subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
Just a number of observations on this topic.

1. If a person is a topic of sufficient attention, for whatever
reason, Wikipedia should have an article on that person.

2. I thought Delerium's stub was quite accurate & NPOV.

3. The edit history of this article had 675 edits -- including
Delerium's. Sheesh.

4. I am reminded of a strategy I mentioned in another thread --

        a. Silently acquiese to opponent's edits; after all, there's
	many other articles in need of attention.
        b. Wait x number of weeks.
        c. Revert opponent's edits while carefully leaving any later
	contributions intact.
        d. Repeat steps 2 & 3 as often as needed.

and of the variations other people mentioned.

5. When I hear that this person's family is concerned about the
article, are they more worried about the picture of his appearance, or
that he was declared guilty in a court of law for a sex crime --
specifically on the charge of "Gross Sexual Imposition" & an attempt
to do the same?

6. And just what is "Gross Sexual Imposition"? For the curious, I
found a definition at
http://www.ag.state.oh.us/le/training/pubs/cert/unit2-2C_rev0506.pdf --
which defines it as involuntary sexual groping, with the usual
conditions that apply to a definition of rape: use or threat of use
of force, whether the parties involved are married[*], whether the
victim was capable of consenting to this act, & if the victim was
less than 13 years of age. FWIW, when I Googled for the specific
part of the Ohio Revised Code that he was convicted under, I found a
hit that explains this is one crime that explicitly cannot be expunged
from his record.

7. Looking at this guy's picture & considering the crime he was
convicted of, I have to wonder if this wasn't some mean-spirited
practical joke gone badly wrong, & for which he is being mangled by the
gears of justice. (Of course this kind of thing happens -- & not only
in the US: I remember reading about a case in the UK where a pair of
homeless bums were arrested & convicted of being notorious IRA
bombers, despite the fact both were obviously incapable of holding a
normal job or even attempting to apply for one, let alone managing such
a demanding chore as making & setting these complicated devices.)

8. Again, FWIW I went to school with a guy with a similar deformity
similar this one. He exhibited normal intelligence. If the findings of
the court were accurate, then he knew what he was doing: coercing
another person to being groped.

9. Are we more worried about providing verifiable information in
Wikipedia, or if people are going to object to the nature of our
information? After all, are we going to back off from stating that
Vice-President Cheney shot Whittington in the face with a shotgun, &
that Whittington later apologized to Cheny & his family for the
accident?

Geoff

[*] I am not expressing an opinion on this clause of the relevant
section of the Ohio Revised Code. I am merely reporting what it says.


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Carl Fûrstenberg

subject: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo and his strategy

body:
The main problem is that the definition of polemical is rather vauge, and
that a couple of admins have exploit jimbo's words for their own agenda.
Jimbo has right in that some userboxes are unsuited for wikipedia, and thou
should be deleted, but the quest to exterminate them should not dissrupt the
pedia more than the boxes before did.

Also Jimbo, could you please define what your definition of polemical is,
according to wikionary, the definition is "An aggressive attack on or
refutation of the opinions or principles of another", where is the line
drawn?


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Userboxes: A radical proposal

body:
David Gerard wrote:
> Alphax wrote:
>
>
>>They demonstrate and encourage groupthink. Groupthink is BAD. Wikipedia
>>is *NOT* Livejournal, Myspace, or anything other than an encyclopedia.
>
>
>
>     http://static.rocknerd.org/david/du-664.png
>
> (I do NOT release that image under the GFDL)
>
>

I was going to suggest that you actually make that and run a bot to tag
all userpages that have > X userboxes with it.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 550 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060221/6f967328/attachment.pgp


from_name: John Lee

subject: [WikiEN-l] GFDL - Have to mention only authors or Wikipedia too?

body:
Heinz wrote:

>Question:
>
>According to GFDL, when useing a Wikipedia article, i have to mention
>the authors.
>
>Do i have to mention Wikipedia too?
>
>thx. Heinz
>
>
>
Yes, that'd be a good idea. :) Check out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_Wikipedia for more.

John


references:
<dtfbqn$k6v$1@sea.gmane.org> <43FB3373.6050703@gawab.com>
	<dtfcbl$m93$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
Heinz wrote:

>Of cource citing is always polite and good scientific behavior.
>But my question has a more legal background.
>
>MUST i cite wikipedia - according to GFDL -- or is citing of authors enough?
>
>Heinz.
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mirrors#License indicates a link
back to the Wikipedia article /may/ suffice as "[acknowledging] the main
authors". Generally the style used to *cite* Wikipedia (not copy its
articles) just attributes the article to something like "Wikipedia
contributors". I'm not familiar with the legal ramifications of the
GFDL, and from the appearance of that page, neither are the fellows who
write our policy on mirrors. :p Just err on the safe side and cite both.

John


list: wikitech-l

from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-02-22

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

Running test BUG 361: URL within URL, not bracketed... FAILED!
Running test External links: invalid character... FAILED!
Running test Bug 2702: Mismatched <i> and <a> tags are invalid... FAILED!
Running test A table with no data.... FAILED!
Running test A table with nothing but a caption... FAILED!
Running test Link containing "#<" and "#>" % as a hex sequences... FAILED!
Running test Magic links: PMID incorrectly converts space to underscore... FAILED!
Running test Template with thumb image (wiht link in description)... FAILED!
Running test Link to image page... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887: A ISBN with a thumbnail... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887: A <math> with a thumbnail... FAILED!
Running test BUG 561: {{/Subpage}}... FAILED!
Running test Simple category... FAILED!
Running test Section headings with TOC... FAILED!
Running test Media link with nasty text... FAILED!
Running test Bug 2095: link with pipe and three closing brackets... FAILED!
Running test Sanitizer: Validating the contents of the id attribute (bug 4515)... FAILED!

Passed 268 of 285 tests (94.04%) FAILED!


from_name: Ben Lowe

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
I will be writing a Tony-award-winning musical about Brian Peppers within
the next year entitled "0.5 + 0.5 = My Heart: The Brian Peppers Story".  I
will then petition Jimbo to unblock the page.

That, my friends, is *bold*.

On 2/21/06, Ben Emmel <bratsche1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/21/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't think you will be able to use that to get [[Joseph Merrick]]
> > through AFD
>
>
> Brian Peppers doesn't have nine books about him, nor a Tony-award winning
> play, an Oscar-winning movie, and a TV special.
>
> On a side note, the Merrick article needs a POV check. Can we be guessing
> on
> whether he never found love?
> --
> Ben Emmel
> Wikipedia - User:Bratsche
> "A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees."
> -- William Blake
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Death Phoenix

subject: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo and his strategy

body:
On 2/21/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/22/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> > It beats me why we let this crap fester for so long in the corners of
> > Wikipedia.  Time for a Scouring of the Shire.
>
> I remember when being a deletionist was hard.
>

Isn't a deletionist someone who prefers to delete articles?


from_name: Sue Anne Reed

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny - Harry Reid

body:
I really don't know what to think about the Brian Peppers article, so
I'm not going to comment on that one.

However, I do think the Harry Reid issue raises an interesting question.
If Wikipedia is going to be a trusted source of information, there seems
to me that there is a need for us to vet "living people" articles in a
way that allows those people to respond to criticisms. We criticized
Congressional staffers who "anonymously" edited articles both of the
people that they were working for and of the opposition. In this
instance, with Harry Reid's staff, they are making a very open request
to Jimbo and the others in WP:OFFICE to identify things that they
disagree with in the article about Reid.

I don't know how Wikipedia is going to handle this as it continues to
become a more widely read source of information. People, especially
politicians, are going to want to be able to have a voice in that
information. How do we balance that with NPOV? On the Abramoff / Reid
situation, I don't think you'll be able to reach NPOV. Folks on the
right and possibly centrists are going to point to certain facts and say
that it shows Reid is connected to the lobbying scandal and that he's a
hypocrite for saying he's not. Folks on the left are going to call it a
giant smear campaign by the right to try and downplay their culpability.
Has any news outlet reached consensus on this one?

Sue Anne
[[User:Sreed1234]]
sreed1234 at yahoo.com


from_name: Travis Mason-Bushman

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
On 2/21/06 10:41 PM, "Geoff Burling" <llywrch at agora.rdrop.com> wrote:

> If the findings of
> the court were accurate, then he knew what he was doing: coercing
> another person to being groped.

I really didn't want to fuel this fire, but here goes. So, what? Lots of
people are convicted of groping other people every day in the United States.
Does that means] that every person who's ever been convicted of a minor sex
offense should have their biography on Wikipedia simply because we can print
what the government said about them? Is this Wikisexoffenderregistry?

The fact is that the quantity of verifiable attention paid to this person
outside YTMND and other such joke forums is so infinitesmally small as to be
practically equivalent to zero. As has been endlessly pointed out, there are
no verifiable, NPOV recountings of this person's life. We have no
information about his crime, we have no information about his life, we have
no information about him period. The only source that can be cited is
Snopes, and while Snopes might be a great source for urban legends like the
rocket car dude, it's of questionable value when talking about a
[[WP:BLP|living person]].

Basically, all that we can can verifiably write about Mr. Peppers is that he
exists, that he was convicted of committing some unknown minor sex offense
and that his photo was mocked by Internet dimwits. That doesn't add up to
Wikipedia material in my book.

-FCYTravis


body:
geni wrote:
> Most people would just use the talk page.

That's great for Wikipedians, but a nuance that we can't expect the now
almost 72,000 living people (and growing) to be nuanced in Wikipedia and
how it all works.

>
> What about those of use who have never herd of Harry Reid?

[[Insert your current prime minister, head of Parliament, leader of the
opposition political party, sovereign, etc. here]] and the same
questions are still valid.

Sue Anne
[[User:Sreed1234]]
sreed1234 at yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
On 2/22/06 2:26 AM, "Phil Boswell" <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:

> But don't you see that what you have written there is the essence of what
> the article **should** say? It should be expanded a bit, but you've
> summarised it nicely.

A compromise was proposed that I - and a few others - could have lived with
- a protected redirect to a short paragraph on [[Internet phenomenon]] or
[[List of YTMND fads]], which simply states he was some guy who got
convicted of a minor sex crime and had his picture turned into an Internet
meme.

No, that was not good enough for the article's proponents - we had to have
his complete life story (such as it is) and picture for all to see. The
proposal was rejected.

So, now we have nothing for a year.

-FCYTravis


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo and his strategy

body:
It beats me why we let this crap fester for so long in the corners of
Wikipedia.  Time for a Scouring of the Shire.


subject:
[WikiEN-l] The next chapter of new-ish users edit warring over
	policy pages ([[WP:3RR]])

body:
To my recollection I haven't used 3RR for nearly a year.   If someone
is editing like a dick, it's usually easy enough to block them for
disruption.


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
On 2/22/06, Joshua Griisser <JDGRII8338 at ngcsu.edu> wrote:
> I'm almost speechless with rage at Jimbo's unilateral deletion of the encyclopedia article >[[Brian Peppers]] -

I belive the formal aproach is to complain about "damned deletionists"

>not to mention his locking (via [[User:Danny]] and [[WP:OFFICE]]) of
[[Harry Reid]] for >*five days*.
>

Yeah I don't get that back when the helpdesk recived such complaints
we talk to the people made such edits as were required while staying
with in the normal editing process then moved on (with the exception
of newsmax where I  made the mistake of telling them they could edit
wikipedia which resulted in a revert war and the evential blocking of
one newsmax employee). It seemed to work mostly.

> As I feared, userboxes have proven to be the canary in the coal mine. Now it's >articlespace that is being jerked around.
>
> Wikipedia ultimately must decide whether it wants to be Jimbo's personal fiefdom, or be >"the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". The two are clearly mutually exclusive at >this point.
>

Jimbo can't keep track of all the wikis. However any attempt to define
Brian Peppers as a species will be resisted.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo and his strategy

body:
On 2/22/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> It beats me why we let this crap fester for so long in the corners of
> Wikipedia.  Time for a Scouring of the Shire.

I remember when being a deletionist was hard.

--
geni


from_name: Delirium

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
Ben Emmel wrote:

>No, I do agree that it's not a open-and-shut decision. But like Jimbo said,
>if we still care about this article in a year, then we can argue then. It's
>a pretty good way to find out notability. My logic goes like this: a person
>with a disability is not inherently notable, a sex offender is not
>inherently notable, so a combination of the two is only barely notable.
>Given that we should have high editorial standards, I think our Brian
>Peppers slips beneath our bar.
>
>If I was him, or a member of his family, I certainly wouldn't want it up
>there.
>
>
Nobody is arguing that having a disability or being a sex offender is
inherently notable.  The article is not even primarily about the person,
but about the internet fad the person has caused, which *is* a notable
sociological phenomenon.

Whether someone wants an article or not does and should not have any
relevant whatsoever.  [[en:Star Wars kid]], another internet fad,
doesn't want an article either, but there you have one.  Brian Peppers
is a less well-known internet fad, but still certainly at the level
where he would warrant inclusion in any more than cursary treatment of
the subject.

Since I hope Wikipedia will become, in the long term, a compendium of
all human knowledge, I think it sad that an unexplained decision to
unilaterally remove content has poked holes in its coverage of internet
culture, an important area of current sociological research at which
Wikipedia ought naturally to excel.

-Mark


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
On 2/22/06, Keith Old <keithold at gmail.com> wrote:
> If he did, well done to him. There is no legitimate reason for an article on
> Mr Peppers other than people on a couple of websites chose to make fun of
> his appearance. In the latest AfD, one voter said words to effect of we're
> just making fun of his appearance. Surely, Wikipedia should have higher
> purposes than mocking the disabled which his article has generally tended to
> be.
>

The article has not tended to do that.

> In general, we need to pay much more attention to people's privacy than we
> have. As one of the world's most popular Internet sites, articles on people
> generally tend to be high up on the first page of a Google search. If people
> do a Google search for a potential employee or date, our articles come up
> fairly quickly. If we have an article alleging criminal or other antisocial
> behavior, we need to ensure that the case is well-known and highly
> verifiable through reliable sources.
>

[[Brian Peppers]] forfilled both of those depending on your defintion
of well know.

>  We therefore need to ensure that if we have articles on people for a
> negative reason, our policies on verifiability and reliable sources are
> applied vigorously. As well, our editorial red pencils should be vigilant
> about negative claims about individuals and if they don't have a reliable
> source/s or don't comply with NPOV, they should be taken out.
>

Um yeah that is kinda what was going on with [[Brain Peppers]].
--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
On 2/22/06, Ben Emmel <bratsche1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I hold the opinion that any article on this man is not going to be NPOV,
> since the only reason he is popular is because Peppers is unfortuantely
> stricken with a condition that makes him look funny.

I don't think you will be able to use that to get [[Joseph Merrick]] through AFD

>Our editorial standards
> should be such that we don't have to stoop to have an article designed to
> inflicy more problems on the article subject.
>

The article wasn't designed to do that

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:

>Just on the notability thing, I wonder if BP will really stack up well
>on the "ten years from now" test. Sure, he's interesting *now*, but in
>2016?
>
>
Depends on who you are, and what you consider "interesting".  If the
year is 2016 and you're researching internet culture of the first decade
of the 21st century, I'd imagine you might find it interesting.

Wikipedia already has plenty of uninteresting-to-me bits of pop-culture
trivia from previous decades, but they may well be of interest to people
who research or otherwise have an interest in such things.  I haven't
heard of most of the television shows on [[List of television shows
canceled after one episode]], for example, and don't really care to, but
I'm glad we cover them, and in fact it would be nice if fewer of them
were red links.

-Mark


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
On 2/22/06, Ben Emmel <bratsche1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/21/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't think you will be able to use that to get [[Joseph Merrick]]
> > through AFD
>
>
> Brian Peppers doesn't have nine books about him, nor a Tony-award winning
> play, an Oscar-winning movie, and a TV special.
>

Ah so we are back to the good old notibilty criteria. Now generaly at
this point an inclusionist should turn up and propose some incredibily
liberal criteria then refuse to budge makeing further debate tricky.

> On a side note, the Merrick article needs a POV check. Can we be guessing on
> whether he never found love?

No he complained about it at one point. I think there is a mention of
it on the BBC website. I think he hoped to meet a blind woman.

--
geni


subject:
[WikiEN-l] New draft policy on userboxes being workshopped on
	[[WP:UBP]]

body:
This is a policy proposal developed by Pathoschild from an original by
Doc glasgow.

It picked up quite a lot of favorable comments in Pathoschild's
userspace and so after discussion I've moved it to [[WP:UBP]] (which
believe it or not hasn't actually had any concrete proposals on the
main page for weeks).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Proposed_policy_on_userboxes


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Of edit wars and felonious monks

body:
It seems to me that if you run into a nasty situation while
intervening, we (the arbitrators and the rest of the community)
should cut you some slack if a skunk gets some stink on you.

Fred

On Feb 22, 2006, at 5:04 AM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

> As a party to the arbitration on WebEx and Min Zhu
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/
> WebEx_and_Min_Zhu)
> I note that FeloniousMonk is criticised for using admin powers in a
> dispute in which he is involved.  It seems to me that Felonious was
> not involved in an editorial capacity, only in the prevention of
> reversion of certain content - which he saw (in good faith) as
> whitewashing, which is vandalism.  I happen to disagree - I would
> always err on the side of removal where living people are concerned -
> but I have come to trust Felonious' good faith even while disagreeing
> with him.
>
> Be that as it may, at what point does an admin become "involved" in a
> dispute to which (s)he has been called to stop an edit war?  I'm a bit
> concerned that use of admin powers in a dispute where one takes a
> watching brief without actively editing content might still be
> interpreted as abuse, by extension of this precedent.
>
> Or is it that Felonious' reviewing of the evidence and taking a stand
> was, in effect, placing himself in the editorial dispute?
>
> My problem here is that once an admin has been called into a
> firefight, one side or the other will invariably see them as partisan
> almost immediately, and I am not at all certain that I know when to
> stop providing administrative support against vandals by request of
> trusted editors in contentious articles: at what point am I "involved"
> and needing to step back?
> Guy (JzG)
> --
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Daniel P. B. Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit?

body:
> From: "Joshua Griisser" <JDGRII8338 at NGCSU.EDU>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny
>
> I'm almost speechless with rage at Jimbo's unilateral deletion of
> the encyclopedia article [[Brian Peppers]] - not to mention his
> locking (via [[User:Danny]] and [[WP:OFFICE]]) of [[Harry Reid]]
> for *five days*.
>
> As I feared, userboxes have proven to be the canary in the coal
> mine. Now it's articlespace that is being jerked around.
>
> Wikipedia ultimately must decide whether it wants to be Jimbo's
> personal fiefdom, or be "the free encyclopedia that anyone can
> edit". The two are clearly mutually exclusive at this point.

1) It's still free, isn't it?

2) Wikipedia is still an encyclopedia, isn't it? Surely you can have
an encyclopedia without an article on Brian Peppers in it. Many other
encyclopedias get by without such an article.

3) Anyone can still edit Wikipedia, can't they?

4) If this deletion was made "unilaterally" then who are the twenty
or so other sysops who also deleted the page? Are they all Jimbo's
sockpuppets?


from_name: Jonathan

subject:
[WikiEN-l] The next chapter of new-ish users edit warring over
 policy pages ([[WP:3RR]])

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

>On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 02:55:03 +0000, you wrote:
>
>
>
>>To my recollection I haven't used 3RR for nearly a year.   If someone
>>is editing like a dick, it's usually easy enough to block them for
>>disruption.
>>
>>
>
>This is fair comment: 3RR is diagnostic of disruption, but far from
>being the only such diagnostic.  On the other hand, not everybody has
>your level of confidence in their own judgment, so 3RR is a worthwhile
>policy as giving a good indication that blocking a given dick will not
>be viewed as contentious.
>Guy (JzG)
>
>
It does seem like a fair comment. The 3RR page still needs attention. It
has become a sole article to edit to attempt to update the needs the
surrond the issues related to 3RR. I must implore to this audience that
the page needs to be kept very simple. It appears there needs to be a
page for vandal related reversions, as part of the policy against
vandalism has crept on anybody that just reverts even with the best of
good-faith edits. The page is just complex in its attempts to handle
multiple situations. In the process to keep it simple, lets split the
page into vandal related reverts and another to handle non-vandal
related reverts. It's a step.


from_name: Phil Boswell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo and his strategy

body:
"geni" <geniice at gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f80608430602211428u11e0b281wfefb141ac1586adc at mail.gmail.com...
> On 2/21/06, Death Phoenix
> <originaldeathphoenix at gmail.com> wrote:
>> [[Snake (The Simpsons)|Alright!]] A sign of things to come, I hope.
> Not really. Declaring {{user childless}} and {{User Public Transit}}
> anathema does not strike me as a good idea.

I don't know about the latter, but I hope they'll let me substitute the
former before they nuke it, just in case it might be useful for anyone to
know I'm an adoptive father...or is there another category this particular
box might be better suited to?
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
"Delirium" <delirium at hackish.org> wrote in
message news:43FBD5CA.6000904 at hackish.org...
> Joshua Griisser wrote:
>
>>I'm almost speechless with rage at Jimbo's unilateral deletion of the
>>encyclopedia article [[Brian Peppers]] - not to mention his locking (via
>>[[User:Danny]] and [[WP:OFFICE]]) of [[Harry Reid]] for *five days*.
> I'm very confused by this one.  I wrote a one-sentence, factual,
> verifiable, referenced stub reading something like the following (from
> memory):
[snip]
> I fail to see how this could possibly be legally problematic.  What's
> more, deleting it from the encyclopedia reduces our coverage of internet
> culture, which is currently an active area of academic research.

At this stage, I think the legal angle pales into insignificance next to the
FireStorm this article has generated on Wikipedia.

My impression is that this is a particularly egregious example of the
poisonous atmosphere in the Deletion-related arenas abut which Jimbo has
previously commented.

> There are some books on internet fads currently in press, scheduled to
> appear within the next year.  If one of them mentions Brian Peppers,
> will we still prohibit an article in Wikipedia about it?

Well, there is a deadline. Whether a proper article or a troll-piece hits
the presses first will be interesting...
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

references:
<1140576063.b66bd9bcJDGRII8338@NGCSU.EDU>
	<cblov1dikb84u7rhlpve4o9g6ga1n69jca@4ax.com>
	<f1c3529e0602220446h412b2a20m82bca3a6b2b3a40c@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On 2/22/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/22/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> > On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:41:03 -0500, you wrote:
> > Which does more harm, having and fighting over an article which has
> > been accused by some in good faith of actively contributing to the
> > mimetic process, or stepping back and having nothing to do with it?
>
> If "stepping back" means banishing the topic from Wikipedia, then I
> would consider such a precedent potentially very harmful.
>

I agree, especially because the article didn't show the image, nor did it
provide much in the way of information about Brian *the person* (only Brian
the meme). That said, this is Jimbo's project. If he says the article is
banned for a year, it's banned for a year. We my grumble about it (heck, we
already *are*), but ultimately, what Jimbo says, goes.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
Brian Peppers is a pitiful person we should not be making fun of
(using our "power"). There is no legal problem, but not the point.
Harry Reid will likely be Majority leader of the Senate. I have not
followed any controversy regarding his article, but some attention
needs to be paid to the quality of the article.

Fred

On Feb 21, 2006, at 8:08 PM, Delirium wrote:

> Joshua Griisser wrote:
>
>
>> I'm almost speechless with rage at Jimbo's unilateral deletion of
>> the encyclopedia article [[Brian Peppers]] - not to mention his
>> locking (via [[User:Danny]] and [[WP:OFFICE]]) of [[Harry Reid]]
>> for *five days*.
>>
>>
>>
> I'm very confused by this one.  I wrote a one-sentence, factual,
> verifiable, referenced stub reading something like the following (from
> memory):
>
> ---
> '''Brian Peppers''' is the subject of an [[internet fad]] due to his
> unusual appearance in a police [[mug shot]] photograph.
>
> ==References==
> * [[Urban Legends Reference Pages]] (snopes.com).
> [http://www.snopes.com/photos/people/peppers.asp "Who's a Pepper?"].
> Accessed February 17, 2006.
> ---
>
> I fail to see how this could possibly be legally problematic.  What's
> more, deleting it from the encyclopedia reduces our coverage of
> internet
> culture, which is currently an active area of academic research.
>
> There are some books on internet fads currently in press, scheduled to
> appear within the next year.  If one of them mentions Brian Peppers,
> will we still prohibit an article in Wikipedia about it?
>
> I can see arguments against using Wikipedia to *create* fads, but that
> is clearly not the case here.  Are we going to delete [[Star Wars
> kid]]
> if his family complains, too?  After all, he too is famous against his
> own will, and in that case the famous video was even leaked onto the
> internet illegally (while in Brian Peppers case the famous photograph
> was officially posted by the State of Ohio on its website in
> accordance
> with state law).
>
> -Mark
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Ryan Delaney

body:
On 2/22/06, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg at turnstep.com> wrote:
>
> > 2) Wikipedia is still an encyclopedia, isn't it? Surely you can have
> > an encyclopedia without an article on Brian Peppers in it. Many other
> > encyclopedias get by without such an article.
>
> Nice straw man. Let's make that a new CSD while we're at it - "This
> article not covered in other encyclopedias."

I'm sorry, but you are making a straw man here. His point is that Wikipedia
is still an encyclopedia, with or without a Brian Peppers article. That's
patently true.

I know there is a lot of middle stuff in part 3, and the arguments expanded
> well beyond the legal worries raised in 2 (although quite a few people
> calling for deletion continued to cite them), but it is really
> disheartening
> to to note that, in effect, a prankster just succeeded in having an
> article
> removed from Wikipedia.
>

A cursory review of this case seems to indicate that Jimbo didn't intend for
his deletion to be the final word on the subject.

01:40, 22 February 2006 Jimbo
Wales<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales>deleted "Brian
Peppers <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Peppers>" (We can live without
this until 21 February 2007, and if anyone still cares by then, we can
discuss it)

The page says it should not be recreated "until February 21" at the
earliest. It is now February 22. I think that now is a good time to keep our
[[WP:COOL]] and talk this out rather than run around screaming about how the
sky is falling and how Jimbo is ruining our wiki.

Every controversial issue is going to generate many different views about
how it ought to be dealt with. The important thing for all sides to remember
is that (A) the views held by other people are held in good faith even if
they seem wrong, so they deserve consideration and respect and (B) our own
views might actually be the wrong ones, and the only way to find out whose
idea is best is to discuss it calmly and rationally, without any hightened
emotions or committment to proving others wrong and winning the argument.
Whenever you approach another editor who has a differing view, your attitude
should be "We disagree, so let's talk this out until we find out which of us
is wrong so that we can both be better off".

Practically every major controversy could have been dealt with smoothly had
everyone remembered these principles. I confess that I've forgotten them
myself on more than one occasion. It's easy to view someone with a wrong
idea as basically a vandal who is trying to destroy your precious wiki that
we've worked so hard to improve. But the reality of the situation is that
pretty much everyone here -- including AFD voters, userbox editors,
pedophiles, and Jimbo -- is editing because they want to help make Wikipedia
better. Some of them may be misguided about how to do it, but they have that
fundamental good will at heart, and that means that they don't deserve to be
stomped on or treated like villains. Ever.

Ryan


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
On 2/22/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
> We were just discussing that ... Wikipedia *doesn't* want to be "the
> free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit".  There's too much abuse, too
> much ranting from trolls with a sense of self-entitlement, encouraged by
> that tagline.
>
> I quite like the idea of "Welcome to Wikipedia, where good authors are
> always welcome".

Oh, very well said. '''Support'''

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
On 2/22/06, Ben Emmel <bratsche1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I hold the opinion that any article on this man is not going to be NPOV,
> since the only reason he is popular is because Peppers is unfortuantely
> stricken with a condition that makes him look funny. Our editorial standards
> should be such that we don't have to stoop to have an article designed to
> inflicy more problems on the article subject.

You're either misunderstanding NPOV or have very low standards for
Wikipedia authors. If we can have basically NPOV articles on abortion,
Hitler and terrorism, I don't think an NPOV article on Brian Peppers
is beyond us.

I'm not even sure what the POV is that you're alleging that our
article would have.

Steve


from_name: Philip Welch

body:
On Feb 22, 2006, at 3:40 AM, Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:

> 3) Anyone can still edit Wikipedia, can't they?

That hasn't been true for years, if ever. Many people are blocked or
banned from editing Wikipedia.

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-02-21

body:
On 2/22/06, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
> Parser tests are in /maintenance/parserTests.* with a few other tests
> in /tests/* etc.
>
> Rob Church

What level of coverage do these tests cover? Has anyone made any
measurments? (http://developer.spikesource.com/projects/phpcoverage/
looks useful)


from_name: Jay R. Ashworth

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Probably SOLVED: MW1.5: When do magic words bind
	in transclusion?

in_reply_to:
<20060221134738.C11094@cgi.jachomes.com>;
	from "Jay R. Ashworth" <jra@baylink.com> on Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at
	01:47:38PM -0500

body:
On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 01:47:38PM -0500, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 03:52:58PM -0500, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> >   When a template containing
> >   {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>PAGENAME}} is subst'ed in a page,
> >   the name of the latter page is put in the wikitext, and similarly for
> >   other variables.
> >
> > which is precisely what I need: when someone creates a B which
> > transcludes A, B will contain it's own name as part of the edit link.
> >
> > But it doesn't appear to be working.  The created B instead includes
> > the uninterpreted {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>PAGENAME}} .
> >
> > This is in 1.5.3.  That help page doesn't say 1.6-only as some do; is
> > this a 1.6-only behavior anyway?  Or am I missing something else?
>
> As RedACE pointed out on IRC, it's <includeonly> that's version
> specific, and while it's supposed to require 1.6, I'm told it will
> probably work on 1.5.6, which we'll upgrade to tonight.

Spake I too soon.

The link, in my 'A' template, looks like this:

  [http://tbkinfo.net/wiki/index.php?title={{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>NAMESPACE}}:{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>PAGENAMEE}}&action=edit
  (edit this show)]

When I'm looking at the rendered version *of A*, I get a link with A's
edit URL:

  http://tbkinfo.net/wiki/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_Show&action=edit

If I include A in C, I get the raw text of the includeonly tags:

  http://tbkinfo.net/wiki/index.php?title={{subst:NAMESPACE}}:{{subst:PAGENAMEE}}&action=edit

while I'm looking at the link on C.

TimStarling: is that the bug you thought you backported a fix for?  Or
am I just screwed until 1.6?

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

	A: No.
	Q: Should I include quotations after my message body?


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

references:
<1140576063.b66bd9bcJDGRII8338@NGCSU.EDU>
	<cblov1dikb84u7rhlpve4o9g6ga1n69jca@4ax.com>
	<f1c3529e0602220446h412b2a20m82bca3a6b2b3a40c@mail.gmail.com>
	<5c5f03dd0602220528s7c830cb7md10f68ae5f018292@mail.gmail.com>
	<44sov1dioilm9bs6oee1c5s1rbvijs07pp@4ax.com>

body:
On 2/22/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 08:28:51 -0500, you wrote:
>
> >I agree, especially because the article didn't show the image, nor did it
> >provide much in the way of information about Brian *the person* (only
> Brian
> >the meme).
>
> Part of the problem is that it *did* / did not / did / did not / did
> /did not contain the image, details of the man not the meme, details
> of the meme spreading after Snopes identified him as a sufferer from a
> congenital deformity and YTMND put up a page detailing the fact that
> he is disabled and lives in a nursing home.  We had every extreme from
> those who apparently wanted to perpetuate the YTMND fad to those who
> didn't want the article at all, and there was no possibility of
> agreeing on a neutral version, and not much chance of enforcing it
> even then.
>
> Sit back, calm down and wait to see if he's still remembered in a
> year's time seems a perfectly reasonable approach for an
> *encyclopaedia* to take here.  But of course I was for not having the
> article in the first place.
>

Don't worry, I'm already calm. Whatever my beliefs about Mr. Peppers, I
simply don't feel strongly enough to really care about it all that much.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
On 2/22/06, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> Ben Emmel wrote:
> Whether someone wants an article or not does and should not have any
> relevant whatsoever.  [[en:Star Wars kid]], another internet fad,
> doesn't want an article either, but there you have one.  Brian Peppers
> is a less well-known internet fad, but still certainly at the level
> where he would warrant inclusion in any more than cursary treatment of
> the subject.

Just on the notability thing, I wonder if BP will really stack up well
on the "ten years from now" test. Sure, he's interesting *now*, but in
2016?

On the treatment of deformities as WP articles, see [[Joseph
Merrick]]. There's someone who didn't seem to achieve anything notable
that wasn't directly related to his deformity.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Time to finish this userbox war once and for all

body:
> It seems difficult to follow one of these two positions without
> losing  a
> significant number of great contributors, so we need to come up
> with some
> sort of compromise solution. This is mainly just a collation of
> various
> suggestions, but I wondered what people think of it as a solution
>
> 1. The only userpage templates that are allowed in Template space
> are those
> of direct relevance to the project - e.g. babel, {{userpage}},
> {{WikimediaNoLicensing}} etc.

Workable.

> 2. Userboxes cannot be 'transcluded' from user subpages - the only
> allowed
> way to have a userbox is to copy the source code for it (this wouldn't
> preclude Wikiproject Userboxes from having a list of boxen, all
> they would
> have to do is have a list of code rather than a list of {{user
> userbox}}
> template calls

Problematic. My user page actually transcludes lots of things from
subpages within my own user space. Perhaps disallow transcluding from
within other people's userspaces?

> 3. Userboxes are not allowed to use images or categories. In fact all
> 'Wikipedians by...' categories (except Wikipedians by location and
> other
> categories whose existence is of evident utility to the project)
> should be
> deleted (can we add something to CSD to this effect, assuming there
> isn't
> already?)

I think the thing to do here is to restrict use of Wikipedia user
categories instead of banning categories and images from userboxes
outright. Userboxes have legitimate categorical use when it comes to
adminship, Babel, and Wikiproject membership.

> 2 and 3 are meant to stop 'vote stuffing' - the other major gripe
> people
> have with boxen. Fair use images in userboxes are already not
> allowed (since
> they aren't fair use at all in  boxen), and allowing public domain/FDL
> images would give us precisely the same vote-stuffing problems that we
> currently have with categories

But images aren't problematic for non-vote-stuffing userboxes, unless
you believe that all admins or all members of WikiProject Wikipedians
for Writing an Encyclopedia can be trusted to reliably vote the same
way :)

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


list: foundation-l

from_name: Mark Evans

subject: [Foundation-l] New Proposal

body:
Your project sound like a great idea. I didn't look to far into it,
but you might want to check out a similar project called wikitree:
http://www.wikitree.org/index.php?title=Main_Page

Also, you will have a number of privacy issues to deal with here. In
many countries, it is illegal to store/publish a lot of the data you
have of living persons. You can look at the way wikitree has been
dealing with these issues at:
http://www.wikitree.org/index.php?title=WikiTree:Treehouse/Privacy

Best of luck with the project

On 2/22/06, Bjwebb67 at aol.com <Bjwebb67 at aol.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure if I'm doing the right thing, but I'm posting here to tell you about the new proposal:
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_new_projects#Rodovid.org
>
> for http://rodovid.org
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] New Proposal


body:
On 2/22/06, Sue Anne Reed <sreed1234 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I really don't know what to think about the Brian Peppers article, so
> I'm not going to comment on that one.
>
> However, I do think the Harry Reid issue raises an interesting question.
> If Wikipedia is going to be a trusted source of information, there seems
> to me that there is a need for us to vet "living people" articles in a
> way that allows those people to respond to criticisms. We criticized
> Congressional staffers who "anonymously" edited articles both of the
> people that they were working for and of the opposition. In this
> instance, with Harry Reid's staff, they are making a very open request
> to Jimbo and the others in WP:OFFICE to identify things that they
> disagree with in the article about Reid.
>

Most people would just use the talk page.

> I don't know how Wikipedia is going to handle this as it continues to
> become a more widely read source of information. People, especially
> politicians, are going to want to be able to have a voice in that
> information. How do we balance that with NPOV? On the Abramoff / Reid
> situation, I don't think you'll be able to reach NPOV. Folks on the
> right and possibly centrists are going to point to certain facts and say
> that it shows Reid is connected to the lobbying scandal and that he's a
> hypocrite for saying he's not. Folks on the left are going to call it a
> giant smear campaign by the right to try and downplay their culpability.
> Has any news outlet reached consensus on this one?
>
> Sue Anne
> [[User:Sreed1234]]
> sreed1234 at yahoo.com

What about those of use who have never herd of Harry Reid?

--
geni


body:
"Magnus Manske" <magnus.manske at web.de> wrote in
message news:43FC2EB9.7010104 at web.de...
[snip]

Is there a list of these tests and the expected output we can take a look
at?
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


subject: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo and his strategy

body:
"Geoff Burling" <llywrch at agora.rdrop.com> wrote in
message news:Pine.LNX.4.33.0602212233340.452-100000 at joan.burling.com...
> On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, Tony Sidaway wrote:
>> It beats me why we let this crap fester for so long in the corners of
>> Wikipedia.  Time for a Scouring of the Shire.
> You obviously don't mind breaking eggs to make an omlet.

You never ate an omelette with egg-shells in (leaving aside the obvious
unlikelihood of trying to make an omelette with a **whole** egg :-)?

Yucky :-( like a sand-sandwich...

That's how some parts of Wikipedia are right now.

There is the slightest chance that these particular grains of sand might
produce a pearl or two, but it's going to take an awful lot of looking
through smelly molluscs to find anything worth keeping :-)
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
"Travis Mason-Bushman" <travis at gpsports-eng.com>
wrote in message news:C0217631.AA21%travis at gpsports-eng.com...
[snip]
> Basically, all that we can can verifiably write about Mr. Peppers is that
> he
> exists, that he was convicted of committing some unknown minor sex offense
> and that his photo was mocked by Internet dimwits. That doesn't add up to
> Wikipedia material in my book.

But don't you see that what you have written there is the essence of what
the article **should** say? It should be expanded a bit, but you've
summarised it nicely.

If Wikipedia is to become the best repository of organised knowledge on the
Internet, then if we **don't** mention something for which people are likely
to search, we're going to look stupid.

If, on the other hand, we can authoritatively say "this guy was the victim
of a prank meme, no more to see here", then people can be satisfied that
they understand what is happening.

HTH HAND
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


from_name: Omegatron

subject: [Wikitech-l] Pages not validating

body:
There's some bug in site rendering that lets it mismatch tags
(

), which makes the page invalid XML, so it
can't be used to do AJAX-type things.  This was making all edit pages
invalid XHTML on Commons because of a bug in the edittools box.  See:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Edittools#This_page_is_breaking_validation

I thought the rendered HTML was passed through a validator/cleaner
program after rendering?  Maybe this isn't used on things in the
Mediawiki: namespace?

There's also a bug that seems to involve over-correcting the markup
and adding an extra

 sometimes.  I've filed it as
http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4843  Are these related
at all?


from_name: Magnus Manske

body:
I didn't get around to fix the parser test, but here's my current
analysis, by looking at the HTML output manually:

> An automated run of parserTests.php showed the following failures:
>
> Running test BUG 361: URL within URL, not bracketed... FAILED!
>
Works for me.

> Running test External links: invalid character... FAILED!
>
Fixed. I liked the previous behaviour better, though.

> Running test Bug 2702: Mismatched  and  tags are invalid... FAILED!
>
This fails indeed. Fixing appears complicated. Better leave it to tidy ;-)

> Running test A table with no data.... FAILED!
>
Parser test expects blank, parser (now) generates

, which is valid as well.
Blank output might require major hack. So, works for me.

> Running test A table with nothing but a caption... FAILED!
>
Works for me.

> Running test Link containing "#<" and "#>" % as a hex sequences... FAILED!
>
Fails indeed.

> Running test Magic links: PMID incorrectly converts space to underscore... FAILED!
>
Fixed, I guess...

> Running test Template with thumb image (wiht link in description)... FAILED!
> Running test Link to image page... FAILED!
> Running test BUG 1887: A ISBN with a thumbnail... FAILED!
> Running test BUG 1887: A <math> with a thumbnail... FAILED!
> Running test BUG 561: {{/Subpage}}... FAILED!
>
Didn't check these yet.

> Running test Simple category... FAILED!
>
Works for me.

> Running test Section headings with TOC... FAILED!
> Running test Media link with nasty text... FAILED!
> Running test Bug 2095: link with pipe and three closing brackets... FAILED!
> Running test Sanitizer: Validating the contents of the id attribute (bug 4515)... FAILED!
>
Didn't check these either.

Magnus

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060222/e2845e3b/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
Keith Old wrote:
> If he did, well done to him. There is no legitimate reason for an article on
> Mr Peppers other than people on a couple of websites chose to make fun of
> his appearance.
I don't have any particular investment in the article (I think I voted
in an AfD on it), but what you just wrote here seems to me to be similar
to saying "there is no legitimate reason for an article on Mr. Peppers
other than the legitimate reason there's an article on him." It may not
be _nice_ to make fun of someone based on their appearance, but if it's
happening enough it becomes a valid subject for an article IMO. As
someone else pointed out there's an article on Ghyslain Raza as another
example of fame through mockery making a person notable.
>  In the latest AfD, one voter said words to effect of we're
> just making fun of his appearance. Surely, Wikipedia should have higher
> purposes than mocking the disabled which his article has generally tended to
> be.
>
Wikipedia isn't making fun of his appearance any more than Wikipedia is
accusing Thomas Quick of being a murderer. Wikipedia is hosting an
article about how _other people_ are making fun of his
appearance/accusing Thomas Quick of being a murderer.

If Wikipedia were to make fun of his appearance that would probably fall
under "No Original Research" anyway, all issues of morality and
politeness aside.


body:
On 2/22/06, Sue Anne Reed <sreed1234 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> geni wrote:
> > Most people would just use the talk page.
>
> That's great for Wikipedians, but a nuance that we can't expect the now
> almost 72,000 living people (and growing) to be nuanced in Wikipedia and
> how it all works.
>

Click the edit button. If they are emailing us we can give
instructions on how to click the edit button if required.

> >
> > What about those of use who have never herd of Harry Reid?
>
> [[Insert your current prime minister, head of Parliament, leader of the
> opposition political party, sovereign, etc. here]] and the same
> questions are still valid.
>

Not really. [[David Cameron]] appears to be an acceptable article.

--
geni


from_name: Death Phoenix

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
On 2/22/06, John Lee <johnleemk at gawab.com> wrote:
>
> Death Phoenix wrote:
>
> >Don't worry, I'm already calm. Whatever my beliefs about Mr. Peppers, I
> >simply don't feel strongly enough to really care about it all that much.
> >
> That's the spirit. I've become rather apathetic about these meta-debates
> and the hype surrounding them, and have gotten on with writing the
> encyclopedia instead (trite as that sounds). Look out for your daily
> dose of Malaysian articles on DYK until all this emo drama blows over. :)
>

Whatever.

;-)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
Ben Emmel wrote:
> No, I do agree that it's not a open-and-shut decision. But like Jimbo said,
> if we still care about this article in a year, then we can argue then.
Woah, a whole _year_? I'd thought the article was just temporarily
deleted while some details got sorted out. _Now_ I've got a serious
grounds for objection. What happens if the deleted article database gets
purged at some point before then? And what if there are notable
developments in the details of this topic over the course of the next
year? We shouldn't have to be keeping notes offline for a whole year,
we'll lose out on all sorts of opportunity for the organic article
growth that Wikipedia excels at.

Granted, this isn't a "big topic" like a war or political scandal. But
this seems like a very dubious approach in general and I'm not sure it
should be condoned.


from_name: Brion Vibber

body:
Magnus Manske wrote:
> I didn't get around to fix the parser test, but here's my current
> analysis, by looking at the HTML output manually:
>
>> An automated run of parserTests.php showed the following failures:
>>
>> Running test BUG 361: URL within URL, not bracketed... FAILED!
>>
> Works for me.

Works how?

Does it:
1) Pass the test on your computer?
2) Not pass the test on your computer?

If 1), try again with PHP 5.1.2 and see if it's the same or changed.
If 2), what makes you think it works?

>> Running test External links: invalid character... FAILED!
>>
> Fixed. I liked the previous behaviour better, though.

You liked producing invalid XML? :)

>> Running test A table with no data.... FAILED!
>>
> Parser test expects blank, parser (now) generates
>

, which is valid as well.
> Blank output might require major hack. So, works for me.

Works how?

Does it:
1) Pass the test on your computer?
2) Not pass the test on your computer?

If 1), try again with PHP 5.1.2 and see if it's the same or changed.
If 2), what makes you think it works?

>> Running test A table with nothing but a caption... FAILED!
>>
> Works for me.

Works how?

Does it:
1) Pass the test on your computer?
2) Not pass the test on your computer?

If 1), try again with PHP 5.1.2 and see if it's the same or changed.
If 2), what makes you think it works?

>> Running test Magic links: PMID incorrectly converts space to underscore... FAILED!
>>
> Fixed, I guess...

Fixed how?

Does it:
1) Pass the test on your computer?
2) Not pass the test on your computer?

If 1), try again with PHP 5.1.2 and see if it's the same or changed.
If 2), what makes you think it's fixed?

>> Running test Simple category... FAILED!
>>
> Works for me.

Works how?

Does it:
1) Pass the test on your computer?
2) Not pass the test on your computer?

If 1), try again with PHP 5.1.2 and see if it's the same or changed.
If 2), what makes you think it's fixed?

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060222/fa9b29f1/attachment.pgp>


subject: [Wikitech-l] Pages not validating

body:
Omegatron wrote:
> I thought the rendered HTML was passed through a validator/cleaner
> program after rendering?  Maybe this isn't used on things in the
> Mediawiki: namespace?

Tidy has been disabled for UI message display for performance reasons.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060222/ab0bc237/attachment.pgp>


subject:
[Wikitech-l] upload of non-empty zipfile gets
 this-file-is-empty error

body:
Finlay Mcwalter wrote:
> I'm setting up a new mediawiki install on RHEL3, and I'm encountering
> problems uploading larger.zip files to the wiki.  If I try to upload a
> zip of 2.58 Mbytes (which is fine, well formed, opens in winzip
> properly, no permissions issue, and certainly not empty) I get the
> following mediawiki error:
>
> "The file you uploaded seems to be empty. This might be due to a typo
> in the file name. Please check whether you really want to upload this
> file."

Did you check the FAQ?

-- brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060222/97f6d015/attachment.pgp>


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
On 2/22/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> For what it's worth, I feel we should begin by posing ourselves the
> question: How likely is it that someone will come to Wikipedia looking
> for information on this topic. On Peppers, I would say "fairly
> likely".
>
> Steve

Judging by the last stats we have it is a near certianty. Goatse is
probably one of our most popular articles.

--
geni


subject: [Wikitech-l] messsages

body:
Tjipke de Vries wrote:
> Your messages on the various mailinglists show up here as an empty message
> with two files attached: signature.asc and ATT0xxx.txt. Can you please
> change this behaviour of your e-mail client? Thank you very much in advance!

Tjipke,

Your e-mail client is incorrectly displaying messages with electronic
signatures. Can you please fix your e-mail client to conform to standards? Thank
you very much in advance!

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060222/87f15934/attachment.pgp>


subject: [Foundation-l] Fate of "Simple English"

body:
Will someone explain what we have these "Simple English" sites for?

It's recently come to my attention that there's a simple.wiktionary.org as well
(probably created by accident when Wiktionaries were bulk-created) and
somebody's been editing it and is now requesting a custom logo.

In the four years or so I've been here, nobody's *ever* had a clear picture of
what the "Simple English" Wikipedia was meant for: who it's targetted at, what
kind of "simple" is meant, what's appropriate or not appropriate.

Having a Wiktionary too looks completely useless IMHO. It's bad enough that it's
an unstructured wiki for a dictionary, but without knowing its purpose? Bah.

What are we doing with these? What are they here for? Who are they here for? Do
we actually want to keep them?

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20060222/cfb7e8f4/attachment.pgp


subject: [Foundation-l] Fate of "Simple English"

body:
Will someone explain what we have these "Simple English" sites for?

It's recently come to my attention that there's a simple.wiktionary.org as well
(probably created by accident when Wiktionaries were bulk-created) and
somebody's been editing it and is now requesting a custom logo.

In the four years or so I've been here, nobody's *ever* had a clear picture of
what the "Simple English" Wikipedia was meant for: who it's targetted at, what
kind of "simple" is meant, what's appropriate or not appropriate.

Having a Wiktionary too looks completely useless IMHO. It's bad enough that it's
an unstructured wiki for a dictionary, but without knowing its purpose? Bah.

What are we doing with these? What are they here for? Who are they here for? Do
we actually want to keep them?

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20060222/cfb7e8f4/attachment-0001.pgp


subject: [Foundation-l] Fate of "Simple English"

body:
Will someone explain what we have these "Simple English" sites for?

It's recently come to my attention that there's a simple.wiktionary.org as well
(probably created by accident when Wiktionaries were bulk-created) and
somebody's been editing it and is now requesting a custom logo.

In the four years or so I've been here, nobody's *ever* had a clear picture of
what the "Simple English" Wikipedia was meant for: who it's targetted at, what
kind of "simple" is meant, what's appropriate or not appropriate.

Having a Wiktionary too looks completely useless IMHO. It's bad enough that it's
an unstructured wiki for a dictionary, but without knowing its purpose? Bah.

What are we doing with these? What are they here for? Who are they here for? Do
we actually want to keep them?

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20060222/cfb7e8f4/attachment.pgp>


subject: [Foundation-l] Fate of "Simple English"

body:
Will someone explain what we have these "Simple English" sites for?

It's recently come to my attention that there's a simple.wiktionary.org as well
(probably created by accident when Wiktionaries were bulk-created) and
somebody's been editing it and is now requesting a custom logo.

In the four years or so I've been here, nobody's *ever* had a clear picture of
what the "Simple English" Wikipedia was meant for: who it's targetted at, what
kind of "simple" is meant, what's appropriate or not appropriate.

Having a Wiktionary too looks completely useless IMHO. It's bad enough that it's
an unstructured wiki for a dictionary, but without knowing its purpose? Bah.

What are we doing with these? What are they here for? Who are they here for? Do
we actually want to keep them?

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20060222/cfb7e8f4/attachment-0001.pgp>


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Welcome to Wikipedia tagline WAS: Wikipedia's destiny

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

geni stated for the record:

> On 2/22/06, Nyenyec N <nyenyec at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"Welcome to Wikipedia, where good editors are always welcome".
>>
>>-- nyenyec
>
>
> Unless they upset the wrong people.
>
>
> --
> geni

Then they aren't good editors, are they?

- --
 Sean Barrett     | You'll never find a more wretched hive
 sean at epoptic.org | of scum and villainy. --Obi-Wan Kenobi
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFD/L+sMAt1wyd9d+URAoZoAJ43eEHqlFEVoX5klMqnleROLa1q0QCdEuW2
acxsXYKZ/THYt3rGEArjI/g=
=8RPx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Mark Wagner

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
On 2/22/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> Ben Emmel wrote:
> > No, I do agree that it's not a open-and-shut decision. But like Jimbo said,
> > if we still care about this article in a year, then we can argue then.
> Woah, a whole _year_? I'd thought the article was just temporarily
> deleted while some details got sorted out. _Now_ I've got a serious
> grounds for objection. What happens if the deleted article database gets
> purged at some point before then?

If there's not enough information left on the Internet in a year to
re-create an article about him, then clearly he wasn't notable enough
for an article in the first place.

> And what if there are notable
> developments in the details of this topic over the course of the next
> year?

If Brian Peppers goes out and assassinates the president tomorrow,
then we can re-visit the subject.

--
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

body:
As a party to the arbitration on WebEx and Min Zhu
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/WebEx_and_Min_Zhu)
I note that FeloniousMonk is criticised for using admin powers in a
dispute in which he is involved.  It seems to me that Felonious was
not involved in an editorial capacity, only in the prevention of
reversion of certain content - which he saw (in good faith) as
whitewashing, which is vandalism.  I happen to disagree - I would
always err on the side of removal where living people are concerned -
but I have come to trust Felonious' good faith even while disagreeing
with him.

Be that as it may, at what point does an admin become "involved" in a
dispute to which (s)he has been called to stop an edit war?  I'm a bit
concerned that use of admin powers in a dispute where one takes a
watching brief without actively editing content might still be
interpreted as abuse, by extension of this precedent.

Or is it that Felonious' reviewing of the evidence and taking a stand
was, in effect, placing himself in the editorial dispute?

My problem here is that once an admin has been called into a
firefight, one side or the other will invariably see them as partisan
almost immediately, and I am not at all certain that I know when to
stop providing administrative support against vandals by request of
trusted editors in contentious articles: at what point am I "involved"
and needing to step back?
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


from_name: Andrew Lih

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
On 2/22/06, Ben Emmel <bratsche1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I hold the opinion that any article on this man is not going to be NPOV,
> since the only reason he is popular is because Peppers is unfortuantely
> stricken with a condition that makes him look funny.

Not entirely - the person has a Snopes.com entry, and is a registered
sex offender in Ohio.

I'm not endorsing it one way or another (for now), but it's certainly
not a "slam dunk" case.

-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
On 2/22/06, Travis Mason-Bushman <travis at gpsports-eng.com> wrote:
> Basically, all that we can can verifiably write about Mr. Peppers is that he
> exists, that he was convicted of committing some unknown minor sex offense
> and that his photo was mocked by Internet dimwits. That doesn't add up to
> Wikipedia material in my book.

I see we have still made little progress in deciding why exactly we
want to have rules on notability, or what notability means in the
Wikipedia context. I'm not disagreeing with you, but I do note that
many others seem to have very different views on why certain subjects
should or should not feature in Wikipedia.

For what it's worth, I feel we should begin by posing ourselves the
question: How likely is it that someone will come to Wikipedia looking
for information on this topic. On Peppers, I would say "fairly
likely".

Steve


body:
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 02:55:03 +0000, you wrote:

>To my recollection I haven't used 3RR for nearly a year.   If someone
>is editing like a dick, it's usually easy enough to block them for
>disruption.

This is fair comment: 3RR is diagnostic of disruption, but far from
being the only such diagnostic.  On the other hand, not everybody has
your level of confidence in their own judgment, so 3RR is a worthwhile
policy as giving a good indication that blocking a given dick will not
be viewed as contentious.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:41:03 -0500, you wrote:

>I'm almost speechless with rage at Jimbo's unilateral deletion of the encyclopedia article [[Brian Peppers]] - not to mention his locking (via [[User:Danny]] and [[WP:OFFICE]]) of [[Harry Reid]] for *five days*.

I'm not.

The debate over Brian Peppers is complex and involves deep feelings.
On the one hand we have people who see him as a victim of crass
exploitation, a disabled sufferer of a congenital deformity who has
become an object of derision; on the other we have people who believe
that the fact of his widespread exploitation being verifiable means we
must cover the subject.  That group in turn divides between those who
want to ensure that the coverage makes plain that he is a victim, and
those who resent the implication that they have been (possibly
unwillingly) implicit in exploiting someone, so excise verifiable
facts like his being resident in a nursing home.

What is the overarching principle here?  "Do no harm".

Which does more harm, having and fighting over an article which has
been accused by some in good faith of actively contributing to the
mimetic process, or stepping back and having nothing to do with it?

My bias is obvious from my statements above, of course.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


from_name: Bjwebb67 at aol.com

subject: [Foundation-l] New Proposal

body:
I'm not sure if I'm doing the right thing, but I'm posting here to tell you about the new proposal:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_new_projects#Rodovid.org

for http://rodovid.org


subject: [Foundation-l] New Proposal


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
On 2/22/06, Ben Emmel <bratsche1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/21/06, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 2/22/06, Ben Emmel <bratsche1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I hold the opinion that any article on this man is not going to be NPOV,
> > > since the only reason he is popular is because Peppers is unfortuantely
> > > stricken with a condition that makes him look funny.
> >
> > Not entirely - the person has a Snopes.com entry, and is a registered
> > sex offender in Ohio.
> >
> > I'm not endorsing it one way or another (for now), but it's certainly
> > not a "slam dunk" case.
>
> No, I do agree that it's not a open-and-shut decision. But like Jimbo said,
> if we still care about this article in a year, then we can argue then. It's
> a pretty good way to find out notability. My logic goes like this: a person
> with a disability is not inherently notable, a sex offender is not
> inherently notable, so a combination of the two is only barely notable.
> Given that we should have high editorial standards, I think our Brian
> Peppers slips beneath our bar.

We can debate whether the math should be 0.5 x 0.5 or 0.5 + 0.5

But you did not address the fact that it has become such a referenced
urban legend that it made it into Snopes.com's files.

> If I was him, or a member of his family, I certainly wouldn't want it up
> there.

But that has never been a criteria for inclusion or exclusion.

-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)


from_name: Ben Lowe

subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1, and application to userspace templates

body:
You forgot to mention an important detail: *UDUIW isn't even in template
space, s*o its deletion is even more controversial.

On 2/20/06, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
>
> John wrote:
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates#User:Cjmarsicano.2FUDUIW
> >
> > This template which I speedied under CSD T1 and pure common sense is
> > now on DRV because some process wonks are pointing out...
>
> Whoah.  As near as I can tell, all the UDUIW userbox said was,
> "This user is a member of Users in Defense of Userboxes and
> Individuality on Wikipedia."  So by suppressing it, we've made
> not one but two leaps:
>
> (1) That userboxes can be so dangerous that they need to be
>    suppressed, as argued by the oft-repeated incident in
>    which a "this user is Catholic" userbox allowed 40+ users
>    to rally around the deletion poll for [[Wikipedia:Catholic
>    Alliance of wikipedia]].
>
> (2) That suppressing dangerous userboxes is so contentious yet
>    so vital that those in support of userboxes need to be
>    suppressed also.
>
> I hope I'm not being melodramatic, but this is really starting to
> sound like "The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems
> will slip through your fingers."
>
>                                        Steve Summit [[User:Ummit]]
>                                        scs at eskimo.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Kirill Lokshin

subject: [WikiEN-l] Userboxes: A psychopathic proposal

body:
On 2/18/06, Rob Church <robchurch.en.wp at googlemail.com> wrote:
> Kill them all. With fire. Spare not a single one.
>
> On a slightly more serious note; the problem is now twofold. There's
> the userbox mess to clean up, and the mess it's made in the community
> - ripping the oldies and newbies apart - to clean up too. I'm thinking
> a bit of friendly re-education into what Wikipedia culture is might
> not be amiss. Instead of stating, "you don't get it"; teach people
> what "it" is.

I would argue that there's actually a third problem (which is not
necessarily caused by userboxes so much as made apparent by the
conflict surrounding them): a certain portion of Wikipedians refuse to
believe, on some fundamental level, that Wikipedia is not a democracy.
 Witness the various discussions over the past (some more obviously
detatched from reality than others) about overthrowing Jimbo.

This one won't be, in my opinion, solved by "friendly re-education".

Kirill Lokshin


body:
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 01:54:07 -0800, you wrote:

>However, I do think the Harry Reid issue raises an interesting question.
>If Wikipedia is going to be a trusted source of information, there seems
>to me that there is a need for us to vet "living people" articles in a
>way that allows those people to respond to criticisms. We criticized
>Congressional staffers who "anonymously" edited articles both of the
>people that they were working for and of the opposition. In this
>instance, with Harry Reid's staff, they are making a very open request
>to Jimbo and the others in WP:OFFICE to identify things that they
>disagree with in the article about Reid.

I don't see a problem with an open and honest request for factual
correction.  We have always encouraged living people to engage with
the community in keeping their biographies factually accurate - just
not by actually editing them.  Engage on the talk page, go to the
Office, whatever.  And if they point out an error which can be
verified as an error, that's good.  And if they dislike the fact that
verifiable but unflattering information is in there, maybe they should
have thought about that before they did whatever they did :-)

Rambling aside: my friend David Silsoe was lead counsel for the
proposers in a number of highly acrimonious planning inquiries,
including Sizewell B, Hinkley Point C, Heathrow Terminal 4 and
Terminal 5.  And despite that, I could not find anybody who had a bad
word to say about him.  Even his opponents liked him.  A lot of public
figures fail to pull off that particular feat, and the problem is
theirs not ours.  As long as we stick to WP:V and WP:RS and of course
"do no harm" we won't go far wrong, I think.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


from_name: Nyenyec N

body:
Absolutely. Much better than:

 "the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit" *

* Offer does not apply to vandals, trolls, people who cannot refrain
from personal attacks, people who cannot play by the rules of an
online community, blocked users, banned users or people who share an
IP with them etc...

Except s/author/editor:

"Welcome to Wikipedia, where good editors are always welcome".

-- nyenyec

Musch better than
On 2/22/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/22/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
> > We were just discussing that ... Wikipedia *doesn't* want to be "the
> > free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit".  There's too much abuse, too
> > much ranting from trolls with a sense of self-entitlement, encouraged by
> > that tagline.
> >
> > I quite like the idea of "Welcome to Wikipedia, where good authors are
> > always welcome".
>
> Oh, very well said. '''Support'''
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of userpages

body:
Not only would a number of users simply leave (the benefits and final
ramifications of which I'm sure many people have many different opinions
on), and not only would it generate bad press from the snickering Wikipedia
Defeatists ("looks like Wikipedia can't allow everyone to edit it after
all!"  You know that'd start showing up), but the remaining people who want
user pages would do what [[User:Tony Sidaway]] has done, and simply
userpagify their talk pages (That Tony Sidaway... always sticking it to the
man! *;-)* ), bringing us back to square one.

JDoorjam

On 2/18/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:
>
> What's the worst thing that could happen if we got rid of userpages
> altogether? Wikipedia would grind to a halt because most of the users
> would
> probably leave. Not because they're hugely attached to their userpages,
> but
> because it would be a ringing endorsement of the conduct of certain admins
> (deleting inflammatory userboxes without a policy for it, and then when
> there IS a policy for it they abuse THAT, and block people who disagree
> with
> them, etcetera) in this whole userbox mess.
>
> Cynical
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Rob Church

body:
Parser tests are in /maintenance/parserTests.* with a few other tests
in /tests/* etc.

Rob Church

On 22/02/06, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
> "Magnus Manske" <magnus.manske at web.de> wrote in
> message news:43FC2EB9.7010104 at web.de...
> [snip]
>
> Is there a list of these tests and the expected output we can take a look
> at?
> --
> Phil
> [[en:User:Phil Boswell]]
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: Ryan Delaney

subject: [WikiEN-l] Arbcom has completely lost its mind

body:
On 2/22/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The most effective analogy I've seen for "free speech does not apply
> to private property" is asking if newspaper editors should be required
> by law to print whatever articles anyone sends them...
>

This is right of course. I think the problem is that the free and open
nature of Wikipedia has given people the feeling that they are somehow
entitled to the freedom. You don't hear anyone complaining about the fact
that they can't have userboxes on Britannica.

Ryan


subject: [WikiEN-l] Stupid bomb indeed.

body:
On 2/22/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> I drooled:
>
> >"The two most plentiful elements in the Universe are bad Uncyclopedia
> >articles and hydrogen, and I'm not sure about the ... hydrogen. Hold
> >on, I'll try that one again." - Albert Einstein on an off day
>
>
> Er, wtf. Evidently my mailbox was just hit by one. This is notes for
> an Uncyclopedia article that I *meant* to email to myself, and sent to
> wikien-l by mistake. It's probably time to go home and drink copiously
> now.

And here I was trying to figure out what you were offering subtle
commentary on! ;-)

Kirill Lokshin


from_name: Steve Bennett

body:
On 2/22/06, Sue Anne Reed <sreed1234 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> However, I do think the Harry Reid issue raises an interesting question.
> If Wikipedia is going to be a trusted source of information, there seems
> to me that there is a need for us to vet "living people" articles in a
> way that allows those people to respond to criticisms. We criticized
> Congressional staffers who "anonymously" edited articles both of the
> people that they were working for and of the opposition. In this
> instance, with Harry Reid's staff, they are making a very open request
> to Jimbo and the others in WP:OFFICE to identify things that they
> disagree with in the article about Reid.

This happens all the time, doesn't it? People contact the help desk,
editors are alerted, and whatever changes are made as we see fit.
Usually the problem is a lack of attention to the article causing a
distortion as a function of the few editors who've worked on it.

The basic approach of "drastic changes to placate complainant first,
ask questions later" seems quite reasonable. Has it been abused?

>
> I don't know how Wikipedia is going to handle this as it continues to
> become a more widely read source of information. People, especially
> politicians, are going to want to be able to have a voice in that
> information. How do we balance that with NPOV? On the Abramoff / Reid
> situation, I don't think you'll be able to reach NPOV. Folks on the
> right and possibly centrists are going to point to certain facts and say
> that it shows Reid is connected to the lobbying scandal and that he's a
> hypocrite for saying he's not. Folks on the left are going to call it a
> giant smear campaign by the right to try and downplay their culpability.

Wikipedia doesn't try and be the One True Voice Of Reason - it simply
includes the relevant viewpoints in seemingly fair proportions. So
there would be no reason not to include accusations from both 'the
right' and 'the left'. It's up to news organizations how they choose
to use them.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
On 2/22/06, Keith Old <keithold at gmail.com> wrote:
> The question is do we have articles on every person convicted of such an
> offence in Ohio or elsewhere. The answer is we don't nor do we have articles
> on the vast majority of them. The reason that we have an article on Peppers
> is that he is disabled and that some people have decided to single him out
> on a couple of websites. That doesn't excuse his behaviour but it doesn't
> justify an article.

The fact that we're even having this discussion should point out that
Peppers is "not just another disabled groper". He's not notable
because he's disabled, and he's not notable because of this offence.
He's notable (to whatever extent) because people circulate his photo
around and talk about him. In much the same way as that baseballer who
lost the world series by letting a ball go through his legs is notable
- not as a great baseballer, but because of the enormous publicity
surrounding that event.

Of course, if people really don't talk about Peppers that much, then
there's no reason to create an article here just to titillate a few
teenagers.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo and his strategy

body:
On 2/22/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> As would I. Proposal:
>
> "Userboxes, consisting of Babel template-like contructs which have one
> sentance of text describing a user in the third person, are considered
> plagiarism, copyright infringement, and anyone using them for purposes
> other than declaring their skills in languages, for the purposes of
> writing an encyclopedia, will have the 'userbox' deleted, their
> fingernails pulled out, and their account blocked.
>
> Signed this merry day the 22nd of February, in the year of our Lord 2006,
>
> His Royal Jimboliness,
> Jimbo Wales"
>
> </parody>

Alternative proposal:
In the interests of community harmony, if you would like to state an
opinion, membership of a group, or religious affiiliation, we invite
you to do so in your own words on your user page. While it is not
strictly forbidden to use prefabricated templates, we strongly urge
you to consider avoiding doing so.

Steve


from_name: charles matthews

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote

> My problem here is that once an admin has been called into a
> firefight, one side or the other will invariably see them as partisan
> almost immediately,

Very true.

>and I am not at all certain that I know when to
> stop providing administrative support against vandals by request of
> trusted editors in contentious articles: at what point am I "involved"
> and needing to step back?

My view: with 800 admins, you should be able to call in another one, when
things get rough.  If there are two of you, there is less need to worry
about stepping back; just share the load.

Charles


from_name: Greg Sabino Mullane

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

> 2) Wikipedia is still an encyclopedia, isn't it? Surely you can have
> an encyclopedia without an article on Brian Peppers in it. Many other
> encyclopedias get by without such an article.

Nice straw man. Let's make that a new CSD while we're at it - "This
article not covered in other encyclopedias."

> 3) Anyone can still edit Wikipedia, can't they?

Not regarding Brian Peppers, apparently.

What really worries me is the bad precedent this sets. The (very condensed)
facts are:

1) This article survived its last AfD. Some people voted delete, but
it survived.

2) A short time later, a phony email was sent to wikipedia by someone
*claiming* to be a relative of Brian Pepper. The article was immediately
deleted. It was later shown that this almost undoubtedly was not sent
by a relative, but by someone sending fake notes to Wikipedia and to
other sites.

3) DR, AFD, mailing list arguments, wheel warring, and finally a deus
ex machina ends with the article, for all practical purposes, being
even more deleted than at the end of step 2.

I know there is a lot of middle stuff in part 3, and the arguments expanded
well beyond the legal worries raised in 2 (although quite a few people
calling for deletion continued to cite them), but it is really disheartening
to to note that, in effect, a prankster just succeeded in having an article
removed from Wikipedia.

- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg at turnstep.com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200602220819
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFD/GUPvJuQZxSWSsgRAhKQAKCTQltl1kaXCORRB+1FJNz4XhVMTQCglexK
tMFu30Lklx2NfC2gwiIeKEo=
=5Zzq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Michael Noda

subject: [WikiEN-l] Userboxes: A modest proposal.

body:
On 2/22/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 18/02/06, Will Sceptre Noble <tintower at tintower.tk> wrote:
>
> > > Get real. Jimbo hath spoken on thy matter, and polemic or inflamatory
> > > templates are fair game, ie. can be shot during hunting season, which on
> > > Wikipedia is always. A reminder that Dick Cheney is *not* invited to
> > > edit... :)
> >
> >
> > Neither is King William II of England, for that matter :D
>
> Hey, he's safe - 900-year-dead individuals don't vandalise much...

Shhhh!  [[WP:BEANS]]!

-Noda
User:CComMack


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
On 2/22/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:41:03 -0500, you wrote:
> Which does more harm, having and fighting over an article which has
> been accused by some in good faith of actively contributing to the
> mimetic process, or stepping back and having nothing to do with it?

If "stepping back" means banishing the topic from Wikipedia, then I
would consider such a precedent potentially very harmful.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of userpages

body:
Getting rid of user pages is like curing the disease by killing the patient.
Completely unnecessary.

Ryan

On 2/22/06, Ben Lowe <ben.lowe at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Not only would a number of users simply leave (the benefits and final
> ramifications of which I'm sure many people have many different opinions
> on), and not only would it generate bad press from the snickering
> Wikipedia
> Defeatists ("looks like Wikipedia can't allow everyone to edit it after
> all!"  You know that'd start showing up), but the remaining people who
> want
> user pages would do what [[User:Tony Sidaway]] has done, and simply
> userpagify their talk pages (That Tony Sidaway... always sticking it to
> the
> man! *;-)* ), bringing us back to square one.
>
> JDoorjam
>
>
> On 2/18/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > What's the worst thing that could happen if we got rid of userpages
> > altogether? Wikipedia would grind to a halt because most of the users
> > would
> > probably leave. Not because they're hugely attached to their userpages,
> > but
> > because it would be a ringing endorsement of the conduct of certain
> admins
> > (deleting inflammatory userboxes without a policy for it, and then when
> > there IS a policy for it they abuse THAT, and block people who disagree
> > with
> > them, etcetera) in this whole userbox mess.
> >
> > Cynical
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
"Fred Bauder" wrote

> It seems to me that if you run into a nasty situation while
> intervening, we (the arbitrators and the rest of the community)
> should cut you some slack if a skunk gets some stink on you.

I agree with Fred.  The last thing we should do it is to deter admins from
getting involved with most contentious issues, where some sort of tarnishing
incident is most likely to happen.

As with the Rajput case, the ArbCom has to note when an admin gets it wrong.
That's not the same as saying we have to impose sanctions.  That's very much
linked to the circumstances, and the way admin powers are being applied.

Charles


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 13:46:01 +0100, you wrote:

>> On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:41:03 -0500, you wrote:
>> Which does more harm, having and fighting over an article which has
>> been accused by some in good faith of actively contributing to the
>> mimetic process, or stepping back and having nothing to do with it?

>If "stepping back" means banishing the topic from Wikipedia, then I
>would consider such a precedent potentially very harmful.

I don't see it being banished, I see Jimbo saying let's all walk away
and come back if anyone still cares in a year.  What's the rush?  My
view is that no topic should be added until at least a year after it
happens, in order to allow formation of a proper perspective, there is
no rush to scoop anyone. Wikinews is that way ----->
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 08:28:51 -0500, you wrote:

>I agree, especially because the article didn't show the image, nor did it
>provide much in the way of information about Brian *the person* (only Brian
>the meme).

Part of the problem is that it *did* / did not / did / did not / did
/did not contain the image, details of the man not the meme, details
of the meme spreading after Snopes identified him as a sufferer from a
congenital deformity and YTMND put up a page detailing the fact that
he is disabled and lives in a nursing home.  We had every extreme from
those who apparently wanted to perpetuate the YTMND fad to those who
didn't want the article at all, and there was no possibility of
agreeing on a neutral version, and not much chance of enforcing it
even then.

Sit back, calm down and wait to see if he's still remembered in a
year's time seems a perfectly reasonable approach for an
*encyclopaedia* to take here.  But of course I was for not having the
article in the first place.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


body:
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 13:25:30 -0000, you wrote:

>My view: with 800 admins, you should be able to call in another one, when
>things get rough.  If there are two of you, there is less need to worry
>about stepping back; just share the load.

This is sound advice, maybe that's where Felonious went wrong.  I have
done this with Simon Wessely, I probably need to do it with some of
the Southern Baptist articles.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


body:
On 2/22/06, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg at turnstep.com> wrote:
> I know there is a lot of middle stuff in part 3, and the arguments expanded
> well beyond the legal worries raised in 2 (although quite a few people
> calling for deletion continued to cite them), but it is really disheartening
> to to note that, in effect, a prankster just succeeded in having an article
> removed from Wikipedia.

That's not disheartening, we have nearly a million others. The
precedent set is more of a worry, if anything.

Steve


from_name: Mark Gallagher

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
G'day Josh,

> I'm almost speechless with rage at Jimbo's unilateral deletion of the
> encyclopedia article [[Brian Peppers]] - not to mention his locking
> (via [[User:Danny]] and [[WP:OFFICE]]) of [[Harry Reid]] for *five
> days*.
>
> As I feared, userboxes have proven to be the canary in the coal mine.
> Now it's articlespace that is being jerked around.
>
> Wikipedia ultimately must decide whether it wants to be Jimbo's
> personal fiefdom, or be "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit".
> The two are clearly mutually exclusive at this point.

We were just discussing that ... Wikipedia *doesn't* want to be "the
free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit".  There's too much abuse, too
much ranting from trolls with a sense of self-entitlement, encouraged by
that tagline.

I quite like the idea of "Welcome to Wikipedia, where good authors are
always welcome".

--
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.0.0/266 - Release Date: 21/02/2006


from_name: Keith Old

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

body:
 On 2/22/06, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> >
> > Delirium wrote:
> >
> > >I'm very confused by this one.  I wrote a one-sentence, factual,
> > >verifiable, referenced stub reading something like the following (from
> > >memory):
> > >
> > >
> > P.S.: The Wikimedia Foundation is now republishing a version of my
> > article in its entirety here:
> > http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-February/040229.html
> >
> > Better scour the mailing list archives too! =]
> >
> > -Mark
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
If he did, well done to him. There is no legitimate reason for an article on
Mr Peppers other than people on a couple of websites chose to make fun of
his appearance. In the latest AfD, one voter said words to effect of we're
just making fun of his appearance. Surely, Wikipedia should have higher
purposes than mocking the disabled which his article has generally tended to
be.

In general, we need to pay much more attention to people's privacy than we
have. As one of the world's most popular Internet sites, articles on people
generally tend to be high up on the first page of a Google search. If people
do a Google search for a potential employee or date, our articles come up
fairly quickly. If we have an article alleging criminal or other antisocial
behavior, we need to ensure that the case is well-known and highly
verifiable through reliable sources.

 We therefore need to ensure that if we have articles on people for a
negative reason, our policies on verifiability and reliable sources are
applied vigorously. As well, our editorial red pencils should be vigilant
about negative claims about individuals and if they don't have a reliable
source/s or don't comply with NPOV, they should be taken out.

Our longterm credibility as a biographical source and much else depends on
it. We now have a reasonable degree of prominence and we should endeavour to
use it responsibly.

Regards

*Keith Old*


from_name: Brion Vibber

body:
Magnus Manske wrote:
> Briefly:
> * Brion was copy'n'paste happy today ;-)
> * "Works for me" = "Works on my computer if I look at HTML with mark 1
> eyeball, but does not pass the parser test". PHP 4.something, tell you
> tomorrow. Will check under PHP5

If it doesn't pass the test case, THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG that NEEDS TO BE
FIXED. Just saying it works doesn't solve that. Either the code is wrong or the
test is wrong, and they need to be FIXED.

> * "You liked producing invalid XML? :) " - Sure! :-) Except the only
> underscore-to-space conversion (which was suppsed to be the error)
> occured in the title attribute of the link, which I changed...

Maybe you're thinking of some different test case than the one your comment was
attached to? That's a test case with an invalid UTF-8 character, *not* some
whitespace.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060222/ac555071/attachment.pgp>