from_name: Björn Lindqvist

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Logo

body:
Ecleticology wrote:

>>>Instead of pointing fingers at people, design flaws and technical
>>>problems like many of us did in a previous thread (me included), I think
>>>we'd better analyze the process and at least learn from this for the future.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I'm sure Erik agrees with this.
>>
>
> So do I.
> Passions ran high I'm afraid. :(
>
>
>>I hope that anyone who wasn't thinking of the ratification process in
>>this light will go back and change their vote.
>>
>
> I still don't understand why this ratification came about --
> *given* that the goal was to have a single logo for all pedias, *why*
> give pedis the choice of opting out? Please could someone explain the
> reasoning behind this.

A long time ago before phase 2 of the voting I wrote and complained to
the list. I said among other things that I didn't think the voting
process answered the most crucial question - "should this logo replace
the current logo?". That question should ofcourse have been asked before
we begun the voting process (eg. "does wikipedia need a new logo?") but
it wasn't.

So you could see the "ratification" as the way to answer that question -
"Is the puzzle logo better than the existing one?" and all would be
well. My old request or rather demand would have been answered. But the
question is dilluted by the fact that the current logo competed in the
contest itself, it was automatically placed among the twelve finalists.
Therefore some people could argue that the second phase of the voting
already have answered the question "should this logo replace the current
logo?". Other people argue that phase 2 did NOT answer that question and
the fact that the puzzle sphere won had more to do with other factors.

The story becomes even more complicated by the fact that Erik didn't
mention before phase 2 was over that there would be a "ratification"
vote. More so with Jimbo's statement:

"I'm going to vote now to ratify the logo... not because the logo is my
favorite, but because I want to express support for the process.  That
is, I'm voting for the _principle_ that community votes should be
respected in almost all cases."

Everyone agrees with this I hope. BUT everyone does NOT agree that a
majority think the puzzle sphere is better than the existing logo! That
is the most important and still unresolved question. Therefore I will
treat the "ratification" vote as the vote "is the puzzle sphere better
than existing one?" and vote yes. Because *I* think it is. Others will
vote no because they don't think it is better. Hope that explained it.

BL


list: wikipedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Wikipedia-l] all this logo voting stuff ...

body:
Jay Bowks wrote:

>>From my point of view the idea of a sphere
>with the puzzle pieces is a new twist on an
>old logo. That said, it's definitely original enough.
>
>I would hate for a square logo to be used where
>every piece means a different project of Wikimedia.
>This is the very implementation of the Microsoft
>Office puzzle pieces.
>
To clarify, the idea that I previously expressed did not involve a
"square" logo.

Ec


from_name: Jay Bowks

body:
From: "Jake Nelson" <jnelson at soncom.com>
>Let's use
> what we've got. Technical issues with it can be dealt with.

>From my point of view the idea of a sphere
with the puzzle pieces is a new twist on an
old logo. That said, it's definitely original enough.

I would hate for a square logo to be used where
every piece means a different project of Wikimedia.
This is the very implementation of the Microsoft
Office puzzle pieces.

To be done with this whole discussion, I'd be willing
for the sake of concensus in supporting the winning
sphere with the puzzle pieces. Every language Wiki
can then use the word "Wikipedia" and internationalize
it... for example the Eo "Vikipedio" or the Latin "Vicipaedia"
etc. Use the same picture and a different caption with the
motto "The Free Encyclopedia" translated into the various
languages. This would be all right... But that in a year or
even a couple of years the issue is revisited would be
something to look forward to and those who are interested
in the ongoing development of a logo can chat abou it in
the Meta Wiki. This sounds like a reason to pop a frosty
brewsky and continue with the search for new cheese.

Cheers,
Jay B.


from_name: Walter Vermeir

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Is a press release now a good idea?

body:
I think it is now not a good time for a general press relase.

- search does not work
- wikipedia is very slow
- the logo-stuff, who is willing to explain that to a visitor?
- only gifts by paypall
- no need for more publictiy Look at the stats, every month more and more
users.

--
Contact: walter AT wikipedia.be
Ook een artikeltje schrijven? WikipediaNL, de vrije GNU/FDL encyclopedie
http://www.wikipedia.be


list: wikien-l

from_name: Daniel Ehrenberg

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Welcome back Adam (Daniel Ehrenberg)

body:
> Dan, could you drop that matter please ?
> It does not matter whether Adam log in as PP or Lir
> or
> The Pope. She was given the right to edit again, and
> that is all there is to say about it. Could she do
> it
> without you people going on forever chatting about
> her, and watching any of her move ? She is not an
> insect to look under a  magnifying glass ! Let her
> breathe !
>
> please !

I'm sorry. I missed a previous email, and I don't
really care what he edits under.
LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


from_name: Christopher Mahan

subject: [WikiEN-l] Just introducing myself...

body:
--- Brian Corr <BCorr at NEAction.org> wrote:
> Hello all,

Welcome Brian.

Please pick up boots, goggles and gloves to your left, then dive
right into the funnest mud fight since the last Californa
gubernatorial election.

=====
Christopher Mahan
chris_mahan at yahoo.com
818.943.1850 cell
http://www.christophermahan.com/

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


body:
>> She was given the right to edit again, and

He. Lir is a he :)

=====
Christopher Mahan
chris_mahan at yahoo.com
818.943.1850 cell
http://www.christophermahan.com/

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


from_name: Sean Barrett

body:
Christopher Mahan wrote:

>>>She was given the right to edit again, and
>
> He. Lir is a he :)

It isn't sure what it is itself; how can you expect us to be definite?


subject: [WikiEN-l] Just introducing myself...

body:
Christopher Mahan wrote:

>--- Brian Corr <BCorr at NEAction.org> wrote:
>
>>Hello all,
>>
>Welcome Brian.
>
>Please pick up boots, goggles and gloves to your left, then dive
>right into the funnest mud fight since the last Californa
>gubernatorial election.
>
What!   When did we stop including helmets in basic newbie equipment? :-)

Ec


body:
From: "Ray Saintonge" <saintonge at telus.net>
> To clarify, the idea that I previously expressed did not involve a
> "square" logo.

Ok, let me rephrase that...
"a puzzle square" or a piece,
as in the reworked logos found at:

http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_logo_variants

In which page we have these logos:

http://meta.wikipedia.org/upload/a/a7/Matthewmayerpuzzlepiece.jpg

http://meta.wikipedia.org/upload/a/a9/Matthewmayerwikifamily.png

http://meta.wikipedia.org/upload/6/62/Wikipedia-sketch-tillwe.png

http://meta.wikipedia.org/upload/8/81/Wikipedia-sketch-tillwe_Gutza01.png

Which don't include the sphere and which are
more of a "square idea". It was this that I objected
as being far too close to the Microsoft Office
implementation of the puzzle piece concept.

In any case the sphere with the puzzle pieces
is original enough to Wikipedia, I think the idea of
the sphere was there all along in the Wikipedia logo
with the text and the older logo with the Bomis/Nupedia
text and N vertical lines.

I'm willing to go along with the sphered puzzle pieces.
But let's look forward to a reworking of the logo in the
future.

Sincerely,
Jay B.


from_name: Thomas R. Koll

body:
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 12:53:41PM -0700, Geoffrey Thomas wrote:
> Walter Vermeir writes:
> > I think it is now not a good time for a general press relase.
> >
> > - search does not work
> > - wikipedia is very slow
> ...
> > - no need for more publictiy Look at the stats, every month more and more
> > users.
>
> True - only ask for more users when the servers are at the bottom, not the
> top, of their capacity.

How about restricting the press release to foreign languages?
Doubling German users is not that heavy like doubling English users.

ciao, tom
--
http://www.tomk32.de - just a geek trying to change the world
   -.-       http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:TomK32
   /|>	        Urlaub? http://www.tomk32.de/fewo-koll/
   / \              http://tomk32.bookcrossing.com


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Logo, third voting phase

body:
Anthere wrote:
>...
>I want us to take decisions together, to work
>deeply on that. Not to pretend working together,
>to be allowed at the last step to be sessionnists.
>...

I agree 100% with you Anthere! We had a Wikipedia-wide vote for a
Wikipedia-wide logo and we should stick with that (making improvements, of
course). We need one logo for Wikipedia for instant recognition - no matter
what language.

However, the idea of ratification does seem interesting, but in a different
way; if a certain percentage of Wikipedias do not ratify the logo, then it is
not adopted Wikipedia-wide and we are stuck with our old logos again and
probably a new logo contest (simple up or down votes on the concept with no
amendments or changes).

But a no vote would not mean that that Wikipedia version would be free to have
whatever logo it wants. However, I'm sure a super majority (75% of all
Wikipedia versions) will give the concept an up vote. That would mean that
the logo will be adopted Wikipedia-wide as soon as it is improved enough to
garner a majority yes vote.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


from_name: Matthew Woodcraft

body:
Geoffrey Thomas wrote:
> True - only ask for more users when the servers are at the bottom, not the
> top, of their capacity.

I'm not sure the servers will ever be under the top of their capacity
for long.

If the limiting factor on Wikipedia's growth is people's tolerance for
slow edits, the effect of faster hardware will be more activity (which
is great), but not a faster user experience after things have settled
down.

-M-


subject: [Wikipedia-l] New logo and further process

body:
tarquin wrote:
>The current winner should be disqualified on
>technical grounds -- it simply does not meet the
>design brief of the competition.

In a democracy sometimes your side loses. Get over it work on a better variant
of the *same* concept.

--mav


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: New logo and further process

body:
Gareth Owen wrote:
>Then allow me to be pithy.
>
>There was a vote.
>Your choice lost.
>Deal with it.
>And do it without insinuating that Erik somehow
>rigged the election.

Amen!

--mav


body:
tarquin wrote:
>The whole point of this process was to choose a
>logo to represent Wikipedia in all languages.
>There was a VERY lengthy debate about how to
>have a fair voting system.

I completely agree and was a bit broadsided by the very notion when I got back
from my field study. If there is a ratification process, it should be up or
down on the concept and if a super-majority of Wikipedia versions do not
ratify by a set date, then the concept isn't ratified (just like an amendment
to the US Constitution when it is sent to the states for ratification). But
individual Wikipedia versions should not have the option to opt out (just as
individual states do not have the option to opt out of an Amendment).

Wikipedia is one project with many different language versions. Therefore only
one logo is needed.

The concept won on a plurality, so let's work on the winning concept to
improve it so that a majority of Wikipedians can be satisfied with it.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] logos and wikimedia

body:
Elisabeth Bauer wrote:
>Did anybody care how www.wikimedia.org looks now?
>Wikipedia, Wikiquote, Wiktionary, Wikibooks - all have
>now a totally different style logo. What about a corporate
>identity? All these projects belong together in some way
>- and this should show.

They are different projects and need their own logos that are chosen by their
own project members. IMO below each logo we should just have "A Wikimedia
project" and the word "Wikimedia" would be a link to http://wikimedia.org .

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Voting versus consensus

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
>....
>3. The underlying concept is that Wikimedia brings
>together the diverse puzzle pieces to form a single world.
>Each project is one piece of that puzzle.

Very nice! However this concept has already been voted-in for Wikipedia. I am
not in favor of going against that even though I really like your idea.

-- mav


body:
Thomas R. Koll wrote:
>How about restricting the press release to
>foreign languages? Doubling German users
>is not that heavy like doubling English users.

Well the non-English versions are going to be released a week before the
English one either way. The big thing I'm waiting for is the server upgrades.
As soon as that happens we should go ahead and distribute the non-English
press releases (with the English version following a week later).

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Special:Booksources

body:
On Sun, 2003-09-28 at 23:50, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> I wanted to add search of National library of Serbia (http://www.nbs.bg.ac.yu)
> to Special:Booksources, but it needs unique ID for every search. I could make
> a PHP script that would go around this, would it be included in Wikipedia?

As long as this is fairly clean and doesn't violate the terms of use of
that site, why not?

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


from_name: Robert Graham Merkel

subject: [Wikipedia-l] When will logo discussion end?

body:
Can somebody tell me, please, when will this endless discussion of the
bloody logo end?

Please, please, please, can there be a point where we can talk about
other things, like how we are going to get 1.0 happening (a far more
interesting topic IMHO)?

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Robert Merkel
                                          rgmerk at mira.net
Eve Kendall (Eva Marie Saint): I'm a big girl.
Roger Thornhill (Carey Grant): Yeah, and in all the right places, too.
  -- "North By Northwest"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


subject: [Wikitech-l] HTML uploads now served as text/plain

body:
HTML files uploaded to the wikis are now served as plain text, so
browsers will show the HTML source instead of interpreting it as a web
page.

This should reduce the possibility of stealing peoples' login cookies by
getting them to click on a link to an uploaded HTML file containing
javascript.

(Uploading HTML files has never been recommended. Preferably host 'live'
example HTML files on your own web site and link rather than uploading
them to the Wikipedia server.)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


from_name: Alex R.

subject: [WikiEN-l] [Wikitech-l] Update to gfdl copyright notice needed

body:
From: "Alex R." <alex756 at nyc.rr.com>

We haven't been discussing this since Sept. 7, there have been some
suggestions and I've tried to put them together into the Versions 2.0
update:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alex756/Annotated_edit_page_announcement
along with two associated pages:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alex756/Wikipedia:Copyrights_and_Warranty_Disclaimers
and
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alex756/Wikipedia:Submission_Standards
Any further comments, criticisms, objections, requests to abandon this
undertaking,
 etc.,  would be appreciated.

Several users suggested that there should be some kind of click link or
links as there
is on the upload file page to make sure someone is affirming copyright
status.
I am not adverse to such a modification myself (if it does not create too
many
coding difficulties).

Alex756


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Fwd: Wikipedia e-mail

body:
On Mon, 2003-09-29 at 03:06, Chuck Smith wrote:
> I don't know what to do with this message, so I'm
> forwarding it here.  I expect someone else will be
> better able to reply than me.

I got one of these too, I assume he spammed a bunch of people. There
aren't any details, like say a link to the page in question, and the
account used has no history (just 2 edits, no user page), so it's rather
difficult to follow up unless he provides some info.

Despite the rumours, Wikipedians are not telepathic.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


subject:
[Wikitech-l] Please fix the wikiNL-l-admin at wikipedia.org
	email adress

body:
On Mon, 2003-09-29 at 02:38, Walter Vermeir wrote:
> The wikiNL-l-admin -at- wikipedia.org email adress still does not work. Can this
> be fixt please soon.

I still have no idea what's wrong with the admin addresses.  Sending to
wikitech-l-admin sends a bounce message back to me at wikitech-l-owner;
sending to wikinl-l-admin gets rejected and discarded, not even sending
a bounce.

I'm not even sure they're supposed to work; mailman's documentation is
awful. The FAQ is all questions and no answers. The 'documentation' that
I can find doesn't give any relevant info that I can find. There's
nobody in #mailman on irc.freenode.org.

The wikinl-l-owner address seems to work, try giving that out instead...

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


subject: [Wikitech-l] Stats (to Brion)

body:
On Mon, 2003-09-29 at 03:30, epzachte at chello.nl wrote:
> Brion, did you receive any of my mails this week, or did they all fall into the spam filter?

Yes, got a bunch of stuff, just didn't get a chance to rerun things
earlier.

> I sent you a patch for the Wikipedia sort order, or you may edit
> WikiReportsInput.pl line 186 change 13 to 14.
>
> The visitor stats are missing, last week only zh: was present
> which suggest to me that the wget job did not retrieve other index.html webalizer files.
> Perhaps you generate the retrieval list on the fly and something went wrong there?
>
> Lastly stats for the English wikipedia are missing altogether now.

Yes, I'm rerunning it now. I forgot to rename some files. :P

-- brion vibber (brino @ pobox.com)


body:
On Mon, 2003-09-29 at 05:26, tarquin wrote:
> bummer. :(
> I was using that facility to upload work on Wikipedia skins :(
> Any chance you could reenable it on Meta?

Well, then you could only steal peoples' _meta_ passwords. :)

Actually, I haven't changed the test wiki, so you should be able to
upload live HTML pages to test.wikipedia.org. No one would be using real
passwords there, anyway, so the danger's just in 'annoying' javascript.
(Like, open a million windows of goatse.cx and the hamster dance.)

> Could you make it somehow mung any <script> elements for safety?

Hypothetically, but that's more work and very hard to do safely, and you
still can't demo anything with javascript in it.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


subject: [Wikitech-l] Stats (to Brion)

body:
On Mon, 2003-09-29 at 05:17, epzachte at chello.nl wrote:
> Brion, we're getting close.
>
> English Wikipedia reappeared
> Webalizer data are shown as well
>
> You forgot to patch:
> WikiReportsInput.pl
> line 186 change 13 to 14.

(slams head repeatedly into wall) I knew I forgot something!

Okay, should be fixed now.

I'm going to bed now, if it's wrong it'll have to wait. :)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


from_name: Toby Bartels

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Welcome back Adam

body:
Christopher Mahan wrote:

>He. Lir is a he :)

Lir often self-identifies as female, especially online
(more often female than male is my estimate from her online diary);
and to my knowledge she has self-identified only as female on Wikipedia,
except occasional use of the name "Adam", which is typically male.
(Unless your post was meant to say that this has changed?
I can't be certain of Lir's current preferences.)

Transgender Etiquette from <http://www.mlp.org/resources/mlptgn.html>:

             Always address and treat individuals in the manner in
   which they are expressing themselves. Use names and pronouns
   appropriate to the expressed (rather than the genetic or legal)
   gender. Give the same respect that you would expect for yourself.

   It always works best if use of congruent gender references is
   practiced at all times, including when out of earshot of the TG
   individual (i.e., don't use different pronouns outside of his/her
   presence).

-- Toby


from_name: Nikola Smolenski

subject: [Wikitech-l] Special:Booksources

body:
I wanted to add search of National library of Serbia (http://www.nbs.bg.ac.yu)
to Special:Booksources, but it needs unique ID for every search. I could make
a PHP script that would go around this, would it be included in Wikipedia?


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Please fix the wikiNL-l-admin at wikipedia.orgemail
	adress

body:
I am the admin of the English Wikipedia mailing list (wikien-l). So I
have a bit of experience tweaking the settings.
> On Mon, 2003-09-29 at 02:38, Walter Vermeir wrote:
> > The wikiNL-l-admin -at- wikipedia.org email adress still does not
> > work. Can this be fixt please soon.
>
> I still have no idea what's wrong with the admin addresses.  Sending
to wikitech-l-admin sends a bounce message back to me at
wikitech-l-owner; sending to wikinl-l-admin gets rejected and discarded,
not even sending a bounce.

Would anybody like me to be an admin for the Wikitech-l mailing list? If
yes, please find a secure way to give me the password.

Ed Poor
* (212) 456-5479 work
* (917) 723-1644 cell


subject: [Wikitech-l] language-fr

body:
On Mon, 2003-09-29 at 06:01, Andre Engels wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, tarquin wrote:
>
> > Could someone put
> > http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%E9dia:LanguageFr.php into CVS and
> > then onto the server?
> > Sorry, I'm having major CVS headache :(
>
> If you're at it, please upload the LanguageNl.php currently on CVS onto
> the server - we seem to have actually gone _backward_ in versions two or
> three weeks ago.

Everybody -- please make sure your language files are consistent, and
the current versions are in the ***stable*** branch of CVS.

Until this is done (by somebody, anybody) I'm not going to touch any
more language files, because I don't know who needs what version which
is where.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


from_name: Stevertigo

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Logo, third voting phase

body:
--- Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> But a no vote would not mean that that Wikipedia
> version would be free to have
> whatever logo it wants. However, I'm sure a super
> majority (75% of all
> Wikipedia versions) will give the concept an up
> vote. That would mean that
> the logo will be adopted Wikipedia-wide as soon as
> it is improved enough to
> garner a majority yes vote.

This is exactly right.  If anyones interested they can
take a loot at
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_logo_variants/Nohat
for some of the latest incarnations of Pauls concept--
And of course its parent:
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_logo_variants
for the lot.

We are also talking a little about incorporating some
elements of the runners up, possibly.  BTW I just took
a look at wikibooks, and will cook up a couple ideas
for that particular direction.

Also, we've (mostly David) started work on
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia raster name
Which is dealing with creating a common logotype look
for all wikipedia texts. But thats for a couple weeks
later.
~S~

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cooperation with EUobserver

body:
On Mon, 2003-09-29 at 09:45, Gareth Owen wrote:
> erik_moeller at gmx.de (Erik Moeller) writes:
>
> > 1) EUObserver.com agrees to put the text of the first paragraph of each
> > story in the public domain. That paragraph usually provides a good summary
> > of the story.
> >
> > 2) We agree to cite EUOBserver.com as a source for each of these copied
> > summaries (as we already do with all stories reported on "Current
> > events").
>
> Aren't those two paragraphs contradictory?
>
> Either way, as I understand it, unless we're declaring the credit to
> EUOBserver as an invariant section, paragraph 2 is not GFDL compatible.

Citing your sources is not incompatible with the GFDL!

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


list: textbook-l

from_name: KNOTT, T

subject: [Textbook-l] logo, page design

body:
Jimbo wrote: Yes, NPOV *is* necessary on wikibooks.

(After thinking about it) Yeah you're right, it is of course necessary to be
NPOV in the modules. However I still think it's ok to put self congratulary
phrases on title pages of books. People expect to see that sort of thing. It
makes the pages that follow look exiting.

We could go the way of Carlseburg lager and insert the word probably.

"Welcome to 'blah blah blah' Probably the finest book you'll ever read on
this subject."

Theresa


subject: [Wikitech-l] a suggestion for a new option

body:
On Mon, 2003-09-29 at 07:54, Tomos at Wikipedia wrote:
> I often think that viewing the latest version of the page after just editing
> it is not necessary.
>
> When I press "Save" button, all I need is the message that "data is now
> saved," not the whole article/ page.

Now you can't follow any links or double-check your work without
clicking to view the page. I'm not sure this is a win.

> And I am speculating that if the page is not displayed after saving, it
> would save some server load.

We've got about a 100:1 ratio of page views to edits. With 400-600 page
views per minute, a few more doesn't hurt us much.

If you'r editing anonymously, your immediate load also will be cached,
saving server load the next time an anon visits the page.

If you're really worried about load, consider that every time you save a
page, it parses the page and *throws the output away* in order to update
the link tables, _then_ redirects you to view the page. Find a way to
re-integrate the save and view steps so a second render won't be
necessary but without the POST-leads-to-reload-difficulties problem
(which the redirect works around).

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cooperation with EUobserver

body:
--- Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:

> While I am not a fan of the idea of a Wikinews
> spinoff project (primarily
> because I think that news and encyclopedia are very
> closely linked), I do
> believe that this could be the beginning of an
> expansion into the news
> area, and similar agreements might be reached with
> other publications.
> It's a fair deal: They give part of their content to
> the public, we
> provide them with a steady stream of traffic to
> their site -- without
> advertising it, simply by citing it as a source. I'm
> sure some other
> independent news websites might be interested in
> such a deal.

But speaking only about the basics--the wikinews
concept is an interesting idea. But just to throw it
out there--Indymedia blew it with Google news by
virture of not having a means to community edit
content.  Wiki allows people to edit willy nilly--our
experience on wikipedia shows that a community can
deal with vandalism, but with an encyclopedia we can
take it easy. With "news" there would be a need to
have current states of articles in tip top shape,
allowing a much much smaller margin of leeway for
vandals and cranks, etc. Ideally a sysop pool of maybe
2-300 might be able to deal with issues quickly enough
-- some extra protections like limitations on anons,
etc would be necessary.

Just throwing it out there-- how much would the
Wikimedia ware have to change to meet the needs of
such a project?

~S~

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


from_name: Jimmy Wales

body:
Robert Graham Merkel wrote:
> Can somebody tell me, please, when will this endless discussion of the
> bloody logo end?

Maybe we should vote on it.  But first, we'll vote on whether to vote
on it.  And after we're done voting, we'll vote on whether the vote
really counted.

:-)

--Jimbo


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Cooperation with EUobserver

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

>David-
>
>>Erik's description of the agreement isn't clear. Are we obligated to
>>cite EU Observer or do we just agree to cite them? If they put the text
>>in the public domain, we obviously don't _have_ to do anything, but I
>>can see how agreeing to cite them is nice. If so, I don't think _our_
>>agreeing to cite them has any bearing on further uses of Wikipedia content.
>>
>
>Well, if we don't cite them, they will simply cancel the agreement, and no
>further news summaries will be released to the public domain.
>
This sounds like a welcome agreement.  Like a lot of handshake
agreements it is based on the good-faith behaviour of the parties.  A
simple attribution showing "Originally based on ..." shouldn't be a
problem.  I suspect that only a small number of Wikipedians will be
doing the actual copying work anyway, and they would know the understanding.

Agreements of this sort are not based on developing a whole lot of
bureaucratic rules that need to be followed to the letter and enforced.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Broken link on your website

body:
If one of the list admins sent this through; please don't. It's *spam*.

They crawl the web for e-mail addresses and then send these things out
as advertisements for their link-checking / availability service. Which,
of course, means they're crawling our web site and loading it down.
*Thanks* so much.

The HTML mail also contains a "web bug": a 1x1 pixel transparent GIF
image which contains a unique ID number and additionally sets a cookie
when you view it, which happens automatically on many popular e-mail
clients.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


body:
> I often think that viewing the latest version
> of the page after just editing it is not necessary.
>
> When I press "Save" button, all I need is
> the message that "data is now saved," not
> the whole article/ page.

I strongly agree. If I want to see the page, I can always
use the Preview button. And when server response time is
slow, I'd rather not do anything that makes it slower.

I'd also like a shortcut from Recent Changes that takes me directly to
editing an article's talk page.

If I want to add my 2 cents to the discussion about the
[[Rachel Corrie]] page, I don't need to have to see the
beautifully formatted text FIRST. I'll settle for reading
the raw text. Most of the time, I just want to append to
them anyway.

Right now, I must:

1. Click on the article link, and wait for the page to load.
2. Click on the "Discuss this page" link, and wait for THAT page to
load.

If we adopt Tomos's suggestion, I will be very happy ^_^

Ed Poor
Developer & Sysop


subject: [Wikipedia-l] When will the cows come home?

body:
--- Jimmy Wales <jwales at joey.bomis.com> wrote:
> Robert Graham Merkel wrote:
> > Can somebody tell me, please, when will this
> endless discussion of the
> > bloody logo end?
>
> Maybe we should vote on it.  But first, we'll vote
> on whether to vote
> on it.  And after we're done voting, we'll vote on
> whether the vote
> really counted.

I completely endorse this sentiment-- of educated and
patient indifference. :-)

~S~

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


from_name: Dante Alighieri

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Welcome back Adam

body:
At 05:59 AM 9/29/2003, you wrote:
>              Always address and treat individuals in the manner in
>    which they are expressing themselves. Use names and pronouns
>    appropriate to the expressed (rather than the genetic or legal)
>    gender. Give the same respect that you would expect for yourself.

Of course, if Lir/Adam/Pizza Puzzle would show all of US the respect of
picking a set of pronouns and damn well sticking to them, this wouldn't be
a problem. The problem arises because he/she/it can't just use one identity
consistently... that's his/her/its problem, not mine.

I'm prefectly happy to call L/A/PP he, she, it, or what have you, but I'm
not changing pronouns on the whim of someone who can't decide which
identity they're going to be using on a regular basis. Since a majority of
the identities that I'm familiar with from this individual are male (as
near as I can tell), I'm going with male.

Therefore, if he has a problem with that, he can tell me.

-----
Dante Alighieri
dalighieri at digitalgrapefruit.com

"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their
neutrality in times of great moral crisis."
    -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321


from_name: Walter Vermeir

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Please fix the wikiNL-l-admin@wikipedia.org email
	adress

body:
The wikiNL-l-admin at wikipedia.org email adress still does not work. Can this
be fixt please soon.

Walter

--
NEU F?R ALLE - GMX MediaCenter - f?r Fotos, Musik, Dateien...
Fotoalbum, File Sharing, MMS, Multimedia-Gru?, GMX FotoService

Jetzt kostenlos anmelden unter http://www.gmx.net

+++ GMX - die erste Adresse f?r Mail, Message, More! +++


from_name: Chuck Smith

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Fwd: Wikipedia e-mail

body:
I don't know what to do with this message, so I'm
forwarding it here.  I expect someone else will be
better able to reply than me.

Thanks,
Chuck

 --- Sydneysider <cwernerhoff at yahoo.com> schrieb: >
An: Chuck SMITH <msochuck at yahoo.com>
> Betreff: Wikipedia e-mail
> Von: Sydneysider <cwernerhoff at yahoo.com>
> An: Chuck SMITH <msochuck at yahoo.com>
> Datum: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 09:14:22 +0000 (UTC)
>
> I am having trouble with my contributions to a
> Wikipedia article. I have tried to keep my edits
> intact, but several Administrators keep reverting it
> to the preceding version. Then after a few efforts I
> was blocked for alleged vandalism. (By Tannin, who
> rather too conveniently, does not make his/her email
> address available for a response.)
>
> However, I have read through what the website says
> about vandalism, and it is clear to me that my
> material has been reverted, and I have finally been
> blocked, for political reasons.
>
> I am a History Ph.D. with an extensive knowldge of
> American political history and a seasoned writer.
> The information I attempted to include in this
> particular entry may not please particular readers,
> but it does deserve to be acknowledged. Moreover, I
> was careful to write it in an objective manner. None
> of the people who reverted the page have any
> expertise in American political history and are
> certainly not fit to judge the merit of the passages
> I attempted to include.
>
> That Administrators seems to have the power to
> prevent particular revisions taking place - by
> blocking using for alleged 'vandalism' (including
> material they object to for political reasons) is
> clearly in conflict with Wikikpedia 'open
> publishing' principles and probably constitutes a
> major flaw of the system. The removal of all
> material that they object to for political reasons
> leaves nothing but the bare bones (in this case) of
> a biography, from which all important material has
> been excised. I am sure the aim is not to produce
> something that elementary.
>
> Let me quote what it says on the relevant Wikipedia
> page:
>
> "Sysops can block and unblock IP addresses. This is
> meant to be used solely to deal with persistent
> vandalism. IP banning is not meant to be used
> against unpopular opinions, non-persistent
> vandalism, etc."
>
> So what can be done when Administrators are clearly
> acting for political reasons? (Or who should I
> contact about this problem?)
>
>
>

=====
Learn a cool language for free!
http://www.lernu.net/

__________________________________________________________________

Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
Logos und Klingelt?ne f?rs Handy bei http://sms.yahoo.de


subject:
[WikiEN-l] [roy_q_royce@hotmail.com: --A Request RE a
	WIKIArticle--]

body:
Roy Royce wrote:
> I really wanted the chance to prove to Mr. Wales that there were
> indeed critical scientific facts omitted from "his" WIKI SR
> article. And I firmly believe that I can still do this, so I will
> post my new for-the-layman proof for Mr. Wales.

The specific factual content of the article is, in a sense, none of my
business.  My sole interest here is that the wiki process be followed
and respected.  Talking to me about physics is pointless, because it
misses the point.

> You could be fooled by various sources, one of which could be the
> WIKI SR article which falsely states that SR is supported by E=mc^2.

What do mainstream physics texts say on the matter?  What do the
majority of prominent physicists say on the matter?  Is there
significant debate one way or the other within the mainstream
scientific community on this point?

If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to
substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts.

If your viewpoint is held by a significant scientific minority, then
it should be easy to name prominent adherents, and the article should
certainly address the controversy without taking sides.

If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then
_whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not_, it
doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancilliary
article.  Wikipedia is not the place for original research.

Remember, I'm not much interested in "is it true or not" in this
context.  We could talk about that forever and get nowhere.  I'm only
interested in the much more tractable question "is it encyclopedic and
NPOV or not"?  And this question can be answered in the fashion I
outlined above.

--Jimbo


body:
Well, see my other email.  I don't really care about the physics of
the matter.  Does this proof of yours appear in any standard text?  If
so, cite that text and include the conclusion as appropriate.

If not, then it's original research, right or wrong, and it doesn't
belong in the central treatment of the subject on wikipedia.

Just to show you that I read what you wrote, I have some questions,
below.  But, please don't respond on the list, because this list is
really for questions of wikipedia policy, not physics.

> You have assumed that you could not have anything helpful to say
> about the physics of this situation, so you have also assumed that
> it cannot be simply explained if one tries hard enough!

Actually, I assumed neither.  Really, the actual *content* of the
article is of little interest to me, outside of our following standard
wikipedia procedures.

> Everyone agrees that special relativity (SR) has some sort of
> mass increase,* just as everyone agrees that SR has some sort of
> time dilation and some sort of rod contraction. The question is,
> What is physically happening in these three cases?
> [* a minor technical point, it's really a momentum (which is simply
> mass x velocity) increase]

You already lost me here.

> Picture a single, normally-operating atomic clock that is sitting
> on a stationary table some where. (In "tech talk," it is continuously
> at rest with respect to an inertial frame).

I don't know what an atomic clock is, and I'm having trouble
visualizing a stationary table.  All my tables are moving, rotating
with the earth, going around the sun, and what not.

> Note the fact that this clock cannot have more than one atomic
> (internal, time-keeping) rhythm. (A clock that had two or more
> different "tick rates" would have to be thrown away!)

O.k.

> Note the fact that observers in different SR frames will find
> many "different rhythms" for this clock. (Indeed, in SR, one and
> the same clock has an infinite number of "different rhythms.")

You lost me there.  I don't know what an "SR frame" is.

> Reach the unavoidable conclusion that SR's "time dilation" does
> not pertain to a clock's intrinsic (atomic, in this case) rhythm.
>
> Step 5:
> Apply this same argument to the other two cases (i.e., to the
> momentum and rod contraction cases), and similarly reach the
> equally unavoidable conclusion that SR does not pertain to either
> intrinsic mass or to intrinsic rod length.

O.k.

> At this point, although we have not answered our original question

Except, for me, I have not even understood the original question.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Mr. Royce and SR

body:
At 12:01 PM 9/29/2003, you wrote:
>At this point, although we have not answered our original question
>about what was physically happening in these three cases, we have
>answered the question about what was _not_ happening in these cases,
>which means that we have answered the important question Does SR
>pertain to physically real (or intrinsic) characteristics? And we
>have found that the answer to this question is No. This tells us all
>we need to know in order to prove our main point that SR does not
>pertain to the equivalence of real mass with real energy (which is
>of course stated explicitly by the equation E=mc^2).
>
>-----RR-----

Mr. Royce, could you please define what you mean by "real" in the sense
that you've used it in your "proof"? You say "real clock rhythm", "real
mass", and "real energy", but don't fully define those terms. Perhaps the
root of the misunderstanding here is a difference in word usage? Maybe
people on the list are missing your fundamental point because they aren't
using the same words to mean the same things...

-----
Dante Alighieri
dalighieri at digitalgrapefruit.com

"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their
neutrality in times of great moral crisis."
    -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321


subject: [WikiEN-l] Mr. Royce and SR

body:
Dante Alighieri wrote:
> Mr. Royce, could you please define what you mean by "real" in the sense
> that you've used it in your "proof"? You say "real clock rhythm", "real
> mass", and "real energy", but don't fully define those terms. Perhaps
> the root of the misunderstanding here is a difference in word usage?
> Maybe people on the list are missing your fundamental point because
> they aren't using the same words to mean the same things...

Yes, but please do it elsewhere.  We don't need a discussion of
physics here.

It doesn't matter a bit whether what Mr. Royce is saying is true or
not.  The only real question we need to ask is: can we find it in a
textbook or similar?

We don't _do_ physics on wikipedia, we merely report encyclopedically
on the state of the subject.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikilists and GDFL

body:
I think the mailing lists are not GFDL.  They are in the same state as
any normal mailing list anywhere, I guess.  Whatever that is!

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikilists and GDFL

body:
I know that everything that is submitted to the Wikipedia proper (English
or otherwise) is released under the GDFL... what about everything we write
on this (or any other Wikimedia) mailing list?

Since the mailing list is archived on the 'pedia does that mean that by
writing this email I'm releasing its contents under the GDFL?

Either way, the status of this list should probably be more explicit both
during list sign-up and in the monthly password reminder.

-----
Dante Alighieri
dalighieri at digitalgrapefruit.com

"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their
neutrality in times of great moral crisis."
    -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321


from_name: Daniel Ehrenberg

body:
> Dear Mr. Wales,
>
> You've sold us both short! :-) (<--please note
> smiley, Mr. Poor!)
> You have assumed that you could not have anything
> helpful to say
> about the physics of this situation, so you have
> also assumed that
> it cannot be simply explained if one tries hard
> enough!
>
> Since SR pertains only to rulers and clocks, and to
> the results of
> measurements made thereby, this should tell us that
> it is not
> exactly an inherently complex subject. (If you want
> one of those,
> try quantum mechanics!)
>
> I believe that the average layman can see that
> special relativity
> does not pertain to E=mc^2, and my simple 5-step
> proof should make
> a believer out of you.
>
> Here is a brief 5-step proof/explanation for the
> average layman:
>
> Everyone agrees that special relativity (SR) has
> some sort of
> mass increase,* just as everyone agrees that SR has
> some sort of
> time dilation and some sort of rod contraction. The
> question is,
> What is physically happening in these three cases?
> [* a minor technical point, it's really a momentum
> (which is simply
> mass x velocity) increase]
>
> Since most laymen feel much more comfortable
> discussing a clock
> and its rhythm than discussing mass and momentum,
> and since all
> three of the above SR effects are alike, it is much
> better to
> begin by using a simple clock-rhythm example.
>
> Step 1:
> Picture a single, normally-operating atomic clock
> that is sitting
> on a stationary table some where. (In "tech talk,"
> it is continuously
> at rest with respect to an inertial frame).
>
> Step 2:
> Note the fact that this clock cannot have more than
> one atomic
> (internal, time-keeping) rhythm. (A clock that had
> two or more
> different "tick rates" would have to be thrown
> away!)
>
> Step 3:
> Note the fact that observers in different SR frames
> will find
> many "different rhythms" for this clock. (Indeed, in
> SR, one and
> the same clock has an infinite number of "different
> rhythms.")
>
> Step 4:
> Reach the unavoidable conclusion that SR's "time
> dilation" does
> not pertain to a clock's intrinsic (atomic, in this
> case) rhythm.
>
> Step 5:
> Apply this same argument to the other two cases
> (i.e., to the
> momentum and rod contraction cases), and similarly
> reach the
> equally unavoidable conclusion that SR does not
> pertain to either
> intrinsic mass or to intrinsic rod length.
>
> (Not that anything more is needed, but strength is
> added to our
> argument by the fact that each of SR's cases are
> reciprocal; e.g.,
> I see your clock is "running slow," but you also see
> _my_ clock
> "running slow." If we were talking about real
> (atomic, intrinsic)
> clock rhythms, then this would clearly be a
> physically impossible
> situation, and the same applies to both the SR
> momentum and rod
> contraction cases.)
>
> At this point, although we have not answered our
> original question
> about what was physically happening in these three
> cases, we have
> answered the question about what was _not_ happening
> in these cases,
> which means that we have answered the important
> question Does SR
> pertain to physically real (or intrinsic)
> characteristics? And we
> have found that the answer to this question is No.
> This tells us all
> we need to know in order to prove our main point
> that SR does not
> pertain to the equivalence of real mass with real
> energy (which is
> of course stated explicitly by the equation E=mc^2).
>
> -----RR-----

Forgive me if I'm being naive, but I thought there
were no absolute time frames, and if any time frames
existed, then they must be relative for the reasons of
special relativity. This would mean that, while if one
person is comparing his atomic clock to another
person's clock that's on a space ship they would get
different results, internally, the clocks have a
constant rate.
LDan

PS. This sounds like a typical crackpot theory steming
from a fundimental misunderstanding of a science. I
think we should drop this because, even if it is
correct (which it isn't), it is still not for
Wikipedia until he gets through the Establisment and
writes a scientific paper on it.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Mr. Royce and SR

body:
At 12:19 PM 9/29/2003, Jimmy Wales wrote:
>Dante Alighieri wrote:
> > Mr. Royce, could you please define what you mean by "real" in the sense
> > that you've used it in your "proof"? You say "real clock rhythm", "real
> > mass", and "real energy", but don't fully define those terms. Perhaps
> > the root of the misunderstanding here is a difference in word usage?
> > Maybe people on the list are missing your fundamental point because
> > they aren't using the same words to mean the same things...
>
>Yes, but please do it elsewhere.  We don't need a discussion of
>physics here.
>
>It doesn't matter a bit whether what Mr. Royce is saying is true or
>not.  The only real question we need to ask is: can we find it in a
>textbook or similar?
>
>We don't _do_ physics on wikipedia, we merely report encyclopedically
>on the state of the subject.
>
>--Jimbo

Quite right, my fault. Mr. Royce, please take it back to a talk page and I
promise to participate there. I never saw the original conversation, but
I'll head there if you privately email me with the talk page that you're
using. I hope others will do the same and join us on the talk page so that
this topic can be removed from this list.

-----
Dante Alighieri
dalighieri at digitalgrapefruit.com

"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their
neutrality in times of great moral crisis."
    -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321


from_name: Roy Royce

body:
Thank you, Mr. Starling, for helping to lower my "stress quotient"!

(And please note that I did not really call anyone a liar, but instead
gave the choice between that and someone who really has not taken the
time to check out the facts of the case.)

(I also would like to point out the fact that Mr. Poor misquoted me by
snipping my "buffer" phrase "I hate to say this, but".)

(I would also like to note that it seems odd to me that whereas the main
party [you] has actually apologized, I still got several strong reprimands
from "parties of the second part.")

(Finally, as far as this initial top-posting stuff goes, let me correct Mr.
Axel Boldt's assumption that I have a theory or theories by stating that
this
is untrue. My whole point was simply that critical facts have been left out
of the WIKI special relativity article, and I have proved my point.)

>From: "Tim Starling" <ts4294967296 at hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Re: [roy_q_royce at hotmail.com: --A Request
>REaWIKIArticle--]
>Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 16:40:36 +1000
>
[snip]
> >
> > The fact that E=mc^2 does not support SR is not merely "my fact."
>
>I never said anything about that one, remember? I snipped it. I didn't want
>to get into a technical discussion on this mailing list, where most readers
>are not familiar with relativity. Save it for the talk page of the article.
>

Your many references to cranks in the context of my first post made it
necessary for me to try to defend myself, and it seemed to me that this
could best be done by showing that E=mc^2 is not a part of SR.

Regarding your "save it for the talk page" advice, you are actually at
a disadvantage because you did not know that I had already tried that,
and found that it did not work - so I tried taking my case to the "main
dude" himself, James Wales; however, since he assumed that he could not
handle the physics, he "tossed me to the 'wolves' of this list." (said
with a smile, Mr. Poor!)

I really wanted the chance to prove to Mr. Wales that there were indeed
critical scientific facts omitted from "his" WIKI SR article. And I firmly
believe that I can still do this, so I will post my new for-the-layman
proof for Mr. Wales.

>
[snip]
> > I challenge anyone here to find where I lost any argument to anyone
> > in the Newsgroups.
>
>Who said anything about losing arguments? I've never known a crackpot to
>lose an argument, by their own concession.
>

Actually, it is easy to tell who has won an argument in the Newsgroups if
one cares to find out. The main two ways are [1] if no one replies to one's
final posting (re the main subject), or [2] if there are only ad hominem or
"you ain't right" or "you're just a troll and a crank" kinds of replies.
(I certainly would not dream of asking you to simply take my word that I
had won.)

> > I hate to say this, but Mr. Tim Starling is either a liar or an
> > easily-fooled person because I have never - by any stretch of anyone's
> > imagination - except Starling's - suggested "a direct test of some
> > aspect of relativity which is hugely expensive or perhaps even
> > technically impossible."
>
>Two very important questions:
>
>1. What would be my motivation to lie?
>2. Who am I being fooled by?
>

It would be of course the same motivation that led you to dismiss me
instantly as some sort of crackpot. I wish I knew what it was!

You could be fooled by various sources, one of which could be the
WIKI SR article which falsely states that SR is supported by E=mc^2.
You could also be fooled by those in the Newsgroups who have tried to
label anything that they're not familiar with as "BS from a crank."

> > And I have never ignored "the huge body of
> > slightly less direct tests of the same theory," and I have not then
> > "obliquely suggested some sort of conspiracy theory to explain why
> > no-one is spending millions of dollars on his simple test." And it
> > is complete balderdash to say of me that "Everywhere he goes, he
> > feels persecuted by co-conspiring mainstream physicists, who are
> > out to suppress the 'truth' he has discovered."
> >
> > Mr. Starling, I demand either an apology or some proof of the above
> > serious accusations.
>
>I apologise. I was making generalisations. As a matter of curiosity, what
>is
>your estimate for the cost of this experiment?
>

Thanks, but it seemed to me to be a direct attack on my credibility,
so I got pretty defensive (which I rarely do).

As for "the cost of this experiment," I am not sure to which experiment
you are referring, but I assume it is a two-clock measurement of light's
one-way speed. Since we are actually talking about theoretical physics
(note that my main topic is SR), the cost is practically zero because it is
all
done on paper.

For some reason, everyone assumes that I am either presenting a theory of
my own or calling for some exorbitant test of SR. Instead, I am simply
trying to clarify the meaning of SR.
[snip]
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_________________________________________________________________
Get MSN 8 Dial-up Internet Service FREE for one month.  Limited time offer--
sign up now!   http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup


from_name: epzachte at chello.nl

subject: [Wikitech-l] Stats (to Brion)

body:
Brion, did you receive any of my mails this week, or did they all fall into the spam filter?

I sent you a patch for the Wikipedia sort order, or you may edit
WikiReportsInput.pl line 186 change 13 to 14.

The visitor stats are missing, last week only zh: was present
which suggest to me that the wget job did not retrieve other index.html webalizer files.
Perhaps you generate the retrieval list on the fly and something went wrong there?

Lastly stats for the English wikipedia are missing altogether now.

Regards, Erik Zachte


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cooperation with EUobserver

body:
Erik,

Thank you for negotiating this agreement. It's an excellent example of
one hand washing another. They donate some news copy to the world, and
they get web hits in return. I look forward eagerly to next month's
progress report.

Ed Poor


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Welcome back Adam

body:
> Of course, if Lir/Adam/Pizza Puzzle would show all
> of US the respect of
> picking a set of pronouns and damn well sticking to
> them, this wouldn't be
> a problem. The problem arises because he/she/it
> can't just use one identity
> consistently... that's his/her/its problem, not
> mine.
>
> I'm prefectly happy to call L/A/PP he, she, it, or
> what have you, but I'm
> not changing pronouns on the whim of someone who
> can't decide which
> identity they're going to be using on a regular
> basis. Since a majority of
> the identities that I'm familiar with from this
> individual are male (as
> near as I can tell), I'm going with male.
>
> Therefore, if he has a problem with that, he can
> tell me.

I thought we agreed to call em Adam, but if E doesn't
like that, we can always use [[Spivak pronoun]]s and
call em Lir, as E seems to like that the best
(although it's unclear what gender that would imply).
LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Welcome back Adam

body:
At 12:30 PM 9/29/2003, you wrote:
>I thought we agreed to call em Adam, but if E doesn't
>like that, we can always use [[Spivak pronoun]]s and
>call em Lir, as E seems to like that the best
>(although it's unclear what gender that would imply).
>LDan

This is the point that I exit the conversation.. the next thing you know
someone will mention sie and hir and that just always puts me into a mood
to stab people... G'nite folks! Thank you Cleveland!!! Rock on!

-----
Dante Alighieri
dalighieri at digitalgrapefruit.com

"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their
neutrality in times of great moral crisis."
    -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321


body:
Erik suggested:

> You could also use the "Post a comment" link on the talk
> page, which allows you to append directly to the page,
> without loading the whole discussion, and without the
> possibility of edit conflicts. Or you can use section
> editing to edit only a particular thread (provided that
> thread is separated using ==headings==).

Oh, so THAT's what "post a comment" means!

Good tips, both. I shall use them while waiting for Tomos's proposal to
go through.

Thanks.

Ed Poor


body:
Maybe we should make a section about crackpot theories
on relativity. After all, there are so many of them
and their existance is well-known. It wouldn't need to
name specific points that they are making, only that
crackpot theories exist. Possibly there could be an
article on crackpot theories. We don't have to endorce
them to acknowledge them. (Or do we, under NPOV?)
LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


from_name: Christopher Mahan

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Welcome back Adam

body:
--- Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu> wrote:

> Lir often self-identifies as female, especially online
> (more often female than male is my estimate from her online diary);
> and to my knowledge she has self-identified only as female on
> Wikipedia,
> except occasional use of the name "Adam", which is typically male.
> (Unless your post was meant to say that this has changed?
> I can't be certain of Lir's current preferences.)
>
> Transgender Etiquette from
> <http://www.mlp.org/resources/mlptgn.html>:
>
>              Always address and treat individuals in the manner in
>    which they are expressing themselves. Use names and pronouns
>    appropriate to the expressed (rather than the genetic or legal)
>    gender. Give the same respect that you would expect for
> yourself.
>
>    It always works best if use of congruent gender references is
>    practiced at all times, including when out of earshot of the TG
>    individual (i.e., don't use different pronouns outside of
> his/her
>    presence).
>
>
> -- Toby

I hear you, but it sure makes things confusing. Adam is a he, Lir is
a she, but Adam is Lir. Mmmm...

=====
Christopher Mahan
chris_mahan at yahoo.com
818.943.1850 cell
http://www.christophermahan.com/

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


body:
>From: Jimmy Wales <jwales at joey.bomis.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] [roy_q_royce at hotmail.com: --A Request RE a
>WIKIArticle--]
>Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:11:51 -0700
>
>I know too little about physics to have anything helpful to say here.
>Reading between the lines here, I'm guessing that Mr. Royce's views
>are not mainstream?  Is there any helpful accomodation that could be
>made here?
>

Dear Mr. Wales,

You've sold us both short! :-) (<--please note smiley, Mr. Poor!)
You have assumed that you could not have anything helpful to say
about the physics of this situation, so you have also assumed that
it cannot be simply explained if one tries hard enough!

Since SR pertains only to rulers and clocks, and to the results of
measurements made thereby, this should tell us that it is not
exactly an inherently complex subject. (If you want one of those,
try quantum mechanics!)

I believe that the average layman can see that special relativity
does not pertain to E=mc^2, and my simple 5-step proof should make
a believer out of you.

Here is a brief 5-step proof/explanation for the average layman:

Everyone agrees that special relativity (SR) has some sort of
mass increase,* just as everyone agrees that SR has some sort of
time dilation and some sort of rod contraction. The question is,
What is physically happening in these three cases?
[* a minor technical point, it's really a momentum (which is simply
mass x velocity) increase]

Since most laymen feel much more comfortable discussing a clock
and its rhythm than discussing mass and momentum, and since all
three of the above SR effects are alike, it is much better to
begin by using a simple clock-rhythm example.

Step 1:
Picture a single, normally-operating atomic clock that is sitting
on a stationary table some where. (In "tech talk," it is continuously
at rest with respect to an inertial frame).

Step 2:
Note the fact that this clock cannot have more than one atomic
(internal, time-keeping) rhythm. (A clock that had two or more
different "tick rates" would have to be thrown away!)

Step 3:
Note the fact that observers in different SR frames will find
many "different rhythms" for this clock. (Indeed, in SR, one and
the same clock has an infinite number of "different rhythms.")

Step 4:
Reach the unavoidable conclusion that SR's "time dilation" does
not pertain to a clock's intrinsic (atomic, in this case) rhythm.

Step 5:
Apply this same argument to the other two cases (i.e., to the
momentum and rod contraction cases), and similarly reach the
equally unavoidable conclusion that SR does not pertain to either
intrinsic mass or to intrinsic rod length.

(Not that anything more is needed, but strength is added to our
argument by the fact that each of SR's cases are reciprocal; e.g.,
I see your clock is "running slow," but you also see _my_ clock
"running slow." If we were talking about real (atomic, intrinsic)
clock rhythms, then this would clearly be a physically impossible
situation, and the same applies to both the SR momentum and rod
contraction cases.)

At this point, although we have not answered our original question
about what was physically happening in these three cases, we have
answered the question about what was _not_ happening in these cases,
which means that we have answered the important question Does SR
pertain to physically real (or intrinsic) characteristics? And we
have found that the answer to this question is No. This tells us all
we need to know in order to prove our main point that SR does not
pertain to the equivalence of real mass with real energy (which is
of course stated explicitly by the equation E=mc^2).

-----RR-----
_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_________________________________________________________________
Instant message in style with MSN Messenger 6.0. Download it now FREE!
http://msnmessenger-download.com


from_name: David Friedland

body:
Gareth Owen wrote:
> erik_moeller=Mmb7MZpHnFY at public.gmane.org (Erik Moeller) writes:
>
>
>>1) EUObserver.com agrees to put the text of the first paragraph of each
>>story in the public domain. That paragraph usually provides a good summary
>>of the story.
>>
>>2) We agree to cite EUOBserver.com as a source for each of these copied
>>summaries (as we already do with all stories reported on "Current
>>events").
>
>
> Aren't those two paragraphs contradictory?
>
> Either way, as I understand it, unless we're declaring the credit to
> EUOBserver as an invariant section, paragraph 2 is not GFDL compatible.

Erik's description of the agreement isn't clear. Are we obligated to
cite EU Observer or do we just agree to cite them? If they put the text
in the public domain, we obviously don't _have_ to do anything, but I
can see how agreeing to cite them is nice. If so, I don't think _our_
agreeing to cite them has any bearing on further uses of Wikipedia content.

Has it been made clear to EU Observer that others may use the content
and not cite them?

- David


from_name: Andre Engels

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Fwd: Wikipedia e-mail

body:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Brion Vibber wrote:

> On Mon, 2003-09-29 at 03:06, Chuck Smith wrote:
> > I don't know what to do with this message, so I'm
> > forwarding it here.  I expect someone else will be
> > better able to reply than me.
>
> I got one of these too, I assume he spammed a bunch of people. There
> aren't any details, like say a link to the page in question, and the
> account used has no history (just 2 edits, no user page), so it's rather
> difficult to follow up unless he provides some info.
>
> Despite the rumours, Wikipedians are not telepathic.

I have checked, and from his statement that Tannin did the blocking, the
text that he repeatedly inserted, and repeatedly got reverted on to be
subsequently blocked can be found at
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=George_H._W._Bush&diff=1498984&oldid=1498950.
It basically consists of various unproven allegation of Bush Seniors
involvement in 50s and 60s CIA actions, in particular the invasion in the
Bay of Pigs and the assasination of John F. Kennedy.

I would propose to unblock him (IP address 203.118.177.231) after stating
that we consider his additions unproven allegations, and as such will not
be willing to include them unless he comes with evidence (either of them
being fact or of them being widely believed by those supposed to know
about these things).

Andre Engels


from_name: tarquin

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:

>HTML files uploaded to the wikis are now served as plain text, so
>browsers will show the HTML source instead of interpreting it as a web
>page.
>
>This should reduce the possibility of stealing peoples' login cookies by
>getting them to click on a link to an uploaded HTML file containing
>javascript.
>
>(Uploading HTML files has never been recommended. Preferably host 'live'
>example HTML files on your own web site and link rather than uploading
>them to the Wikipedia server.)
>
>
bummer. :(
I was using that facility to upload work on Wikipedia skins :(
Any chance you could reenable it on Meta?
Could you make it somehow mung any <script> elements for safety?


from_name: Connie Davis

subject: [WikiEN-l] Broken link on your website

body:
There appears to be a problem on this page: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TakuyaMurata
When we click on your link to: http://kuwahala.free-city.net/nihonshi/nindex.html
we get the error: 404 File not found

We last examined your page on Mon Sep 29, 2003 at 01:43:19 PM EDT. If it
has not been updated since then, the link is most likely broken.

We discovered this error during our normal course of website content
checking for one of our search engine clients.

If you would like to receive notifications like this in the future if we
find pages unavailable, click here:
http://scclick.internetseer.com/sitecheck/clickthrough.jsp?I5s57d5d5i5l5d5m5f5l55V5qKTc55SSVI5cS5tKXSSNRDX6u5dIzL52W5sMPTN5n5e5bSUT6uQ6tC_5aDPVR5c6vLTJ5byVP5eHLQIIWML5eHLy_RG5aXTCC55x5q5i=e3

Click here to learn more about us:
http://scclick.internetseer.com/sitecheck/clickthrough.jsp?I5s57d5d5i5l5d5m5f5l55V5qKWng5SSVI5cS5tKXSSNRDX6u5dIzL52W5sMPTN5n5e5bUKT5bKXSSNRDX6u5dIzL5bUSQL5e6hxMw5n6j6tSUJ6u6cPz_x6u55x5q5h=e3

Sincerely,

Connie Davis
InternetSeer.com
http://www.internetseer.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your email address was found during a prior visit to your website on
09-29-2003. The error listed above was verified from both of our
indexing servers in Philadelphia, Pa. and Los Angeles, Ca. This error could
have been caused by any number of events, including connectivity problems on
our part and/or connectivity problems in the Internet as we tried to reach
your site. This error should not be construed as a guaranteed problem on the
part of your website or hosting company since there are never any guaranteed
connection routes on the Internet.

If would like to be excluded from any potential future contact, click here:
http://scclick.internetseer.com/sitecheck/cancel.jsp?USQM7qi6MH5aI5sUSQLzVVS6t5bwwM.e3

##wikien-l at wikipedia.org## SRC=58
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030929/eebe2982/attachment.htm


subject: [Wikitech-l] language-fr

body:
Could someone put
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%E9dia:LanguageFr.php into CVS and
then onto the server?
Sorry, I'm having major CVS headache :(


subject: [Wikitech-l] Stats (to Brion)

body:
Brion, we're getting close.

English Wikipedia reappeared
Webalizer data are shown as well

You forgot to patch:
WikiReportsInput.pl
line 186 change 13 to 14.

Wikipedia's are still ordered by word count.
You only need to rerun the reports job (2 minutes)

Thanks, Erik Zachte


from_name: Toby Bartels

subject: [WikiEN-l] Cooperation with EUobserver

body:
Gareth Owen wrote:

>Erik Moeller wrote:

>>The agreement is between Wikipedia and Euobserver, not between Euobserver
>>and any users of Wikipedia's material. We shall make an honest effort to
>>have the sources cited

>Thats fair enough, as long as they know that other GFDL projects can legally
>(if slightly mean-spiritedly) strip the content and ignore the citations.

Forget the GFDL!  If they're putting the paragraph in the public domain,
then absolutely anybody can copy it with no restrictions whatsoever.
Heck, even /we/ can copy it with no restrictions; however:
* It's always good Wikipedia practice to cite sources; and
* If we don't cite them, then they'll probably stop releasing the paragraphs.

So Erik's deal seems to me to be quite informal,
from an IP-law standpoint.  And a good deal for us.

-- Toby


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikilists and GDFL

body:
>I would use the same argument regarding page histories,
> they are probably not under the GFDL as these are retired files,
> why would one want someone to cite an out of date version
> of an article when a new one might be available? It does not
>say they are released under the GFDL on the page, so they
> may be covered by regular copyright law.
>
>Alex756

Sometimes articles deteriorate badly under the influence of tendititious
users. Occassionally a better article is in the history and is cited by
others.

Fred

http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org


from_name: Tomos at Wikipedia

body:
I am posting this here (as opposed to sourceforge) since this idea needs
some discussion, etc.

I often think that viewing the latest version of the page after just editing
it is not necessary.

When I press "Save" button, all I need is the message that "data is now
saved," not the whole article/ page.

So it would be nice to have that option in one way or another. It could be
either a user option or
two save buttons with the edit box. Or "data is now saved" is the default,
and there is a link to the
page just edited. (The last option is similar to the way login proceeds. You
get a link to the previously visited page after logging in successfully.)

And I am speculating that if the page is not displayed after saving, it
would save some server load.
Even if I am wrong here, I don't have to wait for a page to load. So I can
save some time.

Tomos

_________________________________________________________________
Add MSN 8 Internet Software to your existing Internet access and enjoy
patented spam protection and more.  Sign up now!
http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/byoa


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Welcome back Adam

body:
Dante Alighieri wrote:

>Toby Bartels wrote:

>>             Always address and treat individuals in the manner in
>>   which they are expressing themselves. Use names and pronouns
>>   appropriate to the expressed (rather than the genetic or legal)
>>   gender. Give the same respect that you would expect for yourself.

>Of course, if Lir/Adam/Pizza Puzzle would show all of US the respect of
>picking a set of pronouns and damn well sticking to them, this wouldn't be
>a problem. The problem arises because he/she/it can't just use one identity
>consistently... that's his/her/its problem, not mine.

As I mentioned in my previous post,
I've only noticed Lir going by a female persona on Wikipedia.
But since the most recent names (through Pizza Puzzle)
are gender-neutral and people don't usually refer to themselves
in the third person, I really can't be certain about that
(without going through all of her various old edits) --
an uncertainty that I /also/ mentioned in my previous post.

So if you're saying that Lir has called herself male here,
then that's fine.  (Please clarify if that's what you were doing.)

But that's not really what I was talking about at all.
Since I've never seen Lir /object/ to a male pronoun either,
I have no objection to your using a male pronoun.
That would be for Lir to object to, not me!
I was responding to another Wikipedian's post
telling anth?re that female pronouns are /wrong/.
Unless Lir has changed her mind, then that's not so.

But anth?re and I may both have missed something;
so by all means, if Lir has rejected female pronouns,
then that's fine with me if somebody will just let me know.
But the only objections to such pronouns on this mailing list
are from /other/ people, based on (if anything) the rather irrelevant fact
that Adam has a male legal name and, apparently, a male physical body.
I'm hardly going to pretend that I can tell you what to call Lir,
but don't pretend that you can tell me what to call her either.

>I'm prefectly happy to call L/A/PP he, she, it, or what have you, but I'm
>not changing pronouns on the whim of someone who can't decide which
>identity they're going to be using on a regular basis. Since a majority of
>the identities that I'm familiar with from this individual are male (as
>near as I can tell), I'm going with male.

>Therefore, if he has a problem with that, he can tell me.

I'm sure he will.  I don't have a problem with it.
And since the plurality of Adam's identities that I'm familiar with
(including some from outside Wikipedia) are female,
I'm going with female until Lir herself tells me otherwise.
I don't see any need for a conflict between you and me.

-- Toby


subject: [Wikitech-l] language-fr

body:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, tarquin wrote:

> Could someone put
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%E9dia:LanguageFr.php into CVS and
> then onto the server?
> Sorry, I'm having major CVS headache :(

If you're at it, please upload the LanguageNl.php currently on CVS onto
the server - we seem to have actually gone _backward_ in versions two or
three weeks ago.

Andre Engels


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Welcome back Adam

body:
Christopher Mahan wrote:

>I hear you, but it sure makes things confusing. Adam is a he, Lir is
>a she, but Adam is Lir. Mmmm...

That's actually a pretty common situation among transgendered people.
And I'm not sure that Adam would really qualify as transgendered --
I've never seen him self-identify with that word, for one thing.
The main point is that people can have several different personas --
in Lir's case, we're very familiar with that!  In these situations,
mistakes are inevitable, and everybody should be cautious about
stating that one usage is right and another usage is wrong
(except, of course, when one is discussing oneself!).

If people are interested in Lir's variety of personas,
I would recommend her diary <http://qwert.diaryland.com/>.
This contains, among other things, transcripts of IM conversations
that she holds with herself -- some personas male, some female,
most not identified one way or another.

(OTOH, I'm not sure that Adam /wants/ us all reading his diary.
I can only say that he doesn't object when /I/ comment on it.)

-- Toby


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cooperation with EUobserver

body:
> But speaking only about the basics--the wikinews
> concept is an interesting idea. But just to throw it
> out there--Indymedia blew it with Google news by
> virture of not having a means to community edit
> content.  Wiki allows people to edit willy
> nilly--our
> experience on wikipedia shows that a community can
> deal with vandalism, but with an encyclopedia we can
> take it easy. With "news" there would be a need to
> have current states of articles in tip top shape,
> allowing a much much smaller margin of leeway for
> vandals and cranks, etc. Ideally a sysop pool of
> maybe
> 2-300 might be able to deal with issues quickly
> enough
> -- some extra protections like limitations on anons,
> etc would be necessary.
>
> Just throwing it out there-- how much would the
> Wikimedia ware have to change to meet the needs of
> such a project?
>
> ~S~

Whenever a new subproject is added to Wikimedia,
people say that we'll need more security. But that's
completely pointless. Remember Nupedia? That would
have been completely accurate, but it was too
constricting and not many people contributed to it. In
any event, there is no reason why news should be more
restricted than an encyclopedia; if anything, it
should be the reverse.
LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Wikitech-l Post a comment

body:
Erik suggested:

> You could also use the "Post a comment" link on the
talk
> page, which allows you to append directly to the
page,
> without loading the whole discussion, and without
the
> possibility of edit conflicts. Or you can use
section
> editing to edit only a particular thread (provided
that
> thread is separated using ==headings==).

-----

What does not "post a comment" exist on all skins ?

Anthere

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


from_name: Jake Nelson

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Welcome back Adam

body:
Dante Alighieri wrote:
> At 12:30 PM 9/29/2003, you wrote:
> >I thought we agreed to call em Adam, but if E doesn't
> >like that, we can always use [[Spivak pronoun]]s and
> >call em Lir, as E seems to like that the best
> >(although it's unclear what gender that would imply).
> >LDan
>
> This is the point that I exit the conversation.. the next thing you know
> someone will mention sie and hir and that just always puts me into a mood
> to stab people... G'nite folks! Thank you Cleveland!!! Rock on!
>
Indeed, my reaction as well. I use [[singular they]] or avoid using pronouns
altogether.

-- Jake


subject: [WikiEN-l] Broken link on your website

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> If one of the list admins sent this through; please don't. It's *spam*.
>
> They crawl the web for e-mail addresses and then send these things out
> as advertisements for their link-checking / availability service. Which,
> of course, means they're crawling our web site and loading it down.
> *Thanks* so much.
>
> The HTML mail also contains a "web bug": a 1x1 pixel transparent GIF
> image which contains a unique ID number and additionally sets a cookie
> when you view it, which happens automatically on many popular e-mail
> clients.
>
This is one of those points where I give a rant about HTML email being pure
evil. Thank whatever that OE finally got a 'View all email as plain text'
option a while back.
Considered dropping web traffic from them? Cutting off a misbehaving spider
would be good... and this reminds me, let's make certain that the 'submit'
button never, ever becomes a link. Else eveyr bad spider will wreak havoc.
-- Jake


body:
Message: 5
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 19:14:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: Christopher Mahan <chris_mahan at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Welcome back Adam (Daniel
Ehrenberg)
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Message-ID:
<20030929021452.66648.qmail at web14008.mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

>>> She was given the right to edit again, and

>He. Lir is a he :)

We are not sure.
And several hes are shes on Wikipedia
And we do not have enough shes
And that will make for all shes called hes
And I like the idea of him being a she, if she agrees.

:-)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


from_name: Sean Barrett

body:
> And we do not have enough shes

There's a quota?

--
 Sean Barrett     | Everything is controlled by a small evil group to
 sean at epoptic.com | which, unfortunately, no one we know belongs.


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [WikiEN-l] Cooperation with EUobserver

body:
I am happy to report that I have reached a cooperation agreement with
EUObserver.com. This is one of the few websites that does original
reporting on the European Union, in news style and reasonably neutral. The
terms of the agreement are as follows:

1) EUObserver.com agrees to put the text of the first paragraph of each
story (the part which is shown on the frontpage) in the public domain.
That paragraph usually provides a good summary of the story.

2) We agree to cite EUOBserver.com as a source for each of these copied
summaries (as we already do with all stories reported on "Current
events").

We can of course choose which stories to put on Wikipedia -- we will not
want to run commentaries or human interest stories, for example.

The agreement enters a trial phase now and we will review our cooperation
after a month. Text put in the public domain of course remains there. And
as usual, we can re-edit the summaries as we wish.

Details and discussion on [[Wikipedia:EUobserver cooperation]] and its
talk page.

While I am not a fan of the idea of a Wikinews spinoff project (primarily
because I think that news and encyclopedia are very closely linked), I do
believe that this could be the beginning of an expansion into the news
area, and similar agreements might be reached with other publications.
It's a fair deal: They give part of their content to the public, we
provide them with a steady stream of traffic to their site -- without
advertising it, simply by citing it as a source. I'm sure some other
independent news websites might be interested in such a deal.

Regards,

Erik


body:
Ed-

> Right now, I must:

> 1. Click on the article link, and wait for the page to load.
> 2. Click on the "Discuss this page" link, and wait for THAT page to
> load.

You could also use the "Post a comment" link on the talk page, which
allows you to append directly to the page, without loading the whole
discussion, and without the possibility of edit conflicts. Or you can use
section editing to edit only a particular thread (provided that thread is
separated using ==headings==).

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Alex R.

body:
From: "Erik Moeller" <erik_moeller at gmx.de>
> David-
> > Erik's description of the agreement isn't clear. Are we obligated to
> > cite EU Observer or do we just agree to cite them? If they put the text
> > in the public domain, we obviously don't _have_ to do anything, but I
> > can see how agreeing to cite them is nice. If so, I don't think _our_
> > agreeing to cite them has any bearing on further uses of Wikipedia
content.
>
> Well, if we don't cite them, they will simply cancel the agreement, and no
> further news summaries will be released to the public domain.
>
> > Has it been made clear to EU Observer that others may use the content
> > and not cite them?
>
> Yes. I will copy the full text of the correspondence to Wikipedia later.
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik

If they are agreeing to release their material under the GFDL
they have the right to be cited as at least one of the five
most major contributors to the article.  it says this in the
GFDL.

Of course if they become
a minor contributor after edits are made subsequent GFDL
licensees/licensors will not necessarily have to cite them,
but of course as long as they cite back to Wikipedia they
will be able to find out who "all" the contributors are as
Wikipedia maintains this information (almost always) in
the page history archives.

Alex756


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikilists and GDFL

body:
From: "Jimmy Wales" <jwales at joey.bomis.com>

> I think the mailing lists are not GFDL.  They are in the same state as
> any normal mailing list anywhere, I guess.  Whatever that is!
>
> --Jimbo

Does it really matter? Will anyone be using these posts for anything
other than fair use citations (which are no doubt fairly broad).
Releasing under the GFDL does not make sense, already Google
has usenet lists archived and I have seen various mailing lists
available through various

What is the possible use of making it GFDL?  Is someone going
to publish a book of our various email discussions about various
problem users, etc.?

I would use the same argument regarding page histories,
 they are probably not under the GFDL as these are retired files,
 why would one want someone to cite an out of date version
 of an article when a new one might be available? It does not
say they are released under the GFDL on the page, so they
 may be covered by regular copyright law.

Alex756


from_name: Gareth Owen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Cooperation with EUobserver

body:
erik_moeller at gmx.de (Erik Moeller) writes:

> 1) EUObserver.com agrees to put the text of the first paragraph of each
> story in the public domain. That paragraph usually provides a good summary
> of the story.
>
> 2) We agree to cite EUOBserver.com as a source for each of these copied
> summaries (as we already do with all stories reported on "Current
> events").

Aren't those two paragraphs contradictory?

Either way, as I understand it, unless we're declaring the credit to
EUOBserver as an invariant section, paragraph 2 is not GFDL compatible.
--
Gareth Owen


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cooperation with EUobserver

references:
<8umMdfixpVB@erik_moeller> <r5i3cefzfqk.fsf@gill.maths.keele.ac.uk>
	<20030929213048.GA13190@math-lw-n04.ucr.edu>

body:
This is definitely a good deal for all, and a remarkably sane one. Also, I'm
always glad to see new public domain stuff out there. Well, I like seeing
copyleft sources too, but honestly, not as much as PD: viral licenses bother
me, a lot. Whenever I write up something or take a good picture and want to
let people use it, I just PD it, saves a lot of hassle.

-- Jake


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cooperation with EUobserver

references:
<8umMa7iCpVB@erik_moeller> <r5ik77rzgpj.fsf@gill.maths.keele.ac.uk>
	<1064854163.8482.23.camel@frank.vibber.org>

body:
Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> writes:

> Citing your sources is not incompatible with the GFDL!

No its not, but releasing the sources on the precondition that the work is so
cited in perpetuity remain most certainly is (unless they're in an invariant
section) for the same reasons BSDL + advertising clause isn't GPL compatible.
--
Gareth Owen


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cooperation with EUobserver

body:
Gareth-
> Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> writes:

>> Citing your sources is not incompatible with the GFDL!

> No its not, but releasing the sources on the precondition that the work is
> so cited in perpetuity remain most certainly is (unless they're in an
> invariant section) for the same reasons BSDL + advertising clause isn't GPL
> compatible.

The agreement is between Wikipedia and Euobserver, not between Euobserver
and any users of Wikipedia's material. We shall make an honest effort to
have the sources cited, for as long as they point to existing pages.

Regards,

Erik


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cooperation with EUobserver

body:
erik_moeller at gmx.de (Erik Moeller) writes:

> The agreement is between Wikipedia and Euobserver, not between Euobserver
> and any users of Wikipedia's material. We shall make an honest effort to
> have the sources cited

Thats fair enough, as long as they know that other GFDL projects can legally
(if slightly mean-spiritedly) strip the content and ignore the citations.
--
Gareth Owen
"It's not a human or civic right to edit wikipedia."
                                 -- kq cuts to the core of the banning debate


body:
David-
> Erik's description of the agreement isn't clear. Are we obligated to
> cite EU Observer or do we just agree to cite them? If they put the text
> in the public domain, we obviously don't _have_ to do anything, but I
> can see how agreeing to cite them is nice. If so, I don't think _our_
> agreeing to cite them has any bearing on further uses of Wikipedia content.

Well, if we don't cite them, they will simply cancel the agreement, and no
further news summaries will be released to the public domain.

> Has it been made clear to EU Observer that others may use the content
> and not cite them?

Yes. I will copy the full text of the correspondence to Wikipedia later.

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Christian Dietl

body:
* Tomos at Wikipedia <wiki_tomos at hotmail.com> wrote:
> And I am speculating that if the page is not displayed after saving, it
> would save some server load.

That's true, but beside the point. The servers _are_ lame and no matter
how much you try to make the symptoms (slow loading etc) disappear, you
won't achieve a state of 'good performance' since there are other
performance consuming things like the growing number of users. If you want
better performance you have to care about the cause, not the symptoms.

Christian


from_name: Vicki Rosenzweig

subject: [WikiEN-l] Broken link on your website

body:
At 09:22 AM 9/30/03 +1200, Richard Grevers wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 11:07:26 -0700,  Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> gave
>utterance to the following:
>
>>If one of the list admins sent this through; please don't. It's *spam*.
>>
>>They crawl the web for e-mail addresses and then send these things out
>>as advertisements for their link-checking / availability service. Which,
>>of course, means they're crawling our web site and loading it down.
>>*Thanks* so much.
>I wonder if their crawler respects robots.txt?

I would assume not--robots.txt is a protocol for honest people, not
spammers and liars.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org


subject: [Intlwiki-l] Re: [Wikitech-l] language-fr

body:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Brion Vibber wrote:

> On Mon, 2003-09-29 at 06:01, Andre Engels wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, tarquin wrote:
> >
> > > Could someone put
> > > http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%E9dia:LanguageFr.php into CVS and
> > > then onto the server?
> > > Sorry, I'm having major CVS headache :(
> >
> > If you're at it, please upload the LanguageNl.php currently on CVS onto
> > the server - we seem to have actually gone _backward_ in versions two or
> > three weeks ago.
>
> Everybody -- please make sure your language files are consistent, and
> the current versions are in the ***stable*** branch of CVS.

And how do I put files in the stable branch?

Andre Engels


from_name: Richard Grevers

body:
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 22:24:17 -0700, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com>
gave utterance to the following:

> tarquin wrote:
>> The current winner should be disqualified on
>> technical grounds -- it simply does not meet the
>> design brief of the competition.
>
> In a democracy sometimes your side loses. Get over it work on a better
> variant
> of the *same* concept.
>
What you are saying is, so long as he won most votes, you wouldn't object
to Richard Branson becoming Governor of California, despite the technical
fact that as a British citizen he wouldn't qualify?

Of course that scenario simply isn't likely to happen in most democratic
states, because technical qualification is screened before a candidate is
eligible* - a step which didn't happen here.

I think that next time we choose a logo, be that sooner or later,
candidates should be judged under three or four categories. The technical
ones - whether a logo will adapt well to being printed 6mm high on a pen,
and whether it meets the design brief, to be judged by an expert panel
(and if necessary, experts from outside the W community, e.g. printers) in
order to qualify for the democratic aspects such as symbolism and
aestetics. After all, Miss world is supposedly judged on intelligence and
personality, not just how she looks in a swimsuit :-)

*In New Zealand's last election, an elected MP was ousted a month after
the election because it was realized that she only had permanent
residency, not citizenship. She claimed to have "misunderstood" a part of
the candidacy declaration.
--
Richard Grevers
Between two evils always pick the one you haven't tried


from_name: Luc Van Oostenryck

body:
Tomos at Wikipedia wrote:
>
> I am posting this here (as opposed to sourceforge) since this idea needs
> some discussion, etc.
>
> I often think that viewing the latest version of the page after just
> editing it is not necessary.
>
> When I press "Save" button, all I need is the message that "data is now
> saved," not the whole article/ page.
>
> So it would be nice to have that option in one way or another. It could
> be either a user option or
> two save buttons with the edit box. Or "data is now saved" is the
> default, and there is a link to the
> page just edited. (The last option is similar to the way login proceeds.
> You get a link to the previously visited page after logging in
> successfully.)
>
> And I am speculating that if the page is not displayed after saving, it
> would save some server load.
> Even if I am wrong here, I don't have to wait for a page to load. So I
> can save some time.
>
> Tomos
>

Yes, I've already often feel the need for this.
It's should ne very usefull when you do lots of little change
because in this case you don't need to see the result.

-- Looxix


from_name: The Cunctator

subject: [WikiEN-l] Cooperation with EUobserver

body:
> From: Poor, Edmund W
> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 12:30 PM
> To: English Wikipedia
> Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Cooperation with EUobserver
>
> Erik,
>
> Thank you for negotiating this agreement. It's an excellent example of
> one hand washing another. They donate some news copy to the world, and
> they get web hits in return. I look forward eagerly to next month's
> progress report.

It's important to note that any guarantee that Wikipedia link back to
EUObserver would be informal. We can't guarantee that those links would
be there, if they're releasing the info into the public domain.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikilists and GDFL

body:
From: "Fred Bauder" <fredbaud at ctelco.net>

> >
> >Alex756
>
> Sometimes articles deteriorate badly under the influence of tendititious
> users. Occassionally a better article is in the history and is cited by
> others.
>
> Fred
>
> http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org

And what about copyright infringements, privacy right violations and
defamation that his hidden in the page history. If this is all released
under the GFDL and Wikipedia has no warranty disclaimers (which
are allowed under the GFDL) then doesn't Wikipedia have liability
for allowing such wrongful texts to be distributed further?

Alex756


from_name: Till Westermayer

subject: AW: [Wikipedia-l] Logo results as tallied pairwise (Condorcet)

body:
Hi,

interesting -- but are you sure you get all the votes? AFAIK, I did vote
(till we *) or Tillwe), but Inpage-Search didn't find me in your data sheet.

Regards,

Till

>-- Original Nachricht --
>To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
>From: Rob Lanphier <robla at robla.net>
>Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 20:08:16 -0700
>Cc:
>Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Logo results as tallied pairwise (Condorcet)
>Reply-To: wikipedia-l at Wikipedia.org
>
>
>As both a check on the election results, and as a demonstration of
>pairwise voting, I decided to do the following:
>
>     * Download the ballots cast in this contest
>     * Run them through a program I wrote to parse them into a format
>I'm used to working with (with candidate translation list I manually
>created).
>     * Tally the votes using the Condorcet calculator
>
>In using this technique, the winner of this election remains the same
>(1a). However, it's still interesting to see the nature of the pairwise

>matchups. In particular, the race for second place was really close
>(option 2c beat option 10 by five votes).  It was even closer before I

>noticed I missed the international ballots (without those ballots, 10
>beat 2c by a vote).
>
>You can see the complete results here:
>http://www.electorama.com/2003/wplogo-pairwise/
>
>Rob
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l at Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

________________________________________
Digitale Urlaubsfotos online speichern und Abz?ge bestellen bei  http://www.epost.de


from_name: Walter Vermeir

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Re: Please fix the wikiNL-l-admin at wikipedia.org
	email adress

body:
Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote in
news:1064831250.30575.408.camel at frank.vibber.org:

> On Mon, 2003-09-29 at 02:38, Walter Vermeir wrote:
>> The wikiNL-l-admin -at- wikipedia.org email adress still does not
>> work. Can this be fixt please soon.
>
> I still have no idea what's wrong with the admin addresses.  Sending
> to wikitech-l-admin sends a bounce message back to me at
> wikitech-l-owner; sending to wikinl-l-admin gets rejected and
> discarded, not even sending a bounce.
>
> I'm not even sure they're supposed to work; mailman's documentation is
> awful. The FAQ is all questions and no answers. The 'documentation'
> that I can find doesn't give any relevant info that I can find.
> There's nobody in #mailman on irc.freenode.org.

There mailing lists are on gmane.org

gmane.mail.mailman.user
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users

Can you ask there?

> The wikinl-l-owner address seems to work, try giving that out
> instead...

Yes, that is now in use. But I have used the wikiNL-l-admin adress because
it was the only wikipedia.org emailadress we the could use. It is used for
the press relase and the contactform (now not more). Important messages can
still get lost.

Can you not set a emailforward directly whitout the use of mailman?

Thanks for you help.

--
Contact: walter AT wikipedia.be
Ook een artikeltje schrijven? WikipediaNL, de vrije GNU/FDL encyclopedie
http://www.wikipedia.be