subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: trust metrics (Modified by Peter Jaros)

body:
I don't mean to be pushy, but I haven't seen any responses to my idea,
and I want to make sure people have seen it, since it contains some
elements others haven't brought up.  So here it is again; comments are
greatly appreciated. :)

Peter

---

On Feb 16, 2004, at 4:44 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:

> Timwi wrote:
>
>> As has already been said, eBay doesn't have this problem because in
>> order to leave feedback you have to enter a transaction with the other
>> user. Edits don't make a good analogy because it's not a transaction
>> between two users who can then rate each other.
>
> Right, I agree that edits are not a good analogy to transactions.  We
> don't really have anything quite like a transaction.

So how's this: each user gets one "opinion" of each other user.  The
opinions can be changed at any time.  An opinion is positive, negative,
or neutral.  The individual opinions are private, and accessible only
by the users who hold them.  This encourages honesty and avoids flame
wars.  Each user has a reputation rating based on other users' opinions
of them.  Opinions are weighted: opinions held by users with higher
reputations have greater influence.

As a completely separate piece, I don't think that ratings, whatever
form they take, should be used to enforce limitations automatically.
These just seems too dangerous and un-wiki-like

Peter

                                  -- ---<>--- --
                        A house without walls cannot fall.
           Help build the world's largest encyclopedia at Wikipedia.org
                                  -- ---<>--- --


list: wikitech-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Assini, Pasqualino

subject:
[Wikitech-l] wikifying documents: how do I get a list of Wikipedia
	articles titles?

body:
Hello,

I would like to write a little utility that, given a text, will automatically substitute all the words or expression in it that match titles of Wikipedia articles with links to the corresponding Wikipedia article.

In order to do this efficiently, and without putting too much strain on the Wikipedia search function, I would need to get an up to date list of the titles of the existing Wikipedia articles.

I could download the SQL dump and extract it from there but, as such a list would probably be of general interest, wouldn't it be possible to generate it together with the SQL dumps and make it available from download.wikipedia.org?

Thanks in advance for your attention

  titto assini


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Michael Snow

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Trust metrics

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

> Michael Snow wrote:
>
>>Wikipedia could turn into a place where the content is largely a
>>tasteless, watery gruel because everyone is on pins and needles to
>>avoid provoking negative responses.
>>
>>
>
>Well, that would make me very happy.  This is an encyclopedia, after
>all.
>
>BrilliantProse, good writing, need not be controversial or
>antagonizing at all.  A well written article can be lively,
>interesting, well-organized, etc., while at the same time in a very
>encyclopedic fashion present the facts in a sufficiently neutral
>manner that all sides to a dispute, if they are working in good faith,
>can agree that it's a good presentation.
>
>--Jimbo
>
I feel like my point is being misunderstood, or else taken out of
context. (However, no offense is taken, and no apology necessary.)

A truly NPOV article on a controversial subject would present things in
a neutral fashion, but it would not be "tasteless, watery gruel". And
that specifically because people would contribute without fear of
negative feedback. I consider that important because the perfect NPOV
article does not suddenly appear, and does not spring fully formed from
the head of its author. It results from a community process, and I
believe that process would never take place if contributors had to worry
about their feedback ratings. The danger is that we make the community
so wary that people are too timid to even discuss certain subjects,
leaving only the shallowest, definitely non-encyclopedic treatment of
controversial topics.

--Michael Snow
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20040216/a52cee56/attachment.htm


list: wikien-l

from_name: Edward Senft

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re:Edward Senft

body:
Under this logic, Angela's IP address is public
knowledge and I did nothing wrong. I only used her IP
address to figure out that information.  How could I
be blocked solely for defending what I did if this is
public information? Either, Viajero gets in trouble
for resolving my IP address. (this of course is
absurd) or danny gets into trouble for blocking a user
for a reason other than vandalism.
--- Sascha Noyes <sascha at pantropy.net> wrote:
> On Monday 16 February 2004 07:32 pm, A [name omitted for privacy reasons]
> wrote:
> > education, etc -- sysops, such as Viajero, have
> used
> > sysop powers (such as IP and email viewing
> capability)
> > to "research" me
>
> Sysops can not see the IP address of a user, only
> developers can. The IP you
> send an email from is included in the email, it is
> therefore public.
>
> Best,
> Sascha Noyes
> --
> Please encrypt all email. Public key available from
> www.pantropy.net/snoyes.asc
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


from_name: Caroline Ford

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wik

body:
Rick wrote:

> Could the person who unblocked Wik tell us why they did it?
>
> RickK
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online
> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=22055/*http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
I have admitted it was me. I object to sysops banning logged in users
without discussion.

SEcretlondon


from_name: Tomos at Wikipedia

subject: [Wikitech-l] ISBN links

body:
Just a quick question -

I noticed that the list of booksources at Special:booksources is editable -
it is linked to the content of Wikipedia:Book sources. Is this a
recently-introduced function at en.? Are other wikipedias also equipped with
the same function?

Thanks,

Tomos

_________________________________________________________________
Let the advanced features & services of MSN Internet Software maximize your
online time. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200363ave/direct/01/


from_name: Thomas R. Koll

subject: [Wikitech-l] ISBN links

body:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 08:07:35PM +0000, Tomos at Wikipedia wrote:
> Just a quick question -
>
> I noticed that the list of booksources at Special:booksources is editable -
> it is linked to the content of Wikipedia:Book sources. Is this a
> recently-introduced function at en.? Are other wikipedias also equipped
> with the same function?

That's an old one. On de: we have it since July 03

ciao, tom

--
http://www.tomk32.de - just a geek trying to change the world
   -.-       http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:TomK32
   /|>	           http://tomk32.bookcrossing.com
   / \                 http://tinyurl.com/u6de


from_name: Sascha Noyes

subject: [Wikipedia-l] image copyright

body:
On Monday 16 February 2004 07:21 pm, Andre Engels wrote:
> "Magnus Manske" <magnus.manske at web.de> schrieb:
> > Once upon a time ;-) I implemented a checkbox system where the uploading
> > party has to choose "GFDL/PD/fair use/something else" upon upload. Would
> > be nice to automatically categorize images, or at least assign blame to
> > a specific user ;-)
>
> Good idea. I would like to get another field 'author' - that's the
> second thing I think we should have, every image should have its copyright
> status AND the name of the person or institute that either holds the
> copyright or would hold it if the material was not in the PD.

Information: information about the image: long description, tools used to make
image, tools used to manipulate image, etc.

Better yet: I add the following fields for every image I upload:

Credit(s): Who gets credit for the image, i.e. the author(s)

License/Copyright: Is the image copyrighted, or PD? Is it licensed under some
license? which one?

Source: Where did the uploader get the image from

--
Please encrypt all email. Public key available from
www.pantropy.net/snoyes.asc


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re:Edward Senft

body:
On Monday 16 February 2004 07:32 pm, A [name omitted for privacy reasons] wrote:
> education, etc -- sysops, such as Viajero, have used
> sysop powers (such as IP and email viewing capability)
> to "research" me

Sysops can not see the IP address of a user, only developers can. The IP you
send an email from is included in the email, it is therefore public.

Best,
Sascha Noyes
--
Please encrypt all email. Public key available from
www.pantropy.net/snoyes.asc


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Image caching problems

body:
The uploaded files have been put on an unusually aggressive cache
setting. As far as I can tell it's not possible to force a reload of
these cached images (for overwrites and deletions), at least not with
Safari 1.2. This is something of a problem; either we need to be
explicitly purging them, or we need sensible cache settings.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040216/64ce9786/attachment.pgp>


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: image copyright

body:
Anthere wrote:

> Brion Vibber a ?crit:
>
>> On Feb 15, 2004, at 19:44, Anthere wrote:
>>
>>> By the way, is it okay that I relicense all the images I offered
>>> wikipedia as copyright by Anthere with permission, with a link to my
>>> user page, instead of under gfdl ?
>>
>> You can choose to allow that use _as well as_ the GFDL you've already
>> agreed to. But, once given, I'm not sure you can withdraw the GFDL
>> permission without cause. (IANAL!)
>
Actually, I'm quite sure you can't withdraw it "without cause," and I
doubt you could find a reason to withdraw the license "with cause." The
text of the GFDL specifically states that the license is "unlimited in
duration". A GPL-type license is perpetual and cannot be withdrawn.

>> Keep in mind that if you were to withdraw the GFDL license, the
>> images would be removed from Wikipedia.
>
No, they shouldn't be. Since the license cannot be withdrawn, the images
stay. By uploading them to Wikipedia, you agree to the terms of the
license. The only images that should be withdrawn are those under
copyright, if the user did not have authority to grant a GFDL.

> I have doubts. Many images are indicated copyrighted, but that the
> author gave permission for use. And they are in Wikipedia.

The images may still be copyrighted. The GFDL and copyright are not
mutually exclusive. However, the author's permission must be GFDL, or
something less restrictive than the GFDL.

--Michael Snow


from_name: Gutza

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Webs of trust are a better idea (was: trust metrics)

body:
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:

>On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 12:46:16AM -0800, Daniel Mayer wrote:
>
>
>>Brion wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On the contrary it's very easy to game: create a bunch of
>>>sock puppet accounts to give each other feedback. On E-Bay
>>>you'd have to go to the trouble of faking some auctions to
>>>yourself, but nothere...
>>>
>>>
>>Yes - that would be bad. Here is a simple solution that goes along with what I
>>thought trust metrics would do:
>>
>>There are a bunch of people I trust on Wikipedia - I never check their edits
>>for vandalism, bad edits, or overt POV because, in my experience, they have
>>very rarely if ever done any of those things. There are others who I trust in
>>the same way expect in some categories and on particular articles. And then
>>there are the people who I don't trust at all.
>>
>>What I would like is the ability to say that I trust user x. Presto! Edits by
>>user x are either no longer displayed in a special recent changes list that
>>only I can see or their edits are turned into small gray text on my regular RC
>>list (I like this second option better). Once a category system is up and
>>running I would like to refine that for some users (who I do not trust only
>>when they edit certain categories of articles).  I would also like the ability
>>to explicitly say that I don't trust somebody - their edits on RC would be
>>bolded.
>>
>>Then to create a web of trust I would like to tell MediaWiki that I trust the
>>opinions of user x. Presto! Any edits by a user on user x's white list will be
>>either removed from my special RC list or made small and grayed out on my
>>regular RC list (and watchlist for that matter).
>>
>>
>
>There is very serious problem with this approach - the trust is not transitive
>at all, especially wrt POV issues.
>
>
I totally support Tomasz. From my understanding, the idea was to build
metrics (as in an *universal* SI "metric" system) rather than
"personalized metrics". In the latter case, Jimbo's suggestion that
"real life metrics" are enough should indeed be true for Wikipedia as
well (I trust this neighbor but I don't trust this other one to feed my
cat while I'm away; I trust this user but I don't trust this other one
to edit some articles while I'm not looking--do you need reminders on
who should feed your cat? :) ).

--Gutza


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Webs of trust are a better idea (was: trust
	metrics)

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

> Daniel Mayer wrote:
>
>>That would prevent any incentive to create sock puppets since my
>>selections only affect what *I* see and what the people who trust my
>>judgment see (if they set their preferences accordingly).
>>
>>
>
>I think that's really fascinating.  The incentive only arises if the
>web of trust is "summed up" across different people to arrive at an
>overall "score".
>
>As long as we don't do that, there's no incentive for sock puppetry.
>
>So, hmm, why did I want to do it that way in the first place?  Well, a
>"summed up" score could be really handy for certain types of decision
>making.  It could provide people with feedback on their overall
>behavior.
>
>But the real point is just to find a way for us to scale better as the
>number of editors grows, to ensure that newcomers are assisted, that
>vandalism is properly watched for, etc.
>
>I like your idea a lot.
>
>--Jimbo
>
At the risk of me-too-ism, I think mav's web of trust concept at least
avoids most of the dangers I see in a feedback-based reputation system.
That alone is wonderful progress. I'm a little more skeptical about how
widely the concept would be adopted, but I'm also not that much of a
Recent Changes junkie, so maybe I'm missing the appeal. Anyway, the
web-of-trust system wouldn't have to be that widespread to be useful.

However, I would still avoid the pitfalls of generating a reputation
score for individual users, even using this framework. Better just to
let user X know that user Y trusts or distrusts X.

--Michael Snow
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20040216/b4326116/attachment.htm


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: image copyright

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

>I see three possibilities:
>1) Waste much of our time arguing with Anthony about his FDL
>interpretation, possibly hire a lawyer, possibly go to court, possibly
>lose.
>2) Name clear conditions for how individual articles must be licensed. If
>Anthony refuses to comply, permanently ban him from editing Wikipedia.
>3) Do nothing.
>
>Option 2) seems the wisest to me. Anthony is clearly a troll who, like a
>vampire, wants to suck energy from us and our project. We should not give
>him what he wants. His "fork" seems to have no intention other than to
>piss people off. It will likely fade away into the darkness as he himself
>does.
>
>Either he adjusts his behavior and can be unbanned, or he does not and he
>cannot. Whatever he does, we win: We either get rid of a persistent troll,
>or we get our interpretation of the FDL confirmed.
>
>In my opinion, this is a decision Jimbo should make, as this is clearly a
>Wikimedia issue. I can only attribute his silence on the matter to him not
>haven taken notice of the fork and related discussion yet.
>
I could also attribute it to Jimbo concluding that the fork is not
important enough to bother about. There's no significant harm to
Wikipedia, except when we waste time on option 1). Banning Anthony
doesn't prevent him from copying Wikipedia for his fork. If McFly will
likely fade away, and I believe it will, then option 3) is a better choice.

Calling Anthony a troll, when he's complying with his interpretation of
the GFDL in good faith, seems like a good way to turn him into one.

--Michael Snow


from_name: Jake Nelson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] re: Trusted users

body:
Chris Green wrote:
> To prove seriousness (i.e. real love of Wikipedia) and
> to prevent sock puppetry why not restrict the
> allocation of trust to those users who have edited
> x(500? 1000?) times?
>
> I would think that this would resolve most problems.
>
> You might have to make an exception for certain
> current sysops who don't really edit but have proved
> their worth to the community.
>
> Sysop status would become automatic after x number of
> edits provided the user hadn't accumulated negative
> votes already from existing trusted users. You could
> keep the voting figures out of the public domain until
> the trigger figure is reached to prevent gamesplaying,
> since people would not know their voting score.
>
> Over time sysop status could be revoked if votes
> against a user became weighted too negatively. For
> questionable cases you could call a vote.
>
> Good behaviour conversely would inevitably lead to the
> regaining of trust as people change their votes and
> might lead to the regaining of sysop status.

Way, way too gameable. Edit-counting is by default a recipe for trouble.
Adding auto-sysoping into the mix, many times moreso. Now, if we had
something (perhaps excessive) where people could rate whether any given edit
was an improvement, and a person had x positively-rated edits (assuming that
this rating would only count in people with likewise well-rated status...),
then something could happen... but you see how complicated that gets.
Automatic sysopping just strikes me as something that shouldn't be in the
equation.
But discussion is a healthy thing... so whatever works.

-- Jake


subject: [WikiEN-l] Desysop Morwen

body:
Peter Jaros wrote:
> BTW, guys, I think I just got the joke.  ANTICAPITALIST.  Get it?  No?
> Trust me, it's funny.

Heh! That is funny. I'd missed it until you pointed it out... my pun-sense
isn't what it used to be, evidently.

-- Jake


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: And what do we do now?

body:
Anthere wrote:

> I see Alex756 left, probably because some here did confuse attacking
> the bearer of bad news, from the one responsable of bad news
> I wonder if people think it is better now that we have no lawyer and
> reasonable man to help us

Having Alex756 leave is certainly regrettable, but it doesn't leave us
with no lawyers. As with any other institution, Wikipedia will always
have people coming and going. Some will lose faith in the project, or
their experiences will disillusion them. New people will also come
along. Nobody, except probably Jimbo, at least for right now, is
irreplaceable. A few others come pretty close.

--Michael Snow


from_name: Andre Engels

subject: [Wikipedia-l] image copyright

body:
"Magnus Manske" <magnus.manske at web.de> schrieb:

> Once upon a time ;-) I implemented a checkbox system where the uploading
> party has to choose "GFDL/PD/fair use/something else" upon upload. Would
> be nice to automatically categorize images, or at least assign blame to
> a specific user ;-)

Good idea. I would like to get another field 'author' - that's the
second thing I think we should have, every image should have its copyright
status AND the name of the person or institute that either holds the
copyright or would hold it if the material was not in the PD.

It's obligatory on GNU/FDL, it gives a 'fair use' defense more chance, it
is required by many who otherwise allow usage, and is at least common
courtesy in other cases.

Andre Engels


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Mav and168

body:
Anthere wrote:
>I would like to ask Maverick to tell me whether yes or no,
>he still  maintains his desire for mediation with 168. I am
>quite ensure of that.

Why are you asking here? But yes I do.

>When Mav requested mediation, he said he wanted this
>for the following reasons
>        What I want is for 168...
>        - to stop abusing his sysop user rights,
>        - stop engaging in edit wars
>        - and for him to start cooperating with others
>
>request for 1) is now bogus, since 168 was unsysoped
>before any mediation could start.

*Temporarily* de-sysoped. To be reinstated he is going to have to demonstrate
that he won't abuse his sysop user rights in the future. So far he seems to
indicate that he thinks that he didn't do anything wrong. That is an issue.

>....

>To the specific point 168 raised above, Mav answered
>        I don't have enough time to deal with all users I think have issues.
>My next project will be Lir.
>
>This seems to indicate to me, that Maverick has now no wish to discuss
>the matter any more. I read this as "now that you have been unsysoped",
>your case is closed, let's move on to Lir topic".

No - it means that after this is over I'm going to put LIr through the same
process in order to try to resolve the dispute many people have with him. Each
of these cases takes a lot of time - I can't do more than one at a time.

>....
>
>Note that 168 consider the whole topic is *not* closed

>168 is willing to discuss this (and other non mentionned
>points I suppose), but do not wish to do so privately.
>He says
>        1)I have nothing to hide and I wish that to be clear.

Interesting given his repeated deletion of the RfC page on him.

>....
>
>This does not seem to have anything to do about mediation
>as we see it. Mediation is not a public trial. I do not think I can
>be of any help if the current discussion is a public trial of 168.

Perhaps - that is up to 168. I'm fine with you declaring that mediation is not
possible and referring the matter to Jimbo (who would then have to decide
whether or not to give it to the arbitration committee).

>I also think there are several issues here
>1) fixing the DNA page
>2) fixing Lir case with some of the community
>3) fixing 168 sysop issue with most of the community
>4) fixing 168 feeling of unfairness from Mav
>5) fixing 168 desire of public trial

All still issues, yes.

>...
>I would have liked to discuss this privately with both parties,
>but I can't do so if I have no private medium to do so :-)

Why can't we just do all this at the bbs site? It's not private but then it
isn't much viewed either.

--mav

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


from_name: Allan Crossman

subject: [WikiEN-l] Lir's personal details

body:
Lir writes:

> I did not introduce my name, diary, hometown,
> education, etc -- sysops, such as Viajero, have used
> sysop powers (such as IP and email viewing capability)
> to "research" me -- I, and other users, would like for
> the public display of personal information to be
> halted.

When I helped compile [[User:Evercat/PP]] I used no sysop powers to
do it - indeed, sysops cannot view IP addresses of logged in users.
As for info like your home town etc, you pretty much brought this on
yourself by editing under an alias while banned, forcing those who
claimed (correctly) that Pizza Puzzle was you to prove it by
producing as much information about the two users as possible.

I'll delete the page if you like.

--
Allan Crossman - http://dogma.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
PGP keys - 0x06C4BCCA (new) || 0xCEC9FAE1 (compatible)


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [Wikipedia-l] image copyright

body:
I'm in the process of adding the full page histories to the McFly page.
I'm also going to add a ===References=== section pointing to the
wikipedia article.  I've downloaded the huge (16 gigs uncompressed)
history file.  This should be finished by the end of the week.  Hope
this alleviates everyone's concerns.

Anthony


from_name: Hr. Daniel Mikkelsen

subject: [Wikipedia-l] trust metrics

body:
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, Hr. Daniel Mikkelsen wrote:

> On Sun, 15 Feb 2004, Brion Vibber wrote:
>
> > > For us, we have nothing like a 'transaction', but the system could be
> > > generalized from that.  Each person could assign positive or negative
> > > feedback to others.
> > ...
> > > 2.  Difficult to game -- it is NOT automated, so there's no way to
> > > game the system by engaging in repetitive actions to score points.
>
> > On the contrary it's very easy to game: create a bunch of sock puppet
> > accounts to give each other feedback. On E-Bay you'd have to go to the
> > trouble of faking some auctions to yourself, but not here...
>
> If you do it properly, it's not this easy. Look at advogato - they use a rating
> system where close to half the users can be fake, and they still won't get
> credit. Instead of simple cross ratings, they use a network, and calculate from
> that.
>
> (I'm against ratings on Wikipedia.)

Here's a link describing how the trust metric at advogato works:

  http://www.advogato.org/trust-metric.html

-- Daniel


from_name: Chris Green

subject: [WikiEN-l] Trusted users

body:
To prove seriousness (i.e. real love of Wikipedia) and
to prevent sock puppetry why not restrict the
allocation of trust to those users who have edited
x(500? 1000?) times?

I would think that this would resolve most problems.

You might have to make an exception for certain
current sysops who don't really edit but have proved
their worth to the community.

Sysop status would become automatic after x number of
edits provided the user hadn't accumulated negative
votes already from existing trusted users. You could
keep the voting figures out of the public domain until
the trigger figure is reached to prevent gamesplaying,
since people would not know their voting score.

Over time sysop status could be revoked if votes
against a user became weighted too negatively. For
questionable cases you could call a vote.

Good behaviour conversely would inevitably lead to the
regaining of trust as people change their votes and
might lead to the regaining of sysop status.

___________________________________________________________
BT Yahoo! Broadband - Free modem offer, sign up online today and save ?80 http://btyahoo.yahoo.co.uk


subject: [WikiEN-l] re: Trusted users (Whoops wrong list!)

body:
Sorry sent previous message to the wrong list

___________________________________________________________
BT Yahoo! Broadband - Free modem offer, sign up online today and save ?80 http://btyahoo.yahoo.co.uk


subject: [Wikipedia-l] re: Trusted users


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: image copyright

body:
Yann Forget a ?crit:
> Hi,
>
> Then, for the end user, what is the difference with fair use?

if the end user is the one reading wikipedia, there is *no* difference.

If the end user is one who want to reuse the content in particular in a
commercial project, it is likely that it will make little difference as
well.
If the image is properly labeled, it is his choice to take a risk in
using a fair use image (for commercial reasons...), and his choice to
contact the copyright owner of a "under permission" picture. And likely
he won't have the permission.

However, if the end user is one wanting to use the image for a personal
website, or an educational website, I would rather recommand him not to
his the fair use image. However, we may strongly suggest him to contact
the copyright owner, to obtain permission to reuse the image.
I guess that in case of personal websites, and educational ones, the
permission will probably be granted quite easily, and the user will take
benefit of this image use.
In many websites, some pictures are displayed under copyright, but it is
mentionned that with a link to the original picture, or mention of the
original author, and just by asking, one may get the permission. I did
that a couple of times (for wikipedia as well, for content), and I
finally got the full freedom to use the content quite easily.

In short, it is not perfect, but ihmo, with permission is sometimes
better than no pictures at all. It requires more work from the end user,
but if they really want it, it is better than no image at all.

> You should look at the small argument I had with Rinaldum about this:
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%E9dia:Pages_soup%E7onn%E9es_de_copyright

:-) I had a lot of pleasure reading that :-)
I somehow agree with both of you on some points.

>>>>>>Because, if I am glad to offer my images under gfdl as a recognised
>>>>>>author, I do not agree that my images are now registered as under
>>>>>>copyright by Anthony DiPierro, with my name gone, perhaps for him to
>>>>>>make money over my work.
>>>>>
>>>Now that's very bad. we should take this case (and others of the same
>>>kind) seriously.
>>
>>Taking it seriously should mean taking position all together as a group.
>> Not just answering people it is their problem.
>
>
> I agree with that. What do we do now?
> Yann

Well, I talked about it with Anthony. And his comments were doubled.

First, he said he was willing to try to import history of articles,
history of image upload. But some people say he won't do that.
If he is really willing and able to do that, that settles the case.

He also said that that since I was only a pseudonyme, and a very minor
editor, I had no say whatsoever, and there was no reason I be given any
credit for the work I gave to Wikipedia. The credit of my work, be it in
articles I wrote nearly alone or with other minor editors, or be it in
pictures I took hours to get right, and that are entirely my work alone,
was to be offered to the five main editors of Wikipedia, as a unique
document.

I guess I have the choice between admitting my work as a photographer
and as an editor was in reality entirely done by Maverick, Brion, Andr?,
Brian and Anthony himself.

Or I have to take care of protecting a little credit for the 2 years of
hard work I offered to Wikipedia project myself. I would not feel so
insulted I think if I were sometimes praised about what I do as an
editor :-) But no praise, job credit given to other people, and perhaps
even my images under Anthony copyright now, I find a little hard to swallow.
So I could 1) pay an american lawyer or 2) try to see how I can get the
website down myself or 3) behave like a vandal in his place.

Admitely, I like option 2, but option 3 might be fun :-)

Still, Anthony admitted that he did not care getting sued, since that
would bring him fame.

Seriously, (do not hit me :-)), we should finally do this french
association asap, so we can at least try to protect the french wikipedia
before it is too late.


from_name: Andre Darmochwal

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: trust metrics

body:
>
>So how's this: each user gets one "opinion" of each other user.  The
>opinions can be changed at any time.  An opinion is positive,
negative,
>or neutral.  The individual opinions are private, and accessible only
>by the users who hold them.  This encourages honesty and avoids flame
>wars.  Each user has a reputation rating based on other users'
opinions
>of them.  Opinions are weighted: opinions held by users with higher
>reputations have greater influence.
>

Wikipedias first task as an encyclopedia is starting new and improving
existing articles. So we should encourage users to edit and start
articles by including this actions in calculating the reputation of a
user. Perhaps this can be combined with the proposed article rating
system, as for 'good' rated articles resulting in a higher reputation
than 'worthless'-rated articles.

Regards,
Andre


from_name: Erik Zachte

subject: [Wikitech-l] Wikistats

body:
> There's a little bug on size distribution page, Erik, if you have any idea
?

Yes, the decimal point got lost, so 99.9 % reads as 999%.
On request I introduced language dependant decimal point (dot or comma),
with this glitch as result. Fixed it a while ago, apparantly not in online
scripts.

----

The Polish wikipedia tripled its number of internal links in only three
months,
other pl: indicators are more in line with previous figures.
Since wp's are ordered by number of internal links on my pages pl: now ranks
third, before fr: and ja:
which is rather counter intuitive.

Does anyone have any idea why pl: links increased so dramatically?
Huge number of link tables?

Erik Zachte


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [Wikipedia-l] image copyright

body:
I would strongly prefer that people not post images to wikipedia
with permission *just* for Wikipedia.  We're a GNU-free project,
and we will always remain such.

I think it is better that we deal with Anthony DiPierro's infringement
more directly.

Do we have contact information for him, as in a telephone number or
email address?  I emailed one address a while back to try to discuss
his interpretation of the GNU FDL, but he never responded (to my
knowledge).

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: image copyright

body:
Anthere wrote:
> Sure, I will contact a french lawyer, pay him 2 months worth salary, for
> him to tell me in 2 years, that though I am the owner of the copyright,
> I can sit on it, and look at someone else claiming he is.
>
> What are my legal rights upon contents on a website hosted in another
> country ? They are null, and I cannot do anything.

But, I can help.  This is my job, and this is what I view to be one of
the most important roles for the Wikimedia Foundation, the defense of
the freedom of our work.

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: image copyright

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> 1) Waste much of our time arguing with Anthony about his FDL
> interpretation, possibly hire a lawyer, possibly go to court, possibly
> lose.
> 2) Name clear conditions for how individual articles must be licensed. If
> Anthony refuses to comply, permanently ban him from editing Wikipedia.
> 3) Do nothing.
>
> Option 2) seems the wisest to me.

Yes, absolutely.  There are a lot of things that need to be clarified
for re-users.  This is becoming more important as we get closer and
closer to a well-formed product.

> In my opinion, this is a decision Jimbo should make, as this is clearly a
> Wikimedia issue. I can only attribute his silence on the matter to him not
> haven taken notice of the fork and related discussion yet.

Well, I wrote to Anthony a few days ago, to discuss his views on the
GNU FDL, in particular with respect to the inclusion of "fair use"
materials.  He did not respond, but I'm still hoping to have a
dialogue with him.

I think it might be more productive if I talked to him on the phone,
so now I'm trying to figure out how to do that.

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Trust metrics

body:
I think your point is a good one.  A poorly designed system would give
rise to fear and paranoia.  But, I think that at least some people
really *ought* to have a simple check on their behavior, a way for
them to look at a number and say "Oh, I've been rude."  I think some
people are simply lacking in the social skills to know about such
things for themselves.

Michael Snow wrote:

> Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
> >Michael Snow wrote:
> >
> >>Wikipedia could turn into a place where the content is largely a
> >>tasteless, watery gruel because everyone is on pins and needles to
> >>avoid provoking negative responses.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Well, that would make me very happy.  This is an encyclopedia, after
> >all.
> >
> >BrilliantProse, good writing, need not be controversial or
> >antagonizing at all.  A well written article can be lively,
> >interesting, well-organized, etc., while at the same time in a very
> >encyclopedic fashion present the facts in a sufficiently neutral
> >manner that all sides to a dispute, if they are working in good faith,
> >can agree that it's a good presentation.
> >
> >--Jimbo
> >
> I feel like my point is being misunderstood, or else taken out of
> context. (However, no offense is taken, and no apology necessary.)
>
> A truly NPOV article on a controversial subject would present things in
> a neutral fashion, but it would not be "tasteless, watery gruel". And
> that specifically because people would contribute without fear of
> negative feedback. I consider that important because the perfect NPOV
> article does not suddenly appear, and does not spring fully formed from
> the head of its author. It results from a community process, and I
> believe that process would never take place if contributors had to worry
> about their feedback ratings. The danger is that we make the community
> so wary that people are too timid to even discuss certain subjects,
> leaving only the shallowest, definitely non-encyclopedic treatment of
> controversial topics.
>
> --Michael Snow

> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


from_name: Ashar Voultoiz

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: sysops giving others admin status

body:
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:33:52 -0500, Sascha Noyes wrote:
> On Monday 16 February 2004 01:53 pm, Sascha Noyes wrote:
>>Now that
>> sysops can give other users admin status, is there some kind of log where
>> such actions are recorded?
>
> OK, Angela has pointed me to:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrat_log
>
> Best,
> Sascha Noyes

hello,

Anyone can get the above link added to the [[Special:Specialpages]]
page please ? :)

cheers,
--
Ashar Voultoiz
http://fr.wikipedia.org/Utilisateur:Hashar
do not send mail to listme at listme.dsbl.org


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [Wikipedia-l] feedback

body:
To take this personally, I'm always complaining about rudeness, but I'm
plenty rude myself. In fact, a good part of why I did a fork was routine
rudeness from Larry Sanger and a few others that no one seemed to ever do
anything about. I've managed to keep a somewhat favorable eBay reputation
though; partly cause I usually enter negative feedback unless what happened
was important. (Retaliatory negative feedback is routine on eBay so warning
others needs to be more important in a particular instance than taking a bit
of punishment for speaking up)

Fred

> From: Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com>
> Reply-To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 05:42:14 -0800
> To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Trust metrics
>
> I think your point is a good one.  A poorly designed system would give
> rise to fear and paranoia.  But, I think that at least some people
> really *ought* to have a simple check on their behavior, a way for
> them to look at a number and say "Oh, I've been rude."  I think some
> people are simply lacking in the social skills to know about such
> things for themselves.


subject: [Wikitech-l] nfs performance problems

body:
Nick Reinking wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 04:01:02PM +0100, Gabriel Wicke wrote:
> > The conclusion that this is related to nfs is close. As a first measure i
> > would propose to move /apache/common onto the local hd on the Apaches. All
> > php scripts are validated against the nfs server for changes on every
> > execution at the moment, this should be the major load.
>
> Is there any reason for this to be done?  It's not like the PHP files
> are changing that often.  Wouldn't a simple rdist upon upgrading be
> sufficient, and less prone to breakage?

I agree with Nick completely, but I also simply second his questions,
since I don't know much about it.

In my experience, admittedly a few years outdated now, NFS sucks in
every possible way.  At that time, it seemed to me that anything hitting
NFS regularly was doomed to breakage.

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikipedia-l] feedback (slight correction)

body:
> From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net>
> Reply-To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 07:02:27 -0700
> To: <wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org>
> Subject: [Wikipedia-l] feedback
>
> To take this personally, I'm always complaining about rudeness, but I'm
> plenty rude myself. In fact, a good part of why I did a fork was routine
> rudeness from Larry Sanger and a few others that no one seemed to ever do
> anything about. I've managed to keep a somewhat favorable eBay reputation
> though; partly cause I don't enter negative feedback unless what happened
> was important. (Retaliatory negative feedback is routine on eBay so warning
> others needs to be more important in a particular instance than taking a bit
> of punishment for speaking up)
>
> Fred
>
>> From: Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com>
>> Reply-To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 05:42:14 -0800
>> To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Trust metrics
>>
>> I think your point is a good one.  A poorly designed system would give
>> rise to fear and paranoia.  But, I think that at least some people
>> really *ought* to have a simple check on their behavior, a way for
>> them to look at a number and say "Oh, I've been rude."  I think some
>> people are simply lacking in the social skills to know about such
>> things for themselves.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


subject:
[WikiEN-l] [brian@suda.co.uk: [Wikitech-l] Wiktionary Mailing list
	created]

body:
The first purpose of this mailing list is to discuss ways that Brian
might help the volunteers to improve the software for wiktionary by
adding a touch of structure to the data.  Brian's volunteered to do
some coding to this end, and seeks guidance and advise from the
community as to what would be desirable.

Additionally, it's about time that wiktionary had it's own mailing list.

--Jimbo

----- Forwarded message from brian suda <brian at suda.co.uk> -----

From: brian suda <brian at suda.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 15:15:21 +0000
To: wikitech-l at Wikipedia.org
Subject: [Wikitech-l] Wiktionary Mailing list created

If anyone is interested in continuing a discussion about improvements, ideas,
etc. for the Wiktionary, a new mailing list has been created for just that
reason.

http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l

cheers,
-brian

--
brian suda
http://suda.co.uk
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

----- End forwarded message -----


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] [brian@suda.co.uk: [Wikitech-l] Wiktionary Mailing
	list created]


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Mav and 168

body:
Daniel Mayer a ?crit:
> Anthere wrote:
>
>>I would like to ask Maverick to tell me whether yes or no,
>>he still maintains his desire for mediation with 168. I am
>>quite ensure of that.
>
>
> Why are you asking here? But yes I do.

Good :-)
I asked because I was ensure

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

Not ensure, unsure. Right. Sigh :-(

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040217/5be07146/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: Wikipedia e-mail (Raul654 repeated unwarranted bans)

body:
Comment ?

--------

Note: forwarded message attached.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040217/f2811ef1/attachment.htm
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: Plautus satire <plautus at shaw.ca>
Subject: Wikipedia e-mail (Raul654 repeated unwarranted bans)
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 15:21:49 GMT
Size: 6318
Url: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040217/f2811ef1/attachment.eml


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Terrorism is a particularly nasty form of violence
	(was: OneVoice)

body:
I think the key is to remember Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blow by
blow account. A few paragraphs in appropriate articles can contain all the
information on this topic that belongs in an encyclopedia.

Fred

> From: "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 09:33:23 -0500
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Terrorism is a particularly nasty form of violence (was:
> OneVoice)
>
> Viajero gave a detailed description of the edit history:
>
> << More recently, an article called [[Terrorism against Israel in 2004]]
> was started in early January by an anon user and OneVoice (companion
> articles for earlier years were also created).  As can be seen from the
> page histories, initially it was a timeline of Israeli victims of
> atrocities.
> Danny was furious about this article and left an angry comment at the
> top of the Talk page. I agreed:  I thought it was basically a propaganda
> exercise.  User BL took it upon himself to salvage the thing by renaming
> it [[Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2004]] and adding
> Israeli atrocities to give it more balance.  OneVoice insisted on
> removing the Palestinian listings for a variety of convoluted reasons
> given on the Talk page.  I agreed with BL's actions, and reverted
> OneVoice, and also reverted his repeated efforts to undo the redirect
> from [[Terrorism against Israel in 2004]].  As a reward for our efforts,
> OneVoice listed BL and me on [[Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress]],
> accusing BL and me of being the same person. >>
>
> First of all, there is no doubt in my mind that BL and Viajero are
> different people. I've had on-line conversations with both of them, and
> their writing styles and philosophical outlook are distinct.
>
> The idea of lumping together all the "terrorist acts" in the Middle East
> and labelling them "violence" may or may not be the best long-term
> solution for the Wikipedia's treatment of this terribly difficult and
> painful subject.
>
> Certainly there are some "sides" that want to minimize or omit their own
> part in the fray, while maximizing the actions of others. I personally
> regard this as a sort of propaganda exercise and hope it won't be
> allowed to go too far at Wikipedia. Rather, we should write about ALL
> the significant events that have occurred in the Middle East.
>
> If we are writing articles that have a bearing on the Arab-Israeli
> conflict, with its history of grievances and injustice and violence, how
> can we treat this matter without including everything we know?
>
> Ed Poor
> Family Federation for World Peace
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Trust metrics

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
> I think your point is a good one.  A poorly designed system would give
> rise to fear and paranoia.  But, I think that at least some people
> really *ought* to have a simple check on their behavior, a way for
> them to look at a number and say "Oh, I've been rude."  I think some
> people are simply lacking in the social skills to know about such
> things for themselves.

Funny, these days when a significant number of people attempt to inform
someone that they're misbehaving, they don't tend to say "On, I've been
rude.", they say "Your cabal's conspiracy against me won't work!". But hey,
we can dream.

-- Jake


from_name: Michael Barnathan

subject: [WikiEN-l] Trusted users

body:
Edits != Trustworthiness. Edits don't even accurately represent how
active a contributor you are, as you can see from any long standing
revert war, someone with thousands of edits but only 1 or 2% of them new
articles, or even an article like Peerage, which has some 200 (valid)
edits by the same user). Edits just represent how many times you type
some text in and click a button, and I think basing adminship, a symbol
of the community's trust in a user, solely or even automatically on how
many times you click that button is absurd. It would help to lessen sock
puppetry, though I don't agree that it will eliminate it. I think that
monitoring the quality of edits would help eliminate sock puppetry more
effectively; not too many people will wait months while making valid
contributions to the encyclopedia on a sock puppet and keeping their
original account active at the same time.

   Message: 6
   Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 01:38:49 +0000 (GMT)
   From: Chris Green <chris_r_green at yahoo.co.uk>
   Subject: [WikiEN-l] Trusted users

   To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
   Message-ID: <20040217013849.73205.qmail at web25107.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
   Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
   To prove seriousness (i.e. real love of Wikipedia) and
   to prevent sock puppetry why not restrict the
   allocation of trust to those users who have edited
   x(500? 1000?) times?

   I would think that this would resolve most problems.

   You might have to make an exception for certain
   current sysops who don't really edit but have proved
   their worth to the community.

   Sysop status would become automatic after x number of
   edits provided the user hadn't accumulated negative
   votes already from existing trusted users. You could
   keep the voting figures out of the public domain until
   the trigger figure is reached to prevent gamesplaying,
   since people would not know their voting score.

   Over time sysop status could be revoked if votes
   against a user became weighted too negatively. For
   questionable cases you could call a vote.

   Good behaviour conversely would inevitably lead to the
   regaining of trust as people change their votes and
   might lead to the regaining of sysop status.


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject: [WikiEN-l] A disturbing pattern (was: OneVoice)

body:
Viajero observed:

> OneVoice may be sincere about wanting to work with others but
> as far as actually discussing the issues goes I have found I
> get absolutely nowhere with him on the Talk pages.  A sense of
> working together in a collaborative fashion towards a
> collective goal -- describing the issues in a neutral way
> without taking sides -- simply doesn't emerge.

I have seen this pattern several times over the past few years. A
contributor /says/ they want to work together with others to make a
'neutral' article on a controversial topic. But then they focus too much
on getting /their/ POV into the article (or keeping out /other/ POVs.

Let's not take extreme measures, when we see this pattern. Let's find a
long-term strategy that really works. I can't think of one, right now,
but I'm sure it has something to do with ME setting a good example of
both courtesy and impartiality.

Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Mav and168

body:
> And now, can we disucss 168?  He keeps deleting other people's comments
> on [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/168
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/168>]].
> Can we do something about him besides just revoke his sysop rights?
>
> RickK

I would like to ask Maverick to tell me whether yes or no, he still
maintains his desire for mediation with 168.
I am quite ensure of that.

When Mav requested mediation, he said he wanted this for the following
reasons
	What I want is for 168...
	- to stop abusing his sysop user rights,
	- stop engaging in edit wars
	- and for him to start cooperating with others

request for 1) is now bogus, since 168 was unsysoped before any
mediation could start. So I don't think Mav is still willing to discuss
something that already occurred.

------

Apparently, 168 motive to discuss with Mav was
	the bias with which he brings complaints against me and so predisposes
the community to a negative evaluation of my behavior. I don't think
it's completely conscious, but it's extremely unfair.

------
To the specific point 168 raised above, Mav answered
	I don't have enough time to deal with all users I think have issues. My
next project will be Lir.

This seems to indicate to me, that Maverick has now no wish to discuss
the matter any more. I read this as "now that you have been unsysoped",
your case is closed, let's move on to Lir topic".

I would like you Mav to be clear about your opinion, as you made no
comment since then. You are the one who requested mediation, it would be
nice if you could give your current opinion on the matter. If you do not
wish to discuss the matter at all, please remove your request from the
page in question :-)

I personally have the feeling the case is not close, but if you do not
wish to discuss it any more, it is confusing to let your request stands.

-------

Note that 168 consider the whole topic is *not* closed

168 is willing to discuss this (and other non mentionned points I
suppose), but do not wish to do so privately.
He says
	1)I have nothing to hide and I wish that to be clear.
	2)I did what I did as a political act of martyrdom in an effort to
change the system, therefore I want a public trial in which I will be
able to give my reasons for what I did and to talk about pathological
behaviors of the group which I believe led to my punishment. You can
talk privately to my adversaries, if you like, but I would rather talk
publicly

This does not seem to have anything to do about mediation as we see it.
Mediation is not a public trial.
I do not think I can be of any help if the current discussion is a
public trial of 168.
I also think there are several issues here
1) fixing the DNA page
2) fixing Lir case with some of the community
3) fixing 168 sysop issue with most of the community
4) fixing 168 feeling of unfairness from Mav
5) fixing 168 desire of public trial

Some people told me mediation was useless, and I should just recommand
people to be patient, as the issue
3) was solved by the unsysoping and
2) will be fixed in time by some people working on it

Ihmo, that only solve 2 of the 5 points.
We may of course fix Lir case in time, and quietly deeply bury 168
concerns. That is a matter of community fairness or unfairness toward a
contributor perhaps ?

-------

Anyway, these are just thoughts of the past 2 days discussions here and
there. I would like feedback on these points from 168 and from Mav. As
well as some others.

I would have liked to discuss this privately with both parties, but I
can't do so if I have no private medium to do so :-)

Friendly yours

ant


from_name: Nick Reinking

subject: [Wikitech-l] nfs performance problems

body:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 04:01:02PM +0100, Gabriel Wicke wrote:
> The conclusion that this is related to nfs is close. As a first measure i
> would propose to move /apache/common onto the local hd on the Apaches. All
> php scripts are validated against the nfs server for changes on every
> execution at the moment, this should be the major load.

Is there any reason for this to be done?  It's not like the PHP files
are changing that often.  Wouldn't a simple rdist upon upgrading be
sufficient, and less prone to breakage?

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


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unban Plautus satire

body:
> Was there anything official from the Arbitration Committee about Plautus
> satire?

The Arbitration Committee has not discussed Plautus at all.
Until this recent spamming, I'd never heard of him.

> Unless anyone feels there's an "emergency" reason to suspend Plautus
> satire's editing privileges, I feel I should "unban" his user account.
> I'll wait an hour or so, and if there are no replies, I think I ought to
> click the unban button.

I support your unbanning of him.  I see no emergency;
the banning looks like vigilante action to me.

--
 Sean Barrett     | I got the white stars you wanted, but I
 sean at epoptic.com | couldn't find any red hearts, yellow
                  | moons, or green clovers. --Betsy Ross


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Terrorism is a particularly nasty form of violence (was:
	OneVoice)

body:
Viajero gave a detailed description of the edit history:

<< More recently, an article called [[Terrorism against Israel in 2004]]
was started in early January by an anon user and OneVoice (companion
articles for earlier years were also created).  As can be seen from the
page histories, initially it was a timeline of Israeli victims of
atrocities.
Danny was furious about this article and left an angry comment at the
top of the Talk page. I agreed:  I thought it was basically a propaganda
exercise.  User BL took it upon himself to salvage the thing by renaming
it [[Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2004]] and adding
Israeli atrocities to give it more balance.  OneVoice insisted on
removing the Palestinian listings for a variety of convoluted reasons
given on the Talk page.  I agreed with BL's actions, and reverted
OneVoice, and also reverted his repeated efforts to undo the redirect
from [[Terrorism against Israel in 2004]].  As a reward for our efforts,
OneVoice listed BL and me on [[Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress]],
accusing BL and me of being the same person. >>

First of all, there is no doubt in my mind that BL and Viajero are
different people. I've had on-line conversations with both of them, and
their writing styles and philosophical outlook are distinct.

The idea of lumping together all the "terrorist acts" in the Middle East
and labelling them "violence" may or may not be the best long-term
solution for the Wikipedia's treatment of this terribly difficult and
painful subject.

Certainly there are some "sides" that want to minimize or omit their own
part in the fray, while maximizing the actions of others. I personally
regard this as a sort of propaganda exercise and hope it won't be
allowed to go too far at Wikipedia. Rather, we should write about ALL
the significant events that have occurred in the Middle East.

If we are writing articles that have a bearing on the Arab-Israeli
conflict, with its history of grievances and injustice and violence, how
can we treat this matter without including everything we know?

Ed Poor
Family Federation for World Peace


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: nfs performance problems

body:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 04:34:31PM +0100, Gabriel Wicke wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 09:10:26 -0600, Nick Reinking wrote:
>
> > Is there any reason for this to be done?
>
> Convenience and tidyness i'd say.
>
> >  It's not like the PHP files are
> > changing that often.  Wouldn't a simple rdist upon upgrading be
> > sufficient, and less prone to breakage?
>
> I guess so, yes. We should see if it helps pretty quickly. Any roots
> around?
> --
> Gabriel Wicke

I used to have root on the old systems (larousse and pliny), but my
account seems to be missing on the newer systems... :\

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


from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Fwd: Wikipedia e-mail (Raul654 repeated  unwarranted
	bans)

body:
At 07:50 AM 2/17/2004 -0800, Anthere wrote:

>Comment ?
>

Got one of those too, he seems to be spamming everyone he can find with a
contact address. The real reason for his ban was his relentless and
uncompromising insertion of fringe theories into the [[black hole]] article
as if they were proven, widely-accepted fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Black_hole has the details, especially of
Roadrunner's (and others') attempts to explain the problem to him.
Personally, I think it was a reasonable ban, but I'm not deeply involved
one way or the other.


from_name: Camille Constans

subject: [Wikitech-l] Wikistats

body:
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 04:06:30 +0100
"Erik Zachte" <e.p.zachte at chello.nl> wrote:

> > There's a little bug on size distribution page, Erik, if you have any idea
> ?
>
> Yes, the decimal point got lost, so 99.9 % reads as 999%.
> On request I introduced language dependant decimal point (dot or comma),
> with this glitch as result. Fixed it a while ago, apparantly not in online
> scripts.

Where could I got the last revision ?

> The Polish wikipedia tripled its number of internal links in only three
> months,
> other pl: indicators are more in line with previous figures.
> Since wp's are ordered by number of internal links on my pages pl: now ranks
> third, before fr: and ja:
> which is rather counter intuitive.
>
> Does anyone have any idea why pl: links increased so dramatically?
> Huge number of link tables?

Database size grows to 81M, and the real size seem near of this. But bziped it took less MB than fr :
backup fr : 19M, for ~81M
backup pl : 13M, for ~100M

Maybe a bot put some stuff on pl, any people from pl here ?

It doesnt seem a bug at least.

Shaihulud


from_name: List, Christian

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Image caching problems

body:
> Currently only the image page is purged,
> not the image itself.
> I'll try to take a look at it tonight.
> --
> Gabriel Wicke

Is this really true?

I'm asking because we have a possible image copyright infringement on the
danish Wikipedia which will possibly require us to delete a large number of
pictures in a couple of days. We would need those pictures to get removed
completely, not just the image page.
You can see the dispute and the current list of pages/pictures that might
need to be deleted here:
http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_diskussion:Kilder

Regards
Christian
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 1959 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040217/79a5a10a/attachment.bin>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Anonymous proxies

body:
Charles (Mirv) wondered:

> Are there any *valid* uses for anonymizing proxies, or are they
> used only to vandalize, troll, and dodge hard bans? Can anyone
> think of a situation in which someone might have a legitimate
> purpose for such a tool? Since I can't, I wouldn't object to a
> permanent block of any and all anonymous proxy services.

The only valid reason I can think of, is the case of someone living in a
police state where ANY communication with the free world is considered
/prima facie/ evidence of state treason -- and punished with long, harsh
prison sentences or death.

But they'd be better off e-mailing a trusted friend on the outside and
having their /friend/ post their contributions on their behalf. I have
no doubt that even the anonymizing proxies can be backtraced, if some
"intelligence service" really wants to make the effort.

The fact is, anyone can contribute to Wikipedia. Just create a handle
and start typing. People who don't want their contributions tracked are
subverting the WikiWiki principle and should not be helped. (If you're
contributing at the risk of your life, contact ME and I'll set up
something safe for you through the underground.)

Ed Poor


subject: [WikiEN-l] No shouting, please

body:
Anticapitalist wrote:

<< I AM NOT A VANDAL, NEITHER A TROLL.... >>

Let's not respond to messages in all caps. I'll monitor anticap's posts
for a week, and if I see anything that seems related to the purposes of
this list, I'll pass it on. Otherwise, "to the bit-bucket".

P.S. The best way to respond to an Internet Troll is to ignore him
completely.

Ed Poor
English Wikipedia List Administrator


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Wikipedia-l] image copyright

body:
Anthony-
> I'm in the process of adding the full page histories to the McFly page.
> I'm also going to add a ===References=== section pointing to the
> wikipedia article.  I've downloaded the huge (16 gigs uncompressed)
> history file.  This should be finished by the end of the week.  Hope
> this alleviates everyone's concerns.

thanks. I must admit that surprises me.

Regards,

Erik


subject: [WikiEN-l] List moderation (was: ban anti anti)

body:
Hephaestos mused:

> I thought this list was moderated.

The mailing list software has moderation functions that allow Jimbo (or
anyone else, like me who has the password) to:

A. Hold all posts for review
B. Hold a particular contributor's posts for review

Option A is used only in emergencies, such as a flame war (we haven't
had any of THOSE, I don't think.)

Option B is rarely used. Jimbo set the "moderation flag" for one user
this weekend who kept yelling in all caps.

But really the list has no Moderator. I'm the "Administrator", which
means I delete the spam every day (when I remember) and help anyone who
e-mails me with subscription problems.

(Oh, occasionally I've advised people to tone down their comments or
take a thread off-line, but I don't have the authority to make it stick.
This is a utopian anarchy, remember? ;-)

Ed Poor
English Wikipedia List Administrator


subject: [WikiEN-l] And what do we do now ?

body:
Anthere a ecrit:

> To me, it looks like we always forget to thank those who did good
> things, but very well remember to spank the ones who appeared to have
> failed, while they tried to make a point.
>
> And what do we do now ?
>
> Yes, I had good holidays :-)

I'm glad you had a good holiday. I watched "Anger Management" /twice/
and read a book on conflict resolution.

The leader of my church, the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, says that if we see
that someone has made a mistake we should take responsibility for it
ourself and fix it SEVEN TIMES, before saying anything to them about
it.

I have tried to apply this rule at Wikipedia. For example, if someone
deletes a new page which contains only graffiti or a "What's this"
question, I take 5 or 10 minutes with Google to research the deleted
topic, undelete it, and put a nice stub in its place. I try to keep
count, but it's easy to lose track. So I might do this more than 7
times quietly. After the count of seven, I often suggest to another
sysop that they make a stub instead of just deleting the page.

Ed Poor
Unificationist since 1977


subject: [WikiEN-l] Personal information (was: Edward Senft)

body:
Edward Senft wrote:

> Under this logic, Angela's IP address is public
> knowledge and I did nothing wrong. I only used her IP
> address to figure out that information.

We have all made an implicit agreement not to bring up aspects of
others' personal lives here on the mailing list or on the Wikipedia
website. Perhaps now is a good time to make this agreement explicit.

I happen to work for, well, a certain company which I would rather not
name. I scrupulously avoid bringing it up (even though you could easily
guess it from my e-mail headers). To avoid any conflict of interest, I
almost /never/ write anything relating to my company's services or
products -- and if I do, and someone reverts it, I always leave it
alone. I will /never/ get into an edit war or similar dispute about my
company -- otherwise they'd probably fire me.

Please, don't reply by saying that the Blah Blah Company would never do
that, or anything that mentions my company's name. I'd really like to
leave my employer's business out of it completely.

Similarly, as contributors or sysopso or developers we might find out
something "personal" about another contributor. At best, it's poor taste
to bring it up -- unless they themselves clearly invite discussion.

For example, I am a member of the Unification Church and don't mind
people talking about my membership in it. Erik (Eloquence) even calls my
church a "cult" and I don't mind. Note that it's only because I said I
don't mind that he has the "right" to mention my church affiliation.

The same goes for openly gay contributors, Republicans, gun nuts, pro-
and anti-abortion folks, etc. The line between discussing personal
information and 'making personal remarks' is a thin one, so we ought to
be careful.

Ed Poor
Wikien-l Admin


from_name: Andre Engels

subject: [Wikitech-l] Wikistats

body:
"Erik Zachte" <e.p.zachte at chello.nl> schrieb:

> The Polish wikipedia tripled its number of internal links in only three
> months,
> other pl: indicators are more in line with previous figures.

Looking at it, I see the database size grows even faster (250% in December,
which is the month when the abnomaly seems to have happened, against about
240% for the internal links). The number of words also is growing very fast
(almost 50% in the given month). The number of articles also grew faster
than normal, but not as explosively (double the amount); instead, the
average article size more than doubled.

Links to other languages grew fast in January rather than December, so
it must have another reason.

> Does anyone have any idea why pl: links increased so dramatically?
> Huge number of link tables?

Given the above, and a normal, moderate grow in the number of active
Wikipedians, it looks like some kind of bot. Checking, what I find is
that the year pages on pl: have recently been augmented with a nice
table giving the ruler at that time in various countries. Whether it is
the reason for your finds, I doubt though.

Andre Engels


body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:

> Tomasz Wegrzanowski wote:
>
>>There is very serious problem with this approach - the
>>trust is not transitive at all, especially wrt POV issues.
>
>
> Yeah it is - did you not read the part where I stated that users can trust by
> proxy? That makes it transitive without any possibility of people gaming the
> system through sock puppets.
>
> -- mav

Could I just clarify the model you are proposing. Do you grey out in RC:

a) All the people on "Mav's Trusted Editors" list and all the people on
  "X's Trusted Editors" where X runs through "People Who Mav Trusts to
Trust Good Editors"
or

b)  All the people on "Mav's Trusted Editors" list, all the people on
that list' trusted editors lists, all the people on those lists trusted
editors listed, and so on, recursively.

a) I like as an idea. Each user has two lists "Trusted Editors" and
"Trusted Delegates" (the second is likely much shorter than the first)

b) has some sort of transitivity property, but to my mind is a much more
complicated and less useful thing than a). You'd end up trusting
virtually everyone but through some route or other. Due to this you'd to
have some sort of "trust for categories" because we know that plenty of
good editors make bad edits when they not editing on a subject they know
much about. How that "category-trust" meshes in with transitivity, I
don't know.

Pete/Pcb21


from_name: James Rosenzweig

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Plautus satire

body:
Anyone considering unbanning Plautus satire should
please view his correspondence with silsor here --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Silsor/fanmail.
Frankly, I thought Ps deserved banning prior to seeing
these letters, but certainly after seeing them I think
we are dealing with someone who should not be let
within a mile of Wikipedia.  Just my perspective,

James R. (Jwrosenzweig)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Plautus satire (fixed link)

body:
Shoot, my use of the period broke the link in the
previous post.  Plautus' abusive correspondence is
visible here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Silsor/fanmail

James R. (Jwrosenzweig)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Transition period and banning (was: Raul654 repeated
	unwarranted bans)

body:
Cody (Plautus Satire) wrote a lot of stuff, but especially:

> In all three cases where I was banned it was to settle
> disputed edits. The wikipedia guidelines state that bans
> and page protections are ONLY to be used in cases of
> persisent vandalism.

We are going through a transition period. Until last year,
only Jimbo could officially ban a user. He would do so
reluctantly and after a great deal of mailing list discussion
-- and often the very public resignation of a long-term
valuable contributor.

This year, we set up two committees to relieve Jimbo of the
burden and to formalize the community process. Many people
felt the new committees weren't working well, and some users
even tried to take advantage of what came to be called the
"power vacuum", i.e., an absence of authority.

So a few admins (including me - once) stepped in and by-passed
the committees, engaging in "vigilante action".

Instead, I think, we should stick with the committee system.

Now I'm not sure what went on between Cody and Raul, but I know one
thing: if it came down to a case of:

* if I make one more reversion, I will get banned

...then I would leave the article alone. There are plenty of other
articles that require my attention, not to mention work and so forth in
the real world!

My advice is: don't push it. In other words, if someone keeps reverting
my edit 2 or more times, it's time for Uncle Ed to stop editing that
page. At least for a day or two.

I'm just as passionate as anyone else, and I get into edit wars from
time to time. But my personal rule is "If I think I'm in an edit war,
it's time to stop editing." Because no one ever wins an edit war.

Admins can protect pages and ask other admins to take a look,
if there's a seriouse conflict. Banning without going to the
committees first should only be done in an emergency. Please
use your most careful and delicate sense of judgment before
declaring an emergency.

Ed Poor
One of many Wikipedia Admins


subject: [WikiEN-l] FW: Image caching problems

body:
I'm forwarding this message, which apparently "bounced" from the tech
list. --Ed Poor

-----Original Message-----
From: wikitech-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
[mailto:wikitech-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of List, Christian
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 10:02 AM
To: 'wikitech-l at Wikipedia.org'
Subject: Re: Image caching problems

> Currently only the image page is purged,
> not the image itself.
> I'll try to take a look at it tonight.
> --
> Gabriel Wicke

Is this really true?

I'm asking because we have a possible image copyright infringement on
the danish Wikipedia which will possibly require us to delete a large
number of pictures in a couple of days. We would need those pictures to
get removed completely, not just the image page. You can see the dispute
and the current list of pages/pictures that might need to be deleted
here: http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_diskussion:Kilder

Regards
Christian


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unban Plautus satire

body:
Was there anything official from the Arbitration Committee about Plautus
satire?

Unless anyone feels there's an "emergency" reason to suspend Plautus
satire's editing privileges, I feel I should "unban" his user account.
I'll wait an hour or so, and if there are no replies, I think I ought to
click the unban button.

Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed


from_name: Gabriel Wicke

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Image caching problems

body:
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 22:03:44 -0800, Brion Vibber wrote:

> The uploaded files have been put on an unusually aggressive cache setting.
> As far as I can tell it's not possible to force a reload of these cached
> images (for overwrites and deletions), at least not with Safari 1.2. This
> is something of a problem; either we need to be explicitly purging them,
> or we need sensible cache settings.

Yesterday there was an image that wasn't deleted properly at all (not from
the DB, not from NFS), of course shift-reloading didn't help here. The
Expire for images doesn't influence shift-reload/ ctrl-reload purging.

Automatically purging the different image sizes isn't that easy, but might
be possible (they must be deleted somehow anyway, and at that stage we
know the file names to purge). Currently only the image page is purged,
not the image itself.
I'll try to take a look at it tonight.
--
Gabriel Wicke


from_name: Alfio Puglisi

subject: [Wikitech-l] Wikistats

body:
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Andre Engels wrote:

>Given the above, and a normal, moderate grow in the number of active
>Wikipedians, it looks like some kind of bot. Checking, what I find is
>that the year pages on pl: have recently been augmented with a nice
>table giving the ruler at that time in various countries. Whether it is
>the reason for your finds, I doubt though.

The table+calendar for each year is around 18Kbytes and >100 links, so if
it has been added to 2000+ years, that's easily enough to account for the
increase in database size, and I suspect in words and links.

ALfio


from_name: Delirium

subject: [WikiEN-l] The Block Log

body:
Viajero wrote:

>Ok, these blocks haven't been strictly by the book, but there isn't one I
>think that was truly uncalled for and calls into question the judgement of
>the concerned admin. Let's keep in mind the *spirit* not just the *letter*
>of the law for a moment. As for Wik, it is not like a variety of people
>haven't put substantial effort into encouraging him to change his ways. In
>vain of course; he is incorrigible.
>
>
That may be true, but in Wik's case it's not an open-shut case where
there's near-unanimous support for banning him.  If we're going to ban
him despite it being a somewhat controversial matter, it should go
through some sort of established process.

-Mark


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] The Block Log

body:
Caroline Ford wrote:

> Caroline Ford wrote:
>
>> Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>>
>>> The Block Log makes fascinating reading.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Block_log
>>>
>>> Here are some highlights:
>>>
>>> * Users blocked by Jimbo tend to stay unblocked
>>> * Wik gets blocked and unblocked a lot
>>> * Raul really wants to block Plautus
>>> * Not one "block" citing a Committee decision
>>
>> Agreed - there seems to be a lot of blocking logged in users at the
>> moment - just because someone is annoyed with them. The precedent was
>> set a few weeks ago, it seems to be happening at least once a day now.
>>
>> Secretlondon
>
>
> My worry is that if Khranus, Mr Natural Health etc had been around
> this week - they would have just been permanently blocked with no
> discussion. This _is_ what is happening at the moment - and for lesser
> cases as well.
>
> I'm wondering whether we should go as far as to have a temporary time
> out on blocking usernames. Of course, the minute we do that we'll have
> Michael.
>
> We need to put the genie back in the box.

Perhaps excessive blocking could become a blockable offense!

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] The Block Log

body:
Viajero wrote:

>On 02/17/04  at 01:29 PM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> said:
>
>>They just need to quit blocking people without authorization. We have a
>>procedure. Try talk, then mediation, then appeal to Jimbo if mediation
>>doesn't work to request Jimbo to ask for arbitration
>>
>And how many months will this take???
>
As long as is needed.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] The Block Log

body:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:

>Whenever I've blocked someone (other than anonymous IP) or taken any
>other unilateral action, I've always immediately reported it to this
>mailing list.
>
>Then I've sat back and waited to see what others thought. And if the
>consensus went against me, I bowed to the collective will.
>
>A lot of these hasty blocks seem to have sneaked in under the tent flap.
>
Sorry Ed, but we can't use nostalgia as a valid argument.  When I first
joined you would feel obliged to take a sabbatical whenever someone
objected to your blocking someone.  But times have changed; that's
progress, and you can't stop progress.  "Everybody"'s armed now.  Why
bother sneaking under the tent flap, when you can slash a hole in the
back of the tent with your machete.

Ec


from_name: Anthere

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Mav and168

body:
Daniel Mayer a ?crit:
> Anthere wrote:
>
>>I would like to ask Maverick to tell me whether yes or no,
>>he still  maintains his desire for mediation with 168. I am
>>quite ensure of that.
>
>
> Why are you asking here? But yes I do.

Good :-)
I asked because I was ensure

>>When Mav requested mediation, he said he wanted this
>>for the following reasons
>>       What I want is for 168...
>>       - to stop abusing his sysop user rights,
>>       - stop engaging in edit wars
>>       - and for him to start cooperating with others
>>
>>request for 1) is now bogus, since 168 was unsysoped
>>before any mediation could start.
>
>
> *Temporarily* de-sysoped. To be reinstated he is going to have to demonstrate
> that he won't abuse his sysop user rights in the future. So far he seems to
> indicate that he thinks that he didn't do anything wrong. That is an issue.

Another issue is whether he wants to be a sysop again or not.

>>To the specific point 168 raised above, Mav answered
>>       I don't have enough time to deal with all users I think have issues.
>>My next project will be Lir.
>>
>>This seems to indicate to me, that Maverick has now no wish to discuss
>>the matter any more. I read this as "now that you have been unsysoped",
>>your case is closed, let's move on to Lir topic".
>
>
> No - it means that after this is over I'm going to put LIr through the same
> process in order to try to resolve the dispute many people have with him. Each
> of these cases takes a lot of time - I can't do more than one at a time.

Ok. I understand.

>>Note that 168 consider the whole topic is *not* closed
>
>
>>168 is willing to discuss this (and other non mentionned
>>points I suppose), but do not wish to do so privately.
>>He says
>>       1)I have nothing to hide and I wish that to be clear.
>
>
> Interesting given his repeated deletion of the RfC page on him.
>
>
>>....
>>
>>This does not seem to have anything to do about mediation
>>as we see it. Mediation is not a public trial. I do not think I can
>>be of any help if the current discussion is a public trial of 168.
>
>
> Perhaps - that is up to 168. I'm fine with you declaring that mediation is not
> possible and referring the matter to Jimbo (who would then have to decide
> whether or not to give it to the arbitration committee).

I mostly think that there is confusion between the various issues, and
once there is more clarity, we can move on.
I do not think going to arbitration at this point will be an answer to
the current situation.

>>I also think there are several issues here
>>1) fixing the DNA page
>>2) fixing Lir case with some of the community
>>3) fixing 168 sysop issue with most of the community
>>4) fixing 168 feeling of unfairness from Mav
>>5) fixing 168 desire of public trial
>
>
> All still issues, yes.

1) the DNA point might need to go to arbitration perhaps, but it is my
understanding the arbitration committee wishes to avoid to decide such
issues (I may be wrong). I do think this is the last issue to settle,
and one that can only be done through discussion and common agreement. I
suggest we forget about it for now.

2) The Lir case is another matter.
168 current troubles come from his opinion that Lir is a vandal (which
is a controversial opinion, apparently not only his opinion). I think it
is clear to anyone that he did this to cast light on this issue, and to
warn us that some of the members in the community suffered of that
problem. Whatever what the community think of the way employed by 168 to
make light on this issue, the light is now on it, and I think there are
enough people now aware this is a serious social trouble.
You and other people have already declared being willing (or are already
trying) to find a solution for this.
Ultimately, Lir case might be one for arbitration, or not, but right
now, I think it should be dissociated from 168 case.
168 raised the issue. Some people will try to fix it. Perhaps 168 should
now be patient and wait that this proceed at its own pace.
If the issue is still there in 2 months, maybe someone will have to
scream again. But right now, the noise is enough, let us trust those
willing to work on Lir case to do so.

3) and 4) and 5) are the issues at stake for mediation. Not 1) and 2).
The problems between you and 168 are rather private, which is why they
should be separated from Lir case now; You may perhaps also represent
the community for the point 3 (which is likely to be about his behavior
as a sysop, and whether he should be sysop again or not).

Or perhaps point 3 should be discussed with someone else later ?

I do think that once 168 see that Lir case is being handled by competent
  people, he will be willing to discuss these 3 issues.

This, I think, for various reasons, including seeing some of the current
discussions on talk pages, would benefit in being private.
Once we admit that 168 did this as a political move, we can discuss
this, rather than simply "judge" him.
Sending this to arbitration, which could decide to remove the sysophood
permanently, or restore it with a warning, is not a solution. That would
be neglecting why he was very upset at the situation on the DNA article,
why he found himself expressing his pain this way, how it was perceived
by others, how he reacted in turn, how it escalated...well, not good.
I think most here would say 168 is a good contributor, he deserves more
than just a trial, no ?

Anyway, I hope this might clarify points so we can move on to more
constructive discussions :-)

>>I would have liked to discuss this privately with both parties,
>>but I can't do so if I have no private medium to do so :-)
>
>
> Why can't we just do all this at the bbs site? It's not private but then it
> isn't much viewed either.
>
> --mav

I do not think it is a good idea.

Thanks for your answer Mav. I appreciated :-)


subject: [WikiEN-l] The Block Log

body:
They just need to quit blocking people without authorization. We have a
procedure. Try talk, then mediation, then appeal to Jimbo if mediation
doesn't work to request Jimbo to ask for arbitration.

Fred

> From: Caroline Ford <caroline at secretlondon.me.uk>
> Reply-To: caroline at secretlondon.me.uk, English Wikipedia
> <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 20:18:03 +0000
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The Block Log
>
> Caroline Ford wrote:
>
>> Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>>
>>> The Block Log makes fascinating reading.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Block_log
>>>
>>> Here are some highlights:
>>>
>>> * Users blocked by Jimbo tend to stay unblocked
>>> * Wik gets blocked and unblocked a lot
>>> * Raul really wants to block Plautus
>>> * Not one "block" citing a Committee decision
>>>
>>> Ed Poor
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Agreed - there seems to be a lot of blocking logged in users at the
>> moment - just because someone is annoyed with them. The precedent was
>> set a few weeks ago, it seems to be happening at least once a day now.
>>
>> Secretlondon
>> ----------
>
> My worry is that if Khranus, Mr Natural Health etc had been around this
> week - they would have just been permanently blocked with no discussion.
> This _is_ what is happening at the moment - and for lesser cases as well.
>
> I'm wondering whether we should go as far as to have a temporary time
> out on blocking usernames. Of course, the minute we do that we'll have
> Michael.
>
> We need to put the genie back in the box.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: image copyright

body:
Michael Snow a ?crit:
> Anthere wrote:
>
>> Brion Vibber a ?crit:
>>
>>> On Feb 15, 2004, at 19:44, Anthere wrote:
>>>
>>>> By the way, is it okay that I relicense all the images I offered
>>>> wikipedia as copyright by Anthere with permission, with a link to my
>>>> user page, instead of under gfdl ?
>>>
>>>
>>> You can choose to allow that use _as well as_ the GFDL you've already
>>> agreed to. But, once given, I'm not sure you can withdraw the GFDL
>>> permission without cause. (IANAL!)
>>
>>
> Actually, I'm quite sure you can't withdraw it "without cause," and I
> doubt you could find a reason to withdraw the license "with cause." The
> text of the GFDL specifically states that the license is "unlimited in
> duration". A GPL-type license is perpetual and cannot be withdrawn
>>> Keep in mind that if you were to withdraw the GFDL license, the
>>> images would be removed from Wikipedia.
>>
>>
> No, they shouldn't be. Since the license cannot be withdrawn, the images
> stay. By uploading them to Wikipedia, you agree to the terms of the
> license. The only images that should be withdrawn are those under
> copyright, if the user did not have authority to grant a GFDL.
>
>> I have doubts. Many images are indicated copyrighted, but that the
>> author gave permission for use. And they are in Wikipedia.
>
>
> The images may still be copyrighted. The GFDL and copyright are not
> mutually exclusive. However, the author's permission must be GFDL, or
> something less restrictive than the GFDL.
>
> --Michael Snow

Right. I can't remove them.
Now, it is problematic to me, as some of these images are declared being
from me in other places (and it is important that they are from me *over
there*), while now, they also exist in another website, apparently owned
by another person, and not clearly gfdl any more.
So, my offering them under gfdl to Wikipedia (that is, normally
preserving my authorship) is likely to hurt me indirectly in my real
life as some one could claim being the author and having a copyright on it.
If I can't remove them, I suppose however that I can replace some of
them with identical images with a gfdl license embedding in ? That will
not make it for the ones now lost, but at least, future pictures and
future uses will be saved ? Of course, the embedded licence can be
removed, but it makes things harder. Can I do that ?
If Wikipedia itself does not try to secure its participants rights, how
far can we go to preserve the rights we should have in our participation
under gfdl Michael ?


subject: [WikiEN-l] The Block Log

body:
No, it just means you have two in the wrong.

Fred

> From: "Jake Nelson" <jnelson at soncom.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 14:58:29 -0600
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The Block Log
>
> Fred Bauder wrote:
>> They just need to quit blocking people without authorization. We have a
>> procedure. Try talk, then mediation, then appeal to Jimbo if mediation
>> doesn't work to request Jimbo to ask for arbitration.
>
> Here's a thought- have the blocking code require two sysops to both do it to
> take effect, at least in the case of logged-in users. Might solve some of
> these issues.
>
> -- Jake
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Sunir Shah

subject: [WikiEN-l] anonymous proxies

body:
Ed Poor writes,

> But they'd be better off e-mailing a trusted friend on the outside and
> having their /friend/ post their contributions on their behalf. I have
> no doubt that even the anonymizing proxies can be backtraced, if some
> "intelligence service" really wants to make the effort.

It's "likely" (*) that certain oppressive countries
maintain anonymous proxies just to see what people do
with them. I would never trust an anonymous proxy with
anything serious.

    (*) for extreme values of "likely"

SS


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] The Block Log

body:
This is frontier justice; not long.

Fred

> From: Viajero <viajero at quilombo.nl>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:52:59 +0100
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The Block Log
>
> On 02/17/04  at 01:29 PM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> said:
>
>> They just need to quit blocking people without authorization. We have a
>> procedure. Try talk, then mediation, then appeal to Jimbo if mediation
>> doesn't work to request Jimbo to ask for arbitration
>
> And how many months will this take???
>
>
> V.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Plautus satire

body:
James,

Even though I agree personally with your evaluation of Plautus, I feel
the long-term interests of the Wikipedia would be better served by
suspending judgment pending the outcome of a committee decision.

I'm going to press the "unban" button for [[user:Plautus satire]] for
this reason only.

----
11:17, 17 Feb 2004, Raul654 blocked #1786 (unblock) (Autoblocked because
you share an IP address with "Plautus satire". Reason "3rd ban (please
make this permanent). Despite warnings, constantly POV vandalisms of
articles; reverting talk pages; harassing other users. ".)
----

Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed


subject: [WikiEN-l] The Block Log

body:
In a real emergency like User:Zap only one is needed.

Fred

> From: "Jake Nelson" <jnelson at soncom.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 15:31:24 -0600
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The Block Log
>
> Fred Bauder wrote:
>> No, it just means you have two in the wrong.
>
> I said some. Not all. And if the number were three? Or four? I didn't
> suggest those before, because I think being able to block someone who starts
> going nuts immediately is important, but the RC patrol tends to number more
> than two at any given time...
>
> -- Jake
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] The Block Log

body:
The Block Log makes fascinating reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Block_log

Here are some highlights:

* Users blocked by Jimbo tend to stay unblocked
* Wik gets blocked and unblocked a lot
* Raul really wants to block Plautus
* Not one "block" citing a Committee decision

Ed Poor


from_name: Jake Nelson

subject: [WikiEN-l] The Block Log

body:
Fred Bauder wrote:
> They just need to quit blocking people without authorization. We have a
> procedure. Try talk, then mediation, then appeal to Jimbo if mediation
> doesn't work to request Jimbo to ask for arbitration.

Here's a thought- have the blocking code require two sysops to both do it to
take effect, at least in the case of logged-in users. Might solve some of
these issues.

-- Jake


from_name: brian suda

subject: [Wikitech-l] Wiktionary Mailing list created

body:
If anyone is interested in continuing a discussion about improvements, ideas,
etc. for the Wiktionary, a new mailing list has been created for just that
reason.

http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l

cheers,
-brian

--
brian suda
http://suda.co.uk


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject: [Wikitech-l] Take my name off the IP block page, please

body:
Erik placed the following notice on the IP block page:

<< This IP address is blocked for editing because it belongs to an
anonymizing proxy. If you really need anonymization, please contact Ed
Poor (Edmund.W.Poor at abc dot com), and he'll set up something safe for
you through the underground. >>

I don't know if this was meant as a joke, or to make a point. But it's
not a public service I can provide. What I meant was that people contact
me privately: note that writing to me at me work address is NOT PRIVATE.
Employers have the right to read e-mail, court orders can force them to
divulge contents, etc.

Please take my name and e-mail address out of the IP block notice
quickly.

Thank you.

Ed Poor


subject: [WikiEN-l] The Block Log

body:
Fred Bauder wrote:
> No, it just means you have two in the wrong.

I said some. Not all. And if the number were three? Or four? I didn't
suggest those before, because I think being able to block someone who starts
going nuts immediately is important, but the RC patrol tends to number more
than two at any given time...

-- Jake


subject: [WikiEN-l] Bureaucrat status

body:
I'd like to request "Bureaucrat" status. So I can promote sysops. I'm
pretty good at discerning when a consensus has developed, and excellent
at noting when the 7-day period has passed.

For example, Stewartadcock should get the nod now. Finley McWalter
nominated him on 8 Feb, and it's now 17 Feb -- which should be long
enough. And 9 out of 9 comments were "support".

Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed


subject: [Wikitech-l] nfs performance problems

body:
We have investigated the reason for wp's intermittent lockups a bit by
following vmstat output on the different machines. All machines- including
the DB- seem to lock up at the same time, with bi/bo and in dropping to 0
or near-0.

The conclusion that this is related to nfs is close. As a first measure i
would propose to move /apache/common onto the local hd on the Apaches. All
php scripts are validated against the nfs server for changes on every
execution at the moment, this should be the major load.

Additionally zwinger is a massive spof right now. If it goes down we're
hosed. I'm currently trying to set up coda (http://www.coda.cs.cmu.edu/)
and heartbeat on my lan. These are part of the LVS project and should
provide a solution for our needs
(http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/HighAvailability.html), both
performance- and HA-wise.
--
Gabriel Wicke


subject: [WikiEN-l] The Block Log

body:
Whenever I've blocked someone (other than anonymous IP) or taken any
other unilateral action, I've always immediately reported it to this
mailing list.

Then I've sat back and waited to see what others thought. And if the
consensus went against me, I bowed to the collective will.

A lot of these hasty blocks seem to have sneaked in under the tent flap.

Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed