from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Commons-l] Image ID. Looking for community input.

body:
On 12/5/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> Someone came to me with an image they believed they obtained from
> commons but where unsure of exactly where they found it...
>
> I was eventually able to locate the image, but it took a lot of work.
>
> Had the image been deleted for copyright problems it would have been
> nearly impossible but it is in exactly that sort of situation which we
> may need the ability to find the image the most.
>
> I have locally a database of image fingerprints (quantized color
> histograms) which could be used to locate images... it didn't work for
> this case because the image was newer than our last image backup
> (which was last year). It might be useful but it's not a complete
> solution.

A few hours ago, I wrote about adding an MD5 hash (or the like) to
each image entry in the database. That would have helped finding the
image in question as well, except if it has been altered.

> I wanted to get input from the community on a couple of actions we
> might like to take to improve the situation in the future:
>
> # On upload we could attach the URL the image was uploaded as to the
> image in an EXIF tag.  There are a great many EXIF tags defined and
> I'm sure we could find a fitting one. This would only work for .JPG
> but it would be easy to implement.

That could be done as part of the upload process. If we eventually
enable copy-from-web (again, some code of mine deactivated for unknown
reasons; next time, I'll set these things to "on" by default, so the
gods in charge can't ignore it forever like they do now) we could also
include the "original" (pre-commons) URL.

> As a separate topic, we should
> consider adding license data to our exif tags (I do it for my images,
> but we should perhaps do it more generally.   This would be fairly
> easy to do and I don't think this would be controversial, although
> there would be some complexity with respect to image moves once we
> gain that ability in the future.   Does anyone object to this?
>
> # We could also add the same in the PNG comments... although such use
> of png comments is non-standard .. I don't think it would break
> anything. Anyone have any thoughts on that?
>
> # We could add some RDF tags to SVGs for the same purpose, although I
> think the PNG rasterizations of SVGs would be more important.

Adding licenses to the image will require changing the image on any
license-altereing edit to the description page. It also means we need
to parse said description for license tags. Unless, of course, we
limit this function to the license set on the upload page.

That said, I think either is a good idea.

> # Finally, something that might be somewhat controversial:   I think
> it would be a good idea to add some text to the (raster) thumbnail
> image on the image page. My idea is that we would add an extra white
> area below the image large enough to contain a line of text which
> mentions where the image came from. This would have a two fold
> benefit: 1) it would encourage people to use the full resolution image
> for reuse, 2) it would cause automated scraping processes which hit
> our image pages to preserve human readable tracking information.
> Unlike a classic watermark this addition could be removed via
> cropping.  Technically this would require just a few more arguments to
> imagemagik during thumbnailing, but we'd have to make a few other
> changes to handle smaller images and to treat the image page thumb
> differently from other same-sized thumbs.

I'm not sure it's worth the effort.
1) We already link to the high-res version in the line below the
image. Altering the thumbnail requires people to edit the image if
they don't want the high-res version (maybe they're on a modem?)
2) That would be useful for automated image-scrapers that don't use
the page as well and don't link back to the commons. Do you have an
example for this?
Also, IMHO such a bar would uglify (is that a word?) most images. And,
our JPG thumbnails are JPGs as well; depending on the compression,
JPGs don't render (small) text very well.

> In general I think we need to think about how to push our metadata
> into the image files themselves. Only if the metadata is embedded in
> the images will downstream users have a hope of keeping track of the
> images. If the rest of the world did this our lives would be much
> easier, so let us do on to other as we would have others do onto us.

Agreed. But I'd also like for us to use existing data more within the
system. We already use EXIF data to categorize camera models, IIRC?
The images themselves contain data (color etc.); how about "similar
images"? (yes, I know that's a big one, just dreaming here;-)

I created a new flickr account a few days ago, and I very much like
the "feel" of it. THe whole site screams that it's designed for
images. Maybe we should think about tag/category clouds, pre-link
various image sizes, integrate mass-organization (like "show me my
images, select this and that, tag them with category XYZ"). I'm not
saying we should become flickr, but we should learn from them.

Magnus


list: commons-l

source: pipermail-mbox

subject: [Commons-l] Blind move

body:
On 12/4/06, Artur Fija?kowski <wiki.warx at gmail.com> wrote:

> So my question is:
>
> what to do with such users ?

Make him use CommonsHelper [1] to move images from existing wikipedia
instead. Make sure he doesn't touch anything that says "fair use",
though ;-)

Magnus

[1] http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/commonshelper.php


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

body:
On 12/5/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> A Google search for "image hash" gives 878 results (curses, [[Image:Hash
> function.svg]] shows up several times); surely there's a good one with a
> free implementation /somewhere/?

The subject you really want to search is "image indexing" and it's a
surprisingly immature area.

A simple exact match hash will be kept by the later image storage
system. It would be useful for some thing (detecting exact digital
duplicates), but wouldn't have helped with my image (which was a copy
of the image page thumbnail).


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Rob Church

subject: [Wikitech-l] Wikipedia has a problem

body:
On 05/12/06, Simetrical <Simetrical+wikitech at gmail.com> wrote:
> Doesn't have enough information to render the site layout because it
> can't access the database, so it has to just print out text without
> any interface widgets.  Substantial parts of the interface are stored
> in the database, like the sidebar and so forth, and rendering the
> interface without them would be a) weird and b) too much work for an
> error message, which people don't expect to be pretty anyway.

To a lesser extent, also, the inability to be certain that the message
cache is working...which explains why it's not particularly
internationalisable.

Rob Church


subject: [Wikitech-l] What does the "undo" link do?

body:
On 05/12/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> 1) Is there any documentation on it, and if so, could that be linked
> to from the text that says "The edit was successfully undone. Please
> click save to apply this change." (and also from the error message you
> get when it can't undo due to intervening edits)

Ask the developer (Werdna) who implemented the feature. Like all good
developers, I am 100% confident he added a little documentation
somewhere on MediaWiki.org. If not, then I'm sure some bright spark
would be able to work out how the thing works, and provide some.

> 2) What's the rationale behind not making it available for the latest
> edit? Presumably this is a political sensitivity about not giving
> rollback to everyone, but it's a bit odd to effectively give rollback
> for old edits, rather than for all edits, which would be much more
> useful. Could we perhaps trial "rollback for everyone"?

If it's the latest edit, than a (more expensive) undo operation is not
needed; a manual revert would have the same effect, or a rollback
would undo the series of edits. So in short, the rollback feature is
more appropriate in those cases.

The moment people suggest trialling rollback for everyone (where
everyone, I usually hope, means all autoconfirmed users), a Holy War
starts.

Rob Church


from_name: Evan Martin

subject: [Wikitech-l] mwdumper --ouptut=mysql eats utf-8(?)

body:
On 12/4/06, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
> Evan Martin wrote:
> > When trying to use mwdumper to import
> > enwiki-20061001-pages-articles.xml.bz2, I find that using the
> > --output=mysql:... --format=sql:1.5 causes some piece to eat UTF-8.  I
> > can verify this in the database: the text table will have data like
> > is:Stj?rnleysisstefna where the middle mojibake character is a single
> > byte.
> [snip]
> > Some other info that may be useful:
> > - I have $wgDBmysql5 = false; in my LocalSettings.php.
>
> Assuming you're using MySQL 4.1 higher, this is your problem.
>
> When you let Java speak directly to MySQL, it's going to try to speak
> "real" UTF-8.

Aha!  I'm vaguely familiar with the UTF-8 problem with MySQL, but I
couldn't see how it was getting involved here.  After sending my mail
I had thought $wgDBmysq5 was a red herring, because mwdumper (I
assume) doesn't use it, but I realize now that when the tables are
*created* that value is used.

To rephrase for anyone else who stumbles across this thread:
$wgDBmysql5 = false means that the tables are created with DEFAULT
CHARSET=latin1, which isn't especially a problem as long as the
software atop it (mediawiki) knows that it's actually storing UTF-8.
But when you use the Java library to speak to MySQL, it notices that
the table is marked as latin1 and tries to convert your UTF-8 data for
you while importing.

I now understand importing via a pipe to MySQL is my best bet.

Thanks for the quick response!


subject: [Wikitech-l] mwdumper doesn't seem to import all pages(?)

body:
On 05/12/06, Emmanuel Engelhart <emmanuel at engelhart.org> wrote:
> My experience :
> - don't use the java direct connection : do a pipe with mysql
> - increase the sql request buffer size

There are some other tips like this on Meta, I seem to recall; stuff
like disabling the binary log if it's not needed, and increasing
various buffers and limits...

Rob Church


body:
On 12/4/06, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
> Evan Martin wrote:
> > When I run mwdumper with enwiki-20061001-pages-articles.xml.bz2 and
> > pipe it to mysql (see my other mail), it eventually prints out
> > something like
> >   3,583,699 pages (490.212/sec), 3,583,699 revs (490.212/sec)
> > and exits.
> >
> > However, on the database afterwards a query like SELECT COUNT(*) FROM
> > page gives me a result count somewhere around 2.5 million (I don't
> > have the exact number in my notes, sorry).
>
> This means MySQL encountered an error and stopped executing further
> statements from input.
>
> Be sure to watch the output of MySQL for errors, not just the output of
> mwdumper... you may find it easier if you send the SQL output to an
> intermediate file first, or else redirect each program's error output to
> separate files (which you can tail in separate terminals and/or look at
> later).

I had thought that both MySQL and mwdumper would output to the
console, but I guess it must've output this error many lines back
without killing the pipe, which meant mwdumper kept going.
Redirecting stderr produced
  ERROR 1114 (HY000) at line 19339: The table 'text' is full
which I know how to fix.

Thanks again.


list: wikien-l

from_name: Gregory Kohs

subject: [WikiEN-l] Discrimination on Wikipedia

body:
Jim Schuler wisely stated:

>Might depend on tax law.  If I remember correctly (it's been 15 years since
>I dealt with this), 501(c) and 501(c)(3) tax-exempt and private foundations
>can run afoul of the IRS if there is a clear indication of active
>discrimination.

But then also stated:

>In this case, I don't see any evidence of an active policy
>of discrimination...

There actually *is* a fairly active policy of discrimination that's been
carried out for the
past few months.

Employees of public relations firms are not allowed to edit Wikipedia.

http://blog.bitepr.com/2006/08/jimmy_wales_on_.html

The IRS and the appropriate Attorneys General will certainly get involved
when an
organization operating with tax-deductible funding begins to administer
itself in ways
that run contrary to its stated public mission.  The State of Florida's
Division of Consumer
Services was sufficiently concerned about Wikipedia's discrimination against

commercial interests (in light of the GFDL explicitly stating the license
must not
limit commercial use of the work), that it contacted Brad Patrick in late
November.

The earlier comment by Earle Martin that "Wikipedia is a privately-operated
members'
club" is a sad statement of empirical evidence that the Wikipedia leadership
has
clearly lost sight of its being a 501(c)(3) non-profit entity that goes well
beyond a
private club.

(Still on a Wiki-break, but this list is just too fascinating.)

--
Gregory Kohs
Cell: 302.463.1354


list: foundation-l

from_name: Lars Aronsson

subject: [Foundation-l] Introducing a new mailing list

body:
Michael Snow wrote:

> You think trying to make a joke excuses comments like that?

One problem with open and unmoderated mailing lists is that the
preferred way to respond to stupid messages or insults is with
silence.  If everybody who disliked the message would protest,
like Michael did here, the list would be flooded.  And if any
single person protests against every stupid message, that person
might end up dominating the list, like someone who doesn't know
how to moderate themselves.  (Like those who argue about
Wikipedias in certain languages that begin with M.)  Open mailing
lists offer no good way to express sympathy with a protest.
Instead there is a strong incentive for sensible list members not
to protest against offensive messages.  And the offended person
has no real way to distinguish this from agreement with the
offense or from cowardice.  If this list is a kitchen, everybody
just cares for their own cup, and nobody cleans the room.

If this was instead a wiki talk page, the offending message could
be removed and most of the harm would be undone.  If one person
removes the offense, other readers agree by just doing nothing.
No, I don't suggest we replace all mailing lists with wiki
discussions.  I only mention this as an inherent difference (a
bias) between open mailing lists and other technical solutions.

A moderator (kitchen cleaner?) could throw the offender off the
list, but this is an open list.  This could be the strongest
argument for keeping the wikichix list closed (membership
moderated).

--
  Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Emmanuel Engelhart

body:
My experience :
- don't use the java direct connection : do a pipe with mysql
- increase the sql request buffer size

2006/12/5, Evan Martin <evanm at google.com>:
> When I run mwdumper with enwiki-20061001-pages-articles.xml.bz2 and
> pipe it to mysql (see my other mail), it eventually prints out
> something like
>   3,583,699 pages (490.212/sec), 3,583,699 revs (490.212/sec)
> and exits.
>
> However, on the database afterwards a query like SELECT COUNT(*) FROM
> page gives me a result count somewhere around 2.5 million (I don't
> have the exact number in my notes, sorry).  And this discrepancy is
> further confirmed by many missing articles: lots of red links from
> existing articles where I can confirm that the article doesn't exist
> in the database but does exist in the dump.
>
> Is mwdumper known to have problems in this area?  How might I track this down?
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Introducing a new mailing list

body:
The Cunctator wrote:
> On 12/5/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>> And _this_ is pure tripe. Do you really think that my position is that I
>> don't want women to feel safe? If that's what you're implying here I'm
>> quite offended and suggest you retract it immediately. I've said nothing
>> remotely of the sort.
>
> Umm.... (looking desperately to change the direction of the
> conversation....) How about those Nazi userboxes?

What, are you saying I'm fat??

(note, not actually offended on this one :)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061205/42f1f6cd/attachment.pgp


from_name: Gatto Nero

body:
2006/12/5, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
> Hoi,
> Women have, like men, the ability to contribute. The way they contribute
> is not necessarily the same. When you read the motivation for the
> mailing list, you would have read that there is a group of women who
> feel ill at ease and as a consequence refrain from contributing to our
> projects. The fact that so many men are sceptical about this, shows
> either that they have not read the motivation, do not believe the
> motivation but what it does not prove at all is that they are right.

I've a problem understanding the way this thread is going on, but it
could be 'cause of my english.
Where are - on this list, of course - all these men sceptical about this issue?
Personally, I'm not. I'm aware that people made jokes that often are
not jokes, that are offensive. Believe me, I prooved that on my skin.
What I've seen on this ML, it's a lot of people sceptical about *the
ML*, or better: *about how this Wikichicks-l is gonna solve the
problem*. I repeat my POV: self-segregation is not a way to solve
anything. Speaking and discussing and confronting is a way to solve
the problem. If this discussion is going to transform itself in a
topic about "every bias and wikipedia", then ok, it's gonna be
interesting. If this discussion is going to remain about Wikichicks-l
(and really, I can't get how this name has been choosen: is it not
offensive for women?), then there will be a lot of people  opposing.
But don't mix this issues, please.

Secondary, I have to say that I understand what is said by Angela,
Anthere and the other women here, but I - as other contributors in
this thread - come from an italian community where women are really
strong, have power and a lot of respect/credit (as soon as I know).
One of them - Frieda - it's been involved in it.wikipedia quite from
the beginning, and it's now President of WMI. Why I'm saying this?
'cause there are positive example too. We have to work a lot for
people to respect each other (in a lot of different ways), but we can
do it. What we cannot do is to work about this issue "in secret", in a
place it's not public, in a place meaned only for women/gay/black
people/etc.

Claudio


from_name: rfrangi at libero.it

body:
[snip]
> You think trying to make a joke excuses comments like that?
[snip]

No, but it was so "on topic"!

[snip]
>It's exactly these sorts of comments, yes these sorts
> of "jokes", that create what is known as a hostile work
> environment and can lead to sexual harassment lawsuits.
[snip]

In the US for sure. Luckily enough, I live in a place where this sort of "jokes" just set the tone for the reply.

My apologies to Angela, anyway. It's not my fault. I've a gender bias and a cultural bias. Both hard to eradicate.

Roberto (Snowdog)

------------------------------------------------------
Francesco ha perso ben 45 Kg! Scopri come! Clicca qui
http://click.libero.it/webnation05dic06


from_name: Puppy

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: Request to mailing list Wikichix-l rejected

body:
Bogdan Giusca wrote:
> Tuesday, December 5, 2006, 4:29:32 PM, Guettarda wrote:
>
>
>> But the list was organised to avoid a specific problem
>> - women feeling uncomfortable posting to this male-dominated list where
>> explicitly sexist statements (even if they weren't meant seriously) are left
>> unchallenged by a large number of people.
>>
>
> A better solution would be to kick any of the men that behave
> like that, not to assume that "all men are chauvinist pigs".
>
> _______________________________________________
I refer you to my previous post on en for my thoughts on that:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/htdig/wikien-l/2006-November/056916.html
-kc-


body:
Stan Shebs wrote:
> Bryan Derksen wrote:
>> That is discrimination. Whether it's "reverse" of not is of no concern
>> to me, the effect is exactly the same.
>>
> Yawn. Sorry, you're not Rosa Parks. Do you barge into women's restrooms
> and start declaiming about reverse discrimination there too?

I wasn't aware that substantive discussions of Wikipedia policy took
place in women's restrooms. They don't in any of the men's restrooms
I've been in.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061205/2ea399be/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] Discrimination on Wikipedia

body:
ALPHAX states:
Wrong. Spam and POV hagiographies are banned, *regardless* of who posts
them.

Alphax makes the common mistake of confusing the "submission" with the
"submitter".  All public relations workers are not welcome to edit in
Wikipedia, regardless of the quality of their writing, or even whether
independent non-paid editors in good standing have personally vetted the
content before it's posted.

See [[Arch Coal]] again, if you're confused.

--
Gregory Kohs
Cell: 302.463.1354


subject: [Foundation-l] [Wikichix-l] Moderating an open list

body:
 From what I read below, we are in agreement - yet many women feel it
would be beneficial to have somewhere to discuss bias where they do not
have to worry about immediately being attacked for even bringing up the
bias issue. That is not, as yet, here.

Andre Engels wrote:
> 2006/12/5, Puppy <puppy at killerchihuahua.com>:
>
>
>> It was about a solution to women not being comfortable on WP due to
>> bias. Whether that solution is a good one or not was /not/ being
>> addressed.
>>
>
>
> Well, I felt it was, but maybe it just means I and others have not been
> clear in our arguments. I think it would be a very bad solution, because it
> would not help one iota. If we want to make Wikipedia more woman-friendly,
> then Wikipedia is the place to work. That might sound like a triviality, but
> someone who finds Wikipedia an unhospitable place for them, will still find
> it unhospitable if there is a small secluded corner to talk with others of
> the same feeling.
>
>
>> So why are you dismissing it? I think "it doesn't help" is the best ground
>>
>>> for dismissal I can think of.
>>>
>>>
>> I didn't dismiss it. That's what "firmly on the fence" means - that I do
>> not support nor oppose it, and am still considering the concept. And I
>> have yet to see any reason why it would not help. I have reasons why it
>> would, and I have seen concerns that it might hurt the project in other
>> ways, but I have not seen any reason given that it would not help.
>>
>>
>
> Any action against sexism and gender bias should be taken on Wikipedia (and
> the other projects and mailing lists) itself. I don't see how it helps to
> have a friendly away place if people have to get back to Wikipedia anyway.
> If they feel it's too sexist (I personally do not have the feeling it's
> rampant, but it undoubtedly occurs), they will have problems with it with or
> without Wikichix. And if they want their discussions to have some practical
> effect, they should probably do them elsewhere as well.
>
> If the goal is to get more women on mailing lists, I can see it would
> probably be effective. If the goal is to get their voice heard, I'm
> doubtful. If the goal is to diminish sexism on Wikipedia and the mailing
> lists, I'm quite convinced it is not.
>
>


from_name: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Attack blogs in WP:LIVING articles

body:
David Boothroyd wrote

> Charles R. Matthews writes:
> >David Boothroyd wrote:
> >  > The question is
> >  > not whether the blog is a 'source'; it is clearly not a source for
> >  > anything other than what is said on the blog. The issue is whether or
> >  > not to mention it in the article; the subsidiary issue is, should that
> >  > question be answered in the affirmative, it should be linked to.
> >
> >  >From WP:BLP:
> >
> >[...] insist on reliable third-party published
> >sources and a clear demonstration of relevance
> >to the person's notability.
> >
> >NB that it is the _person's notability_ in question. It is not just a
> >matter of whether the blog has some notability, for close watchers of
> >UK politics. It is a question of whether an MP, attacked by a blog, is
> >in some way characterised for notability by such an attack. You are
> >saying 'the only': i.e. the only pair of blog and MP in such a relationship.
>
> I think you have slightly misread the policy. The point being made there
> is that, in the case of negative material which does engage WP:BLP,
> the negative material must have a relevance to the reason why the
> person is considered notable. Therefore, if there was a blog set up to
> attack Anne Milton for her treatment of her neighbours, that would fall
> foul of that requirement because she is not notable by virtue of living
> next to someone. However, in this case we have a blog which attacks her
> for her political position: that passes the requirement because she is
> notable for holding a political position.
>
> This of course assumes that the mere existence of the blog does engage
> WP:BLP. I do not see how this is the case. It is not even potentially
> defamatory of person X to say that person Y does not like them.

> >  > 3) The fact that Anne Milton is quoted by Sandra Howard asserting that
> >  > Tim Ireland was "stalking" her through the weblog is particularly
> >  > significant. It is a notably extreme accusation.
> >
> >Well, the jury will have to describe whether objecting to such
> >harassment makes Anne Milton more notable than otherwise. Or whether
> >she is reacting as a normal person might well do.

> That does beg the question of whether the existence of the blog or its
> contents amounts to "harassment", or whether such harassment would be
> over and above the level of scrutiny and fair comment anyone might
> expect when standing for public office. I haven't made my mind up on
> that.

Some tension between your two points, here. Milton, we assume, commented on the blog, i.e. she reacted to its existence. There might be some cause to include the blog in the article if her reaction had been extreme (e.g. legal measures). But if it is being argued that her reaction was in any sense over-reaction, then indeed including the blog in the Milton article is a negative comment ("MP lashes back at blogger shock", in tabloid terms); and so the BLP guideline is relevant. This only makes for Milton's notability if politicians rarely do this.

I really think, outside the rather airless atmosphere of Westminster politics, this gets the big 'so what?'.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


body:
[snip]
> Also, it is not necessary to ask the community for anything. You should
> have noticed that these ladies are quite capable organising what is
> needed themselves. They do not need me or you to get a mailing list, a
> chat channel, their own wiki. I would also suggest that it is not for
> the community to agree or endorse. There is a need. What is perceived to
> be needed has been organised and we, the community, have been informed.
>
> Thanks,
>      GerardM

Yes exactly, any given group can set up it's own communication channel, and does not need to ask the community. But if the foundation open one of this channels, the foundation will have to deal with similar requests and potentially face problems if one of this requests is turned down.

Because WikiChicks is a WMF mailing list, right? Or di I misunderstood something?

Roberto (Snowdog)

------------------------------------------------------
Francesco ha perso ben 45 Kg! Scopri come! Clicca qui
http://click.libero.it/webnation05dic06


from_name: Oldak Quill

body:
On 05/12/06, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> Women have, like men, the ability to contribute. The way they contribute
> is not necessarily the same. When you read the motivation for the
> mailing list, you would have read that there is a group of women who
> feel ill at ease and as a consequence refrain from contributing to our
> projects. The fact that so many men are sceptical about this, shows
> either that they have not read the motivation, do not believe the
> motivation but what it does not prove at all is that they are right.

Well, is the motivation for the list a male-free environment in which
Wikimedia issues can be discussed or is it an aggression-free
environment? If it is the former, what it is it about men which means
that they should always be excluded from discussion. If it is the
latter, then surely there are plenty men who feel discussion on the
other lists are too aggressive and need more politeness and emotional
awareness.

Again, I am not skeptical about this as a man, I am skeptical about
this as a genderless contributor.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: Earle Martin

subject: [WikiEN-l] Nazi userboxes

body:
On 30/11/06, Rory Stolzenberg <rory096 at gmail.com> wrote:
> The userboxes aren't templates, so they don't fall under T1. The US has
> nearly total protection of free speech, so espousing beliefs, even Naziism,
> isn't illegal.

As far as I am aware, neither Wikipedia nor the Wikimedia Foundation
are the United States.

--
Earle Martin
            http://downlode.org/
http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/


from_name: Andre Engels

body:
2006/12/5, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:

> You are absolutely right that what is damaging to the community should
> not be allowed. What you fail to do is show why and how the community is
> damaged. It is far easier to show how our community will be strengthened
> by the Wikichicks. Assumptions are the mother of all fuck-ups.

Our community is strengthened by having the Wikichicks be part of it, tell
everyone their opinions and help on Wikipedia and the other sites along with
the others. It is not strengthened by putting them on a separate list so
they hear noone and noone hears them. Having them do their thing and us do
ours is an option. But it's a much worse option than actively working
together.

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


references:
<mailman.0.1165316340.21587.wikichix-l@wikimedia.org>
	<dfd0b40612050603y774413eeue69f9a446ce20d8e@mail.gmail.com>
	<45757EA9.6050406@KillerChihuahua.com>

body:
Puppy wrote:
> It isn't. You are a little out of date here.

Excellent. I still think it's a bad idea, but if it's not being
supported in any way by Wikimedia Foundation there's no need to complain
about it here any more.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061205/7c9b940f/attachment.pgp


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Categories vs lists vs navboxes (was Re: Deletions,
	lists, etc?)

body:
"Steve Bennett" wrote

> On 12/4/06, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com
> <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > Another way to put it: they are tendentious and can even be considered a type of advertising.
>
> Advertising as in "Come and see the great article I wrote"? I don't
> see any harm in this, and indeed, it would serve as encouragement to
> our readers. I shamelessly add links to articles I write. You could
> also call this [[WP:BTW|building the web]]. As long as it's not too
> obnoxious, relevant links to groups of articles that Wikipedia has are
> valuable.

It's obnoxious to put your own spin on what are the 'major topics' in an area. I've had trouble in the past on this.

> This may say something about mathematicians :) Now, I just had a look
> at [[Trigonometry]], and I really wouldn't have guessed, until I
> clicked on the category link that there somewhere between 44 and 53
> articles about trigonometry. Wikipedia has such an incredible depth of
> material that it seems a shame not to make that more visible. Why not
> a navigational box that effectively carves out that part of Wikipedia
> as a specialist encyclopaedia on trigonemetry?

Well, for example, there is a [[rational trigonometry]] article which is a report (I hope NPOV) on a mildly cranky variant way to approach and teach trig. We really do not need squabbles over fringe pedagogic theories. Another such thing would be the Henstock integral.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


body:
On 05/12/06, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> You are absolutely right that what is damaging to the community should
> not be allowed. What you fail to do is show why and how the community is
> damaged. It is far easier to show how our community will be strengthened
> by the Wikichicks. Assumptions are the mother of all fuck-ups.

I feel that any venture which discriminates against contributors based
upon gender is detrimental to Wikimedia. I don't believe women and men
are fundamentally different but I do accept that more women may demand
a greater level of politeness and emotional awareness. There are men
who demand the same.

Exclusion based upon aspects of the contributor that largely don't
come into their practice as a contributor (gender, race, religion,
sexuality, nationality, &c.) is not good because under each category
of these aspects comes great variance.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: Travis Derouin

subject: [Wikitech-l] formatEmail extension

body:
I've added a very basic extension that allows custom headers and footers to
be added to user to user e-mails:

http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:FormatEmail

It'd be nice addition if extra headers could be passed into
UserMailer.phpso that something like an HTML template could be use to
wrap the user's
message, so it looks a little prettier.

Travis


body:
On 05/12/06, Yann Forget <yann at forget-me.net> wrote:
> When the majority of men do not recognize the problem and dismiss the
> issue as "women sensibility", then you need to create a place for women
> to organize themselves. Sad, but true.

Do you have any evidence that the majority of men don't recognise the
problem and that they are dismissing it as "women sensibility"?

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


body:
niht-hr?fn wrote:
> On Dec 5, 2006, at 11:55, Bryan Derksen wrote:
>
>> The Cunctator wrote:
>>> On 12/5/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>> And _this_ is pure tripe. Do you really think that my position is
>>>> that I
>>>> don't want women to feel safe? If that's what you're implying
>>>> here I'm
>>>> quite offended and suggest you retract it immediately. I've said
>>>> nothing
>>>> remotely of the sort.
>>> Umm.... (looking desperately to change the direction of the
>>> conversation....) How about those Nazi userboxes?
>> What, are you saying I'm fat??
>>
>> (note, not actually offended on this one :)
>
> Despite the fact that you're joking, and despite the fact that I'm
> not personally offended, that is a sexist remark.

Ah, hell. It wasn't even intended to be; my local group of male friends
here in real life use the "are you saying I'm fat?" mock-offense thing
back and forth quite often between us. The joke was supposed to just be
that it was a complete non-sequitur.

Guys don't like being called fat either, you know.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061205/7679a183/attachment.pgp


from_name: Thomas Dalton

subject: [WikiEN-l] Nazi userboxes

body:
> > The userboxes aren't templates, so they don't fall under T1. The US has
> > nearly total protection of free speech, so espousing beliefs, even Naziism,
> > isn't illegal.
>
> As far as I am aware, neither Wikipedia nor the Wikimedia Foundation
> are the United States.

True, Wikipedia can have rules in addition to the law. However, what
are discrimination laws like in the US? Could banning Nazis get the
Foundation into legal difficulties?


from_name: Jeff V. Merkey

body:
Anthere,

Any of these lists which are troublesome or sites wikimedia feels are
too hot to handle are welcome
at my server complex, if this will assist the foundation. It sounds like
Angela is taking over this list, however,
in the future, I am always happy to assist the foundation in hosting
some of these more controversial
topics.

Jeff


body:
consider this: I never said /I/ thought I was being attacked, I said
women were concerned about it.
I in fact stated I seem to be fairly thick skinned for a women.
And consider most seriously: If Jane's feelings are hurt because of
something John said, does that automatically make John too brutal, or
Jane too sensitive? I hold that neither is the case. Women are by and
large far more sensitive to criticism. For men to say they *should not
be* is to ignore a fundamental difference, and to invalidate their
experience.

-kc-

Andre Engels wrote:
> 2006/12/5, Puppy <puppy at killerchihuahua.com>:
>
>> From what I read below, we are in agreement - yet many women feel it
>> would be beneficial to have somewhere to discuss bias where they do not
>> have to worry about immediately being attacked for even bringing up the
>> bias issue. That is not, as yet, here.
>>
>>
>
> I don't see any indication that people get attacked for bringing up the
> issue. I don't see much attacking going on, although the discussion isn't as
> civil as it should be either - from both sides. But if you see everyone who
> has doubts about the extent of sexism in Wikipedia as attacking you for
> bringing it forward, you are indeed too thin-skinned. Why not see those as
> requests for information instead?
>
> You know what's attacking? Attacking is what I did to my furniture about an
> hour ago :-(
>
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Handling unreferenced but likely-valid material

body:
"Steve Bennett" wrote

> What is the advantage of having a policy that says "You must do X",
> then interpreting it as "Actually you only have to do X in some
> situations"? Wouldn't it be more helpful for everyone, especially
> including newcomes, to have a policy that says "Do X in the following
> situations"?

> A policy that no one really follows is bad news.

I'm not sure this is quite accurate.

Strict referencing basically arose out of edit warring in the most contentious articles. 'Hard cases make bad law', so there has always been some resistance to sourcing everything _in advance_. (Certainly from me. As far as I can see, hardline verificationism is adjacent to ultra-scepticism, which is adjacent to crankiness of the 'is quantum mechanics really proved?' type.)

In an essay I mentioned that I thought core policy on content had seen three basic phases:

(i) working out the implications of NPOV
(ii) working out the implications of sourcing and original research policies; followed by
(iii) current concerns on conflict of interest.

Now, people don't have to accept this analysis of mine. But I do think (ii), the verificationist package, is now pretty much in consensus territory. The timescale is measured in years, for the big shifts here.

There is not of course any consensus that anyone should be able to verify anything on enWP, with an online source written in English, in five minutes. But that has never been policy or anything like it (I'm glad to say).

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


from_name: Justin Cormack

subject: [WikiEN-l] overzealous image deletion?

body:
On 5 Dec 2006, at 03:31, geni wrote:

>
>> As in, photos that are
>> provided to the media so they can write puff pieces about
>> them...presumably the publicist owns the copyright, and presumably it
>> is legal for the media to use them this way. So presumably also legal
>> for Wikipedia to use them as the lead image for relevant articles.
>> But
>> possibly not legal for downstream Wikipedia content reusers...
>>
>
> Also may not be legal to edit the images which pesents problems. Would
> need to see the exact terms of the release though.

I have never seen the terms of the release on a wikipedia "publicity"
photo.
Many of the pictures that are labelled as such clearly arent anyway,
but it
would be good if people would find the terms of use. They probably
exclude
redistribution...

Justinc


subject: [WikiEN-l] Nazi userboxes

body:
On 05/12/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > As far as I am aware, neither Wikipedia nor the Wikimedia Foundation
> > are the United States.
>
> True, Wikipedia can have rules in addition to the law. However, what
> are discrimination laws like in the US? Could banning Nazis get the
> Foundation into legal difficulties?

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, or even an American. That said, it
appears to me that Wikipedia is a privately-operated members' club,
and is entitled to specify what is allowed not to be said or done on
its premises, much as the Britney Spears Fan Club is entitled to kick
out people who insist that Christina Aguilera is cooler. Neither is a
violation of US law.

--
Earle Martin
            http://downlode.org/
http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/


subject: [WikiEN-l] Nazi userboxes

body:
> Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, or even an American. That said, it
> appears to me that Wikipedia is a privately-operated members' club,
> and is entitled to specify what is allowed not to be said or done on
> its premises, much as the Britney Spears Fan Club is entitled to kick
> out people who insist that Christina Aguilera is cooler. Neither is a
> violation of US law.

Generally your tastes in pop music are not protected by law. Your
political affiliations may be. Like you, I am neither a lawyer nor an
American, so I don't know what the relevant laws are, however I
wouldn't be surprised if banning Nazis was illegal in some countries.


from_name: Brion Vibber

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

Domas Mituzas wrote:
>
>> To rephrase for anyone else who stumbles across this thread:
>> $wgDBmysql5 = false means that the tables are created with DEFAULT
>> CHARSET=latin1, which isn't especially a problem as long as the
>> software atop it (mediawiki) knows that it's actually storing UTF-8.
>
> I wonder if DEFAULT CHARSET=binary would help here.

Please test the binary schema (mysql5/tables-binary.sql); I think there
are some problems.

Behavior with the binary schema appears to be a bit different; CHAR
fields get padded with nulls instead of spaces, and the nulls don't get
removed on SELECT.

I seem to recall this borked up at least the objectcache table, and it
might affect others.

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

iD8DBQFFdb+rwRnhpk1wk44RAhPPAKCFeNe0buVVyZQEKwtZR2uV5pNiBACggLCW
tGfadhjUhL67KL+26pc3srE=
=Gy/c
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Nazi userboxes

body:
On 05/12/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> Like you, I am neither a lawyer nor an American, so I don't know
> what the relevant laws are, however I wouldn't be surprised if
> banning Nazis was illegal in some countries.

Then let us be grateful that neither of us live in those countries. :)

--
Earle Martin
            http://downlode.org/
http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/


body:
2006/12/5, Yann Forget <yann at forget-me.net>:

> When the majority of men do not recognize the problem and dismiss the
> issue as "women sensibility", then you need to create a place for women
> to organize themselves. Sad, but true.

But, how could an issue be recognized, if this issues is hidden and
discussed in a "secret" place? It should be discussed publicly, as we
are doing right now. Try to think if all this topic had been done in
Wikichicks-l: what would it happen?
Surely a lot of women rightly complaining about men's behaviour, but
no other opinion, no men even *imaging* that there's a problem. Our
community really suffer of lack of communication: do we want to  make
things worst?

Claudio


from_name: The Cunctator

body:
Good. I would note that the below message originated from the Wikimedia
servers this morning.

On 12/5/06, Puppy <puppy at killerchihuahua.com> wrote:
>
> It isn't. You are a little out of date here.
>
> The Cunctator wrote:
> > Wikichix should not be on the wikimedia servers.
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: wikichix-l-bounces at wikimedia.org <wikichix-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
> >
> > Date: Dec 5, 2006 5:59 AM
> > Subject: Request to mailing list Wikichix-l rejected
> > To: cunctator at gmail.com
> >
> >
> > Your request to the Wikichix-l mailing list
> >
> >     Subscription request
> >
> > has been rejected by the list moderator.  The moderator gave the
> > following reason for rejecting your request:
> >
> > "Hi Cunctator. We're only accepting women at this time. I suggest you
> > comment on the existing Wikimedia lists instead. This presence of this
> > list isn't meant to prevent men commening - which you can still do on
> > wikien-l etc."
> >
> > Any questions or comments should be directed to the list administrator
> > at:
> >
> >     wikichix-l-owner at wikimedia.org
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


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

Evan Martin wrote:
> I had thought that both MySQL and mwdumper would output to the
> console, but I guess it must've output this error many lines back
> without killing the pipe, which meant mwdumper kept going.

Yeah, the cute thing is that mysql keeps accepting input -- it just
doesn't execute any more of it. So mwdumper keeps trundling along,
spewing more status updates on your console.

"Thanks, MySQL!" :)

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

iD8DBQFFdcADwRnhpk1wk44RAoCQAKDPorw3Y7ZEIi3kwmg//WgddTg7HgCfYQGU
8C67upGxQTC6kUxRQNkwW78=
=KVxF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [Wikitech-l] Case sensitivity in article headings?

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

Rob Church wrote:
> On 05/12/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I see that in the last few weeks, [[:en:Template:lowercase]] has been
>> updated to actually display the title in lowercase with a JavaScript
>> hack. Any word on whether this is the long term solution to the
>> problem, or whether the proposed magic word[1] will be implemented?
>> Sorry, I don't know the relevant bug number.
>
> We *have* the magic word, but it's broken at the moment and needs fixing. :)

Tim's been poking at it, it should be live soon enough.

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

iD8DBQFFdcGnwRnhpk1wk44RAkwrAKCJ17eJ+8ki98A2wYC+6EvURJAbfwCcDMUb
Dw8bV/yW7nDjQ3BOny2Q5C4=
=WRjA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject:
[Wikitech-l] $wgAllowExternalImages and Spam Black list
	extension

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

Travis Derouin wrote:
> Is there any way we can tweak the Spam blacklist filter to block images that
> match blacklist list entries while $wgAllowExternalImages is set?
>
> Right now when $wgAllowExternalImages is true, the parser is converting the
> links in internalParse to images, which is expected, but if those images
> match something in the blacklist they won't be blocked. These images also
> don't show up in out->getImages.
>
> If we could check the spam blacklist against something a little less
> processed than external links, it might work.

Probably the proper way to do it is have the parser add the external
images to the list of external links.

> Is there any reason why the
> blacklist isn't just compared to the raw Mediawiki text?

Templates, funky formatting, etc etc.

This way we guarantee that the links that appear are the ones that are
checked.

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

iD8DBQFFdcKywRnhpk1wk44RAk5EAJ9STJ9st3/+r9Yevkvr1wphD6CJbACeJjLx
omsR25OZXnA+F4FHgVrrAI0=
=VeL1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


body:
Heh. This is getting good.

* munch munch *

On 12/5/06, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2006/12/5, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com>:
> >
> >
> > Seriously fuck off.
>
>
> And that from the person who talks about people attacking... Fuck off
> yourself.
>
>
>
> --
> Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
> ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Nazi userboxes

body:
> Then let us be grateful that neither of us live in those countries. :)

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure where UK (my home country)
discrimination law stands on the matter... I would support laws
against discriminating against any political group. If you allow one
group to be discriminated against, you end up having to allow all
groups to be discriminated against, which is only a few steps away
from political leaders throwing their opponents in prison.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Nazi userboxes

body:
On 05/12/06, Jim Schuler <jim62sch at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/5/06, Earle Martin <wikipedia at downlode.org> wrote:
> > As far as I am aware, neither Wikipedia nor the Wikimedia Foundation
> > are the United States.
>
> Are you speaking "virtually" as in "it's on the 'net", or physically?"  Last
> I saw, Wiki was a Private Foundation und the Internal Revenue Code of the
> US, filing its tax forms (990's) from Florida.

If you read my statement more carefully, you will notice that I did
not say "are *in* the United States".

(ObOldTimerGrouch: "Wiki" has long been the proper name of the
WikiWikiWeb, not Wikipedia.)

--
Earle Martin
            http://downlode.org/
http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/


body:
On 12/5/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 02:32:22 -0500, "The Cunctator"
> <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> You really think attack blogs should be linked to articles on living
> >> >> individuals on the grounds that readers can make up their own minds?
> >> >> Wow.
> >> >Is that "Wow" facetious? I hope so.
> >> Not especially, no.  If one is George W. Bush, and an attack blog is
> >> in the top 50 sites on Alexa, I'd expect it to be linked, but this is
> >> a trivial story from the election, almost entirely unrelated to the
> >> MP's performance of her duties and of strictly limited significance in
> >> her life as a whole.  Constituent opposes candidate?  Interesting
> >> during the election, maybe interesting as a sidenote.  Constituent
> >> opposes candidate, read all the garbage here?  Not really the kind of
> >> thing we should aspire to have in biographies, surely?
>
> >You didn't write "You really think trivially related sites should be
> >linked to articles on living people on the grounds that readers can
> >make up their own minds?"
> >And I wasn't responding to that, since that's not what you wrote.
> >So I'm not sure where you got the impetus to write your response to my
> question.
>
> And I'm not sure where you got the impetus to write your response to
> mine.  So let's start again, shall we?
>
> What do you think should be the circumstances under which we link an
> attack blog from an article on a living individual?

When the attack blog is mentioned in the article.


subject: [WikiEN-l] overzealous image deletion?

body:
On 12/4/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:

On 12/3/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/3/06, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote

> Evidently someone has decided that fair use doesn't apply to

> images of living people, that any image of a person (legitimately

> fair use or not) can be speedily deleted, on the grounds that a

> free image could be found or created.

>

There are exceptions but that is broadly speaking a correct

interpritation of our fair use policy.

> You mean Wikimedia's?
>
> No.

Then who?


from_name: George Herbert

subject: [Wikitech-l] Wikipedia has a problem

body:
On 12/4/06, Ivan Krsti? <krstic at solarsail.hcs.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
> George Herbert wrote:
> > You do realize that Google has spent the better part of a half billion
> > dollars on engineering a completely ground-up distributed system
> software
> > architecture, working with a problem that (unusually among largescale
> > enterprise data management) can theoretically be efficiently
> partitioned?
>
> I mentioned Google because they're a well-known example, but it
> certainly isn't the case that one needs to invest an inordinate sum to
> be able to reap benefits from scaling out instead of up. Many other
> sites with nowhere the engineering talent or financial budget of Google
> are doing the same thing. In fact, sites with small budgets that choose
> to scale up and succeed are few and far between, to my knowledge.

That depends on how you define "scale up"; when database limits start to be
the problem, quite a large number of sites scale up to centralized large SMP
systems running Oracle or something of that ilk quite successfully.  I have
done website systems and network architecture work for some very large
websites (WebEx and Blockbuster.com among others) and sold hardware to
people building others.

For the most part, web applications have a highly effectively
paralleliseable app and web layer, but the database on many of them doesn't
scale horizontally as well.  It's not unusual around here to see sites buy a
clustered pair of big Sun boxes (or more rarely, IBM or HP) and switch to
Oracle as they grow past what MySQL and Linux servers can handle, if they're
DB limited.

All of that said, I really don't numerically understand the loads on the
Wikimedia Foundation servers, or the details of the architecture well enough
now to give specific advice.

There are large websites where the actual sustained DB load is low enough
that a farm of Linux/MySQL servers is an adequate, reliable solution.  And
despite having worked at a Sun / Oracle VAR I have also deployed several
thousand linux boxes in horizontal scaled website farms.

If you prefer a non-Google example of out over up, look at LiveJournal,
> as the evolution of their software and hardware is well-documented and
> more transparent than the operation of most comparable sites.
>

Or for a counterexample, Friendster.  I know the poor guy who was doing site
architecture there for a while, screaming at his bosses that they needed to
get off MySQL and get a Sun/Oracle box in, and doing unholy things to MySQL
to try and keep it going, until he just walked away.  Their site performance
implosion is near-legendary...

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


body:
2006/12/5, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com>:

> 2) What's the rationale behind not making it available for the latest
> edit?

For the latest edit, it is not needed, because you get exactly the same
behaviour from the "edit this page" link.

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


body:
2006/12/5, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com>:
>
> 2006/12/5, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com>:
>
> > 2) What's the rationale behind not making it available for the latest
> > edit?
>
>
>
> For the latest edit, it is not needed, because you get exactly the same
> behaviour from the "edit this page" link.
>

I submitted that too fast... What I meant was:

... you get exactly the same behaviour from the "edit" link next to the
revision date.

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


from_name: Gregory Kohs

subject: [WikiEN-l] Discrimination on Wikipedia

body:
Matt Brown writes:

>Missing one important proviso: public relations workers are quite
>welcome to edit wikipedia in a personal capacity.  What has been
>prohibited is editing Wikipedia on behalf of a paying client.

Again, see the case of [[Arch Coal]].  Nobody paid or received any
compensation for the authorship of that article.  Still, Jimmy Wales deleted
it and banned the original author.

The more excuses and explanations that the community comes up with, the more
obvious it is that you're avoiding the real issue.  Wikipedia unilaterally
has chosen to discriminate against non-volunteer activity in the article
space, despite the fact that the credentials and income sources of 99% of
editors are never questioned or verified.  Only those who state that they
are being paid are excluded.  I would argue that if you looked at the
original authors of the New Pages in Wikipedia, 90% had some financial or
career "conflict of interest" that could be found if everyone was exposed to
a background check.

People who have never purchased or sold a pet skunk are unlikely to start an
article about [[Pet skunks]].  They don't seem to get banned, though.

--
Gregory Kohs
Cell: 302.463.1354


from_name: Yann Forget

body:
Hi,

Gatto Nero a ?crit :
> 2006/12/5, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
>
>>Hoi,
>>Women have, like men, the ability to contribute. The way they contribute
>>is not necessarily the same. When you read the motivation for the
>>mailing list, you would have read that there is a group of women who
>>feel ill at ease and as a consequence refrain from contributing to our
>>projects. The fact that so many men are sceptical about this, shows
>>either that they have not read the motivation, do not believe the
>>motivation but what it does not prove at all is that they are right.
>
>
> I've a problem understanding the way this thread is going on, but it
> could be 'cause of my english.
> Where are - on this list, of course - all these men sceptical about this issue?
> Personally, I'm not. I'm aware that people made jokes that often are
> not jokes, that are offensive. Believe me, I prooved that on my skin.
> What I've seen on this ML, it's a lot of people sceptical about *the
> ML*, or better: *about how this Wikichicks-l is gonna solve the
> problem*. I repeat my POV: self-segregation is not a way to solve
> anything. Speaking and discussing and confronting is a way to solve
> the problem. If this discussion is going to transform itself in a

For discussion taking place, there are two necessary steps:
1. People recognize the problem exists;
2. People want to look for solutions.

When the majority of men do not recognize the problem and dismiss the
issue as "women sensibility", then you need to create a place for women
to organize themselves. Sad, but true.

(...)
> Claudio

Regards,

Yann


subject: [Wikitech-l] Wikipedia has a problem

body:
On 12/5/06, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 05/12/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think you meant "that WikiMedia doesn't". We don't have access to
> > Google's technology. We don't have [[MapReduce]].
>
> Let's arm Brion so he can storm Mountain View, CA, and demand access
> to Google's l33t technologies...
>

If there's anything currently in Google which would seriously benefit WMF,
other than cash, it is likely that we could approach the right people and
get access to it.  I know some midlevel people to start asking questions of;
Jimmy and others at the board level probably have more appropriate high
level contacts.

MapReduce doesn't seem relevant to the largescale MediaWIki deployment
problem.  Is there any Google tech which anyone specifically thinks would
help?  Or generalizing, is there any commercial or semi-commercial tech in
the world which would seriously help?

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


body:
On 12/5/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> Puppy wrote:
> > Reverse discrimination would be (for example) if women admins were
> > promoted on a basis of lower community support, in order to achieve a
> > more balanced ratio - a process often referred to as affirmative action,
> > and strongly supported by many.
>
> This is all semantic quibbling. The basic situation is simply this;
> Wikimedia has a mailing list for the discussion of editing Wikipedia,
> and I am not permitted to join this mailing list because I happen to be
> male (a "condition" that has no affect whatsoever on my editing, and
> which is only known because years back I decided to use my real name
> instead of some uninformative pseudonym).
>
> That is discrimination. Whether it's "reverse" of not is of no concern
> to me, the effect is exactly the same.

Not any more. The list has been moved to Wikia. Moot point, hooray! Let's
move on, nothing to see here, yadda yadda.

> This is not discrimination. Unless you consider allowing
> > women to feel safe is discrimination.
>
> And _this_ is pure tripe. Do you really think that my position is that I
> don't want women to feel safe? If that's what you're implying here I'm
> quite offended and suggest you retract it immediately. I've said nothing
> remotely of the sort.

Umm.... (looking desperately to change the direction of the
conversation....) How about those Nazi userboxes?


from_name: Brianna Laugher

subject: [Commons-l] Blind move

body:
On 05/12/06, Artur Fija?kowski <wiki.warx at gmail.com> wrote:
> I see, that someone (user:LeonardoG) is making great job moving images
> from pt.wiki to Commons...
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=LeonardoG
>
>
> Yeah  ... great, but:
>
> * He doesn't categorise it
> * He doesn't put them into galleries
> * He doesn't change stupid filenames to normal (eg. DSC_XXXXXX.JPG)
> * He moves copyvios from pt.wiki (I've found book cover, DVD screen,
> CD Audio with cover, Hagrid's figurine, image of character from
> SouthPark ...)
>
> So it's not great at all...
>
> So my question is:
>
> what to do with such users ?

If they have already done significant damage, write them a strongly
worded personal note as a last warning asking them to stop.
If they continue to upload without responding, block them (short block
to get their attention).
Request that they understand our rules and clean up their existing
mess before doing any more uploads.
Once the block expires, if they ignore this and continue to upload,
block them again (this time a bit longer).

Continue until stream of copyvios ceases (user learns, or gives up due
to lengths of blocks).

We should feel confident in blocking users who (maybe inadvertently)
cause disruption like this.

regards,
Brianna
user:pfctdayelise


subject: [WikiEN-l] overzealous image deletion?

body:
On 12/5/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/5/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Then who?
>
> The en.wikipedia community or at least the parts of it that care about
> our fair use policy.

BTW, I care about fair use policy.


from_name: Steve Summit

subject: [WikiEN-l] overzealous image deletion?

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> We're talking about publicity shots aren't we?

Well, I was, but naturally the thread has expanded somewhat.
(And see below.)

> As in, photos that are provided to the media so they can write
> puff pieces about them [...] So presumably also legal for
> Wikipedia to use them as the lead image for relevant articles.
> But possibly not legal for downstream Wikipedia content reusers...

Just so.  But:

> The interesting issue though is that we probably have permission to
> use these types of images without resorting to "fair use", but we
> actually prohibit ourselves from using that kind of image: we accept
> free images, we accept fair use...

Not quite.  The current climate is that we accept nothing but
free images.  Fair use is not free, so we're stamping out fair use.
Licensed-for-almost-anyone-to-use publicity photos are not free,
so we're stamping out those, too.  I'm sure magazine covers and
DVD packages will be next.

And this isn't necessarily such a bad thing.  Certainly,
accepting only free images, and upping the incentive to acquire
free images, by declining to accept nonfree ones in the meantime,
is a noble goal.

I started this thread talking about publicity photos, but it
became clear to me that this is not the fundamental issue, and I
suspect it's not even worth debating publicity photos until the
fundamental issue is resolved (or changed).

The people campaigning to get rid of all nonfree images have got
Jimbo's statement to fall back on: it's better for an article to
have no image at all than to have a nonfree one.  A licensed
publicity photo of J.D. Salinger is not free, ergo it's better
for the [[J.D. Salinger]] article to have no image, until such
time as a free one can be found.

Stated another way, not only does a poorly-composed fan shot of
an author at a book signing trump a professionally-photographed
headshot, an imageless article trumps that headshot, too.


from_name: Rob Church

body:
On 05/12/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> I see that in the last few weeks, [[:en:Template:lowercase]] has been
> updated to actually display the title in lowercase with a JavaScript
> hack. Any word on whether this is the long term solution to the
> problem, or whether the proposed magic word[1] will be implemented?
> Sorry, I don't know the relevant bug number.

We *have* the magic word, but it's broken at the moment and needs fixing. :)

Rob Church


body:
On 12/5/06, Stan Shebs <stanshebs at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Bryan Derksen wrote:
> > This is all semantic quibbling. The basic situation is simply this;
> > Wikimedia has a mailing list for the discussion of editing Wikipedia,
> > and I am not permitted to join this mailing list because I happen to be
> > male (a "condition" that has no affect whatsoever on my editing, and
> > which is only known because years back I decided to use my real name
> > instead of some uninformative pseudonym).
> >
> > That is discrimination. Whether it's "reverse" of not is of no concern
> > to me, the effect is exactly the same.
> >
> Yawn. Sorry, you're not Rosa Parks. Do you barge into women's restrooms
> and start declaiming about reverse discrimination there too?
>
> If wikichix-l members develop a consensus decision about something that
> actually affects WP, they'll have to present it more widely sooner or
> later, which will give you plenty of opportunity to savage it.

When you wrote "savage it" I believe you misspelled "carefully consider and
respectfully discuss it".


subject: [WikiEN-l] Nazi userboxes

body:
On 12/5/06, Earle Martin <wikipedia at downlode.org> wrote:
>
> On 05/12/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Earle Martin wrote:
> > > As far as I am aware, neither Wikipedia nor the Wikimedia Foundation
> > > are the United States.
> > >
> >
> > In the immortal words of Essjay,
> > > Wikipedia has no right to free speech. The First Amendment says
> > > "Congress shall make no law..."; we are not Congress, we are the
> > > cabal.
>
> Which is exactly the point that I was making. Although I must correct
> you on one point: there is of course no cabal.

Of course not. fnord


from_name: Anthere

body:
rfrangi at libero.it wrote:
> [snip]
>
>>You think trying to make a joke excuses comments like that?
>
> [snip]
>
> No, but it was so "on topic"!
>
> [snip]
>
>>It's exactly these sorts of comments, yes these sorts
>>of "jokes", that create what is known as a hostile work
>>environment and can lead to sexual harassment lawsuits.
>
> [snip]
>
> In the US for sure. Luckily enough, I live in a place where this sort of "jokes" just set the tone for the reply.
>
> My apologies to Angela, anyway. It's not my fault. I've a gender bias and a cultural bias. Both hard to eradicate.
>
> Roberto (Snowdog)

You nevertheless made the point :-)
"it was so on topic"
"I live in a place where this sort of jokes just set the tone"
"it is not my fault"

I'd say there is little else to add Snowdog :-)

Anthere


from_name: Guettarda

body:
On 12/5/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> Stan Shebs wrote:
> > Bryan Derksen wrote:
> >> That is discrimination. Whether it's "reverse" of not is of no concern
> >> to me, the effect is exactly the same.
> >>
> > Yawn. Sorry, you're not Rosa Parks. Do you barge into women's restrooms
> > and start declaiming about reverse discrimination there too?
>
> I wasn't aware that substantive discussions of Wikipedia policy took
> place in women's restrooms. They don't in any of the men's restrooms
> I've been in.

Then maybe you need to look for some more intellectually stimulating men's
restrooms.  I'm sure there are some that are used for things other than
picking up strangers for sex.

As for the comment about Wikipedia policy being discussed in women's
restrooms - haven't you figured out that the reason women go to the restroom
in groups is so that they can talk (about Wikipedia policy, obviously)
without men around?


from_name: Ken Arromdee

body:
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Puppy wrote:
> Excellent solution, may I borrow your prod content for my own use?

Yes, but the case I'm worried about is one where the targeted article is
not libelous or about living people, still would have content if the
questionable material is removed, and actually does have sources, but which
are not referenced in the recommended one-footnote-per-sentence way.  The
policy is letting people use the rules to disrupt by picking any of that
80% of articles and saying "you'd better source this, now, or I put your
article up for deletion."


from_name: A. Özgür Erdemli

subject: [Foundation-l] New Spanish mailing list?

body:
Sorry, People are busy with other discussions :)

For any wikimedia project related technical request or enhancement, you can
use http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org . Just open a new bug and and explain the
request and submit it. Some techie will reply. :)

Cheers,

Dbl2010

On 12/5/06, Carlos <angus at quovadis.com.ar> wrote:
>
> Hi. At Spanish Wikipedia we want to open a new mailing list, a Spanish
> equivalent of daily-article-l.
>
> (See http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/daily-article-l)
>
> The idea is to have only one sender and many receivers. The frequency
> won't be daily (we don't rotate our main page featured article that
> often) but bi-weekly.
>
> Personally I think it's an excellent idea. It will disseminate knowledge
> and attract contributors.
>
> I would like to know if there is any opposition, and, if not, where can
> we arrange for that mailing list to be created.
>
> Thanks for your time.
> --
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: florencedevouard

body:
Hello,

It seems best for the peace of the community that the Wikichix-l list is
not hosted on Wikimedia servers.
Could you move it to another place please Angela ? A Yahoo Group maybe ?

Please receive my apologies.

Ant


body:
Anthere wrote:

>Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
>
>>Anthere,
>>
>>Any of these lists which are troublesome or sites wikimedia feels are
>>too hot to handle are welcome
>>at my server complex, if this will assist the foundation. It sounds like
>>Angela is taking over this list, however,
>>in the future, I am always happy to assist the foundation in hosting
>>some of these more controversial
>>topics.
>>
>>Jeff
>>
>>
>
>
>Thank you Jeff. In this case, I think Angela is handling it well. Ant
>
>
You are most welcome.

to-(h) (you are welcome)

donada gohvi (talk to ya soon)

ale unelanvhi udadolisdi (and god bless you)

wado (thanks)

Jeff

Jeff

>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Discrimination on Wikipedia

body:
Employees of public relations firms are not a protected class under US
anti-discrimination law.

Further, such employees, acting as individuals and not agents of their
firms, are not restricted from editing Wikipedia.

What's been banned is a certain class of commercial speech; no publisher,
even an "open content" one, is mandated to accept all speech from anyone,
and in particular the protections of commercial speech producers are far
more easily legally restricted.

This is a pretty weak legal claim, Greg.  Please stop wasting people's time.

-george

On 12/5/06, Gregory Kohs <thekohser at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Jim Schuler wisely stated:
>
> >Might depend on tax law.  If I remember correctly (it's been 15 years
> since
> >I dealt with this), 501(c) and 501(c)(3) tax-exempt and private
> foundations
> >can run afoul of the IRS if there is a clear indication of active
> >discrimination.
>
> But then also stated:
>
> >In this case, I don't see any evidence of an active policy
> >of discrimination...
>
> There actually *is* a fairly active policy of discrimination that's been
> carried out for the
> past few months.
>
> Employees of public relations firms are not allowed to edit Wikipedia.
>
> http://blog.bitepr.com/2006/08/jimmy_wales_on_.html
>
> The IRS and the appropriate Attorneys General will certainly get involved
> when an
> organization operating with tax-deductible funding begins to administer
> itself in ways
> that run contrary to its stated public mission.  The State of Florida's
> Division of Consumer
> Services was sufficiently concerned about Wikipedia's discrimination
> against
>
> commercial interests (in light of the GFDL explicitly stating the license
> must not
> limit commercial use of the work), that it contacted Brad Patrick in late
> November.
>
> The earlier comment by Earle Martin that "Wikipedia is a
> privately-operated
> members'
> club" is a sad statement of empirical evidence that the Wikipedia
> leadership
> has
> clearly lost sight of its being a 501(c)(3) non-profit entity that goes
> well
> beyond a
> private club.
>
> (Still on a Wiki-break, but this list is just too fascinating.)
>
> --
> Gregory Kohs
> Cell: 302.463.1354
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

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


from_name: Oldak Quill

body:
On 05/12/06, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
> Wow. I thought having an open but moderated list would be a good way
> to go, but now I see it would just be impossible. Why the aggressive
> resistance against an additional resource for women? Why is the idea
> so threatening? How does it harm anyone? And how can anyone tell,
> given its two-second existence?? Why not let it be for six months, and
> then we might be able to comment with some substance on what the
> effects of its existence actually are?
>
> Women will continue to take part in the existing channels. Gender bias
> and discrimination issues will continue to be relevant to the existing
> channels. Given these facts, how is an additional channel
> segregational?
>
>
>
> Credit where credit's due: thanks for your considered and thoughtful
> responses goes to GerardM, Yann, Birgette SB, Anthere, Lars, Michael
> Snow, and Tim Starling.
>
> "There is no problem." Please. Have another bloody look at some of
> responses in the foundation-l and wikien-l threads, and tell me you
> seriously can't see why some women might feel uncomfortable
> contributing. Tell me again why offering them a gentler introduction
> to Wikimedia mailing lists is such a terrible idea.
>
> Were I to even begin responding to each inappropriate comment or
> unfounded assumption,  I would soon be doing not much else. And I am
> reluctant to develop to reputation as a harpie on women's issues. It
> is by far not the issue I am most interested in when it comes to
> Wikimedia (but I am interested in a good many things).
>
> Therefore I make a request to considerate and thoughtful men
> everywhere, to help call attention to and discourage sexist attitudes
> and assumptions expressed in Wikimedia wherever you find them. If you
> find yourself hesitating to reply publicly because you don't want to
> "feed the trolls", consider sending the author a private reply. We can
> use peer pressure to let "bad apples" know that their attitudes are
> not shared or welcome. But also consider what message will be
> understood by list lurkers, by not replying at all.
>
> Why do I address this call-to-arms to men? Because it's far harder to
> be dismissive of a man calling sexism for what it is, and this job
> falls to all of us, not just women.

Well, many of the objectors are aware there is a problem, but desire a
less prejudicial solution.

I oppose sexist and bigoted comments. Indeed, because I oppose sexism,
I oppose the creation of a list which is closed to one of the genders.
I think the best solution would be to have a "WikiChix" mailing list
open to people of both genders. Better yet, a civility-based moderated
mailing list which isn't based upon generalities concerning either
gender.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Discrimination on Wikipedia

body:
On 12/5/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/5/06, Matthew Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 12/5/06, Gregory Kohs <thekohser at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Alphax makes the common mistake of confusing the "submission" with the
> > > "submitter".  All public relations workers are not welcome to edit in
> > > Wikipedia, regardless of the quality of their writing, or even whether
> > > independent non-paid editors in good standing have personally vetted
> the
> > > content before it's posted.
> >
> > Missing one important proviso: public relations workers are quite
> > welcome to edit wikipedia in a personal capacity.  What has been
> > prohibited is editing Wikipedia on behalf of a paying client.
>
>
> I just don't understand why that should be.

Jimbo said "no" and we're not a democracy.

We could delve into the pros and cons ad infinitum; I personally think that
it might have been better to allow it, under carefully controlled
conditions, but there certainly were legitimate reasons for serious concern
about allowing it at all and Jimbo probably saved us another six months of
agonized polarizing screaming at each other.

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


from_name: Matt R

body:
--- Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:

> Why the aggressive resistance against an additional resource for
> women? Why is the idea so threatening?...how is an additional channel
> segregational?

Um, well, for me and at least some other posters, the only problem with
WikiChix is that the additional channel *is* segregational -- female-only.
Other than that, I support it entirely.

> Credit where credit's due: thanks for your considered and thoughtful
> responses goes to GerardM, Yann, Birgette SB, Anthere, Lars, Michael
> Snow, and Tim Starling.

So these all the people that agreed with you? And, by thinly-veiled
implication, any other response was ill-considered and unthoughtful?

> help call attention to and discourage sexist attitudes
> and assumptions expressed in Wikimedia wherever you find them. If you
> find yourself hesitating to reply publicly because you don't want to
> "feed the trolls", consider sending the author a private reply. We can
> use peer pressure to let "bad apples" know that their attitudes are
> not shared or welcome. But also consider what message will be
> understood by list lurkers, by not replying at all.

I'll bear it in mind. One potential product of WikiChix that I would like to
read is a list of suggestions as to how WikiBlokes can act, or not act, in
order to make Wikipedia more female-friendly.

-- Matt

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto
Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com


body:
On 05/12/06, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not willing to fight about so I'll move the list to Wikia, but
> it's quite upsetting that despite the clear need for this list,
> Wikimedia are not willing to support it. Perhaps the old Wikimedia
> WikiChix list can be made into an open but moderated one.

I don't want to speak for anyone else, but many of the objectors (me
included) seemed to support an open-to-all moderated list on the
Wikimedia servers.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

body:
On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 15:34:14 +1030, "Alphax \(Wikipedia email\)"
<alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:

>> Seriously, NPOV doesn't mean not linking to opinionated sources if
>> they're part of the story. Luna is right.

>I hear there's these new-fangled <ref> tags...

It's already referenced, to a secondary source which discusses the
dispute.

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


body:
phoebe wrote:
> Honestly, I think I am being discriminated against in this community
> because my patience for endless bickering is thin.

Hear, hear.  Without belittling your concern, I'm sure you're far
from the only person who feels this way.

(The saving grace is that, some if not much of the time, you can
ignore the endless petty bickering and go off and edit the
encyclopedia instead.)


from_name: Steve Bennett

body:
On 12/5/06, David Boothroyd <david at election.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> My position is that the answer to both questions is Yes. The following
> reasons justify mentioning the blog:

Seems like the blog is clearly mention-worthy. Just be careful to
present the link in the appropriate way: "here is the attack blog
mentioned earlier" rather than "here is some unbiased further
reading".

Put it this way: would we provide the ISBN of Mein Kampf? Yes.

Steve


body:
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 02:32:22 -0500, "The Cunctator"
<cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:

>> >> You really think attack blogs should be linked to articles on living
>> >> individuals on the grounds that readers can make up their own minds?
>> >> Wow.
>> >Is that "Wow" facetious? I hope so.
>> Not especially, no.  If one is George W. Bush, and an attack blog is
>> in the top 50 sites on Alexa, I'd expect it to be linked, but this is
>> a trivial story from the election, almost entirely unrelated to the
>> MP's performance of her duties and of strictly limited significance in
>> her life as a whole.  Constituent opposes candidate?  Interesting
>> during the election, maybe interesting as a sidenote.  Constituent
>> opposes candidate, read all the garbage here?  Not really the kind of
>> thing we should aspire to have in biographies, surely?

>You didn't write "You really think trivially related sites should be
>linked to articles on living people on the grounds that readers can
>make up their own minds?"
>And I wasn't responding to that, since that's not what you wrote.
>So I'm not sure where you got the impetus to write your response to my question.

And I'm not sure where you got the impetus to write your response to
mine.  So let's start again, shall we?

What do you think should be the circumstances under which we link an
attack blog from an article on a living individual?

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


body:
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 10:12:45 +0000, <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com>
wrote:

>I really think, outside the rather airless atmosphere of
>Westminster politics, this gets the big 'so what?'.

Thank you, Charles, for summing it up rather better than I have
managed thus far.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] SOS -- Save Our Sources

body:
On 12/4/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> I think that the theory that fair use is applicable in this is a dubious
> one.  In any event the place for this kind of medium would be in
> Commons, and they don't allow fair use at all.  The academic who
> photocopies an article for his own research does not normally make that
> article available to a broad range of people.  Even limiting access to
> logged-on users is still making the article available to a very large
> number of people.

I'm talking about a small excerpt from an article, book or whatever -
not necessarily the whole thing. We're not possibly taking copyright a
little too seriously here are we...?

> Honest and thorough fact checkers are not about to cut corners by
> avoiding a trip to the library if they feel it is important enough.  I
> have frequently had suspicions about citations.  Nothing stops us from
> asking another Wikipedian to check it out when we don't have access to
> convenient material.  For some going to a well-stocked library may be a
> 100 mile drive.  Clicking on a link is obviously convenient, but it
> could also promote tunnel vision and diminish the possibility of editors
> looking for alternative sources that may view the issue differently.

So overall do you think that, copyright issues aside, the idea of
making snippets of source material available for verification is a bad
thing, or just not a very good thing?

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] SOS -- Save Our Sources

body:
On 12/4/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> Several petabytes, not terabytes.  Several terabytes will fit in one
> 2U server already.
>
> These are not large quantities of hardware, in terms of enterprise systems.

But in terms of Wikipedia?

Anyway, why are we talking about buying out archive.org again? :)

Steve


subject: [Wikitech-l] Wikipedia has a problem

body:
On 12/5/06, Ivan Krsti? <krstic at solarsail.hcs.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
> George Herbert wrote:
> > If there's anything currently in Google which would seriously benefit
> > WMF, other than cash, it is likely that we could approach the right
> > people and get access to it.
>
> WMF has, up to this point, been committed to building Wikipedia only
> with free software. While it's exceedingly likely that we can obtain
> some kind of privileged access to Google's technologies, it's also
> almost certain those technologies would not be opened up to the public,
> thus going against the principles at play here.
>
> That said, there definitely are Google technologies that would be useful
> to Wikipedia. BigTable and GFS are examples.
>

Google has emitted quite a bit of IP as freeware; it depends on whether it's
a key commercial competitive advantage for them or not.

I hadn't been familiar with BigTable, which is sort of annoying since I'm
rather familiar with [[Sybase IQ]], the commercial column-based database,
and I've done a bit of evangelizing of column-based databases since I heard
of the idea.

I do know of GFS rather well, from the technical papers level on up.

On first glance... GFS doesn't seem relevant to Wikimedia Foundation work.
GFS is all about giving common access to a very large, petabytes scale disk
store across a wide sea of systems.  As I understand it, one whole
database+static content en.wikipedia dump is less than a terabyte, and can
fit on the local disks of a single 1-2U rack server.  There's no reason for
there to be a giant shared filesystem if the dataset fits on one system's
local disk.  Am I missing something?

A column based database (generalizing here) seems like a possible match for
our needs; in general, as I understand it, the wikipedia servers are getting
hit 99% plus reads, many fewer edits, in terms of the database access?  If
that's true, then the database contents are more like a data warehousing job
(few updates, predominantly read operations), and column based databases
seem to be around 10x faster for data warehousing work.

The question I would have is whether the database scale is large enough to
justify that.  If you can keep the indexes for the key tables in RAM all the
time, and given the only-few-hundred-GB database sizes now, I would hope
that we could, then the index in RAM beats disk access to a column in terms
of performance, and the database's disk layout is therefore a second order
effect.

Can WMF admins confirm that the DB servers are effectively keeping the DB
indexes cached in RAM now?

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] SOS -- Save Our Sources

body:
On 12/4/06, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com

> Things will change. At present we're hearing a lot about ex-copyright books being put online, but not seeing that. What I notice these days is how many older academic papers are now online, particularly in the humanities, but behind subscription walls. In a sense what WP should do is to harness its people to put selective quotes from those, undoubted fair use in the scholarly convention, online. Oh, that's what we do anyway ... seems we should assume good faith of those doing that. In summary, pro tem we should get round the issue with more verbatim footnotes.

Yeah, that's actually a solution available to us already that I had
sort of forgotten. Basically, instead of:

Jones expressed support for this.<ref>Some book, p190</ref>

We should ask people to do:

Jones expressed support for this.<ref>Some book, p190: "Although I
have reservations, I do agree that this initiative is
worthwhile."</ref>

or something. Personally, though, I'm not sure that references are
widely enough understood or respected at Wikipedia yet for me to
invest huge amounts of time in them - I have a (possibly unjustified)
fear that some editor will later wipe them out as pointless or
excessive or something.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] SOS -- Save Our Sources

body:
On 12/5/06, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com
<charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >I don't see why quotes
> > would add to Wikipedia when they are clearly not considered to add to
> > academic papers and books.
>
> Because our articles are not academic papers.

In fact our articles are extremely different from academic papers.
Crucially, our authors are not accountable. We don't even have editors
that do a basic fact-check before publishing. We can't expect our
readers to trust our authors, so we should make every attempt to let
readers check the facts for themselves.

Steve


subject: [Wikitech-l] Wikipedia has a problem

body:
On 12/5/06, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 04/12/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Haven't seen this one before - doesn't have any link to fundraising or
> > anything either.
>
> You've really never seen that one before?
>
> It's the class of error message MediaWiki throws up when something
> happens that it can't wrap up in a nice, beautified error. :)

Heh. I really ought to make a photo gallery of all the different
errors I've seen at Wikipedia. I must have seen half a dozen really
different error screens by now.

For my own curiosity, what does "can't" mean in this context - is it a
"can't spare the resources to do so", or "doesn't have enough
information", or "happens at too low a level"?

Steve


from_name: niht-hræfn

body:
On Dec 5, 2006, at 11:55, Bryan Derksen wrote:

> The Cunctator wrote:
>> On 12/5/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>>> And _this_ is pure tripe. Do you really think that my position is
>>> that I
>>> don't want women to feel safe? If that's what you're implying
>>> here I'm
>>> quite offended and suggest you retract it immediately. I've said
>>> nothing
>>> remotely of the sort.
>>
>> Umm.... (looking desperately to change the direction of the
>> conversation....) How about those Nazi userboxes?
>
> What, are you saying I'm fat??
>
> (note, not actually offended on this one :)

Despite the fact that you're joking, and despite the fact that I'm
not personally offended, that is a sexist remark. I find it
especially inappropriate to make jokes at women's expense in a thread
protesting the idea that women are treated in any way badly on this
list. If Jew jokes were made every other post or so and this was
considered okay and funny, I wouldn't be surprised if the Jews on
list wanted a wikijews-l. More likely though, I'd think they'd leave
the Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects on the basis that the Wikimedia
Foundation allows rampant anti-Semitism on their mailing lists.

I really am shocked at the responses on this list. I'd think that the
proper response would be, "I'm really sorry that you feel this way
and that we never noticed it before. Is there any way we can make
help make Wikipedia a more welcoming place for women?" and if the
women said, "You know, it'd really help to have an all-women mailing
list where we can talk about things without being ignored or
dismissed," I'd hope you'd say, "It's a shame it's come to this, but
if that will help, let's give it a try."

What I really never expected was that the community as it were would
belittle the concerns brought forward by the women and go so far as
to make fun of them.

--Keitei


from_name: Travis Derouin

subject: [Wikitech-l] $wgAllowExternalImages and Spam Black list extension

body:
Is there any way we can tweak the Spam blacklist filter to block images that
match blacklist list entries while $wgAllowExternalImages is set?

Right now when $wgAllowExternalImages is true, the parser is converting the
links in internalParse to images, which is expected, but if those images
match something in the blacklist they won't be blocked. These images also
don't show up in out->getImages.

If we could check the spam blacklist against something a little less
processed than external links, it might work. Is there any reason why the
blacklist isn't just compared to the raw Mediawiki text?

Thanks,
Travis


subject: [WikiEN-l] overzealous image deletion?

body:
On 12/5/06, Mark Wagner <carnildo at gmail.com> wrote:
> That's not what's being enforced here.  If someone is a noted recluse
> and the only available picture is a fair-use one, then the image
> passes FUC #1.  On the other hand, if someone makes weekly appearances
> in front of tens of thousands of people, there's no reason to use a
> non-free image of him.

If we don't *have* a free image of someone, why should we not use a
non-free image? This is the bit I don't get. Yes, by all means,
someone should go out and photograph Mr John C Popular Esquire. But
until they've done that, why deprive ourselves of the fair use image?

If it's just about motivating someone to go and do it, isn't that a
separate problem?

> It's much like the "reasonable person" standard in law: is it possible
> that a [[reasonable person]] can make or find a free-license picture
> of this?  If yes, then any non-free image of it fails FUC #1.

Paparazzi are reasonable people now?

Steve


from_name: The Cunctator

body:
On 12/5/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> The Cunctator wrote:
> > On 12/5/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> >> And _this_ is pure tripe. Do you really think that my position is that
> I
> >> don't want women to feel safe? If that's what you're implying here I'm
> >> quite offended and suggest you retract it immediately. I've said
> nothing
> >> remotely of the sort.
> >
> > Umm.... (looking desperately to change the direction of the
> > conversation....) How about those Nazi userboxes?
>
> What, are you saying I'm fat??
>
> (note, not actually offended on this one :)

I'm not saying you're fat, but when you go to the beach, you're the one
there who gets a tan.

I'm not saying you're fat, but when you go to KFC, you lick other people's
fingers.

I'm not saying you're fat, but when you step on a scale, it reads "One at a
time, please".


from_name: cohesion

body:
On 12/5/06, Puppy <puppy at killerchihuahua.com> wrote:

> I apologize for being unclear. I meant that the posts which protested
> the list were largely dismissing any concerns as irrelevant.

I don't think the concerns are irrelevant at all, but I don't see how
not allowing me to learn about the concerns will help solve them. In
other words, I don't see how blocking this information off in a closed
list, which I am not allowed to read because I have the wrong genitals
will further the cause of helping us get more woman contributors.

Judson
[[User:Cohesion]]