body:
I love the way you said it Jt.

On 8/27/05, Jtkiefer <jtkiefer at wordzen.net> wrote:
> As I noted on your talk page Tern, you  have been perm. banned meaning
> that you have lost all say in how Wikipedia is run and your right to
> edit has been officially revoked, as such you are no longer entitled to
> anything, wikipedia is not a democracy, wikipedia is a private
> organization and for all intensive purposes we don't have to put up with
> your bullshit accusations of harrassment.  If you still feel the need to
> bug someone about being harassed may I suggest sending an email to
> null at dev.null.  Oh yes, and you have been pwned.
>
> -Jtkiefer
>
> the relevant discussion regarding his blocking can be found at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tern#Blocked
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
signature


list: foundation-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Dan Grey

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Wikimedia meeting today

body:
On 27/08/05, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Well, it has been staying on the agenda for a lonnnnng time. And
> discussed many times on the mailing list (wikinews), with some editors
> contacting us so that the issue be fixed. Hence it being listed.

Yes, the license has been discussed on and off for the entire lifetime
of the project, usually just the same arguments being rehashed over
and over. I've also noticed that fewer and fewer people are involved
in each round, probably because rarely anything ever comes of the
discussions.

There's a slight difference about us discussing amongst ourselves and
the board talking about it though. The latter *might* result in some
sort of action being taken, so in this instance the participation of
the people who actually create what will be licensed might be a good
idea.

>
> If you feel it would be a very very very bad idea to discuss it today as
> you would prefer that wikinewsies be warned sooner, please say it so. I
> guess we can find enough topics of discussion to fill up 2 hours. Open
> also means people should feel free to report a major issue to be discussed.

Discuss it by all means - just please don't make any decisions.
Something along the lines of "if the community comes to a decision,
we'll ratify it" might be good :-).

> I spent two hours this morning trying to clarify many pages on meta.
>
> Please see the starting page
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation. I would love that
> this page is completed little  by little to give a good overview of the
> Foundation in less than 32 ko.
>
> Could anyone help making the paragraphs about "where do we spent money"
> and "how do we get money" give a good overview to any visitors, plus
> links for deeper investigation ?
>
>
> Several pages have also been clarified. Such as the official positions
> and organigram ones.
>
>
> I would also invite editors to comment on a draft of a role, the press
> officer one, which is currently in french (I'll try to translate it
> soon). I wrote it thinking of the french association press contact, but
> I think it could enhance the description of Elian's role quite a bit.
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Press_Officer

This is great, I'm glad people haven't given up on this :-). Although,
as Elian said, it would best if most of this was on the WMF wiki, not
meta. Two places covering the same stuff isn't great - they often
start saying slightly different things over time, and then that raises
the question of which is authoritative. There's only a few bits that
need to be editable by just anyone, and therefore remain on meta.

Dan


list: wikimedia-l


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Kevin L'Huillier

subject: [Wikitech-l] Tome Raider files at download.wikimedia.org

body:
I am writing in regards to the files at
http://download.wikimedia.org/tomeraider/current_tr3/

I am not sure who would be best to send this message to.  dbenbenn
suggested this address from the village pump.  Please pass this along
to whoever handles these files.

Tome Raider files are already compressed, and zipping them actually
increases the file size. For the English edition the size increases
from 763MB to 764MB. Also, unpacking that file requires an additional
763MB until the zipped version can be deleted. I would request that
whoever is in charge consider releasing future copies without zipping
them.

Thank you


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia meeting today

body:
On 27/08/05, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> It was discussed on the mailing list. The only reason I added this to
> the agenda was that I realised there had been discussion about this on
> the Wikinews list starting over two weeks ago that had not yet been
> resolved. Details are in this thread:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikinews-l/2005-August/000286.html

There's about four people on the mailing list. It has near-zero
traffic as we're still small enough for *all* discussion to be kept on
the wiki.

>
> The page at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/License says
> arguments will be collected until August 17.

I have no idea who made that page - and certainly word of its
existence was never circulated.

> Since that was 10 days
> ago, it seems overdue for a decision to be made, or at least for it to
> be put on the agenda so more people are aware of it. An older
> discussion is at
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/License_straw_poll

I had a look at that the other day. The vast majority of the "votes"
there are from 2004. What's more noticeable though is that hardly any
of the users on that page actually are Wikinews contributors. To sum,
nothing on that page is relevant to the situation today.

Dan


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia meeting today


subject: [Foundation-l] What? Why? Who?

body:
On 27/08/05, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> They don't actually publish "most searched-for terms". They select
> often searched-for terms that look nice on their "recent searches" or
> zeitgeist pages. They're very selective in what's displayed there.

So when the BBC say "top searches" on this page:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/pan/

they're just lying then?

Dan


subject: [Foundation-l] What? Why? Who?


subject: [Foundation-l] What? Why? Who?

body:
On 27/08/05, Dan Grey <dangrey at gmail.com> wrote:
> So when the BBC say "top searches" on this page:
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/pan/
>
> they're just lying then?

Ditto Google:

http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist2004.html

A 1-10 list of "popular queries" is actually a made up list? And you
know this how, Angela?

Dan


subject: [Foundation-l] What? Why? Who?


list: wikien-l

from_name: Mark Ryan

subject: [WikiEN-l] Pseudodoxia (neo-Nazi Wikipedia)

body:
On 8/26/05, Arkady Rose <arkady at arkady.org.uk> wrote:
> JAY JG wrote:
>
> And how! I don't read Hebrew or Latin; does anyone have a (rough) idea
> what it says?
>
> There's an awful lot of it....
>
> -a

About a megabyte of it is randomly generated lorem ipsum text.

~Mark Ryan


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Christopher Larberg

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Personal wiki

body:
On Sat, 2005-08-27 at 22:58 -0400, James R. Johnson wrote:
> I'm not trying to run a server or anything like that, but simply use a wiki
> on my computer (not published to the internet) for a few things I've
> written.
>
> James
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org
> [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of James R. Johnson
> Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2005 10:43 PM
> To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Personal wiki
>
> Hi all,
>
>             Is there a site where I can download and run a wiki on my own
> computer?  Preferably mediawiki, but something that's as easy as Firefox or
> Media Player to install.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> James
>

MediaWiki can be downloaded from http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Download.
You're using Outlook, and therefore Windows, which doesn't natively
support tar and gzip; I recommend http://www.7-zip.org/ for
decompressing the archive. You need an HTTP server, such as Apache
(http://apache.org/) and PHP (http://www.php.net/) to run MediaWiki.
Don't let the term "HTTP server" scare you; you don't need to allow
others access to your computer.

--Christopher Larberg ([[w:en:User:Slowking Man]])

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20050827/d6409223/attachment.pgp


from_name: Angela

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia meeting today

body:
On 8/27/05, Dan Grey <dangrey at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 27/08/05, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> > So far, the agenda includes:
> > # Wikinews: license
>
> I'm slightly suprised at this item. No mention of this issue has been
> made on the English Wikinews water cooler, nor on the mailing list.
> It's a little late to begin advertising it now, too.

It was discussed on the mailing list. The only reason I added this to
the agenda was that I realised there had been discussion about this on
the Wikinews list starting over two weeks ago that had not yet been
resolved. Details are in this thread:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikinews-l/2005-August/000286.html

The page at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/License says
arguments will be collected until August 17. Since that was 10 days
ago, it seems overdue for a decision to be made, or at least for it to
be put on the agenda so more people are aware of it. An older
discussion is at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/License_straw_poll

Angela.


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia meeting today


body:
On 8/27/05, Dan Grey <dangrey at gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes, the license has been discussed on and off for the entire lifetime
> of the project, usually just the same arguments being rehashed over
> and over.

This recent discussion was more about the fact that not all Wikinews'
currently state they are in the public domain. Some accidentally got
labelled as GFDL which might need to be fixed.

> There's a slight difference about us discussing amongst ourselves and
> the board talking about it though.

This is an open meeting, not specifically a board meeting. Jimmy isn't
even going to be there.

Angela


subject: [Foundation-l] What? Why? Who?

body:
On 8/27/05, Dan Grey <dangrey at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 27/08/05, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> > We don't have any logs of what people searched for. This might be
> > regarded a privacy violation if we did.
>
> I don't think the enquirer meant anything more than "most searched-for
> terms" information. Both the BBC and Google publish that. If it's good
> enough for them...

They don't actually publish "most searched-for terms". They select
often searched-for terms that look nice on their "recent searches" or
zeitgeist pages. They're very selective in what's displayed there.
It's harder for us to do this unless someone with access to that data
(and I'm not sure it is even kept yet) would be willing to filter it
in some way. I don't object to showing the most searched for terms,
but users should be told in advance that this is happening. I'm not
sure that would be so useful in terms of finding things that people
are searching for that we don't have though since we're more likely to
have pages (or not want them) on the things that are most searched
for.

Angela.


subject: [Foundation-l] What? Why? Who?


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia meeting today

body:
On 8/27/05, Dan Grey <dangrey at gmail.com> wrote:

> There's about four people on the mailing list.

Four? There are 236 people on that mailing list.

> It has near-zero
> traffic as we're still small enough for *all* discussion to be kept on
> the wiki.

On which wiki? If you mean meta, then it was there too
(<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/License>). If you mean the
English Wikinews, then I disagree. This was an issue affecting the
Spanish, Serbian, and Romanian editions of Wikinews. Where other than
meta or the mailing list were you expecting a discussion about those?

> I have no idea who made that page - and certainly word of its
> existence was never circulated.

It was circulated on the mailing list. 11 different people replied to
it. 236 Wikinewsies could have read it and circulated it to their own
communities.

> I had a look at that the other day. The vast majority of the "votes"
> there are from 2004. What's more noticeable though is that hardly any
> of the users on that page actually are Wikinews contributors. To sum,
> nothing on that page is relevant to the situation today.

Which is the reason a completely new page was made at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/License

Angela.


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia meeting today


from_name: Anthere

body:
Dan Grey wrote:
> On 27/08/05, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Well, it has been staying on the agenda for a lonnnnng time. And
>>discussed many times on the mailing list (wikinews), with some editors
>>contacting us so that the issue be fixed. Hence it being listed.
>
>
> Yes, the license has been discussed on and off for the entire lifetime
> of the project, usually just the same arguments being rehashed over
> and over. I've also noticed that fewer and fewer people are involved
> in each round, probably because rarely anything ever comes of the
> discussions.
>
> There's a slight difference about us discussing amongst ourselves and
> the board talking about it though. The latter *might* result in some
> sort of action being taken, so in this instance the participation of
> the people who actually create what will be licensed might be a good
> idea.

This is the reason why this meeting is open to everyone.
I tend to think the idea is not even to make the decision of which
license to choose during the meeting, because I see no reason why a
selection of people would make such a decision over all editors. But
rather to find a solution to make it so that such a decision is finally
taken.

Recently, on the french wikinews, someone even try to change the charter
to indicate that all content on wikinews was public domain and its
content forbidden to use for commercial reasons (?!?)

I think it is HIGH time that things are settled down.

>>If you feel it would be a very very very bad idea to discuss it today as
>>you would prefer that wikinewsies be warned sooner, please say it so. I
>>guess we can find enough topics of discussion to fill up 2 hours. Open
>>also means people should feel free to report a major issue to be discussed.
>
>
> Discuss it by all means - just please don't make any decisions.
> Something along the lines of "if the community comes to a decision,
> we'll ratify it" might be good :-).
>
>
>>I spent two hours this morning trying to clarify many pages on meta.
>>
>>Please see the starting page
>>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation. I would love that
>>this page is completed little  by little to give a good overview of the
>>Foundation in less than 32 ko.
>>
>>Could anyone help making the paragraphs about "where do we spent money"
>>and "how do we get money" give a good overview to any visitors, plus
>>links for deeper investigation ?
>>
>>
>>Several pages have also been clarified. Such as the official positions
>>and organigram ones.
>>
>>
>>I would also invite editors to comment on a draft of a role, the press
>>officer one, which is currently in french (I'll try to translate it
>>soon). I wrote it thinking of the french association press contact, but
>>I think it could enhance the description of Elian's role quite a bit.
>>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Press_Officer
>
>
> This is great, I'm glad people haven't given up on this :-)

Do I look like someone giving up on such things ? :-)

. Although,
> as Elian said, it would best if most of this was on the WMF wiki, not
> meta.

I disagree. It is not best that this is on WMF simply because very few
people edit WMF. When this page has reach a good state, it could be
copied over there. But right now, we are very far from it. It has more
chance to become a good page on meta, because they are more editors
likely to work on it. So let's not try to hurry and do something of poor
quality. WMF site will wait till the page is good. If we transfer
entirely the page over there, it will never be good.

Two places covering the same stuff isn't great - they often
> start saying slightly different things over time, and then that raises
> the question of which is authoritative. There's only a few bits that
> need to be editable by just anyone, and therefore remain on meta.
>
>
> Dan


body:
Dan Grey wrote:

> On 27/08/05, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>It was discussed on the mailing list. The only reason I added this to
>>the agenda was that I realised there had been discussion about this on
>>the Wikinews list starting over two weeks ago that had not yet been
>>resolved. Details are in this thread:
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikinews-l/2005-August/000286.html
>
>
> There's about four people on the mailing list. It has near-zero
> traffic as we're still small enough for *all* discussion to be kept on
> the wiki.

The wiki is only the english wiki. And for once, it would be nice that a
decision for a project is not done entirely by its english version.
Suggestion : please advertise this mailing list so that more editors
participate to it.

>>The page at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/License says
>>arguments will be collected until August 17.
>
>
> I have no idea who made that page - and certainly word of its
> existence was never circulated.

Erik. One probably goes back from the time Wikinews concept was being
discussed. The second one is recent and an attempt to make a decision.

>>Since that was 10 days
>>ago, it seems overdue for a decision to be made, or at least for it to
>>be put on the agenda so more people are aware of it. An older
>>discussion is at
>>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/License_straw_poll
>
>
> I had a look at that the other day. The vast majority of the "votes"
> there are from 2004. What's more noticeable though is that hardly any
> of the users on that page actually are Wikinews contributors. To sum,
> nothing on that page is relevant to the situation today.
>
>
> Dan

Best I can then suggest is that you organise such a vote and advertise
it in ALL languages wikinews. Are you ready to do this for us ?
It would be nice that the community makes a suggestion, which will be
approved or not by the board, in the way new projects are.

What do you think ?

Anthere


subject:
[Foundation-l] Re: Wikimedia Foundation in 5 years - Giant
 brainstorming - a game with rules.

body:
It is pretty cool when those guys are bubbling with energy like this :-)

Thanks to you 3.

Anthere

Delphine M?nard wrote:

> OK, this might be a crazy idea, but mav, Danny and I thought, after
> all that was said in the past few weeks on this list, that we should
> try and drain everybody's brain to see where we are going.
>
> This is a bit of a game, serious, but still a game. Your ideas will
> help shape the future of the Wikimedia Foundation. We are not saying
> that all should be implemented, or will see the light, but it is sort
> of a giant brainstorming to see where everybody thinks the Wikimedia
> Foundation should be in 5 years from now.
>
> The rules are simple:
>
> You will find below a grid of what we think needs to be included in a
> five year plan for the Wikimedia Foundation. You may fill all parts,
> or just some, as suits you. You may also give details on how to get
> there, or not. You're free to say anything that goes through your
> head. Your ideas should go on this list.
>
> However, THIS IS NOT TO BE DEBATED. Each of those willing to
> participate may give their personal opinion, but no-one is allowed to
> criticize/comment on other people's 5-year plan on this list. In a few
> days, we will put everything on meta so that can be worked on to shape
> a collaborative five year plan. PLEASE DO REFRAIN from hitting the
> reply button and commenting other people's ideas.
>
> here is the grid:
>
> ==WMF in 5 years==
> *Board and management
> *Staff (the positions, the roles, whether they're paid or not)
> *Budget
> *Fundraising scheme
> *Philantropic activity and outreach to get our content widely redistributed
> *Projects
> *Content objectives
> *Software objectives
> *Relationship between chapters and parent organisation
> *Relationships with the outside world (PR, partnerships, etc.)
> *Other (anything we did not think of)
>
>
> Thank you.
>
> Danny, Delphine, Mav


subject: [Foundation-l] What? Why? Who?

body:
On 8/27/05, Dan Grey <dangrey at gmail.com> wrote:
> So when the BBC say "top searches" on this page:
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/pan/
>
> they're just lying then?

I'd call it filtering, not lying. The site has to be family-friendly
(<http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/familyfriendly.shtml>) so they make an
editorial judgement about what goes into that section. It could never
be an automatically generated list of "top searches".

> http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist2004.html
>
> A 1-10 list of "popular queries" is actually a made up list? And you
> know this how, Angela?

No, not a made up list. It's a list of "popular queries" which is what
they call it. That is very different from a claim that those are "most
searched for terms". They're popular ones, not the top ones.

Angela.


subject: [Foundation-l] What? Why? Who?


from_name: Puddl Duk

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Personal wiki

body:
On 8/27/05, James R. Johnson <modean52 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Is there a site where I can download and run a wiki on my own
> computer? Preferably mediawiki, but something that's as easy as Firefox or
> Media Player to install.

Hi James, for windows I use EasyPHP (http://www.easyphp.org/). It sets up
Apache, MySQL and PHP in one install. Then just install mediawiki.

Takes only a few minutes.

There are a few things that aren't initially installed, like some image
resizing stuff and tex. But otherwise it's fully functional.


from_name: MAURICE FRANK

subject:
[WikiEN-l] admins:emergency copy of blocked user's demand for a
 admins:emergency copy of blocked user's demand for a

body:
In answer to the point of no legal threats -
      The legal reference was to the fact that I was
being threatened with various forms of complaint that
would need defending against, by the AFF couple, at
the same time as the block began, thus obstructing my
actions. I don't see that as a legal threat to sue
anyone. The point is one should not have personal
feuds from outside Wikipedia brought into it, and if
any harrassment that would be a wrong in the world
outside Wikipedia had been effected during the block
which it had blocked me responding to, then that
clearly would have been a legal wrong, because
Wikipedia can'topt out of the world. It is not
isolated from the existence of those factors in
society as a whole.

e.g.in the argument about Nazism that's going on here,
you are taking a position against having Nazis' target
groups put in danger, and you are doing that because
it's an outside world legal issue.

"Wikipedia is not a democracy" needs quite a sharp
answer given to it. For the reason of keeping itself
in passably right relationship with the outside world,
i.e.readers, Wikipedia holds a policy on neutrality of
content. But the only way this policy genuinely exists
and is not a lie to readers, is if unconditionally
anyone who falls victim to crowd psychology can lay
claim to by right, not have to beg for by favour, any
measure that prevents a force of group numbers keeping
a bullying bias in place without having to find NPOV
ground. Now, "laying claim to" anything, inherently
means being entitled to anything.

This is actually a case-study in how society emerged
from the Middle Ages. To have any credible claim to
work by any principles, a society must show they
operate reliably fairly, and to do that means that
people are entitled to it. No way out of that. Hence,
as soon as any group tries to follow any policy code
like neutral POV, immediately people are entitled to
things and all things are not dependent on favour. So,
it stands absolutely logically proved:

either * it's wrong to say to any user ever "you're
not entitled to anything",
or * it's wrong to say to the public that Wikipedia
has a neutrality policy that works.

They can't both be right because anyone can see they
contradict each other head-on. At least one must be
wrong. Which is it?

___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com


from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: Fwd: [Wikitech-l] Re: Spell checking in MediaWiki

body:
Gerard, you can find the message to which I was referring at the end
of the present message.

Please do not treat me as if I know nothing about the subject, because
I certainly do.

Many deaf people learn to speak and to read lips. I don't really think
whether or not deaf people learn a spoken language is an issue
regarding Wiktionary. But certainly, many deaf people DO learn spoken
languages, even if you think (as you appear to) that spoken and
written languages are completely distinct entities.

Besides, it's absurd to state that written languages are not related
to spoken languages. Written English is nothing more than a
transcription of spoken English (in a standard dialect).

As of yet there is no widely-used written language which does not
correspond directly or nearly directly to a spoken or signed language.

You say there are three different kinds of languages, spoken, written,
and signed. This, too, is absurd!

Written languages are always associated with a spoken language (or in
some cases, a signed language). Thus, when we say "Finnish", we're
referring to the language spoken by the majority of Finns, as well as
the language written by the majority of Finns, because in the minds of
all reasonable people they are a single entity.

Do you think that if Korean kids had to learn to write
Dutch-written-language in school rather than Korean-written-language,
it would be just as easy? Obviously, it would not. This is because
knowing spoken Korean makes it much easier to learn written Korean,
and knowing spoken Dutch makes it easier to learn written Dutch,
because there are many simple correspondences. Learning a different
written language, however, is just as difficult as learning a
different spoken language.

But again, this isn't the main point. Please read the e-mail below:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com>
Date: 24-Aug-2005 03:06
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Re: Spell checking in MediaWiki
To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l at wikimedia.org>

Hi,

That page states that the ways for writing signed languages are closer
to Chinese characters than Latin script.

This is completely incorrect.

Please see below for my suggestion on signed languages.

There are 4 main ways of writing signed languages:

1) With word-for-word glosses in a spoken language. For ASL or BSL
this is usually English; for InSL it may be Hindi or another Indian
language or English; for Chinese SL it will probably be Chinese. While
this is suitable in most cases for writing whole sentences and
recording syntax and grammar, it gives no specific information about
what a sign looks like and thus is completely unsuitable.

2) Sutton SignWriting. This writing system is copyrighted and use of
it is not free. However, it is currently the most widely used of any
of the 3 main sign-writing systems today, at least by deaf people
(researchers are more likely to use HamNoSys or Stokoe). It is more
like Korean letters: each part of any given symbol says something
specific about how to form the sign, but they are combined to form
what may appear to the uninitiated to be a logographic sign, when in
fact it is most certainly not. More information at
http://www.omniglot.com/writing/signwriting.htm

3) HamNoSys. A very complex system that can be best compared with a
"Narrow transcription" of a spoken language using the IPA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonetic_transcription#Narrow_and_broad_transcription
, it is used mostly by researchers. However, it's much easier to
represent on computers than Sutton SignWriting. More information at
http://www.sign-lang.uni-hamburg.de/Projects/HamNoSys.html

4) Stokoe. Stokoe is actually, in a sense, the basis of HamNoSys. It
is more equivalent to the Latin script than any of the other systems,
in fact it borrows many letters from it. Its use is restricted mostly
to researchers today. Some people accept the minor changes made by it
by a BSL researcher, however any more drastic changes are usually
considered to be separate systems.

Suggestion: Use http://www.unm.edu/~grvsmth/signsynth/ -- data will be
stored as a computer representation of Stokoe, but can be played back.
Demo available at http://www.panix.com/~grvsmth/signsynth/ ...

Although the native rendering for SignSynth is VRML (Virtual Reality
Markup Language), I imagine it would be quite easy to convert
automatically or even to make it render initially in a more
widely-used format, such as some sort of video or animation format.

This would limit the space that would be taken up by the storage of so
many videos -- there are hundreds of signed languages on the planet
today, and to store videos for each word in all of them (or even just
the major ones and the 1000 most frequent words) would take up a lot
of space.

While it is obviously not perfect (look at the forehead... oh my is
she ugly!), it's definitely good enough that someone could imitate it
and their imitation would be the proper sign very accurately, and it's
also good enough that anybody who can speak sign language (there are
better terms than "speak", but they seem awkward to me) should be able
to understand it well.

Presumably, the developer of the software could be solicited for
further cooperation.

Mark

On 24/08/05, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Lars Aronsson wrote:
>
> >Sabine Cretella wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Well Lars, we are not so far away from making a different point
> >>in that. It is one of the usages we have in mind with Ultimate
> >>Wiktionary. Since there we will have words in all languages and
> >>have these words in a relational database it is easy to "extract
> >>an actual spellchecker" every now and then.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I keep hearing these promises, but "seeing is believing"!  Have
> >you started actual work on UW yet, or are you sitting idle while
> >waiting for Wikidata to be released?  Will there be an English
> >free dictionary that can compete in size and quality with Aspell's
> >current dictionary by the end of 2005?  Or by the end of 2006?
> >
> Hoi,
> Actual work on UW itself is underway. Here you can find the data desisgn
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Wiktionary_data_design This
> design is very much open for comments and I am happy to say that many
> comments that were given have led to changes. I name but a few changes
> that came about this way; Can sign languages be included - now they can,
> Can attestations be included - now they can.
>
> As Ultimate Wiktionary is dependent on Wikidata, there is little option
> for us but to wait untill it is ready. It is really important that
> Wikidata is done well because it will not serve only Ultimate Wiktionary
> but also Ultimate Wiktionary.
>
> When both Aspell and Ultimate Wiktionary are considered Free, it should
> be possible for us to work together. Once we find this cooperation
> possible, we could host the data currently included in Aspell in UW. In
> return we would provide a publicly accessible website where it is easy
> to add new words thay will end up in Aspell. Even when we do not
> cooperate, there will be languages that currently do not have a
> spellchecker. These spellcheckers I am particularly exited about because
> this is where we will be able to add value.
>
> Without a massive infusion of data, it will be hard to predict when we
> have as many words as Aspell does for languages where Aspell has a
> dictionary.
>
> Then again, if we create a wordcount on the Wikipedia content, run it
> against a spellchecker, the resulting list should be spelled correctly
> and could be included in UW. Particularly for our biggest wikipedias and
> the amount of topics covered, it should be a list that might be close to
> the size of what Aspell has. We will also have a long list of words
> missing in Aspell. We will however not get a spellchecker for British or
> American in this way.
>
> Thanks,
>     GerardM.
>
>
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: Alphax

subject:
[WikiEN-l] New Tool Suggestion, WAS: A cry to save the Asperger's
	Syndrome page

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Phroziac wrote:
> On 8/25/05, Jeff Kinz <jkinz at kinz.org> wrote:
>>Hmmm...   Suggestion:
>>
>>When a page is in this type of "trouble", is it possible that one more
>>tool in the toolbox would help?
>>
>>That would be a tag which means a page is only editable from a
>>logged-in Wiki-account.
>>
>>All logged-in edits to the page would be processed as usual.
>>
>>When an non-logged in user opened the edit tab on that page they would
>>get a message indicating that page's special status and a chance to
>>login or register.
>>
>>
>>The logic is straightforward. How much work this would be to add is
>>an unknown, as is how much of a load increase it would add to the
>>wiki-servers. I'm happy to contribute code if needed.
>>
<snip>
>
> Sounds good, but it's super easy to register, and I will oppose all
> attempts to make registration difficult. ;)
>

I think a variety of meta-protection - pages which can only be edited by
logged in users - would be very useful. Coupled with a solution for bug
550 (http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=550), it would be
very useful to stop blatant POV warring by new users. Encouraging people
to register is undoubtably a Good Thing, because new users are very
quickly welcomed and dealt with as needed.

- --
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDEGaa/RxM5Ph0xhMRAzfLAJ9RN77YuDnpK5io5iJJ/jYCPEKneQCfXvu/
Lw0F58LmIMVihFVTVn+8Gl4=
=3x+W
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: James R. Johnson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Personal wiki

body:
Hi all,

            Is there a site where I can download and run a wiki on my own
computer?  Preferably mediawiki, but something that's as easy as Firefox or
Media Player to install.

Thanks,

James


body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Haukur ?orgeirsson wrote:
>>About a megabyte of it is randomly generated lorem ipsum text.
>>
>>~Mark Ryan
>
>
> Could someone maybe unvandalize it for a while? My browser crashes when I
> attempt to access the site and I was hoping to get at my user page there.
>

Don't go to the main page.

Some kind souls have been cleaning user pages, either manually or with
bots. The place is such a mess that it's not worth bothering with.

It would be interesting to see it turned into a Nazi Uncyclopedia though :)

- --
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDEGe3/RxM5Ph0xhMRAx2yAKCpCVmKHm9CteOi4doDK7BMuDNBRACfQdBb
JSxkHd2hQ9Hjy6/nCNeMafg=
=CJfh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Personal wiki

body:
I'm not trying to run a server or anything like that, but simply use a wiki
on my computer (not published to the internet) for a few things I've
written.

James

-----Original Message-----
From: wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of James R. Johnson
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2005 10:43 PM
To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Personal wiki

Hi all,

            Is there a site where I can download and run a wiki on my own
computer?  Preferably mediawiki, but something that's as easy as Firefox or
Media Player to install.

Thanks,

James

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


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia meeting today

body:
On 27/08/05, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/27/05, Dan Grey <dangrey at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > There's about four people on the mailing list.
>
> Four? There are 236 people on that mailing list.

Really? They're not saying much though, are they? The August archive:

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikinews-l/2005-August/thread.html#298

About a third of mails are people trying to unsubscribe. That says a lot!

>
> > It has near-zero
> > traffic as we're still small enough for *all* discussion to be kept on
> > the wiki.
>
> On which wiki?

You know exactly which one I mean.

>If you mean meta, then it was there too
> (<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/License>). If you mean the
> English Wikinews, then I disagree. This was an issue affecting the
> Spanish, Serbian, and Romanian editions of Wikinews. Where other than
> meta or the mailing list were you expecting a discussion about those?
>
> > I have no idea who made that page - and certainly word of its
> > existence was never circulated.
>
> It was circulated on the mailing list. 11 different people replied to
> it. 236 Wikinewsies could have read it and circulated it to their own
> communities.

Erm, according to the page history that page was created on August 10
2005. You can read the August mailing list archive yourself - the link
is above. As you can see, it was never mentioned. And only eight
people replied to the discussion that did take place - and one of
those was asking to unsubscribe!

>
> Which is the reason a completely new page was made at
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/License

Which as we've just established, was never advertised, so is in the
chocolate teapot category.

Your own comment about it - "why another page of this?" - says it all.

Dan


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia meeting today


references:
<8b722b8005082619322d33aa23@mail.gmail.com>
	<cfe1dfe105082702536de8539d@mail.gmail.com>
	<depf1p$fn4$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<cfe1dfe105082711336abe1359@mail.gmail.com>
	<deqdde$k1c$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
On 27/08/05, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> This is the reason why this meeting is open to everyone.
> I tend to think the idea is not even to make the decision of which
> license to choose during the meeting, because I see no reason why a
> selection of people would make such a decision over all editors. But
> rather to find a solution to make it so that such a decision is finally
> taken.
>
> Recently, on the french wikinews, someone even try to change the charter
> to indicate that all content on wikinews was public domain and its
> content forbidden to use for commercial reasons (?!?)
>
> I think it is HIGH time that things are settled down.

Well, on en.wikin most people seem to be quite happy with PD. Every so
often says "you can't really use PD" but when pressed they never
actually explain that :-).

Dan


subject: [Foundation-l] meta and WMF wiki

body:
On 27/08/05, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> . Although,
> > as Elian said, it would best if most of this was on the WMF wiki, not
> > meta.
>
> I disagree. It is not best that this is on WMF simply because very few
> people edit WMF. When this page has reach a good state, it could be
> copied over there. But right now, we are very far from it. It has more
> chance to become a good page on meta, because they are more editors
> likely to work on it. So let's not try to hurry and do something of poor
> quality. WMF site will wait till the page is good. If we transfer
> entirely the page over there, it will never be good.

That makes a lot of sense.

Dan


subject: [Foundation-l] meta and WMF wiki


from_name: Laura Scudder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright situation

body:
Supposedly even our newspaper underwear ads are off-limits.  Every
time I ship a package there the postman asks me if I checked the
newspaper I packed it with.  I wouldn't want little kids reading
Harlequins, but I would certainly never think to worry about content
in the local paper.

Laura

On 8/18/05, Skyring <skyring at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/19/05, steve v <vertigosteve at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > JW wrote:
> > >Merely "breaking Iranian law" isn't particularly
> > worrisome.
> >
> > Not unless they first obtain some nukes to help them
> > enforce their particular notions of IP law.
>
> It's not their IP law that Jimbo was referring to, but the enforcement
> of their standards of official decency. I can't say that I pay much
> attention to it when I send packages of romance books to a friend of
> mine in Teheran, but still I have to wonder about the foreign-ness of
> a culture where Mills&Boon/Harlequin type romances are on the
> blacklist.
>
> --
> Peter in Canberra
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Personal wiki

body:
Hi Chris,
	Thanks for the links.  I also found
"http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_on_a_stick" on Meta, and got to
"Configure the Wiki" at which point I got lost - the directions are quite
unclear.  I don't know how to get the initial wiki configuration done...

James

-----Original Message-----
From: wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Larberg
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2005 11:19 PM
To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
Subject: RE: [Wikipedia-l] Personal wiki

On Sat, 2005-08-27 at 22:58 -0400, James R. Johnson wrote:
> I'm not trying to run a server or anything like that, but simply use a
wiki
> on my computer (not published to the internet) for a few things I've
> written.
>
> James
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org
> [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of James R. Johnson
> Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2005 10:43 PM
> To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Personal wiki
>
> Hi all,
>
>             Is there a site where I can download and run a wiki on my own
> computer?  Preferably mediawiki, but something that's as easy as Firefox
or
> Media Player to install.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> James
>

MediaWiki can be downloaded from http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Download.
You're using Outlook, and therefore Windows, which doesn't natively
support tar and gzip; I recommend http://www.7-zip.org/ for
decompressing the archive. You need an HTTP server, such as Apache
(http://apache.org/) and PHP (http://www.php.net/) to run MediaWiki.
Don't let the term "HTTP server" scare you; you don't need to allow
others access to your computer.

--Christopher Larberg ([[w:en:User:Slowking Man]])


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Personal wiki

body:
Thanks for the info!  I started EasyPHP, but got an error, that "Apache port
(80) is used by inetinfo.exe".  Do I edit the httpconf file to a different
port to change this?

James

-----Original Message-----
From: wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Puddl Duk
Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2005 12:13 AM
To: wikipedia-l at wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Personal wiki

On 8/27/05, James R. Johnson <modean52 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Is there a site where I can download and run a wiki on my own
> computer? Preferably mediawiki, but something that's as easy as Firefox or
> Media Player to install.

Hi James, for windows I use EasyPHP (http://www.easyphp.org/). It sets up
Apache, MySQL and PHP in one install. Then just install mediawiki.

Takes only a few minutes.

There are a few things that aren't initially installed, like some image
resizing stuff and tex. But otherwise it's fully functional.
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


from_name: Tobin Titus

subject: [WikiEN-l] Blocked inappropriately

body:
I have been involved in a dispute over [[Bob Jones University]] with a few
editors for the past few days. I've made the argument that the rules posted
in a list are not encyclopedic and are POV when placed in context only with
criticism.  Additionally, cutting the rules from the BJU.EDU page and
pasting them into the page is a copyright violation.  After trying several
times to edit the offending section in various ways and trying to find a
compromise, I decided I had no choice but to remove the offending content
and place a copyvio notice in its place. I initially only did this in the
"Rules For Students" subpage.  The administrator that was involved in a
dispute over the article reverted the page and removed the copyvio notice.
This is avoidant vandalism. I then re-read the entire policy which states
that I should blank the page and add the copyvio notice, which I did, citing
each copyright violation and the page it was copied from.  This was again
reverted.  I continued to ask Ambi (the administrator) to please just remove
the offending content and we could work on a compromise. He continued to
revert the page.  After reverting the avoidant vandalism many times, he had
me blocked for a 3RR violation. As I read 3RR it states that there is an
exception made for vandalism.  However, I was blocked for violation of a 3RR
rule, and *I* was attributed with the avoidant vandalism as well when it was
Ambi that continued to remove the copyvio notice. I believe ambi was acting
in good faith, but this is over the top and a violation of the rules, IMHO.
I realize I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and may be wrong, but what else can I
do but follow the policy as it is written on Wikipedia's site?  I'm also
confused why I was attributed with the copyvio removal when it was Ambi that
continued to remove the notice.  Any help would be appreciated. Thanks in
advance for your help.

Tobin Titus
AKA: Sleepnomore


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia meeting today

body:
On 8/27/05, Dan Grey <dangrey at gmail.com> wrote:

> Really? They're not saying much though, are they? The August archive:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikinews-l/2005-August/thread.html#298
> About a third of mails are people trying to unsubscribe. That says a lot!

The August archives aren't going to tell you very much since a lot of
the archive (along with the ability to unsubscribe) was lost earlier
this month due to server problems.

> > > It has near-zero
> > > traffic as we're still small enough for *all* discussion to be kept on
> > > the wiki.
> >
> > On which wiki?
>
> You know exactly which one I mean.

No, I didn't. I was discussing international Wikinews issues, and was
assuming you were not serious about saying all discussion of those
should be on the English Wikinews!

> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/License
> > It was circulated on the mailing list. [...]
>
> As you can see, it was never mentioned.

That's completely untrue. The page was advertised on the Wikinews
mailing list as the following extract shows:

On 8/10/05, Erik Moeller wrote on wikinews-l:

> So, what do we do next? I have started a new page at
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/License
> which collects the licensing options and the main arguments I could
> think of. I invite you to add arguments to this page. Perhaps we can
> find a clear consensus for one option, but if we cannot, we will
> probably have to resort to a vote to finalize the decision.

Angela.


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia meeting today


from_name: Phroziac

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Personal wiki

body:
You could, and you'll need to access it at
http://127.0.0.1:port/wiki/, if it's not 80.

On 8/28/05, James R. Johnson <modean52 at comcast.net> wrote:
> Thanks for the info!  I started EasyPHP, but got an error, that "Apache port
> (80) is used by inetinfo.exe".  Do I edit the httpconf file to a different
> port to change this?
>
> James
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org
> [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Puddl Duk
> Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2005 12:13 AM
> To: wikipedia-l at wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Personal wiki
>
> On 8/27/05, James R. Johnson <modean52 at comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Is there a site where I can download and run a wiki on my own
> > computer? Preferably mediawiki, but something that's as easy as Firefox or
> > Media Player to install.
>
>
> Hi James, for windows I use EasyPHP (http://www.easyphp.org/). It sets up
> Apache, MySQL and PHP in one install. Then just install mediawiki.
>
> Takes only a few minutes.
>
> There are a few things that aren't initially installed, like some image
> resizing stuff and tex. But otherwise it's fully functional.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
signature


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Personal wiki

body:
Got it done - but it's now trying to load the
http://localhost/mediawiki-1.4.8/ and it's taking an incredibly long time -
is that normal?  And if not, is there something I can do to correct the
error?

James

-----Original Message-----
From: wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Phroziac
Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2005 12:49 AM
To: wikipedia-l at wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Personal wiki

You could, and you'll need to access it at
http://127.0.0.1:port/wiki/, if it's not 80.

On 8/28/05, James R. Johnson <modean52 at comcast.net> wrote:
> Thanks for the info!  I started EasyPHP, but got an error, that "Apache
port
> (80) is used by inetinfo.exe".  Do I edit the httpconf file to a different
> port to change this?
>
> James
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org
> [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Puddl Duk
> Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2005 12:13 AM
> To: wikipedia-l at wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Personal wiki
>
> On 8/27/05, James R. Johnson <modean52 at comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Is there a site where I can download and run a wiki on my own
> > computer? Preferably mediawiki, but something that's as easy as Firefox
or
> > Media Player to install.
>
>
> Hi James, for windows I use EasyPHP (http://www.easyphp.org/). It sets up
> Apache, MySQL and PHP in one install. Then just install mediawiki.
>
> Takes only a few minutes.
>
> There are a few things that aren't initially installed, like some image
> resizing stuff and tex. But otherwise it's fully functional.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

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


from_name: Mark Pellegrini

subject: [WikiEN-l] Raul's 6th law of Wikipedia confirmed

body:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raul654/Raul%27s_laws - Raul's 6th law
of Wikipedia (formulated in November, 2004):

"Wikipedia's steadily increasing popularity means that within the next
year or two, we will begin to see organized corporate astroturfing
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing> campaigns."

Prediction confirmed - August 28, 2005 -
http://www.smh.com.au/news/icon/wikipedia-worries/2005/08/23/1124562860192.html

"However, the concern continues. One anonymous reader contacted
Boingboing telling them he worked at a marketing company that uses
Wikipedia for its online marketing strategies.."That includes planting
of viral information in entries, modification of entries to point to new
promotional sites or 'leaks' embedded in entries to test diffusion of
information. Wikipedia is just a more transparent version of [online
meeting place] Myspace as far as some companies are concerned. We love it."

--Mark
(User:Raul654)


from_name: Jakob Voss

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: wikistats (was Information flow)

body:
Robert Scott Horning wrote:
> Jakob Voss wrote:
>
>> Most statistics can be created out of the database dumps but first you
>> have to know how to get it, where to put it and how to treat it.
>> I have updated http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Export but you
>> still need some hardware and programming skills.
>
> There are many statistics, particularly user counts and attempts to
> determine authorship of a particular artile or revision histories of
> articles, that simply can't be obtained from the Special:Export feature,
> as it is currently implemented.

Unfourtunately Special:Export is crippled. Generally you get get all the
version history but this feature seems to be disabled like the internal
search. Let's hope that "making available the content in a transparent
copy" will get more focus after the next server growth.

Greetings,
Jakob


from_name: Erik Zachte

body:
Zipping is only done as a quick way to determine download was succesful,
without need for md5sum.

Erik Zachte


body:
Delphine M?nard wrote:

> [...] it is sort
> of a giant brainstorming to see where everybody thinks the Wikimedia
> Foundation should be in 5 years from now.
...
> You're free to say anything that goes through your
> head. Your ideas should go on this list.
...
> However, THIS IS NOT TO BE DEBATED.
...
 > ==WMF in 5 years==

Well, instead of going to bed I brainstormed a bit so apologiye if some
of the ideas are not that perfect. Some are better WMF in 10 years.

> *Board and management
> *Staff (the positions, the roles, whether they're paid or not)

There is first a supervisory board consisting of voted representatives
of the projects, local chapters, and a president and second the
management. The supervisory board only makes fundamental decisions and
controls the management. Regularly all actions (finance, hardware,
relations...) are done by the management. It is adviced to act as
transparent and to delegate as much as possible to volunteers and local
chapters. The management is paid (at least partly) and can hire other
people for specific tasks.

> *Budget
> *Fundraising scheme

The Foundation coordinates fundraising schemes and grants but most of
the money is collected by the chapters who pay the foundaten if needed
(and vice versa). We'll have a lot of money ;-)

> *Philantropic activity and outreach to get our content widely redistributed
> *Projects
> *Content objectives

Beside central server issues most projects are driven by local chapters.
There are several local projects with other content providers and
redistributors of content produced in Wikimedia projects. First
campaigns against lack of literacy have been started. Lobbying against
exaggerated copyright and patenting keeps going on. There are several
projects collecting free knowledge but we decided not to collect free
art of any kind (this is done by Ourmedia).

> *Software objectives

Times when everything had to be wiki only are over. MediaWiki finnaly
split up into a modularized set of components for collaboratively
editing text ("old school wiki"), editing media, managing structured
data and archiving non-mutable objects.

Servers are still regularly getting slow because of growing usage but as
there are multiple server farms not every project is affected in the
same way.

> *Relationship between chapters and parent organisation
> *Relationships with the outside world (PR, partnerships, etc.)

Local chapters are independent organisations that have a contract with
the Foundation. Most of the projects and partnerships are organised by
local chapters (almost 30 of them in 5 years) that regularly meet. The
Foundation gives general guidelines what kind of projects and
partnerships are welcome and which are not. Only partnerships with
special organisations are directly with the Foundation - for instance:

* Internet Archive
* Creative Commons Initiative
* United Nations

Beside a loose cooperation with United Nations there is no partnership
with any gouvermental or mainly political organisation.

> *Other (anything we did not think of)

* Wikimania organisers don't know who to invite as keynote speaker
because we already had Lawrence Lessing, Tim-Berners-Lee, Dalai Lama...
* WMF has already beed nominated for Nobel Peace Prize but will only get
it in one of the next years because there are still wars at too many
places and ecocide goes on, so there are also other problems but free
knowledge - sad but true but we do our best.

Greetings,
Jakob


from_name: Skyring

subject: [WikiEN-l] Speaking of insecure egos...

body:
It's pretty tough when I can't even clear my own talk page. Can
someone take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Skyring
and see if they can work out what sort of official policy the relevant
admin is following, apart from WP:BLOODYMINDEDNESS?

--
Peter in Canberra


from_name: Milos Rancic

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Personal wiki

body:
Download and install easyphp first from www.easyphp.org. (Instead of
installing separately Apache and MySQL.)

On 8/28/05, James R. Johnson <modean52 at comcast.net> wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>         Thanks for the links.  I also found
> "http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_on_a_stick" on Meta, and got to
> "Configure the Wiki" at which point I got lost - the directions are quite
> unclear.  I don't know how to get the initial wiki configuration done...
>
> James
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org
> [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Larberg
> Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2005 11:19 PM
> To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> Subject: RE: [Wikipedia-l] Personal wiki
>
> On Sat, 2005-08-27 at 22:58 -0400, James R. Johnson wrote:
> > I'm not trying to run a server or anything like that, but simply use a
> wiki
> > on my computer (not published to the internet) for a few things I've
> > written.
> >
> > James
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org
> > [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of James R. Johnson
> > Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2005 10:43 PM
> > To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Personal wiki
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> >             Is there a site where I can download and run a wiki on my own
> > computer?  Preferably mediawiki, but something that's as easy as Firefox
> or
> > Media Player to install.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> >
> > James
> >
>
> MediaWiki can be downloaded from http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Download.
> You're using Outlook, and therefore Windows, which doesn't natively
> support tar and gzip; I recommend http://www.7-zip.org/ for
> decompressing the archive. You need an HTTP server, such as Apache
> (http://apache.org/) and PHP (http://www.php.net/) to run MediaWiki.
> Don't let the term "HTTP server" scare you; you don't need to allow
> others access to your computer.
>
> --Christopher Larberg ([[w:en:User:Slowking Man]])
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Encarta article list

body:
Jimmy Wales stated for the record:

> Please delete this list immediately.  Opinions of our legal team are
> divided about the issue, and I feel that in a case like this,
> conservatism and caution are called for.
>
> I would delete it myself, except that I'm on a plane.

I win!  I got 11 of them; Danny got 9.  Tabbed browsing is wonderful.

--
  Sean Barrett     | The determined programmer can write
  sean at epoptic.com | a FORTRAN program in any language.


from_name: Nikola Smolenski

subject: [Wikitech-l] Mediawiki software localisation -- Pootle

body:
On Friday 26 August 2005 21:58, Rowan Collins wrote:
> On 26/08/05, Sabine Cretella <sabine_cretella at yahoo.it> wrote:
> > The easiest thing is to use a CAT-Tool to translate the UI and then put
> > the translation memory (tmx) at disposal - so anyone who does an update
> > will have 100% matches from the old UI and the rest needs to be
> > translated. This way the translator goes also over the correction of
> > eventual misspellings or changes in terminology are possible in order to
> > have an even better product.
>
> One of the big problems with the current setup is that the MediaWiki:
> namespace (the "live" messages in the database of a particular
> project) are used both for localisation and customisation - so
> whenever you export the messages from, say, Wikipedia, you have to
> work out which changes are due to changes in the software, which are
> cosmetic but appropriate for application to other projects, and which
> are specific to the particular project. This is probably the biggest
> challenge which any new l10n system (or even a new approach to i18n)
> needs to address.

Maybe it would be possible to make a list of strings which are expected to be
customised, and which are not. For example, "From Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia" will always be customised while "Article", "Discussion",
"Edit", "Recent Changes"... will never be. Then, LanguageXx.php could
periodically be refreshed with only "safe" strings filled in. Language files
for Navajo and other languages which only have translations in MediaWiki
namespace could be created from scratch in this way.


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] Rewards and punishments

body:
geni (geniice at gmail.com) [050823 20:40]:

> RFA does not exist to reward good editing.

Although if someone in arbitration is a notably good editor otherwise
despite some problems interacting with others, the AC does often make a
point of noting the fact.

> At the present time we have
> no formal system for recogniseing good editors although we have a
> number of informal systems.

[[WP:FAC]] does, though getting an article through it is an arduous
process. My user page doesn't note every article I've worked on, but it
does note every featured article I've pushed through, because I am quite
proud of those and they show that I don't just do community and nuts and
bolts stuff ;-)

- d.


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: Merge, DON'T delete (was Re: [WikiEN-l] Encarta article list)

body:
--- Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> Please delete this list immediately.  Opinions of our legal team are
> divided about the issue, and I feel that in a case like this,
> conservatism and caution are called for.

A single source list like this may very well be in a legal gray area. But would
not a list that was derived from multiple sources minus articles we already
happened to have be OK? Certainly this would be legal given the fact that in
the U.S. an alphabetical list of names with addresses by it has *no* copyright
protection.

I don't feel that out-right deleting is in order. A merger with the other lists
first *is*.

-- mav

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


subject: legal paranoia (was Re: [WikiEN-l] Encarta article list)

body:
--- Zachary Harden <zscout370 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Due to the above message from Jimbo, and taking no chances, I went ahead and
> deleted the Encyclop?dia Britannica 2004 list, which was designed in a
> similiar fashion to the Encarta list. I am not sure what other lists can go,
> but I think we should not take chances with them if the WMF legal are having
> issues.

Bullocks. This is legal paranoia. Just merge the lists from different sources,
clean-up duplicates, rename entries using our naming conventions, and remove
articles we already have. Much of the prep work to get us to a publishable
point would need to be done off-line, I'm afraid. But it *can* and should be
done.

Copyright may  still apply but the resulting work should be distinct enough to
not be considered derivative. This is really not any different than exhausting
several sources as references to write an article.

For example: I specifically choose to use references that have already
encyclopedia-length treatments of the topic I want to write about. I then
systematically use almost every single fact in each of those references to
write an article for Wikipedia (using my own wording and organization, of
course). If that is illegal, then we are in much bigger trouble than anybody
thinks.

-- mav

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: Hey shithead

body:
Mark Ryan (ultrablue at gmail.com) [050825 17:22]:

> I'm sorry. Since none of the other list admins appear to be tending to
> the moderation queue any more, I had a whole week's worth of spam to
> go through (goodbye to an hour of my life). I wasn't sure of the
> context of this email, so I gave it the benefit of the doubt.

Sorry about that, I've suddenly been eaten by a job! I will try harder to
get to it ...

(This is the first chance I've had to check this email account in four
days ...)

- d.


body:
--- Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree. AFAICT, the lists had already been trimmed for things that we
> already had articles.

I can see a valid argument that if all we did was trim each list, then the
resulting work may be considered derivative and thus not legal. More than that
should be done to be safe

ASIDE: The phone book analogy I previously stated may not apply since a phone
book is an unimaginative exhaustive list of names and numbers organized
alphabetically, while an encyclopedia's list of topics is a tiny sub-set of
human knowledge chosen for relevance.  Thus the first has no copyright
protection, while I can see a strong argument that the second may.

> I support temporary undeletion and merging of
> these lists. All Encyclopedia lists if neccessary, even 1911EB (though
> it should be noted next to these that a 1911EB article exists, since
> these are PD already).

That sounds like a good plan to me. But much of the merger work should be done
off-line just to be on the safe side. Several people could each take a letter
in the alphabet from each list to work on off-line. Then people will work on
each resulting letter-list the same way they are now once it is put onto
Wikipedia.

There will be a bottleneck at the offline merger stage, but we can still do
this. It will just take a bit more work and a bit longer than the way we were
doing it (although merging the different lists may also reduce duplicated
effort).

-- mav

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


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Personal wiki

body:
www.qwikiwiki.com

On 8/28/05, Mattis Manzel <mattismanzel at yahoo.de> wrote:
> Check tiddlywiki: http://www.tiddlywiki.com/
>
> mattis
>
> James R. Johnson schrieb:
>
> >I'm not trying to run a server or anything like that, but simply use a wiki
> >on my computer (not published to the internet) for a few things I've
> >written.
> >
> >James
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org
> >[mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of James R. Johnson
> >Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2005 10:43 PM
> >To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> >Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Personal wiki
> >
> >Hi all,
> >
> >            Is there a site where I can download and run a wiki on my own
> >computer?  Preferably mediawiki, but something that's as easy as Firefox or
> >Media Player to install.
> >
> >
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >
> >
> >James
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Wikipedia-l mailing list
> >Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Wikipedia-l mailing list
> >Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - Jetzt mit 1GB Speicher kostenlos - Hier anmelden: http://mail.yahoo.de
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
signature


from_name: daniwo59 at aol.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Encarta article list

body:
In a message dated 8/28/2005 9:43:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
sean at epoptic.org writes:

I  win!  I got 11 of them; Danny got 9.  Tabbed browsing is  wonderful.

I came in second!

Danny


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: A neo-Nazi wikipedia

body:
*sigh* :(

On 8/27/05, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> Haukur ?orgeirsson wrote:
> > He did not edit disruptively. Anything else he may have done happened off
> > Wikipedia. Some participants in this discussion are of the opinion that no
> > off site actions should be taken into account in the banning of Wikipedia
> > users.
>
> While I think almost everyone will agree that off site actions are
> *different* from on-site actions, and should certainly not be treated in
> the same way, I have so far found no persuasive argument that *no* off
> site actions should be taken into account in the banning of Wikipedia users.
>
> As an example, once upon a time a particularly demented and evil person
> posted photos of my family (wife and little girl) with disgusting
> insults on a website attacking Wikipedia.  He posted links to a
> quicktime movie of my house, and made ominous suggestions about my home
> address and his "followers".  I was out of town and frightened enough to
> have Terry go and spend the night on the couch guarding the family.
>
> That person is permanently banned from Wikipedia, period.  I don't think
> anyone disputes the ethics of this.  (Fortunately, he was arrested on
> felony charges in an unrelated matter, and as far as I know, he's in
> prison now.)
>
> I consider the Amelekite case to be in the same genre, although slightly
> (but only slightly) less obvious.
>
> --Jimbo
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
signature


list: wiktionary-l

from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject: [Wiktionary-l] Spoken vs written languages

body:
Mark,
Do not treat me as if I know everything about all language because I do
not. Having said that, your attitude towards languages is skewed towards
a particular point of view, you aproach it from a speaking persons point
of view. That is the traditional way that linguists, people that express
some expertise about languages, do this. I am not a linguist but I have
had the benefit of some intense information by Wolfgang Georgsdorf about
speaking and signing languages. Now from my point of view, a dictionary
has always been about written languages. Traditionally when the spoken
language was considered, there were phonetic scripts and these are only
usable to people who studied this. To the vast majority of the human
population they are worthless.

The scripts that you sum up so well, are from a practical point of view
in the same category as the phonetic scripts, they are useless to the
majority of the people that may have a need for them. Your assertion is
correct, "written English is a transcription of spoken English" but
there is a limit to this; you have to speak English to be able to
transcribe it. So in this assertion you show that you can speak English.

I aproach languages from a completely different angle than you do. I am
working on a dictionary, I am working on a dictionay on the Internet and
your point of view, while traditional, does not help me a bit in
understanding how this dictionary is going to work for deaf people. To
me it is quite simple; for a deaf person, it is necessary to know a
written language in order to use a computer. Given this skill set you
can present a user interface. It is easy to translate from that written
language to a sign language this way. However, this aproach has one
important draw back, it negates the reality of sign languages being
languages in their own right with their own vocabulary with meanings
that do not translate well.

You say that it is absurd to make a destinction between three language
types; spoken, written and sign languages. I can tell you that my
written expressiona are different from my spoken expressions. When I
speak, tone of voice is important, when I write grammar is more
relevant. I use different words depending on speaking or writing. I
think this is true for everyone yet you make it an absurdity..

I am glad that I do not have to prove that I know anything about
languages, I am happy that I know enough to create a data design for an
electronic all inclusive dictionary. I still need all the help that I
can get and I still need all comments that people can give because hey,
what do I know.

Thanks,
    GerardM

Mark Williamson wrote:

>Gerard, you can find the message to which I was referring at the end
>of the present message.
>
>Please do not treat me as if I know nothing about the subject, because
>I certainly do.
>
>Many deaf people learn to speak and to read lips. I don't really think
>whether or not deaf people learn a spoken language is an issue
>regarding Wiktionary. But certainly, many deaf people DO learn spoken
>languages, even if you think (as you appear to) that spoken and
>written languages are completely distinct entities.
>
>Besides, it's absurd to state that written languages are not related
>to spoken languages. Written English is nothing more than a
>transcription of spoken English (in a standard dialect).
>
>As of yet there is no widely-used written language which does not
>correspond directly or nearly directly to a spoken or signed language.
>
>You say there are three different kinds of languages, spoken, written,
>and signed. This, too, is absurd!
>
>Written languages are always associated with a spoken language (or in
>some cases, a signed language). Thus, when we say "Finnish", we're
>referring to the language spoken by the majority of Finns, as well as
>the language written by the majority of Finns, because in the minds of
>all reasonable people they are a single entity.
>
>Do you think that if Korean kids had to learn to write
>Dutch-written-language in school rather than Korean-written-language,
>it would be just as easy? Obviously, it would not. This is because
>knowing spoken Korean makes it much easier to learn written Korean,
>and knowing spoken Dutch makes it easier to learn written Dutch,
>because there are many simple correspondences. Learning a different
>written language, however, is just as difficult as learning a
>different spoken language.
>
>But again, this isn't the main point. Please read the e-mail below:
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>From: Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com>
>Date: 24-Aug-2005 03:06
>Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Re: Spell checking in MediaWiki
>To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l at wikimedia.org>
>
>
>Hi,
>
>That page states that the ways for writing signed languages are closer
>to Chinese characters than Latin script.
>
>This is completely incorrect.
>
>Please see below for my suggestion on signed languages.
>
>There are 4 main ways of writing signed languages:
>
>1) With word-for-word glosses in a spoken language. For ASL or BSL
>this is usually English; for InSL it may be Hindi or another Indian
>language or English; for Chinese SL it will probably be Chinese. While
>this is suitable in most cases for writing whole sentences and
>recording syntax and grammar, it gives no specific information about
>what a sign looks like and thus is completely unsuitable.
>
>2) Sutton SignWriting. This writing system is copyrighted and use of
>it is not free. However, it is currently the most widely used of any
>of the 3 main sign-writing systems today, at least by deaf people
>(researchers are more likely to use HamNoSys or Stokoe). It is more
>like Korean letters: each part of any given symbol says something
>specific about how to form the sign, but they are combined to form
>what may appear to the uninitiated to be a logographic sign, when in
>fact it is most certainly not. More information at
>http://www.omniglot.com/writing/signwriting.htm
>
>3) HamNoSys. A very complex system that can be best compared with a
>"Narrow transcription" of a spoken language using the IPA
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonetic_transcription#Narrow_and_broad_transcription
>, it is used mostly by researchers. However, it's much easier to
>represent on computers than Sutton SignWriting. More information at
>http://www.sign-lang.uni-hamburg.de/Projects/HamNoSys.html
>
>4) Stokoe. Stokoe is actually, in a sense, the basis of HamNoSys. It
>is more equivalent to the Latin script than any of the other systems,
>in fact it borrows many letters from it. Its use is restricted mostly
>to researchers today. Some people accept the minor changes made by it
>by a BSL researcher, however any more drastic changes are usually
>considered to be separate systems.
>
>Suggestion: Use http://www.unm.edu/~grvsmth/signsynth/ -- data will be
>stored as a computer representation of Stokoe, but can be played back.
>Demo available at http://www.panix.com/~grvsmth/signsynth/ ...
>
>Although the native rendering for SignSynth is VRML (Virtual Reality
>Markup Language), I imagine it would be quite easy to convert
>automatically or even to make it render initially in a more
>widely-used format, such as some sort of video or animation format.
>
>This would limit the space that would be taken up by the storage of so
>many videos -- there are hundreds of signed languages on the planet
>today, and to store videos for each word in all of them (or even just
>the major ones and the 1000 most frequent words) would take up a lot
>of space.
>
>While it is obviously not perfect (look at the forehead... oh my is
>she ugly!), it's definitely good enough that someone could imitate it
>and their imitation would be the proper sign very accurately, and it's
>also good enough that anybody who can speak sign language (there are
>better terms than "speak", but they seem awkward to me) should be able
>to understand it well.
>
>Presumably, the developer of the software could be solicited for
>further cooperation.
>
>Mark
>
>On 24/08/05, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Lars Aronsson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Sabine Cretella wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Well Lars, we are not so far away from making a different point
>>>>in that. It is one of the usages we have in mind with Ultimate
>>>>Wiktionary. Since there we will have words in all languages and
>>>>have these words in a relational database it is easy to "extract
>>>>an actual spellchecker" every now and then.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I keep hearing these promises, but "seeing is believing"!  Have
>>>you started actual work on UW yet, or are you sitting idle while
>>>waiting for Wikidata to be released?  Will there be an English
>>>free dictionary that can compete in size and quality with Aspell's
>>>current dictionary by the end of 2005?  Or by the end of 2006?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Hoi,
>>Actual work on UW itself is underway. Here you can find the data desisgn
>>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Wiktionary_data_design This
>>design is very much open for comments and I am happy to say that many
>>comments that were given have led to changes. I name but a few changes
>>that came about this way; Can sign languages be included - now they can,
>>Can attestations be included - now they can.
>>
>>As Ultimate Wiktionary is dependent on Wikidata, there is little option
>>for us but to wait untill it is ready. It is really important that
>>Wikidata is done well because it will not serve only Ultimate Wiktionary
>>but also Ultimate Wiktionary.
>>
>>When both Aspell and Ultimate Wiktionary are considered Free, it should
>>be possible for us to work together. Once we find this cooperation
>>possible, we could host the data currently included in Aspell in UW. In
>>return we would provide a publicly accessible website where it is easy
>>to add new words thay will end up in Aspell. Even when we do not
>>cooperate, there will be languages that currently do not have a
>>spellchecker. These spellcheckers I am particularly exited about because
>>this is where we will be able to add value.
>>
>>Without a massive infusion of data, it will be hard to predict when we
>>have as many words as Aspell does for languages where Aspell has a
>>dictionary.
>>
>>Then again, if we create a wordcount on the Wikipedia content, run it
>>against a spellchecker, the resulting list should be spelled correctly
>>and could be included in UW. Particularly for our biggest wikipedias and
>>the amount of topics covered, it should be a list that might be close to
>>the size of what Aspell has. We will also have a long list of words
>>missing in Aspell. We will however not get a spellchecker for British or
>>American in this way.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>    GerardM.
>>
>>
>>Thanks,
>>    GerardM
>>


from_name: DF

body:
Case law has consistently held that an index of a work
may be independently subject to copyright.  We are
certainly not using an insubstantial portion of their
index.

I've discussed this here and other places before, but
I do not believe we have a defensible fair use claim
in this case.  Since I have always been on the losing
side of those arguments, I am just surprised something
changed.

-DF

> And it seems to me, as we've discussed on here
> before, that it would easily fall under the "fair
> use" clause. We are using an insubstantial part of
> their encyclopedia; we are using it for our own
> internal purposes (it is in the Wikipedia
> namespace, is it not?); we are non-profit; we are
> not claiming copyright; we are not defrauding them >
in any way; we are not even looking at the content >
itself, just bibliographic information.
>
> FF


from_name: Thomas Koll

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Personal wiki

body:
Am 28.08.2005 um 04:58 schrieb James R. Johnson:

> I'm not trying to run a server or anything like that, but simply
> use a wiki
> on my computer (not published to the internet) for a few things I've
> written.

as you might know a wiki is a group tool and thus you should question
yourself
wether it's the right tool for a single user.

If you could explain to us for what you need it we might suggest you a
software fitting your needs much better than Mediawiki.

ciao, tom

--
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:TomK32
http://www.tomk32.de


from_name: Tels

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Moin,

On Sunday 28 August 2005 02:57, Erik Zachte wrote:
> Zipping is only done as a quick way to determine download was
> succesful, without need for md5sum.

I think this is silly. The 32 bit CRC used in ZIP is even weaker than MD5.

Zipping the files puts a burden on the generator (takes time) and the user
(takes time, space) and in this case actually increases the download.

Plus the determination whether the download was successfull needs to be
done without ZIP or MD5sum, anyway, because these could be easily forged.

Digitally sign the files, and put up instruction on how to verify the
signature. (I wonder why nobody wrote a firefox extension that
automatically looks for .asc files, hunts down the key and verifies the
download after completion..hmmm...)

Best wishes,

Tels

- --
 Signed on Sun Aug 28 10:23:13 2005 with key 0x93B84C15.
 Visit my photo gallery at http://bloodgate.com/photos/
 PGP key on http://bloodgate.com/tels.asc or per email.

 "Duke Nukem Forever will come out before Doom 3." - George Broussard,
 2002 (http://tinyurl.com/6m8nh)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iQEVAwUBQxF1U3cLPEOTuEwVAQF1Nwf+NX2847Eojo3PfQ6RRUwQHQyJYc2qkVuc
wpABmKM/oGZBurfqS/hn+Df7vXSU/jdMKxrVlyhN9vPzWVZ40Mh/S8Za5T6rbRHh
kbLi0gz9kyi6gmlLi79qE7spmOpC8YfJR9fM9JhzPKS7fqv54JfZxZl5I+ECI+Sc
sSsVRy4wRAEI4EHVq8+gp7FkcC7Oxi1T07FBGEP/GAsyCT5rpFe55HAHwwSXP7gb
QiI1Bm5T/QADxOCptznBUTfLM6vk/04zHCHAPpwwwMXeT1d+eLpkVfqFxx6UTkDa
vfjly1kPKeKRO1eY0fSCyuT9S9VkGVciuVc76gMm2Sm7LzjPjce/7w==
=BhG3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Henno van Arkel

subject: [Wikitech-l] Inserting a user from an outside script

body:
Hi,

I've searched on the meta-wiki and googled for the last two days, but
I can't seem to manage to be able to create a wiki-user from an
outside script.

My questions are:

1) I'm using the following code to generate the wiki password (as far
as I can tell it's identical as in the wiki source [1.5]).

 $wiki_password = md5($wiki_user_id . "-" . md5($_POST['password1']) );

2) the table user_rights. Setting the correspondent id to 'user' or
'sysop' doesn't solve the problem either. The right value for this is
just "user" is it not?

3) Right now, in the user table, I'm setting user_id, user_name,
user_real_name, user_password, and user_email. Do I need to set
user_options as well? Any others?

Any help much appreciated,
Henno


from_name: Mattis Manzel

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Personal wiki

body:
Check tiddlywiki: http://www.tiddlywiki.com/

mattis

James R. Johnson schrieb:

>I'm not trying to run a server or anything like that, but simply use a wiki
>on my computer (not published to the internet) for a few things I've
>written.
>
>James
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org
>[mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of James R. Johnson
>Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2005 10:43 PM
>To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Personal wiki
>
>Hi all,
>
>            Is there a site where I can download and run a wiki on my own
>computer?  Preferably mediawiki, but something that's as easy as Firefox or
>Media Player to install.
>
>
>
>Thanks,
>
>
>
>James
>
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>
>

___________________________________________________________
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - Jetzt mit 1GB Speicher kostenlos - Hier anmelden: http://mail.yahoo.de


from_name: Daniel P. B. Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Raul's 6th law of Wikipedia confirmed

body:
> From: Mark Pellegrini <mapellegrini at comcast.net>
>
> "Wikipedia's steadily increasing popularity means that within the next
> year or two, we will begin to see organized corporate astroturfing
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing> campaigns."
>
> Prediction confirmed - August 28, 2005 -
> http://www.smh.com.au/news/icon/wikipedia-worries/
> 2005/08/23/1124562860192.html
>
> "However, the concern continues. One anonymous reader contacted
> Boingboing telling them he worked at a marketing company that uses
> Wikipedia for its online marketing strategies.."That includes planting
> of viral information in entries, modification of entries to point
> to new
> promotional sites or 'leaks' embedded in entries to test diffusion of
> information. Wikipedia is just a more transparent version of [online
> meeting place] Myspace as far as some companies are concerned. We
> love it."

Without challenging your prediction, I do wish to repeat that there
is a big difference between talking about something and actually
doing it.

There are all sorts of _apparent_ opportunities to get away with
dishonest behavior. For example, newspaper vending machines allow you
to pay for one newspaper and take two. I am sure there is some sleaze
somewhere who is bragging about how he does this regularly. You might
even be able to figure out a way to make money on this for a while--
say, by systematically looting vending boxes and bringing the papers
to recyclers.

That does not mean that any newspaper company needs to pay hundreds
of thousands of dollars to redesign and retrofit their vending machines.

That does not mean that there is no danger. I'm just saying that it
is a big step from saying you _could_ do something from actually
doing it on a big enough scale to be a problem.

A good example of this is airline hijackings. From the beginnings of
air passenger travel until the late 1960s, airliners were totally
unprotected against hijacking. I am _sure_ that people said "Look how
easy it would be to..."  I was going to say "and nothing happened for
thirty years but Wikipedia's article on "aircraft hijacking" mentions
some isolated events, the first in 1931. Nevertheless, it did not
become a systemic _problem_ until the late 1960s and early 1970s.

--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith at verizon.net
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/


from_name: Thomas Gries

body:
Henno,

I do not know, if this helps, but I have in EnotifWiki (= Mediawiki1.5
rc3) an option "Auto-account creation and auto-login".

See also http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1360
There is a flowchart, which says more than 1000 words ;-)
http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/attachment.cgi?id=385&action=view

This is not an external script, but can help you to design one.
Tom

Henno van Arkel schrieb:

>Hi,
>
>I've searched on the meta-wiki and googled for the last two days, but
>I can't seem to manage to be able to create a wiki-user from an
>outside script.
>
>My questions are:
>
>1) I'm using the following code to generate the wiki password (as far
>as I can tell it's identical as in the wiki source [1.5]).
>
> $wiki_password = md5($wiki_user_id . "-" . md5($_POST['password1']) );
>
>2) the table user_rights. Setting the correspondent id to 'user' or
>'sysop' doesn't solve the problem either. The right value for this is
>just "user" is it not?
>
>3) Right now, in the user table, I'm setting user_id, user_name,
>user_real_name, user_password, and user_email. Do I need to set
>user_options as well? Any others?
>
>Any help much appreciated,
>Henno
>_______________________________________________
>Wikitech-l mailing list
>Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>
>
>


from_name: Dan Grey

subject: [Foundation-l] What? Why? Who?

body:
On 27/08/05, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> No, not a made up list. It's a list of "popular queries" which is what
> they call it. That is very different from a claim that those are "most
> searched for terms". They're popular ones, not the top ones.
>

I've e-mailed both Google and the BBC asking for clarification. I'll
let you know what (if anything) I hear back.

Dan


subject: [Foundation-l] What? Why? Who?


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia meeting today

body:
On 27/08/05, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/License
> > > It was circulated on the mailing list. [...]
> >
> > As you can see, it was never mentioned.
>
> That's completely untrue. The page was advertised on the Wikinews
> mailing list as the following extract shows:
>
> On 8/10/05, Erik Moeller wrote on wikinews-l:
>
> > So, what do we do next? I have started a new page at
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/License
> > which collects the licensing options and the main arguments I could
> > think of. I invite you to add arguments to this page. Perhaps we can
> > find a clear consensus for one option, but if we cannot, we will
> > probably have to resort to a vote to finalize the decision.

Hmmm, and how was I supposed to know that? Funnily enough, I can't
tell what was and was not posted to the mailing list when all public
records from period have been lost.

Look, as far as consulting with the Wikinews community goes, it's not
to difficult to understand:

1. There are few active Wikinews contributors on the wikinews-l list
2. It appears to be English only (ie poking through the archives I see
few/no non-English posters)
3. We don't have a lot to talk about, so therefore discussions tend to
stay on the wikis.

So if you want to ask every Wikinews community about something, you
post on the wikis. You go to the Water cooler on en. and post your
query, and you repeat that exercise on each language edition.

Otherwise you *will not* reach the people who actually contribute. You
may _wish_ that posting to the mailing list is sufficient to do that -
BUT IT IS NOT.

Dan


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia meeting today


from_name: Fastfission

body:
And it seems to me, as we've discussed on here before, that it would
easily fall under the "fair use" clause. We are using an insubstantial
part of their encyclopedia; we are using it for our own internal
purposes (it is in the Wikipedia namespace, is it not?); we are
non-profit; we are not claiming copyright; we are not defrauding them
in any way; we are not even looking at the content itself, just
bibliographic information.

FF

On 8/28/05, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Zachary Harden <zscout370 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Due to the above message from Jimbo, and taking no chances, I went ahead and
> > deleted the Encyclop?dia Britannica 2004 list, which was designed in a
> > similiar fashion to the Encarta list. I am not sure what other lists can go,
> > but I think we should not take chances with them if the WMF legal are having
> > issues.
>
> Bullocks. This is legal paranoia. Just merge the lists from different sources,
> clean-up duplicates, rename entries using our naming conventions, and remove
> articles we already have. Much of the prep work to get us to a publishable
> point would need to be done off-line, I'm afraid. But it *can* and should be
> done.
>
> Copyright may  still apply but the resulting work should be distinct enough to
> not be considered derivative. This is really not any different than exhausting
> several sources as references to write an article.
>
> For example: I specifically choose to use references that have already
> encyclopedia-length treatments of the topic I want to write about. I then
> systematically use almost every single fact in each of those references to
> write an article for Wikipedia (using my own wording and organization, of
> course). If that is illegal, then we are in much bigger trouble than anybody
> thinks.
>
> -- mav
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Phroziac

body:
Actually, if the vending machine was in a location where nobody would
see you take them (i doubt that ever happens..), nothing's keeping you
from just taking them all ;)

On 8/28/05, Daniel P. B. Smith <dpbsmith at verizon.net> wrote:
> > From: Mark Pellegrini <mapellegrini at comcast.net>
> >
> > "Wikipedia's steadily increasing popularity means that within the next
> > year or two, we will begin to see organized corporate astroturfing
> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing> campaigns."
> >
> > Prediction confirmed - August 28, 2005 -
> > http://www.smh.com.au/news/icon/wikipedia-worries/
> > 2005/08/23/1124562860192.html
> >
> > "However, the concern continues. One anonymous reader contacted
> > Boingboing telling them he worked at a marketing company that uses
> > Wikipedia for its online marketing strategies.."That includes planting
> > of viral information in entries, modification of entries to point
> > to new
> > promotional sites or 'leaks' embedded in entries to test diffusion of
> > information. Wikipedia is just a more transparent version of [online
> > meeting place] Myspace as far as some companies are concerned. We
> > love it."
>
> Without challenging your prediction, I do wish to repeat that there
> is a big difference between talking about something and actually
> doing it.
>
> There are all sorts of _apparent_ opportunities to get away with
> dishonest behavior. For example, newspaper vending machines allow you
> to pay for one newspaper and take two. I am sure there is some sleaze
> somewhere who is bragging about how he does this regularly. You might
> even be able to figure out a way to make money on this for a while--
> say, by systematically looting vending boxes and bringing the papers
> to recyclers.
>
> That does not mean that any newspaper company needs to pay hundreds
> of thousands of dollars to redesign and retrofit their vending machines.
>
> That does not mean that there is no danger. I'm just saying that it
> is a big step from saying you _could_ do something from actually
> doing it on a big enough scale to be a problem.
>
> A good example of this is airline hijackings. From the beginnings of
> air passenger travel until the late 1960s, airliners were totally
> unprotected against hijacking. I am _sure_ that people said "Look how
> easy it would be to..."  I was going to say "and nothing happened for
> thirty years but Wikipedia's article on "aircraft hijacking" mentions
> some isolated events, the first in 1931. Nevertheless, it did not
> become a systemic _problem_ until the late 1960s and early 1970s.
>
> --
> Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith at verizon.net
> "Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
> Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
> Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
signature