from_name: Shuren Wang

subject: [Wikitech-l] How to link the search result from my web site

body:
Hello,

How I link a search result from winimedia from my web site.

like www.answers.com, here is an example:
http://www.answers.com/topic/han-suyin

Regards,

Shuren


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: George Herbert

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Bauer DRV question - history (was Wikimedia
	Foundation sued)

body:
On 3/26/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 26/03/07, stevertigo <stvrtg at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3/26/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Most deletion, it doesn't really matter if the history is visible or
> > > not - it's not that the article is damaging as such, we just don't
> > > want it as part of Wikipedia. In this case, though, the deletion was
> > > (asserted to be) because the history was actually defamatory; if this
> > > is the case, we actively don't want to continue publishing it.
> > > Deleting libellous material, and then undeleting it so lots more
> > > people can read it, is conceptually a bit sloppy.
> >
> > This is a circular argument, and one that seems prejudiced toward deletion.
> > And you don't actually give the reason for this prejudice until your next email:
>
> Er. It's not "prejudiced towards deletion", it's prejudiced against
> *not continuing to publish defamatory material unless we have to*. And
> I note I said "the deletion was (asserted to be) because the history
> was actually defamatory"; I'm not sure how this is "hiding my
> prejudice".
>
> > > I did not say it was defamatory. I said it was asserted to as
> > > defamatory. As there is A LAWSUIT CLAIMING THIS, I can't possibly
> > > imagine how anyone got the idea that the content might be dubious.
> >
> > In this case, because the removal is based on a fear of WP:SUIT, it should be
> > an OFFICE action, and not a deletion. Not that I think office actions
> > are a legitimate
> > way of editing, nor do I think that a fear or SUIT is a healthy
> > attitude, but the point is
> > is that if its a WP process, this notion of sanitizing content in a
> > prejudicial way is unwiki
> > and against the community spirit.
>
> I have honestly no idea what that alphabet soup of things meant; as
> far as I know the Office has no opinion on this and is firmly staying
> that way, at least until actual papers turn up.
>
> Perhaps I should be crystal clear here. My opinion is that this is a
> non-objectionable article, on someone who is a) non-notable and b) a
> scammer pretty much as described in loving detail by TNH et. al. I
> don't feel we are at any legal risk should we continue to publish it,
> but I am ambivalent as to whether or not our notability policies say
> we should keep it. (In short: I don't give a damn. Please note my not
> participating in the deletion debate)
>
> However, some people are. There have been issues raised with the
> article; people are arguing in good faith that it was an attack page,
> potentially libellous, what have you. This is why we don't undelete;
> because if those people are right, undeleting it would be wilfuly
> stupid, deliberately continuing publication after initial decision to
> remove. You can go look at the google cache if you want to see what it
> looked like - it's still there, IIRC...

There is a good-faith concern here - non-admins can get pretty
frustrated if the Google cache and so forth aren't good coverage for a
now-deleted, but up for review, article.

It's the one thing which has suprised me about how much happier I am
now that I am an admin.  The rest of it was work effort reductions I
was expecting, for the most part; actually being able to look at
normal deleted content as part of the review process made me
unexpectedly much happier.

Makes me want to code up a new user permission bit to let people look
at deleted edits without having to get full admin rights, in my
nonexistent spare time...

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


from_name: Anthony

subject: [WikiEN-l] ArbCom pages and Google

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

I can think of one...  :)

If this gets adopted, I want in.

Anthony


from_name: Thomas Dalton

subject: [WikiEN-l] Imagine the lawsuit... just imagine it...

body:
> > The only way this can ever be a problem is if Jimbo decides to have
> > Wikipedia sue Citizendium based on ego and personal spite, and I
> > don't think he's that spiteful, and I'm not sure he could convince
> > the Wikimedia Foundation to do it.
> > And by golly if I ever see a banner saying "Wikimedia needs your
> > contribution to fund its continuing legal struggle against
> > Citizendium" you can't expect much in the way of contributions from
> > _me._
>
>
> You appear to be under the impression the copyright in question is
> Wikipedia's or Wikimedia's. It's not - they own hardly any of the
> stuff on the sites.

Indeed. If Citizendium are to be sued over this, it would be a class
action suit brought by a large number of Wikipedians. The fact that
Citizendium are specifically talking about trying to make sure we
can't use their work but they can use ours goes against the spirit of
the GDFL and Wikipedia (which is all about collaboration), and that
may well piss of enough Wikipedians to make a class action suit viable
(it doesn't really take many, as long as one of them can afford a good
lawyer).

According to Wikipedia, the minimum statutory damages are $200 per
work (and that's assuming Citzendium can claim good faith, which would
seem unlikely, in which case it's $750). What counts as a work? Each
edit counting as a separate work would seem unlikely. Each article
counting as a separate work would seem more likely, but how does the
money get divided up between contributors?


from_name: phoebe ayers

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

body:
On 3/25/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/26/07, Ron Ritzman <ritzman at gmail.com> wrote:
> > "No initialisms. The Policy pages of the Citizendium may not contain
> > any three-letter "initialisms." For example, "IAR," "NOR," and "AFD"
> > are three letter initialisms. These expressions are a considerable
> > problem for new users who are unfamiliar with them. The first time a
>
> Heh. Well their equivalent of WP:NOT should be quite short:
>
> Citizendium is not Wikipedia.
>
> Steve

It seems they've inherited a bit more from us than just articles:
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Special:Contributions&target=Peter+Lacey

I wish them well, hope that they take open content and author rights under
the GFDL seriously, and hope that as a community they consider *why* it's a
good idea to build a universal open content encyclopedia -- unfortunately
not something I saw articulated at all in the reactionary "Statement of
Fundamental Policies," and only minimally in their "about."

-- phoebe


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikimedia Foundation sued

body:
On 3/26/07, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
> Apparently, literary agent [[Barbara Bauer]] has sued a number of
> people and organizations, including the Wikimedia Foundation, for

Is this the first time the WMF has actually been sued? I know there
are a lot of threats, but how often does it actually eventuate?

Steve


body:
On 3/26/07, Ron Ritzman <ritzman at gmail.com> wrote:
> "No initialisms. The Policy pages of the Citizendium may not contain
> any three-letter "initialisms." For example, "IAR," "NOR," and "AFD"
> are three letter initialisms. These expressions are a considerable
> problem for new users who are unfamiliar with them. The first time a

Heh. Well their equivalent of WP:NOT should be quite short:

Citizendium is not Wikipedia.

Steve


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] ArbCom pages and Google

body:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Rob Smith [mailto:nobs03 at gmail.com]
>Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 06:32 PM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] ArbCom pages and Google
>
>I would like to formerly request an unblock for the limited purpose to
>Appeal before ArbCom making a separation of the unfounded smears that my
>name is associated with he Lyndon LaRouche movement. <
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance/Requests/November_2006/Nobs02#unfounded_allegations
> >
>
>Google Nobs01+LaRouche brings up 226 Google hits. <
>http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Nobs01%2BLaRouche >
>
>ArbCom has twice failed to rectify this injustice, despite (a) Mr. Fred
>Bauder admitting five times the smear is unfounded; (b) the perpetrator
>himself has made statements that the allegation is false. <
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Workshop&diff=next&oldid=30398271
> >
>
>
>Thank you,
>
>Rob Smith
>aka User:Nobs01 and Nobs02

We already know this. You got lumped together in the arbitration case, but there was no connection.

Fred


from_name: Stan Shebs

body:
phoebe ayers wrote:
> It seems they've inherited a bit more from us than just articles:
> http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Special:Contributions&target=Peter+Lacey
>
That's pretty funny! I suppose I should get to work on my invented
persona for CZ - hmm, one PhD or two? Do you think they would be
skeptical if I had three??

:-)

Stan


from_name: David Gerard

body:
On 26/03/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:

> Indeed. If Citizendium are to be sued over this, it would be a class
> action suit brought by a large number of Wikipedians.

Ahahaha, no it wouldn't have to be. Any individual whose copyright in
their written text was violated would have a cause for action. Imagine
1000 separate DMCA notices to a violator and their host.

> The fact that
> Citizendium are specifically talking about trying to make sure we
> can't use their work but they can use ours goes against the spirit of
> the GDFL and Wikipedia (which is all about collaboration), and that
> may well piss of enough Wikipedians to make a class action suit viable
> (it doesn't really take many, as long as one of them can afford a good
> lawyer).

It's unlikely to happen that way, I would hope - CZ's intentions
aren't to do evil. I have a CZ login and I last used it to fix an
image attribution (sufficient for the terms of both GFDL and CC-by
1.0). It depends if those who appear primarily motivated by messing
with Wikipedia can be held back from massive copyright violation to
that end.

> According to Wikipedia, the minimum statutory damages are $200 per
> work (and that's assuming Citzendium can claim good faith, which would
> seem unlikely, in which case it's $750). What counts as a work? Each
> edit counting as a separate work would seem unlikely. Each article
> counting as a separate work would seem more likely, but how does the
> money get divided up between contributors?

Statutory damages under US law require registering one's copyright.
That can be done diff by diff, much as IBM registers each of its Linux
kernel contributions. Note that people outside the US, like me, can
still send valid DMCA notices to US hosting entities.

- d.


body:
> > Indeed. If Citizendium are to be sued over this, it would be a class
> > action suit brought by a large number of Wikipedians.
>
>
> Ahahaha, no it wouldn't have to be. Any individual whose copyright in
> their written text was violated would have a cause for action. Imagine
> 1000 separate DMCA notices to a violator and their host.

It wouldn't *have* to be, no, but surely the most practical method is
a class action suit?

> It's unlikely to happen that way, I would hope - CZ's intentions
> aren't to do evil. I have a CZ login and I last used it to fix an
> image attribution (sufficient for the terms of both GFDL and CC-by
> 1.0). It depends if those who appear primarily motivated by messing
> with Wikipedia can be held back from massive copyright violation to
> that end.

However, it seems Larry Sanger falls in that category, and holding him
back may be rather challenging.

> Statutory damages under US law require registering one's copyright.
> That can be done diff by diff, much as IBM registers each of its Linux
> kernel contributions. Note that people outside the US, like me, can
> still send valid DMCA notices to US hosting entities.

Could you really claim that copying an article in which you made 2
back-to-back edits counts as violating the copyright on two works?
That seems rather arbitrary.


body:
On 3/26/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 26/03/07, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
> > All of this said, I believe Larry had a conversation with some
> > higher-ups in the free content movement, and some of his
> > misconceptions were cleared up.  But he still thinks it might be a
> > good idea to license Citizendium created content under CC-BY-NC (or is
> > it CC-BY-NC-SA, he doesn't seem to understand the difference).
>
> Does anything with NC count as an open content licence? It certainly
> doesn't for Wikimedia purposes.
>

Depends on who you talk to, I suppose.  Anything with NC doesn't count
as a free content license under the "Free Content and Expression
Definition", which seems to have its website down at the moment.

I just found one of the more recent posts by Larry which suggests that
he does now have a better understanding of the GFDL:
http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,607.msg5127.html#msg5127

Here's a post where he suggests he doesn't care so much what license
is used: http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,607.30.html

In another post he says that he's leaning toward CC-BY-NC, and in yet
another he suggests that Citizendium is going to own the copyright on
submissions by contributors.  That one is pretty bold, so I looked up
the message number:
http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,607.60.html

"What activities does by-nc restrict us from?  We're the copyright
holder.  As such, we can do whatever we want with our own articles."

After Larry made a final call for discussion on the mailing list, I
asked him what the procedure was for those of us who refused to
license our content under CC-BY-NC - how could we go about removing
our articles from Citizendium.  He didn't really answer the question,
but said that I was "the first person [he's] seen who's had such a
strong negative reaction [to CC-BY-NC]".  I pointed him to
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/9/11/16331/0655 and
http://freecontentdefinition.org/Licenses/NC (thanks Erik), and then
two days later he announces that he's holding off on the license
decision.

So once again I'll ask that if you care about this you let Larry know.
 Of course, if you just think CZ is going to fail anyway I guess you
can save your time and not bother.

Anthony


from_name: James Farrar

body:
On 25/03/07, bobolozo <bobolozo at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Keith Old <keithold at gmail.com> wrote:
> > G'day folks,
> >
> > Associated Press  reports that Citizendium will
> > launch this week.
> >
> >
> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/2007-03-25-wikipedia-alternative_N.htm
>
> Probably this has already been discussed here ad
> nauseum, but:
>
> Prospective editors are supposed to use their real
> name, and provide proof that this is their real name.
> However, at the moment,
> http://www.citizendium.org/cfa.html says that
> providing the proof is optional.

The second link to the "Statement of Fundamental Principles" is hilarious...

As for the USA Today article, I wonder if the comment "Sanger says he
intended to keep nurturing Nupedia's expert-review idea as well, but
he was laid off from Bomis in 2002, apparently because of cost-cutting
in the dot-com bust" explains the anti-Wikipedia rant on every page?
Long time to hold a grudge, pal.


from_name: Silas Snider

body:
Maybe it could be set for certain articles that are undergoing DRV?
And restrict access of articles with the bit set to users past the
semi-protection threshold? This would actually be very useful.

Sincerely,
Silas Snider

On 3/26/07, Ron Ritzman <ritzman at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/26/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Makes me want to code up a new user permission bit to let people look
> > at deleted edits without having to get full admin rights, in my
> > nonexistent spare time...
>
> And how would it be decided which ordinary mortals get the bit?. A pox
> on your propeller beanie if you say "edit count". :)
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Silas Snider is a proud member of the Association of Wikipedians Who
Dislike Making Broad Judgements About the Worthiness of a General Category
of Article, and Who Are In Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad
Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They are Deletionist
(AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD) , and the Harmonious
Editing Club of Wikipedia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


body:
On 3/26/07, Ron Ritzman <ritzman at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/26/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Makes me want to code up a new user permission bit to let people look
> > at deleted edits without having to get full admin rights, in my
> > nonexistent spare time...
>
> And how would it be decided which ordinary mortals get the bit?. A pox
> on your propeller beanie if you say "edit count". :)

That would be a policy question, up for normal consensus determination...

My opinion on the topic would be anyone who has been around for a
month and wants it, and who doesn't turn out to cause problems with
it.  "We took the material down and restricted access to staff,
administrators, and a small set of other known users...".  As long as
we restrict access "enough" to deleted info then liability concerns
don't really care if a few of the people who can see it aren't
wikipedia "Administrators".  If it is truly more sensitive than that
then it should be oversighted.

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


from_name: Mak

body:
Mark Wagner wrote -
"I look forward to seeing what sort of private jargon they wind up
developing -- and if they realize that they've done so.  Initialisms
are the English Wikipedia's jargon."

They've already started their private vocabulary with "editors" versus
"authors". Authors are the commoners, whereas editors are the ones
with advanced degrees. In order to be an editor you're supposed to be
tenure-track in your field and send in a CV. In addition, in order to
"approve" an article, you must not only jump through the hoops of
becoming an editor, you must be somehow certified an "expert" in that
specific topic. It's not clear how specific your expertise has to be.
Looking at the music articles and the music editors (my particular
field of interest), there will not be an approved Citizendium article
on a music topic in quite a long time.


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

body:
On 26/03/07, Ken Arromdee <arromdee at rahul.net> wrote:
> The article for [[The]] was recently deleted on the grounds that Wikipedia
> is not a dictionary. [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The]].

Without any consensus being reached, from what I can see.


from_name: Sheldon Rampton

body:
Anthony wrote:

> That's not exactly jargon specific to Citizendium.  At pretty much any
> magazine, newspaper, or other publication, authors write articles, and
> editors edit them.  That's plain English, not jargon.

On the other hand, "constables" is jargon (rather unfortunate jargon,
IMHO) that they've coined themselves to replace "admins."

Personally, I wish them well. It would be a great thing if
Citizendium actually succeeds in producing a better free encyclopedia
than Wikipedia -- or even if it just achieves some partial success
that merely illuminates ways Wikipedia itself can improve. Of course
it will take years before Citizendium can hope to match, let alone
surpass Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I look forward to the day when
Wikipedia's great SunGodKing and paternal protector kneels in fealty
before Larry Sanger and acknowledges Sanger's primacy as the one
true, holy and encyclopedic GalacticDietySupremeCommander.

--------------------------------
|  Sheldon Rampton
|  Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org)
|  Author of books including:
|     Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
|     Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
|     Mad Cow USA
|     Trust Us, We're Experts
|     Weapons of Mass Deception
|     Banana Republicans
|     The Best War Ever
--------------------------------
|  Subscribe to our free weekly list serve by visiting:
|  http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html
|
|  Donate now to support independent, public interest reporting:
|  https://secure.groundspring.org/dn/index.php?id=1118
--------------------------------


body:
> The article for [[The]] was recently deleted on the grounds that Wikipedia
> is not a dictionary. [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The]].

It wasn't actually deleted, it was just redirected. The article's
history is intact.


from_name: William Pietri

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Bauer DRV question - history (was
 Wikimedia	Foundation sued)

body:
Ron Ritzman wrote:
> On 3/26/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Makes me want to code up a new user permission bit to let people look
>> at deleted edits without having to get full admin rights, in my
>> nonexistent spare time...
>>
>
> And how would it be decided which ordinary mortals get the bit?. A pox
> on your propeller beanie if you say "edit count". :)
>

How about those who ask and give a plausible reason?

It sounds like we hide edits mainly to prevent the average user from
coming across things that we'd rather not publish to the whole world.
But it seems like there's no big risk as people agree to treat the
hidden content appropriately.

William


body:
On 3/26/07, Mak <makwik at gmail.com> wrote:
> Mark Wagner wrote -
> "I look forward to seeing what sort of private jargon they wind up
> developing -- and if they realize that they've done so.  Initialisms
> are the English Wikipedia's jargon."
>
> They've already started their private vocabulary with "editors" versus
> "authors".

That's not exactly jargon specific to Citizendium.  At pretty much any
magazine, newspaper, or other publication, authors write articles, and
editors edit them.  That's plain English, not jargon.

The rules of who is allowed to write articles, and who is allowed to
edit them, are specific to Citizendium, of course.

Anthony


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Mark Wagner wrote:

>On 3/25/07, Ron Ritzman <ritzman at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>This part of their policy is almost funny seeing how much we all just
>>"love" WP:TLAs
>>
>>"No initialisms. The Policy pages of the Citizendium may not contain
>>any three-letter "initialisms." For example, "IAR," "NOR," and "AFD"
>>are three letter initialisms. These expressions are a considerable
>>problem for new users who are unfamiliar with them. The first time a
>>user introduces such an expression in a policy page, he/she will be
>>warned and the expression removed. The second time a user repeats this
>>offense, he will be banned for a suitable amount of time.?
>>
>>
>
>I look forward to seeing what sort of private jargon they wind up
>developing -- and if they realize that they've done so.  Initialisms
>are the English Wikipedia's jargon.
>
I appreciate the sentiment behind trying to deal with this problem,
since I often encounter abbreciations on this list that I need to puzzle
over before giving my best guess.  I don't think the hard line approach
will help them.  It's just not a winnable battle.

Ec


from_name: Denny Colt

body:
On 3/26/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If her notability is questioned by some and this is countered by others,
> it's on AFD terrain, not speedy deletion.
>
> Mgm

Unfortunately since no one but admins can see the stuff in question now, any
non-admins have been unfairly (in violation of policy?) removed from any
decision making here that is of real value... I "recall" seeing RS on the
article before it went away, but if someone challenged me on that--what do I
say? "Sorry, can't see it/confirm"?

Basically any non-admin is now excluded from the DRV after Doc Glasgow
speedied it unless someone restores the history for us.

--
- Denny


subject: [WikiEN-l] [Possible spam]Re: Out of process deletions

body:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

>On 3/26/07, Denny Colt <wikidenny at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On 3/26/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I await with interest the court's interpretation of the merits of the
>>>case.
>>>
>>>
>>Is this the first case specifically targeting WP/WMF along these lines?
>>Trying to hold us liable for reporting what OTHERS said? It could be a
>>slam
>>dunk precendent for us in a good way if the Judge dismisses, right? As in,
>>we aren't responsible for reporting what others said?
>>
>>
>The judge won't need to dismiss the case. Either Bauer retracts it, or she
>goes through with it and Writer Beware puts together a defense that gets her
>convicted. They already helped authorities get Martha Ivery convicted. They
>have plenty of documentation on Barbara Bauer. It's in her best interest not
>to let this get to court.
>
Probably so.  The best result for us would be a written decision from
the judge with a favorable analysis of the legal issues involved.

I do still wonder whether the SLAP suit provisions apply.  The suit
needs to be defended enough to avoid a default judgement, and extra
effort is required for a Florida company to defend itself in New Jersey.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Jimmy Wales speaks on Radio National in Australia

body:
> But that's IMPOSSIBLE because newspapers are RELIABLE SOURCES. Or so I'm told.

"Reliable" does not mean "right". It means "right often enough for it
to be worth us trusting them". It's pretty much impossible to find a
source you can be 100% sure is right (the only exception I can think
of is a primary source for facts like "So-and-so claims
such-and-such", and even then there is a chance the source is a fake).
There is no way we can personally check every fact we mention, so we
have to trust external sources to be correct. If they turn out not to
be, we obviously need to correct the article, but other than that,
there's nothing we can do.


body:
On 3/26/07, James Farrar <james.farrar at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 26/03/07, Denny Colt <wikidenny at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Basically any non-admin is now excluded from the DRV after Doc Glasgow
> > speedied it unless someone restores the history for us.
>
> Which means that the deleting admin acted far too hastily in speedying
> it for legal reasons. (No, I don't buy it being deleted not for legal
> reasons. There is such thing as being too much of a coincidence.)
>

So, in this case, what do we have to do to get the history restored as the
very fact it was a legal/BLP issue is debated?

--
- Denny


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Missing Dumps

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> Nick Jenkins wrote:
>> Potentially crazy idea, but given the above, what if there was a per-backed-up-wiki
>> RSS / ATOM feed that would include a notification when new dumps were generated?
>
> Crazy, but good crazy. :)
>
> I'll slip that into my updates; updating an RSS .xml file would not be
> difficult at all.

*-rss.xml files are now slipped into the 'latest' subdirectory with the
new dumps being generated now.

I'll add links to these from the summary pages later, but you can get em
manually for the moment. (Note that the symlinks in latest still point
to the latest _complete_ dump, while the feeds point to the latest
version of _that file_. May change the symlinks too, since people seem
to prefer that behavior.)

-- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org)


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: GerardM

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

body:
Hoi,
Wolf  .. where ??
Thanks,
    Gerard

On 3/26/07, David Goodman <dgoodmanny at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I am given to understand by those who can read the language, there are
> various views about who is censoring whom on that particular WP. ~~~~
>
> On 3/26/07, Berto 'd Sera <albertoserra at ukr.net> wrote:
> > Hoi!
> >
> > I can't see any data about hapened in the message. Maybe there was an
> older
> > message I missed?
> >
> > B?rto 'd S?ra
> > Personagi dl'ann 2006 p?r l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti
> voj?otri)
> > http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
> --
> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Ron Ritzman

subject: [WikiEN-l] Out of process deletions

body:
On 3/26/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:

> >Also, I have a hard time imagining a situation where it is absolutely
> >impossible to purge POV from the bio of an otherwise notable person
> >without nuking the article.

> The "offending" information remains in the history without extensive oversighting which    > would be grossly inappropriate in this case as the article history is the subject of a legal > action.

Using this logic, every bio with potentially inflammatory information
would have to be deleted and written from scratch instead of just
removing the bad info. If absolutely necessary, problem content can be
removed from an article's history as is sometimes done with copyvios.
In any case Bauer deletion did not end up causing a wheel war as the
Brandt deletion had done which is good.

In the case of [[Danial Brandt]], one admin deleted it out of process
under his own interpretation of IAR. He thought that by doing so he
would make WP a better encyclopedia by getting rid of a thorn in its
side. A lot of others agreed with him judging by all the barnstars and
pictures of big brass balls on his talk page. However, others didn't
and another admin restored the article. That should have been the end
of the story as far as speedy deletes were concerned but instead it
was deleted/restored/deleted/restored "lather rinse repeat". In the
end, the article remained and Jimbo ended up whacking everybody
involved, nothing was accomplished. It would have been better if it
were "one delete", "one restore", "we talk about it on AFD". The
result would have probably been the same but without the wheel war and
without anybody being desysoped.

That's all I'm suggesting. Super speedy delete the article, bio or
otherwise, if you feel you have a good reason but if another admin
disagrees, then it should stay and go to AFD. If a non admin
disagrees, then there's deletion review.


from_name: Jeff Raymond

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Bauer DRV question - history (was Wikimedia
 Foundation sued)

body:
George Herbert wrote:

> It's the one thing which has suprised me about how much happier I am
> now that I am an admin.  The rest of it was work effort reductions I
> was expecting, for the most part; actually being able to look at
> normal deleted content as part of the review process made me
> unexpectedly much happier.

Trust me, it's the one thing I regret about not being able to get promoted
myself.

I've placed the concept of showing deleted edits up for proposal at DRV
for non-copyvio, non-defamatory reviews again - it's pretty close to a
perennial proposal there as is, but it could be very useful.

-Jeff


from_name: Vee

body:
On 26/03/07, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/26/07, Vee <vee.be.me at gmail.com> wrote:
> > From the forum:
> >
> > Larry Sanger: "The conclusion you are trying to establish is that we
> cannot
> > relicense our versions of Wikipedia articles with GFDL and CC.  Why not?
> > Does the GFDL explicitly forbid licensing works under another license in
> > addition?"
> >
> > Is he seriously suggesting that they can basically just license our
> works
> > under whatever license they please as long as they also license it under
> the
> > GFDL?
> >
> > I can't believe they've gone 'live' without even sorting out basic
> copyright
> > issues... CZ is a joke.
>
> It's baffling that the founder of this project has only a cursory
> knowledge of copyright, less than an experienced wikipedia editor.
>
> However, what bothers me the most isn't necessarily the legalities,
> but the ethics of what they are doing. Wikipedia is a proud member of
> the free content movement, and we give our content away for free for
> others to use. We believe it is The Right Thing to Do. We didn't have
> to do it, but we did. They would like to take that content that we
> produced, modify it slightly, and then not release their content in
> the same way we have. Even though we did the majority of the work.
>
> It's an absolute disgrace. The contributors to Citizendium should feel
> ashamed about what their founder and fellow editors are saying. I know
> I would, if I were in that situation.
>
> --Oskar
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

You've summed up exactly how I feel here. I don't care so much that CZ is
copypasting from Wikipedia, per se, but that (from what I have read on their
site) they are trying to do it in such a way that we won't be able to take
back from them if we should want to. It's disgusting to think that they are
trying to get a lift off the backs of hard-working Wikipedia editors without
having to credit them for their work or use their work in the way it was
intended. It's totally against the spirit of what we're trying to do here
and is very underhanded and well, plain wrong. When I first heard of CZ I
thought that it sounded like an interesting and potentially useful project
but the more I see and hear of the attitudes of Larry Sanger and (it seems)
a lot of the editors there, the more I think that it's ultimately going to
fail. I hope that Sanger finds away to move on from his anti-Wikipedia
grudge and considers things from the perspective of improving Citizendium,
not harming Wikipedia.

As for their current licensing status, according to the site:

 Articles that originated in part from Wikipedia are available under GNU
Free Documentation License 1.2 <http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html>.
All new articles will be available under an open content license yet to be
determined.

It's good that Wikipedia articles are going to keep their GFDL license, but
I guess it remains to be seen if they're going to try to multi-license.


from_name: Keith Old

body:
G'day folks,

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Radio National has posted audio
and a podcast of Jimmy Wales speaking on 21 March.

http://abc.net.au/rn/australiatalks/stories/2007/1876878.htm

Crikey advises us that one of the callers Peter from Melbourne was former
Anglican Archbishop and Governor-General of Australia. I understand that
Hollingworth didn't advise of who he was. Unfortunately, you are required to
pay a fee to access it.

Our article on Hollingworth gives some idea of the exchange.

*I have a particular question and I am very glad that Jimmy Wales is there.
It is related to the biographical entries ? I would just be interested to
know how all of those things are managed because to speak personally on it.
I found an entry on me at one stage which I found offensive and inaccurate
and it had been put on there by someone I had never heard of and I purely by
accident found it when someone else told me that I should check it out. Now
I fully support the whole idea of the democratisation of knowledge that's
the best thing we can do for everybody ? but there is still ? is the
question how you balance this out with truth and accuracy. Now in this
particular case I think the problem arose because the person who put the
entry in simply took the information from various newspapers who had got it
wrong in the first place so you have one falsehood being reinforced by
another and another ? and I am just wondering and a question to Jimmy Wales
is ? do you have any responsibility for that and what would you do for
example if somebody decided to sue you for libel?*
**
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hollingworth
**
The presenter, Paul
Barclay<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Barclay&action=edit>,
challenged the caller on whether he was Hollingworth. Hollingworth admitted
he was. Wales indicated that Wikipedia had never been sued and that it was
very careful to ensure that all biographies of living people were accurate.

Regards

*Keith Old*


from_name: Oskar Sigvardsson

subject: [WikiEN-l] Are newspapers reliable resources?

body:
One incorrect story in one newspaper from 1912 doesn't invalidate the
entire industry. Newspapers are like any other sources, and we should
preferably have several, but as a whole they are rather decent.


list: textbook-l

from_name: Robert Horning

subject: [Textbook-l] Wikibooks is no more

body:
Well, I'm sure it is a minor glitch with the dev team, but it looks like
Wikibooks disappeared from the Wikimedia projects list briefly today.

I'm sure there is an interesting story behind this, as not all Wikimedia
projects are affected.

-- Robert Horning


subject: [WikiEN-l] Out of process deletions

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:

>On 3/26/07, Ron Ritzman <ritzman at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Also, I have a hard time imagining a situation where it is absolutely
>>impossible to purge POV from the bio of an otherwise notable person
>>without nuking the article.
>>
>>
>But is that the point? If a credible legal threat it made, we might as
>well just delete the thing first and ask questions later. No single
>article is worth getting sued over - whether the Foundation would win
>the case or not.
>
This all depends on what you mean by a "credible" legal threat.  Bauer
has gone beyond the threat stage, but was her threat credible in the
first place?  There comes a point where a person has to take a stand or
be forever backpeddling.  Litigious people are well aware that most of
the population is deatly afraid of being sued, and have no compunctions
about taking advantage of the fact.

Ec


from_name: Jeff V. Merkey

subject: [Wikitech-l] $wgLegalTitleChars vs. 20070206 XML Dumps

body:
Hi Brion,

I have completed my analysis of the latest breakage in the XML Dumps
with importDump failing with the enwiki-20070206
XML Dump and it appears to be related to improper rendering of wiki text
markup titles () when the dumps are rendered
from sql to xml from the Wikimedia sites.

Here is an example of the article title in question that uses characters
outside of wgLegalTitleChars as they are defined by
default in MediaWiki 1.9.3:

Article Link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C2%B2-irreducible

Wiki Text:

In [[mathematics]], a [[3-manifold]] is '''P2-irreducible'''
if it is [[irreducible (mathematics)|irreducible]] and contains no
[[2-sided]] <math>\mathbb RP^2</math> ([[real projective plane]]).

Article Title in enwiki-20070206 XML Dump File:
2698249:Image:Tripitaka storage2.jpg
2698250:Natalie Golda
2698251:Image:Big Passage outside Ampleforth College Library.jpg
2698252:Canine infectious hepatitis
2698253:P?-irreducible                           <-- article title
causes importDump.php to fail
2698254:Image:Zebra sideview.jpg
2698255:Amy Freed
2698256:El cubano libre
2698257:Aujezky's disease virus
2698258:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive92
2698259:Aujezky's disease

I have corrected this by basically allowing any characters of any kind
to appear in titles.

i.e. $wgLegalTitleChars = "\\x0-\\xFF"

 It may be a good idea to instrument a title filter and render these
characters not included in the default MediaWiki setup as utf8 strings
in the future and sidestep the perpetual breakage of importDump.php with
the standard dumps provided by the foundation.

I will update the pages on meta with this information on how to get
around all of the problems with importDump.php based on the current
state of the XML dumps.  One good thing came out of it.  I managed to
get some very comprehensive C based tools written that can analyze all
of these errors and determine where in the XML dumps the problems seem
to originate from.

Jeff


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Some rambling thoughts on Citizendium

body:
On 3/26/07, bobolozo <bobolozo at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Look at the top of any of their pages,
> and you see "The world needs a better free
> encyclopedia".  Better than what?  Better than
> Wikipedia, of course.

Don't forget the EB 1911. Quite a nice if slightly POV and dated free
encyclopedia.

--
geni


list: foundation-l

subject:
[Foundation-l] Wikireader (was re: Wikimania 2007 Team Bulletin,
	March 25, 2007)

body:
Florence Devouard wrote:
> Hsiang-Tai Chien wrote:
>
>
>> 5. WikiReader editing begins
>>
>> The editing for WikiReader on Wikimania 2007 now also begins and is planned
>> to be delivered to the attendees when Wikimania is been held in August 3-5,
>> 2007.
>>
>
> Hello
>
> Can you tell us more about what this wikireader is about and what you
> are looking for in terms of volunteer jobs ?
>
> Thanks
>
> Ant
>

A "wikireader", at least as I've seen it used in context, is a
collection of Wikipedia articles centered around a specific topic like
Chemistry, Astronomy, or a historical topic like the "Napoleanic Wars".
de.wikipedia has been doing this for some time, but it hasn't been done
in any other languages, including English.

I've asked some very hard and pointed questions about this on
en.wikipedia, but I havn't been satisfied with the answers.  At the very
least, I would hope that this process is a little more open than it has
been so far.  That some discussions about this are going to happen at
Wikimania is encouraging, but there are several individuals like myself
who can't get to Taipei and would still like to participate in these
discussions.

-- Robert Horning


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikimedia Foundation sued

body:
On 3/26/07, Cary Bass <cbass at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> Cary Bass wrote:
> > I will say this much.  In a cursory review of the situation, nothing
> should
> > be done with regard to the restoration of this article until the
> Wikimedia
> > Foundation office has had a chance to look at it in an official
> capacity; no
> > matter what consensus Deletion Review may encounter.  This will occur
> some
> > time after 13h00 (UTC) Monday, March 26, when the office is open.
> >
> > Discussion aside, without being able to discuss the matter from a legal
> > standpoint, there's no case in restoring the article with the
> questionable
> > content.
> >
> > Cary Bass
> > ---
> > ~ bastique
> >
> I wanted to follow up with my email from last night.  If anyone is
> waiting for any official word from the office, as far as we're
> concerned, unless something changes, there will be none.
>
> Thanks,
> Cary Bass
> ---
> ~ bastique

Does the lack of a final word from the office mean you will approach this
the same way the Science Fiction Writers of America handle complaints by
Barbara Bauer?

Mgm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikimedia Foundation sued

body:
On 3/26/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
Does the lack of a final word from the office mean you will approach this
the same way the Science Fiction Writers of America handle complaints by
Barbara Bauer?

---
Also, I forgot to ask, does this mean the office has no opinion about the
deletion of the article?

Mgm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Out of process deletions

body:
The legal team doesn't seem to be worried as I thought they would react.
There's nothing inappropriate about the article.

Mgm

On 3/26/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
>
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Ron Ritzman [mailto:ritzman at gmail.com]
> >Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 07:14 AM
> >To: 'English Wikipedia'
> >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Out of process deletions
> >
> >On 3/26/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The message that started this thread quoted a message from the Barbara
> Bauer
> >> situation. It may look and sound malicious to the untrained eye and ear
> at
> >> first glance, but anyone who dives deeper into the material will find
> all of
> >> the sources are truthfull and reliable.
> >
> >The deleting admin didn't think so. If my idea was in effect and the
> >foundation didn't have the Bauer article in limbo, then you, if an
> >admin, could have restored it and that would have been the end of the
> >story as far as super fast ultra-speedy deletes are concerned. The
> >"truthfullness" and "reliability" of the sources could then be argued
> >on AFD if necessary.
> >Also, I have a hard time imagining a situation where it is absolutely
> >impossible to purge POV from the bio of an otherwise notable person
> >without nuking the article.
>
> The "offending" information remains in the history without extensive
> oversighting which would be grossly inappropriate in this case as the
> article history is the subject of a legal action.
>
> Fred
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] ArbCom pages and Google

body:
On 26/03/07, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) <newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:

> Any such request must be addressed to the Arbitration Committee.  You can
> e-mail me a request to forward to the committee if you wish, or perhaps one
> of the arbitrators who is subscribed here will indicate that he is doing
> so.  I have no view on the merits of such request but obviously as clerk
> will implement any changes authorized by the committee.

Emailing an arbitrator or a clerk will get email to the AC, and
there's the direct address, arbcom-l - the list is moderated, but
basically anything from a human is let straight through (and the
buckets of spam aren't).

- d.


body:
On 3/26/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:

> Makes me want to code up a new user permission bit to let people look
> at deleted edits without having to get full admin rights, in my
> nonexistent spare time...

And how would it be decided which ordinary mortals get the bit?. A pox
on your propeller beanie if you say "edit count". :)


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] [Possible spam]Re:  Out of process deletions

body:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 09:13:53 -0700, "Matthew Brown" <morven at gmail.com>
wrote:

>IF a Wikipedia article is to exist on this person at all, it should
>certainly mention that ... distinction ... and I don't see anything
>wrong with quoting the SFWA on the matter - in fact, better to have it
>in their own words than ours.
>On the other hand, is it enough for an article?  Quite possibly not.

Yes, exactly that.  We should not be scared of reporting what the
sources say, just because litigious individuals threaten us.  What we
should do is to make sure that everything in the article is attributed
to the best source possible and stated in the most neutral terms.

If you go to court and say that so-and-so reported that the Foo
Society called you a charlatan, then over here at least the fact that
the Foo Foundation /did/ call you a charlatan is a valid defence -
*for you*.  Not, of course, for the Foo Foundation.

I await with interest the court's interpretation of the merits of the
case.  As far as I can see she and the credulous wannabes she fleeces
almost deserve each other...

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


from_name: Matthew Brown

body:
On 3/26/07, James Farrar <james.farrar at gmail.com> wrote:
> Which means that the deleting admin acted far too hastily in speedying
> it for legal reasons. (No, I don't buy it being deleted not for legal
> reasons. There is such thing as being too much of a coincidence.)

Perhaps a "why should we keep this lawsuit-attracting crap up here" reaction?

-Matt


from_name: Karl Chen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikimedia Foundation sued

body:
We're lucky.

Why?  Because the plaintiff is a known troll.

If a competent, well-respected media darling like Seigenthaler had
sued we'd be in big trouble.

But in this case the public is on our side.

The US legal system is a game of picking battles.  A lawsuit
against WMF is inevitable so it would be great to have an easy
first battle that sets a favorable precedent.


body:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 10:19:13 -0700, "Denny Colt" <wikidenny at gmail.com>
wrote:

>Is this the first case specifically targeting WP/WMF along these lines?
>Trying to hold us liable for reporting what OTHERS said? It could be a slam
>dunk precendent for us in a good way if the Judge dismisses, right? As in,
>we aren't responsible for reporting what others said?

It would probably be unnecessary.  Previous precedent - Barrett v
Rosenthal - says that you can republish even blatantly defamatory
material, and with obvious ill intent, and still get away with it.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


from_name: Thomas Dalton

body:
> Small, but important clarification: I'm pretty sure they would be
> considered a fork or sorts, not a mirror.

Perhaps. Until they actually modify the articles, the difference is
insignificant, I think.


body:
On 3/26/07, William Pietri <william at scissor.com> wrote:

> > And how would it be decided which ordinary mortals get the bit?. A pox
> > on your propeller beanie if you say "edit count". :)

> How about those who ask and give a plausible reason?

Well, in my case sometimes it would be morbid curiosity. Example, I
see something in AFD that was firehosed after 3 votes for being
WP:BULLSHIT and want to take a look at it just for shits and giggles.
Also, I might see something that may be a no no here but would be
acceptable on Wikinfo such as well written articles containing some
OR.

Ideally a trusted user could see a deleted article without having to
ask Mommy for each one but such access could perhaps be logged.

> It sounds like we hide edits mainly to prevent the average user from
> coming across things that we'd rather not publish to the whole world.

I always assumed that it would be because there would be no point
"deleting" something if every Tom Dick and Willy on wheels could see
it anyway.

> But it seems like there's no big risk as people agree to treat the
> hidden content appropriately.

No argument here.


body:
One question: were the de.wp WikiReaders "published" (meaning that they were
done by a commercial entity and sold to the public) or not? Were the en.wp
WikiReaders "published" as well, or were they just handed out at Wikimania?
I ask this because the Version 1.0 Editorial Team is interested in picking
this up and producing commercially available WikiReaders (and several
WikiProjects have announced that they're interested in this: WikiProjects
Military History, LGBT studies and Tropical cyclones, off the top of my
head. Military History has actually begun work on this at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MILPUB . However, remembering the Lulu Press
incident, we want to make sure all our ducks are in a row.

Titoxd.

-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Angela
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 5:41 PM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikireader (was re: Wikimania 2007 Team
Bulletin,March 25, 2007)

> A "wikireader", at least as I've seen it used in context, is a
> collection of Wikipedia articles centered around a specific topic like
> Chemistry, Astronomy, or a historical topic like the "Napoleanic Wars".
> de.wikipedia has been doing this for some time, but it hasn't been done
> in any other languages, including English.

It has been done in English. One about Frankfurt was given out at the
first Wikimania.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiReader/Frankfurt

Angela

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


from_name: Matthew Woodcraft

body:
Vee wrote:
> I can't believe they've gone 'live' without even sorting out basic copyright
> issues... CZ is a joke.

It isn't so terribly shocking. After all, Wikipedia did the same.

-M-


from_name: · Firefoxman

subject: [WikiEN-l] April Fool - how to prepare for the onslaught

body:
On 3/20/07, Deathphoenix <originaldeathphoenix at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/20/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Who cares about the grammer? The actual information is wrong:
> > >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Nobody
> > >
> > > ;)
> >
> > I'm going to reply to myself before anyone beats me to it:
> >
> > Nobody has editted Wikipedia.
> >
>
> Or, better yet:
>
> The encyclopedia that Anybody can edit, but Nobody has.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

We should change the tagline for april fools to that!

--
-Firefoxman


from_name: Avi

subject: [WikiEN-l] On a lighter note for a change

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
  We are quoted in this month's issue of Focus, the Mathematical Association of America's newsletter, on page 5, for bringing a source for the term "spline".

  PDF link here: http://www.maa.org/pubs/march07web.pdf

  - --Avi
  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32) - WinPT 1.2.0
  iD8DBQFGCIFMy6A/RnheoikRAs+hAJ4lA/NMuxZrtdrjTjJqu7FkZ9BEGgCfdJwp
b67bkMzQkVhcz/E+3xHvjTY=
=6t6j
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

----
User:Avraham
pub 1024D/785EA229 3/6/2007 Avi (Wikipedia-related Key) <avi_wiki at yahoo.com>
    Primary key fingerprint:  D233 20E7 0697 C3BC 4445 7D45 CBA0 3F46 785E A229

---------------------------------
No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.


from_name: Andrew Whitworth

subject: [Textbook-l] Wikibooks is no more

body:
Yeah, I saw the problem too. went over to #wikimedia-tech and reported the
problem, Brion had it fixed in moments.

Usually, these kinds of problems only require a quick message to the techs.
Maybe we should write out some things that people can do in such an
emergency? Having a pan for these kinds of things is better then just hoping
they go away.

--Andrew Whitworth

>From: "Piotr \"Derbeth\" Kubowicz" <derbeth at wp.pl>
>Reply-To: Wikimedia textbook discussion <textbook-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>To: "Wikimedia textbook discussion" <textbook-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [Textbook-l] Wikibooks is no more
>Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 01:32:59 +0200
>
>Dnia Tue, 27 Mar 2007 01:22:51 +0200, Robert Horning napisa?(a):
>
> > Well, I'm sure it is a minor glitch with the dev team, but it looks like
> > Wikibooks disappeared from the Wikimedia projects list briefly today.
> >
> > I'm sure there is an interesting story behind this, as not all Wikimedia
> > projects are affected.
> >
> > -- Robert Horning
>
>Reload the main page, should be working now. Tech people say it was only an
>accident. Wikinews were down as well for some time.
>
>--
>Piotr 'Derbeth' Kubowicz
>Jabber id: derbeth at jabber.wp.pl
>
>Pom?? Wikibooks stworzy? najwi?kszy zbi?r otwartych podr?cznik?w!
>http://pl.wikibooks.org/
>
>Opera - the fastest browser on Earth! http://www.opera.com/
>
>_______________________________________________
>Textbook-l mailing list
>Textbook-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l

_________________________________________________________________
Live Search Maps ? find all the local information you need, right when you
need it. http://maps.live.com/?icid=hmtag2&FORM=MGAC01


body:
On 26/03/07, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:

> All of this said, I believe Larry had a conversation with some
> higher-ups in the free content movement, and some of his
> misconceptions were cleared up.  But he still thinks it might be a
> good idea to license Citizendium created content under CC-BY-NC (or is
> it CC-BY-NC-SA, he doesn't seem to understand the difference).

Does anything with NC count as an open content licence? It certainly
doesn't for Wikimedia purposes.

- d.


from_name: Simetrical

subject:
[Wikitech-l] [MediaWiki-CVS] SVN: [20707]
	trunk/phase3/includes/Metadata.php

body:
On 3/26/07, Brion Vibber <brion at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> simetrical at svn.wikimedia.org wrote:
> > +     if( !isset($_SERVER['HTTP_ACCEPT']) ) {
> > +             $_SERVER['HTTP_ACCEPT'] = '';
> > +     }
>
> Please don't mess with system variables!
>
> Leave it be and only check when you read it.

Sorry, good point.


from_name: Andrew Gray

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Bauer DRV question - history (was Wikimedia
	Foundation sued)

body:
On 26/03/07, Denny Colt <wikidenny at gmail.com> wrote:
> About the current DRV... is there a reason why the article's history is
> still obfuscated? Makes it hard for non-admins to judge/evaluate fairly. I
> see people saying "RS were there" and others saying "No RS was there", but I
> recall seeing some. However, it's currently just the word of people who can
> see it against all else...
>
> Shouldn't it be restored?

Well, the point of a deletion review is to decide whether or not the
article should be undeleted. Surely undeleting it in order to decide
to undelete it seems a bit odd...

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


from_name: Rob Church

subject: [Wikitech-l] [MediaWiki-CVS] SVN: [20709] trunk/phase3

body:
On 26/03/07, raymond at svn.wikimedia.org <raymond at svn.wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Revision: 20709
> Author:   raymond
> Date:     2007-03-26 09:46:13 -0800 (Mon, 26 Mar 2007)

>     trunk/phase3/includes/SpecialLog.php

Hmm, I'm not sure that altering core code to refer to extension code
is the right means to go about dealing with this.

Rob Church


body:
On 26/03/07, Denny Colt <wikidenny at gmail.com> wrote:

> > Well, the point of a deletion review is to decide whether or not the
> > article should be undeleted. Surely undeleting it in order to decide
> > to undelete it seems a bit odd...
>
> I'd seen some DRVs where the article history (but not the article, which
> stayed locked as that protected stub page) was restored for the duration of
> the DRV so people could judge. is that an exception then? what makes
> something qualify for that?

Most deletion, it doesn't really matter if the history is visible or
not - it's not that the article is damaging as such, we just don't
want it as part of Wikipedia. In this case, though, the deletion was
(asserted to be) because the history was actually defamatory; if this
is the case, we actively don't want to continue publishing it.
Deleting libellous material, and then undeleting it so lots more
people can read it, is conceptually a bit sloppy.

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


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

body:
On 3/26/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> Does anything with NC count as an open content licence? It certainly
> doesn't for Wikimedia purposes.

Depends on the definition you are using. Under debian's no but then
they (rightfully) reject pure GFDL as well.

Under Lawrence Lessig's definition they probably do

Under FSF's definition they don't but then FSF doesn't appear to have
a problem with ND licenses for text.

Under the wikimedia commons definition (which is defacto the wikimedia
definition) they don't (although like debian it looks like we are
going to accept the 3.0 generation of CC licences in the end unless
something changes).

--
geni


body:
On 3/26/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, the point of a deletion review is to decide whether or not the
> article should be undeleted. Surely undeleting it in order to decide
> to undelete it seems a bit odd...

It depends. If the decision is pure process based then undeletion
would be unusual. If it is content of the article based the undeletion
is used from time to time.

--
geni


body:
On 26/03/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> DRV is to determine if we want to undelete it permanently (as far as things
> can be permanent in a wiki world). It's impossible to judge if something
> should stay deleted without being able to see it.
>
> The history isn't defamatory. Whatever gave you that idea? I want someone to

I did not say it was defamatory. I said it was asserted to as
defamatory. As there is A LAWSUIT CLAIMING THIS, I can't possibly
imagine how anyone got the idea that the content might be dubious.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Out of process deletions

body:
On 3/26/07, Cary Bass <cbass at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
> > The legal team doesn't seem to be worried as I thought they would react.
> > There's nothing inappropriate about the article.
> >
> > Mgm
> >
> >
>
> Please don't make assumptions.  The fact that the office has no opinion
> at this time about the article does not earn it a magic "Seal of
> Approval".  It still must qualify based on English Wikipedia standards,
> and, from what I've seen, it fails those.
>
> Cary Bass
> ---
> ~bastique

My bad I wasn't implying a connection. They were supposed to be two
unrelated observations.


body:
On 3/26/07, Denny Colt <wikidenny at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/26/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> >
> > I await with interest the court's interpretation of the merits of the
> > case.
> >
> Guy (JzG)
>
>
> Is this the first case specifically targeting WP/WMF along these lines?
> Trying to hold us liable for reporting what OTHERS said? It could be a
> slam
> dunk precendent for us in a good way if the Judge dismisses, right? As in,
> we aren't responsible for reporting what others said?
>
> --
> - Denny

The judge won't need to dismiss the case. Either Bauer retracts it, or she
goes through with it and Writer Beware puts together a defense that gets her
convicted. They already helped authorities get Martha Ivery convicted. They
have plenty of documentation on Barbara Bauer. It's in her best interest not
to let this get to court.

Mgm


from_name: xaosflux

subject: [Wikitech-l] Bug9326 / r20571

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

This was my first bug report, it appears to be resovled, but not
implemented.  What is the next step in the release cycle?

Thank you,
en: xaosflux

re:
http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9326
- ------- Additional Comments From JSchulz_4587 at msn.com  2007-03-21
09:44 UTC -------
Done in r20571.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.2

iQA/AwUBRghrItRQDZCQNK6YEQIN0QCgreLG5deW7Y7j/XB2cQ9pJ/0FIRkAnAgG
968cx7B4QxblcHzAQaiREbe7
=HIDx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Emmanuel Maggiori

subject: [Wikipedia-l] New language

body:
Hello, I'm interested in adding a new language go Wikipedia. I would like to know what is what I have to do. Thank you very much.

Emmanuel Maggiori


from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Quiz extension

body:
Lrbabe's Quiz extension has been enabled on all Wikiversity wikis.

Documentation: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Quiz


body:
DRV is to determine if we want to undelete it permanently (as far as things
can be permanent in a wiki world). It's impossible to judge if something
should stay deleted without being able to see it.

The history isn't defamatory. Whatever gave you that idea? I want someone to
actually say which source is unreliable. Anyone who knows how the writing
business works knows what she did is a scam and calling it that isn't
defamatory.

Mgm

On 3/26/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 26/03/07, Denny Colt <wikidenny at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Well, the point of a deletion review is to decide whether or not the
> > > article should be undeleted. Surely undeleting it in order to decide
> > > to undelete it seems a bit odd...
> >
> > I'd seen some DRVs where the article history (but not the article, which
> > stayed locked as that protected stub page) was restored for the duration
> of
> > the DRV so people could judge. is that an exception then? what makes
> > something qualify for that?
>
> Most deletion, it doesn't really matter if the history is visible or
> not - it's not that the article is damaging as such, we just don't
> want it as part of Wikipedia. In this case, though, the deletion was
> (asserted to be) because the history was actually defamatory; if this
> is the case, we actively don't want to continue publishing it.
> Deleting libellous material, and then undeleting it so lots more
> people can read it, is conceptually a bit sloppy.
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
> andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
On 26/03/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:

> Under the wikimedia commons definition (which is defacto the wikimedia
> definition) they don't (although like debian it looks like we are
> going to accept the 3.0 generation of CC licences in the end unless
> something changes).

I thought we were accepting the variants that were free licenses, e.g.
the US version but not the FR version.

- d.


from_name: Raimond Spekking

body:
Rob Church schrieb:
> Hmm, I'm not sure that altering core code to refer to extension code
> is the right means to go about dealing with this.

The only change to core code is an additional check for existing
loglines from newuser extension. These lines remain in the log even if
the extension will be disabled in the future.

So I hope it's not too bad to evaluate the log in core.

Raymond.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20070326/683f413d/attachment.pgp>


from_name: geni

body:
On 3/26/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> I thought we were accepting the variants that were free licenses, e.g.
> the US version but not the FR version.

Currently accepting none. The conversation appears to have died out
for the time being.

--
geni


from_name: Ron Ritzman

subject: [WikiEN-l] Out of process deletions

body:
On 3/26/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:

> > Also, I have a hard time imagining a situation where it is absolutely
> > impossible to purge POV from the bio of an otherwise notable person
> > without nuking the article.

> But is that the point? If a credible legal threat it made, we might as
> well just delete the thing first and ask questions later. No single
> article is worth getting sued over - whether the Foundation would win
> the case or not.

Such cases are why we unfortunately have the  necessary evil that is WP:OFFICE.


from_name: Dycedarg

body:
On 3/26/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:

> Thanks for this suggestion, Oskar. My eyes tend to glaze over when a
> particular paragraph contains many of these initials. I was thinking of
> making a suggestion that someone familiar with all (or at least most) of
> these initials create a Glossary of them.
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Marc Riddell
>

There's already a list of shortcuts at [[WP:WP]], and since all the TLAs we
have are shortcuts it's pretty much the same thing. But there are so very
many of them, that you're really better served by just typing the shortcut
into the search box and seeing what comes up.

--

Dycedarg


from_name: Nick Wilkins

body:
On 3/26/07, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:

> I don't see any particular problem with that.  The Admins know what they
> are doing.

... woah.

That's quite the statement.  We've apparently come quite far from the idea
that adminship is no big deal.  Not that I have a problem with that, per se,
but telling non-admins to trust "the Admins" with policy decisions is
something that seems a major departure from previous practice here.

-- Jonel


subject: [WikiEN-l] Out of process deletions

body:
On 3/26/07, James Farrar <james.farrar at gmail.com> wrote:

> And in the absence of an Office intervention, surely an admin speedily
> deleting an article that has already failed an AfD is acting beyond
> his powers?

If you are talking about the Barbara Bauer article, the AFD on that
was closed "keep". These are the previous AFDs on "Daniel Brandt"
which a recent "out of process" delete ignited a wheel war...

Keep AFD 2 March 2007
Speedy close, AFD 23 February 2007
Keep, AFD 28 December 2006
Speedy keep, AFD 12 August 2006
Speedy keep, AFD 13 July 2006
Snowball keep, AFD 19 June 2006
Speedy keep, AFD 10 June 2006
Speedy keep, AFD 5 June 2006
Invalid, AFD 13 April 2006
Speedy keep, AFD 12 April 2006
Snowball keep, AFD 05 April 2006
Keep, AFD 13 November 2005
Speedy keep, AFD 07 November 2005

The "office" is the only way that one's going away.


body:
On 26/03/07, stevertigo <stvrtg at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/26/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Most deletion, it doesn't really matter if the history is visible or
> > not - it's not that the article is damaging as such, we just don't
> > want it as part of Wikipedia. In this case, though, the deletion was
> > (asserted to be) because the history was actually defamatory; if this
> > is the case, we actively don't want to continue publishing it.
> > Deleting libellous material, and then undeleting it so lots more
> > people can read it, is conceptually a bit sloppy.
>
> This is a circular argument, and one that seems prejudiced toward deletion.
> And you don't actually give the reason for this prejudice until your next email:

Er. It's not "prejudiced towards deletion", it's prejudiced against
*not continuing to publish defamatory material unless we have to*. And
I note I said "the deletion was (asserted to be) because the history
was actually defamatory"; I'm not sure how this is "hiding my
prejudice".

> > I did not say it was defamatory. I said it was asserted to as
> > defamatory. As there is A LAWSUIT CLAIMING THIS, I can't possibly
> > imagine how anyone got the idea that the content might be dubious.
>
> In this case, because the removal is based on a fear of WP:SUIT, it should be
> an OFFICE action, and not a deletion. Not that I think office actions
> are a legitimate
> way of editing, nor do I think that a fear or SUIT is a healthy
> attitude, but the point is
> is that if its a WP process, this notion of sanitizing content in a
> prejudicial way is unwiki
> and against the community spirit.

I have honestly no idea what that alphabet soup of things meant; as
far as I know the Office has no opinion on this and is firmly staying
that way, at least until actual papers turn up.

Perhaps I should be crystal clear here. My opinion is that this is a
non-objectionable article, on someone who is a) non-notable and b) a
scammer pretty much as described in loving detail by TNH et. al. I
don't feel we are at any legal risk should we continue to publish it,
but I am ambivalent as to whether or not our notability policies say
we should keep it. (In short: I don't give a damn. Please note my not
participating in the deletion debate)

However, some people are. There have been issues raised with the
article; people are arguing in good faith that it was an attack page,
potentially libellous, what have you. This is why we don't undelete;
because if those people are right, undeleting it would be wilfuly
stupid, deliberately continuing publication after initial decision to
remove. You can go look at the google cache if you want to see what it
looked like - it's still there, IIRC...

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


from_name: Marc Riddell

body:
on 3/26/07 9:51 PM, Oskar Sigvardsson at oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com wrote:

> On 3/27/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>> I appreciate the sentiment behind trying to deal with this problem,
>> since I often encounter abbreciations on this list that I need to puzzle
>> over before giving my best guess.  I don't think the hard line approach
>> will help them.  It's just not a winnable battle.
>>
>> Ec
>
> What I do is that I simply put in "WP:" plus the abbreviation/acronym
> in the search box and click Go. That will pretty much always give you
> the right answer. Take ASF, for instance. WP:ASF leads to the Avoid
> Self Reference policy page.
>
> --Oskar

Thanks for this suggestion, Oskar. My eyes tend to glaze over when a
particular paragraph contains many of these initials. I was thinking of
making a suggestion that someone familiar with all (or at least most) of
these initials create a Glossary of them.

Thanks again,

Marc Riddell


from_name: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Radical redefinition of OR

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote

> We never know whether we will find the key source in the
> next place that we look.  Fermat's Last Theorem remained unproven for
> three centuries because nobody could find the killer counterexample.

No, because no one could find a proof. We _now_ know that was the reason.

> Until recently the only available sources for writing about the Crusades
> were European ones.

The Receuil des historiens des croisades (1881 onwards) included Arabic language sources in translation. Amin Maalouf's book mentions at least one other 1890s translation. 'Only' is certainly wrong.

Charles

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


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:

>On 3/27/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I appreciate the sentiment behind trying to deal with this problem,
>>since I often encounter abbreciations on this list that I need to puzzle
>>over before giving my best guess.  I don't think the hard line approach
>>will help them.  It's just not a winnable battle.
>>
>>
>What I do is that I simply put in "WP:" plus the abbreviation/acronym
>in the search box and click Go. That will pretty much always give you
>the right answer. Take ASF, for instance. WP:ASF leads to the Avoid
>Self Reference policy page.
>
Actually not.  WP:ASR does.  I would still be puzzling over ASF.  ;-)

Ec


from_name: Daniel R. Tobias

subject: [WikiEN-l] Out of process deletions

body:
On 27 Mar 2007 at 11:13, "Steve Bennett" <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:

> But is that the point? If a credible legal threat it made, we might as
> well just delete the thing first and ask questions later. No single
> article is worth getting sued over - whether the Foundation would win
> the case or not.

But if we take that attitude, then anybody who wants to suppress
anything will just have to make such a 'credible legal threat',
knowing that we'll roll over and play dead.  Sometimes it's necessary
to take a stand on principle.

On a different but related matter, I notice that on the talk page of
the admin who deleted the article there's this gem:

The fact that the project is apparently being sued by the subject (a
fact I had no knowledge of when I deleted) makes the recklessness of
trying to undelete this mindbogglingly stupid. Frankly, anyone who is
seriously wanting to fight this one should be hard-banned as a total
liability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doc_glasgow

So, apparently all of us who have the temerity to disagree with him
on this ought to be banned from Wikipedia.  Maybe some of the critics
are right about there being fascistic tendencies among some of the
admins.

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


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

body:
"David Gerard" wrote

> As I understand from your Guardian piece, your theory is more or less
> (and correct me word by word as needed): Wikipedia is a cult of
> Jimbo's personality, where he gets everyone to write stuff for him for
> free, so that he can profit from it using Wikia. Please correct and/or
> expand as needed; alternately, actually flesh out your theory from the
> one-line synopsis.

Mmmm, this all seems to be an expansion of the Charles Arthur theory (that WP ought to be a source of innocent amusement, at least, with all that eager beavering and evangelism). I'm on goodish terms with C. Arthur, and have never thought that his musings were hostile. (He's Grauniad Technology Editor.)

Charles

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


body:
On 26/03/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:

> > I did not say it was defamatory. I said it was asserted to as
> > defamatory. As there is A LAWSUIT CLAIMING THIS, I can't possibly
> > imagine how anyone got the idea that the content might be dubious.
>
> So all you have to do to get an article you don't like deleted is file a
> lawsuit? You probably should keep that a secret or a lot of people are gonna
> take you up on that.

I think you will find I did not say that. Please keep your strawmen to yourself.

The lawsuit brought it swiftly to people's attention. Then...

14:56, 25 March 2007 Doc glasgow (Talk | contribs | block) deleted
"Barbara Bauer" (per WP:BLP article is a bloody disgrace. Full of
'allegations" of who said what on message boards . No mainstream media
interest.)

I note the absence of "OMG we're getting sued quick run" as a reason there.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Radical redefinition of OR

body:
Delirium write

>Gathering, interpreting, cross-referencing, and
> checking the validity of the primary sources on an individual like, say,
> Thomas Jefferson, in order to write a biography about him, is original
> historical research, and best left to reputable historians.

Right, well put. We 'sift' in writing articles, inevitably, but we 'settle' nothing. This aspect of NPOV, excluding too much source criticism, has probably been neglected.

Charles

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Out of process deletions

body:
On 3/26/07, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:

> On a different but related matter, I notice that on the talk page of
> the admin who deleted the article there's this gem:
>
> The fact that the project is apparently being sued by the subject (a
> fact I had no knowledge of when I deleted) makes the recklessness of
> trying to undelete this mindbogglingly stupid. Frankly, anyone who is
> seriously wanting to fight this one should be hard-banned as a total
> liability.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doc_glasgow
>
> So, apparently all of us who have the temerity to disagree with him
> on this ought to be banned from Wikipedia.  Maybe some of the critics
> are right about there being fascistic tendencies among some of the
> admins.

No, what we have is one admin who can't even conceive of the
possibility that he may be wrong about something.


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

body:
"Steve Bennett" wrote
> When someone can come up with a reasonable policy that can
> distinguish between dictionary entries and encyclopaedia entries,
> without using the self-referential terms "dictionary definition" or
> "encyclopaedic", then perhaps it will serve some purpose.

Is is so bad? A dicdef is in some sense a kind of stub. The problem comes when it is incapable of being more than that. If [[ouch]] were just an article saying it was an exclamation associated with feeling pain, then that would be a valid criticism.

Charles

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


from_name: jkelly at fas.harvard.edu

subject: [WikiEN-l]  Personal comments (was:Out of process deletions)

body:
 Hi,

 Regarding:

> On 3/26/07, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:

> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doc_glasgow
> >
> > So, apparently all of us who have the temerity to disagree with him
> > on this ought to be banned from Wikipedia.  Maybe some of the critics
> > are right about there being fascistic tendencies among some of the
> > admins.

Quoting Ron Ritzman <ritzman at gmail.com>:

> No, what we have is one admin who can't even conceive of the
> possibility that he may be wrong about something.

  I'd like to invite people with a problem with a specific user to address it
somewhere other than the mailing list, or at the very least to do it in a way
that is less demeaning.

  Thanks for considering it,

               Jkelly


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Bauer DRV question - history (was
 Wikimedia	Foundation sued)

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>Denny Colt wrote:
>
>
>> Unfortunately since no one but admins can see the stuff in question
>>
>>
>now, any
>
>
>>non-admins have been unfairly (in violation of policy?) removed from any
>>decision making here that is of real value... I "recall" seeing RS on the
>>article before it went away, but if someone challenged me on that--what do I
>>say? "Sorry, can't see it/confirm"?
>>
>>Basically any non-admin is now excluded from the DRV after Doc Glasgow
>>speedied it unless someone restores the history for us.
>>
>>
>I don't see any particular problem with that.  The Admins know what they
>are doing.
>
So do a lot of others who have put in a lot of time without ever having
bothered to become an admin.

Ec


from_name: Jeffrey V. Merkey

body:
>The default in 1.9.x is:
>
>$wgLegalTitleChars =
>" %!\"$&'()*,\\-.\\/0-9:;=?@A-Z\\\\^_`a-z~\\x80-\\xFF+";
>
>This includes all multibyte characters due to the \x80-\xFF range near the
>end, including your example "?". The value used on Wikimedia is identical
>to the default except for the order of characters in the class:
>
>$wgLegalTitleChars =
>"+ %!\"$&'()*,\\-.\\/0-9:;=?@A-Z\\\\^_`a-z~\\x80-\\xFF";
>
>Did you perhaps accidentally remove the \x80-\xFF range at some stage?
>
>
>
>
No, I did not remove it.  I am re-running importDump with the debug
logging enabled and a debugger.  It appears the
problem is more involved than previously reported, which is why I
delayed on updating the
fix to the data dumps page on meta.  I am re-reunning the program to
debug further, modifying the title chars fixed one title
only for another to crash further down in the dump.   It takes several
hours to get to the point in the dump I am seeing the corruption and error,
Should crash in another 30 minutes or so again so I can post morten it
again.

Jeff


subject: [WikiEN-l] Out of process deletions

body:
Stephen Bain wrote:

>On 3/27/07, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Even ignoring the fact that en's inclusion policies on articles like
>>this are a load of crap, it passes the most stringent proposed ones.
>>It has multiple non-trivial mentions in reputable sources (SFWA and
>>Making Light), the sources are all reputable (her website is a valid
>>primary source for information on her). There's a reason it
>>overwhelmingly survived an AfD last year.
>>
>>
>But is it NPOV?
>
>That's the key concern with biographies of living persons. A BLP can
>be impeccably sourced, but if it only presents one side of the
>story...
>
>In my experience doing OTRS work from time to time, a large proportion
>of problematic BLPs are (fairly) well sourced, but they are
>nevertheless not NPOV.
>
I presume that the POV that you mean is one that is not too flattering
to the subject.  If the article really is so unbalanced that the subject
complains, the first line of action could be to ask them what might be
added to restore the balance.

Ec


body:
> On 3/26/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for this suggestion, Oskar. My eyes tend to glaze over when a
>> particular paragraph contains many of these initials. I was thinking of
>> making a suggestion that someone familiar with all (or at least most) of
>> these initials create a Glossary of them.
>>
>> Thanks again,
>>
>> Marc Riddell
>>
>
on 3/26/07 10:52 PM, Dycedarg at darthvader1219 at gmail.com wrote:

> There's already a list of shortcuts at [[WP:WP]], and since all the TLAs we
> have are shortcuts it's pretty much the same thing. But there are so very
> many of them, that you're really better served by just typing the shortcut
> into the search box and seeing what comes up.

Thank you.

Marc
>


from_name: SonOfYoungwood at aol.com

body:
I'm not jumping ship. Wikipedia hasn't driven me away  yet.

************************************** AOL now offers free email to everyone.
 Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.


from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Foundation-l] Language Prevention Committee created

body:
...

It's a nice policy.

I'm sure the moon would be a pleasant place to live, if only I could
get there and had a supply of water and oxygen and food.

Mark

On 26/03/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> On 3/26/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > You have to appreciate that by having a committee, a committee that spends a
> > lot of time to come up with some sensible policies, they have to have a
> > certain authority because only this will make things move forward. The
> > requirement of the message files has  been communicated on many occasions.
> > It is the one thing stopping projects becoming full projects.
>
> As far as Gerard and I have talked about this issue and I understand
> it, it seems like a sensible policy to me. If you want a new language,
> it should not be that difficult to at least prepare the groundwork for
> MediaWiki localization before you start. If you cannot even get that
> organized, how are you ever going to write a useful encyclopedia?
>
> --
> Peace & Love,
> Erik
>
> DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
> the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
>
> "An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
> free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

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


body:
Except that the Foundation is aware of it, and has been working side by side
with Linterweb (the people who will press and sell the Version 0.5 CDs)
throughout the entire publication preparation process. It is not run, per
se, by WMF, but WMF is, as of even right now, taking steps to see its
publication soon.

Note that there have been no talks with Linterweb about WikiReaders; there
may be, but we're way too early in the WikiReader process to even be
thinking about that.

-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Robert
Horning
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 11:05 PM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikireader (was re: Wikimania 2007 Team
Bulletin, March 25, 2007)

Titoxd at Wikimedia wrote:
> One question: were the de.wp WikiReaders "published" (meaning that they
were
> done by a commercial entity and sold to the public) or not? Were the en.wp
> WikiReaders "published" as well, or were they just handed out at
Wikimania?
> I ask this because the Version 1.0 Editorial Team is interested in picking
> this up and producing commercially available WikiReaders (and several
> WikiProjects have announced that they're interested in this: WikiProjects
> Military History, LGBT studies and Tropical cyclones, off the top of my
> head. Military History has actually begun work on this at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MILPUB . However, remembering the Lulu
Press
> incident, we want to make sure all our ducks are in a row.
>
> Titoxd
>
It is funny you mention the Lulu Press incident.  I made some comments
about that on en.wikipedia here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Featured_articles#Should_we_publ
ish_a_compilation_of_featured_articles.3F

I don't think they listened very well as there is now a website,
definitely not run by the WMF as far as I can tell, that is selling at
least the Wikipedia DVDs and possibly the Wikireaders here:

http://www.wikipediaondvd.com/

I would like to note the very extensive use of the WMF logos and
trademarks on this website, not to mention the name "wikipedia" in the URL.

I don't think they are trying to intentionally harm the WMF, but I think
some people here on this list should be aware of this issue.

-- Robert Horning

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

body:
On 3/26/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 26/03/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> > DRV is to determine if we want to undelete it permanently (as far as
> things
> > can be permanent in a wiki world). It's impossible to judge if something
> > should stay deleted without being able to see it.
> >
> > The history isn't defamatory. Whatever gave you that idea? I want
> someone to
>
> I did not say it was defamatory. I said it was asserted to as
> defamatory. As there is A LAWSUIT CLAIMING THIS, I can't possibly
> imagine how anyone got the idea that the content might be dubious.
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
> andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk

So all you have to do to get an article you don't like deleted is file a
lawsuit? You probably should keep that a secret or a lot of people are gonna
take you up on that.

Mgm


body:
On 3/26/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 26/03/07, stevertigo <stvrtg at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3/26/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Most deletion, it doesn't really matter if the history is visible or
> > > not - it's not that the article is damaging as such, we just don't
> > > want it as part of Wikipedia. In this case, though, the deletion was
> > > (asserted to be) because the history was actually defamatory; if this
> > > is the case, we actively don't want to continue publishing it.
> > > Deleting libellous material, and then undeleting it so lots more
> > > people can read it, is conceptually a bit sloppy.
> >
> > This is a circular argument, and one that seems prejudiced toward
> deletion.
> > And you don't actually give the reason for this prejudice until your
> next email:
>
> Er. It's not "prejudiced towards deletion", it's prejudiced against
> *not continuing to publish defamatory material unless we have to*. And
> I note I said "the deletion was (asserted to be) because the history
> was actually defamatory"; I'm not sure how this is "hiding my
> prejudice".
>
> > > I did not say it was defamatory. I said it was asserted to as
> > > defamatory. As there is A LAWSUIT CLAIMING THIS, I can't possibly
> > > imagine how anyone got the idea that the content might be dubious.
> >
> > In this case, because the removal is based on a fear of WP:SUIT, it
> should be
> > an OFFICE action, and not a deletion. Not that I think office actions
> > are a legitimate
> > way of editing, nor do I think that a fear or SUIT is a healthy
> > attitude, but the point is
> > is that if its a WP process, this notion of sanitizing content in a
> > prejudicial way is unwiki
> > and against the community spirit.
>
> I have honestly no idea what that alphabet soup of things meant; as
> far as I know the Office has no opinion on this and is firmly staying
> that way, at least until actual papers turn up.
>
> Perhaps I should be crystal clear here. My opinion is that this is a
> non-objectionable article, on someone who is a) non-notable and b) a
> scammer pretty much as described in loving detail by TNH et. al. I
> don't feel we are at any legal risk should we continue to publish it,
> but I am ambivalent as to whether or not our notability policies say
> we should keep it. (In short: I don't give a damn. Please note my not
> participating in the deletion debate)
>
> However, some people are. There have been issues raised with the
> article; people are arguing in good faith that it was an attack page,
> potentially libellous, what have you. This is why we don't undelete;
> because if those people are right, undeleting it would be wilfuly
> stupid, deliberately continuing publication after initial decision to
> remove. You can go look at the google cache if you want to see what it
> looked like - it's still there, IIRC...
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
> andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk

If her notability is questioned by some and this is countered by others,
it's on AFD terrain, not speedy deletion.

Mgm


from_name: Kat Walsh

subject: [Foundation-l] Foundation Licensing Policy

body:
The board has now passed its resolution on the media licensing policy,
available now at:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy

This policy is intended to reflect the principles in the message
posted earlier at
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-February/027547.html
and to make the guidelines for acceptable media licenses clearer
across all projects.

A beginning draft of an FAQ page is on Meta at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_policy_FAQ_draft -- please
add your own questions and suggest answers.

Please pass this information on to your project communities!

Cheers,
Kat Walsh

--
Wikimedia needs you: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising
* *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | (G)AIM:Mindspillage
mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net | email for phone


body:
If the lawsuit isn't important, then why did you message mentions it in BIG
BAD LETTERS?

On 3/26/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 26/03/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > I did not say it was defamatory. I said it was asserted to as
> > > defamatory. As there is A LAWSUIT CLAIMING THIS, I can't possibly
> > > imagine how anyone got the idea that the content might be dubious.
> >
> > So all you have to do to get an article you don't like deleted is file a
> > lawsuit? You probably should keep that a secret or a lot of people are
> gonna
> > take you up on that.
>
> I think you will find I did not say that. Please keep your strawmen to
> yourself.
>
> The lawsuit brought it swiftly to people's attention. Then...
>
> 14:56, 25 March 2007 Doc glasgow (Talk | contribs | block) deleted
> "Barbara Bauer" (per WP:BLP article is a bloody disgrace. Full of
> 'allegations" of who said what on message boards . No mainstream media
> interest.)
>
> I note the absence of "OMG we're getting sued quick run" as a reason
> there.
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
> andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Platonides

subject: [Wikitech-l] How to link the search result from my web site

body:
Shuren Wang wrote:
> Hello,
>
> How I link a search result from winimedia from my web site.
>
> like www.answers.com, here is an example:
> http://www.answers.com/topic/han-suyin
>
> Regards,
>
> Shuren

answers.com is paying WMF for live feeds.


from_name: Pedro Sanchez

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: [Foundation-l] Foundation Licensing Policy

body:
somebody had to forward it :P

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Kat Walsh <kat at wikimedia.org>
Date: Mar 26, 2007 9:18 PM
Subject: [Foundation-l] Foundation Licensing Policy
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>

The board has now passed its resolution on the media licensing policy,
available now at:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy

This policy is intended to reflect the principles in the message
posted earlier at
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-February/027547.html
and to make the guidelines for acceptable media licenses clearer
across all projects.

A beginning draft of an FAQ page is on Meta at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_policy_FAQ_draft -- please
add your own questions and suggest answers.

Please pass this information on to your project communities!

Cheers,
Kat Walsh

--
Wikimedia needs you: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising
* *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | (G)AIM:Mindspillage
mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net | email for phone

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l