body:
> Message: 11
> Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 15:57:54 +0000
> From: geni <geniice at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Totally unscientific investigation...
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> 	<f80608430511080757x303f0d80wd05f8d2c08df682 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> I don't think it is safe to use the word consensus anywhere near the
> encopedist/pro-content disspute (formaly know as the
> deletionist/inclusionist disspute we can't solve it but we can darn
> well rename it).

The issue at hand was *not* deletionism vs. inclusionism. It was
transparency and accessibility vs. opaqueness and inaccessibility.

darin


list: wikitech-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Andrew Dunbar

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Adding a new tab

body:
On the English Wiktionary I've added a new tab using javascript.
The code is here: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Hippietrail/monobook.js

Look for the function "addCiteTab"

Good luck.

Andrew Dunbar (hippietrail)

On 11/8/05, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >  Does anyone has any idea as to how to add a new tab to the existing
> > tabs (article,discussion,edit and history) to the wikipedia page.I have
> > the mediawiki installed and the database dump imported. Now i wana tweak
> > and make additions to wikipedia. I have very little idea of php but am
> > ready to learn the advance concepts as the need may arise.
>
> You make additions to Wikipedia at http://wikipedia.org. Don't call your
> site Wikipedia, or you would be violating trademark law.
>
> That said, have a look at Magnus Manske's validation feature; it adds a
> new tab, 'validate', to every page.
>
> Timwi
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>

--
http://linguaphile.sf.net


list: wikien-l

from_name: Bob Mellish

subject: [WikiEN-l] disputing block: 69.108.172.162, lysdexia

body:
On 11/8/05, Theresa Knott <theresaknott at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/8/05, Autymn D. C. <lysdexia at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > Rdsmith4 is misrepresenting and libelling me, and abusing his
> > joke-of-a-power again by blocking me again after I had insisted and
> > enforced that an article be put in an accurate grammatic mood to fit
> > the context, which was not real but ideal.
> [...]
>
> I'm glad to hear that. Come back after a day, but please do not
> correct any more grammar, as you appear not to understand it.
>
> I rather suspect Lysdexia will disagree with you there. He/she seems to
have some very original ideas about spelling, grammar, and physics. While a
lot of his/her edits are fine, the physics-related ones at least stand
checking over, and I've noticed a few non-standard spellings in there too
("cinetic").

Anyway, currently the user seems to be blocked indefinitely. This may be too
harsh, though I can't say I'm really cut up about it.

--Bob Mellish


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: David Gerard

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Status of Serbia and Montenegro chapter

body:
Delphine wrote:

>Mark,
>When the matter goes as far as Milos saying that the Serbian and
>Montenegro Chapter does not want to be part of Wikimedia, I think you
>should really try to evaluate what damage you have caused.

When the Serbian and Montenegro chapter decides it does not want to be
part of Wikimedia because of one person's comments on a mailing list,
it is they who desperately need a sense of proportion. What a
ridiculous tantrum.

- d.


from_name: Autymn D.C.

body:
On 8 Nov 2005, at 08.21, Theresa Knott wrote:
> It looks to me like you were insisting that the phrase "The sun emits
> power" to "the sun emit power" . etc.You were told by numerous people
> that this is wrong yet you continued to revert.  BTW he is not
> libelling you. Please don't use legal terms like this.

I told them that they were wrong.  And no, this is /not/ wrong.  It is
that this be wrong.  If you cannot tell the difference between truth
and tale, you may not even speak about knowing how to speak or write.
I checked the meaning of libel on Dictionary.com just now, and see that
you are wrong again.  He is, openly and flatly.  Stop speaking about
what you don't or can't grasp.

> When everyone disagrees with you, you should at the very least
> _consider_ the possibility that they are right and you are wrong don't
> you think?  By insisting on your wording even though it plainy reads
> wrong and sounds silly you are opening up yourself to accusations of
> trolling.

I consider many possibilities beforehand.  They were and are provably
wrong.  "plainy"?  Now, I would make the distinction between the words
"plainy" and "plainly", and would not claim that either was not a word
or agrammatic if it were in a grammatic context; however, most people,
like you, wouldn't have the mind to know how to deal with constructive
and expansive semiotics because no one told them about these, even if
they could be understood by thinking about the parts as they are
seldomly used yet kept together, again by thinking, so that the whole
language is not corrupted as is done by the common person.

Anyway, I've already proven my cases in the talk pages.

> Every
>> mistake that they claimed I'd made elsewhere was /their/ mistake of
>> being an ignorant fool.
>
> Personal attacks are not allowed on wikipedia. Please don't call
> people names.

Calling people what they are is not attacking.  Censorship,
obscurantism, and prejudice are the greatest ills ever foisted on this
world; they spawn all other ills; they make liars and fools with power
punish the undeserving without power.  Every thing and one must be
known for what they are, so they can be made into what they should.
Wherever one may be called an asset, wrongly, and not found to be
attacked, yet called an ass, rihtly, and found to be attacked, is run
by the deluded and unqualified.  Truth and ethics have no bias between
positive and negative treatment.  I use Wikipedia like a Wiki, and I
expect it to be a Wiki.  Punishing and blocking users like me for
editing like they should is not of a Wiki.  Ganging up on me, wrongly
mocking my edits, and violating a bunch of policies to keep me from
writing /is/ a personal attack.  Most people prefer customs over the
truth and, when confronted with the truth that they're wrong, they will
hate the truth and scourge the person who shows them so that they don't
have to listen or think about themselves.  I did say "person" here, and
not "persons".

Wikipedia now is a kangaroo court.  Many people have left for that
reason.  Some users and admins may violate policies--as I've posted on
RfC, talk pages, and here, done against me--so that they can enforce
some other surface policy that they prefer, because it doesn't involve
what /they/ were doing wrong that the latter policy is meant to cover
up, for the sake of not "disrupting" Wikipedia.  They think that
there's any truth to the least-action principle--to hell with
principles for themselves.

>> Lately I've been bringing out my contentions to the Talk pages before
>> editing over the articles,
>
> Did you do that in this case before you reverted and called someone a
> vandal for correcting your bad grammar?

I had no bad grammar, so this question is meaningless.  I still left a
note.

>> <http://egroups.com/group/message/free_energy/20090>.  I was logged in

This should be <http://egroups.com/message/free_energy/20090>.

>> then, and found that the block was for a day; but the next time I
>> found
>> that my cookies expired, for Yahoo! and Wikipedia, so I had to log in
>> again.  But before I did, I saw what happened when I tried with the
>> numeric IP.  The same block screen came up, so I logged in and found
>> that the block was advanced another day!
>
> This is the autoblocker. You need to not edit at all either logged in
> or not. Then the block will expire.

These are also meaningless.  Where does it say that?  Now the log says
"indefinite"!

> I'm glad to hear that. Come back after a day, but please do not
> correct any more grammar, as you appear not to understand it.

You appear not to understand anything.  What you should be glad to hear
is only if the users and admins make up for libelling and abusing me,
and take off the block so I can fix some pages.  How they treat me is
sickening.

On 8 Nov 2005, at 09.16, Sean Barrett wrote:
>> I really need to update my article....
> No, you don't.  Not only do you not /have/ an article,
> but you also don't /need/ to update any article.

I didn't say it was about myself, only that it was mine.  I /do/ need
to update/fix an article because it has outstanding tabulated data that
were mistaken from the wrong calculations and premises.  It's urgent.

On 8 Nov 2005, at 08.55, Bob Mellish wrote:
>> I rather suspect Lysdexia will disagree with you there. He/she seems
>> to
> have some very original ideas about spelling, grammar, and physics.
> While a lot of his/her edits are fine, the physics-related ones at
> least stand
> checking over, and I've noticed a few non-standard spellings in there
> too
> ("cinetic").

I'm assuming you're DrBob.  My spelling of cinetic is riht, and it
looks like you've changed it.  If anyone is thinking about taking
actions against me if I see to make it "cinetic", as it should be, I
will call up the guideline to not discriminate by the editor's dialect,
and to stop changing words to fit another.  "cinetic" is written for
accuracy.

Anyway, I do have the last new numbers for that table, but you already
know that I can't enter them because I've been blindly blocked,
indefinitely.

-Aut


from_name: Sabine Cretella

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Status of Wikimedia

body:
>I disagree. If a new contributor loses enthousiasm because he cannot
>create his own Wikipedia in his own local dialect, but has to work in
>the more official language instead, or in a Wikipedia grouping
>dialects together, then I'm not sure whether their enthousiasm is so
>much wanted. And if that is elitist, then let me be elitist, but I
>think saying that your pet project can be part of Wikipedia only if
>you write it in some language with regular written communication is
>not that much of a restriction...
>
>
>
>
Well what stops a person to set up an own wiki and just start writing if
it is not possible to do this within wikipedia? Who knows me, excactly
knows that if I really want something I get it - well if someone really
wants something he/she can get it - but: he/she must make facts and not
only words.

Ciao, Sabine

___________________________________
Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB
http://mail.yahoo.it


list: foundation-l

from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikinews is giving out press credentials

body:
On 11/8/05, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> --- Traroth <traroth at yahoo.fr> wrote:
> > Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> a ?crit :
> > >Credentials are given by organizations - not by just some people on the
> > >Internet (which is all any Wikimedia project is by itself). Using that
> term
> > >in the real world where it has a specific meaning - to describe that
> process
> > >is very misleading. Using that term and the Wikinews mark implies an
> official
> > >connection that does not exist. That is dishonest and an abuse of the
> mark.
> >
> > Does it mean Wikinews is not an organisation in itself ? I disagree. It
> is.
> > And that means that Wikinews can choose the way it wants to give out
> > credentials.
>
> Sorry, but in any legal sense it is not. Wikinews is a project of the
> Wikimedia
> foundation. Noting more from a legal perspective. The Wikinews community
> is a
> collection of people who work on that project but who don't have any legal
> membership in it. All authority to use the Wikinews mark outside of that
> community falls to the registered owner of that mark; the Wikimedia
> Foundation.
> If the foundation wants to use the Wikinews community as its agent to
> select
> people to be credentialed and thus be able to use the Wikinews mark on
> badges,
> then that is fine.

 Your argument would be a lot better if it didn't rest on trademark rights,
because it seems clear that this has nothing to do with trademarks.

But the foundation must make that permission explicit and should put in
> place
> reasonable oversight measures that would be used in case anybody abuses
> the
> privilege of being credentialed. Again, in almost all cases, the community
> should be the foundation's agent in deaccreditation and reaccreditation.
> But
> community processes are slow and in really bad cases the foundation should
> be
> able to quickly remove credentials of offending users or even suspend the
> whole
> process if it ever gets out of hand.

All I want to do is protect the foundation and the good name of its
> projects.
> It is simply potentially dangerous for people to use the foundation's name
> and/or the name of its projects to gain access and authority in the real
> world
> they would otherwise not be able to have. For one thing, they need
> permission
> to do that, for another, we need to have some type of official oversight
> on
> this.
>
> -- mav

 Is anyone actually using these essentially self-assigned credentials to
gain any significant access and authority in the real world (something that
couldn't be gained by just saying "I'm a member of qwyjibo productions")? I
think it would be pretty hard to do so without committing some sort of
fraud.


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Wikitech-l] Thoughts on wikidata

body:
Frando wrote:

> What the project lacks of at the moment is a better coordination and
> organisation.

Erik Moeller is working on it; he *is* the project, and I am confident
that he can coordinate himself :-)

>
> I think that we should link the idea of wikidata with some other
> improvements that mediawiki needs, especially better semantic web
> abilities, iow. a xml in- and output implentation,

My initial but mostly working XML export implementation:

http://magnusmanske.de/wikipedia/wiki2xml.php

Paste wikitext in, get XML out. I've been meaning to work on a further
conversion to OpenOffice XML, but didn't really get around to it.

> the possibilty to
> tag articles with a standart (as for Jimbo's "1.0"-proposal)

It's waiting in the wings, for Brion to copy SpecialValidate.php back
from CVS HEAD and turn it on.

> and maybe also a improved discussion system (liquidthreads).

Didn't write that yet. Surprise! ;-)

>
> So I propose to take all this together and call it MediaWiki 2.0 resp.
> phase4.

Why? They're not dependent on each other in any way. WikiData is
developing, validation is ready for testing; XML export(/import) is in
early stages, and LiquidThreads is in consensus limbo. None of them
needs any of the others to become reality.

We can say "together, we'll call them MediaWiki 2.0", but that's a
marketing thing, not a technical necessity IMHO.

>
> I think we have enough guys out there who're more than willingly to
> help coding, but the problem is that no one really knows where to
> start ..

* WikiData should stay with Erik for the time being; in such an early
phase, a single developer can be more effective than a dozen guys who
have to be told every detail first. We'll grab it once it has reached a
beta or whatever
* Validation waits for field testing, though I'd be happy if you'd have
a look at the code
* XML import/export would be something where you can jump right in.
Speed up/bugfix my parser, add an ODT converter, write an importer (easy
enough), whatever
* LiquidThreads seems to be stuck between better order and security vs.
"everyone can edit this comment".

>
> Concerning myself, I think I will not be able to write too much of
> code myself, because my little freetime is already rather occupied,
> but I'd love to contribute to the project as much as possible.

Welcome to the club of people-who-don't-have-time-but-still-make-some :-)

Magnus


subject:
[Foundation-l] [Wikipedia-l] CheckUser policy (was Status of
	Wikimedia)

body:
>PS : a comment about the checkuser policy. Afaik, it is done. I asked
>comments a week ago, and though Taw has not removed the fact he thought
>it "terribly dangerous", I read no real opposition to it and several
>supports.

The two opposers were Taw and myself, who have actually used the tool
and have experience of its social effects. And I did comment on the
policy at length. What are you counting as "real opposition"?

[cc to foundation-l]

- d.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] CheckUser policy (was Status of Wikimedia)


from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] 'Proper' languages and bumper stickers

body:
I'd agree with you there, except that ISO is not always nessecarily correct.

For starters, ISO 639-2 excludes lots and lots of languages (cf Ethnologue).

The (provisional) ISO 639-3 solves this, but as of yet it is not final
or officially official.

Now, the problem with that is that it follows Ethnologue's divisions
of languages vs dialects for the most part. Thus, while Moroccan and
Tunisian Arabic are considered separate languages (even people who
advocate for separate languages within "Arabic" would consider them
both part of Maghrebi Arabic), Yavapai and Havasupai or Lithuanian and
Samogitian are not. Zlatiborian, of course, is not even mentioned.
Give it time, perhaps.

Mark

On 08/11/05, SJ <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
> [ Mark writes ]
> > You think that you can claim that just because I am not
> > a Serbian, I know nothing about this issue. Well, I have seen images
> > of Zlatibor on television, and I read all about the Serbian
> > occupation. I have a bumper sticker that says "Free Zlatibor Now!
> > Boycott Serbia!", and I own some books on Zlatiborian language. My
> > deepest hope is that after the Serbian tyranny ends, I may travel to
> > Zlatibor and witness the beauty firsthand.
>
> Boy, I would give an eyetooth for one of those bumper stickers.  Trade
> you for a pair of "Zapatistas of the world, untie!" shoe decals...
>
> As long as rants about language acceptance are benig exchanged, here's
> something that has been bothering me lately:
>
> It has been suggested more than once that we should get professional
> linguists / a small group of Wiki[m]edians to determine what new
> languages are 'proper' or acceptable, before asking the community to
> discuss and reach consensus.  But should Wikimedia be making decisions
> about the officialness of languages at all?  It seems to me we can
> neutrally defer this to a higher authority*.
>
> The ISO handles ISO 639-1 and -2 reasonably well; these are standards
> designed to identify written documents, and to include those languages
> 'most frequently represented in the total body of the world's
> literature' -- which seems appropriate.  I put some specific
> information on meta:
>       http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/ISO_criteria_for_defining_new_languages
>
> If you think we can do better than the ISO, please comment on that
> talk page**...
>
> SJ
>
> *  "Wikipedia includes 74 major and 7 minor[1] languages with over
> 1000 articles. ...
>    [1]  'Major' languages are defined as those with two-letter ISO
> 639-1 codes, a set of languages considered to be most frequently
> represented in world literature."
>
> **  Perhaps we can have a standard procedure that assumes an ISO-2
> code language, and provide for exceptions.  Some current non-ISO
> wikipedia languages, illustrating various reasons different users
> might have not to stick blindly to such a standard :
>  - zh_min_nan (1,200 articles; listed in places as "taiwanese") ,
>  - tpi (tok pisin, recent conlang, 160 articles),
>  - fiu_vro (V?ro, 105 articles & activity),
>  - roa_rup (Aromanian; 29 articles & little activity, but just got ISO
> 639-2 approval for "rup" in September).
>  + Current well-received /proposals/ for non-ISO languages include pdc
> (Pennsylvania dutch), which already has a 500-article site independent
> of Wikimedia).
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

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


subject: [Foundation-l] checkUser live

body:
Anthere wrote:

>* on a project with no arbcom, the community will have to vote for its
>editors with checkuser access. A limit of votes number has been set on
>purpose. I recommand avoiding using sockpuppet for voting. A wiki
>community with 10 editors and 30 voters is likely to be frowned upon.

And next, we'll be voting for root, database access and CVS access.
Get your votes in now! Brion, Tim or Lir for Mediawiki lead? It's a
hot contest!

[cc: to wikitech-l]

- d.


subject: [Foundation-l] checkUser live


subject: [Wikitech-l] [Foundation-l] checkUser live


body:
This, again, relates more or less to your seeming belief that it is
within the realm of possibility that a Zlatiborian Wikipedia will be
created.

Guess what: It never was! Unless a developer went totally loopy and
decided to create it just to piss people off, it will never be created
and under no recent circumstances would it have been.

So quit worrying about potential situations involving people asking
why we have a Zlatiborian WP.

Mark

On 08/11/05, Milos Rancic <millosh at mutualaid.org> wrote:
> On 11/8/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > When the Serbian and Montenegro chapter decides it does not want to be
> > part of Wikimedia because of one person's comments on a mailing list,
> > it is they who desperately need a sense of proportion. What a
> > ridiculous tantrum.
>
> I think that things are changed because people are talking about this
> issue (not about Zlatiborian, but about the way how to prevent such
> things), but to explain with one more sentcence our thoughts: is
> better to act as local chapter and not to be the formal part of WM
> then to have a lot of bad will questions (i.e. "How many Zlatiborian
> Wikipedias do you have?"). In this moment we are talking with some
> members of Serbian Academy to join us (and we would get a lot of
> relevant material from natural sciences as well as redaction of
> existing and new material) and our position in academic circles is a
> lot related with (non-)existance of Zlatiborian or Bronxian Wikipedia.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

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


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Status of Wikimedia

body:
Unforunately I'm still learning the glorious language of the beautiful
enchanted lands of Zlatibor, so I'd probably not be able to read it.
The Zlatiborians who have moved to cities, such as SellackAlex or
Djordje, however, will surely read it. ;p

Mark

On 08/11/05, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> Alphax wrote:
> >
> > Mark Williamson wrote:
> >
> >>No! I meant to say that... umm... they exist, but you won't find them
> >>at your library because there are no printing presses in Zlatibor so
> >>they have to write out copies manually!
> >
> > So if there's no printing presses, let alone computers, exactly *who* is
> > going to read this glorious Zlatiborian Wikipedia?
>
> Why, he of course. :)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

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


from_name: Alphax

subject: [WikiEN-l] RE: Re: Press badges

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Brown, Darin wrote:
>>Message: 4
>>Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 08:39:31 -0500
>>From: "Chip Berlet" <c.berlet at publiceye.org>
>>Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Re: Press badges
>>To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>>Message-ID:
>>	<477C2A7D4CCE994B8CF296DA69A31D3D39BDE1 at server.publiceye.local>
>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>Wikinews, however, is a form of alternative media, and should fee free to
>>issue press credentials to members of the Wikinews community who have a
>>track record of regular and substantive contributions, and a willingness
>>to recognize that they are carrying the reputation of Wikinews with them;
>>and thus should behave in appropriate ways given local country/city media
>>standards--even if they disagree with those standards.
>
>
> I can't agree. If wikinews really is a form of "alternative media", then how
> is wikinews any different than various alternative media with a clear
> leftist, rightist, libertarian, conservative, populist, etc., etc., slant?
> Just because we say we don't have a bias? Fox News says they don't have a
> bias, either. And look at them.
>
> And then we are taking money from people for Wikimedia, under the guise that
> we are using to present a neutral relaying of information. If this is okay
> for us, again, Fox News or the New York Post could just as well do the exact
> same thing. But people who pay money to watch Fox News or the New York Post
> *know* it's biased.
>

What? Since when are people *paying* for Wikimedia content???

Where is the comparison here?

- --
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQEVAwUBQ2/qB7MAAH8MeUlWAQhRwwf/Y4DJsrYQ3qzjncMNopWuTiPqIS27dHog
hg0OpJR7OBDImUjyr39ao20Tg3JgxbJOLzh5YkoPq2YpLLyLbCE3rTByK7bQPl7d
tFqQL0mcYPo8n4LXAZr38tNVqYDAOIjpifVBhtisW2MFf8HGZGmC455TK2hppxbs
PaZOBMHPDWfq70HG+5oxVijwmQJxXvtsA4y4AbZnSVjOBI/C4yDod4TPaOYZK8OU
CnHzRreY8ps5UE1cQfD6nRHyM2NH4RSGOpjUkJRbbaZmFv/UZ4+Ft761pBO/ga5G
BMe1/qNtfgN4IcINy8V290X2YhyimXn6AgQeskjnCleV4aKietjTOQ==
=PPyu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Foundation-l] checkUser live

body:
I guess that this policy is approved for now. if you have further
comments, please add them in the talk page. I archived all the
discussions, if you wish some to be kept on the live page, please move
them back.

The policy is here : http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CheckUser_Policy

To ask for CheckUser status, please see here :
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_permissions

To ask for information on a user, please go there :
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Request_for_CheckUser_information

------

To summarize it very very shortly :

* on a project with an arbcom, the arbcom will decide for some editors
to have the checkuser status (they may or may not be on the arbcom). The
stewards will give access, per arbcom request.

* on a project with no arbcom, the community will have to vote for its
editors with checkuser access. A limit of votes number has been set on
purpose. I recommand avoiding using sockpuppet for voting. A wiki
community with 10 editors and 30 voters is likely to be frowned upon.

* if the project has no checkuser editor (no vote or too small a
project), the community can ask a steward to do the job.

* all those with checkUser status are submitted to the privacy policy.
Infrigment of it will lead to status removal (there will not be a
community global vote to decide a removal, as this is a legal issue
involving the Foundation; however, the local communities are welcome to
insure investigation and report of abuse cases).

Have fun, but please remember that this is a technical tool to fight
vandalism... not a tool to use routinely to control your peers; We are
not big brother...  by default, we *try* to trust :-)

Ant


subject: [Foundation-l] checkUser live


from_name: JAY JG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Voting is evil (was CheckUser policy)

body:
>From: geni <geniice at gmail.com>
>
>On 11/8/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hence the observable lack of a concerted effort to get rid of Tony
> > Sidaway. Oh, wait ...
> >
> >
> > - d.
>
>It doesn't appear to have worked and he appears to have made it to
>admin so it can't have been that sucessful. Anyway most of the issues
>raised in the RFC have to do with him failing to follow AFD practice
>rather than any individual cases.

As much as I'm sure we'd all like to have another debate about just how
completely broken/absolutely perfect AfD is, I think there are far more
serious issues that are generally ignored.  In particular, Wikipedia's
dispute resolution processes are in sorry shape.

Mediation is intermittent at best, and (from what I can tell) almost never
achieves a positive outcome, but that's nothing compared to RfC.

Article RfCs are numerous, and rarely attract the attention of more than one
or two outside editors.  Frequently they attract no outside interest at all.

User RfCs are a mess - in theory they are a platform for addressing and
solving community issues.  In practice, they are often venues for warring
camps to air grievances, and for certain notorious individuals (who feel
they don't get enough attention) to use as soapboxes for their own
speechifying (i.e. yet another "outside view").  Obvious trolling is rarely
addressed - the complainants outline their case, and a dozen or so regular
editors vote in support.  The troll provides a lengthy response, and three
or four troll buddies/generall trolls/people with grievances against the
complainant line up and vote in support of him, or add another "outside
view" that has little to do with the case at hand, and is mostly about their
own issues with the complainants.  Nothing changes, and everyone goes away
bitter.

The "toxicity" of AfD is nothing compared to what you find at RfC, and in
the end it's often only a precursor to RfAR, just a perfunctory "tick-box"
on the "attempted previous dispute resolution" form.

Jay.


from_name: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Thoughts and measurments related to a new storage
	framework for large wikis.

body:
On 11/5/05, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
  > If we use bsdiff (http://www.daemonology.net/bsdiff/ fast and
> efficent, if you ignore the anti-social license) rather than diff -du,

It uses the BSD license without an advertising clause, what's
anti-social about it?


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Status of Wikimedia

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Mark Williamson wrote:
> On 07/11/05, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>
>>Elian has written something very powerful and important, and I want to
>>quote some from it to echo the sentiments.
>
<snip>
>
> It may seem this way from where you are. But let's look over a few things:
>
> 1) Dialects. So far, nearly all proposals have been classified by the
> Ethnologue as separate languages. Among those that haven't are:
> Zlatiborian, Samogitian, Banyumasan, Voro. However, all of these
> (except Zlatiborian) are listed by numerous other sources as separate
> languages. So, while you may label them "dialects", experts do not.
<snip>

So you admit that no expert sources claim that Zlatiborian exists?

HELLO! NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH!

- --
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQEVAwUBQ2/r1bMAAH8MeUlWAQgPrQf/VC23NOelTh7vX/7P6+565oJRxz2rNtmz
EUkc0tOhsfMM+HWX7p8Ygd0toL/EX7i1saLBw6rrFzR735XF8OJ//gikZGU7N9Sq
7lraJ+MYxUUZ1KALcyy2u/loth+ztQI3EawzKNfsRyHulznaTW08hoYZI+ahVvfR
bWZjYtk0kS4owTKnkJv7I0VtjagrFkVBL3qANMbbi4XWJzCuNm4cwG8iQH6YK2we
VW+Qk9RL1eAulVIJV1zySV0/V4z2YoMVANqnN7TpFRqeCOmY607QuVNa8ZwnZomS
0Ry6HVOSezsS438+45q2objIgWoJtU4u06AO7vpzWtN6oT9kZ6BUXw==
=7Nzd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Status of Wikimedia

body:
Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) wrote:

>In response to Sabine,
>
>I think that saying that people can make their own
>wiki somewhere else is not a good thing. Wikipedia is
>already established, and the more regional languages
>we offer, the richer the encyclopedia becomes. Just
>transferring languages to Wikicities won't work,
>because over there, those certain Wikipedias stop
>becoming a free encyclopedias and disintegrate into
>something a bit more than community forums, often not
>respecting NPOV. It's sort of what happened with the
>Enciclopedia Libre episode...
>
>
Ok, I understand from this that you don't know me :-) and this is quite
logic because I hardly ever write to the lists. I first of all try
everything to get things done within the Foundation - but as you can
see: the community often does not support a project even if it is worth
doing it - or people are generally against something because they are
not interested in that and they confound being not interested with being
against. This means that there are votes around that say I am not
interested and therefore I vote against ... hmmm ...

As for my personal point of view: I would only be against a project if
it would harm the whole of the Wikimedia projects and never because I
find it useless (because I am not interested in that specific thingie).

If for example Neapolitan would not have been possible within wikipedia
I just would have taken neapolitanlanguage.org (one of my private
domains) set up the wiki, created everything just like I did now (even
having more possibility to influence things ;-) and then I would have
said: well here is a neat Neapolitan encyclopedia all GFDL wouldn't this
be worthwile to be included in Wikipedia ...

This would be my way to show the no-sayers that they are wrong with a
"this language is not worth the effort". This means: do something and
not only talk. Generally wikipedias of rare or minority language are
low-traffic wikipedias and so anyone can host it without too many problems.

I am for inclusion in Wikipedia, but all too often it does not depend on
those 5 people who really want to work on it, but from people that are
"not interested and therefore against". So if they want to create their
contents: they can do it using the same policies as wikipedia does and
then show those people that they are still there, even stronger, back
with a certain amount of good articles.

Wikipedias of rare and minority languages need a very different kind of
marketing to start up - they give you much more headaches than major
languages, you have much more work with it. But every article someone
contributes is worth any effort to get it.

Please don't understand the word "marketing" wrong - it means that
people must become aware of it - and just using the wikipedia lists is
not enough to do that. A great example for me is the Sicilian wikipedia
(scn.wikipedia.org) - well: I read loads of mails about how to spell a
word correctly (there's no official standard), which variations are
correct, how to present "new terminology" you cannot find in antique
texts. They do the translation of the week, they do talk in a discussion
list about single articles. It is simply great. They are an example to
follow since they never imposed "this or that spelling" like this is
done in other projects. Everyone is heard, also people who only read and
do not actively contribute. But their answers to questions often are
very valuable to the editors.

There would be so much to say about this theme - sorry, I have to go
back to work and I hope I can manage not reading any mailing lists until
I have finished my work ... so "read you this evening" :-)

Ciao, Sabine

___________________________________
Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB
http://mail.yahoo.it


from_name: Peter Mackay

subject: [WikiEN-l] RE: Re: Press badges

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Brown, Darin
> Sent: Tuesday, 8 November 2005 10:23
> To: 'wikien-l at Wikipedia.org'
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] RE: Re: Press badges
>
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2005 10:27:07 +1100
> > From: "Peter Mackay" <peter.mackay at bigpond.com>
> > Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Re: Press badges
> > To: "'English Wikipedia'" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> > Message-ID:
> > 	<20051104232712.YGYT1358.omta03sl.mx.bigpond.com at skyringstudy>
> > Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="US-ASCII"
> > > Just throwing this out there: I dont see how any
> anti-credentialist
> > > organization can be in the business of giving out credentials.
> >
> > In the same wiki-way that everything else works here. The community
> > decides who, based on their contributions, is able to present a
> > professional face to the real world and a useful contribution to
> > Wikipedia/WikiNews. I use "professional" here in the sense of
> > "adhering to industry standards", rather than "being paid for".
>
> In what other situations do we actually "present a
> professional face to the real world"?

Dunno. I'm talking about the method of community consensus we use for
decisions.

> But, whatever you think of them, tabloids are in a sense,
> original research.
> And so they are not only subject to legal issues which are
> avoided by avoiding original research, but if we were to
> emulate them in this regard, we would be subjecting ourselves
> to the same type of NPOV issues we subject other news sources
> to. This is one caveat I have about press passes -- maybe
> just for photographs they might be okay, but assigning press
> badges on a par that journalists use, seems to be stretching
> the limits of what the project is all about.

I cannot say I really care for original research or original reporting. We
can use existing sources, summarise, paraphrase, whatever, so long as we
have sourced facts. But I think press passes could be very useful for
wikiphotographers. A look through Featured Images shows a range of talent
available, and it would be great to get these people better access to
photographic subjects so that we may use the images without too much
restriction.

Peter (Skyring)


from_name: Gerrit Holl

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Status of Wikimedia (was: Status of Serbia and
	Montenegro chapter)

body:
Elisabeth Bauer wrote:
> There's rubbish on wikibooks like the "How to get a girl manual"?

What's wrong with it? Do you mean that the book is not mature yet or is
there something (?) inheritently wrong with having a book on the subject?
The only thing I can see is 'no original research', but then I wonder if
this would be called research at all. It survived a deletion vote.
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/A_survival_guide_for_people_on_the_autistic_spectrum
is similar but just not yet started. What's the problem?

Gerrit.

--
Temperature in Lule?, Norrbotten, Sweden:
| Current temperature   05-11-08 10:29:46    1.0 degrees Celsius ( 33.7F) |
--
Det finns inte d?ligt v?der, bara d?liga kl?der.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Translations between different wikipedias, and GFDL

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> On 11/6/05, Gerrit Holl <gerrit at nl.linux.org> wrote:
>
>>Habj wrote:
>>
>>>According to GFDL, one must always state what work under GFDL the
>>
>>present
>>
>>>work is based on. Is this true also for translations between different
>>>wikipedias? I have heard both "yes" and "no" stated as an answer to
>>
>>this.
>>
>>If I take that literally, article revision N should always explicitly
>>state that it's based on article revision (N-1), or does it?
>>
>>Gerrit.
>
>
>  Well, the only sane way to apply the GFDL to Wikipedia is to treat the
> revisions as contributions toward a joint work, not to treat each individual
> edit as creating a new version under the GFDL. All of this is just
> speculation, though, there isn't really an explicit statement as to exactly
> how to apply the GFDL to Wikipedia.
>  For translations the previous version should be stated in the section
> entitled history. The most straightforward way to do that would be to add a
> section entitled history to the article itself. One could argue that this
> requirement is met by simply adding a note in the edit summary, but this is
> a somewhat tenuous argument. You could also argue that there is an implicit
> license, or that any co-author in a joint work has certain rights beyond the
> GFDL, but these would be completely untested waters.
>

I believe that the revision history itself is considered part of the
work (since it contains the authorship infomation); the annotations
provided in the edit summaries, which may included statements such as
"translated from (interwiki)(article)(revision)" are a significant part
of this. Where talk pages exist, these too rightly form part of the
article, especially where the history of a transwiki is contained in them.

Further discussions on this matter should probably go to juriwiki-l...

- --
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQEVAwUBQ2/tHbMAAH8MeUlWAQjcWAf/fvnEem/KGwnaDz8LKHi+q6o7nJa4eXE6
ERNrs15xZUMFB4/AWSWvMvoKVo7UkXEbzjG3gJBGHgr9Vp4X5b1YgCxzWSgywGFm
2s3cDfAEWz3LjSCVAJ6uAxfoK2ITt4NcXH0fG5i7WPKd5YH2xwCZmANTGwyx28ES
V8z4a227ZpKuZw+Btd5RAyD9zOvFzIyclz5nzyA6l6BeZMg4pB9JRkpQu27Xf7Mc
lVCTG+oXr7GcocYt2VCTimRCYzfBS/jVH4RnVd2Lf3lB+yj+g2WbB/dygaLiXGTo
Fvjb3fgm2il4C3Csd2TrGcvuAXHG8Sh93OivdVARI8ABfIdmt2sh0Q==
=d8S+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Mark Williamson wrote:
<snip>
> Yes, but even before your crew of anti-Zlatiborian goons came along to
> vote against a Wikipedia in the beautiful language of the
> ever-glorious Zlatiborian peoples, there were some enemies of the
> Zlatiborian people who had already voted against it and yet were not
> influenced by Serbian nationalist extremism -- Chamdarae, Arbeo,
> etc...
>
> For those reasons, a Zlatiborian WP would most likely have never
> passed even without the interference of you and your nationalist
> buddies. That saddens me immensely, that just a few nationalist goons
> and their overseas allies can further oppress such a beautiful
> language and the glorious people who speak it.
>
<snip>
> I really don't care so much about the Wikimedia thing as I do about
> the Zlatiborian thing. It still saddens me immensely that you and your
> friends have decided to continue the trend of Serbian oppression of
> the Zlatiborians, and that you continue to try to force them to hide
> their unique language and culture. Well, soon enough the Zlatiborians
> will shed the shackles of Serbian oppression in a war of independence
> in which justice will be served swiftly upon all who are enemies of
> the Zlatiborian people!
>

I would like to point out that this is the same hysterical, nonsensical
drivel that Mark was spouting on #wikipedia yesterday...

Don't worry Mark, the men in black helicopters will be here shortly.

- --
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQEVAwUBQ2/uP7MAAH8MeUlWAQj0jwf/dX5m8eIYe43BsfVS528q/CIwS8qwjLmy
kKVtI3EqAER+6GD9UN3pKHyfcSv2KJnbVYC2AgDi4Doy/jv6VTmPGO7E6rlRLLbp
24QymgtKLi/na7bJLTfonmPP627PMaQ8/eofVPyLZNl0M5cXv+9DnpIRRP2kgFD0
5iKQpMLbksL9UkxbkxCVCYFZ3uKAFW4ppIN04md/AitUAQxwhmyA40orrg3XjOSQ
X5sZzebq4GOtzgoaRzUSXu5WIekaajpBYAfa3vRuGEuapzpZsttcRGIaXn2fH9JP
jHA4f2UH01lYhL/mJUg6A2nAjpmU0GzOXdROIT5fQiA96+6XzR+3/w==
=izkg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Wikinews is giving out press credentials

body:
-- Any File <anysomefile at gmail.com> wrote:
> More precisely the credential is given by the same organization is
> given by who recruit the journalist. Since here the "journalist" is
> not recruit by the Board, there is no reason why it should the only
> one entitle to give out creential.

The journalists in this case are self-recruited, volunteer their time, and come
and go as they please. I also never said that the board should be in the
business of accrediting anybody. All I want is some high level oversight over
the existing community-run *process* of accreditation and for the board to give
anybody who successfully goes through that process the permission to use the
Wikimedia-owned marks and logos on their badges.

-- mav

__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com


from_name: Kelly Martin

body:
On 11/8/05, JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Mediation is intermittent at best, and (from what I can tell) almost never
> achieves a positive outcome, but that's nothing compared to RfC.

Mediation is more successful than you may realize, in part because
successful mediations often occur in relative obscurity.  A problem
that once existed went away, without an RfC or RfAr being filed; as a
result, only the editors involved in the dispute know about the
mediation or the resolution, and they often don't talk much about it.

Note that I'm specifically not referring to mediation under the
auspices of the Mediation Committee, which has, indeed, been
notoriously unreliable.  I'm referring more to informal mediations
conducted by a variety of informal mediators who get involved via talk
pages, IRC, IM, email, and any number of other methods to settle
disagreements between editors amicably.  I've done at least a dozen
such mediations (only one since being appointed to ArbCom, though) and
most of them have been at least moderately successful.  The more
public ones are the ones that have failed, usually because by the time
the dispute is loud enough to be noticeable generally, the parties are
too pissed at one another to ever settle their dispute.  Many
mediations merely consist of discovering an edit war and, instead of
doling out punitive blocks (as so many admins on Wikipedia are wont to
do), diagnosing the problem, talking to the users in question, and
resolving the dispute.  Often it's not hard to do this, but most of
our admins never try.  It's so much easier just to go "3RR, block
block block".

> Article RfCs are numerous, and rarely attract the attention of more than one
> or two outside editors.  Frequently they attract no outside interest at all.

Indeed.  I've only rarely seen article RfCs attract significant
attention.  Shameful, since articles are what Wikipedia is supposed to
be all about.  There are too many people who are part of Wikipedia for
the community, instead of for the encyclopedia.

> User RfCs are a mess - in theory they are a platform for addressing and
> solving community issues.  In practice, they are often venues for warring
> camps to air grievances, and for certain notorious individuals (who feel
> they don't get enough attention) to use as soapboxes for their own
> speechifying (i.e. yet another "outside view").  Obvious trolling is rarely
> addressed - the complainants outline their case, and a dozen or so regular
> editors vote in support.  The troll provides a lengthy response, and three
> or four troll buddies/generall trolls/people with grievances against the
> complainant line up and vote in support of him, or add another "outside
> view" that has little to do with the case at hand, and is mostly about their
> own issues with the complainants.  Nothing changes, and everyone goes away
> bitter.

This definitely describes several of the RfC's I've been involved in
in some way lately.  I agree that this serves no purpose.  I'm also
tired of hearing editors state "In my RfC my opinion got more
endorsements than yours did, therefore I won and you must shut up."
(Yes, I've heard things like this said.  It's stupid.)  RfC is
emphatically not supposed to be a popularity contest, although I must
admit it has turned into one.  Of course, the same can be said of
RfA/RfB.

Kelly


body:
On 11/8/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> > On 11/7/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> <snip>
> > It doesn't seem like a reasonable interpretation to me. In fact, I think
> > such an interpretation would completely subvert the intention of the
> GFDL,
> > which is to make a work actually reusable. Again, I think the only sane
> way
> > to apply the GFDL to Wikipedia is to treat the entire article (at the
> least)
> > as a single work by multiple authors. That's the way the GFDL was
> intended
> > to be applied. If two people work on a textbook, the GFDL doesn't
> require
> > them to have a history section listing every single typo that was fixed
> by
> > one or the other. No, they are joint authors of a single text. You only
> get
> > into Modified Versions if someone comes along and forks the text.
> >
> > Now look, you can argue that this isn't the case, but if you are doing
> so
> > you're saying that Wikipedia is out of compliance with the law, because
> > Wikipedia is clearly out of compliance with the GFDL (and not just with
> > regard to the History section).
> >
>
> Hey, IANAL, and AFAIK RMS approves, so AFAICT we're ok wrt. the GFDL.

 Have you looked at the GFDL? There are a whole bunch of conditions on
distribution which simply aren't being followed by Wikipedia. This is just
considering the website - the dumps are even more out of compliance.
 This is not to say that Wikimedia is breaking the law, it is quite easy to
make the argument that they have the right to distribute the information
outside the rules of the GFDL. But to say that Wikimedia is in compliance
with the GFDL I think ignores the plain facts of the situation.
 And what RMS thinks is completely irrelevant.


from_name: Timwi

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Adding a new tab

body:
>
>  Does anyone has any idea as to how to add a new tab to the existing
> tabs (article,discussion,edit and history) to the wikipedia page.I have
> the mediawiki installed and the database dump imported. Now i wana tweak
> and make additions to wikipedia. I have very little idea of php but am
> ready to learn the advance concepts as the need may arise.

You make additions to Wikipedia at http://wikipedia.org. Don't call your
site Wikipedia, or you would be violating trademark law.

That said, have a look at Magnus Manske's validation feature; it adds a
new tab, 'validate', to every page.

Timwi


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Search very intermittent on :en:

body:
>>The symptoms so far include showing the Google/Yahoo boxes and an odd error
>>message indicating some sort of bad return from an IP in the [10.*.*.*]
>>range. My IP knowledge is rusty: is that a private range?
>
> At the moment, we have three search servers: maurus (10.0.0.16), vincent
> (10.0.0.17) and coronelli (10.0.0.230).

Do we have to expose this detail to non-technical users? The above user
clearly knew a fair bit about IPs, and the message was still meaningless
to them; imagine what an average non-technical user might think.

Timwi


subject:
[Wikitech-l] Re: Request for the creation of a Nedersaksisch
	Wikipedia

body:
> 9. "Plattd??tsch" [...] is the most common way speakers refer to this
> language in Germany. [...] Including the component "German", this
> name is not used in the Netherlands, of course.

You're afraid that referring to it as "German" would create association
with Germany, so you call it "Nieders?chsisch" instead which clearly
refers to Niedersachsen, which is part of Germany?

Timwi


from_name: Sam Korn

subject: [Foundation-l] checkUser live

body:
On 11/8/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> And next, we'll be voting for root, database access and CVS access.
> Get your votes in now! Brion, Tim or Lir for Mediawiki lead? It's a
> hot contest!
>
>
> [cc: to wikitech-l]

I prefer Willy on Wheels.  He has shown understanding of the technical
features of MediaWiki like none of the above three.

Sam


subject: [Foundation-l] checkUser live


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Translations between different wikipedias,
	and GFDL

body:
On 11/8/05, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
>
> Chris Jenkinson wrote:
> > Timwi wrote:
> >
> >> Do I need to state that I translated this article from another
> >> Wikipedia? -> Yes, but an edit summary suffices for that.
> >>
> >> Does the article text itself need to state that it was originally a
> >> translation from another Wikipedia? -> No.
> >
> > I prefer the idea of citing it as a source, in the references section.
>
> That's doubly wrong. Firstly, a "source" or "reference" is where you get
> facts from, not the text (so it doesn't satisfy the history
> requirement). Secondly, if you're going to "reference" an article in
> another language, you might as well "reference" the article itself,
> which is kind of duh.
>
> Timwi

 I don't see how the edit summary is any better. The best place to put the
history would be, get this, a section entitled History, which follows the
outline given in the GFDL (title, year, authors, publisher, am I missing
something).

I know we're usually lenient about this, because hey, it's still Wikipedia,
but what if answers.com <http://answers.com> put a note in some edit summary
saying "translated from [[:fr:Andorra]]". Would anyone be complaining about
GFDL compliance then?


from_name: Andre Engels

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Status of Wikimedia

body:
2005/11/8, Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) <rowikipedia at yahoo.com>:

> As to the 250 Wikipedias are better than 40 argument,
> what I was referring to is the fact that what sets
> Wikipedia apart from other encyclopedias - one of the
> things that sets is apart - is that it is available in
> so many languages, many of which don't normally
> receive Internet exposure. I find it amazing that
> there's a Wikipedia in Voro, or that there's a
> Wikipedia in so many Filipino languages, or in Breton,
> or in Cornish!

I don't disagree with you at that point. I'm certainly happy that
those exist (although the Bretons have given me some headaches in the
interwikis...). I do however think that that is not an argument to
just open the door to anyone who thinks he knows some nice language to
add. But it seems we're much closer on this than appears from our
correspondence to now.

To go into more constructive writing: I think that the major problem
at the moment is not that we are accepting too much (although I do
think it's a good thing that we got rid of Tokipona, I also think it
would not get through at the current time), nor that we are accepting
too little (although there are a few proposals that I think would
better have been accepted), but that the procedure as such is too long
and unclear. I think there should be a person or group of people who
have the power to make the decisions, and that when a request has come
in, there will be a certain small amount of time (let's say 2 weeks)
after which either a Wikipedia has been created, the proposal rejected
or the submitter been asked told what is lacking to get it accepted.

> That's why I say that for every new proposal, we need
> concensus on whether that proposal is a language, but
> nothing else - none of this "is it necessary?"
> business, which I think sets a dangerous precent. The
> Low Saxon Wikipedia is useful, the Frisian Wikipedia
> is useful, the Voro Wikipedia is useful. All of these
> Wikipedias should stay and similar cases should be
> approved in the future.

I agree that these Wikipedias should be accepted, but I don't agree
that being a language should be the only point of decision. I have in
the past made exceptions for conlangs (in my opinion a Wikipedia
should be set up in a language to provide information to people using
that language, not the mere fun of writing or reading in that
language) and dead languages (same reason). Here we see languages that
can be considered dialects of another language as an exception. There
have also been worries about languages that are so small that they are
unlikely to get a real userbase. Finally, minority languages also
often suffer from not having a defined orthography.

I guess that none of these would be a no-no for all languages in the
category, but I do guess that one could raise the bar for some of
these - not allowing them to start at the insistence of a single
person, but going ahead if there is a group of prospective
contributors.

--
Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels


from_name: David Gerard

body:
>But right now, we do NOT have this log. And people are ASKING for the
>check user status to go live !

I would really like to know who thought voting for checkuser was a
good idea and why.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] [Wikipedia-l] CheckUser policy (was Status of Wikimedia)


subject:
[Wikitech-l] [Wikipedia-l] CheckUser policy (was Status of
	Wikimedia)


from_name: Matt Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] Totally unscientific investigation...

body:
Well, your list at least led me to [[opcode]], which was awful, so I rewrote
it. ;)

Our coverage of many basic computing topics is rather surprisingly
horrendous.

-Matt (User:Morven)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: CheckUser policy (was Status of Wikimedia)

body:
Anthere wrote:

>The
>only major comments I heard from the english arbcom was that ***I*** was
>to slow to make that policy go live and that ***I*** was blocking the
>decision making, issue on which I already commented quite clearly.

That would be waiting on the board precisely because of your strong
concerns as expressed on the mailing lists. I would have thought it
rude simply to ignore them; surely you're not saying you would prefer
I had just ignored them.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Privacy policy and editing anonymously notice.

body:
?var Arnfj?r? Bjarmason wrote:
> On 10/31/05, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
>
>>[...]. Maybe "click 'Save'" would be best.
>
> Please don't ever tell people to click something in MediaWiki
> messages, not everybody browses with a mousepointer, say something
> like "follow the link" or "submit the form" etc.

I used to think that way too, but I've come to realise that people who
don't use the mouse usually still understand what is meant by "click the
button", while the people who *do* use mouse pointers - presumably on
the order of 99% of people - wouldn't understand any other phrasing as
clearly. Note that the word "click" doesn't actually imply a mouse; when
you press Enter or Right-Arrow in lynx, you could just as well refer to
that as "clicking a link".

So why doesn't lynx refer to it as "clicking"? Well, I think the main
reason this opposition to the terminology "click" has developed, is that
the people who use the keyboard by choice (rather than due to
disability) tend to think of themselves as more competent computer
users, and therefore tend to regard the mouse users as inferior. As a
result, the suggestion to "click" something feels subtly condescending
to them, so they get offended at it. I find this pattern of behaviour
quite anti-social, so I don't want to reinforce it.

Timwi


from_name: Fastfission

subject: [WikiEN-l] Category:Soviet spies

body:
Well, so far it is failing at CFD, at the hands of people who either
have an axe to grind or don't really get the issues, in my opinion.
Ah, but such is the wiki way!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_7#Category:Soviet_spies_to_Category:Alleged_Soviet_spies

FF

On 11/7/05, Chip Berlet <c.berlet at publiceye.org> wrote:
> This proposal has a lot of merit, and gets us out of a tricky situation.
>
> -Cberlet
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> > [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Fastfission
> > Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 4:41 PM
> > To: English Wikipedia
> > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Category:Soviet spies
> >
> >
> > My recommendation: [[Category:Alleged Soviet spies]] (serious
> > allegations only, thankyouverymuch), and [[Category:Convicted
> > Soviet spies]]. In both cases we avoid having to make a value
> > judgment as to the truth of said espionage accusation by
> > making it into a category bestowed by other people. (That is,
> > whether the Rosenbergs were Soviet spies is still disputed by
> > some, but none would dispute that they were convicted as such).
> >
> > FF
> >
> > On 11/7/05, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I suggest you bring this up on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CFD
> > >
> > > I agree that the change needs to be made.  Perhaps there can be a
> > > second category for confirmed Soviet spies.
> > >
> > > Sam
> > >
> > > On 11/7/05, Chip Berlet <c.berlet at publiceye.org> wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > The Wikipedia entry "Category:Soviet spies" is a magnet for a
> > > > defamation lawsuit. Many of the people in the list were never
> > > > indicted, and some denied the charge in public. At least
> > one person
> > > > is still alive: "Harry Magdoff".
> > > >
> > > > At best, this should be renamed to something like:
> > "Category:Accused
> > > > Soviet spies" .
> > > >
> > > > I freely confess I have a vested interest in this matter,
> > currently
> > > > well into the second month of mdiation with Nobs01on a related
> > > > matter without a single compromise paragraph having been written:
> > > >
> > > >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Cberle
> > > > t_and_Nobs01/Workshop
> > > >
> > > >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Cberle
> > > > t_and_Nobs01
> > > >
> > > >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Cberle
> > > > t_and_Nobs01/A3
> > > >
> > > > But since this mediation seems to be dragging on for months, I
> > > > though that I would mention this now, rather than wait for the
> > > > mediation to hit the year 2006.
> > > >
> > > > Some folks here on this list should consider the possible
> > defmation
> > > > issue very seriously. I messed up my first attempt to
> > deal with this
> > > > on Wiki. I meant to suggest a name change or deletion, but
> > > > misunderstood the process.
> > > >
> > > > I have prevailed after being sued for defamation twice,
> > but it cost
> > > > tens of thousands of dollars just to get a judge to toss
> > me out of
> > > > the case.
> > > >
> > > > Cberlet
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Zordsdavini iz Litvy

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Status of Wikimedia

body:
Only native speakers could say they don't want real wikipedia. If were
would be wikipedia in someplace (without domain) I don't think there
will be so enthusiastic people. (I speak about my nation -
Samogitians). Sure, it will be better then nothing, but again we will
feel disadvantage - we are small and others don't care... :(
Arns Udovi??

2005/11/8, SJ <2.718281828 at gmail.com>:
>
> Don't "force" them -- just give them a place where they can create all
> the content they want, whether or not they have met key milestones.
> This is compatible with requiring certain levels of activity and
> content before creating a new language domain.  I don't see any
> contributors saying "I really want to start a Sorbian project, but I
> will ONLY DO SO on a new domain..."
>
> Similarly, I think one can distinguish between, say, Armenian and
> Tokipona projects -- even in a very visible and obvious way -- without
> too much elitism, 'isolation', or hard feelings.
>
> SJ
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
Ok^ ek^ besla ikv Olmok Vzauep^evk
:)


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Category:Soviet spies

body:
Chip Berlet wrote:

>I put "Category:Soviet spies"  on Categories for Deletion, but even though most of the people thought a name change was a good idea, since most of them did not vote to Delete, the ruling was to Keep.  I objected, but got no response.
>
It seems strange to me that any category which could be defamatory would
be subject to the whims of the voting process.  This is not just a
question of "Soviet spies".  Any category suggesting a criminal activity
of any kind should be viewed as POV.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Look

body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:

>We're going to lose a perfectly good potential bureaucrat to a
>pusilanimous beauty contest if you don't get down  and at least
>consider whether Kelly Martin deserves your vote.
>
 From what I've seen she would be good, but I do not participate in
these votes at all.  It would feel it unethical if I only participated
when there was a candidate that I liked.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Category:Soviet spies

body:
Actually, slight correction: User:Nobs04, who is not a bad contributor
most of the time but is not very subtle in his thinking on these
things, has contacted a number of "extremely conservative" editors (I
won't get into whether I find their thinking subtle):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TDC&diff=prev&oldid=27675611
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TJive&diff=prev&oldid=27675513
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ObsidianOrder&diff=prev&oldid=27675755
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Barneygumble&diff=prev&oldid=27675934
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APitchka&diff=27659648&oldid=27008898

Now, I'm not saying there's necessarily anything wrong with calling
relevant attentions to articles, though I might, in an entirely POV
and personal way, say that I don't think these people are really the
best people to be deciding this particular issue, as they've got a
pretty clear axe to grind... perhaps a few other people could take a
look at that vote.

FF

On 11/8/05, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, so far it is failing at CFD, at the hands of people who either
> have an axe to grind or don't really get the issues, in my opinion.
> Ah, but such is the wiki way!
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_7#Category:Soviet_spies_to_Category:Alleged_Soviet_spies
>
> FF
>
> On 11/7/05, Chip Berlet <c.berlet at publiceye.org> wrote:
> > This proposal has a lot of merit, and gets us out of a tricky situation.
> >
> > -Cberlet
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> > > [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Fastfission
> > > Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 4:41 PM
> > > To: English Wikipedia
> > > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Category:Soviet spies
> > >
> > >
> > > My recommendation: [[Category:Alleged Soviet spies]] (serious
> > > allegations only, thankyouverymuch), and [[Category:Convicted
> > > Soviet spies]]. In both cases we avoid having to make a value
> > > judgment as to the truth of said espionage accusation by
> > > making it into a category bestowed by other people. (That is,
> > > whether the Rosenbergs were Soviet spies is still disputed by
> > > some, but none would dispute that they were convicted as such).
> > >
> > > FF
> > >
> > > On 11/7/05, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I suggest you bring this up on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CFD
> > > >
> > > > I agree that the change needs to be made.  Perhaps there can be a
> > > > second category for confirmed Soviet spies.
> > > >
> > > > Sam
> > > >
> > > > On 11/7/05, Chip Berlet <c.berlet at publiceye.org> wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > The Wikipedia entry "Category:Soviet spies" is a magnet for a
> > > > > defamation lawsuit. Many of the people in the list were never
> > > > > indicted, and some denied the charge in public. At least
> > > one person
> > > > > is still alive: "Harry Magdoff".
> > > > >
> > > > > At best, this should be renamed to something like:
> > > "Category:Accused
> > > > > Soviet spies" .
> > > > >
> > > > > I freely confess I have a vested interest in this matter,
> > > currently
> > > > > well into the second month of mdiation with Nobs01on a related
> > > > > matter without a single compromise paragraph having been written:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Cberle
> > > > > t_and_Nobs01/Workshop
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Cberle
> > > > > t_and_Nobs01
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Cberle
> > > > > t_and_Nobs01/A3
> > > > >
> > > > > But since this mediation seems to be dragging on for months, I
> > > > > though that I would mention this now, rather than wait for the
> > > > > mediation to hit the year 2006.
> > > > >
> > > > > Some folks here on this list should consider the possible
> > > defmation
> > > > > issue very seriously. I messed up my first attempt to
> > > deal with this
> > > > > on Wiki. I meant to suggest a name change or deletion, but
> > > > > misunderstood the process.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have prevailed after being sued for defamation twice,
> > > but it cost
> > > > > tens of thousands of dollars just to get a judge to toss
> > > me out of
> > > > > the case.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cberlet
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > > > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] RE: Re: Press badges

body:
Delirium wrote:

> steve v wrote:
>
>> the U.S. has a large mentally retarted population.
>
> It's nice to see that the quality of discourse remains high.

The "retarted" population is the set of those people who have had a pie
thrown in their face more than once. :-)
It's from the French word "tarte" meaning "pie".

Ec


from_name: candy

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Adding a new tab

references:
<dkm303$j24$1@sea.gmane.org> <dkq1sp$e7q$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<ba1b6b9f0511080753k5442d92dkd9789e1b6d10e32a@mail.gmail.com>

body:
Thanks Andrew but the mediawiki I installed doesnt have any javascript
code. It has monobook.php and css files
In tht case can I use the js code. If so how or else whats the alternative?

C

Andrew Dunbar wrote:
> On the English Wiktionary I've added a new tab using javascript.
> The code is here: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Hippietrail/monobook.js
>
> Look for the function "addCiteTab"
>
> Good luck.
>
> Andrew Dunbar (hippietrail)
>
> On 11/8/05, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
>
>>> Does anyone has any idea as to how to add a new tab to the existing
>>>tabs (article,discussion,edit and history) to the wikipedia page.I have
>>>the mediawiki installed and the database dump imported. Now i wana tweak
>>>and make additions to wikipedia. I have very little idea of php but am
>>>ready to learn the advance concepts as the need may arise.
>>
>>You make additions to Wikipedia at http://wikipedia.org. Don't call your
>>site Wikipedia, or you would be violating trademark law.
>>
>>That said, have a look at Magnus Manske's validation feature; it adds a
>>new tab, 'validate', to every page.
>>
>>Timwi
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Wikitech-l mailing list
>>Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>>
>
>
>
> --
> http://linguaphile.sf.net


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Status of Serbia and Montenegro chapter

body:
Mark Williamson wrote:
> Soon enough, the Zlatiborians will wage a struggle for independence
> against their evil Serbian oppressors, and they will emerge
> victorious! Finally, the inhabitants of Mt Zlatibor will be able to
> live free from the shackles of Serbian oppression, and their culture
> will be admired internationally for its glory and beauty!

Mark, please study http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:POINT :)

Gerrit.

--
Temperature in Lule?, Norrbotten, Sweden:
| Current temperature   05-11-08 12:39:52    0.4 degrees Celsius ( 32.7F) |
--
Det finns inte d?ligt v?der, bara d?liga kl?der.


body:
David Gerard wrote:

>>PS : a comment about the checkuser policy. Afaik, it is done. I asked
>>comments a week ago, and though Taw has not removed the fact he thought
>>it "terribly dangerous", I read no real opposition to it and several
>>supports.
>
>
>
> The two opposers were Taw and myself, who have actually used the tool
> and have experience of its social effects. And I did comment on the
> policy at length. What are you counting as "real opposition"?
>
>
> [cc to foundation-l]
>
>
> - d.

Most of your comments were done *before* a week ago, when I made a full
update of the proposal. Since then, I do not think you have voiced any
major opposition to the current proposal. You had a week to do so. The
only major comments I heard from the english arbcom was that ***I*** was
to slow to make that policy go live and that ***I*** was blocking the
decision making, issue on which I already commented quite clearly.
So please.... if there are some stuff you STILL do not agree with,
please put it in major caps on the talk page now and clearly mention you
are the one responsible from the decision not being made.

As for Taw, his opinion was added at the top of the policy at least 2
weeks ago, if not more. Taw has not taken the time to review the changes
nor to make any comments since the changes were done. Are we to let
thousands of editors wait just because of one person complaining once
and never commenting since then ? I do not think so.

A last point : yes, there are still no public log. I support these logs
to be made public after being stripped of the private stuff. Now, as
soon as we find a developer ready to take care of it, I sure will be
happy. And I am sure others than myself will be happy. But right now, we
do not have anyone visibly interested or having the time to do so. I
suggest that those interested in the log clearly explain what they want
as output in the log... and we'll collectivement ask the developers if
one would be ready to take care of it.

But right now, we do NOT have this log. And people are ASKING for the
check user status to go live ! So, should we further delay for weeks if
not months for the check user status to be accessible by anyone but the
english arbcom (by Jimbo's decision) and the steward, just because the
logs are missing ? Are should we take temporarily a solution, which may
not be perfect but at least, help all those who can not fight vandalism
so well because they lack the tool ?

Well, I prefer the temp solution, with no log. And I hope we have the
log in the future. I do not know what else I can tell you. I am not
developer and I definitly can not develop the log for you. If you can,
,please help !!!!

Ant


body:
2005/11/8, SJ <2.718281828 at gmail.com>:

> **  Perhaps we can have a standard procedure that assumes an ISO-2
> code language, and provide for exceptions.  Some current non-ISO
> wikipedia languages, illustrating various reasons different users
> might have not to stick blindly to such a standard :
>  - zh_min_nan (1,200 articles; listed in places as "taiwanese") ,
>  - tpi (tok pisin, recent conlang, 160 articles),
>  - fiu_vro (V?ro, 105 articles & activity),
>  - roa_rup (Aromanian; 29 articles & little activity, but just got ISO
> 639-2 approval for "rup" in September).

tpi *is* an official ISO 639-2 code. It is also not a conlang, but a
creole - I think you're confusing it with Tokipona, for which the
Wikipedia has been closed.

Apart from that, I am of the opinion that it is good to go by ISO
639-2, but as a default rather than an absolute. That is, we don't
always follow ISO 639-2, but for languages on the list we will include
unless there is a strong argument being made against, whereas
languages not on the list will not be included only if there is a
strong argument being made in support. Personally I would like to be
slightly more strict - ISO 639-2 for living languages, but dead
languages will have to show that there is recent material written in
the language as well, rather than just an ISO 639-2 code because of
old work.

--
Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels


from_name: Roman Maurer

body:
Timwi pravi:

> Do I need to state that I translated this article from another
> Wikipedia? -> Yes, but an edit summary suffices for that.
>
> Does the article text itself need to state that it was originally a
> translation from another Wikipedia? -> No.

I agree.  This is the way I always mark my translations, eg. "translated
from [[:en:Andorra]]" in the edit summary.

IMO the whole point of GFDL is to be able to track the original
authorship, and an edit summary is a perfect place for this, because it
is already meant for history (ie. you only go there if you're interested
who wrote what).
--
	Pozdrav,
	  Roman


from_name: Cormac Lawler

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Vote to create Wikiversity 2 sides

body:
On 11/8/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> On 11/8/05, SJ <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > In response to the idea that Wikiversity as a learning community might
> > compete with, or preclude partnerships with, existing educational
> > projects :
> >
> > What impresses me most about Wikimedia is not the growing content
> > repository, but the growing body of knowledge-seekers who write to,
> > teach and learn from one another, all about and through free
> > knowledge. A large community of people with whom I can geek out about
> > best practices for writing bios on forgotten mathematicians, or the
> > kind of information to include in the history of a hurricane season,
> > or how to distinguish languages from dialects, or how to distinguish
> > environmental science from environmental politics.
> >
> > Wikipedia is *already* a teaching and learning community. It is not a
> > community of savants who fit in a few hours of transcription and
> > writing into their weeks. One of its regular services is facilitating
> > the teaching of passionate people how to become better writers, how to
> > remove bias from their observations, how to argue logically with
> > others, how to produce quality translations.
> >
> > I imagine that a Wikiversity would be founded in teaching without
> > teachers, and certainly without thought given to accreditation of
> > either instructors or degrees -- but instead founded in
> > a) identifying fields, courses, and syllabi
> > b) gathering up free texts, cheatsheets, problem sets, exams, and
> > other materials
> > c) facilitating groups of interested students -- at many levels of
> > knowledge and teaching experience -- who want to learn together, form
> > study and reading groups, and teach one another.
> > d) bringing together interested educators and related programs
> > worldwide, to contribute ideas and content, try out new teaching
> > methods via wikis, and more.
> >
> > Adding new software functionality, while always a lovely thing to do
> > (software can do anything, after all :) could come after everything
> > else on this list.
> >
> > This would not be "e-learning" in the trademarked (sic) sense. This
> > would be unlike every big online educational project to date. For one
> > thing, it would naturally scale without assigned 'staff' and related
> > overhead. For another, I know educators who dearly hope to see
> > someone try out this such a student-to-student learning project; and I
> > know of no major initiatives with which such a project would compete
> > (if they exist, I would love to learn of them!).
> >
> > ++SJ
>
>
> You say that "Wikipedia is *already* a teaching and learning community." And
> you're right, it is. But I think it's significant that the community isn't
> the purpose of the project, building an encyclopedia is.
>
> Likewise, I believe if a project is started to create e-learning materials,
> I think it's natural that some people will use that project to organize
> self-study courses and maybe even to discuss more traditional courses. I
> don't think we should stop them, and the organization of self-study courses
> pretty much falls under the creation of e-learning materials anyway.
>
> In fact, if essentially what you just wrote was what was on the project page
> when I read it, I would have gotten a completely different picture of what
> the project was. Looking back I see it in parts of the description. I wonder
> if maybe the name of the project could be reconsidered to better portray
> this goal. That would have pros and cons, though.
>
> Anyway, if votes still matter, you can count mine as a yes I guess.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

Aarggh!

why do I never have time to respond to the things i'm most interested
in? This thread is right up my street - pressing all my buttons :-)

I've set up that page I mentioned at:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Moving_Wikiversity_forward

This is to try to see what is realistic for wikiversity to be now and
what it needs to develop it into the future. Ideas, thoughts, research
proposals..

Cormac


from_name: Walter van Kalken

subject:
[Foundation-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] Status of Serbia and Montenegro
	chapter

body:
>As a non-native English speaker, and yet someone who strives to master
>the language, I am probably best placed to say how the most difficult
>thing to catch in a language is humour. And how when humour is lost on
>someone and you see it drift in seriousness, you should just hold you
>hand up and say "stop! I was joking". Hurting feelings and making fun
>of people because they don't speak your language is about the worst
>thing I can see happening in this supposedly "multicultural"
>community. Most of us are making efforts to address you in a language
>you master, you have not made that effort. Not even one little bit.
>
>
As a non native Thai speaker, but performing comedy in one of Thailands
top comedy groups everyday on stage and on TV, I totally agree with
Delphine. Everyday I walk into this barrier and try to climb it. The
succesrate differs from day to day. Waht is humour in one
country/culture is totally not understandable not translatable in
another language. Same goes for double and ironic phrases. By now I can
understand quite a few of it in Thai ..... but I cannot translate them
into English or even my native tongue ... Dutch. Same goes the other way
around. Double meanings/humour in Dutch is very difficult te translate
into, or explain to Thais. These kind of things are very culturally
bounded. Even between languages that are close.

Node you are damaging a lot of things with what you are doing now and
with what you have done in the past. Milos please let not one culturally
ignorant person stop you from doing what you intended to do.

Walter/Waerth

>I feel this is not only inconsiderate, but also plain nasty.
>
>On another note, I am sorry to tell you that you have, on top of
>playing with people's feelings, failed to make your point. At least,
>*I* have failed to see where you were leading. Blame it on my
>non-English-speaker-ness, or whatever else suits your funny self. But
>hey, target missed. Game over.
>
>I will add just one thing. You and all of the other native English
>speakers who played along and never tried to clear things up should
>really once try and put themselves in our shoes. Once. Just once. I
>believe it would help. Really.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Delphine
>--
>~notafish
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>
>


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Status of Wikimedia answer to jimbo

body:
>Each person's list of things like this will be slightly different, but
>the overall point is that I am beginning to sense a need with the
>community for us to turn inward, to change some of our very open
>policies which lead people to endless new-project proposals and
>new-language speculation.
>
>--Jimbo
>
I would really support such a move. It will create clarity and will let
people move on. Currently it is a big swamp out there.

Walter/Waerth


from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Status of Wikimedia

body:
On 08/11/05, Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) <rowikipedia at yahoo.com> wrote:
> As I said before, there's a difference with proposals
> such as Zlatiborian, "Bostonian", etc. In fact, I am
> also against languages being renamed for political
> reasons, like Moldovan, Montenegrin, etc. I'm also not
> particularly favourable to projects like Bavarian,
> etc. *However*, as long as we force speakers of
> legitimate regional languages like Samogitian, Vlax
> Romany, Megleno-Romanian, Sorbian, etc, that haven't
> yet got a Wikipedia, to go through an over-rigorous
> proposal phase, we're going too far.

Now, obviously you knew I'd respond to this paragraph.

First of all, in all seriousness, Zlatiborian is different from
standard Serbian, but definitely not so much that it should really
have its own Wikipedia. I do think that in all seriousness it probably
deserves one more than Bosnian and possibly more than Croatian due to
its uniqueness in some key areas, but I think it's unlikely that a
Zlatiborian WP would ever exist, and it seems largely unnessecary.

Now, I have thought for a long time about the Moldovan Wikipedia. I
think that it would be a positive thing to eventually have a Wikipedia
in real Moldovan, as real Moldovans speak it in the suburbs of
Chisinau, because such a Wikipedia would be uniquely Moldovan and not
understandable to Russians or Romanians either. It would use Moldovan
popular orthography used informally by young people, not Romanian
alphabet or Cyrillic alphabet.

But so far this language has been almost never used in literature. It
is still confined to conversation, e-mail, SMS. So I think that it's
not really feasible or nessecary now. But perhaps in the future, there
will be a Wikipedia that can be uniquely Moldovan without being the
black sheep of the Wikipedia family for political reasons.

Also, Montenegrin has real differences to Serbian. It's not like
Moldovan -- it's actually different to Serbian, instead of calling the
same language by a different name.

Bavarian is actually a legitimate minority language of Bavaria, in
Germany and Austria.

> I think most of us here are smart enough to
> distinguish before languages which are never mentioned
> on the internet and have no written standard - and are
> therefore "invented" by the person who proposes them -
> and legitimate minority languages that need all the
> help we can get (if for every paragraph typed arguing
> about the Zlatiborian hoax someone wrote one
> template-based article at the Voro Wikipedia, we would
> have had about 40 articles extra and helped save a
> wonderful part of Europe's lingustic heritage...)

You can actually write a bot to do that.

Cheers
Mark

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


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Status of Wikimedia

body:
Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) wrote:
> While not being the primary aim, supporting endangered
> languages is one way through which Wikipedia is
> contributing to human knowledge...

Absolutely!

Please don't mistake anything that I have said as any sort of opposition
to minority languages.  That isn't the point.  The point is that we are
reaching the point where we are getting fairly absurd proposals for
things which are not really minority languages at all, but rather local
dialects.

--Jimbo


from_name: geni

subject:
[WikiEN-l] [Wikipedia-l] CheckUser policy (was Status of
	Wikimedia)

body:
On 11/8/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> Apparantly Wikipedia is a democracy where all problems can be solved by
> voting.
> Alphax

You have to admit it is an effective way of figureing out who you oponents are.
--
geni


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: CheckUser policy

body:
[cc to wikitech-l]

Anthere wrote:
>David Gerard wrote:
>>Anthere wrote:

>>>But right now, we do NOT have this log. And people are ASKING for the
>>>check user status to go live !

>> I would really like to know who thought voting for checkuser was a
>> good idea and why.

>The polish wikipedia has Taw with checkuser status.
>The english wikipedia has David.
>How did that happen ? (correct me I am wrong on a detail)
>Initially, the developers were doing that job upon request (I myself
>asked twice for information in three years if I remember, to Tim or to
>Brion).
>When the requests started being too numerous, Tim made the checkUser
>tool, in order to hand out to the community the role of doing checks,
>rather than to let it to the developers.
>Two people were given access. David, probably per agreement with Tim and
>support from Jimbo. Taw, because he had developer access, but his only
>activity (if I understood well) was to check on users.

I don't know about Taw, but that's about right for me. Also
(presumably) because I'd been through some detailed investigations
with Tim so he had some idea of how well I understood what the process
involves. He also refers people to me, so he can get on with things
like the software and the servers.

>Then, requests went on pouring on the developers, who answered there was
>a tool now to do this. So, editors asked to have access or asked for
>other people to do the job for them.
>This is when the policy started to be discussed.
>   [...]
>Second option : people get checkuser access through an approval system
>(with a community vote or an arbitrator vote)
>   [...]
>That lets the second option... I think any large community can be fully
>trusted to give that status to good people who will not abuse it.

Voting for access to the user database access still seems a
fundamentally defective idea, precisely analogous to voting for root
or voting for CVS access. What do the devs with access think?

It also notably doesn't solve some of the bad examples you gave
before, e.g. the Wikipedia where they wanted to routinely use it on
all votes.

I am entirely unconvinced this is a less worse idea than no access at all.

- d.


subject: [Wikitech-l] [Wikipedia-l] Re: CheckUser policy


body:
geni wrote:
>On 11/8/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:

>> Apparantly Wikipedia is a democracy where all problems can be solved by
>> voting.

>You have to admit it is an effective way of figureing out who you oponents are.

This is a good example of how the present AFD structure, for example,
blatantly encourages assumption of bad faith. Should be added to
"Voting is evil".

- d.


from_name: Milos Rancic

body:
On 11/8/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> When the Serbian and Montenegro chapter decides it does not want to be
> part of Wikimedia because of one person's comments on a mailing list,
> it is they who desperately need a sense of proportion. What a
> ridiculous tantrum.

I think that things are changed because people are talking about this
issue (not about Zlatiborian, but about the way how to prevent such
things), but to explain with one more sentcence our thoughts: is
better to act as local chapter and not to be the formal part of WM
then to have a lot of bad will questions (i.e. "How many Zlatiborian
Wikipedias do you have?"). In this moment we are talking with some
members of Serbian Academy to join us (and we would get a lot of
relevant material from natural sciences as well as redaction of
existing and new material) and our position in academic circles is a
lot related with (non-)existance of Zlatiborian or Bronxian Wikipedia.


from_name: Chris Jenkinson

body:
Timwi wrote:
> Do I need to state that I translated this article from another
> Wikipedia? -> Yes, but an edit summary suffices for that.
>
> Does the article text itself need to state that it was originally a
> translation from another Wikipedia? -> No.

I prefer the idea of citing it as a source, in the references section.

Chris


body:
On 11/8/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> This is a good example of how the present AFD structure, for example,
> blatantly encourages assumption of bad faith. Should be added to
> "Voting is evil".
>
>
> - d.

Of course. However AFD structure limits it to a degree since the
person is at most your oponent for 5 days. Straw polls on articles can
define the sides for months and while it is posible to overturn an
intial majority it is a pain in the neck to do takes ages. Far better
to work under conditons were no one has formaly defined their
position. Of course once someone has started a poll they are a pain to
stop.

--
geni


from_name: kosebamse at gmx.net

body:
...regarding the quality of our work:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kosebamse/Twenty-random-pages_test

Plus ?a change, plus c?est la m?me chose. Kosebamse

--
10 GB Mailbox, 100 FreeSMS/Monat http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail
+++ GMX - die erste Adresse f?r Mail, Message, More +++


subject: [Foundation-l] checkUser live

body:
Anthere wrote:
> I guess that this policy is approved for now. if you have further
> comments, please add them in the talk page. I archived all the
> discussions, if you wish some to be kept on the live page, please move
> them back.

Can we have some clarifications of "disruptive" (as in "Where the user
has been vandalising pages or persistently behaving in a disruptive
way") and "reasonably necessary" and "safety" (as in "Where it is
reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the
Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public.") from the Board
regarding the Foundation's privacy policy, just so that everyone is
crystal clear about what circumstances this personal information may be
released?

What does "If the user has said they're from somewhere and the IP
confirms it, it's not releasing private information to confirm it if
needed." mean?

What does "generally" in "Revealing the country is generally not
personally identifiable (e.g. "User:Querulous is coming in from the UK,
User:Sockpuppet is coming in from Canada")." mean?

I'm still not happy with the idea that access to personal information
can be given to people on the say-so that they will behave. Yes, the
people who this will be given to are going to be some of the most
trustworthy Wikipedians there are, but this is *personal information*.
We should have some kind of legal agreement in place so there are no
excuses.

Chris


subject: [Foundation-l] checkUser live


body:
Anthere wrote:
> So, to answer David question, I think there are roughly three main options
>
> First option : people get checkuser access on an automatic basis,
> through another status (for example, all bureaucrats automatically get
> the tool).
>
> Second option : people get checkuser access through an approval system
> (with a community vote or an arbitrator vote)
>
> Third option : the monarchy system. Tim (as suggested by David) or Jimbo
> (as recently done for the english wikipedia) decide who has check user
> access.

Surely the enforcement of the Foundation's privacy policy is the
responsibility of the Foundation, and thus access to personal
information (such as IP addresses) should be given out upon approval by
the Board, rather than by some kind of election system?

Chris


body:
On 11/8/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> Is there a law that says "whenever a user comes up with a really stupid
> idea, they will inevitably be referred to [[WP:BEANS]] (the sooner the
> better)"? We really, REALLY need it to exist (and auto-invoke) in cases
> like this.

I've never really understood that rule (other than avoiding
disscussion of certian highly effective forms of vandalism). If there
is something to the detriment of wikipedia that can be done by an
individual or small group it is likely it will happen sooner rather
than latter without any outside suggestions.

--
geni


from_name: Traroth

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikinews is giving out press credentials

body:
Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> a ?crit :

>Credentials are given by organizations - not by just some people on the
>Internet (which is all any Wikimedia project is by itself). Using that term -
>in the real world where it has a specific meaning - to describe that process is
>very misleading. Using that term and the Wikinews mark implies an official
>connection that does not exist. That is dishonest and an abuse of the mark.

Does it mean Wikinews is not an organisation in itself ? I disagree. It is. And that means that Wikinews can choose the way it wants to give out credentials.

>IMO, the board needs to get involved via an oversight process and they also
>should give permission for credentialed Wikinewies to use the Wikiness logo and
>name on press badges (the foundation could even create the badges at cost). The
>oversight will be almost all hands off - the only real power it would have is
>the power of immediately removing credentials in egregious cases or shutting
>down the whole process if it gets out of hand.

When I read Angela, I think the Board is actually doing it : they let the Wikinews community decide. And I don't understand what is this "trademark" story. What the link between a trademark problem and a credential problem ?

>Nor should it ever. But the implication is that Wikinews itself credentialed
>these people. Wikinews is not an organization in any legal sense and thus can't
>grant anything. The Wikinews community, however, can be - if the board agrees -
>to be its agent in the selection of trusted users for accreditation.

You got it.

Traroth

---------------------------------
 Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger
 T?l?chargez le ici !