body:
May be they cant' be so much thing in other country... but they can be in
italy. I don't know if u know well or not the basics rules of procedural
penal "civil law" system. In genral... if an italian people upload some
images (like the one that u have take for the example) on commons, and that
images must have an authorization, is not important if the commons servers
are in florida or in italy or in another country, the italian people is
under the italian penal law. Idem if an american people upload that images
on commons and an italian people use this images.... U can't upload somthing
with "PD" or CC-by (for example), on commons if not in all states u can use
that materials. Commons, for that reason, had deleted all images that was
tagged with "PD-Italy"... than... wich is the difference ?

For other thing... i qoute Snowdog, if u want a free wikipedia, REALLY
free... ok  u have to abandon the fair use, and we will abandon all not free
images.

"Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your
eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye?" Matthew 7:4

Senpai

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ray Saintonge" <saintonge at telus.net>
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 3:18 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board meeting in Rotterdam later this week

> senpai wrote:
>
>>It's the only way to have some images in the italian articles. We have a
>>lot
>>of restrictive legislations and we can't use the fair use. For example, we
>>can go in a museum and take some pictures of a painting but, we can't
>>publish into wikipedia without the permission of the "sovraintendenza ai
>>beni culturali"; some days ago the "sovraintendenza ai beni culturali" of
>>florance have threated us for the photos of some painting and ohter kind
>>of
>>arts taked into the florence's museums; perhaps will be a problem also for
>>commons.
>>
> I would suggest that you investigate the "sovraintendenza ai beni
> culturali"'s right to do this.  If I, as a foreign tourist, chose to go
> to the museum, take pictures of old masters' works, and upload them into
> commons when I got home, I don't think there's much they can do about it.
>
> Ec
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


list: wikitech-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject: [Wikitech-l] Creating a XP Publishing Wizard thing for Commons?

body:
On 1/14/07, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have just noticed that all my favourite Web 2.0 sites (:)) have
> these nifty files to allow easy mass uploading from Win XP folders to
> their servers, a la http://www.flickr.com/tools/wizard_howto.gne .
>
> There is a GPL program http://tim.digicol.de/xppubwiz/ which seems to
> offer a starting point for creating one of these registry files to
> allow users to upload to your own server.
>
> As I'm uploading photos to Flickr, I'm thinking gee, it would be nice
> to be able to do this for Commons... I know the potential pitfalls of
> allowing mass uploads, but it's not like we would link to it on the
> sidebar. Would it be possible to create one of these registry file
> things for Commons?

Because for commons metadata collection is as important as the images
themselves (recall, commons images should be useful... but an image no
one but its author can find is not very useful) it might not be too
useful to have this sort of folder magic.

Perhaps just a little extra support in Commonist to allow a folder
right click menu for launching it.... Would be enough to achieve what
you want?


subject: [Wikitech-l] Cascading protection

body:
On 1/14/07, Gurch <matthew.britton at btinternet.com> wrote:
> I don't quite follow your point here. Cascading protection is an
> *optional* feature when protecting a page which as far as I know has so
> far only been applied to the Main Page. Since all templates used on the
> Main Page would have been protected anyway, I don't see how the number
> of protected template pages has increased. Virtually all full and
> semi-protections will continue to affect only the page to which they are
> applied.

Nerf.
I guess that's what I get for commenting before looking. :)  It was
explained to me in an inaccurate way.
Sorry.


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject: [Wikitech-l] Marathi

body:
Brion Vibber schreef:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>
>> Hoi,
>> I cannot edit in English on the Marathi wikipedia any more.. The system
>> only allows me to add the script that is associated with Marathi.
>>
>
> What does that mean?
>
Hoi,
When I TYPE in Marathi wiktionary in the search box, I get ????. When I
COPY in Marathi, I can search for Marathi.

When I try to write on a talk page, the script will be the
Marathi/Devangari script. My user preferences are for "nl-Nederlands". I
have written on the user talk page of Mahitgar, I pasted this in.
Consequently I can only suggest that the localisations on the Marathi
Wiktionary are truly damaged.

Thanks,
GerardM


list: wikien-l

from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] African maps

body:
Aude wrote:

>We should think about how the maps would be useful for us.  Simply mirroring
>the content doesn't add value.  How can we add value to them, by combining
>maps and other information (maybe into a map/timeline for particular places
>that we have articles for)?  For example, we could show how the
>political/colonial boundaries changed over time for the continent as a whole
>or for regions.  It might be a useful supplement to articles to develop some
>form of online, historical atlas about places.
>
>It may be possible to georeference some of them, so that they can be viewed
>in a GIS/web mapping service, to work with them on adding value integrating
>different sources of information, and begin to synthesize information into a
>digital atlas format.  We could combine maps available from Northwestern,
>with other sources (e.g. Library of Congress, other map libraries).  The
>University of Texas and Penn State map libraries come to mind as other
>places with treasure trove of materials that are not online yet.
>
The value-added concept should be a most important one for us.  Simply
copying a map file doesn't do this.

I'm sure I'm not the only one feeling disturbed by the vast number of
younger people who now sit before their computers seeking information
there without ever looking elsewhere.  When they see huge icebergs they
ignore the fact that an even bigger part of that giant is submerged.

Ec


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] Holding deletion discussion in WikiProject space


from_name: Jay R. Ashworth

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2007-01-13

body:
On Sun, Jan 14, 2007 at 01:11:26PM +1100, Nick Jenkins wrote:
> > On 13/01/07, Jay R. Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote:
> > > Wasn't a change made to the regression tester a while back to make that
> > > final status message less confusing?
> > >
> > > Did it... regress?  :-)
> >
> > No, it's still there - IIRC, it was the addition of "..." to separate
> > the statistics from the big "FAILED" part.
>
> Jay, how about:
> Passed 484 of 503 tests (96.22%)... Summary: Some tests failed.
> ... Versus the nirvana state:
> Passed 503 of 503 tests (100.00%)... Summary: ALL TESTS PASSED!
>
> Less confusing?

I should think that approach would be less confusing to those new
potential developers everyone was so concerned about over there in the
other thread.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Moving the Main Page

body:
I don't know where I read it, but I think I saw somewhere that in fact an
exception was made for the main page BECAUSE moving it would be so intrusive
for its history and all the links. If you move it, it just creates another
problem with lots of deadlinks.

What advantage can be had in moving it instead of following a rule for which
exceptions can be made?

Mgm

On 1/14/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/14/07, Gary Kirk <gary.kirk at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Someone's got into their head that having it in mainspace is a
> > "violation of Wikipedia policy", and suggests it be moved into the
> > comparatively new Portal namespace, like [[Current events]] was.
>
> *Moving* the main page may be problematic, but it's pretty clear that
> it shouldn't be in main article space, as it's not an article about
> anything. If for some reason we didn't have one, and a proposal was
> put forward today, it would almost certainly be put in either
> Wikipedia: or Portal: space. Thus, not so much a "violation of
> Wikipedia policy", as being inconsistent with existing naming
> conventions and namespace conventions.
>
> Steve
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Joaquim Alves Gaspar

subject: [WikiEN-l] Commons Picture of the Year 2006

body:
Dear User,

The election of the best Commons Featured Picture of 2006 - POTY 2006 - is
to take place soon in Commons.

We need your opinion and help to organize and implement the event. There are
still a lot of things to do: deciding the dates and election model, tuning
up the rules, preparing the project page, making the announcements, etc.

To participate, please check Commons talk:Picture of the Year/2006.

Joaquim Gaspar (User:Alvesgaspar)


list: foundation-l

from_name: Aude

subject: [Foundation-l] NEH grant

body:
Getting wiki to be able to handle geographic areas/features would begin to
make mapping Wikipedia content more useful and increase the potential for
integrating it with other geographic information - such as old historic maps
and materials held by map libraries, government data, and gps data .  The
historic maps would be available in a more accessible form for the public,
and allow us to perhaps use certain historic maps from one map library,
others from other archives/libraries, and combined with other geographic
information and wikicontent.  People could find material more easily to use
for articles.

We could possibly develop a "map generator" that adds value, extract, and
synthesizes information from the historic maps and other data.  People could
make maps and use them with articles, and/or add "atlas" type pages
somewhere (on commons, on wikipedia, somewhere) to augment articles, and the
wiki format would allow people to add descriptive information and
collaborate.  That, in turn, would allow us to develop "atlas" type material
about particular places.

Maybe as a pilot project effort, we could (1) pick one or two places (2) see
what historic maps and other material would be useful for that place, and
find basic base map data (3) develop a way for mediawiki to handle
area/polygon geospatial data (gml files?) (4) make a set of historic maps
for those particular places more available as an article supplement (5) make
some thematic maps for the place, using information derived from the
historic maps and other sources.

Another thing the libraries likely have is historic census data, which can
often be mapped out in thematic maps.  So, not just their map holdings but
other records and material they have could be useful.  I think that Penn
State would be willing to work with us - I know folks there and they have
done innovative things with GIS.

The benefit to the library/archive would be that their materials are
available to the public in a more accessible way.  Wikipedia tends to
"summarize" things, and as always there would be links to the references and
sources used for people that want more details beyond our summaries.

-Aude

On 1/13/07, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Aude, I will look a bit at your GIS links, but remember that they
> specifically won't fund projects that are only digitising existing
> collections. Quote: "We encourage projects that explore new ways to
> share, examine, and interpret humanities collections in a digital
> environment and to develop new uses and audiences for existing digital
> resources." Hm... actually some kind of GIS project might work well,
> especially if it making them more accessible. OK, two things to think
> about: What will the benefit to a potential partner be? Anything
> besides a credit acknowledgement? Secondly how would such a project
> exploit the benefits of using a wiki? Or would it not at all?
>
> cheers,
> Brianna
>
> On 13/01/07, Aude <audevivere at gmail.com> wrote:
> > One of the greatest shortcomings I see with Wikipedia and Wikimedia
> projects
> > is with our use of maps and geospatial data.  I have seen ideas here and
> > there on this mailing list and other places, but it's a big issue to
> work
> > through.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
Aude


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] NEH grant


subject: [WikiEN-l] Moving the Main Page (sic)

body:
On 1/14/07, Luna <lunasantin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/13/07, PeruvianLlama <peruvianllama at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Its more an issue of the external links
> > Just a thought on this, but assuming that the move were
> > community-approved then would it be possible to do a sort of
> > "hard-redirect" where http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page (or
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?Main_Page if you like) would
> > automatically shunt any incoming traffic to the new page? Isn't there
> > something in Apache, a 500-level code maybe that a server gives to
> > clients to indicate a permanent redirect so that the incoming link can
> > be updated? If this was the case, and since everyone agrees that moving
> > Main_Page is not an immediate concern but rather a long-term issue (or
> > not an issue at all), then Main_Page could exist for the next six months
> > or year as an un-editable "hard-redirect", to give the world's links
> > time to be updated. Then after that, once the epic novel "Main Page" has
> > been written and achieved verifiable notability, we can un-hard-link the
> > Main_Page article and editing could begin.
>
>
>
> Right. But since we're obviously going to need such a redirect, what do we
> gain from moving Main Page? It's a lot of work for...?
>
> -Luna

And it still doesn't open up the page for any potential films, books or
articles on anything else, because leaving a redirect is what we need to not
kill incoming links from outside of Wikipedia.
Mgm


from_name: rfrangi at libero.it

subject: [Foundation-l] Board meeting in Rotterdam later this week

body:
> David Strauss wrote:
> You're arguing from the ridiculous premise that Wikipedia must be legal
> in every country. Even the topics of some articles aren't legal in some
> countries.

No, I'm not. I'm aware that this is impossible. But when you say that anyone should be able to reuse a whole Wikipedia article as is, you are making a ridiculous premise, because the very fact that Wikipedia can't be legal in every countru makes this impossible. Unless you intended "a US commercial organization can at least take whole Wikipedia pages and re-use them"

Now please, consider the following two as being the same image (they are not, but for the sake of exemplification they are).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Microsoft_Office_Word_2007.png

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immagine:MS_Office_Word.JPG

The image on en.wiki
qualifies as fair use

The image on it.wiki is tagged as copyrighted and used with permission (based on what's written here http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/permissions/default.mspx#ELC)

The image on it.wiki should be removed right?

Roberto (Snowdog)

------------------------------------------------------
Passa a Infostrada. ADSL e Telefono senza limiti e senza canone Telecom
http://click.libero.it/infostrada14gen07


from_name: Oskar Sigvardsson

subject: [WikiEN-l] Moving the Main Page

body:
On 1/14/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't know where I read it, but I think I saw somewhere that in fact an
> exception was made for the main page BECAUSE moving it would be so intrusive
> for its history and all the links. If you move it, it just creates another
> problem with lots of deadlinks.
>
> What advantage can be had in moving it instead of following a rule for which
> exceptions can be made?
>
> Mgm

There are none really. Not even consitency, because there is another
exception that NO one wants moved out of the main name-space, namely
the shortcut-redirects (like [[WP:RFA]], [[WP:AFD]], etc.) If we're
going to be completely anal about the rules, shouldn't those go
aswell? There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to move the main
page.


from_name: Nick Jenkins

body:
> On 13/01/07, Jay R. Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote:
> > Wasn't a change made to the regression tester a while back to make that
> > final status message less confusing?
> >
> > Did it... regress?  :-)
>
> No, it's still there - IIRC, it was the addition of "..." to separate
> the statistics from the big "FAILED" part.

Jay, how about:
Passed 484 of 503 tests (96.22%)... Summary: Some tests failed.
... Versus the nirvana state:
Passed 503 of 503 tests (100.00%)... Summary: ALL TESTS PASSED!

Less confusing?

All the best,
Nick.


from_name: Daniel R. Tobias

subject: [WikiEN-l] Moving the Main Page

body:
On 14 Jan 2007 at 16:07, "MacGyverMagic/Mgm"
<macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:

> I doubt there's ever going to be something called Main page, but if there
> is, shouldn't we handle that when it happens rather than trying to solve a
> problem (the main page blocking a possible article) that doesn't exist yet?

I would presume that such a thing would be given a title like
"Main Page (movie)", just as with any other article that needs
disambiguation.  The only problem would be that you wouldn't want to
deface the actual main page with "dab-links" to it, which would make
the article on the movie a little harder to find.

'''Main Page''' is a movie released in [[2008]].  It starred [[Tom
Hanks]] as a U.S. [[United States Congress|congressman]] who gets
embroiled in a sex scandal when he is suspected of having
inappropriate relations with a teenage page.

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


from_name: luke brandt

subject: [Foundation-l] Diversity and NC images - Board meet

references:
<eoa8nj$ncb$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<45A8CF34.2050707@gmail.com>	<eoapfs$u2o$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<45A94D9C.5010305@gmail.com>	<eocm2g$au7$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<45A9EBE6.7030503@gmail.com>	<eocsq7$nj8$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<f80608430701140208k559f9776m9bff53bdd6b093a0@mail.gmail.com>

body:
geni wrote:
> On 1/14/07, luke brandt <shojokid at gmail.com> wrote:
>> My reply is that I asked (on 8 November 2006) whether the Wikimedia
>> Foundation has a preferred license for its projects. The answer then
>> appeared to be 'no.'
>
> Not exactly:
>
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-May/023760.html
Yes, that posting by Jimmy Wales is relevant to NC images and By
Permission images, but I'm sure that people like Eric and Angela and
Gerard were familiar with it when they replied, even though it was
posted 18 months previously. It is still true that the answer to my
question appeared to be 'no;' that is: there is no preferred license by
the Wikimedia Foundation. There are a plethora of licenses to choose
from, or we could formulate a custom one. Now the current meeting could
maybe choose a preferred license if it wanted.....

On Jimmy Wales's general position regarding the GFDL, see this
discussion thread:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Images_of_living_people#Exceptions_for_certain_living_people

>
>> So we need to think these things through most carefully, and not rely on
>> what the FSF says, or anyone else.
>
> I suspect the FSF has more lawyers and a longer history oof dealing
> with these issues than we do.
I said we should think things through for ourselves - surely that's
right to do. We are in a unique situation.

>
>> I guess there are many contradictions
>> in how each of the projects is run, but the best people to deal with
>> them are surely those most familiar with all the circumstances i.e.
>> those closest to the project concerned.
>
> Um no. The people best able to deal with them would have an impressive
> knowlage of international and national copyright law and an
> understanding of the philosophy of the free content movement.
Right - I would prefer people with deep knowledge on those topics as
well, but there you go...However I wasn't only referring to copyright in
that comment. I was referring to a whole gamut of issues, thinking
particularly about China and how things are developing there.

>
>> The Foundation should only
>> become involved in the case of mismanagement (for whatever reason,
>> certainly) which may put the project in jeopardy.
>
>
> The foundation has historicaly rejected this position.
Be more specific, please. China I suppose comes to mind as an example
where judicious involvement may help carry the project forward.

>
>> We have a template,
>> that is all. But it's a wish to make knowledge freely available to all,
>> and that is a most empowering ideal.
>
> NC fails in that respect .As does  DN and ND. Dito founder's copyright
> and at least some of CC's sampling licenses.
Could you perhaps be more specific please...why does NC fail in such an
objective..this link may be of use:

http://cites.boisestate.edu/v6i3e.htm

Thanks,
luke


from_name: Matthew Brown

body:
On 1/12/07, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
> Keeping aside the "fair use text quotations" (what the??), are you
> sure you're speaking for everyone when you say "we" there? Somehow I
> feel certain I'm not the only one who would like to get rid of fair
> use on en.wp, and envisages a happy English Wikipedia future without
> this crutch.

The 'we' corresponded to fair use text.

In the modern world in which everything is copyrighted, everything
written or recorded by anyone is copyrighted.  We can only quote
people, books, news media etc. through fair use.  Without the ability
to quote e.g. politician's statements, what the news media said about
something, etc etc, it would be a lot harder to write a factual
encyclopedia.

This stuff happens so much and so naturally that nobody realises "fair
use" (or its equivalent in other legal systems) is what it relies on.
Fair Use isn't just for images.

-Matt


from_name: Andrew Gray

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia with geo-browsing and AJAX

body:
On 14/01/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/14/07, S?ren Auer <soeren at pediax.org> wrote:
> > we thought it could be useful to experiment a bit with new technologies
> > (AJAX, knowledge extraction from WP etc.). Result is a user interface
> > for Wikipedia, which is largely based on AJAX, thus enabling previews of
> > images or referenced articles without reloading the current Wikipedia
> > page. Its called Pediax and accessible at:
>
> There are some good ideas there. In particular, I really like how when
> you hover over a link, you get the first paragraph or so from that
> link presented as a tooltip. Wikipedia could do with that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation_popups

I suspect using even a limited version of it as a default would
terrify our readers, but it's a wonderful tool if you want to use it
willingly.

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


from_name: Marc Riddell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Moving the Main Page

body:
> '''Main Page''' is a movie released in [[2008]].  It starred [[Tom
> Hanks]] as a U.S. [[United States Congress|congressman]] who gets
> embroiled in a sex scandal when he is suspected of having
> inappropriate relations with a teenage page.
>
> --
> == Dan ==

:-) Marc Riddell

> Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
> Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
> Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: [WikiEN-l] Moving the Main Page (sic)

body:
On 1/13/07, Christopher Thieme <cdthieme at gmail.com> wrote:
> I love how the Main Page is listed as "Main page" on the left-hand-side
> navigation bar.
>
> Also, anyone who claims repairing the links to Main Page would be insane and
> take years, could probably just send out a bot to do it in a matter of a few
> days (at most).  It's such a specious b.s. claim, that whoever said it first
> and those who perpetuate such b.s., in the words of Garfield, "should be
> dragged out in the street and shot."
>
> Regards,
> Christopher D. Thieme

I don't think the process wonks are getting the idea. Moving the page
for the sake of moving it is not a good reason. Especially some of the
semi-stupid proposals, like "putting" the main page at
http://en.wikipedia.org (which Brion said is not possible). In this
case, IAR and let it stay. Trying to enforse the "rules" on the main
page is nothing short of distruption to make a point (WP:POINT).

--
-Royalguard11


subject: [WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR (contd)

body:
Marc Riddell wrote:

>>>>>>I admit I am also frustrated by the countless hours editors spend weeding
>>>>>>out countless incidents of nonsensical, and at times malicious, vandalism.
>>>>>>My background is sixties Berkeley - I am the antithesis of autocratic
>>>>>>bullshit. Yet, I believe, some parameters must be set to achieve a goal. A
>>>>>>protest without some order is merely chaos - and achieves nothing. And,
>>>>>>ultimately, what or who you are protesting wins.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>It seems like Mario Savio became discouraged and frustrated a long time
>>>>>ago.  If a vandal's goal is to sow chaos he is accomplishing that very
>>>>>well..  Surely some vandals may be performing an act of protest, but I
>>>>>don't think that that tranche provides the really tenacious vandals who
>>>>>just get a thrill out of competing in a cat and mouse game.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sticking to principles consistent with what the new left wanted in the
>>>>>60s was not an easy task.  Principles served on a plate of squalor can
>>>>>be very unappetizing.  It's amazing how over the long run the
>>>>>establishment absorbs it all.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Mario Savio and I were close friends - and, emotionally, still are. He was
>>>>frustrated every moment that I knew him - it was his fuel. But, he was
>>>>never, never, discouraged.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>No offense intended.  As a person who is Savio's junior by only two
>>>months, that seems close enough to make us contemporaries.  The general
>>>points in his famous speech did resonate well-beyond UC Berkeley.  If I
>>>try to reflect on those times now all I get is questions.
>>>
>>>
>Are you still asking them?
>
>M
>
>
I had to reflect on that.  Sometimes these short sharp questions are
more effective that way than the self-justifying diatribes intended to
lead people to the answer that the questioner wants to hear.  I even had
to dismiss the notion that it was a trick question from a professional.

My reflective answer is, "Yes."  When you factor out the effects of
technological advance the world hasn't changed a hell of a lot.  A
strictly logical analysis doesn't add a hell of a lot of hope.  But as
Camus concluded, one must imagine Sisyphus happy.

There is a demanding kind of happiness that derives from remaining true
to what one believes.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Moving the Main Page (sic)

body:
On 14/01/07, Christopher Thieme <cdthieme at gmail.com> wrote:
> I love how the Main Page is listed as "Main page" on the left-hand-side
> navigation bar.
>
> Also, anyone who claims repairing the links to Main Page would be insane and
> take years, could probably just send out a bot to do it in a matter of a few
> days (at most).  It's such a specious b.s. claim, that whoever said it first
> and those who perpetuate such b.s., in the words of Garfield, "should be
> dragged out in the street and shot."

Sure, we can correct all the internal links in a snap, even just with
doing it by hand. Correcting all the internal links from elsewhere on
Foundation projects... maybe a day to hunt them all down.

But we can't do a damn thing about the millions of external links
inbound to our site. We can't do a thing about the thousands of
*printed* references to that URL. These are the ones we need to worry
about, not the internal ones...

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


from_name: K P

subject: [WikiEN-l] (no subject)

references:
<nv7kq2d6apvbi19fti346bnd3r7s79v82m@4ax.com>
	<112529.18405.qm@web31204.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<dr1lq2d5896povdkvi5dnc17fe3m0ih882@4ax.com>

body:
On 1/14/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 09:32:47 -0800 (PST), Caroline Shurrab
> <isisandankh at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >I'm sorry, did I miss something? What on earth are you talking about?
>
> You need a threaded mail client :-)
>
> Guy (JzG)
> --
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

Since I admit to still playing pong, do you think I know what a threaded
mail client is?  I just figured out that the pop-ups I keep reading about
are the thingy someone gave me to download a few weeks ago that make little
mini preview screens pop up.  They gave it to me to download while I was
trying to find the undo button on the edit page.

I pasted the thread I was responding to, though.  That is what on earth and
in cyberspace I am talking about.

KP


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7 and software programs

body:
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 08:34:54 -0500, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org>
wrote:

>Are software programs potential candidates for speedy deletion under
>CSD A7?  The criterion states that potential candidates are a "real
>person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content", which
>doesn't explicitly include software programs.

Depends if you're Wikilawyering or not.  A blatantly non-notable
SourceForge project may well be speedied under A7 (or G11) rather than
waste everybody's time with a longer process.

>What must an article about a software program do to "assert the
>importance or significance of its subject"?

See [[WP:SOFTWARE]]

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


references:
<eoa8nj$ncb$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<45A8CF34.2050707@gmail.com>	<eoapfs$u2o$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<45A94D9C.5010305@gmail.com>	<eocm2g$au7$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0701141129550.10590@localhost.localdomain>

body:
Lars Aronsson wrote:
> luke brandt wrote:
>
>> err... to say that "Wikipedia is the Free encyclopedia" begs the
>> question "What do we mean by 'free'?" The GFDL is not the most
>> 'free' license, many say. And many also say it isn't the most
>> suitable license for a wiki either.
>
> It is quite embarrassing to think that you would be uneducated
> about these definitions and the history of Wikipedia.  Surely this
> is covered in the FAQs.
>
> You can wish for any license you want, and then all you need is to
> invent a time machine to go back to 2001 and implement your ideas.
>
> If you are talking about a completely new project, not Wikipedia,
> then you can pick any license you want.

Hi Lars,
In theory your point seems to have merit, but I wonder what would happen
in practice if we were to change the license, assuming a new license has
the same 'freedom' objective but is better suited to our purpose. Assume
a contributor were to take legal action against us....presumably they
would have been harmed in some way...how exactly? It reminds me of the
case of a gentleman who was 'hurt' when the 'cut' of his suit was
criticised :)

But you didn't address the issue of freedom in the abstract case yet.

>
> Here is one rationale for the stand on "non-commercial" licenses.
> I suppose you know the saying "Give a man a fish; you have fed him
> for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a
> lifetime".  Free software projects such as Linux and free contents
> projects such as Wikipedia are recipies for making your own
> fishing rod, aiming to give the fish-catcher the most freedom.
> What if you use it to catch some fish?  Are you allowed to sell
> that?  Or does your fishing rod come with a limiting clause that
> says you can only use this tool for Non-Commercial (NC) purposes?
> Which kind of license gives you the most freedom?
>

I'll put to you another case.. Suppose someone offers you some fish. Do
you say "I can only accept if I'm allowed to resell the fish, and for a
profit." Or do you say "Thank you sir." - luke


from_name: Rupert Millard

subject: [Wikitech-l] Cascading protection

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

Yes, the request was withdrawn.:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/ProtectionBot

Steve Summit wrote:
> Andrew Garrett wrote:
>> Brion's just enabled a feature of mine called "Cascading Protection".
>> Simply put, this automagically applies temporary full protection to any page
>> included on a page protected or semi-protected with the "cascading bit".
>
> Excellent!  Well done.
>
> However, there's been a debate brewing over whether a certain
> bot could be given admin status, so that it could explicitly
> apply protection to any page included by a given page.  I believe
> this bot was intended to address the same problem (i.e. main page
> vandalism).  Presumably that debate can now be called off,
> as the bot is no longer needed?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFqjjRx/vTHLNw1E8RAriJAJ9Bg2LinlMyeR1M/HaORBrNR9N79QCeNNMd
H4oYBHjIvtF2iwIiCYeyRBc=
=IK2r
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


references:
<eoa8nj$ncb$1@sea.gmane.org> <45A8CF34.2050707@gmail.com>
	<eoapfs$u2o$1@sea.gmane.org> <45A94D9C.5010305@gmail.com>
	<eocm2g$au7$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0701141129550.10590@localhost.localdomain>
	<eodd3r$4j0$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
On 14/01/07, luke brandt <shojokid at gmail.com> wrote:

> In theory your point seems to have merit, but I wonder what would happen
> in practice if we were to change the license, assuming a new license has
> the same 'freedom' objective but is better suited to our purpose. Assume
> a contributor were to take legal action against us....presumably they
> would have been harmed in some way...how exactly?

Remember the "contributor" here doesn't just have some intangible
vague sense of "participation"; they have a concrete interest in that
they own a slice of the intellectual property of the work. We would
have taken their property without their consent and offered it to the
world, for the taking, on conditions that are clearly not the same as
those they had originally given.

If that isn't illegal, it damn well ought to be.

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


from_name: PeruvianLlama

subject: [WikiEN-l] Moving the Main Page (sic)

body:
Luna wrote:
> Right. But since we're obviously going to need such a redirect, what do we
> gain from moving Main Page? It's a lot of work for...?
>
The idea would be that such a redirect would be temporary. The problem
of having Main_Page in the namespace wouldn't be solved overnight, or
even in a matter of days. But at least it would be solved a year (or 6
months, or whatever) down the road. That's a long time, but like I said,
I haven't seen anyone claiming that this is really any kind of an
immediate worry. It's just a good idea for the sake of long-term
consistency.

If we wait until the movie/book/etc. called "Main Page" is made and
suddenly wants to be in that article page, then we no longer have the
luxury of doing things at a reasonable pace. Then it really will be a
big issue to update all of our internal links, and to hope that external
links update quickly enough. If we're proactive about this, we might be
saving ourselves a headache. At worst, like I said, we're at least being
consistent.

MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
> And it still doesn't open up the page for any potential films, books or
> articles on anything else, because leaving a redirect is what we need to not
> kill incoming links from outside of Wikipedia.
> Mgm
Not immediately no, but it opens up the possibility of doing so in the
future. After a year we can drop the redirect, since most/all of the
external links will have updated. Those that haven't, well, a broken
link or three isn't going to bring either Wikipedia or the internet at
large to its knees. The reason I posted this idea was because the main
three objections to moving appeared to be:
1) It will be too big a strain on the servers to move such a big page
2) It will be too much of a hassle to update internal links
3) It will be too much of a hassle to update external links

I think that if it came to it, we could enlist the help of devs or other
technical wizardry to eliminate the hurdles of objection #1. Objection
#2 has already been rebutted. I was taking aim at objection #3.

There isn't any wildly important reason to move Main_Page somewhere
else, and I say again, it certainly isn't a terribly time-sensitive
issue. But on the other hand, there don't seem to be any wildly
important reasons to _not_ move Main_Page, other than things being too
much of a hassle.

Cheers,
 - PeruvianLlama


references:
<eoa8nj$ncb$1@sea.gmane.org>	<45A8CF34.2050707@gmail.com>	<eoapfs$u2o$1@sea.gmane.org>	<45A94D9C.5010305@gmail.com>	<eocm2g$au7$1@sea.gmane.org>	<45A9EBE6.7030503@gmail.com>	<eocsq7$nj8$1@sea.gmane.org>	<f80608430701140208k559f9776m9bff53bdd6b093a0@mail.gmail.com>	<eodat4$tt8$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<45AA31B0.2000203@gmail.com>

body:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> If you want the board to pronounce its opinion, I would be utterly and
> utterly surprised when the official position is anything but a
> resounding NO to non commercial stuff. In diplomacy they say that you
> should not ask a question if you cannot life with the answer. I can, but
> can you ?
> Thanks,
>      Gerard

Hi Gerard,

You'll know that Eric intended to raise the question of NC at the
current meeting, and yes I'm well aware of the implications of a
decision on the matter. Of course I am. Maybe the Board will see sense,
maybe it won't :)  - Best wishes, luke


subject: [WikiEN-l]  Moving the Main Page

body:
 > '''Main Page''' is a movie released in [[2008]].  It starred [[Tom
 > Hanks]] as a U.S. [[United States Congress|congressman]] who gets
 > embroiled in a sex scandal when he is suspected of having
 > inappropriate relations with a teenage page.

Some more of the article:

== Plot ==
{{spoiler}}

Representative Tom Richards ([[Republican Party (United States)|R]],
[[Florida|FL]]) is a staunch proponent of conservative family values.
However, a tabloid breaks the story that he is allegedly having a
[[homosexuality|homosexual]] affair with the 16-year-old page Chad
([[Jason Dolley]]).  This is false -- Richards is not having such an
affair and is not even [[gay]] -- but unfortunately, if he exposes
enough of his private life to scrutiny that he can disprove this affair,
it is likely that this would expose the ''actual'' affair he is having
with intern Kenzie ([[Hilary Duff]]).  While this is not technically
illegal, because Kenzie is of legal age, it would likely be ruinous to
his political career if it got out.

To complicate matters, unknown even to Richards, Chad actually does have
a strong crush on the congressman, and wishes to become involved with
him.  However, so does another page, Michael ([[Jacob Smith (actor)|]]),
and they have been involved in a complex rivalry behind Rep. Richards'
back trying to win his affection, to which Richards has been completely
oblivious.

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


from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [Wikitech-l] how to stop that gaping mouth of an edit box?

body:
Dan Jacobson wrote:
> Is there any way I can stop that gaping mouth of an edit box on empty
> category pages??

Just make the links to categories with no associated pages blue instead of
red. It's a one-line patch.

Index: OutputPage.php
===================================================================
--- OutputPage.php	(revision 19212)
+++ OutputPage.php	(working copy)
@@ -258,7 +258,7 @@
 		foreach ( $categories as $category => $unused ) {
 			$title = Title::makeTitleSafe( NS_CATEGORY, $category );
 			$text = $wgContLang->convertHtml( $title->getText() );
-			$this->mCategoryLinks[] = $sk->makeLinkObj( $title, $text );
+			$this->mCategoryLinks[] = $sk->makeKnownLinkObj( $title, $text );
 		}
 	}

> I wish when one visits action=edit on category pages, it would
> act like action=view.

Then you wouldn't be able to edit it, even by clicking the edit tab.

-- Tim Starling


references:
<eoa8nj$ncb$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<45A8CF34.2050707@gmail.com>	<eoapfs$u2o$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<45A94D9C.5010305@gmail.com>	<eocm2g$au7$1@sea.gmane.org>	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0701141129550.10590@localhost.localdomain>	<eodd3r$4j0$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<f3fedb0d0701140608q37f20a0fxc764e3767211c794@mail.gmail.com>

body:
Andrew Gray wrote:
> On 14/01/07, luke brandt <shojokid at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In theory your point seems to have merit, but I wonder what would happen
>> in practice if we were to change the license, assuming a new license has
>> the same 'freedom' objective but is better suited to our purpose. Assume
>> a contributor were to take legal action against us....presumably they
>> would have been harmed in some way...how exactly?
>
> Remember the "contributor" here doesn't just have some intangible
> vague sense of "participation"; they have a concrete interest in that
> they own a slice of the intellectual property of the work. We would
> have taken their property without their consent and offered it to the
> world, for the taking, on conditions that are clearly not the same as
> those they had originally given.
>
> If that isn't illegal, it damn well ought to be.
>
I'm darned sure some activist judges will agree with you :) You'll make
a fine advocate

Best
luke


from_name: Simetrical

body:
On 1/14/07, Tim Starling <tstarling at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Then you wouldn't be able to edit it, even by clicking the edit tab.

I think that's what he wants.


from_name: David Strauss

body:
The biggest error I see here is that people are trying to limit language
versions of Wikipedia so that they comply with the laws of the country
where the language is primarily spoken. But that's fruitless. The
Italian Wikipedia (hosted in Florida) isn't under Italian law just
because it's in Italian. Nor are Italian citizens liable for something
on the Italian Wikipedia just because the page is in Italian.

There seems to be a plausible argument that Italian citizens cannot
upload normally copyrighted material under the fair use exception. But
there's a huge difference between what the Italian Wikipedia can host
and what Italian citizens may post to it.

And if you think that you can fix the problem by making the Italian
Wikipedia have policies that fit within Italian law, what about Italians
who edit the English or other Wikipedias? They're not suddenly exempt
from Italian law because they're working in another language.

Perhaps we should put together guides for legal interaction with
Wikipedia. For example, Wikipedia editors in Italy must obtain
permission for Wikipedia to use the content from the copyright holder
*and* post a fair-use justification for use in jurisdictions with fair
use or similar exceptions.

We must distinguish between language editions of Wikipedia and national
borders.

rfrangi at libero.it wrote:
>> David Strauss wrote:
>> You're arguing from the ridiculous premise that Wikipedia must be legal
>> in every country. Even the topics of some articles aren't legal in some
>> countries.
>
> No, I'm not. I'm aware that this is impossible. But when you say that anyone should be able to reuse a whole Wikipedia article as is, you are making a ridiculous premise, because the very fact that Wikipedia can't be legal in every countru makes this impossible. Unless you intended "a US commercial organization can at least take whole Wikipedia pages and re-use them"

Many countries have analogues of fair use:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing

The English Wikipedia allows only a relatively safe subset of fair use,
so another country's system need not allow everything the U.S. does to
make use English Wikipedia materials.

> Now please, consider the following two as being the same image (they are not, but for the sake of exemplification they are).
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Microsoft_Office_Word_2007.png
>
> http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immagine:MS_Office_Word.JPG
>
> The image on en.wiki ?qualifies as fair use
>
> The image on it.wiki is tagged as copyrighted and used with permission (based on what's written here http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/permissions/default.mspx#ELC)
>
> The image on it.wiki should be removed right?

Assuming the person posting the material lives in Italy, the image
should probably carry the Microsoft "used with permission" template
*and* the fair-use justification. The former is to protect the person
posting the material; the latter is to protect re-use of the content
where fair use or fair dealing are allowed.

If the person posting the material lives in the U.S., they would only
need to post the fair-use justification because that covers their use,
Wikipedia's, and future organizations'.

Notice that I don't care to what language edition the person is posting.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20070114/6f9110ab/attachment.pgp


body:
The biggest error I see here is that people are trying to limit language
versions of Wikipedia so that they comply with the laws of the country
where the language is primarily spoken. But that's fruitless. The
Italian Wikipedia (hosted in Florida) isn't under Italian law just
because it's in Italian. Nor are Italian citizens liable for something
on the Italian Wikipedia just because the page is in Italian.

There seems to be a plausible argument that Italian citizens cannot
upload normally copyrighted material under the fair use exception. But
there's a huge difference between what the Italian Wikipedia can host
and what Italian citizens may post to it.

And if you think that you can fix the problem by making the Italian
Wikipedia have policies that fit within Italian law, what about Italians
who edit the English or other Wikipedias? They're not suddenly exempt
from Italian law because they're working in another language.

Perhaps we should put together guides for legal interaction with
Wikipedia. For example, Wikipedia editors in Italy must obtain
permission for Wikipedia to use the content from the copyright holder
*and* post a fair-use justification for use in jurisdictions with fair
use or similar exceptions.

We must distinguish between language editions of Wikipedia and national
borders.

rfrangi at libero.it wrote:
>> David Strauss wrote:
>> You're arguing from the ridiculous premise that Wikipedia must be legal
>> in every country. Even the topics of some articles aren't legal in some
>> countries.
>
> No, I'm not. I'm aware that this is impossible. But when you say that anyone should be able to reuse a whole Wikipedia article as is, you are making a ridiculous premise, because the very fact that Wikipedia can't be legal in every countru makes this impossible. Unless you intended "a US commercial organization can at least take whole Wikipedia pages and re-use them"

Many countries have analogues of fair use:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing

The English Wikipedia allows only a relatively safe subset of fair use,
so another country's system need not allow everything the U.S. does to
make use English Wikipedia materials.

> Now please, consider the following two as being the same image (they are not, but for the sake of exemplification they are).
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Microsoft_Office_Word_2007.png
>
> http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immagine:MS_Office_Word.JPG
>
> The image on en.wiki ?qualifies as fair use
>
> The image on it.wiki is tagged as copyrighted and used with permission (based on what's written here http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/permissions/default.mspx#ELC)
>
> The image on it.wiki should be removed right?

Assuming the person posting the material lives in Italy, the image
should probably carry the Microsoft "used with permission" template
*and* the fair-use justification. The former is to protect the person
posting the material; the latter is to protect re-use of the content
where fair use or fair dealing are allowed.

If the person posting the material lives in the U.S., they would only
need to post the fair-use justification because that covers their use,
Wikipedia's, and future organizations'.

Notice that I don't care to what language edition the person is posting.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20070114/6f9110ab/attachment.pgp>


body:
The biggest error I see here is that people are trying to limit language
versions of Wikipedia so that they comply with the laws of the country
where the language is primarily spoken. But that's fruitless. The
Italian Wikipedia (hosted in Florida) isn't under Italian law just
because it's in Italian. Nor are Italian citizens liable for something
on the Italian Wikipedia just because the page is in Italian.

There seems to be a plausible argument that Italian citizens cannot
upload normally copyrighted material under the fair use exception. But
there's a huge difference between what the Italian Wikipedia can host
and what Italian citizens may post to it.

And if you think that you can fix the problem by making the Italian
Wikipedia have policies that fit within Italian law, what about Italians
who edit the English or other Wikipedias? They're not suddenly exempt
from Italian law because they're working in another language.

Perhaps we should put together guides for legal interaction with
Wikipedia. For example, Wikipedia editors in Italy must obtain
permission for Wikipedia to use the content from the copyright holder
*and* post a fair-use justification for use in jurisdictions with fair
use or similar exceptions.

We must distinguish between language editions of Wikipedia and national
borders.

rfrangi at libero.it wrote:
>> David Strauss wrote:
>> You're arguing from the ridiculous premise that Wikipedia must be legal
>> in every country. Even the topics of some articles aren't legal in some
>> countries.
>
> No, I'm not. I'm aware that this is impossible. But when you say that anyone should be able to reuse a whole Wikipedia article as is, you are making a ridiculous premise, because the very fact that Wikipedia can't be legal in every countru makes this impossible. Unless you intended "a US commercial organization can at least take whole Wikipedia pages and re-use them"

Many countries have analogues of fair use:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing

The English Wikipedia allows only a relatively safe subset of fair use,
so another country's system need not allow everything the U.S. does to
make use English Wikipedia materials.

> Now please, consider the following two as being the same image (they are not, but for the sake of exemplification they are).
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Microsoft_Office_Word_2007.png
>
> http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immagine:MS_Office_Word.JPG
>
> The image on en.wiki ?qualifies as fair use
>
> The image on it.wiki is tagged as copyrighted and used with permission (based on what's written here http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/permissions/default.mspx#ELC)
>
> The image on it.wiki should be removed right?

Assuming the person posting the material lives in Italy, the image
should probably carry the Microsoft "used with permission" template
*and* the fair-use justification. The former is to protect the person
posting the material; the latter is to protect re-use of the content
where fair use or fair dealing are allowed.

If the person posting the material lives in the U.S., they would only
need to post the fair-use justification because that covers their use,
Wikipedia's, and future organizations'.

Notice that I don't care to what language edition the person is posting.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20070114/6f9110ab/attachment-0001.pgp>


from_name: David Gerard

body:
On 14/01/07, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:

> As I'm uploading photos to Flickr, I'm thinking gee, it would be nice
> to be able to do this for Commons... I know the potential pitfalls of
> allowing mass uploads, but it's not like we would link to it on the
> sidebar. Would it be possible to create one of these registry file
> things for Commons?

Dunno about that, but there's the Commonist, which is a nice
mass-uploader written in Java:

  http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Tools/Commonist

- d.


references:
<eoa8nj$ncb$1@sea.gmane.org> <45A8CF34.2050707@gmail.com>
	<eoapfs$u2o$1@sea.gmane.org> <45A94D9C.5010305@gmail.com>
	<eocm2g$au7$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0701141129550.10590@localhost.localdomain>
	<eodd3r$4j0$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<f3fedb0d0701140608q37f20a0fxc764e3767211c794@mail.gmail.com>
	<eode8k$7sc$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
On 14/01/07, luke brandt <shojokid at gmail.com> wrote:

I think it's clear the answer to your question is "No. Just no."

- d.


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

references:
<eoa8nj$ncb$1@sea.gmane.org>	<45A8CF34.2050707@gmail.com>	<eoapfs$u2o$1@sea.gmane.org>	<45A94D9C.5010305@gmail.com>	<eocm2g$au7$1@sea.gmane.org>	<45A9EBE6.7030503@gmail.com>	<eocsq7$nj8$1@sea.gmane.org>	<f80608430701140208k559f9776m9bff53bdd6b093a0@mail.gmail.com>
	<eodat4$tt8$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
luke brandt schreef:
> geni wrote:
>
>> On 1/14/07, luke brandt <shojokid at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> My reply is that I asked (on 8 November 2006) whether the Wikimedia
>>> Foundation has a preferred license for its projects. The answer then
>>> appeared to be 'no.'
>>>
>> Not exactly:
>>
>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-May/023760.html
>>
> Yes, that posting by Jimmy Wales is relevant to NC images and By
> Permission images, but I'm sure that people like Eric and Angela and
> Gerard were familiar with it when they replied, even though it was
> posted 18 months previously. It is still true that the answer to my
> question appeared to be 'no;' that is: there is no preferred license by
> the Wikimedia Foundation. There are a plethora of licenses to choose
> from, or we could formulate a custom one. Now the current meeting could
> maybe choose a preferred license if it wanted.....
>
> On Jimmy Wales's general position regarding the GFDL, see this
> discussion thread:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Images_of_living_people#Exceptions_for_certain_living_people
>
>
>>> So we need to think these things through most carefully, and not rely on
>>> what the FSF says, or anyone else.
>>>
>> I suspect the FSF has more lawyers and a longer history oof dealing
>> with these issues than we do.
>>
> I said we should think things through for ourselves - surely that's
> right to do. We are in a unique situation.
>
>
>>> I guess there are many contradictions
>>> in how each of the projects is run, but the best people to deal with
>>> them are surely those most familiar with all the circumstances i.e.
>>> those closest to the project concerned.
>>>
>> Um no. The people best able to deal with them would have an impressive
>> knowlage of international and national copyright law and an
>> understanding of the philosophy of the free content movement.
>>
> Right - I would prefer people with deep knowledge on those topics as
> well, but there you go...However I wasn't only referring to copyright in
> that comment. I was referring to a whole gamut of issues, thinking
> particularly about China and how things are developing there.
>
>
>>> The Foundation should only
>>> become involved in the case of mismanagement (for whatever reason,
>>> certainly) which may put the project in jeopardy.
>>>
>> The foundation has historicaly rejected this position.
>>
> Be more specific, please. China I suppose comes to mind as an example
> where judicious involvement may help carry the project forward.
>
>
>>> We have a template,
>>> that is all. But it's a wish to make knowledge freely available to all,
>>> and that is a most empowering ideal.
>>>
>> NC fails in that respect .As does  DN and ND. Dito founder's copyright
>> and at least some of CC's sampling licenses.
>>
> Could you perhaps be more specific please...why does NC fail in such an
> objective..this link may be of use:
>
> http://cites.boisestate.edu/v6i3e.htm
>
> Thanks,
> luke
Hoi,
If you want the board to pronounce its opinion, I would be utterly and
utterly surprised when the official position is anything but a
resounding NO to non commercial stuff. In diplomacy they say that you
should not ask a question if you cannot life with the answer. I can, but
can you ?
Thanks,
     Gerard


subject: [WikiEN-l] Moving the Main Page

body:
On 1/14/07, en: Firefoxman <enwpmail at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, but we at least should change the code so that it displays Wikipedia,
> the free encyclopedia with out the words "Main Page"
>  in the title!

I don't see why that's a problem.  It is the 'Main Page', not the
entire encyclopedia, after all.

-Matt


subject: [Wikitech-l] Marathi

body:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Brion Vibber schreef:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>>
>>> Hoi,
>>> I cannot edit in English on the Marathi wikipedia any more.. The system
>>> only allows me to add the script that is associated with Marathi.
>>>
>> What does that mean?
>>
> Hoi,
> When I TYPE in Marathi wiktionary in the search box, I get ????. When I
> COPY in Marathi, I can search for Marathi.
>
> When I try to write on a talk page, the script will be the
> Marathi/Devangari script. My user preferences are for "nl-Nederlands". I
> have written on the user talk page of Mahitgar, I pasted this in.
> Consequently I can only suggest that the localisations on the Marathi
> Wiktionary are truly damaged.

The local sysop, Mahitgar, has enabled Devangari transliteration via site
JS, by sourcing http://new.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Translit.js from
http://mr.wiktionary.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Monobook.js.

You can take it up with him, or disable JavaScript in your browser.

-- Tim Starling


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Could we tone down the language a bit?

body:
Marc Riddell wrote:

>A least one problem I envision with such MH Articles in WP is the fact that
>you would, in some cases, have patients writing the textbook. There are many
>aspects of mental, emotional, and behavioral conditions that are beyond some
>persons? ability to accept. In the very first month that I signed on as a WP
>editor I encountered such a problem. I wanted to upgrade an existing Article
>on a chemical dependency-related subject, and immediately encountered strong
>resistance from another editor. I was attempting to emphasize the disease
>component of the condition, but the editor refused to acknowledge this fact.
>Being very new to WP, after a least a week of back and forth with this
>editor, of endless diatribes by them, and every one on my edits being
>changed, I finally gave up, left the Article, and haven?t looked back since.
>
One emotion that this will not evoke in me is surprise.  ;-)

>I have practiced (one day I may get it right :-) ) in the fields of Clinical
>Psychology and Psychotherapy for 42 years now. I wanted to bring some
>expertise to the Articles in WP related to my fields, but have backed away.
>
>I would love to see more, well-written Articles on all aspects of MH in the
>encyclopedia. I believe they should be written by persons schooled in the
>fields, and should be written so that any sentient person could understand
>it. For me, the true measure of an ?expert? in something is his or her
>ability to explain it to someone who isn?t.
>
I'm just glad that I'm not writing in this field.  While most fields
already have the dynamic tension between well-meaning but unschooled
amateurs and professionals the inertia of whose schooling may have
involved accepting certain assumptions withut question, mental health
can also involve people who refuse to accept reality on a more personal
level.  They can too easily show the respect level of a scientologist.

Still, some amateurs are careful in their research, and some
professionals do not feel offended when their assumptions are questioned.

>I would also like to see links to biographies of persons in the encyclopedia
>who have suffered from these conditions.
>
I think this last point would run into Wikipedia's verifiability
meat-grinder.

Ec


subject: [Foundation-l] free access to the sum of all human knowledge

body:
I agree that we're working toward an inspirational, valuable goal, but
we cannot ignore the realities of achieving it.

If we ignore all countries' laws, we cease to exist for legal reasons.

If we abide by all countries' laws, we cease to exist for content reasons.

We have to find a middle ground, and all the inspiration and
introspection about free knowledge in the world won't help us find it.
We need to have the discussions we're having right now.

When Wikipedia was younger, the communities were much smaller and more
homogeneous. We weren't on the legal radar of many organizations, and
the community generally agreed on most issues.

The discussions we're having aren't a sign of weakness in our projects.
They're a sign that Wikipedia has grown large enough that it must
confront these issues.

Tough discussions like these are what push the free knowledge movement
forward. The international interaction strips away the echo chambers
that plague smaller-scale discussions and forces us to define what free
knowledge means.

And that's progress, not disintegration.

Anthony wrote:
> Imagine a world in which every single person is given free access to
> the sum of all human knowledge.  Seriously, don't just read the words,
> imagine it.  Forget about rules-lawyering and what Wikipedia is not
> and think about what it would take to achieve something of that
> magnitude.
>
> I imagine a collaborative tool that allows me to upload and download
> information in a seamless fashion, and one which allows me to search
> through that information to find what it is that interests me.
> Getting a bit more detailed and realistic, I imagine a website that
> allows its visitors to find information about virtually anything, one
> which allows its visitors to *easily* add knowledge that isn't yet
> assimilated, and one which allows its visitors to index that knowledge
> in a way which will help others find what they are looking for.
>
> Am I way off, or are there others out there on this list who would
> like to create something like that?  If so, how can we do it without
> ruffling the feathers of those who have a different preconceived
> notion of what it is the foundation is doing?  Does this need to be a
> separate project?
>
> I have a feeling that some people are going to respond by saying that
> Wikipedia is already pretty much doing this.  Before you say that
> please at least note the part about it being *easy* to add knowledge.
>
> Anthony
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20070114/dcdb72da/attachment.pgp


body:
I agree that we're working toward an inspirational, valuable goal, but
we cannot ignore the realities of achieving it.

If we ignore all countries' laws, we cease to exist for legal reasons.

If we abide by all countries' laws, we cease to exist for content reasons.

We have to find a middle ground, and all the inspiration and
introspection about free knowledge in the world won't help us find it.
We need to have the discussions we're having right now.

When Wikipedia was younger, the communities were much smaller and more
homogeneous. We weren't on the legal radar of many organizations, and
the community generally agreed on most issues.

The discussions we're having aren't a sign of weakness in our projects.
They're a sign that Wikipedia has grown large enough that it must
confront these issues.

Tough discussions like these are what push the free knowledge movement
forward. The international interaction strips away the echo chambers
that plague smaller-scale discussions and forces us to define what free
knowledge means.

And that's progress, not disintegration.

Anthony wrote:
> Imagine a world in which every single person is given free access to
> the sum of all human knowledge.  Seriously, don't just read the words,
> imagine it.  Forget about rules-lawyering and what Wikipedia is not
> and think about what it would take to achieve something of that
> magnitude.
>
> I imagine a collaborative tool that allows me to upload and download
> information in a seamless fashion, and one which allows me to search
> through that information to find what it is that interests me.
> Getting a bit more detailed and realistic, I imagine a website that
> allows its visitors to find information about virtually anything, one
> which allows its visitors to *easily* add knowledge that isn't yet
> assimilated, and one which allows its visitors to index that knowledge
> in a way which will help others find what they are looking for.
>
> Am I way off, or are there others out there on this list who would
> like to create something like that?  If so, how can we do it without
> ruffling the feathers of those who have a different preconceived
> notion of what it is the foundation is doing?  Does this need to be a
> separate project?
>
> I have a feeling that some people are going to respond by saying that
> Wikipedia is already pretty much doing this.  Before you say that
> please at least note the part about it being *easy* to add knowledge.
>
> Anthony
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20070114/dcdb72da/attachment.pgp>


body:
I agree that we're working toward an inspirational, valuable goal, but
we cannot ignore the realities of achieving it.

If we ignore all countries' laws, we cease to exist for legal reasons.

If we abide by all countries' laws, we cease to exist for content reasons.

We have to find a middle ground, and all the inspiration and
introspection about free knowledge in the world won't help us find it.
We need to have the discussions we're having right now.

When Wikipedia was younger, the communities were much smaller and more
homogeneous. We weren't on the legal radar of many organizations, and
the community generally agreed on most issues.

The discussions we're having aren't a sign of weakness in our projects.
They're a sign that Wikipedia has grown large enough that it must
confront these issues.

Tough discussions like these are what push the free knowledge movement
forward. The international interaction strips away the echo chambers
that plague smaller-scale discussions and forces us to define what free
knowledge means.

And that's progress, not disintegration.

Anthony wrote:
> Imagine a world in which every single person is given free access to
> the sum of all human knowledge.  Seriously, don't just read the words,
> imagine it.  Forget about rules-lawyering and what Wikipedia is not
> and think about what it would take to achieve something of that
> magnitude.
>
> I imagine a collaborative tool that allows me to upload and download
> information in a seamless fashion, and one which allows me to search
> through that information to find what it is that interests me.
> Getting a bit more detailed and realistic, I imagine a website that
> allows its visitors to find information about virtually anything, one
> which allows its visitors to *easily* add knowledge that isn't yet
> assimilated, and one which allows its visitors to index that knowledge
> in a way which will help others find what they are looking for.
>
> Am I way off, or are there others out there on this list who would
> like to create something like that?  If so, how can we do it without
> ruffling the feathers of those who have a different preconceived
> notion of what it is the foundation is doing?  Does this need to be a
> separate project?
>
> I have a feeling that some people are going to respond by saying that
> Wikipedia is already pretty much doing this.  Before you say that
> please at least note the part about it being *easy* to add knowledge.
>
> Anthony
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20070114/dcdb72da/attachment-0001.pgp>


body:
On 14/01/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:

> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation_popups
> >
> > I suspect using even a limited version of it as a default would
> > terrify our readers, but it's a wonderful tool if you want to use it
> > willingly.
>
> So, how can we have different classes of users, with different levels
> of tools, without forking? We must have lots of power Wikipedia users,
> who have to use the same tools as Wikipedia newbies. Can we give them
> better tools without scaring the newbies?

I've wondered about this myself.

Popups and so on are a marvel and a wonder, but you need to know about
them somehow. Perhaps we could look into integrating them more closely
with the preferences settings?

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


references:
<JBUXN3$B3B72F307F65E5DD7040F8EEBBD27AC1@libero.it>	<45AA918A.3060600@fourkitchens.com>
	<45AA969A.4050501@gmail.com>

body:
I agree that we need much further analysis of the legal issues editors
encounter. Despite my lack of legal expertise, it's clear to me that
languages aren't the right variable for composing legalistic policy.

I also agree that this is not solely a Wikipedia issue. I use Wikipedia
as my example because it's where the language-level policies have seen
the most proliferation.

I still think the best solution would be divorcing legalistic policy
from language-based Wikipedia policy. We could set up pages on Meta to
establish the obligations and limitations for editing as a citizen of or
within certain countries.

What we're doing now overly limits some editors and leaves others
vulnerable.

Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> The German chapter has been taken to court in the past on matters of law
> in Germany. It is not as simple as you suggest. The Italian chapter is
> another entity that plays its part in the whole mess that is the law.
> The British say it nicely: "the law is an arse". Do you know what your
> personal legal status is when you edit an existing article with a
> legally problematic picture or whatever in it.. Are you responsible,
> maybe. Can you be taken to court, certainly.
>
> The biggest error that I see is that people with not enough knowledge
> about the law make the policy. What I believe in is that we know as an
> organisation what our message is about all this. That we take our
> position judiciously as the many organisations that are the WMF and its
> chapters. This way we protect the most vulnerable, our editors. This way
> we may be able to resist the continuing land grab of the proprietary
> stake holders.
>
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
>
> PS this is not a Wikipedia issue .. :(

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20070114/e132c174/attachment.pgp


body:
I agree that we need much further analysis of the legal issues editors
encounter. Despite my lack of legal expertise, it's clear to me that
languages aren't the right variable for composing legalistic policy.

I also agree that this is not solely a Wikipedia issue. I use Wikipedia
as my example because it's where the language-level policies have seen
the most proliferation.

I still think the best solution would be divorcing legalistic policy
from language-based Wikipedia policy. We could set up pages on Meta to
establish the obligations and limitations for editing as a citizen of or
within certain countries.

What we're doing now overly limits some editors and leaves others
vulnerable.

Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> The German chapter has been taken to court in the past on matters of law
> in Germany. It is not as simple as you suggest. The Italian chapter is
> another entity that plays its part in the whole mess that is the law.
> The British say it nicely: "the law is an arse". Do you know what your
> personal legal status is when you edit an existing article with a
> legally problematic picture or whatever in it.. Are you responsible,
> maybe. Can you be taken to court, certainly.
>
> The biggest error that I see is that people with not enough knowledge
> about the law make the policy. What I believe in is that we know as an
> organisation what our message is about all this. That we take our
> position judiciously as the many organisations that are the WMF and its
> chapters. This way we protect the most vulnerable, our editors. This way
> we may be able to resist the continuing land grab of the proprietary
> stake holders.
>
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
>
> PS this is not a Wikipedia issue .. :(

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20070114/e132c174/attachment.pgp>


body:
I agree that we need much further analysis of the legal issues editors
encounter. Despite my lack of legal expertise, it's clear to me that
languages aren't the right variable for composing legalistic policy.

I also agree that this is not solely a Wikipedia issue. I use Wikipedia
as my example because it's where the language-level policies have seen
the most proliferation.

I still think the best solution would be divorcing legalistic policy
from language-based Wikipedia policy. We could set up pages on Meta to
establish the obligations and limitations for editing as a citizen of or
within certain countries.

What we're doing now overly limits some editors and leaves others
vulnerable.

Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> The German chapter has been taken to court in the past on matters of law
> in Germany. It is not as simple as you suggest. The Italian chapter is
> another entity that plays its part in the whole mess that is the law.
> The British say it nicely: "the law is an arse". Do you know what your
> personal legal status is when you edit an existing article with a
> legally problematic picture or whatever in it.. Are you responsible,
> maybe. Can you be taken to court, certainly.
>
> The biggest error that I see is that people with not enough knowledge
> about the law make the policy. What I believe in is that we know as an
> organisation what our message is about all this. That we take our
> position judiciously as the many organisations that are the WMF and its
> chapters. This way we protect the most vulnerable, our editors. This way
> we may be able to resist the continuing land grab of the proprietary
> stake holders.
>
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
>
> PS this is not a Wikipedia issue .. :(

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20070114/e132c174/attachment-0001.pgp>


from_name: Rob Church

subject: [Wikitech-l] Cascading protection

body:
On 14/01/07, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
> However, there's been a debate brewing over whether a certain
> bot could be given admin status, so that it could explicitly
> apply protection to any page included by a given page.  I believe
> this bot was intended to address the same problem (i.e. main page
> vandalism).  Presumably that debate can now be called off,
> as the bot is no longer needed?

Heh, the bit he's not commenting on....Werdna disliked the bot on
principle, I think, and this partly boosted his work on the
functionality in question. So yes, the bot is more or less redundant.

Rob Church


body:
Don't turn this into a situation where you leverage what annoys some
people (non-commercial media) against what annoys you (fair-use media).
That doesn't accomplish anything.

senpai wrote:
> For other thing... i qoute Snowdog, if u want a free wikipedia, REALLY
> free... ok  u have to abandon the fair use, and we will abandon all not free
> images.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20070114/4027dadb/attachment.pgp


body:
Don't turn this into a situation where you leverage what annoys some
people (non-commercial media) against what annoys you (fair-use media).
That doesn't accomplish anything.

senpai wrote:
> For other thing... i qoute Snowdog, if u want a free wikipedia, REALLY
> free... ok  u have to abandon the fair use, and we will abandon all not free
> images.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20070114/4027dadb/attachment.pgp>


body:
Don't turn this into a situation where you leverage what annoys some
people (non-commercial media) against what annoys you (fair-use media).
That doesn't accomplish anything.

senpai wrote:
> For other thing... i qoute Snowdog, if u want a free wikipedia, REALLY
> free... ok  u have to abandon the fair use, and we will abandon all not free
> images.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20070114/4027dadb/attachment-0001.pgp>


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7 and software programs

references:
<71cd4dd90701140534l1a963b66ua0b41d4b8ccc15b5@mail.gmail.com>
	<9rdkq2p0cojb39nffar0sjg920p85i8017@4ax.com>
	<45AA3CBD.50805@internationalhouseofbacon.com>

body:
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 09:22:53 -0500, Jeff Raymond
<jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:

>It has nothing to do with "Wikilawyering."  CSD A7 does not allow for
>speedying of software, and to do so is abusing the CSD criteria.

Like I said, a blatantly non-notable SourceForge project may well be
speedied under A7 or G11.  You can Wikilawyer about it, but in the end
most of us don't actually think it's worth spending five days to get
three !votes on AfD, all of which endorse the blindingly obvious.

If, of course, it is not blatantly non-notable, then this does not
apply, honest mistakes notwithstanding.

Your favourite guideline, [[WP:SNOW]], applies.

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


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7 and software programs

body:
I'd imagine they'd have to do the same a company, website or person needs to
do. Establish notability through wide use, awards or some other thing that's
probably mentioned in WP:SOFTWARE. Any particular article in mind?

Mgm

On 1/14/07, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
> Are software programs potential candidates for speedy deletion under
> CSD A7?  The criterion states that potential candidates are a "real
> person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content", which
> doesn't explicitly include software programs.
>
> What must an article about a software program do to "assert the
> importance or significance of its subject"?
>
> Anthony
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Anthony

subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7 and software programs

body:
On 1/14/07, Eugene van der Pijll <eugene at vanderpijll.nl> wrote:
> Anthony schreef:
> > On 1/14/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > RoboGeo: the sources include two articles that are not written by its
> > > creators.
> > > One of those is even a book.
> >
> > However, this seems to suggest that any article which doesn't contain
> > two sources (or at least claim that two sources exist) is a CSD.  In
> > that respect it seems too easy to remove any article (speedily, at
> > that) by wikilawyering about lack of sources.
>
> In another thread, Jeff Raymond wrote (about [[Wikipedia:Speedy deletion
> criterion for unsourced articles]]):
>
> "The chance of that gaining consensus are next to nil."
>
> Nevertheless, this example shows that there are a number of people who
> already seem to follow WP:CSDUA.
>
Maybe, but [[WP:SOFTWARE]] is much much harsher than [[WP:CSDUA]].
Requiring a single source which shows that something definitely exists
is one thing.  Requiring that thing *to be the subject of* multiple
non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company
itself is yet another.

I really wouldn't have a problem with WP:CSDUA, in any of the proposed
forms, which entail either a 14 day waiting period in which *anyone*
can add a single source, or a mere moving of the article somewhere
else as opposed to outright deletion (where non-admins can't see the
article any more).  While at it it would be nice to have a mandatory
freeform field required for new article creation where the creator can
type in a source.  But that's not what this speedy deletion criterion
is apparently being interpreted to mean.

Anthony


references:
<eoa8nj$ncb$1@sea.gmane.org>	<45A8CF34.2050707@gmail.com>	<eoapfs$u2o$1@sea.gmane.org>	<45A94D9C.5010305@gmail.com>	<eocm2g$au7$1@sea.gmane.org>	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0701141129550.10590@localhost.localdomain>
	<eodd3r$4j0$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
luke brandt schreef:
> I'll put to you another case.. Suppose someone offers you some fish. Do
> you say "I can only accept if I'm allowed to resell the fish, and for a
> profit." Or do you say "Thank you sir." - luke
Hoi,
When I am hungry and someone offers me a fish, and insists on telling me
a long winded story with what I can and cannot do with the fish, I will
wait and salivate from hunger. I will say thank you .. and think: "what
an arrogant prick".. he knows I am hungry .. I want to grill, cook it
with herbs and butter.. I am HUNGRY why does he not allow me to go home
and cook !!
Thanks,
    GerardM


references:
<eoa8nj$ncb$1@sea.gmane.org> <45A8CF34.2050707@gmail.com>
	<eoapfs$u2o$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
The reply suggests that advertising on a website disqualifies it from
being non-commercial use. One affect of that policy is that only people
who can afford to completely fund their site without advertising support
may reuse the content.

The argument that employing a share-alike license destroys commercial
viability is also dubious.

> Hi Gerard,
> I shouldn't have interjected the word 'therefore' as I think there are
> other good reasons for autonomy as well, as I earlier surmised you do
> too. But I'd be interested to know why you disagree on NC. I already
> read Eric's arguments:
>
> http://intelligentdesigns.net/Licenses/NC
>
> as well as this reply:
>
> http://cites.boisestate.edu/v6i3e.htm
>
> and I'd be interested to know your view.
>
> Thanks
> luke

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20070114/fdc781d6/attachment.pgp


body:
The reply suggests that advertising on a website disqualifies it from
being non-commercial use. One affect of that policy is that only people
who can afford to completely fund their site without advertising support
may reuse the content.

The argument that employing a share-alike license destroys commercial
viability is also dubious.

> Hi Gerard,
> I shouldn't have interjected the word 'therefore' as I think there are
> other good reasons for autonomy as well, as I earlier surmised you do
> too. But I'd be interested to know why you disagree on NC. I already
> read Eric's arguments:
>
> http://intelligentdesigns.net/Licenses/NC
>
> as well as this reply:
>
> http://cites.boisestate.edu/v6i3e.htm
>
> and I'd be interested to know your view.
>
> Thanks
> luke

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20070114/fdc781d6/attachment.pgp>


body:
The reply suggests that advertising on a website disqualifies it from
being non-commercial use. One affect of that policy is that only people
who can afford to completely fund their site without advertising support
may reuse the content.

The argument that employing a share-alike license destroys commercial
viability is also dubious.

> Hi Gerard,
> I shouldn't have interjected the word 'therefore' as I think there are
> other good reasons for autonomy as well, as I earlier surmised you do
> too. But I'd be interested to know why you disagree on NC. I already
> read Eric's arguments:
>
> http://intelligentdesigns.net/Licenses/NC
>
> as well as this reply:
>
> http://cites.boisestate.edu/v6i3e.htm
>
> and I'd be interested to know your view.
>
> Thanks
> luke

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20070114/fdc781d6/attachment-0001.pgp>


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: David Goodman

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Entries for deletion.... Notability

body:
I prefer to write that way too, but it isn't safe now.   There are a
few editors running amuck with speedys on new stubs. Any editor can
place a speedy. It takes an admin to actually delete it, but they do
delete it if you haven't contested it with a hangon tag. You may have
less than an hour, depending how busy things are. If you start a new
article, stay and watch it.

On 1/13/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> David Goodman wrote:
>
> >An good article that is properly defended is less likely to be
> >deleted. I have seen many worthy articles fail because there are no
> >outside references, and the claims are either exorbitant or mild. You
> >can not expect others to know, unless you tell them.
> >
> All good articles also need time to evolve.  Stubs don't seem like much,
> but they are a beginning.  References are a good thing; good references
> are even better.  These too develop over time.  References are more
> important when the facts are in dispute, but many articles can afford
> patience when dealing with references.
>
> Ec
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.


from_name: luke brandt

references:
<eoa8nj$ncb$1@sea.gmane.org>	<45A8CF34.2050707@gmail.com>	<eoapfs$u2o$1@sea.gmane.org>	<45A94D9C.5010305@gmail.com>	<eocm2g$au7$1@sea.gmane.org>	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0701141129550.10590@localhost.localdomain>	<eodd3r$4j0$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<45AA390D.7080108@gmail.com>

body:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> luke brandt schreef:
>> I'll put to you another case.. Suppose someone offers you some fish. Do
>> you say "I can only accept if I'm allowed to resell the fish, and for a
>> profit." Or do you say "Thank you sir." - luke
> Hoi,
> When I am hungry and someone offers me a fish, and insists on telling me
> a long winded story with what I can and cannot do with the fish, I will
> wait and salivate from hunger. I will say thank you .. and think: "what
> an arrogant prick".. he knows I am hungry .. I want to grill, cook it
> with herbs and butter.. I am HUNGRY why does he not allow me to go home
> and cook !!
> Thanks,
>     GerardM

You made me hungry :)

You would curse your benefactor even though you are penniless, because
he delays while he tries to suss whether you are a suitable person for
his munificence...tut-tut, such gratitude :) Wait, eat and be satisfied.

*hugs* from luke


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7 and software programs

body:
On 1/14/07, K P <kpbotany at gmail.com> wrote:
> At some point, though, Wikipedia has to decide what it is, a reliable source
> of information on the Internet, or a place for its editors.  At one of the
> top 10 sites, it should be leaning towards the former, with, eventually, all
> information reliable and sourced.
>
See, if I *had* to make a choice, I'd choose the latter.  In fact, I'd
shut off the search engines through robots.txt and send everyone to
one of the mirrors before I'd lose focus on the goal of *creating* the
best encyclopedia.  Being a top 10 website is not the goal (in my
opinion).  At best it is a means to attract new contributors - at
worst it is a distraction due to people saying exactly what you just
said.

Do I think a choice *has* to be made?  No, not really.  I think it's
quite possible to have a single site that does both; or alternatively,
for the foundation to run both sites.

> Right now there is a place for some unsourced information, namely in
> articles tagged that they're unsourced, or "let the reader beware."
>
> A lot of the obvious solutions (all information has to be sourced) detract
> from what I see as the primary Wikipedia force that will eventually make it
> THE most useful site on the Internet: anyone can edit.
>
> KP


from_name: JePe

subject: [Wikitech-l] Cascading protection

body:
As you wrote it gives full protection to the included pages/templates,
independend from the protection level of the protected page. In my opinion it's
better to give the included pages the same protection level as the page you are
proctecting. Or make an option to adjust the protection level of the included
pages independend from the page you protect.

Hans (JePe)


subject: [Wikitech-l] Cascading protection

body:
On 1/14/07, Andrew Garrett <andrew at epstone.net> wrote:
> I lack the sysop bit to do it myself.

Surely you mean "sysop row"?  :P


subject: [Wikitech-l] Cascading protection

body:
On 1/14/07, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
> user_groups row

Well, user_groups has sysop rows, and bureaucrat rows, and bot rows . . .

> if we want to try to be clever and make crappy in-jokes.

Is there any alternative?  :D


body:
I don't think you understand my position. I'm not arguing for an
elimination of policy catering to non-U.S. countries. I'm arguing for a
separation between languages and legalistic policy. We would have guides
for editors from Austria, Switzerland, and Germany. Such a guide would
not be specific to the German Wikipedia.

Plenty of people in Germany edit the English Wikipedia. The current
language-country ties don't account for those scenarios.

Arne Klempert wrote:
> On 1/14/07, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com> wrote:
>> The biggest error I see here is that people are trying to limit language
>> versions of Wikipedia so that they comply with the laws of the country
>> where the language is primarily spoken. But that's fruitless.
>
> No it's necessary, if we want to create *free* knowledge.
>
> In an ideal world our content would comply with any law in any
> country. Of course this is almost impossible, so we have to make
> decisions, which laws are important to comply with and which aren't.
> And in some cases these decisions depend on language. To give you an
> example: IMHO it's fundamentally important to our mission that the
> content of the German Wikipedia complies at least with German,
> Austrian and Swiss law. Because these are the countries where the
> content is going to be used by third parties most likely.
>
> Arne
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20070114/8bf661d1/attachment.pgp


body:
I don't think you understand my position. I'm not arguing for an
elimination of policy catering to non-U.S. countries. I'm arguing for a
separation between languages and legalistic policy. We would have guides
for editors from Austria, Switzerland, and Germany. Such a guide would
not be specific to the German Wikipedia.

Plenty of people in Germany edit the English Wikipedia. The current
language-country ties don't account for those scenarios.

Arne Klempert wrote:
> On 1/14/07, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com> wrote:
>> The biggest error I see here is that people are trying to limit language
>> versions of Wikipedia so that they comply with the laws of the country
>> where the language is primarily spoken. But that's fruitless.
>
> No it's necessary, if we want to create *free* knowledge.
>
> In an ideal world our content would comply with any law in any
> country. Of course this is almost impossible, so we have to make
> decisions, which laws are important to comply with and which aren't.
> And in some cases these decisions depend on language. To give you an
> example: IMHO it's fundamentally important to our mission that the
> content of the German Wikipedia complies at least with German,
> Austrian and Swiss law. Because these are the countries where the
> content is going to be used by third parties most likely.
>
> Arne
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20070114/8bf661d1/attachment.pgp>


body:
I don't think you understand my position. I'm not arguing for an
elimination of policy catering to non-U.S. countries. I'm arguing for a
separation between languages and legalistic policy. We would have guides
for editors from Austria, Switzerland, and Germany. Such a guide would
not be specific to the German Wikipedia.

Plenty of people in Germany edit the English Wikipedia. The current
language-country ties don't account for those scenarios.

Arne Klempert wrote:
> On 1/14/07, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com> wrote:
>> The biggest error I see here is that people are trying to limit language
>> versions of Wikipedia so that they comply with the laws of the country
>> where the language is primarily spoken. But that's fruitless.
>
> No it's necessary, if we want to create *free* knowledge.
>
> In an ideal world our content would comply with any law in any
> country. Of course this is almost impossible, so we have to make
> decisions, which laws are important to comply with and which aren't.
> And in some cases these decisions depend on language. To give you an
> example: IMHO it's fundamentally important to our mission that the
> content of the German Wikipedia complies at least with German,
> Austrian and Swiss law. Because these are the countries where the
> content is going to be used by third parties most likely.
>
> Arne
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20070114/8bf661d1/attachment-0001.pgp>


list: commons-l

subject: [Commons-l] IAWTC

body:
  http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l214/Ymdar/Motivator/webmunchkin.jpg

And Wikipedia critic Jason Scott wins the Nobel Prize for dealng
conclusively and terminally with hotlinkers:

  http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/000278.html

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] IAWTC