothing wrong with tweaking a few tweakable noses,
>> especially those who raise purely personal objections, based on local
>> cultural sensitivities, to aspects of an encyclopedic project.  Such
>> pressure is a naked and (because we're nice people and don't like to
>> offend, largely successful) attempt to distort the encyclopedia on
>> non-encyclopedic grounds.  We can give a little but only where it
>> doesn't matter much.
>
> Oh, come off it. The examples we're talking about aren't based on
> entirely personal objections or local cultural sensitivities.

The Titanic picture is an excellent example of one to which some people
have expressed entirely personal objections.  It is not a shockingly
violent image, or even an overtly sexualized one, just a woman in a
classic nude pose, the kind of thing you'd expect to see in the window of
your local art gallery.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Nude Kate Winslet Picture

body:
Rebecca said:
>
> And for gods sake, Tony, stop throwing around the personal attacks. I'm
> sick and tired of being accused of being computer illiterate

Please re-read my emails.  I have not attacked you, nor have I accused you
of being computer-illiterate.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Titanic, illustrated

body:
Rebecca said:
>
> What I (who am most *certainly* not Christian, or of any
> other religious faith), and others are arguing, is that "if we don't
> want to see it, we have the choice not to see it".

Absolutely.  You don't have to download what you don't want to see.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] pitching an idea

body:
> I disagree that the articles would not be of higher quality. It's not a
> matter of quantity over quality. I think, if proponents of a particular
> truth are allowed free control over their version of the truth, their
> passion for their version of things, to make their case and convince
> other people, will make for a better article. Articles that purport to
> be neutral, or take all sides into account, tend to be mushy overviews.
> Also, the multiple concurrent versions does allow for the creation of
> articles that claim to be neutral.
>
> Furthermore, wikipedia is not necessarily a collaborative project. It
> seems to work best when people collaborate, but they don't always --
> there are edit wars, trolling, grafitti, etc. The current wikipedia
> loses out from non-collaboration -- there is wasted person-hours in
> clean up, reversion, and the most damning of all, loss of public
> confidence.  My proposal is allows for both collaboration and
> disagreement to enrich the project.
> _______________________________________________

You appear to be claiming that Wikipedia should become a place to prove a
point. I'm sure theres a page called [[Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to
prove a point]], and by replacing disrupt with use, you get the same
concept. Wikipedia isn't a place for persuading people that your conspiracy
theories are correct, and by "allowing free control to people over their
version of the truth" and improving articles by "their passion to convince
people that they are right" won't improve things at all.


body:
BJ?rn Lindqvist said:
>> picture I am about to allow through is work safe? Well I can hope it
>> is mention in the caption but if we take say this version of the
>> article it clearly isn't:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Titanic_%281997_movie%29&oldid=10580793>
> Is this a purely theoretical discussion? Naming that page as an
> example of a page that isn't "work safe" is laughable. Surely, in most
> work-places it isn't work safe to waste your salaried time reading up
> about Titanic, but THAT PARTICULAR IMAGE does not make the page less
> "work safe" than it already is.

Geni has also unwittlingly demonstrated that the Wikipedia site will never
be "worksafe" unless we delete the history files.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Why linking an image gives less choice to the reader

body:
Rebecca said:
> The reader is *not* free. The reader is given a choice to either go to
> a patently ridiculous extreme, and manually enable each image, or to
> have it thrown in their face regardless. This is opposed to the awful
> (and one-off) strain that clicking one link would cause to the poor
> person who really must see the autofellatio picture.

We appear to have a difference of opinion on the ease of operation of
modern browsers such as Internet Explorer and Firefox.  As a person who
often uses both in this mode I can assure you that it's neither extreme
nor ridiculous.  It's very sensible and it solves the problem totally.


from_name: BJörn Lindqvist

body:
> picture I am about to allow through is work safe? Well I can hope it
> is mention in the caption but if we take say this version of the
> article it clearly isn't:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Titanic_%281997_movie%29&oldid=10580793

Is this a purely theoretical discussion? Naming that page as an
example of a page that isn't "work safe" is laughable. Surely, in most
work-places it isn't work safe to waste your salaried time reading up
about Titanic, but THAT PARTICULAR IMAGE does not make the page less
"work safe" than it already is.

--
mvh Bj?rn


from_name: Anthere

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Alexa breakout

body:
Ouch :-(

ant

Charles Matthews a ?crit:
> Not Kate Winslet, but easy on the eye:
>
> http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&range=3m&size=large&compare_sites=&y=t&url=en.wikipedia.org
>
> Charles


body:
> >This isn't something we can do anything about.  Perhaps you could try
> >voting for some sane congresscritters.
> I *knew* I shouldn't have mentioned Congress, but I was hoping
> you wouldn't focus on that and ignore the key point, which is
> that this happens at all kinds of companies and government
> agencies around the world whether you like it or not. It's just

We would also like for the Saudi Geological Survey's professionals to
contribute data to Wikipedia. I've heard that they are a very
open-minded bunch. However, SGS is attached to the Ministry of
Petroleum and Mineral Resources and it would be very unfortunate if
something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman popped up while Fahd
bin Abdul Aziz visits the office.

--
mvh Bj?rn


body:
Piggybacking because for some reason I missed Stan's reply.

BJ?rn Lindqvist said:
> Stan Shebs said:
>> >This isn't something we can do anything about.  Perhaps you could try
>> >voting for some sane congresscritters.
>> I *knew* I shouldn't have mentioned Congress, but I was hoping
>> you wouldn't focus on that and ignore the key point, which is
>> that this happens at all kinds of companies and government
>> agencies around the world whether you like it or not. It's just

I can't imagine the Ordnance Survey adopting the attitude you describe,
somehow.  If they wanted to contribute stuff I expect they'd just get on
with it.  However your is a very strange argument.  Wouldn't the Chinese
government just love to contribute some geographical data?  Well I guess
they may a shopping list of things they would like removed from Wikipedia
first. I know, let's guess what bits they wouldn't like, and remove them
first, to encourage their geographers to contribute to Wikipedia...


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Comment on Copyright Orphans

body:
All right. It seems a good idea to me;

***However***, I think we need help from you both tc and ec.

In a similar way that was done for the ESA, would it be possible that
you draft a statement (something diplomatic :-)), send it to us, and
possibly we modify it... and sign it then send it as a group of people
or organisation ?

Could you both help write such a thing ?

Ant

The Cunctator a ?crit:
> We should be making an official comment on the issue of copyright orphans
> now before the U.S. Copyright Office. The deadline is May 9.
>
>>From http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/:
>
> The Copyright Office seeks to examine the issues raised by ?orphan works,?
> i.e., copyrighted works whose owners are difficult or even impossible to
> locate. Concerns have been raised that the uncertainty surrounding ownership
> of such works might needlessly discourage subsequent creators and users from
> incorporating such works in new creative efforts or making such works
> available to the public. The Office is now seeking written comments from all
> interested parties. Specifically, the Office is interested in whether there
> are compelling concerns raised by orphan works that merit a legislative,
> regulatory or other solution, and what type of solution could effectively
> address these concerns without conflicting with the legitimate interests of
> authors and right holders.
>
> See this story: http://wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,67139,00.html for
> details.
>
> Procedure for sending comment:
>
> Send to orphanworks at loc.gov a message containing the name of the person
> making the submission, his or her title and organization (if the submission
> is on behalf of an organization), mailing address, telephone number, telefax
> number (if any) and e-mail address. The message should also identify the
> document clearly as either a comment or reply comment. The document itself
> must be sent as a MIME attachment, and must be in a single file in either:
> (1) Adobe Portable Document File (PDF) format (preferred); (2) Microsoft
> Word 2000 or earlier; (3) WordPerfect 8.0 or earlier; (4) Rich Text File
> (RTF) format; or (5) ASCII text file format.
>
> This is clearly something the Wikimedia Foundation should officially weigh
> in on.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] pitching an idea

body:
>From: Chad Perrin <perrin at apotheon.com>
>Reply-To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] pitching an idea
>Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 13:08:40 -0400
>
>On Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 12:36:45PM -0400, Steve Lefevre wrote:
> > Furthermore, I don't buy any claims to NPOV. Language is inherently
> > biased. One bias is what gets mentioned. Wikipedia is more comprehensive
> > than other encyclopedias in another realm, but  Another bias is what
> > gets mentioned first. Wikipedia articles are currently serial, so there
> > is always an order to the mentioning of any topic. There are also biases
> > in the wording and terminology of 'controversial' figures and unpopular
> > viewpoints. Who arbitrates who is controversial, or what is unpopular?
> > In the sign-off system I propose, we actually have hard numbers as to
> > what is controversial and unpopular.
>
>I disagree with that characterization of NPOV as a goal.  Rather than
>say that it's some kind of myth to which we pretend to subscribe here,
>I'm of the opinion that it's more an asymptote rather than a point on a
>graph, and we are (in general) "approaching NPOV" incrementally with our
>efforts.  The fact that we may never reach an absolute value of NPOV
>idoesn't make it any less real, though.
>
>--
>Chad Perrin

Steve's proposal is interesting and can be defended from a philosophical
point of view. Indeed most philosophers involved with science agree that
objectivity is an illusion, and the quasi-objectivity we reach in e.g.
encyclopaedias is only a broad consensus within one culture. On some topics,
everyone agrees, on other ones, people hold divergent views. That justifies
splitting a controversial topic.

On the other hand, the predominant culture expects encyclopaedias to reach a
convergent (quasi-)objectivity and therefore both to speak with one voice on
the same topic and omit statements that are generally considerd "opinions"
rather than "facts", or even nonsense. For Wikipedia in a postmodern setting
would have to abandon the hitherto drawn line between facts and opinions.

Therefore I oppose this idea, since it goes counter to the conventions,
which are per se accepted by consensus, applying to any encyclopaedia, and
will hardly be helpful to achieve the "Brittannica or better"-aim formulated
by Jimbo.

Wouter

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Webmessenger: altijd en overal beschikbaar http://webmessenger.msn.com/


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Expanding CheckUser permissions

body:
David Gerard a ?crit:
 > Tim Starling
(t.starling at physics.unimelb.edu.au) [050412
22:40]:

 >>>Unfortunately, that will give everyone a damn good idea of what people's
 >>>IPs are. At present, all access show on the page, so Tim and I can
see what
 >>>each other have accessed. (He's used it precisely twice, to test it ;-)
 >>
 >
 >
 >>I put the log in a flat file on NFS
 >>(/home/wikipedia/logs/checkuser.log), partly to make it easy for
 >>suspicious developers to check up on what the users have been doing with
 >>it. So it's not just two people overseeing each other. I'd prefer it if
 >>more people could view the log, but for privacy reasons we can't make it
 >>public at this stage. If there's sufficient demand, we could probably
 >>make partial logs available -- say, just the usernames but not the IP
 >>addresses.
 >
 >
 >
 > I can see the creatively antisocial trying to use that as a point against
 > other editors they are in combat with.
 >
 >
 > - d.

I would not support any such list to be public. It seems to me that
bringing public suspicion over someone is already a bit condemning him.
This is not wikilove at all, and prone to further heat conflicts.

Another solution could simply be to name two people ombudsmen over this
topic. We should choose two people trusted by the community, BUT
generally out of usual cabalistic discussions. Rather quiet and discreet
people, not involved in current internal politics. These are most likely
to be independant from those with the right to check the ips.

Ant


body:
Milos Rancic a ?crit:
> Even small community, Serbian Wikipedia has potentail for such need.
> However, I don't think that we need to have person with such
> privileges, but I would like to have possibility to ask some steward
> for that, not some busy developer. Also, I suppose that larger
> communities need persons with such privlieges.

Stewards are also very busy ;-)

Ant


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Expanding CheckUser permissions


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: [Wikinews-l] TheWorldForum.org adds Wikinews logo

body:
Erik Moeller a ?crit:

> I never authorized an "In Association With" heading and am happy to
> suggest alternatives, and Angela is correct that the "Visit our
> sponsors" link (which refers to the Google ads above it) was misleading;
> again, I gave no authorization for that. In any case, as you may recall,
> you appointed me as "Wikimedia Foundation Content Partnership
> Co-ordinator" on February 18, 2004, which I (it turns out, wrongly)
> believed at least gave me some additional leeway to do these things.

If I dare say something here... I do not think this position is
mentionned anywhere. At least, it is not cited on meta, nor on the
foundation website. As far as I am concerned, this position
unfortunately does not exist. But I see where the confusion stands of
course. Perhaps it should be discussed by the board as well as which
liberty of decision it provides ?

Ant


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] On cultural sensitivity

body:
>the kind of thing you'd expect to see in the window of
>your local art gallery.

doubtful. It's hardly modern art.
--
geni


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Quarto article: Review, comments and input

body:
I am very glad you wrote that Yann. Thanks a lot for the report.
I received this week some questions for an email interview, and one of
the question is precisely on that topic. That would fit greatly in the
answer.

Thanks again :-)

ant

Yann Forget a ?crit:
> Hi,
>
> The English translation of my article for Quarto is available on Meta, thanks
> to Angela:
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Right_or_wrong_use_of_intellectual_property
>
> It needs review. I would like also to be commented and completed by non French
> contributors.
>
> Thanks,
> Yann
>
> PS: French original:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Du_bon_ou_du_mauvais_usage_de_la_propri?t?_intellectuelle
>


body:
> Geni has also unwittlingly demonstrated that the Wikipedia site will never
> be "worksafe" unless we delete the history files.

How many people look through the history files?

--
geni


subject: [Wikipedia-l] pitching an idea

body:
>I fail to see how that applies to what I said, actually.  I was
>discussing our NPOV policy, not objectivity.  The NPOV policy is
>something we approach by admitting all verifiable opinions as statements
>of fact regarding the existence of such opinions.  It is not an attempt
>to produce a truly objective view of the universe.  None of us is God,
>but we can all aspire to peacefully, and without undue judgmentalism,
>incorporate divergent views on whether or not God exists into our
>encyclopedia.
>
It applied at least to what Steve said. He used the argument of cultural
diversity (transferred on wikipedia in wikipedias in zeveral languages) to
indicatethe inaccurateness of the NPOV-ideal. I wanted to oppose that.

You are right in saying objectivity and NPOV are not the same. Neutrality
originates form Latin "neuter" mening neither (ne-uter "none of both"), so a
Neutral Point of View simply means that there are at least two factions with
both/ each a fair deal of followers and that the statements agree with
neither/ none of them. So, I agree with you and I am convinced Wikipedia can
achieve this.

Wouter

_________________________________________________________________
Nooit ongewenste berichten ontvangen: gebruik MSN Messenger
http://messenger.msn.nl/


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Dot Org Boom

body:
Cool :-)

Well, just to say shortly... everything went on fine, and I also took
some pictures in Helsinki (though I am not at all sure of their
quality...). I'll make a report on meta actually, because the whole week
gave me some ideas.

For now, I was just relieved to learn 10 mn ago that they had FINALLY
found track of my luggage in Paris (which were SO unfortunately LOST
today...grumble). Should get in my city by the next plane or so ...

Meanwhile, let me just say it was a very interesting week, which also
had the secondary effect of distracting me from negative thoughts. So
all is well (but for a little hangover from last night still sticking to
my neurons...). Life with artists is tough... they start seminars at 10
am (with me each time). They fit the serious things in the morning. They
switch to audio and video techniques in the afternoon, and they do the
live performances during the night. Curious people.

Lars Aronsson a ?crit:
> Four CC-SA-licensed photos from the Dot Org Boom seminar in
> Stockholm, where Anthere spoke, are now available on
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:LA2
>
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Dot Org Boom


body:
geni said:
>> Geni has also unwittlingly demonstrated that the Wikipedia site will
>> never be "worksafe" unless we delete the history files.
>
> How many people look through the history files?

It only takes one link on an external website placed by a joker. "Hey,
look what they have here!"  Every single version of every article on
Wikipedia is URL-accessible.  If the picture in question still exists, it
will be shown in the disposition suggested by the version being viewed,
not in the supposedly "work-safe" disposition of the current version.
The only solution is to let the users take control of their own browsers.
They know what they do and do not what to see.


body:
Puddl Duk said:
> On 4/17/05, Tony Sidaway <minorityreport at bluebottle.com> wrote:
>>
>> We appear to have a difference of opinion on the ease of operation of
>> modern browsers such as Internet Explorer and Firefox.  As a person
>> who often uses both in this mode I can assure you that it's neither
>> extreme nor ridiculous.  It's very sensible and it solves the problem
>> totally.
>>
> I can't get this to work in firefox (maybe I'm computer illiterate).
> Works fine in  IE, but FF doesn't have a rightmousebuttonclick to show
> image inline (when image downloads are off). New FF downloaded
> yesterday.

Firefox doesn't do it out of the box.  You need to download the
appropriate extensions.


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [WikiEN-l] One argument I do not find compelling

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

I don't think this definitively settles anything one way or the other,
but I don't find Tony Sidaway's argument that linking (rather than
inlining) problematic images takes choice away from the user.  I think
there are much more compelling arguments which illustrate the opposite.

Tony suggests that users can browse with *all* images turned off and
simply click to view them.  He apparently concedes that with Firefox,
you have to download an extension to make this easy.  But even with
this, users who come to Wikipedia for the first time (and each
subsequent time) have to think: gee, I'm going to a serious encyclopedia
project, so I might see a photo of someone engaging in autofellatio so I
had better turn off all images just in case.

This is forcing the user to go through a lot of hoops, and it is
forbidding to them the very simple and obvious choice that most people
want to make, which is to just surf the web in a simple and unplanned
way and not be too astonished by the result.

On the other hand, putting such images behind a link doesn't appear to
affect anyone's choice negatively at all, except in the very very rare
case where it is somehow important to be able to read the description of
the controversial image side-by-side with viewing the image itself.  For
such cases, it seems to me quite easy for someone to open two browser
windows or... frankly, I just think it doesn't ever come up
realistically in the first place.

And linking _very conveniently_ acknowledges that for a great many
users, having the choice to simply click or not can be very very useful.

Now this is not to say that there aren't other arguments against linking
and in favor of inlining this sort of image.  But I don't think this
argument that somehow linking is taking away choices is very compelling.
 It seems clear to me that the opposite is true: linking gives people
the choice to view the image or not, in the simplest and most effective
way possible, without requiring the to know in advance that there might
be shocking images, without requiring them to change browser settings, etc.

- --Jimbo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCYvaDPmU5MGI9SZcRAsT1AJ9sUjSdY5pDXlVmqyhLgyZa1z1zGACfWwML
uLDKAi4HmO4s3ZFPOIynBYs=
=inOp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Chinese Wikinews: board action required

body:
I am undecided as well about closing or not closing fr. There is one
contributor to it. What worries me is that he is not a wikipedian, and
seems to have strange ideas about npov. I tried to discuss it a bit with
him... but basically, npov is not so much about "explanation", but
rather more about "habit and precedent". Most learn and understand it by
working with others. As he is alone.... I am dubious. But for now,
content seems fine. It is essentially working along the same line that
the french wikipedia current events.

So, the main drawback of its existence is for now a bad image propagated
to french journalists; But well....

Ant

Jimmy Wales a ?crit:
> Yann Forget wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Le Friday 15 April 2005 05:33, Andrew Lih a ?crit :
>>
>>> Perhaps it's apparent to all parties, but could somone elaborate on
>>> "Given the struggles that some Wikinews projects have had already"?
>>>
>>> -Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
>>
>>
>>
>> I think that Jimbo refers to the French Wikinews which is still in
>> beta with no real participant. There is still no consensus on what to
>> do with this project within the French community. Some people proposed
>> to close it untill there is a wider consensus.
>
>
> Yes, this is what I had in mind.  The French Wikinews was started
> according to existing policy, but clearly that policy is inadequate to
> ensure a proper launch with solid community support.  When we were in
> Brussels a while back Delphine/notafish was making a valiant effort to
> get it going/get it organized/make it work, but to my knowledge this
> hasn't been successful.
>
> I don't support closing it; I don't support keeping it open.  I just
> think we should observe and learn from the process.
>
> It's probably worth noting that a polarized community (as zh is) is of
> course different from a community which simply doesn't have people
> interested (fr, and I think some other existing wikinews).  Zh might be
> successful just because it is controversial.
>
> There are many many factors to consider in making these decisions.
>
> --Jimb
> o


body:
Erik Moeller a ?crit:
 > Jimmy-
 >
 >> Yes, this is what I had in mind.  The French Wikinews was started
 >> according to existing policy, but clearly that policy is inadequate to
 >> ensure a proper launch with solid community support.  When we were in
 >> Brussels a while back Delphine/notafish was making a valiant effort to
 >> get it going/get it organized/make it work, but to my knowledge this
 >> hasn't been successful.
 >
 >
 > it is important to note that Wikinews is currently the *only* project
 > that follows a strict language creation policy. There are:
 > * 12 Wikinews editions
 > * 87 Wikiquote editions
 > * 121 Wikibooks editions
 > * 173 Wiktionary editions
 > * ~200 Wikipedia editions
 >
 > Suffice it to say that a very large number of these Wikiquote,
 > Wikibooks, Wiktionary and Wikipedia editions are dead or, worse, spam
 > magnets. :-(
 >
 > The elaborate processes for Wikinews as well as the nature of the
 > project have certainly put it in the spotlight of community attention.
 > But the situation with Wikinews is much better. Of all the editions,
 > only one (Bulgarian) is completely dead. It was launched according to
 > the old, minimal policy. If nothing happens within the next couple of
 > months, or if it starts attracting spam, I'd recommend locking it down.
 >
 > The French Wikinews is now in a somewhat strange state; it is being
 > updated regularly, but not in the way Wikinews should be. Instead of
 > writing full-length stories, contributors are writing in "Current
 > events" summary style right on the Main Page:

(cut)

You are correct in everything you say here...

Just one point. I could not help think that the "it is being
 > updated regularly, but not in the way Wikinews should be" is possibly
something to avoid saying.

I do not like how the french wikipedia is developing. However, I do not
think we should necessarily force it to develop in a certain way. And I
certainly do not think we should claim the current english way of doing
wikinews is "what it should be" while others are not doing the proper way.

Only point. I otherwise agree with you.

ant


body:
> It only takes one link on an external website placed by a joker. "Hey,
> look what they have here!"  Every single version of every article on
> Wikipedia is URL-accessible.

We are not respociple for the actions of people offsite. That fact is
that at present wikipedia does not make a very good shock site. I
would like to keep things this way.

> If the picture in question still exists, it
> will be shown in the disposition suggested by the version being viewed,
> not in the supposedly "work-safe" disposition of the current version.
> The only solution is to let the users take control of their own browsers.
> They know what they do and do not what to see.

As I showed no they don't. In that version there was no way to know
what they are going to see if they allow the image through. Uniformed
choice is meaningless.

--
geni


subject:
[Foundation-l] Re: [Wikinews-l] Chinese Wikinews: board action
	required

body:
Angela a ?crit:
> There's no consensus within the board either. In a discussion last
> month, Anthere said the Chinese community should decide, I said the
> whole community should decide, Tim Shell said it should be started,
> Jimbo said it shouldn't, and Michael Davis didn't respond to my email
> about it.

I hope everyone appreciate that even among 5 people, we were not able to
  have one common position ;-)

> Considering the complete split of opinions, both in the original vote,
> the recent Chinese vote, and within the board, I think we need to
> consider alternative options to the simple question of whether we
> start it or not. One solution could be for Wikimedia to support the
> project being hosted elsewhere without it being an official Wikimedia
> project, if any of the supporters of the project wanted to find
> alternative hosting for it. It wouldn't be able to use the Wikinews
> trademarks, but would mean that those who want to work on it could do
> so, and if there is ever a consensus for the project within Wikimedia,
> we could move it back here then.
>
> Angela

Hmmmm. Yeah. But I am not sure it would be credible.


body:
geni said:
>> It only takes one link on an external website placed by a joker. "Hey,
>> look what they have here!"  Every single version of every article on
>> Wikipedia is URL-accessible.
>
> We are not respociple for the actions of people offsite. That fact is
> that at present wikipedia does not make a very good shock site. I
> would like to keep things this way.

Well I've just shown you that Wikipedia *is* a very good shocksite.  A
concrete example: fred1245 makes a userpage and pops the clitoris picture,
enlarged to fill the browser page, into the page, saves that and then
blanks it.  Then he posts the innocent-looking Wikipedia URL
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Fred1245&oldid=12302327 on
the Rapture Ready forum.
> The only solution is to let the users take control of their
>> own browsers. They know what they do and do not what to see.
>
> As I showed no they don't. In that version there was no way to know
> what they are going to see if they allow the image through. Uniformed
> choice is meaningless.

The picture in question is a still from a PG13 movie, placed on an article
about that movie.  If people go to that article, presumably they expect to
see stills from the movie.  If they don't, there's nothing we can do to
help them.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] pitching an idea

body:
>Wouter Steenbeek (musiqolog at hotmail.com) [050418 03:20]:
>
> > Steve's proposal is interesting and can be defended from a philosophical
> > point of view. Indeed most philosophers involved with science agree that
> > objectivity is an illusion, and the quasi-objectivity we reach in e.g.
> > encyclopaedias is only a broad consensus within one culture.
>
>
>Except the ones who are actually scientists. "Sorry, evolution has been
>voted out of science."
>
You didn't get the point! Indeed, scientists are given a big authority, so
people, especially encyclopaedia-makers, use their theories to form their
opinion. So, in our culture, the view of scientists is especially favoured
among encyclopaedia-makers, because they are supposed to have justificated
their views by means of an elaborate dialectic process, not by dogmatic
tradition. On the other hand, for other people the Bible might have a bigger
authority. They form a different image of the world around us than we do,
and than most scientists do.

Wouter

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Webmessenger doet het altijd en overal http://webmessenger.msn.com/


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

Timwi wrote:
> Unfortunately, "Children's Wikipedia" itself is ambiguous: Does it mean
> the content is aimed at children, or it is intended to allow children to
> collaborate? I fear the term "Children's Wikipedia" would attract more
> child contributors, which in turn might discourage adult editors because
> the social dynamics are vastly different (and probably "too childish"
> for most grown-ups).
>
> These are just some thoughts; this is not intended to imply that I am
> advocating (or opposing) the creation or deletion of any Wikipedias or
> any other projects.

If you take a peek into Wikien-l and see the endless debate raging about
such things as [[autofellatio]] images, I think you will agree with me
that having a "children's wikipedia" will tend to create impossible
flame wars about the suitability of some types of content for children.

I have no particular point of view about this, I am only making an
observation.

- --Jimbo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCYv0GPmU5MGI9SZcRApk8AJ474KqNVSD/xfaxnDGray2g84EjeACgn/Cc
WxPJyDvwVOw0pju5G4Cak3g=
=lpkQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject:
[Foundation-l] Re: 501(c)(3) status granted to Wikimedia
	Foundation

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

Timwi wrote:
> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> Jimmy Wales wrote:
>>
>>> Quoting from a letter from the IRS:
>>>
>>> We are pleased to inform you that upon review of your application for
>>> tax exempt status we have determined that you are exempt from Federal
>>> income tax under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Codfe.
>>> Contributions to you are deductible under section 170 of the Code.
>>> You are also qualified to receive tax deductible bequests, devises,
>>> transfers or gifts under section 2055, 2106 or 2522 of the Code.
>>> Because this letter could help resolve any questions regarding your
>>> extempt status, you should keep it in your permanent records.
>>
>>
>> I presume that "extempt" is your typo rather than something that was
>> in the letter from the IRS. :'(
>
>
> Is that really the only typo you noticed? :-)

Ok, I was quite excited when I was typing it in.  It's hard to type and
cheer at the same time.

Now, we'll have a scan of the letter posted online soon.

- --Jimbo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCYv1APmU5MGI9SZcRAmqxAJ9TdySJ2GPzD3DA1dQkndFaPis9WwCdEheI
erGAyq/iYN+Nk7X833r0/Xc=
=vza1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


body:
> Well I've just shown you that Wikipedia *is* a very good shocksite.  A
> concrete example: fred1245 makes a userpage and pops the clitoris picture,
> enlarged to fill the browser page, into the page, saves that and then
> blanks it.  Then he posts the innocent-looking Wikipedia URL
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Fred1245&oldid=12302327 on
> the Rapture Ready forum.

At that is a bad thing how? If I wanted to cause trouble at RR I would
post some stats showing that christians in the US are in the majority
or something. Anyway alturnativly he just rehosts the goatse and links
to that (although linking to the skeptic's bible would probably result
in a bigger fuss).

> The picture in question is a still from a PG13 movie, placed on an article
> about that movie.  If people go to that article, presumably they expect to
> see stills from the movie.  If they don't, there's nothing we can do to
> help them.

And how am I ment to know that titanic is PG13 (a rating that doesn't
even exist in my country)?

--
geni


subject: [Wikipedia-l] pitching an idea

body:
>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=2&articleID=000E555C-4387-1237-81CB83414B7FFE9F
>was supposed to be humour ...
>
Your comment sounded like the common positivist reaction to skeptical or
postmodern theories, so I didn't catch it like that....not very surprising,
imo.

_________________________________________________________________
Gebruik MSN Webmessenger op je werk en op school
http://webmessenger.msn.com/


from_name: Thomas Gries

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Enotif - sent to Sysops for any new page ?

body:
Timwi,

it appears, that I wasn't clear enough. The entries in the watchlist are
triggering in any case.
What I proposed was:

allow "super-users" (sysops, developers,. bureaucrats) one regular
expression.

On creating a new page, If this RE is matched, then a watchlist entry
for such a new page is automagically created, and an ENotif is sent to
the superuser.

Tom

Timwi schrieb:

> Thomas Gries wrote:
>
>> I would like to know, whether you also like a new feature
>> which sends an Enotif (e-mail notification) to the SDBs on creation
>> of a new page - if the RE matches.
>
>
> Such a RE would quickly become extremely long and hard to edit. Why
> not use a user's watchlist for this purpose?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>


body:
Christiaan Briggs wrote:

> On 17 Apr 2005, at 9:32 pm, geni wrote:
>
>>> I'm sorry, but what a load of bullocks.
>>>
>>> Christiaan
>>
>> are you seriously trying to suggest that there is a significant
>> percentage of earth population that would not be offended by the the
>> goatse?
>
> I'm saying that Rebecca's comment that, "There are some things which
> are reasonably likely to offend the vast majority of people on this
> Earth. Goatse is a fine example. Autofellatio is, most probably,
> another" is a load of bullocks. When someone projects their view onto
> 4-5 billion people mine is a pretty rational response I would have
> thought.

The expression is really "a load of ballocks", not "bullocks".  That
might better satisfy autofellatio-man's hunger. :-)

Ec


subject:
[Foundation-l] Re: Report on DotOrgBoom Stockholm Panel, April 12,
	2005

body:
I mentionned it here :-) http://www.pixelache.ac/2005/

I can't say I disagree with your analysis of Kai talk.
He later improved his talk by adding a short definition of what free and
open meant, and a good discussion was held on the topic on friday morning.

I found you a bit tough for Risto...

Otherwise, yes, Steve, I think your pov shows ;-)

But great report :-)

ant

Steve Rapaport a ?crit:
> By popular demand, my report (with pictures) is here:
>
> http://romlin.com/worldtour/sweden/FinnishEmbassy/index.html
>
>
> It is extremely POV, because otherwise it would just be boring.
>


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [Foundation-l] guarding a wiki

body:
Walter van Kalken (walter at vankalken.net) [050417 12:40]:

> >If so, then "soft closing" might be a good solution to explore.  A "soft
> >closed" wiki requires a captcha for posting, disallows external links,
> >implements the 'nofollow' tag, etc.

> Forgive my ignorance as a non geek-english speaking cloggy ........ what
> is captcha?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captcha

A captcha (an acronym for "completely automated public Turing test to tell
computers and humans apart") is a type of challenge-response test used in
computing to determine whether or not the user is human. The term was
coined in 2000 by Luis von Ahn, Manuel Blum, and Nicholas J. Hopper of
Carnegie Mellon University, and John Langford of IBM. A common type of
captcha requires that the user type the letters of a distorted and/or
obscured sequence of letters or digits that appears on the screen. Because
the test is administered by a computer, in contrast to the standard Turing
test that is administered by a human, a captcha is sometimes described as a
reverse Turing test.

Captchas are used to prevent bots from using various types of computing
services. Applications include preventing bots from taking part in online
polls, registering for free email accounts (which may then be used to send
spam), and, more recently, preventing bot-generated spam by requiring that
the (unrecognized) sender successfully pass a captcha test before the email
message is delivered.

By definition, captchas have the following characteristics:

    * They are completely automated. This avoids the necessity for human
      maintenance or intervention in the test, with obvious benefits in
      cost and reliability.
    * The algorithm used is made public, though it may be encumbered by a
      patent. This is stipulated so as to require that breaking a captcha
      requires the solution of a hard problem in the field of artificial
      intelligence (AI) rather than just the discovery of the (secret)
      algorithm, which could be obtained through reverse engineering or
      other means.

- d.


subject: [Foundation-l] guarding a wiki


body:
geni said:
>> Well I've just shown you that Wikipedia *is* a very good shocksite.  A
>> concrete example: fred1245 makes a userpage and pops the clitoris
>> picture, enlarged to fill the browser page, into the page, saves that
>> and then blanks it.  Then he posts the innocent-looking Wikipedia URL
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Fred1245&oldid=12302327
>> on the Rapture Ready forum.
>
> At that is a bad thing how?

I'm not going to argue about whether it's a bad thing, I'm just showing
you that Wikipedia is easy to use as a shocksite in a manner that would be
hard to detect prior to first use.
>
>> The picture in question is a still from a PG13 movie, placed on an
>> article about that movie.  If people go to that article, presumably
>> they expect to see stills from the movie.  If they don't, there's
>> nothing we can do to help them.
>
> And how am I ment to know that titanic is PG13 (a rating that doesn't
> even exist in my country)?
>

It's probably best to assume that *all* movies may contain things that
some very sensitive people will find upsetting to look at.  Fast cars,
violence, explosions, extreme cruelty, glorification of stupidity, and
last but not least the occasional bare chested young lady.  People who are
likely to be upset by movies know who they are and precisely what it is
that is likely to upset them.  We don't--hence this display of mutual
incomprehension between those of us who don't know what the fuss is about
and those who think it's blatantly obvious.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] pitching an idea

body:
Steve Lefevre (lefevre.10 at osu.edu) [050417 16:39]:

> I'm pitching an idea for a postmodern wikipedia. What I mean by that is
> that there are multiple concurrent versions of an article. Instead of a
> zero-sum game where only one text can inhabit a title at any time, a
> user can choose from different branches. The user basis this decision on
> who the authors are, and how many people agree with the text.
> The immediate wikipedia problems that this solves are:
> - Edit wars. This is common with articles covering controversial
> topics, such as abortion. Proponents of different truths will build and
> maintain their side of the story, including counter arguments, instead
> of trying to destroy the other side. There is no negative sign-off, so
> the only thing the article measures is how many people agree with it,
> not how many disagree.

Multiple forks save edit wars, but I'm entirely unconvinced they're a good
thing for the reader. I think NPOV is Wikipedia's really startling and
useful innovation, on a par with attempting to write an encyclopedia by the
wiki process.

- d.


body:
This is a great new in any cases.

Anyway, the things to do are now

* put the announcement on WMF main page (done by Angela)

* on the donation pages (done in some pages, but not all languages yet,
example
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising_%28Fran%C3%A7ais%29/D%C3%A9duction_des_dons)

* mention it in Quarto (will do)

* decide how this will be handled. I do not remember if it was discussed
yet... but will we provide the paper to the donator,

- by electronic mean. Such as a pdf... is it legal ?

- or by snail mail ? In this later case, that means forms must allow to
gather address. Someone should take care of all the paperworks (who ?).

In short, how do we plan to handle this technically speaking ? What is
possible to do with the previous ones ? There is mention that this is
retroactive. Can we do something for the grants or big donations we had ?

Ant

Daniel Mayer a ?crit:
> --- Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>
>>Hooray! Finally!
>>
>>The effective date of the exemption is June 20, 2003 (our founding
>>date), so this is fully retroactive.
>
>
> Spread the word. Time to email every one of our thousands of donors in the U.S.
> Too bad we didn't know about this until *after* tax day. :(
>
> -- mav
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Plan great trips with Yahoo! Travel: Now over 17,000 guides!
> http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelguide


body:
> I'm not going to argue about whether it's a bad thing, I'm just showing
> you that Wikipedia is easy to use as a shocksite in a manner that would be
> hard to detect prior to first use.

Not really RR is not quite as uptight as you seem to think. There is
even a disscussion on pubic hair shaveing in there somewhere.

> It's probably best to assume that *all* movies may contain things that
> some very sensitive people will find upsetting to look at.  Fast cars,
> violence, explosions, extreme cruelty, glorification of stupidity, and
> last but not least the occasional bare chested young lady.  People who are
> likely to be upset by movies know who they are and precisely what it is
> that is likely to upset them.  We don't--hence this display of mutual
> incomprehension between those of us who don't know what the fuss is about
> and those who think it's blatantly obvious.

Snow white and the seven dawfes? Most of the stuff listed as U in the UK?


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Encarta goes wiki - sort of...

body:
Stirling Newberry a ?crit:
>
> On Apr 13, 2005, at 6:08 PM, Faraaz Damji wrote:
>
>> Anthere wrote:
>>
>>> I looked at their review process... I do not see how it could work...
>>> Eh, it reminds me of Nupedia !
>>
>>
>> I agree, but it's different from Nupedia in that they've got tons more
>> resources than Nupedia did.  Still, I don't see encarta becoming the
>> largest encyclopedia in the world, since there is little reason for
>> people to contribute.  It doesn't even seem like they give attribution
>> (do they? If so, where?).
>>
>> I don't think that there will be dedicated editors like there are on
>> Wikipedia, and like there were on Nupedia, since encarta is completely
>> for profit- they're in it for the money and NOT for providing free
>> access to "the sum of all human knowledge." There might be some casual
>> editors who, upon finding something that wasn't previously there, will
>> submit it (eg. if somebody died).  There is little reason I see for
>> anybody going on the site for the purpose of improving it.
>>
>> While it will help keep the encyclopedia more up-to-date, I doubt it
>> will ever become nearly as popular as Wikipedia is.
>>
>> Blog: http://frazzydee.ca
>
>
> Wikipedia is an increasingly hostile environment. Don't dismiss
> alternate venues because the wave is cresting on wikipedia.

I .... tend to agree with Stirling here. In effect, growing communities
tend to reproduce a situation of anonymity that is found in big cities
in real life. We do not know our neighbours anymore. We do not go so
quickly to knock at the door when we hear nothing of him. And we bang
more and more on the ceiling than going to talk to him when he is making
noise.

Truely.

We are slowly recreating smaller communities inside the big ones.


from_name: Alex Regh

subject: [Wikipedia-l] pitching an idea

body:
Hi!

Besides all the objections already raised, I also don't see how that would
practically work:

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 02:39:26 -0400, Steve Lefevre wrote:

>A PGP sign-off system will keep track of who wrote what, and who agrees
>with it. Authors who have had a lot of people sign off on their word
>will get bonus scores on their texts, and articles that well-reputed
>authors sign off on will get also get bonus scores.

See, if there was a decent article A from say, 1. January which gets lots of
votes. Now somebody significantly improves that article on 1. February (A2).
Also on 1. February somebody writes another article with a significantly
different POV (A3). Lots of people who agree with that POV vote for A3, but on
1. March A2 has not gained many votes, because most people just read the
high-rated January article A -- I mean, why read a new one when there is a
high-rated only slightly older one.

So what people get, if they go by votes, is a decent article A and one with an
entirely different POV, A3. They might consider the latter as the better,
since it is at newer, and might never get to see A2.

And if A3 is one of those whose POV is, let's say, very POV (given that I have
lots of gay and transgender articles on my watchlist, imagine what I get to
see ...) well, we would hardly be able to fulfil our goal of informing people,
would we? Because, you know, people are quite often perfectly satisfied if
they read what confirms what they already know, and never bother to find out
whether there is more, if they have to make an effort to do just that.

In other words, the idea seems to be rather counter-productive to me.

Alex
--
If you don't go over the top,
you can't see what's on the other side.
        --- Jim Steinman ---

Alex' Assorted Homepages: www.alexsite.de


body:
geni said:
>> I'm not going to argue about whether it's a bad thing, I'm just
>> showing you that Wikipedia is easy to use as a shocksite in a manner
>> that would be hard to detect prior to first use.
>
> Not really RR is not quite as uptight as you seem to think. There is
> even a disscussion on pubic hair shaveing in there somewhere.

I've posted there a lot in the past (nicely, and they liked me a lot). I
know what they're like.
>
>
>> It's probably best to assume that *all* movies may contain things that
>> some very sensitive people will find upsetting to look at.  Fast cars,
>> violence, explosions, extreme cruelty, glorification of stupidity, and
>> last but not least the occasional bare chested young lady.  People who
>> are likely to be upset by movies know who they are and precisely what
>> it is that is likely to upset them.  We don't--hence this display of
>> mutual incomprehension between those of us who don't know what the
>> fuss is about and those who think it's blatantly obvious.
>
> Snow white and the seven dawfes? Most of the stuff listed as U in the
> UK?

People who are that easily shocked may get upset at movies, period.  It is
notoriously difficult to tell the content of a movie from its name.  And
you just pointed out yourself that movie ratings in one country may mean
nothing in another.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] pitching an idea

body:
Hi!

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:17:44 +0200, Wouter Steenbeek wrote:

>So, in our culture, the view of scientists is especially favoured
>among encyclopaedia-makers, because they are supposed to have justificated
>their views by means of an elaborate dialectic process, not by dogmatic
>tradition.

Well, that is the theory - but unfortunately, that is not always the case,
especially outside of the "hard sciences". Therefore, relying entirely on
"scientific" stuff can lead into bad traps, too. (And mind you, I most
certainly don't advocate any holy books should replace science here - merely
facts.)

Alex
--
If you don't go over the top,
you can't see what's on the other side.
        --- Jim Steinman ---

Alex' Assorted Homepages: www.alexsite.de


body:
Jimmy Wales a ?crit:
>>
>> Wikipedia is an increasingly hostile environment. Don't dismiss
>> alternate venues because the wave is cresting on wikipedia.
>>
>
> For me, the important question is: how do we prevent Wikipedia from
> becoming an "increasingly hostile environment".
>
> My own view is that we should trust the ArbCom to rid us more quickly of
> poisonous personalities.  Of course this is
> non-trivial, etc.  But we really do put up with an astounding amount of
> absurd behavior in the name of openness.
>
> --Jimbo

Hmmmm. This is not the only point. There is an increasing anonymity in
big communities. Not knowing an editor means you are not necessarily
behaving as gently or approaching a conflict so easily.

I think this could be improved by providing new means for editors to get
to know others, in particular those contributing in other areas. Ideas
such as the facebook have certainly helped.


subject: [Foundation-l] The role of the board

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

Delirium wrote:
> Jimmy Wales wrote:
>> The board doesn't represent the community, per se, but rather has a
>> legal responsibility to carry out our charitable mission, which of
>> course involves profound respect for the community.
>
>
> That's only true for the unelected 3/5 of the board---two of the board
> members very explicitly represent the community, and indeed the
> community can replace them at the next election if it dislikes how it's
> being represented.

Board members, elected or unelected, have a duty to the organization's
charitable aims, not to the members who elected them.

Over the very long haul future, I anticipate increasing community
participation on the board, in some fashion, but I do not anticipate
that this should ever be allowed to give rise to the idea that Wikipedia
can be whatever the community wants it to be, no matter who the
community is.

This is not as simple as "voting versus not voting" for board members.
The exact _mechanisms_ by which we (in the long run) organize the board
can have a huge impact on the project, and I intend that we slowly and
carefully modify and test and design those mechanisms to ensure that we
continue to hold to our fundamental ideals.

Let me give a very simple example to explain what I mean about it not
being as simple as "voting versus not voting" -- it is not hard for
anyone who has studied a little bit of election theory to come up with a
plan for electing board members which would guarantee a victory only for
people who are either en.wikipedia users or are somehow famous in the en
community.

This would lead to no representation for other languages, etc.

Alternatively we can design processes which somehow guarantee diverse
representation at the board level.  This is not easy.

This is particularly not easy because it would be undesirable from a
fast decision-making point of view to have a board of 75 people.  And so
long as we have a manageable group, of course it is hard to get proper
representation for different languages.

We also have to be very concerned about the possibility as we become
more important of outside groups trying to control the content of
Wikipedia by controlling the votes.  I think this is a very easy thing
to deal with, so I only mention it to mention yet another way in which
the question of "elected or not" doesn't really get us very far.

If your question is: will there ever come a day when the community
undertakes a vote of some kind to do away with neutrality or the
principle of free licensing, then my answer is: not if I can help it.
And this is not me _against_ the community, but rather this is my
promise to the community, to defend it and not make hasty decisions that
would lead to the potential corruption of our ideals.

- --Jimbo

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCYwW9PmU5MGI9SZcRAmskAJ9o6AoYI1XBEcVkqoygI4hUeuq9bACfUFUq
03qCW1mjo8Qt8cqsfZXMzXY=
=5HdS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [Foundation-l] The role of the board


subject: [WikiEN-l] Titanic, illustrated

body:
Rick said:
>
> Rebecca, are you really trying to say that the
> campaigns to DELETE the autofellatio and Kate Winslet
> images are all in order to make them links to the
> article pages?  Hardly.  They are campaigns to REMOVE
> the images COMPLETELY from Wikipedia, so that NOBODY
> can see them.
>

Absolutely. And a look at the talk page history for Autofellatio will show
that I am no opponent of linking.  The severe limitations of this
technique must, however, be recognised, and it's clearly not a suitable
way of treating an really very unobjectionable illustration of a movie,
just because it contains tits which some very sensitive people don't like.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Misspellings and non-native speakers

body:
> Um, are you attacking me for daring to stand up for
> Geni?
>
> RickK

I'm a native speaker. Problem is that I'm dyslexic. I will run article
contibutions through a spell checker but I don't normaly bother for
anything else.

--
geni


body:
> I've posted there a lot in the past (nicely, and they liked me a lot). I
> know what they're like.

Appel to authority logical fallacy. You haven't explained why they
shouldn't just link to a mirror of a shock site for a much more
effective effect.

> People who are that easily shocked may get upset at movies, period.  It is
> notoriously difficult to tell the content of a movie from its name.  And
> you just pointed out yourself that movie ratings in one country may mean
> nothing in another.

They may get shocked at movies but they will not expect to get shocked
by encyopedia articles.

--
geni


from_name: Christiaan Briggs

body:
Rebecca wrote:

> There are some things which are reasonably likely to offend the vast
> majority of people on this Earth. Goatse is a fine example.
> Autofellatio is, most probably, another.

I'm sorry, but what a load of bullocks.

Christiaan


body:
> I'm sorry, but what a load of bullocks.
>
> Christiaan

are you seriously trying to suggest that there is a significant
percentage of earth population that would not be offended by the the
goatse?

--
geni


body:
Puddl Duk a ?crit:
>>I would not support any such list to be public. It seems to me that
>>bringing public suspicion over someone is already a bit condemning him.
>>This is not wikilove at all, and prone to further heat conflicts.
>>
>>Another solution could simply be to name two people ombudsmen over this
>>topic. We should choose two people trusted by the community, BUT
>>generally out of usual cabalistic discussions. Rather quiet and discreet
>>people, not involved in current internal politics. These are most likely
>>to be independant from those with the right to check the ips.
>>
>>Ant
>>
>
> Secrecy checked by more secrecy. This is going in the wrong direction.
> A user should be notified some way when they are targeted for
> investigated.

I did not imply that the user should not know. I think he should probably.

However, I do not think the other editors should know.

In many countries, a person is considered not guilty until convinced of
a crime. Now, we know better than that. Practically, when the police
starts looking suspiciously to someone, the neighbours get suspicious as
well.


body:
Aphaia a ?crit:
> On 4/18/05, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
>
>> If so, it would seem that someone
>>should update the foundation website.
>
>
> A question came to me; if we have already mentioned other officers as
> is in a clear way?
>
> As for mav I can found
> -Two  Quarto pages (vol.1 & 2)
> -His own user page
> -Some meeting logs

You are correct Britty; it should be more clearly stated possibly.

> Before update, should we create a brief list of WMF officer(s)? Or it
> s okay to add a brief note on "Trustees" page? (The latter idea seems
> however  to me a bit confused. One of my friend confused Tim Shell and
> Tim Starling ...)

Currently, the only officer I am aware of is Mav.

Tim resigned when he took his wikibreak. Not sure exactly what the
situation is currently on this topic. Practically, I get information
from about 4-5 sources, Tim definitly being one of them ;-)


subject:
[Wikitech-l] MediaWiki 1.4.1 REL1_4 incl. e-mail notification and
 e-mail address authentication version 3.07

body:
Hello "all",

I have just published my recent version (3.07)  of - see subject.

If you are interested in using MediaWiki with e-mail notification for
page and/or user_talk page changes, please consider to visit
http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=454 . You are invited to
add your e-mail address to the CC list of this bugzilla, if you want to
receive always the latest news or to track new releases.

It also introduces direct links to the "difference to my last seen
revision" of pages, you have on your watchlist.

The patch works without "glitches" and is an improved(!) back-port from
what is already in CVS HEAD (version 1.5).

The indicated download URL ( http://www.wikinaut.de/mw/mw141+enea.tgz )
directs you to the version of REL1_4 incl. my additions, which are
listed also on http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enotif  .

Wikinaut Tom


body:
On 17 Apr 2005, at 9:32 pm, geni wrote:

>> I'm sorry, but what a load of bullocks.
>>
>> Christiaan
>
> are you seriously trying to suggest that there is a significant
> percentage of earth population that would not be offended by the the
> goatse?

I'm saying that Rebecca's comment that, "There are some things which
are reasonably likely to offend the vast majority of people on this
Earth. Goatse is a fine example. Autofellatio is, most probably,
another" is a load of bullocks. When someone projects their view onto
4-5 billion people mine is a pretty rational response I would have
thought.

Christiaan


from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Idea for a new Wikipedia

body:
Timwi, depending on your definition of a child, this has already happened.

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

If you look there, you'll find that already, the majority of
Wikipedians were born between 1977 and 1993. Obviously if you consider
18 to be the limit of adulthood, all those on the list born after
1985-1986 are "children", and if you consider 21 to be the limit of
adulthood, that would make it 1982-1983, and if you consider it 30
(which some do), it would be 1974-1975.

Either way, that leaves you with a great deal of Wikipedians.

?var Arnfj?r? Bjarmason, Kzhr (prominent Wikipedian and sysop from
ja:), and Ilyanep are all examples of Wikipedians you might know who
are under 18 - ?var is IIRC 16, Kzhr is 15 I think, and Ilyanep is 13.
(I myself am 15, 16 in August).

The average age of Wikipedians in general iirc is 22 or so. That's
because our huge young crowd is balanced out a bit by 30- and
40-somethings.

Mark

On 17/04/05, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> Angela wrote:
> > On 4/15/05, Wouter Steenbeek <musiqolog at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>? the existance of a Simple
> >>English wikipedia justifies a Simple German wikipedia anyway.
> >
> > That might be the case if the Simple English Wikipedia had been a
> > success, but, in my opinion, it has not. The project still has very
> > unclear goals, and few guidelines about which level editors should be
> > writing at. It is not even clear whether the wiki is meant for
> > children or learners of English as an additional language.
>
> Exactly. I think naming is everything. "Simple English", to me, sounds
> silly, and an invitation to participate in it can even be regarded as
> slightly condescending. If it had instead been called "Children's
> Wikipedia", I would be much more willing to participate.
>
> Unfortunately, "Children's Wikipedia" itself is ambiguous: Does it mean
> the content is aimed at children, or it is intended to allow children to
> collaborate? I fear the term "Children's Wikipedia" would attract more
> child contributors, which in turn might discourage adult editors because
> the social dynamics are vastly different (and probably "too childish"
> for most grown-ups).
>
> These are just some thoughts; this is not intended to imply that I am
> advocating (or opposing) the creation or deletion of any Wikipedias or
> any other projects.
>
> Timwi
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE


from_name: Timwi

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Alexa breakout

body:
Charles Matthews wrote:
> Not Kate Winslet, but easy on the eye:
>
> http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&range=3m&size=large&compare_sites=&y=t&url=en.wikipedia.org

I don't see the problem? This is normal fluctuation that occurs in Alexa
all the time (look further left in the graph). This same drop is
happening to all other sites (just type a few domain names in the box
under the graph). I doesn't really say anything about Wikipedia's
popularity or reachability.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Misspellings and non-native speakers

body:
Rick wrote:
> --- Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
>
>> What is this thing about non-native speakers all the time? Native
>> speakers misspell their words thousands of times more often than
>> learners, *especially* in English; and a misspelling like
>> "vanderlism" is thousands of times more likely to come from a
>> native speaker than a learner.
>
> Um, are you attacking me for daring to stand up for
> Geni?

No, I'm not. I'm only debunking a common myth. I don't how what I said
could be seen as an attack, but I apologise if it somehow came across as
such.


from_name: Michael Keppler

subject: [Wikitech-l] Remote Editing support

body:
Rahul Sinha schrieb:

> Any thoughts on whether this would be worthwhile?  Any other features
> which might be useful?

There's an offline editor Eclipse plugin using the standard http
protocol. See
http://www.plog4u.org/index.php/Using_Eclipse_Wikipedia_Editor for more
information about it. The preferences and the offline cache concept are
a bit confusing but the editor itself is fine.

And I also know of a jEdit plugin, but can't tell you much about it.

Ciao, Michael.


subject: [WikiEN-l] On cultural sensitivity

body:
>  The pic of Bah?'u'll?h on the other hand is one example where
> we might consider doing the same thing as with nudity pics - linking them.

That pic isn't linked. Nor is it likely to be. It it simply at the
bottem of the page.

--
geni


from_name: Cormac Lawler

subject: [Wikipedia-l] pitching an idea

body:
Let's deal with postmodernism. As Steve says, and as we all know,
there are multiple perspectives of single events, people, religious
documents etc, and I think it is very much in the interest of public
or common knowledge that as many of these perspectives are presented
openly, especially in an encyclopedia like this one.

As we know (most here better than me - I don't actually write much)
the essential challenge of NPOV is to outline these perspectives and
present them in context of each other, sometimes as a form of dialogue
or debate. This is the very process of this encyclopedia, this is what
every contentious article's talk page is about. Steve's proposal is to
split this process into a container for multiple POVs. I certainly
embrace the spirit of free expression and multiplicity of perspectives
that Steve hopes for, but I wonder what this proposal would do to the
process of Wikipedia. I wonder what it would do to the actual debates
inherent in this collaborative process; whether the debate would
fragment and lose it's creative tension. That's essentially my point -
a concern for creativity - which is also Steve's main motivation, as i
see it.

I think Wikipedia *already is* quite a postmodern encyclopedia, in the
sense of the constant flux as the status quo (Lyotard from
[[Postmodernity]]). I think that the challenge of NPOV is also quite
postmodern, ie. to write about a topic with this multiplicity as a
given and use this as its creative source. [[Global warming]] is a
good example, I think, of a controversial topic characterised from
both sides - at least it rises above a "mushy overview".

Still though, I think that Steve has raised some interesting points
and these should enrich our ongoing debate.

Regards,
Cormac


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: pitching an idea

body:
Alex Regh wrote:
>
> (And mind you, I most certainly don't advocate any holy books should
> replace science here - merely facts.)

You advocate that holy books should replace facts? ;-)


from_name: Rebecca

subject: [WikiEN-l] Nude Kate Winslet Picture

body:
Please do not jump to conclusions concerning my understanding of
browser settings. I know perfectly well how to disable images in my
browser, and for the record, I use Firefox. However, I have no wish to
disable them for every site - or to just disable them every time I use
Wikipedia - because a handful of people want to use Wikipedia to push
a liberal POV.

And for gods sake, Tony, stop throwing around the personal attacks.
I'm sick and tired of being accused of being computer illiterate just
because I do not wish to go to the patently absurd (and patently
unnecessary) length of disabling all images.

-- ambi

On 4/17/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Our policy should not depend on the user's understanding of browser
> settings.  Many who do not understand these settings have also not
> figured out how to set the clock on their VCR.  We cannot base policy on
> a presumption of what others understand about any outside technology.
> As much as possible we need to accept responsibility for what WE do.
> Any kind of restrictions about access to images should be based in our
> own software.
>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Why linking an image gives less choice to the reader

body:
The reader is *not* free. The reader is given a choice to either go to
a patently ridiculous extreme, and manually enable each image, or to
have it thrown in their face regardless. This is opposed to the awful
(and one-off) strain that clicking one link would cause to the poor
person who really must see the autofellatio picture.

-- ambi

On 4/17/05, Tony Sidaway <minorityreport at bluebottle.com> wrote:
> Puddl Duk said:
> Absolutely not.  The reader is free to download the entire article, images
> and all, or the article without images, or to select which images he does
> or does not want to see.   He has complete control.  He is not forced to
> browse with images, or without them, or to download any given image he
> does not want to.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Suggestions for a work-safe encyclopedia

body:
On 4/16/05, Tony Sidaway <minorityreport at bluebottle.com> wrote:
> Andrew Cranwell said:
> Unless you see it and react to it, how can you know that you'll be
> offended by it?  Don't ask me to second-guess your reaction if you don't
> know yourself.

Fallacious reasoning. There are some things which are reasonably
likely to offend the vast majority of people on this Earth. Goatse is
a fine example. Autofellatio is, most probably, another. It's hardly
extreme to note that these are thus quite likely to offend people, and
to link them accordingly.

-- ambi


subject: [WikiEN-l] On cultural sensitivity

body:
Hi!

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 11:21:54 -0400, Jimmy Wales wrote:

>The question has arisen here: what positive arguments can be given for
>the inclusion of nudity in Wikipedia articles?

Actually, although being decidedly liberal on the issue itself, I would like
to raise another aspect. Wikipedia strives not just to inform the Western
world, but also the rest of it. And a lot of this rest of the world has not
only rather conservative views, but also laws regulating the display of nudity
- not to mention conventions; the USA (or rather parts of it) hardly have a
monopoly on that; and other areas have much stricter laws, too.

So I don't think we should worry too much over people who might get shocked,
we should more worry about people who don't get to see anything of Wikipedia,
because some authority deems WP to be to "moraly loose" or whatever.

The problem therefore is, in my opinion, how we can find a way between the
need to inform (which does IMO include pictures) and a need to remain
accessible to as many people as possible.

We should therefore consider which laws (and sensitivities) we want to
consider regarding content at all; the example of birds as a symbol of death
shows IMO one case where we would go too far if we excluded those.
Sensitivities are one thing, but the nuditiy issue is a triffle heavier than
sensitivities. The pic of Bah?'u'll?h on the other hand is one example where
we might consider doing the same thing as with nudity pics - linking them.

Which brings me to the solution I support, namely, linking them. Should we
consider to link some images instead of showing them directly, we should
consider that there is more than one way of offending people; particularly
religious images could probably be a similar problems. If a person decides
that they won't be offended by any images, they could switch on the direct
showing of these images in their preferences, or, if at all practical, people
could switch on different levels of potentially offending images. Since that
would require different tags, censoring bodies could choose to ban just the
display of those images, and not the whole WP.

And now don't get me wrong - I'd be much happier if there was no censorship
around the word, and if we could display all kinds of images without risking
not only complaints, but censorship of the whole Wikipedia at the recieving
end of the line. Unfortunately, the world is not quite as I would like it to
be, and given those circumstances, I consider my proposal to be the best
compromise. It does not take anything away from those readers who want and can
see everything, but it may keep open access to the rest of the Wikipedia to
those who otherwise might not see anything of it at all. And it would keep
those who are themselfes offended quiet, too, which I however only consider a
side-effect.

Greetings from Cologne
Alex
--
If you don't go over the top,
you can't see what's on the other side.
        --- Jim Steinman ---

Alex' Assorted Homepages: www.alexsite.de


subject: [WikiEN-l] On cultural sensitivity

body:
On 4/17/05, Tony Sidaway <minorityreport at bluebottle.com> wrote:
> Faraaz Damji said:
> >  Not offending people should always be secondary to educating them.

It's entirely possible to do both. Say a person wants to learn about
autofellatio. They can read the article, and be educated. If they want
to then see a picture of it, they click a link. Easy. People are still
educated, and in this instance, they aren't offended. Furthermore, I
think it shows the inherent agenda in the extreme stance here - this
quote sums up perfectly how this removes choice from people,
"educating" them against their wishes. (and harming Wikipedia as a
result, when they stop using it)

>
> Exactly.  There's nothing wrong with tweaking a few tweakable noses,
> especially those who raise purely personal objections, based on local
> cultural sensitivities, to aspects of an encyclopedic project.  Such
> pressure is a naked and (because we're nice people and don't like to
> offend, largely successful) attempt to distort the encyclopedia on
> non-encyclopedic grounds.  We can give a little but only where it doesn't
> matter much.

Oh, come off it. The examples we're talking about aren't based on
entirely personal objections or local cultural sensitivities. The only
examples of those raised have been your red herrings. My nose is not
easily tweaked, but I'm not keen to see the work I do here go to waste
because less liberal people won't use the site.

> This is my long-term objection to the path of appeasement.  The only thing
> we can do in the long term is to remind people who are offended that they
> don't have to download, let alone render, the pictures.  We can't make
> everybody happy.

But we can make most of the people happy, most of the time. And then,
in the case that some of the unlikely red herrings you've thrown up
over the last week actually come true, we say no. Problem solved.

-- ambi


subject: [WikiEN-l] Titanic, illustrated

body:
> Because the Christian culture, at least in the United
> States, DEMANDS, that ONLY their particular cultural
> sensitivities and prejudices be catered to.  There is
> no "If you don't want to see it, don't look at it."
> No, rather, it's "I don't want to see it, so you
> can't, either."
>
> RickK

Rubbish, Rick. What I (who am most *certainly* not Christian, or of
any other religious faith), and others are arguing, is that "if we
don't want to see it, we have the choice not to see it". It still
remains available for others to see - after they click a link. What
you and Tony seem to be arguing for it is "I want to see it, so you
must also". Somehow I think this seems closer to the quote in your
post.

-- ambi


subject: [WikiEN-l] On cultural sensitivity

body:
Hi!

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 23:58:01 +0100, geni wrote:

>That pic isn't linked. Nor is it likely to be. It it simply at the
>bottem of the page.

I know where it is now. I was merely using it as an example which one might
also - as with nude images - consider linking.

Alex
--
If you don't go over the top,
you can't see what's on the other side.
        --- Jim Steinman ---

Alex' Assorted Homepages: www.alexsite.de


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: pitching an idea

references:
<20050417180802.GS23009@thingy.apana.org.au>	<BAY22-F267FD147A20933604FC5AFB7280@phx.gbl>
	<h6c5611s766kp8mojassiefkviqes8ni1t@4ax.com>
	<d3uqc3$d6$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
Hi!

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 00:14:03 +0100, Timwi wrote:

>> (And mind you, I most certainly don't advocate any holy books should
>> replace science here - merely facts.)
>
>You advocate that holy books should replace facts? ;-)

Hmmm ... not really. I was more in favor of facts replacing some scientific
theories which disregard them. (Well, yes, I know, technically, a theory that
disregards facts isn't scientific in the first place, but then we come to the
problem of established scientists who - for whatever reason - would rather not
change their theories, and f*ck the facts.)

Alex
--
If you don't go over the top,
you can't see what's on the other side.
        --- Jim Steinman ---

Alex' Assorted Homepages: www.alexsite.de