from_name: Oldak Quill

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moldovan Wikipedia (sry)

body:
On 28/11/06, TSO1D From Wikpedia <tso1d at yahoo.com> wrote:
> First of all let me say that I appologize for mentioning this contoversial subject again, however I simply wanted to state my view on recent developments there.
>
>   I have been opposed to the existence of this encyclopedia from its inception, as I felt that it would never garner sufficient support in order to become a valuable resource, and that it would only serve as a battleground for trolls and vandals. What I have seen in recent months has only strengthened my conviction of this. It is important to note, that since the opening of the encyclopedia, not one single native speaker of Moldovan has come forward to either work on the encyclopedia or express approval for its continuation. Although some users have made sporadic edits during some odd days, for a long period, there were about 10 edits per week with Escarbot (a bot adding interwikis) being the most active contributor. Nevertheless, whenever a vote on the encyclopedia's future opens a new barrage of vandalism and edits of low quality hit Mo as new users wish to become eligible to vote and others wish to create complete chaos.
>
>   The recent vote there for an administrator has been a good indicator of how things are progressing. For a year now, not one single vote for an admin has succeeded either due to insufficient interest from qualitative users (which as I have said before are virtually non-existent) or too much activity from vandals and trolls. The last vote had to be closed by the steward Yann and the provisional administrator Pill is overwhelmed by an immense volley of vandalism (see for yourselves at http://mo.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Recentchanges&limit=500&namespace=0). Yann himself said: " If you asked me, I would close this wiki altogether, because it's just a big mess."  It is simply impossible to stabilize the situation at present and allow a continuation of constructive edits, but the prospect for either of those two things in the future is low in any case due to a lack of interested and knowledgeable users.
>
>   Also I would like to note the vote on Meta where a majority of users have voted to shut down the encyclopedia. Although the vote is not officially closed (even though it passed its intially mandated duration of 2 weeks), I believe its results are an accurate display of the community's view on the subject. Of course the majority of the votes come from users on Ro or Ru as many users voted strictly for political considerations. Nevertheless, most non-partisan users voted against Mo and all Moldovan users voted against it.
>
>   Lastly I would like to remind the community of Anthere's statement from the beginning of the year. He presented the view that most board members including Jimbo accepted the necessity to freeze the Moldovan Wikipedia and that only the technical details remained to be implemented. I do not truly know what caused this declaration to remain unfulfilled by I suggest that it be now, especially in the chaotic circumstances surrounding that encyclopedia now. If interest will rise, it will be possible to re-open Mo, and ideally at a new domain such as Mo-cyr and let work there continue. Nevertheless, in its current state, that resource cannot have any positive role as it is incapacitated by a lack of constructive users and an excess of destructive ones.
>
>   Thanks You,
>   TSO1D.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

I'm starting to get the feeling that these messages to the mailing
list are an organised campaign against mo.wikipedia.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


list: wikitech-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Single user login status

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

I'm currently doing a test run of pulling migration data from the user
tables; the slow part currently seems to be getting the edit counts.

In a day or two I'll set up test.wikipedia.org for interactive migration
testing. This will allow people to try out the UI, and give a chance to
see how it looks so we can make sure the UI translations get done soon...

- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com / brion @ wikimedia.org)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFa/UawRnhpk1wk44RAon5AJ0Z3pDD6bFbYrT0d/eVz3N485rgggCbBooe
bb49EkzvY/6qZyze3BCTz6g=
=2Rya
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


list: wikien-l

from_name: Ryan Wetherell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Community Sanction

body:
I guess the length of the ban doesn't matter in that situation, and a
more complex solution is needed.

--Ryan

On 11/27/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> So what good does an indefinite ban do in such circumstances?  A 24-hour
> ban to forestall immediate damage is warranted, but an indefinite ban
> means nothing when the person won't come back anyway.  Look at the
> time-frame of his edits.  Someone whose 15 edits are all in a very short
> period is not likely a long range problem.  Someone who has done them at
> one per week for 15 weeks, despite attempts to contact him is a
> different matter.
>
> Ec
>
> Ryan Wetherell wrote:
>
> >Assuming that those 15 edits aren't outright vandalism/trolling?
> >
> >--Ryan
> >
> >On 11/26/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On Nov 26, 2006, at 6:53 PM, George Herbert wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>So far the proposed community bans haven't been that controversial,
> >>>but it's going to happen eventually.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Handing out indefinite bans to people who have made 15 edits is
> >>controversial.
> >>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Toira

subject: [Wikitech-l] Kabyle wikipedia [2] In need of a developer

body:
I have already posted in here but I can't find my message, so I rephrase it:

The request of a kabyle wikipedia has been approved:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Requests_for_new_languages/Kabyle

We have a wiki test in the wiki.incubator:

Main page:
http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/kab/Axxam

The root page contains a List of articles:
http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/kab

We currently have (12) articles (excluding inclusions and templates).

Toira


from_name: Rob Church

subject: [Wikitech-l] Passing variables to articles

body:
On 28/11/06, Liz Kim <lizkim270 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Is there a way to pass variables into pages?
[snip]

Please don't cross-post, it's rude, and it won't get the problem
solved any quicker. The correct list for discussion on this is
mediawiki-l.

Rob Church


list: commons-l

from_name: Cool Cat

subject: [Commons-l] CommonsDelinker

body:
I'd like a master Delinker working on all wikis. I'd like delinker
spesifications. How does it delink, does it comment out and etc. Also info
on what has been done for potential abuse.
    - Cool Cat

On 11/25/06, Marco Schuster <CDL-Klever at gmx.net> wrote:
>
> Bence Damokos schrieb:
> > hi!
> > Could you please give me your username on a wiki, so I can contact you
> > privately on use on huwiki?
> > Dami
> [[:de:User:HardDisk]]
> [[:meta:User:HardDisk]]
> [[:en:User:HardDisk]]
>
> Regards,
> Marco
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20061128/a04e21ba/attachment.htm


from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject:
[WikiEN-l] "Reliable sources" guideline being treated as absolute
	policy

body:
I just noticed that when creating a new article the explanatory text
that appears before the edit area ends in this bolded line:

> Articles that do not cite reliable published sources will be deleted.

with "reliable published sources" linking to [[Wikipedia:Reliable
sources]]. The promise of deletion is given in a rather absolute manner,
but "reliable sources" is a guideline and is therefore supposed to have
flexibility in its application. Could this line's wording be changed to
something that more accurately reflects this flexibility, or perhaps
link instead to [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]]?

-------------- 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/wikien-l/attachments/20061128/c84984ec/attachment.pgp


from_name: Daniel P. B. Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] The new non-stupid wiki-en thread

body:
> From: "David Ashby" <humble.fool at gmail.com>
>
> On 11/27/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>> So, anyone greatly improved an article lately?
>>
>> Steve
>
> I've deleted about 50 or so articles, does that count?
>
> -humblefool

Arlo Guthrie tells a story about how his wife told him she had
cleaned up a stack of magazines in the garage. The next day, he says
"I was in the garage, and those magazines weren't 'cleaned,' they're
_gone._" His wife replies, "Well, you can't get much cleaner than
'gone.'"

Like the apocryphal story of Michelangelo saying "I just cut away
everything that didn't look like David," the negative space of
deleted articles shapes the positive space that looks like an
encyclopedia.


from_name: Ilmari Karonen

subject: [Wikitech-l] Special:Deletedcontribs

body:
I just hacked up a new special page for listing the deleted
contributions of a user.  This has been a commonly requested feature for
over a year, but for various reasons nothing much has been done about it
before.

The code is in svn: see
<http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki?view=rev&revision=17968>.  As
of this writing, it's not live on Wikimedia servers yet.

The page is accessible to users with deletedhistory privileges, i.e.
normally sysops.  There is no link to the page anywhere (except
Special:Specialpages) yet; what I'd like now is some testing, review and
improvements before the feature is officially announced.

So, have at it!

(P.s. see also <http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1699>.)

--
Ilmari Karonen


subject: [Commons-l] Getting rid of 'best before'

body:
it does cause "edit conflict", delete works.

    - Cool Cat

On 11/24/06, Magnus Manske <magnusmanske at googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/23/06, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Anyway getting Magnus on side is always a good start to any
> > sideproject for the Commons, so I look forward to seeing what you guys
> > can come up with.
>
> OK, I don't have time, but I couldn't resist:
>
> http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/comdel.php
>
> should implement your first suggestion on [[Commons:Power toys]]. It
> doesn't perform any editing, but generates buttons that will get you
> to the appropriate edit page (with diff so you see what you're about
> to change). A public page where anyone can delete Commons images would
> have been a bad idea anyway ;-)
>
> IANAAAC (I Am Not An Admin At Commons) so please tell me if it needs
> fixes.
>
> Magnus
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20061128/276a9636/attachment.htm


subject: [Wikitech-l] Special:Deletedcontribs

body:
Ilmari Karonen wrote:
> I just hacked up a new special page for listing the deleted
> contributions of a user.  This has been a commonly requested feature for
> over a year, but for various reasons nothing much has been done about it
> before.
>
> The code is in svn: see
> <http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki?view=rev&revision=17968>.  As
> of this writing, it's not live on Wikimedia servers yet.

On /branches/vyznev/ now, pending more cleanup and time for brion to run
the necessary database update.

--
Ilmari Karonen


from_name: Jeff Raymond

subject:
[WikiEN-l] "Reliable sources" guideline being treated as
 absolute policy

body:
Stephen Bain wrote:
> Sure, and that's a reason to question whether a page that's so
> disputed/unstable should be linked to from a major part of the
> interface. But I think his point was something in the interface saying
> that completely unsourced articles are likely to be deleted is
> prudent, since everyone agrees that having no sources at all is bad.

Everyone agrees that having no sources is, as a whole, bad.  Not everyone
agrees that wholesale deletion is the answer, however.  It would be
awfully nice if, instead of changing the culture to remove large swaths of
articles, we worked on changing the culture to actually, you know,
collaborate on getting sources.  God forbid we build an encyclopedia,
after all.

And before I get three million replies - yes, it's the responsibility of
the person adding the information/advocating the retention of the
information to acquire the source.  I don't disagree with that initial
responsibility at all, but I do think that we're too quick to say "oh,
well, user couldn't be bothered with sourcing, and neither can I."  It's
ultimately everyone's responsibility.

-Jeff

--
If you can read this, I'm not at home.


from_name: Anthony

subject: [WikiEN-l] Google Earth screenshots

body:
On 11/27/06, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
> > On 11/27/06, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Wow.  That's very interesting.  I knew there was a lot of USGS
> >> data out there, but I didn't know there was *that* much.
> >>
> >
> > Here's a list of most if not all of it.  Some of these are apparently
> > proprietary though (they are listed as for viewing only - no
> > downloading).
> >
> > http://seamless.usgs.gov/website/seamless/products/listofortho.asp
> >
> > Where the coverage is (only in the US, but starting to get a lot of
> > cities), the resolution is really good.  That shot from Los Angeles
> > was 0.3 meters (per pixel).  Some of the data is at 0.15 meters.
> > Geocover 2000, on the other hand, which covers the entire globe, is
> > 14.25 meters.  So outside the US most of the public domain imagery is
> > not very good (I think, please prove me wrong!).
>
> Is such satellite imagery copyrightable in the first place, in the U.S.
> anyway?  Isn't it just mechanical imaging of the earth's surface, and
> therefore no more copyrightable than a mechanical reproduction of the
> Mona Lisa is?
>
The simple answer - maybe.  Since Feist (which didn't deal with
photography either), there has been very little Supreme Court
precedent as to what creative input/originality is necessary to make a
photograph copyrightable.  AFAIK there are a few cases in which there
was obvious creative input, and that's it.

Personally I think lack of copyright protection could be argued at
least for the satellite imagery shot in true color.  But until there's
a Supreme Court precedent, we'll never know for sure.

Anthony


from_name: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] [Arbcom-l] Fwd: simple example

body:
Why is this thread being allowed to continue on this list?

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote

> Perception is everything.  Repeatedly denying that we are run by a cabal
> does nothing to convince those who believe it.

But then nothing else would, either. That is the nature of conspiracy cranks.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


subject: [WikiEN-l] Fiction and Wikia

body:
"Steve Bennett" wrote

> To play devil's advocate, aren't we trying to be informative? Should
> we be keeping genuine sources of information away from our readers? If
> the topic is "Juggling in Copenhagen", then wouldn't a forum for
> jugglers in Copenhagen be a really appropriate link?

The mission is not the plain vanilla 'be informative'.

Interesting comment from one of my non-Wikipedian friends. His colleagues at work tend to access official health statistics through WP external links; because it's quicker generally to do that, than to access the official site, in terms of getting to the relevant page out of many. That's quite a plaudit.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


body:
"Steve Bennett" wrote

> So, anyone greatly improved an article lately?

[[Gilbert Murray]].

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


subject:
[WikiEN-l] "Reliable sources" guideline being treated as
	absolute	policy

body:
I noticed this too. But I tend to assume that these messages are like health warnings on cigarette packets: they become more extreme, because the moderate versions are ignored by the people they are really aimed at.

We may need to audit deletions. I'm becoming uneasy about the quick paths. But a great deal of discretionary deletion does need to happen.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: reply
Type: multipart/signed
Size: 1335 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061128/896f99c5/attachment.bin
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


body:
On 28/11/06, Ligulem <ligulem at pobox.com> wrote:
> I checked:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mailing_lists
> http://dir.gmane.org/index.php?prefix=gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia

In Soviet MediaWiki, mailing list subscribes you!

Yes, yes, I know...going...

Rob Church


from_name: Ligulem

body:
Rob Church wrote:
> ...  The correct list for discussion on this is
> mediawiki-l.

What is the NNTP address for mediawiki-l?

I checked:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mailing_lists
http://dir.gmane.org/index.php?prefix=gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia

--Ligulem


list: foundation-l

from_name: Brad Patrick

subject: [Foundation-l] Combined Federal Campaign

body:
There are a number of lists of US charities for which WMF has not been
included to date, owing to its lack of audit.  Our auditors are presenting
their final report to the Board this week; expect many things to change in
the coming weeks, for the good!

-Brad

On 11/28/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 28/11/06, Sebastian Moleski <sebmol at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 11/28/06, David Monniaux <David.Monniaux at free.fr> wrote:
> > >
> > > An email on OTRS suggests the Wikimedia Foundation should be on the
> list
> > > of charities of this system.
> > > I'm unsure we can apply.
> > >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_Federal_Campaign
> >
> >
> > This seems like an interesting source of donations to pursue. As to
> > eligibility, from what I read, Wikimedia should fall under the
> eligibility
> > criteria (provided they are up to par on the usual paperwork required of
> > charities). I've looked at the list of organizations (
> > http://www.cfctoday.org/federations/index.html) that are currently part
> of
> > the program. Among them were several who in whole or part have education
> as
> > one of their goals so I don't see why Wikimedia could not be eligible.
>
> I'm unsure quite what "demonstrate that they provide or conduct real
> services, benefits, assistance or program activities in [geographic
> areas]" might mean - online-only projects which don't give physical
> charitable donations might get a bit misplaced under a strict reading
> of this.
>
> I suppose there's nothing to be lost in sounding it out.
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
>   andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
Brad Patrick
General Counsel & Interim Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
bradp.wmf at gmail.com
727-231-0101


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Rob Smith

subject:
[WikiEN-l] "Reliable sources" guideline being treated as
	absolute policy

body:
On 11/28/06, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com
<charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> I noticed this too. But I tend to assume that these messages are like health warnings on cigarette packets: they become more extreme, because the moderate versions are ignored by the people they are really aimed at.
>
> We may need to audit deletions. I'm becoming uneasy about the quick paths. But a great deal of discretionary deletion does need to happen.
>
> Charles
>

What about were a systematic effort to remove sources is underway?  As
in this article

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_Coe&diff=next&oldid=34386640

same occurred again

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_Coe&diff=39262981&oldid=39262903

Charles added the needs sources Template months later

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_Coe&diff=next&oldid=44966881

Does anyone look at the histories before nominating for deletion?  I
could cite a couple of dozen similiar examples.

Nobs01


from_name: David Gerard

body:
On 28/11/06, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com
<charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:

> We may need to audit deletions. I'm becoming uneasy about the quick paths. But a great deal of discretionary deletion does need to happen.

Are there still people keeping an eye on speedies?

(The idea being: speedy patrollers are dealing with a firehose of
crap, and being human will make mistakes - and that's fine. Then the
speedy patrol patrollers check the speedies and undelete the erroneous
speedies - and that's fine too.)

- d.


body:
On 28/11/06, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com
<charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:

> Why is this thread being allowed to continue on this list?

Think of it as 'Police Academy 50: Thin Film Of Crushed Horse Cells On
The Asphalt'.

- d.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Special:Deletedcontribs

body:
On 28/11/06, Ilmari Karonen <nospam at vyznev.net> wrote:

> I just hacked up a new special page for listing the deleted
> contributions of a user.  This has been a commonly requested feature for
> over a year, but for various reasons nothing much has been done about it
> before.

Excellent!

Is there an easy way to make deleted contributions show up in
[[Special:CheckUser]] ?

- d.


from_name: David Monniaux

body:
An email on OTRS suggests the Wikimedia Foundation should be on the list
of charities of this system.
I'm unsure we can apply.

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


body:
On 11/28/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 28/11/06, Rob Smith <nobs03 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What about were a systematic effort to remove sources is underway?
> >
> How... entirely irrelevant.
>
> Because, when you look at the *other* edits made at the same time...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_Coe&diff=34387074&oldid=31308453
>
> ...you find that the material to which the source referred was taken
> out...

Um, that's the point.  When a source, which fits all the definitions
of "reliable" is systmeatically purged from an article (Library of
Congress Manuscripts Division I'm assuming to be "reliable").

Nobs01


from_name: Andrew Gray

body:
On 28/11/06, Sebastian Moleski <sebmol at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/28/06, David Monniaux <David.Monniaux at free.fr> wrote:
> >
> > An email on OTRS suggests the Wikimedia Foundation should be on the list
> > of charities of this system.
> > I'm unsure we can apply.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_Federal_Campaign
>
>
> This seems like an interesting source of donations to pursue. As to
> eligibility, from what I read, Wikimedia should fall under the eligibility
> criteria (provided they are up to par on the usual paperwork required of
> charities). I've looked at the list of organizations (
> http://www.cfctoday.org/federations/index.html) that are currently part of
> the program. Among them were several who in whole or part have education as
> one of their goals so I don't see why Wikimedia could not be eligible.

I'm unsure quite what "demonstrate that they provide or conduct real
services, benefits, assistance or program activities in [geographic
areas]" might mean - online-only projects which don't give physical
charitable donations might get a bit misplaced under a strict reading
of this.

I suppose there's nothing to be lost in sounding it out.

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


from_name: Sebastian Moleski

body:
On 11/28/06, David Monniaux <David.Monniaux at free.fr> wrote:
>
> An email on OTRS suggests the Wikimedia Foundation should be on the list
> of charities of this system.
> I'm unsure we can apply.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_Federal_Campaign

This seems like an interesting source of donations to pursue. As to
eligibility, from what I read, Wikimedia should fall under the eligibility
criteria (provided they are up to par on the usual paperwork required of
charities). I've looked at the list of organizations (
http://www.cfctoday.org/federations/index.html) that are currently part of
the program. Among them were several who in whole or part have education as
one of their goals so I don't see why Wikimedia could not be eligible.

Regards,

Sebastian Moleski


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright Violation Bot

body:
On 11/27/06, Earle Martin <wikipedia at downlode.org> wrote:
> As it stands I've coded in an ignore list to skip certain domains -
> generally speaking, WP mirrors - one of which is answers.com.

There is somewhere a pretty complete list of WP mirrors, official and
otherwise. It was intended as a data file to a greasemonkey scrpt, to
filter these results from Google searches. You could probably adapt
it, using my incredibly helpful and explicit directions to find it.

Steve


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Wikitech-l] Single user login status

body:
On 11/28/06, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
> In a day or two I'll set up test.wikipedia.org for interactive migration
> testing. This will allow people to try out the UI, and give a chance to
> see how it looks so we can make sure the UI translations get done soon...

Thanks for the update. Good to hear that things are moving forward.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject: [Wikitech-l] Single user login status

body:
Erik Moeller schreef:
> On 11/28/06, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> In a day or two I'll set up test.wikipedia.org for interactive migration
>> testing. This will allow people to try out the UI, and give a chance to
>> see how it looks so we can make sure the UI translations get done soon...
>>
>
> Thanks for the update. Good to hear that things are moving forward.
>
Hoi,
Yesterday I called Maarten from Surfnet.. The next moment where we can
talk A-Select with them is second week of Januari.
Thanks,
    Gerard


from_name: NSLE (Wikipedia)

body:
I totally re-wrote [[Typhoon Shanshan (2006)]]... not like anyone cares
though :P

--NSLE/Chacor

On 28/11/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So, anyone greatly improved an article lately?
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
On Nov 28, 2006, at 10:32 AM, Rob Smith wrote:

> What about were a systematic effort to remove sources is underway?  As
> in this article
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
> title=Frank_Coe&diff=next&oldid=34386640
>
> same occurred again
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
> title=Frank_Coe&diff=39262981&oldid=39262903
>
> Charles added the needs sources Template months later
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
> title=Frank_Coe&diff=next&oldid=44966881
>
> Does anyone look at the histories before nominating for deletion?  I
> could cite a couple of dozen similiar examples.
>
> Nobs01

Not just one acorn....

Fred


from_name: Marco Schuster

subject: [Commons-l] CommonsDelinker

body:
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Datum: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 02:29:01 +0200
Von: "Cool Cat" <wikipedia.kawaii.neko at gmail.com>
An: "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List" <commons-l at wikimedia.org>
Betreff: Re: [Commons-l] CommonsDelinker

> I'd like a master Delinker working on all wikis.
It works already on all wikis.
> I'd like delinker
> spesifications. How does it delink, does it comment out and etc.
It uses Duesntriebs checkusage and comments out every image use with HTML comment. but at the moment galleries and transclusions don't work. i am gonna fix that in a few days i think.
> Also info
> on what has been done for potential abuse.
only people wo i really trust (or flominator) get access to it.

marco
in computer room of school
--
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GIT/O d-(-)>--$ s()>+++:-(-)>+ a---- C++(++)>+++$
!UC---(---)?>++++ !P+(+)>+++++$ L---(---)?>+++++
!E----(----)?>---- !W++(++)?>+++$ !N*(*)?>++
!o--(--)?>+++ K--(--)?>-- w+(+)>+++$ !O----(----)?>---
!M--(--)?>-- !V--(--)?>-- PS+++(+++)>+++$ PE--(--)>--$
!Y---(---)?>--- !PGP----(----)?>--- t+++(+++)>+++
!5-(-)?>- !X--(--)?>-- R-(-)>-- tv+(+)>+++
b++++(++++)>++++ DI-(-)>- D++(++)>+++ G+(+)>+
e--(--)>+++++ h---(---)>++ r++(++)>+++ y-(-)>+
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Der GMX SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen!
Ideal f?r Modem und ISDN: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/smartsurfer


from_name: Tony Jacobs

subject: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!

body:
>From: "Jeff Raymond" <jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!
>Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 15:10:41 -0600 (CST)
>
>
>Steve Summit wrote:
>
> > Have there really been *twelve* more attempts?  (The fact that it
> > took that many has got to say something...)
>
>Most of them were speedy kept.  For whatever reason, we speedy deleted
>this instance, which puts the whole operation in question.
>
>This is when we start looking incredibly dumb as an organization when we
>delete articles about subjects that obviously exist, are obviously well
>know, and are actually verifiable, but because we can't bring ourselves to
>trust a source that isn't available in dead tree form somewhere, we won't
>have the article.  Doesn't make a lot of sense.
>
>-Jeff
>

I think it looks pretty good that we have a standard that we don't accept
original research, even if said research can be easily done online.  That
standard makes us more professional and more worthy or trust and respect.

The question isn't whether "dead tree" sources exist, but whether *any
non-trivial coverage* in *any independent source* exists.  It turns out it
doesn't, in this case; at least nobody was able to pony it up.  There are
certainly articles that are well sourced without any dead trees being
involved; this wasn't one of them.

Tony/GTBacchus

_________________________________________________________________
Get the latest Windows Live Messenger 8.1 Beta version.?Join now.
http://ideas.live.com


from_name: Ilya Haykinson

subject: [Foundation-l] out of your mind....

body:
A good example is OurMedia (www.ourmedia.org)

-ilya haykinson

On 11/21/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> If you had to cite organisations which share a lot with our, which
> organisations would you cite ?
>
> Key words here being
> * rather young and still little organised
> * very largely based on volunteer work
> * with little money (not the pouring barrels some non profits get...)


subject: [Foundation-l] out of your mind....


subject: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!

body:
>From: Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!
>Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 16:04:15 -0500
>
>TD wrote:
> > I applaud the culture shift that has taken place on Wikipedia that
> > has allowed [[Gay Nigger Association of America]] to be deleted
>
>And at the risk of sounding contentious, I must deplore it.
>It was the fifth or sixth deletion attempt that got me involved
>in Wikipedia in the first place.  As I wrote in my very first
>contribution as a registered user, during the July 2005 deletion
>nomination,
>
>	...true story: this morning I was idly curious about GNAA,
>	and was pleased to discover the Wikipedia article, so
>	that I didn't have to favor GNAA's site with an undeserved
>	hit.  Trolls they certainly are, and sad it is that
>	they've become "notable", but like it or not, they are,
>	and the article is wholly appropriate.
>
>And that's my opinion (or would be my opinion, if we still had
>the article) today.
>

What definition of "notable" are you using?  The only definition of that
word that matters at Wikipedia is: "A topic is notable if it has been the
subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are
independent of the subject itself."  That's not true of GNAA, ergo they're
not "notable", which simply means that it's impossible to write a properly
verifiable article about them.  We don't want to keep an unverfiable article
around, no matter how much "consensus" may hoot and holler for it, so we
delete it.

People who want to know about GNAA can still look them up at ED, which has
no problem covering topics that we eschew.

Tony/GTBacchus

_________________________________________________________________
All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC.? Get a free 90-day trial!
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo0050000002msn/direct/01/?href=http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo0050000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.windowsonecare.com/?sc_cid=msn_hotmail


from_name: Ken Arromdee

subject: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!

body:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006, Jeff Raymond wrote:
> This is when we start looking incredibly dumb as an organization when we
> delete articles about subjects that obviously exist, are obviously well
> know, and are actually verifiable, but because we can't bring ourselves to
> trust a source that isn't available in dead tree form somewhere, we won't
> have the article.  Doesn't make a lot of sense.

This sounds like a classic example of stretching the wrong rule because the
right rule doesn't exist.  It happens a lot in the real legal system, and
usually causes more problems than it solves because once you've stretched a
rule to cover the case, that becomes a precedent to interpret the rule in
that manner forever.  (See: Commerce Clause.)

WP:RS is already broken, especially when it comes to not allowing web and
other self-published sources for non-academic subjects.  If you want to delete
the GNAA article, I suggest either using Ignore All Rules to delete it, or
coming up with a new rule.  I suggest a rule something like "A Wikipedia
article may be deleted if merely creating and publicizing a neutral article
advances the goal of the article's subject."  (Of course a full version of
the rule would have to be worded more carefully so you don't delete articles
about Wikipedia itself.)


from_name: Nathan Carter

subject: [Foundation-l] wikicouncil

body:
I am happy to work on the idea if required.

 > * what would be the roles of such a council ?
Some form of body which encourages communication between projects could
be useful. Projects often have different ways of doing things and it
could be useful to share these with others. The council could also
represent the community to the board itself. Major issues could be
raised with a councillor, bought to council and then raised with the board.

Wiki council could also serve as the last resort in the dispute
resolution process (when Arbcom fails).

What I would not want it to become is some massive bureaucracy where
there are a select few which have power over the community, it should
represent the community's interests and not be some form of governance.

 > * would that council vote the people to become Wikimedia Foundation
 > board members ?

Hell no, there is nothing wrong with the current method of community
voting for select positions. Doing this would remind me far too much of
the electoral college system.

> * would this council become a sort of goverment of the project ?
See above.

> * how would people be added to this council (and along with which rules,
> depending on project size, languages etc...)

I would suggest a minimum of 2 reps per project with a maximum of
something. In between some formula would need to be made for
"proportional representation". Positions would be filled by the
community by some form of vote (yes I know voting is evil but it works)

Cheers,
Nathan Carter (Cartman02au)


subject: [Foundation-l] wikicouncil


body:
On 28/11/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:

> I see no reason why we should be flexible about sources. If it hasn't got
> sources it can be deleted, regardless whether this is a policy or a
> guideline. It may be kept if someone bothers to find the sources the author
> should have included, but that might not happen.
> The only way to make people use sources is hammering it in, because no
> matter how many times it is said, people will ignore it. Perhaps deletion
> will get some backsides into gear.

One of the big problems with [[WP:RS]] is that it's grossly defective
and being applied robotically and inappropriately.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!

body:
>From: Ken Arromdee <arromdee at rahul.net>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!
>Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 13:26:59 -0800 (PST)
>
>On Tue, 28 Nov 2006, Jeff Raymond wrote:
> > This is when we start looking incredibly dumb as an organization when we
> > delete articles about subjects that obviously exist, are obviously well
> > know, and are actually verifiable, but because we can't bring ourselves
>to
> > trust a source that isn't available in dead tree form somewhere, we
>won't
> > have the article.  Doesn't make a lot of sense.
>
>This sounds like a classic example of stretching the wrong rule because the
>right rule doesn't exist.  It happens a lot in the real legal system, and
>usually causes more problems than it solves because once you've stretched a
>rule to cover the case, that becomes a precedent to interpret the rule in
>that manner forever.  (See: Commerce Clause.)
>
>WP:RS is already broken, especially when it comes to not allowing web and
>other self-published sources for non-academic subjects.  If you want to
>delete
>the GNAA article, I suggest either using Ignore All Rules to delete it, or
>coming up with a new rule.  I suggest a rule something like "A Wikipedia
>article may be deleted if merely creating and publicizing a neutral article
>advances the goal of the article's subject."  (Of course a full version of
>the rule would have to be worded more carefully so you don't delete
>articles
>about Wikipedia itself.)
>

Any organization that benefits from publicity is advanced by having a
Wikipedia article; such a "rule" sounds dangerous, even if carefully worded.

Your contention, that a rule is being stretched here, only really makes
sense if one has already accepted your second contention, that WP:RS is
broken.  I think I understand that perspective, but I tend to adopt a
different one.  I don't see WP:RS (and WP:V) as broken, so much as defining
our scope.  I guess if one thinks the floor should be three feet lower, the
current floor would seem broken, but I like the height it's at now.  There
are other sources for information that doesn't meet our inclusion standards
- Wikipedia isn't trying to be all sources, nor should it.

I guess the floor metaphor is oversimple.  It's more like our floor is
multi-level, and people are arguing over whether there are holes in it that
should be filled in, or whether those holes *are* the floor.  I say fill 'em
in and let the underground be documented by those who document the
underground; they exist.

Tony/GTBacchus

_________________________________________________________________
View Athlete?s Collections with Live Search
http://sportmaps.live.com/index.html?source=hmemailtaglinenov06&FORM=MGAC01


from_name: George Herbert

subject: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!

body:
On 11/28/06, Tony Jacobs <gtjacobs at hotmail.com> wrote:

> What definition of "notable" are you using?  The only definition of that
> word that matters at Wikipedia is: "A topic is notable if it has been the
> subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are
> independent of the subject itself."  That's not true of GNAA, ergo they're
> not "notable", which simply means that it's impossible to write a properly
> verifiable article about them.  We don't want to keep an unverfiable
> article
> around, no matter how much "consensus" may hoot and holler for it, so we
> delete it.
>
> People who want to know about GNAA can still look them up at ED, which has
> no problem covering topics that we eschew.
>

The problem with this trend is that it relegates certain aspects of internet
culture which tend not to get press coverage into the dustbin.

As much as I hate GNAA and everyone involved in it, it IS notable among the
realm of internet troll activities.

If we have the (harmless, real, but equally badly documented)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt.fan.warlord entry....

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


body:
On 11/28/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
>
> On Nov 28, 2006, at 10:32 AM, Rob Smith wrote:
>
> > What about were a systematic effort to remove sources is underway?  As
> > in this article
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
> > title=Frank_Coe&diff=next&oldid=34386640
> >
> > same occurred again
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
> > title=Frank_Coe&diff=39262981&oldid=39262903
> >
> > Charles added the needs sources Template months later
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
> > title=Frank_Coe&diff=next&oldid=44966881
> >
> > Does anyone look at the histories before nominating for deletion?  I
> > could cite a couple of dozen similiar examples.
> >
> > Nobs01
>
> Not just one acorn....
>
> Fred

As Phil Gramm said, "I flunked the third, the seventh and the ninth
grade"; you really have to spell out what you mean....

nobs01


from_name: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com

subject:
[WikiEN-l] "Reliable sources" guideline being treated
	as	absolute policy

body:
"MacGyverMagic/Mgm" wrote

> I see no reason why we should be flexible about sources.

I do. Inviting inflexibility on sources is to ignore 'good taste'.

>If it hasn't got
> sources it can be deleted, regardless whether this is a policy or a
> guideline.

But it need not be deleted. Especially if it is a good article, otherwise. If people hold back a needed article because they are afraid of deletion, we lose, not gain.

>It may be kept if someone bothers to find the sources the author
> should have included, but that might not happen.

Certainly won't, if it's already gone.

> The only way to make people use sources is hammering it in, because no
> matter how many times it is said, people will ignore it. Perhaps deletion
> will get some backsides into gear.

Stick, carrot, what's the difference? Mainly stick is an easier, more clear-cut policy. Which will drive away people who feel they have to master 'reliable sources policy' (bad joke) before posting anything.

Look at it this way: good Wikipedians are those that post material that survives into later versions of pages. Aggressive deletion of unsourced material cuts down the pool of 'good Wikipedians'. It has always been a bad idea to imply, for example, that you need an academic library handy, to work on scholarly topics.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


from_name: SonOfYoungwood at aol.com

body:
All I'll say is that 60 percent of deletions involve laziness in some way  or
another.

RS shouldn't be hammered in like this, especially since it's relative to  the
type of article.

| Tyler | Zorin Deckiller |
| Wikipedia Administrator |  Former SWU member |
| _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Deckiller_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Deckiller)   |
| _http://www.myspace.com/redsectora_ (http://www.myspace.com/redsectora)   |


body:
On Nov 28, 2006, at 1:57 PM, Rob Smith wrote:

>> Not just one acorn....
>>
>> Fred
>
> As Phil Gramm said, "I flunked the third, the seventh and the ninth
> grade"; you really have to spell out what you mean....
>
> nobs01

For a subtle guy like you....

Fred


subject: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!

body:
>From: "MacGyverMagic/Mgm" <macgyvermagic at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!
>Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 22:55:16 +0100
>
>Really, the *entire* article was unverifiable?
>That is very hard to believe.
>Why were those sources called into question if it wasn't the dead tree
>thing
>cited in an earlier email?
>
>Mgm

Well, most of them weren't independent sources, being links to gnaa.us and
gnaauk.co.uk.

Of those that were independent, they fell into three classes: some made only
a passing mention of GNAA, some were articles where GNAA was only mentioned
in the message board responses at the bottom, and those that were actually
*about* GNAA were blogs (there were one or two of those).  We use plenty of
internet sources (not the least of which is IMDb, and I've seen plenty of
citations to online mags like Salon and Slate), but blogs have been deemed
below the threshhold.

Tony/GTBacchus

_________________________________________________________________
All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC.? Get a free 90-day trial!
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo0050000002msn/direct/01/?href=http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo0050000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.windowsonecare.com/?sc_cid=msn_hotmail


body:
"Stephen Bain" wrote
> But I think his point was something in the interface saying
> that completely unsourced articles are likely to be deleted is
> prudent, since everyone agrees that having no sources at all is bad.

What is bad, to look at what WP:RS itself, is having material 'likely to be challenged' without support. I don't agree that a page of college-level calculus, known and uncontroversial for two centuries, should be deleted for the pedantic reason that it isn't referenced.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


from_name: Pedro Sanchez

subject: [Foundation-l] Permissions page on wikimediafoundation.org?

body:
On 11/24/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 23/11/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 23/11/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Press
> >
> > > Oh, *marvellous*. I've always faffed about what to do with "can we use
> > > your logo" OTRS queries.
> >
> >
> > Yep! And if the editability of that page is a problem, [[Contact us]]
> > on the foundation wiki now says "LOOK, JUST USE OUR LOGOS, OK?!"
>
> Can we have a blanket blurb for "I'd like to use a screenshot of the
> site", too? I understand that one's legally flakier due to it
> containing content which is not ours, but a permission to use all the
> bits of it which are ours and a reassuring remark about fair-use for
> display purposes or somesuch...
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
>   andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

On a slightly off-topic, but OTRS stuff.

Shouldn't we be requesting pictures to be uploaded with Creative
Commons besides or alternatively to GFDL?
Arguments to be found here:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing

Maybe somre review to the templates at [[m:OTRS/en]] may be due.

Pedro S?nchez
User:Drini


from_name: Earle Martin

subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright Violation Bot

body:
On 28/11/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> There is somewhere a pretty complete list of WP mirrors, official and
> otherwise. It was intended as a data file to a greasemonkey scrpt, to
> filter these results from Google searches. You could probably adapt
> it, using my incredibly helpful and explicit directions to find it.

Aha, it looks like you're talking about this:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mirror_filter

Thanks very much, I'll work it in.

--
Earle Martin
            http://downlode.org/
http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/


subject: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!

body:
>From: Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!
>Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 16:46:29 -0500
>
>Tony wrote:
> > Steve Summit wrote:
> >> ...As I wrote in my very first contribution as a registered user,
> >> during the July 2005 deletion nomination,
> >>	...true story: this morning I was idly curious about GNAA,
> >>	and was pleased to discover the Wikipedia article, so
> >>	that I didn't have to favor GNAA's site with an undeserved
> >>	hit.  Trolls they certainly are, and sad it is that
> >>	they've become "notable", but like it or not, they are,
> >>	and the article is wholly appropriate.
> >
> > What definition of "notable" are you using?  The only definition of
> > that word that matters at Wikipedia is...
>
>It's not so much what definition I am using, but rather, which
>one I *was* using in that discussion, last year.  It was clearly
>different from the definition (as you say, the only definition)
>that matters today.
>
>I do not want to re-open the deletion debate on this mailing list.
>Skimming the votes (and unless there was some vote-stacking),
>they look pretty convincing, in their way.  I am not trying to
>dispute the result; I am merely lamenting it.
>
>The point of my first-person account, in that discussion last year,
>was an empirical one: all speculation and armchair philosophy
>(about what Wikipedia "ought" to contain) aside, I was a reader
>who had come to Wikipedia looking for an answer, and was pleased
>to have found it.  I saluted, then, the courage that allowed
>Wikipedia to supply that answer, contentious and unpopular though
>it may have been.  On this point, I fear the project is the less,
>for lacking such courage today.
>

I didn't mean to come across quite so stridently there, Steve.  I've been
knee deep in discussions over at the notability guideline; some of that may
have spilled your way.  Sorry about that.  I don't want to re-open the AfD
discussion either.

I will offer my thought in response to your closing point: I'm glad the
project has the courage to assert our commitment to high standards of
sourcing.  I'd rather we have a well-sourced article for eveything for which
that's possible, and remain silent on topics for which sourcing isn't
possible.

If we keep the bar high, it will encourage other wikis to provide good
coverage of topics we pass over.  That's not a bad thing.  Wikipedia can do
better by finding its niche and doing what it does well than by trying to be
all things to all people.

Tony/GTB

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Shopping has everything on your holiday list. Get expert picks by style,
age, and price. Try it!
http://shopping.msn.com/content/shp/?ctId=8000,ptnrid=176,ptnrdata=200601&tcode=wlmtagline


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

body:
I see no reason why we should be flexible about sources. If it hasn't got
sources it can be deleted, regardless whether this is a policy or a
guideline. It may be kept if someone bothers to find the sources the author
should have included, but that might not happen.

The only way to make people use sources is hammering it in, because no
matter how many times it is said, people will ignore it. Perhaps deletion
will get some backsides into gear.

Mgm

On 11/28/06, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/28/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> > That wording seems to change from day to day. I'm not sure where the
> > discussion about its wording is held. For a while it insisted on
> > copyright violations. Sometimes it mentions nonsense, sometimes it
> > does. Sometimes it says "may be deleted", other times it's "will".
>
> It's in [[MediaWiki:Newarticletext]]. There may be some discussion on
> the talk page there.
>
> --
> Stephen Bain
> stephen.bain at gmail.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Bence Damokos

subject: [Commons-l] CommonsDelinker

body:
Hi

Also if its not too late, I'd like a feature for the delinker:
if the image was deleted with a reason like : Duplicate of xyz.jpg
then it should change the picture, and not delink it, or leave in an HTML
comment, for with the duplicate pictures location (Ideally it would have to
compensate for differences in resoulution of the original and duplicate, and
counter-act it, so a comment would be the most doable solution I think).

Dami

On 11/28/06, Marco Schuster <CDL-Klever at gmx.net> wrote:
>
>
> -------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 02:29:01 +0200
> Von: "Cool Cat" <wikipedia.kawaii.neko at gmail.com>
> An: "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List" <commons-l at wikimedia.org>
> Betreff: Re: [Commons-l] CommonsDelinker
>
> > I'd like a master Delinker working on all wikis.
> It works already on all wikis.
> > I'd like delinker
> > spesifications. How does it delink, does it comment out and etc.
> It uses Duesntriebs checkusage and comments out every image use with HTML
> comment. but at the moment galleries and transclusions don't work. i am
> gonna fix that in a few days i think.
> > Also info
> > on what has been done for potential abuse.
> only people wo i really trust (or flominator) get access to it.
>
> marco
> in computer room of school
> --
> -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
> Version: 3.1
> GIT/O d-(-)>--$ s()>+++:-(-)>+ a---- C++(++)>+++$
> !UC---(---)?>++++ !P+(+)>+++++$ L---(---)?>+++++
> !E----(----)?>---- !W++(++)?>+++$ !N*(*)?>++
> !o--(--)?>+++ K--(--)?>-- w+(+)>+++$ !O----(----)?>---
> !M--(--)?>-- !V--(--)?>-- PS+++(+++)>+++$ PE--(--)>--$
> !Y---(---)?>--- !PGP----(----)?>--- t+++(+++)>+++
> !5-(-)?>- !X--(--)?>-- R-(-)>-- tv+(+)>+++
> b++++(++++)>++++ DI-(-)>- D++(++)>+++ G+(+)>+
> e--(--)>+++++ h---(---)>++ r++(++)>+++ y-(-)>+
> ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
>
> Der GMX SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen!
> Ideal f?r Modem und ISDN: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/smartsurfer
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20061128/499e9003/attachment.htm


from_name: Rotem Liss

subject: [Wikitech-l] Special:Deletedcontribs

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

David Gerard wrote:
> Excellent!
>
> Is there an easy way to make deleted contributions show up in
> [[Special:CheckUser]] ?
>

There is probably no easy way to do that: Special:CheckUser works on
recentchanges (like Special:Recentchanges itself and Special:Watchlist), which
is the only table containing an IP field. Deleted edits are removed from the
recent changes while deleted (and do not go back to it while undeleting);
Special:Deletedconribs and Special:Undelete work on archive.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFbC8sqahN/0dU8mcRAst4AJ9iiqUnyiqbprIUIAi+ii392wRhlwCgv8xR
hqdNVk1AYAUAHMzo5gqBjrg=
=1mBn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Taco Deposit

subject: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!

body:
I applaud the culture shift that has taken place on Wikipedia that has
allowed [[Gay Nigger Association of America]] to be deleted due to
verifiability concerns--after seventeen unsuccessful deletion
nominations.

TD


from_name: Rob Smith

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Fwd: "Reliable sources" guideline being treated as
	absolute policy

body:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rob Smith <nobs03 at gmail.com>
Date: Nov 28, 2006 2:45 PM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] "Reliable sources" guideline being treated as
absolute policy
To: nobs03 at gmail.com

On 11/28/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:

> For a subtle guy like you....
>
> Fred
>

On 11/28/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 28/11/06, Rob Smith <nobs03 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> when you look at the *other* edits made at the same time...

> ...you find that the material to which the source referred was taken
> out, and the editor simply took six edits to do it all. Leaving the
> source in, if the information to which it refers is gone, would be,
> er, somewhat pointless and misleading.
>

Ohhh, um here's a few

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samuel_Dickstein_%28congressman%29&diff=next&oldid=78764570

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Dodd_%28Congressional_candidate%29&diff=next&oldid=32832299

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Fitzgerald_%28adviser%29&diff=89879958&oldid=78775686

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lud_Ullman&diff=next&oldid=40245700

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Perazich&diff=next&oldid=40251857

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ricardo_Setaro&diff=prev&oldid=78758141

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Lauterbach&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jenny_Levy_Miller&diff=prev&oldid=40344525

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jack_Fahy&diff=next&oldid=40345233

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Plourde&diff=prev&oldid=78759205

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sonia_Steinman_Gold&diff=next&oldid=40246972


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fiction and Wikia

body:
On 11/28/06, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
> > - Sources of the information in the article
>
> These should be placed in the References section, not the External links
> one.

Is this actually in the policy? At least once I've seen someone move
links I've placed in the Sources section into the External Links
section.

(did I mention that I strongly support renaming "References" and
"External links" to "Sources" and "Further reading" respectively?)

>
> > - Sites that are more informative than the article (particularly where
> > the article is very short)
> > - Sites that represent some example of what is described in the
> > article (eg, a ski resort, for an article about ski resorts...)
>
> These should be in the External links section.

Which frequently becomes an unmitigated spamfest. There should be ways
to avoid this.

> > - Community/portal/forum sites, where people may want to go if they're
> > really interested in the topic..
>
> These should generally not be included.

To play devil's advocate, aren't we trying to be informative? Should
we be keeping genuine sources of information away from our readers? If
the topic is "Juggling in Copenhagen", then wouldn't a forum for
jugglers in Copenhagen be a really appropriate link?

Steve


body:
So, anyone greatly improved an article lately?

Steve


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
On Nov 28, 2006, at 2:48 PM, Rob Smith wrote:

>
> Ohhh, um here's a few
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samuel_Dickstein_%
> 28congressman%29&diff=next&oldid=78764570
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Dodd_%
> 28Congressional_candidate%29&diff=next&oldid=32832299
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Fitzgerald_%
> 28adviser%29&diff=89879958&oldid=78775686
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
> title=Lud_Ullman&diff=next&oldid=40245700
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
> title=George_Perazich&diff=next&oldid=40251857
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
> title=Ricardo_Setaro&diff=prev&oldid=78758141
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
> title=Richard_Lauterbach&action=history
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
> title=Jenny_Levy_Miller&diff=prev&oldid=40344525
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
> title=Jack_Fahy&diff=next&oldid=40345233
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
> title=William_Plourde&diff=prev&oldid=78759205
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
> title=Sonia_Steinman_Gold&diff=next&oldid=40246972

Need you back editing instead of complaining. Perhaps someone has
time to check these out though.

Fred


from_name: Jeff Raymond

subject: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!

body:
Steve Summit wrote:

> Have there really been *twelve* more attempts?  (The fact that it
> took that many has got to say something...)

Most of them were speedy kept.  For whatever reason, we speedy deleted
this instance, which puts the whole operation in question.

This is when we start looking incredibly dumb as an organization when we
delete articles about subjects that obviously exist, are obviously well
know, and are actually verifiable, but because we can't bring ourselves to
trust a source that isn't available in dead tree form somewhere, we won't
have the article.  Doesn't make a lot of sense.

-Jeff

--
If you can read this, I'm not at home.


from_name: Humus Sapiens

subject: [WikiEN-l] Making it easier for the public to help out

body:
Let's make sure we are not implementing a drive-by tagging tool and
anticipate what would happen to articles like [[Abortion]] or [[War on
Terror]]. I would lean towards encouraging readers to join and become
responsible editors.
Thanks
HS

On 11/22/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/20/06, Rory Stolzenberg <rory096 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > That's true, but it's still a good idea. How about having different things
> > in different places?  A tab up on top would be useful for obvious problems
> > with the article that people see before they read it. A big box on the
> > bottom saying "[[Wikipedia:Notifying us of problems|Was there anything wrong
> > with this article?]]" or whatever would allow people to report problems
> > after they read the page, but it wouldn't disrupt reading experience because
> > it's over. We could also change section editing's "[edit]" to something more
> > specific, or add another link right next to it to link to the same page that
> > the bottom box links to.
>
> Yep. How do we get started? We're basically agreed that we want:
> 1) Some visible front end for anons - possibly in the "anonnotice"
> (whatever that is), possibly in the stylesheet to make it appear at
> the section level, or at the end of the article. Anyone know how to
> make this happen?
>
> 2) A place that this links to, which preserves state (ie, where it
> came from), offering a range of common problems, and where to go for
> help for problems that aren't addressed there.
>
> 3) A way of collecting more information depending on the type of problem
>
> 4) A way of transforming then storing that information on the
> article's talk page. Ideally it will also be stored on a centralised
> page, but if not, categories will be used to centralise these
> requests.
>
> I don't know how to implement any of these, except perhaps 2 (not sure
> about the statefulness). Worse, I don't know what's involved in
> implementing them, like whether MediaWiki itself needs to be modified.
> Can JavaScript do all this? If so, presumably monobook.js or something
> can be modified? Anyone know?
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Angela

body:
On 11/28/06, David Ashby <humble.fool at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/27/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> > So, anyone greatly improved an article lately?
> >
> > Steve
>
> I've deleted about 50 or so articles, does that count?

Yes, you can consider that an improvement to [[Special:Random]]. :)

Angela


body:
On 11/28/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> Perhaps, if your commitment to The Truth(TM) is so great, you should
> have had the foresight not to engage in the kinds of personal attacks
> that get you banned.  Just a thought.
>
> Guy (JzG)
> --

Thank you.  I've appologized but I don't suppose I'll ever live it
down.  The unique aspect is, it was a one-time error, and not a
manner, habit, or practice.

Nobs01


from_name: Michael Snow

subject: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!

body:
The Cunctator wrote:

> On 11/28/06, Tony Jacobs <gtjacobs at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Of those that were independent, they fell into three classes: some made
>> only
>> a passing mention of GNAA, some were articles where GNAA was only
>> mentioned
>> in the message board responses at the bottom, and those that were
>> actually
>> *about* GNAA were blogs (there were one or two of those).  We use plenty
>> of
>> internet sources (not the least of which is IMDb, and I've seen
>> plenty of
>> citations to online mags like Salon and Slate), but blogs have been
>> deemed
>> below the threshhold.
>
> Which is ridiculous, because blogs are a medium, not a particular source.
> Banning all blogs as sources is absurd. A much better policy, one which
> respects the reader rather than treating him like a child, is to
> source the
> articles properly. If the source is a blog, the reader can supply his
> judgment in how much credence to give the source. Similarly with say, the
> New York Times, CNN, or the Washington Times, or Pravda.

The reader can only supply judgment about the credibility of a source if
there is some information upon which to exercise that judgment. The
reason blogs get singled out as a category is not because they cannot
ever be useful sources, but because so few of them provide the
information a reader would need to decide how it stacks up against other
sources. (I assume that the reader won't make the decision based on the
fact that it's a blog, since as you rightly point out, that's only a
label for the medium in general.)

For example, the existence of independent sources is essential, both to
maintain a neutral presentation and to avoid gullibly repeating
falsehoods. But when you have a blog of unknown provenance, it's
impossible to know whether it qualifies as independent (Wal-Mart Across
America, anyone?). At some point, editorial judgment requires that
certain material should be rejected when offered as a source, and if
that's all the material available on a particular subject, then we have
to decline to write about it.

--Michael Snow


from_name: madea

subject: [Wikitech-l] Rollback or archive pages by date....

body:
Need to know if there is a way or a tool that will allow MediaWiki users
to access the wiki AS IF they were in the past.  For example, I would
like to filter my wiki to appear as it did (with all the links and
images intact) on July 5, 2006, for example.

Perhaps another term for this feature or filter is *rollback.*  I would
like to rollback the wiki to July 5, 2006, on a user-by-user basis.  I'm
thinking this would be a filter option or some other feature.

The only way now that we have managed to approximate this ability is to
archive the wiki, take a static picture of it as it exists on a certain
date and then link to it.  The user then navigates within that wiki
*universe* without connecting or linking to the current wiki.

The purpose of our wiki is to provide current information on our current
products.  However, we must support earlier versions of our products.
The current or live wiki always has current information about our most
recent product versions.  Because of the dynamic, internal links within
a wiki page, it seems a user can get easily mislead while researching a
solution to an earlier version and end up on a current version page.

We figured a filter-by-date option or rollback feature would be the best
solution, if it exists.  Does anyone know?  If no filter or rollback
option is available, is the idea of *archiving* our wiki, freezing it on
a certain date and moving on from there, the only solution?

Thanks!

madea
madea at mmsi.comm


from_name: Marco Schuster

subject: [Commons-l] CommonsDelinker

body:
Cool Cat schrieb:
> Does it delink local copies of images?
>
i do not think it does,at least checkusage output didnt display me local
copies at a test.
(although it shows local copies in "normal" view, but i use the txt output)

marco


subject: [Commons-l] CommonsDelinker

body:
Bence Damokos schrieb:
> Hi
>
> Also if its not too late, I'd like a feature for the delinker:
> if the image was deleted with a reason like : Duplicate of xyz.jpg
> then it should change the picture, and not delink it, or leave in an
> HTML comment, for with the duplicate pictures location (Ideally it
> would have to compensate for differences in resoulution of the
> original and duplicate, and counter-act it, so a comment would be the
> most doable solution I think).
>

hmm...a "stupid rename" is the easiest thing, but to different between
versions would be too much to work.

regards,
marco


from_name: James Hare

subject: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!

body:
Mind you half of those deletion requests were trolling...

But in any case, I never thought I would see the day.

Indeed, it is a great culture shift. Instead of biting onto that notability
bit, we stood up for what's good: VERIFIABILITY! We are getting stricter in
that field. That is most excellent.

On 11/28/06, Taco Deposit <tacodeposit at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I applaud the culture shift that has taken place on Wikipedia that has
> allowed [[Gay Nigger Association of America]] to be deleted due to
> verifiability concerns--after seventeen unsuccessful deletion
> nominations.
>
> TD
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Cool Cat

subject: [Commons-l] CommonsDelinker

body:
Does it delink local copies of images?

On 11/28/06, Marco Schuster <CDL-Klever at gmx.net> wrote:
>
>
> -------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 02:29:01 +0200
> Von: "Cool Cat" <wikipedia.kawaii.neko at gmail.com>
> An: "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List" <commons-l at wikimedia.org>
> Betreff: Re: [Commons-l] CommonsDelinker
>
> > I'd like a master Delinker working on all wikis.
> It works already on all wikis.
> > I'd like delinker
> > spesifications. How does it delink, does it comment out and etc.
> It uses Duesntriebs checkusage and comments out every image use with HTML
> comment. but at the moment galleries and transclusions don't work. i am
> gonna fix that in a few days i think.
> > Also info
> > on what has been done for potential abuse.
> only people wo i really trust (or flominator) get access to it.
>
> marco
> in computer room of school
> --
> -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
> Version: 3.1
> GIT/O d-(-)>--$ s()>+++:-(-)>+ a---- C++(++)>+++$
> !UC---(---)?>++++ !P+(+)>+++++$ L---(---)?>+++++
> !E----(----)?>---- !W++(++)?>+++$ !N*(*)?>++
> !o--(--)?>+++ K--(--)?>-- w+(+)>+++$ !O----(----)?>---
> !M--(--)?>-- !V--(--)?>-- PS+++(+++)>+++$ PE--(--)>--$
> !Y---(---)?>--- !PGP----(----)?>--- t+++(+++)>+++
> !5-(-)?>- !X--(--)?>-- R-(-)>-- tv+(+)>+++
> b++++(++++)>++++ DI-(-)>- D++(++)>+++ G+(+)>+
> e--(--)>+++++ h---(---)>++ r++(++)>+++ y-(-)>+
> ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
>
> Der GMX SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen!
> Ideal f?r Modem und ISDN: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/smartsurfer
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20061128/ef08646d/attachment.htm


from_name: Guettarda

subject: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!

body:
On 11/28/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/28/06, Tony Jacobs <gtjacobs at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What definition of "notable" are you using?  The only definition of that
> > word that matters at Wikipedia is: "A topic is notable if it has been
> the
> > subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are
> > independent of the subject itself."  That's not true of GNAA, ergo
> they're
> > not "notable", which simply means that it's impossible to write a
> properly
> > verifiable article about them.  We don't want to keep an unverfiable
> > article
> > around, no matter how much "consensus" may hoot and holler for it, so we
> > delete it.
> >
> > People who want to know about GNAA can still look them up at ED, which
> has
> > no problem covering topics that we eschew.
> >
>
> The problem with this trend is that it relegates certain aspects of
> internet
> culture which tend not to get press coverage into the dustbin.
>
> As much as I hate GNAA and everyone involved in it, it IS notable among
> the
> realm of internet troll activities.
>
> If we have the (harmless, real, but equally badly documented)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt.fan.warlord entry....

The issue of valuing paper over non-paper sources, and the problems this
provides for internet topics (not to mention lots of other popular culture
issues) has been discussed a number of times.  I have seen people remove
links on the grounds that they are blogs...when it happened to be a "blog"
hosted by the book's publisher (Oxford University Press), in which the
author of the book was interviewed by the publisher's blogger.

There are reasons to put higher value on some sources than on others, but
seriously, one needs to use a modicum of common sense.  Of course on the
GNAA issue, what bothers me more is the fact that an article that survived
17 AfDs (or however many there really were) is closed after 2 days as a
delete, based, it would appear, on WP:RS rather than WP:V


from_name: Steve Summit

subject: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!

body:
TD wrote:
> I applaud the culture shift that has taken place on Wikipedia that
> has allowed [[Gay Nigger Association of America]] to be deleted

And at the risk of sounding contentious, I must deplore it.
It was the fifth or sixth deletion attempt that got me involved
in Wikipedia in the first place.  As I wrote in my very first
contribution as a registered user, during the July 2005 deletion
nomination,

	...true story: this morning I was idly curious about GNAA,
	and was pleased to discover the Wikipedia article, so
	that I didn't have to favor GNAA's site with an undeserved
	hit.  Trolls they certainly are, and sad it is that
	they've become "notable", but like it or not, they are,
	and the article is wholly appropriate.

And that's my opinion (or would be my opinion, if we still had
the article) today.

Have there really been *twelve* more attempts?  (The fact that it
took that many has got to say something...)


subject: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!

body:
A large amount of them were trolling attempts that were immediately closed,
so it's not like there were actually 18 attempts at deleting the article.
Many of them (in fact, I think most) were just by trolls to get a rise out
of people.

On 11/28/06, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
>
> TD wrote:
> > I applaud the culture shift that has taken place on Wikipedia that
> > has allowed [[Gay Nigger Association of America]] to be deleted
>
> And at the risk of sounding contentious, I must deplore it.
> It was the fifth or sixth deletion attempt that got me involved
> in Wikipedia in the first place.  As I wrote in my very first
> contribution as a registered user, during the July 2005 deletion
> nomination,
>
>         ...true story: this morning I was idly curious about GNAA,
>         and was pleased to discover the Wikipedia article, so
>         that I didn't have to favor GNAA's site with an undeserved
>         hit.  Trolls they certainly are, and sad it is that
>         they've become "notable", but like it or not, they are,
>         and the article is wholly appropriate.
>
> And that's my opinion (or would be my opinion, if we still had
> the article) today.
>
> Have there really been *twelve* more attempts?  (The fact that it
> took that many has got to say something...)
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: The Cunctator

subject: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!

body:
Seems like a pretty pathetic deletion to me.

On 11/28/06, Taco Deposit <tacodeposit at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I applaud the culture shift that has taken place on Wikipedia that has
> allowed [[Gay Nigger Association of America]] to be deleted due to
> verifiability concerns--after seventeen unsuccessful deletion
> nominations.
>
> TD
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
I need an advocate to assist; can you recommend anyone?

nobs

On 11/28/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 15:23:38 -0700, "Rob Smith" <nobs03 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Thank you.  I've appologized but I don't suppose I'll ever live it
> >down.  The unique aspect is, it was a one-time error, and not a
> >manner, habit, or practice.
>
> You could always appeal.
>
> Guy (JzG)
> --
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
On Nov 28, 2006, at 4:11 PM, Rob Smith wrote:

> I need an advocate to assist; can you recommend anyone?
>
> nobs

Try Category:AMA Requests for Assistance

Fred


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fiction and Wikia

body:
charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com wrote:

>"Steve Bennett" wrote
>
>
>>To play devil's advocate, aren't we trying to be informative? Should
>>we be keeping genuine sources of information away from our readers? If
>>the topic is "Juggling in Copenhagen", then wouldn't a forum for
>>jugglers in Copenhagen be a really appropriate link?
>>
>>
>The mission is not the plain vanilla 'be informative'.
>
>Interesting comment from one of my non-Wikipedian friends. His colleagues at work tend to access official health statistics through WP external links; because it's quicker generally to do that, than to access the official site, in terms of getting to the relevant page out of many. That's quite a plaudit.
>
I've encountered the cryptic structure of that kind of site.  It says
even more about them.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!

body:
Tony wrote:
> Steve Summit wrote:
>> ...As I wrote in my very first contribution as a registered user,
>> during the July 2005 deletion nomination,
>>	...true story: this morning I was idly curious about GNAA,
>>	and was pleased to discover the Wikipedia article, so
>>	that I didn't have to favor GNAA's site with an undeserved
>>	hit.  Trolls they certainly are, and sad it is that
>>	they've become "notable", but like it or not, they are,
>>	and the article is wholly appropriate.
>
> What definition of "notable" are you using?  The only definition of
> that word that matters at Wikipedia is...

It's not so much what definition I am using, but rather, which
one I *was* using in that discussion, last year.  It was clearly
different from the definition (as you say, the only definition)
that matters today.

I do not want to re-open the deletion debate on this mailing list.
Skimming the votes (and unless there was some vote-stacking),
they look pretty convincing, in their way.  I am not trying to
dispute the result; I am merely lamenting it.

The point of my first-person account, in that discussion last year,
was an empirical one: all speculation and armchair philosophy
(about what Wikipedia "ought" to contain) aside, I was a reader
who had come to Wikipedia looking for an answer, and was pleased
to have found it.  I saluted, then, the courage that allowed
Wikipedia to supply that answer, contentious and unpopular though
it may have been.  On this point, I fear the project is the less,
for lacking such courage today.


from_name: Rory Stolzenberg

subject: [Foundation-l] Commons reuse FAQ updated

body:
On 11/28/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reusing_content_outside_Wikimedia
>
> I've tweaked this and filled it out a bit. It's hard writing about
> legal issues in very simple grammar; I'd like juriwiki-l in particular
> to look over this and check that I haven't oversimplified,
> particularly in the "how to comply with this licence" sections.
>
> The only section that hasn't been written yet is content under
> GPL/LGPL - anyone think they can write two simple sentences on how to
> comply with this licence?
>
> It should probably also be merged with the similar page on meta.
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

I read the license so I could write this, but I have absolutely no idea what
to write. The entire license is about how you have to distribute the source
code, and http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOtherThanSoftware says
it has to be "clear what constitutes the "source code" for the work." Since
I can't think of what the source code for images would be, I don't see how
it could even be possible to license images under the GPL (though, of
course, most of the images that are under the GPL are part of free software,
so it doesn't matter if they're being distributed as they're actually
supposed to be distributed instead of being used individually).


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Andre Engels

subject: [Wikipedia-l] common and lacking interwiki links

body:
I have updated the list at [[meta:Common Interwiki links]], containing the
pages that, according to the English Wikipedia, have a link in many
languages, but not in a given language. In this update, all languages that
had at least 100 of the 200 most common subjects have been included; this
makes 81 languages, up from 53 in the previous version (about two months
ago).

Here the 20 most linked subjects. India is still most linked, and has in
fact increased its lead by several miles, now (according to the article on
en:) having an article in 234 Wikipedia languages.

1. (1) India 233 (+82)
2. (2) True Jesus Church 161 (+10)
3. (--) 2006 150 (+57)
4. (3) Wikipedia 142 (+7)
5. (6) Germany 136 (+10)
6. (4) Spain 132 (+3)
7. (5) Europe 129 (+2)
8. (11) France 128 (+11)
9. (7) Lithuania 128 (+3)
10. (9) Bible 127 (+6)
11. (8) United States 126 (+4)
12. (--) 2005 122 (+26)
13. (12) Russia 120 (+5)
14. (10) Kur?w 118 (=)
15. (16) Christianity 116 (+8)
16. (15) Italy 115 (+6)
17. (14) English language 114 (+5)
18. (19) Astronomy 112 (+6)
19. (13) Geography 111 (+1)
20. (--) Africa 111 (+6)

Bubbling under: Biology, Norway, Poland

And because I love statistics and top lists, here again the top 100 persons
deemed most worthy of a Wikipedia article (according to the existence of
articles in various languages). Order where several had the same number
decided by me (note: this is the number of languages, and thus one higher
than what you see on the list, which shows the number of interwiki links)

1. (1) Jesus 110
2. (2) Albert Einstein 88
3. (4) Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart 85
4. (3) George W. Bush 83
5. (6) Johan Sebastian Bach 83
6. (5) Adolf Hitler 83
7. (7) Pope Benedict XVI 79
8. (8) Ludwig von Beethoven 77
9. (10) Pope John Paul II 75
10. (11) Christopher Columbus 74
11. (9) Leonardo da Vinci 74
12. (13) Karl Marx 73
13. (12) Charles Darwin 72
14. (19) Vladimir Lenin 71
15. (14) Isaac Newton 71
16. (18) Aristotle 69
17. (16) Mahatma Gandhi 69
18. (15) Plato 67
19. (28) Kofi Annan 67
20. (17) William Shakespeare 67
21. (24) Galileo Galilei 66
22. (**) Che Guevara 66
23. (23) Jacques Chirac 66
24. (26) Vladimir Putin 65
25. (21) Muhammad 64
26. (20) J. R. R. Tolkien 64
27. (31) Alexander the Great 63
28. (49) Ferdinand Magellan 63
29. (25) Pythagoras 63
30. (38) Vincent van Gogh 63
31. (54) Marco Polo 63
32. (29) Tony Blair 63
33. (22) Fidel Castro 63
34. (44) Johann Wolfgang Goethe 62
35. (40) Angela Merkel 62
36. (34) Bill Gates 62
37. (51) Nelson Mandela 62
38. (37) Socrates 61
37. (36) Homer 61
38. (33) Joseph Stalin 61
39. (48) Sigmund Freud 61
40. (27) Sid Vicious 61
41. (35) Marie Curie 61
42. (55) Roald Amundsen 61
43. (39) Winston Churchill 61
44. (32) Julius Caesar 60
45. (30) Napoleon I of France 60
46. (47) Benito Mussolini 60
48. (52) Thomas Edison 60
49. (43) Archimedes 59
50. (41) Genghis Khan 59
51. (60) George Washington 59
52. (56) Immanuel Kant 59
53. (42) Yasser Arafat 59
54. (57) Pablo Picasso 59
55. (46) George Orwell 59
56. (45) Alfred Nobel 59
57. (61) Osama bin Laden 58
58. (50) Nicolaus Copernicus 58
59. (53) Bill Clinton 58
60. (59) Abraham Lincoln 58
61. (58) Linus Torvalds 58
62. (**) James Cook 57
63. (66) Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom 57
64. (76) Ren? Descartes 57
65. (64) Friedrich Nietzsche 56
66. (69) John F. Kennedy 56
67. (62) Alan Turing 56
68. (72) Dante Alighieri 55
69. (71) Gerhard Schr?der 52
70. (67) Martin Luther 55
71. (--) Jacques Cartier 55
72. (70) Vasco da Gama 55
73. (65) Richard Wagner 55
74. (68) Richard Stallman 55
75. (63) Thomas Jefferson 55
76. (79) Carolus Linnaeus 54
77. (78) Fyodor Dostoevsky 54
78. (--) Francis Drake 54
79. (77) Ronald Reagan 54
80. (**) Charlemagne 53
81. (83) Ernest Hemingway 53
82. (80) Leon Trotsky 53
83. (--) Noam Chomsky 53
84. (89) Victor Hugo 53
85. (74) Elvis Presley 53
86. (85) John Lennon 53
87. (73) Johannes Gutenberg 53
88. (--) Hern?n Cort?s 52
89. (84) Joan of Arc 52
90. (--) Franklin D. Roosevelt 52
91. (87) Michelangelo 52
92. (--) Charles de Gaulle 52
93. (81) Albert Camus 52
94. (75) Leonhard Euler 52
95. (--) Isaac Asimov 52
96. (96) Johannes Kepler 52
97. (--) Mao Zedong 51
98. (--) Saddam Hussein 51
99. (--) Jean-Jacques Rousseau 51
100. (--) Indira Gandhi 51

Also 51: Otto von Bismarck, Jimmy Carter, Friedrich Engels, Edmund Hillary,
J. K. Rowling, Jean-Paul Sartre, Ariel Sharon, Harry S. Truman

**: These had been missed by me last time I composed this list. Che Guevara
would have been around position 20, James Cook around 71 and Charlemagne
around 74.

--
Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels


body:
Andrew Gray wrote:

>On 28/11/06, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>2. (2) True Jesus Church 161 (+10)
>>
>>
>(...)
>
>
>>1. (1) Jesus 110
>>
>>
>Something seems a bit weird there.
>
Even as between these two you would expect [[Jesus]] to have more links
than an obscure cult.

I also spot checked some of the links from [[India]] for less well known
languages.  It turns out that many of them have the same one paragraph
stub in English plus the flag of India.  Perhaps some Indian nationalist
has been keeping himself busy.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!

body:
Tony Jacobs wrote:

> I think it looks pretty good that we have a standard that we don't
> accept original research, even if said research can be easily done
> online.  That standard makes us more professional and more worthy or
> trust and respect.

No one's saying that we should accept original research.  However, to
act as if there's nothing verifiable or reliable about GNAA reeks of
short-sightedness.  Until we start accepting that *some* self-published
and blog-like sources are actually reliable when it comes to covering
certain things (like web memes or independent bands), we're going to
look incredibly naive.
>
> The question isn't whether "dead tree" sources exist, but whether *any
> non-trivial coverage* in *any independent source* exists.  It turns out
> it doesn't, in this case; at least nobody was able to pony it up.  There
> are certainly articles that are well sourced without any dead trees
> being involved; this wasn't one of them.

Was there non-trivial coverage in independent sources?  Yes.  Was there
any in something that Wikipedia thinks is "reliable" or "verifiable?"
No.  The problem is Wikipedia's situation with the latter, and it goes
far, far beyond silly troll organizations.

-Jeff

--
Name: Jeff Raymond
E-mail: jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com
WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com
IM: badlydrawnjeff
Quote: "As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the
	Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else."
	- Sen. Rick Santorum on the war in Iraq.


from_name: Andrew Gray

body:
On 28/11/06, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com> wrote:

> 2. (2) True Jesus Church 161 (+10)

(...)

> 1. (1) Jesus 110

Something seems a bit weird there.

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


from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!

body:
Taco Deposit wrote:
> I applaud the culture shift that has taken place on Wikipedia that has
> allowed [[Gay Nigger Association of America]] to be deleted due to
> verifiability concerns--after seventeen unsuccessful deletion
> nominations.

So can we now try getting it undeleted over and over and over again
until we eventually succeed?

-------------- 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/wikien-l/attachments/20061128/7db3ad51/attachment.pgp


body:
On 28/11/06, Rob Smith <nobs03 at gmail.com> wrote:

> What about were a systematic effort to remove sources is underway?  As
> in this article
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_Coe&diff=next&oldid=34386640

How... entirely irrelevant.

Because, when you look at the *other* edits made at the same time...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_Coe&diff=34387074&oldid=31308453

...you find that the material to which the source referred was taken
out, and the editor simply took six edits to do it all. Leaving the
source in, if the information to which it refers is gone, would be,
er, somewhat pointless and misleading.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_Coe&diff=39262981&oldid=39262903

...the same situation again.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!

body:
I suggest "Delete anything that makes you uncomfortable."

On 11/28/06, Ken Arromdee <arromdee at rahul.net> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2006, Jeff Raymond wrote:
> > This is when we start looking incredibly dumb as an organization when we
> > delete articles about subjects that obviously exist, are obviously well
> > know, and are actually verifiable, but because we can't bring ourselves
> to
> > trust a source that isn't available in dead tree form somewhere, we
> won't
> > have the article.  Doesn't make a lot of sense.
>
> This sounds like a classic example of stretching the wrong rule because
> the
> right rule doesn't exist.  It happens a lot in the real legal system, and
> usually causes more problems than it solves because once you've stretched
> a
> rule to cover the case, that becomes a precedent to interpret the rule in
> that manner forever.  (See: Commerce Clause.)
>
> WP:RS is already broken, especially when it comes to not allowing web and
> other self-published sources for non-academic subjects.  If you want to
> delete
> the GNAA article, I suggest either using Ignore All Rules to delete it, or
> coming up with a new rule.  I suggest a rule something like "A Wikipedia
> article may be deleted if merely creating and publicizing a neutral
> article
> advances the goal of the article's subject."  (Of course a full version of
> the rule would have to be worded more carefully so you don't delete
> articles
> about Wikipedia itself.)
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!

body:
On 11/28/06, Tony Jacobs <gtjacobs at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Of those that were independent, they fell into three classes: some made
> only
> a passing mention of GNAA, some were articles where GNAA was only
> mentioned
> in the message board responses at the bottom, and those that were actually
> *about* GNAA were blogs (there were one or two of those).  We use plenty
> of
> internet sources (not the least of which is IMDb, and I've seen plenty of
> citations to online mags like Salon and Slate), but blogs have been deemed
> below the threshhold.

Which is ridiculous, because blogs are a medium, not a particular source.
Banning all blogs as sources is absurd. A much better policy, one which
respects the reader rather than treating him like a child, is to source the
articles properly. If the source is a blog, the reader can supply his
judgment in how much credence to give the source. Similarly with say, the
New York Times, CNN, or the Washington Times, or Pravda.


subject: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!

body:
The Cunctator wrote:

>I suggest "Delete anything that makes you uncomfortable."
>
>
We already have too many who would be happy with such a green light.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!

body:
Jeff Raymond wrote:

> Michael Snow wrote:
>
>> The reader can only supply judgment about the credibility of a source
>> if there is some information upon which to exercise that judgment.
>> The reason blogs get singled out as a category is not because they
>> cannot ever be useful sources, but because so few of them provide the
>> information a reader would need to decide how it stacks up against
>> other sources. (I assume that the reader won't make the decision
>> based on the fact that it's a blog, since as you rightly point out,
>> that's only a label for the medium in general.)
>
> But we can realistically say that about *any* source.  I mean, do you
> really trust Reuters and their middle east coverage right now?
>
>>
>> For example, the existence of independent sources is essential, both
>> to maintain a neutral presentation and to avoid gullibly repeating
>> falsehoods. But when you have a blog of unknown provenance, it's
>> impossible to know whether it qualifies as independent (Wal-Mart
>> Across America, anyone?).
>
> Jayson Blair?  Stephen Glass?
>
> The only roadblock we have regarding blogs as sources is that some are
> more reputable than others, and filtering the wheat from the chaff is
> important.  However, we do that with magazines, books, and journals
> already, so it can't be *that* difficult.

Jeff, you seem to have missed the point I was making. It's not a
question of whether we trust Reuters or the New York Times. The
Cunctator was making the understandable argument that we should tell
people, "We got this from Reuters", or the New York Times or whatever
the case may be, and let *them* decide whether to trust that particular
source.

The roadblock with blogs is not simply that some have shoddy
reputations. It's that so many basically have no reputation at all, and
no way for the reader to figure out what their reputation should be. And
no, you can't do that for an anonymous blog the same way you would for
material from known authors and publishers.

--Michael Snow