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

body:
--- Geoffrey Thomas <geoffreyerffoeg at yahoo.com> wrote:

> I see so far three (ok, 2.5) reasons to implement filters: 1) to
> protect the Wikipedia from a site-wide censor, 2) to protect those
> who shouldn't see some content (this point is debatable), and 3) to
> protect those who don't want to see some content. I realize now that
> the first reason cannot be effectively implemented without impeding
> the Wikipedia's larger goals. The second, apparently, is loaded with
> too much POV (though I still don't see why we have to ''not'' censor
> content because some people might censor ''too much''...). The third
> I still believe should be implementable.

I wonder if there is anybody in group 3 at all. Most people find
Wikipedia through some search engine, click around a bit, and maybe add
it to their bookmark list. Suppose they come across an article they
consider objectionable. Do you really think they would then
investigate, find in some FAQ that registered users can block
categories, create a user account, learn about the categories, block
the proper ones, remember to log in each time they want to use
Wikipedia -- all only so that they won't accidentally come across an
article that they could have simply ignored?

Furthermore, after going through all this trouble, their original
search engine will still present links to all Wikipedia articles,
ignoring the category blocks.

Axel

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Axel Boldt

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

body:
--- Daniel Ehrenberg <littledanehren at yahoo.com> wrote:

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

Do you envision your edupedia to be a read-only medium, or are students
allowed to edit articles? In the latter case, some GLBT support group
at some highschool may very well decide to reinsert some of the, uh,
detail, you don't like.

Axel

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


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

body:
--- Daniel Ehrenberg <littledanehren at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I was thinking that people would edit the category on
> Wikipedia (they could manually choose their blocking
> settings, protected by a seperate password for
> parents)  and edupedia would have the categories all
> blocked by default (unless the categories included
> unobjectionable material) with no changing of this
> with accounts.

I didn't understand the separate-password-for-parents remark.
No matter what category blocks the parents set on their or their kids'
accounts, kids can of course still access all Wikipedia content by
simply not logging in.

Axel

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Stallman on fair use

body:
Lee Pilich wrote:
> Can somebody please explain to me why we, the editors of Wikipedia,
> should be bothered about any context other than Wikipedia? I want to
> make the WIkipedia as good as it can be, and if that involves using
> fair use materials, then so be it. If somebody who makes a
> derivitive work from the Wikipedia can't use our fair use materials
> as fair use because, say, they're charging $50 for whatever product
> they've created, then I couldn't care less.

Because we care about freedom in the sense of GNU, that's why.

--Jimbo


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Wikitech-l] layout and stylesheet

body:
Nick-
> Are you referring to this:
> http://twoevils.org/files/wiki/Rabbit-minimal.html

> I still like it a lot, but I think it is more geared towards the average
> editor, and not the average reader.  Still, I'd love to see it on the
> Wikipedia site.  :)

I do like it, but

* the navigation bar is already fairly long. It misses important links
like watch, move, upload and will get even longer when sysop links
(delete, protect) are added. With lots of interlanguage links at the
bottom, you will go beyond one screen size even on high resolutions, which
means (I think) that the always-on-top no longer works because it isn't
scrollable.
* there's no logo - no identification whatsoever. As you say, that's good
for editors, but not good as a standard.
* it's highly CSS-dependent and will not work well in non-CSS browsers.

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Wikitech-l] layout and stylesheet

body:
If you like minimal, try my "Tech" skin at http://test.wikipedia.org

Still "in the works", though, and depends on CSS and JavaScript.

Magnus

Erik Moeller wrote:
> Nick-
>
>>Are you referring to this:
>>http://twoevils.org/files/wiki/Rabbit-minimal.html
>
>
>>I still like it a lot, but I think it is more geared towards the average
>>editor, and not the average reader.  Still, I'd love to see it on the
>>Wikipedia site.  :)
>
>
> I do like it, but
>
> * the navigation bar is already fairly long. It misses important links
> like watch, move, upload and will get even longer when sysop links
> (delete, protect) are added. With lots of interlanguage links at the
> bottom, you will go beyond one screen size even on high resolutions, which
> means (I think) that the always-on-top no longer works because it isn't
> scrollable.
> * there's no logo - no identification whatsoever. As you say, that's good
> for editors, but not good as a standard.
> * it's highly CSS-dependent and will not work well in non-CSS browsers.
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: Stevertigo

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Stallman on fair use

body:
> Because we care about freedom in the sense of GNU, that's why.
>
> --Jimbo

Its good to read that due deference to GNU, and his prophet Larry still
resonates.

-WLBUY,

-S


from_name: Zoe

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

body:
--- Geoffrey Thomas <geoffreyerffoeg at yahoo.com> wrote:
>But even though we _may_ mention religion,
> do we _need_ to?

Yes.  This is an encyclopedia which covers all ascepts
of human knowledge.

> I'm thinking on the lines of a
> science-and-math-topics 'pedia -
> religious articles, despite their legality, wouldn't
> be relevant.

But that isn't what Wikipedia is.  If it turned into a
science-and-math-topics encyclopedia, I'd have to
leave, because not only are those topics I have very
little knowledge in, but also very little interest.
And why are we even discussing this, it isn't going to
happen.

> And if the teacher or school board nukes the whole
> thing? I'm thinking
> based on the axiom _someone's_ going to censor the
> Wikipedia. We have
> the ability to do it ourselves - filter the main
> site, fork to a filter,
> fork a filtered version, etc. The schools don't have
> as much control
> over censoring as we do, and they'll no doubt choose
> false positives
> (even if there are false negatives they haven't
> found yet).

Censorship is not our purpose.  Let the yahoos do
their own censoring and just let us write.

Zoe

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


from_name: Graham Burnett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Thanks

body:
Thanks for the support everyone re my sysop request! Too sunny for computers
at the moment, I'm off to sit in the garden with an ice cold lager!

Graham (Quercus robur)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Sysop request Extended

body:
> The main reason I'd like to be a sysop is so I can help clean up
> vandalism without having to go to the IRC, or going through the
> painstaking process of contacting
> an admin. IF you say I've only been here for a month, I'll say, "Check
> my contributions, and show me anything you don't like". If you say I'm
> not fit, why?

Because you lack experience in the ways of the force.   Your eagerness, my
young padwan, will lead to the dark side.   Once you travel down the path to
the darkside, forever will it dominate your density.

-S


subject: [Wikitech-l] Category system wishlist

body:
When all is said and done, I would like a picture like
  http://ontology.teknowledge.com:8080/rsigma/sumo-1.36classes.pdf
and when I click on a category, I'm sent to a category page which lists
the immediate superclasses and subclasses (editable), gives an editable
description of the category, gives a link to the recent changes in that
category (including all changes in its subcategories), a link that
allows searching in the articles of that category and its
subcategories, and a link to a complete alphabetical list of all
Wikipedia articles belonging to that category and its subcategories.

(I'm not suggesting that we adopt SUMO http://ontology.teknowledge.com/
because these people live in a world where fungi are plants and where
real numbers, imaginary numbers and complex numbers are disjoint.)

Axel

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Stallman on fair use

body:
--- Lee Pilich <pilich at btopenworld.com> wrote:

> I still think getting rid of all instances of fair use is a bad idea,
> though.

I don't think anybody has argued for that.

> I don't see how we can practically allow some kinds of fair use
> but not others

Maybe we can. How about if we give up our current distinction between
images and text and require a single confirmation whenever people
upload material to Wikipedia:

  By uploading material to Wikipedia, you certify that either
     * the material is in the public domain, or
     * the copyright owner of the material releases it under GFDL, or
     * the material can be used under the [[fair use]] doctrine and
       such fair use will likely extend to all third party users of
       Wikipedia

(maybe even with three checkboxes.)

I would think that short quotes, downsampled album titles, grainy TV
frames of Hussein etc. then all still qualify.

As rms points out, fair use materials can indeed be modified (thereby
even strengthening the fair use case), so the materials described above
don't seem to pose a problem GFDL-wise.

Axel

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Russian Wiki Sandbox

body:
--- "Ilya N." <ilyanep at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Can a sysop please move the russian wiki sandbox
> from the name:
>
> Wiki Sandbox
>
> to
>
> RuWikipedia:Sandbox (Or something like that)
>
> Also, I noticed many int'l pages aren't
> [[Wikipedia:Blah Blah]] they're
> just [[Blah Blah]]
>
> so maybe these pages should be converted to
> RuWikipedia or PolWikipedia
> or NedWikipedia FrWikipedia, etc.
>
>
> Am I posting this on the right list?

I think Ilya, that you should wait until you know more
of the basics before asking to be sysop. One step at a
time. First know the people, where to ask things
depending on topics (the pump, the tech list, the main
list, the en list), where to find things by yourself,
discover how things are usually handled...

only then, you can see where you want to help.
And you can finally ask again and receive a positive
answer I think.

As for your above question, I am sorry, but I do not
really understand what you mean

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


from_name: Ilya N.

subject: [WikiEN-l] Sysop request Extended

body:
The main reason I'd like to be a sysop is so I can help clean up
vandalism without having to go to the IRC, or going through the
painstaking process of contacting
an admin. IF you say I've only been here for a month, I'll say, "Check
my contributions, and show me anything you don't like". If you say I'm
not fit, why?


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Stallman on fair use

body:
Lee Pilich wrote:
> I still think getting rid of all instances of fair use is a bad
> idea, though. In not being allowed to quote from modern books,
> interviews, speeches, articles, films... well, anything, we'd be
> imposing a limit which, presumably, other encyclopaedias don't have
> to deal with. And I don't see how we can practically allow some
> kinds of fair use but not others (I might be wrong on that one,
> though - I might be wrong on everything).

Well, I agree with you, at least to a point.  I think it would be
an absurd conclusion that we can't quote from any copyrighted work.
Here's the example article that I showed to Lessig and Stallman:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howl

That's an article about Allen Ginsburg's famous poem _Howl_.

On the other hand, I'm also absolutely not comfortable with some of
the images that we currently have on the server, even though I think
it is fairly clear that *we* can use them under fair use.

Others, I'm uncomfortable with because it isn't clear to me that
*we* can use them, see for example:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britney_Spears

That's a nice sketch, and if it was done by some Wikipedian who
released it GNU FDL, I'm excited to know it.  But if it was hoisted
from a website somewhere, it's pretty clear that it's inappropriate
for us to use it under "fair use".  (Part of the trouble is that fair
use is a difficult and vague doctrine, of course.)

This page explains little:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BrithneySpears.jpg

"Used in Plish edition"

I think that means "Polish" edition, because the image also appears
there:
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britney_Spears

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Stallman on fair use

body:
Axel Boldt wrote:
>      * the material can be used under the [[fair use]] doctrine and
>        such fair use will likely extend to all third party users of
>        Wikipedia

Well, certainly I think that's the right approach to take.  We want to
use stuff that we can use.  We want our stuff to be reusable by others
pretty easily.  And we should flag anything for which questions are
likely to arise, so that third parties (or ourselves, in the future)
can figure out what everything is.

The central questions, to my mind, are: (1) where should we draw the
line, and how can we make it easy for contributors to understand, and
(2) what disclaimers do we need on the download page so that people
can easily grasp that what is GNU FDL is our own content, and that the
database does contain fair use materials, appropriately flagged when
possible, so that they can puzzle over fair use for *their* use.

The complication here arises from the fact that fair use depends on
the use, not on the image or quote itself.

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Stallman on fair use

body:
--- Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:
> Jimmy-
> > Axel Boldt wrote:
> >>  * the material can be used under the [[fair use]] doctrine and
> >>    such fair use will likely extend to all third party users of
> >>    Wikipedia
>
> > Well, certainly I think that's the right approach to take.
>
> I don't think we should exclude fair use material that could not be
> used in a copy of Wikipedia that is sold for profit. I think we
should
> flag it, but I see no reason to exclude it.

The reason is that we want to produce a freely distributable and
modifiable encyclopedia.

Axel

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


from_name: Daniel Ehrenberg

body:
--- cprompt <cprompt at tmbg.org> wrote:
> Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
>
> >But we don't want a fork. In a  firk, we'd have to
> >rewrite (or copy) the whole encyclopedia. We don't
> >want to do that. We want to stay here. We just want
> to
> >make it *optional* to filter out objectionable
> >content.
> >-LittleDan
> >
> The problem you are mentioning is that school
> administrators will want
> to ban Wikipedia on the grounds that students may
> look up material they
> find objectionable. The problem is, the
> responsibility still lies on the
> user to refrain from viewing it! As an optional
> system, users could
> easily opt out of filtering, making this is a very
> ineffective solution.
> Whereas, a fork would be very useful. Since we are
> working with open
> content, anything on the Wikipedia can be used on
> the Edupedia. The
> Edupedia could also have a different way of handling
> user submissions
> (perhaps requiring a peer to OK an edit).
> Administrators can ban the
> Wikipedia.org site knowing that Edupedia tries their
> hardest to remain
> appropriate for educational institutions. And
> article forks can happen
> and will be useful. (You had mentioned you felt a
> fork of
> [[homosexuality]] would be more appropriate for
> school.)
>
> A fork will make a site that is "appropriate" for
> schools. A filtering
> system will introduce several problems. Someone
> posted that Jimbo would
> support a project like this.
>
> The high school I attended would probably have
> blocked Wikipedia on the
> grounds that it was a "Chat/Message Board" site.
> Whether or not a logged
> in user can see a photo of a clitoris would not
> help.
>
>
> --
>
> --cprompt

I think I was unclear. The filtering is optional on
Wikipedia, but manditory on edupedia. Edupedia also
has some forked articles accessable from both
wikipedia and edupedia. Also, edupedia might not have
editing capablities (and therefore talk pages), but I
think that would be unfortunate. Actually, I was once
kicked off a school computer when editing wikipedia.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Sysop request Extended

body:
--- "Ilya N." <ilyanep at yahoo.com> wrote:
> The main reason I'd like to be a sysop is so I can
> help clean up
> vandalism without having to go to the IRC, or going
> through the
> painstaking process of contacting
> an admin. IF you say I've only been here for a
> month, I'll say, "Check
> my contributions, and show me anything you don't
> like". If you say I'm
> not fit, why?

I agree with your sysophood. I became a sysop after
about a month of contributing (so I could edit the
main page, mostly), and I was eventually admitted. I
think that should set a precedent that, if your
contrabutions are good enough, a month should be
enough time to be considered experienced enough to be
a sysop. Unless, of course, a significant number of
you were subconsciousely trying not to be
reverse-agist aganst me. Perhaps that quiz that I was
given should be given to Ilya.
-LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


body:
--- Axel Boldt <axelboldt at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Daniel Ehrenberg <littledanehren at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > I was thinking that people would edit the category
> on
> > Wikipedia (they could manually choose their
> blocking
> > settings, protected by a seperate password for
> > parents)  and edupedia would have the categories
> all
> > blocked by default (unless the categories included
> > unobjectionable material) with no changing of this
> > with accounts.
>
> I didn't understand the
> separate-password-for-parents remark.
> No matter what category blocks the parents set on
> their or their kids'
> accounts, kids can of course still access all
> Wikipedia content by
> simply not logging in.
>
> Axel

Yeah, I guess that wouldn't make sense. Sorry.
-LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


from_name: Lee Pilich

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Stallman on fair use

body:
At 09:50 15/06/2003 -0700, Axel wrote:
>Regarding RMS's statement that fair use materials do not pose a problem
>in GFDL works, it would be good to know if he was aware or made aware
>of the fact that what counts as fair use for one user in one context
>may not count as fair use for some other use in some other context.

Can somebody please explain to me why we, the editors of Wikipedia, should
be bothered about any context other than Wikipedia? I want to make the
WIkipedia as good as it can be, and if that involves using fair use
materials, then so be it. If somebody who makes a derivitive work from the
Wikipedia can't use our fair use materials as fair use because, say,
they're charging $50 for whatever product they've created, then I couldn't
care less.

I'm probably misunderstanding something.

Lee (Camembert)


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

body:
--- Axel Boldt <axelboldt at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Daniel Ehrenberg <littledanehren at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I agree, it would be a good idea to fork some
> > articles. For example, articles such as
> > [[homosexuality]] should be written about, but not
> > with as much, uh, detail.
>
> Do you envision your edupedia to be a read-only
> medium, or are students
> allowed to edit articles? In the latter case, some
> GLBT support group
> at some highschool may very well decide to reinsert
> some of the, uh,
> detail, you don't like.
>
> Axel

Well, if they wanted to add to it that way, their
changes would (or should) be quickly reversed and they
should be directed to Wikipedia and the edupedia
policy page. Or, it could be uneditable without
permission or acess to Wikipedia (editing would be on
wikipedia for this).
-LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


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

body:
--- Axel Boldt <axelboldt at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Geoffrey Thomas <geoffreyerffoeg at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I see so far three (ok, 2.5) reasons to implement
> filters: 1) to
> > protect the Wikipedia from a site-wide censor, 2)
> to protect those
> > who shouldn't see some content (this point is
> debatable), and 3) to
> > protect those who don't want to see some content.
> I realize now that
> > the first reason cannot be effectively implemented
> without impeding
> > the Wikipedia's larger goals. The second,
> apparently, is loaded with
> > too much POV (though I still don't see why we have
> to ''not'' censor
> > content because some people might censor ''too
> much''...). The third
> > I still believe should be implementable.
>
> I wonder if there is anybody in group 3 at all. Most
> people find
> Wikipedia through some search engine, click around a
> bit, and maybe add
> it to their bookmark list. Suppose they come across
> an article they
> consider objectionable. Do you really think they
> would then
> investigate, find in some FAQ that registered users
> can block
> categories, create a user account, learn about the
> categories, block
> the proper ones, remember to log in each time they
> want to use
> Wikipedia -- all only so that they won't
> accidentally come across an
> article that they could have simply ignored?
>
> Furthermore, after going through all this trouble,
> their original
> search engine will still present links to all
> Wikipedia articles,
> ignoring the category blocks.
>
> Axel

For that reason, edupedia would make more sense than
having filtering within Wikipedia, although filtering
within Wikipedia should still be available for testing
purposes. Edupedia would be aimed less at end users
and more at schools and parents (using filtering
software).
--LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


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

body:
--- Dante Alighieri <dalighieri at digitalgrapefruit.com>
wrote:
> At 08:22 PM 6/14/2003, you wrote:
> >--- Dante Alighieri
> <dalighieri at digitalgrapefruit.com>
> >
> > > I also think that any attempt to block the
> Wikipedia
> > > (on the part of local
> > > schools, for example) would only serve to help
> the
> > > project as the negative
> > > publicity that would likely be generated would
> > > probably force the school to
> > > unblock Wikipedia and garner us a good deal of
> free
> > > press in the process.
> > >
> > > -----
> > > Dante Alighieri
> >
> >Well, how much is that publicity worth? Is it worth
> >Wikipedia's being banned for a few years?
> >--LDan
>
> Well, I was thinking a few days or weeks. Surely you
> can hold off on
> editing articles for that long. ;)
>
> -----
> Dante Alighieri

You have to realise how slow these processes are in
schools. It can take weeks or even months just to get
on the adgenda for a school board, letalone getting
the motion passed and the software changed at the
software company and it updated at the school.
--LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


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

body:
--- Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
> | --- Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
> |>The only force observed to regularly get school
> boards to change what
> |>passes for their minds is public ridicule.  I
> would be /delighted/ if a
> |>school board censored the Wikipedia, and the more
> false positives we can
> |>mock them for, the better.
> |>
> |
> | You can't think in that frame of mind. If
> Wikipedia
> | were banned in school, than many kids (at least
> two,
> | we know that for sure) will loose a valuable
> source of
> | information in the short term.
> | -LDan
>
> I am genuinely sorry that you might be
> inconvenienced, Li'l Dan, but I
> can and do think in that frame of mind.  Quite a few
> kids have managed
> to graduate from various sorts of educational
> establishments without the
> benefit of Wikipedia.  If a few more have to
> struggle along for a few
> years only being able to access it from home, I
> consider it a trivial
> price to pay for improving the system over the long
> term.
>
> To give you context: I have a five-year-old who is
> entering formal
> school this fall.  Her future is my frame of mind.
> If the current
> victims of the government schools must continue to
> do without something
> they have never had before for a little while longer
> to give her a
> better future, I -- quite selfishly -- say "so be
> it."
> ~ Sean Barrett

I still don't really see what point it would prove.
Say the National Christian Coalition (or whatever it's
called) archived a Wikipedia page and pointed a bunch
of people to it, saying that we claim it's an
encyclopedia article (they like to do stuff like
that). That page contains what some would call
pornography. Sure, the actual page might have since
changed, but now all of the schools and blocking
software companies want to ban it. What do we do? No
matter how much we said "it's an encyclopedia", they'd
still point us to that archived page and say "no it's
not, it's pornography". Or maybe they don't even
archive it. Many people would be against the removal
of content because it still has some degree of
information in it (probably a lot).
--LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


from_name: Menchi Zh-En WP

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Ban: Why Doesn't it Work?

body:
I have wondered why is it that profilically obsessive vandals, like M and L,
can return again, again, and again, and so on for a dozen time or something
like that with split personalities (sometimes with inverted sex...). Some
admin gave up, some persisted. And the vandals repeatedly defaced some
admins' page personally.

For those vandals, are they still given a certain amount of time in hope of
their possible reforms?  If not, how come their split personalities are
still so prolific and continue for at least a while before they stop
(presumably banned, for then)?

If their IP is banned. Don't they have to switch to another computer?

Menchi Zh-En

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail


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

body:
 What do we do? No
> matter how much we said "it's an encyclopedia", they'd
> still point us to that archived page and say "no it's
> not, it's pornography". Or maybe they don't even
> archive it. Many people would be against the removal
> of content because it still has some degree of
> information in it (probably a lot).
> --LDan

Are you suggesting that we be fearful of some controversy that *may happen,
YoungDan?  Is this how you think the WP should operate - under the fear of
some kind of repercussion?

-SM


from_name: cprompt

body:
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:

>But we don't want a fork. In a  firk, we'd have to
>rewrite (or copy) the whole encyclopedia. We don't
>want to do that. We want to stay here. We just want to
>make it *optional* to filter out objectionable
>content.
>-LittleDan
>
The problem you are mentioning is that school administrators will want
to ban Wikipedia on the grounds that students may look up material they
find objectionable. The problem is, the responsibility still lies on the
user to refrain from viewing it! As an optional system, users could
easily opt out of filtering, making this is a very ineffective solution.
Whereas, a fork would be very useful. Since we are working with open
content, anything on the Wikipedia can be used on the Edupedia. The
Edupedia could also have a different way of handling user submissions
(perhaps requiring a peer to OK an edit). Administrators can ban the
Wikipedia.org site knowing that Edupedia tries their hardest to remain
appropriate for educational institutions. And article forks can happen
and will be useful. (You had mentioned you felt a fork of
[[homosexuality]] would be more appropriate for school.)

A fork will make a site that is "appropriate" for schools. A filtering
system will introduce several problems. Someone posted that Jimbo would
support a project like this.

The high school I attended would probably have blocked Wikipedia on the
grounds that it was a "Chat/Message Board" site. Whether or not a logged
in user can see a photo of a clitoris would not help.

--

--cprompt


from_name: Tomasz Wegrzanowski

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Stallman on fair use

body:
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 06:20:53PM +0100, Lee Pilich wrote:
> At 09:50 15/06/2003 -0700, Axel wrote:
> >Regarding RMS's statement that fair use materials do not pose a problem
> >in GFDL works, it would be good to know if he was aware or made aware
> >of the fact that what counts as fair use for one user in one context
> >may not count as fair use for some other use in some other context.
>
> I'm probably misunderstanding something.

Yes

> Can somebody please explain to me why we, the editors of Wikipedia, should
> be bothered about any context other than Wikipedia? I want to make the
> WIkipedia as good as it can be, and if that involves using fair use
> materials, then so be it. If somebody who makes a derivitive work from the
> Wikipedia can't use our fair use materials as fair use because, say,
> they're charging $50 for whatever product they've created, then I couldn't
> care less.

That's a difference between having one www page of beer-free stuff (not much
different from online version of closed encyclopedias) and something that
allows creating wide range of speech-free content - textbooks, specialist
encyclopedias, science popularization books etc.


from_name: Marco Krohn

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Stallman on fair use

body:
On Sunday 15 June 2003 19:20, Lee Pilich wrote:

> Can somebody please explain to me why we, the editors of Wikipedia, should
> be bothered about any context other than Wikipedia? I want to make the
> WIkipedia as good as it can be, and if that involves using fair use
> materials, then so be it. If somebody who makes a derivitive work from the
> Wikipedia can't use our fair use materials as fair use because, say,
> they're charging $50 for whatever product they've created, then I couldn't
> care less.

there have been quite some open source / free software projects which had
small license issues in the past which turned out to larger problem after
some time. For instance, I have followed the Qt / KDE / GPL license battle on
the mailing lists and I can assure you it was not fun seeing this discussion
coming up over and over again (with all implications, KDE was not allowed
being a part of Debian for a long time etc.)

The GFDL was written by lawyers. If we don't pay attention and start "mixing"
this license with "fair use" then we _might_ run into problems in the future.
So we should be very careful now rather than when it is too late.

I still think that GFDL and "fair use" is incompatible. RMS answers seem to
_me_ a bit inconsistent. On the one hand he says that a combination of FU and
GFDL is no problem on the other:

me:
"Yes, both parts of the article (image, text) come from the wikipedia server.
The text is GFDLed, the image is not."

RMS:
"Such combination would violate the GFDL."

Jimbo was so kind asking the question to RMS more precisely and also cc'ed the
email to Lawrence Lessig (Standford Professor for law). So let's wait a bit
for their judgement.

best regards,
  Marco


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Stallman on fair use

body:
At 19:57 15/06/2003 +0200, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
> > Can somebody please explain to me why we, the editors of Wikipedia, should
> > be bothered about any context other than Wikipedia? I want to make the
> > WIkipedia as good as it can be, and if that involves using fair use
> > materials, then so be it. If somebody who makes a derivitive work from the
> > Wikipedia can't use our fair use materials as fair use because, say,
> > they're charging $50 for whatever product they've created, then I couldn't
> > care less.
>
>That's a difference between having one www page of beer-free stuff (not much
>different from online version of closed encyclopedias) and something that
>allows creating wide range of speech-free content - textbooks, specialist
>encyclopedias, science popularization books etc.

If people want to derive works in which a certain instance of fair use
wouldn't apply, they can just remove the content included under fair use,
can't they?

Here's what worries me: completely disallowing all fair use materials in
the Wikipedia, would mean, for example, that an in-depth discussion of some
modern novel would be virtually impossible, because we'd not be allowed to
quote from it. Similarly, an article on a modern piece of music couldn't
include illustrative sound samples or bits of music notation. Or am I mistaken?

But OK, I've enough on with copyright discussion on various other lists - I
hereby withdraw from the discussion almost as soon as I entered it.

Lee (Camembert)


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Sysop request Extended

body:
Stevertigo wrote:

>
>>The main reason I'd like to be a sysop is so I can help clean up
>>vandalism without having to go to the IRC, or going through the
>>painstaking process of contacting
>>an admin. IF you say I've only been here for a month, I'll say, "Check
>>my contributions, and show me anything you don't like". If you say I'm
>>not fit, why?
>>
>
>Because you lack experience in the ways of the force.   Your eagerness, my
>young padwan, will lead to the dark side.   Once you travel down the path to
>the darkside, forever will it dominate your density.
>
"Density"??? :-D


subject: [WikiEN-l] Sysop request Extended

body:
> >Because you lack experience in the ways of the force.   Your eagerness,
my
> >young padwan, will lead to the dark side.   Once you travel down the path
to
> >the darkside, forever will it dominate your density.
> >
> "Density"??? :-D

Sometimes. :)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Stallman on fair use

body:
At 12:10 15/06/2003 -0700, Jimbo wrote:
>Lee Pilich wrote:
> > Can somebody please explain to me why we, the editors of Wikipedia,
> > should be bothered about any context other than Wikipedia? I want to
> > make the WIkipedia as good as it can be, and if that involves using
> > fair use materials, then so be it. If somebody who makes a
> > derivitive work from the Wikipedia can't use our fair use materials
> > as fair use because, say, they're charging $50 for whatever product
> > they've created, then I couldn't care less.
>
>Because we care about freedom in the sense of GNU, that's why.

OK, I worded my email too strongly and mentioning money was a mistake - I
know that's not the real issue. I was in a bad mood, it was too hot, my
monitor was buzzing, I deserved all the "free beer" cliches people could
throw at me, I shouldn't have sent the email.

I still think getting rid of all instances of fair use is a bad idea,
though. In not being allowed to quote from modern books, interviews,
speeches, articles,  films... well, anything, we'd be imposing a limit
which, presumably, other encyclopaedias don't have to deal with. And I
don't see how we can practically allow some kinds of fair use but not
others (I might be wrong on that one, though - I might be wrong on everything).

Lee (Camembert)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Ban: Why doesn't it work?

body:
/||"/

/I have wondered why is it that profilically obsessive vandals, like M and L,
can return again, again, and again, and so on for a dozen time or something
like that with split personalities (sometimes with inverted sex...). Some
admin gave up, some persisted. And the vandals repeatedly defaced some
admins' page personally.

For those vandals, are they still given a certain amount of time in hope of
their possible reforms?  If not, how come their split personalities are
still so prolific and continue for at least a while before they stop
(presumably banned, for then)?

If their IP is banned. Don't they have to switch to another computer?

Menchi Zh-En"
/

Some people have Dynamic (always changing) IP's


subject: [WikiEN-l] Sysop request Extended

body:
Ilya-
> The main reason I'd like to be a sysop is so I can help clean up
> vandalism without having to go to the IRC, or going through the
> painstaking process of contacting
> an admin. IF you say I've only been here for a month, I'll say, "Check
> my contributions, and show me anything you don't like". If you say I'm
> not fit, why?

I support your sysop request. You can't do anything that we can't undo if
necessary, even as a sysop.

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [WikiEN-l] DW back as Joe Canuck

body:
>So if Joe is indeed the latest DW incarnation, given that
>he is a multiple banned user given to legal threats, how
>should we act? Michael is an arrogant crude kid. DW is a
>far more threatening type of individual who  tries to intimidate
>wikipedians with threats of court cases. He like Michael is also
>multiple banned. How should we respond to his latest visitation?
>
>JT

Even if he is not DW then he needs to be sternly warned not to violate
Wikiquette and that to be considered "fair" a basic requirement is that the
image's source needs to be given.

I had my suspicions too when I saw he was editing the Year in Sports pages in
the same very odd way DW was under a previous incarnation. Just look at the
horrible mess at http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_in_sports - which isn't
at all similar in format to any other year page type. This is classic DW -
completely ignoring established presentation conventions.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


from_name: Lars Aronsson

subject: [Wikitech-l] Category system wishlist

body:
Axel Boldt wrote:
> When all is said and done, I would like a picture like
>   http://ontology.teknowledge.com:8080/rsigma/sumo-1.36classes.pdf
> and when I click on a category, I'm sent to a category page which lists
> the immediate superclasses and subclasses (editable), gives an editable
> description of the category, gives a link to the recent changes in that
> category (including all changes in its subcategories), a link that
> allows searching in the articles of that category and its
> subcategories, and a link to a complete alphabetical list of all
> Wikipedia articles belonging to that category and its subcategories.

Every wiki page is potentially a category and wiki links could be
sorted into "is-a" (from instance pages to category pages), or
"superclass" or "subclass" links (between category pages).  If you
introduce typing in the wiki link syntax, a program could find all the
superclass-subclass links and draw the diagram or use the link tree
as the basis for your recent changes listing.  For example, the link
from [[Dolphin]] to [[Mammal]] would be a superclass link, which could
be written: "A '''dolphin''' is a [[superclass:mammal]]".

Now, I don't suggest we introduce this sort of link typing, because I
think that would only lead to a bigger problem rather than providing a
solution.  What about the link between Edison and the phonograph,
should there be an "inventor_of" (and "invented_by") link type?  Did
Guglielmo Marconi really invent radio, or do we need plain English to
describe the vagueness that most consider him to be the "father of
radio"?  My personal opinion is that any attempt at a hard encoding of
knowledge is in fact inferior to plain language and untyped links.

(The discussion that led to the current, deliberately vague wording of
[[Guglielmo Marconi]] took place before June 2001, and is summarized
on [[talk:Guglielmo Marconi]].)

--
  Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se/


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Stallman on fair use

body:
Jimmy-
> On the other hand, I'm also absolutely not comfortable with some of
> the images that we currently have on the server, even though I think
> it is fairly clear that *we* can use them under fair use.

Please cite examples.

Regards,

Erik


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Stallman on fair use

body:
Jimmy-
> Axel Boldt wrote:
>>      * the material can be used under the [[fair use]] doctrine and
>>        such fair use will likely extend to all third party users of
>>        Wikipedia

> Well, certainly I think that's the right approach to take.

I don't think we should exclude fair use material that could not be used
in a copy of Wikipedia that is sold for profit. I think we should flag it,
but I see no reason to exclude it.

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Thomas Corell

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Stallman on fair use

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
> The complication here arises from the fact that fair use depends on
> the use, not on the image or quote itself.

I'm personally quite happy with the voting on the german wikipedia, which
results in not using e.g. 'fair use'-images. It is complicated to seperate
them currently, but fair use is e.g. not existing in german law. Citations
are ok, of course.

I'm not very good at laws, but the german law about it, seems pretty good
to me: citations are ok, if they are not the main part, and the writer
refer to this citation. Pictures and other things are 'big citations' and
usually not 'fair use'.

Which means: I can use citations, which is needed in Wikipedia, and I
should have a free picture, sound, etc. if I want to include it. In the
result everything can be published free, and that's what I think fits with
the 'free' in "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia."

Don't know if this fits in GFDL or US law, but it's easy to understand.

--
Smurf

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


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Stallman on fair use

body:
Axel-

> -+- Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:
>> Jimmy-
>>> Axel Boldt wrote:
>>>>  * the material can be used under the [[fair use]] doctrine and
>>>>    such fair use will likely extend to all third party users of
>>>>    Wikipedia
>>
>>> Well, certainly I think that's the right approach to take.
>>
>> I don't think we should exclude fair use material that could not be
>> used in a copy of Wikipedia that is sold for profit. I think we
> should
>> flag it, but I see no reason to exclude it.

> The reason is that we want to produce a freely distributable and
> modifiable encyclopedia.

Exactly. *Freely* distributable and modifiable. ;-)

Regards,

Erik


from_name: james duffy

subject: [WikiEN-l] DW back as Joe Canuck

body:
Wikipedians may not like to hear this but there is a growing suspicion that
the multiple-banned DW is back, this time calling himself Joe Canuck.

-------------------------------
The following message was left on Camembert's talk page by 'Joe'. (Below it
is Cam's reply, explaining the question he had asked!)

I should not reply to your bigoted comment about Canadians, it only
encourages people like you. We do not all drink beer and drive our
snownmobiles while drunk. Your smart-ass remarks making fun of Canadians is
out of place here, but it certainly speaks volumes for your intellect,
whoever or whatever you are. Joe Canuck 17:08 15 Jun 2003 (UTC) (And very
proud of it)

What in the name of somebody's god are you on about? I never said anything
about Canadians. I asked if you were DW. --Camembert (by the way, I'm a
piece of cheese)

'Joe' removed Camembert's question from his talk page with the summary -
(removing abuse )

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

Martin (MyRedDice) posed the following question to 'Joe'.

Hi again. I suggest that if you want to discuss images, copyright, and the
DMCA, then you try wikipedia talk:image use policy/copyright. In the
meantime, please cite the sources of your photos, as is good encyclopedic
style. Martin 18:12 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

'Joe' did not reply, just deleted the question from his talk page with the
summary: (removing smart ass remarks and question already answered)

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

When Oliver Pereira asked 'Joe' a question regarding uploaded images he was
responsible for, he received the following threats and diatribe. (I
considered editing it but I think it is better read in full)

Thank you for your note on copyright images, but I don't understand your
concern or your authority?  The images I uploaded, contained no copyright
declaration. Note however, that I followed the exact requirements to enable
me to place a photo into Wikipedia that are built into the software to
protect Wikipedia from liability copyright infringement in accordance with
the DMCA. I note there are hundreds and hundreds of others who did not add
the extra voluntary note when uploading photos, so why did you not question
each of them but have chosen to question mine? That is in fact an act of
discrimination, an act which can have real legal ramifications for
Wikipedia, not photo copyright violations for which Wikipedia has absolutely
no liability of any kind. Discriminate against me or anyone and you place
this open site in jeopardy. I suggest you start looking through the hundreds
of other photos placed here prior to mine before you choose to discriminate
against me.  Second, as you seem to be unaware of certain parts of the law,
but I recognize that being a lawyer is not a requirement of uploading photos
to Wikipedia, images of public figures already on the internet etc. fall
under the fair use provisions unless identified with copyright and owner
source. Wikipedia wants photos, because they created the software to allow
it, and created the required tick box for legal protection and their
insurers. Photos add value to articles. No photo placed here by me had any
copyright claim of any nature. And, I am not required by law, nor is
Wikipedia by the DMCA, to check out if a photo not labeled as "copyright"
should be. That borders on the absurd. And, in all circumstances, FIA and
others, are very appreciative when an encyclopedia uses these photos in
quality biographies - it is called free advertising for them and promotes
their sport. Just, please do quality biographies from scratch like mine.
Margaret Smith Court - Maureen Connolly - with photos. Want more? Joe Canuck
14:47 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

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

Joe Canuck has been editing many of the same pages as DW and his past
minions. He has been similarly arrogant and rude, not to mention in true DW
style mentioning legal threats (ie, That is in fact an act of
discrimination, an act which can have real legal ramifications for
Wikipedia, not photo copyright violations for which Wikipedia has absolutely
no liability of any kind. Discriminate against me or anyone and you place
this open site in jeopardy.). Most puzzlingly of all, as a brand new user,
why did he react the way he did when Camembert asked whether he was DW. If
he /was/ a new user, he should not have known who DW was to start off with.

So if Joe is indeed the latest DW incarnation, given that he is a multiple
banned user given to legal threats, how should we act? Michael is an
arrogant crude kid. DW is a far more threatening type of individual who
tries to intimidate wikipedians with threats of court cases. He like Michael
is also multiple banned. How should we respond to his latest visitation?

JT

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail


from_name: Jimmy Wales

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

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

> I doubt that we could ever create a system that even comes close to
> preventing school kids from getting the Wikipedia content they want.
> At one point, a school administrator will find objectionable content in
> Wikipedia, will investigate the filtering option with the various
> categories, and will realize that kids can still get to the
> objectionable pages, e.g. by typing in the direct URL. Then our whole
> domain will be blocked.

Possibly, but it really depends on the software they are using.

Sometimes blocks are that crude, but more often, they are not.

--Jimbo


in_reply_to: <3EEA03F4.7090801@telus.net>; from saintonge@telus.net on Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 10:03:48AM -0700

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> not up to standards.  They never stop trying.  We can't hope to convince
> all school districts to not block us.  On the other hand, the gratuitous
> publicity always helps our cause.  We only have to insist that they
> spell the name correctly.

I am not at all sure that this sort of gratuitous publicity would help
our cause.  Remember that the people on the "other side" are not
stupid.  And it's pretty easy for an interested party to go through
wikipedia and find content that would be shocking to the majority of
parents in most suburban school districts.

Erik argued the other day that if anyone tries to filter wikipedia,
they will just look stupid, and that our power can do a lot to
discredit the idea of filtering.  That argument gave me pause.

But here's the counterargument -- if Wikipedia has no protection at
all for some things that the majority of people would find, not just
mildly offensive, but shocking, *for children*, then we become the
perfect poster-child for the pro-filtering crowd.

They can put forward the argument: "Yes, it would be wonderful if we
lived in the kind of world where filtering the Internet for schools is
unnecessary.  But here's a good example: a site that appears to be
innocent and harmless but which actually has graphic and explicit
depictions of highly unusual sex practices.  We even found one photo
of female genetalia that was lifted directly from a porn site."

And many people will quite reasonably buy that argument.  It's
actually a very good argument *for* filtering in schools, for anyone
other than a bunch of radical information libertarians such as many of
us here.

None of the above determines what we should do, of course, but I think
it does add some perspective to the debate.

> Yup!  And the greater the fuss by the administrator, the more the kids
> will be encouraged to hack their way to the site.  Nevertheless, many
> won't even bother with the school computers when they have more
> sophisticated equipment at home.

That's of course true.

--Jimbo


in_reply_to: <20030612224918.73846.qmail@web41804.mail.yahoo.com>; from littledanehren@yahoo.com on Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 03:49:18PM -0700

body:
Toby:
> > Keeping in mind that many of "us"
> > will want to work on a Sifter/Edupedia project.
> > -- Toby

Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
> Also that the programming would probably be much
> harder if a seperate database and web interface had to
> be created for approval.

Agreed.  I see no reason why we should wait for "someone else" to
work on these issues, particularly since a content categorization
scheme can take us a long way in the right direction.

--Jimbo


in_reply_to: <20030612220539.GB2662@math-rs-n01.ucr.edu>; from toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu on Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 03:05:39PM -0700

body:
Toby Bartels wrote:
> If "explicit sexual content" is a single *category*,
> then why not just label it "explicit sexual content"
> and label the *other* categories *different* things?
> Why bring them all under "mature content"?

O.k., fine, this is a minor point.  It doesn't really matter.

--Jimbo


in_reply_to: <3EEA0979.4030905@telus.net>; from saintonge@telus.net on Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 10:27:21AM -0700

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> I prefer individual article labelling with the capacity for an article
> to have more than one label.  The labels themselves would be just as
> editable as the articles, and just as subject to edit wars.  I can live
> without the security of hard wired labels.  Once labels were adopted,
> there should be no need for a mass movement to label everything
> immediately.  The default label "unlabelled" could likely be implemented
> by the software, as a searchable label.  Those inclined to do housework
> could go ahead and apply labels when they felt so inspired.

I agree with all of this.  We could, in fact, add some content
categorization scheme now, without having it actually do anything on
our site right now.  This would be article metadata that we, or
someone else, might find useful in the future, either for edupedia or
wikipedia with an option search filter or whatever.

--Jimbo


in_reply_to: <20030613195055.46226.qmail@web41802.mail.yahoo.com>; from littledanehren@yahoo.com on Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 12:50:55PM -0700

body:
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
> I think a built-in category system would be very
> useful for other purposes, too. But I still think that
> we would benefit from having a seperate domain where
> certain things were by-default blocked.

I'm starting to come around to this conclusion, too.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Stallman on fair use

in_reply_to: <8nxsz7ahpVB@erik_moeller>; from erik_moeller@gmx.de on Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 01:45:00AM +0200

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> Jimmy-
> > On the other hand, I'm also absolutely not comfortable with some of
> > the images that we currently have on the server, even though I think
> > it is fairly clear that *we* can use them under fair use.
>
> Please cite examples.

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

There's no clue as to where that image came from, but it seems
unlikely that it's use is appropriate under fair use, except *perhaps*
for us, under an aggressive interpretation of fair use.

Certainly, if someone wanted to take our content and use it as a
foundation for a highly commercialized celebrity database, or let's
say a "50 greatest actors" magazine special, they'd not be able to use
this photo.

It has no attribution of any kind, we have no idea where it came from,
we have no idea what justification we might or might not have for
using it.  It is a clip from a movie?  Is it a publicity still that
was circulated freely by the studio?  Is it a famous artwork by a
litigious photographer of repute?

We just don't know, and that makes me uncomfortable.

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Stallman on fair use

in_reply_to: <8nxszGVCpVB@erik_moeller>; from erik_moeller@gmx.de on Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 01:47:00AM +0200

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> I don't think we should exclude fair use material that could not be
> used in a copy of Wikipedia that is sold for profit. I think we
> should flag it, but I see no reason to exclude it.

Well, we absolutely should flag it, that's for sure.  At what point we
might want to exclude things, well, that's a different question, and a
rather difficult one.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Sysop Request Extended

body:
--- "Ilya N." <ilyanep at yahoo.com> wrote:
> /I agree with your sysophood. I became a sysop after
> about a month of contributing (so I could edit the
> main page, mostly), and I was eventually admitted. I
> think that should set a precedent that, if your
> contrabutions are good enough, a month should be
> enough time to be considered experienced enough to
> be
> a sysop. Unless, of course, a significant number of
> you were subconsciousely trying not to be
> reverse-agist aganst me. Perhaps that quiz that I
> was
> given should be given to Ilya.
> -LDan
>
>
> What quiz? and what do you mean by "// I
> think that should set a precedent that, if your
> contrabutions are good enough, a month should be
> enough time to be considered experienced enough to
> be
> a sysop."?/

I was given a quiz of the basic concepts on Wikipedia,
and I passed. Perhaps you should also take it.

I became a sysop after a month of good contrabutions,
so you should be able to too.
--LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


body:
--- Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> wrote:
> Agreed.  I see no reason why we should wait for
> "someone else" to
> work on these issues, particularly since a content
> categorization
> scheme can take us a long way in the right
> direction.
>
> --Jimbo

...to acceptance only. Although I agree with
categorising things for some censorship, it will only
lead to greater acceptance, not a better encyclopedia.
We have to keep that in mind while doing this.
-LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


from_name: sgilbert at nbnet.nb.ca

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Ban: Why Doesn't It Work?

body:
> I have wondered why is it that profilically obsessive vandals, like M and L,
> can return again, again, and again...
<snip>

They return because they have become emotionally invested in Wikipedia.
This is an inverse of the attachment that happens to our regulars; it
is destructive rather than constructive. Wikipedia has a history of
making persistant troublemakers into "super-villians" with infamous
reputations.

> For those vandals, are they still given a certain amount of time in hope of
> their possible reforms?

No, those people have used up any grace they've been extended.
The problem is that IP bans do not work on anyone with a strong
attachment to Wikipedia and a tiny amount of technical knowledge.

Stephen G.
-------
Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia
http://www.wikipedia.org


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Sysop Request Extended

body:
/I agree with your sysophood. I became a sysop after
about a month of contributing (so I could edit the
main page, mostly), and I was eventually admitted. I
think that should set a precedent that, if your
contrabutions are good enough, a month should be
enough time to be considered experienced enough to be
a sysop. Unless, of course, a significant number of
you were subconsciousely trying not to be
reverse-agist aganst me. Perhaps that quiz that I was
given should be given to Ilya.
-LDan

What quiz? and what do you mean by "// I
think that should set a precedent that, if your
contrabutions are good enough, a month should be
enough time to be considered experienced enough to be
a sysop."?/


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Stallman on fair use

body:
Lee Pilich wrote:
>...
>This is perhaps a little off-topic, but is there a
>quick and easy explanation of why the Wikipedia
>is released under the GFDL and not into the public
>domain? Somebody asked me the other day, and I
>realised that I didn't actually know.

So that Britannica, Encarta or another proprietary encyclopedia doesn't
cannibalize the project by incorporating our material and not making their
modifications available under a free license. That would break the chain of
positive feedback that has gotten us so far.

Who would read or continue to contribute to Wikipedia if a proprietary version
was always snatching up the best parts? I wouldn't - what would be the point?
Any time we do something better than a proprietary encyclopedia all they have
to do is copy what we did. Then there is a proprietary fork. Forks are bad
and proprietary ones are really bad because they tend to tear appart the
non-proprietary communities. We would never be able to rise above the
proprietary crowd in quality and contributors will drift away. We would never
be able to beat Britannica because we would be assimilated into Britannica,
piece by piece.

Short answer: The GNU FDL encourages people to share and discourages people to
be selfish.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re:Sysop Request Extended

body:
 >From the wikipedians by arrival page

/In other words, we Wikipedians abhor the idea that the amount of time
spent working on this website is any sort of indication of how well one
can write an encyclopedia article. Indeed, we distinguish ourselves by
our ability to write good articles, which is what /really/ matters. We
ought to do our best to underemphasize seniority, which can be used,
often illegitimately, as a way of deciding who to accord how much respect./


from_name: tarquin

subject: [Wikitech-l] layout and stylesheet

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

>
>I do like it, but
>
>* the navigation bar is already fairly long. It misses important links
>like watch, move, upload and will get even longer when sysop links
>(delete, protect) are added.
>
but the average reader doesn't need or want those links! and placed at
the top of the screen they confuse.

>With lots of interlanguage links at the
>bottom, you will go beyond one screen size even on high resolutions, which
>means (I think) that the always-on-top no longer works because it isn't
>scrollable.
>
yes, we will probably have to drop the "fixed" sidebar in this skin

>* there's no logo - no identification whatsoever. As you say, that's good
>for editors, but not good as a standard.
>
easily fixed! (I particularly like the sunflower logo proposed in
another thread)

>* it's highly CSS-dependent and will not work well in non-CSS browsers.
>
>
>
you mean things like Lynx? How do other sites handle this problem?

I'm open to suggestions. But we really need to rethink our design. I
know that all of us here on this list are used to the current page
layout, so we see right through its problems.
But think like a luser for a moment: there is nothing that guides the
eye. The are straggly blocks of links that come at you from all sides.
I showed the site to the library staff and their eyes just glazed over
with that "too much scary text" look people get. We are talking about
people who panic at the sight of a Microsoft Word dialog box here. This
is (sadly) the average net user.

Remember who we've said before that we need to attract editors from
other backgrounds, such as literature, history, art -- people who are
probably not tech-wise? This is a hurdle we need to lower.


subject: [WikiEN-l] DW back as Joe Canuck

body:
--- james duffy <jtdirl at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Wikipedians may not like to hear this but there is a
> growing suspicion that
> the multiple-banned DW is back, this time calling
> himself Joe Canuck.
>
> -------------------------------
> The following message was left on Camembert's talk
> page by 'Joe'. (Below it
> is Cam's reply, explaining the question he had
> asked!)
>
> I should not reply to your bigoted comment about
> Canadians, it only
> encourages people like you. We do not all drink beer
> and drive our
> snownmobiles while drunk. Your smart-ass remarks
> making fun of Canadians is
> out of place here, but it certainly speaks volumes
> for your intellect,
> whoever or whatever you are. Joe Canuck 17:08 15 Jun
> 2003 (UTC) (And very
> proud of it)
>
> What in the name of somebody's god are you on about?
> I never said anything
> about Canadians. I asked if you were DW. --Camembert
> (by the way, I'm a
> piece of cheese)
>
> 'Joe' removed Camembert's question from his talk
> page with the summary -
> (removing abuse )
>
> -------------------------------
>
> Martin (MyRedDice) posed the following question to
> 'Joe'.
>
> Hi again. I suggest that if you want to discuss
> images, copyright, and the
> DMCA, then you try wikipedia talk:image use
> policy/copyright. In the
> meantime, please cite the sources of your photos, as
> is good encyclopedic
> style. Martin 18:12 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
>
> 'Joe' did not reply, just deleted the question from
> his talk page with the
> summary: (removing smart ass remarks and question
> already answered)
>
> --------------------------------
>
> When Oliver Pereira asked 'Joe' a question regarding
> uploaded images he was
> responsible for, he received the following threats
> and diatribe. (I
> considered editing it but I think it is better read
> in full)
>
> Thank you for your note on copyright images, but I
> don't understand your
> concern or your authority?  The images I uploaded,
> contained no copyright
> declaration. Note however, that I followed the exact
> requirements to enable
> me to place a photo into Wikipedia that are built
> into the software to
> protect Wikipedia from liability copyright
> infringement in accordance with
> the DMCA. I note there are hundreds and hundreds of
> others who did not add
> the extra voluntary note when uploading photos, so
> why did you not question
> each of them but have chosen to question mine? That
> is in fact an act of
> discrimination, an act which can have real legal
> ramifications for
> Wikipedia, not photo copyright violations for which
> Wikipedia has absolutely
> no liability of any kind. Discriminate against me or
> anyone and you place
> this open site in jeopardy. I suggest you start
> looking through the hundreds
> of other photos placed here prior to mine before you
> choose to discriminate
> against me.  Second, as you seem to be unaware of
> certain parts of the law,
> but I recognize that being a lawyer is not a
> requirement of uploading photos
> to Wikipedia, images of public figures already on
> the internet etc. fall
> under the fair use provisions unless identified with
> copyright and owner
> source. Wikipedia wants photos, because they created
> the software to allow
> it, and created the required tick box for legal
> protection and their
> insurers. Photos add value to articles. No photo
> placed here by me had any
> copyright claim of any nature. And, I am not
> required by law, nor is
> Wikipedia by the DMCA, to check out if a photo not
> labeled as "copyright"
> should be. That borders on the absurd. And, in all
> circumstances, FIA and
> others, are very appreciative when an encyclopedia
> uses these photos in
> quality biographies - it is called free advertising
> for them and promotes
> their sport. Just, please do quality biographies
> from scratch like mine.
> Margaret Smith Court - Maureen Connolly - with
> photos. Want more? Joe Canuck
> 14:47 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
>
> -------------------------
>
> Joe Canuck has been editing many of the same pages
> as DW and his past
> minions. He has been similarly arrogant and rude,
> not to mention in true DW
> style mentioning legal threats (ie, That is in fact
> an act of
> discrimination, an act which can have real legal
> ramifications for
> Wikipedia, not photo copyright violations for which
> Wikipedia has absolutely
> no liability of any kind. Discriminate against me or
> anyone and you place
> this open site in jeopardy.). Most puzzlingly of
> all, as a brand new user,
> why did he react the way he did when Camembert asked
> whether he was DW. If
> he /was/ a new user, he should not have known who DW
> was to start off with.
>
> So if Joe is indeed the latest DW incarnation, given
> that he is a multiple
> banned user given to legal threats, how should we
> act? Michael is an
> arrogant crude kid. DW is a far more threatening
> type of individual who
> tries to intimidate wikipedians with threats of
> court cases. He like Michael
> is also multiple banned. How should we respond to
> his latest visitation?
>
> JT

Yes, he probably is DW.

I have a soft spot for DW. Aside from the fact that he
gives empty threats of legal action, he's a great
contributer. He's also somewhat nice when not accused
of something. One time he complimented my knowledge of
Jackquard looms after I made a minor NPOV edit
(terrible article there right now). I think, for him,
we should use the soft-security removal of pictures
from his articles, and besides that, ignore him.

But I guess we shouldn't be inconsistant. I don't
really know what we should do. I'll go talk to him.
-LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Admins: Revert and query tips ?

body:
--- Thomas Corell <T.Corell at t-online.de> wrote:
> Anthere wrote:
> Sorry I missed that. This should help you:
>
> select cur_title from cur where cur_namespace=4
> order by cur_title

Yes. Perfect. Thank you

> > Please, I also would like a query giving me the
> name
> > of users, who have made at least n articles (say
> 200)
> > and been there for at least m months (say 3).
>
> That's usually not possible, because simple sysops
> don't have the right to
> read these values (user_touched), thats a matter of
> data security and privacy.

Ah ? If you say so.
But...I don't get it really.
What I asked is basically
* when the user made his/her first edit
* the number of edits done

These two informations are retrievable from the
user:contributions. I can't figure why you say these
infos are private, since absolutely available to
anyone ?!?

That is just as for most queries made available to us.
Done on some infos public to anyone. But retrievable
in a few seconds instead of hours.
I can't see what is private here...

> Which articles do you mean with "have made at least
> n articles"? New ones,
> edited ones?

I want to find a way to detect those who have been
here quite a while, have edited quite a lot, as these
are likely to know and understand the wiki process. If
these have no history of being difficult editors or
potentially difficult sysops, it might be interesting
to ask them if they want to be sysops.

I think that was part of what Brion was proposing at
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_details_special_page

No ?

> > Thank you very much for your help smurf (isnot
> that
> > the translation of schtroumpf ?)
>
> Whatever "schtroumpf " means *puzzle*. It's the
> english translation of the
> german word "Schlumpf" and here is an example
> picture:
>
>
http://www.weltderkobolde.de/PapaschlumpfmitBuch.html
> (Wikipedia compatible
> version of me ;)

Right. That is exactly what I thought. This is a
schtroumpf.

A schtroumpf is not a puzzle (should not be a puzzle),
it is the name given by Peyo to his little blue guys
:-)

Like here
http://www.bdland.com/cgi-bin/collectaff.cgi?caC=26

Peyo was a belgium man I believe

Thanks anyway

Anthere

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


in_reply_to: <8nxtCHGhpVB@erik_moeller>; from erik_moeller@gmx.de on Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 08:32:00PM +0200

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> I can see it now: "THINK OF THE CHILDREN! WE NEED FILTERS TO HIDE
> WIKIPEDIA, THE FREE ENCYCLOPEDIA, FROM THEM!"
>
> Oh yeah. That sounds reaaaally dangerous. Parents will run in terror
> when they hear our name. Just think - our frontpage even features
> Martha Stewart. And monkeypox.

But my point is, no one is going to say that, because it sounds just
as stupid as you hope it does.  These people aren't that stupid, not
usually.  And certainly ordinary people who have to make tough
decisions are usually pretty thoughtful.

> What *is* the argument here? That all 130,000 articles of Wikipedia
> have to be blocked because there are a dozen that describe "highly
> unusual sex practices"? Do you really think that is convincing?

No, that is *not* the argument, not even close.

The argument is "We need filtering software installed in the schools
because even a superb site such as Wikipedia, which should be
available to children, contains explicit sexual content about obscure
sexual practices.  It would be nice if such sites took a responsible
approach to things, but they don't, and so we have to do it."

I think that's a very reasonable argument on behalf of filtering
software, *even if I don't agree with it*.  It's not that the argument
is correct, it's that it isn't the screaming THINK OF THE CHILDREN
lunacy that you'd have us imagine.

My point here is not about access to the schools, but is rather a
simple response to your (insightful!) invitation to think about how
our actions might impact the wider debates on school filtering.  If we
act irresponsibly and ideologically on this point, then we undermine
the case against filters by showing that even something as potentially
useful as wikipedia may need to be filtered.

--Jimbo


from_name: Stevertigo

body:
> What *is* the argument here? That all 130,000 articles of Wikipedia have
> to be blocked because there are a dozen that describe "highly unusual sex
> practices"? Do you really think that is convincing?

> But if we are just complacent, if we just blindly accept the so-called
> power of these pressure groups, then *we* contribute to giving them that
> power. We are among those who shut up and not among those who speak up. If
> you are such a radical, Jimbo, why are you so eager to give them what they
> want?
>
> Have you ever actually shown your mother Wikipedia? I think she would like
> it. Mine certainly did.

As did mine! Erik is completely right on. Furthermore - mechanical
protections we institute now - in the name of fighting .....  will no doubt
( if implemented without a due degree of forethought - hence why were
here ) - will have unforseen consequences - some of them influencing the way
the WP works and maintains its interest to "radical libertarians." Dont fix
it if it aint broke.

P.S. I was thinking of submitting an article to Kuro5hin about this debate -
because its interesting - it raises important questions - and WP is among
the shining stars born of the open techno-ethic. Im about 80 percent done. I
wanted to submit the idea here first. Any objections?

- Steven Vertigo


in_reply_to: <8nxtEHrhpVB@erik_moeller>; from erik_moeller@gmx.de on Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 09:13:00PM +0200

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> Once again, do what? Filter Wikipedia entirely? Do you really think
> they can get away with that? And if they just want to filter the
> respective pages, what do we care?

You raised the argument that by having content that they'd like to
filter, but by being the sort of site that it would be embarassing to
filter, we make things more difficult for those who would want to
filter.

After a lot of thought, I don't think that's right.  If Wikipedia
contains content that should be filtered, then the proponents of
filtering can use us as an example of why filters are a Good Thing.

That's why we care, right?  We don't want to be used as an example of
why filters are a Good Thing.

Therefore, it seems to me, it's important that we act responsibly.

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re:Sysop Request Extended

body:
--- "Ilya N." <ilyanep at yahoo.com> wrote:
>  >From the wikipedians by arrival page
>
> /In other words, we Wikipedians abhor the idea that
> the amount of time
> spent working on this website is any sort of
> indication of how well one
> can write an encyclopedia article. Indeed, we
> distinguish ourselves by
> our ability to write good articles, which is what
> /really/ matters. We
> ought to do our best to underemphasize seniority,
> which can be used,
> often illegitimately, as a way of deciding who to
> accord how much respect./

Very true and important to remind Ilya. I like your
style :-)

However, this text is about value of a contributor as
an editor, not as a sysop.
Some people are very valuable as editors, but would be
horrible sysops. Some people are good at being sysops,
but hardly worth as editors (no, I won't give names.
pov opinion :-)).
Some are great as both.
It takes many many little bits to make a good world.

Now, what was the pb about redirects ? I still have
not understood your questions about international
links and sandboxes. I would like to help.

Note that discussion about sysophood should be on that
proper page on the english wiki. Redirection probably
at the en.pump. International links question on the
international mailing list. Russian sandbox on the
russian list or russian wiki. Or perhaps on the main
list if it is a wikiwide issue.
And perhaps discussion about the text above on the
english list since it is en.wiki specific.

Quite simple in the end :-)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


from_name: The Cunctator

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Do we need a new logo contest?

body:
On Sat, 2003-06-14 at 01:21, Erik Moeller wrote:

> 4) It cites one specific philosopher and one specific quote, establishing
> that particular point of view quite securely. While Wikipedia itself is
> mostly neutral, the logo is clearly not. And just to make clear that its
> text is far from uncontroversial, the Hobbes quote states that "man is
> distinguished, not only by his reason, but also by this singular passion
> [curiosity] from other animals". This is a highly anthropocentric view
> with the classical animal/human distinction that is increasingly eroded by
> our understanding of other highly intelligent and curious animals such as
> chimpanzees, bonobos, whales and dolphins. Of course, that is not to say
> that a more modern view should be taken; in fact, none should be taken at
> all.

Though I of course think that the logo is pretty damn great, I don't
have any objection to a better one being created. But I do want to
respond to the mischaracterization above--Moeller misrepresented the
quotation with his ellision and use of "[curiosity]".

The quotation actually says:

"this singular passion from other animals, which is a lust in the mind,
that by a perseverence of delight in the continual and indefatigable
generation of knowledge..."

In other words, it's not curiosity, its knowledge generation.
Chimpanzees, bonobos, whales and dolphins may be highly intelligent and
curious, but they aren't exactly well known for their propensity to
build up troves of literature, music, and scientific research.

Maybe dolphins do have remarkable oral histories by which young dolphins
learn the stories of the elders, the physics of the oceanic currents,
the biochemistry of sulfur vents, but there isn't any evidence for that.

So I would say that Erik's claim that the quotation is of a
controversial nature because of its mistaken anthropocentricism is
without merit.


in_reply_to: <8nxtFzohpVB@erik_moeller>; from erik_moeller@gmx.de on Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 09:57:00PM +0200

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> I still don't follow your argument. Do you, or do you not think that
> the proponents of filtering could plausibly argue that all of
> Wikipedia, all 130,000 articles, need to be filtered in libraries
> because we have some articles about "highly unusual sex practices"?

No, I don't think that.  I do think that our refusal to handle this
issue responsibly does mean that proponents of filtering will
plausibly argue that we are a prime example of why filtering software
is necessary and valuable in schools.

> If the proponents of filtering manage to come up with a filtering
> solution that only filters the articles they find so offensive,
> something which I doubt given the nature of Wikipedia, then all the
> better for them -- less work for us. And if they don't, we can say
> that they 1) ask us to do the impossible (a lot of purely technical
> objections against filtering have already been raised) 2) violate
> the First Amendment by hiding 129,500 perfectly valid articles from
> pupils because of 500 ones which they consider objectionable.

This completely ignores the most probable outcome.  First, they can't
come up with filtering software that does a good job, so our site gets
filtered according to some very crude keyword tools.  Second, that
they are able to convincingly argue that this is the best that they
can do, particularly since even sites that purport to be educational
are so irresponsible and unhelpful.

My essential point is that our refusal to have standards is not a
valid tool in the fight against censorship.  Rather it plays directly
into the hands of those who argue that censorship is necessary.

--Jimbo


from_name: Dante Alighieri

references:
<8nxtFzohpVB@erik_moeller>
 <20030616123401.M15621@joey.bomis.com>
 <8nxtFzohpVB@erik_moeller>

body:
At 01:05 PM 6/16/2003, you wrote:
>Erik Moeller wrote:
> > I still don't follow your argument. Do you, or do you not think that
> > the proponents of filtering could plausibly argue that all of
> > Wikipedia, all 130,000 articles, need to be filtered in libraries
> > because we have some articles about "highly unusual sex practices"?
>
>No, I don't think that.  I do think that our refusal to handle this
>issue responsibly does mean that proponents of filtering will
>plausibly argue that we are a prime example of why filtering software
>is necessary and valuable in schools.
>
> > If the proponents of filtering manage to come up with a filtering
> > solution that only filters the articles they find so offensive,
> > something which I doubt given the nature of Wikipedia, then all the
> > better for them -- less work for us. And if they don't, we can say
> > that they 1) ask us to do the impossible (a lot of purely technical
> > objections against filtering have already been raised) 2) violate
> > the First Amendment by hiding 129,500 perfectly valid articles from
> > pupils because of 500 ones which they consider objectionable.
>
>This completely ignores the most probable outcome.  First, they can't
>come up with filtering software that does a good job, so our site gets
>filtered according to some very crude keyword tools.  Second, that
>they are able to convincingly argue that this is the best that they
>can do, particularly since even sites that purport to be educational
>are so irresponsible and unhelpful.
>
>My essential point is that our refusal to have standards is not a
>valid tool in the fight against censorship.  Rather it plays directly
>into the hands of those who argue that censorship is necessary.
>
>--Jimbo

Jimbo, I'm puzzled. Where is it written that Wikipedia contains content
that needs filtering? What are these mysterious standards that we refuse to
implement? Who, exactly, is it that should be choosing which content on our
site is "objectionable"... and objectionable to whom? How are we
irresponsible?

I am of the opinion that Wikipedia does NOT contain content that needs
filtering. Ideas are both MORE dangerous and LESS dangerous than most
people realize. Of course, the proponents of filtering universally want to
filter the less dangerous stuff and let the more dangerous stuff through.
(i.e., sexuality is not dangerous, but ideas like freedom/rationality/logic
ARE dangerous... at least to people who think sexuality IS dangerous....) I
am also of the opinion that we DO have standards, and that those standards
are good ones for an encyclopedia.... we try to ensure that our articles
are truthful, non-biased, and accurate. I am also of the opinion that those
people who don't like the site should not use it. I also think that those
people who are unwillingly blocked from using the site need to step up and
let their voices be heard; should peak to their parents, teachers,
government officials, clergymen.; tell them why Wikipedia is important and
how it shouldn't be blocked. Lastly, I find the assertion that we're being
somehow irresponsible, or refusing to handle the issue responsibly
insulting. Holding the view that censorship is unnecessary or undesirable
is not irresponsible.

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

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


from_name: Ilya N.

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Sysop Request Extended

body:
/I was given a quiz of the basic concepts on Wikipedia,
and I passed. Perhaps you should also take it.

I became a sysop after a month of good contrabutions,
so you should be able to too.
--LDan/

Well...What were the questions like? "How do you edit a page"?

I think I'd know a lot...

I don't know...

--Ilya


in_reply_to: <5.2.0.9.2.20030616132353.01197238@digitalgrapefruit.com>; from dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com on Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 01:31:40PM -0700

body:
Dante Alighieri wrote:
> Jimbo, I'm puzzled. Where is it written that Wikipedia contains content
> that needs filtering?

Right here, by me: "Wikipedia contains content that would be widely
regarded as thoroughly objectionable by reasonable people, and this is
a problem for the project."

> What are these mysterious standards that we refuse to implement?

Well, we aren't refusing anything yet.  We're having a vigorous
discussion about what to do.  :-)

> Who, exactly, is it that should be choosing which content on our
> site is "objectionable"... and objectionable to whom?

End users should be able to choose the view of our content that is
appropriate for their circumstances.

> How are we irresponsible?

We currently provide parents and children absolutely no tools by which
they might seek to provide age-appropriate views of our content.

> I am of the opinion that Wikipedia does NOT contain content that
> needs filtering. Ideas are both MORE dangerous and LESS dangerous
> than most people realize. Of course, the proponents of filtering
> universally want to filter the less dangerous stuff and let the more
> dangerous stuff through.  (i.e., sexuality is not dangerous, but
> ideas like freedom/rationality/logic ARE dangerous... at least to
> people who think sexuality IS dangerous....)

Believe me, I'm sympathetic to that viewpoint.  But it *is* a
viewpoint, a viewpoint which we should not let manifest itself in
ramming our own ideas down other people's throats.

Consider this -- if I let all my personal preferences rule what goes
into Wikipedia, it would be far different from what it is now.  I
couldn't be trusted to write articles on religion, for example,
because if it was "up to me" in the relevant sense, they would all end
up hostile to religion generally.

But we have a higher principle than that, the NPOV principle, and we
need to apply it carefully and conscientiously *even at the level of
policy*.  Which means: giving our editors the means to introduce NPOV
metadata, *even if we don't approve* of what some readers might do
with it.

> Lastly, I find the assertion that we're being somehow irresponsible,
> or refusing to handle the issue responsibly insulting. Holding the
> view that censorship is unnecessary or undesirable is not
> irresponsible.

"Censorship" is a complete red herring here.  I hold that censorship
is unnecessary and undesirable.  I do not advocate censorship or
anything resembling it.

At the same time, on my home television system, I have my cable box
programmed so that I don't surf across the shopping channels or the
religious channels.  I don't like those channels, and I don't want my
TiVo to waste disk space recording them.

Since there are only 300 or so channels to choose from, it wasn't hard
to customize my system for my own preferences.

Someone at TiVo might have argued thusly: "People should watch a
variety of shows, and not be such prudes, or such anti-capitalists, or
such anti-religionists.  They should keep all channels accessible at
all times.  So we must not build into the system any tools to allow
people to "filter".  If they want filters, they can build their own
device for doing it.  But we aren't going to help."

That'd be silly.  And it's just as silly for us to not flag content
with some meta-data, even if we think people are silly (and I don't)
for using it.

--Jimbo


from_name: Lee Pilich

subject: [WikiEN-l] DW back as Joe Canuck

body:
At 04:12 16/06/2003 +0100, JT wrote:
>So if Joe is indeed the latest DW incarnation, given that he is a multiple
>banned user given to legal threats, how should we act? Michael is an
>arrogant crude kid. DW is a far more threatening type of individual who
>tries to intimidate wikipedians with threats of court cases. He like
>Michael is also multiple banned. How should we respond to his latest
>visitation?

DW is different to Michael in one other respect: he adds quite useful
content. Sometimes he writes about something that he doesn't seem to quite
understand and makes silly omissions (not mentioning Stravinsky on [[Sergei
Diaghilev]], for example), but I think we all do that from time to time (I
know I do). His content is, on the whole, useful. It's just his monumental
arrogance and aggressive manner that's a problem.

What we should do about him, I honestly don't know, but I'm fairly content
to let him do his thing whilever he's not threatening people. I edited some
of his articles for style yesterday shortly after he made them, and he
didn't jump on me for meddling with his work as he has other users before,
so perhaps there's some improvement there (then again, maybe he merely
considered it beneath him to talk to me, seeing as I'd somehow insulted the
whole of Canada by asking who he was....)

Lee (camembert)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Stallman on fair use

body:
At 14:25 15/06/2003 -0700, Axel wrote:
>--- Lee Pilich <pilich at btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
> > I still think getting rid of all instances of fair use is a bad idea,
> > though.
>
>I don't think anybody has argued for that.

I suspected not, but it didn't seem clear - nobody (as far as I could tell)
had said exactly how a distinction was to be drawn between "acceptable" and
"unacceptable" fair use.

> > I don't see how we can practically allow some kinds of fair use
> > but not others
>
>Maybe we can. How about if we give up our current distinction between
>images and text and require a single confirmation whenever people
>upload material to Wikipedia:
>
>   By uploading material to Wikipedia, you certify that either
>      * the material is in the public domain, or
>      * the copyright owner of the material releases it under GFDL, or
>      * the material can be used under the [[fair use]] doctrine and
>        such fair use will likely extend to all third party users of
>        Wikipedia
>
>(maybe even with three checkboxes.)

That would work I guess. If we want to discourage the use of fair use
materials that might not be reusable (which seems a reasonable attitude),
then this seems a good way of going about it - certainly better than what
we have at present where the possibilty of fair use isn't mentioned at all
(unless I'm missing something).

The only thing is, of course, the meaning of "such fair use will likely
extend to all third party users of Wikipedia" is very much open to
interpretation (we don't know who these third party users will be, after
all), and probably won't mean very much to most users. Then again, I don't
suppose the GFDL means very much to most users, and a certain degree of
vagueness is probably unavoidable.

This is perhaps a little off-topic, but is there a quick and easy
explanation of why the Wikipedia is released under the GFDL and not into
the public domain? Somebody asked me the other day, and I realised that I
didn't actually know.

Apologies if I seemed a bit on the hysterical side earlier - I worry about
this sort of stuff.
Lee (Camembert)


from_name: Julie Kemp

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

body:
Hello all --

I sent this out a week ago, but have been having e-mail problems, so
don't know if it was received; nevertheless, I am still of the same
mind.  Moreover, having paid attention to the discussion on the subject
of filters, etc., I cannot say that anything has happened except to
convince me that anyone really gives a shit about the initial question.

The initial question/suggestion was to place a visible advisory that the
wikipedia contains information that some people might find
objectionable.  From there, there were many straw men raised about the
POV-ness of "objectionable".  Me, I agree that lots of stuff might be
objectionable (-- and so what?), but that there are certain (mostly)
sexually explicit articles that your average surfer might not expect to
find, and that even a fairly conscientious parent (or child, in Jimmy's
case) might miss when glancing over the site for age-appropriateness (or
even some kind of family-imposed moral or religious code -- unless KQ,
Erik, et al. mean to suggest that parents should not be allowed any say
in when they want their children intentionally exposed to certain
information -- religious, political, sexual, whatever, by religious,
atheist, or just plain
struggling-through-something-far-too-easy-to-screw-up-and-don't-need-inp
ut-from-strangers parents, that is).

The entire conversation has been not-very-subtly changed to be one over
filters and wikipedia-imposed censorship.  It's one that I consider to
be total bullshit, by the way -- well-calculated deviation that blurs
any dealing with any type of deeper social responsibility.  Some of you
have managed to prove that Thatcherism is not dead (you know, the nice
lady who said "there is no such thing as 'society'"?).  Nor is the
ridiculous world of Ayn Rand, where one can pretend that one's actions
have no wider consequences than those other people allow them to have.
How utterly depressing that so many people who consider it important to
write very good articles that raise awareness of the global
interconnections of scientific, political, and religious issues (among
others) refuse to accept that their own actions (or refusal to act)
might also have widespread effects.  How very sad that the very people
who consistently argue for NPOV try to use it as some kind of shield of
non-censorship, thus forcing their own POV on others.  Please don't say
you aren't -- there have been all too many "religion and prudery damage
kids, and they'd learn this stuff anyway, so it might as well be right"
arguments to deny it.  What is more NPOV than to say clearly on the main
page that the wikipedia respects the fact that people operate under many
different value systems, and that there may be information on the site
that could be objectionable?

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

And also -- DW is dangerous in any form.  I'm almost positive he was
also Triton, and Jacques Delson.  The time he takes from other people's
efforts is hardly worth any contributions.  HJ also made some very good
contributions.

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

JHK

-----Original Message-----
From: Julie Kemp [mailto:juleskemp at yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 12:50 PM
To: 'Jimmy Wales'
Subject: Advisories and saying goodbye

Hi Jimmy --

You know, I've been watching the discussion on the disclaimer on the
list and on the associated talk page, and I have to say, it really has
made up my mind on a lot of things.  Oddly enough, it also ties back
into the kind of problems I've had with Helga, Triton, et al.

I really believe that expertise is important.  I really believe that
NPOV doesn't mean giving equal weight to all points of view, if some of
those points of view are not well grounded in fact or accepted theory.
I really believe that NPOV is vital to the Wikipedia.  I really believe
that censorship is antithetical to the project.  BUT -- that doesn't
mean I don't think that we should use those principles to abdicate our
responsibilities to a larger society.  It's all good is a nice phrase,
but it isn't exactly true.  Some things aren't good.  And sometimes
giving things that aren't good more 'airtime' than they deserve helps to
inure people and even, I think, encourages a tacit acceptance that this
is all part of society.  From there, I think it's entirely possible that
people drawn to antisocial behavior will find reinforcement for their
behavior.  The acceptance may not be true, but perceptions are often
more important for society than reality.

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

Anyway, after lots of thought, I cannot in good conscience continue to
contribute.  When it was something I could point to as being a
relatively scholarly pursuit, there was at least a reason.  However,
without some kind of visible advisory of the kind you suggest on the
site, I do not see it as something to which I can point to with pride.
The individual articles that are very good do not make up for the
"Jimbo's mom" aspect.  Sometimes there is such a thing as too much
information, I guess.

Anyway, I would appreciate it if you could also "erase" me from the
site.  If you must leave things in, perhaps you could change me to a set
of unrelated initials, or a number.  Basically, though, I would prefer
that my association with the project just go away. Also, if my name is
no longer there to defend, I won't be tempted back into the fray.
Please feel free to post any of this to the list, or to anyone
interested.  I'll stay on the list for a week or so, and will of course
be in touch by e-mail.

Take care, Jimmy -- I've really enjoyed most of my time here, but I
can't stay somewhere I feel is spiritually and perhaps professionally
detrimental to me.  Thanks so much for the project, though --

Julie