subject:
[Wikitech-l] [MediaWiki-CVS] SVN: [20615]
	trunk/phase3/RELEASE-NOTES

body:
On 22/03/07, 80686 at svn.wikimedia.org <80686 at svn.wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Revision: 20615
> Author:   80686
> Date:     2007-03-22 01:08:08 -0800 (Thu, 22 Mar 2007)
>
> Log Message:
> -----------
> updated release notes

The latest changes go at the *end* of the release notes.

Rob Church


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Denny Colt

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Reverting banned users,
	and users who engage banned users

body:
On 3/22/07, Skyring <skyring at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I've seen some people get really anal over this, and indeed I've seen some
> editors go to a lot of effort to revert good edits or article creations,
> even going so far as to label them "vandalism in progress", so long as
> they
> were by a banned editor they didn't like.
>
> This sort of wikinazi behaviour does nothing to enhance our image; it's
> fodder for yet another round of articles poking fun at the community, and
> confirmation that Wikipedia is a place where silly power games are
> encouraged.
>
> --
> Peter in Canberra

I can see the point you are coming from... but if a user is banned, they can
either (not endorsing this mind you) post under a new name--start over, not
do bad things, and be a helpful member of the community, severing all old
ties I guess... or appeal to get their name cleared/unblocked. my
concern/problem is that certain admins in presumably good faith are giving
people who are banned a free voice to participate... which makes no sense. I
am not understanding why we are turning a blind eye for *certain* banned
users. Why should some have magic rights the other thousands of blocked ones
dont?

--
- Denny


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: phoebe ayers

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Looking to interview Wikipedians

body:
On 3/22/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hoi,
> When this study hits the Washington Post and we look at it and consider it
> a
> bunch of lies, we are to blame when we did not speak up when we had the
> chance to do so.
>
> When you consider peer review, it is always done after the fact. It is
> much
> better to have input before a study is started. Those issues that are
> obvious can be addressed before time and money is wasted. It also leads to
> better science.
>
> If there is one study I would like to see done, is a wikipedia with a
> large
> ex-pat community and see how that affects the NPOV of the project.
>
> Thanks,
>     Gerard

Gerard and all,

There is certainly more than one study that can and should be done. I for
one would welcome *any* more data about Wikipedia contributors, even if it
was limited to Wikipedia contributors living in Dubuque, Iowa between 2004
and 2005, so long as that limitation was taken into account and made clear
in the study. There is no such thing as "the perfect study," and I am sure
that you will agree that not all ex-pat or non-US English-language
perspectives are the same either. Generalizing about all "wikipedia
contributors" based on *any* cross section of the data will likely be
flawed.

I think what this points to is that we simply need more good, rigorous
studies of contributors. I am glad that this researcher made his IRB-imposed
and methodological limits clear up front, rather than so many projects which
simply say "we're studying Wikipedia contributors" -- and I am glad that
contributors to this list and others are willing to share ideas and
experience to help make research projects better. I think he and others have
probably realized after this thread that the more information you can
provide about your study, the better :) However, let's not acquire a
reputation of flaming any research project that gets proposed.

-- phoebe

p.s. Mr. Johnson noted on the research-l list that the US constraint was an
IRB requirement. For those who are not familiar with the concept of an
[[Institutional Review Board]]... the requirements set by an IRB are
generally not optional, if you want to do your study on university time with
university money, and/or get it published anywhere.  You can try as a
researcher to get the IRB to make another decision about the constraints
they set on your particular study ... but if they don't agree then you are
pretty much out of luck. The IRB is free to say things like US-based
contributors only, or you have to take particular privacy measures for
people's data, or you have to hop on your left foot in circles while doing
interviews, and you pretty much have to go with it.


list: commons-l

from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Commons-l] Flommons!

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

Brianna Laugher wrote:
> What Flommons should do, is index each image page without the '.jpg'
> on the end, so images get picked up by google,

Image pages already get picked up by google; that issue was sorted out
on their end last year.

Of course that's separate from the fact that Commons currently has a
terrible, terrible user interface.

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

iD8DBQFGApIOwRnhpk1wk44RAjQtAJwNdxigAa01PInpLnsJD0EKH25uGwCdFTmZ
jNllW07Z0wcyv9ASc7VFgOM=
=5/ET
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Jeff Raymond

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Just what *is* Jimbo's role anyway? - "nofollow"
 decision

body:
David Gerard wrote:

> Of course, the problem with rules is that they are seen by some as
> there for gaming. But then, we probably need something less ad-hoc at
> this stage.

The fear of rules and stability in the project is laughable, honestly.
People already game consensus, and if people try to game the rules, you
slap 'em down.  It's not hard.

But, OMG NOT A BUREAUCRACY MUST IAR!!!

Wikipedia's got to grow up.

-Jeff


from_name: George Herbert

subject: [WikiEN-l] April Fool - how to prepare for the onslaught

body:
On 3/21/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> Erm, can we get back to the topic?

I've got the solution:

We just need to identify and block the troublemakers on the first.

Just IP block (hard, not AO) 0.0.0.0/0 for the 48 hrs...

Wikipedia: The encyclopedia that anybody can edit... NOT.

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


list: wikitech-l

subject: [Wikitech-l] [MediaWiki-CVS] SVN:  [20616] trunk/phase3

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

raymond at svn.wikimedia.org wrote:
> +'nolinkshere-ns'        => "No pages link to '''[[:$1]]''' at namespace {{ns:$2}}.",

This looks kind of ugly... for main namespace it just shows a space, and
for talk namespaces it's got the underscore.

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

iD8DBQFGApTZwRnhpk1wk44RAv+yAKChYXMx2ZxNrWyAf7pwEMgg0nNK0gCfURPv
gZCybJzeS2+dh1qMcKVUK50=
=BQte
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: cohesion

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Just what *is* Jimbo's role anyway? -
	"nofollow"decision

body:
On 3/22/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
> This type of informality may have worked in the developmental stage of WP,
> but is it capable of sustaining the Project as it becomes more complex?
>

I just have to add a strong yes to this! Distributed decision making
and organic processes are new for organizations this large, but that
doesn't mean they are bad.

I would ask another question, Are old forms of hierarchical control
and management capable of sustaining something so complex as
wikipedia? :)

Judson
enwiki:cohesion


from_name: Rama Rama

subject: [Commons-l] Flommons!

body:
> What Flommons should do, is index each image page without the '.jpg'
> on the end, so images get picked up by google, and then google users
> get taken to pretty Flommons, rather than scary unfriendly Commons.
> maybe.

Hmmm, pages are created by Flommons on request, so I am not certain
that they would be indexed by Google ; it's an example of Dark Web,
unless I have misunderstood something.

-- Rama


body:
On 3/22/07, Erica <fangaili at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >Why should some have magic rights the other thousands of blocked ones
> > dont?
> >
> > --
> > - Denny
>
I am also curious about this.
>
> Erica

Perhaps... the real question is: if a user is banned but has an article of
their own/about them, why should they be allowed to post *on-wiki* even when
banned...? I don't think they should get a special priviledge. Being banned,
what should they be contributing beyond pointing out BLP violations? Isn't
that what OFFICE & OTRS are for?

Maybe the wording on the ban policy should be that there are no
circumstances where banned users, even if they were 'notable wikipedians'
can be allowed to interact on-wiki, no different than other non-notable
banned wikipedians? I don't see why they should get special rights that
others bannees don't get...

--
- Denny


from_name: Christiano Moreschi

subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:ATT

body:
Sure, but the analogy isn't perfect. Who will guard the guards themselves?
Admins close AfDs based on a mixture of that local consensus and policy,
sure, but then we have Deletion Review to check that out. Who will look over
Jimbo's shoulder in the manner that Deletion Review looks over the shoulders
of admins closing AfDs? If democracy gives us tyranny of the majority,
godkingship gives us discontent, and consensus ain't working any more, Jimbo
acting as final arbiter for policy just won't work: the English Wikipedia is
too big to be run by one man in this manner.

To be honest, there's no real reason why the English Wikipedia should be
Jimbo's personal fiefdom - which is what it is. The amount of control the
community really has over that is minimal, which causes not only balls-ups -
cf Essjay, if the community had been allowed to see that one sooner a lot of
drama would have been avoided - and also community discontent - cf Credental
Verification, which will doubtless be railroaded through regardless of
consensus on the matter, or lack of it.

A lot of this is irrelevant to me whatever: I'll always keep on writing
articles, because that's darn fun. On the whole, though, I think perhaps the
Arbcom taking a more proactive role in determing consensus and how that
works with policy is preferable. It isn't our wiki, but it should be, and
that gives the community some more clout.

Moreschi

_________________________________________________________________
Get Hotmail, News, Sport and Entertainment from MSN on your mobile.
http://www.msn.txt4content.com/


body:
On 3/22/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:

> No matter how small the town; if it has just two streets that intersect -
> you still need a traffic light.
>

Or a [[Roundabout]], or no light at all (see [[Hans Monderman]]) There
are a lot of alternatives! :)

Judson
enwiki:cohesion


from_name: Phil Boswell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Ref tag usage

body:
Mak-4 wrote:
>
> My answer has always been to put <ref>foo, pg. 72</ref> in the text of
> the article, and the full citation in a separate section at the end. I
> think it makes the wikitext much, much easier to read and edit, and is
> more intuitive to newbies.
> Makemi
>
Before my laptop crashed and consigned my work to the great bit-bucket, I
was working on augmenting the <ref> mechanism to allow something like this
to be done automagically. Maybe I ought to see about resurrecting that
sub-project... There was something about footnotes as well, whereby you
could localise a set of notes to a structure like a table: I'll see what I
can dredge up.

HTH HAND
--
Phil
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Ref-tag-usage-tf3430256.html#a9620518
Sent from the English Wikipedia mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


from_name: Anthony

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Just what *is* Jimbo's role anyway? - "nofollow"
	decision

body:
On 3/21/07, Seth Finkelstein <sethf at sethf.com> wrote:
> *Procedurally*, what was the way in which "nofollow" was added to
> external links? My impression was that Wales just said to do it, and
> it was done, even though there was no "community consensus".

The way I remember it, Jimmy asked Brion Vibber to turn on nofollow,
and then Brion did it.

There was then a discussion over whether or not Jimmy had the
authority to do so, and whether the board should have been involved.

My own personal opinion was that Jimmy had and has the authority to
ask Brion to do anything, just as we all have the authority to ask
Brion to do anything, and that it was Brion who was the one that made
the decision, acting in his role as a foundation employee.

If the board believed that Brion did the wrong thing, they obviously
could have stepped in, formally or informally.

Anthony


from_name: David Gerard

body:
On 22/03/07, Christiano Moreschi <moreschiwikiman at hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

> Sure, but the analogy isn't perfect. Who will guard the guards themselves?
> Admins close AfDs based on a mixture of that local consensus and policy,
> sure, but then we have Deletion Review to check that out. Who will look over
> Jimbo's shoulder in the manner that Deletion Review looks over the shoulders
> of admins closing AfDs? If democracy gives us tyranny of the majority,
> godkingship gives us discontent, and consensus ain't working any more, Jimbo
> acting as final arbiter for policy just won't work: the English Wikipedia is
> too big to be run by one man in this manner.

Big time. The mistake a lot of the troll-critics (Wikipedia Review,
wikitruth) make is to assume that anything wrong with English
Wikipedia is deliberate, rather than the emergent behaviour of a large
volunteer organisation and entirely in line with that. i.e., it's
human and bureaucratic stupidity rather than active or passive malice.

i.e. we're doing something that's hardly ever been done before (a huge
wiki-based encyclopedia enterprise), which means we don't have a lot
of experience from other people to apply to avoiding the standard
fucked-upnesses typical of large volunteer organisations in our
particular case. i.e., we're all winging it.

I think Jimbo was quite aware some time ago that micromanagement just
isn't possible ... and that macro-management isn't really either.

> To be honest, there's no real reason why the English Wikipedia should be
> Jimbo's personal fiefdom - which is what it is. The amount of control the
> community really has over that is minimal, which causes not only balls-ups -
> cf Essjay, if the community had been allowed to see that one sooner a lot of
> drama would have been avoided - and also community discontent - cf Credental
> Verification, which will doubtless be railroaded through regardless of
> consensus on the matter, or lack of it.

It has to be workable and has to gain general community support for
people to bother.

BLP was strongly pushed by Jimbo and the Foundation, but it was (a) an
obviously good idea whose time had come (b) we promptly scrambled to
get something good and workable in place in remarkably quick order.

> A lot of this is irrelevant to me whatever: I'll always keep on writing
> articles, because that's darn fun. On the whole, though, I think perhaps the
> Arbcom taking a more proactive role in determing consensus and how that
> works with policy is preferable. It isn't our wiki, but it should be, and
> that gives the community some more clout.

This is to a large extent how it happens now. c.f. Arbcom notes that
they aren't taking action against an editor or admin in a particular
case, but *do* expect a higher standard of behaviour in future.

- d.


body:
On 22/03/07, Christiano Moreschi <moreschiwikiman at hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

>  Who will look over
> Jimbo's shoulder in the manner that Deletion Review looks over the shoulders
> of admins closing AfDs?

Oh, and the answer to that question appears to be: Everyone!

- d.


from_name: Marc Riddell

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Just what *is* Jimbo's role anyway?
	-	"nofollow"decision

body:
on 3/22/07 10:29 AM, Jeff Raymond at
jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:

> The fear of rules and stability in the project is laughable, honestly.
> People already game consensus, and if people try to game the rules, you
> slap 'em down.  It's not hard.
>
> But, OMG NOT A BUREAUCRACY MUST IAR!!!
>
> Wikipedia's got to grow up.

No matter how small the town; if it has just two streets that intersect -
you still need a traffic light.

Marc


from_name: Zoney

subject: [WikiEN-l] Just what *is* Jimbo's role anyway?

body:
On 21/03/07, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>
> I try to land in the center on most issues,
> rather than staking out any sort of extreme positions.  And I try to
> represent all parts of the community's interest in the broad building of
> consensus as being better than gang warfare.
>
>
Would this involve taking action if that subset of the Wikipedia community
who choose to be involved in decision-making took decisions that were not
sensible?

Wikipedia is not a democracy. This is both a good and a bad thing; I'm
concerned that thus far we've just been fortunate in the balance of
decision-makers. If more rational decision-makers stopped being involved,
Wikipedia will run into problems.

Certainly one could argue that certain categories of action are restricted
to admins, who have to be approved as such. The flaw is that they are
approved by the subset of existing admins who choose to be involved in those
decisions.

Long term this will undoubtedly result in a definite "type" of person who is
involved in decision-making on Wikipedia; it won't be representative (which
as I mentioned, is not entirely a bad thing, but there are reasons people
often choose a democratic model).

I've serious concerns about the direction Wikipedia is going, I don't think
it is sustainable.

Zoney

--
~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...


body:
On 22/03/07, Zoney <zoney.ie at gmail.com> wrote:

> I've serious concerns about the direction Wikipedia is going, I don't think
> it is sustainable.

As I said, I think most of the problems are emergent behaviour of a
large volunteer organisation.

Are there relevant antecedents to what we're doing here? The OED ran
(and runs) on volunteer contributions, but doesn't have an emergent
bureaucracy of volunteers.

- d.


body:
Sure, people shout, but with limited effect, if any.

Moreschi

>From: "David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:ATT
>Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:08:33 +0000
>
>On 22/03/07, Christiano Moreschi <moreschiwikiman at hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >  Who will look over
> > Jimbo's shoulder in the manner that Deletion Review looks over the
>shoulders
> > of admins closing AfDs?
>
>
>Oh, and the answer to that question appears to be: Everyone!
>
>
>- d.
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Hotmail is evolving - check out the new Windows Live Mail.
http://ideas.live.co.uk/


body:
on 3/22/07 11:18 AM, Jossi Fresco at jossifresco at mac.com wrote:

> As I said, I think most of the problems are emergent behaviour of a
>> large volunteer organisation.

David,

Please disregard my earlier response to this. It is quite clear. I've got to
stop responding to emails before my first cup of coffee :-).

Marc


list: foundation-l

from_name: daniwo59 at aol.com

subject: [Foundation-l] My resignation

body:
Hello,

First, I would like to thank those people who have contacted me privately,
expressing concern about the events of the past few days. I truly value your
friendship and support.

That said, at present, I am unwilling to discuss the  reasons for my
resignation from the WMF office team. I plan on remaining an  active editor on various
projects, as I have always been, even before I began  working for WMF. To
ensure that there are no misunderstandings or claims of an  abuse of power, I ask
that all admin status on the various projects be revoked.  If I feel I can
help as an admin, I will ask to be reelected by the normal  process. I look
forward to this opportunity to reenter the community as a new  user and to share
in the building of free  knowledge.
I would also like to announce that I plan on running for the Board of
Trustees in the June elections for the seats currently held by Kat, Oscar, and
Erik. At that time, I will make known my position on how the Wikimedia  Foundation
should operate, and what mistakes I perceive are being made at  present.
So let's leave the gossip and second-guessing behind us and get on with  the
real task at hand--building the largest and most reliable repository of
knowledge ever created.
Danny

************************************** AOL now offers free email to everyone.
 Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] My resignation


body:
On 22/03/07, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:

> Now, you can imagine this as an instance of me being the decider, but I
> think the truth is a lot more complex... and a lot more wonderful...
> than that image would suggest.

And/or a lot more scary ;-)

- d.


from_name: GerardM

body:
Hoi,
When this study hits the Washington Post and we look at it and consider it a
bunch of lies, we are to blame when we did not speak up when we had the
chance to do so.

When you consider peer review, it is always done after the fact. It is much
better to have input before a study is started. Those issues that are
obvious can be addressed before time and money is wasted. It also leads to
better science.

If there is one study I would like to see done, is a wikipedia with a large
ex-pat community and see how that affects the NPOV of the project.

Thanks,
    Gerard

On 3/21/07, Steve <subsume at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Sure, Gerard. =)
>
> I don't think either of us know enough about the study to make long
> guesses/judgments about its methods. While I definitely think the
> points you make are valid and better than most, whether or not it
> applies to this study remains to be seen. While WP-l is a good place
> to get into lengthy debates, its all premature.
>
> Until of course we see the study cited in the Washington Post. Then
> we'll all get together and talk about what a bunch of lies it is. =)
>
> -Steve
>
> On 3/21/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > Steve please tell me /why /I am wrong in stead of resorting to a
> > personal attack, not nice.
> >
> > Thanks, for your recommendation to Harvard. However, given that I am of
> > an age that working is more likely than studying, I hope that your
> > recommendation is also good for Google.. :)
> >
> > Thanks,
> >     GerardM
> >
> > Steve schreef:
> > > By golly I suppose you'd better just call Michigan State University
> > > and tell them the bad news.
> > >
> > > Surely, when they read this INTERNET CONVERSATION they will surely see
> > > their folly in conducting this study. Gerard I think you'd better
> > > contact Harvard, too. Keeping your great wisdom from them is inhumane.
> > >
> > > -S
> > >
> > > On 3/21/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hoi,
> > >> Given that the argument why only American people were included was
> the
> > >> cost of international telephony, your argument sucks. By restricting
> the
> > >> study to the United States it is explicitly about Wikipedia usage in
> the
> > >> United States. When you want to come to a conclusion on any subject
> with
> > >> respect to policies in the English language Wikipedia, the result
> will
> > >> not reflect how this project works.
> > >>
> > >> When you study left handed people, you will find only what is only
> true
> > >> to left handed people by comparing the results to right handed
> people.
> > >> Thanks,
> > >>      GerardM
> > >>
> > >> Robert Brockway schreef:
> > >>
> > >>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> US Wikipedians will probably all be working on the English language
> > >>>> Wikipedia. It means that all the skills and experience associated
> with
> > >>>> small communities, working on an encyclopaedia that does not cover
> all
> > >>>> subject matter. Working on languages where the community it is done
> for
> > >>>> does not know what Wikipedia is, it is that experience that will be
> > >>>> missing. In that way it will hardly cover the breadth of Wikipedia.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>> He doesn't claim to be attempting to cover the breadth of Wikipedia.
> > >>> Implicit in the post is that it concerns Wikipedia usage in the
> United
> > >>> States.
> > >>>
> > >>> I find it is common for people to mistake limits placed on a study
> with a
> > >>> bias in the study.  Let me give another example that might make this
> > >>> clearer.  If a study concerns left handed people (one of the most
> commonly
> > >>> studied groups) then failing to include non-left handed people is
> not a
> > >>> bias in the study, it is a function of the limits of a
> study.  Similarly
> > >>> if a study wanted only left handed US residents then the study would
> be
> > >>> about left handed US residents.  This does not imply any bias in the
> > >>> study.  Any study worthy of the name will go in to great detail when
> it
> > >>> comes to methodology of subject selection and any subsequent testing
> that
> > >>> is done.
> > >>>
> > >>> It will be great when smaller WP communities are studied too but
> this
> > >>> study clearly isn't doing that.
> > >>>
> > >>> Cheers,
> > >>>
> > >>> Rob
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Simetrical

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Feature request: Random article in specified
	category

body:
On 3/22/07, Andrew Garrett <andrew at epstone.net> wrote:
> This idea should be discussed on the appropriate forum - namely the Wikimedia
> bugzilla system. This list is for discussion of technical issues relating
> exclusively to the Wikimedia servers - or notification of software changes which
> have a significant impact on the operation of a Wikimedia project.

The syntax used, however, is fairly trivial and probably not worth
discussing anywhere.  The technical hurdles to implementing it are the
issue that prevents its adoption, and whoever resolves those at Some
Point in the Future will doubtless choose some obvious URL syntax like
?category=whatever.  Or /Category:Whatever, if we assume that
namespaces can't contain colons (I don't think they can, that would be
fairly degenerate).  Or, perhaps most likely, both.  It hardly
matters.

I doubt there's really enough interest in this to get an
implementation going, either way, at least for the moment.  But who
knows, it might catch a dev's fancy some day.


body:
David Gerard wrote:

> Personally my favourite bit was the whining from the search engine
> spammers.
>
> Such an *exquisite* sense of entitlement they have.

That response *really* weakened any opposition voices, which was
frustrating, but I sitll find it to be really bad:

1) Wikia links, last check, still don't have nofollow attached.  This
means that the only links the Foundation allows to be noticed are ones
that are linked to the Foundation in a personell sense.  How convinenent.

2) With nofollow attached to non-Wikia external links, that means that
non-Wikipedia links drop and Wikipedia links rise in Google.  While we
don't have ads (yet) on Wikipedia, we do have a revenue sharing plan with
Answers.com, which also gets high rankings.  So hey, what do you know,
more financial help for the Foundation while we axe out the sources that
we use to make the articles to help our Google rankings.

I mean, it comes across as horribly underhanded, especially since the
community wasn't even approached about it.

-Jeff


subject:
[Wikitech-l] [MediaWiki-CVS] SVN: [20612]
	trunk/phase3/includes/Article.php

body:
On 3/22/07, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
> This non-critical fix was first applied to a release branch and the
> committer failed to update the release notes in both the branch and
> trunk.
>
> Did the release manager give consent for this?

Like the third person, do we, Rob?  80686, as Rob fails to say
explicitly, we normally don't backport anything other than significant
bug fixes.  Changing the behavior of a hook probably doesn't cut it.
1.10 will be branched in a couple of weeks anyway.  And whenever you
do anything to core code, *always* update RELEASE-NOTES.


body:
On 3/22/07, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
> The latest changes go at the *end* of the release notes.

The intended audience for the release notes don't really care what
order the changes were applied in to trunk.  It would make rather more
sense to organize them by bug number, or topically, to be honest.


body:
David Gerard wrote:
> On 22/03/07, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com>
> wrote:
>
> Are those as normal hyperlinks (which should have a nofollow on) or as
> interwiki links? The latter may well not. Because spammers are very
> unlikely to be spamming for sites in the interwiki site list.

I'm glad I double checked this, it appears to have been turned on since
last check.  Applause to the programmers on this one.
>
> It did its job of dealing with an immediate spammer problem, which is
> why Brion was so keen to switch it on.

That is, if there was *really* an immediate spammer problem to be had.  I
recall Brad Patrick's breathless essay about how inundated we're getting
with spam, and then the G11 abomination occurred, but the actual necessity
of such a reaction was never really introduced - we seem to be extremely
trusting of those in the home office, don't we?

>
> He like anyone has acknowledged that the present situation is far from
> ideal, but has suggested what coding people need to do to make it a
> bit finer-grained. So the answer is ... get coding.

I can barely make a piped link most days, let alone code.  Not that I'm
sure there's really a problem to be fixed...

-Jeff


from_name: Fastfission

body:
On 3/21/07, Denny Colt <wikidenny at gmail.com> wrote:
> * 1. Reverting banned users: may vs will
>
> The banning policy says, "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be
> reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits
> themselves". As the policy gives no leeway for them to post on Wikipedia
> pages anyway, shouldn't this language not contridict the rest of it and say
> "will be reverted" instead? Why indulge trolls and troublemakers?

Imagine a banned user sneaks in and reverts a vandalism. Or fixes a
misspelling. OK, it's annoying, and deliberately defiant, sure, but
reverting it, then reverting the vandalism, all that would be extra
hassle and is rather procedurally silly. So some slack is useful
there, and creating a definite mandate is always a bit difficult to
work out (does it get enforced? how?). "May" vs. "Shall" makes our
lives easier in that sense. "Should" might make a bit stronger, but in
any case I think that is implied.

FF


from_name: Jeff V. Merkey

subject:
[Foundation-l] [Announcement] Brad Patrick Resigns as General
 Counsel

body:
I have very much enjoyed our interactions. You will be missed.

Jeff

Brad Patrick wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>To the Wikimedia Community:
>
>I am stepping down as General Counsel to the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.,
>effective March 31, 2007.  I tendered my resignation to the Board some
>weeks ago, which was accepted.  In the context of Danny Wool's
>announcement earlier today that he has resigned, some will speculate the
>two are related.  They are not.  The timing is just unfortunate.
>
>Many people who decide to leave the projects do so by invoking the right
>to disappear.  That isn't me.  I am very proud of my association with
>WMF and will carry the distinction of having been a part of its growth
>with me for the rest of my life.  I care deeply about the future of the
>Foundation, and am more dedicated in my beliefs about the free culture
>movement than ever before.  With respect to my relationship with the
>Foundation and those of you whom I have come to know, I hope we are on
>good terms.
>
>This community understands implicitly that people of goodwill can (and
>do) have strong differences of opinion about important matters.  Should
>I choose to comment about these sorts of things at some point in the
>future, it will be as a person who cares about the vitality and success
>of the Foundation.  I intend any such criticism to be constructive and
>based on a well-founded, good faith belief in making the Foundation
>stronger.  I certainly wish for nothing but success for the
>organization.  To the extent I, (like any person who has had anything to
>do with the workings of the Foundation), have opinions about what I
>think is good, bad, ugly, etc. about how the Foundation does things,
>they are my own.
>
>One of the last things I did before stepping aside as interim ED was
>retain the firm of Phillips Oppenheim to conduct the ED search process
>for WMF.  I hold them in the highest regard as professionals who are
>exclusively in the business of non-profit executive search, and I have a
>high degree of confidence that they are the right people to aid the
>Foundation in its next steps.  They can make a difference.
>
>It is my earnest hope that everyone who cares about the Foundation, but
>has concerns about what is happening at the Foundation now, will say so.
>This community is strongest when it is vocal, not silent.  If you have
>questions you want answered, be bold, speak up, and ask them.  The Board
>members -- the ones who are accountable, since it is they who are
>running the Foundation -- deserve the support of the community when they
>earn it.  But, since this is real life, {{SOFIXIT}} isn't as simple as
>clicking on an article.  It's really hard work that takes a great deal
>of time and energy.
>
>So, I'm leaving as of March 31, 2007.  I am not going away or deleting
>myself out of wikiexistence.  I'm just not going to be WMF's General
>Counsel.
>
>Brad
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BradPatrick
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32)
>Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
>iD8DBQFGAtJ65txwQhyxnbIRAtC/AJ4xaN8hjmS4Zf/RWAKaiy2HapSd3wCdGhdJ
>fe6Nz7wYcObeRG+JMLfq4TI=
>=a75c
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>


from_name: Brianna Laugher

subject: [Commons-l] Flommons!

body:
THAT'S PRETTY FREAKING MAD.

What Flommons should do, is index each image page without the '.jpg'
on the end, so images get picked up by google, and then google users
get taken to pretty Flommons, rather than scary unfriendly Commons.
maybe.

Flommons could be the interface for people who don't care about wikis,
and just want to find interesting content.

cheers
Brianna

On 22/03/07, Magnus Manske <magnusmanske at googlemail.com> wrote:
> So I'm learning Perl now. So I needed a project to sharpen my
> programming claws with. So I remembered people not happy with the
> MediaWiki commons interface. So I thought I'd steal from the best and
> wrote a new one.
>
> Flickr-Like cOMMONS = Flommons
>
> Misc examples:
> * Single picture
> http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/cgi-bin/flommons.pl?user=&mode=single_image&image=Venice_-_Church_of_St._Maria_Formosa_reflected_on_water.jpg
>
> * Files uploaded by a user (newest images first)
> http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/cgi-bin/flommons.pl?user=&foruser=Magnus_Manske&mode=user_files&before=20061109094531
>
> * Category view (newest images first)
> http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/cgi-bin/flommons.pl?user=&mode=category&category=Canals_of_Venice
>
> * Welcome screen (as me, though there's no real login)
> http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/cgi-bin/flommons.pl?user=Magnus_Manske
>
> * Search results
> http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/cgi-bin/flommons.pl?user=Magnus_Manske&mode=search&query=stern&doit=Search
>
>
> Notes:
> * Can be slooow at times, since there's no index on img_user/img_user_text
> * No login or upload (yet?)
> * Normal blue links stay in Flommons, light-blue links go to Commons
>
> The thing is a single Perl script. Maybe I should go and rewrite
> MediaWiki like that. Oh wait... (anyone aroung long enough to get this
> joke?)
>
> Magnus
>
> P.S.: Comments always welcome :-)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>


from_name: Erica

body:
<snip>
>Why should some have magic rights the other thousands of blocked ones
> dont?
>
> --
> - Denny

I am also curious about this.

Erica


from_name: geni

body:
On 3/22/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh, and the answer to that question appears to be: Everyone!

Tried that doesn't seem to popular. No only do we now know that at
least one member of the arbcom mailing kept quit about their concerns
with regards to essjay but when everyone did review the decision
people kept trying to shut it down and throwing around terms like
"lynch mobs".

--
geni


body:
On 3/22/07, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> Outsiders often imagine that we have a much greater degree of procedure
> than we actually do.  We have a group of friends working under "rough
> consensus and running code" and decision-making is highly distributed
> and what may appear to be lines of authority are often merely lines of
> respect and thoughtfulness.
>
> In the case of "nofollow"... to the best of my knowledge, the history is
> that it was implemented without my knowledge or approval (which is
> normal and fine) in various (some? all? depending on local opinion?)
> languages except en.wikipedia.org.  There were discussions about it,
> both public and private, and I expressed my own concerns about it.  Out
> of respect for me, the implementation was delayed for a long time on
> English Wikipedia while I talked to Matt Cutts at google about it.

Not that simple:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Nofollow#Implementation_of_the_vote

>
> (BTW, Brion would know when and why nofollow was implemented elsewhere.)
>

March 6, 2005

> Matt recommended that we use it, and I reconsidered various arguments
> that people had made about it, and I dropped my objections to it.
> Sometime later, Brion Vibber, acting on his own authority as CTO and the
> leader of his own part of the whole Wikipedia beast, went ahead and
> implemented it.  (Did I ask him to do it, or did he notice my dropping
> my objections and just do it?  I don't remember but the question really
> misses the point.)
>

"Having been requested by Jimmy to do so"

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-January/061137.html

No evidences of his acting on his own authority.

> Now, you can imagine this as an instance of me being the decider, but I
> think the truth is a lot more complex... and a lot more wonderful...
> than that image would suggest.
>

No it isn't. You took an action (that has had minimal impact due to
spamming for traffic) that the community had debated in the past and
had not come to a consensus to support.
--
geni


from_name: jayjg

body:
On 3/22/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/21/07, Denny Colt <wikidenny at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hello... this is my first post to the actual list (ever). I usually just
> > focus on building a few articles, and spend too much time on Recent
> > Changes/RC patrol. However... I got inadvertantly pulled into a couple of
> > policy related disputes and wanted to put this forward. Two
> > questions/propositions, that I posted to the Banning policy today at:
> >
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy#Reverting_banned_users.2C_and_users_who_engage_banned_users
> >
> > I wanted to post it here too to get some more visibility since that page
> > isn't too active at all...
> >
> >
> > * 1. Reverting banned users: may vs will
> >
> > The banning policy says, "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be
> > reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits
> > themselves". As the policy gives no leeway for them to post on Wikipedia
> > pages anyway, shouldn't this language not contridict the rest of it and
> > say
> > "will be reverted" instead? Why indulge trolls and troublemakers?
>
>
> Editors are not forced to revert changes by banned users and why would you
> do so on all their edits anyway?

To discourage them from violating their ban. They are not wanted on Wikipedia.

Jay.


body:
On 3/22/07, Denny Colt <wikidenny at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/22/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Editors are not forced to revert changes by banned users and why would you
> > do so on all their edits anyway?
> > If a change is good for the encyclopedia, you could revert without looking
> > at its merit, but it would probably be reinsterted by someone else later
> > on.
> > Not reverting good edits causes less work and in the end improves the
> > project.
>
>
> Well... if they post anonymously, or on a pseuodnym, sure. But if a John
> Smith or Jane Doe are banned by name, and they post anything and I.D.
> themselves by name... and we allow the posts to stand... what was the point
> again to having banned them?

What indeed?

> The "can be reverted regardless of the merits"-bit was, I think, included so
> > edits by banned users can easily be reverted without the editor doing so
> > being required to research all the edits. If they know something to be
> > true
> > and reference-able, they don't have to remove it. If they don't know, they
> > won't be sanctioned for removing it.
> >
> > Mgm
>
>
> The merits aside, again... it's specifically for if we know its them (they
> announce it is them) or fits the  standard form for a puppet/sock, why
> shouldn't they be nuked on sight?

They should be, to discourage banned editors from violating their
bans. It takes some pretty bad behavior to warrant a banning on
Wikipedia, and a great deal of effort to get a ban.

Jay.


body:
On 3/22/07, Denny Colt <wikidenny at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/22/07, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > The merits aside, again... it's specifically for if we know its them
> > (they
> > > announce it is them) or fits the  standard form for a puppet/sock, why
> > > shouldn't they be nuked on sight?
> >
> > They should be, to discourage banned editors from violating their
> > bans. It takes some pretty bad behavior to warrant a banning on
> > Wikipedia, and a great deal of effort to get a ban.
> >
> > Jay.
>
>
>
> Exactly, thats why I posted this... it seemed like some editors were/are
> determined to give Brandt and Scwartz free passes to post, even as Doc
> Glasgow posted, threatened to block anyone who removed comments from Brandt
> at one point... I also had people each time I redacted out Brandt's posts on
> the article talk page put in links BACK to his redacted comments.
>
> Why do/should Brandt & Schwartz get free passes?
>
> --
> - Denny

I'm not writing of any specific cases, but of a general approach to
banned users.

Jay.


from_name: Platonides

subject: [Wikitech-l] Request for advice

body:
Arwel Parry wrote:
> I'm consulting wikitech-l because I can't think where else to ask!
>
> One of the more active bureaucrats on cy.wikipedia has posed me the
> following question:
>
> "Currently, the Welsh wikipedia's default settings mean that all
> intrawiki (mewnwici) links are underlined without having to roll the
> mouse over them. It's different from all the other wikipedias, and it
> looks a little ugly. It can be changed by going to "fy newisiadau"
> (there's a detailed explanation about it in Y Caffi), but as a
> bureaucrat, I was wondering if there was a way for you to change the
> default settings of the site so that it looks more professional for
> everyone."
>
> ("fy newisiadau" = "my preferences", and the detailed explanation in "Y
> Caffi" is in Welsh but it's quite well summarised here - cy.wikipedia
> appears to be the only one with this default action). I'm not familiar
> with how the default appearance is set - can someone advise, please?

Yes, it can be done. (who removed the underlining for wikipedias??)


from_name: Alex Powell

subject: [Wikitech-l] Tiddlywiki

body:
Hi,

I don't suppose anyone has taken a look at:

http://www.tiddlywiki.com/

Seems that it would make a nice offlinable skin for mediawiki to take pages
away for editing. Obviously it parses slightly different wikitext as
default, but it probably wouldn't matter if it wasn't perfect, just "good
enough" would allow people to quickly save off pages for editing.

Alex

--
Alex Powell

Exscien Training Ltd
Tel: 01865 920024
Direct: 01865 920032
Mob: 07717 765210

alexp at exscien.com
http://www.exscien.com

Registered in England and Wales 05927635, 59 East Ave, Oxford, OX4 1XP,
England


subject: [Commons-l] Flommons!

body:
Brianna Laugher wrote:
> THAT'S PRETTY FREAKING MAD.
>
> What Flommons should do, is index each image page without the '.jpg'
> on the end, so images get picked up by google, and then google users
> get taken to pretty Flommons, rather than scary unfriendly Commons.
> maybe.

Whe i presented a patch to help search engines on image indexing Brion
wrote: "Note that at least Google has already fixed this particular
problem and indexes our image pages just fine." If they're not we should
inform our release manager. ;-)
http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9248#c3


from_name: George Herbert

subject: [WikiEN-l] U.S. Intelligence uses Wikipedia

body:
On 3/22/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> As long as they keep saying "According the Wikipedia" then I guess
> it's a good thing. If they start stating it as fact then the world is
> in a lot of trouble... (or, a lot *more* trouble, if you prefer).

Have no fear.  They have whole departments whose job it is to ensure
that data's source and credibility are properly noted.

Most of the people at intelligence agencies spend far, far more time
analyzing data than gathering it, and the data source and credibility
are important.

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


from_name: Oldak Quill

subject: [Commons-l] Flommons!

body:
On 22/03/07, Rama Rama <ramaneko at gmail.com> wrote:
> > What Flommons should do, is index each image page without the '.jpg'
> > on the end, so images get picked up by google, and then google users
> > get taken to pretty Flommons, rather than scary unfriendly Commons.
> > maybe.
>
> Hmmm, pages are created by Flommons on request, so I am not certain
> that they would be indexed by Google ; it's an example of Dark Web,
> unless I have misunderstood something.

FWIW, my understanding of "dark web" is content that is inaccessible
to indexes. The content is already accessible, just not in this
format.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: K P

subject: [WikiEN-l] Looking to interview Wikipedians

body:
Not only not representative, but missing some of the best editors by
ignoring the under 18s, much to my surprise.

KP

On 3/22/07, gjzilla at gmail.com <gjzilla at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/22/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > You probably know already, but if you require respondents to be US
> > residents
> > you won't get a representative cross-section of the userbase of the
> > English
> > language Wikipedia...
> >
> > Mgm
> >
> >
> Not to mention over 18...
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikibooks NL is changing License

body:
effe iets anders wrote:

>Dear all,
>
>The Wikibooks NL community has decided to change the default license
>of the textbooks for the future. That will mean that from a certain
>point in the near future all new submitted changes and new texts will
>be default double licenced under GNU FDL *and* CC-BY-SA-2.5 or later.
>The texts that are currently in Wikibooks NL will be marked as "GFDL
>only". This is so the project will be better able to spread it's
>content (as the reuser has a choise to use only a page of the
>wikibooks project without printing all the license etc)
>
>If every contributor of a certain page has agreed to relicense all
>his/her contributions on Wikibooks NL, also those in the past, under
>both licenses, the template stating the excemption of the default will
>be removed.
>
>It will still be possible to import pages from Wikipedia NL to
>Wikibooks NL. This will mean that a small part of the newly created
>pages will also be marked as "GFDL only". The community has taken some
>more precautions, such as creating templates to relicense all you
>contributions (HINT: {{Dubbel}}) and a page with explanation, but it
>would be too much in detail to explain that on this list. See this
>please as announcement, and contact the Wikibooks NL community through
>our Tutors' Chamber ([[b:nl:Wikibooks:Lerarenkamer]])
>
>With kind regards,
>
>Lodewijk Gelauff
>
>
>
Unless I am mistaken, GNU based licenses become null and void if you
modify the license terms in any way. This includes
publishing under multiple licenses (which is modifying the terms). I do
agree that making the more open is a good thing, but I
think you may void the GFDL terms if you release under dual licenses.

Jeff


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [Wikitech-l] Tiddlywiki

body:
On 22/03/07, Mohamed Magdy <mohamed.m.k at gmail.com> wrote:
> Steve Bennett wrote:
> > On 3/23/07, Alex Powell <alexp at exscien.com> wrote:

> >> http://www.tiddlywiki.com/

> > Wow! This is really, really clever. Half blog, half wiki. And so much
> > faster than the form-based mediawiki approach...

> Yes, and what happens when JS is disabled?

Next you'll be saying there are people in the world not on broadband!

(Realistically, in an environment where e.g. Firefox can be assumed,
it could be just the thing. I wouldn't want to run Wikipedia on it
though.)

- d.


from_name: Steve

body:
Werd.

On 3/22/07, Cormac Lawler <cormaggio at gmail.com> wrote:
> Calling a study "a bunch of lies" before it's even been carried out is
> very bad faith. It's absolutely fine to question methodology - but we
> need to be friendly as well as critical - and I hope Benjamin has been
> inspired rather than turned off by the many comments and questions on
> these lists. I've been meaning to comment myself, but Phoebe's just
> said pretty much everything I was going to say. :-)
>
> Cheers,
> Cormac
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] CALEA Compliance

body:
On 3/22/07, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>
> Here's an even better question.   Does Wikimedia have to comply with
> CALEA as a broadband service provider for lawful intercept.  If so, I
> mght be able to arrange for some appliance donations to Brion and the
> team from:
>
> http://www.soleranetworks.com
>
> Let me know if we can help.

Those are irrellevant to website providers.  Only wire/service
providers are required to be able to host CALEA intercept capabilities
in the US.

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


subject: [Foundation-l] CALEA Compliance


from_name: Jeff Raymond

body:
David Gerard wrote:
> On 22/03/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hmm which still leaves open the question of why we are giving an
>> external project an interwiki link.
>
>
> Because lots of external projects have them and it's been common
> practice from before there was a wikipedia.com.

So why aren't they nofollowed?  I mean, theoretically speaking, couldn't I
simply make an interwiki link to my site that makes me a little dough on
the side for the same result?  If not, does that mean that certain sites
get exempted?

Interwiki links are handy, sure, but what a way to get around the
nofollows.  I assume that *wasn't* by design?

-Jeff


from_name: Mark Clements

subject: [Wikitech-l] Tiddlywiki

body:
"Mohamed Magdy" <mohamed.m.k at gmail.com> wrote
in message news:46028BAB.4080209 at gmail.com...
> Steve Bennett wrote:
> > On 3/23/07, Alex Powell <alexp at exscien.com>
wrote:
> >>
> >> http://www.tiddlywiki.com/
> >
> > Wow! This is really, really clever. Half blog, half wiki. And so much
> > faster than the form-based mediawiki approach...
> >
>
> Yes, and what happens when JS is disabled?
>

See attachment...

- Mark Clements (HappyDog)

begin 666 tiddlywiki.html
M/"%$3T-465!%(&AT;6P at 4%5"3$E#("(M+R]7,T,O+T141"!82%1-3" Q+C @
M4W1R:6-T+R]%3B(@(FAT=' Z+R]W=W<N=S,N;W)G+U12+WAH=&UL,2]$5$0O
M>&AT;6PQ+7-T<FEC="YD=&0B/@T*/&AT;6P@>&UL;G,](FAT=' Z+R]W=W<N
M=S,N;W)G+S$Y.3DO>&AT;6PB('AM;#IL86YG/2)E;B(@;&%N9STB96XB/CQH
M96%D/@T*/'1I=&QE/E1I9&1L>5=I:VD at +2!A(')E=7-A8FQE(&YO;BUL:6YE
M87(@<&5R<V]N86P@=V5B(&YO=&5B;V]K/"]T:71L93X-"CQS='EL92!T>7!E
M/2)T97AT+V-S<R(^#0HC:F%V87-C<FEP=%=A<FYI;F<@>PT*"7=I9'1H.B Q
M,# E.PT*"71E>'0M86QI9VXZ(&-E;G1E<CL-"@EF;VYT+7=E:6=H=#H at 8F]L
M9#L-"@EB86-K9W)O=6YD+6-O;&]R.B C9&0Q,3 P.PT*"6-O;&]R.B C9F9F
M.PT*"7!A9&1I;F<Z,65M(#!E;3L@#0I]#0H\+W-T>6QE/@T*/"]H96%D/@T*
M/&)O9'DB/@T*"3QD:78@:60](FIA=F%S8W)I<'1787)N:6YG(CY4:&ES('!A
M9V4@<F5Q=6ER97, at 2F%V85-C<FEP="!T;R!F=6YC=&EO;B!P<F]P97)L>3PO
69&EV/@T*/"]B;V1Y/@T*/"]H=&UL/@``
`
end


subject: [Commons-l] Flommons!

body:
Magnus Manske wrote:
>>> * Can be slooow at times, since there's no index on img_user/img_user_text
>> How does MW handle that then? Or do you mean on the toolserver? (=poke DaB)
>
> It doesn't. I don't see a link on commons that says "user gallery".
> It's only relevant for pages that show files uploaded by a single
> user. Also, the search uses MySQL LIKE "%" stuff, which tends to be
> long even on an index.

You're right. Gallery is on the toolserver and user contributions are of
edit and not uploads... but we can check it on the log
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=upload&user=Magnus+Manske

>> PS: {{CopyrightByWikimedia}} images doesn't show license, i guess they
>> pd? :D
>
> Currently, all categories that contain "PD" or "GFDL" or "CC-" are
> considered licenses ;-)

This license checking makes things a lot easier.

I see you added description. Remember to add CSS border:0 for the images!


from_name: Zoney

body:
On 22/03/07, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>
> We have a group of friends working under "rough
> consensus and running code" and decision-making is highly distributed
> and what may appear to be lines of authority are often merely lines of
> respect and thoughtfulness.
>
> --Jimbo
>
>
In my three years on Wikipedia, the latter two and a half as an Admin, I've
seen this more often than not (and getting to be more so) devolve into the
most vocal and participating contributors deciding things as they see fit
(even if say, they see something as NPOV, it may not be). The most vocal and
participating members may or may not be in the right, and where there are
differences of opinion, those who are right will not necessarily be the
majority (or even large/medium majority; "consensus" as that seems to be
termed on Wikipedia).

Being right is not a subjective thing. As an encyclopaedia we are supposed
to be in the business of truthful content.

It's a whole other world of messiness then when we aren't talking merely
about Wikipedia's content, but formulating the principles and guidelines on
which the content and project is created and managed.

Zoney
--
~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...


body:
On 22/03/07, Zoney <zoney.ie at gmail.com> wrote:

> It's a whole other world of messiness then when we aren't talking merely
> about Wikipedia's content, but formulating the principles and guidelines on
> which the content and project is created and managed.

Yeah. Hence my notion of a clearer "constitution". Certainly for
fundamental rules that all other policy is meant to be an explication
of, and possibly for policy formation.

Of course, the problem with rules is that they are seen by some as
there for gaming. But then, we probably need something less ad-hoc at
this stage.

- d.


from_name: John Lee

subject: [WikiEN-l] Radical redefinition of OR

body:
On 3/22/07, Ken Arromdee <arromdee at rahul.net> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> > >I do not agree that stating that A sued B, when you have a court
> document
> > >stating that A sued B, is a "matter of interpretation involving
> original
> > >research."  In fact, I find this to be quite strange.
> >
> > Probably because you are thinking about it the "wrong" way.  Wrong in
> > the context of a project which is explicitly conceived as a tertiary
> > source verifiable from reliable secondary sources, that is.  How hard
> > will it be to find a newspaper report and cite that?  If you can't,
> > then it probably *is* trivial.
>
> Fine, it's trivial.  Trivial isn't the same thing as original research.
>
> If the source makes a statement, repeating the same claim made in the
> statement is *not* a matter of interpretation.  Stretching the definition
> of
> original research and "interpretation" to claim that repeating something
> verbatim or near verbatim is "interpretation" makes about as much sense as
> saying that growing wheat for your own use is interstate commerce.  You
> end
> up with a policy that has no relation to what the words actually mean, and
> which can be used to cover anything and everything without limit.

Basically, as I understand it, the reason we ought not to have included the
lawsuit is not because it's a novel interpretation of the facts, but because
the facts have not been published by a secondary source. In theory, we could
have articles about every lawsuit ever filed, but I think many people, even
inclusionists, would balk at that - and for good reason. Like it or not,
"notability" still plays a role (albeit a rather undefined one) in how we
think about the encyclopaedia. And although we may not say it outright, it
seems the present established status quo is that we establish sufficient
notability by the existence of secondary sources. If it hasn't been covered
by a secondary source, it probably isn't worth writing about. Encyclopaedias
are tertiary sources.

Johnleemk


body:
On 3/22/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/21/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:27:42 -0700, Jossi Fresco <jossifresco at mac.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >That is why this is so painful to witness these claims of "it was not
> > >widely know".
> >
> > I knew there was a discussion months ago, I had absolutely no idea -
> > none at all - that it was still active, let alone about to replace the
> > other policies.  Where have I been all that time?  In the usual
> > places.
>
> This was my impression as well.  I didn't mind it, but it did suprise me.
>
> Likely lesson: Wikipedia has exceeded process critical mass.  We now
> have more things going on more quickly than the existing static
> process can adequately track and keep people aware of.
>
> In a business, this sort of discovery triggers a round of executive
> and management soul-searching, followed by a painful round of process
> consultants, executive retreats, the creation of new business process
> management groups, a couple of new VPs, etc etc.

FWIW, I didn't know anything about this at all till a few days before the
merge was official (thanks to the mailing list). I didn't care, though,
because as a member of the descriptivist school, I make policy by doing
whatever floats my boat. :p

On a serious note, I think it's quite clear that our governance processes
are not scaling. I think this actually became clear about a year ago, with
the userbox scandal and whatnot. Consensus gets us deadlock; rule by decree
of Jimbo/ArbCom/whatever gets us discontent; democracy gets us a tyranny of
the majority. How then are we to govern ourselves?

The status quo of consensus can still work for a while, I think. But as this
ATT issue has shown, consensus will eventually become more and more of a
farce, as fewer and fewer people (relative to the total number of
Wikipedians) are involved in policy-making. The anti-VfD/AfD gang, who I
often don't agree with, have been pointing this out for years - on AfD
"consensus" is basically the consensus of whoever bothered to show up.

AfD has somewhat resolved these problems by having an admin look over the
discussion after it's taken place, and letting the admin have the final say.
In other words, consensus has been redefined to mean "the generally
unanimous agreement of whoever bothered to show up, unless an admin thinks
the consensus patently contravenes policy".

I think this is what Jimbo is proposing - that he become, in effect, the
admin who looks over the discussion and decides whether there is
"consensus". Will this work? I hope it does, and it's certainly the only
reasonable governance method I can think of - although it does not resolve
the issue of the consensus being formed only by whoever bothered to show up.

I'm not fond of the voting idea. A non-binding straw poll is excellent in
theory, but from experience, any straw poll's purpose ends up being
misconstrued faster than you can say "voting is evil". A binding or
pseudo-binding vote is even worse.

Johnleemk


from_name: Guettarda

body:
On 3/22/07, K P <kpbotany at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Not only not representative, but missing some of the best editors by
> ignoring the under 18s, much to my surprise.
>
> KP

True, but how can people under 18 given informed consent for the study?  Try
getting your local "research on human subjects" office to sign off on
collecting information from minors.

On 3/22/07, gjzilla at gmail.com <gjzilla at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 3/22/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > You probably know already, but if you require respondents to be US
> > > residents
> > > you won't get a representative cross-section of the userbase of the
> > > English
> > > language Wikipedia...
> > >
> > > Mgm
> > >
> > >
> > Not to mention over 18...
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Brad Patrick

subject:
[Foundation-l] [Announcement] Brad Patrick Resigns as General
	Counsel

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

To the Wikimedia Community:

I am stepping down as General Counsel to the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.,
effective March 31, 2007.  I tendered my resignation to the Board some
weeks ago, which was accepted.  In the context of Danny Wool's
announcement earlier today that he has resigned, some will speculate the
two are related.  They are not.  The timing is just unfortunate.

Many people who decide to leave the projects do so by invoking the right
to disappear.  That isn't me.  I am very proud of my association with
WMF and will carry the distinction of having been a part of its growth
with me for the rest of my life.  I care deeply about the future of the
Foundation, and am more dedicated in my beliefs about the free culture
movement than ever before.  With respect to my relationship with the
Foundation and those of you whom I have come to know, I hope we are on
good terms.

This community understands implicitly that people of goodwill can (and
do) have strong differences of opinion about important matters.  Should
I choose to comment about these sorts of things at some point in the
future, it will be as a person who cares about the vitality and success
of the Foundation.  I intend any such criticism to be constructive and
based on a well-founded, good faith belief in making the Foundation
stronger.  I certainly wish for nothing but success for the
organization.  To the extent I, (like any person who has had anything to
do with the workings of the Foundation), have opinions about what I
think is good, bad, ugly, etc. about how the Foundation does things,
they are my own.

One of the last things I did before stepping aside as interim ED was
retain the firm of Phillips Oppenheim to conduct the ED search process
for WMF.  I hold them in the highest regard as professionals who are
exclusively in the business of non-profit executive search, and I have a
high degree of confidence that they are the right people to aid the
Foundation in its next steps.  They can make a difference.

It is my earnest hope that everyone who cares about the Foundation, but
has concerns about what is happening at the Foundation now, will say so.
This community is strongest when it is vocal, not silent.  If you have
questions you want answered, be bold, speak up, and ask them.  The Board
members -- the ones who are accountable, since it is they who are
running the Foundation -- deserve the support of the community when they
earn it.  But, since this is real life, {{SOFIXIT}} isn't as simple as
clicking on an article.  It's really hard work that takes a great deal
of time and energy.

So, I'm leaving as of March 31, 2007.  I am not going away or deleting
myself out of wikiexistence.  I'm just not going to be WMF's General
Counsel.

Brad

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BradPatrick

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGAtJ65txwQhyxnbIRAtC/AJ4xaN8hjmS4Zf/RWAKaiy2HapSd3wCdGhdJ
fe6Nz7wYcObeRG+JMLfq4TI=
=a75c
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


body:
On 22/03/07, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:

> My own personal opinion was that Jimmy had and has the authority to
> ask Brion to do anything, just as we all have the authority to ask
> Brion to do anything, and that it was Brion who was the one that made
> the decision, acting in his role as a foundation employee.
> If the board believed that Brion did the wrong thing, they obviously
> could have stepped in, formally or informally.

Personally my favourite bit was the whining from the search engine spammers.

"Well, well, if you won't give us Google link juice, we'll, we'll ...
STOP ADDING STUFF!"
"O noez, how will I cope. I guess we'll just have to find out."

Such an *exquisite* sense of entitlement they have.

- d.


subject: [Foundation-l] My resignation

body:
On 22/03/07, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:

>  To
> ensure that there are no misunderstandings or claims of an  abuse of power, I ask
> that all admin status on the various projects be revoked.  If I feel I can
> help as an admin, I will ask to be reelected by the normal  process. I look
> forward to this opportunity to reenter the community as a new  user and to share
> in the building of free  knowledge.

You were elected as an admin to en:wp in the normal manner, surely it
wouldn't be crossing the streams to keep that.

- d.


subject: [Foundation-l] My resignation


from_name: Jeff V. Merkey

body:
Bryan Tong Minh wrote:

>I believe that this only applies to new contributions. The GFDL is a
>non exclusive license; licensing it under its terms does not prevent
>you as the copyright holder from releasing under one other.
>
>Bryan
>
>
Section 2
"...

You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either
commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the
copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies
to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you ADD NO OTHER
CONDITIONS WHATSOEVER to those of this License.  You may not use
technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further
copying of the copies you make or distribute.  However, you may accept
compensation in exchange for copies.  If you distribute a large enough
number of copies you must also follow the conditions in section 3.

..."

9. TERMINATION

"...

You may not copy, modify, SUBLICENSE, or distribute the Document except
as expressly provided for under THIS LICENSE.  Any other attempt to
copy, modify, SUBLICENESE or distribute the Document is void, and will
automatically TERMINATE YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THIS LICENSE.  However,
parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this
License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such
parties remain in full compliance.

..."

Hmmm. I think it may void the GFDL license. Appears exclusive of other
license schemes.

Jeff


body:
On 22/03/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
> on 3/22/07 11:18 AM, Jossi Fresco at jossifresco at mac.com wrote:

> > As I said, I think most of the problems are emergent behaviour of a
> >> large volunteer organisation.

> Please disregard my earlier response to this. It is quite clear. I've got to
> stop responding to emails before my first cup of coffee :-).

hee :-)

Quite a lot of what people wring hands about being utterly
irretrievably broken about Wikipedia or Wikimedia just strikes me as
ordinary volunteer organisation [[SNAFU]] ;-)

(I would have applied for Bastique's new job except sysadmins in
London are paid by the dumptruck full of cash ...)

- d.


body:
On 22/03/07, cohesion <cohesion at sleepyhead.org> wrote:

> I would ask another question, Are old forms of hierarchical control
> and management capable of sustaining something so complex as
> wikipedia? :)

Well, yeah :-)

It's useful to keep in mind that almost all articles are not in fact
controversial. The really angst-generating stuff on the encyclopedia
is very much special cases.

- d.


from_name: Travis Derouin

subject: [Wikitech-l] internal links tool

body:
Hi,

I've been putting together a tool that makes a bit easier to do
internal linking for wikiHow users. If you check out an editing page
at wikihow:

http://www.wikihow.com/index.php?title=Toilet-Train-a-Cat&action=edit&advanced=true

and select some text, say the word "litter" in the first step you can
select the 2nd internal links button (2nd from the right) on the
toolbar to get a popup with results that match your text selection.
(in FF you can use the accesskey 'r'). The textarea behind the popup
becomes disabled at this point.

>From here you can either click on one of the links to create the
internal link, or "no thanks". Similarly, you can press 1 through 9 on
the keyboard to insert the desired link, or hit escape to close the
popup, and the textarea goes back to normal editing.

In IE, the accesskey doesn't seem to work because the text becomes
de-selected when you hit the ALT key. Is this a known issue, are there
any workarounds?

Does anyone have any ideas on how this could be made to be more useful?

Is there any easy way to retrieve search results from a standard
Mediawiki installation that are easily parsed by Javascript? Right now
our custom Lucene plugin can display the results in a straight text,
one result per line format, which helps out the javascript end of this
plugin. Is there anything similar built into Mediawiki?

Travis


subject: [Foundation-l] My resignation

body:
On 3/22/07, Pedro Sanchez <pdsanchez at gmail.com> wrote:
> You and I aren't entitled to demand an explanation and to know every
> small detail. It's between Danny and the Foundation.

It is, however, unreasonable not to expect there to be curiosity and
no small degree of consternation when two longtime key employees
announce their departures over a couple of days.

It's one thing to say (correctly) that Danny, Brad, and the Board have
a right to keep the respective personel matter details private.

However, if there are substantiative policy disagreements at stake, I
for one remain rather confused as to what they are and their nature,
and we are all entitled to an explanation of those types of matters.

I don't know if there is any substantiative policy disagreement, or if
it's just personalities, or individual choice.  If it is a
substantiative policy issue, we don't need to find out RIGHT NOW, but
it would be fair to ask if there is such a thing, and over what
timeframe the parties will feel comfortable talking about it.

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


subject: [Foundation-l] My resignation


body:
Bryan Tong Minh wrote:

>It is not that complicated. You simply cannot sublicense your derivate
>work under the cc-by-sa. In case you edit a GFDL only document, your
>contributions are solely under the GFDL.
>
>Bryan
>
>
>
As I said, I think this scheme voids the GFDL -- at least based upon the
plain language
of the GFDL license. It says clearly that sublicensing is prohibiting.
Copyright holder or not, the
GFDL is a binding contract if you choose to accept it. At least that's
my read of the plain
language of the license. Other folks may have another interpretation though.

Jeff


body:
Kim Bruning wrote:

>On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 03:41:49PM -0600, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
><excerpt of GFDL licence>
>
>
>
>>Hmmm. I think it may void the GFDL license. Appears exclusive of other
>>license schemes.
>>
>>
>
>The content of the GFDL is irrelevant here.
>
>As a license, the GFDL applies to a licensee. The copyright holder is
>not a licensee.
>
>

The copyright holder is the editor. The website is a distributor. Look
again.

Jeff


body:
On 22/03/07, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:

> 1) Wikia links, last check, still don't have nofollow attached.  This
> means that the only links the Foundation allows to be noticed are ones
> that are linked to the Foundation in a personell sense.  How convinenent.

Are those as normal hyperlinks (which should have a nofollow on) or as
interwiki links? The latter may well not. Because spammers are very
unlikely to be spamming for sites in the interwiki site list.

> I mean, it comes across as horribly underhanded, especially since the
> community wasn't even approached about it.

It did its job of dealing with an immediate spammer problem, which is
why Brion was so keen to switch it on.

He like anyone has acknowledged that the present situation is far from
ideal, but has suggested what coding people need to do to make it a
bit finer-grained. So the answer is ... get coding.

- d.


body:
Thomas Dalton wrote:

>On 22/03/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>Hmmm. I think it may void the GFDL license. Appears exclusive of other
>>>license schemes.
>>>
>>>
>>That's only talking about releasing existing works under an additional
>>license. I think the relevant bit of the license is whatever it says
>>about derivative works.
>>
>>
>
>Which is:
>
>"4. MODIFICATIONS
>
>You may copy and distribute a Modified Version of the Document under
>the conditions of sections 2 and 3 above, provided that you release
>the Modified Version under precisely this License, with the Modified
>Version filling the role of the Document, thus licensing distribution
>and modification of the Modified Version to whoever possesses a copy
>of it."
>
>That reads to me as if the part about no additional licenses applies
>to modified versions in their entirety, not just the parts taken from
>the original. In which case, the dual licensing suggested would be a
>violation.
>
>
>
Correct.

Jeff


from_name: Andrew Gray

body:
On 22/03/07, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:

> 1) Wikia links, last check, still don't have nofollow attached.  This
> means that the only links the Foundation allows to be noticed are ones
> that are linked to the Foundation in a personell sense.  How convinenent.

If memory serves, "proper" external links to Wikia are nofollow.
However, interwiki links - which is how most links to Wikia, or to the
rare other wikis we link to, are made - aren't nofollowed.

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


subject: [Foundation-l] CALEA Compliance

body:
Here's an even better question.   Does Wikimedia have to comply with
CALEA as a broadband service provider for lawful intercept.  If so, I
mght be able to arrange for some appliance donations to Brion and the
team from:

http://www.soleranetworks.com

Let me know if we can help.

Jeff


subject: [Foundation-l] CALEA Compliance


from_name: Mohamed Magdy

subject: [Wikitech-l] Tiddlywiki

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 3/23/07, Alex Powell <alexp at exscien.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I don't suppose anyone has taken a look at:
>>
>> http://www.tiddlywiki.com/
>
> Wow! This is really, really clever. Half blog, half wiki. And so much
> faster than the form-based mediawiki approach...
>
> Steve
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>

Yes, and what happens when JS is disabled?

Mohamed Magdy~alnokta


body:
Bryan Tong Minh wrote:

>I think you are misunderstanding the license, or we are
>misunderstanding each other. The GFDL applies to the licensee, not to
>the copyright holder. I don;t know whether you see multi licensing as
>the problem or something else?
>
>Bryan
>
>
Wikipedia is a distributor/publisher, not the copyright holder. It
applies to an entire Wikipedia project, like the NL
folks.

Jeff


body:
David Gerard wrote:

> No, they're determined by a list on meta which can only be edited by a
> meta admin:
>
>     http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interwiki_map
>
> Suggestions are made on the talk page.
>
>
>> Interwiki links are handy, sure, but what a way to get around the
>> nofollows.  I assume that *wasn't* by design?
>
>
> One would hope the meta admins are on-the-ball enough to add only
> decent interwiki links :-)

Okay, that makes some sense.

Now, why the hell aren't they nofollowed along with everything else?

-Jeff


from_name: gjzilla at gmail.com

body:
On 3/22/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You probably know already, but if you require respondents to be US
> residents
> you won't get a representative cross-section of the userbase of the
> English
> language Wikipedia...
>
> Mgm
>
>
Not to mention over 18...


from_name: Anthony

body:
On 3/22/07, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:
> Now, why the hell aren't they nofollowed along with everything else?
>
The sister projects shouldn't be nofollowed.  For example, a link to wikinews.

But if the finest granularity possible is to nofollow all iw links or
none, that's a tougher call.

Anthony


body:
On 3/22/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 22/03/07, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:
>
> > Okay, that makes some sense.
> > Now, why the hell aren't they nofollowed along with everything else?
>
> Presumably because they're very unlikely to be spam links that search
> engine spammers would insert to try to get Google rank.
>
Looking at the list, this doesn't seem to be true.  Even just the wiki
links, I mean anyone can create a wikicity or whatever it's called,
and anyone can edit the ones that are there.

> (And now let's see if search engine spammers start looking for ways to
> abuse that ...)
>
One obvious way is to link to an iw site that doesn't have nofollow
on, and then link from there to the spam site.

Anthony


from_name: Rob Smith

body:
On 3/21/07, Benjamin Keith Johnson <john2429 at msu.edu> wrote:
>
> I am a researcher seeking to interview Wikipedia contributors of any and
> all
> levels of experience and involvement.  In-depth, one hour interviews will
> be
> conducted over the phone or email beginning March 27.  Compensation for
> your
> time will be provided: a $10 gift certificate to Amazon.com.  Must be 18+
> and U.S. resident.  Contact Benjamin Johnson, Department of
> Telecommunication, Information Studies and Media, Michigan State
> University,
> by email at john2429 at msu.edu or by phone at 517.230.1272.
>
> Thanks!
> Benjamin

I'll do it, if the mods will let this message through.

Rob Smith
aka Nobs01


from_name: Denny Colt

subject: [WikiEN-l] NBC's story on Wikipedia

body:
On 3/22/07, SonOfYoungwood at aol.com <SonOfYoungwood at aol.com> wrote:
>
> 2. The reporter demonstrated how vandalism works without even
> mentioning  the
> thousands of people who spend hours and hours each day reverting nonsense
> and issuing blocks. I always thought the press was supposed to be somewhat
> balanced.
>

What article did they vandalize to show that?

--
- Denny


body:
David Gerard wrote:
>
> Presumably because they're very unlikely to be spam links that search
> engine spammers would insert to try to get Google rank.

Most links aren't.

> Personally I think it's in fact good to give Google rank to external
> links if doing so doesn't constitute an attractive nuisance to
> spammers. That links on Wikipedia are editor-selected is a reason the
> en:wp community objected to default nofollow when it was first added
> to Mediawiki. What we need is some way to make it less binary. That
> means coding. Which I can't do either. Pfeh!

Or, you know, stop pretending there's a crisis.  That could work, too.

Skeptical as always,

-Jeff


from_name: Jossi Fresco

subject: [WikiEN-l] Community discussion on WP:ATT

body:
[[Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion]]

TinyURL:
http://tinyurl.com/3563g3

-- Jossi


from_name: geni

body:
On 3/22/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 22/03/07, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:
> Are those as normal hyperlinks (which should have a nofollow on) or as
> interwiki links? The latter may well not. Because spammers are very
> unlikely to be spamming for sites in the interwiki site list.
>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Sww

Doesn't appear to generate nofollow tags when used in an article.
--
geni


from_name: David Gerard

body:
On 22/03/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/22/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> > Are those as normal hyperlinks (which should have a nofollow on) or as
> > interwiki links? The latter may well not. Because spammers are very
> > unlikely to be spamming for sites in the interwiki site list.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Sww
> Doesn't appear to generate nofollow tags when used in an article.

Read The Blessed Wikitext:

[[Wookieepedia:{{{1|{{{title|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}|{{{1|{{{title|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}]]
on [[Wookieepedia|Wookieepedia: The ''Star Wars''
Wiki]]<noinclude>[[Category:Star Wars templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]
[[Category:External link templates|Sww]]
[[it:Template:Sww]]
</noinclude>

- d.


from_name: Fastfission


body:
On 21/03/07, Michael Noda <michael.noda at gmail.com> wrote:

> I'd suggest that, instead of the rock-solid monarchy of the United
> Kingdom, a closer model to consider might be Spain, circa 1980.  We're
> still trying to figure out this whole system of governance, and we may
> have to just wing it a few times, but we're learning, and we have a
> leader we can trust to not be crazy if and when things get bad.

A nice analogy.

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


body:
On 3/22/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 22/03/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3/22/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Are those as normal hyperlinks (which should have a nofollow on) or as
> > > interwiki links? The latter may well not. Because spammers are very
> > > unlikely to be spamming for sites in the interwiki site list.
>
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Sww
> > Doesn't appear to generate nofollow tags when used in an article.
>
>
> Read The Blessed Wikitext:
>
> [[Wookieepedia:{{{1|{{{title|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}|{{{1|{{{title|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}]]
> on [[Wookieepedia|Wookieepedia: The ''Star Wars''
> Wiki]]<noinclude>[[Category:Star Wars templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]
> [[Category:External link templates|Sww]]
> [[it:Template:Sww]]
> </noinclude>
>
>
> - d.

Hmm which still leaves open the question of why we are giving an
external project an interwiki link.
--
geni


from_name: Manuel Schneider

body:
Am Donnerstag, 22. M?rz 2007 16:53 schrieb Simetrical:
> On 3/22/07, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
> > This non-critical fix was first applied to a release branch and the
> > committer failed to update the release notes in both the branch and
> > trunk.
> >
> > Did the release manager give consent for this?
>
> Like the third person, do we, Rob?  80686, as Rob fails to say
> explicitly, we normally don't backport anything other than significant
> bug fixes.  Changing the behavior of a hook probably doesn't cut it.
> 1.10 will be branched in a couple of weeks anyway.  And whenever you
> do anything to core code, *always* update RELEASE-NOTES.

Before he wrote this mail he already yelled at me in the chat.

As you might see I reverted the change and also updated the release notes some
hours ago.

Thanks for the information,

Manuel
--
Regards
Manuel Schneider

Wikimedia CH - Verein zur F?rderung Freien Wissens
Wikimedia CH - Association for the advancement of free knowledge
www.wikimedia.ch


body:
On 22/03/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hmm which still leaves open the question of why we are giving an
> external project an interwiki link.

Because lots of external projects have them and it's been common
practice from before there was a wikipedia.com.

- d.


from_name: Pedro Sanchez

subject: [Foundation-l] My resignation

body:
On 3/22/07, Mathias Schindler <mathias.schindler at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/22/07, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> > That said, at present, I am unwilling to discuss the  reasons for my
> > resignation from the WMF office team
> [snip]
> > At that time, I will make known my position on how the Wikimedia  Foundation
> > should operate, and what mistakes I perceive are being made at  present.
>
> The way I read this the reasons for your resignations from the WMF
> office team are related to mistakes you perceive as being made at
> present. If not, please clearify. If yes, please elaborate now, not
> during your election-campaign.
>
> Greetings and have fun
> Mathias
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

Huh? He's free to resign. He's not forced to give an explanation to
anyone who asks.

He's specifically said he doesn't want  to discuss his reasons *at the
moment*, so please stop demanding so.


subject: [Foundation-l] My resignation


subject: [Wikitech-l] index.php how does it work?

body:
Ian Tresman wrote:

>At 22:56 22/03/2007, you wrote:
>
>
>>>http://www.mediawiki.org/index.php/article_name
>>>
>>>My Mediawiki is set-up so that index.php is displayed in the URL,
>>>followed by the article name.
>>>
>>>I can see no .htaccess files, so how does index.php process the
>>>subsequent article name, rather than Apache looking for a directory
>>>whose name is /article_name... and then why is there no 404 error?
>>>
>>>Where's the clever bit of code that handles this?
>>>
>>>
>>Does it need a clever bit of code? index.php isn't a directory, so
>>there is no reason to think article_name is a subdirectory of it.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
It's a setting in the Apache server.

/etc/httpd/conf/httpd.conf

<VirtualHost 127.0.0.1:80>
ServerAdmin webmaster at wikigadugi.org
ServerAlias wikigadugi.com
ServerAlias www.wikigadugi.com
ServerAlias wikigadugi.org
ServerAlias www.wikigadugi.org
DocumentRoot /wikidump/main
ServerName www.wikigadugi.org
ErrorLog /wikidump/main/logs/error_log
CustomLog /wikidump/main/logs/access_log combined
Alias /wiki /wikidump/main/index.php
Alias /index.php /wikidump/main/index.html
</VirtualHost>

and in your LocalSettings.php file:

$wgSitename = "WikiGadugi";
$wgArticlePath = "/wiki/$1";

Jeff


body:
Thomas Dalton wrote:

>>It's a setting in the Apache server.
>>
>>/etc/httpd/conf/httpd.conf
>>
>><VirtualHost 127.0.0.1:80>
>>ServerAdmin webmaster at wikigadugi.org
>>ServerAlias wikigadugi.com
>>ServerAlias www.wikigadugi.com
>>ServerAlias wikigadugi.org
>>ServerAlias www.wikigadugi.org
>>DocumentRoot /wikidump/main
>>ServerName www.wikigadugi.org
>>ErrorLog /wikidump/main/logs/error_log
>>CustomLog /wikidump/main/logs/access_log combined
>>Alias /wiki /wikidump/main/index.php
>>Alias /index.php /wikidump/main/index.html
>></VirtualHost>
>>
>>and in your LocalSettings.php file:
>>
>>$wgSitename = "WikiGadugi";
>>$wgArticlePath = "/wiki/$1";
>>
>>
>
>Isn't that only when you wish to hide the index.php bit from the url?
>It will work without setting up aliases.
>
>
True. This example is even more complex. It maps index.php to /wiki and
also forces external
calls to index.php to map to index.html for a cover page and prevents
folks from accessing index.php
directly except via the /wiki context. Pretty clever?

:-)

Jeff

>_______________________________________________
>Wikitech-l mailing list
>Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>
>


from_name: Alex Powell

subject: [Wikitech-l] Tiddlywiki

body:
You use a different skin. As people do normally.

The way I see it is a skin for MW that supports the same features, but
allows you to edit the Wikitext offline - even if it doesn't rerender it
perfectly, it would be a cool option. Its not something for the default
skin, but an optional extension skin that could be built on in the base.

I like to keep a todo list in MW, and it would be great to be able to save
it to my desktop, edit it, and then sync it if I'm on the net. This approach
would allow you to do that...

On 3/22/07, Mohamed Magdy <mohamed.m.k at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Steve Bennett wrote:
> > On 3/23/07, Alex Powell <alexp at exscien.com> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I don't suppose anyone has taken a look at:
> >>
> >> http://www.tiddlywiki.com/
> >
> > Wow! This is really, really clever. Half blog, half wiki. And so much
> > faster than the form-based mediawiki approach...
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> >
>
> Yes, and what happens when JS is disabled?
>
> Mohamed Magdy~alnokta
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>

--
Alex Powell

Exscien Training Ltd
Tel: 01865 920024
Direct: 01865 920032
Mob: 07717 765210

alexp at exscien.com
http://www.exscien.com

Registered in England and Wales 05927635, 59 East Ave, Oxford, OX4 1XP,
England


from_name: Steve Bennett

body:
On 3/21/07, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> This bit of exchange happened at the end of a longer email but I wanted
> to feature it more prominently in case other people had the
> misunderstanding that I have somehow "wiped out months of work".
>
> The removal of two redirects does not amount to wiping out months of work.

Yes, I was unfairly flippant there, I'm sorry.

Steve


subject: [Foundation-l] My resignation

body:
On 3/22/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Huh? He's free to resign. He's not forced to give an explanation to
> > anyone who asks.
>
> It sounds like he's blaming the board for his resignation but isn't
> saying why. Doesn't seem fair on the board to me... while they
> probably know the reasons, they can't defend themselves if he doesn't
> make the reasons public.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

That's why rumouring is bad. "It sounds" ... no, that's just your
perception. He stated that he thinks some things can be done in a
better way. But he's not blaking the board on his resignation, and
probably the board knows already the reasons.

You say "The Board can't defend themselves..." , well fi the Board
needs the reasons, they can ask (and probably have) Danny in privte.
No need to vent such information in public.

You and I aren't entitled to demand an explanation and to know every
small detail. It's between Danny and the Foundation.


subject: [Foundation-l] My resignation


from_name: J.L.W.S. The Special One

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Looking to interview Wikipedians

body:
Sorry, I'm from Singapore, and I'm a minor, so count me out.

On 3/22/07, Ronald Chmara <ron at opus1.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 20, 2007, at 9:11 AM, Benjamin Keith Johnson wrote:
>
> > I am a researcher seeking to interview Wikipedia contributors of
> > any and all
> > levels of experience and involvement.  In-depth, one hour
> > interviews will be
> > conducted over the phone or email beginning March 27.  Compensation
> > for your
> > time will be provided ? a $10 gift certificate to Amazon.com.  Must
> > be 18+
> > and U.S. resident.
>
> How would you like to verify my age?
> Oh, you want me to send credit card info? Billing zip code? CCV
> digits? Birth certificate? SSN?
>
> Studies like these are a nightmare to set up.
>
> -Bop
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
Written with passion,
J.L.W.S. The Special One


from_name: Dan Li

subject: [Wikitech-l] SpecialPage with forms

body:
On 3/22/07, Gabriel Sim?es <gsimoes at vetorial.net> wrote:
>
> How can I write a form, with soma text input's, using a specialpage?

includes/SpecialUserrights.php is an example.

Regards,
  - Dan Li


body:
On 3/22/07, Seth Finkelstein <sethf at sethf.com> wrote:
>        Can I use this thread to ask a question as a "worked example"?
> *Procedurally*, what was the way in which "nofollow" was added to
> external links? My impression was that Wales just said to do it, and
> it was done, even though there was no "community consensus". Now, I'm
> not saying it was the wrong thing to do. But from an outsider's
> perspective, it was pretty much an instance of "He's the decider".

Was there really no "community consensus"? I seem to recall general
approval of the change. But "procedurally", as you put it, that may
not be the same thing: approving of the change, as opposed to building
consensus prior to a change and making the change on that basis.

What are you really getting at here? What point is your worked example
trying to illustrate? That Jimbo occasionally makes decisions without
explicitly checking for consensus is not in dispute. Whether this is
harmful, and on what level, is a more interesting question...

Steve


subject: [Foundation-l] My resignation

body:
David Gerard wrote:
> On 22/03/07, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
>
>>  To
>> ensure that there are no misunderstandings or claims of an  abuse of power, I ask
>> that all admin status on the various projects be revoked.  If I feel I can
>> help as an admin, I will ask to be reelected by the normal  process. I look
>> forward to this opportunity to reenter the community as a new  user and to share
>> in the building of free  knowledge.
>
>
> You were elected as an admin to en:wp in the normal manner, surely it
> wouldn't be crossing the streams to keep that.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
well, I don't *really* know you..but i always like to welcome people
willing to enhance wp..so welcome to the real work ahead :P


subject: [Foundation-l] My resignation


from_name: Rob Church

subject:
[Wikitech-l] [MediaWiki-CVS] SVN: [20615]
	trunk/phase3/RELEASE-NOTES

body:
On 22/03/07, Simetrical <Simetrical+wikilist at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/22/07, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The latest changes go at the *end* of the release notes.
>
> The intended audience for the release notes don't really care what
> order the changes were applied in to trunk.  It would make rather more
> sense to organize them by bug number, or topically, to be honest.

I was stating the long-standing convention we have. If you'd like to
start a dialogue on a better way to rearrange the release notes, then
here's your thread.

Rob Church


from_name: Cormac Lawler

body:
On 3/22/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> When this study hits the Washington Post and we look at it and consider it a
> bunch of lies, we are to blame when we did not speak up when we had the
> chance to do so.
>
> When you consider peer review, it is always done after the fact. It is much
> better to have input before a study is started. Those issues that are
> obvious can be addressed before time and money is wasted. It also leads to
> better science.
>
> If there is one study I would like to see done, is a wikipedia with a large
> ex-pat community and see how that affects the NPOV of the project.
>
> Thanks,
>     Gerard

Calling a study "a bunch of lies" before it's even been carried out is
very bad faith. It's absolutely fine to question methodology - but we
need to be friendly as well as critical - and I hope Benjamin has been
inspired rather than turned off by the many comments and questions on
these lists. I've been meaning to comment myself, but Phoebe's just
said pretty much everything I was going to say. :-)

Cheers,
Cormac


from_name: Andrew Garrett

body:
demute wrote:
>It would be really nice if wikipedias Special:random-function could take
>arguments, making it possible to get a random article from user-specified
>categories.
>A suggestion to do this is as follows. When a user click on the "random
>article" link the random article is loaded with a comment on the top of the
>page saying something like "you requested a random article. click here to
>view options" and so the the user can mark which categories the article
>should come from. The settings can either be stored in a cookie or they can
>be sent in the URI.
>Everyone would love this feature!
>

This idea should be discussed on the appropriate forum - namely the Wikimedia
bugzilla system. This list is for discussion of technical issues relating
exclusively to the Wikimedia servers - or notification of software changes which
have a significant impact on the operation of a Wikimedia project.

Andrew Garrett
(werdna)