from_name: Neil Harris

subject: [WikiEN-l] Phone calls in office

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

   "Hello, you've reached the French office of Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia!"

    "Please listen to the following options:"

   "For press enquiries, dial 1"

   "For contact information, dial 2"

   "For more information about Wikipedia and its mission, dial 3"

   "To speak to a person at the Wikipedia France office, please hold on
the line..."

   <15 secs of hold music>

The intro message lets them know that they have not called the Red Cross
or the White House.
1 puts them straight through
2 and 3 play a short recorded message with the appropriate info,
removing the need for human intervention.
The next bit reiterates who they have called in case they didn't get it
the first time, and lets them know they are not going to be talking to a
helpline, again helping them to refocus their mind.
The 15 seconds of hold music are gently discouraging to crank callers, a
fair few of which will hang up...

Once they've been through the pre-screening process, anyone who's
serious enough to have kept on the line gets put straight through.

-- Neil


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

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

body:
Gordon Joly wrote:
> At 21:44 +0000 11/3/06, Tony Sidaway wrote:
>
>> On 3/11/06, Gordon Joly <gordon.joly at pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>>>  At 18:32 +0100 11/3/06, Carl F?rstenberg wrote:
>>>  >I think the problem people have with this
>>> policy, is that few know who Danny
>>>  >is (who is Danny?)
>>>  >_______________________________________________
>>>
>>>  Jimbo's familiar.
>>>
>> My master through his art foresees the danger
>> That you, his friend, are in; and sends me forth--
>> For else his project dies--to keep thee living.
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>
>
> Very well put. Is that original?
>
> :-)
>
> Gordo
>
>
It's from a speech by Ariel in The Tempest.

For the conspiracy fans here, the next bit is:

While you here do snoring lie,
Open-eyed conspiracy
His time doth take.
If of life you keep a care,
Shake off slumber, and beware:
Awake, awake!

-- Neil


from_name: guru brahma

subject: [WikiEN-l] Few questions - on RFA

body:
I have seen cases where conflict has been instrumental in failuree of an RFA - this happens primarily when the opposing party in the conflict happens to be a trusted and well-respected admin/editor with mre activity. Oppose votes are too many in such cases and disproportionate to the offence involved. This could be despite the fact that the matter is not black-and-white but grey or that this person was a newbie at that time.

  regards,
  Gurubrahma.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] titsup.com

body:
I have seen the above word used a lot of times in the past one week on this mailing list and wondered what it means. Anyways, I started an article [[titsup.com]] as I failed to find an easy reference. I request other editors to contribute to it. Am sorry if using this mailing list is inappropriate for the purpose, but considering that we had discussions about articles on this mailing list, I think it is not way too out-of-sync.

  Thanks in advance,
  Gurubrahma.

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


from_name: Justin Cormack

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

body:
On 14 Mar 2006, at 10:21, guru brahma wrote:

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

Its not clear that you could even resize a CC-ND image under the
license...

Most countries have other means of protection if someone uses an
image of you for
things that are problematic, regardless of copyright.

Justinc


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

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

body:
On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 06:01:54 -0500, you wrote:

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

The articles on speed limits, speed cameras and so on are mostly
written by people with an agenda against them :-)
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


from_name: Steve Bennett

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

body:
On 3/14/06, guru brahma <wikibra at yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> I am sorry to say this, but it appears ridiculous to classify admins as a separate class of users. Being an admin doesn't give any extra "editing" privileges. The privileges that we get as admins may be at the most abused to prevent someone from doing something - blocking, protecting etc but do not give a free rein. Also, WP:AN takes care of violations asap. I believe admins are same as other users - only difference being that those afflicted with adminitis would feel that "all users are equal but admins are more equal than others."

It is my experience that admins are perceived as having some sort of
authority. Maybe not a lot, but there is a difference when an admin
offers his opinion on the interpretation of some policy. It shouldn't
be like that, but it's probably unavoidable.

All we can ask is that admins be sensitive to that fact, and attempt
to explicitly disclaim any such false authority arising purely from
adminship. Of course, most admins have a fair bit of experience on
Wikipedia and therefore *do* know the policies better than *most*
people, but not necessarily better than *everyone*.

Steve


list: foundation-l

from_name: Samir Mansour

subject: [Foundation-l] (no subject)

body: thanks so mush for accepting my superscription


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] (no subject)


from_name: Fastfission

body:
The definition of "derivative" in the license seems to refer to only
very "large" derivatives (i.e., translating it into another language)
rather than small modifications. But I agree that the notion of a
derivative work is vague enough to make me uncomfortable. For example,
syncing music to a moving image is explicitly a "derivative work" in
this instance, which seems to imply that you can't use a no-deriv work
as part of another work, which would seem to rule out the idea of
taking an image from Wikipedia and using it practically anywhere else.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.5/legalcode :

"Derivative Work" means a work based upon the Work or upon the Work
and other pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical
arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version,
sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any
other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted,
except that a work that constitutes a Collective Work will not be
considered a Derivative Work for the purpose of this License. For the
avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical composition or sound
recording, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a
moving image ("synching") will be considered a Derivative Work for the
purpose of this License.

FF

On 3/14/06, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
>
> On 14 Mar 2006, at 10:21, guru brahma wrote:
>
> > Sometime back, there was a discussion about the unusual license of
> > http://www.panopedia.org/index.php/Panopedia. Within the context of
> > Wikipedia, I was wondering if this license makes any sense at all.
> > I think there are some instances where this MAY make sense. For
> > example, images tagged as GFDL-self could be tagged this way. If I
> > make an image, that is, take a photograph of a leader or an actor I
> > adore and do not want it to be photoshopped into some unknown
> > monstrosity, I would be more comfortable in using Creative Commons
> > Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 license. The same would apply to personal
> > images that I upload on to my userpage. The last thing I want to
> > see in my image my moustache disappear or a beard appear ;). Any
> > thoughts which other areas this admittedly over-restrictive license
> > can be used if at all allowed on wikipedia?
>
> Its not clear that you could even resize a CC-ND image under the
> license...
>
> Most countries have other means of protection if someone uses an
> image of you for
> things that are problematic, regardless of copyright.
>
> Justinc
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Delirium

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

body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:

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

No Polish nationalists editing articles on Poland.  No strong religious
believers (or strong atheists) editing articles on religion.  Etc.

All do have some degree of merit---I would be more skeptical of an
article on Christianity written by the Pope than I would be of one
written by someone relatively neutral.  But are we actually going to
have policies like that?

-Mark


body:
Actually -- I now see (right after sending the last one, of course)
that I must qualify this considerably. An encyclopedia is listed as a
"collective work", in use in the context of a collective work is not
considered derivative. So that's not a problem, I suppose.

FF

On 3/14/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> The definition of "derivative" in the license seems to refer to only
> very "large" derivatives (i.e., translating it into another language)
> rather than small modifications. But I agree that the notion of a
> derivative work is vague enough to make me uncomfortable. For example,
> syncing music to a moving image is explicitly a "derivative work" in
> this instance, which seems to imply that you can't use a no-deriv work
> as part of another work, which would seem to rule out the idea of
> taking an image from Wikipedia and using it practically anywhere else.
>
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.5/legalcode :
>
> "Derivative Work" means a work based upon the Work or upon the Work
> and other pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical
> arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version,
> sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any
> other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted,
> except that a work that constitutes a Collective Work will not be
> considered a Derivative Work for the purpose of this License. For the
> avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical composition or sound
> recording, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a
> moving image ("synching") will be considered a Derivative Work for the
> purpose of this License.
>
> FF
>
> On 3/14/06, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 14 Mar 2006, at 10:21, guru brahma wrote:
> >
> > > Sometime back, there was a discussion about the unusual license of
> > > http://www.panopedia.org/index.php/Panopedia. Within the context of
> > > Wikipedia, I was wondering if this license makes any sense at all.
> > > I think there are some instances where this MAY make sense. For
> > > example, images tagged as GFDL-self could be tagged this way. If I
> > > make an image, that is, take a photograph of a leader or an actor I
> > > adore and do not want it to be photoshopped into some unknown
> > > monstrosity, I would be more comfortable in using Creative Commons
> > > Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 license. The same would apply to personal
> > > images that I upload on to my userpage. The last thing I want to
> > > see in my image my moustache disappear or a beard appear ;). Any
> > > thoughts which other areas this admittedly over-restrictive license
> > > can be used if at all allowed on wikipedia?
> >
> > Its not clear that you could even resize a CC-ND image under the
> > license...
> >
> > Most countries have other means of protection if someone uses an
> > image of you for
> > things that are problematic, regardless of copyright.
> >
> > Justinc
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Few questions - on RFA

body:
On 3/14/06, guru brahma <wikibra at yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> I have seen cases where conflict has been instrumental in failuree of an RFA - this happens primarily when the opposing party in the conflict happens to be a trusted and well-respected admin/editor with mre activity. Oppose votes are too many in such cases and disproportionate to the offence involved. This could be despite the fact that the matter is not black-and-white but grey or that this person was a newbie at that time.

If it was easier to desysop admins, maybe it wouldn't have to be like
that. People probably vote no because they're afraid that the admin
will continue the same conflict, but with power. Why not wait and see
if they do, then desysop them if it's unmanageable...

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] titsup.com

body:
guru brahma wrote:
> I have seen the above word used a lot of times in the past one week on this mailing list and wondered what it means. Anyways, I started an article [[titsup.com]] as I failed to find an easy reference. I request other editors to contribute to it. Am sorry if using this mailing list is inappropriate for the purpose, but considering that we had discussions about articles on this mailing list, I think it is not way too out-of-sync.
>
>   Thanks in advance,
>   Gurubrahma.
>
>
Perhaps this term should best be redirected to ''[[The Register]]'', and
then mentioned in the general section on ''Register'' jargon?

-- Neil


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

body:
On 3/14/06, SPUI <drspui at gmail.com> wrote:
> So are we now going to ban road lobbyists from writing articles on
> global warming?

What is a "road lobbyist"?

Steve


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Foundation-l] Fair use images

body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:

>On 3/12/06, W. Guy Finley <wgfinley at dynascope.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Asserting "fair use" of an image is a nuanced legal concept that many
>>editors cannot grasp so I feel something is needed to help rectify the
>>situation.
>>
>>
>There's far too much of a focus on what's legal and what isn't, and
>far too little focus on what's free and what isn't.
>
You can't separate the two.  If it was perfectly legal in copyright law
for anybody to upload anything we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Ec


subject: [Foundation-l] Fair use images


body:
On 14 Mar 2006, at 12:19, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>>
>> Its not clear that you could even resize a CC-ND image under the
>> license...
>>
> I don't see why you wouldn't be allowed to resize using standard html
> commands.  There's no permanence to the image created, so it's not a
> derivative work.  What would be the fixed "size" of the image anyway?
> Numbers measured in pixels?  I'd say there's no way such a resizing
> would be protected.

I was thinking of say for print, where a rescaled, colour adjusted and
screened version might be considered derivative.

Justinc


from_name: Erik Moeller

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

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

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

The only thing you're going to accomplish is that said pedophiles will
continue to edit the article without admitting that they are
pedophiles. What deters most people from violating the rules - the
risk of losing a reputation - does not exist for them. They are
already the single most hated group in society, what do they have to
lose? So they will simply create a new identity and edit again.

At least when they identify as pedophiles, we know that we have to
watch out for their bias. So the question is: What do you care more
about? That some media outlet doesn't pick up the fact that "tHERE ARE
PEDOPHiles  IN WIKIPEDIA oHM YGOD!!" or that our articles are neutral
and well-sourced? If it's the former, you're making the typical
mistake of thinking that hiding something will make it go away, only
to have it blow up in your face when you don't expect it. If it's the
latter, forcing people to hide their convictions is not a good way to
go about it, no matter how despicable you may find them.

Moral panic should not be a force of policy. The outcome is either
arbitrary or a terrible precedent (e.g. should Mormons then be banned
from editing LDS articles?). That WP:OFFICE is already leading to such
outcomes is worrying.

Erik


from_name: Andrew Gray

subject: [WikiEN-l] Phone calls

body:
On 14/03/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:

> > Pages being hit repeatedly by vandles useing sleeper accounts.
> >
> Surely there can't be enough sleeper accounts to keep this up for very
> long.  Maybe I'm wrong here, though.

Anecdotal evidence suggests this isn't the case. We have a *lot* of accounts.

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

Templates are high on the list. I've seen someone inserting images
into {{bio-stub}}, for example, or {{otheruses}}. Guess how many pages
this can deface?

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


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

body:
On 14/03/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/14/06, SPUI <drspui at gmail.com> wrote:
> > So are we now going to ban road lobbyists from writing articles on
> > global warming?
>
> What is a "road lobbyist"?

"I'm a bit concerned about X problem"
"Have you considered building a new stretch of highway, Minister?"

Surprisingly vocal group.

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


subject: [Foundation-l] Fair use images

body:
W. Guy Finley wrote:

>On 3/13/06 1:56 AM, "Ray Saintonge" <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>You put the blatant copyvio image up for
>>>IFD and the uploader objects, no one else votes (because IFD is already full
>>>of scores of copyvio images already, who wants to go and review them all
>>>every day to vote on IFD) and the thing gets kept.
>>>
>>>
>>Why should it be a voting matter?  My argument was to provide adequate
>>time for uploaders to respond, not to make a presumption that their
>>efforts  are correct.  If within that adequate time they can do not
>>bettter than a lame "It's cool" kind of argument they shouldn't depend
>>on a vote to save them.
>>
>>
>Nope, I agree totally but that's the procedure now.  When I deviated from
>that I endured an assault from several editors and even an admin for
>deleting images "out of process".
>
Sigh! :-(

>>>Asserting "fair use" of an image is a nuanced legal concept that many
>>>editors cannot grasp so I feel something is needed to help rectify the
>>>situation.
>>>
>>>
>>The nuances are not always easy to grasp, and there is no consistency in
>>legal interpretations by the courts.  I'm very much in favour of using
>>fair use material, but it must be real fair use.
>>
>>
>Totally agree again -- it's a tough issue even for lawyers.  I was thinking
>the best solution is to come up with a Fair Use review panel, made up of a
>lawyer or two if we can get one, a couple of well respected editors and
>maybe even someone to represent the Foundation since it's protecting the
>Foundation from exposure to liability that is the heart of all of this.
>This panel would regularly review Fair Use policy and disputes in an effort
>to maintain a coherent position on them.  Just my initial thought on it.
>
Such a panel would be an interesting  idea..  Having a lawyer sitting
regularly on such a body might be a bit much to ask; he may find the
workload offputting, especially in the early stages of such a
committee.  Advising the committee could be a more realistic role.  Some
of the issues that come up before such a committee are likely to be
repetitious.

There is an important maxim in law that justice must not only be done
but must also be seen to be done.  A peremptory deletion of an obvious
copyvio fulfills the first part of that, but not the second.  Voting
turns this sort of process into a farce.  Perhaps those voters can be
said to form a jury of sorts, but in a regular jury system juries are
asked to make determinations of fact, not of law.  For justice to be
seen to be done the defending editor needs to feel that he is not at the
mercy of any single individual making a unilateral interpretation and
enforcement of the rules.  He needs to be given the opportunity to
respond within a reasonable time, and to feel that his response will be
given serious and fair consideration.

If the nuances are tough for lawyers, I can't see how voters who may
never have read any copyright statue can fare any better.

Ec


subject: [Foundation-l] Fair use images


subject: [WikiEN-l] Phone calls

body:
Andrew Gray wrote:
> On 14/03/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
>
>>> Pages being hit repeatedly by vandles useing sleeper accounts.
>>>
>>>
>> Surely there can't be enough sleeper accounts to keep this up for very
>> long.  Maybe I'm wrong here, though.
>>
>
> Anecdotal evidence suggests this isn't the case. We have a *lot* of accounts.
>
>
>>> Very high profile pages
>>>
>>>
>> Good point.  I was thinking of articles, but I can see why you might
>> want to protect some administrative pages.
>>
>
> Templates are high on the list. I've seen someone inserting images
> into {{bio-stub}}, for example, or {{otheruses}}. Guess how many pages
> this can deface?
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
>   andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk
>
>
Perhaps all pages in template space should be semi-protected by default:
templates are an advanced feature that probably does not make sense for
new users to experiment with, in any case.

-- Neil

>
>


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

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> geni wrote:
>
>
>> On 3/7/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> John Lee wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> [[Triumph of the Will]] has a gallery of fair use pictures. The gallery
>>>> itself violates fair use under American law, which requires that the
>>>> subject of the images be critically discussed by the article using those
>>>> images. As if that were not enough, the images are *high-resolution*. It
>>>> has been suggested that the images are public domain, but this has not
>>>> been conclusively proven, and the images are currently marked with a
>>>> copyright of 2005 by the uploader, who also wrote much of the article.
>>>> It would be bad enough if this is any ordinary article, but...
>>>>
>>>>  1. It's a featured article, which means it's the best we have to offer
>>>>  2. It's on the frickin' main page right now
>>>>
>>>> Then again, I suppose this does reflect the condition of how fair use
>>>> and copyright law are blatantly ignored/misunderstood by most
>>>> Wikipedians...for further information, see [[Wikipedia:Fair use
>>>> review]], which has a fuller description of what's going on.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Why are we talking about fair use when the film is clearly in the public
>>> domain?  It was released in 1935!!!  1935 + 70 = 2005.
>>>
>>> Ec
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Wrong country. Leni Riefenstahl died in 2003.
>>
>> Further details:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)&diff=42060761&oldid=41976931
>>
>>
>>
> Riefenstahl did not own the copyright; she did the work as an employee
> of the German government. The talk page for the article cites
> http://www.twobirds.com/English/publications/articles/GermanFilmsandUKEnemyPropertyAct1953pt1.cfm
> "Leni Riefenstahl appealed, and the German Federal Supreme Court of
> Karlsruhe ruled on 10 January 1969 that the copyright was not vested in
> Leni Riefenstahl but in the former Nazi party"  The 70 year clock for
> government and corporate copyright owners starts when the work is made
> public.  The US situation is even simpler, because the extension of
> foreign copyrights from 50 to 70 years was not applicable to enemy
> properties.  The rights there expired at the end of 1985.
>
> What "wrong country" are you talking about?
>
> Ec
>
I seem to remember reading something about the Allies voiding all German
government copyrights at the end of WWII. Can anyone confirm or deny
this? I seem to remember something about the copyright of Mein Kampf
being a special case, since it was never owned by the German state.

-- Neil


subject: [WikiEN-l] titsup.com

body:
On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 11:57:19 +0000, you wrote:

>Perhaps this term should best be redirected to ''[[The Register]]'', and
>then mentioned in the general section on ''Register'' jargon?

I think the currency is much wider than that.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] Guardian article, pretty good

body:
>From yesterday's Guardian:

 http://jobsadvice.guardian.co.uk/officehours/story/0,,1729329,00.html

Also reprinted somewhat edited in the Hindustan Times:

 http://www.hindu.com/2006/03/14/stories/2006031405040900.htm

Pretty good!

- d.


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

body:
It's somehow related to Parkinson's Law.  Relatively speaking, the
Userbox War was the lesser in importance; that explains why it would be
more hotly debated. :-)

Ec

Katefan0 wrote:

>Wow, inclusionist/deletionist seems like a quaint, remembered bump in the
>road compared to the Userbox Wars.
>
>k
>
>On 3/13/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>The difference is that there was never any chance of that issue being
>>fought over at an admin vs admin level. In that exchange it didn't
>>matter much if you were an admin or not. This time around there has
>>been far more direct admin admin conflict with both deletion and
>>protection being used by admins trying to get their way. Thus it makes
>>no sense to allow people who have actively opposed your position to
>>have an admin flag.
>>
>>The same happened to a lesser degree with the inclusionist/deletion
>>conflict.
>>


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Phone calls in office

body:
On 3/14/06, Neil Harris <usenet at tonal.clara.co.uk> wrote:
> Ray Saintonge wrote:
> > Ilya N. wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On 3/12/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> 1 phone call is from someone who perfectly understood she is at the
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> encyclopedia office, and want to know more about the cancer her sister
> >>> in law just died from. Usually, the call is during the night; this is
> >>> when people are scared by the dark and think of life and death.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> TODO: Explain to them that all the information we have is already on
> >> the encyclopedia?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > A person who makes that kind of call is looking for a response with more
> > human sensitivity than a computer.
> >
> > Ec
> >
> >
> Then how about a short "speed-bump" IVR session before they get put
> through...
>
>   "Hello, you've reached the French office of Wikipedia, the free
> encyclopedia!"
>
>    "Please listen to the following options:"
>
>   "For press enquiries, dial 1"
>
>   "For contact information, dial 2"
>
>   "For more information about Wikipedia and its mission, dial 3"
>
>   "To speak to a person at the Wikipedia France office, please hold on
> the line..."
>
>   <15 secs of hold music>
>
> The intro message lets them know that they have not called the Red Cross
> or the White House.
> 1 puts them straight through
> 2 and 3 play a short recorded message with the appropriate info,
> removing the need for human intervention.
> The next bit reiterates who they have called in case they didn't get it
> the first time, and lets them know they are not going to be talking to a
> helpline, again helping them to refocus their mind.
> The 15 seconds of hold music are gently discouraging to crank callers, a
> fair few of which will hang up...
>
> Once they've been through the pre-screening process, anyone who's
> serious enough to have kept on the line gets put straight through.
>
> -- Neil
>

Replace the 15 seconds of hold music with the sound of nails scrapeing
down blackboards. Should remove time wasters quite quickerly.

--
geni


body:
On 3/14/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> guru brahma wrote:
> > Sometime back, there was a discussion about the unusual license of
> > http://www.panopedia.org/index.php/Panopedia. Within the context of
> > Wikipedia, I was wondering if this license makes any sense at all. I
> > think there are some instances where this MAY make sense. For
> > example, images tagged as GFDL-self could be tagged this way. If I
> > make an image, that is, take a photograph of a leader or an actor I
> > adore and do not want it to be photoshopped into some unknown
> > monstrosity, I would be more comfortable in using Creative Commons
> > Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 license. The same would apply to personal
> > images that I upload on to my userpage. The last thing I want to see
> > in my image my moustache disappear or a beard appear ;). Any thoughts
> > which other areas this admittedly over-restrictive license can be
> > used if at all allowed on wikipedia?
> >
>
> AFAICT (and IANAL), a GFDL image that was photoshopped would have to
> include both a link back to the original image (so that you could see
> what it was photoshopped *from*) and would also have to credit you as
> the original author.
>
> If we don't already (and I think we might have) we should have an image
> protection policy; you can't upload an image over one which already
> exists. IIRC this has been implemented already by making image
> overwriting a "protected" action, but YMMV.
>
> HTH,

I don't think so unless that is a very recent change. Especialy since
uploading opver the top provides both the name of the author of the
previous image and a link to it.

--
geni


from_name: Nathaniel Sheetz

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

body:
Being an interested party doesn't mean it's impossible to conceal your
bias--a good writer who happens to be an atheist should be able to write a
reasonably neutral article on Islam, for example.  It's a matter of doing
research and citing appropriate sources.

Nathaniel

On 3/14/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Delirium stated for the record:
>
> > No Polish nationalists editing articles on Poland.  No strong religious
> > believers (or strong atheists) editing articles on religion.  Etc.
> >
> > All do have some degree of merit---I would be more skeptical of an
> > article on Christianity written by the Pope than I would be of one
> > written by someone relatively neutral.  But are we actually going to
> > have policies like that?
> >
> > -Mark
>
> We can only hope.
>
> If you can't conceal your bias, you shouldn't be editing.
>
> - --
> Sean Barrett     | My dog can lick anyone!
> sean at epoptic.org |
>

--
Nathaniel C. Sheetz
http://www.personal.psu.edu/ncs124


from_name: shi zhao

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

body:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com>
Date: 2006-3-14 ??2:16
Subject: Re: Fwd: Create zh.wikinews.org
To: Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com>
Cc: shizhao at gmail.com, private-l at wikimedia.org, abeesley at wikimedia.org

Yes, it is fine with me.

Anthere wrote:
> Angela and Jimbo, if it is fine with you, can you
> confirm it so that this wiki is created ?
>
> ant
>
> --- shi zhao <shizhao at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 19:54:04 +0800
>>From: "shi zhao" <shizhao at gmail.com>
>>To: foundation-l-owner at wikimedia.org
>>Subject: Create zh.wikinews.org
>>
>>Plese  create zh.wikinews.org - Chinese Wikinews.
>>
>>see:
>>*http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Vote/Zh
>>*http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4869
>>
>>--[[zh:user:shizhao]]
>>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>

--
#######################################################################
#    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
#    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
#######################################################################


body:
On 3/14/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/14/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't think so unless that is a very recent change. Especialy since
> > uploading opver the top provides both the name of the author of the
> > previous image and a link to it.
>
> What do you mean by uploading "over the top" ? There are lots of times
> when you want to replace an existing image with an updated version
> (notably to crop, recolour, change the image format etc).
>
> Steve

Well if you look at this page you have an image that has been edited
to remove the black boarder:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CanalCentreAmsterdamjpg.jpg

--
geni


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

body:
On 3/14/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
> We *don't* strive for balance.  We strive for a neutral point-of-view.
> The distinction is small, but vital.

Can you elaborate? I'm only just getting my head around WP:V. When I
understand NPOV, I'll be 2/3 of the way to Wiki-enlightenment.

PS for anyone who thinks they understand WP:V, take this multiple choice quiz:

Every contribution to Wikipedia must:
a) Be independently verifiable (eg, claiming a politican went to X
school is logically somehow verifiable)
b) Have been published in a verifiable source
c) Have been published in a reliable source
d) Be accompanied by a citation in a reliable, verifiable source
e) All of the above
f) None of the above

Select all that apply! Have fun!

Steve


body:
On 3/14/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
> Just a point ... there's no such thing as "html commands".

Tell that to 351,000 google hits. By that measure we should create
[[HTML commands]] straight away.

Anyway, it's just a question of perspective. You could probably mount
a case for saying that <IMG> is a command that loads an image from
disk, resizes it, adds a border and displays it on the screen in a
scrolly window!

Steve


body:
On 3/14/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> >From yesterday's Guardian:
>
>  http://jobsadvice.guardian.co.uk/officehours/story/0,,1729329,00.html

>Wikipedia now prevents unregistered users from creating entries and
bars newly registered users from editing high-profile material.

Oh my god. They actually managed to get both those rather subtle facts
completely right!

Steve


body:
On 3/14/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't think so unless that is a very recent change. Especialy since
> uploading opver the top provides both the name of the author of the
> previous image and a link to it.

What do you mean by uploading "over the top" ? There are lots of times
when you want to replace an existing image with an updated version
(notably to crop, recolour, change the image format etc).

Steve


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Wikipedia Romania (Ronline)

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Request for Romany Wikipedia

body:
The new system is, as far as I know, CVS. I personally have no idea how to
work with CVS, and I feel that the new system does make things much more
complicated.

However, if you translate the LanguageRom.php file, we can just tell the
developers to use that file as the interface. They will then duplicate that
to the new system in CVS or whatever. Any updates can then be made using
CVS, if updates will be needed in the future.

Can any developers/people who know more about this give us more information?

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


from_name: NSLE (Wikipedia)

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

body:
On 3/13/06, NSLE (Wikipedia) <nsle.wikipedia at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all, I've got a few questions. I floated the idea of adding a new CSD
> criteria in the admin channel yesterday to deal with April Fools hoax
> articles, but was told CSD G1 (patent nonsense) would take care of them. Is
> that necessarily right, as I seem to recall reading somewhere that some of
> last year's hoaxes had to go through (V/A?)FD?
>
> --NSLE
>

I assume that that's a no, and AFD is needed, then?

--NSLE


from_name: KWH

body:
It seems to me that if the new work does not "transform" or combine
the CC-ND work with other creative material, then it is not a
derivative, but a redistribution, which is allowed by the license. The
license can make its definition of derivative a subset of the
copyright code definition, but it can't expand it to include things
which would normally be defined as redistribution.

I don't think it intends to because although the derivative work
definition includes "...any other form in which the Work may be
recast, transformed, or adapted...", a latter bit of the license
allows that the "...above rights may be exercised in all media and
formats whether now known or hereafter devised.", therefore it does
not intend to disclaim non-creative transformations. I would say that
a resize would always be allowed, a cropping might be subject to
interpretation depending on whether it was a "creative" cropping.

I think a decent "acid test" for derivative is whether, if the given
transformation were applied to an already public domain work, it would
merit a new copyright protection for the new work created.

[[User:Kwh]]

On 3/14/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> The definition of "derivative" in the license seems to refer to only
> very "large" derivatives ( i.e., translating it into another language)
> rather than small modifications. But I agree that the notion of a
> derivative work is vague enough to make me uncomfortable. For example,
> syncing music to a moving image is explicitly a "derivative work" in
> this instance, which seems to imply that you can't use a no-deriv work
> as part of another work, which would seem to rule out the idea of
> taking an image from Wikipedia and using it practically anywhere else.
>
>
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.5/legalcode :
>
> "Derivative Work" means a work based upon the Work or upon the Work
> and other pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical
> arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version,
> sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any
> other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted,
> except that a work that constitutes a Collective Work will not be
> considered a Derivative Work for the purpose of this License. For the
> avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical composition or sound
> recording, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a
> moving image ("synching") will be considered a Derivative Work for the
> purpose of this License.
>
> FF
> On 3/14/06, Justin Cormack < justin at specialbusservice.com > wrote:
> >
> > On 14 Mar 2006, at 10:21, guru brahma wrote:
> >
> > > Sometime back, there was a discussion about the unusual license of
> > > http://www.panopedia.org/index.php/Panopedia. Within the context of
> > > Wikipedia, I was wondering if this license makes any sense at all.
> > > I think there are some instances where this MAY make sense. For
> > > example, images tagged as GFDL-self could be tagged this way. If I
> > > make an image, that is, take a photograph of a leader or an actor I
> > > adore and do not want it to be photoshopped into some unknown
> > > monstrosity, I would be more comfortable in using Creative Commons
> > > Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 license. The same would apply to personal
> > > images that I upload on to my userpage. The last thing I want to
> > > see in my image my moustache disappear or a beard appear ;). Any
> > > thoughts which other areas this admittedly over-restrictive license
> > > can be used if at all allowed on wikipedia?
> >
> > Its not clear that you could even resize a CC-ND image under the
> > license...
> >
> > Most countries have other means of protection if someone uses an
> > image of you for
> > things that are problematic, regardless of copyright.
> >
> > Justinc
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >


from_name: Philip Welch

subject: [WikiEN-l] Captchas

body:
On Mar 14, 2006, at 4:57 PM, geni wrote:

> On 3/15/06, uninvited at nerstrand.net <uninvited at nerstrand.net> wrote:
>>
>> I note that captchas are now in use for new user creation at commons.
>>
>> Are captchas now in use at en?  If so, when was this change made?
>>
>> There are questions coming to OTRS about this.
>>
>> The Uninvited Co., Inc.
>> (a Delaware corporation)
>
> They seem to be switched on and off. When I tested this a few hours
> ago they were off.

Not to mention this completely interferes with my sockpuppet
registration bot.

(Perhaps something I should not openly admit.)

(Except I'm joking.)

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


from_name: Patrick, Brad

subject: [Foundation-l] Copyright on Wikisource

body:
As American counsel, I would not dare contradict my French counterparts, but the answer is really simple - we will get sued by someone in France, and would subject the Foundation to the possibility of jurisdiction in France.  As our colleagues at Yahoo! Can attest, that is not a good thing.  It is not necessarily always in the interests of the mission of the organization to be aggressive at every turn.  This is one such example.

-Brad

-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Yann Forget
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 5:25 PM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: [Foundation-l] Copyright on Wikisource

Hi,

The question is asked whether we can host on Wikisource French authors whose works are not yet in the public domain in France, but are in the USA.
Recently Villy and JB Soufron said we can't. JB Soufron supported the site "les Classiques des sciences sociales" when they host the very same works.
Why not on Wikisource?

However we do host such works in Wikisource for the last two years. Why changing policy now? On all subdomains, we apply US law regarding copyright.
Why applying different laws, different standards, on different subdomains?

More over, there are hundreds, maybe thousands of web sites hosted in US laws which have these kind of works. AFAIK, there never was any judgement against them. So I don't understand why Wikisource could not host these works.

Further more, I would suggest than Wikisource should be hosted in Canada, so that the benefit of Canadian copyright law could be used.

Regards,

Yann

--
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclop?die libre _______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l at wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer under IRS Circular 230: Unless expressly stated otherwise in this transmission, nothing contained in this message is intended or written to be used, nor may it be relied upon or used, (1) by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended and/or (2) by any person to support the promotion or marketing of or to recommend any Federal tax transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed in this message.

If you desire a formal opinion on a particular tax matter for the purpose of avoiding the imposition of any penalties, we will discuss the additional Treasury requirements that must be met and whether it is possible to meet those requirements under the circumstances, as well as the anticipated time and additional fees involved.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confidentiality Disclaimer: This e-mail message and any attachments are private communication sent by a law firm, Fowler White Boggs Banker P.A., and may contain confidential, legally privileged information meant solely for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, then delete the e-mail and any attachments from your system. Thank you.


subject: [Foundation-l] Copyright on Wikisource


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

body:
On 3/14/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:

> Basically, balance is "give all sides of the story, however ridiculous".
>   We see this a lot in political reporting, particularly in America, I
> understand[0].

Ok, but is this really true? I can't imagine minority views ever
getting much airtime on mainstream American news?

>     We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a
>     small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and
>     views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented
>     except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a
>     significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might
>     be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to
>     present competing views in proportion to their representation among
>     experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.

Thanks, I'll bear this one in mind. Handy for a particular editing
dispute I'm involved in...:)

> [0] Australia has its own absurd version.  Anyone remember that fool
>      Alston insisting that ABC News give the Coalition and Labor "equal
>      time", so that one is not unfairly promoted over the other?
>      Beautifully parodied (with dancing girls!) by /The Chaser/, way back
>      in ... whenever it was.  Too many Coalition govts, I've lost count.
>      2001?  1998?

Actually what's so absurd about that? I mean, assuming the commercial
networks were held to the same rule? It sort of seems reasonable that
during an election that the two parties get equal time. It would be
absurd if the Liberals, Nationals and Labor all demanded equal time :)

I suppose one obvious flaw is you could spend 30 minutes talking about
Labor's plans for Medicare then 30 minutes talking about John Howard's
past mistakes or something.

Steve


subject:
[WikiEN-l] To Randall Stross re: "Anonymous Source Is Not the Same
	as Open Source"

body:
Re: "Anonymous Source Is Not the Same as Open Source"
(http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/business/yourmoney/12digi.html):

Thanks very much for this thoughtful article on Wikipedia.

One thing I would like to note: although the English edition is not at
1.0 release stage yet, the Wikipedia model can in fact produce a
finished product - as proven by the German edition, which has just
done its third release on DVD, selling several tens of thousands of
copies at 10 euros each. And DigitalMedia, the company that released
the DVD is now working on doing a 100-volume paper edition, to be
released from 2007 to 2010. I'll be first to admit we're nowhere near
Britannica in quality (although we tested about as good in science
coverage in a recent survey by 'Nature'), the Wikipedia model does
produce publishable results that people will pay real money for.

- thanks, David.


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] To Randall Stross re: "Anonymous Source Is Not the
	Same as Open Source"


body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 3/14/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> >From yesterday's Guardian:
> >  http://jobsadvice.guardian.co.uk/officehours/story/0,,1729329,00.html
> >Wikipedia now prevents unregistered users from creating entries and
> > bars newly registered users from editing high-profile material.

> Oh my god. They actually managed to get both those rather subtle facts
> completely right!

Yeah, that's 'cos I'm good! :-D

I'm also glad I got into print "look at the history tab."

Oh - did anyone listen to "Mousemat"? I need to go to the BBC site and
check it out ...

- d.


from_name: uninvited at nerstrand.net

subject: [WikiEN-l] Captchas

body:
I note that captchas are now in use for new user creation at commons.

Are captchas now in use at en?  If so, when was this change made?

There are questions coming to OTRS about this.

The Uninvited Co., Inc.
(a Delaware corporation)


from_name: ! Chris Sherlock

subject: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 24, Issue 10

body:
Michael wrote:

> Angela,
>
> Your email suggests that this requires Board approval.  If so, then post
> it as a proposed resolution to the Board.  Do not confuse the opinion of
> three people (who may happen to be Board members) as being the same as
> Board approval.  Being a Board member does not confer any authority to a
> member outside of the Board itself.
>
> This proposal sounds to me like a community matter rather than a Board
> matter.  I prefer to let the community make these decisions as long as
> the proposal falls within the broad mandate of the Foundation.  It is
> the responsibility of the president to monitor these activities and
> bring it to the attention of the Board if there appears to be a conflict
> with Foundation policy.
>
> Michael
>

Michael, I don't believe that Angela ever said that it does require board
approval (I'm not saying whether it does/doesn't, just commenting on her
original email). I think she was just expressing support.

Sorry if I've talked out of turn.

Chris
TBSDY


subject:
[WikiEN-l] To Randall Stross re: "Anonymous Source Is Not the
	Same as Open Source"

body:
I wrote to Randy Stross and to the lists:

>Re: "Anonymous Source Is Not the Same as Open Source"
>(http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/business/yourmoney/12digi.html):
>Thanks very much for this thoughtful article on Wikipedia.

And I just got a nice answer back from Mr Stross thanking me for my
comments and agreeing we'd get there. And that he hadn't heard of the
German DVD, so I'm about to write telling him about it. Another press
contact informed :-D

- d.


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] [WikiEN-l] To Randall Stross re: "Anonymous
	Source Is Not the Same as Open Source"


from_name: V. Ivanov

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] RFC: Principles of mass content adding on small
	Wikipedias

body:
I couldn't find how to join...

Sl. Ivanov

2006/3/12, Patrick Hall <pathall at gmail.com>:
> Hi all,
>
> > I think countries of teh world would be a fine place to start. There are
> > already good tables in the major languages that can be translated easily.
>
> I've not seen this resource mentioned yet in this thread, so I thought
> I'd throw out a link:
>
> http://unicode.org/cldr/data/common/main/

--
Esperu cxiam!


from_name: Sam Korn

body:
On 3/14/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh - did anyone listen to "Mousemat"? I need to go to the BBC site and
> check it out ...

Yeah, you came across well.  I wish those presenters wouldn't all do
that "reading out my entry from Wikipedia as I'm editing it" thing...

--
Sam


from_name: Chris Jenkinson

subject: [WikiEN-l] Acceptable browsing methods

body:
I'd like to announce the creation of a new Manual of Style page covering
acceptable ways to browse Wikipedia:
  -->
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(browsing_methods)

This page was created in honour of Daycd who has declared that I almost
certainly don't browse Wikipedia in the way I described I did, and that
all links are silly:
  --> http://tinyurl.com/s9dlh

Chris

--
Chris Jenkinson
chris at starglade.org

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


from_name: Angela

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

body:
On 3/14/06, Michael Davis <mdavis at wikia.com> wrote:
> Your email suggests that this requires Board approval.  If so, then post
> it as a proposed resolution to the Board.

Not everything needs voting on. You might have noticed there were no
resolutions before this year
(<http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolutions>), instead relying
on consensus of three Board members. There have already been multiple
community votes on the Chinese Wikinews, as you can see on meta and on
the Chinese Wikipedia.

Anyway, the Chinese Wikinews is now available at
http://zh.wikinews.org/ thanks to Brion.

A number of pages are available at
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/New_language_pre-launch#Chinese.28.E4.B8.AD.E6.96.87.29>,
some of which might need to be copied over to the new site.

Angela.


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


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

body:
On 3/14/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:

> We can only hope.
>
> If you can't conceal your bias, you shouldn't be editing.
>
> - --
>  Sean Barrett

--
geni


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

body:
On 3/14/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Delirium stated for the record:
>
> > No Polish nationalists editing articles on Poland.  No strong religious
> > believers (or strong atheists) editing articles on religion.  Etc.
> >
> > All do have some degree of merit---I would be more skeptical of an
> > article on Christianity written by the Pope than I would be of one
> > written by someone relatively neutral.  But are we actually going to
> > have policies like that?
> >
> > -Mark
>
> We can only hope.
>
> If you can't conceal your bias, you shouldn't be editing.

Depends how you define conceal. No competant POV pusher is openy going
to admit thier bias so they hang areound on the edge where you still
just about have to assume good faith. By comparison someone who admits
thier bias can't do that so they have to be more nutural.

--
geni


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Phone calls in office

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 3/13/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>What would be lovely is if we could magically create some OTRS-like
>>system for phone calls. But that just wouldn't work...
>
>
> Well, I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but where I used to work, we
> did exactly that. When things got busy, we put more people on the
> phones who simply took down details, they went into the equivalent of
> the OTRS (god that thing needs a decent, comprehensible name...), and
> were returned by support staff in chronological order. Worked ok. But
> not the same line of business.

>From [[OTRS]]:

*OTRS*, which is short for /Open-source Ticket Request System/,...

It *can* handle phone calls; you can create a ticket for a phone call,
and then attach a reply to say that you phoned the customer.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 558 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060314/73cc4286/attachment.pgp


from_name: Andrew Gray

body:
On 14/03/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> Also reprinted somewhat edited in the Hindustan Times:
>
>  http://www.hindu.com/2006/03/14/stories/2006031405040900.htm

I'm a bit bemused by the fact that the Grauniad is apparently
distributing their stories with a two-year-old copyright date...

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Phone calls

body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> On 3/13/06, Matt Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 3/13/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>>
>>>(now that semi-protection exists I can't personally think of a scenario where
>>>full protection is *ever* a good idea).
>>
>>I take it you don't agree with protecting articles that are the
>>subject of an edit war between established editors?
>>
>>-Matt
>
>
> No, I think it's better to temporarily block those established editors
> for edit warring.  Why block *everyone* from editing an article just
> because two people can't get along?  But like I said, that one's
> arguable.
>

Because if two (or more) people have come to the point of
I'll-revert-you-every-thirty-seconds edit warring, they probably won't
be averse to finding an undocumented open proxy, creating sockpuppets,
and continuing on their merry way...

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 558 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060314/b3a8bea9/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] Phone calls

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 3/14/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Can't. They will stay within policy. Blocking won't help anyway since
>>they can't disscuss while blocked.
>
>
> It's a real pity that it's not possible to selectively block a single
> editor against a single page. That and the fact that blocking an IP
> also blocks registered users that use that IP.
>

The ideal solution to bug 550 is:

- Editors can be dettached from/re-attached to the IP address they are
using; when attached, they are hit by IP blocks, and when they are
dettached, they are not; this is configurable per-block (eg. "Re-attach
this user?" (if dettached), "Dettach this user?" (if attached),
"Re-attach all users?" (if blocking an IP), "Dettach all users?" (if
blocking an IP), etc.

- Blocking on a per-page (or even per-namespace) basis

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 558 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060314/e6904e2a/attachment.pgp


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

body:
On 3/14/06, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> All do have some degree of merit---I would be more skeptical of an
> article on Christianity written by the Pope than I would be of one
> written by someone relatively neutral.  But are we actually going to
> have policies like that?

It is very difficult to have someone who is neutral on a religion, yet
still interested enough to want to write about it.

--
Sam


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

Since you seem to be the chief Anarchist, shouldn't you resign your
adminship immediately as an example? :)

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 558 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060314/1a1a2b6c/attachment.pgp


from_name: nwilkins at bu.edu

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

body:
Personally, I find this thread about admin authority quite interesting.
Especially as it coincides with [[Patrick Alexander (cartoonist)]] returning to
[[WP:DRV]].

Jonel

Quoting wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org:

> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 11:20:32 +0100
> From: "Steve Bennett" <stevage at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Page protection vs. semi-protection
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> 	<f1c3529e0603140220jc5e68b9scf67c8f136ce85e at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On 3/14/06, guru brahma <wikibra at yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> > I am sorry to say this, but it appears ridiculous to classify
> admins as a separate class of users. Being an admin doesn't give any
> extra "editing" privileges. The privileges that we get as admins may
> be at the most abused to prevent someone from doing something -
> blocking, protecting etc but do not give a free rein. Also, WP:AN
> takes care of violations asap. I believe admins are same as other
> users - only difference being that those afflicted with adminitis
> would feel that "all users are equal but admins are more equal than
> others."
>
> It is my experience that admins are perceived as having some sort
> of
> authority. Maybe not a lot, but there is a difference when an admin
> offers his opinion on the interpretation of some policy. It
> shouldn't
> be like that, but it's probably unavoidable.
>
> All we can ask is that admins be sensitive to that fact, and
> attempt
> to explicitly disclaim any such false authority arising purely from
> adminship. Of course, most admins have a fair bit of experience on
> Wikipedia and therefore *do* know the policies better than *most*
> people, but not necessarily better than *everyone*.
>
> Steve


from_name: Ilya N.

subject: [WikiEN-l] Captchas

body:
Yours? Yours is puny compared to mine!

(Okay now we're really getting off-topic)

(and of course I'm joking)

On 3/14/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
>
> On Mar 14, 2006, at 4:57 PM, geni wrote:
>
> > On 3/15/06, uninvited at nerstrand.net <uninvited at nerstrand.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> I note that captchas are now in use for new user creation at commons.
> >>
> >> Are captchas now in use at en?  If so, when was this change made?
> >>
> >> There are questions coming to OTRS about this.
> >>
> >> The Uninvited Co., Inc.
> >> (a Delaware corporation)
> >
> > They seem to be switched on and off. When I tested this a few hours
> > ago they were off.
>
> Not to mention this completely interferes with my sockpuppet
> registration bot.
>
> (Perhaps something I should not openly admit.)
>
> (Except I'm joking.)
>
> --
> Philip L. Welch
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
~Ilya N.
http://w3stuff.com/ilya/ (My website; DarkLordFoxx Media)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ilyanep (on Wikipedia)
http://www.wheresgeorge.com - Track your money's travels.


from_name: geni

body:
On 3/14/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> The Cunctator wrote:
> > On 3/13/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
> >
> >>On Mar 13, 2006, at 5:51 PM, The Cunctator wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>The argument hinges upon the assumptions such as that it's important
> >>>to Wikipedia to a) encourage 1st-time editing or b) creating different
> >>>classes of users is a long-term bad thing.
> >>
> >>I guess we shouldn't have admins if we accept (b).
> >>
> >
> > Right!
> >
> > Or at least, we should all feel very guilty about it.
> >
>
> Since you seem to be the chief Anarchist, shouldn't you resign your
> adminship immediately as an example? :)
>

Undermineing the system from within has a long history. On a more
serious note the more admins we have who view themselves as little
different to ordinary members the better.

--
geni


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

body:
On 3/14/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/14/06, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> > All do have some degree of merit---I would be more skeptical of an
> > article on Christianity written by the Pope than I would be of one
> > written by someone relatively neutral.  But are we actually going to
> > have policies like that?
>
> It is very difficult to have someone who is neutral on a religion, yet
> still interested enough to want to write about it.
>
> --
> Sam

Depends on the religion. For the major ones this is probably true. For
the less major ones (say Zoroastrianism) I suspect it may be posible
to find such people.

--
geni


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

body:
On 3/14/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/14/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> > It is very difficult to have someone who is neutral on a religion, yet
> > still interested enough to want to write about it.
> Depends on the religion. For the major ones this is probably true. For
> the less major ones (say Zoroastrianism) I suspect it may be posible
> to find such people.

Good point.

--
Sam


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject: [Wikipedia-l] exicornt switch

body:
Hoi,
On the en:Wiktionary there is a bozo who thinks it funny to create
articles with titles like "exicornt switch". This is a non existing
word. The guy insists to create this article and uses any means to get
his way. I have been told that this guy is a user on the en.wikipedia as
well. As the frustration of this guy is getting to a level where AOL is
being blocked, I would like to know if we can cooperate and do something
about this vandal.

It is a daily annoyance. :(

Thanks,
   GerardM


list: wiktionary-l

subject: [Wiktionary-l] exicornt switch


from_name: tiffny

subject: [WikiEN-l] Acceptable browsing methods

body:
I was browsing thru and found out these posts.

Just a suggestion, browsing makes me personaly comfortable when

1. Less number of clicks (or key presses) or movements on mouse to reach my
desired article.
2. Good color combination on revealing what the message intends to deliver
3. Brief and clear instructions and presentation.

I always love when it makes me feel "come back" to that specific page.

My mostly visited page in leisure is http://coolclown.blogspot.com

Well that may be I love humour too.

Tiffny

Dr. Tiffny White, NY.

--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Acceptable-browsing-methods-t1280490.html#a3410152
Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at Nabble.com.


from_name: The Cunctator

body:
On 3/14/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> The Cunctator wrote:
> > On 3/13/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
> >
> >>On Mar 13, 2006, at 5:51 PM, The Cunctator wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>The argument hinges upon the assumptions such as that it's important
> >>>to Wikipedia to a) encourage 1st-time editing or b) creating different
> >>>classes of users is a long-term bad thing.
> >>
> >>I guess we shouldn't have admins if we accept (b).
> >>
> >
> > Right!
> >
> > Or at least, we should all feel very guilty about it.
> >
>
> Since you seem to be the chief Anarchist, shouldn't you resign your
> adminship immediately as an example? :)

Actually, if you check my userpage, you'll note that I am *not* a
member of the Anarchists for a Past, Present, and Future World of
Goodness.

So don't tar me with that brush! APPFWG may believe in using giant
robots to convert Australia into a series of human-scale chessboards,
games played over and over by unwilling slaves, but I sure don't.

Seriously, I think that most of the powers reserved to admins should
be more accessible to many more users and that all of the powers
should be more easily attainable.


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

body:
On 3/14/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/14/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
> > We *don't* strive for balance.  We strive for a neutral point-of-view.
> > The distinction is small, but vital.
>
> Can you elaborate? I'm only just getting my head around WP:V. When I
> understand NPOV, I'll be 2/3 of the way to Wiki-enlightenment.
>
> PS for anyone who thinks they understand WP:V, take this multiple choice quiz:
>
> Every contribution to Wikipedia must:
> a) Be independently verifiable (eg, claiming a politican went to X
> school is logically somehow verifiable)
> b) Have been published in a verifiable source
> c) Have been published in a reliable source
> d) Be accompanied by a citation in a reliable, verifiable source
> e) All of the above
> f) None of the above
>
> Select all that apply! Have fun!

Compare to my proposed version at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability/Proposed_revision


subject: [WikiEN-l] Captchas

body:
I bet I'm blocked right now on Wikipedia :P

The reason given for your block was:
Vandalbots

On 3/14/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/15/06, Ilya N. <ilyanep at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yours? Yours is puny compared to mine!
> >
> > (Okay now we're really getting off-topic)
> >
> > (and of course I'm joking)
>
>
> Last I cheack curps had by far the best record when it came to battles
> of the bots.
>
> --
> geni
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
~Ilya N.
http://w3stuff.com/ilya/ (My website; DarkLordFoxx Media)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ilyanep (on Wikipedia)
http://www.wheresgeorge.com - Track your money's travels.


from_name: Delirium

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

body:
Sean Barrett wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Delirium stated for the record:
>
>
>
>>No Polish nationalists editing articles on Poland.  No strong religious
>>believers (or strong atheists) editing articles on religion.  Etc.
>>
>>All do have some degree of merit---I would be more skeptical of an
>>article on Christianity written by the Pope than I would be of one
>>written by someone relatively neutral.  But are we actually going to
>>have policies like that?
>>
>>-Mark
>>
>>
>
>We can only hope.
>
>If you can't conceal your bias, you shouldn't be editing.
>
>
I don't see what's wrong with judging people on their actual edits,
using the principle of assume good faith.  If someone is a devoutly
fundamentalist Christian, but is able to edit Christianity-related
articles neutrally and discuss reasonably with other editors, I see no
reason to bar them.

-Mark


subject: [Foundation-l] Copyright on Wikisource

body:
On 3/14/06, Yann Forget <yann at forget-me.net> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The question is asked whether we can host on Wikisource French authors whose
> works are not yet in the public domain in France, but are in the USA.
> Recently Villy and JB Soufron said we can't. JB Soufron supported the site
> "les Classiques des sciences sociales" when they host the very same works.
> Why not on Wikisource?
>
> However we do host such works in Wikisource for the last two years. Why
> changing policy now? On all subdomains, we apply US law regarding copyright.
> Why applying different laws, different standards, on different subdomains?
>
> More over, there are hundreds, maybe thousands of web sites hosted in US laws
> which have these kind of works. AFAIK, there never was any judgement against
> them. So I don't understand why Wikisource could not host these works.
>
> Further more, I would suggest than Wikisource should be hosted in Canada, so
> that the benefit of Canadian copyright law could be used.

It's my impression that, yes, these *could* be hosted on WMF servers
legally.  However, this goes against our free spirit when the
documents would not be in the public domain in the areas where the
project is aimed.

Wikisource could host these works.  It's just best for them to be not
included in order that our free image is maintained.

--
Sam


subject: [Foundation-l] Copyright on Wikisource


from_name: Mathias Schindler

subject:
[Foundation-l] Official notification regarding the annual meeting
	of Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.

body:
Oh, it seems that nobody has informed the foundation that Wikimedia
Deutschland e.V. had its annual meeting, including the re-election of
the board of Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.

The new board consists of the following persons (some of them were
members of previous boards):

Kurt Jansson (Chairman)
Arne Klempert (Deputy Chairman)

Andr? Darmochwal (Treasurer)
Patrick Danowski (Protocol)

There are some additional members of the board:

Philipp Birken
Nina Gerlach
Martin Haase
Mathias Schindler
Frank Schulenburg
Jakob Vo?

Delphine said that she was unaware of any official notification to the
foundation regarding this annual meeting (hey, I remember her being at
the meeting - is this an incident of a grave slit of personality?).

Hope it's now fixed.

Mathias,
acting on behalf of Wikimedia when it comes to filling gaps in some
people's memory :)

http://www.wikimedia.de/2006/02/ergebnisse-der-mitgliederversammlung-2006/


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] Acceptable browsing methods

body:
Great piece of humor, but I think it's more of a policy than a MOS page.
MOS pages have to do with writing articles, not browsing them.

On 3/14/06, Chris Jenkinson <chris at starglade.org> wrote:
> I'd like to announce the creation of a new Manual of Style page covering
> acceptable ways to browse Wikipedia:
>  -->
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(browsing_methods)
>
> This page was created in honour of Daycd who has declared that I almost
> certainly don't browse Wikipedia in the way I described I did, and that
> all links are silly:
>  --> http://tinyurl.com/s9dlh
>
> Chris
>
> --
> Chris Jenkinson
> chris at starglade.org
>
> "Mistrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful."
>  -- Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Matt Brown

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

body:
On 3/14/06, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> Should we extend this to a general policy?

No.  Allowing pedophile-fears to define our policy is an even more
extreme example of letting the edge cases define the general than we
already do.  I emphatically do not agree with barring subject experts
from participating in articles on their specialty, and that is what
this kind of policy will end up doing.  After all, it's hard to be an
expert in anything and not have strong opinions about the topic, one
way or another.

Rather, we should simply be strict about our existing policies like
NPOV, and ensuring that pedophiles and their apologists do not get to
slant articles in their direction - especially since theirs is an
extreme minority viewpoint, and the NPOV policy states that views held
by an extreme minority do NOT have to get equal space (or indeed any
space, in some cases).

-Matt


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

body:
On 3/14/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> It's somehow related to Parkinson's Law.  Relatively speaking, the
> Userbox War was the lesser in importance; that explains why it would be
> more hotly debated. :-)

I feel that you've hit on a key law of such things ;)

Don't we have a list of those somewhere?

-Matt


from_name: Yann Forget

subject: [Foundation-l] Copyright on Wikisource

body:
Hi,

The question is asked whether we can host on Wikisource French authors whose
works are not yet in the public domain in France, but are in the USA.
Recently Villy and JB Soufron said we can't. JB Soufron supported the site
"les Classiques des sciences sociales" when they host the very same works.
Why not on Wikisource?

However we do host such works in Wikisource for the last two years. Why
changing policy now? On all subdomains, we apply US law regarding copyright.
Why applying different laws, different standards, on different subdomains?

More over, there are hundreds, maybe thousands of web sites hosted in US laws
which have these kind of works. AFAIK, there never was any judgement against
them. So I don't understand why Wikisource could not host these works.

Further more, I would suggest than Wikisource should be hosted in Canada, so
that the benefit of Canadian copyright law could be used.

Regards,

Yann

--
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclop?die libre


subject: [Foundation-l] Copyright on Wikisource


from_name: Mark Gallagher

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

body:
G'day Steve,

> On 3/14/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>*I* wouldn't believe the article because of its author.   There's more
>>to accuracy than just citing sources.  Pedophiles can probably write
>>as good an article about mathematics, psychology, anatomy, politics,
>>history or theology, but when it comes to articles about the
>>exploitation of minors I would be as likely to give an article by a
>>pedophile as much credit as I'd give to an article about global
>>warming written by a road lobbyist.
>
> I thought we were striving for balance here. Lobbyists are usually
> fairly good at explaining one side of a given story. As long as they
> don't have control of the article, their input should be welcomed. On

We *don't* strive for balance.  We strive for a neutral point-of-view.
The distinction is small, but vital.

> the other hand, paedophiles have a particular stigma attached to them
> that would be pretty damaging if there was Yet Another Wikipedia
> Scandal.

Oh, goodness me, yes.

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

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.2.2/280 - Release Date: 13/03/2006


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

body:
G'day Anthony,

> On 3/14/06, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
>>Its not clear that you could even resize a CC-ND image under the
>>license...
>
> I don't see why you wouldn't be allowed to resize using standard html
> commands.  There's no permanence to the image created, so it's not a
> derivative work.  What would be the fixed "size" of the image anyway?
> Numbers measured in pixels?  I'd say there's no way such a resizing
> would be protected.

Just a point ... there's no such thing as "html commands".

<snip />

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

There's a certain feeling in the air ... the people are whispering ...
it's Wikipedia Experiment Season again!

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

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.2.2/280 - Release Date: 13/03/2006


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

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

AFAICT (and IANAL), a GFDL image that was photoshopped would have to
include both a link back to the original image (so that you could see
what it was photoshopped *from*) and would also have to credit you as
the original author.

If we don't already (and I think we might have) we should have an image
protection policy; you can't upload an image over one which already
exists. IIRC this has been implemented already by making image
overwriting a "protected" action, but YMMV.

HTH,
--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 558 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060314/861cce3e/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] Phone calls

body:
On 3/14/06, Neil Harris <usenet at tonal.clara.co.uk> wrote:
> Andrew Gray wrote:
> > On 14/03/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>> Pages being hit repeatedly by vandles useing sleeper accounts.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Surely there can't be enough sleeper accounts to keep this up for very
> >> long.  Maybe I'm wrong here, though.
> >>
> >
> > Anecdotal evidence suggests this isn't the case. We have a *lot* of accounts.
> >
> >
> >>> Very high profile pages
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Good point.  I was thinking of articles, but I can see why you might
> >> want to protect some administrative pages.
> >>
> >
> > Templates are high on the list. I've seen someone inserting images
> > into {{bio-stub}}, for example, or {{otheruses}}. Guess how many pages
> > this can deface?
> >
> > --
> > - Andrew Gray
> >   andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk
> >
> >
> Perhaps all pages in template space should be semi-protected by default:
> templates are an advanced feature that probably does not make sense for
> new users to experiment with, in any case.
>
More complexity is probably less desired than more simplicity.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Reporting interesting editors to the press

body:
On 3/12/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>  Is there a policy or anything on tipping off the press that famous
> people are editing articles related to themselves? Nothing like the US
> congress article, but I've been following one where two somewhat well
> known editors are apparently attempting to whitewash history. There's
> a small chance that or or two local papers might find this amusing
> enough to run a 50 word article in the IT section on it.
>
> Before I do anything rash and silly, what guidance could one offer me,
> or what could one say to talk me out of doing this?

I'd give the scoop to the Wikinews people first.


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

body:
On 3/14/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> The US situation is even simpler, because the extension of
> foreign copyrights from 50 to 70 years was not applicable to enemy
> properties.  The rights there expired at the end of 1985.

I'd not heard that.  Cite, please?  I'd also be interested in how wide
the scope of 'enemy properties' is.

-Matt


from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] exicornt switch

body:
What, may I ask, did he claim was the meaning of "exicornt"? When I
read your e-mail, I just couldn't stop laughing.

I've seen all sorts of weird vandals, as well as people trying to
plant false information, but the idea that somebody would invent a
word and claim it was real, especially something as ludicrous sounding
as "exicornt" (I don't believe any real English words end in -ornt,
and not many end in -rnt).

Mark

On 14/03/06, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> On the en:Wiktionary there is a bozo who thinks it funny to create
> articles with titles like "exicornt switch". This is a non existing
> word. The guy insists to create this article and uses any means to get
> his way. I have been told that this guy is a user on the en.wikipedia as
> well. As the frustration of this guy is getting to a level where AOL is
> being blocked, I would like to know if we can cooperate and do something
> about this vandal.
>
> It is a daily annoyance. :(
>
> Thanks,
>    GerardM
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
"Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin


from_name: Jean-Baptiste Soufron

subject: [Foundation-l] Copyright on Wikisource

body:
Well that's also the point I tried to explain to Yann.

The canadian story is a different one. We were lucky enough to succeed,
but things are different in the present case.

I don't think we can adopt and foster an attitude that would so easily
lead us to be subject to prosecution in France... or elsewhere.

But the first misunderstanding was simply to believe that a work that is
Public Domain somewhere is PD everywhere... which is not the case.

Jean-Baptiste Soufron
cersa-cnrs paris 2
+33 (0) 617 962 457
http://soufron.typhon.net

Patrick, Brad wrote:
> As American counsel, I would not dare contradict my French counterparts, but the answer is really simple - we will get sued by someone in France, and would subject the Foundation to the possibility of jurisdiction in France.  As our colleagues at Yahoo! Can attest, that is not a good thing.  It is not necessarily always in the interests of the mission of the organization to be aggressive at every turn.  This is one such example.
>
> -Brad
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Yann Forget
> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 5:25 PM
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Subject: [Foundation-l] Copyright on Wikisource
>
> Hi,
>
> The question is asked whether we can host on Wikisource French authors whose works are not yet in the public domain in France, but are in the USA.
> Recently Villy and JB Soufron said we can't. JB Soufron supported the site "les Classiques des sciences sociales" when they host the very same works.
> Why not on Wikisource?
>
> However we do host such works in Wikisource for the last two years. Why changing policy now? On all subdomains, we apply US law regarding copyright.
> Why applying different laws, different standards, on different subdomains?
>
> More over, there are hundreds, maybe thousands of web sites hosted in US laws which have these kind of works. AFAIK, there never was any judgement against them. So I don't understand why Wikisource could not host these works.
>
> Further more, I would suggest than Wikisource should be hosted in Canada, so that the benefit of Canadian copyright law could be used.
>
> Regards,
>
> Yann
>
> --
> http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclop?die libre _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Disclaimer under IRS Circular 230: Unless expressly stated otherwise in this transmission, nothing contained in this message is intended or written to be used, nor may it be relied upon or used, (1) by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended and/or (2) by any person to support the promotion or marketing of or to recommend any Federal tax transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed in this message.
>
> If you desire a formal opinion on a particular tax matter for the purpose of avoiding the imposition of any penalties, we will discuss the additional Treasury requirements that must be met and whether it is possible to meet those requirements under the circumstances, as well as the anticipated time and additional fees involved.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Confidentiality Disclaimer: This e-mail message and any attachments are private communication sent by a law firm, Fowler White Boggs Banker P.A., and may contain confidential, legally privileged information meant solely for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, then delete the e-mail and any attachments from your system. Thank you.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Copyright on Wikisource


subject: [WikiEN-l] Captchas

body:
On 3/15/06, uninvited at nerstrand.net <uninvited at nerstrand.net> wrote:
>
> I note that captchas are now in use for new user creation at commons.
>
> Are captchas now in use at en?  If so, when was this change made?
>
> There are questions coming to OTRS about this.
>
> The Uninvited Co., Inc.
> (a Delaware corporation)

They seem to be switched on and off. When I tested this a few hours
ago they were off.

--
geni


body:
G'day Steve,

> On 3/14/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
>>Just a point ... there's no such thing as "html commands".
>
> Tell that to 351,000 google hits. By that measure we should create
> [[HTML commands]] straight away.

Oh, I have.  You know what 351 000 people with their hands in their ears
chanting "la la la" sounds like?  It's not pleasant, I'll tell you that
much.

> Anyway, it's just a question of perspective. You could probably mount
> a case for saying that <IMG> is a command that loads an image from
> disk, resizes it, adds a border and displays it on the screen in a
> scrolly window!

You *could* probably mount such a case, but if you did I'd have to shoot
Anthony.  And he wouldn't like that.  He wouldn't like that at all.

Cheers,

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

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.2.2/280 - Release Date: 13/03/2006