subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed

body:
Gavin Chait wrote:
> Now I'm the one that's amused.
>
> Before anyone goes jumping to conclusions: I am not throwing my hat in the
> COO ring, interim or not.  Believe it or not, I hadn't thought about it.
> But thanks for the vote of confidence ;)
>
> As with any other submission made here, my suggestions are to take as you
> choose.  I mention my background simply to give a context to where my ideas
> come from.  I don't know anyone here directly, any more than any of you know
> me.
>
> The discussion is familiar from the development sector here.  Ours is large,
> diverse and vibrant (estimated at 8% of the economy and the largest
> employer).  And in a state of major confusion at present because of the way
> that donors have changed and the old supply-side system of development is in
> the process of being shoved aside.  Many organisations here are trying to
> figure out how to adapt, while keeping hosts of volunteers happy and
> involved.  Sometimes that sort of thing can go terribly wrong.
>
> Non-profit organisations can be divided loosely into two major areas:
> reaction and proaction.  Reactionary stuff is relatively straightforward -
> floods, wars, famines, medical emergencies and so on.  Pro-action is more
> difficult.  It relies on predicting the future and what we think may be
> best.  It's a guess, and hopefully an educated one.  I've never worked on
> the reactionary side and so spend my time "guessing" at the best way to
> achieve what has already been achieved in more developed nations.  It isn't
> easy and everyone has a different idea, not only of the future, but also of
> the path to get there.
>
> Anthony you have interpreted me well:  "... that the Wikimedia board has no
> clue how best to organize itself so as to accomplish that mission ..."  That
> is what I understand and it seems an awfully large responsibility to dump
> onto the shoulders of your new COO.
>
> Surely you should agree on some basics first and declare them unequivocally?
> Then give your COO time and space to figure it out without having to answer
> "are we there yet?" questions every few minutes.  It would be best to agree
> on these things before you even start recruiting so that anyone applying
> knows what they're letting themselves in for.

Nod

The following four points are the starting points on which the interim
execdir should focus.

First point, the Foundation has no administrative stability. Missing
budgets. Poorly filled up and too-late-posted-forms. Pending if not lost
bills. Etc... You name it. Most urgent job to do.

Second point, the Foundation has inadequate staff. Whether we should
look for volunteers or paid staff is another issue, but we do need more
staff in some specific areas. People working on administrative issues
(such as very simply... answering the phone, helping on OTRS). People
working to provide legal support. People to write grants. Financial
management. Here are some examples of areas where we are lacking help.
The CEO will be in charge of finding these people, with pay if
necessary, and of managing them.

Third point, the Foundation is financially insecure. We essentially rely
on small donations, some of it flowing naturally thanks to the links on
the website, and some in more important manner during fundraisings. We
have very few sponsors and nearly no money from grants. Basically
nothing from business (such as datafeed or agreement with our tms).
Do we have enough ? No. We just manage the basics. We could definitly
benefit from more hardware. We need more staff. We need to secure money
for potential legal problems. We must secure our tms or domain names.
And it would be nice to start having charitable activity or make some pr
in the countries where we are totally unknown.
At the same time, as pointed out by the tech team, we can cut down on
some costs (eg, hosting charges)
The CEO will have to ensure that we do not pay unreasonable prices to
have the sites running. He must develop income in particular from
bizdev, sponsors and grants.

And due to his specificities...
Last point, the Foundation has great legal exposure and must protect its
assets. It may not be obvious for everyone here, but we *do* receive
pretty disturbing letters from lawyers. Maybe some of you realise this
through the activity of WP:Office. There are some issues to fix
regarding this Office stamp. But regardless, we must expect legal
problems in the future, and the CEO will be in charge of organising the
Foundation so that the impact is minimum. Second point, as some of you
noticed, there are some threats to the project and to the community.
 From users outing people, to websites liberally using our logos and tm,
we may have to consider becoming pro-active.

ant


list: wikimedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Anthere

subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed


list: wikien-l

from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Types of categories

body:
On 6/4/06, Matt Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> This personally really, really bugs me.  I remove such cases when
> editing articles.
>
> The article about the category should link to the category (often
> within 'See also').  The category description should link the the
> article.

What you're saying makes sense, but does not currently have consensus.
Implementing it therefore sounds like a bad idea bound to cause upset.

Steve


from_name: Resid Gulerdem

body:
Dear Scott,

What is your panic for? My account is blocked, yes!
This is the third time you are repeating the same
thing on this list. I disclosed that at the beginning
of the proposal too. I hope people smart enough here
to see that you are trying to denounce the proposal by
mud-throwing at me. I expect you will continue doing
so to distract the attention of the community from the
proposal itself. I had issues with some admins,
blocked at the end and '''that is why I know the
admin-abuse problem by heart'''. I am trying to make
some structural suggestions so that new comers do not
live through the same difficulties I had here. Isn't
that really understandable to you? If you would like
to talk about the issue, focus on the proposal and
find some mistakes in it, that would be more
persuasive that I am doing bad and be more useful to
correct it.

I am so sorry to say that you are not an exemplary
editor in my sight from whom I can take some advise,
and maybe in the sight of a few other users you are
messing up around. I do not want to waste my time to
provide links to show what kind of editor you are.
(There are already two links in my previous message,
accidentally.)

Maybe I should just say this: It is no good to watch
each and every step of a fellow editor and try to
create a negative atmosphere around him by distorting
the facts, slandering, using your experience and
naivety of the new users in a negative manner, biting
the new users, trying to spoil any positive relation
the user may have by secretly talking to others,
organizing other users against a fellow editor etc. It
is not also good to spoil and ruin the articles and
proposals by starting edit-wars, reverting without
discussion, tag'ing the articles at which you have no
other contributions or idea about without any
explanation, etc. I cannot see the basis for your
motivation and do not like to describe it in terms of
phycology for the sake of kindness. I just want to let
you know that those are the behaviors that damage the
community spirit of Wikipedia.

I want you not answer it to me but ask this question
yourself: What will I gain from ruining another
proposal ([[WP:OURS]]) as I did in the case of
[[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]]? Is mud-throwing ethical and
can considered among the behaviors of a gentleman?
Should I stop this poor behavior? If you have
difficulty to find an answer please consult your
parents for your childish behavior.

If you remember, I told you 'bye' far ago. When I say
it, I really meant that. Let me see if I can make
myself more clearer this time: Bye again...

Resid

>From: "Scott Stevenson" <wikinetscott at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Time to start discussing
solutions?
>Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 11:15:08 +0200
>
>Resid Gulerdem you are a PERMANENTLY BLOCKED EDITOR
who has not only
>been disruptive on English Wikipedia :
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rgulerdem with
corresponding
>extensive block log:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Rgulerdem
>but you've been disruptive in an entirely independent
way on the
>Turkish Wikipedia:
>http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kullan?c?:Rgulerdem
>Where you have also been repeatedly blocked:
>http://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=?zel:Log&type=block&page=Kullan?c?:Rgulerdem
>
>For you to be discussing policy at this point is
ridiculous. You
>should STEP AWAY from the project for at minimum 1
YEAR and then come
>back to try and contribute as at this point it is
surely likely that
>you'll once again be disruptive when trying to
formulate any sort of a
>"policy" like [[WP:OURS]] through demonstrating the
same types of
>disruptive editor behaviour you've already repeatedly
demonstrated
>(involving WP:OWN, WP:3RR, WP:POINT, WP:NPA, and
WP:CIV).
>
>-Scott Stevenson [[User:Netscott]]
>
>On 6/4/06, Resid Gulerdem <resid_gulerdem at yahoo.com>
wrote:
> > Regarding the [[WP:OURS]] proposal; there are some
> > good suggestions in it, I believe:
> >
> > 1. [[WP:OURS]] is aiming to start a discussion
about
> > the '''solution''' to the main problem: admin-user
> > relations. Isn't it time to start talking about
> > solutions? How far are we going to discuss diffent
> > versions of the same problem?
> >
> > 2. It is not complete but just a quick suggestion
from
> > my point of view. Can be and need to be modified.
> >
> > 3. Existence of some rejected proposals cannot
imply
> > that this one will follow the same path, can it?
It is
> > early to make a decision at this stage before
> > discussing the proposal.
> >
> > 3. The good thing about the proposal is, it does
not
> > devaluate Wikigods and Wikigoddess and does not
> > attempt to take their eternal status back. It does
not
> > propose radical changes but maybe a different look
and
> > acceptable variations of the current
> > infrastructure. It just provides a windshield for
> > ordinary users against strong, irresistible blows
of
> > Wikigod(des)s.
> >
> > 4. It provides a dynamic measure for popularity of
> > admins.
> >
> > 5. It aims to educate new or old users, rather
than
> > irritate them.
> >
> > 6. It diagnose and tries to prevent the system
from
> > possible problems before they arise (by
constructing
> > study groups, etc., for example).
> >
> > 7. As discussed by some users, both community and
> > encyclopedia are crucial components for Wikipedia.
The
> > problems are caused by the fact that '''the
bridges
> > between these two components are not efficient'''.
> > [[WP:OURS]] is a simple but sincere attempt to
> > strengthen, enhance and improve the efficiency of
> > these bridges. I hope it gets enough attention.
> >
> > Regarding Wikiethics discussion:
> >
> > If you participated in Wikiethics discussion and
now
> > referring to that approval poll you are,
> > unfortunately, distorting the facts. If you are
new to
> > that discussion, I would recommend you to review
the
> > comments carefully.
> >
> > Let me summarize what has happened quickly: A
user,
> > who dislike the proposal, unilaterally started the
> > approval poll at a very early stage of the
proposal. I
> > then started another poll right after that to ask
the
> > community if an approval poll is needed at that
stage.
> > I, myself as the main proposer, haven't thought
that
> > the proposal is ready for putting to a vote. Then
the
> > poll I started to ask what people think about the
> > timing of an approval poll vandalized many times:
> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics&diff=next&oldid=44384387
> > or its place suddenly became a problem:
> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics&diff=44819924&oldid=44818149
> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics&diff=45015662&oldid=45014949
> > Nevertheless, the editors could have a chance to
vote
> > on the poll I started: 13 out of 17 said that it
is
> > not needed. So, the approval poll itself was not
valid
> > by the community consensus. Moveover if you can
check
> > the votes on the approval poll itself, some people
are
> > saying that the approval poll is not reasonable at
> > that stage. These editors did not vote on the poll
I
> > started,
> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics/Archive/Do_we_need_a_poll_at_this_stage_Poll_31_April_2006
> > simply because it was not available to them. So
the
> > numbers you reported does not reflect the case as
is.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Resid
> >
> >
> > >From: "Stephen Bain" <stephen.bain at gmail.com>
> > >Reply-To: English Wikipedia
<wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> > >To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> > >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] status qou vs reform
> > >Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 11:33:48 +1000
> > >
> > >On 6/3/06, Resid Gulerdem
<resid_gulerdem at yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >    I think one should not expect any action,
in
> > > > general, from the people who are well fed by
the
> > > > current structure which makes them feel
superior,
> > make
> > > > any attempt towards a bit of change...
> > >
> > >There must be an awfully large number of people
who
> > are content with
> > >the current structure, given that the general
> > approval poll on your
> > >Wikiethics proposal failed 3 to 38 [1]. Polls are
> > evil, of course, and
> > >not binding, but that level of rejection is
fairly
> > comprehensive, and
> > >came from all sectors of the community. I would
> > imagine that "OURS",
> > >if it were ever formulated into a proposal, would
> > receive a similar
> > >amount of opposition for similar reasons.
> > >
> > >There are dozens of similar proposals put up
every
> > year. If any of
> > >them actually received support from the
community,
> > they would be
> > >successful. Admins are a miniscule 0.06% of
> > registered users - even if
> > >we always voted as a bloc, there is no way we
could
> > overrule a true
> > >community movement.
> > >
> > >[1]
> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics/Archive/Approval_Poll_31_April_2006
> > >
> > >--
> > >Stephen Bain
> > >stephen.bain at gmail.com
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


list: foundation-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed

body:
Angela wrote:
>>Looking at the recent changes to the foundation wiki, I see
>>http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution_President, affirming
>>you as President and authorizing you to make certain decisions,
>>"failed to gain Board support".  I wonder: Who proposed that
>>resolution?  Who voted for it?  Who voted against it?
>
>
> This hasn't yet been voted on. It doesn't even have a Motion to Vote
> yet. I've no idea why it would be regarded as rejected.
>
> Angela.

The Dexia resolution was a bit in the same situation originally (if you
remember), since not all members had voted on it. Jimbo feared it would
go pending forever, since we have no procedure to close a resolution
after it is proposed. I remember a complex discussion about this and I
think the conclusion was that any resolution not approved should be
considered failed.

I currently have the same problem with three resolutions, which fail to
receive votes, so fail to receive support presumably...
The bylaws changes resolution (which I proposed)
The fair use and non commercial resolutions (which were proposed by an
outside party).

Problem is... should I conclude that my resolution is rejected or should
I wait for several more weeks for board members to vote on it ?
As for resolutions proposed by outside parties, should I tell them it
was approved, rejected, neglected, or what ?

Sorry guys for this purely bureaucratic debate :-)

ant


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed


from_name: Erik Zachte

subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed

body:
Responding a.o. to Jimmy's
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-June/007389.html

Jimmy, I know you value the community with whole your heart. But I cannot
follow in your analysis of how things are going: you say the community is
more and more in control, after all board members and other staff are part
of the community, so essentially the community is 100% in control. But my
concern centers around:

* Increasingly decison are taken by the board without too much prior
discussion in the open, at least on places where I would expect it, like on
this mailing list. I just question this when major foundation issues are
concerned. I'm not talking daily affairs, that is what we have
representatives for, but large decisions that define how Wikimedia is
organised and how it interacts with the rest of the world. From the initial
bylaws, to their most recent pending incarnation, from the jurisdiction of
the board, to the mission of the committees and their leading figures, to
the appointment and tasks of a non-CEO.

Jimmy: "And, it should be strongly pointed out: the committee system is a
*community* system, driven by volunteers, staffed by volunteers (#), and the
committees and the chapters make up the heart and soul of Wikimedia."

(#) I might add 'and created and/or sanctioned by the board'. The board
reigns supremely. This does not make the board evil in any way, or its
members less respectable, it does not discredit the committees or their
members, far from it, all names of committee members that I recognize are of
highly valued community members  (I'm not even against any of the committees
or their missions, heck I'm going to apply for a committee on invitation and
of course undergo normal co-optation procedure) it is simply a control
monopoly that I would like to see amended, to strenghten Wikimedia as an
organisation.

I'm not sure I would favour to vote on everything, elections can be
manipulated. Perhaps the tried system of discussing major choices until a
consensus is reached would still work, this list is not flooded by hundreds
of trolls, there is still a limited community interested in these issues.
Also on major issues I'd rather sacrifice speed than quality of decision
making, again on major issues only, and of course judicial emergencies taken
aside. Even better I welcomed your idea for a wikicouncil, but as policy
maker not as advisor, thus approaching the ideal of a Trias Politica, but
noone seems to warm to that idea.

* Several board members recently stated their weariness about discussing
things with the larger community (for quotes eee
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-May/007321.html ),
although I have to say Anthere still does speak up a lot on this list, so
maybe I make too much out of her remarks. Everyone is entitled to an
occasional slip of the tongue.

* Board expansion is not an issue you say, it just will happen. But there
has been talk, albeit not by you, of appointing board members instead of
holding an election. If that would ever happen, how could anyone not see
that the board would be heading towards splendid isolation?

* The idea that a contractor, possibly an outsider (?), is charged with
paving the way for a true CEO, is yet another example of top down
management. Why should an appointed individual, let alone a possible
outsider, lead this debate, or manage it in any way? Incidentally, I would
be less concerned if the final CEO would only supervise administrative
tasks, like paying the bills and refreshing domain subscriptions, but then I
find the term CEO odd, I call that an office manager.

All of this gives me the feeling the board knows best what is good for the
community, and is more and more leaning towards [p|m]aternalism, to put it
mildly, more than it used to in its first year of existence. The number of
people involved in the decision making structure is growing, with all those
committees and chapters, yet the central role of the board and its do's and
don'ts is what really matters.

All in all I see the dicussion we now have on this mailing list as a very
good thing. The debate is somewhat heated at times, with an occasional
sneering remark, but I'd rather see this debate go on for a while with all
distraction and confusion that it brings, if it strenghtens fundaments of
Wikimedia as an organisation.

Erik Zachte


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed

body:
On 6/3/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> > It's cute calling an organization "transparent" when even the board
> > members don't even know whether a resolution has been rejected.
>
> I rest my case.  Anthony is not being serious here, he is trolling.
>
As usual when someone criticises you you call them a troll.  And you
even privately threatened to ban me from the list.

Banning people from the list for criticising the God-King.  That's
also really transparent.  I hope such a thing is seen for what it is.

And no, I won't stop my criticism of you on the list unless I have
people *other than you* who are bothered by it.

So as I said in private.  Ban me from the list.  I dare you.

Anthony


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed

body:
On 6/3/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> I agree completely.  But when we post everything we can publicly, have
> open meetings, have community committees, and then people don't read it,
> well, I don't agree that this is "being cut off".
>
A list of resolutions which have passed, in most cases without vote
counts or any other information, with pending resolutions not even put
into the view for months, is not "everything you can publicly".

In fact, I asked your CFO over a year ago for a copy of the latest
990, which is by law publically available and the IRS recommends for
it to be posted on the foundation's website.  I have received nothing
other than the very first 990-EZ which has finally arrived on the
Guidestar website.  You haven't posted everything you can publicly.
Not even close.

You, Jimmy, are the one who is trolling.

Anthony

By the way, you still haven't answered who made the proposal to
install you as President.


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed


from_name: Angela

subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed

body:
On 6/4/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:

> Is there an archive somewhere of all the historical board votes?  I'd
> be interested in seeing it.
>
> Overall, it's really hard to find information about what it is the
> board and its members have been doing.

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolutions

Watching that wiki, and reading Wikizine ( http://cur.wikizine.org/ )
are two good ways of keeping up with the Board's actions. Suggestions
on how to improve communications are very welcome.

Angela


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed

body:
On 6/4/06, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolutions
> For those who wonder if we did nothing at all before january, I'll
> clarify that the resolution system was adopted in january 2006,
> precisely because the previous system did not always allowed to clearly
> track decisions taken.

And also because prior to that decisions were made in meetings rather
than by resolutions on a wiki. See
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Meetings for details prior to
January.

Angela.


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed


from_name: Joe Anderson

subject: [WikiEN-l] Community vs Encyclopedia

body:
Interesting point Alphax. Many Wikipedian organisations are located on the
meta over the Wikipedia: space (see m:Category:Wikipedian associations)

However, most new one's are either User: or Wikipedia:

On 6/4/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> > On 6/3/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 6/3/06, Joe Anderson <computerjoe.mailinglist at googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>> However, four different viewpoints of the Wikipedia have emerged
> recently:
> >>>
> >>>   - It is an encyclopedia with a community
> >>>   - It is a community with an encyclopedia
> >>>   - It is an encyclopedia
> >>>   - It is a community
> >> Interesting. The dichotomy I most often see, that people have trouble
> >> deciding on, is :
> >>
> >> - Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia
> >> - Wikipedia is a project to create an encyclopaedia
> >>
> >> It's probably more of a naming thing than anything else, but it does
> >> imply a point of view on whether the encyclopaedia has actually been
> >> created yet. Is the online version of Wikipedia an encyclopaedia, or
> >> is it a peek into a work in progress?
> >>
> >> Steve
> >
> > Depending on the context, the term "Wikipedia" is often used to
> > describe each of those things.  I suppose one could do a study to see
> > what the predominant usage is.  But this is mainly just a semantical
> > argument.  Obviously there are many documents served by the
> > wikipedia.org domain which are not part of the encyclopedia itself.
> >
> > The saying that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a ___" is also used
> > rhetorically to remind people using the resources provided under the
> > wikipedia.org domain name to focus on the end goal - creating an
> > encyclopedia.
> >
> > There are a number of people who don't realize that the reason
> > Wikipedia was created was to build and distribute a free encyclopedia.
> >  There are a smaller number that realize this and still want to change
> > it.  This latter group will most likely fail - there are way more
> > people committed to sticking to the main goal.
> >
> > Frankly, I don't think there are many (if any) people on this mailing
> > list who don't agree that anything not related to building an
> > encyclopedia should be kept off of *.wikipedia.org (with the possible
> > exception of sep11.wikipedia.org which was sort of grandfathered in).
> > I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think there's much of a
> > dichotomy in the first place.
> >
>
> Historically, Meta was the place where a lot of "community" stuff
> happened. At some point (probably the first half of 2005) things which
> would normally have been transwikied to meta: started appearing in the
> Wikipedia: namespace, and staying there.
>
> --
> Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
> Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
> "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
> Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
>

--
Joe Anderson

[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.


from_name: Peter Ansell

subject:
[WikiEN-l] cancelation of the deletion review of the satanism
	userbox

body:
On 6/4/06, Ian Woollard <ian.woollard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 03/06/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The majority of Americans are fundamentalist christians. The greater
> > majority are christians of any denomination. It would be interesting
> > to know why christians are underrepresented at Wikipedia, if indeed
> > that is the case.
>
> I don't find that interesting, either way. If it mattered, there would
> be a violation of NPOV somewhere, guaranteed. The Wikipedia is
> actually neither religious nor American.
>

I see it as mattering because there would not likely be a neutral
"world view" with respect to the parts of the encyclopedia describing
either part. That is precisely how I read the NPOV policy.

Peter Ansell


from_name: BJörn Lindqvist

subject: [WikiEN-l] To: Jimmy Wales - Admin-driven death of Wikipedia

body:
> There has never been a shortage of criticism of certain admin actions.  A
> high proportion of this has always been mud-slinging by those rightly the
> target of admin sanctions.
>
> The issue of 'bias' is better phrased another way.  Do admins apply admin
> powers in attempts to control article content, in a way that is negative
> from the point of view of compliance with fundamental policies on content?
> It turns out that it is much harder to make a good case of this kind, than
> to make general accusations on 'bias'.

It is not. A user named Saladin1970 was recently indefinitely banned
by administrators because his political views was diametrically
opposite to theirs. There was absolutely no reason for that ban, and
had Saladin1970's political views been better aligned with theirs, he
wouldn't have been blocked at all. Since virtually all his edits were
reverted solely because they were made by a blocked user, it should be
painstakingly clear that (some) admins apply admin powers in attempts
to control article content and that that is negative for Wikipedia.

And it won't change, because despite the probably hundreds of policies
wikipedian-en has, not a single one of them says that when an admin
fucks up that bad, s/he shouldn't be an admin. So while Saladin1970 is
stuck with some weird arbitration thing with Fred Bauder, the admins
can continue their free roll. Saladin1970 is far from the only case,
he just happened to be particularly persistent and polite when
complaining in this list.

--
mvh Bj?rn


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
I have copied his statement regarding his request for arbitration to
the proper page and unblocked him so he can participate in
arbitration. I am hopeful he is just a new user who made some newbie
mistakes, but have no opinion as to whether he should be permitted
another chance.

Fred

On Jun 4, 2006, at 9:15 AM, jayjg wrote:

>
>
>> So while Saladin1970 is
>> stuck with some weird arbitration thing with Fred Bauder,
>>
>
> Saladin1970 is not involved "with some arbitration thing with Fred
> Bauder".  Can you not even get the simplest facts straight?  He is
> involved in an arbitration case with the Arbitration Committee.


subject: [WikiEN-l] The admin problem

body:
That was based on your repeated insistence that National Socialism
was some sort of socialism. You fought like a bulldog for that point.
You probably could not have chosen an axe to grind that would have
been more disruptive.

Fred

On Jun 4, 2006, at 9:40 AM, Sam Spade wrote:

> it took practically
> no time for me to have a gang of enemies on the wikipedia.


body:
Wrong, going through Jayjg's posts would not show a "pattern of
extreme POV pushing". It would show a few instances of POV edits.
There is a huge difference. I have criticized Jayjg sharply but what
you are saying is not based on his record. It is a gross exaggeration.

Fred

On Jun 4, 2006, at 10:10 AM, abu hamza wrote:

>
> So when jaygy does one alledged incident of sock puppetry used
> against wikipedia policy result in an indefinate ban??
> and when jaygy does citing someones ethnicity on their wikipedia
> biography result in that person being antisemetic , and henced
> banned indefinately on wikipedia
>
> if i were to trawl through your posts it would not be difficult to
> see a pattern emerging of extreme POV pushing, reverting posts to
> ensure your POV held.
>
> I think it is quite clear that BJorn has hit on a very sensitive
> and important point. That certain administrators abuse their
> position by banning or reverting posts to ensure their POV remains
> on wiki pages that  are close to their life view. And that there is
> NO wiki policy to protect the neutrality of wiki pages from these
> abuses, or of the victims of these administration abuses.
>
> I give you a simple example of the extreme POV pushing that goes on
> by certain administrators
> I attempted to include in the "further reading" section of the
> zionism page, the 5-10 year academically researched book "zionism
> the real enemy of the jews" by Alan Hart. Now this was disallowed
> on the grounds of POV, yet if we look at the list on the zionism
> further reading section one has to wonder why these aren't POV yet
> the alan hart book is
>
> Sholom Aleichem. Why Do the Jews Need a Land of Their own?, 1898
> Paul Charles Merkley. The Politics of Christian Zionism 1891 ? 1948
> (London: Frank Cass, 1998)
> A. Dershowitz, The Case for Israel, Wiley, 2003 ISBN 0-471-46502-X.
>
> etc.
> yet of course my attempts to include it whilst it being repeatedly
> removed by slimvirgin, jaygy and humus sapien, are examples of my
> 'anti semitism'.
>
> If i were you jaygy i would be extremely embarassed by the episode
> of my ban, and be questioning whether such a clear case of
> injustice actually helps your goals.
>
>
>
>
>
>> From: jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com>
>> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] To: Jimmy Wales - Admin-driven death of
>> Wikipedia
>> Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 11:15:45 -0400
>>
>> On 6/4/06, BJ?rn Lindqvist <bjourne at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > There has never been a shortage of criticism of certain admin
>> actions.  A
>> > > high proportion of this has always been mud-slinging by those
>> rightly the
>> > > target of admin sanctions.
>> > >
>> > > The issue of 'bias' is better phrased another way.  Do admins
>> apply admin
>> > > powers in attempts to control article content, in a way that
>> is negative
>> > > from the point of view of compliance with fundamental policies
>> on content?
>> > > It turns out that it is much harder to make a good case of
>> this kind, than
>> > > to make general accusations on 'bias'.
>> >
>> > It is not. A user named Saladin1970 was recently indefinitely
>> banned
>> > by administrators because his political views was diametrically
>> > opposite to theirs.
>>
>> You mean the one who kept insisting that Britain's most prolific mass
>> murderer be identified as a "Jew" in the lead, the one who kept
>> inserting copyvios in other articles, kept logging out and using his
>> IP to violate 3RR, etc? That one?
>>
>> > There was absolutely no reason for that ban, and
>> > had Saladin1970's political views been better aligned with
>> theirs, he
>> > wouldn't have been blocked at all.
>>
>> Well, aside from his sly 3RR violations, his poorly written,
>> unsourced, POV, and arguably anti-Semitic insertions, his copyvios,
>> etc.
>>
>> > Since virtually all his edits were
>> > reverted solely because they were made by a blocked user, it
>> should be
>> > painstakingly clear that (some) admins apply admin powers in
>> attempts
>> > to control article content and that that is negative for Wikipedia.
>>
>> Actually, what is painstakingly clear is that not only were his edits
>> a net detriment to Wikipedia, but also that your posts on this list
>> are pretty much the same; uninformed, POV, and almost always
>> factually
>> incorrect. What is also painstakingly clear is that the only reason
>> you defend him (apart from your inevitably choosing the wrong-headed
>> position on any situation) is that his political views coincide with
>> your own.
>>
>> BJorn, you've been asked to stop projecting your own faults on
>> others;
>> if you cannot desist from this, at least please stop using this list
>> for doing so.
>>
>> > And it won't change, because despite the probably hundreds of
>> policies
>> > wikipedian-en has, not a single one of them says that when an admin
>> > fucks up that bad, s/he shouldn't be an admin.
>>
>> Well, except for all the admins who have been de-sysopped.
>>
>> > So while Saladin1970 is
>> > stuck with some weird arbitration thing with Fred Bauder,
>>
>> Saladin1970 is not involved "with some arbitration thing with Fred
>> Bauder".  Can you not even get the simplest facts straight?  He is
>> involved in an arbitration case with the Arbitration Committee.
>>
>> > the admins
>> > can continue their free roll. Saladin1970 is far from the only
>> case,
>> > he just happened to be particularly persistent and polite when
>> > complaining in this list.
>>
>> Actually, Saladin1970 indundated this list with a series of lengthy,
>> dubious, and often factually false e-mails; for example, his copyvios
>> would be pointed out to him time and again, yet he would still post
>> further lengthy diatribes insisting he had never been shown them, and
>> also insisting on apologies.  Much like you, he seems to have
>> completely missed (or avoided reading) every e-mail which detailed
>> the
>> actual behavioral reasons he was blocked, and instead concocted a
>> bizarre conspiracy theory which blamed admins for blocking him for
>> political reasons.  This, in fact, accords with his political
>> views in
>> general - the world is controlled by a conspiracy of secret forces
>> (and you can guess exactly who those secret forces are) - but there's
>> no reason why this list (or Wikipedia) need be subjected to them.
>>
>> Jay.
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Are you using the latest version of MSN Messenger? Download MSN
> Messenger 7.5 today! http://join.msn.com/messenger/overview
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] AFC needs your help!

references:
<fb7fdd9c0605220024h7fda292ax2c0051fe5f5dbd43@mail.gmail.com>
	<71cd4dd90606030746q7bec3b0erb12fb4c7cbe0132d@mail.gmail.com>
	<e5umr7$jrf$2@sea.gmane.org>

body:
On 6/4/06, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
>
> > Why not set up a system where each article proposed for creation
> > exists as a separate page.  And there could be a special page set up
> > which points to each of them.  This special page could list the date
> > and time created, the name of the proposed page, the number of bytes
> > of the page, and the username or  IP address of the proposer.
>
> Surely that would be equivalent to just letting unregistered users
> create pages again and having a Special page that simply lists all
> articles that have only ever been edited by IPs.
>
Yeah, that was my point.

Although, as I thought about it more, there would potentially be one
difference - "proposed" articles could live in a different namespace
(and have a warning at the top or whatever).

Anthony


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Community vs Encyclopedia

body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> On 6/3/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 6/3/06, Joe Anderson <computerjoe.mailinglist at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> However, four different viewpoints of the Wikipedia have emerged recently:
>>>
>>>   - It is an encyclopedia with a community
>>>   - It is a community with an encyclopedia
>>>   - It is an encyclopedia
>>>   - It is a community
>> Interesting. The dichotomy I most often see, that people have trouble
>> deciding on, is :
>>
>> - Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia
>> - Wikipedia is a project to create an encyclopaedia
>>
>> It's probably more of a naming thing than anything else, but it does
>> imply a point of view on whether the encyclopaedia has actually been
>> created yet. Is the online version of Wikipedia an encyclopaedia, or
>> is it a peek into a work in progress?
>>
>> Steve
>
> Depending on the context, the term "Wikipedia" is often used to
> describe each of those things.  I suppose one could do a study to see
> what the predominant usage is.  But this is mainly just a semantical
> argument.  Obviously there are many documents served by the
> wikipedia.org domain which are not part of the encyclopedia itself.
>
> The saying that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a ___" is also used
> rhetorically to remind people using the resources provided under the
> wikipedia.org domain name to focus on the end goal - creating an
> encyclopedia.
>
> There are a number of people who don't realize that the reason
> Wikipedia was created was to build and distribute a free encyclopedia.
>  There are a smaller number that realize this and still want to change
> it.  This latter group will most likely fail - there are way more
> people committed to sticking to the main goal.
>
> Frankly, I don't think there are many (if any) people on this mailing
> list who don't agree that anything not related to building an
> encyclopedia should be kept off of *.wikipedia.org (with the possible
> exception of sep11.wikipedia.org which was sort of grandfathered in).
> I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think there's much of a
> dichotomy in the first place.
>

Historically, Meta was the place where a lot of "community" stuff
happened. At some point (probably the first half of 2005) things which
would normally have been transwikied to meta: started appearing in the
Wikipedia: namespace, and staying there.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060604/f678da65/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] Types of categories

body:
Roger Luethi wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 19:54:27 +0200, Steve Bennett wrote:
>> I'm probably not the only one who envisages all the wonderful things
>> that could be done with this massive collection of information that is
>> Wikipedia, *if only* we could do something clever with the categories.
>> And then you realise that you can't really do anything clever because
>> "category" has all sorts of different meanings to different people.
>
> Agreed. Still: can you give some specific examples of wonderful things that
> could be done but are not possible now? That would tell us what problem you
> are trying to solve.
>
>> So far I have identified four rough types of categories. I'll invent
>> the notion a(X) to mean that article X is in category a. a(b(X)) means
>> that a is a subcategory of b, and X is in b.
>
> ITYM "b is a subcategory of a".
>
>> Taxonomies: Tend to end in "s" and satisfy the rule that "If a(X) then
>> X is an a") is a logical sentence. Tend to form strict hierarchies,
>> where if a(X) and b(a), then it's perfectly natural and normal that
>> b(a(X)). Eg, Bridges in France is a subcat of Bridges, and every entry
>> in "bridges in France" is definitely a Bridge.  It's rare for an
>> article to be in more than two taxonomic categories at once.
>
> "Bridges in France" may not be the best example. "Bridges in France" is
> just an intersection of two attributes ("in France", "Bridges"), and their
> relative position in a hierarchy is undefined. Hence more than one
> hierarchy: You can drill down "France" ... "Buildings and structurces in
> France" or "Bridges" ...  "Bridges by country".
<snip>

There are a few proposals on how to do this; most of them are in the
"See also" section of
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Category_math_feature>,
specifically CatScan
<http://tools.wikimedia.de/~daniel/WikiSense/CategoryIntersect.php> and
the MediaWiki extension DynamicPageList
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/DynamicPageList>; an extended version,
DPL2, is described at <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/DynamicPageList2>.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060604/0e5ba823/attachment.pgp


from_name: Alison Wheeler

subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed

body:
On Sun, June 4, 2006 02:56, Anthere wrote:
 since we have no procedure to close a resolution
> after it is proposed. I remember a complex discussion about this and I
> think the conclusion was that any resolution not approved should be
> considered failed.

Clearly a motion which fails to get a majority of vites falls, however the
present situation permits that, by this methodology of not
requiring/demanding a vote (yay or nay) from every board member that there
is a quite effective "hidden fillbuster" option available. It would be a
great improvement to require that all Board members *must* vote within a
set perdio (14 days should be more than sufficient) and that For, Against
and Abstain ballots are each counted and recorded.

Alison Wheeler


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed


from_name: Scott Stevenson

subject: [WikiEN-l] Time to start discussing solutions?

body:
Resid Gulerdem you are a PERMANENTLY BLOCKED EDITOR who has not only
been disruptive on English Wikipedia :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rgulerdem with corresponding
extensive block log:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Rgulerdem
but you've been disruptive in an entirely independent way on the
Turkish Wikipedia:
http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kullan?c?:Rgulerdem
Where you have also been repeatedly blocked:
http://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=?zel:Log&type=block&page=Kullan?c?:Rgulerdem

For you to be discussing policy at this point is ridiculous. You
should STEP AWAY from the project for at minimum 1 YEAR and then come
back to try and contribute as at this point it is surely likely that
you'll once again be disruptive when trying to formulate any sort of a
"policy" like [[WP:OURS]] through demonstrating the same types of
disruptive editor behaviour you've already repeatedly demonstrated
(involving WP:OWN, WP:3RR, WP:POINT, WP:NPA, and WP:CIV).

-Scott Stevenson [[User:Netscott]]

On 6/4/06, Resid Gulerdem <resid_gulerdem at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Regarding the [[WP:OURS]] proposal; there are some
> good suggestions in it, I believe:
>
> 1. [[WP:OURS]] is aiming to start a discussion about
> the '''solution''' to the main problem: admin-user
> relations. Isn't it time to start talking about
> solutions? How far are we going to discuss diffent
> versions of the same problem?
>
> 2. It is not complete but just a quick suggestion from
> my point of view. Can be and need to be modified.
>
> 3. Existence of some rejected proposals cannot imply
> that this one will follow the same path, can it? It is
> early to make a decision at this stage before
> discussing the proposal.
>
> 3. The good thing about the proposal is, it does not
> devaluate Wikigods and Wikigoddess and does not
> attempt to take their eternal status back. It does not
> propose radical changes but maybe a different look and
> acceptable variations of the current
> infrastructure. It just provides a windshield for
> ordinary users against strong, irresistible blows of
> Wikigod(des)s.
>
> 4. It provides a dynamic measure for popularity of
> admins.
>
> 5. It aims to educate new or old users, rather than
> irritate them.
>
> 6. It diagnose and tries to prevent the system from
> possible problems before they arise (by constructing
> study groups, etc., for example).
>
> 7. As discussed by some users, both community and
> encyclopedia are crucial components for Wikipedia. The
> problems are caused by the fact that '''the bridges
> between these two components are not efficient'''.
> [[WP:OURS]] is a simple but sincere attempt to
> strengthen, enhance and improve the efficiency of
> these bridges. I hope it gets enough attention.
>
> Regarding Wikiethics discussion:
>
> If you participated in Wikiethics discussion and now
> referring to that approval poll you are,
> unfortunately, distorting the facts. If you are new to
> that discussion, I would recommend you to review the
> comments carefully.
>
> Let me summarize what has happened quickly: A user,
> who dislike the proposal, unilaterally started the
> approval poll at a very early stage of the proposal. I
> then started another poll right after that to ask the
> community if an approval poll is needed at that stage.
> I, myself as the main proposer, haven't thought that
> the proposal is ready for putting to a vote. Then the
> poll I started to ask what people think about the
> timing of an approval poll vandalized many times:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics&diff=next&oldid=44384387
> or its place suddenly became a problem:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics&diff=44819924&oldid=44818149
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics&diff=45015662&oldid=45014949
> Nevertheless, the editors could have a chance to vote
> on the poll I started: 13 out of 17 said that it is
> not needed. So, the approval poll itself was not valid
> by the community consensus. Moveover if you can check
> the votes on the approval poll itself, some people are
> saying that the approval poll is not reasonable at
> that stage. These editors did not vote on the poll I
> started,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics/Archive/Do_we_need_a_poll_at_this_stage_Poll_31_April_2006
> simply because it was not available to them. So the
> numbers you reported does not reflect the case as is.
>
> Best,
>
> Resid
>
>
> >From: "Stephen Bain" <stephen.bain at gmail.com>
> >Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> >To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] status qou vs reform
> >Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 11:33:48 +1000
> >
> >On 6/3/06, Resid Gulerdem <resid_gulerdem at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >    I think one should not expect any action, in
> > > general, from the people who are well fed by the
> > > current structure which makes them feel superior,
> make
> > > any attempt towards a bit of change...
> >
> >There must be an awfully large number of people who
> are content with
> >the current structure, given that the general
> approval poll on your
> >Wikiethics proposal failed 3 to 38 [1]. Polls are
> evil, of course, and
> >not binding, but that level of rejection is fairly
> comprehensive, and
> >came from all sectors of the community. I would
> imagine that "OURS",
> >if it were ever formulated into a proposal, would
> receive a similar
> >amount of opposition for similar reasons.
> >
> >There are dozens of similar proposals put up every
> year. If any of
> >them actually received support from the community,
> they would be
> >successful. Admins are a miniscule 0.06% of
> registered users - even if
> >we always voted as a bloc, there is no way we could
> overrule a true
> >community movement.
> >
> >[1]
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics/Archive/Approval_Poll_31_April_2006
> >
> >--
> >Stephen Bain
> >stephen.bain at gmail.com
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: jayjg

body:
On 6/4/06, BJ?rn Lindqvist <bjourne at gmail.com> wrote:
> > There has never been a shortage of criticism of certain admin actions.  A
> > high proportion of this has always been mud-slinging by those rightly the
> > target of admin sanctions.
> >
> > The issue of 'bias' is better phrased another way.  Do admins apply admin
> > powers in attempts to control article content, in a way that is negative
> > from the point of view of compliance with fundamental policies on content?
> > It turns out that it is much harder to make a good case of this kind, than
> > to make general accusations on 'bias'.
>
> It is not. A user named Saladin1970 was recently indefinitely banned
> by administrators because his political views was diametrically
> opposite to theirs.

You mean the one who kept insisting that Britain's most prolific mass
murderer be identified as a "Jew" in the lead, the one who kept
inserting copyvios in other articles, kept logging out and using his
IP to violate 3RR, etc? That one?

> There was absolutely no reason for that ban, and
> had Saladin1970's political views been better aligned with theirs, he
> wouldn't have been blocked at all.

Well, aside from his sly 3RR violations, his poorly written,
unsourced, POV, and arguably anti-Semitic insertions, his copyvios,
etc.

> Since virtually all his edits were
> reverted solely because they were made by a blocked user, it should be
> painstakingly clear that (some) admins apply admin powers in attempts
> to control article content and that that is negative for Wikipedia.

Actually, what is painstakingly clear is that not only were his edits
a net detriment to Wikipedia, but also that your posts on this list
are pretty much the same; uninformed, POV, and almost always factually
incorrect. What is also painstakingly clear is that the only reason
you defend him (apart from your inevitably choosing the wrong-headed
position on any situation) is that his political views coincide with
your own.

BJorn, you've been asked to stop projecting your own faults on others;
if you cannot desist from this, at least please stop using this list
for doing so.

> And it won't change, because despite the probably hundreds of policies
> wikipedian-en has, not a single one of them says that when an admin
> fucks up that bad, s/he shouldn't be an admin.

Well, except for all the admins who have been de-sysopped.

> So while Saladin1970 is
> stuck with some weird arbitration thing with Fred Bauder,

Saladin1970 is not involved "with some arbitration thing with Fred
Bauder".  Can you not even get the simplest facts straight?  He is
involved in an arbitration case with the Arbitration Committee.

> the admins
> can continue their free roll. Saladin1970 is far from the only case,
> he just happened to be particularly persistent and polite when
> complaining in this list.

Actually, Saladin1970 indundated this list with a series of lengthy,
dubious, and often factually false e-mails; for example, his copyvios
would be pointed out to him time and again, yet he would still post
further lengthy diatribes insisting he had never been shown them, and
also insisting on apologies.  Much like you, he seems to have
completely missed (or avoided reading) every e-mail which detailed the
actual behavioral reasons he was blocked, and instead concocted a
bizarre conspiracy theory which blamed admins for blocking him for
political reasons.  This, in fact, accords with his political views in
general - the world is controlled by a conspiracy of secret forces
(and you can guess exactly who those secret forces are) - but there's
no reason why this list (or Wikipedia) need be subjected to them.

Jay.


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed

body:
> Looking at the recent changes to the foundation wiki, I see
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution_President, affirming
> you as President and authorizing you to make certain decisions,
> "failed to gain Board support".  I wonder: Who proposed that
> resolution?  Who voted for it?  Who voted against it?

This hasn't yet been voted on. It doesn't even have a Motion to Vote
yet. I've no idea why it would be regarded as rejected.

Angela.


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed


list: wikitech-l

subject: [Wikitech-l] Case inconsistency

body:
On 6/3/06, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
> Steve Bennett wrote:
> > ...I noticed today that someone had linked to
> > [[foreland]], whereas [[Foreland]] came up. There is currently no way
> > to force [[foreland]] to give a redlink. You either have to unlink it
> > entirely, link it and hope that someone will realise that they're not
> > at the right article, or go to [[Foreland]] and add a red dablink (a
> > very weird concept). All bad solutions.
>
> Actually, for what it's worth, I just thought of another way:
> [[The weather in London|foreland]].  (No, this isn't perfect, either.)

Heh, or linking to an article which redirects to the non-existant
[[foreland]]? Never tried a red redirect...hmm.

Steve


body:
On 6/4/06, Resid Gulerdem <resid_gulerdem at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dear Scott,
>
> What is your panic for? My account is blocked, yes!
> This is the third time you are repeating the same
> thing on this list. I disclosed that at the beginning
> of the proposal too. I hope people smart enough here
> to see that you are trying to denounce the proposal by
> mud-throwing at me. I expect you will continue doing
> so to distract the attention of the community from the
> proposal itself. I had issues with some admins,
> blocked at the end and '''that is why I know the
> admin-abuse problem by heart'''.

Actually, you appear to be a classic example of the much more common
kind of "admin-abuse"; that is, difficult editors abusing admins who
have been far too patient with them to begin with.  What's worse, you
appear to be one of the new breed of that kind of abusive editor, the
kind who feels that if they can't push their POV and other policy
abuses onto Wikipedia by force, they will do it via the back-door,
through policy change.

Jay.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Types of categories

body:
On 6/4/06, Roger Luethi <collector at hellgate.ch> wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 17:27:59 -0400, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> > > Categories based on such intersections of attributes are conceptually bad.
> > > Look at the categories for an article like [[Marie Curie]]: She's French
> > > three times, female four times, Polish four times (not counting "Natives of
> > > Warsaw"), etc. Why not create [[Category:Polish women who were born in
> > > 1867 and died in 1934 and won a Nobel Prize in Chemistry and in Physics]]?
> >
> > Because there would only be one person in that category.
>
> That's why nobody made it, but not why it shouldn't be done.
>
I'd say it's both.  There shouldn't be categories with only one
article in them.  IMO that's just common sense.

In the current system categories should have a fair number of articles
in them.  If there are too many, they should be broken up.  If there
are too few, they should be combined.  There isn't a crystal clear
line what constitutes too many and what constitutes too few, but a
category with only one article in it clearly has too few.

The problem of categories having too many articles in them wouldn't
really be a problem if the software allowed you to automatically
compute category intersections.  But the software doesn't do this, so
people make do with what they've got.

> It would be nigh impossible to do well because once we start combining
> attributes to create new categories, we are looking at maintaining links
> between articles and an exploding number of subcategories.
>
> But even if we maintained a complete and up-to-date system of subcats, we'd
> still make it hard for people to find articles using categories. For some
> fairly sensible reasons, the rule is to include articles only to the
> subcategory, but not to the parent. There is no way to list articles based
> on a subset of criteria (the articles in subcategories are effectively
> hidden on separate pages which is only helpful if you know which one to
> pick).
>
> > If the category system could effectively build these intersection
> > categories on the fly, I'd agree.  But the category system can't
> > currently do that.  (And it's been around a reasonably long time, with
> > that as an obvious flaw, and no one has fixed it.)
>
> You are right, we can't effectively build these intersection categories on
> the fly at the moment, but we _could_ automatically create or update such
> intersection categories if the categories weren't the mess that Steve and
> you describe. Kind of like the search index.
>
You're right.  And that's what my simple rule that "All subcategories
of attributes must be a subset of the parent attribute" is meant to
address.  If that were the case, it would be possible to automatically
recursively descend a parent category to find *all* the articles to
which it applies.  And then computing the intersection of any two
parent categories would be possible.  I actually had software which
did this, but it doesn't work right because the subcategory rule isn't
being followed.

Once the software is written to compute intersections of categories
within the Mediawiki software, it would be relatively simple to
recategorize the articles into their parent categories, such that no
information was lost.  The way this would be done is that all articles
in a subcategory which had multiple parent attribute categories would
be automatically moved into the parent categories.  This would be
repeated until no such situations continued to exist.  The ad-hoc
structure could still be kept, but it could be calculated on the fly
(along with new types of intersections which could be easily added).

(Now that I do this on an example, I see that this algorithm would
probably have to be tweaked to deal with subcatgories of
[[Category:Categories by topic]], but that's not too bad.)

> > > > Attributes: The category exists to denote some very specific small
> > > > detail of a subject, such that it would be conceivable to have dozens
> > > > or more such categories on an article. Examples: 1943 deaths, Living
> > > > persons, Winners of Nobel Peace Prize, etc. These tend to hierarchies
> > > > that start strict then end up fuzzy. Eg, 1943 deaths is only in 1943
> > > > and "1940s deaths", and these have parent categories of
> > > > "1940s","Years" and so forth, eventually ending up in "History",
> > > > whereupon things become chaos.
> > >
> > > There is no way to make hierarchies not suck, especially if you have to
> > > maintain them manually (as we do now). Don't try to impose hierarchies
> > > unless they emerge quite naturally from the subject.
> > >
> > I made a proposal.  All subcategories of attributes must be a subset
> > of the parent attribute.  Seems like a perfectly reasonable way to
> > make hierarchies not suck.
>
> The devil is in the details.
>
> For instance, how do you connect the districts of Paris to the category
> Paris? What is a subset of the parent attribute "Paris": "Districts of
> Paris", or "Quartier Latin", or neither? Does it bother you if the article
> on a French district is now in a subcategory of "Capitals in Europe"?
>
[[Category:Paris]] is a theme, not an attribute, so [[Category:Paris]]
should not be a subcategory of [[Category:Capitals in Europe]].

> Or going back to [[Category:Women]]: You could declare that only articles
> on instances of women (i.e.  biographies) can ever be under that category,
> and that only sets of such articles can ever be subcategories of the
> category women. -- You could even create a separate [[Category:Woman]],
> subcategories like "female reproductive organs" containing articles like
> uterus. -- But how would you express the undisputed relationship between
> female human beings and your example [[Category:Feminine hygiene]]? How
> about [[Category:Women's rights]]? Add an umbrella cat "Somehow related to
> women" maybe?
>
> Roger

[[Category:Women]] could be a subcategory of [[Category:Woman]].
Making an attribute a subcategory of a theme is allowed, it is the
reverse that is not allowed.

In any event, things wouldn't be perfect.  Ultimately the best
solution would involve fixing the category system itself, a process
which should be approached carefully so as to avoid making the same
mistakes all over again.  The advantage of my proposal to not allow
themes as subcategories of attributes is that it can be implemented
today, without much disruption, and without modifying any code.  Plus,
it allows for a relatively straightforward upgrade path when the
category system is fixed.  The proposal itself is not the fix, it's a
temporary workaround.

As an alternative, it would probably be possible to do all of this
even without enforcing the subcategory rule.  But all purely attribute
categories would have to be identified as such.  I'll have to think
about that.

Anthony


from_name: Stephen Bain

subject: [WikiEN-l] status qou vs reform

body:
On 6/3/06, Resid Gulerdem <resid_gulerdem at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>    I think one should not expect any action, in
> general, from the people who are well fed by the
> current structure which makes them feel superior, make
> any attempt towards a bit of change...

There must be an awfully large number of people who are content with
the current structure, given that the general approval poll on your
Wikiethics proposal failed 3 to 38 [1]. Polls are evil, of course, and
not binding, but that level of rejection is fairly comprehensive, and
came from all sectors of the community. I would imagine that "OURS",
if it were ever formulated into a proposal, would receive a similar
amount of opposition for similar reasons.

There are dozens of similar proposals put up every year. If any of
them actually received support from the community, they would be
successful. Admins are a miniscule 0.06% of registered users - even if
we always voted as a bloc, there is no way we could overrule a true
community movement.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics/Archive/Approval_Poll_31_April_2006

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Wikitech-l] title case mapping and Wiktionary links

body:
Phil Boswell wrote:

>Steve Summit wrote:
>
>
>><snip/>
>>At some point, once Tim recovers from (or becomes inured to) his
>>horror at sending us down this slippery slope in this hell-bent
>>handbasket, we can think about introducing a proper built-in
>>{{exists:}} operator, to eliminate the need for the bizarre
>>compare-the-substitution-to-the-redlink hack.  (Though I *am*
>>appreciative of whoever devised it...)
>>
>>
>This has now been done, for anybody interested:
>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/ParserFunctions#.23ifexist:
>
This is all very welcome.  Does it or can it extend to words that differ
only by the presence, absence or variation of diacritics?  A dictionary
that aspires to include all words in all languages faces some
significant challenges in making these terms accessible to people who
have no idea about how to enter words with diacritics in the search
box.  Some _may_ be able to handle letters that fall within ISO 8859-1,
but even they will have significant difficulties when things get a
little more exotic.

Ec


list: commons-l

from_name: W. Guy Finley

subject: [Commons-l] Official paintings held by the U.S. Government

body:
I?m usually very conservative on this type of issue (siding with copyright
holders) but I agree with Jim 100% and this email does a great job of
clarifying a muddled situation.  I think too often Corel is thrown out there
in Fair Use debates but I think is one of the first correct applications of
it that I have seen.

--Guy  (En & Commons: Wgfinley)

On 6/4/06 11:22 AM, "Jim" <trodel at gmail.com> wrote:

> Someone questioned, Bill Alman, the White House curator who said:
>>
>> Generally, the portraits are property of the federal government and are in
>> the public domain. In the case of the White House portraits, the photograph
>> of the portrait may have copyright restrictions, but that it should be
>> generally okay to use the images as long as the publisher of the electronic
>> image is credited.
>
> The problem is that for some reason people in the discussion, are focusing on
> the fact that copyright and ownership are seperate rights - and refuse to
> acknowledge that the curator was clearly identifying the ownership of both
> property rights by saying "the portraits are property of the federal
> government [ownership of the portraits] and are in the public domain
> [copyright status]."
>
> The curator then showed a very sophisticated understanding of US copyright law
> by making a distinction between the copyright in the work itself (which is in
> the public domain), and the copyright of a photo which may or may not be
> copyrighted depending on your view of the line of reasoning in Bridgeman Art
> Library v. Corel Corp.
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.> which held
> that exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected
> by copyright because the copies lack originality. Where there is signifant
> originality there would be copyright in the photograph seperate from the
> portrait.
>
> The curator seems, very wisely, IMHO, to refrain from giving an opinion about
> the copyright of any reproductions (photographs) of the portraits while
> drawing the attention to the questioner that this could be an issue. He even
> very clearly identifies that the only copyright issue in question is whether
> one is claimed by the "publisher of the electronic image."
>
> Thus, the portraits themselves being properly commissioned by the US and
> having the copyright transferred to the US govt - thus becoming "public
> domain" as identified by the curator are public domain works. The only issue
> is whether the photo itself is copyrighted.
>
> This is also resolvable in one of 2 ways:
> 1. Determination that the photos lack sufficient originality, thus the
> photographer can not claim copyright in the photo of a public domain work
> (following Bridgeman)
> 2. Assuming that there is sufficient originality, so we need to find the
> copyright status of the photo seperate from the one in the portrait:
>> 1. If they are photos posted by the US govt and copied to wikipedia from
>> there - then those are clearly in the public domain as a work of the US govt.
>> 2. If the photo was taken by a contributor - then we should refer to his
>> license in uploading the work.
> Personally, my review of the photos in question indicate that they clearly
> fall under the Bridgeman decision and the photographer can not claim a
> copyright in them as there is not the sufficient originality by the
> photographer
>
> Jim
>
> On 6/3/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>> I think there is no easy answer.  It would be best to contact the exact
>> office or institution which commissioned them and ask for a letter
>> clarifying the copyright status.
>>
>> It is possible that the government purchased both the copyright and the
>> physical object, but also possible that the government merely purchased
>> the physical object.
>>
>> Fredrik Josefsson wrote:
>>> > This issue has been discussed for a while now. First
>>> > on English Wikipedia, now on Commons.
>>> >
>>> > The discussion on Commons can be found at:
>>> >
>>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Deletion_requests#Official_painti
>>> ngs_held_by_the_U.S._Government
>>> <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Deletion_requests#Official_paint
>>> ings_held_by_the_U.S._Government>
>>> >
>>> > A lengthy debate on English Wikipedia is at:
>>> >
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/US_government_
>>> portraits
>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/US_government
>>> _portraits>
>>> >
>>> > The debate in short: The paintings are not Work of the
>>> > United States Government, they were made by artists on
>>> > commission. Can they be used as public domain?
>>> >
>>> > / Fred

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20060604/d042d953/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Community vs Encyclopedia

body:
On 6/4/06, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
>
> Well, IMO we should certainly keep the main working copy a perpetual
> work in progress, unless we expect that there will come a time when
> we've finished producing the perfect encyclopedia to which no
> improvements can be made.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_last_page

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed

body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> On 6/3/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>>> It's cute calling an organization "transparent" when even the board
>>> members don't even know whether a resolution has been rejected.
>> I rest my case.  Anthony is not being serious here, he is trolling.
>>
> As usual when someone criticises you you call them a troll.  And you
> even privately threatened to ban me from the list.

Not at all.  I welcome criticism, of me, of the project, of the board.
But criticisms should be thoughtful and well-reasoned, not completely
random and wild-eyed.

In this thread, I can single out both Erik Zachte and Delirium for
posting thoughtful dissent about various things, and that is very much
welcomed.  (They are not the only two, of course.)

The bit acccusing Angela of not even knowing whether a resolution had be
rejected or not was just wildly over the top.  And you know it.

--Jimbo


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed

body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> By the way, you still haven't answered who made the proposal to
> install you as President.

I explained it fully.  The resolution was proposed when it seemed that
we might need something simple to show the German courts.  When that
became unnecessary, we never bothered to complete it.

I would not even call it a "proposal".  It was in the drafting stages. I
 do not remember now who wrote what was there... possibly it was me.

--Jimbo


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed


subject: [Foundation-l] Re :  Where we are headed

body:
Traroth wrote:
> The Foundation has more and more work, so question is not if more
> people is to be involved. That's obvious. Question is if *the
> community* is to be more and more involved.

And the answer is: yes.

> Yeah ? Then just say where this important decisions are discussed,
> because I don't know, and I think i'm not the only one. Obviously not
> on this mailing-list...

Important decisions are discussed here on this mailing list, on the
wiki, in public irc meetings, in private emails (i.e. often people have
questions, and just email privately, and get a private answer).

Could communications be improved?  Yes, of course, but this is something
we have all known for a long time.  I believe that the core problem is
not a lack of information flow, but excessive flow of raw information
which makes it hard for anyone to keep up with it all.

>> I think you have completely failed to comprehend the seriousness of
>> the issues facing the business side of the foundation.  It is *not*
>> just about paying the bills and refreshing domain subscriptions.
>> We are growing inevitably into a major enterprise with a
>> multi-million dollar annual budget.  There is no way around that,
>> other than simply refusing to grow and letting the site run slow
>> because we don't have the servers.
> (...)
>
> Yeah, but that's some years ahead. For the moment, it's not the case,
> so each thing in its time. Lucky enough you don't let build some
> skyscraper, because some day, it could be necessary as a headquarter.

That is *not* "some years ahead"... it is *today*.

--Jimbo


body:
Sustained aggressive tendentious editing.

Fred

On Jun 4, 2006, at 10:48 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:

> On 6/4/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>
>> Wrong, going through Jayjg's posts would not show a "pattern of
>> extreme POV pushing". It would show a few instances of POV edits.
>> There is a huge difference. I have criticized Jayjg sharply but what
>> you are saying is not based on his record. It is a gross
>> exaggeration.
>>
>
> Formal definition of "POV pushing" required. Anyone?
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office

body:
Andrew Lih wrote:
> But you can also make the case that getting professionals to do the
> work that needs to be done (legal, finance, fundraising, etc.)
> offloads those tasks so that the "strength of the amateurs" can be
> more productively tapped and scaled up to keep Wikipedia evolving in
> what it does best.

I think this is a really important point.  For me, one of the most
important aspects of bringing in some professional staff is precisely to
allow me, an amateur, a community member, to do what I do best, which is
work in the community as a volunteer to help organize and focus
discussions about how to achieve our charitable goals.

There are some things that the foundation has traditionally done quite
well, and some things we have traditionally done quite badly.  As we
have grown, the opportunities missed by the fact that we do some things
badly have grown as well.

As an example: donor relations.  We finally managed to send out a proper
thank-you card to people who donated money last holiday season, but we
have no program in place to stay in contact with larger donors who might
be easily encouraged to donate more.  Why do we not do this?  Simply
put: there has been no means available to do it.  We have every reason
to think that, done well, a little money spent in this area could have
great rewards.

Ideally, the foundation should be run to optimally empower the community
to fulfill the fundamental charitable goals of the foundation.  (At the
core: to give a free encyclopedia to every single person on the planet.)

This will take many different kinds of people, with many different kinds
of relationships to the foundation.  It takes editors and writers.  It
takes people to run the tech side of things.  It takes fundraising,
legal, finance.  It takes business partnerships.  It takes people who
work primarily on the wiki, people who work best in email, people who
enjoy irc meetings, people who can do face-to-face outreach to other
organizations, people who can interact with the press, etc.

A big mistake is for any of us to accidentally overvalue our own
contribution, and think that the contributions of others is not important.

--Jimbo


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office

body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> As for Daniel Mayer being CFO, I think a large portion of what he does
> (at least, what I've seen him do) could easily (and rather
> inexpensively) be outsourced.  Sure, someone internal needs to decide
> on a budget to submit to the board for approval, but that shouldn't be
> an enormous time-waster.  I've seen it done effectively many times by
> volunteer committees with absolutely no finance or business
> background.

I think this seriously undervalues the contribution Mav has made in this
role.  His deep understanding of the projects, the community, the
financial needs, and his staying on top of the spending, etc., has been
of enormous value, and I do not think that it could have been easily
outsourced at all.

--Jimbo


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office


from_name: Jim

body:
Someone questioned, Bill Alman, the White House curator who said:

Generally, the portraits are property of the federal government and are in
the public domain. In the case of the White House portraits, the photograph
of the portrait may have copyright restrictions, but that it should be
generally okay to use the images as long as the publisher of the electronic
image is credited.

The problem is that for some reason people in the discussion, are focusing
on the fact that copyright and ownership are seperate rights - and refuse to
acknowledge that the curator was clearly identifying the ownership of both
property rights by saying "the portraits are property of the federal
government [ownership of the portraits] and are in the public domain
[copyright status]."

The curator then showed a very sophisticated understanding of US copyright
law by making a distinction between the copyright in the work itself (which
is in the public domain), and the copyright of a photo which may or may not
be copyrighted depending on your view of the line of reasoning in Bridgeman
Art Library v. Corel
Corp.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.>which
held that exact photographic copies of public domain images could not
be protected by copyright because the copies lack originality. Where there
is signifant originality there would be copyright in the photograph seperate
from the portrait.

The curator seems, very wisely, IMHO, to refrain from giving an opinion
about the copyright of any reproductions (photographs) of the portraits
while drawing the attention to the questioner that this could be an issue.
He even very clearly identifies that the only copyright issue in question is
whether one is claimed by the "publisher of the electronic image."

Thus, the portraits themselves being properly commissioned by the US and
having the copyright transferred to the US govt - thus becoming "public
domain" as identified by the curator *are public domain works*. The only
issue is whether the photo itself is copyrighted.

This is also resolvable in one of 2 ways:

   1. Determination that the photos lack sufficient originality, thus the
   photographer can not claim copyright in the photo of a public domain work
   (following Bridgeman)
   2. Assuming that there is sufficient originality, so we need to find
   the copyright status of the photo seperate from the one in the portrait:
      1. If they are photos posted by the US govt and copied to
      wikipedia from there - then those are clearly in the public
domain as a work
      of the US govt.
      2. If the photo was taken by a contributor - then we should
      refer to his license in uploading the work.

Personally, my review of the photos in question indicate that they clearly
fall under the Bridgeman decision and the photographer can not claim a
copyright in them as there is not the sufficient originality by the
photographer

Jim

On 6/3/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>
> I think there is no easy answer.  It would be best to contact the exact
> office or institution which commissioned them and ask for a letter
> clarifying the copyright status.
>
> It is possible that the government purchased both the copyright and the
> physical object, but also possible that the government merely purchased
> the physical object.
>
> Fredrik Josefsson wrote:
> > This issue has been discussed for a while now. First
> > on English Wikipedia, now on Commons.
> >
> > The discussion on Commons can be found at:
> >
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Deletion_requests#Official_paintings_held_by_the_U.S._Government
> >
> > A lengthy debate on English Wikipedia is at:
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/US_government_portraits
> >
> > The debate in short: The paintings are not Work of the
> > United States Government, they were made by artists on
> > commission. Can they be used as public domain?
> >
> > / Fred
>

--
Jim (trodel at gmail.com)
"Our love may not always be reciprocated, or
even appreciated, but love is never wasted"
- Neal A Maxwell
---Intersted in Gmail - let me know I have invites---
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20060604/1b489d9d/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request

body:
Two times checkuser confirmed what was obvious from your editing
pattern. You are a sockpuppet of Rgulerdem. It is possible you have
something to contribute, but so far you have edited one article in a
tendentious way and when blocked created sockpuppets and continued
the pattern. When you are ready to come clean and discuss the
underlying problems perhaps you can be unblocked. I am not quite sure
why Rgulerdem was blocked in the first place, but double checked the
checkuser results myself.

Fred

On Jun 4, 2006, at 12:01 PM, Nurdan Isik wrote:

> Hi Guyz,
> I hope I do not interrupt you from low level cold-word-wars but if
> you do not mind I had a request last year. I am still blocked from
> editin and believe or not still waitin. Recently I heard that
> someone is unblocked and that generated hope in my broken heart.
> can admins remember my request and unblock me from editing too?!...
> Sorry for interrupting again. [[User:TheLightning]] - a poor user
> forgotten in grief


from_name: Daniel Kinzler

subject: [Commons-l] Deleting the old WeatherBot images

body:
> Could we just "turn off" CommonsTicker for 15 hours? Luckily there's
> not too many, yet...

No need - by now, I wrote a filter to ignore all the weather map
deletions. It just would have been nice to know in advance...

-- Daniel

--
Homepage: http://brightbyte.de


from_name: Traroth

body:
Jimmy Wales a ?crit :

>In particular, the "increasingly" perception is the one I want to
>combat, by trying to make it more clear how things are done, and how
>things have transitioned and continue to transition to having a lot more
>people involved.
>(...)

The Foundation has more and more work, so question is not if more people is to be involved. That's obvious. Question is if *the community* is to be more and more involved.

>I think we try really hard to do this, whenever possible.  I am unaware
>of any major changes of direction which were not openly discussed until
>something approaching consensus is reached.  Of course, this list does
>have some trolls, but almost everyone contributing here has a strong
>voice in the future course of the foundation in every way.
>(...)

Yeah ? Then just say where this important decisions are discussed, because I don't know, and I think i'm not the only one. Obviously not on this mailing-list...

>Surely you can see that this is exhausting for us.  It is not the
>working with community which is exhausting... that part is the most
>rewarding.  It is the unfair criticism when people who have not bothered
>to take part, not bothered to learn what is going on, suddenly pop up
>and scream bloody murder because they were not consulted.
>(...)

I think that's really unfair, because most of the people contributing on this thread  *bother* to take part, and never had a chance to do so. And that's *exactly* what they are complaining about !

>Why would anyone assume that the board would be headed towards slendid
>isolation?  You have a strong commitment from all existing board members
>to preserve the essential community spirit of Wikipedia while at the
>same time recognizing that service on the board requires input and
>expertise from a variety of different kinds of people.  What seems
>obvious to me is that we need a variety of different routes to board
>membership, including election in some cases, but also including
>recruitment based on expertise that we need.

To the thema isolation of the board : hiring paid board members could be technically a good solution, but for sure, the guys who hired them can fire them, so they are not independant decision-makers, but only obedient people. Consequently, instead of decision-makers refleceting the will of the community, we get decision-makers reflecting the will of those who have hired them.

>Why do you suppose that an outsider would be chosen for this?
>(...)

How could we suppose it's not the case ?

>I think you have completely failed to comprehend the seriousness of the
>issues facing the business side of the foundation.  It is *not* just
>about paying the bills and refreshing domain subscriptions.  We are
>growing inevitably into a major enterprise with a multi-million dollar
>annual budget.  There is no way around that, other than simply refusing
>to grow and letting the site run slow because we don't have the servers.
(...)

Yeah, but that's some years ahead. For the moment, it's not the case, so each thing in its time. Lucky enough you don't let build some skyscraper, because some day, it could be necessary as a headquarter.

>But this feeling is coming from where?  That is what I am finding
>puzzling.  We are here, the board, before you, among you, as always...
>and to be accused of paternalism is... well, it is sad, given all that
>we have done and all that we value.

The board is *not* representative of the community, and is taking the most important decisions, and, despiste what you say, without real consultation, or even without clear annoucement, so my feeling is that the motto of the Board is something like : just let the board care.

>You may want to consider that you have jumped to some conclusions
>incorrectly...

It seems to me it hits the nail on the head.

Traroth


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

body:
On 6/3/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> I think there is no easy answer.  It would be best to contact the exact
> office or institution which commissioned them and ask for a letter
> clarifying the copyright status.
>
> It is possible that the government purchased both the copyright and the
> physical object, but also possible that the government merely purchased
> the physical object.
>
And in either scenario it's possible that the work is not in the
public domain.  As is stated in 17 U.S.C. ? 105, "the United States
Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights
transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise."


from_name: Nurdan Isik

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request

body:
>From: "Peter Ansell" <ansell.peter at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request
>Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2006 22:30:11 +1000
>
>On 6/2/06, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 6/2/06, Nurdan Isik <brightlightning at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >    Hi all,
> > >    I would like to report a 'misunderstanding' and ask someone please
> > > correct it:
> >
> > As Freakofnurture said on WP:ANI, Occam's razor would seem to apply
>here.
> >
>
>I also received that message and didn't want to forward as it does
>look as you say, however, I think that a concerned post written in
>non-hostile language should deserve a respectable reply. ie, a
>non-involved party so far running a checkuser on it. Are we really
>that dismissive of requests?
>
>Peter Ansell
>_______________________________________________

Hi Guyz,
I hope I do not interrupt you from low level cold-word-wars but if you do
not mind I had a request last year. I am still blocked from editin and
believe or not still waitin. Recently I heard that someone is unblocked and
that generated hope in my broken heart. can admins remember my request and
unblock me from editing too?!... Sorry for interrupting again.
[[User:TheLightning]] - a poor user forgotten in grief

_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee?
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963


from_name: James D. Forrester

subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed

body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:

> On 6/3/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
 >
> > Anthony DiPierro wrote:
 > >
> > > It's cute calling an organization "transparent" when even the board
> > > members don't even know whether a resolution has been rejected.
 > >
> > I rest my case.  Anthony is not being serious here, he is trolling.
>
> As usual when someone criticises you you call them a troll.  And you
> even privately threatened to ban me from the list.
>
> Banning people from the list for criticising the God-King.  That's
> also really transparent.  I hope such a thing is seen for what it is.
>
> And no, I won't stop my criticism of you on the list unless I have
> people *other than you* who are bothered by it.

Oh, Anthony, do be a dear and shut up, please. It's not amusing, it's
/certainly/ not mature, and it's becoming increasingly irritating for
you to continue to post to the lists in the current fashion.

Feel free to count me as someone "other than [Jimbo]" who is bothered by
it. Half the time you provide constructive criticism - and that is of
course welcomed - but, well, really... If you can't tell when you cross
the line into massive assumptions of bad faith, seemingly-deliberate
poor assumptions, and, essentially, "trolling", then maybe it would be
for the best if you were no longer to post here.

Note: In normal circumstances, this would of course be sent privately in
order to avoid the blushes of the recipient. However, in this situation
all that would lead to is Anthony making veiled comments about such a
missive, ones that wouldn't exactly ring true with what I had said.

Yours sincerely,
--
James D. Forrester
Wikimedia : [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]
E-Mail    : james at jdforrester.org
IM (MSN)  : jamesdforrester at hotmail.com


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed


from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Wikitech-l] Some statistics I wish I had...

body:
I would expect the "length of service" to be fairly short, if anons are counted.

Mark

On 04/06/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> (Sorry for the cross posting, but there are several groups who might
> find this interesting.)
>
> For years now, it has been common for people to claim that "all the good
> editors are jumping ship" or "we are losing our best people".
> Generally, this has not proven to be true: people come and go, to be
> sure, but as some people drift away, others have drifted in.  Whether
> the rate of burnout is "too high" or "too low" or "just right" is quite
> hard to say.
>
> However, it ought to be possible to at least quantify what that rate
> actually is, by using the Erik Zachte statistics or a modification of them.
>
> I would be fascinated if we could figure out such statistics as
>
> "For any given edit, what is the average length of service of the
> editor?"  "For any given edit, what is the median length of service of
> the editor?"  These could be measured by either time since first edit,
> or total number of edits or (perhaps best) some weighted average of the
> edit history.
>
> It would be nice to track that number over time... are we becoming
> "younger" as a community, "older" as a community?  Staying about the
> same?  Are old-timers sticking around longer than they used to, or
> jumping ship faster?
>
> There are also a whole set of related questions around newbies:
>
> Are newbies more likely to stick around, or less likely to stick around,
> than they were a year ago.  Some people feel we are being overrun by
> newbies, others feel that we are becoming a more closed and cliqueish
> community which does not welcome newbies.
>
> I would measure this by saying "Of people who made at least 100 edits a
> month ago, how many of them made at least 100 edits this month".  And
> similar stats for "at least 10 edits".  (Merely looking at "new
> accounts" would not be right, because we had a huge spike in new account
> creation when it became necessary to have an account to create a new page.)
>
> --Jimbo
>
>
> --
> #######################################################################
> #    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
> #    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
> #######################################################################
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>

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


body:
On Jun 4, 2006, at 12:28 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:

> On 6/4/06, James D. Forrester <james at jdforrester.org> wrote:
>
>> Steve Bennett wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Formal definition of "POV pushing" required. Anyone?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, oh yes, absolutely, yes please. Let's wikilawyer ourselves to
>> death, defining anything and everything to maximal precision and
>> minimal
>> accuracy. I can't wait.
>>
>
> Currently there seems to be confusion over the term. Maybe you could
> just answer these questions instead:
> * does POV pushing have to be intentional?

No, but discussion of the editing must prove fruitless.

> * does POV pushing have to be in bad faith?

No, but again discussion of the editing must prove fruitless.

> * is someone who is genuinely correcting bias in an article "POV
> pushing"?

No.

> * is someone who *thinks* they're doing the above (but is actually
> introducing bias) "POV pushing"?

Yes; again, the test is whether discussing the situation with them
corrects the problem.

> * is systematically adding examples of your own country, culture,
> religion, language etc to a wide range of articles "POV pushing"?

Could be. If your examples result in introduction of  inappropriate
or insignificant viewpoints into a number of articles it would be. To
take a well known example, it is inappropriate to add the views of
Lyndon LaRouche to every political or economics article. Another
recent example was an editor who went through all the biographies
adding the information that every Jewish person about whom there was
a biography was Jewish. Sometimes nationality or race is irrelevant.

Fred

>
> Thanks,
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>