body:
Michael Snow wrote:
> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>
>
>>The designated agent is there for takedown notices of copyright
>>infringements, and they have to be in writing, not over the phone.
>>
>>
>
> Do you think that if the Wikimedia Foundation gets a phone call from
> someone complaining about copyright infringement, they're going to say,
> "Sorry, we're not going to do anything unless you send it in writing
> with all the elements required for a takedown notice"?

Well Michael...

In all good faith, this happens. Whether on the phone or on otrs, when
the message sounds reasonnable, and in particular when it cites a book
or a website where the image or text comes from, yes, we actually remove
the image or the text, on the assumption of good faith.

When the request sounds a bit the one of a lunatic, we do not
necessarily do so... We do not straight ask the person information
required for a takedown notice, but we certainly do ask a little bit
more information to justify the claim of cp infringment :-)

ant


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Anthere

subject: [WikiEN-l] Phone calls in office

body:
Ilya N. wrote:
> Don't we have some sort of office for such things? I mean I'd hate to put
> individuals like you who are probably quite busy on the spot for such
> things.
>
> --
> ~Ilya N.

No. We do not.
We do not have an office for such things.
The only office we have answers in English. So can not handle all those
requests. And the only office we have is in Florida, so not so suitable
for someone who want to complaint about something written on a non
english-speaking project.

We do not because Danny's talking english only. And we will need people
to answer the phone in dozen of languages. The Florida office could
possibly hire one person to answer the phone in
english/french/german/spanish/japanese. But I somehow doubt so.

Or we could have a collection of different people all over the world to
answer in a reasonable enough number of languages. From their home, or
from an office. The germans already have an office in Germany. I do not
know how they handle phone call, but they are currently looking for a
(paid) CEO. I presume we will need soon an office in France as well. Or
at least a system of answering machines and people to take turn to call
back only the relevant people. I suppose that this could be handled by
local associations. If they are available.

Right now, it appears a pretty weird idea I suspect. And probably not
one the board will be motivated to spend any kind of money on. Still, I
think in 6 months, this will have become a requirement.

Ant


from_name: Mark Gallagher

subject: [WikiEN-l] Don't remove a WP:OFFICE tag put there by Danny

body:
G'day Carl,

> This just came to my mind: If the policemen removes the servers, doesn't
> they break the GFDL?

I think, in the hypothetical case of a police invasion of Wikimedia
headquarters, the *last* thing on those cops' minds would be whether or
not a few mirrors are linking to our page histories for GFDL purposes.

Cheers,

--
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.2.1/279 - Release Date: 10/03/2006


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Few questions...

body:
On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 13:16:21 +0100, you wrote:

>What a fascinating, skeptical but probably justified look at the admin
>creation process. Is it true that people who actually get involved in
>debate and dialogue are accused of "conflict" and voted down?

No.  Not in my case, anyway.  In fact, my getting involved in debate
was cited as a reason for support.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] I am Danny

body:
On 3/13/06, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
> > As a Wikimedia staff, he is dwool at wikimedia.org
>
> Sorry, gmane munged that one: is there some way of writing it so that the
> rest of us can read it without the wretched machine butting in?

d for danny, wool for sheepy stuff, located on the organisational
domain belonging to wikimedia.

I challenge any software to break that :)

Steve


from_name: Cheney Shill

subject: [WikiEN-l] Innocent User Autoblocked

body:
   My user name: Halliburton Shill
IP: 207.224.88.172

I am being blocked from editing.

I think user Cryptic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cryptic is gaming and abusing his/her position.  I get the following message:

Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Halliburton Shill". The reason given for Halliburton Shill's block is: "Inappropriate username, googlebomb attempt - see userpage history".

There was no discussion by Cryptic with me and the only other similar discussion is here, in which everyobdy but the person making a delete request has voted keep (at least until a few minutes):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Halliburton_Shill

Since then, Cryptic has also made it a point to blank my user page without any broad support.  My only vehicle for comment is my own talk page and this mailing list.

---------------------------------
 Yahoo! Mail
 Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Few questions...

body:
On 3/13/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> NSLE (Wikipedia) wrote:
> <snip>
> > Secondly, I'd like to point people to this post from the Wikipedia Review:
> > http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=204&view=findpost&p=1214
> > Should we tighten things up a bit at R/D fAdmin? Sure, it isn't wt it's all
> > made out to be, but with admin powers in the wrong hands it, hypotheticaly
> > speaking, could go pear-shaped.

What a fascinating, skeptical but probably justified look at the admin
creation process. Is it true that people who actually get involved in
debate and dialogue are accused of "conflict" and voted down?

Steve


list: textbook-l

from_name: Garrett

subject: [Textbook-l] IRC chat client?

body:
On 13/03/06, Karl Wick <karlwick at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Anyone have a recommendation of a decent freeware IRC client I can use on
> my
> Windows XP (sorry) laptop?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Karl
> _______________________________________________
> Textbook-l mailing list
> Textbook-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l
>

If you use Firefox you should try ChatZilla. It works fine, and if you
download the scripting plugin from WP it supports wiki-links too (e.g. I
merely type [[WP:SD]] to create a working link to there).


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Incoming!!!

body:
Arwel Parry wrote:

>In message <fbad4e140603070556w33272ae9v at mail.gmail.com>, David Gerard
><dgerard-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org> writes
>
>
>>   http://rohitbhargava.typepad.com/weblog/2006/03/using_wikipedia.html
>>
>>
>
>Actually, I wish we could have more posters like this. He's advocating
>
>     * Give up control, people will take your original content and change
>it completely.
>     * It is ok to put in "corporate" content, as long as it is relevant
>to the community.
>     * Let it live and breath, only step in to correct inaccurate
>information
>     * Make sure your own content is not getting pushed out of search
>results by this new content
>
>I don't have any problems with those, though how he expects the last to
>happen once Google gets hold of the Wikipedia article and all its
>mirrors I have no idea.
>
Perhaps some of our dedicated POV pushers would learn something by
reading this.  Similar principles apply whether your marketting a
product or an idea.

Ec


from_name: Chris Jenkinson

subject: [WikiEN-l] Ridiculous nomination for deletion

body:
The Cunctator wrote:
> Don't do that. That's abusive of your authority.

Well, the person in question has been unblocked now and has admitted his
mistake, so the point is moot.

Chris

--
Chris Jenkinson
chris at starglade.org

"Mistrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful."
  -- Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra


from_name: geni

body:
On 3/13/06, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
> "geni" <geniice at gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f80608430603111428p74b30b71ve7e5f645f7a828c7 at mail.gmail.com...
> On 3/11/06, Carl F?rstenberg
> <azatoth at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > It's a serious question, I'm just interested to know how the foundation
> > > could handle the worst case scenario (it could happen sooner or later,
> > > so I
> > > think it's better to be prepared)
> > It's not a likely scenario. A more likely one is that a large number of
> > mid level politicians (i.e. the ones for whom wikipedia is the top hit
> > on Google) figure out they can have anything embarrassing knocked out of
> > wikipedia for say the week before the election.
>
> At which point *our* article on said politician moves lower down the ranks
> at Google having been overtaken by the huge number of other web-pages
> commenting on their rank stupidity at trying to censor one of the most
> visible sites on the Internet :-)
>
> HTH HAND
> --
> Phil
> [[en:User:Phil Boswell]]

And what will all these sites link to? The wikipedia article. What
will this do to the wikipedia articles page rank? So in what order
will the results appear on google?

--
geni


from_name: NSLE (Wikipedia)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Few questions...

body:
Hi all, I've got a few questions. I floated the idea of adding a new CSD
criteria in the admin channel yesterday to deal with April Fools hoax
articles, but was told CSD G1 (patent nonsense) would take care of them. Is
that necessarily right, as I seem to recall reading somewhere that some of
last year's hoaxes had to go through (V/A?)FD?

Secondly, I'd like to point people to this post from the Wikipedia Review:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=204&view=findpost&p=1214
Should we tighten things up a bit at R/D fAdmin? Sure, it isn't wt it's all
made out to be, but with admin powers in the wrong hands it, hypotheticaly
speaking, could go pear-shaped.

--NSLE


from_name: Philip Welch

subject: [WikiEN-l] Phone calls in office

body:
On Mar 13, 2006, at 1:17 PM, Kelly Martin wrote:

> On 3/13/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
>> What would be lovely is if we could magically create some OTRS-like
>> system for phone calls. But that just wouldn't work...
>
> Sure it could. You'd just need a IVR that collected a phone message as
> a WAV or MP3 file and sent it as an attachment into the appropriate
> OTRS queue.  The voicemail system that came as a part of the VoIP
> system we deployed at my employer can do this.  (Actually I think the
> Foundation should look at setting up a VoIP network for internal
> coordination, meetings, and other useful functions.  But I digress.)

It's entirely unacceptable unless we use Ogg Vorbis :P

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


list: foundation-l

from_name: Michael Davis

subject: [Foundation-l] Create zh.wikinews.org

body:
Angela,

Your email suggests that this requires Board approval.  If so, then post
it as a proposed resolution to the Board.  Do not confuse the opinion of
three people (who may happen to be Board members) as being the same as
Board approval.  Being a Board member does not confer any authority to a
member outside of the Board itself.

This proposal sounds to me like a community matter rather than a Board
matter.  I prefer to let the community make these decisions as long as
the proposal falls within the broad mandate of the Foundation.  It is
the responsibility of the president to monitor these activities and
bring it to the attention of the Board if there appears to be a conflict
with Foundation policy.

Michael

Angela Beesley wrote:
> On 3/13/06, shi zhao <shizhao at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Plese  create zh.wikinews.org - Chinese Wikinews.
>>
>>see:
>>*http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Vote/Zh
>>*http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4869
>
>
> I can confirm that this is ok with at least 3 Board members (Anthere,
> Jimmy and myself), and the others haven't responded to my email about
> it almost a week ago. So, please go ahead and create the wiki. Good
> luck to everyone involved with the new project.
>
> Angela
>
> --
> Angela Beesley
> WikimediaFoundation.org
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Create zh.wikinews.org


from_name: Kelly Martin

subject: [WikiEN-l] Phone calls in office

body:
On 3/13/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> What would be lovely is if we could magically create some OTRS-like
> system for phone calls. But that just wouldn't work...

Sure it could. You'd just need a IVR that collected a phone message as
a WAV or MP3 file and sent it as an attachment into the appropriate
OTRS queue.  The voicemail system that came as a part of the VoIP
system we deployed at my employer can do this.  (Actually I think the
Foundation should look at setting up a VoIP network for internal
coordination, meetings, and other useful functions.  But I digress.)

Kelly


from_name: Matt Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] Phone calls

body:
On 3/13/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> (now that semi-protection exists I can't personally think of a scenario where
> full protection is *ever* a good idea).

I take it you don't agree with protecting articles that are the
subject of an edit war between established editors?

-Matt


subject: [WikiEN-l] more WP:OFFICE shenanigans

body:
On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 01:39:05 -0500, you wrote:

>Apparently WP:OFFICE is being used to keep any content written by a
>self-identified pedophile from being in an article, just because of the
>identity of the person who wrote it, whether or not the content is NPOV.

And?
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


subject: [WikiEN-l] Few questions...

body:
Wow, inclusionist/deletionist seems like a quaint, remembered bump in the
road compared to the Userbox Wars.

k

On 3/13/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/13/06, Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:
> > While, granted, my RFA was a lifetime ago (last summer), it came right
> on
> > the heels of very deep involvement in a major debate (BCE/CE
> debate).  The
> > debate was split roughly 50-50, and I was one of the major players
> arguing
> > for one position.  While this was mentioned on my RFA, it only earned me
> one
> > oppose vote.
> >
>
> The difference is that there was never any chance of that issue being
> fought over at an admin vs admin level. In that exchange it didn't
> matter much if you were an admin or not. This time around there has
> been far more direct admin admin conflict with both deletion and
> protection being used by admins trying to get their way. Thus it makes
> no sense to allow people who have actively opposed your position to
> have an admin flag.
>
> The same happened to a lesser degree with the inclusionist/deletion
> conflict.
>
> --
> geni
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Phone calls

references:
<24f.7e144b2.31455e0e@aol.com>
	<dfd0b40603120344x4aac1d3bi8566e82841e7a132@mail.gmail.com>
	<0h4812toct4nmqoo1r9s6aflp12qpj6jno@4ax.com>
	<dfd0b40603130642h3d7fcecbna34a5efbaf1e12f5@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On 3/13/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> Furthermore this could all get wildly out of control if calling the
> Foundation to report errors in Wikipedia becomes an official route of
> action. So far as I can tell, though I've heard different versions
> from non-Foundation members, it's not an official route.
>
> And if it's not, it probably shouldn't happen.

I don't see how allowing people to report errors by telephone causes
problems to anyone other than the person answering the phone: Danny.
When there are too many problems reported, I'm sure he'll come up with
a solution. His posts here seem to indicate a reasonable level of
cluefulness :)

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Few questions...

body:
Guettarda wrote:
> On the other hand, anyone at all interested in a successful RFA should avoid
> (should have avoided) the userbox issue because it was so acrimonious.  This
> is the most unpleasant and divisive issue I have come across here.
> Supporting one side (or opposing it) earns you automatic oppose votes from
> people who feel strongly about the other side.  But I don't think this is
> typical of "debate and dialogue" on Wikipedia.  As JzG mentioned, engagement
> in this issues can help get you known.  And, while, granted, active vandal
> fighting can earn you adminship, intelligent and reasonable participation in
> debates can earn you people's respect.  If you can get people to value your
> opinion even while disagreeing with you, you have a good chance of sailing
> through an RFA.

I agree with this advice completely - I experienced it myself in my RFA
and it's definitely true.

Chris

--
Chris Jenkinson
chris at starglade.org

"Mistrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful."
  -- Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [WikiEN-l] more WP:OFFICE shenanigans

body:
On 3/13/06, SPUI <drspui at gmail.com> wrote:
> Apparently WP:OFFICE is being used to keep any content written by a
> self-identified pedophile from being in an article, just because of the
> identity of the person who wrote it, whether or not the content is NPOV.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Justin_Berry#OFFICE_protection

You don't suppose, do you, that involvement of a self-identified
pedophile in authorship of an article on this particular subject might
pose problems for Wikipedia's credibility?


from_name: Sam Korn

body:
On 3/12/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> The police are part of the executive branch of the government.

Yes, but, for the warrent to allow the police to do the "this server's
coming with me" routine, you must surely also have pissed off the
judicial branch?

At least, that's how I *hope* it'd work, and how it'd work in the UK AFAIK.

--
Sam


body:
On 3/12/06, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
> Maybe we should have an IQ test score as a required criterion for
> admission as a Wikipedia editor, a la Mensa?

Many a true word spoken in jest...

--
Sam, presuming that was in jest


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [WikiEN-l] Phone calls in office

body:
On 3/13/06, Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/13/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> > What would be lovely is if we could magically create some OTRS-like
> > system for phone calls. But that just wouldn't work...
>
> Sure it could. You'd just need a IVR that collected a phone message as
> a WAV or MP3 file and sent it as an attachment into the appropriate
> OTRS queue.  The voicemail system that came as a part of the VoIP
> system we deployed at my employer can do this.  (Actually I think the
> Foundation should look at setting up a VoIP network for internal
> coordination, meetings, and other useful functions.  But I digress.)
>
> Kelly

Asterisk is a GPLed software package which can do it.  'Course like
many things GPL, you'll probably spend more money setting it up than
you save vs. buying a prepackaged solution.

Additionally, I'd be surprised if Vonage or one of its competitors
doesn't already have something prepackaged which can do it.

Anthony


subject: [WikiEN-l] Blocking Policy Violated

body:
My user name:  Halliburton Shill

Message displayed:
You were blocked by Cryptic Reason given: Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Halliburton Shill". The reason given for Halliburton Shill's block is: "Inappropriate username, googlebomb attempt - see userpage history". (see our blocking policy)

Disliking my name is not reason to block me.  As for the "googlebomb attempt", that is simply false.  More information here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Halliburton_Shill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Halliburton_Shill

---------------------------------
 Yahoo! Mail
 Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.


body:
On 3/13/06, Michael Snow <wikipedia at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Anthere wrote:
>
> > Michael Snow wrote:
> >
> >> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> >>
> >>> The designated agent is there for takedown notices of copyright
> >>> infringements, and they have to be in writing, not over the phone.
> >>>
> >> Do you think that if the Wikimedia Foundation gets a phone call from
> >> someone complaining about copyright infringement, they're going to
> >> say, "Sorry, we're not going to do anything unless you send it in
> >> writing with all the elements required for a takedown notice"?
> >
> > Well Michael...
> >
> > In all good faith, this happens. Whether on the phone or on otrs, when
> > the message sounds reasonnable, and in particular when it cites a book
> > or a website where the image or text comes from, yes, we actually
> > remove the image or the text, on the assumption of good faith.
> >
> > When the request sounds a bit the one of a lunatic, we do not
> > necessarily do so... We do not straight ask the person information
> > required for a takedown notice, but we certainly do ask a little bit
> > more information to justify the claim of cp infringment :-)
>
> Sorry, I should have been more precise, but I was referring to the first
> type of complaint only, not random rants containing legal threats. Those
> get disregarded if the basis for the complaint isn't apparent and they
> don't comply with the formalities, yes.
>
> --Michael Snow

Well Danny, by his own statement, refuses to give lawyers the number
of the fax line, instead making them go through the charade of looking
it up for themselves online.  So I wouldn't really put it past him to
disregard people who don't dot their i's and cross their t's.  But
none of that's really relevant to the point I was making, which is
that calling the organization to complain about inaccuracies in
articles doesn't seem to be an officially recognized channel.

Anthony


subject: [WikiEN-l] Phone calls

references:
<24f.7e144b2.31455e0e@aol.com>
	<dfd0b40603120344x4aac1d3bi8566e82841e7a132@mail.gmail.com>
	<0h4812toct4nmqoo1r9s6aflp12qpj6jno@4ax.com>
	<dfd0b40603130642h3d7fcecbna34a5efbaf1e12f5@mail.gmail.com>
	<f1c3529e0603130713k79fc7db5xf27ae0ec19f26abe@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On 3/13/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/13/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Furthermore this could all get wildly out of control if calling the
> > Foundation to report errors in Wikipedia becomes an official route of
> > action. So far as I can tell, though I've heard different versions
> > from non-Foundation members, it's not an official route.
> >
> > And if it's not, it probably shouldn't happen.
>
> I don't see how allowing people to report errors by telephone causes
> problems to anyone other than the person answering the phone: Danny.
> When there are too many problems reported, I'm sure he'll come up with
> a solution. His posts here seem to indicate a reasonable level of
> cluefulness :)
>
> Steve

Just allowing people to report errors isn't a problem.  The problems
are acting on those reports without first verifying the true facts,
and removing entire articles simply because some of the facts in that
article are inaccurate.  Then of course there's the problem of
protecting articles, though that one's probably arguable (now that
semi-protection exists I can't personally think of a scenario where
full protection is *ever* a good idea).

Anthony


subject: [WikiEN-l] Page protection vs. semi-protection

body:
On Mar 13, 2006, at 5:51 PM, The Cunctator wrote:

> The argument hinges upon the assumptions such as that it's important
> to Wikipedia to a) encourage 1st-time editing or b) creating different
> classes of users is a long-term bad thing.

I guess we shouldn't have admins if we accept (b).

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


from_name: SPUI

subject: [WikiEN-l] more WP:OFFICE shenanigans

body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
> On 3/13/06, SPUI <drspui at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Apparently WP:OFFICE is being used to keep any content written by a
>>self-identified pedophile from being in an article, just because of the
>>identity of the person who wrote it, whether or not the content is NPOV.
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Justin_Berry#OFFICE_protection
>
> You don't suppose, do you, that involvement of a self-identified
> pedophile in authorship of an article on this particular subject might
> pose problems for Wikipedia's credibility?

Not if everything is accurate and sourced. We don't have an obligation
to the assholes who wouldn't believe the article just because of its
author. They're probably gone anyway because we have articles about sex.


from_name: Andrew Gray

body:
On 13/03/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes, but, for the warrent to allow the police to do the "this server's
> coming with me" routine, you must surely also have pissed off the
> judicial branch?
>
> At least, that's how I *hope* it'd work, and how it'd work in the UK AFAIK.

The judicial branch, in the UK, would merely have to be satisfied that
they got pissed off for a sufficiently important reason...

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Phone calls in office

body:
On 13/03/06, Ilya N. <ilyanep at gmail.com> wrote:
> That's interesting.
>
> Problem is, as Danny says, he spends 1/3rd of his time answering English
> phone calls alone. Most of which can be referred to some editor or other to
> be fixed.
>
> BTW, How big is the FL office?

My understanding is that the Florida office consists of Danny plus one
intern (full-time? part-time?) who does general admin things. So,
basically, the office is Danny, and vice versa.

What would be lovely is if we could magically create some OTRS-like
system for phone calls. But that just wouldn't work...

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Few questions...

body:
On 13/03/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:

> What a fascinating, skeptical but probably justified look at the admin
> creation process. Is it true that people who actually get involved in
> debate and dialogue are accused of "conflict" and voted down?

This bemuses me. I remember desperately casting around for some kind
of conflict I'd been involved in so I could answer the RFA
questions...

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Few questions...

body:
On 3/13/06, Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:
> While, granted, my RFA was a lifetime ago (last summer), it came right on
> the heels of very deep involvement in a major debate (BCE/CE debate).  The
> debate was split roughly 50-50, and I was one of the major players arguing
> for one position.  While this was mentioned on my RFA, it only earned me one
> oppose vote.
>

The difference is that there was never any chance of that issue being
fought over at an admin vs admin level. In that exchange it didn't
matter much if you were an admin or not. This time around there has
been far more direct admin admin conflict with both deletion and
protection being used by admins trying to get their way. Thus it makes
no sense to allow people who have actively opposed your position to
have an admin flag.

The same happened to a lesser degree with the inclusionist/deletion conflict.

--
geni


from_name: Aphaia

subject: [Foundation-l] Volunteers needed for the Wikimania Program Team

body:
Hello all,

On 2/23/06, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> This is a call for volunteers to join the Program Team for Wikimania
> 2006 <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2006>, the second
> international Wikimedia conference, to be held in Boston this August.
>
[omitted]
> A call for papers
> <http://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/Call_for_papers> was recently
> distributed, so we are looking for people willing to help review these
> papers as they arrive in Indico <http://cfp.wikimania.wikimedia.org/>.

Though you can't have time or any other things you feel to need, you
can also help Wikimania team to help CfP and Call for participation
distribution.

Last year, we translated CfP and other info into many languages -
almost ten when the site was launched. Expectedly, those bunch of
information will be available in languages as many as last year.

The translation team has been going on meta platform.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Translation_requests/Wikimania

Now there are two documents requested for translation (one is long,
another is very short)

If you joined the last year team, consider to be back.
If you were not then, consider to join us.

I assure - it will be fun ;-)

--
Aphaea@*.wikipedia.org
email: Aphaia @ gmail (dot) com


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] I am Danny

body:
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
> On 11 Mar 2006 at 19:45, daniwo59 at aol.com wrote:
>
>
>>My name is Danny Wool. I am 42 years old. I am one of two and a half
>>employees of the Foundation--the others are Brion, who deals with hardware and
>>software issues, and Monica, an intern, who assists me in the
>>office.
>
>
> Her last name isn't Lewinsky, by any chance?  :-)
>
> Doesn't the foundation give you a professional e-mail address on
> their server, so you can post without disclosing that you're a (gag,
> vomit, retch) AOLer?
>

Yes, it does; however I assume that Danny only has access to it while at
the office.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 558 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060313/9ac2ba5e/attachment.pgp


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Alin Dosoftei

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Request for Romany Wikipedia

body:
So, if the system changed where is the new one, to translate that one, (in
order not to work twice)? The links from the interface file don't work, they
say "proxy error".

On 3/13/06, Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) <rowikipedia at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think it says it's obsolete only because the system for updating
> interface
> files has changed. However, for a new Wikipedia, it should still be able
> to
> use the localisation file from there. And it is possible to continue
> translating that file, even though the tag asays it's obsolete.
>
> It would be great to get this Wikipedia up and running as soon as
> possible!
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ronline
>
> On 3/13/06, Alin Dosoftei <desiphral at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Well, I worked on it for a few months (almost alone, that's why it took
> so
> > much time), just some chucks of the interface file remained for
> > translation.
> > Now at this link it is said that this partial translation is obsolete:
> >
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LanguageRom.php
> >
> > So is it possible to launch it in this phase?
> >
> > Desiphral
> >
> > On 3/10/06, Servien Ilaino <servien at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > *the is = the rest is
> > >
> > > 2006/3/10, Servien Ilaino <servien at gmail.com>:
> > > > I would like to remind everyone the is awaiting creation aswell...
> > > >
> > > > Serv
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2006/3/10, Andreas Vil?n <andreas.vilen at gmail.com>:
> > > > > I remember looking for a romany wp, since it's an official
> minority
> > > > > language in Sweden, and was surprised I didn't find any. I support
> > > > > this suggestion wholeheartedly, even if I can't contribute in the
> > > > > language.
> > > > >
> > > > > /Andreas
> > > > >
> > > > > On 3/10/06, Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) <rowikipedia at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would like to request the creation of a Wikipedia in the
> Romany
> > > language,
> > > > > > with the code "rom", the request having already been approved
> over
> > > at:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages
> > > > > >
> > >
> >
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Requests_for_new_languages/Vlax_Romany
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is a test Wikipedia at:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Test-wp/rom/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This currently contains 14 articles, some written in the Latin
> > > alphabet and
> > > > > > some in Devanagari. The Wikipedia will be biscriptal, with
> > > conversion being
> > > > > > possible 1-on-1, but this will be implemented automatically
> later
> > > on.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The interface file is at:
> > > > > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LanguageRom.php
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The test Wikipedia is also linked from the Wikimedia Romania
> > portal,
> > > at:
> > > > > > http://www.wikimedia.ro/
> > > > > > So, it would be time to set up an actual Wikipedia in this
> > language,
> > > which
> > > > > > is spoken by Roma (Gypsy) people, and has around 250,000
> speakers
> > in
> > > Romania
> > > > > > and more than 1.5 million worldwide. The Roma are the largest
> > > minority in
> > > > > > Europe, and the largest language in Europe without a Wikipedia.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ronline
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > 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
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Wikipedia Romania (Ronline)

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Hobby wikipedia policy

body:
On 3/13/06, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Because they are motivated by a burning hatred for anything "Russian",
> including Cyrillic.
>
> Mark
>

I feel that's a very inaccurate representation of the Romanian point of view
on this proposed transliteration. What must be understood is that Cyrillic
is controversial for Romanian simply because of historical context. This
can't be discounted, and I think people should a bit more sensitive to this
issue. It doesn't compare with Devanagari for English or, say, Arabic script
for Swedish. But the point is that even those Wikipedias would never be
accepted.

In any case - Mark seems to believe that Romanians have a "burning hatred"
for anything Russian, including Cyrillic. This is definitely not the case.
Rather, the writing of Romanian in Cyrillic is something that is not
performed by any Romanians, bar a series of people who declare themselves
ethnic Moldovans in an unrecognised state. For that reason, implementing a
conversion script touches on people's sensitivities. The Latin script is a
link that Romania has to the rest of the Western world. Using a Cyrillic
script that would be treated on par with Latin implies a sort of Cyrillic
hegemony for most of Romanians and Moldovans, and serves as a painful
reminder for the times when people in the Moldovan SSR were forced to learn
the language using Cyrillic characters.

For that reason, I think if there really is demand for such a project, then
a new subdomain should be set up for it.

Overall, however, I think Wikipedia needs to develop a script policy, not
only a language policy. So far, we have got by on this half-hearted notion
of "script doesn't matter, we only have Wikipedias for languages". However,
there are many grey areas:

* The Kurdish Wikipedia uses both Arabic and Latin script, but there is no
conversion. This, IMO, is quite a messy approach. Either have two separate
Wikipedias (there's nothing wrong with that), or imply automatic conversion.
* The Tatar Wikipedia uses the Latin script, which is non-official, yet
there is no content at all in Cyrillic. There is no clear policy on this
(ideally, conversion should be implemented).
* Automatic conversion is messy. For example, the Serbian Wikipedia
continues to be Cyrillic-default, and one must switch to Latin everytime (
i.e. when a link is clicked from a Latin page, it still takes you to the
Cyrillic version). AFAIK, pages also can't be edited in Latin. I presume
this is the case for the Chinese WP as well.

Don't get me wrong, automatic conversion is a potentially very powerful
process that can solve a lot of POV disputes regarding script. At the time,
however, it is technically imperfect. Meanwhile, kudos to Vikimedija SCG,
who are doing a *great* job in promoting the Serbian Wikipedia. You guys are
an example.

Ronline


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] What variant to use for Irish,
 Scottish and Welsh localities?

body:
Sam Korn wrote:
> On 3/11/06, Francis Tyers <spectre at ivixor.net> wrote:
>
>>How about for towns with two names which are similar, but spelt
>>differently:
>>
>>e.g. Cwmbr?n (Welsh) and Cwmbran (English) in Wales.
>>
>>(In case that 'a' didn't come out correct it is an a-circumflex)
>
>
> Ironically, I have seen the town written with the Welsh spelling in
> English and (once or twice) with the English spelling in Welsh.
>
> I'm not quite sure what the moral of this story is.
>

Never start a linguistics war in Britain?
Never go up against a Gael when a wiki is on the line?

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 558 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20060313/f002cbcc/attachment.pgp


body:
I think it says it's obsolete only because the system for updating interface
files has changed. However, for a new Wikipedia, it should still be able to
use the localisation file from there. And it is possible to continue
translating that file, even though the tag asays it's obsolete.

It would be great to get this Wikipedia up and running as soon as possible!

Thanks,

Ronline

On 3/13/06, Alin Dosoftei <desiphral at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Well, I worked on it for a few months (almost alone, that's why it took so
> much time), just some chucks of the interface file remained for
> translation.
> Now at this link it is said that this partial translation is obsolete:
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LanguageRom.php
>
> So is it possible to launch it in this phase?
>
> Desiphral
>
> On 3/10/06, Servien Ilaino <servien at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > *the is = the rest is
> >
> > 2006/3/10, Servien Ilaino <servien at gmail.com>:
> > > I would like to remind everyone the is awaiting creation aswell...
> > >
> > > Serv
> > >
> > >
> > > 2006/3/10, Andreas Vil?n <andreas.vilen at gmail.com>:
> > > > I remember looking for a romany wp, since it's an official minority
> > > > language in Sweden, and was surprised I didn't find any. I support
> > > > this suggestion wholeheartedly, even if I can't contribute in the
> > > > language.
> > > >
> > > > /Andreas
> > > >
> > > > On 3/10/06, Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) <rowikipedia at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > I would like to request the creation of a Wikipedia in the Romany
> > language,
> > > > > with the code "rom", the request having already been approved over
> > at:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages
> > > > >
> >
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Requests_for_new_languages/Vlax_Romany
> > > > >
> > > > > There is a test Wikipedia at:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Test-wp/rom/
> > > > >
> > > > > This currently contains 14 articles, some written in the Latin
> > alphabet and
> > > > > some in Devanagari. The Wikipedia will be biscriptal, with
> > conversion being
> > > > > possible 1-on-1, but this will be implemented automatically later
> > on.
> > > > >
> > > > > The interface file is at:
> > > > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LanguageRom.php
> > > > >
> > > > > The test Wikipedia is also linked from the Wikimedia Romania
> portal,
> > at:
> > > > > http://www.wikimedia.ro/
> > > > > So, it would be time to set up an actual Wikipedia in this
> language,
> > which
> > > > > is spoken by Roma (Gypsy) people, and has around 250,000 speakers
> in
> > Romania
> > > > > and more than 1.5 million worldwide. The Roma are the largest
> > minority in
> > > > > Europe, and the largest language in Europe without a Wikipedia.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > Ronline
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > 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
> > > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>


from_name: Michael Snow

body:
The Cunctator wrote:

>On 3/13/06, Michael Snow <wikipedia at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Delirium wrote:
>>
>>
>>>How can we talk about things on a mailing list of we aren't allowed to
>>>use words and phrases?
>>>
>>>
>>Nobody's denying you the ability to use words and phrases. I'm pointing
>>out that these words and phrases are being used as rhetoric, and that
>>insisting other people should agree to and adopt your rhetoric is
>>counterproductive.
>>
>>
>1) He never insisted that other people should agree to and adopt your rhetoric.
>2) You're misusing the word rhetoric.
>3) Contrary to your above claim, Jimbo wrote "Current policy does not
>let anyone go "over the head" of editors and the Wikimedia Foundation
>does not deal with them in a "top-down manner"." That is, he flatly
>denied Delirium's words.
>
>
Not Jimbo's best moment, and it was followed up by an apology for his
tone. Still, I consider that a denial that Delirium's characterization
is accurate, as might be expected given Jimbo's position. Not a denial
of Delirium's ability or freedom to make such a characterization, which
would be a more serious concern.

>The only thing that Delirium has been insisting on is his right to use
>that language himself -- not that others have to agree lock, stock and
>barrel to it.
>
>
Well, that's not how I understood this message in particular:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-March/041721.html

Wherein Delirium calls Jimbo's response "blatantly counterfactual" and
with his insistent questioning, seems to indicate that there's no
alternative but to adopt his characterization. If that's an
overinterpretation on my part, and he's willing to agree that other
people can legitimately see these events as not "going over the head" of
editors and operating in a "top-down manner", then I would be glad to
hear it.

--Michael Snow


subject: [WikiEN-l] Few questions...

body:
NSLE (Wikipedia) wrote:
<snip>
> Secondly, I'd like to point people to this post from the Wikipedia Review:
> http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=204&view=findpost&p=1214
> Should we tighten things up a bit at R/D fAdmin? Sure, it isn't wt it's all
> made out to be, but with admin powers in the wrong hands it, hypotheticaly
> speaking, could go pear-shaped.
>

Supposing their plan worked, and they didn't slip up, they would have
one or maybe two admin accounts in a few month's time. So what? The
"good guys" have:

- Jimbo
- The Board
- The developers
- >500 admins

on their side. Even if they *did* secure an Arbcom spot, it would not
greatly affect things; at some point they would start carrying out their
Evil Plan of Doom (TM) and would be forced to recuse themselves from
most cases they hoped to influence.

Besides which, if we get a few thousand good edits, and a few
half-decent admins (even if they *do* turn out to be evil) for a year,
who ultimately benefits? WE do!

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 558 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060313/af821f80/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] Phone calls

body:
On 3/13/06, Matt Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/13/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > (now that semi-protection exists I can't personally think of a scenario where
> > full protection is *ever* a good idea).
>
> I take it you don't agree with protecting articles that are the
> subject of an edit war between established editors?
>
> -Matt

No, I think it's better to temporarily block those established editors
for edit warring.  Why block *everyone* from editing an article just
because two people can't get along?  But like I said, that one's
arguable.

Anthony


from_name: The Cunctator

subject: [WikiEN-l] Phone calls

body:
On 3/13/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> On 3/13/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3/13/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Furthermore this could all get wildly out of control if calling the
> > > Foundation to report errors in Wikipedia becomes an official route of
> > > action. So far as I can tell, though I've heard different versions
> > > from non-Foundation members, it's not an official route.
> > >
> > > And if it's not, it probably shouldn't happen.
> >
> > I don't see how allowing people to report errors by telephone causes
> > problems to anyone other than the person answering the phone: Danny.
> > When there are too many problems reported, I'm sure he'll come up with
> > a solution. His posts here seem to indicate a reasonable level of
> > cluefulness :)
> >
> > Steve
>
> Just allowing people to report errors isn't a problem.  The problems
> are acting on those reports without first verifying the true facts,
> and removing entire articles simply because some of the facts in that
> article are inaccurate.  Then of course there's the problem of
> protecting articles, though that one's probably arguable (now that
> semi-protection exists I can't personally think of a scenario where
> full protection is *ever* a good idea).
>
The argument is that since any form of protection is an unwanted
state, it's in certain senses better when it bothers more people -- it
motivates people to fix the underlying problems.

For a tortured analogy, I'd think of how cities deal with homelessness
-- some "solve" it by just making sure that the homeless aren't
allowed to be where "good" people go; whereas others try to confront
the causes of the problem.

Another thing to consider is that the vast majority of people who come
to Wikipedia are *not* registered users, so semi-protection hurts them
instead of the comparative few who are already inside the gates and
can ignore the lock.

Similarly, admins don't notice the minor annoyances of say, not being
able to remove a protection of an article that was accidentally left
on for too long. Because they can just do it.

If this doesn't make sense I can try to do a better job of explaining.


from_name: shi zhao

subject: [Foundation-l] Create zh.wikinews.org

body:
 Plese  create zh.wikinews.org - Chinese Wikinews.

see:
*http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Vote/Zh
*http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4869

--[[zh:user:shizhao]]


subject: [Foundation-l] Create zh.wikinews.org


subject: [WikiEN-l] Phone calls in office

body:
On 3/13/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> On 3/13/06, Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3/13/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > What would be lovely is if we could magically create some OTRS-like
> > > system for phone calls. But that just wouldn't work...
> >
> > Sure it could. You'd just need a IVR that collected a phone message as
> > a WAV or MP3 file and sent it as an attachment into the appropriate
> > OTRS queue.  The voicemail system that came as a part of the VoIP
> > system we deployed at my employer can do this.  (Actually I think the
> > Foundation should look at setting up a VoIP network for internal
> > coordination, meetings, and other useful functions.  But I digress.)
> >
> > Kelly
>
> Asterisk is a GPLed software package which can do it.  'Course like
> many things GPL, you'll probably spend more money setting it up than
> you save vs. buying a prepackaged solution.
>
I bet also that like many things GPL, if Wikipedia asked for help
setting it up, some expert would do it for free.


body:
On 3/13/06, Michael Snow <wikipedia at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Delirium wrote:
>
> > Michael Snow wrote:
> >
> >>> Isn't a directive from the front office saying "nobody can edit this
> >>> page" a top-down directive?  How else would you describe it?
> >>
> >> Why does it need to be described in the first place? For rhetorical
> >> purposes, as is clear by the choice of description you're applying.
> >
> > How can we talk about things on a mailing list of we aren't allowed to
> > use words and phrases?
>
> Nobody's denying you the ability to use words and phrases. I'm pointing
> out that these words and phrases are being used as rhetoric, and that
> insisting other people should agree to and adopt your rhetoric is
> counterproductive.

1) He never insisted that other people should agree to and adopt your rhetoric.
2) You're misusing the word rhetoric.
3) Contrary to your above claim, Jimbo wrote "Current policy does not
let anyone go "over the head" of editors and the Wikimedia Foundation
does not deal with them in a "top-down manner"." That is, he flatly
denied Delirium's words.

The only thing that Delirium has been insisting on is his right to use
that language himself -- not that others have to agree lock, stock and
barrel to it.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Phone calls

references:
<24f.7e144b2.31455e0e@aol.com>
	<dfd0b40603120344x4aac1d3bi8566e82841e7a132@mail.gmail.com>
	<0h4812toct4nmqoo1r9s6aflp12qpj6jno@4ax.com>
	<dfd0b40603130642h3d7fcecbna34a5efbaf1e12f5@mail.gmail.com>
	<f1c3529e0603130713k79fc7db5xf27ae0ec19f26abe@mail.gmail.com>
	<71cd4dd90603131458q73358431x8194f93fcdf982fe@mail.gmail.com>
	<4gvb12lb28fbknlq3se3qtu3e4c6vtc7el@4ax.com>

body:
On 3/13/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 17:58:02 -0500, you wrote:
>
> >Just allowing people to report errors isn't a problem.  The problems
> >are acting on those reports without first verifying the true facts,
> >and removing entire articles simply because some of the facts in that
> >article are inaccurate.
>
> If someone removes information from an article and states on the Talk
> page that it is incorrect, it tends to stay out.  If an edit war
> ensues the article tends to get protected.  I really don't see any
> difference in principle.

I think there's a fundamental difference between removing a disputed
sentence and "blank and rewrite with proper cites".  The latter might
be quick and easy, but it also fails to assume good faith.

Anthony


body:
On 3/13/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/13/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > Just allowing people to report errors isn't a problem.  The problems
> > are acting on those reports without first verifying the true facts,
> > and removing entire articles simply because some of the facts in that
> > article are inaccurate.  Then of course there's the problem of
> > protecting articles, though that one's probably arguable (now that
> > semi-protection exists I can't personally think of a scenario where
> > full protection is *ever* a good idea).
> >
> The argument is that since any form of protection is an unwanted
> state, it's in certain senses better when it bothers more people -- it
> motivates people to fix the underlying problems.
[....]
> If this doesn't make sense I can try to do a better job of explaining.

No, that does make sense.  Though the way I see it, especially since
the advent of the three revert rule, page protection only makes sense
when dealing with sockpuppets, and semi-protection is a good
protection against that which still allows established editors.

And if page protection is only used in that way - in the face of a
distributed sockpuppet attack, I really don't see how semi-protection
hinders solving the underlying problems.

But I suppose this presumes that page protection is only used in this
limited sense, which doesn't reflect how it is actually used in
practice.

To my mind, a fully protected page is the absolute worst state a page
can be in.  A vandalized but editable page is even better, in my
opinion.

Anthony


body:
On 3/13/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/12/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > The police are part of the executive branch of the government.
>
> Yes, but, for the warrent to allow the police to do the "this server's
> coming with me" routine, you must surely also have pissed off the
> judicial branch?
>
> At least, that's how I *hope* it'd work, and how it'd work in the UK AFAIK.
>
Ha ha ha ha ha....

* [[Steve Jackson Games, Inc. v. United States Secret Service]]
* [[Operation Sundevil]]
* [[Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act]]
* [[USA PATRIOT Act]]
* [[DCMA]]
* [[NSA warrantless surveillance controversy]]
* [[Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act]]


body:
On 3/13/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> On 3/13/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3/13/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > > Just allowing people to report errors isn't a problem.  The problems
> > > are acting on those reports without first verifying the true facts,
> > > and removing entire articles simply because some of the facts in that
> > > article are inaccurate.  Then of course there's the problem of
> > > protecting articles, though that one's probably arguable (now that
> > > semi-protection exists I can't personally think of a scenario where
> > > full protection is *ever* a good idea).
> > >
> > The argument is that since any form of protection is an unwanted
> > state, it's in certain senses better when it bothers more people -- it
> > motivates people to fix the underlying problems.
> [....]
> > If this doesn't make sense I can try to do a better job of explaining.
>
> No, that does make sense.  Though the way I see it, especially since
> the advent of the three revert rule, page protection only makes sense
> when dealing with sockpuppets, and semi-protection is a good
> protection against that which still allows established editors.
>
> And if page protection is only used in that way - in the face of a
> distributed sockpuppet attack, I really don't see how semi-protection
> hinders solving the underlying problems.
>
> But I suppose this presumes that page protection is only used in this
> limited sense, which doesn't reflect how it is actually used in
> practice.
>
> To my mind, a fully protected page is the absolute worst state a page
> can be in.  A vandalized but editable page is even better, in my
> opinion.
>
Do you see how a semi-protected page could be worse than a fully protected page?

Or, rather, having significant numbers of semi-protected pages could
be worse than significant numbers of fully protected pages?

The argument hinges upon the assumptions such as that it's important
to Wikipedia to a) encourage 1st-time editing or b) creating different
classes of users is a long-term bad thing.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Phone calls

body:
On 3/13/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/13/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> >(now that
> > semi-protection exists I can't personally think of a scenario where
> > full protection is *ever* a good idea).
>
> Pages being hit repeatedly by vandles useing sleeper accounts.
>
Surely there can't be enough sleeper accounts to keep this up for very
long.  Maybe I'm wrong here, though.  I always thought it was strange
that there was no minimum number of edits factored into the
semi-protection criteria.

> Very high profile pages
>
Good point.  I was thinking of articles, but I can see why you might
want to protect some administrative pages.

> multi participant edit war particularly for three or more
>
Wouldn't it be better to block the edit warriors?

> Pages I don't want even admins to edit (election pages and the like).
>
Along with high profile pages, good point.

Anthony


body:
On 3/13/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/12/06, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
> > Maybe we should have an IQ test score as a required criterion for
> > admission as a Wikipedia editor, a la Mensa?
>
> Many a true word spoken in jest...
>
We should only let Ph.D.'s edit the articles. Everyone else can
suggest contributions on the talk pages.

We could call it the "New Wikipedia", or "New-pedia" for short....


body:
On 3/13/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 13/03/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes, but, for the warrent to allow the police to do the "this server's
> > coming with me" routine, you must surely also have pissed off the
> > judicial branch?
> >
> > At least, that's how I *hope* it'd work, and how it'd work in the UK AFAIK.
>
> The judicial branch, in the UK, would merely have to be satisfied that
> they got pissed off for a sufficiently important reason...

Yes, yes, that's what I was trying to say...

--
Sam


body:
On 3/13/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/13/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > To my mind, a fully protected page is the absolute worst state a page
> > can be in.  A vandalized but editable page is even better, in my
> > opinion.
> >
> Do you see how a semi-protected page could be worse than a fully protected page?
>
> Or, rather, having significant numbers of semi-protected pages could
> be worse than significant numbers of fully protected pages?
>
Assuming all other things are equal, I think I'd say no (but as Geni
reminded me, I'm only thinking about articles here).

Now, granted, all other things might not be equal.  Maybe having
semi-protection encourages more and/or longer lasting protections.

> The argument hinges upon the assumptions such as that it's important
> to Wikipedia to a) encourage 1st-time editing or b) creating different
> classes of users is a long-term bad thing.

As for a), whether a page is protected or semi-protected, a 1st time
editor can't touch it.

As for b), maybe I'm arguing semantics here, but "classes of users"
seems to me to imply that these classes are long lasting.  Telling
people they have to wait 4 days before they can edit a small fraction
of the most controversial articles, that doesn't really create
classes.

I dunno, I guess my base assumption is that any protection of articles
should be very short-lived and only affect a small percentage of
articles at any time.  Maybe I'm too much of a dreamer right there :).

Anthony


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Phone calls in office

body:
On 3/13/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> What would be lovely is if we could magically create some OTRS-like
> system for phone calls. But that just wouldn't work...

Well, I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but where I used to work, we
did exactly that. When things got busy, we put more people on the
phones who simply took down details, they went into the equivalent of
the OTRS (god that thing needs a decent, comprehensible name...), and
were returned by support staff in chronological order. Worked ok. But
not the same line of business.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Phone calls

body:
On 3/13/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/14/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > Surely there can't be enough sleeper accounts to keep this up for very
> > long.  Maybe I'm wrong here, though.  I always thought it was strange
> > that there was no minimum number of edits factored into the
> > semi-protection criteria.
> >
>
> I'm not going to go into exact details but yes it is posible to have a
> large number of sleeper accounts. Not easy but posible
>
Fair enough.  I think it should be possible to set things up so that
the sleeper accounts would have to contribute far more than they can
mess up before getting blocked, but maybe you're right that this can
never be protected against.

> > Good point.  I was thinking of articles, but I can see why you might
> > want to protect some administrative pages.
>
> I was more thinking the main page.
>
And I was specifically avoiding *that* argument :).

> > > multi participant edit war particularly for three or more
> > >
> > Wouldn't it be better to block the edit warriors?
> >
>
> Can't. They will stay within policy. Blocking won't help anyway since
> they can't disscuss while blocked.
>
I thought edit warring was in itself against policy.

Actually, forget that phrasing.  I *know* edit warring is in itself
against policy.  I've been told as much by Jimbo himself.

As for not being able to discuss while blocked, so what?  They can
discuss after the block is over.  Or maybe some other editors will
have come up with a solution in the mean time.

Anthony


body:
On 3/13/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/14/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3/13/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 3/12/06, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
> > > > Maybe we should have an IQ test score as a required criterion for
> > > > admission as a Wikipedia editor, a la Mensa?
> > >
> > > Many a true word spoken in jest...
> > >
> > We should only let Ph.D.'s edit the articles. Everyone else can
> > suggest contributions on the talk pages.
> >
> > We could call it the "New Wikipedia", or "New-pedia" for short....
>
> What you have descibed is closer to Digital Universe (posebly I'm
> still not totaly certian what is going on there) or encarta. I don't
> think newpedia had the suggestions.
>
Nupedia did -- there just weren't many of them.


body:
On 3/13/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
> On Mar 13, 2006, at 5:51 PM, The Cunctator wrote:
>
> > The argument hinges upon the assumptions such as that it's important
> > to Wikipedia to a) encourage 1st-time editing or b) creating different
> > classes of users is a long-term bad thing.
>
> I guess we shouldn't have admins if we accept (b).
>
Right!

Or at least, we should all feel very guilty about it.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Hobby wikipedia policy

body:
>
> Ronline, you're speaking from a very idealistic place. In your world,
> gays, gypsies, and Jews are all accepted as equals by Romanians.

I try to make it that way :)

But the reality is, many Romanians do not share these ideals with you.
> *You* may not have a burning hatred for anything Russian, but it's
> clear many Romanians do.

That's not true. Not in the way you see it least. The dislike for Russian
elements is due to historical context, not to any intrinsic burning hatred.
You don't see Romanians burning Russian flags in the street like Arabs burn
Israeli flags. In fact, in comparison to, say, Poland or the Baltic states,
Romanians are quite neutral towards Russia (at least in my part of Romania,
the attitude is more Russia-ignorant, people really don't care what's
happening east of Romania anymore).

I think the main reason why so much outcry over this Wikipedia has been made
is due to an ingrained fear to return to the past, even symbolically, in
post-Communist Europe in general. Trying to promote the Cyrillic script for
the Moldovan language was seen as going "back to the past" and it is only
natural that this be opposed by people who have particularly bitter memories
of the past (it would be like proposing to reintroduce Russian as the second
state language in Estonia just because there's a significant Russian
minority there).

Case in point -- if there were an English WP in Devanagari, no
> Americans would go to the lengths Romanians have gone to to campaign
> for its closure. The attitude would be, "It's a bit ridiculous, but
> why should we care?"

Well that's exactly my point. The Devanagari case cannot be compared to the
Romanian/Moldovan case because of historical context. If there would be a
proposal to launch a Romanian Wikipedia in Devanagari, I don't think any
Romanians would care either. Cyrillic, however, is politically-sensitive.
Just try getting Estonian WP to accept a Cyrillic version and you'll see the
result (my Estonian comparison again - Estonian was never written in
Cyrillic, but Moldovan was forcibly converted, that's a double standard).

"Forced to learn the language using Cyrillic characters" is a phrase I
> have seen used almost exclusively by Romanians. Moldovans just speak
> of a script change, of reversion to Latin script. These people had
> much more important things to worry about at the time than what script
> they wrote in. Even during perestroica, there were no protests to
> revert to Latin -- the MSSR gov't simply did that without any sort of
> popular outcry.

Well, even though there may not have been a public outcry, it was publicly
imposed. It's not as if Moldovans voluntarily switched to Cyrillic. They
were forced (i.e. involuntarily made) to accept a script that was foreign to
the language they knew.

Actually, while I was troubled by this for a while, I found out that
> Latin is the official script for Tatar in Tatarstan. This is in
> conflict with the fact that Cyrillic is, by a recent national law, the
> official script for all languages of the Russian Federation, however,
> the Tatar law still exists and Tatars themselves seem to be embracing
> Latin.

Yes, I knew that Tatar people preferred Latin, but not that the Tatar
Government actually saw that script as official. In any case, the Wikipedia
should be biscriptal.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Hobby wikipedia policy

body:
Yes, there have in fact been Moldovan users who have either been supportive
of this project or neutral. At the moment, however, there are no native
users of Moldovan Cyrillic that are contributing, or intend to contribute,
to this project.

It doesn't matter WHY a script is present, only that it IS.
>

I don't think it does this case any good to look at it from a political
vacuum. I think that's a problem with Wikipedian approaches in general -
things are deconstructed, recontextualised and looked at in what is a
political-cultural vacuum. The point is that although NPOV is important, the
connotations that a certain script has and its reason for coming about are
important in considering its legitimacy. This is of course regarding
conversion. There would be nothing wrong is setting up a subdomain (mo-cyr)
for this Wikipedia. It would set a precedent, and it would be a unique case,
but then again the case of Moldovan is quite unique anyway.

On 3/13/06, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dpotop ignored the users I listed. It doesn't matter WHY a script is
> present, only that it IS.
>
> Mark
>
> On 13/03/06, Jacky PB <dpotop1 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hello again, and thanks for your interest in the
> > problem.
> >
> > Here is my views on a possible transliteration engine
> > on ro.wiki.
> >
> > Personaly, I have nothing against having it. However,
> > as the vote on mo.wiki shows, only few share my
> > position. And the two reasons are quite
> > straightforward:
> > 1. Historically speaking, the cyrillic script is a
> > remnant of Soviet colonial policies, only maintained
> > (by force) in Transnistria.
> > 2. No request for moldovan in cyrillic came from a
> > Moldovan speaker.
> >
> > Given than, I believe that the best solution is Mark
> > installing the script in his private space, or maybe
> > in the test wikipedia area, pending the arrival on
> > wikipedia of actual Moldovan users interested in the
> > issue.
> >
> > What do you believe?
> > Dpotop
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
> --
> "Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Phone calls

body:
On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 17:58:02 -0500, you wrote:

>Just allowing people to report errors isn't a problem.  The problems
>are acting on those reports without first verifying the true facts,
>and removing entire articles simply because some of the facts in that
>article are inaccurate.

If someone removes information from an article and states on the Talk
page that it is incorrect, it tends to stay out.  If an edit war
ensues the article tends to get protected.  I really don't see any
difference in principle.  The one practical difference is that the
calls to Danny seem to represent a credible threat to the Foundation
and the reputation of the project, hence escalation to protection is
quicker.  What am I missing here?
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


subject: [WikiEN-l] Few questions...

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 3/13/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>NSLE (Wikipedia) wrote:
>><snip>
>>
>>>Secondly, I'd like to point people to this post from the Wikipedia Review:
>>>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=204&view=findpost&p=1214
>>>Should we tighten things up a bit at R/D fAdmin? Sure, it isn't wt it's all
>>>made out to be, but with admin powers in the wrong hands it, hypotheticaly
>>>speaking, could go pear-shaped.
>
>
> What a fascinating, skeptical but probably justified look at the admin
> creation process. Is it true that people who actually get involved in
> debate and dialogue are accused of "conflict" and voted down?
>

Yes. Reasons for opposing me on my current RFA include posting to this
list. I've also been accused of userbox warriorism based on the fact
that I've opposed people for "having too many userboxes" (I think they
look silly), which I find quite amusing. Sad, but amusing.

Oh, and apparantly I'm a reincarnation of Ed Poor (not that either of us
believe in reincarnation); based on what I said last time (which I have
denounced since), I'm going to go on a one-man crusade through AFD and
upset all the process wonks.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 558 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060313/23c3cd15/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] more WP:OFFICE shenanigans

body:
On 3/13/06, SPUI <drspui at gmail.com> wrote:
> Tony Sidaway wrote:
> > You don't suppose, do you, that involvement of a self-identified
> > pedophile in authorship of an article on this particular subject might
> > pose problems for Wikipedia's credibility?
>
> Not if everything is accurate and sourced. We don't have an obligation
> to the assholes who wouldn't believe the article just because of its
> author. They're probably gone anyway because we have articles about sex.

*I* wouldn't believe the article because of its author.   There's more
to accuracy than just citing sources.  Pedophiles can probably write
as good an article about mathematics, psychology, anatomy, politics,
history or theology, but when it comes to articles about the
exploitation of minors I would be as likely to give an article by a
pedophile as much credit as I'd give to an article about global
warming written by a road lobbyist.


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Foundation-l] Create zh.wikinews.org

body:
shi zhao wrote:
>  Plese  create zh.wikinews.org - Chinese Wikinews.

Ok, it's now created.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20060313/859e11e9/attachment.pgp


subject: [Foundation-l] Create zh.wikinews.org

body:
shi zhao wrote:
>  Plese  create zh.wikinews.org - Chinese Wikinews.

Ok, it's now created.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20060313/859e11e9/attachment-0001.pgp


subject: [Foundation-l] Create zh.wikinews.org

body:
shi zhao wrote:
>  Plese  create zh.wikinews.org - Chinese Wikinews.

Ok, it's now created.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20060313/859e11e9/attachment.pgp>


subject: [Foundation-l] Create zh.wikinews.org

body:
shi zhao wrote:
>  Plese  create zh.wikinews.org - Chinese Wikinews.

Ok, it's now created.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20060313/859e11e9/attachment-0001.pgp>


list: wikitech-l

from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-03-14

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

Running test BUG 361: URL within URL, not bracketed... FAILED!
Running test External links: invalid character... FAILED!
Running test Bug 2702: Mismatched <i> and <a> tags are invalid... FAILED!
Running test A table with no data.... FAILED!
Running test A table with nothing but a caption... FAILED!
Running test Link containing "#<" and "#>" % as a hex sequences... FAILED!
Running test Template with thumb image (wiht link in description)... FAILED!
Running test Link to image page... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887: A ISBN with a thumbnail... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887: A <math> with a thumbnail... FAILED!
Running test BUG 561: {{/Subpage}}... FAILED!
Running test Simple category... FAILED!
Running test Basic section headings... FAILED!
Running test Section headings with TOC... FAILED!
Running test Handling of sections up to level 6 and beyond... FAILED!
Running test Resolving duplicate section names... FAILED!
Running test Template with sections, __NOTOC__... FAILED!
Running test Link inside a section heading... FAILED!
Running test Media link with nasty text... FAILED!
Running test Bug 2095: link with pipe and three closing brackets... FAILED!
Running test Parser hook: static parser hook inside a comment... FAILED!
Running test Sanitizer: Validating the contents of the id attribute (bug 4515)... FAILED!

Passed 266 of 288 tests (92.36%) FAILED!


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Our Featured Article of the Day Contains Probable
 Copyright Violations

body:
geni wrote:

>On 3/7/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>John Lee wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>[[Triumph of the Will]] has a gallery of fair use pictures. The gallery
>>>itself violates fair use under American law, which requires that the
>>>subject of the images be critically discussed by the article using those
>>>images. As if that were not enough, the images are *high-resolution*. It
>>>has been suggested that the images are public domain, but this has not
>>>been conclusively proven, and the images are currently marked with a
>>>copyright of 2005 by the uploader, who also wrote much of the article.
>>>It would be bad enough if this is any ordinary article, but...
>>>
>>>  1. It's a featured article, which means it's the best we have to offer
>>>  2. It's on the frickin' main page right now
>>>
>>>Then again, I suppose this does reflect the condition of how fair use
>>>and copyright law are blatantly ignored/misunderstood by most
>>>Wikipedians...for further information, see [[Wikipedia:Fair use
>>>review]], which has a fuller description of what's going on.
>>>
>>>
>>Why are we talking about fair use when the film is clearly in the public
>>domain?  It was released in 1935!!!  1935 + 70 = 2005.
>>
>>Ec
>>
>>
>Wrong country. Leni Riefenstahl died in 2003.
>
>Further details:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)&diff=42060761&oldid=41976931
>
>
Riefenstahl did not own the copyright; she did the work as an employee
of the German government. The talk page for the article cites
http://www.twobirds.com/English/publications/articles/GermanFilmsandUKEnemyPropertyAct1953pt1.cfm
"Leni Riefenstahl appealed, and the German Federal Supreme Court of
Karlsruhe ruled on 10 January 1969 that the copyright was not vested in
Leni Riefenstahl but in the former Nazi party"  The 70 year clock for
government and corporate copyright owners starts when the work is made
public.  The US situation is even simpler, because the extension of
foreign copyrights from 50 to 70 years was not applicable to enemy
properties.  The rights there expired at the end of 1985.

What "wrong country" are you talking about?

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Phone calls in office

body:
Ilya N. wrote:

>On 3/12/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>1 phone call is from someone who perfectly understood she is at the
>
>
>>encyclopedia office, and want to know more about the cancer her sister
>>in law just died from. Usually, the call is during the night; this is
>>when people are scared by the dark and think of life and death.
>>
>>
>TODO: Explain to them that all the information we have is already on
>the encyclopedia?
>
>
A person who makes that kind of call is looking for a response with more
human sensitivity than a computer.

Ec


subject: [Foundation-l] Intent to launch Chinese Wikinews

body:
i checked http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Vote/Zh and found more
than 10 users who are currently living in mainland. i think that
wikipedia/wikimedia can be accessed and edited from mainland china as long
as the user knows how to use proxies or some special browsers.

-roc

2006/3/8, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com>:
>
> Erik Moeller wrote:
> > Chinese Wikinews has long met the formal requirements of a new Wikinews
> > edition to be launched. There has now been another poll:
> >
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Vote/Zh
> >
> > which currently has 36 votes in favor of launching, including many
> > Chinese Wikipedians, and only one (!) vote opposed. As per the voting
> > rules, given more than 90% support after a week of voting, this means
> > that the project can go ahead.
> >
> > Are there any objections from the Board to launching the project now? If
> > I don't hear anything by the end of the week, I presume we can go ahead
> > and set up the site.
> >
> > Erik
>
>
> Do it.
>
> Ant
>
> PS : could mainland chinese vote since they are blocked ?
> (note that the answer will not change the statement above...)
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Phone calls

body:
On 3/13/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>(now that
> semi-protection exists I can't personally think of a scenario where
> full protection is *ever* a good idea).

Pages being hit repeatedly by vandles useing sleeper accounts.

Very high profile pages

multi participant edit war particularly for three or more

Pages I don't want even admins to edit (election pages and the like).

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Phone calls

body:
On 3/14/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> Surely there can't be enough sleeper accounts to keep this up for very
> long.  Maybe I'm wrong here, though.  I always thought it was strange
> that there was no minimum number of edits factored into the
> semi-protection criteria.
>

I'm not going to go into exact details but yes it is posible to have a
large number of sleeper accounts. Not easy but posible

> Good point.  I was thinking of articles, but I can see why you might
> want to protect some administrative pages.

I was more thinking the main page.

> > multi participant edit war particularly for three or more
> >
> Wouldn't it be better to block the edit warriors?
>

Can't. They will stay within policy. Blocking won't help anyway since
they can't disscuss while blocked.

--
geni


body:
On 3/14/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/13/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3/12/06, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
> > > Maybe we should have an IQ test score as a required criterion for
> > > admission as a Wikipedia editor, a la Mensa?
> >
> > Many a true word spoken in jest...
> >
> We should only let Ph.D.'s edit the articles. Everyone else can
> suggest contributions on the talk pages.
>
> We could call it the "New Wikipedia", or "New-pedia" for short....

What you have descibed is closer to Digital Universe (posebly I'm
still not totaly certian what is going on there) or encarta. I don't
think newpedia had the suggestions.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] more WP:OFFICE shenanigans

body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
> On 3/13/06, SPUI <drspui at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Tony Sidaway wrote:
>>
>>>You don't suppose, do you, that involvement of a self-identified
>>>pedophile in authorship of an article on this particular subject might
>>>pose problems for Wikipedia's credibility?
>>
>>Not if everything is accurate and sourced. We don't have an obligation
>>to the assholes who wouldn't believe the article just because of its
>>author. They're probably gone anyway because we have articles about sex.
>
> *I* wouldn't believe the article because of its author.   There's more
> to accuracy than just citing sources.  Pedophiles can probably write
> as good an article about mathematics, psychology, anatomy, politics,
> history or theology, but when it comes to articles about the
> exploitation of minors I would be as likely to give an article by a
> pedophile as much credit as I'd give to an article about global
> warming written by a road lobbyist.

So are we now going to ban road lobbyists from writing articles on
global warming?


from_name: Angela Beesley

subject: [Foundation-l] Create zh.wikinews.org

body:
On 3/13/06, shi zhao <shizhao at gmail.com> wrote:
>  Plese  create zh.wikinews.org - Chinese Wikinews.
>
> see:
> *http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Vote/Zh
> *http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4869

I can confirm that this is ok with at least 3 Board members (Anthere,
Jimmy and myself), and the others haven't responded to my email about
it almost a week ago. So, please go ahead and create the wiki. Good
luck to everyone involved with the new project.

Angela

--
Angela Beesley
WikimediaFoundation.org


subject: [Foundation-l] Create zh.wikinews.org


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject: [WikiEN-l] more WP:OFFICE shenanigans

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

Steve Bennett stated for the record:
> On 3/14/06, SPUI <drspui at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>So are we now going to ban road lobbyists from writing articles on
>>global warming?
>
>
> What is a "road lobbyist"?
>
> Steve

I think it's something like what the Brits call a "sleeping policeman,"
isn't it?

- --
 Sean Barrett     | My dog can lick anyone!
 sean at epoptic.org |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEFtWjMAt1wyd9d+URAkgtAJ4/nkmpD21bqgg20/bAy+zSzdxRKgCfZpZU
4eYheHHM4jXJ/gvXQXb5rqM=
=grZM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject:
[WikiEN-l] When Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5
	license makes sense

body:
On 3/14/06, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
>
> On 14 Mar 2006, at 10:21, guru brahma wrote:
>
> > Sometime back, there was a discussion about the unusual license of
> > http://www.panopedia.org/index.php/Panopedia. Within the context of
> > Wikipedia, I was wondering if this license makes any sense at all.
> > I think there are some instances where this MAY make sense. For
> > example, images tagged as GFDL-self could be tagged this way. If I
> > make an image, that is, take a photograph of a leader or an actor I
> > adore and do not want it to be photoshopped into some unknown
> > monstrosity, I would be more comfortable in using Creative Commons
> > Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 license. The same would apply to personal
> > images that I upload on to my userpage. The last thing I want to
> > see in my image my moustache disappear or a beard appear ;). Any
> > thoughts which other areas this admittedly over-restrictive license
> > can be used if at all allowed on wikipedia?
>
> Its not clear that you could even resize a CC-ND image under the
> license...
>
I don't see why you wouldn't be allowed to resize using standard html
commands.  There's no permanence to the image created, so it's not a
derivative work.  What would be the fixed "size" of the image anyway?
Numbers measured in pixels?  I'd say there's no way such a resizing
would be protected.

Anyway, to answer the original question, I think you need to look to
what is the mission of Wikipedia.  "Imagine a world in which every
single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all
human knowledge."  Does including clearly marked CC-ND images hinder
that mission?

I suppose the answer that it does ever so slightly hinder the mission,
because it provides less incentive to create works that people can
legally modify, for instance to draw arrows or make some other sort of
educational marks.  These marks would probably be legal in the United
States under the fair use doctrine, but maybe not elsewhere.

So maybe it's a matter of balance.  If CC-ND were allowed, how many
additional images would be available?  How much more free access to
the sum of all human knowledge would be given?  Maybe the best way to
answer the question would be to run an experiment.  Temporarily allow
such images for a month or so.

Anthony


subject: [WikiEN-l] Phone calls

body:
On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 20:31:37 -0500, you wrote:

>I think there's a fundamental difference between removing a disputed
>sentence and "blank and rewrite with proper cites".  The latter might
>be quick and easy, but it also fails to assume good faith.

In the case about which I know most, blank and rewrite was the correct
action, so little of the original content was accurate.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


subject: [WikiEN-l] more WP:OFFICE shenanigans

body:
On 3/14/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:

> *I* wouldn't believe the article because of its author.   There's more
> to accuracy than just citing sources.  Pedophiles can probably write
> as good an article about mathematics, psychology, anatomy, politics,
> history or theology, but when it comes to articles about the
> exploitation of minors I would be as likely to give an article by a
> pedophile as much credit as I'd give to an article about global
> warming written by a road lobbyist.

I thought we were striving for balance here. Lobbyists are usually
fairly good at explaining one side of a given story. As long as they
don't have control of the article, their input should be welcomed. On
the other hand, paedophiles have a particular stigma attached to them
that would be pretty damaging if there was Yet Another Wikipedia
Scandal.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Phone calls

body:
On 3/14/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> Can't. They will stay within policy. Blocking won't help anyway since
> they can't disscuss while blocked.

It's a real pity that it's not possible to selectively block a single
editor against a single page. That and the fact that blocking an IP
also blocks registered users that use that IP.

Steve


body:
On 3/14/06, Michael Snow <wikipedia at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Wherein Delirium calls Jimbo's response "blatantly counterfactual" and
> with his insistent questioning, seems to indicate that there's no
> alternative but to adopt his characterization. If that's an
> overinterpretation on my part, and he's willing to agree that other
> people can legitimately see these events as not "going over the head" of
> editors and operating in a "top-down manner", then I would be glad to
> hear it.

So, we've gotten as far as "it's top-down" 'no it's not' "yes it is"
'fine, call it that if you want'. How about some actual debate? I
would say that it's probably not "top-down" because the number of
incidents is vanishingly small compared to the total autonomy bestowed
on editors 99% of the time. The Queen theoretically has a great deal
of power over Australia. Is that "top down" power? I would say no,
because it's never used, and it's difficult to imagine a situation
where it would be used, and it doesn't affect the way Australia does
anything.

But, can someone please actually debate the point, rather than going
down those torturous roads of accusing people of breaking free speech
or playing semantics ...

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] more WP:OFFICE shenanigans

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

Delirium stated for the record:

> No Polish nationalists editing articles on Poland.  No strong religious
> believers (or strong atheists) editing articles on religion.  Etc.
>
> All do have some degree of merit---I would be more skeptical of an
> article on Christianity written by the Pope than I would be of one
> written by someone relatively neutral.  But are we actually going to
> have policies like that?
>
> -Mark

We can only hope.

If you can't conceal your bias, you shouldn't be editing.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | My dog can lick anyone!
 sean at epoptic.org |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEFvR1MAt1wyd9d+URAgv6AJ9E9k5eUxx/PwMqTNAcz6eYiOMiWACfXtQI
W4TNdh8Daqefa6UKCwEx2LY=
=oRFw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Brian

references:
<440DADCB.4030404@gmx.de> <dum4jt$ih5$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<916cc1db0603132220u50b6b04dl@mail.gmail.com>

body:
Internet access in China following government censorship is becoming
like drug access in the US following the start of the War on Drugs. For
those willing to break the law (ie: everyone), it's becoming easier and
easier to get access to all the possibilities.

R.O.C wrote:

>i checked http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Vote/Zh and found more
>than 10 users who are currently living in mainland. i think that
>wikipedia/wikimedia can be accessed and edited from mainland china as long
>as the user knows how to use proxies or some special browsers.
>
>-roc
>
>2006/3/8, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com>:
>
>
>>Erik Moeller wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Chinese Wikinews has long met the formal requirements of a new Wikinews
>>>edition to be launched. There has now been another poll:
>>>
>>>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Vote/Zh
>>>
>>>which currently has 36 votes in favor of launching, including many
>>>Chinese Wikipedians, and only one (!) vote opposed. As per the voting
>>>rules, given more than 90% support after a week of voting, this means
>>>that the project can go ahead.
>>>
>>>Are there any objections from the Board to launching the project now? If
>>>I don't hear anything by the end of the week, I presume we can go ahead
>>>and set up the site.
>>>
>>>Erik
>>>
>>>
>>Do it.
>>
>>Ant
>>
>>PS : could mainland chinese vote since they are blocked ?
>>(note that the answer will not change the statement above...)
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>foundation-l mailing list
>>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>
>>
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>


from_name: guru brahma

body:
I am sorry to say this, but it appears ridiculous to classify admins as a separate class of users. Being an admin doesn't give any extra "editing" privileges. The privileges that we get as admins may be at the most abused to prevent someone from doing something - blocking, protecting etc but do not give a free rein. Also, WP:AN takes care of violations asap. I believe admins are same as other users - only difference being that those afflicted with adminitis would feel that "all users are equal but admins are more equal than others."

  Regards,
  Gurubrahma

---------------------------------
 Jiyo cricket on Yahoo! India cricket
Yahoo! Messenger Mobile Stay in touch with your buddies all the time.


from_name: Jon

subject: [WikiEN-l] The best thing about WP:OFFICE

body:
Of course, the best thing about WP:OFFICE is that you can easily go into [[Category:Office Protected]] and look at the history of the articles in there. It's an easy way to highlight what's controversial and bring it to greater attention!

  OK, I'm being cheeky, but this does seem to be a flaw in the process.

  Jon

Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:

A wonderful and thoughtful oldtime Wikipedian pointed out to me that I
was getting a bit blunt in my emails yesterday about WP:OFFICE.

I apologize for that.

Here are the main points I want to empahasize:

1. This policy merely extends longstanding practice, previously not
questioned, becuase I did it myself.

2. Nothing about this policy changes anything about our NPOV policies
for any article in Wikipedia. WP:OFFICE in no way implies that some
articles or some people are given any special treatment in the handling
of their biography.

3. WP:OFFICE is intended to be used only temporarily as a courtesy in
certain highly delimited circumstances. In some cases, this will be
cases involving a threat of legal action, but in other cases it may be
simply as a courtesy while we sort something out.

4. In all cases, we will communicate the maximum possible information
in the shortest possible time period, subject to legal constraints and
also time constraints.

5. Danny has, in my own opinion, formed in long experience, excellent
judgment.

6. In some cases so far, WP:OFFICE was used for a longer period than I
would have liked, due to various circumstances. I'm sorry about that.
However, I remind everyone that Assume Good Faith is absolutely
important to our community.

I am frankly shocked and saddened to see some of the accusations I have
seen in this thread, but it is always and everywhere my intention to
respond with kindness even to the most dishonest provocation, and I'm
sorry I was snippy in some of my responses.

--Jimbo

--
#######################################################################
# Office: 1-727-231-0101 | Free Culture and Free Knowledge #
# http://www.wikipedia.org | Building a free world #
#######################################################################
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Photos ? NEW, now offering a quality print service from just 8p a photo.


subject:
[WikiEN-l] When Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 license
	makes sense

body:
Sometime back, there was a discussion about the unusual license of http://www.panopedia.org/index.php/Panopedia. Within the context of Wikipedia, I was wondering if this license makes any sense at all. I think there are some instances where this MAY make sense. For example, images tagged as GFDL-self could be tagged this way. If I make an image, that is, take a photograph of a leader or an actor I adore and do not want it to be photoshopped into some unknown monstrosity, I would be more comfortable in using Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 license. The same would apply to personal images that I upload on to my userpage. The last thing I want to see in my image my moustache disappear or a beard appear ;). Any thoughts which other areas this admittedly over-restrictive license can be used if at all allowed on wikipedia?

  regards,
  Gurubrahma.

---------------------------------
 Jiyo cricket on Yahoo! India cricket
Yahoo! Messenger Mobile Stay in touch with your buddies all the time.