body:
To me the issue of notability has always been a bloated one. I'll even go so
far as to say that Wikipedia's quality wouldn't change substantially if we
could rewind history and expunge notability as an issue ever.

The primary fear is that WP will become "cluttered". However, articles that
are objectively not-notable will have very little connectivity with any
other articles. Therefore, non-notable articles will only exist within
small, obscure pockets.

It's akin to the logic Google uses to determine the weight of a site with
its PageRank system, which gives notable weight to sites linked to.

Let's suppose for fun that the burden of notability shifted from article
creation to inter-article linkage. So, I could create an article about
myself. But when I attempted to inject it into [[Philadelphia]], I'd have to
prove that my article was substantially relevant to anyone interested in the
subject of Philadelphia. If the decision to link to me was made by philly
watchers/readers, I'd venture to guess you're already talking a more diverse
and subject-intelligent crowd than the regulars at AfD. Of course, these
kinds of edits are routine--they are reverted just as routinely.

So, even in the extreme case that all articles were acceptable, my vanity
page would be nothing more than a desolate, unconnected article that nobody
would ever find accept by [[Special:Random]]. Of course, the slippery slope
folks will tell you that if this were allowed to happen the WP servers would
blow up and Larry Sanger's fork would rule the world, and eventually fund a
robot army, resurrect Dracula-Hitler-Tyrannosaurus, and end humanity.

-S

On 1/9/07, Frederick Noronha <fred at bytesforall.org> wrote:
>
> For someone like me, the strength of the Wikipedia lies mainly in the
> fact that it has space also for my village of 8000 to be written about
> for a global audience (in a factual manner, of course). If things that
> are important to me are going to be seen as "peripheral" (just because
> they lack size or not being visible enough in cyberspace), then in
> what way is it different from the mainstream... that has kept me out
> in the cold for so long, anyway?
>
>


list: wikipedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Steve

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Entries for deletion.... issues from the Third
	World

body:
Oh, well the conversation was reaching so much consensus I guess I had to
invent some conflict. =)

-S

On 1/10/07, Stan Shebs <stanshebs at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Steve wrote:
> > There's no reason to pit pedia and library against one another, and
> simply
> > because the possibility exists that you can find said newspaper
> subscription
> > in a library doesn't create a reason against duplicating that
> information in
> > pedia. There are interested parties outside Londoners and Bostonians.
> >
> I think you mistake my meaning - I was saying that books and newspapers
> are an excellent, if unfashionable :-) , source of information worth
> adding to WP. Doesn't everybody else type into WP with book propped open
> in lap, or newspaper spread on floor?
>
> Stan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


list: wikien-l

from_name: howard chen

subject: [WikiEN-l] One way inter-languages links?

body:
Currently, I found quite a lot of one-way inter-languages links,

e.g.

langA -> langB

but you can't go from

langB -> langA

are there any method to improve this suitation?


list: wikitech-l

subject: [Wikitech-l] Use binary to represent varchar rather than UTF8

body:
in all table creation statments, such as

CREATE TABLE `categorylinks` (
  `cl_from` int(8) unsigned NOT NULL default '0',
  `cl_to` varchar(255) binary NOT NULL default '',
  `cl_sortkey` varchar(255) binary NOT NULL default '',
  `cl_timestamp` timestamp(14) NOT NULL,
  UNIQUE KEY `cl_from` (`cl_from`,`cl_to`),
  KEY `cl_sortkey` (`cl_to`,`cl_sortkey`(128)),
  KEY `cl_timestamp` (`cl_to`,`cl_timestamp`)
) TYPE=InnoDB;

why use binary to represent varchar, not UTF8?


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki as a Wikimedia project

body:
On 1/7/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> When the Wikimedia Foundation wants to make MediaWiki an official project,
> it has the potential to make this change happen. With this change, the WMF
> however assumes responsibilities that it currently does not have. It
> currently does not take responsibility for the way Brion has too much on his
> plate to finish the many things he did not finish. It can at this moment
> selfishly urge Brion to do whatever because of WMF priorities.

Well, Brion has been the release manager for MediaWiki for years.
Since he's on the payroll of WMF, I don't think we're assuming any
_new_ responsibilities, but merely clarifying existing
responsibilities. And I definitely do agree that the WMF should do a
better job at soliciting and coordinating external contributions to
MW, but this, like many other things the WMF _should_ be doing, is
greatly limited by our ability to spend money on doing so.

--
Peace & Love,
Erik

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Entries for deletion.... issues from the Third
 World

body:
Frederick Noronha wrote:

>I agree... What would be worse is if the "systemic bias" follows the
>traditional fault lines, which we have been so concerned about for so
>long. After all, the New Media and its bottoms-up approach was meant
>to make things "different". That's why we have so much faith in it,
>and would like to invest our volunteer efforts here. Maybe, it is time
>we recognised this problem and began to deal with it: how do
>initiatives like the Wikipedia deal with non-English, non-visible,
>largely non-digitised and oral societies (which have wealth of their
>own, but not in a traditionally 'recognisable' sense)?
>
There's a kind of village mentality at play.  I think it would be
reasonable to guess that there are people living in the small rural
villages of India who would be frightened to have anything to do with
big cities.  They are happy with their simple lives.  It is nearly
impossible to get them to think in bigger terms.

The New Media are indeed bottom-up (not bottoms-up ;-) ), and should
make things different ... in theory.  An effective bottom-up approach
requires an ability to see a bigger picture, and recognizing that there
are other villages far away that you will never see but where life is
just as important as in your own village.  Seeing this involves looking
away from one's comfort zone, and risking the possibility that you may
encounter other ideas that will turn your world upside down.  It forces
you to reconsider the paradigms that your ambient top-down culture has
worked so hard to inculcate in you while you were a child.

The city has many villages.  The net has many villages.  It's just that
unlike the rural village it's not as clearly defined.  But the small
village mentality is still there.

Ec


from_name: Thomas Dalton

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletions and double jeopardy

body:
The fact that concensus can (and does) change is an important
principle on Wikipedia. Any kind of double jeopardly rule would go
against that, however restricted its application. I don't think it's
worth it.


from_name: Frederick Noronha

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Entries for deletion.... issues from the
	ThirdWorld

body:
Marek makes some great points. I couldn't agree with him more.

If anyone convinces Wikipedia that it needs to be "more like the real
thing" (whatever that is, including mainstream, printed encyclopedias
or Encarta), it would be a great loss for the attempt to build
alternatives. Likewise, it would be hardly helpful if anyone convinces
Wikipedia that it should focus on the "standard and quality
information" argument (whatever that is supposed to mean!) over all
other strengths of the Wikipedia experiment.

For someone like me, the strength of the Wikipedia lies mainly in the
fact that it has space also for my village of 8000 to be written about
for a global audience (in a factual manner, of course). If things that
are important to me are going to be seen as "peripheral" (just because
they lack size or not being visible enough in cyberspace), then in
what way is it different from the mainstream... that has kept me out
in the cold for so long, anyway?

Just the other day, a speaker here in Goa, India was describing
"remote" communities, and pointing out that the term is misleading in
itself. As he put it, the logic of "remoteness" is always connected to
our definition of what is the centre (of the world, of the nation
state, or whatever). "For people out there, their own location, of
course, is the centre of the world, as far as they go," he said.

Can we encourage the diversity of the planet to flower in the
Wikipedia, as it really should? --Frederick "FN" Noronha, Independent
Journalist, Goa, India.

On 10/01/07, Marek Najmajer <marqoz at wp.pl> wrote:
> I've been reading some of your meassages or votes for entry deletion, and
> I'm getting more and more sad.
>
> You are trying to have a 'clean' worthfull encyclopaedia with assurance
> there is no meaningless article in it.
> It could be understood in case of written, printed book which looks great in
> the bookshelf (I like books anyway)....
--
FN M: 0091 9822122436 P: +91-832-240-9490 (after 1300IST please)
http://fn.goa-india.org  http://fredericknoronha.wordpress.com


body:
Steve wrote:

>Maybe this is a rookie opinion, but I think that the AFD process tends to
>attract people who are focused on keeping wikipedia "uncluttered" and
>"relevant". They're always going to "err on the side of delete" and that's
>that. You can present anything to the people at AFD, but its a systemic
>habit. Those aren't just going to undo because of one person's polite
>suggestion.
>
Congenital neat-freaks!  An interesting study would be to try to
correlate the level of neatness around one's computer workspace with
one's place on the deletionis/inclusionist spectrum. :-)

>While I happen to think deletionists could be restrained greatly without
>loss to Wikipedia (since the articles they're deleting are hardly well
>connected and widely viewed), I'm just one opinion. Over the years I've
>noticed a kind of institutional insecurity grow in Wikipedia, over fears our
>pedia is being perceived as full of unverified internet rabble.
>
This kind of sclerosis strikes me as common in the growth of
institutions.  Sometimes I wonder whether we have enough excape velocity
to escape that cycle.  Someone starts with a great idea, and has access
to enough resources to get it off the ground.  When it succeeds more
than he ever would have dreamed it takes on a life of its own.  More and
more people become involved at a point further removed in time from the
original idea.  They can see the project as an excellent one, and their
instinct is to protect it.  This kind of smothering risks suffocating
the baby.

Ec


body:
On 1/10/07, Gurch <matthew.britton at btinternet.com> wrote:
> howard chen wrote:
> > Currently, I found quite a lot of one-way inter-languages links,
> >
> > e.g.
> >
> > langA -> langB
> >
> > but you can't go from
> >
> > langB -> langA
> >
> >
> > are there any method to improve this suitation?
>
> There are some automated bots that look for such things and add the
> appropriate links, but they don't operate on all languages, especially
> not the smaller ones. If you spot such a situation, adding the
> appropriate link yourself would be appreciated; unfortunately, I doubt
> anyone has the time to hunt down an entire wiki's worth of missing links.
>
> -Gurch
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

i just thought that, since all the inter-lang links are stored in the
database, so either the links exist or not, I don't know why there
will be one-way link.

this problem has nothing to do with small language or not, since if
small_language -> english, we can always find the reverse, i don't
think that wikipedia need a bot to discover that? since the data are
in the DB already, isn;t?

regards,


from_name: Rob Church

body:
On 10/01/07, wikien-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org
<wikien-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 18:34:16 +0000
> From: "Thomas Dalton" <thomas.dalton at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] One way inter-languages links?

> They're not stored directly in the database, they're stored in the
> source code for the articles just like links within one wiki. The only
> way one wiki code detect the links to their article on other languages
> articles would be to read every single article on that wiki. Not
> practical.

Actually, we *do* track interlanguage link relationships in the
database, as we do for page links, image links, external links,
category links, etc.

Therefore, it's entirely possible that someone could whip up a
toolserver-based request mechanism to allow them to find out who's
linking to them.

Rob Church


body:
Frederick Noronha wrote:

>Hmmm... some interesting issues being raised below. Just for argument
>sake: what happens if an "un-notable" entry makes it to Wikipedia?
>Would it be a grave error? Notability, after all, is mostly related to
>context. Would Shakespeare have been as "noted" a writer, if he had to
>be born in, say, Upper Egypt?
>
Quick!  Without looking at any references, how many Egyptian authors can
you name?

>I think the problem lies elsewhere. The trouble is: people or
>institutions being packaged to be what they are not. Or bloated claims
>about institutions or organisations or individuals.
>
In other words marketting.  For the institutions selling these ideas, or
packaging content with software, the per unit cost of a package goes
down as more packages are sold.  There is no profit in a package that
only a small number of people around the world will even consider buying
at a price which they feel is right.  The real costs of the package
would make pricing on a cost recovery basis unreasonably high.

>Rather than just delete entries for being un-notable, perhaps we need
>to find ways to ensure that what's written is both accurate and
>tallies with the reality. --FN
>
Notability has bean a contentios issue ever sincee I became involved.
During that time I've seen both No Original Research and Verifiability
developed as ways of dealing with the notability problem.  Neither
solution has succeeded as well as might have been anticipated at the time.

Ec


from_name: Matthew Flaschen

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Category Intersections: "Proof of Concept Page"
 feedback, please?

body:
Samuel Wantman wrote:
>> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Category Intersections: "Proof of Concept Page"
>>  feedback, please?
>> Message: 6
>>
>> Steve Bennett wrote:
>>
>> That shouldn't even be necessary.  That just creates the semantic
>> problems we have.  It could be as simple as
>>
>> [[:Intersect:American|Actors|Link text]]
>>
>> That reminds me.  What about category unions?
>
> Rick Block and I spent some time discussing the syntax for intersections
> (see [[Wikipedia:Category intersection]]  or the shortcut
> [[WP:CI]]).  Since there can be more than two categories involved, and
> you'd still want to pipe how it was displayed, we came up with:
>
> [[:Intersection:Actors::Americans::Living people|Living American actors]]

You're right.  That's better, because you don't always have to have link
text (though you probably should).

> The only thing missing would be unions of only some of the
> subcategories, for instance, the union of Comedy films and Drama films, or
> Poets and Novelists.  For most topics these do not seem very significant.

I'm fairly sure people would come up with uses.  It shouldn't be much
additional work to do this if intersections are already being done.

Matthew Flaschen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 252 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20070110/dd497450/attachment.pgp>


body:
Andre Engels wrote:

>2007/1/8, Frederick Noronha <fred at bytesforall.org>:
>
>
>>Hmmm... some interesting issues being raised below. Just for argument
>>sake: what happens if an "un-notable" entry makes it to Wikipedia?
>>Would it be a grave error? Notability, after all, is mostly related to
>>context. Would Shakespeare have been as "noted" a writer, if he had to
>>be born in, say, Upper Egypt?
>>
>>
>That's a big hypothetical - if he had been born there, how much and what
>would he have written? Having somehting un-notable may not be a grave error,
>but having thousands of un-notable things clogs Wikipedia, makes
>fact-checking harder and opens the doors wide to usage of Wikipedia for
>advertisement.
>
If Frederick's comments are hypothetical, this response is speculative.
We have yet to deal with fact checking to any apprecable degree, and
advertising is a completely differnt issue from notability.

>I think the problem lies elsewhere. The trouble is: people or
>
>
>>institutions being packaged to be what they are not. Or bloated claims
>>about institutions or organisations or individuals.
>>
>>Rather than just delete entries for being un-notable, perhaps we need
>>to find ways to ensure that what's written is both accurate and
>>tallies with the reality. --FN
>>
>>
>But what if what is written is that so-and-so once wrote an internet page
>(that a few hundred people have looked at). Do you really want to just keep
>that in if you found that he really has done so?
>
Again, this is a straw man argument.  It makes a statement about
something that many will find unacceptable and tries to apply the same
argument to more uncertain situations.

The vandal fighters are doing an important job, but sometimes they seem
to get so overrun by the backlog and the size of the task that they just
forget to reflect on articles that require it.

Ec


from_name: Mark Williamson

body:
If you don't believe in community processes, why do you still
participate at all with Wikipedia?

Mark

On 10/01/07, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
> Stan Shebs wrote:
>
> >Steve wrote:
> >
> >
> >>There's no reason to pit pedia and library against one another, and simply
> >>because the possibility exists that you can find said newspaper subscription
> >>in a library doesn't create a reason against duplicating that information in
> >>pedia. There are interested parties outside Londoners and Bostonians.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >I think you mistake my meaning - I was saying that books and newspapers
> >are an excellent, if unfashionable :-) , source of information worth
> >adding to WP. Doesn't everybody else type into WP with book propped open
> >in lap, or newspaper spread on floor?
> >
> >
> >
> I wish this were true ...... by (insert your deity here) I wish. This
> was true of myself when I was still writing articles. I even went out
> and bought more books on the subjects I was writing about to compare the
> facts. But then you all of a sudden have to defend yourself against some
> kiddie who only reads websites and found this one site on the net who
> refutes your claims and because he cannot read books it is impossible to
> convince him, even though you can quote 10 books as a source and he only
> one derelict website the other kiddies will side with him because it is
> on the web so it must be the truth.
>
> This is one of the reasons why I lost faith in community processes. The
> masses can so many times be convinced of a wrong thing it is
> unbelievable. Just because the masses say something or believe something
> it isn't always the truth you see. On wikipedia what the masses think is
> the truth is the truth.
>
> Waerth
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.


from_name: Ryan Wetherell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wiki violation that did NOT happen, man!

body:
On 1/9/07, PeruvianLlama <peruvianllama at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Is it a coincidence that this user has "WikiSpam" in their name, and
> that their messages to the list have all thus far been unintelligible?
>
>  - PeruvianLlama

You would think anybody with that kind of email address would be
blocked on sight.

--Ryan

--
[[en:User:Merovingian]]


list: textbook-l

from_name: Robert Scott Horning

subject: [Textbook-l] Wikibook User Arbitration

body:
  Andrew Whitworth wrote:

>Consider a parallel with you involved. If Panic loses this round of
>arbitration, he is going to start a fight with you as well. Is somebody
>going to jump in and say "Let's overturn Rob's decision, because he was
>engaged in a personal fight with Panic"? You may not care about your
>membership at wikibooks, but I for one would feel the loss if you stopped
>contributing all together (blocked or pushed out).
>
>
I'm not going to let that happen.  First of all, what decision have I
made so far?  All of this complaining about the choices I've made and
the dictitorial inquisition that I've started seems (at least to me) to
be much ado about nothing.  The only action I've done is to unblock
Panic, but after a strong assurance that he would try to stay away from
editing in the C++ Programming Wikibook.  With the sole exception of
posting a reply on a talk page there (and no other page moves or
reformatting), he has done exactly that.  I'm watching his user
contributions page closely, but so far I havn't seen anything in the
past couple of weeks that really seems out of place.

And the only editorial actions I did on the C++ Programming Wikibook
myself was to post a general notice about the location of the
arbitration discussion.  I neither froze any pages, nor have I actually
even read for that matter much of what is written in this Wikibook.  I'm
trying to let this play out and try to investigate what actually
happened here, and to clarify what exactly did happen here to cause this
to get out of control.  And the editorial control over the C++ book does
indeed seem to be a central issue to this whole arbitration.

>>The main thing I wanted to do here is to
>>avoid the same sort of mistakes that Johnny made, particularly as I
>>don't think doing a user block is necessarily the best course of action
>>when dealing with an edit war, except perhaps to cool things down a bit
>>and make people pause to think for a moment.
>>
>>
>
>The edit war wasn't the main rationale for the block anyway. Panic has a
>long history of biting newbies, being uncivil, and starting fights.
>Somewhere you have to draw the line and realize that wikibooks is about
>collaboratively authoring textbooks, not about dealing with Panic's
>particular brand of bullshit on a daily basis. We are all just volunteers
>trying to write textbooks, and people who can't follow the rules shouldnt be
>here in the first place.
>

 >From the tone of this, it seems you have already tried and convicted
Panic as being irredemable and a menace to Wikibooks and not worth
having around.

I am also very, very confused by this comment, and what "rules" need to
be followed here that you are refering to.  There are certainly
unwritten rules of social discourse that would imply giving deference in
many situations that perhaps Panic isn't doing, but that isn't
necessarily a project policy here.  Some people simply have a much more
abrasive personality.  That is also something hardly new to Wikibooks
either, nor something held exclusively by Panic.  I know Wikibooks
admins with as abrasive if not more so personality than even Panic.

And this does indeed seem like a content fight, particularly when the
"charges" are being discussed, as everybody involved seems to have an
axe to grind about how Panic was moving content (including apparently
talk pages) and "reverting" changes in various ways.  And in this
situation, many of these same individuals who are complaining also
"fought back" and encouraged even more of this behavior by extending the
fight where Panic would do one thing and they would go back and do
something else that would go around and around again.

To me, that sounds exactly like an edit war.  As far as "who started
it", that is in many cases irrelevant and won't solve the problem at
hand anyway.

>>As far as appealing up the food chain, so to say, that has always been
>>an option.
>>
>>
>
>My point was that it's a bad option. In general, I would prefer for
>wikibook's problems to be solved by wikibookians. Look at what happens when
>people from outside wikibooks try to "help" us: The portal is moved to meta
>where it's broken and unfixable, the logo is changed to something we dont
>need or want, etc. Look also at what has happened in the past when Jimbo has
>come in to mandate something or another: I would hardly say his ruling on
>the videogame guides was "absolute". If panic raises a big enough stink to
>these people, they will come in and take action (not likely in panic's
>benefit), but that can't be a good thing for our project in any way.
>
Ideally, I would have to agree that Wikibookians should try to solve the
problems within Wikibooks, rather than getting outside authority to
force the issue to a conclusion.

I can think of three major instances last year that outside authority on
Wikibooks caused a huge amount of trouble:  The deletion of the "three
books" by Jimbo, the removal of Video Game books, and the whole mess
with the Wikimania proceedings.  The last one actually resulted in wheel
warring going on with the same pages being deleted and undeleted by
multiple individuals.  All three of these issues resulted in huge
defections from Wikibooks and a general halting to the growth of the
project.  Perhaps these were needed, and that can be debated, in terms
of focusing Wikibooks on some fundimental core philosophies, but it
wasn't an easy process or well liked.

BTW, in regards to the Wikibooks logo, it is Wikibookians who initiated
the idea for a change.  That they may not be en.wikibookians is
irrelevant, and to think that English Wikibooks is the only Wikibooks
project that matters here is really missing the larger picture.  I
wasn't too happy with the methodology to select the new logo, and I
expressed some grave concerns about how it was handled.  And the fact
that for the most part many Wikibookians weren't really aware that the
new logo was in the final stages of being selected is IMHO unfortunate
as well.  We do, however, need to come to a concensus if the logo that
has been selected on Meta will actually be used on en.wikibooks... and I
hope that this issue won't be declared by executive fiat either.  It
would be unfortunate if the other language Wikibooks projects use a logo
that en.wikibooks is not using because we are stuck on this issue.

As far as moving the portal page to Meta, I expressed a very pointed
concern about that issue, and it seemed as though my thoughts and
concerns fell completely on deaf ears, as though my opinion on the
subject was completely irrelevant.  I'm not even really sure who agreed
to the idea, as I don't recall any sort of general concensus occuring
about the topic.  It was a "bold move" to try and conform to be like the
other Wikimedia projects, I guess, or something the developers came up
with on their own.  Or was that admins on Meta trying to dictate
Wikibooks policies?  I certainly didn't see any major cry from the other
language Wikibooks projects complaining about this issue or any
substantial technical merits to the current approach that justified such
a change.

>>BTW, no, I don't think that my being involved here is going to have my
>>adminship challenged if I recommend that Panic's account be reblocked,
>>or set up some other sort of set of "probationary" conditions for him.
>>
>>
>
>Not what Johnny thought either, and look at him now. This whole situation is
>poison in the water, and we risk losing some genuinely helpful people. What
>I dont want to see is Wikibooks get hurt any more then it needs to. Helpful
>and friendly contributors are the only thing that we have, and the numbers
>are preciously small.
>
>--Andrew Whitworth (Whiteknight)
>
>
I also don't want to set up a situation where we are spawning
Wikibooks-specific vandals that are already familiar with editorial
philosophies and vunerabilities for this project.

Yes, this is a tough moral tightrope to walk, but I also don't think it
is completely impossible to come to a concensus here.

I also want to point out that I am trying to seek some sort of general
concensus among all of those involved here about what course to take,
and to try and avoid forcing an arbitrary decision, such as unilaterally
blocking another user from editing or deadmining somebody.  That is the
last thing I really want to do here and I would like to avoid that if at
all possible.

--
Robert Scott Horning


from_name: George Herbert

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Wrongfully blocked by admin who lies and on behalf
	of users trying to "own" articles

body:
On 1/10/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/01/07, Abigail Brady <morwen at evilmagic.org> wrote:
>
> > Hello folks.  I see here that Parker Peters has sent an email to the
> > list, but it is written in the character of Bob, and signed "Bob" at
> > the end.  Parker Peters then replied to it, in character as Parker
> > Peters, and the quoting was changed to make it appear as if the e-mail
> > address for Bob had sent it.
> > Now, a cynical person would say this constitutes clear evidence that
> > both email addresses are being operated by the same person, and they
> > messed up and lost track of who they were logged in as at the time.
> > In fact, not just cynical people.  Even naive people would think this.
> > End the charade please, someone.  It's unbecoming to argue with
> > yourself on a mailing list.
>
>
> But it was smart enough to fool him; surely you can't expect him to
> believe it's not smart enough to fool us too.
>
> I am not going to block the addresses (as yet), but I am going to
> hereby point and laugh.

Well, I guess that answers the question of who he is...

I will not laugh, as it would be piling on, but a good pointing-at is
called for.

"You have to be this tall to storm the castle."

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


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] New bot up for RFA

body:
On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 11:30:12 -0500 (EST), "Jeff Raymond"
<jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:

>I can't see the code, so I can't verify that

What was the reply when you emailed, then?

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


body:
On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 20:01:11 -0500, "Ron Ritzman" <ritzman at gmail.com>
wrote:

>Notability is a good example. It would work like this. Someone doesn't
>think that "Joe Bloggshmoe" is notable and nominates his article for
>deletion and the consensus is " strong keep". The AFD discussion is
>then closed "with prejudice" which means that the article can never
>again be AFDed for "lack of notability". (but could be deleted for
>other reasons) This would make sense since "notable" people and
>subjects don't just one day magically stop being notable.

If notability has been proven by reference to reliable sources, then
AfD on grounds of notability will inevitably fail due to the presence
of those sources in the article.

Of course, if it's just that lots of people say "Keep!  Notable!" and
don't put sources in to back it up...

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


body:
On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 21:49:40 -0600, "Bob Petrovich"
<wrestfan01 at gmail.com> wrote:

>I have no idea who the other person is. I have barely used wikipedia before,
>but I know that it's supposed to be accurate and people are supposed to fix
>things when they see something wrong.
>If that's not what wikipedia is, I guess mr wales is a liar and your
>"encyclopedia" is a fraud.

Over-reacting, much?

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


body:
On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 20:58:32 -0600, "Bob Petrovich"
<wrestfan01 at gmail.com> wrote:

(some stuff)

This is discussed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:129.7.35.194

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


from_name: Birgitte SB

subject: [Wikitech-l] New mail servers leave many broken links

body:
The transfer of the the mailing list archives have
resulted in broken links throughout the projects.  Can
this somehow be fixed on the server side?  Can we
possibily keep copies of all archives up till now in
both places? If the links themselves have to be edited
is this something that can be done by a bot?  I don't
think it is a good idea to leave these links as 404
errors.

Birgitte SB

____________________________________________________________________________________
Any questions? Get answers on any topic at www.Answers.yahoo.com.  Try it now.


from_name: Dan Collins

subject: [Wikipedia-l] new wikis

body:
Zordsdavini iz Litvy wrote:
> Hello,
> I don't understand why new wikis are nor been creating. The people will go
> out of this because some of them are waiting for the year...
>
> Arns Udov???
>
If you wnat to make a new wiki with the WikiMedia foundation, visit
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_new_projects

--
GnuPG key ID is 0x84189146 on subkeys.pgp.net

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 888 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20070110/e64ffbd5/attachment.pgp


from_name: Stirling Newberry

body:
This would move the battle from one place to hundreds of places. In
general, spreading a problem over more articles is less good than
having one central place to discuss whether the article should be
included in the main space. More over, it would burden article
authors even more in attempting to maintain articles. This is a
general habit of of the pedia where arguments at the meta level are
dumped on editors because the meta level gets tired of the argument.
Editor time is undervalued as it is, spending it to avoid meta-level
arguments is a sign of failure at the meta-level.

Notability is, in fact, a two way protection. It protects the quality
of the pedia, and it protects the people below the threshold of
notability from being attacked in a wikipedia article, and having
that vault to the top of a google search. Since people have been
denied employment based on google searches, it would not take very
long for this to cause a problem.

Finally, one can generate an amazingly large body of objects which
cite only each other, and which look like information. In my "random
article" edit swaths, a significant fraction have been "Romance of
the Three Kingdom" references, which have exploded in popularity
because of a computer game based on RoTK. There are hundreds of
locations, characters and events mentioned in RoTK. Many of them are
documentable historical people, while others are referenced only in
RoTK. One article I edited read as if the events mentioned were factual.

Now take some long running roleplaying campaign. There are long
running role playing campaigns that have been going for more than
thirty years. They have thousands of locations, thousands of
characters, and histories that stretch back thousands of years. It is
all verifiable, because such campaigns often have web sites, or
codifications of history. Now get one person from the campaign
willing to put all of this information on wikipedia - it isn't that
strenuous to write a python script that will take articles from fan
source and dump them into wikipedia.

Wikipedia is ultimately for readers. The question on any article
should be "would any reasonable person want to look this up?" For
small towns, even very small ones, the answer is "yes". For fancruft
which has reached out into the general culture, even if in minor
ways, the answer is yes. For self-contained, self-referential worlds,
the answer is no.

In an encyclopedia that is still lacking articles, or has only bare
stubs, on some of the most influential thinkers in their fields,
opening the flood gates to people typing in their high school
roleplaying campaign is a poor idea.

On Jan 10, 2007, at 1:06 AM, Steve wrote:

> To me the issue of notability has always been a bloated one. I'll
> even go so
> far as to say that Wikipedia's quality wouldn't change
> substantially if we
> could rewind history and expunge notability as an issue ever.
>
> The primary fear is that WP will become "cluttered". However,
> articles that
> are objectively not-notable will have very little connectivity with
> any
> other articles. Therefore, non-notable articles will only exist within
> small, obscure pockets.
>
> It's akin to the logic Google uses to determine the weight of a
> site with
> its PageRank system, which gives notable weight to sites linked to.
>
> Let's suppose for fun that the burden of notability shifted from
> article
> creation to inter-article linkage. So, I could create an article about
> myself. But when I attempted to inject it into [[Philadelphia]],
> I'd have to
> prove that my article was substantially relevant to anyone
> interested in the
> subject of Philadelphia. If the decision to link to me was made by
> philly
> watchers/readers, I'd venture to guess you're already talking a
> more diverse
> and subject-intelligent crowd than the regulars at AfD. Of course,
> these
> kinds of edits are routine--they are reverted just as routinely.


from_name: Nina Stratton

subject: [WikiEN-l] psychosis and wikipedia.

body:
It's really more of a topic for Sociology than Psychology, although both are
interesting. Wikipedia (and really, almost all Wikis) is a grand experiment
in an informal sort of Consensus Process, which has been around in some form
for over 40 years. It's also been the staple of various peace and justice
movements in terms of direct action and protest.

It's also, historically, one the foundations of classic Anarchism. I find
this hilarious, since the Wikipedia talk page for the article on Anarchism
is one of the most toxic and contentious bits of trollery I've ever laid
eyes on here. That's beside the point, but funny to me nonetheless.

What's more interesting to me is how Wikipedia pretty much "works", rather
than the bits that don't work. For the most part, the Wikipedia community is
friendly, harmonious and productive. It's just that the working part of it
doesn't get as much attention from within the community because it's not a
problem to be fixed.

I like the article on extroverts and attention seekers that Luna brought up,
but it doesn't really address certain cultural factors. The current
veneration of celebrities in general, is almost a world-wide phenomenon now.
Many people hold the view that any celebrity is good, and that celebrities
are to be envied wholesale. That makes Wikipedia a target for anyone wanting
their "one minute of fame".

I honestly believe that most vandals come here expecting to get into the
news the next day, because Wikipedia has become so high profile. It's the
folks who come here sub-consciously craving negative attention that are the
real problem. Those are people who are typically very wounded, and there is
definitely some Psychology working there.

Nina

On 1/10/07, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
>
> Christopher Thieme wrote:
> > Something like that would probably explain a lot about the bitterness,
> > control issues, the incessant desire to be "right", etc. that some
> people
> > have when approaching the subject of editing.
>
> <Will Smith voice>You think?</>
>
> Just last night I was writing about one (less than psychotic) aspect
> of this; see [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/StuRat 2#Not-so-
> Outside Comment by Steve Summit]], and search down for "Wikipedia
> (like any open, on-line forum) attracts some fiercely stubborn and
> independent people".
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: James Hare

body:
HEY HEY!!

How about instead of pointing and laughing at his name and his character,
why don't we act like professionals and serve our guest a warm cup of tea!
This behavior scares people.

On 1/10/07, Ryan Wetherell <renardius at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/9/07, PeruvianLlama <peruvianllama at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Is it a coincidence that this user has "WikiSpam" in their name, and
> > that their messages to the list have all thus far been unintelligible?
> >
> >  - PeruvianLlama
>
> You would think anybody with that kind of email address would be
> blocked on sight.
>
> --Ryan
>
> --
> [[en:User:Merovingian]]
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


list: foundation-l

from_name: Florence Devouard

subject: [Foundation-l] Board meeting in Rotterdam later this week

body:
Hello,

As mentionned quickly in previous emails, the board is having a meeting
in Rotterdam friday, saturday and sunday.

There will be as well formal or informal meeetings from today till
sunday, with professionals, potential partners, or wikipedians; Some of
us will visit our facility of Amsterdam, or Kennisnet, or our bank in
Belgium. Consequently, most board members and some foundation employees
will be hard to talk with on mailing lists or irc this week. We'll be
back all fresh and full of news next week.

Agenda for this first meeting of the year is very roughly going along
those lines.

* Budget and finances (friday morning). Essentially reporting on the
last fundraising. Planification of next fundraising. Brainstorming over
our "business model" (endowment etc). In short, generally planning the
financial strategy for the coming year.
* Audit (friday end of afternoon). Planning audit of this financial year
and implementation of some of the suggestions made by the auditors.
We'll also meet with Dedalus.
* Legal issues (saturday morning). Planning of the most urgent things to
deal with, in particular but not restricted to, trademarks, licence
inforcing, domain names, privacy policy...
* Personnel issues (saturday afternoon). Discussion about all the
possible job openings for 2007, prioritize and identify/discuss possible
candidates. Office organization. Staff relationships and roles.
Volunteers jobs etc...
* Technical summit (sunday).
* Brainstorming on quality (sunday)

These are the biggest bits. There are also other issues, which we may or
may not discuss according to time availability. Most issues on current
agenda are in relation to points number 1 and 2 of our general guideline
for year 2007 (sustainability and quality). I hope sunday in particular
will be an opportunity to discuss and draft directions for points 3 and
4 (outreach and recognition by non profit world), to expand further in
the coming year.

As already mentionned, there is a wikimeet on friday evening as well :-)
and hopefully many stroopwafels during the time in Rotterdam.

See you next week on this very list for more.

Florence Devouard
Chair Wikimedia Foundation


list: wikimedia-l


body:
We're throwing around some really nasty words here!

Let this be a moment of reconciliation.

On 1/10/07, NSLE (Wikipedia) <nsle.wikipedia at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hmm, I seem to remember threads from last month where Parker claims to be
> an
> admin and even wrote to Jimbo to get "trolling" against him stopped...
>
> On 10/01/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 1/10/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 10/01/07, Abigail Brady <morwen at evilmagic.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello folks.  I see here that Parker Peters has sent an email to the
> > > > list, but it is written in the character of Bob, and signed "Bob" at
> > > > the end.  Parker Peters then replied to it, in character as Parker
> > > > Peters, and the quoting was changed to make it appear as if the
> e-mail
> > > > address for Bob had sent it.
> > > > Now, a cynical person would say this constitutes clear evidence that
> > > > both email addresses are being operated by the same person, and they
> > > > messed up and lost track of who they were logged in as at the time.
> > > > In fact, not just cynical people.  Even naive people would think
> this.
> > > > End the charade please, someone.  It's unbecoming to argue with
> > > > yourself on a mailing list.
> > >
> > >
> > > But it was smart enough to fool him; surely you can't expect him to
> > > believe it's not smart enough to fool us too.
> > >
> > > I am not going to block the addresses (as yet), but I am going to
> > > hereby point and laugh.
> >
> > Well, I guess that answers the question of who he is...
> >
> > I will not laugh, as it would be piling on, but a good pointing-at is
> > called for.
> >
> > "You have to be this tall to storm the castle."
> >
> >
> > --
> > -george william herbert
> > george.herbert at gmail.com
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu-

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Wrongfully blocked by admin who lies and on behalf
 of users trying to "own" articles

body:
Yes... I was wondering about that...

Abigail Brady wrote:
> On 1/10/07, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Naohiro has now left another threat on my discussion page.
>>
>> You really are a bunch of crazy egomaniacs aren't you?
>>
>> Bob
>>
>
> Hello folks.  I see here that Parker Peters has sent an email to the
> list, but it is written in the character of Bob, and signed "Bob" at
> the end.  Parker Peters then replied to it, in character as Parker
> Peters, and the quoting was changed to make it appear as if the e-mail
> address for Bob had sent it.
>
> Now, a cynical person would say this constitutes clear evidence that
> both email addresses are being operated by the same person, and they
> messed up and lost track of who they were logged in as at the time.
> In fact, not just cynical people.  Even naive people would think this.
>
> End the charade please, someone.  It's unbecoming to argue with
> yourself on a mailing list.
>
>


from_name: firoozeh derakhshani

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia-l Digest, Vol 42, Issue 11

body:
To whom it may concen

  This is the first time I have received this type of information through  my e-,ail system.
  It apears to be a web log without  a title to let me know the subject.
  I am afraid that I have too little time to spend on processing such information.
  Please DO NOT SEND SUCH MAIL  To MY E-MAil Address any more.
  Thankyou
  Firoozeh Derakhshani

wikipedia-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
  Send Wikipedia-l mailing list submissions to
wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
wikipedia-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
wikipedia-l-owner at lists.wikimedia.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Wikipedia-l digest..."

Today's Topics:

1. Re: Entries for deletion.... issues from the Third World
(pekka.gronow at yle.fi)
2. Re: Entries for deletion.... issues from the Third World
(J.L.W.S. The Special One)
3. Re: Entries for deletion.... issues from the Third World
(Mark Williamson)
4. Re: Entries for deletion.... issues from the Third World
(J.L.W.S. The Special One)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 14:07:18 +0200
From: pekka.gronow at yle.fi
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Entries for deletion.... issues from the
Third World
To: wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

Mark Williamson wrote:

Well, what if I know the truth, but it is not written anywhere? What
if I interview 100 people to make sure they agree, and they do? What
if it is common knowledge in my village, which nobody will challenge?

The answer: it will be labeled "unverifiable" or "non-notable" and
deleted.

NOT NECESSARILY. If an article is based on oral sources, you could at
least make a note that "the information is based on interviews with 100
people, made in the village of X between dates y and z. Copies of
interviews are deposited at m." Then we'd know what is the factual basis,
and the article could be useful as such.

Pekka Gronow

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 20:40:27 +0800
From: "J.L.W.S. The Special One"
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Entries for deletion.... issues from the
Third World
To: wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

A very interesting and comprehensive post.

You forgot to mention about the language barrier.

I agree that verifiability is important, but making it compulsory
introduces problems such as systemic bias.

Where should we raise this issue for further discussion?

I've been working on an article on a Singaporean movie - I Not Stupid.
It's close to GA status, but there is very little referenced
information on the production of the film. My friend suggested I
interview Jack Neo - my idol, who wrote the movie. Since his child
studies in my school, getting an interview is not out of the question.
The problem is: how do I publish it?

On 1/9/07, Mark Williamson wrote:
> This is true. However, is there a workable solution to that?
>
> I remember when people didn't worry too much about references on
> Wikipedia. Sure, you were supposed to have them, but as long as you
> had a nice article, nobody cared.
>
> Well, what if I know the truth, but it is not written anywhere? What
> if I interview 100 people to make sure they agree, and they do? What
> if it is common knowledge in my village, which nobody will challenge?
>
> The answer: it will be labeled "unverifiable" or "non-notable" and deleted.
>
> Wikipedia's current message to the world: If it's never been written
> about, or been mentioned in a sound recording or a film, it's not
> important.
>
> Well:
>
> 1) Not all cultures have writing.
> 2) Among those cultures which DO have writing, they each place
> different importance values on it. In my daily life, I am using it
> constantly. My desk is littered with books with their titles written
> on them, products with their labels. If I go driving, some of the
> signs will have writing on them, there are billboards, signs for
> businesses, all of them using writing. But in some cultures, writing
> may not be used so extensively. Maybe it is usually just used for
> poetry, or just for writing letters to people who are far away. The
> concept of mass communication is foreign to most cultures still, and
> if you don't need mass communication, writing is hardly necessary,
> except to write a letter to someone who is not present.
> 3) Among the population of the Earth, a very, very large portion live
> in societies that are not highly literate or which don't place a high
> importance on writing. Most societies don't record every aspect of
> life the way we do. Yes, there are newspapers in India (although to
> the best of my knowledge there are no newspapers in Igbo or Aymara or
> Afar), there are books in Nepal, but if you look it up, the sheer
> volume of materials published in the First World per-capita far, far,
> far, far exceeds that of anywhere else.
>
> Here, if someone sees an insect doing something strange, they write a
> paper or a book about it, and if they don't, somebody else will! But
> in most countries, this is not the case. Books cost money to make.
> People in developing countries often don't have this money. There are
> no or (comparatively) few publishers there, and those that do exist
> cannot afford to put out the sheer volume of books put out by
> publishers here because the demand tends to be much lower (especially
> for non-fiction books). They do not have Amazon.com or massive
> real-life bookstores, so "specialty" books would not sell because they
> would have no way to reach their intended audience!
>
> And they say, that the internet will change all this. Well, in these
> societies, although internet access is on the rise, it is still very,
> very, low. Even if you do have internet access, it takes a somewhat
> higher degree of computer literacy to be able to _publish_ on the
> internet. What? You want to put your knowledge on Wikipedia? Go ahead!
>
> ...
>
> Sorry, your knowledge is not referenced. It has been deleted. You know
> nothing that is worth anything.
>
> We are telling the developing world that they do not matter and that
> they are stupid.
>
> Mark
>
> On 09/01/07, J.L.W.S. The Special One wrote:
> > Requiring verifiability creates systemic bias. To be more accurate, it
> > enforces the systemic bias of existing references.
> >
> > On 1/9/07, Michael Billington wrote:
> > > On 1/9/07, Lars Aronsson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Andre Engels wrote:
> > > > > I guess I should not go into the examples, but in this case my opinion
> > > > is
> > > > > that 50,000 would be too high a limit, I myself would be thinking of
> > > > 2,000
> > > > > or 5,000.
> > > >
> > > > Absolutely. Perhaps for the U.S. and parts of Germany we are
> > > > approaching full coverage of all places with 5,000 people. But
> > > > for India I doubt if we have covered all cities with 50,000.
> > > > Nothing stops the limit from being set at 500 too. But a lower
> > > > limit could be questioned a lot more easily than a higher one.
> > > > Then again, some places with 50,000 people are less notable than
> > > > some very small places. But if you can point to the fact that a
> > > > place has 50,000 inhabitants (or was the birth places for a
> > > > president), then it is a lot easier to defend its notability.
> > > >
> > >
> > > On one side we have western places. For instance, Wikipedia has an article
> > > about my town, political division and local member of parliament. My town
> > > and surrounding ones (all of which have wiki articles) have a population of
> > > 1,500 or so. Rambot has written articles about towns 1/10th of the size of
> > > mine.
> > >
> > > However, whilst lists of Australian, German or US (and more) topics are
> > > mostly blue links, there are lists populated almost entirely by red links,
> > > such as [[List of Sudanese singers]]. Unfortunately, very few or no reliable
> > > sources will probably be found to warrant articles about these singers (at
> > > least not on the internet), and the only way to get coverage of a large
> > > portion of them would be through original research (which we can't do
> > > obviously), or to find print sources. So does anyone on this mailing list
> > > happen to have access to archives for a Sudanese newspaper? It would be nice
> > > if we could get more things like [[WP:AWNB]] for smaller countries, so we
> > > can find people more local* who may very well be able to walk to a library
> > > to find sources and add articles. That could work wonders for coverage :-)
> > >
> > > *And I may be a bit too ambitious in assuming we have editors from just
> > > about every country
> > >
> > > Michael Billington
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Written with passion,
> > J.L.W.S. The Special One
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
> --
> Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

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

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 05:51:22 -0700
From: "Mark Williamson"
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Entries for deletion.... issues from the
Third World
To: wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
Message-ID:
<849f98ed0701090451m78af8519k6c57310da36f0d8f at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Yes. If you interview Jack Neo, you should keep a copy of it somewhere
online or on your personal computer. You may reference it from the
article, but it is of the utmost importance that you can produce a
copy of the interview if anyone wants it.

Mark

On 09/01/07, J.L.W.S. The Special One wrote:
> A very interesting and comprehensive post.
>
> You forgot to mention about the language barrier.
>
> I agree that verifiability is important, but making it compulsory
> introduces problems such as systemic bias.
>
> Where should we raise this issue for further discussion?
>
> I've been working on an article on a Singaporean movie - I Not Stupid.
> It's close to GA status, but there is very little referenced
> information on the production of the film. My friend suggested I
> interview Jack Neo - my idol, who wrote the movie. Since his child
> studies in my school, getting an interview is not out of the question.
> The problem is: how do I publish it?
>
> On 1/9/07, Mark Williamson wrote:
> > This is true. However, is there a workable solution to that?
> >
> > I remember when people didn't worry too much about references on
> > Wikipedia. Sure, you were supposed to have them, but as long as you
> > had a nice article, nobody cared.
> >
> > Well, what if I know the truth, but it is not written anywhere? What
> > if I interview 100 people to make sure they agree, and they do? What
> > if it is common knowledge in my village, which nobody will challenge?
> >
> > The answer: it will be labeled "unverifiable" or "non-notable" and deleted.
> >
> > Wikipedia's current message to the world: If it's never been written
> > about, or been mentioned in a sound recording or a film, it's not
> > important.
> >
> > Well:
> >
> > 1) Not all cultures have writing.
> > 2) Among those cultures which DO have writing, they each place
> > different importance values on it. In my daily life, I am using it
> > constantly. My desk is littered with books with their titles written
> > on them, products with their labels. If I go driving, some of the
> > signs will have writing on them, there are billboards, signs for
> > businesses, all of them using writing. But in some cultures, writing
> > may not be used so extensively. Maybe it is usually just used for
> > poetry, or just for writing letters to people who are far away. The
> > concept of mass communication is foreign to most cultures still, and
> > if you don't need mass communication, writing is hardly necessary,
> > except to write a letter to someone who is not present.
> > 3) Among the population of the Earth, a very, very large portion live
> > in societies that are not highly literate or which don't place a high
> > importance on writing. Most societies don't record every aspect of
> > life the way we do. Yes, there are newspapers in India (although to
> > the best of my knowledge there are no newspapers in Igbo or Aymara or
> > Afar), there are books in Nepal, but if you look it up, the sheer
> > volume of materials published in the First World per-capita far, far,
> > far, far exceeds that of anywhere else.
> >
> > Here, if someone sees an insect doing something strange, they write a
> > paper or a book about it, and if they don't, somebody else will! But
> > in most countries, this is not the case. Books cost money to make.
> > People in developing countries often don't have this money. There are
> > no or (comparatively) few publishers there, and those that do exist
> > cannot afford to put out the sheer volume of books put out by
> > publishers here because the demand tends to be much lower (especially
> > for non-fiction books). They do not have Amazon.com or massive
> > real-life bookstores, so "specialty" books would not sell because they
> > would have no way to reach their intended audience!
> >
> > And they say, that the internet will change all this. Well, in these
> > societies, although internet access is on the rise, it is still very,
> > very, low. Even if you do have internet access, it takes a somewhat
> > higher degree of computer literacy to be able to _publish_ on the
> > internet. What? You want to put your knowledge on Wikipedia? Go ahead!
> >
> > ...
> >
> > Sorry, your knowledge is not referenced. It has been deleted. You know
> > nothing that is worth anything.
> >
> > We are telling the developing world that they do not matter and that
> > they are stupid.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > On 09/01/07, J.L.W.S. The Special One wrote:
> > > Requiring verifiability creates systemic bias. To be more accurate, it
> > > enforces the systemic bias of existing references.
> > >
> > > On 1/9/07, Michael Billington wrote:
> > > > On 1/9/07, Lars Aronsson wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Andre Engels wrote:
> > > > > > I guess I should not go into the examples, but in this case my opinion
> > > > > is
> > > > > > that 50,000 would be too high a limit, I myself would be thinking of
> > > > > 2,000
> > > > > > or 5,000.
> > > > >
> > > > > Absolutely. Perhaps for the U.S. and parts of Germany we are
> > > > > approaching full coverage of all places with 5,000 people. But
> > > > > for India I doubt if we have covered all cities with 50,000.
> > > > > Nothing stops the limit from being set at 500 too. But a lower
> > > > > limit could be questioned a lot more easily than a higher one.
> > > > > Then again, some places with 50,000 people are less notable than
> > > > > some very small places. But if you can point to the fact that a
> > > > > place has 50,000 inhabitants (or was the birth places for a
> > > > > president), then it is a lot easier to defend its notability.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > On one side we have western places. For instance, Wikipedia has an article
> > > > about my town, political division and local member of parliament. My town
> > > > and surrounding ones (all of which have wiki articles) have a population of
> > > > 1,500 or so. Rambot has written articles about towns 1/10th of the size of
> > > > mine.
> > > >
> > > > However, whilst lists of Australian, German or US (and more) topics are
> > > > mostly blue links, there are lists populated almost entirely by red links,
> > > > such as [[List of Sudanese singers]]. Unfortunately, very few or no reliable
> > > > sources will probably be found to warrant articles about these singers (at
> > > > least not on the internet), and the only way to get coverage of a large
> > > > portion of them would be through original research (which we can't do
> > > > obviously), or to find print sources. So does anyone on this mailing list
> > > > happen to have access to archives for a Sudanese newspaper? It would be nice
> > > > if we could get more things like [[WP:AWNB]] for smaller countries, so we
> > > > can find people more local* who may very well be able to walk to a library
> > > > to find sources and add articles. That could work wonders for coverage :-)
> > > >
> > > > *And I may be a bit too ambitious in assuming we have editors from just
> > > > about every country
> > > >
> > > > Michael Billington
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Written with passion,
> > > J.L.W.S. The Special One
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
> --
> Written with passion,
> J.L.W.S. The Special One
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 20:55:08 +0800
From: "J.L.W.S. The Special One"
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Entries for deletion.... issues from the
Third World
To: wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Perhaps I could join Wikinews and add a copy of the interview there?

On 1/9/07, Mark Williamson wrote:
> Yes. If you interview Jack Neo, you should keep a copy of it somewhere
> online or on your personal computer. You may reference it from the
> article, but it is of the utmost importance that you can produce a
> copy of the interview if anyone wants it.
>
> Mark
>
> On 09/01/07, J.L.W.S. The Special One wrote:
> > A very interesting and comprehensive post.
> >
> > You forgot to mention about the language barrier.
> >
> > I agree that verifiability is important, but making it compulsory
> > introduces problems such as systemic bias.
> >
> > Where should we raise this issue for further discussion?
> >
> > I've been working on an article on a Singaporean movie - I Not Stupid.
> > It's close to GA status, but there is very little referenced
> > information on the production of the film. My friend suggested I
> > interview Jack Neo - my idol, who wrote the movie. Since his child
> > studies in my school, getting an interview is not out of the question.
> > The problem is: how do I publish it?
> >
> > On 1/9/07, Mark Williamson wrote:
> > > This is true. However, is there a workable solution to that?
> > >
> > > I remember when people didn't worry too much about references on
> > > Wikipedia. Sure, you were supposed to have them, but as long as you
> > > had a nice article, nobody cared.
> > >
> > > Well, what if I know the truth, but it is not written anywhere? What
> > > if I interview 100 people to make sure they agree, and they do? What
> > > if it is common knowledge in my village, which nobody will challenge?

=== message truncated ===

Firoozeh Derakhshani

firoozeh_derakhshani at yahoo.com
Tel:(9821) 8808-8866/8807-7338
Fax(9821)8857-8944
Mobile:+912347031
Add:18 Hormozan Tower, Phase2
Shahrak Gharb
Tehran 14666
 __________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Entries for deletion.... Notability

body:
Indeed.

Singaporean Pop Idol. Notable to Mailer Diablo. Unimportant to me.

Perhaps people who judge notability should have a background in that field?

On 1/10/07, Ian Tresman <it at knowledge.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Notability means different things to different people. What I find
> notable, someone else won't and vice versa.
>
> What's important, it that the article is written well.
>
> Wikipedia's strength is that it has more articles than any other
> encyclopedia. It also has "Good article status" and "Featured article
> status" to further indicate quality.
>
> As long as someone finds a subject notable, I'm not going to disagree
> with them, and as long as it conforms to WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, then
> that should be fine with everyone.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ian Tresman
>    33 Reginald Street, Derby  DE23 8FR
>    Tel: 01332 265566. email: it at knowledge.co.uk
>    Fax: 0870 167 1951. http://www.tresman.co.uk/ian/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Brad Patrick

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimeet Rotterdam with board

body:
Hello:

I am writing from Rotterdam, where I arrived this morning.  You all know
this, but I wanted to point out that there are two Tulip Hotels; one is
white and right next to the Erasmus Bridge, literally next to the water,
which is where the Board is meeting this week; the other is the Golden
Tulip Hotel, which is the tall black one, and, presumably, where the
meetup will be.

If I am wrong, I am sure Oscar or someone else will correct me.

-Brad

PS - Rotterdam is fabulous!  Other than the fact I am soaking wet from
getting caught in the rain, it is a very cool place.

effe iets anders wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> apperently everybody forgot to mention it in here, so i'll do it anyway,
> sorry that it is this late :) Coming friday, that is january 12th, the
> Wikimedia Foundation Board is in the Netherlands for a Board Meeting, and
> from 20.00h CET on, they will attend to an open WikiMeet. The location will
> be the Golden Tulip Hotel (near the Erasmus Bridge), and the meetup will
> have no formal character. Of course I hope to see a lot of you guys who are
> able to attend :)
>
> Greetings from Holland,
>
> Lodewijk
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] psychosis and wikipedia.

body:
On 1/10/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/10/07, Nina Stratton <ninaeliza at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I like the article on extroverts and attention seekers that Luna brought
> up,
> > but it doesn't really address certain cultural factors. The current
> > veneration of celebrities in general, is almost a world-wide phenomenon
> now.
> > Many people hold the view that any celebrity is good, and that
> celebrities
> > are to be envied wholesale. That makes Wikipedia a target for anyone
> wanting
> > their "one minute of fame".
> >
>
> Plenty of productive ways of getting low level fame on wikipedia.
> While the multiple author thing means that featured articles are not
> that good a way of getting it featured pictures are.

This is also  true, the "one minute of fame statement" was specifically for
the casual vandal.
This is where it gets interesting, because many people don't just want the
collective "fame" of being part of such a high-profile project, but they
also want, at the very least, validation and recognition within the
community itself. Look at the huge back log of editor reviews, for example.

Another example is the way a lot of folks self-nominate for RFAs. RFAs in
general are kind of a thorny issue for me, because I don't really think that
folks realize how much work it is (I'm not an admin, and have no wish to be
one). I just wrote, for all intents and purposes, a short essay to a user
who was a bit uncivil to a newbie because his RFA went so badly. I wish more
folks could see that this adminship is just another "chore", and not some
kind of shiny metallic cop-star (no offense intended to the fine folks in
the police).

I don't know if it's healthy or not, but I tend to just assume I'm famous
within the community, and leave it at that. I'm most certainly an extrovert
and attention seeker, and have been all my life. I actually wanted to be a
singer and musician, but wound up doing other things. I've also always had
the dream of getting in on the "ground floor" of something huge (like
Google, for example). I've pretty much achieved both my desire for attention
and "fame", as well as my desire to be a pioneer in a grand-scale project.
I'm pretty content.:)

>
> > I honestly believe that most vandals come here expecting to get into the
> > news the next day, because Wikipedia has become so high profile. It's
> the
> > folks who come here sub-consciously craving negative attention that are
> the
> > real problem. Those are people who are typically very wounded, and there
> is
> > definitely some Psychology working there.
> >
>
> The Herostratus approach? I feel that this one only applies to a
> limited number of our more persistent Vandals.

True, but it also  applies to a lot of  trolls .  See GNAA.

--
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Christopher Warner

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Wrongfully blocked by admin who lies and on
	behalf	of users trying to "own" articles

body:
Yours is an attitude which does a disservice to Wikipedia and which is
why I myself no longer edit but do follow this list for these sorts of
incidient so I can document them.

You simply neglect the valid "FACT" and wrap it up in formal nonsense.
It's completely and highly irresponsible IE: Someone gets killed by a
person you have in hand, a relative of that person screams and complains
and generally acts stupid. Instead of looking at the FACTS you look at
the the relative and simply say. I can't do anything for you, you're
acting like an asshole. This may be fine in social situations where one
is doing the other a favor but when it involves things like the truth
and facts and/or general scientific method it has no place.

If it's a fact. IT IS A FACT! How both of you can argue over the other
stuff and negate the facts is amazing!!

The real discussion should be is what the editor saying FACT? If not
then he's a vandal, if so, The Administrators have abused their power,
as this has happened to me in relation to the Lou Dobbs Article I am
extremely biased but so far and doing this research over the last couple
of months. Wikipedia Administrators are the problem.

Christopher Warner

On Tue, 2007-01-09 at 20:42 -0800, Luna wrote:
> On 1/9/07, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > I've yet to see where these are connected to the user who protested to us.
> > Perhaps that is the problem, your willingness to jump at shadows and
> > underlying hostility to anyone who doesn't genuflect "just so" towards
> > you.
>
>
> While I do value your opinions, I will be frank on this count: I don't trust
> you to be neutral.
>
> I openly challenge you to take a dig through my postings to this mailing
> list, and back up your claims of my behavior and attitudes. Go for it. If
> you can find evidence that I've been serially abusing the few powers and
> positions of trust the community has seen fit to grant me, by all means,
> bring it to my attention. I have no qualms with specific and reasonable
> complaints grounded in fact.
>
> In this case, I'm not the only user who suspects block evasion. One IP
> address is blocked for trolling and general disruption, a second IP address
> comes onto the scene and begins making the exact same reverts -- hardly a
> stretch of the imagination, here.
>
> Again, as you seem to be concerned by what's happened. I have no objection
> if you desire to pursue this on your own.
>
> -Luna
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Parker Peters

body:
There's nothing wrong with what Luna did, save that I think she's using
things unrelated to a user to justify inaction in this case.

Samuel on the other hand? Let's see: removal of a complaint from Admins
Noticeboard, deliberate reversion in a case where he was the blocker, and
what appears to be a highly bad-faith block.

Parker

On 1/9/07, Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu- <tariqabjotu at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> (Mostly to) Parker Peters --
>
> The suggestion that a de-sysopping or request for arbitration ought to
> occur is excessive. I fail to see anything wrong with what Luna and
> Samuel did. Luna has, at the very least, presented evidence to support
> her position in a polite manner. From you, however, most of what I see
> amounts to /see... there's an admin cabal; I know there is/. It's one
> thing to disagree with someone, but it's another thing to be so dogmatic
> in your opinion that you believe the opposition is part of some
> conspiracy. Unfortunate is the fact that you've resorted to that stance.
>
> -- Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu-
>
> Parker Peters wrote:
> > On 1/9/07, Luna <lunasantin at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 1/9/07, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> I've yet to see where these are connected to the user who protested to
> >>>
> >> us.
> >>
> >>> Perhaps that is the problem, your willingness to jump at shadows and
> >>> underlying hostility to anyone who doesn't genuflect "just so" towards
> >>> you.
> >>>
> >> While I do value your opinions, I will be frank on this count: I don't
> >> trust
> >> you to be neutral.
> >>
> >> I openly challenge you to take a dig through my postings to this
> mailing
> >> list, and back up your claims of my behavior and attitudes. Go for it.
> If
> >> you can find evidence that I've been serially abusing the few powers
> and
> >> positions of trust the community has seen fit to grant me, by all
> means,
> >> bring it to my attention. I have no qualms with specific and reasonable
> >> complaints grounded in fact.
> >>
> >> In this case, I'm not the only user who suspects block evasion. One IP
> >> address is blocked for trolling and general disruption, a second IP
> >> address
> >> comes onto the scene and begins making the exact same reverts -- hardly
> a
> >> stretch of the imagination, here.
> >>
> >> Again, as you seem to be concerned by what's happened. I have no
> objection
> >> if you desire to pursue this on your own.
> >>
> >> -Luna
> >>
> >
> >
> > Luna,
> >
> > I'll be frank with you as well: I approach things a bit different from
> the
> > way you do.
> >
> > It seems obvious to me that you approach things assuming the
> administrator
> > is right. I approach things with an open mind and analyze the data
> first,
> > then see what I can see from there. The majority of the time, I'lll
> admit
> > that the administrator is right.
> >
> > This, however, is plainly not one of those times. Instead, this seems to
> be
> > an attempt to control the content of a page by one small group of users
> who
> > happen to have an administrator or two to help them out, and it is the
> use
> > of administrator powers to gain a leg up in a content dispute that I
> > primarily have a problem with.
> >
> > I have a second problem with the abuse by these administrators in
> removing
> > the complainant's complaints from other pages, which is in effect trying
> to
> > hide what they are doing from the community at large.
> >
> > Parker
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
Are you really Abi, or are you David?

I'm filing an error report with Gmail now, don't worry. I seem to have a lot
of these this morning. I guess this is why gmail is still "beta."

Parker

On 1/10/07, David Gerard<dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/10/07, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Naohiro has now left another threat on my discussion page.
> >
> > You really are a bunch of crazy egomaniacs aren't you?
> >
> > Bob
>
> Hello folks.  I see here that Parker Peters has sent an email to the
> list, but it is written in the character of Bob, and signed "Bob" at
> the end.  Parker Peters then replied to it, in character as Parker
> Peters, and the quoting was changed to make it appear as if the e-mail
> address for Bob had sent it.
>
> Now, a cynical person would say this constitutes clear evidence that
> both email addresses are being operated by the same person, and they
> messed up and lost track of who they were logged in as at the time.
> In fact, not just cynical people.  Even naive people would think this.
>
> End the charade please, someone.  It's unbecoming to argue with
> yourself on a mailing list.
>
> --
> Abi
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
Case in point, this is getting silly. I'm presuming the "d" is David Gerard
then?

As I noted in my last email, I've sent an error report in to Google about
this.

Parker

On 1/10/07, Abigail Brady <morwen at evilmagic.org> wrote:
>
> On 10/01/07, Abigail Brady <morwen at evilmagic.org> wrote:
>
> > Hello folks.  I see here that Parker Peters has sent an email to the
> > list, but it is written in the character of Bob, and signed "Bob" at
> > the end.  Parker Peters then replied to it, in character as Parker
> > Peters, and the quoting was changed to make it appear as if the e-mail
> > address for Bob had sent it.
> > Now, a cynical person would say this constitutes clear evidence that
> > both email addresses are being operated by the same person, and they
> > messed up and lost track of who they were logged in as at the time.
> > In fact, not just cynical people.  Even naive people would think this.
> > End the charade please, someone.  It's unbecoming to argue with
> > yourself on a mailing list.
>
>
> But it was smart enough to fool him; surely you can't expect him to
> believe it's not smart enough to fool us too.
>
> I am not going to block the addresses (as yet), but I am going to
> hereby point and laugh.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
Google appears to be "having problems." I've filed a report with them.

This is why Gmail is still a beta product, apparently.

Parker

On 1/10/07, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yes... I was wondering about that...
>
> Abigail Brady wrote:
> > On 1/10/07, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Naohiro has now left another threat on my discussion page.
> >>
> >> You really are a bunch of crazy egomaniacs aren't you?
> >>
> >> Bob
> >>
> >
> > Hello folks.  I see here that Parker Peters has sent an email to the
> > list, but it is written in the character of Bob, and signed "Bob" at
> > the end.  Parker Peters then replied to it, in character as Parker
> > Peters, and the quoting was changed to make it appear as if the e-mail
> > address for Bob had sent it.
> >
> > Now, a cynical person would say this constitutes clear evidence that
> > both email addresses are being operated by the same person, and they
> > messed up and lost track of who they were logged in as at the time.
> > In fact, not just cynical people.  Even naive people would think this.
> >
> > End the charade please, someone.  It's unbecoming to argue with
> > yourself on a mailing list.
> >
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Marc Riddell

subject: [WikiEN-l] psychosis and wikipedia.

body:
> From: "Christopher Thieme" <cdthieme at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 00:43:31 -0500
> To: WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] psychosis and wikipedia.
>
> I'd love to see some psychology-oriented individual do a case study on what
> kind of people are attracted to editing on Wikipedia.  What psychological
> defects lurk behind the computer screens and the keyboards.  Why do I ask?
> Because in the last month (including right now), I've gotten in spats, edit
> wars, content disputes, with people who would be poster children for
> narcissitic personality disorder and one of several temporal lobe disorders,
> respectively.
>
> Something like that would probably explain a lot about the bitterness,
> control issues, the incessant desire to be "right", etc. that some people
> have when approaching the subject of editing.
>
> Just a crazy idea. (no pun intended).
>
> Regards,
> Christopher D. Thieme

An interesting (and tempting ;-) ) notion. The problem is, for the study to
be at all valid, the person conducting it could not be a part of the
Wikipedia Community. And, for such a person to gain access to the data, they
would need to sign on as a member of the Community. Still an interesting
idea, though.

Marc Riddell
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

body:
David Gerard schreef:
> On 10/01/07, Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu> wrote:
>
>> David Gerard wrote:
>>
>>> On 09/01/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>
>
>>>> By the way, there is a growing demand for admins for MediaWiki projects.
>>>> In the Netherlands there are at least two people I know off doing admin
>>>> work professionally. It is a GOOD thing because it makes MediaWiki and
>>>> Wikis acceptable and known by a substantially large and influential
>>>> group of people.
>>>>
>
>
>> Are you talking admin as in sysop, or as in system administrator?
>>
>
>
> I was talking as in Unix sysadmin; I suspect Gerard meant programming as well.
>
>
> - d.
Hoi,
The two admins that I know off do NOT do any programming.. they do NOT
do any hardcore system management. They create an environment, build
communities, hold hands for newbies and they are nice people. All
relevant requirements for the job.
Thanks,
    Gerard


from_name: Anthony

subject: [Foundation-l] Fundraising and site notice

body:
On 1/10/07, Jerome Banal <jerome.banal at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Take the "Monthly expense budget" and don't forget to add the "June '07"
> parts; that will give you the expected monthly expense budget for June,
> which should be the figure you quoted.

Did you try it?  Because I did several times, and I only just now
figured out what must be going on.

Monthly expense budget $75,500

Goals for bandwidth: ???  Right now the budget is $12,500.  There are
at least four different figures for the new "budget" (do you see why
this can't be called a budget?).  I see $50,000, $30,000, $62,000,
$100,000, and $74,000 (which you get when you calculate
$137,000-$75500+$12,500).  So let's go with $74,000, and pretend it
makes sense that bandwidth costs will go up sixfold?

Goals for hosting and operations: $38,000.  But then the calculation
that is made acts as though this is in addition to the current
$13,900.  So let's call it $52,000 total.  Hosting costs are expected
to nearly quadruple, I guess.

Goals for hiring: $100,000.  Let's assume this means $100,000 in
addition to the current goals.  Now we get the magic $275,000 number.

Am I getting this right?  Is this the actual budget for the next
fiscal year?  Is there a reason this can't just be put in a normal
form of a budget?

> The reserve is of course on budget we
> will need in the future, not on the current budget.
>
Presumably, though I would also think it would be the immediate
future, not 5 months in the future.  I also still don't see a budget
for FY '07-08.  I see a bunch of "goals".  So if the goal is to spend
$275,000/month, I guess the budget will be to spend even more, in case
the goal isn't reached.

> Budget is rising quickly because we have more and more people coming looking
> at WP, so we need bigger bandwidth, because we need more people to help on
> MediaWiki as it is becoming more complex and we see more and more useful
> features missing, etc.
>
Traffic is not going to quadruple (or increase 6-fold) in 5 months.
It's taken about a year for it to merely double.

> PS: By the way, it is indeed "at least". If it was not diffused before, it
> has been diffused at that date.

Except, I'm saying it wasn't diffused at that date.  In fact, $900,000
is between the low and the high reserve, so it isn't even diffused at
this date according to those numbers.

> So you might have heard about it before
> elsewhere, but in any case you have /at least/ been able to heard about it
> at that date (after that, you can have missed it, but that's another
> problem).
>
I haven't at least been able to heard about...huh?  What are we talking about?

Anthony


subject: [WikiEN-l] London pub meet report, Tue 9 Jan

body:
I don't drink anymore, but it sounds fun! I particularly like all the
"Angloisms" in your account. I'm such an Anglophile. I'm so glad you had
fun. Take three aspirin, drink plenty of water,  and eat some protein. No
hair of the dog for you my friends - back to work!

Nina

On 1/10/07, Gary Kirk <gary.kirk at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> + 1
> :)
>
> On 1/10/07, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
> > David Gerard wrote:
> > > follow Morwen's infallible ale detector to the Shakespeare's Head near
> > > Holborn tube station, another Wetherspoons but this time of the
> > > tolerable variety.
> >
> > This was a much better choice if you ask me, and might be one to
> > bookmark if we ever do it again.  I really enjoyed myself.
> >
> > > We got LOTS of people along and this was really good and productive,
> > > despite the horrible first venue. Did anyone write up an attendance
> > > list?
> >
> > I didn't, but from memory Jimbo, Morwen, yourself, myself, Gordo,
> > Psychonaut, Whouk, Edward, Thryduulf, AJR, steve from openstreetmap, Tim
> > Starling, Angela, Theresa Knott, um, Geni, Andrew Gray?.  I didn't
> > really circulate well and was half cut by the time we were in a quiet
> > enough pub to do introductions. Apologies to those I have left off,
> > because there most definitely was more people.
> >
> >
> > --
> > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.8/621 - Release Date: 09/01/07
> > 13:37
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
> --
> Gary Kirk
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Steve Summit

subject: [WikiEN-l] psychosis and wikipedia.

body:
Christopher Thieme wrote:
> Something like that would probably explain a lot about the bitterness,
> control issues, the incessant desire to be "right", etc. that some people
> have when approaching the subject of editing.

<Will Smith voice>You think?</>

Just last night I was writing about one (less than psychotic) aspect
of this; see [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/StuRat 2#Not-so-
Outside Comment by Steve Summit]], and search down for "Wikipedia
(like any open, on-line forum) attracts some fiercely stubborn and
independent people".


subject: [Wikitech-l] New mail servers leave

body:
> Message: 9
> Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 16:56:23 +0100
> From: Mark Bergsma <mark at nedworks.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] New mail servers leave
> many broken links
> To: Wikimedia developers
> <wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <45A50CA7.4040906 at nedworks.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1;
> format=flowed
>
> David Gerard wrote:
> > On 10/01/07, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> The transfer of the the mailing list archives
> have
> >> resulted in broken links throughout the projects.
>  Can
> >> this somehow be fixed on the server side?  Can we
> >> possibily keep copies of all archives up till now
> in
> >> both places? If the links themselves have to be
> edited
> >> is this something that can be done by a bot?  I
> don't
> >> think it is a good idea to leave these links as
> 404
> >> errors.
> >
> >
> > It's an appallingly bad idea and needs fixing,
> yes. Rewrite rule on
> > mail.wikipedia.org / mail.wikimedia.org ?
>
> What are you talking about? There *is* one in place
> already, and has
> always been.
>
> Example, maybe?
>
> --
> Mark
>
> mark at nedworks.org
>
>

Sorry if I am not describing this well. But on the the
wiki's if there is an html link to a post in the
mailing list archive it is now broken.  For example
all the links on this page:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LSS/foundation-l-archives/2007_01_1-7

But these links are all over all the wiki's as part of
different disscussions, policies, etc.

Birgitte SB

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


from_name: kosebamse at gmx.net

subject: [WikiEN-l] psychosis and wikipedia.

body:
> people who would be poster children for narcissitic personality disorder  >and one of several temporal lobe disorders, respectively.

As difficult as it may be to diagnose personality disorders or other neuropsychiatric peculiarities by one's online behaviour, such conclusions are all too often very, very obvious.

Add to that ADHD and Asperger's syndrome, and you'll probably cover most of the relevant cases.

By the way, there might be several case studies hidden in Wikipedia's user and talk pages, RFAR, this list, and private emails. What would be even more interesting were some sort of comprehensive and qualified analysis.

Kosebamse
--
Der GMX SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen!
Ideal f?r Modem und ISDN: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/smartsurfer


subject: [Wikitech-l] New mail servers leave

body:
--- Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Message: 9
> > Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 16:56:23 +0100
> > From: Mark Bergsma <mark at nedworks.org>
> > Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] New mail servers leave
> > many broken links
> > To: Wikimedia developers
> > <wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Message-ID: <45A50CA7.4040906 at nedworks.org>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1;
> > format=flowed
> >
> > David Gerard wrote:
> > > On 10/01/07, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> The transfer of the the mailing list archives
> > have
> > >> resulted in broken links throughout the
> projects.
> >  Can
> > >> this somehow be fixed on the server side?  Can
> we
> > >> possibily keep copies of all archives up till
> now
> > in
> > >> both places? If the links themselves have to be
> > edited
> > >> is this something that can be done by a bot?  I
> > don't
> > >> think it is a good idea to leave these links as
> > 404
> > >> errors.
> > >
> > >
> > > It's an appallingly bad idea and needs fixing,
> > yes. Rewrite rule on
> > > mail.wikipedia.org / mail.wikimedia.org ?
> >
> > What are you talking about? There *is* one in
> place
> > already, and has
> > always been.
> >
> > Example, maybe?
> >
> > --
> > Mark
> >
> > mark at nedworks.org
> >
> >
>
> Sorry if I am not describing this well. But on the
> the
> wiki's if there is an html link to a post in the
> mailing list archive it is now broken.  For example
> all the links on this page:
>
>
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LSS/foundation-l-archives/2007_01_1-7
>
> But these links are all over all the wiki's as part
> of
> different disscussions, policies, etc.
>
> Birgitte SB
>
>

Excuse me this seems to have been fixed already.
Thanks!

Birgitte SB

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