from_name: Jimmy Wales

body:
user_Jamesday wrote:
> 1. Does the main Wikipedia/Wikimedia foundation really want to be
>located on French soil and subject to French law with all
>international funds subject to judgements by French courts? I don't
>think that's wise unless it can't be avoided.

That's possibly a good point, but I don't consider it a particular danger.
I live in the US, beyond the reach of French courts.

This is perhaps a good argument to attempt to locate a European
subsidiary foundation in the nation with the best laws for freedom of
speech, though.  Which nation would that be?

> 2. Technically, isn't a caching proxy server a better idea? That
>way, those in France can avoid the transatlantic round trip time
>increases but still edit the main wikipedia/Wikimedia databases. (Mav,
>that's something your test didn't show, unless you were doing it from
>a French proxy service)

I am personally completely unconvinced at the present time that a
server in France would be worth the trouble for anyone.  The
transatlantic round trip time represents only a tiny fraction of the
time for rendering a page.  Our speed problems are much better
addressed with our existing upgrade plans.

Having said that, I should also say that I have been segregating funds
donated in the Euro currency, in case we find that spending money in
Europe directly is a wise thing to do.

--Jimbo


list: wikipedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Setting a new server in France for
	frenchwikipedia

body:
Guillaume Blanchard wrote:
> The problem seem that to be able to have this server we need an official
> foundation in France (I don't know exactly why).
> Hope Yann will explain that in better words...

It's important enough to me to keep everyone together and not in
separate independent organizations, that I will personally pay for a
server in Europe, with my own money, to be owned by me or by the
Wikimedia Foundation, whichever is most desirable legally, rather than
risk having separate organizations under separate control risking a
fork or violation of our policies in the future.

We should try to solve the problems that we have, without accidentally
creating worse problems in the future.

--Jimbo


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Setting a new server in France for french
	wikipedia

body:
Walter Vermeir wrote:
> The Wikimedia foundation is "located on Florida soil and subject to
> Florida and USA law". Supose the only reason why it is Florida for
> Wikimedia is that Jimmy is from there and so it is the logical choise.

Yes, but also, from a freedom of speech point of view, the US is a
very logical choice.  France, Germany, Canada, Great Britain, all have
laws which I think *might* directly impact our ability to produce an
NPOV encyclopedia in some cases.  Notice that the French are often
concerned, with good reason, that something might violate French
censorship laws.

On the other hand, if for some technical reason it is really necessary
to have a European legal presence in order to do something we want to
do, it should be easy enough to do that and keep things isolated.

One example: in my research yesterday (admittedly limited) it is not
possible to register wikipedia.fr unless we have a French
organization.  I am as yet unsure if there are services (as there are
for many countries) that will hold the name in trust for us.

I wonder if perhaps ouvation can do that?

(But, I do not know the politics of ouvation, nor whether they are
trustworthy, so I only give them as an example.)

--Jimbo


list: wikien-l

from_name: The Cunctator

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Straw man (was: Proposed: stop all deletes
	for6months, then reconsider)

body:
On 11/11/03 2:04 AM, "Andrew Lih" <alih at hku.hk> wrote:

>> Yes, they are. By definition it is a fallacy. Slippery slope
>> arguments, by definition, are missing the connecting tissue.
>
> Well I guess it is now that you've changed the Wikipedia entry for it
> and changed "argument" to "fallacy."

Changed it back, you mean.

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ss.htm
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

> The slippery slope argument only becomes a fallacy if you make an
> unreasonable conclusion connecting happening A and happening B.  Folks
> were debating the merits of including ~3,000 victims of 9/11
> individually as articles in Wikipedia. Asking what this means for other
> victims of other disasters and crimes around the world and in history is
> not a far stretch. That is why "rounding up" all arguments of this type
> to fallacy is not fair.

I did not call those questions straw men. Now you're changing the subject.

>> You seem to have a basic misunderstanding of logical fallacies.

> "The slippery slope argument is usually used as a commentary on social
> change, not as a point of logic."
>
> (which used to be in the Slippery Slope article)

It may be a nice commentary, but it's not a logically valid argument.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Straw man

body:
On 11/11/03 5:23 AM, "Delirium" <delirium at rufus.d2g.com> wrote:

> Andrew Lih wrote:
>
>>> Yes, they are. By definition it is a fallacy. Slippery slope
>>> arguments, by definition, are missing the connecting tissue.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Well I guess it is now that you've changed the Wikipedia entry for it
>> and changed "argument" to "fallacy."
>>
>> The slippery slope argument only becomes a fallacy if you make an
>> unreasonable conclusion connecting happening A and happening B.  Folks
>> were debating the merits of including ~3,000 victims of 9/11
>> individually as articles in Wikipedia. Asking what this means for other
>> victims of other disasters and crimes around the world and in history is
>> not a far stretch. That is why "rounding up" all arguments of this type
>> to fallacy is not fair.
>>
>>
> I'd agree with that, and calling it a fallacy is often a sneaky attempt
> by opponents of a particular issue to evade the real questions.  The
> basic issue is that it is a fact that moving in a direction makes it
> easier to move further in that direction.

No, it isn't a fact. It is *often* true that moving in a direction makes it
easier to move further in that direction, but it is not *necessarily* true.

> When we move 5 arbitrary
> units in a direction, things that were 10 in that direction are now 5.
> It would be a fallacy to say it is *inevitable* that then we will go the
> additional five, but it is entirely logical to say it is now *more
> likely* we will do so, and thus a legitimate point of contention for
> those who oppose doing anything to make such an outcome more likely.

Again, it is not entirely logical to do so.

> To pick one example, it is often held that if we begin allowing the
> government to intrude on our privacy with anti-terrorism legislation
> like the Patriot Act, this will set the stage for more intrusive
> legislation to follow--the new more-intrusive legislation is, by
> comparison, no longer a huge power grab, only an incremental one.  This
> isn't a fallacy, but simple fact, and empirically attested to by
> legislative history.

It is not a "simple fact". Moreover, you provided evidence for your argument
("legislative history"), which others did not.

> If The Cunctator's argument was correct, "precedent" would be a logical
> fallacy, which it is most certainly not: precedent is appealed to all
> the time.  The fact that something happens today makes it more likely
> that something similar will happen in the future, as today's act will be
> appealed to as partial precedent.  See court history for another example.

You misunderstand my argument.

> Back on topic, I believe I did elucidate my argument in quite
> mind-numbing detail.

I would love for you to reference such an elucidation.

> The argument, for those who missed it, is as follows:

> * By allowing entries for people whose only interest above any other
> random person who has ever existed is "died in September 11 terrorist
> attacks", we are forming a principle that dying in a notable event is
> sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia.
> * Notably, we are forming the principle that "so-and-so died in a
> notable event" constitutes sufficient grounds on which to oppose
> deletion of such biographies.
> * Thus, we have no legitimate grounds on which to oppose the inclusion
> in Wikipedia of those who died in any other notable tragedy.
> * Thus, if it occurs in the future that a group of people begin a
> sustained effort to add thousands of articles in Wikipedia on people who
> have died in a notable event but are not otherwise notable themselves
> (World War II soldiers, Holocaust victims, etc.), we have no legitimate
> grounds on which to ask them to stop doing so or to remove their
> articles.  After all, we let the Sept. 11 biographies be included, so
> how could we how ask that they refrain from adding their WW2 soldier
> ones, or suggest that they be deleted?
>
> I don't see how this is a logical fallacy.  Those who oppose this point
> of view need either to find some reason the argument is wrong (is there
> some grounds on which we *can* legitimately object to WW2 soldiers, but
> not to Sept 11 victims?), or need to disagree with its premise (that it
> is undesirable to allow tons of biographies on otherwise not notable
> people to be included in Wikipedia).  I believe The Cuncator has done
> the latter, but I also think most people disagree with him there.

You are incorrect in your belief. I have, in fact, welcomed people to make
the effort to add articles on other notable tragedies, including entries on
people's deaths.

> As for the particular *harm* such entries cause, it will be ridiculous
> if every single Wikipedia entry on a famous person has at the top (or
> bottom), "so-and-so was also the name of [somebody not notable in any
> way whatsoever], so so-and-so (disambiguation)".  This _will_ eventually
> happen, given no policy against the inclusion of non-notable people and
> enough time.  That's not a slippery slope argument either, just an
> observation that as we continue to add biographies of people who are not
> notable, eventually we will add many thousands (if not millions) of such
> biographies.

The above is fallacious, because the conclusion that Wikipedia will be
ridiculous if there are thousands of such biographies assumes that there
effort to make necessary interface changes to avoid such ridiculousness.

> In short, we must either excise the Sept. 11 biographies, or allow
> unrestricted biographies of essentially anyone.  The Cunctator seems to
> be arguing that there is no slippery slope here: that we can allow the
> Sept. 11 biographies and go no further.

No, I'm not. You are wrong.

> But there is no legitimate
> grounds on which to do so: there is no way we can say that the Sept. 11
> biographies are notable, but 6 million Holocaust victims are not.  Many
> people, in fact, would argue the reverse, with that particular example.

And I would not disagree with that, nor have I ever.

Please correct your misunderstandings of what I have said.


from_name: Stephen Gilbert

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Online reference article

body:
Electronic Book Web has published an article that may be of interest
called "The Future of Online Reference" (
http://12.108.175.91/ebookweb/stories/storyReader$2407 ). Representitves
from Alacritude (publisher of eLibrary and encyclopedia.com), Questia and
Encyclopaedia Britannica are interviewed. Sadly, our little project does
not yet warrant a mention. ;-)

Stephen Gilbert


from_name: Andrew Lih

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Straw man (was: Proposed: stop all deletes for 6
	months, then reconsider)

body:
> From:  Jimmy Wales
> James Duffy wrote:
> > The ''deletionists'' against ''inclusionists'' argument is utterly
> > bogus. It is a case of those who take the idea that wikipedia as an
> > encyclopedia seriously and basic standards below which an article is

> > deleted and those who see wikipedia as some sort of scribblebox
where
> > any sort of rubbish, not matter how bad, has a 'right' to be left
> > undisturbed.
>
> People have been upset about the phrase "straw man", but
> really I think that phrase has to be said when you try to
> characterize the debate in this way.

The problem is, recently folks have been crying "straw man" and it
hasn't been accurate, and unnecessarily villifies the poster.

In most of these cases, discussion has consisted of reasonable "What
if..." and "slippery slope" arguments when standards for "articleness"
are lowered.  This is not automatically a straw man, and in most posts
here, they have not been straw man arguments at all.

Straw men are more often a problem with logical reasoning, not policy
debate.  If there are weaknesses in a proposed policy, and people
constructively point that out, it's not automatically a straw man.

-Fuzheado


from_name: Daniel Ehrenberg

body:
> Yes, but also, from a freedom of speech point of
> view, the US is a
> very logical choice.  France, Germany, Canada, Great
> Britain, all have
> laws which I think *might* directly impact our
> ability to produce an
> NPOV encyclopedia in some cases.  Notice that the
> French are often
> concerned, with good reason, that something might
> violate French
> censorship laws.
>
> --Jimbo

The US isn't without censorship laws, either. Under
some interpretations of the Patriot act, it is illegal
to give information to a suspected terrorist
organization that may help them in any way. Under
every interpretation of the Patriot II act, it is
illegal to acknoledge the existence of someone who has
been detained, eg. writing a biography about them.
LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree


from_name: Rick

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Communist paper apologises but Wikipedia endorses the
	malicious claim!

body:
This attack has gone beyond making my eyes glaze over.  I've now decided I have no interest in reading anything further you have to say.  You are the weakest link.  Goodbye.

RickK

libertarian <libertarian at myway.com> wrote:

--- On Tue 11/11, Daniel Mayer < maveric149 at yahoo.com > wrote:

> WikiEN-l is /not/ USENET. Please stop abusing this list by posting
> arguments

I agree. Instead of responding to my complaint about Marxist
jingoists going around posting that everything about India is
either fascist or mired in controversy (if it is positive), they
start spewing the Marxist rhetoric themselves and abuse me instead.

This is what you get with American ignorance.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20031111/83e45e90/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Straw man

body:
On 11/11/03 7:02 AM, "Delirium" <delirium at rufus.d2g.com> wrote:

> The Cunctator wrote:
>
>>> But there is no legitimate
>>> grounds on which to do so: there is no way we can say that the Sept. 11
>>> biographies are notable, but 6 million Holocaust victims are not.  Many
>>> people, in fact, would argue the reverse, with that particular example.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> And I would not disagree with that, nor have I ever.
>>
>> Please correct your misunderstandings of what I have said.
>>
> Then I think the simple disagreement boils down to that.  I think that
> this is opening the door for a flood of stuff Wikipedia doesn't need and
> shouldn't have to deal with, while you disagree that it is undesirable
> for us to have such entries.  So I suppose slippery slope doesn't enter
> into it at all: I think we should have none of them, and you think we
> should have all of them.  Is that accurate?

I would only say that my position is that we should have all of them
eventually--which could be a very long time. I'm in no rush to accelerate
the process.

> I'm curious what you meant by "necessary interface changes".  Do you
> mean we wouldn't reference the non-notable people at all on the articles
> of the famous people?

I don't know, honestly. I do believe that the Wikipedia interface could be
improved somehow to deal with namespace collisions.

Disambiguation pages are an imperfect hack.

> I'm objecting to an article on, say, Thomas
> Jefferson, saying "Thomas Jefferson was also a chemical engineer who
> worked for Raytheon in the 1960s and 70s," or "Thomas Jefferson was a
> high school student who died in an automobile accident in 1952," or even
> a link pointing to a "list of other Thomas Jeffersons" which is
> populated with such non-noteworthy people.  If they can somehow be kept
> completely isolated in a "people who are not notable" ghetto, such that
> [[Thomas Jefferson]] doesn't have to include them or a link to them or a
> disambiguating page containing them, I'd have no objections to their
> mere presence in the database--it's the pollution of the namespace I'm
> objecting to.

That's a perfectly reasonable objection.

But saying "We can't let people add entries on lesser-known people because
then there would be 4000 Michael Jordan articles" is not a reasonable
argument.

I think it behooves anyone who wishes to add such entries to ensure that the
entries don't collide with more famous people by using middle names, etc.

But as we've seen we still have the name-collision problem with "famous"
people as well (see [[Elizabeth Smart]]).

Again, I believe we'll figure out a better way to deal with naming
collisions as it becomes a more pressing problem.


from_name: libertarian

body:
 --- On Tue 11/11, Fred Bauder < fredbaud at ctelco.net > wrote:

> We seem to be making progress and in truth you are no worse than
> some of the other editors in this area, perhaps the focus needs to
> move over to them for a while.

Your rant is unwarranted. Among those who contributed to the
India related articles which are "disputed" (i.e., make ASSERTIONS
even when there is hint of something negative and obfuscate the
positives as disputes even when it is a fact), I was the one who
was openminded and tried to enter into conversations.

Stop pretending that I am the problem. The Marxists are.

One list member (not an indian) sent me a mail off the list saying
that he found that the main problem is that the Americans are
usually ignorant and he has found it difficult to convince
the people on this list even when facts are on his side and the
other side is blatantly abusing Wikipedia being an open source
encyclopedia. I think I now understand this clearly.

I never realized that Americans suffered from so much ignorance
of other countries and feel a need to present everything as "disputes"
regarding other countries but could verify information when it came
to their countries.

Give me a break, this guy runs on a Communist Party ticket and
wins elections, serves as a member of a Communist Government, writes
Marxist stuff all along, sets up "anti-Imperialism" forums and
protests Bill Clinton's visit to India using all usual Communist
rhetoric and was a Presidential candidate for the Communists and
Wikipedia REFUSES to admit that he is a Communist?

You guys shouldn't be whining when your credibility is questioned.
It is complete rubbish.
I am going to send this example to a bunch of journalists and see
if any of them will pick it up and write an article pointing out
how open source websites contain only trashy information. Even well
known information like Krishna Iyer being a Communist is denied!
That is how low the quality of Wikipedia is.

You cannot equate me with the other editors who have been problematic.
ALL my information can be verified and on the question of substance,
none can question my points. They are all based in fact. On the
question of style, I have taken inputs and corrected myself.

I was probably wrong in trusting Americans. Maybe Americans *are*
ignorant and it is going to be impossible to get Americans to see
the correct point of view. I am starting to believe that Americans
are truly stupid.

I have another plan - I am going to ask more Communists on several
Marxist mailing lists to start posting since "fascists" have taken
over Wikipedia and you can have the Marxist allegations if you want.
However, it will completely destroy the reputation of Wikipedia.
Not that there is any - right now, I am going to find some journalist
to write about the disadvantages of open source.
What do you want? Why are you not able to think properly? Why is
Marxist jingoism valid for an encyclopedia as long as it is applied
to India?

> However you cannot depend on one overworked person to somehow
> monitor the situation and set it right.

Where did I ask you to monitor the situation? I monitored it and
brought it to the list for redressal.

> The dialog needs to be beween the active contributors. Perhaps you
> could look at the article, Hindutva, and see if you could craft it
> as a NPOV article.

Why should *you* pick what should be drafted as a NPOV article?
Why can't you look at an article about which I've already dropped
you a line?
Let me get this straight - India is a fascist nation with a fascist
ruling party with a majority of people as stinking fascists. Yes,
Wikipedia says so!!!!!!!!!!
What else is fascist about India? How about the food Indians eat
and the way they dress? What about their music? Must be fascist too!

BTW, the party you claim to be fascist had a Muslim as its
Presidential candidate and when I posted this information, it
was deleted and replaced with some garbage rhetoric. After I got
tired of replacing it, I left the rhetoric in place so that both
lines were out there. The abuser quickly added a portion attributing
malicious motives for the party nominating a Muslim (claimed that
it was dependent on other parties and had no choice. Anyone who
followed the election will know that he was the BJP candidate.)

-evil brown skinned person

_______________________________________________
No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.
Introducing My Way - http://www.myway.com


body:
--- On Tue 11/11, Daniel Mayer < maveric149 at yahoo.com > wrote:

> WikiEN-l is /not/ USENET. Please stop abusing this list by posting
> arguments

I agree. Instead of responding to my complaint about Marxist
jingoists going around posting that everything about India is
either fascist or mired in controversy (if it is positive), they
start spewing the Marxist rhetoric themselves and abuse me instead.

This is what you get with American ignorance.

Anyway, let me know about what you think of my idea of helping you -
since you seem to have an inclination towards Marxists, I'll invite
more of them to contribute "facts" and defeat the "fascists."
I am sure it will do a lot of good to the credibility of Wikipedia.

_______________________________________________
No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.
Introducing My Way - http://www.myway.com


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject: [WikiEN-l] Straw man as Whipping Boy

body:
I've seen far too many posts in the last few days, in which one writer
or another says that another writer has employed a Straw Man argument.
I'm afraid that the concept of "straw man" is becoming this month's
whipping boy.

You know, not everyone on this mailing list is familiar with terminology
used to describe and categorize arguments. I myself mistook the term
"poisoning the well" as a kind of personal attack. I had to eat my
words, and wash my humble pie down with well water after erroneously
chiding NetEsq over that!

A straw man is a distortion of your opponent's position. It may be a
weakened form of their real argument, or even just words you put in
their mouth.

Once you "knock down" their straw man, you IMPLY that you have also (or
really) knocked out their entire argument. Among honest,
well-intentioned people, this is regarded as a kind of rhetorical "dirty
trick" and should thus be avoided here on our mailing list.

But when we LABEL someone's argument a "straw man", we'd better be
careful. Let's not assume the person making a straw man argument knows
that he's doing this, or that he has even HEARD the term *straw man* --
it would be better to:

(1) re-state the original position
(2) re-state the 'straw man' version of it
(3) show how the straw man version differs from the original

Our leading expert on rhetoric, the Cunctator, is best qualified to do
this and it is in admiration of his rhetorical skills that I am bringing
up this point.

Let's not make the straw man our Whipping Boy this month, okay?

Ed Poor
Amateur Rhetoric Coach


from_name: Till Westermayer

subject: [Wikipedia-l] wikimedia funds should be public

body:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . till we *) . . .

Hi Lars,

>Hunter Peress wrote:
>> wikimedia funds should be public.

>Like this: This money is now under GPL.  If you give it to
>someone, you have to tell everybody who you gave it to, and they
>in turn must respect that this money is under GPL.  Etc.  This
>money must never again enter the closed economy.  :-)

>We will soon die from starvation, since there are too few "open
>economy" food stores.  Some of us must move into the countryside
>and start cooperative "whole earth" farms that produce GPL food.

Hey, a good idea ;-)

No, really -- I know people with ideas quite similiar to these, who
really want to create an "OpenEconomy".
 __ .
 / / / /                            ... Till Westermayer - till we *)
. .
  . mailto:till at tillwe.de . www.westermayer.de/till/ . icq 320393072
  . Habsburgerstr. 82 . 79104 Freiburg . 0761 55697152 . 0160 96619179
  . . . . .


from_name: Walter Vermeir

body:
user_Jamesday wrote:
> Addressing various points:
>
> 1. Does the main Wikipedia/Wikimedia foundation really want to be
> located on French soil and subject to French law with all
> international funds subject to judgements by French courts? I don't

The Wikimedia foundation is "located on Florida soil and subject to
Florida and USA law". Supose the only reason why it is Florida for
Wikimedia is that Jimmy is from there and so it is the logical choise.

If where let say Lars Aronsson the founder of Wikipedia it would be i
think a Swedish foundation for Wikimedia.

That does not change whit the creation of a foundation in France.

> think that's wise unless it can't be avoided.

I agree that it is better not to create a new foundation, not because it
is in France, but because one for now must be enough.

> 3. Caching proxies seem like a better way to obtain legal isolation,
> since proxies and caching are fairly widely accepted as being
> different from the sites they are caching. I assume that the French
> foundation can be set up as a non-proft dedicated to increasing the
> responsiveness of the Wikipedia when accessed from within France.
>
> 4. This is also a nice model for local caches around the world.

Sounds good. Now the traffic is on a global scale not so much. But like
there are now many ISP's who have there owne "tucows" mirror and a
"sourceforge" download mirror ISP's mayby also will setup there
wikipedia mirror so the have to pay less expensive international bandwidth.

--
Contact: walter AT wikipedia PUNT be
Ook een artikeltje schrijven? WikipediaNL, de vrije GNU/FDL encyclopedie
http://www.wikipedia.be


body:
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
> The US isn't without censorship laws, either. Under
> some interpretations of the Patriot act, it is illegal
> to give information to a suspected terrorist
> organization that may help them in any way.

Yes, under some interpretations held by people who are not involved in
any way in prosecuting or judging such cases.

> Under every interpretation of the Patriot II act, it is illegal to
> acknoledge the existence of someone who has been detained,
> eg. writing a biography about them.

Of course, that act was not passed, and is not law, so it's a moot
point, but even so, I'd be interested to read more, because that
sounds to me extremely far-fetched.  The Supreme Court would strike
down a law like that before the ink was dry.

--Jimbo


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Straw man (was: Proposed: stop all deletes for 6months,
	then reconsider)

body:
> On Behalf Of The Cunctator
> At least according to Wikipedia, "the straw man rhetorical
> technique is the practice of refuting weaker arguments than
> your opponents actually offer."

Have you ever heard the saying, "Don't eat where you crap?" :)

> That is what people have been doing.
> Your use of the word "crying"--when describing what people
> are doing in a textual medium--unnecessarily vilifies the posters.
>
> For one, slippery slope arguments are fallacies too.

When debating our policies, pointing out resulting troubling scenarios
and possible degradation to Wikipedia's reputation is a valid exercise
given Wikipedia's stature and importance. Slippery slope arguments are
not inherent fallacies.

And, yes there have been charges of strawman, right in the first
sentence of several posts on WikiEN-l (not particular to either side).

-Fuzheado

> FULL POST:

> At least according to Wikipedia, "the straw man rhetorical
> technique is the practice of refuting weaker arguments than
> your opponents actually offer."
>
> That is what people have been doing.
>
> Your use of the word "crying"--when describing what people
> are doing in a textual medium--unnecessarily vilifies the posters.
>
> > In most of these cases, discussion has consisted of
> reasonable "What
> > if..." and "slippery slope" arguments when standards for
> "articleness"
> > are lowered.  This is not automatically a straw man, and in
> most posts
> > here, they have not been straw man arguments at all.
>
> For one, slippery slope arguments are fallacies too.
>
> Secondly, you actually made a straw man argument again: "when
> standards for 'articleness' are lowered". I am not advocating
> lowering standards for 'articleness'. Rather, others are
> advocating changing the standards, and claiming that the new
> standards are the "real" standards and that any other
> position is for lower standards.
>
> Thirdly, slippery slope arguments are generally connected to
> a further straw man argument when the "what if" scenario is
> deemed to be bad and used to attack the original position.
>
> Finally, I hope you're not trying to characterize what James
> Duffy wrote above as a reasonable "what if" argument.
>


from_name: Nathan Russell

subject: [WikiEN-l] User:Krhanus

body:
This is directed at Jimbo in particular, and I apologize in advance if I'm not following the proper procedures and such.  I'm not a sysop or anything, just an ordinary Wikipedian.

Khranus, as is discussed at great length by me and others on Wikipedia:Problem Users, has a history of adding conspiracy theories to articles.  A mild such theory is that dolphins may be triggering cold fusion with their sonar, and that cold fusion is proven to work but is being covered up by, among others, the British royal family.  He also likes to use personal insults aimed at users who disagree with him on talk pages.  See early revisions of [[Dolphin intelligence]], as well as [[Talk:Cold fusion]] for examples.  Or just see a random edit out of his contribs, it will probably be a conspiracy theory, a personal insult, or both.  On [[Talk:Cold fusion]], he actually cites a co-author of the Illuminatus Trilogy in support of his claims.

This is just a summary of what was posted to the Problem Users page about Khranus, and I'd refer everyone to his section on that page for more information.

Thanks!

Nathan Russell, AKA user:Pakaran


from_name: Brian Corr

subject: [WikiEN-l] Mediation proposal for 2002 Gujarat violence article

body:
I'm sending this to the list since the article has generated so much
traffic. Please
see
<http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2002_Gujarat_violence#Proposal_for_Mediation_from_Bcorr>
for my mediation proposal.

I'm hoping that this will keep this discussion to a minimum on this list
for the time being


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Gabriel O'Brien

subject:
[Wikitech-l] mod_rewrite and sysop vs. developer permissions (two
	questions)

body:
Hi All!

I'm trying to get a MediaWiki implementation running over here:
http://aikiwiki.quay.net/ and everything seems to be OK, except for one problem.
 I've got mod_rewrite running on Apache (v1.3.27 -- I have to leave it at 1.3
for now due to unrelated problems with another app) and it seems to have no
trouble rewriting (for example) http://aikiwiki.quay.net/wiki/Ueshiba_Morihei
but as soon as I modify "$wgArticlePath" from "{$wgScript}?title=$1" to
"/wiki/$1" I can no longer access any of the "Special" pages such as
"http://aikiwiki.quay.net/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Preferences" instead the
link goes to "http://aikiwiki.quay.net/wiki/Special:Preferences" and it's
treated like an empty article.

I'm pretty sure that I just have something configured wrongly on my system, but
I'm at a loss as to what it might be... any suggestions?

Here's the content of my "LocalSettings.php" file:

--- begin ---

<?
# Local settings work like this: the file LocalSettings.sample
# should be copied to LocalSettings.php in the source directory
# and edited for your local file system settings and software
# configuration preferences. The install script will copy it to
# the installation path, but a copy should also remain in the
# source tree so that maintenance scripts can refer to it (you
# may want to make it a symbolic link after installation).  Do
# not check LocalSettings.php into CVS!  It is different for
# every installation, and must not be overridden.

# The most important setting is here: $IP is the installation
# path for the software.
#

$IP = "/my/path/to/mediawiki/w";

if ( ! isset( $DP ) ) { $DP = $IP; }
include_once( "$DP/DefaultSettings.php" );

# You can customize a lot of URLs and paths, but you will
# almost certainly want to customize the following.  The
# ArticlePath one is especially useful if you want to use
# mod_redirect to make page-viewing URLs look static.
#
$wgSitename         = "Aikiwiki";
$wgServer           = "http://aikiwiki.quay.net";
#$wgArticlePath      = "{$wgScript}?title=$1";
$wgArticlePath      = "/wiki/$1";
$wgEmergencyContact = "aikiwiki at quay.net";
$wgLogo             = "/images/aikiwiki.gif";

# MySQL settings
#
$wgDBserver         = "localhost";
$wgDBuser           = "user";
$wgDBname           = "wiki";
$wgDBpassword       = "somepass";
$wgDBsqlpassword        = "anotherpass";
$wgDBminWordLen         = 3;     # Match this to your MySQL fulltext
$wgDBtransactions   = false; # Set to true if using InnoDB tables

# This code is still slightly experimental. Turn it off if "What links here"
# and similar stuff does not work.
$wgUseBetterLinksUpdate=true;

# Turn this on during database maintenance
# $wgReadOnly = true;

# Turn this on to get HTML debug comments
# $wgDebugComments      = true;

# If you want a non-English wiki, add a line like this
# $wgLanguageCode = "de";

$wgUseTeX                       = false;

$wgLocalInterwiki   = "w";

$wgInputEncoding        = "ISO-8859-1";
$wgOutputEncoding       = "ISO-8859-1";

# Extremely high-traffic wikis may want to disable
# some database-intensive features here:
#
# $wgDisableTextSearch = true;
# $wgDisableCounters = true;
# $wgMiserMode          = true;

?>

--- end ---

Thanks for your help guys!  Also an unrelated question, what is the difference
between sysop and developer permissions?

cheers,
Gabe

--
Gabriel M. O'Brien
--------------------
go at quay.net
http://web.quay.net/
--------------------

The divine beauty
Of heaven and earth!
All creation,
Members of
One Family.

-- Ueshiba Morihei


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Setting a new server in France for
	french	wikipedia

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>>Under every interpretation of the Patriot II act, it is illegal to
>>acknoledge the existence of someone who has been detained,
>>eg. writing a biography about them.
>>
>Of course, that act was not passed, and is not law, so it's a moot
>point, but even so, I'd be interested to read more, because that
>sounds to me extremely far-fetched.  The Supreme Court would strike
>down a law like that before the ink was dry.
>
One of the big problems when this sort of thing happens, is the amount
of time it takes for things to work their way through the system, even
when there's no doubt that they will be struck down..  Until that
happens there is a presumption on the part of the bureaucrats and
administrators that they have the right to do what they're doing.

Ec


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Communist paper apologises but Wikipedia endorses
	the	malicious claim!

body:
In the interests of maintaining peace in the family, I will restrain
myself in my attempts to be tauntingly truthful in matters relating to
India. ;-)

libertarian wrote:

>--- On Mon 11/10, Ray Saintonge < saintonge at telus.net > wrote:
>
>     At least here in British Columbia we have had a provincial premier,
>     Ujjal Dosanjh, who was born in India.
>
>You're still a xenophobic country in the sense that your Prime
>Minister cannot be foreign born. OTOH, we allow foreign born
>people to hold the office of Prime Minister and one such person
>could become our Prime Minister anytime. She is the leader of
>the opposition now.
>
Your observation is factually incorrect.  John Turner was the most
recent foreign born prime minister.

Ec


body:
The Cunctator wrote:
> For one, slippery slope arguments are fallacies too.

Not always.  Some people might convincingly argue, for example, that
setting a precedent of banning people for a particular infraction may
make it easier and easier to ban them for other infractions.  I think
that's a legitimate concern.

--Jimbo


from_name: Richards,Michael

subject: [Wikitech-l] Wikimedia installation guide

body:
For all those who are doing an installation of Wikimedia (or will be doing or have done), please see the recently "completed" installation Guide (part of the MediaWiki User's Guide) at http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_User's_Guide:_Installation - and don't just look at it - update/add/fix it whatever, obviously it is not actually finished (are articles ever finished?).

Two other versions have been created which are OS specific (recently linked to from http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_User's_Guide).

What is the best way to organize this? Should we have:

1) One generic version that has notes on OS specific differences?
2) One version for each OS?
3) One generic version and one version for each OS showing only the differences?

- Michael Richards (Nanobug)


from_name: Ivo Köthnig

subject: [Wikipedia-l] series of articles and navigation table

body:
I think [[sidebar:articlename]] would be more usefull.

cheers
Coma

> > Hello,
> >
> > I was reading the History of Germany articles and
> > found the navigation
> > table on the right quite useful:
> > http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Germany
> >
> > I think this will improve wikipedia just as much as
> > the automatic table of
> > content did.
> >
> > A way to implement this feature would be to point a
> > parent article to all
> > it's childs and vice versa. That might be done using
> > [[parent:articlename]]
> > and / or [[child:articlename]].
> >
> > Let's look at an example:
> >
> > History of Germany
> > -> Franks
> > -> Holy Roman Empire
> > -> German Confederation
> > -> German Empire
> > -> Weimar Republic
> > -> Nazi Germany
> > -> Germany since 1945
> >
> > Franks article is interesting
> > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franks) as it
> > is part of two series (History of France AND of
> > Germany).
> >
> > So the History of Germany will have:
> > [[child:Franks]]
> >
> > And Franks will have:
> > [[parent:History of France]]
> > [[parent:History of Germany]]
> >
> >
> > Maybe we just need the parent tag ? Setting up a
> > parent tag in an article
> > will automaticly update the parent article without
> > using any child.
> >
> > cheers,
> >
> >
> > --
> > Antoine


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Let's write neutral articles (was: Wikipedia endorses
	themalicious claim!)

body:
I am beginning to lose my patience with the length and contentiousness
of this thread.

Rick, please don't fan the flames any more; give it a rest, please.

Libertarian, please try to understand that Wikipedia is not a place to
"post" your point of view or argue about it. We are trying to write
neutral articles about topics.

If there is controversy about a topic you care deeply about, you have
some choices:

1. Don't write about it here, if you can't accept our Neutral Point Of
View (NPOV) editorial policy.

2. Stop and ask for help, every time someone reverts one of your edits.
An experience writer (like me :-) will come to your aid, and help you
revise your edit so that it is accepted by others.

There is no third way. Complaining about how everyone is unfair will
never get you anywhere, and eventually you will either be hounded out
(as it will seem) or get kicked out (if you get so upset that you start
deliberately breaking the rules).

I think you ought to try option #2: pick ONE SMALL PROBLEM and ask about
it. Then stop. And wait. Give people time to respond.

If the problem really is OTHER PEOPLE, I can persuade them (usually) or
make them (if it's important enough). But you have to slow down and
quiet down enough to let me work. Otherwise, I can't help you.

Ed Poor
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20031111/376500ea/attachment.htm


from_name: Delirium

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Straw man (was: Proposed: stop all deletes for
	6	months, then reconsider)

body:
The Cunctator wrote:

>On 11/11/03 4:35 PM, "Jimmy Wales" <jwales at bomis.com> wrote:
>
>
>>The Cunctator wrote:
>>
>>
>>>For one, slippery slope arguments are fallacies too.
>>>
>>>
>>Not always.  Some people might convincingly argue, for example, that
>>setting a precedent of banning people for a particular infraction may
>>make it easier and easier to ban them for other infractions.  I think
>>that's a legitimate concern.
>>
>>
>
>That's an inductive argument, not a slippery slope argument.
>
>All inductive arguments are fallacies, in the rigorous sense. Only deductive
>arguments are rigorously valid.
>
>Although they are fallacies, that does not mean that inductive arguments
>should be ignored. They simply need to be recognized as such--that there is
>necessarily an element of uncertainty about the conclusion.
>
>
Not under the standard definition of "fallacy".  An inductive argument
that claimed to be absolute proof would be a logical fallacy, but an
argument that claims inductive *evidence* is not a fallacy.  If it were,
nearly all work done in science would be fallacious, as it relies on
repeatability of experiments, which is an inductive claim (it is
logically conceivable that an experiment that has been repeated
successfully 500,000 times is actually wrong, and you've just gotten
lucky that many times: but it's not particularly likely).

There _is_ a branch of philosophy that refers to inductive arguments in
general as fallacious, first formulated in its present form (as far as I
know) by David Hume's with his famous "problem of induction".  However,
Hume's attack on induction is not universally regarded as conclusive,
especially as the epistemological question of what constitutes proper
justification for a proposition is a hotly debated one.

-Mark


subject: [WikiEN-l] Straw man

body:
The Cunctator wrote:

>Again, a slippery slope argument and an inductive argument are not
>equivalent. There's a reason the words are different.
>
>
A quick scan of recent media seems to argue differently: there are
numerous uses of the term "slippery slope" by politicians arguing
against the Patriot Act, for example, who argue that it makes it easier
for future government power grabs.  This is, by your terminology, an
inductive argument, but widely referred to as a "slippery slope"
argument by those actually making the argument.  A typical phrase is
"this starts us on a slippery slope towards...".  Opponents of the
recent partial-birth abortion ban act have made similar arguments, that
this is the first step towards further restrictions on abortion.

For a rigorous treatment of the legitimate use of slippery slope
arguments in their numerous forms, see "The Mechanisms of the Slippery
Slope", a forthcoming book by UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh,
available online in draft form:
http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/slippery.htm

-Mark


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Straw man (was: Proposed: stop all deletes for6months,
	then reconsider)

body:
> Yes, they are. By definition it is a fallacy. Slippery slope
> arguments, by definition, are missing the connecting tissue.

Well I guess it is now that you've changed the Wikipedia entry for it
and changed "argument" to "fallacy."

The slippery slope argument only becomes a fallacy if you make an
unreasonable conclusion connecting happening A and happening B.  Folks
were debating the merits of including ~3,000 victims of 9/11
individually as articles in Wikipedia. Asking what this means for other
victims of other disasters and crimes around the world and in history is
not a far stretch. That is why "rounding up" all arguments of this type
to fallacy is not fair.

> You seem to have a basic misunderstanding of logical fallacies.

"The slippery slope argument is usually used as a commentary on social
change, not as a point of logic."

(which used to be in the Slippery Slope article)

-Fuzheado


from_name: Lars Aronsson

body:
Walter Vermeir wrote:
> If where let say Lars Aronsson the founder of Wikipedia it would be i
> think a Swedish foundation for Wikimedia.

Well, it would be "in Sweden", but it wouldn't be "a foundation",
because that is not the traditional way to organize things over here.

If it was in Germany, it would be an "e.V." (eingetragene Verein, or
registered membership association), and a similar construction would
be used in Sweden.  I think some kind of membership association is now
being discussed on the German wiki-de mailing list.

The Swedish chapter of ISOC is now a Swedish membership association,
and all I know is that it took quite a lot of bureaucracy to make this
interface with the international mother organization.  The problem
seems to be that Swedish laws require the Swedish association to be
independent, having their own bylaws, so its elected board can be
held responsible under Swedish laws, and at the same time the
international organization doesn't allow the chapter to be fully
independent, but its bylaws and board must be approved by ISOC.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation does not have a Swedish chapter,
but a completely independent membership association "with similar
goals" exists in Sweden (www.efs.se).  Saves a lot of bureaucracy.

If the Wikimedia foundation looks for a solution like this, a lot
could be learned from already existing international organizations
such as ISOC, the Red Cross, etc.  I could volunteer to be the
overpaid representative in Geneva with a secret bank account.  :-)

--
  Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se/


from_name: Alex Rosen

body:
>That's an inductive argument, not a slippery slope argument.
>
>All inductive arguments are fallacies, in the rigorous sense. Only
deductive
>arguments are rigorously valid.
>
>Although they are fallacies, that does not mean that inductive
arguments
>should be ignored. They simply need to be recognized as such--that
there is
>necessarily an element of uncertainty about the conclusion.

Then you're using the word "fallacy" in a different way than normal
humans use it. That might be a more correct way of using it, I don't
know, but just be aware that people will take it differently than you
mean it. Calling something a fallacy sounds like you're saying that it's
incorrect and should be completely discounted.

I don't think anybody believes that their "slippery slope" argument is
conclusive proof, we all know it's just one consideration in the
debate.

Alex


from_name: Guillaume Blanchard

body:
Hi,
If I don't mistaken, the idea is just to have a static version of Wikipedia.
Edit will be redirect to the ? true ? Wikipedia.
The problem seem that to be able to have this server we need an official
foundation in France (I don't know exactly why).
Hope Yann will explain that in better words...

Aoineko

----- Original Message -----
From: "user_Jamesday" <user_Jamesday at myrealbox.com>
To: <wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 12:57 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Setting a new server in France for
frenchwikipedia

Addressing various points:

1. Does the main Wikipedia/Wikimedia foundation really want to be located on
French soil and subject to French law with all international funds subject
to judgements by French courts? I don't think that's wise unless it can't be
avoided.

2. Technically, isn't a caching proxy server a better idea? That way, those
in France can avoid the transatlantic round trip time increases but still
edit the main wikipedia/Wikimedia databases. (Mav, that's something your
test didn't show, unless you were doing it from a French proxy service)

3. Caching proxies seem like a better way to obtain legal isolation, since
proxies and caching are fairly widely accepted as being different from the
sites they are caching. I assume that the French foundation can be set up as
a non-proft dedicated to increasing the responsiveness of the Wikipedia when
accessed from within France.

4. This is also a nice model for local caches around the world.

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


from_name: The Cunctator

body:
On 11/11/03 4:35 PM, "Jimmy Wales" <jwales at bomis.com> wrote:

> The Cunctator wrote:
>> For one, slippery slope arguments are fallacies too.
>
> Not always.  Some people might convincingly argue, for example, that
> setting a precedent of banning people for a particular infraction may
> make it easier and easier to ban them for other infractions.  I think
> that's a legitimate concern.

That's an inductive argument, not a slippery slope argument.

All inductive arguments are fallacies, in the rigorous sense. Only deductive
arguments are rigorously valid.

Although they are fallacies, that does not mean that inductive arguments
should be ignored. They simply need to be recognized as such--that there is
necessarily an element of uncertainty about the conclusion.


from_name: Brion Vibber

body:
On Nov 11, 2003, at 09:57, Gabriel O'Brien wrote:
> I'm trying to get a MediaWiki implementation running over here:
> http://aikiwiki.quay.net/ and everything seems to be OK, except for
> one problem.
>  I've got mod_rewrite running on Apache (v1.3.27 -- I have to leave it
> at 1.3
> for now due to unrelated problems with another app) and it seems to
> have no
> trouble rewriting (for example)
> http://aikiwiki.quay.net/wiki/Ueshiba_Morihei
> but as soon as I modify "$wgArticlePath" from "{$wgScript}?title=$1" to
> "/wiki/$1" I can no longer access any of the "Special" pages such as
> "http://aikiwiki.quay.net/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Preferences"
> instead the
> link goes to "http://aikiwiki.quay.net/wiki/Special:Preferences" and
> it's
> treated like an empty article.

That sounds pretty weird... Could you post the rewrite rules?

I notice it does the same thing for other pages w/ namespaces:

http://aiwiki.quay.net/w/wiki.phtml?title=Aikiwiki:Naming_Conventions
http://aiwiki.quay.net/wiki/Aikiwiki:Naming_Conventions

which makes me suspicious it's something about the colon.

> Thanks for your help guys!  Also an unrelated question, what is the
> difference
> between sysop and developer permissions?

'Developer' used to have some special abilities like read/write SQL
access through Special:Asksql. It's been decided that's just too
dangerous to run over unencrypted HTTP, so it's been taken out.
'developer' now provides only:

   Special:Debug -- runs phpinfo()
   Special:Lockdb -- set the global read-only lock
   Special:Unlockdb -- unset the global read-only lock

These can be done manually as well, so may eventually get phased out
entirely.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Straw man

body:
On 11/11/03 5:13 PM, "Alex Rosen" <arosen at novell.com> wrote:

>> That's an inductive argument, not a slippery slope argument.
>>
>> All inductive arguments are fallacies, in the rigorous sense. Only
>> deductive arguments are rigorously valid.
>>
>> Although they are fallacies, that does not mean that inductive arguments
>> should be ignored. They simply need to be recognized as such
>>--that there is necessarily an element of uncertainty about the conclusion.
>
> Then you're using the word "fallacy" in a different way than normal
> humans use it.

So now I'm not normal? Thanks. What is the "normal" definition of fallacy?

> That might be a more correct way of using it, I don't
> know, but just be aware that people will take it differently than you
> mean it. Calling something a fallacy sounds like you're saying that it's
> incorrect and should be completely discounted.

It *is* incorrect and it should be avoided whenever possible. Some fallacies
are correctable or at least improvable; others are not.

> I don't think anybody believes that their "slippery slope" argument is
> conclusive proof, we all know it's just one consideration in the
> debate.

I don't presume to know what everyone else is thinking. Since all we have to
communicate with is our words, it behooves us to be rigorous in our
language.

Again, a slippery slope argument and an inductive argument are not
equivalent. There's a reason the words are different.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Example of a Slippery Slope argument

body:
In "Good Morning, Vietnam" the Adrian Cronauer character argues with the
two tough Gis who want to throw out his Vietnamese friend. "If you throw
out the gooks, next you'll have to throw out the spics, the kikes, ...
And pretty soon we'll have nothing left but two brain-dead rednecks."

Then there's the Catholic who lamented that when they came for the Jews,
he was not alarmed. When they came for the Protestants, he was not
alarmed. But when the Nazis came for him, it was too late.

If the slippery slope is never valid, then the old Arab proverb about
"Give him an inch, he'll take a mile" is just foolishness.

And we can tell Al Gore to give it a rest about the PATRIOT Act being
the "first step" in the gradual erosion of US civil liberties, right?

And if we don't nip it in the bud, it'll grow until it chokes us: I mean
this habit of stopping all business on the list to have lofty abstract
arguments over rhetorical techniques.

Anyway, whether or not any PARTICULAR argument using the slippery slope
or "give him an inch" is sound is all that matters. I'm not exalting or
critiquing the principle here.

Can we get away from abstract arguments about rhetoric now, and return
to our noble task? Oh, yeah, now I remember: writing neutral articles
about all topics, lofty and trivial.

Ed Poor


subject: [WikiEN-l] Nice Cunctator, Nice Alex

body:
Calm down, my dear Cunctator, Alex was paying you a compliment: you have
more knowledge of classical rhetoric and logic in your little finger
than any 10 Wikipedians combined.

You have an abnormally keen mind!

Ed "The Peacemaker" Poor


subject: [WikiEN-l] Straw man

body:
On 11/11/03 5:59 PM, "Delirium" <delirium at rufus.d2g.com> wrote:

> The Cunctator wrote:
>
>> Again, a slippery slope argument and an inductive argument are not
>> equivalent. There's a reason the words are different.
>>
>>
> A quick scan of recent media seems to argue differently: there are
> numerous uses of the term "slippery slope" by politicians arguing
> against the Patriot Act, for example, who argue that it makes it easier
> for future government power grabs.  This is, by your terminology, an
> inductive argument, but widely referred to as a "slippery slope"
> argument by those actually making the argument.  A typical phrase is
> "this starts us on a slippery slope towards...".  Opponents of the
> recent partial-birth abortion ban act have made similar arguments, that
> this is the first step towards further restrictions on abortion.

Moving past semantics, the important thing here is that proponents of the
Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act have explicitly expressed their desire to ban
all abortion.

Similarly, the Bush administration has proposed legislation extending the
Patriot Act.

It is one thing to argue "x is the vanguard of sweeping change" when the
proponents of x also are proposing sweeping change. It is another thing when
the proponents of x do not propose such sweeping change.

Not that I'm saying x is never the vanguard of such changes. I'm as
suspicious of creature feep and slippery slopes as anyone except, perhaps,
hard-core moral conservatives.

> For a rigorous treatment of the legitimate use of slippery slope
> arguments in their numerous forms, see "The Mechanisms of the Slippery
> Slope", a forthcoming book by UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh,
> available online in draft form:
> http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/slippery.htm

This is a valuable resource for understanding how to usefully analyze
slippery-slope arguments by exploring the mechanisms by which A is connected
to B.

e.g.

This:  "gun registration will lead to gun confiscation" is a fallacious
slippery-slope argument, and not terribly constructive.

But it *is* constructive to say:

"Gun registration may lead to gun confiscation through the following
mechanisms:

    * Registration may change people?s attitudes about the propriety of
confiscation, by making them view gun possession not as a right but as a
privilege that the government grants and therefore may deny.

    * Registration may be seen as a small enough change that people will
reasonably ignore it (?I?m too busy to worry about little things like
this?), but when aggregated with a sequence of other small changes,
registration can ultimately lead to confiscation, or something close to it.

    * The enactment of registration requirements can create political
momentum in favor of gun control supporters, thus making it easier for them
to persuade legislators to enact confiscation.

    * Non-gun-owners are more likely than gun owners to support
confiscation.  If registration is onerous enough, over time it may
discourage some people from buying guns, thus diminish the fraction of the
public that owns guns, diminish the political power of the gun-owner voting
bloc, and increase the likelihood that confiscation will be politically
feasible.

    * Registration may lower the cost of confiscation?since the government
would know which people?s houses to search if the residents don?t turn in
their guns voluntarily?and thus make confiscation more appealing.

    * Registration may trigger the operation of other legal rules that make
confiscation easier and thus more cost-effective:  When guns aren?t
registered, confiscation would be largely unenforceable, since
house-to-house searches to find guns would violate the Fourth Amendment; but
if guns are registered some years before confiscation is enacted, the
registration database might provide probable cause to search the houses of
all registered gun owners."

Of course, some of those arguments are weaker than others, but it's a *lot*
better than simply saying "gun registration will lead to gun confiscation".


subject:
[Wikitech-l] Re: mod_rewrite and sysop vs. developer
	permissions	(two questions)

body:
On Nov 11, 2003, at 18:42, Gabriel M. O'Brien wrote:
> Brion Vibber wrote:
>> That sounds pretty weird... Could you post the rewrite rules?
>> I notice it does the same thing for other pages w/ namespaces:
>> http://aiwiki.quay.net/w/wiki.phtml?title=Aikiwiki:Naming_Conventions
>> http://aiwiki.quay.net/wiki/Aikiwiki:Naming_Conventions
>> which makes me suspicious it's something about the colon.
>
> Entirely possible, at best I'm a mod_rewrite novice! ;)  Anyway here's
> the rewrite rules:
>
>         RewriteEngine On
>         RewriteRule ^/wiki/(.*)$ /w/wiki.phtml?title=${$1} [L]

Okay, if I use this line I see the same behavior on my text box (Apache
1.3.28 on Mac OS X 10.3). Try this:

         RewriteRule ^/wiki/(.*)$ /w/wiki.phtml?title=$1 [L]

without the ${ and } around the $1, that should clear it up.

Investigating...

With the ${$1}, The translated query string ends up being something
like "title=${Special:Recentchanges}". This seems to trip up the title
canonicalization functions, which strip out illegal characters (such as
$ and { and }) but seem to be doing so _after_ the check for a
namespace prefix. So it's left with a title 'Special:Recentchanges' in
the article namespace, which of course doesn't exist.

Thanks for digging up the title parser bug. :)

The extra ${...} would only get used if you were using a filter; for
instance the default rewrite behavior will break title with ampersands,
so if you patch your Apache sources with the 'ampescape.diff' patch you
can use a filter than fixes it:

     RewriteEngine On
     RewriteMap ampescape int:ampescape
     RewriteRule ^/wiki/(.*)$ /w/wiki.phtml?title=${ampescape:$1} [L]

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


from_name: Joakim Löfkvist

subject: [Wikitech-l] The vietnamese Wikipedia have to use Unicode

body:
In order to work on the vietnamese Wikipedia properly it must be able
to use Unicode (UTF-8).

Could anyone help out with that change?

Regards,

Joakim L?fkvist


from_name: Gabriel M. O'Brien

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Re: mod_rewrite and sysop vs. developer permissions
	(two questions)

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:

> That sounds pretty weird... Could you post the rewrite rules?
>
> I notice it does the same thing for other pages w/ namespaces:
>
> http://aiwiki.quay.net/w/wiki.phtml?title=Aikiwiki:Naming_Conventions
> http://aiwiki.quay.net/wiki/Aikiwiki:Naming_Conventions
>
> which makes me suspicious it's something about the colon.

Entirely possible, at best I'm a mod_rewrite novice! ;)  Anyway here's
the rewrite rules:

         RewriteEngine On
         RewriteRule ^/wiki/(.*)$ /w/wiki.phtml?title=${$1} [L]
         RewriteRule ^/wiki$ /w/wiki.phtml

For what it's worth this is running within an Apache virutual host, but
I don't think that should have any impact.

Any help you can provide would be awesome! ;)

cheers,
Gabe


from_name: libertarian

subject: [WikiEN-l] Response to Edmund Poor, Ray Saintonge and Sean Barrett

body:
I don't want to prolong this thread either. I shall try my best not
to prolong this thread (I shall however reply to Brian Corr's post
apart from this mail and give him information he needs).

Meanwhile, my request to you is to look at the points I raised in an
OBJECTIVE MANNER.

Please calm down and for a moment think over this. If VR Krishna
Iyer's claims against India can be posted as a legitimate point of
view and he is treated as a respectable person, surely you will
agree that the following information about Bill Clinton should be
posted in the article on Clinton. I want you guys to calm down and
answer if it is acceptable to you to post the claims below as fact.

Here is some information for you from their (Marxist) magazine.
http://www.flonnet.com/fl1707/17070190.htm
The very first major round of protest against Clinton's visit was held under the aegis of the All India Anti-Imperialist Forum, a group formed in 1995.
Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, president of the forum, said that the U.S. President was being a surrogate for American corporate power.
Expressing resentment at the red carpet welcome extended to Clinton, the Convention held that the so-called champion of peace, upholder of democracy and votary of human rights was the perpetrator of the worst form of criminal activities in the international political arena. It accused Clinton of having "launched murderous missile attacks on sovereign countries such as Afg hanistan and Sudan on the plea of fighting terrorism, while the U.S. administration itself had been aiding and abetting terrorist groups.

And here is his claim about a conspiracy (his word, not mine) -
http://www.ahrchk.net/hrsolid/mainfile.php/1995vol05no01/1875/
"I am not anti-West. The poor in the West are also suffering. But all these collaborations to manufacture Jaguars and fancy cars in our countries are basically a conspiracy to defeat human rights."

Shouldn't that be posted as a legitimate point?
Please do not avoid answering the above question. It is not intended
for rhetoric effect. It is intended to demonstrate to you that it is
wrong to assume that the person in question is objective and truthful
about India but not USA.

-----------------
Edmund Poor wrote:

> I am beginning to lose my patience with the length and
> contentiousness of this thread.
> Rick, please don't fan the flames any more; give it a rest, please.

If you guys calmed down and wondered for a moment if there is a
possibility that I could be right and I have been the one trying to
behave properly (until I faced hostility here instead of help), it
might help everyone.
If you go to the various topics and see who was the one who tried
to discuss the issues, you will find that it was I. You will also
find that I asked Brian Corr to help out as an arbitrator.

The silence I met on the Talk boards is what made me bring it up here.
For a moment, why don't you try thinking on the following lines.
"If VR Krishna Iyer is the kind of person who comes up with
conspiracy theories against Americans, is there a possibility
that libertarian might be right? Maybe I should look at it
objectively instead of dismissing it as I have done so far."

> Libertarian, please try to understand that Wikipedia is not a place
> to "post" your point of view or argue about it. We are trying to
> write neutral articles about topics.

Correct. This was *MY* point. Check out the talk pages. *I* was the
one who wanted facts. I was told that if there is a POV, it has to
be posted. In that case, shouldn't every POV be posted?
Please enlighten me - why am I wrong in saying that either all POVs
must be posted or none must be posted?

I am in favor of only those POVs which are based in facts?

Why am I wrong in asking for facts to be represented?

> If there is controversy about a topic you care deeply about, you
> have some choices:
> 1. Don't write about it here, if you can't accept our Neutral Point
> Of View (NPOV) editorial policy.

I've accepted it. I'm pointing out violation of that policy by some
abusers.

> 2. Stop and ask for help, every time someone reverts one of your
> edits. An experience writer (like me :-) will come to your aid, and
> help you revise your edit so that it is accepted by others.

I am sorry to say this, but this is exactly what I did. Instead of
help, I faced hostility, abuses and name-calling. This is the sad
truth. No one offered to help until I retaliated with hostility.

> There is no third way. Complaining about how everyone is unfair

Please go back and read my posts. I was asking for help. I was the
one who asked for arbitration. I was the one who did due diligence
by posting facts. I was ridiculed and told that I am a "Hindu
nationalist" and my posts were branded "rants" and I was told that
Communists in India were objective rising above their prejudices
and why, they may not be Communists at all! That I was making it
up that some people were Communists!

> will never get you anywhere, and eventually you will either be
> hounded out (as it will seem) or get kicked out (if you get so
> upset that you start deliberately breaking the rules).

I have not broken any rules. Why is asking for help wrong.

> I think you ought to try option #2: pick ONE SMALL PROBLEM and ask
> about it. Then stop. And wait. Give people time to respond.

I think you ought to respond to option #2 instead of ridiculing
the person who came here out of respect for you asking for help.
--------------
Ray Saintonge  wrote:

> In the interests of maintaining peace in the family, I will
> restrain myself in my attempts to be tauntingly truthful in matters
> relating to India. ;-)

Yes Ray, maybe you think I was making it up when I talked of
Communists. Why don't *you* arbitrate. I'll provide you the input
you need. Even though you've been hostile to me, I am very confident
because facts are on my side.

Even though I feel uncomfortable about trusting Americans (no offense
here, but it is my belief that Americans do not try to take the
factually correct position but try to "accomodate" all sides and
many times that even allows pure fiction to be represented as fact),
why not? Why don't you look at the points I send in for Brian Corr's
benefit and see if there is any merit in them.

Let us go point by point on the issues I raise. What do you say?
Let Ed Poor and Sean Barrett be part of the team too. I hope you
will learn the way Communists operate. All I want is that you see
things point by point (not think that you'll give me 50% of the
points and the Communists 50% of the points and that constitutes
the truth.)

> Your observation is factually incorrect. John Turner was the most
> recent foreign born prime minister.

You're right about where he was born, but he was born to a
Canadian citizen and so he was a Canadian. Most countries follow
the international convention (and have it as a law) that grants
citizenship as a right jus soli (citizenship by soil) or jus
sangunis (citizenship by blood). In Turner's case, he was born
of a Canadian mother and so he was a Canadian citizen.
We're not discussing the location of birth (for example, if
diplomats posted outside their home country have a child in a
foreign land, the child would still be eligible for citizenship
of the home country.)
USA too has foreign born Governors (Michigan has a Canadian born
woman while California has elected an immigrant from Austria.)
India is unique in the sense that it allows naturalized citizens
to hold the highest offices.
-------------
Sean Barrett wrote:

> Very good. This is exactly the kind of thoughtful, well-reasoned
> discourse that will bring all us ignorant Americans over to your
> side.

Sean, my aim is not confrontation. I was taken aback at the hostility
I encountered on the list when I asked for help to counter people
who abuse Wikipedia. I was branded a "Hindu nationalist" and accused
of "rants". I assumed this is standard stuff for the list and used
harsh words. I think it makes sense to have less heat and more light.

Having said that, be careful what you say. In the above lines, you're
implying that it is not facts which will bring over Americans to
my side, but pleasing them!

-libertarian

_______________________________________________
No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.
Introducing My Way - http://www.myway.com


body:
Brion Vibber wrote:

> Okay, if I use this line I see the same behavior on my text box (Apache
> 1.3.28 on Mac OS X 10.3). Try this:
>
>         RewriteRule ^/wiki/(.*)$ /w/wiki.phtml?title=$1 [L]
>
> without the ${ and } around the $1, that should clear it up.

That's the stuff! ;) It would appear that it fixes the problem on my
system too!  Thanks a bunch!

> Thanks for digging up the title parser bug. :)

No, thank you!  Once I internalize your answer maybe I'll update the
MetaWiki page on mod_rewrite... ;)

Peace,
Gabe

--
Gabriel M. O'Brien
--------------------
go at quay.net
http://web.quay.net/
--------------------

Life is within death, death is within life;
You must exist right here, right now!
-- Ueshiba Morihei


from_name: Tucci

subject: [WikiEN-l] Straw man

body:
> So therefore we can have articles about the 9/11
> victims, but leave
> out mav's dog. Why? Common sense!
>
> BL

I have been out of the loop on most of this dicussion,
but have no position on the current obscure argument
about logical fallacies.  I strenuously object to
including 9/11 victims because they are not
encyclopedic.

TUF-KAT

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Wikipedia-l] precisions in translation

body:
Jimbo said
>> What would be required for the
>> existing Wikimedia Foundation to register as a
>>French nonprofit, or to
>> setup a French affiliate organization.

Yann answered
>Set up a French non profit is very simple. You need
>three people (a president,
>a secretary and a treasurer), to draft some status
>(many exemples are
>available on the Net) and to pay about 25 euros for
>registration. I have done
>this already several times.

I think this is not what Jimbo asked. He asked how the
currently american foundation could register a
"filiale" (related society) in France, so to be able
to pay for hosting server, receive donation, purchase
domain name.

I think you answered only on how to set a regular
foundation, which is different.
I think he is looking for information about how
setting a "filiale" is possible, not a french
organisation. This is the notion of "association
?trang?re" where the main part of the society is out
of our territory.

What are the legal requirements to do that ?

>> > * special links between this French law
>>>organisation should have with the
>>> Wikimedia foundation;
>
>> The Wikimedia Foundation owns all rights to the
>>'Wikimedia' and
>> 'Wikipedia' trademarks, and it is going to be best
>>if this new
>> organization is fully 100% under the control of the
>>parent
>> organization.  This does not preclude local
>>organization and control
>> to an extent, but the Wikimedia Foundation must be
>>the decision maker
>> of last resort.

>> This is necessary to prevent a split in the future
>>that would be bad
>> for the project.

>I agree totally with that. It just needs to be
>mentioned in the status.

I do not think that *just* mentioning it in the status
is enough to define an foreign association. Otherwise,
the french association and the "foreigh association"
would not be legally differently defined. No ?

>And the status could mention that you would be ex
>officio member of the French
>non profit as the founder of Wikipedia.

That would be nice, but if wikipedia france is not
really legally related to wikimedia, I do not think a
member will have more weight on it that another.

>> On the other hand, I am willing to provide one, at
>>my own expense, if
>> it is the consensus of Europeans that it would be a
>>good thing.

>The Ouvaton cooperative said that they will provide
>one.

Jimbo is suggesting that HE (or the foundation) pays
for a server for Europe. Are you answering that
Ouvaton would donate a server to the french
association ? Or that Ouvato would lease one in
exchange of a fee?

If wikimedia can provide a server itself, and be the
owner of it, rather than doing a location, would not
it be best ?

>> A non profit organisation in France or in Europe
>>could also help to
>> receive tax deductible donations and to ease money
>>transfers.

> Yes.  I would imagine that it's not that difficult
>to setup an
> affiliate organization there.

> In the U.S., we have Alex who has volunteered to act
>for free as our
> lawyer, and he is helping me finalize all the bylaws
>for the US
> organization.

Will donations made to a french association,
transferred to an american one, tax deductible in the
US ?

>>Can you help me look for a French or European lawyer
>>who can do the same over there?

>Yes, I can, but it is usually not necessary to set up
>a French non profit.

Please do Yann. It is not setting up an association
that is difficult, it is to set up the relationship
with the main one that is.

It would be nice to know how the huge ngos for example
do in this kind of situation.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree


from_name: Bjorn Lindqvist

subject: [WikiEN-l] Straw man

body:
> The slippery slope argument only becomes a fallacy if you make an
> unreasonable conclusion connecting happening A and happening B.  Folks
> were debating the merits of including ~3,000 victims of 9/11
> individually as articles in Wikipedia. Asking what this means for other
> victims of other disasters and crimes around the world and in history is
> not a far stretch. That is why "rounding up" all arguments of this type
> to fallacy is not fair.

There seems to be a deep disagreement on what rules is and how they
should be interpreted on WP. Slippery slope argumentation which seems
similar to Aristotoles proving a contradiction debating technique in
absurdium or something, I don't really know much about the subject,
might be valid. But whether it is or not doesn't really
matter. Wikipedia is fortunately not ruled by an armada of lawyers who
read rules literally, but by an armada of rationally thinking
individuals and Jimbo. People that know that HOW the rules work RIGHT
NOW is important. NOT how they WOULD work if some troll comes around
and tries to invoke lawyerism on us.

It is unlikely that that will happen. And even if it DOES happen,
those few trolls will be so few that they are barely noticeable. Just
like they are today. And then the rules can obviously change if that
is necessary just like they did because of Michael the Vandal.

So therefore we can have articles about the 9/11 victims, but leave
out mav's dog. Why? Common sense!

BL


from_name: Martin Harper

subject: [WikiEN-l] Straw man as Whipping Boy

body:
To further Ed's point, people who argue about the risks of deleting certain
articles, or of keeping certain articles, are often arguing emotionally, from
their gut. And that's good - it's important that people express their emotions
and instincts, because that helps us make good decisions.. Trying to shut
that down by pointing out that they aren't conclusive logical statements is
kind of missing the point.

We seem to have an excess of monitor-evaluators on the list...

WikiLove,
-Martin "MyRedDice" Harper


from_name: Antoine

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Re: Setting a new server in France for french
	wikipedia

body:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 05:52:27 -0800, Jimmy Wales wrote:
<snip>
> One example: in my research yesterday (admittedly limited) it is not
> possible to register wikipedia.fr unless we have a French
> organization.  I am as yet unsure if there are services (as there are
> for many countries) that will hold the name in trust for us.
>
> I wonder if perhaps ouvation can do that?
>
> (But, I do not know the politics of ouvation, nor whether they are
> trustworthy, so I only give them as an example.)
>
> --Jimbo

Hello Jimbo,

Unfortunatly the french NIC doesnt allow this kind of thing. Upon domain
registration you need to provide a document about your company / fundation
whatever and you can't register for a name that isn't the name of your
company.

Is wikipedia name registered as a trademark worldwide ? That might lead to
a wikipedia.tm.fr for france :0)

cheers,

--
Antoine
http://fr.wikipedia.org/
L'encyclop?die gratuite et libre.


body:
On Nov 11, 2003, at 12:06, Joakim L?fkvist wrote:
> In order to work on the vietnamese Wikipedia properly it must be able
> to use Unicode (UTF-8).
>
> Could anyone help out with that change?

Okay, it's moved over to new software and in UTF-8.

For woefully underdocumented info on translating the interface, see:
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locales_for_the_Wikipedia_Software

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


subject: [Wikitech-l] odd database dumps

body:
On Nov 12, 2003, at 04:16, Erik Zachte wrote:

> Several database dumps are strange.
>
> ?
>
> E.g. fr: and nL: measure a few Kb, hence odd stats as well.

Some breakage in the backup script, I'll clean it up and run it again.

-- brion


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [WikiEN-l] User:Khranus

body:
I'm listening to all of this.  Could Khranus be invited to email me?

kosebamse at gmx.net wrote:

> In response to Ed's, Pakaran's, and Theresa's posts about Khranus, I would
> like to provide some more evidence of his behavior (in part part taken from
> the problem users page). This is not a comprehensive list, just some random
> examples (and perhaps not the most egregious ones, given the amount of his
> writing).
>
>
> Khranus has added rantings that do not contribute anything useful to
> articles or dicussion and IMO qualify as exemplary cases of
> trolling:
> http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Robert_Mugabe&diff=1717415&oldid=1717414
>
>
> Khranus has expressed his contempt for Wikipedia as such, NPOV, and his
> fellow users, whom he likes tho call "larval humans":
> http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User:Khranus&oldid=1667796
>
>
> Khranus has insulted
> users:
> http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Someone_else&diff=1686425&oldid=1686319
>
>
> and when asked to refrain from such behavior, has either replied in vague
> evasiveness or personal
> attacks:
> http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Khranus&diff=1694340&oldid=1690329
> http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Khranus&diff=1686443&oldid=1686432
>
>
> Khranus likes to spam Wikipedia with conspiracy theories:
> http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Ordo_Templi_Orientis&diff=1711542&oldid=1711389
> http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Cold_fusion&oldid=1714596
>
>
> Khranus has added massive amounts of information that I (and others) would
> characterise as total bogus:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Reptilian_humanoid&oldid=1685584
>
>
> and when asked to discuss his
> claims:
> http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Dolphin_brain&diff=1711411&oldid=1711402
> http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Dolphin_brain&diff=1709352&oldid=1709344
> http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Dolphin_brain&diff=1715897&oldid=1715676
>
>
> he has replied with hostility and/or evasive
> blahblah:
> http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Dolphin_brain&diff=1711482&oldid=1711477
> http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Dolphin_brain&diff=1711197&oldid=1709352
> http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Dolphin_brain&diff=1716014&oldid=1715983
>
>
> and has not responded to further attempts at
> discussion:
> http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Dolphin_brain&diff=1712100&oldid=1711629
>
>
> To summarize, Khranus has given plenty of evidence, that, despite the
> pompous proclamations on his userpage, he does not understand Wikipedia, NPOV,
> Wikiquette, or even the most basic standards of civilised behavior, and that he
> is unwilling to accept advice. Another and final warning (perhaps from on
> high) might be in order, but given our experience with him I am not optimistic.
> It looks like talking to him is a complete waste of time.
>
> Kosebamse
>
> --
> NEU F?R ALLE - GMX MediaCenter - f?r Fotos, Musik, Dateien...
> Fotoalbum, File Sharing, MMS, Multimedia-Gru?, GMX FotoService
>
> Jetzt kostenlos anmelden unter http://www.gmx.net
>
> +++ GMX - die erste Adresse f?r Mail, Message, More! +++
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Rick

subject: [WikiEN-l] User:Khranus

body:
I wouldn't say that he doesn't understand NPOV and Wikiquette.  He has made it quite clear in several posts that he has no interest in it.

RickK

kosebamse at gmx.net wrote:
To summarize, Khranus has given plenty of evidence, that, despite the
pompous proclamations on his userpage, he does not understand Wikipedia, NPOV,
Wikiquette, or even the most basic standards of civilised behavior, and that he
is unwilling to accept advice. Another and final warning (perhaps from on
high) might be in order, but given our experience with him I am not optimistic.
It looks like talking to him is a complete waste of time.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20031112/c48c0487/attachment.htm


from_name: Alex R.

subject: [Wikipedia-l] precisions in translation

body:
Perhaps it is not a question of setting up a new organization,
but merely registering Wikimedia in France as a foreign
corporation so that someone in France or some other EU
jurisdiction can act for Wikimedia (i.e. basically be the
local agent for Wikimedia)? This would be a Wikimedia
"branch". Isn't "branch" an accurate translation of "filiale"?

Here in the US there are provisions in state law that allow
"foreign not-for-profit corporations" to conduct business
in the US under the law. I don't have time to do full research
right now, but I can't imagine that it is not possible for a foreign corp.
to conduct business in at least certain European jurisdictions
such as Great Britain.
http://ws2.companieshouse.gov.uk/ias/company_names_-_english.html

Here is the example from the Not for Profit corporation law of
New York state that allows foreign corporations to act and
register in New York state:

? 1301. Authorization of foreign corporations.
    (a)   A foreign corporation shall not conduct activities in this state
  until it has been authorized to do so as provided in this  article.    A
  foreign  corporation  may  be  authorized  to  conduct in this state any
  activities which may be conducted lawfully in this state by  a  domestic
  corporation,  to  the  extent  that  it  is  authorized  to conduct such
  activities in the  jurisdiction  of  its  incorporation,  but  no  other
  activities.
    (b)   Without excluding other acts which may not constitute conducting
  activities in this state, a foreign corporation shall not be  considered
  to  be  conducting  activities  in  this state, for the purposes of this
  chapter, by reason of doing in  this  state  any  one  or  more  of  the
  following acts:
    (1)    Maintaining  or  defending  any  action  or proceeding, whether
  judicial,  administrative,  arbitrative  or  otherwise,   or   effecting
  settlement thereof or the settlement of claims or disputes.
    (2)  Holding meetings of its directors or its members.
    (3)  Maintaining bank accounts.
    (4)    Maintaining offices or agencies only for the transfer, exchange
  and registration  of  its  securities,  or  appointing  and  maintaining
  trustees or depositaries with relation to its securities.
    (5)  Granting funds.
    (6)  Distributing information to its members.
    (c)   The specification in paragraph (b) does not establish a standard
  for activities which may subject a foreign  corporation  to  service  of
  process under this chapter or any other statute of this state.
    (d)  A  foreign corporation whose corporate name is not acceptable for
  authorization pursuant to sections 301 and  302  of  this  chapter,  may
  submit  in  its  application  for authority pursuant to section thirteen
  hundred four of this chapter, a fictitious name under which it shall  do
  business  in  this  state.  A fictitious name submitted pursuant to this
  section shall be subject to the provisions of subparagraphs 2 through  9
  of  paragraph  (a)  of  section  301  and section 302 of this chapter. A
  foreign corporation authorized to conduct activities in this state under
  a fictitious name pursuant to this section, shall  use  such  fictitious
  name  in  all  of  its  dealings  with the secretary of state and in the
  conduct of its activities in this state. The provisions of  section  one
  hundred  thirty  of  the  general  business  law  shall not apply to any
  fictitious name filed by a foreign corporation pursuant to this section.

Perhaps someone can review the French law and find out what is
necessary to make such a registration in France.

NB Wikimedia Foundation Inc. is not an "association" but a
company or corporation under the definitions commonly used
in most jurisdictions.

Alex756

----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthere" <anthere6 at yahoo.com>
To: <wikifr-l at wikipedia.org>; <wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 1:51 AM
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] precisions in translation

> Jimbo said
> >> What would be required for the
> >> existing Wikimedia Foundation to register as a French nonprofit, or to
> >> setup a French affiliate organization.
>
> Yann answered
> >Set up a French non profit is very simple. You need
> >three people (a president,  a secretary and a treasurer), to draft some
status
> >(many exemples are available on the Net) and to pay about 25 euros for
> >registration. I have done  this already several times.
>
> I think this is not what Jimbo asked. He asked how the
> currently american foundation could register a
> "filiale" (related society) in France, so to be able
> to pay for hosting server, receive donation, purchase
> domain name.
>
> I think you answered only on how to set a regular
> foundation, which is different.
> I think he is looking for information about how
> setting a "filiale" is possible, not a french
> organisation. This is the notion of "association
> ?trang?re" where the main part of the society is out
> of our territory.
>
> What are the legal requirements to do that ?


subject: [Wikipedia-l] precisions in translation

body:
From: "Anthere" <anthere6 at yahoo.com>
> Jimbo said
> >> What would be required for the
> >> existing Wikimedia Foundation to register as a
> >>French nonprofit, or to
> >> setup a French affiliate organization.
>
In the spirit of comparative law and trying to determine
a general paradigm for the development of international
Wikimedia Foundation branches
I've checked the laws in England and it is not possible
to use a foreign not-for-profit corporation as a charity within
England.
http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/registration/default.asp
It must be set up as a local charity.

So while Wikimedia could register an office as a "company"
under the Companies Act 1985, it would not be a charity.
It could operate a server then in England, or establish an
office there that would be under direct control of Wikimedia.
Regarding the soliciting of funds, however, in England, at least,
it would be necessary to set up a separate corporation, trust,
or association and apply to the Charities Commission to
register that Charity (note that they have a ? 1,000 minimum
requirement, i.e. a charity that only raises one thousand pounds
per year does not need to be registered similar to the US
IRS $5,000 per year minimum).

It would seem to me that the general paradigm is either, register
as a foreign charity (where possible) or create a local entity
that is contractually bound to Wikimedia (i.e. trademarks,
compliance with GFDL, etc.) and the local organization will
have some contract with Wikimedia regarding payments, etc.
Some discretion will have to be placed in the hands of the
trustees of such a local entity.

> It would be nice to know how the huge ngos for example
> do in this kind of situation.

Perhaps there can also be a Wikimedia International
that becomes an umbrella organization for all local Wikimedia
Foundations?  I have seen this done by more than a few
international organizations, they have a local branch such
as Oxfam GB, Oxfam USA, Oxfam France,  and then there is
also a Oxfam International. They all have the same principles
in their charters but local trustees (directors) to supervise
the activities of the charity in the local jurisdiction including
making payments to help support the international entity.

Alex756


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

body:
Libertarian,

Thank you for your detailed, point by point response.

I have written you and Brian Corr privately, responding to the proposal
you both made. I don't intend to discuss that proposal on the list,
because mediation works better without an audience.

As for calmness, I hope I've shown enough of it to interest you in my
(free) services as a mediator.

I appreciate your efforts to seek a resolution. Coming to the mailing
list and asking for help is the proper thing to do, and you have done it
well! :-)

All POVs about a controversy are welcome, if they are attributed to
their advocates. (Note that you and I are not considered advocates. I
mean someone like a member of Parliament, or a famous journalist.)

Facts are good. Let's put plenty of them in the articles. If any facts
are disputed, let's write about the dispute. Like:

* Vishnachristy said the fire occurred accidentally.
* Krishnamurta said Muslims started the fire deliberately.

Note that the article will not tell the reader which source to believe.
It will only indicate WHAT each source SAID.

I'm sorry that it took so long for you to get help. We are not a mature
organization, and the only person officially in charge of "helping" is
the website owner, Jimbo Wales. He's very busy, but he hasn't appointed
any official assistants yet. So we are all volunteers.

In my case, I postponed my offer of help until AFTER I was convinced
that you were more interested in cooperation than in retaliation. Puzzle
over THAT for a while, eh?

I hope that as a result of my offer to help, there will be a lot less
branding. We can't reach our mutual goal by inflicting scorching pain on
each other.

If you are willing to take the time to work together on making a neutral
article, I will help.

Ed Poor
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20031112/6205121e/attachment.htm


from_name: Chuck Smith

subject: [Wikipedia-l] could Espéranto-France help?

body:
> Hello Jimbo,
>
> Unfortunatly the french NIC doesnt allow this kind
> of thing. Upon domain
> registration you need to provide a document about
> your company / fundation
> whatever and you can't register for a name that
> isn't the name of your
> company.

I wonder if we could register under the organization
of Esp?ranto-France (www.esperanto-france.org).  If we
made Wikipedia a subsidiary project of the
organization or something like that, then we could
probably bypass the problems we're having.  Of course,
on the other hand, they might be able to give us
advice on how we could register such a domain name.
Because of our strong Esperanto section, I'm sure
they've heard of Wikipedia and would be willing to
help.  I would also imagine that if we have problems
in other countries, we might be able to ask the
national Esperanto organizations in these countries
for their help as well.

Also, perhaps Alliance Francais
(www.alliance-francaise.com) could help.  What do you
think?

Best wishes,
Chuck

=====
Esperantomobilo - esperantigante tra Ameriko
http://www.esperantomobilo.org/

__________________________________________________________________

Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
Logos und Klingelt?ne f?rs Handy bei http://sms.yahoo.de


from_name: KNOTT, T

subject: [WikiEN-l] User:Krhanus

body:
To play devil's advocate here. Most of his really whacky stuff is on the
talk pages of articles rather than the article itself. He has never made an
edit to cold fusion for example (AFAIK) only the talk page. I've been
participating in talk cold fusion and talk dolphin brain, and although there
has been much mumbo jumbo I didn't spot any personal insults (I am thick
skinned however perhaps I didn't spot them).Anyway what I wanted to do was
pre-empt any talk of a ban, which I don't believe is appropriate at this
time and instead suggest a message be put on his talk page stating what is
and what isn't appropriate to put in article pages, talk pages and other
user pages.

Theresa

P.S. After rereading Nathan's post, I see that he wasn't actually advocating
a ban, but just bringing Krhaus to the attention of the list.


from_name: Gabriel O'Brien

subject: [Wikitech-l] Interwiki Markup

body:
Hi all!

I'm trying to get Interwiki markup working on my Wikimedia install.  It doesn't
appear to be working "out of the box" and I'm trying to go through the code to
see where this is implemented so I can figure it out.  The only thing I see is
Interwiki.php, but all it contains is:

/* This file is obsolete... 2003-08-21 */

Any pointers as to where I should be looking?

cheers,
Gabe

--
Gabriel M. O'Brien
--------------------
go at quay.net
http://web.quay.net/
--------------------

The divine beauty
Of heaven and earth!
All creation,
Members of
One Family.

-- Ueshiba Morihei


subject: [Wikitech-l] Server non-update

body:
No news today, at least not yet.  The person I talked to on the phone
today is going to talk to the technician who is building the machine
and will get back to me with a full report by email.  I sensed that
this would be within the next couple of hours.  If I find anything
helpful out, I'll let everyone know.

--Jimbo


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Giving up on Problem users page

body:
viajero at quilombo.nl wrote:

>Hi all,
>
>In recent weeks, I have contributed to several discussions on the Problem
>user page and I now have come to the conclusion that it is a thoroughly
>unsuitable mechanism for resolving issues between users. Whatever its
>original purpose was (dealing with vandalism I guess), it is now (also)
>used for airing complex grievances with other users about lack of
>neutrality, breaches of Wikiquette and so on.
>
...(Much snipped)

Such a page should never be anything more than an index or directory to
the problems.  Any one thing that gets there can easily generate such
verbiage that it overwhelms the page.

Ec