subject: [Wikitech-l] Where are the Extensions

body:
Thank you! I found it!  I'll update the page at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_extensions so the next person
can find them.

Thanks again,

Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Where are the Extensions
> From: jf at mormo.org (Jens Frank)
> Date: Mon, August 07, 2006 4:56 pm
> To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l at wikimedia.org>
>
> On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 02:53:25PM -0700, tim at greenscourt.com wrote:
> > I am looking for the "Reviews" extension which I believe was written by
> > Magnus Manske and feel lost in a maze.
> >
> > Several messages posted to the MediaWiki-L mailing list refer to updates
> > to this code as follows:
> >   Update of /cvsroot/wikipedia/extensions/Review
> >   In directory sc8-pr-cvs1.sourceforge.net:/tmp/cvs-serv22161
> >
> > The page at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_extensions links to
> > http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/wikipedia/extensions/#dirlist, but
> > this location just times out for me.
> >
> > I've tried going to http://sourceforge.net/projects/wikipedia/ but I
> > can't seem to find where the extensions are hiding there.
>
> We don't use sourceforge's CVS any more. Check our SVN repository at
> http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/extensions/
>
> Regards,
>
> 	JeLuF
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Ok, so about that ISBN template...

body:
On 8/7/06, SPUI <drspui at gmail.com> wrote:
> What's your opinion on stuff like
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Njt-sta ?

Hmm, doesn't look too harmful. One downside is it creates a dependancy
on a particular naming scheme [...(NJT station), ...(NCS station)...],
which is discouraged by our naming conventions policy (which states
that generally names should *not* be disambiguated in this manner
unless needed). However, if that naming convention ever changes (eg,
all the (River LINE) articles become (River Line)), then the change
only has to be made in one place - a Good Thing.

Another downside is that it hides (unhelpfully) what's going on.
{{njt-sta|Union}} doesn't look like a link. Everyone knows that
[[Union (NJT Station)|]] is a piped link, but a template could be
anything.

Also, the general downside of templates that automatically add the
square brackets for you is that you can't repipe them to something
better as appropriate. Maybe in some page you want the text to appear
as [[Union (NJT Station)|Union Station]], while avoiding hard coding
in the actual name of the article. You can't.

In general, I'm definitely in favour of wrapping any repetitive code
in a template. As an example, I recently created {{noteson|...}} which
simply links to a certain site with some given text. The idea being
that if you're going to have 150 different links to the same site
around wikipedia, it's bad if they're presented in 150 different ways.

In this particular case, I'm not sure it's incredibly helpful
(redirects would to a certain extent solve the problem of pages
moving), but it's not harmful either.

Steve


subject:
[WikiEN-l] In 2006,
	Wikipedia started to exist (according to the world of Britannica)

body:
On 8/7/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> What would you say is the most striking difference?  I'd say it's a
> close tie between free as in open source and open as in...wiki.  In
> most news reports I've heard the first part is less emphasized though.

I would say it's that articles are written and published by unpaid
volunteers in real-time. Our flat "management structure" (ie, anarchy)
certainly plays a part, but it's less central to defining us, imho.

> As for relegating the role of the wiki to just "facilitating" article
> creation and development, what would you say it does?  The wiki
> certainly doesn't write the articles, people do!

Well, so far, the wiki is also the presentation layer. The wiki is the
*medium* - not just some dinky little article development utility.

> I suppose the term "public domain" has other meanings apart from the
> technical "copyright free" one, but that's still damn confusing for
> someone who doesn't know that open source software is still
> copyrighted.

Yeah, very unclear.

> Looking at the rest of the snippet though, I see "Open source refers
> to both a model of software development and an ideology of
> intellectual property."  There again are those two things which I
> think are the most striking difference(s) in Wikipedia.

I don't think most Wikipedians are open source fanatics. And I don't
think Wikipedia being "closed source" (say there were no db dumps,
contributors retained full copyright over contributions, and there was
no GFDL in play) would radically alter anything. It would reduce the
motivation for many contributors, but it would not actively interfere
with getting the job done.

Steve


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] Challenge: explain NPOV in a sentence.

body:
On 07/08/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> On Aug 7, 2006, at 6:30 AM, David Gerard wrote:

> > I'm sorely lacking in snappy quotes, though. I ask your assistance:
> > Explain NPOV in a sentence.

> Amazing that an arbitrator would not be familiar with this:

Ex-arb!

/me runs away from job v fast

> [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]] contemplates inclusion of all
> significant points of view regarding a subject.

Yes, though it's not quite the media-friendly soundbite I'm after. Hmm.

- d.


body:
On 07/08/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:

> Incidentally, [[WP:NPOV]] has (now that I think about it), an awful
> and useless "nutshell" summary: "All Wikipedia articles must be
> written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and
> without bias. This includes maps, reader-facing templates, categories,
> and portals."

You're the one with the most experience in doing nutshell summaries
people will accept ;-)

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] en: well on the way to ... 2 million!

body:
On 8/7/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> I did [[Chalk Bluffs]]. I was interested in it because I had lived
> for years within a few miles of this interesting feature but had
> never heard of it or gone out there. I think it is notable enough,
> but I think it is a typical new article. The old days are gone, when
> you could start a new article, like [[Colorado]].

Heh, we should have competitions for "most notable article started
after July 2006" or something.

Incidentally, anyone know a site/tool that will give you a list of all
the articles (ideally, without redirects) that you've started?

Steve


body:
On 07/08/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:

> It doesn't even mention the critical bit, that all relevant views are
> supposed to be there. According to that summary, [[GWB]] could simply
> contain GWB bashing with no rebuttal, as "fairly" representing the
> views of Democrats...

I like the fact that when you combine NPOV and third-party
verifiability, you get that critical views are relevant only insofar
as they too can be documented. e.g. [[Michael Moore]] needs a critical
section; an article on a minorly notable scientist probably won't.

- d.


body:
On 07/08/06, maru dubshinki <marudubshinki at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/7/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> > Explain NPOV in a sentence.

> "NPOV is fairly describing things or beliefs without succumbing to them."

Oh, I do like that one. How about "without advocating them"?

"Neutral Point Of View means to describe things or beliefs fairly
without advocating them. This is surprisingly rare in reference
materials, which often present a supported but partisan view, or seek
to discern absolute truth  ..." etc.

- d.


body:
On 8/7/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> Amazing that an arbitrator would not be familiar with this:
>
> [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]] contemplates inclusion of all
> significant points of view regarding a subject.

Let's go further: All articles must contain all significant viewpoints
about their topics, represented without bias, and given space in
proportion to their acceptance in the relevant communities.

Incidentally, [[WP:NPOV]] has (now that I think about it), an awful
and useless "nutshell" summary: "All Wikipedia articles must be
written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and
without bias. This includes maps, reader-facing templates, categories,
and portals."

It doesn't even mention the critical bit, that all relevant views are
supposed to be there. According to that summary, [[GWB]] could simply
contain GWB bashing with no rebuttal, as "fairly" representing the
views of Democrats...

Steve


body:
On 07/08/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:

> Incidentally, anyone know a site/tool that will give you a list of all
> the articles (ideally, without redirects) that you've started?

I'd really like "without redirects" because when I say "ten or twenty"
above, I mean actual articles - most of what I create is redirects,
typically when I've typed "wp something" into Firefox or Seamonkey to
look up something, not found what I expected then had to either
redirect it to the article or write the article.

(I create tons of redirects to enhance our usefulness - a forest of
sensible redirects helps people find what they're looking for when
they type something into the search box. Article-space redirects
should almost never be removed unless they're actually misleading or
derogatory or something.)

- d.


from_name: Mathias Schindler

body:
On 8/7/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> The press concentrate on the wiki method and editability as the most
> amazing thing about Wikipedia.
>
> But I think NPOV is possibly a more important innovation. Other
> sources aim to explain the view they hold or to be authoritative; NPOV
> describes the views and has whatever authority that confers.
>
> I'm sorely lacking in snappy quotes, though. I ask your assistance:
> Explain NPOV in a sentence.

Maybe this joke only works in a society where the original quote is
familiar to a wider audience. Besides this, how about this alteration:

"The communists have only tried to change the world, in various ways;
the point is to describe it"

Just a thought,
Mathias


list: foundation-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Emergency on Wiktionary

body:
That already is true, at least one part. Admins are not allowed to protect,
move, or delete pages if there's an outstanding block on the account, and
they are not allowed to rollback while blocked either. However, the
block/unblock feature was left to allow administrators to unblock themselves
in case they found themselves on the receiving end of an AOL autoblock or
something similar.

Titoxd.

-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Wildrick Steele
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 3:39 PM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Emergency on Wiktionary

On 07/08/06, Sean Whitton <sean at silentflame.com> wrote:
>
> According to IRC user Connel, there is a rogue admin loose on the
> English Wiktionary and several dangerous actions have been performed
> (main page deletion, open proxy unblocks etc.). A RfP has been up for
> several days and the admin has not been desysopped. I don't have any
> evidence of this right now and am trusting the user's words as a
> steward is needed *now*.
>
> Thanks,
> Xy
>
> --
>         -Xyrael ~ <xyr>
>                 sean at silentflame.com | xyrael.net
>
>
Evidence enough at

http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=Danghero
us&page=

With this in mind, I've been thinking whether it would be wise to have some
kind of feature that disallows admins from unblocking themselves and while
blocked not being able to perform admin actions.

Cheers,
Wildrick
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Vildricianus
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l at wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Emergency on Wiktionary


from_name: Andrew Gray

body:
On 07/08/06, Nathaniel Sheetz <spangineer at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/7/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Incidentally, anyone know a site/tool that will give you a list of all
> > the articles (ideally, without redirects) that you've started?
>
>
> [[User:Interiot]] has a script that does this (though I think it includes
> redirects), and accepts requests on his talk page.  I'm not sure if it uses
> the toolserver data or not (which of course is two months old).

It includes redirects, but they're marked as such. You have to
manually weed out the disambiguation pages, though, if you want a real
"article count"

http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/reports/output/articles_created_enwiki_Shimgray.html
is a sample report - note that the entries are sorted by type, so:

article space
talk pages
userpages
user talk pages
wikipedia pages
wikipedia talk pages
image pages
template pages
template talk pages
and *then*
redirects in article-space, etc.

(700 redirect pages. Eeep)

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


body:
On 07/08/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:

> I did [[Chalk Bluffs]]. I was interested in it because I had lived
> for years within a few miles of this interesting feature but had
> never heard of it or gone out there. I think it is notable enough,
> but I think it is a typical new article. The old days are gone, when
> you could start a new article, like [[Colorado]].

You forgot to categorise it ;-p

Since late April, I've created [[Marc J. Rochkind]], [[Kumler,
Illinois]], [[PALcode]], [[CYGM filter]], [[RGBE filter]],
[[MySociety]], [[Envoy (WordPerfect)]], [[Smart terminal]], [[Smart
Display]] and [[Ctelnet]]. (And a zillion redirectes.)

Most of those are obscurities, the filter array articles should
probably be merged to [[color filter array]], the ones of more than
minor notability are [[MySociety]] and [[Marc J. Rochkind]] and
[[MySociety]] is the only one of ongoing significance.

That said, even an article about something of only the smallest note
can be done *well* and to the sort of quality Jimbo has started asking
for. I'm quite proud of [[Smart Display]] in this regard, for example.

(I also got two more front page features on Uncyclopedia ;-D )

- d.


body:
On 07/08/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/7/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> > > "NPOV is fairly describing things or beliefs without succumbing to them."

> > Oh, I do like that one. How about "without advocating them"?

> I think "succumbing" has the extra meaning that often one "succumbs"
> to a belief by attempting to debunk it.

Oh yes.

> I'm not sure how
> to put that succinctly though - "without taking a side"? "without
> trying to prove or disprove them"? "without regard to their inherent
> worth"?

"without taking sides" is a good start IMO.

- d.


body:
On 07/08/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:

> Nice. I especially like your phrase "Analysts flagged..." as another
> worthy successor to "Critics claimed that...".

hah! Note the references. In this case it goes that early in the
article because it was so obviously crap from the second it was
announced.

> I also like the fact that after reading the article, you think "my
> god, what a stupid product", but the wording is perfectly NPOV, and
> there's nothing but the facts to tell you how misguided it was.

It's really not a bad idea on the face of it. But their mistake was
not just making a terminal server client for a PocketPC, which would
do the same job better. If only their licensing department hadn't
utterly crippled the idea. Remember: proprietary software is not just
evil, it's *stupid*.

- d.


from_name: George Herbert

body:
On 8/7/06, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:

> You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a
> boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.

"You have new mail," says the mailbox.

> open mailbox

There is a piece of paper inside the mailbox.

> take paper

You have a letter.

> read paper

"Dear unblock-en-l sir, my account kroz at aol.com is blocked and unable to
post to Wikipedia..."

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] GFDL compliance

body:
On 8/7/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 8/5/06, Joe Anderson <computerjoe.mailinglist at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Fair use?
>
> "i can't trace the original source" is generally a good sign that we
> can not claim fair use.
>
> :)
> _______________________________________________

Of course we know the source. It's Uncyclopaedia :)

Garion96 (couldn't resist)


list: wikitech-l

subject: [Wikitech-l] Interesting behaviour of "ISBN" magic word

body:
This arose from a conversation on wikien-l.

There is some pretty strange behaviour involving the ISBN "magic word"
when used as the label in a piped link.

---- copied from that thread ----

In summary, it looks like:
* Plain text like "ISBN 123" gets mapped to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Booksources/isbn123
* Plain text with slashes or hyphens or whatever are mapped to
different URLs (slashes, fwiw, are mapped to underscores), which all
behave identically - extraneous characters are treated as though
they're not there
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Booksources/isbn1_2-3
* You can access this page via [[Special:Booksources/isbn123]]
* When a link to an ISBN page like that is piped via an "ISBN" text,
the actual link is ignored, and the piped label is used instead:
[[Special:Booksources/isbn123|ISBN 456]] actually links to the ISBN
page for 456, and the link reads "ISBN 456".

So far so good? Well, it's odd, but explainable by the "ISBN ..." text
being parsed and treated later in the cycle. Now, here's the killer:
*[[Test|ISBN 456]] links to Test!

(see the example at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Stevage/sandbox )

That's the one I can't understand - putting "ISBN xxx" in the piped
part of a link only overrides the actual link if it it's to an ISBN
page. This is most unexpected. I suppose it has some strange "prevent
misleading ISBN links" benefit, but it's just...odd.

To be honest, the fact that the piped label gets "interpreted" for
magic words at all just looks like a bug, or an oversight, or a
misfeature or whatever. From some more testing it looks like some
"magic word" behaviour gets interpereted in piped links and some
doesn't - http:// links *don't* override the actual link for instance.

---- end copy ----

Stephen Bain and I were also wondering about the history of the ISBN
magic word. When did it appear, what was the reasoning etc? Since it
can be implemented perfectly well as a normal template
([[Special:Booksources/isbn{{{1}}}|ISBN {{{1}}}]]), was the decision
to make it a magic word just a legacy thing to make thousands of
existing ISBN's suddenly "come to life"?

Also, is it documented anywhere? Haven't looked anywhere except
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Magic_words .

Thanks very much,
Steve


body:
On 8/7/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > "NPOV is fairly describing things or beliefs without succumbing to them."
>
> Oh, I do like that one. How about "without advocating them"?

I think "succumbing" has the extra meaning that often one "succumbs"
to a belief by attempting to debunk it. This was common at [[Safe
Speed]] for instance - although most of the group's claims were
clearly baloney, some of our editors were getting sucked into
attempting to disprove them, falling afoul of NPOV. I'm not sure how
to put that succinctly though - "without taking a side"? "without
trying to prove or disprove them"? "without regard to their inherent
worth"?

Steve


body:
On 8/7/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> Pity I don't have the whole thing to read. It would be interesting to

Thank you to the many kind people who, uh, alleviated this concern. I
won't name names :) But you can stop now :)

Steve


from_name: Simetrical

body:
On 8/7/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> Is there any chance we want to deprecate it, since it's basically obsolete now?

Is there any particular reason to add to the wikimarkup an average
editor has to encounter, however slightly?


body:
On 8/7/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd really like "without redirects" because when I say "ten or twenty"
> above, I mean actual articles - most of what I create is redirects,
> typically when I've typed "wp something" into Firefox or Seamonkey to
> look up something, not found what I expected then had to either
> redirect it to the article or write the article.

Also, do you count stubs in that? I've gotten into a weird habit of
creating stubs about things I don't know anything about, because
sometimes it just seems wrong to "fix" a wrong link by making it a
redlink...

> (I create tons of redirects to enhance our usefulness - a forest of
> sensible redirects helps people find what they're looking for when
> they type something into the search box. Article-space redirects
> should almost never be removed unless they're actually misleading or
> derogatory or something.)

I do this too, scores of them. RfD is an interesting place sometimes,
mostly they seem to hate cross-namespace redirects.

(note that *that* problem would probably go away if we had a
convenient way of searching the Wikipedia project, as opposed to its
encyclopaedic content)

Steve


subject: [Foundation-l] Willy on Wheels and ISP Reporting Changes

references:
<44D7498A.3010505@wolfmountaingroup.com>
	<DAF157A5-073B-4D78-B43F-EDF4FD927B0B@ctelco.net>
	<44D76104.9090405@wolfmountaingroup.com>

body:
On 8/7/06, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
> Fred Bauder wrote:
>
> >On Aug 7, 2006, at 8:09 AM, Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Dear Fred,
> >>
> >>He appears to be in the UK, not Canada as you mentioned.
> >>
> >>en.wikigadugi.org
> >>
> >>See recent changes for Willy's visit.

At the risk of sounding negative and repeating myself: I fail to see
how this thread (this one in particular, without claiming the
otherwise for other threads) is in any way related to the Wikimedia
Foundation. Could you please have this discussion somewhere
appropriate? Alternative: Explain to me how this topic is at least
partly related to the WMF.

Thanks in advance and sorry for bothering.

Mathias


body:
On 8/7/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> That said, even an article about something of only the smallest note
> can be done *well* and to the sort of quality Jimbo has started asking
> for. I'm quite proud of [[Smart Display]] in this regard, for example.

Nice. I especially like your phrase "Analysts flagged..." as another
worthy successor to "Critics claimed that...".

I also like the fact that after reading the article, you think "my
god, what a stupid product", but the wording is perfectly NPOV, and
there's nothing but the facts to tell you how misguided it was.

Steve


from_name: Anthony

body:
On 8/7/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/7/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > What would you say is the most striking difference?  I'd say it's a
> > close tie between free as in open source and open as in...wiki.  In
> > most news reports I've heard the first part is less emphasized though.
>
> I would say it's that articles are written and published by unpaid
> volunteers in real-time. Our flat "management structure" (ie, anarchy)
> certainly plays a part, but it's less central to defining us, imho.
>
And that makes me think of Nupedia, which I'd say was closer to
Encyclopedia Britannica than it was to Wikipedia.  Wikipedia uses a
bazaar style of development as opposed to a cathedral style, and I
think that's incredibly important.  Of course, that doesn't mean you
or I are wrong, it's just a different way of looking at things.

Interestingly, looking at [[The Cathedral and the Bazaar]], apparently
the comparison in that book was between different "open source"
projects.  So I guess calling the style "open source" is incorrect,
though I think I do understand what the author meant by it.

> > Looking at the rest of the snippet though, I see "Open source refers
> > to both a model of software development and an ideology of
> > intellectual property."  There again are those two things which I
> > think are the most striking difference(s) in Wikipedia.
>
> I don't think most Wikipedians are open source fanatics. And I don't
> think Wikipedia being "closed source" (say there were no db dumps,
> contributors retained full copyright over contributions, and there was
> no GFDL in play) would radically alter anything. It would reduce the
> motivation for many contributors, but it would not actively interfere
> with getting the job done.
>
You might be right.  I certainly emphasize the role of the "free as in
freedom" aspect of Wikipedia more than many others.  Personally I
think some other project such as the abandoned Gnupedia one would have
outshadowed Wikipedia if it hadn't adopted a free license, but that
might very well be overly idealistic of me.

Anthony


from_name: Nick Jenkins

subject: [Wikitech-l] Wikipedia Suggest

body:
Hi Julien,

> You can view results on http://suggest.speedblue.org (with redirections)

I like it! E.g. "formula we" shows the results as "Formula Weight
→ Atomic mass", so straight away you can see it's a redirect,
plus what it's a redirect to. That's very good indeed.

Handling of articles with different capitalization still concerns me a
little; For example, in the English Wikipedia there is both "Adfa" (a
town in Wales), and "ADFA" (a redirect to an Australian military
training institute), but only the town in Wales is listed in the
suggest search. Ideally, could it maybe list both, with the town first
(since it has one incoming link, and the institute has none), perhaps
unless the user types "ADFA" in all-caps, in which case maybe "ADFA"
could come first because it would be a better match for what the user
has typed? In other words, I still think the searching could be
case-insensitive, just that maybe the ordering of the results could be
altered by capitalization.

> You can download the source from
> http://suggest.speedblue.org/tgz/wikipedia-suggest-0.2.tar.gz
> You can download compiled resources (for little endian only because my
> serialization is endianess dependant) :

Cool, I got it do stuff with the precompiled files:
=========================================
root at bling:~/tmp/wikipedia-suggest/wikipedia-suggest-0.2/cmd# ./Query
../../EN/fsa.bin ../../EN/pages.bin
Loaded position of 2171116 articles
test

Title : [Test cricket] Freq : 5776
Title : [Testament, New → New Testament] Freq : 2017
Title : [Testament, Old → Old Testament] Freq : 1700
Title : [Testudines → Turtle] Freq : 527
Title : [Testosterone] Freq : 355
Title : [Test Pilot] Freq : 309
Title : [Test Messaging → Short message service] Freq : 289
Title : [Testicle] Freq : 276
Title : [Testprog → Development stage] Freq : 268
Title : [Testudinidae → Tortoise] Freq : 252
=========================================

> Which kind of database is used for wikipedia, mysql ?

Yes, MySQL. There is a port for Postgres in progress (try saying that
fast 10 times), but you probably want to target MySQL first because
it's the database that's being used at the moment in most
environments.

>  * MemoryQuery load automaton and articles in memory, it is
> multi-threaded safe and you can use it to perform a lot of query per seconds.

Ok, then MemoryQuery is the one I want, as I am generally happy to
trade RAM for speed. How do I tell it to MemoryQuery mode instead of
DiskQuery mode? E.g. Do I need to compile cmd/query and cmd/TcpQuery
with a special flag? Or is there a way to pass a command line argument
to cmd/query and cmd/TcpQuery to tell it to start in MemoryQuery,
rather than DiskQuery mode ? (This would have the advantage of letting
the user choose the most suitable mode at runtime, and it could
default to the disk-based-querying so that the default behaviour was
the same as it is at the moment).

>  - I added all php/html/js pages in the tgz (in the extra directory) ;

Thank you!

One small thing I've noticed is that it won't find articles/redirects
that start with a quote - for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22A%22_Device

One reason for this may be that the cmd/tcpQuery JavaScript response
is not currently escaping quotes. For example, when I ask it for
strings starting with " then tcpQuery returns this:

sendRes(""", new Array(), new Array(), new Array());

Whereas it probably wants to return this:

sendRes("\"", new Array(), new Array(), new Array());

----

Also, I tried testing TcpQuery with random binary input, and it seemed
sometimes to be much slower on some single-character input. For
example, here is a log of it running :

Query of 2 chars : got 55 chars back : Time = 0.00678396224976
Query of 9 chars : got 62 chars back : Time = 0.00735902786255
Query of 1 chars : got 0 chars back : Time = 1.01217985153
^^^^^ slow line ^^^^
Query of 9 chars : got 62 chars back : Time = 0.00748610496521
Query of 10 chars : got 63 chars back : Time = 0.00757598876953
Query of 8 chars : got 61 chars back : Time = 0.00975489616394

Then a simple loop to track down the slow 1-character tests:
=======================================
<?php

error_reporting (E_ALL | E_STRICT);

// function internals taken from extra/query.php
function getResults($content) {
    /* Create a TCP/IP socket. */
    $socket = socket_create(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, SOL_TCP);
    if ($socket < 0) {
        echo "socket_create() failed: reason: " .
socket_strerror($socket) . "\n";
    }

    $result = socket_connect($socket, "127.0.0.1", 666);
    if ($result < 0) {
        echo "socket_connect() failed.\nReason: ($result) " .
socket_strerror($result) . "\n";
    }

    $in = "$content\r\n\r\n";
    socket_write($socket, $in, strlen($in));
    $res = "";
    while ($out = socket_read($socket, 2048)) {
        $res .= $out;
    }
    socket_close($socket);
    return $res;
}

for ($i=0; $i<=255; $i++) {
    $query = chr($i);
    print "i=$i ";
    $before = microtime(true);
    $results = getResults($query);
    $after = microtime(true);
    print "got " . strlen($results) . " chars back : Time = " .
($after - $before) . "\n";
}

?>
=======================================

The slow ones to respond (with 0 chars back) were:
=======================================
i=0 got 0 chars back : Time = 1.01103210449
^^^^
i=1 got 54 chars back : Time = 0.00667715072632
i=2 got 54 chars back : Time = 0.00674390792847
i=3 got 54 chars back : Time = 0.00663805007935
i=4 got 54 chars back : Time = 0.00671792030334
i=5 got 54 chars back : Time = 0.00660610198975
i=6 got 54 chars back : Time = 0.00669598579407
i=7 got 54 chars back : Time = 0.00663185119629
i=8 got 54 chars back : Time = 0.00668096542358
i=9 got 54 chars back : Time = 0.0066249370575
i=10 got 0 chars back : Time = 1.01135993004
^^^^
i=11 got 54 chars back : Time = 0.00664806365967
i=12 got 54 chars back : Time = 0.00664210319519
....
=======================================

I.e. the NULL character, and the LF / linefeed character.

No idea if that is something that could or should be fixed or not.

All the best,
Nick.


subject: [WikiEN-l] OT Mira (was: Re: en: well on the way to ... 2 million!)

body:
On 8/7/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> It's really not a bad idea on the face of it. But their mistake was
> not just making a terminal server client for a PocketPC, which would
> do the same job better. If only their licensing department hadn't

Selling something that weighs as much as a laptop, costs more than a
laptop, but can't do half of what a laptop can do is smart? :) If it
had been $100 it could have been kind of cool.

> utterly crippled the idea. Remember: proprietary software is not just
> evil, it's *stupid*.

Yeah, but it's paying my salary.

Steve


body:
On 8/7/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> *From the same page, text like this would actually work: "ISBN
> 0312174403 / 0-312-17440-3". It's actually a good example of where an
> {{ISBN}} template would actually be useful: you could make that second
> number a link, which currently it isn't, because it's not directly
> preceded by the magic word.

Well, you can still make it a link manually, you know.  Templates
aren't going to *improve* that.

> * The syntax of MediaWiki would be reduced that little bit more,
> making compatibility with other wiki's easier, and making parsing it
> easier. Again, pretty minor considering that there's no huge loss for
> any wiki that doesn't support magic ISBN's - but if we implemented
> them as templates, they'd get them for free.

That's certainly true, but very minor.  Once we get a formal grammar
pinned down, anyone could easily implement a parser based on it.

> * With parser functions, we could actually attempt to validate the
> ISBN's rather than passing them blindly. According to
> [[:en:International Standard Book Number]], they should be either 10
> or 13 digits long, and have a checksum. Our magic word accepts "1" as
> a "valid" ISBN.

That would be *hell* to do with parser functions, if it's even
possible (I can't see how it is without string functions).  It would
be very simple in PHP.

> Basically, all the logic about ISBN's is apparently hardcoded into
> MediaWiki, which is a pretty awful place for it, when you think about
> it.

I agree that a wiki concept is probably better, but a) that's possible
already; you could make the templates yourself if you want to fill in
gaps and b) maybe we should think about extending the current syntax
to parse more ID-type things, rather than removing the parsing we
already have going on.  If anyone has a useful ID format to share, why
not add it as an option for installers?  Maybe move this all to an
extension?


subject: [Wikitech-l] Where are the Extensions

body:
On 8/7/06, tim at greenscourt.com <tim at greenscourt.com> wrote:
> I am looking for the "Reviews" extension which I believe was written by
> Magnus Manske and feel lost in a maze.
>
> Several messages posted to the MediaWiki-L mailing list refer to updates
> to this code as follows:
>   Update of /cvsroot/wikipedia/extensions/Review
>   In directory sc8-pr-cvs1.sourceforge.net:/tmp/cvs-serv22161
>
> The page at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_extensions links to
> http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/wikipedia/extensions/#dirlist, but
> this location just times out for me.
>
> I've tried going to http://sourceforge.net/projects/wikipedia/ but I
> can't seem to find where the extensions are hiding there.
>
> Can anyone point me to the direction for the extensions in the
> repository?
>
> Thanks!

The repository was moved to Subversion some time ago, and can now be
found at http://svn.wikimedia.org/.  Extensions are located at
http://svn.wikimedia.org/svnroot/mediawiki/trunk/extensions, or can be
viewed with ViewVC (rather slow) at
http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/extensions.  You
probably want the Review subdirectory of one or the other of those.


list: commons-l

from_name: Raimond Spekking

subject: [Commons-l] Deletion of still-used images

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

Brianna Laugher schrieb:
> * it will probably increase the deletion backlog. After a period of
> frustration with the unwinnable War on Copyvios, I've come to a
> Zen-like acceptance that Commons, like all wikis, will always be a
> work in progress, will never be a clean professional database -
> because it's an ad-hoc arrangement run by volunteers. There will
> probably always be thousands of images awaiting deletion.  So in the
> long run, whether we delete copyvios today or tomorrow probably
> doesn't matter. Deleting them tomorrow (that is, with no urgency) has
> the added bonus of pissing off fewer people. I like it.

I agree with you but with one exemption: the deletion of copyvios. In my
opinion we have to delete them as far as possible to show all others
that we do not accept copyvios. Redlinks are more acceptable than copyvios.

In case of any complains by original authors we can say "sorry for the
violation, but we do our very best to fight against copyvios, every day."

What should they think if we answer "yes you are right but see, our
other clients (=projects) need more time"? It is not important to him.
Every day we delete a copyvio earlier the risk of complains is smaller.

I know, the fight against copyvios is endless, but if we wait now for
tomorrow or later, we will cumulate again. Is this in mind of the
Foundation? Don't think so.

I was so happy as the restore-feature for images was introtuced, now I
feel good when deleting copyvios.

The very few complains over deleted images that are really no copyvios
was handled fast I think.

In all other cases I agree with you. We have to serve all other projects
very carefully.

An idea *poke D?sentrieb*: Is it possible to show at CheckUsage if the
project has a CommonsTicker? This can reduce the work to en: and smaller
wikis.

>
> Sorry for being so verbose. Doubtlessly people disagree with me. If
> you have other ideas about how to solve this problem, or constructive
> criticism, I welcome it.
>
> regards,
> Brianna
> User:pfctdayelise

Regards. Raymond
User:Raymond_de
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFE12QUp+qUcbEr56YRApagAKDRUmv2I1wUw+Ox5IStrUXGMd7e5wCeI8xZ
J3y+hzz+ULMkqBB2Plzih4Q=
=0u0m
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Save Draft button?

body:
On Aug 7, 2006, at 5:48 PM, Berto wrote:

>
> ----- ???????? ????????? -----
> ??: "maru dubshinki" <marudubshinki at gmail.com>
> ????: <wikipedia-l at wikimedia.org>
> ??????????: 8 ??????? 2006 ?. 1:59
> ????: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Save Draft button?
>
>
>
>> On 8/7/06, Berto <albertoserra at ukr.net> wrote:
>>
>>> ----- ???????? ????????? -----
>>> ??: "Virgil Ierubino" <virgil.ierubino at gmail.com>
>>> ????: <wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org>
>>> ??????????: 8 ??????? 2006 ?. 1:02
>>> ????: [Wikipedia-l] Save Draft button?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Before I say anything else, is there a specific place where
>>>> people can
>>>> submit proposals/suggestions? If not, one should be set up. And
>>>> if so,
>>>>
> the
>
>>>> navigational structure should be improved because it's hard to
>>>> find!
>>>>
>>>> Upgrade to MediaWiki: "Save Draft" button beneath the edit box that
>>>>
> saves
>
>>>> the box's contents to a logged-in user's subpage:
>>>>
> "User:Example/Article
>
>>>> title". Far too many times I'm halfway through a massive edit and I
>>>>
> have
>
>>> to
>>>
>>>> go - there needs to be an easier and/or integrated way to save
>>>>
> half-done
>
>>>> work between sessions.
>>>>
>>>> This automation of "in-progress" subpages will neatly streamline
>>>>
>>> copyediting
>>>
>>>> and extended work too.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The problem is that you could easily have the page overwritten
>>> while you
>>> work on it in remote. If you don't notice it, you'll just delete the
>>>
> changes
>
>>> when submitting your final version. So the saved draft should
>>> have some
>>> versioning info, too. Apart from that, it's a great idea.
>>>
>>> Berto
>>>
>>
>> If the saved draft is a regular wiki page in userspace, wouldn't
>> there
>> be versioning already?
>>
> It would still be up to you to check whether someone updated the
> real page
> before moving the content from your user space to the wiki space.
> What you'd
> need is a local wiki page with the last history pointer on it, and
> a routine
> to send it to the server. At that point the routine could check
> whether the
> last history pointer has changed or not and propose a diff if it
> changed.
> Not that easy, but possibly the only secure way to make it.
>
> Berto
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


body:
On 07/08/06, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 7, 2006, at 10:35 AM, David Gerard wrote:

> > (I create tons of redirects to enhance our usefulness - a forest of
> > sensible redirects helps people find what they're looking for when
> > they type something into the search box. Article-space redirects
> > should almost never be removed unless they're actually misleading or
> > derogatory or something.)

> Inclusionist bastard.

"Inclusionist"? How dare you!

(I have in fact official government-issued paperwork certifying that I
was actually born out of wedlock. I must frame a copy of it to put
above my desk at work. Them: "YOU BASTARD!" Me: *points at frame*)

- d.


from_name: Stephen Bain

body:
On 8/6/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> All of which is to say, the "magic word", while undoubtedly useful and
> intuitive to those naively adding ISBN numbers (not necessarily
> expecting a link), is not actually necessary.
...
> In fact, unless I'm mistaken, you could implement {{ISBN}} directly as
> a standard template without the magic word at all:
> [[[Special:Booksources/isbn={{{1}}}|ISBN {{{1}}}]]

You can, and that's a good way to do it. You'll have to ask the devs
what their reasons were for implementing this as a magic word, rather
than simply using a template (probably so thousands of existing pages
would already produce links without further edits, and possibly
because magic words are cheaper than templates?).

My point was that it's a bad idea to use a template as nothing more
than a wrapper for the magic word; if using a template is the
preferable method, then remove the magic word altogether, and only
have the one behaviour.

> See the following for some examples.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Stevage/sandbox

You're piping the link with "ISBN <number>", which the parser is
picking up as a magic word and rewriting. I've edited the page to
break that action - it now works as you intended.

Note that directly linking to [[Special:Booksources]] is more flexible
than the magic word behaviour; it allows you to use slashes, for
example.

> > an abstraction layer to hide the real operation is likely to confuse
> > anyone who really wants to know how it works and takes a look at the
> > template code.
>
> Well, you could use the same argument against any templates. Using
> "abstraction layers to hide the real operation" is a fundamental part
> of making any complicated system usable by new users.

{{ ISBN | <number> }} which maps to [[ Special:Booksources / <number>
]] is useful, it provides a way to abstract the link to the
booksources page.

However {{ ISBN | <number> }} which maps to "ISBN <number>" is not
useful; the magic word syntax is already an abstraction layer, there
is no need to lay another one over the top, if it does not perform any
additional function of its own. Do you see my point?

You should ask the developers why this was implemented as a magic word
in the first place, I'm not really sure of their reasons.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


from_name: Jens Frank

body:
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 05:02:19PM +0200, Steve Bennett wrote:
> Stephen Bain and I were also wondering about the history of the ISBN
> magic word. When did it appear, what was the reasoning etc? Since it
> can be implemented perfectly well as a normal template
> ([[Special:Booksources/isbn{{{1}}}|ISBN {{{1}}}]]), was the decision
> to make it a magic word just a legacy thing to make thousands of
> existing ISBN's suddenly "come to life"?

It's a very old feature, much older than templates.

Regards,

jens


body:
On 8/7/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:

> Nevertheless, if there was an "edit this page" option (or even a
> "submit a bug report") we could fix up a few of the simple errors on
> it.

Well, a couple of weeks ago, Britannica.com had a survey on their
website that included a few questions (I can't remember the exact
wording but it sounded like "Would we suck less if we allowed people
to edit the pages?") in that direction.

I wonder what the results of that survey were.

Mathias


from_name: Austin Hair

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimania Media

body:
On 8/7/06, Walter Vermeir <walter at wikipedia.be> wrote:
> On this page is listed what is available;
> http://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org/wiki/Archives
>
> That are all media from non-official WMF sources.

The MP3s posted there are the official recordings, made using Harvard
Law School equipment and processed by Colin Rhinesmith at the Berkman
Center.  Colin also has the full set in ogg vorbis format, but
uploading the original mp3s to archive.org was the fastest way to make
them available.

Video for the sessions will be available as soon as the DV tapes
storing it are processed.  I expect this will happen by the end of the
week, but I'll have to confirm that with Colin.

Colin deserves special thanks for handling this; he took care of
everything without any involvement needed from me.  Kudos to him and
everyone else at the Berkman Center.

Austin


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimania Media


from_name: maru dubshinki

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Save Draft button?

body:
On 8/7/06, Berto <albertoserra at ukr.net> wrote:
> ----- ???????? ????????? -----
> ??: "Virgil Ierubino" <virgil.ierubino at gmail.com>
> ????: <wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org>
> ??????????: 8 ??????? 2006 ?. 1:02
> ????: [Wikipedia-l] Save Draft button?
>
>
> > Before I say anything else, is there a specific place where people can
> > submit proposals/suggestions? If not, one should be set up. And if so, the
> > navigational structure should be improved because it's hard to find!
> >
> > Upgrade to MediaWiki: "Save Draft" button beneath the edit box that saves
> > the box's contents to a logged-in user's subpage: "User:Example/Article
> > title". Far too many times I'm halfway through a massive edit and I have
> to
> > go - there needs to be an easier and/or integrated way to save half-done
> > work between sessions.
> >
> > This automation of "in-progress" subpages will neatly streamline
> copyediting
> > and extended work too.
>
> The problem is that you could easily have the page overwritten while you
> work on it in remote. If you don't notice it, you'll just delete the changes
> when submitting your final version. So the saved draft should have some
> versioning info, too. Apart from that, it's a great idea.
>
> Berto

If the saved draft is a regular wiki page in userspace, wouldn't there
be versioning already?

~maru


from_name: Brianna Laugher

body:
Hello,

At the moment there are about 40 CommonsTickers (CT) set up. That is
quite good coverage, considering that a project is likely to need a
certain critical mass before it can support a CT. We have all the top
10 Wikipedias except English, of course (due to technical reasons).
There are another 35 Wikipedias that have 10,000-100,000 articles and
increasing our coverage there is definitely something to work on.

As CT coverage increases so does scrutiny of Commons admin actions,
namely, deletion of images that are still being used.

Why does this happen? Not because "Commons admins are arrogant and
don't care about local projects" (gee, that's defensive :)) but
because it's too much menial and manual work that arguably should not
fall on our shoulders. Or at least not solely.

I think we should adopt a clear policy that images shown to be in use
by CheckUsage should not be deleted unless:
* the image is currently being used by a vandal in a mass vandal
attack (this is rare, but appropriate to stop a vandal)
* [[en:w:WP:OFFICE]]-style intervention from Jimbo et al.

And also, we should create further ways of sharing responsibility with
the local projects and reducing menial tasks required by delinking.

One way which might help a bit, would be to create a tag (possibly
invisible) that would trigger a notice on CTs that said, "please
delink this image now or risk redlinks!" At the moment it seems
projects are not paying enough attention, perhaps. For example...
Image:Princesymbol.png - on 30th June I re-tagged this as a copyvio,
in an attempt to get the dozen-odd projects linking to it, to stop
doing so. On the 4th August it was deleted by another admin. Today, on
the 7th of August, it's _still_ being used by two projects (despite
being deleted) - ja: and fr:. Two of the top 5 projects!

So on one hand we have local projects upset at us for deleting images
in use and on the other we have projects who seem not to even care
when we notify them. It is a difficult balance to walk.

Another easy and obvious way is to get [[User:Orgullobot]] delinking
for us.  User:Orgullomoore is happy to implement the bot with
translations and we have a good 40 languages already done. I have
thought we should wait until the single login is implemented before we
do this, but it's been 6+ months "coming soon", so I think we should
go ahead and if single login happens, well good for it.

If projects complain about an unregistered bot, they can
a) get a CT and delink themselves
b) live with redlinks
the only exception being en.wp where the bot should be registered.
(because en.wp technically can't have a CT yet, no other reason)

Having this policy ("images shown to be in use by CheckUsage should
not be deleted") will do a few things:
* send a clear message to projects that we are not interested in damaging them
* allow us as a community to start examining our own actions more
clearly. Commons at the moment has no process or practice to
discourage reckless admin actions, partly because we've had this
ambiguous policy of allowing used-images to be deleted (ambiguous in
that it is policy, but can be very damaging). If we are clear that
this is not acceptable, we can be clear when our admins are in the
wrong and we can start a process, for example, "3 strikes and you're
out": 3 occasions of images being used and deleted (possibly in a
timeline, eg one year)-> automatic de-admin. You can forget once,
CheckUsage could be lagging twice, but three times... I don't think
so. (Note 3 occasions, not 3 images.)
I am not saying all the fault is Commons admins and they're terrible.
But we do make mistakes (as do all admins on all projects), sometimes
we do screw things up, and we should be prepared to be held
responsible on those occasions. That would be adult.
* it will probably increase the deletion backlog. After a period of
frustration with the unwinnable War on Copyvios, I've come to a
Zen-like acceptance that Commons, like all wikis, will always be a
work in progress, will never be a clean professional database -
because it's an ad-hoc arrangement run by volunteers. There will
probably always be thousands of images awaiting deletion.  So in the
long run, whether we delete copyvios today or tomorrow probably
doesn't matter. Deleting them tomorrow (that is, with no urgency) has
the added bonus of pissing off fewer people. I like it.

Sorry for being so verbose. Doubtlessly people disagree with me. If
you have other ideas about how to solve this problem, or constructive
criticism, I welcome it.

regards,
Brianna
User:pfctdayelise


from_name: Artur Fijałkowski

body:
2006/8/7, Raimond Spekking <raimond.spekking at gmail.com>:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Brianna Laugher schrieb:
> > * it will probably increase the deletion backlog. After a period of
> > frustration with the unwinnable War on Copyvios, I've come to a
> > Zen-like acceptance that Commons, like all wikis, will always be a
> > work in progress, will never be a clean professional database -
> > because it's an ad-hoc arrangement run by volunteers. There will
> > probably always be thousands of images awaiting deletion.  So in the
> > long run, whether we delete copyvios today or tomorrow probably
> > doesn't matter. Deleting them tomorrow (that is, with no urgency) has
> > the added bonus of pissing off fewer people. I like it.
>
> I agree with you but with one exemption: the deletion of copyvios. In my
> opinion we have to delete them as far as possible to show all others
> that we do not accept copyvios. Redlinks are more acceptable than copyvios.
>
> In case of any complains by original authors we can say "sorry for the
> violation, but we do our very best to fight against copyvios, every day."
>
> What should they think if we answer "yes you are right but see, our
> other clients (=projects) need more time"? It is not important to him.
> Every day we delete a copyvio earlier the risk of complains is smaller.
>
> I know, the fight against copyvios is endless, but if we wait now for
> tomorrow or later, we will cumulate again. Is this in mind of the
> Foundation? Don't think so.
>
> I was so happy as the restore-feature for images was introtuced, now I
> feel good when deleting copyvios.
>
> The very few complains over deleted images that are really no copyvios
> was handled fast I think.
>
>
> In all other cases I agree with you. We have to serve all other projects
> very carefully.
>
> An idea *poke D?sentrieb*: Is it possible to show at CheckUsage if the
> project has a CommonsTicker? This can reduce the work to en: and smaller
> wikis.
>

I fully agree - every day I'm trying to see all newimages on
special:newimages and I try to delete all copyvio-looking images. I
know that it's a bit agressive, but I think, that blanking user's
upload is the best method of saying ''hi, something is wrong with your
images''. Vandals and people that are not interested in any
cooperation will not proove the source, etc., but wise people will ask
where is the problem :). Leaving copyvios for months not-deleted
because of rules is very risky :)

AJF/WarX


from_name: Jeffrey V. Merkey

subject: [Foundation-l] enwiki database dumps still busted and hung

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:

>On 8/7/06, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Back on topic since I have wiki work to do, the enwiki dumps are busted
>>and frozen
>>for the enwiki.
>>
>>
>
>This is temporary until Domas finishes fixing the permissions on the
>enwiki cluster.
>
>Please note I will have limited internet access until I return home
>later this week from Boston, and may not be able to answer all queries
>immediately.
>
>-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
Thanks Brion. Let me know if you need any assistance with anything.

Jeff


from_name: Arwel Parry

body:
In message <f30e42de0608070717x7b6726al462b582a4d3e854e at mail.gmail.com>,
Stephen Bain <stephen.bain-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org>
writes
>> > You should ask the developers why this was implemented as a magic word
>> > in the first place, I'm not really sure of their reasons.
>>
>> Most likely it was a very quick and easy way to make a large number of
>> existing ISBN numbers suddenly come to life.
>
>Yes, I would imagine that that would be why. That's probably why so
>many variations will actually work and produce viable links, to
>account for inconsistent usage in the past.

It's been a magic word since before I discovered Wikipedia (in early
2003), which was quite a while before we had templates.

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


from_name: Matt Brown

subject:
[Commons-l] Concerning trademarked images unrestricted by
	copyrights

body:
I'd say that very few logos are not copyrighted, with the exception of
very old ones - and only then in their original form, old enough to be
expired - the modern versions are derived works of the originals and
the modern version has copyright protection for the differences
between itself and any non-copyrighted version.

Given the huge amount of effort companies go through to create a logo
and branding, I think the user is kidding themselves if they think
there is no 'sweat of the brow' involved in a logo.  Be that as it
may, German copyright law is not the overriding copyright law of the
project; instead US law in general and Florida law in specific is
(since that is where the content physically resides and where the
Foundation is based).  In addition, users must obey the copyright law
of the location in which they reside, but this does not over-ride that
of the Foundation and servers' location.

US copyright law requires a minimal amount of creativity for copyright
to hold - 'mechanical' copyrights do not exist under US law - but
that's an easy bar to clear.  Pretty much any logo will pass that
test.

In addition to copyright law, of course, images on Commons must meet
Foundation and Commons policies.   I believe it was long established
that we did not consider merely making a photo of a logo made it
magically 'free' where copying that logo by non-camera means would
not.

Photographs of a 3-D object bearing copyrighted design elements are
not blanket prohibited under Commons policy, to the best of my
knowledge, since under most cases these are not considered copyright
violations.  However, using such a picture as an 'end run' around bans
on copyrighted logos is generally not considered acceptable, I believe
(e.g. using a Coca-Cola truck bearing the prominent logo as a
surrogate for the logo itself).

-Matt


from_name: Brion Vibber

body:
On 8/7/06, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
> Back on topic since I have wiki work to do, the enwiki dumps are busted
> and frozen
> for the enwiki.

This is temporary until Domas finishes fixing the permissions on the
enwiki cluster.

Please note I will have limited internet access until I return home
later this week from Boston, and may not be able to answer all queries
immediately.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


subject: [Wikitech-l] LIVE MIRRORS: status (not good)

body:
On 8/6/06, ?? ??? <wikiwatcher at yahoo.co.jp> wrote:
> I am finding more and more live mirrors like the ones I
> reported recently. I have posted a list HERE:

Please don't get worked up over these. There are thousands of such,
and new ones will always pop up all the time. We're not going to
explode just because they don't all get cut off within five seconds of
your finding them.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


from_name: Walter Vermeir

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimania Media

body:
Luiz Augusto schreef:
> Sorry for my English. To prevent loss of data, is possible to upload all
> video and audio files from Wikimania 2006 in Wikimedia servers? Keeping this
> only in freehosting services isn't a good idea.

I have recently posted the message below to an other list. Can not hurd
to post it here also. Waiting for feedback ...

Walter

preservation of available media ; is there "official" video/audio coming?

As internal subcom-member I am trying to get as many recordings of
Wikimania events collected.

On this page is listed what is available;
http://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org/wiki/Archives

That are all media from non-official WMF sources.

I have seen 2 realmedia video live-stream feeds. The announced audio
stream I have not found.

Are those recordings kept? Will the be put online soon?

If so; is that only from the events where a live stream was available
or are there also offline audio/video recordings been made of the
other presentations? If so, will the be put online?

If not I will re-encode all mp3-audio recordings listed on the archive
page to Ogg Vorbis and upload them to commons. Contact the users who
provided the video listed there to ask to provide the source
recordings, make Ogg Theora files from those and also put those in
commons (if I can get them down to 20mb, very annoying that limited)

And I am also planning to try to contact all the people who have give
a presentation where there is not yet any recording from of the have
made their self a recording. Or of the are willing to make a new
recording by giving there presentation again and record it there self
this time.

But that I a lot of work for me and all the people involved. That is
why I need to know what , if anything, of official recordings is
coming.

Greetings,
Walter

--
Contact: walter AT wikizine DOT org
Wikizine.org - news for and about the Wikimedia community


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimania Media


body:
On 8/7/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/7/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > "NPOV is fairly describing things or beliefs without succumbing to them."
> >
> > Oh, I do like that one. How about "without advocating them"?
>
> I think "succumbing" has the extra meaning that often one "succumbs"
> to a belief by attempting to debunk it. This was common at [[Safe
> Speed]] for instance - although most of the group's claims were
> clearly baloney, some of our editors were getting sucked into
> attempting to disprove them, falling afoul of NPOV. I'm not sure how
> to put that succinctly though - "without taking a side"? "without
> trying to prove or disprove them"? "without regard to their inherent
> worth"?
>
> Steve

I was going for a sort of protean conception there- we all have
different ideas of what "succumbing" to a POV might be; perhaps it is
simply avoiding it and not speaking of it, or mentioning things one
should not, etc. But it always contains a sense that you are treating
this subject different than other subjects. Its opposite, not
succumbing, carries connotations of objective trustworthiness:  if one
has not succumbed, then one can be trusted to give an informative and
inherently fair account of matters (to the best of one's ability).

Besides, it isn't a commonly used word and makes it wonderfully succint.

~maru


from_name: Florian Straub

subject: [Commons-l]  Deletion of still-used images

body:
Hi there,

"Brianna Laugher" <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:

> Another easy and obvious way is to get [[User:Orgullobot]] delinking
> for us.  User:Orgullomoore is happy to implement the bot with
> translations and we have a good 40 languages already done. I have
> thought we should wait until the single login is implemented before we
> do this, but it's been 6+ months "coming soon", so I think we should
> go ahead and if single login happens, well good for it.

maybe someone is able to created a bot like CommonismNow, that can be
operated by any user, who is registered with the bot. Maybe it would even be
able to unlink images as fast as Checkusage scans them. Maybe I can win
de:user:HardDisk for this, after he returns from vacation.

Best regards,

Flo

PS: Brianna, decent POVs you mentioned in your posting!


from_name: Julien Lemoine

subject: [Wikitech-l] Wikipedia Suggest

body:
Hello Nick,

Nick Jenkins wrote:
> I like it! E.g. "formula we" shows the results as "Formula Weight
> → Atomic mass", so straight away you can see it's a redirect,
> plus what it's a redirect to. That's very good indeed.
>
> Handling of articles with different capitalization still concerns me a
> little; For example, in the English Wikipedia there is both "Adfa" (a
> town in Wales), and "ADFA" (a redirect to an Australian military
> training institute), but only the town in Wales is listed in the
> suggest search. Ideally, could it maybe list both, with the town first
> (since it has one incoming link, and the institute has none), perhaps
> unless the user types "ADFA" in all-caps, in which case maybe "ADFA"
> could come first because it would be a better match for what the user
> has typed? In other words, I still think the searching could be
> case-insensitive, just that maybe the ordering of the results could be
> altered by capitalization.
>
I will keep the match case insensitive but will keep all differents
capitalization,
it will be in version 0.3 :)

>> Which kind of database is used for wikipedia, mysql ?
>>
>
> Yes, MySQL. There is a port for Postgres in progress (try saying that
> fast 10 times), but you probably want to target MySQL first because
> it's the database that's being used at the moment in most
> environments.
>
Ok, thanks for this precision. I will work on this next week.

>>  * MemoryQuery load automaton and articles in memory, it is
>> multi-threaded safe and you can use it to perform a lot of query per seconds.
>>
>
> Ok, then MemoryQuery is the one I want, as I am generally happy to
> trade RAM for speed. How do I tell it to MemoryQuery mode instead of
> DiskQuery mode? E.g. Do I need to compile cmd/query and cmd/TcpQuery
> with a special flag? Or is there a way to pass a command line argument
> to cmd/query and cmd/TcpQuery to tell it to start in MemoryQuery,
> rather than DiskQuery mode ? (This would have the advantage of letting
> the user choose the most suitable mode at runtime, and it could
> default to the disk-based-querying so that the default behaviour was
> the same as it is at the moment).
>
You are right, I will add a command line argument to choose between disk or
memory implementation.

>>  - I added all php/html/js pages in the tgz (in the extra directory) ;
>>
>
> Thank you!
>
> One small thing I've noticed is that it won't find articles/redirects
> that start with a quote - for example:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22A%22_Device
>
> One reason for this may be that the cmd/tcpQuery JavaScript response
> is not currently escaping quotes. For example, when I ask it for
> strings starting with " then tcpQuery returns this:
>
> sendRes(""", new Array(), new Array(), new Array());
>
> Whereas it probably wants to return this:
>
> sendRes("\"", new Array(), new Array(), new Array());
>
Oops, I will also fix that :)

> ----
>
> Also, I tried testing TcpQuery with random binary input, and it seemed
> sometimes to be much slower on some single-character input. For
> example, here is a log of it running :
>
> Query of 2 chars : got 55 chars back : Time = 0.00678396224976
> Query of 9 chars : got 62 chars back : Time = 0.00735902786255
> Query of 1 chars : got 0 chars back : Time = 1.01217985153
> ^^^^^ slow line ^^^^
> Query of 9 chars : got 62 chars back : Time = 0.00748610496521
> Query of 10 chars : got 63 chars back : Time = 0.00757598876953
> Query of 8 chars : got 61 chars back : Time = 0.00975489616394
>
> Then a simple loop to track down the slow 1-character tests:
> =======================================
> <?php
>
> error_reporting (E_ALL | E_STRICT);
>
> // function internals taken from extra/query.php
> function getResults($content) {
>     /* Create a TCP/IP socket. */
>     $socket = socket_create(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, SOL_TCP);
>     if ($socket < 0) {
>         echo "socket_create() failed: reason: " .
> socket_strerror($socket) . "\n";
>     }
>
>     $result = socket_connect($socket, "127.0.0.1", 666);
>     if ($result < 0) {
>         echo "socket_connect() failed.\nReason: ($result) " .
> socket_strerror($result) . "\n";
>     }
>
>     $in = "$content\r\n\r\n";
>     socket_write($socket, $in, strlen($in));
>     $res = "";
>     while ($out = socket_read($socket, 2048)) {
>         $res .= $out;
>     }
>     socket_close($socket);
>     return $res;
> }
>
> for ($i=0; $i<=255; $i++) {
>     $query = chr($i);
>     print "i=$i ";
>     $before = microtime(true);
>     $results = getResults($query);
>     $after = microtime(true);
>     print "got " . strlen($results) . " chars back : Time = " .
> ($after - $before) . "\n";
> }
>
> ?>
> =======================================
>
> The slow ones to respond (with 0 chars back) were:
> =======================================
> i=0 got 0 chars back : Time = 1.01103210449
> ^^^^
> i=1 got 54 chars back : Time = 0.00667715072632
> i=2 got 54 chars back : Time = 0.00674390792847
> i=3 got 54 chars back : Time = 0.00663805007935
> i=4 got 54 chars back : Time = 0.00671792030334
> i=5 got 54 chars back : Time = 0.00660610198975
> i=6 got 54 chars back : Time = 0.00669598579407
> i=7 got 54 chars back : Time = 0.00663185119629
> i=8 got 54 chars back : Time = 0.00668096542358
> i=9 got 54 chars back : Time = 0.0066249370575
> i=10 got 0 chars back : Time = 1.01135993004
> ^^^^
> i=11 got 54 chars back : Time = 0.00664806365967
> i=12 got 54 chars back : Time = 0.00664210319519
> ....
> =======================================
>
> I.e. the NULL character, and the LF / linefeed character.
>
> No idea if that is something that could or should be fixed or not.
>
>
Strange, thank you for the report. I will have a look at this problem.
Thank you very much for your comments, it will help me to improve
wikipedia-suggest.

Best Regards.
Julien Lemoine


subject: [Wikitech-l] Wikipedia Suggest

body:
Hello steve,

Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 8/6/06, Julien Lemoine <speedblue at happycoders.org> wrote:
>
>> I am open for any kind of suggestion/modification.
>>
>
> Ok, here's an example of something which doesn't work quite right:
> look up "IPA". There are two problems:
>
> 1) The most likely interpretation is "International Phonetic
> Alphabet", which is returned as the first link, but via a bizarre
> redirect: "IPAlpha". Is it possible to take into account how often a
> redirect is linked to?
> 2) The very useful link "IPA (disambiguation)" does not appear at all.
>
> Thus my suggestions for the heuristic:
> * Any page that exactly matches the search term (redirect or not) should be #1
> * Any page which is the search term + " (disambiguation)" [or
> equivalent for other languages] should be #2
> * Ranks #3-10 should be sorted by links as present.
>
>
You are right, I decided to keep only one link for article but without
taking into account links and matching.
I will add a similarity measure similar to what you discribed above to
fix that.

Thank you for your great comment.
Best Regards.
Julien Lemoine


body:
On 8/7/06, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, how do you define a copyvio? Almost everything that we delete
> has, in the end, been decided to be a copyvio or a suspect copyright
> violation.

Actually, we also delete images uploaded that are not violations of
copyright but are violations of our license policy - CC-NC-ND etc. are
not copyright violations.

-Matt


from_name: Violet/Riga

body:
On 8/7/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 8/7/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> > I did [[Chalk Bluffs]]. I was interested in it because I had lived
> > for years within a few miles of this interesting feature but had
> > never heard of it or gone out there. I think it is notable enough,
> > but I think it is a typical new article. The old days are gone, when
> > you could start a new article, like [[Colorado]].
>
> Heh, we should have competitions for "most notable article started
> after July 2006" or something.
>
> Incidentally, anyone know a site/tool that will give you a list of all
> the articles (ideally, without redirects) that you've started?
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

I submit my newly-created stub of "Happiness is a cigar called Hamlet" (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happiness_is_a_cigar_called_Hamlet).  Was quite
surprised that one of the most famous British advertising campaigns of all
time was not covered.  In fact, neither is the brand itself!

Yep, there are certainly some highly-notable articles left to write.  Or you
can just go and write something a little odd like "Mail delivery by
animal<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_delivery_by_animal>"
or "Largest body part <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_body_part>"!

~~~~ Violet/Riga


from_name: Sean Whitton

subject: [Foundation-l] Emergency on Wiktionary

body:
According to IRC user Connel, there is a rogue admin loose on the
English Wiktionary and several dangerous actions have been performed
(main page deletion, open proxy unblocks etc.). A RfP has been up for
several days and the admin has not been desysopped. I don't have any
evidence of this right now and am trusting the user's words as a
steward is needed *now*.

Thanks,
Xy

--
	?Xyrael ~ <xyr>
		sean at silentflame.com | xyrael.net


subject: [Foundation-l] Emergency on Wiktionary


from_name: Virgil Ierubino

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Save Draft button?

body:
Before I say anything else, is there a specific place where people can
submit proposals/suggestions? If not, one should be set up. And if so, the
navigational structure should be improved because it's hard to find!

Upgrade to MediaWiki: "Save Draft" button beneath the edit box that saves
the box's contents to a logged-in user's subpage: "User:Example/Article
title". Far too many times I'm halfway through a massive edit and I have to
go - there needs to be an easier and/or integrated way to save half-done
work between sessions.

This automation of "in-progress" subpages will neatly streamline copyediting
and extended work too.


from_name: Steve Bennett

body:
On 8/7/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the article is pretty fair on the whole. I think describing
> "open source" as the management style and Wiki as the way of
> facilitating it is not entirely inaccurate, at least along the lines

Oh, it's not "inaccurate", it's just the biggest difference that would
have immediately come to mind for me.
> He has one paragraph on the Seigenthaler incident, citing it as a
> highly-publicized *example* of some of the difficulties related to
> content problems. I don't think that's a bad approach. Some of the
> computing details are a little fuzzy -- I don't know how big proxy
> servers generate IPs but it is definitely not random, and in any case
> the contributor was indeed eventually identified through his IP
> address. He also says that Wikipedia in 2006 has the power to block IP

IP addresses are, on a local scale, allocated by a process which might
as well be random. However, it's the scale that counts. Given some ISP
that gives out addresses like aa.bb.cc.dd, the dd may well be "random"
- but the aa.bb.cc is easily enough to identify the ISP, and in many
cases the local branch of the ISP, effectively narrowing the suspect
down to a few suburbs. To use the dd bit, you need to work with the
ISP, telling them the time and date that you're interested in, so they
can cross check their records. Not rocket science, it's just actually
getting them cooperative (and convincing them that you're not
breaching someone's privacy) that's a pain.

> addresses, but that power has been around for a long time. Regardless,
> despite being incorrect, the conclusion of the paragraph is ultimately
> in favor of Wikipedia, saying essentially that Wikipedia has developed
> better methods of content verification and control in the wake of the
> incident. I don't think this is entirely incorrect. He ends the

What methods do we have now that we didn't before? I think everyone is
more aware of the issues, but what has changed, formally? Did we
already have semi-protection? I seem to recall Seigenthaler being the
third or fourth in a series of steadily escalating incidents.
> "For many observers of these controversies, a troubling difference
> between Wikipedia and other encyclopaedias lies in the absence of
> editors and authors who will accept responsibility for the accuracy
> and quality of their articles. These observers point out that
> identifiable individuals are far easier to hold accountable for
> mistakes, bias, and bad writing than is a community of anonymous
> volunteers, but other observers respond that it is not entirely clear
> if there is a substantial difference. Regardless of such

If I saw this text at Wikipedia, I'd be stamping {{citation needed}}
all over it ;) Those statements sound like common sense, but I don't
recall having read them anywhere.
> I think that's a pretty fair assessment, if one is willing to step
> outside of the "Wikipedia is great and will eventually work
> perfectly!" boosterism that is naturally part of one's enthusiasm to
> work on such a project, and instead look at it from the point of view

I don't suffer from that ;) I love well-informed critiques that locate
our achille's heel and aim straight for them. This piece mostly seemed
a good, broad "encyclopaedic" coverage of us.

Just on a side note...Seriously, I would love to know how often EB
researchers start their research at WP.

> This is a
> problem with the content model, though. Encyclopedia Brittancia has
> become a model of what exclusive and controlled editorship can and
> cannot do.

:D

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Fakes and people who cant tell the difference

body:
On 8/7/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> Looks like a lithograph or some related process -- adds a hazy, drawn
> quality to photographs. Very common way of processing photos for
> reprinting in news sources amongst countries with less developed
> printing presses. The Soviet Union used this extensively throughout
> the 1950s; I don't know if it was ever very popular in the United
> States, and certainly hasn't been used there much in the 20th century.
> At least, this is what I recall reading somewhere, a long time ago,
> cobbled together with my own experience with old newspapers. I might
> be wrong many points, but it resembles a lot of the Soviet-era
> photographs I have seen, at the very least.

Ah, so you start with a photo, then trace around the broad shapes by
hand, to reproduce by printing press? Makes sense. You end up with a
sharper image, but less actual detail.

Steve


body:
On 8/7/06, Jens Frank <jf at mormo.org> wrote:
> It's a very old feature, much older than templates.

Is there any chance we want to deprecate it, since it's basically obsolete now?

Steve


body:
On 8/7/06, Simetrical <Simetrical+wikitech at gmail.com> wrote:
> Is there any particular reason to add to the wikimarkup an average
> editor has to encounter, however slightly?

Whenever beneficial, yep.

Some (fairly minor) benefits:
*You could easily compile a list of all ISBNs referred to on WP (god
knows what you'd do with it)
*If we implemented similar templates, like ASIN's (amazon) or
something, the syntax would be the same. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumner_Welles for an example of a page
that mixes ISBN's (which work) with ASIN's (which do nothing)
*From the same page, text like this would actually work: "ISBN
0312174403 / 0-312-17440-3". It's actually a good example of where an
{{ISBN}} template would actually be useful: you could make that second
number a link, which currently it isn't, because it's not directly
preceded by the magic word.
* The syntax of MediaWiki would be reduced that little bit more,
making compatibility with other wiki's easier, and making parsing it
easier. Again, pretty minor considering that there's no huge loss for
any wiki that doesn't support magic ISBN's - but if we implemented
them as templates, they'd get them for free.
* With parser functions, we could actually attempt to validate the
ISBN's rather than passing them blindly. According to
[[:en:International Standard Book Number]], they should be either 10
or 13 digits long, and have a checksum. Our magic word accepts "1" as
a "valid" ISBN.

Basically, all the logic about ISBN's is apparently hardcoded into
MediaWiki, which is a pretty awful place for it, when you think about
it. It's pretty doubtful that if someone requested on this mailing
list today for this functionality to be implemented, that that request
would be granted.

I do acknowledge the triviality of this issue, though.

Steve


subject: [Wikitech-l] Where are the Extensions

body:
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 02:53:25PM -0700, tim at greenscourt.com wrote:
> I am looking for the "Reviews" extension which I believe was written by
> Magnus Manske and feel lost in a maze.
>
> Several messages posted to the MediaWiki-L mailing list refer to updates
> to this code as follows:
>   Update of /cvsroot/wikipedia/extensions/Review
>   In directory sc8-pr-cvs1.sourceforge.net:/tmp/cvs-serv22161
>
> The page at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_extensions links to
> http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/wikipedia/extensions/#dirlist, but
> this location just times out for me.
>
> I've tried going to http://sourceforge.net/projects/wikipedia/ but I
> can't seem to find where the extensions are hiding there.

We don't use sourceforge's CVS any more. Check our SVN repository at
http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/extensions/

Regards,

	JeLuF


from_name: Stephen Bain

body:
On 8/7/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> The press concentrate on the wiki method and editability as the most
> amazing thing about Wikipedia.
>
> But I think NPOV is possibly a more important innovation.

I wholeheartedly agree.

> I'm sorely lacking in snappy quotes, though. I ask your assistance:
> Explain NPOV in a sentence. Two sentences if you have to.

"We aim to describe, neutrally and fairly, all significant viewpoints
on a subject, without giving any viewpoint weight undue to its
prominence within the relevant field. Our goal is not to advocate or
rebut any viewpoint, nor to present a new viewpoint, but to describe
existing ones in a manner that partisans on all sides can be satisfied
with."

This definition doesn't cover sources and attribution, but it is
already fairly long, and it could easily be covered by using an
accompanying illustration, perhaps referencing the formulation
summarised from Jimbo's "NPOV and new physics" email
(http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-September/006653.html),
under the "undue weight" section of the NPOV page.

I can't think of the perfect example right now, but it would need to
be one that has one or more majority views, a significant minority
view (presented, say, by several reputable people in the relevant
field), and perhaps a few extreme minority views which can be
unproblematically omitted.

Some of these terms may also require clarification, such as "fair"
(not describing views with a partisan tone, rather "with the tone that
all positions presented are at least plausible").

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


from_name: The Cunctator

body:
Frankly, I think the problem with describing NPOV is that the
consensus formulation is a bit wrongheaded; there are some inherent
contraditions in it. In short, the problem is talking about NPOV as
anything other than an ideal goal.

In other words, saying that X is NPOV and Y isn't doesn't really make
sense. You can say that X approaches the neutral point of view better
than Y.

Once we recognize that NPOV is an ideal that we are asymptotically
approaching, discussing it becomes a lot easier.

That means there's not "a NPOV", there's "the NPOV".

Wikipedia will never achieve the NPOV until it encompasses all
knowledge (because selective bias is a form of bias). Any one article
can't be truly written in the NPOV because again, its limitations, its
omissions keep it from completeness.

We see this in religious and philosophical thought with the
recognition that objectivity requires omniscience.

Even if Wikipedia ever encompasses all of human knowledge, it will
still be hopelessly anthropocentric.

So NPOV is a goal we are asymptotically attempting to achieve.

So my one sentence version of NPOV, which I wrote *years* ago:

NPOV means, as a policy, "Pick the more neutral version".

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

P.S. As George Orwell pointed out, acronyms are execrable. NPOV stands
for "neutral point of view", which is a noun phrase. Not an adjective,
adverb, or verb, as it's often used (most often as an adjective). So,
I would say that "neutrality" or "objectivity" are perfectly good
words that describe what NPOV gets at.


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-08-08

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

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

Passed 413 of 429 tests (96.27%) FAILED!


body:
On 8/7/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> That's the one I can't understand - putting "ISBN xxx" in the piped
> part of a link only overrides the actual link if it it's to an ISBN
> page. This is most unexpected. I suppose it has some strange "prevent
> misleading ISBN links" benefit, but it's just...odd.
>
> To be honest, the fact that the piped label gets "interpreted" for
> magic words at all just looks like a bug, or an oversight, or a
> misfeature or whatever. From some more testing it looks like some
> "magic word" behaviour gets interpereted in piped links and some
> doesn't - http:// links *don't* override the actual link for instance.

It's desirable in some situations that piped text should be parsed,
for example to include ''italics'' or '''bold text''' in the link
(naval ships, for example, use a mix of plain and italic text in their
links). The extent to which it gets parsed is interesting however, and
some of these behaviours may be unexpected, perhaps this should be
forwarded to Wikitech-l?

> > You should ask the developers why this was implemented as a magic word
> > in the first place, I'm not really sure of their reasons.
>
> Most likely it was a very quick and easy way to make a large number of
> existing ISBN numbers suddenly come to life.

Yes, I would imagine that that would be why. That's probably why so
many variations will actually work and produce viable links, to
account for inconsistent usage in the past.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


from_name: Wildrick Steele

subject: [Foundation-l] Emergency on Wiktionary

body:
On 07/08/06, Sean Whitton <sean at silentflame.com> wrote:
>
> According to IRC user Connel, there is a rogue admin loose on the
> English Wiktionary and several dangerous actions have been performed
> (main page deletion, open proxy unblocks etc.). A RfP has been up for
> several days and the admin has not been desysopped. I don't have any
> evidence of this right now and am trusting the user's words as a
> steward is needed *now*.
>
> Thanks,
> Xy
>
> --
>         ?Xyrael ~ <xyr>
>                 sean at silentflame.com | xyrael.net
>
>
Evidence enough at

http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=Dangherous&page=

With this in mind, I've been thinking whether it would be wise to have some
kind of feature that disallows admins from unblocking themselves and while
blocked not being able to perform admin actions.

Cheers,
Wildrick
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Vildricianus


subject: [Foundation-l] Emergency on Wiktionary


from_name: SPUI

body:
David Gerard wrote:
> The press concentrate on the wiki method and editability as the most
> amazing thing about Wikipedia.
>
> But I think NPOV is possibly a more important innovation. Other
> sources aim to explain the view they hold or to be authoritative; NPOV
> describes the views and has whatever authority that confers.
>
> I'm sorely lacking in snappy quotes, though. I ask your assistance:
> Explain NPOV in a sentence.

"Teach the controversy."


from_name: Berto

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Save Draft button?

body:
----- ???????? ????????? -----
??: "Virgil Ierubino" <virgil.ierubino at gmail.com>
????: <wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org>
??????????: 8 ??????? 2006 ?. 1:02
????: [Wikipedia-l] Save Draft button?

> Before I say anything else, is there a specific place where people can
> submit proposals/suggestions? If not, one should be set up. And if so, the
> navigational structure should be improved because it's hard to find!
>
> Upgrade to MediaWiki: "Save Draft" button beneath the edit box that saves
> the box's contents to a logged-in user's subpage: "User:Example/Article
> title". Far too many times I'm halfway through a massive edit and I have
to
> go - there needs to be an easier and/or integrated way to save half-done
> work between sessions.
>
> This automation of "in-progress" subpages will neatly streamline
copyediting
> and extended work too.

The problem is that you could easily have the page overwritten while you
work on it in remote. If you don't notice it, you'll just delete the changes
when submitting your final version. So the saved draft should have some
versioning info, too. Apart from that, it's a great idea.

Berto


from_name: Fredrik Josefsson

subject: [Commons-l] Concerning trademarked images unrestricted by copyrights

body:
Thank you for the input to my last post.

Here is the next one!!!!

What is the deal with trademarked images that are not
procted by copyrights? Should they find a haven on
Commons, or should they be wiped out?

An ambitious user created template:trademarked (
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Trademarked
) that he then applied to some images he did not
consider possible to copyright because of a "lack of
creativity". The template was applied to, for example,
the logotypes of Opel and Mazda.

It was also suggested that the logotype of the
Wikimedia foundation is not copyrightable because it
does not containt sufficient creative authorship.

This is all based on some persistant users alleged
comprehension of German jurisdiction where (according
to the users) "sweat of the brow" is required to
render something copyrightable.

So what are the legal definitions on copyrightability,
and what to do with images that are only trademark
protected but not copyright protected?

/ Fred
a.k.a. Fred-Chess


from_name: Phil Boswell

body:
Steve Bennett-4 wrote:
>
> *From the same page, text like this would actually work: "ISBN
> 0312174403 / 0-312-17440-3". It's actually a good example of where an
> {{ISBN}} template would actually be useful: you could make that second
> number a link, which currently it isn't, because it's not directly
> preceded by the magic word.
>
That was broken because whoever entered it failed to realise that the ISBN
magic word works just fine with an ISBN containing hyphens: if you check
that, it's actually the same number.

HTH HAND
--
Phil
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Interesting-behaviour-of-%22ISBN%22-magic-word-tf2064173.html#a5703381
Sent from the Wikipedia Developers forum at Nabble.com.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Save Draft button?

body:
----- ???????? ????????? -----
??: "maru dubshinki" <marudubshinki at gmail.com>
????: <wikipedia-l at wikimedia.org>
??????????: 8 ??????? 2006 ?. 1:59
????: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Save Draft button?

> On 8/7/06, Berto <albertoserra at ukr.net> wrote:
> > ----- ???????? ????????? -----
> > ??: "Virgil Ierubino" <virgil.ierubino at gmail.com>
> > ????: <wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org>
> > ??????????: 8 ??????? 2006 ?. 1:02
> > ????: [Wikipedia-l] Save Draft button?
> >
> >
> > > Before I say anything else, is there a specific place where people can
> > > submit proposals/suggestions? If not, one should be set up. And if so,
the
> > > navigational structure should be improved because it's hard to find!
> > >
> > > Upgrade to MediaWiki: "Save Draft" button beneath the edit box that
saves
> > > the box's contents to a logged-in user's subpage:
"User:Example/Article
> > > title". Far too many times I'm halfway through a massive edit and I
have
> > to
> > > go - there needs to be an easier and/or integrated way to save
half-done
> > > work between sessions.
> > >
> > > This automation of "in-progress" subpages will neatly streamline
> > copyediting
> > > and extended work too.
> >
> > The problem is that you could easily have the page overwritten while you
> > work on it in remote. If you don't notice it, you'll just delete the
changes
> > when submitting your final version. So the saved draft should have some
> > versioning info, too. Apart from that, it's a great idea.
> >
> > Berto
>
> If the saved draft is a regular wiki page in userspace, wouldn't there
> be versioning already?
It would still be up to you to check whether someone updated the real page
before moving the content from your user space to the wiki space. What you'd
need is a local wiki page with the last history pointer on it, and a routine
to send it to the server. At that point the routine could check whether the
last history pointer has changed or not and propose a diff if it changed.
Not that easy, but possibly the only secure way to make it.

Berto


from_name: Ed Sanders

body:
Fredrik Josefsson wrote:
> Thank you for the input to my last post.
>
> Here is the next one!!!!
>
> What is the deal with trademarked images that are not
> procted by copyrights? Should they find a haven on
> Commons, or should they be wiped out?
>
> An ambitious user created template:trademarked (
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Trademarked
> ) that he then applied to some images he did not
> consider possible to copyright because of a "lack of
> creativity". The template was applied to, for example,
> the logotypes of Opel and Mazda.
>
> It was also suggested that the logotype of the
> Wikimedia foundation is not copyrightable because it
> does not containt sufficient creative authorship.
>
> This is all based on some persistant users alleged
> comprehension of German jurisdiction where (according
> to the users) "sweat of the brow" is required to
> render something copyrightable.

Indeed, said user (Rtc) is basically saying that all logos are free of
copyright, although this is most definitely not the case in the UK.

Ed (ed_g2s)

>
> So what are the legal definitions on copyrightability,
> and what to do with images that are only trademark
> protected but not copyright protected?
>
> / Fred
> a.k.a. Fred-Chess
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>


from_name: mboverload

body:
"Don't be a POV dick"

I mean, it's not that hard.  Don't be an asshole.


body:
Then other people can insert it.

Maybe I'm the only one that can tell when any article is biased?

On 8/8/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 8/8/06, mboverload <mboverload at gmail.com> wrote:
> > "Don't be a POV dick"
> >
> > I mean, it's not that hard.  Don't be an asshole.
>
> No, it's much more than that. There are plenty of ways of violating
> NPOV in good faith. You may have simply left out a viewpoint you
> didn't know about, or let your own world experience (such as living in
> a certain country) distort the perceptions present in the article.
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: david chapman

subject: [Wikitech-l] MIME search

body:
"Edward Z. Yang" <edwardzyang at thewritingpot.com> wrote:  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Steve Bennett wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MIMEsearch

/*
* A special page to search for files by MIME type as defined in the
* img_major_mime and img_minor_mime fields in the image table
*
* @package MediaWiki
* @subpackage SpecialPage
*
* @author ?var Arnfj?r? Bjarmason
* @license http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html GNU General Public
License 2.0 or later
*/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFE2IXNqTO+fYacSNoRAsB4AJ9HRztqeEdTX/t318OF3qJUrkJwPACeK/zm
aPBG96+YjbCg/CpmqMZ6zGA=
=B/xp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2?/min or less.


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
On Aug 7, 2006, at 10:40 PM, SPUI wrote:

>> Explain NPOV in a sentence.
>>
>
> "Teach the controversy."

Outstanding!

Fred


subject: [WikiEN-l] sign: Will Edit for Food

body:
On Aug 8, 2006, at 3:20 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:

> Would it be possible to get in touch with them and arrange for them to
> tell us which pages they've created? Overall, it sounds good for us.
>
> Remember, a moderately biased article about a topic which meets our
> inclusion guidelines - if it is biased *towards* the topic - is much
> better than no topic at all.
>
> Steve

http://mywikibiz.com/contactus.html

Fred


from_name: roc

subject:
[Foundation-l] Fwd: [Wikipedia-l] GFW upgrade block level for
	Wikipedia

body:
According to several Wikipedians living in Mainland China (excluding
Hong Kong and Macao), the GFW block on Wikimedia has been upgraded to
a new a level, it seems that:

* Official Wikimedia proxies are blocked;
* "zh.wikipedia.org" becomes a URL-level keyword for GFW.

The upgrade was noticed and reported as early as August 7, 2006 9:30 UTC.

This upgrade coincided with a Beijing News (???) report on Wikipedia.

Sources cited: the forwarded message below (in English), and a
discussion at zh_wikipedia at googlegroups (in Chinese).

More information should be available.

Please feel free to post messages in Chinese on this discussion
thread, they will be translated into English. (?????????????????.)

If it is not appropriate to discuss this matter in public here, we may
continue the discussion in private methods, please advise.

Best regards and wishes.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: mingli yuan <mingli.yuan at gmail.com>
Date: 2006/8/8 ?? 12:52
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] GFW upgrade block level for Wikipedia
To: wikipedia-l at wikimedia.org

After a report from Xinjingbao(The Beijing News,
http://www.thebeijingnews.com/ ) on Wikipedia, yesterday afternoon the Great
firewall of Chinese government upgrades its block level for Wikipedia. Today
many Wikipedia users in China report that they can not access Wikipedia via
the official proxy provides by MediaWiki Fundation.

This is a another bad news for Mainland Chinese Wikipedians again. Seems
hopeless for them.
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l