body:
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, The Cunctator wrote:

> >> On 10/25/02 11:02 AM, "Larry Sanger" <lsanger at nupedia.com> wrote:
> <snip
> > (1) The list you refer to is not of difficult contributors, Cunc; it is a
> > list of *behaviors*.  Read it again.  And as long as we are going to ban
> > some people for some *behaviors*, we sure as heck *better* clearly define
> > those behaviors.
>
> Basically, we shouldn't.

OK, that's news.  Virtually everyone else on Wikipedia disagrees with you.

But it's nice that you agree with me that it was a list of difficult
behaviors, and that you were mistaken about that.

> > (2) I don't read MeatballWiki and I don't think they define Wikipedia's
> > values for Wikipedia.  We define our own values.  I don't know if that's
> > what "avoiding CommunityExile" means, and I don't care.  Are you saying we
> > should never ban anyone?  That surely isn't your view, though; you thought
> > we should ban 24.
>
> If you don't want to understand what I'm saying, then there's not much point
> in trying to explain.

Could you please avoid twisting my words around?  It's an awful habit.  I
*said*: I don't read MeatballWiki, etc.  This doesn't mean that I don't
want to understand your view.  I just think it's unreasonable for you to
ask us to go to MeatballWiki to learn what you mean.  :-)  You disagree?
We *should* all go there, because you start using words defined there?

> But I'll continue for the benefit of others: I think that ideally we
> should never have to ban anyone. I didn't think we should ban 24. I
> didn't strongly think we should *not* ban 24, either. It was a push,
> given the circumstances.

No, Cunc, that's not what I remember.  You said we should ban 24.  You
were in favor of banning him.  Please don't make us go find the original
posts...

And you still haven't given any good reasons, on this list, for a total
ban on banning.

> >>> This is a bit off the topic, but it came up and I can't let it pass.  KQ
> >>> said recently that Cunctator is the project's *conscience*.  Perhaps KQ
> >>> was just trying to be nice, but I think that is actually unfair to the
> >>> rest of us, who like to think we have a principled approach to the project
> >>> as well.  It also accords Cunc respect as somehow *the* representative of
> >>> a *particularly* moral point of view, to whom the rest of us ought to pay
> >>> special heed--I disagree with that and I enjoin you not to accord *any*
> >>> one person such special respect.  (I'm not sure KQ meant to imply all this
> >>> by "conscience of the project," and I also doubt, in his reasonableness
> >>> and modesty, that Cunc would reject the description when cashed out as I
> >>> have done, but I just want this to be clear.)
> >>
> >> I suppose all this faint praise will make me a better devil's advocate...
> >
> > I wasn't aware of even faintly praising you, but if you want to claim to
> > be faintly praised, go right ahead.  ;-)
>
> Just to raise your awareness: you granted me "reasonableness and modesty".
> That's certainly praise, if faint.

Just to raise your awareness: ;-)  You mean you think I meant it with no
sarcasm or facetiousness at all?

Larry


list: wikipedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Larry Sanger

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep drivingaway
 good contributors

body:
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Stephen Gilbert wrote:

>
> --- Larry Sanger <lsanger at nupedia.com> wrote:
> > (2) I don't read MeatballWiki and I don't think they
> > define Wikipedia's
> > values for Wikipedia.  We define our own values.  I
> > don't know if that's
> > what "avoiding CommunityExile" means, and I don't
> > care.
>
> No one on MeatballWiki tries to define the values of a
> community. It is, however, a group of people who
> analyze, discuss and build online communities. Many of
> them are experts in this area.

"Experts"?  There are no experts in this area.  Or, if there are, all of
us are.

> Learning from what others have done (and not done) is not the same as
> looking to others to define Wikipedia.

I agree with that, but asking us to go to MeatballWiki to learn the terms
of the debate is a bit much.  I have limited time for Wikipedia.  If you
want to introduce a new term from MeatballWiki, together with all the
values that it implies, then by all means do so--but do so *here*, on this
list.

> There's a rich history from older wiki communities and projects that
> we can, and should, draw upon, just as we draw upon existing sources
> for encyclopedia articles.

Maybe.  I'm not actually sure that that's true; Wikipedia is a completely
new thing.  It's a wiki, but it's a lot more than a wiki.

OK, now I really *am* done for today.
Larry


from_name: Axel Boldt

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Once again: In memoriam

body:
--- tarquin <tarquin at planetunreal.com> wrote:
>
> Jeroen Heijmans wrote:
>
> >Yes, again about the [[September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack/In
> >Memoriam]] page cs. Is there yet a
> >solution? Last month, when I brought up this subject again (it
> >wasn't the first time), it was said
> >that we should not be hasty. Well, there's been enough time not to
> >be hasty now. I really think this
> >issue should finally be resolved, otherwise I'll be so bold to move
> >everything to meta to let it
> >wait there for the new destination. There's no reason to let these
> >pages be around anymore.
> >Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
> >
> I agree.

Me too. I think we have been politically correct in that area for long
enough; it's time to go back to our original mission.

Axel

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Cunc, tell us what you want?

body:
--- erik_moeller at gmx.de wrote:

> www.wikipedia.org should do an HTTP redirect to en.wikipedia.org,
> de.wikipedia.org or whatever based on the language preference in the
> browser.

I'm already on record favoring this option. People who don't configure
the proper language settings in their browser can hardly complain
if they're presented with a language they don't like (i.e. English).

Axel

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep driving away good contributors

body:
>>24.150.61.63 has been off the ban list for quite
>>some time. (Certainly since the July upgrade wiped
>>the slate, I'm not sure about before.)
>>
>>-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
>
>Hm, if I weren't attending classes full time &
>working 30 hrs a week, I would have known that.
>Still, though, I bet mav knew it.  ;-)
>
>kq

Actually I carried over this and only this ban to the
new banned list when the software was upgraded and
then I asked Jimbo about it. He never intended the ban
to be permanent so I lifted it myself.

I see there is a lot of constructive talk related to
my unfortunate emotional outburst... I will have to go
over the dozens of posts Saturday morning UTC.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

PS. Only 30 hours a week with full time school. What,
are you some type of slacker kq? ;-)

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/


from_name: Stephen Gilbert

subject: [Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep drivingaway good contributors

body:
--- Larry Sanger <lsanger at nupedia.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Stephen Gilbert wrote:
> > No one on MeatballWiki tries to define the values
> of a
> > community. It is, however, a group of people who
> > analyze, discuss and build online communities.
> Many of
> > them are experts in this area.
>
> "Experts"?  There are no experts in this area.  Or,
> if there are, all of
> us are.

That's an odd statement. There's no Ph.Ds, for
certain. But there are people who have years of
experience building, and failing to build, online
communities. I humbly submit that they have far more
expertise then you or I in this area (unless, of
course, you have more experience at this than I'm
aware of).

> > Learning from what others have done (and not done)
> is not the same as
> > looking to others to define Wikipedia.
>
> I agree with that, but asking us to go to
> MeatballWiki to learn the terms
> of the debate is a bit much.  I have limited time
> for Wikipedia.  If you
> want to introduce a new term from MeatballWiki,
> together with all the
> values that it implies, then by all means do so--but
> do so *here*, on this
> list.

Absolutely.

> > There's a rich history from older wiki communities
> and projects that
> > we can, and should, draw upon, just as we draw
> upon existing sources
> > for encyclopedia articles.
>
> Maybe.  I'm not actually sure that that's true;
> Wikipedia is a completely
> new thing.  It's a wiki, but it's a lot more than a
> wiki.

Perhaps, but we're still building on a foundation
that's largely wiki, and many of our problems have
also been faced by other wikis.

There are lots of other sources to learn from too:
older encyclopedia projects (why did they fail?),
commercial encyclopedias (is there anything we can
leverage from them in our project?) and the rise(s)
and fall(s) of other great Internet experiments
(Usenet, Slashdot).

Ok, I'll stop before I veer too far off inanother
direction. It's just I sometimes feel that we don't
use these sources knowledge available to us. Of
course, we're all busy, and there's only so much we
can do at once. Talking about the project should never
replace working on it.

> OK, now I really *am* done for today.
> Larry

I know the feeling. It's 2:00 am in my part of the
world. Goodnight...

Stephen G.

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/


from_name: Karen AKA Kajikit

subject: [Wikipedia-l] www.wikipedia.org design

body:
elian wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> just a quick and dirty design study for www.wikipedia.org (not all links
> are working, some text isn't translated yet and no colors are defined)
>
> http://www.djini.de/Uploads/wikipedia/wikipedia.html
>
> (tested on IE (Mac), Mozilla, lynx, links, iCab and Omniweb)
>
> Maybe after Cunctator could be convinced that no old links will be broken we
> can progress a little bit in this affair.

I seem to be in the minority, but I think it looks pretty darn good! It
all fits neatly onto my netscape screen so everything is visible at
once, and the text isn't overly complicated or long. I assume that
clicking on the language name eg 'Deutsche Wikipedia' will take you to
that front page.

Some people are complaining that it seems to be a balkanised project -
until all the databases are unified, then it IS balkinised. That's a
fact of life. Once all the pedias are running on one server then I'd
suggest a simple dropdown box that says 'What language would you like to
work in today?' and then takes you to the appropriate place.

--

Karen AKA Kajikit

To err is human... to really foul things up add kitten and stir.

Come and visit my part of the web:
Kajikit's Corner: http://Kajikit.netfirms.com/
Aussie Support Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AussieSupport
Allergyfree Eating Recipe Swap:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Allergyfree_Eating
Ample Aussies Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ampleaussies/


from_name: Toby Bartels

body:
Larry Sanger wrote in part:

>Stephen Gilbert wrote:

>>No one on MeatballWiki tries to define the values of a
>>community. It is, however, a group of people who
>>analyze, discuss and build online communities. Many of
>>them are experts in this area.

>"Experts"?  There are no experts in this area.  Or, if there are, all of
>us are.

Most people would say the same about the subject of reality,
and many other philosophical subjects.

-- Toby


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep driving away
 good contributors

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
>
> I hope we are all proud of ourselves about how
> tolerant we are with people who consistently exhibit
> anti-social behavior. Andre has left the project due
> to fatigue with having to deal with these miscreants
> and I am so /disgusted/ with loosing yet another great
> en.wiki contributor that for at least the next several
> days I am going to concentrate on the Spanish
> Wikipedia and contemplate priorities on my own future
> involvement in en.wiki.

And that's a shame... I think everyone gets 'battle fatigue'
occasionally. I stepped back for 3 weeks because I was getting
steamingly mad over the way we argue things round and round in circles
to the detriment of doing the real work. Hopefully Andre will decide to
return once he's recharged his batteries for awhile.

The thing is, like it or not, the sysops ARE a defacto police force. It
doesn't matter that we have the ability to make these changes because we
asked for it. We care about the pedia enough to take action when
necessary. And yes, I think that should include the temporary banning of
people who repeatedly violate the code of conduct for the wikipedia. I
agree with KQ about this - atm the code of conduct is unwritten, but
when you sign up for virtually any other website you have to agree to
follow one. We should do the same - when you create a login you need to
agree to follow the basic rules - no name-calling, no vandalism, and no
uploading of copyrighted materials. Being caught doing any of those
things should be AUTOMATIC cause for unquestioned suspension for a
period of time. No arguments and no questions asked.

--

Karen AKA Kajikit

To err is human... to really foul things up add kitten and stir.

Come and visit my part of the web:
Kajikit's Corner: http://Kajikit.netfirms.com/
Aussie Support Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AussieSupport
Allergyfree Eating Recipe Swap:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Allergyfree_Eating
Ample Aussies Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ampleaussies/


from_name: Jeroen Heijmans

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep drivingaway good contributors

body:
After being called a racist/fascist several times in the Famous Canadians discussion, I too have
seriously considered leaving Wikipedia, losing fun in contributing and being unable to do anything
against that without marking myself as a "mad blocker" or anything. If I encounter something like
that again, I will probably decide to leave - even though I'd rather stay. So I'd be in favor of a
system which could help dealing with contributors when they behave badly, as the current system is
apparently not suitable for that.

As has been mentioned before, most bad behaviour focuses around a few rules, which also happen to be
the few real rules we have around here (IMO):

* NPOV
* Copyright
* Wikipetiquette
* Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
* Treat the "rules to consider" respectfully (this one is arguably part of wikipetiquette, but not
mentioned, IIRC)

If pointed to these rules by another contributor, most newbies - or other contributors - will read
the pages on these rules and either comply with them, or leave, as most people are reasonable people
and they see what the use is of such rules, or see that they can't live with such rules and leave.
Some may also want to discuss these rules, as they think they are (partially) incorrect.

However, if people are being unreasonable (even for a short while) and don't follow the rules after
being pointed to them (or even don't read them, which we can't be sure of), there's nothing I, or
other Wikipedians can do. You can block the ID, but that will be called bad behaviour as well; you
can block the page from editing, but that will be called bad behaviour as well, and there are enough
other pages to continue. You can send a mail to the list, but that does not result in anything
quickly, it only serves as a notification to the other readers of the list.

Therefore, in my opinion, there needs to be a way that we can "force" the badly behaving editors to
at least read the rule(s) he/she is violating. After that the person can either a) comply with that
rule b) disagree with the rule but decide to discuss it (even though most of the rules are likely
not to be changed) c) disagree and continue with his behaviour d) disagree and leave. a), b) and d)
are all good situations (of course, we prefer d) not to happen), and would be the reactions of
reasonable people (yes, most people are still reasonable even if they've been unreasonable before,
and realize they have been when they are told to be unreasonable). Of course, c) is not a good
situation as, at that point, the contributor is _willingly_ ignoring rules that are held essential
to Wikipedia. In that case, I think there's ground for "hard measures", such as banning, banning
from editing, banning from editing anything but talk pages, etc, depending on the case.

I'm not sure whether the right to "invoke" such a "reminder of rules" should be available to all
logged in users, or only to sysops - in the any case, it seems to keep a log of issued reminders and
also let the invoker specify why it was done. Also, there needs to be some measures if the same
contributor is reminded more than once of the same rule.

However, all in all, I think this is a good way to deal with bad behaviour. The "offenders" are
first reminded of the rule(s) in question nicely, in talk, or on their user page/talk. If they
continue to ignore those rules, we can remind them of the rules in a more forceful way. If then they
still fail to behave reasonably, there's are reasonably objective "proof" that the person is being
unreasonable, and that we can be "unreasonable" as well, by banning the person in some way. This
also means it is not necessary to involve a whole bunch of sysops.

As for a way to "force" somebody to read rules, I return to the proposal I made earlier this week -
let the first page the contributor sees after getting a "reminder" be a page with the rule(s) in
question displayed. I can't think of any other ways, but there probably are some.

The "rules to consider" are a different question, of course, even though there are a few which are
very close to being actual rules (I consider the use of English names and language to be one of
them, for example). If a contributor is "violating" such a rule, we should encourage him/her to read
that policy and the related talk, and then formulate his objections in talk there so the discussion
there can be re-opened, if necessary. However, most debates "gone wrong" on rules to consider
usually evolve to violation of some of the actual rules, so I think there's no need for anything new
mechanisms for "rules to consider".

Be it with some similar to my proposal, or something completely different, I really believe
something needs to change to deal with bad behaviour. Otherwise, the trend will continue, and more
and more people will get sick of bending over backwards, and leave.

Jeronimo


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [Wikipedia-l] 80,000

in_reply_to: <r5i1y6ez9b1.fsf@gill.maths.keele.ac.uk>; from wiki@gwowen.freeserve.co.uk on Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 07:02:10PM +0100

body:
Gareth Owen wrote:
> Because they're not encyclopedia articles.
> They're entries from a gazetteer.

I like these entries.  Perhaps Ram-Man could be persuaded to make them
via minor edits, though, if they are causing people grief in
RecentChanges.


from_name: The Cunctator

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep
	drivingaway good contributors

body:
On 10/25/02 11:02 AM, "Larry Sanger" <lsanger at nupedia.com> wrote:

> I see a lot of good points being made here, and I frankly don't know what
> to think about some of the issues raised.  But I'd like to offer this
> perspective.
>
> On wasting time on recalcitrants: I (obviously) totally sympathize with
> those who say they don't want to waste their time dealing with
> recalcitrant users.
>
> Wikipedia contributors can be difficult in a variety of ways.  Not all of
> them require banning, and the most common types can't:

<snip laundry list of "difficult" contributors>

It is a detrimental approach to come up with categories of problem
contributors. Every contributor is individual, emotional, biased, and a bit
kooky. Noone is perfectly normal--that's just the average. Rather, we should
try to avoid CommunityExile (see MeatballWiki) if possible.

> This is a bit off the topic, but it came up and I can't let it pass.  KQ
> said recently that Cunctator is the project's *conscience*.  Perhaps KQ
> was just trying to be nice, but I think that is actually unfair to the
> rest of us, who like to think we have a principled approach to the project
> as well.  It also accords Cunc respect as somehow *the* representative of
> a *particularly* moral point of view, to whom the rest of us ought to pay
> special heed--I disagree with that and I enjoin you not to accord *any*
> one person such special respect.  (I'm not sure KQ meant to imply all this
> by "conscience of the project," and I also doubt, in his reasonableness
> and modesty, that Cunc would reject the description when cashed out as I
> have done, but I just want this to be clear.)

I suppose all this faint praise will make me a better devil's advocate...


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Once again: In memoriam

body:
Yes, again about the [[September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack/In Memoriam]] page cs. Is there yet a
solution? Last month, when I brought up this subject again (it wasn't the first time), it was said
that we should not be hasty. Well, there's been enough time not to be hasty now. I really think this
issue should finally be resolved, otherwise I'll be so bold to move everything to meta to let it
wait there for the new destination. There's no reason to let these pages be around anymore.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

Jeronimo


from_name: koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com

subject: [Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep drivingaway

body:
LMS wrote:
>This is a bit off the topic, but it came up and I can't let it pass.  KQ
>said recently that Cunctator is the project's *conscience*.  Perhaps KQ
>was just trying to be nice, but I think that is actually unfair to the
>rest of us, who like to think we have a principled approach to the
project
>as well.  It also accords Cunc respect as somehow *the* representative of
>a *particularly* moral point of view, to whom the rest of us ought to pay
>special heed--I disagree with that and I enjoin you not to accord *any*
>one person such special respect.  (I'm not sure KQ meant to imply all
this
>by "conscience of the project," and I also doubt, in his reasonableness
>and modesty, that Cunc would reject the description when cashed out as I
>have done, but I just want this to be clear.)

eh, well, no I didn't mean all that, though I guess it was all implied
by my sloppy writing.  :-)  All I meant was that Cunc, of all of us,
seems most concerned with abuses of authority.  I wouldn't like to
appoint anyone an 'authority' on anything, and certainly I like to
think of people as generally principled.

kq


subject: [Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to

body:
Imran Wrote:
>Vandalism defined as:
>
>> Deleting significant parts of an article without reasonable cause
>> Inserting unnecessary profanity into an article.
>> Inserting nonsensical text into an article.
>> Purposefully changing an article in order to mislead readers.
>> Modifying the comments of other users in Talk: or Wikipedia: namespace.
>
>A single purposeful vandalism from an anonymous user is a 1-week ban.
>
>A single vandalism from a logged in user results in a 24-hour ban, not to

etc.

Ick.  I suppose the tendency in groups is to bureaucratize as they
grow, but, uh, geez.  Next come the jaywalking tickets.

kq


from_name: tarquin

subject: [Wikipedia-l] www.wikipedia.org design

body:
The Cunctator wrote:

>On 10/24/02 8:49 PM, "Karen AKA Kajikit" <kaji at labyrinth.net.au> wrote:
>
>
>>Some people are complaining that it seems to be a balkanised project -
>>until all the databases are unified, then it IS balkinised. That's a
>>fact of life. Once all the pedias are running on one server then I'd
>>suggest a simple dropdown box that says 'What language would you like to
>>work in today?' and then takes you to the appropriate place.
>>
>>
>
>Just because it's balkanized technologically doesn't make it a good idea for
>it to be balkanized explicitly as well.
>
>
It is already balkanized explicitly, simply because the www.W.org url
takes people to an english-only page.

 > 1. A page like this is useful exactly once for any user. After that
it becomes useless.

The Main Page is just the same -- I haven't bookmarked it & I only ever
visit it if I see it has been edited. I expect most regular visitors are
like me & bookmark Recent Changes.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] 80,000

body:
The Cunctator wrote:

>By the way, with Ram-Man's automatic article addition, we've just hit 80.000 English entries

Yes. We're big like a telephone directory is big.
Please let's not celebrate this milestone.
When we got to 50k articles we were saying "but so many are stubs", and we're in a worse situation now, as I don't see how we can exclude these town pages from article counts.
They really are stubs, maybe not in terms of length but in terms of content and usefulness.

It's not that I don't care about one-horse US towns (well, okay, I don't) but I feel the entire Wikipedia has tilted.
We shouldn't delete them, but to balance we should maybe work on, say, adding 10,000 articles to the Tree of Life project?


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Once again: In memoriam

body:
Jeroen Heijmans wrote:

>Yes, again about the [[September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack/In Memoriam]] page cs. Is there yet a
>solution? Last month, when I brought up this subject again (it wasn't the first time), it was said
>that we should not be hasty. Well, there's been enough time not to be hasty now. I really think this
>issue should finally be resolved, otherwise I'll be so bold to move everything to meta to let it
>wait there for the new destination. There's no reason to let these pages be around anymore.
>Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
>
I agree.
I've been pondering this issue.
Maybe a new "Memorial Wiki", not just for 9/11 for future victims of war
& terrorism too. (remember to add the civilian casualties should Dubya
bomb Iraq)


from_name: elian

subject: [Wikipedia-l] how to deal with uncooperative users

body:
Hello,

I followed the ongoing debate about how to deal with uncooperative users
with some astonishment. Some people seem to forget the first rule of
online-communities: Don't feed the trolls!

Precisely, it depends largely on each one's personal attitude how to deal
with jerks.

First, try to discuss only once. If your adversary does not answer in a
way you regard as serious, is insulting or refuses to substantiate claims
with arguments, immediately stop discussion - forever or until you see
somewhere else that he has changed his attitude. Don't try to educate
people except you specially  like to do this. Don't feel responsible for
a jerk's metal health!

Second, take your time. Let him have his way, put the article on your
watchlist and silently revert the changes two weeks later without further
discussion. Time is on the side of the regulars, not the jerks.

Third, just an idea: to feel not so alone, you could put up a page
[[Wikipedia:Annoying users]] where you could state your feelings. If
enough votes come up on one person, this person could _ eventually_  be
banned.

Just my experiences from the German wikipedia where we had almost no edit
wars at all up to now. We have questionable contributions, some are
silently moved to talk pages, some are rewritten. Discussion is tried
once, after this fails the person is simply ignored.

just my two cents,
elian
--
Computers are like Airconditioners - they stop working properly when
you open windows


from_name: lcrocker at nupedia.com

body:
> There's a rich history from older wiki communities
> and projects that we can, and should, draw upon, just
> as we draw upon existing sources for encyclopedia articles.

>> Maybe.  I'm not actually sure that that's true; Wikipedia
>> is a completely new thing.  It's a wiki, but it's a lot
>> more than a wiki.

> Perhaps, but we're still building on a foundation
> that's largely wiki, and many of our problems have
> also been faced by other wikis.
> There are lots of other sources to learn from too:
> older encyclopedia projects (why did they fail?),
> commercial encyclopedias (is there anything we can
> leverage from them in our project?) and the rise(s)
> and fall(s) of other great Internet experiments
> (Usenet, Slashdot).

I think it's important to realize that we are on the
bleeding edge here, and that the experience of others in
other online communities, even wiki, doesn't necessarily
apply.  First, the idea that there is a "rich history"
of wikis in particular is laughable, unless there's some
definition of "rich history" that includes things created
in 1995, none of which has ever produced a product even
vaguely resembling what we're trying to produce.  I might
apply the term "rich history" to things like mailing lists,
Usenet, IRC, and MUDs; everything else is new ground.

We also differ greatly from a lot of those earlier communities
in that we have a goal: building an encyclopedia.  We are not
here /for the purpose/ of building a community; the community
is just a /means/ to the end of building an encyclopedia.  If
those other communities teach us something about building
communities, that may or may not apply here, because if the
community gets in the way of the goal, the goal comes first.
I think Wikipedia has more in common with things like open
source software projects, in that the community itself is just
a secondary concern to producing a product.  In other words,
we should take our lessons not from MUDs or Everything2, but
from Linux kernel development, the Apache project, Mozilla,
etc.  I think it's worth noting that in all of those projects,
there are security and control mechanisms.

So don't tell me what other Wikis have done--it doesn't matter.
Tell me what other /successful productive projects/ have done.
Don't tell me how to build a community; tell me how to make
the community build an encyclopedia.


body:
On 10/25/02 11:41 AM, "Stephen Gilbert" <canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com>
wrote:
> --- erik_moeller at gmx.de wrote:
<browser localization redirect>
>>
>> Is there any problem with that? I strongly agree
>> with Cunctator and others
>> that a static, language-"neutral" frontpage is a
>> very, very bad idea, esp.
>> from a usability perspective.
>
> Yes, this is what I want as well. The only objection
> that has been raised (to my knowledge) is that people
> may get directed to the wrong language. I don't
> understand this objection, as we should be using the
> language preference setting in each visitor's web
> browser. Also, a person would still be one click away
> from any other language, and he could set a language
> in his Wikipedia preferences should he desire.

Summary of the text below: "Fine with me, as long as 'www.wikipedia.org'
doesn't redirect to 'en.wikipedia.org'."

1) There doesn't seem to be any major philosophical objection to a browser
localization redirect of "http://www.wikipedia.org/".

I only see a secondary philosophical objection. The objection is based on
the argument that first people should be encouraged to contribute to the
Eng-lang Wikipedia before others, not from the principle that English is
better, but from the principle that "from a strict efficiency point of
view, the goal of a comprehensive and neutral encyclopedia would benefit
from dealing with issues in only one central article with as many actors as
possible debating/working together rather than several different articles
with only a couple of persons in each place, even though they are updating
their own articles from the other wikis", as Anthere eloquently put it. (I'm
not claiming she advocates this position. She just described it well.) This
objection would be pretty much obviated with better backend integration and
interlanguage tools.

It's not a major objection, especially since the plan is to integrate the
backend.

2) I would very much like to see a test implementation of this before it
gets put on the live site.

3) If this could be implemented without redirecting English to
"en.wikipedia.org" (thus introducing a new URL schema) that would be good,
until or unless all the consequences of a new URL schema are worked out.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] [Intlwiki-l] www.wikipedia.org design

body:
Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu> writes:

> I'm not entirely pleased with the look of elian's proposal,
> but it's axiomatic that the purpose is language integration.

It would help if you state what should be changed, so we can work out a
version that is also pleasing you.

This applies to everybody: If someone has other visions he should tell me
precisely how he wants to have it ("put the logo in this corner, take this
text, take this color sample, include this...") and I'll make another
version.

greetings,
elian
PS: http://www.djini.de/Uploads/wikipedia2.html has now on Tarquin's
and Giskart's request less text. I think it's better now.


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Jason Richey

subject: [Wikitech-l] New list address

body:
This is an option for the digest members (MIME or Plain Text) that is
set to "Plain Text" by default.  I can easily set it to MIME by
default if that seems okay to everyone...

Jason

Toby Bartels wrote:

> Jason Richey wrote in part:
>
> >I have copied the old list members and archives over to the new list,
>
> >Please let me know if you witness any trouble.
>
> I'm now going each individual post, rather than the digest as before.
>
> While I'm on the subject, is it possible to get the digest
> as a series of attachments, with each attachment an individual post,
> as is currently done for <wikipedia-l> but not this list or <intlwiki-l>?
> This is much more convenient when replying.
>
>
> -- Toby
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

--
"Jason C. Richey" <jasonr at bomis.com>


subject: [Wikipedia-l] test

body:
This is a test of the mailing list, please disregard.

--
"Jason C. Richey" <jasonr at bomis.com>


from_name: Tom Parmenter

subject: [Wikipedia-l] www.wikipedia.org design

in_reply_to:
<3DB91FA6.9070001@planetunreal.com> (message from tarquin on Fri,
	25 Oct 2002 11:40:38 +0100)

body:
|From: tarquin <tarquin at planetunreal.com>
|Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 11:40:38 +0100
|
| > 1. A page like this is useful exactly once for any user. After that
|it becomes useless.
|
|The Main Page is just the same -- I haven't bookmarked it & I only ever
|visit it if I see it has been edited. I expect most regular visitors are
|like me & bookmark Recent Changes.
|

No no, it is only us addicts who do that!  Recent Changes is not for
normal people.  Normal people come first via Google and then use the
Main Page, if for no other reason, to access the search facility.

Any non-informative page, however congenial and well-intentioned, cuts
down on readership.  The Main Page is informative.  Better that we
pick up the default language from the browser and take the reader to
the Main Page in their language then we take them to a pretty page all
filled with all our languages.  That may seem to make the 'pedia look
good, but it actually stops people, if not driving them away.

Tom Parmenter
Ortolan88


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to
	keepdrivingaway good contributors

body:
On 10/25/02 12:01 PM, "Imran Ghory" <imran at bits.bris.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> A more formalish proposal:
>
> Banning should mean the suspension of all write access to the wikipedia
> with the exception of the users own "User:" space page.
>
> A first time ban for any purpose should be lifted if the user apologises
> (either on their own "User:" page, on the mailing list, or on the
> "Talk:" page of the relevant article) and agrees not to repeat the
> offence.
>
<snip proposal>

Imran's proposal, while clearly well-intentioned, would hurt the project.

As STG wrote,

"I fight to keep things open, not to tolerate
anti-social behaviour, but to keep Wikipedia from
becoming the online equivalent of a police state. I
believe that soft security is the best way to run a
wiki community, and that too much hard security will
eventaully kill us.

If we lock down Wikipedia too tighly, we'll lose
*most* of our great contributors."


body:
On 10/25/02 8:08 AM, "Jimmy Wales" <jwales at bomis.com> wrote:

> Cunc,
>
> Do you propose that the current front page is the best possible?  That
> there is no way to accomodate the desire for greater language
> neutrality?
>
> I went through and asked about several specific features of the
> proposed alternative page.  Surely some possible changes don't bother
> you, unless you consider our current front page the best possible?

I'm working on some designs. Give me some time.


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep driving
 away  good contributors

body:
Karen AKA Kajikit wrote:

> I think everyone gets 'battle fatigue'
>occasionally. I stepped back for 3 weeks because I was getting
>steamingly mad over the way we argue things round and round in circles
>to the detriment of doing the real work.
>
Same here. The inability of the list to come to consensus is more
wearying than edit wars.

>The thing is, like it or not, the sysops ARE a defacto police force. It
>doesn't matter that we have the ability to make these changes because we
>asked for it. We care about the pedia enough to take action when
>necessary. And yes, I think that should include the temporary banning of
>people who repeatedly violate the code of conduct for the wikipedia. I
>agree with KQ about this - atm the code of conduct is unwritten,
>
well, no, it's not.
we have plenty of pages about the nature of the project, the etiquette &
so forth. Granted, many need a spring clean. We've cleaned up the FAQ
pages, so maybe these will come next.

We shouldn't worry too much about Meatball's Life cycle page --
Wikipedia is unlike any other wiki. It is much larger, has much more
traffic, and has different goals.

I like the idea of pointing offenders to policy pages. -- I suggested a
"shoulder-tap" a while back, which would give the "offender" (loaded
terminology, sorry) a clear message above *every edit box they saw*
until they responded in some way. This wouldn't prevent them from
editing, but one would hope that a *rational* and *intelligent* user
would investigate, read up, and change their behaviour.

I am all for giving people benefit of the doubt, and assuming good
faith. But if, after attempts at communication, people still persist in
their behaviour, we should be quick to ban.


from_name: Zoe

subject: [Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep driving away good contributors

body:
So we just let the obnoxious ones run roughshod over all of the work and ignore their ridiculous changes?
Zoe
 mattheww+wikipedia at chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:Then he was under a misconception. He did not have to deal with them.

-M-
[Wikipedia-l]
To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021025/a2a397c3/attachment.htm


subject: [Wikipedia-l] New list

body:
As you may or may not know, Wikipedia has been making a move to a new
server for quite some time now.  I have just installed our mailing
list software on the new server, and am in the process of moving the
mailing lists over.

Wikipedia-l was mived over just a couple of minutes ago.  This
shouldn't affect too much, but here is what I expect:

* The posting address will change from wikipedia-l at nupedia.com to
  wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org.  The old address will remain functional.

* Mailing list options can be updated at
  http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l.  This change
  should be reflected in the postings as well.

* The administrative interface has moved to
  http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/admin/wikipedia-l.  The password
  should be the same (unless you were using the global administrative
  password, which you probably shouldn't have been).  Let me know if
  you see problems here...

* In the coming day, there may be double postings of a few messages.
  Also, digest members may get two separate digests.  One will contain
  the portion of traffic that came to the old list, the other will
  contain the traffic that came to the new list.  I don't know for
  sure if this will be the case, but it seems plausible.

Please let me know if you have any trouble with the new system.  Also,
I will be moving a few other wikipedia specific lists in the coming
hours/days.  If you have a list that you think needs moved, please
feel free to let me know.

--
"Jason C. Richey" <jasonr at bomis.com>


body:
What is SoftSecurity?
Zoe
 The Cunctator <cunctator at kband.com> wrote:On 10/24/02 5:33 PM, "Poor, Edmund W" wrote:

> Let's come up with a set of guidelines and figure out how to give admins the
> power to enforce them -- in a way that does not curtail the ability of
> contributors to fulfill the mission of Wikipedia.

You're looking at this in not quite the right way. Rather than thinking
about creating a police force (which is what giving one percent of the users
power to enforce rules is) we need to be thinking about SoftSecurity.

[Wikipedia-l]
To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021025/7ce18055/attachment.htm


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject: [Wikipedia-l] on a lighter note: lists

body:
I didn't agree to this. It depends on what the reader is looking for.

Chrono order (earliest first) -- when you care about the complete list, from first to last
* List of US presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferon, ...
* Lists of states that joined the union
* Nobel prizes

Reverse chrono (latest first) -- when you care about the last few more than the first
* Academy Award (Oscar) winners
* Emmy Awards
* Sports champions -- World Series (baseball), World Cup (soccer), Stanley Cup (hockey)

Some awards like Pulitzer Prizes could go either way. Nobel Peace Prize, which is politically motivated and topical, could also go either way.

Ed Poor

-----Original Message-----
From: tarquin [mailto:tarquin at planetunreal.com]
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 12:10 PM
To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] on a lighter note: lists

A while back we agreed that most chronological lists should go forward,
from past to present reading down. (prizes, incumbents, lists of works,
and chronologies themselves)

since there are many list pages that go the other way, and reversing by
hand is tedious, I've put up a perl script:

    * http://wiki.beyondunreal.com/cgi-bin/reverser.cgi

I'll link it to it from the manual of style when I get round to updating
it to mention lists.

[Wikipedia-l]
To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


body:
Because that's not what the prolific Wikipedians who live by the rules do.  We can work with people who make changes we disagree with as long as all of us can be civil, but it's the tiny minority who refuses to compromise (either direction) that cause the problems.
Zoe
 Jonathan Walther <krooger at debian.org> wrote:I don't know exactly what you had in mind for increased sysop power Ed,
but I do worry. Where there is a controversial topic, what is to stop
the older users with thousands and thousands of edits to their name (the
"prolific" Wikipedians, quantity over quality) from throwing up their
hands and shouting "VANDALISM!" when a comparitive newbie comes along
and starts making edits that they disagree with?

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021025/bea537cb/attachment.htm


body:
On 10/25/02 12:47 PM, "Larry Sanger" <lsanger at nupedia.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, The Cunctator wrote:
>
>> On 10/25/02 11:02 AM, "Larry Sanger" <lsanger at nupedia.com> wrote:
<snip
> (1) The list you refer to is not of difficult contributors, Cunc; it is a
> list of *behaviors*.  Read it again.  And as long as we are going to ban
> some people for some *behaviors*, we sure as heck *better* clearly define
> those behaviors.

Basically, we shouldn't.

> (2) I don't read MeatballWiki and I don't think they define Wikipedia's
> values for Wikipedia.  We define our own values.  I don't know if that's
> what "avoiding CommunityExile" means, and I don't care.  Are you saying we
> should never ban anyone?  That surely isn't your view, though; you thought
> we should ban 24.

If you don't want to understand what I'm saying, then there's not much point
in trying to explain. But I'll continue for the benefit of others: I think
that ideally we should never have to ban anyone. I didn't think we should
ban 24. I didn't strongly think we should *not* ban 24, either. It was a
push, given the circumstances.

>
>>> This is a bit off the topic, but it came up and I can't let it pass.  KQ
>>> said recently that Cunctator is the project's *conscience*.  Perhaps KQ
>>> was just trying to be nice, but I think that is actually unfair to the
>>> rest of us, who like to think we have a principled approach to the project
>>> as well.  It also accords Cunc respect as somehow *the* representative of
>>> a *particularly* moral point of view, to whom the rest of us ought to pay
>>> special heed--I disagree with that and I enjoin you not to accord *any*
>>> one person such special respect.  (I'm not sure KQ meant to imply all this
>>> by "conscience of the project," and I also doubt, in his reasonableness
>>> and modesty, that Cunc would reject the description when cashed out as I
>>> have done, but I just want this to be clear.)
>>
>> I suppose all this faint praise will make me a better devil's advocate...
>
> I wasn't aware of even faintly praising you, but if you want to claim to
> be faintly praised, go right ahead.  ;-)

Just to raise your awareness: you granted me "reasonableness and modesty".
That's certainly praise, if faint.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keepdrivingaway good contributors

body:
What about people who are deleting other people's comments on their Talk pages?
Zoe
 koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com wrote:Ed begged: :-)
>Wikipedia is the world's largest wiki, isn't it? When it's 10 times or 100 times the size, with 1,000 to 3,000 logged-in, daily contributors -- how will we manage then? My plea is for some way beyond the personal judgment of an elite, to maintain order, lest a self-perpetuating cabal develop that freezes out the very type of capable and devoted contributor it formed to protect.
>
...
>
>Help me out, here, man.

Well--what's so bad about setting up a page outlining an expected code of conduct? Really that's what we've banned people based on--violation of an expected code of conduct--so let's at least outline what we expect. It's just not fair to ban people based on rules that aren't explicitly and undeniably clear.

I propose e.g. 1) no name-calling; save it for Jerry Springer. 2) don't change other peoples' comments. 3) don't question whether other people are actually people.

kq

[Wikipedia-l]
To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021025/9bbf6da5/attachment.htm


body:
So what do you do when you've gone back 15 edits, reverted to a clean version, incorporated all of the "good" changes that have happened since then, and the original perpetrator then comes along and adds his/her "bad" changes again?  How long are you supposed to keep doing that?
Zoe
 Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu> wrote:Ed Poor wrote in part to another poster:

>Should I go back,
>say, 15 edits ago (to yesterday's "clean" version) and edit that? I can't
>figure out whether that's bending over to accommodate anti-social behavior
>-- or that's anti-social in itself.

I don't know about Mark, but I think that you should do just that.
It's safer than banning people and easier for the ordinary user
(that is, a regular contributor that has not undertaken admin duties)
to revert in the case that you've made a mistake.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021025/9ef39ec7/attachment.htm


body:
Well, I can't say I put myself in the "great contributors" category, but I'm ready to walk Real Soon Now.  How long can you put up with the anti-social behavior which drives away those who are tired of being called names and having their work ruined by the anti-socials?
Zoe
 Stephen Gilbert <canuck_in_korea2002 at yahoo.com> wrote:I fight to keep things open, not to tolerate
anti-social behaviour, but to keep Wikipedia from
becoming the online equivalent of a police state. I
believe that soft security is the best way to run a
wiki community, and that too much hard security will
eventaully kill us.

If we lock down Wikipedia too tighly, we'll lose
*most* of our great contributors.

Stephen G.

--- Daniel Mayer wrote:
> I hope we are all proud of ourselves about how
> tolerant we are with people who consistently exhibit
> anti-social behavior. Andre has left the project due
> to fatigue with having to deal with these miscreants
> and I am so /disgusted/ with loosing yet another
> great
> en.wiki contributor that for at least the next
> several
> days I am going to concentrate on the Spanish
> Wikipedia and contemplate priorities on my own
> future
> involvement in en.wiki.
>
> -- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
> http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go
> here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
h

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
[Wikipedia-l]
To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021025/6d049a3c/attachment.htm


body:
You Wrote:
>What about people who are deleting other people's comments on their Talk pages?
>Zoe

On their *own* talk pages?  Well, it's their own page.  Isn't that what the general feeling was when the idea of putting ads on user pages came up?

kq


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Once again: In memoriam

body:
Oh, good.  Can we add the names of all of the Iraqi citizens who are dying because of Saddam's refusal to pass around internationally-provided food and medicine to anyone other than his elites?
Zoe
 tarquin <tarquin at planetunreal.com> wrote:

Jeroen Heijmans wrote:

>Yes, again about the [[September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack/In Memoriam]] page cs. Is there yet a
>solution? Last month, when I brought up this subject again (it wasn't the first time), it was said
>that we should not be hasty. Well, there's been enough time not to be hasty now. I really think this
>issue should finally be resolved, otherwise I'll be so bold to move everything to meta to let it
>wait there for the new destination. There's no reason to let these pages be around anymore.
>Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
>
I agree.
I've been pondering this issue.
Maybe a new "Memorial Wiki", not just for 9/11 for future victims of war
& terrorism too. (remember to add the civilian casualties should Dubya
bomb Iraq)

[Wikipedia-l]
To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021025/26075026/attachment.htm


body:
You Wrote:
>So what do you do when you've gone back 15 edits, reverted to a clean version, incorporated all of the "good" changes that have happened since then, and the original perpetrator then comes along and adds his/her "bad" changes again?  How long are you supposed to keep doing that?

Well, until you get tired of it, I guess.  You're not obligated to do everything, Zoe.  :-)

kq


body:
Ed Wrote to Zoe:
>Are you referring to Larry Sanger wiping Fred Bauder's comments from =
>talk:Larry Sanger?

Or Lir wiping Zoe's comments from Lir's talk page.  I think it's apparent who's acting reasonable and who's not; I don't see why Zoe's worried aobut it.  :-)

kq


body:
On 10/25/02 1:12 PM, "Larry Sanger" <lsanger at nupedia.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, The Cunctator wrote:
>
>>>> On 10/25/02 11:02 AM, "Larry Sanger" <lsanger at nupedia.com> wrote:
>> <snip
>>> (1) The list you refer to is not of difficult contributors, Cunc; it is a
>>> list of *behaviors*.  Read it again.  And as long as we are going to ban
>>> some people for some *behaviors*, we sure as heck *better* clearly define
>>> those behaviors.
>>
>> Basically, we shouldn't.
>
> OK, that's news.  Virtually everyone else on Wikipedia disagrees with you.

I think that most people would agree that in an ideal situation, banning
would be unnecessary. I think that some people

> But it's nice that you agree with me that it was a list of difficult
> behaviors, and that you were mistaken about that.

?
>
>>> (2) I don't read MeatballWiki and I don't think they define Wikipedia's
>>> values for Wikipedia.  We define our own values.  I don't know if that's
>>> what "avoiding CommunityExile" means, and I don't care.  Are you saying we
>>> should never ban anyone?  That surely isn't your view, though; you thought
>>> we should ban 24.
>>
>> If you don't want to understand what I'm saying, then there's not much point
>> in trying to explain.
>
> Could you please avoid twisting my words around?  It's an awful habit.

Couldn't agree more.

> I
> *said*: I don't read MeatballWiki, etc.  This doesn't mean that I don't
> want to understand your view.  I just think it's unreasonable for you to
> ask us to go to MeatballWiki to learn what you mean.  :-)  You disagree?
> We *should* all go there, because you start using words defined there?

You said "I don't know if that's what 'avoiding CommunityExile' means, and I
don't care."  which is equivalent to "I don't care that I don't know what
[what you're saying] means", which I interpreted as "I don't want to
understand what you're saying".

Hardly twisting words around.

I appreciate that you're specifically saying that you don't want to
understand what I'm saying, if to understand you need to visit MeatballWiki.

I do think that's unreasonable.
>
>> But I'll continue for the benefit of others: I think that ideally we
>> should never have to ban anyone. I didn't think we should ban 24. I
>> didn't strongly think we should *not* ban 24, either. It was a push,
>> given the circumstances.
>
> No, Cunc, that's not what I remember.  You said we should ban 24.  You
> were in favor of banning him.  Please don't make us go find the original
> posts...

Let me.

http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-April/001892.html
http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-April/001899.html
http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-April/001905.html

> And you still haven't given any good reasons, on this list, for a total
> ban on banning.

See WikipediAhimsa.

<snip>
>>>> I suppose all this faint praise will make me a better devil's advocate...
>>> I wasn't aware of even faintly praising you, but if you want to claim to
>>> be faintly praised, go right ahead.  ;-)
>> Just to raise your awareness: you granted me "reasonableness and modesty".
>> That's certainly praise, if faint.
> Just to raise your awareness: ;-)  You mean you think I meant it with no
> sarcasm or facetiousness at all?

I gave you the benefit of the doubt, yes.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] 80,000

body:
What space are they wasting?  What things would be in that space if Ram-Man's articles weren't there?  Why does it bother you so much?
Zoe
 Gareth Owen <wiki at gwowen.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:tarquin writes:

> It's not that I don't care about one-horse US towns (well, okay, I don't)

Would it be possible to move the fantastic-waste-of-space that is Ram-Man's
latest datadump to gazetteer.wikipedia.com, or somesuch, so they don't clutter
up the *worthwhile* *encyclopedic* entries?
--
Gareth Owen
"Wikipedia does rock. By the count on the "brilliant prose" page, there
are 14 not-bad articles so far" -- Larry Sanger (12 Jan 2001)

[Wikipedia-l]
To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021025/c0601e1a/attachment.htm


subject: [Wikipedia-l] 80,000

body:
On 10/25/02 1:22 PM, "Gareth Owen" <wiki at gwowen.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

> tarquin <tarquin at planetunreal.com> writes:
>
>> It's not that I don't care about one-horse US towns (well, okay, I don't)
>
> Would it be possible to move the fantastic-waste-of-space that is Ram-Man's
> latest datadump to gazetteer.wikipedia.com, or somesuch, so they don't clutter
> up the *worthwhile* *encyclopedic* entries?

How do they clutter the "worthwhile" entries? Wikipedia is not paper.

If the problem is with the "Random page" function, then perhaps some
tweaking there would be reasonable, as long as it's noted somewhere that
"random page" isn't exactly random.

And though I'm not a huge fan of the entries, they are well done.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Long-term risks to Wikipedia

body:
Cunctator wrote, in good conscience:

> I think that ideally we should never have to ban anyone. I
> didn't think we should ban 24. I didn't strongly think we
> should *not* ban 24, either. It was a push, given the
> circumstances.

Ward's Wiki is justly proud of having had only a couple of vandalism episodes - ever.

But they are much smaller and much less well known than the pedia. Besides, it's mostly about boring computer programming stuff, precisely the kind of hard-to-learn knowledge that today's Bart Simpson clones can't even understand, let alone have a position on. Their ability to SoftPolice (or whatever you call it when a vigilante posse toses out an anti-social pest) is a thousand times as great as ours.

You can't apply c2.com's rules at wikipedia.org, because community ethics doesn't scale. We're not a tiny village; we're a town becoming a city.

I see Jimmy, Lee, Brion & Magnus as a vigilante group. Nothing wrong with frontier justice, though, and nothing against these men personally or anything they've done. They deserve medals for their dedicated service. Thanks, Jimbo, for pouring so much money into Nupedia, Wikipedia and Larry's salary.

But as we grow ten-fold and a hundred-fold, we will encounter several risks:
* deterioration into an elitist cabal -- many other have pointed this out
* conquest by barbarian hordes (vandals win)
* experts continue to stay away

We have to deal with competing values. We can't codify a set of rules until we do. We also can't continue as we have much longer without a set of rules.

Values:
* easy to contribute (Wiki software)
* vandalism minimized (IP ban, History)
* experts encouraged to contribute (?)
* valuable contributors stick around (?)

In my woefully inadequate short list of values, I find that only two are supported by mechanisms. The Wiki software makes it easy to contribute, and IP bans and History pages make it easy to thwart vandalism.

We have not, however, found a way to attract more than two or three subject matter experts: (Axelboldt in math, Larry in philosophy, Julie in history)

We have also not found a way to get valuable contributors to stick around.

I do understand the dangers of creating a police force. I have read the MeatBall links Cunctator suggested. I do hear what Stephen Gilbert is saying. Too much power in the wrong hands will certainly destroy this project.

The problem is that the converse is also true.

Without a police force, without an "armed citizenry", we suffer from having too little power in the right hands. Did you ever live in a bad neighborhood? Do you know what it's like to be at the mercy of roving gangs of boys/young men? Okay, I confess that I've never lived in such a neighborhood. I'm "middle class", and with my good looks and fine education I can get a great job anywhere and pay the rent, etc.

I don't know if we have already reached the point at which SoftSecurity is insufficient. I have enough patience to outlast anyone. I don't lose sleep if one of the article I "own" (i.e., it's on my Watchlist) is being "attacked" by my "opponents". Some topics are simply works in progress: genocide, global warming, et al. I don't have to have the last word.

But a lot of fine people can't take it. It's really quite a pain to have one's "baby" splattered with mud. Sure, you can give her a bath, but after the 20th or 1000th time you just want to move to a quieter neighborhood.

Imran Ghory's detailed list of laws is good. But laws require a constitution, and a constitution is created to support values.

What are Wikipedia's core values? Is my 4-point list the core?

Ed Poor


from_name: Neil Harris

subject: [Wikipedia-l] 80,000

body:
Karen AKA Kajikit wrote:

 >tarquin wrote:
 >
 >
 >>The Cunctator wrote:
 >>
 >>
 >>
 >>>By the way, with Ram-Man's automatic article addition, we've just
hit 80.000 English entries
 >>>
 >>>
 >>Yes. We're big like a telephone directory is big.
 >>Please let's not celebrate this milestone.
 >>When we got to 50k articles we were saying "but so many are stubs",
and we're in a worse situation now, as I don't see how we can exclude
these town pages from article counts.
 >>They really are stubs, maybe not in terms of length but in terms of
content and usefulness.
 >>
 >>It's not that I don't care about one-horse US towns (well, okay, I
don't) but I feel the entire Wikipedia has tilted.
 >>We shouldn't delete them, but to balance we should maybe work on,
say, adding 10,000 articles to the Tree of Life project?
 >>
 >>
 >
 >It's seriously tipped the balance of the wikipedia. Five times out of
 >ten hitting the 'random' button takes me to one of these new entries...
 >I'm sure they're very useful if you need to find information on 'Dead
 >Horse, Arizona', but they're not very relevant in the grand scheme of
 >things. I'll be glad once they're all in and the recent changes menu can
 >return to usefulness. Out of curiosity, what existing entries are these
 >new articles linked to?
 >
 >
 >
Can I suggest a "stub flag" so that machine-generated articles (such as
Ram-Man's and hundreds of mine) are not marked as stubs until they have
been edited by an actual human user. Articles with the explicit "stub
flag" set should be
* shown as stubs using the stub-detector no matter what the user's
setting, if it is non-zero
* not shown as "Random articles"
* and '''not included in the main page article count'''

Indeed, perhaps all articles should be marked as stubs until they have
at least one revision by a contributor who was not the original creator.
This will automatically catch any auto-generated articles.

Neil


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [Wikipedia-l] test

body: test


from_name: Andre Engels

body:
> I hope we are all proud of ourselves about how
> tolerant we are with people who consistently exhibit
> anti-social behavior. Andre has left the project due
> to fatigue with having to deal with these miscreants
> and I am so /disgusted/ with loosing yet another great
> en.wiki contributor that for at least the next several
> days I am going to concentrate on the Spanish
> Wikipedia and contemplate priorities on my own future
> involvement in en.wiki.

Just for good order: It wasn't just these miscreants, although it's a large
part of it. I am also getting sick of the fights between ourselves, and of
getting hateful remarks from some of you. Furthermore, I have to spend less
time on the Internet anyway, as my work is suffering under it.

I don't think I will be gone forever, but for the time being I'm going to do
very little. Probably just a few new pages and major edits, those are what
still gives me fun.

Someone says that I do not have to deal with them. And that's true. But once
I have created a page or made a major addition to it, I get a bit attached to
it. And when they get changed, I want to look. Most of the time it's something
inconsequential. Often it is an improvement, and I smile. But sometimes it
gets worse, and that upsets me. And then I try to work on it. That's one way
to get drawn in. Unfortunately, there are others as well.

It's hard to say what, if anything, should have been done differently to keep
me. Because it's certainly partly my own fault, being too thin-skinned, taking
criticism too much personally, feeling personally insulted when there is
really just a difference in opinion. Maybe my involvement in Wikipedia was
just a case of having the right man at the wrong place - or a lot of wrong
places even.

Like mav, I am withdrawing, to WikipediaNL in my case. I'll probably be back
in some weeks or some months, and see what you have done with the project in
the meantime. I wish you luck.

Andre Engels


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Wikitech-l] mailing list software

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>I think consistency is good.  I think we should not change the names of the existing
>lists.  I think that we should ultimately make wikipedia-l at nupedia.com an alias for
>the real and preferred name of the list, which would be wikipedia-l at wikipedia.com.
>
You surely mean wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org?


body:
mattheww wrote:

>Zoe wrote:

>>mattheww wrote:

>>>Then he was under a misconception. He did not have to deal with them.

>>So we just let the obnoxious ones run roughshod over all of the work
>>and ignore their ridiculous changes?

>No. We fix them when we have the energy to do so. When we get tired, we
>trust that others will pick up the slack, rather than assuming that the
>only solution is to ban.

We also come back when our energy returns and fix the last obnoxious edit.
By this time, according to Jimbo's theory (which I find reasonable),
the obnoxious person is likely to have gone home.
If we are unable to keep with them (even after this wait), however,
then we can ask for help from the militia, say on the mailing list.

Initially, of course, we should try to talk to the obnoxious person
and convince them to become good Wikipedians like the rest of us.
But the above is about what to do after we've given up on that;
there is still the ability to "ignore and revert" before banning is needed.

I do think that mattheww put it a bit glibly
as "He did not have to deal with them.".
He did not have to attempt to work things out with them
once they had clearly demonstrated that they wouldn't act in good faith.
He still had to revert their edits, but that is quick.

-- Toby


body:
elian wrote in small part:

>Next, I want to see the progress of all wikipedias at one central place
>and not somewhere hidden at an obscure statistics page somewhere at the
>english (Main?) wikipedia where nobody of the non-english contributors
>bothers to look for regularly. The version I proposed stimulates
>competition.

I'm not sure why you use the word "competition" here.
It seems to me that having a central page to look at each language
will promote cooperation rather than competition.
And furthermore, I think that that's exactly what *should* be promoted.
So you seem to use the wrong word, but replace it with "cooperation"
and the argument is exactly right.

-- Toby


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Sysop available

body:
Done by sjc. --Ed

-----Original Message-----
From: Gareth Owen [mailto:wiki at gwowen.freeserve.co.uk]
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 3:00 PM
To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Sysop available

Is there a sysop who can ban 193.251.9.132 *right now*
Coninually posting the goatsex image...

Cheers

[Wikipedia-l]
To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


from_name: erik_moeller at gmx.de

body:
> What is desired?

> 1.  Greater language-neutrality -- this is not an English project with
> minor "mere translation" projects -- it is a language neutral project.

> 2.  No balkanization -- this is not a confederation of separate language
> projects, it is a single project, language neutral.

> --------

> How should we achieve these things?

I'm not the person being asked, but I think there's a simple solution:
www.wikipedia.org should do an HTTP redirect to en.wikipedia.org,
de.wikipedia.org or whatever based on the language preference in the
browser. If someone who has German in their browser then wants to work on
the English WP, they just click on the "English" link on the top, or go to
en.wikipedia.org next time instead of www.wikipedia.org. But in general,
no language would be preferred, and the browser settings would be honored
instead.

Is there any problem with that? I strongly agree with Cunctator and others
that a static, language-"neutral" frontpage is a very, very bad idea, esp.
from a usability perspective.

Best regards,

Erik Moeller


from_name: Toby Bartels

body:
Zoe wrote:

>Toby wrote:

>>Ed Poor wrote:

>>>Should I go back,
>>>say, 15 edits ago (to yesterday's "clean" version) and edit that? I can't
>>>figure out whether that's bending over to accommodate anti-social behavior
>>>-- or that's anti-social in itself.

>>[Yes.]

>So what do you do when you've gone back 15 edits, reverted to a clean version,
>incorporated all of the "good" changes that have happened since then, and the
>original perpetrator then comes along and adds his/her "bad" changes again?
>How long are you supposed to keep doing that?

So that I can understand better where you're coming from,
is there an article whose history I should look at
where you've had bad experience with uncooperative editors?

BTW, I don't think that you should feel obligated,
when dealing with a demonstrably recalicitrant person,
to seek out the good edits and keep them in your reversion.
You should only need to do that, IMO,
when dealing with somebody that (so far at least)
appears to be acting in good faith,
but has nevertheless made some bad edits that require reversion.

Of course, if I disagree with you about whether the person is recalcitrant,
then *I* can seek out the good edits.  But I wouldn't insist that you must,
so long as you are acting in good faith (which you, Zoe, do).

-- Toby


body:
Well, that's what Jimbo and Cunctator are saying.

I don't like that, but it's Jimmy's living room and if I want to enjoy free drinks at his party I have to follow his rules.

It's just that this month's party has so many guests that I think Jimmy should deputize a few bouncers -- with written guidelines as to what's okay and what's not. I don't want to have to keep running to some fat old bald guy everytime someone on the guest list starts knocking drinks out of the other guests' hands.

A bit heavy on the metaphor, but I think that about sums it up.

Ed Poor

-----Original Message-----
From: Zoe [mailto:zoecomnena at yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 3:44 PM
To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keep driving away good contributors

So we just let the obnoxious ones run roughshod over all of the work and ignore their ridiculous changes?

Zoe

 mattheww+wikipedia at chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:

Then he was under a misconception. He did not have to deal with them.

-M-
[Wikipedia-l]
To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

  _____

Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting <http://webhosting.yahoo.com/>  - Let the expert host your web site

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021025/96de8955/attachment.htm


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Demo front page

body:
On Friday 25 October 2002 12:53 pm, wikipedia-l-request at wikipedia.org wrote:
> I merged my little script with the fine layout from the other page.
> Please try again
>     http://mitglied.lycos.de/manske/wiki/test.php    (Sorry for the
> banner, I can't help it)
>
> I included the English and German intro, as well as the localized search
> function. The word "Search" and the intro will appear in English for all
> other browser settings, as English is the default for languages that
> don't have an intro text of their own.
>
> Known problems:
> * Neutral or localized logo is needed
> * Maybe an unobstrusive link in or close to the intro to the English
> wikipedia, as an anchor for anyone who is stuck on a foreign PC ("This
> page in English")
> * Works only for Phase III wikipedias (.org)
>
> Magnus

Looks like a good mock-up and I assume it is possible to automatically update
article and language counts even without a combinded database. However it is
still a static page and since we are a Wiki then this should be on a wiki
page, no? But then, which wiki do we choose?

We might be part of the same project but we ain't all on one database yet.

Without its own Recent Changes, random page function, article search etc that
queries /all/ languages and a unified log-in for /all/ languages at
www.wikipedia.org I don't think this page will be that useful -- even for
first time visitors.

Having one intro page for the whole project seems to indicate that Wikipedia
is one single product on one unified wiki - we aren't there yet (we're not
even all on the same software version yet!). And until we are one wiki  I
don't think a pointer page will be that useful in and of itself. NOTE: If a
fork is threatened over there not being a language neutral page at
www.wikipedia.org then it /would/ be useful to put up the static page. But
IMO this really should be done right to begin with and not half now and half
later.

In the meantime I do think it would be a good idea to go ahead and implement
the language sniffer idea so that somebody with a localized browser will be
directed to the same language as the browser is set (however, I don't think
we should redirect people to stub wikis - that makes us look bad). This would
require more tweaks to each of the different language's Main Pages (such as
placing even more emphasis on en.wiki's Main Page that there are in fact
other languages and for non-English wiki's to do the same). We can then work
towards having a multilingual Phase IV with a combined database. IMO, when
Phase IV goes live, then and only then would a unified Main Page really make
sense and be truly useful.

Implementing the sniffer idea does logically require the English Wikipedia to
move to en.wikipedia.org - otherwise there would be no obviously reinforced
way for somebody with a German localized browser to go directly to the the
English Wikipedia's Main Page by typing in the URL.

--Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


from_name: Brion VIBBER

subject: [Wikitech-l] Behavior on deleting images

body:
It strikes me as violating the principle of least astonishment that
"Delete this page" and the little "(del)" link next to the current image
revision do different things on an image description page, namely:

* "Delete this page" deletes only the image description page, leaving
the image file and its revisions intact, and the image remains in the
images list

* "(del)" deletes the image file, any old revisions, the entry from the
images list, *and* the description page.

User expectation seems to be that "delete this page" should perform the
second function.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


body:
Are you referring to Larry Sanger wiping Fred Bauder's comments from talk:Larry Sanger?

If so, the custom apparently is: my user page and my talk:user page are mine. Yours are yours. Kind of like you can delete old messages from your answering machine.

But still the problem is: we are getting so big that we don't all know each other (as in a tiny village). The values must be made explicit, and rules to protect these values must be codified. I think that's what this week's debate was about.

Ed Poor

-----Original Message-----
From: Zoe [mailto:zoecomnena at yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 3:54 PM
To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to keepdrivingaway good contributors

What about people who are deleting other people's comments on their Talk pages?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021025/040f67c1/attachment.htm


from_name: Jonathan Walther

body:
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 12:51:57PM -0700, Zoe wrote:
>   Because that's not what the prolific Wikipedians who live by the rules
>   do.

I am reluctant to name names, but there are at least a couple in the top
200 most prolific Wikipedians who have been doing exactly what I just
described. One is even in the top 50. The thought of them getting any
more power than they have right now scares me.

>   We can work with people who make changes we disagree with as long as
>   all of us can be civil, but it's the tiny minority who refuses to
>   compromise (either direction) that cause the problems.

It's not just the failure to compromise; it's the fighting dirty
trying to get your way by running around and smearing the other party
with cries of "vandal", "pro-X propagandist", &c.

What *I* would like to see is some sort of sanctions (24 hours for a
user, 1 week for an IP) for those that go around crying "wolf".

>> Jonathan Walther <krooger at debian.org> wrote:
>> I don't know exactly what you had in mind for increased sysop power Ed,
>> but I do worry. Where there is a controversial topic, what is to stop
>> the older users with thousands and thousands of edits to their name (the
>> "prolific" Wikipedians, quantity over quality) from throwing up their
>> hands and shouting "VANDALISM!" when a comparitive newbie comes along
>> and starts making edits that they disagree with?

Jonathan

--
                     Geek House Productions, Ltd.

  Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
  QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
  General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998

Phone:   604-435-1205
Email:   djw at reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC  V5R2W2
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021025/1c9cdf19/attachment.pgp


from_name: Anthere

body:
> Not the right wording, you are right. What I meant
> is both, cooperation
> and competition. It ranges from "Oh, the spanish
> have 4000 articles now -
> I should go over and add interlanguage links" and
> "hello, the french added
> in one week over 1000 articles - how did they do
> that? Let's have a
> look..." to "Oh, no - the x-ish are
> outrunning us, let's try to get some more
> contributors."

Let's see...we could do better by setting up a
automatic generator for our zipcodes...we have about
40000 of these...

But... if the british decide to do the same, I believe
they have the amazing number of about 3.000.000
areacodes

Jesus, we are cooked !

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/


from_name: Matt M.

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia-l digest, Vol 1 #790 - 12 msgs

body:
>We can work with people who make changes we disagree with as long as all of
us can be civil, but it's the tiny
>minority who refuses to compromise (either direction) that cause the
problems.

The converse problem is, of course, Billy and Bobby who are fighting over
the cake. "I want the whole thing!" says Billy. "No, I want half!" says
Bobby. "Children, children!" says the mother. "You should compromise. Billy
gets 3/4 and Bobby gets 1/4."

Some people should not be compromised with, and there should be a mechanism
for dealing with this eventuality.

Matt


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Demo front page, enhanced

body:
Magnus Manske wrote:
> I uploaded a slightly enhanced version, again at
>
> http://mitglied.lycos.de/manske/wiki/test.php
>
> Please test it with Esperanto as first browser choice, it should say
> "Esperanto test" or something in the title.

Belege, dankon! Here's a draft for the text:

--
Bonvenon al Vikipedio!

[[eo:Vikipedio|Vikipedio]] estas internacia, plurlingva, kunverkata
projekto celante krei interligitan, [[eo:malferma enhavo|malferman]] kaj
neŭtralan [[eo:enciklopedio|enciklopedion]] laŭeble en
ĉiu homa lingvo. Ni komencis la projekton Januaron 2001 kun nur la
anglalingva fako kaj sen eĉ unu artikolo, kaj nun kunverkas entute
xxxxxx artikolojn en xx lingvoj, ĉiam aldonante pli.

Por certigi, ke la enhavo ĉiam restos libere atingebla, ni uzas la
[[eo:GFDL|Permesilon de GNU por Liberaj Dokumentoj]] (GFDL). Vikipedio
bonvenigas kontribuojn de ĉiu samideano de nia vizio de
neŭtrala, malferma, senpaga, kaj libera enciklopedio. Ĉar ni
estas [[eo:Vikio|vikio]], vi rajtas redakti ĉiu ajn artikolon
eĉ sen krei konton.
--

I'll whip up some PHP for parsing the accept-language header in a sec...

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


from_name: Imran Ghory

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] I'm seeing a trend here or How to
         keepdrivingaway good contributors

body:
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002 koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com wrote:

> Ed begged:  :-)
> >Wikipedia is the world's largest wiki, isn't it? When it's 10 times or 100 times the size, with 1,000 to 3,000 logged-in, daily contributors -- how will we manage then? My plea is for some way beyond the personal judgment of an elite, to maintain order, lest a self-perpetuating cabal develop that freezes out the very type of capable and devoted contributor it formed to protect.
> >
> ...
> >
> >Help me out, here, man.
>
> Well--what's so bad about setting up a page outlining an expected code of conduct?  Really that's what we've banned people based on--violation of an expected code of conduct--so let's at least outline what we expect.  It's just not fair to ban people based on rules that aren't explicitly and undeniably clear.
>
> I propose e.g.  1) no name-calling; save it for Jerry Springer.  2) don't change other peoples' comments.  3) don't question whether other people are actually people.

A more formalish proposal:

Banning should mean the suspension of all write access to the wikipedia
with the exception of the users own "User:" space page.

A first time ban for any purpose should be lifted if the user apologises
(either on their own "User:" page, on the mailing list, or on the
"Talk:" page of the relevant article) and agrees not to repeat the
offence.

-----------------------------------
===Vandalism===

Repeated vandalism is a 6-month bannable offence.

Vandalism defined as:

> Deleting significant parts of an article without reasonable cause
> Inserting unnecessary profanity into an article.
> Inserting nonsensical text into an article.
> Purposefully changing an article in order to mislead readers.
> Modifying the comments of other users in Talk: or Wikipedia: namespace.

A single purposeful vandalism from an anonymous user is a 1-week ban.

A single vandalism from a logged in user results in a 24-hour ban, not to
be enforced until at least 1 hour after the change to allow the user to
apologises or removes their vandalism.

A minor vandalism of an otherwise empty page should only result at most in
a 24-hour ban.

===Copyright===

Repeated copyright violation is a 6-month bannable offence.

A single copyright violation by an anonymous user should result in a
48-hour banning.

A single copyright violation from a logged in user should result in a 48
hour ban, not to be enforced until at least 24 hours after the users talk
page has been updated to inform the user about the copyright violation, to
allow the user to apologises or remove the copyright material.

===Libellous material===

Any libellous material (including accusing someone of being racist,
fascist, or similar without evidence) should result in an immediate ban
until the user either provides evidence or retracts the statement and
apologises.

===Non-NPOV or factual dubious material===

If after non-NPOV or factually dubious material have been removed the
original user repeatedly reinstates it without explanation it should
results in a two week ban from the main wikipedia namespace, but not the
talk space.

If a user repeatedly adds substantially biased text into a number of
different articles after being warned then the user should again be banned
from the wikipedia namespace but not that of talk.
-----------------------------------

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


from_name: tarquin

subject: [Wikipedia-l] on a lighter note: lists

body:
A while back we agreed that most chronological lists should go forward,
from past to present reading down. (prizes, incumbents, lists of works,
and chronologies themselves)

since there are many list pages that go the other way, and reversing by
hand is tedious, I've put up a perl script:

    * http://wiki.beyondunreal.com/cgi-bin/reverser.cgi

I'll link it to it from the manual of style when I get round to updating
it to mention lists.


from_name: The Cunctator

body:
On Fri, 2002-10-25 at 14:33, Gareth Owen wrote:
> koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com writes:
>
> > All I meant was that Cunc, of all of us,
> > seems most concerned with abuses of authority.
>
> We're all concerned with abuses of authority.
> Cunc merely has a different definition to everyone else.

Oh, really. How does my definition seem to differ from everyone else's?


body:
On Fri, 2002-10-25 at 13:52, Gareth Owen wrote:
> The Cunctator <cunctator at kband.com> writes:
>
> > I think that most people would agree that in an ideal situation, banning
> > would be unnecessary
>
> I think everyone would agree.
> However, since our situation is less than ideal, I don't see the relevance.

It's just the same with NPOV. NPOV is the ideal situation.
Our situation is less than ideal. That doesn't mean NPOV is not
relevant.

These things are relevant since we have near-complete power to define
the rules of the society--and the environment in which the society
exist. Wikipedia is almost a purely closed system, having a relationship
with the "real world" only (just about) at the intersections of law
(limited to copyright issues, mostly) and physical constraints (which
are very limited; as Jimbo has said, we can assume infinite disk space).
The other primary limiting factors are human behavior and software
capability. Both of these factors are highly malleable, given time and
the right approach.

In short, with effort, we should be able to approximate the ideal as
close as necessary.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Accept-language header parsing

body:
Attached is a quick-n-dirty PHP script which should parse the
Accept-language header correctly and pick the most preferred known
language. Ie; if the first language is not in our known list, we keep
going to the next ones until we find one or run out.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: parse-lang.php
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20021025/c2d0b29d/attachment.ksh>


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Cunc, tell us what you want?

body:
The Cunctator wrote:

>I only see a secondary philosophical objection. The objection is based on
>the argument that first people should be encouraged to contribute to the
>Eng-lang Wikipedia before others, not from the principle that English is
>better, but from the principle that "from a strict efficiency point of
>view, the goal of a comprehensive and neutral encyclopedia would benefit
>from dealing with issues in only one central article with as many actors as
>possible debating/working together rather than several different articles
>with only a couple of persons in each place, even though they are updating
>their own articles from the other wikis", as Anthere eloquently put it.
>

I think I am starting to understand.
But /"first people should be encouraged to contribute to the Eng-lang
Wikipedia before others"/ -- what about all the writers who don't speak
English? Doesn't that make the non-en projects sound like the
hoby-horses of the linguists among us?
"dealing with issues in only one central article" -- that is a good
principle. But again: not everyone speaks english.

>
>


subject: [Intlwiki-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] Cunc, tell us what you want?

body:
On Fri, 2002-10-25 at 16:05, elian wrote:
> The Cunctator <cunctator at kband.com> writes:
>
> > 1) There doesn't seem to be any major philosophical objection to a browser
> > localization redirect of "http://www.wikipedia.org/".
>
> I have nine browsers on my computer (needed for webdesign and some other
> purposes). Some don't even have a localize-option and do you think I
> bother to configure the rest? So I get english all the time.

<snip>
I'm not saying it would solve every problem. However, it wouldn't create
any new ones. I'd rather implement changes that are invisible first.
Does that seem reasonable?

> Next, I want to see the progress of all wikipedias at one central place
> and not somewhere hidden at an obscure statistics page somewhere at the
> english (Main?) wikipedia where nobody of the non-english contributors
> bothers to look for regularly. The version I proposed stimulates
> competition.

I don't think competition is exactly the right approach, but I agree
with your sentiment. I think the right way to do that is to consolidate
the backend so that integrated Recent Changes, interlanguage linking,
etc., are feasible and automatic.

> Lastly, I want to have a simple, not crowded page to search wikipedia
> where I am not disturbed by masses of text and I have to look very sharply
> to discover the small "search" field in one corner.

> If we want to be an encyclopedia, we should offer people an attractive
> interface for quick and easy searching wikipedia - and where could this be
> better placed than on the Main Page www.wikipedia.org? If I am somewhere
> and I simply want to know something, I don't want categories,
> introductions and masses of links: I want a search box, cursor already
> placed in it, type in something and get my results.

I'm not sure this is the best choice for everyone. That is what Google
is for, more than Wikipedia. The best way for you to get this to happen
would be to develop an incremental change of the homepage. For example,
you might want to advocate changing the default Wikipedia style to
something like Cologne Blue.

> > I only see a secondary philosophical objection. The objection is based on
> > the argument that first people should be encouraged to contribute to the
> > Eng-lang Wikipedia before others, not from the principle that English is
> > better, but from the principle that "from a strict efficiency point of
> > view, the goal of a comprehensive and neutral encyclopedia would benefit
> > from dealing with issues in only one central article with as many actors as
> > possible debating/working together rather than several different articles
> > with only a couple of persons in each place, even though they are updating
> > their own articles from the other wikis", as Anthere eloquently put it. (I'm
> > not claiming she advocates this position. She just described it well.) This
> > objection would be pretty much obviated with better backend integration and
> > interlanguage tools.
>
> If this is the case I vote for abandoning the other language wikipedias,
> but I am not sure if I understood you right: you build sentences of German
> length.

Again, I want to emphasize this isn't a major objection. But it's an
important point.

> Besides, I am no philosopher, my objections are not philosophical
> but practical. If you like to engage in philosophical discussions I
> suggest a philosophy forum, not wikipedia-mailinglist.

Decisions need to derive from basic policy. I think you understand what
I mean by "philosophical".

> We have one thing in common: we both object balcanization,
> however our interpretation seem to vary.
>
> I think a wikipedia, each language on a separate URL without a centralized
> - and a really centralized - main page is a bundle of balkanized
> projects. If this remains like this, I prefer to stay in the nice,
> peaceful, balkanized German wikipedia without having to think about the
> others around - at least we have www.wikipedia.de. Maybe the dutch, the
> french, the polish and so on could also reserve .nl, .fr, .pl...

I do too. As I've said repeatedly, I think there are better and more
important ways to reduce balkanization than to change the homepage to a
portal, and that these things should be done first.

Don't worry, change will happen. Some patience is necessary.


body:
Stephen Gilbert wrote:

>I want it on the record that I am neither a telephone
>sanitizer nor a hair-dresser. ;-)
>
;-)

>It simply means I'm against the static front page
>idea.  I don't think it solves any fundamental
>problems, but that's not the point; even if it was
>*only* a symbolic gesture of goodwill I would support
>it. However, I believe it would be harmful to the
>project as a whole, not just the English language part
>of the project.
>
A static portal might not be the final word -- it could be replaced by
the unified RC proposal or something else.
I'm not arguing for a portal specifically --
* equality of urls
* something language-neutral or language-sniffing at www.---

Wikipedia is already damaged by the EL fork. It was a huge blow to the
project, and I see it as a loss of credibility.
When I visit the fr:pedia I see banter in talk pages along the lines of
"policy x is good, that's what the en:pedia adopted" -- "so what? we'll
just fork if they don't like it!"
It maybe just banter, but it worries me.
I would gladly bleed wikipedia now to prevent loss of other limbs.


from_name: Gareth Owen

subject: [Wikipedia-l] on a lighter note: lists

body:
"Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> writes:

> Reverse chrono (latest first)
>    -- when you care about the last few more than the first
> * Sports champions -- World Series (baseball), World Cup (soccer),
>   Stanley Cup (hockey)

I know who won all those things recently, I remember them all vividly.
I'm far more likely to want to look up who won them in 1938[0].

[0] The New York Yankees, Italy and the Chicago Blackhawks
--
Gareth Owen
"Wikipedia does rock.  By the count on the "brilliant prose" page, there
 are 14 not-bad articles so far" -- Larry Sanger (12 Jan 2001)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] 80,000

body:
tarquin <tarquin at planetunreal.com> writes:

> It's not that I don't care about one-horse US towns (well, okay, I don't)

Would it be possible to move the fantastic-waste-of-space that is Ram-Man's
latest datadump to gazetteer.wikipedia.com, or somesuch, so they don't clutter
up the *worthwhile* *encyclopedic* entries?
--
Gareth Owen
"Wikipedia does rock.  By the count on the "brilliant prose" page, there
 are 14 not-bad articles so far" -- Larry Sanger (12 Jan 2001)


body:
Axel Boldt <axelboldt at yahoo.com> writes:

> --- erik_moeller at gmx.de wrote:
>
> > www.wikipedia.org should do an HTTP redirect to en.wikipedia.org,
> > de.wikipedia.org or whatever based on the language preference in the
> > browser.
>
> I'm already on record favoring this option. People who don't configure
> the proper language settings in their browser can hardly complain
> if they're presented with a language they don't like (i.e. English).

I am in complete agreement with Axel.
--
Gareth Owen
"Wikipedia does rock.  By the count on the "brilliant prose" page, there
 are 14 not-bad articles so far" -- Larry Sanger (12 Jan 2001)


from_name: Paul Ebermann

body:
"Stephen Gilbert" skribis:

> Also on the record: I am firmly against a static
> "portal" page at www.wikipedia.org. I think it's a
> very bad idea.
>
[...]
> It simply means I'm against the static front page
> idea.  I don't think it solves any fundamental
> problems, but that's not the point; even if it was
> *only* a symbolic gesture of goodwill I would support
> it. However, I believe it would be harmful to the
> project as a whole, not just the English language part
> of the project.
>
> I, along with others, have stated my reasons, and I'll
> state them again if requested. I (again, with others)
> have proposed an alternate solution that I believe
> would extend the same goodwill, be more functional,
> and avoid the pitfalls of a static front page of
> links. I will state this again too upon request.

Yes, please repeat your solution.
I just looked over all your posts at intlwiki-l
(since 17.9.2002 - 34 messages) and didn't find
anything on this topic.

In what way is the actual page at http://www.wikipedia.org
not a "static page full of links"?
(In this case only links into the english wikipedia
 and to the front pages of the other 'pedias.)

Paul


from_name: lcrocker at nupedia.com

body:
> It's just that this month's party has so many guests that
> I think Jimmy should deputize a few bouncers--with written
> guidelines as to what's okay and what's not. I don't want
> to have to keep running to some fat old bald guy everytime
> someone on the guest list starts knocking drinks out of the
> other guests' hands.

Hey, I resemble that remark...