subject: [WikiEN-l] Does this conflict with the GFDL?

body:
Yeah, you wrote it, and you released it under GFDL, but you can also
release to anyone else under any other license that you like.  That's
because you wrote it and you own the copyright.

You couldn't give permission, obviously, for work done by others and
released under the GNU FDL.

I think that some GNU-advocates would recommend that you refuse the
permission they ask for, and instead tell them to license it under the
FDL, in order to increase the net amount of GNU-yumminess in the
world.  As for me, it would depend on the context and so on as to whether
I would want to do that.

Theresa Robinson wrote:

> I just got the following message from the OpenCourseWare people here at
> MIT.  They want to use a piece of writing of mine.  I already submitted
> a modified version of the introduction to this document to Wikipedia.  It
> looks like what they're asking should be ok (it says they want a
> "non-exclusive" right to it) but I thought I should double check with
> people here.
>
> moink
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 13:11:36 -0500
> From: Brett Paci <bpaci at MIT.EDU>
> To: robinst at mit.edu
> Subject: 16.885J Permission Request from MIT OpenCourseWare
>
> Theresa Robinson
> Massachusetts Institute of Technology
> robinst at mit.edu
>
> Dear Publisher,
>
> On behalf of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
> OpenCourseWare program (?OCW?),  I am writing to ask your permission to
> use the material (?Material?) listed below, which we believe is owned
> by you.
>
> MIT OCW is a Web-based electronic publishing initiative funded jointly
> by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Andrew W. Mellon
> Foundation, and MIT and is described at http://ocw.mit.edu/.  Its goals
> include (i) providing free, searchable, coherent access to MIT's course
> materials for educators in the non-profit sector, students, and
> individual learners around the world, and (ii) creating an efficient,
> standards-based model that other universities may emulate to publish
> their own course materials.
>
> MIT is making this request in connection with Earll Murman?s course
> entitled, 16.885J Aircraft Systems Engineering,  which will be
> published on MIT?s OCW.  Specifically, MIT is requesting your
> permission for a perpetual, royalty free, non-exclusive right and
> license to use, reproduce, distribute, copy, translate and permit
> others to use, reproduce, distribute, copy, or translate in electronic
> format or in or by any other media now known or hereafter developed,
> the Material.
>
> If you would be willing to grant this permission, could you or an
> authorized officer of your organization please sign the attached
> license and return it to my attention.  We would be grateful for a
> response by: 3/26/2004.
>
> If you have any questions please contact me directly at 617-253-7913.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Geoffery Wilson
>
> Please use reference numbers listed in all correspondence.  Permission
> is requested for the following:
>
> Entire document
> Citation X: A Case Study
>  Ref #: 1213-5517-9194-6378
>
> Robinson
> Robinson's biography
> Ref. # 1213-5517-9197-6384
>
>
> Request #: OCW000001110
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [WikiEN-l] Root and Branch - it's the only way.

body:
I think these remarks are insightful.  It is true that as it is
shaping up, the arbitration committee doesn't really do arbitration as
people commonly understand that word.  And people have come to view
mediation as something to do for a few days, more or less meaningless.

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:

>
>
> Let's review where the Mediation/Arbitration system currently stands
> in practice:
>
> *The genuine custom for mediation is somewhere between zero and zip.
>
>
>     *Mediation is requested as a method of trolling. So far only
>     once successfully.
>
>     *Mediation is requested and once it starts, one or both of the
>     disputants will insist on behaving as if it were arbitration.
>     (This has happened more than once, but which cases, I will not
>     disclose)
>
>
> *Once the Arbitration Committee set itself up, it immediately dropped
> even the pretense at arbitration and constituted itself as a panel of
> grievance hearings with independent power of adjudication.
>
>
> Where do we go from here?
>
> Well, the first thing to acknowledge is that this how it was always
> going to go, no matter what we might have wished. Reality is a harsh
> mistress.
>
> The only logical thing to do is to rename the Arbitration Committee
> into something more close to what their actual role is, and rename
> the Mediation Committee into the Arbitration Committee, and give it
> live ammunition. What do I mean with live ammunition? I honestly
> don't know! Anything the current "socalled" Arbitration Committee can
> bear to part with...
>
> J-V Heiskanen (Formerly Cimon Avaro on a pogostick - RIP)

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Root and Branch - it's the only way.

references:
<1078930127.24963.25.camel@myhome.home>
	<BC747EAC.20B9%fredbaud@ctelco.net> <404F356C.3040508@yahoo.com>
	<r5i3c8g9062.fsf@gill.maths.keele.ac.uk>

body:
While I'm generally neutral and agnostic on the whole 168 thing, I
certainly agree with Gareth on this one.

Gareth Owen wrote:

> Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > I felt great till 5 hours later desysoped 168 quit the project.
>
> You shouldn't feel bad.
>
> He abused his sysop powers, you called him on it,
> and he threw his toys out of the pram.
>
> That's not your problem, that's his.
> --
> Gareth Owen
> "I love the wikipedia, but sometimes I get the impression that certain people
>  on this list are very bored, and so argue about something when there's really
>  bugger all to argue about. Edit some articles, for god's sake." -- LP
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo's political theory

body:
We get to directly choose procedures and institutions, not outcomes.
That's very important to understand.  Outcomes are driven by
procedures and institutions and sometimes in ways that are unexpected.

I think that we have consensus about the kinds of outcomes that we
want.  We want procedures and institutions that are encouraging of
good behaviors and discouraging of bad behaviors.  We want procedures
and institutions that prevent the rise of an ideological faction to
control the content of the articles in any political/ideological way.
We want procedures and institutions that are transparent, open,
flexible, reasonable, and which have a minimum of gamesmanship.  We
want procedures and institutions that are scalable and that don't
depend on me as a bottleneck.

The trick is in figuring out what those institutions and procedures
should be.  This will be a trial and error process.

I think that arbitration is working, but agree with those who point
out that it isn't what many of us envisioned as arbitration.  It's
more of an independent judiciary panel deciding punishments on a
case-by-case basis.

I think that mediation has mixed success, but not because of the
intentions or the people involved, but because we've made something of
a structural error.  Too many people aren't taking mediation
seriously, preferring to go straight to arbitration.  The fact that
mediators can't really do anything other than talk sweetly is probably
the main issue.

I'm putting a lot of thought into these issues, and listening very
carefully and seriously to what everyone is saying.  I expect that we
will be tweaking the system to a degree to try to alleviate some of
the problems we've seen.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: New sidebar poll

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Such as merging the community portal with the main page.  We don't need
> the news section there; this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper.

True, we are not a newspaper, but I suspect that I'm in the vast
majority when I say that I often get my daily background information
about what's going on in the news from Wikipedia's homepage.

I learned a lot about Basque separatists and ETA and so on in the past
two days.  I read a lot about the South Korean impeachment.

The "In the news" feature on the homepage is one of the best things
that we do, in my opinion.

--Jimbo


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject: [WikiEN-l] Bird and his "sock flock"

body:
The 72-hour block on user:Bird and his flock of sock puppets expires
today.

Has the Arbitration Committee come to any decision? (I'm not planning to
extend the block; I'd rather write articles than do this kind of stuff.)

Ed Poor
Bird-brained bureaucrat


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo's political theory

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>I think that mediation has mixed success, but not because of the
>intentions or the people involved, but because we've made something of
>a structural error.  Too many people aren't taking mediation
>seriously, preferring to go straight to arbitration.  The fact that
>mediators can't really do anything other than talk sweetly is probably
>the main issue.
>
>
Once a few people get visibly scr*w*d by arbitration decisions, I think
others will be much more interested in mediation. One would imagine the
random Wikipedian smart enough to understand that the arbitration
committee's powers are considerable, and that they really really want to
avoid its clutches, but it seems the more stubborn will have to "learn
by doing". :-)

Stan


list: wikitech-l

subject: [Wikitech-l] Question about stats

body:
http://en.wikipedia.org/stats/

How accurate do we think these numbers are?

Obviously, Dec and Jan are low, way low, and I believe I heard that
some logfiles were/are missing?

February shows a much higher average than March, 3 million pageviews
per day as opposed to 2 million.  Does that seem plausible?  Both
numbers are more than double our previous "best" month, which was
November of last year.  (But of course Dec and Jan seem obviously
broken.)

I'm just looking for a nice number to tell reporters who ask me.

Can I safely say 75 million pageviews per month?

--Jimbo


from_name: Charles Matthews

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: New sidebar poll

body:
Timwi wrote

> The Main Page is specifically not an encyclopedic article. True, we are
> not a newspaper, but there is no reason to not have a little section
> that points at articles that are relevant to recent happenings. It shows
> visitors how up to date we are!

I don't see how one could prove that the current style of Main Page is
_necessary_; but it looks pretty _useful_ to me.  Kudos to those who work on
it.

Charles


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Question about stats

body:
On Mar 12, 2004, at 11:36, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/stats/
>
> How accurate do we think these numbers are?

Take them with a salt mine.

> Obviously, Dec and Jan are low, way low, and I believe I heard that
> some logfiles were/are missing?

Those stats weren't being maintained for quite some time on en, what
with the en/en2 split and various swapping of servers every five
minutes.

> February shows a much higher average than March, 3 million pageviews
> per day as opposed to 2 million.  Does that seem plausible?

That looks like an artifact of twiddling with the webalizer
configuration. For February, nearly all total 'hits' are counted as
'pages', while the proportion counted as such is lower in March. The
'hits' and 'files' daily averages both go up moderately from February
to March, while 'visits' is down moderately.

>   Both
> numbers are more than double our previous "best" month, which was
> November of last year.  (But of course Dec and Jan seem obviously
> broken.)

a) the previous stats show a doubling in daily pageviews from june to
september, a similar timeframe
b) lots of publicity recently
c) new servers up increased capacity to serve demand
d) i'm not sure the previous stats included 'en2'
e) i'm not sure the new stats are accurate at all :)

Gabriel's now maintaining the stats; I don't know if they come from the
squid, the combined web server logs, both, or what.

> I'm just looking for a nice number to tell reporters who ask me.
>
> Can I safely say 75 million pageviews per month?

(shrug)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040312/1df09a9b/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [WikiEN-l] Requests for review of admin actions

body:
Wasn't that the purpose of [[Wikipedia:Possible misuses of admin
privileges]]?  This page was created to handle requests for deadminship
which weren't related to admin actions.   See
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_review_of_admin_actions&oldid=2289465

Poor, Edmund W wrote:

>I renamed [[Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship]] to
>[[Wikipedia:Requests for review of admin actions]].
>
>I hope that this will lessen the general tension between "old hands" who
>have sysop rights and "newbies" who don't.
>
>The idea is to focus on the action itself, not the actor. And the remedy
>if any would be to reconsider the decision, which is very easy and
>non-threatening.
>
>Thanks to Caroline (MySecretLondon) for sparking this idea.
>
>Kindly ol' Uncle Ed
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo's political theory

body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:

> It doesn't seem that arbitration is always an option.  I'm listed for
> possible arbitration, but mediation has never been offered.

This is an interesting observation.  I say this as a person who avoids
following the endless ongoing behaviour disputes disputes.  I have no
opinion about the truth of the underlying facts of this case.

People often enter disputes with a preconception about outcomes.  They
draw lines in the sand which after a sandstorm are only visible to them.
 The long-established user often should be the one to accept greater
responsibility in a matter, rather than pursuing an obsession with
enforcing those rules that he may have personally helped to establish.
 The new offender may have an interesting perspective on the issue at
hand that was never considered when the rule was originally debated.

Mediation options should be made clear to anybody that seeks
arbitration, and a claim such as Anthony has made above should be taken
seriously.  If it proves factually correct, the matter should be sent
back to mediation.  If either party refuses mediation, that fact should
prominently influence the work of the arbitrators.  Yhe success of
arbitration will very much depend on the willingness of the arbitrators
to dismiss any claim which has not been brought to them through
appropriate channels.  The test of this will be to apply that policy
even when the claimant's case is factually strong.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo's political theory

body:
Fred Bauder wrote:

>One of the problems is that we can be really wrong, misunderstand what was
>happening, mediation gives both parties a change to spend some time looking
>into the dynamics of the situation without worrying about whether any
>particular rule was broken, in fact, successful mediation amounts to a
>pardon for both parties for rule infractions. Go to artibration and chances
>are rules have been broken, sometimes by both parties. Right now most of the
>arbitrators aren't really hanging judges, but that will change when someone
>comes back and back and back to us.
>
This is a useful observation.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: New sidebar poll

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>>Such as merging the community portal with the main page.  We don't need
>>the news section there; this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper.
>>
>True, we are not a newspaper, but I suspect that I'm in the vast
>majority when I say that I often get my daily background information
>about what's going on in the news from Wikipedia's homepage.
>
>I learned a lot about Basque separatists and ETA and so on in the past
>two days.  I read a lot about the South Korean impeachment.
>
>The "In the news" feature on the homepage is one of the best things
>that we do, in my opinion.
>
I have no interest in belaboring the issue, and will keep quiet after
this letter.  I would prefer something like the layout that is being
used on fr where the two immediately apparent boxes are the encyclopedia
topics, and the recent news section.  As long as we are an encyclopedia,
that point needs to be made prominent.

Ec


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo's political theory

body:
One of the problems is that we can be really wrong, misunderstand what was
happening, mediation gives both parties a change to spend some time looking
into the dynamics of the situation without worrying about whether any
particular rule was broken, in fact, successful mediation amounts to a
pardon for both parties for rule infractions. Go to artibration and chances
are rules have been broken, sometimes by both parties. Right now most of the
arbitrators aren't really hanging judges, but that will change when someone
comes back and back and back to us.

Fred

> From: Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 11:11:25 -0800
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Cc: wikien-l at wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo's political theory
>
> Once a few people get visibly scr*w*d by arbitration decisions, I think
> others will be much more interested in mediation. One would imagine the
> random Wikipedian smart enough to understand that the arbitration
> committee's powers are considerable, and that they really really want to
> avoid its clutches, but it seems the more stubborn will have to "learn
> by doing". :-)
>
> Stan


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Spambot

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>One good thing about spammers is that they are lazy and only in it for
>the money, as opposed to an ideological opponent or random lunatic who
>might spend a completely absurd amount of time trying to get around
>something.
>
Yes, it's important to take human nature into account.  The Canadian
that was just charged under the US anti-spam law (US jurisdiction may
still be a separate issue) manged to send out 94,000,000 spams in
January alone.  He hasn't go time for ideogical debates where winning
might only give him a few hundred more potential victims.

Ec


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Spambot

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>Good grief.  The patent system is out of control.
>
I get the impression that the pharmaceutical companies are the worst
offenders.

>Actually, since the original captcha idea is in fact clever, and since
>I'm not a totally anti-patent person, I could it being reasonable to
>reward the inventors of the idea with a 2 year patent.  17 years is an
>infinity.
>
I believe that it was changed from 17 years from the date of granting to
20 years from the application date.  That prevents extensions from
arising through playing games with the application process.  But 20
years is a lot more reasonable than the 95 years for copyright. :-)

>I wonder if there are things that we've developed in house here at
>Wikimedia that we should patent, just to license our patents freely
>of course, and also to make fun of the patent system.
>
Good idea!  Especially now that such things as business processes have
become patentable.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo's political theory

body:
I'll need to wait to respond to some very good comments here.  Wives
simply don't understand such important things when they're trying to get
us away for the weekend. :-)

Jimmy Wales wrote:

>We get to directly choose procedures and institutions, not outcomes.
>That's very important to understand.  Outcomes are driven by
>procedures and institutions and sometimes in ways that are unexpected.
>
>I think that we have consensus about the kinds of outcomes that we
>want.  We want procedures and institutions that are encouraging of
>good behaviors and discouraging of bad behaviors.  We want procedures
>and institutions that prevent the rise of an ideological faction to
>control the content of the articles in any political/ideological way.
>We want procedures and institutions that are transparent, open,
>flexible, reasonable, and which have a minimum of gamesmanship.  We
>want procedures and institutions that are scalable and that don't
>depend on me as a bottleneck.
>
>The trick is in figuring out what those institutions and procedures
>should be.  This will be a trial and error process.
>
>I think that arbitration is working, but agree with those who point
>out that it isn't what many of us envisioned as arbitration.  It's
>more of an independent judiciary panel deciding punishments on a
>case-by-case basis.
>
>I think that mediation has mixed success, but not because of the
>intentions or the people involved, but because we've made something of
>a structural error.  Too many people aren't taking mediation
>seriously, preferring to go straight to arbitration.  The fact that
>mediators can't really do anything other than talk sweetly is probably
>the main issue.
>
>I'm putting a lot of thought into these issues, and listening very
>carefully and seriously to what everyone is saying.  I expect that we
>will be tweaking the system to a degree to try to alleviate some of
>the problems we've seen.
>
>--Jimbo
>


from_name: Evan Prodromou

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Re: Spambot

in_reply_to:
<1gxcgjr7xv2rf$.kdgkziwwatuc$.dlg@40tude.net> (Ashar Voultoiz's
	message of "Fri, 12 Mar 2004 08:51:24 +0100")

body:
>>>>> "AV" == Ashar Voultoiz <thoane at altern.org> writes:

    AV> Although it's a good idea to prevent vandalism, it will also
    AV> block harmless block that solve disambiguation, correct typos,
    AV> convert html tables to wiki tables, updates interwikis ...

It'd make sense to allow logged-in approved bots then.

~ESP

--
Evan Prodromou <evan at wikitravel.org>
Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/
The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide


from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Spambot

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Tim Starling wrote:
>
>>Another much-requested feature is enhancement of the rollback function,
>>especially to allow for page deletion. The bot created many pages,
>>apparently by following red links. In my opinion, the ideal feature would be
>>to allow the user to supply a list of IP addresses and usernames, and then
>>to revert every edit from those users with a single click.
>
>
> This sounds like a wonderful idea, but I see a big problem with it.
> If we had such a feature some sysops would be tempted to use it as
> punishment against some bad users.  There's a certain amount of
> 'vigilantism' that I've grumpily tolerated because it's very minor and
> the people usually "deserve it" in some sense.  But this would open a
> huge new can of worms.

You can't expect people to follow the rules when every violation is
tolerated on the basis that it is in some sense justified. Sysops have
invested a great deal of time and emotional capital in Wikipedia.
Banning is not an effective punishment for trolls or vandals who will
switch identites and start again without a second thought. Banning or
demoting a sysop, on the other hand, is an effective punishment both
emotionally and in terms of the extreme difficulty in resuming the
original behaviour.

What I'm saying is that rules governing sysop behaviour can, in
principle, be enforced. However, I'll admit that it's important that
sysop actions be reversible.

Nicolas Weeger wrote:
 > What about something that'd require multiple sysop approval? Like, 5
 > sysops to check something & click to confirm?

Only one of the seven wikis attacked had more than 5 sysops before the
attack. There were generally 1-3 foreign sysops working on cleaning up
the mess.

Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Here's one idea -- a switch to toggle a captcha.  When a wiki is under
> a spambot attack, the captcha would be turned on.  Some captchas
> aren't hard to defeat, but I doubt if the spammer is going to bother.
>
> Unfortunately, I fear this will lead us down the path towards captchas
> on all wikis on all edits, which would be unpleasant.

Captchas could slow down the attack somewhat. Let's say he uses 10 IP
addresses on 7 wikis. That means he would have to perform about 70
captchas. If each captcha takes 10 seconds, then it would require about
11 minutes of human time to perform the attack. Of course, he spent far
longer than 11 minutes developing the bot, but it does put a practical
limit on the scale and speed of the attack.

-- Tim Starling


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: bandwidth thieves blocked

body:
>>>>> "JW" == Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> writes:

    JW> The problem is possibly with the attribution and history
    JW> requirements of the license and so on.  It's too early in the
    JW> morning for me to really consider what would be involved
    JW> exactly, but we all know the drill.

So, this is an issue on my personal radar screen, and I think it might
be nice to start concentrating on how to redistribute MediaWiki sites
as a whole.

As a quick fix, it might be reasonable to include database dumps of
all the Image: pages, as well as the image tables, to get history and
rights info. It's not particularly usable, but it would be there.

A more automated solution might be to include some kind of metadata
files in the image dump. Either plain text files like:

      Name: this.jpg
      License: GFDL
      Author: Evan Prodromou
      Contributor: Jimmy Wales

...or RDF files. It's debatable whether to make one file per image, or
one big listing file.

~ESP

--
Evan Prodromou <evan at wikitravel.org>
Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/
The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide


from_name: Theresa Robinson

body:
I just got the following message from the OpenCourseWare people here at
MIT.  They want to use a piece of writing of mine.  I already submitted
a modified version of the introduction to this document to Wikipedia.  It
looks like what they're asking should be ok (it says they want a
"non-exclusive" right to it) but I thought I should double check with
people here.

moink

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 13:11:36 -0500
From: Brett Paci <bpaci at MIT.EDU>
To: robinst at mit.edu
Subject: 16.885J Permission Request from MIT OpenCourseWare

Theresa Robinson
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
robinst at mit.edu

Dear Publisher,

On behalf of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
OpenCourseWare program (?OCW?),  I am writing to ask your permission to
use the material (?Material?) listed below, which we believe is owned
by you.

MIT OCW is a Web-based electronic publishing initiative funded jointly
by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Andrew W. Mellon
Foundation, and MIT and is described at http://ocw.mit.edu/.  Its goals
include (i) providing free, searchable, coherent access to MIT's course
materials for educators in the non-profit sector, students, and
individual learners around the world, and (ii) creating an efficient,
standards-based model that other universities may emulate to publish
their own course materials.

MIT is making this request in connection with Earll Murman?s course
entitled, 16.885J Aircraft Systems Engineering,  which will be
published on MIT?s OCW.  Specifically, MIT is requesting your
permission for a perpetual, royalty free, non-exclusive right and
license to use, reproduce, distribute, copy, translate and permit
others to use, reproduce, distribute, copy, or translate in electronic
format or in or by any other media now known or hereafter developed,
the Material.

If you would be willing to grant this permission, could you or an
authorized officer of your organization please sign the attached
license and return it to my attention.  We would be grateful for a
response by: 3/26/2004.

If you have any questions please contact me directly at 617-253-7913.

Sincerely,

Geoffery Wilson

Please use reference numbers listed in all correspondence.  Permission
is requested for the following:

Entire document
Citation X: A Case Study
  Ref #: 1213-5517-9194-6378

Robinson
Robinson's biography
Ref. # 1213-5517-9197-6384

Request #: OCW000001110


subject: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo's political theory

body:
No, because what goes on in mediation, good or bad is inadmissable in
arbitration. Posturing as "willing to mediate" will do you no good, nor will
"piss on that phoney shit" do you any harm. The reason for this is that
mediation is about actually trying to solve problems between users, not
building a record to bash each other with.

Fred

> From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 12:11:28 -0800
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo's political theory
>
> If either party refuses mediation, that fact should
> prominently influence the work of the arbitrators.


from_name: perl at hush.ai

subject: [Wikitech-l] Help installing the mediawiki

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

I have tried to install mediawiki (so I can submit some patches) using
the php script but it fails:

root at localhost mediawiki-1.2.0rc3 # php install.php

Warning: mkdir(/usr/local/apache/htdocs/wiki): No such file or directory
in /home/perl/mediawiki-1.2.0rc3/install.php on line 166
Could not create directory "/usr/local/apache/htdocs/wiki".

This is probably a simple problem. Can someone tell me what I have done
wrong?

Thanks!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify
Version: Hush 2.3

wkYEARECAAYFAkBR6mIACgkQImu8Pbyf50G0rQCgoyHDRdSoKk6MUVwE0YL+/YAaOxEA
oKP64VERLVo3jwDJ6Av9RnVIov7V
=Cehw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Concerned about your privacy? Follow this link to get
FREE encrypted email: https://www.hushmail.com/?l=2

Free, ultra-private instant messaging with Hush Messenger
https://www.hushmail.com/services.php?subloc=messenger&l=434

Promote security and make money with the Hushmail Affiliate Program:
https://www.hushmail.com/about.php?subloc=affiliate&l=427


body:
On Mar 12, 2004, at 13:48, <perl at hush.ai> wrote:
> I have tried to install mediawiki (so I can submit some patches) using
> the php script but it fails:
>
> root at localhost mediawiki-1.2.0rc3 # php install.php
>
> Warning: mkdir(/usr/local/apache/htdocs/wiki): No such file or
> directory
> in /home/perl/mediawiki-1.2.0rc3/install.php on line 166
> Could not create directory "/usr/local/apache/htdocs/wiki".
>
> This is probably a simple problem. Can someone tell me what I have done
> wrong?

Sounds like there is no directory /usr/local/apache/htdocs; check that
this is your web server's actual DocumentRoot.

(I'd highly recommend you try the new in-place installation, please see
the file INSTALL.)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040312/db628b32/attachment.pgp>


body:
> I think that some GNU-advocates would recommend that you refuse the
> permission they ask for, and instead tell them to license it under the
> FDL, in order to increase the net amount of GNU-yumminess in the
> world.  As for me, it would depend on the context and so on as to whether
> I would want to do that.

Thanks Jimmy.  I don't think I'm going to insist that they release it
under GFDL.  The main reason is that the document (not the Wikipedia
article) contains copyrighted images owned by Cessna and Jane's, and one
nice thing about OpenCourseWare is that they do all the running around to
get permission to use those.

moink


subject: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo's political theory

body:
It doesn't seem that arbitration is always an option.  I'm listed for
possible arbitration, but mediation has never been offered.

Anthony

Stan Shebs wrote:

> Once a few people get visibly scr*w*d by arbitration decisions, I think
> others will be much more interested in mediation. One would imagine the
> random Wikipedian smart enough to understand that the arbitration
> committee's powers are considerable, and that they really really want to
> avoid its clutches, but it seems the more stubborn will have to "learn
> by doing". :-)
>
> Stan


subject:
problems with apache (was Re: [Wikitech-l] Help installing the
	mediawiki)

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

I try to run apache but get this error:

root at localhost mediawiki-1.2.0rc3 # apache2
apache2: Could not determine the server's fully qualified domain name,
 using 127.0.0.1 for ServerName[Fri Mar 12 17:44:21 2004] [crit] (92)Protocol
not available: make_sock: for address [::]:80, apr_socket_opt_set: (IPV6_V6ONLY)
no listening sockets available, shutting down
Unable to open logs

root at localhost mediawiki-1.2.0rc3 #

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks.

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 14:08:07 -0800 Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
>On Mar 12, 2004, at 13:48, <perl at hush.ai> wrote:
>> I have tried to install mediawiki (so I can submit some patches)
>using
>> the php script but it fails:
>>
>> root at localhost mediawiki-1.2.0rc3 # php install.php
>>
>> Warning: mkdir(/usr/local/apache/htdocs/wiki): No such file or
>>
>> directory
>> in /home/perl/mediawiki-1.2.0rc3/install.php on line 166
>> Could not create directory "/usr/local/apache/htdocs/wiki".
>>
>> This is probably a simple problem. Can someone tell me what I
>have done
>> wrong?
>
>Sounds like there is no directory /usr/local/apache/htdocs; check
>that
>this is your web server's actual DocumentRoot.
>
>(I'd highly recommend you try the new in-place installation, please
>see
>the file INSTALL.)
>
>-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify
Version: Hush 2.3

wkYEARECAAYFAkBR9y4ACgkQImu8Pbyf50Hr4gCeN3ddhTzNoG2WY7FRP5u72xkAxlcA
nRu6oBt8VCL5j54H3ATnlK+v6lTF
=ErQF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Concerned about your privacy? Follow this link to get
FREE encrypted email: https://www.hushmail.com/?l=2

Free, ultra-private instant messaging with Hush Messenger
https://www.hushmail.com/services.php?subloc=messenger&l=434

Promote security and make money with the Hushmail Affiliate Program:
https://www.hushmail.com/about.php?subloc=affiliate&l=427


from_name: John C. Penta

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: New sidebar poll

body:
----- Original Message -----
From: Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com>
Date: Friday, March 12, 2004 1:52 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: New sidebar poll

> True, we are not a newspaper, but I suspect that I'm in the vast
> majority when I say that I often get my daily background information
> about what's going on in the news from Wikipedia's homepage.
>
> I learned a lot about Basque separatists and ETA and so on in the past
> two days.  I read a lot about the South Korean impeachment.
>
> The "In the news" feature on the homepage is one of the best things
> that we do, in my opinion.

Much agreement. It's like a reporter looking for background info. I'll often wander by the Jerusalem Post, NY Times, and CNN, then follow it up with background from Wikipedia.

John


from_name: David Rodeback

body:
Gabriel Wicke <groups at ...> writes:
>
> No more image bandwidth used by the following sites:
> # image theft acls
> acl imgurl urlpath_regex -i \.(jpg|gif|png)$
> acl badimgref referer_regex -i wikipedia.t-st.de
> acl badimgref referer_regex -i worldhistory.com
> acl badimgref referer_regex -i yourencyclopedia.net
> acl badimgref referer_regex -i wordiq.com
> acl badimgref referer_regex -i artpolitic.org
> acl badimgref referer_regex -i ruv.net
> # deny access

Mr. Wicke,

I speak only for WorldHistory.com in making the following comments and posing
the following questions, but I suspect our situation is common to most or all
of the sites you have labeled "bandwidth thieves."

Comments:

First, please note that WorldHistory.com would like to continue mirroring
wikipedia content, but that content has considerably less appeal without the
images.

Second, please note that we linked directly to images at wikipedia's site not
in an effort to steal bandwidth, but out of respect for your bandwidth. It
seemed -- and to me still seems, I must confess -- a very respectful
alternative to trying to spider all the images. After considerable exploration,
we were able to find no available alternative at Wikipedia for obtaining
images, and no clearly defined contact for making inquiries.

Questions:

PhatNav.com apparently has its own copy of all the images. By what mechanism
might such a copy be obtained and regularly updated by others?

de.freepedia.org links to wikipedia images in the same way WorldHistory.com
does. Have they made some special arrangement to avoid being blocked? If so,
what arrangements might the rest of us make? Whom should one contact to discuss
such arrangements?

Is there a downloadable archive of images in the immediate future?

Thank you for your consideration. If you would prefer to discuss any of this
privately, please e-mail me at DavidRodeback at att.net, and I will be happy to
discuss this by e-mail or to telephone you.

David Rodeback
Technical Officer
WorldHistory.com


from_name: David Friedland

subject: [Wikitech-l] Fun with bots

body:
I have ~200 files that I would like to upload to the en:Wikipedia. They
are recordings of all the sounds in the International Phonetic Alphabet.
I don't want to upload them by hand, so I am hacking together a little
libwww-perl-based script to upload them automatically under my username.

Before I do this, I want to run this by wikitech-l:

Should I register a separate account for use with my bot, like NohatBot?

I've set the useragent of my script to NohatBot/0.9b. Will it be blocked?

Finally, should I make the script available in case others want to do
bulk uploads? If so, where?

Anything else?

- David [[User:Nohat]]


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [WikiEN-l] User 66.185.84.208

body:
User 66.185.84.208 (who is blocked) contacted me again, claiming that he
is User:kchishol1970 (who seems to be productive and not a vandal at
all), and that he uses a static IP, not sharing his computer with
others. The IP block prevents him from editing wikipedia under his user
name. Indeed, this user stopped editing on March 9, a few hours befor
the IP ban.

The Anome has blocked the IP for 14 days. I will unblock it and tell
User:kchishol1970 to watch his computer more carefully ;-)

I will try to watch out for that IP. In case I miss more vandalism, just
block it again, please.

Magnus


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Fun with bots

body:
I've finished writing the script, and I've been trying to test it on
test.wikipedia.org, but uploads seem to be broken on the test wiki.
After hitting submit, the page comes back as
http://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload with no content, and the
file is not uploaded.

Also making testing difficult is the fact that the upload forms are
different.

- David

David Friedland wrote:

> I have ~200 files that I would like to upload to the en:Wikipedia. They
> are recordings of all the sounds in the International Phonetic Alphabet.
> I don't want to upload them by hand, so I am hacking together a little
> libwww-perl-based script to upload them automatically under my username.
>
> Before I do this, I want to run this by wikitech-l:
>
> Should I register a separate account for use with my bot, like NohatBot?
>
> I've set the useragent of my script to NohatBot/0.9b. Will it be blocked?
>
> Finally, should I make the script available in case others want to do
> bulk uploads? If so, where?
>
> Anything else?
>
> - David [[User:Nohat]]


from_name: Sheldon Rampton

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Spambot

body:
I wrote:

>  > user     page     throttle.minute     throttle.hour     throttle.day
>>  expiration
>>  jwales  DNA     2     10     25     (timestamp)
>  > wik     *     *     *     3

And Jimbo responded:

>>There may be some ambiguity here in the meaning of '*'.  To me, the
>>Wik line says "for each article, Wik may make up to 3 edits per day",
>>as opposed to "3 edits per day on all articles combined".

It might be useful to have a way of signalling both. How about "*" to
mean "for each article," and "#" to mean "on all articles combined"?
It seems to me being able to limit contributions to "all articles
combined" offers a useful tool in throttling vandals. An easy way to
vandalize is to go through and systematically delete the text of
entire articles. I had someone do this a couple of times on the
Disinfopedia. In the space of less than half an hour, the vandal
systematically replaced the text of around 100 pages with nonsense
phrases and profanity. A restriction that says someone can only make
three changes to each article wouldn't stop that kind of abuse at
all, because the vandal's M.O. consists of only making a single
change to each article.

I would also suggest generalizing the ability to block IP numbers, so
that for example you could easily place a block on 142.177.*.*. This
could be useful in dealing with a situation I encountered awhile back
in which a vandal used an anonymizer that kept changing his IP number
after about every 10 edits or so. If someone were to start that sort
of attack, you could thwart most of it with the following line:

*.*.*.*    *     *     3     *

This would say that each unique IP number is allowed to make no more
than three edits per hour -- a restriction that would be a minor
nuisance to most serious contributors who use anonymous IP numbers,
but it would inconvenience and slow down someone on a vandalism spree.

--Sheldon Rampton


list: textbook-l

from_name: Imran Ghory

subject:
[Textbook-l] convert .doc & .pdf into wiki format (and compile
	texts          to print)

body:
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, Karl Wick wrote:

> Anyone know tools to convert ms.doc or adobe.pdf format
> files to Wiki format? Like a script or website .. There is
> a gentleman who would like to contribute his
> German-language textbook to the project and has everything
> ready in these two formats. It is 150 pages w- 100 images,
> not a quick porting document.

There is an HTML to wikipedia convertor, so you could use html as a midway
ground. Although MS Word produces attrocious html, so it might need to be
cleaned up a bit (although IIRC Macromedia dreamweaver comes with some
software especially designed to clean up MS word html).

Imran
--
http://bits.bris.ac.uk/imran


from_name: Timwi

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Document your features, please

body:
Karl Eichwalder wrote:

> Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> writes:
>
>>And in particular, it still has this bug that
>>[[Image:blah|thumb|''em'']] comes out as <em>em</em> rather
>>than em.
>
> Also whitespace handling is dubious.  Code as follows may or may not
> work:
>
>     [[Image:blah | thumb | 300px | right | foo]]
>
> Allowing spaces around "|" is important - otherwise lines get too long
> and horizontal sliders are addding unnecessarily to the edit boxes.

To be entirely honest, I don't see that as too much of a problem. If the
image name is too long, rename it; if the image caption begins with a
very long word, rephrase it...

(of course, for readability's sake, allowing spaces here would be nice)

Timwi


from_name: Gabriel Wicke

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Re: bandwidth thieves blocked

body:
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 09:21:08 -0800, Jimmy Wales wrote:

> I'd like to ask that this block on worldhistory be dropped
> immediately, as David has a point here, and he's being very courteous
> to come here and chat about it.

Worldhistory is not blocked anymore.

In my personal opinion spidering the images and hosting them locally isn't
too much to ask for if the sites are commercial. It saves a lot of
bandwith as they are only downloaded once, and it's really not hard to do
with wget or similar. If this is done in off-peak hours, even better.

Previous discussions on this that i found via google:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikilegal-l/2004-January/000220.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copies_of_Wikipedia_content_(low_degree_of_compliance)

If the concensus is against blocking i'll switch it off of course.

Cheers
--
Gabriel Wicke


body:
> Download and install the texts.  Spider your installation and extract
> images references.  Convert the filenames to those matching the pictures
> at the WP site.  Download the files of this list using 'wget'.
>
> Or something like that could work.
>

Since our current process includes all these steps except the last, at which
point we link to the file, not get it, this is easily done.

Am I to gather that a reasonably well-behaved spider is preferred to linking
back to Wikipedia's site as we have been doing?

Can someone define for me what would be the off-peak hours in which such a
spider should run?

Finally, is there a place at Wikipedia (I know of several elsewhere) for
registering such spiders with descriptions and contact information, in case
someone observes the spider working and wonders, or in case there is some sort
of problem?

Thanks.

DR


from_name: Karl Eichwalder

body:
David Rodeback <DavidRodeback at att.net> writes:

> Second, please note that we linked directly to images at wikipedia's site not
> in an effort to steal bandwidth, but out of respect for your bandwidth. It
> seemed -- and to me still seems, I must confess -- a very respectful
> alternative to trying to spider all the images.

This depends on the traffic caused by your users.

> After considerable exploration, we were able to find no available
> alternative at Wikipedia for obtaining images, and no clearly defined
> contact for making inquiries.

Download and install the texts.  Spider your installation and extract
images references.  Convert the filenames to those matching the pictures
at the WP site.  Download the files of this list using 'wget'.

Or something like that could work.

--
                                                         |      ,__o
                                                         |    _-\_<,
http://www.gnu.franken.de/ke/                            |   (*)/'(*)


from_name: Nicolas Weeger

subject: [Wikitech-l] Spambot

body:
Jimmy Wales a ?crit :

> Well, I think 5 is an unnecessarily high threshold, but yes I
> absolutely can see the merit in having 2 sysops approve something like
> this before it takes effect.  I'll have to think about that.
>
> I'm just generally in favor of being cautious about hierarchy and
> power, and doing just whatever is minimally necessary to accomplish
> our goals.

I was saying 5 as an example. Maybe 3 or 4, depending on the number of sysops on
a particular Wiki. Or some hybrid system, like 2 sysops and 2 non sysop users -
this will prevent sysop abuse (some people on fr have complained of sysops being
an oligarchy :))

I don't really see this as a hierarchy, actually. It's more a security against
sysop abuse. And as I said in some discussion, sysops aren't 'higher', they just
are caretakers, sweepers :)

Nicolas


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Rethinking vandalism

body:
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 09:36:09 -0800, Jimmy Wales wrote:

> Cookies provide a great mechanism for increasing anonymity *and*
> accountability, two issues that are often in tension against each
> other.
>

Persistent, non-deletable cookies might be a problem in internet cafes and
other shared computers though. If you log in with your user name from that
machine and the cookie isn't deleted on logout, the next user would edit
with your user name.

In my opinion the concept of username and password has the big advantage
of being bound to a person, not to a (potentially shared) computer. If a
user has done many good edits (measured in 'trust metrics', number of
edits vs. reverts, whatever), he has more rights (sysops for example).

A more flexible version display similar to the one described at
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-vandalism_ideas could take
more advantage of this accountability and might also make vandalism less
attractive as it wouldn't immediately appear in the 'stable' version shown
to new visitors.
--
Gabriel Wicke


from_name: Camille Constans

subject: [Wikitech-l] Question about stats

body:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/stats/
>
> How accurate do we think these numbers are?
>
> Obviously, Dec and Jan are low, way low, and I believe I heard that
> some logfiles were/are missing?
>
> February shows a much higher average than March, 3 million pageviews
> per day as opposed to 2 million.  Does that seem plausible?  Both
> numbers are more than double our previous "best" month, which was
> November of last year.  (But of course Dec and Jan seem obviously
> broken.)
>
> I'm just looking for a nice number to tell reporters who ask me.

Just have a look  to
http://www.wikipedia.org/wikistats/EN/PlotsPngUsageVisits.htm

Maybe this can help you.

Shaihulud


from_name: lars hennings

body:
www.photographien.org
+49 (0)30 6290 4734
nur: lars at l-hennings.de

Hi, this no "gentleman" but this one looking for convert a book to wiki.
Thanks for help.
But I?m only - sorry - a win user.

What ist tarbal? I can not open it.

The htm from word is not so good - in the int. expl. it is not correct, in
netscape it is chaos.
We will see - if I can open it.

Till now I found no other programm for free convert pdf to htm, what seems
to be the best way for all - it is clear - no frames...
There is one making one htm for every page of the book and a list of all,
that?s ok but the free version works only with five pages. verypdf.com

So, if it can opened by win. I will try.

best wishes

lars

----- Original Message -----
From: "Imran Ghory" <imran at bits.bris.ac.uk>
To: "Wikimedia textbook discussion" <textbook-l at wikimedia.org>
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 7:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Textbook-l] convert .doc & .pdf into wiki format (and compile
texts to print)

> On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, Karl Wick wrote:
>
> > Anyone know tools to convert ms.doc or adobe.pdf format
> > files to Wiki format? Like a script or website .. There is
> > a gentleman who would like to contribute his
> > German-language textbook to the project and has everything
> > ready in these two formats. It is 150 pages w- 100 images,
> > not a quick porting document.
>
>
> There is an HTML to wikipedia convertor, so you could use html as a midway
> ground. Although MS Word produces attrocious html, so it might need to be
> cleaned up a bit (although IIRC Macromedia dreamweaver comes with some
> software especially designed to clean up MS word html).
>
> Imran
> --
> http://bits.bris.ac.uk/imran
> _______________________________________________
> Textbook-l mailing list
> Textbook-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l


from_name: DavidRodeback

body:
Thanks much.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gabriel Wicke" <groups-0dArdoQz2ssGSlwUNQtawg at public.gmane.org>
Newsgroups: gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.technical
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 5:31 PM
Subject: Re: bandwidth thieves blocked

> On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 19:31:05 +0000, David Rodeback wrote:
>
> >> Download and install the texts.  Spider your installation and extract
> >> images references.  Convert the filenames to those matching the
pictures
> >> at the WP site.  Download the files of this list using 'wget'.
> >>
> >> Or something like that could work.
> >>
> >
> > Since our current process includes all these steps except the last, at
which
> > point we link to the file, not get it, this is easily done.
> >
> > Am I to gather that a reasonably well-behaved spider is preferred to
linking
> > back to Wikipedia's site as we have been doing?
> >
> > Can someone define for me what would be the off-peak hours in which such
a
> > spider should run?
>
> See
> http://wikimedia.org/stats/live/org.wikimedia.all.squid.requests-hits.html
>
> > Finally, is there a place at Wikipedia (I know of several elsewhere) for
> > registering such spiders with descriptions and contact information, in
case
> > someone observes the spider working and wonders, or in case there is
some sort
> > of problem?
>
> Set the user agent to something descriptive, like 'worldhistory'. Be sure
> not to include typical spider UA strings. And throttle the requests, wget
> offers a rate setting for that.
> --
> Gabriel Wicke


from_name: sannse

subject: [WikiEN-l] Bird

body:
Just to let everyone know - I'm currently attempting to mediate with Bird.

This is a non-standard mediation at this point - a discussion between the
two of us to find a starting point for further mediation with those
concerned.  I've no idea how effective this will be, but willing to give it
a go

--sannse


from_name: Erik Zachte

subject: [Wikitech-l] Question about stats

body:
Jimbo, look again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/stats

Dec figure is for 2002
Jan is Jan 2003

Both should not be there.
Obviously Webalizer mixed things up.

Erik Zachte

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040312/3610f633/attachment.html>


list: wikipedia-l

subject: [Wikipedia-l] WikiStats Phase II online

body:
After a few months of intensive Perl hacking I can announce completion
of WikiStats Phase II.

Lots of line charts have been added.
Contrary to the existing tables and bar charts which show monthly
figures, these new charts have a resolution of weeks, some of days.

Data acquisition, automatic scaling, filtering, color selection,
ordering and trend analysis, well it was a massive undertaking, even
when the actual plotting is done with a fine open source tool: Ploticus.

Enjoy, Erik Zachte

http://www.wikipedia.org/wikistats/EN/Sitemap.htm


from_name: Hr. Daniel Mikkelsen

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Spambot

body:
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Jimmy Wales wrote:

> I wonder if there are things that we've developed in house here at
> Wikimedia that we should patent, just to license our patents freely
> of course, and also to make fun of the patent system.

This is not necessary, since we publish our source code making our methods
"prior art", and (in theory) impossible for other people to claim patents on.

The only reason I could see to get patents would be to use them as muscle for
cross-licensing if we get threatend by some big bad company.

I don't think it's Wikipedia's role to start doing this. I'm sure the FSF and
other organisations have considered this - and if or when they decide to go
ahead with it, we can join in as part of a concerted effort.

But just going ahead and registering patents would IMO be going against the
Wikipedia tradition of not focusing on problems that aren't real yet.

-- Daniel


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Question about stats

body:
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 12:02:42 -0800, Brion Vibber wrote:

> On Mar 12, 2004, at 11:36, Jimmy Wales wrote:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/stats/

>> February shows a much higher average than March, 3 million pageviews
>> per day as opposed to 2 million.  Does that seem plausible?
>
> That looks like an artifact of twiddling with the webalizer
> configuration. For February, nearly all total 'hits' are counted as
> 'pages', while the proportion counted as such is lower in March. The
> 'hits' and 'files' daily averages both go up moderately from February
> to March, while 'visits' is down moderately.

Unfortunately webalizer only supports dumb file extensions to determine
what a 'page' is, no path regexes. It's using an ugly hack (most images
end with 'g') now, but it's matching the url group for /wiki/ and /w/
pretty well.

> Gabriel's now maintaining the stats; I don't know if they come from the
> squid, the combined web server logs, both, or what.

Only the squids. The last rotation is done at the same time each night,
the logs are moved to zwinger, there they're merged, sorted (by domain,
purges removed etc) & analyzed.

>> I'm just looking for a nice number to tell reporters who ask me.
>>
>> Can I safely say 75 million pageviews per month?

Don't cite february's 'page view' number, rather use the url group one
('wiki pages' and 'special pages and editing' combined). Webalizer
calculates 'visits' based on page views, so substract maybe 1/3 in
february. The march 'page view' number is ok as it is.

--
Gabriel Wicke


body:
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 19:31:05 +0000, David Rodeback wrote:

>> Download and install the texts.  Spider your installation and extract
>> images references.  Convert the filenames to those matching the pictures
>> at the WP site.  Download the files of this list using 'wget'.
>>
>> Or something like that could work.
>>
>
> Since our current process includes all these steps except the last, at which
> point we link to the file, not get it, this is easily done.
>
> Am I to gather that a reasonably well-behaved spider is preferred to linking
> back to Wikipedia's site as we have been doing?
>
> Can someone define for me what would be the off-peak hours in which such a
> spider should run?

See
http://wikimedia.org/stats/live/org.wikimedia.all.squid.requests-hits.html

> Finally, is there a place at Wikipedia (I know of several elsewhere) for
> registering such spiders with descriptions and contact information, in case
> someone observes the spider working and wonders, or in case there is some sort
> of problem?

Set the user agent to something descriptive, like 'worldhistory'. Be sure
not to include typical spider UA strings. And throttle the requests, wget
offers a rate setting for that.
--
Gabriel Wicke


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Anonymous edits

body:
Its been discussed before but I think we should make a formal decision on
it:

I propose that we change our copyright policy so all anonymous edits have
their copyright assigned to the Wikimedia Foundation.

Imran
--
http://bits.bris.ac.uk/imran


from_name: Andre Engels

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Spambot

body:
"Jimmy Wales" <jwales at bomis.com> schrieb:
> Good grief.  The patent system is out of control.
>
> Actually, since the original captcha idea is in fact clever, and since
> I'm not a totally anti-patent person, I could it being reasonable to
> reward the inventors of the idea with a 2 year patent.  17 years is an
> infinity.
>
> I wonder if there are things that we've developed in house here at
> Wikimedia that we should patent, just to license our patents freely
> of course, and also to make fun of the patent system.

Problem is that patents cost money and time to issue. On the other hand,
if we find a way to issue it in some way that it is "free, provided you
don't stand on our mat with your patents either", it might be useful.

Now, I don't know the inner workings of the Wikipedia software well
enough to know what might be patented there, but on the outside:

* best to patent, but most likely to fall short on being the first would
  of course be the combination of wiki-like technology with databases.
  Something like using a database to enable users to change webpages and
  storing them in a simplified format that can be worked into HTML.
* namespaces. Having webpages in a database with both a title and an
  identifier giving various kinds of pages. Could be patented as a way
  of allowing users to make comments on webpages (on a separate page)
* reverting. Having an interface to show changes to webpages and restore
  them easily to an older version

There's probably more, but it's past 4 am here...

Andre Engels


from_name: perl at hush.ai

subject: [Wikipedia-l] 168 arbitration

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

Acting as a member advocate on the behalf of 168..., I request that his
case be referred (by Jimbo if necessary) to arbitration as soon as possible.
In addition, I propose that his administration powers be reinstated,
as they were removed without due process. Thank you.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify
Version: Hush 2.3

wkYEARECAAYFAkBS2+wACgkQImu8Pbyf50GtXQCgs7hBvWN9HZxlEoK1/WQYOyFrxQAA
n1+vB+mHXXQ7k3ZX/wZpt9PUCH45
=AiFw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Concerned about your privacy? Follow this link to get
FREE encrypted email: https://www.hushmail.com/?l=2

Free, ultra-private instant messaging with Hush Messenger
https://www.hushmail.com/services.php?subloc=messenger&l=434

Promote security and make money with the Hushmail Affiliate Program:
https://www.hushmail.com/about.php?subloc=affiliate&l=427


subject: [Wikitech-l] difference between cvs access and developer access

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

I was reading "developer policy" and noticed that cvs access seemed to
be different than developer access. Is there different policy for both?
I assume that developer access means direct ssh access to the server.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify
Version: Hush 2.3

wkYEARECAAYFAkBS5g8ACgkQImu8Pbyf50EgngCaAjESvFeCw+LxAtsex9Of1FHqfewA
n0XqLb5D3zvU3tRjvTtW1DgppViZ
=eEqz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Concerned about your privacy? Follow this link to get
FREE encrypted email: https://www.hushmail.com/?l=2

Free, ultra-private instant messaging with Hush Messenger
https://www.hushmail.com/services.php?subloc=messenger&l=434

Promote security and make money with the Hushmail Affiliate Program:
https://www.hushmail.com/about.php?subloc=affiliate&l=427


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Edit war policy meaningless

body:
Just hang on. The arbitration committee is apparently going to try a little
bit of wet noodle on Wik, but after they all see that it just encourages him
there will be some serious rethinking.

You are correct but are not being patient.

Wik is welcome to change and hopefully will, but as we move forward and if
he continues with his current pattern eventually the fur will fly.

As you seem on one end of the continuum I suggest you mark time until the
"masses" catch up with you.

Fred

> From: erik_moeller at gmx.de (Erik Moeller)
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: 13 Mar 2004 16:00:00 +0100
> To: wikien-l at wikimedia.org
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Edit war policy meaningless
>
> So, are we going to do something about edit wars or not? What exactly is
> page protection going to accomplish if an individual like Wik will engage
> in an edit war on virtually every page they are involved in? Or per-
> article bans? Are we going to ban Wik from dozens of articles? Run after
> him wherever he goes?
>
> I note on the arbitration for Wik that the consensus among the committee
> is leaning towards not handling the case of Wik directly because a 24 hour
> ban policy is *under discussion*.  Well, that policy has been sabotaged
> for nonsensical reasons which could easily have been addressed by flexible
> language in the policy itself.
>
> If people like Wik can engage in edit wars without serious consequences,
> and I on the other hand am attacked for doing what I can to intervene (as
> in the case of [[McFly]], where I protected the page which Wik had blanked
> repeatedly and - gasp - edited it afterwards), then it is clear that the
> Wikipedia community as a whole *wants* edit wars to happen.
>
> Well, if you want edit wars to happen, you sure as hell are going to get
> edit wars. And don't expect me to hold back if someone like Wik gets into
> a conflict with me.
>
> If I sound angry, that's because I am. The bullies are being protected
> with fallacious arguments of free speech and "WikiLove". We need
> enforcement here. And I'm very disappointed in Jimbo for not doing
> something about this issue and endlessly delaying any meaningful decision.
> The solution is trivial. Warn and then temporarily ban people who violate
> the *spirt and the letter* of the rule. There are *no* negative side-
> effects of such a policy.
>
> Erik
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Thomas R. Koll

subject: [Wikitech-l] Fun with bots

body:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 04:36:27PM -0500, David Friedland wrote:
> I have ~200 files that I would like to upload to the en:Wikipedia. They
> are recordings of all the sounds in the International Phonetic Alphabet.
> I don't want to upload them by hand, so I am hacking together a little
> libwww-perl-based script to upload them automatically under my username.

upload.py from pywikipediabot.sf.net

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


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Creative Commons Licence

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

I would think that we would be able to use work originally licensed under
the cc license on wikipedia even if we relicense it under the GFDL. There
is nothing in the cc license that says we can't. I think some wikipedians
even use photos that are licensed under the cc.

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 09:38:20 -0800 Evan Prodromou <evan at wikitravel.org>
wrote:
>>>>>> "GB" == Guillaume Blanchard <gblanchard at arcsy.co.jp> writes:
>
>    GB> This statement is right?  License compatible with GFDL:
>
>That depends on what you mean by "compatible". If you mean, "you
>can
>include works under license X with works under the GFDL", practically
>any value of X will work.
>
>If you mean, "You can re-license a work made under the license X
>under
>the GFDL", then X can only be "public domain", "GFDL", or something
>BSD-like (such as CC-BY).
>
>If you mean "You can re-license a work made under the GFDL under
>license X", then it's just the GFDL.
>
>If you mean, "You can dual-license a work under both license X and
>the
>GFDL," then it can be practically any license. HOWEVER, dual-licensing
>with copyleft licenses only lasts for one generation: people who
>make
>derivative works have to decide which license to choose, and license
>under only that. No current copyleft license allows you to re-license
>under a license with a similar spirit but different details.
>
>If it's not clear already, dual licensing is a lot of trouble. The
>idea is nice, but it makes for a lot of head-scratching.
>
>    GB> By the way, no one answer my question about if derivation
>is
>    GB> allowed with fair use image and who decide the fairness
>of a
>    GB> picture?
>
>There's a good Web site here with info on fair use:
>
>        http://fairuse.stanford.edu/
>
>Fair use (or fair dealing) is not a license. It is an exception
>to US
>and Commonwealth country copyright law that says that you can make
>unauthorized copies or excerpts of work under certain circumstances.
>
>Fair use is a _defense_ if you are sued for copyright violation.
>The
>courts decide if your unauthorized copying is excusable under the
>principle of fair use. In the US, it depends who you are, why you're
>using the copyrighted work, how much you're using, and what the
>effect
>is on the copyright holder and the market. It is a complicated and
>subjective decision. In other countries, the rules are different.
>
>~ESP
>
>--
>Evan Prodromou <evan at wikitravel.org>
>Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/
>The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify
Version: Hush 2.3

wkYEARECAAYFAkBTAvIACgkQImu8Pbyf50H98QCgj4o5fsmvNRkLMlcHNDxO3WrFb/YA
oIfLBCAPDh9xSZCBK+oDlcMkP4js
=1I9o
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Concerned about your privacy? Follow this link to get
FREE encrypted email: https://www.hushmail.com/?l=2

Free, ultra-private instant messaging with Hush Messenger
https://www.hushmail.com/services.php?subloc=messenger&l=434

Promote security and make money with the Hushmail Affiliate Program:
https://www.hushmail.com/about.php?subloc=affiliate&l=427


from_name: Nikola Smolenski

subject: [Wikitech-l] <red>tags</red>; and $wgUseDatabaseMessages question

body:
I'm playing with MediaWiki code, and have added the ability of parsing
HTML-like tags: for example, <red>text</red> would display text in red color.
Is this interesting enough to be included in the code?

This was mentioned a month ago in the "support for <span> tags" thread. Aside
from being easier to remember and type then <font color=red> it would also
produce HTML without now deprecated <font> tags.

I also have a question: when $wgUseDatabaseMessages is set to false, use of
{{msg:}} tags is disabled as well. Is this intended? If yes, why? I would
like to fix this, but cannot figure out how.This problem is apparent on
Serbian and, i guess, other non-English Wikipedias: LanguageSr.php is not
copied to database, so database messages must be disabled, but that forces
{{msg:}} tags not to work.


subject: [Wikitech-l] filecopyerror, why?

body:
 Could not copy file "" to
  "/var/www/html/wiki/upload/f/f8/Appunti_non_lin.pdf".

My installation is here : http://iperappunti.homeip.net
The file is here :
http://www.elet.polimi.it/upload/damore/appunti_non_lin.pdf
Is it too large (2.5 mb)?
Thank you.

Regards.
Alberto


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [WikiEN-l] Edit war policy meaningless

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

>So, are we going to do something about edit wars or not? What exactly is
>page protection going to accomplish if an individual like Wik will engage
>in an edit war on virtually every page they are involved in? Or per-
>article bans? Are we going to ban Wik from dozens of articles? Run after
>him wherever he goes?
>
>
Page protection accomplishes nothing.  In fact, I'd say if anything it
encourages edit wars.

>I note on the arbitration for Wik that the consensus among the committee
>is leaning towards not handling the case of Wik directly because a 24 hour
>ban policy is *under discussion*.  Well, that policy has been sabotaged
>for nonsensical reasons which could easily have been addressed by flexible
>language in the policy itself.
>
>
Why don't you propose the flexible language?  It seems to me that
flexible language would make things worse.  Users can already be banned
for clear vandalism.  There's no need for page protection when a user
can be banned instead.

>If people like Wik can engage in edit wars without serious consequences,
>and I on the other hand am attacked for doing what I can to intervene (as
>in the case of [[McFly]], where I protected the page which Wik had blanked
>repeatedly and - gasp - edited it afterwards), then it is clear that the
>Wikipedia community as a whole *wants* edit wars to happen.
>
>
Speaking for myself, I don't understand what the problem is with edit
wars in the first place.  The problem isn't the edit wars, the problem
is the lack of discussion.  That's why I, and many others, support the
revert guideline, *as a guideline*, but agree that there are cases where
there simply is nothing to discuss.

Another issue, only tangentially related to edit wars, is what to do
while a dispute is being resolved.  The general feeling is that the page
should be kept in the state it was before the dispute until the dispute
is resolved.  Perhaps this could be made into policy, or at least a
guideline.  But clearly there are situations where this is not an
acceptable solution.  For instance, blatantly incorrect contributions
which didn't get caught for a while, but which is being held on to by a
certain person or group of people.  These are complicated issues, and
just saying "don't revert, or we'll ban you" is much too simple of a
proposed solution.

Anthony


from_name: fabiform

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: Edit war policy meaningless;
	incentives for good behaviour; wikimoney

body:
--- Sheldon Rampton <sheldon.rampton at verizon.net>
wrote:
>
> I wonder, though, if we could refocus our attention
> away from
> strategies for punishing or controlling the behavior
> of people who
> act badly, and instead look for ways to reward
> *good* behavior.

[snip]

> I propose creating a new category of "registered,
> confirmed users,"
> which would fall in between our current categories
> of "registered
> users" and "sysops." These would be users who, in
> addition to basic
> registration, have provided some confirmation that
> they are
> verifiably unique individuals and not merely the
> umpteenth sock
> puppet of Bird or some other game-player.

I don't think this proposal does anything very
positive to encourage the things we want to see in
wikipedia.

I can see the logic behind it (although I think you
made some mistakes, non-sysops can move pages, and I
believe that sysop=admin, and the term you were
looking for in 4 should have been developer or
something like that).  But, at the moment sysops are
(or should be) trusted with certain adminstative tasks
but their opinions in article formation/ content
disputes etc should not be given any more weight than
those of any other users.

You're proposing a more overt status-system which in
my opinion is only going to get used to bash "lesser"
users over the head.  It's bad enough that people
already seem to think that sysopship is a status
symbol, I wouldn't like to see this developed any
further.

> There might be some other rewards that we could
> offer to encourage
> good behavior. For example, we could have monthly
> prizes in various
> categories, such as best new article; editor of the
> month; or most
> congenial member of a non-mainstream religion (a
> category I've
> created specially for Ed). The prizes could be small
> tokens of
> appreciation such as coffee mugs, and wouldn't need
> to cost much.
> Another possibility might be to encourage real-world
> interactions
> between Wikipedians, for example by sponsoring
> social mixers in
> different locales. If people start seeing the
> Wikipedia as a way to
> actually get to know other people (and maybe even as
> a vehicle for
> career networking), they'd probably feel greater
> incentive to behave
> well. Maybe the social mixers could also double as
> fund-raisers.

Now, I like the idea of encouraging good behaviour in
such a positive way (prizes and fun things - at the
moment the barnstar is the only such thing I know of).
 :)

On a related note I was chatting in IRC yesterday
about wikimoney and how useless I find it.  I founded
a wikiproject which will involve the creation of
literally hundreds of new articles, finding hundreds
of images etc.  And what do I have to motivate people
to join in with this rather than any other
wikiactivity?  W17!  How about giving wikiprojects a
monthly allowence to be spent on incentives related to
that project?

Fabiform.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
http://mail.yahoo.com


from_name: Rick

subject: [WikiEN-l] Edit war policy meaningless

body:
Mediation between me and Wik is now approaching a month.  None of our procedure mean anything if there's no sense of urgency.

RickK

Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:
So, are we going to do something about edit wars or not? What exactly is
page protection going to accomplish if an individual like Wik will engage
in an edit war on virtually every page they are involved in? Or per-
article bans? Are we going to ban Wik from dozens of articles? Run after
him wherever he goes?

I note on the arbitration for Wik that the consensus among the committee
is leaning towards not handling the case of Wik directly because a 24 hour
ban policy is *under discussion*. Well, that policy has been sabotaged
for nonsensical reasons which could easily have been addressed by flexible
language in the policy itself.

If people like Wik can engage in edit wars without serious consequences,
and I on the other hand am attacked for doing what I can to intervene (as
in the case of [[McFly]], where I protected the page which Wik had blanked
repeatedly and - gasp - edited it afterwards), then it is clear that the
Wikipedia community as a whole *wants* edit wars to happen.

Well, if you want edit wars to happen, you sure as hell are going to get
edit wars. And don't expect me to hold back if someone like Wik gets into
a conflict with me.

If I sound angry, that's because I am. The bullies are being protected
with fallacious arguments of free speech and "WikiLove". We need
enforcement here. And I'm very disappointed in Jimbo for not doing
something about this issue and endlessly delaying any meaningful decision.
The solution is trivial. Warn and then temporarily ban people who violate
the *spirt and the letter* of the rule. There are *no* negative side-
effects of such a policy.

Erik

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040313/92fd37d0/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Edit war policy meaningless

body:
Wow, "expressed their dislike of edit wars".  THAT's going to make people behave!  All of those "tsk tks"s and "now, now"s is accomplishing absouletly NOTHING.  Things are getting worse because we can't get any consensus on WHAT to do because of people like you, who just want to smile and say "how awful", but not give anyone any authority to do anything, and instead attack those who DO do something..

RickK

Martin Harper <martin at myreddice.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
Well, let's see. You do something people don't like, and you get complaints. Wik does
something people don't like, and Wik gets complaints. I'm not sure how you finesse that
into a community desire for edit wars. Especially given that the overwhelming majority
of the community have expressed their dislike of edit wars, just as you have.

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040313/e235c766/attachment.htm


from_name: Brion Vibber

body:
On Mar 13, 2004, at 07:42, <perl at hush.ai> wrote:
> I was reading "developer policy" and noticed that cvs access seemed to
> be different than developer access. Is there different policy for both?
> I assume that developer access means direct ssh access to the server.

"Developer access" is a marker on wiki user accounts. It is largely
obsolete, but used to allow read-write access to the database through
an interface in the wiki. This is just a little too potentially
dangerous (unencrypted connection with weak authentication + ability to
alter or erase the entire database) so was removed. Having "developer
access" doesn't necessarily make you a developer (only doing work to
develop the software does that!) and being a developer doesn't
necessarily mean you have "developer access".

CVS access is the ability to check code updates into our CVS repository
on sourceforge. It doesn't relate to our servers at all.

A number of developers have login access on our servers to install and
configure things there and to maintain backups, statistics, etc.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040313/6f62fee4/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Evan Prodromou

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Creative Commons Licence

body:
>>>>> "GB" == Guillaume Blanchard <gblanchard at arcsy.co.jp> writes:

    GB> This statement is right?  License compatible with GFDL:

That depends on what you mean by "compatible". If you mean, "you can
include works under license X with works under the GFDL", practically
any value of X will work.

If you mean, "You can re-license a work made under the license X under
the GFDL", then X can only be "public domain", "GFDL", or something
BSD-like (such as CC-BY).

If you mean "You can re-license a work made under the GFDL under
license X", then it's just the GFDL.

If you mean, "You can dual-license a work under both license X and the
GFDL," then it can be practically any license. HOWEVER, dual-licensing
with copyleft licenses only lasts for one generation: people who make
derivative works have to decide which license to choose, and license
under only that. No current copyleft license allows you to re-license
under a license with a similar spirit but different details.

If it's not clear already, dual licensing is a lot of trouble. The
idea is nice, but it makes for a lot of head-scratching.

    GB> By the way, no one answer my question about if derivation is
    GB> allowed with fair use image and who decide the fairness of a
    GB> picture?

There's a good Web site here with info on fair use:

        http://fairuse.stanford.edu/

Fair use (or fair dealing) is not a license. It is an exception to US
and Commonwealth country copyright law that says that you can make
unauthorized copies or excerpts of work under certain circumstances.

Fair use is a _defense_ if you are sued for copyright violation. The
courts decide if your unauthorized copying is excusable under the
principle of fair use. In the US, it depends who you are, why you're
using the copyrighted work, how much you're using, and what the effect
is on the copyright holder and the market. It is a complicated and
subjective decision. In other countries, the rules are different.

~ESP

--
Evan Prodromou <evan at wikitravel.org>
Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/
The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide


from_name: Sheldon Rampton

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Edit war policy meaningless

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

>  If I sound angry, that's because I am. The bullies are being protected
>  with fallacious arguments of free speech and "WikiLove". We need
>  enforcement here. And I'm very disappointed in Jimbo for not doing
>  something about this issue and endlessly delaying any meaningful decision.
>  The solution is trivial. Warn and then temporarily ban people who violate
>  the *spirt and the letter* of the rule. There are *no* negative side-
>  effects of such a policy.

There *are* negative side-effects of such a policy:

(1) People against whom enforcement action is taken will sometimes
respond by escalating the conflict and resorting to more ambitious
abuse.

(2) The more enforcement actions are taken, the greater the risk that
Wikipedia will become mired in rules, bureaucracy, punishments,
cliques and power struggles.

Nevertheless, I think the costs of *not* taking action outweigh the
risks of taking action in most of the recent cases that have been
discussed here.

I wonder, though, if we could refocus our attention away from
strategies for punishing or controlling the behavior of people who
act badly, and instead look for ways to reward *good* behavior.

I've been rethinking some of my recent suggestions (e.g., requiring
people to provide an ISP-based email address at time of
registration). I think the overwhelmingly negative reaction to that
suggestion reflects a desire on the part of most people here to avoid
measures that take away existing freedoms and privileges. Well and
good, understood. But what if we think instead about measures that
simply offer *more incentive* for people to work cooperatively and
constructively together?

Right now, the Wikipedia has a multi-tiered set of user privileges. I
know we try not to regard it as a "ranking" of users, but in practice
it is. The tiers are:

(1) Anonymous IP contributors. They can't have watchlists, make
"minor" edits, or customize their user preferences.

(2) Registered users. They can do all of the above, but they can't
move, delete or protect pages, and they can't block vandals.

(3) Sysops. They can do all of the above, but they can't do some of
the things that administrators can do.

(4) Administrators.

(5) Jimbo, our exalted ruler.

Technical considerations are only part of the reason for the
additional privileges given to people in category (2) as compared to
(1). Registered users have given us greater reason to trust them,
because by registering they have made it somewhat easier to
communicate with them and to collaborate. At present, however, the
information people are asked to provide upon registration is so
limited that it is impossible to verify their identity, creating the
problem we have with sock puppets.

I propose creating a new category of "registered, confirmed users,"
which would fall in between our current categories of "registered
users" and "sysops." These would be users who, in addition to basic
registration, have provided some confirmation that they are
verifiably unique individuals and not merely the umpteenth sock
puppet of Bird or some other game-player. Methods of confirmation
might include:

*supplying a verified, ISP-based email address, street address,
social security number, credit card number, or other reasonable
evidence of unique identity.

*payment of a nominal contribution (such as US $1) to the WikiMedia
Foundation. This would enable people who are unwilling to provide
their identity in any other way to demonstrate good faith, while
deterring them from creating numerous sock puppets.

The existing category of registered users would be changed so that
people who are registered but not confirmed are no longer allowed to
make "minor" edits. Other than that, it would stay the same.

The category of "registered, confirmed users" would be allowed to
make "minor edits," and also to move and protect pages, and they
would be able to temp-block anonymous IP numbers for up to, say, 24
hours.

The other categories (sysops, administrators and Jimbo), would remain
unchanged, except that they would acquire a new power, namely the
ability to demote "registered, confirmed users" to the status of mere
"registered users." This power should only be used in cases where a
registered, confirmed user has shown a pattern of bad behavior (such
as edit wars, cussing, or chewing tobacco and missing the spittoon).

Our current "Recent Changes" feature would have a preference option
that makes it possible to only display recent changes by anonymous
IPs and unconfirmed registered users. This would make it easier to
monitor for vandals, because most vandalism would likely be committed
by people who fall into one of those categories.

This is just a rough draft of a concept, but the point is that we
want to reward people who behave collaboratively, and we want to
empower Wikipedians themselves to police the joint. Supplying a
confirmed identity is one way of building trust and displaying a
willingness to collaborate, so we should reward it with additional
privileges and empower people who have done so to participate in
curbing vandals.

There might be some other rewards that we could offer to encourage
good behavior. For example, we could have monthly prizes in various
categories, such as best new article; editor of the month; or most
congenial member of a non-mainstream religion (a category I've
created specially for Ed). The prizes could be small tokens of
appreciation such as coffee mugs, and wouldn't need to cost much.
Another possibility might be to encourage real-world interactions
between Wikipedians, for example by sponsoring social mixers in
different locales. If people start seeing the Wikipedia as a way to
actually get to know other people (and maybe even as a vehicle for
career networking), they'd probably feel greater incentive to behave
well. Maybe the social mixers could also double as fund-raisers.

Anyway...this is probably enough half-baked ideas for one day. I've
met my quota. :-)

--Sheldon Rampton


subject: [WikiEN-l] Edit war policy meaningless

body:
On the contrary, Martin, or User:Reddice is the one who has the authority
and in the fullness of time will use it.

Fred

From: Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com>
Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 11:43:15 -0800 (PST)
To: martin at myreddice.co.uk, English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Edit war policy meaningless

Wow, "expressed their dislike of edit wars".  THAT's going to make people
behave!  All of those "tsk tks"s and "now, now"s is accomplishing absouletly
NOTHING.  Things are getting worse because we can't get any consensus on
WHAT to do because of people like you, who just want to smile and say "how
awful", but not give anyone any authority to do anything, and instead attack
those who DO do something..

RickK

Martin Harper <martin at myreddice.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
Well, let's see. You do something people don't like, and you get complaints.
Wik does
something people don't like, and Wik gets complaints. I'm not sure how you
finesse that
into a community desire for edit wars. Especially given that the
overwhelming majority
of the community have expressed their dislike of edit wars, just as you
have.

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mailtag_us/*http://mail.yahoo.com>  -
More reliable, more storage, less spam
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040313/86ba1b4c/attachment.htm


body:
www.photographien.org
+49 (0)30 6290 4734
nur: lars at l-hennings.de

Hi,
first: I can open the htm to wiki with the 7ZIP but not work with it, it is
not to start on DOS ??

But I can work - on DOS ! - with one pdf-to-htm (pdftohtml-0.36)

It makes an index-htm with on the left to click the pages, all the text in
pages and it brings the pictures to the pages but not the layout I did. But
it is OK.

The jpgs are singular, the text is one file - alltogether 1,5 MB

To work with it in netscape editor takes much time but can done.

What?s to do with it.

For the list-people:
It is a textbook in german teaching all about traditional photography (no
automatic) and especially shows the greatformatcamera, for if you know all
about photography if you know thisone.

Cameras/ color/ lightmessuring/ film/ shift/ scheimpflug/ image in the PC -
really all.
130 pages 100 images

best wishes
lars

----- Original Message -----
From: "lars hennings" <wissenschaft at t-online.de>
To: "Wikimedia textbook discussion" <textbook-l at wikimedia.org>
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 8:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Textbook-l] convert .doc & .pdf into wiki format (and
compiletexts to print)

>
> www.photographien.org
> +49 (0)30 6290 4734
> nur: lars at l-hennings.de
>
>
> Hi, this no "gentleman" but this one looking for convert a book to wiki.
> Thanks for help.
> But I?m only - sorry - a win user.
>
> What ist tarbal? I can not open it.
>
> The htm from word is not so good - in the int. expl. it is not correct, in
> netscape it is chaos.
> We will see - if I can open it.
>
> Till now I found no other programm for free convert pdf to htm, what seems
> to be the best way for all - it is clear - no frames...
> There is one making one htm for every page of the book and a list of all,
> that?s ok but the free version works only with five pages. verypdf.com
>
> So, if it can opened by win. I will try.
>
> best wishes
>
> lars
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Imran Ghory" <imran at bits.bris.ac.uk>
> To: "Wikimedia textbook discussion" <textbook-l at wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 7:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [Textbook-l] convert .doc & .pdf into wiki format (and
compile
> texts to print)
>
>
> > On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, Karl Wick wrote:
> >
> > > Anyone know tools to convert ms.doc or adobe.pdf format
> > > files to Wiki format? Like a script or website .. There is
> > > a gentleman who would like to contribute his
> > > German-language textbook to the project and has everything
> > > ready in these two formats. It is 150 pages w- 100 images,
> > > not a quick porting document.
> >
> >
> > There is an HTML to wikipedia convertor, so you could use html as a
midway
> > ground. Although MS Word produces attrocious html, so it might need to
be
> > cleaned up a bit (although IIRC Macromedia dreamweaver comes with some
> > software especially designed to clean up MS word html).
> >
> > Imran
> > --
> > http://bits.bris.ac.uk/imran
> > _______________________________________________
> > Textbook-l mailing list
> > Textbook-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> Textbook-l mailing list
> Textbook-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [WikiEN-l] Edit war policy meaningless

body:
So, are we going to do something about edit wars or not? What exactly is
page protection going to accomplish if an individual like Wik will engage
in an edit war on virtually every page they are involved in? Or per-
article bans? Are we going to ban Wik from dozens of articles? Run after
him wherever he goes?

I note on the arbitration for Wik that the consensus among the committee
is leaning towards not handling the case of Wik directly because a 24 hour
ban policy is *under discussion*.  Well, that policy has been sabotaged
for nonsensical reasons which could easily have been addressed by flexible
language in the policy itself.

If people like Wik can engage in edit wars without serious consequences,
and I on the other hand am attacked for doing what I can to intervene (as
in the case of [[McFly]], where I protected the page which Wik had blanked
repeatedly and - gasp - edited it afterwards), then it is clear that the
Wikipedia community as a whole *wants* edit wars to happen.

Well, if you want edit wars to happen, you sure as hell are going to get
edit wars. And don't expect me to hold back if someone like Wik gets into
a conflict with me.

If I sound angry, that's because I am. The bullies are being protected
with fallacious arguments of free speech and "WikiLove". We need
enforcement here. And I'm very disappointed in Jimbo for not doing
something about this issue and endlessly delaying any meaningful decision.
The solution is trivial. Warn and then temporarily ban people who violate
the *spirt and the letter* of the rule. There are *no* negative side-
effects of such a policy.

Erik


from_name: lars hennings

subject:
[Textbook-l] convert .doc & .pdf into wiki format (and compile
	texts to print)

body:
www.photographien.org
+49 (0)30 6290 4734
nur: lars at l-hennings.de

SORRY - but in the middle of the photogr. textbook much images are not
included.

So I can?t do.

If someone - a german group ? - is interested in the book, it is as a pdf
at:

www.photographien.org/hennings-photo.de-script-vertraulich.pdf  NEW NAME

best wishes

lars


from_name: Arno M

subject: [WikiEN-l] Bird

body:
It sounds like you made the same error as I did - you
did not read all of the postings before you responded
to them. I withdrew this later on - see 'I shot my bolt
too soon', though Bird was (and I think still is)
a problem.

--

--------- Original Message ---------

DATE: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 10:19:30
From: Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com>
To: redgum46 at lycos.com, English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Cc:

>Arno M wrote:
>> So what is Jimbo's response to this little edict? Another "all you
>>need is love" approach?
>
>Sure, all you need is love of Special:Blockip.  :-)
>
>Look, we do have to be tolerant of a wide variety of perspectives on
>how editing should be done, how the course of the articles should go,
>etc.  But we need not tolerate people who rant and curse at us and
>accuse of authoritarianism because we won't accept their extreme bias
>as being a neutral presentation.
>
>--Jimbo
>
>
>

____________________________________________________________
Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages
http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.asp?SRC=lycos10


subject:
[Wikitech-l] Re: difference between cvs access and developer
	access

body:
On Mar 13, 2004, at 14:23, Timwi wrote:
> Brion Vibber wrote:
>> On Mar 13, 2004, at 07:42, <perl at hush.ai> wrote:
>>> I was reading "developer policy" and noticed that cvs access seemed
>>> to
>>> be different than developer access. Is there different policy for
>>> both?
>>> I assume that developer access means direct ssh access to the server.
>> "Developer access" is a marker on wiki user accounts. It is largely
>> obsolete, but used to allow read-write access to the database through
>> an interface in the wiki.  [...]
>
> It seems that you haven't actually answered his question (about the
> policy with regards to this kind of access).

There is no policy about it because it isn't used anymore.

> I've also asked questions about it before and I've been ignored. Is
> there something we're not supposed to know? :-p

What was your question?

>> CVS access is the ability to check code updates into our CVS
>> repository on sourceforge. It doesn't relate to our servers at all.
>
> Thing is, there are a number of tasks ([[Wikipedia:Changing
> attribution for an edit]] for example) for which write-access to the
> DB is necessary, and CVS access doesn't help.
>
> What is being done about this?

I believe a tool for this is being added to the software in the next
versions. Currently there's a command-line hack since it's a relatively
rare task.

>  Clearly, we need more people with write-access if we want
> less-than-important tasks like this to get handled, but of course I'm
> very aware of the potential risk associated with an account that has
> DB write-access. This is why I asked if it was possible to grant this
> access only temporarily (e.g. for 24 hours), so someone can perform
> the task without all these risks associated with it.

That doesn't make a lot of sense; somebody with regular write access
would still have to grant the temporary access, negating the benefit.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040313/06e43565/attachment.pgp>