from_name: The Cunctator

body:
On 3/30/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hoi,
> When you forget what Donald Rumsfeld stands for politically, being
> compared
> to Donald Rumsfeld is a compliment. When you criticize and do not know
> what
> has been done, it does not matter really does it ?
>

Again, beautifully Rumsfeldian.

As to "official capacity" be careful because it is a knife that cuts both
> ways. When certain things have an official status and there are other
> parties required to do their part, it is reasonable to blame the
> consequences on those that fail to fulfil their part. The language
> committee
> is dependent on others in this.
>
> I fail therefore to see what the language committee should do differently.
> I
> fail to see it because the WMF has said officially that this does not have
> a
> priority. It is not for us to wonder why.

The simple fact is that no new language Wikipedias have been created since
the establishment of the language subcommittee, whereas before the
subcommittee new language Wikipedias were regularly generated. Furthermore,
if what people have been saying in this thread is correct, there are several
languages that are ready and have been ready for establishment.

The reasonable assumption is that something in the process is broken.

The nature of the response from committee members serves to support that
assumption.

> On 3/30/07, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 3/30/07, Cary Bass <cbass at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > The Cunctator wrote:
> > > > On 3/29/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hoi,
> > > >> We do not like to bang on the drums of what we have achieved. We do
> > not
> > > even
> > > >> mind when when it is not perceived that we have achieved anything
> at
> > > all. If
> > > >> things go well, it should not really matter because it detracts
> from
> > > what
> > > >> our organisation is there for; ie creating and providing free
> > content.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Wow. It's like listening to Donald Rumsfeld.
> > > >
> > > > Are you actually arguing that not achieving the stated purpose of
> your
> > > > committee should be considered a sign of success?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Please be respectful of other users on this email list.
> > >
> >
> > I am respectful of other members on the list.
> >
> > Would you like me to refer to particular quotations by Donald Rumsfeld
> > that
> > Gerard's statement resembles?
> >
> > Do you think it is disrespectful to criticize the actions of people
> acting
> > in an official capacity for the project?
> >
> > Or do you just think it's disrespectful to compare people to Donald
> > Rumsfeld?
> >
> > At least that I can understand.
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


list: wikimedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

subject: [Foundation-l] Language Prevention Committee created


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Berto 'd Sera

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old

body:
Hoi!

>I don't know anything about Linux locale, but this wiki is just one of
>thousands resources in this orthography.
None of them is an ISO code.

> It is not recognized by ISO
Exactly, It's just as you say. Why it's not recognized is none of our
problems. We don't aim to become a power centre capable to deliver
international recognition. Your problem must be dealt with at ISO level.

B?rto ?d S?ra
Personagi dl?ann 2006 p?r l?arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti voj?otri)
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html


from_name: GerardM

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old

body:
Hoi,
Please consider that if you have an option to work together, that you have
to talk. That you have to give and take. That you will always feel that you
give more than what you get.

There are two groups of people who have fought each other in a space where
such fights are not appreciated. Assertions have been made  about "your"
language, "your" orthography, by trash talking the "other" language /
orthography. You do not get any sympathy in this way. When you want to
achieve something, it will be more beneficial to be seen to cooperate and to
find some coexistence.

When this coexistence is hard to get because of the enmity that has been
created in the past, it only means that you will have to give even more.

Thanks,
    Gerard

On 3/30/07, Monk <monkbel at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> How can anybody say that Yury Tarasievich and his project is about
> language, not about politics, after such a letter? No facts, just
> insults and speculations.
>
> > You are an entity, yes, set out to destroy the existing Belarusian
> > language and culture and replace it with your version -- okay, your
> > right. But get yourself your own blessed language code for that.
> This speculation with such aggressive words doesn't help your case, it
> can only make your case worse. I don't even hope any more that you
> understand that your outrageous insults are absurd. You just dig a pit
> for yourself by your own hands.
>
> > P.S.
> > Some years ago I witnessed a creation of one of such sites you call
> > "proofs". So, there was 1 tech and 1 editor, who re-edited everything
> > incoming (like 90+% or even 99% in standard Belarusian and Russian)
> > into his flavour of "classic". It was politics. Thousands pages (and I
> > mean real thousands, there was sort of 4800 or so) of pages. And...
> > grant money. I could add -- near to zero interest, excepting the
> > indexing bots.
> Another great example of lies. Where could they get any incoming in
> "norm" if people just don't write in it?
>
> Monk.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Oldak Quill

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old

body:
On 30/03/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> There is no choice when it comes to the names of the projects. The standard
> is explicit; a private label is indicated by an -x- at the right place in
> the label.
>
> Having two projects is also something I would be against; it does not bring
> collaboration, it does not bring NPOV. You have to get your act together and
> history shows that you now have to compromise big time. It has been
> indicated that the actual differences are less than what you find in English
> .. all the more reason to insist on collaboration.

If the differences are fewer than those between British and American
English (!), the committee was right to step in to prevent the
manipulative exertion of one over the entire project. Is it right to
dictate how the project should continue from here (apart from
insisting that the alternative orthography shouldn't be exerted
again)?

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: Jan Marozau

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old

body:
But WHY to get the different ISO-code for one and the same language?
it's just orthography!

Hoi!
>
> >I don't know anything about Linux locale, but this wiki is just one of
> >thousands resources in this orthography.
> None of them is an ISO code.
>
> > It is not recognized by ISO
> Exactly, It's just as you say. Why it's not recognized is none of our
> problems. We don't aim to become a power centre capable to deliver
> international recognition. Your problem must be dealt with at ISO level.
>
> B?rto 'd S?ra
> Personagi dl'ann 2006 p?r l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti voj?otri)
> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


list: foundation-l

from_name: David Gerard

subject:
[Foundation-l] Robert Mugabe's daughter - news story
	originating from Wikipedia?

body:
On 30/03/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> On 3/29/07, Carl F?rstenberg <azatoth at gmail.com> wrote:

> > "Can the Minister confirm that [[Robert Mugabe]]'s daughter, Bona
> > Mugabe, is currently studying at the London School of Economics, and
> > if so, can he say who is paying?"

> If this did indeed play out this way, it is deeply concerning and
> reminiscent of ''The Onion's'' parody of Wikipedia:
> http://www.theonion.com/content/node/50902
> I can only repeat what is already known; the implementation of a
> community approval method for article revisions is underway with the
> help of a contractor (some volunteers have recently jumped in).
> Progress is slower than I would like.

And even then, it won't cure phenomena such as this politician being a
bloody idiot. I mean, what on earth?

- d.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old

body:
Hoi,
There is no choice when it comes to the names of the projects. The standard
is explicit; a private label is indicated by an -x- at the right place in
the label.

Having two projects is also something I would be against; it does not bring
collaboration, it does not bring NPOV. You have to get your act together and
history shows that you now have to compromise big time. It has been
indicated that the actual differences are less than what you find in English
.. all the more reason to insist on collaboration.

Thanks,
    GerardM

On 3/30/07, Alexander Cajcyc <czalex at bk.ru> wrote:
>
> Hi everybody
>
> I agree with Gerard that we must not deepen the conflict and hould find a
> solution that would satisfy all of us.
>
> Are we all, no matter the orthography, interested in the representation of
> Belarusian language in Wikipedia and in the usage of this tool for the sake
> of all Belarusian speakers no matter whether they prefer the classical
> orthography or the official one? Yes, we all are. So let's find some
> compromise.
>
> I propose to leave the official orthography wikipedia where it is now, OK.
>
> But you just CAN'T allow the 6000 classical Belarusian Wiki articles to
> get lost! The fact that the Belarusian Wiki was created as a Wiki in
> Taraskievica is a illustrative example to that the classical orthography has
> an important place in Belarus now, especially amoung people who really DO
> speak the language on an every-day basis, while you can even see that most
> forum conversations in the official-orthography Wikipedia are being hold
> in... Russian [what is not bad itself].
>
> So an ideal solution would be to rename be-x-old.wikipedia.org to, e.g.,
> be-classic.wikipedia.org or bel.wikipedia.org and to open it for editing
> so that it could coutinue its effective functioning.
>
> regards,
>
> czalex
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>
> To: wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:23:35 +0200
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old
>
> >
> > Hoi,
> > Please consider that if you have an option to work together, that you
> have
> > to talk. That you have to give and take. That you will always feel that
> you
> > give more than what you get.
> >
> > There are two groups of people who have fought each other in a space
> where
> > such fights are not appreciated. Assertions have been made  about "your"
> > language, "your" orthography, by trash talking the "other" language /
> > orthography. You do not get any sympathy in this way. When you want to
> > achieve something, it will be more beneficial to be seen to cooperate
> and to
> > find some coexistence.
> >
> > When this coexistence is hard to get because of the enmity that has been
> > created in the past, it only means that you will have to give even more.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >     Gerard
> >
> > On 3/30/07, Monk <monkbel at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > How can anybody say that Yury Tarasievich and his project is about
> > > language, not about politics, after such a letter? No facts, just
> > > insults and speculations.
> > >
> > > > You are an entity, yes, set out to destroy the existing Belarusian
> > > > language and culture and replace it with your version -- okay, your
> > > > right. But get yourself your own blessed language code for that.
> > > This speculation with such aggressive words doesn't help your case, it
> > > can only make your case worse. I don't even hope any more that you
> > > understand that your outrageous insults are absurd. You just dig a pit
> > > for yourself by your own hands.
> > >
> > > > P.S.
> > > > Some years ago I witnessed a creation of one of such sites you call
> > > > "proofs". So, there was 1 tech and 1 editor, who re-edited
> everything
> > > > incoming (like 90+% or even 99% in standard Belarusian and Russian)
> > > > into his flavour of "classic". It was politics. Thousands pages (and
> I
> > > > mean real thousands, there was sort of 4800 or so) of pages. And...
> > > > grant money. I could add -- near to zero interest, excepting the
> > > > indexing bots.
> > > Another great example of lies. Where could they get any incoming in
> > > "norm" if people just don't write in it?
> > >
> > > Monk.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Monk

subject: [Wikipedia-l]  Be-x-old

body:
Hi,

How can anybody say that Yury Tarasievich and his project is about
language, not about politics, after such a letter? No facts, just
insults and speculations.

> You are an entity, yes, set out to destroy the existing Belarusian
> language and culture and replace it with your version -- okay, your
> right. But get yourself your own blessed language code for that.
This speculation with such aggressive words doesn't help your case, it
can only make your case worse. I don't even hope any more that you
understand that your outrageous insults are absurd. You just dig a pit
for yourself by your own hands.

> P.S.
> Some years ago I witnessed a creation of one of such sites you call
> "proofs". So, there was 1 tech and 1 editor, who re-edited everything
> incoming (like 90+% or even 99% in standard Belarusian and Russian)
> into his flavour of "classic". It was politics. Thousands pages (and I
> mean real thousands, there was sort of 4800 or so) of pages. And...
> grant money. I could add -- near to zero interest, excepting the
> indexing bots.
Another great example of lies. Where could they get any incoming in
"norm" if people just don't write in it?

Monk.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old

body:
Hoi,
Dismissing this whole thing as purely technical is something that might have
worked in the past. In the present you have a conflict. This conflict needs
a compromise. Dismissing all this as something "technical" is consequently
not helpful.
Thanks,
     GerardM

On 3/30/07, Alexander Cajcyc <czalex at bk.ru> wrote:
>
> In that case a solution has already been found long ago, and the question
> is purely a technical one: one and the same Wiki, but with articles
> separated into "classical" and "official". As far as I know, this has
> already been implemented in other Wikis (e.g. Serbian?). So why not just
> doing the same with Belarusian Wikipedia?
>
>
> czalex
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>
> To: "Alexander Cajcyc" <czalex at bk.ru>, wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:03:43 +0200
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old
>
> >
> > Hoi,
> > There is no choice when it comes to the names of the projects. The
> standard
> > is explicit; a private label is indicated by an -x- at the right place
> in
> > the label.
> >
> > Having two projects is also something I would be against; it does not
> bring
> > collaboration, it does not bring NPOV. You have to get your act together
> and
> > history shows that you now have to compromise big time. It has been
> > indicated that the actual differences are less than what you find in
> English
> > ... all the more reason to insist on collaboration.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >     GerardM
> >
> > On 3/30/07, Alexander Cajcyc <czalex at bk.ru> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi everybody
> > >
> > > I agree with Gerard that we must not deepen the conflict and hould
> find a
> > > solution that would satisfy all of us.
> > >
> > > Are we all, no matter the orthography, interested in the
> representation of
> > > Belarusian language in Wikipedia and in the usage of this tool for the
> sake
> > > of all Belarusian speakers no matter whether they prefer the classical
> > > orthography or the official one? Yes, we all are. So let's find some
> > > compromise.
> > >
> > > I propose to leave the official orthography wikipedia where it is now,
> OK.
> > >
> > > But you just CAN'T allow the 6000 classical Belarusian Wiki articles
> to
> > > get lost! The fact that the Belarusian Wiki was created as a Wiki in
> > > Taraskievica is a illustrative example to that the classical
> orthography has
> > > an important place in Belarus now, especially amoung people who really
> DO
> > > speak the language on an every-day basis, while you can even see that
> most
> > > forum conversations in the official-orthography Wikipedia are being
> hold
> > > in... Russian [what is not bad itself].
> > >
> > > So an ideal solution would be to rename be-x-old.wikipedia.org to, e.g
> .,
> > > be-classic.wikipedia.org or bel.wikipedia.org and to open it for
> editing
> > > so that it could coutinue its effective functioning.
> > >
> > > regards,
> > >
> > > czalex
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>
> > > To: wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:23:35 +0200
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > Please consider that if you have an option to work together, that
> you
> > > have
> > > > to talk. That you have to give and take. That you will always feel
> that
> > > you
> > > > give more than what you get.
> > > >
> > > > There are two groups of people who have fought each other in a space
> > > where
> > > > such fights are not appreciated. Assertions have been made  about
> "your"
> > > > language, "your" orthography, by trash talking the "other" language
> /
> > > > orthography. You do not get any sympathy in this way. When you want
> to
> > > > achieve something, it will be more beneficial to be seen to
> cooperate
> > > and to
> > > > find some coexistence.
> > > >
> > > > When this coexistence is hard to get because of the enmity that has
> been
> > > > created in the past, it only means that you will have to give even
> more.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >     Gerard
> > > >
> > > > On 3/30/07, Monk <monkbel at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > How can anybody say that Yury Tarasievich and his project is about
> > > > > language, not about politics, after such a letter? No facts, just
> > > > > insults and speculations.
> > > > >
> > > > > > You are an entity, yes, set out to destroy the existing
> Belarusian
> > > > > > language and culture and replace it with your version -- okay,
> your
> > > > > > right. But get yourself your own blessed language code for that.
> > > > > This speculation with such aggressive words doesn't help your
> case, it
> > > > > can only make your case worse. I don't even hope any more that you
> > > > > understand that your outrageous insults are absurd. You just dig a
> pit
> > > > > for yourself by your own hands.
> > > > >
> > > > > > P.S.
> > > > > > Some years ago I witnessed a creation of one of such sites you
> call
> > > > > > "proofs". So, there was 1 tech and 1 editor, who re-edited
> > > everything
> > > > > > incoming (like 90+% or even 99% in standard Belarusian and
> Russian)
> > > > > > into his flavour of "classic". It was politics. Thousands pages
> (and
> > > I
> > > > > > mean real thousands, there was sort of 4800 or so) of pages.
> And...
> > > > > > grant money. I could add -- near to zero interest, excepting the
> > > > > > indexing bots.
> > > > > Another great example of lies. Where could they get any incoming
> in
> > > > > "norm" if people just don't write in it?
> > > > >
> > > > > Monk.
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >
> >
> >
>


list: wikien-l

from_name: Matthew Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] Daniel Brandt & other banned users posting still

body:
On 3/30/07, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> He was banned after exhausting the communities patience, and
> indefinitely blocked by User:Gwernol on September 7, 2006.

Ah - thanks for the correction!  He didn't end up before the arbcom,
and I don't keep up on the drama if it doesn't get there.

-Matt


from_name: Yury Tarasievich

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old

body:
On 30/03/07, Monk <monkbel at gmail.com> wrote:
...
> This speculation with such aggressive words doesn't help your case, it
> can only make your case worse. I don't even hope any more that you
...
There's no my *case*, as I'm not on trial here.

And there's no *my* case as there were a lots of folks since the very
beginning of the be:wp in 2004, who were asking the same question.

This all very water under the bridge, still, anybody can browse the archives.

It always went like: "Why the exclusive version of language on wiki
calling itself Belarusian" and answered like: "Tough luck guys, we
were here first, and with your Communist language you just scram to
wikia or to wherever you please! The narkamautsy this days!".

Oh, right, you were retaining some token presence of the articles in
the normative version of language, "kindly tolerating" like, but
nobody is stranger these days to the Theory of Symbolic Representation
and to the concept of Live Shield.

And you've lost some good editors because of that. As if you cared.

Aha, and don't forget to tell good folks that in the Belarusian
lingual context "pravapis" may denote not only "orthography" but also
"grammar" in general.

---


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old

body:
On 30/03/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
...
> When this coexistence is hard to get because of the enmity that has been
> created in the past, it only means that you will have to give even more.
...

Well, if you care to share your ideas on such options and
possibilities, please do so (for starters I'd prefer private email).

---


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old

body:
Hoi!

We have the same problem in pms.wikipedia. While there is a unified version (called Koin?) there are also regional variants that include local graphies.

We solved the problem with a few ingredients:
1) no hysterics (those who are "too hot" on this problem cannot become admins)
2) templates showing which version is used on the page (although they use different alphabets they are mutually understandable)
3) tolerance, tolerance and more tolerance (after a 500 year long bloody religious war on one of our churches appeared a writing saying "Let anyone have it as they please", which still is our motto).

We are now trying to include in our wiki detailed articles explaining where these linguistic systems come from (there actually is a number of historical reasons behind any of them).

We also have a problem that is common to most weak languages: a drift towards stronger languages in our vocabularies. While our word PA has been exported to french the import flow mostly been brought us words from french (we were twice annexed to France) and italian.

The result was that we excluded the use of archaic piemontese terms from the interface but allow them (with a link and an explanation) in texts. There's nothing wrong in reintroducing almost forgotten forms of a language, but the wiki must remain accessible to all (not just to a sect of linguistic integralists).

Basically there is but one thing you need: understanding that insulting each other won't change a thing. Having political fights is the very last thing that will help anyone. NPOV means NPOV, not NPOV means "not a wiki", and "not a wiki" implies "not to be hosted here".

If we become convinced that something is not NPOV from the very start, then not even an ISO code will help. Hope both sides have this extremely clear. This may well end up as "no byelorussian wiki AT ALL". WMF publishes encyclopedias, not a soviet, antisoviet or pro-martian "pravda"s.

It's my last word on the subject, next thing I'm going to do is pick up all the delirious emails we get and use them to write a personal recomendation to the Board that I will difend in front of any Arbitration Committee.

Enough is enough. We are all adults here, so let's behave like adults. Can't you see that you make your Country ridicolous in the eyes of the world? Kak vam ne stydno, vsem?? Derzhite sebja v ruki v konze konzov!

B?rto ?d S?ra
Personagi dl?ann 2006 p?r l?arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti voj?otri)
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html


from_name: William Pietri

subject: [WikiEN-l] Ref Desk makes Boing Boing

body:
Wikipedia's reference desk gets a nice mention on Boing Boing:

http://www.boingboing.net/2007/03/30/nyt_changes_backdate.html

It also claims that the New York Times changed a published article
without mentioning it on the page or issuing a correction. That's very
interesting in the context of the recent discussion on the reliability
and durability of web-based citations.

William


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old

body:
Okay. Sorry. Let myself to get unnderved.

Anyway, it's regrettable we didn't get that kind of close attention of
Wikipedia authorities at least year ago.

---


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old

body:
Privet

I agree, but the past is gone and the only thing we can act upon is the
present. Everyone is willing to help, but the atmosphere must remain within
constructive boundaries.

Berto 'd Sera
Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri)
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html

-----Original Message-----
From: wikipedia-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Yury
Tarasievich
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 3:47 PM
To: wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old

Okay. Sorry. Let myself to get unnderved.

Anyway, it's regrettable we didn't get that kind of close attention of
Wikipedia authorities at least year ago.

---

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Raimond Spekking

subject:
[Wikitech-l] [MediaWiki-CVS] SVN: [20841]
	trunk/extensions/Renameuser

body:
Modified: trunk/extensions/Renameuser/SpecialRenameuser_body.php
===================================================================
-		$oldusername = Title::newFromText( $wgRequest->getText( 'oldusername'
) );
-		$newusername = Title::newFromText( $wgRequest->getText( 'newusername'
) );

+		$oldusername = Title::newFromText( $wgRequest->getText( 'oldusername'
), NS_USER );
+		$newusername = Title::newFromText( $wgContLang->ucfirst(
$wgRequest->getText( 'newusername' ) ), NS_USER ); // Force uppercase of
newusername otherweise wikis with wgCapitalLinks=false can create lc
usernames

During fixing bug 4939 I found another bug. The oldusername was written
with NS0 into the logs (field 'log_namespace'), but it should by NS2 =
USER namespace. This I have corrected with above lines.

The problem is now, that older loglines still cointain NS0 for the
oldusername. This complicates log searching and is (now) inconsistent
with newer renames.

My question: Would it be possible to write a maintenance script or add
some lines to the updater script to update these loglines with NS0 -> NS2?

Or is this not a good idea because it's an extension only?

Raymond.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20070330/ce0ff511/attachment.pgp>


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old

body:
Sorry, just pair of strictly technical questions.

Are all of these 6000+ articles or are there redirs, too? (I don't
know how that counter macro works, in incubator we counted our texts
with special bot-like prog)

The last version of rules I know of didn't allow for "mixing" of the
lang.versions. So, are *all* of the articles in the be-x-old done in
the alternative lang.version? If not, what percentage is there?

---


from_name: Stephen Bain

subject:
[Foundation-l] Board Resolution + Wikiquote (was: board
	resolution )

body:
On 3/30/07, Pedro Sanchez <pdsanchez at gmail.com> wrote:
> So,  I see several wikiquotes really confused about this. Can the
> board clarify a little bit about the specific case of wikiquotes?
> Since wikiquotes are much more likely needing to use EDPs, can we have
> some pointers?

It's a media licencing policy.

That should answer your question.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old

body:
Hoi!

We do the same in pms. What it takes is a good admin structure, though, one
capable to addres the edit wars that sometimes happen (because they do
happen, it's just inevitable).

What IMHO they may do is to make up a group of people from both parties and
generate an internal ArbCom that will represent all basic trends and manage
to calm down the worst events.

To get to that point they may simply try and meet in front of a beer a
couple of times and get to know each other personally (people who can look
into each other's face often have much less conflicts then people who just
exchange emails).

The weather is getting better in Kyiv, so I guess fishing will soon be a
good social option in Belarus', too. :)

Berto 'd Sera
Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri)
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html

-----Original Message-----
From: wikipedia-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Alexander
Cajcyc
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 4:14 PM
To: GerardM
Cc: wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old

In that case a solution has already been found long ago, and the question is
purely a technical one: one and the same Wiki, but with articles separated
into "classical" and "official". As far as I know, this has already been
implemented in other Wikis (e.g. Serbian?). So why not just doing the same
with Belarusian Wikipedia?

czalex

-----Original Message-----
From: GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>
To: "Alexander Cajcyc" <czalex at bk.ru>, wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:03:43 +0200
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old

>
> Hoi,
> There is no choice when it comes to the names of the projects. The
standard
> is explicit; a private label is indicated by an -x- at the right place in
> the label.
>
> Having two projects is also something I would be against; it does not
bring
> collaboration, it does not bring NPOV. You have to get your act together
and
> history shows that you now have to compromise big time. It has been
> indicated that the actual differences are less than what you find in
English
> ... all the more reason to insist on collaboration.
>
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
>
> On 3/30/07, Alexander Cajcyc <czalex at bk.ru> wrote:
> >
> > Hi everybody
> >
> > I agree with Gerard that we must not deepen the conflict and hould find
a
> > solution that would satisfy all of us.
> >
> > Are we all, no matter the orthography, interested in the representation
of
> > Belarusian language in Wikipedia and in the usage of this tool for the
sake
> > of all Belarusian speakers no matter whether they prefer the classical
> > orthography or the official one? Yes, we all are. So let's find some
> > compromise.
> >
> > I propose to leave the official orthography wikipedia where it is now,
OK.
> >
> > But you just CAN'T allow the 6000 classical Belarusian Wiki articles to
> > get lost! The fact that the Belarusian Wiki was created as a Wiki in
> > Taraskievica is a illustrative example to that the classical orthography
has
> > an important place in Belarus now, especially amoung people who really
DO
> > speak the language on an every-day basis, while you can even see that
most
> > forum conversations in the official-orthography Wikipedia are being hold
> > in... Russian [what is not bad itself].
> >
> > So an ideal solution would be to rename be-x-old.wikipedia.org to, e.g.,
> > be-classic.wikipedia.org or bel.wikipedia.org and to open it for editing
> > so that it could coutinue its effective functioning.
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > czalex
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>
> > To: wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:23:35 +0200
> > Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old
> >
> > >
> > > Hoi,
> > > Please consider that if you have an option to work together, that you
> > have
> > > to talk. That you have to give and take. That you will always feel
that
> > you
> > > give more than what you get.
> > >
> > > There are two groups of people who have fought each other in a space
> > where
> > > such fights are not appreciated. Assertions have been made  about
"your"
> > > language, "your" orthography, by trash talking the "other" language /
> > > orthography. You do not get any sympathy in this way. When you want to
> > > achieve something, it will be more beneficial to be seen to cooperate
> > and to
> > > find some coexistence.
> > >
> > > When this coexistence is hard to get because of the enmity that has
been
> > > created in the past, it only means that you will have to give even
more.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >     Gerard
> > >
> > > On 3/30/07, Monk <monkbel at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > How can anybody say that Yury Tarasievich and his project is about
> > > > language, not about politics, after such a letter? No facts, just
> > > > insults and speculations.
> > > >
> > > > > You are an entity, yes, set out to destroy the existing Belarusian
> > > > > language and culture and replace it with your version -- okay,
your
> > > > > right. But get yourself your own blessed language code for that.
> > > > This speculation with such aggressive words doesn't help your case,
it
> > > > can only make your case worse. I don't even hope any more that you
> > > > understand that your outrageous insults are absurd. You just dig a
pit
> > > > for yourself by your own hands.
> > > >
> > > > > P.S.
> > > > > Some years ago I witnessed a creation of one of such sites you
call
> > > > > "proofs". So, there was 1 tech and 1 editor, who re-edited
> > everything
> > > > > incoming (like 90+% or even 99% in standard Belarusian and
Russian)
> > > > > into his flavour of "classic". It was politics. Thousands pages
(and
> > I
> > > > > mean real thousands, there was sort of 4800 or so) of pages.
And...
> > > > > grant money. I could add -- near to zero interest, excepting the
> > > > > indexing bots.
> > > > Another great example of lies. Where could they get any incoming in
> > > > "norm" if people just don't write in it?
> > > >
> > > > Monk.
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


from_name: Denny Colt

subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting hammered in a tv interview is not fun

body:
If OTRS is backed up and not working 'fast enough', how do more people get
into it? What are the requirements and entry threshold? Who decides who gets
in? How do you get in? If it's understaffed, staff it up. Is it volunteer?
Paid?

- Den


from_name: Solveig Quass

subject:
[Foundation-l] WeRelate: Genealogy wiki wants to discuss
	affiliation with the foundation

body:
Hello,
www.WeRelate.org would like your review and participation. I have seen a few proposals for the foundation to create a site simular to WeRelate. Our purposes are in line and we believe that some sort affiliation would benefit both organizaitons. We would like to discuss affiliation with the Media Wiki Foundation.

WeRelate.org is code complete and coming out of beta. During beta, WeRelate.org became the largest genealogical wiki, it has more than115,000 ancestor pages, 430,000 historical and current inhabitted place pages, 115,000 names, and 1.3 million source pages. WeRelate encourages citation and documentation, annotated images of family pictures and documents. It also generates 5 generation pedigree maps. The Family Tree Explorer application splits the screen to allow viewing and navigation of from various types of trees and indexes while viewing and working on the wiki page in the other window.

WeRelate is a free public service web site supported by tax deductible donations, it is nonsectarian and noncommercial. WeRelate is dedicated to collaborative research and the sharing of information. Please see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WeRelate and see the video.

Thank you,
Solveig Quass


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

body:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 09:36:39 -0600, Bryan Derksen
<bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:

>In this case the reference is a primary source that says "these people
>go to this university." A perfectly good reference to cite when saying
>"this person goes to this university." That's hardly a creative act of
>information synthesis.

*Provided* there is only one person in the world with that name, and
provided that the source actually does say they go to that university
rather than being, say, a bare list of names.  Oh, hey!  It's a bare
list of names that doesn't actually say they are studying there.
Helloooo novel synthesis :o)

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


from_name: Alexander Cajcyc

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old

body:
Hi everybody

I agree with Gerard that we must not deepen the conflict and hould find a solution that would satisfy all of us.

Are we all, no matter the orthography, interested in the representation of Belarusian language in Wikipedia and in the usage of this tool for the sake of all Belarusian speakers no matter whether they prefer the classical orthography or the official one? Yes, we all are. So let's find some compromise.

I propose to leave the official orthography wikipedia where it is now, OK.

But you just CAN'T allow the 6000 classical Belarusian Wiki articles to get lost! The fact that the Belarusian Wiki was created as a Wiki in Taraskievica is a illustrative example to that the classical orthography has an important place in Belarus now, especially amoung people who really DO speak the language on an every-day basis, while you can even see that most forum conversations in the official-orthography Wikipedia are being hold in... Russian [what is not bad itself].

So an ideal solution would be to rename be-x-old.wikipedia.org to, e.g., be-classic.wikipedia.org or bel.wikipedia.org and to open it for editing so that it could coutinue its effective functioning.

regards,

czalex

-----Original Message-----
From: GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>
To: wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:23:35 +0200
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old

>
> Hoi,
> Please consider that if you have an option to work together, that you have
> to talk. That you have to give and take. That you will always feel that you
> give more than what you get.
>
> There are two groups of people who have fought each other in a space where
> such fights are not appreciated. Assertions have been made  about "your"
> language, "your" orthography, by trash talking the "other" language /
> orthography. You do not get any sympathy in this way. When you want to
> achieve something, it will be more beneficial to be seen to cooperate and to
> find some coexistence.
>
> When this coexistence is hard to get because of the enmity that has been
> created in the past, it only means that you will have to give even more.
>
> Thanks,
>     Gerard
>
> On 3/30/07, Monk <monkbel at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > How can anybody say that Yury Tarasievich and his project is about
> > language, not about politics, after such a letter? No facts, just
> > insults and speculations.
> >
> > > You are an entity, yes, set out to destroy the existing Belarusian
> > > language and culture and replace it with your version -- okay, your
> > > right. But get yourself your own blessed language code for that.
> > This speculation with such aggressive words doesn't help your case, it
> > can only make your case worse. I don't even hope any more that you
> > understand that your outrageous insults are absurd. You just dig a pit
> > for yourself by your own hands.
> >
> > > P.S.
> > > Some years ago I witnessed a creation of one of such sites you call
> > > "proofs". So, there was 1 tech and 1 editor, who re-edited everything
> > > incoming (like 90+% or even 99% in standard Belarusian and Russian)
> > > into his flavour of "classic". It was politics. Thousands pages (and I
> > > mean real thousands, there was sort of 4800 or so) of pages. And...
> > > grant money. I could add -- near to zero interest, excepting the
> > > indexing bots.
> > Another great example of lies. Where could they get any incoming in
> > "norm" if people just don't write in it?
> >
> > Monk.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Light entertainment

body:
On 30/03/07, Jossi Fresco <jossifresco at mac.com> wrote:
> On Mar 30, 2007, at 3:29 AM, Earle Martin wrote:

> > My intention in starting this RfA was to genuinely apply for
> > adminship, albeit in my own fashion, because I am not afraid of openly
> > stating what I believe in.

> Basically, an excellent example of [[WP:POINT]].

No, as has been clarified. I see this a lot - people upset that anyone
would dare disagree with a problematic process saying "POINT POINT
POINT" when anyone tries to do something about the process, and
suggesting they go complain about it somewhere that won't have any
effect.

Um, no.

- d.


from_name: James Farrar

body:
On 30/03/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 09:36:39 -0600, Bryan Derksen
> <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> >In this case the reference is a primary source that says "these people
> >go to this university." A perfectly good reference to cite when saying
> >"this person goes to this university." That's hardly a creative act of
> >information synthesis.
>
> *Provided* there is only one person in the world with that name

That might be a more general problem, though, might it not?


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old

body:
> Is it right to
> dictate how the project should continue from here (apart from
> insisting that the alternative orthography shouldn't be exerted
> again)?

No, and it's not happening. The Committee (as such) has started and ended
its functions within this affair by writing its recommendations. After that
there is nothing going on but private emails from people who happen to also
be LangCom members.

Nevertheless, as a private individual, I will report whatever I perceive as
a blatant NPOV project. I believe we all should.

IMHO what's needed here is simply a bit of personal advice and time to have
everyone calm down and get back to a practically oriented mindset.

Berto 'd Sera
Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri)
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html

-----Original Message-----
From: wikipedia-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Oldak Quill
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 4:38 PM
To: wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old

On 30/03/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> There is no choice when it comes to the names of the projects. The
standard
> is explicit; a private label is indicated by an -x- at the right place in
> the label.
>
> Having two projects is also something I would be against; it does not
bring
> collaboration, it does not bring NPOV. You have to get your act together
and
> history shows that you now have to compromise big time. It has been
> indicated that the actual differences are less than what you find in
English
> .. all the more reason to insist on collaboration.

If the differences are fewer than those between British and American
English (!), the committee was right to step in to prevent the
manipulative exertion of one over the entire project. Is it right to
dictate how the project should continue from here (apart from
insisting that the alternative orthography shouldn't be exerted
again)?

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old

body:
In that case a solution has already been found long ago, and the question is purely a technical one: one and the same Wiki, but with articles separated into "classical" and "official". As far as I know, this has already been implemented in other Wikis (e.g. Serbian?). So why not just doing the same with Belarusian Wikipedia?

czalex

-----Original Message-----
From: GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>
To: "Alexander Cajcyc" <czalex at bk.ru>, wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:03:43 +0200
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old

>
> Hoi,
> There is no choice when it comes to the names of the projects. The standard
> is explicit; a private label is indicated by an -x- at the right place in
> the label.
>
> Having two projects is also something I would be against; it does not bring
> collaboration, it does not bring NPOV. You have to get your act together and
> history shows that you now have to compromise big time. It has been
> indicated that the actual differences are less than what you find in English
> ... all the more reason to insist on collaboration.
>
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
>
> On 3/30/07, Alexander Cajcyc <czalex at bk.ru> wrote:
> >
> > Hi everybody
> >
> > I agree with Gerard that we must not deepen the conflict and hould find a
> > solution that would satisfy all of us.
> >
> > Are we all, no matter the orthography, interested in the representation of
> > Belarusian language in Wikipedia and in the usage of this tool for the sake
> > of all Belarusian speakers no matter whether they prefer the classical
> > orthography or the official one? Yes, we all are. So let's find some
> > compromise.
> >
> > I propose to leave the official orthography wikipedia where it is now, OK.
> >
> > But you just CAN'T allow the 6000 classical Belarusian Wiki articles to
> > get lost! The fact that the Belarusian Wiki was created as a Wiki in
> > Taraskievica is a illustrative example to that the classical orthography has
> > an important place in Belarus now, especially amoung people who really DO
> > speak the language on an every-day basis, while you can even see that most
> > forum conversations in the official-orthography Wikipedia are being hold
> > in... Russian [what is not bad itself].
> >
> > So an ideal solution would be to rename be-x-old.wikipedia.org to, e.g.,
> > be-classic.wikipedia.org or bel.wikipedia.org and to open it for editing
> > so that it could coutinue its effective functioning.
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > czalex
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>
> > To: wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:23:35 +0200
> > Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old
> >
> > >
> > > Hoi,
> > > Please consider that if you have an option to work together, that you
> > have
> > > to talk. That you have to give and take. That you will always feel that
> > you
> > > give more than what you get.
> > >
> > > There are two groups of people who have fought each other in a space
> > where
> > > such fights are not appreciated. Assertions have been made  about "your"
> > > language, "your" orthography, by trash talking the "other" language /
> > > orthography. You do not get any sympathy in this way. When you want to
> > > achieve something, it will be more beneficial to be seen to cooperate
> > and to
> > > find some coexistence.
> > >
> > > When this coexistence is hard to get because of the enmity that has been
> > > created in the past, it only means that you will have to give even more.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >     Gerard
> > >
> > > On 3/30/07, Monk <monkbel at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > How can anybody say that Yury Tarasievich and his project is about
> > > > language, not about politics, after such a letter? No facts, just
> > > > insults and speculations.
> > > >
> > > > > You are an entity, yes, set out to destroy the existing Belarusian
> > > > > language and culture and replace it with your version -- okay, your
> > > > > right. But get yourself your own blessed language code for that.
> > > > This speculation with such aggressive words doesn't help your case, it
> > > > can only make your case worse. I don't even hope any more that you
> > > > understand that your outrageous insults are absurd. You just dig a pit
> > > > for yourself by your own hands.
> > > >
> > > > > P.S.
> > > > > Some years ago I witnessed a creation of one of such sites you call
> > > > > "proofs". So, there was 1 tech and 1 editor, who re-edited
> > everything
> > > > > incoming (like 90+% or even 99% in standard Belarusian and Russian)
> > > > > into his flavour of "classic". It was politics. Thousands pages (and
> > I
> > > > > mean real thousands, there was sort of 4800 or so) of pages. And...
> > > > > grant money. I could add -- near to zero interest, excepting the
> > > > > indexing bots.
> > > > Another great example of lies. Where could they get any incoming in
> > > > "norm" if people just don't write in it?
> > > >
> > > > Monk.
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>


from_name: Bryan Derksen

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 10:10:25 -0600, Bryan Derksen
> <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>> I assume you're also one of the folks who supports removing Angela
>> Beesley's birthdate from her article because although the birth register
>> for her hometown's hospital listed an Angela Beesley born on the same
>> date she claimed was her birthdate, there could have been _another_
>> Angela Beesley born on the same day and in the same hospital as her?
>> This level of synthesis is not a novel creative act, IMO.
>
> No, that's a fact stated by the individual and corroborated from
> public record, that's fine.  How many Angela Beesleys would have been
> born in that hospital on that day to parents with names matching those
> of her mother and father?  Not many.

Well, last I checked the information was still excluded from the article
on that basis, so I'm reassured to find at least one spot where we're on
the same side here. Makes it less likely that one of us has simply gone
loony.

> This is different.  It is a name, just a name, and a place, and no
> actual detail of the link between the two (could have been a prank by
> the IT people), no additional data to link the two, it's not
> corroborating any other source.

It's not even corroborated by the original source, making this an
increasingly hard-to-analyze situation. :)


subject: [WikiEN-l] CheckUser access requests? Huh?

body:
I don't think I'd be breaking any confidence to inform you all that
not all the arbitration committee knew that that page was going to be
put up - it had been discussed in a cursory fashion but no notice was
given that it was going to be implemented - and many of us are unhappy
with that page in its present form.

-Matt


from_name: jayjg

body:
On 3/30/07, Matthew Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/28/07, Denny Colt <wikidenny at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3/28/07, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Without commenting on the issue per se, it's not appropriate that four
> > > (and perhaps all) of the editors reverting you, Samboner, Venus Envoi,
> > > Kangaroo Courtier, and Weena Eloi, are all sockpuppets of User:Jon
> > > Awbrey.
> >
> > So the concensus was just one banned person...? I don't know who that is,
> > unfortunately.
>
> I don't think Jon Awbrey is actually banned - at least, I can't recall
> it.  Rather, he 'left the project' rather volubly (on this mailing
> list especially, to the point of getting moderated) and then, like
> many 'departed' users, returned under different names.  I'm not sure
> of the specifics.
>
> -Matt

He was banned after exhausting the communities patience, and
indefinitely blocked by User:Gwernol on September 7, 2006. He has
since created over 100 sockpuppets. He used them to edit war
incessantly at [[Truth theory]], an article filled with his original
research, until the article was permanently deleted. Since then he's
been edit-warring at [[Charles Peirce]], another article he has filled
with his original research. I believe he's edited the latter article
with over a dozen sockpuppets.

Jay.

Jay.


body:
Slim Virgin wrote:
> What we should be asking is whether what we're doing is reasonable. Is
> it reasonable to host pages about living persons that can be edited by
> any anonymous person of any age in the world, when we have no clear
> way of patrolling those pages to make sure anything negative or unfair
> is removed immediately?

Is that the worry exactly? It seems like almost anybody who hosts
anything runs this risk. Geocities and MySpace are prominent examples.
Pretty much any wiki or low-budget hosting operation qualifies too.

I think the thing that's unique with Wikipedia is that there's a higher
expectation of quality. Ironically, this comes mainly because we have a
higher level of quality.

If we believe that it's hard to raise the floor of our BLP quality,
could we lower the expectation? For example, we could add a header on
every BLP article that makes clear what anybody on this list already knows.

William


subject: [WikiEN-l] Light entertainment

body:
Jake Nelson wrote:
> (Sidenote: While Jimbo and others assert that BLP issues are our
> biggest PR issue (and while I can understand completely why they'd
> think so), in my experience, AFD has done far more damage, and has
> made enemies out of a lot of people who wanted to help us.)

Me Too. I have a local friend who uses Wikipedia a lot (he's a high
school teacher) and I use him as an "outside view" sometimes on how
Wikipedia is doing. Every couple of weeks he comes to me and tells me of
the heartache of stumbling upon an article about some subject he's
deeply interested in only to find an AfD banner across the top and know
that it's likely going to vanish soon. He's now reluctant to look stuff
up recreationally for fear of coming across more of those, and forget
about actually _editing_ anything.

His most recent discovery was AfDs on stub articles about episodes of
Lost that hadn't aired yet (but barring the unexpected destruction of TV
as we know it soon would) on the basis of Wikipedia not being a crystal
ball. That's just dumb, the pages will be recreated when the episodes
air. It makes us look irrationally deletion-happy.


from_name: Slim Virgin

body:
On 3/30/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> Slim Virgin wrote:
> > On 3/29/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> >> Slim Virgin wrote:
> >>> We're going to have more than a major hole in our coverage if we lose a lawsuit.
> >> Why? Aside from requiring us to take down whatever libelous
> >> misinformation we lost the case over (which we would want to do
> >> _anyway_), what limitation would it put on Wikipedia's coverage?
> >
> > If someone with money were to sue Wikipedia for having damaged him --
> > or were to finance a lawsuit brought by someone else -- it could end
> > up costing a great deal because of the global distribution of the
> > content, and perhaps also because we've not shown ourselves to be
> > deadly serious about getting rid of defamation. Unlike news
> > organizations Wikipedia has no libel insurance so it could put us out
> > of business.
>
> Okay, I guess I'll accept it as a hypothetical worst-case scenario. So
> Wikimedia Foundation goes out of business. The database is GFDL, we can
> set up a new foundation and resume editing elsewhere. A major hassle but
> IMO better than compromising the fundamental goal of writing a
> comprehensive free encyclopedia.

And the assets of all the individuals involved would be pursued, as
would the assets of the new foundation. It would get very messy, would
cost a fortune, and would go on for years if someone determined and
wealthy enough went after us. All I'm arguing is that it's
irresponsible to continue year after year on the same course knowing
that these are real possibilities and relying only on luck to see us
through. No mainstream publisher or responsible business would do it.
And that's not even to mention the moral issues, which I think are
paramount for most editors.
>
> I don't consider this scenario likely, though. We _are_ serious about
> removing libel, we've got powerful policies to that effect, and the site
> is laden with disclaimers in case we temporarily miss some.

Disclaimers make no difference, and I disagree that we're serious
about removing libel. We remove it when we see it, assuming the
individual editor or admin can face the fight that's often involved,
the personal attacks, and the risk of being taken to the ArbCom. But
we know there's stuff out there that we don't see, and we know that
some of it sits there for months before anyone notices. We *could* do
something about it site-wide, we *know* the consequences for some
individuals might be serious, and yet we're choosing not to change our
policies. I can see someone try to argue that this constitutes gross
negligence.

Sarah


from_name: doc

body:
Michael Bimmler wrote:
> On 3/30/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 3/30/07, doc <doc.wikipedia at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>> I'm sorry, with due respect to Geni, this is the type of myopic response
>>> that drives me crazy. Let's worry about our policies, in house-rules,
>>> and that the rights of Wikipedians are respected - because that's
>>> obviously more important than doing the Right Thing, unharming real
>>> people, or otherwise focusing on article quality? (That was sarcasm).
>>>
>>
>> Wikipedians are real people. You are not an infallible judge of what
>> would improve an article. The community at the present time has not
>> indicated a willingness to trust you in that sense and you should
>> respect this.
>
> Maybe it's time to clarify briefly what the ultimate goal of the
> project "Wikipedia" is:
>
> A. To write a encyclopedia (with the labels associates such as
> "quality", "accuracy" and "neutrality"
> B. To have a nice little community thing, where we have endless votes
> and discussions about the (inclusion of the) messed-up divorce of John
> Doe, biologist.
>
> Of course, certain internal policies (or house-rules) are necessary
> and should also be applied, but there are certain things on the world
> which overrule house rules. These "certain things" are not limited to
> legal aspects but also our aim to have an **encyclopedia** which is as
> accurate as possible, as neutral as possible and which does not seek
> to destroy somebody's life by bringing up every dirty little fact
> about their life that can be found. Remember, our guides (and
> competitors) should be encyclopediae as the EB and neither tabloid
> papers as The Sun nor investigative bloggers which dig through court
> records et al. to find out interesting things about George W. Bush's
> former life. Both of these have their merits (the latter maybe more
> than the former) but this is not what an encyclopedia should do. And
> if somebody tries to insert not properly sourced harmful material into
> a biography of a living person, this should just be deleted on sight.
> If a policy cannot cope with a) reality amd b) the absolute goal of
> the project, you should change neither reality nor the goal of the
> project but the policy.
>
> Michael
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
Which is precisely why we have IAR.
Doc


body:
On 3/30/07, gjzilla at gmail.com <gjzilla at gmail.com> wrote:
> Safe harbor, as long as we take it down. ~~~~

I don't know whether taking something down as soon as we see it would
be enough if it's been up for ages and it's already done damage. But
anyway, I know of situations where we *didn't* take problematic things
down when we were made aware of them. It's all very hit and miss.


from_name: Oldak Quill

body:
On 30/03/07, Michael Bimmler <mbimmler at gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe it's time to clarify briefly what the ultimate goal of the
> project "Wikipedia" is:
>
> A. To write a encyclopedia (with the labels associates such as
> "quality", "accuracy" and "neutrality"
> B. To have a nice little community thing, where we have endless votes
> and discussions about the (inclusion of the) messed-up divorce of John
> Doe, biologist.

Wikipedia doesn't have constitutional or fundamental goals. We have
certain goals which have primacy over others, but none can be
described (or rejected) as our ultimate goal.

It seems that Wikipedia's worth arises from its practical use
(eventualistically), not from what we initially determined Wikipedia
to be (prescriptively). That is, that our goals can be described based
upon pragmatic use of Wikipedia presently, not theoretical projections
into the future.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: Jeffrey V. Merkey

subject:
[Wikitech-l] MediaWiki 1.9.3 rebuildall.php reports double the
 number of articles

body:
Rob Church wrote:

>On 30/03/07, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>
>
>>This should be documented to avoid confusing people in the future.
>>
>>
>
>I feel obliged to point out that this distinction is plastered all
>over the mailing list and bug tracker, and I suspect has a page on
>MediaWiki.org, too...but I'll check on that last point.
>
>
It's ok Rob,

A lot of "how to setup MediaWiki with Wikipedia Dumps" is not documented
throroughly
until I undertook the task, but its ok. Hopefully, when I get done with
it, there will be enough
material on meta to pull together a decent Wikibook on how to do all this.

:-)

Jeff

>
>Rob Church
>
>_______________________________________________
>Wikitech-l mailing list
>Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>
>


from_name: Berto 'd Sera

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old

body:
Hoi!

> the committee was right to step in

The Committee never did "step in" as such. Private individuals signalled
this and other evident conflict situations to the Board. Since this
particular problem had linguistic implications we were requested to give a
recommendation, which we did.

Berto 'd Sera
Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri)
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html


body:
On 3/30/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 30/03/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > And the assets of all the individuals involved would be pursued, as
> > would the assets of the new foundation. It would get very messy, would
> > cost a fortune, and would go on for years if someone determined and
>
>
> Um, before you speak in quite such apocalyptic terms of the legal d00m
> that shall rain down upon Wikimedia if it continues its present course
> ... has the Foundation actually spoken on the subject?
>
> I believe the last I heard from an actual Florida lawyer on the
> subject was that we would most likely *not* be promptly liable in this
> manner. Which is why the golfer claiming defamation went after the
> owner of the IP the libel was posted from - he knew damn well that
> suing the Foundation directly would fall at the first hurdle.
>
> If you wish to continue putting forward this view of likely legal
> apocalypse, please substantiate it in a manner that answers Brad's
> previous posting on the subject.
>
The issues will be judged by the courts, not by lawyers, and a lot
will depend on how much money the plaintiff is willing to spend
arguing his case, as well as which jurisdictions he initiates the
complaint in, what his complaint is, and what he wants. All I'm
arguing is that we shouldn't rest on our laurels.

What we should be asking is whether what we're doing is reasonable. Is
it reasonable to host pages about living persons that can be edited by
any anonymous person of any age in the world, when we have no clear
way of patrolling those pages to make sure anything negative or unfair
is removed immediately? And when, even when such pages are spotted,
getting rid of the bad stuff often involves a giant fuss, with admins
unsure of what action they're allowed to take, because if they go too
far they risk being desysopped?

My argument is that the man on the Clapham Omnibus would not find this
reasonable.

If you want me to address Brad's previous posting, I'll certainly try
if you show me where it is.

Sarah


body:
On 3/30/07, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
> I think even the Wikipedia Review crowd realizes this, as evidenced
> by a recent message by Somey that says:
> WP is going to have to accept the notion that on an anonymous,
> publicly-editable website, the very existence of a biographical
> webpage can and should be considered a form of attack ...
>
> ... Since such a change would
> be clearly unconstitutional in the United States (under the First
> Amendment), he apparently wants a global dictatorship (run by the
> UN?) that can overrule national laws, courts, and constitutions.
>
Is Somey's argument such a bad one? Wikipedia biographies can be the
cyber equivalent of putting a person in the village stocks. Does the
Foundation have a duty of care toward people who end up with
biographical pages, in virtue of offering the website, the tools, the
policies, and the inadequate policing? Is it foreseeable that our
policies and the way we enforce them could harm people?  Do individual
editors have a duty of care toward people when they create bios about
them?

We don't know what a court would decide, and so it might be wise to
act before we find out.


from_name: Rob Smith

body:
>
>
> > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Getting hammered in a tv interview is not fun

If it's not fun anymore maybe it's time for a trip to the Betty Ford Center.


body:
On 3/30/07, doc <doc.wikipedia at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> But I say again, legal concerns are not the biggest worry.
>
> There is publicity. How long before the media get wind of a case of some
> innocent person who gets screwed by Wikipedia? Stressful
> reputation-wrecking libels lie for weeks - John Doe eventually sees them
> and complains - the complaint lies for days on OTRS - the material is
> removed - but nothing credible done to prevent its replacement three
> days later. - Then how do we fancy the headline: "Wikipedia-induced
> suicide: in a final note John Doe blames the on-line encyclopedia"?
>
> Then forget about the publicity and ask yourself about the ethics of all
> of this. As a byproduct of the encyclopedia, we are hurting real people,
> can we not do more to prevent it?
>
Aside from the legal and moral issues, the public may not want to keep
on giving money to an organization that's seen to have caused
preventable harm to individuals.


body:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 10:10:25 -0600, Bryan Derksen
<bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:

>I assume you're also one of the folks who supports removing Angela
>Beesley's birthdate from her article because although the birth register
>for her hometown's hospital listed an Angela Beesley born on the same
>date she claimed was her birthdate, there could have been _another_
>Angela Beesley born on the same day and in the same hospital as her?
>This level of synthesis is not a novel creative act, IMO.

No, that's a fact stated by the individual and corroborated from
public record, that's fine.  How many Angela Beesleys would have been
born in that hospital on that day to parents with names matching those
of her mother and father?  Not many.

This is different.  It is a name, just a name, and a place, and no
actual detail of the link between the two (could have been a prank by
the IT people), no additional data to link the two, it's not
corroborating any other source.

>Besides, the basis of this particular subthread is that the source
>didn't actually support the statement, so whether it's original research
>is moot. We don't need more stringent policies on sources to deal with
>it, just people who actually click the links and _check_ them.

That's even more of a problem of course :o)

But if we found a Jaffar Amin in a directory somewhere, would we
immediately assume, without checking, that it is Idi's son?  OK, a
pretty singular name to Western eyes, but is it that uncommon?

And there's another thing: did Amin have 40 children, or was it 22?
Google is inconclusive.

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


body:
On 30/03/07, Michael Bimmler <mbimmler at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/30/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 30/03/07, Michael Bimmler <mbimmler at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Maybe it's time to clarify briefly what the ultimate goal of the
> > > project "Wikipedia" is:
> > >
> > > A. To write a encyclopedia (with the labels associates such as
> > > "quality", "accuracy" and "neutrality"
> > > B. To have a nice little community thing, where we have endless votes
> > > and discussions about the (inclusion of the) messed-up divorce of John
> > > Doe, biologist.
> >
> > Wikipedia doesn't have constitutional or fundamental goals. We have
> > certain goals which have primacy over others, but none can be
> > described (or rejected) as our ultimate goal.
> >
> Well, maybe this is a language-specific issue, but in the german
> Wikipedia we have basically three principles (okay, actually 4, but
> the 4th deals with "No personal attacks"), which are called
> "unalterable", viz. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia", "Neutrality" and
> "Free Content". These principles (imho, correct me if I am wrong here)
> supersede and overrule all other policies and guidelines.
>
> Actually, I thought that
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#Key_policies
> and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars were talking
> about the same kind of rules, but I may be wrong here. Still, it is my
> (humble and) personal opinion, that they should.

These principles, rules, pillars and limitations all serve to further
our goals, but they are not goals themselves. Certainly not the
"ultimate goals" Michael Bimmler was seeking to clarify.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: Daniel R. Tobias

body:
On 30 Mar 2007 at 17:23, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/30/07, Matthew Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't think Jon Awbrey is actually banned - at least, I can't recall
> > it.  Rather, he 'left the project' rather volubly (on this mailing
> > list especially, to the point of getting moderated) and then, like
> > many 'departed' users, returned under different names.  I'm not sure
> > of the specifics.
>
> He was banned after exhausting the communities patience, and
> indefinitely blocked by User:Gwernol on September 7, 2006. He has
> since created over 100 sockpuppets. He used them to edit war
> incessantly at [[Truth theory]], an article filled with his original
> research, until the article was permanently deleted. Since then he's
> been edit-warring at [[Charles Peirce]], another article he has filled
> with his original research. I believe he's edited the latter article
> with over a dozen sockpuppets.

And he's a frequent poster to Wiki Whiner Central (aka Wikipedia
Review), where he's one of several participants who goes on about how
horribly corrupt, evil, and useless Wikipedia is, and how big a waste
of time it is to actually attempt to edit it... while all the while
continuing to come back with more sockpuppets and edit Wikipedia.
"Do as I say, not as I do."

--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/


from_name: Michael Bimmler

body:
On 3/30/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/30/07, doc <doc.wikipedia at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > I'm sorry, with due respect to Geni, this is the type of myopic response
> > that drives me crazy. Let's worry about our policies, in house-rules,
> > and that the rights of Wikipedians are respected - because that's
> > obviously more important than doing the Right Thing, unharming real
> > people, or otherwise focusing on article quality? (That was sarcasm).
> >
>
>
> Wikipedians are real people. You are not an infallible judge of what
> would improve an article. The community at the present time has not
> indicated a willingness to trust you in that sense and you should
> respect this.

Maybe it's time to clarify briefly what the ultimate goal of the
project "Wikipedia" is:

A. To write a encyclopedia (with the labels associates such as
"quality", "accuracy" and "neutrality"
B. To have a nice little community thing, where we have endless votes
and discussions about the (inclusion of the) messed-up divorce of John
Doe, biologist.

Of course, certain internal policies (or house-rules) are necessary
and should also be applied, but there are certain things on the world
which overrule house rules. These "certain things" are not limited to
legal aspects but also our aim to have an **encyclopedia** which is as
accurate as possible, as neutral as possible and which does not seek
to destroy somebody's life by bringing up every dirty little fact
about their life that can be found. Remember, our guides (and
competitors) should be encyclopediae as the EB and neither tabloid
papers as The Sun nor investigative bloggers which dig through court
records et al. to find out interesting things about George W. Bush's
former life. Both of these have their merits (the latter maybe more
than the former) but this is not what an encyclopedia should do. And
if somebody tries to insert not properly sourced harmful material into
a biography of a living person, this should just be deleted on sight.
If a policy cannot cope with a) reality amd b) the absolute goal of
the project, you should change neither reality nor the goal of the
project but the policy.

Michael


from_name: gjzilla at gmail.com

body:
On 3/29/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/29/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> > Slim Virgin wrote:
> > > We're going to have more than a major hole in our coverage if we lose
> a lawsuit.
> >
> > Why? Aside from requiring us to take down whatever libelous
> > misinformation we lost the case over (which we would want to do
> > _anyway_), what limitation would it put on Wikipedia's coverage?
>
> If someone with money were to sue Wikipedia for having damaged him --
> or were to finance a lawsuit brought by someone else -- it could end
> up costing a great deal because of the global distribution of the
> content, and perhaps also because we've not shown ourselves to be
> deadly serious about getting rid of defamation. Unlike news
> organizations Wikipedia has no libel insurance so it could put us out
> of business.

Safe harbor, as long as we take it down. ~~~~


body:
On 3/30/07, Denny Colt <wikidenny at gmail.com> wrote:
> If OTRS is backed up and not working 'fast enough', how do more people get
> into it? What are the requirements and entry threshold? Who decides who gets
> in? How do you get in? If it's understaffed, staff it up. Is it volunteer?
> Paid?
>
OTRS is voluntary, and by and large they do a tremendous, thankless
task, but as with all voluntary things, there can be problems. I saw
one OTRS volunteer actually post to a talk page that a named
journalist was a liar. Someone had complained to OTRS that certain
material was being kept out of a BLP. The complainant made the point
that the main source in the BLP was (instead of the dodgy sources he
wanted to use) a well-known journalist who was "probably lying through
his teeth."

The OTRS volunteer posted this statement on the talk page along with
the journalist's name, and the claim that he was "probably lying
through his teeth."

Sarah


from_name: Ryan Wetherell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Ref Desk makes Boing Boing

body:
On 3/30/07, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
> On 30 Mar 2007 at 15:47, William Pietri <william at scissor.com> wrote:
>
> Shades of 1984...

No kidding!  That they wouldn't even mention the correction is really
disturbing.

--Ryan

--
[[en:User:Merovingian]]

You think you're drowing but slowly you'll slip
Through the grinders of time


body:
On 3/30/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/30/07, gjzilla at gmail.com <gjzilla at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Safe harbor, as long as we take it down. ~~~~
>
> I don't know whether taking something down as soon as we see it would
> be enough if it's been up for ages and it's already done damage.

Sorry; I was thinking of copyright violations. But I think it still might
apply...

But
> anyway, I know of situations where we *didn't* take problematic things
> down when we were made aware of them. It's all very hit and miss.
>
>
Can you name some examples? If we hadn't, then we should have.

--~~~~


from_name: Jossi Fresco

subject: [WikiEN-l] Poll - WP:ATT

body:
FYI, a poll collecting opinions about [[WP:ATT]] is now open at
[[Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll]]

TinyURL: http://tinyurl.com/359dhl

-- Jossi


from_name: GerardM

body:
Hoi,
When you forget what Donald Rumsfeld stands for politically, being compared
to Donald Rumsfeld is a compliment. When you criticize and do not know what
has been done, it does not matter really does it ?

As to "official capacity" be careful because it is a knife that cuts both
ways. When certain things have an official status and there are other
parties required to do their part, it is reasonable to blame the
consequences on those that fail to fulfil their part. The language committee
is dependent on others in this.

I fail therefore to see what the language committee should do differently. I
fail to see it because the WMF has said officially that this does not have a
priority. It is not for us to wonder why.

Thanks,
    GerardM

On 3/30/07, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/30/07, Cary Bass <cbass at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >
> > The Cunctator wrote:
> > > On 3/29/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hoi,
> > >> We do not like to bang on the drums of what we have achieved. We do
> not
> > even
> > >> mind when when it is not perceived that we have achieved anything at
> > all. If
> > >> things go well, it should not really matter because it detracts from
> > what
> > >> our organisation is there for; ie creating and providing free
> content.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Wow. It's like listening to Donald Rumsfeld.
> > >
> > > Are you actually arguing that not achieving the stated purpose of your
> > > committee should be considered a sign of success?
> > >
> > >
> > Please be respectful of other users on this email list.
> >
>
> I am respectful of other members on the list.
>
> Would you like me to refer to particular quotations by Donald Rumsfeld
> that
> Gerard's statement resembles?
>
> Do you think it is disrespectful to criticize the actions of people acting
> in an official capacity for the project?
>
> Or do you just think it's disrespectful to compare people to Donald
> Rumsfeld?
>
> At least that I can understand.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Andrew Gray

body:
On 30/03/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:

> And there's another thing: did Amin have 40 children, or was it 22?
> Google is inconclusive.

The OxDNB says "thought to have fathered some fifty children"...

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


body:
On 3/30/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/31/07, doc <doc.wikipedia at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > I don't know Florida Law - but if my knowledge of UK law would say that
> > if harm is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of an action, and it is
> > reasonable to take steps to prevent it, then a failure to do so is
> > culpable negligence. We know the harm, we could do something, but we don't.
> >
>
> UK and US law split over 200 years ago. There are significant
> differences. Read through Barrett v. Rosenthal.
>
And how would that decision help us, Geni? ~~~~


body:
On 30 Mar 2007 at 09:58, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:

> I don't consider this scenario likely, though. We _are_ serious about
> removing libel, we've got powerful policies to that effect, and the site
> is laden with disclaimers in case we temporarily miss some. I have faith
> that the legal system is not _completely_ insane, as evidenced by the
> fact that numerous other sources that could be much more damaging have
> yet to be sued out of existence.

I think even the Wikipedia Review crowd realizes this, as evidenced
by a recent message by Somey that says:

WP is going to have to accept the notion that on an anonymous,
publicly-editable website, the very existence of a biographical
webpage can and should be considered a form of attack. And
ultimately, the trick might be to get the laws changed
(internationally, one would hope) to establish that principle
specifically.
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=7817

So he understands that the present legal system doesn't accept his
novel theory that Wikipedia bios = Defamation (no matter what their
content), and hence wants to *change* the legal system.  And you
thought that that crowd was audacious when they demanded that
Wikipedia change all its policies to suit them; they actually want to
do it to the international legal system.  Since such a change would
be clearly unconstitutional in the United States (under the First
Amendment), he apparently wants a global dictatorship (run by the
UN?) that can overrule national laws, courts, and constitutions.

--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/


subject: [WikiEN-l] Ref Desk makes Boing Boing

body:
On 30 Mar 2007 at 15:47, William Pietri <william at scissor.com> wrote:

> Wikipedia's reference desk gets a nice mention on Boing Boing:
>
> http://www.boingboing.net/2007/03/30/nyt_changes_backdate.html
>
> It also claims that the New York Times changed a published article
> without mentioning it on the page or issuing a correction. That's very
> interesting in the context of the recent discussion on the reliability
> and durability of web-based citations.

Shades of 1984...

--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/


from_name: Ron Ritzman

subject: [WikiEN-l] Naming

body:
On 3/30/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:

> It has been shown in the past that vandals and trolls have no problem with
> harrassing users in the real world.

And it's a shame too as there is very little that can happen to you on
a website[1] that would warrant going after someone in meatspace. Yet
we have friutcakes who will make trouble for someone in real life
because they can't get their POV into [[Article]]

> I think the choice should be left to the account owner, but I would lean
> towards using pseudonyms to avoid real world harrasment.
> In a position of trust the foundation can ask for a real name, but there's
> no real need for them to be known to the public.

But if said fruitcake knew that the foundation had the real names, it
wouldn't be difficult to use a bullshit John Doe lawsuit for the sole
reason of getting this information in discovery. I believe that's how
the RIAA initially turns IP addresses into names for later lawsuits.

1. A possible exception to this in WP would be a BLP issue.


body:
On 3/30/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 30/03/07, Michael Bimmler <mbimmler at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Maybe it's time to clarify briefly what the ultimate goal of the
> > project "Wikipedia" is:
> >
> > A. To write a encyclopedia (with the labels associates such as
> > "quality", "accuracy" and "neutrality"
> > B. To have a nice little community thing, where we have endless votes
> > and discussions about the (inclusion of the) messed-up divorce of John
> > Doe, biologist.
>
> Wikipedia doesn't have constitutional or fundamental goals. We have
> certain goals which have primacy over others, but none can be
> described (or rejected) as our ultimate goal.
>
Well, maybe this is a language-specific issue, but in the german
Wikipedia we have basically three principles (okay, actually 4, but
the 4th deals with "No personal attacks"), which are called
"unalterable", viz. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia", "Neutrality" and
"Free Content". These principles (imho, correct me if I am wrong here)
supersede and overrule all other policies and guidelines.

Actually, I thought that
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#Key_policies
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars were talking
about the same kind of rules, but I may be wrong here. Still, it is my
(humble and) personal opinion, that they should.

Michael


body:
On 3/30/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> Barrett v. Rosenthal is the case that I know of that appears to come
> closest to addressing their situation under US law and thus should be
> of interest.
>
So far as I can see, it addresses only one aspect of the issues we
might face. What are the issues it deals with, Geni, that are relevant
to us?


from_name: Rob Church

subject:
[Wikitech-l] MediaWiki 1.9.3 rebuildall.php reports double the
	number of articles

body:
On 30/03/07, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
> This should be documented to avoid confusing people in the future.

I feel obliged to point out that this distinction is plastered all
over the mailing list and bug tracker, and I suspect has a page on
MediaWiki.org, too...but I'll check on that last point.

Rob Church


from_name: Pedro Sanchez

subject: [Foundation-l] check user...

body:
On 3/30/07, christophe.henner at wikimedia.fr <christophe.henner at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 31/03/07, Florence Devouard <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > to my opinion, should be over 18 of age.
> >
> > Anthere
> >
> >
> And reveal there identity publicly.
>
>
> --
> schiste
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

And know how to spell


subject: [Foundation-l] check user...


body:
On 3/30/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't recall signing up to a system of ethics when editing wikipedia.
>
Wow, Geni.  :-(


body:
On 3/30/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/30/07, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 3/30/07, Ron Ritzman <ritzman at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > What I want to know is why they don't just open up checkuser to more
> > > admins? Anybody who is trusted with tools that allow him to make pages
> > > go away (including the main page) and keep anybody they want from
> > > editing would not be trusted with checkuser. Or is it a matter of the
> > > technical knowledge needed to properly interpret checkuser results?
> >
> > CheckUser involves access to sensitive, confidential information, and
> > involves a drastically higher level of trust than is required of an
> > admin. Page protection and deletion are reversible actions, the
> > release of private information is not.
>
>
> So if this involves sensitive information, then how exactly is anyone who
> isn't as trusted as an admin going to be trustworthy enough to get these
> rights.
> Not every admin is going to be suitable, but I can't think of any
> non-admin
> for the job either.
>
>
"I wouldn't trust Editor X as an admin, I think they will delete too much."

 Editor X is an IP expert.

Just a little example...


from_name: Ihar Hrachyshka

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old

body:
? ???, 30/03/2007 ? 17:13 +0400, Alexander Cajcyc ????:
> In that case a solution has already been found long ago, and the question is purely a technical one: one and the same Wiki, but with articles separated into "classical" and "official". As far as I know, this has already been implemented in other Wikis (e.g. Serbian?). So why not just doing the same with Belarusian Wikipedia?
>
As you can remember I've provided such a solution long time ago but
there was a one big Ignore on the Main_Page on this solution talk. And
now - when all is so bad - you tell us the same words.
I don't want to think that you are making compromises only after the
power-punch from Wikimedia authority. Are you speaking serious now?
>
> czalex
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>
> To: "Alexander Cajcyc" <czalex at bk.ru>, wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:03:43 +0200
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old
>
> >
> > Hoi,
> > There is no choice when it comes to the names of the projects. The standard
> > is explicit; a private label is indicated by an -x- at the right place in
> > the label.
> >
> > Having two projects is also something I would be against; it does not bring
> > collaboration, it does not bring NPOV. You have to get your act together and
> > history shows that you now have to compromise big time. It has been
> > indicated that the actual differences are less than what you find in English
> > ... all the more reason to insist on collaboration.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >     GerardM
> >
> > On 3/30/07, Alexander Cajcyc <czalex at bk.ru> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi everybody
> > >
> > > I agree with Gerard that we must not deepen the conflict and hould find a
> > > solution that would satisfy all of us.
> > >
> > > Are we all, no matter the orthography, interested in the representation of
> > > Belarusian language in Wikipedia and in the usage of this tool for the sake
> > > of all Belarusian speakers no matter whether they prefer the classical
> > > orthography or the official one? Yes, we all are. So let's find some
> > > compromise.
> > >
> > > I propose to leave the official orthography wikipedia where it is now, OK.
> > >
> > > But you just CAN'T allow the 6000 classical Belarusian Wiki articles to
> > > get lost! The fact that the Belarusian Wiki was created as a Wiki in
> > > Taraskievica is a illustrative example to that the classical orthography has
> > > an important place in Belarus now, especially amoung people who really DO
> > > speak the language on an every-day basis, while you can even see that most
> > > forum conversations in the official-orthography Wikipedia are being hold
> > > in... Russian [what is not bad itself].
> > >
> > > So an ideal solution would be to rename be-x-old.wikipedia.org to, e.g.,
> > > be-classic.wikipedia.org or bel.wikipedia.org and to open it for editing
> > > so that it could coutinue its effective functioning.
> > >
> > > regards,
> > >
> > > czalex
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>
> > > To: wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:23:35 +0200
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > Please consider that if you have an option to work together, that you
> > > have
> > > > to talk. That you have to give and take. That you will always feel that
> > > you
> > > > give more than what you get.
> > > >
> > > > There are two groups of people who have fought each other in a space
> > > where
> > > > such fights are not appreciated. Assertions have been made  about "your"
> > > > language, "your" orthography, by trash talking the "other" language /
> > > > orthography. You do not get any sympathy in this way. When you want to
> > > > achieve something, it will be more beneficial to be seen to cooperate
> > > and to
> > > > find some coexistence.
> > > >
> > > > When this coexistence is hard to get because of the enmity that has been
> > > > created in the past, it only means that you will have to give even more.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >     Gerard
> > > >
> > > > On 3/30/07, Monk <monkbel at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > How can anybody say that Yury Tarasievich and his project is about
> > > > > language, not about politics, after such a letter? No facts, just
> > > > > insults and speculations.
> > > > >
> > > > > > You are an entity, yes, set out to destroy the existing Belarusian
> > > > > > language and culture and replace it with your version -- okay, your
> > > > > > right. But get yourself your own blessed language code for that.
> > > > > This speculation with such aggressive words doesn't help your case, it
> > > > > can only make your case worse. I don't even hope any more that you
> > > > > understand that your outrageous insults are absurd. You just dig a pit
> > > > > for yourself by your own hands.
> > > > >
> > > > > > P.S.
> > > > > > Some years ago I witnessed a creation of one of such sites you call
> > > > > > "proofs". So, there was 1 tech and 1 editor, who re-edited
> > > everything
> > > > > > incoming (like 90+% or even 99% in standard Belarusian and Russian)
> > > > > > into his flavour of "classic". It was politics. Thousands pages (and
> > > I
> > > > > > mean real thousands, there was sort of 4800 or so) of pages. And...
> > > > > > grant money. I could add -- near to zero interest, excepting the
> > > > > > indexing bots.
> > > > > Another great example of lies. Where could they get any incoming in
> > > > > "norm" if people just don't write in it?
> > > > >
> > > > > Monk.
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Foundation-l] check user...

body:
rofl.

On 30/03/07, Pedro Sanchez <pdsanchez at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/30/07, christophe.henner at wikimedia.fr <christophe.henner at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 31/03/07, Florence Devouard <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > to my opinion, should be over 18 of age.
> > >
> > > Anthere
> > >
> > >
> > And reveal there identity publicly.
> >
> >
> > --
> > schiste
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> And know how to spell
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.


subject: [Foundation-l] check user...