subject:
[Foundation-l] Open question from an Election Official:
 on	voters' elibiglity

body:
effe iets anders wrote:

>I think th idea of exampting people who don't have the right to work
>on a wiki anymore should also not be allowed to be part of the group
>that is represented by the representative is ok. It is not possible to
>make a good comparison with the American way of democratics, please
>let us not stick into that discussion, because there are much more
>other sides to the story, but let's stick to the core of the question.
>
>What are the elections for? We choose a representative. That
>representative represents the communities. If someone is no part of
>the communities, should it be able to vote who should represent that
>community? It's a good question. But I don't think someone should be
>taken away his or her right to vote when (s)he is banned from a
>project. That would be as an additional punishment. I think it would
>be best to state that the edits on the project you are indeinitely
>banned from do not count. So if it was your only project, you can't
>vote. But when you were active enough on another project as well, and
>not banned indef there, it's ok to vote. That way it is not an
>additional punishment, but a clearer definition of the representation.
>
>Lodewijk
>
>
Concur.

Jeff

>2006/8/25, Jeffrey V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com>:
>
>
>>Aphaia wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Thank you for your interest on Election.
>>>
>>>Today I would like to invite you to an open question from me. About
>>>voters' eligibility. There is no discussion among three, mainly
>>>because two of them have been not available since the midst of this
>>>month, hence no opinion, there is no consensus based conclusion.
>>>
>>>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elections_for_the_Board_of_Trustees_of_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%2C_2006/En#Open_question:_on_voters.27_elibiglity
>>>
>>>I could rather say "we will do so-and-so because of lack of
>>>consensus", without bother you with my question, but even if I should
>>>say so at that time, I think it would be nice to know what kind of
>>>trends are found among us, the community from hundreds projects,
>>>people from hundreds lands and languages.
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>In America, only convicted felons loose the right to vote, and only in
>>certain states. People on probation have the right to vote, and people
>>from every social class and range of offenses have the right to vote
>>(except for convicted felons). No "Concensus" of citizens can strip from
>>any individual the right to vote in this country. This is because we are
>>an "enlightened society", not the forum of the Roman Senate where
>>splinter groups assassinate the emperor and and citizen or senator with
>>views we don't like, or the Court of Queen Elizabet in the 1500's where
>>you could loose your head for wearing the wrong color clothes on the
>>wrong day or criticize the queen. I thank God America doesn't run this
>>way, or most countries in modern times (except for a few in the middle
>>eastern countries).
>>
>>Ultimately, the finanacial contributors to the Foundation will vote with
>>their $$$ to confirm your choices and practices. Banned users from the
>>whole of Wikimedia should not vote. Banned users from a particular
>>project should vtoe just not on that project. This isn't an article for
>>deletion, it's board members for the community. All the communities
>>should vote. I am glad you raised this issue because it shows exactly
>>where you stand, and I'm happy to know it.
>>
>>Jeff
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>foundation-l mailing list
>>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>
>>
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>


list: wikimedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Jeffrey V. Merkey


list: wikien-l

from_name: FrJBDC

subject: [WikiEN-l]  Re: Current events

body:
To whomever,

I just want to tell someone how much I value the accuracy, the extent, the language choices, and the money Wikipedia has saved me (not having to go to university research libraries and paying for travel, parking and copier expenses) since I discovered Wikipedia.

To me, Wikipedia is the ultimate example of what extending the Internet to the public is all about.

Most thankfully yours,

Fr James B. D. Corbett
Akron, Ohio
FrJBDC at neo.rr.com


list: foundation-l

from_name: Andrew Lih

subject:
[Foundation-l] REMINDER: Skypecast - Wikipedia Conversation from
	Florida

body:
REMINDER - TODAY!

I will be hosting a live Skypecast of a conversation/interview with
Brad Patrick and Danny Wool of the Wikimedia Foundation on Friday,
August 25, 2006 at 11 am EST. All are welcome to join (using Skype),
and also to chime in with questions. Find details on the Skypecast
here.

Full details:
http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2006/08/24/skypecast-wikipedia-conversation-from-florida/

Skypecast details:
https://skypecasts.skype.com/skypecasts/skypecast/detailed.html?id_talk=29063

-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)

LONG: I'm in St. Petersburg, Florida, as part of research on a book
about Wikipedia, and wanted to interview both Brad and Danny. I
figured, why don't we do a "radio-like" show with us in the Wikimedia
Foundation offices, and community members can chime in as well? Brad
Patrick is the general counsel and interim executive director of the
WMF, and Danny Wool is a longtime Wikipedian and holds the position of
grants officer. Among the things we'll discuss (but we want audience
participation):

What does the WMF office do? Who are the people in the office?
What is the difference between Wikimedia and Wikipedia?
What happens on a day to day basis in the office?
Where are the Wikimedia servers?
What can the WMF staff do to help the Wikimedia projects?
What are the challenges for the future for WMF?

Please feel free to add comments/questions here, or listen live via
Skype and you can "Request the microphone" just like a radio call-in
show. We will try to let as many participants chime in.

The time was chosen so that it occurs when most folks are awake - 11pm
in East Asia, 9pm in Moscow, 4/5pm in Europe, 11am in Eastern US, 8am
in Western US. If you cannot join online, I plan to make a podcast
available.

Caveat: This is the first Skypecast we're hosting so please be patient
if at 11am we are still working out some kinks.


from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Blocking anon page creation was an experiment,
	wasn't it?

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> I was about to suggest that anons be allowed to create redirects, but
> there would be the obvious loophole that they could edit it
> afterwards. Then again, editing a redirect is pretty much creating a
> new article, so maybe that should be banned anyway for anons.

Why should even _more_ activities be banned when we haven't even seen an
analysis of the results of the _previous_ set of activities that were
banned?

-------------- 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/20060825/4cb8cb13/attachment.pgp


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Foundation Website

body:
geni wrote:
> On 8/24/06, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>> There is the digital world and the real world.
>
> no the digital world is part of the real world.
>
>

You're wrong. They are overlapping sets, but neither fully contains the
other; there are things which exist in the digital world which aren't in
the real world, and things in the real world which aren't in the digital
world.

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20060825/322f7bfb/attachment.pgp


body:
geni wrote:
> On 8/24/06, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>> There is the digital world and the real world.
>
> no the digital world is part of the real world.
>
>

You're wrong. They are overlapping sets, but neither fully contains the
other; there are things which exist in the digital world which aren't in
the real world, and things in the real world which aren't in the digital
world.

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20060825/322f7bfb/attachment-0001.pgp


body:
geni wrote:
> On 8/24/06, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>> There is the digital world and the real world.
>
> no the digital world is part of the real world.
>
>

You're wrong. They are overlapping sets, but neither fully contains the
other; there are things which exist in the digital world which aren't in
the real world, and things in the real world which aren't in the digital
world.

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20060825/322f7bfb/attachment.pgp>


body:
geni wrote:
> On 8/24/06, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>> There is the digital world and the real world.
>
> no the digital world is part of the real world.
>
>

You're wrong. They are overlapping sets, but neither fully contains the
other; there are things which exist in the digital world which aren't in
the real world, and things in the real world which aren't in the digital
world.

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20060825/322f7bfb/attachment-0001.pgp>


body:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
> Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>> On 8/22/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> Deleted versions can't be relied on, who knows when the deletion
>>> database will be cleared again?
>> That doesn't reflect our current practices.
>
> Do you know of anyplace I could find out what our current practices are?
> I hunted around a bit and deletion review was the only policy page I
> could find that mentioned the issue one way or another. If it's
> inaccurate I should correct it.
>
>>> All I ask is a little transparency. There's no reason for any of this to
>>> be kept secret.
>> What do you think is being kept secret.
>
> In your previous post all you said was "Analysis has been done, results
> will be published." Who's doing the analysis? Is there any indication of
> where and when will the results be published? Finding out anything about
> what's been going on with this "experiment" has been like pulling teeth,
> it's nine months in now and this is the first time I've heard even this
> much.
>
>> Don't mistake Jimbo's inability to be simultaneously aware of the work
>> of every single participant as an indicator of secrecy.
>
> It's my own inability to find out any of these details myself that I'm
> more worried about.

I still haven't seen any answers to the questions I posted here and the
thread seems to have moved on from discussing them. Should I assume that
these answers don't actually exist?

-------------- 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/20060825/a6f631cf/attachment.pgp


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Jay R. Ashworth

subject: [Wikitech-l] Want to collaborate on writing a feature?

body:
On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 02:14:03PM +0100, Rob Church wrote:
> > Color me confused: I thought we'd had *this* for *years*...
>
> We do, sufficient enough. MediaWiki will attempt to merge edits
> (simple merging, we're not talking gratuitous hyper-intelligent stuff)
> if it can; I would wager that a lot of edit conflicts are avoided in
> this step alone. Of course, if it can't, it throws a conflict. And I
> expect sometimes something upsets it, and it throws a conflict for the
> sheer hell of it. :)
>
> There's quite a bit that could be done in the edit conflict arena,
> though. Three-way merging of edits, anyone? A friendlier conflict UI
> would be a damn good start, although I have to admit I'm not sure what
> I'd call a "friendlier conflict UI"...I'd have to think on it.
>
> One immediate improvement that someone could make is to have MediaWiki
> handle in-section conflicts without "breaking out" and showing both
> copies of the full text. Current behaviour means that, e.g. two
> editors adding comments in a section on a discussion page who cause an
> edit conflict will have to battle with the full text of the
> page...which, as we all know, can be quite a considerable whack.

Come to think of it, yeah, I guess the Edit Conflict page *does* show
the whole page, doesn't it.  I don't fight that battle too often.

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

	The Internet: We paved paradise, and put up a snarking lot.


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Images and original research (was: [[New
	anti-Semitism]] and...)

body:
On 8/25/06, jkelly at fas.harvard.edu <jkelly at fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>  I think that there is something smart about making this distinction, which I
> failed to do, but I'm not sure that it is one we usually make.  If I state that
> my tree picture shows damage from acid rain, do I need a source for that?  What
> level of interpretation are we comfortable with?

If anyone is disputing the fact that it's acid rain damage, you should
find a source. If anyone is asking for a source just to be difficult,
use your own judgment.

Seriously though, on FPC you'd be amazed by the number of
misidentifications. Photographers who are not bird/lizard/animal
experts frequently misidentify the subject of their shot. And for
photos that are all about context, a source is even more important: a
photo of a few hundred protestors tells you *nothing* unless you know
roughly who they are, where they were, when it was, and what they were
protesting about.

Steve


references:
<ecmm8b$3hc$1@sea.gmane.org> <ecmpg7$e21$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<ecmqe8$h9n$1@sea.gmane.org> <ecmr9f$ka3$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<f1c3529e0608250554k3c70313ey9401faac38393346@mail.gmail.com>
	<ecmt43$qgt$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 11:16:44PM +1000, Tim Starling wrote:
> If it's too much then don't type it. If you think the feature won't be used
> at all, then I think you have another thing coming.

Ken Jennings says that's "another think coming".  :-)

> > Dunno about everyone else, but my usual editing sequence goes
> > something like this:
> >
> > 1. Make a change
> > 2. Type an edit summary and set the watch/minor checkboxes
> > 3. Preview
> > 4. Save or go back to 1.
>
> Yes, so does everyone's, that's because we don't have an interactive message
> box to type into. Behaviour will change according to features.

Sometimes.  You hope.  :-)

> Let me also say this: if your typical editing behaviour is to open the edit
> box, change some little thing, and save it immediately, then you're one of
> the culprits of the edit conflict problem. You're the kind of user that the
> "please don't edit this" message is aimed at. Some users want to spend
> longer editing and reviewing a change, and they shouldn't be penalised for
> their extra dedication to correctness.

No, but they person fixing one thing shouldn't be penalized, neither,
should they?  Making them *both* happy was, I thought, your target here.

> Enough chit chat, where's my Person 1? I want concrete features and I want
> them now. The feature is a simple one, if we can assemble the right skills,
> just a few hours' work each. But to get us started, someone needs to make
> that UI mockup.

Alas, it's not me.  I'll shut up now.

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

	The Internet: We paved paradise, and put up a snarking lot.


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Images and original research

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:

>On 8/25/06, jkelly at fas.harvard.edu <jkelly at fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
>
>> I think that there is something smart about making this distinction, which I
>>failed to do, but I'm not sure that it is one we usually make.  If I state that
>>my tree picture shows damage from acid rain, do I need a source for that?  What
>>level of interpretation are we comfortable with?
>>
>>
>If anyone is disputing the fact that it's acid rain damage, you should
>find a source. If anyone is asking for a source just to be difficult,
>use your own judgment.
>
>Seriously though, on FPC you'd be amazed by the number of
>misidentifications. Photographers who are not bird/lizard/animal
>experts frequently misidentify the subject of their shot. And for
>photos that are all about context, a source is even more important: a
>photo of a few hundred protestors tells you *nothing* unless you know
>roughly who they are, where they were, when it was, and what they were
>protesting about.
>
I agree.  However, if his "tree picture shows damage from acid rain" he
should be advised to keep the picture out of the rain, or it may be
self-evident from the faded and wrinkled quality of the picture.  Your
advice really applies if the tree in the picture shows damage from acid
rain.  :-)

Couldn't help it~  Ec


body:
On 8/25/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> The very first thing to do is to write a detailed policy outlining
> every possible outcome ahead of time. If it's not in there, we can
> form a committee committee to elect a committee to vote on what level
> of straw poll indicates consensus on a given image. Don't forget to
> sneak in something on page 36 about how the Foundation takes control
> of their first born.

I was about to suggest that what we actually might need is "level 2
support" where people can ask tricky questions like this that go
beyond "how do I create a table" or "where do I report a 3RR abuse?"
Then I realised that this list is that :)

Steve


from_name: jayjg

subject:
[WikiEN-l] [[New anti-Semitism]] and violations of NPOV re: top
	image

body:
On 8/24/06, Scott Stevenson <wikinetscott at gmail.com> wrote:
> Well [[User:SlimVirgin]] and [[User:Jayjg]] managed to get me blocked for a
> week surrouding this despite my good faith efforts towards ensuring that
> policy was met on this article.

[[WP:3RR]] is policy, and you didn't make good faith efforts towards
ensuring that policy was met on this article.  You were given many
opportunities to revert yourself; practically begged to do so, but you
insisted you would not. *You* managed to get *yourself* blocked.

> I've requested an {{unblock}} as this block was neither justified nor
> preventative (I clearly stated that I'd stopped editing on the article hours
> ago and haven't since).

You stated you wouldn't edit the article so that you would not be
forced to undo your violation. You were quite defiant about it.
Blocks like this prevent people from violating 3RR in the future;
otherwise they think they can continue to get away with "I've reverted
5 times now, and I refuse to revert myself, but I promise I won't edit
again for 24 hours" nonsense.

>
> If someone could take a look at this case, that'd be appreciated.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Netscott#Unblock

What, putting an unblock request on your Talk: page isn't good enough
for you? It's back to this list again any time you find yourself in
conflict? Anyway, Bastique, the admin who was so offended by the image
in question that he twice deleted it from the page altogether, has now
reduced your block to 24 hours. I'm sure the former has nothing to do
with the latter.

Jay.


list: commons-l

from_name: Brianna Laugher

subject: [Commons-l] Rethinking [[COM:DEL]]

body:
On 25/08/06, Florian Straub <Flominator at gmx.net> wrote:
> Hi Brianna,
>
> "Brianna Laugher" <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote on Fri, 25 Aug 2006 02:28:16 +1000:
>
> > Please have a play around with it (you're welcome to create an account
> > or edit anonymously - it's my test wiki) and let me know what you
> > think.
>
> that thing is great. I tried to extend it a little, so you don't have to copy the stuff into the edit field.
>
> Just an idea ...
>
> Flo

You will notice that it has now subst'ed your sig into the template,
rather undesirably. The ***only way*** to solve the sig problem is to
use the editintro stuff the way I have. I have tried dozens of other
methods involving nowiki and nested templates and the like, and
nothing else works.

Brianna


references:
<ecmm8b$3hc$1@sea.gmane.org> <ecmpg7$e21$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<ecmqe8$h9n$1@sea.gmane.org> <ecmr9f$ka3$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<f1c3529e0608250554k3c70313ey9401faac38393346@mail.gmail.com>
	<ecmt43$qgt$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<e92136380608250625g26b9e216x460b1f6a0b6208a4@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 02:25:01PM +0100, Rob Church wrote:
> On 25/08/06, Tim Starling <t.starling at physics.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
> > Enough chit chat, where's my Person 1? I want concrete features and I want
> > them now. The feature is a simple one, if we can assemble the right skills,
> > just a few hours' work each. But to get us started, someone needs to make
> > that UI mockup.
>
> Tim wants his person one and he wants him/her now! But he's failed to
> factor in the importance of promising cookies and fame. Oh, and the
> fact that being brisk and abrupt and snappish to a bunch of volunteers
> is a bad idea...
>
> You know what "want" did, don't you?

Turn Robchurch's sense of humor off, temporarily?  :-)

> Any road, snotty sarcasm over; I can see this feature enjoying use by
> a wide variety of users; there's those who make long cleanup edits to
> a page (and you don't really want to duplicate cleanup effort), recent
> changes patrol, etc. Unfortunately, my UI skills are still pretty
> crap; anything decent I've output is sheer chaos, luck and swearing at
> Dreamweaver. One idea, though, might be to shove it all in a nice box
> parallel to the top of the edit form; using a not-too-ridiculous font
> size (the default, or a few points shaved off it, should do), and
> positioning it in a sensible location (it'll be seen there, before the
> text is, and will be in the user's view for the first few seconds of
> editing, at least) will, hopefully, cause it to be considered useful,
> not intrusive.

Pony: while we're working on the edit form, could we please at least
consider putting a LiveJournal inspired "log me in with this edit" box?

> Is it worth making this a (default on) preference? I can think of
> cases or wikis where I wouldn't want to use it, and being able to
> switch it off for a few edits would be useful. Should we also,
> perhaps, indicate whether the user in question is adding a section
> (discussion pages, etc.)?

I suspect that which *way* it defaults should be an installation time/
configuration file option.

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

	The Internet: We paved paradise, and put up a snarking lot.


from_name: Death Phoenix

subject: [WikiEN-l] More slogans

body:
On 8/25/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 25/08/06, Death Phoenix <originaldeathphoenix at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 8/25/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > In interviews I say "We're very far from perfect, but we're *good
> > > enough to be useful*."
> > >
> >
> > That's a nice slogan: "Wikipedia: Good enough to be useful"
>
> "Wikipedia: good enough for the internet"
>

Wikipedia: Now blocked in two countries!


subject: [WikiEN-l] Date vandalism

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 8/24/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>> block.  Unfortunately we don't have a good way of closely monitoring
>> the contribs of a warned user, but thats another matter.
>
> It would be fascinating to construct a sort of dynamic trust metric
> where people have trust ratings that cause all kinds of interesting
> things to happen. Anons could be given 3 out of 10, and slowly start
> heading upwards if they register and keep their noses clean.
> Vandalism-detection bots could take into account the trust metric to
> work out if a change is likely a mistake or deliberate.
>
> Lots of fun, but probably terrible for social harmony.
>

It would entirely depend who you made the data available to. If it was
only available to a small group of people...

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060825/2871942e/attachment.pgp


from_name: Stefan Sittler

body:
I don't like trials of indefinite length either :)

On 8/25/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/25/06, Stefan Sittler <kiaparowits at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Instead, it's an experiment of indefinite duration with analysis (of
> > an unknown kind? where is this analysis described?) presumably being
> > done by some person or persons, probably, and the results to be
> > revealed at some later unspecified date.
>
> Think of it as a "trial" or a "change with unspecified duration",
> rather than an "experiment", and the pain will go away.
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] More slogans

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:

>Hi all,
> I was wondering if we wanted to try and get some kind of one-sentence
>slogan/summary/motto/mantra to explain exactly how authoritative
>Wikipedia is and isn't, and how it should and should not be used. Two
>thoughts that came to mind:
>
>- Wikipedia is a tertiary source. (Not a primary source, not really
>even a secondary source - we discuss and collate primary sources).
>
>- Wikipedia is the first word on everything and the last word on
>nothing. (We want to be the first place everyone comes to look up
>*anything*, but we don't claim to be the final word on *anything*,
>because we're always based on other sources which have more detail
>than we do).
>
I like the second one.  It can even be more effective without the
parenthetical explanation.  Some of the best flowers grow in manure, so
you don't want to be digging around them too much.

Given past experience around here, I think the first one would produce
endless arguments about the difference between primary, secondary and
tertiary sources.  Some of the pointed minds we encounter would be best
employed as paper spikes on somebody's desk.

Ec


from_name: Austin Hair

subject:
[Foundation-l] REMINDER: Skypecast - Wikipedia Conversation
	from Florida

body:
On 8/25/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> I had assume that, like Wikimania 2006, this means that it will be
> available in every format except the ones useful to users of free
> software.

Unfortunately, one limitation of HLS's video setup was that the live
stream was only available in Real format.  We are, however, going out
of our way to make sure that when the recordings are made available,
it will be in a Free format?this is, in fact, the reason we don't have
them yet.

Audio recordings were posted as soon as humanly possible in their
original format, MP3, a format readily understood by a wide variety of
free software players.  If you mean "patent-free" in addition to your
"free software" constraint, however, converted Vorbis files exist
also.

Austin


from_name: stevertigo

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wiki entropy

body:
--- Sarah <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:

> Fastfission, I agree with you, and in a sane and rational world, I'd
> have written exactly the kind of caption you suggest.

It *is* a sane and rational world - its called Wikipedia.

Slogan: "Wikipedia: Leave your baggage at home
                    (or else be prepared to deal with it)"

> Unfortunately... rationality and common sense are the
> first things to fly out the window, and it is very hard to get any
> intelligent editing done.

Well we certainly dont want to see lots of *unintelligent editing.*
Your reverts certainly do qualify. But your acknowledgement is apology enough.

Again, this is part of a wider problem where with growth comes disorder,
and people feel the need to use sharp elbows to get stuff done. Lots of
wasted energy. If Jimbo doesnt step up, Im going to have to appoint an
editorial board. You should be on it of course, SlimV.

-SV

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject: [WikiEN-l] More slogans

body:
On 8/25/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/25/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Your patent terse one-liner style fails to make it clear how this
> > contradicts "last word on nothing, first word on everything", assuming
> > that is indeed what you are applying. (Perhaps it's time to make the
> > jump to two-liners ...)
>
> There seems to be mild disagreement about whether "first word" means
> "chronologically the first to report" or "the inital source one
> consults". I'm thinking the second is more likely.

"first word" would be an unfortunate selection. Due to WP:NOR and WP:V
we are expressly forbidden from being the "chronologically the first
to report", although it happens a lot and has resulted in no small
amount of problems.  (We were technically the chronologically first to
report Seigenthaler's 'involvement' in the Kennedy assassination, for
example)  .. and as you point out that first word can be viewed in
that sense.

The use of the word everything is also a potential source of problems.
Wikipedia is not the "inital source one consults" about the rumors
that your classmate is HIV+.

Of course, we can only protect the stupid from themselves so much and
no matter what words we use someone would be able to find a problem...
but I think we could do better.


body:
On 8/25/06, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih at gmail.com> wrote:
> REMINDER - TODAY!
>
> I will be hosting a live Skypecast of a conversation/interview with
> Brad Patrick and Danny Wool of the Wikimedia Foundation on Friday,
> August 25, 2006 at 11 am EST. All are welcome to join (using Skype),
> and also to chime in with questions. Find details on the Skypecast
> here.

Do we have any solutions for people who run computers with only free software?


from_name: Nick Jenkins

subject:
[Wikitech-l] How bad is a category with 21,
	008 pages for the servers?

body:
> On 8/24/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> > How would you describe the relationship between Category:John Lennon
> > and Category:The Beatles, knowing that Category:John Lennon contains
> > songs that have nothing to do with The Beatles? Actually, just to
> > flesh this out, what are the relationships between these (possibly
> > fictional) categories: English rock bands, The Beatles, John Lennon,
> > John Lennon songs, The Beatles songs. Similarly, into which categories
> > would these articles go: [[The Beatles]], [[John Lennon]], [[I Am The
> > Walrus]] (John Lennon/Beatles song), [[Imagine (song)]] (John Lennon
> > solo song).
>
> It's simple.  Look up at my earlier subcategories of humans:
>
> ==Subcategories==
> All of the following are {{PAGENAME}}.
>
> * People by city
> * People by company
> * People by country of residence
> . . .
>
> The key line is "All of the following are {{PAGENAME}}.".  Well, let's
> rephrase that slightly: "All articles in each of the following
> categories are {{PAGENAME}}."  Given the line "All articles in each of
> the following categories are British rock bands", does Category:The
> Beatles fit?

Part of the problem is that "British rock bands" implies a group of multiple people making music.

If that assumption is removed, then the John Lennon example works a little bit better.

E.g.:
British rock musicians -> The Beatles -> John Lennon.

I.e.
John Lennon "is a" Beatle
The Beatles "are" British rock musicians
John Lennon "is a" British rock musician  (transitive example).

I had to make some plurals singular to make the above work as English sentences, but it avoids the "John Lennon 'is a' British rock
band" problem.

Then the next problem is that John Lennon has two famous parts of his career - one as part of the Beatles, and one as a solo artist.
Maybe you need to separate those two concepts?

How about this:

[[British rock musicians]]----------------
      |                                  \
[[John Lennon]]----------------     [[The Beatles]]
      |                        \          |
[[John Lennon (solo career)]]  [[John Lennon (Beatles career)]]
      |                                  |
[[Imagine (song)]]             [[I Am The Walrus]]

Now, there are still problems with this:
E.g. you can't say "Imagine (song) 'is a' John Lennon (solo career)", or "I Am The Walrus 'is a' John Lennon (Beatles career)", or
"Imagine (song) 'is a' British rock musicians".

So the category / subcategory relationship is still a mess :-)

But what if when you specified a category, if you could say what the relationship was? (And the default could be "is a").

E.g.:
* in [[John Lennon]], you could have [[Category:British rock musicians|relationship=is a]]
* in [[Imagine (song)]], you could have [[Category:John Lennon (solo career)|relationship=composed by]]
* in [[The Beatles]], you could have [[Category:John Lennon (Beatles career)|relationship=member of]]
* in [[John Lennon]], you could have [[Category:John Lennon (solo career)|relationship=part of career]]

Then you could apply transitive stuff like "I Am The Walrus 'was composed by' John Lennon (Beatles career) 'who is a member of' The
Beatles 'who are' British rock musicians"; and "I Am The Walrus 'was composed by' John Lennon (Beatles career) 'which a part of the
career of' John Lennon 'who is a' British rock musician".

Also in such a system, having loops mightn't be incorrect or a problem at all, as long as the relationship between concepts is
specified (and correct).

Also, you would be able to combine transitive concepts, as long as the relationship between then was the same. For example,

  [[Labrador]]
      |
     is a
      |
   [[Dog]]
      |
     is a
      |
  [[Animal]]

Then you could logically transform the above into "Labrador is an Animal", and still be correct (since the relationship in both
cases is the same, and therefore can be folded down into one step if desired).

Anyway, that's my thoughts on the topic. But I personally don't care that much about categorization, so feel free to ignore :-)

All the best,
Nick.


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Good writers always welcome (was A tidy way of
	handling "popular culture" references)

body:
On 8/25/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe: "New editors wanted"? - we avoid promising some kind of
> irrevokable privelege, without any kind of threatening undertone.

To most of the English speaking world an "Editor" does something
mostly different from what an editor does on Wikipedia. Contributor is
the correct word, and is the only description Wikipedians should be
using when describing their position with the project to outsiders
(the press, for example).


from_name: Stephen Streater

subject: [WikiEN-l] More slogans

body:
On 25 Aug 2006, at 10:28, Steve Bennett wrote:

> Hi all,
>  I was wondering if we wanted to try and get some kind of one-sentence
> slogan/summary/motto/mantra to explain exactly how authoritative
> Wikipedia is and isn't, and how it should and should not be used. Two
> thoughts that came to mind:
>
> - Wikipedia is a tertiary source. (Not a primary source, not really
> even a secondary source - we discuss and collate primary sources).
>
> - Wikipedia is the first word on everything and the last word on
> nothing. (We want to be the first place everyone comes to look up
> *anything*, but we don't claim to be the final word on *anything*,
> because we're always based on other sources which have more detail
> than we do).
>
> Comments?

I thought the first was a bit technical and dry for a strapline.

The first sentence of the second option is great for a strapline:
- Wikipedia is the first word on everything and the last word on
nothing.


from_name: Anthony

body:
On 8/25/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/25/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > I think it is a very poor assumption to think that anything which
> > would have been created by users not logged in will find its way to
> > AfC.  In fact, I believe that the AfC process tends to filter out
> > exactly those submissions which are preferred - casual submissions by
> > someone trying to improve things, and does very little to discourage
> > people who are trying to push a viewpoint from wasting people's time.
>
> What we probably really want is a way where anon users *can* create
> articles, but that they're kept in quarantine. AfC is a very clunky
> way of achieving that.

But what would the quarantine involve?  Can people who aren't logged
in see articles in quarantine?  Who can edit articles in quarantine?
Who can delete them?  Who can take them out of quarantine?

My own thoughts on this suggest that it'd be enough to just stick a
big "WARNING: THIS WAS CREATED BY AN ANON" on the top of such articles
for a while, and keep them out of google searches.

But maybe you and certainly others see quarantine as something different.

Anthony


body:
On 8/25/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 25/08/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
> > I think it is a very poor assumption to think that anything which
> > would have been created by users not logged in will find its way to
> > AfC.  In fact, I believe that the AfC process tends to filter out
> > exactly those submissions which are preferred - casual submissions by
> > someone trying to improve things, and does very little to discourage
> > people who are trying to push a viewpoint from wasting people's time.
> > I've especially found the AfC process to be ridiculous when I run
> > across a redirect that needs to be created.
>
>
> In that case, should AFC be replaced with a notice saying "You need an
> account to create articles"?
>
I'd say probably.  I always thought AfC was a stupid idea.  If you
want "anons" to create articles, just let them create them.

Anthony


subject: [WikiEN-l] More slogans

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:

>On 8/25/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Your patent terse one-liner style fails to make it clear how this
>>contradicts "last word on nothing, first word on everything", assuming
>>that is indeed what you are applying. (Perhaps it's time to make the
>>jump to two-liners ...)
>>
>>
>There seems to be mild disagreement about whether "first word" means
>"chronologically the first to report" or "the inital source one
>consults". I'm thinking the second is more likely.
>
That's the way I read it too.  Would changing "word" to "source" help?

Ec


subject: [Wikitech-l] Upload large files

body:
On 8/25/06, Warhog <mediazilla at warhog.net> wrote:
> The problem could easily be solved. When we recommend the user to upload a
> text-file containing the information, we can also recommend which name that
> file should have. For example if user X wants to load a file from
> ftp://name:pw at example.org/~user/myfile.ogg mediawiki could automatically
> search for a file ftp://name:pw at example.org/~user/mediawiki_access_id.txt (or
> something like that). So the user cannot enter a specific GET-Target -
> thereby prohibiting the behaviour we fear.

Err, that would kill off every use of this feature for me. If I
already had a file on a machine that I control, I would simply upload
it like normal. The point (I thought) was to avoid having to transfer
a file to a machine that you control before uploading it.

It seems that:
* there are no real security issues with allowing arbitrary GETs to
arbitrary sites (if throttled and restricted to some reasonable number
of GETs per hour, like maybe 10-60).
* since it could make it even easier to upload copyrighted content, it
should be a privelege that can be revoked from people
* it is fairly easy to implement

Therefore: Let's do it. (someone?) :)

Steve


body:
On 8/25/06, Austin Hair <adhair at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/25/06, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih at gmail.com> wrote:
> > If you cannot join online, I plan to make a podcast available.

I had assume that, like Wikimania 2006, this means that it will be
available in every format except the ones useful to users of free
software.


from_name: Matt Hartfield

subject: [Wikitech-l] Magic words for pre-ISBN books

body:
Hi,

I've looked on the wikipedia booksource page and in the archives for the
list, and I don't see any conclusions about this topic, so I'll throw it out
there.  Has there been discussion about using LCCNs, OCLC numbers, or some
other standard number for books that were published before ISBNs?  It would
be nice to be able to provide a link to the unique work in citations where
ISBN isn't available, and OCLC number is one way to do so, which works with
OCLC and with lots of libraries' OPACs.

I'm guessing this would work something like:
OCLCNUM 45951519

For which one link option would be:
http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/45951519

Thanks,
Matt

--

Matt Hartfield


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] Article and info for Interview on The Right Hook

body:
On 25/08/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/25/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> > For those who care:
> > http://static.rocknerd.org/david/newstalk106-20060822.mp3

> Hey, Jimmy Wales invented wikis! And wiki stands for "what I know is"!
> Oh, and you're "the editor for United Kingdom" :)

No wonder I get so tetchy and am tired all the time.

> (well done, btw, you debunked a lot of common misconceptions!)

I hope so! Here's to a pile more Irish editors on en:, and on ga: for
that matter. (The en: press contacts are nagged continuously by the
comcom to stress the international nature of Wikipedia ...)

- d.


from_name: Sam Korn

subject: [WikiEN-l] More slogans

body:
On 8/25/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> - Wikipedia is the first word on everything and the last word on
> nothing. (We want to be the first place everyone comes to look up
> *anything*, but we don't claim to be the final word on *anything*,
> because we're always based on other sources which have more detail
> than we do).

This is brilliant.  It sums up exactly what Wikipedia is and how it
should be used, and, what's more, it's catchy.

Suggest this is worked into as many press interviews as possible.  :-)

--
Sam


body:
On 8/25/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> For those who care:
>
> http://static.rocknerd.org/david/newstalk106-20060822.mp3

Hey, Jimmy Wales invented wikis! And wiki stands for "what I know is"!
Oh, and you're "the editor for United Kingdom" :)

(well done, btw, you debunked a lot of common misconceptions!)

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] More slogans

body:
Hi all,
 I was wondering if we wanted to try and get some kind of one-sentence
slogan/summary/motto/mantra to explain exactly how authoritative
Wikipedia is and isn't, and how it should and should not be used. Two
thoughts that came to mind:

- Wikipedia is a tertiary source. (Not a primary source, not really
even a secondary source - we discuss and collate primary sources).

- Wikipedia is the first word on everything and the last word on
nothing. (We want to be the first place everyone comes to look up
*anything*, but we don't claim to be the final word on *anything*,
because we're always based on other sources which have more detail
than we do).

Comments?

Steve


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Good writers always welcome (was A tidy way
 of	handling "popular culture" references)

body:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:

>On 8/25/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Maybe: "New editors wanted"? - we avoid promising some kind of
>>irrevokable privelege, without any kind of threatening undertone.
>>
>>
>To most of the English speaking world an "Editor" does something
>mostly different from what an editor does on Wikipedia. Contributor is
>the correct word, and is the only description Wikipedians should be
>using when describing their position with the project to outsiders
>(the press, for example).
>
You're technically correct, and those who deal with the press should
keep the distinction in mind.  Neverthess getting everyone to adopt the
usage may be an exercise in futility.

Perhaps a crib sheet of definitions and distinctions for those dealing
with the press could be a useful page on Meta.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] More slogans

body:
On 25/08/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:

>  I was wondering if we wanted to try and get some kind of one-sentence
> slogan/summary/motto/mantra to explain exactly how authoritative
> Wikipedia is and isn't, and how it should and should not be used.

In interviews I say "We're very far from perfect, but we're *good
enough to be useful*."

> - Wikipedia is the first word on everything and the last word on
> nothing. (We want to be the first place everyone comes to look up
> *anything*, but we don't claim to be the final word on *anything*,
> because we're always based on other sources which have more detail
> than we do).

Not sure it's marketable ;-) but "last word on nothing, first word on
everything" seems to me an excellent way of describing what an
encyclopedia is for.

- d.


body:
On 25/08/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
> G'day David,
> > On 24/08/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:

> >> as long as you're referring
> >>to _people_, rather than their contributions, it will always come
> >>across as condescending and judgmental.

> > "Good contributions always welcome" ?
> > (the wording is clunky)

> Good *edits* are always welcome?

I like that. I wonder if it's too jargonish.

- d.


from_name: Andrew Gray

body:
On 25/08/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
>
> G'day David,
>
> > On 24/08/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>"Anyone can edit" is a poor, reductionist and inaccurate slogan with
> >>negative connotations. I don't think that the idea behind "good
> >>authors are always welcome" can be expressed in a way that doesn't
> >>have the problems that I have enumerated; as long as you're referring
> >>to _people_, rather than their contributions, it will always come
> >>across as condescending and judgmental.
> >
> > "Good contributions always welcome" ?
> >
> > (the wording is clunky)
>
> Good *edits* are always welcome?

"Improvements are..."?

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


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Good writers always welcome (was A tidy way
	of	handling "popular culture" references)

body:
On 25 Aug 2006, at 11:39, Andrew Gray wrote:

> On 25/08/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au>
> wrote:
>>
>> G'day David,
>>
>>> On 24/08/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Anyone can edit" is a poor, reductionist and inaccurate slogan
>>>> with
>>>> negative connotations. I don't think that the idea behind "good
>>>> authors are always welcome" can be expressed in a way that doesn't
>>>> have the problems that I have enumerated; as long as you're
>>>> referring
>>>> to _people_, rather than their contributions, it will always come
>>>> across as condescending and judgmental.
>>>
>>> "Good contributions always welcome" ?
>>>
>>> (the wording is clunky)
>>
>> Good *edits* are always welcome?
>
> "Improvements are..."?

I think this is too introvert. Is the strapline for editors or
outsiders?

How about something along a slightly different track:
"Internet wisdom made accessible"

>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
>   andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Surname disambiguation urgently needs its own Manual
	page

body:
On 8/25/06, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com
> I do think surnames are a special case. It seems quite clear to me that chasing up a reference in some academic text, which gives just surname, or initials with surname, is an everyday use of WP as reference. Special pleading, with surname pages just an isolated case, doesn't strike me as the best way to go. It would be much better than having to fight off AfD nominations for listings by surname, though.

There's no doubt whatsoever that it should be easy to find a person
simply by their surname. I think people get confused with disambig
pages thinking "This person is not simply known by their surname,
they're not that famous!" Whereas in fact, we should just be extending
the basic principle of disambig pages which is that the most likely,
most ambiguous matches appear at the top (articles which are named X
(y)), working down towards articles which only incorporate the dab
term, and finally, articles which simply contain some material on it
("X is a product made by [[Y Corporation]]").

Surnames should just have their own section, probably towards the
bottom. If all you know about someone is their surname, you don't
really expect to find them in two seconds. You're happy to spend 30-60
seconds wading through a comprehensive list of all the Smiths to find
them. And the disambig format ("John X Smith (1930-1980) was a
biologist best known for his "If ants could talk" series...") is
absolutely perfect for that situation.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Two Mules from Sister Sarah

body:
On 25/08/06, stevertigo <vertigosteve at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Im cautiously encouraging people to consider filing an RFC. The one I
> has apparently been subject to... administrative oversight.

You mean, no-one certified it?

- d.


body:
On 25/08/06, Stephen Streater <sbstreater at mac.com> wrote:

> I think this is too introvert. Is the strapline for editors or
> outsiders?

Ideally we want something that's 110% intuitively obviously brilliant
for both. I didn't say it'd be easy ...

- d.


body:
On 25 Aug 2006, at 11:50, David Gerard wrote:

> On 25/08/06, Stephen Streater <sbstreater at mac.com> wrote:
>
>> I think this is too introvert. Is the strapline for editors or
>> outsiders?
>
>
> Ideally we want something that's 110% intuitively obviously brilliant
> for both. I didn't say it'd be easy ...

How about:
"Wikipedia. Turns information into knowledge."

>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> 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:
On 8/25/06, Austin Hair <adhair at gmail.com> wrote:
> Unfortunately, one limitation of HLS's video setup was that the live
> stream was only available in Real format.  We are, however, going out
> of our way to make sure that when the recordings are made available,
> it will be in a Free format?this is, in fact, the reason we don't have
> them yet.
>
> Audio recordings were posted as soon as humanly possible in their
> original format, MP3, a format readily understood by a wide variety of
> free software players.  If you mean "patent-free" in addition to your
> "free software" constraint, however, converted Vorbis files exist
> also.

As someone who lives in the US I can not legally use the free software
MP3 software.

Most of the Wikimania audio on the site
(http://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org/wiki/Archives) is only available
in MP3,  and the few vorbis files available that I've heard are very
low quality (due to transcoding a lower quality MP3 into a lower
quality Ogg).

It is my understanding that the person who did the Ogg streaming at
WM2005 (which worked brilliantly) had offered his services at WM2006,
but I'm not sure what happened.

We have people in our community who have experience with large scale
streaming and media events using both free software and proprietary
software...  I'm not sure why we seem to be doing such a poor job
delegating.

As we've seen with the (lack of) success with today's skypecast,
simply using whatever proprietary toys we have laying on our desks is
probably not a good solution.


from_name: Travis Derouin

subject: [Wikitech-l] php 5.1 and MW 1.6.7

body:
Ok, I think I found the answer to this in an old e-mail, it turns out
it was a problem with load balancing and not php 5. Thanks.

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/mediawiki-l/2005-April/004336.html

On 8/23/06, Travis Derouin <travis at wikihow.com> wrote:
> Has anyone had any issues running MW 1.6.7 and php 5.1.2 together?
> We're seeing some odd things like rollbacks failing because edit
> tokens aren't matching, and wpEditTime's aren't being set properly, so
> revert's having been working for us.
>
> Thanks,
> Travis
>


body:
On 25/08/06, Stephen Streater <sbstreater at mac.com> wrote:

> How about:
> "Wikipedia. Turns information into knowledge."

Phrase as imperative:

"Wikipedia: Turn information into knowledge."

Yeah, that's the sort of thing an editor could have stuck on the wall
above their monitor.

- d.


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia:Verifiability

body:
????????? ??????? wrote:
>> NPOV is non-negotiable. It is one of the "pillars" of Wikipedia. Most
>> policies are just the verbose version of what is already present
>> thanks to the pillars. If a policy is not approved, you can always
>> refer to them.
>>
>> FYI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars
>
> Why are the "pillars" non-negotiable?
> Who created  the "pillars"?
> Who approved them?
>
> I need sources to use them in discussion.
>

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Foundation_issues

NPOV and Freedom of content are listed here and date back to Nupedia.
"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" has been around since early 2002.
"Wikipedia has a code of conduct" and "Wikipedia does not have firm
rules" have been established over time (in the last 3 years or so) by
the English Wikipedia community as a way of ensuring that the entire
thing actually works.

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20060825/a3c46d18/attachment.pgp


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Good writers always welcome (was A tidy way of
	handling "popular culture" references) (first post)

body:
On 8/24/06, Martin Peeks <martin at peeks2.fsworld.co.uk> wrote:
> I feel that "Good writers always welcome" may deter some people who perhaps
> would feel that their contributions wouldn't be good enough - or worse still
> make people think that there is a selection process for editors.  It sounds
> like a job advertisement, or an advert for membership to an exclusive club,
> where all that you say and do will be closely scrutinised - now if that's
> what Wikipedia has become, then it's a very sad thing - which we definitely
> should not be telling prospective editors - we need to encourage them to
> make that first contrib. - and give them helpful feedback where they make
> mistakes - not discourage them at the first hurdle.

Definitely. We are not an exclusive club. We're more like a public
gathering, where police throw out the few troublemakers.

Steve


from_name: Sarah

body:
On 8/25/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/24/06, Sarah <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The photograph perfectly reflects the debate about new anti-Semitism.
> > Some people look at it and instantly see a highly anti-Semitic image.
> > Others see an anti-Zionist one. Others again see the latter but
> > believe there's sometimes not a big difference between the two. So it
> > is with new anti-Semitism, as the article describes.

> If the picture is supposed to represent a debate, perhaps the caption
> should say so? I don't think it would be ridiculous to have a caption
> which says something to the effect of what you've written above, i.e.
> "Some would claim that this poster is anti-Semitic, while others would
> claim that it is only anti-Zionist; the distinction between the two is
> a key point of debate in discussions of any 'new anti-Semitism.'"
>
Fastfission, I agree with you, and in a sane and rational world, I'd
have written exactly the kind of caption you suggest. Unfortunately,
with these highly politicized articles on Wikipedia, particularly
anything connected to Israel, rationality and common sense are the
first things to fly out the window, and it is very hard to get any
intelligent editing done.

Sarah


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] More slogans

body:
On 8/25/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> Not sure it's marketable ;-) but "last word on nothing, first word on
> everything" seems to me an excellent way of describing what an
> encyclopedia is for.
>
>
> - d.

Runns into slight problems with news stories were if we are going to
instist on includeing them are slogan should be something like "second
with everything".

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] More slogans

body:
On 25/08/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/25/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> > Not sure it's marketable ;-) but "last word on nothing, first word on
> > everything" seems to me an excellent way of describing what an
> > encyclopedia is for.

> Runns into slight problems with news stories were if we are going to
> instist on includeing them are slogan should be something like "second
> with everything".

We're talking about Wikipedia, not Wikinews.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] More slogans

body:
On 8/25/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> Any suggestions? Is "first source" better? I can't imagine
> interpreting "First source for information" chronologically...
>
> > The use of the word everything is also a potential source of problems.
> > Wikipedia is not the "inital source one consults" about the rumors
> > that your classmate is HIV+.
>
> Sure it is, you'll also find out that he is gay but has a huge penis...

Illustrated too..

> Hit me.

My 'we' was generally intended to include our brilliant participants
and not so much me. :)

But, sure, anyone can generate an infinite number of these... here are
some random ones, from more slogany to more explantory:

Wikipedia- The freedom of knowledge
Wikipedia- Participatory Enlightenment
Wikipedia- The Encyclopedia by the world, for the world.
Wikipedia- The [[polymath|Renaissance man's]] compendium.
Wikipedia- edit this encyclopedia
Wikipedia- [[WP:NPOV|Neutral]] contributors are always [[WP:welcome|welcome]].
Wikipedia- Collecting the knoweldge of the whole world requires the
participation of
                the whole world.
Wikipedia- Your way right away.

well, perhaps not the last.


subject: [WikiEN-l] More slogans

body:
On 8/25/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> We're talking about Wikipedia, not Wikinews.

And yet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=7_July_2005_London_bombings&oldid=18317302

--
geni


body:
> > E.g. you can't say "Imagine (song) 'is a' John Lennon (solo career)", or "I Am The Walrus 'is a' John Lennon (Beatles
> career)", or
> > "Imagine (song) 'is a' British rock musicians".
>
> That's because you haven't quite gotten what I'm getting at yet.  The
> category wouldn't be called "John Lennon", because nothing is a John
> Lennon (other than, presumably, John Lennon, who would be rather
> lonely).  Rather, under "things related to Beatles", you would have
> "things related to John Lennon" or something.  Inelegant, I know, but
> I think you see where I'm going with this?

OK, but how's that any different than what we have now, except with more words involved, and more potential for confusion?

I.e. you can still say Imagine (song) is a thing related to John Lennon, which is a thing related to The Beatles. The relationship
between the Beatles and Imagine (song) is somewhat tenuous, I think.

Also it leads to things like saying "Jesus is related somehow to Waves", to use the original loop example. I'm just not sure that it
tells you anything useful.

> The main problem is the terminology.  I mean, it works logically, but
> I don't think people will go for saying "No,
> things-related-to-the-Beatles isn't a supercategory of
> things-related-to-John-Lennon, things-related-to-the-Beatles is only
> related to things-related-to-John-Lennon!"  But that's the fault of
> the English language.  I leave it to the wordsmiths to improve upon my
> terminology.  :P

So you're saying that supercategories should not imply any transitive relationship whatsoever? But isn't that worse than the current
situation, which at least tries for some vague ill-defined type of relationship? Granted, it seems to fail, but at least it tries.

> > But what if when you specified a category, if you could say what the relationship was?
>
> That's Wikidata.  We're still waiting.

Ah, ok. I've just quickly read through the Wikidata page on meta, and while it sounds interesting, it's trying to do much more than
just store a relationship type between categories ... possibly too much more.

> Hmm... can anybody morph this
> http://web.archive.org/web/20010604173556/www.jimmywales.com/jimmy.jpg
> with this
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:The_Hunt_for_Red_October_movie_poster.JPG

[[Sailing Yacht]] -- is a --> [[sailing ship]] -- is a --> [[Category:Ship types]]
                                                                     ^
                                                                     |
                                                                    is a
                                                                     |
                [[The Hunt for Red October]] -- is about a --> [[submarine]]

... or is it a trick question?

All the best,
Nick.


from_name: Jay R. Ashworth

references:
<ecmm8b$3hc$1@sea.gmane.org> <ecmpg7$e21$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<ecmqe8$h9n$1@sea.gmane.org> <ecmr9f$ka3$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<f1c3529e0608250554k3c70313ey9401faac38393346@mail.gmail.com>
	<ecmt43$qgt$1@sea.gmane.org> <ecn7r7$2st$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 06:17:48PM +0200, Ligulem wrote:
> Most edit conflicts happen on "discussion" (voting) pages. Stuff like
> RfA's. This feature won't change that situation.

You didn't spend much time on "2004 US Presidential Election", did you?

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

	The Internet: We paved paradise, and put up a snarking lot.


subject: [WikiEN-l] More slogans

body:
On 8/25/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/25/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > We're talking about Wikipedia, not Wikinews.
>
> And yet:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=7_July_2005_London_bombings&oldid=18317302

See the link at the bottom of that article.  We were not first to report that.

--
Sam


subject: [WikiEN-l] More slogans

body:
On 25/08/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/25/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> > We're talking about Wikipedia, not Wikinews.

> And yet:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=7_July_2005_London_bombings&oldid=18317302

Your patent terse one-liner style fails to make it clear how this
contradicts "last word on nothing, first word on everything", assuming
that is indeed what you are applying. (Perhaps it's time to make the
jump to two-liners ...)

- d.


body:
On 8/25/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> Since I'm already writing long and unmanageable opinions about NPOV, I
> thought I'd append one more: the more I think through NPOV, the more I
> realize what a truly radical position it is. It is often derided by
> people who claim that it is not possible or that it is not desirable,
> but it really does act as a powerful conceptual tool once you start to
> take it seriously as a goal. It is not the same thing as objectivity
> at all -- obviously one does not want to jettison an attempt for
> objectivity, but objectivity does not imply neutrality (I can be
> objectively non-neutral in my position on a given topic). In academic
> scholarship it is very rare that anybody tries to be, or wants to be,
> neutral: neutrality is seen as "not taking a side" in an important
> debate, and only the most disingenous or aloof intellectuals would
> think not taking a side on issues is a good, much less ethical,
> approach.

I've also noticed that people from academic backgrounds have
difficulty with NPOV, because they're being asked to be equally fair
to positions they believe are nonsensical, and it goes against the
grain.

The thing that always strikes me now when I read the Encyclopaedia
Britannica is how POV it is, and I often wonder why we're aiming to be
as good as them, when in fact (at our best) we can be so much better.

Sarah


subject: [WikiEN-l] More slogans

body:
On 25/08/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/25/06, Stephen Streater <sbstreater at mac.com> wrote:

> > I thought the first was a bit technical and dry for a strapline.

> I'm not sure what a strapline is, but yes. Perhaps a phrase to drop in
> interviews?

Strapline: the function that the phrase "the free encyclopedia anyone
can edit" is presently fulfilling.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] More slogans

body:
On 8/25/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 25/08/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 8/25/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > We're talking about Wikipedia, not Wikinews.
>
> > And yet:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=7_July_2005_London_bombings&oldid=18317302
>
>
> Your patent terse one-liner style fails to make it clear how this
> contradicts "last word on nothing, first word on everything", assuming
> that is indeed what you are applying. (Perhaps it's time to make the
> jump to two-liners ...)

Becuase if that article was the first word there would not have been a
BBC article to link to at that point. Wikipedia is not a publisher of
original thought. Thus a slogan that can be read as an aim to provide
second rate news reporting is ah less than ideal.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] More slogans

body:
On 8/25/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> Strapline: the function that the phrase "the free encyclopedia anyone
> can edit" is presently fulfilling.

It is interesting that [[Mediawiki:Tagline]] currently only reads
"From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia".  I would have thought we'd
use the whole thing...

--
Sam


subject: [WikiEN-l] More slogans

body:
On 25/08/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:

> Becuase if that article was the first word there would not have been a
> BBC article to link to at that point. Wikipedia is not a publisher of
> original thought. Thus a slogan that can be read as an aim to provide
> second rate news reporting is ah less than ideal.

Ah, no original research here. Got it. Hmm.

(btw, please stick to two-liner responses, they're much clearer.)

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] More slogans

body:
On 25/08/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:

> There seems to be mild disagreement about whether "first word" means
> "chronologically the first to report" or "the inital source one
> consults". I'm thinking the second is more likely.

I can see the implication of original research or original reporting
geni points out. Not that I get hypersensitive to how idjits might
misuse things ...

- d.


from_name: Cheney Shill

body:
To me, the most important aspect of NPOV has nothing to do with being "fair".  It has to do with removing your own personal opinion and accepting that of the experts on the topic, thus satisfying verifiability, even if it goes against what you prefer or previously believed.

Given that Britannica is both an easy target here and not NPOV according to your original research, do you have a paradigm for NPOV other than yourself and Wiki?
--Pro-Lick
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick
http://www.wikiality.net/index.php?title=User:Pro-Lick

Sarah <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote: On 8/25/06, Fastfission  wrote:
> scholarship it is very rare that anybody tries to be, or wants to be,
> neutral: neutrality is seen as "not taking a side" in an important
> debate, and only the most disingenous or aloof intellectuals would
> think not taking a side on issues is a good, much less ethical,
> approach.

I've also noticed that people from academic backgrounds have
difficulty with NPOV, because they're being asked to be equally fair
to positions they believe are nonsensical, and it goes against the
grain.

The thing that always strikes me now when I read the Encyclopaedia
Britannica is how POV it is, and I often wonder why we're aiming to be
as good as them, when in fact (at our best) we can be so much better.

---------------------------------
Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business.


from_name: dmehkeri at swi.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Blocking anon page creation was an experiment,

body:
> No, you have to wait 4 days to create the new article anyway.

I do believe you can create immediately. You're maybe thinking of
semi-protection, or page moving. (Really, try logging out.)

Speaking of which, I understand the page move restriction on new accounts was a
temporary measure. Specifically, to protect against a certain person on wheels.
This person seems to have moved on, no?

> > On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if it is precisely these obstacles
> > which also cuts down on the nonsense.

> Damn straight. :) Seriously, what gets posted at AfC is sludge. And
> that's from the newbie editors who actually made the effort to wade
> their way through the process and make a submission!
>
> The only benefit in allowing anons to create articles is in stroking
> their egos long enough for them to become good editors (while deleting
> their creation in the meantime). We should attempt to quantify that
> benefit.

I assume this is based on the idea that new accounts can't create articles. If
that were true, it would be a very different story.

As it is, I don't see this as a choice between allowing or disallowing "anon"
page creation at all, since account creation is unrestricted. It's more of a
question of "how many clicks must an unregistered person go through to create a
page, and how obvious should we make it which clicks they should make?"

Regards,
Daniel Mehkeri


from_name: Fastfission

body:
On 8/24/06, Sarah <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> The photograph perfectly reflects the debate about new anti-Semitism.
> Some people look at it and instantly see a highly anti-Semitic image.
> Others see an anti-Zionist one. Others again see the latter but
> believe there's sometimes not a big difference between the two. So it
> is with new anti-Semitism, as the article describes. The cutline
> doesn't need commentary from someone who has done no research into the
> subject and who seems to be out to cause trouble only.

The current caption of it is "A poster seen at a February 16, 2003
anti-war rally in San Francisco. [3] Photograph by zombie of
zombietime.com".

If the picture is supposed to represent a debate, perhaps the caption
should say so? I don't think it would be ridiculous to have a caption
which says something to the effect of what you've written above, i.e.
"Some would claim that this poster is anti-Semitic, while others would
claim that it is only anti-Zionist; the distinction between the two is
a key point of debate in discussions of any 'new anti-Semitism.'"

Obviously one could write it better than that. But what bugs me about
the current discussion is that you are assuming that the reader will
do all of the intellectual work in piecing together the complicated
statement you are trying to make with the picture. I don't think we
should -- or need to -- assume that.

If the caption was made a little more descriptive of what the picture
was supposed to represent, I think it would be totally fine. As it is
it looks like the picture is supposed to just represent "the new
anti-Semitism" and I could see why that would be seen as endorsing
only one of those two POVs.

FF


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

body:
On 8/25/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> If the picture is supposed to represent a debate, perhaps the caption
> should say so? I don't think it would be ridiculous to have a caption
> which says something to the effect of what you've written above, i.e.
> "Some would claim that this poster is anti-Semitic, while others would
> claim that it is only anti-Zionist; the distinction between the two is
> a key point of debate in discussions of any 'new anti-Semitism.'"
[snip]

I think thats a good solution as well, although I prefer the concrete
citation rather than the weasel words since the citation makes a
pretty good argument. But yes, exposing the debate is important.


body:
As just one clarification... when I suggest we need to spell out our
neutrality explicitly, I don't mean it to sound like I am assuming a
dumb audience. That's not true at all. But if the "neutrality" comes
from someone having to have a meta-view of the image -- "Oh, what an
interesting image. When I look at it, I see it as anti-Semitism, but
others would say it is only anti-Zionism. How clever." -- I don't
think that's neutral. For one thing, the ambiguity of the image -- the
entire claim for it being a good illustration up there -- is exactly
one of the reasons that such ambiguity needs to be outlined explicitly
(if we know someone is likely to interpret only one POV in the image,
we need to point out that we don't mean for there to be only one POV
in the image).

A less-charged analogy would be using the picture of the famous
Duck-Rabbit illusion
(http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Duck-Rabbit_illusion.jpg) to
illustrate the article on "Rabbit", with a caption saying, "A famous
picture of a rabbit." Now, one could argue that the point of using the
image would be to show the reader that a picture of rabbit could also
look like a duck, but by not spelling that out explicitly, and using
it at the top of an article called "Rabbit," I think we are easily
sending the message that the illustration is of a Rabbit. Whether or
not we are worried about prejudicing the reader -- who cares, in this
case -- the real problem is that it looks like Wikipedia is taking a
stance on the issue. Now, if we changed to caption to, "In the famous
duck-rabbit illustration, one can see a duck or a rabbit," then it is
made perfectly clear. It isn't dumbing it down at all, it is just
making explicit the point of putting the image in the article, and
making it clear that Wikipedia itself is not taking a position on the
issue. It is also a better caption, if that is what the image is meant
to represent. "A picture of a rabbit," is actually NOT descriptive of
the image, if it is being used to illustrate conceptual ambiguity.

If it isn't obvious to numerous editors that something is neutral --
and I think it is clear from the dispute that it is not obvious in the
case of the new anti-Semitism image -- then it is probably safe to
assume that it is NOT neutral. In this case I think a slight tweaking
of the caption would fix it perfectly and bring it into line with our
stated goal of neutrality, without stepping on anyone's toes.

FF

On 8/25/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/24/06, Sarah <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The photograph perfectly reflects the debate about new anti-Semitism.
> > Some people look at it and instantly see a highly anti-Semitic image.
> > Others see an anti-Zionist one. Others again see the latter but
> > believe there's sometimes not a big difference between the two. So it
> > is with new anti-Semitism, as the article describes. The cutline
> > doesn't need commentary from someone who has done no research into the
> > subject and who seems to be out to cause trouble only.
>
> The current caption of it is "A poster seen at a February 16, 2003
> anti-war rally in San Francisco. [3] Photograph by zombie of
> zombietime.com".
>
> If the picture is supposed to represent a debate, perhaps the caption
> should say so? I don't think it would be ridiculous to have a caption
> which says something to the effect of what you've written above, i.e.
> "Some would claim that this poster is anti-Semitic, while others would
> claim that it is only anti-Zionist; the distinction between the two is
> a key point of debate in discussions of any 'new anti-Semitism.'"
>
> Obviously one could write it better than that. But what bugs me about
> the current discussion is that you are assuming that the reader will
> do all of the intellectual work in piecing together the complicated
> statement you are trying to make with the picture. I don't think we
> should -- or need to -- assume that.
>
> If the caption was made a little more descriptive of what the picture
> was supposed to represent, I think it would be totally fine. As it is
> it looks like the picture is supposed to just represent "the new
> anti-Semitism" and I could see why that would be seen as endorsing
> only one of those two POVs.
>
> FF
>


body:
On 8/25/06, Sarah <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> Fastfission, I agree with you, and in a sane and rational world, I'd
> have written exactly the kind of caption you suggest. Unfortunately,
> with these highly politicized articles on Wikipedia, particularly
> anything connected to Israel, rationality and common sense are the
> first things to fly out the window, and it is very hard to get any
> intelligent editing done.

I understand that, and in no way meant to imply -- in case I did --
that I was pointing fingers at anyone in particular.

Since I'm already writing long and unmanageable opinions about NPOV, I
thought I'd append one more: the more I think through NPOV, the more I
realize what a truly radical position it is. It is often derided by
people who claim that it is not possible or that it is not desirable,
but it really does act as a powerful conceptual tool once you start to
take it seriously as a goal. It is not the same thing as objectivity
at all -- obviously one does not want to jettison an attempt for
objectivity, but objectivity does not imply neutrality (I can be
objectively non-neutral in my position on a given topic). In academic
scholarship it is very rare that anybody tries to be, or wants to be,
neutral: neutrality is seen as "not taking a side" in an important
debate, and only the most disingenous or aloof intellectuals would
think not taking a side on issues is a good, much less ethical,
approach. And yet I find myself trying hard to write for positions
that I think are objectively wrong, or to point out the criticisms
(without denigrating them) of things that I think are objectively
correct. It is a strange exercise, one very contrary to most other
forums for writing about and discussing issues. Beyond being a
pragmatic tool for making a collective encyclopedia work -- which it
does as well -- it is a very strong epistemological stance. I hadn't
really quite realized that when I first started here, and I have only
really begun to comprehend the depth of the stance in the last
half-year or so. It does not surprise me that academics in particular
have difficulty with it (and I say this as an academic).

FF


subject: [WikiEN-l] More slogans

body:
> Wikipedia- Your way right away.

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can Greg is gay.

Had to be said.
Cheers.


references:
<ecmm8b$3hc$1@sea.gmane.org> <ecmpg7$e21$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<ecmqe8$h9n$1@sea.gmane.org> <ecmr9f$ka3$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<f1c3529e0608250554k3c70313ey9401faac38393346@mail.gmail.com>
	<ecmt43$qgt$1@sea.gmane.org> <ecn7r7$2st$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<20060825164310.GB1033@cgi.jachomes.com>
	<f1c3529e0608250947ifbc2954y550e75028946b223@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 06:47:52PM +0200, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 8/25/06, Jay R. Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 06:17:48PM +0200, Ligulem wrote:
> > > Most edit conflicts happen on "discussion" (voting) pages. Stuff like
> > > RfA's. This feature won't change that situation.
> >
> > You didn't spend much time on "2004 US Presidential Election", did you?
>
> What's the scenario that happens with a page like that that could be
> resolved if you could see who was working on which section? I hardly
> ever work on "busy" pages, myself.

I wasn't suggesting that Tim's proposed feech would solve the [[Bushdot
syndrome]], merely clarifying for Ligulem that I disagreed with his
characterization.

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

	The Internet: We paved paradise, and put up a snarking lot.


body:
On 8/25/06, Tim Starling <t.starling at physics.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
> Most developers have specialisations -- some of us hate UI design and love
> DB performance optimisation, others don't know any PHP but can speak
> HTML/CSS like a second language. This is a problem for writing features for
> an open source web app -- the nature of the work is cross-disciplinary, but
> the culture encourages individual effort. The result of this is that
> developers are placed under pressure to learn a huge skill set, and that can
> be a disincentive to participation.

I really like this idea. I'd like to help develop MediaWiki, but since
I don't know PHP MySQL it's going to be a learning curve before I
really get started. However, I have a strong interest in user
interface design and would love to colaborate. (Unfortunately,
probably not for this project as I'm about to hit the road for 7 weeks
of continuous travelling - lucky me).

> I have an idea for a feature, and I was wondering if anyone might want to
> collaborate on it. The idea is to display, in a box in the edit window,
> information about who else has the same edit window open. For example, it
> could display each username, along with the amount of time they have been
> idle and the edit summary they have typed if any. The box will periodically
> refresh itself, say once every 10 seconds. At the same time as fetching
> updated data, the client sends back information about how long the user has
> been idle and so on.

Certainly an interesting idea. I have a mild concern about the use of
this feature on users' talk pages (I've already had instances of two
users accusing each other of monitoring my talk page for badmouthing
from the other!!), but it'd be especially nice for other talk pages
which get updated frequently.

If you wanted to take it even further, make it possibly to
automatically resync with the server if someone else saves the page.
It shouldn't be too hard to use a really granular diffing algorithm to
add or remove whole paragraphs, and to just say "no, too hard" if
there are any overlaps in the changes.

> An optional subfeature would be allow the user to remove themselves from the
> box voluntarily, e.g. to signal that they have no interest in actually
> saving the article and that they are just looking at the source.

If you're doing all this in javascript, could you not attempt to treat
them as being in "view source" mode until they actually modify the
source?

> I can probably be Person 3, but I don't think I can handle the other two
> tasks as well. Any volunteers? Anyone know anyone who might be interested?

If you don't find anyone before late October, feel free to give me a yell ;)

Steve


subject: [Wikitech-l] Upload large files

body:
On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 06:33:51PM +0100, Rob Church wrote:
> On 25/08/06, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> > The kinds of webmasters we are talking about here will assume that you
> > can never fire a given GET URL if you never see a page with a link to it
> > on it.
>
> (Which is still a damn stupid assumption to make)
>
> Not as bad as the ones who allow elementary SQL injection, etc. etc.
> There's probably still hundreds of thousands of web sites out there
> with basic flaws in. :)

Indeed; I can easily visualize a forum message page with a Delete Me
link right on it.

Further authorization should clearly be required for that to actually
happen, but the concept of such a link *existing* on a page isn't by
any means beyond the pale...

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

	The Internet: We paved paradise, and put up a snarking lot.


from_name: Simetrical

body:
As someone who always sets "invisible mode" off on forums, I can say
it can be slightly creepy to have someone say "Oh, you're sending a
private message, I wonder who it's to?" or "I wondered when you'd get
around to reading that thread" on IRC or wherever.  Given the number
of privacy-lovers you get in the open-source community, I suspect
you'll see fairly strong backlash if you make it opt-out rather than
opt-in, and don't at least make a checkbox or something to set the
preference right from the edit window.

Personally, I would put more stress on the message box and less on the
names.  Make the name-showing opt-in, not opt-out (with those who fail
to opt in being billed as "invisible users" or something); messages
should be sendable even without logging in or showing your name.

On 8/25/06, Jay R. Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote:
> Are we *ever* going to get a way to edit ledes without having to lock
> the whole page?

The edit-conflict resolver doesn't care whether you're editing the
page or a section.  If the two edits are to different lines, they're
merged; if they're to the same line, they conflict.  (There may be
some more details that I don't know of, but that's the gist of it.)
Edit conflicts occur most frequently on busy RFAs or talk pages
because everyone's editing the same line, namely the one below where
the last guy left his comment.


subject: [WikiEN-l] More slogans

body:
On 8/25/06, Stephen Streater <sbstreater at mac.com> wrote:
> I thought the first was a bit technical and dry for a strapline.

I'm not sure what a strapline is, but yes. Perhaps a phrase to drop in
interviews?

Steve


from_name: Death Phoenix

subject: [WikiEN-l] Current events

body:
On 8/25/06, Ruud Koot <r.koot at students.uu.nl> wrote:
>
> Steve Bennett wrote:
> > Wikipedia: Putting libraries out of business.
>
> I have certain made /more/ use my university thanks to Wikipedia.
>

Thank goodness Wikipedia came into being after I'd already graduated from
university. I certainly found enough ways to procrastinate without having
Wikipedia come along and give me ANOTHER way of doing so...


subject: [WikiEN-l] Idealism

body:
On 8/25/06, Garion96 <garion96 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Because not all of the 1.3 million pages are of the same quality. (yet).
>

Wikipedia: Some of our pages may be crap, but others are golden!


body:
On 25/08/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:

> I think it is a very poor assumption to think that anything which
> would have been created by users not logged in will find its way to
> AfC.  In fact, I believe that the AfC process tends to filter out
> exactly those submissions which are preferred - casual submissions by
> someone trying to improve things, and does very little to discourage
> people who are trying to push a viewpoint from wasting people's time.
> I've especially found the AfC process to be ridiculous when I run
> across a redirect that needs to be created.

In that case, should AFC be replaced with a notice saying "You need an
account to create articles"?

OTOH it sounds like a completely honest introduction to Wikipedia bureaucracy.

- d.


body:
On 8/25/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Good *edits* are always welcome?
>
>
> I like that. I wonder if it's too jargonish.

It's still too cliquish for my liking. It's very reserved, like "Well,
sir, I guess you can come in, but don't disturb the others, ok?" It
has a very strong implied negative: "Bad edits are not welcome" which
I don't think needs to be stated at this level. I really don't like
the tone, I guess.

Maybe: "New editors wanted"? - we avoid promising some kind of
irrevokable privelege, without any kind of threatening undertone.

"Made by people like you"?

Or even just a tweak to the current line like "Anyone can have a go" -
again, we tone down the implied right of editing: we only promise to
let them try once.

Steve


body:
On 8/25/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
> Fair enough.  I'm too wrapped up in wiki-world now --- I can't remember
> if "edits" makes sense to non-Wikipedians anymore!
>
> > How about something along a slightly different track:
> > "Internet wisdom made accessible"
>
> "You're the man now, dog!"

Combine them:

"You're the editor."

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] More slogans

body:
On 8/25/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> Your patent terse one-liner style fails to make it clear how this
> contradicts "last word on nothing, first word on everything", assuming
> that is indeed what you are applying. (Perhaps it's time to make the
> jump to two-liners ...)

There seems to be mild disagreement about whether "first word" means
"chronologically the first to report" or "the inital source one
consults". I'm thinking the second is more likely.

Steve


body:
On 8/23/06, dmehkeri at swi.com <dmehkeri at swi.com> wrote:

> have wound up either lost in AfC, or correctly submitting to AfC which then
> promptly gets ignored. And I don't think I was being unreasonably dense. Even if

Promptly ignoring all AfC submissions is a very efficient, high
pay-off strategy that I would recommend to anyone.

> I guess that the CORRECT choice from the article-not-found page is actually
> "create an account", at the end of it I wind up back at the main page. The
> obvious thing to do here is to back up in the browser history, but this doesn't
> help, unless I guess that I have to back up one PAST the article-not-found page
> to the original red-link page and click it again! An unlikely guess.

No, you have to wait 4 days to create the new article anyway.

> On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if it is precisely these obstacles
> which also cuts down on the nonsense.

Damn straight. :) Seriously, what gets posted at AfC is sludge. And
that's from the newbie editors who actually made the effort to wade
their way through the process and make a submission!

The only benefit in allowing anons to create articles is in stroking
their egos long enough for them to become good editors (while deleting
their creation in the meantime). We should attempt to quantify that
benefit.

Steve


subject: [Wikitech-l] Upload large files

references:
<44E9A0AF.8080108@web.de> <ece7r5$ps6$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<44EAB0D6.70007@web.de> <ecfi2a$gq1$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<44EC0315.9060001@web.de> <eckhdt$mhp$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<7c2a12e20608240900o3fc97013k7c220b50b3480f43@mail.gmail.com>
	<ecl9gm$dij$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<7c2a12e20608241543o7f0d1628va79f5e4aafde134e@mail.gmail.com>
	<ecnbin$fed$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
On 8/25/06, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> That is simply not true. Web spiders only follow links.

And since when is following an HTTP link *not* sending a GET request?
You'd have to Google-bomb it to get Google to do it, granted, and that
only hours or days later, but many other sites (ImageShack comes to
mind) will execute arbitrary GET requests immediately upon request.
Heck, you could even grab some random stranger's e-mail address and
say "Hey, follow this cool link!".  Or just use an ISP that uses
proxies.  Or find a high-quality open proxy.  Or use Tor.  Or . . .

. . . you get the picture.  There is literally *no* *security*
*reason* *at all* for MediaWiki to not send arbitrary GET requests.
Period.  The only difference from our side is that we have a GET
response instead of a POST, which is no security difference at all,
and if anything can harm the recipient (which it overwhelmingly
can't), we aren't going to make an already trivial task any easier.


from_name: Austin Hair

body:
On 8/25/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> As someone who lives in the US I can not legally use the free software
> MP3 software.

Of course you can.  Hell, it's even included in the base Debian
repository (not non-US/non-free).

> Most of the Wikimania audio on the site
> (http://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org/wiki/Archives) is only available
> in MP3,  and the few vorbis files available that I've heard are very
> low quality (due to transcoding a lower quality MP3 into a lower
> quality Ogg).

They're not on that page, but they do exist; I'll ask around for you.
Or you could get one of your non-free friends to transcode them.

> It is my understanding that the person who did the Ogg streaming at
> WM2005 (which worked brilliantly) had offered his services at WM2006,
> but I'm not sure what happened.

Kyle did an excellent job last year, and I'm sure he could have done
even more this year if we'd given him the resources.  See below.

> We have people in our community who have experience with large scale
> streaming and media events using both free software and proprietary
> software...  I'm not sure why we seem to be doing such a poor job
> delegating.

It's not a matter of delegation, it's a simple cost-benefit analysis.
Our arrangement with HLS AV gave us much better coverage than last
year, and at no cost to us.  We could have taken our $10,000 budget
for bringing Wikimedians from elsewhere in the world and sunk it into
providing live Vorbis streams of every room, but what would that have
given us?  A warm, fuzzy feeling for being slightly Freer?

It would have been nice to have live coverage of every room, I'll
grant, but a delay of a few hours isn't that bad, and the program team
was very good about putting events of particular interest in rooms
with video.  Believe it or not, your soul will not burn up if you use
Helix player.

> As we've seen with the (lack of) success with today's skypecast,
> simply using whatever proprietary toys we have laying on our desks is
> probably not a good solution.

I had to leave before the skypecast, unfortunately, but from what I
saw it didn't work out very well.  In the future, we should certainly
leverage all the resources available to us; this said, Andrew was good
enough to open up his interview in the first place, and we should
applaud the effort.  If this were an official WMF Q&A, planned by the
Foundation and billed far and wide for live community participation, I
would naturally have a different view.

Austin


body:
On 8/25/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:

> > "You're the editor."
>
> "You contribute.  *We* decide."

Lol!

Steve


from_name: Rob Church

subject: [Wikitech-l] Upload large files

body:
On 25/08/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> * it is fairly easy to implement
>
> Therefore: Let's do it. (someone?) :)

You know how to submit a patch. We'll review it once you're done.

Rob Church


from_name: Ligulem

body:
Tim Starling wrote:
>  The idea is to display, in a box in the edit window,
> information about who else has the same edit window open. For example, it
> could display each username, along with the amount of time they have been
> idle and the edit summary they have typed if any.

While technically a nice idea, I'm a bit concerned about privacy.

I for myself do expect that I can edit a page and type anything into the
edit window without anyone else knowing. Not even knowing that I have
this page open. I don't want to publish any info *until* I hit save.

I have several times canceled a talk page post already written into the
edit window (censoring myself). And sometimes I was really glad having
canceled ;)

--Ligulem