subject: [Foundation-l] Wikinews EN ArbCom

body:
The user in question originally opposed the ArbCom; a discussion
followed. On http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews_talk:Arbitration_Committee
, Amgine wrote in November 2005: "I'm going to assume, lacking
opposition, that this proposed policy is in force then, and we should
begin considering a slate of people who would be good nominations to
serve." There were no further objections, and a public election
followed; the user in question voted in this election in support of
several candidates and posted no comments indicating that he opposed
the existence of the Arbcom at that point.

Therefore, should an ArbCom ruling require steward action, I would ask
stewards to consider the ArbCom on the English Wikinews to be official
policy as it was developed through an open consensus process. Should
stewards, however, ask for a poll "ratifying" the ArbCom policy, I
would also not object to such a poll being taken.

Erik


list: wikimedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikinews EN ArbCom


list: wikien-l

from_name: Daniel P. B. Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] Original research

body:
> From: slimvirgin at gmail.com
> On 3/26/06, Keith D. Tyler <keith at keithtyler.com> wrote:
>> What happens if I use as a reference a website that has
>> disappeared in
>> the time since I added the information? It then becomes unverifiable.
>> Presumably the info, like the website it was sourced from, must
>> disappear?
>
> Keith, for any source you use, you should leave a full citation in the
> References section. See [[WP:CITE]]. That way, if your source is on
> the Web and disappears, others may still be able to find it (if, say,
> it was a published article that was posted online). However, if you're
> using material that exists only on the Web, and the website disappears
> completely, then you've lost your source, and the material in the
> article goes back to being unsourced. For that reason, and also to do
> with the likely quality of the source, I'd say it's best to avoid
> relying on material that exists only on one or two websites.
>
> Sarah

I'm _starting_ to make a habit of checking http://www.archive.org at
the time whenever I insert any Web reference that I would hate to
lose. It's actually quite easy: just prefix http://web.archive.org/
web/*/ to the address, e.g. http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://
en.wikipedia.org .

Unfortunately the archive.org site is a) incomplete, b) often very
slow, and c) sometimes doesn't do a good job of preserving the
appearance of entire web pages.

Nevertheless, _if_ archive.org has the page, then one of their links
(e.g. http://web.archive.org/web/20021130190725/www.wikipedia.org/ )
can be a stable link. Provided, of course, that archive.org itself
remains stable!


list: foundation-l

from_name: Benjamin Webb

subject:
[Foundation-l] Rodovid.org, family tree wiki,
	wishes to become a wiki project

body:
O.K., I'll sort out translation now. Who should I go to as a neutral party,
any volunteers?

On 26/03/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/26/06, Benjamin Webb <bjwebb67 at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Even though your e-mail could be seen as critisising me, I greatly
> > appreciate it. Any feedback at all is useful for me. You mentioned
> having an
> > opinion poll. Could I start that now? The proposal has been on meta for
> a
> > week.
>
> The policy for new projects states that projects must be discussed for
> "at least a month" before a poll is taken:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/New_project_policy
>
> I see that the Rodovid.org talk page on Meta has been edited since
> February 22; it's not clear from the new project policy whether that
> would satisfy the requirements. You may want to wait until a month
> from your foundation-l announcement to be on the safe side.
>
> There are also other requirements, such as translations of the project
> description page, and the poll itself being organized by a neutral
> party.
>
> Erik
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


body:
On 3/26/06, Benjamin Webb <bjwebb67 at googlemail.com> wrote:
> Even though your e-mail could be seen as critisising me, I greatly
> appreciate it. Any feedback at all is useful for me. You mentioned having an
> opinion poll. Could I start that now? The proposal has been on meta for a
> week.

The policy for new projects states that projects must be discussed for
"at least a month" before a poll is taken:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/New_project_policy

I see that the Rodovid.org talk page on Meta has been edited since
February 22; it's not clear from the new project policy whether that
would satisfy the requirements. You may want to wait until a month
from your foundation-l announcement to be on the safe side.

There are also other requirements, such as translations of the project
description page, and the poll itself being organized by a neutral
party.

Erik


from_name: David Alexander Russell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Britannica quote of the day

body:
Yeah, I don't see why (for example) Wikipedia articles could not be
'tagged' with ICRA-style PICS labels. These are machine-readable
metadata that give information on whether the article contains certain
types of content e.g. profanity, nudity, substance abuse, and the
'severity' of that content (e.g. ranging from passionate kissing to
close-up explicit sexual acts for the nudity category).

Of course it would require some noticeable software changes, but I don't
see why it couldn't be done on a semi-automatic basis using the category
system. For example, any article put into the 'articles with a nude
image' category (I believe this category already exists) could be tagged
with the appropriate metadata for nudity. It wouldn't be censorship -
all content would still be available to those users who wanted it, but
where a user (or their parents in the case of kids) decides they do not
want to view a particular type of content, this would give them that choice.

Cynical

Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 3/26/06, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I find it very curious that of all the things they can attack
>> wikipedia for, the fact that wikipedia is not censored is the one they
>> focus on. Very strange indeed.
>>
>
> All the more reason to tag Wikipedia articles as kidsafe/worksafe.
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
>
>


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Britannica quote of the day

body:
On 3/26/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:
> Yeah, I don't see why (for example) Wikipedia articles could not be
> 'tagged' with ICRA-style PICS labels. These are machine-readable
> metadata that give information on whether the article contains certain
> types of content e.g. profanity, nudity, substance abuse, and the
> 'severity' of that content (e.g. ranging from passionate kissing to
> close-up explicit sexual acts for the nudity category).

Please provide a titanium hardened defintion of these terms.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Personal communications as references

body:
> From: Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com>
>
> --- slimvirgin at gmail.com wrote:
>> On 3/26/06, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Personal communications are valid to cite. All one needs to do to
>>> check is call the guy and
>> ask the same question.
>>
>> All our sources have to be published, Daniel, i.e. in the public
>> domain, so a personal communication can't be cited.
>
> That is absurd since not all knowledge has been written. What
> matters is if you can trust the
> source and if it is verifiable. The method of communication is not
> that important.
>
> -- mav

Citing a personal communication is much better than citing nothing at
all. I have used an email from a representative of Babson College,
for example, on the Babson College Talk page, as a reference for
whether or not their giant world globe rotates. (It was built to
rotated and once rotated but it doesn't now).

But these aren't _good_ references and do _not_ meet Wikipedia's
guidelines, which I believe are longstanding.

The reason why publication is important is that by definition a
published source is widely available and easily checked. As I have
personally found, it is not always easy to "call the guy and ask the
same question."

Among other things, you may not have his contact information. (It
would be a serious breach of etiquette and privacy to include that in
the reference). And you are basically requiring every reader who
wants to verify the information to establish a personal contact with
the source. That's just not reasonable.

Finally, the requirement of publication puts a very rough-and-ready
filter in place. In order to publish something, the author  _usually_
has to convince at least _one_ other person that it is worth
publishing... and spending money on. That's not an absolute test of
truth, but it is at least a filter. Over the phone, someone can say
anything to me that they like. Thus, a personal communication is a
poor reference for the same reason that a personal website is a poor
reference: anyone can say anything they like, without even the
slightest necessity of passing any kind of vetting process. Actually,
a phone call is worse: a personal website is, at least, out in the
open and subject to inspection.


from_name: Sam Korn

subject: [WikiEN-l] Britannica quote of the day

body:
On 3/26/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> Please provide a titanium hardened defintion of these terms.

We try to use some common sense.  Yes, I know that's difficult for
you, being a cynic... ;-)

--
Sam


from_name: jayjg

subject: [WikiEN-l] Overly lengthy blocks

body:
On 3/26/06, BJ?rn Lindqvist <bjourne at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > It's 169.244.143.115. Blocking that blocks every public computer in the
> > > whole state, apparently.
> > >
> > > Four months just seems excessive. I thought there was a maximum length
> > > for blocks on IP's that are shared, like by public libraries and schools.
> >
> > You assume we're omniscient.  We're not.  There's no way for us to know
> > whether any given IP is used by a single user or by an entire state.
> > You're the first person who's informed us of this.
>
> He is not assuming that. He is assuming that you have done your homework.
>
> $ whois 169.244.143.115
>
> OrgName:    Maine Libraries/Dept. of Education
> ....
>
> If that is to hard for you, I suggest you leave the whole blocking
> business to someone else.

BJ?rn, if communicating on this list in a civil way is too hard for
you, I suggest you leave the whole communication business to someone
else.

Jay.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Britannica quote of the day

body:
See 'icra.org' for an example - but the labels are divided into
different categories, and each category has a set of 'definitions' which
you can select

e.g. nudity - visible genitals, bare buttocks, exposed breasts, none of
the above
sexual material - erotica, erections/explicit sexual acts, explicit
sexual language, visible sexual touching, obscured or implied sexual
acts, passionate kissing, none of the above

the other categories - violence, potentially harmful activities etc.
proceed on much the same lines

incidentally, the ICRA generator also has a tickbox for 'the material
appears in an educational context' - which Wikipedia would probably
qualify as

Cynical

geni wrote:
> On 3/26/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, I don't see why (for example) Wikipedia articles could not be
>> 'tagged' with ICRA-style PICS labels. These are machine-readable
>> metadata that give information on whether the article contains certain
>> types of content e.g. profanity, nudity, substance abuse, and the
>> 'severity' of that content (e.g. ranging from passionate kissing to
>> close-up explicit sexual acts for the nudity category).
>>
>
> Please provide a titanium hardened defintion of these terms.
>
> --
> geni
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
>
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Britannica quote of the day

body:
On 3/26/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:
> incidentally, the ICRA generator also has a tickbox for 'the material
> appears in an educational context' - which Wikipedia would probably
> qualify as

I can't call our porn star articles educational, or even attempting to be.

--
Sam


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Habj

subject: [Wikitech-l] Block a users possibility to send wikimail?

body:
At svwiki, there is a user account that has made no edits. However, the user
account sends wikimail - nasty ones. I have so far recieved three of them,
and this is in no way unusual. IP-check is being performed to see if the
account is a sockpuppet of another registered user.

Is it possible to block the users ability to send wikimail? A block doesn't
do that, blocked users can still send wikimail.

/habj


subject: [WikiEN-l] Britannica quote of the day

body:
They would be - since the goal of the page is educational ('sum total of
all human knowledge' yada yada) - the purpose of any page on Wikipedia
is not to provide sexual release for unpopular teen males, but to inform
people about the subject of that page - whether the subject is Paris,
France or a pornstar

Cynical

Sam Korn wrote:
> On 3/26/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> incidentally, the ICRA generator also has a tickbox for 'the material
>> appears in an educational context' - which Wikipedia would probably
>> qualify as
>>
>
> I can't call our porn star articles educational, or even attempting to be.
>
> --
> Sam
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
>
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Britannica quote of the day

body:
On 3/26/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/26/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Please provide a titanium hardened defintion of these terms.
>
> We try to use some common sense.  Yes, I know that's difficult for
> you, being a cynic... ;-)
>
> --
> Sam

Do you really belive that after the autofellatio incerdent that
something as logical indefencible as common sense will get very far?

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Britannica quote of the day

body:
On 3/26/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/26/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:
> > incidentally, the ICRA generator also has a tickbox for 'the material
> > appears in an educational context' - which Wikipedia would probably
> > qualify as
>
> I can't call our porn star articles educational, or even attempting to be.
>
> --
> Sam

They are however an extreamly rich source of copyvios.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Britannica quote of the day

body:
On 3/26/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> Do you really belive that after the autofellatio incerdent that
> something as logical indefencible as common sense will get very far?

If you have objective categorising, yes, yes it could.

--
Sam


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Wikipedia Romania (Ronline)

subject: [Wikipedia-l] New wikipedias created

body:
>
> Someone who speaks Ursari, the dialect of most Roma in Rep. Moldova,
>
will have a difficult time understanding anything spoken or written in
> Vlax, and it may be impossible.
>
> This would be like you having to read all WP articles in Aromanian, I
> think, or maybe worse.

According to Ethnologue, the different varieties of Romani are sufficiently
different to be considered separate languages, even though they are part of
the same Romani macrolanguage (code ROM - I have no idea why Vlax was
allocated RMY).

However, the following source claims that Romani activists from all around
the world were able to understand each other without interpretation:

http://www.b-info.com/tools/miva/newsview.mv?url=news/2000-07/text/jul28d.rfe

Regarding script, while it is certainly true that Devanagari is
>
obviously crafted for Indic languages and thus fits naturally to the
> phonology of many (though not all) Romani varieties, as far as I know
> the movement to use it has very little actual support among the Roma
> community, or rather, the *literate* Roma community (important
> distinction).
>
> Nearly all literate Roma use Latin AFAIK (with some using Cyrillic
> although not nearly as much as earlier years), and it doesn't seem
> possible that there is a single person literate in Devanagri but not
> Latin for Romani.

When I first launched the proposal for the Romani Wikipedia, the intention
was for it to be Latin only. Personally, I believe that it would be best for
the language if Latin were to be the standard alphabet (and in many ways, it
already is). However, I noticed that Desiphral started to use Devanagari.
Initially I asked him why he wrote in Devanagari, since it was not used at
all on the Internet, and he explained that it's more natural, and that the
ancestors of the Romani wrote in this way, and hence it best represents the
language. He also said that another contributor, Naayram, also preferred
this alphabet.

Along these lines I think it would be a bit funny to make a Vlax
Wikipedia entirely biscriptal with both scripts on equal footing. I
think it would be a good compromise to have Latin as default, and if
people wanted to, they can click a button to convert. I also think
it's a bit strange to have both on interwikis, but whatever.

Yes, I think the best solution for conversion would be the Serbian-style
model, where Latin (in the sr: case, Cyrillic) is the main script, and
content is stored in Latin, with the ability to convert to Devanagari. I
think a true biscriptal solution, where there is a Devanagari database as
well may be too hard to implement and may not have the necessary demand from
Romani speakers.


body:
On 3/26/06, Benjamin Webb <bjwebb67 at googlemail.com> wrote:
> O.K., I'll sort out translation now. Who should I go to as a neutral party,
> any volunteers?

If not, this might fall within the responsibility of the Special
Projects Committee:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special_projects_committee

Erik


subject: [WikiEN-l] Britannica quote of the day

body:
Nothing to do with the fact that Britannica Online has about 100,000
articles and the English Wikipedia (Britannica's direct competitor) has
over a million?

Cynical

Mathias Schindler wrote:
> Sean Barrett wrote:
>
>
>>> "a large portion of wikipedia is pornographic" - Britannica
>>> representative (unidentified)
>>>
>>> http://www.speedofcreativity.org/2006/03/25/podcast47-in-defense-of-encyclopedia-britannica/
>>>
>> You say that like it's a bad thing....
>>
>
> Hmm, my next press release will contain the following sentence:
>
> "The reason why Encyclopaedia Britannica is failing in the Internet is
> because a large portion of it is not pornographic."
>
> Mathias
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
>
>


from_name: Ilmari Karonen

subject: [WikiEN-l] How to get around AOL proxies?

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 3/26/06, Ilmari Karonen <nospam at vyznev.net> wrote:
>
>>3. If a sufficiently easy way to circumvent the AOL proxies was found,
>>would you support rangeblocking the proxies permanently (or until AOL
>>fixes their proxies to provide XFF headers)?  This would force anyone
>>editing from AOL to bypass the proxies somehow, but would also make
>>blocking AOL vandals much easier.  And what would you consider
>>"sufficiently easy"?
>
> Dear newbie,
>   We don't like your ISP. No, that's not true. We hate your ISP.
> What's more, you're probably a vandal. If you'd like to contribute to
> Wikipedia, please jump through the following hoops. Thank you!

That's one way of putting it, yes.  Another way to describe the
situation can be found in the first few paragraphs of
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/XFF_project>.

Personally, I wouldn't support forcing users to install a new browser
just to edit Wikipedia.  But if we can tell them that "to edit
Wikipedia, you must first open menu X, select entry Y and uncheck the
checkbox labelled FOO", that might be acceptable.

--
Ilmari Karonen


body:
On 3/26/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:

> It's important that block users can send mail... this allows them to
> request that a mistaken block be removed.

On that I agree.

Perhaps we could limit sending mail if their talk page is protected?

Isn't it better that this function is completely separate? I.e. a button to
press, or similar, saying "prevent this user from sending wikimail"? If the
function is performed by admin, bureacrat, steward isn't important to me. I
just think the possibility should be there

Should I understand your reply as "there is currently no such function"? Is
it possible that this never happened to any other wiki? Sure there are
bigger problems, but...

/habj


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Britannica quote of the day

body:
On 3/26/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/26/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:
> > Yeah, I don't see why (for example) Wikipedia articles could not be
> > 'tagged' with ICRA-style PICS labels. These are machine-readable
> > metadata that give information on whether the article contains certain
> > types of content e.g. profanity, nudity, substance abuse, and the
> > 'severity' of that content (e.g. ranging from passionate kissing to
> > close-up explicit sexual acts for the nudity category).
>
> Please provide a titanium hardened defintion of these terms.

Any system we come up with is likely to have some flaws, and is likely
to occasionally fail, when someone deliberately breaks it to shock
unsuspecting youngsters.

I suspect, however, that if we change our motto from "Wikipedia is
uncensored" to "Wikipedia is not guaranteed safe for kids, but we
try", then this would generally be a good thing.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Original research

body:
Yes but in written sources you have just that - a written record of what
was said and who said it. That is the difference in credibility between
an official press release by the airport and you phoning up some bozo in
the airport's customer services department

Cynical

Keith D. Tyler wrote:
> Stan Shebs wrote:
>
>> Keith D. Tyler wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> 2. I call Boeing Field on the phone and ask them how many planes fly in and out
>>> every day.
>>>
>>>
>> Thanks, but no thanks. This has all kinds of verifiability problem -
>> who answers the phone? Are they working from records, or BSing you
>> from memory so as to get you to hang up and stop bothering them?
>> What if I call them later, and get a different answer; do I delete
>> your number as out of date, or start accumulating a long list of
>> answers from random phone calls?
>>
>>
>
> Excellent question. And the answer is the same as what you would do if
> different published sources have different numbers, or what you would do
> if a verifiable web site was updated with new numbers since the time
> it's information was added to WP.
>
> Attributable personal contact to an identifiable authority does not
> introduce new problems that don't already present themselves in the
> approved methods of research. The notion that a personal contact results
> in irreconcilability or potential for inaccuracy is a disingenuous straw
> man. If these were issues isolated to personal contact, I could see the
> problem. But they simply and plainly are not; they occur in print and
> online sourcing as well.
>
> Kdt
>
>
>> There are millions of good print resources in the world; I'd be
>> happy if people actually finished the job of representing their
>> content in WP, rather than fool around with marginal cases.
>>
>> Stan
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
>
>


from_name: Mark Gallagher

subject: [WikiEN-l] Britannica quote of the day

body:
G'day Matthias,

> "a large portion of wikipedia is pornographic" - Britannica
> representative (unidentified)
>
> http://www.speedofcreativity.org/2006/03/25/podcast47-in-defense-of-encyclopedia-britannica/

If "Good authors are always welcome" fails in its bid to become our new
tagline, this one's my 2nd preference.

(Americans!  Preferential voting rawks!)

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

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.1/292 - Release Date: 24/03/2006


subject: [WikiEN-l] Britannica quote of the day

body:
I realise that raw numbers are of little use in and of themselves, but
it is a sign of how extensive Wikipedia's coverage is compared to
Britannica's. Think of anything you like. If it's worthy of being in an
encyclopedia, chances are Wikipedia has an article on it, and the
chances are that Britannica doesn't. People will use Wikipedia more
because they know that there's a fair chance Wikipedia will be able to
tell them what they want to know - and the article numbers are an
indication of that breadth, not necessarily important in their own right

Cynical

Mathias Schindler wrote:
> David Alexander Russell wrote:
>
>> Nothing to do with the fact that Britannica Online has about 100,000
>> articles and the English Wikipedia (Britannica's direct competitor) has
>> over a million?
>>
>
> Out of all figures, the raw number of "articles" (including those pages
> which are in namespace=0 and lack any attribute of an article, such as
> lists) is the worst and most ignorable number. EB.com's 100K are
> shrinking to some 20.000 "articles" when you look at what's online
> without subscription.
>
> Out of this 20K, there are stubs, substubs and subsubstubs.
>
> Some of the more veteran internet users might be able to remember the
> Britannica Online desaster when their business plan collided with reality.
>
> If any, an Wikipedia that accepts fancruft and unverifiable information
> about the unreleased demo tape of a gothic band that stopped to exist
> before releasing any other medium as a single article should not start
> to see large numbers of articles as a sign of quality.
>
> Mathias
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
>
>


from_name: Stephen Bain

subject:
[WikiEN-l] False accusations of Sock Puppetry by Ambi,
	David Gerard etc

body:
For the benefit of others, this discussion is about a current Arbitration:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/DarrenRay_and_2006BC


subject: [WikiEN-l] Britannica quote of the day

body:
On 3/26/06, charles matthews <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Oh. I don't think so.  That presents a challenge to posters of obscenities
> and unacceptable images.  Since we cannot prevent such postings, it is all
> rather futile  to make claims we are in no position to give any kind of
> warranty for.

Sorry, I'm not talking about shock images, but rather, porn stars,
anatomy and so forth.

Steve


from_name: Mathias Schindler

subject: [WikiEN-l] Britannica quote of the day

body:
Sean Barrett wrote:

>> "a large portion of wikipedia is pornographic" - Britannica
>> representative (unidentified)
>>
>> http://www.speedofcreativity.org/2006/03/25/podcast47-in-defense-of-encyclopedia-britannica/
>
> You say that like it's a bad thing....

Hmm, my next press release will contain the following sentence:

"The reason why Encyclopaedia Britannica is failing in the Internet is
because a large portion of it is not pornographic."

Mathias


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-03-27

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

Running test BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled... FAILED!

Passed 299 of 300 tests (99.67%) FAILED!


subject: [WikiEN-l] Britannica quote of the day

body:
David Alexander Russell wrote:
> Nothing to do with the fact that Britannica Online has about 100,000
> articles and the English Wikipedia (Britannica's direct competitor) has
> over a million?

Out of all figures, the raw number of "articles" (including those pages
which are in namespace=0 and lack any attribute of an article, such as
lists) is the worst and most ignorable number. EB.com's 100K are
shrinking to some 20.000 "articles" when you look at what's online
without subscription.

Out of this 20K, there are stubs, substubs and subsubstubs.

Some of the more veteran internet users might be able to remember the
Britannica Online desaster when their business plan collided with reality.

If any, an Wikipedia that accepts fancruft and unverifiable information
about the unreleased demo tape of a gothic band that stopped to exist
before releasing any other medium as a single article should not start
to see large numbers of articles as a sign of quality.

Mathias


from_name: GerardM

body:
Hoi,
This is not necessarily true. A blocked user should be able to send a
message to an OTRS queue. There it will be dealt with by people who
are not likely to be the person who is part of the situation. That is
in essence a good thing because it de-escalates.

Oh, and by the way when you do OTRS work, it is not uncommon to hear
some "complaints".. :)

Thanks,
   GerardM

On 3/27/06, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the reason it's not currently easy to do is the fear of abuse.
> Block a user, they complain about their blocking, get tired of hearing
> their complaints, block their ability to send wikimail, tada, they
> have no further recourse against possibly unfair actions.
>
> That's not to say that's what's going on here, but rather, that's the
> situation which is being guarded against.
>
> On 26/03/06, Habj <sweetadelaide at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3/26/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > It's important that block users can send mail... this allows them to
> > > request that a mistaken block be removed.
> >
> >
> > On that I agree.
> >
> > Perhaps we could limit sending mail if their talk page is protected?
> >
> >
> > Isn't it better that this function is completely separate? I.e. a button to
> > press, or similar, saying "prevent this user from sending wikimail"? If the
> > function is performed by admin, bureacrat, steward isn't important to me. I
> > just think the possibility should be there
> >
> > Should I understand your reply as "there is currently no such function"? Is
> > it possible that this never happened to any other wiki? Sure there are
> > bigger problems, but...
> >
> >
> > /habj
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> >
>
>
> --
> "Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: Sabine Cretella

subject: [Wikipedia-l] New Wikipedia created :-)

body:
Thanks to JeLuf also the Piemontese (pms) wikipedia was created.

Sorry for being short ... I am almost sleeping while typing ;-)

Best, Sabine

___________________________________
Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB
http://mail.yahoo.it


from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [WikiEN-l] Overly lengthy blocks

body:
Ilmari Karonen wrote:
> wiki.pedia.WiseFool at spamgourmet.com wrote:
>
>>Matt Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 3/21/06, wiki.pedia.WiseFool at spamgourmet.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I've been blocked from editing Wikipedia from a university connection
>>>>for over three months now, since the IP block stops traffic from the
>>>>entire state of Maine's library/school system. Are four-month blocks
>>>>really an accepted part of policy, for a system that blocks
>>>>established users along with anonymous users from contributing?
>>>
>>>Could you tell us what IPs this is regarding?
>>
>>It's 169.244.143.115. Blocking that blocks every public computer in the
>>whole state, apparently.
>
>
> Tim, could you check if this a candidate for the trusted XFF list.  The
> IP resolves as CE2-P-UNET.unet.maine.edu, which looks trustworthy enough
> for me.
>

There's no XFF header. I'll send an email asking them to change their configuration once I work out
who to send it to.

-- Tim Starling


from_name: Oskar Sigvardsson

subject: [WikiEN-l] Britannica quote of the day

body:
Look we've been sown this path many times before, and it's never
gotten us anywhere, infact, all it's done is make people fight and
occasionally force good contributors out because of the hostile mood
of the discussion (Wikipedians for decency/encyclopedic merit and
WP:TOBY for instance). The fact is, far too many wikipedians think
that this kind of censorship is wrong, so you'll NEVER get consensus
on it. This is a discussion that should be killed before it has any
chance to do more harm.

It's never gonna happen. If you really, really want a clean WP, create
a fork and convince people to help you clean it up.

--Oskar

On 3/26/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:
> See 'icra.org' for an example - but the labels are divided into
> different categories, and each category has a set of 'definitions' which
> you can select
>
> e.g. nudity - visible genitals, bare buttocks, exposed breasts, none of
> the above
> sexual material - erotica, erections/explicit sexual acts, explicit
> sexual language, visible sexual touching, obscured or implied sexual
> acts, passionate kissing, none of the above
>
> the other categories - violence, potentially harmful activities etc.
> proceed on much the same lines
>
> incidentally, the ICRA generator also has a tickbox for 'the material
> appears in an educational context' - which Wikipedia would probably
> qualify as
>
> Cynical
>
> geni wrote:
> > On 3/26/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> Yeah, I don't see why (for example) Wikipedia articles could not be
> >> 'tagged' with ICRA-style PICS labels. These are machine-readable
> >> metadata that give information on whether the article contains certain
> >> types of content e.g. profanity, nudity, substance abuse, and the
> >> 'severity' of that content (e.g. ranging from passionate kissing to
> >> close-up explicit sexual acts for the nudity category).
> >>
> >
> > Please provide a titanium hardened defintion of these terms.
> >
> > --
> > geni
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: slimvirgin at gmail.com

references:
<mailman.10580.1143424564.3204.wikien-l@Wikipedia.org>
	<6ABE3283-CF97-4631-BC9A-6E7BAEE20DDB@dpbsmith.com>
	<509f22ta262si1maas2ebprk1eupjqvidh@4ax.com>

body:
On 3/27/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> Same in academic papers, I believe: you can cite a personal
> communication, but it is deprecated and should only really be used as
> corroboration of facts otherwise known or inferred.
> Guy (JzG)

Right, and the reason it's acceptable in academic papers is that the
author is known, which is not the case with most Wikipedia editors.

Sarah


from_name: BJörn Lindqvist

subject: [WikiEN-l] Overly lengthy blocks

body:
> > It's 169.244.143.115. Blocking that blocks every public computer in the
> > whole state, apparently.
> >
> > Four months just seems excessive. I thought there was a maximum length
> > for blocks on IP's that are shared, like by public libraries and schools.
>
> You assume we're omniscient.  We're not.  There's no way for us to know
> whether any given IP is used by a single user or by an entire state.
> You're the first person who's informed us of this.

He is not assuming that. He is assuming that you have done your homework.

$ whois 169.244.143.115

OrgName:    Maine Libraries/Dept. of Education
....

If that is to hard for you, I suggest you leave the whole blocking
business to someone else.

--
mvh Bj?rn


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Britannica quote of the day

body:
On 3/27/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
>
> G'day David,
>
> > Nothing to do with the fact that Britannica Online has about 100,000
> >  articles and the English Wikipedia (Britannica's direct competitor)
> > has over a million?
>
> Wikipedia is Britannica's direct competitor?  Where does that leave
> /World Book/ and /Encarta/?  And why can't I think of more than four
> encyclopaedias at the moment?  Gah.
>
Because Encarta drove most of the others into bancrupcy?
--
geni


from_name: Karl A. Krueger

subject: [WikiEN-l] Britannica quote of the day

body:
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 08:40:25AM +0200, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 3/27/06, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Regardless of what you call it, the discussion has been held many
> > times. There simply isn't anything near consensus for any sort of
> > censorship in the community (and it is censorship, don't kid yourself,
> > just read the first sentance in [[Censorship]]). The discussion has
> > been had, lets just levae it at that.
>
> First sentence of [[Censorship]]: "Censorship is the control of speech
> and other forms of human expression, often by (but not limited to)
> government intervention. " Certainly interesting, but doesn't have a
> lot to do with this discussion, which is about tagging articles
> "Nudity 3, Sexual themes 4".

There are lots of reasons that censorship rating schemes are no good for
Wikipedia ... and, indeed, are against our current rules.  For future
reference I've given these reasons code-names and taglines.

First off, such rating schemes contravene Wikipedia _core_ policy,
namely our Neutral Point of View policy.

NPOV.1 -- Rating schemes are designed to reflect the opinions of those
	  who object to sexual content (and a few other categories).
	  They fail to represent the views of those who are tolerant of
	  that content, but object to different content.  For instance,
	  some people are tolerant of nudity but intolerant of (say)
	  particular political positions; particular religious views;
	  _criticism_ of particular religious views; and so on.

	  (It's worth noting that censorware systems _have_ been written
	  that discriminate against, e.g. "cult" teachings, "extreme"
	  political views (such as the National Organization for Women),
	  and even in one case, against criticism of the Church of
	  Scientology.  Are we going to support that wide range of
	  points of view as to what should be censored?  Or are we going
	  to just support the anti-sex POV?)

	  NPOV.1 == "Any rating system has inherent biases (POV)."

NPOV.2 -- Grading any particular content on a rating scale is itself a
	  matter of opinion.  It involves making a judgment call on how
	  "bad" or "explicit" an image or a paragraph is.  Different
	  people will have different opinions about any given work, but
	  posting a rating requires saying that one of these opinions is
	  right and the others are wrong.

	  NPOV.2 == "A rating is merely some person's opinion (POV)."

Second, they are in violation of our policy against self-censorship, and
the underlying _reason_ we don't want self-censorship:  it would produce
a worse encyclopedia.

CENS.1 -- The only real proposed purpose of these rating systems is to
	  enable censorship of Wikipedia.  Since Wikipedia has a policy
	  against self-censorship (see [[WP:NOT]]), adding material to
	  Wikipedia articles for the purpose of getting those articles
	  censored is against the rules.

	  This was a major ground for the rejection of [[WP:TOBY]]; you
	  should see that discussion for details on the rationale.

	  CENS.1 == "Helping others to censor Wikipedia is wrong."

CENS.2 -- Writers want their work to be read.  Any censorship system
	  will tend to discourage people from writing on the censored
	  topics.  If sex is censored, our coverage on sexual topics
	  will become relatively worse.  (And I don't mean porn; I mean
	  anatomy and sexual behavior.)

	  Likewise, among writers who _do_ still write on those topics,
	  they will be less likely to include accurate detail, for fear
	  of getting slapped with a worse rating.  This self-censorship
	  will, again, worsen our coverage of important subjects.
	  Promoting it is, again, a [[WP:NOT]] violation.

	  CENS.2 == "Censoring Wikipedia will make it worse."

Third, they violate our policies against incivility and personal
attacks.

PERS.1 -- Giving something a high rating on a censorship system comes
	  across as saying that it is unworthy (or less worthy) of being
	  read.  Usually, this means it is wicked or harmful or the
	  like.  Claims that a work should be censored are almost always
	  linked to claims that the writer is immoral.  If your work is
	  smut, then you are a smutmonger; if your work is blasphemy,
	  you are a blasphemer.  These are personal attacks; we must not
	  make them.

	  PERS.1 == "Calling my work evil is calling me an evildoer."

PERS.2 -- Even assuming that censorship ratings are not _meant_ as
	  attacks on the morals of the writers whose work is being
	  censored, they are likely to be _taken_ as such.  They are
	  predictably likely to cause acrimonious personal disputes.
	  (In a way, rating someone's work as smut is _trolling_.)
	  Civility requires that we try to avoid starting fights.

	  PERS.2 == "Marking my work for censorship is picking a fight."

> If we've had serious discussions about that before, can you point us
> to some examples? I would like to see the objections. Of course,
> nothing stops us having the same discussion again.

Please consult the archives of this mailing list.  I believe they're
full-text searchable ... if not, they darn well should be.  Keywords
might include "censorship" and "rating system".  These points have been
made time and again.

--
Karl A. Krueger <kkrueger at whoi.edu>


from_name: Berto

subject: [Wikipedia-l] New Wikipedia created :-)

body:
Thanks to both :) Okay... now it's my turn to work it out :) Thank you guys,
you have been incredibly quick :)

B?rto 'd S?ra

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sabine Cretella" <sabine_cretella at yahoo.it>
To: <wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org>
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 2:03 AM
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] New Wikipedia created :-)

> Thanks to JeLuf also the Piemontese (pms) wikipedia was created.
>
> Sorry for being short ... I am almost sleeping while typing ;-)
>
> Best, Sabine
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB
> http://mail.yahoo.it
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Britannica quote of the day

body:
Regardless of what you call it, the discussion has been held many
times. There simply isn't anything near consensus for any sort of
censorship in the community (and it is censorship, don't kid yourself,
just read the first sentance in [[Censorship]]). The discussion has
been had, lets just levae it at that.

And frankly, while I agree that some sort of voluntary content control
might be nice, I sorta like the idea that wikipedia will give you the
facts straight up, without any spin, no matter how ugly or morally
reprehensive they may be. Our responsibility is not to make a school
safe version of the facts, our responsibility is to always give the
facts with a neutral point of view. If some schools and libraries
can't agree with that point of view, that's too bad.

On 3/27/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
> On Mar 26, 2006, at 4:35 PM, Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
>
> > Look we've been sown this path many times before, and it's never
> > gotten us anywhere, infact, all it's done is make people fight and
> > occasionally force good contributors out because of the hostile mood
> > of the discussion (Wikipedians for decency/encyclopedic merit and
> > WP:TOBY for instance). The fact is, far too many wikipedians think
> > that this kind of censorship is wrong, so you'll NEVER get consensus
> > on it. This is a discussion that should be killed before it has any
> > chance to do more harm.
>
> This has nothing to do with censoring Wikipedia. This is about
> tagging content so schools (for instance) and filtering software used
> by schools can discriminate between Wikipedia articles. Or would you
> rather Wikipedia be inaccessible in schools and libraries?
>
> --
> Philip L. Welch
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Phil Boswell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Britannica quote of the day

body:
Steve Bennett-4 wrote:
>
> On 3/26/06, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I find it very curious that of all the things they can attack
>> wikipedia for, the fact that wikipedia is not censored is the one they
>> focus on. Very strange indeed.
> All the more reason to tag Wikipedia articles as kidsafe/worksafe.
>
You are welcome to develop your own external labelling service. Placeopedia
acts as a linkage between Wikipedia and Google: why not set up something of
your own for content labelling? Useful information can be found here:
http://www.w3.org/PICS/#Developers

Hosting this stuff within the Foundations purview would IMNHSO be foolish.
Actually incorporating it into Mediawiki would be suicidal. Imagine the edit
wars which could be provoked.

HTH HAND
--
Phil
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Britannica-quote-of-the-day-t1344461.html#a3608981
Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at Nabble.com.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Original research

body:
Keith D. Tyler wrote:
>
> [snip]
> What happens if I use as a reference a website that has disappeared in
> the time since I added the information? It then becomes unverifiable.
> Presumably the info, like the website it was sourced from, must disappear?
>

If you have properly recorded the time at which you accessed the website
(are you using {{cite web}} ?) it is quite simple to construct an automatic
link via the Wayback Machine.

If memory serves, {{dlw}} and {{dlw-inline}} are related to this...yes, they
are. If it proves sufficiently common, it should be possible to adapt the
various {cite ...} templates which all "url" parameters to accommodate an
option to provide a historical link if necessary.

Actually, come to think of it, given that we encourage people to record the
time when they viewed a given URL, it might not be a bad idea to channel
*most* of them through the Wayback Machine so as to link to the state of
said URL when it was used as a reference...

HTH HAND
--
Phil
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Year-articles---en%3A-versus-de%3A-t1331561.html#a3609141
Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at Nabble.com.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Getting involved

body:
Steve Bennett-4 wrote:
>
>   What steps are required to contribute to development of mediawiki?
> Presumably there is a web page somewhere?
>

You need
* a web server (recommended Apache)
* PHP
* MySQL

You can download Mediawiki from SourceForge if it is working. It can be
possible to find static dumps of the code somewhere near the database dumps.

You do *not* need to download an entire Wikipedia of any flavour :-) Just
sticking a minimal page-set into your installation should be sufficient if
you want to hack the code. (Although it might be an idea to provide a
minimal page-set as a download so that everybody can reset to the same
position for testing...)

HTH HAND
--
Phil
who installed Mediawiki about 4 years ago on a laptop that subsequently
imploded (no direct connection :-) and really ought to set about recovering
the situation :-)
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Getting-involved-t1347901.html#a3609707
Sent from the Wikipedia Developers forum at Nabble.com.


from_name: Philip Welch

subject: [WikiEN-l] Britannica quote of the day

body:
On Mar 27, 2006, at 4:41 AM, Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:

> It occurs to me that we should block all schools then.

Clearly this is the most rational policy for an educational website.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Britannica quote of the day

body:
Steve Bennett-4 wrote:
>
> On 3/27/06, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>> Actually incorporating it into Mediawiki would be suicidal. Imagine the
>> edit
>> wars which could be provoked.
> Yeah? We have edit wars about silly stuff now. You really think
> labelling a page "contains images of naked bodies" is so contentious?
>

You are obviously in the happy state of having forgotten the "War of Kate's
Nipple" at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanic_%281997_film%29>

Oh yes, contentious, dear me...
--
Phil
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Britannica-quote-of-the-day-t1344461.html#a3610824
Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at Nabble.com.


from_name: Robert Scott Horning

subject:
[Foundation-l] Rodovid.org, family tree wiki,
 wishes to become a wiki project

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:

>Robert Scott Horning wrote:
>
>
>>All of these are aspects that are derived from Wikimedia users'
>>experience with developing other on-line content.  The current internal
>>push for this sort of development is where users like myself have been
>>so used to how things are done with Wiki software that we wonder why
>>this isn't be done for geneological research, where these ideas of free
>>access to information and the ability to freely edit the information
>>havn't yet caught on.
>>
>>
>>
>Being able to freely edit is an important feature, but that opens up a
>wide range of other problems like our policies on original research.
>
>Ec
>
>
>
I think in this situation the term "original research" is not really
applicable.  By definition all geneological research is all secondary
research in terms of relying on other original source material to prove
if a particular fact is true or not.  The closest that anybody is going
to get to a traditional definition of original research with a project
of this nature is going to be those who seek oral histories for groups
of people who traditionally did not keep written records.  I have a
brother-in-law with Ga ancestry (one of the tribal groups in Ghana)
where this is the only source of that sort of knowledge.  This is an
area of human knowledge, BTW, that is as fragile as linguistic
preservation efforts, and a key part of the transmission of human culture.

I think this can be kept in check considerably with this sort of
proposal for a geneoligical project, where research projects that have
absolutely nothing to do with geneology would be prohibited.  Another
point to make is perhaps the prohibition of fictional geneologies, such
as the geneology of the Baggins Family from the works of J.R.R. Tolkein.
 Even the use of ancient ancestral records such as those from classical
religious texts like the Bible might be at least a point of discussion
among participants.  I think this is going to be the grey area that
would have to be in check, not the prohibition on original research to
keep publication of crackpot ideas off of Wikipedia.  That is the main
purpose of the no original research policy anyway... to politely tell
people with these wild theories that Wikipedia is not a forum for
primary publication of these concepts.  A UFO researcher adding
genological information about the ancestral history of "the greys" would
be justifiably laughed off any serious geneological forum.

--
Robert Scott Horning


subject: [WikiEN-l] Britannica quote of the day

body:
On Mar 27, 2006, at 6:47 AM, Phil Boswell wrote:

> Steve Bennett-4 wrote:
>>
>> On 3/27/06, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> Actually incorporating it into Mediawiki would be suicidal.
>>> Imagine the
>>> edit
>>> wars which could be provoked.
>> Yeah? We have edit wars about silly stuff now. You really think
>> labelling a page "contains images of naked bodies" is so contentious?
>>
>
> You are obviously in the happy state of having forgotten the "War
> of Kate's
> Nipple" at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanic_%281997_film%29>
>
> Oh yes, contentious, dear me...

As far as I can tell, that was a dispute over whether to include
certain content, not a dispute over whether, in fact, that content
was of a certain nature.

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


body:
Benjamin Webb wrote:

>When you import a GEDCOM to the Rodovid database, the information is
>extracted and stored as wikipages, not as the GEDCOM, so the
>copyrightability of the GEDCOM doesn't matter.
>
>
>
Any patents or copyright claims on the GEDCOM file format itself is not
really the point.  This is an open international data format standard
that has widespread support and usage from many geneological computer
users, including many for profit and non-profit groups.  Royalties have
never been assessed for using the data format itself and likely won't be
either.  Trust me when I say that the internal politics of the LDS
church would simply not allow formal royalties to be charged for it
either, and there are geneological groups involved with the development
of that data standard that have nothing to do with the LDS church
either, although that is who has organized conferences and groups to
discuss development of this standard.

The copyrightability is more toward the data itself, and if databases of
factual data can be copyrighted.  The current political movement within
the USA is to permit copyrighting such data, although traditionally
common law rulings in U.S. courts is to deny such records for copyright,
such as the copyrightability of names and phone numbers in a telephone
directory.  That in this case the information is based on facts that
originated prior to the 20th Century gives an even weaker claim to the
copyrightability of this data.  I don't know how far the push toward
copyrighting databases has gone, as that would take somebody who has
really been following the concept in legal circles, nor do I know what
the status of that is outside of the USA.

--
Robert Scott Horning


from_name: Nathan Carter

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikinews EN ArbCom

body:
Thankyou Erik :)

Erik Moeller wrote:

>The user in question originally opposed the ArbCom; a discussion
>followed. On http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews_talk:Arbitration_Committee
>, Amgine wrote in November 2005: "I'm going to assume, lacking
>opposition, that this proposed policy is in force then, and we should
>begin considering a slate of people who would be good nominations to
>serve." There were no further objections, and a public election
>followed; the user in question voted in this election in support of
>several candidates and posted no comments indicating that he opposed
>the existence of the Arbcom at that point.
>
>Therefore, should an ArbCom ruling require steward action, I would ask
>stewards to consider the ArbCom on the English Wikinews to be official
>policy as it was developed through an open consensus process. Should
>stewards, however, ask for a poll "ratifying" the ArbCom policy, I
>would also not object to such a poll being taken.
>
>Erik
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikinews EN ArbCom


from_name: Matt Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] Britannica quote of the day

body:
On 3/27/06, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
> You obviously hang around in different subject areas than I do. We are
> missing tens of thousands of articles completely, not even stubs. Our
> coverage of architecture is scanty to say the least, just as one
> example.

Very much agreed.  To pick an example in my own chosen field, look at
the sea of red links in [[List of interurbans]].  There are many such
undercovered subjects.  Fashion is another, as picked up when the
Guardian did their survey.

-Matt


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Britannica quote of the day

body:
On 3/27/06, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com> wrote:
> Regardless of what you call it, the discussion has been held many
> times. There simply isn't anything near consensus for any sort of
> censorship in the community (and it is censorship, don't kid yourself,
> just read the first sentance in [[Censorship]]). The discussion has
> been had, lets just levae it at that.

First sentence of [[Censorship]]: "Censorship is the control of speech
and other forms of human expression, often by (but not limited to)
government intervention. " Certainly interesting, but doesn't have a
lot to do with this discussion, which is about tagging articles
"Nudity 3, Sexual themes 4".

If we've had serious discussions about that before, can you point us
to some examples? I would like to see the objections. Of course,
nothing stops us having the same discussion again.

> And frankly, while I agree that some sort of voluntary content control
> might be nice, I sorta like the idea that wikipedia will give you the
> facts straight up, without any spin, no matter how ugly or morally
> reprehensive they may be. Our responsibility is not to make a school
> safe version of the facts, our responsibility is to always give the
> facts with a neutral point of view. If some schools and libraries
> can't agree with that point of view, that's too bad.

Yes, it really is too bad. And I don't think your characterisation of
Wikipedia is quite correct. It doesn't always give a "facts straight
up" version, sometimes it gives a "facts with some bonus eye candy"
version, and sometimes they're not even facts.

Saying "if schools don't agree with the idea that their kids can be
looking at pictures of erect penises on an educational site, then too
bad" is, well, not helpful. We could do much better by making an
effort to avoid that happening, even while the rest of us enjoy our
erect penises (so to speak) to our heart's content.

Steve


body:
On 3/27/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
> It's time for these lame AOLers to realise that there's newer, better
> ISPs around, and that we won't hang around forever babying those
> recalcitrants who simply refuse to upgrade.  Legacy ISPs have been a
> millstone (is that the right metaphor?) around our necks for too long ...

I might almost support that view if most AOLers had been around for 10
years. However, they probably *do* move on and "upgrade" to a better
ISP, leaving new, even lamer AOLers to take their place. And punishing
*them* for it is just unfair.

Steve


from_name: Benjamin Webb

body:
Concerning naming of the project, I have set up a page to add and discuss
possible names: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Rodovid.org/name.

On 27/03/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
> Erik Moeller wrote:
>
> >Hello Benjamin,
> >
> >As a personal suggestion, I
> >recommend changing the name before campaigning; something starting
> >with "Wiki-" and reflecting the ambitious nature of your goals (such
> >as "Wikiplanet", but that one is taken) might work better.
> >
> How about "Wikigenes, The Family Wiki"?
>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


body:
When you import a GEDCOM to the Rodovid database, the information is
extracted and stored as wikipages, not as the GEDCOM, so the
copyrightability of the GEDCOM doesn't matter.

On 26/03/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
> Robert Scott Horning wrote:
>
> >I'd also like to give an example of the typical licensing terms for most
> >of these websites:
> >
> >http://familysearch.org/Eng/policy/FSI_terms.asp
> >
> >Note especially the clause:
> >
> >"All material found at this site is owned or licensed by us. You may
> >view, download, and print material from this site only for your
> >personal, noncommercial use or, if you are a professional genealogist,
> >for use by a current client."
> >
> It is often unclear just what is copyright in these sites.  Most claims
> of this sort are self-serving, and legally doubtful.  Whether something
> is copyright or not has nothing to do with this kind of statement.  If I
> were to contribute to such a project I would not be granting them
> ownership in my information.  Facts are not copyrightable, though their
> form of organization may be.  It all comes down to the status of GEDCOM
> files when accepted as a standard.
>
> >Compare that to the GFDL, and you will see that most data has been
> >signifcantly restricted for re-use in most cases, even if you were the
> >person who submitted the information in the first place.  GFDL (or
> >Creative Commons type licensing) is one area where sites like what is
> >being proposed here is going to blow all of the other geneology sites
> >out of the water.
> >
> Have any of these other sites tried taking people to court over
> copyright violations?  I would be quite prepared to overlook their
> copyright claims.
>
> >All of these are aspects that are derived from Wikimedia users'
> >experience with developing other on-line content.  The current internal
> >push for this sort of development is where users like myself have been
> >so used to how things are done with Wiki software that we wonder why
> >this isn't be done for geneological research, where these ideas of free
> >access to information and the ability to freely edit the information
> >havn't yet caught on.
> >
> Being able to freely edit is an important feature, but that opens up a
> wide range of other problems like our policies on original research.
>
> Ec
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Zordsdavini iz Litvy

subject: [Wikipedia-l] New Wikipedia created :-)

body:
:))))))))))))))))

at last!!!!!
thanks to all people who helped  for this.  Now we have to work :D

Bets regards,
Arns Udovi??

2006/3/27, Berto <albertoserra at ukr.net>:
>
> Thanks to both :) Okay... now it's my turn to work it out :) Thank you
> guys,
> you have been incredibly quick :)
>
> B?rto 'd S?ra
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sabine Cretella" <sabine_cretella at yahoo.it>
> To: <wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 2:03 AM
> Subject: [Wikipedia-l] New Wikipedia created :-)
>
>
> > Thanks to JeLuf also the Piemontese (pms) wikipedia was created.
> >
> > Sorry for being short ... I am almost sleeping while typing ;-)
> >
> > Best, Sabine
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ___________________________________
> > Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB
> > http://mail.yahoo.it
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
Ok^ ek^ besla ikv Olmok Vzauep^evk
:)


from_name: Paweł Dembowski

body:
Ray Saintonge napisa?:

> Being able to freely edit is an important feature, but that opens up a
> wide range of other problems like our policies on original research.
> Ec

Wikinews already allows original research, so there is a precedent.

--
Ausir
Wikipedia, wolna encyklopedia
http://pl.wikipedia.org


from_name: Peter Danenberg

subject: [Wikitech-l] Getting involved

body:
> Anyway, I'll see how I go.

     Can't be much worse, Steve, than 552 sans siteswaps.

Best, Peter


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

body:
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 21:44:40 -0500, you wrote:

>Citing a personal communication is much better than citing nothing at
>all. I have used an email from a representative of Babson College,
>for example, on the Babson College Talk page, as a reference for
>whether or not their giant world globe rotates. (It was built to
>rotated and once rotated but it doesn't now).

Same in academic papers, I believe: you can cite a personal
communication, but it is deprecated and should only really be used as
corroboration of facts otherwise known or inferred.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


from_name: Jay R. Ashworth

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki converter (follow-up)

body:
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 12:07:58PM +0200, Magnus Manske wrote:
> Jay R. Ashworth schrieb:
> > On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 01:11:23PM -0800, Brion Vibber wrote:
> >
> >> So even if it's fast enough for the moment, I'd much prefer if we
> >> had something that fit clear requirements. If the idea is for every
> >> random person grabbing pages off our site to have the minimal GFDL
> >> requirements, I'm not so sure this fits the bill.
> >
> > Any comment, then, brion, on whether it might make it into the mainline
> > distribution, which presumably has less strict requirements on such
> > things?

> It is currently in, but deactivated. So it will likely be part of the
> next release. To activate, set
>     $wgExportAllowListContributors = true
> in LocalSettings.php

Noted; thanks.  I'll be snarfing your package to look at this week.

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274

     A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
     Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

     A: Top-posting.
     Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet and in e-mail?


from_name: David Alexander Russell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Original research

body:
Ever heard of the Wayback Machine? (internetarchive.org)

Cynical

Keith D. Tyler wrote:
> David Alexander Russell wrote:
>
>> Yes but in written sources you have just that - a written record of what
>> was said and who said it. That is the difference in credibility between
>> an official press release by the airport and you phoning up some bozo in
>> the airport's customer services department
>>
>> Cynical
>>
>>
>
>
> That's not at all true of Web sites, and anyone who's been on it for any
> significant period of time knows this. Web sites are very dynamic and
> pages and even whole sites often disappear without a trace
> (notwithstanding Google cache and Internet Archive).
>
> What happens if I use as a reference a website that has disappeared in
> the time since I added the information? It then becomes unverifiable.
> Presumably the info, like the website it was sourced from, must disappear?
>
> Kdt
>
>
>> Keith D. Tyler wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Stan Shebs wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Keith D. Tyler wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 2. I call Boeing Field on the phone and ask them how many planes fly in and out
>>>>> every day.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Thanks, but no thanks. This has all kinds of verifiability problem -
>>>> who answers the phone? Are they working from records, or BSing you
>>>>
>>> >from memory so as to get you to hang up and stop bothering them?
>>>
>>>> What if I call them later, and get a different answer; do I delete
>>>> your number as out of date, or start accumulating a long list of
>>>> answers from random phone calls?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Excellent question. And the answer is the same as what you would do if
>>> different published sources have different numbers, or what you would do
>>> if a verifiable web site was updated with new numbers since the time
>>> it's information was added to WP.
>>>
>>> Attributable personal contact to an identifiable authority does not
>>> introduce new problems that don't already present themselves in the
>>> approved methods of research. The notion that a personal contact results
>>> in irreconcilability or potential for inaccuracy is a disingenuous straw
>>> man. If these were issues isolated to personal contact, I could see the
>>> problem. But they simply and plainly are not; they occur in print and
>>> online sourcing as well.
>>>
>>> Kdt
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> There are millions of good print resources in the world; I'd be
>>>> happy if people actually finished the job of representing their
>>>> content in WP, rather than fool around with marginal cases.
>>>>
>>>> Stan
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
>
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Britannica quote of the day

body:
There's NO censorship involved here - it would not removing any content
from Wikipedia, it would not involve putting any 'warning this link is
to a sexually explicit page' templates on links. This would be wrong,
and against WP principles. The meta-labelling would simply allow that,
where a user has stated in their browser/filtering software preferences
that 'I dont want to see pages with content X', Wikipedia respects that
choice. Allowing individual internet users to CHOOSE not to view
particular types of content is not censorship - censorship is the state-
or PC-imposed forced removal or 'cleaning' of content against the will
of the creator

--Cynical

Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
> Look we've been sown this path many times before, and it's never
> gotten us anywhere, infact, all it's done is make people fight and
> occasionally force good contributors out because of the hostile mood
> of the discussion (Wikipedians for decency/encyclopedic merit and
> WP:TOBY for instance). The fact is, far too many wikipedians think
> that this kind of censorship is wrong, so you'll NEVER get consensus
> on it. This is a discussion that should be killed before it has any
> chance to do more harm.
>
> It's never gonna happen. If you really, really want a clean WP, create
> a fork and convince people to help you clean it up.
>
> --Oskar
>
> On 3/26/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> See 'icra.org' for an example - but the labels are divided into
>> different categories, and each category has a set of 'definitions' which
>> you can select
>>
>> e.g. nudity - visible genitals, bare buttocks, exposed breasts, none of
>> the above
>> sexual material - erotica, erections/explicit sexual acts, explicit
>> sexual language, visible sexual touching, obscured or implied sexual
>> acts, passionate kissing, none of the above
>>
>> the other categories - violence, potentially harmful activities etc.
>> proceed on much the same lines
>>
>> incidentally, the ICRA generator also has a tickbox for 'the material
>> appears in an educational context' - which Wikipedia would probably
>> qualify as
>>
>> Cynical
>>
>> geni wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/26/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Yeah, I don't see why (for example) Wikipedia articles could not be
>>>> 'tagged' with ICRA-style PICS labels. These are machine-readable
>>>> metadata that give information on whether the article contains certain
>>>> types of content e.g. profanity, nudity, substance abuse, and the
>>>> 'severity' of that content (e.g. ranging from passionate kissing to
>>>> close-up explicit sexual acts for the nudity category).
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Please provide a titanium hardened defintion of these terms.
>>>
>>> --
>>> geni
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
>
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Britannica quote of the day

body:
Presumably we should also remove the screenshots from the Harry Potter
films from the article on Daniel Radcliffe?

Cynical

Mark Gallagher wrote:
> G'day Sam,
>
>
>> On 3/26/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> incidentally, the ICRA generator also has a tickbox for 'the material
>>> appears in an educational context' - which Wikipedia would probably
>>> qualify as
>>>
>> I can't call our porn star articles educational, or even attempting to be.
>>
>
> Now, now.  Those galleries of fairuse DVD covers can teach us a *lot*
> about copyright law ...
>
>
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Britannica quote of the day

body:
Sorry, I meant Britannica ONLINE. should have made that clearer. My
point is that Wikipedia, as a freely-accessible online encyclopedia, is
a direct competitor to Britannica Online, a subscription-based online
encyclopedia: this is in the same way that (for example) Wordpress.com
is a direct competitor to Typepad.

Cynical

Mark Gallagher wrote:
> G'day David,
>
>
>> Nothing to do with the fact that Britannica Online has about 100,000
>>  articles and the English Wikipedia (Britannica's direct competitor)
>> has over a million?
>>
>
> Wikipedia is Britannica's direct competitor?  Where does that leave
> /World Book/ and /Encarta/?  And why can't I think of more than four
> encyclopaedias at the moment?  Gah.
>
> We're not *exactly* competing with Britannica.  We're providing a free,
> detailed, comprehensive encyclopaedia ... where "encyclopaedia" is a
> very broad description, and can include anything on any topic with
> pretensions to the name (George Lucas gets his /Star Wars/ ideas from
> us!).  We're *more* than Britannica.  Much, much more.
>
> At the same time, we're much, much less.  Wikipedia's greatest strength
> --- our openness --- is also a weakness.  The damage left by edit wars,
> our tolerance of insane amounts of cruft, even the constant vandalism
> isn't that big a deal --- but inaccuracy *is*.  And Wikipedia is very
> vulnerable to inaccuracy.  Where we're inaccurate about real people,
> like John "have I spelled his name right yet" Siegenthaler, we can cause
> actual pain in real life.  That's an issue we're trying to deal with,
> with WP:NOR to cut down on kookery, WP:V to cut down on outright lies,
> and WP:OFFICE to mop up anything we've missed ... but it's going to take
> time.
>
> We aren't out there to create a new Britannica.  We're creating
> something different.  We should look to Britannica, and its competitors,
> as something to emulate.  We should *aspire* to be as good as them.
> But, in the end, we're *not*.  There's always a niche market for
> creatures like Britannica --- for people who are worried about accuracy
> (but not money) and are not prepared to put in the effort required to
> find out if a Wikipedia article is true or not, for example.
>
> Of course, unintentionally, we're hurting Britannica.  And we're hurting
> the other encyclopaedias out there as well.  We're bringing an
> encyclopaedia into the homes of people who couldn't afford the fees
> charged by the others.  Decent and free will always trump excellent and
> bloody expensive.  It's only natural that Britannica, whose management
> presumably know one or two things about business, will see this and get
> scared.  They don't want to peddle to a niche subset of the 'paedia
> audience, and they don't want to risk going under if it doesn't work.
>
> And frankly, that's not just Britannica's problem --- it's ours as well.
>   "Decent and free" is fine when there are better encyclopaedias out
> there.  If we're the best the world can offer, then we *have* to be
> great, not good, not decent, but *great*.  We'd owe it to the world,
> after taking away their best encyclopaedias, to provide a valid alternative.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikipedia-l] PMS Upload denied

body:
Berto wrote:
> On pms we get a "The upload directory (/mnt/upload3/wikipedia/pms) is not
> writable by the webserver. " error on uploads. Is it normal?

Directory was missing, should work now.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20060327/1b3f01df/attachment.pgp


from_name: BJörn Lindqvist

subject: [WikiEN-l] Overly lengthy blocks

body:
> > > You assume we're omniscient.  We're not.  There's no way for us to know
> > > whether any given IP is used by a single user or by an entire state.
> > > You're the first person who's informed us of this.
> >
> > He is not assuming that. He is assuming that you have done your homework.
> >
> > $ whois 169.244.143.115
> >
> > OrgName:    Maine Libraries/Dept. of Education
> > ....
> >
> > If that is to hard for you, I suggest you leave the whole blocking
> > business to someone else.
>
> BJ?rn, if communicating on this list in a civil way is too hard for
> you, I suggest you leave the whole communication business to someone
> else.
>
> Jay.

Jayjg, what a stunningly insightful remark, I'm amazed. However, I
think you are wrong. If communicating on this list in a civil way was
too hard for me, I believe I would have told you to "Fuck off" or
maybe "Go fuck yourself." Since that is not the case, communicating in
a civil way is obviously not too hard for me.

Best regards
--
mvh Bj?rn


body:
On 3/27/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
> It sucks when a parody backfires :-(

Sorry, we just went off daylight savings here and I'm a bit short of sleep. :/

Steve


body:
Erm, we just went *onto* daylight savings. (Somehow my brain still
thinks March is the end of summer...)

Steve

On 3/27/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/27/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
> > It sucks when a parody backfires :-(
>
> Sorry, we just went off daylight savings here and I'm a bit short of sleep. :/
>
> Steve
>


subject: [Wikitech-l] Getting involved

body:
Hi all,
  What steps are required to contribute to development of mediawiki?
Presumably there is a web page somewhere?

Steve


from_name: 田中 万太郎

subject: [Wikitech-l] Another live mirror site

body:
Hello,

this site http://www.stadtspiegel-netzwerk.de/ seems to be
mirroring the Wikipedia contents live, in the different
languages. For example:
http://www.stadtspiegel-netzwerk.de/cgi-bin/enz.pl?SDT=1&ROOT=3&Query=Special:Recentchanges&LAN=en

Thankyou

TANAKA

--------------------------------------
Celebrate Yahoo! JAPAN 10th Anniversary
http://pr.mail.yahoo.co.jp/10thann/


subject: [WikiEN-l] Britannica quote of the day

body:
The facts WOULD NOT BE CHANGED - all it would do is say to a user  'OK,
this page contains this type of content, do you still want to look at it?'

Cynical

Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
> Regardless of what you call it, the discussion has been held many
> times. There simply isn't anything near consensus for any sort of
> censorship in the community (and it is censorship, don't kid yourself,
> just read the first sentance in [[Censorship]]). The discussion has
> been had, lets just levae it at that.
>
> And frankly, while I agree that some sort of voluntary content control
> might be nice, I sorta like the idea that wikipedia will give you the
> facts straight up, without any spin, no matter how ugly or morally
> reprehensive they may be. Our responsibility is not to make a school
> safe version of the facts, our responsibility is to always give the
> facts with a neutral point of view. If some schools and libraries
> can't agree with that point of view, that's too bad.
>
> On 3/27/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 26, 2006, at 4:35 PM, Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Look we've been sown this path many times before, and it's never
>>> gotten us anywhere, infact, all it's done is make people fight and
>>> occasionally force good contributors out because of the hostile mood
>>> of the discussion (Wikipedians for decency/encyclopedic merit and
>>> WP:TOBY for instance). The fact is, far too many wikipedians think
>>> that this kind of censorship is wrong, so you'll NEVER get consensus
>>> on it. This is a discussion that should be killed before it has any
>>> chance to do more harm.
>>>
>> This has nothing to do with censoring Wikipedia. This is about
>> tagging content so schools (for instance) and filtering software used
>> by schools can discriminate between Wikipedia articles. Or would you
>> rather Wikipedia be inaccessible in schools and libraries?
>>
>> --
>> Philip L. Welch
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
>
>


subject: [Wikitech-l] Getting involved

body:
On 3/27/06, Domas Mituzas <midom.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
> Usually jumping into #mediawiki on Freenode, looking around for
> talks, bug or feature discussions, and then diving into it all :)
> bugs.wikimedia.org might be a good place to start poking at.

Ok, sorry I should have been a little bit more clear ;) What
development environment do I need? I have the Sun java IDE (can't
remember the name off the top of my head), and have MSSQL. However, I
have never installed mediawiki. I will presumably need to download at
least some minimal mediawiki DB to work on...

*cough* See why I'd rather read a document than ask all these newbie
questions in public? :)

Steve


from_name: jayjg

subject: [WikiEN-l] Overly lengthy blocks

body:
On 3/27/06, BJ?rn Lindqvist <bjourne at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > You assume we're omniscient.  We're not.  There's no way for us to know
> > > > whether any given IP is used by a single user or by an entire state.
> > > > You're the first person who's informed us of this.
> > >
> > > He is not assuming that. He is assuming that you have done your homework.
> > >
> > > $ whois 169.244.143.115
> > >
> > > OrgName:    Maine Libraries/Dept. of Education
> > > ....
> > >
> > > If that is to hard for you, I suggest you leave the whole blocking
> > > business to someone else.
> >
> > BJ?rn, if communicating on this list in a civil way is too hard for
> > you, I suggest you leave the whole communication business to someone
> > else.
> >
> > Jay.
>
> Jayjg, what a stunningly insightful remark, I'm amazed. However, I
> think you are wrong. If communicating on this list in a civil way was
> too hard for me, I believe I would have told you to "Fuck off" or
> maybe "Go fuck yourself." Since that is not the case, communicating in
> a civil way is obviously not too hard for me.

If you imagine that civility consists of refraining from telling
someone to "go fuck themselves", then there's little I can say.

Jay.


from_name: Mark Wagner

subject: [WikiEN-l] Britannica quote of the day

body:
On 3/27/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/27/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3/27/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 3/27/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelangelo%27s_David
> > > >
> > > > Does this one contain naked buttocks:
> > > >
> > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Donatello_david_plaster_replica_right_1000px_wide.jpg
> > >
> > > What would most internet filtering software packages say?
> > >
> >
> > No idea. Who cares? If we want to do this we would want to do a reasonable job.
>
> Well, if the idea of tagging is to work with internet filtering
> packages, as I presume it is, finding out what works best with them
> would not be a bad idea in the slightest.

The last time I looked into this, what works best with internet
filtering packages is broad-brush yes-or-no labeling designed to keep
kids away from pornography and other subjects that could lead to
awkward questions.  In short, we could reasonably use it to keep kids
away from Wikipedia entirely, or for the better software, [[List of
sex positions]], but it can't provide the fine control to selectively
block one or the other of (note: neither image particularly work-safe)
[[Image:Human-woman.png]] and [[Image:Mass Grave Bergen Belsen May
1945.jpg]].

--
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]


subject: [WikiEN-l] Britannica quote of the day

body:
Hello,
  I have to say, I find some of these objections a bit spurious. In particular:

On 3/27/06, Karl A. Krueger <kkrueger at whoi.edu> wrote:
> NPOV.1 -- Rating schemes are designed to reflect the opinions of those
>           who object to sexual content (and a few other categories).
>           They fail to represent the views of those who are tolerant of
>           that content, but object to different content.  For instance,
>           some people are tolerant of nudity but intolerant of (say)
>           particular political positions; particular religious views;
>           _criticism_ of particular religious views; and so on.

Well, no one's proposing censorship of religious views. I think you're
arguing against some blanket "this page is bad" censorship. I would
too. However, labelling a page "image of doggy style, supports
terrorism" would be completely different.

> NPOV.2 -- Grading any particular content on a rating scale is itself a
>           matter of opinion.  It involves making a judgment call on how
>           "bad" or "explicit" an image or a paragraph is.  Different
>           people will have different opinions about any given work, but
>           posting a rating requires saying that one of these opinions is
>           right and the others are wrong.

I think that's a problem that has been well and truly solved by many
censorship bodies world wide. Whether nipples are exposed or not is
not particular subjective.

> Second, they are in violation of our policy against self-censorship, and
> the underlying _reason_ we don't want self-censorship:  it would produce
> a worse encyclopedia.

Our policy against self censorship is not a core policy. There's
therefore no reason not to change it if we had the means.

> CENS.1 -- The only real proposed purpose of these rating systems is to
>           enable censorship of Wikipedia.  Since Wikipedia has a policy
>           against self-censorship (see [[WP:NOT]]), adding material to
>           Wikipedia articles for the purpose of getting those articles
>           censored is against the rules.

You're saying that if we could rate articles to say they have certain
offensive material, then people would deliberately add offensive
material to more articles to avoid people seeing them? Assume good
faith, n'est-ce pas?

> CENS.2 -- Writers want their work to be read.  Any censorship system
>           will tend to discourage people from writing on the censored
>           topics.  If sex is censored, our coverage on sexual topics
>           will become relatively worse.  (And I don't mean porn; I mean
>           anatomy and sexual behavior.)

Writers will be discouraged from writing on topics which people don't
want to read? The coverage of [[pornography]] will be worse because
now children won't be reading it? (or writing it???) I don't
understand this argument.

> PERS.1 -- Giving something a high rating on a censorship system comes
>           across as saying that it is unworthy (or less worthy) of being
>           read.  Usually, this means it is wicked or harmful or the
>           like.  Claims that a work should be censored are almost always
>           linked to claims that the writer is immoral.  If your work is
>           smut, then you are a smutmonger; if your work is blasphemy,
>           you are a blasphemer.  These are personal attacks; we must not
>           make them.

Ok, labelling [[penis]] "graphic images and description of sexual
anatomy" amounts to a personal attack on the contributors of that
article? You've totally lost me.

>           PERS.2 == "Marking my work for censorship is picking a fight."

How bizzarre.

> Please consult the archives of this mailing list.  I believe they're
> full-text searchable ... if not, they darn well should be.  Keywords
> might include "censorship" and "rating system".  These points have been
> made time and again.

I will do this, thanks.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Britannica quote of the day

body:
It's such a great quote, I thought I would transcribe it properly so
we can use it everywhere :)

"The other side to the Wikipedia [sic] that nobody really likes to
talk about is that..it's a touchy issue but, is that a large portion
of the content is fairly pornographic, and actually quite lewd."

Steve

On 3/26/06, Mathias Schindler <neubau at presroi.de> wrote:
> "a large portion of wikipedia is pornographic" - Britannica
> representative (unidentified)
>
> http://www.speedofcreativity.org/2006/03/25/podcast47-in-defense-of-encyclopedia-britannica/
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Chatroom libel ruling

body:
On 3/27/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:
>
> This does NOT apply to UK editors - the decisions of the High Court of
> England and Wales are only binding in (strangely enough) England and
> Wales. This decision does not alter the position in the rest of the UK
> (ie Northern Ireland, and Scotland, both of whom have separate courts
> from England and Wales)
>
> Cynical

I would imagine it would have implications for all countries with legal
systems based on British Common Law, which I would think would look at  the
ruling in this case when deciding similar cases.

Jay.


from_name: Domas Mituzas

subject: [Wikitech-l] Getting involved

body:
Hi Steve,
>   What steps are required to contribute to development of mediawiki?
> Presumably there is a web page somewhere?

Usually jumping into #mediawiki on Freenode, looking around for
talks, bug or feature discussions, and then diving into it all :)
bugs.wikimedia.org might be a good place to start poking at.

Domas


from_name: Mark Gallagher

subject: [WikiEN-l] Britannica quote of the day

body:
G'day Sam,

> On 3/26/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>incidentally, the ICRA generator also has a tickbox for 'the material
>>appears in an educational context' - which Wikipedia would probably
>>qualify as
>
> I can't call our porn star articles educational, or even attempting to be.

Now, now.  Those galleries of fairuse DVD covers can teach us a *lot*
about copyright law ...

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

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.2/293 - Release Date: 26/03/2006


from_name: Ivan Krstic

subject: [Wikitech-l] Automatic Link

body:
Gbely Raymond wrote:
>   Is there any implmentation of automatic linking page for mediawiki ?

Not an official one.

>   like know if it'll be possible to have this functionality on wikimedia

No, it will not.

>   I saw on the net that it'was a basic function to all wiki engine . Why it's not
>   implemented in mediawiki ???

Most wiki engines approach this problem indirectly by enacting a
convention for page names, most often CamelCase. Since MediaWiki allows
free-form links and page names, auto-linking would be:

* generally useless on wikis with large amounts of pages,
* visually unpleasant, as it would dramatically increase the amount of
per-article links,
* and (prohibitively) computationally expensive to be done in any
borderline-useful way.

In general, it's a bad idea in practice.

--
Ivan Krstic <krstic at fas.harvard.edu> | GPG: 0x147C722D


from_name: charles matthews

subject:
[WikiEN-l] The real competition,
	was Re:  Britannica quote of the day

body:
 "Mark Gallagher" wrote

> We're not *exactly* competing with Britannica.

Indeed. If you looked at Alexa, you'd say our main rival was blogger.com.

Charles


subject: [Wikitech-l] [WikiEN-l] How to get around AOL proxies?

body:
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 07:16:41PM +0300, Ilmari Karonen wrote:
> (From a technical viewpoint, the hardest situation is not a proxy, but a
> large number of users on RFC-1918 addresses behind a single NAT router.
>   There's no way we can discover their internal IP address, and even if
> we could, it'd be all but useless to us.)

True, but, rose.net notwithstanding, having multiple users not within
ithe same administrative span of control be behind the same NAT is Not
Best Practice anyway, and there's a limit, I think, to how bad of other
people's practices any given site operator should be required to make
allowances for.

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274

     A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
     Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

     A: Top-posting.
     Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet and in e-mail?


from_name: Ilario Valdelli

subject: [Wikitech-l] Getting involved

body:
The mediawiki architecture is PHP+MySQL based.

Ilario

On 3/27/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/27/06, Domas Mituzas <midom.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Usually jumping into #mediawiki on Freenode, looking around for
> > talks, bug or feature discussions, and then diving into it all :)
> > bugs.wikimedia.org might be a good place to start poking at.
>
> Ok, sorry I should have been a little bit more clear ;) What
> development environment do I need? I have the Sun java IDE (can't
> remember the name off the top of my head), and have MSSQL. However, I
> have never installed mediawiki. I will presumably need to download at
> least some minimal mediawiki DB to work on...
>
> *cough* See why I'd rather read a document than ask all these newbie
> questions in public? :)
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>