from_name: Daniel R. Tobias

subject:
[WikiEN-l] How to Prove Wikipedia Sucks,
	based on Anything they Do or Fail to Do

body:
Some free help for all the anti-Wikipedia critics out there... yes,
you... I know you're reading this... you might want to copy-and-paste
from here to help in your next rant against Wikipedia.  No matter
what they do, or fail to do, you can find something to use against
them if you do it properly.  To instruct, I'm setting up a
hypothetical situation, itemizing every possible reaction Wikipedia
could make to it, and proposing a critical response.

SITUATION #1: A webcomic named FooBarBaz exists, and has a small but
fervent fan community, but is little known outside it.

a) Wikipedia doesn't have an article about FooBarBaz.

RESPONSE: There's a groundbreaking, innovative, clearly notable
webcomic called FooBarBaz, and not a single one of the idiots who
write and edit Wikipedia has even deigned to acknowledge it.  This
proves that, even in the realm of pop-cultural trivia that Wikipedia
is reputed to be strong in (as distinguished from things that are
actually *relevant* in the real world, where everybody agrees they're
horrendously weak), Wikipedia is full of glaring gaps.  Wikipedia
sucks!

b) Wikipedia has an article about FooBarBaz, but it's just a stub.

RESPONSE: Look at [[FooBarBaz]]... it's yet another example (as if I
needed to find another) of how Wikipedia is absolutely full of
completely useless stub articles that fail to give any information
that any rational person might actually have use for.  They love to
tout how they have over 1 and a half million English-language
articles, and a bunch more in Bantu or whatever, but if they're all
like this one, it's a pretty hollow distinction.  Wikipedia sucks!

c) The article on FooBarBaz has been expanded into a lengthy,
comprehensive, well-sourced article with a wealth of information
about the webcomic, its history, its contributions to the medium, and
so on.

RESPONSE: The article on [[FooBarBaz]] is yet another example (as if
I needed to find another) of how Wikipedia is dominated by obsessive-
compulsive fanboys, determined to go on at great length on topics
nobody else cares about.  A psychiatrist would have a field day
analyzing the author of the article.  It's quite meticulous, and
clearly took hours of work... hours which would have been better
spent on more useful labor, such as digging ditches.  Wikipedia
sucks!

d) The article on FooBarBaz was brought up for deletion, and an AfD
debate resulted.

[i] After a fairly small amount of participation on the AfD, the
article was deleted by consensus.

RESPONSE: Once again, you see the horrible deletionist vendetta
against webcomics that continually rears its ugly head.  Various AfD
regulars, who wouldn't know a good webcomic if it bit them in the
ass, show their ignorance by voting to delete a clearly notable
comic, and they get away with it because people who know better have
more important things to do with their lives than monitor the silly
internal squabbles of Wikipedia.  Clearly, one can't expect Wikipedia
ever to show proper respect for that medium, so it should be
abandoned and boycotted by all webcomics fans.  Wikipedia sucks!

[ii] After a fairly small amount of participation in the AfD, the
article was kept by consensus.

RESPONSE [take your pick]:

A: That such a clearly notable webcomic was even considered for
deletion shows the anti-webcomics bias of Wikipedia "regulars" once
again.  Although their vendetta didn't happen to succeed this time,
perhaps because a couple of people with an actual clue managed to
wander by at the right time, it's still pretty much a lost cause
getting any kind of ongoing respect for the medium of webcomics
there. Wikipedia sucks!

B: Once again, the fanboys have let Wikipedia continue to be
encrusted with fancruft about silly things such as non-notable
webcomics, by getting a handful of fans to show up and get their way
unopposed.  No wonder no reputable people take Wikipedia seriously.
Wikipedia sucks!

[iii] There was a long, contentious AfD debate, with lots of heated
flaming on both sides. (The ultimate outcome is unimportant.)

RESPONSE: Once again, Wikipedia is shown to be just another
incarnation of Usenet, where people go on in endless debate about the
most unimportant things.  While this is, on the societal level, a
deplorable waste of human energy and computing resources, I suppose
it could be thought of as no worse than Usenet itself, or online role
playing games, or social networking sites like Myspace, all of which
it resembles.  However, because it claims to be an "encyclopedia",
one should expose this seamy underbelly in order to show its true
nature.  Wikipedia sucks!

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


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Jossi Fresco

body:
On Mar 18, 2007, at 11:27 AM, Daniel R. Tobias wrote:

> Some free help for all the anti-Wikipedia critics out there... yes,
> you... I know you're reading this... you might want to copy-and-paste
> from here to help in your next rant against Wikipedia.  No matter
> what they do, or fail to do, you can find something to use against
> them if you do it properly.

Worthy of an "Essay of the year" award!

-- Jossi


from_name: Andrew Gray

subject: [WikiEN-l] An Open Letter to Mr. Wales

body:
On 18/03/07, Ron Ritzman <ritzman at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/17/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
>
> > >Hm. As a rule, checkuser doesn't lie.
>
> > Checkuser doesn't lie, but results can easily be misinterpreted.
>
> Agreed. Many people still use ISPs that assign IPs dynamically. This
> is even true for many DSL and Broadband providers. In such cases the
> only thing a checkuser will tell you is that both accounts in question
> are (for example) Comcast users in Chicago or Bellsouth DSL users in
> Birmingham. A few years ago I was blocked for a month. So was every
> other user in Atlanta whose ISP used Level3 POPs all thanks to some
> dickhead called alberuni who was also an earthlink subscriber in
> Atlanta (or another ISP in Atlanta using Level3 POPs) . If someone
> suspected me of being a sockpuppet of user:alberuni, a checkuser would
> likely say I was.

Well, no, maybe not.

An automatic unthinking comparison of the IPs would probably say you
were, if it was done by someone half-asleep*. But one of the reasons
there are very few people with checkuser access is to ensure that the
ones who are there have sufficient clue to look at the IPs and figure
out what they mean, then combine that with editing patterns and so on.

Checkuser raw data is one thing, but the result is based on more than
just taking a string of numbers and seeing if any of them are the
same...

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

* like I am now. damnit, where's the coffee jar...


from_name: Risker

subject: [WikiEN-l] What a sock puppet looks like to an amateur

body:
Actually, I was more wondering if Sue was a sock of Chahax, as their sudden
crossing of paths seemed rather curious too.

Risker

On 3/18/07, K P <kpbotany at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> (sorry if I duplicate this post)
>
>
> Sometimes I wonder though when I find an editor who seems just like
> another
> editor.   Funny, how these two appear to have almost cloned each other's
> users pages.
>
>
>
> See, *this* is what I call a sock-puppet:
>
>
>
> A quote from User:Nesbit/User:Sue Rangell
>
>
>
> Why I do Wikipedia
>
>
>
> Wikipedia is an excellent example of how knowledge can be socially
> constructed. The editing and discussion tools constitute a collaborative
> knowledge building environment that stands as an alternative model to
> threaded asynchronous conferences, collaborative annotation systems,
> blogs,
> and software development systems.
>
>
>
> They also are both have a discrete number (less than twelve) of right
> justified, paragraph spaced rather than continually stacked,  user boxes
> identifying both as native speakers of English, left handed, skeptical of
> MBTL (whatever that is), users of Mozilla firefox browsers, they both
> program in Pascal and HTML, and they both may, one day, become
> self-proclaimed professional procastinators.
>
>
> As for professional interests, they both have the exact same list:
>
>
>
> My professional interests on Wikipedia include:
>
> Cognitive psychology
>
> Concept mapping
>
> Knowledge representation
>
> ?
>
> Music Synthesizers
>
> Jazz
>
> Computer programming
>
>
>
> *Interesting enough, in light of the Essjay scandal, they both claim to be
> professors or educators at universities*, one a woman in the department of
> education at DeMoines University (sic), the other a man at a university in
> Canada.  Only the man links to his faculty page, whereas I assume the
> spelling might be an issue with the woman's link--is there really a
> DeMoines
> University?
>
>
>
> I've run across a handful of pairs like this on Wikipedia, both active
> editors, just like these two--Nesbit just editing a few days ago, Sue
> posting a poorly written snowball of an article to FAC today.  They seem
> more like socks, to me, than the random rantors that pop up on this list
> every once in a while. They come up in unusual situations, like GA
> nominations, FAC.  Sue Rangell's nomination for FAC was such a poorly
> written article, ridiculously made into a series of lists, that I wondered
> what else she had done.  Not much considering she only made her user page
> and first edit a week ago, but has already been giving away barnstars like
> crazy and getting awards, too.
>
>
>
> I suppose there is some obvious explanation for this, so I'll just ask
> User:Nesbit if User:Sue Rangell is his sock puppet.  But like last time I
> asked this, I just got a denial, although the editor in question did stop
> supporting him/herself on GA nominations.
>
>
>
> Am I missing something?  I suppose if the socks are not misbehaving it's
> not
> an issue, so maybe that's why administrators are not commenting upon
> these.
>
>
>
> But check user?  Similar whiney rants on this list?  It's not like whining
> requires finese and originality, especially when angry.
>
>
>
> KP
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


list: foundation-l

from_name: Stephen Bain

subject: [Foundation-l] Help with impersonation

body:
On 3/18/07, NSLE (Wikipedia) <nsle.wikipedia at gmail.com> wrote:
> The accounts do have edits, unfortunately.

As far as I am aware, there's no technical reason why accounts with
edits cannot be usurped, that's just a policy position that has been
adopted on enwiki.

I personally would have no problem with usurping accounts with edits
if it could be clearly established that the account was created to
impersonate another user.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Help with impersonation


list: commons-l

from_name: Florian Straub

subject: [Commons-l] Making a home wiki field in user login

body:
"peter green" <plugwash at P10Link.net> wrote on Saturday, February 17, 2007
5:20 AM:

>> Idea is nice, but we could use categories/userpages for that.
>> Dont forget, we are just another wiki.
> and some people do use thier userpage for that, but the vast majority
> don't.
>
> we need to get the home wiki information at signup time because with drive
> by users we may not get another chance.
>
> i think we may even need to go as far as making it mandatory to specify
> username, password and wiki for an account on another wikimedia wiki at
> signup time. If we don't make it mandatory then the very people we need
> the info for the most are the type that are least likely to give it to us.

Just a try, but what do you think about this:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Welcomecreation

Best regards,

Flo


from_name: Ryan Wetherell

subject: [WikiEN-l] User space needs to be more clearly marked

body:
On 3/18/07, xaosflux <xaosflux at gmail.com> wrote:
> Umm, what skin are you using, in the defaul skin (monobook) Article space is
> a white background, everything else is light blue last I checked.
>
> en:User:xaosflux

I prefer the Classic skin over Monobook due to this difference.

--Ryan

--
[[en:User:Merovingian]]


from_name: Bryan Tong Minh

body:
Looks great!

On 3/18/07, Florian Straub <flominator at gmx.net> wrote:
> "peter green" <plugwash at P10Link.net> wrote on Saturday, February 17, 2007
> 5:20 AM:
>
> >> Idea is nice, but we could use categories/userpages for that.
> >> Dont forget, we are just another wiki.
> > and some people do use thier userpage for that, but the vast majority
> > don't.
> >
> > we need to get the home wiki information at signup time because with drive
> > by users we may not get another chance.
> >
> > i think we may even need to go as far as making it mandatory to specify
> > username, password and wiki for an account on another wikimedia wiki at
> > signup time. If we don't make it mandatory then the very people we need
> > the info for the most are the type that are least likely to give it to us.
>
> Just a try, but what do you think about this:
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Welcomecreation
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Flo
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>


from_name: Ben Yates

body:
I think you chose a bad example -- baseline, people who don't know
anything about the history or present of comics shouldn't put
comics-related articles up for deletion just because they've never
heard of the comic being mentioned.

On 3/18/07, Jossi Fresco <jossifresco at mac.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 18, 2007, at 11:27 AM, Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
>
> > Some free help for all the anti-Wikipedia critics out there... yes,
> > you... I know you're reading this... you might want to copy-and-paste
> > from here to help in your next rant against Wikipedia.  No matter
> > what they do, or fail to do, you can find something to use against
> > them if you do it properly.
>
> Worthy of an "Essay of the year" award!
>
> -- Jossi
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Ben Yates
Wikipedia blog - http://wikip.blogspot.com


from_name: ikiroid

subject: [WikiEN-l] Most Baffling Articles Award 2007

body:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Club_Champion_Football&direction=prev&oldid=108404067

Lol, someone loves internet translators.


from_name: Ron Ritzman

body:
On 3/18/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:

> There appears to be a shortage of cases where "I've never heard of it"
> is given as the deletion reason.

While "I've never heard of it" might rarely be used in an AFD, it
might be what motivates one to file with a more "professional"
sounding reason. Of course this is speculation on my part.

In the case of webcomic AFDs, I think (and this is also speculation)
that they are due to a "anti-fancruft" sentiment among some editors
and admins. For example take a look at this AN/I post about one user
who made a lot of webcomic AFDs and was called to the carpet for
them...

http://tinyurl.com/2jbfy8

What's interesting is that he sounded absolutely bewildered that there
was opposition to his noms  and that more editors wouldn't help him
fight the fanboyz.


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:

>On 3/18/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>We have no need to be strict about notability.  Having stray articles
>>that escape some subjective criterion for notability does no great
>>harm.  If these stubby articles are so lacking in notability it is
>>unlikely that anyone will look at them anyways.
>>
>>
>The main harm they do is maintenance effort. I can tell you from
>watching the stubs that I've created that even very short stubs seem
>to require a lot of cleaning and polishing. Someone adds a category.
>Someone refines the stub tag. Someone else fixes a typo. Someone adds
>a cleanup tag. Someone fixes another typo. Someone else notices that
>nothing links to the stub, and adds the orphan tag. Someone else
>realises I've mistyped the ISBN for my main reference, and adds a tag
>suggesting that maybe I made it up. Someone else comes past and
>confirms that the ISBN is rubbish.[1] Someone else figures out what
>the typo is and updates it. Someone else updates the reference so that
>it includes the full name of the author and book title.
>
That seems like a good description of things happening normally.  Are
you saying that it's harmful for people to be doing normal work.  As our
subject base gets deeper into more obscure territory we can also expect
that the time lag for fixing these things will get longer.  The universe
is unfolding as it should.

>And all this for a 2 sentence article! Now of course *I* would never
>write a crappy stub about a non-notable subject which would be deleted
>([[Claudio Gonzales]] aside...), but others do.
>
That article doesn't exist so I have no basis for commenting on Mr.
Gonzalez' notability.  A 2 sentence article is the start of what can
become something bigger.  One just needs patience in waiting for that to
happen

>So, bad stubs on bad subjects create work (and the worse the stub, the
>more work). Therefore we do need some minimimum level of positive
>value from a stub, or the net value to the project is negative.
>
But still much less work than arguing about something's notability.
There is no way to define a "minimum level of positive value" because it
is so subject dependent.  Debating what that level would be is far more
energy draining than the fixups that you described above.

Ec


from_name: Matthew Brown

body:
On 3/18/07, xaosflux <xaosflux at gmail.com> wrote:
> Umm, what skin are you using, in the defaul skin (monobook) Article space is
> a white background, everything else is light blue last I checked.

A difference, sure, but not all that great - and certainly not a
difference obvious to the casual reader.

-Matt


list: wikitech-l

from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2007-03-19

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

This is MediaWiki version 1.10alpha (r20555).

Reading tests from "maintenance/parserTests.txt"...
Reading tests from "extensions/Cite/citeParserTests.txt"...
Reading tests from "extensions/Poem/poemParserTests.txt"...

  17 still FAILING test(s) :(
      * URL-encoding in URL functions (single parameter)  [Has never passed]
      * URL-encoding in URL functions (multiple parameters)  [Has never passed]
      * Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)  [Has never passed]
      * Link containing double-single-quotes '' (bug 4598)  [Has never passed]
      * message transform: <noinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)  [Has never passed]
      * message transform: <onlyinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)  [Has never passed]
      * BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled  [Has never passed]
      * HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)  [Has never passed]
      * HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)  [Has never passed]
      * HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)  [Has never passed]
      * HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)  [Has never passed]
      * Inline HTML vs wiki block nesting  [Has never passed]
      * Mixing markup for italics and bold  [Has never passed]
      * dt/dd/dl test  [Has never passed]
      * Images with the "|" character in the comment  [Has never passed]
      * Parents of subpages, two levels up, without trailing slash or name.  [Has never passed]
      * Parents of subpages, two levels up, with lots of extra trailing slashes.  [Has never passed]

Passed 494 of 511 tests (96.67%)... 17 tests failed!


body:
On 3/18/07, Ben P. <benp87 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Matthew Brown wrote:
> > On 3/18/07, xaosflux <xaosflux at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Umm, what skin are you using, in the defaul skin (monobook) Article space is
> >> a white background, everything else is light blue last I checked.
> >
> > A difference, sure, but not all that great - and certainly not a
> > difference obvious to the casual reader.
>
> A more noticeable difference would be to auto-play annoying background
> music and/or multiple videos on all user pages.  MySpace has it down.

Heh!

I think my point still stands - the subtle background color difference
between namespaces in Wikipedia's monobook skin is functionally
meaningless for anyone except those quite familiar with our site.

-Matt


from_name: xaosflux

body:
Umm, what skin are you using, in the defaul skin (monobook) Article space is
a white background, everything else is light blue last I checked.

en:User:xaosflux
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Bennett" <stevagewp at gmail.com>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 11:40 PM
Subject: [WikiEN-l] User space needs to be more clearly marked

> Hi all,
>  I was helping my girlfriend's little sister with a school project
> last night. Like all high school students, when asked to "research" a
> topic, she gets on google and pretty soon ends up at Wikipedia. For
> some reason that I don't understand, she wound up on a copy of
> [[Paris]] stored in someone's user space. She had no idea - not the
> faintest. I noticed because the URL wasn't quite right, and tried to
> explain to her, getting questions like "So, what's wrong? The
> information is so good!"
>
> So, is there anything we can do to make REALLY REALLY CLEAR to
> visitors that User space is *not* article space? For that matter,
> perhaps we should have one colour for article space, and another
> colour for *everything else*?
>
> Steve
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Ben P.

body:
Matthew Brown wrote:
> On 3/18/07, xaosflux <xaosflux at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Umm, what skin are you using, in the defaul skin (monobook) Article space is
>> a white background, everything else is light blue last I checked.
>
> A difference, sure, but not all that great - and certainly not a
> difference obvious to the casual reader.

A more noticeable difference would be to auto-play annoying background
music and/or multiple videos on all user pages.  MySpace has it down.

-Ben


from_name: geni

body:
On 3/19/07, Ben Yates <ben.louis.yates at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think you chose a bad example -- baseline, people who don't know
> anything about the history or present of comics shouldn't put
> comics-related articles up for deletion just because they've never
> heard of the comic being mentioned.
>

There appears to be a shortage of cases where "I've never heard of it"
is given as the deletion reason.

--
geni


from_name: Ian Tresman

subject: [Wikitech-l] E-mail password abuse

body:
I have some joker who thinks its funny to hit the "E-mail password"
button on the log-in page for my account. They are going in via an
anonymous proxy.

Any suggestions how can prevent the abuse? For example, adding a
2-minute delay between its use?

Regards,
Ian


from_name: Daniel P. B. Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] How to Prove Wikipedia Sucks,	based on

body:
> From: "Ron Ritzman" <ritzman at gmail.com>
>
> While "I've never heard of it" might rarely be used in an AFD, it
> might be what motivates one to file with a more "professional"
> sounding reason. Of course this is speculation on my part.

Wait a minute here. Say someone nominates an article for deletion as
failing to meet notability criteria, in an area where I am not an
expert but would expect to have heard of the truly notable items. I'm
trying.

If I've heard of it, I'm inclined to think it's notable, because I'm
not an expert.

I'm only going to _consider_ deleting it if I _haven't_ heard of it.

Anything dishonest so far?

OK, next step. I perform what I call "due diligence." This means
making some kind of independent effort on my own to determine whether
the item is notable. For example, if it's a book, I have a personal
criterion which is that anything with an Amazon sales rank number
greater than 200,000 is not notable, and, similarly, a person whose
claim to notability is authorship who has not authored a book with an
Amazon sales rank greater than 200,000 is not notable. The point is
not whether this is a great test; the point is that it's my own test
and it's usually independent of what has gone before.

That is, I base my judgement on seeing for myself, rather than
deciding which of the people who have gone before have made the
cleverest remark or anything like that.

Then I vote.

And you would characterize this as "motivated by 'I've never heard of
it' but filing with a 'more professional-sounding reason?'"

What do you think would be honest behavior? Always voting "keep" on
items you've never heard of?


from_name: Robert Leverington

subject: [Wikitech-l] E-mail password abuse

body:
I belive we have had a discussion of a similar nature before. One of
the solutions is to limit the number of clicks on the button a day per
an IP address (however this may cause problems on shared IPs') or to
limit the number of clicks per an account per a day (something low
such as 3 is probably enough).
Yours,
Robert.

On 19/03/07, Ian Tresman <it at knowledge.co.uk> wrote:
> I have some joker who thinks its funny to hit the "E-mail password"
> button on the log-in page for my account. They are going in via an
> anonymous proxy.
>
> Any suggestions how can prevent the abuse? For example, adding a
> 2-minute delay between its use?
>
> Regards,
> Ian
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Foundation-l] Cary Bass (Bastique) hired as Volunteer Coordinator

body:
Dear community,

I would like to announce officially that the Wikimedia Foundation has
decided to hire Cary Bass (User:Bastique on various wikis, most active
on Commons) as Volunteer Coordinator. He will work full-time in the
Wikimedia Foundation office in St. Petersburg, Florida.

Please see

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-February/028066.html

for the original job description. Kat and I will work with Cary in the
very short term to refine this description and help him define his
areas of work.

Cary's most relevant experience is as a long time community member,
including his work as part of our OTRS e-mail response team. He has
shown on numerous occasions that he has the ability to motivate people
and to get things done, while being diligent and well-organized. The
entire Board and Staff has met Cary this weekend in St. Petersburg,
and I believe it's fair to say that we're all very happy to have him
onboard. Thanks to everyone else who applied.

Hiring Cary is part of our long term commitment to making sure that
the global volunteer community will be involved not just in
project-level work, but also in all aspects of what our organization
is doing. Expect some exciting initiatives from him in the near
future. :-)

Erik M?ller
Executive Secretary, Wikimedia Foundation


subject: [WikiEN-l] Links: a philosophical problem

body:
On 3/19/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> So: should we link to a retailer's sales page as a reference for
> (trivial?) information?  Does the presence of a "buy now" link in and
> of itself introduce a problem for the project?

Absolutely, if it's the most reliable source readily available, and
IMO it doesn't introduce a problem for the project.  Quite frequently
sources for commercial products will be commercial sites; most
software and many other products can be purchased from their
producer's sites, for instance.

If one is going to cite a commercial website for such trivial but
likely non-controversial information, and it can't be obtained
directly "from the horse's mouth", Amazon is possibly one of the most
reputable commercial sites for that info.

I'd also say that a worse-quality non-commercial source is not
necessarily preferable.  Given equal quality, I'd prefer the
non-commercial source.

-Matt


from_name: George Herbert

subject: [WikiEN-l] An Open Letter to Mr. Wales

body:
On 3/18/07, K P <kpbotany at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/18/07, Ron Ritzman <ritzman at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 3/18/07, K P <kpbotany at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > A lot of the rants from various unrelated users on this list complaining
> > > about being blocked sound exactly alike.
> >
> > Of course because they all have something in common, they were all,
> > justifiably or otherwise, blocked and they were all pissed off about
> > it.
>
>
> Yeah, Arbcom wrote something under the RfAR for an admin recently, that
> admins should be above the being pissed off, mostly, I assume, because of
> something somewhere else, a Wikipedia page where it says exactly what you
> say: users get ticked off when they're blocked.
>
> A "duh" moment if ever there was one.  I do think that's why so many posters
> sound exactly alike and then get further accused of being sock puppets, they
> have a DSL line, so it will be easy to find some banned user on the same
> ISP.
>
> Another duh moment, when I had not thought of the obvious, is that one user
> is probably simply copying another user!  I suspect my other ones were the
> same, where one user just copied another.  It seems so obvious in
> retrospect, because copying is rampant in this day and age, why would I
> expect Wikipedia users to be exceptions?  (Except of course for the pair
> involved in the GA fracus who did cut it out.)
>
> Now that I think of it, that's also a good way to learn where to go and how
> to use Wikipedia quickly, look at the contributions of another editor, and
> just follow their paths a bit.  Which could end up making you sound like the
> other editor, or a more experienced editor.
>
> Yes, always nice to wake up alerted to the obvious simultaneous with your
> own obliviousness.

That does happen, and people who think alike in ways often find each
other randomly in WP and reinforce each other to some extent (there's
another guy whose first name is George who edits on some similar
topics to me, but he's in Australia, and I'm in California).

But, if you find two people editing very similarly, particularly the
"one is blocked and another one starts up", and checkuser says they're
either at the same IP or neighbors, then one has to at least very
suspiciously wonder.

If there are abuses of similar sorts going along with both accounts,
the odds that it's a sock appear to approach unity.

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


subject:
[Foundation-l] Cary Bass (Bastique) hired as Volunteer
	Coordinator

body:
On 3/18/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Dear community,
>
> I would like to announce officially that the Wikimedia Foundation has
> decided to hire Cary Bass (User:Bastique on various wikis, most active
> on Commons) as Volunteer Coordinator. He will work full-time in the
> Wikimedia Foundation office in St. Petersburg, Florida.

Congratulations Cary.  A position which is clearly needed, and a good
person for it.

Good luck!

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


subject: [Wikitech-l] E-mail password abuse

body:
At 07:29 19/03/2007, you wrote:
>I belive we have had a discussion of a similar nature before. One of
>the solutions is to limit the number of clicks on the button a day per
>an IP address (however this may cause problems on shared IPs') or to
>limit the number of clicks per an account per a day (something low
>such as 3 is probably enough).

And another option would be for the person to enter their own valid
email address, which needs validating before the password is sent out
to the password-associated email address?

Regards,
Ian

>Yours,
>Robert.
>
>On 19/03/07, Ian Tresman <it at knowledge.co.uk> wrote:
> > I have some joker who thinks its funny to hit the "E-mail password"
> > button on the log-in page for my account. They are going in via an
> > anonymous proxy.
> >
> > Any suggestions how can prevent the abuse? For example, adding a
> > 2-minute delay between its use?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Ian
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> >
>
>_______________________________________________
>Wikitech-l mailing list
>Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


body:
On 3/18/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Steve Bennett wrote:
> >The main harm they do is maintenance effort. I can tell you from
> >watching the stubs that I've created that even very short stubs seem
> >to require a lot of cleaning and polishing.  [...]
> >
> That seems like a good description of things happening normally.  Are
> you saying that it's harmful for people to be doing normal work.  As our
> subject base gets deeper into more obscure territory we can also expect
> that the time lag for fixing these things will get longer.  The universe
> is unfolding as it should.

I would agree. I *do* think that it is unfortunate that people spend
more effort on classifying a stub than actually helping improve it,
but in a volunteer project, people do what makes them happy; stub
sorting makes some people happy.

I think, Steve, that you're applying a commercial project's logic to a
volunteer project.  In a commercial project, workers can be reassigned
to things that are 'more important'.  In a volunteer project, people
assign themselves tasks that are 'more interesting', for their
personal definition of interesting, naturally.  I think it's
fallacious to think that if we cut down on stubs, the people that
spend all their time doing these little maintenance things would do
something 'more useful'.

-Matt


subject: [WikiEN-l] An Open Letter to Mr. Wales

body:
On 3/17/07, Sharon, Lois Bram <oneelephant at gmail.com> wrote:
> Sir,
>
> that cannot possibly be correct.

I won't forward a private email, but the Steward's wording was "Both
the first and second Elephant accounts shared an IP with RunedChozo".

That is IP singular.

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


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Missing Dumps

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

Nick Jenkins wrote:
>> Note that:
>> 1) There isn't a regular schedule
>> 2) Not all wikis run at the same time.
>> 3) The very large wikis run less frequently
>> 4) The last few days dumps are on hold as I'm fixing some longstanding
>> problems in the dump generator. New dumps will commence within a few days.
>
>
> Potentially crazy idea, but given the above, what if there was a per-backed-up-wiki
> RSS / ATOM feed that would include a notification when new dumps were generated?

Crazy, but good crazy. :)

I'll slip that into my updates; updating an RSS .xml file would not be
difficult at all.

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

iD8DBQFF/pcbwRnhpk1wk44RAl1uAJ9j9kqtVYsxpxqrok5I7OqorhrIbwCgi3O2
knw3dXBS1Zox7ndHT09eu0g=
=fvUb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Andrew Gray

body:
On 19/03/07, Matthew Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:

> > A more noticeable difference would be to auto-play annoying background
> > music and/or multiple videos on all user pages.  MySpace has it down.
>
> Heh!
>
> I think my point still stands - the subtle background color difference
> between namespaces in Wikipedia's monobook skin is functionally
> meaningless for anyone except those quite familiar with our site.

It's certainly indistinguishable from "the same but the screen is
playing up"... I don't think I've ever explicitly noticed it. A red
bar around the edges of the 'article' and a boxed note at the top or
the bottom? It would certainly annoy all the OMG THIS IS MY PRETTY
USERPAGE people, but one can argue if that's a bug or a feature!

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


from_name: cohesion

body:
On 3/19/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> I can't see any difference at all, even when I'm looking for it. I'm
> using monobook and don't seem to have any custom css at all (I thought
> I did, but it must all be js instead), so if it's there, I would
> expect to see it...

It's a fairly small color change, on some monitors depending on your
gamma settings and contrast it is near impossible to discern. It is
*quite* pale.

I would be in favor of not having things that look like articles in
user space at all, but then I have never understood why people need to
"stage" articles in the first place.

Is the problem really that userspace doesn't have a big red border, or
that userspace has an article on Paris?

Judson
enwiki:cohesion


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

body:
I have a dispute with another editor in respect of this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screamers_%281995_film%29

Question: should we use the Amazon sales page as a reference for the
release date on VHS?

I say we should not, because we should not link to pages with a "buy
here" link, it sends the wrong message to the legions of spammers, it
gives the impression of double standards (we revert spammer.com but
leave amazon.com, It's Not Fair[tm]) and the link guideline always
used to say not to link to commercial sites.

On the other hand it is the most convenient place to find the VHS
release date, a fact which is clearly so vital it cannot be omitted
and so controversial that it cannot be allowed to stand without a
citation.  OK, small dose of sarcasm there.

So: should we link to a retailer's sales page as a reference for
(trivial?) information?  Does the presence of a "buy now" link in and
of itself introduce a problem for the project?

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


from_name: Angela

body:
On 3/19/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> I have a dispute with another editor in respect of this article:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screamers_%281995_film%29
>
> Question: should we use the Amazon sales page as a reference for the
> release date on VHS?

The external links guideline is different to the sources guideline. I
don't think there's any problem citing a commercial site as a source
even when you wouldn't want to list it in the external links section.
If that is the best or only source, then it ought to be cited.

Angela


from_name: David Gerard

body:
On 19/03/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:

> Question: should we use the Amazon sales page as a reference for the
> release date on VHS?
[...]
> So: should we link to a retailer's sales page as a reference for
> (trivial?) information?  Does the presence of a "buy now" link in and
> of itself introduce a problem for the project?

Is it a good reference? Is it accurate? Then it's an improvement on nothing.

(What spammers say is not a good argument - spammers will say
*anything* that supports their marketing initiatives.)

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Trust vs. Credentials (was Re: Accountability:

body:
On 3/11/07, Gwern Branwen <gwern0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> No. USENET was/is a lot worse. Spam is permanently a fact of life
> there (wasn't the first ever piece of spam a Usenet message?),

jj at cup.portal.com

As was the first commercial spam (Canter and Siegel; I had the
displeasure of being the #2 tech person at their secondary ISP).

> they invented the trolls and are trolled by Scientology to a more
> significant degree than Wikipedia (when was the lest time you
> heard of User:Anon.penet.fi being sued by the Church of
> Scientology on the wiki?) And they have real cabals on Usenet,

Hah.

> not
> to mention the whole idea of canceling posts, cross-threading,
> etc. Say what you will about Wikipedia, but it's a much more
> pleasant, less volatile and less transient place to work. The two
> are different fundamentally, anyway.

True.

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


from_name: Thomas Dalton

body:
> Umm, what skin are you using, in the defaul skin (monobook) Article space is
> a white background, everything else is light blue last I checked.

I can't see any difference at all, even when I'm looking for it. I'm
using monobook and don't seem to have any custom css at all (I thought
I did, but it must all be js instead), so if it's there, I would
expect to see it...


from_name: NSLE (Wikipedia)

subject: [Foundation-l] Help with impersonation

body:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Z.E.R.O.&curid=9765516&diff=116170665&oldid=116112172Or
not...

On 18/03/07, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/18/07, NSLE (Wikipedia) <nsle.wikipedia at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The accounts do have edits, unfortunately. Thanks, everyone. Hopefully
> he'll
> > admit that he's behind all this and apologise. :/
>
> It doesn't look like it. He's just "retired" on Wikipedia:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Z.E.R.O.&oldid=115878507
>
> Angela
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Help with impersonation


subject: [Wikitech-l] E-mail password abuse

body:
At 11:10 19/03/2007, you wrote:
>2007/3/19, Ian Tresman <it at knowledge.co.uk>:
>
> > And another option would be for the person to enter their own valid
> > email address, which needs validating before the password is sent out
> > to the password-associated email address?
>
>
>Emmm... No, that wouldn't work. To validate the e-mail address, we need to
>send a message to that e-mail address, so the person could cause the same
>kind of trouble by hitting the button to validate your address.

I'm trying to think of a method which would (a) introduce a time
delay between password reminder requests (b) make it a hassle to
request it frequently.

How about for people who press the "E-mail password button":

1. Present a block of nine random 5-letter text blocks, and ask the
user to enter from word block M (0 < M < 10), the Nth letter (0 < N <
6. And do this three times. I think people would get bored having to
do this each time. eg.

HIWPS PEQXX PFLEE PEDLX POSLN DOWWS DWEZI EODSW EPLDK

a. Enter from block 6 the 3rd letter
b. Enter from block 2 the 5th letter
c. Enter from block 8 the 2nd letter [...]

Regards,
Ian


from_name: Łukasz Garczewski

body:
On 3/19/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Dear community,
>
> I would like to announce officially that the Wikimedia Foundation has
> decided to hire Cary Bass (User:Bastique on various wikis, most active
> on Commons) as Volunteer Coordinator. He will work full-time in the
> Wikimedia Foundation office in St. Petersburg, Florida.

Congratulations, Bastique. :)

--
?ukasz 'TOR' Garczewski


from_name: Andre Engels

subject: [Wikitech-l] E-mail password abuse

body:
2007/3/19, Ian Tresman <it at knowledge.co.uk>:

> And another option would be for the person to enter their own valid
> email address, which needs validating before the password is sent out
> to the password-associated email address?

Emmm... No, that wouldn't work. To validate the e-mail address, we need to
send a message to that e-mail address, so the person could cause the same
kind of trouble by hitting the button to validate your address.

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


from_name: Manuel Schneider

subject: [Wikitech-l] E-mail password abuse

body:
> I swear this was previously solved by Tim Starling in 1.8...

I had such a problem some days ago where a mail adress of a user was wrong. So
I corrected it in the DB but wasn't able to send another password reminder as
I was told by MediaWiki that this can be done only once per 24 h.

--
Regards
Manuel Schneider

Wikimedia CH - Verein zur F?rderung Freien Wissens
Wikimedia CH - Association for the advancement of free knowledge
www.wikimedia.ch


from_name: Brian Salter-Duke

body:
On Sat, Mar 17, 2007 at 09:52:30PM -0400, Philip Sandifer wrote:
>
> On Mar 17, 2007, at 6:57 PM, Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
>
> >
> >While I do agree with you on this article, your general point I find
> >very questionable. When did it become such a ridiculous idea that
> >subjects of articles in an *encyclopedia* should meet some criterion
> >of notability? That is the way encyclopedias always have been.
> >
>
> Argument from tradition seems to me difficult with Wikipedia.
> Encyclopedias, after all, have always been written on paper, by
> experts. Notability, in that case, was a factor of including only the
> most important information - after all, if you add an article on
> chicken hypnotism, you have to remove another article.
> >There are of course very pragmatic reasons for requiring notability
> >(maintainability, privacy and original research, amongst others), but
> >there are very convincing philosophical arguments that convinces me
> >that it is a Good Thing. We are an encyclopedia first, everything else
> >second. With every decision we make, that should be our number 1
> >consideration. If we let non-encyclopedic topics in we will be a worse
> >encyclopedia, and therefore we shouldn't do it. How is that not all
> >that matters?
>
> But see, this is where the argument gets strange - what's
> "encyclopedic" is a factor of a restriction on paper encyclopedias
> that we don't have. Since Wikipedia is vastly larger than any paper
> encyclopedia, we've already clearly abandoned any standard of
> encyclopedicness that can be derived from an external standard having
> to do with "what encyclopedias are." The standards thus become very
> much subjective - we delete articles, essentially, because a lot of
> people don't like them, and describe this dislike in terms of whether
> the article is encyclopedic.
>
> The useful description is "if we let topics in that it is impossible
> to write a good article about." But that has nothing to do with
> notability as such.
>
> -Phil

What we should be comparing ourselves to is the total sum of distinctive
articles in all paper encyclopedias including very specialised ones. We
would have to exclude topics for which there is no specialised
encyclopedia but where we have agreed to have articles. Has anyone done
that comparision?

When I look at some specialised encyclopedias in my speciualised areas,
we are still a long way short. Even on biographies of notable
scientists, we are still way behind.

Brian.

> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
> End of WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 44, Issue 140
> *****************************************

--
          Brian Salter-Duke            b_duke at bigpond.net.au
               [[User:Bduke]]  mainly on en:Wikipedia.
           Also on fr: Wikipedia, Meta-Wiki and Wikiversity


from_name: Nick Jenkins

subject: [Wikitech-l] Missing Dumps

body:
> Jochen Magnus wrote:
> > Please can somebody verify that http://download.wikimedia.org/dewiki/ is
> > the right place to download dumps from Wikipedia? The last dump which I
> > can see is from Feb 7.
>
> Yep.
>
> Note that:
> 1) There isn't a regular schedule
> 2) Not all wikis run at the same time.
> 3) The very large wikis run less frequently
> 4) The last few days dumps are on hold as I'm fixing some longstanding
> problems in the dump generator. New dumps will commence within a few days.

Potentially crazy idea, but given the above, what if there was a per-backed-up-wiki
RSS / ATOM feed that would include a notification when new dumps were generated?
That way the content (say WP:EN for example) could carried be on any Planets
(or in any feed-reading software), and instead of being a pull-type system
(with people having to check back regularly for dumps, which are generated on
an irregular schedule), it becomes more a push-type system (you get notified
when dumps are complete, and if you want them, then you go get them).

I'm not sure if that helps anyone though (i.e. there is no point in doing it
if nobody is interested in the notifications).

All the best,
Nick.


subject: [Foundation-l] Help with impersonation

body:
The impersonator's somewhat surprising response to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Z.E.R.O.#Sockpuppet

"Sorry, I did not realize that using the same username as other people
in other wikis would cause impersonation. I thought there was not any
rule for using the same username until now."

Angela


subject: [Foundation-l] Help with impersonation


from_name: christoph.huesler at css.ch

subject: [Wikitech-l] Antwort: Re:  E-mail password abuse

body:
ian wrote:
> How about for people who press the "E-mail password button":
>
> 1. Present a block of nine random 5-letter text blocks, and ask the
> user to enter from word block M (0 < M < 10), the Nth letter (0 < N <
> 6. And do this three times. I think people would get bored having to
> do this each time. eg.
>
> HIWPS PEQXX PFLEE PEDLX POSLN DOWWS DWEZI EODSW EPLDK
>
> a. Enter from block 6 the 3rd letter
> b. Enter from block 2 the 5th letter
> c. Enter from block 8 the 2nd letter [...]

Useless, because this algorithm could be easily prevented by some little
script...

A throttle is the best solution, I think. And already implemented, isn't
it?

-- chris


from_name: Mark Wagner

subject:
[WikiEN-l] OT (was Re: Fwd: Oops (or,
	be careful when quoting Wikipedia in your newspaper, part 2))

body:
On 3/16/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:

> Totally off-topic, but I notice that many of those squeezable mops
> have a huge sign saying WARNING: WET MOP BEFORE WRINGING OUT.
>
> I don't understand:
> a) how it's possible to wring out a dry mop
> b) why you would want to wring out a dry mop
> c) what harm could result.

"a" is because "wringing" is being used as a shorthand for "operating
the wringing mechanism".  "c" is because many materials are less
flexible when dry than when wet, something that is not obvious to the
average person.  As an extreme example, take two sticks.  Soak one of
them in water for a few days, then tie each of them in a knot.  Guess
which one breaks in the process?

--
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]


from_name: Platonides

subject: [Wikitech-l] es.wikipedia live mirrors

body:
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Especial:Recentchanges

http://www.santiago.es/ir.php?var=Especial:Recentchanges
http://biografia.musikeiro.com.ar/?title=Especial:Recentchanges


body:
On 3/18/07, xaosflux <xaosflux at gmail.com> wrote:
> Umm, what skin are you using, in the defaul skin (monobook) Article space is
> a white background, everything else is light blue last I checked.

Thanks for pointing that out - I never noticed before, because on an
LCD monitor, the two colors are almost indistinguishable.

--
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]


from_name: Bartning at aol.com

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Want to Begin by Complaining about Suspected
	Sockpuppet Account

body:
In a message dated 3/12/2007 3:40:59 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
wikipedia at downlode.org writes:

On  12/03/07, Ron Ritzman <ritzman at gmail.com> wrote:
> then he's a  "meat puppet" which is not allowed.

Worst neologism ever.

--
Earle Martin

Yeah, "sock puppets" make more sense than "meat puppets."  I think  it's not
well thought out to include the two together.

Vincent

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


from_name: Steve Bennett

body:
On 3/18/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> We have no need to be strict about notability.  Having stray articles
> that escape some subjective criterion for notability does no great
> harm.  If these stubby articles are so lacking in notability it is
> unlikely that anyone will look at them anyways.

The main harm they do is maintenance effort. I can tell you from
watching the stubs that I've created that even very short stubs seem
to require a lot of cleaning and polishing. Someone adds a category.
Someone refines the stub tag. Someone else fixes a typo. Someone adds
a cleanup tag. Someone fixes another typo. Someone else notices that
nothing links to the stub, and adds the orphan tag. Someone else
realises I've mistyped the ISBN for my main reference, and adds a tag
suggesting that maybe I made it up. Someone else comes past and
confirms that the ISBN is rubbish.[1] Someone else figures out what
the typo is and updates it. Someone else updates the reference so that
it includes the full name of the author and book title.

And all this for a 2 sentence article! Now of course *I* would never
write a crappy stub about a non-notable subject which would be deleted
([[Claudio Gonzales]] aside...), but others do.

So, bad stubs on bad subjects create work (and the worse the stub, the
more work). Therefore we do need some minimimum level of positive
value from a stub, or the net value to the project is negative.

Steve
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tumba_%28drum%29&action=history
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Recentchangeslinked&target=User:Stevage/Stubs&hideminor=0&days=30&limit=500
for an idea of all the minor changes that occur to stubs. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Stevage/stubs for an idea of the
ratio of stubs that get de-stubbed and those that remain stubs.


from_name: George Herbert

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

body:
On 3/19/07, James Farrar <james.farrar at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 19/03/07, Stan Shebs <stanshebs at earthlink.net> wrote:
> > MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
> > > Based on my experience in previous years, I have no doubt April 1 will bring
> > > out a lot of pranksters.
> > > We had a lot of mess before. Are there any preparations to keep things under
> > > control this year?
> > > If not, we should organize something ASAP.
> > >
> > You could get a two-fer by announcing that WP is now "completed" and
> > that therefore no further editing is necessary, then protect (or
> > semi-protect?) all pages for the 48 hours necessary to catch all timezones.
> >
> > :-)
>
> I like it :)

Or just revert the database back 48 hrs after the fun's all run its course...

"What April 1?  There was no April 1 this year, we skipped straight to
the Second..."

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


body:
In a message dated 3/11/2007 8:51:17 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
gwern0 at gmail.com writes:

No.  USENET was/is a lot worse. Spam is permanently a fact of life
there  (wasn't the first ever piece of spam a Usenet message?),
they invented the  trolls and are trolled by Scientology to a more
significant degree than  Wikipedia (when was the lest time you
heard of User:Anon.penet.fi being  sued by the Church of
Scientology on the wiki?) And they have real cabals  on Usenet, not
to mention the whole idea of canceling posts,  cross-threading,
etc. Say what you will about Wikipedia, but it's a much  more
pleasant, less volatile and less transient place to work. The two
are different fundamentally, anyway.

I disagree.  First, the USENET doesn't masquerade as authority.   Second,
there's a poor setup with admins taking sides and mechanisms not  functioning
properly on Wikipedia.  Third, anonymity gets more credibility  than using your
real user name, at least in a case I have.

As to the first complaint, Wikipedia gets high rankings on search engines,
which I think inappropriate.  Also, they even have articles trying to  convince
Wikipedia's authority.

I'm a bit distressed and haven't had a chance to read topics other than
those I responded since at least the 11th, but I'll leave it at that for  now.

As for the second complaint, admins, in my opinion, use policies on terms
that in ordinary circles would be neologisms and don't make sense.   Policies
also get contradictions such as "interest in article" should lead to  work
rather than "interest in the outcome" on one hand, but on the other it's
considered COI to have an interest in the article.  Furthermore, "have  good faith,"
but "meat puppets" count as "sock puppets," though they're viewed  as other
rather than the same user.

Admins also use personal power for attack.  I was attacked by someone  who
claimed to be a senior in high school, English a second language, couldn't  even
follow Wikipedia policy and spell the reason for blocking me  correctly.

Third, I don't see what I want about users displaying their real names
versus keeping completely anonymous.  I display my real name and use my
grandfather's name but state my real name on my user page whereas those who are
anonymous seem to have better credibility because I got blocked whereas another,
anonymous user who used ad hominems did not, and I was a long-time editor who
didn't even violate the 3RR, certainly not on purpose, and I got no warning
besides.  Moreover, mechanisms I used did nothing, and complaints I filed  got
rejected, even during an "election."

To conclude, I'm a bit distressed, as I said, and I'm writing this more off
the cuff to share ideas, so that makes me defensive about my position.  I
hope to manage it well.

Thanks!

Vincent Bartning
UN: John Wallace Rich

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


body:
Congratulations to Bastique on the job appointment. Looking forward to see
what these "exciting initiatives" are.

On 19/03/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> Dear community,
>
> I would like to announce officially that the Wikimedia Foundation has
> decided to hire Cary Bass (User:Bastique on various wikis, most active
> on Commons) as Volunteer Coordinator. He will work full-time in the
> Wikimedia Foundation office in St. Petersburg, Florida.
>
> Please see
>
>
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-February/028066.html
>
> for the original job description. Kat and I will work with Cary in the
> very short term to refine this description and help him define his
> areas of work.
>
> Cary's most relevant experience is as a long time community member,
> including his work as part of our OTRS e-mail response team. He has
> shown on numerous occasions that he has the ability to motivate people
> and to get things done, while being diligent and well-organized. The
> entire Board and Staff has met Cary this weekend in St. Petersburg,
> and I believe it's fair to say that we're all very happy to have him
> onboard. Thanks to everyone else who applied.
>
> Hiring Cary is part of our long term commitment to making sure that
> the global volunteer community will be involved not just in
> project-level work, but also in all aspects of what our organization
> is doing. Expect some exciting initiatives from him in the near
> future. :-)
>
> Erik M?ller
> Executive Secretary, Wikimedia Foundation
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Corporate Donors - Status?

body:
In a message dated 3/12/2007 9:30:57 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
oldakquill at gmail.com writes:

You are  wrong on two counts. You are wrong to say that our readers
don't hold the  purse strings since we rely on our reader's donations.
You might respond  that traditional encyclopedia's more rely on
customer satisfaction since  proportionately more readers pay larger
quantities of money to read the  encyclopedia (although many will do so
free of charge in public libraries),  but ultimately if readers aren't
satisfied enough to donate, we  collapse.

Secondly, this kind of feed back quality control that  traditional
encyclopedias matters less to us since it is our readers who  edit our
content. Almost all of our readers are able to correct a mistake  if
one is seen. It seems that our model ensures that content is  written
to our reader's satisfaction because it is our readers who create  our
content.

You don't know that readers edit.  For all you know, they could all be  paid
corporate cabals, and from what I've seen, that's more likely.  Either  that,
or they're all on an ego trip to edit articles.

Wikipedia's for those who edit profusely and get authority to gang up on
other editors, not those who read it.

Vincent Bartning
UN: John Wallace Rich

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Corporate Donors - Status?

body:
In a message dated 3/12/2007 11:22:21 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
jason at calacanis.com writes:

There  are no conflicts--none.

It would be a HUGE leap for someone to think  that a donation to a
non-profit from a corporation would give them the  ability to trump a
encyclopedia edited by *consensus* by *volunteers* --  most of whom are
anonymous.

Would an unpaid editor on the Wikipedia  think "gosh, I should lie on
Google's wikipedia page because they are one  of dozens (hundreds?
thousands?) of companies that have donated to the  foundation."

Furthermore, for this theory to work it would require that  the
thousands of other editors think EXACTLY the same way and would  not
revert the biased revisions.

You're always going to have a  contingent of conspiracy theorists out
there who think Wikipedia (or any  other organization with any level of
success) is in on the take. It's the  reward you get for being
successful at what you do. :-)

I don't  think we can't base our fund raising behavior on the
conspiracy theories of  a the few (and in some cases insane).

I've gotten the opposite position discussing problems editing.   Anonymous
use gives corporate users anonymity, and reportedly they even involve  their
legal departments.  Right now, truth in articles suffers because  of ego and
corporate interests, not public-benefit ones.

Vincent

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


body:
Hi all,
  I was helping my girlfriend's little sister with a school project
last night. Like all high school students, when asked to "research" a
topic, she gets on google and pretty soon ends up at Wikipedia. For
some reason that I don't understand, she wound up on a copy of
[[Paris]] stored in someone's user space. She had no idea - not the
faintest. I noticed because the URL wasn't quite right, and tried to
explain to her, getting questions like "So, what's wrong? The
information is so good!"

So, is there anything we can do to make REALLY REALLY CLEAR to
visitors that User space is *not* article space? For that matter,
perhaps we should have one colour for article space, and another
colour for *everything else*?

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Corporate Donors - Status?

body:
In a message dated 3/13/2007 11:05:35 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
oldakquill at gmail.com writes:

You're  probably right - but what about the 20% who aren't committed
enough to  Wikipedia's policy to reason in this way?

Still, bias influences and  exterts in unexpected ways.

Democracy applied as mob rule does not work right.  Moreover, where's
freedom when I put work into responding to a user on my own user talk page, a  lot
of work too, and I get blocked while I'm trying to save it?

Vincent

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


from_name: Ryan Jud Hughes

subject: [Wikitech-l] moderator extension

body:
(Sorry if this is a double-post.  I believe my first mail did not get
sent)

Hello.  I was wondering if this type of extension to moderation exists:

There would be a tab for the "unmoderated" version of the page, and one for the
"official release" version of the page.  People could edit the unmoderated page
all they want, but only the moderator can decide what version of the document
constitutes an "official release".

The default view of a node would be to see only the "official release".

Normally, the only access control that I've seen is to have the page edited
with all changes going live immediately, or to lock down access to editing in
some fashion.

This moderated development/release-version system is another approach.

So, does such a system exist?  Perhaps it's already in the mediawiki core and I
just don't know how to use it yet...  Or perhaps there's an extension...

Thanks.
--Ryan


subject: [WikiEN-l] Requesting assistance re user:Bastique

body:
In a message dated 3/14/2007 4:57:14 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
oneelephant at gmail.com writes:

One  Elephant Went Out to Play...

Yeah, it seems admins game the system if anyone does, or they help a cabal
they prefer for unethical reasons.  What's the status on your  complaint.

I had wanted to bring a complaint before the Arbitration Committee, but
before I thought it would be to "illustrate a point."  Now I've been  accused of
doing it by filing a complaint about a user's "sock puppet," which an  admin,
JzG now says I used to illustrate a point, something quite off the  wall.

There may be a clearer way to get the complaint to the Arbitration  Committee
now, but so far the complaint process has left a lot to be  desired.

Vincent
UN: John Wallace Rich

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Fine, be that way.

body:
In a message dated 3/14/2007 4:57:19 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
countpointercount at gmail.com writes:

All of  your supposed "arbitrators" refuse to respond to emails asking for  a
sincere and honest review of my case.

They all refuse to  acknowledge my right to demand that the results of the
lying, bullshit  "checkuser" be made open, too.

Fine.

You've made an enemy.  Wikipedia can rot and I'll help to ensure it does.

Their mechanisms do not function properly.  I just said something  about it
to One Elephant Who Went Out to Play.

Vincent
UN:John Wallace Rich

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


body:
In a message dated 3/14/2007 7:39:29 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
richholton at gmail.com writes:

I'm  troubled by the course of the conversation that took place about
this on  WP:ANI. At least two people were asserting that one should not
revert  Danny because he's a foundation employee, or Kat Walsh, because
of board  membership.

There have been many, many assertions of late that we on  Wikipedia do
not (should not) give credit to credentials, but to the  content of
contributions. So it's disturbing to see these arguments used.  Using
these sorts of arguments does Wikipedia no favors, and contributes  to
the notion that there is a cabal that one should not cross lest one
suffer the penalty.

Note that I have no comment (and have developed  no opinion) on the
content of the contributions of any of the parties  involved in the
original dispute.

Sounds to me like those in power in Wikipedia want to define things.   That
shouldn't be the way either.  What about truth in articles, not "out  there
somewhere"?

Vincent
UN:John Wallace Rich

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia as a primary source

body:
In a message dated 3/14/2007 8:44:32 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
arromdee at rahul.net writes:

That's  another form of "you can't fix your article unless you jump through
these  ridiculous hoops".  Finding someone in an all-volunteer  Wikipedia
willing to set up a blog for a random complainer is at least as  difficult
as setting up the blog himself.

> Or we could set up a  wiki
> which allows original research, and which can be referenced  from
> Wikipedia.

This won't work, because the attribution FAQ  says that Wikis are not
legitimate sources.  I tried to change it to  allow wikis when self-published
sources are allowed.  It didn't get  in.

I've setup a group on Yahoo to discuss Wikipedia problems.  I'm in CA,  and
it's got a moderator in PA.  We'd be open to more moderators.

We've both had problems with Wikipedia's policies.

Vincent
UN: John Wallace Rich

Blog: Wikipedia Problems
_http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/wikipediaproblems/_
(http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/wikipediaproblems/)

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


from_name: Stan Shebs

body:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
> Based on my experience in previous years, I have no doubt April 1 will bring
> out a lot of pranksters.
> We had a lot of mess before. Are there any preparations to keep things under
> control this year?
> If not, we should organize something ASAP.
>
You could get a two-fer by announcing that WP is now "completed" and
that therefore no further editing is necessary, then protect (or
semi-protect?) all pages for the 48 hours necessary to catch all timezones.

:-)

Stan


body:
On 19/03/07, cohesion <cohesion at sleepyhead.org> wrote:

> Is the problem really that userspace doesn't have a big red border, or
> that userspace has an article on Paris?

The problem is that it's no longer safe to draft an article in article
space, unless you like getting CSD A7 mid-drafting.

- d.


from_name: Pedro Sanchez

body:
On 3/19/07, Ron Ritzman <ritzman at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/19/07, Bartning at aol.com <Bartning at aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > In a message dated 3/12/2007 3:40:59 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> > wikipedia at downlode.org writes:
> >
> > On  12/03/07, Ron Ritzman <ritzman at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > "meat puppet"
> >
> > Worst neologism ever.
>
> > Yeah, "sock puppets" make more sense than "meat puppets."  I think  it's not
> > well thought out to include the two together.
>
> That's the reason why in another thread I proposed the term "posse" to
> replace it. That way, instead of saying that the creator of webcomic
> FooBarBaz brought "meatpuppets" to AFD, you say "He brought a posse".
> Closer still should still give their votes the same weight as he would
> if we were still calling them "meatpuppets".
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

Let's make it an official policy then. You can't call anyone a
sockpuppet or meatpuppet. Only posse. HAve you posted on WP:AN and
WP:VP ?


from_name: stevertigo

body:
Someone before suggested using an altered logo for the meta namespace
- why not user namespace.

-Stevertigo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Ref tag usage

body:
Aevar noted on the meta help for references that it might be possible
to use only the <ref name> tags in the body, and keep all the actual
reference text in a separate section at the bottom. The ref script
would of course handle everything else.

But until then I think we should adopt some simple and minor use
conventions for ref tags, the first of which being to begin ref tags
on a new line in the code, and likewise end the ref tag on its own
line. This makes it much easier to distinguish text from ref:

  Text text text.
  <ref> {{cite|stuff}}</ref>
  Continued text.

Of course these will still show up normally when displayed:
  Text text text[1] continued text.

The second suggested convention is to avoid putting refs in mid
sentence, placing them instead at the end of complete sentences. This
might not resonate well, but I thought I'd throw it out there.
-Stevertigo


from_name: Matthew Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] Ref tag usage

body:
On 3/19/07, stevertigo <stvrtg at gmail.com> wrote:
> But until then I think we should adopt some simple and minor use
> conventions for ref tags, the first of which being to begin ref tags
> on a new line in the code, and likewise end the ref tag on its own
> line.

The problem with this is that starting a new line leaves whitespace in
between the text and the reference superscript link, which is not
normally present, and not desired.

If this is adopted as a standard, a little code fix to close up that
whitespace would be nice.

What I normally do is start the <ref> tag on the same line, but
immediately start a new line after it to place the actual reference
info, like so:

Text text text.<ref>
{{cite|stuff}}</ref>
Continued text.

or for larger citation blocks, doing it more like:

Text text text.<ref>
{{cite
|author=foo
|title=bar
}}</ref>
Continued text.

-Matt


from_name: oscar van dillen

body:
congratulations to cary!

imho the term envisioned should run "volunteers coordinator" (like chapters
coordinator plural, to avoid confusion) but please consider this to be a
minor edit ;-)

oscar

On 3/19/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> Dear community,
>
> I would like to announce officially that the Wikimedia Foundation has
> decided to hire Cary Bass (User:Bastique on various wikis, most active
> on Commons) as Volunteer Coordinator. He will work full-time in the
> Wikimedia Foundation office in St. Petersburg, Florida.
>
> Please see
>
>
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-February/028066.html
>
> for the original job description. Kat and I will work with Cary in the
> very short term to refine this description and help him define his
> areas of work.
>
> Cary's most relevant experience is as a long time community member,
> including his work as part of our OTRS e-mail response team. He has
> shown on numerous occasions that he has the ability to motivate people
> and to get things done, while being diligent and well-organized. The
> entire Board and Staff has met Cary this weekend in St. Petersburg,
> and I believe it's fair to say that we're all very happy to have him
> onboard. Thanks to everyone else who applied.
>
> Hiring Cary is part of our long term commitment to making sure that
> the global volunteer community will be involved not just in
> project-level work, but also in all aspects of what our organization
> is doing. Expect some exciting initiatives from him in the near
> future. :-)
>
> Erik M?ller
> Executive Secretary, Wikimedia Foundation
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the
Wikimedia Foundation nor of its Board of Trustees.


from_name: Philippe Beaudette

body:
This whole discussion is why I'm particularly fond of the {{Userpage}} template... perhaps it should be applied automatically at the top of user-space?

Philippe
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Mark Wagner
  To: English Wikipedia
  Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 4:09 PM
  Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] User space needs to be more clearly marked

  On 3/18/07, xaosflux <xaosflux at gmail.com> wrote:
  > Umm, what skin are you using, in the defaul skin (monobook) Article space is
  > a white background, everything else is light blue last I checked.

  Thanks for pointing that out - I never noticed before, because on an
  LCD monitor, the two colors are almost indistinguishable.

  --
  Mark
  [[User:Carnildo]]

  _______________________________________________
  WikiEN-l mailing list
  WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
  To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
  http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


body:
On 3/19/07, xaosflux <xaosflux at gmail.com> wrote:
> Umm, what skin are you using, in the defaul skin (monobook) Article space is
> a white background, everything else is light blue last I checked.

White vs light blue? I was thinking more along the lines of dark rd vs
light blue. Also, she was obviously using the default skin is:
monobook. Asking the random public to change their skin would, um, not
work.

Steve


from_name: Ron Ritzman

body:
On 3/19/07, Bartning at aol.com <Bartning at aol.com> wrote:
>
> In a message dated 3/12/2007 3:40:59 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> wikipedia at downlode.org writes:
>
> On  12/03/07, Ron Ritzman <ritzman at gmail.com> wrote:
> > "meat puppet"
>
> Worst neologism ever.

> Yeah, "sock puppets" make more sense than "meat puppets."  I think  it's not
> well thought out to include the two together.

That's the reason why in another thread I proposed the term "posse" to
replace it. That way, instead of saying that the creator of webcomic
FooBarBaz brought "meatpuppets" to AFD, you say "He brought a posse".
Closer still should still give their votes the same weight as he would
if we were still calling them "meatpuppets".


subject: [Wikitech-l] rev_deleted temporarily demerged

body:
> We're a bit behind on code review, so I've gone ahead and de-merged this
> branch merge for the moment. Sorry. :)
>
> Once we're caught up we can review that and bring it back in... might be
> best to wait until after 1.10 branch since that's coming up in two weeks.

Two very very minor notes on this for when it goes back in:

>From includes/Article.php :
> +		# Flag to hide all contents of the archived revisions
> +		$suppress = $wgRequest->getVal( 'wpSuppress' ) && $wgUser->isAllowed('deleterevision');
... snip ...
> +		if ( $wgUser->isAllowed( 'deleterevision' ) ) {
> +			$supress = "
 	";
> +			$supress .= Xml::checkLabel( wfMsg( 'revdelete-suppress' ), 'wpSuppress', 'wpSuppress', false, array( 'tabindex' => '2' ) );
> +			$supress .= "
";
> +		} else {
> +			$supress = '';
> +		}

I know these are in different functions, but can they maybe please have totally
different variable names (i.e. PHP doesn't care, but '$suppress' and '$supress'
with only one 'p' difference increases the chance of a human typing the wrong name, or
being confused about the purpose of the variable).

Also:
> -	var $curlink , $difflink, $lastlink , $usertalklink , $versionlink ;
> +	var $curlinks, $difflink, $lastlink , $usertalklink , $versionlink ;

The string '$curlinks' did not seem to used anywhere else in the diff.

All the best,
Nick.


from_name: Bennett Haselton

subject: [WikiEN-l] purpose served by anonymity / unmoderated edits

body:
I'm writing an article (possibly for Slashdot) about the alternative models

for Citizendium vs. Wikipedia and how they pertain to the Essjay
controversy.  It's not so much about Essjay as about the more general
merits of anonymous / unmoderated edits, versus identity verification and
change moderation, and how Essjay illustrated a flaw in one approach.

The disadvantage of making people register under a presumed real name, much
less following up and trying to verify their identity and credentials, are
of course that you will have fewer users that way.  On the other hand, the
advantage is that you can give articles the stamp of reliability if it's
been signed off on by, say, a professor whose .edu address has been
verified.

Could you get the best of both worlds by (a) allowing unverified users to
build up the meat of an article, but then (b) verifying the credentials of
certain users (Citizendium calls them "editors"), and having those users
sign off on the contents of a given article once it's reached a stable
state?  (And then future edits to that article have to go through them?)

This simple act of an expert "blessing" an article greatly increases its
value to many people, who would then be able to (a) have more confidence in
the article's accuracy, and (b) cite it as a source.  When I mentioned this
on Wikia-L, Laurence Parry pointed out that that's not really what
Wikipedia is for -- OK, but couldn't it be?  If you can greatly increase an
article's usefulness with only a small additional amount of effort (the
time it takes a verified expert to read it and sign off on it), why
not?  Especially since many people, rightly or wrongly, use Wikipedia for
that purpose anyway.

Thus I'm arguing for more verification than Wikipedia does, but at the same
time, less verification than Citizendium is doing.  Citizendium is planning
on using some combination verification/referral system for new users, but I
think that's overkill.  You don't necessarily need to know the credentials
of everyone who contributed to an article, just the people who reviewed it
at the end and said, "Yes, this is accurate, I'll stake my reputation on
it."

My question is: If you consider the goals of an online encyclopedia or
pseudo-encyclopedia (entertainment, accuracy, being used as a citable
source, etc.), are any of these goals better served by the unmoderated /
unverified edit model, compared to the model of
editor-verification-and-locking?

(I know it's tempting to say, "Let's just wait and see which one more users
prefer", but I don't think that would be a fair way to compare the two
systems, because there are too many other factors that could tilt the
balance, independently of which system is actually better -- such as,
Wikipedia having gotten there first, or having more users.)

	-Bennett

bennett at peacefire.org     http://www.peacefire.org
(425) 497 9002


body:
On 3/19/07, Pedro Sanchez <pdsanchez at gmail.com> wrote:

> Let's make it an official policy then. You can't call anyone a
> sockpuppet or meatpuppet. Only posse. HAve you posted on WP:AN and
> WP:VP ?

Oh "sockpuppet" is quite apropriate, It's just "meatpuppet" I think
should go. However, I don't want to make anybody do anything. That
would be as unrealistic as Hormel insisting that junk email not be
called "spam".


subject:
[Wikitech-l] [MediaWiki-CVS] SVN: [20523]
	trunk/phase3/includes/Revision.php

body:
> Revision: 20523
> Author:   tstarling
> Date:     2007-03-16 05:04:57 -0800 (Fri, 16 Mar 2007)
>
> Log Message:
> -----------
> Removed //IGNORE suffix in call to Language::iconv, redundant (generates warning) since r19835.

Sorry, my fault.

There is still an issue though with binary data generating a PHP "iconv(): Detected an illegal character in input string" error
message.
May or may not only be visible with E_STRICT error reporting enabled. There are two test cases for this here:
http://files.nickj.org/MediaWiki/1-0-7.curl.sh
http://files.nickj.org/MediaWiki/1-4-9.curl.sh
(will need to update the URL at the end of the script if the test wiki is not on localhost).

All the best,
Nick.


body:
On 3/19/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:

> Turns out that there are three other sources... with *different* info.
> Amazon disagrees with all other sources.  Rather dents the credibility
> of Amazon sales pages as a source, in my view.

But Amazon is bigger, and bigger is better, more or less.

-Stevertigo


from_name: Phil Sandifer

body:
On Mar 19, 2007, at 5:33 PM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

> Based on my experience in previous years, I have no doubt April 1
> will bring
> out a lot of pranksters.
> We had a lot of mess before. Are there any preparations to keep
> things under
> control this year?
> If not, we should organize something ASAP.

I think the easiest thing to do would be to get a page where recent
changes to the encyclopedia can be looked at together so that we can
see what's going on. Secondarily, the ability to make targetted lists
of pages that we can watch and see when get changed would be useful.

Once we have those, all we need is some admins who can look at a
calendar and who are sensibly mirthful - that is, unwilling to accept
crap in the articlespace, and tolerant of amusing hijinks in the
project namespace.

-Phil


subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: ASINs and ISBNs

references:
<f3fedb0d0508081341593ed53c@mail.gmail.com>
	<42FA536A.8020200@wikia.com>
	<f3fedb0d0703191506k688d2317yabdd4d5da8014fce@mail.gmail.com>
	<sc4uv21qhd4hjtelkoku6qkpvurb4368j8@4ax.com>

body:
On 3/19/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 22:06:36 +0000, "Andrew Gray" <shimgray at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >If anyone is interested, the current discussion is at
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Amazon
> >- basically, are Amazon internal catalogue IDs a useful and sensible
> >piece of data to give as a reference? As may be apparent I swing
> >towards HELL NO, but YMMV...
>
> +1 for HELL NO, especially since in the specific example cited Amazon
> turned out to be *wrong* (see above).

ASINs, in my opinion, are not a useful and sensible piece of data to
give about items that have Wikipedia articles, and should not be used
as e.g. reference IDs for rare books.

However, I am vociferously against removing links to Amazon which are
in use as valid references without the replacement of those references
with better sources.

Part of the point of references is so we know where information came
from.  Removing it because EWWW IT'S A COMMERCIAL SITE is in my
opinion contrary to our mission.

-Matt


subject: [WikiEN-l] User space needs to be more clearly marked

body:
On 3/19/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 19/03/07, cohesion <cohesion at sleepyhead.org> wrote:
>
> > Is the problem really that userspace doesn't have a big red border, or
> > that userspace has an article on Paris?
>
>
> The problem is that it's no longer safe to draft an article in article
> space, unless you like getting CSD A7 mid-drafting.

Then when you draft on userspace, unstead of..

user:Mr_Bozo/Paris

Name it

user:Mr_Bozo/Article_Draft_1


body:
On 3/19/07, Ron Ritzman <ritzman at gmail.com> wrote:

> Then when you draft on userspace, unstead of..
>
> user:Mr_Bozo/Paris
>
> Name it
>
> user:Mr_Bozo/Article_Draft_1

Follow up, Perhaps a "this article is a rough draft" tag might help as well.


from_name: Hsiang-Tai Chien

body:
Congradulations to Bastique! :)

--
Hsiang-Tai Chien (H.T.)

Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia! - http://www.wikipedia.org
My Wikipedia User Page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Htchien

Think Different, Do Smarter, Work for Joy!!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erik Moeller
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 2:30 PM
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Subject: [Foundation-l] Cary Bass (Bastique) hired as
> Volunteer Coordinator
>
> Dear community,
>
> I would like to announce officially that the Wikimedia
> Foundation has decided to hire Cary Bass (User:Bastique on
> various wikis, most active on Commons) as Volunteer
> Coordinator. He will work full-time in the Wikimedia
> Foundation office in St. Petersburg, Florida.

___________________________________________________
 ??????? ? ????????????????
 http://messenger.yahoo.com.tw/


from_name: Michael Bimmler

body:
On 3/19/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Dear community,
>
> I would like to announce officially that the Wikimedia Foundation has
> decided to hire Cary Bass (User:Bastique on various wikis, most active
> on Commons) as Volunteer Coordinator.

Congratulations! Very good choice.

Michael


from_name: Ian Tresman

body:
At 18:31 19/03/2007, you wrote:
> > Useless, because this algorithm could be easily prevented by some little
> > script...
>
>I first understood the 'blocks' were captchas... It would solve it but
>a) we're throwing bandwith
>b) usability is really poor.
>
> > A throttle is the best solution, I think. And already implemented, isn't
> > it?
>It was solved with a throttle. I think Ian is having problem because the
>requests are done with open proxys, with a new ip throttle count.

If a throttle is implemented, anyone know from what version? I'm
stuck on 1.6.. because I don't have PHP 5.

And yes, the anonymous proxy was using random IP addresses.

Regards,
Ian


body:
On 3/19/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> Nope there are quite a few foundation bods who have a claim to this.
>
> It's when some of the committee people started to try and claim that
> power that it got anoying.

Are you referring here to the sitenotice?

-Matt


from_name: Bryan Derksen

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 15:16:40 +0000, "David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The problem is that it's no longer safe to draft an article in article
>> space, unless you like getting CSD A7 mid-drafting.
>
> Disagree.  You just have to make it clear right from the outset that
> the subject is important - or at least include some sources.

Wikipedia is a work in progress, its articles are not necessarily
complete. Lack of sources is just one of several possible types of
incompleteness.

I can recall on several occasions starting a quick stub article on
something based off of general information I already knew and then later
on came back with more detailed information and sources after I'd
researched a little. I guess I've just been lucky so far that CSD
fundamentalists haven't caught me at it.


from_name: Platonides

body:
> Useless, because this algorithm could be easily prevented by some little
> script...

I first understood the 'blocks' were captchas... It would solve it but
a) we're throwing bandwith
b) usability is really poor.

> A throttle is the best solution, I think. And already implemented, isn't
> it?
It was solved with a throttle. I think Ian is having problem because the
requests are done with open proxys, with a new ip throttle count.


from_name: Florian Straub

subject: [Commons-l] Making a home wiki field in user login

body:
"Bryan Tong Minh" <bryan.tongminh at gmail.com> wrote on Sunday, March 18, 2007
9:04 PM:

> On 3/18/07, Florian Straub <flominator at gmx.net> wrote:

>> "peter green" <plugwash at P10Link.net> wrote on Saturday, February 17, 2007
>> 5:20 AM:

>> > we need to get the home wiki information at signup time because with
>> > drive
>> > by users we may not get another chance.

>> Just a try, but what do you think about this:
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Welcomecreation

> Looks great!

Thank you. Now everyone should take a look if his spoken languages are
already translated. I've just did German.

Best regards,

Flo


body:
On 3/19/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> Turns out that there are three other sources... with *different* info.
> Amazon disagrees with all other sources.  Rather dents the credibility
> of Amazon sales pages as a source, in my view.

Are those sources any more credible than Amazon?  If so, then you've
done what you should - find a better source.  Do the sources agree?

I'm certainly not against replacing a poor source with a better; I'm
against removing a source without finding a better, and I'm against
removing uncontroversial information that's sourced to e.g. Amazon.

-Matt


from_name: Bryan Tong Minh

body:
Congrats Bastique. Hope you are still having time to visit Commons ;)

Bryan

On 3/19/07, Michael Bimmler <mbimmler at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/19/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > Dear community,
> >
> > I would like to announce officially that the Wikimedia Foundation has
> > decided to hire Cary Bass (User:Bastique on various wikis, most active
> > on Commons) as Volunteer Coordinator.
>
> Congratulations! Very good choice.
>
> Michael
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Gizmo II

references:
<CBEGLCFKGFBHNOLMKIMHGEIMCMAA.plugwash@p10link.net>
	<046001c76992$af640d60$fe78a8c0@flo>
	<fd5886130703181304qf419a50m9f3ce9f8fb776f91@mail.gmail.com>
	<018701c76a57$ea4bbe80$fe78a8c0@flo>

body:
> Thank you. Now everyone should take a look if his spoken languages are
> already translated. I've just did German.
>

Done with Spanish ;)

--
Gizmo_II
------------ pr?xima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20070319/13cf89e3/attachment.htm


body:
On 3/19/07, Stan Shebs <stanshebs at earthlink.net> wrote:

> You could get a two-fer by announcing that WP is now "completed" and
> that therefore no further editing is necessary, then protect (or
> semi-protect?) all pages for the 48 hours necessary to catch all timezones.

Hell, let's just http redirect the whole site to uncyclopedia


from_name: Jastrow

subject:
[Commons-l] Getting our content out
	there	(openstockphotography.org)

body:
Stan Shebs wrote:
>>
>> anyone else find their photographs in a home beyond commons?
>
> Yup, I've been asked for permission  (apparently people don't quite
> believe the GFDL) for use in various books, although I haven't actually
> *seen* any of these books yet...

Same thing with me with pictures taken in the Louvre and released into
the PD. A lot of people want to know if the Louvre's authorization is
also required. One of them works for a project called "Timeline" funded
by the Ministry of Education in Quebec
(http://www.recitus.qc.ca/gallery/main.php). As far as I can tell, it's
a repository for "free" pictures aimed for school kids; pictures'
licenses seem to be respected. There doesn't seem to be a lot of traffic
there, though.

I also got requests for a written permission note from researchers who
wished to use a picture to illustrate an article. Apparently a lot of
publishers require it now.

--
Jastrow


from_name: Sharon, Lois Bram

subject: [WikiEN-l] An Open Letter to Mr. Wales

body:
That cannot possibly be the case, sir.

Your system is faulty or someone is lying about this.

On 3/19/07, George Herbert < george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/17/07, Sharon, Lois Bram < oneelephant at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Sir,
> >
> > that cannot possibly be correct.
>
> I won't forward a private email, but the Steward's wording was "Both
> the first and second Elephant accounts shared an IP with RunedChozo".
>
> That is IP singular.
>
>
> --
> -george william herbert
> george.herbert at gmail.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: stevertigo

subject: [WikiEN-l] Ref tag usage

body:
On 3/19/07, Matthew Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> The problem with this is that starting a new line leaves whitespace in
> between the text and the reference superscript link, which is not
> normally present, and not desired.

This does not appear to be the case: In display mode, text on the same
level that doesnt have at least two returns after the line will
concatenate.  So this
sentence
even though its on
separate
lines, in code mode will display normally.

> What I normally do is start the <ref> tag on the same line, but
> immediately start a new line after it to place the actual reference
> info, like so:
>
> Text text text.<ref>
> {{cite|stuff}}</ref>
> Continued text.
> or for larger citation blocks, doing it more like:
>
> Text text text.<ref>
> {{cite
> |author=foo
> |title=bar
> }}</ref>
> Continued text.

This works well enough. The point is of course to be organized.

-Stevertigo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Ref tag usage

body:
On 3/19/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/20/07, stevertigo <stvrtg at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The second suggested convention is to avoid putting refs in mid
> > sentence, placing them instead at the end of complete sentences. This
> > might not resonate well, but I thought I'd throw it out there.
>
> This doesn't work well for some sentences with distinct facts coming
> from distinct sources:

I agree with this.  The first suggested convention will suffice.

-Stevertigo


body:
On 3/19/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:

> Why miss out on this golden opportunity to make thousands of people
> realise that anyone can edit Wikipedia?

"user:Anyone" doesn't seem to exist. Here's someone's golden opportunity.


from_name: Bartning at aol.com

body:
In a message dated 3/19/2007 5:28:38 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
stevagewp at gmail.com writes:

Isn't that what this list is about?

Steve

I also reply off-list because six or seven of my last posts got rejected  for
various inappropriate and awkward reasons.  Four rejections claimed it  was
because of "trolling," most of the reasons for the so far six rejected posts
went, "Your message was deemed inappropriate by the moderator. Please
contribute  something positive.  Steve Bennett." One said even said it was "racist
trolling," and the last one said, "Your message was deemed inappropriate by the
moderator. Your posts will continue to be rejected if they are like
the last  six. Please stop ranting and trolling. Steve Bennett."

I don't know if they'll get away with this ridiculousness, over-the-top
stupidity, but it's certainly a bother.  Others have similar problems with  them,
as I've now found the Wikipedia Review.  Moreover, I don't see how  the
Wikipedia list here can be to discuss problems.

Vincent

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


body:
It's not available for creation... but not sure if it exists or is just not available to be created.

Philippe
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Ron Ritzman
  To: English Wikipedia
  Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 8:04 PM
  Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] April Fool - how to prepare for the onslaught

  On 3/19/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:

  > Why miss out on this golden opportunity to make thousands of people
  > realise that anyone can edit Wikipedia?

  "user:Anyone" doesn't seem to exist. Here's someone's golden opportunity.

  _______________________________________________
  WikiEN-l mailing list
  WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
  To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
  http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Avi

subject: [WikiEN-l] non-revertable editors

body:
So what was the point of user:Dannyisme? I thought that was OFFICE specific and non-revertable?

  --Avi
  From: geni <geniice at gmail.com>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 02:05:48 +0000
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Requesting assistance re user:Bastique

On 3/20/07, Matthew Brown wrote:
> Are you referring here to the sitenotice?

No.

An old argument over [[MediaWiki:Blockiptext]]. It doesn't matter any more.

Just wanting to clariffy it is more than Jimbo and Danny.

At the present time the accepted convention appears to be:

Board members
Foundation employees
and in certian areas developers.

--
geni

---------------------------------
The fish are biting.
 Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing.