body:
On Thursday 20 July 2006 13:21, Anthere wrote:
> > I've been very impressed with everything that The Wikimedia Foundation
> > has been creating while I've been gone, and I consider myself very lucky
> > to be doing my stuff with the help of Angela and Sannse at Wikia.
>
> You aware that Wikia and Wikimedia Foundation are two different
> entities, right ?
>
Yes.

I originally came to foundation-l earlier this month to ask for some expert
guidance about starting The Perl Wiki, and all that I previously knew about
was Wikipedia and Wiktionary, because I've used them to learn about many
things.  I'm always searching to identify what is wrong with my CNS, because
what I'm suffering from is very rare, if not unique, and the doctors don't
have a clue, so I'm just a little brain chemistry experiment to them.  The
physical disability is no fun at all, but at least I've got my mind back to
work finally, and I'm restarting my life, and I lived through a hell for my
two young girls. :)

Angela started up http://perl.wikia.com for me, and I been over there
inventing the structure of The Perl Wiki since then, but I haven't got enough
help yet to start producing the content that the Perl Wikipedians demand for
me to link into the Perl article.  I've got one systems programmer helping me
out.

> > James, or Jimbo, I'd like to meet you too, someday. :)
> >
> > Will someone please put this good thing on his desk today, so that he and
> > everyone else on the board can sign it off and get it done for the public
> > good.
>
> If you can find a way to make Jimbo sign/vote stuff, please tell me the
> secret :-) I am interested.
>
Be crazy enough to ask for "The Right Thing" to happen at "The Right Time." :)

> On a serious note, the spc is considering the creation of it. I intend
> the committee to give its opinion before Wikimania on the topic. It
> would be real cool if we could announce that at that time :-)
>
Now I'll learn about Wikimania.

> Then, after committee approval, we have roughly two options. We must
> submit it for board approval, which requires at least 3 approval, so at
> least 3 votes (there are 5 board members).
> Option 1 : submit it to the board and wait for the 3 votes. This may
> take a very long time.
> Option 2 : submit it with a maximum delay, after which only votes given
> are taken into account.
>
> In the past few days, I have been considering the three levels, data,
> information and knowledge. Most of our projects are actually providing
> "information". Wiktionary is rather providing "data". Wikibooks is
> sometimes providing "information" but it is sometimes wandering in
> "knowledge". Wikiversity will definitly entering the field of knowledge
> and this is what worried editors the most (the teaching part). Still, if
> I look well, the Foundation is claiming bringing knowledge. I see no
> reason why this project should not be started.
>

I don't believe that this should be so complicated.  Please read my personal
apology at the bottom of
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikiversity#Wikiversity_.E2.80.93_Final_Push

The 5 board members are actually living, breathing and thinking human beings
with the full mental capacity to be very proactive for "The Right Thing" to
happen at "The Right Time," and that is today, now and ASAP.  So much has
already been lost in this great delay.  The real shame is that some very good
people have simply walked away from supporting this very good thing.  I've
seen it, because it's in the record.  It's time for the 5 board members to
show some of their own "joyful" enthusiasm to actively bring this good thing
to fruition, or just kill it outright, so that it can find a better home in
this world.

What is The Truth?

Thanks,

Eric

> Ant
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20060720/4db63431/attachment.pgp>


list: wikimedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Eric R. Meyers

subject: [Foundation-l] Please implement the [[Wikiversity:Main_Page]]

body:
On Thursday 20 July 2006 13:21, Anthere wrote:
> > I've been very impressed with everything that The Wikimedia Foundation
> > has been creating while I've been gone, and I consider myself very lucky
> > to be doing my stuff with the help of Angela and Sannse at Wikia.
>
> You aware that Wikia and Wikimedia Foundation are two different
> entities, right ?
>
Yes.

I originally came to foundation-l earlier this month to ask for some expert
guidance about starting The Perl Wiki, and all that I previously knew about
was Wikipedia and Wiktionary, because I've used them to learn about many
things.  I'm always searching to identify what is wrong with my CNS, because
what I'm suffering from is very rare, if not unique, and the doctors don't
have a clue, so I'm just a little brain chemistry experiment to them.  The
physical disability is no fun at all, but at least I've got my mind back to
work finally, and I'm restarting my life, and I lived through a hell for my
two young girls. :)

Angela started up http://perl.wikia.com for me, and I been over there
inventing the structure of The Perl Wiki since then, but I haven't got enough
help yet to start producing the content that the Perl Wikipedians demand for
me to link into the Perl article.  I've got one systems programmer helping me
out.

> > James, or Jimbo, I'd like to meet you too, someday. :)
> >
> > Will someone please put this good thing on his desk today, so that he and
> > everyone else on the board can sign it off and get it done for the public
> > good.
>
> If you can find a way to make Jimbo sign/vote stuff, please tell me the
> secret :-) I am interested.
>
Be crazy enough to ask for "The Right Thing" to happen at "The Right Time." :)

> On a serious note, the spc is considering the creation of it. I intend
> the committee to give its opinion before Wikimania on the topic. It
> would be real cool if we could announce that at that time :-)
>
Now I'll learn about Wikimania.

> Then, after committee approval, we have roughly two options. We must
> submit it for board approval, which requires at least 3 approval, so at
> least 3 votes (there are 5 board members).
> Option 1 : submit it to the board and wait for the 3 votes. This may
> take a very long time.
> Option 2 : submit it with a maximum delay, after which only votes given
> are taken into account.
>
> In the past few days, I have been considering the three levels, data,
> information and knowledge. Most of our projects are actually providing
> "information". Wiktionary is rather providing "data". Wikibooks is
> sometimes providing "information" but it is sometimes wandering in
> "knowledge". Wikiversity will definitly entering the field of knowledge
> and this is what worried editors the most (the teaching part). Still, if
> I look well, the Foundation is claiming bringing knowledge. I see no
> reason why this project should not be started.
>

I don't believe that this should be so complicated.  Please read my personal
apology at the bottom of
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikiversity#Wikiversity_.E2.80.93_Final_Push

The 5 board members are actually living, breathing and thinking human beings
with the full mental capacity to be very proactive for "The Right Thing" to
happen at "The Right Time," and that is today, now and ASAP.  So much has
already been lost in this great delay.  The real shame is that some very good
people have simply walked away from supporting this very good thing.  I've
seen it, because it's in the record.  It's time for the 5 board members to
show some of their own "joyful" enthusiasm to actively bring this good thing
to fruition, or just kill it outright, so that it can find a better home in
this world.

What is The Truth?

Thanks,

Eric

> Ant
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20060720/4db63431/attachment-0001.pgp>


list: wiktionary-l

from_name: GerardM

subject: [Wiktionary-l] New functionality

body:
Hoi,
People who edit on WiktionaryZ now have the possibility to add new
Expressions and new DefinedMeanings. This is one piece of functionality that
has been most eagerly awaited. What amazes me most, is that there is already
so much content, check for instance this list:
http://www.wiktionaryz.org/Portal:eng/List_of_1000_basic_English_words

To remind you, WiktionaryZ is still very much in a pre-alpha stage, this
means that editing is not there for anonymous users, users that want to
edit, have to add their Babel template information and have read the
[[DefinedMeaning]] article.

Thanks,
    GerardM


from_name: Oldak Quill

subject: [Wiktionary-l] New functionality

body:
I'm sure you know about the SourceForge project "Semantic MediaWiki".
You may find developers working on that project who would be willing
to work on the semantic side of WiktionaryZ.

Just a suggestion,

Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


list: wikien-l

from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] "Exclusion" essay

body:
On 7/20/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/20/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The status quo, as I understand it, is that for seriously popular
> > series/books etc, each major character can have its own article,
> > otherwise they should be grouped. Each instalment/book/episode can
> > have its own article. However, except for rare examples, *places* in
> > fictional universes do not get articles, nor do events, types of
> > vehicles (Star Wars is exceptional here) However, even still, minor
>
> Incidentally, how not to write a Wikipedia article on a fictional spacecraft:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-wing
>
> How to write a Wikipedia article on fictional spacecraft:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red Dwarf ships
>
> (note the massive difference in tone and focus)
>
> Steve

That is at least partly due to the different focus of the parent media.

--
geni


list: foundation-l

from_name: Alison Wheeler

subject: [Foundation-l] Help requested on Commons copyright woes

body:
On Thu, July 20, 2006 13:00, Brianna Laugher wrote:
> Here are some recent issues that I would like resolved:
> * To what extent are we bound by local laws and to what extent are we
> bound by Florida's laws (as the home of our servers).

Something that was in The Register yesterday
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/07/19/youtube_copyright/) includes

"That protection [the DCMA] is irrelevant in the UK, says another
intellectual property expert. Kim Walker is a partner who specialises in
media law at Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind OUT-LAW.

...

Because this is intellectual property, the law that applies is that of the
place the alleged infringement took place," said Walker. "That applies
even if the servers are in Madras or the Channel Islands."

Alison


body:
> So, you wouldn't allow photos of buildings where a company's logo was
> on their building?
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:NYC_Top_of_the_Rock_Pano.jpg
> is a featured image on commons and has logos, even if they are a bit
> blurry. A clearer example is
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Melb_cbd.jpg

If we can be sure that we aren't breaking the law, then I'd be very
happy for Commons to house such images. I really can't say whether
we're breaking the law to copyleft an image with a copyrighted logo in
it, I certainly hope law isn't that restrictive.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


subject: [WikiEN-l] "Exclusion" essay

body:
On 20/07/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> The status quo, as I understand it, is that for seriously popular
> series/books etc, each major character can have its own article,
> otherwise they should be grouped. Each instalment/book/episode can
> have its own article. However, except for rare examples, *places* in
> fictional universes do not get articles, nor do events, types of
> vehicles (Star Wars is exceptional here) However, even still, minor
> characters in major series do not get their own articles. Why not?
> Well, that's the question we're trying to resolve here.

I agree with this generally, though perhaps I'd be a little more
liberal in certain aspects. I apologise if I misconceived your
opinions, but the last part of the essay came across as a little too
deletionist to be describing the status quo.

I certainly think we could afford a little more space to a non-major
characters, places and things; but I'm not way out there. I'll take
another look at the essay this evening.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: Lord Voldemort

subject: [Foundation-l] Update on ombudsman issue

body:
On 7/20/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> Did you intend on making such a nice pun? :)

Of course. ;-)  It's a gift, what can I say?  --LV


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is forever.

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:

>On 7/20/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Take verifiability as an example.  This concept is a direct response to
>>repeated complaints from the outside world that Wikipedia is not a
>>reliable source of information.  From a strictly objective perspective
>>
>>
>Was there a time before the verifiability policy?
>
It wasn't there when I first came on board in February 2002

>>verifiability is a good thing, but it still has a cost.  It leads to a
>>situation where the game is taken over by rules lawyers who can convince
>>the other players that order is good.  This makes it very difficult for
>>
>>
>That almost never happens.
>
Oh!  Rules make most people feel comfortable.  It makes them feel they
have a chance to win.  "Winning" can have a variable definition, and to
many it can be as simple as having articles accepted by the community
without any major changes.

>>the Calvinball player to introduce a new rule into the existing game.
>>
>>
>No, it happens all the time.
>
Are they really making major changes to the rules?  Of course you can
also have a rule that says that a rule made when nobody is looking is
also a valid rule.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] "Exclusion" essay

body:
On 7/20/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/20/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > That is at least partly due to the different focus of the parent media.
>
> Sure, but what I'm getting at, is the RD focuses on which ship appears
> in which series, what it looks like, what the producers did etc. The
> Star Wars article places the reader firmly within the fictional
> universe.
>
> A key difference: [[X-Wing]] says the ship was "designed" by a
> character in the fictional universe. [[Red Dwarf Ships]] says the
> ships were "designed" by producers of the television series.
>
> Steve

Red Dwarf does not provide books with hundreds of pages of background
information.

--
geni


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] "Exclusion" essay

body:
On 7/20/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> The following sentence makes obvious the real reason for you dislike
> of these articles, elitism: "The harm is mostly the maintenance of
> large numbers of pages, and to our reputation: a serious
> encyclopedia".

Ok, bear in mind I'm not trying to express what I personally like and
dislike, but attempt to identify the unstated reasoning that leads
people to nominate fancruft for AfD. It can't just be because they
personally hate it, can it?

Maybe take it from the other point of view: the *only* problem with
excessive fancruft is that it damages our credibility.

If you want to rework the essay a bit, go ahead.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
On 7/20/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> The problem is the inclusion of inane trivia in articles where they
> won't benefit the reader. The average reader of [[Desmond Tutu]] will
> not learn anything about him because his name was mentioned in a
> popular television show.

Of course they will. They'll learn that he's actually really cool.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Quackpotwatch AfD

body:
On 7/20/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> Its notability derives from Quackwatch.

Shouldn't it just be mentioned in the main quackwatch article then?

Steve


body:
> On Thu, July 20, 2006 13:00, Brianna Laugher wrote:
> > Here are some recent issues that I would like resolved:
> > * To what extent are we bound by local laws and to what extent are we
> > bound by Florida's laws (as the home of our servers).

Will the placing of some media servers in countries with more liberal
copyright laws ever be a viable option? Even if we housed some media
in, say, Sweden, would the content still be judged by the standards of
Florida because that is where the Foundation is based?

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] insist on sources

body:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 12:41:45 +0200, "Steve Bennett"
<stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:

>There is every reason in the world to think that most professional
>cyclists, especially including Armstrong, have taken one or more
>prohibited substances during their career. An article which gives the
>opposite impression would be misleading.

A point I have made more than once.  But this seems to single
Armstrong out.  The section is gradually getting bigger and bigger,
with special pleading and guilt by association creeping back in.  I do
not see how it can be considered neutral to give the strong impression
that he is a doper who has not been caught, which is what one or two
editors are determinedly trying to do, when the legal position is that
he is clean, despite being quite possibly the most tested athlete in
history.

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


from_name: Cormac Lawler

body:
On 7/20/06, Eric R. Meyers <ermeyers at adelphia.net> wrote:
> Hello Wikiversity Opinion forums,
>
> Please forgive me for showing up so very late in this very important
> discussion about the Wikiversity project, just to give you my personal
> opinion, but I've been very busy recovering from a very serious Central
> Nervous System (CNS) disorder for the past 2-1/2 years, and I just started
> getting the mental energy to put my mind and my life back together this past
> spring.
>
> I've been very impressed with everything that The Wikimedia Foundation has
> been creating while I've been gone, and I consider myself very lucky to be
> doing my stuff with the help of Angela and Sannse at Wikia.
>
> I've placed an entry following Cormaggio's at
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikiversity#Proposal_-_done.3F.
>
> Please make me, and everyone else in the world who sincerely cares about
> public learning and the excellent Wikiversity project, "joyful" about the
> [[Wikiversity:Main_Page]] being implemented as soon as possible.
>
> James, or Jimbo, I'd like to meet you too, someday. :)
>
> Will someone please put this good thing on his desk today, so that he and
> everyone else on the board can sign it off and get it done for the public
> good.
>
> Yes, I'm crazy. :)
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Eric
>

Thanks Eric :-)

Just to say that I expect the Special projects committee to make a
decision on Wikiversity at its meeting tonight (possibly deferred to
sometime over the weekend), which will then be passed to the board, so
you possibly don't have to wait too much longer.

Anyway, good to see such joy expressed :-)

Cheers,
Cormac

PS: Eric, I replied to your Meta comment on your Wikipedia User talk page.


subject: [WikiEN-l] "Exclusion" essay

body:
On 20/07/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/20/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> > A key difference: [[X-Wing]] says the ship was "designed" by a
> > character in the fictional universe. [[Red Dwarf Ships]] says the
> > ships were "designed" by producers of the television series.
> >
> > Steve
>
> Red Dwarf does not provide books with hundreds of pages of background
> information.

Of course, there is a way to do both: "Ship X was designed by producer
[[Matt Brown]]. According to the mythology of Red Trek Wars, Ship X
was designed by [[Hans Solo]]." (just to expose my ignorance about all
things Sci Fi ;)).

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


subject: [WikiEN-l] insist on sources

body:
On 20/07/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> A point I have made more than once.  But this seems to single
> Armstrong out.  The section is gradually getting bigger and bigger,
> with special pleading and guilt by association creeping back in.  I do
> not see how it can be considered neutral to give the strong impression
> that he is a doper who has not been caught, which is what one or two
> editors are determinedly trying to do, when the legal position is that
> he is clean, despite being quite possibly the most tested athlete in
> history.

Well, there is no evidence that he is, or ever has, doped or else he
would have been stripped of his titles. I can't see how saying it is a
possibility is fair. What we can say is that his number one rival has
accused him of doping.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


subject: [Wiktionary-l] New functionality

body:
Hoi,
YES.....

OWL is with LDF and TBX one of the formats that we want to use for the
import and export of content. The export of WiktionaryZ will be in a
standard format, this will hide what we do to our software and our database
design.

Experiments with BIG resources are underway, we are negotiating with some
big organisations we want to cooperate with. Many of these imports will not
be using standard formats as they are not in standard formats. OUR exports
will however be according to a standard or we will only provide a database
dump (which is not really nice if you want to use our data in an other
format).

Thanks,
   GerardM

On 7/20/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Are you planning on making WiktionaryZ semantic? Will you frame
> content in both human-readable form and in some kind of RDF/OWL
> casing? This could certainly be a very useful feature.
>
> --
> Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)
> _______________________________________________
> Wiktionary-l mailing list
> Wiktionary-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
>


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Wiktionary-l] New functionality

body:
To add to what Gerard wrote:

WiktionaryZ  follows a typical subject/predicate/object logic in its
primary representation (though it deals with homonyms, synonyms, and
translations better than most ontologies). Exporting to OWL should not
pose principal problems, though I haven't investigated the question in
detail (in particular, what would be needed to match WZ entities to
classes in OWL).

Our key development priority for the coming weeks is to build a
versioning architecture to move towards opening up the site in a true
wiki fashion. We also seek to open up the development process itself,
by providing code documentation, bringing the codebase in line with
the current SVN version of MediaWiki, and so on. I hope we will be
able to make some progress in that regard before Wikimania, which will
be a primary opportunity to show the current state of the project to a
group of interested developers. Quite possibly, this will already lead
directly to the kind of developments which you describe.

Those interested in WZ should definitely get a flight ticket to
Boston. There are several relevant talks and workshops at Wikimania.

Erik


subject: [WikiEN-l] "Exclusion" essay

body:
On 7/20/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't believe we should compromise our acceptance of content because
> we worry that some will think less of us. It is not our aim to
> perfectly match the role of the traditional encyclopedia. We are going
> to include some content that some think is below them (or should not
> be in an encyclopedia), that's fine and it isn't our problem. If a
> user doesn't wish to read about [[Bulbasaur]] then they should take my
> lead and avoid it.

Do you think there should be no limits to how much fictional universe
should be covered? I'm attempting to explain the status quo, not
change it. So if you disagree with me, either I'm failing to explain
the status quo (most likely), or you actually want to extend it.

The status quo, as I understand it, is that for seriously popular
series/books etc, each major character can have its own article,
otherwise they should be grouped. Each instalment/book/episode can
have its own article. However, except for rare examples, *places* in
fictional universes do not get articles, nor do events, types of
vehicles (Star Wars is exceptional here) However, even still, minor
characters in major series do not get their own articles. Why not?
Well, that's the question we're trying to resolve here.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Reminder about Amorrow's edits

body:
On 7/20/06, Sydney aka FloNight <poore5 at adelphia.net> wrote:
> Reminder that all of banned user Andrew Morrow's new edits on all parts of Wikipedia site should be reverted and removed from view. Articles started by Amorrow after he was banned need to be deleted. Some of his edits need to be removed through oversight.

A user is editing parts of Wikipedia, through his own account, after
being banned? Why not just block him?

Steve


from_name: Essjay

body:
Oldak Quill wrote:
>> Why not just ask nicely (which has been done before), and if he says
>> no, ask him to place a big, flashy, gawdy, super-duper shiny box near
>> the top of his pages explaining that he is not the _official_
>> ombudsman with a link to the real users' pages.  And if he refuses
>> that, tell him sorry, block the account based on an inappropriate
>> username, and be on with it.  Too harsh?  --LV
>>
>
> Well, there is no reason to block his account and deprive him of his
> past edits, whether he complies or not. We will simply have to force
> rename him (User:The  User Previously known as Ombudsman).
>
>
I may have been mislead on this (not a good situation for the bureaucrat
doing 95% of the namechanges on en.wiki) but my understanding is that
en.wiki does not permit forced name changes. Barring an order from the
Arbitration Committee, Jimbo Wales, or the Foundation Board, I just
don't think we can do it. I'd be interested to hear from Angela, who is
also an en.wiki bureaucrat and has far more inside experience than I do.

Essjay

--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay
Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia
http://www.wikipedia.org/


subject: [WikiEN-l] "Exclusion" essay

body:
On 7/20/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> The status quo, as I understand it, is that for seriously popular
> series/books etc, each major character can have its own article,
> otherwise they should be grouped. Each instalment/book/episode can
> have its own article. However, except for rare examples, *places* in
> fictional universes do not get articles, nor do events, types of
> vehicles (Star Wars is exceptional here) However, even still, minor

Incidentally, how not to write a Wikipedia article on a fictional spacecraft:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-wing

How to write a Wikipedia article on fictional spacecraft:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red Dwarf ships

(note the massive difference in tone and focus)

Steve


from_name: Rob

subject: [WikiEN-l] "Exclusion" essay

body:
On 7/20/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.com> wrote:

> What evidence do you have indicating that any such correlation exists?
> Have any studies have been done on the effects of fancruft on the
> average age and expertise of the editor population?
>
> Or do you just dislike Star Trek?

It's an entirely reasonable hypothesis worth exploring, and it
shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.  The lack of studies?  Seriously,
what the hell?   When Jimbo said demand references, I don't think he
was referring to the mailing list.  Yes, broad assertions should be
backed up by evidence, but this broad assertion isn't any different
than the dozens of broad assertions made on this list on a daily
basis.   And someone doesn't have to hate Star Trek (I certainly
don't) to worry about the potentially deleterious effects of a horde
of stub articles on dozens of different starships which were only
mentioned in an offhand reference in a single episode.  AGF, please.


body:
> We have repeatedly.

More! Harder!

:)

Steve


from_name: James Hare

body:
Or maybe Ombudsman can keep his name, and Wikimedia can register "Wikimedia
Ombudsman" -- far more official sounding.

On 7/20/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I may have been mislead on this (not a good situation for the bureaucrat
> > doing 95% of the namechanges on en.wiki) but my understanding is that
> > en.wiki does not permit forced name changes. Barring an order from the
> > Arbitration Committee, Jimbo Wales, or the Foundation Board, I just
> > don't think we can do it. I'd be interested to hear from Angela, who is
> > also an en.wiki bureaucrat and has far more inside experience than I do.
>
> If you ban him the name will never be available for Wikimedia to use.
> A forced name change is far preferable.
>
> --
> Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


body:
Oldak Quill wrote:
>> I may have been mislead on this (not a good situation for the bureaucrat
>> doing 95% of the namechanges on en.wiki) but my understanding is that
>> en.wiki does not permit forced name changes. Barring an order from the
>> Arbitration Committee, Jimbo Wales, or the Foundation Board, I just
>> don't think we can do it. I'd be interested to hear from Angela, who is
>> also an en.wiki bureaucrat and has far more inside experience than I do.
>>
>
> If you ban him the name will never be available for Wikimedia to use.
> A forced name change is far preferable.
>
>
It may be preferable, but if it's not allowed by policy, it's not
allowed. Bureaucrats are not permitted to set aside policy when they
deem it preferable; we're required to follow the rules regardless. If
the matter is extreme enough to override the policies of the English
Wikipedian, then it's an important enough issue for the Arbitration
Committee, Jimbo Wales, or the Board to order it done.

Essjay

--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay
Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia
http://www.wikipedia.org/


subject: [Wiktionary-l] New functionality

body:
On 7/20/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm sure you know about the SourceForge project "Semantic MediaWiki".
> You may find developers working on that project who would be willing
> to work on the semantic side of WiktionaryZ.

We're well aware of each other and have already agreed to enter
discussions about potential areas and models of collaboration.

Erik


subject: [Wiktionary-l] New functionality

body:
Hoi,
Semantic MediaWiki currently is part of the SVN that exists for both
MediaWiki, WiktionaryZ and Semantic MediaWiki. I did meet Denny in Rome and
we agreed that the functionality of WZ and SM is not in competition and that
we would both benefit from cooperation. Semantic MediaWiki has already done
a lot of great work. It is aimed squarly at the standard MediaWiki content.
Our work is aimed at content that exists as Wikidata content.

We will benefit when we work together.

Thanks,
    GerardM

On 7/20/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm sure you know about the SourceForge project "Semantic MediaWiki".
> You may find developers working on that project who would be willing
> to work on the semantic side of WiktionaryZ.
>
> Just a suggestion,
>
> Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)
> _______________________________________________
> Wiktionary-l mailing list
> Wiktionary-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] "Exclusion" essay

body:
On 7/20/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> That is at least partly due to the different focus of the parent media.

Sure, but what I'm getting at, is the RD focuses on which ship appears
in which series, what it looks like, what the producers did etc. The
Star Wars article places the reader firmly within the fictional
universe.

A key difference: [[X-Wing]] says the ship was "designed" by a
character in the fictional universe. [[Red Dwarf Ships]] says the
ships were "designed" by producers of the television series.

Steve


body:
On 7/20/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> I would like to second this.  Why were people so willing to advocate
> shoving User:Ombudsman around with official power or sanctions on this
> issue?

Because, apparantly, the name Ombudman would be confusing.  People may
think that is the official ombudsman. Andrew Lih above fell into that.
 That's why I suggested the can't-be-missed box on his user page.
--LV


body:
The box would be good, but we shouldn't force him to change his handle.
Maybe a box like on User:Jesus_On_Wheels saying that he isn't the real
ombudsman and the real one is at User:Wikimedia_Ombudsman.

On 7/20/06, Lord Voldemort <lordbishopvoldemort at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/20/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I would like to second this.  Why were people so willing to advocate
> > shoving User:Ombudsman around with official power or sanctions on this
> > issue?
>
> Because, apparantly, the name Ombudman would be confusing.  People may
> think that is the official ombudsman. Andrew Lih above fell into that.
> That's why I suggested the can't-be-missed box on his user page.
> --LV
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


body:
But is the box, which would link to the true ombudsman, be a good idea?

On 7/20/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/20/06, Lord Voldemort <lordbishopvoldemort at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 7/20/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I would like to second this.  Why were people so willing to advocate
> > > shoving User:Ombudsman around with official power or sanctions on this
> > > issue?
> >
> > Because, apparantly, the name Ombudman would be confusing.  People may
> > think that is the official ombudsman. Andrew Lih above fell into that.
> >  That's why I suggested the can't-be-missed box on his user page.
>
> There is a difference between "Your user account was not previously a
> problem or conflict with official Wikipedia functions, but is now, we
> need to officially ask you to change it or put up a disclaimer on your
> User page" and "Hey, let's all go force a name change on this guy
> because he didn't cooperate before".
>
> That there may need to be a change and/or disclaimer is reasonably
> obvious now.  There is zero justification in that necessity for any
> abuse of User:Ombudsman.  They weren't violating policy before when
> they refused to change their name.  Beating them up now for having
> previously stood up for their rights is inappropriate.
>
> That there were discussions of forced changes or a permanent ban
> before anyone sent a polite note to them explaining that Things had
> Changed is a terrible, terrible shame for this mailing list...
>
>
> --
> -george william herbert
> george.herbert at gmail.com
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] "Exclusion" essay

body:
On 7/20/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with this generally, though perhaps I'd be a little more
> liberal in certain aspects. I apologise if I misconceived your
> opinions, but the last part of the essay came across as a little too
> deletionist to be describing the status quo.
>
> I certainly think we could afford a little more space to a non-major
> characters, places and things; but I'm not way out there. I'll take
> another look at the essay this evening.

That'd be cool. Let's think - what *is* the harm in boundless
fancruft? There must be harm, or we would allow it. Perhaps it is
simply that boundless fancruft strays too far from our mission, which
is to produce an encyclopaedia that is not just a random collection of
information.

Someone help me out here - we all know that it's wrong to have 600
pages describing every fight ever shown in any Pok?mon episode. But
why?

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] insist on sources

body:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 15:37:06 +0100, "Oldak Quill"
<oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:

>Well, there is no evidence that he is, or ever has, doped or else he
>would have been stripped of his titles. I can't see how saying it is a
>possibility is fair. What we can say is that his number one rival has
>accused him of doping.

We say a good deal more than that.  Have you looked at the doping
allegations section?  It's rapidly coming to dominate the article.

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


body:
On 7/20/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> There is a difference between "Your user account was not previously a
> problem or conflict with official Wikipedia functions, but is now, we
> need to officially ask you to change it or put up a disclaimer on your
> User page" and "Hey, let's all go force a name change on this guy
> because he didn't cooperate before".
>
> That there may need to be a change and/or disclaimer is reasonably
> obvious now.  There is zero justification in that necessity for any
> abuse of User:Ombudsman.  They weren't violating policy before when
> they refused to change their name.  Beating them up now for having
> previously stood up for their rights is inappropriate.
>
> That there were discussions of forced changes or a permanent ban
> before anyone sent a polite note to them explaining that Things had
> Changed is a terrible, terrible shame for this mailing list...

Well, one, my proposal didn't include banning him if he cooperated. It
did include asking him nicely (both for the name change and for the
disclaimer). It would be a way _around_ a forced name change. Two,
this mailing list is open, and User:Ombudsman is more than welcome to
read it.  We're not trying to hide anything by discussing it here.
--LV


subject: [WikiEN-l] "Exclusion" essay

body:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 16:44:10 +0200, "Steve Bennett"
<stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:

>That'd be cool. Let's think - what *is* the harm in boundless
>fancruft? There must be harm, or we would allow it. Perhaps it is
>simply that boundless fancruft strays too far from our mission, which
>is to produce an encyclopaedia that is not just a random collection of
>information.

The major problem is that most of it is OR, or at least terribly
self-referential.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] "Exclusion" essay

body:
> Please don't put words in my mouth. While your hypothetical example is
> extreme, I would still find it wrong only for technical reasons - each
> fight description would be rather short and low on context, they'd do
> much better IMO as something like [[List of Pok?mon battles]]
> (subdivided by season if one page is too large). It's not a random
> collection of information if we apply uniform standards of quality and
> structure to it.
>
> I don't see how the "fancruft" we include is any more a "random
> collection of information" than the vast amounts of sportscruft,
> militarycruft, politiciancruft, and other sorts of subjectcruft that for
> some reason have an air of respectability about it that recent popular
> culture alone seems to lack. Who ever complains about how Wikipedia has
> articles for almost every ship that happened to participate in WWII, no
> matter how trivial its role? Or how there are articles about people
> whose sole claim to fame is an unspectacular one-year Senate position in
> Smallcounty, Iowa back in the 1820s?
>
> I think the massive inclusiveness of Wikipedia is one of its best
> traits. Wikipedia is like a specialist encyclopedia that specializes in
> _everything_. When I see an article about an obscure topic I don't ask
> myself "should there be an article about this in a general
> encyclopedia?", I ask myself "should there be an article about this in
> an Encyclopedia of Stamp Collecting, or Encyclopedia of Star Trek, or
> Encyclopedia of 18th Century Railroading, or Encyclopedia of
> Agriculture, etc.?"

Well, you've done a better job of writing my opinion than I did. I
completely agree with your every point.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: Anthony

body:
On 7/20/06, Lord Voldemort <lordbishopvoldemort at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/20/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I would like to second this.  Why were people so willing to advocate
> > shoving User:Ombudsman around with official power or sanctions on this
> > issue?
>
> Because, apparantly, the name Ombudman would be confusing.  People may
> think that is the official ombudsman. Andrew Lih above fell into that.
>  That's why I suggested the can't-be-missed box on his user page.
> --LV

So call the ombudsman something else.  User:Ombudsman had the name first, right?

Ombudsman is a sexist title anyway.

Anthony


subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
On 7/20/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I wasn't trying to be funny, nor was I trying to say that it belonged
> > in the article.
> >
> > The problem isn't lack of source.  It's more one of original research.
>
> The problem is *not* original research. To summarise the events of an
> episode, film, book or the features of a piece of software, or the
> design of a famous building, is not original research.
>
I'm sorry, but I disagree.

> The problem is the inclusion of inane trivia in articles where they
> won't benefit the reader. The average reader of [[Desmond Tutu]] will
> not learn anything about him because his name was mentioned in a
> popular television show.


from_name: SPUI

subject: [WikiEN-l] Categories for deletion/discussion issues

body:
This is related to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Limited-access_roads . Necessary
background is that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited-access_road is
an ambiguous term: "It can mean anything from a city street to which the
maintaining authority limits driveway access to a freeway (or other
equivalent terms)."

The category was originally created at "Freeways" and listed for
renaming to "Freeways and motorways":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_30#Category:Freeways_to_Category:Freeways_and_motorways
This discussion has little input, and ends up renaming it to
"Limited-access roads" (though there doesn't seem to be definite
consensus for that, going back and reading it). No one mentions there
that "limited-access road" is ambiguous.

I come across the category a while after and realize that it was renamed
and that that renaming was a mistake. I list it for renaming back to
"Freeways" and clearly explain why other options won't work:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_1#Category:Limited-access_roads_to_Category:Freeways
Most people end up supporting "Freeways and motorways"; very few support
keeping "Limited-access roads". Yet it is closed as no consensus by one
of those editors.

I take it to DRV:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_July_10&oldid=64186179
It is relisted, mainly because of who it was closed by. So it goes on
for another week:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_11#Category:Limited-access_roads_to_Category:Freeways
A few more people comment. Again there is rough consensus to rename to
"Freeways and motorways", and again it is closed as no consensus. I take
it to DRV again, where the closer admits he counted votes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_July_20#Category:Limited-access_roads_to_Category:Freeways_or_Category:Freeways_and_motorways

So even though almost no one now supports the name "Limited-access
roads", including several who also commented in the original CFD, it is
kept there because of a vote-counter. I fail to see why we have chosen
to operate this way - there is certainly not consensus to keep it there.
If I choose to ignore all rules I will probably be banned for violating
my probation against "provocative edits". But the current name does not
correctly describe the purpose of the category.


body:
Oldak Quill wrote:
> On 20/07/06, SPUI <drspui at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>So even though almost no one now supports the name "Limited-access
>>roads", including several who also commented in the original CFD, it is
>>kept there because of a vote-counter. I fail to see why we have chosen
>>to operate this way - there is certainly not consensus to keep it there.
>>If I choose to ignore all rules I will probably be banned for violating
>>my probation against "provocative edits". But the current name does not
>>correctly describe the purpose of the category.
>
> I didn't understand why you didn't just move the category until that
> mention of "provocative edits". I'd happily move the category for you,
> if no one objects?

It would probably be reverted by someone opposing it, who would use the
"no consensus" and the way CFD works to enforce it. Then if I tried to
revert we'd get a revert war on 20 or so pages.


body:
Oldak Quill wrote:
> I just reread the discussion and have realised that there are more
> opposes and alternate suggestions (High-speed roadways) than
> originally suggested.
>
> It'd probably be a good idea to move it from "Limited-access roads"
> but I'm not sure what to. "High-speed roadways" is a problem in that
> some rural lanes in Texas have higher speed limits than interstates
> (as someone mentions in the discussion). "Freeway and motorway" is
> problematic because these are just two examples of what these
> structures are named.
>
> How about something like "High-throughput roadways"?

There are ten-lane surface roads and two-lane freeways. This is a
category of freeways - highways with full control of access and no cross
traffic. The bit about not all places using that term is not a problem,
as we have to choose a term, and no one has put forth an alternate term.
A Category:Elevators would include elevators where they are called lifts.


body:
Oldak Quill wrote:
> On 20/07/06, SPUI <drspui at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>There are ten-lane surface roads and two-lane freeways. This is a
>>category of freeways - highways with full control of access and no cross
>>traffic. The bit about not all places using that term is not a problem,
>>as we have to choose a term, and no one has put forth an alternate term.
>>A Category:Elevators would include elevators where they are called lifts.
>
>
> Why don't you just call it "Category:Highways with full control of
> access and no cross traffic"? It sounds less Americanocentric than
> "Freeways".

I did suggest that - I even moved [[freeway]] there - and, well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Freeway#This_has_to_be_he_most_inappropriate_name_for_a_move_ever


body:
> PS : is it a good idea to have a user named ombudsman ?

I don't think the name "User:Ombudsman" instantly strikes someone as
an official position. In Britain, the position "Ombudsman" tends to be
reserved as a governmental complaints mechanism and watchdog on
trading standards and banking.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Tech help: Video format conversion

body:
On 7/20/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I have a handful of public-domain instructional videos (moving diagrams)
> that I'd like to upload, but they are in SWF format.  Can someone
> contact me directly, off-list, to help me convert them to an acceptable
> format?
>
> Thanks!
>

Why off-list? I'd be interested in finding out about an swf open
format converter - I was looking around for something like that the
other day, but couldn't find anything. Possibly Gnash:
<http://www.gnu.org/software/gnash/>, but I'm not sure if it converts
or simply plays Flash files.

Cormac


body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 7/20/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>It'd probably be a good idea to move it from "Limited-access roads"
>>but I'm not sure what to. "High-speed roadways" is a problem in that
>>some rural lanes in Texas have higher speed limits than interstates
>>(as someone mentions in the discussion). "Freeway and motorway" is
>>problematic because these are just two examples of what these
>>structures are named.
>>
>>How about something like "High-throughput roadways"?
>
>
> This is going to be one of those great debates, I can see.  The
> current situation is awesome:
>
> Category:Limited-access roads
> This category is for [[highways with full control of access and no
> cross traffic]]. It is not for [[limited access road]]s, as that is an
> ambiguous term.
>
> A category that is not to contain items about itself! :)
>
> How do people get so worked up about it? Can't you just put all
> highways into  [[Category:Highways]], then freeways into cat:freeways
> and so on, and just, well, stop squabbling? If there's no good term
> that covers all these things, maybe the category doesn't need to
> exist? Maybe it should just be a list?

These are all freeways - motorways are freeways, autobahns are freeways,
etc. A freeway is a highway with full control of access and no cross
traffic. This category is for freeways, and it was originally called
Category:Freeways.


body:
Would this ombudsman be a role account?

On 7/20/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/20/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Which role would you think such a person should hold ? Can you give some
> > examples of what he would be supposed to do ?
> >
> > Ant
>
> At various times various roles have been suggested and given the title
> Ombudsman. The most recent idea I've run across was for some kind of
> oversight watch but I tend to feel that should be handled differently.
>
>
> --
> geni
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

body:
On 7/20/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> Would this ombudsman be a role account?

Of course not.. which is why this discussion is rather silly.

We've got a user with a name that conflicts with the role you're
discussing... so change the name of the role.

None of us should be left to worry that someday a role will be created
which might be confused with our names and that we'll be forced to
accept a name change.


subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
On 7/20/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 20/07/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > I'm sorry, but I disagree.
>
> Then Wikipedia must immediately change its policy on original
> research. All articles contain the summarisation that you consider
> original research. It is this that makes an article an article.

Not all articles use something as a source for itself (e.g., using an
episode of Friends as a source on what happened in an episode of
Friends).

Anthony


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Berto

body:
Make redirects.
B?rto

----- ???????? ????????? -----
??: "Yury Tarasievich" <yury.tarasievich at gmail.com>
????: <wikipedia-l at wikimedia.org>
??????????: 20 ???? 2006 ?. 10:59
????: [Wikipedia-l] places names -- historical

> I wonder, is there a policy on using of the places (specifically,
> cities) names, which have been (often) changed, historically? Does one
> have to use only the "actual" name? Or should it depend on context,
> possibly?
>
> ---
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>


from_name: Anthere

body:
Angela wrote:
> On 7/20/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>So is it now time to force a name change on user:ombudsman?
>>
>>Are you aware that I was at some point the owner of this account ? :-)
>
>
> I think you're mistaking it for User:Mediator.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ombudsman doesn't
> seem like you.
>
> -- User:Arbitrator ;)

oh, true true true. My mistake.

Ant

PS : is it a good idea to have a user named ombudsman ?


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
On 7/20/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/20/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> > What I would like to see is mention that Tutu being named in friends is
> not
> > sufficiently useful to be included in the article. Now if he actually
> > appeared in the episode...
>
> ...then that would be interesting to mention on the article about the
> episode. But unless his appearance was particularly notable (ie,
> controversial, caused a schism in the church, example of how he lost
> the plot in 1997...), then it's probably still too trivial to mention
> in his article.
>
> Moral of the story: Keep fancruft where it belongs: on articles about
> the series itself.
>
> 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
>

Actually, if he appeared in an episode, he'd have a filmography which is
always worth including.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Quackpotwatch AfD

body:
On 7/20/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/20/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> > Its notability derives from Quackwatch.
>
> Shouldn't it just be mentioned in the main quackwatch article then?
>
> Steve

Is AfD now required to change an article into a redirect?


from_name: ScottL

subject: [WikiEN-l] insist on sources

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 7/20/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>> A point I have made more than once.  But this seems to single
>> Armstrong out.  The section is gradually getting bigger and bigger,
>> with special pleading and guilt by association creeping back in.  I do
>> not see how it can be considered neutral to give the strong impression
>> that he is a doper who has not been caught, which is what one or two
>> editors are determinedly trying to do, when the legal position is that
>> he is clean, despite being quite possibly the most tested athlete in
>> history.
>
> I suppose it depends how you word it. If we could cite some
> respectable opinion pieces that said he was probably a doper, you
> could throw in some weasly "he remains under a cloud of suspicion"
> type sentences.
>
> Steve

   I think the original point of this example (and tell me if I am
wrong) is not the specific case but cases like it.  Where you risk being
POV with perfectly verifiable stuff.  Violating NPOV can be done by
selection of what to include as easy as it can with how you include it.
  This is the claim that is frequently made against the media, that
their bias is not in untrue reporting but in what they chose to report.

Dalf


subject: [WikiEN-l] "Exclusion" essay

body:
On 7/20/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/20/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The following sentence makes obvious the real reason for you dislike
> > of these articles, elitism: "The harm is mostly the maintenance of
> > large numbers of pages, and to our reputation: a serious
> > encyclopedia".
>
> Ok, bear in mind I'm not trying to express what I personally like and
> dislike, but attempt to identify the unstated reasoning that leads
> people to nominate fancruft for AfD. It can't just be because they
> personally hate it, can it?
>
> Maybe take it from the other point of view: the *only* problem with
> excessive fancruft is that it damages our credibility.
>
> If you want to rework the essay a bit, go ahead.
>
> 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

So what do you define as excessive fancruft? Surely  a [[Bulbasaur]] article
isn't considered fancruft? I'm afraid that personal hate of the subject and
reputation paranoia are in fact the number 1 reasons for calling something
fancruft. Any valid reason to exclude or delete such items could be
explained with the regular policies without dumping the fancruft label on
it.

Mgm


body:
According to Wikipedia, an ombudsman is a government representative chosen
by the people. Perhaps we could name this position "Wikipedia
Representative"?

On 7/20/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/20/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Would this ombudsman be a role account?
>
> Of course not.. which is why this discussion is rather silly.
>
> We've got a user with a name that conflicts with the role you're
> discussing... so change the name of the role.
>
> None of us should be left to worry that someday a role will be created
> which might be confused with our names and that we'll be forced to
> accept a name change.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] "Exclusion" essay

body:
On 7/20/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 7/20/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't believe we should compromise our acceptance of content because
> > we worry that some will think less of us. It is not our aim to
> > perfectly match the role of the traditional encyclopedia. We are going
> > to include some content that some think is below them (or should not
> > be in an encyclopedia), that's fine and it isn't our problem. If a
> > user doesn't wish to read about [[Bulbasaur]] then they should take my
> > lead and avoid it.
>
> Do you think there should be no limits to how much fictional universe
> should be covered? I'm attempting to explain the status quo, not
> change it. So if you disagree with me, either I'm failing to explain
> the status quo (most likely), or you actually want to extend it.
>
> The status quo, as I understand it, is that for seriously popular
> series/books etc, each major character can have its own article,
> otherwise they should be grouped. Each instalment/book/episode can
> have its own article. However, except for rare examples, *places* in
> fictional universes do not get articles, nor do events, types of
> vehicles (Star Wars is exceptional here) However, even still, minor
> characters in major series do not get their own articles. Why not?
> Well, that's the question we're trying to resolve here.
>
> 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
>

I think [[WP:FICT]] explains all this quite well.

Mgm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is forever.

body:
geni wrote:

>On 7/20/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Are they really making major changes to the rules?
>>
>>
>yes see CSD.
>
The response should be to the whole context:

>This makes it very difficult for the Calvinball player to introduce a new rule into the existing game.
>
>
>>>No, it happens all the time.
>>
>>
>Are they really making major changes to the rules?  Of course you can
>also have a rule that says that a rule made when nobody is looking is
>also a valid rule.
>
Certainly there are a lot of changes happening there, but are they
really "major"?  For the most part the details there are a matter of
housekeeping, though like the death of a thousand cuts stringing enough
of them together could accumulate into something major.  Getting rid of
CSD altogether, that would be major!

Ec


body:
Eric R. Meyers wrote:
> Hello Wikiversity Opinion forums,

Hello

> Please forgive me for showing up so very late in this very important
> discussion about the Wikiversity project, just to give you my personal
> opinion, but I've been very busy recovering from a very serious Central
> Nervous System (CNS) disorder for the past 2-1/2 years, and I just started
> getting the mental energy to put my mind and my life back together this past
> spring.

Glad for you :-)

> I've been very impressed with everything that The Wikimedia Foundation has
> been creating while I've been gone, and I consider myself very lucky to be
> doing my stuff with the help of Angela and Sannse at Wikia.

You aware that Wikia and Wikimedia Foundation are two different
entities, right ?

> I've placed an entry following Cormaggio's at
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikiversity#Proposal_-_done.3F.
>
> Please make me, and everyone else in the world who sincerely cares about
> public learning and the excellent Wikiversity project, "joyful" about the
> [[Wikiversity:Main_Page]] being implemented as soon as possible.
>
> James, or Jimbo, I'd like to meet you too, someday. :)
>
> Will someone please put this good thing on his desk today, so that he and
> everyone else on the board can sign it off and get it done for the public
> good.

If you can find a way to make Jimbo sign/vote stuff, please tell me the
secret :-) I am interested.

On a serious note, the spc is considering the creation of it. I intend
the committee to give its opinion before Wikimania on the topic. It
would be real cool if we could announce that at that time :-)

Then, after committee approval, we have roughly two options. We must
submit it for board approval, which requires at least 3 approval, so at
least 3 votes (there are 5 board members).
Option 1 : submit it to the board and wait for the 3 votes. This may
take a very long time.
Option 2 : submit it with a maximum delay, after which only votes given
are taken into account.

In the past few days, I have been considering the three levels, data,
information and knowledge. Most of our projects are actually providing
"information". Wiktionary is rather providing "data". Wikibooks is
sometimes providing "information" but it is sometimes wandering in
"knowledge". Wikiversity will definitly entering the field of knowledge
and this is what worried editors the most (the teaching part). Still, if
I look well, the Foundation is claiming bringing knowledge. I see no
reason why this project should not be started.

Ant

> Yes, I'm crazy. :)
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Eric
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


from_name: geni

body:
On 7/20/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> PS : is it a good idea to have a user named ombudsman ?
>

The issue has been raised from time to time (I think it got a mention
in the user's RFC). Since the user has refused to change there hasn't
really been much that can be done.

--
geni


body:
Oldak Quill wrote:
> On 20/07/06, SPUI <drspui at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>These are all freeways - motorways are freeways, autobahns are freeways,
>>etc. A freeway is a highway with full control of access and no cross
>>traffic. This category is for freeways, and it was originally called
>>Category:Freeways.
>
>
> As a Brit, I'm sure you mean "These are all motorways - freeways are
> motorways, autobahns are motorways, etc."? Anyway, I'll forgive your
> confusion. ;)

Not so - the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Cross_Route is a freeway
but not a motorway, as it was stripped of its motorway status in 2000.
Motorway is a classification rather than a standard of building; many
longer sections of road are freeways but cannot be classified as
motorways, as slow vehicles are banned from all motorways.


from_name: Oldak Quill

body:
> Why not just ask nicely (which has been done before), and if he says
> no, ask him to place a big, flashy, gawdy, super-duper shiny box near
> the top of his pages explaining that he is not the _official_
> ombudsman with a link to the real users' pages.  And if he refuses
> that, tell him sorry, block the account based on an inappropriate
> username, and be on with it.  Too harsh?  --LV

Well, there is no reason to block his account and deprive him of his
past edits, whether he complies or not. We will simply have to force
rename him (User:The  User Previously known as Ombudsman).

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: Sydney aka FloNight

subject: [Foundation-l] Organization of News Ombudsmen

body:
The name ombudsmen is used in the news industy. There is an organization of News Ombudsmen.

Link below gives a complete description from the organizations web site.
http://www.newsombudsmen.org/what.htm

This is the short version.

*What is a news ombudsman?

A news ombudsman receives and investigates complaints from newspaper readers or listeners or viewers of radio and television stations about accuracy, fairness, balance and good taste in news coverage. He or she recommends appropriate remedies or responses to correct or clarify news reports.*

I see a Foundation appointed person doing something similar. Looking at individual serious problems that exist because of fixable flaws in the system. This should keep these same type of problems from reoccuring.

Regards,
Sydney


from_name: Matt Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
On 7/20/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 21/07/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > No, it isn't.  I'm sorry you can't see that.
>
> Perhaps you could humour me and explain how they are different?

I suspect Anthony might be of the opinion that an encyclopedia should
only be a tertiary source, summarising the judgment of secondary
sources.

(am I right?)

-Matt


subject: [WikiEN-l] "Exclusion" essay

body:
On 20/07/06, Elisabeth Bauer <elian at djini.de> wrote:
> One hypothesis:
> Allowing too much "fancruft" in Wikipedia creates an imbalance in the community
> structure. There is a really large pool of 15 year old, computer savy kids (some
> may be older) who get easily attracted to writing wikipedia articles about f.e.
> star trek compared to a very small pool of for example experts on let's say
> homer. The latter group won't be as easily drawn into writing for wikipedia than
> the first. And they will be less and less willing to do so, if they find a
> community dominated by 15 year old star trek fans.

An entirely unrealistic hypothesis. en.Wikipedia, and its userbase, is
too large to be subject to big changes in demographics as you suggest.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: Mark Gallagher

subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
G'day Guettarda,

> It's nice to be able to find out what you've missed when you walk in
> half-way through an episode of 24, but it's a complete policy
> violation...

There are all sorts of reasons why our traditional approach to pop
culture is Really Super-Awesome or The Absolute Worst Thing About Us,
but "because it's a complete policy violation" ranks somewhere down near
infinity ...

Policy has its uses (for instance, brow-beating process wonks who refuse
to do the Right Thing unless it's written down in legalese and they get
a receipt in triplicate), but wringing one's hands and worrying about
whether you're living up to its demands is useless and, fortunately,
unnecessary.

Cheers,

--
Mark Gallagher
"But the visibility was very poor, and you yourself admit that you were
being struck by thunderbolts all the time, which must have distracted
your attention, so it is more than probable you were mistaken."
- Esmond Haddock, /The Mating Season/


from_name: Peter Ansell

subject: [WikiEN-l] "Exclusion" essay

body:
On 20/07/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>   I've written a short essay to tackle notability from a different
> direction: why do we want to exclude certain articles? It's at
> [[Wikipedia:Exclusion]]. I'd appreciate your thoughts and additions!
>
> Steve

I think it is a much better tack to come at the issue from.

Peter Ansell


from_name: Michael Bimmler

body:
On 7/20/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/20/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > PS : is it a good idea to have a user named ombudsman ?
> >
>
> The issue has been raised from time to time (I think it got a mention
> in the user's RFC). Since the user has refused to change there hasn't
> really been much that can be done.
>
Wait, a bureaucrat doesn't really need the user's approval to do the
name change...
On dewp, there is now a policy which allows bureaucrats to do forced
name changes for offending usernames ("User:XYZ_is_an_idiot"). I'm not
saying that "Ombudsman" is literally offending but it might be
considered if the user constantly refuses and if consensus is reached
that his username could be misleading.
Michael
> --
> geni
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


body:
> I may have been mislead on this (not a good situation for the bureaucrat
> doing 95% of the namechanges on en.wiki) but my understanding is that
> en.wiki does not permit forced name changes. Barring an order from the
> Arbitration Committee, Jimbo Wales, or the Foundation Board, I just
> don't think we can do it. I'd be interested to hear from Angela, who is
> also an en.wiki bureaucrat and has far more inside experience than I do.

If you ban him the name will never be available for Wikimedia to use.
A forced name change is far preferable.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: Elisabeth Bauer

subject: [WikiEN-l] "Exclusion" essay

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:

> That'd be cool. Let's think - what *is* the harm in boundless
> fancruft? There must be harm, or we would allow it. Perhaps it is
> simply that boundless fancruft strays too far from our mission, which
> is to produce an encyclopaedia that is not just a random collection of
> information.
>
> Someone help me out here - we all know that it's wrong to have 600
> pages describing every fight ever shown in any Pok?mon episode. But
> why?

One hypothesis:
Allowing too much "fancruft" in Wikipedia creates an imbalance in the community
structure. There is a really large pool of 15 year old, computer savy kids (some
may be older) who get easily attracted to writing wikipedia articles about f.e.
star trek compared to a very small pool of for example experts on let's say
homer. The latter group won't be as easily drawn into writing for wikipedia than
the first. And they will be less and less willing to do so, if they find a
community dominated by 15 year old star trek fans.

greetings,
elian


from_name: Angela

references:
<e9liaq$bqe$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<f80608430607190817s2330d4fbvc5178e8a48ad97e6@mail.gmail.com>
	<e9no2e$moa$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
On 7/20/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > So is it now time to force a name change on user:ombudsman?
>
> Are you aware that I was at some point the owner of this account ? :-)

I think you're mistaking it for User:Mediator.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ombudsman doesn't
seem like you.

-- User:Arbitrator ;)


body:
On 20/07/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> Or maybe Ombudsman can keep his name, and Wikimedia can register "Wikimedia
> Ombudsman" -- far more official sounding.

This would be my choice. We shouldn't aggravate a user when a far more
easy, and friendly, option is available.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: Sam Pointon

subject: [WikiEN-l] "Exclusion" essay

body:
On 20/07/06, Elisabeth Bauer <elian at djini.de> wrote:
> One hypothesis:
> Allowing too much "fancruft" in Wikipedia creates an imbalance in the community
> structure. There is a really large pool of 15 year old, computer savy kids (some
> may be older) who get easily attracted to writing wikipedia articles about f.e.
> star trek compared to a very small pool of for example experts on let's say
> homer. The latter group won't be as easily drawn into writing for wikipedia than
> the first. And they will be less and less willing to do so, if they find a
> community dominated by 15 year old star trek fans.

No group of valid editors and contributors should be treated as any
less worthy than any other group. Just because you are young Caucasian
techie doesn't mean you're less of an editor than a wizened African.
Every single person who wants to contribute should be welcomed with
open arms, whether they intend to improve our coverage of Star Trek or
the fine nuances of Bose-Einstein condensates at higher temperatures.

Now, I hear you crying out, how do we correct systemic bias if we
can't turn young Caucasian techies away and vilify their areas of
interest? Surely, the only way to lure in academic experts is to
construct a social vacuum, and suck them in that way?

Perhaps not. The current situation is that we are making editorial
calls on what popular culture is worthy of an article. I would rather
have enough popular culture contributors and articles (note - that's
-good- popular culture articles, not bad ones) to be able to say "yes,
that's too obscure, trans-delemerge it," than to be begging for
contributors in this field.

Now, the question is, how do we make Wikipedia just as attractive for
other demographic groups, so that we can also be saying "that nuance
of Bose-Einstein condensate is too obscure, trans-delemerge it."
Positive solutions (attracting new users) are preferable to negative
ones (taking a hard line on 15-year old Star Trek fans).

--Sam


from_name: Anthony

subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
On 7/20/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 20/07/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > Not all articles use something as a source for itself (e.g., using an
> > episode of Friends as a source on what happened in an episode of
> > Friends).
>
> We never copy an account word-for-word. Even published synopses have
> to be summarised by our editors. I cannot see the fundamental
> difference between summarising an episode and summarising a summary of
> an episode. This must be original research by your standard too?
>
No, it isn't.  I'm sorry you can't see that.


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] insist on sources

body:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 01:54:43 +1000, "Stephen Bain"
<stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:

>That section needs a good rearrange. It begins well, by establishing
>that Armstrong has never failed a test despite being one of the most
>tested athletes ever. However then it goes into 'allegation mode',
>essentially giving a list of the allegations made against Armstrong at
>various times.

So now all we have to do is stop Socafan from reinserting the crap
when it's removed.  Which is what caused the ruckus over the weekend.

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


from_name: Brianna Laugher

body:
Hello,

I originally posted this to the commons-l list (
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2006-June/000277.html )
to little response. So let's see if I can do any better with a wider
audience.

Here are some recent issues that I would like resolved:
* To what extent are we bound by local laws and to what extent are we
bound by Florida's laws (as the home of our servers). Country
copyrights vary considerably with regards to duration of copyright,
"freedom of panorama" (Panoramafreiheit) /whether public objects such
as statues and even buildings can be freely photographed and there is
a lot of confusion about this. Should we respect local law always or
interpret in terms of US law?
(Big discussion about a photo of the interior of a
German railway station:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archives11#Image:Berlin_Hauptbahnhof_pano_06.jpg
)

* There was recently a discussion about the "Against DRM" license (
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:ADRM &
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing/ADRM  ).

* Logos. This has still not been sufficiently resolved, in that there
is not a clear enough solution that everyone is aware of. Do we
consider copyright independently of trademark status? Is that even
possible? (
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archives11#Image:CSU-Logo_1998.jpg
)

* "Agencia Brasil" license  (
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Ag%C3%AAncia_Brasil ) also
has been debated several times. Related to the wider issue of, "if a
website says "these images can be used freely, can we interpret that
as allowing commercial use and derivative works, and thus
Commons-compliant? Or do we need to check each time whether they
intend to allow these specific rights?"

* Photographs of commercial products such as: Pokemon/Star
Wars/Simpsons toys, box of Pringles, also people in dress-up outfits
of characters such as Lara Croft/Chewbacca. Eloquence has raised this
before ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archives10#Various_Star_Wars_pictures
) but I doubt even he would think this has been satisfactorily
resolved.

* US presidential portraits (
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing#Portraits_with_unclear_copyright_status_from_the_U.S._Federal_Government
 kind of got split up and was carried over from a debate on en.wp
anyway).

* Photographs of art - if the artwork itself is old enough to be PD,
is it true that any photograph of the art itself is also PD, but any
photograph of the art in its frame or on a wall  is not? (Because it
is 3-D, not 2-D anymore)

* Personality rights. What permission is required of people
photographed, if any? (eg "Can I take your picture"/"Can I publish
your picture on a public database that allows commercial use?") Is
this a copyright concern or a "other law" concern that we don't need
to worry about? What if the people aren't recognisable (and how can
you decide that anyway?)? (
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Deletion_requests#Image:Kind_in_Nord.C3.A4thiopien.jpg
is a current one, also some of the "visible thong" pictures on
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/G-string have been nominated before)

* Stock xchange images (current:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:SXC villy also wrote
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Aurevilly/sxc.hu_%282%29 but it
seems to have stalled). What should be done with the existing images
(which are intentionally not categorised in any way as such, so they
might be hard to find), what do we have to do (if anything) in order
to use current images?

* Flickr allows users to change the licenses on their images with no
external notice. So CC-BY or CC-BY-SA images uploaded to Commons might
later appear to be CC-BY-NC-ND or even "all rights reserved". This is
an increasing problem. Obviously Flickr needs a "history" tab, but
until then...? (current discussion at
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Flickr_allows_license_changes
)

* Flag copyright - originality - again which laws to apply? (eg.
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2006-June/000385.html ,
is it true?)

I really feel distaste at the idea that the Foundation would avoid
involving itself in such questions in order to avoid legal
culpability.

Help, please?

Brianna
commons, meta, en.wp:User:pfctdayelise


body:
On 7/20/06, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:

> * To what extent are we bound by local laws

Every user is bound by their own local laws. Whether the project
decides to adhere to any of those is more of a policy issue than a
legal one.

> * Flickr allows users to change the licenses on their images with no
> external notice. So CC-BY or CC-BY-SA images uploaded to Commons might
> later appear to be CC-BY-NC-ND or even "all rights reserved". This is
> an increasing problem. Obviously Flickr needs a "history" tab, but
> until then...? (current discussion at
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Flickr_allows_license_changes
> )

The problem here is whether to trust the user who originally added a
tag that no longer matches what is on flickr.

> I really feel distaste at the idea that the Foundation would avoid
> involving itself in such questions in order to avoid legal
> culpability.

Has anyone said the avoid Foundation is refusing to answer questions
for that reason? I'd assumed the problem was that no one knew the
answers, not that they did but were purposefully withholding the
information.

Angela


body:
On 20/07/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> So call the ombudsman something else.  User:Ombudsman had the name first, right?
>
> Ombudsman is a sexist title anyway.
>

Ombudsperson, perhaps?

PS. I left a note on the user's talk page.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
On 20/07/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> I'm sorry, but I disagree.

Then Wikipedia must immediately change its policy on original
research. All articles contain the summarisation that you consider
original research. It is this that makes an article an article.
--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: Mark Wagner

subject: [WikiEN-l] Uploading images should be a privilige, not a right

body:
There are two problems with letting just anybody upload images:
1) Copyright law is very complex.  Most people don't understand it.
2) Most people *aren't aware* that they don't understand it.

By letting everyone upload images to Wikipedia, we're telling them
that we trust them to understand what is and is not allowed.  Then, we
turn around and bite them by deleting their images when, inevitably,
they make mistakes.  It confuses people no end to be told that they
both are and aren't able to upload images correctly.

I see this confusion every day, in the questions on my talkpage, or on
OrphanBot's user and talkpages, or on the image-related pages in
Wikipedia:-space.  I haven't had OrphanBot go through the 35,000 talk
pages that it's left messages on, but I expect that if I did, I'd find
hundreds more questions, unanswered because nobody ever saw them.

I also see this in the form of users floundering around, trying out
different templates to see which one will get the bot off their back,
or using clearly-incorrect templates based on a misunderstanding of
copyright, or making up template-like statements because they don't
understand what a template is, or providing "fair use rationales" that
amount to little more than a statement of "I once heard these words in
a copyright context".

I don't have the time to deal with this confusion by explaining
Wikipedia's policies to everyone, and most uploaders don't stick
around long enough to learn.  The best I can do is respond to the
occasional user who finds their way to my talkpage.

Much of the image deletion policy is based around the fact that there
are maybe a dozen people on Wikipedia who understand the image use
policy well enough to enforce it, and are willing to take the time to
do so.  At the same time, over two thousand new images are uploaded
each day, adding to the 553,000 images already on Wikipedia.

By making image uploading a privilege to be earned rather than a right
conferred by registering an account, we can relax the policy and deal
with uploaders individually, rather than automated notification of
problems and nearly-automated deletion of problematic images.

--
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]


subject: [WikiEN-l] insist on sources

body:
G'day SPUI,

> Oldak Quill wrote:
>
>>>Actually, and forgive my immense lack of knowledge on the subject, is
>>>there any automated way to see which articles [[Category:Living
>>>people]] and [[Category:Articles lacking sources]] have in common?
>>>Thanks in advance. --LV
>>
>>A feature which does this is soon being introduced. It is called
>>"category math" (probably at
>>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category_math).
>
> I can't wait for the stub cabal to instantly lose their purpose.

Pfft, if the stub-sorters didn't exist you'd have had to invent them.
Indeed, my occasional attempts at surfacing on AN/I and IRC lead me to
believe you've already found a new antagonist.

Let's just hope you don't make the same mistake the /TNG/ producers did,
replacing the old villanous Klingons with the Ferengi ...

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


body:
On 20/07/06, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> > * Flickr allows users to change the licenses on their images with no
> > external notice. So CC-BY or CC-BY-SA images uploaded to Commons might
> > later appear to be CC-BY-NC-ND or even "all rights reserved". This is
> > an increasing problem. Obviously Flickr needs a "history" tab, but
> > until then...? (current discussion at
> > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Flickr_allows_license_changes
> > )
>
> The problem here is whether to trust the user who originally added a
> tag that no longer matches what is on flickr.

Deciding this issue case-by-case depending on the "trustworthiness" of
the original uploader doesn't seem very sensible to me, especially in
a far-knit community like Commons. Besides which, everyone can make a
mistake.

> > I really feel distaste at the idea that the Foundation would avoid
> > involving itself in such questions in order to avoid legal
> > culpability.
>
> Has anyone said the avoid Foundation is refusing to answer questions
> for that reason? I'd assumed the problem was that no one knew the
> answers, not that they did but were purposefully withholding the
> information.

Well, it rather was suggested that (
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2006-June/000278.html ),
but good point, I wrote this in a fairly assuming way. So, sorry for
that. Any and all attempted answers welcome.

Brianna


body:
On 20/07/06, SPUI <drspui at gmail.com> wrote:
> So even though almost no one now supports the name "Limited-access
> roads", including several who also commented in the original CFD, it is
> kept there because of a vote-counter. I fail to see why we have chosen
> to operate this way - there is certainly not consensus to keep it there.
> If I choose to ignore all rules I will probably be banned for violating
> my probation against "provocative edits". But the current name does not
> correctly describe the purpose of the category.

I didn't understand why you didn't just move the category until that
mention of "provocative edits". I'd happily move the category for you,
if no one objects?

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: Eric R. Meyers

body:
On Thursday 20 July 2006 22:29, Angela wrote:
> On 7/21/06, Eric R. Meyers <ermeyers at adelphia.net> wrote:
> > The 5 board members are actually living, breathing and thinking human
> > beings with the full mental capacity to be very proactive for "The Right
> > Thing" to happen at "The Right Time,"
>
> Do you have any evidence for that claim?
>
> Angela.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

You know better than me.  I actually was just thinking about you. :)

You're great!

Eric
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20060720/25bd89e9/attachment.pgp


body:
On Thursday 20 July 2006 22:29, Angela wrote:
> On 7/21/06, Eric R. Meyers <ermeyers at adelphia.net> wrote:
> > The 5 board members are actually living, breathing and thinking human
> > beings with the full mental capacity to be very proactive for "The Right
> > Thing" to happen at "The Right Time,"
>
> Do you have any evidence for that claim?
>
> Angela.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

You know better than me.  I actually was just thinking about you. :)

You're great!

Eric
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20060720/25bd89e9/attachment-0001.pgp


body:
On Thursday 20 July 2006 22:29, Angela wrote:
> On 7/21/06, Eric R. Meyers <ermeyers at adelphia.net> wrote:
> > The 5 board members are actually living, breathing and thinking human
> > beings with the full mental capacity to be very proactive for "The Right
> > Thing" to happen at "The Right Time,"
>
> Do you have any evidence for that claim?
>
> Angela.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

You know better than me.  I actually was just thinking about you. :)

You're great!

Eric
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20060720/25bd89e9/attachment.pgp>


body:
On Thursday 20 July 2006 22:29, Angela wrote:
> On 7/21/06, Eric R. Meyers <ermeyers at adelphia.net> wrote:
> > The 5 board members are actually living, breathing and thinking human
> > beings with the full mental capacity to be very proactive for "The Right
> > Thing" to happen at "The Right Time,"
>
> Do you have any evidence for that claim?
>
> Angela.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

You know better than me.  I actually was just thinking about you. :)

You're great!

Eric
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20060720/25bd89e9/attachment-0001.pgp>


body:
I just reread the discussion and have realised that there are more
opposes and alternate suggestions (High-speed roadways) than
originally suggested.

It'd probably be a good idea to move it from "Limited-access roads"
but I'm not sure what to. "High-speed roadways" is a problem in that
some rural lanes in Texas have higher speed limits than interstates
(as someone mentions in the discussion). "Freeway and motorway" is
problematic because these are just two examples of what these
structures are named.

How about something like "High-throughput roadways"?

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


body:
On 20/07/06, SPUI <drspui at gmail.com> wrote:
> There are ten-lane surface roads and two-lane freeways. This is a
> category of freeways - highways with full control of access and no cross
> traffic. The bit about not all places using that term is not a problem,
> as we have to choose a term, and no one has put forth an alternate term.
> A Category:Elevators would include elevators where they are called lifts.

Why don't you just call it "Category:Highways with full control of
access and no cross traffic"? It sounds less Americanocentric than
"Freeways".
--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: Yury Tarasievich

subject: [Wikipedia-l] places names -- historical

body:
On 20/07/06, Berto <albertoserra at ukr.net> wrote:
> Make redirects.
...and use historicals?

----


subject: [WikiEN-l] "Exclusion" essay

body:
On 20/07/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:

> That's probably right if you're only referring to demographic or
> racial groups. But in general, 15 year olds aren't "less worthy" just
> because they're 15, they're "less worthy" because their interests are
> less useful to us, and their powers of copywriting and collaborative
> editing are less good. On average.

I would say that this is nonsense. 15 year olds who chose to edit
Wikipedia tend to not stand out as having different tastes to everyone
else. At least, that is the case in my experience.

To say that any interests are "less useful to us" is nonsense. We have
practically unlimited space and for this reason I deny we can ever
really have too many factually accurate, verifiable articles on a
particular subject. We can, of course, have too few articles on a
given subject. For this reason, a common interest is not less useful
to us, but a rare interest is more useful to us.

> > techie doesn't mean you're less of an editor than a wizened African.
> > Every single person who wants to contribute should be welcomed with
> > open arms, whether they intend to improve our coverage of Star Trek or
> > the fine nuances of Bose-Einstein condensates at higher temperatures.
>
> Sure. Some should be welcomed more than others :)

Yes, but no one should be less welcome than average.

> > Perhaps not. The current situation is that we are making editorial
> > calls on what popular culture is worthy of an article. I would rather
>
> With very little success.

Could you cite an example?

> Are there still 15 year old star trek fans? I thought they were all in
> their 30s by now. Seriously though,  are you rejecting the basic
> premise that there ought to be limits to how much fictional universe
> stuff we want? I was hoping we could at least get consensus on that.
>
> I notice that every time I try to formalise the status quo, people
> think I'm trying to change it. This is interesting.

Admittedly, I had thought people were more deletionist than they
appear to be. This is good news for the project.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


body:
On 7/20/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Which role would you think such a person should hold ? Can you give some
> examples of what he would be supposed to do ?
>
> Ant

At various times various roles have been suggested and given the title
Ombudsman. The most recent idea I've run across was for some kind of
oversight watch but I tend to feel that should be handled differently.

--
geni


body:
On 7/20/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> Photographs of copyrighted statues and of objects featuring
> copyrighted logos and images (Simpson's dolls) should be taken down
> immediately. I think photos of 2D  and 3D PD art rarely can have
> claims of copyright, but I'm not a lawyer.

So, you wouldn't allow photos of buildings where a company's logo was
on their building?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:NYC_Top_of_the_Rock_Pano.jpg
is a featured image on commons and has logos, even if they are a bit
blurry. A clearer example is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Melb_cbd.jpg

Angela.


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is forever.

body:
On 7/20/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Take verifiability as an example.  This concept is a direct response to
> repeated complaints from the outside world that Wikipedia is not a
> reliable source of information.  From a strictly objective perspective

Was there a time before the verifiability policy?

> verifiability is a good thing, but it still has a cost.  It leads to a
> situation where the game is taken ove by rules lawyers who can convince
> the other players that order is good.  This makes it very difficult for

That almost never happens.

> the Calvinball player to introduce a new rule into the existing game.

No, it happens all the time.

Steve


from_name: Berto

body:
Well, I'd use the names that people are more likely to know in real life.
Sometimes that's simpky impossible, for example, in plants classification.
But as long as towns are concerned basically you would use the most recent
version, unless it was only published on maps and people used the historical
version anyway.

B?rto

----- ???????? ????????? -----
??: "Yury Tarasievich" <yury.tarasievich at gmail.com>
????: <wikipedia-l at wikimedia.org>
??????????: 20 ???? 2006 ?. 23:04
????: Re: [Wikipedia-l] places names -- historical

> On 20/07/06, Berto <albertoserra at ukr.net> wrote:
> > Make redirects.
> ...and use historicals?
>
> ----
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] "Exclusion" essay

body:
On 7/20/06, Sam Pointon <free.condiments at gmail.com> wrote:
> No group of valid editors and contributors should be treated as any
> less worthy than any other group. Just because you are young Caucasian

That's probably right if you're only referring to demographic or
racial groups. But in general, 15 year olds aren't "less worthy" just
because they're 15, they're "less worthy" because their interests are
less useful to us, and their powers of copywriting and collaborative
editing are less good. On average.

> techie doesn't mean you're less of an editor than a wizened African.
> Every single person who wants to contribute should be welcomed with
> open arms, whether they intend to improve our coverage of Star Trek or
> the fine nuances of Bose-Einstein condensates at higher temperatures.

Sure. Some should be welcomed more than others :)

> Perhaps not. The current situation is that we are making editorial
> calls on what popular culture is worthy of an article. I would rather

With very little success.

> have enough popular culture contributors and articles (note - that's
> -good- popular culture articles, not bad ones) to be able to say "yes,
> that's too obscure, trans-delemerge it," than to be begging for
> contributors in this field.

Is that a choice we have to make?

> Now, the question is, how do we make Wikipedia just as attractive for
> other demographic groups, so that we can also be saying "that nuance
> of Bose-Einstein condensate is too obscure, trans-delemerge it."
> Positive solutions (attracting new users) are preferable to negative
> ones (taking a hard line on 15-year old Star Trek fans).

Are there still 15 year old star trek fans? I thought they were all in
their 30s by now. Seriously though,  are you rejecting the basic
premise that there ought to be limits to how much fictional universe
stuff we want? I was hoping we could at least get consensus on that.

I notice that every time I try to formalise the status quo, people
think I'm trying to change it. This is interesting.

Steve