body:
On 3/30/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
> on 3/30/07 10:04 PM, geni at geniice at gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide as it stands harms
> > turkey. If we were to change it to reduce this harm we could
> > potentially harm the Armenians as well as producing an article that
> > would be against the law in France.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology)
> >
> > Harms Scientology but not publishing it could harm people if
> > Scientology were ever to reactivate that policy.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Browne
> >
> > Harms the subject of the article. But if we change it so it did not
> > the article would be in error
> >
> >> And, thereforeS??
> >
> > Do no harm is not useful as an ethical foundation for wikipedia.
> >
> >> Did you not have your own? And if you did, what was it? And, if not, why
> >> not?
> >
> >
> > I'm not going to explain my entire system of ethics here. It isn't
> > really relevant in any case.
>
> From a human point of view, which is my point of view, this response is
> chilling.
>
> Marc Riddell

I don't know about that.  Geni has pointed out something very obvious,
that we can't please everybody.  And Geni's assertion that to a
certain extent it is unwise to graft ethics into the encyclopedia is,
unfortunately, true when you consider that acting on beliefs such as
"do no harm" runs into real trouble when you have facts that, if you
wish to preserve truth, may be harmful to some people.

I would re-phrase this all as "Why censor ourselves?".  All fact is
not positive, and trying to do away with those that are negative is
inherently un-wiki-like to me (those last two words added because
interpretations of Wikipedia's ideals will, of course, vary).

--Ryan

--
[[en:User:Merovingian]]


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Seth Finkelstein

subject: [WikiEN-l] The liability argument (was: Getting hammered ...)

body:
	Folks, the key words to research this topic are called
"section 230". It's a well-known and controversial debate.
(disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer).

	Wikipedia's lawyer will certainly tell you that Wikipedia is
completely protected under this theory, as it is his or her job to
say that (as indeed, has happened). Others, well, are not convinced,
to varying degrees of expertise in the topic. I have a blog post on it:

http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/archives/001064.html

	The wild card in the legal theorizing is whether Wikipedia's
effect might finally be enough to get the law *changed* by Congress, to
clarify that liability. It won't happen from the trashing of some
activists, or even minor celebrities. But if someone with enough
political influence decides to pursue the matter, I do think there
would be a base of support. There's certainly enough of a "parade of
horribles" to fuel an issue.

	Right now, nobody powerful really wants to set off the legal
conflagration, because of the uncertainly of the outcome. But the more
people Wikipedia affects, the more likely that legal war will
eventually happen.

--
Seth Finkelstein  Consulting Programmer  http://sethf.com/
Infothought blog - http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/
Interview: http://sethf.com/essays/major/greplaw-interview.php


from_name: Matthew Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] Proposal: improving quality on enwiki

body:
Inherent in this whole thing is the belief that Wikipedia is getting
worse.  Is it?  Really?  I have my doubts.  Wikipedia is getting
bigger, and thus the absolute NUMBER of problems increases, but I am
yet to be convinced that the project as a whole is any more
problematic than it ever was.

What IS a problem is that the project is simply so big that it is hard
for everyone to work together as one community.  Thus, I do like the
suggestion that we encourage more of a sense of community and
responsibility in smaller, more manageable areas - sensibly, organized
around subject areas of common interest.

This may also help with the issue that many new contributors feel
lost, alone and confused on Wikipedia, because the project as a whole
is hard to feel at home in.

I'm not so sure we need /process/ in the sense of bureaucracy-
Wikipedia is if anything way too good at growing confusing bureaucracy
already - as much as /support/ for specialised groups to form and work
together at improving Wikipedia's quality.  Automation and frameworks
for doing things more efficiently might indeed help, though.

I also agree that all articles should be categorized - though that's
not enough, unless we have some idea where it fits into the project,
the right people will not find it and fix it.

More thoughts as they come.

-Matt


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Ihar Hrachyshka

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old

body:
? ???, 30/03/2007 ? 21:55 +0400, Alexander Cajcyc ????:
> I am bloody serious now!
>
> I remember User:Alexander Gouk planning to introduce some solution, but I don't remember if he really did. Can you give a link to your proposal?
http://be-x-old.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%B1%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BA%
D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%B5:%D0%93%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%9E
%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%
B0#.D0.A1.D0.BF.D1.80.D0.BE.D0.B1.D0.B0_.D1.80.D1.8D.D1.84.D0.BB.D0.B5.D0.BA.D1.81.D1.96.D1.96_.D0.BD.D0.B0.D0.BA.D0.BE.D0.BD.D1.82_.D1.80.D1.8D.D0.B3.D1.96.D1.81.D1.82.D1.80.D0.B0.D1.86.D1.8B.D1.96_.D0.92.D1.96.D0.BA.D1.96.D0.BF.D0.B5.D0.B4.D1.8B.D1.96_.D0.B4.D0.BB.D1.8F_.D0.B0.D1.84.D1.96.D1.86.D1.8B.D0.B9.D0.BD.D0.B0.D0.B3.D0.B0_.D0.BF.D1.80.D0.B0.D0.B2.D0.B0.D0.BF.D1.96.D1.81.D1.83
>
Gouk was working on an "impossible-to-create" project - "convertor". You
know that's impossible to implement.
> And I personnally was always for splitting into classical and official sectors within one and the same Wikipedia instead of splitting in two separate wikipedias or, especially, deleting the old wiki for the sake of a new one!
So where were you all recently? I've heard lots of times for the last
few days that "millions" of people "didn't know about the problem" or
"always supported our solutions":)
>
> czalex
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ihar Hrachyshka <ihar.hrachyshka at gmail.com>
> To: Alexander Cajcyc <czalex at bk.ru>, wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 20:10:10 +0300
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old
>
> >
> > ? ???, 30/03/2007 ? 17:13 +0400, Alexander Cajcyc ? ??:
> > > In that case a solution has already been found long ago, and the question is purely a technical one: one and the same Wiki, but with articles separated into "classical" and "official". As far as I know, this has already been implemented in other Wikis (e.g. Serbian?). So why not just doing the same with Belarusian Wikipedia?
> > >
> > As you can remember I've provided such a solution long time ago but
> > there was a one big Ignore on the Main_Page on this solution talk. And
> > now - when all is so bad - you tell us the same words.
> > I don't want to think that you are making compromises only after the
> > power-punch from Wikimedia authority. Are you speaking serious now?
> > >
> > > czalex
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>
> > > To: "Alexander Cajcyc" <czalex at bk.ru>, wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:03:43 +0200
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > There is no choice when it comes to the names of the projects. The standard
> > > > is explicit; a private label is indicated by an -x- at the right place in
> > > > the label.
> > > >
> > > > Having two projects is also something I would be against; it does not bring
> > > > collaboration, it does not bring NPOV. You have to get your act together and
> > > > history shows that you now have to compromise big time. It has been
> > > > indicated that the actual differences are less than what you find in English
> > > > ... all the more reason to insist on collaboration.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >     GerardM
> > > >
> > > > On 3/30/07, Alexander Cajcyc <czalex at bk.ru> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi everybody
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree with Gerard that we must not deepen the conflict and hould find a
> > > > > solution that would satisfy all of us.
> > > > >
> > > > > Are we all, no matter the orthography, interested in the representation of
> > > > > Belarusian language in Wikipedia and in the usage of this tool for the sake
> > > > > of all Belarusian speakers no matter whether they prefer the classical
> > > > > orthography or the official one? Yes, we all are. So let's find some
> > > > > compromise.
> > > > >
> > > > > I propose to leave the official orthography wikipedia where it is now, OK.
> > > > >
> > > > > But you just CAN'T allow the 6000 classical Belarusian Wiki articles to
> > > > > get lost! The fact that the Belarusian Wiki was created as a Wiki in
> > > > > Taraskievica is a illustrative example to that the classical orthography has
> > > > > an important place in Belarus now, especially amoung people who really DO
> > > > > speak the language on an every-day basis, while you can even see that most
> > > > > forum conversations in the official-orthography Wikipedia are being hold
> > > > > in... Russian [what is not bad itself].
> > > > >
> > > > > So an ideal solution would be to rename be-x-old.wikipedia.org to, e.g.,
> > > > > be-classic.wikipedia.org or bel.wikipedia.org and to open it for editing
> > > > > so that it could coutinue its effective functioning.
> > > > >
> > > > > regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > czalex
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>
> > > > > To: wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:23:35 +0200
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hoi,
> > > > > > Please consider that if you have an option to work together, that you
> > > > > have
> > > > > > to talk. That you have to give and take. That you will always feel that
> > > > > you
> > > > > > give more than what you get.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are two groups of people who have fought each other in a space
> > > > > where
> > > > > > such fights are not appreciated. Assertions have been made  about "your"
> > > > > > language, "your" orthography, by trash talking the "other" language /
> > > > > > orthography. You do not get any sympathy in this way. When you want to
> > > > > > achieve something, it will be more beneficial to be seen to cooperate
> > > > > and to
> > > > > > find some coexistence.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When this coexistence is hard to get because of the enmity that has been
> > > > > > created in the past, it only means that you will have to give even more.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > >     Gerard
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 3/30/07, Monk <monkbel at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How can anybody say that Yury Tarasievich and his project is about
> > > > > > > language, not about politics, after such a letter? No facts, just
> > > > > > > insults and speculations.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You are an entity, yes, set out to destroy the existing Belarusian
> > > > > > > > language and culture and replace it with your version -- okay, your
> > > > > > > > right. But get yourself your own blessed language code for that.
> > > > > > > This speculation with such aggressive words doesn't help your case, it
> > > > > > > can only make your case worse. I don't even hope any more that you
> > > > > > > understand that your outrageous insults are absurd. You just dig a pit
> > > > > > > for yourself by your own hands.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > P.S.
> > > > > > > > Some years ago I witnessed a creation of one of such sites you call
> > > > > > > > "proofs". So, there was 1 tech and 1 editor, who re-edited
> > > > > everything
> > > > > > > > incoming (like 90+% or even 99% in standard Belarusian and Russian)
> > > > > > > > into his flavour of "classic". It was politics. Thousands pages (and
> > > > > I
> > > > > > > > mean real thousands, there was sort of 4800 or so) of pages. And...
> > > > > > > > grant money. I could add -- near to zero interest, excepting the
> > > > > > > > indexing bots.
> > > > > > > Another great example of lies. Where could they get any incoming in
> > > > > > > "norm" if people just don't write in it?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Monk.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > > > > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > > > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old

body:
? ???, 30/03/2007 ? 21:55 +0400, Alexander Cajcyc ????:
> I am bloody serious now!
>
> I remember User:Alexander Gouk planning to introduce some solution, but I don't remember if he really did. Can you give a link to your proposal?
>
> And I personnally was always for splitting into classical and official sectors within one and the same Wikipedia instead of splitting in two separate wikipedias or, especially, deleting the old wiki for the sake of a new one!
>
And by the way, there were much more easier solutions of this conflict
and they were provided on the Main_Page of be-x-old but they were either
blamed or ignored.
We just needed categorization, changes in edit rules and main page in
official orthography. But be-x-old community (especially admins) were
against any "concessions" for official orthography. I think it's not
realistic now too:(
> czalex
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ihar Hrachyshka <ihar.hrachyshka at gmail.com>
> To: Alexander Cajcyc <czalex at bk.ru>, wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 20:10:10 +0300
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old
>
> >
> > ? ???, 30/03/2007 ? 17:13 +0400, Alexander Cajcyc ? ??:
> > > In that case a solution has already been found long ago, and the question is purely a technical one: one and the same Wiki, but with articles separated into "classical" and "official". As far as I know, this has already been implemented in other Wikis (e.g. Serbian?). So why not just doing the same with Belarusian Wikipedia?
> > >
> > As you can remember I've provided such a solution long time ago but
> > there was a one big Ignore on the Main_Page on this solution talk. And
> > now - when all is so bad - you tell us the same words.
> > I don't want to think that you are making compromises only after the
> > power-punch from Wikimedia authority. Are you speaking serious now?
> > >
> > > czalex
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>
> > > To: "Alexander Cajcyc" <czalex at bk.ru>, wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:03:43 +0200
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > There is no choice when it comes to the names of the projects. The standard
> > > > is explicit; a private label is indicated by an -x- at the right place in
> > > > the label.
> > > >
> > > > Having two projects is also something I would be against; it does not bring
> > > > collaboration, it does not bring NPOV. You have to get your act together and
> > > > history shows that you now have to compromise big time. It has been
> > > > indicated that the actual differences are less than what you find in English
> > > > ... all the more reason to insist on collaboration.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >     GerardM
> > > >
> > > > On 3/30/07, Alexander Cajcyc <czalex at bk.ru> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi everybody
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree with Gerard that we must not deepen the conflict and hould find a
> > > > > solution that would satisfy all of us.
> > > > >
> > > > > Are we all, no matter the orthography, interested in the representation of
> > > > > Belarusian language in Wikipedia and in the usage of this tool for the sake
> > > > > of all Belarusian speakers no matter whether they prefer the classical
> > > > > orthography or the official one? Yes, we all are. So let's find some
> > > > > compromise.
> > > > >
> > > > > I propose to leave the official orthography wikipedia where it is now, OK.
> > > > >
> > > > > But you just CAN'T allow the 6000 classical Belarusian Wiki articles to
> > > > > get lost! The fact that the Belarusian Wiki was created as a Wiki in
> > > > > Taraskievica is a illustrative example to that the classical orthography has
> > > > > an important place in Belarus now, especially amoung people who really DO
> > > > > speak the language on an every-day basis, while you can even see that most
> > > > > forum conversations in the official-orthography Wikipedia are being hold
> > > > > in... Russian [what is not bad itself].
> > > > >
> > > > > So an ideal solution would be to rename be-x-old.wikipedia.org to, e.g.,
> > > > > be-classic.wikipedia.org or bel.wikipedia.org and to open it for editing
> > > > > so that it could coutinue its effective functioning.
> > > > >
> > > > > regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > czalex
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>
> > > > > To: wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:23:35 +0200
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hoi,
> > > > > > Please consider that if you have an option to work together, that you
> > > > > have
> > > > > > to talk. That you have to give and take. That you will always feel that
> > > > > you
> > > > > > give more than what you get.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are two groups of people who have fought each other in a space
> > > > > where
> > > > > > such fights are not appreciated. Assertions have been made  about "your"
> > > > > > language, "your" orthography, by trash talking the "other" language /
> > > > > > orthography. You do not get any sympathy in this way. When you want to
> > > > > > achieve something, it will be more beneficial to be seen to cooperate
> > > > > and to
> > > > > > find some coexistence.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When this coexistence is hard to get because of the enmity that has been
> > > > > > created in the past, it only means that you will have to give even more.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > >     Gerard
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 3/30/07, Monk <monkbel at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How can anybody say that Yury Tarasievich and his project is about
> > > > > > > language, not about politics, after such a letter? No facts, just
> > > > > > > insults and speculations.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You are an entity, yes, set out to destroy the existing Belarusian
> > > > > > > > language and culture and replace it with your version -- okay, your
> > > > > > > > right. But get yourself your own blessed language code for that.
> > > > > > > This speculation with such aggressive words doesn't help your case, it
> > > > > > > can only make your case worse. I don't even hope any more that you
> > > > > > > understand that your outrageous insults are absurd. You just dig a pit
> > > > > > > for yourself by your own hands.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > P.S.
> > > > > > > > Some years ago I witnessed a creation of one of such sites you call
> > > > > > > > "proofs". So, there was 1 tech and 1 editor, who re-edited
> > > > > everything
> > > > > > > > incoming (like 90+% or even 99% in standard Belarusian and Russian)
> > > > > > > > into his flavour of "classic". It was politics. Thousands pages (and
> > > > > I
> > > > > > > > mean real thousands, there was sort of 4800 or so) of pages. And...
> > > > > > > > grant money. I could add -- near to zero interest, excepting the
> > > > > > > > indexing bots.
> > > > > > > Another great example of lies. Where could they get any incoming in
> > > > > > > "norm" if people just don't write in it?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Monk.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > > > > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > > > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >


from_name: Kelly Martin

body:
This is a message I wrote in another mailing list.  I'm forwarding it
to enwiki-l at Jimbo's suggestion.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com>
Date: Mar 30, 2007 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Otrs-en-l] [SPAM] info-en vs info-fr
To: English OTRS discussion list <otrs-en-l at lists.wikimedia.org>

(Comments from another contributor redacted; the discussion was
related to how inclusionist tendencies tend to lead to large numbers
of unmaintained articles.)

This was the gist of my recent blogpost on maintainability as the
proper criterion for inclusion.  I freely admit to being an
inclusionist -- I would love to see proper articles on all rysorts of
random topics of even marginal interest -- but I temper that with the
understanding that having unmaintainable articles harms the
encyclopedia as a whole, and the recognition that the Wikipedia
community is not currently capable of maintaining even the articles it
has, let alone all the articles it could possibly have.

My attitude on such people is that the content should be sequestered
in a nonpublic place and reviewed upon notice that the individual in
question has died.  If we never receive notice, then that's probably
because the person was not interesting enough in life to justify an
article anyway.  Yes, we might sequester an article for decades under
this policy, but I'm an eventualist as well.

However, don't mistake my eventualism for being support for the idea
that we should leave crap articles sitting out there in public view
(which is a point of view commonly attributed to eventualists).  I am
firmly opposed to leaving low-quality articles on the public wiki when
doing so will bring disrepute onto the subjects of those articles or
bring harm to Wikipedia as a project.  I am therefore very much in
favor of deletion of any article for which there is no established,
committed process for maintenance.

The problem with this is that there is no established, committed
process for maintaining ANY article on Wikipedia.  All article
maintenance on Wikipedia, and in fact virtually all process on
Wikipedia, is haphazard.  We are just starting to get comprehensive
vandalism management using centralized tools, or so I am told.  We
still have no mechanisms for coordinating even so much as article
categorization or article sourcing, both of which are crucial aspects
of article maintenance.

The infrastructure to maintain over a million and a half articles has
never existed on Wikipedia.  Until it does, every new article is
another paper cut, bleeding us a bit more each day.

As I see it, the following absolutely must be done:

* All articles must be categorized.  A bot can be used to generate
lists of uncategorized articles, and the articles found in this way
presented to volunteer categorizers using a workflow approach.
Articles not categorized within a reasonable time (say, seven days for
new articles, and three months for existing articles) will be deleted.
 My understanding is that there are bots that are capable of making
"good guesses" at categorization, so this may be less painful than it
seems.

* A mapping of categories onto Subject Working Groups needs to be
established.  Each Subject Working Group is responsible for the
maintenance of all articles which are categorized within categories
assigned to that SWG.  (If an article is within the scope of multiple
SWGs, an arbitration process, with both automated and deliberative
components, will determine which SWG will be primarily responsible for
it.)

* Editors, most of whose edits are made to articles categorized within
a specific SWG, will be identified and asked to form a SWG (or
formalize an existing informal one).

* SWGs will have the responsibility to ensure that all articles within
their ambit are properly sourced, cleaned up, etc.

* Any article which remains unsourced for one month will be deleted.
A bot will detect unsourced articles and notify the responsible SWG of
the article and the need to source it.

This is all entirely orthogonal to vandalism management.

There are already a lot of SWGs on Wikipedia, with varying degrees of
organization; many WikiProjects qualify as such.  However, both the
automation and the sense of group responsibility is not currently
present, and needs to be cultivated.  We need these people to feel
personally responsible for the quality of all of the articles in their
SWG.

This is a response to the scaling problem.  The English Wikipedia's
community has grown too large to function organically the way it used
to three years ago.  It is my belief that breaking it up into multiple
subject-oriented communities will help to combat the scaling problem:
the members of the SWG will all know one another and are far more
likely to remain collegial and productive with one another.  A SWG
that gets too large can be subdivided further, which means this
provides an ongoing solution to the scaling problem, not just a
one-time fix.

Please feel free to refine this idea or just tell me it's a load of hooey.

Kelly


from_name: Marc Riddell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting hammered in a tv interview is not fun

body:
> On 3/31/07, doc <doc.wikipedia at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> I humbly suggest that the code "do no harm" is older and more virtuous
>> than any statue book.

on 3/30/07 8:57 PM, geni at geniice at gmail.com wrote:

>
> However it conflicts with things like NPOV and "wikipedia is an encyclopedia".

"Do no harm" is not a "point of view" - it is a standard of behavior, and
must prevail. And, if Wikipedia's identity as an encyclopedia does not
include "do no harm", it needs to rethink that identity.
>
> Information is almost always harmful to someone

And, therefore??
>
>> I obviously do not share your belief in legal
>> positivism. Some things are wrong, even if we can't be sued.

on 3/30/07 8:57 PM, geni at geniice at gmail.com wrote:

>
> I don't recall signing up to a system of ethics when editing wikipedia.

Did you not have your own? And if you did, what was it? And, if not, why
not?

Marc Riddell


from_name: jkelly at fas.harvard.edu

subject: [WikiEN-l] OTRS backlog? (was:Getting hammered in a tv interview...)

body:
  Den,

Quoting Denny Colt <wikidenny at gmail.com>:
> If OTRS is backed up and not working 'fast enough', how do more people get
> into it? What are the requirements and entry threshold? Who decides who gets
> in? How do you get in? If it's understaffed, staff it up. Is it volunteer?
> Paid?

  You can read about it at

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

                          Jkelly


body:
on 3/30/07 9:24 PM, geni at geniice at gmail.com wrote:

> On 3/31/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 3/30/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I don't recall signing up to a system of ethics when editing wikipedia.
>>>
>> Wow, Geni.  :-(
>
> There is no code of ethics mentioned in the registration form.
>
> Which  system of ethics would you have me adopt?
>
> Those of the APA:
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Rorschach1.jpg
>
> those of Islam:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy
>
> those of Catholicism I don't know if we have any of the works listed
> in the Index Librorum Prohibitorum on wikisource but...
>
> I've already delt with the Wicca do no harm approach so what is it to be?
>
> In a situation where a universally agreed system of ethics is likely
> to be impossible we must to an extent fall back on other more
> pragmatic approaches. The law is one. Preventing inaccuracy is
> another.

 This whole post is a bit scary, Geni.

Marc


from_name: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote

> People who are fighting the good fight here are sometimes threatened
> with a trip to ArbCom.  They need our support, though.

Absolutely. To be more specific, there seemed to be some general agreemen when we aired it on the ArbCom list, a little while ago, that admin power misuse might be put on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being wheel-warring or self-unblocking. On that scale, anyway, alleged misuse of admin powers in 'defence of wiki' mode (copyvio, BLP-related etc.) comes in at 1. The AC will likely be very understanding of admins using powers in good faith to keep junk off the site.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam


from_name: Jossi Fresco

body:
On Mar 30, 2007, at 7:27 PM, Kelly Martin wrote:

> There are already a lot of SWGs on Wikipedia, with varying degrees of
> organization; many WikiProjects qualify as such.  However, both the
> automation and the sense of group responsibility is not currently
> present, and needs to be cultivated.  We need these people to feel
> personally responsible for the quality of all of the articles in their
> SWG.
>
> This is a response to the scaling problem.  The English Wikipedia's
> community has grown too large to function organically the way it used
> to three years ago.  It is my belief that breaking it up into multiple
> subject-oriented communities will help to combat the scaling problem:
> the members of the SWG will all know one another and are far more
> likely to remain collegial and productive with one another.  A SWG
> that gets too large can be subdivided further, which means this
> provides an ongoing solution to the scaling problem, not just a
> one-time fix.

This is already happening where is needed. Trying to impose this on
the whole of en.wiki would be a mistake. Let it grow organically. If
there are people that want to get together and form an SWG, nothing
is stopping them. Should we encourage them to form one of they do not
feel like, of course not. If there is something we need less is
bureaucracy. Personal responsibility cannot be neither policed nor
encouraged by rules.

-- Jossi


from_name: Alexander Cajcyc

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old

body:
I am bloody serious now!

I remember User:Alexander Gouk planning to introduce some solution, but I don't remember if he really did. Can you give a link to your proposal?

And I personnally was always for splitting into classical and official sectors within one and the same Wikipedia instead of splitting in two separate wikipedias or, especially, deleting the old wiki for the sake of a new one!

czalex

-----Original Message-----
From: Ihar Hrachyshka <ihar.hrachyshka at gmail.com>
To: Alexander Cajcyc <czalex at bk.ru>, wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 20:10:10 +0300
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old

>
> ? ???, 30/03/2007 ? 17:13 +0400, Alexander Cajcyc ? ??:
> > In that case a solution has already been found long ago, and the question is purely a technical one: one and the same Wiki, but with articles separated into "classical" and "official". As far as I know, this has already been implemented in other Wikis (e.g. Serbian?). So why not just doing the same with Belarusian Wikipedia?
> >
> As you can remember I've provided such a solution long time ago but
> there was a one big Ignore on the Main_Page on this solution talk. And
> now - when all is so bad - you tell us the same words.
> I don't want to think that you are making compromises only after the
> power-punch from Wikimedia authority. Are you speaking serious now?
> >
> > czalex
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>
> > To: "Alexander Cajcyc" <czalex at bk.ru>, wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:03:43 +0200
> > Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old
> >
> > >
> > > Hoi,
> > > There is no choice when it comes to the names of the projects. The standard
> > > is explicit; a private label is indicated by an -x- at the right place in
> > > the label.
> > >
> > > Having two projects is also something I would be against; it does not bring
> > > collaboration, it does not bring NPOV. You have to get your act together and
> > > history shows that you now have to compromise big time. It has been
> > > indicated that the actual differences are less than what you find in English
> > > ... all the more reason to insist on collaboration.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >     GerardM
> > >
> > > On 3/30/07, Alexander Cajcyc <czalex at bk.ru> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi everybody
> > > >
> > > > I agree with Gerard that we must not deepen the conflict and hould find a
> > > > solution that would satisfy all of us.
> > > >
> > > > Are we all, no matter the orthography, interested in the representation of
> > > > Belarusian language in Wikipedia and in the usage of this tool for the sake
> > > > of all Belarusian speakers no matter whether they prefer the classical
> > > > orthography or the official one? Yes, we all are. So let's find some
> > > > compromise.
> > > >
> > > > I propose to leave the official orthography wikipedia where it is now, OK.
> > > >
> > > > But you just CAN'T allow the 6000 classical Belarusian Wiki articles to
> > > > get lost! The fact that the Belarusian Wiki was created as a Wiki in
> > > > Taraskievica is a illustrative example to that the classical orthography has
> > > > an important place in Belarus now, especially amoung people who really DO
> > > > speak the language on an every-day basis, while you can even see that most
> > > > forum conversations in the official-orthography Wikipedia are being hold
> > > > in... Russian [what is not bad itself].
> > > >
> > > > So an ideal solution would be to rename be-x-old.wikipedia.org to, e.g.,
> > > > be-classic.wikipedia.org or bel.wikipedia.org and to open it for editing
> > > > so that it could coutinue its effective functioning.
> > > >
> > > > regards,
> > > >
> > > > czalex
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>
> > > > To: wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:23:35 +0200
> > > > Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hoi,
> > > > > Please consider that if you have an option to work together, that you
> > > > have
> > > > > to talk. That you have to give and take. That you will always feel that
> > > > you
> > > > > give more than what you get.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are two groups of people who have fought each other in a space
> > > > where
> > > > > such fights are not appreciated. Assertions have been made  about "your"
> > > > > language, "your" orthography, by trash talking the "other" language /
> > > > > orthography. You do not get any sympathy in this way. When you want to
> > > > > achieve something, it will be more beneficial to be seen to cooperate
> > > > and to
> > > > > find some coexistence.
> > > > >
> > > > > When this coexistence is hard to get because of the enmity that has been
> > > > > created in the past, it only means that you will have to give even more.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >     Gerard
> > > > >
> > > > > On 3/30/07, Monk <monkbel at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How can anybody say that Yury Tarasievich and his project is about
> > > > > > language, not about politics, after such a letter? No facts, just
> > > > > > insults and speculations.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > You are an entity, yes, set out to destroy the existing Belarusian
> > > > > > > language and culture and replace it with your version -- okay, your
> > > > > > > right. But get yourself your own blessed language code for that.
> > > > > > This speculation with such aggressive words doesn't help your case, it
> > > > > > can only make your case worse. I don't even hope any more that you
> > > > > > understand that your outrageous insults are absurd. You just dig a pit
> > > > > > for yourself by your own hands.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > P.S.
> > > > > > > Some years ago I witnessed a creation of one of such sites you call
> > > > > > > "proofs". So, there was 1 tech and 1 editor, who re-edited
> > > > everything
> > > > > > > incoming (like 90+% or even 99% in standard Belarusian and Russian)
> > > > > > > into his flavour of "classic". It was politics. Thousands pages (and
> > > > I
> > > > > > > mean real thousands, there was sort of 4800 or so) of pages. And...
> > > > > > > grant money. I could add -- near to zero interest, excepting the
> > > > > > > indexing bots.
> > > > > > Another great example of lies. Where could they get any incoming in
> > > > > > "norm" if people just don't write in it?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Monk.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > > > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


body:
on 3/30/07 9:39 PM, Oldak Quill at oldakquill at gmail.com wrote:

> Perhaps one could think of our NPOV policies as necessitating a
> rationalist morality based on observable and measurable parameters.
> Anything outside this relies on belief and is POV.
>
> In this manner, the kind of morality produced is indeed pragmatic and
> could be seen as quite similar to that employed by much of science
> today.

The only science who's ethic does not include "do no harm" is the science of
warfare.

Marc


from_name: Stan Shebs

body:
Matthew Brown wrote:
> What IS a problem is that the project is simply so big that it is hard
> for everyone to work together as one community.  Thus, I do like the
> suggestion that we encourage more of a sense of community and
> responsibility in smaller, more manageable areas - sensibly, organized
> around subject areas of common interest.
>
This actually fits well with how wikiprojects have evolved, from loose
groups with shared interests to well-organized collaborations - so in a
sense it's just blessing what so many people are doing already. I like
the idea that *every* article should be associated with one or more
projects. As always, we can't *make* anybody do anything, but project
people usually want to know about new articles in their areas, and right
now the discovery process is haphazard - always disconcerting to find a
duplicate article created several months earlier. So process to put
articles into appropriate buckets would be helpful.

I wonder if there are worthwhile articles that simply defy
classification, requiring an "Oddballs" category...

Stan


body:
on 3/30/07 10:04 PM, geni at geniice at gmail.com wrote:

> On 3/31/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/31/07, doc <doc.wikipedia at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>> I humbly suggest that the code "do no harm" is older and more virtuous
>>>> than any statue book.
>>
>> on 3/30/07 8:57 PM, geni at geniice at gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> However it conflicts with things like NPOV and "wikipedia is an
>>> encyclopedia".
>>
>> "Do no harm" is not a "point of view" - it is a standard of behavior, and
>> must prevail. And, if Wikipedia's identity as an encyclopedia does not
>> include "do no harm", it needs to rethink that identity.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide as it stands harms
> turkey. If we were to change it to reduce this harm we could
> potentially harm the Armenians as well as producing an article that
> would be against the law in France.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology)
>
> Harms Scientology but not publishing it could harm people if
> Scientology were ever to reactivate that policy.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Browne
>
> Harms the subject of the article. But if we change it so it did not
> the article would be in error
>
>> And, thereforeS??
>
> Do no harm is not useful as an ethical foundation for wikipedia.
>
>> Did you not have your own? And if you did, what was it? And, if not, why
>> not?
>
>
> I'm not going to explain my entire system of ethics here. It isn't
> really relevant in any case.


body:
On Mar 30, 2007, at 10:14 PM, Kirill Lokshin wrote:

> And then what?  The key element of this proposal seems to be that
> these SWGs (let us call them "WikiProjects") would somehow magically
> start sourcing everything with nary a complaint.  The fundamental
> underpinning theory here is that (a) occasional editors can be forced
> to join project en masse and (b) project members can be forced to do
> sourcing work en masse; in my experience, neither of those reflects
> reality.  The more likely reaction is that many of the active projects
> will simply move somewhere else, and the rest will fail to actually
> accomplish anything substantial.

I agree... What I find peculiar about this proposal is that it seems
disassociated from the reality of day-to-day editing and the current
culture in en.wiki. One thing has become clear to me: as Wikipedia
becomes bigger and bigger, the ability to make any major changes will
be greatly diminished, in particular in issues related to the social
structure of the project.

-- Jossi


body:
on 3/30/07 10:21 PM, geni at geniice at gmail.com wrote:

> On 3/31/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>> The only science who's ethic does not include "do no harm" is the science of
>> warfare.
>>
>
> Every chemist have released dangerous substances into the atmosphere
> at some point or another. Physicists have exposed people to radiation.
> Every time a new medicine is tested on humans for the first time there
> is a chance you will kill them. Deaths do indeed result from time to
> time.

But, the prevailing ethic is still - do no harm.

Marc


body:
> On 3/31/07, doc <doc.wikipedia at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> WTF? That we can't set ethics down in a nice tidy process for you with
>> no shaggy edges is an excuse to say "well we can just bugger everyone,
>> unless we might get sued"?
>>
>
on 3/30/07 10:14 PM, geni at geniice at gmail.com wrote:

> I suggests that ethics are a poor base to build from.

Incredible! :-(
>
>> Let's do all we possibly can to ensure that Wikipedia contains as few
>> articles that are biased, untrue or privacy-violating isn't that
>> difficult to comprehend no matter your religious affiliation or ethical
>> code! We are under an ethical obligation to do that - and all process
>> and policy should be reflecting that. Imaging that, it isn't hard if you
>> try.
>
> No. There is no need to introduce ethics into the system thus we
> should not do so. We have certian shared values yes (first tell no
> lies) but that does not translate into a system of ethics.

"Tell no lies" (like "do no harm") is a system of ethics.

Marc


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] Daniel Brandt & other banned users posting still

body:
On 30/03/07, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:

> He was banned after exhausting the communities patience, and
> indefinitely blocked by User:Gwernol on September 7, 2006.

He was the one who wikilawyered assiduously, then when labeled as such
tried to wikilawyer the definition of 'wikilawyer.' I think he was
surprised when this turned out not to be Wikipedia's Godel number and
instead he was blocked.

> He has
> since created over 100 sockpuppets. He used them to edit war
> incessantly at [[Truth theory]], an article filled with his original
> research, until the article was permanently deleted. Since then he's
> been edit-warring at [[Charles Peirce]], another article he has filled
> with his original research. I believe he's edited the latter article
> with over a dozen sockpuppets.

I believe that after being kicked off Wikipedia, he soon was kicked
off the Citizendium mailing lists too. CZ is a project of its own, not
a refuge for Wikipedia malcontents ...

Jon Awbrey is a genuine expert in his field, and also just happens to
have achieved new heights of excellence in the field of "problematic
expert."

- d.


list: foundation-l

from_name: daniwo59 at aol.com

subject: [Foundation-l] Report on board meeting in Florida

body:
Florence,
Thank you for your  email. I will try to clarify exactly what you are saying?
the best way to do that  is to read your email from bottom to top. You wrote:
" As I was explaining, we  have no ED. Which means that the points listed
above as ED issues will either be  left unfixed until we have one, or will have to
be dealt with by someone else  (undefined). We might make an  exception and
hire a legal coordinator,  because this is a critical issue."
So let us look at the  critical issues. I can safely assume that "Do it soon
and is important" is most  critical
* Coordinate legal activities (ED)
* Job description for all  (ED)
* Personnel needs (ED)
Note that they are all  ED. Am I too assume that, except for the coordination
of legal activities, these  will all be left unfixed until there is an ED, or
will they be dealt with by  some undefined else. It seems the former is the
answer, with the exception  of a legal coordinator. In other words, are you
leaving the most pressing issues  unfixed? If it is the latter "undefined else,"
how will the "else" be  selected?

Next came, " Do it  soon (but not necessarily very important)"
* Data Gathering (ED)
*  Fundraising Planning (ED)
* Board Skills and Expansion and Election  (board)
* Short term budget (COO)
* Wikimania Finances (ED)
* Tech  stuff in office (ED)
4 out of 6 are  ED-related. Am I too assume here that this "do it soon
category" is delayed as  well? (Wiktionary defined "soon" as "Within a short time;
_quickly_ (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/quickly) .") In fact, the  only
Board-related one involves the upcoming election for community  representatives.
That will be soon, even though it is "not necessarily very  important").

Finally, you had "  Important (but not necessarily to do immediately)"
* Brand Strategy  (board)
* Business Development Strategy (board)
* Technical Management  (ED)
What professional  expertise does the Board bring to the first two? When
talking about a brand  worth billions of dollars--and that means billions of
dollars for free culture  and knowledge--I would assume that the Board would
consider some professional  advice and assistance. As for the last point, Technical
Management, I assume you  mean managing Brion, Tim, Domas, Mark, and the other
developers. Wouldn?t the  last be the job a CTO, and not the board?
As for some of the  other topics discussed, you wrote "What can be mentioned
probably is this:"
*  work on a travel policy (nothing very fancy to report)
I ask: what is the  current travel policy which is being amended?
* work on a policy for  reimbursement (nothing very fancy to report)
I ask: what is the  current reimbursement policy, which is being amended. If
there is no  reimbursement policy, how are reimbursements made? What is
eligible for  reimbursement and what is not?
* study of some  collaboration propositions (details confidential)
I hope you don?t mean  the collaboration proposals with three major
organizations in DC that I brought  to the table. If you do, why was I not asked about
them?
* study around  brand licensing (not surprisingly since we are in the top
of most recognised  brands, we get some propositions from branding
companies. Brand licensing is  probably one of our best assets to collect
money for the development of the  projects in the future, so we should be
careful about what we do on the  topic. Brand licensing has also various
ramifications, in particular in our  relationships with chapters).
Blah blah blah?who on  the Board is actually qualified to discuss this on a
professional level?
*  approval of two new advisory board members
Can you please provide  a summary of what the advisory board has done or been
asked to do to date. Not  who is on it, but what they actually do.
* discussion about a future CTO or a  tech project leader. No conclusion at
the moment.
Does that mean that there  is no direction in technical development as of
now? Considering the size of the  website and the amount of money poured into
tech development, a basic roadmap  should be the least one should come to expect.

You also  wrote:
"During that week, the  office was really populated, as it also hosted two
other meetings, one  dedicated to Quality (might be worthwhile to ask
Greg to make a report on  this one...), "
While Greg is  extremely qualified to report on that, you might also ask the
person who  organized it. Oh, and how much time did the Board take discussing
its  recommendations.
You wrote: "Delphine  was also in Florida for several  days."
It is always very nice  to see Delphine. What was her role in these meetings?
Or does that go under the  discussed Travel Policy (to quote you, "nothing
very fancy to report.")

It would also be nice  to hear some more elaboration from you about the
"difference of opinion" between  the Board and the Search Firm regarding the role
of an ED. How does the Board  see the role? How does the Search Firm see the
role? What efforts are being made  to bridge this difference?

All in all, it  sounds like a fascinating meeting. I look forward to reading
the minutes.
Danny

************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Question for copyright savvy folks

body:
I have just uploaded a scan of the first page of Bernstein's
Chichester Psalms.  I believe this satisfies fair use in illustrating
the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chichester_Psalms and I am
confident it does not interfere in any way with the publisher's
ability to profit from their intellectual property.  This particular
scan includes the copyright statement, which is a bonus.

Acceptable?  I would be very surprised if not.

Next up: Durufl? Requiem.  Problem: not much happens on the first
page, the obvious target for a scan here is the first page of Movement
II, the Kyrie.  This does not have the copyright statement, although
of course I put it in the image description.

Acceptable in illustrating an article on the Durufl? Requiem?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Requiem_%28Durufl%C3%A9%29 Probably OK, I
would say.  Yes?

OK, I have a pretty extensive library of scores, and most of them I
can find a single page, usually the first, which illustrates the work
well and does not in any way interfere with the copyright owner's
ability to profit.  But there are some hard cases.

* Works where the work is listed in a section in the article on the
composer. In order not to overwhelm the article I would be inclined to
scan a single system, but that does not fundamentally change matters;
it would not have the copyright on the scan, but it would be on the
description page, the question is, would fair use justly apply to use
in illustrating a discussion of the work in an article on a wider
topic?

* Works where there are multiple editions, for example Copland's Old
American Songs.  Here I have one of a number of different versions,
and available in different keys.  Simple Gifts, an iconic melody (it's
the melody in Appalachian Spring), probably the best known of all the
American songs he collected.  Melody by Trad, filtered through
Copland, filtered again by the editors of my edition.  Valid?

Clearly in the case of a short work like windmills of your mind (theme
from the original Thomas Crown Affair, keep up at the back there) a
full page is too much for fair use, a single system or two systems is
the most one could justify.  Would the same apply to Summertime?  It's
a short work, but part of a whole opera.

I have few reservations about the Messiah, the Watkins Shaw edition is
now pretty much ubiquitous and Novello publish both that and Prout
anyway.  Beethoven Missa Solemnis,no problem, only one edition I know
of.

Mozart Requiem - a problem.  The Novello edition, completed by
Sussmayr, is far and away the most widely used in the UK, but there is
a newish critical edition completed by Robert D. Levin which includes
an amen fugue taken from sketches by Mozart.  Would a single system or
two systems from that be acceptable in discussing that critical
edition in the article on the Mozart requiem?

What of scores from ChoralWiki?  That is public domain, I guess we can
borrow at will?  Or should we restrict ourselves to the same level of
caution?  Note that some of the stuff on ChoralWiki is actually
copyright, it's externally hosted, so I would have to watch that of
course.  Most of them are in PDF format.

Finally, does anyone have a good, cheap or free converter from jpeg /
tiff to a more efficient format?

Thanks,

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


body:
On 30/03/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:

> Finally, does anyone have a good, cheap or free converter from jpeg /
> tiff to a more efficient format?

The GIMP opens and saves most image formats on Windows, Mac and Linux.
It's less than fabulous in usability, but very powerful.

IrfanView for Windows is freeware a lot of people like. I haven't used
it in years - it seemed to do the job, but I knew my way around the
GIMP so went back to that.

For the questions on fair use of the scans: do the scans add something
to the article that you really just can't get any other way? With
album and book covers, it's *the* cover for the album. Is a score
regarded that way?

- d.


body:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 19:10:41 +0100, "Andrew Gray" <shimgray at gmail.com>
wrote:

>The OxDNB says "thought to have fathered some fifty children"...

Pick a number.  I changed the article to say that sources differ, with
estimates up to 50 or more.  That will do us, I guess.  All part of
the mythos.

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


body:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 21:54:43 +0100, <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com>
wrote:

>The AC will likely be very understanding of admins using powers in good faith to keep junk off the site.

I have found them to be so, thus far. Much to my relief.

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


body:
Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> But the key issue, I think, is simply this: prescriptive collaboration
> models do not, as a general rule, work on Wikipedia.  The vast
> majority of editors make content contributions on topics of their
> choice; if they're told that they *must* work on article X, they'll
> simply refuse.
Yep, important to remember. The "incentive" could be simply deletion; if
someone says "adopt this article or it goes away", then I can look at
the article and decide if I want to take it on. If I don't care about
it, and nobody else does either, then why would we want to keep it
anyway? It's just going to accumulate bad edits and mislead anybody who
happens to read it.

Requiring adoption by a project is just a way to make sure the interest
outlives the whims of any particular editor.

It *is* a different mind set. Four years ago the attitude was "every
sentence is sacred" :-) and we would jump through all kinds of hoops to
save every scrap of verbiage. Now the underlying theme of many
discussions is what it looks like to be finished with a topic; we want
the geologist's accomplishments, but not the charges and countercharges
in the divorce, or we want one paragraph on a TV episode, not a
minute-by-minute transcript. Deleting unmaintained articles is a further
step on that road, maybe going too far, but certainly worth pondering.

Stan


body:
  Kelly,

  There's a lot of really interesting thinking here.

> * SWGs will have the responsibility to ensure that all articles within
> their ambit are properly sourced, cleaned up, etc.

  There's a conversation on the Administrator's Noticeboard right now that
touches on this.  The argument has been put forward that "it was mentioned on
television" should be taken as verifiable, reliable source for material in
biographies of living wrestlers. Other editors are saying something that you
did in another paragraph of this email; that articles about wrestlers are, in
fact, apparantly not maintainable, but draw many votes to be kept without
anyone taking responsibility to clean them up.

> Any article which remains unsourced for one month will be deleted.
> A bot will detect unsourced articles and notify the responsible SWG of
> the article and the need to source it.

  The creation of a "drop-dead" date alone would help a great deal.

                           Jkelly


body:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 22:52:06 +0100, "David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com>
wrote:

>For the questions on fair use of the scans: do the scans add something
>to the article that you really just can't get any other way? With
>album and book covers, it's *the* cover for the album. Is a score
>regarded that way?

It's functionally equivalent to a short sound clip, without the
additional burden of being one person's interpretation of the work. Or
you might liken it to a photograph of an individual.  It is a picture
of the work described.

Does it add to the article in a unique and meaningful way?  I'd argue
very strongly yes.  If you read music, the excerpt tells you an
enormous amount about the work.  The out-of-copyright ones, which
would mainly apply to Victorian music hall performers, are very
unlikely to be rejected from those articles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Requiem_%28Durufl%C3%A9%29 in case I
didn't link last time.  Doesn't mean much if you don't read music, of
course.

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


from_name: Kirill Lokshin

body:
On 3/30/07, Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com> wrote:

> * A mapping of categories onto Subject Working Groups needs to be
> established.  Each Subject Working Group is responsible for the
> maintenance of all articles which are categorized within categories
> assigned to that SWG.  (If an article is within the scope of multiple
> SWGs, an arbitration process, with both automated and deliberative
> components, will determine which SWG will be primarily responsible for
> it.)

And *why* exactly would we need this all-pervading bureaucracy?  Who
cares which group is "primarily" responsible for the article?  You're
confusing the idea of the SWG as a place to ask for help with the
article with that of the SWG as a place to excercise control over it;
unless the primary group is to be given some unique function relative
to the non-primary ones, knowing which one it happens to be is
useless.

(You do realize that virtually every article will be in such an
intersected scope, if only because subject-oriented groups are
orthogonal to country-oriented ones, yes?)

> * Editors, most of whose edits are made to articles categorized within
> a specific SWG, will be identified and asked to form a SWG (or
> formalize an existing informal one).

Who would be doing the asking, and what would they do if the editors
refuse?   Keep in mind that they *are* volunteers.

> * SWGs will have the responsibility to ensure that all articles within
> their ambit are properly sourced, cleaned up, etc.
> * Any article which remains unsourced for one month will be deleted.
> A bot will detect unsourced articles and notify the responsible SWG of
> the article and the need to source it.

So, basically, mass deletions of hundreds of thousands of articles.
(The groups will not, in general, have either the manpower or the
motivation to really fix any substantial portion of what's unsourced.
 The only result you're likely to see is that editors will start
pasting in references -- *any* references -- in an attempt to avoid
having the articles deleted.)

> There are already a lot of SWGs on Wikipedia, with varying degrees of
> organization; many WikiProjects qualify as such.  However, both the
> automation and the sense of group responsibility is not currently
> present, and needs to be cultivated.  We need these people to feel
> personally responsible for the quality of all of the articles in their
> SWG.

And how, precisely, are you intending to do that?  Rounding up the
WikiProjects and telling them that they're doomed unless they source
all their articles is going to be extremely counterproductive; faced
with a negative motivational strategy, the volunteer editors will
simply leave.

> This is a response to the scaling problem.  The English Wikipedia's
> community has grown too large to function organically the way it used
> to three years ago.  It is my belief that breaking it up into multiple
> subject-oriented communities will help to combat the scaling problem:
> the members of the SWG will all know one another and are far more
> likely to remain collegial and productive with one another.  A SWG
> that gets too large can be subdivided further, which means this
> provides an ongoing solution to the scaling problem, not just a
> one-time fix.

And now we swing the other way: not only do unsuccessful projects get
penalized, but so do successful ones.  Recruiting editors to a project
becomes harmful; recruit too many, and the bureaucracy will come in
and Balkanize your project.

> Please feel free to refine this idea or just tell me it's a load of hooey.

It is, at the least, entirely unrealistic, and belies a significant
lack of understanding about how collaborative editorial groups on
Wikipedia actually work (or don't work, as the case may be) *in
practice*.

Kirill


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] BLP - a case study

body:
Stephen Bain wrote:

>On 3/29/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On 28/03/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>He's notable for his academic work. His personal life should be briefly
>>>mentioned if at all. "He divorced his wife in a messy court battle" (or
>>>however you say that neutrally). The details are not important to an article
>>>about him.
>>>
>>>
>>If it's something a reader would reasonably expect to be mentioned in
>>an article, because it was a famous incident (even if it's rubbish),
>>then it'll need to be mentioned in the article, because otherwise
>>it'll be readded and readded and readded.
>>
>>
>...and that's the substance of NPOV: addressing all significant views
>on a subject in accordance with their prevalence. Not a significant
>view? Don't include it. Significant, but not prevalent? Don't give it
>much space.
>
Significant and prevalent are still subjective concepts.  Nevertheless,
to the extent that these views are allowable it needn't be all on one
person's shoulders to include them all.  While it is a great ideal to
write from the other person's perspective, this is still best done by a
person with that perspective.

>If a view has been published only in a small town newspaper, which
>caters for a local audience, then it's probably not significant, and
>as such, shouldn't be included.
>
That's just another level of the arguments about whether to have
articles on small towns themselve, their schools or other institutions.
In time they are all includible.  What makes a small town newspaper any
less reliable than one from a big city?

>Also remember that when you have only
>one source on a subject, no matter where it was published, you're
>going to struggle to fairly address all significant views on the
>subject by relying on it alone.
>
You're assuming that differing views exist.  You may have only one
source, but someone else may have another.  If there truly is only one
source there is no struggle, and any attempt to describe these views
would be original research.

Ec


from_name: Thomas Dalton

references:
<m5vq03p32cchut1ri175vuuehh3dcd1oo3@4ax.com>
	<fbad4e140703301452q2ce23e56qd6436f57f09977c7@mail.gmail.com>
	<742r035tkedff22c987ki05a3tpa2kqjhh@4ax.com>

body:
> >For the questions on fair use of the scans: do the scans add something
> >to the article that you really just can't get any other way? With
> >album and book covers, it's *the* cover for the album. Is a score
> >regarded that way?
>
> It's functionally equivalent to a short sound clip, without the
> additional burden of being one person's interpretation of the work. Or
> you might liken it to a photograph of an individual.  It is a picture
> of the work described.
>
> Does it add to the article in a unique and meaningful way?  I'd argue
> very strongly yes.  If you read music, the excerpt tells you an
> enormous amount about the work.  The out-of-copyright ones, which
> would mainly apply to Victorian music hall performers, are very
> unlikely to be rejected from those articles.

I would say it's equivalent to including an extract of a book in the
article about that book. Would we allow that (beyond quoting a
specific passage when discussing that passage)? I doubt it...


from_name: Oldak Quill

body:
On 30/03/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> What of scores from ChoralWiki?  That is public domain, I guess we can
> borrow at will?  Or should we restrict ourselves to the same level of
> caution?  Note that some of the stuff on ChoralWiki is actually
> copyright, it's externally hosted, so I would have to watch that of
> course.  Most of them are in PDF format.

Who owns the copyright for these? If members of the community,
couldn't we encourage relicensing or (perhaps too odd) to copyleft
license the first page for reuse by us and others? Does copyright law
allow different licensing within a single work?

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


subject:
[Foundation-l] Banning Fair Use (was Re: Foundation Licensing
 Policy)

body:
Stephen Bain wrote:

>This is essentially what the resolution is doing. The types that the
>resolution mentions are:
>
>* media used to illustrate historically significant events [1]
>* identifying protected works such as logos
>* media used to complement (within narrow limits) articles about
>copyrighted contemporary works
>
>So this clearly covers things like corporate logos in articles on the
>corporation, pictures of a painting in an article about the painting,
>and unique photos of historical events (where, of course, there are no
>free alternatives that would adequately convey the same information).
>
>So you can see that the resolution really makes explicit allowance for
>all of the important uses of unfree media in defining what an EDP can
>cover.
>
You can never really make allowance for all the uses.  You need to allow
for those that have not yet properly discussed, and which may arise in
the futre..

Ec


from_name: Slim Virgin

subject: [WikiEN-l] Poll - WP:ATT

body:
On 3/30/07, Jossi Fresco <jossifresco at mac.com> wrote:
> FYI, a poll collecting opinions about [[WP:ATT]] is now open at
> [[Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll]]
>
> TinyURL: http://tinyurl.com/359dhl
>
I hope everyone will turn up with an opinion. It's been a tough two
weeks for the people who worked on this, and what we need now is a
clear community decision one way or the other.

Sarah


body:
On 3/30/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> 1) Do you have any suggestions as to how we implement this?

Not entirely.  The software aspects are not all that daunting; getting
community acceptance will be considerably harder.  Although, actually,
I suspect that much of this can be done without actually changing the
way editors collaborate all that much, Kirill's protestations
notwithstanding.

> 2)a Is existing software adequate to achieving this?

Not by itself.

>     b Is the development effort to implementing this realistic?

I think so.  Most of it can be implemented with bots, with a few web
interfaces, perhaps at the toolserver.

> 3) How much of the process would be automated (identification of SWGs
> and those who should be in them) and would an infrastructure be
> offered so that selected users could quickly and easily assume these
> roles?

I think that particular process can be largely automated.  It is
relatively easy to obtain a list of all articles a user has edited,
gather the categories of those articles, and identify likely SWGs that
a user might be interested in; this can be automated once a category
to SWG map exists.  Someone (possibly Greg Maxwell) mentioned to me
that there is already a bot that can autocategorize articles
reasonably well, so it's possible that this could be almost nearly
automated.

> 4) Are you suggesting the articles which don't meet the deadlines at
> each stage be deleted in existing Wikipedia fashion or simply made
> unviewable to readers?

Technically, deleting them is basically the same as making them
unavailable to readers. :)

> 5) How would non-essential editing (eg. expansion, adding of media)
> gel with this system?

I would assume that people interested in a topic will continue to
expand articles, add media, and so forth, whether or not they
participate in an SWG.  I suppose people who take the SWG principle
seriously might spend less time doing "nonessential" editing.

Kelly


body:
On 3/30/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> 6) Do you think the system itself create this sense of personal
> responsibility in the mind of the editor? If not, how do you suggest
> this could be done?

That's the hardest part, isn't it?  If our editors haven't learned
personal responsibility by the time they come to Wikipedia, we're not
going to inspire it in them.

Kelly


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Slim Virgin [mailto:slimvirgin at gmail.com]
>Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 05:38 PM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Getting hammered in a tv interview is not fun
>
>On 3/30/07, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
>> I think even the Wikipedia Review crowd realizes this, as evidenced
>> by a recent message by Somey that says:
>> WP is going to have to accept the notion that on an anonymous,
>> publicly-editable website, the very existence of a biographical
>> webpage can and should be considered a form of attack ...
>>
>> ... Since such a change would
>> be clearly unconstitutional in the United States (under the First
>> Amendment), he apparently wants a global dictatorship (run by the
>> UN?) that can overrule national laws, courts, and constitutions.
>>
>Is Somey's argument such a bad one? Wikipedia biographies can be the
>cyber equivalent of putting a person in the village stocks. Does the
>Foundation have a duty of care toward people who end up with
>biographical pages, in virtue of offering the website, the tools, the
>policies, and the inadequate policing? Is it foreseeable that our
>policies and the way we enforce them could harm people?  Do individual
>editors have a duty of care toward people when they create bios about
>them?
>
>We don't know what a court would decide, and so it might be wise to
>act before we find out.

Within broad parameters, we do know what courts will decide. The two watchwords are libel and malicious editing.

But beyond that is a duty to be helpful and kind to those who are victims of the structure of our information system. There are many thousands of people who have only received press coverage due to some unfortunate incident. There is no published information about any other aspect of their life. It is grossly inappropriate to have an encyclopedia article about such persons.

Fred


body:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 00:29:22 +0200, "MacGyverMagic/Mgm"
<macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:

>They key to fair use of such material is the percentage/amount you are
>using. How many pages are those scores?

41 in Bernstein, 80 in Durufl?.

Most online sheet music sellers give you a one-page preview.  One page
is no use for performance.

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


subject: [Foundation-l] Foundation Licensing Policy

body:
Ed Sanders wrote:

>Yet we both know there are a substantial number of users (maybe even a
>majority) who appreciate our core principles, but choose to either
>disagree with them, or interpret them as liberally as possible.
>
These are hardly the same thing.  Those that disagree are judged by how
they deal with that disagreement.  There is absolutely nothing wrong
with a very liberal interpretation of the rules.  I have complaints
about those who would interpret rules as strictly as possible.

>As long as these people stay vocal, and our policies have these
>syntactic loopholes, our preaching is going to have little effect.
>
Let's hope they remain vocal.  If you don't want syntactic loopholes the
solution is not to write them in.  We can also do without the preachers.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Ref Desk makes Boing Boing

body:
On 30/03/07, William Pietri <william at scissor.com> wrote:
>
> Wikipedia's reference desk gets a nice mention on Boing Boing:
>
> http://www.boingboing.net/2007/03/30/nyt_changes_backdate.html
>
> It also claims that the New York Times changed a published article
> without mentioning it on the page or issuing a correction. That's very
> interesting in the context of the recent discussion on the reliability
> and durability of web-based citations.

It deserves recognition. It is one of the most useful and effective
tools on Wikipedia to our users. Seems to work very well too: even
relatively complex questions are answered quickly and fully.

Thanks for the link.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


body:
On 30/03/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:

> And the assets of all the individuals involved would be pursued, as
> would the assets of the new foundation. It would get very messy, would
> cost a fortune, and would go on for years if someone determined and

Um, before you speak in quite such apocalyptic terms of the legal d00m
that shall rain down upon Wikimedia if it continues its present course
... has the Foundation actually spoken on the subject?

I believe the last I heard from an actual Florida lawyer on the
subject was that we would most likely *not* be promptly liable in this
manner. Which is why the golfer claiming defamation went after the
owner of the IP the libel was posted from - he knew damn well that
suing the Foundation directly would fall at the first hurdle.

If you wish to continue putting forward this view of likely legal
apocalypse, please substantiate it in a manner that answers Brad's
previous posting on the subject.

- d.


from_name: Matthew Brown

body:
On 3/30/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> Marc Riddell wrote:
> >From a human point of view, which is my point of view, this response is
> > chilling.
> [snip much explanation]
> This seems like an application of NPOV taken to a meta level. What's
> chilling about it?

In this one, I agree with Bryan and Geni.  Adopting 'do no harm' as a
policy higher up than NPOV - which is what in effect several
contributors are suggesting, if I read them right - is a fundamental
change to Wikipedia's mission and objectives.  Adopting it as a
guideline at lower level than Wikipedia's core principles is
acceptable to me, but I find its adoption at a higher level of policy
than that to be troubling.  Especially since many things can be
considered harmful, including many things many of us might consider
important.

Heck, some people (e.g. Brandt) consider Wikipedia unfixably harmful.

-Matt


from_name: John Lee

body:
On 3/30/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/30/07, John Lee <johnleemk at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 3/30/07, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > geni wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28news%29#Robert_Mugabe.27s_daughter_-_news_story_originating_from_Wikipedia.3F
> > >
> > > So that's the best example I have seen in a while.
> >
> >
> > Wow. Just wow. This is both exhilarating and frightening - exhilarating
> in
> > that what we do on WP can have a tremendous effect on the world, and
> > frightening in that in cases like this, this can be a tremendous
> negative
> > effect.
> >
> > I think raising the notability bar without moving our bios of living
> > people
> > offWP will be far too controversial and chaotic. I would be in favour of
> > doc's proposal to create a separate wiki for living people - it could be
> a
> > Wikia wiki or something run by WMF. The point is to divert this offWP so
> > as
> > to get people specialising in this sort of thing to make the policies
> for
> > articles on living people. (Specialisation of labour seems to be a good
> > idea
> > here.) Then we will be free to raise the notability bar on WP as
> > arbitrarily
> > as we like without worrying that we will be getting rid of useful
> > information.
>
>
> How do you figure that raising the notability bar will not get rid of
> useful
> information? Raising the bar will lose useful articles depending on the
> criteria that are being used. It doesn't matter if it's located on WP or
> elsewhere.
>
> Mgm

Of course - what I meant is that we won't be deleting the content forever -
we will be just outsourcing it to another wiki that specialises in bios
because we aren't equipped to handle such articles, which probably need to
be treated differently from other encyclopaedia articles anyway. When the
subjects of these outsourced articles reach the bar set by WP for
notability, we can just move them back to WP.

I think the bar for notability should be based on what our policies can
handle without creating significant loopholes. I like the idea of limiting
on-WP bios to only subjects with a biographical secondary source.

It's undeniable that such a policy would lead to useful articles moving off
WP. But weighing the costs and benefits, it seems to me that BLPs
(specifically living people who aren't famous enough to be on a few people's
watchlists) are in a class of their own, and need special handling in a
different wiki, which can specialise in solving the problem of writing and
maintaining such bios.

Johnleemk


list: wikitech-l

from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2007-03-31

body:
An automated run of parserTests.php showed the following failures:

This is MediaWiki version 1.10alpha (r20860).

Reading tests from "maintenance/parserTests.txt"...
Reading tests from "extensions/Cite/citeParserTests.txt"...
Reading tests from "extensions/Poem/poemParserTests.txt"...

  17 still FAILING test(s) :(
      * URL-encoding in URL functions (single parameter)  [Has never passed]
      * URL-encoding in URL functions (multiple parameters)  [Has never passed]
      * Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)  [Has never passed]
      * Link containing double-single-quotes '' (bug 4598)  [Has never passed]
      * message transform: <noinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)  [Has never passed]
      * message transform: <onlyinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)  [Has never passed]
      * BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled  [Has never passed]
      * HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)  [Has never passed]
      * HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)  [Has never passed]
      * HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)  [Has never passed]
      * HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)  [Has never passed]
      * Inline HTML vs wiki block nesting  [Has never passed]
      * Mixing markup for italics and bold  [Has never passed]
      * dt/dd/dl test  [Has never passed]
      * Images with the "|" character in the comment  [Has never passed]
      * Parents of subpages, two levels up, without trailing slash or name.  [Has never passed]
      * Parents of subpages, two levels up, with lots of extra trailing slashes.  [Has never passed]

Passed 494 of 511 tests (96.67%)... 17 tests failed!


from_name: Will

subject: [WikiEN-l] Oh noes, Wikimedia is selling me meds.

body:
Something humourous I've found in my spam inbox - an email from "trademark
Wikimedia" offering me "top quality medicine". I know about exotic names
used in spam emails, but I'd never thought "Wikimedia" would be one. The
scary thing is, I think this has happened before.

Oh well, now we're truly famous.

Sceptre


subject: [Foundation-l] Belarusan Wikipedia

body:
On 31/03/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> On 3/29/07, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) <pathoschild at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 1. The subcommittee recommendation was to rename the alternative or
> > 'classical' Belarusian wiki, and use the standard code for the
> > standard or 'normative' Belarusian wiki. This recommendation did not
> > include the closure of the alternative Belarusian Wikipedia.
>
> Nor is it closed; it lives at
> http://be-x-old.wikipedia.org/

Living in a vegetative, comatose fashio, though. The database is locked.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


subject: [Foundation-l] Belarusan Wikipedia


from_name: Bryan Derksen

body:
Marc Riddell wrote:
>From a human point of view, which is my point of view, this response is
> chilling.

Doesn't seem that way to me. Geni is taking a relativist position,
basically saying (if I interpret him correctly) that if we pick one of
the many different ethical systems out there and make it an official
policy we're going to bias Wikipedia and add lots of considerations that
aren't directly related to our goal. For example, "do no harm" could
require us to take out or modify articles about homeopathy, or
marijuana, or maybe even certain political or religious ideologies - and
"harm" is subjective so different editors would want to take these
things in different ways. It's a huge and unnecessary kettle of fish to
open.

This seems like an application of NPOV taken to a meta level. What's
chilling about it?


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

body:
They key to fair use of such material is the percentage/amount you are
using. How many pages are those scores?
Mgm

On 3/31/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 22:52:06 +0100, "David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >For the questions on fair use of the scans: do the scans add something
> >to the article that you really just can't get any other way? With
> >album and book covers, it's *the* cover for the album. Is a score
> >regarded that way?
>
> It's functionally equivalent to a short sound clip, without the
> additional burden of being one person's interpretation of the work. Or
> you might liken it to a photograph of an individual.  It is a picture
> of the work described.
>
> Does it add to the article in a unique and meaningful way?  I'd argue
> very strongly yes.  If you read music, the excerpt tells you an
> enormous amount about the work.  The out-of-copyright ones, which
> would mainly apply to Victorian music hall performers, are very
> unlikely to be rejected from those articles.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Requiem_%28Durufl%C3%A9%29 in case I
> didn't link last time.  Doesn't mean much if you don't read music, of
> course.
>
> Guy (JzG)
> --
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: doc

body:
Slim Virgin wrote:
> On 3/30/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 30/03/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> And the assets of all the individuals involved would be pursued, as
>>> would the assets of the new foundation. It would get very messy, would
>>> cost a fortune, and would go on for years if someone determined and
>>
>> Um, before you speak in quite such apocalyptic terms of the legal d00m
>> that shall rain down upon Wikimedia if it continues its present course
>> ... has the Foundation actually spoken on the subject?
>>
>> I believe the last I heard from an actual Florida lawyer on the
>> subject was that we would most likely *not* be promptly liable in this
>> manner. Which is why the golfer claiming defamation went after the
>> owner of the IP the libel was posted from - he knew damn well that
>> suing the Foundation directly would fall at the first hurdle.
>>
>> If you wish to continue putting forward this view of likely legal
>> apocalypse, please substantiate it in a manner that answers Brad's
>> previous posting on the subject.
>>
> The issues will be judged by the courts, not by lawyers, and a lot
> will depend on how much money the plaintiff is willing to spend
> arguing his case, as well as which jurisdictions he initiates the
> complaint in, what his complaint is, and what he wants. All I'm
> arguing is that we shouldn't rest on our laurels.
>
> What we should be asking is whether what we're doing is reasonable. Is
> it reasonable to host pages about living persons that can be edited by
> any anonymous person of any age in the world, when we have no clear
> way of patrolling those pages to make sure anything negative or unfair
> is removed immediately? And when, even when such pages are spotted,
> getting rid of the bad stuff often involves a giant fuss, with admins
> unsure of what action they're allowed to take, because if they go too
> far they risk being desysopped?
>
> My argument is that the man on the Clapham Omnibus would not find this
> reasonable.
>
> If you want me to address Brad's previous posting, I'll certainly try
> if you show me where it is.
>
> Sarah
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
I don't know Florida Law - but if my knowledge of UK law would say that
if harm is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of an action, and it is
reasonable to take steps to prevent it, then a failure to do so is
culpable negligence. We know the harm, we could do something, but we don't.

But I say again, legal concerns are not the biggest worry.

There is publicity. How long before the media get wind of a case of some
innocent person who gets screwed by Wikipedia? Stressful
reputation-wrecking libels lie for weeks - John Doe eventually sees them
and complains - the complaint lies for days on OTRS - the material is
removed - but nothing credible done to prevent its replacement three
days later. - Then how do we fancy the headline: "Wikipedia-induced
suicide: in a final note John Doe blames the on-line encyclopedia"?

Then forget about the publicity and ask yourself about the ethics of all
of this. As a byproduct of the encyclopedia, we are hurting real people,
can we not do more to prevent it?


from_name: Florence Devouard

body:
Hello community,

You will find below a report on the state of the Foundation and at the
end of the email, a collection of links on previous reports and
announcements.

The board just had a meeting in the WMF office, in Florida.
It is actually a bit strange that I report on it, because I actually
missed most of the board meeting itself :-)
The board meeting was planned to be on friday, saturday and sunday.
Except for Jimbo, currently travelling in Japan, all board members were
supposed to be there, but I was planned only to get there on friday
afternoon.
What happened is that Global Warming caught me in New York, where I got
stuck in an ugly ice storm, which cause the airport to close for 24
hours. I will not comment on hotel availabilities in Newark, nor about
how Continental Airlines handle their customers in such crisis cases,
but I will try to fly through other cities in the future... In any
cases, I could only join at the end of saturday.

During that week, the office was really populated, as it also hosted two
other meetings, one dedicated to Quality (might be worthwhile to ask
Greg to make a report on this one...), and another meeting of the tech
team. Delphine was also in Florida for several days.

==Passed resolutions==

May be found here:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolutions#March_2007

Essentially, there were
* adoption are the license policy
* approval of hardware purchase
* approval to hire Bastique
* approval to have Rob work full time rather than full time, to help in
the office
* approval to hire a legal coordinator

==Other discussions==

Several other discussions occured on various topics, some of them being
confidential (sorry guys).

What can be mentionned probably is this:
* work on a travel policy (nothing very fancy to report)
* work on a policy for reimbursement (nothing very fancy to report)
* further work on license issues (details confidential)
* study of some collaboration propositions (details confidential)
* study around brand licensing (not surprisingly since we are in the top
of most recognised brands, we get some propositions from branding
companies. Brand licensing is probably one of our best assets to collect
money for the development of the projects in the future, so we should be
careful about what we do on the topic. Brand licensing has also various
ramifications, in particular in our relationships with chapters).
* approval of two new advisory board members
* discussion about a future CTO or a tech project leader. No conclusion
at the moment.

Last, a significant part of the meeting was dedicated to the ED issue.
As you are aware probably, the WMF doesnot have any more an executive
director. At the same time, we started a search with a company, in order
to hire our future ED. The search company voiced concerns about the
involvement of the board in executive issues (too high to their opinion)
and the difficulties a new ED would meet, due to the confusion between
the role of the ED and the role of the board.

Accordingly, the issue of an interim director was discussed (no decision
  was really made). And we spent sunday morning in defining a list of
tasks that ought to be taken care of, giving to each of them a notion of
priority and a notion of importance, and for each of them, defining
whether the task should be under the ED role or the board job.

For your information,

Do it soon and is important
* Coordinate legal activities (ED)
* Job description for all (ED)
* Personnel needs (ED)

Do it soon (but not necessarily very important)
* Data Gathering (ED)
* Fundraising Planning (ED)
* Board Skills and Expansion and Election (board)
* Short term budget (COO)
* Wikimania Finances (ED)
* Tech stuff in office (ED)

Important (but not necessarily to do immediately)
* Brand Strategy (board)
* Business Development Strategy (board)
* Technical Management (ED)

Followed many other points, with less support either as important or as
urgent (but not entirely non important nor not urgent at all, I just
listed the MOST important and/or urgent from our perspective).

Note that looking for an ED is not even listed above - I guess it was so
important and urgent that we even forgot to mention it :-)

As I was explaining, we have no ED. Which means that the points listed
above as ED issues will either be left unfixed until we have one, or
will have to be dealt with by someone else (undefined). We might make an
exception and hire a legal coordinator, because this is a critical issue.

Thanks

Florence Devouard

==links==

*http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-March/028158.html
(thoughts on staff issues)
*http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-March/028385.html
(Bastique as volunteer coordinator)
*
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-February/027477.html
(Announcement concerning the ED search firm)
*
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-January/027269.html
(explanation of the differences between CEO, COO and Board)
*http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-February/027478.html

(Brad moving to GC job)
*
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-January/027268.html
(Announcement of Carolyn becoming COO)
*
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-January/026515.html
(4 wishes for year 2007... including reorganisation and financial
considerations)
*
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-January/027171.html
(Welcome to Sandy)
*
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-February/027455.html
(Welcome to chapter coordinator)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Light entertainment

body:
On 31/03/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> air. It makes us look irrationally deletion-happy.

Many of the ways our deletion mechanisms are used make us look
irrationally deletion-happy.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)