body:
On Dec 11, 2005, at 7:27 PM, Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
>  The deletion problem will still be there,
> because the heart of the deletion problem is that people have a
> fundamentally different idea of what should be in the encyclopedia.
> And that wont go away.
>

This wasn't always the case, though - at least not on the level we're
seeing now. And as evidence, note that it's still not a problem on
articles. Why? Because "cite sources," "verifiability," and "NPOV"
are principles. And so our article editing still gets done. It's our
administrative facilities that are grinding to a halt.

We don't need massive checklists and rules for article editing. Just
for deletion. Because they "bring order to the system." Except they
bring a bad order - an order marked by playing to win, terrible
decisions, hostility, and suspicion. And by ignoring policy and
principles in favor of process. We would be better off without them -
we'd be better off with admins capriciously and arbitrarily deleting
what they want and undeleting what they disagree with. Because that,
at least, would be a decision making process instead of a game.

We settled what should be in the encyclopedia ages ago. [[WP:NOT]] is
an ancient page. Our deletion policy is ancient. We've had that
settled. But then we got rules. And this belief that the rules trump
our long-established policies.

It's very, very bad.

-Phil


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Sam Korn

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Proposal: Article Improvement Weeks! (was Turn off
	article creation AND deletion.)

body:
On 12/11/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> In my opinion it is never acceptable to keep false information in the
> article namespace.  There are places where eventualism is acceptable,
> but presenting false information as true information is not one of
> them.
>
> Oh well, whatever.  Two separate people seem honestly and irreparably
> opposed to the idea.  I'll just drop it.

I agree with you, but with one caveat.  It shouldn't be removed, just
marked as being unverified.  If it is marked as such, Wikipedia
specifically abdicates all responsibility for the contents.  This way,
the information is still available so *anyone* can verify it, admin or
not.

--
Sam


from_name: JAY JG

subject: [WikiEN-l] The heart of the deletion problem

body:
>From: Snowspinner <Snowspinner at gmail.com>
>
>Screw shutting down AfD. Let's shut down AfD, TfD, CfD, RfD, IfD,  MfD,
>DRV, RFC, RFA, RFM, RFAr, AN, AN/I, AN/3RR, and CVU, and get  back to a
>system based on understanding what we're doing and doing it  instead of
>this goddamned alphabet soup.

Wikipedia is getting bigger and bigger, and can't be run like a small
message board with a couple of moderators.  It's not the tight community it
once was, and people in distress need places they can go for assistance.

Jay.


from_name: Snowspinner

body:
On Dec 11, 2005, at 8:07 PM, JAY JG wrote:
>
> Wikipedia is getting bigger and bigger, and can't be run like a
> small message board with a couple of moderators.  It's not the
> tight community it once was, and people in distress need places
> they can go for assistance.

Of course not - but it can be run like a really big message board
with a whole lot of moderators.

-Phil


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [WikiEN-l] Turn off article creation AND deletion.

body:
On 12/11/05, grm_wnr <grmwnr at gmail.com> wrote:
> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>
> >
> >I would think all namespaces other than article namespace would allow
> >creation.  New talk pages are certainly OK.  Same with new user pages.
> > New project namespace pages, well, we can soft-ban them.
> >
> >Anthony
> >
> >
> Why soft-ban all of them? Not every new project space page is an AFD
> subpage. For example, I think it should still be possible to start a
> Featured Article Candidacy in the cleanup week.
>
> grm_wnr

You're right.  I was thinking more of creating a whole new project
page, not a subpage.


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Wikitech-l] Inactive wikis

body:
I manage the first link...

Mark

On 11/12/05, Zigger <zigger at gmail.com> wrote:
> At least 50% of http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SiteMatrix.
>
> Have a look at:
> http://www.bloglines.com/public/inactivewikipedias
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:SWMT
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Inactive_wikis
>
> -- Zigger
>
> On 12/12/05, Mark Williamson wrote:
> > Which wikis would this be?
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > On 11/12/05, Zigger wrote:
> > > Having spent many hours recently starting to clean out spam from
> > > wikimedia's inactive wikis, I would be very surprised if they are all
> > > regularly monitored.
> > >
> > > The list below is of currently targeted pages on inactive wikis, which
> > > should be deleted (now that there is protection from anon page
> > > creation), or at least protected until the wikis have at least one
> > > active contributor.
> > >
> > > Help:Contents
> > > Current_events
> > > Project:About
> > > Project:General_disclaimer
> > > Project:Community_Portal
> > >
> > > -- Zigger
> > >
> > > On 10/12/05, Mark Williamson wrote:
> > > > These wikis are regularly monitored for vandalism.
> > > >
> > > > Mark
> > > >
> > > > On 09/12/05, Amgine wrote:
> > > > > There is a list of inactive wikis which should be locked at
> > > > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Inactive_wikis which are currently spam
> > > > > traps, with many more to be added. I was wondering if this was still a
> > > > > Steward privilege, or if we need to ask developers to lock these?
> >...
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>

--
"Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Christmas presents, or: MediaWiki, reloaded

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:

>Well, this feature won't do much of anything about trustworthiness. A review
>team marking stable revisions, and proper visible disclaimers on unstable
>development drafts, might.
>
>
Yeah, but this sort of functionality is important for getting those
versions labelled. As Wikipedia currently stands the only way to refer
to specific versions of articles is via full-URL links that the wiki
software doesn't understand any differently than external links, so
there's no convenient way to mark those stable revisions or have the
wiki display appropriately specific disclaimers on them.

Just the fact of having this feature enabled does nothing by itself, of
course, it would be silly to claim otherwise. It's the subsequent _use_
of it to label things that will allow us to answer "you can check the
article's validation status to get a sense of how trustworthy it is" to
our critics' objections.


from_name: Magnus Manske

body:
Ho-ho-ho,

yes, it's a little early, but the presents I bring are not completely
finished either.

My test site [1] now features three features that will, hopefully, ease
some of the pains of reliability and every-day work at wikipedia.

The first one you know, the validation feature, in its current
incarnation. It has already been pre-field-tested by some people from
the German wikipedia.

The other one we talked about, the "stable version". This is a currently
a very basic implementation, and will be overhauled by me to add some
usability and reduce confusion (e.g., clicking "edit" on the stable
version page).

The third one I talked about, but noone saw it yet, so here it is: Task
management! (you gonna love this!)

First, I made some screenshots [2] for the people who don't have time to
read boring text or try it live :-)
Still with me? Great! The task management feature is intended to replace
both the category-and-template based tags like "cleanup" or "wikify",
and the very-long-page-based things like AfD. (Please, don't start yet
another thread about keep/turn off AfD here!)
If you go try it out, better get a user account; so much more fun (can't
change tasks as an anon).

Executive summary:
* Article sidebar
** All open tasks for a page will be displayed in the sidebar of the article
* New tab "Tasks"
** Create new tasks, look at and modify existing tasks for that page
** "Create" ("please create a blank page for a poor anon") and "Write"
("Requested articles") tasks available for non-existing articles
** Tasks can be closed ("closed" or "won't fix")
** You can assign yourself a task; it will be marked as such, so no more
double effort and edit conflict :-)
** Every task, for every page, can have its own discussion page, in a
"Task:" namespace. On these pages, there's backlink and info for the task
* New "Special:Tasks" page
** List your own assignments (so you won't forget them :-)
** Search for (open) tasks

After a long, *long* weekend with little, *little* sleep, resulting in
more than 1000 lines of code for this feature alone, I hereby declare it
"running" :-)

Once I'm rested again, I'll look into additional functions:
* Search for tasks concerning pages in certain categories (yes, that
will include "parent" categories, I hope!)
* Auto assignment: You can sign up for "wikification duty"; a "wikify"
task will be assigned to you, and once you did it, as a reward, you'll
get the next one :-)

Emerging into coma right about ... now! :-)

Magnus

[1] http://www.magnusmanske.de/wikipeerdia/index.php
[2] http://www.magnusmanske.de/tasks/


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: rationale behind the use of hard newlines

references:
<87d5k32vz2.fsf@mat.ucm.es> <439C9AB1.1050703@pobox.com>
	<dnim9n$5nj$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
On 12/11/05, Tim Starling <t.starling at physics.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
> UseModWiki probably took their cue from TeX, which handles newlines in
> roughly the same way. It's convenient at times, for example when quoting
> emails. But it's very inconvenient at times, and I think there probably
> should be a global configuration option or a wikitext tag to change the
> behaviour. There are times when 1 NL = <br/>, 2 NL = <p> would be very
> useful. And in my experience, MediaWiki's line break rules are often
> surprising to a new user.
>
> TeX has much more use for their line break rules -- TeX documents often have
> complex notation, and it's often advantageous to split it up over multiple
> lines and add comments. Also, TeX was invented in a time when editors which
> did word wrapping by inserting line breaks were much more common. With
> MediaWiki, the pros and cons are more balanced.

Oh please no! It's annoying enough dealing with mediawiki wikitext...
I don't want a thousand invisibly different variants running around.


from_name: John Davenport

subject: [WikiEN-l] The ideal disclaimer

body:
On 12/11/05, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> Can we copy this?  "By reading this disclaimer, or indeed any pages on
> this website, the reader agrees not to sue, criticise, or otherwise
> disrupt the operation of Wikipedia at all."

I don't think we should try and discourage criticism of Wikipedia. We
can improve through criticism.


from_name: Matt R

subject: [WikiEN-l] DynamicPageList

body:
Apparently WikiNews uses a Mediawiki feature called "DynamicPageList":

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

Can we have it on en.wikipedia? It would be dead useful.

-- Matt

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto
Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com

___________________________________________________________
NEW Yahoo! Cars - sell your car and browse thousands of new and used cars online! http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/


from_name: Uwe Brauer

subject: [Wikitech-l] rationale behind the use of hard newlines

body:
Hello

Can somebody please tell me the rational behind the decision, that
(soft) newlines are not used for breaking paragraphs into lines.

Thanks

Uwe Brauer


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: Wikipedia's provable anti-expertise bias (was
	Howdidthis happen (comixpedia??))

body:
I think it was generally agreed that this debate was going at
cross-purposes, with me arguing from a page point of view and others
from a content point of view.

I am, however, intrigued you brought this up again after three weeks! ;=)

Sam

On 12/11/05, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Sam Korn wrote:
>
> >On 11/20/05, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>A merge vote means "merge the content elsewhere and then create a
> >>redirect". Someone who votes merge doesn't want the page deleted,
> >>they want the content merged elsewhere. It's important to understand
> >>this, because if we copy content and then delete the original article,
> >>we are violating the GFDL by failing to preserve the edit history.
> >>Instead, we merge content and create a redirect.
> >>
> >>Consequently, there is no need for the closing administrator to count
> >>"merge" as anything but a keep vote. Someone who votes merge wants the
> >>article kept, because the article must be kept in order to merge the
> >>content and comply with the GFDL.
> >>
> >>Ryan
> >
> >
> >How do you know that they want the article kept?
>
> Because of the requirements of the GFDL, like I explained.
>
> Ryan
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFDnKDv6MKb8lYmCtcRAtcjAKCe2xr1j2GmDSBKaGOTVL/Je/VYCwCcCey0
> z2OleB3wXfCAA9QRe5ovzRE=
> =K60N
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Sam


from_name: Delirium

body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:

>For a strawman, let's take [[Myhill?Nerode
>theorem]].  I assume you didn't start that article from memory.  You
>did use a source, right?  Now given a few minutes of searching on
>Google print I could probably come up with a source to verify that
>information, but at the same time you could much more easily simply
>list the book you actually used.
>
>
I did in fact start it from memory, since it's a standard result that
anyone who's taken a theory of computation class would be familiar with.
I could retroactively give a source, but any theory of computation book
will have it. The interested reader would be best served by consulting
whatever book they find easiest to access, rather than having me pick
one of them and tell them to use that specific one. (Of course, in
things that are only in a few books, or treated significantly
differently by different authors, giving the specific reference makes
more sense.)

-Mark


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Turn off AfD

body:
On 12/11/05, Matt Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> See a recent DRV - where a user is merely asking for a deleted article
> to be made visible to see if the content can be re-used elsewhere.
> Someone posted:
>
> >I don't like this kind of request very much, and yes, I know what the
> blurb just up there
> >says. The fact is that this material has been rejected by AfD, and
> this feels like working it
> >back in through th back door.
>
> Ugh.

It is unfortunate that DRV has been overtaken by an assumption of bad
faith to a far worse degree than AfD.  The above comment is not so
unusual.


from_name: charles matthews

subject: [WikiEN-l] Quoting back list footers

body:
> Can we program it to reject messages from people who have taken it  upon
> themselves to demand that people take time to format their  messages
> according to their personal preferences when said formatting  takes
> considerably more time than just ignoring it too?
>
> -Phil

This place has become unpleasantly reminiscent of UseNet, with excess
traffic, profanity, bad editing, bad threading, and a few bad apples.
Killfile 'em - I do.

Charles


subject: [WikiEN-l] The ideal disclaimer

body:
Here is a disclaimer to marvel at:

"DISCLAIMER: The information and opinions expressed on this site are
not necessarilly the opinions of the author and may be denied or
disregarded at a later date. Reading of this paragraph constitutes as
agreement on part of reader not to hold author responsible for any
damaging effects resulting from reading and agreeing with anything
printed on this site; furthermore reader waives all future claims
resulting from changes in law which may render this disclaimer null
and void. This disclaimer is valid in all states with the exception of
those states which have laws forbidding the existence of this
disclaimer, and in states where such laws exist the reader agrees to
read this disclaimer in a state where this disclaimer is binding."

from http://www.ubersoft.net/kpanic/d/20051208.html

Can we copy this?  "By reading this disclaimer, or indeed any pages on
this website, the reader agrees not to sue, criticise, or otherwise
disrupt the operation of Wikipedia at all."

--
Sam


from_name: Mark Gallagher

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Preformatted blank articles? (was Experiment on new
	pages and GFDL)

body:
G'day Andrew,

> On 09/12/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
>
>>While this would just be wikitext, and any experienced Wikipedia regular
>>could of course format an article how they liked, new editors would be
>>presented clearly with what we expect from a new article.
>>
>>With this in place, I think we could even allow anons to create articles
>>again on en:. They certainly wouldn't just put "so what do you want me
>>to type?"
>
> Another benefit: stick in [[Category:New articles]] as prefilled text
> at the bottom. We end up with a cleanup category, where articles will
> go until someone hacks them about a bit and (eg) categorises them. A
> nice corrolary to Newpages, in that you can see an experienced editor
> *hasn't* been at the page yet...
>
> It's worth a shot.

Good ideas all-around.  So ... who wants to write it?

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

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.13/197 - Release Date: 9/12/2005


body:
G'day Steve,

> Jefferson distinguished in his later years between
> what he called "aristocrats" and "democrats." The
> aristocrats are

Wikipedia is not the real world.  Wikipedia is a website; a particularly
extensive and community-driven website, but still a website.  Your
rights have not been violated simply because Jimbo (or the WMF, or the
ArbCom, or the Cabal) fails to consult you every time they make a change.

<snip - good for Jefferson />

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

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.13/197 - Release Date: 9/12/2005


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Quoting back list footers

body:
> Could *somebody* program the mailing list software used by this list
> to reject messages that quote back the list footers, as done *four*
> times in a row above?  That might put a stop to the

<snip inflammatory top-posting vs bottom posting comments>

Wouldn't a better suggestion be, if someone is actually going to
reprogram the list server, to simply trim off all quoted footers?
Computers were designed to do our monotonous work for us, after all.

Steve


body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:

>
>I would think all namespaces other than article namespace would allow
>creation.  New talk pages are certainly OK.  Same with new user pages.
> New project namespace pages, well, we can soft-ban them.
>
>Anthony
>
>
Why soft-ban all of them? Not every new project space page is an AFD
subpage. For example, I think it should still be possible to start a
Featured Article Candidacy in the cleanup week.

grm_wnr


from_name: Oskar Sigvardsson

body:
I must say that I strongly disagree. Contention in AfD has nothing at
all to do with the rules that are needed for it's implementation.
Look, for every AfD-nomination on wikipedia created, there is atleast
one user who really, really wants it in the encyclopedia, and one user
who really, really doesn't (ie the creator and the nominator). One of
them is going to be pissed of, either the nomination fails or
succeeds. No ruleset, however simple is going to change that deletion
is going to piss people off.

Listen, wikipedia works on a few basic principles, as you say, but the
fact is that the english wikipedia is creating an enourmous
encyclopedia of over 800000, and it has to coordinate thousands of
users from all over the world to cooperate to do it. Without the very
strict ruleset that we have (which, by the way, arose quite naturally,
none of the rules excepting the core principles was forced, all of
them came out from consensus) it would never work. Take RfA for
instance. Most of us will agree that it works pretty smooth (atleast I
think so). The reason it works is that the procedures are fixed and
the rules rigid. When someone complains, we say "Well, he did have 85%
support and the bureocrat thought it was a good nomination, so he was
promoted. That's the rules". And it works fine!

Another example, take WP:MUSIC. Many nominations on bands and such go
very smoothly because inclusion-criteria is fixed and rigid. If only
we had such a good guideline (read: rule) for every subject!

Wikipedia doesn't work in spite of the rules, it works because of them!

Have as few or as many templates as you want. Have as few or as many
different alphabet soups as you want. Make it as easy as you want to
nominate or whatever. The deletion problem will still be there,
because the heart of the deletion problem is that people have a
fundamentally different idea of what should be in the encyclopedia.
And that wont go away.

On 12/12/05, Snowspinner <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> The heart of the problem with AfD, DRV, and the rest of the deletion
> suite of pages is this: It is increasingly a pile of rules. Rules
> encourage playing to win. Deletion, like most of Wikipedia, used to
> be based on principles. Principles do not encourage playing to win.
> Principles encourage playing to get it right. But now we have rules.
> Now if an article is improperly speedied, it has to be brought to DRV
> where the masses can vote to send it to AfD and we can have a whole
> AfD with virtually no votes to delete because nobody ever actually
> wanted the article deleted, they just mistakenly thought it was a
> recreation of old content. And let's not forget that the AfD, being
> the second AfD for an article of that title, requires our second AfD
> template, because HEAVEN FORBID we just use one AfD template for all
> our nominations. No, no, we need a second template for second
> nominations.  We also, I believe, have a third for third nominations.
>
> In a setting like this, it is no wonder that people begin to think
> the goal is to win - we've totally abandoned all notion of figuring
> out the Right Solution and implementing it. Instead we value this
> absurd game of Nomic, because we've apparently come to believe that
> the winner of Nomic must be right.
>
> Screw shutting down AfD. Let's shut down AfD, TfD, CfD, RfD, IfD,
> MfD, DRV, RFC, RFA, RFM, RFAr, AN, AN/I, AN/3RR, and CVU, and get
> back to a system based on understanding what we're doing and doing it
> instead of this goddamned alphabet soup.
>
> -Phil
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Turn off AfD

body:
G'day Tony,

> Using WP:MUSIC as a criterion for speedies would be a disaster.  The
> kind of judgement required by WP:MUSIC and similar guidelines is
> rather subjective and requires some research to be done--which
> newpages patrollers are, perhaps understandably, reluctant to do.

Exactly.  We need AfD for deciding if a band passes WP:MUSIC --- and, if
not, whether we should still keep it.

Getting rid of AfD and replacing it with speedy-if-not-WP:MUSIC would be
a Very Bad Idea, for reasons elucidated by Tony and Matt.  Getting rid
of AfD and *not* allowing the use of WP:MUSIC to consider speedying will
just result in the flood of band vanity articles getting stronger.

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

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.13/197 - Release Date: 9/12/2005


body:
G'day David,

> So, experiment suggestions so far:
>
> 1. Switch off anon article creation - in progress.
> 2. Prefill text for new article creation.
> 3. Article Improvement Week.
> 4. Turn off AFD for (a week/a month/ever).
>
> Any others I missed?

Well, there was geni's intriguingly bad "allow admins to delete
anything" idea, which I suggest be expanded to "all admins are allowed
to speedy anything they want, without possibility of undeletion and no
repercussions".  Perhaps we could run it for the same period that AfD is
shutdown?

Cheers,

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

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.13/197 - Release Date: 9/12/2005


body:
David Gerard wrote:

>Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>
>
>
>>I found out what preload is.  See
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Noarticlehere&action=edit&preload=User:Anthony_DiPierro/preload
>>So, in pseudocode (I don't know mediawiki), all that'd need to be done
>>is change:
>>return $text;
>>to:
>>if ($text!='') {
>>  return $text;
>>} else if (namespace is article namespace) {
>>  return $newarticleboilerplate;
>>} else {
>>  return '';
>>}
>>
>>
>
>
>Fabulous! Preloading a blank article form should be not terribly
>traumatic ... How hard would it be to make the preload an option that a
>regular editor can switch off when it gets annoying? (Though I for one
>would probably keep mine on.)
>
>
>[cc to wikitech-l]
>
>- d.
>
>

If the developers need time for this, we could hack up a
[[MediaWiki:monobook.js]] patch in the meantime that checks if  a <div>
with the id "newarticletext" is present, and enters the article template
into the editbox if so. Of course, that would only work for user with
JavaScript-enabled browsers, but I guess the majority of regular
internet users use one (Yes, I'm going to get a lot of "Hey, I'm using
Lynx you insensitive clod!" replies to this). It would only be a stopgap
solution until a server-sided patch is ready anyway. I'm going to give
this a try in my user js now, just for kicks.

grm_wnr


from_name: John Lee

subject: [WikiEN-l] Turn off AfD

body:
David Gerard wrote:

>Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>
>
>
>>Anyway, I see now the article has been redirected to [[Open source
>>religion]].  There was no need for an AFD to do that.
>>
>>
>
>
>Yes. Could the staunch defenders of AFD please give an appropriately
>loving clip round the ear to people who make this sort of unneccessary
>nomination? AFD is the size of a planet as it is.
>
>
>- d.
>
>
Speaking of this, I see a lot of speedy tags these days because
"duplicate of article X" or "author recreated at proper title". It never
fails to amaze me how so many people have totally forgotten about the
existence of redirects.

John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])


from_name: James R. Johnson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Logo switching

body:
That's already been done, but the old logo is still up.

James

-----Original Message-----
From: wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Angela
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 4:53 AM
To: wikipedia-l at wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Logo switching

On 12/10/05, James R. Johnson <modean52 at comcast.net> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>             I need to switch the logo on the Wiktionary, but I'm not sure
on
> how to do that.  There's a file called Wiki.png, and it's protected.  But
> what do I do after that?

It depends which language Wiktionary you're talking about, but
usually, an admin can just upload a new file called "Wiki.png" and it
will overwrite the existing one.

There is also a Wiktionary mailing list at
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l

Angela.
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


from_name: Tom Cadden

subject: [WikiEN-l] Does WP have legal advice?

body:
True Fred. But it is invaluable in terms of media handling of the storyIff a journalist asks Jimbo whether WP has received full legal advice on his actions and he says "yes. And we have been careful to follow it. But different lawyers have different interpretations of the relevant statutes" then the result is one kind of story - "Wikipedia is legal grey area".

 If however Jimbo was to say "no", going by Ray's perspective on things, then the next day you'd have a whole new, big story "Wikipedia never checked law" which would, as we media types say, 'give the story new legs'. It would be a absolute disaster for WP and would see people pissed off by WP rushing to their own lawyers to try to see could they find some reason to sue.

 Not getting legal advice, even if the result was ambiguous, and then having to admit you hadn't done so, would quite simply be suicide for Wikipedia. Ray may not grasp that (yes another example of the niavety and foolishness that got us into this mess) but Jimbo as a successful businessman no doubt does. I also hope that Jimbo is getting professional media advice. Talking to the press without media training, as anyone who either works in the media or in careers that brings them in contact with the media, is chronic stupidity. One wrong phrase in an interview could do WP terminal damage if then quoted worldwide. Every word has to be carefully measured, and all interviews have to be 'on message' with nothing left to chance.

 Thom

Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote: A good lawyer can lay out convincing arguments for both sides of any
proposition.

Fred

On Dec 10, 2005, at 1:09 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:

> Andrew Gray wrote:
>
>
>> On 09/12/05, Matt Brown  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The problem as I see it is that the Wikimedia Foundation might not
>>> want to appear to be passing out legal advice to our
>>> contributors ...
>>>
>>>
>> Indeed. The WMF takes legal advice when it feels the need to take
>> advice, as I understand it; when an active legal issue arises where
>> we're doing something particularly wrong, Things Get Done With
>> Emphasis, Underlined, In Parentheses And Quotated.
>>
>> (or something like that)
>>
>> Recall, for example, the missing-articles-in-Britannica list
>> deletions...
>>
>>
> Yes, I recall it, and if I recall correctly legal opinion was divided.
>
> Ec
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---------------------------------
  Yahoo! Cars NEW - sell your car and browse thousands of new and used cars online search now
---------------------------------


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:

> For some reason I see a huge difference between leaving false
>
>information in and putting a disclaimer at the top and moving the
>information to the talk page.  Doing the latter still leaves the
>information available so anyone can verify it.
>
There is also a big difference between unsourced information and false
information.  Just because it's unsourced does not mean that it is false.

Ec


body:
grm_wnr wrote:

> David Gerard wrote:
>
>> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> I found out what preload is.  See
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Noarticlehere&action=edit&preload=User:Anthony_DiPierro/preload
>>>
>>> So, in pseudocode (I don't know mediawiki), all that'd need to be done
>>> is change:
>>> return $text;
>>> to:
>>> if ($text!='') {
>>>  return $text;
>>> } else if (namespace is article namespace) {
>>>  return $newarticleboilerplate;
>>> } else {
>>>  return '';
>>> }
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Fabulous! Preloading a blank article form should be not terribly
>> traumatic ... How hard would it be to make the preload an option that a
>> regular editor can switch off when it gets annoying? (Though I for one
>> would probably keep mine on.)
>>
>>
>> [cc to wikitech-l]
>>
>> - d.
>>
>>
>
> If the developers need time for this, we could hack up a
> [[MediaWiki:monobook.js]] patch in the meantime that checks if  a
> <div> with the id "newarticletext" is present, and enters the article
> template into the editbox if so. Of course, that would only work for
> user with JavaScript-enabled browsers, but I guess the majority of
> regular internet users use one (Yes, I'm going to get a lot of "Hey,
> I'm using Lynx you insensitive clod!" replies to this). It would only
> be a stopgap solution until a server-sided patch is ready anyway. I'm
> going to give this a try in my user js now, just for kicks.
>
> grm_wnr

function ArticleSkeletonPreload() {
  if (document.getElementById("wpTextbox1") &&
document.getElementById("newarticletext") &&
document.getElementById("ca-nstab-main") && !noarticleskeleton) {
    document.getElementById("wpTextbox1").value="A '''pagetitle''' is
... (say what the article is about, with a bit of introductory
detail)\n\n==More detail==\n\n(If there's more to say about it, put in
sections with == == on the name of each section)\n\n==See
also==\n\n==References==\n*List the sources you used in writing this
article)\n*\n*\n\n==External links==\n* (List the few most relevant
external web pages on the subject (home pages, etc) that you know
of)\n\n[[Category:Newly created pages]]";
  }
}
noarticleskeleton = false;
addLoadEvent(ArticleSkeletonPreload);

That was simpler than I thought - the above works for me on Firefox,
Opera and IE6. It only acts in the article namespace. Users can add
"noarticleskeleton=true;" in their monobook.js to turn it off (that last
part is not fully tested, since I'd have to put the script live on
MediaWiki:monobook.js for that - I'm not bold enough to do this, but
feel free to use it/abuse it/edit it mercilessly)

grm_wnr


body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:

> Well, I think I've made it abundantly clear I disagree. Those
>
>mathematical articles should all be referenced.  The person who is in
>the best position to do that is the original author.  Sure, we can
>grandfather these old ones in, but going forward I don't see why we
>can't just put in this information from the beginning.  (And no, if
>you make it optional, people aren't going to do it.)
>
>Articles can always be undeleted.  "Forcing someone" to drop a note on
>an admin page that you'd like a particular article undeleted so you
>can add references to it is just not that significant (especially
>compared to sitting on AFD for 5 days).  And like I said before, I'd
>prefer that anyone can see this deleted text without bugging an admin
>anyway.
>
It seems totally inconsistent to say that a person can always ask for an
undeletion, but then preferring that the admins not need to be bugged
with the task.  If they are simply tagged nobody will need to bug the
admins to do extra work.

Ec


body:
Delirium wrote:

> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>
>> Well, I think I've made it abundantly clear I disagree.  Those
>> mathematical articles should all be referenced.  The person who is in
>> the best position to do that is the original author.
>
> For most of them, the original author is no better placed to reference
> them than anyone else, because they're results that appear in standard
> textbooks.  I could singlehandedly "reference" most of the linear
> algebra articles, for example, just by copy/pasting the reference list
> from [[linear algebra]] to the end of every one.  But in cases where
> something is a standard result in elementary textbooks, I don't see
> what advantage actually listing some arbitrarily chosen textbook gives
> the reader.

Sourcing standards need to vary from one topic to the next, or according
to the nature of the materials.  Anything that could libel a living
person needs a much stricter standard than basic textbook math.

Ec


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] NPOV trainwreck

body:
I think the fact that our most extreme POV pushers on both the right
and the left are united on how worthless the arbitration committee is
says something good about us. Neither is able to deal a knockout blow
to the other. They are both welcome to edit, provided Wikipedia
policies such as courtesy, NPOV and citing reliable sources are
followed. If the dialogue degenerates into personal attacks and
futile edit warring with each side removing well referenced
information inserted by the other limits will be imposed.

Fred

On Dec 9, 2005, at 5:18 PM, Ruy Lopez wrote:

> I surprisingly find myself in agreement with many things about this
> ArbCom decision with Sam Spade.
>
> Here's how I see it:
>
> 1) Jimbo, who said he sees Wikipedia as a "von Mises model",
> appoints like-minded people to
> ArbCom such as Fred Bauder and JayJG.  Jimbo appoints conservative
> cronies like that, making
> a far worse choice than the ArbCom elections, which in my view
> elected some good, decent people
> like Raul654, who I don't always agree with, but at least is
> neutral, fair and so forth.
> 2) So Fred Bauder, Jimbo-appointed conservative cronie from way
> back "does" the case, and most of
> the other arbs just sign off on the work he did.  I've seen this
> movie before.
> 3) Getting onto ArbCom went from Jimbo appointments (who like JayJG
> and Bauder are horrible), to
> an election, which brought in good arbs, and now he wants to go
> back to appointing people again.
> Of course he can't just kill the election once it's in place, so he
> says he will have an election
> to help him decide or some garbage like that.  I mean it's
> nonsense.  Despite the "be bold" mantra,
> I am usually not so bold on such things, but I moved the "ArbCom
> 2005 elections" page to something
> like "Arbcom 2005 support vote" and noted that there would be no
> elections.  Of course I was
> immediately reverted, and my notes on how the election is a fraud
> were removed.
> 4) Reading myself, I'd think I'm just another Wikipedia crank,
> except I'm not because I "gave up"
> on Wikipedia months ago.  It will be some time before the
> alternative wikis like Demopedia, Dkosopedia,
> Anarchopedia, Red Wiki and so forth get momentum though (which I am
> helping generate), so I am kind of
> stuck here for a bit unfortunately.  For those who have agreed with
> little I have said so far, here
> is one thing I'll say that if you think about it, you might agree
> with me on.  Wouldn't it be a good
> thing for all the "left wing cranks" to go off and edit some other
> wiki encyclopedia?  Wouldn't that
> stop a lot of edit wars and nonsense, and people could concentrate
> on making the pages in the Science,
> Mathematics, Technology and so forth pages better, instead of
> wasting time on all of this other nonsense?
> For some reason, Wikipedia has grabbed onto and held onto the third
> rail of politics, and the only
> reason why I can think this happened is because Ayn-Rand-reading
> porn magnate Jimbo wants it that way.
> I should also note that when I heard Brian Lamb ask Jimbo about Ayn
> Rand and porn, I was of course
> delighted, and if there is a God, I hoped I had something to do
> with that question being asked.
> 5) Nobs01 is not a von Mises, Ayn Rand reader.  He is not a rabid
> Zionist like JayJG.  He is not a
> conservative hick lawyer like Fred Bauder who probably wears cowboy
> boots.  He is a complete nutcase,
> he is not playing with all 52 cards in the deck.  Go to Nobs01's
> user page, and go through the history,
> and ask yourself if this is the user page of someone who is well in
> the head.  And I live in a city where
> I meet nutty people all the time.  Nobs01 is a nut even nuts are
> scared of.  And ArbCom is doing nothing except a month ban of him
> for personal attacks.  Is this going to solve the problem?  Is
> thing going to solve  Nobs spreading his crank red-under-every-bed
> theories around Wikipedia?
>
> Ruy
>
> --
> ___________________________________________________
> Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Blackcap

subject: [WikiEN-l] So, is there a lag in getting posted?

body:
I had the same question. I've just recently subscribed, and it seems that my
posts don't go on for a while. I don't mind, we need to check emails for
spam and that sort of thing, but how long does this go on for? I couldn't
find any info on that.


from_name: John Platt

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Anons cannot create pages on english wikipedia?

body:
On 12/11/05, Roman Maurer <roman.maurer at amis.net> wrote:
>
>
> I can't see why would it be a good idea in English, but I don't really
> care, as long as this policy stays out of my favourite wikipedia.
> --
>         Pozdrav,
>           Roman
>

As a user of the English Wikipedia who can't say he's very productive, and
doesn't even believe in objectivity, I have to say that the level of
vandalism is pretty bad.

While the policy is only that if you want to create an article or stub you
should take responsibility for it by creating an an account, which seems
fine to me, I've seen a number of pages of people I'm familiar with who have
what is best described as a cult following (if you don't like them you're
not likely to care about them) either defaced totally or with phrases or
paragraphs in them intended to incite.

I see this as a positive development because it reinforces courtesy and
responsibility, both of which the Wikipedia itself requires but can't
necessarily enforce.  I certainly hope your favorite Wikipedia never
requires it.


from_name: Angela

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Logo switching

body:
On 12/12/05, James R. Johnson <modean52 at comcast.net> wrote:
> That's already been done, but the old logo is still up.

Assuming you're talking about <http://ang.wiktionary.org/>, I'm
guessing it's not enabled there since the image is uploaded correctly.
Submitting a request on bugzilla.wikimedia.org would probably be the
quickest way of getting it to work.

Angela.


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [WikiEN-l] Does WP have legal advice?

body:
Good public relations and being legally correct don't really have much
of a correlation other than by accident.  I think it's more important
for the press that we do what we think is right and that we explain
why we're doing it, not that we got some <s>slimy</s> lawyer to sign
off on things first.

For legal advice to be useful, the lawyer giving the advice would have
to take responsibility for getting things wrong, and I'm sure it's
hard to find someone willing to do that for very cheap.  Outside of
that, lawyers can point to the laws themselves and how they were
interpreted by particular courts and not much else.  This is something
that anyone can do, though a good lawyer working in that field would
likely point to a broader range of relevant information than a law
student or other non-lawyer (or a lawyer who doesn't work in that
field, who quite likely might not know any more than a non-lawyer who
does work in that field).

In some cases the legal protections offered by relying on legal advice
might be worth it.  But, in general, managment usually has to make a
lot of decisions on their own.

Anthony


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Proposal: Article Improvement Weeks! (was Turn
	offarticle creation AND deletion.)

body:
On 12/11/05, JoanneB <joannebennaoj at gmail.com> wrote:
> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>
> > I proposed requring editors that aren't logged in to enter text into
> > the comment field, when editing the article namespace.  This would be
> > done with the intention of extending it to all non-minor edits to the
> > article namespace if the experiment succeeded.
> >
> > In fact, of the 3 non-implemented experiments above, I think this one
> > would be the least controversial.
> >
>
> I disagree on this one. As a frequent Recent Changes patroller, using a
> combination of CoolCat's IRC bot, CDVF and Special:Recentchanges, I have
> come to appreciate the predictability of a lot of the vandals: no edit
> summary, using an IP. Of course, I glance over every edit summary too, but
> in my experience, usually the people using edit summaries are editing 'in
> good faith'.
>
> Forcing people to leave an edit summary for all non-minor edits, will in my
> view result in one or more of the following results:
>
> 1. Non-sense comments: "sldkjlsdfj" or "."
> 2. Abusive comments in edit summaries
> 3. People marking all their edits as minor, to avoid having to leave an edit
> summary.
>
> That way, vandalism will be harder to spot and there will be more 'noise' in
> the edit histories.
>
Hmm.  Wouldn't 1 and 2 make vandalism *easier* to spot?  Or do you
think a significant number of good editors would make nonsense
comments or even abusive ones?

As for 3, the part I throught was pretty non-controversial would be
limited to editors who weren't logged in, and who therefore can't mark
edits as minor anyway.

I guess I'll have to look at recent changes more closely.  I got the
sense that the majority of edits by IP users who left no edit summary
were good ones.  If you're saying that good editors who aren't logged
in already leave edit summaries, then I guess forcing everyone to
leave them wouldn't accomplish anything.

> I think an option that forces you to leave an edit summary, which can be
> switched on in the preferences, would be better: if you stimulate people
> using that, you'll have more quality edit summaries and not an increase in
> nonsense and abusive summaries.
>
> Regards,
> JoanneB

Well, my initial proposal was only to apply to users that weren't
logged in, so they don't have a preferences.  I'm more skeptical about
whether or not it's a good idea for all users.  In fact, you're
starting to convince me it actually isn't.

I'd only want the experiment to affect users that weren't logged in,
though.  Any extension beyond that would take further discussion and
research first.

Anthony


list: foundation-l

from_name: Amgine

subject: [Foundation-l] Two new Wikinews sites

body:
The Thai and Arabic requests for new Wikinews language editions have
gathered enough contributors and built the required policies, pages, and
templates to meet launch requirements.

Please see the proposals at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/New_language_pre-launch

The Arabic main page layout may be viewed at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ar.Wikinews.%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B5%D9%81%D8%AD%D8%A9_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D8%A6%D9%8A%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%A9
(alas, the weather bot is currently not operable, so they will need to
change their layout some.)

The Thai main page layout may be viewed at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Th.wikinews_%E0%B8%AB%E0%B8%99%E0%B9%89%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%AB%E0%B8%A5%E0%B8%B1%E0%B8%81
and is a progressively complex layout design!

I'd like to request these two Wikinews editions be created to support
these contributors!

Amgine


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Two new Wikinews sites


from_name: Keller Florian

subject:
[Wikitech-l] RE: Wie gleichzeitig mehrere Wikis betreiben (Arena
	Andrea)

body:
Hello andy,

This is not the right mailgroup if you write in german.

So anyways I try my best in german ;):

Wenn du dein Wiki auf mehereren Sprachen machen willst w?rde ich nicht f?r jede Sprache ein Wikipedia installieren sondern f?r jede Sprache ein namespace definieren. Diesbez?glich wirst du eine Menge Informationen auf meta Wiki finden.

Die Images sind soweit ich das sehe nicht in der Datenbank sondern unter <wikiroot>/images zu finden. Auf der Datenbank wirst du nur die links finden Bild -> Artikel

Aber mehrere Namespace sind meiner Meinung nach sicher die sauberste L?sung f?r sowas. Falls du dennoch nicht diesen Weg gehen willst, solltest du auf einer Datenbank s?mtliche Daten speichern und prefix bei den tables verwenden bsp:

En_page
It_page
De_page

Etc. und den Code anpassen damit die image table ?berall gleich verlinkt ist. Dies ist jedoch nicht unriskant und mit viel mehrarbeit verbunden da dir niemand versichern kann das das Datenbank design so bleibt wie es jetzt ist.

Habe auch viel mit PHP f?r Wiki gecoded und beim Wechsel von 1.4 auf 1.5 wo sich sehr viel am Datenbankdesign ge?ndert hatte grossen Aufwand hatte.

Gruss,

Flo

> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: wikitech-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
> [mailto:wikitech-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] Im Auftrag von
> wikitech-l-request at wikimedia.org
> Gesendet: Samstag, 10. Dezember 2005 13:15
> An: wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> Betreff: Wikitech-l Digest, Vol 29, Issue 16
>
> Send Wikitech-l mailing list submissions to
> 	wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	wikitech-l-request at wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	wikitech-l-owner at wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wikitech-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Hooking (Aron Rubin)
>    2. Re: Hooking (Peter Danenberg)
>    3. Inactive wikis (Amgine)
>    4. Re: Inactive wikis (Mark Williamson)
>    5. Re: Re: Preformatted blank articles? (was Experiment on	new
>       pages and GFDL) (Tels)
>    6. Stupid Mediawiki Tricks: logical templates (David Gerard)
>    7. Re: Re: Preformatted blank articles? (was Experiment
> on	new
>       pages and GFDL) (Erik Moeller)
>    8. Re: Account creation spike on enwiki after anonymous	page
>       creation got disabled (Dori)
>    9. upgrade error messages (FxParlant)
>   10. Re: Re: Preformatted blank articles? (was Experiment on	new
>       pages and GFDL) (Tels)
>   11. Wie gleichzeitig mehrere Wikis betreiben (Arena Andrea)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 16:52:39 -0500
> From: Aron Rubin <arubin at atl.lmco.com>
> Subject: [Wikitech-l] Hooking
> To: wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <4399FCA7.2070809 at atl.lmco.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Why are there so few hooks in MediaWiki? Is this part of an
> effort to be
> lean or have you not gotten around to it?
>
> Aron
>
> --
>
> ssh aron at rubinium.org cat /dev/brain | grep ^work:
>
> Aron Rubin                       Member, Engineering Staff
> Lockheed Martin                  E-Mail: arubin at atl.lmco.com
> Advanced Technology Laboratories Phone:  856.792.9865
> 3 Executive Campus               Fax:    856.792.9930
> Cherry Hill, NJ USA 08002        Web:    http://www.atl.lmco.com
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 15:37:44 -0600
> From: Peter Danenberg <pcd at wikitex.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Hooking
> To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l at wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <20051209213744.GA23886 at wikitex.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> > Why are there so few hooks in MediaWiki?
>
>
>      Imbalanced forward pack, I'm afraid; locks and flankers
> are in order, but the front row needs some work.
>
>      In good sadness, though, did you  have  something  like
> Apache's bucket brigades in mind?
>
> --
> Peter Danenberg                                           .
> wikisophia.org                                           ..:
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 22:42:59 +0000
> From: Amgine <amgine at saewyc.net>
> Subject: [Wikitech-l] Inactive wikis
> To: wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <439A0873.2060302 at saewyc.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> There is a list of inactive wikis which should be locked at
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Inactive_wikis which are currently spam
> traps, with many more to be added. I was wondering if this was still a
> Steward privilege, or if we need to ask developers to lock these?
>
> Amgine
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 15:47:07 -0700
> From: Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Inactive wikis
> To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l at wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <849f98ed0512091447g590d99e8x at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> These wikis are regularly monitored for vandalism.
>
> Mark
>
> On 09/12/05, Amgine <amgine at saewyc.net> wrote:
> > There is a list of inactive wikis which should be locked at
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Inactive_wikis which are
> currently spam
> > traps, with many more to be added. I was wondering if this
> was still a
> > Steward privilege, or if we need to ask developers to lock these?
> >
> > Amgine
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> >
>
>
> --
> "Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 23:53:13 +0100
> From: Tels <nospam-abuse at bloodgate.com>
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Re: Preformatted blank articles? (was
> 	Experiment on	new pages and GFDL)
> To: wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> Cc: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID: <200512092353.37230 at bloodgate.com>
> Content-Type: Text/Plain;  charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> Moin David,
>
> On Friday 09 December 2005 21:58, David Gerard wrote:
> > Tels wrote:
> [snipabit]
> > Yep!
> >
> > > The most FAQ was "How do I start a new article?" followed
> by "And why
> > > is this so complicated?", closely followed by "How do I add a
> > > headline again?"
> >
> > That's specifically why I put how to make a section in that in the
> > example ;-)
> >
> > I did a radio interview on Wikipedia yesterday. I actually tried to
> > lure casual editors to feel free to edit.
> >
> > It'd be nice if anon contributors could start articles again. If
> > regulars don't like getting a template, perhaps it could be
> on just for
> > anon editors.
>
> I think anon users rights have nothing to do with this issue
> of whether
> the edit box should be pre-filled or not, and whether it
> should be easier
> to create new articles :)
>
> (IMHO anon edits should be disallowed entirely, but this is just my
> private opinion which doesn't carry much weight and/or might be
> wrong/impractical/impolite etc :)
>
> > > Especially in-frequent contributors tend to forget these
> things very
> > > quick and since the computer should help the humans and not vice
> > > versa, I finally patched my local Mediawiki installation
> to fix this
> > > issue. Everyone's been happy since :)
> >
> > Please submit the patch! (Is there a bug for this yet?)
>
> Actually, I just added one new link to the toolbox on the
> left, which goes
> to a HTML page with a form entry on a webserver, which
> bounces the user
> back to the wiki. I am sure it is possible to create a specialpage
> (Specialpages:NewArticle?) that does the same, but the
> external form was
> easier for me.
>
> The disadvantage of my solution is that you need to be
> already logged in
> for the form to work, otherwise you get the "please login
> first" message,
> and since clicking "log me in" on that page loses the "where you came
> from" (which is a bug), the user will then be on the main page.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Tels
>
> - --
>  Signed on Fri Dec  9 23:46:06 2005 with key 0x93B84C15.
>  Visit my photo gallery at http://bloodgate.com/photos/
>  PGP key on http://bloodgate.com/tels.asc or per email.
>
>  'Wie Ludger L?genboldt, Sprecher der Interessengemeinschaft
> F?rderer der
>  Prostitution International (I.F.P.I.) jetzt bekannt gab,
> entstehen der
>  Zuh?lterbrache j?hrlich Milliardenverluste durch kostenfreien Sex.
>  "Bestimmt h?tten unsere M?dels im Jahr 2003 alleine in
> Deutschland 2000
>  Millionen Quickies mehr verkaufen k?nnen, wenn die Leute nicht immer
>  mehr privat rumv?geln w?rden. Der uns entstandene Schaden
> bel?uft sich
>  auf mindestens 100000000000 Euro." Schuld sei nach Angaben
> L?genboldts
>  das Internet: "Flirtportale und Singlewebsites mit
> Kontaktb?rsen machen
>  unser Gesch?ft kaputt.  Amateure rauben uns unserer
>  Gesch?ftsgrundlagen." Zehntausende von Arbeitspl?tzen in Deutschland
>  seien gef?hrdet, die ?berdies gerade geringer qualifizieren jungen
>  Frauen ein Einkommen sicherten. Die I.F.P.I. fordert den Gesetzgeber
>  auf, diesem Treiben umgehend Schranken zu setzen.' MI-Boykotteur at
>  2004-05-07 at http://tinyurl.com/35qjo
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iQEVAwUBQ5oK4XcLPEOTuEwVAQG9EAf/Sra72bA66lpQ5j+45tyagutoZKFe+kOM
> J8I6hSlNvee/Zf/N6u0hqizrDD6ZCMPIGQKclDD+AnFVZcrTWV5KOMlNPNuJmMpc
> SPc2k3H0gB3ulLS1gYneOyTEeY/IQUl4peqBNY+QC6MVvClKxTn67N1vYiiW+C+A
> ucVEUnaCLbf/159KaN/XfSLTLmliE5/rn9PPth1x29mhkbLYOXPm1s1UfINFEIam
> +W5sT7WqptlbgmIW3PbuX9KTPejqgU/bgb8SUY1x17GUiSgWhoIjyjZb/hgAJWVt
> kQUswgKp6Abv2PmzTVp7rRZDCLnh16dZM2rMFndqvxgvAthsLvQ6MA==
> =Au5O
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 23:33:04 +0000
> From: David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au>
> Subject: [Wikitech-l] Stupid Mediawiki Tricks: logical templates
> To: wikitech-l at wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <439A1430.5050100 at thingy.apana.org.au>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> [[:en:Category:If Templates]]
> [[:en:Category:Boolean Templates]]
>
> Check out some of the code in them, too, but make sure you
> haven't eaten
> first.
>
> The perpetrators of this l33tn3ss are trying to gut [[:en:WP:AUM]] by
> consensus, because everyone knows database performance and computer
> science in general can be determined by voting. Or maybe it can't.
>
> What would the Stupid Mediawiki Tricks in these things do to the
> database and the cache structure? If it's as bad as I suspect
> it would,
> could some of you please stop by [[:en:WT:AFD]] and describe
> reality to
> them?
>
>
> - d.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 02:01:36 +0100
> From: Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de>
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Re: Preformatted blank articles? (was
> 	Experiment	on	new pages and GFDL)
> To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l at wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <439A28F0.5010807 at gmx.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Tels:
>
> > Actually, I just added one new link to the toolbox on the
> left, which goes
> > to a HTML page with a form entry on a webserver, which
> bounces the user
> > back to the wiki. I am sure it is possible to create a specialpage
> > (Specialpages:NewArticle?) that does the same, but the
> external form was
> > easier for me.
> >
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Inputbox
>
> This has been active on the Wikimedia wikis for quite a while. I
> originally created it for Wikinews, but it's used in many different
> places now. It supports preloading text.
>
> Erik
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 21:30:58 -0600
> From: Dori <slowpoke at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Account creation spike on enwiki after
> 	anonymous	page creation got disabled
> To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l at wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> 	<d2f92e8b0512091930s76586019j7c51fa0c48700205 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> On 12/9/05, ??var Arnfj??r?? Bjarmason <avarab at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I made a plot[1] of account creations on the English Wikipedia based
> > on Newuserlog data, there has been quite a spike since
> anonymous page
> > creation got disabled, although the numbers are a bit
> inaccurate since
> > it has also been in the press lately.
> >
> > [1]:
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Account_cre
> ations_on_the_English_Wikipedia.png
>
> Time to start selling low UID accounts on eBay. Just in time for the
> fundraising too.
>
> Dori
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 11:09:41 +0100
> From: FxParlant <f-x.p at laposte.net>
> Subject: [Wikitech-l] upgrade error messages
> To: wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <dne9ms$g95$1 at sea.gmane.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Hello,
>
> just for information. Upgrading might fail for duplicate
> content on some
> fields who become a primary key.
>
> Unfortunately, the 1.5 install isn't as verbose as 1.4 install:
>
> ***1.5 error message***
> Making img_name the primary key... Query "ALTER TABLE image
> ADD PRIMARY
> KEY img_name (img_name)" failed with error code "".
>
>
> ***1.4 error message***
> Making img_name the primary key... Query "ALTER TABLE image
> ADD PRIMARY
> KEY img_name (img_name)" failed with error code "Duplicate entry
> 'README' for key 1".
>
>
> I suggest for users who have a duplicate content making a crash of 1.5
> install, to revert their database and try the install with a
> 1.4. Then,
> correct the database by suppressing one of the duplicate content, and
> redo the 1.5 install.
>
> I hope this is already in bugzilla (if not, maybe someone used to
> expressing the bug could make it) and the install process in
> 1.6 are as
> verbose as in 1.4.
>
>
> Fran?ois
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 12:11:03 +0100
> From: Tels <nospam-abuse at bloodgate.com>
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Re: Preformatted blank articles? (was
> 	Experiment on	new pages and GFDL)
> To: wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> Cc: Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de>
> Message-ID: <200512101211.14134 at bloodgate.com>
> Content-Type: Text/Plain;  charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> Moin,
>
> On Saturday 10 December 2005 02:01, Erik Moeller wrote:
> > Tels:
> > > Actually, I just added one new link to the toolbox on the
> left, which
> > > goes to a HTML page with a form entry on a webserver,
> which bounces
> > > the user back to the wiki. I am sure it is possible to create a
> > > specialpage (Specialpages:NewArticle?) that does the same, but the
> > > external form was easier for me.
> >
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Inputbox
> >
> > This has been active on the Wikimedia wikis for quite a while. I
> > originally created it for Wikinews, but it's used in many different
> > places now. It supports preloading text.
>
> Wow, saves me the work of creating it :) Thanx a lot,
>
> Tels
>
> - --
>  Signed on Sat Dec 10 12:10:43 2005 with key 0x93B84C15.
>  Visit my photo gallery at http://bloodgate.com/photos/
>  PGP key on http://bloodgate.com/tels.asc or per email.
>
>  "Man, I'm hot." - "Thirsty?" - "No, I mean good looking."
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iQEVAwUBQ5q30HcLPEOTuEwVAQHUzwf/SRq0Y0hkSmuu84TOyLyeet1xhy1LKGpD
> bURLDgIZrjz8uNwi3UsUwSVr7oLGbx6Kd7gLR3zZV2Cids/WdhAgTcD6MetANDzl
> BfC/fmqTbjONf2Zt90FztaBZhrCz5DwHH3vNPoaLKq0knNaViUA4ooSy7iHlAyr2
> 7gd+ADMOK6Z0RYEGwLriZe8cWhS4jNu00ccXXB43sCm3Vpxa7c4lxqipB65wEeyb
> MGbe1swk2PAINiCFaxBktqplhINE4SSetcEwj6lel9bTyraY9oVzcCPrs2FCMtXC
> aoR87FkAhSxATevR8lv5XQodilPChdeMsufl8Wd7MFr2jBV7KJKxKA==
> =kY70
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 18:49:32 +0100
> From: Arena Andrea <andrea at arena.cd>
> Subject: [Wikitech-l] Wie gleichzeitig mehrere Wikis betreiben
> To: mediawiki-l at Wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <43197370-FE31-412E-9EA4-67BB9853F876 at arena.cd>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
> Hallo,
>
> Unser Projekt soll ein Wiki, dass in den Sprachen Deutsch,
> Italienisch, Franz?sich und English erh?ltlich werden. Dazu
> kommt ein
> Wiki, dass nur f?r  Administratoren da ist, sprich kein bearbeiten
> f?r den user.
>
> Bis jetzt habe ich nur die Mediawiki Software auf einer
> Deutschen und
> dieser gesch?tzes Wiki installieren k?nnen.
> Ich habe zwei Ordner mit Mediawiki und zwei Datenbanken erstellt.
>
> Der Skin sollte bei allen Sprachen gleich aussehen.
>
> Wie ist es systematisch am besten, die weiteren wikis zu installieren?
>
>
> M?chte nochmals mein Ziel erkl?ren:
>
> Der User sieht auf der Hauptseite links im Menu die verschiedenen
> Sprachen, wenn er z.b. auf Italienisch klickt, erscheint der Artikel
> auf Italienisch(inklusiv der Navigation). Und das mit allen Sprachen.
>
> Wie ist das im Hintergrund am besten zu installlieren? Die Skins,
> Extensions und ganz wichtig die Bilder sollten f?r alle verf?gbar
> sein (keine doppelten dateien). Wie mache ich dann dass mit der
> Bilder Datenbank?
>
>
> Vielen Dank im voraus
>
> andy
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>
> End of Wikitech-l Digest, Vol 29, Issue 16
> ******************************************
>


from_name: Chris Lüer

subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Seigenthaler-Rufmörder   offenbar gefu nden / Seigenthaler's libeler already identified  ( according to Daniel Brandt)

body:
At 04:00 AM 12/10/2005, Mathias Schindler wrote:

>http://www.lvz-online.de/lvz-heute/13167.html

A Brockhaus (largest commercial German encyclopedia) editor who was
to be fired tried to kill a colleague with a kitchen knife.

More evidence that writing an encyclopedia turns you crazy. There
should be a warning on the Wikipedia front page.

         Chl


from_name: Giuseppe DAngelo

subject: [Wikipedia-l] task what?

body:
... umm, can you run that past me again?  :-)
  seriously, great work!
  pippu d'angelo

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi, antispam, antivirus, POP3


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: The heart of the deletion problem

body:
Michael Snow wrote:

> And it's very easy to give people the wrong idea when we don't have a
> final or even a stable version of anything. Considering that Wikipedia
> has been going for five years, I think we're ready to start. Stable
> versions, even more than article ratings, are a feature we need. In
> fact, I think setting up article ratings before stable versions is
> completely backwards, because it's the stable versions we should be
> asking people to rate.

I generally agree with your comments, although this one strikes me as
backwards.  I see ratings as a way of determining whether an article is
in fact stable.  If an article must first be judged stable what would be
the mechanism for making that decision?

The lack of an agreed mechanism for doing that has been a major factor
in not getting the 1.0 project off the ground.

Ec


from_name: wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] RE: No wonder people don't realize...

body:
> From: Steve Bennett <wiki at stevage.com>
> Hi all,
>   I've always had my bookmark set to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page,
> where it's prominently written "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free
> encyclopedia that anyone can edit".  However, for any visitor who comes
> directly through www.wikipedia.org, this is not the case.

It's far worse than that. Mirrors usually do not say "edit this page,"
and frequently serve up Wikipedia content with titles such as
"Encyclopedia article about thus-and-such."

And it's going to get even worse. As I noted elsewhere, dozens of news
sources have published stories like one in Information Week. Their
story title was "Wikipedia Tightens Rules For Posting" and their
subhead was "After an article incorrectly linked the assassination of
Robert F. Kennedy to a former administrative assistant, Wikipedia no
longer accepts new submissions from anonymous contributors."

Now_we_ all understand that logged-in users are just as anonymous as
unlogged-in users. And we all know that the headline is a bad summary,
and that anyone that carefully reads Information Week's article will
see that's not what Jimbo said. (He said "A person now has to register
with the site before contributing an article. By doing this, site
managers can at least determine whether a person associated with a
specific user ID is submitting false information, and prevent articles
from being submitted by that registrant.")

But I'll bet that's not what 99% of the people reading these news
articles think. Just wait until the next Seigenthaler incident happens,
and the victim finds that... as perceived by the outside world...
Wikipedia says _again_ that it does not know who created the article,
after the public thought it had said that promised that it would "no
longer accepts new submissions from anonymous contributors."

Will the general public accept this as good faith? Yes, about as good
faith as Clinton's statement that he never had sex with that woman
Monica Lewinsky.


from_name: Magnus Manske

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:

>Magnus Manske wrote:
>
>
>>The first one you know, the validation feature, in its current
>>incarnation. It has already been pre-field-tested by some people from
>>the German wikipedia.
>>
>>
>
>This is still going to need rewriting before we can safely use it.
>
>
Well, it could've been ready right now, if you had told me what's wrong
when I asked, about a dozen times, for month...

>
>
>>The other one we talked about, the "stable version". This is a currently
>>a very basic implementation, and will be overhauled by me to add some
>>usability and reduce confusion (e.g., clicking "edit" on the stable
>>version page).
>>
>>
>
>Please confirm that you have talked with Tim, who is already working on version
>tagging keeping our caching requirements in mind.
>
>
No I didn't, I wasn't aware to that. (Which probably means I heared
about it but promptly forgot;-)

Anyway, mine is very simple: a new field in the page table, indication
the current "stable" version, or "0" if there is none. And a small
notice in the sub-header, with links.

Tim, if yours is more advances/better integrated/favorable in some other
way, please tell me so I won't waste any more time on my implementation
here.

Magnus


subject:
[WikiEN-l] No wonder people don't realise that anyone can edit
	Wikipedia

body:
On 12/12/05, Steve Bennett <wiki at stevage.com> wrote:
> Can we blame people for thinking Wikipedia is more authoritative than it
> is? Is it not time that a banner "Anyone could have written this.
> Including you." appeared for anonymous users?  What exactly, if anything
> other than possible "aesthetics", would be the argument against warning
> users against taking Wikipedia at its word?
>
> Steve

Well, most "anonymous" users *can't* edit Wikipedia.  Wikipedia blocks
most anonymizing proxies, after all.

Anyway, can we blame people for thinking Wikipedia is more
authoritative than it is?  Sure, you shouldn't believe something just
because you read it on the Internet, even if that site claims to be an
encyclopedia.

But then again, I have my doubts Wikipedia should be calling itself an
encyclopedia in the first place.  It's not really an encyclopedia,
it's a website for a group of people who are building an encyclopedia.
 I remember arguing that years ago on IRC, though, and I lost the
argument.  Most Wikipedians insist that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia,
even though common sense says that it is not.

Anthony


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Turn off AfD

body:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

>>It's this notion of a "somewhat final decision" that's the problem.  Two
>>editors, at least one of whom must be a sysop for technical reasns,
>>should be all that's needed for undeletion.
>>
>>Ec
>>
>>
>Why should 2 people be able to overthrow a bunch of others in case
>where there's nothing wrong with their judgement? You'd need a bloody
>good reasons for an undeletion. If you have evidence they were
>misinformed, undelete. If you know they didn't provide a valid
>rationale, undelete. If they provided a now outdated rationale,
>undelete. But undeletions as well as deletions should be proofed and
>checked by the community before they happen.
>
>
"Overthrow" seems like a drastic term in these circumstances.  Why
should a desire to undelete something be seen as an attack on their
judgement?  Things have gone too far when the deleters take a simple
request to undelete as a serious criticism of their personal judgement.
It's as though they are insisting that they are never wrong.

Most of the deleted articles are unlikely to even have one person who
wants to undelete, ever.  If even one person who knows anything about
the subject was not available at the time of the deletion he should be
able to have a meaningful influence on the decision.  Even in your terms
that alone should satisfy the "misinformed" criterion.  Undeletions
should be about content, not process or rationale.

Your last comment is illogical.  How can a community proof and check a
deleted article unless it is first undeleted?  Yes, one person can ask
an admin for a copy of a deleted article, but that one person is not a
community.

>What makes you say only two people are needed?
>
>
Because I don't think that one would be enough, particularly if that one
is not an admin.  Having a second person agree gives a little room for a
reality check.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Turn off AfD

body:
geni wrote:

>On 12/11/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Seldom works like that.  Anyone who thinks that AfD is the forum most
>>conducive to assuming bad faith should spend a couple of days reading
>>Deletion Review.  We do have an undeletion policy, but deletion review
>>is conducted in an atmosphere where any attempt to quote that
>>undeletion policy on the page is repeatedly reverted.
>>
>>
>It isn't a policy page.
>
We're not talking about developing policy, but about quoting it.  A
policy page is about developing the policy.  This is about applying the
policy as it is, right or wrong.  By your reasoning a person defending a
case in court would not be able to quote the law in his own defence.
Put in another way, if one of us were charged in court with copyright
infringement he would be able to claim fair use only if he did not quote
the relevant sections of the law.

Ec


from_name: stevertigo

subject: [WikiEN-l] SPOV threatens NPOV

body:
Something else to talk about:

Some of our rather intelligent sciency people seem to
have an unusual inability to distinguish science from
neutrality. Ultimately, they tend to argue that
articles should hold a defacto deference to what is
essentially a Scientific Point of View, rather than a
Neutral Point of View.

How best to single these people out and correct their
behaviour? Any examples of articles in question? Isnt
the term "pseudoscience" a POV pejorative from the
SPOV?

Stevertigo

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


from_name: Kat Walsh

subject: [WikiEN-l] Separate namespace for Deletions and other achives?

body:
On 12/10/05, M. Creidieki Crouch <creidieki at gmail.com> wrote:
> Could we make a separate namespace for all of the AfD archives?  Right
> now, [[Special:Randompage/Wikipedia]] only gives me AfD pages, and
> doing a search in the Wikipedia namespace is near impossible.  We
> could call it "Deletion" and only put the AfD stuff in it, or we could
> call it "Archives" and put some other stuff in it (FAC, RFA).  But I
> really think that putting the infinite cruft into a separate namespace
> would make some of these technical features easier to use.
>
> -- Creidieki

Strongly agree with giving AfDs their own namespace. (This has been
proposed before but never got anywhere.) Wikipedia: space search is
all but useless now.

One further suggestion: that they not be indexed by Google. Why? It
just adds noise to search results, and there are plenty of people who
have had nothing to do with Wikipedia other than the fact that someone
wrote a miserably bad or pure vanity article about them, and thanks to
AfD the first several hits on their names are us and mirrors
proclaiming "vanity, kill it quickly with an axe" or "not notable,
delete". They usually tend to be upset about this and I can't say that
I blame them.

-Kat
[[User:Mindspillage]]

--
"There was a point to this story, but it has temporarily
escaped the chronicler's mind."  --Douglas Adams


from_name: Uwe Brauer

subject:
[Wikitech-l] proposals for discussion pages: enforce the use of
	headers and subheaders

body:
Hello

Some weeks ago there was a discussion of how to improve threading
within the Wikipedia discussion pages. A possible solution would be
 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LiquidThreads,
however that most likely will not come any time soon.

Would the following be easy to implement?

    1 When adding a new contribution the user  is forced to use a
      header, that    is the  construct  == ==   is automatically
      inserted. Right  now I have to  press the button *+*. But
      couldn't that functionality be on the button *edit*?

    2 then when the user wants to reply  to a contribution by using  the
      `local' *edit* button,  automatically a subheader would  be
      inserted, in   this case === ===, then    the reply to that
      would get a ==== ==== header and so on and so on.

More sophisticated implementation

    - when doing  1, a yes-no questions pops  up: do  you want to
      reply or to compose a entry?

    -  when doing 2 automatically and RE: is added behind the
    ===.

If such features would be implemented the tableofcontents would
server somehow as an overview of the threads.

Uwe Brauer


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Turn off AfD

body:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

>On 12/11/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>But undeletions as well as deletions should be proofed and
>>
>>
>>>checked by the community before they happen.
>>>
>>>
>>Seldom works like that.  Anyone who thinks that AfD is the forum most
>>conducive to assuming bad faith should spend a couple of days reading
>>Deletion Review.  We do have an undeletion policy, but deletion review
>>is conducted in an atmosphere where any attempt to quote that
>>undeletion policy on the page is repeatedly reverted.
>>
>>
>I agree, DRV is making it quite hard to get valid stuff undeleted, but
>if one allows just two people to agree on stuff like this I expect a
>lot of deletion wars. Addressing people ignoring the need to undelete
>when new evidence is presented in DRV seems more useful to me. Have
>you got any particular case in mind?
>
That you are able to recognize that it's difficult to get things
undeleted is important progress.

The agreement of two people to undelete does not imply that the
undeletion will necessarily be permanent.  Under the right circumstances
it could be deleted again, and two new people could undelete it again,
but my guess is that very few articles would go through the entire cycle
more than twice.  The deletion wars that you anticipate may be there
shortly after a two person undeletion is passed, but will likely tail
off within a month or two when the policy has had a chance to stabilize.

This is not about any particular case.  Policy designed to fit a
particular case is usually bad policy.  Either side can choose a case
that best supports his view, and it becomes a straw man in support of
issues that have nothing to do with the case.

Good policy reflects the way that people do things; it recognizes that
there is no need for enforced policy when the normal operation of human
nature gets us there anyway.

Ec


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Proposal: Article Improvement Weeks! (was Turn off
	article creation AND deletion.)

body:
Delirium wrote:

> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>
>> Well, I think I've made it abundantly clear I disagree.  Those
>> mathematical articles should all be referenced.  The person who is in
>> the best position to do that is the original author.
>>
> For most of them, the original author is no better placed to reference
> them than anyone else, because they're results that appear in standard
> textbooks.  I could singlehandedly "reference" most of the linear
> algebra articles, for example, just by copy/pasting the reference list
> from [[linear algebra]] to the end of every one.  But in cases where
> something is a standard result in elementary textbooks, I don't see
> what advantage actually listing some arbitrarily chosen textbook gives
> the reader.

It helps a reader who comes through some path other than the main
article. What I usually do is to use the general reference and
add specific relevant page numbers. If one has multiple possible
sources, then pick just one or two that have the best individual
concept descriptions. Readers will very much appreciate getting
the direct connection, and it also helps future editors when the
general references happen to differ in their detailed treatment
of a specific concept - there have been any number of minor edit
fights that get started because different references say different
things.

I think it would be an acceptable bandaid to have a "References"
section saying "See [[linear algebra#References]]".

Stan


body:
On 12/12/05, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/12/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > But then again, I have my doubts Wikipedia should be calling itself an
> > encyclopedia in the first place.  It's not really an encyclopedia,
> > it's a website for a group of people who are building an encyclopedia.
> >  I remember arguing that years ago on IRC, though, and I lost the
> > argument.  Most Wikipedians insist that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia,
> > even though common sense says that it is not.
>
> Yet.
>
> --
> Sam

I think that's implied in what I said.  We're building an
encyclopedia.  We haven't produced one yet, at least not in English.
German Wikipedia arguably *has* produced an encyclopedia.

Anthony


subject: [WikiEN-l] The heart of the deletion problem

body:
JAY JG wrote:

>> From: Snowspinner <Snowspinner at gmail.com>
>>
>> Screw shutting down AfD. Let's shut down AfD, TfD, CfD, RfD, IfD,
>> MfD, DRV, RFC, RFA, RFM, RFAr, AN, AN/I, AN/3RR, and CVU, and get
>> back to a system based on understanding what we're doing and doing
>> it  instead of this goddamned alphabet soup.
>
> Wikipedia is getting bigger and bigger, and can't be run like a small
> message board with a couple of moderators.  It's not the tight
> community it once was, and people in distress need places they can go
> for assistance.

Of course it's not the tight community that it used to be.  Still when
people want help they should not be faced with an alphabet soup that the
senior members don't pay attention to anyway.  Just imagine what the US
Constitution would look like if its size had grown in proportion to the
population of the country.  We've only been at it for five years.  What
will Wikipedia rules look like in the year 2230? :-)

Ec


body:
On 12/10/05, M. Creidieki Crouch <creidieki at gmail.com> wrote:
> Could we make a separate namespace for all of the AfD archives?  Right
> now, [[Special:Randompage/Wikipedia]] only gives me AfD pages, and
> doing a search in the Wikipedia namespace is near impossible.  We
> could call it "Deletion" and only put the AfD stuff in it, or we could
> call it "Archives" and put some other stuff in it (FAC, RFA).  But I
> really think that putting the infinite cruft into a separate namespace
> would make some of these technical features easier to use.
>
> -- Creidieki

I don't think it's good design to create a whole new namespace simply
because you want to exclude certain pages from Randompage.  In my
opinion this is something which should be fixed within Randompage.  A
new namespace should be significantly different from the other
namespaces, usually because there are display differences.

Anthony


body:
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:

>Without the very
>strict ruleset that we have (which, by the way, arose quite naturally,
>none of the rules excepting the core principles was forced, all of
>them came out from consensus) it would never work.
>
This is not consistent with reality.  The only consensus is built by and
from people who like rules.  Many people just go about their daily
business of improving articles in the subjects that interest them, and
have done so back to a time before those rules were "adopted".  A person
who has done this for say three years will be completely surprised and
shocked when a newbie administrator suddenly attempts to impose a rule
that was "adopted by consensus" one year ago.  For that newbie the rule
is law, and he won't hear of having  the rule reconsidered no matter how
inappropriate the rule.  Dedicated editors do not spend their time
paying attention to the nuances of rule-making; if they did they would
never get anything useful done.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Turn off AfD

body:
Ryan Delaney wrote:

>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>
>>>Adminship is supposedly not a big deal, but it is. This is even
>>>more clear when you look at Requests for Bureaucratship, where many
>>>people vote oppose because "we don't need more bureaucrats". I know
>>>this is off-topic, but I really think we should be looking into the
>>>RfA process as well as AfD, because RfA appears to be becoming the
>>>new VfD (yes, VfD). Last time, it was the "in" thing to bash VfD.
>>>Now, it's the "in" thing to bash RfA, as anyone who spends some
>>>time on our IRC channels should notice. This is worrying.
>>>
>>>
>>Never underestimate the overwhelming power of stupidity. In more
>>dangerous circumstances some of these people woud be candidates for
>>Darwin Awards. :-)
>>
>>
>Being someone who votes oppose to RFBs if he thinks there isn't need
>for new bureaucrats, you might want to be careful about what you say
>to a mailing list. You aren't sending a private email to your buddy here.
>
??? I'm not too sure what you are addressing.  If I were voting for this
sort of thing in Wikipedia I would likely take a stronger stand than you
about the need for fewer bureaucrats AND admins.  As long as I'm not a
candidate for anything, I don't need to worry about the outcome of any
such vote.

Ec


body:
On 12/12/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> >I think that's implied in what I said.  We're building an
> >encyclopedia.  We haven't produced one yet, at least not in English.
>
>
> Suggested soundbite: "It's not a polished encyclopedia, it's the raw
> materials for one."
>
> But considering this obvious beta is a top-30 website, there's clear
> demand for what we offer. Saying "no no no we produce the materials
> for others to distribute" may well be as disingenuous as when Mozilla
> claimed the same.
>
Beta is stretching it.  I'd say more like pre-alpha (what you get when
you do a cvs update on the main trunk).  But yeah, you do make a valid
point.  We produce a lot of material that people want, fact checked or
not.  I'm not sure the best way to reconcile that, and one of the
reasons I don't really bring up the "are we really an encyclopedia"
question very often is because I think eventually the issue will be
resolved, either in house or out of house.

It's frustrating though that that eventually isn't even really in sight.

> >German Wikipedia arguably *has* produced an encyclopedia.
>
>
> With considerable assistance from Directmedia, the outside company
> that actually publishes it.
>
> But I think commercial republishing of our content is entirely within
> not merely the GFDL, but our mission: USE OUR STUFF! THAT'S WHY IT'S
> THERE!
>
>
> - d.

Yeah, I think the German Wikipedia DVD is a tremendous accomplishment.
 Sometimes I wonder why it isn't being talked about more on the
mailing lists.  And I think it is an answer to those people who
occassionally come along and question why we're so friendly to
commercial reuse.

And I don't really understand why this hasn't happened in English.
The barriers that were there, such as the questions over the copyright
status of the images, have mainly been addressed through tagging.

Anthony


from_name: Zigger

subject: [Wikitech-l] Inactive wikis

body:
Having spent many hours recently starting to clean out spam from
wikimedia's inactive wikis, I would be very surprised if they are all
regularly monitored.

The list below is of currently targeted pages on inactive wikis, which
should be deleted (now that there is protection from anon page
creation), or at least protected until the wikis have at least one
active contributor.

Help:Contents
Current_events
Project:About
Project:General_disclaimer
Project:Community_Portal

-- Zigger

On 10/12/05, Mark Williamson wrote:
> These wikis are regularly monitored for vandalism.
>
> Mark
>
> On 09/12/05, Amgine wrote:
> > There is a list of inactive wikis which should be locked at
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Inactive_wikis which are currently spam
> > traps, with many more to be added. I was wondering if this was still a
> > Steward privilege, or if we need to ask developers to lock these?
>...


subject: [WikiEN-l] SPOV threatens NPOV

body:
--- Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:
> No, not really - pseudoscience is a term for
> something which adopts the
> appearances of the scientific method, and claims to
be scientific, without
> actually using the scientific method.

This is rather well stated, and perhaps my question
was a bit oblique. The point really goes to the issue
of how the term 'pseudoscience' may have, outside of a
qualified statement ("scientists think ID is
pseudoscience" (1)), have gained undue use, due to our
strong science-oriented contingency.

Read logically, (1) is not much different than saying
'apple lovers think pears are at best pseudo-apples.'
The distinctions between terms are always arbitrary
and meaningful only in context. In the context of
Wikipedia articles and the terms we tend to use, the
term 'pseudoscience' is only meaningful in the science
context. IMHO. There are areas where relatively
neutral and objective terms have been deprecated
because they carry pejorative use.

> The difference between science and
> pseudoscience is fairly clear. It isn't > really an
expression of an
> opinion. If something can be objectively described
as science or pseudoscience, then it isn't POV.

No, I respectfully disagree. The word isn't a
designation, because it defers to scientific
rationality - ie. a particular view. Hence it IS a POV
term, albeit one which is legitimate to state in the
context of conflicts between science (rational
methodology) and everything else. In short:

 pseudoscience is a term from the language of
 science, and is not a neutral term in the
 context of debates where science is a partisan
 party.

Fred linked to Larry Sanger's quotes on the subject,
which were quite to the point. But the NPOV
pseudoscience section seems written from the POV of a
disgruntled SPOV devotee "there was no consensus"
instead of "was flat out rejected as contradictory
with NPOV" but thats probably just nitpicking.

Stevertigo

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] SPOV threatens NPOV

body:
See

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/
William_M._Connolley&diff=9512576&oldid=9512379

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/
William_M._Connolley&oldid=9512805

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Pseudoscience

Fred

The statement of
On Dec 12, 2005, at 12:20 PM, stevertigo wrote:

> Something else to talk about:
>
> Some of our rather intelligent sciency people seem to
> have an unusual inability to distinguish science from
> neutrality. Ultimately, they tend to argue that
> articles should hold a defacto deference to what is
> essentially a Scientific Point of View, rather than a
> Neutral Point of View.
>
> How best to single these people out and correct their
> behaviour? Any examples of articles in question? Isnt
> the term "pseudoscience" a POV pejorative from the
> SPOV?
>
> Stevertigo
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Turn off article creation AND deletion.

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

> This could in theory be a part of the (is it a joke, perhaps not
>
>anymore?) concept of a "working vacation day" on January 15th.
>Fantasize that for a single day, we turn off anon editing, we turn off
>account creation, turn off article creation and deletion.
>
>Freeze the table of contents, freeze the staff, and have a day of
>"cleaning up" without all the noise. :-)
>
Considering how much I've allowed the books and papers to pile up around
me and my computer, my wife would appreciate that. :-)

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] As reported on Slashdot, Wikipedia prankster confesses

body:
I'm surprised nobody else has suggested combining this with the new
article template - seed it with the lengthy description of how the
"harmless prankster" was tracked down and lost his job, see whether
it has any salutary effect. I imagine the prospect of unpleasant
real-world consequences would discourage many vandals and trolls.

:-) (maybe...)

Stan

Snowspinner wrote:

> I'm glad to see that Siegenthaler and one of our established trolls
> have now managed to create a culture of hysteria such that a harmless
> prankster has been fired.
>
> -Phil
>
> On Dec 11, 2005, at 3:39 PM, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>
>> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/
>> 2002677060_wiki11.html
>>
>> You know, I was just thinking a few hours ago that if I was the one
>> who did this I would confess to it.
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: rationale behind the use of hard newlines

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> Uwe Brauer wrote:
>
>>Can somebody please tell me the rational behind the decision, that
>>(soft) newlines are not used for breaking paragraphs into lines.
>
>
> We inherited our syntax from UseModWiki, which inherited its syntax with
> modification from Ward's Wiki. UseMod and Ward's Wiki, like HTML, don't seem to
> consider newlines by themselves to be terribly interesting.

UseModWiki probably took their cue from TeX, which handles newlines in
roughly the same way. It's convenient at times, for example when quoting
emails. But it's very inconvenient at times, and I think there probably
should be a global configuration option or a wikitext tag to change the
behaviour. There are times when 1 NL = <br/>, 2 NL = <p> would be very
useful. And in my experience, MediaWiki's line break rules are often
surprising to a new user.

TeX has much more use for their line break rules -- TeX documents often have
complex notation, and it's often advantageous to split it up over multiple
lines and add comments. Also, TeX was invented in a time when editors which
did word wrapping by inserting line breaks were much more common. With
MediaWiki, the pros and cons are more balanced.

-- Tim Starling


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia Class Action

body:
> http://www.wikipediaclassaction.org/

It'll be interesting to see if someone tries to force them to remove
the trademarked Wikipedia logo from that site.

Other than that, Seigenthaler has said he's not interested in suing
the foundation (and his lawyers have apparently informed him that he'd
fail due to the CDA).  I wonder if anyone else is going to come
forward in the first place, you know, someone with standing to
actually sue.  I also wonder who it is that's running this site.
(whois Registrant Name: Legal Department)  Maybe a few ambulance
chasers looking for a quick buck?

I'm reminded of those commercials on TV.  "Have you been shot by a
government employee who went postal?  You may be able to join our
class action lawsuit against the USPS.  Contact the law offices of
Bolovia and Bolovia at 555-1000."

Anthony


from_name: geni

body:
On 12/9/05, rudy at stealthaccess.net <rudy at stealthaccess.net> wrote:
> please advise.

Dpends are you subcribed?

--
geni


from_name: Mark Gallagher

subject: [WikiEN-l] Common sense (was Re: Sarfatti, again)

body:
G'day Dan,

> Now Mr. Sarfatti is once again threatening to sic the FBI on his
> critics, in violation of [[WP:NLT]] (and in violation of common sense
> as well, but that's not a Wikipedia policy):

Like Hell it isn't.
Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia
Wikipedia:NPOV
Wikipedia:Don't be a dick
Wikipedia:Ignore all rules

Common sense up the wazoo ...

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

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.13/197 - Release Date: 9/12/2005