subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Admins who abuse their powers

body:
David Gerard wrote:

> you'll see a lot of deletion votes that say "there could be a
> good article about this but this isn't it and can't be made into it." So
> in practice, an article may well be deleted and new text with the same name
> created there.

My reading of current policy is that we allow only one-sided double
jeopardy, which is a problem.

Articles can be renominated for deletion as many times as is necessary
in order to get them deleted (although it is considered poor form to
renominate soon after the last time it survived).

Conversely there are some (many?) admins that shoot substantially
similar revived articles on sight if they have previously lost (however
marginally) a VfD.

I don't enough about the particular case to comment, but this imbalance
does seem to be logically wrong.

Pete


list: wikitech-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: java based format parser

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

Stefan Groschupf schrieb:
| Anyway I need now to implement as many Classes as tags exist in the
| wikipedia syntax. :-o

The Bison parser does something like this:

<div attr1="foo" attr2="bar">stuff</div>

to

<extension name='div'><attr name="attr1">foo</attr><attr
name="attr2">bar</attr>stuff</extension>

Maybe that would be easier to do?

Magnus
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCER45CZKBJbEFcz0RAinSAJ9wvYzxme9iCFI8z2ziiXMn+nN+nACdEK/n
TD9KA/TzZjZcetXbd5twSVs=
=OECf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: NSK

subject:
avoiding forks (was Re: [Wikipedia-l] public service ads in
	Wikipedia?)

body:
On Monday 14 February 2005 21:03, Marco Krohn wrote:
> nevertheless I very much agree that the Wikipedia is
> very good concerning mathematical topics.

Personally, one of the reasons I started the http://www.adapedia.org project
(now being migrated to better software) was Wikipedia's terrible (NPOV:
allegedly inadequate) coverage of Computer Science and Mathematics.

You don't have an article about quadratic classifiers. The Classifier article
talks about linguistics. The Software agent article is as short as a kids'
poem.

I have to recognise, however, that the naive bayes article is better. Perhaps
because it's based on an excellent book, which I happen to possess for some
years now.

--
NSK
http://portal.wikinerds.org


list: wikien-l

from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [WikiEN-l] Responsible handling of sexual topics

body:
Karl A. Krueger said:
> Having pictures of an actual car crash would have other problems,
> though -- for one, permission from the persons involved in the crash.
> We don't want to infringe upon the privacy of them or their heirs.
>
Absolutely.  I was just wondering aloud.  There are issues of privacy,
taste, decency and the like, just as there are with showing sexual
pictures, pictures of public slayings such as the Saint Valentine's
Massacre (the immediate aftermath of which we carry a picture) and
whatnot.


body:
sannse said:
>
>
> Tony Sidaway wrote:
>
>> Indeed, whether or not the existing picture is appropriate can be
>> decided by consensus.  Before Jimbo's intervention there were very,
>> very few people seriously arguing that the picture was inappropriate,
>> and I still do not understand that argument.  The question was whether
>> to link.
>
> As I made clear - the link is a *compromise* position as far as I am
> concerned.  I think that will be true of many of those voting for that
> option.
>
The link was a compromise for me, too; it's a two way street.  I was
surprised that there was no consensus for that.


body:
Pete/Pcb21 said:
>
> Articles can be renominated for deletion as many times as is necessary
> in order to get them deleted (although it is considered poor form to
> renominate soon after the last time it survived).

I think there's a good consensus now (alas, one I inadvertently created)
that the community will not bear excessive renominations.  I forget how
many tried that troll article had, but it was at least four.  It seems
that four unsuccessful attempts to delete is considered to be far too
many.


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: Writing about sexual topics responsibly is not
	censorship

body:
Skyring said:
>
> I would say that images which would not normally be found in school
> encyclopaedias or museums such as the Smithsonian would be a good rule
> of thumb, and I'm not just talking about sexual images.

Encyclopedias rely on per-volume sales to people who, quite often, have
issues with all kinds of material.  They are very much the lowest common
denominator.  I think we can set our sights somewhat higher.


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: NYTimes.com: Google may host encyclopedia project

body:
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales a ?crit:
> Mark Williamson wrote:
>
>>So, you think it's good that the majority of the board members were
>>not voted in but rather chosen silently by Jimbo? I said "more
>>complete democracy", not "completely direct democracy".
>
>
> I think it was very good.  Transition in a responsible manner takes
> time.
>
> Angela and Anthere are unbelievably good as board members, and we have
> a casual agreement between us that if the two of them ever vote in one
> direction, I will defer to them, so that it does not matter how Tim
> and Michael vote.  The only exception I would make to this is if they
> wanted something that I felt endangered us in some very extreme way --
> but this is basically impossible because they are so good at what they
> do.
>
> --Jimbo

I love Valentine's day :-)
Could it be everyday please ?

/me looking for a good old compliment for Jimbo as well, but failing to
succeed to select only one in the crowd.


body:
sannse said:
>
>
> Rick wrote:
>> Are we really supposed to believe that people who would object to the
>> appearance of a photograph at [[Autofellatio]] won't also object to
>> the text at [[Fuck]]?
>>
>> RickK
>>
>
> Yes.  I am personally in exactly that category.

I don't think that's a problem.  Where it becomes a problem is that users
are unwilling to learn how to operate their browsers so they want
Wikipedia to provide links to *all* users instead of the inlines they
expect.  Illustrations aren't essential, of course.  But they're very
useful, adding immediacy and impact, color and life to the pages of an
encyclopedia.  It may be that some of the pictures aren't to everybody's
taste (I cannot safely look at a picture of a caterpillar, for instance,
without risking waking nightmares) but it surely doesn't merit making
everybody's browsing experience more clunky, when a few clicks of the
mouse is all that the reader (speaking from experience) needs to do.


from_name: Christiaan Briggs

body:
I prefer "potentially offensive". I think it would be far easier to
come to a consensus when the issue is one of a tag rather than should
it or should it not be deleted.

Christiaan

On 14 Feb 2005, at 8:20 pm, Rick wrote:

> We've had this discussion on several pages.  Nobody can agree on what
> "explicit images" means.  Do we slap that tag on the pictures from Abu
> Graib?  From Auschwitz?  From Dresden?  How about images of Adolf
> Hitler and George Bush?
>
> RickK
>
> Christiaan Briggs <christiaan at last-straw.net> wrote:
> Skyring wrote:
>
>>> Something of this kind cannot be avoided except by banning *all*
>>> sexually explicit images--something I've seen seriously advanced.
>>
>> Well, no. All we need do is have some sort of flag for explicit images
>> and make sure that these are handled appropriately. It could be
>> completely transparent to the user through using cookies. I don't want
>> to ban such images, nor do I think it is possible to stop children
>> viewing them. I just want a way to stop wowsers equating Wikipedia
>> with porn and demonstrating this on prime time TV.
>
> Nail on the head.
>
> Christiaan


body:
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:

> But, consider this restatement: Are we trying to build an
> encyclopedia, or an electronic playpen where annoying trolls can dump
> their porn photos without supervision?

Jimbo, can you explain why you think a picture of a man performing
autofellatio in an article about autofellatio is pornographic?

Christiaan


body:
Christopher Mahan a ?crit:
> --- "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Mark Williamson wrote:
>>
>>>So, you think it's good that the majority of the board members
>>
>>were
>>
>>>not voted in but rather chosen silently by Jimbo? I said "more
>>>complete democracy", not "completely direct democracy".
>>
>>I think it was very good.  Transition in a responsible manner takes
>>time.
>>
>>Angela and Anthere are unbelievably good as board members, and we
>>have
>>a casual agreement between us that if the two of them ever vote in
>>one
>>direction, I will defer to them, so that it does not matter how Tim
>>and Michael vote.  The only exception I would make to this is if
>>they
>>wanted something that I felt endangered us in some very extreme way
>>--
>>but this is basically impossible because they are so good at what
>>they
>>do.
>
>
> Is the re-election campain on already? ;)
>
> I agree as well. I think Angela and Anthere are doing an amazing job.
>
> (See, the British and the French _can_ work with each other)
>
> Since most people don't know how Tim and Michael think, I wouldn't be
> surprised if they too would have the Wikipedia's best interest at
> heart when voting. I am not worried about the Jimbo+2 bloc.
>
> Finally, on moving slow; an old Italian proverb goes something like
> this: "He who travels slowest travels safest."

Ah, a second compliment, this is really a good day :-) Merci Christopher.

I think that what is especially empowering is the leadership type of
Jimbo. Jimbo is not coaching at all, and rather little directing (though
hints are sometimes quite clear), as well as rather little delegating (I
think the foundation would sometimes benefit from more delegation from
Jimbo). His type is essentially supportive. Very low direction but very
high support. This leaves basically as much opportunity to work in
certain directions as one would dream of.
However, one moves in a direction supported by Jimbo much more quickly
than in a direction not supported by Jimbo. I can take a long time to
find a satisfactory decision, but prevents from travelling in an unsafe
direction.


body:
Christiaan Briggs said:
> I prefer "potentially offensive". I think it would be far easier to
> come to a consensus when the issue is one of a tag rather than should
> it or should it not be deleted.
>
I suspect this is just going to make for more tag wars, tag vandalism and
the like.  No pictures until the user actually reads, and admits he has
read, the content disclaimer.  Give him a cookie (and make sure it will
expire  after the session if he's on a public machine).  Casual readers
will still get the text but they don't risk coming face to face with Mr
Goatsex, Mr Autofellatio, Mr Guy About To Be Shot Dead and Mr Guy Whose
Head is being Hacked Off.  No need to grade the pictures.  They should be
chosen according to the nature of the article.


body:
Delirium said:
> Tony Sidaway wrote:
>
>>I suspect this is just going to make for more tag wars, tag vandalism
>>and the like.  No pictures until the user actually reads, and admits he
>>has read, the content disclaimer.  Give him a cookie (and make sure it
>>will expire  after the session if he's on a public machine).  Casual
>>readers will still get the text but they don't risk coming face to face
>>with Mr Goatsex, Mr Autofellatio, Mr Guy About To Be Shot Dead and Mr
>>Guy Whose Head is being Hacked Off.  No need to grade the pictures.
>>They should be chosen according to the nature of the article.
>>
>>
> This is throwing the baby out with the bathwater though.  There are
> some  pictures absolutely nobody objects to---diagrams in geometry
> articles,  for example.

Here's a good one my girlfriend showed me the other day.  Just a
geometrical arrangement.

WARNING: any indecency you see here is purely in your head.

http://img32.exs.cx/img32/4306/mouse5fo.jpg

It really doesn't take long to click a "show me pictures" button, agree
not to blame Wikipedia if you see something you find unpleasant, and then
get on with your life.  And it isn't as if our editors need to see
pictures in order to edit the pages.


body:
Delirium said:
>  Having no images would
> make it a  crappy encyclopedia.  Having so many unpleasant images
> sprinkled through  it that every article on medical procedures or
> disasters or accidents or  anything else potentially related is
> completely unreadable also would  make it a crappy encyclopedia.

Yes, we must get it right.  But there are no intrinsically unpleasant
images, just ones that are useful in an article and ones that are not.
I've already explained why I think autofellatio is an excellent case of an
article that needs a photographic illustration.  We should be able to
display that illustration without apologising, and it really would help if
people would learn how to operate their web browsers.


from_name: sannse

body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
> sannse said:
>
>>
>>Tony Sidaway wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Indeed, whether or not the existing picture is appropriate can be
>>>decided by consensus.  Before Jimbo's intervention there were very,
>>>very few people seriously arguing that the picture was inappropriate,
>>>and I still do not understand that argument.  The question was whether
>>>to link.
>>
>>As I made clear - the link is a *compromise* position as far as I am
>>concerned.  I think that will be true of many of those voting for that
>>option.
>>
>
> The link was a compromise for me, too; it's a two way street.  I was
> surprised that there was no consensus for that.
>

It was hardly a compromise on your part when you voted against it Tony.
   I agree it /would/ have been a compromise for both of us if you had
agreed to it.

--sannse

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 10/02/05


body:
sannse said:
>
> It was hardly a compromise on your part when you voted against it Tony.
>
>   I agree it /would/ have been a compromise for both of us if you had
> agreed to it.
>
Before you even mentioned the idea of a vote, I said I thought the inline
and the link were great.
In response to your like I said: "I like the link that Sannse has
produced. I think the inline image is nice, too because it makes for a
much more dramatic article. You think, "Wow! This is actually possible!"
Which I think is nice for an encyclopedia and beautifully complements the
scholarly prose about Atum and Brian Aldiss and whatnot."

In my vote for inline I said: "Suits me. I changed it to inline on January
6th and have found it to be surprisingly stable in the month since then,
given the controversial contents of the image. So I think I'd like to keep
it inline as it's a lovely picture and he does seem to be enjoying himself
so."
I had to vote some way.  As I like the picture a lot, I voted to inline it.

And still there is, as yet, no consensus to link.


body:
Nicholas Knight said:
>
> _I KNOW HOW TO OPERATE MY WEB BROWSER!_ I shouldn't have to make five
> mouse clicks (or two keystrokes and three mouse clicks at most
> efficient) to avoid seeing this crap in a general-purpose encyclopedia.
>
Could you explain why you used the word "crap" in the above explanation of
why you don't want to use your browser controls?  Do you consider five
mouseclicks to be more or less pleasant than viewing something you,
personally, have assessed as "crap"?


from_name: Nicholas Knight

body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
> Nicholas Knight said:
>
>>Why should I have to jump through hoops to avoid seeing a disgusting
>>image that could easily NOT be inlined in the article?
>
>
> It's a few clicks and it gives you better control over your browsing
> experience than would insisting that every web page you visit should
> conform to your taste.

We are not talking about "every web page I visit", we are talking about
_Wikipedia_.


body:
Christiaan Briggs wrote:
> Nicholas Knight wrote:
>
>> Why do you want so badly to make people accept a picture of a guy
>> sucking his own penis right along with a picture of Earth?
>
>
> Because the damn article is about a guy sucking his penis and when I
> read an article about someone sucking their own penis I want some proof
> and I don't want people forcing me to read an inferior encyclopedia that
> doesn't have this proof because they're squeamish or prudish, especially
> when there are technical ways of dealing with it.

Wow, you've completely failed to read virtually every message I've
written, haven't you?

I've said repeatedly this is about *inlining*. Go ahead and link to the
image, I don't care about that. I care about it being inlined in the
article.


body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
> Nicholas Knight said:
>
>>Tony Sidaway wrote:
>>
>>We are not talking about "every web page I visit", we are talking about
>> _Wikipedia_.
>
>
> You will encounter similar problem at other sites.  The simple technical
> solution I suggest will work with all of them.

My browsing experience on other sites is none of your business. The
issue at hand is Wikipedia and Wikipedia alone.


body:
Christiaan Briggs wrote:
> On 15 Feb 2005, at 9:46 am, Nicholas Knight wrote:
>
>> Christiaan Briggs wrote:
>>
>>> Nicholas Knight wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why do you want so badly to make people accept a picture of a guy
>>>> sucking his own penis right along with a picture of Earth?
>>>
>>> Because the damn article is about a guy sucking his penis and when I
>>> read an article about someone sucking their own penis I want some
>>> proof and I don't want people forcing me to read an inferior
>>> encyclopedia that doesn't have this proof because they're squeamish
>>> or prudish, especially when there are technical ways of dealing with it.
>>
>>
>> Wow, you've completely failed to read virtually every message I've
>> written, haven't you?
>>
>> I've said repeatedly this is about *inlining*. Go ahead and link to
>> the image, I don't care about that. I care about it being inlined in
>> the article.
>
>
> Great, however this would be a compromise for me until a technical
> solution is forthcoming.

Unfortunately, instead of compromising, a vote was resorted to, which
killed any chance at compromise.

This is an object lesson in why votes should be used rarely if ever to
decide things on Wikipedia.


body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
> Nicholas Knight said:
>
>>My browsing experience on other sites is none of your business. The
>>issue at hand is Wikipedia and Wikipedia alone.
>
>
> The solution I suggest will work with Wikipedia also.

The solution you suggest is inconvenient and impractical, and can be
avoided simply by not inlining the image.

What's so bad about being polite to users?


body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
> Nicholas Knight said:
>
>>The solution you suggest is inconvenient and impractical,
>
>
> This is untrue.  I use it myself daily.

You're not everyone.

>>and can be avoided simply by not inlining the image.
>
>
> Doing that simply removes control of part of the browsing experience from
> the user and gives it to the website owner, which is generally perceived
> to be A Bad Thing.

Inlining the image removes no less control from the user.


body:
Christiaan Briggs wrote:
> Nicholas Knight wrote:
>
>> What's so bad about being polite to users?
>
>
> I don't think you understand that people like me find it impolite for
> others to decide what I should and shouldn't be presented with.

1) You could see the image by clicking a clearly marked link.

2) We're deciding what it is best to present people with _by default_.


from_name: zero 0000

subject: [WikiEN-l] new user

body:
Look what the cat dug up:
   [[User:NSM88]]

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo


body:
Christiaan Briggs wrote:
> The thing is Nicholas, you're argument that you shouldn't have to jump
> through hoops to not see the image is just as valid for those who wish
> not to jump through hoops to see the image. And you're the one wanting

How do you decide you _want_ to see the image before knowing what the
image is about? Someone going to [[Autofellatio]] may have no idea what
it's about, but once they know, may be quite sure they do _not_ want to
see a photograph of it. If the image is unconditionally inlined, you've
removed that choice from them.

> to change what was the status quo, so I don't see how this is a lesson

The "status quo" was arrived at by Tony Sidaway inlining the image _with
the full expectation_ that it would not survive. [[WP:POINT]]

> on why votes should be rarely used. In fact the situation might help
> direct some energy at finding a technical solution.

Things are seriously broken if there has to be a massive argument over
something before a technical solution is created.


body:
Christiaan Briggs wrote:
> On 15 Feb 2005, at 10:11 am, Nicholas Knight wrote:
>
>> Christiaan Briggs wrote:
>>
>>> Nicholas Knight wrote:
>>>
>>>> What's so bad about being polite to users?
>>>
>>> I don't think you understand that people like me find it impolite for
>>> others to decide what I should and shouldn't be presented with.
>>
>>
>> 1) You could see the image by clicking a clearly marked link.
>
>
> Yes and I find it impolite that someone has forced me to do that.

You're not the least bit glad someone had the courtesy to consider that
you might not want to see the image, and gave you a choice?

>> 2) We're deciding what it is best to present people with _by default_.
>
>
> Which is why I'm suggesting we create a technical solution tailored to
> individuals/institutions rather than a blanket policy which will offend
> each side of this debate equally.

Which I have no problem with, but we have no solution implemented.


body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
> Nicholas Knight said:
>
>>Christiaan Briggs wrote:
>>
>>>Yes and I find it impolite that someone has forced me to do that.
>>
>>You're not the least bit glad someone had the courtesy to consider that
>> you might not want to see the image, and gave you a choice?
>
>
> That is what inlining does.  Linking reduces the control of the user over
> his browsing experience.

Because instead of letting the user choose to see the image by clicking
one link, you require them to disable ALL images, then reenable ALL
images, in order to see that one image.

Yeah, that's more control. Right.


body:
Christiaan Briggs wrote:
> On 15 Feb 2005, at 10:18 am, Nicholas Knight wrote:
>
>> Christiaan Briggs wrote:
>>
>>> On 15 Feb 2005, at 10:11 am, Nicholas Knight wrote:
>>>
>>>> Christiaan Briggs wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Nicholas Knight wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> What's so bad about being polite to users?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think you understand that people like me find it impolite
>>>>> for others to decide what I should and shouldn't be presented with.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1) You could see the image by clicking a clearly marked link.
>>>
>>> Yes and I find it impolite that someone has forced me to do that.
>>
>>
>> You're not the least bit glad someone had the courtesy to consider
>> that you might not want to see the image, and gave you a choice?
>
>
> I don't see how I could be glad at the same time as been offended. I
> understand your position, I'm just asking you to understand mine.

I understand it, what I don't understand is why you feel sufficiently
strongly about it to feel offended.

>>>> 2) We're deciding what it is best to present people with _by default_.
>>>
>>> Which is why I'm suggesting we create a technical solution tailored
>>> to individuals/institutions rather than a blanket policy which will
>>> offend each side of this debate equally.
>>
>>
>> Which I have no problem with, but we have no solution implemented.
>
>
> Logic follows that we then create a solution, which, as far as I know,
> we're capable of doing.

The solution has been "created" already. It has not been implemented,
which will require someone with PHP skills. You may have them. I do not.


body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
> Nicholas Knight said:
>
>>Because instead of letting the user choose to see the image by clicking
>> one link, you require them to disable ALL images, then reenable ALL
>>images, in order to see that one image.
>
>
> The precise arrangements depend on the browser design.  I believe the
> experience you describe pertained to some of the earlier browsers, such as
> NCSA Mosaic.  Good modern browsers allow a lot of fine control.

The experience I describe pertains to Firefox, the only browser I make
meaningful use of, and which had its 1.0 release late last year.


body:
Christiaan Briggs wrote:
> Nicholas Knight wrote:
>
>> I understand it, what I don't understand is why you feel sufficiently
>> strongly about it to feel offended.
>
>
> Because I'm sick and tired of corporations and other people attempting
> to control how I see the world and attempting to replace it with some
> kind of Disney World. Much the same practice is taking place on our
> televisions screens with regard to war. People have no idea about the
> realities of war because unfathomable efforts are made to ensure they
> get a Disneyfied version of events.

The situations are not even comparable. Linking to an image gives a user
a clear, visible, and easily made choice. Presenting a user with a
canned news broadcast with no other options does not give a user a choice.

> I don't want to live in Disney World, I want to live on Earth with all
> the pain and diversity that entails. I don't see the human body as a
> vessel of sin and shame. I don't have issues with the human body and
> what it is capable of. Treating this image differently by in-lining by
> default is a statement in itself along these lines. Creating a solution
> that caters to individuals and institutions skirts around this issue by
> leaving it up to the user to decide.

Linking to the image IS a solution, it's just not the best one we can
reasonably come up with.

>> The solution has been "created" already. It has not been implemented,
>> which will require someone with PHP skills. You may have them. I do not.
>
>
> What solution is that?

Tag controversial images, preferably into a couple categories (nudity,
blood/gore, could probably think of one or two other good ones). Let the
user set a preference for their defaults (maybe give them a toggle they
can hit at will while browsing to turn all on/off), and then let them
easily select single controversial images to display. There are several
options for the last part, Javascript being the easiest, and it can be
combined with a server-side mechanism for those that have disabled or
lack Javascript support.

Absent strange coding in the affected areas of MediaWiki, none of this
should be particularly difficult to implement for someone with the
neccessary skills.

(Before someone starts complaining about determining what's
controversial, I don't think we're going to have any trouble figuring it
out. Just wait for the firestorm; controversial images will essentially
prove themselves.)


body:
Skyring said:
>
> I agree, but the inevitable result of allowing offensive images,
> especially sexually explicit images, to be freely available to anyone
> who looks up Wikipedia is that there will be strong and vocal
> opposition, and millions of US schoolchildren will be denied access.
> The more well-known Wikipedia becomes, the sooner this will happen. I
> really cannot blame parents, school boards and other community leaders
> if they act to prevent children from accessing graphic images such as a
> bloke sucking himself off, but such action would also deny children
> access to thousands of well-researched articles which are not in
> themselves offensive.

This is going to happen anyway.  We have an article on Donkey Punch and
one on Dirty Sanchez, and those alone, unillustrated, are enough to take
Wikipedia well out of the realm of the child-safe.  If we can agree that
there will be a demand for a child-safe fork of Wikipedia, let us start
formulate the policies and mechanisms that will enable us build it in
tandem with the main one.  There's no need for us to bowdlerize our main
fork if all we need do is produce a child-safe website containing filtered
content on those subject that would be of interest to K12.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: new user

body:
--- zero 0000 <nought_0000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Look what the cat dug up:  [[User:NSM88]]

I'm getting bored with this dirty pictures
discussion.  Take a look at the above user
page, also at [[User talk:Teresa knott]],
for something new to talk about.

Zero.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


body:
John Lee wrote:
> I agree a technical solution is required, but until we have one, linking
> is better than offending a substantial number of our readers. It's the
> psychology of the thing - if people don't have full-blown images thrust
> in their face, they naturally assume it's safe. It doesn't make sense,
> but from my experience, the appearance of being clean is the best middle
> ground between having no potentially offensive images at all and shoving
> it in readers' faces.

It's psychological, but it's not an assumption of safety. Many people
are going to be far more comfortable reading a description -- even
detailed -- of a sexual act than seeing a photograph of it.

I've been looking at this as a debate on presentation, not content.


body:
Skyring said:
>
> "Here is Wikipedia's article on Our Lord, Jesus Christ," the Reverend
> Hardmind might say, opening up the article and showing that the
> Messiah is bending over to receive the divine blessing of twelve
> disciples, their robes around their ankles and their smiles around
> their ears.
>
> Never mind that the image was inserted only minutes previously. The
> damage has been done.

That will happen and it's only a matter of time.  Okay, I know this sounds
like Chicken Licken, but I think it's inevitable.
If schools and parents like Wikipedia's content we should provide it, but
not in raw Wiki form.  Then when the good reverend fulminates against
Wikipedia's editing engine we can just turn around and say that's just the
workfloor, not the version schoolkids see.  We come clean, we admit that
a full-blown Wiki is not a suitable environment for teaching and it's no
place to leave your kids unattended.
It should be possible to scan Wikipedia for about 5000 articles that would
be useful to K12, choose a reasonably stable version and check it for
suitability.  Remove sections if necessary.  Then store that in a
MediaWiki running with editing turned off and you have the start of a
school Wikipedia.
We could rely on the pride of individual editors to perform the task of
reviewing and copy-editing their own copies of candidate articles in
userspace and submitting for the school wiki.  Use an appointed standards
committee of trusted editors to vet the content.


from_name: slimvirgin at gmail.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: new user

body:
So why would he be unblocked?

Sarah

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 03:10:18 -0800 (PST), zero 0000
<nought_0000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> --- zero 0000 <nought_0000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Look what the cat dug up:  [[User:NSM88]]
>
> I'm getting bored with this dirty pictures
> discussion.  Take a look at the above user
> page, also at [[User talk:Teresa knott]],
> for something new to talk about.
>
> Zero.
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: new user

body:
He called the Holocaust the "alleged Holocaust." No one denies there
was a Holocaust, even if they dispute the numbers and the intention of
the Nazis, so that edit amounted to vandalism, as did changing the
"wars against Jews" on [[Jew]] to the "wars caused by Jews." Admins
are empowered to block new users who make disruptive edits, which Zero
did, so I'm wondering why Silsor unblocked him. It's one thing for a
person with these views to become an editor, but it's a different
matter when he comes as Sgt. Whatever of the political party he's
with, posting a picture of himself in his "uniform," which I believe
you deleted; thank you for that if you did.

Sarah

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 14:13:42 +0200, NSK <nsk2 at wikinerds.org> wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 February 2005 13:35, Theresa Knott wrote:
> > What did he actually do that was blockable?
>
> He displayed Nazi symbols on his userpage. He must be blocked. Please don't
> let Wikipedia to become Nazipedia.
>
> --
> NSK
> http://portal.wikinerds.org
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: new user

body:
Is this a photograph of the same person?
http://www.nsm88.com/commandersdesk/commander.html

If it is, the name is supposedly Jeff Schoep. I don't recall the photo
he posted well enough to judge whether it's the same guy. I was just
thinking this could be a known user with a sockpuppet, pretending to
be a Sgt. Walter, using a photo from this website to cause trouble.
Just speculation though.

Sarah

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:28:25 +0000, Theresa Knott
<theresaknott at gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually looking at this users editing behaviour it is pretty clear
> that this is not a new user at all. This is a sockpuppet account
> created to troll.
>
> Theresa
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: new user

body:
How is that different from the hammer and sickle?

Fred

> From: NSK <nsk2 at wikinerds.org>
> Organization: Wikinerds
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 14:13:42 +0200
> To: Theresa Knott <theresaknott at gmail.com>, English Wikipedia
> <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: new user
>
> On Tuesday 15 February 2005 13:35, Theresa Knott wrote:
>> What did he actually do that was blockable?
>
> He displayed Nazi symbols on his userpage. He must be blocked. Please don't
> let Wikipedia to become Nazipedia.
>
> --
> NSK
> http://portal.wikinerds.org
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: new user

body:
You were, of course, right to block him.

Fred

> From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 05:40:19 -0700
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: new user
>
> How is that different from the hammer and sickle?
>
> Fred
>
>> From: NSK <nsk2 at wikinerds.org>
>> Organization: Wikinerds
>> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 14:13:42 +0200
>> To: Theresa Knott <theresaknott at gmail.com>, English Wikipedia
>> <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: new user
>>
>> On Tuesday 15 February 2005 13:35, Theresa Knott wrote:
>>> What did he actually do that was blockable?
>>
>> He displayed Nazi symbols on his userpage. He must be blocked. Please don't
>> let Wikipedia to become Nazipedia.
>>
>> --
>> NSK
>> http://portal.wikinerds.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: new user

body:
Also, he claims to be from Tampa Bay, yet writes in British English.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ta_bu_shi_da_yu&diff=prev&oldid=10286449

Sarah

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 05:41:36 -0700, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> You were, of course, right to block him.
>
> Fred
>
> > From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net>
> > Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> > Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 05:40:19 -0700
> > To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: new user
> >
> > How is that different from the hammer and sickle?
> >
> > Fred
> >
> >> From: NSK <nsk2 at wikinerds.org>
> >> Organization: Wikinerds
> >> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> >> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 14:13:42 +0200
> >> To: Theresa Knott <theresaknott at gmail.com>, English Wikipedia
> >> <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> >> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: new user
> >>
> >> On Tuesday 15 February 2005 13:35, Theresa Knott wrote:
> >>> What did he actually do that was blockable?
> >>
> >> He displayed Nazi symbols on his userpage. He must be blocked. Please don't
> >> let Wikipedia to become Nazipedia.
> >>
> >> --
> >> NSK
> >> http://portal.wikinerds.org
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> >> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: new user

references:
<BE373BC3.BC00%fredbaud@ctelco.net>
	<BE373C10.BC05%fredbaud@ctelco.net>
	<4cc603b05021504443e553ec5@mail.gmail.com>

body:
In fairness, I should say Commonwealth English. Could be a number of
countries of origin.

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 05:44:16 -0700, slimvirgin at gmail.com
<slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> Also, he claims to be from Tampa Bay, yet writes in British English.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ta_bu_shi_da_yu&diff=prev&oldid=10286449
>
> Sarah


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: management

body:
>From my own experience as a child, especially in elementary school, many of
our users are probably elementary school children. One reason to go a lot
easier than we do with the sophisticated technical language some of us lard
our articles with.

Older and educated users may use data in our articles, but I think they will
mostly consult books if they have a serious interest in a subject. They will
certainly immediately see through the efforts of our POV warriors.

Fred

> From: Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 13:53:40 +0100
> To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: management
>
> I hope I do not disturb this list too much in proposing another topic of
> discussion than artificial languages and ads... but right... we know
> little of our end users.
>
>
> We know OURSELVES.
> We do not know WHO read the encyclopedia.
>
> WHO ?
>
>
>
>
> Anthere a ?crit:
>> I have a journalist... looking for a wikipedian (or not) who might
>> report on his use of wikipedia in his working environment.
>>
>> But he wants someone working in private firm rather, not a student, not
>> a teacher, not a researcher...
>>
>> He would need an interview as soon as possible, in english is possible.
>> This interview is meant for a french paper (monthly publication I think)
>> on management (so read by a lot of managers of private business firms).
>>
>> The interview would probably require citing the person name (real name)
>> and likely a picture as well.
>>
>> Right now, we could not succeed to find such a person.
>>
>> If you are in such a situation, please contact him at serge.courrier
>> (AT) pobox.com.
>>
>>
>> Thanks a lot for your help for a desesperate journalist who will not
>> close his article as long as he has not found such a person
>>
>> Anthere
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


from_name: the Epopt of Boskone

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: new user

body:
> I would imagine there are few who would directly equate the Nazi
> regime with Soviet Russia.

I have to agree with Zoney here: few would consider them equivalent.
Soviet Russia was directly responsible for an order of magnitude more
deaths than the Nazis, and indirectly responsible for two orders of
magnitude more.

> I would think the Hammer and Sickle is not as immediately abhorrant a
> symbol (although admittedly I am not in the US).

I have to disagree with Zoney here.  Despite the best efforts of
[[Franklin Delano Roosevelt|Uncle Frank]] to rehabilitate the image of
his buddy [[Joseph Stalin|Uncle Joe]] here in the United States,
I, at least, find the Soviets far more abhorrent than the Nazis.

> Zoney

--
 Sean Barrett     | Some days it just isn't worth
 sean at epoptic.com | chewing through the straps.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: new user

body:
You are probably not in Eastern Europe either.

Fred

> From: Zoney <zoney.ie at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: Zoney <zoney.ie at gmail.com>, English Wikipedia
> <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 13:26:17 +0000
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: new user
>
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 05:40:19 -0700, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>> How is that different from the hammer and sickle?
>>
>> Fred
>>
>
> I would imagine there are few who would directly equate the Nazi
> regime with Soviet Russia.
>
> I would think the Hammer and Sickle is not as immediately abhorrant a
> symbol (although admittedly I am not in the US).
>
> Zoney
>
> --
> ~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


list: wiktionary-l

from_name: Aphaia

subject:
[Wiktionary-l] [jawiktionary] temporary closure is decided on
	consensus (8/1/0)

body:
Hello,
Japanese Wiktionary community discussed on its temporary closure since last week
and it was approved with 8 support against 1 objection.

I am writing this mail as an user of Japanese Wiktionary but it is my own view
and understanding and not approved by the community in advance.

Today (JST Feb 15; UTC Feb 14) User:Electric goat requested its
temporary closure
on meta and I have Anthere notice our requests in the irc channel
#wikimedia hosted
freenode.

It is not determined when it will re-open. it will be after major
policies and guidelines
will be written and approved by the exiled community. Discussions and
drafting will
be done on meta.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC%E8%AA%9E%E7%89%88%E3%82%A6%E3%82%A3%E3%82%AF%E3%82%B7%E3%83%A7%E3%83%8A%E3%83%AA%E3%83%BC%E3%81%AE%E6%95%B4%E5%82%99
(Page name: ??????????????? Organisation of Japanese Wiktionary)

Further inforamtion will be posted as soon as possible.

Cheers,

--
Aphaea@*.wikipedia.org
email: Aphaia @ gmail (dot) com


body:
Skyring said:
>
> Do I detect a certain amount of tongue in cheek above?

Absolutely none.   I do think the product should be separated from the
process, where it comes to dealing with the sensibilities of this
particular specialized audience.  I don't personally think  should be in
the K12 business at all; we should leave all the effort to some
organization with experience in educational publishing.


body:
Nicholas Knight said:
>
> Why should I have to jump through hoops to avoid seeing a disgusting
> image that could easily NOT be inlined in the article?

It's a few clicks and it gives you better control over your browsing
experience than would insisting that every web page you visit should
conform to your taste.


from_name: Petr Kadlec

subject: [Wikitech-l] what happened to en db download?

body:
> Well yes, but refreshlinks.php takes a LONG time to run and tends to bomb out eventually on my installation...

Just to be sure: be advised that 1.4beta5 fixed some bugs (memory
leaks, take a look at
http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1101) with those refresh
scripts. If you are experiencing problems, this might be the cause.

-- [[:cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec ]]


from_name: csherlock at ljh.com.au

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: "It's what some editors feel..." The reality of
	editorial authority

body:
Daniel P.B.Smith wrote:
 >
> But on to the next sentence.
>
> "Widely regarded as the greatest scientist of the 20th century."
>
> Wow. Weasel-words and everything!
>
> Now, there are two directions one could go in this point. One could
> discuss how to fix this "problem." By replacing it with a verifiable
> factual statement like "won the Nobel price." Or finding a citable
> source. "In an article published the day after his death, The New York
> Times said 'Dr. Albert Einstein was respected above all others by
> scientists the world over as the outstanding intellect in modern
> times.'" (Yeah, that's real, I just looked it up).

I'd just like to pipe up here (and I'm probably missing the point), but
I'd like to point out that as a rule I think it's OK for lead sections
to have "weasel words", so long as they are substatiated in the main text.

TBSDY


from_name: Stirling Newberry

subject:
avoiding forks (was Re: [Wikipedia-l] public service ads
	in	Wikipedia?)

body:
On Feb 15, 2005, at 9:13 AM, Tony Sidaway wrote:

> NSK said:
>> Have you ever wondered why I rarely edit at Wikipedia?
>> it's  because I know that nobody will know that an article or
>> paragraph
>> was written  by me.
>
> Good grief, is that what it's all about?
>

In my course of recruiting for wikipedia, this is a statement made by
several academics. The nature of wikipedia as a "people's encyclopedia"
stops them.

Now this is a serious question - people will work for free but not for
nothing - and part of what will help wikipedia grow is finding ways of
giving people the ability to get "something" for their work,
particularly in the writing community, that is the body of editors who
make large contributions. Right now we hand out the ability to POV push
- which is why we are codependent on poves. Another ability which we
are about to hand out is the ability to google bomb by pushing your
favorite sites in links. Fights over these issues are among the most
personal and stress inducing in wikipedia. It would be better if we
could "pay" people in some other form, to induce more contributors of
the kind who write good NPOV articles. We have a currency for people
who can negotiate compromise - administrator status - but not for
people who can create articles.

Where I  disagree with NSK is that the required inducement is handing
out "ownership", simply because the experience of wikibooks - namely
that it isn't growing quickly - shows that "credit" is only worth
something when it is attached to something else, like money. Handing
out ownership stops other editors from working on something, which
means that the economics moves back to "what a single editor can
produce". At which point he might as well produce for money. Article
ownership is the wrong currency to hand out.

However, "credit" of other kinds could given, one which did not attach
"ownership" to a particular article. Wikipedia should look into ways to
recognize its creative contributors, without attaching personal credit
or ownership over articles.


body:
On Tuesday 15 February 2005 02:08, Mark Williamson wrote:
> Uhhm... {{sofixit}}...

You could fix it very easily if:

- You make Wikipedia more attractive for experts, academics, scientists
- You make sure no article gets forgotten by encouraging people to concentrate
on their own articles, instead of editing here and there in the whole wiki
- You allow these people to put their names and biographies in the articles
they write
- You help these people collect some donations from their readership.
Wikimedia Foundation collects some donations for the servers, but it could
also give some of it to the editors, too.
- You make the articles to have versions, and have a "frozen" (protected)
article in the mainspace, so that new contributions (which may be vandalism
or whatever) go to an "under construction" version.

In our projects, such as http://www.nerdypc.org and http://www.adapedia.org
(now being migrated to better software), we are trying to find ways to
implement these ideas. You can read some preliminary analysis for our IT wiki
at http://nerdypc.wikinerds.org/index.php/Help:Editing_process

--
NSK
http://portal.wikinerds.org


from_name: Christopher Mahan

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: management

body:
--- Tony Sidaway <minorityreport at bluebottle.com> wrote:

> Anthere said:
> > We do not know WHO read the encyclopedia.
>
> When I was at the Grauniad we commissioned a company to come and
> attach to
> the site, for a period of some weeks, a pop-up survey that was seen
> by a
> randomly selected subset of users, who then would have the option
> of
> filling it in.
> You can also learn a certain amount by looking at web server logs.
> Country of origin, ISP, and some information about the software
> being used
> to browse.  Also Referer (where Wikipedia is reached as a result of
> an
> external link on another website.) With tracker cookies (a form of
> spyware) you may also find out which other sites are being visited.
>  A
> benign use of this latter technique would be an in-house
> domain-wide
> tracker that would record the Wikipedia sister sites that have been
> visited by a user.  This latter technical information wouldn't tell
> us
> about our users so much as how Wikipedia was being used.  How much
> was
> from academia, how much from school networks, how much from
> different
> countries and different ISPs, and so on.

Way too much personal information in there man.

I say we put a feedback/kudos form or a guestbook or something like
that.

=====
Chris Mahan
818.943.1850 cell
chris_mahan at yahoo.com
chris.mahan at gmail.com
http://www.christophermahan.com/

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
http://my.yahoo.com


body:
Nicholas Knight wrote:

> Why do you want so badly to make people accept a picture of a guy
> sucking his own penis right along with a picture of Earth?

Because the damn article is about a guy sucking his penis and when I
read an article about someone sucking their own penis I want some proof
and I don't want people forcing me to read an inferior encyclopedia
that doesn't have this proof because they're squeamish or prudish,
especially when there are technical ways of dealing with it.

Christiaan


from_name: Skyring

body:
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 12:20:45 -0800 (PST), Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> We've had this discussion on several pages.  Nobody can agree on what "explicit images" means.  Do we slap that tag on the pictures from Abu Graib?  From Auschwitz?  From Dresden?  How about images of Adolf Hitler and George Bush?

I would say that images which would not normally be found in school
encyclopaedias or museums such as the Smithsonian would be a good rule
of thumb, and I'm not just talking about sexual images.

I was in the Holocaust Museum in Washington a few weeks back and
although schoolchildren are welcomed and encouraged to attend, certain
exhibitions had warnings posted at the entrance. And rightly so.

I don't think there is any hard and fast guide as to what exactly
makes an image offensive, disturbing or explicit, but I think that the
Wikipedia community could be trusted to find a consensus on a case by
case basis. My feeling is that the Autofellatio photograph would be
generally agreed as being one that should not be generally accessible
to schoolchildren.

I use schoolchildren as an example, not because I want to emasculate
or prudify Wikipedia to the level that it offends nobody, but because
schoolchildren are prime users of information resources such as
Wikipedia, and the last thing we should do is to make it difficult for
them to use Wikipedia. I know that some people here think that
individula users should accept all responsibility, but many teachers
and parents don't see it that way.

I was engaged in discussion in another forum, and someone brought up
an example of the Wikipedia article on the Nile River. An innocuous
article, one might imagine, but it so happened that at the time my
correspondent was opening it up for the benefit of a schoolchild it
had recently been vandalised and consisted of nothing but obscenities.

I can't see any way of getting around this sort of thing in the
current state of Wikipedia, because inappropriate text or images could
be inserted without warning - possibly by mischevious schoolchildren -
and it might take some time before the situation is noticed and
corrected.

Maybe we should be thinking about having default material that is
known to be in a useful and "safe" state and that the "live" material
can only be accessed by specifically setting some flag or clicking on
an accept button or some similar mechanism.
--
Peter in Canberra


body:
Nicholas Knight said:
> Tony Sidaway wrote:
>
> We are not talking about "every web page I visit", we are talking about
>  _Wikipedia_.

You will encounter similar problem at other sites.  The simple technical
solution I suggest will work with all of them.


from_name: Matt Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] Whitespace in articles

body:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 17:18:07 +0000, Tomer Chachamu <the.r3m0t at gmail.com> wrote:
> Can anybody explain policy on whitespace? Specifically:
>
> 1) On lists (* and #) should there be spaces after those stars and hashes?
> 2) In headings (===Text===) should there be spaces, as in "=== Text ==="?
> 3) Should there be blank lines before/after these headings?
> 4) Should there be blank lines at the end of articles, i.e. before and
> after interwiki links and category inclusions? This often causes an
> (IMO) unsightly amount of blank space at the end of an article.
> 5) When and why were interwiki and category links moved to one a line?

I can't speak for anyone else, but removing spaces will really tick me
off.  Spaces after list heading characters and spaces in titles do not
change the visual appearance of anything, and in some peoples' opinion
improve the readability.

There should be blank lines before and after headings, IMO.  There
does not seem to be consensus for the after, but there is definitely
consensus for the before.

Current MediaWiki handling of vertical whitespace is a bug, plain and
simple.  Someday it'll bug me enough to learn PHP to fix it.  Multiple
blank lines in the source should not mean multiple blank lines in the
output.  I support hacks to fix really ugly cases, but I think here
the solution is to fix the code, not make the articles an ugly mess to
work around it.

-Matt


body:
On 15 Feb 2005, at 9:46 am, Nicholas Knight wrote:

> Christiaan Briggs wrote:
>> Nicholas Knight wrote:
>>> Why do you want so badly to make people accept a picture of a guy
>>> sucking his own penis right along with a picture of Earth?
>> Because the damn article is about a guy sucking his penis and when I
>> read an article about someone sucking their own penis I want some
>> proof and I don't want people forcing me to read an inferior
>> encyclopedia that doesn't have this proof because they're squeamish
>> or prudish, especially when there are technical ways of dealing with
>> it.
>
> Wow, you've completely failed to read virtually every message I've
> written, haven't you?
>
> I've said repeatedly this is about *inlining*. Go ahead and link to
> the image, I don't care about that. I care about it being inlined in
> the article.

Great, however this would be a compromise for me until a technical
solution is forthcoming.

Christiaan


body:
Nicholas Knight wrote:

> My browsing experience on other sites is none of your business. The
> issue at hand is Wikipedia and Wikipedia alone.

Let me guess, you secretly frequent solosuck.com ;)


body:
Nicholas Knight said:
>
> My browsing experience on other sites is none of your business. The
> issue at hand is Wikipedia and Wikipedia alone.

The solution I suggest will work with Wikipedia also.


from_name: Karl A. Krueger

body:
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 03:42:50PM +0800, John Lee wrote:
> I strongly disagree. This is the web, yes, but there are quite a number
> of people who just want to be able to browse and read about sexual
> topics without being exposed to outrageous photographs "in your face".

There are, likewise, quite a number of people who want to read about
medical topics without being exposed to photographs of internal organs
"in your face".

There are probably people who want to read about [[anti-Semitism]]
without being exposed to photographs of Ku Klux Klansmen and Nazi
propaganda "in your face".

On the other hand, there are people who want to hit the "Random page"
button and not get a biography of a porn star like [[Andrea Spinks]] or
a frank and accurate description of the [[Kama Sutra]], even if it
doesn't have any nekkid pixx0r.  And there are others who are quite
severely offended by the fact that the text of our articles [[Jesus]] or
[[Mohammed]] or [[homeopathy]] doesn't parrot their precise view of
these.

The idea that sexual topics, or sexually accurate images, are *uniquely*
risky or likely to offend is not particularly close to being accurate.
There is no bright-line distinction between "offense" and "POV", since
so many people are offended by seeing or reading about things or views
whose existence they object to.

If we would seek the approval of Mrs. Grundy or her pastor Rev.
Bookburner, simply submitting to their views about images will not
suffice.  We would need to submit to their views about our text, too ...
because it really isn't dirty images they want to destroy, but rather
dirty thoughts and the dirty people who think them.

> There is minimal harm done in linking or having a tiny thumbnail linking
> to the larger image. Appropriate encyclopedic images should be kept, but
> should not be thrust in our readers' faces. It's just plain common
> sense. It's the same reason we don't directly link to Goatse; we err on
> the side of caution. The same applies here.

Well ... actually ... we *do* link to [[Goatse.cx]], or rather, to a
number of mirrors of that site, since it is no longer up.  We don't have
the image inline.

I, for one, am much more offended by trolling -- that is, the deliberate
disruption of a worthwhile discourse -- than I am by pictures of penises
or anuses.  Everyone has an anus, and about half of us have penises.

> There's a dimension I feel everyone in this debate has been missing. It
> doesn't matter that the image is harmless or that a thumbnail hurts
> nobody or that censorship is wrong or that most of us aren't really
> offended. What matters is what our readers think. Like it or not, our
> readers are still squeemish about these things.

I'm squeamish about anything that reeks of censorship, myself.  It makes
me feel all icky and dirty inside to recall that there are so very many
human beings who would like to put me in jail (or worse) because I
rather enjoy a great number of things that they disapprove of.

> Without editors, Wikipedia is nothing. Without readers, Wikipedia is
> nothing. We, editors, cannot impose our opinions on the readers. And a
> substantial amount of our readers are offended by inline images of a man
> sucking his dick. It's simple as that. It doesn't matter *why* they're
> offended; nothing we say can change their minds. They'll just leave,
> with probably a bad thing or two to say the next time they hear the word
> "Wikipedia".

Plenty of people already have bad things to say about Wikipedia without
the nekkid pixx0r, too.  We're an arm of the atheist Zionist capitalist
anti-American Marxist evolutionist American-centric libertarian Democrat
conspiracy against the white race -- you've got to expect we'll take
some heat.

> Remember, our image is integral as well. No matter how we try to
> convince people, the damage has been done if we allow seriously
> offensive images to be displayed inline.

Linking to them, rather than keeping them inline, does precious little
to defuse the wrath of the self-righteous.  Instead of being an archive
of Satan's favorite images, we then become a Web directory of Satan's
favorite images.

> I think this dispute marks a critical turning point in our history -
> will the readers' or editors' interests triumph?  It's interesting here,
> because the editors are under no obligation to continue work, and there
> is substantial overlap between readers and editors. Our case is unique,
> and the only reason the editors' interests have held out so long is
> because until now, most readers have also been editors. That is no
> longer the case. Wikipedia is reaching for a broader audience everyday,
> and we must cater to this audience which is considerably more
> conservative and technology-averse than our traditional editors.

I disagree.  In order to continue Wikipedia's success we need to keep
doing what has worked so far.

Trying to reach out to the censorious by dropping the nekkid pixx0r is a
waste of time.  They *don't care* if we have nekkid pixx0r or not; our
evil is obvious in that we don't parrot their party line about whatever
hot-button issue they fuss about.

> This image dispute is not the only example of readers versus editors;
> just look at the efforts to move editor-only templates to the talk pages.

It seems to me to be rather destructive to the discourse to pretend that
your views on images or templates are the side of "the readers" and that
those who disagree with you are, therefore, against "the readers".

--
Karl A. Krueger <kkrueger at whoi.edu>


from_name: Tony Sidaway

body:
Nicholas Knight said:
>
> Unfortunately, instead of compromising, a vote was resorted to, which
> killed any chance at compromise.
>
> This is an object lesson in why votes should be used rarely if ever to
> decide things on Wikipedia.

I think this is a mischaracterization.  The survey showed the (to my mind)
astonishing popularity of the inlining option; it was clear before Jimbo
intervened that a consensus to link would build slowly, if at all, in the
face of strong (40%+) opposition.  Several compromises were being actively
considered at the time and in fact one of those compromises is in
operation on the article now.


body:
The thing is Nicholas, you're argument that you shouldn't have to jump
through hoops to not see the image is just as valid for those who wish
not to jump through hoops to see the image. And you're the one wanting
to change what was the status quo, so I don't see how this is a lesson
on why votes should be rarely used. In fact the situation might help
direct some energy at finding a technical solution.

Christiaan

Nicholas Knight wrote:

> Christiaan Briggs wrote:
>> On 15 Feb 2005, at 9:46 am, Nicholas Knight wrote:
>>> Christiaan Briggs wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nicholas Knight wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Why do you want so badly to make people accept a picture of a guy
>>>>> sucking his own penis right along with a picture of Earth?
>>>>
>>>> Because the damn article is about a guy sucking his penis and when
>>>> I read an article about someone sucking their own penis I want some
>>>> proof and I don't want people forcing me to read an inferior
>>>> encyclopedia that doesn't have this proof because they're squeamish
>>>> or prudish, especially when there are technical ways of dealing
>>>> with it.
>>>
>>> Wow, you've completely failed to read virtually every message I've
>>> written, haven't you?
>>>
>>> I've said repeatedly this is about *inlining*. Go ahead and link to
>>> the image, I don't care about that. I care about it being inlined in
>>> the article.
>> Great, however this would be a compromise for me until a technical
>> solution is forthcoming.
>
> Unfortunately, instead of compromising, a vote was resorted to, which
> killed any chance at compromise.
>
> This is an object lesson in why votes should be used rarely if ever to
> decide things on Wikipedia.


body:
Nicholas Knight wrote:

> What's so bad about being polite to users?

I don't think you understand that people like me find it impolite for
others to decide what I should and shouldn't be presented with.

Christiaan


body:
Nicholas Knight said:
>
> The solution you suggest is inconvenient and impractical,

This is untrue.  I use it myself daily.

> and can be avoided simply by not inlining the image.

Doing that simply removes control of part of the browsing experience from
the user and gives it to the website owner, which is generally perceived
to be A Bad Thing.


body:
I agree, we could deal with this far more effectively with MediaWiki.

Christiaan

On 15 Feb 2005, at 7:43 am, John Lee wrote:

> Tony Sidaway wrote:
>
>> Nicholas Knight said:
>>
>>> _I KNOW HOW TO OPERATE MY WEB BROWSER!_ I shouldn't have to make five
>>> mouse clicks (or two keystrokes and three mouse clicks at most
>>> efficient) to avoid seeing this crap in a general-purpose
>>> encyclopedia.
>>>
>>>
>> Could you explain why you used the word "crap" in the above
>> explanation of
>> why you don't want to use your browser controls?  Do you consider five
>> mouseclicks to be more or less pleasant than viewing something you,
>> personally, have assessed as "crap"?
>>
> It's one click for someone who desires the image. It's five clicks for
> someone who doesn't desire the image. If both groups are equal (and
> knowing Wikipedia's audience, they won't; guess which group is
> larger?), who should have to make the sacrifice?
>
> John Lee
> ([[User:Johnleemk]])


from_name: Andre Engels

subject: [Wikitech-l] fy language file

body:
I have changed the name of the category namespace in the Frisian
language file; could it be made live? What else do I need to do?

Also, there is a wish to change the User: namespace from 'Br?ker' to
'Meidogger'. However, for this they want the old name to remain as an
alternative (like the English names are currently alternatives on all
wikis). How would that be done?

Andre Engels


from_name: Christiaan Briggs

body:
On 15 Feb 2005, at 10:11 am, Nicholas Knight wrote:

> Christiaan Briggs wrote:
>> Nicholas Knight wrote:
>>> What's so bad about being polite to users?
>> I don't think you understand that people like me find it impolite for
>> others to decide what I should and shouldn't be presented with.
>
> 1) You could see the image by clicking a clearly marked link.

Yes and I find it impolite that someone has forced me to do that.

> 2) We're deciding what it is best to present people with _by default_.

Which is why I'm suggesting we create a technical solution tailored to
individuals/institutions rather than a blanket policy which will offend
each side of this debate equally.

Christiaan


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: new user

body:
NSK wrote:

>On Tuesday 15 February 2005 13:35, Theresa Knott wrote:
>
>
>>What did he actually do that was blockable?
>>
>>
>He displayed Nazi symbols on his userpage. He must be blocked. Please don't
>let Wikipedia to become Nazipedia.
>
That's a bit much.  (I say nothing of what he might have done
elsewhere.)  There should be a lot more latitude on a user page.  A
picture of oneself in Nazi regalia says a lot more than a page full of
words.  It immediately gives an impression about the person's
credibility.  Unless it was maliciously posted there by someone else I
would leave everything there just the way he wanted.

Ec


body:
John Lee said:
> Like it or not, our
> readers are still squeemish about these things.

I see no reason to suppose that this is generally true.


body:
Nicholas Knight said:
>
> Inlining the image removes no less control from the user.

On the contrary, it gives the user complete control over whether the image
appears with the text or not, or if the user views the image on its own
separate from the text.  Linking takes away that control and only gives
the user the option of viewing the image separately from the text or not
at all.


body:
On 15 Feb 2005, at 10:18 am, Nicholas Knight wrote:

> Christiaan Briggs wrote:
>> On 15 Feb 2005, at 10:11 am, Nicholas Knight wrote:
>>> Christiaan Briggs wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nicholas Knight wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What's so bad about being polite to users?
>>>>
>>>> I don't think you understand that people like me find it impolite
>>>> for others to decide what I should and shouldn't be presented with.
>>>
>>> 1) You could see the image by clicking a clearly marked link.
>> Yes and I find it impolite that someone has forced me to do that.
>
> You're not the least bit glad someone had the courtesy to consider
> that you might not want to see the image, and gave you a choice?

I don't see how I could be glad at the same time as been offended. I
understand your position, I'm just asking you to understand mine.

>>> 2) We're deciding what it is best to present people with _by
>>> default_.
>> Which is why I'm suggesting we create a technical solution tailored
>> to individuals/institutions rather than a blanket policy which will
>> offend each side of this debate equally.
>
> Which I have no problem with, but we have no solution implemented.

Logic follows that we then create a solution, which, as far as I know,
we're capable of doing.

Christiaan


from_name: Chad Perrin

body:
Neil Harris wrote:

> However, the issue of what the default presentation should be remains.
> If we make "controversial images off" the default for editors, they will
> not be able to exercise oversight over image content, and we could have
> a worse problem than before.

I'd vote "controversial images on" as the default, for exactly that reason.

--
Chad


body:
Nicholas Knight said:
>
> The "status quo" was arrived at by Tony Sidaway inlining the image
> _with  the full expectation_ that it would not survive. [[WP:POINT]]

Incorrect.  I wondered how long it would survive.  I am glad that I
conducted the experiment; it appears that inlining controversial images is
much more viable than I had previously believed.


body:
Nicholas Knight said:
> Christiaan Briggs wrote:
>>
>> Yes and I find it impolite that someone has forced me to do that.
>
> You're not the least bit glad someone had the courtesy to consider that
>  you might not want to see the image, and gave you a choice?

That is what inlining does.  Linking reduces the control of the user over
his browsing experience.


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] fy language file

body:
Andre Engels wrote:
> I have changed the name of the category namespace in the Frisian
> language file; could it be made live? What else do I need to do?

Looks like you changed the category namespace's name. This must not be
made live until a compatibility use for the old name has been added.

You've also corrupted the file by adding a UTF-8 byte order mark at the
start of the file, which can break some HTTP output. Take that out.

Note too that we're no longer making any changes to 1.3 other than
security fixes, and none of our wikis are still running it. You should
revert the change from REL1_3 and commit fixed changes in HEAD and
REL1_4 instead.

> Also, there is a wish to change the User: namespace from 'Br?ker' to
> 'Meidogger'. However, for this they want the old name to remain as an
> alternative (like the English names are currently alternatives on all
> wikis). How would that be done?

See for example getNsIndex() in LanguageFr.php; you'd add extra checks
there for the alternate names.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20050215/4368df6a/attachment.pgp>


from_name: JAY JG

subject: [WikiEN-l] new user

body:
>
>Look what the cat dug up:
>    [[User:NSM88]]

In case people here aren't aware, when neo-Nazis use the number "88" it is
code for "Heil Hitler", "H" being the 8th letter of the alphabet.

Jay.


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Controversial articles (was Writing about sexual
	topics responsibly is not censorship)

body:
Arno M wrote:

> There are quite a few other problem articles in wikipedia.

That's because we live on Earth, not Disneyworld.

Christiaan


body:
On Feb 15, 2005, at 9:29 AM, Andre Engels wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 01:26:55 +1100, David Gerard
> <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
>> I use my full name (rather than a net handle) on Wikipedia because it
>> seems
>> more proper, and also the credit clearly then goes to ME ME ME ME ME.
>> Have they seen the history pages? It's usually clear which two or
>> three
>> editors are primarily responsible for an article text.
>
> Less clear than it might be. On a minor page you have to check about
> 10 edits to see that there are 1 or 2 people who wrote almost
> everything. On pages with much traffic it's more like checking 50 to
> find 5 of them.
>
> Andre Engels

And in  a few months the major edits will be buried under small changes
a few revert wars over whether to include a particular link etc. More
over, this is still article ownership, and creates an incentive to keep
bits the same because they were "yours". Contribution doesn't equal bit
persistence, but concept persistence, and while technical tools can
help us find this, they cannot define it.

This is one reason why organizations in the analog world hand out
awards and give out honorary posts, because they are a means of
recognizing contribution without attaching it to present ownership or
control, and without creating a perverse incentive to stop other people
from doing work. There are already informal networks of recognition on
wikipedia, what is needed is some way of making them more formal, and
thus more transferable to the author's credit.

What we don't want is people trying to keep articles the same because
the bits are "theirs", what we do want is people contributing material
that the wikiprocess then goes to work on to produce "finished"
product.


body:
Nicholas Knight said:
>
> Because instead of letting the user choose to see the image by clicking
>  one link, you require them to disable ALL images, then reenable ALL
> images, in order to see that one image.

The precise arrangements depend on the browser design.  I believe the
experience you describe pertained to some of the earlier browsers, such as
NCSA Mosaic.  Good modern browsers allow a lot of fine control.


from_name: Theresa Knott

body:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:53:06 +0600, Arno M <redgum46 at lycos.com> wrote:
>  these always were unsuitable to minors.

Wikipedia is a wiki. That means _anyone_ can edit it, including those
people who like to prey on children. Wikipedia is not suitable for
minors and will be banned from schools soon enough anyway in the same
way that chat rooms are banned from schools.

Wikipedia is an adult encylopedia, and should cater for adults.

Theresa


body:
Nicholas Knight wrote:

> I understand it, what I don't understand is why you feel sufficiently
> strongly about it to feel offended.

Because I'm sick and tired of corporations and other people attempting
to control how I see the world and attempting to replace it with some
kind of Disney World. Much the same practice is taking place on our
televisions screens with regard to war. People have no idea about the
realities of war because unfathomable efforts are made to ensure they
get a Disneyfied version of events.

I don't want to live in Disney World, I want to live on Earth with all
the pain and diversity that entails. I don't see the human body as a
vessel of sin and shame. I don't have issues with the human body and
what it is capable of. Treating this image differently by in-lining by
default is a statement in itself along these lines. Creating a solution
that caters to individuals and institutions skirts around this issue by
leaving it up to the user to decide.

> The solution has been "created" already. It has not been implemented,
> which will require someone with PHP skills. You may have them. I do
> not.

What solution is that?

Christiaan


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: new user

body:
Zoney wrote:

>
> I do not doubt that assertion, but it's more to do with the specific
> circumstances involved. Eastern Europe was mentioned. Well, the USSR
> sure wanted to control those countries, but the complete eradication
> of their peoples was not attempted (even if less "total" activities
> were going on). I don't doubt many in Eastern Europe would not like to
> see a hammer and sickle, but I don't think it's remotely comparable to
> what the Swastika stands for to Jews.

I'm not sure how the supposed reasons for murder are relevant to the
repugnance of symbols associated with those murders.  The fact that they
are murders and were committed under the auspices of that symbol seems
to be the salient point.  The fact that many more murders were committed
under the auspices of the symbol you dismiss as being less abhorrent
further raises confusion in my mind about your system of measurement of
the worth of a life and the crime of taking it.

Apparently, to you, killing someone for being a Jew is more wrong than
killing someone for speaking out of turn.  To me, it's equivalent in
either case, because in both cases it is murder.

Completely aside from that, the swastika has been used for other
purposes for hundreds of years before World War II, including as a
Christian symbol, while the hammer and sickle went from obscurity to
symbol of an oppressive, mass-murdering regime in a relative blink of an
eye.

>
> And also, if we are to begin considering "indirect deaths", well, the
> US is responsible for quite a lot "indirectly".

Let's not start with the circumstantial ad hominem comparisons.  It
would be nice if you'd retract that statement.

--
Chad


from_name: Robert

subject: [WikiEN-l] Is there a secret ban against RK?

body:
I have been back on Wikipedia for two days, and already two
people are trying to throw me off again.  RickK has tried,
and now Zero has just written me:

> You are violating the AC ruling that "RK is banned from
> editing articles directly or indirectly related to
> Judaism for one year".  You had better stop before
> someone starts applying the prescribed penalties.

What the hell is Zero talking about?  I have never heard of
any such ban.  Are there secret bans now, bans made without
informing the person being banned?!

I do not know any people working on the Judaism articles
who are asking for such a thing. In fact, I have worked
quite well with dozens of other people on dozens of
Judaism-related articles, even people who have points of
view that are quite the opposite of my own.

This includes working both on the Wikipedia, and private
conversations in e-mail with others to work disagreements
out - and such conversations have always ended up being
successful.  (Isn't that part of our goal?)  Is someone
trying to deny this, and present it as if the opposite were
true?

It seems that my self-perceived enemies are out to create
serious arguments where they do not actually exist.
Shouldn't people deal with the real flamewars that require
real intervention?

In any case, a point of policy: If admins are creating
secret bans without informing the person being banned, then
they are obviously guilty of not following their own rules,
and are also guilty of trying to entrap users.  This kind
of action should automatically make any such secret
decisions null and void, and is grounds for someone asking
for disciplinary action against them.

Frankly, after working so hard in good faith I expected
better behaviour from others here.

I shall continue editing in good faith on all sorts of
articles, in accord with all Wikipedia policy, just like
anyone else, unless I find out that there is some sort of
secret ban.  In that case, a whole new can of worms will be
opened.  I am seriously distressed that I have have to
initiate a Request for Comment on the actions on Admins.
But given recent news, it appears that a number of Admins
think that Wikipedia rules do not apply to them, and that
concerns me.

And it should concern you as well.

Robert (RK)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
All your favorites on one personal page ? Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: new user

body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
> Chad Perrin said:
>
>>The swastika has been used for other
>>purposes for hundreds of years before World War II, including as a
>>Christian symbol, while the hammer and sickle went from obscurity to
>>symbol of an oppressive, mass-murdering regime in a relative blink of
>>an  eye.
>>
>
> The hammer and sickle has much wider acceptance.  It's still the symbol of
> Aeroflot, it's a popular design on t-shirts and the like, and variants
> incorporating the hammer and sickle or other work-related symbols (spade,
> torch and hoe in the case of the British Labour Party's old symbol) have
> enjoyed considerable popularity and virtually no controversy.  The regime
> was murderous but the ideals it traded on were not.

If you think the ideals on which the Nazi Party traded were overtly
murderous, you are mistaken.

Essentially, what you're saying appears to be:  "The hammer and sickle
is okay because it has been sensationalized differently."  That roughly
equates to saying "It's no big deal: it's just a symbol."

If it's just a symbol, the same is true of the swastika.  If the
swastika is "a symbol of a murderous regime," though, then the hammer
and sickle is as well.  Please, either ascribe abhorrence to both or to
neither.  I'll respect either decision.  Just don't try to pretend that
one is okay and the other is not.

--
Chad


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: new user

body:
Charles Matthews wrote:
> Chad Perrin wrote
>
>
>>Apparently, to you, killing someone for being a Jew is more wrong than
>>killing someone for speaking out of turn.  To me, it's equivalent in
>>either case, because in both cases it is murder.
>
>
> There is a policy on this list about personal attacks.
>

It's not a personal attack.  It's a statement of my analysis of your
apparent views on the matter.  I didn't say "Apparently, to you, killing
someone for speaking out of turn isn't wrong."  What I said was that you
apparently think it's MORE wrong to murder someone for ethnic reasons
than politically oppressive reasons.  If that is not the case, you might
want to think about the logical contradiction in your earlier statements.

To claim I'm making a personal attack is to misrepresent my words and my
intentions.  I don't think you're doing so intentionally, but that
opinion will change if you continue to do so after I've explained it for
you.

--
Chad


from_name: Neil Harris

body:
Nicholas Knight wrote:

>
> Tag controversial images, preferably into a couple categories (nudity,
> blood/gore, could probably think of one or two other good ones). Let
> the user set a preference for their defaults (maybe give them a toggle
> they can hit at will while browsing to turn all on/off), and then let
> them easily select single controversial images to display. There are
> several options for the last part, Javascript being the easiest, and
> it can be combined with a server-side mechanism for those that have
> disabled or lack Javascript support.
>
I agree in principle with the idea of tagging potentially controversial
images, similar to the existing scheme of licence tagging, so that users
of Wikipedia material can use this information for whatever downstream
processing they wish. I can also see that one use of this should be to
allow different user-preference-set presentations of whether
controversial images should be inlined or linked.  (If we are going to
do this, let's have only one implementation, not two).

However, the issue of what the default presentation should be remains.
If we make "controversial images off" the default for editors, they will
not be able to exercise oversight over image content, and we could have
a worse problem than before. Some articles actually do have a
justification for having depictions of violence or nudity: do we want to
remove all images of classical nude sculpture and paintings, or violent
images of great journalistic importance? This is a very tricky problem,
with the wowsers on one side, the porn trolls on another, and the
reasonable point of view somewhere in the middle, needing to be decided
on a case-by-case basis per article. A techical solution alone is not
enough.

-- Neil


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: new user

body:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 04:19:06 -0700, slimvirgin at gmail.com
<slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> So why would he be unblocked?

What did he actually do that was blockable?

Theresa


subject: [Wikitech-l] fy language file

body:
Andre Engels wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 10:25:54 -0800, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
>>Looks like you changed the category namespace's name. This must not be
>>made live until a compatibility use for the old name has been added.
>
> The old name was a mistake. fy: is not using the category mechanism,
> the reason being that the namespace name is wrong.

Ok.

>>You've also corrupted the file by adding a UTF-8 byte order mark at the
>>start of the file, which can break some HTTP output. Take that out.
>
> I didn't. Maybe my editor did.

You're the one who edited it and checked it in. It's your responsibility
to make sure that your tools aren't corrupting the file in this process.

> Ok, I made another try...

Please revert your checkin on the REL1_3 branch, and remove the initial
byte order mark from the files on REL1_4 and HEAD.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20050215/68ed573a/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Rick

body:
And what default do you use for non-logged-in Users?  Don't allow them to see any images with tags until they log in?  That's discriminatory.

RickK

Nicholas Knight <nknight at runawaynet.com> wrote:
Tag controversial images, preferably into a couple categories (nudity,
blood/gore, could probably think of one or two other good ones). Let the
user set a preference for their defaults (maybe give them a toggle they
can hit at will while browsing to turn all on/off), and then let them
easily select single controversial images to display. There are several
options for the last part, Javascript being the easiest, and it can be
combined with a server-side mechanism for those that have disabled or
lack Javascript support.

Absent strange coding in the affected areas of MediaWiki, none of this
should be particularly difficult to implement for someone with the
neccessary skills.

(Before someone starts complaining about determining what's
controversial, I don't think we're going to have any trouble figuring it
out. Just wait for the firestorm; controversial images will essentially
prove themselves.)

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


body:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 18:55:55 +0800, John Lee <johnleemk at gawab.com> wrote:
> NSK wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday 15 February 2005 02:08, Mark Williamson wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Uhhm... {{sofixit}}...
> >>
> >>
> >
> >You could fix it very easily if:
> >
> >- You make Wikipedia more attractive for experts, academics, scientists
> >- You make sure no article gets forgotten by encouraging people to concentrate
> >on their own articles, instead of editing here and there in the whole wiki
> >- You allow these people to put their names and biographies in the articles
> >they write
> >- You help these people collect some donations from their readership.
> >Wikimedia Foundation collects some donations for the servers, but it could
> >also give some of it to the editors, too.
> >- You make the articles to have versions, and have a "frozen" (protected)
> >article in the mainspace, so that new contributions (which may be vandalism
> >or whatever) go to an "under construction" version.
> >
> >In our projects, such as http://www.nerdypc.org and http://www.adapedia.org
> >(now being migrated to better software), we are trying to find ways to
> >implement these ideas. You can read some preliminary analysis for our IT wiki
> >at http://nerdypc.wikinerds.org/index.php/Help:Editing_process
> >
> >
> >
> The first, of course. The second, maybe. Depends on how well it jives
> with [[Wikipedia:Ownership of articles]]. The third, hell will freeze
> over before we do that.

Which is a pity, because it means we willfully go against the GNU/FDL.

> The fourth, there's a slight chance, but I doubt
> we could work out the logistics even if we wanted to. The fifth, the
> community is still deciding on that.

Andre Engels


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: new user

body:
Zoney wrote:

>On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 06:34:16 -0800, the Epopt of Boskone
><sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
>
>
>>>I would imagine there are few who would directly equate the Nazi
>>>regime with Soviet Russia.
>>>
>>>
>>I have to agree with Zoney here: few would consider them equivalent.
>>Soviet Russia was directly responsible for an order of magnitude more
>>deaths than the Nazis, and indirectly responsible for two orders of
>>magnitude more.
>>
>>
>I do not doubt that assertion, but it's more to do with the specific
>circumstances involved. Eastern Europe was mentioned. Well, the USSR
>sure wanted to control those countries, but the complete eradication
>of their peoples was not attempted (even if less "total" activities
>were going on). I don't doubt many in Eastern Europe would not like to
>see a hammer and sickle, but I don't think it's remotely comparable to
>what the Swastika stands for to Jews.
>
>And also, if we are to begin considering "indirect deaths", well, the
>US is responsible for quite a lot "indirectly".
>
To say that it was the "USSR" that wanted to control those countries
suggests that you have ignored all history prior to 1917.  Russia had
visions of pan-slavism long before that.  The Soviet system became a
means to an end; it permitted a level of industrialization that was
previously inconceivable in Russia.  It almost succeeded, leaving
Yugoslavia as the only slavic country that was never under Russian
control.  The problem there was that Tito chose his own independent form
of communism, and Russia could no longer take it over without putting
itself in a contradiction.

The other thing that reading a little history will reveal is that
anti-semitism in Russia did not suddenly spring up in 1917.
Transferring that attitude to a symbol, and pretending it is brand new
is a gross misrepresentation of history.  Symbols can be a magnifying
glass that focuses pre-existing tendencies in a society.

It is not unusual for politicians (in the broadest sense) to manipulate
symbols for their own purposes.  The symbols don't do anything by
themselves.  The swastika like its Christian ancestor in the Crusades
promoted and still does promote militancy, and that is probably what
makes it more hateful than the hammer and sickle which after all are
more keen on promoting hard work in the factory and farm respectively.
The neo-nazis don't want to relegate themselves into obscurity by
promoting hard work.  The hammer and sickle represented a movement (at
least in theory) that would improve the life of the workers.  The
swastika primarily grew out of resentment for the onerous reparations
imposed on Germany by the Treaty of Versailles.  Berlin was one of the
great sin cities of the 1920s; in that context the Nazi Party could
promote itself and its Christian swastika as the defender of wholesome
family values.

Many of the Soviet and US crimes during WW2 were absolved because they
were both on the same winning side.  The Dresden and Hiroshima massacres
were no less odious than anything the Nazis did, but I wouldn't class
them as "indirect", unless "indirect" includes dropping bombs on people
that you can't see.  "Indirect" might more appropriately include deaths
of children from inadequate medical care occasioned by sanctions against
any medical equipment that might even remotely be converted to military
purposes.

The United States manipulates symbols when it requires schoolchildren to
recite the Pledge of Allegiance.  In that, The Flag is foremost, and
"the republic for which it stands" is only an afterthought.  The entire
US national anthem is about the flag in battle, and the single phrase
"land of the free" doesn't show up until the last line.  When you
succeed in making people believe in a symbol it is very easy to transfer
that belief into whatever you want that symbol to stand for.

Ec


from_name: Puddl Duk

body:
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 10:38:43 +0000, Theresa Knott
> <theresaknott at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:53:06 +0600, Arno M
> <redgum46 at lycos.com> wrote:
> > >  these always were unsuitable to minors.
> >
> > Wikipedia is a wiki. That means _anyone_ can edit
> it, including those
> > people who like to prey on children. Wikipedia is
> not suitable for
> > minors and will be banned from schools soon enough
> anyway in the same
> > way that chat rooms are banned from schools.
> >
> > Wikipedia is an adult encylopedia, and should
> cater for adults.
> >
> > Theresa
>

1) Just because preditors may edit wikipedia doesn't
mean we lack editorial control.
2) Removing children from the argument doesn't really
change it. Many adults don't want to run into some of
this content in an encyclopedia.

Writing an encyclopedia should include a sense of who
our target audience is, and this should shape policy.
Rather than preditors defining who we are.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: new user

body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:

> Quite.  But it is the case (and I don't condone this) that the symbol is
> banned in Germany and seen as extremely insensitive in most of Europe.
> Thugs don't generally daub the hammer and sickle on people's gravestones.
> If my son went out wearing a hammer and sickle t-shirt his friends might
> think, at most, that it was either rather stylish or a bit old school; if
> he went out wearing a swastika they probably wouldn't even talk to him.
> I'm simply describing a situation that pertains in my country and in most
> European countries.  I didn't invent it.

I'm not saying you (or anyone else on this list) did.  I'm just saying
that there's a bit of logical self-contradiction to personally object to
the swastika and not to the hammer and sickle.  I don't personally think
there's anything wrong with using either for historical or satirical
purposes (for instance), and though I do think there's something wrong
with using it to push a political agenda that involves murderous intent
I do not begrudge others the right to express themselves in that fashion.

--
Chad


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: new user

body:
Charles Matthews wrote:

> Slow down.  I haven't been in dialogue with you.  I didn't say anything
> other than that there is a policy on personal attacks.
>
> Since you apparently are getting me confused with Zoney, I suggest you are
> posting hastily, and without regard to the purpose of the list.  Just back
> off, will you?

1.  I don't tend to save old emails, so yes, I may have confused the two
of you.  For that, I apologize.

2.  You're still misrepresenting my words and intentions with that crap
about a policy on personal attacks.  You didn't inform me of it for the
sole purpose of being randomly informative: you did so with the intent
of pointing out some imagined personal attack I made.  Of this, I'm
convinced.  In that regard, you are mistaken.

--
Chad


list: foundation-l

from_name: Robert Scott Horning

subject: [Foundation-l] And blocked again

body:
Walter van Kalken wrote:

> David Gerard wrote:
>
>> Andre Engels (andreengels at gmail.com) [050216 01:33]:
>>
>>
>>> On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 22:35:02 +0700, Walter van Kalken
>>> <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Does anyone have to say anything about this? Or should I just start to
>>> collect Japanese IP-addresses to block them on nl: to get a reaction?
>>>
>>
>> If the ISP in question really is running an open proxy server, then
>> Walter
>> needs to bring it to their attention that this is leaving an
>> abuse-machine
>> wide open, just as if it were an open email relay being used by
>> spammers.
>
> This is not my responsibility. Wikipedia is an open project and it
> should be open for anyone.
>
> Waerth/Walter

I'd like to add that I am on a dial-up connection where my IP address
isn't unique either.  It is certainly likely and possible that a Wiki
vandal could use the same dial-up connection and use the same IP
addresses I use, even though I'm contributing reasonable content to the
Wiki.  While open proxies are a problem, that isn't always the situation.

I'm siding with Walter on this one, and this is a policy that needs to
be addressed.

--
Robert Scott Horning


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] And blocked again


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: new user

body:
Chad Perrin wrote:

> Apparently, to you, killing someone for being a Jew is more wrong than
> killing someone for speaking out of turn.  To me, it's equivalent in
> either case, because in both cases it is murder.

The idea of "hate crimes" is a fairly recent one.  This would mete out
punishment according to the intentions of the person doing the killing.
If a "hate crime" deserves harsher punishment, then a "love crime" such
as euthanasia clearly deserves more lenient treatment.

> Completely aside from that, the swastika has been used for other
> purposes for hundreds of years before World War II, including as a
> Christian symbol, while the hammer and sickle went from obscurity to
> symbol of an oppressive, mass-murdering regime in a relative blink of
> an eye.

That's why the swastika was such an effective symbol.

>> And also, if we are to begin considering "indirect deaths", well, the
>> US is responsible for quite a lot "indirectly".
>
> Let's not start with the circumstantial ad hominem comparisons.  It
> would be nice if you'd retract that statement.

I see nothing "ad hominem" in that general statement.  No specific
individual is being attacked.

Ec