from_name: Dan Grey

subject: [Foundation-l] the features...

body:
Being one of the most prolific writers on Wikinews
(ninety-five stories), and arguably the most
experienced editor (on the project since January), I'd
like to take a few moments to respond to Anthere.

--- Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Two comments.
> The first is about the recent crisis on wikinews.
> The second is a comment about the new features.
>
>
> For the first point Erik, it seems some people are
> not happy with the way decision making happens on
> wikinews.
>
> It seems that this time, the trigger of the conflict
> is the way a new feature was put into use,
> even though there was no clear agreement whithin the
> community to use it. I'd say, it is fair to complain
> about
> software changes, when software changes are not
> agreed upon.

Actually, the changes have been broadly welcomed. The
changes *were* discussed and only one user objected -
he is now on a crusade to start his own fork of the
project on Wikimedia servers, even going as far as
'launching' his own personal site on Meta.

>It is good that you propose now a
> discussion over
> whether this new feature should be used or not, but
> the discussion should occur *before* the feature is
> used, or
> even better *before* the feature is developped.
>

Actually, it was discussed.

> I suppose you will answer that it was discussed, it
> was agreed, that it is the best solution so should
> be used...
> this may be. But you can not at the same time claim
> this... and ignore the fact regular editors are so
> mad that it
> appears to them their *only* options are to suggest
> another wikinews (fork) or obey you (not so
> benevolent dictatorship).

Let's be clear here - it is *one* editor who is
throwing his toys out of his pram. Everyone else is
happily writing new stories with the new system on
Wikinews.

Only one person was trying to be a dictator here - and
it wasn't Erik.

>
> How do you suggest to improve this in the future ?
>

<snipping NGerda stuff - that's a different e-mail>

> As a simple participant, I would like to comment on
> the new feature which I think is called "inputbox
> extension" (or is it "DynamicPageList extension" ?).

They're two different things, but a contributor
doesn't need to know nor worry about that, no more
than how any other part of MediaWiki, MySQL, Memcache
etc works.

>
> Anyway, if any of you goes to wikinews and intends
> to start a new page, here is what he will get :
>
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Writing_an_article.
>
> I invite you to enter the name of a new article and
> to edit it.
>
> When you will get the edit box, you will notice two
> things :
>
> First, the box does not start empty, it is already
> prefilled with a whole bunch of preformatted
> content. It indicates where to put the article. It
> has a table with pre-filled fields for citation of
> sources. It has a bunch of categories into place.
> And it has the "development" tag by default. If the
> editor wants the story to be visible to the reader,
> he must replace the development tag by a publish tag
> (this is quite clearly explained on top of the edit
> window).

You can see this "whole bunch" here:
http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=Template%3ANew_page&editintro=Template%3ANew_article_intro&title=hello&create=Create+article

Wikinews is not Wikipedia. It is different. That is
not, inherently, bad. It is inevitable that its
software will evolve beyond Wikipedia's - MediaWiki
was written for an encyclopaedia, now extensions have
been written to allow it to run a news site. It's
natural evolution.

Certain things work, and certain things *have* to be
done for a story to be listed. This was the same
before the changes as it was afterwards.

These changes have made the site *much* easier to use.

And I must say this - *I* created the original system.
*I* wrote "Writing an article" as it was before this.
Yet I can also recognize that my system, although it
was the best that was possible at the time, is greatly
inferior to the changes Ilya and Erik have coded and
installed.

> On the positive side, I feel that the benefits of
> this are
> * a more "similar" appearance to all articles
> * a strong reminder to the editor that he should
> list his sources
> * a system allowing to "publish" the article quite
> freely, without relying on an editorial team.
>
> The drawbacks of this is
> * if you are a new editor, chances is you will be
> very perplex in front of all this complex synthax.
> * if you are a new editor, chances is you will not
> understand for a while the publish tag system, so
> your story will not be visible
>

As someone who has written a myriad stories and held
the hand of many a newbie, I assure you, in the
strongest possible terms, that the positives of these
changes out-weigh any drawbacks.

And let me stress this again: stories have *always*
needed to be listed in certain places (eg the Main
Page upon publishing). They've *always* needed to be
dated and to have a sources section with a specific
template in it. This has been decided through months
of community debate and consensus forming. There is no
argument here.

*Nothing* that Erik and Ilya have changed over the
weekend have altered it. All they have done is made
this process easier - *much* easier.

Further, all instructions explain, very clearly, the
{{develop}} and {{publish}} system.

> As long as wikinews is small, there can be hope some
> oldbie will see and check the article and push it
> published... but when wikinews grows, it might be
> that the system does not scale so well and that
> articles are not quickly published. Still, we can
> hope some editors frequently check the list of
> articles with a "development" tag, so I am not sure
> it is really a problem.

Actually, this system scales *far* better. Before, to
publish a story an editor had to:

1. Edit the Developing stories template
2. Copy and cut the story from it
3. Save the template
4. Navigate to the appropiate day page (trickier than
it sounds)
5. Edit the appropiate day page
6. Add the story
7. Save that page.

Now all that's needed it to:
1. Edit the story
2. Change {{develop}} to {{publish}}
3. Save the story.

And yes, us editors do check Developing stories, work
on each other's articles, publish them when ready etc.

>
> The main problem I saw with this is not the
> publication system, but only the fact it will appear
> awfully complex to a new editor. The basic of wiki
> is
> * it is simple synthax
> * create an article, edit, save and this is it !

Except that, as I've pointed out, that was never the
case, and never can be for a news site. An
encyclopaedia, yes, but not an news site.

>
> A more similar appareance and a reminder to cite
> sources is good, but I do not think the benefit
> balance the drawbacks of loss of easiness to edit.
> I think these two issues should be community
> enforced and taught by model (looking at what
> already exist).
>

As I've said, the decision to use the Source template
has been made by the community. It was actually
reviewed in the last few days - and it was decided,
overwhelmingly, to retain it.

You're welcome, Anthere, to come and join the debate,
of course.

> Last, I have been wondering how much difference
> there was with wikipedia. Indeed the publication
> system might be necessary, as the goal is to get on
> the main page and to get it *quickly*. So, the
> current semi-automatic tagging solution might not be
> bad
>
> However, Wikipedia just as well might propose
> pre-filled articles, with pre-formatted titles,
> subtitles, see alsos, external links, categories and
> international links. And IT DOES NOT. Why is it felt
> necessary on wikinews when it is not felt necessary
> on other projects ?

See above, this is not Wikipeida.

>
>
> I have been caressing the idea of writing to Ward
> Cunningham and ask him to create a wikinews
> article... and tell us about his experience
> afterwards ;-)

Go for it! I have no idea who he is, but we have
dozens of editors on Wikinews who will tell you what a
positive experience contributing is.

Yours,

Dan100

PS if anyone has any further questions or comments,
don't hesitate to direct them to me! I'm happy to
explain anything.

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


list: wikimedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

subject: [Foundation-l] the features...


list: wikien-l

from_name: Skyring

subject: [WikiEN-l] SHOWCASING Abuses of Admin Power

body:
On 7/6/05, A. Nony Mouse <temoforcomments4 at hotmail.com> wrote:

> > > I checked the record. Enviroknot's edits and emails to this list do not
> > > contain a single swear word, anywhere.
> >
> >So? anyone can change their writing style.
>
> Anyone "can" change their writing style... in the same way that people can
> change their handwriting or their hair color.
>
> Very, very rarely can someone hold such subterfuge for that long. Somewhere,
> IF Enviroknot were also KaintheScion/ElKabong, there should have been a
> slip-up somewhere. SOME swear. Especially with the number of people here and
> on Wikipedia who were spending much time personally attacking and harassing
> Enviroknot.

Swearing is the sort of thing that can be modified, especially if the
writer is tightly focussed. I've known people who swear reflexively in
one community but are the soul of decorum in another.

Nor would it be too hard to run text through something like a
spell-checker to eliminate problem words.

What would be interesting would be to get samples of text from both
editors and to compare them. I'm no sort of expert at text analysis,
but it seems to me that every writer has distinctive patterns in
mispelt words, word choice, phrasology and so on that would be
extremely hard to disguise or fake.

Remember how "Anonymous", the author of "Primary Colors", was tracked
down and exposed as Joe Klein, despite protestations from the author
that no, it wasn't him?

Of course, any similarities could be explained as commonplace or
coincidence and the (possibly manufactured) differences highlighted,
or vice versa depending on which view you wanted to push, but still, I
think an authentic voice could be distinguished or ruled out by a
reasonable person.

--
Peter in Canberra


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Brion Vibber

subject:
[Wikitech-l] PHP 5.0.4 problem with 1.4.4: array_key_exists()
	argument error

body:
MHart wrote:
> Just setup MediaWiki 1.4.4 on Fedora Core 4 using PHP 5.0.4. I had to
> modify php.ini to display_errors = On to see anything but a blank page,
> and I'm getting this error:

Well first, 1.4.5 is the current 1.4 release. :) Try that before
continuing...

> Warning: array_key_exists() [function.array-key-exists]: The second
> argument should be either an array or an object in
> /var/www/html/qwiki/includes/User.php on line 621
>
> 6 times, followed by
>
> Fatal error: Call to a member function tableName() on a non-object in
> /var/www/html/qwiki/includes/ObjectCache.php on line 409
>
> Is this a deprecated function?

There's an error connecting to the database; for various annoying
reasons you're not getting an attractive error message, but another
error message that occurs while it's trying to load the error message.

Check the database server hostname/IP, port, database name, username,
and table prefix. Check that the server is online and accepting
connections. Check that the GRANTs on the database are correct.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20050706/e24b3b03/attachment.pgp>


subject: [Wikitech-l] Deactivating Mediawiki caching

body:
Merlin wrote:
> I am trying to make some changes to the Mediawiki software. It apears
> that there is some kind of caching that
> I do not understand. If I make changes to one php file it will not be
> imediatelly affected if I refresh the browser
> window. Only if I include an php error into that file and remove it
> again the refresh shows the changes.
>
> Any ideas where to disable this?

First, you shouldn't need to do this in the first place. Force the
browser to refresh beyond a 304 Not Modified response by holding the
ctrl or shift keys (depending on browser) along with clicking the reload
button.

More simply, do your testing with an edit preview or a special page that
doesn't cache.

If you really need to disable HTTP client caching for some reason (or
the internal parser caching), see DefaultSettings.php for the list of
all configurable settings that you can set in LocalSettings.php

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20050706/87e3951c/attachment.pgp>


subject: [WikiEN-l] more active censorship

body:
On 7/5/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> Nathan J. Yoder (njyoder at energon.org) [050705 23:24]:
>
> > And no, saying you "should go cool off for a day" doesn't actually
> > address them if you read them and it's also imposing a requirement on
> > the person to counter a BUG. You REALLY keep avoiding this and
> > absolutely insist on using examples (e.g. sock puppets) that aren't
> > applicable to this.  Ther is no "disguise" and logs can easily prove
> > that.
>
>
> As I pointed out to you before, this isn't the dev list, and people here
> don't determine whether this documented behaviour is a bug or a feature.
> So making your case here, however eloquently, isn't going to do one dot of
> good in achieving the change you want.
>
> I note you haven't tried asking on the dev list, mediawiki-l. Perhaps if
> you do, someone will explain why the feature works the way it does.

Hang on. This is a matter of policy. Developers shouldn't determine
policy, just implement it. As a developer myself, I can predict that
developers wouldn't tell you WHY a software process works, but rather
HOW it works. A discussion would contain all sorts of interesting
material, but what it wouldn't contain is some sort of ultimate
authority as to why something works the way it does.

Developers would just shrug and say, that's the way we were told to do
it - go ask management.

As I see it, extending the block of a logged-in editor is
indefensible. And pointless, as they can always ask for the block to
be removed at the correct time, citing whatever excuse they want.

Extending the block of an anonymous or sockpuppet editor has more
merit, as it can be argued that this is an attempt to evade the block,
though I think that there should be some sort of supervision to make
sure that it is really the same editor, and not just someone
accidentally sharing an IP address.

--
Peter in Canberra


from_name: Nicolay A. Vasiliev

subject: [Wikitech-l] Page output

body:
I mean including some phrases from my own table into article content.

Nicolay A. Vasiliev wrote:

> I meant the page content, mainly - articles content. I got how can I
> change the content of static parts like header and footer (by editing
> skin scripts). But now the actual problem is how to change the content
> of dynamic parts of content (best of all articles of Wikipedia).
>
> Rowan Collins wrote:


list: foundation-l

from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Foundation-l] the features...

body:
Anthere:
> For the first point Erik, it seems some people are not
 > happy with the way decision making happens on wikinews.

I think that there are many different problems that have happened in
recent days:

1) There has been a very big fight about the use of the DynamicPageList
extension to automate story display. I was not involved in that. Those
who opposed it felt that the other side eventually pushed their solution
through without discussing it.

2) Davodd has some concerns that we're not accepting enough local
stories. I'm not quite sure where that comes from, but we're discussing it.

3) There's the inputbox extension. It is meant to address one problem
with the list of "developing stories" (those which have {{Develop}}).
When the new automatically generated list of developing stories was
added, it was not easy anymore to create an article simply be editing a
page and by linking to it. For some time, we had two lists of
"developing stories", which was a bit silly. Ilya Haykinson suggested
that in the context of Wikinews,

	Edit template => Add link => Follow link => Save page

is not really a particularly good way to create new pages. The main
rationale for this process in the wiki world -- where you want to have
high interlinking between pages -- is weaker for Wikinews, where
categories serve the same purpose.

I liked this suggestion a lot, so I implemented it, and while I was at
it, I thought it might be a good idea to also offer the option (!) of
preloading text into the inputbox, as Wikinews uses a few templates
which a newcomer will not be aware of. Previously, we used a page called
"Submit a story" to accept submissions from newcomers unaware of the
syntax. This was very unwiki-like, as it suggested a distinction between
submitters and editors. The new system allows us to put every user on
the same level as the existing community of editors. We can also provide
custom help when creating a new page.

I put the inputbox on the Main Page to demonstrate it. Nobody reverted
the suggestion, and everyone who commented said they liked it, and that
it would make editing a lot easier. That is, for the first hour or so.
Then Amgine started criticizing it a lot, and finally, Pechorin also had
some reservations (specifically, he didn't want it on the Main Page).

I said that I would like to have a discussion about what content, if
any, should be preloaded. Amgine then started accusing me of "unilateral
changes", abusing "my position", left the project, and a couple days
later, has started this "Open Wikinews" proposition.

Amgine is the only one who is personalizing this dispute against me,
while others have more general problems with Wikinews, as the discussion
shows. This is not the first conflict between me and Amgine, and I have
frequently been under the impression that anything I do will drive him
ballistic, because he sees my edits as being "more important" than
others (due to my founding role in the project). It should also be noted
that Amgine has threatened to fork the project before, when he didn't
get the technical changes he wanted implemented. I have always made it
absolutely clear that my edits should be treated like any other, and
that I hold no special role in the project.

> But you can not at the same time claim this... and ignore the fact
 > regular editors are so mad that it
 > appears to them their *only* options are to
 > suggest another wikinews (fork) or obey you
 > (not so benevolent dictatorship).

This is an untrue generalization; the only editor who is, in fact,
referring specifically to my actions is Amgine.

> How do you suggest to improve this in the future ?

I want to have a constructive dialogue with the other members of the
Wikinews community about the best way to operate the site.

> First, the box does not start empty, it is already prefilled with
 > a whole bunch of preformatted content.

That content can be edited, or blanked, at
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Template:New_page
which is actively being done.

 > If the editor wants the story to be visible to the reader,
 > he must replace the development tag by a publish tag

Thanks to a recent change by Ilya to DPL, we will hopefully soon be able
to make the {{Develop}} tag unnecessary, as we can make a list of all
stories that are *not published* instead (we will first have to move all
non-articles out of the main namespace, and tag all previous articles as
published, though).

> * a more "similar" appearance to all articles

Actually, we've always enforced the look & feel rather rigidly, similar
to the Wikipedia Manual of Style.

> * a strong reminder to the editor that he should list his sources

I'm not too happy with this part, as it might discourage original
reporting. It's also very heavy syntax.

> * if you are a new editor, chances is you will be very
 > perplex in front of all this complex synthax.

It's a matter of balance. Some prefilling is helpful and gives the new
editor a rough idea of how things work, too much is going to be harmful
instruction creep. We're actively discussing the best balance on
	http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Template_talk:New_page
with me being a lead advocate for keeping things simple.

> but when wikinews grows, it might be that the system does not scale
 > so well and that articles are not quickly published.

That's a problem I'd like to have ;-). But I think we'll find new
solutions if that does indeed happen, such as date-tagging developing
stories and prioritizing those which haven't been dealt with for a long
time.

 > Still, we can hope some editors frequently check the list of articles
 > with a "development" tag, so I am not sure it is really a problem.

As noted, the {{Develop}} tag will likely be deprecated soon.

> The main problem I saw with this is not the publication system,
 > but only the fact it will appear awfully complex to a new editor.

Less complex than the previous system, where you had to carefully edit
multiple templates to get your story from development to publication. I
would say that the new system is easier for people with no wiki
experience, and a little unusual for people with wiki experience.

> * it is simple synthax
> * create an article, edit, save and this is it !

Yep. That's how it works now ;-)

> I think these two issues should be community enforced
 > and taught by model (looking at what already exist).

I don't think an extreme position is helpful here, as I said, I think
the trick is to find the right balance.

> However, Wikipedia just as well might propose pre-filled articles,
 > with pre-formatted titles, subtitles, see alsos, external links,
 > categories and international links. And IT DOES NOT.
 > Why is it felt necessary on wikinews when it is not felt necessary
 > on other projects ?

Wikinews is not Wikipedia. Stories are published in multiple categories
and automatically displayed there using the DynamicPageList extension.
This is necessary - a manually maintained frontpage is not scalable.
Even Amgine's proposed frontpage makes extensive use of the DPL, as you
can see here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Open_English/Main_Page
He was one of the initial proponents of DPL, and contributed code to it.
So while there have been disagreements about exactly how much automation
we need, everyone seems to agree that we need *some* level of it.

But, DPL depends on stories being properly tagged by category. This is
accomplished with the {{date}} tag and the {{develop}}/{{publish}} tags.
These add the correct categories, which DPL then uses to fetch the
latest stories from those categories. As noted above, {{develop}} will
likely be deprecated soon, making it necessary to only remember {{date}}
and {{publish}} to post a story.

Wikipedia has no such dependencies. I follow a link and I start writing.
If my article is not perfect, that's fine, because it's still linked
from the right places. People can see it. People will eventually fix it
for me. In general, there's less things to know, and less things that
can go wrong.

Now, don't get me wrong. This complexity is *undesirable*. Instead of
templates, we will eventually want shiny buttons and comboboxes;
intuitive and obvious user interfaces. This is a matter of further
software changes. We're trying to achieve the best results with the
technology we have today.

With that technology, it makes sense to guide ordinary users through the
process of publishing a story. First empirical data indicates that this
works. We no longer have to resort to the crutch that was
Wikinews:Submit a story, and instead can give ordinary users the tools
they need to publish stories.

We will continually work to make Wikinews easier to use. Eventually,
wiki technology will incorporate more and more elements of blog
technology. As we guide users, we must take care to avoid instruction
creep. I want to engage in productive discussions with those who are
afraid of instruction creep, and improve the site to avoid it.

> I have been caressing the idea of writing to Ward Cunningham and
 > ask him to create a wikinews article... and tell us about his
 > experience afterwards ;-)

I'm very much in favor of that, actually, and asking other people as
well. But, in terms of our usability goals, I'm quite aware that we are
not there yet. But the recent changes are an improvement, and should
help to make the site easier to user for newcomers than it was before.

Best,

Erik


subject: [Foundation-l] the features...


from_name: Michael Turley

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Weyes

body:
On 7/6/05, David 'DJ' Hedley <spyders at btinternet.com> wrote:
> I back up his accusation. Infact, the entire mailing list would back up his
> accusation. You do realise that you are doing the hard ban on
> Enviroknot/Kurita77/yourself no good by all of this?

David 'DJ' Hedley, please do not make accusations on my behalf.

I find your presumption of complete support improper and rash.

I am not informed enough to either support or endorse the accusation
in question and do not wish to be classified as a supporter of this
accusation merely by my subscription to this list.

--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused


from_name: Angela

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: [Wikinews-l] the features...

body:
On 7/6/05, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Two comments.
> The first is about the recent crisis on wikinews.
> The second is a comment about the new features.

I agree with what Erik and Dan have already written on this.

When worrying about new features not being discussed, you might want
to look at the number of new features in MediaWiki 1.5. Those were
generally not discussed, but people welcome them as *optional*
improvements to their wikis. There is nothing in the new "create an
article" box that forces any user to use it. You can still go to
http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=My_new_article&action=edit
and write on a blank page, but for newcomers who want to do things
properly, having the option to use
<http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=Template%3ANew_page&title=My+new+article>
instead is likely to be very helpful.

> However, Wikipedia just as well might propose pre-filled articles, with
> pre-formatted titles, subtitles, see alsos, external links, categories and
> international links. And IT DOES NOT. Why is it felt necessary on wikinews
> when it is not felt necessary on other projects ?

Why doesn't Wikipedia use it? Perhaps because the feature has only
just been introduced and no one knows about it, not necessarily
because it's a bad idea. And, I have proposed it be used for leaving
test messages on user talk pages
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29#User_talk_inputbox>).
 <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=Template%3ATest&editintro=Template%3ATest+intro&create=Create+article&title=User_talk%3ATestingggg>
gives you helpful links to other templates, and lets you edit the
{{test}} message, whereas previously you had to use {{subst:test}},
save the page, then edit it, or copy and paste the template from
somewhere else, or use the default message which doesn't apply to
every user in the same way.

Not all projects have the same need for the level of standardisation
that Wikinews has, but for those that do, this seems an invaluable
option. Nothing about this feature prevents anyone creating articles
in the traditional way.

Angela.


from_name: MHart

body:
Just setup MediaWiki 1.4.4 on Fedora Core 4 using PHP 5.0.4. I had to modify
php.ini to display_errors = On to see anything but a blank page, and I'm
getting this error:

Warning: array_key_exists() [function.array-key-exists]: The second argument
should be either an array or an object in
/var/www/html/qwiki/includes/User.php on line 621

6 times, followed by

Fatal error: Call to a member function tableName() on a non-object in
/var/www/html/qwiki/includes/ObjectCache.php on line 409

Is this a deprecated function?

- MHart


from_name: Nathan J. Yoder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Categories and NPOV

body:
> "An *ad hominem* argument, also known as *argumentum ad hominem*
> (Latin<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin>,
> literally "argument [aimed] at the person", but usually translated as
> "argument to the man"), is a logical
> fallacy<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy>that involves
> replying to an argument or assertion by addressing the person
> presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself or an
> argument pointing out an inconsistency between a view expressed by an
> individual and the remainder of his or her beliefs."

Ad hominem is definitely a logical fallacy, but the way that's phrased
isn't quite right.  I wouldn't call it POV simply for being inaccurate
though.  It only needs to be clarified to add that it's ad hominem iff
the personal attack is used as a basis for the argument, rather than
something in addition to/aside from it.

> For example:
>  The teacher gave us a difficult exam! We shouldn't have to be subjected to
> such stress under the course of our education.
>
> It may be that it was uncomfortable, but that does not mean that
> uncomfortable things should always be avoided. Wishful thinking
> underlies appeals
> to emotion <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion>, and is a red
> herring <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring_%28fallacy%29>.
> [...]
>  I would like to mention that I don't agree that "we shouldn't have to be
> subjected to such stress under the course of our education," but I certainly
> know some who do.

You're misunderstanding the example.  Whether or not someone's
argument is fallacious does not indicate whether or not their
conclusion is invalid.  Fallacies only deal with the method of
argumentation being wrong, not with whether or not the conclusion
reached by it is wrong.

In that example, the person is saying that because it is
uncomfortable, it is bad.  That is wrong because something being
uncomfortable is not necessarily bad.  The comfort level of the thing
in question has nothing to do with the relative effectiveness of that
thing (as compared to other methods) in achieving that goal, thus it
only acts as an appeal to emotion to mention it.

----------------------------------------------
Nathan J. Yoder
http://www.gummibears.nu/
http://www.gummibears.nu/files/njyoder_pgp.key
----------------------------------------------


from_name: Tyler Peterson

body:
I had a 1.4.4 installation when I upgraded to FC4.  I got several
annoying errors after the upgrade so I backed up the tables and blew it
all away.  Installed MediaWiki from scratch with 1.4.5.  Tables are
created correctly in mysql, but I get the same error in my logs as MHart.

Any additional pointers are greatly appreciated.

Brion Vibber wrote:

> MHart wrote:
>
>> Just setup MediaWiki 1.4.4 on Fedora Core 4 using PHP 5.0.4. I had to
>> modify php.ini to display_errors = On to see anything but a blank page,
>> and I'm getting this error:
>
>
> Well first, 1.4.5 is the current 1.4 release. :) Try that before
> continuing...
>
>> Warning: array_key_exists() [function.array-key-exists]: The second
>> argument should be either an array or an object in
>> /var/www/html/qwiki/includes/User.php on line 621
>>
>> 6 times, followed by
>>
>> Fatal error: Call to a member function tableName() on a non-object in
>> /var/www/html/qwiki/includes/ObjectCache.php on line 409
>>
>> Is this a deprecated function?
>
>
> There's an error connecting to the database; for various annoying
> reasons you're not getting an attractive error message, but another
> error message that occurs while it's trying to load the error message.
>
> Check the database server hostname/IP, port, database name, username,
> and table prefix. Check that the server is online and accepting
> connections. Check that the GRANTs on the database are correct.
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Wikitech-l mailing list
>Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: Merlin

body:
Hi everybody,

I am trying to make some changes to the Mediawiki software. It apears
that there is some kind of caching that
I do not understand. If I make changes to one php file it will not be
imediatelly affected if I refresh the browser
window. Only if I include an php error into that file and remove it
again the refresh shows the changes.

Any ideas where to disable this?

Thank you in advance,

Merlin


from_name: Matt Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Hi

body:
One with a true point would distinguish between true borderline cases
and someone like "Jane", whose contributions to Wikipedia consisted
almost entirely of an edit-war over a picture of poop, as well as a
few other scatalogically-obsessed postings.

By defending the indefensible, you make yourself laughable.

-Matt


from_name: Norath Norath

subject: [WikiEN-l] Abuse

body:
User:Norrath was block by David Gerard for "admitted
sockpuppet and role account". This account is indeed a
sockpuppet of a user in good standing, created to
protest other blocks caaried out abusively by
Snowspinner. The account was declared as a sockpuppet,
in accordance with Wikipedia policy (which does not
prohibit this) and the only edits were polite
questions to Snowspinner about why he did not follow
policy.

It is outrageous that admins block users simply for
making legitimate requests for explanation from other
admins about why they did not follow policy.

Please help.

Norrath

____________________________________________________
Sell on Yahoo! Auctions ? no fees. Bid on great items.
http://auctions.yahoo.com/


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject: [WikiEN-l] Non-free images, there has to be a better way

body:
Fastfission wrote:

>
> What, 10,000-20,000 pieces of copyrighted content that we
>use in defiance of their copyright holders, paying not a cent, hiding
>behind the defensive, feeble, and unreliable "fair use" clause in a
>nation where every congressman is preaching Big Media's jeremiad about
>copyright infringement destroying the economy? Sounds to me like the
>makings of one heck of a class-action suit...
>
On the other hand, I would estimate 90% of those images are also
effectively serving as free advertising for their respective
copyright holders. Companies pay all kinds of money to get their
logos displayed on the front pages of websites with far fewer eyeballs
and much less reputation; band managers and book agents don't want
their client's WP articles to be the only ones without attractive
visuals, and rising stars don't want paparazzi-style candid
shot to be the first thing that WP readers see about them.

So I'm not too worried about class-action suits - while there are a
lot of stupid people in the world, I think that corporations can
develop enough collective IQ to realize that WP's use of images
is going to be more beneficial than harmful.

Even so, we still want to move towards scrubbing out fair-use
images - after contacting the copyright holders, and suggesting
that if they want their articles to continue having illustrations,
or if they don't want to be represented by a blurry amateur
snapshot, they need to contribute some free images. When WP is a
top-ten website, freeing up a few images will seem well worth it.

Stan


body:
Tried it again from the beginning today and it worked.  Thanks for your
patience. :)

Tyler

Tyler Peterson wrote:

> I had a 1.4.4 installation when I upgraded to FC4.  I got several
> annoying errors after the upgrade so I backed up the tables and blew
> it all away.  Installed MediaWiki from scratch with 1.4.5.  Tables are
> created correctly in mysql, but I get the same error in my logs as MHart.
>
> Any additional pointers are greatly appreciated.
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Abuse of admin powers by David Gerard and Snowspinner

body:
This is not a 'role account', nor can I find any
mention of a prohibition on them. This account was
blocked because it asked questions about another
administrator. Your actions only justify my legitimate
fear of raising these issues with my other account.
Norrath

--- David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:

> Norath Norath (norath2005 at yahoo.com) [050707 06:44]:
>
> > User:Norrath was block by David Gerard for
> "admitted
> > sockpuppet and role account". This account is
> indeed a
> > sockpuppet of a user in good standing, created to
> > protest other blocks caaried out abusively by
> > Snowspinner. The account was declared as a
> sockpuppet,
> > in accordance with Wikipedia policy (which does
> not
> > prohibit this) and the only edits were polite
> > questions to Snowspinner about why he did not
> follow
> > policy.
>
>
> Role accounts are not allowed on en:. And part of
> declaring the sock is
> saying who it is. Edits aren't anonymous on
> Wikipedia and particularly not
> in the project pages.
>
> (The account declared itself a sock and role account
> in an edit to
> [[User talk:Sam Spade]].)
>
>
> > It is outrageous that admins block users simply
> for
> > making legitimate requests for explanation from
> other
> > admins about why they did not follow policy.
>
>
> If you are another admin then I am Enviroknot.
>
>
> > Please help.
>
>
> You can tell my abusiveness by the fact that I
> disappeared this email when
> I saw it in the queue. Oh, wait.
>
>
> - d.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail for Mobile
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail


from_name: Jane Halliwell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Hi

body:
Don't bother reporting abusive admins. Nothing ever comes of it. Most are
good people, but there are also a lot of officious bad apples.

However...those bad apples are not the worst of it. The problem is with all
the good apples. They remain quiet and unwilling to punish the bad apples,
because they fear possible retribution. So the bad apples are allowed to
rot, and stink up the place.

Good apples unfortunately follow the Japanese saying: "The nail that stands
up, is pounded down."

I quit Wikipedia weeks ago.

Or...did I? (evil laugh)

>From: David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>,English Wikipedia
><wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: Peter Parker <logicophilosoficus at hotmail.com>,English Wikipedia
><wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Hi
>Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 22:09:08 +0000
>
>On 7/5/05, Peter Parker <logicophilosoficus at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > How can I report an abuse by a moderator? I was blocked unfairly due to
>an
> > ethnic debate in which the moderator had taken sides. I read somewhere
>that
> > I had to join the mailing list, and so I did. I don't know how to
> > participate however, I'd like to know who should I contact concerning
>this
> > problem.
> > Thanks in Advance.
>
>
>You can join the list at
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l - I've cc'ed your
>message to wikien-l in the meantime. You should respond to the list,
>and mention your username.
>
>
>- d.
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/


from_name: Mark Ryan

body:
I should point out that I don't understand Jay's comment. I thought it
was an attack directed at David Gerard, not A Nony Mouse.

~Mark Ryan

On 7/5/05, A. Nony Mouse <temoforcomments4 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> There's room for me to make a comment about you here, but that would be a
> "personal attack" now wouldn't it?
>
> I just love how the rules don't ever apply to admins.
>
> A. Nony Mouse
>
> >
> >Isn't there a saying "Absolute dicks corrupt absolutely"?
> >
> >Jay.
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >WikiEN-l mailing list
> >WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Go where quality Irish singles meet - get FREE Match.com membership!
> http://match.msn.ie
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Weyes

body:
None of this matters. Had the IP addresses NOT matched, he would have been
labeled a sockpuppeteer anyway. Once accused, there is no defense. I was
actually accused of having two sockpuppets who really, really were not me. I
tried many ways to clear my name. There was nothing I could do. So I gave
up, and am employing a new strategy.

>From: "A. Nony Mouse" <temoforcomments4 at hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Weyes
>Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 22:19:41 +0100
>
>
>>We say that he is, because:
>>
>>* His IP initially matched that of Enviroknot, both on the mailing list
>>and
>>on Wikipedia.
>
>Which under DHCP can easily happen.
>
>>* He instantly edited on the same topics as Enviroknot.
>
>No, he didn't. His list of edits matches only ONE topic that I am aware of,
>and in that topic he wasn't even involved in any fights.
>
>>* On these topics he edited on, he shared an opinion with Enviroknot,
>>which
>>was a minority opinion anyway.
>
>Not an opinion, a SUGGESTION - and one that was echoed as a good idea,
>scarily enough, by Enviroknot's opponents.
>
>There is a big difference there.
>
>>I don't know about you, but are points cancel out yours ten times over.
>>I'm
>>out of this case now, but I think that the case is solved anyway.
>
>And I think your so-called "arguments" are pure garbage.
>
>A. Nony Mouse
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Go where quality Irish singles meet - get FREE Match.com membership!
>http://match.msn.ie
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/


subject: [WikiEN-l] Clearly not a role account

body:
[[Wikipedia:Role account]] redirects to
[[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Role_account]], which
says that ''A role account is an account that is not
associated with a particular person''. This account is
associated with me, so it is not a role account. It is
an account used to protect my main account from
retribution while I raise a complaint about powerful
users abusing their power.

Norrath

--- David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:

> Norath Norath (norath2005 at yahoo.com) [050707 07:00]:
>
> > This is not a 'role account', nor can I find any
> > mention of a prohibition on them.
>
>
> [[User talk:Sam Spade]] (why the account exists)
> [[meta:Role account]] (redirected from
> [[Wikipedia:Role account]]
>
>
> > This account was
> > blocked because it asked questions about another
> > administrator. Your actions only justify my
> legitimate
> > fear of raising these issues with my other
> account.
>
>
> If your questions are of value you can ask them with
> your name. Otherwise
> you're just attempting to troll from cover.
>
>
> - d.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html


body:
So your argument is:
1. This user has complained about me and my friends.

2. I think this is a problem, so I blocked them.

3. If you don't think it's a problem, you're a
problem, so I will block you.

4. The fact that there is no policy allowing me to do
this is not a problem

5. If you think it is, you are a problem, and I will
block you.

Well, there's not much to say in response really is
there? Nothing the community says is relevant, since
none of it applies to you. Anyone who disagrees with
you is a problem and will be blocked.

--- Phil Sandifer <sandifer at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> I'll decline, but is "willfully misreading claims to
> construct straw
> man arguments and thus have a position of alleged
> moral superiority"
> in the article? Because if not, it really should be.
>
> As for your other complaint, Wikipedia policy pages
> are descriptive.
> When we are faced with a new problem, we do not
> spend a month or more
> working out a policy and then go to look if the
> problem is still
> around so we can fix it. Rather, we fix the problem,
> and if a
> particular style of solution to a particular style
> of problem becomes
> regular, we might get around to writing a policy
> page about it, but
> we're more likely to go watch TV.
>
> -Snowspinner
>
> On Jul 6, 2005, at 5:16 PM, SPUI wrote:
>
> > David Gerard wrote:
> >
> >> If your questions are of value you can ask them
> with your name.
> >> Otherwise
> >> you're just attempting to troll from cover.
> >>
> >
> > I see no evidence of trolling, simply a legitimate
> question. Maybe
> > you have a different definition of trolling. Try
> adding
> > "disagreeing with the people in charge" to
> [[trolling]] and see how
> > long it is before you're reverted.
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

____________________________________________________
Sell on Yahoo! Auctions ? no fees. Bid on great items.
http://auctions.yahoo.com/


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Weyes

body:
I'm actually reading the mail backwards, and just got to this email.

But what a coincidence of opinion.

Either there's a lot of truth to this, or...we're SOCKPUPPETS! Yeah! Dismiss
us a sockpuppets and you can delude yourselves into thinking you can ignore
these emails.

It's so much easier that way.

>From: "A. Nony Mouse" <temoforcomments4 at hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Weyes
>Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 18:13:18 +0100
>
>I am specifically NOT saying that *ALL* Admins are evil. However, there ARE
>a decent number of them who are regularly abusing their authority, and who
>(on this list and on Wikipedia in general) are not being reined in but
>instead are being encouraged to continue their behavior by mutual
>protectors who are ALSO Admins.
>
>It's quite a racket. Get in as friends with the "right" Admins / ArbCom
>members, and you're functionally insulated from any penalty for breaking
>the rules or abusing your powers. Because no matter WHAT you do, they will
>come riding to your rescue and defending your actions. And all you have to
>do in return is treat the bigwigs as if their word had come directly from
>the mouth of $DIETY as divine law, and back THEM up when someone protests
>against THEIR abuses.
>
>But I'm not allowed to name names. Since I don't run the list and I'm not
>part of the clique, that's a "personal attack."
>
>I have presented my points in the case of Yoder and Kurita77. YOU seem to
>be dead-set on IGNORING it, because you want to justify the behavior of
>clique-member Admins.
>
>A. Nony Mouse
>
>>From: "David 'DJ' Hedley" <spyders at btinternet.com>
>>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>>To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Weyes
>>Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 18:06:54 +0100
>>
>>If its such a problem, you don't have to edit. Infact, you don't even have
>>to be on this mailing list, and the borderline, unjustifyable cases you
>>are
>>bringing up are making people not want you to do either.
>>
>>Now, i'm not sure who you are, but you've been repeating yourself for the
>>past couple of days and its quite clear that you aren't bringing anything
>>to
>>this mailing list that we haven't heard and defended ourselves against
>>before.
>>
>>The only case you seem to be bringing to us is the same old "Admins abuse
>>power", "Admins are evil", etc. messages which aren't anything new. Its
>>starting to bore people, to be honest, and unless you have any substantial
>>evidence to present about all of this I really doubt that your persistence
>>will get you anywhere.
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "A. Nony Mouse" <temoforcomments4 at hotmail.com>
>>To: <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>>Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 5:55 PM
>>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Weyes
>>
>>
>> > >From: Michael Turley <michael.turley at gmail.com>
>> > >Reply-To: Michael Turley <michael.turley at gmail.com>,English Wikipedia
>> > ><wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>> > >To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
>> > >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Weyes
>> > >Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 12:43:16 -0400
>> > >
>> > >On 7/5/05, A. Nony Mouse <temoforcomments4 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > You know something?
>> > > >
>> > > > The behaviors of admins like Weyes could easily have become - the
>>"many
>> > > > admins, and even some arbitrators" (read: just about ALL of the
>>current
>> > > > Arbitration Committee as well as the now-retired "Red Queen") who
>>have
>> > > > forgotten about civility and more generally about paying attention
>>to
>> > > > Wikipedia policy - is what I've been talking about.
>> > > >
>> > > > But instead of seeing them dealing with the issue, I've been
>>getting
>> > >almost
>> > > > nothing but nasty responses from the "go away we don't want to hear
>> > >about
>> > > > it" inner Admin clique.
>> > > >
>> > > > How does that grab you? What does that say about the current Admin
>> > >clique?
>> > > >
>> > > > A. Nony Mouse
>> > >
>> > >Your reply "grabs me" as considerably more critical than my own
>> > >message was intended to be.
>> > >
>> > >I don't see a clique, and I don't see any significant abuses of
>> > >policy, but I do occasionally see excuses for harsh conduct where no
>> > >excuses should be.
>> >
>> > I call it a clique because it's the same admins - time and again - who
>>are
>> > the ones coming in and making excuses for the bad behavior of their
>>friends.
>> > And the favor seems to be returned.
>> >
>> > It's not just here, it's on Wikipedia in general. All we see on this
>>list
>>is
>> > the tip of the iceberg, the very few users who cared enough for
>>WHATEVER
>> > reason to take the option of last resort and appeal for the righting of
>> > wrongs.
>> >
>> > Instead of getting it, they're getting harrassment at the hands of this
>> > clique of editors who see nothing wrong with bad behavior and in many
>>cases
>> > encourage the bad behavior of their fellows.
>> >
>> > That's a problem. A BIG problem. Without this clique of editors, we
>>wouldn't
>> > have been subjected to expletive-filled rants by Kurita77 and Yoder. I
>>don't
>> > blame the newbies, I blame the clique of editors who choose to take an
>> > opportunity to blow off steam by repeatedly biting newbies until they
>>blow
>> > up.
>> >
>> > A. Nony Mouse
>> >
>> > _________________________________________________________________
>> > Start dating right now with FREE Match.com membership!
>>http://match.msn.ie
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > WikiEN-l mailing list
>> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>> >
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>WikiEN-l mailing list
>>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Don't know what Meegos are? Click to find out. http://meegos.msn.ie
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/


body:
You have clearly not read the policy. For the record,
it clearly says that protecting identity is a
legitimate use for multiple accounts.
Norath

Multiple accounts have legitimate uses. For example,
prominent users may wish to experience Wikipedia to
understand how the community functions for those new
to the community. In particular, some have suggested
that Jimbo should get, and edit from, a sock puppet
account. Perhaps he does.

Other users employ multiple accounts to segregate
their contributions for various reasons. A user making
substantial contributions to an area of interest in
Wikipedia might register another account to be used
solely in connection with developing that area.

Users with an expertise in mathematics, for example,
might not wish to associate their contributions to
detailed mathematical articles with contributions to
articles about less weighty subjects. Others might use
different accounts in talk pages to avoid extending
conflicts about a particular area of interest into
communitywide political conflicts related to user
identity rather than to article content. A person
participating in a discussion of an article about
abortion, for example, might not want to allow other
participants an opportunity to extend that discussion
by engaging a particular user in unrelated but
philosophically motivated debate outside of that
discussion.

Multiple accounts also serve to protect identity.
Someone who is known to the public or within a
particular circle may be identifiable based on their
interests and contributions; dividing these up between
different accounts might help preserve the person's
anonymity.

--- Skyring <skyring at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 7/7/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au>
> wrote:
>
> >  And part of declaring the sock is
> > saying who it is. Edits aren't anonymous on
> Wikipedia and particularly not
> > in the project pages.
>
> Beg pardon? Edits aren't anonymous?
>
> Since when?
>
> --
> Pete, who can show you a long list of anonymous
> edits on just about
> any article you care to name.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

____________________________________________________
Sell on Yahoo! Auctions ? no fees. Bid on great items.
http://auctions.yahoo.com/


from_name: Fastfission

body:
On 7/6/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> I agree that fair use is essentially defensive in nature, but a fair use
> is that from the time that the image is put up.  By definition if
> something is used in fair use it is not a copyright infringement.  If
> something is determined to be fair use it will be so irrespective of the
> licensing situation.

I don't agree with this -- from my understanding, "fair use" depends
heavily on context, use, purpose, intent, etc., very subjective
things. Something which could be plausibly claimed as "fair use" in a
non-profit encyclopedia setting could easily be infringement if moved
into a slightly different setting.

Example: A court might buy that an image of Mickey Mouse for an
ad-free, non-profit encyclopedia article would be "fair use." If the
same content appeared on an ad-driven, for-profit website, though, a
court could easily say, "You're profiting off of their copyright,"
which would certainly hurt "fair use" claims. "Fair use" is very
context and use dependent.

> All downstream users should exercise their own diligence.  Although we
> try to use images that can be used safely by them they still know their
> own circumstances best.

I agree, which is why I find the current policy somewhat nonsensical
-- i.e. , "free use except for commercial use" requires no more or
less diligence by the end-user than "fair use" licensing.

> An illustration under a relatively free licence may still be fair use.

If it is "fair use" then you are ignoring the license alltogether and
it doesn't matter, of course. But I think a relatively-free license is
better than completely ignoring the license.

> This is an extreme example.  Even a litigiously protective organization
> will see a single still of Mickey Mouse as fair use.  It's effectively
> free advertising for them.  You're speculating about the thinking of a
> potential legal opponent who is speculating about what we are doing..
> At least give them credit for a minimal ability to be realistic.

You think so? I don't see any signs that this would be beyond being
"realistic." People have been sued or threatened to be sued over less,
and slightly more. Now whether they would win or not, who knows. But
if anybody is making a cent over Wikipedia's displaying of other's
copyrighted material... I'd be a little nervous. Even without it I'd
be a little nervous. "Realistic" and "reasonable" does not well
describe U.S. copyright litigation these days, in my view of things.

In my mind, the view that this won't be a major problem for Wikipedia
down the line -- and that Wikipedia will necessary win such a conflict
-- seems much like the teenager who is not yet aware of his own
mortality. There are more images labeled fair use than I can count --
1,000 deep and I am still in the A's. Anybody have a better way to
estimate it? What, 10,000-20,000 pieces of copyrighted content that we
use in defiance of their copyright holders, paying not a cent, hiding
behind the defensive, feeble, and unreliable "fair use" clause in a
nation where every congressman is preaching Big Media's jeremiad about
copyright infringement destroying the economy? Sounds to me like the
makings of one heck of a class-action suit...

FF


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Hi

body:
Let me try to follow your logic:

1. The post contains criticism of an admin.
Therefore:
2. It has no merit, since by definition, criticism of
an admin is either querulous or abusive and should be
ignored.

Well done! Great thinking!

--- JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:

> >From: Michael Turley <michael.turley at gmail.com>
> >
> >On 7/6/05, JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >From: "A. Nony Mouse"
> <temoforcomments4 at hotmail.com>
> > > >
> > > >I hereby propose an alternate policy:
> Page-based 3RR. If the same
> >phrase is
> > > >reverted from a page three times in 24 hours,
> then that PAGE shall be
> > > >locked for a week and all editors involved in
> the reverts shall receive
> >a
> > > >12-hour block to cool off.
> > >
> > > What a bad idea; it allows any editor to hold
> pages hostage essentially
> > > indefinitely, even if opposed by dozens of other
> editors.
> > >
> > > Jay.
> >
> >Perhaps you could add your thoughts for improvement
> instead of solely
> >criticism?
>
> Perhaps your suggestions regarding criticism would
> be better directed to the
> alternately querulous and abusive individuals who
> don't seem to be able to
> do much on Wikipedia except get themselves blocked,
> taken before the
> Arbitration Committee, or banned, but regularly
> inundate this list with
> complaints about how nothing on Wikipedia is working
> because of the admin
> cliques who are constantly abusing their powers.
>
> Oh, and here's my thought for improvement: "If it
> ain't broke, don't fix
> it".
>
> >If we kept the "standard" 3RR in addition to a new
> page based revert
> >rule, one editor certainly could not hold pages
> hostage.  I didn't see
> >anything in the previous proposal that suggested
> throwing away the old
> >(but actually pretty young) 3RR rule.
>
> A page that is constantly kept locked by the actions
> of one individual
> against a huge consensus of other editors is one
> held hostage.  See
> [[Apartheid]] for an example.
>
> Jay.
>

__________________________________
Discover Yahoo!
Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing and more. Check it out!
http://discover.yahoo.com/stayintouch.html


body:
You won't get any help from this group. You're going to be labeled a troll
and your complaints will be ignored.

Check the list archives to see how they treat people who dare question the
behavior of their fellow admins.

Signed,
Not One Of Them

>From: Norath Norath <norath2005 at yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] Abuse of admin powers by David Gerard and Snowspinner
>Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 10:21:45 -0700 (PDT)
>
>User:Norrath was block by David Gerard for "admitted
>sockpuppet and role account". This account is indeed a
>sockpuppet of a user in good standing, created to
>protest other blocks caaried out abusively by
>Snowspinner. The account was declared as a sockpuppet,
>in accordance with Wikipedia policy (which does not
>prohibit this) and the only edits were polite
>questions to Snowspinner about why he did not follow
>policy.
>
>It is outrageous that admins block users simply for
>making legitimate requests for explanation from other
>admins about why they did not follow policy.
>
>Please help.
>
>Norrath
>
>
>
>__________________________________
>Discover Yahoo!
>Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news and more. Check it out!
>http://discover.yahoo.com/mobile.html
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_________________________________________________________________
Don?t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: the features...

body:
Amgine:

> When has it been okay to experiment on the main page of a live site
> without so much as an explanation to the regular contributors to that
> site?

To quote Jimbo Wales, when he joined the site in November 2004: "I'm
drastically changing a lot of pages to illustrate to people that this is
a wiki." He then proceeded to alter key policy pages without prior
discussion. The nature of wikis is to be bold, experiment, and see
whether people agree with you. This is especially true for a site that
is still in beta. My change to the developing stories box was, compared
to the DPL changes that preceded it, minor, and hailed as an
improvement. Even you now acknowledge the usefulness of the extension:

> I'm not opposed to the inputbox extension in and of itself; it's a
> slick piece of code which answers a need often expressed. I do not
> think it is appropriate to use a complex nested template as it is
> currently implemented, but that could be resolved by the community.

Nobody reverted the change, and had anyone done so, I would not have
reverted back. In fact, you initially debated the change calmly
(including comments like "<shrug>"), and only got angry over time, to
the point that you left the project in a huff. I'm sorry if I made you
angry in the discussion, but I have found that this tends to happen with
you whenever I do *anything* on the site at all. But I won't go there.

You have removed the accusations against "bureaucrat Eloquence" from
your proposal. I welcome that you are trying to depersonalize the
debate. It is my belief, reflected also by various pages on Wikipedia et
al., that bold changes are OK if
- you make a judgment call as to whether the change is controversial,
- you are prepared to accept a revert and face discussion.

This is part of my understanding of how wikis should work, but I am and
have always been willing to discuss that. The problem seems to be that
any bold change, especially by me, is controversial to you, not because
of the nature of the change, but because of the boldness itself.

> There are currently 5 people supporting the creation of an Open
> English edition of Wikinews, which is obviously not entirely due to
> the recent differences regarding the DPL. Like any community at
> en.wikinews there are different opinions as to what the goals of the
> project may be, and some members of the community feel it is not going
> someplace they wish to continue to support.

People leave the English Wikipedia all the time. We don't set up an
"Open English Wikipedia" because of that. I will not enumerate the many,
many reasons why doing so in the case of Wikinews would be a bad idea.
My suggestion is this: If you do not want to work with the existing
Wikinews community, then please do set up your Open Newswiki as a
separate site. I provide wiki hosting at reasonable rates, if you are
interested ;-). So does Gabriel Wicke.

I would regret such a fork, of course. My alternative suggestion is to
join the Wikinews Future Talk, and to help us find ways to improve the
recent changes made to the site, as well as agree on general principles
of collaboration:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Future_Talk

Of course, you are also free to continue to pursue an English language
fork within Wikimedia. I for one will not participate in these
discussions unless there is any indication from the Board level that
such a thing would be supported.

Best,

Erik


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: the features...


from_name: David 'DJ' Hedley

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Weyes

body:
I back up his accusation. Infact, the entire mailing list would back up his
accusation. You do realise that you are doing the hard ban on
Enviroknot/Kurita77/yourself no good by all of this?
----- Original Message -----
From: "A. Nony Mouse" <temoforcomments4 at hotmail.com>
To: <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 6:52 AM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Weyes

> No, I am not.
>
> And I consider your unfounded accusation a personal attack.
>
> A. Nony Mouse
>
> >From: Phil Sandifer <sandifer at sbcglobal.net>
> >Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> >To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Weyes
> >Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 18:00:09 -0400
> >
> >
> >On Jul 5, 2005, at 5:19 PM, A. Nony Mouse wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>And I think your so-called "arguments" are pure garbage.
> >
> >
> >Of course you do - you're Enviroknot.
> >
> >-Snowspinner
> >_______________________________________________
> >WikiEN-l mailing list
> >WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Start dating right now with FREE Match.com membership! http://match.msn.ie
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Abuse of admin powers by David Gerard and Snowspinner.
	Next steps?

body:
I'm not exactly sure what I expected in joining this
list, but I have made the complaint that I have been
blocked indefinately for doing nothing more than
asking an admin why he blocked two other users.
I have received no useful advice here, only faceicious
or fallacious comments. The admins in question have
raised random and erroneous justifications for their
actions, which do not hold up to any scrutiny.
What should be my next step in trying to address this
problem?
Norrath

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


from_name: JAY JG

body:
>From: fun at thingy.apana.org.au (David Gerard)
>
>Mark Ryan (ultrablue at gmail.com) [050706 16:44]:
>
> > I should point out that I don't understand Jay's comment. I thought it
> > was an attack directed at David Gerard, not A Nony Mouse.
>
>
>And I thought it was wordplay, not an attack on me ...

David was right, it was merely wordplay.

Jay.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Hi

body:
On 7/6/05, A. Nony Mouse <temoforcomments4 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Seems to be.
>
> Happens all the time on Islam-related and Sex-relate articles all the time -
> the moment certain editors start an edit war and think they're going to get
> close to breaking 3RR, they start sending off messages to sympathetic
> editors asking them to join in the revert war.
>
> It's also how we get most of the sockpuppet complaints - there are a number
> of users on Wikipedia whose first instinct when challenged is to scream that
> their opponent "must" be a sockpuppet of some other user who previously
> opposed them either on the same article or somewhere else.
>
> And yes, for reference, 3RR does indeed essentially mean that if two editors
> decide an article should look a certain way, and only one opposes them, then
> the two editors "win" unless more editors come along or it winds up in
> Arbitration.
>
> Yet another case of seemingly "neutral" policies being a disaster.
>
> I hereby propose an alternate policy: Page-based 3RR. If the same phrase is
> reverted from a page three times in 24 hours, then that PAGE shall be locked
> for a week and all editors involved in the reverts shall receive a 12-hour
> block to cool off.
>
> What do you think? I know it's not perfect (it still doesn't address WHICH
> version should be locked to, but that's a losing decision either way) but it
> gets us away from the current "hey if we get one more guy than they have
> then we can provoke an edit war, get them all 3RR blocked, and we're free
> and clear to make the article say what we want it to say" nonsense and into
> a more neutral stance.
>
> A. Nony Mouse

Interesting, but impractical in current form.

The biggest problem I see is the 12 hour blocks for all editors
involved.  I don't want someone else's second, third, or fourth later
revert penalizing the first user for a good faith edit.  It would
introduce a collective punishment culture that's worse than whatever
low level of individual punishment culture we have now.

Second, locking an article for a week seems about 6 1/2 or more days
too long.  Between one and four hours would probably get the point
across well enough.  That's the real goal, isn't it?  To let everyone
know it's time to cool off a bit?

--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused


from_name: SPUI

body:
David Gerard wrote:
> Norath Norath (norath2005 at yahoo.com) [050707 06:44]:
>
>
>>User:Norrath was block by David Gerard for "admitted
>>sockpuppet and role account". This account is indeed a
>>sockpuppet of a user in good standing, created to
>>protest other blocks caaried out abusively by
>>Snowspinner. The account was declared as a sockpuppet,
>>in accordance with Wikipedia policy (which does not
>>prohibit this) and the only edits were polite
>>questions to Snowspinner about why he did not follow
>>policy.
>
>
>
> Role accounts are not allowed on en:.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppet#Multiple_accounts
says nothing of that sort. "not officially sanctioned" is very different
from "not allowed". In any case, it doesn't make sense to block this
user, something that should take precedence over any supposed policy
violations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Some_trolls
is also over the top. I am involved in trolling. I troll various people
online sometimes.


body:
David Gerard wrote:
> If your questions are of value you can ask them with your name. Otherwise
> you're just attempting to troll from cover.

I see no evidence of trolling, simply a legitimate question. Maybe you
have a different definition of trolling. Try adding "disagreeing with
the people in charge" to [[trolling]] and see how long it is before
you're reverted.


body:
> [[meta:Role account]] (redirected from [[Wikipedia:Role account]]

Neither of those mentions a prohibition on them.  If there was, there
would be a policy page somewhere, but there's not one.  You don't have
the authority to invent policy on a whim.

> If your questions are of value you can ask them with your name. Otherwise
> you're just attempting to troll from cover.

That's a nice logical fallacy, ad hominem.

----------------------------------------------
Nathan J. Yoder
http://www.gummibears.nu/
http://www.gummibears.nu/files/njyoder_pgp.key
----------------------------------------------


from_name: Phil Sandifer

body:
I'll decline, but is "willfully misreading claims to construct straw
man arguments and thus have a position of alleged moral superiority"
in the article? Because if not, it really should be.

As for your other complaint, Wikipedia policy pages are descriptive.
When we are faced with a new problem, we do not spend a month or more
working out a policy and then go to look if the problem is still
around so we can fix it. Rather, we fix the problem, and if a
particular style of solution to a particular style of problem becomes
regular, we might get around to writing a policy page about it, but
we're more likely to go watch TV.

-Snowspinner

On Jul 6, 2005, at 5:16 PM, SPUI wrote:

> David Gerard wrote:
>
>> If your questions are of value you can ask them with your name.
>> Otherwise
>> you're just attempting to troll from cover.
>>
>
> I see no evidence of trolling, simply a legitimate question. Maybe
> you have a different definition of trolling. Try adding
> "disagreeing with the people in charge" to [[trolling]] and see how
> long it is before you're reverted.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [Foundation-l] License that cannot be used in advertisements

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> GerardM wrote:
>
>> There are plenty of lovely pictures of this event. The only
>> restriction is in the use of the photos. The pictures can be used for
>> practically any use except for the fact that they may not be used in
>> advertisements. So, it is not allowed to advertise for baby-formula
>> and show a picture of little princess Alexia.
>>
> Strictly speaking that restriction would be contrary to GFDL.

I don't think this is a problem, actually.  I can only speak about US
law and especially California law, which I looked into a few years back.

If I take a photo of Tiger Woods and release it under the GNU FDL, this
does not imply that I am warranting that reusers can use the picture in
advertising.  Indeed, they cannot.  Tiger Woods owns the rights to the
use of his image in an advertising context, and of course he makes a lot
of money from this as a global celebrity.

This is *not* a problem with the GNU FDL.

Remember this: the GNU FDL does not guarantee any _special_ rights to
reusers, it merely is a grant of _some_ of the rights granted to the
copyright holder under copyright law.

If you read the text of the GNU FDL carefully, it is quite clear on this
point.

> I doubt it.  Tracing and evaluating these usages, and determining what
> is advertizing is probably more than anyone wants to do.  Allowing our
> material to be used in any context saves a lot of problems.

But the disallowing here is not affected by the GNU FDL.

> Is this a matter of copyright or of the law about the Royal Family?
> What would be the status of an unofficial picture taken through a
> papparazo's telephoto lens if he chose to realease that picture under GFDL?

I think this is exactly the right question to ask.  In general, one
can't use photos of people for advertising without their explicit
permission, and this is quite a different matter from copyright law.

--Jimbo


body:
Phil Sandifer wrote:
> I'll decline, but is "willfully misreading claims to construct straw
> man arguments and thus have a position of alleged moral superiority"  in
> the article? Because if not, it really should be.
>
> As for your other complaint, Wikipedia policy pages are descriptive.
> When we are faced with a new problem, we do not spend a month or more
> working out a policy and then go to look if the problem is still  around
> so we can fix it. Rather, we fix the problem, and if a  particular style
> of solution to a particular style of problem becomes  regular, we might
> get around to writing a policy page about it, but  we're more likely to
> go watch TV.

I see no problem here. Someone with the username "Involved in trolling"
made what appear to be good faith edits (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Involved_in_trolling
), and was blocked without an explanation. I'm not bringing this up
because it's against policy but because it doesn't make sense.


body:
> When we are faced with a new problem, we do not spend a month or more
> working out a policy and then go to look if the problem is still
> around so we can fix it. Rather, we fix the problem, and if a
> particular style of solution to a particular style of problem becomes
> regular, we might get around to writing a policy page about it, but
> we're more likely to go watch TV.

So in other words, you think admins should have the ability to invent
new policies on the spot.  Why don't you propose a new policy that
allows that and see what kind of response you get?  I doubt you will,
because you'd end up getting a consensus in opposition to it.

Someone commenting and asking questions about why someone blocked is
hardly a 'problem' and doesn't warrant action, it's just plain
censorship of dissenting views.  In fact, I challenge you to propose a
policy to ban people from doing that, but you wouldn't do that either
since you know it'd get rejected as well.

No matter how you look at it, these actions are not in accordance to
any sort of consensus, they're entirely indicative of a bureaucracy.

----------------------------------------------
Nathan J. Yoder
http://www.gummibears.nu/
http://www.gummibears.nu/files/njyoder_pgp.key
----------------------------------------------


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Hi

body:
>From: "A. Nony Mouse" <temoforcomments4 at hotmail.com>
>
>I hereby propose an alternate policy: Page-based 3RR. If the same phrase is
>reverted from a page three times in 24 hours, then that PAGE shall be
>locked for a week and all editors involved in the reverts shall receive a
>12-hour block to cool off.

What a bad idea; it allows any editor to hold pages hostage essentially
indefinitely, even if opposed by dozens of other editors.

Jay.


subject:
[Foundation-l] Issues regarding admin(s?) on wikinews,	effects:
	globally

body:
Ilya Haykinson wrote:
> Ok, I'm really confused. There has indeed been some heated editing on
> Wikinews which caused the departure of one admin (who I hope will come
> back someday) and the temporary banning of another for violating the
> 3RR -- not an unusual thing.

Why is 3RR regarded as bannable policy on Wikinews?  It seems unlikely
to be needed at this early stage, and certainly if it was adopted
incautiously from English Wikipedia, this is a decision which should be
reconsidered.

Blocking an admin at such an early stage, and for such a trivial matter,
strikes me as something which should be generally avoided.

Kyle had previously written:
>>Erik/Eloquence/Xirzon are the one's I've been told

It is confusing and unfortunate that Erik uses different names in
different places, but it has been so for a long time, and is not
malicious at all.

Erik - in real life
Eloquence - on the wikis
Xirzon - on irc

I don't think this is a big problem, although as I say, it is confusing
and unfortunate.

--Jimbo


from_name: Michael Turley

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Hi

body:
On 7/6/05, JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >From: "A. Nony Mouse" <temoforcomments4 at hotmail.com>
> >
> >I hereby propose an alternate policy: Page-based 3RR. If the same phrase is
> >reverted from a page three times in 24 hours, then that PAGE shall be
> >locked for a week and all editors involved in the reverts shall receive a
> >12-hour block to cool off.
>
> What a bad idea; it allows any editor to hold pages hostage essentially
> indefinitely, even if opposed by dozens of other editors.
>
> Jay.

Perhaps you could add your thoughts for improvement instead of solely criticism?

If we kept the "standard" 3RR in addition to a new page based revert
rule, one editor certainly could not hold pages hostage.  I didn't see
anything in the previous proposal that suggested throwing away the old
(but actually pretty young) 3RR rule.

--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused


from_name: A. Nony Mouse

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Weyes

body:
Whether or not you choose to use the name "Enviroknot" as your own personal
bugbear is irrelevant.

Your accusing me of that is like the fat assholes in Washington who shout
"terrorism" every time they need to justify something and it's about as
convincing.

The behavior of too many Wikipedia admins in these situations has been
beyond deplorable. Your arguments about what these users should do is the
equivalent of a rapist claiming that if a woman didn't want to be raped, she
shouldn't have work tight clothes.

And your continued nonsense and personal attacks on me are not going to stop
me from standing up for the ordinary users of Wikipedia, even if I can't
trust admins like you enough to reveal my OWN identity because I know you or
one of your friends would block me in retaliation for speaking the truth.

A. Nony Mouse

>From: "David 'DJ' Hedley" <spyders at btinternet.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Weyes
>Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 16:48:06 +0100
>
>I back up his accusation. Infact, the entire mailing list would back up his
>accusation. You do realise that you are doing the hard ban on
>Enviroknot/Kurita77/yourself no good by all of this?
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "A. Nony Mouse" <temoforcomments4 at hotmail.com>
>To: <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 6:52 AM
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Weyes
>
>
> > No, I am not.
> >
> > And I consider your unfounded accusation a personal attack.
> >
> > A. Nony Mouse
> >
> > >From: Phil Sandifer <sandifer at sbcglobal.net>
> > >Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> > >To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> > >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Weyes
> > >Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 18:00:09 -0400
> > >
> > >
> > >On Jul 5, 2005, at 5:19 PM, A. Nony Mouse wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>And I think your so-called "arguments" are pure garbage.
> > >
> > >
> > >Of course you do - you're Enviroknot.
> > >
> > >-Snowspinner

_________________________________________________________________
Go where quality Irish singles meet - get FREE Match.com membership!
http://match.msn.ie


from_name: David Gerard

body:
Mark Ryan (ultrablue at gmail.com) [050706 16:44]:

> I should point out that I don't understand Jay's comment. I thought it
> was an attack directed at David Gerard, not A Nony Mouse.

And I thought it was wordplay, not an attack on me ...

- d.


subject: [Wikinews-l] [Fwd: Re: [Foundation-l] the features...]

body:
Amgine wrote:
> The governance issues are not the basic reason for the Open English
> proposal (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Start_a_new_edition)

"Open English" is not a language, and so this is not the appropriate
forum to propose or promote such a concept.  Even so, the concerns
raised should of course be considered and dealt with if possible.

I just now read:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Open_English
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikinews/Open_English
and the relevant portion of
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Start_a_new_edition

and I still don't quite get what this dispute is all about.

Let me see if I can state some principles which I think that everyone
involved can agree with fully:

1. Wikinews should be open and welcoming to any contributor

2. Wikinews should not have special complications which are offputting
to newcomers

3. We should work hard to balance two goals which are both important,
but which have significant tensions between them:
	a. Empowering people to do local news
	b. Keeping the site relevant and interesting for all people

4.  If a newcomer comes to Wikinews and makes a mistake (i.e. no proper
{{develop}} or {{publish}} tag), then their work should not be lost or
hidden, but should instead be highlighted somewhere useful so that other
users can help the newcomer learn.

5. This one is perhaps the hardest to write in an NPOV manner: Erik is
not the dictator of Wikinews, and furthermore, everyone can acknowledge
that he has said so himself, repeatedly.  We can all further
acknowledge, even Erik, that he acts boldly and with conviction at times
and that this has at times irritated people who felt (fairly or
unfairly) that he was trying to be a dictator.

----

Now, I pulled most of those principles directly from the Open English
proposal, and added the one about Erik because I hope it will be helpful
to just state that issue plainly and openly.

If everyone agrees, at least roughly, with all the above principles,
then what's the point of Open English?

--Jimbo


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Fastfission wrote:

>On 7/6/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I agree that fair use is essentially defensive in nature, but a fair use
>>is that from the time that the image is put up.  By definition if
>>something is used in fair use it is not a copyright infringement.  If
>>something is determined to be fair use it will be so irrespective of the
>>licensing situation.
>>
>>
>I don't agree with this -- from my understanding, "fair use" depends
>heavily on context, use, purpose, intent, etc., very subjective
>things. Something which could be plausibly claimed as "fair use" in a
>non-profit encyclopedia setting could easily be infringement if moved
>into a slightly different setting.
>
>Example: A court might buy that an image of Mickey Mouse for an
>ad-free, non-profit encyclopedia article would be "fair use." If the
>same content appeared on an ad-driven, for-profit website, though, a
>court could easily say, "You're profiting off of their copyright,"
>which would certainly hurt "fair use" claims. "Fair use" is very
>context and use dependent.
>
We don't really disagree that much.  The criteria that you mention are
at the heart of the matter, and they are subjective.  If we claim fair
use that claim must be clearly stated.  The downstream user can take
that as a warning.  Ideally we want downstream to be able to use things,
but we can't possibly imagine every permutation of use that could occur.

>>All downstream users should exercise their own diligence.  Although we
>>try to use images that can be used safely by them they still know their
>>own circumstances best.
>>
>>
>I agree, which is why I find the current policy somewhat nonsensical
>-- i.e. , "free use except for commercial use" requires no more or
>less diligence by the end-user than "fair use" licensing.
>
Even fully free licensing should not absolve him from due diligence.

>>An illustration under a relatively free licence may still be fair use.
>>
>>
>If it is "fair use" then you are ignoring the license alltogether and
>it doesn't matter, of course. But I think a relatively-free license is
>better than completely ignoring the license.
>
I don't suggest ignoring the licence.  Fair use and licensed use can be
determined separately.  Neither invalidates the other.  If both apply
our use is strenghthened.

>>This is an extreme example.  Even a litigiously protective organization
>>will see a single still of Mickey Mouse as fair use.  It's effectively
>>free advertising for them.  You're speculating about the thinking of a
>>potential legal opponent who is speculating about what we are doing..
>>At least give them credit for a minimal ability to be realistic.
>>
>>
>You think so? I don't see any signs that this would be beyond being
>"realistic." People have been sued or threatened to be sued over less,
>and slightly more. Now whether they would win or not, who knows. But
>if anybody is making a cent over Wikipedia's displaying of other's
>copyrighted material... I'd be a little nervous. Even without it I'd
>be a little nervous. "Realistic" and "reasonable" does not well
>describe U.S. copyright litigation these days, in my view of things.
>
AFAIK we have not yet received any official take-down orders.  That's
disturbing in its own peculiar way.  Receiving a few of these gives us
an idea of which way the wind is blowing.  Without them we are only
speculating about what might happen.  Until we receive such notices it
should be enough to be reasonable.  Winnability should not enter into
the discussion until after the notice.  So far, case reports don't give
a conclusive picture, but some decisions have been favorable.  I'm
probably more optimistic than you.

>In my mind, the view that this won't be a major problem for Wikipedia
>down the line -- and that Wikipedia will necessary win such a conflict
>-- seems much like the teenager who is not yet aware of his own
>mortality.
>
The teenage technique of ignoring the problem is not dependable.  Any
use of fair use material should be done with wide open eyes.

>There are more images labeled fair use than I can count --
>1,000 deep and I am still in the A's. Anybody have a better way to
>estimate it?
>
Find the number of total pages considered and extrapolate.  The "A"s are
probably better covered than most letters.  The size of the task
discourages people before they get any further, and they just give up
before looking at the letter "B".  The letter "V" probably still stands
for "virginal" :-)

>What, 10,000-20,000 pieces of copyrighted content that we
>use in defiance of their copyright holders, paying not a cent, hiding
>behind the defensive, feeble, and unreliable "fair use" clause in a
>nation where every congressman is preaching Big Media's jeremiad about
>copyright infringement destroying the economy? Sounds to me like the
>makings of one heck of a class-action suit...
>
>
Ignorance is not defiance.  You can't defy without understanding what
you're doing.  I don't think that the fair use clause is feeble at all.
Have the media declared their conflict of interest.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Hi

body:
>From: Michael Turley <michael.turley at gmail.com>
>
>On 7/6/05, JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >From: "A. Nony Mouse" <temoforcomments4 at hotmail.com>
> > >
> > >I hereby propose an alternate policy: Page-based 3RR. If the same
>phrase is
> > >reverted from a page three times in 24 hours, then that PAGE shall be
> > >locked for a week and all editors involved in the reverts shall receive
>a
> > >12-hour block to cool off.
> >
> > What a bad idea; it allows any editor to hold pages hostage essentially
> > indefinitely, even if opposed by dozens of other editors.
> >
> > Jay.
>
>Perhaps you could add your thoughts for improvement instead of solely
>criticism?

Perhaps your suggestions regarding criticism would be better directed to the
alternately querulous and abusive individuals who don't seem to be able to
do much on Wikipedia except get themselves blocked, taken before the
Arbitration Committee, or banned, but regularly inundate this list with
complaints about how nothing on Wikipedia is working because of the admin
cliques who are constantly abusing their powers.

Oh, and here's my thought for improvement: "If it ain't broke, don't fix
it".

>If we kept the "standard" 3RR in addition to a new page based revert
>rule, one editor certainly could not hold pages hostage.  I didn't see
>anything in the previous proposal that suggested throwing away the old
>(but actually pretty young) 3RR rule.

A page that is constantly kept locked by the actions of one individual
against a huge consensus of other editors is one held hostage.  See
[[Apartheid]] for an example.

Jay.


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: Ladino Wiki ( [Wikipedia-l] New Language Ladino

body:
Hi Ilooy,

I have a few questions.

First of all: is Ladino your native language? If not, what is the
purpose of this request?
Second of all: What orthography do you plan on using? First of all
there is the division of scripts: Latin vs Hebrew. Hebrew seems to
have more adherents in Israel from what I can tell, but it seems that
worldwide people prefer the Latin alphabet (although this wasn't true
a century ago). Then, if you decided to use Latin, there is yet
another problem... there are different ways to write Djudeo-Espanyol
in Latin. I personally think Hebrew would be better, but then I am not
a member of the Ladino-speaking community.
Third of all: If you use Hebrew, would you mark vowels? Would you
write as Ladino is traditionally written in Hebrew letters, or would
you write it as if it were Hebrew language (you can see this done by
some people on some websites, all in Israel)? Some people have said
that Hebrew script without vowels is not well-suited to writing the
Ladino language. However, as with other Indo-European languages
written in abjads (ie, consonant-only alphabets), such as Farsi,
Pashto, Urdu, Sindhi, and even Mozarabic (now extinct), it seems to be
easily readable to native speakers, if not to learners. However unlike
many languages using abjads, Ladino vowels are actually written...
there's just no real distinction made between "o"/"u" and "i"/"e", and
also between "p"/"f". So a word such as "Ladino" could also be read as
"Ladenu", "Ladeno", or "Ladinu", and a word such as "festivales" could
be read as "pistibalis" as well. However, as none of those are real
words in Djudeo-espanyol, it's not a problem in most cases.

Mark

On 05/07/05, ilooy <ilooy.gaon at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey all!
> I'd like to formally request a Ladino Wiki
> lad.wikipedia.org and lad.wiktionary.org
> for the Ladino/Judeo-Spanish with ISO 639
> code of 'lad'. The Ladino Komunita is quite
> alive and going through a renewal of sorts.
> There are live broadcasts in Ladino in Spanish
> and Israeli radio/tv and quite few periodicals
> are written in it.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladino_language
>
> With regards,
> Jay B.
> en:User:ILVI
>
> --
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/How_to_start_a_new_wikipedia
> Find your language
> "Go to your language's Wikipedia on List of Wikipedias. If your
> language is not on the list, then contact wikipedia-l
> (http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l) to ask for
> its creation. Then, list it on requests for new languages. In your
> posting, you should list some information. This might include the name
> of the language, the language code, and the number of people who can
> speak it."
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Hi

body:
On 7/6/05, JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >From: Michael Turley <michael.turley at gmail.com>
> >
> >On 7/6/05, JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >From: "A. Nony Mouse" <temoforcomments4 at hotmail.com>
> > > >
> > > >I hereby propose an alternate policy: Page-based 3RR. If the same
> >phrase is
> > > >reverted from a page three times in 24 hours, then that PAGE shall be
> > > >locked for a week and all editors involved in the reverts shall receive
> >a
> > > >12-hour block to cool off.
> > >
> > > What a bad idea; it allows any editor to hold pages hostage essentially
> > > indefinitely, even if opposed by dozens of other editors.
> > >
> > > Jay.
> >
> >Perhaps you could add your thoughts for improvement instead of solely
> >criticism?
>
> Perhaps your suggestions regarding criticism would be better directed to the
> alternately querulous and abusive individuals who don't seem to be able to
> do much on Wikipedia except get themselves blocked, taken before the
> Arbitration Committee, or banned, but regularly inundate this list with
> complaints about how nothing on Wikipedia is working because of the admin
> cliques who are constantly abusing their powers.

In case you haven't been reading them, my suggestions have been
directed to those people as well lately.  I surmise that this may be
related to why we got a good suggestion from an email account that has
been doing more complaining than suggesting lately.  I suggest you
drop any stereotypes you may hold and respond with a real contribution
when a real suggestion arrives, rather than being solely negative and
dismissive.

> Oh, and here's my thought for improvement: "If it ain't broke, don't fix
> it".
>
> >If we kept the "standard" 3RR in addition to a new page based revert
> >rule, one editor certainly could not hold pages hostage.  I didn't see
> >anything in the previous proposal that suggested throwing away the old
> >(but actually pretty young) 3RR rule.
>
> A page that is constantly kept locked by the actions of one individual
> against a huge consensus of other editors is one held hostage.  See
> [[Apartheid]] for an example.
>
> Jay.

Why do you permit the hostage of the article, rather than addressing
the single editor?  How is it possible that a single user can keep a
page locked when he can only revert 3 times before being blocked, yet
the "huge consensus" could certainly revert many times that number of
times?  What policies or procedures do you suggest to correct this
existing deficiency that isn't helped by the "ain't broke, don't fix
it" policy now in place?

--

Please don't criticize people for searching for alternate paths to a
solution, especially if they're people who you don't think have
contributed in a positive manner recently.  We should be encouraging
proper behavior at every opportunity.

--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Validation feature

body:
Magnus Manske (magnus.manske at web.de) [050706 18:13]:
> David Gerard wrote:

> >Brion's post of problems with it (incomplete) is at:
> >    http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2005-June/030325.html

> I consider at least the HTML safety issue as "fixed". The "management"
> page is not too comfy indeed, but it will only be used to add topics,
> which is about a dozen or so total, by experienced people (no newbies).

Mmm. Playing with it on test.leuksman.com, I could get the interface to do
what I wanted. And presumably the interface will only be used at all *very*
rarely - presumably by someone at steward level to put in a
consensus-agreed list of topics (with links in the text) and ranges.

- d.