body:
On 01/10/06, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:

> > ...it is in fact a grey area and requires ... human editorial
> > judgement. Which is why Wikipedia is written by humans instead
> > of assembled from some sort of data dump.

> Indeed.  But when we forget that, we end up with Wikipedians
> reiterating a robot mantra of, "You're borderline notable,
> and that's good enough for us, so deal with it", which Seth
> poignantly paraphrases as "You've achieved a few things over
> the years, and as a reward, here's your very own troll magnet
> to  monitor and defend for the rest of your life."  (See
> [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Seth_Finkelstein]].)

Yeah. The living bio patrol doesn't seem to have achieved tremendous
coverage just yet. Tch.

- d.


list: foundation-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: James Hare

subject: [Foundation-l] Porchesia

body:
Another thing we could do is get something like Tawkerbot2 (for those who
don't know, Tawkerbot2 is the most prolific anti-vandal bot) and have it set
up for all those tiny, pathetic wikis.

On 10/1/06, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
> > In any case, I think this is interesting at a global
> > level because the
> > Wiki's at greatest risk of collecting garbage are
> > often the ones with
> > the least activity.
> >
> > After seeing that one of the Wikipedias had its main
> > page changed to
> > say "Welcome to the Runescape trading forum", I
> > wondered if it would
> > be useful to setup a bot to check recent changes on
> > all the smaller
> > wikis for insertions of English text. .. With the
> > hope that the worst
> > of the junk on small wikis would be in inappropriate
> > languages.
> >
> > It would be really nice if we had a single
> > recentchanges page that
> > aggregated all the low activity wikis.
>
> I think this is a great idea.  Is it possible to set
> up several RC bots (in different wiki's) to work in a
> single RC channel?  If this could be done with the
> bots displaying a snippet of any added text, it should
> be easy to recognize any english which does not
> belong.
>
> Birgitte SB
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Porchesia


list: wikien-l

from_name: Christopher Hagar

subject: [WikiEN-l] Call for volunteers for OTRS permissions queue

body:
Why not undelete it?

On 10/1/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> *bump*
>
> Seriously, we need more people for this. Anything not processed within a
> few days just gets difficult, because the procedure for dealing with
> copyvios tends to be "nuke it after 5/7 days". I'm finding tickets that
> are almost 2 months old and the article/image has been deleted already.
>
> --
> Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
> Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
> "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
> Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
>


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Minh Nguyen

subject: [Wikitech-l] New Wikipedias created

body:
Filip Maljkovic wrote:
> Andre Engels wrote:
>> 2006/9/30, Jens Frank <jf at mormo.org>:
>>
>>> http://wuu.wikipedia.org/               Wu
>>> http://mzn.wikipedia.org/               Mazandarani
>>> http://new.wikipedia.org/               Newar / Nepal Bhasa
>>> http://lbe.wikipedia.org/               Lak
>>> http://eml.wikipedia.org/               Emilian-Romagnol / Sammarinese
>>> http://bxr.wikipedia.org/               Buryat (Russia)
>>> http://hsb.wikipedia.org/               Upper Sorbian
>>> http://nov.wikipedia.org/               Novial
>>> http://pag.wikipedia.org/               Pangasinan
>>> http://bar.wikipedia.org/               Bavarian
>>> http://bpy.wikipedia.org/               Bishnupriya Manipuri
>>> http://diq.wikipedia.org/               Zazaki
>>> http://zea.wikipedia.org/               Zealandic
>>> http://roa-tara.wikipedia.org/          Tarantino
>>> http://cbk-zam.wikipedia.org/           Zamboanga Chavacano
>>> http://zh-classical.wikipedia.org/      Classical Chinese
>>> http://cu.wikipedia.org/                Old Church Slavonic
>>> http://ru-sib.wikipedia.org/            Siberian/Nort Russian
>>> http://glk.wikipedia.org/               Gilaki
>>> http://cdo.wikipedia.org/               Min Dong
>>>
>> For my bots I would like to know:
>>
>> What is the name of those languages in the languages themselves,
>> transliterated into Latin script.
> You can find most of them here:
> http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/phase3/languages/Names.php?r1=16710&r2=16709&pathrev=16710
>
> For non-latin, I don't know :)
>
> Filip

Here's what I was able to come up with:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TarmoK/TKtools#Twenty_new_Wikipedias

Only the Ukrainian Wikipedia has an article on Siberian, so finding a
transliteration for ru-sib: was tricky. It was a combination of using
[[Siberia]], [[Russian transliteration#Transliteration table]], and
[[Nganasan language]] that finally did the trick.

--
Minh Nguyen <mxn at zoomtown.com>
[[en:User:Mxn]] [[vi:User:Mxn]] [[m:User:Mxn]]
AIM: trycom2000; Jabber: mxn at myjabber.net; Blog: http://mxn.f2o.org/


subject: [Wikitech-l] Comments on the new wikipedias

body:
GerardM wrote:
> Hoi,
> For some of the newly created wikipedias there are reasons why I would not
> create them as languages in WiktionaryZ in this manner
> They are:
>
> http://roa-tara.wikipedia.org/		Tarantino
> http://cbk-zam.wikipedia.org/		Zamboanga Chavacano
> http://zh-classical.wikipedia.org/	Classical Chinese
> http://cu.wikipedia.org/		Old Church Slavonic
> http://ru-sib.wikipedia.org/		Siberian/Nort Russian
>
>
>    - Tarantino is supposed to use the roa code. This code does not
>    signify anything but that it is a Romance language. The code does specify
>    what is included in the code and Tarantino is not one of them.
>    - In ISO-639-3 cbk is the code for Chavacano. Zamboangue?o is an
>    alternative name..
>    - For Classical Chinese there is no specificity as what is meant by
>    this. This is also easy to explain as the zh (zho) code itself is
>    depreciated in the ISO-639-3 because there are some 10 languages that are
>    included in this code.
>    - I might include the Old Church Slavonic as chu. It is used as
>    liturgical language of various Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic churches. It
>    is considered extinct.
>    - The ru-sib is a created language. It is a bad idea to create a code
>    as if it is a dialect of the Russian language when it is not.
>
> Thanks,
>      GerardM

Gerard, please note that Wikipedia hasn't standardized on ISO 639-2 like
Wiktionary has. Otherwise, you'd be using "eng.wikipedia.org" instead of
"en.wikipedia.org". Maybe someday; I still remember going to
"en2.wikipedia.org" way back when, so the URLs certainly aren't permanent.

--
Minh Nguyen <mxn at zoomtown.com>
[[en:User:Mxn]] [[vi:User:Mxn]] [[m:User:Mxn]]
AIM: trycom2000; Jabber: mxn at myjabber.net; Blog: http://mxn.f2o.org/


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] Corporate vanity policy enforcement

body:
On 01/10/06, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
> Phil Sandifer wrote:
> >On Oct 1, 2006, at 4:50 AM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

> >> I hear you.  Perhaps that long discussed speedy criterion for
> >> "advertisements masquerading as articles" should be introduced.

> > Oh God, please no.
> > You have no idea what that would become in the hands of some of our
> > admins.

> Is there anything we can do about *that* problem?  If we can't
> at least document our norms for fear of the documentation being
> misused, that sounds like a precarious situation.

Write guidelines as guidelines, go out of your way to avoid didactic
language? This was an important stylistic consideration in the
proposed rewrite of [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy]].

"Convention as at [date] includes ..." might be worth a try.

- d.


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Seth Finkelstein in the Technology Guardian

body:
Sean Barrett wrote:

>David Russell stated for the record:
>
>
>> An MBE is different from an MBA. One is a UK honour, the other is an
>>
>>exam. Unless that was a typo, in which case I'll shut up :)
>>
>>
>No, it was a failure somewhere between my reading of the original and
>typing of my reply, probably caused by bad drugs.  I'll have a word with
>my LDS dealer.
>
This seems to bring out an inaccuracy in Marx.  Religion may be the
opium for some people, but for other religions the effect may be that of
a different drug.

Gasoline fumes from hanging around NASCAR tracks anybody?

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on Alexa

body:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
> Well, obviously it shouldn't be used as the sole way of making a decision,
> but if it has a high Alexa rank, it means a lot of people who use that Alexa
> toolbar visit the site. That should give some indication. Also, if none of
> them visit a certain site that says something as well.
>
> Google is often useless as well, because of it's sensitivity to being
> googlebombed and abused in other ways.
>
> One shouldn't use any single indicator alone to make a decision.
>
> Mgm
>
> On 10/1/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>> G'day David,
>>
>>> Given the number of people who seem to use Alexa 'rankings' as the basis
>>> of an Afd decision on website articles, I thought you guys might be
>>> interested in this article:
>>>
>>> http://www.johnchow.com/index.php/why-alexa-is-worthless/
>>>
>>> It has been clear for a long time that Alexa 'rankings' are utter crap,
>>> as they are based not on website visitors and links (as Google or Yahoo
>>> rankings are) but on the activities of those infected with Alexa's
>>> spyware-esque toolbar.
>> Pray allow me to be the first to drop the facade of maturity and cry
>> out: "Well, DUH!"
>>
>> Alexa is now, always has been, and almost certainly will be in the
>> future, utterly useless ... their rankings *and* their stupid little
>> toolbar.  Anyone silly enough to take the rankings at face value needs
>> to be whacked with a Cluebat.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mark Gallagher
>> "I've got to start listening to those quiet, nagging doubts."
>> -- Calvin & Hobbes

Unlike Alexa, the thing with Google is that you can skim through some of
the results and see if a lot of them are the result of spamming or
googlebombing. If so, you can often refine your search to exclude such
pages. I use Google a lot in getting an idea of how notable the subject
of a new article is, because I can see what kinds of sites mention it.

--
Minh Nguyen <mxn at zoomtown.com>
[[en:User:Mxn]] [[vi:User:Mxn]] [[m:User:Mxn]]
AIM: trycom2000; Jabber: mxn at myjabber.net; Blog: http://mxn.f2o.org/


subject: [Foundation-l] Corporate vanity policy enforcement

body:
geni wrote:

>Just because someone is acting in good faith it doesn't mean that they
>are doing something that we want them to do.
>
Who says anybody has to do what "we" (whoever you mean by that) want
them to do?  What rule was wanked into saying that?  They are volunteers
too, and I hope they have enough imagination to do what they want to do.

Ec


body:
David Gerard wrote:

>On 29/09/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On 9/29/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>And remember: most text appears to be written by newcomers and
>>>occasional editors, not the regulars. (Numbers not firm on this one
>>>per AaronSw, but I understand others are checking his work.)
>>>
>>>
Newbies add text because they don't know how to do anything else.  They
have not evolved far enough yet to be spending their entire day wanking
on their policy.

>>>See, that's the sort of thing we're good at. Be open to input from
>>>all, even if a tweaked vandal-checking bot puts it in a patrolling
>>>admin's "#redirect [[round file]]" list.
>>>
>>>
>>Problem is that there isn't much else you can do. Unwikified, linking
>>to a site that contains the article title in the url and created by a
>>one off user (and not linking to myspace). But that could apply to so
>>many things.
>>
>>
>So? Linkless articles and orphans are easily added to a round-file
>list. It's not quite like they hit 'save', think it saved and it
>disappeared, but it's that with a delay.
>
It's a lot easier to put an article on the road to deletion than to
start creating links on it.  There is a risk that wikifying might
require thinking about what one is doing.

Ec


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

body:
I'd be happy with one that explicitly allows deletion of obviously
promotional material written by the owner or an employee of the company. The
person who wrote it is often a good indication of the amount of vanity it
contains.

Anyway, if we can't get it through on CSD, we should indeed have some
company vanity patrol. We have the "Do not write articles about yourself,
your business, etc" message, so we shouldn't be afraid of biting newbies.
It's out in the open what they are and are not supposed to do. We can always
leave a message to the obviously well-intended newbies who tried to write
encyclopedically, but who's subject isn't suitable.

Mgm

On 10/1/06, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Oct 1, 2006, at 4:50 AM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 12:53:02 -0400, Brad Patrick
> > <bpatrick at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >
> >> The volume of corporate vanity/vandalism which is showing up on
> >> Wikipedia is overwhelming.
> >
> > I hear you.  Perhaps that long discussed speedy criterion for
> > "advertisements masquerading as articles" should be introduced.
>
> Oh God, please no.
>
> You have no idea what that would become in the hands of some of our
> admins.
>
> -Phil
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: David Russell

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

I've replaced the G11 that was added with (what I think is) a
better-worded A9. The current text of it (assuming no reverts) is:

'Vanity articles. An article about a real person or corporation which
appears to have been written by the subject, by one of its employees, or
by a third party hired by the subject to write the article, regardless
of the notability or otherwise of the subject.'

This solves the concern that admins would use the 'shoot on sight' as an
excuse to delete good articles which they thought were 'non-notable'. My
 A9 draft makes it clear that an article has to be a VANITY article to
qualify - and that its notability is not the issue. Thoughts anyone?

Cynical
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFH9sgg8fvtQYQevcRAmHjAJ9OfegOxx5wQVXieU7Bla0pNuQNyQCfWcWh
a7AdDdrBs+IOuAT8jcS8T6I=
=VXIC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


body:
On 01/10/06, David Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:

> 'Vanity articles. An article about a real person or corporation which
> appears to have been written by the subject, by one of its employees, or
> by a third party hired by the subject to write the article, regardless
> of the notability or otherwise of the subject.'

Looks relatively robust against the sincere variety of rules lawyer (I
could be wrong) and seems to follow sensibly from the basic content
policies.

- d.


from_name: Brion Vibber

body:
Minh Nguyen wrote:
> Gerard, please note that Wikipedia hasn't standardized on ISO 639-2 like
> Wiktionary has. Otherwise, you'd be using "eng.wikipedia.org" instead of
> "en.wikipedia.org".

With rare exceptions, we follow RFC 3066 for language codes; this is the
standard used on the web for the Content-Language HTTP header, HTML 'lang'
attribute, etc.

This uses, roughly, in priority order:
* 2-letter ISO 639-1 code
* 3-letter ISO 639-2 code
* One of the specially registered 'i-*' codes
* Non-standard 'x-*' codes

ISO 639-3 codes will most likely end up in there sooner or later.

Where no standard codes are available, we've sometimes ended up using something
else; in this case we *should* be using the ISO 639-3 3-letter code. If there
are exceptions that are definitely wrong, we probably want to fix that.

 > Maybe someday; I still remember going to
 > "en2.wikipedia.org" way back when, so the URLs certainly aren't permanent.

That was crude load-balancing before we had something better set up. :) It's
redirected if you've got really old URLs from that period.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


from_name: Patrick Collison

subject: [WikiEN-l] FUTEF - Wikipedia-based search engine

body:
Category intersections are currently being debated on wikitech-l;
consensus seems to be that there's no straightforward way to
implement them, with MySQL at least.

Futef seems to handle it quite well, however -- what American
animated television series were made in the 2000s and are shown on Fox?

http://futef.com/q/cats%3A%5BAnimated%20television%20series%5D%20cats%
3A%5B2000s%20TV%20shows%20in%20the%20United%20States%5D%20cats%3A%
5BFox%20network%20shows%5D

-Patrick

On 29 Sep 2006, at 13:58, Andrew Gray wrote:

> I've just been pointed to this - http://futef.com/
>
> It seems to search on keywords, and then produce a related list of
> categories for browsing as well as the keyword results. I haven't had
> much of a chance to play around with it, but it's certainly promising
> - any thoughts?
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
>   andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Bogdan Giusca

subject: [WikiEN-l] Porchesia

body:
Sunday, October 1, 2006, 3:58:10 PM, Richard wrote:

> Well, if you exclude wikipedia-based content, there are under a dozen unique
> google hits, most of which seem to refer to some Italian porno movie.

It sounds like a mix of Italian "porcheria" (rubbish) with
"perche sia" (why is it).


from_name: Michael Snow

subject: [Foundation-l] Porchesia

body:
David Gerard wrote:

> On 01/10/06, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>> Whether we are talking about companies or fictitious islands, I do not
>> believe "block, nuke, and salt the Earth more aggressively!" is the
>> answer. That's partially because blocking is a very, very flawed tool
>> (it's very easy to circumvent), and "hard" security measures in a
>> fundamentally open environment tend to only inspire people to find
>> clever ways to circumvent them and to make themselves even more of a
>> PITA than they already are. Of course we should block individuals
>> where appropriate, but I'm not convinced that increasing the amount of
>> blocking and nuking is going to help us much right now.
>
> Yes.
>
> Danny, Brad: please understand that making up a new special rule every
> time there's a new problem is a *really bad* thing to do.

Which is why neither Danny nor Brad made up a new special rule, nor did
either of them advocate it. They advocated strengthening and/or changing
our attitudes and culture. An admittedly difficult task, but one we need
to work on.

Part of the problem is the many people who sort of get the message, but
immediately translate these calls into the "new special rule" that will
"solve everything for all time". I understand a new speedy deletion
criterion has already been proposed. With my tongue in my cheek, I'm
somewhat inclined to take a page from Ed Poor's book and speedily delete
the speedy deletion criteria.

Erik's message cautions about how we shouldn't misuse the tools we have
in achieving this cultural change. That's a perceptive observation as
well. He went on to advocate working on a better annotation feature,
which might be of some help with this problem. (Though it must be noted
that new features lend themselves particularly well to this problem of
"new special rules".) But the thing is, we can't really wait around for
all these promised, or merely even conceived-of, features. We need to
address problems when they come to our attention, not simply say we'll
get around to dealing with them later.

--Michael Snow


subject: [WikiEN-l] Porchesia


subject: [Foundation-l] Porchesia


from_name: Birgitte SB

subject: [Foundation-l] Taipei chosen to host Wikimania 2007

body:
Perhaps you do not realize this, but you are listed as
being on the jury.  This is probably what led to such
confusion regarding you role in the selection.  This
is the only mention I could find on the composition of
the jury.  In all fairness I stopped looking when I
found this assuming it was correct.

"Original jury comprises of the members of the Board :
Angela, Anthere, Jimmy Wales, Michael Davis, Tim
Shell, to which will be added the new Board member
elected in September to replace Angela, and also the
core organisation team of Wikimania 2006: Phoebe
Ayers, Austin Hair, Samuel Klein and Delphine M?nard.
Other members are: Andrew Lih. Other members may be
added later."
[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2007/Bids#Shortlist]

Birgitte SB

--- Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:

> Ray Saintonge wrote:
> > I don't think that it helps the transparency of
> the process when someone
> > like Jimbo begins by supporting a bid before the
> bidding has seriously
> > started.  It's the kind of prejudicial comment
> that tells everyone else
> > to give up before they even try.  It casts doubt
> on whether he believes
> > that the community has enough maturity to make
> good choices.
>
> Hmm, I seem to have been very misunderstood.  I said
> "It isn't up to me,
> nor should it be" (or words to that effect, you'd
> have to look it up).
> I really meant that.
>
> The committee did a great job this year, and next
> year's committee will
> do a great job too.
>
> I know that my opinions are often viewed as carrying
> a lot of weight,
> and for that I sincerely apologize.  I just like
> Italy. :)  It was just
> a personal comment.
>
> --Jimbo
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

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


from_name: Lorenzarius

subject: [Foundation-l] Porchesia

body:
en.WP is the biggest WP that's why there is such a "problem". Smaller
WP feel less need for speedy deletion and could handle this kind of
articles with standard afd procedure.

(Still this thread should belong to wikipedia-l as it's a WP matter
not a foundation matter.)

--Lorenzarius

On 10/1/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/30/06, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Does it matter?  Can we just end the thread without
> > pinning the blame on anyone.  It is not just this one
> > thread, I had just noticed the en.WP conversations on
> > a major increase lately.
>
> Rather than dismissing the discussion why not tell those of us less
> connected with the other language wikis how this problem has been
> completely solved [1] on those subprojects.
>
>
> (1) I must assume that this is totally solved everywhere except enwiki
> for you to be claiming that this thread is an offtopic enwiki only
> matter.

--
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lorenzarius
Tel: +852 95825791


subject: [Foundation-l] Porchesia


from_name: Jens Frank

subject: [Wikitech-l] New Wikipedias created

body:
On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 01:31:32PM +0400, ?????????????????? ?????????????? wrote:
> > http://ru-sib.wikipedia.org/            Siberian/Nort Russian
>
> Article about Siberian language was deleted from English Wikipedia as
> original research (nosource, the language was created in 2005).
>
> So it's nonsense!

Please give this comments during the voting phase, not *after* the wiki
has been approved http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Approved_requests_for_new_languages

I'm not the one to judge, I just created what was listed there.

jens


body:
Birgitte SB wrote:

>I intially disagreed with you, david, but now I am
>coming around to your way of thinking.   Everyone is a
>volunteer doing there best in this.  I do not doubt
>that this is true.  But I am beginning to think a
>competitive process requires a higher level of
>professionalism than can be provided by volunteers
>doing their best.
>
I can understand that some people are disappointed by not winning the
bid, but now that a decision is made supporting the winning bid serves
well in maintaining general harmony.

This is not the kind of decision that can be effectively made by votes
at broad volunteer level.  There are too many factors that cannot be
properly communicated even if a heroic effort is made by the committee
to do so.  Much can depend on technical considerations about the
facility that can only be answered by very direct and specific questions
from the committee.  It would probably be a good idea to leave time for
feedback from the general membership about the shortlisted bids; perhaps
a month would do.  This would give time for concerns of various sorts to
be raised.  I don't think that this was possible for 2005-7 because of
the tighter time line for making the decision.  It should be possible
for 2008 and later since we do want a longer planning cycle.

I support the principle of rotating Wikimania around three broad
geographical regions (Europe/Africa, The Americas, Asia/Australia), but
this should not create a situation where we must accept a city's clearly
inferior bid just because it is the only one from its region.

>Not that I think people should continue fighting over
>the Wikimania 2007 selection.  But we should not stop
>talking about this process.  We should start talking
>about how future Wikimania's should be selected.
>Perhaps the first task is to really define the
>relationship between Wikimania and Wikimedia.  Is it
>dealt with through a commitee?  Are there any Board
>Resolutions that pertain to Wikimania?  What exactly
>is the connection?
>
I think that the Foundation's connection with Wikimania should be closer
than its links with any of the other sister projects.  Wikimania's
objectives have more to do with marshalling physical assets than trying
to build something on-line.  There is still the task of putting together
a programme for the conference, but I don't see that as a big logistical
problem.  As long as the programmers are respectful of the diversity of
Wikimedia projects serious difficulties are unlikely.

Perhaps a separate, but closely linked non-profit corporation needs to
be set up to deal with Wikimania.  It could be the one responsible for
any possible liabilities that could arise from operating real-world
rather than virtual events.

Ec


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

body:
On 10/1/06, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> One major problem - to my mind, an article written by the subject
> that is notable, sourced, etc ought not be deleted.
[snip]

With 'only' 1.3 millionish articles I suppose it's not TOO unlikely
that there are still some seriously notable living people without
articles who might want to start one themselves...

BUT...

If a person is notable, then some unrelated person will eventually
come by and write an article.

Thus, while the deletion of a self authored article about a notable
person might be a loss, it isn't much of a loss.  Wikipedia won't be
done in a day.

Also: an honest and sincere person probably would have a hard time
figuring out if they, their company, or their client is notable enough
for inclusion in Wikipedia (since we, often, can't figure it out
without a poll) ... notability just isn't a good criteria to direct
people about self authored articles. ... But no-self-articles is clear
and can be followed by anyone who is acting honestly.

Some basic thoughts:
1) There are more non-notable people than notable by far.
2) The desire to have a wikipedia article about yourself is at best
weakly and more likely *inversely* related to your actual notability.
3) If someone/thing is really notable a mostly disinterested third
party will eventually want to write about it.

Given the above it would appear that a solid rejection of
self-initiated articles is sound policy.


body:
On 10/1/06, Stephen Streater <sbstreater at mac.com> wrote:
> This sounds sensible to me.
>
> We would benefit from a more sophisticated measure
> of likely article quality, related to the number of
> independent editors and frequency of edits. If we get
> the formula right, it will apply to all articles. Vanity is only
> one possible cause of NPOV.

Unfortunatly most authors have very few distinct editors. .. And it's
hard to differentiate editors who simply fixed a typographical mistake
and editors who actually read the content (it's not to hard to find
examples of people copyediting fairly obvious vandalism in Wikipedia.
:( )...

As a result coming up with good metrics are hard, and coming up with
ones which couldn't easily be gamed .. maybe almost impossible.


body:
On 10/1/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> Unfortunatly most authors have very few distinct editors. .. And it's

s/authors/articles/

Sorry.


subject: [Foundation-l] List Summary Service

body:
On 01/10/06, Pat Gunn <pgunn at dachte.org> wrote:

> I've started to summarise this list for people who don't want
> to slog through the whole thing (and to make it easy for translators
> to easily make foundation-l transparent to non-English speakers).
> To get the swing of it, I summarised all of September in my first
> go -- please see
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Improv/LSS/foundation-l-archives/2006_9_2430_wo

Good one!

(And that reminds me that I did in fact email juriwiki-l on the Soviet
PD question and, true to its reputation, juriwiki-l proved to be a
black hole for questions. Hooray. What was its purpose again?)

Use full names where you can, so Gerard and Gerard don't get mixed up.

> 1) Is it a good idea at all?

This is a FANTASTIC idea. Think of software development lists - people
read Kernel Traffic and Wine Weekly News when they wouldn't bother
with the lists.

> 4) Is it better that I host this on meta, someplace else on a WKF wiki,
>         or on one of my servers? If I do host it on a WMF wiki, where
>         should it land?

Meta sounds good. Somewhere linked from mailing lists pages, with a
category of list summaries.

I should mention also: it's an ongoing issue on the Foundation
committee lists to get someone willing to summarise them. How much
work was this for you?

- d.


subject: [Foundation-l] List Summary Service


list: commons-l

subject:
[Commons-l] Ogg Theora is too hard to play. WeneedYouTube-style
	Flash streaming video.

body:
On 10/1/06, Platonides <Platonides at gmail.com> wrote:
> So at last it is here? Congratulations!
>
> However...
> *It doesn't work for me (start & stop buttons do nothing).
> *I can't find how the applet gets the file to play. I guess the above
> problem has to do with the applet may need to get passed the file location
> on jorbis.player.play.0 instead of
> http://tools.wikimedia.de/media/wikipedia//d/d4/

That is the file location: Unsigned java applets can only build
connections to the server which sourced them, so toolserver runs a
proxy which makes all the media available under that directory.

What is the file you are attempting to play?  I've had a few cases
where bizarre characters were breaking the MD5 generation.. although I
believe most of them have been solved.

The single most common cause of failure to play is that around 20% of
the users whom have Java have a version of java which is so old that
it doesn't have JavaSound (which is needed to produce anything other
than 8bit, 8khz audio).  Microsoft clients appear to be the most
frequent victims of this.    Note that the issue is no better in the
flash world: folks with flash 7 and older can't watch any of the video
sites.

> *The link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_help. is not very useful, it
> redirects to [[Wikipedia:Media_help]] where there's no reference to it.
> Neither from [[Wikipedia:Media]]
> *The page (/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php as per Minh Nguyen msg) shows
> too Beta. Not like a finished and usable tool (well, it seems it isn't).

Hm. I missed that the media page is a redirect, but it makes no
difference... Please read rather than skim: "f you are unable to use
this player you will need to install a program to play Ogg format
audio. Please see the Wikipedia directions at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_help"

I.e. if this doesn't work for you, you'll have to install a local
player.   I don't think it would be wise of us to instruct people on
how to install a newer version of Java for three reasons:

1) If the user has enough permissions and patience to upgrade java
then they can install a native player.
2) The user expirence with a local native player will always be better.
3) Right now the Java implimentations which are easily installable for
Windows/Mac are non-free software.

In any case, the player has been used successfully by tens of
thousands of people. I'm aware of no standing cases where it does not
work so long as you meet the basic requirement of a new enough java
implimentation.

By calling it beta I was hoping to solicit additional feedback (and
perhaps discourage the propagation of its use: it will be replaced by
a system with tighter mediawiki integration once that work is done)...
 ... But I've had very little feedback overal, so perhaps calling it
beta was a mistake.

> Thanks fo the reference. Java is quite the same as the Flash solutions.

Quite the same for the user ease, yes... but not at all the same in
terms of keeping our content in formats which respect the free nature
of the content.


subject:
[Commons-l] Ogg Theora is too hard to play. We need
	YouTube-style Flash streaming video.

body:
On 01/10/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/29/06, Artur Fija?kowski <wiki.warx at gmail.com> wrote:

> > I think that the right way is to teach people how use free tools and
> > force them to use it, then force everybody to use properiaty software,
> > couse it's easier for windows users...

> While I'm sure you have the best of intentions, when given the option
> between "not using free tools" and "being forced to use it" most
> people will opt for the former. Enforcing a de-facto "only computer
> geeks are welcome" sort of rule is not going to really help the
> long-term interest of our projects.

Have you been following the discussions and the mention of the Java
player? That would be much the same as a Flash player in terms of what
people would have to download, etc. And there are Free Software java
players it works with.

> I really love MediaWiki's support of SVG -- you can upload and
> download an open format, but it always renders it to be viewed in any
> old browser. I think we should take this as something of a model --
> the goal should be to combine maximum usability with maximum freedom,
> and as has been pointed out these are not and should not be
> incompatible. We shouldn't have to "force anyone" to learn anything to
> use our resources, if freedom is really a goal.

The trouble is the profound lack of unencumbered video formats. It's
the [[dancing pigs]] problem except with freedom instead of security.

- d.


body:
On 10/1/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> 100% agree. I still haven't figured out how to get OGG files to play
> correctly on any of my computers, and I'm more computer savvy than
> most.

On which step of the Media help page
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_help which should be
linked next to almost every mediafile on enwiki) did you encounter
problems?

> I look forward to the day when OGG is a well-supported and
> easy-to-play format but until then,

I look forward to when media in general works without installation for
most users.. but that isn't the case for Video at least: Flash,
Realvideo, Quicktime, etc.. all require an installation on most PCs
out there..  And in most of those cases the installation is more
complex than following our media help.

Even with WMV a huge amount of the video out there is encoded with
codes which Windows does not naively include... although Windows Media
does have an autoinstlation facility which makes this painless for
most users.

> I don't think playing a little
> lowest-common-denominator is a bad thing when it comes to tech things,
> with the always-available option of linking up with the full file for
> those who really want to monkey with it.

Our content would not be free if we were distributing it inside
proprietary and patented formats.

Fortunately free and easy to use are not at all mutually exclusive.
... although carrying out these silly arguments and getting actual
word done are mutually exclusive .. so...


from_name: Lucas Hoffmann

subject: [WikiEN-l] GFDL link spam

body:
Bogdan Giusca wrote:
> I noticed that there's a user who is making minor changes, then adds a
> template which links his website, claiming that the article uses
> content from his website:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Routledge&diff=59143473&oldid=53310531
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palpitation&diff=next&oldid=57357638
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pain_disorder&diff=57152420&oldid=43473655
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emotion_and_memory&diff=58912687&oldid=58596625
> etc.
>
> He also created some pages on his wiki, then he copy-pasted them to
> wikipedia, while adding the same template.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selfcare_skills
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flooding_(therapy)
> etc.
>
> Do we have a policy against this? I mean, everyone could claim that
> his new articles were first published on his website and each such
> page would have a spam link to a website. (links from Wikipedia are
> very useful for increasing the Google PR)
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
Comparing the histories of the articles shows that Wikipedia's were the
original.  The psychwiki pages also have many redlinks in the same
places the Wikipedia articles have valid links.

I'm still not very well versed in Wikipedia's policies like most people
here, but I think this practice should be prohibited.  Even though
Wikipedia's articles are free to be used by anybody, this person is
claiming Wikipedia editors took content from his wiki, which is not the
case.  In my opinion, it looks like a way to advertise that wiki.


from_name: Mark Clements

subject: [Wikitech-l] Parsing database dumps

body:
"Platonides" <Platonides at gmail.com> wrote in
message news:efo9g3$tee$1 at sea.gmane.org...
> > That's a pretty good solution, although one of the issues is that the
> > title
> > includes the namespace, which needs to be removed to get the actual page
> > title. I feel that the <page> section should be complete in and of
itself,
> > without requiring the header section mapping namespace names to ids.
> > Without
> > knowing the mappings (ns to ns-title) that are present in the header,
you
> > cannot interpret the title unambiguosly, for example <title ns="0">Star
> > Trek: The Next Generation</title> relies on the parser knowing that ns-0
> > is
> > not called 'Star Trek' in order to be interpreted properly.
> >
> > How about <title ns="12" ns-title="Help">Contents</title>?
> >
> > - Mark Clements (HappyDog)
>
> I think you could assume that any non-zero namespace has prefix so you'd
> only need to split on the first ':' if it has a namespace number != 0
(this
> assumes we will never setup a namespace with ':' in it).
>
> BTW: why are you having so much trouble with this?

Personally - I have no trouble, as I don't use the dumps :)

I'm looking at it from a technical point of view - you need to be able to
unambiguously know the name of the page, ideally without requiring the
header information (thus allowing individual pages to be spat out and
manipulated in XML without requiring extra meta-data).  If you cannot do
that, then I see it as a short-coming in the data schema.

If the following statements are all true, then there is no ambiguity.  If
any of them are false then that ambiguity remains:

1) The main namespace can never have a prefix (ns title is always empty)
2) All other namespaces _must_ have a prefix
3) A namespace title cannot contain a colon

If they are all true then your assumption above is valid, otherwise it is
not and you will parse some edge-case titles incorrectly.

- Mark Clements (HappyDog)


from_name: Phil Sandifer

body:
On Oct 1, 2006, at 5:20 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>
>
> Thus, while the deletion of a self authored article about a notable
> person might be a loss, it isn't much of a loss.  Wikipedia won't be
> done in a day.
>

You misunderstand my concern - it's not merely that good content will
be eliminated, though that is a problem. It's that making vanity-
hunting a priority in any way encourages assumptions of bad faith -
every article on a person or corporation becomes something we have to
try to sniff out the creator of.

Content decisions should not require paranoid checking of the
contributors.

-Phil


subject: [Foundation-l] Porchesia

body:
--- Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 10/1/06, Luiz Augusto <lugusto at gmail.com> wrote:
> > WikiMedia isn't only WikiPedia. I'm on wikibreak
> in anothers wikis and now
> > edit only in Wikisource. I can't find any problem
> with encyclopedic articles
> > because my home wiki is intended to host only
> primary sources.
> > English Wikipedia have your on mailing list and
> wikipedia-l is intended to
> > be a mailing list for global issues on Wikipedia
> projects. The
> > question of credibility
> > is relevant to all Wikimedia projects, but
> attempts in talk about
> > encyclopedia credibility is not relevant to all
> Wikimedia projects.
>

> It's funny that you'd effectively accuse the person
> who is probably
> the #1 human contributor to enWiksource (Danny) of
> having project
> tunnel vision.

Danny is a huge contributor at Wikisource.  I don't
see why a person stating they dislike something or the
way something is handled should be taken as a knock on
the person who brought it up.  Danny bringing this
sort of thing is up is not suddenly new or something
particular to Danny.  However the fact that something
has been done in the past does not mean it can never
be objected to now or in the future.

>
> The fact of the matter is that the problems
> discussed in this thread
> are a real concern for all of our projects,
> including Wikisource.
>
> Any solution which would help us keep imaginary
> islands out of
> Wikisource would also likely help us keep imaginary
> primary sources
> out of Wikisource.
>
> Collectively we need to figure out how to work
> together better across
> the project and linguistic barriers that divide us.
> Simply putting
> our heads in the sand and pretending that the
> difficulties of openness
> are limited to enwiki is counterproductive.

I don't disagree with this but you are missing the
point of the criticism.  People from all sorts of
projects come here when they have hit a brick wall
When they have a problem or a question they *cannot*
handle within their own community.  When they can find
no solution, no answer, on their own someone suggests
asking foundation-l and they do.  They often get very
little help.  They may get a large response, but
generally very little help.

Now en.WP has an amazing amount of resources.
REsources which are very focused on en.WP.  To remind
you of  this I will quote what I was told by david
gerard when pointing out the unbalenced amount of
development resources at en.WP

"That is: if your project doesn't get its favourite
bugs fixed, it's
not favouritism to en:wp - it's your project not
contributing to the
development. These are volunteers, if you recall."

So en.WP has many, many of "their" volunteers.
Manpower that is unbelievable to the wider Wikimedia
community.  But now, and this just not about
Porchesia, when en.WP has a problem.  When en.WP has
this problem it is brought straight to this list to
ask the attention and help of this wider Wikimedia
community.  Now any other project, tries their hardest
to solve a problem themselves before coming here.  But
en.WP with their massive resources and manpower.
en.WP skips the step of working on the problem within
the project and comes straight here to use the
resources of the wider Wikimedia community.  And the
wider Wikimedia community is supposed to work on this
with the hope there might be some carryover to their
own home project.  Still when the home project has a
problem, they are not given answers and solutions.  I
was told to "adjust my expectations to reality".  Many
others are told that they must figure it out "within
the community".  But no one except en.WP comes here
until they exhausted the ability of thier home
community.  I am just asking that en.WP approach this
list as every other project in the wider Wikimedia
community does.

Birgitte SB

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


subject: [Foundation-l] Porchesia


from_name: Cheney Shill

subject: [WikiEN-l] Mywikipediaspace

body:
--- daniwo59 at aol.com wrote:

> I am currently reading the Terms of Service of Myspace.
> It is quite
> interesting. Remember, this is a social networking site,
> not an
> encyclopedia/dictionary/textbook/library/etc. As such,
> one would think that they  would be a tad
> more lax than us. Not so. Note that I not suggesting that

Legally, that protects them.  In reality, they are roughly
comparable to Wikipedia's user talk pages - if you imagine
the admins not banning people that used them to promote
wealth scams, Web cams, any other kind of porn you can
imagine, bands, etc. etc. etc.

>  these policies are
> followed or that the millions of Myspace users have
> actually  read them.

As someone who actually uses and interacts with people on
myspace, I can tell you that nothing is followed unless it
is enforced, and little if anything is enforced.

> Nevertheless, it is there in writing. People who sign up
> agree to  this. Perhaps we
> can learn from them.

Definitely not, unless you're looking to protect yourself
legally.  E.g., from being sued for having a 60 year old
pedophile use Wikipedia to meet, etc. a non-adult or from
being sued for some investment or gambling con that used
your site.

All the "commercial" stuff supposedly restricted is
actively employed.  Start here as just 1 example:
http://www.myspace.com/gdiwealth

In summary, the terms of service alone have no impact, so
don't expect them to fix any content issues.  The best you
can hope for is that some corporations and PR firms that
have lawyers reading and taking terms seriously will ease
up on the claims they make and eliminate any links that go
directly to sale sites.

~~Pro-Lick
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick
http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick

--spam may follow--

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


from_name: Roderik de Langen

subject: [Wikitech-l] problem with recent changes

body:
Roderik de Langen wrote:
> Hi
>
> I have a problem with my recent changes. It's not being updated after
> changes have been made. It does help to run one of the maintanca
> scripts, but I think it should be happening on the fly when posts are made.
> I'm running mediawiki 1.6.8
>
> Any help or suggestions are greatly appreciated.
>
Ok it appeared to be a problem cause i was in the bureaucrat group.
Atleast i removed myself from the group and now it works fine. Not sure
if this is a bug or not. If anyone has any idea about this please lemmie
know

Regards,
Roderik


from_name: Stephen Streater

body:
On 1 Oct 2006, at 16:42, Anthony wrote:

> On 10/1/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 01/10/06, David Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> 'Vanity articles. An article about a real person or corporation
>>> which
>>> appears to have been written by the subject, by one of its
>>> employees, or
>>> by a third party hired by the subject to write the article,
>>> regardless
>>> of the notability or otherwise of the subject.'
>>
>>
>> Looks relatively robust against the sincere variety of rules
>> lawyer (I
>> could be wrong) and seems to follow sensibly from the basic content
>> policies.
>>
> The problem I would say is that it's really easy to confuse an article
> written by a third party for one written by the subject.
>
> I've submitted a number of articles on freeware, for instance, and had
> them deleted as "vanity".  I also know of a case where an article on a
> professor which was copied straight out of the Vanity Fair Magazine
> was listed on VfD as "vanity", and it received a significant majority
> of votes for deletion as "obvious vanity" at the time I went to
> Borders and noticed the plagiarism.
>
> It seems to me that it's far to difficult to recognize which articles
> "have been written by the subject, by one of its employees, or by a
> third party hired by the subject to write the article" without having
> a large number of false positives or a large number of missed
> negatives.
>
> I think it makes much more sense to let people remove those parts of
> articles they feel are not written from a neutral point of view, or
> are not verifiable.  If it turns out there is nothing left, well, then
> an article might be a candidate for unilateral removal.

This sounds sensible to me.

We would benefit from a more sophisticated measure
of likely article quality, related to the number of
independent editors and frequency of edits. If we get
the formula right, it will apply to all articles. Vanity is only
one possible cause of NPOV.


from_name: Rory Stolzenberg

subject: [Foundation-l] Porchesia

body:
pgkbot doesn't read individual edits though, it only reports one that fail a
filter of the rc channel feed.  We'd need to change it if we want to flag
content of edits, and it would use a lot of bandwidth (though a couple on
the smallest WPs wouldnt be too bad).

On 10/1/06, Titoxd at Wikimedia <titoxd.wikimedia at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This is not a problem. The existing pgkbot IRC monitoring framework
> already
> allows each bot to report to multiple channels simultaneously, so a bot
> could report to its "home" channel, as well as to a centralized channel,
> if
> needs warrant. This data is already being broadcast on Wikimedia's IRC
> server, so there isn't anything to modify server-side. All that you need
> is
> poke a few users on IRC to change their bots' settings.
>
> Titoxd.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
> [mailto:foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Birgitte SB
> Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 12:11 PM
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Porchesia
>
>
>
> --- Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
> > In any case, I think this is interesting at a global
> > level because the
> > Wiki's at greatest risk of collecting garbage are
> > often the ones with
> > the least activity.
> >
> > After seeing that one of the Wikipedias had its main
> > page changed to
> > say "Welcome to the Runescape trading forum", I
> > wondered if it would
> > be useful to setup a bot to check recent changes on
> > all the smaller
> > wikis for insertions of English text. .. With the
> > hope that the worst
> > of the junk on small wikis would be in inappropriate
> > languages.
> >
> > It would be really nice if we had a single
> > recentchanges page that
> > aggregated all the low activity wikis.
>
> I think this is a great idea.  Is it possible to set
> up several RC bots (in different wiki's) to work in a
> single RC channel?  If this could be done with the
> bots displaying a snippet of any added text, it should
> be easy to recognize any english which does not
> belong.
>
> Birgitte SB
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Porchesia


from_name: Akash Mehta

subject: [WikiEN-l] Porchesia

body:
My Jacaranda atlas doesn't list it in the index, and I can't see a single
island off the coast in the map of Lebanon (although the scale is
1:16,000,000). Nice find.

On 10/1/06, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
>
> I have posted this to foundation, but for those who do not know--
>
> Today I deleted the article [[Porchesia]], which was created on
> November  23,
> 2005, i.e., 10 months ago. The article described an island off the coast
> of
> Lebanon with a population of over 300,000. The languages are Arabic,
> Greek,
> and  English.
>
> I will gladly restore the article when someone finds me one
> source  verifying
> the facts of this article. You might start by finding Porchesia on a  map.
>
> Danny
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Jimmy Wales

subject: [Foundation-l] Porchesia

body:
Erik's point here is completely valid.

The problem in this case is not really "no sources".  The problem should
be viewed as more general.  "It is possible to hoax wikipedia by writing
something that sounds plausible."

Erik Moeller wrote:
> On 9/30/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Let's mkae a new speedy criterion: if there's no sources, nuke it. With
>> fire.
>
> '''Porchesia''' is an island off the coast of [[Syria]] and
> [[Lebanon]].  It is ruled by Lebanese government.  [1]
>
> [1] Cassidy, Daniel. Porchesia: History of a Little-Known Island. Los
> Angeles: Cambridge and Boston Press, 2005.


subject: [Foundation-l] Porchesia


from_name: James Hare

body:
One thing we could do is have the bidding process, then determine which one
would be 2008, 2009, etc, or if a certain place will be chosen at all. That
way, all effort is utilized.

On 10/1/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 01/10/06, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > --- David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > As I said, a competitive process will be inherently
> > > damaging. If
> > > there's really no other way than a competitive
> > > process, then fine, but
> > > don't be surprised when it has the side effects it's
> > > *obviously* going
> > > to have.
>
> > I intially disagreed with you, david, but now I am
> > coming around to your way of thinking.   Everyone is a
> > volunteer doing there best in this.  I do not doubt
> > that this is true.  But I am beginning to think a
> > competitive process requires a higher level of
> > professionalism than can be provided by volunteers
> > doing their best.
>
>
> Unfortunately, I can't see another way than a competitive bid either,
> so the people saying this are right too. How annoying ...
>
>
> > Not that I think people should continue fighting over
> > the Wikimania 2007 selection.  But we should not stop
> > talking about this process.  We should start talking
> > about how future Wikimania's should be selected.
> > Perhaps the first task is to really define the
> > relationship between Wikimania and Wikimedia.  Is it
> > dealt with through a commitee?  Are there any Board
> > Resolutions that pertain to Wikimania?  What exactly
> > is the connection?
>
>
> That is a very interesting and deep question - i.e., what are the
> assumptions each person (or team or project) have made so far?
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Dan Jacobson

subject: [Wikitech-l] URL to force sidebar language

body:
How can I link to a wikimedia page to get its sidebar etc. in zh-tw
instead of en without having the user first get an account and
register preferences? I am talking about linking from outside
wikimedia.

E.g.,
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Pressed_flowers
gets the default en sidebar.

What is the right way to write this:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Category:Pressed_flowers&sidebar-lang=zh-tw

No, I am not talking about page content, just the navigation, sidebar.


subject:
[Commons-l] Ogg Theora is too hard to play.
	WeneedYouTube-styleFlash streaming video.

body:
On 10/1/06, peter green <plugwash at p10link.net> wrote:
> maybe make the player downsample to 8 bit 8khz audio and put up a warning
> banner saying "you are using a very old version of java, sound quality will
> be degraded", or find a ms specific way to play audio (if that is possible
> from an unsigned applet without breaking use on more modern jvms).

I'd rather not.

1) The time it would take to code the downsampling and switching could
be better spent on other parts of the code.
2) As a contributor I would be upset that users are being given a poor
quality version of my contribution rather than being asked to install
improved software.

Or put another way, *I* won't be working on that. :) You can if you
really think it would be useful.

I've also found that about 18% of the people who try the play in
browser link don't have any form of Java installed.  I think it's
clear that it isn't a magic bullet in any case.

One of the nice things about the Michael Dale's SOC project is that it
will magically use the best method available, only falling back to
java if there is no VLC plugin available.  This way we can ask users
to perform the installation who can (which is the vast majority of the
users) but still provide java for some of the ones who can't.


from_name: daniwo59 at aol.com

subject: [Foundation-l] Mywikipediaspace

body:
Hello

I am currently reading the Terms of Service of Myspace. It is quite
interesting. Remember, this is a social networking site, not an
encyclopedia/dictionary/textbook/library/etc. As such, one would think that they  would be a tad
more lax than us. Not so. Note that I not suggesting that  these policies are
followed or that the millions of Myspace users have actually  read them.
Nevertheless, it is there in writing. People who sign up agree to  this. Perhaps we
can learn from them.

Rule 5:
Non-commercial Use by Members. The MySpace Services are  for the personal use
of Members only and may not be used in connection with any  commercial
endeavors except those that are specifically endorsed or approved by  MySpace.com.
Illegal and/or unauthorized use of the MySpace Services, including  collecting
usernames and/or email addresses of Members by electronic or other  means for
the purpose of sending unsolicited email or unauthorized framing of or
linking to the MySpace Website is prohibited. Commercial advertisements,  affiliate
links, and other forms of solicitation may be removed from Member  profiles
without notice and may result in termination of Membership privileges.
Appropriate legal action will be taken for any illegal or unauthorized use of  the
MySpace Services.

Forbidden thing 11 is:

displaying an advertisement on your profile, or accepting payment or
anything of value from a third person in exchange for your performing any  commercial
activity on or through the MySpace Services on behalf of that person,  such
as placing commercial content on your profile, posting blogs or bulletins  with
a commercial purpose, selecting a profile with a commercial purpose as one
of your "Top 8" friends, or sending private messages with a commercial
purpose;

As I said, I sincerely doubt most (any) Myspace members have read the  Terms
of Service, I can assure you that they are far more substantial  than our own
Terms of Service. Personally, I hope that the Board rectifies  this.

Danny


subject: [WikiEN-l] Mywikipediaspace


subject: [Foundation-l] Mywikipediaspace


list: wikipedia-l

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Mywikipediaspace


from_name: HeinzJ

body:
Mathias Schindler schrieb:
> On 9/29/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> Hmmm, I played with a couple of searches on this and almost never, the
> "main article" about the search came on this page first.
>
> "google" -> first article: google bomb.
> "groklaw" -> SCO vs. Reality
> "Jimmy Wales" -> James
>
> and so on. Nice concept, fast results, poor quality.
>

Could be.

... but a lot better than the wikipedia-search.

"google" -> more or less ONLY Google
"Jimmy Wales" -> more or less ONLY Jimmy Wales

HeinzJ


body:
Mathias Schindler schrieb:
> On 9/29/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> Hmmm, I played with a couple of searches on this and almost never, the
> "main article" about the search came on this page first.
>
> "google" -> first article: google bomb.
> "groklaw" -> SCO vs. Reality
> "Jimmy Wales" -> James
>
> and so on. Nice concept, fast results, poor quality.
>

Could be.

... but a lot better than the wikipedia-search.

"google" -> more or less ONLY Google
"Jimmy Wales" -> more or less ONLY Jimmy Wales

HeinzJ


subject: [Foundation-l] Porchesia

body:
On 10/1/06, Luiz Augusto <lugusto at gmail.com> wrote:
> WikiMedia isn't only WikiPedia. I'm on wikibreak in anothers wikis and now
> edit only in Wikisource. I can't find any problem with encyclopedic articles
> because my home wiki is intended to host only primary sources.
> English Wikipedia have your on mailing list and wikipedia-l is intended to
> be a mailing list for global issues on Wikipedia projects. The
> question of credibility
> is relevant to all Wikimedia projects, but attempts in talk about
> encyclopedia credibility is not relevant to all Wikimedia projects.

It's funny that you'd effectively accuse the person who is probably
the #1 human contributor to enWiksource (Danny) of having project
tunnel vision.

The fact of the matter is that the problems discussed in this thread
are a real concern for all of our projects, including Wikisource.

Any solution which would help us keep imaginary islands out of
Wikisource would also likely help us keep imaginary primary sources
out of Wikisource.

Collectively we need to figure out how to work together better across
the project and linguistic barriers that divide us.  Simply putting
our heads in the sand and pretending that the difficulties of openness
are limited to enwiki is counterproductive.


subject: [Foundation-l] Porchesia


from_name: valdelli at bluemail.ch

body:
This could be a good idea.

To go in Taipei or in Boston or in Sidney is very expensive for a
wikipedian, and most of all wikipedians are students with a little
bit of money.

To have a Wikimania in each continent could be good to offer an
opportunity to all wikipedians without claims.

Ilario

----Messaggio originale----
Da: alphasigmax at gmail.com
Data: 29.09.06 2.07
A: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"<foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
Oggetto: Re: [Foundation-l] Taipei chosen to host Wikimania 2007

>
> Yes... we have small local meetups, and the international
conference.
> Something in between would be good.
>

Wikimania Europe, Asia, America perhaps?


subject: [Foundation-l] Porchesia

body:
Quick clarification. I am certainly not the most active editor on en
wikisource. There are plenty of great people there with more edits than me, with
special shoutouts to Pathoschild, BirgitteSB, Jude, Zhaladshar, Shanel, and many
others to numerous to mention.

In a message dated 10/1/2006 9:10:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
gmaxwell at gmail.com writes:

On  10/1/06, Luiz Augusto <lugusto at gmail.com> wrote:
> WikiMedia isn't  only WikiPedia. I'm on wikibreak in anothers wikis and now
> edit only  in Wikisource. I can't find any problem with encyclopedic
articles
>  because my home wiki is intended to host only primary sources.
> English  Wikipedia have your on mailing list and wikipedia-l is intended to
> be  a mailing list for global issues on Wikipedia projects. The
> question  of credibility
> is relevant to all Wikimedia projects, but attempts in  talk about
> encyclopedia credibility is not relevant to all Wikimedia  projects.

It's funny that you'd effectively accuse the person who is  probably
the #1 human contributor to enWiksource (Danny) of having  project
tunnel vision.

The fact of the matter is that the problems  discussed in this thread
are a real concern for all of our projects,  including Wikisource.

Any solution which would help us keep imaginary  islands out of
Wikisource would also likely help us keep imaginary primary  sources
out of Wikisource.

Collectively we need to figure out how to  work together better across
the project and linguistic barriers that divide  us.  Simply putting
our heads in the sand and pretending that the  difficulties of openness
are limited to enwiki is  counterproductive.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l  mailing  list
foundation-l at wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


subject: [Foundation-l] Porchesia


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Foundation-l] Porchesia

body:
On 10/1/06, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
> There is a tension between accuracy and openness. Citizendium and
> Everything2 are two extreme answers to that tension. If, however, we are to  maintain
> both, we must address the tension when it occurs. We must come up with  creative
> solutions. And that is something that involves more than just the  English
> Wikipedia.

I do agree. I think we have to come to a shared understanding (which
includes our readers) that wikis are open workspaces, and we need to
define clear processes by which content can gradually (!) reach the
state of being a verified, reliable encyclopedia article, textbook, or
whatever. Porchesia is merely a good, fairly value-neutral example of
a general problem.

If the article about Porchesia had told me, as a reader, in no
uncertain terms that the content has undergone no verification
whatsoever and could be complete bollocks, whereas the article about,
say, Albert Einstein, has undergone verification for sources,
comprehensiveness, neutrality, and so on, then I would be much more
comfortable with the current model. The fact is that, with the
exception of a very small number of articles, we put rubbish on the
same level as elaborate work that has continued for several months,
and that is a disservice both to our readers and to our community.

Whether we are talking about companies or fictitious islands, I do not
believe "block, nuke, and salt the Earth more aggressively!" is the
answer. That's partially because blocking is a very, very flawed tool
(it's very easy to circumvent), and "hard" security measures in a
fundamentally open environment tend to only inspire people to find
clever ways to circumvent them and to make themselves even more of a
PITA than they already are. Of course we should block individuals
where appropriate, but I'm not convinced that increasing the amount of
blocking and nuking is going to help us much right now.

I do believe "identify, label and improve more systematically!" is the
way to go. In this process, we need to not only have a "gold standard"
of articles which we strive for, but should also make the entire
process of article review more transparent and participatory. We may
not have a "featured revision" for each article, but at least we
should have a "best known available" one, and make it clear what
exactly has and has not been done.

As is typical in such cases, the article on Porchesia was copyedited
before it was discovered to be a hoax. That someone chose to copyedit
it should not be held against them; it's perfectly fine that people
work in the areas where they are strong. Some people love fixing typos
or adding category metadata, no matter how many quality initiatives we
launch. However, that it was _only_ copyedited and not fact-checked
could have been made clear to the reader.

For some further thoughts on this, see:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Eloquence/WikiQA

I believe that the problem of developing a collaborative, scalable,
functional quality annotation model for wikis is as complex as all the
work that we've done so far. Nor is this problem limited to certain
areas, like companies or living people. It's just that inaccurate
articles, vandalism and hoaxes hurt us more in some areas than in
others.

This problem is not going to be solved by writing a couple of software
features. It needs a long term, ongoing collaboration of interested
developers and Wikimedians. And you are absolutely correct that this
is not an en.wp issue, but a Foundation issue. I will have a
discussion about this with members of the Technical Team once the very
important and pressing need of single login is finally resolved.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.


subject: [WikiEN-l] [Foundation-l] Porchesia


subject: [Foundation-l] Porchesia


subject: [Foundation-l] Porchesia

body:
On 10/1/06, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
>
> Quick clarification. I am certainly not the most active editor on en
> wikisource. There are plenty of great people there with more edits than me, with
> special shoutouts to Pathoschild, BirgitteSB, Jude, Zhaladshar, Shanel, and many
> others to numerous to mention.

Zhaladshar is the only non-bot account with more edits than you on
enwikisource, Danny.


subject: [Foundation-l] Porchesia


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] [Foundation-l] Porchesia

body:
On 01/10/06, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Whether we are talking about companies or fictitious islands, I do not
> believe "block, nuke, and salt the Earth more aggressively!" is the
> answer. That's partially because blocking is a very, very flawed tool
> (it's very easy to circumvent), and "hard" security measures in a
> fundamentally open environment tend to only inspire people to find
> clever ways to circumvent them and to make themselves even more of a
> PITA than they already are. Of course we should block individuals
> where appropriate, but I'm not convinced that increasing the amount of
> blocking and nuking is going to help us much right now.

Yes.

Danny, Brad: please understand that making up a new special rule every
time there's a new problem is a *really bad* thing to do.

Ad hoc rules are where instruction creep comes from. This leads to a
confusing and incoherent thicket of rules that no-one can make sense
of. Special cases make bad law.

I had a press interview with the Daily Telegraph on Friday. A large
chunk of that was him telling me how confusing our bureaucracy already
was to newcomers. Please don't make it even worse.

(Main article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:PRO )

- d.


subject: [Foundation-l] Porchesia


subject: [Foundation-l] Porchesia


body:
IMHo it's very difficult to have.

Some criteria are still present (NPOV), but some others are not
impartial (encyclopedic).

Ilario

----Messaggio originale----
Da: wikilegal at inbox.org
Data: 01.10.06 4.06
A: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"<foundation-l at wikimedia.org>,
<bradp.wmf at gmail.com>
Oggetto: [Foundation-l] Six criteria for Wikipedia inclusion

On 9/30/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> On 9/30/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > In fact maybe we can beat them to the punch.  Create a
verifiable
> > > neutral article about them *before* they get around to it.
> > >
> >
> > True to your belief everything should be in Wikipedia,
Anthony.  I disagree.
> >
> In a perfect world "everything" should be in Wikipedia, I
suppose, but
> I don't believe we live in such a perfect world.  Please don't
> misrepresent my position.
>
I thought I'd expand a little bit on what my position is.  I can
think
of six criteria off the top of my head for Wikipedia articles.
They
must be:

1) based on verifiable sources - anything which can not be written
about using verifiable sources shouldn't be in Wikipedia - this
criterion includes the concept of "no original research" - this is
a
big part of what I mean by "in a perfect world...", as in a
perfect
world we'd be able to verify anything.
2) NPOV - if an article is not written from a neutral point of view
it
should generally be rewritten - however, in some cases perhaps it
makes more sense to simply remove the article - this criterion
includes the concept of barring autobiographies.
3) encyclopedic - this is perhaps the fuzziest criterion, but it
would
exclude things like essays, lists of quotes, articles about words,
fiction, etc.
4) legal - due to various laws, including but not limited to
privacy
laws and so called "intellectual property" laws, there are some
things
we can't legally have free articles about
5) of a decent size - articles which are too short and will likely
never be expanded should generally be merged with other articles
and
redirected.
6) in line with human dignity - this would prohibit disclosure of
certain types of private information, even in cases where it's
probably legal under US law to include the information - I also
think
we should give the benefit of the doubt in borderline cases to
people
who ask that private information, especially biographies, not be
included - however, I only think we should take this so far, and
in
the case of legally disclosable and already widely available
public
information I think the NPOV principle overrides any concerns
about
disclosing negative information.

One criterion that I explicitly do not include is how popular
something is.  In fact, I think the less popular something is the
*more* useful it is to include information about it in Wikipedia.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l at wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


subject: [Foundation-l] Six criteria for Wikipedia inclusion


subject: [Foundation-l] Porchesia

body:
Erik also made a good point when he pointed out that bullshit and some real
quality are mixed together... I move for implementation of that long-awaited
revision labelling feature.

On 10/1/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>
> Erik's point here is completely valid.
>
> The problem in this case is not really "no sources".  The problem should
> be viewed as more general.  "It is possible to hoax wikipedia by writing
> something that sounds plausible."
>
> Erik Moeller wrote:
> > On 9/30/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Let's mkae a new speedy criterion: if there's no sources, nuke it. With
> >> fire.
> >
> > '''Porchesia''' is an island off the coast of [[Syria]] and
> > [[Lebanon]].  It is ruled by Lebanese government.  [1]
> >
> > [1] Cassidy, Daniel. Porchesia: History of a Little-Known Island. Los
> > Angeles: Cambridge and Boston Press, 2005.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Porchesia


subject: [Foundation-l] Porchesia

body:
On 01/10/06, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:

> > It would be really nice if we had a single
> > recentchanges page that
> > aggregated all the low activity wikis.

> I think this is a great idea.  Is it possible to set
> up several RC bots (in different wiki's) to work in a
> single RC channel?

There's an RSS feed for RC, isn't there? Aggregating RSS feeds is easy.

- d.


subject: [Foundation-l] Porchesia


body:
> Act in a much more draconian fashion
What is it with my username and its various variations?

> When they see new usernames and page creation which are blatantly commercial - shoot on sight.
I'm sure too many sysops are being cautious about such actions. If
there's general agreement, this needs to be emphasised as policy to
sysops for it to really take effect.

In terms of patrolling this, could we somehow tag all corporation
newpages with a specific category? I develop a vandal fighting tool
called MWT (See [[WP:MWT]]), essentially a lightweight recent changes
patroller on wheels. One of its strengths is being able to easily grab
recent changes to articles in a particular category (actually a
feature of recent changes itself, but lacking from other vandal
fighters). I'm sure we could release a build for patrolling articles
on corporations for vanity.


from_name: GerardM

subject: [Foundation-l] Comments on the new wikipedias

body:
Hoi,
For some of the newly created wikipedias there are reasons why I would not
create them as languages in WiktionaryZ in this manner
They are:

http://roa-tara.wikipedia.org/		Tarantino
http://cbk-zam.wikipedia.org/		Zamboanga Chavacano
http://zh-classical.wikipedia.org/	Classical Chinese
http://cu.wikipedia.org/		Old Church Slavonic
http://ru-sib.wikipedia.org/		Siberian/Nort Russian

   - Tarantino is supposed to use the roa code. This code does not
   signify anything but that it is a Romance language. The code does specify
   what is included in the code and Tarantino is not one of them.
   - In ISO-639-3 cbk is the code for Chavacano. Zamboangue?o is an
   alternative name..
   - For Classical Chinese there is no specificity as what is meant by
   this. This is also easy to explain as the zh (zho) code itself is
   depreciated in the ISO-639-3 because there are some 10 languages that are
   included in this code.
   - I might include the Old Church Slavonic as chu. It is used as
   liturgical language of various Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic churches. It
   is considered extinct.
   - The ru-sib is a created language. It is a bad idea to create a code
   as if it is a dialect of the Russian language when it is not.

Thanks,
     GerardM


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

body:
On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 10:45:55 +0100, <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com>
wrote:

>I kind of assumed we meant it. And that blatant puffs would be speedied by admins. Don't tell me that this has always been ex-process.

It has indeed.  Or rather, one has to come up with creative reasoning
when Mr Troll decides to spend the next three months debating it on
DRV.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject: [WikiEN-l] GFDL link spam

body:
On 10/1/06, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
[snip]
> Perhaps, if it is only and very specifically used for contributions
> from external sources. A sort of "External History:" namespace whose
> contents are shown and linked to on top of the history might be
> workable.  Right now I'm not sure the problem is prevalent enough to
> justify prioritizing such a change.

Of course... we could just have a wikieditable credits page. :)

I noticed this issue about .. er a year ago. And attempted to
demonstrate the risk by something of a  [[WP:POINT]] violation.  Try
as I might, no one was really cared. :)


from_name: Alison Wheeler

subject: [Foundation-l] Porchesia

body:
On Sun, October 1, 2006 21:48, David Gerard wrote:
> I had a press interview with the Daily Telegraph on Friday. A large
> chunk of that was him telling me how confusing our bureaucracy already
> was to newcomers. Please don't make it even worse.

I know you've mentioned this a load of times, but you aren't the only one
to have had a long interview with that guy (James has, I have, etc) ...

Alison


subject: [Foundation-l] Porchesia


body:
On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 11:01:49 +0100, "David Mestel"
<david.mestel at gmail.com> wrote:

>I don't think that "implied discretion" is a good idea long-term -
>it's better to codify it in policy so that everything is consistent
>and in the open.  Apart from anything else, it's kind of inadvertantly
>biting the newbies when stuff happens for reasons which aren't
>explained.

Unfortunately you cannot either legislate or codify Clue.

Actually for my money policy *is* close to perfect: if a subject is
not just unverified but, for all practical purposes, *unverifiable*
from reliable sources, it has to go.  If this is unambiguous, further
debate is unnecessary.  If it's possible that sources could be found,
or it's not your specialist area, then a debate makes sense.
Everything else is just discussion of what are the symptoms of such an
article might be.

Needless to say I am an evil rouge admin and a heartless deletionist.
Some users have spent long and tedious hours debating precisely which
part of policy covers the deletion of an article consisting of one
sentence which is already included in another article and with a title
which does not meet the manual of style.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


subject: [Foundation-l] Porchesia

body:
On 01/10/06, Alison Wheeler <wikimedia at alisonwheeler.com> wrote:
> On Sun, October 1, 2006 21:48, David Gerard wrote:

> > I had a press interview with the Daily Telegraph on Friday. A large
> > chunk of that was him telling me how confusing our bureaucracy already
> > was to newcomers. Please don't make it even worse.

> I know you've mentioned this a load of times, but you aren't the only one
> to have had a long interview with that guy (James has, I have, etc) ...

I mention it as public relations context, concerning the specific
matter we're talking about. Are you saying bureaucracy repelling
newcomers was mentioned in your conversation too? Else the point of
your email is not clear.

- d.


subject: [Foundation-l] Porchesia


body:
On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 17:23:21 -0400, "Gregory Maxwell"
<gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:

>Unfortunatly most authors have very few distinct editors. .. And it's
>hard to differentiate editors who simply fixed a typographical mistake
>and editors who actually read the content (it's not to hard to find
>examples of people copyediting fairly obvious vandalism in Wikipedia.

True.  At the risk of losing a treasured friend, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Kell - I believe he meets the bio
criteria (as an author of an article in Britannica if nothing else)
but I would be amazed if more than a handful of other people will ever
edit that article.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


from_name: Brad Patrick

subject: [Foundation-l] Thought for the day

body:
A little inspiration for this week.

What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of
little consequence. The only consequence is what we do.  - John Ruskin

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Ruskin


subject: [Foundation-l] Thought for the day


from_name: Nyenyec N

subject: [WikiEN-l] Citationgate: expertise and verifiability

body:
On 9/29/06, Mak <makwik at gmail.com> wrote:

> Inline citations have now been added to Dido and Aeneas, easily enough
> (there are no page numbers given, because Grove online doesn't have page
> numbers, and this particular article is short enough to not have
> sub-sections). The point is that if reasonable references are given, inline
> citations should not be necessary for uncontroversial facts. If you look at
> actual encyclopedias, you will notice that they don't have inline
> references, especially for generally accepted facts.

That's true, but is also misleading.
You don't see those references in the *end product*.

But encyclopedia's do check the sources of their statements. I highly
recommend that you listen to this:

http://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org/wiki/Archives
Validation on Wikipedia: How do I know this article is accurate?

1) An expert writes an article.
2) A fact checker checks *every statement* in the article from at
least 2 reliable sources and documents all of them on a newspaper
sized sheet where the article text is in the middle of the sheet and
the rest contains the references, annotations, recommended changes.
All this material is kept for later editors. (Forward to 27:00 in the
MP3).

Yet, the reader doesn't see all those inline references in the end
product. But they can trust that this validation does happen
throughout the editing process.
A Wikipedia reader doesn't have that luxury, they can't tell apart
checked facts and sneaky vandalism inserted 2 minutes ago.

Inline references are very important. Much more important for
Wikipedia than the published version of a traditional encyclopedia.

-- nyenyec


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] GFDL link spam

body:
On 10/1/06, Bogdan Giusca <liste at dapyx.com> wrote:
> I noticed that there's a user who is making minor changes, then adds a
> template which links his website, claiming that the article uses
> content from his website:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Routledge&diff=59143473&oldid=53310531
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palpitation&diff=next&oldid=57357638
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pain_disorder&diff=57152420&oldid=43473655
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emotion_and_memory&diff=58912687&oldid=58596625
> etc.
>
> He also created some pages on his wiki, then he copy-pasted them to
> wikipedia, while adding the same template.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selfcare_skills
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flooding_(therapy)
> etc.
>
> Do we have a policy against this? I mean, everyone could claim that
> his new articles were first published on his website and each such
> page would have a spam link to a website. (links from Wikipedia are
> very useful for increasing the Google PR)

Since the authoy is credited in our history there is no need for a
link to the external site how much you want to push this point is up
to you.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] GFDL link spam

body:
On 01/10/06, Lucas Hoffmann <prmthsx303 at comcast.net> wrote:

> I'm still not very well versed in Wikipedia's policies like most people
> here, but I think this practice should be prohibited.  Even though
> Wikipedia's articles are free to be used by anybody, this person is
> claiming Wikipedia editors took content from his wiki, which is not the
> case.  In my opinion, it looks like a way to advertise that wiki.

The wiki in question is one hosted on wikia.com . So he wouldn't be
getting personal benefit from the ad links. (Jimbo and Angela would,
for the conspiracy theorists out there.)

Possibly the best first approach would be to, er, ask why he's doing this?

- d.


body:
Ooops, sorry, it's late here.

There wad a missing paragraph from my original email.

It is the chief editor (I think) of World Book Encyclopedia speaking
about how *they* deal with validation and fact checking. They are the
ones who already use this approach.

-- nyenyec

On 10/1/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> Nyenyec N wrote:
> > On 9/29/06, Mak <makwik at gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> >> actual encyclopedias, you will notice that they don't have inline
> >> references, especially for generally accepted facts.
> >
> > That's true, but is also misleading.
> > You don't see those references in the *end product*.
> >
> > But encyclopedia's do check the sources of their statements. I highly
> > recommend that you listen to this:
> >
> > http://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org/wiki/Archives
> > Validation on Wikipedia: How do I know this article is accurate?
> >
> >
> > 1) An expert writes an article.
> > 2) A fact checker checks *every statement* in the article from at
> > least 2 reliable sources and documents all of them on a newspaper
> > sized sheet where the article text is in the middle of the sheet and
> > the rest contains the references, annotations, recommended changes.
> > All this material is kept for later editors. (Forward to 27:00 in the
> > MP3).
> >
>
> Excellent. Where do I sign up?
>
> --
> Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax


body:
On 01/10/06, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:

> You misunderstand my concern - it's not merely that good content will
> be eliminated, though that is a problem. It's that making vanity-
> hunting a priority in any way encourages assumptions of bad faith -
> every article on a person or corporation becomes something we have to
> try to sniff out the creator of.
> Content decisions should not require paranoid checking of the
> contributors.

Yes. Are we now rescinding the core hard policy "Assume good faith"
because Danny and Brad don't scale?

- d.


body:
On 10/1/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Who says anybody has to do what "we" (whoever you mean by that) want
> them to do?  What rule was wanked into saying that?

All of them.

>They are volunteers
> too, and I hope they have enough imagination to do what they want to do.
>

And if what they want to do includes orginal research and writeing POV articles?

--
geni


from_name: Andre Engels

subject: [Wikitech-l] New Wikipedias created

body:
2006/10/1, Jens Frank <jf at mormo.org>:

> Please give this comments during the voting phase, not *after* the wiki
> has been approved http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Approved_requests_for_new_languages
>
> I'm not the one to judge, I just created what was listed there.

Plenty of such comments were given in the voting phase, but in the end
they didn't matter because the for vote could garner more people. I
guess an open vote is not the best way to handle this kind of things,
because the amount of interest, and thus the willingness to skew the
vote by bringing in friends who otherwise would not have noticed it
and possibly aren't even wikipedians, is so much different for the two
sides. Open discussions and votes like this are a good way to check
whether there is sufficient interest to create a language Wikipedia.
For other criteria, it would be better to have some predefined group
take the decision after hearing the arguments from both sides.

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


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-10-02

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

Running test TODO: Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Link containing double-single-quotes '' (bug 4598)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Template with thumb image (with link in description)... FAILED!
Running test Template infinite loop... FAILED!
Running test TODO: message transform: <noinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: message transform: <onlyinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Parsing optional HTML elements (Bug 6171)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Inline HTML vs wiki block nesting... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Mixing markup for italics and bold... FAILED!
Running test TODO: 5 quotes, code coverage +1 line... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML Hex character encoding.... FAILED!
Running test TODO: dt/dd/dl test... FAILED!

Passed 412 of 429 tests (96.04%) FAILED!


from_name: Delirium

subject: [Foundation-l] Mywikipediaspace

body:
daniwo59 at aol.com wrote:

>Rule 5:
>Non-commercial Use by Members. The MySpace Services are  for the personal use
>of Members only and may not be used in connection with any  commercial
>endeavors except those that are specifically endorsed or approved by  MySpace.com.
>Illegal and/or unauthorized use of the MySpace Services, including  collecting
>usernames and/or email addresses of Members by electronic or other  means for
>the purpose of sending unsolicited email or unauthorized framing of or
>linking to the MySpace Website is prohibited. Commercial advertisements,  affiliate
>links, and other forms of solicitation may be removed from Member  profiles
>without notice and may result in termination of Membership privileges.
>Appropriate legal action will be taken for any illegal or unauthorized use of  the
>MySpace Services.
>
>Forbidden thing 11 is:
>
>displaying an advertisement on your profile, or accepting payment or
>anything of value from a third person in exchange for your performing any  commercial
>activity on or through the MySpace Services on behalf of that person,  such
>as placing commercial content on your profile, posting blogs or bulletins  with
>a commercial purpose, selecting a profile with a commercial purpose as one
>of your "Top 8" friends, or sending private messages with a commercial
>purpose;
>
>As I said, I sincerely doubt most (any) Myspace members have read the  Terms
>of Service, I can assure you that they are far more substantial  than our own
>Terms of Service. Personally, I hope that the Board rectifies  this.
>
>
While it may be a good idea for Wikipedia to have terms of use, I don't
think the fact that Myspace has any particular terms of use ought to be
our guide.  Myspace has the above terms for a very specific reason:
Their business model is based around selling advertising on the site.
Therefore they must maintain a monopoly on advertising on their site.
If advertisers could bypass Myspace itself and buy ads directly froms
users, who would then place them on their profiles, that would undercut
Myspace's business model.  So they prohibit that, of course.

Being a nonprofit charity, we have quite different goals, which insofar
as they overlap is mostly accidental...

-Mark


subject: [Foundation-l] Mywikipediaspace


from_name: Phil Sandifer

body:
On Oct 1, 2006, at 1:22 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
>

> As far as not biting the newbies, well, of course I agree.  A kind and
> loving template which says "Thanks so much for your submission to
> Wikipedia, but it was deleted.  Before submitting again, please read
> <this>, <that>, and <the other> policy, and if you have questions,
> please raise them at <an appropriate page>."

This would work great if <this>, <that>, and <the other> weren't
cruft-ridden hacks of process, and if the regulars at <an appropriate
page> weren't excessively prone to misreading the aforementioned
<this>, <that>, and <the other> as didactic laws that must be obeyed
at all cost.

As long as that is the case, we're in the unfortunate position where
it's entirely likely the god-given common sense a user comes to the
project with is going to do them more good than our policy pages. Or,
rather, we're in the unfortunate case of trying to have policy pages
replace that common sense. As long as that's the case, they're not
really even worth citing.

-Phil


subject: [WikiEN-l] GFDL link spam

body:
On 10/1/06, Bogdan Giusca <liste at dapyx.com> wrote:
> I noticed that there's a user who is making minor changes, then adds a
> template which links his website, claiming that the article uses
> content from his website:

I just read this on IRC, then saw this message. I've already sent
Angela an e-mail about it. My suggestion is that the user shouldn't do
this for his own work, but only for significant changes contributed by
others on his wiki. Otherwise we have too much of a loophole for
spamming Wikipedia with links to external sites.

--
Peace & Love,
Erik

Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Porchesia

body:
Richard Holton wrote:
> On 10/1/06, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
>> David Mestel wrote:
>>> a Google search gives no relevant hits.
>> <gbathr cynagrq svezyl va purrx>
>>
>> There are *lots* of google hits.  The island, existent or not,
>> is clearly a significant Internet meme.  As such, Wikipedia
>> needs to have an article on it, documenting the origin and
>> spread of the meme, and accurately listing the relevant
>> fictitious parameters which the island would have if it did
>> exist.  Danny should not have summarily deleted the article --
>> an orderly process of wikimprovement could have recast the
>> article into the proper form without the present gap, during
>> which readers who encounter the meme and turn to Wikipedia for
>> enlightenment will come up empty-handed.  The article should
>> be restored as soon as possible.
>
>
> Well, if you exclude wikipedia-based content, there are under a dozen unique
> google hits, most of which seem to refer to some Italian porno movie.
>
> If this is a "significant internet meme" it is so only because it's been on
> Wikipedia for 10 months.
>
>

You failed to ROT-13 the HTML tags:

<tongue planted firmly in cheek>

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061002/310a5d51/attachment.pgp