references:
<87zmcnxa1k.fsf@riemann.quim.ucm.es> <"3d0cebfb0609260449o35894ef
	aq58fa94e6e2431ee4"@mail.gmail.com>
	<878xk6ycy6.fsf@riemann.quim.ucm.es>
	<45192F4E.3060304@solarsail.hcs.harvard.edu>
	<BB490267-A74C-4E23-97BD-B82904A2168D@math.harvard.edu>

body:
>>>>> "David" == David Harvey <dmharvey at math.harvard.edu> writes:

   David> On Sep 26, 2006, at 9:46 AM, Ivan Krsti?? wrote:

   >> Fredrik Johansson wrote:
   >>> Hopefully texvc will be replaced by Blahtex (http://
   >>> www.blahtex.org/).
   >>> Please help bug David Harvey to continue working on it :-)
   >>
   >> It's never been a problem of David not wanting to continue to work on
   >> it, but a problem of the developers still not finding time to look at
   >> enabling blahtex on WM sites, even after months of requests for review
   >> by a number of people. Developers tend to be over-constrained and
   >> focus
   >> on keeping the site running, which causes non-critical enhancements to
   >> fall by the wayside more often than not.
   >>
   >> Uwe Brauer wrote:
   >>> But blahtex uses mathml exclusively no?
   >>
   >> No, it should do PNG export any day now (maybe already does --
   >> David?).

A very good, and those png could be "edited" the same way as they can
in texvc?

   David> I am not planning on maintaining the C++ version of blahtex any
   David> more. I am about halfway through a port to Python. It will be almost
   David> 100%  compatible in terms of command line input/output, so it should
   David> be a  drop-in replacement for the C++ version.

   David> However, I haven't been working seriously on blahtex for a while
   David> now. I have other projects going on, and a life as well. It's
   David> encouraging  to me to hear a few people showing some interest, perhaps
   David> this will  make me spend more time on it again :-)
it is really a pity that there at least 3 programs floating around:

    -  Texvc

    -  Blatex

    -  Wikitex

To return to my original question, can blahtex easily deal with
numeration/references and labels?

Just from a pragmatic point of view, sites like

http://tosio.math.toronto.edu/wiki/index.php/Wave_equations

are very interested to include such a functionality.

I don't hope to start a flame war, but may be the authors of wikitex
and blahtex could outline the differences of features of their
programs?
Or does such a comparison already exit?

Thanks

Uwe Brauer


list: foundation-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Delphine Ménard

subject: [Foundation-l] Accelerating chapter creation

body:
On 9/26/06, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:

> True. What I think is essential in this process is showcasing what
> chapters _already_ do.

Yes, this, though, lies in the hands of the chapters. It is a matter
of them getting organized and sharing, just like Philipp or Frank did,
with the rest of the community, what they do when they do it.
>
> I agree with what TOR said regarding additional preconditions for my
> proposal. I hope to have a telconf with Delphine soon to get a better
> picture of the chapter situation.
>
> I also agree with you that IRC (or real-life) meetings can be an
> excellent way to have honest discussions about the future direction of
> a wiki community. Effe, if you are interested in running/organizing
> such meetings, can you contact me privately and we'll try to work out
> the details.

The channel #wikimedia-chapters is open to anyone who feels like
dropping by and members of the chapters committee are there to answer
questions.

The experience of the chapters committee proves that there definitely
is a lack of communication about what the chapters committee does, and
how. Lukasz has addressed those points and given a few potential
answers. This should be reinforced and we might want to find a way to
make sure that all projects know "about" the chapters committee, but
this goes par with a better communication about what the Foundation
does, what it is, and how one can get involved.

On your idea of advertising chapters on site notices, I will state
that I am not sure it is the way to go at all.

Chapters must answer the need of a geographical community to get
together for reasons that make sense, as Tomasz stated, they should
never be the "cool thing to do of the day".

I remember Austin spending hours in the channel trying to make
understand to one user that creating a chapter was not a one-shot
thing, but rather the result of a concertation between people in a
country who wished to offer a local face to potential partners, to the
press if need be, to political instances etc. This kind of
communication should be emphasized, and we should not be giving the
wrong impression that chapters are either easy to set up, nor the
answer to everyone's questions.

All of us have helped people reflect in one country or another about
what it was to be a chapter. Many people have started reflecting and
gave up, for reasons that were in no way tied either to the Chapters
committee or the Foundation. In the end, I believe that we go back to
the same old thing, better advertising of what a chapter is, what they
do, how they do it, what their relationship to the Foundation AND the
projects is, is the first thing to tackle. Having to deal with 100
chapters-to-be that do not know the first thing about this is in my
opinion a waste of everybody's time.

Delphine
--
~notafish


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Luiz Augusto

subject: [Foundation-l] Proposal re: sep11.wikipedia.org

body:
On 9/26/06, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
>
> James Hare wrote:

(...)

> I'm also suggesting that the advocates of shutting down sep11.wikipedia
> completely are doing so based on irrational fears or emotional
> justifications, not based on any technical need or hardship to the
> Wikimedia Foundation.

Stop imediatle with [[WP:XFD]] if this is the problem. Wikimedia is a global
organization or a organization for United States of America?
sep11.wikipedia(wikipedia??) isn't a global memorial wiki... This is
the point.


subject: [Foundation-l] 5th Birthday of the Polish Wikipedia

body:
/me hopes for billions more of those birthdays.

Long life etc.

Be good and don't abuse the champagne.

Delphine

On 9/26/06, ?ukasz Garczewski <tor at oak.pl> wrote:
> [Argh... Reposting this, since the first mail apparently didn't reach
> the list... :/]
>
> Dear All,
> a quick report from the 5th Birthday of the Polish Wikipedia, which
> took place last Saturday.
>
> We met at the Warsaw School of Economics around 5 p.m. After a brief
> introduction by Justyna (Creative Commons Poland) Jimbo gave his talk
> on Wikipedia and wikis in general, Polish Wikipedia and Wikia Poland.
> After that there was a session of questions and answers (a bit too
> long, perhaps, but quite interesting at times even to a long time
> Wikipedian such as myself).
>
> Next, we move to two very brief presentations by Wikimedia Poland
> members: Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz outlined plwiki's first days and
> history, I talked a bit about the future (as in the future of the
> project and the future moves and goals of WMPL).
>
> After that it was time to... party! We had a beautiful cake (see [1],
> [2]) and champagne (see [3]). There was time for a few interviews and
> some socializing. We also sung "Sto lat" ("Happy birthday").
>
> Later we moved to a nearby pub for even more socializing, this time
> without the media. You know, the usual geeky gathering - linux jokes,
> the latest trolls on wikipl and all that stuff wikipedians like to
> chat about. Alek (CCPL) even got Jimbo to drink something we call
> "w?ciek?y pies" (Polish for "rabid dog" - vodka with raspberry juice).
> Don't worry, Jimmy survived it and only coughed for a little while. ;)
>
> It was a very nice and cheerful event. The only downside was
> attendance - we had thought more people would come. I can only hope that
> next year there will be more interest.
>
> [1] *The* Cake
> <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:5._urodziny_polskiej_Wikipedii_-_Wikitort_01.JPG>
> [2] Jimbo with *The* Cake
> <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:5._urodziny_polskiej_Wikipedii_-_Jimbo_Wales_%28krojenie_tortu%29_01.JPG>
> [3] Champagne... and a lot of it
> <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:5._urodziny_polskiej_Wikipedii_-_Szampany.JPG>
> [4] Wikimedians (and a few CC guys and gals ;))
> <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Pi%C4%85te_urodziny_pl_wiki_rodzina_wikipedyst%C3%B3w.jpg>
>
> More photos here:
> <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/5th_birthday_of_Polish_Wikipedia>
>
> --
> Lucas "TOR" Garczewski
> President of Wikimedia Poland
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
~notafish


list: wikien-l

from_name: Mark Gallagher

subject: [WikiEN-l] Process wonkery

body:
G'day George,

> Just for reference, we're looking at a worst case roughly 124,000
> school stubs ( http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d04/tables/dt04_085.asp
> ) for the US.

The problem is not, and never was, the number of schools in the USA[0].
   Quoting numbers specific to the USA gives us a picture that is: a)
utterly irrelevant, and b) extremely unflattering to the painter.

How many schools are there, world-wide?  How low do we go before we
decide that a particular school is not worth an article?  How do we keep
these articles to a high (okay, not-completely-buggered) standard?  The
non-American would add the question: why are non-American schools never
considered in these discussions?, but not wishing to be seen as
mean-spirited by his friends across the Pacific, he won't.

> I understand those that disagree, but I think the categorical include
> pseudopolicy for schools makes sense.  They're of immense interest to
> most parents, the school system has 72 million odd Americans in it,
> and categorical inclusionism here is not in any way throwing Wikipedia
> into disrepute or threatening our server load or diskspace.

The schools debate is over, and we lost.  I can cope with that.  Further
arguing is pointless, and leads only to ill-will.  If we *must* refight
the debate, however, could you at least offer relevant arguments?

(The US school system has approximately 72m Americans?  If the school
system has three schools in it: A with 36m students, B with 35.9999m
students, and C with 100 students ... and what if the Canadian school
system had 144m Canadians?  And the Mexican 288m?)

[0] I *have* seen people who are otherwise "school inclusionists" argue
     for deletion of schools in Asia on notability grounds; such people
     are known as "those without credibility" or, if I'm feeling
     charitable[1], "Americans".

[1] Or particularly uncharitable!

--
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Mike O

subject: [Wikitech-l] MWDumper?

body:
The CVS at sourceforge for MWDumper has been down for a quite a
while. Does anyone know where I can get a copy of the source code or
who I might ask for a copy?

--
_______________________________________________
Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way:
Download Opera 9 at http://www.opera.com

Powered by Outblaze


subject: [WikiEN-l] Process wonkery

body:
G'day George,

> On 9/24/06, Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 9/23/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Just for reference, we're looking at a worst case roughly 124,000
>>>school stubs ( http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d04/tables/dt04_085.asp
>>>) for the US.
>>
>>Yes, and the US accounts for ~5% of the world population.  Assuming that
>>there are 2x as many schools per capita as in the US, that means over a
>>million stubs.
>
> We have others floating suggestions of putting a stub in for every
> city, town, village, and perhaps hamlet everywhere in the world.
> Those are being taken positively and seriously.  I hesitate to guess
> how many million stubs that will end up being.

Yes, we do.  Suppose stubs on towns are more useful than stubs on schools?

(I don't intend to offer that argument seriously.  But you could at
least consider it before deciding that towns === schools.)

> I am not going to extend the schools argument to the whole rest of the
> world.  I would assume that other english-speaking nations would want
> equal inclusion, (UK, Canada, Australia, NZ, etc).  That's going to
> less than double the potential number of school stubs.

There are countries out there that don't speak English.  They're just as
interesting as the rest of us (in the case of NZ[0], far more so).  Why
aren't you going to consider them?  Why are they beyond your scope?

[0] Any Kiwi readers here?  Oh, shit.

--
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse


subject: [WikiEN-l] Process wonkery

body:
G'day Con,

> Note that notability is not the policy. Verifiability is. Even if a
> school is notable "by default", as some claim, if there is no
> verifiable information about it, there should be no article.

Fuck policy.  Get into the habit of saying "notability is not the basis
for my argument", rather than quoting policy as if it's the Last Word.

You're right either way, but by following the Sensible Route instead of
the Process Wonk Route you get the prestigious Fuddlemark Thumbs Up Of
Approval, and that's worth its weight in gold!

--
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse


body:
On 9/26/06, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
>
> Luiz Augusto wrote:
>
> >On 9/26/06, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>James Hare wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >
> >

(...)

> I leave the rest to other neutral observers to come to their own
> conclusion as to why this is being removed, such as anti-American
> attitudes.

No, I don't have nothing against americans. If you see this question based
in xenophobic and non-xenophobic peoples... I don't have any necessity to
try to reply to you in any another point, because this discussion is based
in a fallacy. World isn't based in pro-americans and against-americans. Have
a nice day.


from_name: Aphaia

body:
On 9/26/06, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:

Generally it would be worthy to try, since most of editors have no
idea about chapters nor Foundation. And it makes a sense in my opinion
to invite only registered users (see below).

One technical remark, however:
> Unregistered readers would not see this notice.

Not always. If a wiki powered by MediaWiki lacks anonnotice, both
unregistered users and registered get the same message put on
[[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]].
My sketchy touch-n-go during the Election period suggested fourtyeight
of fiftith (so presumably 95 or -6% of our all wikis) of our projects
provide the same message both to anon and registered.

And, possibly, there is a bug/bugs around "global frash" of that and
we need to fix it. I'll later put a report to bugzilla, so here only a
brief remark: 3/50 wikis failed to have their sitenotice frashed and
contained inappropriate messages (two wikimania scholarships, one
-[default blank]). It doesn't work "global messages" in a true sense.

Another considerable thing is those meta-newcomers may need the
description what the chapter is and is not. [[m:Wikimedia Japan]]
seemed to be a horrible example what unknowledgeable & not involved
editors can think out. An anon created this page and later registered
him- or herself as "Wikimedian" (in kana). Until today, most sane and
involved people of Japanese speaking projects seem to avoid being
involved to that discussion.

--
Kizu Naoko
  Wikiquote: http://wikiquote.org
  * vox populi, vox dei *


from_name: Carl Peterson

subject: [WikiEN-l] Schools, notability, inclusionism, deletionism, etc.

body:
On 9/26/06, Mark Wagner <carnildo at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 9/25/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 25/09/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > There will have to be a line short of "all things that have any record
> > > claiming they may be a school of some sort".
> > > The first place that line seems logically to go, on first inspection,
> is
> > > "Paid teachers".
> >
> >
> > Third-party verifiability would be the first line.
>
> But where's the second line?  The Michigan homeschools are verifiable:
> since they're treated as private schools, they need to be registered
> with the Michigan Department of Education.

This is all based on my experience and what seems logical to me. I could be
dead wrong on this, but here goes:

I think the line is more toward organizational structure. Public schools are
generally controlled by some kind of district board of education, not to
mention that they usually have a principal and office staff, and often a
decision-making committee of some sort. Parochial schools are controlled by
a church, and private schools usually have some sort of board of
directors/trustees. While home schools are _regulated_ by the appropriate
department/board of education, they are not directly _run_ by that
department/board of education, and I'm not thinking that they have an
analogous board or principal/headmaster that the public and private schools
have. While technically, the parents serve as the "board," they aren't
exactly officially appointed/elected overseers in the same legal sense.

Speaking of legal, while home schools may register with their appropriate
department of education, they aren't necessarily established as a legal
entity in the same sense that public and private schools are.

Carl


from_name: Michael Bimmler

subject: [Wikitech-l] MWDumper?

body:
Afaik all the code has moved to Subversion at http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc
Michael

On 9/26/06, Mike O <mikeo at operamail.com> wrote:
> The CVS at sourceforge for MWDumper has been down for a quite a
> while. Does anyone know where I can get a copy of the source code or
> who I might ask for a copy?
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way:
> Download Opera 9 at http://www.opera.com
>
> Powered by Outblaze
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: effe iets anders

body:
/me sees delphine creating a new tower of babel... ;-)

2006/9/26, Delphine M?nard <notafishz at gmail.com>:
> /me hopes for billions more of those birthdays.
>
> Long life etc.
>
> Be good and don't abuse the champagne.
>
> Delphine
>
> On 9/26/06, ?ukasz Garczewski <tor at oak.pl> wrote:
> > [Argh... Reposting this, since the first mail apparently didn't reach
> > the list... :/]
> >
> > Dear All,
> > a quick report from the 5th Birthday of the Polish Wikipedia, which
> > took place last Saturday.
> >
> > We met at the Warsaw School of Economics around 5 p.m. After a brief
> > introduction by Justyna (Creative Commons Poland) Jimbo gave his talk
> > on Wikipedia and wikis in general, Polish Wikipedia and Wikia Poland.
> > After that there was a session of questions and answers (a bit too
> > long, perhaps, but quite interesting at times even to a long time
> > Wikipedian such as myself).
> >
> > Next, we move to two very brief presentations by Wikimedia Poland
> > members: Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz outlined plwiki's first days and
> > history, I talked a bit about the future (as in the future of the
> > project and the future moves and goals of WMPL).
> >
> > After that it was time to... party! We had a beautiful cake (see [1],
> > [2]) and champagne (see [3]). There was time for a few interviews and
> > some socializing. We also sung "Sto lat" ("Happy birthday").
> >
> > Later we moved to a nearby pub for even more socializing, this time
> > without the media. You know, the usual geeky gathering - linux jokes,
> > the latest trolls on wikipl and all that stuff wikipedians like to
> > chat about. Alek (CCPL) even got Jimbo to drink something we call
> > "w?ciek?y pies" (Polish for "rabid dog" - vodka with raspberry juice).
> > Don't worry, Jimmy survived it and only coughed for a little while. ;)
> >
> > It was a very nice and cheerful event. The only downside was
> > attendance - we had thought more people would come. I can only hope that
> > next year there will be more interest.
> >
> > [1] *The* Cake
> > <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:5._urodziny_polskiej_Wikipedii_-_Wikitort_01.JPG>
> > [2] Jimbo with *The* Cake
> > <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:5._urodziny_polskiej_Wikipedii_-_Jimbo_Wales_%28krojenie_tortu%29_01.JPG>
> > [3] Champagne... and a lot of it
> > <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:5._urodziny_polskiej_Wikipedii_-_Szampany.JPG>
> > [4] Wikimedians (and a few CC guys and gals ;))
> > <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Pi%C4%85te_urodziny_pl_wiki_rodzina_wikipedyst%C3%B3w.jpg>
> >
> > More photos here:
> > <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/5th_birthday_of_Polish_Wikipedia>
> >
> > --
> > Lucas "TOR" Garczewski
> > President of Wikimedia Poland
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
> --
> ~notafish
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Damian Finol

body:
Titoxd at Wikimedia wrote:
> Yep, that's clearly Spanish. Unfortunately, I don't know Asturian to be able
> to translate it appropriately...
>
> Titoxd.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
> [mailto:foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Leonard
> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 1:05 AM
> To: foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> Subject: [Foundation-l] Asturian page for Donations is in Spanish
>
> OTRS just got a notice about this - the Asturian page linked from the
> Donations page (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donativos) has
> identical text to the Spanish page
> (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donaciones), and my untrained eye
> says that the text is in Spanish.
>
> - Andrew
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
Hello,

Yes, it's in spanish, albeit a weird spanish 'Formes de donar' instead
of 'Formas de donar' and "Imaxina un mundu nel cual cada persona tien
accesu gratuitu a la suma de too'l conocimientu humanu. Eso ye lo que
tratamos de facer."

Maybe they are using the Spanish Donation page because it's easier to
translate from spanish to asturian.

Regards,

Ing. Damian Finol
Maracaibo -Venezuela


subject: [Foundation-l] Asturian page for Donations is in Spanish


subject: [WikiEN-l] Process wonkery

references:
<s7lah2pihqs0vqiecpaifbaphj43urt5a5@4ax.com>
	<fbad4e140609230946g1506a024g26e2447a3c584abb@mail.gmail.com>
	<47683e960609241202h58eebc8fua913fdc8802ae10c@mail.gmail.com>
	<ef754g$jmb$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<38a7bf7c0609251729ob376bc7mdbacc4236611a6ff@mail.gmail.com>
	<fbad4e140609260317j5c3b0be3t196b17d78b845a91@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On 9/26/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 26/09/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Verifyability is not a problem; there are nationwide school databases
> out on
> > the Internet with the basic particulars, and in many cases fairly
> extensive
> > information, on every legitimate school nationwide.  Some of these are
> > things like US Department of Education annual reports, which are both
> > available on the web and available in printed form.  There are
> equivalents
> > from state Boards of Education as well.
> > This information is extremely widely available because parents use it in
> > selecting where they want to move to, based on educational strength, and
> > because public oversight of schools is a generally accepted positive
> thing.
>
>
> So rambot usable lists of the data, and create a forest of redirects.
>
> School articles do need some sort of canonical naming format. [[School
> name, Town, State, Country]] or something equivalent - something like
> the naming format for cities and towns with school name on the front.

Have fun deciding on the name of some of the schools. In Louisville, at
least, some of the schools have three or four names by which they're known,
and it's often not a matter of abbreviations or the use of a full name
versus last name only. Even if you go by the Board of Education's
"canonical" name for a school, there are still sometimes two or three
variants. For example, we have a school that used to be separate middle and
high schools. While it's technically "Moore Traditional School," even in the
official higher-up circles, the school is still treated as if it were two
separate schools. It just happens to have a single principal.

With the rest of the naming format, the dab portion should only be as
detailed as necessary, subdividing to the highest-level geopolitical entity
for which the school name is unique.

This will (a) include all verifiable schools (b) having the entry be a
> redirect to a list until there's something real to write an article
> about will save on people coughing up their own skulls in disgust.
>

Sound's about like what I've been suggesting, list-wise. When we implemented
the list for Louisville, it has appeared to slow down the number of school
articles that are created for Louisville.

Carl


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

body:
On 9/26/06, Mark Wagner <carnildo at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/25/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 25/09/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > There will have to be a line short of "all things that have any record
> > > claiming they may be a school of some sort".
> > > The first place that line seems logically to go, on first inspection, is
> > > "Paid teachers".
> >
> >
> > Third-party verifiability would be the first line.
>
> But where's the second line?  The Michigan homeschools are verifiable:
> since they're treated as private schools, they need to be registered
> with the Michigan Department of Education.
>
What's verifiable, that they exist?  The fact that something exists is
not an article.

Anthony


from_name: Anthony

body:
On 9/25/06, Mark Wagner <carnildo at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/25/06, David Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Mark Wagner wrote:
> > > Define "school".  Under Michigan law, I was educated in a private
> > > school: the Vernon-Dunlap School.  I can even cite sources that prove
> > > the existence of this school and that I went there; however, this
> > > particular "school" existed only because that's how the state of
> > > Michigan defined homeschooling: as a private school with a religious
> > > or philosophical objection to teacher certification.  Should we have
> > > an article on it?
> >
> > Yes. The unusualness (is that a word?) of this arrangement means that it
> > would be inherently notable.
>
> So every one of the tens of thousands of single-student private
> schools in Michigan needs an article?
>
Are there really tens of thousands of them?  Where is the list?  I
really don't think it's possible to comment in detail on this without
seeing exactly what you're talking about.

Anthony


body:
Titoxd at Wikimedia wrote:
> No, that could be Asturian (I don't know it, so I cannot confirm that)...
> albeit the rest of page is in perfect Spanish, which I do speak natively.
> Reading the page in more detail, only the tagline is translated, as well as
> a few other words, such as "ye" after "La Fundaci?n Wikimedia", but entire
> sections of text are not.
>
> However, I do believe that the reason could be that the translators were
> translating the Spanish page to Asturian, as you suggested. This diff does
> suggest that:
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Donativos&diff=next&oldid=1
> 3719. Considering, though, that the translation edit was made only today, I
> guess that we can cut them some slack... ;)
>
> Titoxd.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
> [mailto:foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Damian Finol
> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 3:44 PM
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Asturian page for Donations is in Spanish
>
> Titoxd at Wikimedia wrote:
>> Yep, that's clearly Spanish. Unfortunately, I don't know Asturian to be
> able
>> to translate it appropriately...
>>
>> Titoxd.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
>> [mailto:foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Leonard
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 1:05 AM
>> To: foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>> Subject: [Foundation-l] Asturian page for Donations is in Spanish
>>
>> OTRS just got a notice about this - the Asturian page linked from the
>> Donations page (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donativos) has
>> identical text to the Spanish page
>> (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donaciones), and my untrained eye
>> says that the text is in Spanish.
>>
>> - Andrew
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> Hello,
>
> Yes, it's in spanish, albeit a weird spanish 'Formes de donar' instead
> of 'Formas de donar' and "Imaxina un mundu nel cual cada persona tien
> accesu gratuitu a la suma de too'l conocimientu humanu. Eso ye lo que
> tratamos de facer."
>
> Maybe they are using the Spanish Donation page because it's easier to
> translate from spanish to asturian.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ing. Damian Finol
> Maracaibo -Venezuela
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
Greetings,

Yea that's what I meant when I said it was mostly spanish, aor weird
looking spanish (which I assumed was asturian).
I also speak spanish natively.

Damian


from_name: James Hare

subject: [Foundation-l] did i miss something?

body:
Erik is officially a board member -- it was approved by the board. Anything
else I either don't know.

On 9/26/06, oscar <oscar.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> can anyone please help me concerning the following, thx :-)
>
> is anything yet published concerning the elected candidate having been
> approved as a board member?
> has this actually been done already?
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Board_of_Trustees&oldid=438600doesn't
> mention it at the time of my writing this.
>
> is there an agreement or a resolution covering eloquence having today been
> made steward by tim starling?
> was the board election also covering these rights?
> or was he appointed as such by the board? did i miss something?
>
> best greetings from a bewildered
> oscar
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] did i miss something?


list: commons-l

from_name: Cary Bass

body:
Why is everybody on my two mailing lists suddenly being IANAL?

Anyway... mass downloading images from a database recalls to my mind
something about fr.wikiquotes...

Cary Bass

> -----Original Message-----
> From: commons-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
> [mailto:commons-l-bounces at wikimedia.org]On Behalf Of Alphax (Wikipedia
> email)
> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 6:00 AM
> To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Royal Society archives online until December
>
>
> David Gerard wrote:
> > On 25/09/06, David Monniaux <David.Monniaux at free.fr> wrote:
> >> Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
> >
> >>> Is there anywhere on Commons to upload this yet? If not,
> something along
> >>> the lines of:
> >>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Royal_Society_Journals
> >
> >> You of course realize that mass downloads of journals may be construed
> >> as a copy of a significant part of a database, which is protected by a
> >> special copyright (much shorter than the regular one) under EU
> directives?
> >
> >
> > And the UK law implementing this is ...
> >
> > David Monniaux says the Foundation should:
> > [ ] not download and save this stuff on commons without
> absolute legal clarity
> > [ ] say "such a restriction on hundreds of years old material is
> > odious" and do it anyway
> > [ ] something else
> >
>
> For my money
>
> [x] say "such a restriction on hundreds of years old material is odious"
> and do it anyway
>
> but IANAL (and I'm not being paid to do this either). I might add that
> downloading the stuff is a non-trivial process...
>
> --
> Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
> Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
> "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
> Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
>
>


body:
On 9/25/06, Mark Wagner <carnildo at gmail.com> wrote:
> Define "school".  Under Michigan law, I was educated in a private
> school: the Vernon-Dunlap School.  I can even cite sources that prove
> the existence of this school and that I went there; however, this
> particular "school" existed only because that's how the state of
> Michigan defined homeschooling: as a private school with a religious
> or philosophical objection to teacher certification.  Should we have
> an article on it?
>
Interestingly, Wikipedia *does* have an article on [[Vernon-Dunlap
School]], a school in Michigan whose article doesn't preclude it being
the same school you're talking about.

Anthony


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Process wonkery

references:
<s7lah2pihqs0vqiecpaifbaphj43urt5a5@4ax.com>
	<fbad4e140609230946g1506a024g26e2447a3c584abb@mail.gmail.com>
	<47683e960609241202h58eebc8fua913fdc8802ae10c@mail.gmail.com>
	<ef754g$jmb$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<fbad4e140609252350s7644b094hff6edc5ab124865f@mail.gmail.com>

body:
David Gerard wrote:
> On 24/09/06, Constantine Evans <constantine at evanslabs.org> wrote:
>
>> Note that notability is not the policy. Verifiability is. Even if a
>> school is notable "by default", as some claim, if there is no verifiable
>> information about it, there should be no article.
>
>
> Correct.
>
> "I can prove, by breathtaking querulousness, that the school in my
> front room fit that rule."
> "Well done. Cookie for you! Third-party verifiability? No? So sad."
>

"I can write articles on schools from the vasty backwaters..."

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060926/db384a97/attachment.pgp


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject: [Wikitech-l] Category Intersections - some early testing

body:
On 9/25/06, Aerik Sylvan <aerik at thesylvans.com> wrote:
[snip]
> I got several sets of results in under 1 second (the lowest time being
> .3 seconds), one query returned in 8 seconds and another in 36
> seconds.
[snip]

..
8 seconds...
36 seconds...
?

Why do we keep shooting ourselves in the head with a toy database?

Here is whats possible with postgresql (this is all hot cache, but it
would all be hot cache on production too.. the page table just isn't
that big)...

First some setup:

wikidb=> alter table page add column cats text[];
ALTER TABLE
wikidb=> update page set cats = array(select cl_to from categorylinks
where cl_from=page_id);
UPDATE
create index page_cat_idx on page using gin(cats);
CREATE INDEX

Okay, lets see what this baby can do:

wikidb=> explain analyze select page_title,page_namespace,cats from
page where cats @> '{Living_people,ABBA_members}';
                                                         QUERY PLAN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Bitmap Heap Scan on page  (cost=104.37..17426.81 rows=4760 width=119)
(actual time=11.900..11.912 rows=4 loops=1)
   Recheck Cond: (cats @> '{Living_people,ABBA_members}'::pg_catalog.text[])
   ->  Bitmap Index Scan on page_cat_idx  (cost=0.00..104.37 rows=4760
width=0) (actual time=11.886..11.886 rows=4 loops=1)
         Index Cond: (cats @> '{Living_people,ABBA_members}'::pg_catalog.text[])
 Total runtime: 11.973 ms
(5 rows)

11.973ms, cool, and the results:

wikidb=> select page_title,page_namespace,cats from page where cats @>
'{Living_people,ABBA_members}';
     page_title     | page_namespace |
                                        cats
--------------------+----------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Benny_Andersson    |              0 |
{1946_births,ABBA_members,Living_people,Musical_theatre_composers,Pop_pianists,Swedish_pianists,Swedish_songwriters}
 Bj?rn_Ulvaeus      |              0 |
{1945_births,ABBA_members,Humanists,Living_people,Musical_theatre_composers,People_from_Gothenburg,Swedish_songwriters}
 Anni-Frid_Lyngstad |              0 |
{1945_births,ABBA_members,Anni-Frid_Lyngstad,German_nobility,Living_people,Norwegian_musicians,Princesses,Swedish_female_singers,Swedish_pop_singers}
 Agnetha_F?ltskog   |              0 |
{1950_births,ABBA_members,Agnetha_F?ltskog,Living_people,People_from_J?nk?ping,Swedish_female_singers,Swedish_pop_singers}
(4 rows)

Lets be mean:

wikidb=> select count(1) from page where cats @> '{Living_people}';
 count
--------
 112153
(1 row)
 Total runtime: 1156.697 ms

And mean some more:

wikidb=> select count(1) from page where cats @> '{GFDL_images}';
 count
--------
 100803
(1 row)
 Total runtime: 987.029 ms

If we tried the following in mysql it might take hours:

wikidb=> select count(1) from page where cats @> '{Living_people,GFDL_images}';
 count
-------
     0
(1 row)
 Total runtime: 25.201 ms

Hmm... 25ms < hours.

Enough people...

wikidb=> select count(1) from page where cats @> '{Unprintworthy_redirects}';
 count
-------
 14602
(1 row) Total runtime: 69.335 ms
wikidb=> select count(1) from page where cats @>
'{Unprintworthy_redirects,Redirects_from_plurals}';
 count
-------
  2415
(1 row)
 Total runtime: 12.002 ms

Hmm, what redirects from plurs are print worthy? :)

wikidb=> select page_namespace,page_title from page where cats @>
'{Redirects_from_plurals}' and not cats @> '{Unprintworthy_redirects}'
;
 page_namespace |                 page_title
----------------+---------------------------------------------
              0 | Guide_dogs
              4 | WikiProject_Red_Link_Recovery/Pluralisation
              0 | Assistance_dogs
              0 | Hearing_dogs
(4 rows)
Total runtime: 3.867 ms

Okay, how about some useful trivia:

wikidb=> select page_title from page where cats @>
'{1982_deaths,American_novelists}';
       page_title
-------------------------
 Ayn_Rand
 Philip_K._Dick
 Djuna_Barnes
 John_Cheever
 John_Gardner
 William_R._Burnett
 William_P._McGivern
 Theresa_Hak_Kyung_Cha
 Margaret_Culkin_Banning
 Beirne_Lay,_Jr.
(10 rows)
 Total runtime: 0.417 ms

Wow, realistic queries go quick ... I bet PHP takes longer to *start*
than that took to complete..

wikidb=> select page_title from page where cats @>
'{American_philosophers,American_physicists}';
 page_title
------------
(0 rows)
 Total runtime: 0.205 ms

So...
submilisecond on normal queries.. Worst case at a second.. Cases which
are evil for inner join are no issue..

Hmmmmm.......

How else do little choices like our database platform hold us back?


subject: [Wikitech-l] Finding moved/redirected pages

body:
Can someone explain how to programatically find the current text of a redirected article? I can't seem to figure this out. Say for example 'article A' is created, then moved to 'article B' then moved again to 'article C'. The Page table has an entry for 'article C' (and 'article B' for that matter) with the original page_id assigned when the article was first created as 'article A' along with a page_latest pointer to the record in the Revision table as rev_id. In the Revision table record there is rev_text_id which has a record number pointer to the actual article content in the Text table. But, since the article was moved twice, the record in the Text table isn't the right record - it's the original record, not the current record.

Ho do I trace this logically to find the current article content?

--
_______________________________________________
Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way:
Download Opera 9 at http://www.opera.com

Powered by Outblaze


from_name: Andrew Lih

subject:
[Foundation-l] [Wikipedia-l] Bengali Wikipedia Reaches 10,
	000 articles: 50th language to do so!

body:
Ragib,

That is such great news. Congratulations to all of you!

-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)

On 9/26/06, Ragib Hasan <ragibhasan at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
> Bengali Wikipedia (http://bn.wikipedia.org ) has reached the milestone
> of 10,000 articles today. This is the 50th language to reach the
> milestone, and the 2nd language from South Asia to do so.
>
> Bengali is spoken by almost 220-250 million people, making it the 7th
> largest language in terms of total speakers. Bengali Wikipedia has
> seen a growth from 500 articles in March 2006 to 10,000 as of now.
>
> There are now 20-25 active editors who edit Bengali wikipedia on a
> regular basis. These editors are mainly from Bangladesh, and also from
> West Bengal (India). The main thrust has been the Bangladesh Open
> Source Network (BDOsn), and the Bangla Wiki project, which has raised
> awareness, involved the media, and recruited more editors to work on
> Bengali Wikipedia.
>
> We also have article improvement projects, aiming at having at least
> 1000 or so Good articles (similar to English wikipedia) by May 2007.
>
> Thanks
>
> Ragib
>
> bn:User:Ragib
> en:User:Ragib
>
>
> --
> Ragib Hasan
> PhD Student
> Dept of Computer Science
> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
> 201 N Goodwin Avenue
> Urbana IL 61801
>
> Website:
> http://www.ragibhasan.com
> http://netfiles.uiuc.edu/rhasan/www
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


list: wikipedia-l

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Bengali Wikipedia Reaches 10,
	000 articles: 50th language to do so!


subject: [WikiEN-l] Encyclopedia of Earth appears to be now online...

body:
On 9/26/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> I am informed by a nice chap on #wikipedia that they've now released
> the draft GFDL v2:
>
> http://gplv3.fsf.org/doclic-dd1-guide.html
> [snip]
> I won't have a chance to read it for a while - anyone want to go through it?
>
I do, I do, though only a quick look for tonight.

For starters, there's a new SFDL (simplified free documentation
license).  It has no provisions for cover texts and invariant
sections.  And best of all, under the new GFDL v2: "If the Work has no
Cover Texts and no Invariant Sections then you may relicense the Work
under the GNU Simpler Free Documentation License."

So this means that Wikipedia, since it is licensed under GFDL v1.2 or
any later version (according to [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]], anyway), can
be relicensed under GFDL v2 and then rerelicensed under the SFDL (one
step, two steps, whatever, it can be done).

So I'm going to ignore the new GFDL, and focus on the new SFDL,
because presumably Wikipedia will want to take advantage of this
relicensing.

OK, first off in terms of changes is the removal of the requirement to
include a copy of the license for verbatim copies.  Instead, we have
this: "You need not include a copy of this License in the Work if you
have registered the work's license with a national agency that
maintains a network server through which the general public can find
out its license."  I don't know what this means, actually, so maybe
someone can explain it.  Maybe the FSF intends to run one such
agency/network?  If so, sounds good so far, I guess.

HOWEVER, this is in the section for verbatim copies.  The later
section for modified copies still says to "H. Include an unaltered
copy of this License."  Is this a mistake, or is it intentional?
We'll have to ask during the discussion period, but considering the
section on "excerpts" it seems to be intentional.

There is still a requirement for forks to "Use a title distinct from
that of the Work, and from those of previous versions of the Work as
listed in the History section."  This is problematic if you consider
an individual article as "the Work", and not Wikipedia (or the English
language Wikipedia) as a whole.  Interestingly, the statement that
"You may use the same title as a previous version if the original
publisher of that version gives permission." has been dropped.
Hopefully this is a mistake.

"Title page" has been redefined.  It now reads "The "Title Page" means
the portion of the work where information such as title, authors, date
of publication, and copyright notice would normally appear."  So no
longer, it seems, will a Wikipedia article be considered to have a
title page (it was previously defined as "the text near the most
prominent appearance of the work's title, preceding the beginning of
the body of the text").  This is significant because two of the
requirements for distribution of a modified copy are "List as authors
(on the Title Page, if any), one or more persons or entities
responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified
Version." and "Credit (on the Title Page, if any) at least five of the
principal authors of the Work (all of them, if it has fewer than five)
if the material derived from the Work is more than 1/4 of the total."
This was a place where Wikipedia was previously not in compliance with
the GFDL, and now it seems they would be.

"Authors and publishers of previous versions can release you from
above requirements to cite or refer to them or their versions."  This
is a good addition, although it should probably be spelled out better
*how* this release is done, so that there isn't any ambiguity as to
whether or not it has been.

"You may publish a work, a Modified Version, or a collection, of up to
20,000 characters of text (excluding formatting mark-up) in electronic
form, or up to 12 normal printed pages, or up to a minute of audio or
video, as an Excerpt. An Excerpt follows the applicable rules of this
license, except that the following required materials--the copy of
this license, title page materials, historical copyright notices,
warranty disclaimers, and any required sections--may be replaced by
one or more publicly accessible URLs referring to the same materials."
 This is a wholly new section.  A minute of audio seems too short,
though.  Presumably almost all images released under the GFDL would be
completely exempt as they wouldn't have 20,000 characters of text in
them.  That's good too.

Overall, it looks like a major improvement.  I'll take a closer look
tomorrow, and hopefully some more people will have already commented
by then (and hopefully my email will have gotten through the
moderation queue by then).

Anthony


body:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brion Vibber" <brion at pobox.com>
> To: "Wikimedia developers" <wikitech-l at wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Finding moved/redirected pages
> Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 12:26:00 -0700
>
>
> That is indeed the right record.

Thanks Brion, I see now what is happening. The other records point to history. So essentially it's a chain, but the top (page_id in pages) points to the current revision and the rest points to historic revs.

--
_______________________________________________
Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way:
Download Opera 9 at http://www.opera.com

Powered by Outblaze


body:
On 9/26/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> I am informed by a nice chap on #wikipedia that they've now released
> the draft GFDL v2:
>
> http://gplv3.fsf.org/doclic-dd1-guide.html
>
> I won't have a chance to read it for a while - anyone want to go through it?
>
Oops, I guess moderation is good for something.  I went through a long
explanation of the new SFDL, then I saw this:

"If the Work was previously published, with no Cover Texts, no
Invariant Sections, and no Acknowledgements or Dedications or
Endorsements section, in a system for massive public collaboration
under version 1.2 of this License, and if all the material in the Work
was either initially developed in that collaboration system or had
been imported into it before 1 June 2006, then you may relicense the
Work under the GNU Wiki License."

Now, what is the GNU Wiki License?

Anthony


body:
On 9/25/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2) According to the GFDL, yes, we are required to keep the entire history of
> articles.
>
That's blatantly false.  Under the GFDL you are required to keep the
names and years of the historical versions, but you don't have to keep
the text of them.

Anthony


body:
I recognize that, but I didn't work it properly. In order to comply, AND
delete extremely old edits, we have to copy the older edit history over to
the talk page. But space is not a pressing issue, so why don't we do what we
have been doing, which has not been a problem? Hard disk drives are cheap.

And in 100 years, while the amount of edits will add up, better hard drives
with more capacity will become cheaper. Much cheaper. Heck, it'll become
much better and much cheaper in 10 years.

On 9/26/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
> On 9/25/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 2) According to the GFDL, yes, we are required to keep the entire
> history of
> > articles.
> >
> That's blatantly false.  Under the GFDL you are required to keep the
> names and years of the historical versions, but you don't have to keep
> the text of them.
>
> Anthony
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


body:
On 9/24/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
> sep11.wikipedia.org is currently in read-only mode. I suggest the
> following course of action:
>
> 1) That the wiki be opened again for a period of 4 weeks.
>
> 2) That an open message is to be sent out to ask for clean-up of the
> wiki -- remove irrelevant content, possible lingering spam, etc.
>
> 3) That, after the cleanup is complete, the wiki is exported as a
> static HTML dump and hosted by a volunteer external to the Wikimedia
> Foundation under its own domain name. No reference should be made to
> it from then on as an official Wikimedia project. It might be possible
> to arrange advance renumeration for the domain name cost and hosting.
>
> Does this sound like a sensible course of action?
>
I'd prefer that the wiki be kept, but assuming a rough majority of
people disagree with me, and feel that the wiki is outside the scope
of the foundation (which apparently is true), this seems like a
reasonable exit strategy, with one exception.

I don't think the export should be a static HTML dump.  The full
history should be exported, as well.  The details of how things were
edited and created is as much an important part of Internet history as
the resulting work, and Internet Archive isn't granular enough for
this.  At the very least one final full-history dump should be made
and put up to download for a while.  Really this should be done
*before* any administrative pages are deleted.

One thing that unfortunately will probably be lost is any articles
that have been deleted.  Y'all won't agree to send me a copy of them
before totally destroying them, will you?

Anthony


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Foundation-l] A Wikimedia sidebar box for wikipedia.org

body:
As you may know, MediaWiki:Sidebar supports defining little boxes that
contain navigation links. de.wikipedia.org has used this to customize
its sidebar, for example.

Should we have a sidebar with the heading "Wikimedia" containing links
to wikimediafoundation.org for things like:
- About Wikimedia
- Projects
- Volunteer (info about committees, mailing lists, etc.)
- Jobs (those we chooose to publicly advertise)
- Chapter information

This is partially a follow-up to my earlier mail re: sitenotice for
chapters. I think this might be a slightly less aggressive way to
raise awareness of chapters, sister projects, and the work of the
Foundation in general.

Thoughts?
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

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


from_name: Timwi

body:
Aerik Sylvan wrote:
>
> I got several sets of results in under 1 second (the lowest time being
> ..3 seconds), one query returned in 8 seconds and another in 36
> seconds.

Why don't you post the queries?


body:
On 9/26/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> I recognize that, but I didn't work it properly. In order to comply, AND
> delete extremely old edits, we have to copy the older edit history over to
> the talk page. But space is not a pressing issue, so why don't we do what we
> have been doing, which has not been a problem? Hard disk drives are cheap.
>
If the wiki is truly not within the scope of the mission of the
foundation, which *many* people feel is true, then having it on
Wikimedia's servers and domain names confuses people as to what is the
mission of the foundation.

I suppose Wikimedia could continue to host it, on a separate domain
name, in read-only mode, without any reference to it being an official
project, but if someone else is willing to do this it would be better.

And I'm sure someone else *is* willing to do this.  Erik, if no one
replies offering to host the project, I'll do it.  I'll throw it up on
some $10/month hosting site (probably cheaper than that) in read-only
mode and be done with it.  But I didn't respond to Erik because I
assume someone else is more willing and able to do so.

Anthony


body:
Erik said Jeff Merkey is willing to do the hosting.

On 9/26/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
> On 9/26/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I recognize that, but I didn't work it properly. In order to comply, AND
> > delete extremely old edits, we have to copy the older edit history over
> to
> > the talk page. But space is not a pressing issue, so why don't we do
> what we
> > have been doing, which has not been a problem? Hard disk drives are
> cheap.
> >
> If the wiki is truly not within the scope of the mission of the
> foundation, which *many* people feel is true, then having it on
> Wikimedia's servers and domain names confuses people as to what is the
> mission of the foundation.
>
> I suppose Wikimedia could continue to host it, on a separate domain
> name, in read-only mode, without any reference to it being an official
> project, but if someone else is willing to do this it would be better.
>
> And I'm sure someone else *is* willing to do this.  Erik, if no one
> replies offering to host the project, I'll do it.  I'll throw it up on
> some $10/month hosting site (probably cheaper than that) in read-only
> mode and be done with it.  But I didn't respond to Erik because I
> assume someone else is more willing and able to do so.
>
> Anthony
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Delirium

subject:
[WikiEN-l] new GFDL draft (was: Re: Encyclopedia of Earth appears
 to be now online...)

body:
Andrew Gray wrote:
> I won't have a chance to read it for a while - anyone want to go through it?
>

I haven't gone through it in detail, but a few things that pop out:

Section 2: Verbatim copies of the entire work now no longer need to
include a copy of the GFDL if the redistributors: "have registered the
work's license with a national agency that maintains a network server
through which the general public can find out its license."
-- I'm not too sure what this means.  Do such registries even exist?

Section 2: There is new anti-DRM language
-- Seems reasonable.

Section 4, point b: For derived works, the primary author of the
modified version must now be listed on the title page, in addition to
the previous requirement that the publisher of the modified version be
thus listed.
-- Not sure what the impetus for this change is, but I don't see a
problem with it.

Section 4, point c: The requirement to credit on the title page the 5
principal authors of the version you derived from is waived if the
version you derived from constitutes no more than 1/4 of your derived
work.  You must still maintain all authors' copyright notices, and the
history section, but may put their names somewhere other than the title
page in this case.
-- Seems reasonable, although I don't care that much either way.

Section 6a: Excerpts, defined as anything up to 20,000 characters of
text (excluding markup) or 12 normal printed pages, or a minute of audio
or video, may have essentially all the required information (license,
title page, history, etc.) linked via a URL instead of distributed with
the work itself.
-- The most relevant to Wikipedia; this would greatly ease publishing
things like info sheets and pamphlets.  I'd personally be inclined to
even up the limits a bit, to maybe 20 pages.  Should also be extended to
include photographs, IMO.

-Mark


from_name: Guillaume Paumier

body:
Bonsoir,

On 9/26/06, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> As you may know, MediaWiki:Sidebar supports defining little boxes that
> contain navigation links. de.wikipedia.org has used this to customize
> its sidebar, for example.
>
> Should we have a sidebar with the heading "Wikimedia" containing links
> to wikimediafoundation.org for things like:
> - About Wikimedia
> - Projects
> - Volunteer (info about committees, mailing lists, etc.)
> - Jobs (those we chooose to publicly advertise)
> - Chapter information
>

I think is could a good idea to improve Wikimedia visibility. But 5 links
are too much imo. If we already have a "Navigation" and a "Community"
section, another one with 5 links would relegate the search box far away.
Maybe we could add the 2 more relevant links in the "community" section ?

g.

--
Guillaume Paumier
Disciplus Simplex
http://fr.wikipedia.org : Resistance is futile ? You will be assimilated.


subject:
[Foundation-l] [Wikimediauk-l] [Fwd: Royal Society
 Digital	Journal Archive]

body:
Andrew Gray wrote:
> On 26/09/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>> To what extent is this true under US law?
>>
>> The claim to ownership of a scan from 1665 is odious. Perhaps it's just me.
>
> Do remember, of course, that only a trivial proportion of these works
> are from 1665! Nothing published in the last seventy years is likely
> to be safely out of copyright (as new scientific material is rarely
> posthumous, and scientific journals don't tend to go in for reprints
> of old stuff), and you have to go back to about 1860-70 before you're
> safe assuming PD without checking the author's details.
>
> (Before that, or for any where you can be sure as to when the author
> died - transcribe away, Macduff...)
>

... so are we allowed to upload them to Commons while we're waiting?

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20060926/d144d01f/attachment.pgp


body:
Andrew Gray wrote:
> On 26/09/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>> To what extent is this true under US law?
>>
>> The claim to ownership of a scan from 1665 is odious. Perhaps it's just me.
>
> Do remember, of course, that only a trivial proportion of these works
> are from 1665! Nothing published in the last seventy years is likely
> to be safely out of copyright (as new scientific material is rarely
> posthumous, and scientific journals don't tend to go in for reprints
> of old stuff), and you have to go back to about 1860-70 before you're
> safe assuming PD without checking the author's details.
>
> (Before that, or for any where you can be sure as to when the author
> died - transcribe away, Macduff...)
>

... so are we allowed to upload them to Commons while we're waiting?

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20060926/d144d01f/attachment-0001.pgp


body:
Andrew Gray wrote:
> On 26/09/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>> To what extent is this true under US law?
>>
>> The claim to ownership of a scan from 1665 is odious. Perhaps it's just me.
>
> Do remember, of course, that only a trivial proportion of these works
> are from 1665! Nothing published in the last seventy years is likely
> to be safely out of copyright (as new scientific material is rarely
> posthumous, and scientific journals don't tend to go in for reprints
> of old stuff), and you have to go back to about 1860-70 before you're
> safe assuming PD without checking the author's details.
>
> (Before that, or for any where you can be sure as to when the author
> died - transcribe away, Macduff...)
>

... so are we allowed to upload them to Commons while we're waiting?

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20060926/d144d01f/attachment.pgp>


body:
Andrew Gray wrote:
> On 26/09/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>> To what extent is this true under US law?
>>
>> The claim to ownership of a scan from 1665 is odious. Perhaps it's just me.
>
> Do remember, of course, that only a trivial proportion of these works
> are from 1665! Nothing published in the last seventy years is likely
> to be safely out of copyright (as new scientific material is rarely
> posthumous, and scientific journals don't tend to go in for reprints
> of old stuff), and you have to go back to about 1860-70 before you're
> safe assuming PD without checking the author's details.
>
> (Before that, or for any where you can be sure as to when the author
> died - transcribe away, Macduff...)
>

... so are we allowed to upload them to Commons while we're waiting?

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20060926/d144d01f/attachment-0001.pgp>


body:
On 9/26/06, Guillaume Paumier <guillom.pom at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I think is could a good idea to improve Wikimedia visibility.

I think IT could BE a good idea etc.

Ok, I go to bed...

--
Guillaume Paumier
Disciplus Simplex
http://fr.wikipedia.org : Resistance is futile ? You will be assimilated.


body:
On 9/26/06, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
> Whatever happens to the
> sep11.wikipedia is going to set a preceedent for all future Wikimedia
> projects that enjoy a similar fate.

Well, there's at least three very different types of situations:

a) a project we really do not want anymore, because it falls outside
our scope and mission. Solution: Find a willing host to preserve the
content and remove it from WMF servers. While tlh.wp is still around
as a read-only site, tokipona.wp was deleted AFAICT (tokipona.wp is
blank) and restarted on Wikia. So precedent appears to exist.

b) a project that falls within our scope & mission, but has fallen out
of use, e.g., many of the Wikinews editions. Here we might place a
notice of lock-down and have some reactivation process.

c) a project that falls within our scope & mission, but is in very
serious violation of policy/law, esp. copyright law. Here the project
may have to be restarted from scratch (cf. closure of
fr.wikiquote.org).

In terms of Internet history, I would also point out that, in addition
to our own efforts to preserve this content by finding suitable hosts
for it, there is the Internet Archive Wayback Machine at
www.archive.org, which takes regular snapshots of web content. Given
the value of its historical archives and the shrinking costs of
storage space & bandwidth, I think it is highly likely that they will
be preserved for a long time.

IMHO the distinction between "projects" and "pages" is actually rather
arbitrary here. We delete off-topic content all the time. But I do
think we should, indendently of whether we are dealing with projects
or pages, make an effort to give large identifiable _sets_ of at least
superficially useful content an appropriate new home if we remove them
from our servers.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

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


from_name: George Herbert

subject: [Foundation-l] GFDL v2 draft

body:
On 9/26/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> The GFDL v2 draft contains the following:
>
> [8b. WIKI RELICENSING
>
> If the Work was previously published, with no Cover Texts, no
> Invariant Sections, and no Acknowledgements or Dedications or
> Endorsements section, in a system for massive public collaboration
> under version 1.2 of this License, and if all the material in the Work
> was either initially developed in that collaboration system or had
> been imported into it before 1 June 2006, then you may relicense the
> Work under the GNU Wiki License.]
>
> Would anyone at the Wikimedia foundation like to make a public comment
> about this?
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

I'm not at the foundation but... *what* Gnu Wiki License???

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


subject: [Foundation-l] GFDL v2 draft


from_name: David Gerard

body:
On 26/09/06, Mark Wagner <carnildo at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/25/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> > Third-party verifiability would be the first line.

> But where's the second line?  The Michigan homeschools are verifiable:
> since they're treated as private schools, they need to be registered
> with the Michigan Department of Education.

Make a list article, giving your verifiable source, I suppose. See if
the school inclusionists rally to it on the inevitable AFD ;-)

- d.


from_name: Sabine Cretella

subject:
[Foundation-l] Translating wikipedia articles using OmegaT - Q&A
	chat

body:
Hi, sorry again for one of those unpersonal mails. And sorry for some
typos - I am not re-reading the mail and my "r"-key still creates problems.

I will crosspost this mail to several mailing lists that could be
interested as well, so you won't see the single recipients.

 From your answers I noted that being in different time zones and having
different requirements we probably will not make it to do a real
OmegaT-course online - some also don't have Skype. So I will be online
for sure tomorrow morning from 07:00-09:00 UTC and on Thursday from
07:00-09:00 UTC (corresponds to 09:00-11:00 Italian time). I very likely
will not be here on Friday morning.

Anyway I am online normally every morning in the mentioned hours as well
as in the evening. I'll try to create a schedule I update on a daily
basis so that you can see when you can find me.

Therefore we will do it in a Q&A style in IRC on
irc://irc.freenode.net/wikimedia-translation

I chose the #wikimedia-translation channel, because it is about
translating Wikipedia articles. The how-to material will be online by
tomorrow morning - so I'll give you the link to the various pages during
the Q&A.

Don't panic if you cannot be online tomorow morning for this: since the
poject will last for some time you will find me online for questions
whenever I am at the computer - and that is quite many hours of the day.

Download OmegaT:
Version 1.6 RC10 - including Java for Windows:
http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/omegat/OmegaT_and_JRE_Win_1.6.0_RC10.zip?download
    (you don't need to care about the installation of Java on your
computer or about updating it)
Version 1.6 RC10 - including Java for Linux:
http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/omegat/OmegaT_and_JRE_Lin_1.6.0_RC10.tar.gz?download
   (you don't need to care about the installation of Java on your
computer or about updating it)
Version 1.6 RC10 without Java:
http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/omegat/OmegaT_1.6.0_RC10.zip?download
    (here you need to have an updated Java version on your computer -
this works both for Windows and for Linux and OSX)

Most of the people adhering to this project will use Windows - so I am
going to work with only Windows during the next days.

Access to the Chat-channel: you can do this in various ways. If you
already have a chat-software installed (for example Chatzilla for
firefox) you simply connect to the channel like you do with othe channels.

If you don't have such software and would like to avoid doing tests here
and there now: there is also a web interface where you can access to the
channel - I tested it with Firefox and Internet Explorer - both work fine.

Go to the URL:
http://www.bitshuffle.org/cgiirc/

As for "Nickname: " choose a name for youself and overwrite the contents
of the box
As for "Server:" please subsitute the contents with: irc.freenode.net
As for "Channel:" please substitute the contents with:
#wikimedia-translation

Then click on login. It can take a minute or so to really access the
channel.

Now to the sample text we will use:
Please go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OmegaT
Click on edit
Select the whole of the contents
copy it (ctrl+c)
and paste it in an empty .txt file - save the file with UTF-8 (the
windows editor is great for doing that)

 From there: we will see from tomorrow on in the chat.

The how to's will be online here:
http://wordsandmore.org/index.php?title=Wordsandmore:Persian_wikipedia_contents_creation#How_to.3F.3F.3F

Actually there is the WikiRead-WikiWrite feature for OmegaT being
programmed - so as soon as we have this it will be introduced. For now
most files will reach you as .txt files (even if this means more
organisational work). The way of doing things like above would be the
actual way to go, but I don't want people, who are new to wiki and
OmegaT to learn too many things at once - it could create more poblems
than doing good.

During the next days the texts to be tanslated will be prepared and I
will start to distribute them among the included translators. You will
see a schedule for each involved translator online so that you also will
be able to see from there who is going to do what and when. The links
will be added to the project page where you also find the how to's.

The Chat-logs will be made available as well through the main project page.

What else: I suppose not much more right now. Well if you feel this can
be interesting for other people: just tell them :-)

Meet you in the chat then :-)

Cheers,

Sabine

*****
Sabine Cretella
s.cretella at wordsandmore.it
skype: sabinecretella
IRC channels where you can find me:
irc://irc.freenode.net/wiktionaryz
irc://irc.freenode.net/wikimedia-translation
irc://irc.freenode.net/omegat

___________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice: chiama da PC a telefono a tariffe esclusive
http://it.messenger.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Process wonkery

references:
<s7lah2pihqs0vqiecpaifbaphj43urt5a5@4ax.com>
	<fbad4e140609230946g1506a024g26e2447a3c584abb@mail.gmail.com>
	<47683e960609241202h58eebc8fua913fdc8802ae10c@mail.gmail.com>
	<ef754g$jmb$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<38a7bf7c0609251729ob376bc7mdbacc4236611a6ff@mail.gmail.com>
	<fbad4e140609260317j5c3b0be3t196b17d78b845a91@mail.gmail.com>
	<6ac0ff0e0609261554p32ec388fr487c830bf12ffabe@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On 26/09/06, Carl Peterson <carlopeterson at gmail.com> wrote:

> Have fun deciding on the name of some of the schools. In Louisville, at
> least, some of the schools have three or four names by which they're known,
> and it's often not a matter of abbreviations or the use of a full name
> versus last name only. Even if you go by the Board of Education's
> "canonical" name for a school, there are still sometimes two or three
> variants. For example, we have a school that used to be separate middle and
> high schools. While it's technically "Moore Traditional School," even in the
> official higher-up circles, the school is still treated as if it were two
> separate schools. It just happens to have a single principal.

No no no - *you* have fun deciding which gets the real name and which
gets the canonical name!

> This will (a) include all verifiable schools (b) having the entry be a
> > redirect to a list until there's something real to write an article
> > about will save on people coughing up their own skulls in disgust.

> Sound's about like what I've been suggesting, list-wise. When we implemented
> the list for Louisville, it has appeared to slow down the number of school
> articles that are created for Louisville.

Yep. And thus school inclusionism resolves to something everyone can
at least tolerate without killing themselves *today*.

- d.


body:
Hi, sorry again for one of those unpersonal mails. And sorry for some
typos - I am not re-reading the mail and my "r"-key still creates problems.

I will crosspost this mail to several mailing lists that could be
interested as well, so you won't see the single recipients.

 From your answers I noted that being in different time zones and having
different requirements we probably will not make it to do a real
OmegaT-course online - some also don't have Skype. So I will be online
for sure tomorrow morning from 07:00-09:00 UTC and on Thursday from
07:00-09:00 UTC (corresponds to 09:00-11:00 Italian time). I very likely
will not be here on Friday morning.

Anyway I am online normally every morning in the mentioned hours as well
as in the evening. I'll try to create a schedule I update on a daily
basis so that you can see when you can find me.

Therefore we will do it in a Q&A style in IRC on
irc://irc.freenode.net/wikimedia-translation

I chose the #wikimedia-translation channel, because it is about
translating Wikipedia articles. The how-to material will be online by
tomorrow morning - so I'll give you the link to the various pages during
the Q&A.

Don't panic if you cannot be online tomorow morning for this: since the
poject will last for some time you will find me online for questions
whenever I am at the computer - and that is quite many hours of the day.

Download OmegaT:
Version 1.6 RC10 - including Java for Windows:
http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/omegat/OmegaT_and_JRE_Win_1.6.0_RC10.zip?download
    (you don't need to care about the installation of Java on your
computer or about updating it)
Version 1.6 RC10 - including Java for Linux:
http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/omegat/OmegaT_and_JRE_Lin_1.6.0_RC10.tar.gz?download
   (you don't need to care about the installation of Java on your
computer or about updating it)
Version 1.6 RC10 without Java:
http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/omegat/OmegaT_1.6.0_RC10.zip?download
    (here you need to have an updated Java version on your computer -
this works both for Windows and for Linux and OSX)

Most of the people adhering to this project will use Windows - so I am
going to work with only Windows during the next days.

Access to the Chat-channel: you can do this in various ways. If you
already have a chat-software installed (for example Chatzilla for
firefox) you simply connect to the channel like you do with othe channels.

If you don't have such software and would like to avoid doing tests here
and there now: there is also a web interface where you can access to the
channel - I tested it with Firefox and Internet Explorer - both work fine.

Go to the URL:
http://www.bitshuffle.org/cgiirc/

As for "Nickname: " choose a name for youself and overwrite the contents
of the box
As for "Server:" please subsitute the contents with: irc.freenode.net
As for "Channel:" please substitute the contents with:
#wikimedia-translation

Then click on login. It can take a minute or so to really access the
channel.

Now to the sample text we will use:
Please go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OmegaT
Click on edit
Select the whole of the contents
copy it (ctrl+c)
and paste it in an empty .txt file - save the file with UTF-8 (the
windows editor is great for doing that)

 From there: we will see from tomorrow on in the chat.

The how to's will be online here:
http://wordsandmore.org/index.php?title=Wordsandmore:Persian_wikipedia_contents_creation#How_to.3F.3F.3F

Actually there is the WikiRead-WikiWrite feature for OmegaT being
programmed - so as soon as we have this it will be introduced. For now
most files will reach you as .txt files (even if this means more
organisational work). The way of doing things like above would be the
actual way to go, but I don't want people, who are new to wiki and
OmegaT to learn too many things at once - it could create more poblems
than doing good.

During the next days the texts to be tanslated will be prepared and I
will start to distribute them among the included translators. You will
see a schedule for each involved translator online so that you also will
be able to see from there who is going to do what and when. The links
will be added to the project page where you also find the how to's.

The Chat-logs will be made available as well through the main project page.

What else: I suppose not much more right now. Well if you feel this can
be interesting for other people: just tell them :-)

Meet you in the chat then :-)

Cheers,

Sabine

*****
Sabine Cretella
s.cretella at wordsandmore.it
skype: sabinecretella
IRC channels where you can find me:
irc://irc.freenode.net/wiktionaryz
irc://irc.freenode.net/wikimedia-translation
irc://irc.freenode.net/omegat

Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale!
 http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Translating wikipedia articles using OmegaT - Q&A chat


list: wiktionary-l

subject:
[Wiktionary-l] Translating wikipedia articles using OmegaT - Q&A
	chat


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-09-27

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

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

Passed 412 of 429 tests (96.04%) FAILED!


from_name: geni

subject: [Foundation-l] did i miss something?

body:
On 9/27/06, oscar <oscar.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> is there an agreement or a resolution covering eloquence having today been
> made steward by tim starling?
> was the board election also covering these rights?
> or was he appointed as such by the board? did i miss something?
>
> best greetings from a bewildered
> oscar

Board memebers tend to be stewards. It saves time.

--
geni


subject: [Foundation-l] did i miss something?


from_name: effe iets anders

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Foundation logo policy

body:
Today there was a question in the Dutch Pub about whether a certain
website would be allowed to use the wikipedia logo. I don't want to go
into details, not do I want an answer now, but I just wanted to check
it on the official Logo Policy of the WMF.

I searched on the for me most logical place, [[m:logo]], and found,
after a lot of searching and help through IRC, these urls:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Logo_and_trademark_policy
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_visual_identity_guidelines

The second is policy, and deals a lot on *how* to use the logo. Was
nice, but not for the questions i needed an answer on. I needed to
know *when* a company, foundation, community, person is allowed to use
the logo. The first appeared not to be official policy. It was usefull
in principle, but I couldn't direct people to there, as it wasn't
official. (can't check because of db-down when it was last changed)

To my best knowledge, there is already quite some time a trademark
committee (since february 2006?), of whom I thikn they could be taking
care of this.

Is there a reason why this policy is waiting this long? Is the
foundation currently working on this, is there already a resolution
waiting maybe even? Is the Trademark committee indeed responsible and
working on this issue? I don't want the proposal to be half-good, but
I want the discussion going on, and get a good result as soon as it is
possible. I hope this is something that hase not disappeared from your
thoughts yet.

Greetz, Lodewijk


subject: [Foundation-l] GFDL v2 draft

body:
The GFDL v2 draft contains the following:

[8b. WIKI RELICENSING

If the Work was previously published, with no Cover Texts, no
Invariant Sections, and no Acknowledgements or Dedications or
Endorsements section, in a system for massive public collaboration
under version 1.2 of this License, and if all the material in the Work
was either initially developed in that collaboration system or had
been imported into it before 1 June 2006, then you may relicense the
Work under the GNU Wiki License.]

Would anyone at the Wikimedia foundation like to make a public comment
about this?


subject: [Foundation-l] GFDL v2 draft


from_name: Andrew Gray

body:
On 24/09/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 24/09/06, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
>
> > While this is all true, the GFDL *is* fairly far along the process of
> > being rewritten,

> This is the first I'd heard that there was actual progress. Excellent!
>
> Are they going to release it for public comment as they did the
> planned GPL rewrite?

I am informed by a nice chap on #wikipedia that they've now released
the draft GFDL v2:

http://gplv3.fsf.org/doclic-dd1-guide.html

----

The first discussion draft of the GNU Free Documentation License
version 2 was released on 2006 September 26, along with a draft of the
new GNU Simpler Free Documentation License. The new draft of the GNU
FDL includes a number of improvements, such as:

    * New terms crafted during the GPLv3 process to improve internationalization
    * Clarifications to help people applying the license to audio and video
    * Relaxed requirements for using an excerpt from a work

----

I won't have a chance to read it for a while - anyone want to go through it?

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


from_name: Erik Zachte

subject: [Wikitech-l] new dumps ?

body:
Steve Summit

> And in case no one's made the observation: after just a couple
> of initial hiccups (affecting, not surprisingly, only the
> biggest wikis), it seems to be working very well, with all
> dumps successfully up-to-date, on a cycle of just a few days.
> <http://download.wikimedia.org/> is a very pretty picture now.
> Well done!

Sorry Steve you are quite mistaken.
I'm probably the one person looking at the xml download progress report most
often, as I wait impatiently for a good moment to run wikistats after month
has completed

Dumps for largest Wikipedias still fail very frequently.
There has not been a useful English dumps for months and maybe a handful in
a whole year.
Sometimes the jump job reports all is well when it is not (Brion knows this)

I hate to chase Brion because he has thousand obligations but dump process
is pretty unstable still

http://download.wikimedia.org/enwiki/20060925/ is running now, but
http://download.wikimedia.org/enwiki/20060920/ reports it is still in
progress
http://download.wikimedia.org/enwiki/20060911/ reports on the 7z file all is
OK but is 36 Mb
http://download.wikimedia.org/enwiki/20060906/ reports on the 7z file all is
OK but is 19 Mb
http://download.wikimedia.org/enwiki/20060905/ reports on the 7z file all is
OK but is 98 bytes
http://download.wikimedia.org/enwiki/20060816/ reports on the 7z file all is
OK and it is 5.1 Gb but I know it is incomplete it just stops in the middle
of an article
http://download.wikimedia.org/enwiki/20060810/ failed
http://download.wikimedia.org/enwiki/20060803/ in progress
http://download.wikimedia.org/enwiki/20060717/ OK
http://download.wikimedia.org/enwiki/20060702/ OK
http://download.wikimedia.org/enwiki/20060619/ in progress
I could go on: 2 or 3 OK in 10 older runs

Early this year there was no valid en: archive dump for over 4 months.

I proposed doing the largest dumps in incremental steps (say one job per
letter of the alphabet and concat at the end), so that rerun after error
would be less costly
but Brion says there are no disk resources for that

As other people commented, the current situation helps to prevent forks ;)

So again I fully appreciate Brion can't be all things to al people.
But please don't suggest the dump process is reliable enough.

Erik Zachte


from_name: oscar

subject: [Foundation-l] did i miss something?

body:
can anyone please help me concerning the following, thx :-)

is anything yet published concerning the elected candidate having been
approved as a board member?
has this actually been done already?
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Board_of_Trustees&oldid=438600doesn't
mention it at the time of my writing this.

is there an agreement or a resolution covering eloquence having today been
made steward by tim starling?
was the board election also covering these rights?
or was he appointed as such by the board? did i miss something?

best greetings from a bewildered
oscar


subject: [Foundation-l] did i miss something?


subject: [Foundation-l] did i miss something?

body:
On 9/27/06, oscar <oscar.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> can anyone please help me concerning the following, thx :-)
>
> is anything yet published concerning the elected candidate having been
> approved as a board member?

The election was accepted by the Board and the resolution will be made
public shortly.

> is there an agreement or a resolution covering eloquence having today been
> made steward by tim starling?

Tim set the steward flag on my account yesterday purely for technical
reasons. This was partially a miscommunication -- I needed accounts
for a few wikis, which the steward flag doesn't actually help with. I
used it to make myself a sysop/bureaucrat on the WMF wiki. I don't
mind if it is removed again to avoid confusion, though it might be
useful to have it for emergency uses.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

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


subject: [Foundation-l] did i miss something?


from_name: Daniel Arnold

body:
Am Dienstag, 26. September 2006 21:53 schrieb Erik Moeller:
> As you may know, MediaWiki:Sidebar supports defining little boxes that
> contain navigation links. de.wikipedia.org has used this to customize
> its sidebar, for example.
>
> Should we have a sidebar with the heading "Wikimedia" containing links
> to wikimediafoundation.org for things like:
> - About Wikimedia
> - Projects
> - Volunteer (info about committees, mailing lists, etc.)
> - Jobs (those we chooose to publicly advertise)
> - Chapter information

Well I think it important to keep the interface lean. So I would not advice to
just add something like that without removing/merging/moving around something
else.

But let us compare three examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Sidebar

vs.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Sidebar
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Sidebar

I think a flaw in the en.wikipedia sidebar (without looking at any debate
about that in en.wikipedia) is that huge single group. You hardly can grasp
them with one view thematically it is just a list of links summed up
below "navigation". Well does "donations" and "contact" really fall under
site navigation? I'd say clearly no.

In de.wikipedia and Commons we have created two groups "navigation" (just for
browsing passively) and "participate" that sums up links that enable/help you
just to start participating in the one or other way (note also the unusual
place of the "upload" link) although you could probably argue in detail
whether certain links would be alternatively fit as well into "navigation"
(in fact I did copy the idea from de.wikipedia to Commons and reduced a way
larger sidebar existing in Commons previous to it).

So my recommendation for en.wikipedia only (!) would be making two groups
maybe similar in scope to the ones in de.wikipedia and Commons and moving
moving "donations" and "contact" alongside two further links out of your
above 5 examples into it.

Anyhow (it wasn't mentioned but just in case...) I'd recommend not making
something like that part of the default MediaWiki interface and letting every
community decide by themselves how the use that narrow space in the left (it
is really important to keep the numbers of links and buttons in the interface
as low as possible).

Arnomane


subject: [Foundation-l] GFDL v2 draft

body:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> [8b. WIKI RELICENSING
>
> If the Work was previously published, with no Cover Texts, no
> Invariant Sections, and no Acknowledgements or Dedications or
> Endorsements section, in a system for massive public collaboration
> under version 1.2 of this License, and if all the material in the Work
> was either initially developed in that collaboration system or had
> been imported into it before 1 June 2006, then you may relicense the
> Work under the GNU Wiki License.]
>
> Would anyone at the Wikimedia foundation like to make a public comment
> about this?
>

At least for those of us in the general public (perhaps the foundation
has inside info?), this section is impossible to evaluate until the FSF
releases a draft of the GNU Wiki license (a phrase that currently has
zero google hits).

-Mark


subject: [Foundation-l] GFDL v2 draft


subject: [Foundation-l] did i miss something?

body:
On 9/27/06, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> It was made public yesterday -
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Replacement_Board_member_2006

Ah, I assumed that the vote would also be publicized.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

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


subject: [Foundation-l] did i miss something?


subject: [Foundation-l] Proposal re: sep11.wikipedia.org

body:
On 9/27/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> I don't think the export should be a static HTML dump.  The full
> history should be exported, as well.

It will actually be an import into a separate MediaWiki install which
will again be made read-only, so the history will be preserved. Jeff
Merkey has graciously volunteered to do this and registered the domain
name sep11memories.org for the purpose.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

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


from_name: Robert Leverington

subject: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 30, Issue 104

body:
> On 9/26/06, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >
> > As you may know, MediaWiki:Sidebar supports defining little boxes that
> > contain navigation links. de.wikipedia.org has used this to customize
> > its sidebar, for example.
> >
> > Should we have a sidebar with the heading "Wikimedia" containing links
> > to wikimediafoundation.org for things like:
> > - About Wikimedia
> > - Projects
> > - Volunteer (info about committees, mailing lists, etc.)
> > - Jobs (those we chooose to publicly advertise)
> > - Chapter information
> >
>
> I think is could a good idea to improve Wikimedia visibility. But 5 links
> are too much imo. If we already have a "Navigation" and a "Community"
> section, another one with 5 links would relegate the search box far away.
> Maybe we could add the 2 more relevant links in the "community" section ?

Prehaps below the toolbox would work instead (they are redesigning the
toolbar on Wikipedia and if it goes ahead one of the developers (Rob
Church I think?) is going to do a ptach for them). Couldn't we just
get a modified version of this and stick it below the toolbox like
they do on http://www.wikia.com . I like the idea of this and it would
definitely improve the visibility of the Wikimedia websites, the wikis
that are displayed in the one on Wikia always get loads more
attention.


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Foundation-l] did i miss something?

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> On 9/27/06, oscar <oscar.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>can anyone please help me concerning the following, thx :-)
>>
>>is anything yet published concerning the elected candidate having been
>>approved as a board member?
>
>
> The election was accepted by the Board and the resolution will be made
> public shortly.
>
>
>>is there an agreement or a resolution covering eloquence having today been
>>made steward by tim starling?
>
>
> Tim set the steward flag on my account yesterday purely for technical
> reasons. This was partially a miscommunication -- I needed accounts
> for a few wikis, which the steward flag doesn't actually help with. I
> used it to make myself a sysop/bureaucrat on the WMF wiki. I don't
> mind if it is removed again to avoid confusion, though it might be
> useful to have it for emergency uses.

Please, remove the steward flag.
Stewards are elected by the community, to be steward. Not self-appointed.

ant


subject: [Foundation-l] did i miss something?


subject: [Foundation-l] did i miss something?

body:
On 9/27/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Please, remove the steward flag.

I really don't mind - Tim, can you do this?

--
Peace & Love,
Erik

Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

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


subject: [Foundation-l] did i miss something?


subject: [Foundation-l] did i miss something?

body:
On 9/27/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Stewards are elected by the community, to be steward. Not self-appointed.

One follow-up question, though: Was Jimbo ever elected? If not, should
he be a steward?

--
Peace & Love,
Erik

Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

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


subject: [Foundation-l] did i miss something?