body:
Disagree with this. People shouldn't have to have an email address to
register, just to upload images.

Agree with Tomasz that it would be good if anons could create articles.

Fran

On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 20:27 +0100, Oliver Coddington wrote:
> I suppose it does open up the question of having to have an e-mail address
> to just simply register an account, as opposed to just having to have one to
> upload images. Especially when there was a debate going on about reusing
> accounts which have been inactive, if one had to register with a valid
> e-mail address then a warning e-mail could be sent out to inactive accounts,
> for example. Of course that does go against the nature of Wikipedia
> slightly, in some people's views. However, it is something worth considering
> as the rate of new users keeps on increasing.
>
> Oliver
>
> On 6/28/06, Will Sceptre Noble <tintower at tintower.tk> wrote:
> >
> > And it'd cut down on most of the fair-use with no rationale and images
> > like
> > that. (of course, there may be some serial offenders even after that)
> >
> > On 6/28/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I completely agree.  Anonymity is not equal to the right to be
> > > uncontactable
> > > everafter.
> > >
> > > On 6/28/06, Kat Walsh <mindspillage at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > One of the big problems with checking and tagging images is that we
> > > > often cannot contact the uploaders -- they register an account, maybe
> > > > only to upload, and then they never log in again, never check their
> > > > talk page, didn't provide an email address, and you have no way to
> > > > contact them.
> > > >
> > > > A lot of images are deleted because we simply have no way to contact
> > > > the uploader who didn't provide a source or a license to ask them what
> > > > the correct information is.
> > > >
> > > > I think it would be a big step forward to require a confirmed email
> > > > address in order to upload images. It's a not a large hurdle for
> > > > contributors, no minimum time or edit count -- just that we must be
> > > > able to contact you, and then if we cannot, we're sure it's not just
> > > > because you haven't been checking your talk page.
> > > >
> > > > This would also make it far easier for reusers of our media to contact
> > > > the contributors to confirm! Wikimedia gets many requests to reprint
> > > > photos and often we have to say that we simply do not know how to get
> > > > in touch with the copyright holder -- someone who last edited a year
> > > > ago is not likely to check a talk page.
> > > >
> > > > I hear it said that this would be an easy feature to implement.
> > > >
> > > > Suggestions/thoughts/objections?
> > > >
> > > > -Kat
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage  |  G/AIM:LucidWaking
> > > > mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net | email for phone
> > > > The good traveller has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving
> > > > -- Lao-Tzu        Wikia: creating communities - http://www.wikia.com
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Brad Patrick
> > > General Counsel & Interim Executive Director
> > > Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
> > > bradp.wmf at gmail.com
> > > 727-231-0101
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -Sceptre
> > http://tintower.co.uk
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Sean Barrett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Exit Interview -- Jon Awbrey

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

Jon Awbrey stated for the record:

> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
> In a way you are correct, since the things that I have identified so far
> are only the more superficial symptoms of a condition that I don't think
> is likely to improve a bit under this regime of defensiveness and denial.
> &c.

So why are you still here?

- --
 Sean Barrett     | Fine day to throw a party.
 sean at epoptic.com | Throw him as far as you can.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEo0tFMAt1wyd9d+URAnimAJ43znwlClLY74fn3yEvZ1ZFuwqgLACggP+o
SPTUcyYW7VNHTJy4CCrCtHU=
=gyfi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: mboverload

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Require confirmed email address to upload images?

body:
The best idea I've heard in awhile.

On 6/28/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/28/06, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
> > As for requiring email address... eh. They are typically just as
> > throwaway as a wiki account. I have no problem with the current method
> > of deleting with extreme prejudice. By deleting such images WP is not
> > missing much.
>
> The practice of deleting with extreme prejudice is the best tool we
> have today on enwiki. It is, at least somewhat, effective. However
> deletion creates a lot of opportunity for tension in the community,
> there are a lot of people who would like to keep their favorite image
> at any cost, at least any cost short of them figuring out the
> copyright status themselves...
>
> The status quo has become socially harmful, so we must reach out for
> more middle ground approaches which do not compromise our legal and
> ethical obligations or the fundamental goals of our project.
>
> When I can demonstrate that I've make a more complete attempt to avoid
> deleting an image a reasonable person should expect to have a more
> calm response.
>
> > It depends if you want to implement this as a way of verifying
> > licenses (I don't think it will help with this), or as a way to slow
> > down image uploaders (it will slow them down, but I think it's a bit
> > underhanded). Now what would be REALLY good to slow down problem
> > uploaders would be if we could block users from uploading, only ( see
> > http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4995 , my baby!). Seems
> > like it could be really handy on en.wp too. Because copyvio image
> > users do not also tend to be copyvio text users, that's my
> > observation.
>
> We have previously used email contact in some cases to verify licenses
> but since around 80% of deleted images do not have an email contact
> it's not possible currently to institutionalize the behavior and gauge
> its effectiveness.
>
> I am unsure exactly what level of image upload reduction there will be
> but based on the impact that the removal of anon editing had on the
> creation of new articles I would not expect much if any at all.  I
> must also point out that whatever reduction does occur will almost
> certainly be strongly biased in favor of reducing the uploads of
> images which we would be subsequently deleted.  Thus it would only
> take a small number of rescued images to offset any reduction in the
> rate of good image uploads.
>
> A question for the list, is anyone aware of a single other site which
> is even semi-popular and accepts images uploads without an email
> confirmed account?  It's is my thought that such a request has long
> since been the norm on the Internet, and as a result will not pose a
> substantial or unexpected hurdle for our users.
>
> The fact that one of the internet stock photo sites we've we've taken
> images from on commons has confirmed emails will likely save hundreds
> of free content images from deletion.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Oliver Coddington

body:
I would be in favour of the idea, and it seems to be a gradual progression
of the way Wikipedia is developing (which obviously is open to debate about
whether it is the right way). I think that the ends justify the mean in this
case, and with the problems we do have on images on Wikipedia relating to
copyright info it is important to be able to contact uploaders, as we may
well be able to 'save' a significant number of images.

Whether all new users should have to register e-mail addresses is a further
debate, but seems the next logical step. Again there are obviously pros and
cons to such a thing, and I think if such a system were ever introduced you
would have to allow only registered users to edit Wikipedia (which in the
present climate is never going to occur).

The question ultimately is how far are we willing to allow Wikipedia to
become less 'free' and whether we think any measure that does reduce the
'freedom' on Wikipedia is worth it?

Oliver

On 6/28/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/28/06, Oliver Coddington <olivercoddington at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I suppose it does open up the question of having to have an e-mail
> address
> > to just simply register an account, as opposed to just having to have
> one to
> > upload images. Especially when there was a debate going on about reusing
> > accounts which have been inactive, if one had to register with a valid
> > e-mail address then a warning e-mail could be sent out to inactive
> accounts,
> > for example. Of course that does go against the nature of Wikipedia
> > slightly, in some people's views. However, it is something worth
> considering
> > as the rate of new users keeps on increasing.
>
> Of course, were we to do this more people would simply edit without an
> account. You already are not able to upload without an account.  But I
> think the more important consideration is this, how often do we need
> to email a few-edit account... vary rarely, perhaps only once to tell
> them that their account is expiring.  Drive by image uploaders, on the
> other hand, provide incomplete copyright information in a majority of
> cases.
>
> It's not reasonable to expect new users even uploading ones to be
> experts at our requirements, even when we make a strong effort to
> inform people prior to upload.  As such I support this feature.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Theresa Knott

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock-en-l

body:
>
> Oh Jay, you are the libram of Wikipedia's rules.
>
<snip stuff that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread>

Content discussions should go on the article talk pages, not here.

Theresa


from_name: Delirium

body:
Brad Patrick wrote:
> Surely nobody is prepared to argue that where we are talking about an image
> stream measured in dozens of thousands, the yield is so pathetic, and the
> immediate reduction in problem uploads can (theoretically) be cut by a
> [[insert adjective here]] amount, we ought not consider the change?  5 out
> of 6 deletes comes from a non-email-enabled user?  Geez...
>
> My position is geared to support the community.  Here it seems a substantial
> amount of editing time and effort can be refactored favorably to
> ...
> (b) increase communication (mere ability to communicate!) with presumably
> new contributors (WP:Newbie)
>

Some of us don't want people emailing us through the wiki, because we'd
prefer messages on our talk pages.

-Mark


subject: [WikiEN-l] Nofollow

body:
On 6/28/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/28/06, Theresa Knott <theresaknott at gmail.com> wrote:
> > How did you check it. Is it written up somewhere because i couldn't
> > find anything on it.
>
> Easy, just examine the source code of any page which has a web address
> created from wikicode. If the web address looks like <A
> HREF="www.test.com"....nofollow=true> then, yes, nofollow is switched
> on.

Doh! Why didn't I think of doing that? Thanks.

Theresa


body:
Delirium wrote:
> Brad Patrick wrote:
>
>> Surely nobody is prepared to argue that where we are talking about an image
>> stream measured in dozens of thousands, the yield is so pathetic, and the
>> immediate reduction in problem uploads can (theoretically) be cut by a
>> [[insert adjective here]] amount, we ought not consider the change?  5 out
>> of 6 deletes comes from a non-email-enabled user?  Geez...
>>
>> My position is geared to support the community.  Here it seems a substantial
>> amount of editing time and effort can be refactored favorably to
>> ...
>> (b) increase communication (mere ability to communicate!) with presumably
>> new contributors (WP:Newbie)
>>
>>
>
> Some of us don't want people emailing us through the wiki, because we'd
> prefer messages on our talk pages.
>

Hmm, it strikes me that maybe I misinterpreted this.  By
"email-enabled", I assumed you meant "has his/her account configured to
allow 'email this user' to work".  Do you instead mean simply entering
an email address somewhere behind the scenes separately from the "email
this user" functionality?

-Mark


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock-en-l

body:
On 6/28/06, Raphael Wegmann <raphael at psi.co.at> wrote:
> jayjg wrote:
> > On 6/28/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 6/28/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
> >>>> Why not go ahead and do the next logical step: Tell people to post
> >>>> their unblock requests to [[WP:ANI]], where they will be subsequently
> >>>> permbanned for "evading" their block and "disruption", and get their
> >>>> user page vandalized by an admin as a follow-up.
> >>> If you're blocked, you're not allowed to edit the wiki. I don't see
> >>> how this is a difficult concept.
> >> Well, you're allowed to edit your talk page (at least, at first). Is
> >> the AN/I page a grey area?
> >
> > Nope.  If you're blocked, you're not allowed to edit it.  You can
> > always e-mail one of the 1000 admins (or, indeed, one of the 100,000
> > or more Wikipedia editors) and ask him or her to put something up
> > there.
> >
>
> I wouldn't recommend to ask any other Wikipedia editor,
> as it might get him/her in trouble ("proxy", "meatpuppet").

No they wouldn't.

Theresa


from_name: Francis Tyers

body:
> Whether all new users should have to register e-mail addresses is a further
> debate, but seems the next logical step. Again there are obviously pros and
> cons to such a thing, and I think if such a system were ever introduced you
> would have to allow only registered users to edit Wikipedia (which in the
> present climate is never going to occur).

I would be strongly opposed to this.

Fran


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Nofollow

body:
On 6/28/06, Theresa Knott <theresaknott at gmail.com> wrote:
> For some reason I've got it in my head that nofollow is set for talk
> pages and user pages. But is this actually true? We treat talk pages
> as lower quality than article pages, but does google do the same? If I
> see linkspam on a talk page do I need to remove it or is it OK to
> leave it there.

I have just checked that this is definitely true for article talk pages.

Steve


from_name: Artur Fijałkowski

body:
2006/6/28, Kat Walsh <mindspillage at gmail.com>:
> One of the big problems with checking and tagging images is that we
> often cannot contact the uploaders -- they register an account, maybe
> only to upload, and then they never log in again, never check their
> talk page, didn't provide an email address, and you have no way to
> contact them.
>
> A lot of images are deleted because we simply have no way to contact
> the uploader who didn't provide a source or a license to ask them what
> the correct information is.
>
> I think it would be a big step forward to require a confirmed email
> address in order to upload images. It's a not a large hurdle for
> contributors, no minimum time or edit count -- just that we must be
> able to contact you, and then if we cannot, we're sure it's not just
> because you haven't been checking your talk page.
>
> This would also make it far easier for reusers of our media to contact
> the contributors to confirm! Wikimedia gets many requests to reprint
> photos and often we have to say that we simply do not know how to get
> in touch with the copyright holder -- someone who last edited a year
> ago is not likely to check a talk page.
>
> I hear it said that this would be an easy feature to implement.
>
> Suggestions/thoughts/objections?
>
> -Kat

Gread idea - we have same problem on pl.wiki :)

AJF/WarX


from_name: Sam Korn

subject: [WikiEN-l] 3RR policy proposal: No "Gotcha" rule

body:
On 6/28/06, fireislandparadise <fireislandparadise at gmail.com> wrote:
> The edit war would (or should) be ended by the warning given at that
> point, otherwise the offender would be blocked. We're getting a bit
> chicken and egg here. The purpose of the 3RR rules is not punitive but
> preventative. If the edit war has already ended there's no need for
> the block anyway. If it hasn't ended then the warning should end it
> even if it's made late.

No-one is disagreeing that often a warning is the best first course of
action.  All the opposition is to making it a compulsory one.

--
Sam


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock-en-l

body:
On 6/28/06, Raphael Wegmann <raphael at psi.co.at> wrote:
> Theresa Knott wrote:
> > On 6/28/06, Raphael Wegmann <raphael at psi.co.at> wrote:
> >> jayjg wrote:
> >>> Nope.  If you're blocked, you're not allowed to edit it.  You can
> >>> always e-mail one of the 1000 admins (or, indeed, one of the 100,000
> >>> or more Wikipedia editors) and ask him or her to put something up
> >>> there.
> >>>
> >> I wouldn't recommend to ask any other Wikipedia editor,
> >> as it might get him/her in trouble ("proxy", "meatpuppet").
> >
> > No they wouldn't.
> >
>
> Well, I get charged for creating a WP proposal, which is based
> on the ideas of a blocked editor. See:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Raphael1/Proposed_decision#Raphael1_is_disruptive
>
> --
> Raphael

Sigh I don't mean to be rude but if you can't see the difference
between this edit that I made yesterday

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=60915908

on behalf of a blocked user, and your edit where your are acting as a
meatpuppet for a banned user then you really should not be commenting
here because the subtleties are beyond you.

It is perfectly ok for a blocked user to contact a sensible wikipedian
and ask for them to speak at the AN on thier behalf. That is not the
same as getting them to act as a meatpuppet.

Theresa


from_name: Dabljuh

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock-en-l

body:
> > Well, you're allowed to edit your talk page (at least, at first). Is
> > the AN/I page a grey area?
>
> Nope.  If you're blocked, you're not allowed to edit it.  You can
> always e-mail one of the 1000 admins (or, indeed, one of the 100,000
> or more Wikipedia editors) and ask him or her to put something up
> there.
>
> Jay.

Oh Jay, you are the libram of Wikipedia's rules.

I observed this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Circumcision#Sexual_effects

So, we have a "reliable source", stating there would be no evidence regarding X.
That statement is provably wrong since we find plenty of evidence for (and
against) X just searching the journals. They simply didn't do their homework.

But now, you conclude that we cannot in any way point out that the statement
is provably wrong? Not even remove it altoghether to avoid confusion?
You insist on keeping the provably wrong statement there, knowing,
that it is indeed provably wrong?

You insist to have something, that is
verifiably, and provably, wrong, in Wikipedia,
and you object to someone changing it?

Because its not against the rules to write something wrong in an article,
even when knowing that it is verifiably and provably wrong, as long as you
can find a source that says it?

I guess when someone "knows the rules" as good as you do, you can pull off stuff like that.


from_name: Tomasz Wegrzanowski

body:
On 6/28/06, Kat Walsh <mindspillage at gmail.com> wrote:
> Suggestions/thoughts/objections?

A very strong objection from me.

The Wikipedia is gradually getting less and less open
and it's really becoming annoying.
Already too many common actions require a registration.
On English Wikipedia one cannot even create an article without a registration
(as if registration meant anything),
what in my opinion is a huge blow to our former openness.

But a confirmed email addresses for uploading photos ?
This is really way too sick. We would be annoying every single
contributor while gaining absolutely nothing.

We should rather get back to the situation where unregistered users
have all the options available - editing pages, creating new articles,
uploading pictures, moving articles, everything.
Having to register doesn't stop a single vandal.


from_name: Raphael Wegmann

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock-en-l

body:
jayjg wrote:
> On 6/28/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 6/28/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
>>>> Why not go ahead and do the next logical step: Tell people to post
>>>> their unblock requests to [[WP:ANI]], where they will be subsequently
>>>> permbanned for "evading" their block and "disruption", and get their
>>>> user page vandalized by an admin as a follow-up.
>>> If you're blocked, you're not allowed to edit the wiki. I don't see
>>> how this is a difficult concept.
>> Well, you're allowed to edit your talk page (at least, at first). Is
>> the AN/I page a grey area?
>
> Nope.  If you're blocked, you're not allowed to edit it.  You can
> always e-mail one of the 1000 admins (or, indeed, one of the 100,000
> or more Wikipedia editors) and ask him or her to put something up
> there.
>

I wouldn't recommend to ask any other Wikipedia editor,
as it might get him/her in trouble ("proxy", "meatpuppet").

--
Raphael


subject: [WikiEN-l] Nofollow

body:
On 6/28/06, Theresa Knott <theresaknott at gmail.com> wrote:
> How did you check it. Is it written up somewhere because i couldn't
> find anything on it.

Easy, just examine the source code of any page which has a web address
created from wikicode. If the web address looks like <A
HREF="www.test.com"....nofollow=true> then, yes, nofollow is switched
on.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock-en-l

body:
On 6/28/06, Dabljuh <dabljuh at gmx.net> wrote:
> So, we have a "reliable source", stating there would be no evidence regarding X.
> That statement is provably wrong since we find plenty of evidence for (and
> against) X just searching the journals. They simply didn't do their homework.
>
> But now, you conclude that we cannot in any way point out that the statement
> is provably wrong? Not even remove it altoghether to avoid confusion?
> You insist on keeping the provably wrong statement there, knowing,
> that it is indeed provably wrong?
>
> You insist to have something, that is
> verifiably, and provably, wrong, in Wikipedia,
> and you object to someone changing it?
>
> Because its not against the rules to write something wrong in an article,
> even when knowing that it is verifiably and provably wrong, as long as you
> can find a source that says it?

No idea where this all came from, but anyway: we always welcome people
pointing out errors, especially if there are verifiabhle sources for
them. Do it by email if you have to. But if you're going down the "I
was blocked because I'm right and they're wrong" road...well...please
don't.

Steve


from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
On 6/28/06, Kat Walsh <mindspillage at gmail.com> wrote:
> One of the big problems with checking and tagging images is that we
> often cannot contact the uploaders -- they register an account, maybe
> only to upload, and then they never log in again, never check their
> talk page, didn't provide an email address, and you have no way to
> contact them.

I would support this measure for wikis which permit fair use (such as
en.wp), and oppose it for Commons. As [[en:Wikipedia:Fair use]]
explains, tracking down the sources of fair use uploads is good
practice -- it strengthens our own position, and makes it easier for
third parties to decide whether fair use applies to them. Having
e-mail addresses on file would help with that.

Given that there's currently not central user database, having to
confirm an e-mail address again for Commons strikes me as an
unnecessary barrier to entry, particularly since our practice is
generally to simply delete files without a clear source. On Commons,
I'd rather wish for special processes to educate new users about the
meaning of "free content" (see the discussion on commons-l about a
licensing tutorial as a mandatory sign-up step).

Erik


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Walter Vermeir

subject: [Wikitech-l] Request for cooperation from the tech people

body:
Rob Church schreef:
 > I maintain a sort of change log as a sub page of my En Wikipedia user
> page, for the Signpost. It's biased towards English Wikipedia users
> but might be of some use.

The are now on my watchlist. Thanks.

> Where important planned changes that are going to affect most users
> directly are made, these will almost certainly be announced to this
> list.

Yes, but that are announcements about changes that are already done or
will be done in the very near future. A matter of hours or a day or so.
Way to short to be picked up by a weekly news bulletin and find his way
downhill to the projects.

>>Sending information directly to the internal news media is also good
>>of course, especially when it is urgent or really important so that is
>>not overlooked. But just putting it on a pages is more convenient I
>>suppose.
>>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Internal_news_media
>
>
> I thought it was the "ComCom"'s job to handle internal communications,
> and our job to get on with running the damn web sites?
>
>
> Rob Church

This post is by me as the one who primarily makes that newsletter, not
the comcom. I am not asking that you send reports. I only provide a link
 to page I made to make in more easy to report quickly a message to the
organized internal news entity's, currently Wikizine and the Signpost.
So that who likes to do so can bookmark it and when there is something
to report and the feel like it the can do it easily.

I am not trying to annoy anybody here. You, Brion, Kate and the others
are trying (and succeeding) to keep the sites online, beside many other
duties.

I am trying to give the community the best possible information about
what is going on in the Wikimedia-projects, including the technical
aspect. And that are not the people who reads this list and possibly can
not even read English and because of that there is a translation delay.

The only thing I am asking is that if is known well in advance about
changes who have an impact how the wiki works for the users to report
that somewhere 10 or 14 days in advance. I am not speaking about small
stuff. But changes to the wikis that gives new functions to
sysops/bureaucrats or like the inclusion of the system that you need to
enter text shown as a image to add an hyperlink to a page or create a
new account.

Reporting that things are changed and how it works now is good. But it
is better if it can be reported before it goes live.

Greetings,
Walter
--
Contact: walter AT wikizine DOT org
Wikizine.org - news for and about the Wikimedia community


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock-en-l

body:
Theresa Knott wrote:
> On 6/28/06, Raphael Wegmann <raphael at psi.co.at> wrote:
>> jayjg wrote:
>>> Nope.  If you're blocked, you're not allowed to edit it.  You can
>>> always e-mail one of the 1000 admins (or, indeed, one of the 100,000
>>> or more Wikipedia editors) and ask him or her to put something up
>>> there.
>>>
>> I wouldn't recommend to ask any other Wikipedia editor,
>> as it might get him/her in trouble ("proxy", "meatpuppet").
>
> No they wouldn't.
>

Well, I get charged for creating a WP proposal, which is based
on the ideas of a blocked editor. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Raphael1/Proposed_decision#Raphael1_is_disruptive

--
Raphael


from_name: maru dubshinki

body:
On 6/28/06, Kat Walsh <mindspillage at gmail.com> wrote:
> One of the big problems with checking and tagging images is that we
> often cannot contact the uploaders -- they register an account, maybe
> only to upload, and then they never log in again, never check their
> talk page, didn't provide an email address, and you have no way to
> contact them.
>
> A lot of images are deleted because we simply have no way to contact
> the uploader who didn't provide a source or a license to ask them what
> the correct information is.
>
> I think it would be a big step forward to require a confirmed email
> address in order to upload images. It's a not a large hurdle for
> contributors, no minimum time or edit count -- just that we must be
> able to contact you, and then if we cannot, we're sure it's not just
> because you haven't been checking your talk page.
>
> This would also make it far easier for reusers of our media to contact
> the contributors to confirm! Wikimedia gets many requests to reprint
> photos and often we have to say that we simply do not know how to get
> in touch with the copyright holder -- someone who last edited a year
> ago is not likely to check a talk page.
>
> I hear it said that this would be an easy feature to implement.
>
> Suggestions/thoughts/objections?
>
> -Kat

I don't think this is as clear cut as you think it is. In the case of
requiring users to register to start articles, and we had solid
evidence that our openess was actively harmful- pace Siegenthaler.
I've seen no reason to believe that our current level of openness
w/r/t images is actively harmful, and not merely a nuisance on the
level of vandalism by IPs.

~maru


from_name: Marco Chiesa

body:
I agree, at least on it.wp there are so many images that were uploaded with
no indication whatsoever of their origin and we have to delete them even if
they're likely to be own work by the uploader who has disappeared in the
meantime. One can then not reply to emails, but at least we would have made
an effort to keep the images.

Cruccone

On 6/28/06, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com> wrote:
>
> Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
>
> >
> >* Many people won't be uploading images if it requires email registration
> >
> >
> Please please please let it be so! After having to mark several
> thousand bad uploads for deletion, and realizing it was just a
> tiny percentage of the total problem, I'd agree to anything that
> would stop the deluge of sh!t.
>
> I think it's hard for people who haven't worked on image cleanup
> to realize how much grunt work is created by the hundreds and
> sometimes thousands of bad uploads that accumulate each and every day.
>
> Stan
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


list: foundation-l

from_name: valdelli at bluemail.ch

subject: [Foundation-l] Vicenza, Italy

body:
I'm uploading new photos of Vicenza.

You could found them in http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Legambiente_Vicenza_2006.

There is no description at moment.

Ilario

>-- Messaggio originale --
>From: "Gianluigi Gamba" <gigamb at tin.it>
>To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
>Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:05:35 +0200
>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Vicenza, Italy
>Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
>
>
>> WooHoo! Congratulations Wikimedia Italia! This looks wonderful (and
>> exhausting!) The pictures are especially nice; you show us some of the
>> many things Wikimedians must do besides editing. <grin>
>
>Thank you all for the words of appreciation.
>They have certainly been exhausting days, but we also had a lot of fun.

>I daresay we all have the will to repeat the experience, sooner or later.
>:o)
>
>Bye.
>G. (aka Paginazero)
>
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Vicenza, Italy


from_name: daniwo59 at aol.com

body:
In a message dated 6/28/2006 10:13:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
marudubshinki at gmail.com writes:

I don't  think this is as clear cut as you think it is. In the case of
requiring  users to register to start articles, and we had solid
evidence that our  openess was actively harmful- pace Siegenthaler.
I've seen no reason to  believe that our current level of openness
w/r/t images is actively  harmful, and not merely a nuisance on the
level of vandalism by  IPs.

Do you not consider the amount of images deleted because they are
potentially copyright violations harmful?

Danny


body:
On 6/28/06, Kat Walsh <mindspillage at gmail.com> wrote:
> Gaining nothing? [...]
> Confirming an email address is a small thing and a one-time thing, and
> does not require giving up anonymity. I still see it a net positive.

The cost is anything but small and from the experience with licencing
issues on Wikipedia I've had so far I'd guess the gain is purely theoretical.

* It is a privacy problem

* It is a serious loss of openness

* Many people won't be uploading images if it requires email registration
** Many people do not even have an email address.
** Or they have one, but won't give it for fear of spam.
** Or they won't register, because in bad cases it takes like 30
minutes to get the confirmation procedure completed (email is slow!)
** Or the confirmation email gets lost on one of the spam filters.
** and so on.

* Even if people do register, it won't be possible to contact most of them:
** Most normal people who would get such an email, wouldn't understand
what the heck is this all licencing thing about or simply wouldn't
care. About the only people who get the licencing are Wikipedians and
Open Source geeks. And they do not need compulsory email confirmation.
** People tend to automatically delete all emails from people they
don't know as spam. So even if the email gets through it's likely to
get ignored.** Many people have special email addresses for all the
registrations that they never actually read
*** Like I never do compulsory registrations using anything else than spambob
** People are switching email addresses all the time. Half-life of
valid email address is very short.

So we have a huge pile of problems against a theory that some users
can be contacted by email and correct the licencing. It simple can't
work.


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

body:
Kat Walsh wrote:
> On 6/28/06, Tomasz Wegrzanowski <taw at users.sf.net> wrote:
>
>
>> But a confirmed email addresses for uploading photos ?
>> This is really way too sick. We would be annoying every single
>> contributor while gaining absolutely nothing.
>>
>> We should rather get back to the situation where unregistered users
>> have all the options available - editing pages, creating new articles,
>> uploading pictures, moving articles, everything.
>> Having to register doesn't stop a single vandal.
>>
>
> Gaining nothing? It hurts users for us not to be able to contact them.
> Text usually stays, as a fact in an article can be found and supported
> by a source even if it is not the same source the writer used. But an
> image? If we cannot find the original and do not know where it came
> from, it must be deleted. That's a pretty big loss, I think, both for
> Wikimedia not being able to use it and for the original contributor
> who sees the effort they spent to upload and place it gone to waste.
>
> This isn't intended to stop vandalism, though it may slow it; any
> vandal can register an account with an email address also. It is
> intended to help good-faith users who want to contribute media. We
> need to be strict about enforcing proper tagging and licensing of
> images; we cannot budge on that. But it is a sad loss to delete things
> simply because they didn't understand the procedure and we don't know
> how to reach them.
>
> Confirming an email address is a small thing and a one-time thing, and
> does not require giving up anonymity. I still see it a net positive.
>
> -Kat
Hoi,
People who contribute a picture once are not vandals. It is ridiculous
to suggest this

The rules of the "game" have increasingly become more restrictive and
pictures that used to be acceptable are no longer considered acceptable.
I have in the past uploaded uploaded pictures with permission. I had
added a message about the original author at the time. Then came thumbs
and these messages went, some time later people decided to check
permissions could not find them and deleted stuff. I found it out after
I signed on to that project after some time. Because of the elegance in
which people the Commons "community" decide that it is their way or the
high way, I became in many ways less interested.

People insist that it is not feasible to discuss changes to Commons
policies with the projects in advance and, that it is sufficient to
restrict this discussion to intimi.. This seems to me reminiscent to one
of those tribes that ultimately moved into Africa in AD400 or thereabouts.

I also dispute that our problem becomes bigger. I am convinced that the
problem is like a bell-curve, as the absolute number of pictures goes
up, the percentage of what you consider "problematic" pictures stays the
same however the number of material that you still want to check
increases. When you confuse this with a growing problem you easily
forget the number of files that have been checked. Because people are
working hard on this in a best effort way and as we are quite ready to
remove material that is in violation of our copyright rules the problem
is not what is depicted.

By talking about it as if there is a crisis, you make it a crisis; it
seems as if we are at war.. I am not convinced AT ALL.

Thanks,
   GerardM


from_name: Jon Awbrey

subject: [WikiEN-l] Exit Interview -- Jon Awbrey

body:
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

In a way you are correct, since the things that I have identified so far
are only the more superficial symptoms of a condition that I don't think
is likely to improve a bit under this regime of defensiveness and denial.
Either that, or I'm talking to people who have just been extremely lucky
in their own experiences on WikiPedia so far.  Or maybe the first attack
of the WikiPiranhas and WikiPuppets is just the standard initiation rite
of WikiPassage around here, and you're not really interested in the sort
of potential contributors who just want off the island after their first
encounter with the local Lords of the Flies.  It is always possible that
some folks just prefer that kind of culture, but it's a culture of waste,
and a dynamics like that always eventually catches up, and overtakes you.

Jon Awbrey

Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> On 6/27/06, Jon Awbrey <jawbrey at att.net> wrote:
> > okay, i get it, everything is just hunky dory in wikiparadise.
> > do not let the fact that wikipedia wastes expertise the way a
> > bradley fighting vehicle wastes gas trouble you one teeny bit.
>
> Don't get me wrong, there are things wrong with Wikipedia, but you
> don't seem to be particularly effective at identifying them.
>
> Steve

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:Jon_Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o


body:
On 6/28/06, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
> IIRC having a confirmed email address will prove to be highly useful when
> the single login approaches, as some sort of proof that the same person owns
> the various accounts to which they might lay claim.

The best proof is knowing the password :-).

Erik


from_name: Berto

body:
Yes, count me in.

----- ???????? ????????? -----
??: "Francis Tyers" <spectre at ivixor.net>
????: <wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org>
??????????: 28 ???? 2006 ?. 22:24
????: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Require confirmed email address to upload images?

> Great idea.
>
> Fran
>
> On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 20:21 +0100, Will "Sceptre" Noble wrote:
> > And it'd cut down on most of the fair-use with no rationale and images
like
> > that. (of course, there may be some serial offenders even after that)
> >
> > On 6/28/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I completely agree.  Anonymity is not equal to the right to be
> > > uncontactable
> > > everafter.
> > >
> > > On 6/28/06, Kat Walsh <mindspillage at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > One of the big problems with checking and tagging images is that we
> > > > often cannot contact the uploaders -- they register an account,
maybe
> > > > only to upload, and then they never log in again, never check their
> > > > talk page, didn't provide an email address, and you have no way to
> > > > contact them.
> > > >
> > > > A lot of images are deleted because we simply have no way to contact
> > > > the uploader who didn't provide a source or a license to ask them
what
> > > > the correct information is.
> > > >
> > > > I think it would be a big step forward to require a confirmed email
> > > > address in order to upload images. It's a not a large hurdle for
> > > > contributors, no minimum time or edit count -- just that we must be
> > > > able to contact you, and then if we cannot, we're sure it's not just
> > > > because you haven't been checking your talk page.
> > > >
> > > > This would also make it far easier for reusers of our media to
contact
> > > > the contributors to confirm! Wikimedia gets many requests to reprint
> > > > photos and often we have to say that we simply do not know how to
get
> > > > in touch with the copyright holder -- someone who last edited a year
> > > > ago is not likely to check a talk page.
> > > >
> > > > I hear it said that this would be an easy feature to implement.
> > > >
> > > > Suggestions/thoughts/objections?
> > > >
> > > > -Kat
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage  |  G/AIM:LucidWaking
> > > > mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net | email for phone
> > > > The good traveller has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving
> > > > -- Lao-Tzu        Wikia: creating communities - http://www.wikia.com
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Brad Patrick
> > > General Counsel & Interim Executive Director
> > > Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
> > > bradp.wmf at gmail.com
> > > 727-231-0101
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

body:
On 6/28/06, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
> Now what would be REALLY good to slow down problem
> uploaders would be if we could block users from uploading, only ( see
> http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4995 , my baby!). Seems
> like it could be really handy on en.wp too. Because copyvio image
> users do not also tend to be copyvio text users, that's my
> observation.

Um. You can block users from uploading. It's called the block button.
If someone is too incompetent or too malicious to discontinue
uploading inappropriate material after they have been asked to stop
then they have no business editing what so ever... what makes you so
sure they aren't busily adding copyvio articles? It's not always easy
to spot.

Don't use technology to fix broken people.   Whats proposed isn't at
all equal, we want email addresses so what we can educate people who
would otherwise never hear our messages.


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Wikitech-l] Interwiki/transwiki imports mostly working now

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> I just sort of envisaged a "is this image fair use? No? [[Move it to
> Commons]]!" kind of  link appearing on images in the various
> Wikipedias. It doesn't seem like something that should be inherently
> restricted, either, since the action can be carried out manually by
> anyone...
>
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/commonshelper.php

Or
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/pushforcommons.php
for a more organized effort.

Magnus


body:
On 6/28/06, maru dubshinki <marudubshinki at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think this is as clear cut as you think it is. In the case of
> requiring users to register to start articles, and we had solid
> evidence that our openess was actively harmful- pace Siegenthaler.
> I've seen no reason to believe that our current level of openness
> w/r/t images is actively harmful, and not merely a nuisance on the
> level of vandalism by IPs.

After the fact evidence shows that the anonymous newpage prohibition
was counterproductive, actually.  Good thing that nothing proposed
here is an attempt to curb vandalism.

I posted a substantial amount of data on the subject, more than we had
considered before the anonymous newpage prohibition was put into
effect. If you'd like anything more I'd be glad to research it, but
I'd hope that you understand that the problem we're trying to solve is
a communications and education problem, not a vandalism problem or
even a copyright problem.


body:
On 6/28/06, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
> As for requiring email address... eh. They are typically just as
> throwaway as a wiki account. I have no problem with the current method
> of deleting with extreme prejudice. By deleting such images WP is not
> missing much.

The practice of deleting with extreme prejudice is the best tool we
have today on enwiki. It is, at least somewhat, effective. However
deletion creates a lot of opportunity for tension in the community,
there are a lot of people who would like to keep their favorite image
at any cost, at least any cost short of them figuring out the
copyright status themselves...

The status quo has become socially harmful, so we must reach out for
more middle ground approaches which do not compromise our legal and
ethical obligations or the fundamental goals of our project.

When I can demonstrate that I've make a more complete attempt to avoid
deleting an image a reasonable person should expect to have a more
calm response.

> It depends if you want to implement this as a way of verifying
> licenses (I don't think it will help with this), or as a way to slow
> down image uploaders (it will slow them down, but I think it's a bit
> underhanded). Now what would be REALLY good to slow down problem
> uploaders would be if we could block users from uploading, only ( see
> http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4995 , my baby!). Seems
> like it could be really handy on en.wp too. Because copyvio image
> users do not also tend to be copyvio text users, that's my
> observation.

We have previously used email contact in some cases to verify licenses
but since around 80% of deleted images do not have an email contact
it's not possible currently to institutionalize the behavior and gauge
its effectiveness.

I am unsure exactly what level of image upload reduction there will be
but based on the impact that the removal of anon editing had on the
creation of new articles I would not expect much if any at all.  I
must also point out that whatever reduction does occur will almost
certainly be strongly biased in favor of reducing the uploads of
images which we would be subsequently deleted.  Thus it would only
take a small number of rescued images to offset any reduction in the
rate of good image uploads.

A question for the list, is anyone aware of a single other site which
is even semi-popular and accepts images uploads without an email
confirmed account?  It's is my thought that such a request has long
since been the norm on the Internet, and as a result will not pose a
substantial or unexpected hurdle for our users.

The fact that one of the internet stock photo sites we've we've taken
images from on commons has confirmed emails will likely save hundreds
of free content images from deletion.


body:
On 6/28/06, Kat Walsh <mindspillage at gmail.com> wrote:
> Interesting. Oppose it for Commons? If anything images that are
> *claimed* fair use are easier to manage, I think... we already know it
> is copyrighted to someone else, and if it's being used under fair use
> it ought to be a notable image and therefore reasonably easy to
> find/source.
[...]
> I've seen plenty of dubious images on commons I would really like to
> have been able to get a good answer about.

My view is that having e-mail addresses on file is great for
_improving_ the state of information of images which we don't want to
delete because they are still "sort of" legal to keep around anyway.
You're right that many fair use images can be easily traced to a
source. Examples which are harder include: scans from the actual pages
of unidentified magazines or books, historical photographs from the
1940s to 1970s which were found on the web, etc. Here I'd often like
to contact the uploaders to get closer to the chain of events (often
something like photo=>book=>scan=>website 1=>website 2=>Wikipedia).

On the other hand, for dealing with material that is outright dubious
and not in compliance with our legal requirements, I think the answer
is to delete it. This "punishes" only the user who forgot to provide
the information in compliance with policy, rather than requiring _all_
users to go through a confirmation process. For a free content
repository like Commons, it's fine to be aggressive about licensing
requirements. An e-mail requirement added now to Commons would also
have little effect on existing uploads by drive-by users who don't
check their talk page -- and Commons has become significantly more
deletionist over time, esp. since image undeletability was added.

Besides, enabling e-mail confirmation for uploads only on en.wp and
maybe a few other wikis with fair use would allow us to gauge better
how useful it is before enabling it elsewhere or even globally.

Erik


from_name: Daniel R. Tobias

subject: [WikiEN-l] What is "spam?"

body:
On 28 Jun 2006 at 14:57, stevertigo <vertigosteve at yahoo.com> wrote:

> What's spam got to do with it?
> What's spam but a second-hand promotion?
> What's spam got to do with it?
> Who needs an inbox when an inbox can get flooded?

My lack of mail is killing me
I must confess I still believe
When I've got no mail I lose my mind
Give me a sign,
Spam me baby one more time!

--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/


body:
On 6/28/06, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
> But to add the email you had to have known the password, and unless I'm
> sorely mistaken it is possible to recover the email address for an automated
> process to compare between two accounts, whereas if this were true for
> passwords...

Having confirmed e-mail addresses for all your accounts is definitely
going to make migration easier, but we're only ever going to get that
for a subset of accounts. If your accounts use the same password, the
merging of old accounts into the global system can be done
transparently for the user at login time.

Now, it's always good to talk about single login strategies, because
that will hopefully guilt trip Brion into finishing the implementation
;-). But I think it's a separate issue from the e-mail upload
confirmation problem.

Erik


body:
Hoi,
A proposal is discussed that suggest that something "needs" to be done.
This need is not substantiated but it is assumed to be there. The idea
of a bell-curve is an argument that Jimmy used in one of his
presentations to point out to alarmists that there is a perceived crisis
but not much of an actual crisis. However, given the volume of pictures
that end up on Commons, I can understand and sympathise with the people
who deal with this to some extend.
Thanks,
   GerardM

Brad Patrick wrote:
> I would be interested to know on what data you rest your conclusions.
> GMaxwell will back up his statements about the nature of the problem with
> actual numbers (won't you Greg?)  =)
>
> As to Tomasz' statements, I am equally interested in hearing what data, if
> any, could be marshalled support your broad assertions.  They don't strike
> me as valid, though I could be proven wrong.  I have doubts that will be the
> case.
>
> Erik's point is well taken; the deletionists have the better argument as far
> as Commons goes, so I lean in his direction on that point.  I do know that
> there is still a lot of garbage in Commons nevertheless.
>
> I still don't see, especially in the case of single login, how providing an
> email address is a net loss for those who upload images.  Nobody has
> answered why the balance should tilt in favor of single-uploaders rather
> than established users.
>
> On 6/28/06, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Kat Walsh wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/28/06, Tomasz Wegrzanowski <taw at users.sf.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> But a confirmed email addresses for uploading photos ?
>>>> This is really way too sick. We would be annoying every single
>>>> contributor while gaining absolutely nothing.
>>>>
>>>> We should rather get back to the situation where unregistered users
>>>> have all the options available - editing pages, creating new articles,
>>>> uploading pictures, moving articles, everything.
>>>> Having to register doesn't stop a single vandal.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Gaining nothing? It hurts users for us not to be able to contact them.
>>> Text usually stays, as a fact in an article can be found and supported
>>> by a source even if it is not the same source the writer used. But an
>>> image? If we cannot find the original and do not know where it came
>>> from, it must be deleted. That's a pretty big loss, I think, both for
>>> Wikimedia not being able to use it and for the original contributor
>>> who sees the effort they spent to upload and place it gone to waste.
>>>
>>> This isn't intended to stop vandalism, though it may slow it; any
>>> vandal can register an account with an email address also. It is
>>> intended to help good-faith users who want to contribute media. We
>>> need to be strict about enforcing proper tagging and licensing of
>>> images; we cannot budge on that. But it is a sad loss to delete things
>>> simply because they didn't understand the procedure and we don't know
>>> how to reach them.
>>>
>>> Confirming an email address is a small thing and a one-time thing, and
>>> does not require giving up anonymity. I still see it a net positive.
>>>
>>> -Kat
>>>
>> Hoi,
>> People who contribute a picture once are not vandals. It is ridiculous
>> to suggest this
>>
>> The rules of the "game" have increasingly become more restrictive and
>> pictures that used to be acceptable are no longer considered acceptable.
>> I have in the past uploaded uploaded pictures with permission. I had
>> added a message about the original author at the time. Then came thumbs
>> and these messages went, some time later people decided to check
>> permissions could not find them and deleted stuff. I found it out after
>> I signed on to that project after some time. Because of the elegance in
>> which people the Commons "community" decide that it is their way or the
>> high way, I became in many ways less interested.
>>
>> People insist that it is not feasible to discuss changes to Commons
>> policies with the projects in advance and, that it is sufficient to
>> restrict this discussion to intimi.. This seems to me reminiscent to one
>> of those tribes that ultimately moved into Africa in AD400 or thereabouts.
>>
>> I also dispute that our problem becomes bigger. I am convinced that the
>> problem is like a bell-curve, as the absolute number of pictures goes
>> up, the percentage of what you consider "problematic" pictures stays the
>> same however the number of material that you still want to check
>> increases. When you confuse this with a growing problem you easily
>> forget the number of files that have been checked. Because people are
>> working hard on this in a best effort way and as we are quite ready to
>> remove material that is in violation of our copyright rules the problem
>> is not what is depicted.
>>
>> By talking about it as if there is a crisis, you make it a crisis; it
>> seems as if we are at war.. I am not convinced AT ALL.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>    GerardM


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] suck it wiki

body:
Nolan mccollum wrote:
<snip abuse>

68.63.46.219 is a Comcast IP in Mobile, Alabama; you may review their
talk page <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:68.63.46.219> and
contributions
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.63.46.219> for
yourself.

--
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: 564 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060628/a0818c00/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] Exit Interview -- Jon Awbrey

body:
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

well, i had been planning to go for the guinness book entry
for the longest exit interview on record, but then they
told me that dubya had a six year head start on me,
so i dunno, will just have to play it by ear.

ja

Sean Barrett wrote:
>
> So why are you still here?

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:Jon_Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [WikiEN-l] suck it wiki

body:
On 6/28/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/28/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 6/28/06, Nolan mccollum <nolanmccollumhotmail.com at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > thats right i said suck it wiki your full of crap.
> > >
> >
> > Uh oh. List admins went to sleep?
>
> There's a difference between going to sleep and assuming good faith.
> Remember, we don't screen everyone's posts before they go to the list.
> Anyway, he's moderated now.

If we don't screen posts before they go to the list, that would
explain why we've getting an incredible amount of trollish edits by
the likes of Rgulerdem over the past month or so.  However it doesn't
explain why we *don't* get loads of off-topic borderline spam.
Clearly there is some moderation, and the moderators are awake.  But
their standards over the past month or so have been, to say the least,
somewhat catholic.  To the extent that I wonder why we bother running
this list any more.  The good discussion is being relentlessly drowned
out by idiocy.


from_name: Oliver Coddington

body:
Hi,sorry let me perhaps rephrase what I said. The issue of 'freedom' relates
to the free and open nature of Wikipedia, i.e. that anyone can edit it. If
we start introducing the requirement that one needs to have an e-mail
address to do certain things (in this case upload pictures) then part of
this 'freedom', this open nature in impinged. I'm not saying that I disagree
with requiring people to have to provide e-mail addresses to upload
pictures, indeed I am in favour, but it does take us further away from the
original ideal of Wikipedia.

I am then merely commenting that the next step along the line may well be
stopping unregistered users from editing and having to have an e-mail
address to register an account. I mean I can never see that happening, well
nowhere near the present time, but the issue that then raises is how open
(how free) is Wikipedia? Would having to provide an e-mail address and
having to register reduce the amount of vandalism on Wikipedia, my initial
reaction would be yes. Would having such a system put off potential new
editors, again I think the answer may well be yes, and so this is where the
problem can lie in such a system, and why the open nature of Wikipedia is so
often fought for and defended.

Do I think the ends justify the meanas with having to make people provide
e-mail addresses to upload photos? Yes I do, and I feel that such a system
may lead to more images actually staying on Wikipedia, and that surely is an
advantage, as nobody like having to delete images when we simply don't know
about their copyright status.

Oliver

On 6/28/06, Berto <albertoserra at ukr.net> wrote:
>
> > On 6/28/06, Oliver Coddington <olivercoddington at gmail.com> wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > The question ultimately is how far are we willing to allow Wikipedia
> to
> > > become less 'free' and whether we think any measure that does reduce
> the
> > > 'freedom' on Wikipedia is worth it?
>
> BTW, you are part of this discussion because you gave an email address or
> what? I simply do not undertsand what specifying an email address has in
> common with freedom.... On the opposite, it helps people who uploaded
> files
> in giving them the right to explain what they did, instead of remaining
> helplessly in the hands of us allmighty admins, as it the case now.
> Nothing
> that gives people menas for them to voice their opinions can be considered
> a
> limitation. Or is it limiting the admin's power that is feared here?
> Really,
> I don't understand...
>
> B?rto
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Platonides

body:
"Simetrical" wrote:
> So restricting it to admins is a good idea,
> until we get an intermediate "trusted" group of some kind.

The case is that if someone is 'trusted' it's likely he will be an admin.
It's not a problem of conspiracy and secretness.


from_name: Brianna Laugher

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Use of images (again)

body:
> But... my aim is to attract as much traffic and active users as I can. Now,
> the main problema I see with using commons are:
> 1) you need to open an account on it, if you want the interface to start
> with your language. I.e: you must be able to cope with an english interface.

(Universal login: we at Commons await it more than anyone else,
possibly. ;)) As for English login, not quite. We have managed to
internationalise the login as much as possible: see
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Userlogin . And I saw a note
in this week's Signpost (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-06-26/Technology_report
) that it is now possible to have "Optional language selector for user
login/registration forms". So I certainly hope Commons will be the
first place to implement that.

> 2) there is no way for a local edition to use commons as an "included"
> service (that is, one page as another, inside the edition).

? Not sure what you mean by this. Are you referring to image pages?
The Commons images create "fake" image pages which copy all the
content to your wiki, and there is a link back to the Commons page for
the full information.

If you are referring to regular Commons articles I can't imagine why
you'd want to do this...

> 3) file categorisation is 100% :en. (let alone file description)

Yes, this is true. Technical limitation until category RDRs are
properly implemented. File descriptions are NOT required to be in
English at all. But if SCN were to turn off local uploads it would be
extremely nice to have some Sicilian speakers volunteer as Commons
admins. We are extremely welcoming to admin candidates of
lesser-spoken languages.

> 4) file descriptions should have a sort of "fallback language", so that once
> they are uploaded on a language any number of tranlations maybe added
> without loosing the original version. Failure to do so would really mean the
> risk of me publishing an image from Thailand in an article on a chinese
> emperor (how on earth can I read that?) and the chinese publishing a
> Rotterdam pic in an article about the Alps.

Not sure what you mean by this. We encourage people to translate the
descriptions on image pages.

I don't think publishing the wrong picture is much of a danger (when
in doubt, why would you put it?), but interwiki links & Check-Usage
tend to be very handy in such situations. (Check-Usage is a tool that
tells you where a Commons image is being used in all of Wikimedia.
Like global "what links here".) As long as the interwiki link is
correct you can safely copy any images the interwiki links use.

> 5) commons interface is quite out of wiki standards, and the localisations
> distributed by Betawiki do not seem to cover the whole UI, part of which
> remains in english anyway.

Hm, I am not sure about the technical points with Languages.php and
all that. We have changed our navigation menu which most language
files can't cope with, I know... I will just say we really encourage
translators and are very responsive to updating translations. I
personally promise that if you put translations on my talk page, I
will update them within 24 hours of reading my talk page.

If you are interested, and maybe you are since your English is great,
we can work together and over the next week update the language(s) you
speak so they're all up to date. I agree that having the interface
translated is important. (and policy pages, and warnings :) but most
important of all is to have admins who can act as a bridge.)

> Besides, I have all my trouble in explaining users how to use wiki pms, I
> doubt that I will end up in reducing my workload, if I have to teach them
> how to use commons, too.

Short term vs long term...I know there is a huge workload for
up-and-coming wikipedias. So it's your call. I do understand that the
default option of allowing local uploads is a lot less initial work.

Using Commons means less work, but it certainly doesn't mean NO work.
It is necessary that some admins from that Wikipedia/language take on
extra responsibility and become Commons admins. It is necessary that
bilingual people from that language make up to date translations. Now
as much as I want to support other languages using Commons, I simply
cannot do those things. It's just a fact. So some people do have to
step up, because throwing your users in the deep end with no Commons
contact will not work at all.

We have a page http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Help_page_maintenance
which has a rough heirarchy of which pages should be translated first.

> I was asked to translate my questions in italian because he had trouble in
> using english (see what I mean? Not the whole planet has an EN-3, even among
> the admins). I translated them and... never got back any answer. It's a
> couple of months now. As you certainly understand, opening a new edition
> with a small user base means so much trouble that I simply forgot about it,
> until now. I guess he did exactly the same.
>
> Hopefully you won't forget about me :) It's an important issue, but it must
> be carefully addressed.

I will certainly do my best not to. :) And I will do my best to help
you solve any issues you see between pms.wp (or scn.wp or any other
project) and Commons since you guys are our first priority. Commons
works best when everyone uses it, then everyone has the most benefit
too.

I looked up Piedmontese since I freely admit my ignorance of it. I see
it is spoken in Italy. I was wondering what kind of attitude
Piedmontese speakers have towards Italian speakers? Is it true that
most Piedmontese users can also read/understand Italian? ie....are
Italian help files and messages sufficient for Piedmontese speakers?
Obviously Piedmontese would be preferred, but I guess what I'm getting
at is, how essential is it to have a Piedmontese translation distinct
from an Italian one? Please don't take offence if the answer is "100%
essential". There's only one way to find out these things....

best regards,
Brianna


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-06-29

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

Running test Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)... FAILED!
Running test Link containing double-single-quotes '' (bug 4598)... FAILED!
Running test message transform: <noinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)... FAILED!
Running test message transform: <onlyinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled... FAILED!
Running test Language converter: output gets cut off unexpectedly (bug 5757)... FAILED!
Running test HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test Parsing optional HTML elements (Bug 6171)... FAILED!
Running test Inline HTML vs wiki block nesting... FAILED!
Running test Mixing markup for italics and bold... FAILED!

Passed 394 of 407 tests (96.81%) FAILED!


from_name: Andrew Gray

body:
On 28/06/06, Oliver Coddington <olivercoddington at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,sorry let me perhaps rephrase what I said. The issue of 'freedom' relates
> to the free and open nature of Wikipedia, i.e. that anyone can edit it. If
> we start introducing the requirement that one needs to have an e-mail
> address to do certain things (in this case upload pictures) then part of
> this 'freedom', this open nature in impinged. I'm not saying that I disagree
> with requiring people to have to provide e-mail addresses to upload
> pictures, indeed I am in favour, but it does take us further away from the
> original ideal of Wikipedia.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record... the goal of the
project is to provide people with a free encyclopedia. "Anyone can
edit" is a tool to achieve that goal.

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk


from_name: Jacky PB

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moldovan wikipedia: hands waiving is not proof

body:
So, to summarize your last 3 messages, we agree on the fact that nobody on the whole wikipedia is both capable and willing to edit on mo.wikipedia otherwise than by copying articles from ro.wikipedia.

To do this, you don't need a Moldovan wikipedia to do it. You need the script of Bogdan Giusca (:en:User:Bogdangiusca), which will automatically convert to cyrillic (and with far less errors than you) any article on the Romanian wikipedia. This script is already functional at

     http://mcworld.org/McChirilic/?pagina=Limba_moldoveneasc%C4%83

To make it work on the article of your choice, replace the text
"Limba_moldoveneasc%C4%83" with the page name of your choice.

Yours,
[[:en:Dpotop]], [[:ro:Dpotop]]

Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote: Having said that, while I consider myself a native speaker, I would
not rate myself "mo-5" on the Babel rating scale (which is basically
the same as native speakers with no first language attrition), but
rather I rank myself at "mo-2".

Essentially, that means I can understand it, and I can speak it to a
certain degree (mostly about simple things), and I can read it and
write it. However, my writing and speaking skills are very
deteriorated and my grammar is very poor, and I often find myself
looking in a dictionary to find the equivalent for words such as, say,
"helpfulness".

For that reason, I don't write many articles myself at mo.wiki --
contrary to the allegations of some, I actually care about the quality
of articles there. Instead, I mostly transliterate articles from the
Romanian Wikipedia.

Mark

On 28/06/06, Mark Williamson  wrote:
> I'll have you know that Moldovan is my native language. It is the
> first language I heard, and I heard no other language until the age of
> 3.
>
> Please see: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22first+language+attrition%22
>
> Mark
>
> On 28/06/06, Jacky PB  wrote:
> > Answer: NO!
> >
> > The only registered user of Moldovan on the whole wikipedia is User:Node_ue (in en, mo, ro, etc.). And he's mo-2.
> >
> > Dpotop
> >
> > mboverload  wrote: QUESTION:  I don't care if they're native, are there any "near native"
> > speakers of "MOLDOVAN" on en.wikipedia.org?
> >
> > mboverload
> >
> > On 6/28/06, Mark Williamson  wrote:
> > >
> > > And you're accusing me of spreading FUD? Psht.
> > >
> > > Mark
> > >
> > > On 28/06/06, Jacky PB  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hello everybody,
> > > >
> > > > After sending my point of view here, I presumed someone was going to
> > > investigate the matter, by asking questions and LOOKING DIRECTLY AT THE
> > > FACTS. To my surprise, this did not happen (maybe every high-rank admin is
> > > in vacations?).
> > > >
> > > > As I noticed in my initial post of June 24th, the this lack of decision
> > > can only lead to the situation coarsing, and the various parts stacking all
> > > sorts of  oppinions. This is true for the Romanians and for the few
> > > Romanian-speaking Moldovans that support the deletion of this wikipedia.
> > > This is also true for Mark Williamson (User:Node_ue) and for the Russians
> > > that support him. There is no nativ Moldovan speaker supporting
> > > mo.wikipedia.
> > > >
> > > > Now, to come back to the facts. I suggest reading my post of June 24th,
> > > which is not, as Mark says, too high-level. It mainly notices three facts,
> > > that can easily be checked (despite all the hands-waving of Mark):
> > > >
> > > > 1.  THERE IS NO NATIVE MOLDOVAN SPEAKER HERE ON WIKIPEDIA.
> > > >
> > > > 2.  99% of the articles of mo.wikipedia have been copied from
> > > ro.wikipedia with just the script changed from Latin to Cyrillic, by Mark
> > > (Usedr:Node_ue).
> > > >
> > > > 3.  Mark assumes for himself a level mo-2, meaning that he is not able
> > > to write text in Moldovan.
> > > >
> > > > All the other users on mo.wikipedia are either against Mark (including
> > > some trolls), or create 1-line incorrect articles, or simply move around
> > > interwiki links to give the impression something happens.
> > > >
> > > > This means that there is NO COMMUNITY, and that mo.wikipedia is nothing
> > > more than a political statement without any other content. Is this the
> > > vocation of wikipedia?
> > > >
> > > > MY SUGGESTION: LOOK AT THE FACTS DIRECTLY on mo.wikipedia. Hands waiving
> > > and sending message after message with FUD is the strong point of Mark. But
> > > he cannot alter edit histories, nor user lists.
> > > >
> > > > Please, look at the facts yourself.
> > > >
> > > > Yours,
> > > > [[:en:User:Dpotop]], [[:ro:User:Dpotop]]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------
> > > > Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+
> > > countries) for 2???/min or less.
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Refije dirije lanm??? yo paske nou posede pw???p bato.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> >  Next-gen email? Have it all with the  all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
> --
> Refije dirije lanm?? yo paske nou posede pw??p bato.
>

--
Refije dirije lanm?? yo paske nou posede pw??p bato.
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

---------------------------------
Want to be your own boss? Learn how on  Yahoo! Small Business.


body:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On 6/28/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I would be interested to know on what data you rest your conclusions.
>> GMaxwell will back up his statements about the nature of the problem with
>> actual numbers (won't you Greg?)  =)
>>
>
> Sure,
>
> I think the most compelling bit of backup is the anecdotal one which
> every person who has deleted images on Enwiki can tell you:  we are
> unable to get answers to basic questions for many images and must
> delete them.  Does anyone here who's done a substantial amount of
> image patrolling on enwiki disagree?  It's easy to produce examples,
> just look for at orphanbot's deleted edits.
>
> However, I like numbers... they can mislead but they can also be food
> for thought. Keep in mind we don't current recommend that anyone use
> the email this user to contact inactive uploaders simply because few
> of the images which are eligible for deletion have a confirmed user.
>
> There were 57,472 images uploaded to enwiki in march.
> *21,000 come from uploaders with confirmed emails.
> *36,472 come from uploaders without confirmed emails
>
> There were 30,981 total images deleted on enwiki in march.
> *5,149 were uploaded by users who had confirmed emails.
> *25,832 were uploaded by users who did not have confirmed emails.
>
> I wanted to give stats on what percentage of deleted images came from
> users who had recent editing activity, but query is too expensive to
> answer off hand.
>
> I think the policy makes sense based both on my experience and based
> on the numbers.
Hoi,
These numbers provide a snapshot. They do not indicate how these numbers
relate to the overall number of Commons and they do not indicate if the
problem becomes worse. The argument was that this trend should be seen
in percentages, this is not provided by the data. What was the average
time that deleted pictures were on the system ??

This policy is very much going to happen as you lot seem determined to
push it through.. Never mind ..

What I would be interested in knowing is the usage in percentage of
Commons pictures used in articles per project.

Thanks,
    GerardM


list: textbook-l

from_name: Michael R. Irwin

subject:
[Textbook-l] wikiversity and private universities with multiple
 models

body:
John Goes wrote:

>Hello All,
>
>I'm a new to wikiversity, although I have been using wikipedia for quite
>some time now.  I actually stumbled on the wikiversity site today as I
>independently thought of an idea for an "internet university" and have been
>doing research on the idea, only to find that there have been efforts to do
>something similar for some time.
>
>I feel like I'm jumping into the middle of a discussion that I haven't heard
>much of, so please forgive me for my ignorance of most things that have been
>suggested and tossed about before.
>
>I get the sense that the idea for Wikiversity is rather vague and nebulous
>at the moment, with many conflicting ideas of where it should go and how it
>should evolve, especially vis-a-vis accreditation.
>
>
Not as vague as you seem to think.   Most of the people in the
discussion so far have experience with Wikipedia or Wikibooks and this
influences our thoughts of what might be possible with a wiki.

Accreditation near everyone agrees is for the future, if ever, after we
have some success.   It takes quite a bit of resources and effort which
is probably way beyond the volunteer resources available initially.
The Wikimedia Foundation (which supports the servers Wikiversity will be
set up on) has mandated that we specifically acknowledge for newcomers
that we are not accredited and have no intention in the near future of
becoming accredited as a condition of their physically hosting the
wikiversity.org domain.

>The vision of a free wikiversity for everyone to attend, a respectable and
>revolutionary new way to learn and receive high degrees, while very
>egalitarian, seems like a very difficult task precisely because the idea is
>so centralized.  Every university, whether explicit or implict, has its own
>values and "opinions" on what constitutes a good education.  Any one
>organization is never going to be able to please everyone and fit everyone,
>even if nested in the internet.
>
>
The vision to date consists of making learning materials available in an
interactive form for participants to study or improve via online
collaboration in a wiki supported environment.

>The approach I had originally considered was in reaction to MITs
>revolutionary decision to share their curriculum, lectures, ect with the
>public, effectively allowing one an MIT education if one applied oneself.
>
>The founding of wikiversity is clearly in response to a sense among many of
>the vast potential of a new model of learning.  Rather than arguing about
>the exact form of wikiversity, I think there is great potential for private
>setups, whether they be non for profit or otherwise, which can utilize
>resources such as wiki and MIT.
>
>My own idea is based on the system of Reed College.  At Reed students
>prepare in their first three years, through classes, for the writing of
>their thesis, which is a requirement for graduation.  For the entire senior
>year they write the thesis with the help and supervision of one or more
>professors.  A successful online university based on such a system might
>require academic supervisors, a virtual classroom in which to discuss the
>course material, and teachers, primarily present to assist the student when
>the student requests help, also serving an evaluative purpose.
>
>
Typically academic supervisors expect to get paid.   Wikiversity will
initially be the efforts of volunteers.

>I see no reason why a student with a well written and perhaps important
>thesis should have a problem getting a degree; although the practical
>problems of this demand a creative solution.
>
>This is one idea and I'm sure there are many other possible formats, as
>there are many kinds of learners with their own goals and methods.  I think
>wikiversity would be most effective if it was able to operate in conjunction
>with this and other private efforts.
>
>Respectfully,
>John Goes
>
>
Wikiversity materials are published under the GNU Foundation's FDL
license and are thus available to anyone, including private or public
universities who choose to use or improve the materials.  The only
requirement of use is the expectation and requrirement that improvements
will be published under the same FDL copyright so they can be
incorporated into the growing commons of free human knowledge.

There is an active committee working towards getting our permanent
wikispace activated.   It will be located at wikiversity.org using
various prefixes for various languages identical to the way Wikipedia
and Wikibooks are setup within their domains.

Nice to have you with us.

lazyquasar


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Use of images (again)

body:
On 29/06/06, Sabine Cretella <sabine_cretella at yahoo.it> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the answer to many of these questions is:
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Instant_Commons

er, Instant Commons is meant for non-Wikimedia wikis. Wikimedia wikis
are *already* Instant. ;)

cheers,
Brianna


from_name: Philip Welch

subject: [WikiEN-l] Moderation

body:
On Jun 29, 2006, at 12:48 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:

> If people want, we could raise the minimum standards, and be more
> proactive about moderating trolls.

Please do. The fact that a thread titled "suck it wiki" has seen
several dozen messages on this list is enough proof that such action
is needed.

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


from_name: Tomasz Wegrzanowski

body:
On 6/28/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> However, I like numbers... they can mislead but they can also be food
> for thought. Keep in mind we don't current recommend that anyone use
> the email this user to contact inactive uploaders simply because few
> of the images which are eligible for deletion have a confirmed user.
>
> There were 57,472 images uploaded to enwiki in march.
> *21,000 come from uploaders with confirmed emails.
> *36,472 come from uploaders without confirmed emails
>
> There were 30,981 total images deleted on enwiki in march.
> *5,149 were uploaded by users who had confirmed emails.
> *25,832 were uploaded by users who did not have confirmed emails.
>
> I think the policy makes sense based both on my experience and based
> on the numbers.

So about 40% of useful contributions come from users without confirmed
emails, and we would be throwing them away ?

The numbers prove clearly that the proposed policy is really stupid.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Use of images (again)

body:
Berto wrote:
> Hi again!
>
>> (Universal login: we at Commons await it more than anyone else,
>> possibly. ;)) As for English login, not quite. We have managed to
>> internationalise the login as much as possible: see
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Userlogin .
>
> Yes, I've used it myself. The main problem is that most users who are afraid
> of english will never get to see, because they will simply not click on the
> *login* link.

I've registered and edited on several Wikipedias where I don't speak the
language; I've managed to work everything out based on the the location
and URLs of the links.

> Anyway, if we can setup a proper instruction page on local
> bases (that is, on pms) we can bridge this. The same would apply to
> interliki links. If one can mantain a usable UI on *any* edition he will not
> fear trying even the most exotic language... and this really is a quick way
> to locate additional pics to use in a given context.
>

Maybe the local links to Commons could have "?uselang=" at the end of
the URLs?

>> ) that it is now possible to have "Optional language selector for user
>> login/registration forms". So I certainly hope Commons will be the
>> first place to implement that.
>
> I see it on all editions (more precisely: IT, EN, META, COMMONS) even now...
> so probably we talk about different selectors. My common:user works in pms
> lang, so do my it:user, en:user, meta:user, etc. What worries me is that a
> user needs to undergo a first page in a foreign language, in order to do
> this. If we could just send the user language as a link parameter we could
> probably solve the problem...
>

It's doable. See
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Userlogin?uselang=it

>>> 2) there is no way for a local edition to use commons as an "included"
>>> service (that is, one page as another, inside the edition).
>
> I mean having your upload page instead of mine.
<snip>

Aha:

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Especial:Upload

Not sure how, but es: has disabled image uploading.

--
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: 564 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20060629/7bf66648/attachment.pgp


body:
> I think if such a system were ever introduced you
> would have to allow only registered users to edit Wikipedia
It's not the same thing. I cannot think of that many reasons for admins to
email a text editor. If something is wrong on a text I just edit it. But you
don't expect admins to edit pics on photoshop, do you? Besides, it would not
really solve the copvio problem.

B?rto


body:
> On 6/28/06, Oliver Coddington <olivercoddington at gmail.com> wrote:
> [snip]
> > The question ultimately is how far are we willing to allow Wikipedia to
> > become less 'free' and whether we think any measure that does reduce the
> > 'freedom' on Wikipedia is worth it?

BTW, you are part of this discussion because you gave an email address or
what? I simply do not undertsand what specifying an email address has in
common with freedom.... On the opposite, it helps people who uploaded files
in giving them the right to explain what they did, instead of remaining
helplessly in the hands of us allmighty admins, as it the case now. Nothing
that gives people menas for them to voice their opinions can be considered a
limitation. Or is it limiting the admin's power that is feared here? Really,
I don't understand...

B?rto


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Use of images (again)

body:
After this I will contact you directly since it's less relevant to
this mailing list. But I will make a couple of points that might be
relevant:

On 29/06/06, Berto <albertoserra at ukr.net> wrote:
> Hi again!
>
> > (Universal login: we at Commons await it more than anyone else,
> > possibly. ;)) As for English login, not quite. We have managed to
> > internationalise the login as much as possible: see
> > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Userlogin .
>
> Yes, I've used it myself. The main problem is that most users who are afraid
> of english will never get to see, because they will simply not click on the
> *login* link. Anyway, if we can setup a proper instruction page on local
> bases (that is, on pms) we can bridge this. The same would apply to
> interliki links. If one can mantain a usable UI on *any* edition he will not
> fear trying even the most exotic language... and this really is a quick way
> to locate additional pics to use in a given context.

There is a very useful possibility you might not be aware of... try this:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&uselang=pms

If you can give this link to your users (probably won't be able to
through a menu, but on an article/page, yes), it might be easier. Of
course as soon as they click on any link, the "&uselang=pms" will
disappear and the menus will go back to English. So better make sure
Special:Userlogin is the 2nd thing they click on. :P

BTW I think this trick should also work perfectly on wikipedias. And
it should work even better since the menus won't be different.

> > ) that it is now possible to have "Optional language selector for user
> > login/registration forms". So I certainly hope Commons will be the
> > first place to implement that.
> I see it on all editions (more precisely: IT, EN, META, COMMONS) even now...
> so probably we talk about different selectors. My common:user works in pms
> lang, so do my it:user, en:user, meta:user, etc.

You are talking about the language selector at
[[Special:Preferences]], right? Yes, that works everywhere. I am
talking about a drop-down box for anonymous users to go through the
signup process. At the moment no one has this, it is a new feature.

 What worries me is that a
> user needs to undergo a first page in a foreign language, in order to do
> this. If we could just send the user language as a link parameter we could
> probably solve the problem...

See above :P

> > > 2) there is no way for a local edition to use commons as an "included"
> > > service (that is, one page as another, inside the edition).
> I mean having your upload page instead of mine. Which means all the links in
> the page drive the user back into pms, while only upload functions and image
> galleries relate to your server from everywhere in pms. Having exported fake
> pages is okay, too. The thing I do not wnat to happen is an unexperienced
> user to get lost somewhere beween two servers. What I want is having commons
> "seamiglessly" integrated in local editions. People should not even know
> that they are changing servers, unles they are interested in the tech
> details and go reading the docs. Most users do not give a damn about it, all
> they want is their pic to be uploaded for them to use it in an article, not
> a conference on distributed systems management.

Yes, indeed... it is possible to make the upload page link to Commons,
but they will of course be taken to Commons. And until we have
universal login, they will have to sign up again. And they will have
to meet Commons requirements of image source, necessary license
information and (very strongly encouraged) category or gallery link.
But I check newbie users at the moment and 19/20 do not use
categories, so I don't expect pms-users to be any different. :)

> > File descriptions are NOT required to be in
> > English at all.
> Yes, but I really wonder what can a japanese user get from a pms file
> description.

Well I really doubt anyone will use an image if it has a caption they
can't understand at all. They will simply not use the file. OK that is
a loss but until we require that everyone knows 20 languages :) not
much we can do.

> >ie....are Italian help files and messages sufficient for Piedmontese
> speakers?
> No. In every day life it almost always gets substituted by ITA in Piedmont,
> and if we cannot keep an homogenous linguistic environment for our users we
> really risk turning all our efforts to failure. We need people to have a
> place for them to use the language for all kind of needs, if we want them to
> develop that proficiency that is necessary to write a good pms wiki. It's a
> pity, because it actually means that I get an additional load of
> translations work on my "to-do" list, but unfortunately that's the way it
> is...

OK, I understand that.

When it comes to interacting with other users, unless a PMS admin
takes on a lot of translation, they will probably have to use some
English or something else. I encourage all Commons users to use Babel
boxes.

> Mmmm... I can't seem to guess your nick on common... you can leave me mail
> on http://pms.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussioni_utente:B?rto_'d_S?ra so we can
> define a practical action plan for the merger... :) We got some 80 pics so
> far, If we manage to transfer them now it will be easier than making it once
> they already grew up to 800.

OK, great. Oops, sorry I didn't write my username. it's user:pfctdayelise .

cheers,
Brianna


subject: [Wikipedia-l] import babel templates, how-to

body:
Hi!

is there anyway to import babel templates? (say from wiktionaryZ, with the
level-5 convention, too). They do not need any translation at all, so it
looks pretty stupid to do it manually.

B?rto


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Redlinks or redirects?

body:
On Jun 29, 2006, at 3:10 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:

> Hi all,
>   When discovering a redlink, which is better: to leave it as a
> redlink, or redirect it to the "closest" topic? Eg, a redlink to the
> name of a book - best to leave it that way, or create it as a redirect
> to the book's author? Or, create a substub "X is a book by
> [[Author]]"?
>
> 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] Redlinks or redirects?

body:
On Jun 29, 2006, at 3:10 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:

> Hi all,
>   When discovering a redlink, which is better: to leave it as a
> redlink, or redirect it to the "closest" topic? Eg, a redlink to the
> name of a book - best to leave it that way, or create it as a redirect
> to the book's author? Or, create a substub "X is a book by
> [[Author]]"?
>
> Steve
>

A redlink might just be a mistake, so briefly search for an existing
article. If it seems it could be a viable article it should be left
alone. I think it should continue to be a redlink until someone is
ready to write an article rather than being made into a stub.

Fred


from_name: Anthony

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock-en-l

body:
On 6/29/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/29/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > Wouldn't getting someone else to edit for you constitute evading a
> > block?  What if it's your roomate?  Your 5 year old child?
>
> Common sense should be used. Getting someone to act *on your behalf*
> for your own personal gain is one thing. Getting someone to relay some
> information which is clearly, objectively in the interests of the
> project, once, is another.
>
And editing AN/I to add some information which is clearly, objectively
in the interests of the project, is another.

Anthony


subject:
[WikiEN-l] SPEEDYING images Re: Jimbo's rule, copyright,
	old images with permission only

body:
On 6/29/06, Magnus Manske <magnus.manske at web.de> wrote:
> Anthony schrieb:
> > Is there somewhere I can get a list of the images I've uploaded which
> > don't fall under the current tagging rules?
> >
> > Is there even a place where I can get a list of the images I've uploaded?
> >
> http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/pushforcommons.php?language=en&wikiuser=Your_user_name_on_en
>
> will show all your images on en, and tries to guess their status by the
> used tags/templates. If it doesn't recognize a specific tag correctly,
> please tell me so I can fix it.

Thanks, this is pretty much exactly what I was looking for.  Using the
upload log doesn't work for some reason.  It seems to ignore uploads
before a certain date.  I'll have to go through some time and figure
out which of those images are deleteable.  Is there some documentation
of what the colors mean?  Specifically, why are the {{cc-sa}} ones
yellow?

Anthony


from_name: Ryan Delaney

subject: [WikiEN-l] suck it wiki

body:
On 6/28/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If we don't screen posts before they go to the list, that would
> explain why we've getting an incredible amount of trollish edits by
> the likes of Rgulerdem over the past month or so.  However it doesn't
> explain why we *don't* get loads of off-topic borderline spam.
> Clearly there is some moderation, and the moderators are awake.  But
> their standards over the past month or so have been, to say the least,
> somewhat catholic.  To the extent that I wonder why we bother running
> this list any more.  The good discussion is being relentlessly drowned
> out by idiocy.

I know I've been playing this card a lot lately, but I'm really surprised
that people are taking up their time with this kind of meta-meta-debate.
We're now writing manifestos on how the mailing list should be run....

Ryan