subject: [Wikipedia-l] Fwd: Announcing Wikimedia Foundation

body:
I sent this message to the wrong list. Sorry.

----------  Forwarded Message  ----------

Subject: Announcing Wikimedia Foundation
Date: Friday 20 June 2003 04:19 pm
From: Daniel Mayer
To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org

Jimmy Wales wrote:
>I'm pleased to announce the existence of the
>Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a nonprofit corporation
>organized under the laws of Florida, United States.
>I am transferring to this new corporation the assets
>that follow:
>
>1. All Nupedia.com/net/org/etc. domain names
>2. All Wikipedia.com/net/org/etc. domain names
>
>3. All copyrights in software or articles that were
>previously owned by Bomis, Inc. and already placed
>under a copyleft license.  (This includes work-for-hire
>by Jason, Tim, Larry, Toan, Liz, and myself, as well as
>any other Bomis employees who may have worked on
>these projects as a part of their job, but doesn't include
>any work by thoseparties conducted on their own time
>or while not an employee of Bomis.)

Sweet! Thanks for setting up the Foundation (especially with the name
"Wikimedia"). As the owner of the Wikimedia.org and Wiktionary.org domain
names I hereby transfer ownership and control of these domain names to the
Wikimedia Foundation as soon as it is in the position to receive these assets
(per your personal email to me Jimbo).

I also noticed the Nupedia stuff. Does that mean that Nupedia is also now
 part of the Wikimedia family? I'm not certain if the Nupedians (if there are
 any left or who care) would be too happy about that.... Oh well, maybe we
 can bring some life to that project. I still think Nupedia (perhaps under
 the name GNUpedia) should be refactored to be a repository of
 expert-approved Wikipedia articles (along the lines of Larry's Sifter
 project). Thus that project would be a stable distribution of Wikipedia
 content but all editing would still take place at Wikipedia.

Which reminds me that gnupedia.org and gnupedia.com are also owned by Bomis
(IIRC). Are these domain names included with point 1?

Oh, and I'm going to assign copyright to all my edits to Wikimedia as part of
my Will and since I plan on living a very long time it will be awhile before
Wikimedia owns my text. I am still weary about having one entity in control
of so much content (which brings up the possibility of proprietary forks if,
for example, Wikimedia goes bankrupt and creditors try to sell Wikimedia's
assets).

Is there a way for Wikipedia authors to grant Wikimedia the ability to defend
the author's GNU FDLd copyrighted text without requiring the author to
transfer ownership to Wikimedia? Or am I confusing "ownership" and
"assignment"?

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

-------------------------------------------------------


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Oliver Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] what is meant by...

body:
Could not connect to DB on 130.94.122.197
Host 'larousse.wikipedia.org' is blocked because of many connection errors.
Unblock with 'mysqladmin flush-hosts'

If this error persists after reloading and clearing your browser cache,
please notify the Wikipedia developers.


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [WikiEN-l] Related to Mav's WM? (was: Announcing Wikimedia Foundation)

body:
Menchi wrote:
>1) Is this the formalization of the Wikimedia website
>that Mav has talked about, i.e., to facilitate interwiki
>image link with a common database? Or is this just
>a namesake?

So far it is just a Foundation. Adding a central repository for images would
simply be another Wikimedia project (just like Wikipedia or Wiktionary) that
would happen to be hosted at the wikimedia.org domain. And it would also be
neat to have a WikimediaONE login whereby all logins are managed at the
wikimedia.org domain and logging-in once means you are logged-into each
Wikimedia project.

>2) What happened to wikimedia.com? I thought Mav bought
>that site?

A cyber-squatter bought wikimedia.com last month! I'm really p*ssed. But I do
own wikimedia.org (which would be the only URL we would use anyway) and will
transfer ownership to Wikimedia as soon as it is able to accept it. In
retrospect I should have bought the .com at the same time but I didn't think
anybody would bother buying the .com domain since I thought cyber-squatting
died-off with the tech bust.

Now that we have a corporation with the name "Wikimedia" that does give us a
leg to stand on if we contested the squatter's ownership.

Jimbo - we should plan on eventually trademarking Wikipedia, Wiktionary and
Wikimedia and have those trademarks owned by the Wikimedia Foundation.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


from_name: The Cunctator

subject: [WikiEN-l] Bad word article

body:
On 6/20/03 3:45 PM, "Ilya N." <ilyanep at yahoo.com> wrote:

> The article [[Fucking Amal]] should be changed...I know many kids who go
> to this site.
>
> I would like to also propose a boilerplate text that says something like
> this:
>
> "WARNING: This article may countain offensive, or adult articles and links"
>
> but really the article mentioned above should be renamed to something
> like [[F... Amal]] or something
>
No. You should become more conversant with established Wikipedia policy on
such issues.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Joe Canuck

body:
On 6/20/03 4:20 PM, "Erik Moeller" <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:

> Jimmy-
>> Joe Canuck is banned from wikipedia.  Would someone with the
>> appropriate powers please take the appropriate steps to make this
>> technically true.
>
> Done. Technically, however, he will be back under a new nick tomorrow.
>
Frankly, as long as under his new nick he acts as a good Wikipedian, who
cares?

But yes, he probably won't. C'est dommage.


list: wikipedia-l

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Crown Copyright and the GNU FDL

body:
On 6/20/03 3:11 PM, "Daniel Mayer" <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> It seems that some of our ship text has been copied from websites using the
> Crown Copyright which reads in part;
>
> "....may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium for research,
> private study or for internal circulation within an organisation."
>
> That may cover Wikipedia itself but not downstream users of our text.
>
> "This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not used in a
> misleading context."
>
> Having this text on a wiki leads to a very real possibility that the text will
> be modified to be something it wasn't before. It is also a very subjective
> clause.
>
> "Where any of the Crown copyright items on this site are being republished or
> copied to others, the source of the material must be identified and the
> copyright status acknowledged."
>
> In other words the Crown Copyright is viral. This IMO is wholly incompatible
> with the GNU FDL.
>
The viral part isn't the problem, it's the other conditions. Yes, it's
incompatible with the GFDL.


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Wikitech-l] CVS etiquette

body:
tarquin-
> ok guys, I'm in!
> what's the correct etiquette?

> should I commit the changes to LanguageFr.php from the fr: wiki, or let
> you know first?

> what about stylesheet changes?

Use your own judgment: If it's a minor change, commit, then announce. If
it's a major change, announce, wait for objections, then commit.

Kind of like editing wiki pages ;-)

Regards,

Erik


from_name: John R. Owens

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Joe Canuck

references:
<8oCufNTSpVB@erik_moeller> <BB18EDD3.A8F2%cunctator@kband.com>
	<bcvtr7$9a7$3@main.gmane.org>

body:
On Fri, 2003-06-20 at 16:20, Ilya N. wrote:
> The Cunctator wrote:
>> On 6/20/03 4:20 PM, "Erik Moeller" <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:
>>
>>>Jimmy-
>>>
>>>>Joe Canuck is banned from wikipedia.  Would someone with the
>>>>appropriate powers please take the appropriate steps to make this
>>>>technically true.
>>>
>>>Done. Technically, however, he will be back under a new nick tomorrow.
>>
>> Frankly, as long as under his new nick he acts as a good Wikipedian, who
>> cares?
>>
>> But yes, he probably won't. C'est dommage.
>
> what does this have to do with cheese?

That's "fromage", not "dommage". "Dommage" is just what it sounds like,
damage, or harm or injury.

--
John R. Owens http://www.ghiapet.homeip.net/
(ring...ring...ring)
What do you want, you moon-faced assassin of joy?
				--Londo Mollari


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Bad word article

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

>Ilya-
>
>>The article [[Fucking Amal]] should be changed...I know many kids who go
>>to this site.
>>
>>I would like to also propose a boilerplate text that says something like
>>this:
>>
>>"WARNING: This article may countain offensive, or adult articles and links"
>>
>Now that is an issue we haven't discussed at any length yet. I invite
>further comments ;-)
>
The correct title should be [[Fucking ?m?l]].  Every other movie is
referred to by its title, why should this be an exception.

Ec.


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [Wikitech-l] Rebooted both

body:
I rebooted both *.197 and *.199, mostly because I'm clueless these
days.

I don't know the password for root mysql account, for example.  Well,
I used to know it.

This is twice today that the same thing happened.  Any clues as
to what the problem is?


from_name: Alex T.

body:
I had previously suggested that legal advice (or at least
a not-for-profit accountant) should be obtained for
filing the 1023 for 501(c)(3) status. I would also like
to point out (as I have before on Meta Wikipedia)
that it is not necessary to file if the organization's donations
are under $5,000.  Thus if you wish to announce donations
you can accept them if they are under a certain amount.
I would also urge you to look into filing with the necessary
state authorities regarding charitable contributions some states
have made these rules rather tough.

There is also a grace period for filing the 1023
that can be extended for a variety of reasons. I cannot
stress to much that seeking legal advice (even pro bono which is what
I offered and no one has taken me up on) is a good thing
as MANY groups are refused tax exempt status due to the
fact that they have not checked the various IRS rulings and
have drafted a corporate charter/certificates without the proper
exempt purposes or correct recitials regarding termination
transfers, etc..  I am working on a church case right now where
a church was denied 501(c)(3) status.
(No, the US Consitution does not  protect religions from everything).
This is a complex and complicated area of tax law.

Sincerely,
Alex T. Roshuk
Attorney at law
325 8th St
Brooklyn NY 11215-3313 USA
+1(718)788-6696
fax:+1(718)788-2791
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jimmy Wales" <jwales at bomis.com>
To: <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 12:44 PM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Announcing Wikimedia Foundation

> cprompt wrote:
> > >I'm pleased to announce the existence of the Wikimedia Foundation,
> > >Inc., a nonprofit corporation organized under the laws of Florida,
> > >United States.
> > >
> > Woohoo! I didn't expect to see this kind of message for a while. :-D
>
> Well, thanks really go to Erik, who called me on the phone about it
> this morning.  That call kicked my butt to investigate the holdup,
> only to find that there was no holdup, and everything is ready to
> proceed.
>
> Now I'm looking in fear at this huge 43 page IRS document I have
> to fill out.  (Form 1023)
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Kulawik

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] Announcing Wikimedia Foundation - Deutsch: Ankündigung: Wikimedia Foundation gegründet

body:
(Sorry, if you receive this for the second time - MS Exchange does not
like Mac OS X Mail very much, it seems :-/

German / Deutsch (nur ein Versuch - Bernd :-)

(Achtung: Ich wei? nicht, was IRS ist - s.u. Wei? jemand mehr?)

Ich freue mich die Existenz der Wikimedia Foundation Inc. bekannt zu
geben, die nach den Gesetzen des Staates Florida, Vereinigte Staaten
von Amerika, gegr?ndet wurde. Ich ?bertrage dieser neuen Gesellschaft
folgende Rechtsgegenst?nde:

1. Alle Nupedia.com/net/ort/ usw. Domain-Namen
2. Alle Wikipedia.com/net/org/ usw. Domain-Namen

3. Alle Urheberrechte (copyrights) an Software oder Artikeln die bisher
bei Bomis, Inc., liegen und schon unter der copyleft-Lizenz
ver?ffentlicht wurden. (Dies umfasst Auftragsarbeiten von Jason, Tim,
Larry, Toan, Liz und mir selbst, sowie von anderen Bomis-Angestellten,
die an diesen Projekten im Rahmen ihrer Anstellung gearbeitet haben
m?gen, aber es umfasst nicht Arbeiten von jeden
Beitragenden/Beteiligten, die diese auf eigene Kosten erstellt haben
oder w?hrend sie nicht Angestellte von Bomis waren.)

(All dies wurde bereits unter GNU GPL oder GNU FDL ver?ffentlicht, so
dass die ?bertragung des Copyrights bzw. der Urheberrechte im Grunde
nur eine Formalit?t ist. Trotzdem m?chten wir dies als ein gutes
Beispiel beitragen.)

4. Zus?tzlich ?bertrage ich alle meine pers?nlichen Urheberrechte zu
Werken, die schon unter der GNU GPL oder der GNU FDL zu Wikipedia und
Nupedia entstanden sind, dieser Stiftung (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.).

--------

Zum gegenw?rtigen Zeitpunkt (und bis auf weiteres) geh?ren die beiden
Computer, auf denen Wikipedia l?uft, weiterhin der Bomis, Inc., aber
meine Absicht ist es, diese (der Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.) zu
stiften, sofern dies unter den gegebenen steuerrechtlichen Bestimmungen
/ Implikationen sinnvoll ist. Ich muss hierzu zuerst einen (Steuer-)
Berater befragen.

Ich m?chte Sie NICHT ermutigen, schon jetzt Stiftungen bzw. Spenden an
die Wikimedia Foundation zu richten. Ich arbeite momentan noch in einem
steuerrechtlichen Ausnahmestatus mit dem/der IRS, und ich habe noch
kein Bankkonto f?r die Wikimedia Foundation eingerichtet. Dies wird
noch einige Wochen dauern.

Auf der Liste der n?chsten Arbeiten stehen:

1. Den IRS-Prozesse f?r den steuerrechtlichen Status abzuschlie?en.
2. Erstellung von Formularen f?r die ?bertragung von Urheberrechten
(copyrights) an die Stiftung - falls jemand dies ?bernehmen m?chte,
schaut bitte unter:
http://www.gnu.org/licences/why-assign.html
Dort stehen Gr?nde daf?r, warum dies eine Gute Sache ist.
3. Einrichtung eines Bankkontos f?r die Wikimedia Foundation
4. Einrichtung eines Handels-Kontos f?r die Wikimedia Foundation, um
Geschenke in Form von Creditkarten-?berweisungen m?glichst einfach zu
machen.

Ich werde alle in den kommenden Wochen ?ber den aktuellen Stand auf dem
Laufenden halten.

--- Jimbo

(?bersetzungsversuch: Bernd Kulawik)

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


from_name: Marco Krohn

body:
On Friday 20 June 2003 19:12, Kulawik wrote:

[...]
> German / Deutsch (nur ein Versuch - Bernd :-)
>
> (Achtung: Ich wei? nicht, was IRS ist - s.u. Wei? jemand mehr?)

Wikipedia is your friend :-)

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS

resp.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Internal_Revenue_Service

best regards,
  Marco


from_name: tarquin

subject: [Wikitech-l] quickbar

body:
in our current setup, several parts of the code are making changes to
CSS to create space in the layout for the Quickbar:

* skin.php line 242 -- puts an empty TD in both the top and bottom tables
* skinstandard.php line 40 -- sets the width of the div.article

it would be much simpler to only have skinstandard.php set the margin
for div.content, since that contains both tables.
that way we lose the daft empty spacer cells in both header and footer
tables

thoughts before I make this change?


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] Announcing Wikimedia Foundation

body:
Jimmy-
> I'm pleased to announce the existence of the Wikimedia Foundation,
> Inc., a nonprofit corporation organized under the laws of Florida,
> United States.

YAHOO! Ahem, sorry, no trademark violation intended. Great to hear that
it's called "Wikimedia" - I really like the name.

I suggest not submitting this to any major news sites (*cough* Slashdot
*cough*) until easy options for donations are in place. So let's keep
quiet about this for a while, OK? I know it's hard :).

Thanks for checking up on this, Jimbo, and good luck in dealing with the
bureaucracy. Sorry for being intrusive, but sometimes it helps ;-)

All best,

Erik


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Announcing Wikimedia Foundation


from_name: Hr. Daniel Mikkelsen

body:
On 20 Jun 2003, Erik Moeller wrote:

> I suggest not submitting this to any major news sites (*cough* Slashdot
> *cough*) until easy options for donations are in place. So let's keep
> quiet about this for a while, OK? I know it's hard :).

Perhaps even explicitly ask the editors to keep the story down until we're
ready. (I don't know how to do that, tough.)

-- Daniel


from_name: martin at myreddice.freeserve.co.uk

subject: [WikiEN-l] Bad word article

body:
> "Now that is an issue we haven't discussed at any length yet. I invite further comments ;-)"

We've discussed it previously at [[wikipedia:profanity]], at great length. I invite
further comments (and votes in the poll) there.

MyRedDice - "Please Mister, can you flog my horse a bit more? I think I saw its
foreleg twitch."


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Announcing Wikimedia Foundation

body:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, Ilya N. wrote:

>> On 20 Jun 2003, Erik Moeller wrote:

>>> I suggest not submitting this to any major news sites (*cough* Slashdot
>>> *cough*) until easy options for donations are in place. So let's keep
>>> quiet about this for a while, OK? I know it's hard :).

>> Perhaps even explicitly ask the editors to keep the story down until we're
>> ready. (I don't know how to do that, tough.)

> I'm just wondering, "why?"

Erik Moeller gives the answer above. If we wait until the tax deduction stuff
is in place, and until we have an easy mechanism for accepting donations, then
the "wikimedia foundation" announcement will be more lucrative.

And since we're now a foundation, we can equate "lucrative" with "good". :)

-- Daniel


subject: [WikiEN-l] Bad word article

body:
Ilya-
> The article [[Fucking Amal]] should be changed...I know many kids who go
> to this site.

> I would like to also propose a boilerplate text that says something like
> this:

> "WARNING: This article may countain offensive, or adult articles and links"

Now that is an issue we haven't discussed at any length yet. I invite
further comments ;-)

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Jens Frank

subject: [WikiEN-l] Bad word article

body:
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 02:45:08PM -0500, Ilya N. wrote:
> The article [[Fucking Amal]] should be changed...I know many kids who go
> to this site.
>
> I would like to also propose a boilerplate text that says something like
> this:
>
> "WARNING: This article may countain offensive, or adult articles and links"
>
> but really the article mentioned above should be renamed to something
> like [[F... Amal]] or something

The film is not named F... Amal. The title should match the film's name.
And despite the f-word that *every* kid already knows about before reading
wikipedia, I can't find anything offensive.

	JeLuF


subject: [WikiEN-l] Joe Canuck

body:
Jimmy-
> Joe Canuck is banned from wikipedia.  Would someone with the
> appropriate powers please take the appropriate steps to make this
> technically true.

Done. Technically, however, he will be back under a new nick tomorrow.

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Arwel Parry

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Crown Copyright and the GNU FDL

body:
In message <200306201211.12188.maveric149 at yahoo.com>, Daniel Mayer
<maveric149=/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org> writes
>It seems that some of our ship text has been copied from websites using the
>Crown Copyright which reads in part;
>
>"....may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium for research,
>private study or for internal circulation within an organisation."
>
>That may cover Wikipedia itself but not downstream users of our text.
>
>"This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not used in a
>misleading context."
>
>Having this text on a wiki leads to a very real possibility that the text will
>be modified to be something it wasn't before. It is also a very subjective
>clause.
>
>"Where any of the Crown copyright items on this site are being republished or
>copied to others, the source of the material must be identified and the
>copyright status acknowledged."
>
>In other words the Crown Copyright is viral. This IMO is wholly incompatible
>with the GNU FDL.
>
>What say you?
>
>-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

Hmm. You may have a point. I haven't found the quote on Crown Copyright
which you cite, but on the guidance page
(http://www.hmso.gov.uk/copyright/guidance/guidance.htm) I've found:

"What is meant by waiver?

Waiver means that although copyright is asserted, Government wishes to
encourage the widespread use of the material. Users are permitted to
copy or publish the material in any medium without having to seek formal
permission or to pay a fee. We do, however, ask that users ensure that:

- the material is reproduced accurately and not in a misleading context;
- that the material is correctly acknowledged and that the source and
status of the material is identified. "

which I read as indicating that though my article on [[HMS Glasgow]] is
legal at the moment, there is certainly the possibility that at some
time in the future someone may come along and edit the article so that
it's no longer accurate, or becomes misleading. Perhaps some rewriting
is in order...

--
Arwel Parry
http://www.cartref.demon.co.uk/


from_name: Matthew Woodcraft

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
> "Where any of the Crown copyright items on this site are being republished or
> copied to others, the source of the material must be identified and the
> copyright status acknowledged."
>
> In other words the Crown Copyright is viral.

That's not what people usually mean when they describe a licence as
viral. To be viral, it would have to require the material it is being
combined with to be licenced under the same terms.

I agree with your other points, though.

-M-


from_name: Stevertigo

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Proper foreign names

body:
(this is being sent in HTML - white on black. I hope... you like. I like.)

This may sound offlandish - but I want to throw support behind the idea of
spelling proper names in close accord to their actual names' pronunciation.
The English spelling/pronunciation "Prague" would redirect to "Praha" - the
actual name of the place. This is not something that should simply be left
to stand along English lines.

 The idea of keeping English consistent is valid -- the proper spelling of
English words means that all who read that word can interpret it to a
reasonable degree of similarity - albeit in their own accents. (Dan and I
have been talking at length about this).  Proper English spelling then is
generally important because it provides an anchor for the word - which is
used by billions around the world.  Similar to Han characters, which can be
read consistenly by peoples who can barely say hello to each other.

Hence this is also a good reason also to name proper names according to
their proper pronunciation.  Proper names have long undergone a normal
Anglicization when translated to English.  Attempts in different aread have
been made to reform this --  the Hepburn system given way to the pinyin,
being an example -- We do it here already too: [[The Chang Jiang]] article
redirects from Yangtze - perhaps in tune with the proper name of the
Yangtze - I dont know for certain -- but this edit was done by a
ZhongGuo-pedian, and not an Anglo-pedian - hence deference in Chinese
matters would naturally goes to the guy/gal who is actually Chinese.  Im not
going to give Erik any lectures about travel in Deutchland.

A part of the reason why the En.Wikipedia has far more traffic than all of
the other languages combined.  (Internet access issues, WP founded by
English speakers, etc.) is that English itself, being the world lingua
franca - tends to attract people to it - simply because of the numbers.
There is no reason why a foreign speaker, even with poor English skills,
should feel like they are unwelcome -  (as long as they can take
correction - but thats attitude -related) - nor should they need to
excercise some kind of compartmentalized way of thinking about their
articles  -  certainly integrated language tools -implementation might
someday speed up the process of making more articles avaliable.

In fact - what it looks like to me is that the En wikipedia will be the
major component in a world language wikipedia - that allows for all kinds of
cross-textual content. To separate these out by language makes some sense -
for sake of non-confusion, but I submit that these other variants represent
rifts between English and these other languages - and hence the willingness
of people to use them.  Perhaps a WorldPedia where only a few of the major
languages are allowed would fit the bill to start.

Naturally grammatical errors will come up, and this is just the price to be
paid for being the common tongue.  There will always be a struggle between
the forces of ethnoconvergence and ethnostasis - both of which see each
other as being 'diverent' and 'destructive' - according to their different
value systems.  The one reveres multiculturalism, while the other reveres
only its own.

All that said, I'd just like to see Prague redirect to "Praha" -(etc)  let
"Prague" be recorded as a depricated way of naming the capital city of
Czechlosovakia.  Proper names, at least we can all agree - belong to the
denzens of those cities, and not to people elsewhere.  Why depricated?
Because I play go, chat, etc, with people from Czechlosovakia (for example)
. Not something that was a reality as little as a decade ago.

WLBUY,
-SteveM.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20030620/97c2bdce/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Spam on Wikipedia

body:
James' messages all contain the below spam:

| > > _________________________________________________________________
| > > Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
| > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

Am I alone in seeing the irony here?
:)

-S-

| _________________________________________________________________
| Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
| http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
|

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030620/178ef449/attachment.htm


body:
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 12:11:12PM -0700, Daniel Mayer wrote:
>
> In other words the Crown Copyright is viral. This IMO is wholly incompatible
> with the GNU FDL.
>
> What say you?

I share your interpretation. We have to delete those texts from wikipedia.

	JeLuF


from_name: Sean Barrett

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

Daniel Mayer wrote:
| Of course you would score a major coup for the project by getting the
| copyright holder (the Royal Navy if I recall) to allow us to use their
text
| under terms of the GNU FDL.

I accept your challenge.  This weekend I will draft (draught?) a letter
to HM Stationery Office.  (There's more Web sites in HM Government than
just the Royal Navy, so why should I restrict my query to the First Sea
Lord?)  I will upload the letter early next week for comment, and post
it by the end of the week.

- --
~ Sean Barrett     | Yoicks, and away!
~ sean at epoptic.com |

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQE+8/Edv/8xpnvE6M8RAmkgAJwKFDgU7IKAfk0E/pqulgqOd1NroQCglnsj
zrKXrq+/G1l3Y5KSYuYfUeQ=
=s1o6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [Wikitech-l] Database trouble again

body:
Hi,

I get

Host 'larousse.wikipedia.org' is blocked because of many connection errors. Unblock with 'mysqladmin flush-hosts'

error messages in about 2 from 3 tries to contact wikipedia.

	JeLuF


from_name: james duffy

subject: [WikiEN-l] error messages on wiki

body:
Bad news, Jimbo. It is back again! AAAGH! JT.
>Fixed, I hope.
>
>james duffy wrote:
>
> >
> > I keep getting the following message on wiki, even having cleared my
>cache.
> >
> > Could not connect to DB on 130.94.122.197
> >
> > Host 'larousse.wikipedia.org' is blocked because of many connection
>errors.
> > Unblock with 'mysqladmin flush-hosts'
> >
> > If this error persists after reloading and clearing your browser cache,
> > please notify the Wikipedia developers.
> >
> > It happens even I try to contact the developers, and using either safari
>or
> > explorer.
> >
> > JT
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
> > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Bad word article

body:
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 04:19:47PM -0500, Ilya N. wrote:
> Jens Frank wrote:
> >On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 02:45:08PM -0500, Ilya N. wrote:
> >
> >>The article [[Fucking Amal]] should be changed...I know many kids who go
> >>to this site.
> >>
> >>I would like to also propose a boilerplate text that says something like
> >>this:
> >>
> >>"WARNING: This article may countain offensive, or adult articles and
> >>links"
> >>
> >>but really the article mentioned above should be renamed to something
> >>like [[F... Amal]] or something
> >
> >
> >The film is not named F... Amal. The title should match the film's name.
> >And despite the f-word that *every* kid already knows about before reading
> >wikipedia, I can't find anything offensive.
> >
> >	JeLuF
>
> well then, why don't we just start saying the word every single sentence
>
> hello, ****, mister
>
> I hate you, ****
>
> just because everybody knows it doesn't mean we should use it...
>
> oh well...

That's a straw men you're hitting here. The film has been named Fucking Amal
by its creator. That's a fact. Like it or not.

It's not used in every sentence. It's used once in the title and once in the
first sentence. And it has to, since that's the name of the film.

Or do you want to change all places where a certain American President is
mentioned to G***** W. B*** just because some people might be offended
by reading his name? (Yes, this is a straw man, too)

	JeLuF


from_name: K Forstner

subject: [WikiEN-l] Problems?

body:
I'm a little frustrated right now. Excuse me, but what IS THIS?

(1) First this:

Could not connect to DB on 130.94.122.197
Host 'larousse.wikipedia.org' is blocked because of many connection errors.
Unblock with 'mysqladmin flush-hosts'

If this error persists after reloading and clearing your browser cache,
please notify the Wikipedia developers.

And this is what I'm doing right now. I cannot make head or tail of this
message.

Kurt Forstner aka KF

(2) And a few seconds later this:

This Message was undeliverable due to the following reason:

Each of the following recipients was rejected by a remote mail server.
The reasons given by the server are included to help you determine why
each recipient was rejected.

    Recipient: <wikidown at wikipedia.org>
    Reason:    5.1.1 <wikidown at wikipedia.org>... User unknown

Please reply to Support at chello.at
if you feel this message to be in error.

Falls Sie diese Fehlermeldung f?r unrichtig erachten und chello Kunde in
?sterreich sind,
bitte wenden Sie sich an support at chello.at .

Jesli uwazasz, ze podany przez Ciebie adres polskiego uzytkownika chello
jest prawidlowy skontaktuj sie pomoca techniczna chello: serwis at chello.pl .

Amennyiben ?n magyarorsz?gi chello elofizeto ?s hiba?zenetet kap,
k?rj?k v?laszoljon a support at chello.hu .

Merci de v?rifier l'adresse e-mail du d?stinataire.
Si l'addresse concerne une addresse chello (nom at chello.fr) et vous pensez
que celle-ci est correcte,
renvoyer ce message d'erreur ? support at chello.fr qui se chargera de la
v?rifier.


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [Wikipedia-l] "Proper" foreign names

body:
Stevertigo wrote:
>This may sound offlandish - but I want to throw support
>behind the idea of spelling proper names in close accord
>to their actual names' pronunciation. The English spelling/
>pronunciation "Prague" would redirect to "Praha" - the
>actual name of the place. This is not something that should
>simply be left to stand along English lines.

But the English word for the city is Prague, not Praha. If you present an
average English speaker with the word "Praha" they are not going to know what
that is. But present the same English speaker with "Prague" and they will
recognize it. Same for Deutschland vs Germany. Why should we needlessly
confuse our readers and make them feel stupid for not knowing the "right"
word for Prauge or Germany? They will probably take one look at the foreign
title and leave thinking they landed in the wrong place (if not the wrong
language).

Please don't use characters and words in en.wiki for titles that are
unpronounceable and unrecognizable by most English speakers - it is counter
to our purpose of being understandable by the largest number of English
speakers and especially native English speakers (when writing in English, of
course). That will only lead to having misdirected links as English speakers
can't remember the spelling of a foreign word. We already had a major fight
with Lir over Crist?bal Col?n vs Christopher Columbus - please don't open up
old wounds. You have already pissed a bunch of people off by having a nick in
non-English characters because they couldn't read or pronounce it.

All that matters is what the majority of English speakers recognize as the
title and for us to make modifications and compromises where needed to
overcome ambiguities. Oh, and there is no such thing as a "real name" for
anything - words play a nominative role and different words are used in
different languages to mean the same things. This is such an elementary fact
that I'm embarrassed to have to mention it to you.

Sometimes this means we use words that are very close to or even the same as
the words used in the country of origin of the thing but other times it means
we use an Anglicization (which is the process modifying foreign words to make
it easier for English speakers to use and pronounce them). All that matters
is what is known and recognized by most English speakers at all familiar with
the subject (and making sure there are no significant naming conflicts and
also making sure we aren't just making up Anglicizations).

This aids in linking for writers and the ability of readers to find what they
are looking for. That's all. Redirects can and should be used for less common
forms of the term so that people looking for those forms can find the
articles too. But leave the terms that are most widely known and used by
English speakers at the head of their articles - not some form of the name
that is seldom used by English speakers (especially native ones).

And article titles should reflect a strong bias toward what English speakers
are going to most often write in a sentence when referring to the subject
(with modifications based on ambiguities). That whole point of doing this is
to maximize the number of direct links to a title - redirects are a hack used
for less common terms.

And why in the world is this being placed on the general policy list when this
is something specifically about en.wik?

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


subject: [Wikitech-l] Database trouble again

body:
> >Hi,
> >
> >I get
> >
> >Host 'larousse.wikipedia.org' is blocked because of many
> >connection errors. Unblock with 'mysqladmin flush-hosts'
> >
> >error messages in about 2 from 3 tries to contact wikipedia.
> >
> >        JeLuF
>
>Brion goes on vacation and everything starts to fall apart. First order of
>business of the Wikimedia Foundation is to set up a fund to clone Brion.
>:-)
>
>--- mav
>

I'm having the same problem. I got on three in ten attempts. When I got on I
tried a save but got that message above. When I finally got on again I found
my change had been saved. I tried again to work on an article, did a save
and again got the message. But this time when I finally got on a third time,
the second save had not worked. And when I tried to mail the wikilist I got
error messages there too.

JT

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus


from_name: Toby Bartels

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Filtering, etc.

body:
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:

>Toby Bartels wrote:

>>Have any of the schoolkids on the mailing list (there are 2, right?)
>>asked their schools if they think that Wikipedia is acceptable?
>>(One should probably ask in a neutral way, of course:
>>?Do you think that <http://www.wikipedia.org/> is a safe website??,
>>not ?Do you think that <http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felching>
>>is a safe webpage??.)

>Currently, Wikipedia isn't blocked in my school. If I
>mentioned it, that would open up an inquiry that might
>lead to its banning. I don't want to do that.

That's why I suggested phrasing the question neutrally,
referring to the whole site rather that a troublesome page.
But I must defer to your judgement about the safety of any question.

-- Toby


subject: [WikiEN-l] Just to throw this out there...

body:
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:

>I was thinking that people would edit the category on
>Wikipedia (they could manually choose their blocking
>settings, protected by a seperate password for
>parents)  and edupedia would have the categories all
>blocked by default (unless the categories included
>unobjectionable material) with no changing of this
>with accounts. The categories could only be edited on
>Wikiedia, not edupedia, so no permissions would be
>required.

The value of having categories on Edupedia itself
is that the Edupedia project might make judgements
that Wikipedia itself cannot (such as what is "mature content").
Also, the Sifter paradigm allows referring to
specific versions in the history of a Wikipedia article;
Edupedia might assign different versions to different categories
while Wikipedia probably would not.

-- Toby


body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>Axel Boldt wrote:

>>There's one question we haven't investigated yet: would our filtering
>>really lower the likelihood that schools will eventually block us
>>completely?

>I have some experience with filtering software.  For sites like ours,
>what is likely is that specific pages will be blocked automatically
>based on keyword analysis, but that the site as a whole will not.

At this point, the /pragmatic/ argument for a filtering/sorting scheme --
that we must allow some sort of filtering under our control
lest an outside body filter us too much without any of our control --
seems to me to be empty.  Not only has nobody blocked us,
but if they do block us, then it would be on a page by page basis.
Thus we run no risk that they'll block more of our site
than we would have to allow them to block using our sorting scheme.
Indeed, a page by page blocking on whatever grounds the filter chooses
(na?ve keyword analysis, sophisticated keyword analysis, human decision)
is the ultimate in allowing readers to choose what they wish to read.

Of course, this doesn't affect the other arguments that have come up,
such as the moral argument (?We must do this to be responsible.?)
or the arguments for applying categorisation/sorting to other uses.

-- Toby


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Filtering, etc.

body:
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:

>I agree, it would be a good idea to fork some
>articles. For example, articles such as
>[[homosexuality]] should be written about, but not
>with as much, uh, detail.

I can't imagine what details in that article you might object to.
Perhaps I'd understand your position better if you gave examples from it.
[[Felching]] is one thing, but [[Homosexuality]] is a great deal milder.

-- Toby


from_name: Menchi Zh-En WP

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikiradio (Fwd: Announcing Wikimedia Foundation)

body:
>From: Kurt Jansson
>We could ask the guys from Spamradio if they'd like to start a Wikipedia
>articles channel :-)

It's an interesting idea. Many Wikipedians have good and commanding voices,
Brion VIBBER recorded some clips of "Our Father", and Chuck SMITH had an
interview in Esperanto. I'm sure others possess great voices too, whether
they realize it or not.

But anyway, is this what Wikimedia is about at all?... :-)

Menchi Zh-En

_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963


subject: [WikiEN-l] FW: Advisories and saying goodbye -- long

body:
Julie Kemp wrote:

>The entire conversation has been not-very-subtly changed to be one over
>filters and wikipedia-imposed censorship.  It's one that I consider to
>be total bullshit, by the way -- well-calculated deviation that blurs
>any dealing with any type of deeper social responsibility.

Are you alleging that the opponents of the content disclaimer
changed the topic to filters in order to destroy the content disclaimer?
This seems untenable, for several reasons:
* Opponents of the disclaimer also tend to oppose the filters,
  yet now we may get both.
* There are quite a few people legitimately supporting the filters.
* Discussion on the content disclaimer has continued
  at [[Wikipedia talk:Content disclaimer]].  This has diminished lately,
  but discussion of something else on the mailing list didn't cause that.
* A content disclaimer now exists at [[Wikipedia:Content disclaimer]].
  Current debate is focussed on how broadly to advertise it,
  not much any more on whether it should exist at all.

>Some of you
>have managed to prove that Thatcherism is not dead (you know, the nice
>lady who said "there is no such thing as 'society'"?).  Nor is the
>ridiculous world of Ayn Rand, where one can pretend that one's actions
>have no wider consequences than those other people allow them to have.
>How utterly depressing that so many people who consider it important to
>write very good articles that raise awareness of the global
>interconnections of scientific, political, and religious issues (among
>others) refuse to accept that their own actions (or refusal to act)
>might also have widespread effects.

Allow me to be as insulted as Rand's fans
that you've compared her position to mine --
for directly opposite reasons. ^_^
More broadly, I'd like to remind everybody
of the existence of left-wing libertarianism.
Despite the rhetoric of (say) the US Republican Party,
the right wing has no monopoly on freedom.

>Oh -- and BTW, if we stuck to "wikipedia is not a dictionary", most of
>the articles that make a lot of wikipedians squeamish would be deleted
>anyway -- my guess is that no one wants to be seen as less than
>open-minded.  Felching is certainly a dictionary-type definition.

[[Felching]] should be folded into [[List of unusual sex practices]].
I haven't done this myself yet to avoid conflating different issues;
this one belongs primarily to the debate on ideal article length.
But isn't it interesting that the primary example of discussion
has been subtly changed from [[Fisting]] (a lengthy article)
to [[Felching]] (a tiny stub)?

>Anyway, as I say below, I'll check the list until my requests below are
>answered.  Thanks and peace.

I don't know if you're still reading the list,
so I'm copying this reply to your email address.
But it is on <wikiEN-l>, if you want to reply there.

Julie Kemp earlier wrote to Jimmy Wales:

>I really believe that NPOV is vital to the Wikipedia.  I really believe
>that censorship is antithetical to the project.  BUT -- that doesn't
>mean I don't think that we should use those principles to abdicate our
>responsibilities to a larger society.  It's all good is a nice phrase,
>but it isn't exactly true.  Some things aren't good.  And sometimes
>giving things that aren't good more 'airtime' than they deserve helps to
>inure people and even, I think, encourages a tacit acceptance that this
>is all part of society.

They are, of course, all part of society.
That doesn't make them all good.
But should Wikipedia take a position on what's good?
You have your opinions and I have mine, but they differ
(at least as regards children reading about sex),
but the point of NPOV is that Wikipedia should avoid deciding.

Certainly Wikipedia must not say in any article
?This is not good.? -- and you're not advocating that --
but further Wikipedia should avoid giving that impression
by the topics that it chooses to cover, and how it covers them.
This means that we cover ideas to different degrees
according to neutral criteria, such as
how interested Wikipedia editors are in writing about them
and how widespread a practice or belief is in society.
Irrelevant is how /good/ Wikipedia editors think that something is,
or how /accepted/ a practice or belief is in society.

We even have a natural way to balance these criteria when they conflict.
For example, some Wikipedia editors wanted to write about
certain unusual sex practices, but these aren't widespread.
Thus we don't give much space to these on [[Human sexual behavior]],
and none at all on the more general article [[Sex]].
But we do link to articles on these topics from [[Human sexual behavior]],
so that people can write about them without giving them too much emphasis.
We do similar things outside of the sex area of Wikipedia too.

As for disclaimers on these pages themselves,
they should all begin along the lines of
"'''Xxx''' is a [[sexual behaviour]] involving ...".
Then the reader is warned right away that they're reading about sex,
and they can choose to stop reading just as they might
upon seeing a disclaimer about sexual behaviour.
After all, beginning the article
"''[[Wikipedia:Content disclaimer|Disclaimer]]:
"This article discusses [[human sexual behavior]]
"and thus may be inappropriate for certain readers.
"
"'''Xxx''' is a [[sexual behaviour]] involving ..."
is hardly going to be any additional help.
(Some of the articles may not begin with appropriate context.
If so, then such context should be added, not a boilerplate disclaimer.)

I'll reiterate at this point that I have no objection
to [[Wikipedia:Content disclaimer]] itself.
One might even fold it into [[Wikipedia:About]] if it fits there well.

>Me?  I'm just a leftwing democrat ancient and medieval historian.  Maybe
>it has something to do with having read all that stuff on the
>individual's place in and responsibility to society -- that "man is a
>being of the polis" stuff.  Maybe it's growing up in the "ask not what
>your country can do for you ...", Great Society world.  Maybe it's
>because I deal with young people daily, and have read and seen enough to
>know in my gut that children are *supposed* to be protected by adults
>(and not in the crazy Adam/Lir "de Mausian psychohistory" way) -- and
>that even when kids seem to be able to deal with things, it doesn't mean
>they really are.  There's lots of evidence to back that, despite what KQ
>and others would like us to believe.

I asked for this evidence on [[Wikipedia talk:Content disclaimer]],
but you never replied.  (Perhaps you stopped reading that talk page.)

>Anyway, I would appreciate it if you could also "erase" me from the
>site.  If you must leave things in, perhaps you could change me to a set
>of unrelated initials, or a number.

I would object to removing mention of Julie entirely from the site,
since she played a major role in many things, such as:
* Various standards for history articles;
* The development of banning policy; and
* The specific cases of banning HJ and DW.
Understanding how these issues developed would be difficult
without a way to refer to an influential individual.
But I have no objection to always referring to her as, say, "Professor XYZ".
We should certainly be able to do this for anybody
with no more work than it would take to remove them entirely.

-- Toby


subject: [WikiEN-l] close, but no cigar

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>I don't think we should have any form of 'here there be dragons'
>notice on the front page.  If anything, such a disclaimer should
>appear on a case by case basis before particular pages, but even that
>is a lot more problematic in terms of generating pointless quarrels
>than what I'm proposing.

Certainly that would generate many quarrels (pointless or not),
but for the past week there's been pretty general acceptance
of linking to a detailed content advisory from [[Wikipedia:About]].

-- Toby


subject: [WikiEN-l] close, but no cigar

body:
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:

>I still think there should be a general disclamers
>page, saying, in addition to the mature content
>warning, that we don't give medical advice, do give
>spoilers, etc.

Yes, this would be a good idea.
I urge you to work on [[Wikipedia:Content advisory]].

>There should be a link to this from the main page.

This is discusses on [[Wikipedia talk:Content advisory/placement]].
But many people seem to think (and I would agree)
that the advisory should be finished before deciding this.
(And indeed, the advisory is rather finished,
unless Dan adds legal and medical disclaimers --
which shouldn't stop him from doing so IMO,
since it'll become finished again before too long.)

-- Toby


subject: [WikiEN-l] filtering, etc.

body:
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:

>Learning about sexual practices is not necessary for a
>complete education.

Why do you think not?

-- Toby


subject: [WikiEN-l] filtering, etc.

body:
Axel Boldt wrote in part:

>If indeed at some point
>some school blocks Wikipedia, we can [...] set up your edupedia in a
>matter of weeks - the sifter code is already in place.

I didn't realise that the Sifter project had written code yet.
Where can we find this?  Is there (crossing fingers) documentation?

-- Toby


subject: [WikiEN-l] Here I am, under attack again.

body:
Zoe wrote:

>I'm being considered a vandal

Then by my new policy, I automatically agree with you.
Except that I can't find where anybody did this!
(I'm referring only to the conflict over [[New River Gorge Bridge]].)

>Well, you know what, Martin, Graham, and anthere?  I
>don't like you, either.  And if anyone proposes you
>for sysophood, I will vote no.

That's a good idea!
Both Martin and anthere are longtime good contributors to Wikipedia.
I hereby nominate them -- but they're already admins!

-- Toby


subject: [WikiEN-l] Always make articles as complete as possible

body:
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote to Erik Moeller in small part:

>Sounds good, but it shouldn't be called "phase 2".

This could also be easily confused with Phase II,
Magnus' PediaWiki software.

-- Toby


subject: [WikiEN-l] Sigh

body:
Zoe wrote:

>Please see [[Talk:List of British English words not
>used in American English]].

>Will someone please explain just what it is that I'm
>doing that is so awful?

In this situation, you are indeed being wrongly called a vandal.
Therefore I side with you.  Which I would have done anyway! ^_^

-- Toby


subject: [WikiEN-l] Bad word article

body:
Ilya N. wrote:

>The article [[Fucking Amal]] should be changed...I know many kids who go
>to this site.

>I would like to also propose a boilerplate text that says something like
>this:

>"WARNING: This article may countain offensive, or adult articles and links"

>but really the article mentioned above should be renamed to something
>like [[F... Amal]] or something

This post demonstrates one reason why
?You simply haven't been here long enough.?
is a legitimate reason to hesitate in making somebody an admin.
Despite having been here a month, Ilya is unfamiliar with
things that have been discussed a great deal recently.
He might have applied sysop powers in such a situation;
limiting admin privileges is in most cases a matter of
limiting them to people that are well familiar with Wikipedia;
limiting the damage by problematic users is a rarer benefit.

Let me note that while I'm picking on a post by Ilya,
the only conclusion that I want to draw is a general one.
Ilya did /not/ use his admin powers, or even ordinary powers,
to change this -- instead he brought it up on the list.
So I'm not questioning the fitness of Ilya in particular to be an admin!

Anyway Ilya, you'll want to discuss this
at [[Wikipedia talk:Content disclaimer]].

-- Toby


subject: [WikiEN-l] Problems?

body:
K Forstner wrote in part:

>5.1.1 <wikidown at wikipedia.org>... User unknown

You're supposed to send reports to <wikidown at bomis.com>.
The idea is that when the wiki is down,
it may well be that all of wikipedia.org is down.
But bomis.com will probably still be up!

-- Toby


subject: [Wikitech-l] Rebooted both

body:
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 05:50:14PM -0700, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> I rebooted both *.197 and *.199, mostly because I'm clueless these
> days.
>
> I don't know the password for root mysql account, for example.  Well,
> I used to know it.
>
> This is twice today that the same thing happened.  Any clues as
> to what the problem is?


from_name: Nick Reinking

subject: [Wikitech-l] Database trouble again

body:
Pliny is taking it in the pants - it is fairly idle CPU wise, but the
load average is high with lots of blocked processes and swapping.
Doesn't pliny have 2GB of memory?  I'm only seeing "883MB" of memory in
the machine, that is very, very bizarre...


subject: [Wikitech-l] Database trouble again

body:
On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 08:01:29AM -0500, Nick Reinking wrote:
> Pliny is taking it in the pants - it is fairly idle CPU wise, but the
> load average is high with lots of blocked processes and swapping.
> Doesn't pliny have 2GB of memory?  I'm only seeing "883MB" of memory in
> the machine, that is very, very bizarre...

[bleep]

Okay, well, here is what happened.  When pliny was rebooted the other
day, it was rebooted with the default LILO kernel (which is not the
kernel we had been running before it was rebooted.)

Brion/Lee: I changed LILO to boot linuxsecond rather than
linuxnewserial.  Now we have HIGHMEM support.

Everybody else: Now our database server has 2047MB of memory rather than
896MB of memory.  It should be much faster.  ;)

--
Nick Reinking -- eschewing obfuscation since 1981 -- Minneapolis, MN


from_name: Richard Grevers

subject: [Wikitech-l] Wikipedia blocked

body:
I just got the following message:

Could not connect to DB on 130.94.122.197

Host 'larousse.wikipedia.org' is blocked because of many connection errors.
Unblock with 'mysqladmin flush-hosts'

If this error persists after reloading and clearing your browser cache,
please notify the Wikipedia developers.

--
Richard Grevers
Eschew obfuscation.


from_name: Vicki Rosenzweig

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Bad word article

body:
At 04:19 PM 6/20/03 -0500, Ilya wrote:
>Jens Frank wrote:
>>On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 02:45:08PM -0500, Ilya N. wrote:
>>
>>>The article [[Fucking Amal]] should be changed...I know many kids who go
>>>to this site.
>>>
>>>I would like to also propose a boilerplate text that says something like
>>>this:
>>>
>>>"WARNING: This article may countain offensive, or adult articles and links"
>>>
>>>but really the article mentioned above should be renamed to something
>>>like [[F... Amal]] or something
>>
>>The film is not named F... Amal. The title should match the film's name.
>>And despite the f-word that *every* kid already knows about before reading
>>wikipedia, I can't find anything offensive.
>>         JeLuF
>
>well then, why don't we just start saying the word every single sentence
>
>hello, ****, mister

Because what is offensive depends on context. A detailed description of
many bodily functions is inappropriate at the dinner table, but may be
necessary at the doctor's office.

Yes, children may well be looking at Wikipedia. They're unlikely to
find the "Fucking Amal" article unless they're looking for it--and if
they're looking for it they already know the title of the movie--or
looking for "fuck", in which case they may be annoyed to find an
article about a movie instead of about sex, but not offended in the
sense you probably mean.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org


subject: [Wikitech-l] Wikidown doesn't work

body:
When I mailed wikidown at wikipedia.org about the current problems on the
server, I got the following (note that the mail went to pliny, although
Larousse is the server reporting problems):

The original message was received at Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:19:39 -0500
from 210-86-88-89.jetstream.xtra.co.nz [210.86.88.89]

   ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
<wikidown at wikipedia.org>
    (reason: 550 5.1.1 <wikidown at wikipedia.org>... User unknown)

   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
... while talking to pliny.wikipedia.org.:
>>> RCPT To:<wikidown at wikipedia.org>
<<< 550 5.1.1 <wikidown at wikipedia.org>... User unknown
550 5.1.1 <wikidown at wikipedia.org>... User unknown

--h5KLJkq15269.1056143986/pollux.host4u.net
Content-Type: message/delivery-status

Reporting-MTA: dns; pollux.host4u.net
Received-From-MTA: DNS; 210-86-88-89.jetstream.xtra.co.nz
Arrival-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:19:39 -0500

Final-Recipient: RFC822; wikidown at wikipedia.org
Action: failed
Status: 5.1.1
Remote-MTA: DNS; pliny.wikipedia.org
Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 550 5.1.1 <wikidown at wikipedia.org>... User unknown
Last-Attempt-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:19:46 -0500

--
Richard Grevers
Eschew obfuscation.


from_name: Ilya N.

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Bad word article

body:
Jens Frank wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 04:19:47PM -0500, Ilya N. wrote:
>
>>Jens Frank wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 02:45:08PM -0500, Ilya N. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The article [[Fucking Amal]] should be changed...I know many kids who go
>>>>to this site.
>>>>
>>>>I would like to also propose a boilerplate text that says something like
>>>>this:
>>>>
>>>>"WARNING: This article may countain offensive, or adult articles and
>>>>links"
>>>>
>>>>but really the article mentioned above should be renamed to something
>>>>like [[F... Amal]] or something
>>>
>>>
>>>The film is not named F... Amal. The title should match the film's name.
>>>And despite the f-word that *every* kid already knows about before reading
>>>wikipedia, I can't find anything offensive.
>>>
>>>	JeLuF
>>
>>well then, why don't we just start saying the word every single sentence
>>
>>hello, ****, mister
>>
>>I hate you, ****
>>
>>just because everybody knows it doesn't mean we should use it...
>>
>>oh well...
>
>
> That's a straw men you're hitting here. The film has been named Fucking Amal
> by its creator. That's a fact. Like it or not.
>
> It's not used in every sentence. It's used once in the title and once in the
> first sentence. And it has to, since that's the name of the film.
>
> Or do you want to change all places where a certain American President is
> mentioned to G***** W. B*** just because some people might be offended
> by reading his name? (Yes, this is a straw man, too)
>
> 	JeLuF

My thing was in response to yours. Just because we all know it...doesn't
mean we should use it...


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Joe Canuck

references: <8oCufNTSpVB@erik_moeller> <BB18EDD3.A8F2%cunctator@kband.com> 	<bcvtr7$9a7$3@main.gmane.org> <1056147753.5379.14.camel@mycroft.ghiapet.net>

body:
John R. Owens wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-06-20 at 16:20, Ilya N. wrote:
>
>>The Cunctator wrote:
>>
>>>On 6/20/03 4:20 PM, "Erik Moeller" <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jimmy-
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Joe Canuck is banned from wikipedia.  Would someone with the
>>>>>appropriate powers please take the appropriate steps to make this
>>>>>technically true.
>>>>
>>>>Done. Technically, however, he will be back under a new nick tomorrow.
>>>
>>>Frankly, as long as under his new nick he acts as a good Wikipedian, who
>>>cares?
>>>
>>>But yes, he probably won't. C'est dommage.
>>
>>what does this have to do with cheese?
>
>
> That's "fromage", not "dommage". "Dommage" is just what it sounds like,
> damage, or harm or injury.
>

oh...opps, sorry :)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Spam on Wikipedia

body:
Stevertigo wrote:
>
> James' messages all contain the below spam:
>
> | > > _________________________________________________________________
> | > > Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
> | > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>
> Am I alone in seeing the irony here?
> :)
>
> -S-
>
>
> | _________________________________________________________________
> | Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
> | http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
> |
>

it's not our faults :)

but pretty ironic


from_name: Thomas Corell

subject: [Wikitech-l] Rebooted both

body:
Jens Frank wrote:

> There must be something like
>    set-variable =   max_connections=somebignumber
> in mysql.conf.

Or my.cnf, in the var dir. Add about 50 to the number given there, or mail
the number and i can better guess a proper value.

--
Smurf

smurf at AdamAnt.mud.de
-------------------------  Anthill inside! ---------------------------


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Bad word article

body:
Toby Bartels wrote:
> Ilya N. wrote:
>
>
>>The article [[Fucking Amal]] should be changed...I know many kids who go
>>to this site.
>
>
>>I would like to also propose a boilerplate text that says something like
>>this:
>
>
>>"WARNING: This article may countain offensive, or adult articles and links"
>
>
>>but really the article mentioned above should be renamed to something
>>like [[F... Amal]] or something
>
>
> This post demonstrates one reason why
> ?You simply haven't been here long enough.?
> is a legitimate reason to hesitate in making somebody an admin.
> Despite having been here a month, Ilya is unfamiliar with
> things that have been discussed a great deal recently.
> He might have applied sysop powers in such a situation;
> limiting admin privileges is in most cases a matter of
> limiting them to people that are well familiar with Wikipedia;
> limiting the damage by problematic users is a rarer benefit.
>
> Let me note that while I'm picking on a post by Ilya,
> the only conclusion that I want to draw is a general one.
> Ilya did /not/ use his admin powers, or even ordinary powers,
> to change this -- instead he brought it up on the list.
> So I'm not questioning the fitness of Ilya in particular to be an admin!
>
> Anyway Ilya, you'll want to discuss this
> at [[Wikipedia talk:Content disclaimer]].
>
>
> -- Toby

well, I /could have/ used whatever powers I was granted as an admin,
however I didn't, how  is this bad. With simple correction I can learn,
not from such a tone in messages as if you're attacking me. I'm not as
stupid as many people in the word nowadays

--Ilya


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Joe Canuck

body:
>Jimmy Wales wrote:
>>Joe Canuck is banned from wikipedia.  Would someone with the
>>appropriate powers please take the appropriate steps to make this
>>technically true.
>>
>>As always, Joe is invited to write to me to discuss this further,
>>and/or is invited to the mailing list.
>>
>>Some have expressed a strong conviction that Joe Canuck is the same
>>person or persons as DW, etc.  I express no opinion on that matter,
>>and find that Canuck's actions alone are sufficient for banning.  To
>>the extent that it is true, of course, then just being the same person
>>is grounds for a continuation of the ban.
>>
>>--Jimbo
>
>what has he done?

Just to clarify for those who don't know:

(1) He systematicaly downloaded a series of images to wikipedia, many of
which may well have been copyright.

(2) When a number of users asked him to clarify their status, he became
highly verbally abusive, issued legal threats and then deleted the questions
from his talk page.

After a series of requests and after consulting with various users I removed
the images from the pages and placed them on the Votes for Deletion page. A
note was left with each image stressing the problems with copyright and
stating that they were listed for deletion. (Given his history of deleting
'unwelcome' comments I thought it safer to protect the image pages, so that
he could not delete the note and then claim he did not know of it.) All
users without exception who commented said that in view of his refusal to
give /any/ information on their original sources, the images should be
deleted.

(3) Though asked not to, Canuck reinserted the images into the pages. When
users removed them, he tried to reinsert them yet again. To stop these edit
wars, I was forced to protect all the pages onto which he continually tried
to reinsert the images /temporarily/.

(4) Canuck then verbally abused and threatened users on the Votes for
Deletion page and on various talk pages.

(5) A close examination of his edit pattern, and the /manner/ in which he
edited pages (eg, removing birth and death dates from after a person's name
in the first line, the standard encyclop?dic method of entry which is also
used by wikipedia), coupled with the nature of his abuse left little doubt
but that Joe Canuck was banned user DW, who was banned for among other
reasons verbally abusing users and charging article structures to a version
he wanted, even when users told him that his version was contrary to wiki
style.

In view of the refusal to give details of the origins of images, the sheer
scale of his abuse of users and the overwhelming evidence that he was a
banned user, a number of users requested his immediate banning. Though not
commenting on the issue of whether he was DW (which was academic in the
circumstances), Jimbo agreed that Canuck's behaviour was so completely
contrary to all wiki stands for as to warrant immediate banning. Following
his banning I immediately removed all the protections placed on the pages.

Unfortunately the history of this user as DW, Black Widow and now as Joe
Canuck suggests that he will return, will continue to download and install
images the copyright status of which he will refuse to clarify, and when
challenged will begin verbally abusing people again. While users like
Michael and Adam have been banned for adding in textual inaccuracies to
articles and for acting provocatively to other users, DW/Joe Canuck's
behaviour is far more serious in so far as by blatently using potentially
copyright images he endangers wiki itself, through the possibility of legal
problems arising from his action. The fact that he is consistently abusive
/in the extreme/ to anyone who gets in his way or simply politely asks as to
the status of his images makes dealing with him a particularly unpleasant
experience.

For evidence of his abuse, see [[User:Joe Canuck]] page, onto which his
abuse has been transferred from other pages. Also [[Votes for Deletion]].

JT.

_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:

>It seems that some of our ship text has been copied from websites using the
>Crown Copyright which reads in part;
>
>"....may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium for research,
>private study or for internal circulation within an organisation."
>
>That may cover Wikipedia itself but not downstream users of our text.
>
>"This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not used in a
>misleading context."
>
>"Where any of the Crown copyright items on this site are being republished or
>copied to others, the source of the material must be identified and the
>copyright status acknowledged."
>
>What say you?
>
With Canadian Crown Copyright prior permission is required to for the
use of all such material except extracts from laws and court decisions.
 Technically even reproducing a Canadian stamp without permission is a
violation of copyright.  Each stamp has a copyright notice on it.  Of
course, how this is practically admministered may be another story.

Ec


subject: [Wikitech-l] Rebooted both

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
> I rebooted both *.197 and *.199, mostly because I'm clueless these
> days.
>
> I don't know the password for root mysql account, for example.  Well,
> I used to know it.
>
> This is twice today that the same thing happened.  Any clues as
> to what the problem is?

Forget the max_connection limit. It was to early in the morning, the error
that was reported (and the solving: mysqladmin flush-hosts) has nothing to
do with the max connection limit. The given solution looks best, it's
possible reasons are in the mysql-handbook. Pity if you can't get on the
password.

The problem on the es-wiki is still not fixed. Anyone with a proper
password can run ''repair table searchindex'' on the proper DB? It was not
the best way to fix it, but the way anyone can handle, who's able to
connect to the es-db.

--
Smurf

smurf at AdamAnt.mud.de
-------------------------  Anthill inside! ---------------------------


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Good and bad fair use examples

body:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 03:11:00PM +0200, Erik Moeller wrote:
> If we allow fair use of images, which we currently do, we may want to
> develop guidelines for what is and what is not a good example for fair
> use. Some thoughts:
>
> Good fair use:
> [...]
> - Important historical photos: Leader meets leader, building explodes, war
> crimes etc. Here the educational purpose is prevalent. Exceptions: Photos
> of which we know that their copyright is rigidly enforced.
> [...]

The principle of fair use is depending on the way we use the photo, not on
the way copyright is enforced. If it is 'fair use', copyright grants us the
right to use the image. If it's not 'fair use' someone can enforce the
copyright and require removal of the picture.

The question of including the picture has to be based on fair use, not on
the enforcement policy of the copyright owner.

	JeLuF


from_name: Dante Alighieri

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Bad word article

body:
At 08:02 AM 6/21/2003, you wrote:
>Toby Bartels wrote:
>>Ilya N. wrote:
>>
>>>The article [[Fucking Amal]] should be changed...I know many kids who go
>>>to this site.
>>
>>>I would like to also propose a boilerplate text that says something like
>>>this:
>>
>>>"WARNING: This article may countain offensive, or adult articles and links"
>>
>>>but really the article mentioned above should be renamed to something
>>>like [[F... Amal]] or something
>>
>>This post demonstrates one reason why
>>?You simply haven't been here long enough.?
>>is a legitimate reason to hesitate in making somebody an admin.
>>Despite having been here a month, Ilya is unfamiliar with
>>things that have been discussed a great deal recently.
>>He might have applied sysop powers in such a situation;
>>limiting admin privileges is in most cases a matter of
>>limiting them to people that are well familiar with Wikipedia;
>>limiting the damage by problematic users is a rarer benefit.
>>Let me note that while I'm picking on a post by Ilya,
>>the only conclusion that I want to draw is a general one.
>>Ilya did /not/ use his admin powers, or even ordinary powers,
>>to change this -- instead he brought it up on the list.
>>So I'm not questioning the fitness of Ilya in particular to be an admin!
>>Anyway Ilya, you'll want to discuss this
>>at [[Wikipedia talk:Content disclaimer]].
>>
>>-- Toby
>
>well, I /could have/ used whatever powers I was granted as an admin,
>however I didn't, how  is this bad. With simple correction I can learn,
>not from such a tone in messages as if you're attacking me. I'm not as
>stupid as many people in the word nowadays
>
>--Ilya

Ilya, Toby was very careful NOT to attack you, he was simply making a point
about people in /general/ not being aware of existing convention after only
a month. Reread his post and I think you'll agree. Toby actually commended
you for doing what you did, bringing it to the list. :)

-----
Dante Alighieri
dalighieri at digitalgrapefruit.com

"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their
neutrality in times of great moral crisis."
    -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321


subject: [Wikitech-l] Database trouble again

body:
On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 07:00:00PM +0200, Erik Moeller wrote:
> Nick-
> > Everybody else: Now our database server has 2047MB of memory rather than
> > 896MB of memory.  It should be much faster.  ;)
>
> Thanks for fixing this! Be careful, though, or you'll soon have Brion's
> workload on your shoulders ;-)

Between the 50 hours of work/week, the 15 credits of night school
classes, the girlfriend, and the pets... it sounds like just the thing I
need.  ;)

--
Nick Reinking -- eschewing obfuscation since 1981 -- Minneapolis, MN


subject: [WikiEN-l] Proper Foreign Names

body:
(this is being sent in HTML - white on black. I hope... you like. I like.)

This may sound offlandish - but I want to throw support behind the idea of
spelling proper names in close accord to their actual names' pronunciation.
The English spelling/pronunciation "Prague" would redirect to "Praha" - the
actual name of the place. This is not something that should simply be left
to stand along English lines.

 The idea of keeping English consistent is valid -- the proper spelling of
English words means that all who read that word can interpret it to a
reasonable degree of similarity - albeit in their own accents. (Dan and I
have been talking at length about this).  Proper English spelling then is
generally important because it provides an anchor for the word - which is
used by billions around the world.  Similar to Han characters, which can be
read consistenly by peoples who can barely say hello to each other.

Hence this is also a good reason also to name proper names according to
their proper pronunciation.  Proper names have long undergone a normal
Anglicization when translated to English.  Attempts in different aread have
been made to reform this --  the Hepburn system given way to the pinyin,
being an example -- We do it here already too: [[The Chang Jiang]] article
redirects from Yangtze - perhaps in tune with the proper name of the
Yangtze - I dont know for certain -- but this edit was done by a
ZhongGuo-pedian, and not an Anglo-pedian - hence deference in Chinese
matters would naturally goes to the guy/gal who is actually Chinese.  Im not
going to give Erik any lectures about travel in Deutchland.

A part of the reason why the En.Wikipedia has far more traffic than all of
the other languages combined.  (Internet access issues, WP founded by
English speakers, etc.) is that English itself, being the world lingua
franca - tends to attract people to it - simply because of the numbers.
There is no reason why a foreign speaker, even with poor English skills,
should feel like they are unwelcome -  (as long as they can take
correction - but thats attitude -related) - nor should they need to
excercise some kind of compartmentalized way of thinking about their
articles  -  certainly integrated language tools -implementation might
someday speed up the process of making more articles avaliable.

In fact - what it looks like to me is that the En wikipedia will be the
major component in a world language wikipedia - that allows for all kinds of
cross-textual content. To separate these out by language makes some sense -
for sake of non-confusion, but I submit that these other variants represent
rifts between English and these other languages - and hence the willingness
of people to use them.  Perhaps a WorldPedia where only a few of the major
languages are allowed would fit the bill to start.

Naturally grammatical errors will come up, and this is just the price to be
paid for being the common tongue.  There will always be a struggle between
the forces of ethnoconvergence and ethnostasis - both of which see each
other as being 'diverent' and 'destructive' - according to their different
value systems.  The one reveres multiculturalism, while the other reveres
only its own.

All that said, I'd just like to see Prague redirect to "Praha" -(etc)  let
"Prague" be recorded as a depricated way of naming the capital city of
Czechlosovakia.  Proper names, at least we can all agree - belong to the
denzens of those cities, and not to people elsewhere.  Why depricated?
Because I play go, chat, etc, with people from Czechlosovakia (for example)
. Not something that was a reality as little as a decade ago.

WLBUY,
-SteveM.


from_name: Karim Moussally

subject: [WikiEN-l] Feature request?

body:
I'm not entirely certain that this IS a feature request (and if it is, it
probably doesn't belong on this list) but what does everyone think about
changing the default behavior of the search box? As of now, if I type
something into the box and hit <enter> (or carriage return, or whatever)
the behavior is as if I had pressed the search button. I suggest changing
this to acting is if I had pressed the GO button.

This is a Good Thing because: if someone types in French Revolution they
will probably appreciate going to the article ON the french revolution
immediately without having to click on the top link. Secondly, if someone
wants to find the article on the letter A, they currently have to /know/ to
type in A and click GO. If they click search, the search engine craps out
on them. If the default action were a GO search then there would be no problem.

Any opinions on the matter?

-----

Karim Moussally
kmoussally at cal.berkeley.edu

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly
submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his
intelligence."
    -Albert Einstein, attributed


from_name: Pedro M.V.

body:
I think we need a free code Wikimedia Program to recieve radio broadcasting in the Internet . This would be a program similar to real player and media player, but free code, not property owned by a company.

Regards.
----
http://www.journeytoforever.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Mayer" <maveric149 at yahoo.com>
To: <wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 1:27 AM
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Fwd: Announcing Wikimedia Foundation

> I sent this message to the wrong list. Sorry.
>
> ----------  Forwarded Message  ----------
>
> Subject: Announcing Wikimedia Foundation
> Date: Friday 20 June 2003 04:19 pm
> From: Daniel Mayer
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>
> Jimmy Wales wrote:
> >I'm pleased to announce the existence of the
> >Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a nonprofit corporation
> >organized under the laws of Florida, United States.
> >I am transferring to this new corporation the assets
> >that follow:
> >
> >1. All Nupedia.com/net/org/etc. domain names
> >2. All Wikipedia.com/net/org/etc. domain names
> >
> >3. All copyrights in software or articles that were
> >previously owned by Bomis, Inc. and already placed
> >under a copyleft license.  (This includes work-for-hire
> >by Jason, Tim, Larry, Toan, Liz, and myself, as well as
> >any other Bomis employees who may have worked on
> >these projects as a part of their job, but doesn't include
> >any work by thoseparties conducted on their own time
> >or while not an employee of Bomis.)
>
> Sweet! Thanks for setting up the Foundation (especially with the name
> "Wikimedia"). As the owner of the Wikimedia.org and Wiktionary.org domain
> names I hereby transfer ownership and control of these domain names to the
> Wikimedia Foundation as soon as it is in the position to receive these assets
> (per your personal email to me Jimbo).
>
> I also noticed the Nupedia stuff. Does that mean that Nupedia is also now
>  part of the Wikimedia family? I'm not certain if the Nupedians (if there are
>  any left or who care) would be too happy about that.... Oh well, maybe we
>  can bring some life to that project. I still think Nupedia (perhaps under
>  the name GNUpedia) should be refactored to be a repository of
>  expert-approved Wikipedia articles (along the lines of Larry's Sifter
>  project). Thus that project would be a stable distribution of Wikipedia
>  content but all editing would still take place at Wikipedia.
>
> Which reminds me that gnupedia.org and gnupedia.com are also owned by Bomis
> (IIRC). Are these domain names included with point 1?
>
> Oh, and I'm going to assign copyright to all my edits to Wikimedia as part of
> my Will and since I plan on living a very long time it will be awhile before
> Wikimedia owns my text. I am still weary about having one entity in control
> of so much content (which brings up the possibility of proprietary forks if,
> for example, Wikimedia goes bankrupt and creditors try to sell Wikimedia's
> assets).
>
> Is there a way for Wikipedia authors to grant Wikimedia the ability to defend
> the author's GNU FDLd copyrighted text without requiring the author to
> transfer ownership to Wikimedia? Or am I confusing "ownership" and
> "assignment"?
>
> -- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Proper Foreign Names

body:
(this is being REsent in HTML - white on black. I hope... you like. I like.)

This may sound offlandish - but I want to throw support behind the idea of
spelling proper names in close accord to their actual names' pronunciation.
The English spelling/pronunciation "Prague" would redirect to "Praha" - the
actual name of the place. This is not something that should simply be left
to stand along English lines.

 The idea of keeping English consistent is valid -- the proper spelling of
English words means that all who read that word can interpret it to a
reasonable degree of similarity - albeit in their own accents. (Dan and I
have been talking at length about this).  Proper English spelling then is
generally important because it provides an anchor for the word - which is
used by billions around the world.  Similar to Han characters, which can be
read consistenly by peoples who can barely say hello to each other.

Hence this is also a good reason also to name proper names according to
their proper pronunciation.  Proper names have long undergone a normal
Anglicization when translated to English.  Attempts in different aread have
been made to reform this --  the Hepburn system given way to the pinyin,
being an example -- We do it here already too: [[The Chang Jiang]] article
redirects from Yangtze - perhaps in tune with the proper name of the
Yangtze - I dont know for certain -- but this edit was done by a
ZhongGuo-pedian, and not an Anglo-pedian - hence deference in Chinese
matters would naturally goes to the guy/gal who is actually Chinese.  Im not
going to give Erik any lectures about travel in Deutchland.

A part of the reason why the En.Wikipedia has far more traffic than all of
the other languages combined.  (Internet access issues, WP founded by
English speakers, etc.) is that English itself, being the world lingua
franca - tends to attract people to it - simply because of the numbers.
There is no reason why a foreign speaker, even with poor English skills,
should feel like they are unwelcome -  (as long as they can take
correction - but thats attitude -related) - nor should they need to
excercise some kind of compartmentalized way of thinking about their
articles  -  certainly integrated language tools -implementation might
someday speed up the process of making more articles avaliable.

In fact - what it looks like to me is that the En wikipedia will be the
major component in a world language wikipedia - that allows for all kinds of
cross-textual content. To separate these out by language makes some sense -
for sake of non-confusion, but I submit that these other variants represent
rifts between English and these other languages - and hence the willingness
of people to use them.  Perhaps a WorldPedia where only a few of the major
languages are allowed would fit the bill to start.

Naturally grammatical errors will come up, and this is just the price to be
paid for being the common tongue.  There will always be a struggle between
the forces of ethnoconvergence and ethnostasis - both of which see each
other as being 'diverent' and 'destructive' - according to their different
value systems.  The one reveres multiculturalism, while the other reveres
only its own.

All that said, I'd just like to see Prague redirect to "Praha" -(etc)  let
"Prague" be recorded as a depricated way of naming the capital city of
Czechlosovakia.  Proper names, at least we can all agree - belong to the
denzens of those cities, and not to people elsewhere.  Why depricated?
Because I play go, chat, etc, with people from Czechlosovakia (for example)
. Not something that was a reality as little as a decade ago.

WLBUY,
-SteveM.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030621/1e9c4800/attachment.htm


from_name: Kurt Jansson

body:
Pedro M.V. schrieb:
> I think we need a free code Wikimedia Program to recieve radio broadcasting in the Internet . This would be a program similar to real player and media player, but free code, not property owned by a company.

We could ask the guys from Spamradio if they'd like to start a Wikipedia
articles channel :-)
If they don't, maybe they'll help us in setting up our own (especially
with choosing a good text to speech program). There's not much info on
http://spamradio.org/html/background.html

I really love this idea, but I guess it's not exactly what you were
thinking of.

Kurt


from_name: Stevertigo

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Proper foreign names RESPONSE 2 MAV

body:
Responses to mav and Steven

>Mav: But the English word for the city is Prague, not Praha. If you present an
average English speaker with the word "Praha" they are not going to know what
that is.

Well, you might consider the notion that people come to an encyclopedia to learn something. And this ignores the fact that a search for Prague will lead to Praha.

>But present the same English speaker with "Prague" and they will
recognize it. Same for Deutschland vs Germany. Why should we needlessly
confuse our readers and make them feel stupid for not knowing the "right"
word for Prauge or Germany?

Only people who are vain about what they know, feel disturbed by what they dont. An Encyclopedia is here to present information - not to simply agree with what people already know.

>They will probably take one look at the foreign
>title and leave thinking they landed in the wrong place (if not the wrong
>language).

Not if they see its redirected from "Prague" below - and boy, what a low opinion of people you must have to think they would be so... confused.  Is humanity a 'glass half full' or 'half empty?'

>It is counter to our purpose of being understandable by the largest number of English
>speakers and especially native English speakers (when writing in English, of
>course).

Once again - the argument that people are too stupid and confuseable to understand.

>That will only lead to having misdirected links as English speakers
>can't remember the spelling of a foreign word. We already had a major fight
>with Lir over Crist?bal Col?n vs Christopher Columbus - please don't open up
>old wounds. You have already pissed a bunch of people off by having a nick in
>non-English characters because they couldn't read or pronounce it.

Once again - referring to how confused people are.  Well, Lir was right. The only people who disagree with that were people stuck in convention. Its certainly will sound like its from Neptune when it defies the typical conventions - but this requires people to be somewhat unconventional.  You and I agree on a number of things - among them should be the principle that simply "not pissing people off" - deserves no merits on its own.
(I *do hope you have AC up there in Sac, BTW)

>All that matters is what the majority of English speakers recognize as the
>title and for us to make modifications and compromises where needed to
>overcome ambiguities. Oh, and there is no such thing as a "real name" for
>anything - words play a nominative role and different words are used in
>different languages to mean the same things. This is such an elementary fact
>that I'm embarrassed to have to mention it to you.

Im glad your embarrased. It reveals some altruistic fact I dont have time to go into...
But you do have some strong points to address - however, Im calling for a change of convention - Im not making claim that its *not conventional to simply follow convention. I'm calling to question the *merits of that convention - and whether its a convention from another era - say, 1672.  (Before telephones, I might add.)

If you watched John Stossel's piece last night - he showed a neighborhood in Queens destroyed by people bent on ridding foreign language signs from the streets - under the guise of clutter - and other civil codes. The city went along with it - because such laws were on the books - (why argue with the law after awl?)  But the city also was fining people three or four digits for just having the awnings there to begin with.  The smirks on the faces of the perpetrators - also invoking "America" - and "this is how we do it in America" - was disgusting beyond description.  Its a similar attitude.

As for their not being "real names for things" - I suppose if we decided to change the USA to "MeiGuo" or "Estados Unidentes" you would have to face your own statement in reverse.  In that case - I would be in favor of calling it the "United States of America" - cause thats its name. The reason why there are "proper" names for things tends to be relative to language.  Now - you may want to look like a colonialist and go argue with somebody Chinese over the proper article title for "Yangtze" - see where it gets you.

>Sometimes this means we use words that are very close to or even the same as
>the words used in the country of origin of the thing but other times it means
>we use an Anglicization (which is the process modifying foreign words to make
>it easier for English speakers to use and pronounce them). All that matters
>is what is known and recognized by most English speakers at all familiar with
>the subject (and making sure there are no significant naming conflicts and
>also making sure we aren't just making up Anglicizations).

Well your toughest argument by far is based on a limitation of the En wikipedia to en "native English speakers" - again.  As a said before -- being the lingua franca has advantages and disadvantages.  Among the disadvantages is that English is no longer owned bu the English ("England for the English")

|This aids in linking for writers and the ability of readers to find what they
|are looking for. That's all. Redirects can and should be used for less common
|forms of the term so that people looking for those forms can find the
|articles too. But leave the terms that are most widely known and used by
|English speakers at the head of their articles - not some form of the name
|that is seldom used by English speakers (especially native ones).

Mav's argument here rests entirely upon his assumption of a unique reason for redirects - and then he somewhat concedes the point with the word "should."  Fine! Your opinion - that redirects "should" be limited to one use is noted.  Lets see what other people think, shall we?

|And article titles should reflect a strong bias toward what English speakers
|are going to most often write in a sentence when referring to the subject
|(with modifications based on ambiguities). That whole point of doing this is
|to maximize the number of direct links to a title - redirects are a hack used
|for less common terms.

I disagree, again, that the only reason for redirects is a "hack".
As for "reflecting a bias" -- Im not sure this is NPOV.     *IS the area of language forever to be an issue where the prime directive of  NPOV is undermined?

-SM-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030621/a740c80e/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Feature request?

body:
Darn, sent this via the wrong email address. ;) Sending again.
----

I'm not entirely certain that this IS a feature request (and if it is, it
probably doesn't belong on this list) but what does everyone think about
changing the default behavior of the search box? As of now, if I type
something into the box and hit <enter> (or carriage return, or whatever)
the behavior is as if I had pressed the search button. I suggest changing
this to acting is if I had pressed the GO button.

This is a Good Thing because: if someone types in French Revolution they
will probably appreciate going to the article ON the french revolution
immediately without having to click on the top link. Secondly, if someone
wants to find the article on the letter A, they currently have to /know/ to
type in A and click GO. If they click search, the search engine craps out
on them. If the default action were a GO search then there would be no problem.

Any opinions on the matter?

-----
Dante Alighieri
dalighieri at digitalgrapefruit.com

"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their
neutrality in times of great moral crisis."
    -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321


from_name: Markus Peter

subject: Optimizations (Was Re: [Wikitech-l] Content-encoding: gzip)

body:
--On Donnerstag, 12. Juni 2003 23:02 Uhr -0700 Brion Vibber
<brion at pobox.com> wrote:

> - We could offer either as default or as an option to compress
> dynamically generated pages as well, which could shave some more
> percentage points off the bandwidth usage. Might be a help for the modem
> folks who do log in. :)  However I'm not sure how much this would affect
> CPU usage; in any case there's no urgency for this, it's just something
> we might do if we have the cycles to burn (I don't think we do just now,
> but we might one day).

We do dynamic gzipping of pages on a rather large website (~3.000.000
dynamic hits daily). The experience we gathered so far showed us, that the
gzipping itself is actually rather fast, compared to the page generation
process through PHP/Perl. The main problem with dynamic gzipping is, that
you have to build up the whole page in memory, instead of sending out lines
as they are generated (don't know, how the Wikipedia software currently
works). As a safeguard, we occasionally (about once a minute per Apache
process) read /proc/loadavg on Linux systems. If it's higher than a
specified limit (9.0 on our systems) we temporarily disable page gzipping.

Some other optimization-related suggestions (I'm not familiar with what was
already suggested, sorry):

- Drop Apache for the image delivery. Instead, put a webserver like thttpd
(<http://www.acme.com/software/thttpd/>) on a subdomain for image delivery.
The amount of delivered hits compared to used memory and CPU time is
significantly better than with Apache in our experiences.
- Consider implementing Squid as a front-end to your dynamic Apache. It's
fairly fast to implement if your software delivers proper headers. This
implements caching for anon-users without extra code. Even for logged in
users it has a serious advantage: Apache need not wait anymore till it can
send out all data. Usually, by doing that, the load on the servers will
increase, as it sits less idly, waiting for the traffic to be sent out, but
at the same time, more pages are delivered per second. Dynamic Apaches are
usually also very sensitive to bad connections as you usually only have a
small limited pool of processes (we run a maximum of 70 on our site for
example) - if the connections of users are generally bad, they can easily
hog 99% of your apache processes in the starting connection state and
thereby basically bring Wikipedia down, even though 95% of your server
ressources are not actually used. A Squid frontend usually delivers
increased performance even if you completely disable caching in Squid. A
drawback though is the increased number of context switches/second and more
memory-copy operations.

--
Markus Peter - SPiN AG
warp at spin.de


subject: [WikiEN-l] Proper Foreign Names RESP 2 STEVEN G

body:
Response to STEVEN

Steven: I'm not entirely unsympathetic to this issue, but I believe that this
| suggestion is misguided. Proper names have been translated from
| their original language into others long before English came on the
| scene.

Well, no more. The point is that "long before" the web and Wikipedia were born -- a lot of things were true -- many of them little known.  Now its not the case -- on an almost daily basis we edit pages that are also edited by people from Deutschland (hey Erik), Eire (James), (complicated).... ZhongGuo (Samuel), Ceska Republika (xChaos) -etc.etc...  The proper name of Africa might be whatever the people of Africa - refer to it - namely "Africa" -- certainly European colonial history plays a role there.

| In English, the capital of the Czech Republic is Prague. This is a
| translation of the name. As you point out, there is some
| momentum in the English to use translations that more closely
| approximate the pronunciation in the dominant language of the
| area. However, language evolves naturally. Wikipedia can declare
| "Prague" deprecated, but it wouldn't make a bit of difference to the
| rest of the English speaking world, and it would make the project
| look silly.
|
|  - Stephen G.

Well, I wouldnt want to make anyone "look silly."  Heavens no.

-Stevertigo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030621/7fd98131/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unreadable email messages

body:
I am hereby announcing my intention to ignore (neither read nor respond to)
any message that arrives in my inbox in other than black text on
background. This includes both white text on black background as WELL as
black on black.

On a side-note, I'd sure like to discuss the new naming convention that
Stevertigo has suggested. How about we move it off of the mailing list
(where there seem to be *cough* problems *cough* with some peoples' email)
and onto the Wikipedia where it belongs? I suggest [[Wikipedia:Naming
conventions (Proper names)]].

-----
Dante Alighieri
dalighieri at digitalgrapefruit.com

"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their
neutrality in times of great moral crisis."
    -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321