body:
Sorry. Wrong list.

Mark

On 15/07/05, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> Gerard.
>
> It is very much like you to attack someone for a short comment with
> little meaning attached.
>
> I said:
> > >Because they speak Afrikaans, and would be able to give the view of a
> > >native speaker.
>
> And you told me that I may know a lot about languages, but nothing
> about Wiktionary. That response is uncalled-for. It is insulting,
> untrue, and on top of that a slap in the face after my having just
> begun to monitor inactive Wiktionaries a week or so ago.
>
> You do not speak Afrikaans (this, not "African", is the English name
> as well). Different languages may have peculiar capitalisation rules,
> which require headwords to be capitalised.
>
> The simple input of a native speaker is not difficult to obtain, and
> we would do well to get it. We can ask them, "in Afrikaans
> dictionaries, are headwords capitalised?". And they will answer us.
> Very easy.
>
> But you choose instead to make blanket assumptions about all
> languages, and to tell me what I do and don't know.
>
> My brain is my own, and only I know which things I do and don't know.
> I do not plan on giving you my brain anytime soon, either, thank you
> very much.
>
> Good day to you, sir.
>
> Mark
>
> On 15/07/05, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Mark,
> > You may now something about languages, but you have no clue about
> > Wiktionary. And if you did, I would welcome your comments about the ERD
> > that I posted here http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:ERD.jpg It is
> > a work in progress and it is working towards the Ultimate Wiktionary. I
> > can put dialects in there but I am not yet happy about this aspect as I
> > cannot truly enter simplified Chinese in there in a proper way. It also
> > places etymology on a different place from where it is traditionally
> > placed in the wiktionaries due to the fact that there are some that
> > differ depending on the meaning of a word.
> >
> > As to capitalisation; any paper dictionary does not capitalise the words
> > that are in there unless they are capitalised as a rule. It is due to
> > some unfortunate history that it took so long to change the English
> > wiktionary. There are currently 19 articles in the African wiktionary,
> > Jcwf may want to use the same system of templates that are used in many
> > of the other wiktionaries. To do this it helps to have capitalisation
> > turned off.
> >
> > I second his request to turn capitalisation on the af.wiktionary off.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >    GerardM
> >
> > Mark Williamson wrote:
> >
>
> > >Mark
> > >
> > >On 15/07/05, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>Angela wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>Ashar's request was to ask af.wikipedia, not Wiktionary about this,
> > >>>and they have 4000 articles and a reasonably active, though small,
> > >>>community.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>If none of them participates in Wiktionary, why does their opinion count
> > >>any more than anyone else's?
> > >>
> >
>
>
> --
> SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
> QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
> POSSIT MATERIARI
> ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE
>

--
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Angela

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: New fair use tag proposal

body:
On 7/15/05, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> Here's another I've just run across.
> [[Image:Teutonic_order_charge.jpg]] is a (cropped, I believe) version
> of the front of a box of miniatures. It's been tagged {{Gamecover}},
> which is a bit flaky but I can live with.

The artist who painted Teutonic_order_charge.jpg wrote to me about
this. He asked to be credited on [[Teutonic Knights]] which seemed a
fair request since other painters were linked in the image captions on
that page, but the image is now used in [[Battle of Grunwald]] as well
with no attempt to justify whether its use there is fair or not and no
credit given to the artist.

Image descriptions pages should really explain which articles they are
fair use in, and why. Being on a box cover doesn't automatically make
an image fair use for every article. Perhaps extending the use of
{{verifieduse}} would help?

Angela.


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Correspondence relating to the copyright status of
	an image

body:
Haukur ?orgeirsson wrote:

>>Thirdly, I'm genuinely not sure how to
>>proceed on this matter. This website
>>guy has still not really said whether
>>or not he claims to own the copyright
>>to this image, or to have licensed it
>>from somebody who does.
>>
>>
>
>If he holds the copyright to that image
>then I hold the copyright to the King
>James Bible.
>
>
IIRC didn't King James I grant a perpetual copyright to Oxford for that
book?

Ec


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Rowan Collins

subject: [Wikitech-l] "/execscriptdir/php.cgi" my eye!

body:
On 14/07/05, Greg Turner <greg at gregturner.org> wrote:
> > That's what PHP and your web server are reporting. See config/index.php
> > for the exact variables it checks.
>
> That's my point - I did, and I changed the $conf->ScriptPath line as
> follows:
>
> $conf->ScriptPath = "/wiki";
>
> This stops the index.php from redirecting somewhere wrong, but all the
> URLs are still broken with "/execscriptdir/php.cgi" instead of "/wiki".

1) Check that $wgScriptPath and $wgArticlePath are set correctly in
LocalSettings.php

2) Check that what you're seeing isn't a cached version from before
you fixed it: does an edit preview render the correct links? If so,
you can use the URL parameter "action=purge" (in place of
"action=edit") to manually clear MediaWiki's internal cache of a page.
I believe you can also empty the database table responsible for
storing it, but I'm not 100% sure how.

3) Remember to also by-pass / clear your browser's cache - usually by
holding down either shift or control while clicking the refresh
button.

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Bennett Haselton

subject: [Wikipedia-l] try having this language discussion on Brainjammer

body:
This language thread -- which I probably wouldn't be able to follow even if I read through the archives to see how it started before I joined -- seems like it has all the characteristics of the type of out-of-control Internet debate that Brainjammer was designed to avoid:

- It has metamorphosed into a discussion *about* the discussion, rather than about the original topic
- Has so many individual points to be made on both sides that nobody can keep track of them all, therefore even if one side is "right" there's no way the rest of us could even tell
- Contains a good deal of personal attacks on other members

I urge you, just *give it a try* and see if you make more progress than has been made so far.  Go to www.brainjammer.com, create a new account (code to create a new one is "muskrat"), and one side or the other can post their arguments.

Sorry to steer the discussion this way, but I do want to help, and it's quite frustrating to see all this effort being wasted and obviously getting people angry, when I think I might have a way to avoid it all.  Even if there's only a one-in-ten chance that it would work, wouldn't it be worth it if it might help avoid tense discussions like this in the future?

-Bennett


from_name: Michael Turley

subject: [WikiEN-l] William M. Connoley, admin? (was: Running the asylum)

body:
On 7/15/05, Dan Grey <dangrey at gmail.com> wrote:
> Y'know, one thing leaps out at me - how can 70/30 for/against possibly
> be a 'no'? Turn it on it's head for a moment - 30/70 for/against, yet
> it (whatever it is) is passed - that would madness, right? But that's
> what we're saying here.

The reason 70/30 can be a "no" is a core principle of Wikipedia:
Wikipedia operates on consensus, not majority.

Instead of counting votes, consider the standard to be "serve the
majority, but don't take any actions that seriously offend a
significant number of minority members".

If you think of it this way, it becomes much clearer why we don't
simply count votes, and why a bureaucrat may even use their discretion
to not promote at 80/20 occasionally.

--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused


from_name: Stanislav Traykov

subject: [Wikitech-l] Uploaded file size limits

body:
David Iberri wrote:
> On 7/14/05, Stanislav Traykov <st at gmuf.com> wrote:
>
>>php.ini: upload_max_filesize = 50M
>
> Make sure your post_max_size is greater than upload_max_filesize.

Doh -- this solved it. Thanks!

Stanislav


from_name: Ben Raskob

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: TeX Fonts

body:
Timwi <timwi <at> gmx.net> writes:

>
> Ben Raskob wrote:
> > I'm running a MediaWiki server on a linux box running Kubuntu,
> > and I'm trying to get my environment set up for TeX use. It all
> > went pretty well, but I can't seem to use the 'ominus' or 'otimes'
> > fonts. I have 'oplus' though. Can anyone tell me how to get
> > the 'ominus' font?
>
> You need to change texutil.ml manually (line 312 has oplus), add ominus
> yourself and re-compile.
>
> It does seem to have otimes, though.
>
> Timwi
>

Sorry, I meant 'odot', not 'otimes'. But you're right, I added ominus,
recompiled, and it worked.

Thanks much!
-Ben


from_name: Servien Ilaino

subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Proposal to modify / supplement request: request for Stellingwarfs, Grunnegers, Drèents, Tweants, and Achterhooks Wikipedias.

body:
Hi Mark and the rest,

Final reply to your questions:

* Is it my native language: Bilingual, so yes, I didn't say this
because in my opinion one only has one native language, and since
Dutch is more often used I put it as my native language. Besides I
don't get you not getting my point of bilingualism, your "Great Holy
Emperor of Platt-Ausland" also is a "native-bilingual"

* Difference should be clear by now, if it's not tough luck, everyone
else seems to understand, I'll explain further when you speak NDS...

* You also mention "Which I raised" you are right: which YOU raised,
you invented the "problem" but there is no problem, so stop
complaining.

Servien

2005/7/15, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com>:
> > > > OK Mark,
> > > >
> > > > it is dangerous to feed the trolls, but there are some things that
> > > > need to be sorted out.
> > >
> > > Meaning, again, "I have no response to most of your assertions because
> > > they are probably correct, so I have ignored those and answered only
> > > those I have a good response for rather than conceding you are right".
> > No Mark, ich habe einfach keine Lust mehr, daf?r ist mir meine Zeit zu
> > schade.
>
> Which language you write your excuse in, does not change the fact that
> you are only saying it because you have realised my arguments are
> sound and cannot think of a good response.
>
> > > "Katt" had been edited by Sarcelles just before Ron edited it.
> > Mark, please read, what is there, and not, what
> > isn't.
> > http://nds.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katt&action=history&offset=0&limit=500
> > shows a list of all edits on nds:Katt ever since it was created on July
> > 16th, 2004.
> > Sarcelles is not listed here.
>
> You are indeed right. I meant Slomox. They both start with an "S" ;p
>
> > > Again, you are twisting the words in my mouth. I don't mind about
> > > articles of poor quality, in that they need cleanup -- they exist on
> > > ALL Wikipedias. What I do mind is articles written in Patentplatt.
> > > According to Ron and Jonny, this is the vast majority or even all of
> > > the articles at nds.wiki.
> > Low quality can mean
> > 1) Low quality of content
> > 2) Low quality of grammar
> > 3) Low quality of vocabulary
> > etc.
>
> "in that they need cleanup", means "low quality of content". I do not
> mind these pages, they exist on every Wikipedia. Low quality of
> grammar and low quality of vocabulary, however, are detestable.
>
> > > > 3) For the record: several of Ron's proposals are still kept in the
> > > current
> > > > article, this includes grammar fixes, choice of words, but it
> > > specifically
> > > > EXCLUDES changes in spelling. The text originally came from Ron, but was
> > >
> > > What is your point here? When you reverted me, each time in addition
> > > to the spelling changes you discarded about half of the changes in
> > > grammar and choice of words.
> > >
> > > Please see
> > > http://nds.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katt&diff=22196&oldid=22047
> > > http://nds.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katt&diff=22047&oldid=22032
> > Shall we count it?
> > http://nds.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katt&diff=prev&oldid=22032
> > shows 39 words in red. I count All but 4 are spelling. 3 are words, 1 is
> > grammar.
> > What do you count?
>
> You changed "oder koter" to "ok koter schr?ven", "v?rweser" to
> "v?rfohr", "d?r" to "d?rch", "al de olen buurn in ?gypten" to "al de
> buern in 't ole ?gypten", "Un de Katten weern hillig." to "Katten
> weren dor dunntomaal as hillig ankeken.",  "Un wenn se doodbleven" to
> "Wenn 'n Katt doodbleev", "wen" to "jichteneen", "slieken" to
> "anslieken" (this in particular is a typical Patentplatt construction
> -- not all Platt words are direct cognates of their German
> counterparts), "kan dat mal??rn" to "kan dat maal mal??rn", and a few
> other changes which weren't spelling, but also were more like adding
> content than changing grammar.
>
> > > it was made by a native speaker,
> > yada, yada, yada
> > but by the first one, you
> > > Some of them? You "checked the grammar changes"? Again, you are
> > > pretending that your Platt is better than Ron's.
> > I still state that
> > http://nds.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katt&diff=22047&oldid=22032
> > did leave the grammar changes intact, apart from "Un Katten doot w?ten"
> > which I consider to be out of place for an excyclopedia.
>
> Uhh... no.
>
> > > > (And besides: any further edit war by you on nds will be ansered with a
> > > > swift blocking.)
> > >
> > > Ahh, so you don't block people who flood "your" Wikipedia with
> > > poor-quality articles, but you DO block people who revert spelling?
> > > Hmm. That seems a bit hypocritical.
> > Actually Sarcelles had been warned several times and then he was blocked for
> > two days.
>
> I apologise for calling you hypocritical, I wasn't aware of this.
>
> > > If you "appreciate his experience", then why did you revert some of
> > > his grammar fixes even AFTER you found out it was him??
> > Again, I have shown you that I did not.
>
> And, in return, I have shown you that you did.
>
> Best
> Mark
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Boris Lohnzweiger

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dutch-Low Saxon test-mainpage (conclusion)

body:
Hi Mark!

Thanks for your quick reply. I wasn`t aware of the information on Reinhard's / Ron's personal home page, I had only read his bio...

This discussion has been going on for quite a while now. A multitude of arguments have been introduced. I have always appreciated your (and everyone else's) factual arguments, like you have appreciated mine (which I thank you for). This is part of an efficient discussion culture.

But we must also not forget that no discussion can ever be considered successful if it doesn't have a result. Frankly spoken, I can understand that more and more people are getting annoyed by the mere duration of this discussion. Noboby lives forever and we all have to live our lives outside the internet, too, so I think it's our responsibility to come to a conclusion now.

In any discussion with five or more participants, you can't expect to reach a point where everybody agrees on everything. Sad enough, but decisions have to be made anyway.

More often than not in a discussion there are views shared by a majority and views shared only by a minority. In my opion, any fair discussion culture implies that the majority respects, considers and evaluates the minority's position, which has happened in this case. The minority in turn, has the responsibility of accepting the majority's decision and not hindering its implementation.

In this case, the proportion majority-minority is more unambiguous than most other times. Users made a request for a Wikipedia in Dutch Low Saxon and nobody, neither here nor on Meta, apart from you was against it (please accept that standpoints of people not personally participating can't be counted in here). Of course, your opinion is as valuable as any other one but I ask you for the fairness to acknowledge that you are clearly outnumbered this time. No one likes that, but it's inevitable in life that you can't always have it your way. Hey, it's nothing personal !

Mark, we appreciate your commitment and knowledge here. I can assure and promise you that you will gain a sizable amout of additional respect within the community by accepting the majority's decision and clearing the way for its implementation now.

Regards

Boris

______________________________________________________________
Verschicken Sie romantische, coole und witzige Bilder per SMS!
Jetzt bei WEB.DE FreeMail: http://f.web.de/?mc=021193


from_name: Timwi

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Case sensitivity on Afrikaans Wiktionary

body:
Ashar Voultoiz wrote:
> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>>A request by nl:Gebruiker:Jcwf
>><http://nl.wiktionary.org/wiki/Gebruiker:Jcwf>  has been posted on the
>>en:Beer parlour to have first letter case sensitivity on the inactive
>>Afrikaans Wiktionary.
>
> Please give some references on af.wikipedia.org with users supporting
> this change.

If that Wiktionary is inactive, then obviously there won't be such
users. And that's all the more reason to change it now so that people
don't start creating yet another broken Wiktionary and later require a
complicated conversion like en.wiktionary did.

Timwi


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: TeX Fonts

body:
Ben Raskob wrote:
> I'm running a MediaWiki server on a linux box running Kubuntu,
> and I'm trying to get my environment set up for TeX use. It all
> went pretty well, but I can't seem to use the 'ominus' or 'otimes'
> fonts. I have 'oplus' though. Can anyone tell me how to get
> the 'ominus' font?

You need to change texutil.ml manually (line 312 has oplus), add ominus
yourself and re-compile.

It does seem to have otimes, though.

Timwi


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] Icelandic "fair use" equivalent

body:
Ray Saintonge (saintonge at telus.net) [050715 13:37]:
> Haukur ?orgeirsson wrote:

> >>The difficulty is in determining how much remuneration is fair.

> >Other such remuneration stipulations always seem
> >to be as a percentage of money made.

> We can afford that! :-)

Yes, but could a mirror site?

- d.


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: Fwd: [WikiEN-l] William M. Connoley, admin? (was: Running the asylum)

body:
Begin forwarded message:

> From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net>
> Date: July 15, 2005 6:45:40 PM MDT
> To: Dan Grey <dangrey at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] William M. Connoley, admin? (was: Running
> the asylum)
>
>
> See
>
> Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/William_M._Connolley#Larry_Sanger.
> 27s_definition_of_neutrality
>
> and
>
> Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/William_M._Connolley
>
> Particularly this quote:
>
> "In science, neutrality is presenting the truth, or what the vast
> majority of scientific opinion (as measured by published papers)
> believes to be the truth."
>
> Fred
>
> On Jul 15, 2005, at 5:23 PM, Dan Grey wrote:
>
>> On 15/07/05, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>>
>>> any method of arriving at the
>>> truth though reference to expert editors such as himself presents
>>> prospects of sustained conflict.
>>>
>>> Fred
>>>
>>
>> OK, just for my benefit (and anyone else who may not be 100% au fait
>> with all this) - is that what William suggests we do?
>>
>>
>> Dan
>>
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Chilling effect

body:
Norath Norath wrote:

> I hypothesise that if people are blocked for trying to hold admins
> accountable, the number of people trying to hold admins accountable
> will fall.

This hypothesis is obviously true, because "If A then B" is always true
whenever A is false.

In other words: People DO NOT get blocked for trying to hold admins
accountable. Your hypothesis is working from this false assumption.

Although it is indeed the case that many people do find themselves
blocked when they try to hold admins accountable for something, it is
never directly the reason for the block. It is usually because the
attempt to hold admins accountable is phrased in a way that many admins
or other users find condescending or otherwise offensive.

And it's usually admins who decide at what place someone oversteps the
bounds. And they usually feel that it's common sense where the bounds are...

Timwi


subject: [Wikitech-l] Request for Dutch-Low Saxon Wikipedia

body:
Hi everyone,

On the Wikipedia-L mailinglist we have had long discussions about this
subject (one person was against the creation, but didn't speak a word
of Low Saxon.) we have at least 5 people willing to work on it and
others who support the creation.

The Low Saxon version exists but this is Plattd??tsch (flat German)
and not the Dutch variant used, people also complain it is very hard
to understand each other and this is why I'd like to request
nds-nl.wikipedia.

We need the creation of http://nds-nl.wikipedia.org (nds-nl, is the
ISO code) I have set up a test-wp (please see:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Test-wp/nds-nl/)

Please let me know if anyone is willing to work on the creation of it.

Kind regards,
Servien Ilaino


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Image deletion : policies and technology

body:
SJ wrote:

> Even as an administrator, whe I go to a deleted page, or try to track
> down a deleted image, it is hard to identify who deleted a given page,
> and what reason was given -- the list of deleted revisions is not
> coordinated with the deletion log.

I've asked this before and I can't remember what the answer was. Why
don't we just show this right on the page? At least up to 48 hours after
the deletion? "This page was deleted by <user> on <date> at <time> for
the following reason..."

Remember that all this information is available in the deletion log, so
"this places too much blame on the deletor" isn't an argument.

Timwi


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Funny joke, Gerard

body:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:

> This is a fucking joke [...]

I vote to put this subscriber on moderation and not to let such e-mails
through in future. :-p

> has been altered such that I have not actually receive messages FROM
> the list, despite being "subscribed."

You probably did that yourself.

Timwi


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Poll on templates

body:
> End-users can (and do!) use Wikipedia
> just as easily as they can use a redistributor.

No, they can't.

I doubt very much Andy Rabagliati, to take just one example, would be
spending so much time and effort to install Wikipedia CDs in schools
in South Africa if those users could just as easily open up the
Wikipedia website. Not every user of Wikipedia has fast (or any)
access to the Internet.

Another example is that if users could just a easily use Wikipedia as
content from a redistributor, I expect no one would be paying ten euro
to buy the German Wikipedia DVD, and yet 10,000 copies sold within
days (<http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/German_Wikipedia_DVD_sells_out_first_10,000-copy_run>).

Having content at Wikipedia.org is great, but it's only the beginning
of the efforts to place free educational content in the hands of every
person on the planet. We do need to consider redistributors since
we're certainly not going to meet that goal without them.

When thinking of the reusers of our content, please consider those who
have the same goals as Wikimedia, not the Google adsense spammers.

Angela.


body:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rowan Collins [mailto:rowan.collins at gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 10:56 PM
> To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] try having this language discussion on Brainjammer
>
> [Warning: this post will drift further off topic the more of it you read. :p]
>
> On 15/07/05, Bennett Haselton <bennett at peacefire.org> wrote:
> > This language thread -- which I probably wouldn't be able to follow even if I read
> > through the archives to see how it started before I joined -- seems like it has all the
> > characteristics of the type of out-of-control Internet debate that Brainjammer was
> > designed to avoid:
>
> Perhaps before you start advocating the use of this system, you should
> put somewhere a description of what it *is*. Looking at some of the
> existing threads, I couldn't immediately see anything other than a
> bog-standard forum.
>
> I presume your "killer feature", as it were, is the ability to mark
> posts with a "status" in terms of their relationship to the parent.

The earlier message that I posted, described how the algorithm worked in more detail, and why I believed that it would produce more useful results than algorithms that have been tried in the past:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-July/040966.html

The "killer feature" is not just marking posts according to their status with respect to the parent.  The killer feature is more like a rule (which is to say, a rule that is enforced by having users vote down posts that are challenged as not conforming with this rule) which says that rebuttals must only focus on one point at a time.  (More than once I've replied to someone's post saying "You made several good points here but to go along with the rules you should break up this post into multiple replies.")  My theory -- as yet untested, but which seems strongly intuitive -- is that people will argue (and vote, if it comes to that) more honestly when considering only one point at a time.  If you're asked to vote between an essay making a series of points and another essay making a series of opposing points, there's too much wiggle room for the brain to rationalize voting in accordance with your preconceived beliefs.  But with one point at a time, there's less wiggle room.

And since even one rebuttal against a point -- no matter how trivial -- is enough to disqualify an entire post (voters are specifically instructed to vote on the specific point and *not* to take into account how significant it is as a part of "the post as a whole"), the only posts that will survive are the posts that meet that high standard of truth all the way through.

> This seems like an intriguing idea, but imperfectly implemented. I
> know it's just the germ of an idea right now, but given that you're
> publicly advocating its use, here are some criticisms:
>
> * The most obvious imperfection is that the status labels are not
> particularly clear - why is  "awaiting response" styled the same as
> "incorporated into parent"?

Yes, the front end needs some work, but the focus should really be on the top-level posts that get generated as a result of all the feedback propagated up from the replies.

One difference between this and a traditional discussion forum is that the end result of each thread should be as compact as possible -- a single post, ideally -- rather than just an archive of everything that has been said.

> * What's more, if the premise that posts can be made redundant by
> altering their parent holds, why are "incorporated" and "withdrawn"
> posts shown at all? Deleting them outright would be foolish, but
> surely showing them by default defeats the object of

That's a valid point, and a UI decision -- eventually those will probably just be displayed at the bottom of each thread, below a barrier that clearly separates them from the replies that are still "active".

> * Who decides when a post has been successfully incorporated? If Bob
> replies to Alice's comment, and Alice amends the original comment, it
> seems to me that first Alice must tell Bob that she has done so, and
> then Bob must accept the amendment and withdraw the reply. If your
> existing model follows this process, it's not obvious from the
> presentation.

Current model: Bob replies to Alice's comment.  Alice incorporate's Bob's comment and also inserts a note explaining how she incorporated Bob's comment into her own post.  Bob receives a notification that his comment has been incorporated.  If he doesn't think his whole point was incorporated properly, he can post another reply.

This does leave a weakness where Alice could cheat -- if Bob posts a reply clearly disagreeing with Alice and Alice "incorporates" it without making any changes, that can prevent Bob from ever forcing a jury vote.  In the long run I'll have to decide how to tweak the architecture of the system to prevent this.  In the short term, I think it will be really obvious if someone is doing this just to block a vote from coming up, and I could tell them to cut it out without generating too many complaints about "dictatorship".  (Although it's true that one design principle is to eventually enable these discussions to take place without *any* centralized moderation.)

> * Your presentation also lacks any kind of "audit trail" - it would be
> nice to see how Alice has changed her post, and how Bob responded to
> her claim to have incorporated his response. Your forumish interface
> doesn't seem suited to tracking such things.

That's a good suggestion.  Currently when you incorporate someone's comment, you add a note explaining how you incorporated their comment, and that note is not currently displayed in the thread view, but it probably should be.  We could also add a field for Bob to add a comment about whether he feels his suggestion was incorporated correctly.

Eventually I might want to include version history for each post so you could see *exactly* how it was modified to incorporate a given comment, complete with diff functionality to show exactly what was changed, but I didn't have time to implement that this time around.

> And finally, you realise this is more-or-less exactly how discussion
> works on a "traditional" wiki (e.g. c2.com, meatball, etc)? i.e. the
> aim is to refactor a discussion ("ThreadMode") into a coherent
> "DocumentMode", and to encourage opinions to be expressed by amending
> and expanding the existing text rather than simply creating a "rival"
> document. The main difference seeming to be that you are aiming to
> create a structured and non-redundant discussion thread, rather than a
> stand-alone document.

Actually the idea *is* for each Brainjammer thread to result in, ideally, a stand-alone document: the top-level post.  But I think it's one of those situations where this new design kinda looks like what has come before (a Wiki), but with a few subtle design changes that I'm hoping will produce radically different results.  Specifically, the enforcement of the rule that disputes of any points have to be as specific as possible and handled one at a time, on the theory that even when discussing highly controversial subjects like George W. Bush or Windows vs. Linux, people will argue and vote more honestly when focused on specific points.

-Bennett


from_name: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason

references:
<42D6C690.7090201@telus.net> <db77vo$vr0$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<db8si1$5t1$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
On 7/15/05, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> If that Wiktionary is inactive

It has approximately 20,000 articles.


from_name: Skyring

subject: GMail's threading (was Re: [WikiEN-l] A plea)

body:
On 7/15/05, Chris Jenkinson <chris at starglade.org> wrote:

> Well, not that I want to start moaning about gmail, but if the way it
> works is not in line with existing email clients and email servers,
> which it does, as it ignores the in-reply-to header, I wouldn't really
> call it "very good". :)

No offence at all, but you may be in the position of someone who
doesn't like TiVo because it's not the way they are used to, or
someone who doesn't see the need for a scroll wheel on a mouse.

I use GMail for list traffic because it presents a host of posts in an
accessible manner, not because it works well with Outlook or whatever.
Perhaps you should try it and see why I do this, and why others do the
same thing.

--
Peter in Canberra


body:
On 7/15/05, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dutch has almost 20,000, but Afrikaans, which is the one requesting
> case sensitivity changes has just 19

Righto, sorry about that.


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject: [Wikipedia-l] The relevance of this list and the endless discussions

body:
Hoi,
At this moment the wikipedia-l is becoming increasingly irrelevant. This
is because more and more people are turning of because of the endless
discussions. Particularly the contributions of Mark Williamsom are both
excessive in number, he thinks this list is his personal soap box, and
increasingly agressive, het tells people what they have to do and in
turn gets banned on wikipedias as the appreciation for his behaviour.
The consequence is, that more and more people are not interested in what
the wikipedia-l has to say. There are people who have added Mark to
their spam list, there are people who disregard all threads that he
writes to, there are people that unsubscribed. Mark has been told on the
list and of the list, repeatedly by many people, that he is not
communicating effectively this way. The sad thing is that Mark has some
valid points to make, points that are drowned out by the torrent of
e-mails that he sends to make these points. I do not want him banned
because this is "throwing the child away with the washing water" (het
kind met het waswater weggooien).

I have discussed this with several people and Angela came up with a good
point. Her point was that in the "language discussions" it often is a
rehashing of positions and missing is the refactoring of this
information as you have on a Wiki. It is exactly right to have articles
on Meta discussing the languages and their issues. This makes for some
refactoring and persistency in the discussions and it allows for
discussions on the talk page. The wikipedia-l would then be used to give
a heads up about when things are disucussed on Meta and when there is a
tentative conclusion of these discussions.

I hope that this scheme is seen for what it is; it allows Mark to have
his say. It allows for better information on these issues on Meta. The
consequence is that the wikipedia-l will have less trafic and hopefully
other subjects important to the global wikipedias start to get some
space as well.

I hope Mark is willing to accept this because if things go on as they
do, I will ask if it is possible to have him banned from this list.

Thanks,
    GerardM


from_name: Bovlb

body:
Timwi <timwi at ...> writes:
> SJ wrote:
> > Even as an administrator, whe I go to a deleted page, or try to track
> > down a deleted image, it is hard to identify who deleted a given page,
> > and what reason was given -- the list of deleted revisions is not
> > coordinated with the deletion log.
>
> I've asked this before and I can't remember what the answer was. Why
> don't we just show this right on the page? At least up to 48 hours after
> the deletion? "This page was deleted by <user> on <date> at <time> for
> the following reason..."

We could add some text to [[MediaWiki:Nogomatch]] that links to the deletion
log and WP:VFD.  Could we also make it filter for the page name, or is that
not available?  If that is possible, then we could also link to the specific
(possibly non-existent) VfD page.

Bovlb


body:
On 15/07/05, Skyring <skyring at gmail.com> wrote:
> It depends if you are talking about using it for viewing threads,
> which is what I was doing, or discussing compatibility with other
> browsers, which is what you two are doing!

At risk of being pedantic, the distinction is more between the way it
*presents* threads (very well) and the way it *defines* them (rather
badly).

I really like GMail's interface for dealing with conversations, and
it's a bold step away from the traditional tree-view. However, for
some reason best known to its designers, it ignores the standard [and,
I believe, Standardised] way of defining a thread (the headers in each
message which indicate its relationship to others) and uses completely
idiosyncratic heuristics instead.

As an example of why this method is actually *worse* (rather than just
different), note that I had to search for the beginning of this
thread, because someone had changed the subject and GMail could not
connect the two parts. There may be counter-examples where it handles
certain situations *better*, but it seems to me that they'd have done
better building *on top of* long-established conventions, rather than
ignoring them.

For me, GMail is "quite good" at threads right now, but would be "very
good" if it used in-reply-to etc as at least a factor in its grouping.

> I can't do anything about the second, and on that score perhaps you'd
> like to redirect grumbles to Google.

This, of course, is absolutely true, and I hope no-one is too annoyed
at the off-topic-ness of this thread.

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] The relevance of this list and the endless
	discussions

body:
Hoi Gerard,

Hopelijk is de discussie nu eindelijk klaar... heb hem uitgelegd hoe
het zit, als ie daar geen genoegen mee neemt, klaar, zijn probleem,
Wiki is aangevraagd hier en op Wikitech-l, dus bok voor 'm!

Servien

2005/7/15, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
> Hoi,
> At this moment the wikipedia-l is becoming increasingly irrelevant. This
> is because more and more people are turning of because of the endless
> discussions. Particularly the contributions of Mark Williamsom are both
> excessive in number, he thinks this list is his personal soap box, and
> increasingly agressive, het tells people what they have to do and in
> turn gets banned on wikipedias as the appreciation for his behaviour.
> The consequence is, that more and more people are not interested in what
> the wikipedia-l has to say. There are people who have added Mark to
> their spam list, there are people who disregard all threads that he
> writes to, there are people that unsubscribed. Mark has been told on the
> list and of the list, repeatedly by many people, that he is not
> communicating effectively this way. The sad thing is that Mark has some
> valid points to make, points that are drowned out by the torrent of
> e-mails that he sends to make these points. I do not want him banned
> because this is "throwing the child away with the washing water" (het
> kind met het waswater weggooien).
>
> I have discussed this with several people and Angela came up with a good
> point. Her point was that in the "language discussions" it often is a
> rehashing of positions and missing is the refactoring of this
> information as you have on a Wiki. It is exactly right to have articles
> on Meta discussing the languages and their issues. This makes for some
> refactoring and persistency in the discussions and it allows for
> discussions on the talk page. The wikipedia-l would then be used to give
> a heads up about when things are disucussed on Meta and when there is a
> tentative conclusion of these discussions.
>
> I hope that this scheme is seen for what it is; it allows Mark to have
> his say. It allows for better information on these issues on Meta. The
> consequence is that the wikipedia-l will have less trafic and hopefully
> other subjects important to the global wikipedias start to get some
> space as well.
>
> I hope Mark is willing to accept this because if things go on as they
> do, I will ask if it is possible to have him banned from this list.
>
> Thanks,
>    GerardM
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


body:
On 7/15/05, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:

> [...]
> The sad thing is that Mark has some
> valid points to make, points that are drowned out by the torrent of
> e-mails that he sends to make these points.

Mark does have valid points, which is why I have objected to him being
blocked from the list. He does a lot of research into languages in
order to post about them, but I am concerned the discussion (not only
Mark's posts) is now getting to the stage where it is doing more harm
than good. As I mentioned on meta earlier today
(<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Requests_for_new_languages#Discussion_isn.27t_always_a_good_thing>),
the amount of discussion surrounding language requests is leading to
it becoming impossible for developers to ascertain when they should be
making a new wiki.

> I hope Mark is willing to accept this because if things go on as they
> do, I will ask if it is possible to have him banned from this list.

It isn't only Mark who needs to adapt his behaviour, but everyone
involved in the requests for new languages procedure. I would prefer
if all these language discussions could be kept in one place on Meta,
making it much easier to see when the issues were resolved, and
hopefully making the process to getting a new wiki a little bit
easier. Currently, the requests page asks for a link to the mailing
list discussion, but perhaps this should be coming later, after
discussion between interested parties on the wiki, rather than being
the first step in a new language request.

Angela.


list: foundation-l

from_name: Petr Kadlec

subject: [Foundation-l] Fair Use and Registered Trademarks

body:
On 7/14/05, Jean-Baptiste Soufron <jbsoufron at gmail.com> wrote:
> The french law solution would probably be similar : there is no
> obligation to name the author of a PD work, but it would be forbidden
> to claim the book for its own.

The Czech copyright law explicitly requires to name the author of a PD
work (if known). See Article 11, paragraph 5:
After the death of the author no other person may claim authorship of
the work; the work may be used only in a manner which does not
depreciate its value and, unless the work is an anonymous work, the
name of the author, if known, must be indicated.

(See http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/file_download.php/2ebab9db3c6aab04f0f99f9d6be4dd9dCopyright_Act.pdf)

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


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Angela

body:
On 7/15/05, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> That's all fine with me, but for a problem like this there's still no
> end in sight.

True. That's why this policy needs to be moved out of its "proposed"
stage into something real.
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposed_policy_for_wikis_in_new_languages>

> I don't think we should definite cases where a Wikipedia *will* be
> created, but I think we should define those cases in which it won't,
> to reduce confusion and keep people aware of what not to do.

I agree. Perhaps cases where it won't could be documented at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_policy_for_wikis_in_new_languages
in an attempt to find some sort of consensus on this issue. I would
rather have a vote on the general policy than a vote on every new
proposal.

Angela.


body:
Okay are we now gonna have an endless discussion about endless
discussions? It's simple we requested a language because it's too
different from the other dialects used in Germany, people will only
benefit, so I don't understand the whole thing. Why be complicated if
you don't have to? (besides then they'll 2 to choose from, which ever
they prefer)

Servien

2005/7/15, Angela <beesley at gmail.com>:
> On 7/15/05, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> > That's all fine with me, but for a problem like this there's still no
> > end in sight.
>
> True. That's why this policy needs to be moved out of its "proposed"
> stage into something real.
> <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposed_policy_for_wikis_in_new_languages>
>
> > I don't think we should definite cases where a Wikipedia *will* be
> > created, but I think we should define those cases in which it won't,
> > to reduce confusion and keep people aware of what not to do.
>
> I agree. Perhaps cases where it won't could be documented at
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_policy_for_wikis_in_new_languages
> in an attempt to find some sort of consensus on this issue. I would
> rather have a vote on the general policy than a vote on every new
> proposal.
>
> Angela.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


references:
<42D6C690.7090201@telus.net> <db77vo$vr0$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<db8si1$5t1$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<51dd1af805071512517d86aadb@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On 7/15/05, ?var Arnfj?r? Bjarmason <avarab at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/15/05, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> > If that Wiktionary is inactive
>
> It has approximately 20,000 articles.

Dutch has almost 20,000, but Afrikaans, which is the one requesting
case sensitivity changes has just 19 (just 19, not 19,000). Ashar's
request was to ask af.wikipedia, not Wiktionary about this, and they
have 4000 articles and a reasonably active, though small, community.

Angela.


from_name: Dan Grey

body:
Y'know, one thing leaps out at me - how can 70/30 for/against possibly
be a 'no'? Turn it on it's head for a moment - 30/70 for/against, yet
it (whatever it is) is passed - that would madness, right? But that's
what we're saying here.

>Someone will renominate him in a month or two and he'll be a shoo-in.

No doubt.

Dan


from_name: Rowan Collins

body:
On 14/07/05, Jean-Baptiste Soufron <jbsoufron at gmail.com> wrote:
> > confirmed in this case), the original author of a public-domain
> > work has *no* rights of any sort, not even the right to be
> > credited, since by definition public-domain works are not owned in
> > any fashion by anyone.
>
> Are you sure ?
>
> It can mean that the author has no right to be credited, but does it
> mean that someone else can claim to be the author ?

[[en:Moral rights]] states: "...[the US] still does not completely
recognize moral rights as part of copyright law, but rather as part of
other bodies of law, such as defamation or unfair competition." In
other words, the inalienable right to attribution does not exist in
any form (except for a limited coverage for visual works).

Meanwhile, a quick bit of research shows that, while "moral rights"
are now partially enshrined in UK law, they expire along with the
copyright on the work in question. [Since these are fairly recent
rights and also require explicit assertion, no qualifying work is yet
old enough for them to have existed and then expired, but
theoretically they will.]

As far as I can see, it is perfectly logical from this that there is
no legal protection in either of these jurisdictions against a work
whose copyright has expired being passed off as the work of someone
else. That may seem surprising, but I think it is true.

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


body:
Angela wrote:
>
> Ashar's request was to ask af.wikipedia, not Wiktionary about this,
> and they have 4000 articles and a reasonably active, though small,
> community.

If none of them participates in Wiktionary, why does their opinion count
any more than anyone else's?


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Poll on templates

body:
On 7/15/05, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Michael Turley <michael.turley at gmail.com> wrote:
> > If something makes it easier to generate content, but happens to make
> > it harder to reuse content off site, I'm still all for it.
>
> Then there is no point in furthering this conversation with you. You obviously
> value the process of content generation over the actual use of that content.
> This is directly counter to the goals of the project.
>
> -- mav

That's a pretty nasty accusation you've thrown there, Daniel.  (That
my opinion is counter to the very goals of the project.)

I value the process of content generation over THIRD PARTY use of that
content, not over first party use.  As I already mentioned in the part
you cut off, I also value third party use of the content, but NOT EVER
AT THE EXPENSE OF first party generation and use of the content.

This is very different than the oversimplified (and wrong) way you've
just portrayed me.

I don't know if you respect my priorities, but I think I understand
and respect, but strongly disagree with yours.

Our primary mission is to create an encyclopedia, not to provide
content for unrelated third parties.  The main site and the projects
of it are -always- the first priority.  Note that I did NOT say -only-
priority.

Angela mentioned CD and DVD distribution, and I agree completely with
the overall goal of distributing knowledge in many forms.  If we need
to adjust our templates and tags to make them easier to strip out for
those purposes, then let's go ahead and do that.*  But ONLY if it
doesn't devalue them in any way on the main Wikipedia project.  And
restricting them to talk pages only to make it so that the "hard copy"
distributors don't have to take a very simple step to strip the
templates and tags off seriously damages the main project, in my
opinion, so should not be considered.

*Since the templates and tags are -already- relatively simple to strip
off using a programmed script, I don't see the need to act on this,
but I'm open to suggestions, too.

--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused


from_name: William M Connolley

subject: [WikiEN-l] William M. Connolley, admin? (was: Running the asylum)

body:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Fred Bauder wrote:
> If the problems William M. Connoley presents were temporary, I would
> not have objected to Administrator status for him. He believes a
> Wikipedia article should prominently feature the "truth." While this
> sounds ok on its face, in practice any method of arriving at the
> truth though reference to expert editors such as himself presents
> prospects of sustained conflict. Our references need to be to
> reputable published information.

FB has an odd definition of NPOV. The rest of the arbcomm don't agree with it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Climate_change_dispute/Proposed_decision#William_M._Connolley.27s_objections_to_NPOV

-W.

William M Connolley | wmc at bas.ac.uk | http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/wmc/
Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | (01223) 221479
If I haven't seen further, it's because giants were standing on my shoulders


from_name: Haukur Þorgeirsson

body:
> Thankfully, I see that the activities of the wikipedia website has not
> escaped the notice of others who are in a position to take the appropriate
> steps in the near future.

Indeed. I'll bet cats to bags that
this is empty blustering.

> Thirdly, I'm genuinely not sure how to
> proceed on this matter. This website
> guy has still not really said whether
> or not he claims to own the copyright
> to this image, or to have licensed it
> from somebody who does.

If he holds the copyright to that image
then I hold the copyright to the King
James Bible.

> However, since this website guy is
> already upset with us, I thought it
> would advisable to exercise additional
> scrutiny and get more opinions.

Here's my opinion: I agree with you.

Regards,
Haukur


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] The relevance of this list and the
	endless	discussions

body:
Hoi,
This reply is not relevant to this threat. Please stay on topic and
relevant.
Thanks,
    GerardM

Servien Ilaino wrote:

>Okay are we now gonna have an endless discussion about endless
>discussions? It's simple we requested a language because it's too
>different from the other dialects used in Germany, people will only
>benefit, so I don't understand the whole thing. Why be complicated if
>you don't have to? (besides then they'll 2 to choose from, which ever
>they prefer)
>
>Servien
>
>
>2005/7/15, Angela <beesley at gmail.com>:
>
>
>>On 7/15/05, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>That's all fine with me, but for a problem like this there's still no
>>>end in sight.
>>>
>>>
>>True. That's why this policy needs to be moved out of its "proposed"
>>stage into something real.
>><http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposed_policy_for_wikis_in_new_languages>
>>
>>
>>
>>>I don't think we should definite cases where a Wikipedia *will* be
>>>created, but I think we should define those cases in which it won't,
>>>to reduce confusion and keep people aware of what not to do.
>>>
>>>
>>I agree. Perhaps cases where it won't could be documented at
>>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_policy_for_wikis_in_new_languages
>>in an attempt to find some sort of consensus on this issue. I would
>>rather have a vote on the general policy than a vote on every new
>>proposal.
>>
>>Angela.
>>
>>


body:
Hoi,
Like the posting that this is a reply to, it is not relevant to what the
thread was about. Please stay on topic.
Thanks,
    GerardM

Mark Williamson wrote:

>A Wikipedia was requested for Cantonese. That was simple they
>requested a language because it's too different from Mandarin, and
>people would only benefit.
>
>It didn't need to be complicated.
>
>Besides, they would've had two sides to choose from, whichever they
>preferred -- and yet it has not been created because there have been
>issues, even though Cantonese has many more native speakers than Low
>Saxon.
>
>Regardless of actual differences, people are going to be a bit
>hesitant to oblige a request that appears on the surface to be
>dividing by country. Even if you do not believe it divides by country,
>you must admit that it looks this way on the surface. Anybody who
>reads the topic will see "nds-nl", and if they know that "nl" is a
>country code will say "That doesn't sound right".
>
>Also, in this case, as in any case, if the Wikipedia /is/ going to be
>created, it will likely be a while. Scots and V?ro were in a similar
>situation -- actually better -- they had a few native speakers, a few
>extra supporters, and growing test Wikipedias. Nobody seemed to
>believe that the new Wikipedias shouldn't be created. And yet, it took
>a long time between when they became such popular requests, and their
>actual creation.
>
>All I can suggest is to be patient.
>
>Mark
>
>On 15/07/05, Servien Ilaino <servien at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Okay are we now gonna have an endless discussion about endless
>>discussions? It's simple we requested a language because it's too
>>different from the other dialects used in Germany, people will only
>>benefit, so I don't understand the whole thing. Why be complicated if
>>you don't have to? (besides then they'll 2 to choose from, which ever
>>they prefer)
>>
>>Servien
>>
>>
>>2005/7/15, Angela <beesley at gmail.com>:
>>
>>
>>>On 7/15/05, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>That's all fine with me, but for a problem like this there's still no
>>>>end in sight.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>True. That's why this policy needs to be moved out of its "proposed"
>>>stage into something real.
>>><http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposed_policy_for_wikis_in_new_languages>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I don't think we should definite cases where a Wikipedia *will* be
>>>>created, but I think we should define those cases in which it won't,
>>>>to reduce confusion and keep people aware of what not to do.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I agree. Perhaps cases where it won't could be documented at
>>>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_policy_for_wikis_in_new_languages
>>>in an attempt to find some sort of consensus on this issue. I would
>>>rather have a vote on the general policy than a vote on every new
>>>proposal.
>>>
>>>Angela.
>>>


body:
[Warning: this post will drift further off topic the more of it you read. :p]

On 15/07/05, Bennett Haselton <bennett at peacefire.org> wrote:
> This language thread -- which I probably wouldn't be able to follow even if I read
> through the archives to see how it started before I joined -- seems like it has all the
> characteristics of the type of out-of-control Internet debate that Brainjammer was
> designed to avoid:

Perhaps before you start advocating the use of this system, you should
put somewhere a description of what it *is*. Looking at some of the
existing threads, I couldn't immediately see anything other than a
bog-standard forum.

I presume your "killer feature", as it were, is the ability to mark
posts with a "status" in terms of their relationship to the parent.
This seems like an intriguing idea, but imperfectly implemented. I
know it's just the germ of an idea right now, but given that you're
publicly advocating its use, here are some criticisms:

* The most obvious imperfection is that the status labels are not
particularly clear - why is  "awaiting response" styled the same as
"incorporated into parent"?

* What's more, if the premise that posts can be made redundant by
altering their parent holds, why are "incorporated" and "withdrawn"
posts shown at all? Deleting them outright would be foolish, but
surely showing them by default defeats the object of

* Who decides when a post has been successfully incorporated? If Bob
replies to Alice's comment, and Alice amends the original comment, it
seems to me that first Alice must tell Bob that she has done so, and
then Bob must accept the amendment and withdraw the reply. If your
existing model follows this process, it's not obvious from the
presentation.

* Your presentation also lacks any kind of "audit trail" - it would be
nice to see how Alice has changed her post, and how Bob responded to
her claim to have incorporated his response. Your forumish interface
doesn't seem suited to tracking such things.

And finally, you realise this is more-or-less exactly how discussion
works on a "traditional" wiki (e.g. c2.com, meatball, etc)? i.e. the
aim is to refactor a discussion ("ThreadMode") into a coherent
"DocumentMode", and to encourage opinions to be expressed by amending
and expanding the existing text rather than simply creating a "rival"
document. The main difference seeming to be that you are aiming to
create a structured and non-redundant discussion thread, rather than a
stand-alone document.

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


from_name: James Gibbon

body:
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 05:46:47 +1000
Skyring <skyring at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 7/15/05, James Gibbon <wikipedia at jamesgibbon.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:02:16 +0100
> > Chris Jenkinson <chris at starglade.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Well, not that I want to start moaning about gmail, but if the
> > > way it works is not in line with existing email clients and
> > > email servers, which it does, as it ignores the in-reply-to
> > > header, I wouldn't really call it "very good". :)
> >
> > Agreed, was thinking the same thing myself! "Rather poor" is
> > probably a better description if that's the case.
>
> It depends if you are talking about using it for viewing threads,
> which is what I was doing, or discussing compatibility with other
> browsers, which is what you two are doing!
>

Personally, I was talking about its compatibility with accepted
standards for handling threads :D

James

--
Dig It : a forum for European Beatles fans - http://beatles.dyndns.org/


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki 1.4.7 released

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

MediaWiki 1.4.7 is a bug fix release. Those affected by the following
problems in 1.4.6 should upgrade:

* Watchlist breakage on MySQL 3.23.x and with table prefix enabled
* Possible breakage in watchlist, some image resizing modes on PHP 4.1.2

1.4.6 included a fix for a cross-site scripting vulnerability, so anyone
running older 1.4 releases is very strongly encouraged to upgrade as well.

Note to upgraders: current versions of MediaWiki are known to produce a
large number of notice-level warnings under the newly released PHP
4.4.0. These appear however to be harmless; if you encounter them add
this to your LocalSettings.php to suppress the notices:

~  error_reporting( E_ALL & ~E_NOTICE );

PHP 5.1.0beta3 is known to be incompatible at this time.

Release notes:
http://sourceforge.net/project/shownotes.php?release_id=342530

Download:
http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/wikipedia/mediawiki-1.4.7.tar.gz?download

MD5 checksum: 2ec40b5e53ad1eb762e39b502da247f9

Before asking for help, try the FAQ:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_FAQ

Low-traffic release announcements mailing list:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-announce

Wiki admin help mailing list:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l

Bug report system:
http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/

Play "stump the developers" live on IRC:
#mediawiki on irc.freenode.net

- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFC2LOOwRnhpk1wk44RArjSAKDRirQTGGP+rTLUNBV0oADWWlKXIQCeNMvA
8l4eHtMEWFRWees5tbls0uA=
=WGQc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


body:
On 15/07/05, Michael Turley <michael.turley at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The reason 70/30 can be a "no" is a core principle of Wikipedia:
> Wikipedia operates on consensus, not majority.
>

Of course, and I've known that since forever. But let's be honest -
that's not how it works, and it's not even how it *could* work.
"Consensus" can only mean everyone agrees - and when the hell that
does that happen? Next to never.

Consensus is a dream, and I think we should start facing up to that
fully and openly.

The minority ruling the majority isn't exactly healthy, either.

Dan


body:
On 15/07/05, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> any method of arriving at the
> truth though reference to expert editors such as himself presents
> prospects of sustained conflict.
>
> Fred

OK, just for my benefit (and anyone else who may not be 100% au fait
with all this) - is that what William suggests we do?

Dan


body:
On 15/07/05, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
> Getting back to the topic, however, if something has passed into the
> public domain, can you use a trademark that is related to that
> copyrighted work?  For instance, if and when "Steamboat Willie" goes
> into the public domain (Disney fights real hard to keep that from
> happening), can you use Micky Mouse in a manner that the Walt Disney
> Corporation would find offensive?  Like wearing a swastika or burning a
> cross or flag?  Can you even refer to the movie clip as "Steamboat
> Willie"?  Is the name Disney even trademarked so can you even
> acknowledge that Walt Disney was one of the animators for that movie?

I won't spend too long on this point, because it's not entirely
on-topic, and I don't know in any depth or certainty, but I think this
is where things like defamation come in. If you implied that Disney
supported Nazism or some other "evil", they would presumably have the
right to sue you for the implication - and if you showed Mickey Mouse
doing so, they could reasonably argue that that's what you were doing.

More generally, though, trademarks are always so much more flexible
than other forms of "intellectual property" that I really don't know
what you could and couldn't do once Mickey Mouse was no longer
*copyrighted*, but still considered a *trademark*. [Of course, unlike
the Encyclopedia Britannica, you couldn't really use an image of
Mickey Mouse with the trademark removed, since Mickey Mouse *is* the
trademark]

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


subject: [WikiEN-l] HowStuffWorks article on Wikipedia and [[wing warping]]

body:
Wow. That page had more adverts than content - impressive!

Thanks for the heads-up though

Dan


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Correspondence relating to the copyright status of
	an image

body:
>>If he holds the copyright to that image
>>then I hold the copyright to the King
>>James Bible.
>
> IIRC didn't King James I grant a perpetual copyright to Oxford for that
> book?

To himself, more like :) My sentence was
meant as a variation of the old "then I'm
the Queen of England" quip.

Regards,
Haukur


body:
> Assuming that you are not, indeed, the current incumbent of the British
> Throne (otherwise, gosh, greetings, Your Majesty. :-)), I agree, but
> that doesn't mean that the image is not under copyright; indeed, the
> image is almost certainly under copyright, as PD works are rare outside
> of the United States for things newer than the 1920s.

Dude was born in 1879. This photo might
well have been taken before 1923 and gods
know under what copyright laws. British?
Even if it was taken between 1923 and 1935
the photographer might well have died
before 1935, which would put the photo
in the public domain under European laws.

And if the angry guy with the website really
held a license for the picture he'd probably
state its source and author somewhere and not
just froth at the mouth when asked.

He probably feels he *owns* the picture since
he scanned it in or some such.

> Anyway, I agree, this... 'individual' seems to be quite taken with
> invective about other's attitude to 'his' website. Perhaps he feels that
> his content has already been "stolen" (eurgh, it's intellectual
> property; it cannot be stolen unless the creator no longer has access to
> it) by us in some way, and is so very affronted? I cannot imagine that
> anyone would fly off the handle quite so much at the simple instigation
> of a request for permission...

He maintains one of the few decent websources on
what is a relatively obscure subject. Like other
people in the same position he will find himself
used extensively by Wikipedia as a source. This
is probably the cause of his fury.

Regards,
Haukur


from_name: Jean-Baptiste Soufron

body:
> More to the point at hand, can you use the term "Encyclop?dia
> Britannica", which is a registered trademark even though a creative
> work with that name has its copyright expire?  This question is of
> particular personal importance because my name is now attached to
> the project on Wikisource, even though people other than I have
> made the edits to put that name on the project.  If we need to
> rename the project, it needs to be done sooner than later.

Yes you can use it :)


from_name: James D. Forrester

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

Haukur ?orgeirsson wrote:

[Snip]

> > Thirdly, I'm genuinely not sure how to
> > proceed on this matter. This website
> > guy has still not really said whether
> > or not he claims to own the copyright
> > to this image, or to have licensed it
> > from somebody who does.
>
> If he holds the copyright to that image
> then I hold the copyright to the King
> James Bible.

Assuming that you are not, indeed, the current incumbent of the British
Throne (otherwise, gosh, greetings, Your Majesty. :-)), I agree, but
that doesn't mean that the image is not under copyright; indeed, the
image is almost certainly under copyright, as PD works are rare outside
of the United States for things newer than the 1920s.

Anyway, I agree, this... 'individual' seems to be quite taken with
invective about other's attitude to 'his' website. Perhaps he feels that
his content has already been "stolen" (eurgh, it's intellectual
property; it cannot be stolen unless the creator no longer has access to
it) by us in some way, and is so very affronted? I cannot imagine that
anyone would fly off the handle quite so much at the simple instigation
of a request for permission...

[Snip]

Yours,
- --
James D. Forrester
Wikimedia : [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]
E-Mail    : james at jdforrester.org
IM (MSN)  : jamesdforrester at hotmail.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFC2FDKkn3kUxZyJx0RAimfAJ9zM4GGou3mqAe7KLyGHhrbOdDWdgCfWMo2
x0wA11Dkjkbj9bzQlpooP5M=
=rGgW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Mohsen Basirat

subject: [Wikitech-l] XMLRPC  / SOAP Interface

body:
Dear all
is there any XMLRPC ( XML-RPC ) / SOAP interface for
MediaWiki to access or publish contents as WebService?
Regrads
Mohsen Basirat

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


from_name: Thomas Gries

subject: [Wikitech-l] enotifwiki

body:
New version of EnotifWiki [1] has been published [2] including fresh update
from MediaWiki CVS 200507152200 (UTC).

[1] http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enotif
[2] http://sourceforge.net/projects/enotifwiki -> version 3.45


subject: [Wikitech-l] XMLRPC  / SOAP Interface

body:
Mohsen Basirat wrote:
> Dear all
> is there any XMLRPC ( XML-RPC ) / SOAP interface for
> MediaWiki to access or publish contents as WebService?

Not presently.

There are some plans to build an interface for accessing data in
cooperation with KDE client application developers.

There are currently no plans for a publishing interface, as the people
who might use it seem content to write hacks building on the HTML user
interface instead of designing one. ;)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20050716/5e025119/attachment.pgp>


body:
Mark,
You may now something about languages, but you have no clue about
Wiktionary. And if you did, I would welcome your comments about the ERD
that I posted here http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:ERD.jpg It is
a work in progress and it is working towards the Ultimate Wiktionary. I
can put dialects in there but I am not yet happy about this aspect as I
cannot truly enter simplified Chinese in there in a proper way. It also
places etymology on a different place from where it is traditionally
placed in the wiktionaries due to the fact that there are some that
differ depending on the meaning of a word.

As to capitalisation; any paper dictionary does not capitalise the words
that are in there unless they are capitalised as a rule. It is due to
some unfortunate history that it took so long to change the English
wiktionary. There are currently 19 articles in the African wiktionary,
Jcwf may want to use the same system of templates that are used in many
of the other wiktionaries. To do this it helps to have capitalisation
turned off.

I second his request to turn capitalisation on the af.wiktionary off.

Thanks,
    GerardM

Mark Williamson wrote:

>Because they speak Afrikaans, and would be able to give the view of a
>native speaker.
>
>Mark
>
>On 15/07/05, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Angela wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ashar's request was to ask af.wikipedia, not Wiktionary about this,
>>>and they have 4000 articles and a reasonably active, though small,
>>>community.
>>>
>>>
>>If none of them participates in Wiktionary, why does their opinion count
>>any more than anyone else's?
>>


subject: [Wikitech-l] XMLRPC  / SOAP Interface

body:
Dear Brion
i have to write client application to access wikipedia
content and i think is so pertty if i can access
wikipedia content trought xmlrpc interface,actually i
dont know it's legall if i use wikipedia content?
and i have to make xmlrpc interface to access
wikipedia content ( Parsing HTML Content and serve as
XMLRPC ).
Consider that client will Released as GPL License.
please Guid me if you know about it.
Regards
Mohsen Basirat

--- Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:

> Mohsen Basirat wrote:
> > Dear all
> > is there any XMLRPC ( XML-RPC ) / SOAP interface
> for
> > MediaWiki to access or publish contents as
> WebService?
>
> Not presently.
>
> There are some plans to build an interface for
> accessing data in
> cooperation with KDE client application developers.
>
> There are currently no plans for a publishing
> interface, as the people
> who might use it seem content to write hacks
> building on the HTML user
> interface instead of designing one. ;)
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
> > _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

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


from_name: Michael Turley

body:
On 7/15/05, Dan Grey <dangrey at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 15/07/05, Michael Turley <michael.turley at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > The reason 70/30 can be a "no" is a core principle of Wikipedia:
> > Wikipedia operates on consensus, not majority.
> >
>
> Of course, and I've known that since forever. But let's be honest -
> that's not how it works, and it's not even how it *could* work.
> "Consensus" can only mean everyone agrees - and when the hell that
> does that happen? Next to never.
>
> Consensus is a dream, and I think we should start facing up to that
> fully and openly.
>
> The minority ruling the majority isn't exactly healthy, either.
>
>
> Dan

It's no wonder you seem to be frustrated by Wikipedia's processes.
You're working with an incorrect definition of consensus.  I suspect
many others are, too, based on the large number of policy polls and
votes thrown up lately.

Consensus does NOT mean that everyone agrees, it only means that
everyone consents to the final decision.  A decision that is
-accepted- by all members of a group is consensus.  However, being
willing to accept something -does not- require nor should it imply
total agreement.

At Wikipedia, we do allow decisions to be made without -complete-
consensus, where a few who won't consent to a decision are left out,
but the consensus we try to build is well into "supermajority" range,
where all significant minority interests also consent.  That is a big
reason why the community remains friendly and productive.  There are
very few "losers" in Wikipedia consensus decisions.

Consensus building is where discussions and negotiation skills have
almost infinitely more value over polls and votes.

--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused


subject: [Wikipedia-l] try having this language discussion on Brainjammer

body:
On 7/16/05, Rowan Collins <rowan.collins at gmail.com> wrote:

> And finally, you realise this is more-or-less exactly how discussion
> works on a "traditional" wiki (e.g. c2.com, meatball, etc)? i.e. the
> aim is to refactor a discussion ("ThreadMode") into a coherent
> "DocumentMode", and to encourage opinions to be expressed by amending
> and expanding the existing text rather than simply creating a "rival"
> document.

See also http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LiquidThreads for a proposal
to combine traditional wiki editing with forum features.

Angela


subject: [WikiEN-l] Account migration

body:
On 7/15/05, andyl2004 at sympatico.ca <andyl2004 at sympatico.ca> wrote:

> I'm wondering if it's possible to move my admin privleges from the AndyL account to homeontherange?

Yes it is possible, but please make it clear on the user page of
Homeontherange who you are so people don't get confused about who this
new admin is.

The place to request moving of privileges is
meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_permissions since only Stewards
can remove the admin access from your old account.

Angela.


from_name: Ashar Voultoiz

subject: [Wikitech-l] All special pages should now recache

body:
Hello,

There was a trivial bug that prevented recaching of some special pages.
It should be fixed by now and the next time the recacher is run, they
should be correctly updated.

The special pages bugged were:
 - Uncategorizedcategories
 - Uncategorizedpages
 - Wantedpages

(Fixed by QueryPage.php v1.60)

--
Ashar Voultoiz - WP++++
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hashar
http://www.livejournal.com/community/wikitech/
IM: hashar at jabber.org  ICQ: 15325080


from_name: Andrew Gray

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Correspondence relating to the copyright status of an
	image

body:
On 16/07/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Haukur ?orgeirsson wrote:
>
> >>Thirdly, I'm genuinely not sure how to
> >>proceed on this matter. This website
> >>guy has still not really said whether
> >>or not he claims to own the copyright
> >>to this image, or to have licensed it
> >>from somebody who does.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >If he holds the copyright to that image
> >then I hold the copyright to the King
> >James Bible.
> >
> >
> IIRC didn't King James I grant a perpetual copyright to Oxford for that
> book?

It's very weird...

Basically, James VI (being a canny - and perpetually bankrupt - Scot)
wanted to get as much money out of the Authorised Version as he could,
when it first was published in 1611. So, he took a patent on it - an
early form of copyright - but arranged to have it vested in the Crown
not the monarch. (In other words, it passes down the generations). As
you can guess, the monarch being the only source for the legally
mandated religious book of the nation... it's a money-spinner, all
right.

This right then went to the Royal Printer, under a 1557 charter, so
they got to do all the printing (presumably skimming the profits;
these posts were often sinecures).

However, Cambridge had, in 1534, managed to obtain a charter which
gave them the right to print and sell "all manner of books" (this
right was strictly controlled back then), with the idea being that if
the Vice-Chancellor had approved a book, it'd probably pass the royal
censors anyway. They didn't do much with this for a long time, but
they appointed printers regularly anyway on principle.

And then the KJV came along. Cambridge argued that since they had a
charter to print *anything*,  they got to evade the patent on the KJV;
they won the argument, and started printing it in 1629. Then it seems
that about ten years later, someone decided that out of a sense of
fairness, Oxford should have the same rights here as Cambridge, and so
they got a similar charter, and permission to print copies of the KJV.

Currently, if memory serves, all UK editions come from OUP or CUP.
There's also a small Scottish printer with a similar right, but I
don't know what happened to them.

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


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Poll on templates

body:
--- Michael Turley <michael.turley at gmail.com> wrote:
> That's a pretty nasty accusation you've thrown there, Daniel.  (That
> my opinion is counter to the very goals of the project.)

My point still stands; that our purpose is to create something useful with an
emphasis on the usefulness part. Having too much meta data in otherwise decent
articles vs on talk pages goes against that because that just gets in the way
of *reading* the article. Only if the particular article needs extra help
should we emphasize the development aspect. Prominently-placed 'Edit this
Page', 'Discussion', and 'History' links will still be there for those that are
interested.

> I value the process of content generation over THIRD PARTY use of that
> content, not over first party use.  As I already mentioned in the part
> you cut off, I also value third party use of the content, but NOT EVER
> AT THE EXPENSE OF first party generation and use of the content.

Using talk pages for talk and info *about* articles that are not sub-standard
(stub, badly organized, and/or POV) is the purpose of talk pages. That is why
talk pages exist. Having those meta data in articles hurts the usefulness of
the content *right here* on Wikipedia as well as making it unnecessarily hard
for third party reuse or our own reuse for making a print and/or CD/DVD version
(I have been told that getting rid of editor-related messages was a huge chore
that needed to be done to get a German DVD ready).

This is the last email I'm sending to you on this.

-- mav

____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Correspondence relating to the copyright status of
	an	image

body:
Nathaniel Krause wrote:

> Below is the response I received from the proprietor of
> http://4dw.net/royalark after I e-mailed him to ask for copyright
> information on a picture that appeared on his website. The image in
> question  (http://www.4dw.net/royalark/Arabia/hijaz-Ali.gif) is a
> photograph of [[Ali bin Hussein]], who died in 1935, and thus I
> thought there was a good chance the image might be in the public
> domain by now, especially since it might well have been taken in the
> Middle East before the currently-existing states there were even
> established.

(rant deleted)

> From:    "Christopher J Buyers"
> To:    "Nathaniel Krause"
> Subject:    Re: hijaz-Ali.gif
> Date:    Wed, 13 Jul 2005 16:38:59 +0100
>
> Piss-off.
>
> You and your kind are nothing more than a bunch of thieves and
> plagiarisers. I am in no mood to help you or co-operate with you one
> bit. I shall of course, ensure the registration of your name for
> future reference by others.
>
> Thankfully, I see that the activities of the wikipedia website has not
> escaped the notice of others who are in a position to take the
> appropriate steps in the near future.
> ----
> I'm sending this to the list, first, because I wanted to keep my word
> and remind my fellow Wikipedians not to blatantly violate somebody's
> copyright. Second, because I wanted to warn you that Mr. Buyers'
> second e-mail appears to let the cat out of the bag regarding the
> shadowy conspiracy that may be plotting against Wikipedia as even as
> you read this. Sadly, we have not escaped their notice. In case you
> see somebody coming toward you, especially in the near future, who
> looks like he may be in a position to take appropriate steps, be extra
> careful.
>
> Thirdly, I'm genuinely not sure how to proceed on this matter. This
> website guy has still not really said whether or not he claims to own
> the copyright to this image, or to have licensed it from somebody who
> does. He just warns me not to use it without elaboration. Considering
> his attitude, I'm not sure I'd really believe him if he did claim to
> own it. On the other hand, I'm not comfortable just assuming that it's
> public domain -- even if it doesn't belong to Christopher J Buyers,
> there might be somebody else out there who still has rights to it.
> [[Wikipedia:Fair use]] seems to imply that I should tag it {{fairold}}
> and go ahead and use it, and it certainly appears to count as "Unique
> historical images which we cannot reproduce by other means". However,
> since this website guy is already upset with us, I thought it would
> advisable to exercise additional scrutiny and get more opinions.

Mr. Buyers comments are not consistent with those of a person who is
knowledgeable of what he speaks.

The following extracts from Saudi law
http://www.unesco.org/culture/copy/copyright/saudiarabia/saudiarabia.html
may be of some help.

    Article 12. Any person who takes a photograph may not publish, show
    or distribute the original or copies of the photograph without the
    authorization of the persons depicted in the photograph. This
    provision shall not be of application if the photograph is published
    in relation to public events or if it concerns persons with official
    status or persons who enjoy public notoriety or if the public
    authorities authorize its publication in the general interest. The
    person depicted in the photograph may authorize its publication,
    even without the consent of the person who has taken the photograph,
    save for agreement to the contrary, in newspapers, periodicals and
    other such publications.

    Article 24. (1) The author's rights in his work shall be protected
    for his lifetime and for 50 years after his death.
    (2) In the case of sound, audiovisual or photographic works, of
    works of applied art (handicraft or industrial) or of anonymously
    published works, the author's rights shall be protected for 25 years
    as from the date of publication of the work. In such cases, the term
    of protection shall be computed as from the date of first
    publication of the work irrespective of any new publication.

Since Buyers does not appear to give any credit for the photo, it
appears to be anonymous in the absence of any other evidence.  Saudi law
should prevail for this.  (Iraqi law is another possibility since
Hussein died in exile in Baghdad.)  The picture does not show someone
ready for his death bed, and could very well have been taken many years
before his February death.  The picture probably went into the public
domain well before 1960.  Thus public domain is more than an assumption.

On the Royal Ark page in question I counted 18 claims to copyright.
Copyright is not strenghthened by repetition.  He should be advised that
US law allows for a fine of up to $2,500 for making illegal claims of
copyright.  In this case I think that our use of the picture is
perfectly legal; if he wants the picture removed let him issue a formal
take down order.

That's all fine in relation to this specific case, but based on his tone
I think that a confrontation somewhere with someone is just around the
corner no matter what we do, and no matter how right we are. It just
goes along with being big, and has nothing to do with any kind of
cospiracy.  One of Wikipedia's effects has been to diminish the value of
sites like Buyers'.  They forget that the facts that they have put
together are not copyrightable.  At the same time the copyrightable
elements of their sites are mostly of no interest to us.  What was a lot
of work to them comes easily for us with our large human resources even
though no money has been involved.  There is nothing illegal to what we
have done, but there is nevertheless an effect.

Ec


from_name: Skyring

subject: [WikiEN-l] Mmmmmm-Hmmmmmm! Smell that 100% Pure Original Research!!!

body:
[[De facto head of state]] - No sauces, only one cook!

--
Peter in Canberra


body:
On 7/15/05, James Gibbon <wikipedia at jamesgibbon.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:02:16 +0100
> Chris Jenkinson <chris at starglade.org> wrote:
>
> > Well, not that I want to start moaning about gmail, but if the
> > way it works is not in line with existing email clients and
> > email servers, which it does, as it ignores the in-reply-to
> > header, I wouldn't really call it "very good". :)
>
> Agreed, was thinking the same thing myself! "Rather poor" is
> probably a better description if that's the case.

It depends if you are talking about using it for viewing threads,
which is what I was doing, or discussing compatibility with other
browsers, which is what you two are doing!

I can't do anything about the second, and on that score perhaps you'd
like to redirect grumbles to Google.

However, I can and now do, initiate a new mail, rather than just
replying to a previous one and changing the subject line, when kicking
off a new subject.

> Dig It : a forum for Euro Beatles fans - http://beatles.dyndns.org/

Reminds me of the outrage and horror I first felt when I saw a German
language book called "Die Beatles!"

--
Peter in Canberra


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Case sensitivity on Afrikaans Wiktionary

body:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:

> As to capitalisation; any paper dictionary does not capitalise the
> words that are in there unless they are capitalised as a rule. It is
> due to some unfortunate history that it took so long to change the
> English wiktionary. There are currently 19 articles in the African
> wiktionary, Jcwf may want to use the same system of templates that are
> used in many of the other wiktionaries. To do this it helps to have
> capitalisation turned off.
>
> I second his request to turn capitalisation on the af.wiktionary off.

Personally, I was just passing on a request that appeared on the
en:wiktionary Beer parlour.  Naturally, I support it just as I supported
the change in English.  A more important and more general question might
be what should the default situation be when a new Wiktionary is
started.  This will even be important for Wiktionaries is scripts where
capitalization is unknown, since they too will include foreign words.

Ec


body:
Mark Williamson wrote:

>There is no list of rules for Wikipedia-l.
>
>Thus, there is no rule that says we must stay on topic.
>
>We have a little fun every once in a while because we don't have rules
>-- we can make jokes, stray a little from the topic, things like that.
>
>So, while you may prefer that we stay on topic, it is by no means a rule.
>
>
This was one of your shorter posts once the quoted conversation was
removed, so I read it.  Communicating is not a matter of rules.
Straying off topic or making jokes have their place, but I also know
that a good one-liner is more effective than a long-winded shaggy-dog story.

Communicating is a matter of social skills.  Repeating a point does not
always reinforce it.  I readily admit that I delete many of your posts
(especially the longer ones) without reading them.  You come across like
one of those politicians who has a lot to say, but to no effect because
you put everybody to sleep with the way you said it.

Ec


body:
Skyring wrote:

>On 7/16/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Haukur ?orgeirsson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If he holds the copyright to that image
>>>then I hold the copyright to the King
>>>James Bible.
>>>
>>>
>>IIRC didn't King James I grant a perpetual copyright to Oxford for that
>>book?
>>
>>
>This would cover the translation, not the actual Word of God, of course.
>
>
I've frequently heard of its being misrepresented as the St. James
Bible, and there have been many literalist Christians who regard this
version as the only Word of God. :-)

Ec


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] Account migration

body:
andyl2004 at sympatico.ca (andyl2004 at sympatico.ca) [050716 09:04]:

> I've abandoned my AndyL account on wikipedia and have moved to homeontherange
> At the moment I'm still signing my talk posts as AndyL but that will end soon.
> I'm wondering if it's possible to move my admin privleges from the AndyL account to homeontherange?

There are a few admins who use one name to edit and another to admin. Note
both names on User:Homeontherange and User:AndyL, use one to edit and the
other for janitorial work. This can be a slight PITA ...

- d.


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Funny joke, Gerard

body:
Stephen Bain stated for the record:
> On 7/16/05, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
>>A. Nony Mouse wrote:
>>
>>>This is a fucking joke [...]
>>
>>I vote to put this subscriber on moderation and not to let such e-mails
>>through in future. :-p
>
> I second.
>
> (I say that knowing full well that someone will take this opportunity
> to criticise us for holding a poll.)

But it isn't a poll, it's an expression of our consensus that A. Nony
Mouse has forfeited the privilege of freely communicating with us.

--
  Sean Barrett
  sean at epoptic.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] St Benedict's Rule

body:
Thanks to Mindspillage for spotting this one:

    http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?StBenedictsRule

This rule is, of course, how wikien-l actually works. I've just added it
to the list info page.

- d. (bad monk)


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

body:
On 7/16/05, Dan Grey <dangrey at gmail.com> wrote:
> Wow. That page had more adverts than content - impressive!
>
> Thanks for the heads-up though
>
>
> Dan
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
Still, it's quite easy to understand for newbies. I decided to link it
on the [[Wiki] article.

--Mgm


from_name: Jim Duffy

subject: [WikiEN-l] Illegal block

body:
In re http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Administrator_illegal_block

[[User:jtdirl]] reverted my edits to a series of articles on popes
without warning. He blocked me for vandalism. He has been edit
battling on these articles for weeks.

He says my edits were identical to others. Not so! I moved the title
in life of the dead pope to a 'Trivia' section. This resolves the
controversy over including the title in the first line of the article.
This title is reserved for the current pope. It is wrong to call a
deceased pope e.g. "His Holiness Pope Deceased XXII". If the pope in
death has a title he did not have in life e.g. "Saint" it is useful to
see the life style.

I tried to help and got yelled at.

--
Jim


subject: [WikiEN-l] St Benedict's Rule

body:
On 7/16/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
>
> Thanks to Mindspillage for spotting this one:
>
>    http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?StBenedictsRule
>
> This rule is, of course, how wikien-l actually works. I've just added it
> to the list info page.

"TwoStoutMonks" - I love it. Thanks for passing this on!

--
Peter in Canberra


body:
On 7/16/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Haukur ?orgeirsson wrote:

> >If he holds the copyright to that image
> >then I hold the copyright to the King
> >James Bible.
> >
> >
> IIRC didn't King James I grant a perpetual copyright to Oxford for that
> book?

This would cover the translation, not the actual Word of God, of course.

My opinion, getting back to the image in question, is that a
reasonable person would conclude that the website owner does NOT hold
copyright to the image, otherwise he would simply say so instead of
resorting to evasion and abuse.

--
Peter in Canberra


subject: [WikiEN-l] Illegal block

body:
Jim Duffy (hishelpfulness at gmail.com) [050716 10:55]:

> In re http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Administrator_illegal_block
> [[User:jtdirl]] reverted my edits to a series of articles on popes
> without warning. He blocked me for vandalism. He has been edit
> battling on these articles for weeks.
> He says my edits were identical to others. Not so! I moved the title
> in life of the dead pope to a 'Trivia' section. This resolves the
> controversy over including the title in the first line of the article.
> This title is reserved for the current pope. It is wrong to call a
> deceased pope e.g. "His Holiness Pope Deceased XXII". If the pope in
> death has a title he did not have in life e.g. "Saint" it is useful to
> see the life style.
> I tried to help and got yelled at.

Jtdirl refers to this at [[WP:ANI#Administrator illegal block]].

- d.


body:
On 7/16/05, Haukur ?orgeirsson <haukurth at hi.is> wrote:

> And if the angry guy with the website really
> held a license for the picture he'd probably
> state its source and author somewhere and not
> just froth at the mouth when asked.
>
> He probably feels he *owns* the picture since
> he scanned it in or some such.

On reflection, this may actually be true. The Mona Lisa itself is long
out of copyright, but if you take a photograph of it, then you hold
copyright over that specific photographic image. That's how art
galleries protect their images of the pantings they own. You can't
just go to the Louvre's website and use their image of the Mona Lisa.
Some galleries ban photography for this reason (as well as the fact
that flashes may damage the painting, especially watercolours).

How did this bloke get his copy of the image? If the subject expired
in 1935, then very probably he found a printed source and scanned it
in. In that case, he may well have a valid claim.

--
Pete, wondering if royalty can be a subject


from_name: Anthere

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: disclaimer at the bottom of pages

body:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki%3AHistory_copyright

What do you think ?

Ant

Michael Snow a ?crit:
> Angela wrote:
>
>> The text is from [[MediaWiki:History copyright]]. The text on the
>> English Wikipedia was added by Jamesday last year following a
>> discussion on this mailing list where Tim made the addition to the
>> history footers possible. See
>> http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-June/013706.html
>>
>> There is also related discussion at
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Terms_of_use#Title_17
>>
>> Information is also at
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Page_history which states the
>> Wikimedia Foundation's official view on this matter. See this diff
>> which Anthere and Jimmy both agreed to lasy July  -
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Page_history&diff=4805756&oldid=4516125
>>
>>
> I'm puzzled as to who came up with the idea that 17 USC 108 applies to
> page histories. The section applies to "libraries and archives", but I
> think it's a very strained reading to try and say it has anything to do
> with Wikipedia.
>
> Section 108 makes several references to premises, which suggests to me
> that it has in mind libraries and archives as physical facilities in
> "meatspace". Also, it limits reproduction/distribution to a single copy
> (three for unpublished works). If we have copyright infringements in
> page history, in many cases there will be more than one copy; the
> violation may not have been discovered until a number of revisions passed.
>
> The application of this section is quite limited, and I do not think we
> should be relying on it. Congress apparently intended this section to
> cover things like preservation or replacement of documents, and
> interlibrary loans of excerpts or out-of-print materials. The notes for
> this section are instructive:
> http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000108----000-notes.html
>
>
> While I understand the concern about potentially infringing materials in
> page histories, I don't think it warrants a special disclaimer. Since
> every revision of an article is arguably licensed separately under the
> GFDL, it would therefore require a statement that the GFDL applies. The
> current software message does not satisfy that. I think it would be
> better to use the same message that appears on current versions, which,
> after all, have the same potential problem. I don't see this message on
> history pages for our other projects, and we ought to keep this consistent.
>
> If a copyright holder complains specifically about infringement in the
> page history, I believe we can deal with the issue at that point. Based
> on the discussions I've seen, I understand the developers can purge
> portions of text from individual revisions if necessary. In the
> meantime, I think this is an unnecessary and ultimately ineffective
> disclaimer.
>
> --Michael Snow