subject: [WikiEN-l] <ref> and {{reference}}

body:
On 3/1/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> How do I cite sources? There is no clear, concise guide that I've been
> able to find.
>
> In short, can reference templates and the <ref> tag be used together?

Your question is apt. I can't wait until someone gets a movement going
to decide on One True Citation Method (TM). We have either three or
four currently...

IMHO, the ideal method of citation would allow you to do something like this:

body text [http://URL Url description here] some text <ref mylabel
Smith and Thomspon, p153> more text <ref mylabel> blah blah

==References==
<references>

and have it come out like
body text Url description here some text [2]
more text [2] blah blah

References

1 Url description here
2 Smith and Thompson, p153

...but I'm asking a lot. :)

I do think people will be more keen to cite sources when it's easy and
feels good to do so. Or maybe I'm the only one put off by the thought
of having to work out *how* to cite a non-URL source before doing so.

Steve


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Phil Boswell

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Edit/read ratio goals,
	was Re: "Trivia" sections in articles

body:
"Ben Yates" <bluephonic at gmail.com> wrote in
message news:2b76523c0603010709r4aca8146la957effcef40c062 at mail.gmail.com...
> On 3/1/06, The Cunctator
> <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 3/1/06, Steve Bennett
>> <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
[so much snippage...]
>> > Really? If so, that's, well, interesting. :) I wonder what Jimbo has
>> > to say on that - he often refers to African communities, without
>> > elaborating much.
>> > I suppose I'm just considering the lack of infrastructure. Getting
>> > paper copies is one thing. Getting cheap, disposable laptops that
>> > require electricity is a bit harder. But cheap internet access?
>> What, you don't think they should have internet access?
> When subsaharan internet access becomes more widespread, it is likely
> to be on mobile-phone-per-village basis rather than a
> computer-per-person one -- it'll be interesting to see what the added
> chokepoint will do to the article-writing process.

ISTR the wind-up laptops I've seen discussed have built-in networking, and
form ad-hoc networks automagically.

So connecting a bunch of them up to the Internet might not be so
far-fetched...

HTH HAND
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


subject: [WikiEN-l] <ref> and {{reference}}

body:
"The Cunctator" <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote in
message news:dfd0b40603010650j26db2be3hb32609b54602566a at mail.gmail.com...
> How do I cite sources? There is no clear, concise guide that I've been
> able to find.
> In short, can reference templates and the <ref> tag be used together?

This depends on which group of "reference templates" you mean.

If you mean {{cite journal}} and {{cite book}} (which used to be 17
different flavours of {{journal reference}} and {{book reference}}) then
yes, there is no problem.

You chunter along writing your text when suddenly you need a
reference<ref>{{cite book | title = References are easy | author =
someone }}</ref>, so you simply stick it in, as the actress<ref>{cite web |
url = example.com/actress | title = Old Slapper }}</ref> to the
bishop<ref>{{cite news | title = Cleric in uproar | work = Tabloid
Muckraker }}</ref>.

One suspects we will have as much trouble over people who want their
references inside the punctuation as we used to over US/UK punctuation :-)

Then later in the article you have your standard ==References== section,
which starts with <references/> at which point your collected references are
"flushed out" as ?var so lovingly puts it. There's nothing to stop you
adding more after that if you have further references which weren't used at
specific points in the text.

If however you mean the multifarious "footnote" templates, then I fear you
are in for a disappointment. Because of the way the parser work with
extensions, you cannot use <ref> inside a template.

HTH HAND
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


from_name: Steve Bennett

body:
Heh, I smell someone trying to start a controversy here. I don't think
it's Wikipedias goal to supply internet access to the third world.
Kind of beyond the scope of our mission.

Steve

On 3/1/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> What, you don't think they should have internet access?
>
> On 3/1/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Really? If so, that's, well, interesting. :) I wonder what Jimbo has
> > to say on that - he often refers to African communities, without
> > elaborating much.


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] The admin problem

body:
Philip Welch wrote:
> On Feb 28, 2006, at 9:12 PM, Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
>
>
>>Or worse, a dev will run nukeUser.php and all records that you ever
>>existed will be wiped from the database...
>
>
> Wouldn't that be a gross violation of GFDL?
>

See why you don't want to make Tony angry! :)

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 555 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060301/43a0cec6/attachment.pgp


from_name: slimvirgin at gmail.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] The new verifiability policy

body:
On 3/1/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Katefan0 wrote:
>
> >Personally, I think it's just about right that the policy state that
> >information without a source may be removed.
> >
> Part of the problem is with the permissive word "may", which is too
> often read as though it were "shall".
>
We have to assume people can read English. Saying that an unsourced
edit MAY be removed is clearly not the same as saying it MUST be or
SHOULD be.

Sarah


from_name: Peter Mackay

subject: [WikiEN-l] The admin problem

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Alphax
> (Wikipedia email)

> I fear the day when a group of people will say "Hey! Let's all become
> admins on Wikipedia! All we have to do is revert vandalism for an hour
> for three months, and then we can all become admins and trash the
> place!" Actually, I wonder why it hasn't happened already.

I think because it's too much like hard work. Remember when there was all
that hoo-har about neo-Nazis banding together to try to take over WP? Jimbo
said that this wouldn't happen, because in the end WP was an encyclopaedia
not a game.

It didn't happen anyway, but a few folks here ran round like headless chooks
for a while, and when the neoNazis started up their own fork, a few people
went over and vandalised the crap out of it, and then came back here and
gloated.

Anyway, if we get a bunch of genuine rogue admins acting in an organised
manner, I think it would quickly be noticed and brought under control. It
wouldn't be a matter of voting or wheel-warring. In the end Jimbo and his
trusted assistants would squash the invasion and we'd be better off to the
tune of many packets of three months anti-vandalism work.

Peter (Skyring)


subject: [WikiEN-l] The new verifiability policy

body:
What other word would you suggest, then?  It's certainly more permissive
than "shall."

k

On 3/1/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
> Katefan0 wrote:
>
> >Personally, I think it's just about right that the policy state that
> >information without a source may be removed.  (Perhaps it should be more
> >pointed -- disputed information without a source).  Didn't Jimbo say as
> much
> >in one of his responses to Seigenthaler?
> >
> Part of the problem is with the permissive word "may", which is too
> often read as though it were "shall".
>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Kelly Martin

subject: [WikiEN-l] The admin problem

body:
On 3/1/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:

> Has the userbox debate yet generated anything positive?
> Not in my viewing of it, at least not commensurate to the amount of
> frustration and negativity it has created on all sides of it, and the
> amount of resources it has taken up.

I regret my involvement in the userbox situation.

I've been away from Wikipedia for a while now, and have had time to
reflect on recent affairs.  I've also been doing some reading.  The
following paragraph jumped out at me from a book I was reading:

Robert was surely aware of the early evolutionary development of
parliamentary procedure in the English House of Lords resulting in a
movement from "consensus," in its original sense of unanimous
agreement, toward a decision by majority vote as we know it today.
This evolution came about from a recognition that a requirement of
unanimity or near unanimity can become a form of tyranny in itself. In
an assembly that tries to make such a requirement the norm, a variety
of misguided feelings--reluctance to be seen as opposing the
leadership, a notion that causing controversy will be frowned upon,
fear of seeming an obstacle to unity--can easily lead to decisions
being taken with a psuedoconsensus which in reality implies elements
of default, which satisfies no one, and for which no one really
assumes responsibility.

This paragraph really describes what I think is going on at Wikipedia.

I think it's time we reconsider whether "consensus" is a valid
principle of governance in as large and contentious a community as
this one has become, and whether we need to make more of an effort to
move to parliamentarianism as a method of governance.

I'm not quite crazy enough to sign Karmafist's manifesto, but I am now
convinced -- after reading the discussions here and in other places --
that Wikipedia needs a strict rule prohibiting administrative "wheel
wars": if an admin performs ANY admin action and any other admin
objects to it, it MUST be reverted and the matter referred for
discussion and decision amongst a proper deliberative body.  The
current methods are yielding "pseudoconsensus" -- or sometimes
multiple pseudoconsensuses -- and are magnifying disputes instead of
tempering them.  Until something is done, things will only get worse.
Continuining on this course cannot be the best thing for Wikipedia.

Kelly


list: foundation-l

from_name: Benjamin Webb

subject:
[Foundation-l] Rodovid.org - Familly tree wiki,
	which would like to become a wikimedia project

body:
I've posted about this before, but I only recieved a couple of
replies. http://rodovid.org is a familly tree wiki and I think it
would be great if it became a wikimedia project. I have added it to
meta (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Rodovid.org) and to the list of
proposals 9http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_new_projects#Rodovid.org_-_Fully_functional_global_family_tree).

I been asked if I know about wikitree. Yes, I do and have asked the
creator of that project on his talk page if he would be interested in
merging the projects, but as of yet, no reply.

What I really would like to know is if this could become a Wikimedia
project, whether people think it should and what has to happen for it
to become one.

Benjamin Webb (User:Bjwebb)

P.S. How do you reply to a post, do you just use the same subject line?


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Ben Emmel

subject: [WikiEN-l] We've Hit One Million

body:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_press_releases/Wikipedia_hits_milestone_1_million_English_articles

The article is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordanhill_railway_station]]

This is a pretty big accomplishment. Good job, everyone. Our next milestone
will be 1,000,000 featured articles, sometime in March 2050.

--
Ben Emmel
Wikipedia - User:Bratsche
"A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees."
-- William Blake


from_name: Fastfission

subject: [WikiEN-l] The admin problem

body:
On 3/1/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
> > Of course, building an encyclopedia has first priority, but a good
> > working community of editors is essential to accomplishing that goal.
>
> I won't be popular for saying so, but I don't know that it is. My high
> school biology teacher used to delight in seating people together who hated
> each other. She reckoned you got more interesting and lively discussions
> that way and everyone benefited. My objective was to sit up the back
> somewhere and go to sleep, but that didn't happen in her class and I have
> fond memories of high school biol as being a great education experience.

"Good working community" doesn't have to necessarily mean people like
each other. Fiery people who disagree with each other often do
generate lots of discussion, and anybody who has dealt with long-term
POV pushers know that the short term result, at least, is a profound
increase in citation, detail, and nuance in the articles themselves
(and, when things die down, someone usually comes along later and
says, "Why is all of this attention being devoted to such a minor
issue?" and trims it up).

But I think these are exceptional situations -- the exceptions which
prove the norm that most people don't like to work in antagonistic
environments. There can be a case for too much antagonism. And
disagreements need not be antagonistic, if they are civil (I disagree
with people all the time, but rarely does it become a "dispute," much
less anything truly unpleasant).

I think this entire discussion was originally about transparency. I
think one could say that a lack of transparency does not kill
discussion -- in fact, it might magnify it, though much of the
discussion which results will be antagonistic, distrusting, and so
forth.

There is also a question as to which battles need waging at all. I
don't think we should mistake the burst of activity associated with
dispute as necessarily being contributive to the goals of the
encyclopedia. Has the userbox debate yet generated anything positive?
Not in my viewing of it, at least not commensurate to the amount of
frustration and negativity it has created on all sides of it, and the
amount of resources it has taken up.

FF


from_name: Dariusz Siedlecki

subject: [Foundation-l] Mailing list for Wikiversity project.

body:
There's also Wikiversityde-l, from what I remember. Might check that.

Datrio

On 3/1/06, michael_irwin at verizon.net <michael_irwin at verizon.net> wrote:
> Thanks Robert!
>
> I will check out the archives and subscribe to Textbook-l while we wait
> for action on the Wikiversity list.
>
> lazyquasar
>
> Robert Scott Horning wrote:
>
> >While I would agree that a totally seperate mailing list for Wikiversity
> >might be useful, Textbook-l has been totally dead and would be a very
> >good place to at least start some of these discussions until such a list
> >is created.  BTW, there is quite a bit of discussion (from the past in
> >the archives) about Wikiversity on this mailing list as well.
> >
> >
> >
>


list: wikitech-l

from_name: admin Yellowikis

subject: [Wikitech-l] Google Maps integration

body:
I've been trying to find a way to use Google Maps API to allow users
to identify the latitude and longitude of a business and then add it
to Yellowikis.

I asked a Google Maps "guru" about this idea and he told me:

"There's a fundamental problem trying to integrate Wikis, Google Maps and
Internet Explorer. If you can find a way past this one hurdle, then the
rest should be straight forward.

The problem is that IE refuses to allow Google Map API Javascript to be
placed inside a <div> or a <table>. Nobody really knows why, it's just
one of many bits of strange behaviour exhibited by IE. Wiki's don't like
pages to have custom content that's outside the "editsection" <div>.

The API code would like it to be possible to have a chunk of Javascript
that sits between these two lines
<!-- Served by truth in 0.14 secs. -->
</body>
(The map itself would appear in a "map" <div> within the "editsection"
<div>, it's just the associated Javascript code that must be moved.)
My understanding is that it's not easy for a Wiki page to contain custom
content there.

Possible workrounds are:

(1) Serve the map in an off-Wiki page within www.yellowikis.org. Write
the external page so that it looks something like a Wiki page. It might
then be tricky to get the user back to the Wiki page that he came from
in order to do something with the geocoded information.

(2) Serve the map in an <iframe>. Will a Wiki allow an <iframe> within
the "editsection"?

Here's a possible strategy:

A "create listing using a map" link takes the user to an off-Wikki page
www.yellowikis.org/map/map.html. The user sees a map of the world and a
set of instructions.

User zooms and pans until happy with the location, then clicks a button
that initiates the recording process. Once that button has been clicked,
a form is displayed at the side of the map, in which the user can enter
basic details like the company name, contact details and classification
codes. Clicking on the map in "record" mode causes a marker to be
displayed and the latitude and longitude to be inserted into the form.
Clicking on the map moves the marker and inserts the new latitude and
longitude into the form.

Clicking on the "Submit" button causes a few simple checks to be
performed (are the mandatory fields present?) then submits the data to
your server.

Somehow your server has to convert a wodge of data into something that's
suitable for the "editsection" of a Wiki page. Create the page if it's
not there already. Replace the stub contents if there's a stub. Do
something sensible if there already is a real entry. (You're on your own
with this section of the processing. I know nothing about PHP or the
server-side internals of wikis.)

Control then passes back to a page within the Wiki that tells the user
that the data has been accepted."

Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

Will I have to make an extension?

FYI Yellowikisis running:
    *  MediaWiki: 1.5.5
    * PHP: 4.4.2-0.dotdeb.1 (apache)
    * MySQL: 5.0-Debian_4sarge2-log

    * Extensions:
          o Parser hooks:
                + Inputbox by Erik Moeller
          o Extension functions:
                + registerInputboxExtension

Any advice would be welcome.

Paul
--
Yellowikis is to Yellow Pages, as Wikipedia is to The Encyclopedia Britannica


from_name: jayjg

subject: [WikiEN-l] The new verifiability policy

body:
On 3/1/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
> slimvirgin at gmail.com wrote:
>
> >On 3/1/06, charles matthews <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Slim Virgin wrote
> >>My concern, and I see it too often, is that material is cut because it
> is
> >>unsourced, and only because of that.
> >>
> >>The
> >>'instrumentalist' view, that policy is to be used to rule one's own
> edits
> >>in, and the edits of others out, is a menace, in fact.
> >>
> >>
> >Realistically, when is this a problem, Charles? I confess to being
> >bewildered when people complain about the need to find sources. If
> >their edit is correct, why can't they source it?
> >
> Are they actually refusing to source it.  Or is the material simply
> being removed without so much as an attempt to engage in serious dialogue?

It's all theoretical, Ray.  In reality, simple facts are not being removed
from articles.  However, POV and Original research are challenged and, when
no reliable sources can be found, they are removed.

Jay.


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Robert Bamler

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia on iPod (Encyclopodia) available now

body:
Hi,

> A suggestion I would make as well concerns the call for donation you are
> making. While it would be a donation for the work you did to have the
> projects on the ipod itself, I think there might be a confusion in the
> public mind that the donation is somehow related to the encyclopedia
> itself.

You've got a point there. OK, so this is what I'll do: I'll add a notice on
the donation page that clarifyes that this is not Wikipedia. And I'll contact
the board at wikimedia.org whether I'm allowed to use the term "Wikipedia" on
my page.

So, finally, I hope that everyone can sleep without fear tonight. But don't be
too lazy, you've still got a lot to do [1] ;-)

Regards,
Robert

[1]http://www.google.com/search?&q=wikipedia+-site%3Awikipedia.org+-site%3Awikimedia.org


from_name: Sam Korn

subject: [WikiEN-l] <ref> and {{reference}}

body:
On 3/1/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> What I want to be able to do is
>
> a) have the reference list automatically generated at the bottom
> b) use templates in the body of the text to make references/footnotes
> c) be able to use named references so I don't have to type the same
> reference info every time i use it.

Isn't this what the automatic referencing system already does?

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cite/Cite.php

--
Sam


from_name: Ben Lowe

subject: [WikiEN-l] We've Hit One Million

body:
I wonder how long until the poor [[Jordanhill railway station]] gets
slashdotted.... Onto the watchlist it goes!

On 3/1/06, Ben Emmel <bratsche1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_press_releases/Wikipedia_hits_milestone_1_million_English_articles
>
> The article is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordanhill_railway_station]]
>
> This is a pretty big accomplishment. Good job, everyone. Our next
> milestone
> will be 1,000,000 featured articles, sometime in March 2050.
>
> --
> Ben Emmel
> Wikipedia - User:Bratsche
> "A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees."
> -- William Blake
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


list: commons-l

subject: [Commons-l] Noise when executing texvc

body:
Jorge S?nchez Seijo wrote:
> Hi
>
> I'm running Mediawiki version 1.5 in Microsoft Windows XP Professional.
<snip>

Um, try wikitech-l at wikimedia.org - commons-l is for discussion about
Wikimedia Commons. Sorry.

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 555 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20060301/0d43f015/attachment.pgp


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [WikiEN-l] We've Hit One Million

body:
Ben Emmel wrote:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_press_releases/Wikipedia_hits_milestone_1_million_English_articles
>
> The article is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordanhill_railway_station]]
>
> This is a pretty big accomplishment. Good job, everyone. Our next milestone
> will be 1,000,000 featured articles, sometime in March 2050.

I think our next milestone will be 1,000,000 userboxes... sometime next
week. ;-)

Everyone don't party too much tonight, we don't need to have a huge
WikiHangover tomorrow. :)

--
#######################################################################
#    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
#    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
#######################################################################


from_name: thomas Armstrong

subject: [Wikitech-l] Changing interface's language by hacking code

body:
Hi.

I'd like to allow users to change Wiki interface's language, by clicking a link,
instead of modifying their preferences.

I've been browsing the code, and I guess I must change a property of
$wgContLang, but I don't find which one.

Any suggestion? Thank you very much.


from_name: charles matthews

subject: [WikiEN-l] The new verifiability policy

body:
Slim Virgin wrote

> Realistically, when is this a problem, Charles? I confess to being
> bewildered when people complain about the need to find sources. If
> their edit is correct, why can't they source it?

This point comes round once in a while on this list.

It depends very much what field one is talking about, what the division is
between knowledge thtat is fully documented, and the matters that remain as
'folklore'.

I don't think it is at all safe to generalise, and say that in all fields,
everything significant is there in a published source.  I wonder who exactly
is in a position to say that.

For example, plenty of music theory must exist in this sort of 'limbo'.
It's just not going to be true that jazz harmony is limited to what one can
find in the books.

Charles


from_name: Ilya N.

body:
What [computer] language is this written in?

I'd like to see a color version written for the 3G iPod w/ Photo (I
believe that's the first photo one right? Or did they start @ 4?), 4G
iPod, iPod Nano and 5G video iPod. Perhaps even have images included?
That would be awesome.

And maybe i could help a little bit with my VERY limited computer
programming skills [meaning we'd need someone good at programming w/ a
color iPod working with me].

The only thing I'm concerned about is "Disclaimer: Use this software
at your own risk. It might damage your iPod" Couldn't you just reset
the software if anything happened? I'm just sort of paranoid about my
day-old $300 baby :P

On 3/1/06, Robert Bamler <Robert.Bamler.epodia at gmx.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > A suggestion I would make as well concerns the call for donation you are
> > making. While it would be a donation for the work you did to have the
> > projects on the ipod itself, I think there might be a confusion in the
> > public mind that the donation is somehow related to the encyclopedia
> > itself.
>
> You've got a point there. OK, so this is what I'll do: I'll add a notice on
> the donation page that clarifyes that this is not Wikipedia. And I'll
> contact
> the board at wikimedia.org whether I'm allowed to use the term "Wikipedia"
> on
> my page.
>
> So, finally, I hope that everyone can sleep without fear tonight. But don't
> be
> too lazy, you've still got a lot to do [1] ;-)
>
> Regards,
> Robert
>
> [1]http://www.google.com/search?&q=wikipedia+-site%3Awikipedia.org+-site%3Awikimedia.org
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
~Ilya N.
http://w3stuff.com/ilya/ (My website; DarkLordFoxx Media)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ilyanep (on Wikipedia)
http://www.wheresgeorge.com - Track your money's travels.


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Is this worth requesting?

body:
On 3/1/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think there can be a debate about it really. If deleted edits are
> publically viewable, then personal information, libelous claims, and
> copyright violations would be stored forever, for all to see. That's exactly
> the opposite of what we use deletion for.

Very true. The only case where deleted information could be made
publicly available would be AfD for NN etc.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] The new verifiability policy

body:
On 3/1/06, slimvirgin at gmail.com <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> Realistically, when is this a problem, Charles? I confess to being
> bewildered when people complain about the need to find sources. If
> their edit is correct, why can't they source it?

To me, that's like complaining that the dinner I served you didn't
come with wine. If I went to all the effort of cooking the meal, would
a little wine be so tricky to come up with?

No, it wouldn't. But you didn't pay for the meal either, so you can't
be too picky. To continue the analogy, I would appreciate a firmer
statement of the policy: all meals must be accompanied by wine (in
which case, I probably won't be inviting you around so often), or just
BYO.

(that all came out a lot more harshly and crabblier than intended. all
I mean is: yes, sources (and sauces) are nice, but helpful additions
are rare enough already without imposing further constraints)

Steve


body:
Ok, you've got me puzzled. You asked me whether I thought the third
world *should* have internet access. That sounds like a moral judgment
that has nothing to do with whether Wikipedia should expect to gain
contributors by publishing hard or soft copies there.

But, um, this conversation isn't really going anywhere.

Steve

On 3/1/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> Are you being facetious?
>
> On 3/1/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Heh, I smell someone trying to start a controversy here. I don't think
> > it's Wikipedias goal to supply internet access to the third world.
> > Kind of beyond the scope of our mission.
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > On 3/1/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > What, you don't think they should have internet access?
> > >
> > > On 3/1/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Really? If so, that's, well, interesting. :) I wonder what Jimbo has
> > > > to say on that - he often refers to African communities, without
> > > > elaborating much.


from_name: Andrew Lih

subject: [Wikitech-l] 13 wikipedia awaiting to create

body:
Please don't create the Cantonese language Wikipedia based simply on
that vote. It's very old and has been the root of much contention on
these lists.

-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)

On 3/1/06, Henry Li <henrysyli at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear developers,
>
> Please create the following 13 wikipedia stated in
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Approved_requests_for_new_languages
>
>     * Dutch Low Saxon
>     * Vlax Romany
>     * Ligurian
>     * Samogitian
>     * Banyumasan
>     * Ripuarian
>     * Pennsylvania German (prototype)
>     * West Flemish
>     * Norman
>     * Franco-Proven?al/Arpitan
>     * Cantonese
>     * Tetum
>     * Kalmyk
>
> Best regards,
> Henry Li
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


from_name: STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA

subject: [WikiEN-l] We've Hit One Million

body:
Who wrote the first article and what was it about?
Anyone who knows?

--- "Ilya N." <ilyanep at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hehe...
>
> I agree the article will probably be FA sometime
> tomorrow or this week ;)
>
> Anyways, congratulations on the great achievement to
> everyone.
>
> On 3/1/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> >
> > Ben Emmel wrote:
> > >
> >
>
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_press_releases/Wikipedia_hits_milestone_1_million_English_articles
> > >
> > > The article is [[
> >
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordanhill_railway_station]]
> > >
> > > This is a pretty big accomplishment. Good job,
> everyone. Our next
> > milestone
> > > will be 1,000,000 featured articles, sometime in
> March 2050.
> >
> > I think our next milestone will be 1,000,000
> userboxes... sometime next
> > week. ;-)
> >
> > Everyone don't party too much tonight, we don't
> need to have a huge
> > WikiHangover tomorrow. :)
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
>
#######################################################################
> > #    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture
> and  Free Knowledge #
> > #    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a
> free world         #
> >
>
#######################################################################
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> ~Ilya N.
> http://w3stuff.com/ilya/ (My website; DarkLordFoxx
> Media)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ilyanep (on
> Wikipedia)
> http://www.wheresgeorge.com - Track your money's
> travels.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] We've Hit One Million

body:
Hehe...

I agree the article will probably be FA sometime tomorrow or this week ;)

Anyways, congratulations on the great achievement to everyone.

On 3/1/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>
> Ben Emmel wrote:
> >
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_press_releases/Wikipedia_hits_milestone_1_million_English_articles
> >
> > The article is [[
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordanhill_railway_station]]
> >
> > This is a pretty big accomplishment. Good job, everyone. Our next
> milestone
> > will be 1,000,000 featured articles, sometime in March 2050.
>
> I think our next milestone will be 1,000,000 userboxes... sometime next
> week. ;-)
>
> Everyone don't party too much tonight, we don't need to have a huge
> WikiHangover tomorrow. :)
>
>
>
> --
> #######################################################################
> #    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
> #    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
> #######################################################################
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>

--
~Ilya N.
http://w3stuff.com/ilya/ (My website; DarkLordFoxx Media)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ilyanep (on Wikipedia)
http://www.wheresgeorge.com - Track your money's travels.


body:
You mean something like this?
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Multilingual_MediaWiki

Coming soon (Erik?) to a Wiki near you.

Paul

On 3/1/06, thomas Armstrong <tarmstrong at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I'd like to allow users to change Wiki interface's language, by clicking a link,
> instead of modifying their preferences.
>
> I've been browsing the code, and I guess I must change a property of
> $wgContLang, but I don't find which one.
>
> Any suggestion? Thank you very much.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>

--
Yellowikis is to Yellow Pages, as Wikipedia is to The Encyclopedia Britannica


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Pity the admin....

body:
...who has to close this mess:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_Baden-Powell%27s_sexual_orientation

A whole article devoted to speculation in a couple of books on the
sexuality of the founder of Scouting, apparently because nobody could
agree how little of it should go in the main article.

The word count given to such speculation between the two articles, is,
according to my rough and ready count, more or less equivalent to the
combined count for his military career AND the founding of the Scout
Movement.  Can we say "undue weight"?
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


from_name: SJ

subject: [Foundation-l] Slick "create and teach a class" website (n u v v o)

body:
FYI : a "create / join your own course" site.  Free courses seem to be free;
they take 8% of any fee courses.  I can't tell exactly what their copyright
arrangement is; their TOS is only available as a pdf doc.

SJ

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Katy E. Pearce <katy at katypearce.org>
Date: Feb 28, 2006 7:41 PM
Subject: Online education
To: globalvoices at eon.law.harvard.edu

Thought that this may be of interest to some...

 Teach and learn with
Nuvvo<http://www.lifehacker.com/software/education/teach-and-learn-with-nuvvo-156558.php>
READ
MORE: Education <http://www.lifehacker.com/software/education/index.php>, Free
information <http://www.lifehacker.com/software/free-information/index.php>,
Learning <http://www.lifehacker.com/software/learning/index.php>,
Teaching<http://www.lifehacker.com/software/teaching/index.php>

On-demand learning website Nuvvo is designed to let you create and teach
your own class or take a class that someone has already designed.

Whether you're a K-12 teacher, a corporate trainer, a university professor,
or an amateur who knows baseball cards inside out, Nuvvo can help you reach
students all over the world.

Free, but with integrated e-commerce, Nuvvo is the best of both worlds.
While Nuvvo is always free for instructors, you have the choice to charge
students an enrollment fee if you wish.

After taking a look at Nuvvo's offerings, it looks like most of the courses
(from Turkish for Beginners to IT Training) are free. If you're considering
teaching a course and charging a fee, Nuvvo charges a reasonable 8%. It's
worth checking out if you're looking to pick up a new skill, or if you've
got the bug to teach.
Nuvvo Free On-demand eLearning <http://www.nuvvo.com/>
(comment on this
post<http://www.lifehacker.com/software/education/teach-and-learn-with-nuvvo-156558.php>)
<http://www.lifehacker.com/software/education/teach-and-learn-with-nuvvo-156558.php>
<http://www.lifehacker.com/software/education/teach-and-learn-with-nuvvo-156558.php?mail2=true#mail2friend>
[image:
Permalink icon]<http://www.lifehacker.com/software/education/teach-and-learn-with-nuvvo-156558.php>

--
++SJ


list: textbook-l

subject: [Textbook-l] Slick "create and teach a class" website (n u v v o)


from_name: Kim Jihun

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Mediawiki 1.5.6 latin1 -> utf8 convert problem : I
 can't put my utf8 db into mysql.

body:
I use mediawiki 1.5.6. (RHEL4 mediawiki-1.5.6-15.el4.at.i386.rpm package)
I convert my wikidb latin1 to utf8. But I cannot put it into mysql.
$mysql -p wikidb < utf8.sql
Enter password:
ERROR 1071 (42000) at line 1474: Specified key was too long; max key
length is 1000 bytes

I found similar post,
http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/mediawiki-l/2005-August/006196.html
But it does`t help.

detail :

I use CentOS 4.2 + MySQL 4.1.12 + php 4.3.9 + Apache 2.0.52.
I upgrade mediawiki 1.4.10 -> 1.5.6. I use 'backward compatible utf8'.
It work fine. But it use latin1.
My wiki homepage looks like 'utf8' but MySQL DB use latin1 :

mysql>use wikidb;
mysql>show variables like 'c%';
+--------------------------+----------------------------+
| Variable_name            | Value                      |
+--------------------------+----------------------------+
| character_set_client     | latin1                     |
| character_set_connection | latin1                     |
| character_set_database   | latin1                     |
| character_set_results    | latin1                     |
| character_set_server     | latin1                     |
| character_set_system     | utf8                       |
| character_sets_dir       | /usr/share/mysql/charsets/ |
| collation_connection     | latin1_swedish_ci          |
| collation_database       | latin1_swedish_ci          |
| collation_server         | latin1_swedish_ci          |
| concurrent_insert        | ON                         |
| connect_timeout          | 5                          |
+--------------------------+----------------------------+

I convert it to utf8.
mysqldump --default-character-set=latin1 --add-drop-table
--complete-insert -p wikidb > foo.sql
vi foo.sql
:%s/CHARSET=latin1/CHARSET=utf8/g
:%s/latin1_bin/utf8_bin/g
:%s/latin1/utf8/g
So foo.sql is utf8 file.(i.e. in file editor, I choose file encoding =
utf8, it look well.)

I change /etc/my.cnf so mysql use utf8. And restart mysqld, create new db.
mysql>DROP DATABASE wikidb;
mysql>CREATE DATABASE jihuni DEFAULT CHARACTER SET utf8;
mysql>show variables like 'c%';
+--------------------------+----------------------------+
| Variable_name            | Value                      |
+--------------------------+----------------------------+
| character_set_client     | utf8                       |
| character_set_connection | utf8                       |
| character_set_database   | utf8                       |
| character_set_results    | utf8                       |
| character_set_server     | utf8                       |
| character_set_system     | utf8                       |
| character_sets_dir       | /usr/share/mysql/charsets/ |
| collation_connection     | utf8_general_ci            |
| collation_database       | utf8_general_ci            |
| collation_server         | utf8_general_ci            |
| concurrent_insert        | ON                         |
| connect_timeout          | 5                          |
+--------------------------+----------------------------+

But I can not put it into mysql.
$mysql -p wikidb < utf8.sql
Enter password:
ERROR 1071 (42000) at line 1474: Specified key was too long; max key
length is 1000 bytes

I also test it using Fedora Core 4+ MySQL 5.0.18 machine, but it doesn`t
work, too.
$mysql -p wikidb < utf8.sql
Enter password:
ERROR 1071 (42000) at line 1474: Specified key was too long; max key
length is 1000 bytes


subject: [WikiEN-l] We've Hit One Million

body:
I went and read on History of Wikipedia, and it does
mention that Jimbo made the first edit, but I already
knew that. That edit, however, was just a test. The
very first article was created on the second day of
Wiki (January 16, 2001) and it is not exactly of FA
quality:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=UuU&oldid=291430

WTF is that? Yeah, Jimbo, if you know who created the
first, reasonble article on Wiki, let us know. We
could add it to the History of Wiki article.

--- MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:

> I guess Jimbo seeded Wikipedia with its initial
> articles. Best would be to
> check [[History of Wikipedia]] or ask him.
>
> Mgm
>
>
> On 3/2/06, STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA
> <wizzard_bane at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Who wrote the first article and what was it about?
> > Anyone who knows?
> >
> > --- "Ilya N." <ilyanep at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hehe...
> > >
> > > I agree the article will probably be FA sometime
> > > tomorrow or this week ;)
> > >
> > > Anyways, congratulations on the great
> achievement to
> > > everyone.
> > >
> > > On 3/1/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ben Emmel wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_press_releases/Wikipedia_hits_milestone_1_million_English_articles
> > > > >
> > > > > The article is [[
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordanhill_railway_station]]
> > > > >
> > > > > This is a pretty big accomplishment. Good
> job,
> > > everyone. Our next
> > > > milestone
> > > > > will be 1,000,000 featured articles,
> sometime in
> > > March 2050.
> > > >
> > > > I think our next milestone will be 1,000,000
> > > userboxes... sometime next
> > > > week. ;-)
> > > >
> > > > Everyone don't party too much tonight, we
> don't
> > > need to have a huge
> > > > WikiHangover tomorrow. :)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
#######################################################################
> > > > #    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free
> Culture
> > > and  Free Knowledge #
> > > > #    http://www.wikipedia.org     |
> Building a
> > > free world         #
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
#######################################################################
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> _______________________________________________
> > > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > >
> > >
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > ~Ilya N.
> > > http://w3stuff.com/ilya/ (My website;
> DarkLordFoxx
> > > Media)
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ilyanep (on
> > > Wikipedia)
> > > http://www.wheresgeorge.com - Track your money's
> > > travels.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > >
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

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


from_name: Guettarda

subject: [WikiEN-l] Email confirmation - IMPORTANT

body:
1. Any chance this could make its way to the top of people's watchlists or
something, like the voting thing did?

2. Any idea whether this will affect the ability of people who don't use
spamcop to get email?

On 3/1/06, Zzyzx11 at Wikipedia <zzyzx11 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> From:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29&diff=41813660&oldid=41810143
>
> >For some lovely reason our new mail server has been blacklisted by
> SpamCop,
> >allegedly for sending mail to spamtrap addresses. (They provide no
> details
> >by
> >policy, of course, so there's no way to verify it.)
>
> >Since there's a tiny possibility that the user-to-user email feature
> >actually could be
> >abused, I've gone ahead and enabled the e-mail confirmation requirement
> for
> >using
> >email features. This is a bit annoying for the moment since you have to
> do
> >it
> >separately on each wiki.
>
> >I've disputed the listing, so hopefully we'll get it removed soonish and
> >those who
> >aren't getting email will, uh, start getting it again. --Brion 22:42, 1
> >March 2006 (UTC)
>
> What this means is that everyone will have to go to
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Confirmemail
> If you don't, you will not receive Wikipedia email.
>
> Zzyzx11 at en.wikipedia.org
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zzyzx11
> zzyzx11 at hotmail.com
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee(r)
> Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Pity the admin....

body:
On 3/1/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> Bottom line. Even if Powell was gay, it doesn't make him a pedophile so why
> should it be at all important to Scouting?

Probably due to the attitude scouting organisations in the US have to
homosexuals.

--
geni


from_name: admin Yellowikis

body:
Erik says in the proposal:

..."When no user interface language is set, the UI language should be
identical to the content language, that is, when viewing pages in
English, the UI language should be English; in German, the UI language
should be German, and so on. This ensures that each language community
can customize the interface messages according to their needs, and
emulates the current behavior of multilingual Wikimedia projects with
split databases."

I guess that is what Thomas wants.

Any idea when it will be ready?

Paul

On 3/1/06, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> The Multilingual MediaWiki will still want you to say in your user
> interface what language you want. We do indeed want to bring this
> functionality to MediaWiki. However not every project will want this. On
> the talkpage of the article I think Jamesday asked if this was in order
> to bring all Wikipedias into one big project. That too is not what
> Multilingual MediaWiki intends to do. Multilingual MediaWiki allows for
> Wikis that need to be language aware. WiktionaryZ is one such; users
> will want to select the languages they want information in. This can
> only be done when we know what information is in what language. Other
> projects also have a need for multiple languages in one project, think
> Commons for instance. I can also imagine that projects in Wikicities
> want to have content in multiple languages, they would be helped with
> this functionality.
>
> At this moment we envision the change of the language of the User
> Interface to be in the preferences. This may change when we understand
> better how the UI would work best.
>
> Thanks,
>    GerardM
>
>
> admin Yellowikis wrote:
> > You mean something like this?
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Multilingual_MediaWiki
> >
> > Coming soon (Erik?) to a Wiki near you.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > On 3/1/06, thomas Armstrong <tarmstrong at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi.
> >>
> >> I'd like to allow users to change Wiki interface's language, by clicking a link,
> >> instead of modifying their preferences.
> >>
> >> I've been browsing the code, and I guess I must change a property of
> >> $wgContLang, but I don't find which one.
> >>
> >> Any suggestion? Thank you very much.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>

--
Yellowikis is to Yellow Pages, as Wikipedia is to The Encyclopedia Britannica


from_name: Minh Nguyen

subject: [WikiEN-l] We've Hit One Million

body:
See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:UuU>.

STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA wrote:
> I went and read on History of Wikipedia, and it does
> mention that Jimbo made the first edit, but I already
> knew that. That edit, however, was just a test. The
> very first article was created on the second day of
> Wiki (January 16, 2001) and it is not exactly of FA
> quality:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=UuU&oldid=291430
>
> WTF is that? Yeah, Jimbo, if you know who created the
> first, reasonble article on Wiki, let us know. We
> could add it to the History of Wiki article.

--
Minh Nguyen <mxn at zoomtown.com>
AIM: trycom2000; Jabber: mxn at myjabber.net; Blog: http://mxn.f2o.org/


from_name: Hr. Daniel Mikkelsen

subject: [Wikitech-l] Mail server blacklisted by SpamCop

body:
On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, Brion Vibber wrote:

> For some lovely reason our new mail server has been blacklisted by SpamCop,
> allegedly for sending mail to spamtrap addresses. (They provide no details by
> policy, of course, so there's no way to verify it.)

At least they don't try to blackmail people for money, like sorbs.net do.

--
Daniel Mikkelsen
Copyleft Software AS


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

body:
Hoi,
The Multilingual MediaWiki will still want you to say in your user
interface what language you want. We do indeed want to bring this
functionality to MediaWiki. However not every project will want this. On
the talkpage of the article I think Jamesday asked if this was in order
to bring all Wikipedias into one big project. That too is not what
Multilingual MediaWiki intends to do. Multilingual MediaWiki allows for
Wikis that need to be language aware. WiktionaryZ is one such; users
will want to select the languages they want information in. This can
only be done when we know what information is in what language. Other
projects also have a need for multiple languages in one project, think
Commons for instance. I can also imagine that projects in Wikicities
want to have content in multiple languages, they would be helped with
this functionality.

At this moment we envision the change of the language of the User
Interface to be in the preferences. This may change when we understand
better how the UI would work best.

Thanks,
   GerardM

admin Yellowikis wrote:
> You mean something like this?
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Multilingual_MediaWiki
>
> Coming soon (Erik?) to a Wiki near you.
>
> Paul
>
> On 3/1/06, thomas Armstrong <tarmstrong at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi.
>>
>> I'd like to allow users to change Wiki interface's language, by clicking a link,
>> instead of modifying their preferences.
>>
>> I've been browsing the code, and I guess I must change a property of
>> $wgContLang, but I don't find which one.
>>
>> Any suggestion? Thank you very much.


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] Pity the admin....

body:
I'm not sure that info should go anywhere. Surely it's a fringe theory?

Anyway, I really don't get why some people are so obsessed with the sexual
orientation of celebrities and historical figures. What does it really
matter?

Besides, some of those will never have any conclusive proof. You could argue
Caesar was homosexual, but unless someone finds his diary tomorrow in which
he revealed all his secrets, you're never going to know. It's pointless to
debate someone's sexuality when it has absolutely no bearing on what they're
famous for.

Also, the word "homosexual" means the person described as such feels
attracted to people of the same sex (hence: it's a feeling). You can say he
kissed X and looked lovingly at Y, but none of it proves anything because it
says nothing about their feelings.

Bottom line. Even if Powell was gay, it doesn't make him a pedophile so why
should it be at all important to Scouting?

Unless the celeb in question open admitted their sexual preference,
speculation about the issue is totally pointless.

Mgm


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-03-02

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

Running test BUG 361: URL within URL, not bracketed... FAILED!
Running test External links: invalid character... FAILED!
Running test Bug 2702: Mismatched <i> and <a> tags are invalid... FAILED!
Running test A table with no data.... FAILED!
Running test A table with nothing but a caption... FAILED!
Running test Link containing "#<" and "#>" % as a hex sequences... FAILED!
Running test Template with thumb image (wiht link in description)... FAILED!
Running test Link to image page... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887: A ISBN with a thumbnail... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887: A <math> with a thumbnail... FAILED!
Running test BUG 561: {{/Subpage}}... FAILED!
Running test Simple category... FAILED!
Running test Section headings with TOC... FAILED!
Running test Media link with nasty text... FAILED!
Running test Bug 2095: link with pipe and three closing brackets... FAILED!
Running test Parser hook: static parser hook inside a comment... FAILED!
Running test Sanitizer: Validating the contents of the id attribute (bug 4515)... FAILED!

Passed 271 of 288 tests (94.1%) FAILED!


subject: [WikiEN-l] Pity the admin....

body:
On 3/1/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:

> I was looking up some recent historical figure yesterday - can't remember
> who - and the second para of the article was devoted to speculation about
> his homosexuality. I thought that was really weird. I'm not uncomfortable
> with famous people being homosexual, but I'm just not sure that we need to
> give such prominence and weight. It's almost as if such people are being
> used as posthumous pin-up boys for modern day homosexual folk, when the
> reality is that we are writing biographical articles about the careers and
> achievements of these people, not about who poked whom. This information
> should go at the bottom, maybe in a trivia section.

Yes, it's an interesting phenomenon that I've noticed at [[Freddie
Mercury]] (I always thought he was openly gay, but apparently there
are those who swear he was, and those who swear he wasn't), and at
[[Paris]]. There was at one stage the following sentence: the current
mayor of Paris is [[Bertrand Delano?]] (sp), who is openly homosexual.
Intriguingly, the entire article on him didn't mention the fact. Even
more undue weight...

But then, you get similar stories with membership of religions, ethnic
descent and so on. The Freddie Mercury article had a long section on
his pride in his "Iranian" descent, the recent featured article on
[[Edward Teller]] proudly proclaimed his Jewish origins in the opening
sentence. The trouble when trying to put these things in perspective
is you get accused of either trying to deny something (if you remove
it altogether) or cover it up (if you simply reduce its prominence).

Shrug.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] The admin problem

body:
On 3/1/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:

> Would we produce a great encyclopaedia if we all thought and worked the same
> way? I'm thinking that a certain degree of tension, conflict and competition
> helps us go beyond the banal. Some of the best features of Wikipedia are
> produced as a way of handling conflict. 3RR, for instance. It's silly, but
> it works.

We would definitely have more POV problems. Imagine a group of
like-minded anti-abortionists sitting down to work, uninterrupted, on
[[Abortion]]. You wouldn't have a single revert, edit war, personal
attack, RfC or arbitration. But would the article end up with 73
references, and at least a passing resemblence of NPOV?

On the other hand, at a certain level, excessive conflict clearly does
interfere with getting the job done. Just like how a workplace with no
coffee breaks loses morale, a workplace with more coffee break time
than work time is clearly even more inefficient.

Are we far from the happy medium?

Steve


from_name: XaosFluX

body:
I've added a note regarding this to [[MediaWiki:Watchdetails]].

xaosflux

----- Original Message -----
From: "Guettarda" <guettarda at gmail.com>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 12:02 AM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Email confirmation - IMPORTANT

> 1. Any chance this could make its way to the top of people's watchlists or
> something, like the voting thing did?
>
> 2. Any idea whether this will affect the ability of people who don't use
> spamcop to get email?
>
> On 3/1/06, Zzyzx11 at Wikipedia <zzyzx11 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> From:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29&diff=41813660&oldid=41810143
>>
>> >For some lovely reason our new mail server has been blacklisted by
>> SpamCop,
>> >allegedly for sending mail to spamtrap addresses. (They provide no
>> details
>> >by
>> >policy, of course, so there's no way to verify it.)
>>
>> >Since there's a tiny possibility that the user-to-user email feature
>> >actually could be
>> >abused, I've gone ahead and enabled the e-mail confirmation requirement
>> for
>> >using
>> >email features. This is a bit annoying for the moment since you have to
>> do
>> >it
>> >separately on each wiki.
>>
>> >I've disputed the listing, so hopefully we'll get it removed soonish and
>> >those who
>> >aren't getting email will, uh, start getting it again. --Brion 22:42, 1
>> >March 2006 (UTC)
>>
>> What this means is that everyone will have to go to
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Confirmemail
>> If you don't, you will not receive Wikipedia email.
>>
>> Zzyzx11 at en.wikipedia.org
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zzyzx11
>> zzyzx11 at hotmail.com
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee(r)
>> Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] The new verifiability policy

body:
On 3/1/06, slimvirgin at gmail.com <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Part of the problem is with the permissive word "may", which is too
> > often read as though it were "shall".
> >
> We have to assume people can read English. Saying that an unsourced
> edit MAY be removed is clearly not the same as saying it MUST be or
> SHOULD be.

I also couldn't come up with a more ambiguous expression if I tried.

Two different meanings:
1) An unsourced edit could end up being removed - be warned
2) You have the permission to remove unsourced edits

How can we better word this?

Steve


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] The new verifiability policy

body:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:

>Philip Welch wrote:
>
>
>>On Mar 1, 2006, at 3:48 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>We have to assume people can read English. Saying that an unsourced
>>>>edit MAY be removed is clearly not the same as saying it MUST be or
>>>>SHOULD be.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Of course they're different, but most people don't read with that
>>>degree
>>>of precision even though they have been reading English for most of
>>>their lives.
>>>
>>>
>>Rules and policies are meant to be written precisely, Ray. They have
>>precise meanings.
>>
>>The fact that stunningly large amounts of people have poor reading
>>comprehension does not detract from this.
>>
>>
>In this case I would have thought the meaning perfectly clear:
>
>"Like any other material which you submit to Wikipedia, unsourced edits
>may be removed at the discretion of any editor."
>
Ahh!  That's the same rule that applies to sourced edit.  If that's the
case why bother even having the rule at all?

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] The admin problem

body:
On 3/1/06, Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think it's time we reconsider whether "consensus" is a valid
> principle of governance in as large and contentious a community as
> this one has become, and whether we need to make more of an effort to
> move to parliamentarianism as a method of governance.
>

We have already moved to something resembling that Athenian system
combined with supermajority.

In many ways that is probably the ideal for stuff on the meta side.
For arcticles the consensus system still holds for the most part.

--
geni


from_name: Carl Fûrstenberg

subject: [WikiEN-l] We've Hit One Million

body:
hehe, I assume it to ba an FA tomorrow!

On 3/2/06, Ben Lowe <ben.lowe at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I wonder how long until the poor [[Jordanhill railway station]] gets
> slashdotted.... Onto the watchlist it goes!
>
>
> On 3/1/06, Ben Emmel <bratsche1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_press_releases/Wikipedia_hits_milestone_1_million_English_articles
> >
> > The article is [[
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordanhill_railway_station]]
> >
> > This is a pretty big accomplishment. Good job, everyone. Our next
> > milestone
> > will be 1,000,000 featured articles, sometime in March 2050.
> >
> > --
> > Ben Emmel
> > Wikipedia - User:Bratsche
> > "A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees."
> > -- William Blake
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] The new verifiability policy

body:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:

>Steve Bennett wrote:
>
>
>>On 3/2/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>A better wording would be:
>>>
>>>"New material added to an article that lacks a reputable source is
>>>likely to be removed without warning. It is courteous for the editor who
>>>removes this material to re-insert it on the talk page of the article,
>>>along with a note about why it was removed."
>>>
>>>
>>Why do we keep coming back to this strange policy? It doesn't make
>>much sense (95% of Wikipedia is "likely to be removed without
>>warning"?), and it certainly doesn't reflect current practice.
>>
>>
>With any luck it's keeping the original research out.
>
So now keeping original research out depends on luck?  Being willing to
sacrifice the 95%  to ensure eradication of the 5% that's bad does not
seem like a cost-effective strategy.

>>This situation is starting to remind me of police who tell the public
>>"if you do X or Y, you WILL be caught", when the actual apprehension
>>rate is vanishingly small.
>>
>>
>Don't forget that we're working towards 1.0 and a million featured
>articles...
>
We've been talking about 1.0 for the last two years (or more?).  When
people are seriously ready to do something about that, I hope that they
will apply common sense to their selection criteria.

At one featured article per day that will be enough for about 2740
years.  We have plenty of time to get ready for that.

>>Is it not silly to have the most fundamental policy we have be so far
>>removed from a) current practice, and b) what we actually want? We
>>want sources, but we also want material to be added - we don't
>>actually remove material except as a last resort. Maybe we need
>>something like:
>>
>>"When considering removing unsourced material, take into account the
>>likely factual accuracy of the material, the possible harm that could
>>be done by leaving it, and the chance that a subsequent editor could
>>find a source for it. Libellous material or copyright violations
>>aside, it is polite to move the material to the talk page with an
>>explanation for your removal."
>>
>>
>Good, much better than my version. But we also need to encourage people
>to cite their sources (where possible) and remind them that anything
>which doesn't seem quite right *is likely to be removed*.
>
Steve's version is definitely an improvement. "It is polite" is still a
little wimpy; "editors are strongly advised" might be better.  I would
also make a small addition to have the one phrase read "the possible
harm that could be done by leaving or removing it."  Another thing that
could be taken into account is the nature of the material to reflect
that the standards applied to commentary on video games will be much
lower than those applied to biographies of real people.

What needs to be stressed is a balanced approach to editing.  For some
editors enthusiasm far outstroips judgement., and techniques that would
moderate their behaviour would be welcome.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] We've Hit One Million

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>Ben Emmel wrote:
>
>
>>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_press_releases/Wikipedia_hits_milestone_1_million_English_articles
>>
>>The article is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordanhill_railway_station]]
>>
>>This is a pretty big accomplishment. Good job, everyone. Our next milestone
>>will be 1,000,000 featured articles, sometime in March 2050.
>>
>>
>I think our next milestone will be 1,000,000 userboxes... sometime next
>week. ;-)
>
>Everyone don't party too much tonight, we don't need to have a huge
>WikiHangover tomorrow. :)
>
Would anyone consider having a branze plaque mounted to that railway
station to commemorate the event?

Ec


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki 1.5.7 released

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

MediaWiki 1.5.7 is a bugfix maintenance release.

Most importantly, a security issue in the installer has been fixed. The bug
affects new installations of 1.5.6 only. If the user specified the MySQL root
password, to allow the installer to create an unprivileged account, the
installer would not only create the new account but also change the root
password to be equal to the password of the new account.

Anyone affected by this bug will need to change the root password back
manually. For information about how to change passwords in MySQL please see:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/passwords.html

This version includes fixes for compatibility with Internet Explorer 7
beta 2, and various other bugs; see the full changelog at the end of
the release notes.

Release notes:
http://sourceforge.net/project/shownotes.php?release_id=397966

Download:
http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/wikipedia/mediawiki-1.5.7.tar.gz?download

MD5 checksum: 0a2347e2422006d8f75479b06c1963d8
SHA1 checksum: de5421d1c33471627af14aafa2202c60e4b17bac

Before asking for help, try the FAQ:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_FAQ

Low-traffic release announcements mailing list:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-announce

Wiki admin help mailing list:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l

Bug report system:
http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/

Play "stump the developers" live on IRC:
#mediawiki on irc.freenode.net

- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEBs6wwRnhpk1wk44RAgSeAKDK+CSIK1Ar0RqClRJvD9XJFx075QCdEcqh
M6TXQFgV7rw8BHZGjUHfAX4=
=1oRP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Emir

subject: [WikiEN-l] Block policy

body:
Hi,

  My user name is Emir Arven, IP address 85.158.32.92.

  I think that user DragonflySixtyseven blocked me for no reason for 3 days.

  Before that I had an argument with Serb users who put false information  in the article called Stephen II Kotromanic (see talk page of that  article).

  I asked Serb user: HolyRomanEmperor to show me the refernece for his thesis.

  He said it was a book which he put in the article.

  When I checked, there was nothing there (it was not the first time that  he gave false info). I asked him again to show me the section of the  book. He said he was not able to do that.

  So, I started to revert that article, but he asked his friend  user:Latinus (admin) to help him. And Latinus reported me for 3RR. I  was blocked for 24h.

  So I said to him that he was not neutral.

  But after that user:DragonflySixtyseven came and give me another block for 3 days. And I didnt even edit any article.

  So, my question is:

  Why did he block me? (According to what rule).

  Best regards,
  Emir Arven

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail
Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail  makes sharing a breeze.


from_name: Bacchante Maenad

subject: [WikiEN-l] Blocked for no good reason

body:
username : Let's Get High And Edit Wikipedia
IP : 69.60.118.148
Reason given "stoner..." by
"*Freakofnurture<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Freakofnurture>
"*

My name isn't "Let's Get High And Vandalize Wikipedia".  "Freakofnurture" is
about as dubious a name as mine is.  I was going to edit anonymously, but
decided to create a login, as the website suggests.  I was blocked before I
got a chance to do anything.  What I had intended to do was add a link to
420 Cannabis Culture to the Cannabis article somewhere, probably the See
Also.  Ok, so maybe I wanted to do my edit at 4:20 AM, but you know it is
isn't a crime to get high in many places.  This seems an awful lot like
prejudice.

yours truly,
  Let's Get High And Edit Wikipedia


from_name: Zzyzx11 at Wikipedia

body:
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29&diff=41813660&oldid=41810143

>For some lovely reason our new mail server has been blacklisted by SpamCop,
>allegedly for sending mail to spamtrap addresses. (They provide no details
>by
>policy, of course, so there's no way to verify it.)

>Since there's a tiny possibility that the user-to-user email feature
>actually could be
>abused, I've gone ahead and enabled the e-mail confirmation requirement for
>using
>email features. This is a bit annoying for the moment since you have to do
>it
>separately on each wiki.

>I've disputed the listing, so hopefully we'll get it removed soonish and
>those who
>aren't getting email will, uh, start getting it again. --Brion 22:42, 1
>March 2006 (UTC)

What this means is that everyone will have to go to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Confirmemail
If you don't, you will not receive Wikipedia email.

Zzyzx11 at en.wikipedia.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zzyzx11
zzyzx11 at hotmail.com

_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee?
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963


subject: [WikiEN-l] <ref> and {{reference}}

body:
The best page I saw explaining <ref> and {{reference}} is on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnotes

Of course, it may need some tweaking...

Zzyzx11 at en.wikipedia.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zzyzx11
zzyzx11 at hotmail.com

>From: Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] <ref> and {{reference}}
>Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 14:27:38 -0500
>
>I think you can do this in the manner described by Phil above, with
><ref>(reference)</ref> inside the article text and then <references/>
>in the ==References== section. The probable way to do named references
>is to just make sure you type out the full reference once and then
>just refer back to it by the author and date. The only upkeep in this,
>presumably, would be to make sure that the first reference with that
>information in it was not deleted (leaving an unnamed citation
>fragment), but that shouldn't be too hard to keep track of.
>
>I've never used the <ref> templates and do agree that some better
>documentation could be in order (or at least made easier to find, if
>it exists already). I really dislike the {{ref}} and {{note}}
>templates, because it's so hard to keep them in sync with the footnote
>numbers and very annoying to have to toggle between two separate
>sections of an article in order to cite things. Hopefully
><ref></ref><references/> will fix all that! I am optimistic to try it
>out.
>
>FF
>
>
>
>On 3/1/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > What I want to be able to do is
> >
> > a) have the reference list automatically generated at the bottom
> > b) use templates in the body of the text to make references/footnotes
> > c) be able to use named references so I don't have to type the same
> > reference info every time i use it.
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee?
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963


from_name: Daniel Mayer

body:
--- Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> I'd certainly describe the exchange between Daniel Mayer and Robert
> Bamler to be arguing.  But maybe I just misread things.

I was simply asking some legitimate questions; the first set was offlist, but when that set was
not answered adequately I restated the questions on the list. Robert interpreted my questions as
an attack and assumed an argumentative tone. The questions were not an attack and I did not
reciprocate in tone. An argument is a heated discussion between two or more people; if only one
person is heated, is it still an argument?

As for your other points; it is being worked on by our legal officer and his team.

-- mav

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] We've Hit One Million

body:
I guess Jimbo seeded Wikipedia with its initial articles. Best would be to
check [[History of Wikipedia]] or ask him.

Mgm

On 3/2/06, STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA <wizzard_bane at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Who wrote the first article and what was it about?
> Anyone who knows?
>
> --- "Ilya N." <ilyanep at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hehe...
> >
> > I agree the article will probably be FA sometime
> > tomorrow or this week ;)
> >
> > Anyways, congratulations on the great achievement to
> > everyone.
> >
> > On 3/1/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Ben Emmel wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_press_releases/Wikipedia_hits_milestone_1_million_English_articles
> > > >
> > > > The article is [[
> > >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordanhill_railway_station]]
> > > >
> > > > This is a pretty big accomplishment. Good job,
> > everyone. Our next
> > > milestone
> > > > will be 1,000,000 featured articles, sometime in
> > March 2050.
> > >
> > > I think our next milestone will be 1,000,000
> > userboxes... sometime next
> > > week. ;-)
> > >
> > > Everyone don't party too much tonight, we don't
> > need to have a huge
> > > WikiHangover tomorrow. :)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> >
> #######################################################################
> > > #    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture
> > and  Free Knowledge #
> > > #    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a
> > free world         #
> > >
> >
> #######################################################################
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > >
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > ~Ilya N.
> > http://w3stuff.com/ilya/ (My website; DarkLordFoxx
> > Media)
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ilyanep (on
> > Wikipedia)
> > http://www.wheresgeorge.com - Track your money's
> > travels.
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

body:
On 3/2/06, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> > On 3/1/06, Ben Yates <bluephonic at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Poking my head in:
> >>
> >>I don't have an particular argument, but this whole discussion feels
> >>very wrong.  Wikipedia should not be acting like a corporation -- it
> >>is not trying to make a profit; its mission is to spread knowledge.
> >>Period.
> >>
> >
> >
> > The Wikimedia Foundation *is* a corporation, and it should act like
> > one.  That said, I'd describe the problem here is more a lack of
> > Wikimedia acting like a corporation.
> >
> > A corporate response to this would be simple, they'd refer the
> > situation to their licensing department - not argue about it on a
> > public mailing list.
>
> We did not *argue* about it. We *explain* the issue (in particular since
> that might help some of you explain yourself the issue in the next cases
> :-)).

I'd certainly describe the exchange between Daniel Mayer and Robert
Bamler to be arguing.  But maybe I just misread things.

> We also referred the situation to the licensing department in *gently*
> asking Robert to send an email to the board. Generally we assume good
> faith from anyone using the logo and the mark, and generally, assuming
> good faith is what is bringing in the best and more courtous feedback,
> and allow development of harmonious relationships in the future.
>
*You* gently asked Robert to send an email to the board.  You weren't
one of the ones I was talking about.  In fact, given the apparent lack
of preplanning over situations like this I think your response was
about as good of one that there could be.

> Another solution would be to send a legal notice by a lawyer for any
> infringment to anyone using the logo with no permission. But frankly, do
> we really want to do that ?
>
I don't know what you want to do.  What I think would make the most
sense would be to point to a policy page where it explains that anyone
can get a free license for certain non-profit purposes such as this
one.  But that's just what I'd do in your situation.  What I was
talking about was that the policy be made clear, not that it be one
way or another.

>   A corporation would have a written trademark
> > licensing policy which any volunteers who want to poke their heads
> > into things could refer to (the referral Ant gave to
> > board at wikimedia.org serves nearly the same purpose, though).
>
> Hmmmm. Correct. This said, I would suggest that the *written* trademark
> license policy would be best not widely public. In particular when a
> financial agreement is concerned :-)

First of all, by written, I include something written on a computer
and distributed over the internet.  Secondly, I was only referring to
the policy, not necessarily the legal agreement itself.  Of course,
having the standard agreement available for everyone to see wouldn't
be a horrible thing.  There's no reason, in my opinion, that
Wikipedia's standard trademark license shouldn't be as accessible as
their standard copyright license.

> Agreements also need to take into
> account the situation (is that an agreement for chapter use ? Or for
> commercial use ? Or for educational use ?). But, generally I agree, we
> need clearer guidelines on the matter and Soufron and others are working
> on this.
>
There's no need for the policy to cover all situations, of course.
But it would be nice to have an idea of what kinds of licenses one can
get.  I understand you're probably trying to get some price
discrimination among the commercial reusers, but your guidelines could
always be silent on those issues where you intend to charge.  (Of
course, that's kind of a shitty thing to do.  Some sort of standard
license for commercial redistribution should probably be offered.
Those big shots who can manage to negotiate better deals could still
do so.)

> The board address is also a good way to track permission and agreements
> as all emails are stored in OTRS ;)

Sure, and as I said, referring to the board address was nearly as
good.  In fact, I don't really have a problem with your response to
the situation.

I think it's important that an organization have explicit channels for
dealing with things such as licensing, and that volunteers within the
organization don't step outside of those channels and act
authoritative on those matters.  Further, it should be crystal clear
to the public who is authoritative on what matters and who isn't.  It
took 15 posts before someone finally said, "contact X to get
authorization".  And it's still up in the air whether or not that
authorization is going to be given, because there's no public written
policy on the matter.


from_name: slimvirgin at gmail.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] The new verifiability policy

body:
On 3/2/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> My point is: *Detected* original research is easy to deal with, and
> doesn't need such a heavy handed policy. And in any case, WP:OR is the
> place to deal with that problem.
>
> People should never hesitate to remove material which is factually
> incorrect and unsourced. But correct and unsourced is another matter.
>
This entirely misses the point of the policy. We don't publish
material that is "factually correct." We publish material that other
reputable publications have published. If we leave it to individual
editors to decide what is "factually correct," then we're into
original-research territory, subjective views, people's prejudices,
people's ignorance. Where our judgment comes in is in deciding which
sources are the most trustworthy in the given area i.e. the most
likely to be "factually correct." But we're always one step removed
from that idea ourselves. The criterion for entry into Wikipedia is
verifiability, not truth.

Regarding the relationship between NOR and V, they are inextricably
linked, in that the only way to show you're not doing OR is to cite a
source.

Sarah


from_name: Rudy Koot

body:
Zzyzx11 at Wikipedia wrote:
>> For some lovely reason our new mail server has been blacklisted by
>> SpamCop,
>> allegedly for sending mail to spamtrap addresses. (They provide no
>> details by
>> policy, of course, so there's no way to verify it.)
>
>
>> Since there's a tiny possibility that the user-to-user email feature
>> actually could be
>> abused, I've gone ahead and enabled the e-mail confirmation
>> requirement for using
>> email features. This is a bit annoying for the moment since you have
>> to do it
>> separately on each wiki.
>
>
>> I've disputed the listing, so hopefully we'll get it removed soonish
>> and those who
>> aren't getting email will, uh, start getting it again. --Brion 22:42,
>> 1 March 2006 (UTC)

So how do I recieve my confirmation e-mail if the mail server is
blacklisted? They should have enabled this sooned  (and definitly
shouldn't disable it) as I don't always reply to Wikipedia e-mail simply
because I don't know if the e-mail address of the sender is real.

Ruud


from_name: Dschwen

subject: [Wikitech-l] Google Maps integration

body:
> "There's a fundamental problem trying to integrate Wikis, Google Maps and
> Internet Explorer. If you can find a way past this one hurdle, then the
> rest should be straight forward.

Uhm, but there are serveral Google Maps extensions, and at least one of them
(http://www.schwen.de/wiki/GMap) works hapily in IE (6.0).

--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dschwen
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dschwen
http://commons.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dschwen
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dschwen


subject: [WikiEN-l] The new verifiability policy

body:
On 3/2/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > How about pointing out that instead of removing unsourced material,
> > people can tag it with {{citation needed}} and move on?
>
> That's brilliant.

I believe that's already in [[WP:RS]] and was in [[WP:V]] until the
recent revamp by Jguk. I suggest we develop these points (what to do
when you find unsourced material) in RS, and leave a reference to RS
in V, so that V doesn't get bogged down in detail, which was the point
of Jguk's new version.

It would be helpful if this discussion could take place on the talk
page of WP:V.

Sarah


from_name: Peter Mackay

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Steve Bennett

> Really? If so, that's, well, interesting. :) I wonder what
> Jimbo has to say on that - he often refers to African
> communities, without elaborating much.
>
> I suppose I'm just considering the lack of infrastructure.
> Getting paper copies is one thing. Getting cheap, disposable
> laptops that require electricity is a bit harder. But cheap
> internet access?

It'll happen, a bit at a time.

Pete, happy to donate a coupler


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Verifiability and Africa

body:
I suggest you do the same thing you would do if an elder of Crestone,
Colorado writes an article on his village, which I have done. Use
common sense and leave it alone unless you can add something to it.

Fred

On Mar 2, 2006, at 8:26 AM, Nicholas Moreau wrote:

> Africa was brought up in discussion of verifiability. This raises
> an  important question, should/can we be lax references for African
> content  in en?
>
>   Suppose a tribes' elder writes an article on his village, he'll
> do it  based on oral history, or one-off documents. This
> information may be  recorded in books, but these books are stashed
> away in libraries miles  upon miles away.
>
>   What happens then? It's true information, but there's little or
> no available sources for the writer to cite.
>
>   Nick/Zanimum
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Messenger  NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide
> with voicemail
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Verifiability and Africa

body:
It's good enough to start with. It can be supplemented by whatever
written resources are available.

Fred

On Mar 2, 2006, at 9:06 AM, Guettarda wrote:

> "because I grew up there I know the place"
> isn't good enough for an encyclopaedia either


subject: [WikiEN-l] Verifiability and Africa

body:
Too grim. What is a reasonable source varies with the subject.

Fred

On Mar 2, 2006, at 8:47 AM, Jon wrote:

> To be blunt, which bit of saying that every bit of info must be
> supported by a verifiable and reputable source is unclear?
>
>   In this instance, the information is clearly unverifiable, so it
> shouldn't be added.
>
>   Jon


from_name: Jim

body:
On 3/1/06, Ben Yates <bluephonic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Poking my head in:
>
> I don't have an particular argument, but this whole discussion feels
> very wrong.  Wikipedia should not be acting like a corporation -- it
> is not trying to make a profit; its mission is to spread knowledge.
> Period.

I, for one, am very glad to see Wikipedia take a strong stand on trademark
issues involving the wikimedia foundation. My efforts, freely given, are
done so with the understanding that the effort & goal is to create a "free HIGH
QUALITY encyclopedia."

The only way the high quality can be assured, and wikipedia can stay
reputable (with the press penchant for negative stories) is to clearly
identify what is the original source "wikimedia foundation"
data/information/articles and what is not. Otherwise, forks that start with
wikipedia articles and then change them (in ways that gain notoriety), or
include gobs of advertising, etc., if allowed to use wikpedia trademarks,
dilute the value of wikipedia in users minds, create bad press, and harm the
reputation of the encyclopdia and the open edit model.

Jim


subject: [WikiEN-l] The admin problem

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Ray Saintonge
>
> Peter Mackay wrote:
> >Having said that, one must also consider the question - what
> is the highest
> >priority? Building an encyclopaedia or having a good working
> community of
> >editors?
> >
> Of course, building an encyclopedia has first priority, but a good
> working community of editors is essential to accomplishing that goal.

I won't be popular for saying so, but I don't know that it is. My high
school biology teacher used to delight in seating people together who hated
each other. She reckoned you got more interesting and lively discussions
that way and everyone benefited. My objective was to sit up the back
somewhere and go to sleep, but that didn't happen in her class and I have
fond memories of high school biol as being a great education experience.

Would we produce a great encyclopaedia if we all thought and worked the same
way? I'm thinking that a certain degree of tension, conflict and competition
helps us go beyond the banal. Some of the best features of Wikipedia are
produced as a way of handling conflict. 3RR, for instance. It's silly, but
it works.

And having ongoing experience with problem users - especially problem admins
- makes us more able to handle future threats. Look at the way a solution
emerged to the WoW thing. Of course it took a certain amount of screaming
and kicking to get there, but it happened.

Peter (Skyring)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Pity the admin....

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Guy
> Chapman aka JzG

> ...who has to close this mess:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/R
> obert_Baden-Powell%27s_sexual_orientation
>
> A whole article devoted to speculation in a couple of books
> on the sexuality of the founder of Scouting, apparently
> because nobody could agree how little of it should go in the
> main article.
>
> The word count given to such speculation between the two
> articles, is, according to my rough and ready count, more or
> less equivalent to the combined count for his military career
> AND the founding of the Scout Movement.  Can we say "undue weight"?

I was looking up some recent historical figure yesterday - can't remember
who - and the second para of the article was devoted to speculation about
his homosexuality. I thought that was really weird. I'm not uncomfortable
with famous people being homosexual, but I'm just not sure that we need to
give such prominence and weight. It's almost as if such people are being
used as posthumous pin-up boys for modern day homosexual folk, when the
reality is that we are writing biographical articles about the careers and
achievements of these people, not about who poked whom. This information
should go at the bottom, maybe in a trivia section.

Peter (Skyring)


from_name: The Cunctator

subject: [WikiEN-l] The new verifiability policy

body:
On 3/2/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> Steve Bennett wrote:
> > On 3/2/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
> >
> >>G'day Steve,
> >>It's prolly important to include something to the effect of if you *do*
> >>remove an unsourced edit because it's unsourced, then you're not going
> >>to get in trouble.  That's something that policy's actually useful for,
> >>actually --- as is [[WP:IAR]] ...
> >
> >
> > Well, you almost never "get in trouble" on Wikipedia. But to suggest
> > that you no one would raise an eyebrow if you removed an uncontested,
> > but unsourced sentence from the first paragraph of a major article is
> > probably going a little far...
> >
>
> How about pointing out that instead of removing unsourced material,
> people can tag it with {{citation needed}} and move on?

That's brilliant.

I think, as a guideline (rather than Official Policy), we should
indicate what recommended options are for editors:

1. When making contributions, provide a reference.
2. If you see information that you believe needs a reference, your
options include:
a) Finding one (best)
b) Failing that, either:
  1) Tagging with {{citation needed}}
  2) Moving unreferenced material to talk page with note asking for reference
  3) Asking editor who contributed material to provide a reference
  4) Removing the information

Depending on the circumstances, any of the options of b) may be best.


subject: [WikiEN-l] The new verifiability policy

body:
On 3/2/06, Jon <thagudearbh at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> This is succinct, to the point, and absolutely correct. It doesn't need development (keep things simple!).
>
>   All you need now is to get rid of the nonsense in the first half of the policy page referring to what the policy isn't, and stick to saying clearly what the policy is. At present the first third of the page just tells you WP's not looking for truth!!?!?!?!?!!!
>
But that's arguably the most important part of the policy, Jon. If
people understand that the threshold for inclusion is verifiability,
not truth, then they've grasped the essence of V and NOR.
Unfortunately, lots of people just don't get it, which is why the
point is made right at the top of the page.

Sarah


from_name: Guettarda

subject: [WikiEN-l] Verifiability and Africa

body:
Actually, it's an interesting extreme, but to be honest, this is the way a
lot of articles are written.  Generally I write from what I know and find
sources to support "what I know" and to fill in the gaps in what's in my
head.  To begin with, when I didn't know how things worked, I didn't even
realise that I was supposed to be providing sources.

Today there are two main ways I write, but in both cases I tend to work from
what I already know.  When I write about science I write without sources,
but my knowledge is based on sources that I have read.  The challenge is to
find the sources to support the info I got from them.  On the other hand,
when I write about Trinidadian topics I am writing from personal experience,
which I must then find sources to support.  This can be difficult, because
when I read academic sources (especially those written by outsiders) I tend
to find myself picking out their mistakes.  All sorts of great article ideas
go unwritten or remain as stubs because I can't find acceptable sources.

Is it POV to discard a source if it fails to support your narrative?
Absolutely.  But if the alternative is to use an obviously flawed source,
what do you do?  In my experience, it has been "not write the article".  But
if someone else were to use to flawed source and assert something that is
inaccurate, I'd be in a very difficult position - knowing, on one hand that
the material was flawed or one-sided, but lacking the sources to support an
alternative narrative.

To the person working from oral sources, there's a problem with Wikipedia.
Since the written sources are largely controlled by outsiders or certain
classes, systemic bias will be re-inforced by simply sticking to verifiable
sources.  On the other hand, "because I grew up there I know the place"
isn't good enough for an encyclopaedia either

Ian

On 3/2/06, Jon <thagudearbh at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> To be blunt, which bit of saying that every bit of info must be supported
> by a verifiable and reputable source is unclear?
>
>   In this instance, the information is clearly unverifiable, so it
> shouldn't be added.
>
>   Jon
>
>
>
> Nicholas Moreau <beaubeaver at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>   Africa was brought up in discussion of verifiability. This raises an
> important question, should/can we be lax references for African content in
> en?
>
> Suppose a tribes' elder writes an article on his village, he'll do it
> based on oral history, or one-off documents. This information may be
> recorded in books, but these books are stashed away in libraries miles upon
> miles away.
>
> What happens then? It's true information, but there's little or no
> available sources for the writer to cite.
>
> Nick/Zanimum
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with
> voicemail
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Photos ? NEW, now offering a quality print service from just 8p a
> photo.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>