references:
<NABBJGECPILFNLFEAPIKCEEMKAAA.nickpj@gmail.com>
	<45CFD8C9.2010300@swarthmore.edu>
	<20070212200521.GC2162@cgi.jachomes.com>
	<7c2a12e20702121222n6b61c79agad6010794ac0b185@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 03:22:20PM -0500, Simetrical wrote:
> On 2/12/07, Jay R. Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote:
> > Is that problem easier or harder to deal with than whatever problems
> > you would have if you just redefined bold to *this* and italics to
> > _that_?
> >
> > Everyone keeps saying that causes horrible collisions, but *I* don't
> > think that most of them are that difficult to disambig.
>
> * collides horribly with list syntax.  Even worse than **.

It would require that lists be tagged with "* " rather than "*", but
that should be enough to disambig it, no?  And it's not as bad a
collision as might be obvious, either, I don't think: List item markers
are always at hard-BOL, and are never matched until hard-EOL.

> On 2/12/07, Jay R. Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote:
> > With reference to my similar note elsewhere, let us *please* attempt to
> > utilize reflexes everyone[1] already has, rather than generating even more
> > new markup tags?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > -- jra
> > [1]  Everyone who already has reflexes at all; let's not penalize the
> > smart people *again*.
>
> Only a vanishingly tiny percentage of our target audience (which is
> all of humanity) is familiar with Usenet-style emphasis conventions.
> I wouldn't assign them much weight.

I gather that you wouldn't.  I think that view is short-sighted.

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274


list: wikitech-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Jay R. Ashworth

subject: [Wikitech-l] WYSIWYG (or WYSIWYM or WYSIWYM) status?

references:
<NABBJGECPILFNLFEAPIKCEEMKAAA.nickpj@gmail.com>
	<45CFD8C9.2010300@swarthmore.edu>
	<20070212200521.GC2162@cgi.jachomes.com>
	<7c2a12e20702121222n6b61c79agad6010794ac0b185@mail.gmail.com>
	<e92136380702121225s7ddd9107r2180768eeda20ec2@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 08:25:54PM +0000, Rob Church wrote:
> On 12/02/07, Simetrical <Simetrical+wikilist at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Only a vanishingly tiny percentage of our target audience (which is
> > all of humanity) is familiar with Usenet-style emphasis conventions.
>
> It's bloody criminal, isn't it?

I know you're being at least 50% snarky there, Rob, but I a) think that
it is, in fact, criminal, and b) still don't think that penalizing the
people who do is a good idea, absent overwhelming other evidence.

And let's just note here that *Microsoft Word does this translation in
realtime during input*, assuming you don't turn it off.

So, clearly, it's not *that* abstruse.

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274


list: wikien-l

from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] - category clutter on biographical articles

body:
On 2/12/07, Cool Cat <wikipedia.kawaii.neko at gmail.com> wrote:
> I believe stub wikiproject is a great success and not a bunch of busy
> bodies. If a similar categorization wikiproject started off, end results
> would be only positive. The scope of the wikiproject should only include
> non-administrative categories intended for items on the article namespace.
> Geni how does that sound?
>

You said CFD is having a hard time coping. Given that only a small
percentage of cats turn up at CFD I doubt there is any mechanism for
coping with what would be a far higher workload.

An alternative approach might be to dig out that old idea of giving
wikiprojects more power and giving them the power of cat deletion in
their respective areas.

--
geni


from_name: Rob Church

subject: [Wikitech-l] Page protection

body:
On 12/02/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> being, yes it is a wiki engine at its core, it is however used in many
> settings. There have been several requests for per-page access
> permissions. There have been implementations of this. They just did not
> make it into the MediaWiki SVN. This is a shame because as a consequence
> you have a fork. Forking is really unproductive. With some regularity

To implement a secure read permissions system, you would need to
rewrite a considerable number of code points, because the system was
"designed", if it was designed at all, with absolutely no concern over
who has access to the data. Users can export it, transclude it, view
histories, etc. So far, we haven't seen a single, clean implementation
of this.

I'm not saying it's *never ever ever* going to happen - I used to, but
it's inevitable that Wikimedia is going to drop the "freedom" attitude
soon enough. What I *am* saying is that, as far as I know, there's
still nothing on the roadmap for us to go back and start that process,
and so far, it's been resisted.

If a corporate environment wishes to adapt software to its needs, and
if it insists upon bastardising that software to act outside of its
scope, then it is welcome do - you can do whatever the hell you like
with MediaWiki, provided you stick to the terms of the licence
agreement. What you can't do is force us to make changes that are
fundamentally opposed to the overall direction of the progress.

Rob Church


from_name: David Gerard

body:
On 12/02/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:

> An alternative approach might be to dig out that old idea of giving
> wikiprojects more power and giving them the power of cat deletion in
> their respective areas.

I would think in the *normal* case they'd have considerable
*influence* at CFD. That is: "I'm from WikiProject Foo. We discussed
at [[discussion page]] killing these cats, for x reason, to be
replaced with these cats." Are there notable cases where the
collective wisdom of CFD has said "keep" in a manner that doesn't seem
to make sense?

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Original research

body:
On 10/02/07, William Pietri <william at scissor.com> wrote:

> The way I think of it, we're all hopelessly biased toward our own
> products; if not, we wouldn't do them. So instead of using Wikipedia for
> self-promotion, you're better off devoting your energies to improving
> your journal. Eventually somebody will say, "Hey, why isn't that great
> journal referenced in Wikipedia?" and fix the problem for you.

Yeah. Referencing one's own work is probably a COI.

(I have occasionally referenced things I've been involved in - on
[[Sharity]] I originally referenced a post on my own blog and said so
on talk, though the ref was replaced in a later revision. And in
[[Xenu]] I linked to a page on my own site, which was a web copy of a
Usenet post - Grady Ward's synopsis of 'Revolt In The Stars', L. Ron
Hubbard's treatment for a speculated movie version of the Xenu story.)

- d.


from_name: Mark Clements

subject: [Wikitech-l] Page protection

body:
"Rob Church" <robchur at gmail.com> wrote in
message news:e92136380702120735q642054c7g336b4844900391f3 at mail.gmail.com...
> On 12/02/07, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > being, yes it is a wiki engine at its core, it is however used in many
> > settings. There have been several requests for per-page access
> > permissions. There have been implementations of this. They just did not
> > make it into the MediaWiki SVN. This is a shame because as a consequence
> > you have a fork. Forking is really unproductive. With some regularity
[SNIP]
> If a corporate environment wishes to adapt software to its needs, and
> if it insists upon bastardising that software to act outside of its
> scope, then it is welcome do - you can do whatever the hell you like
> with MediaWiki, provided you stick to the terms of the licence
> agreement. What you can't do is force us to make changes that are
> fundamentally opposed to the overall direction of the progress.

So, out of interest, are you saying that even if somebody implemented this
cleanly and completely and provided a fully tested patch against HEAD, it
would still not be accepted to the main development branch?

- Mark Clements (HappyDog)


from_name: christoph.huesler at css.ch

subject: [Wikitech-l] Antwort:  php / mediawiki developer position

body:
OT: Is it just me, or does every company state to be "world leader in
blah"?

wikitech-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org schrieb am 12.02.2007 15:40:38:

> PHP Web Developer
>
> To apply please visit Requisition # 13341 at www.battelle.org/careers
>
> Battelle is a world leader in science and technology research. The
> Information Technology Solutions (ITS) Product Line specializes in
> developing advanced IT solutions for our government and commercial
clients.
> ITS is seeking a PHP Web Developer to develop web applications for our
IC
> client. Compensation will be based on qualifications and experience. A
full
> benefits package will be provided. The selected candidate will work out
of
> Battelle's office in Charlottesville, Virginia.
>
> Position Responsibilities:
> - Work independently and as a member of a multi-functional team to
develop
> and/or modify MediaWiki source, develop custom MediaWiki extensions, and
> manage custom MediaWiki deployments
> - Interact daily with non-technical analysts to resolve requests for
> customizations, re-scoped requirements, and/or bugfixes
> - Prepare and conduct regular progress briefings extemporaneously and in
> formal settings to internal and external clients
> - Troubleshoot periodic production baseline issues during regular
business
> hours
> - Interact with open-source wiki community to stay abreast of latest
wiki
> technology
>
> Required Qualifications:
> - US Citizen with eligibility for Department of Defense Security
Clearance
> - B.S. degree in Computer Science, Engineering, Mathematics or related
> field.
> - 2+ years experience in developing dynamically generated web
applications
> - Programming experience with XML, XSLT, JavaScript, PHP, and SQL
> - Understanding of source code control and software development
> methodologies
> - Programming experience in both Windows and UNIX environments
> - Strong verbal and written communication skills
>
> Preferred Qualifications:
> - Familiarity with the MediaWiki Wiki implementation
> - Familiarity with the Windows IIS web server
> - Understanding of web security and web project management practices
> - Previous experience supporting a production environment
>
> Affirmative Action/ Equal Opportunity Employer M/F/D/V
>
> To apply please visit Requisition # 13341 at www.battelle.org/careers
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


subject: [Wikitech-l] Page protection

body:
On 12/02/07, Mark Clements <gmane at kennel17.co.uk> wrote:
> So, out of interest, are you saying that even if somebody implemented this
> cleanly and completely and provided a fully tested patch against HEAD, it
> would still not be accepted to the main development branch?

That would be the decision of the lead developer.

Rob Church


from_name: The Cunctator

subject: [WikiEN-l] Your comments on wikien-l regarding adminship

body:
That's your hypothesis. As it hasn't been tested, it's not possible to say
whether you are correct.

On 2/9/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> There's a reason why adminship isn't given to everyone. If you do it the
> other way around, abuse can cause a lot more damage before the person
> abusing the rights get blocked which will result in a lot more
> housekeeping
> to undo damage. It's nice in theory, but it simply doesn't work in
> practice.
>
> People who get adminship should display knowledge of the rules. If any
> newbie got those powers, this would be anarchapedia.
>
> Mgm
>
> On 2/9/07, Gary Kirk <gary.kirk at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > IMHO, it should be easier to get adminship as a) it's No Big Deal(r)
> > and b) all actions can now  be reversed - and users can quickly be
> > dysopped. The three month tenure, however, I find silly - if someone
> > was good enough and behaved well for those three months then obviously
> > they should be allowed to continue. Desysopping after three months
> > would turn the whole RfA process into a lottery-like game - "if it's
> > no big deal, why can't I continue as an admin?".
> >
> > I also disagree with not allowing users to object to more than one RfA
> > every three months - Wikipedia is not a democracy.
> >
> > On 2/9/07, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> > > Kelly Martin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Have you seen my proposal for adminship?  It's on my blog at
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://nonbovine-ruminations.blogspot.com/2006/10/proposal-for-adminship-on-english.html
> > >
> > > Nice. You appear to be going in the same direction as me, but I want
> it
> > > even more radical. :) In particular, your system still requires people
> > > to _ask_ for adminship (which, again, would be analogous to requiring
> > > them to apply for editing privileges instead of just letting people
> > > register freely), and I find one month a bit excessive. Other than
> that,
> > > I think you hit the nail on the head :)
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Gary Kirk
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>


references:
<bd4c411e0702090937y3482dadcm2a9d0f99b70eefd3@mail.gmail.com>
	<eqiicb$7rs$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<8731ce350702091249m7dda10a8xa245add927a07f64@mail.gmail.com>
	<fb7fdd9c0702091255t504a9529q90b208eec594f2a6@mail.gmail.com>
	<eqlnhi$e7d$2@sea.gmane.org>
	<a4359dff0702101634vc91aa8bp558a0fe5075abdb3@mail.gmail.com>
	<eqqcu3$4mo$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<a4359dff0702121159x7e25ef0ah751b53dd48d68d52@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On 2/12/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Everyone thought that about editing too, until Wikipedia proved everyone
> > wrong.
>
> Wikipedia didn't prove them wrong by showing that vandalism doesn't
> happen, it proved them wrong by showing that vandalism can be dealt
> with. The way we deal with it involves having some people with more
> power than the vandals. You can move the goalposts wherever you like,
> you still end up needing some people with more power than the vandals.

Actually, no. You need more positive contributors than negative
contributors.

Giving the positive contributors more power makes their work easier, but
it's not necessary.


list: foundation-l

from_name: Andre Engels

subject:
[Foundation-l] precisions about the recent WMF "fair use"
	decision

body:
2007/2/12, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com>:

> There's simply no way I can discuss this issue with you unless you're
> willing to adopt a more holistic consideration of Wikipedia's needs.
> Your arguments are trapped in the consideration of the *one* idea you
> seem to support, which is restricting Wikipedia content to what may be
> republished in *your* country.

And isn't that exactly the same thing you are doing, with the only
difference being that your country is also the country where the Wikipedia
servers happen to be?

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


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Alex Powell

subject: [Wikitech-l] Page protection

body:
<snip>

. What you can't do is force us to make changes that are
> fundamentally opposed to the overall direction of the progress.
>
>
> Rob Church

Just pointing out the possible change of direction of progress...

Possibly this change has been checked in error - it was from a branch. Still
it begs the question: has the position on this changed, as this change
is there meaning that the code would need to be reviewed to put in page
protection. This really is the last thing that needs to go into the trunk.
Extending MW to do pretty much anything other than protection is now
possible through hooks, and the extensions can be relatively non invasive.
However, as often mentioned, for security reasons extensions cannot add this
completely. Trunk changes are needed. This looks like a step in that (right)
direction.

As a side note what is img_auth.php for? I cannot see where it is used.
Seems to be a potential access control mechanism into the image
repository...


from_name: Cool Cat

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: [Foundation-l] About rumors...

body:
Where is this discussion on the villige pump? (Dont want to read every VP
page - yea I am lazy)

   - Cool Cat

On 2/12/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/02/07, Cool Cat <wikipedia.kawaii.neko at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I think it is getting overly cluttered. About link is already on the
> bottom
> > of every page.
>
>
> It was added to the sidebar at Sandra's request because no-one sees it
> down there.
>
>
> > I think we should remove entries from the sidebar and not
> > add. When was the last time you clicked "Current events"? We are not
> > wikinews and current events are already on the main page.
>
>
> Possibly. See Village Pump discussion.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Yann Forget

subject:
[Foundation-l] precisions about the recent WMF "fair
	use"	decision

body:
geni a ?crit :
> So not copyright on items produced outside Iran doesn't appeal? Well
> Ok then how about move commons to the UK? At least one type of item
> enters the public domain there well before ti does in the US. Sure it
> might be a good idea to win a Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp case
> first but that should be doable.

Canada (or Australia, or South Africa) would be a better option: only 50
years p.m.a. Next India might be interesting: 60 years p.m.a.

Yann


body:
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 02:52:22PM -0600, Jim Wilson wrote:
> Why not add *this* and _this_ to the "Extended MediaWiki" markup, then just
> make vanilla MW syntax one of the many light-markups supported?  So when you
> author an article, you can pick from MediaWiki, Extended MediaWiki,
> Markdown, Textile, APT, Usenet, Plain Text, XHTML, etc?
>
> I'm only partly kidding.  It makes sense for Wikipedia to have exactly one
> supported syntax, but for other wikis, having the flexibility to pick a
> markup would alleviate these kinds of disputes.  Perhaps putting in enough
> hooks to allow extension devs to make their own parser grammars? (Not sure
> if there are enough hooks for this now btw).

This would only work if MW transitioned its internal storage to
something standardized and parseable, like XML... I *think*.

Cheers,
-- jr 'not that there's anything wrong with that... :-)' a
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274


body:
On 2/12/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
> on 2/12/07 10:29 AM, geni at geniice at gmail.com wrote:
>
> > An alternative approach might be to dig out that old idea of giving
> > wikiprojects more power and giving them the power of cat deletion in
> > their respective areas.
>
> Whatever it takes. At any rate, I think the entire Categorization System in
> WP needs reevaluated. It appears to have turned into whatever any individual
> thinks it should be.
>
> To be most effective, this undertaking would require a formal proposal with
> agreed upon goals, and a specific group of persons to take it on.
>
> Marc
>

The problem is that risks going the Citizendium rout and getting major
fallings out over which cat things should be in rather than say both.
See:

http://www.kalital.com/archives/2006/11/racism_and_sexism_at_citizendi.html

For the problem they ran into. Our current system appears to be fairly
good at avoiding that trap at least.

--
geni


from_name: Tim Starling

body:
christoph.huesler at css.ch wrote:
> OT: Is it just me, or does every company state to be "world leader in
> blah"?

They're pretty big... Managing or co-managing 20,000 staff and $3.7
billion in annual R&D expenditure, that probably entitles them to call
themselves at least "a" world leader in the field.

-- Tim Starling


body:
You know... The actual problem does not involve administrative categories at
all. Obviously those would be an exception. Stub wikiproject would take care
of stub categories as well. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy after all.

I believe stub wikiproject is a great success and not a bunch of busy
bodies. If a similar categorization wikiproject started off, end results
would be only positive. The scope of the wikiproject should only include
non-administrative categories intended for items on the article namespace.
Geni how does that sound?

      - Cool Cat

On 2/12/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/12/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
> > on 2/12/07 6:19 AM, Cool Cat at wikipedia.kawaii.neko at gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > Perhaps a wikiproject regulating categories might not be a bad idea.
> >
> > Sounds like a great idea. I'd be one of the first in line to sign on.
> >
> > Marc Riddell
> >
>
> When trying to sort out our images and their copyright status I would
> rather not have to submit every category I find myself needed to a
> bunch of self appointed busy bodies who are unlikely to know much more
> about copyright than the average wikipedian.
>
> The stubs wikiproject works because the vast majority of people who
> are interested in new stubs and stub sorting are part of the project.
> That would not be the case with a categories wikiproject.
>
>
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting orphaned unfree images

body:
Thomas Dalton wrote:

>I'm not sure why we give people so long - they can upload the image
>again if they find a use for it. I would suggest reducing it to 24
>hours (enough to account for images being removed from articles
>without consensus, any longer is unnecessary), but I'm not really
>involved in the image side of things, so I'll leave it to someone
>else.
>
Waiting seven days instead acting after 24 hours reduces the impression
that you are trying to rush something through.  That alone is a positive
contribution to the way people get along.

Ec


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin burnout

references:
<38a7bf7c0702081829u62f0261ai77cd02368817e402@mail.gmail.com>
	<btaos2tg8da5r1u714qe6vdd763pp3jmfu@4ax.com>
	<45D013B9.9040309@telus.net>
	<45D05A37.6060901@internationalhouseofbacon.com>
	<0hn0t29lg4hi35jev809q7hoqdaro8v3cb@4ax.com> <45D09EF3.205@shaw.ca>

body:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:08:03 -0700, Bryan Derksen
<bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:

>I should add Serpent's Choice to that list. I don't know why his RfA
>failed, I missed it entirely, but he's been going wonderful work
>rescuing the most unlikely articles from deletion by making such massive
>improvements to them that delete votes get retracted in droves. I'm sure
>he'd rescue even more that way if he could see deleted article histories.

Yup.  Uncle G does this, too.  It's a job which attracts remarkably
few thanks, and those pretty grudging.  I think it's great work, but
some of the RFA crowd almost seemed to think that rewriting crap
articles on good subjects so we had instead pretty good articles on
good subjects is somehow not playing the game.  Go figure.

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


list: commons-l

from_name: bawolff

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

body:
That's what I meant. You have the field, and it automatically (through
js magic?) puts a template on your userspace which the image warning
bots recognize.

-bawolff
On 2/12/07, Cool Cat <wikipedia.kawaii.neko at gmail.com> wrote:
> Idea is nice, but we could use categories/userpages for that. Dont forget,
> we are just another wiki.
>    - Cool Cat
>
>
> On 2/10/07, bawolff < bawolff+wn at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Flo said:
> > >My additional wish would be a way to contact one time contributers. There
> > >are several ways to achieve this:
> > >* Creating a field "home wiki" on the resistration form.
> > ...
> >
> > How hard could that be? Create a field in the log in page saying ''I
> > ussually contribute to project x'', preferably this could be done
> > semi-automatically via referrer headers or wikipedia linking with a
> > url like
> http://common.wikimedia.org/wiki/special:userlogin?from=en.wikipedia
> > . The thing gets automatically filled out, and the user can change it
> > if he wants. Then when he creates an account, his user page has a
> > template on it automatically that says, "so and so is usually at foo,
> > leave a message both here and there". Then if orphanbot [or whatever
> > you call your bots that send messages] comes a long, sees it, and
> > leaves a message at both commons and the local wiki.
> >
> > --bawolff
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Commons-l mailing list
> > Commons-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
> >
>
>


list: wiktionary-l

from_name: Brianna Laugher

subject: [Wiktionary-l] Welcoming new users

body:
Hello,

I recently did a survey of 100 Wikimedia projects, to see what their
template:welcome and MediaWiki:Welcomecreation messages were like.
(MediaWiki:Welcomecreation is the first message new users see when
they have successfully registered an account.)

In my opinion, one of the best Welcomecreation messages was Vietnamese
Wiktionary's at
http://vi.wiktionary.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Welcomecreation .

There is a translation in English here:
http://vi.wiktionary.org/wiki/Th%E1%BA%A3o_lu%E1%BA%ADn_MediaWiki:Welcomecreation
(the talk page of the previous message)

which could be useful if you want to update the Welcomecreation
message for your own wiki.

regards,
Brianna
user:pfctdayelise


from_name: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com

body:
geni wrote

> The problem is that risks going the Citizendium rout and getting major
> fallings out over which cat things should be in rather than say both.

Yes, I think the WP model has scored here, by allowing a bit of soft pedal when it comes to aspects of the categories that are not quite right. I actually made a public comment about the category system and failure-in-principle (you know, Leibniz, [[universal characteristic]], all that) at the first ever meet-up, in London. Fortunately Jimbo moved swiftly on.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam


body:
Yes. Terrorists by nationality categories has been kept for quite sometime
for example.
   - Cool Cat

On 2/12/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/02/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > An alternative approach might be to dig out that old idea of giving
> > wikiprojects more power and giving them the power of cat deletion in
> > their respective areas.
>
>
> I would think in the *normal* case they'd have considerable
> *influence* at CFD. That is: "I'm from WikiProject Foo. We discussed
> at [[discussion page]] killing these cats, for x reason, to be
> replaced with these cats." Are there notable cases where the
> collective wisdom of CFD has said "keep" in a manner that doesn't seem
> to make sense?
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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:
Indeed. Categorization is at a state of anarchy despite guidelines.

    - Cool Cat

On 2/12/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> on 2/12/07 10:29 AM, geni at geniice at gmail.com wrote:
>
> > An alternative approach might be to dig out that old idea of giving
> > wikiprojects more power and giving them the power of cat deletion in
> > their respective areas.
>
> Whatever it takes. At any rate, I think the entire Categorization System
> in
> WP needs reevaluated. It appears to have turned into whatever any
> individual
> thinks it should be.
>
> To be most effective, this undertaking would require a formal proposal
> with
> agreed upon goals, and a specific group of persons to take it on.
>
> Marc
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Timwi

body:
Eric Astor wrote:
>
> Just one example - probably of the 5% very hard category:
>
> '''''hello''' hi''
> vs.
> '''''hi'' hello'''
>
> Another example:
>
> '''hello ''hi''' there''

My flexbisonparse handles these correctly. I admit they weren't easy,
but it definitely wasn't what stopped flexbisonparse from being successful.


body:
Wikiprojects often do not know the categorization syntax we use, and some of
them are rather biased. We should let a group of unbiased people to take
care of categories. The point of categories is to be effective navigation
aids, nothing else.
   - Cool Cat

On 2/12/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/12/07, Cool Cat <wikipedia.kawaii.neko at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I believe stub wikiproject is a great success and not a bunch of busy
> > bodies. If a similar categorization wikiproject started off, end results
> > would be only positive. The scope of the wikiproject should only include
> > non-administrative categories intended for items on the article
> namespace.
> > Geni how does that sound?
> >
>
> You said CFD is having a hard time coping. Given that only a small
> percentage of cats turn up at CFD I doubt there is any mechanism for
> coping with what would be a far higher workload.
>
> An alternative approach might be to dig out that old idea of giving
> wikiprojects more power and giving them the power of cat deletion in
> their respective areas.
>
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Page protection

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

Nick Jenkins wrote:
> Brion, would you refuse to allow a patch for per-page ACLs on political
> (rather than technical) reasons? I.e. if the code was clean, it was off by
> default, it had little or no overhead if you weren't using it, most of it
> was in an extension, with only limited changes to the core where required,
> the license was acceptable, it was used at a number of sites, it fulfilled
> a user need / desire, there didn't seem to be any security problems, the
> patch's developers were communicate and responsive, it used the same
> coding style as other code, was well-commented and documented, etc etc
> - Would you revert such a patch: Yes or No?

Such a patch is not very likely to exist, as it's an inherently sticky
problem because it *has* to pervade the system in order to work.

If an attempt to do it appeared out of nowhere, I would have to assume
it doesn't work properly and would indeed revert it; why waste
everyone's time plonking in a big ugly system that probably won't even
work properly?

As an example see the code related to use of rev_deleted; it has little
tendrils everywhere and still isn't ready to go live after being in for
some time.

While there may be a possibility that we'll end up with that on a page
basis, it's not going to be pretty.

So no, I would not accept such a "patch". Ongoing work to move in that
direction, _maybe_ _possibly_. But some big honkin "patch" would be
inherently useless crap.

- -- 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

iD8DBQFF0SBqwRnhpk1wk44RAifLAKC37fL4UQrLMtVypNqsYtaNV2jFOwCgpeob
0KoSXsR5i8uxMswrCjTri4s=
=1BFk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Rich Holton

subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin burnout

body:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> Out of 100 randomly chosen admins how many would actually engage in this
>> kind of behaviour?  Is there any evidence for such a number?
>
> Out of 100 randomly chosen admins, how many would actually engage in
> legitimate admin actions? Is there any evidence for such a number?
>
> It's not a matter of calculating risk, it's a matter of calculating
> the risk/reward ratio. Does the gain from these 100 admins outweigh
> the loss of a couple of them possibly going rogue? I agree the risk is
> very small, but I think the gain could also be very small.
>

I think the last point is where the difference lies. A pertinent
question is, what is your assessment of the current system? If you're
satisfied with it, then of course you would view the potential gain to
be small. If, like many, you see the current system as severely
dysfunctional, then the potential gain is significant.

-Rich


body:
Simetrical wrote:
>
> This is where we could redefine the behavior slightly.  Have '''''
> always be .  Then, if ''' occurs first, output .

Not necessary. Much easier if you just define ''''' as a separate token.

''''' a '' b '''	=> ab
''''' a ''' b ''	=> ab


from_name: Platonides

body:
Cool Cat wrote:
> Idea is nice, but we could use categories/userpages for that. Dont
> forget, we are just another wiki.
>    - Cool Cat
>

Yes, it can be done on user page... if it is used. Maybe we needed to
add to the registration process a Wizard to populate the userpage with
babel, source project...


body:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> Choosing a first random batch of 100, and reporting after 3 months about
>> what happened to this group would support the radical concept of basing
>> later choices on facts.  Thus:
>>     1. How many refused the nomination outright? (This group could be
>> immediately replaced by new nominations.)
>>     2. How many went nuts?
>>     3. How many stopped editing within 1 month and within 2 months?
>>     4. How many continued editing without using admin powers?
>>     5. Which admin powers did they use?
>>     6. other questions?
>
> 6. How many people that didn't get chosen complained loudly about/left
> completely because of/started vandalising in revenge of the unfair way
> admins were chosen?
>

A question that cannot be answered now, or as a result of this test:

How many vandals exist NOW because of the ludicrous way that admins are
chosen, the fundamental discrepancy between an "anyone can edit"
encyclopedia and a "only zealots need apply" adminship? Any suggestions
on how to get a handle on that number?

-Rich


body:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>> If everyone can make sysops, then a vandal with a handful of
>>> sockpuppets can do constant vandalism, always resysoping any of his
>>> accounts that are desysopped.
>> If everyone can edit pages, then a vandal with a handful of sockpuppets
>> can do constant vandalism, always reinstating any of his edits that are
>> reverted. Nice, you're refuting yourself :-)
>
> Nonsense. We handle vandals with multiple accounts all the time. It
> just requires multiple blocks. He'd have to have a very large number
> of sockpuppets to get around them, and an easy way to change IP
> address frequently to avoid being stopped by autoblock. If he tries to
> edit anonymously, or create new accounts, we can semi-protect the
> page. There are all kinds of things we can do, but only because admins
> have powers that vandals don't. If you remove that advantage, then
> vandals can pretty much do what they like.
>

What's the harm in NOT allowing admins to unblock themselves?

-Rich


subject:
[WikiEN-l] expunging copyright violations (Was: Re:
	Admin	burnout)

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> John Vandenberg wrote:
>
>> However, the issue of access to copyvios increases with the number of
>> admins.  In my opinion this isnt solved with less admins, but by
>> expunging copyvios completely or further restricting access to them.
>> In this, I am more thinking about copies of articles from other
>> encyclopedias, as opposed to the snippets taken from a website.  These
>> copyvios are of limited usefulness to admins after a few days and
>> should be inaccessible, both in the article history and the deletion
>> log; instead a boilerplate page should alert the reader that the
>> version they have requested is a copyvio and provide the details, such
>> as source, contributors name, etc.  All access to these copyright
>> violations after it has been removed should be restricted to case by
>> case needs.
>>
> Some broad access to these copyvios may still be needed for admns.
> Putting "COPYVIO" in big letters across its face could make it unusable
> except for checking out possible copyvios.  Some popular pictures may
> very well keep being uploaded by other users who are unaware of the
> previous determination.
>
> Ec
>

IANAL, but this seems reasonable to me...unless there was some potential
value in an image with COPYVIO emblazoned upon it.

-Rich


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

body:
Bryan Tong Minh wrote:
> Implementing watchlists in Javascript? I have implemented a watchlist
> in javascript [1], but the problem is that javascript does not allow
> cross website scripting. So there is no way I can fetch the data from
> an other hostname.
>

There are actually two solutions to that problem:

1. The Wikimedia wikis have an AJAX framework which IIRC has the
capability to tranparently fetch data off any other Wikimedia wiki, on
the server side. So Javascript thinks it's still dealing with the same
site and the sandbox security model doesn't prevent what you want.

2. Turn the whole thing into a Greasemonkey script (I know, you limit
the browser choices...) and then pull data from wherever you want...

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 538 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20070212/f81d0fdd/attachment.pgp


body:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>Where's your evidence for that last sentence?
>>
>>As far as I'm aware, this theory has never been put to practice, so I
>>don't see how you can make such a claim.
>
> I think the amount of effort we have to put in to cleaning up regular
> vandalism is evidence enough. Using the same system for assigning
> admin powers as we use for assigning editing powers *will* result in
> large amounts of admin vandalism, that's just simple extrapolation.
> Saying that cleaning up admin vandalism will be harder than cleaning
> up regular vandalism is a logical deduction, it's not based on
> evidence, you're right, but it is based on very solid reasoning.

I didn't contest any of that. I contested the (fallacious) conclusion
that "it doesn't work in practice".

Everyone thought that about editing too, until Wikipedia proved everyone
wrong.

Timwi


body:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>There are two flaws in your logic. First, if your adminship bit is
>>removed, how do you "unblock" yourself? So no, you don't need an extra
>>"super-admin" level to do de-sysoppings, you can just allow admins to do
>>it. Second, your argument would equally apply to page deletion (you can
>>publish any crap because if anyone deletes it you can just undelete
>>it!), and yet admins can all delete *and* undelete and it still works
>>(because they largely follow a certain policy).
>
> So not only do you want to make everyone admins, you want to make
> everyone stewards? If anyone can desysop anyone else, then all it
> takes is one bot to remove everyone's sysop bits, and we have to wait
> for a dev, or steward, or whatever rank is high enough to avoid the
> bot's grasp, to revert it (which could be made quite easy, but it
> could be a significant wait until someone is available to do it). The
> cleanup of the damage the bot has done in this time (or, probably
> multiple bots to make it harder to undo) couldn't start until this dev
> had been found.
>
> Whatever way you look at it, you're going to need a significant number
> of people with greater powers than everyone else, it's unavoidable.

See, this last conclusion of yours is a fallacy. All you (strictly) need
to prevent this (very hypothetical) scenario you described is either
enough admins so that there's always someone around to stop such a bot
quickly enough, or a cap on the maximum number of blocks (i.e.
desysoppings) that any one user can do in a fixed amount of time (let's
say, one per hour).

Timwi


body:
We have a junk-load of categories which only increase in number. Not doing
anything is obviously not working. Existing system is incapable of handling
it.

A Wikiproject to deal with it is the best idea I have in mind, Geni do you
have a better suggestion?

    - Cool Cat

On 2/12/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> on 2/12/07 11:02 AM, geni at geniice at gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Our current system appears to be fairly
> > good at avoiding that trap at least.
>
> I definitely agree there. You would have to go a far way to find someone
> less bureaucratic-thinking than me. What I am suggesting is that, like any
> system that's been around for a while, we take an objective step back to
> see
> how it has evolved over time. Is it still accomplishing the goals that
> were
> originally set? Has the system kept pace with the growth of the project?
> Things like that.
>
> Marc
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: wikipedia-l

from_name: Liviu Andronic

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Conspicuous only in its absence (was Moldavian)

body:
Hello,

[I will assume that in your previous post it was Moldovan that you
mentioned, and not Montenegrin.]

Romanian, yes. But Moldovan - a linguistic entity? It depends on what you
mean by "linguistic entity". If it is "language" that you mean, this is more
than disputable <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldovan_language> (as
mentioned earlier, one
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasile_Stati>linguist supports this
thesis). Current content on the Moldovan Wikipedia (for
example<http://mo.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B1%D0%B0_%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%8F%D1%81%D0%BA%D1%8D>)
cannot qualify as belonging to a Moldovan language. It is _not_ the Moldovan
dialect written in Cyrillic. It is standard Romanian written in
Cyrillic(with stylistic faults, in the previous example). How can the
Language
Committee consider standard Romanian written in Cyrillic as a separate,
distinct linguistic entity? This content might qualify as belonging to a
Moldovan language, but this is a pure Soviet times POV taken directly from
the Central Committee <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Committee>. And
I don't think the WMF would agree accepting such a stance.

What concerns the people.. The people living in Transnistria now and
Moldovans before share the same "Moldovan language" (probably with certain
differences during years, due to political changes). This is irrelevant to
my arguments concerning the linguistic aspects of the issue.

>
> WMF will never tell Romania how its street signs should look like, Romania
> cannot tell WMF how a wiki page should look like.

>Romania doesn't. Romanians do. And more important, perhaps, Moldovans do.

If you pointed out this remark, I most definitely hope that someone from
Transnistria speak up on the Wikipedia mailing-list in some near future.

Regards,
Liviu

On 2/12/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hoi,
> Appreciate that Romanian and Montenegrin are understood as the names for
> linguistic entities. In your reply you relate to people. You forget to
> name
> the people living in Transnistria.
> Thanks,
>   Gerard


body:
Idea is nice, but we could use categories/userpages for that. Dont forget,
we are just another wiki.
   - Cool Cat

On 2/10/07, bawolff <bawolff+wn at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Flo said:
> >My additional wish would be a way to contact one time contributers. There
> >are several ways to achieve this:
> >* Creating a field "home wiki" on the resistration form.
> ...
>
> How hard could that be? Create a field in the log in page saying ''I
> ussually contribute to project x'', preferably this could be done
> semi-automatically via referrer headers or wikipedia linking with a
> url like
> http://common.wikimedia.org/wiki/special:userlogin?from=en.wikipedia
> . The thing gets automatically filled out, and the user can change it
> if he wants. Then when he creates an account, his user page has a
> template on it automatically that says, "so and so is usually at foo,
> leave a message both here and there". Then if orphanbot [or whatever
> you call your bots that send messages] comes a long, sees it, and
> leaves a message at both commons and the local wiki.
>
> --bawolff
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20070212/5d04cb49/attachment.htm


body:
geni wrote:
> On 2/11/07, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com> wrote:
>> Not only do I agree, but I believe a similar issue surrounds fair use.
>> Accusations of U.S. centrism are indefensible when they're based on
>> restrictive laws in non-U.S. countries.
>>
>> Now, that doesn't mean there aren't practical advantages to
>> accommodating other countries' needs, but the lack of doing so is hardly
>> "U.S. centrism."
>>
>
> The problem with that is the logical end point of that position is the
> move the foundation and servers to Iran.
>

We'd have to remove all the images of people.

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 542 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20070212/966252ff/attachment.pgp


body:
geni wrote:
> On 2/11/07, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com> wrote:
>> Not only do I agree, but I believe a similar issue surrounds fair use.
>> Accusations of U.S. centrism are indefensible when they're based on
>> restrictive laws in non-U.S. countries.
>>
>> Now, that doesn't mean there aren't practical advantages to
>> accommodating other countries' needs, but the lack of doing so is hardly
>> "U.S. centrism."
>>
>
> The problem with that is the logical end point of that position is the
> move the foundation and servers to Iran.
>

We'd have to remove all the images of people.

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 542 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20070212/966252ff/attachment.pgp>


body:
geni wrote:
> On 2/11/07, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com> wrote:
>> Not only do I agree, but I believe a similar issue surrounds fair use.
>> Accusations of U.S. centrism are indefensible when they're based on
>> restrictive laws in non-U.S. countries.
>>
>> Now, that doesn't mean there aren't practical advantages to
>> accommodating other countries' needs, but the lack of doing so is hardly
>> "U.S. centrism."
>>
>
> The problem with that is the logical end point of that position is the
> move the foundation and servers to Iran.
>

We'd have to remove all the images of people.

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 542 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20070212/966252ff/attachment-0001.pgp>


from_name: Gary Kirk

subject: [WikiEN-l] LA Times reporter interviewing users

body:
A new Wikipedian (SPA as-yet but meh) who is a reporter has been
asking users about their experience of updating articles with the
latest information about subjects, specifically the recent death of
Anna Nicole Smith and how the article was managed by Wikipedians - the
usual reverting (WP:BLP, {{fact}}) to vandalism afterwards. Says he
thinks it would make an interesting article (for his paper :)).

I don't know what the users he's contacted have said, but I thought he
could be pointed to, for example, WP:BLP and its notice board, and how
we dealt with [[Kenneth Lay]]'s death, which journalists before I
recall were impressed with.

--
Gary Kirk


from_name: Thomas Dalton

references:
<bd4c411e0702090937y3482dadcm2a9d0f99b70eefd3@mail.gmail.com>
	<eqiicb$7rs$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<a4359dff0702091319s5494dd52yebf530b1ce2fc9c3@mail.gmail.com>
	<eqlo7v$g43$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<a4359dff0702101639o5ef2e22fxf24741f512637a43@mail.gmail.com>
	<eqqd51$8sq$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
> See, this last conclusion of yours is a fallacy. All you (strictly) need
> to prevent this (very hypothetical) scenario you described is either
> enough admins so that there's always someone around to stop such a bot
> quickly enough, or a cap on the maximum number of blocks (i.e.
> desysoppings) that any one user can do in a fixed amount of time (let's
> say, one per hour).

You can't block an adminbot, so we're talking about desysoppings, not
blocks. If anyone can desysop anyone else, then you'll get malicious
desysoppings, which would need to be undone, either by some higher
rank, so by allowing everyone to make sysops. If everyone can make
sysops, then a vandal with a handful of sockpuppets can do constant
vandalism, always resysoping any of his accounts that are desysopped.

If you code a cap on desysoppings, the vandals simply have to use
sockpuppets. If you code a global cap on desysoppings by any account,
then simply having one more vandalbot than that cap makes you
untouchable.

Whatever ideas you come up with, in order for them to work, you end up
having a higher rank. You can keep proposing ideas if you like, and
I'll keep telling you where the higher rank is required. I'm confident
there will always be one.


references:
<bd4c411e0702090937y3482dadcm2a9d0f99b70eefd3@mail.gmail.com>
	<eqiicb$7rs$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<8731ce350702091249m7dda10a8xa245add927a07f64@mail.gmail.com>
	<fb7fdd9c0702091255t504a9529q90b208eec594f2a6@mail.gmail.com>
	<eqlnhi$e7d$2@sea.gmane.org>
	<a4359dff0702101634vc91aa8bp558a0fe5075abdb3@mail.gmail.com>
	<eqqcu3$4mo$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
> Everyone thought that about editing too, until Wikipedia proved everyone
> wrong.

Wikipedia didn't prove them wrong by showing that vandalism doesn't
happen, it proved them wrong by showing that vandalism can be dealt
with. The way we deal with it involves having some people with more
power than the vandals. You can move the goalposts wherever you like,
you still end up needing some people with more power than the vandals.


body:
Oops. Some context would be helpful...

User_talk:Richardrushfield

On 2/12/07, Gary Kirk <gary.kirk at gmail.com> wrote:
> A new Wikipedian (SPA as-yet but meh) who is a reporter has been
> asking users about their experience of updating articles with the
> latest information about subjects, specifically the recent death of
> Anna Nicole Smith and how the article was managed by Wikipedians - the
> usual reverting (WP:BLP, {{fact}}) to vandalism afterwards. Says he
> thinks it would make an interesting article (for his paper :)).
>
> I don't know what the users he's contacted have said, but I thought he
> could be pointed to, for example, WP:BLP and its notice board, and how
> we dealt with [[Kenneth Lay]]'s death, which journalists before I
> recall were impressed with.
>
> --
> Gary Kirk
>

--
Gary Kirk


from_name: Andrew Gray

body:
On 12/02/07, Gary Kirk <gary.kirk at gmail.com> wrote:
> A new Wikipedian (SPA as-yet but meh) who is a reporter has been
> asking users about their experience of updating articles with the
> latest information about subjects, specifically the recent death of
> Anna Nicole Smith and how the article was managed by Wikipedians - the
> usual reverting (WP:BLP, {{fact}}) to vandalism afterwards. Says he
> thinks it would make an interesting article (for his paper :)).
>
> I don't know what the users he's contacted have said, but I thought he
> could be pointed to, for example, WP:BLP and its notice board, and how
> we dealt with [[Kenneth Lay]]'s death, which journalists before I
> recall were impressed with.

Our handling of Andrea Dworkin's death was covered by the Guardian, as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Andrea_Dworkin/Archive1#Death_confirmation
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/2005/04/12/wikipedia_first_with_the_news.html

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


body:
> Choosing a first random batch of 100, and reporting after 3 months about
> what happened to this group would support the radical concept of basing
> later choices on facts.  Thus:
>     1. How many refused the nomination outright? (This group could be
> immediately replaced by new nominations.)
>     2. How many went nuts?
>     3. How many stopped editing within 1 month and within 2 months?
>     4. How many continued editing without using admin powers?
>     5. Which admin powers did they use?
>     6. other questions?

6. How many people that didn't get chosen complained loudly about/left
completely because of/started vandalising in revenge of the unfair way
admins were chosen?


from_name: Rob Church

body:
On 12/02/07, Simetrical <Simetrical+wikilist at gmail.com> wrote:
> Only a vanishingly tiny percentage of our target audience (which is
> all of humanity) is familiar with Usenet-style emphasis conventions.

It's bloody criminal, isn't it?

Rob Church


from_name: Florian Straub

body:
"Platonides" <Platonides at gmail.com> wrote on Monday, February 12, 2007 6:32
PM:

> Cool Cat wrote:
>> Idea is nice, but we could use categories/userpages for that. Dont
>> forget, we are just another wiki.
>>    - Cool Cat
>>
>
> Yes, it can be done on user page... if it is used. Maybe we needed to
> add to the registration process a Wizard to populate the userpage with
> babel, source project...

Thats exactly, what I was talking about. It would not only tell us, where
they would like to be contacted, but also in which language.

Regards,

Flo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin burnout

body:
> Out of 100 randomly chosen admins how many would actually engage in this
> kind of behaviour?  Is there any evidence for such a number?

Out of 100 randomly chosen admins, how many would actually engage in
legitimate admin actions? Is there any evidence for such a number?

It's not a matter of calculating risk, it's a matter of calculating
the risk/reward ratio. Does the gain from these 100 admins outweigh
the loss of a couple of them possibly going rogue? I agree the risk is
very small, but I think the gain could also be very small.


from_name: Berto 'd Sera

body:
Hi!

> If it is "language" that you mean
FYI, the upcoming ISO 639 standard has totally abandoned your terminology.
There are NOT anymore languages and dialects, all that we have is
"Linguistic entities". (thank God, just think of the millions of hours
people like you spent on edit wars to decide whether code X was actually a
dialet, a language, a local variant of a dialect that needed to be regarded
as a language, etc etc etc...).

The industry says *linguistic entity*, so that's what we all have to manage.
Languages and dialects are dead. What we have is linguistic carriers that we
use to deliver information. What we have is "human bandwidth". How these
carriers maybe (or may not) related to anybody's
flag/passport/religion/sexual inclinations/etc is none of our business.

We want to deliver a service and we will deliver it in all possible
linguistic entities. Full stop.

> I would be OK with the situation, if a conversion
> script were installed on the Romanian Wikipedia,
That's good news. Because this might really happen, if you guys stop making
this all thing look as an international terrorist act against the sacred
Romanian Flag and simply start to be constructive. You mean that RO.wiki
would accept having on ALL of its pages a link saying "this page in
cyrillic", or something like that? That's interesting, and no, on this
paragraph I'm absolutely not joking. Never been this serious in my life.

Now do me a favour, will you tell me how we can verify that the ro.wiki
admin structure will respect users and content coming from the cyr
interface? It's no provocation, it's a serious question, and I want a VERY
serious answer.

Pls no dramas, tears, emotions, etc. Let's talk business. I live in the east
myself and I can give all this drama a proper weight. Sit down, show your
money and be concrete. All sorts of lyric rubbish are nice for tourists, but
here we have a real problem and need a real solution, okay?

Berto 'd Sera
Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri)
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html


body:
> Actually, no. You need more positive contributors than negative
> contributors.
>
> Giving the positive contributors more power makes their work easier, but
> it's not necessary.

I disagree. Vandalising is easier than cleaning up vandalism, so
without the ability to block vandals, we would need far more
vandal-fighters than there are vandals, and with more vandal-fighters
you get diminishing returns. I don't think Wikipedia could exist these
days without blocks, and all these proposals basically remove blocks.


from_name: The Cunctator

body:
All right, if you're going to use acronyms, please create the relevant
article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SPA

On 2/12/07, Gary Kirk <gary.kirk at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> A new Wikipedian (SPA as-yet but meh) who is a reporter has been
> asking users about their experience of updating articles with the
> latest information about subjects, specifically the recent death of
> Anna Nicole Smith and how the article was managed by Wikipedians - the
> usual reverting (WP:BLP, {{fact}}) to vandalism afterwards. Says he
> thinks it would make an interesting article (for his paper :)).
>
> I don't know what the users he's contacted have said, but I thought he
> could be pointed to, for example, WP:BLP and its notice board, and how
> we dealt with [[Kenneth Lay]]'s death, which journalists before I
> recall were impressed with.
>
> --
> Gary Kirk
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>


subject: [Wikitech-l] Page protection

body:
Alex Powell wrote:
> As a side note what is img_auth.php for? I cannot see where it is used.
> Seems to be a potential access control mechanism into the image
> repository...

It allows setting permissions to images (images, not image pages).
Extends the read permission to images. It is not /used/: you'd need to
install it (see its header).


subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin burnout

body:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
> Rich Holton wrote:
> <snip>
>> You do realize that for much of Wikipedia's history, the route to being
>> an admin was much less strict than we have now. Despite this, and
>> despite the fact that there are relatively very few cases of people
>> being "de-adminned", cases of rogue admins doing huge damage are either
>> non-existent or very rare, depending on what you consider "huge damage".
>>
>
> So, you know the history of Oversight then?
>
Geni,

If you have examples that demonstrate me wrong, please do bring them
forward.

-Rich


subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin burnout

body:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
> Rich Holton wrote:
> <snip>
>> You do realize that for much of Wikipedia's history, the route to being
>> an admin was much less strict than we have now. Despite this, and
>> despite the fact that there are relatively very few cases of people
>> being "de-adminned", cases of rogue admins doing huge damage are either
>> non-existent or very rare, depending on what you consider "huge damage".
>>
>
> So, you know the history of Oversight then?
>
>
Sorry. Just after I hit send, I realized the email was from Alphax, not
Geni. Again, my apologies.

-Rich


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] precisions about the recent WMF "fair use"
	decision

body:
On 12/02/07, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Brad Patrick wrote:
> >
> > On 2/12/07, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> This worked a treat on our article for the author Jim Butcher. I posted a
> >> request for an image on his fan forum and the favourite image turned out
> >> to be this:
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:JimButcher_sepia.jpg
> > Sorry, just had to delete the copyright on the drawing.  It's a CC-by-sa
> > 2.5license; the whole point of this discussion.  It was rather ironic to
> > slap a (c) notice on the drawing which is supposed to demonstrate the
> > "right" way to do it.
> >
> Sorry, couldn't see what you meant for a minute. You refer to the (c) which
> used to be in the *caption* of the image in the actual article. I hadn't
> realised that could be a problem...yet more evidence that those of us who
> are trying to do things properly just keep blundering on.
>
> So what is the general rule: no (c) notices in articles at all?

Generally speaking, Wikipedia doesn't give bylines or the like to
articles, and actively discourages signing your work - should images
really be given special treatment in this regard?

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


body:
On 12/02/07, Platonides <Platonides at gmail.com> wrote:
> Phil Boswell wrote:
> > Sorry, couldn't see what you meant for a minute. You refer to the (c) which
> > used to be in the *caption* of the image in the actual article. I hadn't
> > realised that could be a problem...yet more evidence that those of us who
> > are trying to do things properly just keep blundering on.
> >
> > So what is the general rule: no (c) notices in articles at all?
> >
> > TIA HAND
>
> If the (c) was on the article... what happened with "Image:JimButcher
> sepia.jpg" of 23:28, 8 October 2006?
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=upload&user=&page=Image%3AJimButcher+sepia.jpg
> shows three uploads but only the last two on [[Image:JimButcher_sepia.jpg]])

The earliest iteration, on the 8th, forgot to include any note on
licensing and was speedied. It was reuploaded on the 10th with correct
details.

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


body:
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 02:52:22PM -0600, Jim Wilson wrote:
>> Why not add *this* and _this_ to the "Extended MediaWiki" markup, then just
>> make vanilla MW syntax one of the many light-markups supported?  So when you
>> author an article, you can pick from MediaWiki, Extended MediaWiki,
>> Markdown, Textile, APT, Usenet, Plain Text, XHTML, etc?
>>
>> I'm only partly kidding.  It makes sense for Wikipedia to have exactly one
>> supported syntax, but for other wikis, having the flexibility to pick a
>> markup would alleviate these kinds of disputes.  Perhaps putting in enough
>> hooks to allow extension devs to make their own parser grammars? (Not sure
>> if there are enough hooks for this now btw).
>
> This would only work if MW transitioned its internal storage to
> something standardized and parseable, like XML... I *think*.

Not neccesary: We have a parser class. Make it independent of the rest
of the code. Then you can make 'alternative parsers'. I volunteer for
making the 'plain text' one ;)


body:
Phil Boswell wrote:
> Sorry, couldn't see what you meant for a minute. You refer to the (c) which
> used to be in the *caption* of the image in the actual article. I hadn't
> realised that could be a problem...yet more evidence that those of us who
> are trying to do things properly just keep blundering on.
>
> So what is the general rule: no (c) notices in articles at all?
>
> TIA HAND

If the (c) was on the article... what happened with "Image:JimButcher
sepia.jpg" of 23:28, 8 October 2006?
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=upload&user=&page=Image%3AJimButcher+sepia.jpg
shows three uploads but only the last two on [[Image:JimButcher_sepia.jpg]])


from_name: Bryan Derksen

body:
Cool Cat wrote:
> We have a junk-load of categories which only increase in number. Not doing
> anything is obviously not working. Existing system is incapable of handling
> it.

Frankly, I don't see what's "not working" about the current approach.
There are a heck of a lot of categories, some of them highly specific,
but it remains to be proven to me how this is actually a _problem_.

It may be that we have different opinions on what the category system
should be used for. But real-world usage has developed to the state it
is today through a large-scale broad-based process of mass editing, and
I suspect an attempt to forcibly wrench it into a different mold is
likely to run into a lot of trouble as a result.


body:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>Everyone thought that about editing too, until Wikipedia proved everyone
>>wrong.
>
> Wikipedia didn't prove them wrong by showing that vandalism doesn't
> happen, it proved them wrong by showing that vandalism can be dealt
> with.

Yes, exactly.

> The way we deal with it involves having some people with more
> power than the vandals.

This is wrong. Wikipedia was working right from the start, even before
adminship existed.

> You can move the goalposts wherever you like, you still end up
> needing some people with more power than the vandals.

You're also forgetting that Wikipedia is not the only wiki, and that
MediaWiki is not the only wiki engine. Most other wiki engines do not
have an "admin" user level at all, and last I checked the Pattern
Repository was still working just fine.

Timwi


body:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
> I disagree. Vandalising is easier than cleaning up vandalism,

This is a false assumption.

It may be true in some cases, and it may well be the case that the admin
features in MediaWiki happen to be such cases. But it is not true in
general, and MediaWiki is still in active development.

> and all these proposals basically remove blocks.

Well, I don't know about other proposals, but mine doesn't. Quite to the
contrary, I am proposing to have several levels of blocking. The first
is that which is currently called "de-adminning".

Timwi


references:
<bd4c411e0702090937y3482dadcm2a9d0f99b70eefd3@mail.gmail.com>
	<eqiicb$7rs$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<8731ce350702091249m7dda10a8xa245add927a07f64@mail.gmail.com>
	<fb7fdd9c0702091255t504a9529q90b208eec594f2a6@mail.gmail.com>
	<eqlnhi$e7d$2@sea.gmane.org>
	<a4359dff0702101634vc91aa8bp558a0fe5075abdb3@mail.gmail.com>
	<eqqcu3$4mo$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<a4359dff0702121159x7e25ef0ah751b53dd48d68d52@mail.gmail.com>
	<eqqs35$bnf$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
> This is wrong. Wikipedia was working right from the start, even before
> adminship existed.

It only worked because the vandals hadn't found it yet. If you removed
adminship from Wikipedia now, we would not be able to control the
vandalism. Obviously, I have no way to prove that, but I'm confident
it is the case.

> You're also forgetting that Wikipedia is not the only wiki, and that
> MediaWiki is not the only wiki engine. Most other wiki engines do not
> have an "admin" user level at all, and last I checked the Pattern
> Repository was still working just fine.

The English Wikipedia is by far the biggest and best known wiki, and
as such is the biggest target for vandalism.


body:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> If everyone can make sysops, then a vandal with a handful of
> sockpuppets can do constant vandalism, always resysoping any of his
> accounts that are desysopped.

If everyone can edit pages, then a vandal with a handful of sockpuppets
can do constant vandalism, always reinstating any of his edits that are
reverted. Nice, you're refuting yourself :-)

> Whatever ideas you come up with, in order for them to work, you end up
> having a higher rank.

It doesn't become any truer the more often you say it.

Timwi


body:
> > I disagree. Vandalising is easier than cleaning up vandalism,
>
> This is a false assumption.

Major vandalism is as simple as writing a vandalbot in pywikipedia,
which, if you know python, is a 5 minute job. Fixing that vandalism
requires reverting each of those edits, which may be spread between
multiple accounts.

Fixing subtle vandalism is even harder, because you have to find it first.

> Well, I don't know about other proposals, but mine doesn't. Quite to the
> contrary, I am proposing to have several levels of blocking. The first
> is that which is currently called "de-adminning".

I've already explained why desysopping won't work for your proposal.


references:
<bd4c411e0702090937y3482dadcm2a9d0f99b70eefd3@mail.gmail.com>
	<eqiicb$7rs$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<a4359dff0702091319s5494dd52yebf530b1ce2fc9c3@mail.gmail.com>
	<eqlo7v$g43$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<a4359dff0702101639o5ef2e22fxf24741f512637a43@mail.gmail.com>
	<eqqd51$8sq$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<a4359dff0702121158i2d0129abweb4aa656a586a8f@mail.gmail.com>
	<eqqseq$bnf$3@sea.gmane.org>

body:
> > If everyone can make sysops, then a vandal with a handful of
> > sockpuppets can do constant vandalism, always resysoping any of his
> > accounts that are desysopped.
>
> If everyone can edit pages, then a vandal with a handful of sockpuppets
> can do constant vandalism, always reinstating any of his edits that are
> reverted. Nice, you're refuting yourself :-)

Nonsense. We handle vandals with multiple accounts all the time. It
just requires multiple blocks. He'd have to have a very large number
of sockpuppets to get around them, and an easy way to change IP
address frequently to avoid being stopped by autoblock. If he tries to
edit anonymously, or create new accounts, we can semi-protect the
page. There are all kinds of things we can do, but only because admins
have powers that vandals don't. If you remove that advantage, then
vandals can pretty much do what they like.


subject: [Foundation-l] structure

body:
> The discussions on this mailing list are very interesting, but over 200
> emails about one single subject is a *very very* lot. Lots of people are
> fleeing from this list due to the number of emails (not everybody has gmail;
> some people still get all email through pop). I would like to suggest two
> possible solutions:

Just switch to the daily digest, that way you only get 1 email a day.


subject: [Foundation-l] structure


from_name: geni

body:
On 2/12/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > This is wrong. Wikipedia was working right from the start, even before
> > adminship existed.
>
> It only worked because the vandals hadn't found it yet. If you removed
> adminship from Wikipedia now, we would not be able to control the
> vandalism. Obviously, I have no way to prove that, but I'm confident
> it is the case.

Don't need anything particularly drastic to prove it. Any mediawiki
installation that isn't locked down or supported by a strong admin
presence will be spammed into oblivion in short order. See:

http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=Category:Spammed

--
geni


from_name: Sage Ross

body:
charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> > The problem is that risks going the Citizendium rout and getting major
> > fallings out over which cat things should be in rather than say both.
>
> Yes, I think the WP model has scored here, by allowing a bit of soft pedal when it comes to aspects of the categories that are not quite right. I actually made a public comment about the category system and failure-in-principle (you know, Leibniz, [[universal characteristic]], all that) at the first ever meet-up, in London. Fortunately Jimbo moved swiftly on.
>

Keep in mind, though, that the primary conflict over categorization at
Citizendium is that categorization entails editorial authority...
being in one category instead of another means an article is the
official territory of one discipline rather than another.

On Wikipedia, that's not a category issue (and wouldn't be even if the
categorization scheme was more rigid.)  I frequently see an analogous
situation on Wikipedia when an editor complains about what WikiProject
has "claimed" an article and whether that is appropriate.
Fortunately, it's a nonissue, since it's the editors of a particular
article, rather than a bureaucratic entity, that makes decision about
the article; WikiProjects are just convenient collections of editors
with similar interests.

-Sage


from_name: effe iets anders

subject: [Foundation-l] structure

body:
Hello all,

The discussions on this mailing list are very interesting, but over 200
emails about one single subject is a *very very* lot. Lots of people are
fleeing from this list due to the number of emails (not everybody has gmail;
some people still get all email through pop). I would like to suggest two
possible solutions:

1: Leave foundation-l as it is, but start as well a announcements-list for
the foundation, where important announcements (like the hire of new
personnel, a new project etc) can be included, and sent to the foundation-l
automaticly too. It should include automaticly a link to the thread on
foundation-l in the online archives, so people can read the discussion if
they are interested. This announcementslist should be moderated, and only
used for announcements and notices that a discussion will be started on the
foundation-l (the discussionlist). This would make the important stuff
easier to follow. Disadvantage: people have to find the list again all over.

2: move the discussion to foundation-discuss-l where the more broad
discussions can be done, the discussions on foundation-l should be limited
to short notices, sometimes short discussions, directly related, and as soon
as the discussion becomes too extensive, move it to the discussion-list with
again a link to the relevant archives and a note on what the subject will
be.

Another "solution" will be to forget for a part the mailinglistidea and move
the heavy discussions to a forum.

I hope the foundation (comcom? sandy?) will take a look at this problem, and
see what might be the best (or least worse) solution.

Greetings from a overwhelmed mailbox, Lodewijk


subject: [Foundation-l] structure


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2007-02-13

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

This is MediaWiki version 1.10alpha (r19903).

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

  18 still FAILING test(s) :(
      * URL-encoding in URL functions (single parameter)  [Has never passed]
      * URL-encoding in URL functions (multiple parameters)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Link containing double-single-quotes '' (bug 4598)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: message transform: <noinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: 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]
      * TODO: HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Inline HTML vs wiki block nesting  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Mixing markup for italics and bold  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: 5 quotes, code coverage +1 line  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: dt/dd/dl test  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Images with the "|" character in the comment  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Parents of subpages, two levels up, without trailing slash or name.  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Parents of subpages, two levels up, with lots of extra trailing slashes.  [Has never passed]

Passed 493 of 511 tests (96.48%)... 18 tests failed!


from_name: Walter Vermeir

subject: [Foundation-l] structure

body:
effe iets anders schreef:
> Hello all,
>
> The discussions on this mailing list are very interesting, but over 200
> emails about one single subject is a *very very* lot. Lots of people are

[cut]
>
> Greetings from a overwhelmed mailbox, Lodewijk

Solution;
Go to;
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

login and disable mail delivery

And use a usenet client like thunderbird
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.foundation

Then you do not get any emails, you can read and post to the list like
it was usenet.

http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.foundation

This works also for almost all other lists.

--
Contact: walter AT wikizine DOT org
Wikizine.org - news for and about the Wikimedia community


subject: [Foundation-l] structure


subject: [Foundation-l] structure

body:
effe iets anders schreef:
 > 1: Leave foundation-l as it is, but start as well a
announcements-list for
> the foundation, where important announcements (like the hire of new
> personnel, a new project etc) can be included, and sent to the foundation-l
> automaticly too. It should include automaticly a link to the thread on
> foundation-l in the online archives, so people can read the discussion if
> they are interested. This announcementslist should be moderated, and only
> used for announcements and notices that a discussion will be started on the
> foundation-l (the discussionlist). This would make the important stuff
> easier to follow. Disadvantage: people have to find the list again all over.

It is not exactly the same but I see similarity's between your idea and
this old attempt;

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/announce-l/2002-November/000000.html

The idea was also to have a low-traffic list to announce certain things
so that it was not hidden between the many other posts and lists. And
also to do the discussion on an other list then the announcement list.

--
Contact: walter AT wikizine DOT org
Wikizine.org - news for and about the Wikimedia community


subject: [Foundation-l] structure


references:
<bd4c411e0702090937y3482dadcm2a9d0f99b70eefd3@mail.gmail.com>
	<eqiicb$7rs$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<a4359dff0702091319s5494dd52yebf530b1ce2fc9c3@mail.gmail.com>
	<eqlo7v$g43$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<a4359dff0702101639o5ef2e22fxf24741f512637a43@mail.gmail.com>
	<eqqd51$8sq$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<a4359dff0702121158i2d0129abweb4aa656a586a8f@mail.gmail.com>
	<eqqseq$bnf$3@sea.gmane.org>
	<a4359dff0702121526lfbd151aref228ba4eaacd3f1@mail.gmail.com>
	<45D108F4.6020506@gmail.com>

body:
On 2/13/07, Rich Holton <richholton at gmail.com> wrote:
> What's the harm in NOT allowing admins to unblock themselves?

Someone hits the server with 1111 block requests and their socks
become unstopable.

We've been over this ground and everything else in this thread see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archives

--
geni


from_name: Stephen Bain

body:
On 2/12/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/02/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Could be done when you consider the talent we have available.
>
> I contemplate in horror
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/International_logos_%28overview%29 .
> Mind you, it did give us our current rather nice Wikipedia, Wikimedia
> and MediaWiki logos.

Wow, talk about your needle in a haystack.

"This page includes many examples of why the present Wikipedia
Death-Star logo is actually really good, and also why graphic
designers get paid real money to come up with good logos."

> > Would
> > need clearance to us foundation logos mind.
>
> I think we can assume that a design good enough that the volunteer
> community wouldn't scream loud enough in protest to be heard around
> the world would be approved pretty quick-smart!

This ties in with recent threads about having free-as-in-speech
versions of the various logos to distribute around the traps, but
perhaps we could have a button - like the "A Wikimedia Project" and
"Powered By MediaWiki" at the bottom of every page - for donations
which could be freely distributed for people to stick on their
websites.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


subject: [Wikitech-l] Page protection

body:
On 2/12/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> MediaWiki is a versatile tool. Gartner wrote at some stage: "Knowledge
> management became affordable thanks to the MediaWiki boys". The point
> being, yes it is a wiki engine at its core, it is however used in many
> settings. There have been several requests for per-page access
> permissions. There have been implementations of this. They just did not
> make it into the MediaWiki SVN. This is a shame because as a consequence
> you have a fork. Forking is really unproductive. With some regularity
> the same issue raises its ugly head again; often resulting in a new fork.
> Thanks,
>     GerardM

If someone was able to implement this as an extension, without
modifying core code, then they might have a better chance of making it
into SVN. However given that it's something that devs have previously
said they aren't planning to include, and given that it's not likely
to be something the Wikimedia projects will ever need, it may not get
included. But at least if it's an extension then it can be
independently maintained without the problems of forking.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Thomas Dalton wrote:

>>I was thinking your motivation was to reduce some real-world harm. E.g.,
>>images sitting for a week causes difficulty X to person Y. I gather
>>you're saying it's a more abstract thing, an aesthetic preference?
>>
>>
>The real world harm is that of copyright violations. IANAL, so I don't
>know if it is actually illegal for us to have unfree images on the
>site for a week without them being fair use, but it has to be quite
>close to that fine line. Just because we can't technically be punished
>unless we refuse to remove it upon request doesn't make it legal for
>us to keep it there until that request is made (by my understanding of
>the law
>
You don't really "know" that it's illegal unless the owner has expressed
himself.  Even there that assumes that the claimant has a valid claim;
perhaps the image was not copyrightable in the first place.  Perhaps the
merger principle applies.  What Wikipedia allows as fair use is only a
fraction of what the law or the courts might allow as fair use.  As long
as we are in that very wide space between the two definitions of fair
use we are quite safe when we wait for a reasonable time.

>if I assault someone, I can't be punished unless they decide
>to press charges, them not pressing charges doesn't make my act legal,
>though).
>
Not correct.  If we are talking about criminal charges it is the state
that presses the charges.  If the assault took place when there was no
third party witness it would jusat be difficult to prove the case when
the victim does not testify.

Ec


body:
On 13/02/07, John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/13/07, Gary Kirk <gary.kirk at gmail.com> wrote:
> > A new Wikipedian (SPA as-yet but meh) who is a reporter has been
> > asking users about their experience of updating articles with the
> > latest information about subjects, specifically the recent death of
> > Anna Nicole Smith and how the article was managed by Wikipedians - the
> > usual reverting (WP:BLP, {{fact}}) to vandalism afterwards. Says he
> > thinks it would make an interesting article (for his paper :)).
> >
> > I don't know what the users he's contacted have said, but I thought he
> > could be pointed to, for example, WP:BLP and its notice board, and how
> > we dealt with [[Kenneth Lay]]'s death, which journalists before I
> > recall were impressed with.
>
> One recent death that is still quite difficult to find online news of
> is [[Gareth Roberts (scientist)]].  User 163.1.7.205 (mostly a SPA)
> updated the article on 15:37, 6 February 2007, and I added a source at
> 16:00, 6 February 2007.

http://www.wolfson.ox.ac.uk/

"The College is deeply saddened to announce the death of Sir Gareth
Roberts, President, on Tuesday, 6 February 2007"

[Last modified:2:44pm on the 6th of February 2007]

Not much news, sure, but it's pretty timely confirmation.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin burnout

references:
<38a7bf7c0702081829u62f0261ai77cd02368817e402@mail.gmail.com>
	<btaos2tg8da5r1u714qe6vdd763pp3jmfu@4ax.com>
	<45D013B9.9040309@telus.net>
	<45D05A37.6060901@internationalhouseofbacon.com>
	<0hn0t29lg4hi35jev809q7hoqdaro8v3cb@4ax.com>

body:
On 2/12/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> So what if he's the most inclusionist inclusionist on the
> project?  If we allow republicans to be sysops we should allow
> inclusionists :-)

The "community" only wants admins who will delete whatever they decide
to put into [[CAT:CSD]].

> Others who should have been promoted but were not for ridiculous
> reasons include Stephen B Streater and Georgewilliamherbert.

This sounded like a good idea to me before, but I wouldn't be
surprised if I'm hounded down as a cabalist: how about if any X number
of admins think someone should have the mop, then that person gets the
mop on a trial basis for Y amount of time, perhaps with a regular RFA
at the end of the trial period. Adjust X and Y to taste.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


from_name: Delirium

body:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>> I disagree. Vandalising is easier than cleaning up vandalism,
>>>
>> This is a false assumption.
>>
>
> Major vandalism is as simple as writing a vandalbot in pywikipedia,
> which, if you know python, is a 5 minute job. Fixing that vandalism
> requires reverting each of those edits, which may be spread between
> multiple accounts.
>
Ah, but fortunately we have anti-vandal-bots, too, automating much of
that work. If necessary we could run a lot more of them, tuned to catch
a lot more vandalism, but it's not a big enough deal (yet, anyway).

-mark


from_name: Minh Nguyen

subject:
[Foundation-l] What is the difference between MediaWiki.org and
	the Meta-Wiki?

body:
Virgil Ierubino wrote:
> This is obvious in many cases - MediaWiki.org has the manual... but then
> Meta has the extensions? ...or they're being moved to the former. But the
> latter also has "manual"-like elements. Where are you actually *meant* to
> document proposals? ...for new wikis on Meta, for software upgrades on
> MediaWiki, or just put it all on BugZilla? And... I'm confused.
>
> Just, what are the actual distinct purposes of the two wikis? What kind of
> information should always go on one and never the other? Thanks.

Meta is more the place to go if you'd like to help with official or
proposed Wikimedia projects; mediawiki.org is for those who'd like to
install the software for their own projects. That's how it's supposed to
be, at least.

--
Minh Nguyen <mxn at zoomtown.com>
[[en:User:Mxn]] [[vi:User:Mxn]] [[m:User:Mxn]]
AIM: trycom2000; Jabber: mxn at myjabber.net; Blog: http://mxn.f2o.org/


from_name: Brianna Laugher

subject: [Foundation-l] Set up a daily-image-l mailing list?

body:
Hello,

Would there be any objection to setting up a daily-image-l mailing
list akin to English Wikipedia's daily-article-l, but for featured
pictures from Commons?

Of course, for bandwidth reasons, we would only link to the image,
instead of emailing it to each subscriber :) with brief multilingual
labels and copyright credit.

[[m:Mailing list]] just says to contact a dev to start a new list, but
I imagine they like to know that the idea has been run past other
people first. :)

cheers
Brianna
user:pfctdayelise


subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin burnout (deputy admins)

body:
Thomas Dalton wrote:

>I accept that making many more people admins would not result in many
>wreaking havoc, however, it would result in an ungodly number of false
>complaints about admins wreaking havoc. That is what I mean when I say
>the community needs to trust admins.
>
What evidence do you have of this.  Speculation is not evidence

>>Adminship should not have anything to do with trust at all. Adminship
>>should be synonymous with innocence. Not being allowed the admin tools
>>should be a penalty, and a penalty should only be applied when someone
>>does something wrong, no sooner.
>>
>>
>If we were in Utopia, I would agree with you 100%, however, we are in
>the real world, and we need to base our decisions on logic, not
>ideology.
>
I'm glad to see that you are finally moving out of Utopia (=Nowhere)
into the real world.  Your conversion to logic would be welcome.

Ec


from_name: NSLE (Wikipedia)

body:
Quick Google search confirms that a Richard Rushfield works for the Times,
at least.

On 13/02/07, Gary Kirk <gary.kirk at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Oops. Some context would be helpful...
>
> User_talk:Richardrushfield
>
> On 2/12/07, Gary Kirk <gary.kirk at gmail.com> wrote:
> > A new Wikipedian (SPA as-yet but meh) who is a reporter has been
> > asking users about their experience of updating articles with the
> > latest information about subjects, specifically the recent death of
> > Anna Nicole Smith and how the article was managed by Wikipedians - the
> > usual reverting (WP:BLP, {{fact}}) to vandalism afterwards. Says he
> > thinks it would make an interesting article (for his paper :)).
> >
> > I don't know what the users he's contacted have said, but I thought he
> > could be pointed to, for example, WP:BLP and its notice board, and how
> > we dealt with [[Kenneth Lay]]'s death, which journalists before I
> > recall were impressed with.
> >
> > --
> > Gary Kirk
> >
>
>
> --
> Gary Kirk
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 2/12/07, Yann Forget <yann at forget-me.net> wrote:
> > Canada (or Australia, or South Africa) would be a better option: only 50
> > years p.m.a. Next India might be interesting: 60 years p.m.a.

Most of the terms of copyright under Australian law went up from 50 to
70 years recently following AUSFTA, the Australia-United States "Free"
Trade Agreement.

On 2/13/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> Australian copyright law may be kinda unstable right now there are a
> couple of possible changes that would really bite.

Like the conversion of certain types of copyright infringement from
civil to criminal offences. Or like the automatic increase in jail
term if the infringement involves converting something into digital
form.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


from_name: Virgil Ierubino

subject:
[Foundation-l] What is the difference between MediaWiki.org and the
	Meta-Wiki?

body:
This is obvious in many cases - MediaWiki.org has the manual... but then
Meta has the extensions? ...or they're being moved to the former. But the
latter also has "manual"-like elements. Where are you actually *meant* to
document proposals? ...for new wikis on Meta, for software upgrades on
MediaWiki, or just put it all on BugZilla? And... I'm confused.

Just, what are the actual distinct purposes of the two wikis? What kind of
information should always go on one and never the other? Thanks.


from_name: Mark Williamson

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] [Foundation-l] How to edit wikipedia when stupid
	mods block all Thai ip addresses

body:
Hi,

[[WP:NPA]] -- you're not going to get anyone's sympathy nor their
attention if you call people stupid.
[[WP:OWN]] -- you don't own any of the articles you wrote. You gave up
all rights to the text when you submitted them to Wikipedia. They will
not be deleted.

Mark

On 13/02/07, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
> The issue has been raised over 10 times and everytime it is happening
> again. I want someone to toss some heads finally ot I will want all my
> 1000 + articles I wrote deleted as I cannot edit them anymore.
>
> Waerth
>
> >The Foundation is deliberately restrained from managing the community
> >and content of Wikimedia projects. This separation exists for many
> >reasons. You should raise this issue with the community of the Dutch
> >Wikipedia.
> >
> >Walter van Kalken wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I am getting extremely impatient with RonaldB he seems to have a fetish
> >>for blocking Thai IP addresses on the Dutch wikipedia and he doesn't
> >>answerd emails send to him. I cannot even edit when I am logged in, not
> >>from a friends computer which uses a different provider. Is it the
> >>wikimedia foundations goal to block me??
> >>
> >>The last two weeks I have found the IP adresses of my provider
> >>constantly blocked, pre-emptively by RonaldB without any sign of
> >>vandalism by those IP adresses. Wikipedia can be editted by anyone? Not
> >>by me!
> >>
> >>Waerth
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>foundation-l mailing list
> >>foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> >>
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >foundation-l mailing list
> >foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.


body:
Wikipedia can deny access to whomever they so choose. Also, it's not
as if people are denying you access on purpose.

Mark

On 13/02/07, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
> Mark Williamson wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >[[WP:NPA]] -- you're not going to get anyone's sympathy nor their
> >attention if you call people stupid.
> >[[WP:OWN]] -- you don't own any of the articles you wrote. You gave up
> >all rights to the text when you submitted them to Wikipedia. They will
> >not be deleted.
> >
> >
> >
> I would like to see how that would stand up in a court if wikipedia is
> denying me access without a valid reason (not a vandal etc).
>
> Waerth
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.


from_name: jayjg

subject: [WikiEN-l] Category:Jews -> Category:Jewsih people

body:
On 2/12/07, Cool Cat <wikipedia.kawaii.neko at gmail.com> wrote:
> This actually points out the real problem rather well.

I have no idea what you mean; what "problem" does it "point out... rather well"?

> Categorization should
> be done carefully. Mixing religion with ethnicity is just asking for trouble
> in categorization.

Categories have to mirror real-life though, and Jews don't fit the
neat separations of ethnicity and religion that you might prefer in
some "ideal" world.

Jay.


from_name: Gary Kirk

subject: [WikiEN-l] Allowed use of list email addresses

body:
Did anyone else receive an email recently with the subject
''Requesting to make comments for e-learning wiki''? I did, from a
student in Thailand, and I found it rather rude. Surely people are not
supposed to randomly grab addresses from mailing lists they subscribe
to?
--
Gary Kirk


from_name: David Strauss

subject:
[Foundation-l] How to edit wikipedia when stupid mods block all
 Thai ip addresses

body:
The Foundation is deliberately restrained from managing the community
and content of Wikimedia projects. This separation exists for many
reasons. You should raise this issue with the community of the Dutch
Wikipedia.

Walter van Kalken wrote:
> I am getting extremely impatient with RonaldB he seems to have a fetish
> for blocking Thai IP addresses on the Dutch wikipedia and he doesn't
> answerd emails send to him. I cannot even edit when I am logged in, not
> from a friends computer which uses a different provider. Is it the
> wikimedia foundations goal to block me??
>
> The last two weeks I have found the IP adresses of my provider
> constantly blocked, pre-emptively by RonaldB without any sign of
> vandalism by those IP adresses. Wikipedia can be editted by anyone? Not
> by me!
>
> Waerth
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l