from_name: Peter van Londen

subject:
[Foundation-l] Banning Fair Use (was Re: Foundation Licensing
	Policy)

body:
Hallo,

There is one very simple argument, nobody likes to hear but it is valid:

In principle all the content on whatever project must have the possibility
to be reproduced, used (non-commercially but also commercially) and to be
altered/changed. Free content licensed with GFDL or CC-BY-SA X.X do fit in
this picture.

The people reusing the content on wikimedia-site _can_ use Fair Use pictures
under the same conditions as certain wikimedia-projects do, but they
_cannot_ change the (copyrighted) fair-use pictures provided in the same
document for example, as they could with all texts and with pictures with
accepted licenses. (valid for countries which allow fair use)

Therefore fair use pictures do not fully comply with the conditions under
which the text is offered. It should be clear for the content-reusers that
fair-use pictures have to be handled differently as the text. Fair Use
pictures are not free content.

Kind regards
Londenp

2007/3/29, Robert Horning <robert_horning op netzero.net>:
>
> Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> > On 3/28/07, Robert Horning <robert_horning op netzero.net> wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> >> There are also several Wikibooks that discuss learning foreign
> >> languages, and I think it is very reasonable to use flags of the
> >> countries where those languages are spoken as elements in the cover
> >> images of those books.
> >>
> > [snip]
> >
> > I want to make sure I understand what you are saying, without getting
> > into the nitty-gritty of flag image licensing, or how someone could
> > match flags to languages in an NPOV manner, either of which could be
> > an epic conversation by itself...
> >
> > Are you saying that you think it is acceptable to compromise the
> > wholly free content status of a wikibook in order to incorporate
> > non-free decorations?
> >
> No.  I don't mean to go that far, and the number of exceptions can be
> kept very minimal.  Flags of various political jurisdictions are an
> exceptional and very narrowly focused type of image (assuming that you
> rendered the image of the flag yourself and are not talking about other
> copyright complications) and there are certainly restrictions as to when
> they can be used and how.  There certainly are reasons why these images
> may not be on Commons and require exceptions on an individual project.
>
> Again, if you are talking about if this should be allowed within the
> Wikibook community, that is something I can debate there.  I am giving
> the kinds of images that have been suggested as needing fair use, and
> what is currently permitted within Wikibooks... or at least what has
> been used by Wikibooks content developers.
>
> As far as jepordizing the free content status of the Wikibook, how is
> that again?  Fair use is fair use.  If you can use some content under
> fair use principles, then downstream users can also use that fair use
> content under the same principles.  Richard Stallman said as much on
> this very mailing list (though admittedly a few years ago).  You can
> have fair use content mixed with GFDL'd content.... but it must be used
> in context and other fair use restrictions.  The main issue is not
> jepordizing GFDL'd content but making situations where people in one
> country can't use that same content somewhere else.  However, there is
> content (like a swastika or a burning of the Koran) that simply would
> cause problems no matter where you go or what you do.  Or pictures of
> public nudity.
>
> This is not a simple cut and dried argument here, and has been pointed
> out, even banning fair use entirely does not kill all of the problems
> with trying to decide if an image is legal to use or not.  Obviously
> with flags it is very close to that border as to if copyright even
> applies on self-generated works.
>
> -- Robert Horning
>
>


list: wikimedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

body:
Hallo,

There is one very simple argument, nobody likes to hear but it is valid:

In principle all the content on whatever project must have the possibility
to be reproduced, used (non-commercially but also commercially) and to be
altered/changed. Free content licensed with GFDL or CC-BY-SA X.X do fit in
this picture.

The people reusing the content on wikimedia-site _can_ use Fair Use pictures
under the same conditions as certain wikimedia-projects do, but they
_cannot_ change the (copyrighted) fair-use pictures provided in the same
document for example, as they could with all texts and with pictures with
accepted licenses. (valid for countries which allow fair use)

Therefore fair use pictures do not fully comply with the conditions under
which the text is offered. It should be clear for the content-reusers that
fair-use pictures have to be handled differently as the text. Fair Use
pictures are not free content.

Kind regards
Londenp

2007/3/29, Robert Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net>:
>
> Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> > On 3/28/07, Robert Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> >> There are also several Wikibooks that discuss learning foreign
> >> languages, and I think it is very reasonable to use flags of the
> >> countries where those languages are spoken as elements in the cover
> >> images of those books.
> >>
> > [snip]
> >
> > I want to make sure I understand what you are saying, without getting
> > into the nitty-gritty of flag image licensing, or how someone could
> > match flags to languages in an NPOV manner, either of which could be
> > an epic conversation by itself...
> >
> > Are you saying that you think it is acceptable to compromise the
> > wholly free content status of a wikibook in order to incorporate
> > non-free decorations?
> >
> No.  I don't mean to go that far, and the number of exceptions can be
> kept very minimal.  Flags of various political jurisdictions are an
> exceptional and very narrowly focused type of image (assuming that you
> rendered the image of the flag yourself and are not talking about other
> copyright complications) and there are certainly restrictions as to when
> they can be used and how.  There certainly are reasons why these images
> may not be on Commons and require exceptions on an individual project.
>
> Again, if you are talking about if this should be allowed within the
> Wikibook community, that is something I can debate there.  I am giving
> the kinds of images that have been suggested as needing fair use, and
> what is currently permitted within Wikibooks... or at least what has
> been used by Wikibooks content developers.
>
> As far as jepordizing the free content status of the Wikibook, how is
> that again?  Fair use is fair use.  If you can use some content under
> fair use principles, then downstream users can also use that fair use
> content under the same principles.  Richard Stallman said as much on
> this very mailing list (though admittedly a few years ago).  You can
> have fair use content mixed with GFDL'd content.... but it must be used
> in context and other fair use restrictions.  The main issue is not
> jepordizing GFDL'd content but making situations where people in one
> country can't use that same content somewhere else.  However, there is
> content (like a swastika or a burning of the Koran) that simply would
> cause problems no matter where you go or what you do.  Or pictures of
> public nudity.
>
> This is not a simple cut and dried argument here, and has been pointed
> out, even banning fair use entirely does not kill all of the problems
> with trying to decide if an image is legal to use or not.  Obviously
> with flags it is very close to that border as to if copyright even
> applies on self-generated works.
>
> -- Robert Horning
>
>


list: wikien-l

from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] Bruce McMahan

body:
On 3/29/07, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mar 28, 2007, at 7:04 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
>
> > That article sucks royally.  More eyes, please.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_McMahan
> >
> > The major problem is that the "controversy" (which I have largely
> > removed now) is reported only in one local tabloid, with a single
> > reprint cited.  It does indeed look as if we are being used to promote
> > a vendetta.
>
> Erm... Alternative Press != tabloid. They don't = Washington Post
> either, but they're not completely dismissable. Broward Palm Beach
> News has video, for God's sake - this isn't the Enquirer.
>
> -Phil

True, but those quotes look anything but neutral. Are they really that
reliable.
It looks like they have an agenda.]

Mgm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Daniel Brandt & other banned users posting still

body:
On 3/29/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/29/07, Denny Colt <wikidenny at gmail.com> wrote:
> > My question: *if* there is concensus to allow banned users to post if
> "some
> > people feel like letting them", why not SAY that in the banning/blocking
> > policy? Because that seems to be... the practice.
>
> Quite clearly two unrelated policies are in conflict in this instance:
> 1) WP:AUTO says that you can't edit your own article; you should post
> complaints on the talk page instead.
> 2) WP:BAN says that banned editors can't edit anything, except
> possibly their own user talk page.
>
> No one ever thought of the situation where the subject of an article
> is a banned editor. Now that it's happened, the conflict has to be
> resolved by setting a priority to the above. Consensus in this thread
> appears to be that WP:AUTO overrules WP:BAN. Problem solved. Have a
> nice day and thank your mother for the rabbits.
>
> Steve

I don't see why a banned user would need to edit the wiki to complain. We
have multiple email addresses to which complaints can be addressed.
This way, the banning policy is upheld and the complaint is taken into
consideration. Both policies would be upheld without any conflict occuring
that would need us to put one policy over the other.

Mgm


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Brion Vibber

subject:
[Wikitech-l] GFDL-wikititle updated (resolves importDump.php
 failures with enwiki-20070206 XML Dumps)

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

Brion Vibber wrote:
>>> The problem appears to be related to titles which A) exceed
>>> 256 bytes in length
>
> The page_title field is limited to 255 bytes; you should probably check
> if your namespaces are set up properly. If they are not, the
> 'Wikipedia:' portion will be injected into the main title instead of
> being used in the namespace as designed.

(Of course it shouldn't be crashing anyway; it should just crop or
reject the title. I'll try and get that fixed.)

- -- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGC8ONwRnhpk1wk44RAkUdAKDD+OUXjRoX9d9nEdHT7itlwZJY0ACgpZoi
WdmdaSv5uLEufG7urKTSrT8=
=+Dp2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


list: foundation-l

from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Foundation-l] Foundation Licensing Policy

body:
Anthony wrote:

>On 3/27/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Anthony wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 3/27/07, Ed Sanders wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy_VII
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Only the images on that page which identify a specific part of the game
>>>>being discussed should be sued, as such they would also fall under
>>>>"identifying protected works".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>What about the copyrighted text which is used?
>>>
>>>
>>So where does fair use, in the most normal application of the term, end
>>and questionable fair use begin?
>>
>>
>Huh?  What does this have to do with fair use?
>
>I have no idea what the term "questionable fair use" means.
>
To clarify:  By ordinary fair use I mean all those quotations that few
of us ever worry about.  They are why such a law exists in the first
place.  "Questionable fair use" refers to all those claims founded on
the contributors convenience without any analysis resembling the legal
conditions for fair use.  Perhaps an analysis could support the fair use
claim, but we don't know that unless it's done.

Ec


from_name: Jeffrey V. Merkey

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:
>
>
>>The updated gfdl-wikititle program has been posted to:
>>
>>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gfdl-wikititle
>>
>>This program is released under the GNU GPL version 3.
>>
>>
>
>GNU GPL version 3 has not been released yet. Please don't use draft
>licenses.
>
>
GNU GPL 3 (even the draft) reverts to a GPL 2 license since the language
is "any past or fture version". GPL 2 is fine for now as well.
I have a problem with the GPL 2 language as written. I can release under
the generic term "GPL license" and I think that addresses it.
GPL 3 as worded is retroactive.

>
>
>>The problem appears to be related to titles which A) exceed
>>256 bytes in length
>>
>>
>
>The page_title field is limited to 255 bytes; you should probably check
>if your namespaces are set up properly. If they are not, the
>'Wikipedia:' portion will be injected into the main title instead of
>being used in the namespace as designed.
>
>
You should consider fixing the dump program to only output title names
which are less than 256 bytes. They are causing the dumps to not work.
I have not changed namespace settings from the default settings for
MediaWiki. When I got into this Brion, my whole premise was to use the
MediaWiki software "as is" and get the dumps and all of it working "plug
and play". I think I've achieved that goal now (though its a lot of
work and steps to actully replicate Wikipedia).

>- -- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org)
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
>Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
>iD8DBQFGC7z8wRnhpk1wk44RAlfbAKCW5BsiRKnT5mnISA4GK2vEVoCmZwCcDAcY
>tlKpvjJcr1tb+t9SQJwBcnk=
>=91B5
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>_______________________________________________
>Wikitech-l mailing list
>Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>
>


from_name: Erica

subject: [WikiEN-l] More concerns about wide scale article protection

body:
I believe there are 2 points to consider, one that's pretty easy to
fix, and another of a more philosophical matter:

1. The fact that there are currently too many protected and
semi-protected articles. I've been going through these and
unprotecting those that had been protected for too long. If there was
no discussion on the talk page, or I just figured it was time for
unprotecting, I did so. Most of them appear to be just fine--no
instant vandalism or edit wars. Yesterday I unprotected an article
that had been fully protected since *October*.. le sigh. Hopefully,
with the protection end-date feature, that will never happen again.

2. The indefinite semi-protection of some articles. I think everyone
would rather we never had to protect/sprotect anything. However some
articles are more attractive targets than others. After I unprotected
[[Bill Cosby]], for instance, it was instantly vandalised multiple
times, as was [[Black Death]] (which I finally just re-semi-protected
out of exasperation). I would rather that no pages were protected for
long periods of time, but vandalism does not just happen *anywhere* --
I believe many vandals will type in the first thing they think of and
vandalize that. If they are unable to vandalize, a certain percentage
will think "oh, that sucks" and move on to some other non-wiki
activity.

My two cents,

Erica
User:Fang Aili

On 3/29/07, bobolozo <bobolozo at yahoo.com> wrote:
> [[Special:Statistics]] has a list of the top 100 most
> viewed articles on en.Wikipedia.
>
> 9 of the top 10, and 15 of the top 20 articles, are
> currently semi-protected.  Of the 5 that aren't, 2
> have been sprotected for major portions of the last
> month, 2 for short portions of the last month, and
> only one has never been protected.
>
> In addition, pick most any highly notable subject, and
> you'll find the article is sprotected.  God, Satan,
> Islam, Buddhism, United States, and so on.  Any major
> topic you look at, if they're not protected currently,
> they have been recently.
>
> We seem to be sliding towards a policy of
> semi-protecting all high traffic articles.

<snip>


body:
Brion Vibber wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:
>
>
>>Article number 2698248:
>><title>Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for
>>deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for
>>deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for
>>deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greatest Hits Volume One (The
>>Byrds)</title>
>>
>>
>
>This title does not appear to fail on import with current code.
>
>
It fails on FC5. I have plenty of logs if you wish to review them. I can
also grant you an account
on the target system and you can watch it fail real-time if you like.

Jeff

>- -- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org)
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
>Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
>iD8DBQFGC9zJwRnhpk1wk44RAtlPAJwKYBtnVMLXNAe7yE7fdF931qjkSQCgkDdr
>q7b591YujVGWmxV3+Z0dN8o=
>=IVdh
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>_______________________________________________
>Wikitech-l mailing list
>Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>
>


references:
<460B86B1.8070306@wolfmountaingroup.com> <460BDCC9.2@wikimedia.org>
	<460BF027.2080405@wolfmountaingroup.com>

body:
Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:

>Brion Vibber wrote:
>
>
>
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>Hash: SHA1
>>
>>Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Article number 2698248:
>>><title>Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for
>>>deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for
>>>deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for
>>>deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greatest Hits Volume One (The
>>>Byrds)</title>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>This title does not appear to fail on import with current code.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>It fails on FC5. I have plenty of logs if you wish to review them. I can
>also grant you an account
>on the target system and you can watch it fail real-time if you like.
>
>Jeff
>
>
>
And the title is over 256 bytes. I suspect its related to the namespace
settings you described. I am using defaults in MediaWiki.

Jeff

>>- -- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org)
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
>>Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>>
>>iD8DBQFGC9zJwRnhpk1wk44RAtlPAJwKYBtnVMLXNAe7yE7fdF931qjkSQCgkDdr
>>q7b591YujVGWmxV3+Z0dN8o=
>>=IVdh
>>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Wikitech-l mailing list
>>Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Wikitech-l mailing list
>Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>
>


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Yury Tarasievich

subject: [Wikipedia-l] belarusian wikipedia (be and be-x-old)

body:
Okay, now don't rub it in, please.
---


from_name: Denny Colt

subject: [WikiEN-l] Bruce McMahan

references:
<grsl03tvq058c3anqijb6bt1tqkv592tqr@4ax.com>
	<79F48F7E-1A56-4540-A993-E28AE456F908@gmail.com>
	<0rtm035qqrihehpr920clatnqpgd0v2gpv@4ax.com>
	<165821F0-1F67-4B0F-BF02-B788CE60F929@gmail.com>
	<mesn03dsvnennoajpklmfer1vb0tpb2pnd@4ax.com>

body:
On 3/29/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> In this case I would say the newspaper is the primary source of the
> story.  It draws on other primary sources for parts of it, but the
> story is clearly based on novel synthesis by the paper; investigative
> journalism is not a secondary source according to my understanding.
>
> Guy (JzG)

Either way it just isn't notable. Google newing McMahan, his name in quotes
+ daughter, +marriage, or +married only pulls up that one Florida source.
Unless the media picks it up and verifies it/corroborates it, seems like a
dead issue to be Rv'd out for blp.

--
- Denny


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject:
[Foundation-l] Robert Mugabe's daughter - news story
	originating from Wikipedia?

body:
On 3/29/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> If a minister is going to make a statement before parliament based on
> reading something on Wikipedia, that's his problem, not ours.
> Wikipedia articles sometimes contain errors, we, of course, work to
> reduce them as much as possible, but we'll never eliminate them
> completely. If this minor diplomatic incident really was a result of
> the Wikipedia article, then the blame falls squarely on the minister
> in question, nowhere else.

IMHO, "it's your fault for believing us", while true, is not fair or
realistic as our only response to such issues.

"Your honor, I should not be convinced of murder simply because he
failed to get out of the way of the stabs I made with my knife." ...
see... it just doesn't fly. :)

The responsibility to avoid harm is shared. The public should try to
avoid harm by being skeptical about what they receive, and we should
try to avoid harm by being as careful as we can within our structure
to be good about what we transmit.

I, and many others with reasonably long tenures by our standards,
believe we have a number of substantial quality problems which we are
undertaking insufficient efforts to address.

I don't have any magic solutions, but I can't sit by and dismiss such
concerns by throwing the entire responsibility on our users.


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] BLP - a case study

body:
On 29/03/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 00:49:07 +0100, "David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com>
> wrote:

> >Answering "this blog is not crap" with "lots of blogs are crap" is
> >unconvincing as an argument.

> Just as well I didn't, then.

No, though several people have.

> It is, however, a primary source.  Which secondary sources have picked
> this up?

Ya got a point there. I must note of course that not having an article
on [[Barbara Bauer]] just yet is not a great loss to Wikipedia - being
as it's an encyclopedia, not a newswire. (Perhaps someone could write
it up for Wikinews ...) The example of [[Brian Peppers]] is
instructive - after a year not existing, people realised "oh yeah ...
this is a pretty crappy article on a really not very notable subject."

- d.


from_name: Ed Sanders

body:
Yet we both know there are a substantial number of users (maybe even a
majority) who appreciate our core principles, but choose to either
disagree with them, or interpret them as liberally as possible.

As long as these people stay vocal, and our policies have these
syntactic loopholes, our preaching is going to have little effect.

Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On 3/27/07, Ed Sanders <ejsanders at gmail.com> wrote:
>> The problem with #3 is it gives no clarification as to how narrow the
>> limits should be. If I have an article about a film (a copyrighted
>> contemporary work) and I upload 30 screenshots, I could argue each one
>> "complements" the article, and who's to say that only using 30 of the
>> ~200,000 frames of the film isn't within "narrow limits".
>
> Or .... 10 minutes out of two hours? 100,000 times over again.
> (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/google/viacomyoutube31307cmp.html)
>
> Even if the board intended the resolution to be that open ended, keep
> in mind that this resolution sets the absolute limit of what will be
> tolerated on the Wikimedia servers.
>
> It is not the case that what the resolution forbids is permitted.
>
> We are all still charged with educating people and enforcing sane
> policies which uphold our core missions. This resolution is not a free
> pass on vigilance.
>
> If the culture on a project is pushing us away from our core mission,
> the best solution is NOT to petition the board for a stricter base
> requirement (which will no doubt have unintended side effects),
> instead you should be making an effort to change the culture.
>
> Many of our users are either completely uninformed or substantially
> confused by what "Free" means in the context of our projects
> (hopefully this is easier for Frwiki and the like). While this
> resolution will, no doubt, help raise awareness, each and every one of
> us also have a part to play both internally and externally.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Johannes Rohr

subject: [Foundation-l] Language Prevention Committee created

body:
GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>
writes:

[...]

> Hoi,
> The new policy does not deal with the mess that exists as a consequence of
> not having this policy in the past. Mark's argument is based on things that
> happened before the policy came into effect.
>
> Solving the mess is what we do want to address .. so far there have been two
> languages provided with their initial messages in MediaWiki... We are
> working on a solution for all issues but it does take a lot of work. For one
> of the pieces of the puzzle we have been told to wait until Brion has rolled
> out single login. We have explicitly asked for some priority because this is
> an important issue to us. I have had information from Brion and from within
> the board of trustees that our issues do not have priority.
>
> As it does not have priority for the WMF, we are in a state of limbo with
> many of these issues. New languages do not have any priority. I would like
> to see that the support of languages in MediaWiki does have priority.

So you are implying that the Kabyle wiki, the Sakha and the Lower
Sorbian Wikipedias will have to wait until single login is there,
(which may take years)? You are seriously suggesting to put the
process of creation of new wikis on halt indefinitely? By all due
respect, but please take a moment thinking of how this is going to
come down for the editing communities of these wikis. It will be a
smack in the face to them. It will effectively prevent the creation of
new encyclopedias by daunting all prospective contributors. Please
stop this madness.

Thanks,

Johannes

--
http://www.infoe.de/


subject: [WikiEN-l] BLP - a case study

body:
Marc Riddell wrote:

>on 3/28/07 1:03 PM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm at macgyvermagic at gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>No. Dead people should be treated with equal respect to living ones.
>>
>>
>I agree. And the key word, I believe, that should guide any Article on any
>person - living or dead - is RESPECT.
>
Exactly.  That's much better than basing a distinction on the simple
fact that the dead can't sue.

Ec


from_name: Ihar Hrachyshka

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old

body:
No problem. BUT: I, Yury Tarasievich, Zolotariow, Maxim Litvin and
other real contributors of new Bel-Wiki doesn't support such FORM of
solving the problem. Anyway, if Wikifoundation can't revert changes so
can we make something to give the old be-Wikipedia a domain with full
read-write access? Also we need to restore their media-gallery.

Thanks.

On 29/03/07, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> I apologise if that seemed rude.
>
> But it is true, this was already discussed in several places over the
> last year, including this mailinglist.
>
> The fact that there was very little reaction from the be-x-old
> community until their Wiki got moved says something to me, perhaps
> they knew what was going on, they just thought it would never happen?
>
> Mark
>
> On 29/03/07, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Because you were unwilling to compromise.
> >
> > You insisted on having the interface of your Wiki written in a
> > non-official, OR variety of the Belarusan language different to the
> > one studied in schools by millions of Belarusan citizens.
> >
> > Your administrators fostered the oppression of the official variety.
> > This has all been debated extensively already. It's too late now to go
> > back.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > On 28/03/07, Ihar Hrachyshka <ihar.hrachyshka at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Please provide info about the reason to move existed be.wp.org community
> > > somewhere instead of creating new bel.wp.org for our community? We don't
> > > want such results of separation that we can observe now. We should
> > > revert this change and create a new domain for new Belarusian community.
> > > Is it possible?
> > > Please, hear the voices of Belarusians. Don't make a road of war between
> > > us.
> > >
> > > Ihar Hrachyshka
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.
> >
>
>
> --
> Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Yann Forget

body:
Mark,

Stop trolling please, and if you have two personalities, you need to see
a doctor... ;o)

Yann

Mark Williamson wrote:
> Well, I can't read Mark's mind, but my guess is that he was trying to
> be ironic and was in fact using that phrase to refer to the Langcom,
> as did Arbeo in the title of the thread.
>
> -Node
>>
>> Mark Williamson schrieb:
>>> It is now. The Language Prevention Committee (Langprevcom for short)
>>> won't allow you to have your new Wiki until you have a localised
>>> messages file. But then they probably won't allow it anyways for some
>>> other reason, and you will have to wait several billion years.
>>>
>>> Mark


from_name: Bryan Tong Minh

body:
It's a wiki, go ahead and fix it.

On 3/29/07, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/
>
> How is that site valid if it's not written in all 6000+ world
> languages? What about the unwritten ones?
>
> On 28/03/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3/28/07, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Why?
> > >
> >
> > Because we are going to have have a hard time claiming a release was
> > legit if it was writen in a language the person could not read.
> > --
> > geni
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
> --
> Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Skyring

body:
On 3/29/07, Denny Colt <wikidenny at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/28/07, Vee <vee.be.me at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Okay:
> >
> >
> >
> [[Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy#Allowing_banned_users_to_make_comments_on_talk_pages_of_articles_about_themselves]]
>
>
> If concensus is for it I wouldn't have a problem with it PROVIDED it was
> just on that article's talk page (not DRV, not AfD, other articles,
> noticeboards, etc..) and all other "in their name" edits were still nuked
> away. They... are banned for a reason.

Let us not throw away common sense and goodwill in favour of nailing down
every last jot and tittle of behaviour in wikilaw.

Banning isn't something that is rigidly enforcable, so there is little point
in pretending that it is. If a banned user is careful and non-contentious,
then they can be a useful contributor without attracting the attention of
the wikiconstables. I find it ridiculous that a person may make an edit
under one username and have it accepted gratefully, and yet that very same
edit under another username will be reverted and reviled.

Just what is the point of "nuking" reasonable contributions? If they make
for a better encyclopaedia, or illuminate the discussion, then leave 'em be,
I say. Otherwise, with a "nuke on sight" policy, we are merely adding fuel
to the fire of criticism that Wikipedia is not so much an encyclopaedia as a
bunch of smalldicks throwing their weight around.

--
Peter in Canberra


body:
AOL!!!1!!!

(i stop now)

- d.

On 29/03/07, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> zomg ur rite davd, ths is actuly my natve language + i demnd a wkpdia in it
> nw
>
> On 29/03/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 29/03/07, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Perhaps we should start a new English Wikipedia for hXc kids who want
> > > to TyPe In AlTcApS tO mAkE a PoLiTiCaL sTaTeMeNt? (which is exactly
> > > what it seems like people using nas^a niva are trying to do)
> >
> >
> > lol i thk we nd txt.wp.org 2 nabl kids 2 wrt wkpda in thr own lang :)
> >
> >
> > - d.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
> --
> Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


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

Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:
> Article number 2698248:
> <title>Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for
> deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for
> deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for
> deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greatest Hits Volume One (The
> Byrds)</title>

This title does not appear to fail on import with current code.

- -- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGC9zJwRnhpk1wk44RAtlPAJwKYBtnVMLXNAe7yE7fdF931qjkSQCgkDdr
q7b591YujVGWmxV3+Z0dN8o=
=IVdh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: teun spaans

body:
dear Gerard,

you defend this policy as a requirement for the existence of a wikipedia.
The fact that wikis left the incubator without them, show sthe argument is
false.

Though this has been pinted out, you keep repeating "it is a mess" and such
statements without providing any examples which support your statements.

Please try to understand that people are questioning the validity of the
rule, instead of just repeating with other words what you have already said
thrice or mroe.

i wish you health and happiness,
teun spaans

On 3/27/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hoi,
> What is required is that some localisation has to have happened. It does
> not
> say full localisation. At this moment it is not possible to localise in
> the
> first place. The notion that a policy should be changed because there is a
> current stumbling block is silly.
>
> Get a friendly developer to create some message files. Be part of the
> solution.
>
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
>
> On 3/27/07, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Well, yes, but the policy is written partly by you.
> >
> > You speak about the policy as if it's written in stone and as if
> > criticism of it is illogical because it cannot or will not ever be
> > changed.
> >
> > Please read the last 10 messages on this thread. The consensus so far
> > _in this thread_ seems to be that it is illogical to require full
> > translation of MediaWiki messages before allowing a new Wikipedia to
> > be created.
> >
> > Then please read the title of this thread, and note that it was posted
> > by Arbeo, who is a very respectable person.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > On 27/03/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hoi,
> > > The new policy does not deal with the mess that exists as a
> consequence
> > of
> > > not having this policy in the past. Mark's argument is based on things
> > that
> > > happened before the policy came into effect.
> > >
> > > Solving the mess is what we do want to address .. so far there have
> been
> > two
> > > languages provided with their initial messages in MediaWiki... We are
> > > working on a solution for all issues but it does take a lot of work.
> For
> > one
> > > of the pieces of the puzzle we have been told to wait until Brion has
> > rolled
> > > out single login. We have explicitly asked for some priority because
> > this is
> > > an important issue to us. I have had information from Brion and from
> > within
> > > the board of trustees that our issues do not have priority.
> > >
> > > As it does not have priority for the WMF, we are in a state of limbo
> > with
> > > many of these issues. New languages do not have any priority. I would
> > like
> > > to see that the support of languages in MediaWiki does have priority.
> > > Thanks,
> > >      GerardM
> > >
> > > On 3/27/07, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 2007/3/27, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hoi,
> > > > > The reason why they did not have translated interfaces is because
> > nobody
> > > > > bothered to set up the message files. The accepted policy of the
> > > > language
> > > > > committee requires them.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > What is being questioned here is the validity of this policy. Erik
> > stated
> > > > that if you cannot get someone to be bothered to set up the message
> > files,
> > > > it is reasonable to expect you cannot setup an encyclopedia either.
> > Mark
> > > > now
> > > > answers that it has been done a few times. So that removes one
> > argument.
> > > > Apparently, now the reason that it is policy is that the committee
> has
> > > > decided it is. Which is a rather lame reason in an open organization
> > as
> > > > the
> > > > Wikimedia foundation is (I think) hoping to be.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
> > > > ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Voice of All

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Stable versions (was Re: Wikipedia,
 the encylopedia that anyone can't edit)

body:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:FlaggedRevs

Steve Bennett-8 wrote:
>
> On 3/28/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>> Yes; we are building a feature that is flexibly configurable according
>> to the wishes of any project community that wants to try it out.
>
> Is there a project webpage?
>
> Steve
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>

--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Stable-versions-%28was-Re%3A--Wikipedia%2C-the-encylopedia-that-anyone-can%27t-edit%29-tf3476907.html#a9740502
Sent from the English Wikipedia mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


from_name: Anthony

subject: [Foundation-l] [Wikiquote-l] board resolution

body:
On 3/29/07, Aphaia <aphaia at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/29/07, Pedro Sanchez <pdsanchez at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Wikiquotes host mostly content under some sort of exemption (for
> > instance, when quoting from TV series). Is the resolution meaning that
> > all wikiquotes have to develop a specific EDP for TEXT ?
>
> As long as the language project would like to host such copyrighted
> materials, I think so.

How?  Exceptions are supposed to be 1) to illustrate historically
significant events; 2) to include identifying protected works such as
logos, or 3) to complement (within narrow limits) articles about
copyrighted contemporary works.

2 seems out, 3 seems out.  Does 1 cover quotes about historically
significant events?

Or is the whole EDP resolution terribly biased toward images?

Anthony


from_name: Monk

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old

body:
Hello,

> I imagine though that your complaints about it being read-only will
> not be listened to by anybody at all -- I was similarly upset about
> teh Moldavian Wikipedia, but it remains read-only.

The problem is, that Moldavian Wikipedia didn't have enough
contributors and content, and was put read-only just because it was
filled with spam; Belarusian wikipedia has large number of active
contributors.

But now we have only politically-rigged wikipedia in active state, but
actual Belarusian wikipedia is frozen. I don't feel it to be right.
First of all wikipedia which is about knowledge should be put in work;
and I am not sure that wikipedia that is about politics (current
be.wiki) should work under WMF logo.

> But I do wish you luck.
Thank you.

Monkbel.


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] BLP - a case study

body:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 10:19:39 +0100, "David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com>
wrote:

>Ya got a point there. I must note of course that not having an article
>on [[Barbara Bauer]] just yet is not a great loss to Wikipedia - being
>as it's an encyclopedia, not a newswire. (Perhaps someone could write
>it up for Wikinews ...) The example of [[Brian Peppers]] is
>instructive - after a year not existing, people realised "oh yeah ...
>this is a pretty crappy article on a really not very notable subject."

Just so.  For values of "people" that may exclude a fair number of
editors, some of whom are simply trolling but some of whom do have a
real commitment to the project (Jeff Raymond for example).  Now, I
disagree with Jeff on pretty every deletion debate, but I can't deny
that he is an asset to the project and not in any way evil or a troll.

Hence the problem.  In both cases there is a small but significant
group in whose judgment these subjects *are* notable, in the sense
that they are the subject of significant external discussion among the
"chattering classes".  In some cases they view the removal of these
articles as an indicator that either the notability guideline is
wrong, or the sourcing guideline is wrong: in their view the subjects
are self-evidently notable, so we should have guidelines which allow
their inclusion.

Of course, this would be less of a problem if we could gain consensus
for a more clueful living biographies policy, which specifically
excludes those whose notability is founded solely on "noise and fury
signifying nothing".  However, this would open the doors to another
war, on subjects such as [[Emmalina]] (which I would cheerfully delete
and think the encyclopaedia better as a result, but that's another
discussion).

So: how to resolve the tension between wanting to exclude biographies
which serve no real purpose other than to propagate internet nonsense,
and those which exist to *document* people for whom the internet
nonsense has resulted in actual fame.  I would turn that back to
reliable secondary sources.  If there are thoughtful profiles in
journals (not just bits of flim-flam in the editorial or showbiz
pages) then I would say we have a notable subject.  If there are not,
then we probably don't.  And those journals can be published in paper
or on the web, I have no opinion on that, as long as the commentary
comes from people who are respected in their field, and has passed
through a filter of basic fact-checking, however flawed, and editorial
control or peer review.

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


body:
Mark Williamson wrote:
> I am not trolling. If you do not appreciate my messages, you are
> welcome to add me to your killfile so that you may not read them.
>
> Mark

Of course, trolls never admit that they are trolling.
Any way, there may be a disagreement about the language policy, but your
comments are not constructive.

Yann


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old

body:
The more use the cliches like "political-rigged" and "actual", more
the worse for your case. The jibe about "about politics" is
outrageous.
---


body:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:33:48 +0800, "John Lee" <johnleemk at gmail.com>
wrote:

>Since it takes many voices to reach a new consensus, I'll just chip in my
>two cents and state i agree with Mgm - the banning policy exists to
>discourage intolerable troublemakers from editing onwiki. Once you are
>banned, any presumption of good faith is gone, because you need to be
>absolutely intolerable to be banned - that's why all your edits are reverted
>on sight, and only the decent ones restored. A similar presumption should
>exist with regard to comments by banned users on articles where they are the
>subject - but rather than convoluting policy and creating an exception to
>the general presumption of bad faith, why not just direct such users to our
>normal offwiki channels for subjects of articles?

Precisely.  The subject in this case already has access to the
back-channels, and knows how to use them.  He knows full well that if
he emails certain individuals with factual errors, they will be
attended to.

Of course, this is mainly about Brandt.  We cannot subject ordinary
editors to the risk of being sucked into his cesspit.  The "revert,
block, ignore" model exists in part to protect the well-meaning from
being sucked into long-running disputes - as we know from past
experience, any comment which is even slightly critical of Brandt will
result in him publishing your username and whatever personal details
he can glean (and he is pretty resourceful, let's not forget) on his
Hivemind pages.  That is a risk to which we should not subject
unwitting editors.  That is why he is banned.  Removing his comments
is not censorship, it's protection from involvement in a particularly
nasty dispute.

I am not without sympathy, he was the subject of attacks perpetrated
abusively through Wikipedia, but his inability to separate the project
and those who (ab)use the project for their own ends has been a very
large part of his problem.  In particular, it takes a very high degree
of unpleasantness to overwhelm Jimbo's natural tendency to be humane
in respect of biographies.

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


from_name: Reid Priedhorsky

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Article hit rates -- research at the University
	of	Minnesota

body:
Tim Starling wrote:
> Reid Priedhorsky wrote:
>> Dear Wikitechnicians,
>>
>> My name is Reid Priedhorsky, and I'm a Ph.D. student at GroupLens
>> Research, which is the human-computer interaction group at the
>> University of Minnesota.
>>
>> We are currently working on some research which is investigating
>> Wikipedia contribution and vandalism. To this end, statistics on the
>> view rate of different articles would be extremely helpful to us --
>> something along the lines of Leon Weber's WikiCharts tool, but with a
>> larger limit (ideally all 1.7 million articles).
>
> Producing such statistics will be a Google Summer of Code project this
> summer. If you can't wait that long, then we can give you a sampled,
> anonymised log stream to analyse.

Yes, summer would be too late: anonymised logs would be be excellent for
our purposes. Does "stream" mean that we would need to write a program
to listen to the real-time log stream, or could you give us files?

Gregory Maxwell wrote:
 > Greetings, describe for me what you ideal data would look like.

Ideal data would be log files that just looked like:

   Main Page\t1169499304.066

i.e., article titles as they appear in the XML dumps and request time.

A close second choice would be simply-anonymized logs, e.g.:

   sq18.wikimedia.org 1715898 1169499304.066 0 - TCP_MEM_HIT/200 13208
GET http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page NONE/- text/html - - -

If the logs still contains duplicates due to requests being forwarded
between squids, we'd need pointers on how to resolve those.

Please let me know what the next step is. Thanks for your help!

Reid


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old

body:
Hi Yury,

> The more use the cliches like "political-rigged" and "actual", more
> the worse for your case. The jibe about "about politics" is
> outrageous.

If this "war of words" was not started by your side, it wouldn't be
such "outrageous". I myself would prefer to keep all the dispute only
about languages and language variants; but the "political" accusations
and tags appear again and again.

First of all, let's calm down all the discussion. Hopefully it could
result in some compromise which would be useful for Belarus and
Belarusian language.

Monk.


from_name: Phil Sandifer

subject: [WikiEN-l] Bruce McMahan

references:
<grsl03tvq058c3anqijb6bt1tqkv592tqr@4ax.com>
	<79F48F7E-1A56-4540-A993-E28AE456F908@gmail.com>
	<0rtm035qqrihehpr920clatnqpgd0v2gpv@4ax.com>

body:
On Mar 29, 2007, at 4:23 AM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

>
> Fine, but it's still a primary source, and I have not yet found any
> secondary sources which have picked this up as significant.  Like
> Zeleny's allegations over Min Zhu, really.

A primary source would be the court documents or the video. A news
story about it is a secondary source. Not that the primary/secondary
distinction seems to be useful for most of our purposes, since A)
it's misused about half the time it comes up, and B) it has very
little to do with reliability.

-Phil


from_name: Nick Jenkins

subject:
[Wikitech-l] [MediaWiki-CVS] SVN: [20769] trunk/phase3/includes
	(documentation-generation stuff)

body:
> On 3/28/07, nickj at svn.wikimedia.org <nickj at svn.wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > Log Message:
> > -----------
> > PHPDocumentor [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhpDocumentor] documentation tweaking stuff.
>
> My impression is that we're officially using Doxygen, not phpDoc.

Having the code as compatible as possible with multiple open-source documentation-generation
systems is surely a good thing. To that end, I wasn't trying to reduce Doxygen compatibility,
I was trying to improve phpDoc compatibility. These two goals are NOT incompatible.

In their most-commonly-used functionality, there is a lot of overlap between the systems.
Things that cause one system to squeal will often not make sense to the other system either.
To that end, most of the changes help _both_ Doxygen and phpDoc.

I guess I should have explained this in the commit message, so as to avoid being reverted, huh? ;-)

Well, let me try and correct that now. Specifically, to run through the changes:

> * @url becomes @link

Helps both. Doxygen does not seem to support @url, but it does support @link.
[Ref: http://www.stack.nl/~dimitri/doxygen/commands.html#cmdlink ]

> * @fixme becomes @todo

Helps both. Doxygen does not seem to support @fixme, but it does support @todo.
[Ref: http://www.stack.nl/~dimitri/doxygen/commands.html#cmdtodo ]

> * HTML tags in descriptions must be closed / balanced.

Helps both. Doxygen wants <i> tags be closed with </i> too.
[Ref: http://www.stack.nl/~dimitri/doxygen/htmlcmds.html ]

> * @bug was removed (where the bug was long fixed), or changed into a @todo
>   (in the few situations where the bug was still pending)

Doxygen supports both, whereas phpDoc only supports @todo.
However, having outdated documentation helps nobody, and most of the @bug items
were fixed over 18 months ago, so there is no point including them as unresolved
bugs in doxygen's autogenerated documentation.

There was one instance where an open bug was merged into an existing @todo that
described the same thing, namely this:

> -	 * @todo Check for RFC 2822 compilance
> -	 * @bug 959
> +	 * @todo Check for RFC 2822 compilance (bug 959)

If there is any objection to this, then I apologize, and it can be left as-is.

> * @obsolete becomes @deprecated

Helps both. Doxygen does not seem to support @obsolete, but it does support @deprecated.
[Ref: http://www.stack.nl/~dimitri/doxygen/commands.html#cmddeprecated ]

> * Things like "/**@{{" and "/**@}}*/" which cause "unknown tag" warnings were removed

On further inspection, I _think_ that what was intended was "/**@{*/" to mark the start
of a grouping: http://www.stack.nl/~dimitri/doxygen/grouping.html  (i.e. one brace only).

However, removing this does NOT help Doxygen, and I regret doing this, and think this should
NOT have been removed in Article.php, LinksUpdate.php, and UserMailer.php. For Database.php,
it's a little unclear why the grouping is there, but I'm happy to leave it as-is.

> * @access must be a valid access level.

Doxygen does not seem to support @access (Ref: http://www.stack.nl/~dimitri/doxygen/commands.html )
However, I was not adding these tags (i.e. this phpDoc-specific syntax was already in the code base),
rather I was simply ensuring it was either "private" or "public".
This, therefore, is neutral to Doxygen.

> * @desc tag not needed, removed.

Helps both. @desc does not seem to be supported by either Doxygen, or PHPDocumentor.

> * Doesn't seem to like @licence, will accept @license however.

Doxygen does not seem to support either @licence or @license (Ref: http://www.stack.nl/~dimitri/doxygen/commands.html )
However, I was not adding this tag, I was changing from one to the other.
This, therefore, is neutral to Doxygen.

> * Use full comment block notation in a few places (i.e. open block with "/**", start each line with " *", and end block with "
*/")

The javadoc comment style is supported by Doxygen [Ref: http://www.stack.nl/~dimitri/doxygen/docblocks.html ]
Either helps both, or is neutral to doxygen.

> * Moved some docs to right above those classes (deleting blank lines, or moving descriptions from the file headers)

For deleting blank lines between classes and their descriptions, either helps both, or is neutral to doxygen.
For moving descriptions from file headers to above the classes they are describing, I suspect this helps both.

> * Marked some classes without docs as "@todo document"

Helps both. No matter what documentation system you use, you would benefit from a one-sentence description
of what a class does, and why it exists.

I hope that the above allays any fears that people may have that I was somehow trying to muck up the docs,
or make them incompatible with Doxygen. If other folks want to use Doxygen, then I have no problem with that.

In short, with the exception of the grouping (which I fully admit I was wrong about), whether you use Doxygen,
_OR_ you use PHPDocumentor, you are either the same or better off to have this commit in the code base.

All the best,
Nick.


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] BLP - a case study

body:
On 3/29/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> 1) Now, he gets divorced in messy circumstances - his wife accuses him
> of sleeping with her sister or something. it is all there is the
> on-line court reports. Do we include it?  No - and perhaps court
> reports should not count for BLP sourcing - if it isn't in the
> mainstream media ignore it.

A related sourcing question: Normally, we state whether someone is
married or not, and who to. In this case, we would say he was
divorced. We would like to reference that statement. What do we cite?
If we site the small town newspaper, are we any better off? What if we
cite the court proceedings? Eep.

Steve


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting hammered in a tv interview is not fun

body:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellen_Fanning

This article said that "She is the sister of [[Powderfinger]] frontman
and solo artist, [[Bernard Fanning]]."

Not true.

She asked me about this on television.  I danced around it as best I
could, but basically it was not fun. :(

Fortunately, this bit of incorrect information was not negative.  But it
made it hard for me to make a positive image for us.

I edited out the bad bit, but I left in the previous line:

"Ellen Fanning is married and has two young sons."

There is no source.  Is it even true?  Well, I asked her, and it is
true.  But there is no source.

I hope the horse I am beating is still alive: we have to be absolutely
ruthless about removing "I think I heard it somewhere"
pseudo-information from Wikipedia, and especially from biographies.

People who are fighting the good fight here are sometimes threatened
with a trip to ArbCom.  They need our support, though.

--Jimbo


from_name: geni

body:
On 3/29/07, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 28/03/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3/28/07, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/
> > >
> > > How is that site valid if it's not written in all 6000+ world
> > > languages?
> >
> > Because we don't get uploads from most of them. [[Special:upload]] is
> > available in 14 languages.
>
> If someone can read enough English to upload media using a completely
> untranslated interface, I would hope they also know enough to
> understand the copyright notice. If everything else were translated,
> that would be another matter entirely.
>
> And how do you know that you don't get uploads from people speaking
> only Tibetan? Do you ask every uploader?
>

Because they would have then provided aditional info in Tibetan or the
image would have been deleted.

> If you're clever and innovative, there is a way to do pretty much anything.

I'll deal with it when it happens.
--
geni


body:
On 3/29/07, Denny Colt <wikidenny at gmail.com> wrote:
> My question: *if* there is concensus to allow banned users to post if "some
> people feel like letting them", why not SAY that in the banning/blocking
> policy? Because that seems to be... the practice.

Quite clearly two unrelated policies are in conflict in this instance:
1) WP:AUTO says that you can't edit your own article; you should post
complaints on the talk page instead.
2) WP:BAN says that banned editors can't edit anything, except
possibly their own user talk page.

No one ever thought of the situation where the subject of an article
is a banned editor. Now that it's happened, the conflict has to be
resolved by setting a priority to the above. Consensus in this thread
appears to be that WP:AUTO overrules WP:BAN. Problem solved. Have a
nice day and thank your mother for the rabbits.

Steve


from_name: Andrew Gray

subject: [WikiEN-l] BLP - a case study

body:
On 29/03/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/29/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 1) Now, he gets divorced in messy circumstances - his wife accuses him
> > of sleeping with her sister or something. it is all there is the
> > on-line court reports. Do we include it?  No - and perhaps court
> > reports should not count for BLP sourcing - if it isn't in the
> > mainstream media ignore it.
>
> A related sourcing question: Normally, we state whether someone is
> married or not, and who to. In this case, we would say he was
> divorced. We would like to reference that statement. What do we cite?
> If we site the small town newspaper, are we any better off? What if we
> cite the court proceedings? Eep.

We hope we can find a recent biographical sketch from his university
which calls him divorced :-)

I touched on this earlier wrt citing the subjects of biographies to
support their article; a very common case is "you have me married to
so-and-so, we divorced 1994", because old sources don't get updated
(and mildly-public figures tend to have low-profile divorces)

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Funniest thing in a while...

body:
I just don't know how to react to this one. A while ago I wrote a stub
on a pretty dodgy company called [[PayPerPost]] that pays bloggers to
write nice things about advertisers' products. Today I notice some new
text - mostly fairly positive about the company, but not too
horrendous. The source is "willifordblog.com", and the (new) user is
called Mwilliford - coincidence? Hmm...

So I go to his blog, and here's the first post, entitled: "I'm on wikipedia"
--
today, my buddy Ted Murphy wrote in the payperpost blog about them not
having much on their page on wikipedia so I logged in and edited the
payperpost page. I'm pretty excited that I got something on there.
Check it out:

PayPerPost is an advertising company that was started by Ted Murphy
and was designed to connect advertisers with bloggers. It started out
under the name BlogStar Network and quickly became one of the most
talked about companies on the internet. After requiring disclosure
following an FCC ruling, the company quickly became home to over
15,000 bloggers and big name advertisers such as Hewlett-Packard. In
early March 2007, while still in Beta, they rolled out segmentation
which let advertisers target specific blogs and let bloggers make more
money. Some bloggers reported making over 100 dollars a day.
PayPerPost spawned numerous companies that offered advertising on
blogs such as ReviewMe, CreamAid, Blogitive, and Blogsvertise. None of
these were able to offer the opportunities of PayPerPost or copy their
number of bloggers. PayPerPost has forums with thousands of members
that are very active and vocal and through these forums helped
PayPerPost become what it has become.
--
(that second paragraph is verbatim the text that he added, after my
initial stubby sentence.)

I'm still giggling over this sentence, "I'm pretty excited that I got
something on there."

Um, what to do next?

Steve


from_name: Jeff V. Merkey

subject: [Wikitech-l] Missing Dumps

references:
<etea9v$og9$1@sea.gmane.org> <45FAB124.5010309@pobox.com>
	<euh3de$agn$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
Brion,

If you need any help with the dumps, I am happy to provide whatever
assistance.

Jeff

Jochen Magnus wrote:

>Brion wrote:
>
>
>>Note that:
>>1) There isn't a regular schedule
>>2) Not all wikis run at the same time.
>>3) The very large wikis run less frequently
>>4) The last few days dumps are on hold as I'm fixing some longstanding
>>problems in the dump generator. New dumps will commence within a few days.
>>
>>
>
>Brion, I know all that and have understanding. But unfortunatly the
>download page reports now, 8 weeks after the latest successful dump for
>dewiki:
>
>
>
>>No prior dumps of this database stored.
>>Dump in progress, 9 items failed
>>
>>
>
>I can understand that dumps for WP mirrors have a low prioritity in the
>project, but - forgive me - 8 weeks is still too long!
>
>One or two dumps per month are o.k IMHO. A commercial offer for regulary
>or live updates is o.k. to. We do have a client, a really important
>german media, which is potentially willing to pay for such a service.
>They are willing to pay or to support the WP project in another way. But
>at the moment they are a bit irritated due to the erratic service for
>mirrors.
>
>Jochen
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Wikitech-l mailing list
>Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Bruce McMahan

body:
On Mar 29, 2007, at 1:07 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

>
> In this case I would say the newspaper is the primary source of the
> story.  It draws on other primary sources for parts of it, but the
> story is clearly based on novel synthesis by the paper; investigative
> journalism is not a secondary source according to my understanding.

Original research by a reputable and significant source (i.e. this
paper) is reportable.

-Phil


from_name: Stan Shebs

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
> I hope the horse I am beating is still alive: we have to be absolutely
> ruthless about removing "I think I heard it somewhere"
> pseudo-information from Wikipedia, and especially from biographies.
>
About the only way to keep up with the drivel is to insta-revert
unsourced stuff. It just takes too long to find a source for somebody
else's edit, or ask about each one on a talk page; while you're doing
all that, ten other pages are picking up garbage.

Just today I got a congratulatory email from someone praising us for
quickly finding his hoax article, and bragging a little about what he
did to make it seem more plausible, fake picture and all. What does one
do about people for whom WP is just another online game?

There's always the option of refusing TV interviews - then you could be
the "mysterious recluse". :-)

Stan


from_name: Nick Wilkins

body:
On 3/29/07, Stan Shebs <stanshebs at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Jimmy Wales wrote:
> > I hope the horse I am beating is still alive: we have to be absolutely
> > ruthless about removing "I think I heard it somewhere"
> > pseudo-information from Wikipedia, and especially from biographies.
> >
> About the only way to keep up with the drivel is to insta-revert
> unsourced stuff. It just takes too long to find a source for somebody
> else's edit, or ask about each one on a talk page; while you're doing
> all that, ten other pages are picking up garbage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ellen_Fanning&diff=next&oldid=77843853

The statement that she is related to Bernard Fanning was added at the same
time as two external links.  In this case, insta-reverting unsourced stuff
wouldn't have done any good.  You would have actually had to have checked
the sources (neither of which mention Bernard Fanning, incidentally).  One
of them, however, does provide a source for her being married with one son.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=88383

In fact, that source is '''still''' in the article, as of Jimbo's e-mail and
edit to the article (though the link wasn't quite working, due to an
extraneous /).

-- Jonel


from_name: GerardM

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old

body:
Hoi,
Wikipedia is not a platform to fight political fights. When, what was the
Belarus Wikipedia, decided that the orthography as used in Belarus was not
to be used, it lost its right to call itself be.wikipedia.org. This problem
became acute when there was an incubator project for the official language.

The language committee was asked how to deal with it. We found that there is
little or no chance to get this "orthography" recognised by the current
ISO-639 standard. The standard allows for a private label; we selected an
arbitrary label. From my personal point of view, there should be no be-x-old
wikipedia in the first place; I would see it moved outside of the Wikimedia
Foundation.

There is no chance of having both a be and a bel wikipedia because these
codes refer to the same language. Where you say "hear the Belarusians" you
made the concious choice not to hear those Belarusians that write the
official Belarus orthography. This truth has come home to roost.

Thanks,
    GerardM

On 3/29/07, Ihar Hrachyshka <ihar.hrachyshka at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Please provide info about the reason to move existed be.wp.org community
> somewhere instead of creating new bel.wp.org for our community? We don't
> want such results of separation that we can observe now. We should
> revert this change and create a new domain for new Belarusian community.
> Is it possible?
> Please, hear the voices of Belarusians. Don't make a road of war between
> us.
>
> Ihar Hrachyshka
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Bruce McMahan

references:
<grsl03tvq058c3anqijb6bt1tqkv592tqr@4ax.com>
	<79F48F7E-1A56-4540-A993-E28AE456F908@gmail.com>
	<0rtm035qqrihehpr920clatnqpgd0v2gpv@4ax.com>
	<165821F0-1F67-4B0F-BF02-B788CE60F929@gmail.com>
	<mesn03dsvnennoajpklmfer1vb0tpb2pnd@4ax.com>
	<D566EB4C-0F22-4444-8DAF-80BF49F3857D@gmail.com>
	<m60o035nfl688ukj3a06la90rihp49ckjp@4ax.com>

body:
On Mar 29, 2007, at 2:10 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

> Maybe.  If it's judged significant.  Which, in this case, it clearly
> is not, since nobody else seems to be running with it.  Have you read
> their follow-up stories?  It looks *awfully* like a vendetta.

Nah. It looks like alternative press follow-ups. They tend to run
hard with their exclusives.

Put another way - if he's significant enough to have an article then
the alternative press article that comes up as the first Google hit
on him is significant enough to mention.

Anyway - this got reprint in the Village Voice - quite a major paper.

I'm troubled here by the shifting argument. First it's from a
tabloid. Except it's not from a tabloid - it's from a reputable paper
that did original research. But then when it's pointed out that NOR
isn't relevant to this either it becomes insignificant.

Still not the case - if we're having an article on the guy, this is a
sensible thing to put in it.

-Phil


from_name: Johannes Rohr

subject: [Foundation-l] Belarusan Wikipedia

body:
Hi,

I don't know if this is the right place for my complaint, but I was
taken by complete surprise by what has happened to the Belarusan
Wikipedia, i.e. the replacement of the existing bewiki (in "classical"
orthography by the incubator project in ("normative" orthography).

For one, there has, as far as I see, no formal request to close the
existing bewiki
(cf. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects ).
To me it seems that the closure of a large, active
wiki must not go ahead without a prior proposal and debate.

Second, given the deadlock in the new languages creation process, I am
more than surprised, that for the new bewiki an exception was
possible.

Third, the most desirable path to be taken would have been to have a
single bewiki which accepts both variants, just as enwiki accepts both
British and American English. Have there been serious efforts in this
direction, prior to the current decision? A Belarusan user says at

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Special_projects_subcommittees/Languages#Lack_of_transparency

,----
| That was the only cause, by which it was used mostly in be.wiki; but
| both systems were allowed to be used, and so-called "current" variant
| was also used there by minority which preferred it, and they didn't
| have any obstacles to contribute; administration welcomed contributors
| in all grammar versions.
`----

If this is true, I don't see, why the closure of the old bewiki was
inevitable.

Even if the two camps cannot be reconciled, I don't believe that the
closure of the existing project was necessary. The proponents of the
Belarusan normative wikipedia had requested bel.wikipedia.org rather
than be.wikipedia.org. Both projects could have existed in
parallel. This may be an ugly solution, but the current one is even
uglier.

Next, what strikes me is an apparent lack of transparency. At
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Belarusian_normative
I read:

,----
| The normative Belarusian Wikipedia has been created at
| be.wikipedia.org, with the alternative Belarusian Wikipedia moved to
| be-x-old.wikipedia.org by decision of the board of trustees on
| recommendation by the language subcommittee.
`----

I would say, that those who take such a drastic decision, that risks
to deter a large number of committed authors, should be required to
deliver a full explanation of their decision. The above brief
announcement is clearly insufficient.

And lastly, if I understand the announcement at
http://be.wikipedia.org correctly, the old bewiki has been frozen, but
no decision has been taken concerning its future. This is just totally
incomprehensible to me. If langcom and the board of trustees make a
dramatic and far-reaching decision, they should make a /full/
decision, not a halfhearted one, which essentially leaves the existing
conflict open.

Forth,

--
http://www.infoe.de/


subject: [Foundation-l] Belarusan Wikipedia


subject: [WikiEN-l] BLP - a case study

body:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 15:06:41 +0100, <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com>
wrote:

>tabloid celebrities

<Whoop!> <Whoop!> Oxymoron alert....

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


subject: [Foundation-l] Belarusan Wikipedia

body:
Hoi,
First of all this is an unusual situation. The language committee has been
given the task to decide things that have to do with languages. We have
published what our basic guide lines are. A language has to have some status
and based on this we make a decision.

For the Belarus language uses the code be and bel are available. There was a
group of people who high jacked these codes and did not allow people to use
the official orthography. There was a really vibrant incubator project for
the Belarus language as officially written in Belarus. Given the guide
lines, the old project was parked under a different code that is conforming
to the standard.

When you say that there is a dead lock in the creation of projects, you are
mistaken. There is a message file for Belarus and this is what is required.
We do allow for languages to be started in the Incubator, but we cannot
promote them to full projects until there is a message file. This is
probably some four minutes of work per language. Until there is a message
file, and the first amount of effort has gone in localisation, people can
work in the Incubator. The only thing that is dead locked is the promotion
to full project status.

When you state that it would be preferable that people collaborate, you are
right. People did choose not to do that. Might was right, and possession was
2/3 of ownership. This mentality is inconsistent with the way the Wikimedia
Foundation works and consequently there was a need for a solution to this
knotty problem. It is sad that it had to be this way. Given that it has not
been deleted has more to do with the fact that we allow for a procedure that
is to be written of an 'global arbitration committee'  and with the wish
that people finally decide to collaborate than with the fact that we should
allow for political wikipedias. Politically motivated projects are anathema
to the Wikimedia Foundation.

Thanks,
     GerardM

On 3/29/07, Johannes Rohr <jorohr at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I don't know if this is the right place for my complaint, but I was
> taken by complete surprise by what has happened to the Belarusan
> Wikipedia, i.e. the replacement of the existing bewiki (in "classical"
> orthography by the incubator project in ("normative" orthography).
>
> For one, there has, as far as I see, no formal request to close the
> existing bewiki
> (cf. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects ).
> To me it seems that the closure of a large, active
> wiki must not go ahead without a prior proposal and debate.
>
> Second, given the deadlock in the new languages creation process, I am
> more than surprised, that for the new bewiki an exception was
> possible.
>
> Third, the most desirable path to be taken would have been to have a
> single bewiki which accepts both variants, just as enwiki accepts both
> British and American English. Have there been serious efforts in this
> direction, prior to the current decision? A Belarusan user says at
>
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Special_projects_subcommittees/Languages#Lack_of_transparency
>
> ,----
> | That was the only cause, by which it was used mostly in be.wiki; but
> | both systems were allowed to be used, and so-called "current" variant
> | was also used there by minority which preferred it, and they didn't
> | have any obstacles to contribute; administration welcomed contributors
> | in all grammar versions.
> `----
>
> If this is true, I don't see, why the closure of the old bewiki was
> inevitable.
>
> Even if the two camps cannot be reconciled, I don't believe that the
> closure of the existing project was necessary. The proponents of the
> Belarusan normative wikipedia had requested bel.wikipedia.org rather
> than be.wikipedia.org. Both projects could have existed in
> parallel. This may be an ugly solution, but the current one is even
> uglier.
>
> Next, what strikes me is an apparent lack of transparency. At
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Belarusian_normative
> I read:
>
> ,----
> | The normative Belarusian Wikipedia has been created at
> | be.wikipedia.org, with the alternative Belarusian Wikipedia moved to
> | be-x-old.wikipedia.org by decision of the board of trustees on
> | recommendation by the language subcommittee.
> `----
>
> I would say, that those who take such a drastic decision, that risks
> to deter a large number of committed authors, should be required to
> deliver a full explanation of their decision. The above brief
> announcement is clearly insufficient.
>
> And lastly, if I understand the announcement at
> http://be.wikipedia.org correctly, the old bewiki has been frozen, but
> no decision has been taken concerning its future. This is just totally
> incomprehensible to me. If langcom and the board of trustees make a
> dramatic and far-reaching decision, they should make a /full/
> decision, not a halfhearted one, which essentially leaves the existing
> conflict open.
>
> Forth,
>
> --
> http://www.infoe.de/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Belarusan Wikipedia


body:
Nick Wilkins wrote:
> On 3/29/07, Stan Shebs <stanshebs at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Jimmy Wales wrote:
>>
>>> I hope the horse I am beating is still alive: we have to be absolutely
>>> ruthless about removing "I think I heard it somewhere"
>>> pseudo-information from Wikipedia, and especially from biographies.
>>>
>>>
>> About the only way to keep up with the drivel is to insta-revert
>> unsourced stuff. It just takes too long to find a source for somebody
>> else's edit, or ask about each one on a talk page; while you're doing
>> all that, ten other pages are picking up garbage.
>>
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ellen_Fanning&diff=next&oldid=77843853
>
> The statement that she is related to Bernard Fanning was added at the same
> time as two external links.  In this case, insta-reverting unsourced stuff
> wouldn't have done any good.
Heh. In practice though, that's an exceptional case.

Even asking for volunteers to vet a bio ahead of interview isn't going
to catch everything. (Isn't it interesting how nobody ever complains
about inaccuracies in articles other than the ones about themselves?
Egos, geez...) Nope, avoiding interviews is the way to go here. :-)

Stan


from_name: Thomas Dalton

body:
If a minister is going to make a statement before parliament based on
reading something on Wikipedia, that's his problem, not ours.
Wikipedia articles sometimes contain errors, we, of course, work to
reduce them as much as possible, but we'll never eliminate them
completely. If this minor diplomatic incident really was a result of
the Wikipedia article, then the blame falls squarely on the minister
in question, nowhere else.


from_name: Stephen Bain

subject: [WikiEN-l] BLP - a case study

body:
On 3/29/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 28/03/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > He's notable for his academic work. His personal life should be briefly
> > mentioned if at all. "He divorced his wife in a messy court battle" (or
> > however you say that neutrally). The details are not important to an article
> > about him.
>
> If it's something a reader would reasonably expect to be mentioned in
> an article, because it was a famous incident (even if it's rubbish),
> then it'll need to be mentioned in the article, because otherwise
> it'll be readded and readded and readded.

...and that's the substance of NPOV: addressing all significant views
on a subject in accordance with their prevalence. Not a significant
view? Don't include it. Significant, but not prevalent? Don't give it
much space.

If a view has been published only in a small town newspaper, which
caters for a local audience, then it's probably not significant, and
as such, shouldn't be included. Also remember that when you have only
one source on a subject, no matter where it was published, you're
going to struggle to fairly address all significant views on the
subject by relying on it alone.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


from_name: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] BLP - a case study

body:
"David Gerard" wrote

> On 28/03/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 20:54:24 +0100, "David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >the
> > >blind idiot worship of print sources in [[WP:RS]] doesn't help make us
> > >a better encyclopedia.
>
> > That really helps move the debate along...

> I find it hard to describe it otherwise. Look at this thread. Tell me
> how anyone who's ever actually been written about could regard the
> press as the infallible source of reliability it's being painted as.

Well, to be fair

- not all print sources are newspapers

- not all newspapers are the same

- and not all of us regard writing about breaking news as central to the encyclopedia.

The policy on reliable sources has to cover the entire range of articles, from tabloid celebrities to scholarly antiquarianism.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam


subject: [WikiEN-l] BLP - a case study

body:
Marc Riddell wrote:
> Respect is something which cannot be legislated or regulated; it is part
> civility and part empathy - the ability to respect another being should be
> built in to us all.
>
"Should be", yeah. Interesting to ponder how it is that we have
thousands of editors who seem to lack a great many human qualities. My
cynical theory is that an encyclopedia that *anyone* can edit is going
to attract a disproportionate number who would never be accepted into,
or have been ejected from other kinds of collaborative projects; and
because one of our fundamental principles is to assume good faith, we
are slow to get rid of those that are simply not ever going to be a net
positive.

Stan


subject: [Foundation-l] Belarusan Wikipedia

body:
Hoi,
The notion of something like a global arbitration committee IS that it is to
be disturbing. Only when there is something of so much gravitas that
something like the end of a living project is considered, it provides a
final way to address an issue. The last thing you want is to get to the
stage where such a body gets involved !!

The people in the old Belarus wikipedia have known for a very long time that
there point of view is unpalatable to many and that it goes completely
against how things are done in all other projects. When asked, the language
committee has advised and the board has decreed. For such issues it is good
to allow for one last and final appeal because some of the reactions show
that some people did not even want to consider that their actions were seen
in such a stark light.

With arbitration committees it is not about agreeing voluntarily to
recognising its authority. The choice is more one of having an appeal or not
having an appeal. Without an appeal a decision once made would be final.

Thanks,
     GerardM

On 3/29/07, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I find the idea of a global arbitration committe
> disturbing.  I cannot imagine that all the projects
> would voluntarily agree to enter it's juristiction.
> And if it is imposed by WMF, it would really blur the
> issue of whether WMF has control of content or not.
>
> Can we not work on a global mediation committee as a
> more solid solution?
>
> BirgitteSB
>
> --- GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > First of all this is an unusual situation. The
> > language committee has been
> > given the task to decide things that have to do with
> > languages. We have
> > published what our basic guide lines are. A language
> > has to have some status
> > and based on this we make a decision.
> >
> > For the Belarus language uses the code be and bel
> > are available. There was a
> > group of people who high jacked these codes and did
> > not allow people to use
> > the official orthography. There was a really vibrant
> > incubator project for
> > the Belarus language as officially written in
> > Belarus. Given the guide
> > lines, the old project was parked under a different
> > code that is conforming
> > to the standard.
> >
> > When you say that there is a dead lock in the
> > creation of projects, you are
> > mistaken. There is a message file for Belarus and
> > this is what is required.
> > We do allow for languages to be started in the
> > Incubator, but we cannot
> > promote them to full projects until there is a
> > message file. This is
> > probably some four minutes of work per language.
> > Until there is a message
> > file, and the first amount of effort has gone in
> > localisation, people can
> > work in the Incubator. The only thing that is dead
> > locked is the promotion
> > to full project status.
> >
> > When you state that it would be preferable that
> > people collaborate, you are
> > right. People did choose not to do that. Might was
> > right, and possession was
> > 2/3 of ownership. This mentality is inconsistent
> > with the way the Wikimedia
> > Foundation works and consequently there was a need
> > for a solution to this
> > knotty problem. It is sad that it had to be this
> > way. Given that it has not
> > been deleted has more to do with the fact that we
> > allow for a procedure that
> > is to be written of an 'global arbitration
> > committee'  and with the wish
> > that people finally decide to collaborate than with
> > the fact that we should
> > allow for political wikipedias. Politically
> > motivated projects are anathema
> > to the Wikimedia Foundation.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >      GerardM
> >
> >
> > On 3/29/07, Johannes Rohr <jorohr at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I don't know if this is the right place for my
> > complaint, but I was
> > > taken by complete surprise by what has happened to
> > the Belarusan
> > > Wikipedia, i.e. the replacement of the existing
> > bewiki (in "classical"
> > > orthography by the incubator project in
> > ("normative" orthography).
> > >
> > > For one, there has, as far as I see, no formal
> > request to close the
> > > existing bewiki
> > > (cf.
> >
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects
> > ).
> > > To me it seems that the closure of a large, active
> > > wiki must not go ahead without a prior proposal
> > and debate.
> > >
> > > Second, given the deadlock in the new languages
> > creation process, I am
> > > more than surprised, that for the new bewiki an
> > exception was
> > > possible.
> > >
> > > Third, the most desirable path to be taken would
> > have been to have a
> > > single bewiki which accepts both variants, just as
> > enwiki accepts both
> > > British and American English. Have there been
> > serious efforts in this
> > > direction, prior to the current decision? A
> > Belarusan user says at
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Special_projects_subcommittees/Languages#Lack_of_transparency
> > >
> > > ,----
> > > | That was the only cause, by which it was used
> > mostly in be.wiki; but
> > > | both systems were allowed to be used, and
> > so-called "current" variant
> > > | was also used there by minority which preferred
> > it, and they didn't
> > > | have any obstacles to contribute; administration
> > welcomed contributors
> > > | in all grammar versions.
> > > `----
> > >
> > > If this is true, I don't see, why the closure of
> > the old bewiki was
> > > inevitable.
> > >
> > > Even if the two camps cannot be reconciled, I
> > don't believe that the
> > > closure of the existing project was necessary. The
> > proponents of the
> > > Belarusan normative wikipedia had requested
> > bel.wikipedia.org rather
> > > than be.wikipedia.org. Both projects could have
> > existed in
> > > parallel. This may be an ugly solution, but the
> > current one is even
> > > uglier.
> > >
> > > Next, what strikes me is an apparent lack of
> > transparency. At
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Belarusian_normative
> > > I read:
> > >
> > > ,----
> > > | The normative Belarusian Wikipedia has been
> > created at
> > > | be.wikipedia.org, with the alternative
> > Belarusian Wikipedia moved to
> > > | be-x-old.wikipedia.org by decision of the board
> > of trustees on
> > > | recommendation by the language subcommittee.
> > > `----
> > >
> > > I would say, that those who take such a drastic
> > decision, that risks
> > > to deter a large number of committed authors,
> > should be required to
> > > deliver a full explanation of their decision. The
> > above brief
> > > announcement is clearly insufficient.
> > >
> > > And lastly, if I understand the announcement at
> > > http://be.wikipedia.org correctly, the old bewiki
> > has been frozen, but
> > > no decision has been taken concerning its future.
> > This is just totally
> > > incomprehensible to me. If langcom and the board
> > of trustees make a
> > > dramatic and far-reaching decision, they should
> > make a /full/
> > > decision, not a halfhearted one, which essentially
> > leaves the existing
> > > conflict open.
> > >
> > > Forth,
> > >
> > > --
> > > http://www.infoe.de/
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > >
> >
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
> with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Belarusan Wikipedia


body:
On 29/03/07, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:

> The responsibility to avoid harm is shared. The public should try to
> avoid harm by being skeptical about what they receive, and we should
> try to avoid harm by being as careful as we can within our structure
> to be good about what we transmit.
>
> I, and many others with reasonably long tenures by our standards,
> believe we have a number of substantial quality problems which we are
> undertaking insufficient efforts to address.
>
> I don't have any magic solutions, but I can't sit by and dismiss such
> concerns by throwing the entire responsibility on our users.

Quite. Whilst the responsibility for whatever diplomatic fracas
resulted* is on the shoulders of whoever lifted material from
Wikipedia, it doesn't change the fact that we fucked up in leaving it
there for them to lift.

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

* not much; it should be borne in mind that of recent, UK-Zimbabwean
relations have basically been one continual diplomatic incident...


from_name: David Gerard

body:
On 29/03/07, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't have any magic solutions, but I can't sit by and dismiss such
> concerns by throwing the entire responsibility on our users.

Oh, it's easy. We just add "Wikipedia is not a source of killer
questions for parliamentary point-scoring" to [[WP:NOT]]. And someone
from Wikinews might want to ask said parliamentarian what on earth
they were thinking.

- d.


body:
On 3/29/07, Robert Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
>
> The policy that I was trying to draft on Wikibook was to permit very
> specific categories of images, and all other fair use was to be
> eliminated.

This is essentially what the resolution is doing. The types that the
resolution mentions are:

* media used to illustrate historically significant events [1]
* identifying protected works such as logos
* media used to complement (within narrow limits) articles about
copyrighted contemporary works

So this clearly covers things like corporate logos in articles on the
corporation, pictures of a painting in an article about the painting,
and unique photos of historical events (where, of course, there are no
free alternatives that would adequately convey the same information).

So you can see that the resolution really makes explicit allowance for
all of the important uses of unfree media in defining what an EDP can
cover.

--
[1] ie. a picture of a specific event in the past that by definition
cannot be repeated.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Missing Dumps

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

Jochen Magnus wrote:
> Brion wrote:
>> Note that:
>> 1) There isn't a regular schedule
>> 2) Not all wikis run at the same time.
>> 3) The very large wikis run less frequently
>> 4) The last few days dumps are on hold as I'm fixing some longstanding
>> problems in the dump generator. New dumps will commence within a few days.
>
> Brion, I know all that and have understanding. But unfortunatly the
> download page reports now, 8 weeks after the latest successful dump for
> dewiki:

The dump run's been running for several days already. We have hundreds
of databases, and they don't all run at once, hence not all are done
yet. Have some patience!

The particular dewiki run there was halted because I was testing (and
the missing link to the previous one is due to a bug which I fixed
during that testing). It'll come back around in a few days.

The new script runs continuously, with automated cleanup of old
versions. No additional manual intervention will be required. Simply
wait until it reaches dewiki again.

- -- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGDBS2wRnhpk1wk44RAoXkAKDJE5ncQyrb1fcmG8TCxjCj9DRgAgCcCw4b
B8tOGLOK8peJP0OVrB1gR8Y=
=uE69
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)

subject: [Foundation-l] Belarusan Wikipedia

body:
Hello,

I think it is important to disclaim a few points here. GerardM's
opinions do not necessarily represent the opinions of the subcommittee
as a whole; therefore, please note that:

1. The subcommittee recommendation was to rename the alternative or
'classical' Belarusian wiki, and use the standard code for the
standard or 'normative' Belarusian wiki. This recommendation did not
include the closure of the alternative Belarusian Wikipedia. I'm not
sure whether it was closed by decision of the board of trustees or by
mistake. That is why the announcement on the normative Belarusian
request page on Meta did not explain the decision: there was no such
subcommittee decision we could explain.

2. The subcommittee has not had a serious discussion about nor reached
any consensus on the idea of a Meta arbitration committee. Whether
this is desirable or not is up to the community or the board of
trustees, not the subcommittee.

Yours cordially,
Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)


subject: [Foundation-l] Belarusan Wikipedia


references:
<460B86B1.8070306@wolfmountaingroup.com>	<460BBCFC.1080405@wikimedia.org>	<euh747$ome$1@sea.gmane.org>	<460C2186.8000805@wikimedia.org>
	<460C29FF.2050709@wikimedia.org>

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Brion Vibber wrote:
>
>
>>Swapping the name to a same-length one which is not a registered prefix,
>>I do get the Null failure. Will poke about to work around that.
>>
>>
>
>As of r20828 on trunk, invalid titles are now skipped over with a
>warning during import.
>
>

Brion,

That's great. You may want to post an incremental update release of
MediaWiki 1.9.4 (?) so we can
advertise the dumps work "as is" with MediaWiki. I will update the Data
Dumps page after I download
the trunk changes and RTQA (regression test) the changes.

Jeff


from_name: Oldak Quill

body:
On 29/03/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/29/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 3/29/07, Denny Colt <wikidenny at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > My question: *if* there is concensus to allow banned users to post if
> > "some
> > > people feel like letting them", why not SAY that in the banning/blocking
> > > policy? Because that seems to be... the practice.
> >
> > Quite clearly two unrelated policies are in conflict in this instance:
> > 1) WP:AUTO says that you can't edit your own article; you should post
> > complaints on the talk page instead.
> > 2) WP:BAN says that banned editors can't edit anything, except
> > possibly their own user talk page.
> >
> > No one ever thought of the situation where the subject of an article
> > is a banned editor. Now that it's happened, the conflict has to be
> > resolved by setting a priority to the above. Consensus in this thread
> > appears to be that WP:AUTO overrules WP:BAN. Problem solved. Have a
> > nice day and thank your mother for the rabbits.
> >
> > Steve
>
>
> I don't see why a banned user would need to edit the wiki to complain. We
> have multiple email addresses to which complaints can be addressed.
> This way, the banning policy is upheld and the complaint is taken into
> consideration. Both policies would be upheld without any conflict occuring
> that would need us to put one policy over the other.

Problem articles can be dealt with far more effectively if they are
dealt with on wiki by Wikipedians. Back channels tend to be populated
by administrators aware of past problems and who are a lot more wary
and unforgiving of users who have been problematic in the past.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)