from_name: Jeroen Heijmans

body:
Once again, because my previous post did not result in any action:

To those with the power to do so: could you please revoke my sysop status?
I no longer have the will and the time to carry the responsibility that
comes with administratorship. Reading discussions (e.g. on Wikipedia-L) is
taking too much time and bringing too little enjoyment or satisfaction for
me to continue doing it. I'd much rather withdraw myself from that and
focus on writing and editing instead, without being "bothered" by the -
implicit - responsibilities of a sysop.

Jeronimo


list: wikipedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Steve Callaway

subject: [Wikipedia-l] voting

body:
While the rest of the world came to to the conclusion that America is just a jumped up banana-republic junta run by a bunch of crypto-fascists with a finger glued permanently to the self-destruct button a long time ago, you're not allowed to point it out in Wikipedia. How thoroughly refreshing to be working on such an enlightened project. Dickens' Ministry of Circumlocution would have been proud of the people who deleted that page.

rgds

Steve Callaway
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Bridget [name omitted for privacy reasons]
  To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
  Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 11:19 PM
  Subject: [Wikipedia-l] voting

  We need voting. Some people here are advocating for a "republic". Who are they to declare that they are an expert on experts? We must have voting. There are issues to be resolved. Obviously we do not want to be dominated by a "majority" of generated IPs. But we must have voting.

  We must end the nonsense. Never again must a page like, "Anti-American Wikipedians" be deleted on the say-so of some elitist. We must vote on such issues. Never again should the name of Munchen or Colombo be decided by some American with administrative powers. We must vote on such issues and we must start this voting process soon.

  Democracy is a difficult concept. Should we accept it we are then facecd with the decision of whether to have a representative or pure democracy. I argue, in the spirit of the founding fathers of America (who argued for a blend between a republic and a pure democracy ie the representative democracy), I argue for a blend between the pure democracy and the representative democracy.

  We must have a vote. This first vote is very simple. It will ask

  Should we start voting?

  One can either say Yes, No, or give a user name. If you give a user name then your vote will be identical to that users vote. In that manner, somebody that is unsure of what to vote for, can give way to another whom they believe will make the correct choice.

  Once we have a decision to start voting we can then work out the details of such a proces, THROUGH VOTING.

  There is one minor detail that must be decided and that is, "Who can vote in this first question?" Shall we limit it to mav and larry sanger? Perhaps we will let Epopt and Cunctuator contribute their opinion as well. On the other hand we could let everyone vote and Fucking Asshole, Lear, and 63.32 will weigh in heavily with their opinions.

  This decision must be made. We must vote and we must choose who can vote.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Do you Yahoo!?
  U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive medley & videos from Greatest Hits CD
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021111/cf2189fe/attachment.htm


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Wikipedia-l] LAG

body:
> So what do we need table locking for? You want me to fix it for you? Should
> I join the developers mailing list?

Ed,

we could definitely use your help on wikitech-l, there's a lot of
optimizable SQL, some tables aren't indexed where they should be, the PHP
code can probably also use some tweaking. Particularly high load
operations are internal link resolution (see my recent wikitech-l mail)
and orphaned pages listing (haven't tested the latter on the main
Wikipedia because it took so long on my local install).

Regards,

Erik


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Our options; *your* opinion requested

body:
Larry,

good idea. I presume you wrote this before reading my response to your
last mail, so here are my additions.

> ISSUE 1.  The problem or lack thereof.

> PRO: There is indeed a serious problem now on Wikipedia.  Many newbies
> (and some people who have been here for a while) brazenly violate the
> basic defining rules of our community, and presently, neither peer
> pressure, nor following violators around constantly, nor the occasional
> actual sanction seems to be solving this problem.  Well-respected, clearly
> productive members of the community are driven away by having to deal with
> these people or such behaviors, and this is a really serious problem.

OTHER:
I see two possible problems: a problem of simple, easy to discern
vandalism and nonsense on the one hand and not so simple to evaluate
violations of group policy on the other hand. I submit that vandalism is a
significant and possibly growing problem that is not properly addressed,
because, while it's simple to solve, too few people are involved in its
solution (too few sysops), but increasing their number also increases the
risks of abuse and error. The current administration is therefore not
scalable.

I do consider the problem of regular users who break rules significant,
but not urgent, and believe that our policy needs to focus on
rehabilitation. I further submit that we do, in fact, need a decision
process to decide which policies we want to enforce against regular users
and how much leeway we want to give them, i.e. to which extent we want to
rely on "soft security".

> ISSUE 2.  What to do about the problem, if anything.

OTHER:
The Open Voting Option: Users can create two types of polls, inquiry polls
(non binding) and policy polls (binding, with enforcement). Only a smaller
group of users (still larger than the current admin group) can create
policy polls, but the same group of users (e.g. everyone with >=n
contributions) can vote in both types of polls. Policy polls can contain
only specific types of options: ban user X, delete page Y, etc., but still
follow the same discussion/voting principle.

Polls get their own namespace, and on the page where the poll is, users
can also provide arguments for or against the different options. So I
would go to [[Poll:Ban Lir]] and could see the different opinions and vote
on them.

         PRO                                  CONTRA
         Lir has made many silly              Lir has made xx valuable
         contributions and can't              contributions and is trying
         be trusted                           to improve her behavior

                              VOTE

                              Yes              [ ]
                              No               [ ]
                              Don't care       [ ]
                              More info needed [ ]
                  .. other standard options for policy polls? ..

Inquiry polls would allow the options to be defined freely and primarily
be used to gather opinions in less extreme conflicts among reasonable
persons. As voting styles, both first-past-the-post (winner takes all) and
preferential voting are reasonably simple and should be supported, policy
polls work better with fpp voting (clearly distinct options).

Recently added polls would be listed on a separate page like
Recent_changes.  The poll would be closed after a given timespan, defined
by the person who creates it. For policy polls, depending on the type of
action, we could set different threshold for whether we want to take it,
e.g. banning an anon user should be easier than banning a signed in user.
Minimum number of votes may be necessary, but not too high.

Possible problems:
- we need to develop effective ways to deal with vote flooding in the long
term (the system can be designed to repel basic attacks)
- ??

Regards,

Erik


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Sidebar change, comments?

body:
> "What links here" doesn't need a question mark

Alright, I hear you. I'll apply the patch without the questionmark.

Regards,

Erik


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Our options; *your* opinion requested

body:
> I vote for this option

Since you are voting already, would you mind commenting on my voting
proposal?

Regards,

Erik


from_name: The Cunctator

body:
On Tue, 2002-11-12 at 01:07, Toby Bartels wrote:
<snip>
> Banning users like Helga and Lir, however, needs clarified rules,
> which will allow people to apply them consistently,
> and I'm glad that you have said that you want these rules to be lenient,
> because then you'll be on my side in the proposed debate ^_^.
> We're not in a crisis situation with regards to this issue,
> but we can still get ready for the next time.
>
Considering that only Helga has been banned, it might be healthier not
to stick Lir in with her.

Otherwise I concur with Mr. Bartels.


list: sifter-l

source: wayback-mbox

from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: Re: [Sifter-l] RE: name

body:
On Tuesday 12 November 2002 12:47 am, Magnus Manske wrote:
> Daniel Mayer wrote:
> >So if nothing else is going to happen with Nupedia (which I suspect is the
> >case) we should use the name Nupedia (which is almost as good as gnupedia,
> >but that name is taken).
> >
>
> Gnupedia.org and gnupedia.com are both owned by Jimbo and redirect to
> Nupedia. No resaon why we shouldn't use it, as noone really *uses* the
> gnupedia name. So far, that's my favourite.
>
> Magnus

Very cool! Yes, lets use gnupedia.com as the main site URL (with maybe the
.org part reserved for the users and organizational issues). If Nupedia is in
fact dead, then we can later redirect nupedia.com to gnupedia.com.

Which brings me to another point; I for one /want/ this project to be a .com
that makes money via ads (not flashy annoying ones mind you). We should make
enough money to at least pay for the server, bandwidth, domains etc.
Left-over cash can go to the to-be-created-and-named non-profit Wikipedia
foundation and if this project really catches on then maybe we can afford to
pay Larry to be a part-time (at least) editor-in-chief.

It should also be noted that just because we would be making money to pay the
bills that that does not mean we can't also be a non-Profit. IMO the
"Gnupedia Foundation" has a certain ring to it - but then so does "Gnupedia,
Inc.".... What the organization will be is placing the cart before the horse
so I will stop now (it's late).

--Daniel Mayer


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: voting

body:
On 11/12/02 2:40 AM, "Steve Callaway" <sjc at easynet.co.uk> wrote:
> The problem is that most content is actually highly POV masquerading under
> the flag of POV. And often it tends towards a certain perspective i.e. one
> which is both supportive of the hegemonistic status quo and suppressive of
> alternative viewpoints. This debate is just the visible tip of an iceberg,
> and you know it so do me and a few other people who don't subscribe to your
> cosy little view of things a little respect and CUT THE BULLSHIT. The
> Anti-America deletion and the yattering of the mental sheep that supported
> it is highly indicative of how desparate some people are to pretend to
> follow some sort of highly vacillatory NPOV party line.

This is why we'd be much better off admitting that NPOV is an ideal, not
something that anything or anyone on Wikipedia actually achieves.

See http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV_is_an_ideal.


from_name: Lee Pilich

body:
Herein my opinion:

At 22:39 11/11/2002 +0000, Larry wrote:
>ISSUE 1.  The problem or lack thereof.
>
>PRO: There is indeed a serious problem now on Wikipedia.

[snip]

No, the "problem" now is no worse than it has ever been, at least not since
July, when I arrived. If there is a problem, it is manageable.

Vandalism happens in many forms - revert or improve the edits. Simple.

>ISSUE 2.  What to do about the problem, if anything.
>
>The Anarchist/Radical Freedom Option: We should strip everyone of powers
>to ban and to delete pages permanently.  "SoftSecurity" alone is adequate
>as a safeguard against Wikipedia's abusers.

I don't see how this is the "anarchist" option. I should think the
anarchist option, in as much as anarchists can be said to be a unified body
(which they're certainly not), would be to give everybody (read "all signed
in users") the ability to delete pages, the ability to undelete pages, the
ability to block and unblock IPs. I would be in favour of that. But things
work as they are now, also, I think.

I love the wikipedia, but sometimes I get the impression that certain
people on this list are very bored, and so argue about something when
there's really bugger all to argue about. Edit some articles, for god's
sake. I thought the idea was to build an encyclopaedia, not argue in circles.

There's my opinion. Sorry I couldn't quite resist mild rudeness. I shall
now retreat once more into my shell.

LP (camembert)


from_name: Pierre Abbat

subject: [Wikipedia-l] how to stop vandal bots

body:
On Tuesday 12 November 2002 00:20, Bridget [name omitted for privacy reasons] wrote:
> Code a means by which all edits by a certain user can be undone.

What happens if someone else later edits the same article?

phma


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: voting

body:
The problem is that most content is actually highly POV masquerading under
the flag of POV. And often it tends towards a certain perspective i.e. one
which is both supportive of the hegemonistic status quo and suppressive of
alternative viewpoints. This debate is just the visible tip of an iceberg,
and you know it so do me and a few other people who don't subscribe to your
cosy little view of things a little respect and CUT THE BULLSHIT. The
Anti-America deletion and the yattering of the mental sheep that supported
it is highly indicative of how desparate some people are to pretend to
follow some sort of highly vacillatory NPOV party line.

>>Wikipedia has an important policy: roughly stated, you should write
articles without bias, representing all views fairly. This is easily
misunderstood. The policy doesn't assume that it's possible to write an
article from just one point of view, which would be the one unbiased,
"objective" point of view. The Wikipedia neutrality policy says that we
should fairly represent all sides of a dispute, and not make an article
state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct. <<

Anti-American views are not represented. Fact. Moreover, not only are they
not represented, they are frequently systematically excised. This is not the
first time that I have been disgruntled to see a comment which drew
conclusions about Amerika being ruthlessly and swiftly excised. It is
beginning to seem that America and its proponents have taken to book
burning.

If you think that there aren't ideological processes in play in this respect
then I suggest your rub the sleep from your eyes. A systematic and rigourous
NPOV review of the body of work to rmove some of the more overt pro-US
propaganda so far is long overdue.

Slightly fewer rgds

Steve Callaway

> Then state your POV on your user page or write an essay and post it at
Meta.
> But leave the wikipedia:namespace free from POV divisiveness.
>
> We have open POV forums. Please use the correct channels.
>
> -- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Mayer" <maveric149 at yahoo.com>
To: <wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 12:29 AM
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: voting

> On Monday 11 November 2002 03:48 pm, wikipedia-l-request at wikipedia.org
wrote:
> > While the rest of the world came to to the conclusion that America is =
> > just a jumped up banana-republic junta run by a bunch of crypto-fascists
=
> > with a finger glued permanently to the self-destruct button a long time
=
> > ago, you're not allowed to point it out in Wikipedia. How thoroughly =
> > refreshing to be working on such an enlightened project. Dickens' =
> > Ministry of Circumlocution would have been proud of the people who =
> > deleted that page.
> >
> > rgds
> >
> > Steve Callaway
>
> Then state your POV on your user page or write an essay and post it at
Meta.
> But leave the wikipedia:namespace free from POV divisiveness.
>
> We have open POV forums. Please use the correct channels.
>
> -- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Lir

body:
anonymous Wrote:
>Just my opinion but I think hindsight has proven that is was a big
mistake to
>unblock Lir. This single individual has proven to be a anti-social
pest who
>is on the verge of driving at least one other contributor away and drove
>Andre away for some time. I also haven't seen Lee around much since
you so
>publically reverted his IMO perfectly valid ban on Lir. I guess he is
a bit
>discusted about the whole matter - I sure would be (and am).
>
>Please refresh my memory on why it is necessary to be so permissive
about
>alloying trolls to troll about? Their mere presence attacks more of
their ilk
>and drives away the type of contributors we want, like Zoe.
>
>Do you really want to have more Lirs and fewer Zoes?
>
>--.sig
>
>PS it is late and the above may sound a bit harsh. Please don't take
it that
>way -- I still have the greatest respect for you and your
contributions. I
>just think that your idealism has been a bit on unrealistic side in this
>particular matter.

FWIW, I've been regretting the unbanning also.  Lir does not
contribute nearly as much as any one of the people she's constantly
butting heads with.  I'd much rather ban Lir again, and if I were able
to do it now I think I would.  I had high hopes that Lir would turn
around, but those hopes now seem completely divorced from reality: I
think she gets her jollies by stirring up trouble and antagonizing.

kq


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority

body:
>Thanks to the power of banning, plus a lot of coaching (and coaxing)
from me.  After she was banned, and then un-banned, I reminded her
that I stuck up for her. I also told her to stop teasing Zoe.

I admire your patience, Ed.  Sometimes I even wish I shared it.  :-)

kq


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Fucking Asshole

body:
Ed wrote:
>Then someone decided to remove the ability of ANYONE to make in-line
links to external images. I noticed that when the "mediator" cartoon
gracing my user page disappeared.

Yes, that was at my provocation: b/c of the goatse man; b/c borrowing
bandwidth is rude; b/c some programs and browsers (sensibly, I think)
kill offsite images.  I thought it would be a benefit to quit using
inline images?  :-)

kq


from_name: Mark Christensen

subject: [Wikipedia-l] What if a signed-in user started writing thefollowing...

body:
> I doubt many people would ask such questions; I mean, such a
> person would be beneath contempt and therefore not
> particularly interesting as a subject of such speculation.

I know this is all hypothetical, and that "beneath contempt" is a stock
phrase, but I am strongly opposed to holding anyone "beneath contempt."

As far as I am concerned contempt is a part of the problem, not part of
the solution.

Let's take a brief example. As I understand it Helga deserved the
oportunity to make her case as best she could, and we had a
responsibility to take her seriously, to look at her case and ask the
right questions, and offer her an opportunity to learn to work with us.
And then later, when that failed, we had a responsibility to ask her to
leave.   We had this responsibility because she was not respecting
others in the community by: refusing to take seriously questions about
the credibility of her sources, insulting a number of core contributors,
and disregarding core policies like the NPoV.

One of the ways that we can better respect people in our community is to
set out clear rules, and to enforce those rules.  I personally think
there is a lot more which can be done using social pressures (so called
SoftSecurity) rather than technological means (a banning feature of the
hardware), but I don't think we can afford the pie-in-the-sky attitude
that banning, page freezes, etc. will always be unnecessary.

Yours
Mark Christensen


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject: [Wikipedia-l] windshield police (Was: Wikipedia moderators and moral authority)

body:
TMC, your rejoinder is silly, and I can't help but think that someone as thoughtful as you is unaware of the fallacies you included in it.

I gave an example of an act, which you realized I considered wrong ("that they should remain intact superior to the opinion ...").

I then proposed force be used to stop the wrong act.

Then, as if you had no idea that it was the judgment of wrongness of the act that justified force to prevent it, you insinuate that I hold the opposite opinion: that the *power* to enforce a standard of right and wrong somehow *defines* that standard.

If you can't see that you put the cart before the horse, then I'm going to have to emulate Larry: I'm just going to ignore your silly remarks, because you're not helping. P.S. Don't expect to be appointed a Moderator any time soon...

Ed Poor
Rational Anarchist and all-around nice guy  <--- who can only be pushed so far


body:
TMC, you sound like a relativist. You seem to claim, I may do whatever I wish and no one has a right to restrain me.

So I am not going to debate with you any more.

One word of advice. Be careful what you do around here. If I catch you breaking windshields, you know what I'll do.

Ed Poor

-----Original Message-----
From: Throbbing Monster Cock [mailto:thromoco at yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 5:49 PM
To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority

Ed Poor wrote:

> If a school principal requires a student to remove
> graffiti which says "Aron 151" from other students'
> lockers in the hallway, does this harm the student?

It is harmful to the student in many ways.

First, it causes the destruction of the "Aron 151"
embelishment, which was presumably of value to the
student.

Second, the time the student wastes removing the
graffiti in question is time that could have been more
valuably spent by painting "Aron 151" tags in other
places.

Third, it can cause there to be a perception that the
principal has greater "authority" than the student.

> Enforcing a "do not harm others" rule is not
> inherently harmful.

The rule *may* be reasonable, but who defines "harm"?


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: Re: [Sifter-l] RE: name

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:

>So if nothing else is going to happen with Nupedia (which I suspect is the
>case) we should use the name Nupedia (which is almost as good as gnupedia,
>but that name is taken).
>
>
Gnupedia.org and gnupedia.com are both owned by Jimbo and redirect to
Nupedia. No resaon why we shouldn't use it, as noone really *uses* the
gnupedia name. So far, that's my favourite.

Magnus


from_name: tarquin

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: windshield police (Was: Wikipedia moderators
 and moral authority)

body:
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com wrote:

>TMC wrote:
>
>
>>My "true position" is that there are no absolute
>>
>>
>morals, and that all frames of reference are equal.
>
>You wouldn't believe that if you had ever been a victim of violent
>crime.  You sound like a "rebelling against my rich parents"
>anarchist: vapid philosophy and a daytrip, cushioned by moneyed luxury.
>
>
>
No, TMC sounds like a troll.
Do not feed it.


from_name: Throbbing Monster Cock

subject: [Wikipedia-l] The poor, tired, windshield police...

body:
I think Ed is tired of me.  Actually, I don't just
think he is, I know he is.  I'm going to try to
respond again, but I'll make it as direct to the key
points as I can.  Also, since I'd like to stop fanning
the flames (in the hope that what I'm saying will
actually be thought about), this will be my only post
to wikipedia-l today.

Ed Poor wrote:
> ...as if you had no idea that it was the judgment of
> wrongness of the act that justified force to prevent
> it...

I'm taking the liberty to restate how I understand
your position.

 1: gang smashing windows -> wrongful act
 2: wrongful act -> force justification
 3: force justification -> calling police

> you insinuate that I hold the opposite opinion:
> that the *power* to enforce a standard of right and
> wrong somehow *defines* that standard.

I didn't intend to make an insinuation regarding your
opinions.  What I mean to do is point out that you are
relying upon your personal sense of right and wrong.

Put yourself in the shoes of the gang after the police
arrive.  Their personal sense of right and wrong could
very well lead to this line of reasoning.

 1: police interference -> wrongful act
 2: wrongful act -> force justification
 3: force justification -> capture of police

The question before us, as I see it, is what makes
Ed's personal sense of right and wrong any superior to
the gang's personal sense of right and wrong.  Ed was
kind enough to share with us one possible "set of
absolutes":

> Here are the moral absolutes I believe in:
>
> It is evil to harm another person for my own
> benefit.
>
> It is good to benefit another person.

This is a perfectly reasonable set of core beliefs,
but that doesn't mean that all people have to share
these same beliefs.  Nor is it clear that all people
who did share these beliefs would apply them the same
way.

> TMC, you sound like a relativist. You seem to claim,
> I may do whatever I wish and no one has a right to
> restrain me.

Your pronouns confuse me, are you saying that Ed can
do whatever he pleases, or are you saying that Cock
can do whatever he pleases?  The end result is the
same either way, since I see your actions and my
actions as morally equal.  Just so there is no doubt,
here is what I am saying:

* Ed can do whatever he likes, and no one has the
  right to restrain him.

* Cock can do whatever he likes, and no one has the
  right to restrain him.

* Despite the fact that he has no right, Ed will act
  to restrain others whom he disagrees with.

* Despite the fact that he has no right, Cock will
  act to restrain others whom he disagrees with.

Paraphrasing a private email I had with another
wikipedian, if the gang is in front of my house
smashing my car window then I am going to go outside
and use force to stop them.  What I'm not going to do
is pretend that I'm morally superior to them in any
way, or that I had some "right" to stop them.  I'm
simply using my ability to project force to enforce my
will over them.

> ...unless you're too chicken (or just being cocky).

Cool!  Two puns for the price of one.

--Cock

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
http://launch.yahoo.com/u2


body:
-> > Hysteria?  I have to support Zoe here; Lir is a disruptive child, and she
-> > should probably be banned.
->
-> I disagree here, but I'm not familiar with all evidence (which is why a
-> "Problematic users" page, as a record of evidence, might be helpful). I
-> followed much of Lir's actions today and saw nothing too problematic.
-> She's antagonistic, sometimes silly and certainly not as smart as she
-> thinks, but I believe we can deal with here as long as she doesn't
-> vandalize pages.

Thanks to the power of banning, plus a lot of coaching (and coaxing) from me.  After she was banned, and then un-banned, I reminded her that I stuck up for her. I also told her to stop teasing Zoe.

You'll note that of all the remarks she has erased from her talk page, she left up my "stuck up for her" and "stop teasing" comments. I think this means she knows which side her bread is buttered on.

I also likened Lir to a 14-year-old girl. She accepted this designation, and added it to her user page: i.e., she concedes that she ACTS like a 14-year-old.

Why didn't fight back against my three adverse comments? She could have argued or erased as she has done in other cases.

I believe it is because of a combination of three things:
* she wants to contribute
* she perceives that I care about her
* she perceives me as embodying the authority of the community

Now don't go off half-cocked (throbbing or otherwise): I'm not claiming any special status. None has been granted me. I'm talking only about what I guess is Lir's perception.

I myself follow a fairly consistent pattern of "soft security" (as Cunc. puts it). I try to educate, not berate.

I don't want anyone to tease others (like, call them names, impugn their integrity) -- so I try very hard not to tease them. (Except Cunctator, who seems to like it :-)

I don't want anyone to revert others' edits peremptorily, so I don't do that to them. On the few occasions when I revert, I generally copy the offending passage, comment on it, and invite the other contributor to address the issues I've raised. This works pretty well.

Sometimes, like Larry, I lecture people. "You guys are acting like a bunch of..."

I would really like to see a rule that would stop people like RK from continually saying "reverting so-and-so's vandalism" when it's just an edit he disagrees with because of RK's own failure to grasp or attain POV. A "no teasing" rule would stop him in his tracks.

Don't call people a "vandal" if you disagree. Just attribute their point of view, e.g., "Some people think the Torah requires Jews to do X every day." The comment would be "Attributing POV" -- not "reverting ultra-Conservative VANDALISM".

Soft security is good, and even if Jimbo nixes any of ideas about granting Moderator or Arbitrator rights, we still need to codify our values and our enforcement procedures.

We are growing too large as a community to do otherwise.

Ed Poor
"My opinion probably bears no resemblance to my employer's."


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Anthere

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re:Check boxes and other articles counts

body:
Message: 8
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Check boxes and other
articles counts
From: Erik Moeller <e.moeller at fokus.gmd.de>
To: wikitech-l at wikipedia.org
Date: 12 Nov 2002 11:06:05 +0100
Reply-To: wikitech-l at wikipedia.org
Hi Anthere,
>> Please do consider that it is probably not worth
>> telling us anything under at least a week notice.
Not
>> enough time to understand, then to translate
>Um, how much work is it to translate two text
strings?

I think there was a misunderstanding there. The time
delay was to discuss something new, not for the
translation. A translation can be done very quickly of
course. It can be changed later on if people don't
like it - by the people who don't like it ;-) (which
is why some part of the fr.wiki are still in english,
some don't like it, but they don't do the job
themselves...)

>That it may be
>hard to understand in some cases is true, we probably
need a >demo wiki

Yes, this would be nice.

>> I am officially asking that the international
>> wikipedia list be discarded.
>I'm not the right person to talk to here, but I tend
to agree.

There is no *right* person. Everybody should be part
of the right person. But the majority don't care, so
it won't be done.

>> However, also realise that just doing so will
prevent
>> international wikipedias to have any real
involvement
>> in general policy matters. Today, in 5 hours, my
mail
>> box received 85 messages. I do not feel fluent in
>> english enough to read all of them.
>Your English is more than good enough to be no excuse
;-). >Traffic can get a bit demanding, I agree.

Nope. Some people are easier to understand than
others. And 85 messages is more than demanding :-)
I got totally lost in Larry's very long and
circonvoluted messages and multiple answers. For sure,
now I have little idea left of who propose what.
And I didnot understand tmc at all;-)

>> However, to tell the truth, I won't be able to
>> translate your feature for the very good reason
that
>> though I tried to concentrate very hard on it, I
have
>> not being able to understand what that checkbox in
the
>> watch list was all about. I just couldnot figure
what
>> you were talking about.
>OK, here's how it will look. You edit an article:
>[Save page] [Show preview]
>Any clearer?

Absolutely. Great idea ! I like it.

>That's a misunderstanding, I'll change the navigation
bar of >the English Wikipedia only as agreed upon on
wikipedia-l. The >article count is on my to do list,
but if anyone else wants to >implement this, be my
guest. If implemented, it will likely be >done in such
a way that it will still be possible to use the
>previous count.

It sometimes is very hard to distinguish what is gonna
be only on the en. and what is gonna be everywhere.

I thank you very much for your answers Erik.

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
http://launch.yahoo.com/u2


subject: [Wikipedia-l] voting

body:
What are you talking about?

1) You are free to post your "banana" opinion on your user page, user talk page, and Metapedia.

2) You are free to STATE THAT SOME PEOPLE BELIEVE the "banana' thing on any relevant page.

The only thing Wikipedia policy forbids is to state that America ACTUALLY IS what you think it is. This is not an opinion board, like Usenet. It's an encyclopedia. Points of view must be attributed to their adherents. If you can't think of a famous author or person who agrees with you, just attribute the POV to "some people".

Sheesh. You act like someone's trying to censor you. What is it with you people? Don't you read the guidelines?

Ed Poor

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Callaway [mailto:sjc at easynet.co.uk]
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 6:54 PM
To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] voting

While the rest of the world came to to the conclusion that America is just a jumped up banana-republic junta run by a bunch of crypto-fascists with a finger glued permanently to the self-destruct button a long time ago, you're not allowed to point it out in Wikipedia. How thoroughly refreshing to be working on such an enlightened project. Dickens' Ministry of Circumlocution would have been proud of the people who deleted that page.

rgds

Steve Callaway

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021112/cddde6e5/attachment.htm


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Personal categories.

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:

>Somebody else had the idea of creating different types of /useful/ categories
>such as Wikipedians who have knowledge of certain subjects. I think this a
>great idea that should be integrated with the Wikipedia:Help Desk page along
>with the Wikipedians page. These types of categories are useful because they
>further goals of the project.
>
In conjunction with this, I believe it was Larry who wanted some sort of
article subject classification.  Tying these two ideas together with the
recent changes page.  Each article could have a few boxes where the
writer could enter category codes.  The Wikipedians who are interested
in that category (i.e. potential editors) could enter themselves on the
category list for that code, or perhaps enter a list of these codes in
their preferences.  Recent changes could as a default function as it
does now,  but could optionally provide a categorized list based on one
or more of the codes in the person's preferences.

Thus if we were to use the Library of Congress letter classifications
(which has the benefit of being usable without reinventing the wheel)
all articles concerned with mathematics would receive a "QA" code.  A
person interested in mathematics could add the "QA" code to his
preferences, and on request would be able to receive a list of the
recent changes in articles about mathematics.  Having several boxes
associated with an article, allows for the fact that some articles may
be relevant to more than one category.  An article on mathematical
applications in psychology would have both a "QA" and a "BF" code.

Is this technically feasible?

Eclecticology


body:
Here are the moral absolutes I believe in:

It is evil to harm another person for my own benefit.

It is good for to benefit another person.

Unless your friends are rescuing earthquake victims who are trapped in their cars by rubble, they are harming others for their own benefit (by destroying their property). I'm going to call them a "gang" and try to stop them.

I don't expect you to agree with this, but I bet you could write a very nice [[relativism]] article for Wikipedia.

...unless you're too chicken (or just being cocky).

Ed Poor


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: voting

body:
Steve Callaway wrote:

>Anti-American views are not represented. Fact.
>
The purpose of wikipedia is not to *represent* anti-American views.
Neither pro-American views, BTW.
They can be *mentioned*, *described*, *analyzed* in encyclopedia
articles. Maybe we *should* have an article about anti-American views,
if we don't already have one.
If you feel that some (or all) articles are biased towards american
views, point it out in these articles, and weight such statements
accordingly. No one, including me (who originally deleted that
anti-American users page), will stop you from doing that, if your
intention is clearly to present facts, and mark all viewpoints as such,
If you feel like smearing "I hate America" all over some place,
wikipedia is not it. Get yourself a home page somewhere else and stop
wasting my time.

Magnus
CEO, Ministry of Circumlocution ;-)


subject: [Wikitech-l] Getting Neophyte Developers Started

body:
Hello Michael!

> I would be interested in joining a mailing list aimed at
> assisting neophyte developers with getting started
> or in establishing private dialogues with friendly mentors
> and other neophytes.

Hm, how about a wiki page instead? The knowledge of mailing lists tends
to get lost in their vast archives.

I have created
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_become_a_Wikipedia_hacker
as a skeleton with some content. Please add to the structure,
particularly the questions you find relevant for yourself.

> I have some obsolete pentium systems that I could dedicate
> and set up for local testing and/or development activities.

Great!

> I have substantial experience and exposure to a variety
> of software and system development projects and some
> applicable formal training but very limited actual coding
> experience.

The best way to learn coding is to look at code. Again, that's why I
think installing Wikipedia is crucial for anyone, and it doesn't take
much knowledge.

A problem for me, and I should have written that, is that I have never
used PHP, MySQL etc. under Windows -- I'm used to Linux. Do we have any
Wikipedia coders using Windows?

Regards,

Erik
--
FOKUS - Fraunhofer Insitute for Open Communication Systems
Project BerliOS - http://www.berlios.de


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Automatic unblocking

body:
Toby wrote:

> One possible solution is to automatically unban after, say, a week.

I have unilaterally applied the following rule to blocked IPs:
* If it was blocked more than 30 days ago, unblock it.

Note that this includes the IP of Helga (H. Jonat), whose 2-month ban should have expired Nov. 9th.

Total of 24 IP's unblocked, leaving three dozen still blocked. (I have a list of the ones I unblocked, available on request.)

Ed Poor


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re:  server

body:
Sorry, Brion, please don't get mad at us all.

We have become accustomed to the luxury of free (as in free beer) 24-hour database administration -- as if it were a right.

I think we all owe Brion our thanks, for taking time out from his studies to help keep this site going.

Thank you, Brion!

Ed Poor            <-- gratitude is my middle name


subject: [Wikitech-l] Check boxes and other articles counts

body:
Hi Anthere,

> Please do consider that it is probably not worth
> telling us anything under at least a week notice. Not
> enough time to understand, then to translate

Um, how much work is it to translate two text strings? That it may be
hard to understand in some cases is true, we probably need a demo wiki
to better demonstrate functionality (there's one at piclab.com/wiki, but
I don't have access to its code).

> I am officially asking that the international
> wikipedia list be discarded.

I'm not the right person to talk to here, but I tend to agree. The
wikipedia-l list *is* crowded, though, so perhaps we need a different
kind of separation.

> However, also realise that just doing so will prevent
> international wikipedias to have any real involvement
> in general policy matters. Today, in 5 hours, my mail
> box received 85 messages. I do not feel fluent in
> english enough to read all of them.

Your English is more than good enough to be no excuse ;-). Traffic can
get a bit demanding, I agree.

> >Notice that the above policy is not used by anyone
> else either, >so I don't  even see why you bring it
> up.

> So, if I follow you, not having other people follow
> policies is enough reason for you not to follow them
> enough ? If so, why are these policies still there ?

They are not. Giskart is, to my knowledge, the first person to bring
this up.

> However, to tell the truth, I won't be able to
> translate your feature for the very good reason that
> though I tried to concentrate very hard on it, I have
> not being able to understand what that checkbox in the
> watch list was all about. I just couldnot figure what
> you were talking about.

OK, here's how it will look. You edit an article:

'''Biology''' is the study of [[life]] and its processes. The term_
biology was coined in the late [[1700s]] by the French naturalist__
Pierre-Antoine de Monet, Jean-Baptiste de [[Lamarck]]. ____________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________

Summary: __________    [ ] This is a minor edit  [ ] Watch this article

[Save page] [Show preview]

Note that the above will probably look awful if your e-mail client
displays mail in a proportional font (that is, variable width letters).

The "Watch this article" box, when checked, means that the article will
be added to your watchlist (an existing feature, but previously only
accessible using the "Watch this article" link).

Furthermore, if the user preference "Watch new and modified articles" is
activated, this checkbox will be active by default whenever you edit an
article. You can still deactivate it, though.

Any clearer?

> Also, I have read your proposition (that if I
> understood well you decided to implement today if
> nobody complained about it...maybe some answers are in
> the 85 messages...) about the counting of articles.

That's a misunderstanding, I'll change the navigation bar of the English
Wikipedia only as agreed upon on wikipedia-l. The article count is on my
to do list, but if anyone else wants to implement this, be my guest. If
implemented, it will likely be done in such a way that it will still be
possible to use the previous count.

Regards,

Erik

--
FOKUS - Fraunhofer Insitute for Open Communication Systems
Project BerliOS - http://www.berlios.de


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Fucking Asshole

body:
-> Ed Poor wrote:
->
-> >If we have a standard on not showing the goat man's naked butt, then we have
-> >a standard. All I'm saying is: let's refine and enshrine our standards.
->
-> Do we have a standard on not showing the goat man's naked butt?
-> We have standards on not violating copyright and on vandalising;
-> either of these alone is sufficient for those specific cases.
-> I personally wouldn't want to enshrine an additional standard.
->
->
-> -- Toby

Don't we have a standard? There isn't a single instance of a link to the goatse image other than on the article about it. Every time it has appeared, people have given it a good swift kick in the, er, I mean deleted the link as soon as possible. It's the single most common entry in "vandalism in progress".

Then someone decided to remove the ability of ANYONE to make in-line links to external images. I noticed that when the "mediator" cartoon gracing my user page disappeared.

Oh, we have a standard all right. We're debating whether it should be "official" or what.

Ed Poor


from_name: Tomasz Wegrzanowski

body:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 10:41:55AM +0100, Erik Moeller wrote:
> > I have substantial experience and exposure to a variety
> > of software and system development projects and some
> > applicable formal training but very limited actual coding
> > experience.
>
> The best way to learn coding is to look at code. Again, that's why I
> think installing Wikipedia is crucial for anyone, and it doesn't take
> much knowledge.
>
> A problem for me, and I should have written that, is that I have never
> used PHP, MySQL etc. under Windows -- I'm used to Linux. Do we have any
> Wikipedia coders using Windows?

Why should we bother about Windoze at all ?
Server stuff is coded here.


body:
-----Original Message-----
From: Toby Bartels [mailto:toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu]

Larry Sanger wrote:

>ISSUE 1.  The problem or lack thereof.
>ISSUE 2.  What to do about the problem, if anything.

>The Status Quo, Plus Clearer Principles Option: We need to debate and
>settle upon some clear principles about when sanctions are to be meted out
>by our sysops.

That's basically my choice.

[I agree with Toby 100%. --Ed Poor]


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Enough for now

body:
Larry, you are welcome to sail in and sound off any time you want. You know that.

What you might not know is that I appreciate your input very much, even though I don't post a "me, too" every time you score a point. If I nodded my head every time I agreed with you, I'd sprain my neck muscles.

I respect you not only as the founder of Wikipedia but also as a man of uncommon sense. I never had the chance to attend your university classes, so I consider your visits to the list or the 'pedia to be a "class". I take notes (really!) and I'm ready for the next pop quiz.

Thank you for devoting the time to analysis and discussion of the needs of Wikipedia. I am totally in favor of your Sifter idea; please take that ball and run with it.

Sorry about all the posts yesterday, I probably shouldn't have tried to debate the Prictator...

Ed Poor


from_name: Brion VIBBER

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re:  server

body:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> Sorry, Brion, please don't get mad at us all.
>
> We have become accustomed to the luxury of free (as in free beer) 24-hour database administration -- as if it were a right.
>
> I think we all owe Brion our thanks, for taking time out from his studies to help keep this site going.
>
> Thank you, Brion!

Aw, thanks guys. I was jes' feeling a little grumbly yesterday.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Tentative spiders and bots policy

body:
Since I've unilaterally banned a couple of IPs from accessing the site
due to unfriendly spidering and extreme database-stressing, I thought it
best that we set up some sort of actual policy for this.

Tentative beginnings:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spiders_and_bots_policy

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


from_name: bderksen

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Personal categories.

body:
>===== Original Message From Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> =====
>In conjunction with this, I believe it was Larry who wanted some sort of
>article subject classification.
...
>Thus if we were to use the Library of Congress letter classifications
>(which has the benefit of being usable without reinventing the wheel)

You might also want to throw in a few Wikipedia-specific classifications, such
as "disambiguation page" or "article list" (to handle all the year articles,
list-of-blanks articles, etc). These could be handy for future use by fancy
queries and such (eg, searching for disambiguation articles that don't link to
the [[disambiguation]] page or getting a more accurate count of "real"
articles).


from_name: Larry Sanger

subject: Re: [Sifter-l] RE: name

body:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, Daniel Mayer wrote:

> On Tuesday 12 November 2002 12:47 am, Magnus Manske wrote:
> > Daniel Mayer wrote:
> > >So if nothing else is going to happen with Nupedia (which I suspect is the
> > >case) we should use the name Nupedia (which is almost as good as gnupedia,
> > >but that name is taken).
> > >
> >
> > Gnupedia.org and gnupedia.com are both owned by Jimbo and redirect to
> > Nupedia. No resaon why we shouldn't use it, as noone really *uses* the
> > gnupedia name. So far, that's my favourite.
> >
> > Magnus
>
> Very cool! Yes, lets use gnupedia.com as the main site URL (with maybe the
> .org part reserved for the users and organizational issues). If Nupedia is in
> fact dead, then we can later redirect nupedia.com to gnupedia.com.

Well, it's OK and I wouldn't oppose it if it had even more support, but I
don't really like gnupedia.org as a name mainly because it implies that
our project is specifically endorsed by the FSF, and as if it were another
GNU project.  The name certainly stands for free content which is what
we're all about, but it also stands for a lot of other stuff that we're
not necessarily about either.  Finally, there already was a GNUpedia that
began almost at exactly the same time that Wikipedia started, and we'd
potentially be putting out some of the people who were involved in that
project for such an "elitist" project to have that name.  None of these
considerations is *very* strong, admittedly, but they all together incline
me against that particular name.

> Which brings me to another point; I for one /want/ this project to be
> a .com that makes money via ads (not flashy annoying ones mind you).
> We should make enough money to at least pay for the server, bandwidth,
> domains etc.  Left-over cash can go to the to-be-created-and-named
> non-profit Wikipedia foundation and if this project really catches on
> then maybe we can afford to pay Larry to be a part-time (at least)
> editor-in-chief.

I disagree again, I'm afraid, but thanks for your support.  ;-)  Ad
revenue is so minimal these days that it's not worth potentially
hamstringing the effort for it.

> It should also be noted that just because we would be making money to
> pay the bills that that does not mean we can't also be a non-Profit.

So we might as well put it under ".org" anyway, thereby avoiding some of
the misguided skepticism about our mission that occurred with respect to
Nupedia and especially Wikipedia.

--Larry


subject: Re: [Sifter-l] RE: name

body:
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, Daniel Mayer wrote:

> > I want to move forward with the least amount of controversy and the
> > greatest amount of productivity.  If Nupedia wants to take over the
> > project in the future, grand.  Let's get moving anyway.
>
> Fair enough. The name is really secondary to getting to work. I suggest we put
> off the name red herring for now. We can revisit the name issue when we find
> out the fate of Nupedia.

I'm sorry to be so contrary, Mav, but again I disagree.  I'm glad I
brought up the name issue, because as it turns out it's pressing the issue
as to what the relationship between Nupedia and the "sifter" project will
be.

If Nupedians want to sponsor and stand behind the new effort, lawd knows
we can use their help.  But if very many of them don't, I don't want to
impose on them.

Larry

--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the obvious is
the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell


body:
Mark Christensen wrote:

> As far as I am concerned contempt is a part of the problem,
> not part of the solution.

I agree with that, and in the light of a private message I received today from the Cunctator, I am taking a 12-hour timeout from posting to Wikipedia.

I will meditate on the following story (and commentary) on a similar situation described by an elder in my church:

    http://unification.net/fcolf/fcolf-11.html

Ed Poor


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Fucking Asshole

body:
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com wrote:
> Ed wrote:
>>Then someone decided to remove the ability of ANYONE to make in-line
>>links to external images. I noticed that when the "mediator" cartoon
>>gracing my user page disappeared.
>
> Yes, that was at my provocation: b/c of the goatse man; b/c borrowing
> bandwidth is rude; b/c some programs and browsers (sensibly, I think)
> kill offsite images.  I thought it would be a benefit to quit using
> inline images?  :-)

A couple other good reasons which may or may not have been mentioned in
the previous debates, but which were in my mind when I agreed:

Reliability: The site with the pictures may yank, move, or change the
images without notice, or block third-party access, and *poof* we lose
the images.

Reproduceability: A mirror site, backup, or CD-ROM version should be
able to take the pictures with it, with or without a net connection to
the outside for the reader. Linking offsite images makes this harder.

Legality: It's much more inviting to link an offsite image of dubious
copyright status than to upload one and put it on our server, but if
it's _inline_, we are still for all intents and purposes republishing
it, possibly in violation of copyright. (IANAL)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


from_name: Nick Hill

subject: [Wikitech-l] A projection

body:
On Tue, 10 Sep 2002 14:09:33 -0700
Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

<information suggesting a non-linear growth curve for Wikipedia>

I have seen messages talking about changing the database engine from MySql
to postgreSQL to fix table locking problems on a busy system.

I am concerned that this _type_ of engineering work may not be what is
really needed.

My contention is that Wikipedia load can grow at an exponential rate but
may be constrained by resource availablility. There are many factors which
cause self-multiplication.

Decisions which need to be made:

1) Do we want Wikipedia to be _able_ to grow at an exponential rate?
	If yes:
	a) We need to consider a technical system which can be put in place to
	distribute load such that no one system needs to handle all the load
	b) Consider whether the current social system of regulation can scale to
	meet demand and monitor this
	c) Keep a conscious review open to ensure the quality of Wikipedia
	with such an exponential growth and consider adding constraints
	to growth if such a growth rate starts causing undesirable effects.

	If no:
	a) Consider how availability of the system will be limited in order to
	prevent exponential growth, and at what rate, if any, availability is
	extended.
	b) What parts of the system are best rationed to limit growth rate. ie
	should searches, page views or edits be limited?


body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

>Um, how much work is it to translate two text strings? That it may be
>hard to understand in some cases is true, we probably need a demo wiki
>to better demonstrate functionality (there's one at piclab.com/wiki, but
>I don't have access to its code).
>
>
I do, but the source is old, and the database is probably not consistent
with the "live" one. It also contains quite a few dirty hacks of mine
that never made it to the CVS.

I asked for a demo/test wikipedia at least twice, but noone ever listens
to me... ;-)

There should be a little script to remove the source and database at the
test wiki, and replace it with the CVS version and some articles from
the en database (say, all articles starting with "A"). It should be run
every time some changes at the test wiki are commited to the CVS. That
way, we could develop at home, and have all users test it in a
"sandbox", before upgrading the real thing.

Magnus


from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
On Die, 2002-11-12 at 11:56, Magnus Manske wrote:

> There should be a little script to remove the source and database at the
> test wiki, and replace it with the CVS version and some articles from
> the en database (say, all articles starting with "A"). It should be run
> every time some changes at the test wiki are commited to the CVS. That
> way, we could develop at home, and have all users test it in a
> "sandbox", before upgrading the real thing.

Sounds reasonable, can you set this up?

I don't think we need to remove/update the database that's there -- we
just need some test data, not current data

Regards,

Erik
--
FOKUS - Fraunhofer Insitute for Open Communication Systems
Project BerliOS - http://www.berlios.de


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re:  windshield police (Was: Wikipedia moderators and moral authority)

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:

>On Monday 11 November 2002 04:43 pm, TMC wrote:
>
>>If it makes you feel any better, the gang considers
>>the intact windshields to be the "means of production"
>>through which broken windshields are produced.
>>Because the social class of "car owners" cannot use
>>their ownership of these means of production to exert
>>control over the gang, it is necessary for the gang to
>>take "possession" of the windshields while they put
>>they to the use of being smashed.
>>
>That's a bunch of relativistic morality crap. If somebody goes to the effort
>of building something or working their ass-off to pay for something it is
>absolutely wrong for somebody else to destroy that. Basic morality 101.
>
I think that his argument is related to the economic argument that
windshield breakers are creating employment for the windshield repair
industry.  One well-known enterprise with Italian roots in the insurance
industry modified this argument to convince businesses to buy their
protection.

Eclecticology


subject: [Wikitech-l] Wiki is down

body:
On Mon, 2002-11-11 at 23:20, Brion VIBBER wrote:

> I've disabled updating of the view count and site stats (two database
> writes on every page view!) for the time being, in the hopes that this
> will slightly improve performance.

Good idea, let's keep it like that for a few days and see if we can cope
better.

Regards,

Erik
--
FOKUS - Fraunhofer Insitute for Open Communication Systems
Project BerliOS - http://www.berlios.de


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: windshield police (Was: Wikipedia moderators and moral authority)

body:
Jonathan Walther wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 09:54:11PM -0800, Throbbing Monster Cock wrote:
>
>>> If this is your true position then their is no
>>> reason to try and reason with you because your
>>> frame of reference is totally unreasonable.
>>
>> My "true position" is that there are no absolute
>> morals, and that all frames of reference are equal.
>
> That's the morality of a sociopath, and not conducive to cohesive
> communities.

Although I can agree that it is not conducive to cohesive communities, I
disagree that it is necessarily sociopathic.  It can be idealistic or
na?ve, or a reflection of despair in the manner of Ivan Karamazov.

Eclecticology


from_name: Zoe

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Locked database

body:
Why would I be singled out?  With everything being said about me lately?  Am I just paranoid?
Zoe
 koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com wrote:Zoe Wrote:
>>Why is it, that when I try to edit a page, I'm getting a notice that
the database is locked, but Recent Changes show that updates have been
made at the exact same time I'm told that I can't do any updates?
Have I been singled out?<<

No, Zoe, you have not been singled out. Why would you be?

If it's any consolation, I can't edit either.

kq

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive medley & videos from Greatest Hits CD
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021112/72888a30/attachment.htm


subject: [Wikipedia-l] how to stop vandal bots

body:
> On Tuesday 12 November 2002 00:20, Bridget [name omitted for privacy reasons] wrote:
> > Code a means by which all edits by a certain user can be undone.
>
> What happens if someone else later edits the same article?

It should only be applied to articles that have not received later edits.
Those that have are likely un-vandalized already.

This belongs on wikitech-l, discussion should continue there. I won't code
this (too much in my pipe already).

Regards,

Erik

--
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more  http://www.gmx.net +++
NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr f?r 1 ct/ Min. surfen!


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] how to stop vandal bots


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Enough for now

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:

>On Monday 11 November 2002 09:39 pm, wikipedia-l-request at wikipedia.org wrote:
>
>>Well, folks, I've had enough for now.  I can't continue these
>>conversations, because they are taking far too much of my time; I couldn't
>>do them justice if I wanted to.  You also won't see me much anytime soon
>>on Wikipedia itself.  I really do apologize to those (few, no doubt) who
>>thought I was a positive influence recently.  I wish I had the time,
>>energy, and patience to continue, and I hope you'll keep fighting the good
>>fight.
>>
Just like a philosopher! :-)   He seeds the newsgroup with prolix
thoughts to consider, and sits back to watch us argue.

>There were a hell of a lot of posts on Monday but that was probably due to
>en.wiki being down and everybody flooding the mailing list because they
>didn't have anything else to do.
>
Clearly a symptom of acute wikiholism!  My mailbox was clear before I
went to bed, and there were 77 new messages when I woke up.

>One thing that Wikipedia lacks right now is credibility and reliability. One
>thing that projects like Nupedia has is a lack of material and contributors.
>The new project you are working on will add credibility to many Wikipedia
>articles and thus dramatically improve their usefullness.
>
They need each other for those very reasons.  Together they reflect the
interplay between quantity and quality - an infinite series which
hopefully converges.
Eclecticology

>


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Personal categories.

body:
bderksen wrote:

>>===== Original Message From Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> =====
>>In conjunction with this, I believe it was Larry who wanted some sort of
>>article subject classification.
>>
>...
>
>>Thus if we were to use the Library of Congress letter classifications
>>(which has the benefit of being usable without reinventing the wheel)
>>
>
>You might also want to throw in a few Wikipedia-specific classifications, such
>as "disambiguation page" or "article list" (to handle all the year articles,
>list-of-blanks articles, etc). These could be handy for future use by fancy
>queries and such (eg, searching for disambiguation articles that don't link to
>the [[disambiguation]] page or getting a more accurate count of "real"
>articles).
>
I agree.  Conveniently for us, the LoC system does not use the letter
"W" for any of its classifications.
Eclecticology


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re:  server

body:
Brion VIBBER wrote:

> Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>
>> Sorry, Brion, please don't get mad at us all.
>> We have become accustomed to the luxury of free (as in free beer)
>> 24-hour database administration -- as if it were a right.
>>
>> I think we all owe Brion our thanks, for taking time out from his
>> studies to help keep this site going.
>>
>> Thank you, Brion!
>
>
> Aw, thanks guys. I was jes' feeling a little grumbly yesterday.
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

I agree with Ed.  Being grumbly may be one of the withdrawal symptoms
suffered by wikipediholics :-)
Eclecticology


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Locked database

body:
Jason Williams wrote:

>On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 01:36:35PM -0800, Zoe wrote:
>
>>Why would I be singled out?  With everything being said about me lately?  Am I just paranoid?
>>Zoe
>>
>
>Ah yes, I suppose you wouldn't have seen the discussion on
>[[wikipedia:The Anti-Zoe Conspiracy]], would you?
>
It was an "anti-" page, so it was likely deleted as soon as it was seen :-)
Ec


subject: [Wikipedia-l] I wanna fuck

body:
On Tuesday 12 November 2002 15:10, Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com may or may not have
written:
> FUCK YOU !!!!!!!!!!! SHIT !

Look at the headers. It was sent through the hastio remailer.

phma


from_name: Bridget

from_email: Bridget

subject: [Wikipedia-l] anti-amerikan wikipedians

body:
The anti-american wikipedians page was clearly not POV. It never stated, "America is bad" it never stated "wikipedia thinks America is bad" it stated, "lir thinks america is bad and sjc thinks america is bad and fonzy thinks america is bad" that sounds npov to me...

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive medley & videos from Greatest Hits CD
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021112/4d29dccc/attachment.htm


subject: [Wikipedia-l] I wanna fuck

body:
I would never use so many exclamation points. That's simply childish.

Ed Poor

-----Original Message-----
From: Pierre Abbat [mailto:phma at webjockey.net]
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 3:30 PM
To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] I wanna fuck

On Tuesday 12 November 2002 15:10, Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com may or may not have
written:
> FUCK YOU !!!!!!!!!!! SHIT !

Look at the headers. It was sent through the hastio remailer.

phma
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


from_name: Pierre Abbat

subject: [Wikipedia-l] I wanna fuck

body:
On Tuesday 12 November 2002 15:45, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> I would never use so many exclamation points. That's simply childish.

It was just a poor imitation.

phma


subject: [Wikipedia-l] anti-amerikan wikipedians

body:
The problem wasn't POV-related.

It was that your opinion, my opinion and the other Wikipedians opinions are not relevant to an encyclopedia. Keep it on your user page, or take it to Meta.

Ed Poor

-----Original Message-----
From: Bridget [name omitted for privacy reasons] [mailto:lapollutionestsimauvaise at yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 6:34 PM
To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] anti-amerikan wikipedians

The anti-american wikipedians page was clearly not POV. It never stated, "America is bad" it never stated "wikipedia thinks America is bad" it stated, "lir thinks america is bad and sjc thinks america is bad and fonzy thinks america is bad" that sounds npov to me...

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021112/11f99b83/attachment.htm


subject: [Sifter-l] Name and questions

body:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, I wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, Daniel Mayer wrote:
>
> > > I want to move forward with the least amount of controversy and the
> > > greatest amount of productivity.  If Nupedia wants to take over the
> > > project in the future, grand.  Let's get moving anyway.
> >
> > Fair enough. The name is really secondary to getting to work. I suggest we put
> > off the name red herring for now. We can revisit the name issue when we find
> > out the fate of Nupedia.
>
> I'm sorry to be so contrary, Mav, but again I disagree.  I'm glad I
> brought up the name issue, because as it turns out it's pressing the issue
> as to what the relationship between Nupedia and the "sifter" project will
> be.

OK, now I was being *too* contrary!  I mean, after all, I *do* agree that
if Jimbo does pose the question to Nupedia *soon*, and the answers
received indicate a viable possibility of using Nupedia, then sure, it
would be hasty to pick a new name while all that's still up in the air.
On the other hand, if Jimbo *doesn't* pose the question soon, I hope Lee,
Magnus, and I (and the rest of you!) will keep working on the project and
then, at some point indeed *soon* (a matter of days, not weeks), we'll
just go ahead and christen the new project.  If we wind up redirecting the
newly-christened project back to Nupedia.com/org, fine.

One reason I think it's important to say all this is simply that I think
it's highly unlikely that Nupedians--particularly the people on Nupedia
who actually care about the future of Nupedia--will go for the idea of
making all or part of Nupedia's mission the selection of Wikipedia
articles.  I've argued for this on Wikipedia-L.

At any rate, let's get serious about this project.  It *is* going to
happen, people *will* get to work on it, regardless of the name, host, or
other details.

One way to get serious would be for people to respond to Magnus'
questions:

http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/sifter-l/2002-November/000005.html

Larry
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the
obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell


from_name: Digital Addictions Software

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: 90000 articles

body:
> I think we should implement the greatly-pared-down counting scheme we were
> discussing on the list earlier.  We don't have 90K articles.  We have
> about 50K articles and about 40K geographical entries automatically
> created from a database.

I guess I just take these things personally, but many of those geographical
entries are more articles than those other 50k non-geographical articles.  They
have more information.  People are just uncomfortable because they don't like
the data because it does not interest them or because it was created in a mass
quantity.  No one complains when others write articles that have two or three
sentences.  In fact no one complained when I made these articles on a small
scale, in fact I got a number of people who told me it was a great thing.  I
think we need to stop separating the geographics articles from everything else.
 They are all articles and should be treated as such.  If you don't like them,
add to them.
    Ram-Man

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
http://launch.yahoo.com/u2


from_name: Michael R. Irwin

body:
Throbbing Monster Cock wrote:

> Your pronouns confuse me, are you saying that Ed can
> do whatever he pleases, or are you saying that Cock
> can do whatever he pleases?  The end result is the
> same either way, since I see your actions and my
> actions as morally equal.  Just so there is no doubt,
> here is what I am saying:
>
> * Ed can do whatever he likes, and no one has the
>   right to restrain him.
>
> * Cock can do whatever he likes, and no one has the
>   right to restrain him.
>
> * Despite the fact that he has no right, Ed will act
>   to restrain others whom he disagrees with.
>
> * Despite the fact that he has no right, Cock will
>   act to restrain others whom he disagrees with.
>
> Paraphrasing a private email I had with another
> wikipedian, if the gang is in front of my house
> smashing my car window then I am going to go outside
> and use force to stop them.  What I'm not going to do
> is pretend that I'm morally superior to them in any
> way, or that I had some "right" to stop them.  I'm
> simply using my ability to project force to enforce my
> will over them.

First regarding the logical argument that seems
to be in progress:

I agree with both Ed and TMC that our rules, customs
and application of force to enforce them are currently
ill defined, sporadically and inconsistently applied.

Second on a practical note:

Having Fucking Asshole and Throbbing Monster Cock
in use as accounts names and spread throughout the
Wikipedia greatly limits the appeal and utility of
the database and site for a lot of potential users.

Specific example:  A few months ago I was looking forward
to coaching some nieces and nephews in some composition
efforts collaboratively here.   IMHO Since most of my extended
family and better educated friends believe kids/minors should
learn to function in polite society first (by example) and pick
up gutter slang as appropriate later; the lack of effective
well defined customs and consistent enforcement against all
(yes even founders, moderators, nonmembers of the nonexistent
cabal or elite, newbies, and other special people in self
defined categories) severely compromises the utility
of the Wikipedia as an encyclopedia and its ability to
attract and help train future effective Wikipedians.

The above should not be construed as advocating censorship
in the articles.  Merely opposing the use of loopholes in our
system structure to spread graffiti, taunts, etc. potentially
offensive to large groups of people.

Regards,
Mike Irwin


body:
Brion VIBBER wrote:
>
> Since I've unilaterally banned a couple of IPs from accessing the site
> due to unfriendly spidering and extreme database-stressing, I thought it
> best that we set up some sort of actual policy for this.
>
> Tentative beginnings:
> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spiders_and_bots_policy

Looks like a good starting point.

I am technically illiterate regarding spidering
and web-bots.

It is possible to specify a maximum acceptable hit rate
quantitatively in robots.txt or should we lay out some
guidelines on the page for bot/spider adminstraters?

Regards,
Mike Irwin


from_name: Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com

subject: [Wikipedia-l] I wanna fuck

body: FUCK YOU !!!!!!!!!!! SHIT !


subject: [Wikipedia-l] I wanna fuck

body:
Pierre Abbat wrote:
>
> On Tuesday 12 November 2002 15:45, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> > I would never use so many exclamation points. That's simply childish.
>
> It was just a poor imitation.

I sent the message below to the hastio.org site.
Hopefully it will do some good.  The email address
I used has already been compromised to spammers so
hopefully it can do no harm.  8)

<start message to hastio.org>

To the hastio.org admin:

The message below was sent to a mailing list that I
frequent.   I believe it to be an abuse of the service
you provide and I would appreciate any efforts that
you can take to reduce future abuses of this nature.

Thank you for your efforts on our behalf.

Sincerely,
Michael R. Irwin

<snip full message quote>

<end message to hastio.org>

semi-anonymously yours,
the remarkable allegedly lying troll


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [Wikitech-l] Fwd: Personal categories.

body:
Forward of a message by Ec that was submitted to Wikipedia-L (IMO a great set
of ideas)

Daniel Mayer wrote:
>Somebody else had the idea of creating different types of /useful/
> categories such as Wikipedians who have knowledge of certain subjects. I
> think this a great idea that should be integrated with the Wikipedia:Help
> Desk page along with the Wikipedians page. These types of categories are
> useful because they further goals of the project.

In conjunction with this, I believe it was Larry who wanted some sort of
article subject classification.  Tying these two ideas together with the
recent changes page.  Each article could have a few boxes where the
writer could enter category codes.  The Wikipedians who are interested
in that category (i.e. potential editors) could enter themselves on the
category list for that code, or perhaps enter a list of these codes in
their preferences.  Recent changes could as a default function as it
does now,  but could optionally provide a categorized list based on one
or more of the codes in the person's preferences.

Thus if we were to use the Library of Congress letter classifications
(which has the benefit of being usable without reinventing the wheel)
all articles concerned with mathematics would receive a "QA" code.  A
person interested in mathematics could add the "QA" code to his
preferences, and on request would be able to receive a list of the
recent changes in articles about mathematics.  Having several boxes
associated with an article, allows for the fact that some articles may
be relevant to more than one category.  An article on mathematical
applications in psychology would have both a "QA" and a "BF" code.

Is this technically feasible?

Eclecticology


subject: Re: [Sifter-l] RE: name (fwd)

body:
On Tuesday 12 November 2002 04:15 am, Jimbo wrote:
> Yes, I do plan to make such an email soon.  Basically, I intend to
> write to the entire member base of Nupedia in an effort to interest
> them in somehow using the Wikipedia data as a foundation in an effort
> to "try to meld the vitality of Wikipedia with the standards of
> Nupedia in a revived Nupedia".

Hm. That sounds exactly like what we are planning on doing. By all means, yes,
lets join forces and not have a pre-fork.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


subject: [Wikitech-l] H1 conversion patch

body:
This is a patch that fixes H1 problem.

Could somebody please apply H1 and &codes; patches
and update test instalation at http://pl.wikipedia.org/ ?
-------------- next part --------------
--- OutputPage.php.orig	2002-11-12 20:35:53.000000000 +0100
+++ OutputPage.php	2002-11-12 20:36:06.000000000 +0100
@@ -415,7 +415,7 @@

 	/* private */ function doHeadings( $text )
 	{
-		for ( $i = 6; $i >= 2; --$i ) {
+		for ( $i = 6; $i >= 1; --$i ) {
 			$h = substr( "======", 0, $i );
 			$text = preg_replace( "/^(\\s*){$h}([^=]+){$h}(\\s|$)/m",
 			  "\\1<h{$i}>\\2</h{$i}>\\3", $text );


from_name: Christopher Mahan

body:
Mike Irwin wrote:
  Having Fucking Asshole and Throbbing Monster Cock
in use as accounts names and spread throughout the
Wikipedia greatly limits the appeal and utility of
the database and site for a lot of potential users.

My reply:

Could pages be rated for maturity and the appropriate rating meta tag be inserted into the page header for childproofing software?

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

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive medley & videos from Greatest Hits CD
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021112/dc9f115b/attachment.htm


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Strong request for a new edit window boilerplate requested (was Re: Lir)

body:
On Tuesday 12 November 2002 08:09 am, kq wrote
>anonymos wrote
>>Just my opinion but I think hindsight has proven that is was a big
>> mistake to unblock Lir. This single individual has proven to be a
>>anti-social pest who is on the verge of driving at least one other
>>contributor away and drove Andre away for some time. I also haven't
>>seen Lee around much since you so publically reverted his IMO perfectly
>>valid ban on Lir. I guess he is a bit discusted about the whole matter - I
>>sure would be (and am).
>>
>>Please refresh my memory on why it is necessary to be so permissive
>>about alloying trolls to troll about? Their mere presence attacks more of
>>their ilk and drives away the type of contributors we want, like Zoe.
>>
>>Do you really want to have more Lirs and fewer Zoes?
>>
>>--.sig
>>
>>PS it is late and the above may sound a bit harsh. Please don't take
>>it that way -- I still have the greatest respect for you and your
>>contributions. I just think that your idealism has been a bit on
>>unrealistic side in this particular matter.
>
> FWIW, I've been regretting the unbanning also.  Lir does not
> contribute nearly as much as any one of the people she's constantly
> butting heads with.  I'd much rather ban Lir again, and if I were able
> to do it now I think I would.  I had high hopes that Lir would turn
> around, but those hopes now seem completely divorced from reality: I
> think she gets her jollies by stirring up trouble and antagonizing.
>
> kq

"Anonymous" is really me - I guess kq just didn't attribute my name or nick
out of respect for me since it was an off-post email. Thank you :-)

Alas, I don't think Lir has learned much at all since you lifted the ban - in
the last few days she has been pestering at least me, Bryan and April and
being very childish, stubburn and generally anti-social. In short she is
reducing our productivity and wearing us down with her petty games.

Because of this and similarly difficult users we have had (and still have), I
make a /strong/ request that some type of user agreement message be added to
each edit window. It could state something like the following;

    "By pressing save you indicate that you agree to the
     rules and conditions of using this website"

'rules and conditions', as I've stated in previous emails, would be a [in a
new window] link to a simplified version of the policy page with just the
basics; NPOV, 'we are an encyclopedia', no copyright violations and
Wikipetiquette.

Without this, users only imply they agree to follow Wikipedia policy due to
the fact that they use the server and software (I'm thinking of social
contract theory here). I don't think the implied agreement/social contract
set-up works anymore due to the size of our user-base. We need something more
explicit and dare say binding (in theory at least).

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

See http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Re: 90000 articles

body:
On Tuesday 12 November 2002 08:46 pm, wikipedia-l-request at wikipedia.org wrote:
> I guess I just take these things personally, but many of those geographical
> entries are more articles than those other 50k non-geographical articles.
>  They have more information.  People are just uncomfortable because they
> don't like the data because it does not interest them or because it was
> created in a mass quantity.  No one complains when others write articles
> that have two or three sentences.  In fact no one complained when I made
> these articles on a small scale, in fact I got a number of people who told
> me it was a great thing.  I think we need to stop separating the
> geographics articles from everything else. They are all articles and should
> be treated as such.  If you don't like them, add to them.
>     Ram-Man

I for one really like the Rambot articles /themselves/ but what I, and I
suspect many others, feel uncomfortable about is that they were machine
generated and /not/ individually created by a human being.

One of the /major/ points of having an article count is to measure the
relative progress of our community effort. Therefore it is not surprising
that many people feel that their relative contribution to the project is
somehow lessoned in value when a bot comes around and does in three weeks
what took 2,000 + humans over a year to do.

There is also concern that a critical media reporter might use the fact that
"almost half" of our articles are machine-generated against us. If anything
we should be as conservative as possible in our article counts to avoid
giving our critics easy ways to dismiss our progress.

That is why I support the idea of letting the software not count the rambot
articles as articles until at least one non-minor edit is made (this set-up
relies on rambot only adding new content via minor edits in the future).

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


from_name: Jason Williams

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Locked database

body:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 01:36:35PM -0800, Zoe wrote:
>
> Why would I be singled out?  With everything being said about me lately?  Am I just paranoid?
> Zoe

Ah yes, I suppose you wouldn't have seen the discussion on
[[wikipedia:The Anti-Zoe Conspiracy]], would you?

--
jason at jasonandali.org.uk    http://www.jasonandali.org.uk/jason/


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Social contract

body:
I just read the Wikipedia social contract article and I think it describes our
current situation to a tee. I have copied the WikiText here in case en.wiki
is not reachable.

'''Social contract''' is a phrase used in [[sociology]] to denote an agreement
within a group or community regarding the rights and responsibility of the
group and its members to each other. All members within a society are assumed
to agree to the terms of the social contract by their choice to stay within
the society.

Most social contracts are informal and many are not well understood. In very
dynamic or mobile societies the local [[consensus]] is often rapidly shifting
as people move in and out of groups. Conflict often arises out different
understandings of the local aggregate expectations as well as disagreement
regarding appropriate rules of behavior and interaction. This can be very
stressful for group members until new informal agreements have been
informally negotiated between interacting members of the group, community, or
society.

The term "social contract" was coined by [[Jean-Jacques Rousseau]], in his
influential 1762 treatise The Social Contract.


body:
> Mike Irwin wrote:
>   Having Fucking Asshole and Throbbing Monster Cock
> in use as accounts names and spread throughout the
> Wikipedia greatly limits the appeal and utility of
> the database and site for a lot of potential users.
>
>
> My reply:
>
> Could pages be rated for maturity and the appropriate rating meta
tag be inserted into the page header for childproofing software?
>
>
> Christopher Mahan
> chris_mahan at yahoo.com
> http://www.christophermahan.com/
>

On one hand .... Anything is possible given sufficient
free labor and infinite time.  Whether volunteers think it
is reasonable or worthwhile for implementation is
another question.

It is my experience that most of my relatives and friends do not
mess around with kiddie censorship or spy software.   It is sufficient
that the kids know where they should or should not be and that they
have occasional adult advice/supervision.  If they do not use the
computer responsibly, then they do not use it for a while.  Remarkably
repressive I know but it seems effective.  They seem to absorb what
parents or "Uncle" Mike will view as "responsible" quite quickly,
their furtive behavorial cues inviting a spot check makes baby
sitting or casual supervision fairly easy and amusing.

If this nonsense can be easily avoided then the adults will
mandate that it should be avoided.   If the adults find
it permeates the site past a threshhold, the site will
be placed off limits.  Probably redundant.  The kids
know the basic rules, no spy/censorsihp software required,
we check on our minors periodically, and they learn rapidly.

Also, one kind of has to wonder if an account name like
Throbbing Monster Cock; and the associated visual humor; is
a cruising tool for a potential child molester.  Of the
adults I know, some would find it amusing in private while
most would not consider it appropriate public humor with
minors present in the audience.

Have we determined what our target audience for
Wikipedia (online and derivative products) should be?
The last attempted discussion I saw on the topic at
meta was cut short due to uncivil behavior.

It would certainly seem, to me, more appropriate free
speech to exercise at an adult porn site rather than a
general encyclopedia site.

Finally, IMO, it is unreasonable to expect kids to use an
encyclopedia where pages and utilities are randomly and
arbitarily (from the minor's perspective) restricted
due to the casual dropin of a flashing account name.

Consider the following operational scenario:

1.  A minor is checking occasionally to see if an answer to their
question on a science or math talk page has appeared from one of
the admired Wikipedian authors.
2.  Suddenly due to [[Throbbing Monster Cock]] attempting
to flash them with this signature, they are restricted from
the applicable talk page.

Not a very good operational scenario in my view.

So I say censorship software is probably a waste
of time and undesirable.   A public librarian or
school board might have a different perspective.
Likewise other parents and relatives with different
rearing habits or experiences.

Regards,
Mike Irwin


subject: [Sifter-l] Nope, no fork; what's going on.

body:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, Daniel Mayer wrote:

> On Tuesday 12 November 2002 04:15 am, Jimbo wrote:
> > Yes, I do plan to make such an email soon.  Basically, I intend to
> > write to the entire member base of Nupedia in an effort to interest
> > them in somehow using the Wikipedia data as a foundation in an effort
> > to "try to meld the vitality of Wikipedia with the standards of
> > Nupedia in a revived Nupedia".
>
> Hm. That sounds exactly like what we are planning on doing. By all
> means, yes, lets join forces and not have a pre-fork.

Perhaps a lot of people don't understand what's going on.

Magnus is working on "sifter" software.  Lee says he'll upload it.  (If
anyone else wants to, I'm sure Magnus will be happy to send you the most
recent tarball.)  We on the list are thinking of a name for the project,
on the reasonable assumption that (1) knowing Jimbo ;-), he won't get
around to actually making his announcement anytime soon, and (2) if he
does, Nupedians will probably be opposed to it, as I've explained and as
has been our experience.  Four things can now happen: we adopt a name and
otherwise move forward, and then later, Jimbo makes his announcement;
then, if Nupedians support the idea, we'll move the website to Nupedia; if
not, we won't.  Or, instead, Jimbo makes his announcement sooner rather
than later; if Nupedians support the idea, we go to work on adapting
Nupedia; if not, we adopt a new name and otherwise move forward.

So, it's not necessarily a fork to have the new project hosted by a
website other than Nupedia.  It isn't a fork of Nupedia, because the new
project was never part of Nupedia and won't use Nupedia's materials
(except via Wikipedia).  (And it isn't a fork of Wikipedia, because it
will be merely a subset of Wikipedia; I'm pretty sure that's not the
"fork" you meant.) It's not even a fork of Nupedia's *resources*, because
Nupedia is doing nothing right now, and if it does *anything*, as far as
Jimbo (the owner of Nupedia) is concerned, it will be something along the
lines of what I've proposed.  (Or, that's my understanding--it would be
nice to know that he *would* let Nupedia go on to something else, at least
possibly, in the future, perhaps under someone else's management.)

So my organizational efforts should give Jimbo (and you) no worries about
a fork.  First, this sort of project, Jimbo says, is just the sort of
project he envisioned for Nupedia.  If it turns out that Nupedia *is* an
appropriate place for the project (and that should be determined by the
Nupedians, I think), then we'll happily have the project there and of
course there's no fork.  On the other hand, if Nupedians reject the idea,
then the project will be hosted elsewhere, Nupedia will continues to do
nothing, and there's no fork (precisely because it's doing nothing).

In the latter case, I suspect (due to my dealings with him on this issue)
that Jimbo will consign Nupedia to the scrapheap entirely (though
Nupedians might be able to convince him otherwise, if they're motivated),
and he'll be happy to get behind the "sifter" project hosted under a
different name.

And then there will be a fork *only if* Nupedia revives to (re-) create a
third project.  Magnus (among others?) has even suggested that this will,
or should, happen.

=========

ALL THAT being said, there is a good reason for Jimbo *not* to make his
announcement anytime soon, and that is to give Nupedians a working
example, with no threatening associations, that they can use to judge
whether they'd like to get involved.

Alternatively, even if the announcement is made soon, it would make sense
to tell Nupedians that Magnus, Lee, and I (and all of you) *are* willing
to pursue this project apart from Nupedia for a while, and that it *is* an
option for them that we do this, so that they can make up their minds
later.  In other words, we should tell Nupedians: "You can (1) take this
project on now; or (2) wait and let Larry and crew pursue it elsewhere
(and then take it on later, possibly, after you see how it works out)."

It's pretty clear to me how most Nupedians would respond to that, but I
could be wrong.

Since it's Jimbo's project, I think it's obvious that he can in good faith
frame the issue however he likes!

Larry
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the obvious is
the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell


from_name: koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Strong request for a new edit window boilerplate

body:
Karen wrote:
>I agree Mav! Something like that does not force 'rules' down people's
>throats, since they seem to object to the idea of having them, but it
>does give us better grounds for control over the morons who consistently
>break the peace. Of course I agree to the rules of the wikipedia, and I
>have no objection to that little line being inserted on the screen :)

I agree too.  I think it's past due, actually.  :-)

kq


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Strong request for a new edit window boilerplate
 requested (was Re: Lir)

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
>

> Because of this and similarly difficult users we have had (and still have), I
> make a /strong/ request that some type of user agreement message be added to
> each edit window. It could state something like the following;
>
>     "By pressing save you indicate that you agree to the
>      rules and conditions of using this website"
>
> 'rules and conditions', as I've stated in previous emails, would be a [in a
> new window] link to a simplified version of the policy page with just the
> basics; NPOV, 'we are an encyclopedia', no copyright violations and
> Wikipetiquette.
>
> Without this, users only imply they agree to follow Wikipedia policy due to
> the fact that they use the server and software (I'm thinking of social
> contract theory here). I don't think the implied agreement/social contract
> set-up works anymore due to the size of our user-base. We need something more
> explicit and dare say binding (in theory at least).
>
> -- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
>
> See http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

I heard something somewhere approximately:  ~ Just powers are derived
from the consent of the governed. ~  I think it was Jefferson in the
U.S. Declaration of Independence but it has been long since middle
school civics.

I think your suggestion above has mucho merit as long as we
achieve clear definitions, due process, and uniform application.
Somebody suggested a short user/contributor bill of rights as well.
Ed's analysis and suggestions seem (to me) quite insightful,
applicable, and easily mergeable with your concepts above.

I think you are somewhat incorrect regarding the size causing
the problem.  In my view, it merely makes the noise unbearable.  I
see the root in a classic fallacy pattern resulting in a
destructive (to the community machinery) positive feedback loop.

New users and old hands alike
think to themselves: "Others do not follow the social contract,
why should I?"  Positive feedback (used in the engineering sense
not the behavorial reinforcement sense) is established as others
observe the growing infractions and the problem grows ever more
rapidly until uncivilized behavior is the norm
and the "community" fragments.  Steady state is achieved
when as many people are leaving as are arriving.  We may be
at or close to this point.

The material Stephen pointed at (on meatballwiki?) seemed very
excellent and correct to me.  IIRC, he placed us somewhere
between 16 and 18 on the scale of 20 observed phases of wiki
community life cycles.

I also like Erik's idea of documenting the prevailing "consensus"
by voting.   gnome.org has a public voting process which they seem
to think works to avoid stuffing the ballot box but it may be based
upon a public key infrastructure.  As Elian and others have pointed
out we need to start resolving some issues.  Alas, this would
require the self discipline to abide by the expressed documented
will of the prevailing voting majority unless Mr. Wales vetos some
truly abhorrent tyranny of the ignorant, irresponsible, unwashed
masses found here such as "no profanity, blasphemy, or porn in
the user account names" referendum which I would immediately submit
to the English community.

Say, I also liked your reorganization proposal for the mailing
lists.  It seemed; to me; well thought out, symmetrical, and logical.

In closing I would like to emphasize that I think we first
need the clear definitions, ratification, due process and
equality before the community policy hammered out before
we implement the boilerplate.

Regards,
Mike Irwin


from_name: Toby Bartels

body:
Anthere wrote in part:

>I am officially asking that the international
>wikipedia list be discarded. It is useless, and
>providing the false feeling to international people
>that it is "their" list, and that they don't need to
>register to the *main* *english* one. This is very
>misleading. It would be better not to pretend things,
>but to make them clear.

>However, also realise that just doing so will prevent
>international wikipedias to have any real involvement
>in general policy matters. Today, in 5 hours, my mail
>box received 85 messages. I do not feel fluent in
>english enough to read all of them. I'll discard some
>of them, hoping no essential issue for us was raised,
>for I know nobody else will tell them.

The problem is that we don't have <enwiki-l>.
Whether or not we keep <intlwiki-l>, we need <enwiki-l>.

Mav wrote a post recently about redesigning the lists,
a specific proposal that built on your earlier suggestion.
I could have sworn that he posted it on <intlwiki-l>,
so I hope that you saw it while you were still reading that.

-- Toby