from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Wikitech-l] Possible Wikidata component: JSONwidget

body:
This is interesting. Based on my own experience, I can tell you that
cross-browser compatibility is going to be a PITA. For Wikidata and
Ultimate Wiktionary, I'm considering using this library:

http://ianbicking.org/examples/repeat_form/form.html

It's built on top of Mochikit, a fairly powerful JavaScript library.

When dealing with complex forms on top of a relational database (which
is essentially what Wikidata is going to be, plus versioning and other
wiki-ness), safe failover is really hard to achieve. Essentially, one
has to accept that applications of a certain complexity, especially
dealing with data entry, require certain capabilities on the client end.

The above forms are one example - where, with JavaScript, you can easily
create complex relationships between different elements, without
JavaScript, you would have submit the same form 10 or 20 times, use
kludges like a fixed number of empty fields, etc. That doesn't even
touch upon AJAX stuff like autocompletion, which is hard to do without
in some contexts. So when it comes to building Wikidata UIs, I think it
makes sense to apply the [[Pareto principle]].

Erik


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Sam Korn

subject:
[WikiEN-l] An actual RC patrol? (was Openness is a means to an
	end. Nothing more)

body:
On 12/1/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> When I do RC patrol I do it the old fashioned way and whitelist
> everyone who isn't an anon. Other than say saturday morning and the
> like that still means there are far to many edits for me to cheack all
> of them.

That's a problem inherent in allowing anonymous edits, I suppose.  My
suggestion about common whitelists and also some kind of edit
validation would make this work in general.  Add semi-protection to
most-vandalised articles and I think the strain of RC patrol would be
considerably cut.

--
Sam


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: SJ

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] "Encyclopedia WIKIMANIA - einem Projekt der
	Infochannel Group"

body:
I love it.  0 users, 10 articles, much copyviolation and trademark abuse.
( 0 Benutzer; 10 Artikel; viele Urheberrechts- und Markenrechts(?)verletzungen )

At least they're good enough to list their names and contact details
on the main page:
             http://www.wikimania.co.uk/wiki/index.php?title=Hauptseite

"Willkommen in der Wikimania!

Die Wikimania ist keine freie Enzyklop?die. Jeder eingeladene User
kann mit seinem Wissen beitragen und die Artikel direkt im Browser
bearbeiten. Seit November 2005 haben wir 10 Artikel in deutscher
Sprache verfasst. Gute Autoren sind immer willkommen ? die ersten
Schritte sind ganz einfach!                             ...Weitere
Informationen zur Wikimania"

http://www.wikimania.co.uk/wiki/index.php?title=Wikimania:%C3%9Cber_Wikimania
http://www.wikimania.co.uk/wiki/index.php?title=Spezial:Recentchanges

If the term isn't being pursued for protection yet, it should be...
should this have gone to info-de instead?

++SJ


list: foundation-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo Wales = Sergey Brin = Bill Gates

body: actually, I've never seen any two of those three in a room together...   ++SJ


subject: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo Wales = Sergey Brin = Bill Gates


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: [Wikitech-l] Upcoming edit page layout changes

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> Several things:
>
> 1) The copyright message is moved up, between the main edit area and the
> summary/checkboxes/buttons. This is to ensure that it is visible; presently on a
> smallish screen it's possible to make thousands of edits without ever seeing the
> notice.
>
> This should also encourage site admins to keep the message short and legible.
[snip]

I've taken this change live now.

I went ahead and moved the charinsert bits on en.wikipedia; make sure other
wikis using such things do similar. :)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20051201/de8b6340/attachment.pgp


list: wikitech-l

subject: [Wikitech-l] Upcoming edit page layout changes

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> Several things:
>
> 1) The copyright message is moved up, between the main edit area and the
> summary/checkboxes/buttons. This is to ensure that it is visible; presently on a
> smallish screen it's possible to make thousands of edits without ever seeing the
> notice.
>
> This should also encourage site admins to keep the message short and legible.
[snip]

I've taken this change live now.

I went ahead and moved the charinsert bits on en.wikipedia; make sure other
wikis using such things do similar. :)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20051201/de8b6340/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Xed Mac

subject: [Wikitech-l] Using mwdumper.jar on OS X

body:
Well, these are the steps I took:

/usr/local/mysql-standard-5.0.16-osx10.4-powerpc/bin/mysql
-u root -p wikidb

SOURCE
/Users/xed/Sites/mediawiki/maintenance/tables.sql

....which got:
Query OK, 0 rows affected, 1 warning (0.17 sec)

Query OK, 0 rows affected, 1 warning (0.00 sec)

Query OK, 0 rows affected (0.04 sec)

Query OK, 0 rows affected, 1 warning (0.03 sec)

Query OK, 0 rows affected, 1 warning (0.01 sec)

Query OK, 0 rows affected, 1 warning (0.00 sec)

Query OK, 0 rows affected, 1 warning (0.01 sec)

Query OK, 0 rows affected, 1 warning (0.01 sec)

Query OK, 0 rows affected, 1 warning (0.01 sec)

Query OK, 0 rows affected, 1 warning (0.00 sec)

Query OK, 0 rows affected, 1 warning (0.01 sec)

Query OK, 0 rows affected, 1 warning (0.00 sec)

Query OK, 0 rows affected, 1 warning (0.06 sec)

Query OK, 0 rows affected, 1 warning (0.01 sec)

Query OK, 0 rows affected, 1 warning (0.03 sec)

Query OK, 0 rows affected, 1 warning (0.02 sec)

Query OK, 0 rows affected, 1 warning (0.00 sec)

Query OK, 0 rows affected, 1 warning (0.01 sec)

Query OK, 0 rows affected, 1 warning (0.00 sec)

Query OK, 0 rows affected, 1 warning (0.01 sec)

Query OK, 0 rows affected, 1 warning (0.00 sec)

Query OK, 0 rows affected, 1 warning (0.00 sec)

Query OK, 0 rows affected, 1 warning (0.00 sec)

Query OK, 0 rows affected, 1 warning (0.01 sec)

Query OK, 0 rows affected (0.01 sec)

Then I did:
/System/Library/Frameworks/JavaVM.framework/Versions/1.5/Commands/java
-jar -Xmx512m -Xms256m /Users/xed/Desktop/mwdumper.jar
--format=sql:1.5
/Users/xed/Desktop/20051127_pages_articles.xml.bz2 |
/usr/local/mysql-standard-5.0.16-osx10.4-powerpc/bin/mysql
-u wikiuser -p wikidb

...and it stepped thru (without errors) from:
1,000 pages (91.033/sec), 1,000 revs (91.033/sec)

...to..

2,136,559 pages (189.635/sec), 2,136,559 revs
(189.635/sec)

> You tell me! I assume that you:
>
> 1) Watched for errors during the import, and logged
> it all to a file you can now
> review.

How do I do that?

> 2) Looked in the database to see what's there

How do I do that?

The pages don't appear in my Wiki.

Thanks
Xed

___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Model Search 2005 - Find the next catwalk superstars - http://uk.news.yahoo.com/hot/model-search/


subject: [Wikipedia-l] the road to stability -- Yes! we have a winner!

body:
Cooling/heating :  generate a crude 'trussst' metric; (# of edits +
length of activity) x (simple factor), with (factor) inculding some
aspect of community recognition.  As an article cools, slowly raise
the level of trussst needed to edit it (and vice-versa).  If a
would-be editor tries to edit the page, artfully redirect to the talk
page or a temp subpage, saying "please add your suggested changes or
modifications here. If you would like to work on a temporary
copy of this [section|article], you can do so here".

SJ

On 11/30/05, Neil Harris <usenet at tonal.clara.co.uk> wrote:
> Kai Kumpf wrote:
> > i know this topic keeps reoccuring and so my point may not be very
> > original.
> > it has been said that wikipedia is "work in progress" and will
> > probably continue to to so. on the other hand it ails from the fact
> > that at no given point in time you can be certain to have a 1.
> > consistent , 2. unvandalized and 3. correct throughout wikipedia.
> > (compared to those three points the shortcoming of non-completeness
> > dwindles to almost nothing.)
> > let me draw your attention to the fact that the construction plans for
> > roads to stability - or at least local optima - have long been laid
> > out by physics. heat a dynamic system quickly then let it cool down in
> > a slower and controlled fashion, allowing less and less dramatic
> > changes to take place as time passes. simulated annealing
> > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_annealing) is the magic spell
> > that might work for wikixyzs in a way similar to that in the real world.
> > the rationale behind my suggestion is of course that articles that
> > have matured over time are statistically speaking less likely to
> > improve when large modifications are made than relatively new ones.
> > some of the articles have reached a stage where well-meant editing
> > effectively mucks up the inner structure and logic. what i think
> > reasonable is to lift the threshold for substantial edits, maybe not
> > by limiting access but by asking for more substantial background
> > information from the authors (references, printed, electronic,...)
> > than the simple comment line. there is to much unproven and partially
> > unprovable information in the wp. that could have been prevented long
> > ago by obliging the authors to give references for their information.
> > besides, this task would make it successively harder to simply put
> > established statements upside down. whereas scientific journals have
> > peer review, wp only offers the weak weapons of discussion pages and
> > reverts - by others, mostly admins, i guess. why not confer a little
> > bit more of  responsibility to the authors? he/she could be aided by
> > predefined lists, checkboxes, comboboxes (for ref. type, etc.)
> > i find myself increasingly involved in hunting down vandals and their
> > work - partly due to the ease of use wp offers for non-serious edits,
> > too, and i can't help feeling that a larger and larger part of wp
> > keeps a larger and larger part of the community busy with just keeping
> > up the existing standard.
> > comments?
> > best
> > kai (kku)
> >
>
> I agree with Kai on this completely; if Wikipedia is about optimization
> by repeated random/evolutionary/whatever change, simulated annealing is
> _the_ classic way to achieve stable results.
>
> Once an article had been progressively and slowly "cooled" to a low
> enough "temperature", it would be effectively frozen. If an article was
> shown to be seriously wrong, or needed extensive revision, it could
> always be "warmed up" again, either partially or all they way. The old
> "cooled" version of the article could be marked in the history as the
> "previous stable version".
>
> In any case, as stable articles cooled down, they would change less and
> less often, making the use of the article rating process (where ratings
> must necessarily refer only to a single version) more and more useful.
>
> Question: what would should a good algorithm for "cooling" and "heating"
> pages be based on? Article ratings for the last few versions? Consensus
> in an "articles for cooling" page? Intervention by admins?
>
> Perhaps even some simple automatic heuristic like (for example) _very_
> slowly cooling pages that are read repeatedly by a wide range of readers
> over some significant time period and yet not edited (ie, implicitly
> "validated" in a tiny way by those readers) during that time? Perhaps
> articles should slowly "heat up" if not read for some time?
>
> -- Neil
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
++SJ


from_name: geni

body:
On 12/1/05, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/1/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > When I do RC patrol I do it the old fashioned way and whitelist
> > everyone who isn't an anon. Other than say saturday morning and the
> > like that still means there are far to many edits for me to cheack all
> > of them.
>
> That's a problem inherent in allowing anonymous edits, I suppose.  My
> suggestion about common whitelists and also some kind of edit
> validation would make this work in general.  Add semi-protection to
> most-vandalised articles and I think the strain of RC patrol would be
> considerably cut.

semic protection makes things worse because you lose the fly paper
effect. Consider:

Vandalotices edit tag for the first time. Hits whatever low profile
article they happen to be on.

Thinks cools what else shall I hit. I know GWB

Vandal hits GWB gets noticed and previous vandalism gets picked up at
the same time.

--
geni


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: moderation of mark williamson

references:
<438B18B3.1030109@djini.de>
	<20051129223603.GA1705@topjaklont.student.utwente.nl>
	<dmjn6s$pt4$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
On 11/30/05, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Gerrit Holl wrote:
> > In my opinion moderation is not at all necessary. It was at least two
> > sides that were behaving impolite. FWIW, I disagree with this decision.
> >
> > Gerrit.

I do wish he were more polite more of the time.  However I don't
normally find his posts offensive; he is certainly far less so than
many of the trolls whom we have allowed to bombard this list with what
truly amounts to spam.

> So, what is exactly moderation ? If mails are not posted, it is not
> moderation, it is censorship. So, I release the mails and will remove
> the moderation block soon.

Thank you.  I was wondering whether he had simply stopped posting...

++SJ


subject: [WikiEN-l] Translation Barnstar Proposal

body:
I added a couple comments.  I like both the rosetta and the
interlingual barntars; each has its place.  --SJ

On 11/30/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> I've been asked to help out with this.
>
> Discussion on [[Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals#Babel Barnstar
> for Translation|Babel Barnstar for Translation]] at [[WP:BAP]] has
> been at a standstill for almost two months. If nothing is done
> quickly, it'll be archived. Please join the discussion and let your
> voice be heard. Translations should be recognized with their own
> barnstar!
>
> Mgm
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: stevertigo

body:
The answer is pretty obvious in that more diverse ways
of sorting RC for different uses. People can get
organized all they want, but its pointless to do
without the tools to handle the massive numbers.
Watchlists only work for hardcore users, and even then
it can be a pain, when you find you inflexible it is.
(Multiple watchlists would be nice...
[1],[2],[3],[4]...).

The sorting by all available namespaces, doesnt really
help sorting out the "too much data" problem because
98 percent of the "vandalism" is in the Main namespace
-- ie. articles. The sort RC by anon or logged-in
users is useful, but its only a one-trick pony (in two
different ways), because its only useful for RC
patrolling, and does so focusing only on IPs (who
happen to make up 20 percent of WP's contributors).

The answer seems like it will be some kind of
fine-tuned context-subject sorting, based on the
Category scheme. So people can sort RC by SUBJECT OF
INTEREST, rather than by an abstract data quantity
like login/IP/namespace etc. It's got to be harder to
do, as it draws from a  user-defined list of
categories. There will no doubt be overlap, etc. (Has
noone tried to graphically map wikipedia by the way?)

I wonder if the Wikipedia:TOC couldnt just be
replicated with Related Changes links instead of Cat
links. Someone with sysop privs could even stick that
at the top of the main RC....

Stevertigo

--- geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 12/1/05, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 12/1/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > No. We tried it and it didn't work.
> >
> > It could, however, be made to work if it were
> integrated into the IRC
> > feeds and made to work with CDVF.  I think there
> would have to be some
> > bueaucracy with it, though.  There would have to
> be a level of user (I
> > know this is already programmed in) that can mark
> edits as patrolled,
> > and this would have to be separately granted.  It
> would just need a
> > little evidence of vandal fighting, just so the
> simple vandals can't
> > get in.
> >
> > This doesn't seem unreasonable if it were to be
> programmed.
> >
> > --
> > Sam
>
> Have you any idea how fast wikipedia gets edited?
> the system breaks
> down because by time someone could be looking at
> what edits have been
> missed they are 50 edits ago and off the first page.
>
> --
> geni
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Translation wiki proposal

body:
On 11/29/05, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> > * Name : babel.wikimedia.org  ?
> > * Main Page : a list of languages by, say, # of native
> > speakers/readers [1], with prominent links to other views (by
> > language-cluster, by geographic region, by article-count, by reader
> > popularity...), information on translators & translation, and language
> > statistics [2].
>
> I think that a list in such an order would be confusing without any
> soirt of qualification.

Indeed.  Maybe a dimensional-slider showing a number of views, across
the top, would be best.  There are many useful ways to view a list of
hundreds of languages.

> > * Content : All localizable MediaWiki strings, in 200+ languages [3].
> > Portals for each language, describing work being done to develop that
> > language, with portal-content in a few core language + the lang in
> > question.  All localizable custom strings for Wikimedia projects, in
> > those languages.  Key strings and messages (such as site-wide notice
> > templates) which are used regularly and needed in every language.
>
> The main problem with that would be: how many people are going to
> visit? Many people who have translated the interface or some other
> similar work at a Wiki would need to know that this Wiki existed, and
> further, they'd have to have incentive to come.

This would ideally be more immediately gratifying than other ways to
do such translation; with helpful statistics also udpated as one
works.  And there should be simple upload functionality; at least a
"send a text file to this email address and we'll load in your
existing work" -- and it would be seeded with the current interface
translations.

SJ


body:
On 12/1/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> semic protection makes things worse because you lose the fly paper
> effect. Consider:
>
> Vandalotices edit tag for the first time. Hits whatever low profile
> article they happen to be on.
>
> Thinks cools what else shall I hit. I know GWB
>
> Vandal hits GWB gets noticed and previous vandalism gets picked up at
> the same time.

If every edit is getting checked (which is by no means a pipe dream)
then that won't be a problem.

By the way, could you run spell-check on your mailing-list posts? It's
somewhat distracting when you're a pedant and this isn't a wiki...

--
Sam


from_name: Snowspinner

subject: [WikiEN-l] Most read US newspaper blasts Wikipedia

body:
On Dec 1, 2005, at 6:55 PM, Ilya N. wrote:
>
> Wikipedia for not detecting something obviously false after almost
> a third
> of a year on what I would imagine could be at least read once every
> while

Unlikely - the article was created on 5/26/05, and had only one edit
on 5/29/05 before 9/23/05, when it was replaced with an accurate
version. It looks like virtually nobody ever looked at the page.

-Phil


from_name: Keith Old

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: Google Alert - Wikipedia

body:
Clippings for today including a followup on the USA Today op ed from Editor
and Publisher.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Google Alerts <googlealerts-noreply at google.com>
Date: Dec 1, 2005 8:02 PM
Subject: Google Alert - Wikipedia
To: keithold at gmail.com

Google Alert for: *Wikipedia*

The Danger of *Wikipedia*<http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/departments/online/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001612397>
Editor & Publisher - USA
*...* who served as Robert Kennedy's administrative assistant in the early
1960s, says that a very personal experience has convinced him that "*
Wikipedia* is a flawed *...*

*Wikipedia's* Gollum? Copyright, Democracy, and Malicious
*...*<http://www.digitaldivide.net/blog/Taran/view?PostID=8976>
Digital Divide Network - Newton,MA,USA
Web tool puts new face on *Wikipedia* according to ZDNet, but... I went and
checked out Gollum - but the only thing I noted that was *...*

Gollum, the *Wikipedia* Browser <http://gollum.easycp.de/en/>
Gollum is a *Wikipedia* Browser for the fast and eyefriendly browsing throw
the
free encyclopedia *Wikipedia*.

------------------------------
 This as-it-happens Google Alert is brought to you by Google.

Remove <http://www.google.com/alerts/remove?s=9a4f2425fa5d9963&hl=en> this
alert.
Create <http://www.google.com/alerts?hl=en> another alert.
Manage <http://www.google.com/alerts/manage?hl=en> your alerts.


body:
Copied WikipediaTOC to WikipediaTOCRC, appending
Special:Recentchangeslinked/ to each. Should be
identical to the TOC, and useful for general cats.

Stevertigo

--- stevertigo <vertigosteve at yahoo.com> wrote:

> The answer is pretty obvious in that more diverse
> ways
> of sorting RC for different uses. People can get
> organized all they want, but its pointless to do
> without the tools to handle the massive numbers.
> Watchlists only work for hardcore users, and even
> then
> it can be a pain, when you find you inflexible it
> is.
> (Multiple watchlists would be nice...
> [1],[2],[3],[4]...).
>
> The sorting by all available namespaces, doesnt
> really
> help sorting out the "too much data" problem because
> 98 percent of the "vandalism" is in the Main
> namespace
> -- ie. articles. The sort RC by anon or logged-in
> users is useful, but its only a one-trick pony (in
> two
> different ways), because its only useful for RC
> patrolling, and does so focusing only on IPs (who
> happen to make up 20 percent of WP's contributors).
>
> The answer seems like it will be some kind of
> fine-tuned context-subject sorting, based on the
> Category scheme. So people can sort RC by SUBJECT OF
> INTEREST, rather than by an abstract data quantity
> like login/IP/namespace etc. It's got to be harder
> to
> do, as it draws from a  user-defined list of
> categories. There will no doubt be overlap, etc.
> (Has
> noone tried to graphically map wikipedia by the
> way?)
>
> I wonder if the Wikipedia:TOC couldnt just be
> replicated with Related Changes links instead of Cat
> links. Someone with sysop privs could even stick
> that
> at the top of the main RC....
>
> Stevertigo
>
> --- geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 12/1/05, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 12/1/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > No. We tried it and it didn't work.
> > >
> > > It could, however, be made to work if it were
> > integrated into the IRC
> > > feeds and made to work with CDVF.  I think there
> > would have to be some
> > > bueaucracy with it, though.  There would have to
> > be a level of user (I
> > > know this is already programmed in) that can
> mark
> > edits as patrolled,
> > > and this would have to be separately granted.
> It
> > would just need a
> > > little evidence of vandal fighting, just so the
> > simple vandals can't
> > > get in.
> > >
> > > This doesn't seem unreasonable if it were to be
> > programmed.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sam
> >
> > Have you any idea how fast wikipedia gets edited?
> > the system breaks
> > down because by time someone could be looking at
> > what edits have been
> > missed they are 50 edits ago and off the first
> page.
> >
> > --
> > geni
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________
> Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about.
> Just $16.99/mo. or less.
> dsl.yahoo.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

__________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page!
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs


body:
On 12/1/05, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/1/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > semic protection makes things worse because you lose the fly paper
> > effect. Consider:
> >
> > Vandalotices edit tag for the first time. Hits whatever low profile
> > article they happen to be on.
> >
> > Thinks cools what else shall I hit. I know GWB
> >
> > Vandal hits GWB gets noticed and previous vandalism gets picked up at
> > the same time.
>
> If every edit is getting checked (which is by no means a pipe dream)
> then that won't be a problem.

It isn't happening at the moment. Until it does you can have my
antivandalism tools when you pry them from my cold dead hands

> By the way, could you run spell-check on your mailing-list posts? It's
> somewhat distracting when you're a pedant and this isn't a wiki...
>
> --
> Sam

Someone has taken to emailing with random headers attacking my
spelling and me. You may rememer them they surfaced on this list
trying to inforce a slightly odd version of english grammer. I'm
waiting to see how long it takes for them to explode.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] In those times of ... well, doubt.

body:
David Gerard wrote:

>geni wrote:
>
>
>
>>Is the old suggestion for putting a link to WP:TOOLS into the sidebar
>>still active? Rename it to something like advance features and you
>>could put the cite thing an other useful stuff there.
>>
>>
>
>
>I *like* that one. I'm a big fan of simple and clear interfaces that
>nevertheless have a "Wizards may do what they like and keep both
>pieces" button.
>
>
>- d.
>
>

For Wizards, there's always monobook.js ;)

grm_wnr


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Wikidata on Rails [was: Re: Possible Wikidata
	component: JSONwidget]

body:
On 12/1/05, Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:
[snip]
> My main challenge at the moment is to find a scalable model for
> versioning multiple tables with complex relations between them.
> Versioning is necessary for the "wiki" in "Wikidata", but at some level
> of complexity, it gets very tricky.
>
> If anyone is interested in working on Wikidata, please contact me again
> (you may have done so before - sorry if something fell through). We're
> making substantial progress and are also exploring new sources of
> funding for future development.

Eh, I don't see what it's hard. Just do it like Mediawiki.

Every 'table' must have a identifying key which must be non-null,
immutable, and will have all the history attached.

For every wikidata table there are actually two tables in the
database, a item table and a revision table.  In item, the key will be
constrained to be unique and non-null, in the revision table it will
be just non-null.

Generally just follow mediawiki for the fields, but rather than text
have your data fields.

What will generally be a problem is that many forms of wiki data will
want to have the ability to associate random name-value pairs with
items. like successor="George W. Bush".

A pure SQL approach would be to have another (pair of) tables (due to
versioning) with item_key,name,value but the performance of that
approach would be poor because of locality issues. If MySQL supported
clutering tables on a field (does it?) then you could cluster on
item_key, and carry indexes on item_key and name,value.

If MySQL had an indexed hstore datatype like PostgreSQL then
name-value data could be stored without additional tables. Which would
be simpler and would perform well as long as the name-value data
wasn't too big.


from_name: Jama Poulsen

body:
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 07:18:31PM +0100, Erik Moeller wrote:
> This is interesting. Based on my own experience, I can tell you that
> cross-browser compatibility is going to be a PITA. For Wikidata and
> Ultimate Wiktionary, I'm considering using this library:
>
> http://ianbicking.org/examples/repeat_form/form.html
>
> It's built on top of Mochikit, a fairly powerful JavaScript library.
>
> When dealing with complex forms on top of a relational database (which
> is essentially what Wikidata is going to be, plus versioning and other
> wiki-ness), safe failover is really hard to achieve. Essentially, one
> has to accept that applications of a certain complexity, especially
> dealing with data entry, require certain capabilities on the client end.

Has Ruby on Rails (http://www.rubyonrails.com) been considered for Wikidata?
(from looking trough the Meta discussion page it seems this is not the case)

I've been reading the "Agile Web Development with Rails" book, and trying
some tiny web apps myself, and it really is a very nice and much more
abstract way of writing web applications (which most of the time leads to
more productivity).

The real challenge here would be the integration of the existing PHP
function/state framework with something written in Ruby
(http://www.rubyist.net/~slagell/ruby/index.html).

Ruby to Mediawiki bindings, single-login user session handling, combined
HTML rendering, and more would be needed, but I think in the end the future
benefits of this increased productivity and the future Rails plugin extensions
could really be very interesting. Unfortunately it involves a lot of complicated
work, thats for sure.

regards,

Jama Poulsen
http://wikicompany.org
http://debianlinux.net


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Wikidata on Rails [was: Re: Possible
	Wikidata	component: JSONwidget]

body:
Hoi,
 From my visit to Berlin I can assure you that Ruby on Rails was looked
at. I can also say that Erik has experimented with Ruby.
Thanks,
   GerardM

Jama Poulsen wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 07:18:31PM +0100, Erik Moeller wrote:
>
>> This is interesting. Based on my own experience, I can tell you that
>> cross-browser compatibility is going to be a PITA. For Wikidata and
>> Ultimate Wiktionary, I'm considering using this library:
>>
>> http://ianbicking.org/examples/repeat_form/form.html
>>
>> It's built on top of Mochikit, a fairly powerful JavaScript library.
>>
>> When dealing with complex forms on top of a relational database (which
>> is essentially what Wikidata is going to be, plus versioning and other
>> wiki-ness), safe failover is really hard to achieve. Essentially, one
>> has to accept that applications of a certain complexity, especially
>> dealing with data entry, require certain capabilities on the client end.
>>
>
> Has Ruby on Rails (http://www.rubyonrails.com) been considered for Wikidata?
> (from looking trough the Meta discussion page it seems this is not the case)
>
> I've been reading the "Agile Web Development with Rails" book, and trying
> some tiny web apps myself, and it really is a very nice and much more
> abstract way of writing web applications (which most of the time leads to
> more productivity).
>
> The real challenge here would be the integration of the existing PHP
> function/state framework with something written in Ruby
> (http://www.rubyist.net/~slagell/ruby/index.html).
>
> Ruby to Mediawiki bindings, single-login user session handling, combined
> HTML rendering, and more would be needed, but I think in the end the future
> benefits of this increased productivity and the future Rails plugin extensions
> could really be very interesting. Unfortunately it involves a lot of complicated
> work, thats for sure.


from_name: Fastfission

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: [Foundation-l] Most read US newpaper blasts
	Wikipedia

body:
On 11/30/05, Keith Old <keithold at gmail.com> wrote:
> It also means that many users are blocked for 24 hours as a result of
> sharing an IP with a vandal. I had to change my ISP last year because of
> vandalism from someone else. We also have had rogue registered users but at
> least we have procedures to deal with those.

But there *should* be an "easy" technical solution to this, as this is
the same issue as the "tor question". If user accounts could be
manually given a "don't block even if they have the same IP as a
vandal unless this specific username is blocked", then we'd be set.
Perhaps it could automatically click in after 100 edits or something
like that, but even if it was set by hand on request, it wouldn't be
that big of a deal.

This, along with the "allow blocking of anonymous edits from specific
problem IPs" issue is something that would really, really, really be
great if it were ever implemented...

FF


from_name: Stan Shebs

body:
David Gerard wrote:

>Apparently we're the next Microsoft after Google:
>
>http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/topnews/wpn-60-20051201WikipediaistheNextGoogle.html
>
>Good fucking God.
>
"I for one welcome our new overlords..." - oh wait, that's us.

:-)

Stan


body:
On 11/30/05, Snowspinner <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> The objection that Seigenthaler is having to Wikipedia is not even to
> the process or to the speed at which we fix vandalism. It is not to
> our current quality, it is not to anything fixable.
>
> The fundamental objection that Seigenthaler has is that we allow
> people to post freely. His objection is to the belief that we ought
> not carefully monitor our users and that we ought avoid turning them
> in to the legal authorities in a dispute. His assumption that the
> article was posted by a vandal is dodgy at best - I would be shocked
> if he were not the subject of some conspiracy theory or another, and
> if whoever posted the article were anything more than a particularly
> stupid POV pusher. If Wikipedia were to in any way assist with
> turning a mere stupid POV pusher in to legal authorities, I know my
> support for the site would drop off swiftly.

That's exactly the problem with his article; I was wondering if
someone had posted this already. He's not objecting primarily to the
bad info (which could be deleted as soon as he noticed it, at the very
least), but to the fact that he couldn't find out who posted it.

This is a problem with the internet in general. If it was posted on a
geocities site he'd have *exactly the same problem* except that it'd
actually take him *much longer* and probably be *much harder* to
remove the incorrect information.

The only reason he thinks we should have different standards in this
respect than geocities is because we are a "big deal," I imagine.
Which is the "peaked too early" problem, but also might just be a
phantom in the end -- I suspect Wikipedia does, or will, occupy a
unique position between don't-even-trust-it (geocities) and
oh-yeah-it's-almost-entirely-reliable (EB). Which isn't so bad. I
don't see any other way around it, though I know Jimbo would rather we
aspire for the latter category (but hey, I'm willing to try!).

FF


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [Foundation-l] Most read US newpaper blasts Wikipedia

body:
Poe, Marshall wrote:

> There is a more general consideration, tho: repeated notices in the
> *trusted* print press to the effect that WP is not trustworthy will
> drive people away.  WP's reputation is on the line. So WP has both good
> legal and practical reasons to institute some sort of (let me just say
> it) formal editorial control over quality.

This is part of why I say we've peaked too early and will be able to
work much better on the encyclopedia when we're not flavour of the month
and our editors aren't being spooked by our current high rating. I
haven't seen a great many proposals to "remedy" this that won't risk
severely damaging the community that has produced what we have so far.
(It's one of the reasons we're explicitly not doing anything with the
ratings until we know what they look like.)

If the "trusted" print press turn away people who believe anything they
see on the internet, I suspect that would actually be better for us than
claiming we absolutely have to strangle the freedom that produced what
we have so far.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: [Foundation-l] Most read US newpaper blasts Wikipedia


subject:
[WikiEN-l] An actual RC patrol? (was Openness is a means to an
	end. Nothing more)

body:
geni wrote:
> On 12/1/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

>>Would it be an idea to make RC patrol organised, i.e. people (admins
>>or not) sign on for shifts, checking all edits in a given block of
>>time? Two patrollers for each time period should be enough, three or
>>four for evenings US time. You do RC patrol - would something like
>>this make sense?

> If it were posible it would probably have some utility if only to give
> us some idea of the amount of rescoures we have availible.

>>(I don't know how long the time periods would be - an hour? 30
>>minutes? 10 minutes?)

> 10 minutes. Those who can go longer are free to sign up back to back.
> those of us who tend to get disstracted by seeing things we can fix
> can still make a contribution

If I had time this weekend (I'm going to the other end of the country
tomorrow morning and not returning till Sunday, which will be way busy),
I'd float a roster idea on WP:AN and WP:ANI myself. But I don't, so I
suggest someone else boldly do so :-)

- d.


body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:

> What we need are teams of people working together in a way that minimizes duplicated effort. As
> is, there is no way to know if a diff has been looked at once before, never before, or 200 times.
> There is also no way to know what was being looked at (simple vandalism, subtle vandalism,
> accuracy, etc). Knowing at least the first part (how many times a diff has been looked at) will
> help a great deal. Sorting RC based on that would be even better.

I don't know if "Mark as patrolled" is currently switched on ... it does
help doing RC on Uncyclopedia.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] More fair use deletion wreckage

body:
I unexpectedly found myself in Anthere's position today - checked on
my gallery of fair use postage stamp images today, and as expected,
images for which I hadn't yet written the article had been deleted,
but also some images long used in my article about Austrian stamps.
Turns out that some anon had emptied out half the article, this went
unnoticed for several weeks (it's on my watchlist, but must not have
checked it that day), then while I was on vacation and not examining
watchlist daily, the bot came along, marked the images as orphans,
and a couple weeks later somebody else deleted. After *that* a nice
anon quietly restored the article, leaving it unclear why the images
were deleted in the first place.

No moral to the story, except perhaps that figuring all this out (and
re-uploading from my backup copies) is time that could have gone into
content development. I suspect all this publicity is going to bring
a new crop of vandals wanting to "prove" that WP is a failure, so
even more time will go into defending rather than improving.

Stan


body:
On 12/1/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> Daniel Mayer wrote:
>
> > What we need are teams of people working together in a way that minimizes duplicated effort. As
> > is, there is no way to know if a diff has been looked at once before, never before, or 200 times.
> > There is also no way to know what was being looked at (simple vandalism, subtle vandalism,
> > accuracy, etc). Knowing at least the first part (how many times a diff has been looked at) will
> > help a great deal. Sorting RC based on that would be even better.
>
>
> I don't know if "Mark as patrolled" is currently switched on ... it does
> help doing RC on Uncyclopedia.
>
>
> - d.

No. We tried it and it didn't work.

--
geni


from_name: Neil Harris

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Credit card processing

body:
Jonathan Leybovich wrote:
>
> Yes, I see.  In that case here are the major credit
> card payment systems which I would recommend the
> Foundation contact for information about rates:
>
> Processors:
>
> First Data- http://www.firstdata.com/
> Paymentech - http://www.paymentech.com/
> Citibank Merchant Services -
> http://www.citibank.com/us/cards/merchant/
>
> Gateways-
>
> Concord EFS Net - http://www.concordefsnet.com
> Cybersource - http://www.cybersource.com/
>
> Verisign also has a credit card payments division;
> however, that was just sold to Ebay, which owns
> PayPal, so I'm not sure if they're accepting new
> customers.
>
> I think almost all of these payment systems support
> international credit card payments, though some may
> require having a deposit account either with a
> particular bank, or in a particular currency.
>
> Technically, Concord probably has the simplest
> integration since their architecture is XML over
> HTTP(S)-based.  Integrating with a processor would be
> more difficult, but at least it helps that the
> Foundation need only implement one type of operation-
> auth-capture- since it does not deliver goods to its
> payers, which normally requires deferring the actual
> transfer of funds (i.e. capture) until the time of
> shipment.  Another nice benefit of using only the
> auth-capture operation is that the Foundation would
> never have to store credit card numbers in a database.
>
> Anyway, I'd be happy to help with more information or
> expertise, including with the technical implementation
> assuming my employer would not consider that a breach
> of contract... :/
>
>
...and I'd be happy to squish together some simple Python CGI /
mod_python code for doing the forms and transaction processing, if
anyone is interested. And, indeed, not having to store confidential
information is one of the benefits of this approach.

-- Neil


body:
On 12/1/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> No. We tried it and it didn't work.

It could, however, be made to work if it were integrated into the IRC
feeds and made to work with CDVF.  I think there would have to be some
bueaucracy with it, though.  There would have to be a level of user (I
know this is already programmed in) that can mark edits as patrolled,
and this would have to be separately granted.  It would just need a
little evidence of vandal fighting, just so the simple vandals can't
get in.

This doesn't seem unreasonable if it were to be programmed.

--
Sam


body:
On 12/1/05, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/1/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > No. We tried it and it didn't work.
>
> It could, however, be made to work if it were integrated into the IRC
> feeds and made to work with CDVF.  I think there would have to be some
> bueaucracy with it, though.  There would have to be a level of user (I
> know this is already programmed in) that can mark edits as patrolled,
> and this would have to be separately granted.  It would just need a
> little evidence of vandal fighting, just so the simple vandals can't
> get in.
>
> This doesn't seem unreasonable if it were to be programmed.
>
> --
> Sam

Have you any idea how fast wikipedia gets edited? the system breaks
down because by time someone could be looking at what edits have been
missed they are 50 edits ago and off the first page.

--
geni


subject:
[Foundation-l] Requiring a References section (was Re: Enforcing
	WP:CITE)

body:
Matt Brown wrote:
> On 12/1/05, SJ <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:

>>Why not?  Requiring a 'references' section for every article (thanking the
>>heavens that WP is not paper), and reminding every editor that *every* new
>>article should come with at least one reference, seems a responsible thing
>>to do.  Can you offer a reason not to have such a section for any article?

> I meant that more than that is hard to automate.  You're right that
> the bare minimals can be easily checked.  However, I can't see that we
> can automate much beyond that with ease.

On en:, even that will help a *great* deal.

>>If you're writing about one of those topics that is a) not private
>>research/analysis of your own, but b) has never been written about
>>anywhere else [that you know of], then we need a new class of references :
>>"personal observation by [user]", with a relevant tag not unlike the
>>original-reporting templates used on Wikinews.  Then it will be crystal
>>clear that readers should visit your page, and see whether they trust you
>>as the primary/original observer/author.

> Much of this falls under 'original research', doesn't it?  Or are you
> talking about the cases where someone believes that something is true
> but doesn't have the references to hand?

Either original research or that case. In that case, the personal
observation should go on the talk page for others to find a good
reference for.

- d.


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: [Foundation-l] Requiring a References section (was
 Re: Enforcing WP:CITE)


from_name: Travis Derouin

subject: [Wikitech-l] Squid caching issue

body:
Hi Brion,

Yep, I've done that. I've modified DefaultSettings.php:

 $wgUseSquid = true;
 $wgUseESI = false;
 $wgInternalServer = $wgServer;
$wgSquidMaxage = 18000;
$wgSquidServers = array('10.234.169.202');
$wgSquidServersNoPurge = array();
$wgMaxSquidPurgeTitles = 400;
$wgSquidFastPurge = true;

Squid and Apache are running on different servers, but that shouldn't
matter right? If you were referring to something further, can you
point me in the right direction? What do you mean by have Squid
rewrite that for downstream? Is there any more documentation on this
other than the page on meta.wikimedia.org?

Thanks,
travis

Travis Derouin wrote:
> HTTP/1.1 200 OK
> Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 19:31:03 GMT
> Server: Apache/2.0.46 (Red Hat)
> X-Powered-By: PHP/4.3.10
> Content-language: en
> Vary: Accept-Encoding,Cookie
> Cache-Control: s-maxage=18000, must-revalidate, max-age=0

You need to turn on squid mode, so that MediaWiki sends out a different max-age
for cacheable pages, and then have Squid rewrite that for downstream. Then squid
won't have to talk to the apache at all for cached hits for anonymous visitors
with no session cookies.

Otherwise Squid still has to hit Apache/MediaWiki for everything to check for
304s, which is a lot slower than being able to return directly from cache.

> But by tailing the logs and looking at how many times a popular page
> has been requested today, Apache is returning 200 codes for the same
> page just as many times as it is being requested from Squid, so Squid
> isn't serving any cached versions of the page.
>
> If the page hasn't changed, shouldn't it  be returning a 304 header
> response saying it hasn't been changed if Squid was working properly?

Probably should be; you might want to investigate that.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
Jama Poulsen:
> Has Ruby on Rails (http://www.rubyonrails.com) been considered for Wikidata?
> (from looking trough the Meta discussion page it seems this is not the case)

I've actually been hacking on a RoR app when Gerard came over here. He
had to drag me back screaming to work on Wikidata again. ;-) RoR is
beautiful indeed, in many ways (ugly in some), but the only way it would
be useful for Wikidata is if we implemented WD from scratch as something
separate of MediaWiki. That makes a limited amount of sense, since our
primary intended deployment are the Wikimedia projects.

We have considered using RoR to hack together some prototypes, but have
for now decided against it as we want to avoid further delays that would
be caused by throwaway code.

I am, however, trying to learn from RoR in that I want to come up with
some clever conventions for table and column names that can lead to very
quick deployment of simple applications, including applications which
require relations between tables. However, complex Wikidata applications
will need quite a bit of specialized coding, for which we're currently
contemplating a "hooks" model similar to the one used for extensions.

The Wikidata integration into MediaWiki is intended to be very deep.
The simplest Wikidata application would be a regular MediaWiki edit page
which, in addition to the normal text field, would have some other edit
field, say a date (this could be useful for Wikinews, for example).

In practice, Wikidata will require creating new tables with these
desired characteristics, which will then be hooked up to a namespace
(hence the current focus on namespace-related work). I've decided
against a fixed table model because I considered it not scalable for
complex applications, so a Wikidata table always corresponds to a real
table in the database (with some required minimum fields for versioning
the table and connecting it to a wiki page). Another advantage of this
approach is that specialized tools like phpMyAdmin can be used to design
the gist of the application.

I will publish my design specifications soon. This will also include
some more details about "Ultimate Wiktionary", which is really the main
thing we're working towards -- an incredibly complex and powerful
application built with Wikidata (and, very likely, tons of specialized
code). I hope that when we have these semi-final specs, we can put an
end to much speculation. By the end of the year, we also want to have a
prototype that demonstrates much of Wikidata as well as some
functionality that will be in Ultimate Wiktionary.

My main challenge at the moment is to find a scalable model for
versioning multiple tables with complex relations between them.
Versioning is necessary for the "wiki" in "Wikidata", but at some level
of complexity, it gets very tricky.

If anyone is interested in working on Wikidata, please contact me again
(you may have done so before - sorry if something fell through). We're
making substantial progress and are also exploring new sources of
funding for future development.

Best,

Erik


subject: [Foundation-l] Jimbo Wales = Sergey Brin = Bill Gates

body:
Apparently we're the next Microsoft after Google:

http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/topnews/wpn-60-20051201WikipediaistheNextGoogle.html

Good fucking God.

And dig CBS News' way with a headline:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2005/12/01/publiceye/entry1092784.shtml

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo Wales = Sergey Brin = Bill Gates


from_name: GerardM

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Openness is a means to an end. Nothing more

body:
Hoi,
I think that having the best encyclopedia and having a free encyclopedia do
not exclude each other at all. If anything they are complimentary to each
other. We cannot create the most widely-used encyclopedia when people are
not free to use it. We can discuss some exceptions to this necessary
freedom, but we all do agree on the need for the Wikipedias to be Free.

Both of you in my opinion put the content first. The community is essential
in achieving our goal. It cannot be underestimated what value our community
has. We can lose half our content because with our community we can easily
rebuild it. We will have a hard time to even hang on to our current content
if we lose our community. Our community has a focus and this can be found in
our projects.

However and this is the core argument, this community exists to have this
large, widely used, in many languages encyclopedia available to all people
who have a need for it. As a Wikimedia Foundation we should not let this be
enough. There is so much more information that people need. What good is an
encyclopedia if it is all we have to give.. The aim of the WMF is much
broader than just Wikipedia.. This can be achieved as well if we work
together, when we are inclusive and allow all our projects and communities
to prosper.

Thanks,
    GerardM

On 12/1/05, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
>
> Daniel Mayer wrote:
>
> >>>The entire goal of this project is freedom and openness.
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >That is incorrect. The entire goal of this project is to create the
> largest, most widely-used, and
> >best encyclopedia in the world and to give that to everybody on the
> planet. Everything else, and I
> >mean *everything* (including our openness and the community itself), is a
> means to *that* end.
> >Nothing more.
> >
> >
> I strongly disagree with that---that may be your goal (and perhaps
> Jimbo's), but a goal of a lot of people here is to create a Free (as in
> Freedom) encyclopedia as the primary end.  The fact that this increases
> its availability is quite nice, but the Freedom aspect is not merely a
> means to the end of increasing availability, but the end itself.  For me
> at least, and I suspect at least some number of other people, this is
> the *only* end---to produce a completely Free encyclopedia, which
> everyone is then free to use as they wish, save that they may not
> restrict others' right to do the same with their derived works.  This
> then allows any third party to fulfill whatever end they have in mind,
> including disseminating it to every person on earth, editing it into
> other works, producing WikiReaders, producing travel guides, using it as
> source material for literary works, or whatever else.
>
> Were this not true, there would be a rival Gnupedia that many of us
> would be working on instead---The Gnupedia proposal was withdrawn only
> because Wikipedia serves this goal already.
>
> -Mark
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: yet another image lost for posterity

body:
On 12/2/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> geni wrote:
>
> >On 12/1/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>That page has been edited nearly 100 times since.  It's tagged as
> >>official policy, but it's difficult to consider a page as representing
> >>policy when its text is so unstable. Since checking the background of
> >>each paragraph in a policy page would be unreasonable everything on the
> >>page is in doubt.
> >>
> >>
> >No in so far as policy is ment to reflect practice it is broadly correct.
> >
> >
> Being "broadly" correct doesn't help unless you accept the principle
> that these rules are only guidelines.  Failing that, even small changes
> in wording can alter the meaning of a "rule".
>
> Ec

As long as people continue to apply IAR to speedies CSD can never do
anything more than broadly reflect reality.

--
geni


from_name: Walter van Kalken

body:
>
>
>>If you're writing about one of those topics that is a) not private
>>research/analysis of your own, but b) has never been written about
>>anywhere else [that you know of], then we need a new class of references :
>>"personal observation by [user]", with a relevant tag not unlike the
>>original-reporting templates used on Wikinews.  Then it will be crystal
>>clear that readers should visit your page, and see whether they trust you
>>as the primary/original observer/author.
>>
>>
>
>Much of this falls under 'original research', doesn't it?  Or are you
>talking about the cases where someone believes that something is true
>but doesn't have the references to hand?
>
>
I am surprised that both you SJ and Mart are saying this. Obviously both
off you didn't read my case about the soi article on english wikipedia.
Which is an article like many which is almost impossibly referenced.
Since the two of you never read it I'll post it again here. And
according to the 2 of you this article which is perfectly well the truth
should be deleted because it is either not  referenced or "personal
research" ?

Waerth/Walter

The Soi case.

On the Dutch wikipedia I wrote the article [[soi]]. It was also written
on the english wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soi)

According to the CITE principal this article should be deleted right now
as it is not from a book nor a website, but partly from my own and any
Thais experience. Even though it contains pure facts which are the truth
it doesn't cite anything as no sources are used. Note I didn't write the
english article but it basicaly says the same as the Dutch article.

Facts:
/*1) Soi*/ (Thai <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_alphabet>: *???*) is
the term used in Thailand <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thailand> for a
side-street branching off a major street (/thanon
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thanon&action=edit>/). An
alley is called a /Trok
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trok&action=edit>/.

All true but do not have it from any book.

2) Sois are usually numbered, and are referred to by the name of the
major street and the number, as in "Sukhumvit Soi 4",

Also please come and have a look but not from any book

3) All the even-numbered sois are on one side of the street, the
odd-numbered ones on the other.

How do you want me to prove that from citations without flying you over
here?

4) If for instance a soi is added between soi 7 and soi 9 it will get
the name soi 7/1, the next one soi 7/2 etc.

Again fact new soi was added between 2 sois near my home got the 6/1
number as it was between sois 6 and 8. No sources sorry

5) Almost all sois also have a name.

I first wanted to be bolder as I have never seen a soi that doesn't also
have a name. But I decided to be a bit less sure about it

6) On lower Sukhumvit road in Bangkok for instance the soi's are named
after important landowners or families of landowners who had land in the
area in the past.

Verified with Thais whose families actually come from these landowners
and have been living in the area for a long time. Again no books.

7) Some sois become major thoroughfares and because of that get known by
their name only. Examples are Thonglor (Sukhumvit soi 55), Asoke
(Sukhumvit soi 21) etc.

Again plain fact. Books anyone?

So according to the CITE offensive this article and many like this
should be deleted even though there is nothing that is not the truth in
there. Is it original research? I do not think so. You see the problem
is when you start this CITE offensive one day one of our "police"
officers will find this article and put it up for deletion because there
are no sources. People take these so called guidelines much to strict
and cause damage with it.

This is why I would say be stricter on anons and newbies and maybe make
some kind of ranking of wikipedians that are known to work in good faith
or that are known IRL. Like me, anyone can always call me (see my
phonenumbers) I even put my homeaddress up once. I might not always be
able to quote directly where I got something from. But I am handling in
good faith.

And with me there are many people like me.


from_name: Delirium

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:

>The value of freedom is in its use. The fact that Wikipedia is free makes it much more useful. One
>reason I contribute is that I know my contributions will be kept free; again, that is a means to
>an end (getting people like me and you to add content and discourage viable forks by making it
>possible to easily incorporate any changes to the forked version).
>
>
Well yes, in a broad sense if there were no possible uses, then it would
not have much purposes.  But I don't see it as a means to any specific
end, certainly anything so specific as distributing an encyclopedia to
everyone in the world---a large body of Free high-quality information is
the end.  By the nature of Free information, other ends can then follow
by whoever wants them to follow, without them even having to get
permission from us.

I think where I seem to be differing at least from Jimbo, and possibly
from you, is that I don't see us as going for any specific one of the
possible uses that can be made, but instead as enabling all of them.  In
fact, I think it would be ideal if the Wikimedia Foundation were *not*
the one making all those uses---we will have succeeded if we produce a
high-quality free encyclopedia that enables thousands of third parties
to distribute, adapt, and use it however they wish, coordinating or not
with us as they please.

-Mark


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] Translation Barnstar Proposal

body:
On 12/2/05, SJ <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I added a couple comments.  I like both the rosetta and the
> interlingual barntars; each has its place.  --SJ
>
Great! Thanks!


from_name: Poe, Marshall

body:
David wrote:
>Apparently we're the next Microsoft after Google:
http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/topnews/wpn-60-20051201WikipediaistheN
extGoogle.html
>Good fucking God.

Don't get too excited. This article is what we call in the journalism
trade "fluff."  I might add, in addition, that it is wrong.  MS and
Google are powerful because they provide value and make billions; we
provide value (well, maybe not, ask Mr. Siegenthaler...)

Marshall Poe
The Atlantic Monthly
www.memorywiki.org

Marshall Poe, Ph.D.
The Atlantic Monthly
600 New Hampshire Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-266-6511
mpoe at theatlantic.com
-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 7:29 PM
To: English Wikipedia; Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: [Foundation-l] Jimbo Wales = Sergey Brin = Bill Gates

Apparently we're the next Microsoft after Google:

http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/topnews/wpn-60-20051201WikipediaistheN
extGoogle.html

Good fucking God.

And dig CBS News' way with a headline:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2005/12/01/publiceye/entry1092784.shtml

- d.

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


subject: [Wikipedia-l] the road to stability -- Yes! we have a winner!

body:
SJ wrote:
>Cooling/heating :  generate a crude 'trussst' metric; (# of edits +
length of activity) x (simple
>factor), with (factor) inculding some aspect of community recognition.
As an article cools, slowly raise the  >level of trussst needed to edit
it (and vice-versa).  If a would-be editor tries to edit the page,
artfully
>redirect to the talk page or a temp subpage, saying "please add your
suggested changes or modifications
>here. If you would like to work on a temporary copy of this
[section|article], you can do so here".

This is a good idea. Simple, elegant, reasonably objective and mostly
automated (low maintenance!). It would be interesting to "pressure test"
on some sort of beta, just to see the how many ways people could thing
to game it (and as we know, people are really clever...).

Marshall Poe
The Atlantic Monthly
www.memorywiki.org


from_name: Jeff McCready

subject: [WikiEN-l] Please unblock me

body:
To Whom it May Concern:

  I was unfairly blocked by nandesuka for allegedly violating the 3-revert rule.  I only reverted once.  In no way did I revert four times in a 24-hour period (or any other period for that matter).  I was unaware of the 3-revert rule prior to this incident.  I have since registered for an account with wikipedia and have become a subscriber to wikien.  I enjoy wikipedia and I like to correct errors which I have located with a high amount of frequency.

  Yours truly,

  neodanite

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Shopping
 Find Great Deals on Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping


from_name: Tobias Hoppenthaler

subject: [Wikitech-l] live - mirror oder einzelseite?

body:
Dear Wikipedians,

I'm currently working on a project for which we would like to use
content of de.wikipedia.org. We set up our own media wiki and if it is
searched and no article is found, we would like to query wikipedia on
that subject.
Now my question is: is this alright to do, because it would be just as
described from start content to end content and I thought that would not
be more trouble than a user reading it with its browser...
Please let me know whether it is alright or not... (don't want to cause
any trouble).

Thanks in advance,

Tobias Hoppenthaler

Hallo Wikipedianer,

ich arbeite z.Z. an einem Projekt, bei dem wir Inhalte aus der Wikipedia
wie folgt ?bernehmen wollen:
Es wird eine Anfrage auf unsere wiki (Mediawiki-Platform) gestellt und
wenn dort nix gefunden wird, dann sucht er in der wikipedia.de danach
und bindet den Artikel (HTML-Code zwischen <!-- start content -->
und<!-- end content -->) ein (nat?rlich mit den rechtlichen Hinweisen).
Nun meine Frage: ist das zul?ssig? Ich werde aus dem Text auf der Seite

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_anderswo_verwenden

nicht ganz schlau (in Bezug auf Live-Einbindung usw.). Also eigentlich
ist das ja nichts anderes, als eine ganz normale http-Anfrage. Das
sollte doch kein Problem darstellen, oder?

Aber bevor ich da weitermache, w??te ich nat?rlich gerne ob es legitim
ist, oder nicht.

Vielen Dank f?r die Hilfe!

MfG

Tobias Hoppenthaler


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [WikiEN-l] [Fwd: Deletion of our John Coleman Burroughs entry]

body:
Hi!  I am forwarding your letter to the appropriate place for it to be
dealt with but wanted to add a personal note of thanks and a short
explanation of my own.

We were not accusing you or your organization of copyright infringement,
 but rather what we perceived to be an anonymous user infringing on your
copyrights.  Since the text came directly from your website, we thought
someone had simply taken it from you without your permission.  We act
swiftly in such cases to protect your rights.

Someone will contact you through the official address of the website to
confirm and then we'll be able to use your contribution.  Please do
understand, of course, that it will be edited considerably over time. :)

--Jimbo

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Deletion of our John Coleman Burroughs entry
Date: 	Fri, 2 Dec 2005 02:22:26 -0600
From: 	Bill and Sue-On Hillman <hillmans at westman.wave.ca>
To: 	<jwales at wikia.com>

I am Webmaster for the Official John Coleman Burroughs Tribute site
www.JohnColemanBurroughs.com <http://www.JohnColemanBurroughs.com>
employed by Edgar Rice Burroughs, Inc. of Tarzana, California headed by
the son of John Coleman Burroughs -- Danton Burroughs.
I contributed a John Coleman Burroughs entry to Wikipedia months ago,
using text that I and Danton had created for the Web site.
Your editors immediately accused my of copyright infringement and have
deleted the text . . . leaving everything in limbo and giving our
organization a bad name.

Please review this situation. We would appreciate it if you have
questions as to the authenticity and legality of the submission that you
contact us.
Bill Hillman
www.JohnColemanBurroughs.com <http://www.JohnColemanBurroughs.com>
www.Tarzan.com <http://www.Tarzan.com>

Tarzan at westman.wave.ca <mailto:Tarzan at westman.wave.ca>


from_name: SJ

subject: [Foundation-l] Enforcing WP:CITE the Soi case

body:
On 11/30/05, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
> The Soi case.
>
> On the Dutch wikipedia I wrote the article [[soi]]. It was also written
> on the english wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soi)
>
> According to the CITE principal this article should be deleted right now

Actually, a quick google search turned up a few relevant citations
(one from Wikitravel, in fact).  I added them to the English article.
It is very very hard to find articles which are at once encyclopedic
and verifiable, but have no suitable reference either online or in
print.  I cannot think of an example atm.

++SJ


from_name: Andrew Lih

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo Wales = Sergey Brin = Bill Gates

body:
On 12/2/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> Apparently we're the next Microsoft after Google:
>
> http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/topnews/wpn-60-20051201WikipediaistheNextGoogle.html
>
> Good fucking God.
>
> And dig CBS News' way with a headline:
>
>     http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2005/12/01/publiceye/entry1092784.shtml

Not to be a nit. But it's interesting that the CBS poster criticizes
accuracy, but consistently spells "John Siegenthaler [sic]"
incorrectly throughout his blog post. If only there was a way that
people could edit and correct such mistakes... hmm...

-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)


body:
On Fri, 2 Dec 2005, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> SJ wrote:
>> On 11/30/05, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The Soi case.
>>>
>>> On the Dutch wikipedia I wrote the article [[soi]]. It was also written
>>> on the english wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soi)
>>>
>>> According to the CITE principal this article should be deleted right now
>>>
>>
>> Actually, a quick google search turned up a few relevant citations
>> (one from Wikitravel, in fact).  I added them to the English article. It is
>> very very hard to find articles which are at once encyclopedic
>> and verifiable, but have no suitable reference either online or in
>> print.  I cannot think of an example atm.
>>
>> ++SJ
>
> Hoi,
> I find it remarkable that this CITE thing may break one of our fundamental
> reasons for success. It will drive people away when it is used as a tool to
> justify deletions. Why will it drive people away, because it raises the entry

This should *never* be used to justify deletions.  Ever.  But it should be
used to justify tagging articles as unsourced; or marking them for
cleanup... just as we tag articles as stubs, or as unwikified blobs of
text, when that is what they are.  Of course, writing more than 2
paragrapyhs, or wikifying raw text, 'raises the entry level' -- so we do
not require it.

But we *do* require it for 'good style' and acceptance into the circle
of enlightened articlehood.

> Having citations is a good thing but please realise that it is best used when
> controversies arise.

Having citations is fundamental to being a good reference work.

This is *not* ( I say it again ) related to deletion policy.

SJ


from_name: Thomas Koll

body:
Am 02.12.2005 um 08:27 schrieb Tobias Hoppenthaler:

> Dear Wikipedians,
>
> I'm currently working on a project for which we would like to use
> content of de.wikipedia.org. We set up our own media wiki and if it
> is searched and no article is found, we would like to query
> wikipedia on that subject.
> Now my question is: is this alright to do, because it would be just
> as described from start content to end content and I thought that
> would not be more trouble than a user reading it with its browser...
> Please let me know whether it is alright or not... (don't want to
> cause any trouble).

What's so hard to understand in "Komplette Inhalte live von den
Servern zu beziehen und auf fremden Websites einzubinden ist
untersagt," ? It's a clear no and usually live-mirrors get blocked by
the sysops.

I'd suggest to install a complete mirror and set up the Arcticle-not-
found page to explain where to find the article. Automatic
redirection would cause quite a lot of traffic because robots would
follow those links.

ciao, tom
--
http://www.tomk32.de - just a geek trying to change the world
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:TomK32
http://verlag.tomk32.de/c/wrdigest


from_name: Sabine Cretella

body:
Well I would say: people are trying to write about wikipedia and do not
really care about what they write (it is a "hot theme" actually ... this
is shown by many articles that are against Wikipedia or for Wikipedia -
most articles are written to be sold - or to become known as a good
reporter or whatsoever.

So just take the articles as what they are (ways to make buzz) and go
ahead working on the projects without caring too much about that.

Please note that negative articles are not always really negative.
People react more to negative news than to positive ones - so having
negative news means that more people will look at "that page" mentioned
in an article - and if that page is good they will say to themselves "I
don't know what this guy has ... it is ok" ... so the negative news
has/had a positive effect in the end.

Consider how you react to news ... do you really believe anything or do
you have a look at things and then decide?

Just my 2 ct's on this :-)

Ciao, Sabine

David Gerard wrote:

>Apparently we're the next Microsoft after Google:
>
>http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/topnews/wpn-60-20051201WikipediaistheNextGoogle.html
>
>Good fucking God.
>
>And dig CBS News' way with a headline:
>
>    http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2005/12/01/publiceye/entry1092784.shtml
>
>
>- d.
>
>
>

___________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger: chiamate gratuite in tutto il mondo
http://it.messenger.yahoo.com


from_name: Xed Mac

subject: [Wikitech-l] Using mwdumper.jar on OS X

body:
I'm starting to think it's impossible

--- Xed Mac <xed2507 at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Well, these are the steps I took:
>
>
/usr/local/mysql-standard-5.0.16-osx10.4-powerpc/bin/mysql
> -u root -p wikidb
>
> SOURCE
> /Users/xed/Sites/mediawiki/maintenance/tables.sql
>
> ....which got:
> Query OK, 0 rows affected, 1 warning (0.17 sec)
>
> Query OK, 0 rows affected, 1 warning (0.00 sec)
>
> Query OK, 0 rows affected (0.04 sec)
>
> Query OK, 0 rows affected, 1 warning (0.03 sec)
>
> Query OK, 0 rows affected, 1 warning (0.01 sec)
>
> Query OK, 0 rows affected, 1 warning (0.00 sec)
>
> Query OK, 0 rows affected, 1 warning (0.01 sec)
>
> Query OK, 0 rows affected, 1 warning (0.01 sec)
>
> Query OK, 0 rows affected, 1 warning (0.01 sec)
>
> Query OK, 0 rows affected, 1 warning (0.00 sec)
>
> Query OK, 0 rows affected, 1 warning (0.01 sec)
>
> Query OK, 0 rows affected, 1 warning (0.00 sec)
>
> Query OK, 0 rows affected, 1 warning (0.06 sec)
>
> Query OK, 0 rows affected, 1 warning (0.01 sec)
>
> Query OK, 0 rows affected, 1 warning (0.03 sec)
>
> Query OK, 0 rows affected, 1 warning (0.02 sec)
>
> Query OK, 0 rows affected, 1 warning (0.00 sec)
>
> Query OK, 0 rows affected, 1 warning (0.01 sec)
>
> Query OK, 0 rows affected, 1 warning (0.00 sec)
>
> Query OK, 0 rows affected, 1 warning (0.01 sec)
>
> Query OK, 0 rows affected, 1 warning (0.00 sec)
>
> Query OK, 0 rows affected, 1 warning (0.00 sec)
>
> Query OK, 0 rows affected, 1 warning (0.00 sec)
>
> Query OK, 0 rows affected, 1 warning (0.01 sec)
>
> Query OK, 0 rows affected (0.01 sec)
>
> Then I did:
>
/System/Library/Frameworks/JavaVM.framework/Versions/1.5/Commands/java
> -jar -Xmx512m -Xms256m
> /Users/xed/Desktop/mwdumper.jar
> --format=sql:1.5
> /Users/xed/Desktop/20051127_pages_articles.xml.bz2 |
>
/usr/local/mysql-standard-5.0.16-osx10.4-powerpc/bin/mysql
> -u wikiuser -p wikidb
>
> ...and it stepped thru (without errors) from:
> 1,000 pages (91.033/sec), 1,000 revs (91.033/sec)
>
> ...to..
>
> 2,136,559 pages (189.635/sec), 2,136,559 revs
> (189.635/sec)
>
>
> > You tell me! I assume that you:
> >
> > 1) Watched for errors during the import, and
> logged
> > it all to a file you can now
> > review.
>
> How do I do that?
>
> > 2) Looked in the database to see what's there
>
> How do I do that?
>
> The pages don't appear in my Wiki.
>
> Thanks
> Xed
>
>
>
>
___________________________________________________________
>
> Yahoo! Model Search 2005 - Find the next catwalk
> superstars -
> http://uk.news.yahoo.com/hot/model-search/
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>

___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Walter van Kalken wrote:

>>> Having citations is a good thing but please realise that it is best
>>> used when controversies arise.
>>
>> Having citations is fundamental to being a good reference work.
>>
>> This is *not* ( I say it again ) related to deletion policy.
>>
>> SJ
>
> Yes SJ you will be able to handle it in a correct matter and so will
> many other wikipedians. But you must admit we have a group of users
> who will read this and take it as a golden rule and start upsetting
> people. There are lots of wikipedians who simply do not read something
> as a whole. They just read MUST CITE and that is what they'll remember
> and they go on causing havoc. And it will be worse in other languages.
> More than once I had to stop somebody who was citing english wikipedia
> rules which are not applicable to nl.wikipedia.
>
> Now you and me unfortunately do not have the time to watch the
> respective wikis we work on 24 hours a day. So before you start
> writing this down please thank about it.

It's always comforting to hear voices of reason. :-)

Unfortunately those who fixate on "MUST CITE" are also prone to ignore
<big><bold>MUST USE COMMON SENSE</bold></big>.  Sigh!  Is a four word
rule so much more difficult than a two word rule?  ... even when you
point out that there is an identical word in both?

Ec


body:
That's a problem similar to one I see with categories.
We need a way to record which articles an image has been on (not the
other way around) and we also need to see how a category changes.

Right now, we can only see it clearly if someone removes a cat if
we're looking at the article, while looking at the entire cat should
be sufficient.

Mgm

On 12/2/05, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com> wrote:
> I unexpectedly found myself in Anthere's position today - checked on
> my gallery of fair use postage stamp images today, and as expected,
> images for which I hadn't yet written the article had been deleted,
> but also some images long used in my article about Austrian stamps.
> Turns out that some anon had emptied out half the article, this went
> unnoticed for several weeks (it's on my watchlist, but must not have
> checked it that day), then while I was on vacation and not examining
> watchlist daily, the bot came along, marked the images as orphans,
> and a couple weeks later somebody else deleted. After *that* a nice
> anon quietly restored the article, leaving it unclear why the images
> were deleted in the first place.
>
> No moral to the story, except perhaps that figuring all this out (and
> re-uploading from my backup copies) is time that could have gone into
> content development. I suspect all this publicity is going to bring
> a new crop of vandals wanting to "prove" that WP is a failure, so
> even more time will go into defending rather than improving.
>
> Stan
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] The difficulty of retaining volunteer writers

body:
Don't panic.

Fred

On Dec 2, 2005, at 9:56 AM, Poor, Edmund W wrote:

> So what's the solution? What is the solution for all of us?


body:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:

> I find it remarkable that this CITE thing may break one of our
> fundamental reasons for success. It will drive people away when it is
> used as a tool to justify deletions. Why will it drive people away,
> because it raises the entry level to a point where many people will
> just no longer bother to do something. Yes, there may be an EDIT
> button, but without a citation it will be gone.
>
> Having citations is a good thing but please realise that it is best
> used when controversies arise. It is then part of the instrumentarium
> to come to a NPOV. When it used on its own I expect it to prove
> disastrous for the influx of new people into our community. Certainly
> if this is deemed to be necessary to be  followed by all the projects
> that do not have the maturity of the English language wikipedia.
>
> So, when you in the en.wikipedia decide to have this new deletion
> policy, consider the fallout it may have elsewhere.

This is the back to basics argument.  It's amazing how well it works in
so many different circumstances.

Success is a poison pill.  It can be deadly if you use it without
understanding the instructions.

Ec


body:
SJ wrote:

>On 11/30/05, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
>
>
>>The Soi case.
>>
>>On the Dutch wikipedia I wrote the article [[soi]]. It was also written
>>on the english wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soi)
>>
>>According to the CITE principal this article should be deleted right now
>>
>>
>Actually, a quick google search turned up a few relevant citations
>(one from Wikitravel, in fact).  I added them to the English article.
>It is very very hard to find articles which are at once encyclopedic
>and verifiable, but have no suitable reference either online or in
>print.  I cannot think of an example atm.
>
This is the things-we-take-for-granted category of articles.  We may
dispute why they were done that way, but it's unquestionable that it's
the way it's done.

In North America house numbering is even on one side of the road and odd
on the other. In some places the numbers start from 1 where the road
begins, and in others it conforms to a predetermined grid of "100"
blocks.  It took a while to understand when I was looking for an address
in London that the numbers went up one side to the end and down the
other.  Tokyo took a different kind of adjustment when I found the
numbers going around the block.

We become accustomed to the way things are done in our home towns, and
never think of needing citations to prove it.

Ec


from_name: Stan Shebs

body:
Steve Block wrote:

> MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
>
>> We need a way to record which articles an image has been on (not the
>> other way around) and we also need to see how a category changes.
>>
>
> The use of {{tl|fairusein}} will let a user know where the image is
> intended to be used.  It might also be worth noting the information on
> the image talk page.

In fact I started using it last night when doing a pass over the
fair use category (the "fairuse" tag helpfully suggests it).

A requirement for two-way linkage between image and article seems
like the right long-term strategy, because checking can be automated,
and garden-variety vandalism is unlikely to break both links
simultaneously.

Stan


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: moderation of mark williamson

body:
SJ wrote:
> On 11/30/05, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Gerrit Holl wrote:
>>
>>>In my opinion moderation is not at all necessary. It was at least two
>>>sides that were behaving impolite. FWIW, I disagree with this decision.
>>>
>>>Gerrit.
>
>
> I do wish he were more polite more of the time.  However I don't
> normally find his posts offensive; he is certainly far less so than
> many of the trolls whom we have allowed to bombard this list with what
> truly amounts to spam.
>
>
>>So, what is exactly moderation ? If mails are not posted, it is not
>>moderation, it is censorship. So, I release the mails and will remove
>>the moderation block soon.
>
>
> Thank you.  I was wondering whether he had simply stopped posting...
>
> ++SJ

Released another one. Unless someone disagree and have good arguments, I
will remove the moderation on monday.

ant


from_name: Nicholas Moreau

body:
Interesting that CBS' article name "Wicked-pedia" was a rejected name for
Wikijunior. We could've got them on trademark infringement.

Nick


body:
Sabine Cretella wrote:

> Please note that negative articles are not always really negative.
> People react more to negative news than to positive ones - so having
> negative news means that more people will look at "that page"
> mentioned in an article - and if that page is good they will say to
> themselves "I don't know what this guy has ... it is ok" ... so the
> negative news has/had a positive effect in the end.

It's a reminder of the old quote, (with apologies that I can't CITE the
source. :-) ), "You can say anything you want about me as long as you
spell my name correctly."

Ec


body:
David Gerard wrote:

>Apparently we're the next Microsoft after Google:
>
>http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/topnews/wpn-60-20051201WikipediaistheNextGoogle.html
>
>Good fucking God.
>
>And dig CBS News' way with a headline:
>
>    http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2005/12/01/publiceye/entry1092784.shtml
>
>
>
King Disrupter III!  We've come a long way since Socrates was a mere gadfly.

Ec


from_name: Kat Walsh

body:
On 12/2/05, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> Hi!  I am forwarding your letter to the appropriate place for it to be
> dealt with but wanted to add a personal note of thanks and a short
> explanation of my own.

Actually he didn't forward it to the appropriate place. :-) But if
you're a friendly and clueful person who'd like to help doing this
sort of thing, please send me an email about volunteering for the help
desk!

Oh, and the article could use some cleanup for encyclopedic style...

-Kat
[[User:Mindspillage]]

--
"There was a point to this story, but it has temporarily
escaped the chronicler's mind."  --Douglas Adams


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

body:
SlimVirgin is about to leave, and Essjay has already left.
And I'm so upset by recent events that I'm poised on the brink,
too. It seems the only way to deal with breakdowns in
collegiality is simply to leave - or say you're considering
it.

The emotional cost - not to mention the time cost - of stopping
a fellow contributor from directing abusive language at
another contributor has always been rather high, but it has
reached a new high of late.

By defending SlimVirgin against what FuelWagon HIMSELF conceded
was an "accusation" (his words), I find myself hauled before the
arbitration committee. I am told that I must say something in
MY DEFENSE, with dark hints of un-mentioned adverse consequences
to me if I just leave it alone.

It's just too much trouble to sift through FuelWagon's 2000+
word statement (which should only be 500, by the way).

He made a personal attack, I blocked his account for 3 hours.
No one has told me (by email, IRC, or wiki talk page) that I
have done wrong in this.

And yet I feel embattled.

I'm labeled the bad guy.

This is not an environment conducive to collaboration, and I am
reminded of what Yogi Berra said: "If people want to stay away
from the ballpark, you can't make them."

For those unfamiliar with Yogi-isms, this translates to
thousands of potential contributors simply staying away from
Wikipedia.

Not because it's hard to edit,
 but because it's hard to defend the edit.

Not because it's hard to discuss topic "whatever",
 but because it's hard to endure the name-calling,
 humiliation and accusation on [[talk:whatever]].

Perhaps I've been too bold in trying to take matters into my own
hands. So be it. I'm a dinosaur, I'm not scaling with the project.

Okay. Fine. I'll do whatever I'm told. Ask mav: if I'm told what
to do, I do it.

So what's the solution? What is the solution for all of us?

Ed Poor (in exile)


body:
We do need to look at what happened. We have the same problem Ed has,
a lengthy and confusing complaint. Our practice is to assume good
faith and try to figure out if there was anything to it. We may have
an automatic reaction but Ed good, FuelWagon bad is no good.

Fred

On Dec 2, 2005, at 11:25 AM, Jim wrote:

> On 12/2/05, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Don't panic.
>>
>> Fred
>>
>> On Dec 2, 2005, at 9:56 AM, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>>
>>
>>> So what's the solution? What is the solution for all of us?
>>>
>
>
> Fred,
>
> Since you are both a member of the arbitration committee and a
> lawyer - have
> you thought about implementing a kind of summary judgment (with
> rule 11 type
> sanctions for those that bring a case in bad faith even) ruling for
> this
> situation: i.e. just having a 10-0 or 9-1 quick ruling. I know that
> failure
> to hear a complaint is that type of situation, but it fails to
> provide the
> accused with any kind of way to feel like things are ok. A "we are
> tossing
> this for cause" type ruling would be much better.
>
> Jim
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Carbonite

body:
On 12/2/05, Poor, Edmund W <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
>
>
> The emotional cost - not to mention the time cost - of stopping
> a fellow contributor from directing abusive language at
> another contributor has always been rather high, but it has
> reached a new high of late.
>
> By defending SlimVirgin against what FuelWagon HIMSELF conceded
> was an "accusation" (his words), I find myself hauled before the
> arbitration committee. I am told that I must say something in
> MY DEFENSE, with dark hints of un-mentioned adverse consequences
> to me if I just leave it alone.

For what its worth, FuelWagon has now turned Jayjg's ArbCom candidate
question page into his own personal battleground. FuelWagon's
"questions" span five sub-sections, have dozens of diffs and are filled with
endless rhetorical statements. However, this doesn't even begin to compare
with the 16 section response to his RfC a while back: (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/FuelWagon_2).

Ed's right, the system's not working here.

Carbonite


from_name: Jim

body:
On 12/2/05, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>
> Don't panic.
>
> Fred
>
> On Dec 2, 2005, at 9:56 AM, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>
> > So what's the solution? What is the solution for all of us?

Fred,

Since you are both a member of the arbitration committee and a lawyer - have
you thought about implementing a kind of summary judgment (with rule 11 type
sanctions for those that bring a case in bad faith even) ruling for this
situation: i.e. just having a 10-0 or 9-1 quick ruling. I know that failure
to hear a complaint is that type of situation, but it fails to provide the
accused with any kind of way to feel like things are ok. A "we are tossing
this for cause" type ruling would be much better.

Jim


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: [Foundation-l] Requiring a References section
	(was Re: Enforcing WP:CITE)

body:
David Gerard wrote:

>Matt Brown wrote:
>
>
>>On 12/1/05, SJ <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Why not?  Requiring a 'references' section for every article (thanking the
>>>heavens that WP is not paper), and reminding every editor that *every* new
>>>article should come with at least one reference, seems a responsible thing
>>>to do.  Can you offer a reason not to have such a section for any article?
>>>
>>>
>>I meant that more than that is hard to automate.  You're right that
>>the bare minimals can be easily checked.  However, I can't see that we
>>can automate much beyond that with ease.
>>
>>
>On en:, even that will help a *great* deal.
>
>
For the article in question it would have accomplished nothing.  A
malicious person could have added a totally fictious reference to the
"Atlantic Monthly" for December 1964, and no-one would have been wiser.
Marshall may have had easy access to that issue to verify the fact or
not, but unless he had occasion to look at the Seigenthaler article it
would never occur to him to check it out.

A precondition to fixing the article would be to read it critically in
the first place.  The spelling error could have been caught by a bot,
and corrected by a person focused only on correcting spelling errors
without needing to read the article.

The statement in the article was certainly offensive, but not likely
libellous.  It stated that there were claims that Seigenthaler was
involved in the assassinations, and that those claims were shown to be
wrong.  It did not say that he was in fact involved.  Early claims about
the Oklahoma City bombing were that it was the work of terrorists from
the Middle East.   The simple fact that such claims were being made is a
credible one, just as much as the comment that they were soon shown to
be false.

What needed checking and referencing was the specific claim about his
involvement in the assassinations.  A bibliographic note at the end
would not have sufficed.  If it turns out that some reasonably reputable
publication did run these comments (including mention of exonoration) in
1964 where would that put us?

The media are not always kind to those whom they perceive to be guilty.
A dramatic takedown and arrest is good for the TV ratings.  The
meticulous evidence that exculpates someone has the show stopping impact
of drying paint.  (Now that golf is popular on television, and even has
its own channel, maybe times are changing. ;-) )  Unfortunately, even
false rumours become part of the historical weave.

Ec


body:
On 12/2/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
> >>>On Fri, 2 Dec 2005, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> >>> Having citations is a good thing but please realise that it is best
> >>> used when controversies arise.
> >>
> >> SJ wrote:
> >> Having citations is fundamental to being a good reference work.
> >>
> >> This is *not* ( I say it again ) related to deletion policy.
> >
> Walter van Kalken wrote:
> > Yes SJ you will be able to handle it in a correct matter and so will
> > many other wikipedians.

The policy says: "The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and reliable
encyclopedia. Verifiability is the key to becoming a reliable resource, so
editors should cite credible
sources<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cite_sources>so that
their edits can be easily verified by readers and other editors."

I see no problem with citing to "the experience of anyone in the society."
And although a controversy may arise - usually something so common will have
citations available somewhere and smart people will be able to find them -
as they did here. If not, as someone else said - appeal to common sense.

Jim


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject:
[Foundation-l] Update on language codes and Wikidata/Ultimate
	Wiktionary

body:
Hoi,
I found a nice update on the ISO 639-3 website ..
http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/default.asp is where you can even find a
nice introductory page on the next version of this standard. For the
hardcore language nuts among us there is even a nice download available
including instructions on how to create an SQL table.

In the first public genuine Wikidata outing, we will show you the GEMET
data in a true Wikidata environment. For those who do not know, GEMET is
a thesaurus with ecological content produced for/by the European Union.
Our aim is to be able to have this on line before Christmas, it will be
a read only implementation.

We will also include the ISO-639-3 codes. As you may know, Wiktionary
has the explicit aim to include all words of all languages. Ultimate
Wiktionary (UW) shares this aim and shares the practice with the many
wiktionary that we explicitly intent to include all lexicological
content. As UW intends to eat its own dog food, we want to have
localised labels for the languages chosen by the user for the User
Interface. When localisation for a term is not available, we will have
English as the lingua franca of this day and age.

The consequence is that there will be a clear difference between the
user interface of Ultimate Wiktionary and the user interface of
Mediawiki. UW does not intent to endorse a language for new projects,
but it is likely that people will be stimulated to work on the Mediawiki
user interface in order to have a user interface that is completely
localised. I expect that people appreciate this difference.

In the ISO-639-3 codes there will be languages that have not been
recognised. Having ISO-639 recognition is not necessary for inclusion in
Ultimate Wiktionary.. There is only one thing that we will insist on,
the acceptance of a code for this language, dialect or orthography that
is acceptable for potential projects within the Wikimedia Foundation.
Again, it is not to be seen as an endorsement for a language to have a
project, it is intended to make sure that such a code has been
"future-proofed".

Thanks,
   GerardM


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Update on language codes and Wikidata/Ultimate
	Wiktionary


list: wiktionary-l

subject:
[Wiktionary-l] Update on language codes and Wikidata/Ultimate
	Wiktionary


from_name: Brian

body:
As Danny has repeatedly mentioned, normal published textbooks, including
encyclopedias, have every single fact cited and checked before the
publisher will go on with printing the book. These citations aren't made
public, but they are done, nonetheless. Why should we be any different?
This doesn't necessarily mean putting 1000 sources in the reference
section. There are other options we can consider, or new ways of citing
content online, that are different from the methods used in printed books.

Jim wrote:

>On 12/2/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>>>On Fri, 2 Dec 2005, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>>>>>Having citations is a good thing but please realise that it is best
>>>>>used when controversies arise.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>SJ wrote:
>>>>Having citations is fundamental to being a good reference work.
>>>>
>>>>This is *not* ( I say it again ) related to deletion policy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>Walter van Kalken wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Yes SJ you will be able to handle it in a correct matter and so will
>>>many other wikipedians.
>>>
>>>
>
>
>The policy says: "The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and reliable
>encyclopedia. Verifiability is the key to becoming a reliable resource, so
>editors should cite credible
>sources<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cite_sources>so that
>their edits can be easily verified by readers and other editors."
>
>I see no problem with citing to "the experience of anyone in the society."
>And although a controversy may arise - usually something so common will have
>citations available somewhere and smart people will be able to find them -
>as they did here. If not, as someone else said - appeal to common sense.
>
>Jim
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>