subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: deletion of paragraph

body:
Brion Vibber a ?crit:
 > Anthere wrote:
 >
 >> I do not like anymore than you the idea of altering history. But I
 >> feel that if someone can sue us due to lies being on Wikipedia, it is
 >> worth doing it. It is not only a legal perspective. It is only
 >> showing readers that we have a certain ethic, and that if someone
 >> says the worse crap on them, we will try to restore the truth rather
 >> than propagating it.
 >
 >
 > That's already been accomplished by removing the comment from the page.

Well, we'll see.
The important thing now is just to realise that no comment can be really
deleted, only pushed into history (where everyone can read it, but not
easily).

 >> For the record, I do not appreciate at all the term "whim" applied to
 >> my request, nor the qualification of morally repugnant, Brion. I
 >> understand you do not like doing this, but it is a very very very
 >> poor feedback for the pain and time I spent with Izwalito case.
 >
 >
 > I would not consider it your whim, but rather the whim of some company
 > which would prefer to make threats against third parties about a
 > negative comment on an internet forum, which has already been relegated
 > to the depths of the edit history of a discussion page.

It was not in history before I blanked everything...

 > What exactly is at issue here? For what would we throw away our
 > independence and editorial integrity? Even if it were easy to do, there
 > would need to be some very serious problem at hand to even consider it.
 >
 > I have to assume there's something *very serious* at issue, but I'm not
 > at all sure what it is. Maybe it's just that it's very late and I'm not
 > a native speaker, but I can't imagine what in that paragraph would be
 > considered actionable under any circumstances; mostly it's a terminology
 > dispute between editors, and also someone apparently isn't too impressed
 > by this company's web design.
 >
 > So what? What am I missing?
 >
 > -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

Hmmm. Well, we'll see if they come back in the future. Never mind from now.

The comments are not negative, they are false. Negative is fine. False
is not really fine.

The background : the comments were made by Izwalito. Izwalito is now
banned from wikipedia, for many reasons, and the last one is making
legal threats of various sorts. We managed to get rid of him by proving
that the information he provided was not enough to make a full official
and legal legal request. 24 hours later, we have a request exactly
fullfilling all the details we have discussed in length as being mandatory.

I may be paranoid, or a visionnaire. I am quite certain the firm is
making the request in good faith... but I think they have been suggested
to do so by someone...

I just wanted to avoid it being possibly a testcase. I do not believe in
chance here. But well. Never mind for now. Let it rest like this. We'll
see if there is further reaction.

Ant


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: steven l. rubenstein

subject: [WikiEN-l] Test case: policing content

body:
Ed Poor wrote,

>Googling the quoted definition easily shows that several sources
>regard "private ownership of the means of production" as an
>essential part of the "Marxist definition" of Capitalism.

Alas, sometimes the Web is not the best place to do research.  I think if
Wikipedia wants to establish itself as an outstanding on-line encyclopedia,
its editors sometimes have to do some off-line research.

In most of the cases Ed is referring to, people are taking sentences by
Marx and Engels out of context.  Abolishing the private ownership of
capital is but one element of the communist program -- but that doesn't
mean that they defined capitalism as ownership of the means of
production.  Another part of their program was free education for children
-- certainly we don't think that the "Marxist" definition of capitalism is
a system where children are uneducated!  Moreover, in the Communist
Manifesto they actually argue that capitalism is destroying private
property!  And in various other books by Marx, Marx and Engels, and their
followers, they define capitalism quite differently.

In any event, Ed at least provided an actual source. Now we can have
hopefully fruitful discussion of the usefulness of this source, if there
are better sources, etc.  In short, what Ed wrote was verifiable.

Several weeks ago Ultramarine and I asked RJII to provide his source.  Now,
wouldn't it have saved everyone a lot of trouble if he just provided it?

Steve

Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Thomas Gries

subject: [Wikitech-l] graphviz extension -- can we have this ?

body:
I recently came across Vic's extension package [1] which allows
visualisation by using the graphviz/dot package.

Would like to ask, whether this can be enabled on all wikis.
I can only support this.
Tom

[1] http://www.wickle.com/wikis/index.php/Graphviz_extension
[2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Mediawiki_Extensions


from_name: Anthere

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Images on Answers.com and copyright conditions

body:
Nod.
This is probably the key of the problem.
Well, the fact the description is missing from all pictures used by
wikicommons (we do not really respect our own licence...) has already
been raised many times unfortunately.

It is certainly an issue to fix in the future.

Meanwhile, what can we propose to Answers ?

Ant

Christiaan Briggs a ?crit:
> I think I have an idea of where this problem stems from; when you click
> on an image in Wikipedia which was originally uploaded to Wikimedia
> Commons the description (including who the author is) is not included on
> the Wikipedia page for that image (only a link its page on Wikimedia
> Commons is included). I would say Answers.com is simply pulling down the
> content from Wikipedia (and ignoring the link to the Commons page).
>
> At the moment Wikipedia image pages only include a link to the
> corresponding Wikimedia Commons page. I'm not sure what the technical
> issues are here but it seems to me when a user clicks on an image in
> Wikipedia the description of the image should be on that page. A couple
> of ways of achieving this might be to link directly to the image on
> Wikimedia Commons or to somehow import the text from Wikimedia Commons
> onto the Wikipedia page. I'm sure there are probably problems associated
> with these, otherwise I imagine we'd be doing it already.
>
> Christiaan
>
> Anthere wrote:
>
>> I think you are correct that there is possibly a problem as no where
>> is the author of the picture mentionned, nor a link available.
>>
>> We should mention this to Jimbo
>>
>> Ant
>>
>> MacGyverMagic/Mgm a ?crit:
>>
>>>> Is anyone else surprised that Answers.com doesn't seem to follow GFDL
>>>> or CCbySA conditions with regard to images used from Wikipedia, such as
>>>> crediting authors:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.answers.com/library/Wikipedia+Images
>>>>
>>>> Or am I misunderstanding the process?
>>>>
>>>> Christiaan
>>>
>>> Well, I could be misunderstanding the process myself, but aren't they
>>> following GFDL by telling us it's a Wikipedia article to start with?
>>> Mgm
>>


from_name: monk at zoomcon.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] Different alphabets for the same language

body:
Hello wikitech-l,

  Belarusian language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarusian_language)
  has now two quite widely used alphabet versions - Cyrillics and Latin
  (actually, it also has Arabic alphabet, but it is too rarely used).

  For now, be: wikipedia uses Cyrillics. But we really need Latin
  version for those, who prefers to use this alphabet. We have strict
  bidirectional rules to transform any text between Cyrillics <-> Latin.

  We are interested in creating of a "live mirror" (automatic
  translator) between Cyrillics and Latin alphabets for be: Wikipedia.
  I mean, it would be great, if anyone could read and submit any article
  in either alphabet.

  As far as i know, something similar was created for different
  alphabets of Chinese language, so this issue should be worked over
  already.

  I'm myself an experienced PHP+MySQL developer, so I can directly
  participate in this project.

  Can anyone provide their thoughts and any help about this issue? It
  is surely interesting and quite important thing.

  Thank you.

--
Best regards,
 Monk ([[en:User:Monkbel]]                  mailto:monk at zoomcon.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Putting Wikipedia on a CD or DVD

body:
Christopher Mahan a ?crit:
> --- Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On the other hand, if other organisations are the
>>legal
>>editors, how can we somehow get a benefit over the content
>>distributed ?
>>Or should we get a benefit ?
>
>
> Our benefit is that the information will be made available to people
> who do not have it today. That is a great benefit, and probably the
> most important reason for the Wikipedia's existence.
>
>
>
> Chris Mahan

Nod.

Now, right now, MOST of the propositions we hear about are from
commercial organisations, who want to make *cash* on the CD rom. Right ?

Nothing wrong with this...

But that means readers must pay for the cd rom...

Are those who need more information... those who can pay for the cd rom ?
Or those who can not ?

ant


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject: [WikiEN-l] User:Neutrality NPOV/Abuse of Administrator Power

body:
Blair P. Houghton stated for the record:

> Without WikiEN-l people
> could be "disappeared" by unscrupulous admins.
>
> --Blair

And only God knows how many unfortunates have become ''desaparecidos''
since Wikipedia began.  Uncountable numbers of their spouses and orphans
roam the streets, wailing in inconsolable grief ....

Y'know, Godwin's Law applies to comparing trivial matters to Argentina's
left-wing terrorists just as much as it applies to comparing trivial
matters to the Nazis.

--
  Sean Barrett     | bus error (passengers dumped)
  sean at epoptic.com |


from_name: Egil Kvaleberg

subject: [Wikitech-l] Extensions for handling geographical coordinates

body:
Egil Kvaleberg wrote:

> I have now included support for the geo database, and included
> support for finding neighboring articles as well as support for
> generating points for Wikimaps.

Following up my previous mail, I've removed the gis_region column, and
instead added a gis_globe column, so that it is easy to make this work in
other worlds too, e.g. "Moon", "Mars" and I guess, "Sky" for the star maps.

The definition then becomes:

CREATE TABLE wikipedia_gis (
        gis_id int(8) unsigned NOT NULL,
        gis_latitude_min real NOT NULL,
        gis_latitude_max real NOT NULL,
        gis_longitude_min real NOT NULL,
        gis_longitude_max real NOT NULL,
        gis_globe char(12) binary,
        gis_type char(12) binary,
        gis_type_arg char(12) binary,

        KEY gis_id (gis_id),
        INDEX gis_latitude_min (gis_latitude_min),
        INDEX gis_latitude_max (gis_latitude_max),
        INDEX gis_longitude_min (gis_longitude_min),
        INDEX gis_longitude_max (gis_longitude_max)
);

where gis_globe is NULL for Earth.

Again, comments very much invited.

Also, but anyone could take time to look at my other questions,
that would be really, really apprecieated. To summarize:

How to make addition of this table possible without shell access
via the maintenance module?

Should the table use article ID or title as key?

How to rerieve article title based on ID in a portable manner?

Any chance to test this extension on a broader scale?

Regards,
en:User:Egil


from_name: Brian

subject: [Wikitech-l] IBM releases history flow tool

body:
> Assuming it sets its own user-agent string, we can surely block that
> in mod_rewrite (if they tell us in advance what the user-agent string
> is)?

It seems apt to do this and make the recommendation that those who
want to use this tool download old/cur and run them on their own
machine (if changing the url is supported).  We have more bandwidth
than cpu after all. Likely speed up the tool severalfold as well
resulting in a better use experience.

/brian


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Sj

subject: [Wikipedia-l] IBM releases history flow tool

body:
You knew this was coming...

IBM today released the first public alpha of its HistoryFlow
application.  It comes with a plugin to suck content from a moinmoin
wiki and view its history; they had a similar plugin for MediaWiki,
and are happy to put it back in once we confirm that a few thousand
people using this to suck out WP histories won't thrash the servers.

  http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/tech/historyflow
  http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/tech/historyflow/download

You have to sign up for an IBM ID in order to download and run the
program, but it's totally worth it; a *beautiful* bit of design work.

Mad props to Martin et al for getting this out the dorr.
--
+sj+


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] Test case: policing content

body:
steven l. rubenstein wrote:

> And this is the whole point of the "cite sources" and "verifiabilty"
> policies that Silverback disparages.  Of course it is possible that I am
> wrong about the Marxist definition -- but if I am wrong, then whomever
> is providing the "marxist" definition should be able to provide a source
> or citation.
> For Silverback to disparage these policies, and insinuate that it was
> self-righteous of me to bring this problem to the attention to the list,
> is too absurd.  His behavior mimics that of RJII's, and is the kind of
> behavior that has no place here at Wikipedia.  Our work must be
> verifiable.  If someone asks for a source, provide it.  Like RJII,
> Silverback not only scoffs at providing a source, he continues to insist
> that the definition is right, that it is I who has to provide the
> source, that I am self-righteous, that the policy is trivial ...

The case of [[capitalism]] has reached the Arbitration Committee and been
accepted. Evidence is being gathered now; people's opinions of community
opinions would probably go on the evidence talk page or the acceptance
talk page.

> At what point do we characterize this behavior as trollish?

Remember to Assume Good Faith!

(The less charitable may note that "assume good faith" can be seen as a
restatement of "don't attribute to malice what can be explained by
stupidity." I'm speaking in general here, not about any particular example.)

- d.


body:
Anthere wrote:
> Christiaan Briggs a ?crit:

>> That they follow conditions of licence. It's up to them how they
>> achieve that isn't it?

> Can you gently write them on the topic then ?

Point out to them the problem with Commons images but not descriptions
coming through, and that the en: image page will note when the image
is from Commons, so they should be able to just tweak their dump parsing
script.

- d.


subject: [Wikitech-l] pre-announcement: ENotif and EAuthent for 1.4

body:
Again and for information only, to avoid double-work:
I hereby announce that I have started my work of  back-porting ENotif
[1] +EAuthent [2] (email notification and authentication) from 1.5 to 1.4

If you have questions or suggestions, please look to [3], which lists a
lot and has screenshots and reply directly to me, please.
Scheduled release date: 31.03.2005
Tom

[1] http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=454
[2] http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=866
[3] http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enotif


list: foundation-l

from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject:
National chapters (was Re: [Foundation-l] UK Wikimedia Foundation
	notes)

body:
--- David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> > Yes, I think that having chapters in countries in the EU is worthwhile for
> > two reasons - firstly, it helps with donations by providing a tax-relieved
> > method of donating (at least, in some countries), and secondly, it helps
> > foster a sense of community and belonging in the members.
>
> Thirdly, tax deductions. Fourthly, tax deductions ;-)

Having robust datacenters around the world - each supported by the national
chapter in the nation it is in - also helps to ensure uninterrupted service and
longterm viability of what we are doing. That would make us practically immune
to technical *and* legal issues that would otherwise really set us back if we
had all our eggs in one basket (well, at least until a world government is
established - but the Vulcans won't be landing in Montana for at least a
hundred years :).

So while having all the live master databases in Florida makes great sense now,
I'd like to see us have the capability - if needed for whatever reason - to
turn another datacenter into the the live master. That will almost certainly
have to be done for short periods in the future for technical failures and
major upgrades but may conceivably happen due to legal issues (if the
foundation were to lose a lawsuit and had to surrender its assets, for
example). Same goes for every chapter.

Similarly protecting our trademarks and domains (which are also assets and
worth much more money than all our servers combined) is a more difficult issue
that I'd not like to go into much now (a completely separate trust may be
needed to act as an owner for that; we need to ask lawyers about this).

> > Currently just France and Germany have chapters set up, but we are looking
> > at setting one up for the UK soon-ish. Eventually we may want to form a
> > Wikimedia Europe organisation to liase and so on at a larger level, but
> > for now this will suffice.

Just leave out the word 'foundation' from the UK chapter name, and I'll be
happy (it would be needlessly confusing). 'Wikimedia UK' sounds like a great
name to me. :)

I recently registered wikimedia.us for a future Wikimedia U.S. (or Wikimedia
USA) chapter and saw that the .org.uk was available - now it is not. I hope
somebody we know and who likes us registered it...

> > One this that you may want to look out for is what exactly you can do
> > whilst retaining the special tax status - for example, a UK chapter will
> > not be able to merely blindly collect money for the main Foundation, but
> > instead have charitable aims in and of itself (which might in practice not
> > make a great deal of difference, of course - collecting money for
> > international Internet-based education and learning projects vs.
> > collecting money for the Wikimedia Foundation).

I envision four major core areas that national chapters would be well-suited to
tackle:

1) Supporting a local datacenter (just a squid farm first, but later a full
datacenter with database slaves receiving updates from the live master in
Florida but fully capable of becoming their own master if needed for whatever
reason).

2) Directing social energy into improving Wikimedia projects. A club system
would be set-up under each chapter where a club would cover a metro area. Club
members and different clubs would periodically gather and have WikiJam sessions
at libraries, museums, national parks, universities, places of historical
interest, etc.

Imagine a small army of Wikimedians with digital cameras and PDAs descending
into one of these places to extract each available bit of information.
Impromptu WikiJams to cover events in the club's metro area would be very
useful for Wikinews. I think the fun we have from collaborating online will
also manifest itself as we gather data together in the real world.

3) Distribution and popularization of Wikimedia projects within that nation.

4) Also important would be helping the Wikimedia Foundation gather the
resources and help it needs to further the goal of bringing free knowledge to
the world. National chapters would be better-suited to work with their nation's
governments and large companies to help make this happen.

This would allow the Wikimedia Foundation to concentrate on international
issues and coordination - esp getting free content in the hands of people who
do not have access to the Internet. Under this system, grants (including those
from and through chapters - see point 4) will likely one day supplant direct
donations as the major source of funding for the Wikimedia Foundation since
most donation money from readers will go to national chapters (yes, including
Wikimedia U.S.).

This bottom up approach appeals to be greatly.

-- mav

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


list: wikimedia-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] Test case: policing content

body:
Tom Haws wrote:
> steven l. rubenstein wrote:

>> Some people have suggested that if someone keeps putting unsourced
>> material on the page, the solution is to delete it.  Well, this is the
>> first solution to any problem at Wikipedia.

> Heh-heh.  It is easy to see how this problem got started.  Deleting
> unsourced material is an excellent excuse for POV police, warriors, and
> their ilk.  But it doesn't go over too well in polite society.

In some cases I put an HTML comment around the paragraph in question,
with a note that it *really* needs a reference to go in - and often a
note on the talk page to go with it. Commenting is less obnoxious than
deletion.

Note also that deleting it may be seen as not going over too well in
polite society, as you say - but then, insisting that something completely
unsourced go in and refusing to provide a source probably isn't in Miss
Manners either.

- d.


body:
Can you gently write them on the topic then ?

Ant

Christiaan Briggs a ?crit:
> That they follow conditions of licence. It's up to them how they achieve
> that isn't it?
>
> Christiaan
>
> On 25 Mar 2005, at 5:57 pm, Anthere wrote:
>
>> Nod.
>> This is probably the key of the problem.
>> Well, the fact the description is missing from all pictures used by
>> wikicommons (we do not really respect our own licence...) has already
>> been raised many times unfortunately.
>>
>> It is certainly an issue to fix in the future.
>>
>> Meanwhile, what can we propose to Answers ?
>>
>> Ant
>>
>> Christiaan Briggs a ?crit:
>>
>>> I think I have an idea of where this problem stems from; when you
>>> click on an image in Wikipedia which was originally uploaded to
>>> Wikimedia Commons the description (including who the author is) is
>>> not included on the Wikipedia page for that image (only a link its
>>> page on Wikimedia Commons is included). I would say Answers.com is
>>> simply pulling down the content from Wikipedia (and ignoring the link
>>> to the Commons page).
>>> At the moment Wikipedia image pages only include a link to the
>>> corresponding Wikimedia Commons page. I'm not sure what the technical
>>> issues are here but it seems to me when a user clicks on an image in
>>> Wikipedia the description of the image should be on that page. A
>>> couple of ways of achieving this might be to link directly to the
>>> image on Wikimedia Commons or to somehow import the text from
>>> Wikimedia Commons onto the Wikipedia page. I'm sure there are
>>> probably problems associated with these, otherwise I imagine we'd be
>>> doing it already.
>>> Christiaan
>>> Anthere wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think you are correct that there is possibly a problem as no where
>>>> is the author of the picture mentionned, nor a link available.
>>>>
>>>> We should mention this to Jimbo
>>>>
>>>> Ant
>>>>
>>>> MacGyverMagic/Mgm a ?crit:
>>>>
>>>>>> Is anyone else surprised that Answers.com doesn't seem to follow GFDL
>>>>>> or CCbySA conditions with regard to images used from Wikipedia,
>>>>>> such as
>>>>>> crediting authors:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.answers.com/library/Wikipedia+Images
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or am I misunderstanding the process?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Christiaan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, I could be misunderstanding the process myself, but aren't they
>>>>> following GFDL by telling us it's a Wikipedia article to start with?
>>>>> Mgm
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>


from_name: Gerrit Holl

subject: [Wikipedia-l] robots.txt - why disallow everyone, everywhere?

body:
Hi,

What happened to robots.txt?
Why is this happening?

$ lynx -dump http://en.wikipedia.org/robots.txt
# Special robots.txt for nl.wikimedia.org
# No crawlers

User-agent: *
Disallow: /

No google, no Wayback Machine, no nothing... )-:

regards,
Gerrit.

--
Weather in Twenthe, Netherlands 25/03 19:25:
	9.0?C   wind 0.0 m/s None (57 m above NAP)
--
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of
unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the
military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of
misplaced power exists and will persist.
    -Dwight David Eisenhower, January 17, 1961


from_name: Thomas Haws

subject: [WikiEN-l] Test case: policing content

body:
Tom Haws wrote,

>steven l. rubenstein wrote:
> If Tom Haws is going to label as a POV warrior anyone who
> insists that our policies, such as Verifiability and Cite sources, must be
> enforced, then how on earth are we going to write a good encyclopedia?  Or
> do you have a different goal, Tom?

I appreciate the response.  I believe your frustration is honest, and I think (hope) we all share it.  I think that the most sane approach is to realize that Wikipedia simply isn't set up at this time to accomplish the level of editorial control you contemplate.  That doesn't mean it isn't an appropriate goal, just that we have to work pragmatically with the system we have at the moment.

Yes, I personally would be even more patient.  That may not be the "right" answer, but my attitude is maybe I can 1) learn something from that "original researcher" 2) help him feel good about contributing to Wikipedia, and 3) show him by example how Wikipedia works at its best and what NPOV means.  As much as it hurts at times, I simply cannot afford to take excessive ownership in articles.

And so I continue to believe that repeated deletions of the same thing (I personally wouldn't repeat myself over twice except on a talk page) are indeed the beginning of the problem.  And I apologize for the flippant tone of my response.

"If you keep on doing what you've always done, you'll keep on getting what you've always got."  "If at first you don't succeed, try a different approach."

Tom Haws


subject: [WikiEN-l] Test case: policing content

body:
David Gerard wrote:

> Insisting that something completely
> unsourced go in and refusing to provide a source probably isn't in Miss
> Manners either.

Hmm.  Maybe not.  :-D

Tom Haws


from_name: Walter Vermeir

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: robots.txt - why disallow everyone, everywhere?

body:
Gerrit Holl schreef:
> Hi,
>
> What happened to robots.txt?
> Why is this happening?
>
> $ lynx -dump http://en.wikipedia.org/robots.txt
> # Special robots.txt for nl.wikimedia.org
> # No crawlers
>
> User-agent: *
> Disallow: /
>
> No google, no Wayback Machine, no nothing... )-:
>
> regards,
> Gerrit.

But better speed because a strong drop of visitors.

It looks like a mistake. I think the idea was to hide only
nl.wikimedia.org form the search engines but it is active for all wikis.

Walter


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] A friendly Wired Article

body:
> To: Poor, Edmund W
> Subject: article of interest
>
> http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.03/wiki_pr.html
>
> Uncle Ed
>
That's the most mentions of Wikipedians I ever saw in one article. :)

Mgm


body:
Just as a hint for implementation:

1) MySQL allows REGEX searches - perhaps this helps !
2) You can also HAVE REGEXes AS table entries, which is a very, very,
very interesting feature not everybody knows of.
Both could help for storing or finding coordinates.

Tom

Brion Vibber schrieb:

> Egil Kvaleberg wrote:
>
>> Following up my previous mail, I've removed the gis_region column, and
>> instead added a gis_globe column, so that it is easy to make this
>> work in
>> other worlds too, e.g. "Moon", "Mars" and I guess, "Sky" for the star
>> maps.
>
> Neat! :)
>
>> CREATE TABLE wikipedia_gis (
>>        gis_id int(8) unsigned NOT NULL,
>>        gis_latitude_min real NOT NULL,
>


from_name: Andy Roberts

body:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 15:36:05 -0500, JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Wikipedia has a number of mechanisms for investigating cases of alleged
> admin abuse; WikiEN-l is not one of them.
>
In that case why does the automatic block message suggest  that any
objection may be directed to this list?

" If you believe that our blocking policy was violated, you may
discuss the block publicly on the WikiEN-L mailing list"

Violating blocking policy is an abuse of admin status is it not?

--
aroberts


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: what is partnership ?

body:
Michael Snow wrote:

> Neil Harris wrote:
>
>> I agree: there can be many partners, and there's no reason not to be
>> partners with many people and organizations. But with the Wikipedia
>> brand becoming more and more valuable, and official trademark
>> recognition in the offing, there needs to be an official process for
>> registration of Wikipedia/Wikimedia partners. In particular, I
>> believe that the Foundation will have a legal requirement to defend
>> its trademarks Real Soon Now, and not doing so risks losing the
>> rights over that trademark and becoming a [[genericized trademark]].
>
> Other organizations identifying us as their partners is not that great
> of a threat to trademark status, although it does create some
> potential for brand confusion. The scenario in which our trademarks
> would become genericized is if, for example, we allow anybody to call
> some wiki, or even a non-wiki reference site, a "wikipedia". That's
> the kind of situation that would really call for action.

That being said, we really can't complain about those people who call us
"the" Wikipedia since that phrase has overtones of uniqueness.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] blocking poiicy violation by vamp willow

body:
I wish to complain about vamp willow violating blocking policy by
blocking aroberts for 24 hours under the auspices of a 3RR  violation
when in fact  no 3RR  violation has ocurred.

aroberts  edited the England   page today, and there followed a minor
edit challenge during which aroberts reverted twice and  REX reverted
to the contrary three times.  The 3RR  rule states that NO  MORE than
3 reverts should be made by one enity, and yet vamp willow has blocked
aroberts who reverted only twice.  Since when is 2 more than 3?

Vamp Willow happens to agree with REX and disagrees with aroberts, so
it looks as if she has acted partially in pursuit if her own POV and
against blocking policy with a misguided interpretation of the three
revert rule.

Not only that , but also the England page has been protected with the
suggestion that differences are resolved on the corresponding talk
page.  I have always been happy to discuss the matter  on the talk
page and have incorporated information arising from those discussions
into my edits,  in the spirit of compromise, but others have reverted
against me with no such explanation. How can I follow the advice to
sort things out on the talk page if I am  blocked?   Surely protecting
a page and blocking someone from discussing it at the same time is
excessive?

That was an official complaint against vamp willow's incorrect
blocking of aroberts,

I hope this can be resolved ASAP, thanks
--
Aroberts


body:
Brion Vibber wrote:

>> CREATE TABLE wikipedia_gis (
>>        gis_id int(8) unsigned NOT NULL,
>>        gis_latitude_min real NOT NULL,
>>        gis_latitude_max real NOT NULL,
>>        gis_longitude_min real NOT NULL,
>>        gis_longitude_max real NOT NULL,
>>        gis_globe char(12) binary,
>>        gis_type char(12) binary,
>>        gis_type_arg char(12) binary,
>>
>>        KEY gis_id (gis_id),
>>        INDEX gis_latitude_min (gis_latitude_min),
>>        INDEX gis_latitude_max (gis_latitude_max),
>>        INDEX gis_longitude_min (gis_longitude_min),
>>        INDEX gis_longitude_max (gis_longitude_max)
>> );
>
>
> How do you expect this table to be queried? Individual indexes on the
> lat/long fields seem like they'd be kind of awkward, since it can only
> really use one in a given query.

The main use is a SELECT where

              $condition = "gis_latitude_max >= " . $latmin .
                      " AND gis_latitude_min <= " . $latmax .
                      " AND gis_longitude_max >= " . $lonmin .
                      " AND gis_longitude_min <= " . $lonmax .
                      " AND gis_globe = '" . $globe . "'";

So perhaps the indexes are of no use in this case? (As mentioned, I'm
totally stupid wrt. databases).

Sometimes there is also a condition for gis_type added.

> Don't call it gis_id, however; under our naming conventions that would
> be the name of a unique record ID within the gis table. gis_page would
> be better.

Will do.

Egil


body:
JAY JG wrote:
> From: "Karl A. Krueger" <kkrueger at whoi.edu>

>> I would prefer to know for certain that nothing corrupt went on here.
>> However, until there is a good and credible explanation offered, none of
>> us can know that, and we are left with only ugly suspicions on one side
>> and baseless feelings of persecution on the other.

> Wikipedia has a number of mechanisms for investigating cases of alleged
> admin abuse; WikiEN-l is not one of them.

HEAR HEAR. [[WP:AN/I]] is a good one.

- d.


from_name: Jack Lutz

body:
Is there a way to export Wikipedia revisions, via the site or database dump,
to the text files the tool wants?


from_name: Tomasz Wegrzanowski

body:
On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 11:45:15PM +0100, Egil Kvaleberg wrote:
> Brion Vibber wrote:
> >How do you expect this table to be queried? Individual indexes on the
> >lat/long fields seem like they'd be kind of awkward, since it can only
> >really use one in a given query.
>
> The main use is a SELECT where
>
>              $condition = "gis_latitude_max >= " . $latmin .
>                      " AND gis_latitude_min <= " . $latmax .
>                      " AND gis_longitude_max >= " . $lonmin .
>                      " AND gis_longitude_min <= " . $lonmax .
>                      " AND gis_globe = '" . $globe . "'";
>
> So perhaps the indexes are of no use in this case? (As mentioned, I'm
> totally stupid wrt. databases).

Probably only the first dimension would use the index.
It might or might not speed things enough.

Indexes used for multidimentional data (in gis and graphics software)
are very different from unidimensional indexes found in typical rdbmses.

Some dbs (= Postgres) have 2d and multi-d indexes exactly for stuff like that.
It should be much faster to use them.


from_name: Thomas Gries

body:
UPDATE:
[3] shows, how all nodes <nodename> can automatically be linked to e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/<nodename> w/o codechanges on graphviz
software.

I recently came across Vic's extension package [1] which allows
visualisation by using the graphviz/dot package. Would like to ask,
whether this can be enabled on all wikis. I can only support this.
Tom

[1] http://www.wickle.com/wikis/index.php/Graphviz_extension
[2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Mediawiki_Extensions
[3]
http://www.wickle.com/wiki/index.php/Graphviz_extension#How_to_make_autolinks_.28all_nodes.29


body:
My impression is that their method of extracting history (they ask for
the last 100 revisions of each article) would not be easy on the
database.  It's not a bandwidth issue.   (SJ)

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 19:23:46 -0700, Brian <reflection at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Assuming it sets its own user-agent string, we can surely block that
> > in mod_rewrite (if they tell us in advance what the user-agent string
> > is)?
>
> It seems apt to do this and make the recommendation that those who
> want to use this tool download old/cur and run them on their own
> machine (if changing the url is supported).  We have more bandwidth
> than cpu after all. Likely speed up the tool severalfold as well
> resulting in a better use experience.
>
> /brian
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>

--
+sj+
 _ _ :-------.-.--------.--.--------.-.--------.--.--------[...]


body:
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 01:59:30 +0100, Erik Zachte <e.p.zachte at chello.nl> wrote:
> > once we confirm that a few thousand people using this to
> > suck out WP histories won't thrash the servers.
>
> The charts are beautiful. yet I think it would be overdone to generate them
> on demand for every article.
> After you've seen a few you've seen them all. They give a general impression
> of how fluid popular and/or contested articles are, but are too crowded for
> detailed analysis.

Hmm.  If you have access to the tool itself, you are able to
effectively browse the article text at each revision, in combination
with the visual overview, in quite an effective way.
So having a local copy of the full history flow, with the interface
tool, is certainly useful for all articles.

As for generating snapshots for each article; certainly on-demand
wouldn't be very interesting.  But see for instance these 100
revisions of the "Evolution" article from 2003, miniaturized to a
width of 200px.   That suffices to tell you how much of the article
was written by one person, when the last sea-change in article content
occurred, and whether or not there have been significant
reversion-wars or blankings or size changes over the past few dozen
edits.

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/IBM_releases_free_software_for_visualizing_document_histories

> For me a limited set of pregenerated charts for say 50 selected articles,
> refreshed once a month, would be sufficient.

Which 50?  For what purpose?

--
+sj+


from_name: geni

body:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 16:21:44 -0800, Matt Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> Not that this is the correct place to argue this, but you reverted
> back to your preferred version three times in 24 hours.  The truth is
> a great place to start.

That is allowed under the 3RR. However Vamp Willow claims that the IP
address is the same person. Since the only edits by an IP adress
within 24 hours of those of Aroberts do not match the version prefered
by Aroberts I'm pulling the block. This does not in any way condone
Aroberts's actions


body:
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:

>Indexes used for multidimentional data (in gis and graphics software)
>are very different from unidimensional indexes found in typical rdbmses.
>
>
Point taken.

Since you mention this, I suddenly discovered that MySQL in
fact has a geospatial extensions with spatial indexes! Wow!
I will investigate further, but it certainly seems to be just the
thing for this. (Although it seems that compatibility with  Postgres
is also something to consider).

The other select I forgot to mention is by page ID, but that is a
exact match on an indexed item, it should be unproblematic.

Egil


from_name: Erik Zachte

body:
> once we confirm that a few thousand people using this to
> suck out WP histories won't thrash the servers.

The charts are beautiful. yet I think it would be overdone to generate them
on demand for every article.
After you've seen a few you've seen them all. They give a general impression
of how fluid popular and/or contested articles are, but are too crowded for
detailed analysis.

For me a limited set of pregenerated charts for say 50 selected articles,
refreshed once a month, would be sufficient.

Erik Zachte


from_name: John Fader

body:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 19:35:26 -0500, Sj <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
> You knew this was coming...
>
> IBM today released the first public alpha of its HistoryFlow
> application.  It comes with a plugin to suck content from a moinmoin
> wiki and view its history; they had a similar plugin for MediaWiki,
> and are happy to put it back in once we confirm that a few thousand
> people using this to suck out WP histories won't thrash the servers.

Assuming it sets its own user-agent string, we can surely block that
in mod_rewrite (if they tell us in advance what the user-agent string
is)?

--
John Fader


from_name: Tony Sidaway

body:
Blair P. Houghton said:
>
> Without WikiEN-l people could be "disappeared" by unscrupulous admins.

No, that simply isn't possible.  I'm directly contactable by email and I'm
sure most sysops are.  Jimmy Wales' email address is on his page; be sure
to put Wikipedia in the subject of your email.
Having said which I've already opined that it's long past time we had a
janitors-l for people to complain about sysop behavior.


body:
> Assuming it sets its own user-agent string, we can surely block that
> in mod_rewrite (if they tell us in advance what the user-agent string
> is)?

Or IBM could implement a simple blacklist of sites.  If someone tries
to go to en.wikipedia.org it explains that site doesn't want the
burden, and bounces them to the database download page instead.

--
John Fader


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: [Wikitech-l] IBM releases history flow tool

body:
even more impressive:
http://researchweb.watson.ibm.com/history follow the links, especially
----> Gallery

Remark: no sign-in required for this
Tom

Sj schrieb:

>You knew this was coming...
>
>IBM today released the first public alpha of its HistoryFlow
>application.  It comes with a plugin to suck content from a moinmoin
>wiki and view its history; they had a similar plugin for MediaWiki,
>and are happy to put it back in once we confirm that a few thousand
>people using this to suck out WP histories won't thrash the servers.
>
>  http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/tech/historyflow
>  http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/tech/historyflow/download
>
>You have to sign up for an IBM ID in order to download and run the
>program, but it's totally worth it; a *beautiful* bit of design work.
>
>Mad props to Martin et al for getting this out the dorr.
>
>


from_name: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Date format framework

body:
I've changed the date format framework so that languages other than
English can now have multiple date formats to be displayed in the user
interface, I've gone ahead and implemented this in the Icelandic and
Frysk language files, although the is. one is probably better for a
reference implementation. This is a call for patches against HEAD to
implement this in other languages.

To get an idea of how it works here's the $wgDateFormats array from
the LanguageIs.php file:

$wgDateFormatsIs = array(
        'Sj?lfgefi?',  <-- this means 'default' in Icelandic -->
        '15. jan?ar 2001 kl. 16:12',
        '15. jan. 2001 kl. 16:12',
        '16:12, 15. jan?ar 2001',
        '16:12, 15. jan. 2001',
        'ISO 8601' => '2001-01-15 16:12:34'
);

The first option (number zero)  should be the "default", and that one
should then be handled by the time(), date() and timeanddate()
functions as an alias for the second option (number one), other
options should then come after that and there's no (sane) limit to how
many one can specify, the last one should then be the special ISO 8601
date identified by the array key 'ISO 8601', having this key
consistant across language files ensures that a user that chooses an
ISO date in one language will have that respected when sie changes
languages.

LanguageIs.php:
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/wikipedia/phase3/languages/LanguageIs.php?rev=HEAD&view=markup


subject: [Wikitech-l] Date format framework


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Test case: policing content

body:
I don't think the problem is well phrased as repeated deletions, although
that can happen. The more frequent problem is repeated insertions of
material which is poorly sourced, represents a minority position (acceptable
but not to the point it dominates the article) or amounts to advocacy or
propaganda for a point of view. While in certain areas editors can and do
gang up, generally when most of the other editors are deleting something,
citing Wikipedia policy, giving a variety of reasons why the material is
unacceptable, that is a clue that maybe something is wrong.

The notion of a clue is central. While it is frequent that Wikipedia editors
who are up to something themselves give out a variety of spurious reasons as
cover, it is important to consider the reasons people are giving for what
they are doing. For example, I have a distinct proclivity to make stuff up
as I go along, making an original definition for [[truth]] or [[reality]]
etc. At some point I began taking "no original research" seriously. Not at
first, but eventually I read the policy and took a good look at what I was
doing. I still sin, but I could be said to "have a clue" at this point.

There is a certain Tao involved here. If you are fighting hard, you are
probably fighting for something not worth fighting for in a Wikipedia
context, usually a point of view.

Fred

> From: Thomas Haws <hawstom at sprintmail.com>
> Reply-To: Thomas Haws <hawstom at sprintmail.com>, English Wikipedia
> <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 21:35:23 -0700 (GMT-07:00)
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Test case: policing content
>
> my attitude is maybe I can 1) learn something from that "original researcher"
> 2) help him feel good about contributing to Wikipedia, and 3) show him by
> example how Wikipedia works at its best and what NPOV means.  As much as it
> hurts at times, I simply cannot afford to take excessive ownership in
> articles.
>
> And so I continue to believe that repeated deletions of the same thing (I
> personally wouldn't repeat myself over twice except on a talk page) are indeed
> the beginning of the problem.


from_name: Anthere

body:
Chad Perrin a ?crit:
> Anthere wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Christopher Mahan a ?crit:
>>
>>> --- Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On the other hand, if other organisations are the
>>>> legal editors, how can we somehow get a benefit over the content
>>>> distributed ? Or should we get a benefit ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Our benefit is that the information will be made available to people
>>> who do not have it today. That is a great benefit, and probably the
>>> most important reason for the Wikipedia's existence.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Chris Mahan
>>
>>
>>
>> Nod.
>>
>> Now, right now, MOST of the propositions we hear about are from
>> commercial organisations, who want to make *cash* on the CD rom. Right ?
>>
>> Nothing wrong with this...
>>
>> But that means readers must pay for the cd rom...
>>
>> Are those who need more information... those who can pay for the cd rom ?
>> Or those who can not ?
>
>
> Here's an idea:
>
> Nonprofit organization, talks to a commercial organization, gets a
> massive discount (80-90% off, maybe) on those $10 CD-recorded
> encyclopediae.  Uses donations to fund its efforts.  Buys CD-media
> copies at the discounted rate.  Avoids taxes due to nonprofit status.
> Distributes to those in need of the material without the ability to get
> it themselves.
>
> Voila: outside entit(y/ies) deal(s) with the issue.  I'm not saying
> that's the only way to handle it, but it's "so crazy it just might
> work".  While it seems odd to suggest buying back its own content, it's
> even possible that WMF might do the media-buying-and-distributing itself
> for third-world distribution.
>
> Then, of course, the major problem becomes how to get the same knowledge
> into the hands of those without eletricity.
>
> There's no reason I can see why for-profit packaging of Wikipedia can't
> be leveraged for non-profit distribution.  The fact that someone is
> repackaging the collected knowledge for the purpose of making a buck
> doesn't necessitate all that work being lost to the nonprofit purposes
> of the original project.
>
>

I agree with you.

Ant


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: A friendly Wired Article

body:
Quite a good article

But also exactly the article which makes the world believe this is an
english project, run by english editors.

Not exactly the kind of rumors all of us appreciate.

Poor, Edmund W a ?crit:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TL at pipeline.com [mailto:TL at pipeline.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 2:22 PM
> To: Poor, Edmund W
> Subject: article of interest
>
>
> http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.03/wiki_pr.html
>
> I'm sure EVERYONE has seen this article but me, by now. I feel like I
> just got a big pat on the back for my 3 1/2 years of work! This writer
> is very friendly and has captured the essence of Wikipedia much, MUCH
> better than anyone else heretofore. I just wish his article was GFDL'd
> so I could incorporate all his descriptions.
>
> Uncle Ed
>
> P.S. A non-Wikipedian sent me the URL


subject: [WikiEN-l] Test case: policing content

body:
>From what I have seen so far that is the most likely outcome of this case,
viewing RJII as a POV warrior, which does not address the nominal reason for
the test case, refusal to cite sources. I'm afraid we know the source of his
material - in the ideals of Objectivism which visions a pure and vital
capitalism not to be found in the real world which on the other hand has
capitalist economic systems which we need to describe in order to write the
article [[capitalism]].

So the issue is not policing content, although there is the question of how
to give a little space to a distinctly minority point of view without it
dominating the article. As we consider a controversial matter such as
capitalism there are those who support it in all its glory; revolutionary
critics of it; and theoretical perspectives of various sorts. These
perspectives certainly should have a place in the article but there remains
the major work of describing the system itself and its workings - a task
which needs to be done without constant consideration of perspectives, pro
and con being added to every sentence.

Fred

> From: actionforum at comcast.net
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 08:04:30 +0000
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Test case: policing content
>
> I think, we would have had a compromise a long time ago,
> if not for the unique character of RJII.   He is a strangely intransigent
> moving
> target.  I'd catagorize him as a POV warrior of the highest degree,


from_name: Aphaia

subject: [Foundation-l] Open questions

body:
I added a short description on open questions on "Wikimedia News" and
"Goings-on" to meta.

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 02:50:46 -0500, Sj <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
> ( Cc:ing wikipedia-l, since it is important to have broad community feedback.
> Also the translators list, because the sidebar of the open-questions
> page should be translated. )

Nice idea. We could encourage to local communities to submit their
comments in their favorite language and ask ambassadors and/or
translators to translate those inputs into English at least. (So I
would like to add translators-l again to Cc: list.)

By the way I support notafish's proposal we change the name
"ambassador" to another, like "Wikimedia liaison". For reducing
political nuances from those name or avoiding  misunderstamding that
they have a sort of right to decide, such a change would be nice.

Once Tomos translated this word into Japanese "???" literally a staff
working in a foreing area or just a reporter. For the sake of
informative aspects of this position (making a report to Reports on
meta, or for the Board, informing activities and initiatives on other
communities, reporting community decisions and so on) I prefer
"liaison" or "reporter" to the current name "ambassador".

Any other suggestion?
---
Aphaea || Britomartis
email: Aphaia @ gmail (dot) com


subject: [Foundation-l] Open questions


body:
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 00:38:11 +0000, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 16:21:44 -0800, Matt Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Not that this is the correct place to argue this, but you reverted
> > back to your preferred version three times in 24 hours.  The truth is
> > a great place to start.
>
> That is allowed under the 3RR. However Vamp Willow claims that the IP
> address is the same person. Since the only edits by an IP adress
> within 24 hours of those of Aroberts do not match the version prefered
> by Aroberts I'm pulling the block. This does not in any way condone
> Aroberts's actions

Thankyou.

I am concerened that a number of admins, and Vamp Willow in
particular, don't seem to be able to understand the difference between
the number  THREE and the expression "MORE THAN three". I would have
thought this kind of simple numeracy capability would be a
prerequisite to anyone being considered for admin status.  Or perhaps
some kind of compulsory induction course could be laid on for them.

--
Andy Roberts


from_name: Brian M

body:
What isn't easy about applying to the Arbitration Committee or Jimbo,
which is the current procedure?

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 08:52:20 +0000, actionforum at comcast.net
<actionforum at comcast.net> wrote:
> -------------- Original message --------------
> > Rick wrote:
>
> > >Oh, please.
> > >
> > >Why is it every time an admin does something that
> > >somebody disagrees with, it's time to get out the
> > >hounds and the torches and go raging after them with
> > >the rest of the mob?
>
> > >RickK
> > >
> > Because admins are expected to be above ordinary users; see [[WP:RFA]]
> > for yourself. People vote on others not only based on their suitability
> > for janitorial tasks but also on how polite, active, etc. the users are.
> >
> > That said, I do feel it's kind of stupid every time people act as if the
> > world will end whenever an admin does something wrong AND THE ADMIN
> > SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE IMMEDIATELY. Admins are human too.
>
> And the world won't end if they are removed from the admin office.  Those
> that are truly called to serve are not necessarily REDUCED to EDITING,
> there are plenty of opportunities to serve without admin privileges, and with
> less temptations to use their power personally or vindictively that they were
> apparently unable to resist.   Of course there are temptations at the editing
> level too.  Moves without discussing it on the talk page, violations of 3RR,
> etc.  Adminship should be easier to get, perhaps allow it to anyone with
> a minimum edit experience, no 3RR or other violations for 3 months and
> a willingness to agree to the terms.
>
> There needs to be an easier way to take away admin status.   Perhaps anytime
> time there are allegations of abuse as part of an arbcom case, there should
> be a separate vote to accept on the abuse charge, where if that charge is
> ACCEPTED, presumably after an initial look at the evidence, the admin privilege
> is suspended, until the case is formally decided.  Of course, it is possible for
> the admin abuse charge to not be accepted while the more normal charges
> go forward.  It should be clear that there is zero tolerance for the abuse
> of the admistrator privilege of serving, and that action will be quick,
> and fortunately mild, they must serve in some other capacity if they
> want to serve.
>
>                              -- Silverback
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: actionforum at comcast.net

subject: [WikiEN-l] Test case: policing content

body:
-------------- Original message --------------
> And this is the whole point of the "cite sources" and "verifiabilty"
> policies that Silverback disparages. Of course it is possible that I am
> wrong about the Marxist definition -- but if I am wrong, then whomever is
> providing the "marxist" definition should be able to provide a source or
> citation.
>
> For Silverback to disparage these policies, and insinuate that it was
> self-righteous of me to bring this problem to the attention to the list, is
> too absurd. His behavior mimics that of RJII's, and is the kind of
> behavior that has no place here at Wikipedia. Our work must be
> verifiable. If someone asks for a source, provide it. Like RJII,
> Silverback not only scoffs at providing a source, he continues to insist
> that the definition is right, that it is I who has to provide the source,
> that I am self-righteous, that the policy is trivial ...
>
> At what point do we characterize this behavior as trollish?
>
> Steve

I think reasonable summaries are not violations of  NOR, and insistance
on cites for something obvious is a bit unfriendly.

However, if it is any consolation, I now understand your frustration
on that page, I think, we would have had a compromise a long time ago,
if not for the unique character of RJII.   He is a strangely intransigent moving
target.  I'd catagorize him as a POV warrior of the highest degree,
except I usually reserve that for someone who has a recognizable POV.
I assume we each think he's on the other one's side.

I disagree that anything insightful content guidance can come out of the
case.   A scientific case would be more helpful, because there is
a more generally accepted concept of the truth being searched for
and what constitutes facts and the most authoritative evidence.  Therefore
there is the opportunity to elaborate NOR beyond the every word must
have been used by someone else straightjacket.    Pointing out omissions
or flaws that any peer reviewer or scientific literate would acknowledge,
should be allowed.   For example, this new study demonstrates this
new variable is important, therefor that older study which did not
account for that variable (by inspection, because no one else has said
it YET) is now called into question.  NOR should not ban simple things
like counting, summarizing, drawing conclusions from inspection of
an article, application of simple equations or principles to facts, etc.

            -- Silverback


body:
-------------- Original message --------------
> Rick wrote:

> >Oh, please.
> >
> >Why is it every time an admin does something that
> >somebody disagrees with, it's time to get out the
> >hounds and the torches and go raging after them with
> >the rest of the mob?

> >RickK
> >
> Because admins are expected to be above ordinary users; see [[WP:RFA]]
> for yourself. People vote on others not only based on their suitability
> for janitorial tasks but also on how polite, active, etc. the users are.
>
> That said, I do feel it's kind of stupid every time people act as if the
> world will end whenever an admin does something wrong AND THE ADMIN
> SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE IMMEDIATELY. Admins are human too.

And the world won't end if they are removed from the admin office.  Those
that are truly called to serve are not necessarily REDUCED to EDITING,
there are plenty of opportunities to serve without admin privileges, and with
less temptations to use their power personally or vindictively that they were
apparently unable to resist.   Of course there are temptations at the editing
level too.  Moves without discussing it on the talk page, violations of 3RR,
etc.  Adminship should be easier to get, perhaps allow it to anyone with
a minimum edit experience, no 3RR or other violations for 3 months and
a willingness to agree to the terms.

There needs to be an easier way to take away admin status.   Perhaps anytime
time there are allegations of abuse as part of an arbcom case, there should
be a separate vote to accept on the abuse charge, where if that charge is
ACCEPTED, presumably after an initial look at the evidence, the admin privilege
is suspended, until the case is formally decided.  Of course, it is possible for
the admin abuse charge to not be accepted while the more normal charges
go forward.  It should be clear that there is zero tolerance for the abuse
of the admistrator privilege of serving, and that action will be quick,
and fortunately mild, they must serve in some other capacity if they
want to serve.

                             -- Silverback


subject: [Wikitech-l] hardware

body:
After the long discussion about what to purchase with the money of the
fundraising, would it be possible that something is actually written down ?

I suggest that this be done and discussed here :
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_servers/hardware_orders

Thanks

Anthere


from_name: slimvirgin at gmail.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Test case: policing content

body:
> Tom Haws wrote,
> > >Heh-heh.  It is easy to see how this problem got started.  Deleting
> >unsourced material is an excellent excuse for POV police, warriors, and
> >their ilk.

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 16:02:07 -0500, steven l. rubenstein
<rubenste at ohiou.edu> wrote:
 If Tom Haws is going to label as a POV warrior anyone who
> insists that our policies, such as Verifiability and Cite sources, must be
> enforced, then how on earth are we going to write a good encyclopedia?

Tom Haws takes the view that NPOV means articles must reflect popular
opinion, not scholarly opinion. For several weeks, Tom has been
arguing that the introduction of the article [[Human]] must reflect
religious beliefs (that e.g. human beings have souls and were created
in the image of God), and not simply biological and anthropological
ones (that we are bipedal primates who engage in extensive tool use
and live in complex societies). While no editor on that page disputes
that religious views be discussed in the article, a number of us do
argue that these views have no place in the introduction.

Tom has been invited to submit references (e.g. work by theologians),
but has declined to do so, arguing that his reference is to popular
opinion. He was then invited by several editors, in the interests of
consistency, to go and add some popular opinion to the introduction of
other articles e.g. to [[Woman]], that women are seen by many people
around the world as inferior and irrational; to [[Gay]], that gay sex
is viewed by many as wicked; to [[Muslim]], that many see Muslims as a
bunch of terrorists; to [[Jew]], that many see Jews as engaged in a
plot to take over the world.

Rather than accepting the inconsistency of his position, Tom has
defended it by arguing, on [[Talk:Human]], that he simply doesn't have
time to add popular opinion to all articles that need it, adding: "
The only pertinent sifting question is, "Is it a significant point of
view?" In other words, "does it make a difference in the world?" And
for all the examples you cite, the answer is "Yes".

Note here that we are talking specifically about the introductions of
articles. I do not dispute that these views might be represented in an
article somewhere. But Tom wants to see them prominently displayed.
And this raises an interesting question about NPOV. When we say a
majority view ought to be displayed as such, do we mean the majority
scholarly view, or do we mean popular opinion (which in some cases
might be factually incorrect or offensive)?

According to NPOV, we would probably have to stick to popular opinion.
The NPOV policy qualifies this by using the word "rational," but this
is not defined, and there are many people regarded as rational within
their own communities who believe, for example, that women need not be
given equal rights because they are inferior beings. But if we read
NPOV together with [[Wikipedia: No original research]],
[[Wikipedia:Verifiability]], and [[Wikipedia:Cite sources]], it
becomes clear that we mean "published, rational, majority opinion"
and, furthermore, published in a credible or reputable publication.
This will most often refer to the opinions of scholars, good
journalists, and other credible authors, and this defines the range of
majority opinion that must be given prominence. (Note: I am throughout
this post discussing prominence, not inclusion per se). This is why I
argue strongly that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines must be read
and understood together, because when viewed jointly, they do form a
coherent philosophy, and they provide a solid defense against the
introductions-must-reflect-popular-opinion position that Tom seems to
be promoting. (Though in fairness to Tom, I think he's simply being
inconsistent: I don't believe that he really wants to go around adding
popular opinion to introductions).

Sarah


subject: [WikiEN-l] Test case: policing content

body:
steven l. rubenstein wrote:

> Tom Haws wrote,
>
>> steven l. rubenstein wrote:
>>
>> > Some people have suggested that if someone keeps putting unsourced
>> > material on the page, the solution is to delete it.  Well, this is the
>> > first solution to any problem at Wikipedia.
>>
>> Heh-heh.  It is easy to see how this problem got started.  Deleting
>> unsourced material is an excellent excuse for POV police, warriors, and
>> their ilk.  But it doesn't go over too well in polite society.
>
> Are you being disingenuous, or have you just not been following this
> thread?  I thought it was abundantly clear that the person in question
> had been asked for a source several times.  The question is, what to
> do then?  Ray Saintonge replied, delete.  And that is where my e-mail
> picks up. To then suggest I am a POV cop in this matter is
> disingenuous and dangerous.
>
> What POV do you think I am pushing, Tom?
>
> It should be clear that this is NOT a matter of pushing a POV.  I have
> no objection to including a marxist definition in the article.  But it
> must be accurate.  Otherwise, what kind of encyclopedia is this?
>
> Okay Tom, what do you think we should do, if someone refuses over the
> course of several weeks to provide a source for a claim that some
> editors say is inaccurate or simply false?
>
> I am getting tired of this discussion that seems to go nowhere, but I
> think it is important.  If Tom Haws is going to label as a POV warrior
> anyone who insists that our policies, such as Verifiability and Cite
> sources, must be enforced, then how on earth are we going to write a
> good encyclopedia?  Or do you have a different goal, Tom?

I don't expect Steven to take the flak for what I said.  I'm glad to
repeat that when a contributor refuses to give a reference for a
statement it should be deleted.  I'm not questioning that user's good
faith, only his understanding of how research.is done.

Tom's statement about POV police only proves that he hasn't got a clue
about the difference between polite and impolite society.  How polite is
the society that reliesa on bullshit as a source for its intellectual
capital.  I nevertheless do make allowance for the possibility that he
may have been using "polite" in an ironic sense.

It's no secret that some people are absolutely schizophrenic when it
comes to coping with academia.  I am not without criticism about
academia, but I will at least give them credit for what they do right.
One of the most important things that they do right is demand sources.
Failing to give sources is reason enough for failing a freshman term paper.

If something is bounced because it lacks sources it may still be allowed
back later ... when someone is willing to provide a source.

When it comes to political terminology it is important to be clear about
our terminology, especially when we are dealing with POV-charged terms
like "capitalism".

Ec


from_name: Philip Newton

body:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 10:13:30 -0500, "Poor, Edmund W"
<Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:

> Magnus Manske schrieb:
>
> > I would like to remind everyone that the German Wikipedia has
> > just been published on a combined CD-DVD-set, at a price of
> > about 10 Euros.
>
> Where can I order a copy? I don't know German, but some of my colleagues
> probably do.

It appears that you cannot currently order a copy -- the Autumn 2004 CD
edition ( http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia-CD ) is sold
out (though individual bookshops may still have copies, and you can
[http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia-CD/Download download]
and ISO image and/or a DBZ file for the reader that was used), and the
Spring 2005 DVD/CD edition (
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia-Distribution ) is
scheduled for release on 31 March, in about a week's time. So you may
want to wait until then.

Cheers,
Philip


from_name: Sabine Cretella

subject: [Wikipedia-l] This time I really need your help here:

body:
Hi, normally I copy and paste myself as many translations as I can find
on a wish ... but I have a real problem here: my laptop is giving up ...
it overheats more and more frequently and I just made it to transfer my
due to delivery work to my other computer (where working is ... ehmmm
...) - so I am late with everything.

Now tomorrow is Easter - and of course I'd like to complete "Happy
Easter" and send it to as many firends/customers/people I know as
possible - and of course to the "word of the day"-list as well (they are
waiting for some days for their word of the day now, but I must do
urgent things first. This is one of those unique occasions when you
really can indirectly make "marketing".

So please could you go here and add your Easter wishes?

http://it.wiktionary.org/wiki/Buona_Pasqua%21
we already have: fi, fur, en, de, scn

Just klick on "modifica", add your language code and the translation.

And thanks to all who helped me with the Happy New Year!

Please!!!!!

Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sabine

p.s. if there's another place where this can be posted: just do it :-)


list: wiktionary-l

subject: [Wiktionary-l] This time I really need your help here:


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Test case: policing content

body:
steven l. rubenstein wrote:

> Ed Poor wrote,
>
>> Googling the quoted definition easily shows that several sources
>> regard "private ownership of the means of production" as an
>> essential part of the "Marxist definition" of Capitalism.
>
> Alas, sometimes the Web is not the best place to do research.  I think
> if Wikipedia wants to establish itself as an outstanding on-line
> encyclopedia, its editors sometimes have to do some off-line research.

Absolutely.  Do we want quantity or quality?  It's the difference
between a rose and the pile of shit that it grows in ... and the rose
still manages to have thorns.  The Web is a good place to start
research, but a terrible place to end it.  If I encounter an idea on the
Web I like to look for verification elsewhere.

> In most of the cases Ed is referring to, people are taking sentences
> by Marx and Engels out of context.  Abolishing the private ownership
> of capital is but one element of the communist program -- but that
> doesn't mean that they defined capitalism as ownership of the means of
> production.  Another part of their program was free education for
> children -- certainly we don't think that the "Marxist" definition of
> capitalism is a system where children are uneducated!  Moreover, in
> the Communist Manifesto they actually argue that capitalism is
> destroying private property!  And in various other books by Marx, Marx
> and Engels, and their followers, they define capitalism quite
> differently.
>
> In any event, Ed at least provided an actual source. Now we can have
> hopefully fruitful discussion of the usefulness of this source, if
> there are better sources, etc.  In short, what Ed wrote was verifiable.

Ed is Ed.  His ideas may be way off in <s>left</s> right field but there
is a certain honesty about his expression that you would hope would be
learned by others with similar ideas.

Ec


from_name: Reinhardt Wiewe

subject: [Wikitech-l] [[tlh:]] language code [[tlh:Special:Recentchanges]]

body:
Hall?!

The tlh language code does not generate corectly the "In other languages" links

[[tlh:]] http://tlh.wikipedia.org/wiki/ghItlh%27a%27
[[tlh:Special:Recentchanges]] http://tlh.wikipedia.org/wiki/le%27:Recentchanges

Kve?ja / Gru? / Salutas / Best regards / Salutari cordiale

Reinhardt [[user:gangleri]]


subject: [WikiEN-l] Test case: policing content

body:
Thomas Haws wrote:

>Yes, I personally would be even more patient.  That may not be the "right" answer, but my attitude is maybe I can 1) learn something from that "original researcher" 2) help him feel good about contributing to Wikipedia, and 3) show him by example how Wikipedia works at its best and what NPOV means.  As much as it hurts at times, I simply cannot afford to take excessive ownership in articles.
>
>
Patience is commendable.  But an effective POV warrior can depend on
that in the hope that your patience will turn to abandonment, and his
lack of sources will be forgotten.

Put in educational terms what you seem to be saying is, "Don't insist
that little Johnny learn anything because it might damage his
self-esteem."

Ec


from_name: David Gerard

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:

> Having robust datacenters around the world - each supported by the national
> chapter in the nation it is in - also helps to ensure uninterrupted service and
> longterm viability of what we are doing.

It should take a lot less of a server to serve in read-only mode. I hope.

> Just leave out the word 'foundation' from the UK chapter name, and I'll be
> happy (it would be needlessly confusing). 'Wikimedia UK' sounds like a great
> name to me. :)

Ah, OK!

> I recently registered wikimedia.us for a future Wikimedia U.S. (or Wikimedia
> USA) chapter and saw that the .org.uk was available - now it is not. I hope
> somebody we know and who likes us registered it...

It appears to be registered to one "James Forrester". <s>Looks a bit dodgy
to me ...</s>

> I envision four major core areas that national chapters would be well-suited to
> tackle:
> 1) Supporting a local datacenter (just a squid farm first, but later a full
> datacenter with database slaves receiving updates from the live master in
> Florida but fully capable of becoming their own master if needed for whatever
> reason).

A good reason to accumulate money in the short term.

> 2) Directing social energy into improving Wikimedia projects. A club system
> would be set-up under each chapter where a club would cover a metro area. Club
> members and different clubs would periodically gather and have WikiJam sessions
> at libraries, museums, national parks, universities, places of historical
> interest, etc.

Yep.

> Imagine a small army of Wikimedians with digital cameras and PDAs descending
> into one of these places to extract each available bit of information.

Imagine every notable object in the middle of London being photographed,
uploaded and written about.

> Impromptu WikiJams to cover events in the club's metro area would be very
> useful for Wikinews. I think the fun we have from collaborating online will
> also manifest itself as we gather data together in the real world.

Oh, very good!

> 3) Distribution and popularization of Wikimedia projects within that nation.
> 4) Also important would be helping the Wikimedia Foundation gather the
> resources and help it needs to further the goal of bringing free knowledge to
> the world. National chapters would be better-suited to work with their nation's
> governments and large companies to help make this happen.

Yep.

> This would allow the Wikimedia Foundation to concentrate on international
> issues and coordination - esp getting free content in the hands of people who
> do not have access to the Internet. Under this system, grants (including those
> from and through chapters - see point 4) will likely one day supplant direct
> donations as the major source of funding for the Wikimedia Foundation since
> most donation money from readers will go to national chapters (yes, including
> Wikimedia U.S.).
> This bottom up approach appeals to be greatly.

It will also give people a greater sense of ownership of the project.

Things to watch out for: local foundations being used for nationalist
POV-pushing.

- d.


from_name: Thomas Haws

subject: [WikiEN-l] Test case: policing content

body:
I trust that Sarah is as sincere as I in exploring the meaning of these concepts and their implications for the quality and future of Wikipedia.  And I appreciate her effort to elucidate.  I take exception to her coining the phrase "popular opinion" and building her talk around it.  I don't really want to be in the position of discussing the "validity" of "popular opinion".  But the general thrust of her summary is probably at least approximately correct.  Namely, that NPOV requires we represent all views fairly.  And I suppose "popular opinion" is usually a significant view.

The background from which I come is this: As a Wikipedia *reader*, I expect to find articles that give me a complete picture ("all sides") of a subject I seek to learn about.  I have used Wikipedia to learn about Islam, Buddhism, and many other controversial subjects.  In fact, the more controversial a subject is, the more I insist within that I must see what Wikipedia has to say.  That is because I know that "given enough pens, all biases are level."  I trust Wikipedia to feed me more "knowledge" free of spin than any other source.  And I say that if we fail to be fair in presenting all human "knowledge", we fail to deliver to that trust.

Tom Haws


body:
Silverback, you couldn't have said it better about adminship.  If we were more effective at removing admins we could be more generous about installing them.

Tom


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikiquote reached 10,000 articles in total

body:
Hi folks, I report hereby Wikiquote project, a multilingual online
open-content compendium of quotations., has currently over 10,000
articles in total with a great pleasure.

According to en:q:Wikiquote:Multilingual statistics by en:q:User:Pumpie,
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Multilingual_statistics
Wikiquote project has 10,270 articles in its top 22 languages as of
March 25, 2005. It is uncertain what is the 10,000th article exactly.

It took 15 months from its start in December 2003. Currently four
projects (English, German, French and Polish)  has more than 1,000
articles. The largest one is English with almost 2,700 articles. About
300 user accounts have been created and there are many unregistered
editors too as same as other projects.

Most of Wikiquotes focus on authors who wrote in their own language
but there are many good translation. English and Japanese Wikiquotes
show a strong inclination to the original text, and many quotes are
accompanied with original texts.

Coordination with other Wikimedia project is a vital part of Wikiqutoe
activities. Wikimedia and Wikisource are referred frequently but also
Wikimedia Commons provides Wikiquote with many images, particularly
authors' portrait. French Wikiquote sets up a good template with a
well-defined description of author and portrait image.

Thank you for your support and contributions.
Cheers,

--
Aphaea || Britomartis
email: Aphaia @ gmail (dot) com


from_name: Neil Harris

body:
Egil Kvaleberg wrote:

> Egil Kvaleberg wrote:
>
>> I have now included support for the geo database, and included
>> support for finding neighboring articles as well as support for
>> generating points for Wikimaps.
>
>
> Following up my previous mail, I've removed the gis_region column, and
> instead added a gis_globe column, so that it is easy to make this work in
> other worlds too, e.g. "Moon", "Mars" and I guess, "Sky" for the star
> maps.
>
> The definition then becomes:
>
> CREATE TABLE wikipedia_gis (
>        gis_id int(8) unsigned NOT NULL,
>        gis_latitude_min real NOT NULL,
>        gis_latitude_max real NOT NULL,
>        gis_longitude_min real NOT NULL,
>        gis_longitude_max real NOT NULL,
>        gis_globe char(12) binary,
>        gis_type char(12) binary,
>        gis_type_arg char(12) binary,
>
>        KEY gis_id (gis_id),
>        INDEX gis_latitude_min (gis_latitude_min),
>        INDEX gis_latitude_max (gis_latitude_max),
>        INDEX gis_longitude_min (gis_longitude_min),
>        INDEX gis_longitude_max (gis_longitude_max)
> );
>
> where gis_globe is NULL for Earth.
>
> Again, comments very much invited.
>
You've missed adding a field for storing the geodetic reference (for
example, WGS 84), which is particularly important for high-precision
measurements. Some kind of height field would be good too (again, the
nature of the height field would be defined by the geodetic reference).

-- Neil


from_name: Viajero

body:
Andy Roberts wrote:

> I am concerened that a number of admins, and Vamp Willow in
> particular, don't seem to be able to understand the difference between
> the number  THREE and the expression "MORE THAN three". I would have

Three, four, whatever. If you find yourself in the situation where you
need to revert someone else's edits this many times in a day, it means
your powers of persuasion on the Talk page are less than optimal. If you
find yourself dealing with an intransigent individual, then the best
thing to do is to ask others to help out.

V.


from_name: Yann Forget

subject: [Foundation-l] Tax status in the Netherlands for the Foundation

body:
Hi,

Le Friday 25 March 2005 15:55, Gerard Meijssen a ?crit :
> Hoi,
> You miss the point of the my mail.
>
> The point is that it IS possible to have the Foundation be registered in
> the Netherlands and in France as well (in principle as I understood
> from Soufron). This allows us to do collect money directly by the
> Foundation. It means that the monies collected can be used by the board
> as it sees fit. It means that we do not need a chapter to REPRESENT the
> Foundation..

AFAIK, I?don't think the Foundation could collect donations free of tax in
France without being locally registred.?That why we have set up a French
chapter, who will be able to collect donations.?BTW, the French chapter is
also representing the Foundation in France. I?don't know about other
countries, where it could be different.

Regards,
Yann

[...]
> Thanks,
>     Gerard

--
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclop?die libre
http://www.forget-me.net/pro/ | Formations et services Linux


from_name: Jean-Baptiste Soufron

body:
That's GREAT !

Cordialement,

Jean-Baptiste Soufron, Doctorant
CERSA - CNRS, Paris 2
http://soufron.free.fr

Le 26 mars 05, ? 01:35, Sj a ?crit :

> You knew this was coming...
>
> IBM today released the first public alpha of its HistoryFlow
> application.  It comes with a plugin to suck content from a moinmoin
> wiki and view its history; they had a similar plugin for MediaWiki,
> and are happy to put it back in once we confirm that a few thousand
> people using this to suck out WP histories won't thrash the servers.
>
>   http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/tech/historyflow
>   http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/tech/historyflow/download
>
> You have to sign up for an IBM ID in order to download and run the
> program, but it's totally worth it; a *beautiful* bit of design work.
>
> Mad props to Martin et al for getting this out the dorr.
> --
> +sj+
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


body:
Well, I need this tool for my own PhD research... so please let it go
public !

Jean-Baptiste Soufron

Le 26 mars 05, ? 01:59, Erik Zachte a ?crit :

>> once we confirm that a few thousand people using this to
>> suck out WP histories won't thrash the servers.
>
> The charts are beautiful. yet I think it would be overdone to generate
> them
> on demand for every article.
> After you've seen a few you've seen them all. They give a general
> impression
> of how fluid popular and/or contested articles are, but are too
> crowded for
> detailed analysis.
>
> For me a limited set of pregenerated charts for say 50 selected
> articles,
> refreshed once a month, would be sufficient.
>
>
> Erik Zachte
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Erik Zachte

body:
Sj:
> If you have access to the tool itself, you are able to
> effectively browse the article text at each revision, in combination
> with the visual overview, in quite an effective way.

OK than it is much more useful than I thought.
My assumption was we would use it to produce a static chart like on their
website.

Erik Zachte


from_name: Rick

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: A friendly Wired Article

body:
--- Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Quite a good article
>
> But also exactly the article which makes the world
> believe this is an
> english project, run by english editors.
>
> Not exactly the kind of rumors all of us appreciate.
>
>
> Poor, Edmund W a ?crit:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: TL at pipeline.com [mailto:TL at pipeline.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 2:22 PM
> > To: Poor, Edmund W
> > Subject: article of interest
> >
> >
> >
>
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.03/wiki_pr.html
> >
> > I'm sure EVERYONE has seen this article but me, by
> now. I feel like I
> > just got a big pat on the back for my 3 1/2 years
> of work! This writer
> > is very friendly and has captured the essence of
> Wikipedia much, MUCH
> > better than anyone else heretofore. I just wish
> his article was GFDL'd
> > so I could incorporate all his descriptions.
> >
> > Uncle Ed
> >
> > P.S. A non-Wikipedian sent me the URL

You mean the parts that talk about the Wikipedias in
75 languages, and how the millionth article was in the
Hebrew Wikipedia?

RickK

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/


subject: [WikiEN-l] Test case: policing content

body:
I want to clarify the e-mail I sent earlier regarding Tom Haws' views
at [[Talk:Human]]. Upon re-reading it, I'm worried I gave the
impression that Tom is being an edit warrior, and feel I should make
clear that his views have been confined to the talk page of [[Human]].
He has not attempted to insert those views into the article itself;
the talk-page discussion, which is robust but perfectly civil, is
being held precisely to decide whether those views ought to be
inserted.  I don't agree with Tom, but I respect him as an editor, and
he clearly has Wikipedia's best interests in mind. I hope that
clarifies what I wrote earlier.

Sarah

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 09:47:30 -0700, slimvirgin at gmail.com
<slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Tom Haws wrote,
> > > >Heh-heh.  It is easy to see how this problem got started.  Deleting
> > >unsourced material is an excellent excuse for POV police, warriors, and
> > >their ilk.
>
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 16:02:07 -0500, steven l. rubenstein
> <rubenste at ohiou.edu> wrote:
>  If Tom Haws is going to label as a POV warrior anyone who
> > insists that our policies, such as Verifiability and Cite sources, must be
> > enforced, then how on earth are we going to write a good encyclopedia?
>
> Tom Haws takes the view that NPOV means articles must reflect popular
> opinion, not scholarly opinion. For several weeks, Tom has been
> arguing that the introduction of the article [[Human]] must reflect
> religious beliefs (that e.g. human beings have souls and were created
> in the image of God), and not simply biological and anthropological
> ones (that we are bipedal primates who engage in extensive tool use
> and live in complex societies). While no editor on that page disputes
> that religious views be discussed in the article, a number of us do
> argue that these views have no place in the introduction.
>
> Tom has been invited to submit references (e.g. work by theologians),
> but has declined to do so, arguing that his reference is to popular
> opinion. He was then invited by several editors, in the interests of
> consistency, to go and add some popular opinion to the introduction of
> other articles e.g. to [[Woman]], that women are seen by many people
> around the world as inferior and irrational; to [[Gay]], that gay sex
> is viewed by many as wicked; to [[Muslim]], that many see Muslims as a
> bunch of terrorists; to [[Jew]], that many see Jews as engaged in a
> plot to take over the world.
>
> Rather than accepting the inconsistency of his position, Tom has
> defended it by arguing, on [[Talk:Human]], that he simply doesn't have
> time to add popular opinion to all articles that need it, adding: "
> The only pertinent sifting question is, "Is it a significant point of
> view?" In other words, "does it make a difference in the world?" And
> for all the examples you cite, the answer is "Yes".
>
> Note here that we are talking specifically about the introductions of
> articles. I do not dispute that these views might be represented in an
> article somewhere. But Tom wants to see them prominently displayed.
> And this raises an interesting question about NPOV. When we say a
> majority view ought to be displayed as such, do we mean the majority
> scholarly view, or do we mean popular opinion (which in some cases
> might be factually incorrect or offensive)?
>
> According to NPOV, we would probably have to stick to popular opinion.
> The NPOV policy qualifies this by using the word "rational," but this
> is not defined, and there are many people regarded as rational within
> their own communities who believe, for example, that women need not be
> given equal rights because they are inferior beings. But if we read
> NPOV together with [[Wikipedia: No original research]],
> [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]], and [[Wikipedia:Cite sources]], it
> becomes clear that we mean "published, rational, majority opinion"
> and, furthermore, published in a credible or reputable publication.
> This will most often refer to the opinions of scholars, good
> journalists, and other credible authors, and this defines the range of
> majority opinion that must be given prominence. (Note: I am throughout
> this post discussing prominence, not inclusion per se). This is why I
> argue strongly that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines must be read
> and understood together, because when viewed jointly, they do form a
> coherent philosophy, and they provide a solid defense against the
> introductions-must-reflect-popular-opinion position that Tom seems to
> be promoting. (Though in fairness to Tom, I think he's simply being
> inconsistent: I don't believe that he really wants to go around adding
> popular opinion to introductions).
>
> Sarah
>


from_name: zhengzhu

subject: [Wikitech-l] Different alphabets for the same language

body:
You can take a look at LanguageZh.php, which implements most stuff
related to the Chinese conversion system.

If the conversion between Cyrillics and Latin is strictly one-to-one,
then it should be fairly simple to support that, since most related
code is already written. All we need is probably a mapping table
between the Cyrillics and the Latin alphabet. If you can put the table
somewhere, I can probably implement it and put up a test site fairly
quickly. But since I have no knowledge with those languages, I can be
wrong.

--
zhengzhu


from_name: Michael Snow

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: User:Neutrality NPOV/Abuse of Administrator Power

body:
Thomas Haws wrote:

>Silverback, you couldn't have said it better about adminship.  If we were more effective at removing admins we could be more generous about installing them.
>
>
I have heard this line of argument a few times now from people
advocating some form of quick and easy de-adminship without resorting to
arbitration. In general, I think we already readily give adminship to
those who are nominated, and anyone who has a close call on their first
try will normally pass overwhelmingly after waiting a month or two. I
invite anyone who believes the argument above to point me to a case
where having an easier de-adminship process would have made the
difference in the success of an adminship nomination.

We could be more generous in seeking out candidates and making
nominations, of course, but that's a different matter. There are many
good users out there who are just waiting for a nomination.

--Michael Snow


from_name: Egil Kvaleberg

subject: [Wikitech-l] Extensions for handling geographical coordinates

body:
Neil Harris wrote:

> Egil Kvaleberg wrote:
>
> You've missed adding a field for storing the geodetic reference (for
> example, WGS 84), which is particularly important for high-precision
> measurements.

No, there is no such field on purpose. I've set the requirement that the
reference system should be WGS84, and that coordinates in other
reference systems be converted to WGS84. I believe the latest US and EU
reference systems are close enough (or equivalent to) WGS84.

Allowing different  reference frames into the same database would not
allow searches to for instance bounding boxes in a managable manner. It
would also severly complicate the neighborhood calculations.

Obviously, with the precision required for many (but not all) of the
articles in Wikipedia, choice of reference system is really an academic
exercise.

For the map resources that refer to other references, the strategy is to
calulate from the WGS84 reference as needed.

> Some kind of height field would be good too (again, the nature of the
> height field would be defined by the geodetic reference).

I have in purpose tried to limit the information as much as possible.
Presumable, given the WGS84 location, topologcial data can be found by
other means if required.

Egil


from_name: Brion Vibber

body:
zhengzhu wrote:
> If the conversion between Cyrillics and Latin is strictly one-to-one,
> then it should be fairly simple to support that, since most related
> code is already written. All we need is probably a mapping table
> between the Cyrillics and the Latin alphabet. If you can put the table
> somewhere, I can probably implement it and put up a test site fairly
> quickly. But since I have no knowledge with those languages, I can be
> wrong.

The last time this was brought up, I seem to recall that the conversion
is _not_ perfect; foreign words and names of either Latin or
Cyrillic-spelling origin may not use the generic conversions. Also if
you're quoting eg foreign-language text, math, or programming code (all
likely to come up in an encyclopedia) it's going to be harder; it'd be
necessary to be able to specify non-convertible text.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20050326/436c8240/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Erdal Ronahi

subject: [Wiktionary-l] Entry for multilingual portal

body:
Hi,

the Kurdish wiktionary (w?k?ferheng) is coming close to 600 entries.
Could someone please include it into the list of 100+ wiktionaries at
the multilingual portal at http://www.wiktionary.org ?

Thanks,
Erdal

--
http://wiki.ferheng.org


body:
Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> You remember correctly :) Basically, conversion from Cyrillc to Latin alphabet
> is possible and easy to do; but conversion from Latin to Cyrillic is
> impossible task. It would thus be possible to create a static Wikipedia
> mirror in Latin alphabet, if there would be any need for it; but making it
> editable and importing results back into Cyrillic would not work and only
> create problems.

If converting Cyrillic -> Latin is good enough, and the primary editing
environment is going to be Cyrillic, then adapting zhengzhu's Chinese
conversion support probably will work okay.

At http://zh.wikipedia.org/ you'll notice three additional tabs at the
right-hand of the top tab bar: "???" for unconverted display, "??"
for simplified conversion, and "??" for traditional conversion. These
conversions don't change the source text or alter editing; it's for
rendered page display and user interface only.

We could have the 'Cyrillic' display just pass through the source
unaltered, and the 'Latin' display go ahead and apply the conversions in
one direction for display only.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20050326/eaa23612/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Delirium

subject: [WikiEN-l] Test case: policing content

body:
slimvirgin at gmail.com wrote:

>Tom Haws takes the view that NPOV means articles must reflect popular
>opinion, not scholarly opinion. For several weeks, Tom has been
>arguing that the introduction of the article [[Human]] must reflect
>religious beliefs (that e.g. human beings have souls and were created
>in the image of God), and not simply biological and anthropological
>ones (that we are bipedal primates who engage in extensive tool use
>and live in complex societies). While no editor on that page disputes
>that religious views be discussed in the article, a number of us do
>argue that these views have no place in the introduction.
>
>
I don't see why it wouldn't be appropriate to mention these in the
introduction.  To a vast majority of the world's population, including a
number of its philosophers who have specifically considered the
question, the main distinguishing feature of humans is not "bipedal
primates who engage in extensive tool use and live in complex
societies", any more than "have two ears" or "have fingernails" are
their main distinguishing features.

If we were discussing an article specifically on the biological species
[[Homo sapiens]], I could see that viewpoint, but the article on
[[human]] must encompass, both in the body and the introduction, much
more than merely the biological definition of the species.

-Mark


from_name: Sj

subject: [Wikipedia-l] IBM releases history flow tool

references:
<NMENLBGDKAFGBDHEPOBNIELKCMAA.e.p.zachte@chello.nl>
	<742dfd0605032521353d93da7f@mail.gmail.com>
	<000b01c531c7$e4483ec0$6b01a8c0@one>

body:
There is a way, I think involving a mediawiki plugin which was not
released on Friday; but which has been fully tested and exists
somewhere.  I expect there will be more details and FAQ answers on the
site next week.

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 23:51:44 -0600, Jack Lutz <jack-lutz at comcast.net> wrote:
> Is there a way to export Wikipedia revisions, via the site or database dump,
> to the text files the tool wants?
>

--
+sj+