from_name: Patrick Spinler

body:
> Message: 10
> From: "Magnus Manske" <Magnus.Manske at epost.de>
> To: "Wikipedia-L at Nupedia. Com" <wikipedia-l at nupedia.com>
> Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 20:16:16 +0100
> Subject: [Wikipedia-l] PHP script with tarball from www.wikipedia.com
> Reply-To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
>
> Note : All Foobar/Talk subpages have been automatically converted to
> talk:Foobar! There should be a green link on every article page leading to
> the talk namespace.

If a /Talk space doesn't exist, and you create one, is it still supposed
to map to a talk: space ?  Currently, it doesn't.  (Check out
architechure/Talk, which I just did)

-- Pat

--
      This message does not represent the policies or positions
	     of the Mayo Foundation or its subsidiaries.
  Patrick Spinler			email:	Spinler.Patrick at Mayo.EDU
  Mayo Foundation			phone:	507/284-9485


list: wikipedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [Wikipedia-l] LinkBacks?

body:
Laura T. wrote:
> Why is there a debate about using/ having linkbacks?

We are releasing the content of the Wikipedia under an open license,
the GNU FDL.  We have not previously been clear enough about exactly
how people who want to copy our material are expected to behave.  We
are trying to clarify this.

> Also, why 2 sites, or 2 encyclopedias? My impression of them is Wikipedia
> is the "everyman's" encyclopedia and Nupedia is for the university elite. I
> looked at being a writer there but I really felt I wouldn't be welcome
> since I'm just a college graduate of a two year program for corporate
> communications.

Nupedia was started first, and is extremely high quality in the
limited content that it does produce.  After a year or so of working
on Nupedia, Larry had the idea to use Wiki software for a separate
project specifically for people like you (and me!) who are intimidated
and bored (sorry, Nupedia!) with the tedium of the process.

As it turns out, Wikipedia is dramatically more successful on some
measures, and Nupedia is dramatically more successful on some other
measures.  It is my personal expectation that in the future, Nupedia
will end up using (somehow) content from Wikipedia as a foundation for
an "academically respectable" project.

The main thing about Wikipedia is that it is fun and addictive.  :-)

> Curiousity killed the cat, its a good thing I'm a dragon. ;)

Indeed, it is a good thing, then.

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.wikipedia.com/          *
*        You can edit this page right now!      *
*************************************************


subject: [Wikipedia-l] The threat of forking and why it is good

in_reply_to: <200110302020.VAA01790@linde.uni-paderborn.de>; from axel@uni-paderborn.de on Tue, Oct 30, 2001 at 09:20:14PM +0100

body:
Axel Boldt wrote:
> We all agree that Bomis does an exceptional job in managing our little
> project, in every respect possible. Still, I think a small but real
> threat of forking is beneficial, even for our benevolent dictators.

Absolutely agreed completely.

> The current table form of the invariant section almost seems to be
> designed to defeat any forking attempt. I would prefer a version which
> makes forkers say "Ok, you could also contribute to the project at
> wikipedia.com if you think they do a better job. No hard feelings."

Well, sure!  I agree completely.  I assume you aren't recommending
that as a literal wording.  :-)

I would say that we should ask people to put the pretty table, but
require them only to put the simplest possible link back.

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.wikipedia.com/          *
*        You can edit this page right now!      *
*************************************************


in_reply_to: <ILENJBCFHGHELEBFPPBGOEBICEAA.Magnus.Manske@epost.de>; from Magnus.Manske@epost.de on Tue, Oct 30, 2001 at 10:52:35PM +0100

body:
In my opinion, just an opinion as a user, I think you should restrict
them from doing that.  It will be too confusing.  Lots of old users
will drop back by, unaware of software changes, and we should try to
make everything seamless for them.

If they try /Talk, they surely just mean talk: in the new system.  So
we can make that transition for them, as transparently as possible?

Other opinions?

Magnus Manske wrote:

> I didn't restrict page titles with "/", so you can still create a /talk
> subpage to every page, even within the talk: namespace. Your
> Architecture/Talk page even has its own talk: namespace. I hope people will
> not create /talk subpages when they have a talk: namespace, but I don't
> think I could (or should) stop them.
>
> Or should I?
>
> Magnus
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com
> > [mailto:wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com]On Behalf Of Patrick Spinler
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 10:44 PM
> > To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
> > Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] PHP script with tarball from
> > www.wikipedia.com
> >
> >
> > > Message: 10
> > > From: "Magnus Manske" <Magnus.Manske at epost.de>
> > > To: "Wikipedia-L at Nupedia. Com" <wikipedia-l at nupedia.com>
> > > Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 20:16:16 +0100
> > > Subject: [Wikipedia-l] PHP script with tarball from www.wikipedia.com
> > > Reply-To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
> > >
> > > Note : All Foobar/Talk subpages have been automatically converted to
> > > talk:Foobar! There should be a green link on every article page
> > leading to
> > > the talk namespace.
> >
> > If a /Talk space doesn't exist, and you create one, is it still supposed
> > to map to a talk: space ?  Currently, it doesn't.  (Check out
> > architechure/Talk, which I just did)
> >
> > -- Pat
> >
> > --
> >       This message does not represent the policies or positions
> > 	     of the Mayo Foundation or its subsidiaries.
> >   Patrick Spinler			email:	Spinler.Patrick at Mayo.EDU
> >   Mayo Foundation			phone:	507/284-9485
> > [Wikipedia-l]
> > To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> > http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.wikipedia.com/          *
*        You can edit this page right now!      *
*************************************************


from_name: Laura T.

subject: [Wikipedia-l] LinkBacks?

body:
The Open Directory Project licenses their content, sounds like you could
use the same system. I don't know any details ahout how its done. But they
seem to have control over their content while making it freely (open)
available. Does anyone have contacts with someone at Dmoz? I don't any
more, I did't kiss all the right asses.

Laura

At 04:02 PM 10/30/2001 -0600, you wrote:
>Laura T. wrote:
> > Why is there a debate about using/ having linkbacks?
>
>We are releasing the content of the Wikipedia under an open license,
>the GNU FDL.  We have not previously been clear enough about exactly
>how people who want to copy our material are expected to behave.  We
>are trying to clarify this.

          \\
     .-'```^```'-.       http://wz.com/business/ASCIIart.html
    /   (\ __ /)  \    http://www.backwash.com/content.php?id=59
    |    ` \/ ` |\_/|
    \    \____/ (^Y^)--.-,
     `'-.......-'w-w__((__)  ldb


from_name: Robert Bihlmeyer

subject: [Wikipedia-l] open content, GNU FDL, and open format specifications

body:
Lars Aronsson <lars at aronsson.se> writes:

> Wikipedia add-on license, do you also provide a full specification of
> the text format you use?

Yes. UseModWiki is Free Software. AFAIK Magnus' php script will be
too.

--
Robbe
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.ng
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20011030/b2423d4d/attachment.pgp


subject: [Wikipedia-l] A question

body:
Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> writes:

> I would not feel comfortable with the idea that Microsoft or Yahoo
> could take our content, make an encyclopedia out of it
> (redistributable, of course), and *not* include an invariant section
> amounting to a link back to us.

Regardless of whether we mandate an invariant linkback section, they
would have to attribute the source correctly, anyway. See 4.D. and
4.I. and, especially 4.J.:

[You may publish modified versions if you]
  Preserve the network location, if any, given in the Document for
  public access to a Transparent copy of the Document, and likewise
  the network locations given in the Document for previous versions it
  was based on. These may be placed in the "History" section. You may
  omit a network location for a work that was published at least four
  years before the Document itself, or if the original publisher of
  the version it refers to gives permission.

I frankly don't get why we need an invariant section for linkback. IMO
it would be enough to point at the GFDL, and recommend a linkback as
a way that would satisfy us.

--
Robbe
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.ng
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20011030/e215c6f0/attachment.pgp


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Wikipedia-l] PHP script with tarball from www.wikipedia.com

body:
The English tarball is up at
http://wikipedia.sourceforge.net/fpw/wiki.phtml! It is a little out-of-date
(13.000 pages, ~8.000 articles), but it should give a realistic view of the
performance to be expected. Of course, I will continue improving speed, and
the sourceforge server seems a little slow (to me, anyway) compared to the
bomis server, so don't be scared if something takes a second to load,
especially the new special functions. "Orphans" is currently not working
because it blows the memory limit for scripts on the sourceforge server.
I'll try to fix it some time soon.

Note : All Foobar/Talk subpages have been automatically converted to
talk:Foobar! There should be a green link on every article page leading to
the talk namespace.

I hereby officially welcome The Cunctator to the test site! Found some bugs
already! :)

And, yes, the script will be "free software". It's at sourceforge, after
all...

Magnus


from_name: Axel Boldt

body:
Let me preface this by saying that I don't like the concept of
marriage: two people should stay together because they love each
other, not because they feel bound to each other by the prospect of a
messy divorce.

Every open content project has to deal with the threat of forking.
Somebody just takes the code or content and starts a competing
project. This is good. It keeps the managers of the project on their
toes. They will have to do a good job or else the developers will go
elsewhere.

Forking is actually less of a threat for Wikipedia than it is for
Linux, say: we could just cut and paste the forker's superior articles
into Wikipedia. Code reuse between different programs is much more
delicate.

We all agree that Bomis does an exceptional job in managing our little
project, in every respect possible. Still, I think a small but real
threat of forking is beneficial, even for our benevolent dictators.

The current table form of the invariant section almost seems to be
designed to defeat any forking attempt. I would prefer a version which
makes forkers say "Ok, you could also contribute to the project at
wikipedia.com if you think they do a better job. No hard feelings."

Axel


body:
I didn't restrict page titles with "/", so you can still create a /talk
subpage to every page, even within the talk: namespace. Your
Architecture/Talk page even has its own talk: namespace. I hope people will
not create /talk subpages when they have a talk: namespace, but I don't
think I could (or should) stop them.

Or should I?

Magnus

> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com
> [mailto:wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com]On Behalf Of Patrick Spinler
> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 10:44 PM
> To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] PHP script with tarball from
> www.wikipedia.com
>
>
> > Message: 10
> > From: "Magnus Manske" <Magnus.Manske at epost.de>
> > To: "Wikipedia-L at Nupedia. Com" <wikipedia-l at nupedia.com>
> > Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 20:16:16 +0100
> > Subject: [Wikipedia-l] PHP script with tarball from www.wikipedia.com
> > Reply-To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
> >
> > Note : All Foobar/Talk subpages have been automatically converted to
> > talk:Foobar! There should be a green link on every article page
> leading to
> > the talk namespace.
>
> If a /Talk space doesn't exist, and you create one, is it still supposed
> to map to a talk: space ?  Currently, it doesn't.  (Check out
> architechure/Talk, which I just did)
>
> -- Pat
>
> --
>       This message does not represent the policies or positions
> 	     of the Mayo Foundation or its subsidiaries.
>   Patrick Spinler			email:	Spinler.Patrick at Mayo.EDU
>   Mayo Foundation			phone:	507/284-9485
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


from_name: The Cunctator

body:
> In my opinion, just an opinion as a user, I think you should restrict
> them from doing that.  It will be too confusing.  Lots of old users
> will drop back by, unaware of software changes, and we should try to
> make everything seamless for them.

> If they try /Talk, they surely just mean talk: in the new system.  So
> we can make that transition for them, as transparently as possible?

> Other opinions?

I recommend not building in automatic technological restrictions if
we believe the combination of
a) social pressure and
b) automatic ease of doing the "preferred" thing

In other words, having the Talk namespace is great, I think (though
it does raise some confusing issues about hierarchies etc.) and we should,
if we implement it, automatically convert current /Talk pages to
the new system.

That way new people wouldn't have any motivation to create /Talk pages;
and old people, who will know what's going on, won't have any motivation
to create /Talk pages.

What we don't know, is that in the future, someone might actually have
a good reason for wanting a /Talk page. I can't think of one, but I'm
not arrogant enough to believe that I can think of every possibility.
Someone would need a pretty good justification, because the societal
regulations would prevent him from creating the page without good reason.

So I say this is a case in which its unnecessary to build in restrictions
in code as long as we make the preferred method the standard and easy to
use.

--
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com www.kband.com
www.wikipedia.com/wiki/September_11,_2001_Terrorist_Attack/In_Memoriam


in_reply_to: <3BDF7BD6.6B1D1DB2@kband.com>; from cunctator@kband.com on Tue, Oct 30, 2001 at 11:23:04PM -0500

body:
The Cunctator wrote:
> What we don't know, is that in the future, someone might actually have
> a good reason for wanting a /Talk page. I can't think of one, but I'm
> not arrogant enough to believe that I can think of every possibility.

How about this -- we get rid of the capability until someone asks for
it, which will be never, because it's useless.  I am arrogant enough
to think that anyone can plainly see that!  If the need arises, and
social pressure is there, then /Discussion would do just as well.
/Talk is just a convention, many others are available.

The downside of having two different kinds of talk pages is immediate
and obvious -- people will be, as the joke goes, "/talk-ing past each
other".  There will be confusion for no obvious purpose.

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.wikipedia.com/          *
*        You can edit this page right now!      *
*************************************************


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Article about Wikipedia in Polish press

body:
Neat!  Krzysztof, if there is anything I can do to help the Polish
Wikipedia movement succeed, please write to me personally and ask.  I
think that the Polish language has a strong possibility of being the
biggest non-English Wiki for some time to come.

Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz wrote:

>
> Hello,
>
> There is rather a lengthy (several columns long) article about Wikipedia
> in a Polish daily newspaper - "Gazeta Wyborcza" Komputer section
> (30-Oct-2001).
>
> This article is interesting, written in approving tone and giving a lot
> of details about how Wikipedia works and what Wikipedia is.
>
> It also mentions Polish mutation of Wikipedia that is available at the
> URL :
> http://wiki.rozeta.com.pl/
>
> Regards,
> kpj.
> --
> Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz, M.D
> Pierwsza Polska Wolna Encyklopedia Sieciowa - TY te? mo?esz j? tworzy?
> zajrzyj na : http://wiki.rozeta.com.pl/
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.wikipedia.com/          *
*        You can edit this page right now!      *
*************************************************


from_name: Simon Kissane

body:
--- "Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz" <kpjas at promail.pl>
wrote:
[snip]
> It also mentions Polish mutation of Wikipedia that
> is available at the URL : http://wiki.rozeta.com.pl/
What relationship (if any) does that wiki have with
pl.wikipedia.com? I notice that there is a reference
to wiki.rozeta.com.pl on the pl.wikipedia.com
HomePage, but I can't read Polish... Could someone who
can read Polish please tell me what it says?

[snip]

Simon.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Details of licensing -- should we bother?

body:
Hi everyone,

Recently I have been engaging on this list in rather
technical arguments about what the FDL allows and
doesn't allow. To be honest I have come to the
conclusion that the FDL is rather vague and difficult
to apply precisely. But then I suppose all such
licenses are like that -- there are just too many
possibilities to be able to deal with them all.

Of course, in the Real World(tm) people work out what
the license really means through lawsuits. But we
should all hope we need never resort to that. And
AFAIK, there has never been a single case involving
the GFDL or GPL. Most people are good and obey the
license (more or less); the few that don't can
generally be talked out of it or presured by the
community into compliance.

(And I think that, if anyone ever did violate the FDL
in respect of Wikipedia, and we tried to enforce it
through the courts, we might run into legal
difficulties anyway. I suspect it is much harder to
prosecute copyright infringement when the holders of
the copyright are an amorphous mass of people, many
anonymous, rather only one or a few clearly
identifiable individuals.)

Which is why I propose we forget about the precise
legal details of the FDL. Since the FDL is enforced
through means of social pressure rather than legal
proceeding, its spirit is more important than its
letter. So lets just put the precise requirements of
the FDL aside, and just concentrate on what would be
the best solution.

I also think we need to be flexible here. We should
decide on acknowledgement criteria now, but we should
be open to changing the criteria in the future.
Otherwise we might decide on something that seems good
now, but turns out later on to be very bad, and be
stuck with it. Any future adjustments should be
decided upon by the general consensus of the Wikipedia
community. Of course, changing acknowledgment criteria
like that might not fit with the letter of the FDL and
copyright law, but as I said above its the spirit, not
the letter, of the FDL that really counts. (And as to
copyright law, as I said it is difficult to apply it
to Wikipedia -- copyright law isn't designed to handle
largely anonymous, free, community products. It
doesn't IMHO work too well for things like GNU or
Linux, and it is sure to work even less for Wikipedia.
Open source and open content tries to build itself
upon copyright law, but there is no natural fit
between them -- they are based on fundamentally
different concepts.)

Finally, I think people are overestimating the
likelihood of Yahoo or MSN or so on putting up their
own variants of Wikipedia without acknowledging. They
wouldn't do this for several reasons: (1) even if they
might in theory get away with it, their lawyers would
tell them to be cautious; (2) coming from largely
copyright-centred corporate cultures (almost
everything they own is IP), they probably will need
encouragement to use Wikipedia at all, not
discouragement from using it incorrectly; (3) even if
they did, i'm sure the community (not just us, i'm
sure we'd see slashdot and then wired and other media
reporting on it) would pounce on them if they insisted
on using it without acknowledgement.

Simon J Kissane

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com


from_name: lsanger at nupedia.com

body:
To Jimbo's reply, I would just like to add this: as you probably know,
Krzysztof, we have been trying to work with Pawel Jochym, the leader of
your project, to get http://pl.wikipedia.com set up correctly.  After a
lengthy period of non-communication on the issue, we have uploaded the
latest version of your code and have done some preliminary testing, and
everything seems to be fine.  Pawel has told me repeatedly that he fully
intends to move the project to pl.wikipedia.com, rather than stop using
the "Wikipedia" name and association (which is your other option, but
not the one that Pawel favors, it seems).

Larry Sanger

On Wed, 31 Oct 2001, Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz wrote:

>
> Hello,
>
> There is rather a lengthy (several columns long) article about Wikipedia
> in a Polish daily newspaper - "Gazeta Wyborcza" Komputer section
> (30-Oct-2001).
>
> This article is interesting, written in approving tone and giving a lot
> of details about how Wikipedia works and what Wikipedia is.
>
> It also mentions Polish mutation of Wikipedia that is available at the
> URL :
> http://wiki.rozeta.com.pl/
>
> Regards,
> kpj.
>


subject: [Wikipedia-l] template & locking pages

body:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2001, wojtek pobratyn wrote:

> I noticed today (Oct. 31 that is) that someone has added "You can edit
> this page right now!" to wikipedia's template. This is fine, however,
> the HomePage is locked for editing and IMHO it might mislead new
> visitors.

That would have been Jimbo.  We thought it would be a good idea.  I also
think we should specify on each page the name "Wikipedia" and the fact
that it's an encyclopedia.  We might do this on a new logo.

Jimbo, would there be a way to prevent that statement from appearing on
the homepage?  That would solve the falseness problem.  :-)

> I don't really agree with locking pages, but that is another issue....

I don't like it either, but I don't know how else, short of hacking
together a system like Jimbo has proposed, we can dissuade fartboy from
doing his thing.

Larry


body:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2001, Michel Clasquin wrote:

> > I'm getting married on December 1.
>
> Allright, now there's a challenge for all us Wikipedians. We have one
> month to present Larry and his bride with the definitive set of pages on
> [[Marriage]]
> [[Marriage counselling]]
> [[Marriage customs]]
> [[Marriage - legal aspects]]
> [[Marriage - religious aspects]]
> [[Wedding]]

I'd like to add:

[[History of marriage]]
[[Marriage throughout the world]] or [[Marriage--anthropological aspects]]
or something like that.  What *should* we call an article that compares
the different views and cultural aspects of marriage through the world and
history?

Also:
[[engagement ring]]
[[wedding band]]
[[wedding dress]]
[[tuxedo]]
[[wedding reception]]
[[honeymoon]]

I'll add these topics to "requested articles."

--Larry


from_name: Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz

body:
Hello,

There is rather a lengthy (several columns long) article about Wikipedia
in a Polish daily newspaper - "Gazeta Wyborcza" Komputer section
(30-Oct-2001).

This article is interesting, written in approving tone and giving a lot
of details about how Wikipedia works and what Wikipedia is.

It also mentions Polish mutation of Wikipedia that is available at the
URL :
http://wiki.rozeta.com.pl/

Regards,
kpj.
--
Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz, M.D
Pierwsza Polska Wolna Encyklopedia Sieciowa - TY te? mo?esz j? tworzy?
zajrzyj na : http://wiki.rozeta.com.pl/


from_name: Mark Christensen

subject: [Wikipedia-l] PHP Wikipedia -- Find the bugs, and get a prize.

body:
I notice there's no easy way to change a redirect on the PHP wikipedia ( or
I am missing something? There's no link back on the page you've been
redirected to, and I think this is somewhat dangerous, since somebody could
maliciously redirect page names.  The possibilities are actually pretty bad,
imagine words people take very seriously like Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, being
redirected to racial epithets.   If this kind of thing happened, it should
be relatively easy for any of us to fix so it doesn't stay around for
long...

Mark Christensen

-----Original Message-----
From: Magnus Manske [mailto:Magnus.Manske at epost.de]

The English tarball is up at
http://wikipedia.sourceforge.net/fpw/wiki.phtml! It is a little out-of-date
(13.000 pages, ~8.000 articles), but it should give a realistic view of the
performance to be expected. Of course, I will continue improving speed, and
the sourceforge server seems a little slow (to me, anyway) compared to the
bomis server, so don't be scared if something takes a second to load,
especially the new special functions. "Orphans" is currently not working
because it blows the memory limit for scripts on the sourceforge server.
I'll try to fix it some time soon.

Note : All Foobar/Talk subpages have been automatically converted to
talk:Foobar! There should be a green link on every article page leading to
the talk namespace.

I hereby officially welcome The Cunctator to the test site! Found some bugs
already! :)

And, yes, the script will be "free software". It's at sourceforge, after
all...

Magnus

[Wikipedia-l]
To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Article-a-day

body:
I don't remember when the last time I saw an "article-a-day" article was,
but I'm pretty sure I didn't see one in the last few days.  What's the
reason for this?

Larry


body:
Congratulations

How about [wedding ceremony] too?

Laura

At 09:13 AM 10/31/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>On Wed, 31 Oct 2001, Michel Clasquin wrote:
>
> > > I'm getting married on December 1.

          \\
     .-'```^```'-.       http://wz.com/business/ASCIIart.html
    /   (\ __ /)  \    http://www.backwash.com/content.php?id=59
    |    ` \/ ` |\_/|
    \    \____/ (^Y^)--.-,
     `'-.......-'w-w__((__)  ldb


body:
Fixed it, together with some other stuff. Working on the remaining items
from the bug list now.

Magnus

> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com
> [mailto:wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com]On Behalf Of Mark Christensen
> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 3:44 PM
> To: 'wikipedia-l at nupedia.com'
> Subject: [Wikipedia-l] PHP Wikipedia -- Find the bugs, and get a prize.
>
>
> I notice there's no easy way to change a redirect on the PHP
> wikipedia ( or
> I am missing something? There's no link back on the page you've been
> redirected to, and I think this is somewhat dangerous, since
> somebody could
> maliciously redirect page names.  The possibilities are actually
> pretty bad,
> imagine words people take very seriously like Jesus, Mohammed,
> Buddha, being
> redirected to racial epithets.   If this kind of thing happened, it should
> be relatively easy for any of us to fix so it doesn't stay around for
> long...
>
> Mark Christensen
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Magnus Manske [mailto:Magnus.Manske at epost.de]
>
> The English tarball is up at
> http://wikipedia.sourceforge.net/fpw/wiki.phtml! It is a little
> out-of-date
> (13.000 pages, ~8.000 articles), but it should give a realistic
> view of the
> performance to be expected. Of course, I will continue improving
> speed, and
> the sourceforge server seems a little slow (to me, anyway) compared to the
> bomis server, so don't be scared if something takes a second to load,
> especially the new special functions. "Orphans" is currently not working
> because it blows the memory limit for scripts on the sourceforge server.
> I'll try to fix it some time soon.
>
> Note : All Foobar/Talk subpages have been automatically converted to
> talk:Foobar! There should be a green link on every article page leading to
> the talk namespace.
>
> I hereby officially welcome The Cunctator to the test site! Found
> some bugs
> already! :)
>
> And, yes, the script will be "free software". It's at sourceforge, after
> all...
>
> Magnus
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


from_name: wojtek pobratyn

subject: [Wikipedia-l] template & locking pages

body:
hi all.

I noticed today (Oct. 31 that is) that someone has added "You can edit this page right now!" to wikipedia's template. This is fine, however, the HomePage is locked for editing and IMHO it might mislead new visitors.

I don't really agree with locking pages, but that is another issue....

regards,

wojpob
----
wojtek lukasz pobratyn
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/WojPob

--

Zamow odbitki ze zdjec cyfrowych lub archiwum zdjec na CD!
[ http://lab.foto.onet.pl/laboratorium.html ]


from_name: Michel Clasquin

body:
On Tuesday 30 October 2001 23:34, you wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, Axel Boldt wrote:
> > Let me preface this by saying that I don't like the concept of
> > marriage: two people should stay together because they love each
> > other, not because they feel bound to each other by the prospect of a
> > messy divorce.
>
> I'm getting married on December 1.
>
> Larry

Allright, now there's a challenge for all us Wikipedians. We have one
month to present Larry and his bride with the definitive set of pages on
[[Marriage]]
[[Marriage counselling]]
[[Marriage customs]]
[[Marriage - legal aspects]]
[[Marriage - religious aspects]]
[[Wedding]]

I'll go set up some preliminary stubs tonight.  And no /Talking during the
ceremony, please.
--
Michel Clasquin, D Litt et Phil (Unisa)
clasqm at mweb.co.za/unisa.ac.za   http://www.geocities.com/clasqm
This message was posted from a Microsoft-free PC

f u cn rd ths, u cn gt a gd jb n nx dmnstrtn


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Article-a-day

body:
--- lsanger at nupedia.com wrote:
> I don't remember when the last time I saw an
> "article-a-day" article was, but I'm pretty sure I
> didn't see one in the last few days.  What's the
> reason for this?
>
> Larry
I don't know, but I guess its just because no one has
added any new articles. Maybe one way to encourage
people to do so would be to add a link at the bottom
of each screen, that says something like "Think the
above article is good? Add it to the [[article a day
queue]]!"

Also, does the article a day software only send each
article to all of its subscribers once, or each
article to each subscriber once. (I.e., if I was to
subscribe today, would I get any of the earlier
articles it has already sent out?) -- SJK

[snip]
Simon.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com


body:
Simon Kissane wrote:
> Which is why I propose we forget about the precise
> legal details of the FDL. Since the FDL is enforced
> through means of social pressure rather than legal
> proceeding, its spirit is more important than its
> letter. So lets just put the precise requirements of
> the FDL aside, and just concentrate on what would be
> the best solution.

I sort of agree with this!  I have to confess that this has been my
attitude from the start.  We just say "It is released under the GNU
FDL" and I didn't worry too much about the exact details.  The 5
author requirement, etc. are puzzling.

I would actually prefer if we had a way to release under a
Wikipedia-specific license, but I think we need the instant "free"
credibility of the GNU FDL license.  It tells people immediately that
they can count on certain things.

And, so I think that as long as we're using the GNU FDL, we need to do
what we can to "get it right" for the more pedantic among us.  :-)

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.wikipedia.com/          *
*        You can edit this page right now!      *
*************************************************


subject: [Wikipedia-l] template & locking pages

body:
wojtek pobratyn wrote:
> I don't really agree with locking pages, but that is another issue....

I don't agree with the way we're doing it right now, that's for sure.
If you want the password, you can just email me and I'll give it out
freely.  The only requirement is just that I'm aware of you in some
fashion.

I think that getting privileges on the homepage should be automatic,
transparent, and easy.  It's just that I don't find it very amusing
when some random kid surfs in and puts a giant spurting penis picture
there.

It remains to be seen what level of protection is really necessary,
but I really hope that only the most minimal protection is needed.

The success of wikipedia so far has been a great joy to me.  My faith
in the general goodness of human beings has been extended to a great
extent.  I would have thought that with 5,000 unique visitors a day,
we'd be getting at least 50 jerks trying to wreck something per day.
It's a lot less than that!

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.wikipedia.com/          *
*        You can edit this page right now!      *
*************************************************


body:
> I sort of agree with this!  I have to confess that this has been my
> attitude from the start.  We just say "It is released under the GNU
> FDL" and I didn't worry too much about the exact details.  The 5
> author requirement, etc. are puzzling.

This would be simple to resolve; the semi-official standard at Wikipedia
is no authorship; so we'd just have to state that officially.
We could state that's different for the Wikipedia commentary and
individual pages.

Problem solved. :)

> I would actually prefer if we had a way to release under a
> Wikipedia-specific license, but I think we need the instant "free"
> credibility of the GNU FDL license.  It tells people immediately that
> they can count on certain things.

Not only that, the license is pretty tightly put together; it's
marvelously specific about printed publications, which is crucial, and it's
still applicable to electronic publications, an area in which the
law is still vague and changing.

> And, so I think that as long as we're using the GNU FDL, we need to do
> what we can to "get it right" for the more pedantic among us.  :-)

I'm dead certain that the Free Software Foundation would be more
than willing to get their lawyer to help us get it right. My recommendation
would be for us to draw up a set of questions and proposed answers,
and present them to the FSF for review. They might even be willing to
do a conference call or some sort with Jimbo and Larry.

--
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com www.kband.com
www.wikipedia.com/wiki/September_11,_2001_Terrorist_Attack/In_Memoriam


from_name: João Mário Miranda

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

> I sort of agree with this!  I have to confess that this has been my
> attitude from the start.  We just say "It is released under the GNU
> FDL" and I didn't worry too much about the exact details.  The 5
> author requirement, etc. are puzzling.

The problem of the 5 author requirement can be solved by a link
to the Wikipedians:http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Wikipedians

--
jo?o
http://www.nonio.com


from_name: Lars Aronsson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Thoemmes Press

body:
Thoemmes Press, a British publisher of dictionaries and works on
philosophy (on paper and online), just posted this surprise in their
newsletter, to which I subscribe.  It might be interesting for
wikipedians to check out.

Yes, they are commercial.  I have no affiliation with them.  It is not
my intent to spam the wikipedia list.  I honestly think this would be
interesting to many of you.  And I do think it is related to Wikipedia.

> ------------------------
> Free - Online Encyclopedia
> ------------------------
>
> An online bibliographic data source containing entries on both minor and
> major philosophical figures from the 16th century to the present day, which
> we are delighted to offer FREE to all our users.
>
> November's new entries include:
>
> AMES, William (Latin name Guilielmus Amesius: 1576-1633)
> ANNET, Peter (1693-1769)
> BINNING, Hugh (1627-53)
> BROWNE, Peter (1664/5-1735)
> BURKE, Edmund (1729-97)
> CUDWORTH, Ralph (1617-88)
> HOOKER, Richard (1554-1600)
> KAMES, Henry Home, Lord (1696-1782)
> SWIFT, Jonathan (1667-1745)
> WOLLSTONECRAFT, Mary (later Godwin: 1759-97)
>
> To subscribe to this service, please visit
> http://www.thoemmes.com/encyclo.htm

OK, it requires registration, it is not copyright-free, the user
interface stinks, it isn't hypertext, and you cannot contribute, but
the few articles that are in there actually aren't too bad.  And the
URLs to individual articles are clean and nice:

    http://www.thoemmes.com/encyclopedia/ames.htm
    http://www.thoemmes.com/encyclopedia/burke.htm
    http://www.thoemmes.com/encyclopedia/home.htm

--
  Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
  Aronsson Datateknik
  Teknikringen 1e, SE-583 30 Link?ping, Sweden
  tel +46-70-7891609
  http://aronsson.se


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Thoemmes Press

body:
I was wondering, could we use their list of articles
as cross-check for topics we haven't covered yet?

SJK

--- Lars Aronsson <lars at aronsson.se> wrote:
>
> Thoemmes Press, a British publisher of dictionaries
> and works on philosophy (on paper and online), just
> posted this surprise in their newsletter, to which I

> subscribe.  It might be interesting for wikipedians
> to check out.
[snip]
> > ------------------------
> > Free - Online Encyclopedia
> > ------------------------
> >
> > An online bibliographic data source containing
> > entries on both minor and major philosophical
> > figures from the 16th century to the present day,
> > which we are delighted to offer FREE to all our
> > users.
> >
> > November's new entries include:
> >
> > AMES, William (Latin name Guilielmus Amesius:
> > 1576-1633)
> > ANNET, Peter (1693-1769)
> > BINNING, Hugh (1627-53)
> > BROWNE, Peter (1664/5-1735)
> > BURKE, Edmund (1729-97)
> > CUDWORTH, Ralph (1617-88)
> > HOOKER, Richard (1554-1600)
> > KAMES, Henry Home, Lord (1696-1782)
> > SWIFT, Jonathan (1667-1745)
> > WOLLSTONECRAFT, Mary (later Godwin: 1759-97)
[snip]

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find a job, post your resume.
http://careers.yahoo.com


from_name: Ian

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Article-a-day

body:
The page to add the articals to is hard to find.

Ian Monroe


from_name: Hannes Hirzel

body:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, Jimmy Wales wrote:

> Axel Boldt wrote:
> > We all agree that Bomis does an exceptional job in managing our little
> > project, in every respect possible. Still, I think a small but real
> > threat of forking is beneficial, even for our benevolent dictators.
>
> Absolutely agreed completely.
>
> > The current table form of the invariant section almost seems to be
> > designed to defeat any forking attempt. I would prefer a version which
> > makes forkers say "Ok, you could also contribute to the project at
> > wikipedia.com if you think they do a better job. No hard feelings."
>
> Well, sure!  I agree completely.  I assume you aren't recommending
> that as a literal wording.  :-)
>
> I would say that we should ask people to put the pretty table, but
> require them only to put the simplest possible link back.

I consider this to be a good solution.

Thanks

Hannes Hirzel


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Admins (I suspect LMS) permanently deleting things without reason

body:
Persons have recently taken to deleting pages totally
(i.e. with the admin delete command) without any
justification or even prior discussion as to why they
are doing this. Pages that were deleted include
[[Reasons for deleting page titles]], [[Wikipedia
vandalism]], [[Vandalism/Talk]], TheCunctator's
subpage of [[Wikipedia commentary]] listing pages that
were deleted (unfortuantely I can't remember what its
title was), and I don't know what else.

Unfortunately, when someone uses the admin delete
command no public record is kept of what they deleted,
so I don't know who did it. But I strongly suspect
LMS. He insists he did not delete [[Reasons for
deleting page titles]], and I'll have to give him the
benefit of the doubt on that one. However, he said on
[[Reasons for deleting page titles]] (a statement he
later deleted from that page) that "I have indeed
deleted several other pages though" and that he didn't
know who had deleted that page. Why did he make these
statements and then retract them? Did he mistakenly
think he had deleted several other pages, or is he
just unwilling to admit what he had done? And why did
he delete the statement that he didn't know who did?
Was it that he discovered who did it, but isn't
willing to say so?

I have tried to raise this issue with him on
Wikipedia, but beyond "I did not delete this page", he
has had nothing more to say. I tried to raise the
issue with him on [[Larry Sanger]], but all he did was
delete my comment. When one is accused of deleting
things without justification, deleting the accusation
only lends credence to it.

Simon J Kissane

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find a job, post your resume.
http://careers.yahoo.com


from_name: Anatoly Vorobey

subject: [Wikipedia-l] disruptions

body:
If any of the admins are reading this, it'd make a lot of sense to block
208.60.196.xxx from editing pages as soon as possible. See the Recent Changes
page for the explanation.

(it seems, though I'm not certain, that he's using a script to do the mass-scale
vandalism).

--
Anatoly Vorobey,
my journal (in Russian): http://www.livejournal.com/users/avva/
mellon at pobox.com http://pobox.com/~mellon/
"Angels can fly because they take themselves lightly" - G.K.Chesterton


from_name: Tim Chambers

body:
--- Simon Kissane <sj_kissane at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Persons have recently taken to deleting pages totally
> (i.e. with the admin delete command) without any
> justification or even prior discussion as to why they
> are doing this.

Sigh. Seems that all Wikipedians are equal, but some are more equal
than others after all.

I'm eager to hear how Larry and Jimbo weigh in on this recent
development. It marks a draconian twist in the evolution of the
'pedia. But as for me, I'll ignore this quasi-fartboy behavior and
will keep my eye on our goal to create an encyclopedia.

This is a blow to the harmony of the Wikipedia community, but until
the conflict gets resolves, there is a simple response that keeps all
sides of the disagreement engaged -- at least until the anonymous
perpetrator speaks up: the authors of controversial topics
("controversial" defined by the type of pages being deleted) should
keep a copy of the source of their pages on their personal computers.
They could also be mirrored at another site so they can be shared.  I
started a list at
http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OtherUseModWikis. Pick one.

Jimbo, I'd especially appreciate hearing from you whether Bomis is
willing to host a meta-wiki where page content can diverge from the
Wikipedia objective.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find a job, post your resume.
http://careers.yahoo.com


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Admins (I suspect LMS) permanently deleting things
 without reason

body:
Tim,

As you know, on nearly all issues, I am content simply to state my opinion
and then let the cards fall where they may.  Things usually work out
reasonably well that way.  But, in fact, I do have more authority on this
project than do others.  So does Jimbo, of course.  On issue of more
importance, when a controversial or important decision must be made, my
role in this project is to make it (or delegate it) and, if necessary, to
defend it (or to justify it in advance).  As you also know, in such
situations I usually do my best to get an idea of what the community
consensus is, and my decision is almost always, if not always, to express
that consensus.

Tim, I completely reject the notion that the issue raised by Simon's post
constitutes "a blow to the harmony of the Wikipedia community."  I
honestly think most people don't care about the situation.  I think they
understand that I was engaged in an "edit war" with The Cunctator and
Simon, who mistakenly think it is *important* (that it will actually
achieve something of importance, other than a bit of "heat and noise") to
test and to call into question the limits of my authority.  That's what
they've been doing lately.  I think most Wikipedians are of the opinion
that I should be given at least as much authority as I have taken upon
myself, and that stunts by people who are doing their best to question
that *small* bit of authority that I have asserted are not particularly
interesting.

This situation is of course made all the more absurd because I have
*always* shown myself to be sensitive to the opinions of others--
particularly when they are expressed politely.  And nearly everybody knows
this.  I know full well, by the way, that this is what makes it so much
fun to press my buttons: I have been responding in earnest.  I don't want
to change in that respect, but if I have to, I will have to moderate the
sensitivity of my responses in order to stop wasting my time.

I do reserve the right to permanently delete things--particularly when
they have little merit and when they are posted by people whose main
motive is evidently to undermine my authority and therefore, as far as I'm
concerned, damage the project.  Now suppose that, in my experience, if I
make an attempt to justify this or other sorts of decisions, the people in
question will simply co-opt huge amounts of my time and will never simply
say, "Larry, you win; we realize that this decision is up to you, and
we'll have to respect it."  Then, in order to preserve my time and sanity,
I have to act like an autocrat.  In a way, I am being trained to act like
an autocrat.  It's rather clever in a way--if you think college-level
stunts are clever.  Frankly, it's hurting the project, guys--so stop it,
already.  Just write articles--please!

I confidently predict that in the indefinite future, there will be other
somewhat similar situations, in which people's pages are deleted and the
injured parties will demand justice in a public forum.  Then I will, of
course, be accused of acting like an autocrat.  In many cases, these
accusations will be raised by teenagers and college students with too much
time on their hands, and by intelligent people with mental problems
whether moderate or serious.  These people could indeed co-opt my time and
that of everyone else, if we let them.  The situation will only get worse
with time, if we let it.  But we shouldn't let this happen.

In such situations, I'm going to have to trust that you will trust that I
am acting in the best interests of Wikipedia, and indeed not abusing my
authority.

(Recently some people have written in to give me such support.  I do not
regard this as a blank check.  I regard it as a serious responsibility.)

Larry

P.S. Those of you who are still paying attention must be tired of me
making these sorts of speeches.  I'm very sorry, it's tiresome to me, too,
but it *is* necessary.  Hopefully, all such unpleasantness will be behind
us very soon.


from_name: Jimmy Wales

body:
Tim Chambers wrote:
> Jimbo, I'd especially appreciate hearing from you whether Bomis is
> willing to host a meta-wiki where page content can diverge from the
> Wikipedia objective.

Absolutely!

I'm investigating the page deletion "allegations" (are they
allegations, or just the usual argumentative give and take?).

Some of the issues here are complicated and will not admit of any
really easy answers.  If someone starts using the main wikipedia
namespace for stuff that doesn't really belong there, we need to move
it out.  By "we" I mean all of us.  But the problem is that we won't
always all agree.

"rough consensus and running code"...

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.wikipedia.com/          *
*        You can edit this page right now!      *
*************************************************


body:
Below, I discuss some of Larry's post point by point; but I'll make the
one
central point here: I am not motivated by a desire to question LMS's
authority. In fact, I don't question it. If you believe that I am
so motivated, please tell me what I have done to support that belief.

: Tim, I completely reject the notion that the issue raised by Simon's post
: constitutes "a blow to the harmony of the Wikipedia community."  I
: honestly think most people don't care about the situation.

The implied argument is that only if most people care about a situation,
can it be be a blow to the harmony of the Wikipedia community.

LMS has failed to provide evidence to support that argument.

The above is also a case of the slothful induction fallacy, as there
is plenty of evidence that many people do care about ths situation,
as demonstrated by this and related threads, the discussion on various
Talk pages, etc.

A much more plausible argument is that most people don't enjoy the
situation, but that's very different from not caring.

: I think they
: understand that I was engaged in an "edit war" with The Cunctator and
: Simon, who mistakenly think it is *important* (that it will actually
: achieve something of importance, other than a bit of "heat and noise") to
: test and to call into question the limits of my authority.

Unlike LMS, I don't presume to characterize the motivations of others.
I'm not interested in calling into question the limits of Larry's authority,
as he asserts. I've been creating pages I believe should be on
Wikipedia; he's exerted his authority, and taking it personally.

His characterization of this as an "edit war" is wholly misleading;
because he used methods other than editing to press his case; rather,
he
1) asserted authority (which he can justifiably do, but it's not editing)
2) erased pages (again, which he can justifiably do, but it's not editing)

I find it telling that I don't consider it a "war", but he does.

: That's what they've been doing lately.

Provide evidence that my actions are motivated by a desire to
"test and to call into question the limits of my authority."

: I think most Wikipedians are of the opinion
: that I should be given at least as much authority as I have taken upon
: myself, and that stunts by people who are doing their best to question
: that *small* bit of authority that I have asserted are not particularly
: interesting.

This contains the begging the question fallacy ("I think most people don't
care about the situation...stunts..are not particularly interesting"),
the
bandwagon fallacy ("most Wikipedians are of the opinion"), the complex
question
fallacy (I think most Wikipedians...and that stunts by people...") and
ad
hominem attacks ("stunts by people who are doing their best to question...").

: I confidently predict that in the indefinite future, there will be other
: somewhat similar situations, in which people's pages are deleted and the
: injured parties will demand justice in a public forum.  Then I will, of
: course, be accused of acting like an autocrat.

I have never accused LMS of acting like an autocrat, nor have I demanded
justice. The above is irrelevant to any argument made regarding my actions.

: In many cases, these
: accusations will be raised by teenagers and college students with too much
: time on their hands, and by intelligent people with mental problems
: whether moderate or serious.

This is an ugly and inaccurate implied ad hominem. As Sanger has already
presumed to directly characterize my motivations, it is only reasonable
to assume that the above is intended to defame my character by implied
association.

Terms used are at http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Logical_fallacy and
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.htm.

The Cunctator


body:
LMS wrote:
> ...On issue of more importance, when a controversial or
> important decision must be made, my role in this project is to
> make it (or delegate it) and, if necessary, to defend it (or to
> justify it in advance).

Hmm. The pages Simon mentions don't seem controversial to me, nor
do I believe they're important. But he said they were deleted
with extreme prejudice, and that's what I went on record to
protest.  It wasn't my content, so I'm not going to fight for
it. It's gone.  But your reply doesn't shed light on the
mystery. I guess I have to go on record, too, to say that I am
not questioning your authority. I greatly appreciate the role you
play.

> I completely reject the notion that the issue raised by Simon's
> post constitutes "a blow to the harmony of the Wikipedia
> community." ... stunts by people who are doing their best to
> question that *small* bit of authority that I have asserted are
> not particularly interesting.

If you completely reject it, then it seems you are rejecting the
contribution that Simon, TheCunctator, and I bring to the
community. It certainly matters in a personal way to the former
two, and it matters to me on the basis of principle.

Larry, the mystery remains.  Who deleted the pages mentioned by
Simon, and why?  If it wasn't you (as in one case he says you
already stated that it wasn't), then what's your point here? And
if it was, then why "waste time" talking in generalities? Simon
raised specific issues. True, the generalities are important as a
matter of policy, but I don't think Simon cares about that right
now.  I know that I wouldn't if I couldn't figure out who was
trashing ''my'' work.

> ...In such situations, I'm going to have to trust that you will
> trust that I am acting in the best interests of Wikipedia, and
> indeed not abusing my authority.

If I knew in precisely which situations you had exerted your
authority, I would have a basis for trust. As it stands, all I
know is this:

1. You will delete pages when you deem it to be in the 'pedia's
best interests.  I have no problem with this.  I haven't written
anything similar to ''any'' of the deleted content in question.

2. Someone is deleting content, but no one knows why because that
individual hasn't explained his or her motives. The content
doesn't seem to be particularly relevant to the goals of
Wikipedia, as held by "consensus" of the community, so only two
Wikipedians seem to be directly affected.

The consequence is this: if I have any doubt whatsoever about
whether content that I create for Wikipedia is relevant to its
goals, I'll be keeping a copy on my personal computer. Not a big
deal. But it is, indeed, a blow to community harmony that I have
to resort to such tactics.

Jimbo wrote:
> > Jimbo, I'd especially appreciate hearing from you whether
> > Bomis is willing to host a meta-wiki where page content can
> > diverge from the Wikipedia objective.

> Absolutely!

Thanks. Looking forward to the announcement of the URL.

Dave McKee wrote:
> I hope these problems can be sorted out in an adult and
> businesslike manner, and that any mistakes or omissions are
> learnt from.

Ditto.

"I say we take off, and nuke the site from orbit. Its the only
way to be sure." -- Ellen Ripley, "Aliens"

References:
http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-November/000700.html
http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-November/000701.html
http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-November/000702.html
http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-November/000704.html
http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-November/000705.html


subject: [Wikipedia-l] disruptions

body:
Yep, already done.

On Mon, 5 Nov 2001, Anatoly Vorobey wrote:

> You, Anatoly Vorobey, were spotted writing this on Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 04:13:07AM +0200:
> > If any of the admins are reading this, it'd make a lot of sense to block
> > 208.60.196.xxx from editing pages as soon as possible. See the Recent Changes
> > page for the explanation.
>
> Now the same needs to be done for 208.60.198.xxx
>
> *sigh*.
>
>


body:
I'll reply again tomorrow.

Larry


from_name: Dave McKee

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Permament deletions without reason

body:
I have a few questions that I feel need answering so that we all
understand the facts behind the problem:

1) Whilst I accept that Wikipedia requires a total deletion system in
some cases, what are the accepted administrative reasons behind
deletions?

2) Are the deletions tracked (even if not available to the public) in
any way? Is there any way that it can be determined which administrator
has deleted a file (eg: usernames, IP addresses)? If not, is there any
reason why there shouldn't be in the future?

Thanks for your time in answering these questions. Two of the most
important features of the Open Source movement are transparentness and
openness, and whilst I understand that service providers can - and
should - act as a benign dictatorship 'cos it's their backsides on the
line, if these sorts of problems continue it could damage the reputation
of Wikipedia, which is probably Bomis' biggest asset.

I hope these problems can be sorted out in an adult and businesslike
manner, and that any mistakes or omissions are learnt from. [1]

Dave McKee.

[1] This may sound a little high-and-mighty, but the previous postings
had the slight air of 'Look what Johnny did!'  'No I didn't!' - which
doesn't help matters.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] disruptions

body:
You, Anatoly Vorobey, were spotted writing this on Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 04:13:07AM +0200:
> If any of the admins are reading this, it'd make a lot of sense to block
> 208.60.196.xxx from editing pages as soon as possible. See the Recent Changes
> page for the explanation.

Now the same needs to be done for 208.60.198.xxx

*sigh*.

--
Anatoly Vorobey,
my journal (in Russian): http://www.livejournal.com/users/avva/
mellon at pobox.com http://pobox.com/~mellon/
"Angels can fly because they take themselves lightly" - G.K.Chesterton


from_name: koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Admins (I suspect LMS) permanently deleting
    things without reason

body:
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Url: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20011105/8230e528/attachment.diff


body:
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Url: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20011105/68bfe0c9/attachment.diff


body:
--- Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> wrote:
> koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com wrote:
> ... And I'm sure you'd never delete any article having to do
> with nutmeg.  ;-)
>
> True!

No offense taken.

<>< [[tbc]]

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find a job, post your resume.
http://careers.yahoo.com


in_reply_to: <3BE5BD74.A85E1697@durham.ac.uk>; from d.n.mckee@durham.ac.uk on Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 10:13:08PM +0000

body:
Dave McKee wrote:
> 1) Whilst I accept that Wikipedia requires a total deletion system in
> some cases, what are the accepted administrative reasons behind
> deletions?

Just speaking off the top of my head, I think that total deletions
seldom make sense.  They should be reserved primarily for pages that
are just completely mistaken (typos, unlikely misspellings), or for
pages that are nothing more than insults.

Another class of pages for which total deletion makes sense would be
for legitimate page titles with totally nonsensical content.  A total
deletion is better than a page clearing, because it restores the ?
link on pages that may mention this page, thus alerting us that it
needs fixing.

For example, a couple of days ago I noticed that we didn't have a page
on Colin Powell, while reading a page about the current effort.  If
there had been a blank page there, I would not have noticed it, and we
wouldn't have that content now.

> 2) Are the deletions tracked (even if not available to the public) in
> any way? Is there any way that it can be determined which administrator
> has deleted a file (eg: usernames, IP addresses)? If not, is there any
> reason why there shouldn't be in the future?

I think it is obvious that pretty much nothing should be done in secret.

> of Wikipedia, which is probably Bomis' biggest asset.

Well, not really.  Wikipedia traffic is extraordinarily tiny compared
to our other properties.  Nonetheless, I do think Wikipedia is
exciting and promising.

--Jimbo

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.wikipedia.com/          *
*        You can edit this page right now!      *
*************************************************


subject: [Wikipedia-l] A culture of co-operation

body:
I think that in the long run, one of the most important things for us
to do is preserve and extend our culture of co-operation, with all of
us standing as firmly as possible against the culture of conflict
embodied in Usenet.

Don't get me wrong -- I love Usenet.  But Wikipedia is not Usenet, and
should not become a forum for debate, especially not debate about
Wikipedia.  That's as bad as a Usenet flamewar about Usenet flamewars!
:-)

Of course there will be disagreements and debates about what belongs
on a particular page.  But we should all endeavor to keep ourselves
focussed on the _end_, i.e. a well-rounded, complete, and high quality
encyclopedia.  Wikipedia is not h2g2 or everything2.  The community is
essential to achieving the goal, but the community exists in the
service of the goal.

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.wikipedia.com/          *
*        You can edit this page right now!      *
*************************************************


from_name: Magnus Manske

body:
There is a "delete this page" function in the PHP wikipedia, for
"privileged" users only. As I anticipate this to be a problem for some
"normal" users, as demonstrated here, I added an automatic log page to that
function ([[Log:Page Deletions]]). Every permanent page deletion via that
function will be recorder there, with date and user name, and will show on
the "Recent Changes" page.

I demonstrated it at
http://wikipedia.sourceforge.net/fpw/wiki.phtml?title=special:RecentChanges
with the old "Feature Requests" page, for those who'd like an example.

The log page cannot be edited by *anyone* via the web interface. Of course,
I cannot prevent the direct edit of the database.

Magnus Manske

> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com
> [mailto:wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com]On Behalf Of lsanger at nupedia.com
> Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 1:53 AM
> To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Admins (I suspect LMS) permanently deleting
> things without reason
>
>
> I'll reply again tomorrow.
>
> Larry
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


from_name: kband at www.llamacom.com

in_reply_to: <ILENJBCFHGHELEBFPPBGGECICEAA.Magnus.Manske@epost.de> from "Magnus Manske" at Nov 05, 2001 11:31:33 AM

body:
>
> There is a "delete this page" function in the PHP wikipedia, for
> "privileged" users only. As I anticipate this to be a problem for some
> "normal" users, as demonstrated here, I added an automatic log page to that
> function ([[Log:Page Deletions]]). Every permanent page deletion via that
> function will be recorder there, with date and user name, and will show on
> the "Recent Changes" page.
>
> I demonstrated it at
> http://wikipedia.sourceforge.net/fpw/wiki.phtml?title=special:RecentChanges
> with the old "Feature Requests" page, for those who'd like an example.
>
> The log page cannot be edited by *anyone* via the web interface. Of course,
> I cannot prevent the direct edit of the database.

Now that feature addition is the kind I like!

I still think documentation is crucial, but I hope you can understand
why I don't feel welcome to contribute to anything regarding Wikipedia
any more, at least publicly.

If possible, you might want to set up a bugzilla.

yours,
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com


subject: [Wikipedia-l] A blanket apology

body:
On Mon, 5 Nov 2001, Jimmy Wales wrote:

> I think it is not co-operative of you to suggest that he's "unwilling
> to admit".  :-)  Let's assume that I did it, by sheer accident, and
> let's accept my apology for any pain that I have caused, and let's all
> move on.  I will help to restore the pages.

I agree with this analysis of the situation.

I'll compose a (publicly-editable, of course) page about what basic
policies we will follow in deleting pages permanently.

Frankly, the last two weeks have been unusually unpleasant for me, and
this situation must stop.  My continuing to add, indeed, detailed replies
does nothing but continue the unpleasantness, so I'm going to issue the
following blanket apology:

I'm *truly* sorry for any unjustified contribution I have made to the
flame-ridden atmosphere of Wikipedia in recent weeks, and I fully
acknowledge that there are a number of issues that I could have handled
more diplomatically, tactfully, and with greater friendliness and good
will.

In the future I will try to do better in all respects; being a fallible
human, however, I can guarantee that I will make mistakes.

Larry Sanger


body:
It is possible that in testing the page deletion command, I had
something to do with all of this.  I was looking at some of these
pages, fiddling with some other windows, and editing the URL line.  I
may have made a mistake at some point and in seeking to look at one of
these pages, deleted it by accident.  I am not specifically aware of
doing this, but it is possible.

If it's really important, there should be no problem in re-creating
these pages, and I hope that a mistake of mine didn't cause anyone any
undue convenience.

I have never intentionally deleted anything other than a test page,
and really have no plans to ever do so myself.

> Pages that were deleted include
> [[Reasons for deleting page titles]], [[Wikipedia
> vandalism]], [[Vandalism/Talk]], TheCunctator's
> subpage of [[Wikipedia commentary]] listing pages that
> were deleted (unfortuantely I can't remember what its
> title was), and I don't know what else.

The following are really misnamed, and should at least be moved to:
[[Wikipedia/Reasons for deleting page titles]]
[[Wikipedia/Vandalism]]
[[Wikipedia/Vandalism_Talk]]
or something like this.

Certainly the mixing, on [[Vandalism]] of the general concept of
vandalism and wikipedia-specific vandalism is probably not
appropriate.  A customer looking for information about vandalism --
perhaps statistics on vandalism, the history of vandalism, the story
of the original vandal tribes, etc., is not looking for information
about wikipedia vandalism.

> LMS. He insists he did not delete [[Reasons for
> deleting page titles]], and I'll have to give him the
> benefit of the doubt on that one. However, he said on
> [[Reasons for deleting page titles]] (a statement he
> later deleted from that page) that "I have indeed
> deleted several other pages though" and that he didn't
> know who had deleted that page. Why did he make these
> statements and then retract them? Did he mistakenly
> think he had deleted several other pages, or is he
> just unwilling to admit what he had done?

I think it is not co-operative of you to suggest that he's "unwilling
to admit".  :-)  Let's assume that I did it, by sheer accident, and
let's accept my apology for any pain that I have caused, and let's all
move on.  I will help to restore the pages.

--Jimbo

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.wikipedia.com/          *
*        You can edit this page right now!      *
*************************************************


in_reply_to: <200111051550.fA5Foke27118@ross.bomis.com>; from koyaanisqatsi@nupedia.com on Mon, Nov 05, 2001 at 07:50:46AM -0800

body:
:-)

Well, I did get into a foolish edit war with Cunctator a few days ago,
much to my regret.  I surrendered when it became obvious that he was
very much intent on being "in charge".  (Ironic, given his professed
animosity to that concept.)  The choices were to let him claim that I
hold an opinion which I do not, or to let him add me to a list of
"dicks".  I finally chose to just restore his version of the page and
ignore him, which I have been doing successfully and joyfully ever
since.

koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com wrote:
> Hey, I just wanted to say that I used you as an example to avoid
> mentioning any of the participants who've been acting rather peevish
> lately.  And I'm sure you'd never delete any article having to do with
> nutmeg.  ;-)

True!

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.wikipedia.com/          *
*        You can edit this page right now!      *
*************************************************


from_name: lcrocker at nupedia.com

subject: [Wikipedia-l] A blanket apology

body:
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Url: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20011105/4a9f21f9/attachment.diff


subject: [Wikipedia-l] An opinion on personal pages

body:
I think that we should eliminate personal pages, but more importantly,
we should eliminate the notion that personal pages are ones own to do
with as one sees fit.  Every wiki page should be open to edit at any
time.

There's a tension between the wiki philosophy of edit-anywhere and our
traditional feelings of authorship, and this tension comes out most
strongly on personal pages with commentary.  In an encyclopedia
article, no one gets mad if someone else edits it -- we all agree that
this is what we are here for, after all.  But in personal pages,
people are getting mad every day about edits.  That's because they
think of themselves as the "authors" of those pages.

I've got a few of them myself -- my statement of principles, for
example.

I think that's a bad idea, even though I've done it myself.  I support
proposals to move commentary out of the wiki, but I don't yet support
any *particular* notion of how to do it.  A separate wiki?  A separate
namespace?  There are pros and cons to either, I think.

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.wikipedia.com/          *
*        You can edit this page right now!      *
*************************************************


in_reply_to: <3BE6BC01.169A0D37@explicacoes.com>; from jmiranda@explicacoes.com on Mon, Nov 05, 2001 at 04:19:13PM +0000

body:
Jo?o M?rio Miranda wrote:
> That can be solved. Software must be changed so that blank pages
> have a ? link.

I see what you mean, yes.  Alternatively, the delete command could be
changed to leave the history.  After all, that's what seems to be the
most upsetting (to me, anyway) about the delete command -- all the
history is obliterated, making it difficult for community oversight to
function properly.

> I think the idea was that, in this project, the biggest asset of
> Bomis is the "Wikipedia reputation". Not the content, but the
> reputation. I would say that there are two important assets for
> Bomis here:
>
> 1 - wikipedia reputation
> 2 - wikipedia community
>
> That's what Bomis must preserve. Others can use the same content
> to build a similar project, but they would not have the same
> reputation and the same community.

Right!  That makes perfect sense.

As always, it seems funny to me to discuss "Bomis" in the abstract,
since it's just me and Tim and the gang.  :-)

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.wikipedia.com/          *
*        You can edit this page right now!      *
*************************************************


body:
If there are not personal pages, then there should be some sort of
non-wiki directory of everyone who wants to add themselve. It could have
stuff like what city they live in, what pages they have editied etc.

They do in fact serve a useful purpose.

Ian Monroe
http://mlug.missouri.edu/~eean/

On Mon, 5 Nov 2001, Jimmy Wales jwales at bomis.com XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX wrote:

> I think that we should eliminate personal pages, but more importantly,
> we should eliminate the notion that personal pages are ones own to do
> with as one sees fit.  Every wiki page should be open to edit at any
> time.
>
> There's a tension between the wiki philosophy of edit-anywhere and our
> traditional feelings of authorship, and this tension comes out most
> strongly on personal pages with commentary.  In an encyclopedia
> article, no one gets mad if someone else edits it -- we all agree that
> this is what we are here for, after all.  But in personal pages,
> people are getting mad every day about edits.  That's because they
> think of themselves as the "authors" of those pages.
>
> I've got a few of them myself -- my statement of principles, for
> example.
>
> I think that's a bad idea, even though I've done it myself.  I support
> proposals to move commentary out of the wiki, but I don't yet support
> any *particular* notion of how to do it.  A separate wiki?  A separate
> namespace?  There are pros and cons to either, I think.
>
> --
> *************************************************
> *            http://www.wikipedia.com/          *
> *        You can edit this page right now!      *
> *************************************************


body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

> Another class of pages for which total deletion makes sense would be
> for legitimate page titles with totally nonsensical content.  A total
> deletion is better than a page clearing, because it restores the ?
> link on pages that may mention this page, thus alerting us that it
> needs fixing.
>
> For example, a couple of days ago I noticed that we didn't have a page
> on Colin Powell, while reading a page about the current effort.  If
> there had been a blank page there, I would not have noticed it, and we
> wouldn't have that content now.

That can be solved. Software must be changed so that blank pages
have a ? link.

> > 2) Are the deletions tracked (even if not available to the public) in
> > any way? Is there any way that it can be determined which administrator
> > has deleted a file (eg: usernames, IP addresses)? If not, is there any
> > reason why there shouldn't be in the future?
>
> I think it is obvious that pretty much nothing should be done in secret.
>
> > of Wikipedia, which is probably Bomis' biggest asset.
>
> Well, not really.  Wikipedia traffic is extraordinarily tiny compared
> to our other properties.  Nonetheless, I do think Wikipedia is
> exciting and promising.

I think the idea was that, in this project, the biggest asset of
Bomis is the "Wikipedia reputation". Not the content, but the
reputation. I would say that there are two important assets for
Bomis here:

1 - wikipedia reputation
2 - wikipedia community

That's what Bomis must preserve. Others can use the same content
to build a similar project, but they would not have the same
reputation and the same community.

--
jo?o
http://www.nonio.com


from_name: lsanger at nupedia.com

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Making article-a-day random

body:
What do ya'll think of the idea of sending out *random* article-a-day
articles, instead of those we tell the script to send out?  This might end
up having a good effect for those articles that are totally worthless.
:-)

Larry


from_name: Robert Bihlmeyer

body:
"Magnus Manske" <Magnus.Manske at epost.de> writes:

> There is a "delete this page" function in the PHP wikipedia, for
> "privileged" users only.

Why only for them? A normal user can make the page empty after all.
If we're going to remove the biggest disadvantages of page deletion
(that is, removal of the page history, including the notion of the
deletion itself), it is no problem to give this privilege to everyone.

As Jimbo pointed out, deleting a page is better than turning it empty.

Pages that cannot be edited by normal users are of course exempt.

An "expunge" command that removes a page and all history, just as the
current delete operation does may or may not be necessary. If
implemented, it should probably be combined with blacklisting the page
title so that creating a page with same name is prohibited until
further notice.

--
Robbe
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.ng
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20011105/e2802e31/attachment.pgp


body:
"Magnus Manske" <Magnus.Manske at epost.de> writes:

> And, yes, the script will be "free software".

Excellent.

> It's at sourceforge, after all...

Not everything on sf.net is free.

--
Robbe
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.ng
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20011105/508bab08/attachment.pgp


body:
Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> writes:

> I think that we should eliminate personal pages, but more importantly,
> we should eliminate the notion that personal pages are ones own to do
> with as one sees fit.
[...]
> But in personal pages, people are getting mad every day about edits.
> That's because they think of themselves as the "authors" of those
> pages.

I think it's more the fact that they consider themselves ultimate
judges about the topic -- which is partly true.

> I support proposals to move commentary out of the wiki, but I don't
> yet support any *particular* notion of how to do it. A separate
> wiki? A separate namespace? There are pros and cons to either, I
> think.

Well, the talk namespace already has slightly different rules: it is
common to sign contributions, and contributions from others are not
normally deleted. One could rename that namespace to "meta" and put
Wikipedians there as well.

A seperate namespace will be necessary anyway, sooner or later. Why
should a man named "Bill Clinton" not beceome a Wikipedian. (Well,
that opens another can of worms: (nick)name dupes.)

--
Robbe
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.ng
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20011105/bbe50182/attachment.pgp


subject: [Wikipedia-l] LinkBacks?

body:
"Laura T." <ldb64 at midwest.net> writes:

> The Open Directory Project licenses their content, sounds like you
> could use the same system. I don't know any details ahout how its
> done. But they seem to have control over their content while making it
> freely (open) available.

FWIW, the Free Software Foundation has this to say about the Open Directory
License (from <URL:http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html>):

    This is not a free documentation license. The primary problems are
    that your right to redistribute any given version is not permanent
    and that it requires the user to keep checking back at that site,
    which is too restrictive of the user's freedom.

--
Robbe
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.ng
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20011105/e8591e4b/attachment.pgp


from_name: Stephen Gilbert

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Apologies, etc.

body:
(LMS wrote)
>> I'm *truly* sorry for any unjustified contribution I have made to
>> the flame-ridden atmosphere of Wikipedia in recent weeks, and I
>> fully acknowledge that there are a number of issues that I could
>> have handled more diplomatically, tactfully, and with greater
>> friendliness and good will.

(And was thus countered by LDC)
>...and some of us are pissed off that you're being to damned
>tolerant and diplomatic, when we thought you should have just
>booted the jerks.  We demand an apology too. :-)
>
>Ah, the joys of leadership.

And the rest of us are angry at you for other, unspecified reasons. I'm
afraid an apology isn't good enough for us, since you don't know what
you're apologizing for. Cash, however, is always acceptable.

- STG


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Apologies, etc.

body:
Stephen Gilbert wrote:
> Cash, however, is always acceptable.

A Bomis slogan!

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.wikipedia.com/          *
*        You can edit this page right now!      *
*************************************************


body:
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Url: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20011106/3dd94f7c/attachment.diff


subject: [Wikipedia-l] are you the former Wikipedian?

body:
Found your e-mail in a Google search, which led me to
http://members.tripod.com/Corvus13/. Trying to find the Wikipedian Corvus13.
If so, there are messages waiting for you at
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Corvus13.

It might interest you to know that as I write this, other Wikipedians are
busy undeleting the useful content that you contributed.

Please acknowledge either way.

Sincerely,

http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Tim_Chambers


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Corvus13 replied

body:
He wrote back to me, "I think I'm through with wikipedia.  Do what you
want with any entries I may have left."

I'm going to wait about a week for him to calm down before writing to
him again. But if anyone has their own conciliatory words to send to
him, I confirmed his e-mail: corvus13 at hotmail.com.

<>< [[tbc]]

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find a job, post your resume.
http://careers.yahoo.com


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Where to move commentary

body:
You might or might not know that on

http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?Larry_Sanger/Moving_commentary_out_of_Wikipedia

I proposed to move the contents of [[Wikipedia commentary]], personal
essays, and perhaps some other pages to a different wiki altogether.
This proposal seems to have broad support, but there has been some
disagreement over details.  So, maybe we can talk about those details here
a bit.

First, should we put these materials on a completely separate wiki or just
in a "commentary:" namespace of the new wiki?

I'm in favor of a completely separate wiki.  Why?  A different namespace
on the same wiki would use the same [[Recent Changes]] page that we're now
using (unless Magnus rewrites the software :-) ), which just wouldn't
solve the problem.  (The problem, as I see it, is that we get rather too
easily distracted by debate over policy proposals and personal essays on
the main wiki.  We should relegate the discussion and essays to a separate
place that we understand is not the top priority.)  Moreover, with a
separate namespace, it'd be slightly too convenient for my comfort to
interlink the encyclopedia and the discussion section.  That, again,
wouldn't solve the problem.

Second, what should we put on the commentary wiki (call it the "metawiki"
for short)?

It seems everyone who is at all in favor of the proposal agrees that at
least these things should live on the metawiki:

* [[Wikipedia commentary]]
* Personal essays, such as those linked to from [[Larry Sanger/Columns]]
* Other personal page content other than what most people have on their
personal pages (such as what I have on [[Larry Sanger]]).  In other words,
all we need on our personal pages on the main wiki is something about
ourselves, maybe the articles we've worked on, and a space for talk.

There are other possibilities:
* Announcements
* How to edit a page
* Policy pages
* Feature requests
* Bug reports
etc.

Axel Boldt said we should include *all* such stuff on a separate wiki or
namespace, which is something I could live with, I think, as long that
namespace (or those namespaces) had a different [[Recent Changes]] page.
But I prefer a separate wiki altogether for the commentary.

Basically, I think the policy, procedure, and propaganda pages (PPP!) are
important to have right there at our fingertips, particularly for new
people.  The PPP pages are important in a way that the commentary is not.
For instance, it's really important that people come to grips with "the
neutral point of view" if they want to write many articles for Wikipedia,
but not so important that they see my latest essay about the perfect
such-and-such.

But the PPP pages should be separate from the encyclopedia articles for
purposes of counting articles and specifically designating encyclopedic
content.  So, that's what we could use the other namespaces for.  The PPP
pages could go in the "Wikipedia:" (or "w:") namespace.  You might wonder,
in that case, what the specific difference is between the metawiki
commentary pages and the "Wikipedia:" namespace policy pages.  Why not
have them all in the "Wikipedia:" namespace (and the "User:"  namespace)?

Well, as I see it, it's a matter of officialness.  The "official" policy
statements go on the "Wikipedia:" namespace.  New policy proposals,
debate, and long-winded essays--and y'know, this stuff isn't *that* hard
to spot :-) --would go on the metawiki.  Moreover, all manner of our dirty
laundry could be archived on the metawiki, and, depending on how hard the
envelope were pushed, probably no one would have any objection at all.

Third, so how would we create this?  In four steps.  Jimbo creates the
wiki.  We move commentary and essays to the new wiki.  We add links to the
new wiki in a few (but not too many) prominent, relevant spots.  Then we
delete the commentary and essays from the old wiki.  It'll be pretty easy
--no heavy lifting required.

What do ya'll think?

Larry


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Subpages

body:
I think we've discussed subpages quite a bit--certainly enough to air the
issues and give people a chance to state their views and change their
minds--and in view of this, I've decided to get rid of them.

Let me explain this decision--I'm done arguing for it, but of course you
are owed an explanation, since the issue has been very controversial.

Examining the various pages on which people have discussed them, it seems
there is at least a majority of people in favor of getting rid of them or
who are amenable to the idea of getting rid of them.  I think it's pretty
important, although perhaps not absolutely essential in every case, that
we at least not contradict majority opinion, when a consensus cannot be
arrived at.  The majority includes many old hands who have had more
experience with the problems associated with subpages than some of their
newer advocates, which I also think is important.  Finally, and probably
as importantly as anything else, my well considered opinion is that the
arguments in favor of getting rid of them are much, much stronger than the
arguments in favor of keeping them.  I predict yer gonna thank me in a
year.  (Maybe not *all* of you. :-) )

I'm going to put this up on a few relevant pages on the wiki.

Larry


from_name: Manning Bartlett

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia meta-information organisation

body:
All

I'm getting annoyed at the plethora of "Usenet" style discussions happening all over the place. Not so much that they are happening (I think this is unavoidable) but that there is no organisation in place to accommodate it.

To distinguish between the Wikipedia (as an information resource) and the "Community involved in an encyclopaedia project" I would like to propose the creation of five pages (some already exist):

Wikipedia Policy
Wikipedia Commentary
Wikipedia Community
Wikipedia Discussion
Wikipedia Utilities

Each of these can have numerous sub-pages. Many pages which are floating around as distinct entries can be re-classified under these five headings. This will also discourage people from creating "meta-pages" as distinct encyclopaedia headings (eg. my own creation - [[Page titles to be deleted]])

Wikipedia Policy
    /Neutral point of view
    /To delete or not delete
    /Permanent deletion of pages
    /Wiki administrators
    /(etc)

Wikipedia Commentary
    This page should be restored to its original intent - the publishing of editorial articles, free of the constraints of NPOV.

Wikipedia Community
    /Wikipedians (and associated existing subpages)
    /Wikipediholic
    /Wikipedia-L
    /other pages related to the community of editors, public notices not relevant to the reader community, etc.

Wikipedia Discussion
    /all the pages related to discussing the evolution of Wikipedia...
I know Larry is against this idea in principle, but face it - it will always happen. At least this way it is centralised and we will only shit in a small corner of the nest, as opposed to everywhere now.

Wikipedia Utilities
    /page titles to be deleted
    /personal subpages to be deleted
    /statistics
    /friends of Wikipedia
    /(etc)

*****************
Manning Bartlett
Senior Business Intelligence Consultant
EMC Global Pty Ltd
Sydney Australia

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20011106/faf95c02/attachment.htm


subject: [Wikipedia-l] No subpages. Is that your final answer?

body:
On Tue, 6 Nov 2001, Jimmy Wales wrote:

> At least in my mind, there is no final decision.  But I'm inclined to
> agree with the no subpages point of view.

OK, but the point is, the decision has to be made whether they're going to
be implemented in the new wiki software or not.  I did make that decision.
We could always reinstall them, yes, if we wanted to.

Larry


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Where to move commentary

body:
I like the idea of a metawiki, but I think the name should be
"metapedia" because it's more a matter of being meta-content
about the Wikipedia (and, I would guess, encyclopediae in
general) than being about wikis. (See my "faculty lounge" comment
below.)

I especially like the case Larry makes about [[Recent Pages]]. I
hadn't noticed, but I see that they ''are'' getting to cluttered
with meta-discussions.

Larry wrote:

> Moreover, with a separate namespace, it'd be slightly too
> convenient for my comfort to interlink the encyclopedia and the
> discussion section.

Agreed, but I do hope there's an InterWiki way to link ''from''
the metapedia ''to'' Wikipedia so we can hyperlink concepts and
discuss articles as examples.  For that matter, I'd like to see
the [http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?InterWiki InterWiki]
concept implemented. (It doesn't work on Wikipedia.) I wouldn't
complain about having to use single-braces syntax to link ''to''
the metapedia, though.

> ... what should we put on the commentary wiki ...?

> ... Basically, I think the policy, procedure, and propaganda
> pages (PPP!) are important to have right there at our
> fingertips, particularly for new people.

Agreed. They are akin to front matter in a book.  Since
[[Wikipedia is not paper]], it makes sense they would be part of
the same wiki database.

> ...Well, as I see it, it's a matter of officialness.

Yes! The metapedia is the place to chat about the project, build
community, etc. It's the "faculty lounge" for Wikipedians.  Then
the Wikipedia can be focused on encyclopedia content, which
includes official front matter.

> Third, so how would we create this?

I see an opportunity here to get us all accustomed to Magnus' new
software. Why not make metapedia a PHP wiki before we migrate the
Wikipedia? If that gives people chills, then I hope metapedia is
just a plain old UseModWiki. In that case, I hope the PHP
Wikipedia doesn't diverge from UseModWiki's markup language.

<>< [[tbc]]

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find a job, post your resume.
http://careers.yahoo.com


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Where to move commentary

body:
On Tue, 6 Nov 2001, Tim Chambers wrote:

> > Third, so how would we create this?
>
> I see an opportunity here to get us all accustomed to Magnus' new
> software. Why not make metapedia a PHP wiki before we migrate the
> Wikipedia? If that gives people chills, then I hope metapedia is
> just a plain old UseModWiki. In that case, I hope the PHP
> Wikipedia doesn't diverge from UseModWiki's markup language.

I think this is a great idea!

Larry


body:
I've followed both sides of the issue, too. I believe that subpages
are a bad idea because they discourage clear thinking about what the
encyclopedia article's title really ''should'' be. I'll go along with
the multiple-namespace idea, as long as the ''purpose'' of ''each''
namespace is ''clearly'' identified. So far, I like the namespaces
that Magnus has come up with.

I also agree that the new software should be smart about linking to
parent pages. I think it's better solved with software than with
subpages. The idea of a back-link feature has been tossed around. That
was a feature of Ward's original WikiWiki. It's helpful.

<>< [[tbc]]

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find a job, post your resume.
http://careers.yahoo.com


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Where to move commentary

body:
Only one problem with Tim's name for the wiki: http://www.metapedia.com/
is already registered...

Larry


body:
On Tue, 6 Nov 2001, Tim Chambers wrote:

> I also agree that the new software should be smart about linking to
> parent pages. I think it's better solved with software than with
> subpages. The idea of a back-link feature has been tossed around. That
> was a feature of Ward's original WikiWiki. It's helpful.

Can you tell us more about that?  I am imagining that this means you'd
link, say, at the bottom of a page, all the pages that link to the given
page?  That could be cool.

Larry


from_name: The Cunctator

body:
On http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Wikipedia_utilities/Talk, Larry wrote:

   Manning, this is very useful, but the new Wikipedia PHP script will
allow
   us to have all "about Wikipedia" pages in a separate "Wikipedia:"
   namespace. Moreover, the new script isn't going to permit subpages.
Soo....
   --LMS

I was unaware that a final decision (which, of course, LMS has authority
to make--I'm no raving anarchist) had been made about subpages.

Is this a final decision, or just advocacy?

--
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com www.kband.com
www.wikipedia.com/wiki/September_11,_2001_Terrorist_Attack/In_Memoriam


from_name: Claudine Chionh

body:
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Url: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20011106/0e7820ca/attachment.diff


in_reply_to: <3BE860A6.FFA9500E@kband.com>; from cunctator@kband.com on Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 05:16:37PM -0500

body:
At least in my mind, there is no final decision.  But I'm inclined to
agree with the no subpages point of view.

The only thing that bugs me about this is that subpages are just
pages.  The only thing that a subpage does that's different from a
regular page, is link back to the main page automatically.  That seems
like a good thing!

Other than that, there is nothing all that special about a subpage.

One of the issues is the ease and naturalness of 'accidental linking'.
If I want to casually mention [[Bill Clinton]], I shouldn't need to
know that he's really under [[United States Presidents/Bill
Clinton]].   But isn't that just an inappropriate use of a subpage,
rather than an argument against subpages?

It is true, I think, that every subpage could be just as well titled
as a regular page, or put into a pre-defined namespace like talk:.

But I really like the feature where subpages automatically link back
to main pages.

Compare:

[[Military of Afghanistan]]
and
[[Sudan/Military]]

In the former, the author had to link back to the main page by hand,
in the latter, it happened automatically.

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.wikipedia.com/          *
*        You can edit this page right now!      *
*************************************************


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Where to move commentary

in_reply_to: <20011106232645.397.qmail@web10003.mail.yahoo.com>; from tbchambers@yahoo.com on Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 03:26:45PM -0800

body:
Tim Chambers wrote:
> For that matter, I'd like to see
> the [http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?InterWiki InterWiki]
> concept implemented. (It doesn't work on Wikipedia.) I wouldn't
> complain about having to use single-braces syntax to link ''to''
> the metapedia, though.

I thought it did work.  This is an oversight on my part, and I'll see
if I can fix it.

--Jimbo

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.wikipedia.com/          *
*        You can edit this page right now!      *
*************************************************


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Where to move commentary

body:
Well, meta.wikipedia.com makes sense to me.

lsanger at nupedia.com wrote:

> Only one problem with Tim's name for the wiki: http://www.metapedia.com/
> is already registered...
>
> Larry
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.wikipedia.com/          *
*        You can edit this page right now!      *
*************************************************


body:
Tim Chambers wrote:
> I also agree that the new software should be smart about linking to
> parent pages. I think it's better solved with software than with
> subpages. The idea of a back-link feature has been tossed around. That
> was a feature of Ward's original WikiWiki. It's helpful.

Can you brief us on how this works?  It'd be nice to have a concept of
"being smart about linking to parent pages" but without the downsides
(and I agree there are many) to subpages.

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.wikipedia.com/          *
*        You can edit this page right now!      *
*************************************************