body:
On 11/7/05, Cormac Lawler <cormaggio at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/7/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > For my part I think Wikiversity is a great idea, but I don't see where
> it
> > benefits from being part of Wikimedia. Wikimedia is primarily a media
> > company, and a university and a media company are only loosely tied with
> one
> > another. Yes, books need to be used by a university, but a) most
> > universities don't make all their own books, and b) Wikibooks can handle
> > that part of the project without being part of the university (but
> merely
> > working hand-in-hand with the university).
> >
> > If there is enough support for this project to be at all successful it
> would
> > be no problem to start it up as its own organization separate from the
> > Wikimedia Foundation. That doesn't mean it would compete with the WMF,
> in
> > fact the two would likely co-exist quite amicably.
> >
> > The only way I really think it'd be reasonable to expect Wikiversity to
> work
> > as a Wikimedia project would be if this came from the top down, as a
> board
> > mandate. Even then, for Wikiversity and Wikipedia both to truly be
> > successful they would probably have to be run as separate legal and/or
> > economic entities. For Wikiversity to be successful it's going to
> require a
> > lot of money. This is not to say donations, it very well could be
> > self-sustaining, but I bet a lot of Wikipedians are going to want to
> know
> > that their donations are going to Wikipedia and not to subsidize a
> > university. Furthermore, there would probably be legal implications that
> > would necessitate forming a separate entity, especially if the
> university
> > ever wants to be accredited (which I think it should).
> >
> > Maybe I'm just looking too far into the future. Or maybe I'm seeing this
> as
> > a bigger project than it really is. But that's just the way I think. I
> think
> > you've got to set your goals high and plan out the full path too those
> goals
> > early on - not to have everything written in stone but at least to have
> a
> > rough draft of what the future has in store.
> >
> > Anthony
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
> There was a discussion about Wikiversity on IRC last night, as part of
> the Wikimedia Research Network, details and log of which can be found
> here:
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research_Network/Meetings/2005-11-06
>
> I think you're raising some interesting points here - I think what's
> emerging for me is that some people are quite nervous about
> Wikiversity being a Wikimedia project - if it aspires to be an
> e-learning resource. I don't personally see the problem, as long as we
> start small, stay realistic and grow from there, but it is clear that
> more thinking (and probably research) needs to be done. This should be
> collated on Meta, probably on a new page like
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Moving_Wikiversity_forward - please
> feel free to add any ideas to related pages. I think at this stage we
> need practical proposals, but also practical questions.
>
> Thanks,
> Cormac

 Yeah, I'm not sure what the best way is to get a project like this started,
but you probably need one or a small few people really dedicated to making
it happen who all share the same vision. I have my own vision as to what I'd
like to see Wikiversity as, but I don't have the time to really dedicate
myself to the project.
 Anyway, this is part of the trouble with voting on things like this. I
voted no, primarily because I think Wikiversity would do better as an
independent project, but at the same time I don't particularly object to
Wikimedians trying to do it anyway.
 Maybe a more narrow focus to start out would alleviate some of the concern.
>From the project page there are two parts to the project, creating teaching
materials and then using them to teach. The first fits a lot better in with
Wikimedia, and I don't think there would be much if any objection to the
foundation supporting this work. This could either be done on Wikibooks or,
if there is objection from people on Wikibooks, then maybe it could be done
as part of a new project.
 The actual teaching part, I think can wait, but if there are a few people
really dedicated to making it happen they should get together and start
doing it, Wikimedia project or not.
 All just my opinion,
Anthony


list: wikimedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [Foundation-l] Vote to create Wikiversity Vote


list: wikien-l

from_name: Anthere

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Stevertigo's RFA or whatever trigram

body:
SJ wrote:

> On 11/6/05, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>I give it 48 hours without doing anything, and if
>>>>>there is no clarification by then, I will revert to
>>>>>the previous stable situation (ie, Steve sysop) till
>>>>>an agreement is reached between yourselves.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ant
>
>
> "revert to the previous stable situation" seems exactly right in this
> case, until another decision is passed.  Thanks for your care about
> this, Anthere.
>
> ++SJ

Thanks Sj.


list: wikipedia-l

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Translations between different wikipedias, and GFDL

body:
On 11/6/05, Gerrit Holl <gerrit at nl.linux.org> wrote:
>
> Habj wrote:
> > According to GFDL, one must always state what work under GFDL the
> present
> > work is based on. Is this true also for translations between different
> > wikipedias? I have heard both "yes" and "no" stated as an answer to
> this.
>
> If I take that literally, article revision N should always explicitly
> state that it's based on article revision (N-1), or does it?
>
> Gerrit.

 Well, the only sane way to apply the GFDL to Wikipedia is to treat the
revisions as contributions toward a joint work, not to treat each individual
edit as creating a new version under the GFDL. All of this is just
speculation, though, there isn't really an explicit statement as to exactly
how to apply the GFDL to Wikipedia.
 For translations the previous version should be stated in the section
entitled history. The most straightforward way to do that would be to add a
section entitled history to the article itself. One could argue that this
requirement is met by simply adding a note in the edit summary, but this is
a somewhat tenuous argument. You could also argue that there is an implicit
license, or that any co-author in a joint work has certain rights beyond the
GFDL, but these would be completely untested waters.
 Anthony


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Search results changed

body:
Magnus Manske wrote:
> Brion Vibber wrote:
>> You can still make terms optional by explicitly using the 'OR'
>> operator such as: "civil OR war", "blueberry OR pie". (Note that 'OR'
>> must be capitalized.)
>
> Why not eregi_replace it? The only situation where you'd actually search
> for the word "or" is a book/movie/song title, where it can be omitted.

Or if you speak French and are searching for gold. :)

> BTW, do we support searches like
> * stuff AND (foo OR bar)
> * stuff "foo bar"

Should work...

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


list: foundation-l

from_name: Cormac Lawler

body:
On 11/7/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
>
> For my part I think Wikiversity is a great idea, but I don't see where it
> benefits from being part of Wikimedia. Wikimedia is primarily a media
> company, and a university and a media company are only loosely tied with one
> another. Yes, books need to be used by a university, but a) most
> universities don't make all their own books, and b) Wikibooks can handle
> that part of the project without being part of the university (but merely
> working hand-in-hand with the university).
>
> If there is enough support for this project to be at all successful it would
> be no problem to start it up as its own organization separate from the
> Wikimedia Foundation. That doesn't mean it would compete with the WMF, in
> fact the two would likely co-exist quite amicably.
>
> The only way I really think it'd be reasonable to expect Wikiversity to work
> as a Wikimedia project would be if this came from the top down, as a board
> mandate. Even then, for Wikiversity and Wikipedia both to truly be
> successful they would probably have to be run as separate legal and/or
> economic entities. For Wikiversity to be successful it's going to require a
> lot of money. This is not to say donations, it very well could be
> self-sustaining, but I bet a lot of Wikipedians are going to want to know
> that their donations are going to Wikipedia and not to subsidize a
> university. Furthermore, there would probably be legal implications that
> would necessitate forming a separate entity, especially if the university
> ever wants to be accredited (which I think it should).
>
> Maybe I'm just looking too far into the future. Or maybe I'm seeing this as
> a bigger project than it really is. But that's just the way I think. I think
> you've got to set your goals high and plan out the full path too those goals
> early on - not to have everything written in stone but at least to have a
> rough draft of what the future has in store.
>
> Anthony
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

There was a discussion about Wikiversity on IRC last night, as part of
the Wikimedia Research Network, details and log of which can be found
here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research_Network/Meetings/2005-11-06

I think you're raising some interesting points here - I think what's
emerging for me is that some people are quite nervous about
Wikiversity being a Wikimedia project - if it aspires to be an
e-learning resource. I don't personally see the problem, as long as we
start small, stay realistic and grow from there, but it is clear that
more thinking (and probably research) needs to be done. This should be
collated on Meta, probably on a new page like
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Moving_Wikiversity_forward - please
feel free to add any ideas to related pages. I think at this stage we
need practical proposals, but also practical questions.

Thanks,
Cormac


from_name: Angela

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Status of Serbia and Montenegro chapter

body:
On 11/7/05, Milos Rancic <millosh at mutualaid.org> wrote:

> > It's not as if the Board voted to accept a Zlatiborian Wikipedia.
>
> No, we understand it. This is the community decision and we are worry
> about the future of such proposals and possible accepting of them.

It is neither a board nor a community decision, since there has been
no decision whatsoever to start a Zlatiborian Wikipedia. The only
thing any community did decide was that the articles relating to the
Zlatiborian language on the English Wikipedia were a hoax and were to
be deleted. I don't know what is making you think there is any support
for this. Are you taking Mark's comments to be reflective of the
entire community?

Angela.


from_name: Mig de Jong

subject: [Wikitech-l] {{CURRENTSECOND}}

body:
Hi developers,
 would it be possible to make a function {{CURRENTSECOND}}, in order to be
able to have a sort of random function. What I wat to do is the following: I
want to give the protal I've build a random logo. ''ll make several logo's
and have one popped-up randomly. With a function {{currentsecond}} this
would be possible.
 Another request, way much less important is whether one could refresh the
speciaal:wantedpages in the Dutch wiki (nl). Thanks for listening
 Best regards,
Mig de Jong

--

Migdejong at gmail.com
Rode Kruislaan 1121 A
1111 XA Diemen
The Netherlands
00-31-6-14800370


from_name: Timwi

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Zlatiborian, again

body:
Alphax wrote:
>
> Mark Williamson wrote:
>
>>Was it not you who was arguing for Alemannic linguistic independence?
>
> I don't remember. Link/quote?

He mixed you up with Gerrit Holl.


from_name: Alphax

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Zlatiborian, again

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Alphax wrote:
>
>> GerardM wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hoi,
>>> A language is a dialect with an army.
>>>
>>
>> I thought it was a navy! :)
>>
> That would mean that mountain people could not have their own language.
>

Well, is there such a thing as a "Swiss Lanuage"? No! They speak French,
German and/or Italian, depending on which part of Switzerland they are
from! :)

- --
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3-cvs (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQEVAwUBQ27PEbMAAH8MeUlWAQgeFggAjhq4fOcjuWmNJlIzkQfaCXw9aG0+d7Pw
f3CiMOwBym1i7scK7J3y2B6ZkmmZ+BPP36kIkTcX4PX2OTTF2oK94dxcIwKaUHnQ
x7H7y+ORQz26Rr3Ckm/RGqd1kNt2BCKXiM4L7zEEau+zPpb+6Frk0f4F7TeHxUkR
dQMlsFTG8TTPc1/mSb022z/Qa9YyI8z5KXORF2OH0wm+KocWW190oO9oE3cS2Dst
dyodpIjVRpqJmaCxplH66v3OhAkHPJ7Peb3Zkgug2TGj5Xxh7kHn41gf603e5gQA
IoUNUIN4Uee9H727E3lxnHmumSHprDDi5ZyIZKmLRkE9DDiTDhBhNQ==
=yBiM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Milos Rancic

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Status of Serbia and Montenegro chapter

body:
On 11/7/05, Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) <rowikipedia at yahoo.com> wrote:
> As a bystander here I am really, really confused about
> Zlatiborian!

I can explain a little bit of situation here.

For example, relation Moldovan-Romanian is almost the same as relation
Montenegrin-Serbian. Except Montenegrins don't have well described
standard such Moldovans have. Political situation is almost the same:
Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts says that it is the same
language as Serbia, but parliament and alternative academy (Duklanian
Academy) say that this is different language. Only 22% of Montenegrin
inhabitants say that their native language is Montenegrin (around 60%
say that their native language is Serbian; others are minorities). So,
this is a political question and I am supporting now the article
"Montenegrin language" on English Wikipedia (against one Serbian
nationalist) as well as I would support existance of Montenegrin
Wikipedia (if demand comes before we complete our software).

Linguistic area in Serbia, Montenegro, Croatia and Bosnia is divided
into four dialects: Torlakian, Shtokavian, Chakavian and Kaykavian.
ALL standard languages (including "Zlatiborian", too) are based on the
part of Shtokavian dialect called Neo-Shtokavian.

The problem is that there is no Zlatiborian ethnicity/nation. All of
that people feel as Serbs, not as anything else. Zlatiborian is only
regional attribute.

> Now, could someone please translate what Djordje wrote
> on the sr.wiki. An honest translation. There are
> reasonable grounds to believe this is a hoax, for a
> few reasons:
>
> *Djordje's backtracking over this project with
> statements like "I'm sorry, it was a hoax"
> *Node's expression of "noble" language, etc, which
> makes it seem very much like a joke (honestly...)
> *The most important point - there are NO internet
> sources on this language. None at all! Surely if this
> was an actual language, there would be at least one
> source calling it Zlatiborian.

I said once before that Djordje said that he is "Serbian nationalist
and Zlatiborian local-patriot". After the first incident some time
ago, he told to us "I wrote [on Serbian Wikipedia] that Zlatiborian is
the part of Serbian and I think so". Note that no one asked him to
tell so. Also, his relation according to Montenegrin language is hard
Serbian nationalist relation.

> In conclusion - I'm not against the Zlatiborian
> Wikipedia, but I'm really in doubt over whether it
> actually exists.

There are three more language systems on BCS area: Kaykavian,
Chakavian and Torlakian. All of them should have Wikipedias in the
future because the difference between those language systems are
something like differences between Dutch language systems.

And no one from Serbian Wikipedia doesn't have anything against the
creation of those Wikipedias.

> And Milos - just because there is a proposal on
> Zlatiborian doesn't mean it's board-endorsed or
> anything. I don't think you have reasonable grounds to
> say that because five users have supported a certain
> initiative, you will quit Wikipedia or stop the
> foundation of Wikimedia SCG.

This is very serious problem. While even Zlatiborian Wikipedia pass,
all of us (from Serbia) know that it is a hoax. But, what about, as I
said, Nigerian and Indian villages? We don't know anything about that,
but we would have Mark who would believe in one hoax and who is very
loud in advocating for that hoax. Scientists, who are our important
target in spreading idea of free knowledge would lough and would say
that Wikimedia is not relevant project. (i.e. "How many Zlatiborian
Wikipedias do you have?")

I see only two solutions: (1) To find enough
linguists/anthropologists/sociologists who would check all exotic
requests and articles or (2) not to be the formal part of the
organization (this means as it is written "not formal part", this
doesn't mean that we would stop to work on Wikimedian projects or that
we don't want to have any relation with other local chapters and WMF).

In other words: If Wikimedian community can't defend herself from
people such as Mark, we don't want to be the formal part of it.


from_name: Sam Korn

subject: [WikiEN-l] Category:Soviet spies

body:
I suggest you bring this up on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CFD

I agree that the change needs to be made.  Perhaps there can be a
second category for confirmed Soviet spies.

Sam

On 11/7/05, Chip Berlet <c.berlet at publiceye.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The Wikipedia entry "Category:Soviet spies" is a magnet for a defamation lawsuit. Many of the people in the list were never indicted, and some denied the charge in public. At least one person is still alive: "Harry Magdoff".
>
> At best, this should be renamed to something like: "Category:Accused Soviet spies" .
>
> I freely confess I have a vested interest in this matter, currently well into the second month of mdiation with Nobs01on a related matter without a single compromise paragraph having been written:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Cberlet_and_Nobs01/Workshop
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Cberlet_and_Nobs01
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Cberlet_and_Nobs01/A3
>
> But since this mediation seems to be dragging on for months, I though that I would mention this now, rather than wait for the mediation to hit the year 2006.
>
> Some folks here on this list should consider the possible defmation issue very seriously. I messed up my first attempt to deal with this on Wiki. I meant to suggest a name change or deletion, but misunderstood the process.
>
> I have prevailed after being sued for defamation twice, but it cost tens of thousands of dollars just to get a judge to toss me out of the case.
>
> Cberlet
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>


body:
On 11/7/05, Gerrit Holl <gerrit at nl.linux.org> wrote:
> > Mark, you are not only fool...
>
> Can you two please refrain from personal attacks and can you please
> assume good faith? Thank you. I have no knowledge at all about
> Zlatiborian but I suspect it's a dialect, given the proposals I see for
> Dutch "languages" (Stellingwerfs, Gronings).

Mark is highly irresponsible person (in shorter: fool). And this kind
of behaviour is accepted here. (Also, when someone calls me as
"Serbian nationalist" while talking about one hoax, this is personal
attack, too.) After a couple of months of trying to have good faith in
communication with Mark, I am so tired.

Zlatiborian speech (not even dialect!) is in the center of linguistic
area which is basis for standard Serbian language. Only old people
there are Iyekavians. The most of them are Ekavians (while Djordje
said different!). In this moment, their pronounce is the only standard
pronounce (they have full system of accents, unlike people from
Belgrade, for example).


from_name: Arbeo M

body:
Milos Rancic wrote:

>There is no sense to tolerate insults from
>you and similar people.

I can't help but think you're exaggerating a little
bit here. Personal expressions of opion by individual
participants in a discussion (we're talking about
nothing more than merely an ongoing debate here!) must
not be mistaken for insults.

On top of that, I don't think there will be a
Zlatiborian Wikipedia, so why worry this much?

Arbeo

___________________________________________________________
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - Jetzt mit 1GB Speicher kostenlos - Hier anmelden: http://mail.yahoo.de


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Zlatiborian, again

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Mark Williamson wrote:
> Was it not you who was arguing for Alemannic linguistic independence?
>
> Alemannic is, after all, the most widely-spoken language in Switzerland.
>

I don't remember. Link/ quote (including PGP signature)?

- --
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3-cvs (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQEVAwUBQ27hUrMAAH8MeUlWAQgAnggAgldNgQ9RRhI4VpVSpRYaG74LWYppBoIl
mBXEqm/YnGCuo194OW4Jx2RsXJDoiGfpPxwmJthktcqdSG3ArB67Hg6V57NvyHu2
/rOo3ZWiBz2qDxCtpZCDJDHuo24qNSzCUl0y1J7RGL+ZAq33D0vDeMNmvbfOgQKU
maf47L1mhAzB+ykWXGe72xxpFJoFRvmhsEsxtJbi52tCVawQCF5iesDUY8m3YwP0
Ntzq0nc51DkjMq9lG9+P6g3e+K7VecyLNnvJ8FLmfjzuS1pLpAeNAtMZakZVkOfP
IEJDNcgrQUt5LWS4YIugVlYImvS+ZRlLFBEcIG1AWaiUh9BsmQVuhQ==
=ZN9e
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Mark Williamson

body:
> I am afraid that this is not exception, but the rule. People have to
> waste a lot of time in explaining that something is a hoax.

No, they don't. Currently, there are 12 people against a ZB.WIKI, and
5 people in favour. Did these 12 people change their votes because it
was explained to them? No.

> This means that there is urgent need for the Wikim/pedian body which
> would have people educated in linguistics, anthropology, sociology.
> Mark Williamson maybe has good intentions (maybe sometime he would be
> right about some repression and some urging for new Wikipedia...), but
> I am really afraid of political decisions which are based on such kind
> of propaganda.

Do you honestly think that I am so easily influenced by propaganda?
Perhaps if you paid a bit more attention to this whole thing, you'd
realise what's actually going on here? I'm both surprised and
disappointed that you have yet to pick up on it.

In fact, I'm not just disappointed, but insulted as well. So many
other people have already picked up on the truth of the situation, and
have found this in the end to be a good experience. You, on the other
hand, still have no idea what's going on here.

> Note that we are talking here about well known language area. Again,
> what about not-so-well -known language areas?
>
> Mark made a lot of noise. And, before I started to waste my time on
> Zlatiborian once again, more people was for opening Zlatiborian
> Wikipedia. Also, when I see that Mark said to some of Serbian

Yes, but even before your crew of anti-Zlatiborian goons came along to
vote against a Wikipedia in the beautiful language of the
ever-glorious Zlatiborian peoples, there were some enemies of the
Zlatiborian people who had already voted against it and yet were not
influenced by Serbian nationalist extremism -- Chamdarae, Arbeo,
etc...

For those reasons, a Zlatiborian WP would most likely have never
passed even without the interference of you and your nationalist
buddies. That saddens me immensely, that just a few nationalist goons
and their overseas allies can further oppress such a beautiful
language and the glorious people who speak it.

> Wikipedians that they are "nationalists", that I have "my Serbian
> nationalist crew" (note, about one hoax!) -- I think that no one
> Serbian Wikipedian shouldn't vote on this poll. (As well as I would
> insist that we don't vote about such kind of hoaxes.) And without
> people from sr: this hoax would pass.

. . .

> And we (on sr:) didn't have the community one year and half before.

. . .

> And what about other similar situations?

I really don't care so much about the Wikimedia thing as I do about
the Zlatiborian thing. It still saddens me immensely that you and your
friends have decided to continue the trend of Serbian oppression of
the Zlatiborians, and that you continue to try to force them to hide
their unique language and culture. Well, soon enough the Zlatiborians
will shed the shackles of Serbian oppression in a war of independence
in which justice will be served swiftly upon all who are enemies of
the Zlatiborian people!

Cheers,
Mark

--
"Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin


body:
Milos Rancic wrote:

> So, this is the issue of scientific competency of
> Wikimedian projects.
> [...]
> I don't want to be the part of scientific
> non-relevant project. This is not the issue of
> Zlatiborian.

Well, I can understand your grudge here to some
degree, because I've experienced similar situations at
Wikipedia before, were a majority (which is not even
the case with Zlatiborian, btw) was supporting some
standpoint that was utter nonsense from a scientific
perspective. And I thought (note: thought!): "How can
anyone be that ignorant?"

However, it is an essential feature of all Wikimedia
projects that they are not closed circles for some
academics but open projects were everybody is free to
participate as long as they obey certain rules. Of
course, that doesn't mean that we don't strive for the
highest possible degree of scientific accuracy but it
necessarily implies that discussions sometimes take a
slightly different course than they would within a
scientific community. I think everybody who has been
participating here for a while is aware of that - and
the good news is: in the long run, "the truth" almost
always prevails. No need to question the project
altogether, I think.

Arbeo

___________________________________________________________
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - Jetzt mit 1GB Speicher kostenlos - Hier anmelden: http://mail.yahoo.de


from_name: Phil Boswell

subject: [Wikitech-l] Search very intermittent on :en:

body:
Is it just me who keep getting some sort of strange error on searches on
:en:?

The symptoms so far include showing the Google/Yahoo boxes and an odd error
message indicating some sort of bad return from an IP in the [10.*.*.*]
range. My IP knowledge is rusty: is that a private range?

Sorry I can't be more precise: the error sometimes goes away when I try
again, and did this time :-(
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Status of Wikimedia (was: Status of Serbia and
	Montenegro chapter)

body:
2.5 hoeren befarre t'genoo maz Elisabeth Bauer haat harr gashriepet inde hier:
> On 1 september I sent the following email to the board:
> [...]
> | In the last open board meeting there was a discussion about having a
> | seed wiki and a committee deciding policies for it.
> | So, here a proposal how to deal with new language requests (not new
> | projects)
<snip>
> | This way, we can maybe get rid of these pending requests:
> | http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages
<snip>

Perhaps you should've looked over [[m:Proposed policy for wikis in new
languages]]? It's not yet a policy, but hopefully it will be soon.

> In the three answers I got, I was refered back to the community and told
> that the problem will eventuall sort out by creation of the seed wiki.

...

Also, you seem to have not realised the existence of Test-Wikipedias,
which so far have proven themselves to be a great way for people to
prove the viability of a new Wikipedia.

> Now I see that the situation hasn't become better but even worse.

...

> As officer of the Wikimedia Foundation I can't welcome your decision and
> would question your competence to speak for the whole of the not yet
> existing serbian Wikimedia chapter.

That's actually something I personally didn't mention yet, but I
really agree. I wonder how Milos can so quickly articulate the
feelings of all Serbian WM'ans.

> What shall I tell a journalist who asks the press officer about the
> zlatiborian language wikipedia? "Eh yes, it's ridiculous, but you see, a
> few people who don't even speak this city dialect pressured the
> community into it. Cantonese? Oh yes, the same thing happened.

What is it with you and the word "dialect"? Cantonese is spoken over
millions of square kilometres, encompassing multiple provinces, not
just a single city. Perhaps Koelsch, or Hamburgisch, or whatever, is
the dialect of a city, but Cantonese isn't. And Zlatiborian is a very
rural language -- there are no cities located in Zlatibor, just
villages and small towns.

> Wikiversity? Ah well, sorry, we're still looking for a concept. There's
> rubbish on wikibooks like the "How to get a girl manual"? See, people
> are working on the encyclopedia, there are not enough people to look
> into the other projects and control them for quality. You found a

Actually, Wikibooks does have its own process for deletion, and I
believe somebody nominated that very manual. It was not deleted, I do
not believe, but at least there is a process that it went through.

> copyvio on suaheli wikiquote? Sorry, I don't speak suaheli - and the
> three suaheli speakers in Wikimedia are busy with the encyclopedia. Why

Uhh... wtf? That's what SWMT is for. Yes, admittedly a copyvio may be
difficult to catch if it's written in a language we don't understand,
but we catch most of the vandalism, spam, etc. that rolls through.

> are there so many corn field related news on german Wikinews while XY
> isn't treated? Oh well, now this is a funny story...

I've not heard that story... sounds amusing though.

> Wikimedia has accomplished great things: An encyclopedia, written by
> common people and volunteers, slowly getting better and better, to the
> point of being a serious alternative to classical encyclopedias. There
> are its established sister projects, slowly evolving and becoming useful
> (btw, the category:philosophy on commons is a mess).
<snip>
> I went back to the real thing, the encyclopedia in my language - which
> is nor Bavarian, neither M?nchnerisch although I am from this region and
> city but german, a language almost everybody in Germany speaks and is
> able to understand (except he's maybe turkish or serbian or arabic).
> There's still a lot of work to do even if some newspapers rate us
> already as better than brockhaus.

So, you think that we should close down the Alemannisch and Platt WPs
because all of those people speak Hochdeutsch? What about the Catalan,
Basque, Galician, Asturian, and Aragonese WPs? Don't those people
speak Spanish, French, or Portuguese as well? What about Occitan,
Breton, Corsican, Walloon? Can't they speak French? Or Scots, Scottish
Gaelic, Irish, Manx, Welsh, and Cornish? Can't they speak English?

These Wikipedias have all been around for a very long time. Their
existence set a precedent of sorts -- now people don't think twice
about minority languages.

You had the chance to oppose those when they were created, and you
didn't, or if you did, not enough other people did to keep them from
creation. For you to run around complaining about it now is a little
bit late.

> Tell me when you've stopped discussing and voting on genial new projects
> and obscure dialects, when you've kicked the language fanatics from the
> mailing lists, when you've closed the unwatched spam traps, when you've

And where are these unwatched spam traps???

> settled on a checkuser and logo policy, when someone has had the guts to
> introduce single login instead of just talking about it and when you are
> serious about this human knowledge thing.

...

Mark

--
"Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin


from_name: Brown, Darin

subject: [WikiEN-l] RE: Re: Press badges

body:
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2005 10:27:07 +1100
> From: "Peter Mackay" <peter.mackay at bigpond.com>
> Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Re: Press badges
> To: "'English Wikipedia'" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> 	<20051104232712.YGYT1358.omta03sl.mx.bigpond.com at skyringstudy>
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="US-ASCII"
> > Just throwing this out there: I dont see how any
> > anti-credentialist organization can be in the business of
> > giving out credentials.
>
> In the same wiki-way that everything else works here. The community
> decides
> who, based on their contributions, is able to present a professional face
> to
> the real world and a useful contribution to Wikipedia/WikiNews. I use
> "professional" here in the sense of "adhering to industry standards",
> rather
> than "being paid for".

In what other situations do we actually "present a professional face to the
real world"? It's clear that we have *internal* professional faces that we
present to ourselves -- arbitrators, admins, and the informal "credentials"
that someone attains over a period of time, but these are entirely internal.
When someone reads an article, all of these internal faces are shielded from
view. No one outside wikipedia need know about, acknowledge, or endorse
these internal faces. Whereas, a wiki-press pass would be something
completely different -- here, we *would* be asking outsiders to acknowledge
and endorse our professional faces. I think there's a difference.

> Nobody considers tabloid newspapers to
> hold
> to high standards of journalistic integrity, but they command wide
> readerships, and their journalists find little difficulty in gaining
> access
> to events. All we really need do is say "Google such-and such a subject"
> and
> Wikipedia is generally in the first ten entries, so we've got that sort of
> leverage to use with people who are after media exposure.

But, whatever you think of them, tabloids are in a sense, original research.
And so they are not only subject to legal issues which are avoided by
avoiding original research, but if we were to emulate them in this regard,
we would be subjecting ourselves to the same type of NPOV issues we subject
other news sources to. This is one caveat I have about press passes -- maybe
just for photographs they might be okay, but assigning press badges on a par
that journalists use, seems to be stretching the limits of what the project
is all about. Granted, I don't think we would ever have a POV of a Fox News
or the New York Post, but POV would always be an issue. (Simply the
selection of what events are considered "news-worthy" to attend is a POV.)
The line between reporting first-hand news sources vs. *being* first-hand
news sources is a fine one, but the line is still there.

darin


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Status of Wikimedia

body:
On 07/11/05, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> Elian has written something very powerful and important, and I want to
> quote some from it to echo the sentiments.

I respect your opinion, but to me it seemed more like whinging (for
lack of a better word) than something very powerful and important.

> Bravo!

On that point I will agree with both of you.

> > I went back to the real thing, the encyclopedia in my language - which
> > is nor Bavarian, neither M?nchnerisch although I am from this region and
> > city but german, a language almost everybody in Germany speaks and is
> > able to understand (except he's maybe turkish or serbian or arabic).
> > There's still a lot of work to do even if some newspapers rate us
> > already as better than brockhaus.
> >
> > Tell me when you've stopped discussing and voting on genial new projects
> > and obscure dialects, when you've kicked the language fanatics from the
> > mailing lists, when you've closed the unwatched spam traps, when you've
> > settled on a checkuser and logo policy, when someone has had the guts to
> > introduce single login instead of just talking about it and when you are
> > serious about this human knowledge thing.

> I'm very sympathetic to all these points.  I don't have an easy answer
> to what to do, and kicking language fanatics off the mailing lists isn't
> exactly our normal style.  I do think we need some serious reform of our
> language policy to end what I see as an ongoing drive to reclassify
> every dialect in the world into a standalone language.  I do think we
> need to be much more severe about closing down unwatched spam traps.

It may seem this way from where you are. But let's look over a few things:

1) Dialects. So far, nearly all proposals have been classified by the
Ethnologue as separate languages. Among those that haven't are:
Zlatiborian, Samogitian, Banyumasan, Voro. However, all of these
(except Zlatiborian) are listed by numerous other sources as separate
languages. So, while you may label them "dialects", experts do not.
Based solely on the standard of mutual intelligibility, it almost
makes more sense to merge the Spanish and Portuguese WPs than to say
that Riparian is nothing more than a dialect of German and should be
shoved into the same Wikipedia. Besides this, there is already a huge
test wiki in Riparian. Other so-called "dialects" like Bavarian or
Zeelandic are considered by many of their own speakers, as well as a
significant number of experts, as independent languages, and they are
certainly not easily mutually intelligible (in written form) with the
parent language.
2) Language policy. This is already being worked on [[m:Proposed
policy for wikis in new languages]]
3) "unwatched spam traps". Would you be kind enough to point me to
even one unwatched spam trap? I'm quite offended that the work of
myself, Angela, Chamdarae, Mxn, Mustafaa, and others has gone largely
unnoticed by you. Thanks to us, the majority of spam and vandalism on
so-called "unwatched spam traps" _is_ watched, and is reverted
quickly.

> Each person's list of things like this will be slightly different, but
> the overall point is that I am beginning to sense a need with the
> community for us to turn inward, to change some of our very open
> policies which lead people to endless new-project proposals and
> new-language speculation.

I think things are working just fine the way they are. Well, not
entirely, I agree that some things are dysfunctional, but I think
they're only very minor problems and people are already working on
them. So, while you see a big fissure across the face of Wikimedia, I
see a tiny crack which is already being patched.

Mark

--
"Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin


subject: [WikiEN-l] RE: Re: Press badges

body:
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 08:39:31 -0500
> From: "Chip Berlet" <c.berlet at publiceye.org>
> Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Re: Press badges
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> 	<477C2A7D4CCE994B8CF296DA69A31D3D39BDE1 at server.publiceye.local>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> Wikinews, however, is a form of alternative media, and should fee free to
> issue press credentials to members of the Wikinews community who have a
> track record of regular and substantive contributions, and a willingness
> to recognize that they are carrying the reputation of Wikinews with them;
> and thus should behave in appropriate ways given local country/city media
> standards--even if they disagree with those standards.

I can't agree. If wikinews really is a form of "alternative media", then how
is wikinews any different than various alternative media with a clear
leftist, rightist, libertarian, conservative, populist, etc., etc., slant?
Just because we say we don't have a bias? Fox News says they don't have a
bias, either. And look at them.

And then we are taking money from people for Wikimedia, under the guise that
we are using to present a neutral relaying of information. If this is okay
for us, again, Fox News or the New York Post could just as well do the exact
same thing. But people who pay money to watch Fox News or the New York Post
*know* it's biased.

darin


from_name: Fastfission

subject: [WikiEN-l] Category:Soviet spies

body:
Chip --

I'll nominate it for a name change. I think these Soviet spy cases are
often too difficult to put into a "confirmed" epistemological
category, even with confessions, anyway.

FF

On 11/7/05, Chip Berlet <c.berlet at publiceye.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I put "Category:Soviet spies"  on Categories for Deletion, but even though most of the people thought a name change was a good idea, since most of them did not vote to Delete, the ruling was to Keep.  I objected, but got no response.
>
> -Cberlet
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org on behalf of Sam Korn
> Sent: Mon 11/7/2005 9:34 AM
> To: English Wikipedia
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Category:Soviet spies
>
>
>
> I suggest you bring this up on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CFD
>
> I agree that the change needs to be made.  Perhaps there can be a
> second category for confirmed Soviet spies.
>
> Sam
>
> On 11/7/05, Chip Berlet <c.berlet at publiceye.org> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > The Wikipedia entry "Category:Soviet spies" is a magnet for a defamation lawsuit. Many of the people in the list were never indicted, and some denied the charge in public. At least one person is still alive: "Harry Magdoff".
> >
> > At best, this should be renamed to something like: "Category:Accused Soviet spies" .
> >
> > I freely confess I have a vested interest in this matter, currently well into the second month of mdiation with Nobs01on a related matter without a single compromise paragraph having been written:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Cberlet_and_Nobs01/Workshop
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Cberlet_and_Nobs01
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Cberlet_and_Nobs01/A3
> >
> > But since this mediation seems to be dragging on for months, I though that I would mention this now, rather than wait for the mediation to hit the year 2006.
> >
> > Some folks here on this list should consider the possible defmation issue very seriously. I messed up my first attempt to deal with this on Wiki. I meant to suggest a name change or deletion, but misunderstood the process.
> >
> > I have prevailed after being sued for defamation twice, but it cost tens of thousands of dollars just to get a judge to toss me out of the case.
> >
> > Cberlet
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>


from_name: charles matthews

subject: [WikiEN-l] Category:Soviet spies

body:
This is an example of the limitations of the category system.  A list is
much better; it can be annotated, and doesn't appear on the page itself.

Get rid of the category, make a better list.

Charles


subject: [WikiEN-l] Category:Soviet spies

body:
My recommendation: [[Category:Alleged Soviet spies]] (serious
allegations only, thankyouverymuch), and [[Category:Convicted Soviet
spies]]. In both cases we avoid having to make a value judgment as to
the truth of said espionage accusation by making it into a category
bestowed by other people. (That is, whether the Rosenbergs were Soviet
spies is still disputed by some, but none would dispute that they were
convicted as such).

FF

On 11/7/05, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> I suggest you bring this up on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CFD
>
> I agree that the change needs to be made.  Perhaps there can be a
> second category for confirmed Soviet spies.
>
> Sam
>
> On 11/7/05, Chip Berlet <c.berlet at publiceye.org> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > The Wikipedia entry "Category:Soviet spies" is a magnet for a defamation lawsuit. Many of the people in the list were never indicted, and some denied the charge in public. At least one person is still alive: "Harry Magdoff".
> >
> > At best, this should be renamed to something like: "Category:Accused Soviet spies" .
> >
> > I freely confess I have a vested interest in this matter, currently well into the second month of mdiation with Nobs01on a related matter without a single compromise paragraph having been written:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Cberlet_and_Nobs01/Workshop
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Cberlet_and_Nobs01
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Cberlet_and_Nobs01/A3
> >
> > But since this mediation seems to be dragging on for months, I though that I would mention this now, rather than wait for the mediation to hit the year 2006.
> >
> > Some folks here on this list should consider the possible defmation issue very seriously. I messed up my first attempt to deal with this on Wiki. I meant to suggest a name change or deletion, but misunderstood the process.
> >
> > I have prevailed after being sued for defamation twice, but it cost tens of thousands of dollars just to get a judge to toss me out of the case.
> >
> > Cberlet
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Status of Wikimedia

body:
> those editions of WP will not be closed down. The idea is to prevent WP
> becoming a project to keep endangered languages "alive". We are (or

I don't see what's wrong with that. I mean, it should never be our
primary goal, but it's always been something that we've been a part
of. Well, not *always*, but we have so many WPs in endangered
languages already. As I said, that set a precedent.

> better we want to be) a project trying to set up an encyclopedia
> everyone can access and understand and nothing else. We have to stop
> stupid creating of new Wikipedias which will surely never be filled
> enough to be accepted as encyclopedias. Acting like this only comsumes

That's the point of eventualism. Somebody might say that the Sicilian
WP will "never be filled enough to be accepted as [an]
encyclopedia[...]". But it's still growing. Why not worry about it
when such Wikipedias explode, or stop growing, or whatever?

> power of many people which would better be concentrated on more
> important things in our all day Wikipedia life...

Uhh... shouldn't people have a choice? I, for one, work much less on
en.wiki than other languages Wikipedias. And this is by my choice. If
those other Wikipedias didn't exist, I wouldn't use that time on
en.wiki, but non-Wiki-related things.

Mark

--
"Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject: [Wikitech-l] Thoughts on wikidata

body:
On 11/7/05, Frando <frando at xcite-online.de> wrote:
> I've read a lot on the whole wikidata thing in the past view
> month. The whole project will IMO be a enourmous advantage not only to
> mediawiki and wikipedia but also to the whole idea of free information.
>
> I think, however, that most of you concur with me in this point.
>
> There are loads of amazing ideas in the minds of all us and in
> meta.wikimedia.org, so this is not the point ;)
[snip]

This is a complex subject. If we try to discuss everything out we'll
just be in discussion forever.
It's pretty much come to a point in time where we should say "Show me the code".

If it's going to move forward it will either be via incremental
improvement, or via a crazed rewrite (if you do this, please write the
parser in a c-callable language and make it versatile enough to use it
outside of mediawiki!).

Either approach is valid it's just a question of who is motivated to
do what work.


from_name: Chip Berlet

subject: [WikiEN-l] Category:Soviet spies

body:
This proposal has a lot of merit, and gets us out of a tricky situation.

-Cberlet

> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Fastfission
> Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 4:41 PM
> To: English Wikipedia
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Category:Soviet spies
>
>
> My recommendation: [[Category:Alleged Soviet spies]] (serious
> allegations only, thankyouverymuch), and [[Category:Convicted
> Soviet spies]]. In both cases we avoid having to make a value
> judgment as to the truth of said espionage accusation by
> making it into a category bestowed by other people. (That is,
> whether the Rosenbergs were Soviet spies is still disputed by
> some, but none would dispute that they were convicted as such).
>
> FF
>
> On 11/7/05, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I suggest you bring this up on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CFD
> >
> > I agree that the change needs to be made.  Perhaps there can be a
> > second category for confirmed Soviet spies.
> >
> > Sam
> >
> > On 11/7/05, Chip Berlet <c.berlet at publiceye.org> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > The Wikipedia entry "Category:Soviet spies" is a magnet for a
> > > defamation lawsuit. Many of the people in the list were never
> > > indicted, and some denied the charge in public. At least
> one person
> > > is still alive: "Harry Magdoff".
> > >
> > > At best, this should be renamed to something like:
> "Category:Accused
> > > Soviet spies" .
> > >
> > > I freely confess I have a vested interest in this matter,
> currently
> > > well into the second month of mdiation with Nobs01on a related
> > > matter without a single compromise paragraph having been written:
> > >
> > >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Cberle
> > > t_and_Nobs01/Workshop
> > >
> > >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Cberle
> > > t_and_Nobs01
> > >
> > >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Cberle
> > > t_and_Nobs01/A3
> > >
> > > But since this mediation seems to be dragging on for months, I
> > > though that I would mention this now, rather than wait for the
> > > mediation to hit the year 2006.
> > >
> > > Some folks here on this list should consider the possible
> defmation
> > > issue very seriously. I messed up my first attempt to
> deal with this
> > > on Wiki. I meant to suggest a name change or deletion, but
> > > misunderstood the process.
> > >
> > > I have prevailed after being sued for defamation twice,
> but it cost
> > > tens of thousands of dollars just to get a judge to toss
> me out of
> > > the case.
> > >
> > > Cberlet
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [Wikitech-l] Request for the creation of a Nedersaksisch Wikipedia

body:
Consensus regarding this controversial addition to the Wikipedia
family has not yet been reached.

Mark

On 07/11/05, Arbeo M <arbeo_m at yahoo.de> wrote:
> Hello Wikitechnicians!
>
> Hereby I would like to request the creation of the
> Nedersaksisch Wikipedia (request filed 2005-06-12) as
> soon as possible.
> Domain code: "nds-nl" (ISO language code + ISO country
> code, because no individual language code exists
> here).
>
> Thank you very much in advance, also on behalf of the
> speakers of Low Saxon living the Netherlands who will
> now  be able to contribute to Wikipedia.
>
> Arbeo
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - Jetzt mit 1GB Speicher kostenlos - Hier anmelden: http://mail.yahoo.de
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>

--
"Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Status of Wikimedia

body:
No! I meant to say that... umm... they exist, but you won't find them
at your library because there are no printing presses in Zlatibor so
they have to write out copies manually!

Mark

On 07/11/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Mark Williamson wrote:
> > On 07/11/05, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Elian has written something very powerful and important, and I want to
> >>quote some from it to echo the sentiments.
> >
> <snip>
> >
> > It may seem this way from where you are. But let's look over a few things:
> >
> > 1) Dialects. So far, nearly all proposals have been classified by the
> > Ethnologue as separate languages. Among those that haven't are:
> > Zlatiborian, Samogitian, Banyumasan, Voro. However, all of these
> > (except Zlatiborian) are listed by numerous other sources as separate
> > languages. So, while you may label them "dialects", experts do not.
> <snip>
>
> So you admit that no expert sources claim that Zlatiborian exists?
>
> HELLO! NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH!
>
> - --
> Alphax                      |   /"\
> Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
> OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
> http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iQEVAwUBQ2/r1bMAAH8MeUlWAQgPrQf/VC23NOelTh7vX/7P6+565oJRxz2rNtmz
> EUkc0tOhsfMM+HWX7p8Ygd0toL/EX7i1saLBw6rrFzR735XF8OJ//gikZGU7N9Sq
> 7lraJ+MYxUUZ1KALcyy2u/loth+ztQI3EawzKNfsRyHulznaTW08hoYZI+ahVvfR
> bWZjYtk0kS4owTKnkJv7I0VtjagrFkVBL3qANMbbi4XWJzCuNm4cwG8iQH6YK2we
> VW+Qk9RL1eAulVIJV1zySV0/V4z2YoMVANqnN7TpFRqeCOmY607QuVNa8ZwnZomS
> 0Ry6HVOSezsS438+45q2objIgWoJtU4u06AO7vpzWtN6oT9kZ6BUXw==
> =7Nzd
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
"Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin


body:
On 07/11/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> I would like to point out that this is the same hysterical, nonsensical
> drivel that Mark was spouting on #wikipedia yesterday...
>
> Don't worry Mark, the men in black helicopters will be here shortly.

Alphax, the hour of judgement will soon be upon us and the glorious
Zlatiborians and their allies will triumph! By siding with the Serbian
oppressors, you have earned yourself a one-way ticket to wherever it
is the Zlatiborians decide to send you people!

Soon enough, the Zlatiborians will wage a struggle for independence
against their evil Serbian oppressors, and they will emerge
victorious! Finally, the inhabitants of Mt Zlatibor will be able to
live free from the shackles of Serbian oppression, and their culture
will be admired internationally for its glory and beauty!

When that time comes, the enemies of the Zlatiborian people, yourself
included, will meet with swift justice, and let me tell you it will
not be pleasant!

Cheers,
Mark.


body:
Hello Wikitechnicians!

Hereby I would like to request the creation of the
Nedersaksisch Wikipedia (request filed 2005-06-12) as
soon as possible.
Domain code: "nds-nl" (ISO language code + ISO country
code, because no individual language code exists
here).

Thank you very much in advance, also on behalf of the
speakers of Low Saxon living the Netherlands who will
now  be able to contribute to Wikipedia.

Arbeo

___________________________________________________________
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - Jetzt mit 1GB Speicher kostenlos - Hier anmelden: http://mail.yahoo.de


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikinews is giving out press credentials

body:
On 11/7/05, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> --- Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> > What trademark violation is going on here? Trademark law only prohibits
> > commercial use of a trademark for a competing product in the same
> > market.
>
> Trademark law does not only prohibit commercial use. Any use which dilutes
> a
> mark in a particular market is a potential violation. Using a mark that
> implies
> an official connection when no such connection exists is also a potential
> violation.
>
> -- mav

There is federal trademark law and there is federal dilution law. Dilution
law requires the mark to be "famous", and doesn't require it to be used in a
competing sense. However, I believe it relies on the interstate commerce
clause (the copyright clause is unlikely to apply), and according to US Code
Section 1125 the dilution must be made "on or in connection with any goods
or services, or any container for goods". Even then there is still fair use.

So I'm not sure what you mean by "a potential violation", but I can't find
any dilution law which regulates non-commercial use. Maybe you could point
out some evidence that I just haven't found the law you're talking about.

Anthony


body:
On 11/7/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> So "Zlatiborian" is equivalent to "Londoner", "New Yorker", or "Parisian"?

In general, yes. But a little bit different: (1) I think that there
are around 100.000 of inhabitants of Zlatibor area, not 10-20
millions. (2) Also, the difference is also the same as the difference
between standard American English and Bosnonian.


from_name: Uwe Brauer

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: prbls with external editor

references:
<877jbu2avo.fsf@mat.ucm.es> <dk83h4$4hr$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<dk85j5$c6m$1@sea.gmane.org> <200511011826.56652@bloodgate.com>
	<dk8gep$ic3$1@sea.gmane.org> <874q6vgutc.fsf_-_@mat.ucm.es>
	<4368EA71.2030803@gmx.de>

body:
>>>>> "Erik" == Erik Moeller
>>>>> <erik_moeller at gmx.de> writes:

   Erik> 	Transcode UTF-8=true

   Erik> in ee.ini under [Settings], but your editor will still mangle
   Erik> characters that are not part of the iso8859-1
   Erik> character-set. The best thing to do is to use a UTF-8 editor
   Erik> (or, if you already do, set the encoding to UTF-8 when
   Erik> editing wiki pages). I personally use Kate for KDE, which I
   Erik> have found to be an excellent editor for both text and code.

May I suggest something different in addition. I recently tried
latex-->html-->wiki(pedia)

Since I did not use utf8, the non ASCII symbols got decoded as SGML
entities. That text was well understood by wiki it seems.

As far as I can see, when I set
Transcode UTF-8=false
then your script tries to use some iso8859-x setting. Could it use
sgml setting instead?

Thanks

Uwe Brauer


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] Status of Wikimedia

body:
> It is much easier (perhaps too easy, considering how many wikis have zero
> active users) to start new languages.  However it is surprisingly hard to
> find a list of [other] ways to integrate new language/dialect content into
> the projects*.

Actually, it's very difficult nowadays. Yes, some of the
recently-created WPs look as if they might be dead for a while, but
most look healthy.

Mark

--
"Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Press badges

body:
On 11/7/05, Chip Berlet <c.berlet at publiceye.org> wrote:

> Covering breaking news with a press credential is,
> by definition, original research, which is not allowed
> on Wikipedia, and thus I am not sure that Wikipedia
> should be issuing press credentials.

The original mail in this thread was asking about press cards for
Wikipedian photographers rather than editors. I see nothing against
policy for people to take photos of current events which can be added
to articles as soon as the press starts reporting on them. Also,
photographs of people to accompany the existing Wikipedia articles
about those people wouldn't be original research, and will often be
the only way to get a freely licensed image.

Angela.


body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As a bystander here I am really, really confused about
> Zlatiborian!
>
> Now, could someone please translate what Djordje wrote
> on the sr.wiki. An honest translation. There are
> reasonable grounds to believe this is a hoax, for a
> few reasons:
>
> *Djordje's backtracking over this project with
> statements like "I'm sorry, it was a hoax"
> *Node's expression of "noble" language, etc, which
> makes it seem very much like a joke (honestly...)
> *The most important point - there are NO internet
> sources on this language. None at all! Surely if this
> was an actual language, there would be at least one
> source calling it Zlatiborian.
>
> Node - you said that you have some books on this
> language, and you seem to know quite a lot about it
> (vocabulary differences, etc). Are there any sources
> on the Internet about this? And proof?
>
> In conclusion - I'm not against the Zlatiborian
> Wikipedia, but I'm really in doubt over whether it
> actually exists.
>

I could share with you some very interesting channel logs from
#wikipedia... assuming that the "node_ue" I was talking to was indeed
Mark Williamson, and they were being serious, then yes, Zlatiborian is
indeed a hoax. That, or... well, I'm almost beyond words.

- --
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3-cvs (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQEVAwUBQ28B4bMAAH8MeUlWAQivHAgAqJQ5hHfAKnbq8V5taNf6mBaHgspeUhuV
KqrvGs2TGMd0GvZm0uGjdgJPG/horcwtep1ZAbWCYZzCRUs3hxYSd0STXY5Sy31B
EE6WbDHN+b2tt51tPhwXfga8msv6ULm7vQho4AnWW6mPWlY4iUmG3VO8rjh1usPA
CZdN1rhsYmkdzrDvnmMQ1OhppBtVX9swog7ozXYNVw7YzW4CrSrB3+/71UEhwDXH
RY+ONO8xD9bYppJ5nBfDAjbfjFLyCXiH4LumwUhhbnpFPkE3qQqN8xAlVmn5Uk29
dPfZ7CETAQU50KItrn8B0bYxw+kfidjfr2tOE+OsO3LCo2qCcRUwGQ==
=2Y7/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Jimmy Wales

body:
Elian has written something very powerful and important, and I want to
quote some from it to echo the sentiments.

> Wikimedia has accomplished great things: An encyclopedia, written by
> common people and volunteers, slowly getting better and better, to the
> point of being a serious alternative to classical encyclopedias. There
> are its established sister projects, slowly evolving and becoming useful
> (btw, the category:philosophy on commons is a mess).
>
> But to maintain and improve this standard of quality requires constant
> work and attention. New contributors have to be welcomed and taught the
> "way of the wiki", policy proposals which would result in deteriorating
> the quality have to be turned down, conflicts between good authors have
> to be mediated and last but not least over 3 million articles in over
> 150 languages need to be checked for vandalism and are waiting to be
> improved and still a lot more are waiting to be written.

Bravo!

> I went back to the real thing, the encyclopedia in my language - which
> is nor Bavarian, neither M?nchnerisch although I am from this region and
> city but german, a language almost everybody in Germany speaks and is
> able to understand (except he's maybe turkish or serbian or arabic).
> There's still a lot of work to do even if some newspapers rate us
> already as better than brockhaus.
>
> Tell me when you've stopped discussing and voting on genial new projects
> and obscure dialects, when you've kicked the language fanatics from the
> mailing lists, when you've closed the unwatched spam traps, when you've
> settled on a checkuser and logo policy, when someone has had the guts to
> introduce single login instead of just talking about it and when you are
> serious about this human knowledge thing.

I'm very sympathetic to all these points.  I don't have an easy answer
to what to do, and kicking language fanatics off the mailing lists isn't
exactly our normal style.  I do think we need some serious reform of our
language policy to end what I see as an ongoing drive to reclassify
every dialect in the world into a standalone language.  I do think we
need to be much more severe about closing down unwatched spam traps.

And so on...

Each person's list of things like this will be slightly different, but
the overall point is that I am beginning to sense a need with the
community for us to turn inward, to change some of our very open
policies which lead people to endless new-project proposals and
new-language speculation.

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Status of Wikimedia


from_name: Carl Witty

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Privacy policy and editing
	anonymously notice.

body:
On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 10:09 -0800, Bryan Derksen wrote:
> Timwi wrote:
>
> >     Your [[IP address]] will be recorded when you click 'Save'. If
> >     you are not [[Special:Userlogin|logged in]], it will be shown
> >     publicly. See [[Wikipedia:Privacy policy|privacy policy]].
>
> To make it even less scary, how about:
>
> :Unless you are [[Special:Userlogin|logged in]] your edit will be signed
> with your [[IP address]] when you click 'Save'. See our
> [[Wikipedia:Privacy policy|privacy policy]].

Is there an advantage to having different messages for logged-in and
not-logged-in users?

Logged in:
Your edit will be signed with your user name when you click 'Save'.  See
our [[Wikipedia:Privacy policy|privacy policy]].

Not logged in:
Your edit will be signed with your [[IP address]] when you click 'Save'.
See our [[Wikipedia:Privacy policy|privacy policy]].

(Actually, I like Bryan's combined version better than these; but maybe
somebody can come up with better wording for separated messages.)

Carl Witty


body:
Arbeo left out the part where there was lots of fighting over the request.

There are alternative proposals for Veluws, Gronings, and Stellingwarfs.

The proposal for Veluws got 7 support votes and 2 oppose, one of who
is Arbeo himself and the other which is conditional and may convince
to change.

The Veluws proposal has been around for about 1 month now, and in this
time it has quickly gained large margin of support.

The "Nedersaksisch" proposal, on the other hand, has 17 support votes
after a period of over 5 months, and there is still significant
opposition.

It seems that, in the long term, it will be better to allow the
mutually unintelligible Low Saxon languages in the Netherlands have
their own Wikipedias. Arbeo doesn't consider this and instead says he
opposes them because they are dialects, without considering
practically that they are difficult for mutual intelligibility,
especially with marginal varieties such as Veluws and Gronings.

Mark

On 07/11/05, Arbeo M <arbeo_m at yahoo.de> wrote:
> Hi Tels!
>
> Thanks for your inquiry. This can be a bit confusing
> indeed. That's part of the reason why discussion took
> so long here.
>
> > I am also confused. Does this mean we will have
> > wikipedias for every
> > German dialect (saxionian, bavarian etc), too?
> > *confused*
>
> > How does "nedersaksisch" relate to
> "nieders?chsisch"?
>
> 1. I believe and hope there will be no Wikipedias for
> German or any other dialects. I am quite strictly
> against creating Wikipedias for individual dialects.
> That's why I voted against WPs for Bavarian and
> Ripuarian (please cf. 'Requests for new Languages'
> page on Meta).
>
> 2. However, Low Saxon (=Nedersaksisch, Nieders?chsisch
> or Plattd??tsch) is almost unanimously considered a
> separate language and not regarded as is belonging to
> the German language. As a German, I can confirm and
> assure that the two languages are not mutually
> intelligible.
>
> 3. Low Saxon consists, like most languages, of various
> dialects. They are sometimes even considered separate
> languages (but for the most part mutually
> intelligible).
>
> 4. Low Saxon is spoken in Germany as well in the
> Netherlands.
>
> 5. Due to historical reasons, the dialects of Low
> Saxon used in Germany are highly influenced (loan
> words, technical expressions, fixed expressions and
> especially spelling) by the German language while
> those spoken in the Netherlands show many Dutch
> characteristics because of a century-long influx
> coming from the national, official language.
>
> 6. There is a Low Saxon Wikipedia already (nds).
> However, this Wikipedia solely comprises content
> written in Low Saxon from Germany (where the clear
> majority of Low Saxon speakers lives). The possibility
> of including content written in "Dutch" Low Saxon was
> discussed widely earlier this year at Wikipedia-l (see
> archives) but considered not possible by the vast
> majority of participants, especially by all
> participants coming from Germany and from the
> Netherlands. This was not due to any nationalistic
> reasons or the like but solely due to practical
> reasons (intelligibility).
>
> 7. Thus, the varieties of Low Saxon used in the
> Netherlands are currently de facto excluded from
> Wikipedia. That is why numerous Dutch "Low Saxons"
> have requested a new Wikipedia.
>
> 8. "Nedersaksisch" (=Low Saxon) is the most common way
> of referring to the language as a whole in the
> Netherlands. That is why is has been agreed upon as a
> designation for the new Wikipedia. Btw: it has been
> suggested that it can be referred to as "Low Saxon
> (NL)" or the like in other languages where a
> translation is needed.
>
> 9. "Plattd??tsch" (=Low [or, literally 'flat'] German)
> is the most common way speakers refer to this language
> in Germany. It is also the self-designation of the
> existing "nds"-Wikipedia. This designation reflects
> the fact that its speakers have been part of the
> German nation for many centuries. It rather alludes to
> geographical (it is spoken in the low-laying, coastal
> areas of Germany) than to linguistic facts. Including
> the component "German", this name is not used in the
> Netherlands, of course.
>
> 10. "Nieders?chsisch" is simply the German
> (linguistic) term for the language. ("Plattdeutsch" is
> another, less formal name).
>
> Hope this helps a little bit to understand the
> background of this request.
>
> Thanks for your consideration!
>
> Arbeo
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - Jetzt mit 1GB Speicher kostenlos - Hier anmelden: http://mail.yahoo.de
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>

--
"Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin


from_name: SJ

body:
On Mon, 7 Nov 2005, Jimmy Wales wrote:

>> Tell me when you've stopped discussing and voting on genial new projects
>> and obscure dialects, when you've kicked the language fanatics from the
>> mailing lists, when you've closed the unwatched spam traps, when you've
>> settled on a checkuser and logo policy, when someone has had the guts to
>> introduce single login instead of just talking about it and when you are
>> serious about this human knowledge thing.
>
> I'm very sympathetic to all these points.  I don't have an easy answer
> to what to do, and kicking language fanatics off the mailing lists isn't
> exactly our normal style.  I do think we need some serious reform of our
> language policy to end what I see as an ongoing drive to reclassify
> every dialect in the world into a standalone language.
<
> Each person's list of things like this will be slightly different, but
> the overall point is that I am beginning to sense a need with the
> community for us to turn inward, to change some of our very open
> policies which lead people to endless new-project proposals and
> new-language speculation.

The current policies strike me as more undefined than open.

It is not easy to start new projects, certainly not those with their own
domains; it's not even easy to figure out where and how within the English
Wikipedia to nurture an English-language, encyclopedia-focused project.

It is much easier (perhaps too easy, considering how many wikis have zero
active users) to start new languages.  However it is surprisingly hard to
find a list of [other] ways to integrate new language/dialect content into
the projects*.

The current bar for starting new domains/languages is low; but the
alternative isn't necessarily to turn people away or kick them out of
discussions; we can at least start by providing enthusiastic (fanatic?)
proposers with better information, clearer guidelines, and one or two
wikis that focus on incubation.

One of the prime advantages of both free licensing and wikis is that they
allow people to act on impulses, contributing two hours of content while
they are passionate about something, before it fades from mind, rather
than waiting for days or weeks for others to grant permission.  I hope
we find ways to encourage this -- perhaps by more clearly distinguishing
alpha/beta/reviewed content/projects/languages** -- while also improving
quality and consistency at the highest and most public levels.

-- SJ

* e.g., "Just a minor dialect?  use this auto-conversion patch to let
users choose which dialect they see.  A language with little written
content, few speakers, or controversial status?  Here's a collection of
Swadesh lists; starty by adding yours to it...  Here's an incubator wiki
where you can develop other content in that language... Here's how you can
set up your own wiki and raise the issue again once you have 500 articles.
A language with millions of literate speakers but no wiki community?
Here's where to develop that content at first, where to announce it, and
the milestones you need to reach before getting your own domain."

** even users.  cf. last week's discussion of anonymity.


body:
On 11/7/05, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> It is neither a board nor a community decision, since there has been
> no decision whatsoever to start a Zlatiborian Wikipedia. The only
> thing any community did decide was that the articles relating to the
> Zlatiborian language on the English Wikipedia were a hoax and were to
> be deleted. I don't know what is making you think there is any support
> for this. Are you taking Mark's comments to be reflective of the
> entire community?

I am afraid that this is not exception, but the rule. People have to
waste a lot of time in explaining that something is a hoax.

This means that there is urgent need for the Wikim/pedian body which
would have people educated in linguistics, anthropology, sociology.
Mark Williamson maybe has good intentions (maybe sometime he would be
right about some repression and some urging for new Wikipedia...), but
I am really afraid of political decisions which are based on such kind
of propaganda.

Note that we are talking here about well known language area. Again,
what about not-so-well -known language areas?

Mark made a lot of noise. And, before I started to waste my time on
Zlatiborian once again, more people was for opening Zlatiborian
Wikipedia. Also, when I see that Mark said to some of Serbian
Wikipedians that they are "nationalists", that I have "my Serbian
nationalist crew" (note, about one hoax!) -- I think that no one
Serbian Wikipedian shouldn't vote on this poll. (As well as I would
insist that we don't vote about such kind of hoaxes.) And without
people from sr: this hoax would pass.

And we (on sr:) didn't have the community one year and half before.

And what about other similar situations?


from_name: Ilya Haykinson

body:
As someone who initially proposed and helped implement the
credentialing process, I'm chiming in on this issue.

On 11/7/05, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> > They're calling themselves Wikinews journalists, which is what they
> > are.
>
> Anybody who works on Wikinews can say that. Yes. This is about a sub group that
> wish to say they have Wikinews press credentials as a means to gain access to
> press events. That is *very* different.

This is not a sub-group. The process is an open election, allowing
trusted Wikinewsies to be given a status of "Trusted Wikinewsie". This
involves the user providing their real name, and being listed on a
protected page. The real-world slang for "trusted wikinewsie" is
"credentialing".

> It is very different. They wish to use these credentials and the Wikinews name
> to gain access normally only granted to credentialed journalists.

Wikinews aims to create citizen journalists. Since these citizen
journalists have to operate in a world of non-citizen journalists,
they have to use the outsiders' terms for some things. How else do you
give credentials to a citizen journalist? This method is as good as
any I've seen so far.

> Not so. They do not have permission to use the Wikinews trademark in a way that
> implies they are officially credentialed by Wikinews or Wikimedia. They are
> not.

Nowhere does it say that we are credentialed by the board of the WMF.
I might not own the trademark "Wikinews", but I do own some copyrights
to parts of its contents, pursuant to the site's license. I do not
give up the right to say that I am a contributor to Wikinews. Neither
do I give up the right to say that I've been trusted by the users of
Wikinews -- which is what this policy-based process implies.

> If  you thought I meant that, then I'm sorry I was not clear. All I want is for
> the board to either place their stamp of approval on what is already going on
> and help with its administration (such as providing a phone line for people to
> check the credentials of people who claim to have them), or stop it the whole
> thing completely. The current system for selecting the people who are
> considered to have credentials seems to be OK.

I would like to point out that this process was mentioned by Erik on
this list before; and that this was described in the State of the Wiki
(which is supposed to be read by the board)

In the future, before raising "trademark violation" alarms about a
process that's been around for 9 months, I would appreciate a quick
question/post on some public place on the project, or an email to the
project list, lest we sow confusion into the minds of any potential
press pass givers who might be on this list.

-ilya haykinson
 bureaucrat / en.wikinews


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Status of Wikimedia

body:
Well, I'd initially discarded this reply because I thought it was too
long winded to be useful.
I see now that the thread is just becoming a language debate, and I
don't think that was the intention of Jimbo's post at all.

Perhaps I can scare away the language debate with my excessive
volumolonous response.

On 11/7/05, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> Each person's list of things like this will be slightly different, but
> the overall point is that I am beginning to sense a need with the
> community for us to turn inward, to change some of our very open
> policies which lead people to endless new-project proposals and
> new-language speculation.

Jimbo,
   I too have felt some of these feelings: I've encountered some new
users, monthlings often, so eager to readdress things I though were
finally settled months ago... who stumble in bright faced and excited
with proposals about permitting MP3 files or abandoning NPOV,
unburdened by the hard-earned knowledge of the depth and complexity of
the issue at hand.   I've felt the fear that the misguided idea, if
left unanswered, will find fertile ground in the minds our newest
editors, so great in number, and the resulting frustration with the
tired rehashing of the same discussion we had before, knowing full
well that in six more months we will do it once again.

...and I've only been watching wikipedia for two years, editing
actively only one... I can only imagine what it must be like for
long-timers, perhaps frustrated with me for some of the same reasons I
have been frustrated by others.

We are not, however, the first community to experience growing pains.
What might be somewhat more interesting in our case is that unlike the
[[Endless September]] of Usenet is that or difficulty with growth
right now stems as much from finding a number of systems which work
well for us, and the desire to preserve the value they bring, as it
comes from a difficulty in scaling our new user acclimation process to
meet the increased influx.

I've seen some good work done to improve the situation; For example,
some users have taken on the task of refactoring discussion pages to
convert them into material suitable for new users. I believe this work
is important and certainly laudable, but I do not think it has had
much impact. I fear that the easy and instant gratification of jumping
in with 'new' ideas is simply more attractive to most people compared
to the alternative of reading up on their subject of interest.

As concerning as the difficulties brought by community growth are, I
think we need to consider remedies for these problems with great
caution and skepticism.  Our user churn rate is fairly high, and I
think that this is natural because our needs change from time to time
and users adjust their involvement because of personal factors as well
as the needs of the project. I fear that if we adjust things so that
slowing change becomes an important goal we risk ending up with a
community which is primarily concerned with preventing change and
enforcing rules, over and above the true goals of the project.  It is
my firm belief that our strong focus on the goals of the project over
all other concerns is the only factor preventing us from being mired
in social hierarchies and politics. Just as NPOV allows people of many
views to work together on an article, the focus on our goals allows
people of many skills sets and modes of interaction to collaborate on
the project.

As you pointed out above, everyone's list will be different, and as
you allude, we need to address the cause, not the symptoms. However, I
think in our look inward we must ask ourselves if we've really done
all we can do short of decreasing openness before we take that step,
and with every change we make we must ask ourselves: is the
frustration we now suffer worth the risk of decreasing our
adaptability and the risk of excluding excellent new ideas an
contributors.

In the interest of preventing this message from being not terribly
useful, here are some points which I am willing to help further, where
I think could help with this matter...

*For ideas which don't involve an active conflict with established
activities, we should make a greater effort to encourage users to
"show us the code". Don't ask everyone to respond to speculation of
every "great new idea", just implement it and see what happens.

*As mentioned above, we should continue refactoring old discussions
into digested versions, make an effort to direct uninformed users to
the pages. When a issue reemerges, leverage the frustration positively
by taking the effort to unearth the old discussions rather than
allowing yourself to be trapped in another rehashing.

Now, I'm going to go start digging up material on permitted file
formats on Wikipedia. :)


from_name: steve v

subject: [WikiEN-l] RE: Re: Press badges

body:
--- Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:

> Brown, Darin wrote:
> > I can't agree. If wikinews really is a form of
> "alternative media", then how
> > is wikinews any different than various alternative
> media with a clear
> > leftist, rightist, libertarian, conservative,
> populist, etc., etc., slant?
> > Just because we say we don't have a bias? Fox News
> says they don't have a
> > bias, either. And look at them.
> >
> > And then we are taking money from people for
> Wikimedia, under the guise that
> > we are using to present a neutral relaying of
> information. If this is okay
> > for us, again, Fox News or the New York Post could
> just as well do the exact
> > same thing. But people who pay money to watch Fox
> News or the New York Post
> > *know* it's biased.
> >
>
> What? Since when are people *paying* for Wikimedia
> content???
>
> Where is the comparison here?

The comparison is in reality. As I wrote at
wikinews:purpose , there are some inherent
contradictions between a newsgathering organization
operates and how a wiki operates. Someone once said
that 'wikipedia will eventually just become a wiki'
(rather than an encyclopedia). WP has so far proven
that inasfar as anonymous contribution and
organization of facts toward creating what we call an
"encyclopedia" the wiki software model works quite
well.

Wikinews on the other hand, has largely remained just
an experiment in 'throwing wiki software at the news
org idea'. It was bound to fail without some sincere
rethinking of the software and how it works, andmany
had commented a long time ago that some other
I.e newsorgs need secrecy/privacy and trustworthiness
in its source referencing and fact gathering. WP:CITE
doesnt work if the source is complete background, and
the only way that BG sources can be used in a story is
if the story is written by credentialled people, and
published in a newspaper with some trust an
accountablity. Of course, when even the NYT  (oogle
"Sulzberger lucky sperm club" ) and others before it
can seriously cross the line into Yellow Journalism,
we can at least hold to an idealistic notion that 'we
cant be any worse.' But that notion is unfortunately
always predicated on the upstart model - the notion
that someday we will get there even if we dont have
even the foundation of a newsorg set up.

Wikinews just will not work. Journalism requires
journalists and journalists cost money, use up a lot
of airfare and quite regularly get shot at. ('Alaskan
crab fishing' -- my ass). Beyond that, journalists
want the perks and credentials of journalism, as well
as the support of editors and publishers, whos
professional reputations are also on the line.

The real point is: Wikimedia's purpose itself has
fundamental contradictions with the purposes of a real
newsorg. Even lucky shot videographers want to call
around to see what they can get for their video. Its
amazing Wikipedia has worked so well so far, but thats
largely because commercial newsorgs and publishers
have done the real work for us. And because theres no
time value urgency, so the information is free to use
for historian purposes, such as Wikipedia's.

SV

__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com


from_name: Geoff Burling

subject: [WikiEN-l] Another Wikipedia Mention

body:
>From the December _Linux Journal_:

Doc Searls wrote a sidebar about how Linux might just be aptly
described by the Swedish word "lagom", & because Swedish is
the mother language of Linus Tovalds (creator of Linux), he asked
Torvalds for his input.

Searls notes that Torvalds side-stepped his question, but did
offer the following sentence:

"And yes, it means 'just right', in the sense of 'not too much,
not too little'. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagom"

On one hand, I guess his mention shows that we must be doing
something right; despite all of the press, I was still surprised
to learn that he had heard of Wikipedia. But on the other hand,
I have to wonder whether he has contributed to any Wikipedia
articles. (My guess is that it would be to [[Powerpoint]].)

Geoff


from_name: Delirium

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:

>--- Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
>
>
>>What trademark violation is going on here?  Trademark law only prohibits
>>commercial use of a trademark for a competing product in the same
>>market.
>>
>>
>
>Trademark law does not only prohibit commercial use. Any use which dilutes a
>mark in a particular market is a potential violation. Using a mark that implies
>an official connection when no such connection exists is also a potential
>violation.
>
>
That's incorrect.  Trademark law does not protect dilution---that's
dilution law, a more recent, less internationally standardized, and much
different beast, and it only applies to "famous" marks like Coca-Cola
(so you can't name your company Coca-Cola even if you don't make
beverages, because it's a famous mark subject to dilution law).  It's
unclear that Wikinews is a sufficiently famous mark to qualify for
dilution protection.

-Mark


subject: [WikiEN-l] RE: Re: Press badges

body:
Amended:

--- steve v <vertigosteve at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Wikinews on the other hand, has largely remained
> just
> an experiment in 'throwing wiki software at the news
> org idea'. It was bound to fail without some sincere
> rethinking of the software and how it works, andmany
> had commented a long time ago that some other...

...major rethinking needed to be done on the project.
Indymedia for example has a niche, which some claim is
driven by the POV entrenchment of core editors, but as
Darin pointed out, such a niche is is in fact no
different that why Fox News has succeeded commercially
etc, or why the concept of 'Independent media' (ie.
free media, open media, non-commercial media) are
dominantly leftist and egalitarian. Philosophy in fact
drives newsorgs, regardless of the editorial striving
for objectivity.

If you look at your average local newspapers and their
histories, theyve gone through an early period where
they catered to businesses (gain startup revenue,
establish clientele) -- later trying to move toward an
actual community sensibility: But rarely they move
toward an altruistic or egalitarian philosophy,
because egalitarianism and capitalism repel each other
like magnets, in the same way that commercial ads and
editorial policy converge like magnets. Every newsorg
has to find a balance between the push and pull that
makes these work. Just to be clear though, Fox News
has thus far been 'successful' because the U.S. has a
large mentally retarted population.

SV

__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com


body:
Arbeo, I think that an opposing proposal getting 7 support votes after
not nearly as long of a time is reason enough to wait.

Mark

On 07/11/05, Arbeo M <arbeo_m at yahoo.de> wrote:
> Mark Williamson wrote:
>
> > Arbeo left out the part where there was lots of
> > fighting over the request.
>
> I left it out because the "fighting" is over now.
>
> > The proposal for Veluws got 7 support votes and 2
> > oppose, one of who is Arbeo himself and the other
> > which is conditional and may convince
> > to change.
>
> Correct. And the proposal for Nedersaksisch got 17
> support votes and 2 oppose (Mark + one anonymous).
>
> > The "Nedersaksisch" proposal, on the other hand, has
> > 17 support votes after a period of over 5 months,
> and > there is still significant opposition.
>
> Incorrect. There is no significant opposition. There
> is only one user trying to block something the rest of
> the community accepts.
>
> > It seems that, in the long term, it will be better
> to > allow the mutually unintelligible Low Saxon
> languages > in the Netherlands have their own
> Wikipedias.
>
> Wikitech-l is actually not the right place to discuss
> such details. Only the result matters here. Matter of
> fact is that nobody from the area concerned shares
> this individual opinion (actually, nobody from Europe
> altogether).
>
> A.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - Jetzt mit 1GB Speicher kostenlos - Hier anmelden: http://mail.yahoo.de
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>

--
"Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin


from_name: Daniel Mayer

body:
--- Ilya Haykinson <haykinson at gmail.com> wrote:
> This is not a sub-group. The process is an open election, allowing
> trusted Wikinewsies to be given a status of "Trusted Wikinewsie". This
> involves the user providing their real name, and being listed on a
> protected page. The real-world slang for "trusted wikinewsie" is
> "credentialing".

Credentials are given by organizations - not by just some people on the
Internet (which is all any Wikimedia project is by itself). Using that term -
in the real world where it has a specific meaning - to describe that process is
very misleading. Using that term and the Wikinews mark implies an official
connection that does not exist. That is dishonest and an abuse of the mark.

Internal monikers such as 'administrator' are fine and we can be loose in
giving them since they are only meant to mean anything in our little world.
However, when the purpose of a title is to gain access in the real world, then
we must be much more conservative in that use.

IMO, the board needs to get involved via an oversight process and they also
should give permission for credentialed Wikinewies to use the Wikiness logo and
name on press badges (the foundation could even create the badges at cost). The
oversight will be almost all hands off - the only real power it would have is
the power of immediately removing credentials in egregious cases or shutting
down the whole process if it gets out of hand.

I doubt either would ever need to be exercised by the board, but I strongly
feel they need that ability as a safety mechanism (not unlike Jimbo's power to
disband the English ArbCom if it gets out of hand).

Everything would still work much the same way as it does now. It would just be
official and have oversight. That's all I want.

> Nowhere does it say that we are credentialed by the board of the WMF.

Nor should it ever. But the implication is that Wikinews itself credentialed
these people. Wikinews is not an organization in any legal sense and thus can't
grant anything. The Wikinews community, however, can be - if the board agrees -
to be its agent in the selection of trusted users for accreditation.

> I might not own the trademark "Wikinews", but I do own some copyrights
> to parts of its contents, pursuant to the site's license. I do not
> give up the right to say that I am a contributor to Wikinews. Neither
> do I give up the right to say that I've been trusted by the users of
> Wikinews -- which is what this policy-based process implies.

"Credentials" is a loaded word with a specific meaning outside our context. We
can use that, but only if this becomes an official process.

> In the future, before raising "trademark violation" alarms about a
> process that's been around for 9 months, I would appreciate a quick
> question/post on some public place on the project, or an email to the
> project list, lest we sow confusion into the minds of any potential
> press pass givers who might be on this list.

I left such a message in July:
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews_talk:Accreditation_requests

At the time I thought it was just some odd experiment that would go nowhere so
I forgot about it.

I think it is beyond the experiment stage. Now we need to put it through an
official beta period to work out whatever else needs to be worked out.

-- mav

__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] RE: Re: Press badges

body:
Well thats a bit out of context, although admittedly
my rant was likewise a bit out off the topic of
photobadges (seems to suggest an expansion into other
press credentials, though). But you are right Mark --
the comment was inappropriate. "Politically disabled"
or "journalistically challenged" might have been
better -- but again I digress...

SV

--- Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:

> steve v wrote:
>
> >the U.S. has a large mentally retarted population.
> >
> >
> It's nice to see that the quality of discourse
> remains high.

__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com


from_name: Gerrit Holl

body:
Milos Rancic wrote:
> For example, relation Moldovan-Romanian is almost the same as relation
> Montenegrin-Serbian. Except Montenegrins don't have well described
> standard such Moldovans have. Political situation is almost the same:
> Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts says that it is the same
> language as Serbia, but parliament and alternative academy (Duklanian
> Academy) say that this is different language. Only 22% of Montenegrin
> inhabitants say that their native language is Montenegrin (around 60%
> say that their native language is Serbian; others are minorities). So,
> this is a political question and I am supporting now the article
> "Montenegrin language" on English Wikipedia (against one Serbian
> nationalist) as well as I would support existance of Montenegrin
> Wikipedia (if demand comes before we complete our software).

Well, you can have an article about a language that is not really a
language, if a lot of people say that it's a language. One can discuss
the cultural implications, the political situation and so.

Gerrit.

--
Temperature in Lule?, Norrbotten, Sweden:
| Current temperature   05-11-07 21:19:52    2.1 degrees Celsius ( 35.8F) |
--
Det finns inte d?ligt v?der, bara d?liga kl?der.