subject: [Wikitech-l] Antwort: Re:  preload method of class Article

body:
Me too.  Let me see if I can get it right.
On Mar 16, 2007, at 8:32 AM, christoph.huesler at css.ch wrote:

> brion wrote:
>
>> <includeonly> -> when not including, remove this

Shows up when the page is included in another but not when viewed
under its own title?

Page Foo
	abc<includeonly>def</includeonly>ghi

Views as

	abcghi

Page Bar
	{{:Foo}}

Views as

	def

>> <onlyinclude> -> when including, remove anything outside this
>> <noinclude> -> when including, remove this
Are these the same?
Page Foo
	<noinclude>abc</noinclude>def<noinclude>ghi</noinclude>

	abc<onlyinclude>def</onlyinclude>ghi

View both as

	abcdefghi

Page Bar

	{{:Foo}}

Views as

	def

>
>> [...]
>
>> Wouldn't that lead to a confusing mix of both?
>
> Well... i'm already confused :P
>
> -- chris
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

=====================================
Jim Hu
Associate Professor
Dept. of Biochemistry and Biophysics
2128 TAMU
Texas A&M Univ.
College Station, TX 77843-2128
979-862-4054


list: wikipedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Look Who's Using Wikipedia

body:
Lars Aronsson wrote:

>Delirium wrote:
>
>
>>So I'd be surprised if we're "done" covering even the top-tier subjects
>>before we get to 3 million articles, if even then.
>>
>>
>Corpus linguists first collect a very large body (a corpus) of
>text, then they count how many times each word occurs.  If every
>20th word (or 5% of the corpus) is "the", then a dictionary only
>containing "the" will "cover" 5% of this corpus.  Most spelling
>dictionaries can cover 95-98 % of any normal corpus.  But creating
>a dictionary that covers the last few percents is hard, because
>any normal text will contain a few very uncommon words.  There is
>a very long, thin tail.
>
Good coverage is easier for dictionaries than for many other areas of
knowledge.  For major languages excellent resources already exist.

>Could we compile a "corpus" of questions, and see how large a
>percentage of them can be answered by Wikipedia?  That probably
>requires artificial intelligence, if not science fiction.  (Hey,
>did somebody write a novel about this already?  Sci-fi can be a
>great source of inspiration.)  I guess we could compile a list of
>famous places and people, and see what percentage of them have
>articles of reasonable length.  But having an entry on St
>Petersburg, Florida, is less important than having entries on
>London or Paris.  So the list must be weighted.  Search companies
>like Google or MSN keep logs of every query that people type in,
>so they know exactly how many times more often people search for
>London than for St Petersburg, Florida.  That's the kind of
>weights we would need to compute a coverage, I guess.
>
An interesting source here would be published quiz and trivia books.
While one must weigh the reliability of their information carefully,
they can still be used as a way of testing coverage.

Ec


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Dan Jacobson

subject: [Wikitech-l] cache images once for everybody?

body:
Say, do the boilerplate images always present on every Mediawiki page
have enough Expires and/or etc. headers to keep them cached around the
network for a long time? (Can't tell here offline with images turned
off anyway). Seems like optimizing that would need messing with the
apache etc. configuration as it is beyond what one can do with php as
they are <img src=...>. I.e., well at least we will send "304 not
modified", as we (standard Mediawiki installation) are not going to go
further to eliminate them asking in the first place... but as you can
see, what do I know.


list: wikien-l

from_name: George Herbert

subject: [WikiEN-l] Vandalism going public yet again

body:
On 3/16/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 16/03/07, Avi <avi_wiki at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >  Another case of wiki vandalism that made headlines:
> >
> >  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070316/ap_on_en_ot/people_sinbad
> >
> >  Count me in as one of those who thinks that we may need a PR blitz as to 1) How wiki works 2) What vandalism is 3) A training brochure in basic wiki use. (check histories and editors, etc.)
>
> It's an interesting case. Some seemed to be forwarding links to the
> specific vandalised revision - which has happened before - but most
> were just forwarding a cut-and-pasted version of the vandalised
> article, without any obvious links.
>
> Which is, um. I mean, I could copy and paste [[George W. Bush]], add
> "is gay" in the intro, and forward it around. And we'd still have
> people assuming it came from us just because it said so...

My two cents:

I'm happy and amused that Sinbad has a sense of humor about it all.

We need to encourage that... if we can make that part of the press
coverage, so that celebrities see that a WP vandalism doesn't have to
be a big bad deal, and people can fix it and laugh about it, then we
win big.

Perhaps the WMF should send him a big bouquet of flowers or a fruit
basket congratulating him on his timely resurrection.

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


from_name: Oskar Sigvardsson

subject: [WikiEN-l] Requesting assistance re user:Bastique PLEASE HELP

body:
On 3/16/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Council_of_La_Raza&diff=prev&oldid=113896093
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Council_of_La_Raza&diff=prev&oldid=114803164
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Council_on_American-Islamic_Relations&diff=prev&oldid=114807874

Thank you for that, those diffs were very informative

--Oskar


from_name: Skyring

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Why cutting'n'pasting from Wikipedia is not a good
	idea

body:
On 3/16/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
> Skyring wrote:
>
> >I'd like to suggest something which I think should work. Whenever an
> >administrator edits an article, that version automatically becomes the
> >"stable" version that an unregistered reader will see. And it won't have
> >"edit" links all over it. Sure, it might have mistakes and it might have
> >POV, but the odds are that if an admin has had even a glance at it, it's
> >probably good.
> >
> I find this attempt to give admins even more power objectionable.  There
> are plenty of us who have been around for a long time without having
> become admins.  Many operate in limited non-controversial areas.  The
> result would be a huge number of articles that will need to be edited by
> admins; these articles previously managed quite well without involvement
> of admins.

Well, I'm not an admin, but what I'm looking for is a simple and reasonably
effective way to say "this article's OK for now" that doesn't tie up a lot
of computer resources or demand ribbons of red tape. The computer could
merely look up the editor's admin flag and set the version's stable flag. No
detailed examination of the article is required - just the need for an admin
to make an edit. Of course you might then set people up for grief if they
don't notice some subtle error buried in a slab of text.

Maybe instead of giving admins alone the power to confer "stableness", there
should be another class of Wikipedian,people who aren't necessarily admins,
but are steady, reasonable sort of folk. We could call them "stablehands".

--
Peter in Canberra


from_name: Earle Martin

body:
On 15/03/07, Skyring <skyring at gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe instead of giving admins alone the power to confer "stableness", there
> should be another class of Wikipedian,people who aren't necessarily admins,
> but are steady, reasonable sort of folk. We could call them "stablehands".

Implying that they spend most of their time shovelling manure?

--
Earle Martin
            http://downlode.org/
http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/


subject: [WikiEN-l] Proposal for a policy

body:
I would like to float the idea here for a minor policy change on en.wp

I'd like to propose that we require the on-wiki logging of all CU
requests that result in any user sanction.  This would logically and
explicitly include requiring the logging of all requests done as the
result of off-wiki discussions such as IRC etc., if they result in
user warnings or blocks.

The policy would strongly encourage the person running the CU to
report it.  The policy would require a person blocking to make a
report, if the person who ran the CU did not, listing who ran the CU
should there be any followup questions.  I envision a new section in
WP:RFCU where these reports would be placed, with the usual archive
provisions.  It would be encouraged but not required to document the
reasons for the CU.

Rationale:

I have no objection to venues other than en:WP:RFCU being used to
initiate someone running a CU (Others may object, I don't care).
However, I have had a number of cases where figuring out what happened
with an abusive user's case turned out to hinge on info which never
got written down on-wiki, and in some cases has taken more than a
couple of steps to contact the person who ran a CU and got results.

This is particularly bad when we're seeing appeals or issues related
to much older abusers, when it can be very difficult to figure out who
knows if a CU was run two or four months ago and what the results
were.

Feedback?

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


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Missing Dumps

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jochen Magnus wrote:
> Please can somebody verify that http://download.wikimedia.org/dewiki/ is
> the right place to download dumps from Wikipedia? The last dump which I
> can see is from Feb 7.

Yep.

Note that:
1) There isn't a regular schedule
2) Not all wikis run at the same time.
3) The very large wikis run less frequently
4) The last few days dumps are on hold as I'm fixing some longstanding
problems in the dump generator. New dumps will commence within a few days.

> Is there another place or another technique for Wikipedia mirror
> operators to get recent dumps?

Nope.

- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com / brion @ wikimedia.org)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFF+rEkwRnhpk1wk44RAr8VAJ9FrfoTf9HHspYneGRp2HmkYQVB7wCghJ6l
rxYNNS/m/R2EovQGXwVsl8o=
=MlXi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [Wikitech-l] New SVN committers

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ontoprise developers working on Semantic MediaWiki extension:

* Daniel Hansch: op_daniel
* Freddy Pfisterer: op_freddy
* Kai K?hn: op_kai
* Michael Erdmann: op_michael
* Robert Ulrich: op_robert
* Thomas Schweitzer: op_thomas

- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com / brion @ wikimedia.org)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFF+rI/wRnhpk1wk44RAqqhAJ48UUPvUyfb6Nhn9df7duT+KE18DgCff7af
hL4gwV2PBgQ9FyFRxUKP6R8=
=uI6r
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is editted by PAYED professionals and
	experts

body:
I think someone should do a study to see how many people actually have
misconceptions about Wikipedia and which of those are more persistent than
the others.

Mgm

On 3/16/07, Vee <vee.be.me at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Someone came to Wikipedia's defense today:
> >
> > http://www.conservapedia.com/
> > Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Wikipedia_about_twice_as_non_religiou
> > s_as_Americans
> >
> > "Wikipedia is a GLOBAL source. Edited by GLOBAL users, who all are
> > supposed to be submitting factual information or for controversial
> > subjects, both possible sides (or all possible sides if more than
> > two). So no-matter what, the end-result on Wikipedia, after it is
> > editted by its PAYED professionals and experts, is factual
> > information and non-biased articles. Wikipedia, and any other site
> > should not have to cater to the religious just because there are more
> > of them in America. There are other countries too, and nobody is
> > attempting to cater to them. There are other points of view, but
> > nobody is catering to them. Facts are facts are facts, they remain
> > the same whether they support religious claims or not. 100% of
> > America could be Creationists, yet Wikipedia would still show every
> > possible side of things, not ONLY the creationist part, if you
> > understand what I mean. Every statistic that is used to try and show
> > that Wikipedia has biased is 100% irrelevant in every way."
> >
> > No, I do not think this is a joke. (Although on Conservapedia it is
> > always hard to be sure. A new piece of jargon has emerged on
> > Conservapedia, one which I don't think I've ever seen on Wikipedia:
> > the phrase "parody vandal.")
> >
> > I wish my reaction to this could be something simple, like, "You tell
> > 'em kid! I stutter!" But that "PAYED professionals" part disturbs me.
> >
> > How many other Wikipedia readers think this?
> >
> > As nearly as I can guess at his thinking, it must go something like
> > this:
> >
> > 1a) Wikipedia must be reliable, because it's at the top of so many
> > Google searches, and "they" wouldn't put it at the top if it weren't.
> >
> > Or (more sophisticated version of same)
> >
> > 1b) Wikipedia's being at the top of so many Google searches proves
> > that a lot of people use it, so it must be reliable.
> >
> > 2) The only way for an information source to be reliable is to be
> > "editted by PAYED professionals and experts."
> >
> > 3) Therefore, Wikipedia must be "editted by PAYED professionals and
> > experts."
> >
> > Fortunately, Wikipedia's mission is to be a free encyclopedia,
> > because if its mission was to make some point about the virtue of non-
> > authoritarianism and the sterility of "expertise," it's not getting
> > through.
> >
> > I wonder how many Wikipedia readers even think of the possibility
> > that they could be looking at a page during the minute or so that it
> > contains unreverted vandalism?
> >
>
> I wish people would stop giving credence to anything said on
> Convservapedia. The [[Talk:Conservapedia]] page is ridiculous.
>
> And in answer to your question, I don't think as many people are clueless
> as
> to the way Wikipedia works as Wikipedians seem to think. But I guess there
> are some out there. I see an awful lot of comments on talk pages to the
> tune
> of "Why does [article] say [stupid thing]??? This is totally incorrect!!!"
> without seeming to realise that it's just vandalism, can be reverted by
> anyone, including themselves, and that things like this are bound to
> happen
> where anyone can edit... I suppose from this it also follows that the same
> people are reading less obvious vandalism (i.e. a case where a vandal has
> changed all the dates in the article, or the subject's place of birth or
> something) and accepting it as truth because 'they' wrote it. Is there a
> disclaimer anywhere obvious on Wikipedia that points out that as any can
> edit, information may not be accurate and the page that they are viewing
> may
> have been vandalised? I don't recall seeing one. I remember before I
> started
> editing WP at the instigation of a friend I mentally blocked out all the
> 'edit' buttons and cleanup tags encouraging me to improve the articles,
> etc.
>
>
> (this is my first post to the mailing list.. hope i've done it right)
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Jim Wilson

subject: [Wikitech-l] Antwort: Re: preload method of class Article

body:
> Are these the same?
> Page Foo
>       <noinclude>abc</noinclude>def<noinclude>ghi</noinclude>
>
>       abc<onlyinclude>def</onlyinclude>ghi

No.  My understanding is that these will render respectively (when viewed
normally) as:

    abcdefghi

    abcghi

And will both appear transcluded as:

    def

-- Jim

On 3/16/07, Jim Hu <jimhu at tamu.edu> wrote:
>
> Me too.  Let me see if I can get it right.
> On Mar 16, 2007, at 8:32 AM, christoph.huesler at css.ch wrote:
>
> > brion wrote:
> >
> >> <includeonly> -> when not including, remove this
>
> Shows up when the page is included in another but not when viewed
> under its own title?
>
> Page Foo
>         abc<includeonly>def</includeonly>ghi
>
> Views as
>
>         abcghi
>
> Page Bar
>         {{:Foo}}
>
> Views as
>
>         def
>
> >> <onlyinclude> -> when including, remove anything outside this
> >> <noinclude> -> when including, remove this
> Are these the same?
> Page Foo
>         <noinclude>abc</noinclude>def<noinclude>ghi</noinclude>
>
>         abc<onlyinclude>def</onlyinclude>ghi
>
> View both as
>
>         abcdefghi
>
> Page Bar
>
>         {{:Foo}}
>
> Views as
>
>         def
>
>
> >
> >> [...]
> >
> >> Wouldn't that lead to a confusing mix of both?
> >
> > Well... i'm already confused :P
> >
> > -- chris
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
> =====================================
> Jim Hu
> Associate Professor
> Dept. of Biochemistry and Biophysics
> 2128 TAMU
> Texas A&M Univ.
> College Station, TX 77843-2128
> 979-862-4054
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


body:
Disregard - I think they're the same :)

(Misread <onlyinclude> - teaches me to test before posting)

-- Jim

On 3/16/07, Jim Wilson <wilson.jim.r at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Are these the same?
> > Page Foo
> >       <noinclude>abc</noinclude>def<noinclude>ghi</noinclude>
> >
> >       abc<onlyinclude>def</onlyinclude>ghi
>
> No.  My understanding is that these will render respectively (when viewed
> normally) as:
>
>     abcdefghi
>
>     abcghi
>
> And will both appear transcluded as:
>
>     def
>
> -- Jim
>
>
>
> On 3/16/07, Jim Hu <jimhu at tamu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Me too.  Let me see if I can get it right.
> > On Mar 16, 2007, at 8:32 AM, christoph.huesler at css.ch wrote:
> >
> > > brion wrote:
> > >
> > >> <includeonly> -> when not including, remove this
> >
> > Shows up when the page is included in another but not when viewed
> > under its own title?
> >
> > Page Foo
> >         abc<includeonly>def</includeonly>ghi
> >
> > Views as
> >
> >         abcghi
> >
> > Page Bar
> >         {{:Foo}}
> >
> > Views as
> >
> >         def
> >
> > >> <onlyinclude> -> when including, remove anything outside this
> > >> <noinclude> -> when including, remove this
> > Are these the same?
> > Page Foo
> >         <noinclude>abc</noinclude>def<noinclude>ghi</noinclude>
> >
> >         abc<onlyinclude>def</onlyinclude>ghi
> >
> > View both as
> >
> >         abcdefghi
> >
> > Page Bar
> >
> >         {{:Foo}}
> >
> > Views as
> >
> >         def
> >
> >
> > >
> > >> [...]
> > >
> > >> Wouldn't that lead to a confusing mix of both?
> > >
> > > Well... i'm already confused :P
> > >
> > > -- chris
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > > Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> >
> > =====================================
> > Jim Hu
> > Associate Professor
> > Dept. of Biochemistry and Biophysics
> > 2128 TAMU
> > Texas A&M Univ.
> > College Station, TX 77843-2128
> > 979-862-4054
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> >
>
>


from_name: Stephen Bain

subject: [WikiEN-l] The Cabal strikes again

body:
On 3/16/07, Gwern Branwen <gwern0 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I don't think anyone's taken what that site says seriously since
> the editor got banned back in 2004 or 2003 for severe POV
> pushing. At least, I rather hope no one has, although given how
> people are treating this as a new critic, I guess it's been
> forgotten.

Unless he had a prior account, it was April 2006 and he was
indefinitely blocked for posting other users' personal information and
making legal threats, not for expressing his point of view as he would
have people think.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


from_name: Erica

subject: [WikiEN-l] Primary schools - notability

body:
What's the going consensus on the inherent notability of primary schools?

E.g.: see [[Category:Primary schools in Buckinghamshire]]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Primary_schools_in_Buckinghamshire

My understanding was that high schools were contentious, but it was
generally agreed upon that middle/primary schools were not inherently
notable. But I might be behind the times.

Erica
User:Fang Aili


list: commons-l

from_name: Stan Shebs

subject:
[Commons-l] Getting our content out there
	(openstockphotography.org)

body:
Brianna Laugher wrote:
> mostly I take this as a sign that Commons is suffering because of the
> limitations of the current MW implementation, which has no fancy
> gadgets for images and no easy handling of them. Goddamit, it is
> frustrating to have all this fantastic content and feel that no one
> knows about it because it's too hard to access. GRRRRRRRRR. This site
> should not be able to exist because WE should be able to do the fancy
> stuff.
> some of it at least.
>
I go back and forth on that - if we can't even agree on categories vs
galleries vs something else, maybe it's just as well that it's not too
visible! :-)
> anyone else find their photographs in a home beyond commons?
>
Yup, I've been asked for permission  (apparently people don't quite
believe the GFDL) for use in various books, although I haven't actually
*seen* any of these books yet... My favorite usage is by the WWF, where
they used my caribou-and-pipeline photo (snapped out the window of a
moving bus!)  to illustrate a news article about pipeline leakage,
http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/where_we_work/europe/what_we_do/arctic/news/index.cfm?uNewsID=62660
.

Stan


body:
George Herbert wrote:
> I'm happy and amused that Sinbad has a sense of humor about it all.
>
It would be cool if he could learn a bit about WP and work it into a
comedy routine:

"They told me I gotta get my bio on my watchlist, but then I fell asleep
watching it, face down on the keyboard, ya know? And when I woke up, I
had a gay friend named Joey, the phone numbers of three sluts in a
Jersey high school, and I'd been nominated for president of Kazakhstan!
So then I go to erase that crazy chit, and I get ragged on by an admin
or janitor or busybody or whatever they call them, 'coz I was 'editing
my own biography!'"

Et cetera. Why should Colbert get all the mileage? :-)

Stan


from_name: Mark Wagner

subject: [WikiEN-l] Primary schools - notability

body:
On 3/16/07, Erica <fangaili at gmail.com> wrote:
> What's the going consensus on the inherent notability of primary schools?
>
> E.g.: see [[Category:Primary schools in Buckinghamshire]]
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Primary_schools_in_Buckinghamshire
>
> My understanding was that high schools were contentious, but it was
> generally agreed upon that middle/primary schools were not inherently
> notable. But I might be behind the times.

I believe current practice on AfD is that if the word "school" appears
in the name, it's notable.

--
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

body:
On 3/16/07, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.openstockphotography.org/
> Anyone seen this? This site seems to do NOTHING but mirror Wikimedia
> Commons! (plus add fancy gadgets and drop the technical-license speak)

They are live loading the content (i.e. they are just a proxy not a
true mirror).

> anyone else find their photographs in a home beyond commons?

Yes.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Missing Dumps

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Brion Vibber wrote:
> Jochen Magnus wrote:
>> Is there another place or another technique for Wikipedia mirror
>> operators to get recent dumps?
>
> Nope.

(Note that we do offer an update feed service on a paid basis. If you're
making money republishing the wiki and want close-to-live pages, you
could do worse than to call in to the office and talk about that. But we
only offer the dumps on the general as-is basis.)

- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com / brion @ wikimedia.org)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFF+sARwRnhpk1wk44RAv0BAJ9UJ0tnsTg1jR3Op0Pst34resTjwwCcCit5
ESa0u/Oofpa8D3rXoDp5MXY=
=X//J
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


list: textbook-l

from_name: Robert Horning

subject: [Textbook-l] We must be doing something right

body:
With all of the complaints about how Wikibooks is going to heck in a
handbasket, I would like to point out some rather positive "press" about
Wikibooks that comes from outside of our little community:

http://smarandayal.com/2007/03/10/gods-of-kobol-bless-wikibooks/

Here is somebody just trying to learn a little more about a topic, and
he is using Wikibooks to try and pick up that knowledge.

Congratulations to the [[Economics]] Wikibook on ths point, you got a
genuine fan here!

--~~~~


subject: [Wikitech-l] rev_deleted temporarily demerged

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

We're a bit behind on code review, so I've gone ahead and de-merged this
branch merge for the moment. Sorry. :)

Once we're caught up we can review that and bring it back in... might be
best to wait until after 1.10 branch since that's coming up in two weeks.

- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com / brion @ wikimedia.org)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFF+sIVwRnhpk1wk44RAsMgAJ9xGn4s6pLFC61QsiIjKURt21uOxQCdEXeO
FGAI74U5RZEfO2deFnQRZfE=
=k5H1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


list: foundation-l

from_name: phoebe ayers

subject: [Foundation-l] Fwd: [Wikimania-l] Wikimania 2007 updates

body:
Just a quick note... the Wikimania main page has been redesigned:
http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

It now highlights three important things: registration, scholarships
and the call for participation, all of which are now open. Don't wait
to submit your presentations, apply for a scholarship, and register
for the conference!

* Registration fees will go up for accommodation after Apr. 15, 2007
* The deadline for scholarships is April 1, 2007
* Presentations, panels, posters and workshops may be submitted until
Apr. 30, 2007

Also, please help distribute this information about Wikimania to your
local communities.

best,
Phoebe

_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l at lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l


list: wikimedia-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] Primary schools - notability

body:
> On 3/16/07, Erica <fangaili at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > What's the going consensus on the inherent notability of primary schools?
> >
> > E.g.: see [[Category:Primary schools in Buckinghamshire]]
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Primary_schools_in_Buckinghamshire
> >
> > My understanding was that high schools were contentious, but it was
> > generally agreed upon that middle/primary schools were not inherently
> > notable. But I might be behind the times.
> >
> >
> > Erica
> > User:Fang Aili

On 3/16/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> Have you tried [[WP:SCHOOLS]]?
> Even though they may not be _inherently_ notable, they could still be for
> some specific reason.
>
> Mgm
>

It's currently tagged {{historical}}, but even that is contested,
according to the history. There's no apparent consensus on the talk
page. If there's no consensus, then that's fine, but maybe there was
some discussion elsewhere.

Erica


subject:
[Commons-l] Getting our content
	out	there(openstockphotography.org)

body:
peter green wrote:
>> Yup, I've been asked for permission  (apparently people don't quite
>> believe the GFDL)
>>
> firstly there is the issue that i don't think you can included a gfdl image in a non gfdl book (or at least if you can its not too clear)
>
Sure you can, just need to include license in fine print somewhere, or
call it a fair use. A couple of the interchanges have been curious, in
that "the GFDL allows free usage" is not enough, they want to hear "I
give permission" specifically. But I'm sure if one has a hundred
photographers to contact, that it's just more efficient to get the magic
words than to pore over the wording of freaky copyleft licenses. :-)

Stan


subject: [WikiEN-l] Proposal for a policy

body:
On 3/16/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: George Herbert [mailto:george.herbert at gmail.com]
> >Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 12:45 PM
> >To: 'English Wikipedia'
> >Subject: [WikiEN-l] Proposal for a policy
> >
> >I would like to float the idea here for a minor policy change on en.wp
> >
> >I'd like to propose that we require the on-wiki logging of all CU
> >requests that result in any user sanction.  This would logically and
> >explicitly include requiring the logging of all requests done as the
> >result of off-wiki discussions such as IRC etc., if they result in
> >user warnings or blocks.
> >
> >The policy would strongly encourage the person running the CU to
> >report it.  The policy would require a person blocking to make a
> >report, if the person who ran the CU did not, listing who ran the CU
> >should there be any followup questions.  I envision a new section in
> >WP:RFCU where these reports would be placed, with the usual archive
> >provisions.  It would be encouraged but not required to document the
> >reasons for the CU.
> >
> >Rationale:
> >
> >I have no objection to venues other than en:WP:RFCU being used to
> >initiate someone running a CU (Others may object, I don't care).
> >However, I have had a number of cases where figuring out what happened
> >with an abusive user's case turned out to hinge on info which never
> >got written down on-wiki, and in some cases has taken more than a
> >couple of steps to contact the person who ran a CU and got results.
> >
> >This is particularly bad when we're seeing appeals or issues related
> >to much older abusers, when it can be very difficult to figure out who
> >knows if a CU was run two or four months ago and what the results
> >were.
> >
> >
> >Feedback?
>
> I don't think we want every checkuser ran by an arbitrator investigating apparent connections logged with the result. Often such checks are unproductive, showing nothing, while those that are productive may not be significant or determinative. Often they made just to have a record. For example, if we are proposing to ban someone, it is helpful to keep a record of where they were editing from, just as a precaution.
>
> Fred

I have no problems with not logging every checkuser.

What I would like to see is that every checkuser which results in a
block, have a visible on-wiki result to go look up.

If you're taking notes or check something and it comes out negative,
there would be no need to log it, though you obviously could if you
wanted to.

If you are taking notes and eventually someone gets blocked referring
to the CU, then you'd be asked to log it in at that point.

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


from_name: Zoney

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Fwd: Oops (or,
	be careful when quoting Wikipedia in your newspaper, part 2)

body:
On 15/03/07, Keith Old <keithold at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Keith Old <keithold at gmail.com>
> Date: Mar 16, 2007 7:24 AM
> Subject: Fwd: [WikiEN-l] Oops (or, be careful when quoting Wikipedia in
> your
> newspaper, part 2)
> To: "unblock-en-l at wikipedia.org" <unblock-en-l at wikipedia.org>
>
>
> G'day folks,
>
> The Register which has never published anything positive about Wikipedia
> in
> its life published an interesting piece by Tom Melly (Username Tomandlu)
> about The Times allegedly using Wikipedia as a source for an article on
> his
> father George Melly.
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/15/tom_melly_wikipedia_comment/

 snip

Regards
>
>
> Keith Old
>
>
Whether it is Wikipedia's responsibility to do something about it or not,
the project is undisputably spreading disinformation not only across the
Internet, but into printed media. The mirroring of old (but also some
relatively stable) Wikipedia versions means that incorrect information can
be visible for an unlimited amount of time. Undoubtedly elements of this are
not Wikipedia's responsibility, for example those mirroring need to take
responsibility, and arguably Google has such a presence and air of
respectability that they should be more responsible about the fact that
searches can easily throw up disinformation in spades well before anything
sensible. You can't just hand wave and say "it's just technology" - people
are responsible for running public services (in the case of Google, making a
lot of money from it).

I don't think Wikipedia can absolve itself of all responsibility though.
There needs to be clear acceptance that despite a drive towards improvement
and "policies" re: verifiability, a lot of "facts" on Wikipedia are outright
incorrect (and wrt. to bios for example, potentially libellious). And rather
than just have stronger policies about what can be added to Wikipedia, there
needs to be an official line of "don't believe us". And potentially stop
calling ourselves an encyclopaedia, which gives a false sense of authority.
Even if people should not act merely on authority, or use an encyclopaedia
as primary reference, they do.

Zoney

--
~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...


from_name: Anthony

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia as a primary source

body:
On 3/16/07, Ken Arromdee <arromdee at rahul.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Anthony wrote:
> > > > But apparently the rules say otherwise.  So if you want to know why
> > > > the rules prohibit one but not the other, ask the people who made the
> > > > rules - it wasn't me.
> > >
> > > Then what's your point?  We're talking about what the rules *should* say.
> > > If you're only willing to discuss what the rules do say, you're not really
> > > discussing at all.
> > >
> > It seems to me that you're the one who keeps bringing up what the
> > rules say, and that's precisely the part I'm not interested in
> > discussing.
>
> I'm bringing uop the rules in order to discuss how they may be changed.
> You're bringing them up to say "we can't do it that way because that isn't
> in the rules".
>
I think if you look back at this ridiculous thread between the two of
us you'll find that isn't true.  In fact, I've never brought up the
rules at all.

Anthony


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] The Cabal strikes again

body:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 13:04:50 -0500, "Sharon, Lois Bram"
<oneelephant at gmail.com> wrote:

>Please do not call honest people trolls, sir.

If he does, we'll be sure to let him know.

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


body:
On 3/15/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
> Skyring wrote:
>
> >I'd like to suggest something which I think should work. Whenever an
> >administrator edits an article, that version automatically becomes the
> >"stable" version that an unregistered reader will see. And it won't have
> >"edit" links all over it. Sure, it might have mistakes and it might have
> >POV, but the odds are that if an admin has had even a glance at it, it's
> >probably good.
> >
> I find this attempt to give admins even more power objectionable.  There
> are plenty of us who have been around for a long time without having
> become admins.  Many operate in limited non-controversial areas.  The
> result would be a huge number of articles that will need to be edited by
> admins; these articles previously managed quite well without involvement
> of admins.
>
> Ec

If a POV warrior wants to they can turn anything into a controversy, but I
do agree in part.
Stable versions won't scale if they rely purely on admins. Perhaps we can
give the privilege to more people and find a way to undo stable versions
approved by a user that later turns out to be blocked or otherwise
sanctioned for problems so they can be re-checked by someone else.

Mgm


from_name: christoph.huesler at css.ch

body:
brion wrote:

> <includeonly> -> when not including, remove this
> <onlyinclude> -> when including, remove anything outside this
> <noinclude> -> when including, remove this

> [...]

> Wouldn't that lead to a confusing mix of both?

Well... i'm already confused :P

-- chris


body:
On 3/16/07, Zoney <zoney.ie at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Whether it is Wikipedia's responsibility to do something about it or not,
> the project is undisputably spreading disinformation not only across the
> Internet, but into printed media. The mirroring of old (but also some
> relatively stable) Wikipedia versions means that incorrect information can
> be visible for an unlimited amount of time. Undoubtedly elements of this
> are
> not Wikipedia's responsibility, for example those mirroring need to take
> responsibility, and arguably Google has such a presence and air of
> respectability that they should be more responsible about the fact that
> searches can easily throw up disinformation in spades well before anything
> sensible. You can't just hand wave and say "it's just technology" - people
> are responsible for running public services (in the case of Google, making
> a
> lot of money from it).
>
> I don't think Wikipedia can absolve itself of all responsibility though.
> There needs to be clear acceptance that despite a drive towards
> improvement
> and "policies" re: verifiability, a lot of "facts" on Wikipedia are
> outright
> incorrect (and wrt. to bios for example, potentially libellious). And
> rather
> than just have stronger policies about what can be added to Wikipedia,
> there
> needs to be an official line of "don't believe us". And potentially stop
> calling ourselves an encyclopaedia, which gives a false sense of
> authority.
> Even if people should not act merely on authority, or use an encyclopaedia
> as primary reference, they do.
>
> Zoney

We already have a disclaimer saying we shouldn't be trusted and the top of
every page has an edit button showing everyone can edit.
If people choose to trust anything they read without checking there's really
nothing we can do. I speak from experience when I say that blinking red
banners on top of pages won't work. People will just ignore them just like
they do with warnings on all other Wikipedia pages.

AFC: "Cite your sources" -> ignored
HD: "Don't post your email address and don't ask homework questions" -->
ignored.
HD: "Place for questions about Wikipedia" --> How can I find DVD X? -->
Ignored.

Sure, we need to warn people but we need to draw a line too.


from_name: Brianna Laugher

subject: [Commons-l] [daily-image-l] 2007-03-15

body:
Check in the archives:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/daily-image-l/2007-March/000024.html
it worked. I received the post (via the mailing list) with the link.

A guy reported to me that he received some emails without links
(although he still  had the 'copyright status'). I have no idea why
that might be, or how to fix it.

BTW any problems with the list can be reported directly to me rather
than to the Commons list.

cheers
Brianna
user:pfctdayelise

On 15/03/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> Um ... link?
>
>
> - d.
>
>
>
> On 15 Mar 2007 04:00:29 -0000, Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Day
> <daily-image-l at lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > Descriptions:
> >
> > ?esky: Ka?on Zion v N?rodn?m parku Zion, Utah, USA
> > Deutsch: Der Zion Canyon im Zion National Park (Utah, USA) bei Sonnenuntergang von Angel's Landing aus gesehen.
> > English: Zion Canyon at sunset in Zion National Park in Utah, as seen from Angels Landing looking south.
> > Espa?ol: Atardecer en el Parque Nacional Zion, Utah, Estados Unidos.
> > Esperanto: Sunsubiro ?e nacia naturparko de Zion en Utaho, Usono
> > Fran?ais: Le Parc national de Zion (Utah, USA) au coucher de soleil.
> > Italiano: Tramonto al Parco nazionale di Zion.
> > ???????: ???????????? ???? ???? (???? ?????? ????, ???, ???)
> > Magyar: A Zion-kanyon a Zion Nemzeti Parkban (Utah ?llam, USA)
> > Nederlands: Zonsopgang in de Zionkloof in het nationaal park Zion in Utah, gezien vanaf Angels Landing in de richting van het zuiden.
> > Polski: Zach?d s?o?ca nad Kanionem Zion, Park Narodowy Zion w stanie Utah (widok z Angels Landing na po?udnie)
> > Portugu?s: P?r-do-Sol no C?nion Zion no Parque Nacional Zion em Utah.
> > Svenska: Solnedg?ng i Zion National Park i Utah i USA.
> > T?rk?e: Zion Kanyonu, Utah, ABD.
> > ????: ?????????????????
> > ????: ?????????????????
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > daily-image-l mailing list
> > Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/options/daily-image-l
> > Questions, comments: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Daily-image-l
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>


from_name: Uwe Baumbach

subject:
[Wikitech-l] getPreloadedText in EditPage (was: preload method
 of class Article)

body:
Brion,

> Uwe Baumbach wrote:
>> > Looking at method preload (Article.php) you can see that
>> > <includeonly> tags will be swept.
>
> There is no "preload" method in Article.php.

You are right, sure.

> Do you mean getPreloadedText() in EditPage?

Yes.

>> > Is it by mischance or by consciously decision that
>> > <noinclude>...</noinclude> parts remain?
>
> Sounds normal to me; you either keep the parts for includes or the parts
> that aren't for includes.
>
> <includeonly> -> when not including, remove this

> <onlyinclude> -> when including, remove anything outside this

Where is the code doing even this?

> <noinclude> -> when including, remove this

And that?

> However the code that's there doesn't make sense to me; it appears to be
> removing only the actual <includeonly> and </includeonly> start and end
> tags, not their content.

That?s right.
And makes sense - after all: preloading is for me: including.
So it removes <includeonly> tags (correct!) leaves the content
(correct!) but this only (in my understanding) the half of work.
So:

 >> > Would it be reasonable to add this
 >> > $text =
 >> > preg_replace('/<noinclude>.*?<\/noinclude>/s', '', $text );
 >> > into the main source code branch?

In my installation it works - removes opening and closing tags and text
between them.

> Wouldn't that lead to a confusing mix of both?

Can?t see this.
Your view is much better then mine
;-)

The only crucial thing I can imagine is article import.
Don?t know whether preloading is used there.

We need it for the useful extension InputBox (Eric Moeller) that calls
preload feature for a new created article.
With this extension we can avoid to explain new users  what a template
is and how {{subst:...}} works and so on. Our clientele is by the
majority older and less skilled...

--

Uwe (Baumbach)
U.Baumbach at web.de


from_name: Thomas Dalton

subject: [Wikitech-l] Antwort: template creation

body:
> Thanks for your response first.Here are the details:
> When the user clicks a link Create Xyz
> It opens a new form/template not page
> Here user can enter xyz details (like say event details) in wikitext in a
> editor(somewhat similar to wordpad) and click save button
>
> When the user clicks a link Create Abc
> It should open a new form/template not page
> Here user can enter abc details (like say event details) in a editor(somewhat
> similar to wordpad) and click save button
>
> I can do this in php but can you let me know how i can do this using mediawiki?

I'm still not quite sure what you're trying to do. You say an editor a
bit like wordpad - the usual MediaWiki edit page is like that. Are you
wanting something with specific places for users to put specific bits
of information? (One textbox for the time, one textbox for the venue,
that kind of thing.)


subject: [WikiEN-l] The Cabal strikes again

body:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 13:42:27 -0500, "Sharon, Lois Bram"
<oneelephant at gmail.com> wrote:

>As you sir saw fit to remove my goodbye messages and block me claiming I am
>a troll, please understand if I am less than thrilled by your statements.

The feeling is entirely mutual, hence the block.

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


from_name: Jochen Magnus

subject: [Wikitech-l] Missing Dumps

body:
Please can somebody verify that http://download.wikimedia.org/dewiki/ is
the right place to download dumps from Wikipedia? The last dump which I
can see is from Feb 7.

Is there another place or another technique for Wikipedia mirror
operators to get recent dumps?

Thank you

Jochen Magnus


from_name: Earle Martin

body:
On 16/03/07, Avi <avi_wiki at yahoo.com> wrote:
>   Count me in as one of those who thinks that we may need a PR blitz as to 1) How wiki works 2) What vandalism is 3) A training brochure in basic wiki use. (check histories and editors, etc.)

At least one person does!

http://urbanlegends.about.com/b/a/256513.htm

He even provides a link to the revision history, too. Now that's more like it.

--
Earle Martin
            http://downlode.org/
http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/


from_name: Jynus

body:
El Viernes 16 Marzo 2007 16:46, Brianna Laugher escribi?:

> anyone else find their photographs in a home beyond commons?
>
> regards,
> Brianna
> user:pfctdayelise

I did once. I contacted the webmaster (it was a large site, using a lot of
images) and he agreed to put the links, atributtion and license on each
photograph.

Most of the time this happens because they are not aware of copyright
law/licensing schemes, as most of our copyvios are.

Besides that, I am happy when people find useful my images :-)
--
Jynus


from_name: Tom Holden

subject: [Foundation-l] FW: [BOAI] Open Content Service Launched

body:
I thought people might be interested in the below.

Tom

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-boai-forum at ecs.soton.ac.uk
[mailto:owner-boai-forum at ecs.soton.ac.uk] On Behalf Of David Dorman
Sent: 15 March 2007 22:22
To: boai-forum at ecs.soton.ac.uk
Cc: SPARC-OAForum at arl.org; american-scientist-open-access-forum at amsci.org;
EuroscienceOA at lists.sopinspace.net; open-access-forum at soros.org;
AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM at LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
Subject: [BOAI] Open Content Service Launched

Index Data has launched a new service to expose open content
resources. The initial phase of this service offers ebooks, open
access digital repositories, encyclopedia articles, and
human-reviewed Internet resources. This service is being offered
without charge.

Using standard search protocols such as SRU and Z39.50, system
administrators will be able to make open content part of their
institution's information portals, federated search systems, catalogs
etc. Additional background information and connection instructions
are available at www.indexdata.com/opencontent. The initial open
content being offered consists of the following resources:

         Ebooks from the Open Content Alliance
         Ebooks from Project Gutenberg
         Internet resources selected for review by the Open Directory
Project
         OAI-compliant resources, the metadata of which has been
harvested by OAIster
         Wikipedia articles

As an example of the benefits of being able to metasearch open
resources, we are making freely available a pre-release demo version
of Index Data's MasterKey search service that has these open content
resources as targets at http://mkey.indexdata.com/demo.  MasterKey is
based on pazpar2, a metasearch engine that will be released under the
General Public License within the next month or two.

Comments, questions, or suggestions can be made through our open
content listserv, oclist, available for subscription at
http://lists.indexdata.dk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/oclist, or by
writing info at indexdata.com.

Regards,

David

David Dorman
US Marketing Manager, Index Data
52 Whitman Ave.
West Hartford, Connecticut  06107
dorman at indexdata.com
860-389-1568 or toll free 866-489-1568
fax: 860-561-5613

INDEX DATA Means Business
for Open Source and Open Standards
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
www.indexdata.com


from_name: George Herbert

subject: [WikiEN-l] Proposal for a policy

body:
On 3/16/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> George Herbert wrote:
> > Feedback?
>
> My main suggestion would be to have used the unabbreviated version of
> "CU" the first time it was mentioned in your proposal. I'm a veteran
> editor and it still took me a couple of read-throughs and a visit to
> Wikipedia before I knew what the heck you were talking about. "WP:CU"
> redirects to "Wikipedia:Cleanup", for an added dose of confusion. :)

I noticed that a little too late; I apologize for anyone's confusion.

I broke one of the cardinal rules of tech writing (explain the acronym
once), which if my wife were on the list would get me in trouble at
home.  She has been trying to get me to avoid that goof for years.

The next "pre-draft" revision will expand the acronym on first use.

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


subject: [Wikitech-l] Missing Dumps

body:
Thank you Brion. A close to live update may be interesting. Can you post
me contact data please?

Jochen

(jo at rhein-zeitung dot de)

Brion Vibber schrieb:

> ... Note that we do offer an update feed service on a paid basis...


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] Primary schools - notability

body:
Have you tried [[WP:SCHOOLS]]?
Even though they may not be _inherently_ notable, they could still be for
some specific reason.

Mgm

On 3/16/07, Erica <fangaili at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What's the going consensus on the inherent notability of primary schools?
>
> E.g.: see [[Category:Primary schools in Buckinghamshire]]
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Primary_schools_in_Buckinghamshire
>
> My understanding was that high schools were contentious, but it was
> generally agreed upon that middle/primary schools were not inherently
> notable. But I might be behind the times.
>
>
> Erica
> User:Fang Aili
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Andrew Gray

body:
On 16/03/07, Avi <avi_wiki at yahoo.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>  Another case of wiki vandalism that made headlines:
>
>  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070316/ap_on_en_ot/people_sinbad
>
>  Count me in as one of those who thinks that we may need a PR blitz as to 1) How wiki works 2) What vandalism is 3) A training brochure in basic wiki use. (check histories and editors, etc.)

It's an interesting case. Some seemed to be forwarding links to the
specific vandalised revision - which has happened before - but most
were just forwarding a cut-and-pasted version of the vandalised
article, without any obvious links.

Which is, um. I mean, I could copy and paste [[George W. Bush]], add
"is gay" in the intro, and forward it around. And we'd still have
people assuming it came from us just because it said so...

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


from_name: Andrew Whitworth

body:
>Perhaps the topics list on the main page could be optimised like
>the list at the top of http://strategywiki.org/wiki/Main_Page with the
>newly-freed space used for a list of PDFs of "complete" (100% only) books.

It's an idea that has come up recently, although some people think that by
presenting PDFs on the main page we are doing more to encourage new readers,
but actually working to discourage potential contributors. PDFs are
certainly handy, but they aren't as approachable or editable as the regular
book pages are. Just some food for thought.

>We should also consider offering per-chapter PDFs ...

That is a good idea, and one that I hadn't considered previously. "Per
chapter" might be overkill, but a "per unit" (with a unit consisting of a
handful of related chapters) might be a better idea for books with shorter
chapters. Converting a PDF for every chapter can be pretty time-consuming,
especially if we try to keep the PDFs "up to date".

>Anyway, there's lots to consider here! Thanks for finding this. Oh, and I
>see I'm not the only one to sign textbook-l messages with tildes. :)

I almost sign every single email with tildes, it's a tough habit to break.

--Andrew Whitworth (Whiteknight)

_________________________________________________________________
i'm making a difference.?Make every IM count for the cause of your choice.
Join Now.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0080000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=hmtagline


from_name: Simetrical

references:
<b8ceeef70703112028o1c302cecv59f48d6718e7586d@mail.gmail.com>
	<87lkhyx733.fsf@jidanni.org>
	<7c2a12e20703151958n5e64c079lfb4c3b6f95ef1bb7@mail.gmail.com>
	<etf1o4$gut$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
On 3/16/07, Platonides <Platonides at gmail.com> wrote:
> I just got this:
>
> X-Cache: MISS from sq6.wikimedia.org
> X-Cache-Lookup: MISS from sq6.wikimedia.org:80
> X-Cache: HIT from knsq8.knams.wikimedia.org
> X-Cache-Lookup: HIT from knsq8.knams.wikimedia.org:80
> X-Cache: HIT from knsq15.knams.wikimedia.org
> X-Cache-Lookup: HIT from knsq15.knams.wikimedia.org:80
> X-Cache: HIT from knsq13.knams.wikimedia.org
> . . .

I meant *client* cache misses.  Which is what this thread was about.
The Squids are surely going to have all the interface images cached,
at least.  (Assuming the Squids cache those and not just pages.)


from_name: Neil Harris

body:
Lars Aronsson wrote:
> Delirium wrote:
>
>
>> So I'd be surprised if we're "done" covering even the top-tier subjects
>> before we get to 3 million articles, if even then.
>>
>
> After "size" (number of "real" articles), the next measurement
> must be "coverage".  But how do we define that?  Surely, coverage
> was 0% on the first day and will be 100% if Wikipedia can answer
> any possible question, but this is an unrealistic limit.  Maybe
> Britannica is at 90% and Wikipedia at 80%?  But we don't know how
> to define the "coverage" of an encyclopedia to begin with.
>
> Corpus linguists first collect a very large body (a corpus) of
> text, then they count how many times each word occurs.  If every
> 20th word (or 5% of the corpus) is "the", then a dictionary only
> containing "the" will "cover" 5% of this corpus.  Most spelling
> dictionaries can cover 95-98 % of any normal corpus.  But creating
> a dictionary that covers the last few percents is hard, because
> any normal text will contain a few very uncommon words.  There is
> a very long, thin tail.
>
> Could we compile a "corpus" of questions, and see how large a
> percentage of them can be answered by Wikipedia?  That probably
> requires artificial intelligence, if not science fiction.  (Hey,
> did somebody write a novel about this already?  Sci-fi can be a
> great source of inspiration.)  I guess we could compile a list of
> famous places and people, and see what percentage of them have
> articles of reasonable length.  But having an entry on St
> Petersburg, Florida, is less important than having entries on
> London or Paris.  So the list must be weighted.  Search companies
> like Google or MSN keep logs of every query that people type in,
> so they know exactly how many times more often people search for
> London than for St Petersburg, Florida.  That's the kind of
> weights we would need to compute a coverage, I guess.
>
>
>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_encyclopedia_topics

and the various other lists linked on that page, would be a good first
place to start...

-- Neil


from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Proposal for a policy

body:
George Herbert wrote:
> Feedback?

My main suggestion would be to have used the unabbreviated version of
"CU" the first time it was mentioned in your proposal. I'm a veteran
editor and it still took me a couple of read-throughs and a visit to
Wikipedia before I knew what the heck you were talking about. "WP:CU"
redirects to "Wikipedia:Cleanup", for an added dose of confusion. :)


from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [Foundation-l] Commons Picture of the Year 2006

body:
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	POY
Date: 	Fri, 16 Mar 2007 08:40:47 -0800
From: 	Strang Joshua P SSgt 354 CS/SCBV
To: 	Tim Starling

Hello,
I stumbled across the post that my photo won Commons photo of the year
and your comment about had anyone contacted me. No I had not heard a
word but when I found it, I was floored. Thanks for recognizing me and
please pass my thanks on to the Wikimedia Commons. Thanks again!
SSgt Strang

Joshua P. Strang, SSgt, USAF
354 CS/SCBV
Photography NCOIC
[Phone number removed]

"The brave ones shoot the enemy; The crazy ones shoot photos."


subject: [Commons-l] Commons Picture of the Year 2006


from_name: Lars Aronsson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Look Who's Using Wikipedia

body:
Delirium wrote:

> So I'd be surprised if we're "done" covering even the top-tier subjects
> before we get to 3 million articles, if even then.

After "size" (number of "real" articles), the next measurement
must be "coverage".  But how do we define that?  Surely, coverage
was 0% on the first day and will be 100% if Wikipedia can answer
any possible question, but this is an unrealistic limit.  Maybe
Britannica is at 90% and Wikipedia at 80%?  But we don't know how
to define the "coverage" of an encyclopedia to begin with.

Corpus linguists first collect a very large body (a corpus) of
text, then they count how many times each word occurs.  If every
20th word (or 5% of the corpus) is "the", then a dictionary only
containing "the" will "cover" 5% of this corpus.  Most spelling
dictionaries can cover 95-98 % of any normal corpus.  But creating
a dictionary that covers the last few percents is hard, because
any normal text will contain a few very uncommon words.  There is
a very long, thin tail.

Could we compile a "corpus" of questions, and see how large a
percentage of them can be answered by Wikipedia?  That probably
requires artificial intelligence, if not science fiction.  (Hey,
did somebody write a novel about this already?  Sci-fi can be a
great source of inspiration.)  I guess we could compile a list of
famous places and people, and see what percentage of them have
articles of reasonable length.  But having an entry on St
Petersburg, Florida, is less important than having entries on
London or Paris.  So the list must be weighted.  Search companies
like Google or MSN keep logs of every query that people type in,
so they know exactly how many times more often people search for
London than for St Petersburg, Florida.  That's the kind of
weights we would need to compute a coverage, I guess.

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


from_name: peter green

subject:
[Commons-l] Getting our content out
	there(openstockphotography.org)

body:
> Yup, I've been asked for permission  (apparently people don't quite
> believe the GFDL)
firstly there is the issue that i don't think you can included a gfdl image in a non gfdl book (or at least if you can its not too clear)

secondly there is the fact its nice to ask even if you don't have to and it reduces the risks of cases where people released thier images without realising what they were doing and get angry and/or sending legal threats.


from_name: Stephen Bain

subject: [WikiEN-l] Leaving

body:
On 3/16/07, Sharon, Lois Bram <oneelephant at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Goodbye.

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-July/049984.html

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


from_name: Rob Church

subject: [Wikitech-l] multiple wikis, single LocalSettings.php

references:
<eskdo6$dr9$1@sea.gmane.org> <87zm6etmf4.fsf@jidanni.org>
	<eterq9$s59$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
On 16/03/07, Platonides <Platonides at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dan Jacobson wrote:
> > D> $wgDBserver="mysql.$wgServerName";
> >
> > P> I suppose you know what will be happening if someone finds a way to
> > P> overwrite your $wgServerName variable...
> >
> > How could that happen? $wgServerName is born in the safe confines of
> > DefaultSettings.php.
>
> I don't know, i wrote without even checking where was it set. It's a
> matter of making secure code. There are hundreds of exploits taking
> advantage of things the owner thought it "couldn't be done".
> Appending the result to a server on the default case is very bad.
> There's no need to do it in this way, so why do it? Tomorrow php could
> found a problem in the way $_REQUEST varaibles are used, compromising
> your system.
[snip]

There are arguably genuine concerns in this, but ultimately, if your
$wgServerName variable is not being set safely or at all, then you'd
likely be overriding it or fixing Apache so it was properly detected.

Rob Church


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Proposal for a policy

body:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: George Herbert [mailto:george.herbert at gmail.com]
>Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 12:45 PM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] Proposal for a policy
>
>I would like to float the idea here for a minor policy change on en.wp
>
>I'd like to propose that we require the on-wiki logging of all CU
>requests that result in any user sanction.  This would logically and
>explicitly include requiring the logging of all requests done as the
>result of off-wiki discussions such as IRC etc., if they result in
>user warnings or blocks.
>
>The policy would strongly encourage the person running the CU to
>report it.  The policy would require a person blocking to make a
>report, if the person who ran the CU did not, listing who ran the CU
>should there be any followup questions.  I envision a new section in
>WP:RFCU where these reports would be placed, with the usual archive
>provisions.  It would be encouraged but not required to document the
>reasons for the CU.
>
>Rationale:
>
>I have no objection to venues other than en:WP:RFCU being used to
>initiate someone running a CU (Others may object, I don't care).
>However, I have had a number of cases where figuring out what happened
>with an abusive user's case turned out to hinge on info which never
>got written down on-wiki, and in some cases has taken more than a
>couple of steps to contact the person who ran a CU and got results.
>
>This is particularly bad when we're seeing appeals or issues related
>to much older abusers, when it can be very difficult to figure out who
>knows if a CU was run two or four months ago and what the results
>were.
>
>
>Feedback?

I don't think we want every checkuser ran by an arbitrator investigating apparent connections logged with the result. Often such checks are unproductive, showing nothing, while those that are productive may not be significant or determinative. Often they made just to have a record. For example, if we are proposing to ban someone, it is helpful to keep a record of where they were editing from, just as a precaution.

Fred


from_name: Platonides

body:
Dan Jacobson wrote:
> D> $wgDBserver="mysql.$wgServerName";
>
> P> I suppose you know what will be happening if someone finds a way to
> P> overwrite your $wgServerName variable...
>
> How could that happen? $wgServerName is born in the safe confines of
> DefaultSettings.php.

I don't know, i wrote without even checking where was it set. It's a
matter of making secure code. There are hundreds of exploits taking
advantage of things the owner thought it "couldn't be done".
Appending the result to a server on the default case is very bad.
There's no need to do it in this way, so why do it? Tomorrow php could
found a problem in the way $_REQUEST varaibles are used, compromising
your system.

Let's focus on how $wgServer "is born in the safe confines":

#DefaulSettings
if( isset( $_SERVER['SERVER_NAME'] ) ) {
	$wgServerName = $_SERVER['SERVER_NAME'];
} elseif( isset( $_SERVER['HOSTNAME'] ) ) {
	$wgServerName = $_SERVER['HOSTNAME'];
} elseif( isset( $_SERVER['HTTP_HOST'] ) ) {
	$wgServerName = $_SERVER['HTTP_HOST'];
} elseif( isset( $_SERVER['SERVER_ADDR'] ) ) {
	$wgServerName = $_SERVER['SERVER_ADDR'];
} else {
	$wgServerName = 'localhost';
}

It is built from one of several informations tthe server passes to it.
What happens if you're using a server which doesn't give SERVER_NAME nor
HOSTNAME to  your script (the server doesn't support it or it is not
being passed to the script if using FastCGI/Isapi/CGI...).

Then the value is taken from 'HTTP_HOST'. Notice the HTTP_ before? It's
a parameter passed by the user on the http request.
What happens if i send to the server X a request saying i'm quering it
to server Y? If it uses Virtual Hosts, it will probably tell me there's
no such domain on that server, but if the server is listening by ip, it
could reach to the wiki. And now on the wiki i can arbitrary set your
dbserver and steal your login data.
There are a number of mitigating factors so you your wiki is probably
not vulnerable, but you don't want to be if you change servers, do you?

On the line of "how could that happen?", you can read a report about an
old mediawiki bug where ips were faked, the safe X-Forwarded-For
provided by the squids was overwritten:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Brion_VIBBER/Cool_Cat_incident_report


from_name: Oldak Quill

subject: [WikiEN-l] Primary schools - notability

body:
On 16/03/07, Erica <fangaili at gmail.com> wrote:
> What's the going consensus on the inherent notability of primary schools?

Nothing has inherent notability. The notability of something seems to
me to be subjective. I suppose we try to assess the intersubjective
notability of something in AfD debates.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: Sharon, Lois Bram

subject: [WikiEN-l] An Open Letter to Mr. Wales

body:
Sir,

My treatment at the hands of your "administrators" shows that it is.

The lies they got away with and have now put to falsely accuse me of on my
former page are enough  to convince me you are corrupt beyond saving.

On 3/16/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/16/07, Sharon, Lois Bram <oneelephant at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Sir, if this is how your administrators behave then it is no wonder the
> > project no matter how noble its goals is failing.
>
> Is there any evidence it's failing?
>
> Steve
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [Wikitech-l] cache images once for everybody?

body:
Simetrical wrote:
> WMF images are generally served with instructions to cache for 30
> days, IIRC.

30 days for /skins-1.5/common/images/
I don't get Expired nor Cache-Control for upload.wikimedia.org, though :S

> Cache-Control can specify maximum cache ages, but not minimum.

No matter what you tell them, the minimum will always be decided by the
client. :-)

 > Nevertheless, a fairly large percentage of hits are cache
 > misses for the images, is my impression.

I just got this:

X-Cache: MISS from sq6.wikimedia.org
X-Cache-Lookup: MISS from sq6.wikimedia.org:80
X-Cache: HIT from knsq8.knams.wikimedia.org
X-Cache-Lookup: HIT from knsq8.knams.wikimedia.org:80
X-Cache: HIT from knsq15.knams.wikimedia.org
X-Cache-Lookup: HIT from knsq15.knams.wikimedia.org:80
X-Cache: HIT from knsq13.knams.wikimedia.org
X-Cache-Lookup: HIT from knsq13.knams.wikimedia.org:80
X-Cache: HIT from knsq10.knams.wikimedia.org
X-Cache-Lookup: HIT from knsq10.knams.wikimedia.org:80
X-Cache: HIT from knsq14.knams.wikimedia.org
X-Cache-Lookup: HIT from knsq14.knams.wikimedia.org:80
X-Cache: HIT from knsq12.knams.wikimedia.org
X-Cache-Lookup: HIT from knsq12.knams.wikimedia.org:80
X-Cache: HIT from knsq11.knams.wikimedia.org
X-Cache-Lookup: HIT from knsq11.knams.wikimedia.org:80
X-Cache: HIT from knsq13.knams.wikimedia.org
X-Cache-Lookup: HIT from knsq13.knams.wikimedia.org:80
X-Cache: HIT from knsq15.knams.wikimedia.org
X-Cache-Lookup: HIT from knsq15.knams.wikimedia.org:80
X-Cache: HIT from knsq14.knams.wikimedia.org
X-Cache-Lookup: HIT from knsq14.knams.wikimedia.org:80
X-Cache: HIT from knsq10.knams.wikimedia.org
X-Cache-Lookup: HIT from knsq10.knams.wikimedia.org:80
X-Cache: HIT from knsq9.knams.wikimedia.org
X-Cache-Lookup: HIT from knsq9.knams.wikimedia.org:80
X-Cache: HIT from knsq14.knams.wikimedia.org
X-Cache-Lookup: HIT from knsq14.knams.wikimedia.org:80
X-Cache: HIT from knsq15.knams.wikimedia.org
X-Cache-Lookup: HIT from knsq15.knams.wikimedia.org:80
X-Cache: HIT from knsq8.knams.wikimedia.org
X-Cache-Lookup: HIT from knsq8.knams.wikimedia.org:80
X-Cache: HIT from knsq13.knams.wikimedia.org
X-Cache-Lookup: HIT from knsq13.knams.wikimedia.org:80
X-Cache: HIT from knsq12.knams.wikimedia.org
X-Cache-Lookup: HIT from knsq12.knams.wikimedia.org:80
X-Cache: HIT from knsq11.knams.wikimedia.org
X-Cache-Lookup: HIT from knsq11.knams.wikimedia.org:80
X-Cache: HIT from knsq10.knams.wikimedia.org
X-Cache-Lookup: HIT from knsq10.knams.wikimedia.org:80
X-Cache: HIT from knsq9.knams.wikimedia.org
X-Cache-Lookup: HIT from knsq9.knams.wikimedia.org:80
Age: 121213
X-Cache: HIT from knsq13.knams.wikimedia.org
X-Cache-Lookup: HIT from knsq13.knams.wikimedia.org:3128
X-Cache: MISS from knsq9.knams.wikimedia.org
X-Cache-Lookup: MISS from knsq9.knams.wikimedia.org:80
Via: 1.0 sq6.wikimedia.org:80 (squid/2.6.STABLE9), 1.0
knsq8.knams.wikimedia.org:80 (squid/2.6.STABLE9), 1.0
knsq15.knams.wikimedia.org:80 (squid/2.6.STABLE9),
1.0 knsq13.knams.wikimedia.org:80 (squid/2.6.STABLE9), 1.0
knsq10.knams.wikimedia.org:80 (squid/2.6.STABLE9), 1.0
knsq14.knams.wikimedia.org:80 (squid/2.6.STABLE9), 1.0
knsq12.knams.wikimedia.org:80 (squid/2.6.STABLE9), 1.0
knsq11.knams.wikimedia.org:80 (squid/2.6.STABLE9), 1.0
knsq13.knams.wikimedia.org:80 (squid/2.6.STABLE9), 1.0
knsq15.knams.wikimedia.org:80 (squid/2.6.STABLE9), 1.0
knsq14.knams.wikimedia.org:80 (squid/2.6.STABLE9), 1.0
knsq10.knams.wikimedia.org:80 (squid/2.6.STABLE9), 1.0
knsq9.knams.wikimedia.org:80 (squid/2.6.STABLE9), 1.0
knsq14.knams.wikimedia.org:80 (squid/2.6.STABLE9), 1.0
knsq15.knams.wikimedia.org:80 (squid/2.6.STABLE9), 1.0
knsq8.knams.wikimedia.org:80 (squid/2.6.STABLE9), 1.0
knsq13.knams.wikimedia.org:80 (squid/2.6.STABLE9), 1.0
knsq12.knams.wikimedia.org:80 (squid/2.6.STABLE9), 1.0
knsq11.knams.wikimedia.org:80 (squid/2.6.STABLE9), 1.0
knsq10.knams.wikimedia.org:80 (squid/2.6.STABLE9), 1.0
knsq9.knams.wikimedia.org:80 (squid/2.6.STABLE9), 1.0
knsq13.knams.wikimedia.org:3128 (squid/2.6.STABLE
9), 1.0 knsq9.knams.wikimedia.org:80 (squid/2.6.STABLE9)


subject: [WikiEN-l] An Open Letter to Mr. Wales

body:
Sir,

I have received no response since this time, but the person who defaced my
user page and posted lies about me and closed my talk page to prevent my
even leaving a goodbye message since has posted a lie claiming I am someone
I am not.

If necessary I will seek out your phone number and call you directly. I hope
that this is not necessary, but I fear that it may be.

You appear to have a severe problem on your hands with the behavior of a
very corrupt, sad, and hurtful group of individuals.

I have also requested information on whether a group calling themselves
wikipediareview.com, who have contacted me asking me to tell them "my side"
of the story and sent links regarding another administrator who they claim
to have investigated, are actually connected with you or not. None of those
of your subordinates I have contacted to try to ask, are responding.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sharon, Lois Bram <oneelephant at gmail.com>
Date: Mar 16, 2007 10:20 PM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] An Open Letter to Mr. Wales
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>

Sir,

My treatment at the hands of your "administrators" shows that it is.

The lies they got away with and have now put to falsely accuse me of on my
former page are enough  to convince me you are corrupt beyond saving.

On 3/16/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/16/07, Sharon, Lois Bram <oneelephant at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Sir, if this is how your administrators behave then it is no wonder the
> > project no matter how noble its goals is failing.
>
> Is there any evidence it's failing?
>
> Steve
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: K P

subject: [WikiEN-l] Most Baffling Articles Award 2007

body:
On 3/16/07, Earle Martin <wikipedia at downlode.org> wrote:
>
> Here's a candidate...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WCCF
>
> --
> Earle Martin
>            http://downlode.org/
> http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/

That was awesome.  A small fact left out, the arcade game requires a special
card that comes with the starter packs, that has an ic (I had to look that
up, being techno-daft) in it.

Awesome, though.  Simply awesome.  KP


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2007-03-17

body:
An automated run of parserTests.php showed the following failures:

This is MediaWiki version 1.10alpha (r20533).

Reading tests from "maintenance/parserTests.txt"...
Reading tests from "extensions/Cite/citeParserTests.txt"...
Reading tests from "extensions/Poem/poemParserTests.txt"...

   3 previously PASSING test(s) removed o_O
      * Link to image page- image page normally doesn't exists, hence edit link
TODO: Add test with existing image page
#
Image:test  [First recorded appearance: 11-Nov-2006 12:40:23, 1.9alpha (r17532)]
      * TODO: Parsing optional HTML elements (Bug 6171)  [First recorded appearance: 11-Nov-2006 12:40:23, 1.9alpha (r17532)]
      * TODO: Don't fall for the self-closing div  [First recorded appearance: 15-Nov-2006 08:15:56, 1.9alpha (r17697)]

   3 new PASSING test(s) :)
      * Link to image page- image page normally doesn't exists, hence edit link
Add test with existing image page
#
Image:test  [Has never failed]
      * Parsing optional HTML elements (Bug 6171)  [Has never failed]
      * Don't fall for the self-closing div  [Has never failed]

  14 previously FAILING test(s) removed O_o
      * TODO: Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)  [First recorded appearance: 11-Nov-2006 12:40:23, 1.9alpha (r17532)]
      * TODO: Link containing double-single-quotes '' (bug 4598)  [First recorded appearance: 11-Nov-2006 12:40:23, 1.9alpha (r17532)]
      * TODO: message transform: <noinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)  [First recorded appearance: 11-Nov-2006 12:40:23, 1.9alpha (r17532)]
      * TODO: message transform: <onlyinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)  [First recorded appearance: 11-Nov-2006 12:40:23, 1.9alpha (r17532)]
      * TODO: HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)  [First recorded appearance: 11-Nov-2006 12:40:23, 1.9alpha (r17532)]
      * TODO: HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)  [First recorded appearance: 11-Nov-2006 12:40:23, 1.9alpha (r17532)]
      * TODO: HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)  [First recorded appearance: 11-Nov-2006 12:40:23, 1.9alpha (r17532)]
      * TODO: HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)  [First recorded appearance: 11-Nov-2006 12:40:23, 1.9alpha (r17532)]
      * TODO: Inline HTML vs wiki block nesting  [First recorded appearance: 11-Nov-2006 12:40:23, 1.9alpha (r17532)]
      * TODO: Mixing markup for italics and bold  [First recorded appearance: 11-Nov-2006 12:40:23, 1.9alpha (r17532)]
      * TODO: dt/dd/dl test  [First recorded appearance: 11-Nov-2006 12:40:23, 1.9alpha (r17532)]
      * TODO: Images with the "|" character in the comment  [First recorded appearance: 14-Nov-2006 08:15:48, 1.9alpha (r17662)]
      * TODO: Parents of subpages, two levels up, without trailing slash or name.  [First recorded appearance: 15-Nov-2006 08:15:56, 1.9alpha (r17697)]
      * TODO: Parents of subpages, two levels up, with lots of extra trailing slashes.  [First recorded appearance: 15-Nov-2006 08:15:56, 1.9alpha (r17697)]

  14 new FAILING test(s) :(
      * Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)  [Has never passed]
      * Link containing double-single-quotes '' (bug 4598)  [Has never passed]
      * message transform: <noinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)  [Has never passed]
      * message transform: <onlyinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)  [Has never passed]
      * HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)  [Has never passed]
      * HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)  [Has never passed]
      * HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)  [Has never passed]
      * HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)  [Has never passed]
      * Inline HTML vs wiki block nesting  [Has never passed]
      * Mixing markup for italics and bold  [Has never passed]
      * dt/dd/dl test  [Has never passed]
      * Images with the "|" character in the comment  [Has never passed]
      * Parents of subpages, two levels up, without trailing slash or name.  [Has never passed]
      * Parents of subpages, two levels up, with lots of extra trailing slashes.  [Has never passed]

   3 still FAILING test(s) :(
      * URL-encoding in URL functions (single parameter)  [Has never passed]
      * URL-encoding in URL functions (multiple parameters)  [Has never passed]
      * BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled  [Has never passed]

Passed 494 of 511 tests (96.67%)... 17 tests failed!


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject:
[Commons-l] Getting our content out there
	(openstockphotography.org)

body:
On 3/16/07, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:

> http://www.kefk.org/portal/webtravel/china/fenster.yuyuan-gaerten.shanghai
> (maybe a german speaker can tell me something about this site?)

The "Kefk Network" (first time I've heard of it, actually) apparently
is a network of news and hierarchically organized articles, focusing
on tech (like slashdot) and related politics and social stuff, but
also some "classic" cultural things like photography, video, and
classical singing(!).

They claim their structure to be superior to wikis (using wikipedia as
an example) through "semantic features" (didn't check for these) and
hierarchy-based article structure (claimed to be superior to our
category system). They claim to be around since the 1990.

They emphasize FOSS and community aspects, so they apparently want to
be friendly competition. They finance themselves through ads/affiliate
programs with Amazon and others.

The name Kefk stems from C. J. Cherryhs Alliance/ Union Universe-cycle.

de.wikipedia links to a few of their articles.

More than you wanted to know, probably ;-)

Magnus


from_name: George Herbert

subject: [WikiEN-l] An Open Letter to Mr. Wales

body:
On 3/16/07, Sharon, Lois Bram <oneelephant at gmail.com> wrote:
> Sir,
>
> I have received no response since this time, but the person who defaced my
> user page and posted lies about me and closed my talk page to prevent my
> even leaving a goodbye message since has posted a lie claiming I am someone
> I am not.
>
> If necessary I will seek out your phone number and call you directly. I hope
> that this is not necessary, but I fear that it may be.
>
> You appear to have a severe problem on your hands with the behavior of a
> very corrupt, sad, and hurtful group of individuals.
>
> I have also requested information on whether a group calling themselves
> wikipediareview.com, who have contacted me asking me to tell them "my side"
> of the story and sent links regarding another administrator who they claim
> to have investigated, are actually connected with you or not. None of those
> of your subordinates I have contacted to try to ask, are responding.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Sharon, Lois Bram <oneelephant at gmail.com>
> Date: Mar 16, 2007 10:20 PM
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] An Open Letter to Mr. Wales
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>
> Sir,
>
> My treatment at the hands of your "administrators" shows that it is.
>
> The lies they got away with and have now put to falsely accuse me of on my
> former page are enough  to convince me you are corrupt beyond saving.
>
> On 3/16/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 3/16/07, Sharon, Lois Bram <oneelephant at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Sir, if this is how your administrators behave then it is no wonder the
> > > project no matter how noble its goals is failing.
> >
> > Is there any evidence it's failing?
> >
> > Steve

There exists a checkuser result on Lois Bram Sharon's account "One
Elephant went out to play...", linking the account directly with
RunedChozo, who as you all may remember was booted off the list for
profanity and so forth.  CU was run by a Steward and not recorded
on-wiki.

It's reasonable to presume that this is Michael, and he's just trying
to waste our time.  I find this very dissapointing.

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


from_name: Brianna Laugher

subject: [Commons-l] Getting our content out there (openstockphotography.org)

body:
Hello all,

http://www.openstockphotography.org/
Anyone seen this? This site seems to do NOTHING but mirror Wikimedia
Commons! (plus add fancy gadgets and drop the technical-license speak)

I found it by accident during a vanity search when it claimed these
two photos were mine:
http://www.openstockphotography.org/user/Pfctdayelise (apparently
pictures on your userpage  must be BY you...)

anyway click on the coloured graph and try out the 'find
similar-coloured pictures' - now that's pretty cool!

the 'popular searches' are quite amusing, because 99% of them must
have 0 results.

their search also seems quite shit in general.
really weird stuff.

mostly I take this as a sign that Commons is suffering because of the
limitations of the current MW implementation, which has no fancy
gadgets for images and no easy handling of them. Goddamit, it is
frustrating to have all this fantastic content and feel that no one
knows about it because it's too hard to access. GRRRRRRRRR. This site
should not be able to exist because WE should be able to do the fancy
stuff.
some of it at least.

as it happens, I found some other photos actually by me being used in
various guises:
http://www.tibetan-museum-society.org/java/www.php?sub=Architecture&i=6&main=China
attribution: yes
link: no
mention of license: no
restrictive site terms of use: yes

http://www.martialdevelopment.com/blog/3-ways-to-make-tai-chi-form-practice-more-interesting/
attribution: no? (mouseover text??)
link: no
mention of license: no
restrictive site terms of use: yes (well a giant (C))

http://www.weltum.de/weltum/galerien/galerie.php?gall_id=155&gallbild_id=0
attribution: yes
link: no
mention of license: YES! linked, even
we have a winner.

http://www.tobias-daniel.de/uebersee.html (China)
attribution: yes
link: yes (to de.wp image page, close enough)
mention of license: yes, and linked

http://www.kefk.org/portal/webtravel/china/fenster.yuyuan-gaerten.shanghai
(maybe a german speaker can tell me something about this site?)
attribution: yes
link: yes
mention of license: yes

wikipedia content appears in a crazy number of places.

anyone else find their photographs in a home beyond commons?

regards,
Brianna
user:pfctdayelise


from_name: Earle Martin

body:
Here's a candidate...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WCCF

--
Earle Martin
            http://downlode.org/
http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/


from_name: Rob Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] An Open Letter to Mr. Wales

body:
On 3/17/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
>
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Christiano Moreschi [mailto:moreschiwikiman at hotmail.co.uk]
> >Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 07:05 AM
> >To: wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] An Open Letter to Mr. Wales
> >
> >Hm. As a rule, checkuser doesn't lie.
> >
> >How about hopping back under the bridge?
> >
> >Moreschi
>
> Checkuser doesn't lie, but results can easily be misinterpreted. I think
> there have been a number of instances of troublesome users seizing on an
> inaccurate interpretation of checkuser to contest remedies which are
> directed at the troublesome behavior shared by both accounts in question. If
> both accounts are making the same kind of trouble...
>
> Fred

This is why maintaining the integrity of a User name is vital, even after (
a ) the User name is defamed in the Arbitration process; ( b ) the User name
becomes identified via e-mail to Wikien-1.

Rob Smith
aka User:Nobs01 & User:Nobs02


subject: [WikiEN-l] An Open Letter to Mr. Wales

body:
Sir,

that cannot possibly be correct.

On 3/17/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/16/07, Sharon, Lois Bram <oneelephant at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Sir,
> >
> > I have received no response since this time, but the person who defaced
> my
> > user page and posted lies about me and closed my talk page to prevent my
> > even leaving a goodbye message since has posted a lie claiming I am
> someone
> > I am not.
> >
> > If necessary I will seek out your phone number and call you directly. I
> hope
> > that this is not necessary, but I fear that it may be.
> >
> > You appear to have a severe problem on your hands with the behavior of a
> > very corrupt, sad, and hurtful group of individuals.
> >
> > I have also requested information on whether a group calling themselves
> > wikipediareview.com, who have contacted me asking me to tell them "my
> side"
> > of the story and sent links regarding another administrator who they
> claim
> > to have investigated, are actually connected with you or not. None of
> those
> > of your subordinates I have contacted to try to ask, are responding.
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Sharon, Lois Bram <oneelephant at gmail.com>
> > Date: Mar 16, 2007 10:20 PM
> > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] An Open Letter to Mr. Wales
> > To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> >
> > Sir,
> >
> > My treatment at the hands of your "administrators" shows that it is.
> >
> > The lies they got away with and have now put to falsely accuse me of on
> my
> > former page are enough  to convince me you are corrupt beyond saving.
> >
> > On 3/16/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 3/16/07, Sharon, Lois Bram <oneelephant at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Sir, if this is how your administrators behave then it is no wonder
> the
> > > > project no matter how noble its goals is failing.
> > >
> > > Is there any evidence it's failing?
> > >
> > > Steve
>
> There exists a checkuser result on Lois Bram Sharon's account "One
> Elephant went out to play...", linking the account directly with
> RunedChozo, who as you all may remember was booted off the list for
> profanity and so forth.  CU was run by a Steward and not recorded
> on-wiki.
>
> It's reasonable to presume that this is Michael, and he's just trying
> to waste our time.  I find this very dissapointing.
>
>
> --
> -george william herbert
> george.herbert at gmail.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Bryan Tong Minh

subject: [Commons-l] [Foundation-l] Commons Picture of the Year 2006

body:
How cool :D

Tim: Did you also contact him? Because I tried but have not yet
received any response.

Bryan

On 3/16/07, Tim Starling <tstarling at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject:        POY
> Date:   Fri, 16 Mar 2007 08:40:47 -0800
> From:   Strang Joshua P SSgt 354 CS/SCBV
> To:     Tim Starling
>
>
> Hello,
> I stumbled across the post that my photo won Commons photo of the year
> and your comment about had anyone contacted me. No I had not heard a
> word but when I found it, I was floored. Thanks for recognizing me and
> please pass my thanks on to the Wikimedia Commons. Thanks again!
> SSgt Strang
>
> Joshua P. Strang, SSgt, USAF
> 354 CS/SCBV
> Photography NCOIC
> [Phone number removed]
>
> "The brave ones shoot the enemy; The crazy ones shoot photos."
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Garrett

subject: [Textbook-l] We must be doing something right

body:
I had better refrain from pointing out the irony, but, anyway, this is
definitely an interesting read.

Smaran has perfectly pointed out the strengths of the Wikibooks system. Just
this year I bought a mandatory psychology textbook that students have
vilified for having many inaccuracies and contradictions as well as lesser
grammatical issues. I would never choose to buy such a clearly substandard
book if I had a choice. On Wikibooks this problem is eliminated; it's pretty
easy for anyone who's really bothered by errors to fire up some sort of
spellchecking aid and correct the whole page, or otherwise reword weak
statements.

We're also much more approachable compared to things like Google Book
Search, especially since about a year ago they significantly tightened
access to materials. Unfortunately our full text searching is not as
intuitive and feature-rich as theirs, and, as has been previously discussed,
we can't have our books listed there without getting actual ISBNs for them
first.

PDF versions of books is a great step in the right direction, and something
we really need to push--I'm talking both about encouraging authors to make
PDF versions and also about sorting out placement so that casual visitors
find them. Perhaps the topics list on the main page could be optimised like
the list at the top of http://strategywiki.org/wiki/Main_Page with the
newly-freed space used for a list of PDFs of "complete" (100% only) books.

We should also consider offering per-chapter PDFs (as that makes it easier
for someone to read or print a particular chapter without having to download
the whole book first and then browse for it or specify the print range,
things that not all web users know how to do). Of course with some large
books (C++ is one of them, I would imagine) it might only be feasible to
choose the most popular chapters to offer individually. Still, it's
something to look into.

Anyway, there's lots to consider here! Thanks for finding this. Oh, and I
see I'm not the only one to sign textbook-l messages with tildes. :)

Garrett

On 17/03/07, Robert Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
>
> With all of the complaints about how Wikibooks is going to heck in a
> handbasket, I would like to point out some rather positive "press" about
> Wikibooks that comes from outside of our little community:
>
> http://smarandayal.com/2007/03/10/gods-of-kobol-bless-wikibooks/
>
> Here is somebody just trying to learn a little more about a topic, and
> he is using Wikibooks to try and pick up that knowledge.
>
> Congratulations to the [[Economics]] Wikibook on ths point, you got a
> genuine fan here!
>
> --~~~~
>


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject: [WikiEN-l] An Open Letter to Mr. Wales

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mark Ryan stated for the record:
> Am I the only one who sees a pattern to some of these sorts of emails?

No.

The fact that any number of us see his/her/its identity under each new
name without the benefit of checkuser, only to have checkuser confirm
our intuition is quite telling.

His/her/its continued attempts to get different results from the exact
same behavior is most amusing.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | Striving for ISO 3103 compliance.
 sean at epoptic.com |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFF/CtA/SVOiq2uhHMRAqxvAKC+Up45+/qLUm4Bb9+ou5wmug7qIQCgx45J
UGyXHczjzCNmowUC+krRDvo=
=tMtz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Karl Wick

body:
That little note made my day! That is exactly what I have hoped for in
Wikibooks since the very start! Thank you for sharing.

Karl

On 3/16/07, Robert Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
>
> With all of the complaints about how Wikibooks is going to heck in a
> handbasket, I would like to point out some rather positive "press" about
> Wikibooks that comes from outside of our little community:
>
> http://smarandayal.com/2007/03/10/gods-of-kobol-bless-wikibooks/
>
> Here is somebody just trying to learn a little more about a topic, and
> he is using Wikibooks to try and pick up that knowledge.
>
> Congratulations to the [[Economics]] Wikibook on ths point, you got a
> genuine fan here!
>
> --~~~~
>
> _______________________________________________
> Textbook-l mailing list
> Textbook-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l
>


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject:
[Foundation-l] Fwd: [Wikimedia Advisory Board] for those of you who
	don't read Language Log

body:
I thought this was a nice anecdote shared by one of our Advisory Board members.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Erin McKean
Date: Mar 16, 2007 9:48 PM
Subject: [Wikimedia Advisory Board] for those of you who don't read Language Log

from: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004301.html

"What? How?" -- "Wikipedia."

A few days ago, Barbara Partee started up an email discussion about an
effort by Yuri Koryakov to "[get] linguists organized to fill in the
many gaps in linguistics coverage in the Russian-language wikipedia,
both in biographies of linguists and in content articles", suggesting
that a comparable effort for the English-language wikipedia would be a
Good Thing. (If you read Linguist List, you'll probably be hearing more
about this before long.) This morning, Chris Potts contributed an
encouraging anecdote:

     In my large intro course yesterday, there was an unfamiliar hand in
the air a lot of the time, and the student's questions and insights were
the best I've had all semester. It was puzzling, because I didn't
recognize him, and he seemed to know much more about syntax than one
would expect. (It was our first official day on the topic.)

     After class, he came to the front and introduced himself as a
prospective student, just out of high school. He said linguistics was
his passion in high school. I said, "What? How?" And he replied,
"Wikipedia".

Posted by Mark Liberman at March 13, 2007 08:22 AM

--Erin

--
Peace & Love,
Erik

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

"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Fwd: [Wikimedia Advisory Board] for those of you who
	don't read Language Log


subject: [WikiEN-l] Proposal for a policy

body:
On 3/17/07, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/16/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Feedback?
>
> First off, all CU requests are already logged, but only other people
> with CU creds can see them (for obvious privacy reasons). Meaning that
> you can't just checkuser whoever the hell you want.
>
> As for an on-wiki log of checkusers that have resulted in sanctions,
> is [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case]] not sufficient? If I hear
> about anyone objecting to a checkuser, that's the first place I check.
> All of the RFCUs are archived there.
>
> Or was there something else you were looking for?

Many CheckUsers done are not recorded in en [[Wikipedia:Requests for
checkuser/Case]] - if it doesn't come in as a RFCU request, it is
almost never logged there after it is done, and there is no
requirement that a RFCU be made for someone to do a CU.  Any request
made out of band (IRC, Email, other chat, etc) is unlikely to be
logged there right now.

That's what I propose to change.  No restrictions or complications for
those doing other CU request cases, but if someone choses to take
action based on a CU done elsewhere, they are required to log it
somewhere connected to WP:RFCU.  Just make the RFCU page a
one-stop-shop for finding the info.

We've had too many zombie checkusers, where it's noted in passing in a
block log note or talk page comment and there's no other on-wiki note
or evidence for anyone who comes along later to figure out what
happened.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Proposal for a policy

body:
On 3/17/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 17/03/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > That's what I propose to change.  No restrictions or complications for
> > those doing other CU request cases, but if someone choses to take
> > action based on a CU done elsewhere, they are required to log it
> > somewhere connected to WP:RFCU.  Just make the RFCU page a
> > one-stop-shop for finding the info.
>
>
> No. The logs are not available because people will get having had a
> checkuser done at all used against them.
>
>
> > We've had too many zombie checkusers, where it's noted in passing in a
> > block log note or talk page comment and there's no other on-wiki note
> > or evidence for anyone who comes along later to figure out what
> > happened.
>
>
> The block message should be sufficient - that's what the block message
> is there to log. There are *lots* of open proxies, 0wnz0r3d machines
> or zombies being abused by our most persistent vandals. However, lots
> of innocents get checked along the way (because you don't know until
> you look). What do we gain by making a public list of their names
> available?

I only ask that the request be logged if you block someone, not just
because it was done.

I really don't care about the quantity of CUs done, all I care about
is blocks with a claim of a checkuser and no documentary info at all
on wiki.

The block messages have by and large not been nearly sufficient, which
is why I'm asking.

Again, summary of policy: If you take user restrictive action (block,
ban, propose ban) on a CU done by a request or mechanism other than en
WP:RFCU, you or the checkuser who ran it need to log that it was done
and by whom.  That's all.  If you don't block the policy has no effect
whatsoever.  Don't log anything that didn't result in a
block/ban/proposed ban.

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