from_name: Nick Jenkins

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Importing XML database dumps - what actually works?

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> > On some quick testing it looks like there are some encoding problems if
> > UTF-8 isn't the locale charset; I'll try and get those worked out.
> >
> > In the meantime, try setting LANG=en_US.UTF-8 and rerunning it.
>
> Fixed version of mwdumper available:
> http://download.wikimedia.org/tools/

Thank you! The new version definitely makes a big difference, as it
gets past 29,000 articles without any errors.

However, it then died after 40 minutes with this error message:
=============================================================
637,000 pages (272.057/sec), 637,000 revs (272.057/sec)
638,000 pages (272.21/sec), 638,000 revs (272.21/sec)
639,000 pages (272.254/sec), 639,000 revs (272.254/sec)
640,000 pages (272.402/sec), 640,000 revs (272.402/sec)
641,000 pages (272.203/sec), 641,000 revs (272.203/sec)
642,000 pages (272.332/sec), 642,000 revs (272.332/sec)
643,000 pages (272.476/sec), 643,000 revs (272.476/sec)
644,000 pages (272.514/sec), 644,000 revs (272.514/sec)
645,000 pages (272.676/sec), 645,000 revs (272.676/sec)
646,000 pages (272.746/sec), 646,000 revs (272.746/sec)
647,000 pages (272.891/sec), 647,000 revs (272.891/sec)
648,000 pages (272.927/sec), 648,000 revs (272.927/sec)
649,000 pages (273.067/sec), 649,000 revs (273.067/sec)
650,000 pages (273.11/sec), 650,000 revs (273.11/sec)
651,000 pages (273.274/sec), 651,000 revs (273.274/sec)
652,000 pages (273.416/sec), 652,000 revs (273.416/sec)
653,000 pages (273.401/sec), 653,000 revs (273.401/sec)
654,000 pages (273.614/sec), 654,000 revs (273.614/sec)
655,000 pages (273.716/sec), 655,000 revs (273.716/sec)
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: Java heap space
ERROR 1064 at line 4426: You have an error in your SQL syntax near ''

15:
38, 20 Sep 2004 [[User:Docu|Docu]] deleted \"Category:Liberal partie' at line 1
Tue Oct 25 10:44:45 EST 2005
ludo:/home/nickj/wikipedia# screendump 1 > screen1
=============================================================

(Note machine has 452324k of RAM, and 787144k of swap, and wasn't
doing anything else at the time).

MySQL article count at this time was:
=============================================================
mysql> select count(*) from cur;
+----------+
| count(*) |
+----------+
|   655000 |
+----------+
1 row in set (0.00 sec)
=============================================================

As a workaround, I then tried changing the command line from:
/usr/java/jre1.5.0_05/bin/java -server -jar mwdumper.jar
--format=sql:1.4 20051020_pages_articles.xml.bz2 | mysql enwiki
To:
/usr/java/jre1.5.0_05/bin/java -Xmx200M -server -jar mwdumper.jar
--format=sql:1.4 20051020_pages_articles.xml.bz2 | mysql enwiki

(i.e. increased max allowed memory use to 200 Mb), then did a "delete
from cur;", and then reran mwdumper.

With this, it went much further (to around 1933000 articles).

In case it helps with mwdumper, memory use during import (with the
-Xmx200M arg) looks like this:
===============================================================================
ludo:/home/nickj/wikipedia# top -n1
top - 12:45:30 up  2:53,  3 users,  load average: 4.48, 4.48, 4.19
Tasks:  62 total,   2 running,  60 sleeping,   0 stopped,   0 zombie
Cpu(s):  9.3% us,  3.0% sy,  0.0% ni,  0.0% id, 86.7% wa,  1.0% hi,  0.0% si
Mem:    452324k total,   449468k used,     2856k free,      476k buffers
Swap:   787144k total,       76k used,   787068k free,   270148k cached

  PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEM    TIME+  COMMAND
 1694 root      24   0  384m 142m  51m S  0.0 32.4  24:53.10 java
 1697 root      16   0  384m 142m  51m S  0.0 32.4   0:00.00 java
 1698 root      16   0  384m 142m  51m S  0.0 32.4   2:11.39 java
 1699 root      16   0  384m 142m  51m S  0.0 32.4   0:00.00 java
 1700 root      15   0  384m 142m  51m S  0.0 32.4   0:00.00 java
 1701 root      16   0  384m 142m  51m S  0.0 32.4   0:00.00 java
 1702 root      16   0  384m 142m  51m S  0.0 32.4   0:00.04 java
 1703 root      16   0  384m 142m  51m S  0.0 32.4   0:05.24 java
 1704 root      16   0  384m 142m  51m S  0.0 32.4   0:05.91 java
 1705 root      16   0  384m 142m  51m S  0.0 32.4   0:00.00 java
 1706 root      15   0  384m 142m  51m S  0.0 32.4   0:00.16 java
  573 mysql     16   0 27232  11m 5380 S  0.0  2.6   0:00.05 mysqld
  575 mysql     16   0 27232  11m 5380 S  0.0  2.6   0:00.00 mysqld
  576 mysql     16   0 27232  11m 5380 S  0.0  2.6   0:00.00 mysqld
[...snip irrelevant processes...]
===============================================================================

and:
===============================================================================
ludo:/home/nickj/wikipedia# ps auxwf
USER       PID %CPU %MEM   VSZ  RSS TTY      STAT START   TIME COMMAND
[...snip irrelevant processes...]
root       823  0.0  0.2  2240 1280 tty1     Ss   09:52   0:00 -bash
root      1692  0.0  0.2  2240 1280 tty1     S+   11:28   0:00  \_ -bash
root      1694 31.6 33.1 393228 149888 tty1  S+   11:28  25:08      \_
/usr/java/jre1.5.0_05/bin/java -Xmx200M -server -jar mwdumper.jar
--format=sql:1.4 20051020_pages_articles.xml.bz2
root      1697  0.0 33.1 393228 149888 tty1  S+   11:28   0:00      |
 \_ /usr/java/jre1.5.0_05/bin/java -Xmx200M -server -jar mwdumper.jar
--format=sql:1.4 20051020_pages_articles.xml.bz2
root      1698  2.7 33.1 393228 149888 tty1  S+   11:28   2:11      |
     \_ /usr/java/jre1.5.0_05/bin/java -Xmx200M -server -jar
mwdumper.jar --format=sql:1.4 20051020_pages_articles.xml.bz2
root      1699  0.0 33.1 393228 149888 tty1  S+   11:28   0:00      |
     \_ /usr/java/jre1.5.0_05/bin/java -Xmx200M -server -jar
mwdumper.jar --format=sql:1.4 20051020_pages_articles.xml.bz2
root      1700  0.0 33.1 393228 149888 tty1  S+   11:28   0:00      |
     \_ /usr/java/jre1.5.0_05/bin/java -Xmx200M -server -jar
mwdumper.jar --format=sql:1.4 20051020_pages_articles.xml.bz2
root      1701  0.0 33.1 393228 149888 tty1  S+   11:28   0:00      |
     \_ /usr/java/jre1.5.0_05/bin/java -Xmx200M -server -jar
mwdumper.jar --format=sql:1.4 20051020_pages_articles.xml.bz2
root      1702  0.0 33.1 393228 149888 tty1  S+   11:28   0:00      |
     \_ /usr/java/jre1.5.0_05/bin/java -Xmx200M -server -jar
mwdumper.jar --format=sql:1.4 20051020_pages_articles.xml.bz2
root      1703  0.1 33.1 393228 149888 tty1  S+   11:28   0:05      |
     \_ /usr/java/jre1.5.0_05/bin/java -Xmx200M -server -jar
mwdumper.jar --format=sql:1.4 20051020_pages_articles.xml.bz2
root      1704  0.1 33.1 393228 149888 tty1  S+   11:28   0:05      |
     \_ /usr/java/jre1.5.0_05/bin/java -Xmx200M -server -jar
mwdumper.jar --format=sql:1.4 20051020_pages_articles.xml.bz2
root      1705  0.0 33.1 393228 149888 tty1  S+   11:28   0:00      |
     \_ /usr/java/jre1.5.0_05/bin/java -Xmx200M -server -jar
mwdumper.jar --format=sql:1.4 20051020_pages_articles.xml.bz2
root      1706  0.0 33.1 393228 149888 tty1  S+   11:28   0:00      |
     \_ /usr/java/jre1.5.0_05/bin/java -Xmx200M -server -jar
mwdumper.jar --format=sql:1.4 20051020_pages_articles.xml.bz2
root      1695  2.5  1.9 11184 8696 tty1     S+   11:28   2:02      \_
mysql enwiki
===============================================================================

At around 1933000 articles it seemed to get stuck. I left it overnight
(no change), then rebooted (for good measure), and then MySQL gave
strange errors for cur (e.g. "ERROR 1016: Can't open file: 'cur.MYD'.
(errno: 145)"), and refused to do anything with this table. Further
investigation showed that the disk partition that MySQL was using was
100% full (Doh! My bad). I'm fairly confident that if it there had
been sufficient disk space that the mwdumper import would have
succeeded.

By the way, I noticed that in the TODO list in the README.txt, it has:
> * Include table initialization in SQL output

This is a very good idea - i.e. for 1.4 output a "CREATE TABLE IF NOT
EXISTS cur (...);" before the insert statements. I'd also suggest a
table cleanout option, which does "DELETE FROM cur;" for 1.4 (would be
placed right after the table creation in the output, if this options
is invoked). The equivalents are for 1.5 are I guess are probably
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS for both 'page' and 'text', and "DELETE
FROM text; DELETE FROM page;". A "--table-cleanout" or
"--delete-current" or "--from-scratch" option would be very handy to
automate this as part of the dump import process.

All the best,
Nick.


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [WikiEN-l] Arbitration Committee elections, 2005

body:
On 10/26/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So what is the point of involveing Jimbo? Why should he be able to
> make a better descission than people like me who spend far more time
> on en.

Actually that's a pretty good question.  I suppose the answer is that
we probably couldn't all agree on involving another Wikipedian, such
as you, whereas quite a lot of people, if not the majority, are likely
to be able to live with the idea of Jimbo's involvement.  It's his
toybox, he did a pretty good job of handling disputes in the early
days, and he still performs some arbitration and appeal functions.


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: How do I edit a page from inside China?

body:
Jimbo Wales wrote:

>Still, your point is absolutely valid in the broader sense.  What
>changes could be make that might allow us to mitigate the problems of
>anonymous proxies in a gentler way than wholesale blocking?

Looking at http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=550 , the
problem isn't having the code to hand - we have code patches on hand
for lots of possible options. The problem is deciding what is actually
a good idea socially. What's an obviously elegant solution to the
problem? If there isn't one, what compromise would make things better
rather than worse?

- d.


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [WikiEN-l] New Ideas for AfD

body:
On 10/26/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/26/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikispam at inbox.org> wrote:
> > If an actual no-foolin' expert dissents, then there isn't consensus in
> the
> > first place.
>
> And if an actual no-foolin' expert supports the consensus?

 Supports what consensus? I just said, if people can't come to a general
agreement, then there *is* no consensus. You seem to be mistaking majority
with consensus.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Repeated blocks -- collateral damage

body:
dcv wrote:

>Now, what about the selective blocking.  How does THAT  happen -- being able
>to edit one page and not another, when the  article I can't edit is open for
>editing?
> I've been told that such a thing is "impossible," but it's happened  to me
>many times.
>Does anyone have an explanation?

That's the bit I mentioned about how each individual *page view* might
come from a different AOL proxy. You're at the same address,
Wikipedia's at the same address, but AOL uses a different proxy in the
middle and Wikipedia sees the proxy's IP, which may be the same or may
be different each time.

(Is it actually completely consistent behaviour per page? i.e., a
given page is always either editable or blocked from editing? If so,
that's something I didn't know before about how AOL does its thing
...)

AOL is a Headache. It's 22% of the US Internet, and that's a LOT of
people. And Wikipedia, being (like AOL) one of those marvellous pieces
of technology that people who can't work computers but are good at
other stuff can use effectively, does in fact want those people in the
pool of possible contributors. But AOL was developed as a completely
separate and unrelated creature to the Internet, and you can still see
the hooks and stitches and bolts and gaffa tape joining the two, and
the way they do things technically looks ... weird.

- d.


from_name: Geoff Burling

subject: [WikiEN-l] Skyring edit history to date

body:
>From everything that I've seen written here about Skyring,
if it is correct then we returned to the point we were at
a few months ago when it appeared that a group of neo-Nazis
might take over Wikipedia, & Jimbo announced that he would
take any measure to prevent them. In other words, extreme
remasures are now needed -- for example, either a DMCA lawsuit
or finding some muscular hard cases who will "discourage" him
from making further posts to Wikipedia. (Yes, I'm joking
about the last option. Mostly.)

If that is the case, I hope a first step before this would be
to talk to the ISPs involved first -- even if they blow us off,
then seek the help of any Internet activists in Australia.
That way, when we do something extreme like block all anons
& new accounts from Australia, it will help minimize the
ill will that ensues.

Not sure what else I could contribute to this discussion.
He's become a difficult problem, & all of the easy solutions have
been tried & shown not to work. And he's gotten to the point
where attacking Wikipedia has become his life: calling that
"pathetic" doesn't properly do it justice.

Geoff


body:
On 10/26/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What else?

Skin like a rhinoceros and eyes in the back of your head.


subject:
[WikiEN-l] How do I respond to the right thread,
	when I'm receiving digests?

body:
Christopher Maloney wrote:

>I configured myself to receive the message digests -- there's way too
>much volume on this list for anything else.  I want to respond to a
>particular thread, though, and can't see how to do it easily.  Is it
>just a matter of copying the subject line?  Actually, I'm pretty sure
>it's not, because I see several cases of duplicate subjects which are
>separate threads.

You'd need to cut'n'paste the References: or In-Reply-To: header from
the original messages, and those won't be in the digest. I'd just
cut'n'paste the Subject: line and put a Re: in front of it as
appropriate.

(Those who notice my appalling threadbreaking of late will be
unsurprised to know I am in fact doing this myself, reading the
messages from the web archive ;-)

Perhaps it works better from the gmane.org version of the list.
Actually, I should look into that one myself.

- d.


list: foundation-l

from_name: Robert Scott Horning

subject:
[Foundation-l] P2P Wikipedia (was Re: Our exponentially increasing
	costs)

body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:

>This is the reason I think a more P2P based network would be such a great
>solution for the long-term. People wouldn't need to donate cash to cover
>operating "costs".
>
>Anthony
>
>
I know this belongs on the technical mailing list, but I would like to get more involved with at least some experimental Wikipedia data servers that use the P2P approach for distribution of content.  Are there some forums, talk pages, or developer groups that are working to develop this concept?

I found http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/P2P but there are certainly other that may be useful.

The #1 problem I see with most current P2P networks is that they are anti-wiki and are only useful for spreading content.  Editing content and pushing the edits back to a central repository goes beyond the current P2P topology and would have to be a key component to a MediaWiki P2P edition.  I guess I'm asking for a Wikiproject type thing to get started to discuss this issue, but realize that there are so many forums to discuss something like this that trying to pick out one place to make a discussion of this nature can be difficult.

There would still be a need to cover some basic "operating costs", but we could perhaps cut some of the server growth down quite a bit through alternative technologies, reducing bandwidth to a higher percentage of actual content instead of navigational queries.  It would also  help reduce effects of server overloading, and have a side benefit to transmit information to places like China where it would work around official censorship.

--
Robert Scott Horning


list: wikimedia-l


body:
On 10/26/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Kelly Martin wrote:
> > On 10/25/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Prove it. I haven't seen any of these voteing blocks.
> >
> >
> > Then you're not watching.  The existence of voting blocks is quite
> > evident in RfA.
> >
> >
>
> Not to mention AfD.
>

Process-not-content has a virtual lockdown on VFU.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Skyring edit history to date

body:
geni wrote:
>On 10/26/05, Han Dao <wikipediankiba at gmail.com> wrote:

> I wonder why Skyring took the trouble of annoying us. What is his agenda?
> What is his motive?

>You are presumeing a rational individual.
>However I suspect it is a desire not to lose face. He has to make us
>appear stupid in order to make it appear that his banning was stupid.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. His blog
(http://skyring.livejournal.com) is a study in denial when it comes to
anything relating to Wikipedia. Also,see
http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=prikipedia .

- d.


from_name: Justin Cormack

subject: [WikiEN-l] Webcomics/Deletion again

body:
On 26 Oct 2005, at 09:42, Alphax wrote:
> Can you find public, verifiable information about these webcomics in
> respectable secondary sources?

There is a problem that there is a systemic bias against (for example)
academic and journalistic reporting on new forms of culture (witness
the coverage of computer games in the mainstream press). So I would
support being more lenient in these cases if necessary, and allowing
argument supported by primary sources if done well, and not pushing
political points but being descriptive or linking related threads
(post apocalyptic storylines; Manga characterisation, fierce rabbits
or whatever).

But given that the articles mostly read as:

'''Animal Farm'' is a [[web comic]] with many readers.

{{spoiler}}

==Characters==
*''Napoleon'' is a [[pig]] who takes over the [[farm]]

Its all pretty irrelevant. I joined in this thread trying to get an
idea of whether I should join in AfD etc to support these articles,
but have not yet got any reason to.

Justinc


body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
>On 10/26/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

>> What else?

>Skin like a rhinoceros and eyes in the back of your head.

The first one, yep. The second one is covered by the "empathy" and
"politics" requirements - if you have those, 370-degree vision (all
the angles and more) are part of the package ;-)

- d.


from_name: Michael Turley

body:
On 10/26/05, Christopher Maloney <voldrani at gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry, this is probably a stupid question.  I've just joined the
> mailing list, I read the welcome email and the about page, and can't
> find the answer to this.
>
> I configured myself to receive the message digests -- there's way too
> much volume on this list for anything else.  I want to respond to a
> particular thread, though, and can't see how to do it easily.  Is it
> just a matter of copying the subject line?  Actually, I'm pretty sure
> it's not, because I see several cases of duplicate subjects which are
> separate threads.

The easiest way is to set up a separate email account for your
WikiEN-l subscription.  That way, you don't swamp your regular email
with messages, you can view a group of postings all at once as if they
were a digest, and you can reply to any without some convoluted
process to keep things "on-thread".

Send yourself another gmail invite.  ;-)

--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused


subject: [WikiEN-l] Webcomics/Deletion again

body:
Alphax wrote:

>So, a website which sells widgets and is unknown outside of the widget
>community should not have an article

I must ask: why on earth not, if the info is third-party verifiable?
How is one to research an area one is new to without cues to such
things? If you're interested in an area, why *wouldn't* you be
interested in things of interest within that area?

I see no reason to deliberately reduce our possible usefulness.

The issue of webcomic articles mostly being pretty crappy is another
matter, and an important one. But your proposal seems an
overgeneralisation of a way to use deleting the whole article as a
tool to solve *editorial* problems. The problem there being that many
people think an article being deleted means another article on that
topic can never be created, ever. (Some even think an article being
deleted means its content shouldn't be allowed in new articles
anywhere else on the encyclopedia, which I can't make sense of.)

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Webcomics/Deletion again

body:
On 26 Oct 2005, at 12:15, Alphax wrote:
>
> So, a website which sells widgets and is unknown outside of the widget
> community should not have an article; a website which is reasonably
> well-known in the widget community should be mentioned in the
> article on
> widgets; and a website which sells widgets, well known within the
> widget
> community, /which has been Slashdotted/, could have it's own article.

I am prepared to admit that there are things that should be well known
outside their community, and that a good and interesting article with
real links (that show the connections to the things outside the
community)
could do that. Slashdottings after all happen when someone inside the
community notices that the company has announced a new superwidget. Or
the annual report might mention something of more general importance,
perhaps the widget company was the largest financer of a politician.
These things are on the border of primary research, but are fact based
and interesting. Real links outside widgetspace make things notable and
interesting.

Justinc


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Crappy prose isn't the main "quality" problem.

body:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005, Ilya N. wrote:

> Does NPOV or NOR allow analysis at all? Not in the slightest.
>
> While it is meant to discourage pushing a viewpoint and putting uncited
> research up on Wikipedia, what would happen if someone were to analyze a
> point in an article?
>
> In some cases it would seem to be pushing a point of view (even if the
> opposite POV is expressed) and sometimes would cause an edit war
>
> In other cases it would be seen as original research (oh no! You can't say
> that without citing it!)
>
There was an incident a few years back where Lir challenged the commonplace
assertion that "Nightfall" was considered Isaac Asimov's best short story.
Arguments flew back & forth until someone dug up a suitable quotation
with a proper attribution, & ended that minor crisis. However, that event
illustrated a problem with Wikipedia, in that expressing a judgement or
making an analysis often leads (or has the likelihood of leading) to a
revert war.

Most editors aren't interested in getting bogged down in one of those, &
will write defensively & only set forth facts (e.g., "Hamlet is a
drama in five acts believed by most critics to have been written by
William Shakespeare"). Our articles suffer because of this.

Now the obvious solution is to do the necessary research & report what
important critics have said about the work of literature; to use Hamlet
as an example, I happen to have at hand _The Reader's Encyclopedia of
Shakespeare_, which happens to have an article that consists of lengthy
quotations about this play by Sam Johnson, Goethe, Coleridge, Turgenev,
T.S. Eliot & others -- which even if this wasn't a problem would still
make for a better article. (In the cases where an encyclopedia article
is quoted, it because the article was signed by a recognized expert.)

However, for some authors no body of secondary literature exists. For
example, Mary Gaitskill is an author worthy of an article in Wikipedia;
but were I to attempt to write an analysis of her works using quotations,
I'd be forced to use only book reviews many of which are written by
people lacking authority. (Frankly, whatever the NYT Book Review might
write about her would be about as insightful as whatever Lyndon LaRouche
could have written -- & none of us would be permitted to quote him on
her works.)

Another problem is that analysis of some writers is daunting to anyone
who isn't an expert. For a long time [[Paul of Tarsus]] had the comment
that he is considered one of the important figures of Christianity --
but failed to explain why. I did the necessary research to fill in this
hole, & wrote something that was close enough to answering the question
that other people could improve on what I wrote -- or argue with each
other other how to improve on what I wrote. (Some of my comments were
deleted for being POV -- even though having read his writings, it's
obvious that Paul's influential views on sexuality was because he was
a prude, not because he had any special insight from God.)

Geoff


subject: [WikiEN-l] New Ideas for AfD

body:
On 10/26/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> >On 10/26/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com <http://gmail.com>> wrote:
> >> On 10/26/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikispam at inbox.org <http://inbox.org>>
> wrote:
>
> >> > If an actual no-foolin' expert dissents, then there isn't consensus
> in the
> >> > first place.
>
> >> And if an actual no-foolin' expert supports the consensus?
>
> > Supports what consensus? I just said, if people can't come to a general
> >agreement, then there *is* no consensus. You seem to be mistaking
> majority
> >with consensus.
>
>
> "Consensus" is AFD jargon for "66% delete votes, for any reason or
> none." Really. It is.

 I know, but that doesn't mean I have to accept such newspeak. I can accept
the process (not sure I do yet), but I'll never accept the redefinition of
the word, and, especially when it's thrown around like this on the mailing
list, I'll occassionally point out the fact that the VFD process as
implemented has nothing to do with consensus.

I'm seeing myself describe how it actually works on AFD/VFU at present
> and people here seem incredulous. Go to AFD, participate in the
> "discussions" and see for yourself if you don't believe what I'm
> saying.
>
>
> - d.


from_name: charles matthews

subject: [WikiEN-l] Webcomics/Deletion again

body:
David Gerard wrote

>The problem there being that many
people think an article being deleted means another article on that
topic can never be created, ever.

Back to the classroom for them.  '

Topic X is not one on which an encyclopedic article can ever be written' (X
= my left nostril, for example) is a sufficient condition to delete.  It is
not a necessary condition, though in a sense if AfD were working at near
100% potential any salvageable article would be kept as a stub.  If it were
a necessary condition, then, yes, the 'what has changed?' argument would be
quite strong.

But that's not the case, nohow.

Charles


from_name: dpbsmith at verizon.net

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: For anyone who thought NPOV wasn't all that hard

body:
>From: David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>

>Read this and work out how you would bridge this gap.
>
>    http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-05/new-age.html
>
>If you have a quick formula that works, good. But how would you get
>someone to think that formula is a good idea and *want* to apply it?

Liberal arts education?

I got involved in an article that started out as listcruft--the list of the
books used in the St. John's College "Great Books" curriculum--and I got
drawn in. I've sorta gotten interested in St. John's and in Stringfellow Barr
and Scott Buchanan, the people who created it.

One of the things that really struck me is how, during the 1930s through the
1950s, there was serious concern about the rise of "the dictatorships" in
Germany and Italy. There was constant discussion of "the democracies" vis-a-
vis "the dictatorships." The title of Sinclair Lewis's novel, "It Can't
Happen Here," expressed the common attitude in the U.S., while its content
expressed Lewis's belief that it darn well _could_ happen here if we weren't
careful.

I grew up thinking of "liberal arts" as a sort of gentleman's quasi-
recreational curriculum, something that Ivy Leaguers studied if they weren't
interested in anything real. But that's not at all how Barr and Buchanan saw
it.

They believed quite seriously that the liberal arts curriculum was essential
_in developing the spirit of free inquiry._ They thought that unless all
citizens were educated in how to think, democracies would not be stable and
would be subject to transformation into dictatorships. They didn't want to
limit it to colleges.

Incidentally they were just as concerned about English majors not knowing
physics as vice versa.

I have no idea whether they were right. Their achievements certainly fell
very short of their ambitions. Certainly, the trends they feared have
progressed. I think the majority of Americans now regard college as an
activity that should be directly career-directed and that the status of the
liberal-arts curriculum has declined.

I'm not sure to what extent educators feel tasked with the job of teaching
critical thinking. Certainly in the public schools there has always been some
ambiguity about whether their task is to teach critical thinking or whether
it is to teach docility and obedience to authority....

I didn't get a liberal arts education, and I have a certain amount of
inquiring skepticism about its value, but... just a (tangential) thought.


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

body:
Colleges are dispensers of job training, warehouses that sell knowledge.

You go there to get certified. They used to be places where you went to
get an Education.

There's more to being an educated person than stuffing your head full of
data and info that which is useful in your career. Go to DeVry if you
want vo-tech training.

They even took Logic out of the curriculum. You don't learn obvious,
classically tried and true things like the syllogism. What's that, it
sounds dirty ("jism").

* All men are mortal.
* Socrates is a man.
* Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

If A is true, than B is true.
But B is not true!
Then A could not POSSIBLY be true.

And that's the simple stuff. Don't forget the rhetorical fallacies like
ad hominem, guilt by association, non sequitor, circular argument, and
dozens of others which are STILL BEING USED today.

The worst part is that Wikipedians use these fallacies on talk pages.

Ed Poor


from_name: Uwe Brauer

subject:
[WikiEN-l] copyright question: concerning the use of scientific
	articles

body:
Hello

Sorry if this article gets posted twice, but I presume my subscription
was not complete when I sent the following article.

I am not sure whether this is the right list to ask, if not could
somebody please point out to me the appropriate one.

I want to write an article which relies heavily on scientific
publications. (I will of course cite the relevant articles at the end
of `my' wikipedia article). What I have in mind is a summary of their
work, maybe one of ten sentences copied literally. Do I need the
permissions of the authors of these article (one author is already
dead) or could I avoid that problem in simply not copying even a
single sentence verbatim?

Or without their explicit permission I simply could not write about
the subject?

Thanks and regards

Uwe Brauer


subject: [WikiEN-l] Webcomics/Deletion again

body:
>Why should we have articles on every single Pokemon if they are totally
>unknown outside of the Pokemon community?

* Completeness of coverage is desirable in itself - being able to say
"we have an article on EVERY city, town and hamlet in the US. Yes,
EVERY DAMN ONE."  is a valuable bragging point in itself. If
completeness is *possible* it counts as a mark of quality and/or
potential quality in itself.
* If complete coverage is possible and not hard, it's a hell of a lot
easier and less work to just have articles on it all than setting an
arbitrary bar which then has to be maintained and argued over as
individual topics cross it. (And most of the "notability" markers I've
seen in various areas are in fact arbitrary.) It saves a lot of
pissfighting.

The question is "why shouldn't we?" Please do answer each of these in
turn (and the same for anyone else interested in this debate):

* A lack of resources ... what resources does this waste?
 - Disk space - word from the developers when asked this precise
question is "no."
 - Database/server speed - word from the developers when asked this
precise question is "no."
 - Bandwidth - if the article uses bandwidth, it means people want it.
You know, those "readers" we're supposedly producing this for.
 - Editor time - if they want to write about Cruftemon, they're not
going to write about British history or insects or computer functions
instead if you delete their hard work on Cruftemon articles. They'll
just leave the project.
 - Balance of coverage - you achieve that by filling in what's
missing, not by deleting articles and telling editors their work is
worthless. Also, NO-ONE reads Wikipedia by browsing all articles or
comparing the size of the "computers" volume against the size of the
"molecular biology" volume against the size of the "Cruftemon" volume.
If this was an issue, we'd be deleting most of the computer articles.
Why aren't we doing that? ('Cos that'd be ridiculous. Why would it be
ridiculous?)
 - Reader time - there is already far more Wikipedia than any of us
could ever read all of. So people read things they want to and remain
blissfully unaware of things they don't want to.
 - "Random article" link hits - possibly. (When I joined in late 2003,
1 in 6 articles was a Rambot article on a US town.) Or the function
could be weighted in favour of high-rating articles, when we get a
rating feature.
 - What have I forgotten on this list?
* Vanity articles - third-party verifiability takes care of these
nicely as far as I can see. Arbitrary "notability" bars seem like
unnecessary instruction creep.
* Reputation - it's a common stick to hit Wikipedia with. But the
problem there is that at this stage, every page on Wikipedia should
have a big 1995-style "UNDER CONSTRUCTION" sign on it. We get this
crap because people are looking inside the sausage factory and turning
greenish when they see the actual process. We need to take gentle
guidance from this but otherwise ignore it until we have a genuine
stable version up for critiquing.
*What have I forgotten on this list?

(I should probably put the list above somewhere on the wiki. Suggestions?)

>Right, the problem I see is that people with an "extreme interest" in X
>(you might even call it obsession) think that "all X are equally
>important and Wikipedia should have articles on all of them, including Y
>and Z".
>The problem is, the rest of the X community says "oh, Y and Z are just
>another couple of X's, nothing special". By including Y and Z, we are
>effectively pushing the POV that there is something different about Y
>and Z with respect to all other X.

I see that as setting an artificial barrier to possible completeness
of coverage. Why the hell not cover all we can with verifiability?
What resource are we lacking?

I also don't see your point about "NPOV"  in balance of coverage - as
I note above, 1. you can't enhance coverage of one area by cutting out
work in another area, and 2. no-one browses Wikipedia sequentially or
by weight of area.

>> But your proposal seems an overgeneralisation of a way to use
>> deleting the whole article as a tool to solve *editorial* problems.

>Well, we always have the ability to merge and redirect... I really don't
>understand what you're saying here.

Ah, but many people in the deletion process *insist* that a majority
of "delete" not-a-votes means there shouldn't even be a redirect. Tell
them, not me.

>> The problem there being that many people think an article being
>> deleted means another article on that topic can never be created,
>> ever. (Some even think an article being deleted means its content
>> shouldn't be allowed in new articles anywhere else on the
>> encyclopedia, which I can't make sense of.)

>That's completely wrong...

Again, many people in the deletion process consider that's how it
works and remove material from other articles *because* it was voted
"delete" rather than "merge". Tell them, not me.

Geogre claimed on VFU that "Tony, Snowspinner, and David Gerard have
lately been taking a radical stance on VfU." I boggled at this. I have
from time to time made a point of participating in *every* VFD debate,
and you know, most things that end up on AFD do in fact deserve to die
a quick, messy and hopefully painful death, as absolutely soon as
possible. But these people. Their arguments make knifing people's
babies look like a bad idea or something.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] New Ideas for AfD

body:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

>I don't care about the number of votes. If an expert can assert it
>meets notability criteria it should be kept. We should try to get such
>criteria for as many types of articles as possible.

Tell the people on AFD. (And I dare you to quote actual policy.) They
seriously argue that a consensus of the admittedly ignorant on a
subject beats a dissenting actual no-foolin' expert.

- d.


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Milos Rancic

subject: Ant: Re: [Wikipedia-l] I can't believe!

body:
On 10/26/05, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> > When someone says that (s)he is speaking Bronxian, Philadelphian,
> > San-Franciscian or even "The Language of 10th New York Avenue" and
> > make a template about that, (s)he would be completely right. Of
> > course, I would be the first who would list all of my native "regional
> > languages" because I have the same feelings toward my regions as the
> > person from Zlatibor toward Zlatibor. As well as I know a lot of
> > people who have the same feelings toward the parts of Belgrade.
>
> So, do you consider Belgradian to be your mother tongue? I, for one,
> think you're blowing smoke and disrupting WP to prove a point.

No, if it is possible to have "regional languages", I said that I have
the same feelings for my regions as Zlatiborians for their.

> How many people do you think honestly consider Bronxian or
> Philadelphian or San-Franciscan to be their mother tongue? Probably
> only a handful. And what are the chances that these people are
> Wikipedians?

There is more chance to have the person like that then person from
Zlatibor. There are much more computers in San Francisco then in
Zlatibor. If Wikipedia's official policy is to have "regional
templates", I am sure that a lot of people would like to have their
"regional language templates".

> > And language user templates would become a nonsense.
> >
> > And I think that this conversation is nonsense, too. If you want to
> > defend such principle even language user templates would become a
> > nonsense, go on. But, I see that there are enough of reasonable people
> > on the poll.
>
> Wikipedia is about consensus, not "majority rules".

You have strong principles. The same one you are using about one more
Chinese Wikipedia as you are using for the Zlatibor language template.


subject: [WikiEN-l] New Ideas for AfD

body:
On 10/26/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikispam at inbox.org> wrote:
> On 10/26/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> > >On 10/26/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com <http://gmail.com>> wrote:
> > >> On 10/26/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikispam at inbox.org <http://inbox.org>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >> > If an actual no-foolin' expert dissents, then there isn't consensus
> > in the
> > >> > first place.
> >
> > >> And if an actual no-foolin' expert supports the consensus?
> >
> > > Supports what consensus? I just said, if people can't come to a general
> > >agreement, then there *is* no consensus. You seem to be mistaking
> > majority
> > >with consensus.
> >
> >
> > "Consensus" is AFD jargon for "66% delete votes, for any reason or
> > none." Really. It is.
>
>  I know, but that doesn't mean I have to accept such newspeak. I can accept
> the process (not sure I do yet), but I'll never accept the redefinition of
> the word, and, especially when it's thrown around like this on the mailing
> list, I'll occassionally point out the fact that the VFD process as
> implemented has nothing to do with consensus.

Unfortunately, you must accept such newspeak if you're not the closing
admin.  You also must if your "keep" close of an AfD with 66% or more
delete votes doesn't satisfactorily explain your reasoning to the 66%.

Further, try getting anything undeleted and you'll see that no matter
what the arguments are, you'll find at least one user voting "KD,
valid Afd" if there were 66% or more votes because for them, it's the
process that matters.  This is the very same process that defines
"consensus" as 66%.

And since recreation of a deleted article is speedy-deletable, you
must accept this silly newspeak in the particular venue of Wikipedia,
if your article on an obscure topic has had the misfortune of catching
the attention of someone who doesn't agree with your POV regarding
notability.

Somewhere along the way, the deletion forums have effectively
redefined the term "consensus" for the purposes of deletion.

I hope that the redefinition can be rubbed out, however, most
proposals regarding deletion reform seem to take the flavor of "how
can we make this deletion process stronger" rather than the more
humble admission that true consensus actually requires the consent of
the minorty.

--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused


from_name: Puddl Duk

body:
> I want to write an article which relies heavily on scientific
> publications. (I will of course cite the relevant articles at the end
> of `my' wikipedia article). What I have in mind is a summary of their
> work, maybe one of ten sentences copied literally. Do I need the
> permissions of the authors of these article (one author is already
> dead) or could I avoid that problem in simply not copying even a
> single sentence verbatim?
>
>
> Or without their explicit permission I simply could not write about
> the subject?
>

You may quote these authors without their permission, to some extent.
>From [[WP:Wikipedia:Fair use]];

"Brief, attributed quotations of copyrighted text may be used to
illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or
idea. In general, extensive quotation of copyrighted news materials
(such as newspapers and wire services) is not fair use and is
prohibited by Wikipedia policy. Extensive quotation from copyrighted
media such as movie scripts is also prohibited, as previous "fair use"
case law has established that such usage may infringe on the future
earnings of the copyright holder (i.e. on their ability to publish a
book of said quotations)."

In general, try not to use copyrighted work under fair use unless
really necessary. You can present the same facts as a copyrighted text
using your own words without violating copyrights. It's the creative
work that is protected, not the facts.  Also, remember that Wikipedia
requires attribution whenever fair use is used.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Webcomics/Deletion again

body:
David Gerard wrote
.
*What have I forgotten on this list?

It is no bad thing, from a techie-linguist aspect, to have hits on WP from
Google for as many odd strings as possible - within proper encyclopedic use,
that is.  I would never advocate posting junk.  But, when I put up a list of
books titles that, for example, contains 'mimiambs'  (of Herodas, of course,
as you all know full well), I do feel that another tiny corner of Google
search has been tipped WP's way.  This admittedly is more an argument for
having lists of Pokemon-clone characters, rather than having an article per
Pokemon.  But in the end it's much the same: put things on the site, the
popular ones will get red links, then blue.

Charles


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] New Ideas for AfD

body:
I don't care about the number of votes. If an expert can assert it
meets notability criteria it should be kept. We should try to get such
criteria for as many types of articles as possible.

--Mgm

On 10/26/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/26/05, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> > I think that if a few regular editors want to keep it should be kept.
> > Their opinion should veto any number of delete votes. I don't mean to
> > include anyone who blindly votes keep however.
> >
> > Fred
> >
>
> A few would have a near veto anyway. If a few is 4 then 8 delete votes
> would be needed to remove it.
>
>
> --
> geni
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Andrew Gray

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 27, Issue 186

body:
On 26/10/05, Christopher Maloney <voldrani at gmail.com> wrote:

> What is the IP address 145.97.39.155, anyway?  Is that your own proxy server?

It seems to be rrvs.knams.wikipedia.org, so certainly something local.
Not sure quite what that server name means, though...

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


from_name: Poe, Marshall

subject: [Foundation-l] 9/11wiki content sharing

body:
As a part of my effort to enrich www.memorywiki.org, I would like to
take some of the personal memoir content from 9/11wiki and posting it to
the site. I think my audience would benefit from the memoirs, and that
the memoirs would be more widely read (eventually).

As I understand it, this sort of borrowing is allowed by the GNU
license.  I will, of course, attribute the memoirs to the authors, and
say that they are borrowed from Wikipedia.  In any event, I wanted to
ask the community for advice in this matter before I moved forward.

Thanks in advance, MP

Marshall Poe, Ph.D.
The Atlantic Monthly
600 New Hampshire Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-266-6511
mpoe at theatlantic.com


subject: [Foundation-l] 9/11wiki content sharing


from_name: Delphine Ménard

subject:
[Foundation-l] Re: Our exponentially increasing costs (was Re:
	Re: Answers.com and Wikimedia Foundation to Form New Partnership)

body:
On 10/26/05, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Actually, I just said my gut feeling was that the donation curve would not
> follow the cost curve forever. What is needed is a statistical assessment of
> the two. However, looking *only* at two fund drive data points and two traffic
> data points gives some reason to be optimistic.
>
> Q3 2004 Fund Drive grand total:                       $44,863.95 USD
> September 2004 unique visitors to wikipedia.org: 3.2 million
>
> Q4 2005 Fund Drive grand total:                         $243,930 USD
> September 2005 unique visitors to wikipedia.org: 12.8 million
>
> So, there has been a 533% increase in donations for a 400% increase in traffic.
> Throw in Moore's Law and things look even better. However, the traffic numbers
> are only for wikipedia.org and this only tracks unique visitors; those visitors
> likely use Wikipedia more often today than they did last year. The other
> projects, esp Commons, Wiktionary and Wikinews are starting to become popular
> as well. So I'll tend to be pessimistic until I'm able to analyze some hard
> data for every one of our domains (data with consistent standards - esp for the
> non-wikipedia.org domains - has been difficult to come by).

OK for the present statistics. And cool. :-)
I'll just add that those were fundraising drives with a goal. So
people play along. The problem in my opinion is when we start asking
for 1 million per quarter. ;-) But I guess we'l have to see.

>
> > Small donations originated by fundraising drives are something we
> > should *count* on, but not something we should *rely* on. We're not
> > the only ones out there asking for money, and I believe that it is
> > also our job to be looking elsewhere for hard cash.
>
> Well, we kinda do have to rely on small donations. Small donations, not big
> ones or grants, make up the vast majority of our income. Relying too much on
> any one or select few big donors, grants or income from partnership agreements
> puts us in jeopardy if any one or several of them pull their funding. But the
> answer to that is to have *lots* of big donors, grants, and income streams from
> partnerships. However, I think your point was that we should not simply rely on
> donations in general as our sole income stream. Yep - I agree with that 100%.
> We also need to diversity our income in general - we can't be too reliant any
> one source

Yes, that's exactly what I wanted to say. I used rely in that sentence
as in "fundraising drives cannot be our _only_ source of revenue",
which is what I understood Jtkiefer was hinting at, when she/he said :
"Correct me if I'm wrong but couldn't wikimedia just adjust their
donation goals to cover that and thus cover the cost of new
hardware/repairs/upgrades, etc...?"

> I get several emails in the ORTS donation queue each week from people who
> either don't have cash or who want to donate in a currency that we don't
> accept. I tell each that their donation of time in either contributing content
> or telling people about Wikipedia is just as important as giving money. That
> Wikipedia would not exist without volunteer effort.

Yes. Been there, done that ;-).
It is an immense paradox isn't it, that Wikipedia would not exist
without volunteers, but also would not exist if we did not have the
money to run the servers that host it?

Delphine
--
~notafish


from_name: geni

body:
On 10/26/05, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> But that will be the next question... No thanks!

No becuase I know it will not be answered. I think I can show either
position to be flawed but there is no point in useing the arguments
against one when I dealing with an someone who holds the other
position

--
geni


body:
On 10/26/05, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> This is part of the problem. If we can't candidly discuss the
> candidates for arbitrator (too disruptive) how can we have much of an
> election?
>
> Fred

Fairly common practice in France.

I am quite happy to disscuss any of the canditdates. If the candidates
object to this they should not have run.

--
geni


body:
On 10/26/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> Not to mention AfD.

That isn't dealing with people and as I said due to the voteing system
running on an inclusionist or deletionist tickit would be a terminaly
stupid tactic for someone wanting to get elected.

--
geni


from_name: Phil Boswell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Webcomics/Deletion again

body:
"Alphax" <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote in
message news:435F6CF1.9080903 at gmail.com...
> David Gerard wrote:
>> I must ask: why on earth not, if the info is third-party verifiable?
>> How is one to research an area one is new to without cues to such
>> things? If you're interested in an area, why *wouldn't* you be
>> interested in things of interest within that area?
> Why should we have articles on every single Pokemon if they are totally
> unknown outside of the Pokemon community?

At the very least we should have a list of every single Pokemon, and
articles on those which might be particularly interesting, or about which
there is a lot of information.

Unfortunately there is now also a tendency for lists like this to be
nominated for AFD as "listcruft". "Unmaintainable" is also a term bandied
about, usually meaning "incomplete" or often "I don't know what these things
are so I couldn't maintain the list myself", as if it were untenable to ever
include a list in Wikipedia before full membership were determined (don't
these people understand, Wikipedia is **dynamic**!) and rude to include a
list of things which some poor benighted person might not have come across
before.

Sometimes it's difficult to discern exactly what some AFD nominators would
consider suitable for an article at all.
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


subject: [WikiEN-l] New Ideas for AfD

body:
On 10/26/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't care about the number of votes. If an expert can assert it
> meets notability criteria it should be kept.

Will people be provideing formal signed documents to the fondation
showing that they indeed are experts in the fields they claim?

>We should try to get such
> criteria for as many types of articles as possible.
>
> --Mgm

Tends not to work because the include everthingists tend not to agree.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] New Ideas for AfD

body:
On 10/26/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikispam at inbox.org> wrote:
> If an actual no-foolin' expert dissents, then there isn't consensus in the
> first place.

And if an actual no-foolin' expert supports the consensus?

--
geni


from_name: Taco Deposit

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Webcomics/Deletion again

body:
On 10/26/05, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Today's VFD zen: the first twelve of fifteen entries on this days page
> are nominated simply as "NN, D. ~~~~" (and there's more after that). I
> swear this becomes self-parody sometimes...

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/ComCat

TD


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject: [WikiEN-l] Bridging the Chasm between Two Cultures

body:
charles matthews wrote:

> Ed Poor wrote
>
> >Oh, well, I'm just rambling.
>
> The capacity of the American male to self-promote never ceases to
> amaze me. (Yep, happens on wiki-en too, amazingly enough.)  The 'aw,
> shucks, there I go talking about myself' that follows induces a sense
> of awe too.

Somewhere or another, ages ago, I saw a comparison of cultures that
characterized the US as a "nation of salespeople", in that USians
would seemingly instinctively promote their work, their possessions,
themselves, their children, etc. If after hearing the praises of a
child, you offered to buy it for a million dollars, a USian parent
might be surprised, but then more likely pleased with your interest
than insulted at the idea of engaging in human trafficking. 1/2 :-)

Stan


from_name: Joseph Reagle

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikihistorians: Wikipedia Timeline

body:
I just did a big overhaul, but there's more to be done for the historically
minded or those with long memories! :)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia
[[Wikipedia_timeline]]: 19:12, 26 October 2005 Reagle (many edits, trying to
make sure everything is clear, dated, sourced, and consistently formatted,
more to be done, please help with '??'s)

--
Regards,          http://www.mit.edu/~reagle/
Joseph Reagle     E0 D5 B2 05 B6 12 DA 65  BE 4D E3 C1 6A 66 25 4E


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Crappy prose isn't the main "quality" problem

body:
>From: Geoff Burling <llywrch at agora.rdrop.com>
[much snippage]
>There was an incident a few years back where Lir challenged the commonplace
>assertion that "Nightfall" was considered Isaac Asimov's best short story.
>Arguments flew back & forth until someone dug up a suitable quotation
>with a proper attribution, & ended that minor crisis. However, that event
>illustrated a problem with Wikipedia, in that expressing a judgement or
>making an analysis often leads (or has the likelihood of leading) to a
>revert war.
>
>Most editors aren't interested in getting bogged down in one of those, &
>will write defensively & only set forth facts (e.g., "Hamlet is a
>drama in five acts believed by most critics to have been written by
>William Shakespeare"). Our articles suffer because of this.
>
>Now the obvious solution is to do the necessary research & report what
>important critics have said about the work of literature...
>
>However, for some authors no body of secondary literature exists. For
>example, Mary Gaitskill is an author worthy of an article in Wikipedia;
>but were I to attempt to write an analysis of her works using quotations,
>I'd be forced to use only book reviews many of which are written by
>people lacking authority.

Very well said, and jibes with my thinking and experience.

Another point is that it is easier to observe that something IS opinion than
to judge whether it is well-founded, generally-accepted opinion.

Wikipedia is _replete_ with unsourced but well-founded value judgements that
are _entirely appropriate_ to an encyclopedia article: "Beethoven is widely
regarded as the greatest composer of all time;" "Shakespeare has a reputation
as one of the greatest of all writers in the English language and in Western
literature, as well as one of the world's pre-eminent dramatists;" Isaac
Newton is "widely regarded as the most influential scientist in history."

When such assertions are "commonplace" to anyone with a high-school
education, they are usually allowed to stand. When they are not, sound
judgements that are well-accepted _by anyone familiar with the topic_ are
challenged. In many cases, it would be completely appropriate to let them
stand, at least as placeholders, for a considerable length of time, before
being replaced with well-attributed quotes.

In my case, my own run-in was over an article on Harold Robbins'
"blockbuster" novel, _The Carpetbaggers_. I had written:

"Like many of Robbins' other novels, _The Carpetbaggers_ combined good
writing, a strong story, and numerous more-or-less-gratuitous scenes of
explicit sex. The sex scenes were at the extreme outer boundaries of
acceptability for a mainstream novel at its time of publication; _The
Carpetbaggers_ was probably the first New York Times bestseller to include
scenes in which characters engage in fellatio."

Now, I really don't think anyone familiar with the novel would challenge
this, not even Robbins himself. But this editor insisted that it was "POV."
When I cited something support he said "I'm assuming that you are citing
movie critics' reviews. Erm... isn't it a little obvious that those reviews
are opinions? Wikipedia is about facts, not opinions." (In fact, they were
Amazon reader reviews and arguably non-authoritative, though representative).

The happy ending was that I was able to find a New York Times book review
that said the same things I had said, only better. With regard to gratuitous
sex, he said the plot was merely "an excuse for a collection of monotonous
episodes about normal and abnormal sex?and violence ranging from simple
battery to gruesome varieties of murder." In regard good writing, he said "If
Mr. Robbins had no more talent than a verbose pulp-writer, it would be of no
importance that the book is aimed so low. In the sections in which he avoids
the lurid, he writes graphically and touchingly; on these pages, his dialogue
is moving and his people have the warmth of life."

And the article was the better for it.

But I found the experience quite irritating, and rather Wiki-energy-sapping,
and I think my original unattributed statement-of-the-commonplace was every
bit as acceptable as "Beethoven is widely regarded as the greatest composer
of all time."


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: New Ideas for AfD

body:
"Anthony DiPierro" wrote:
On 10/26/05, David Gerard wrote:
> MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
> > >I don't care about the number of votes. If an expert can assert it
> > >meets notability criteria it should be kept. We should try to get such
> > >criteria for as many types of articles as possible.
> > Tell the people on AFD. (And I dare you to quote actual policy.) They
> > seriously argue that a consensus of the admittedly ignorant on a
> > subject beats a dissenting actual no-foolin' expert.
> If an actual no-foolin' expert dissents, then there isn't consensus in the
> first place.

You appear to have misunderstood the working definition of "consensus"
employed on AFD...YHL HAND
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]
Yes, I am bitter about it...why, does it show?


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Expert weight on AfD

body:
dpbsmith at verizon.net wrote

> In any situation, Wikipedians credit you with the exact amount of
> expertise
> you actually demonstrate immediately, on the spot, in their presense.

Well, no, if they know you from relevant WikiProjects they might have much
more to go on.  One point of WikiProjects surely is to target expertise.

Charles


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Repeated blocks -- collateral damage

body:
<Koltwills at aol.com> wrote in message
news:e8.1ec69345.308fc407 at aol.com...
> I just got this message:
[complete information as to what the problem is and a polite query snipped]
> dcv

Now this is how to submit this type of complaint...I'd have unblocked you
myself if I were even vaguely in a position to do so at the appropriate time
:-)

Is there any way all the rude b*st*rds who normally storm in here demanding
their "rights" can be referred to this message as an exemplar?
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Webcomics/Deletion again

body:
"Alphax" <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote in
message news:435F6564.4010207 at gmail.com...
[snip]
> "Is noted outside of the community it originated" is one of the things I
> tried to pin to the "notable" tag (foolish me). By that I mean: "has
> received attention outside of its own fandom".
> So, a website which sells widgets and is unknown outside of the widget
> community should not have an article; a website which is reasonably
> well-known in the widget community should be mentioned in the article on
> widgets; and a website which sells widgets, well known within the widget
> community, /which has been Slashdotted/, could have it's own article.

The problem here is that there are many people/things which are extremely
interesting but---until we write about them---all but unknown **outside
their particular subject community**.

For example, I doubt if I could name half-a-dozen Particle Physicists. I'll
bet you there are ten times that many who deserve an article of their own,
but you'd be hard put to it to convince some of the hard-core AFD
deletionists of it, because they simply vote "nn, never heard of them"
without even giving the appearance of reading the article.

What I can't understand is that I come to an encyclopaedia wanting to find
things I **don't** already know about, not endless regurgitation of stuff I
already knew. So rejecting an article on the grounds that I don't already
know the subject matter seems nonsensical to me.

Am I alone?
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


from_name: Geoff Burling

subject: [WikiEN-l] New Ideas for AfD

body:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, Michael Turley wrote:

> Further, try getting anything undeleted and you'll see that no matter
> what the arguments are, you'll find at least one user voting "KD,
> valid Afd" if there were 66% or more votes because for them, it's the
> process that matters.  This is the very same process that defines
> "consensus" as 66%.
>
Hmm. I've not looked at VfU, but I wonder if having an article nominated
for undeletion by an Admin who voted for its deletion might make a
difference.

I ask this because I nominated an article about a person some weeks ago
that I thought was a hoax (I even asked another Wikiepdian who I believed
knows more about Ethiopia than I as a sanity check), but since have
found verification that said person *did* exist. (Is Emperor Haile
Selassie's autobiography reliable enough?)

FWIW, I probably won't get around to writing the article from scratch
for 6 months, but if it was undeleted I'd likely add the information that
I found within a few days.

Geoff


subject: [Foundation-l] 9/11wiki content sharing

body:
I'd be happy to take and maintain the memoirs. I'm not sure what's to be
done with the personal and company tribute pages, as they aren't really
consistent with the mission of memorywiki.org.

Best, MP

Marshall Poe, Ph.D.
The Atlantic Monthly
600 New Hampshire Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-266-6511
mpoe at theatlantic.com
-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Angela
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 3:18 PM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 9/11wiki content sharing

On 10/26/05, Poe, Marshall <MPoe at theatlantic.com> wrote:
> As a part of my effort to enrich www.memorywiki.org, I would like to
> take some of the personal memoir content from 9/11wiki and posting it
> to the site. I think my audience would benefit from the memoirs, and
> that the memoirs would be more widely read (eventually).

How about just moving the whole wiki there rather than copying it page
by page?

I see no point in keeping in what was supposed to be an archive of
content that had to be removed from the English Wikipedia in an editable
form as a unwanted pseudo-Wikimedia project. It is not well maintained,
as a check of the main page's history will show before I resorted to
protecting it. Considering the difficulty in getting any new project
approved by Wikimedia, including a lot of very worthwhile ideas, I don't
see the point in keeping one controversial, monolingual, biased wiki
that has no community.

I really think this would be an ideal opportunity to find a new home for
it.

Angela.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l at wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


subject: [Foundation-l] 9/11wiki content sharing


from_name: David Gerard

body:
Kelly Martin wrote:

>Anyone who doesn't realize that there are influence structures in
>Wikipedia isn't paying attention.  If you want to move up in
>influence, it helps to be known, and known well, to those who already
>have it.  This is true whether people with influence are selected by
>appointment or by election.

And those who think this is a bad thing, an avoidable thing or
something we should pretend doesn't happen are blinding themselves and
heading for trouble. A hierarchy will happen whether you like it or
not, because humans are involved; politics starts with two or more
people in a room, anywhere. Pretending it's not there makes it
poisonous, not nonexistent.

This article, 'The Tyranny Of Structurelessness'  talks about the myth
of no hierarchy in the 1970s feminist movement and the demons it
raises, and reading it I find it vastly applicable in genera to ad-hoc
and activist movementsl:

  http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/hist_texts/structurelessness.html

If you don't have a structure then one will form out of your sight and
bite you in the arse. "If the movement is to move beyond these
elementary stages of development, it will have to disabuse itself of
some of its prejudices about organisation and structure. There is
nothing inherently bad about either of these. They can be and often
are misused, but to reject them out of hand because they are misused
is to deny ourselves the necessary tools to further development. We
need to understand why 'structurelessness' does not work."

If you don't want cabals, you don't achieve that by acting as though
any three editors talking to each other are OMG WTF BBQ CABAL!1!!!

- d.


from_name: charles matthews

subject: [WikiEN-l] Previews

body:
steven l. rubenstein wrote

> Is this happening to anyone else, or is it just me?

You are not alone.

> Does anyone have any idea why it is happening?

I assumed it was the servers under pressure.

Charles


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Previews

body:
steven l. rubenstein wrote:

>Half the time I click on "Save Page" the next screen is a "Preview" (and my
>edits are not yet saved).  I have been careful about this, and am
>definitely clicking on "Save Page," not "Show Preview."  And this is
>happening a lot.
>Is this happening to anyone else, or is it just me?
>Does anyone have any idea why it is happening?

Been happening to me too, on meta as well as en. (I've been adding to
[[m:Bash]].)

It's a known symptom of a very busy database - rather than committing
the change, it dumps you back to the preview screen.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] For anyone who thought NPOV wasn't all that hard

body:
Read this and work out how you would bridge this gap.

    http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-05/new-age.html

If you have a quick formula that works, good. But how would you get
someone to think that formula is a good idea and *want* to apply it?

- d.


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [Wikitech-l] Surrogate pair hack

body:
MySQL 5.0 does not reject the surrogate characters between U+D800 and
U+DFFF. This means we can store characters above the BMP either by setting
the character set to UTF-8 and inserting CESU-8, or by setting the character
set to UCS-2 and inserting UTF-16.

It might be a hack, but at least it's a standard hack. After all, this is
exactly what UTF-16 and CESU-8 were designed for. According to a certain
online encyclopedia that we all know and love, the exact same problem is
observed in Oracle, and CESU-8 is used to solve it.

Implementing it in MediaWiki would be a similar task to implementing
PostgreSQL bytea support, which I was talking about in #mediawiki the other
day. We could convert from UTF-8 to CESU-8 in Database::strencode(), and
decode by altering the result rows returned by mysql_fetch_object() before
they are returned by Database::fetchObject().

Binary data would have to be flagged both on write and read. On write, we
could use a function other than strencode() where there is a need to
construct raw SQL, and for the wrapper functions we could pass binary data
in a blob object. When reading from the database, we could probably use
mysql_field_type() or mysql_field_flags() to detect binary columns and skip
the conversion accordingly.

It'd probably be easiest to do conversion offline, in the process of
switching to MySQL 5.0. We wouldn't be converting the bulk text, just the
metadata.

-- Tim Starling


from_name: Michael Turley

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Webcomics/Deletion again

body:
On 10/26/05, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 26/10/05, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > For example, I doubt if I could name half-a-dozen Particle Physicists. I'll
> > bet you there are ten times that many who deserve an article of their own,
> > but you'd be hard put to it to convince some of the hard-core AFD
> > deletionists of it, because they simply vote "nn, never heard of them"
> > without even giving the appearance of reading the article.
>
> Today's VFD zen: the first twelve of fifteen entries on this days page
> are nominated simply as "NN, D. ~~~~" (and there's more after that). I
> swear this becomes self-parody sometimes...
>
> I'm half-tempted to nominate a short but reasonably notable bio I
> wrote this afternoon for deletion, simply to see if anyone would
> concur with "nn, d" ([[Fleury Mesplet]], eighteenth century French
> printer with silly name = obscure), but I fear that it might be a
> little obviously Making A Point.

Be careful, you might just get your article deleted.

And if it did get deleted, you'd be swarmed with users who don't
actually care a whit about content saying "KD, valid AfD" in the
undeletion forum.  After all, they've voted themselves a consensus
that says undeletion is about _process_, not _content_.

Then you'd have the "enforcement admins" camping the spawn... er,
keeping the article title on their watchlists so they could be the
first to speedy delete it as a recreation, and they'll even cite you
the Wikipedia Revised Code reference as they do it.

And if you're really unlucky, you'll have a wikistalker editor or
admin watching your further contributions to make sure you don't try
to insert that deleted content in to a related article!
Consensus said delete!  How dare you consider trying to find a useful
place for your work!

I simply cannot imagine a plausible end to this nonsense at this time.

Knowing that deletion is easy power, and creation is powerful but
difficult work, imagine where the teenaged populists tend to
congregate.
--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused


from_name: Justin Cormack

subject: [WikiEN-l] Previews

body:
On Wed, 2005-10-26 at 11:13 -0400, steven l. rubenstein wrote:
> Half the time I click on "Save Page" the next screen is a "Preview" (and my
> edits are not yet saved).  I have been careful about this, and am
> definitely clicking on "Save Page," not "Show Preview."  And this is
> happening a lot.
>
> Is this happening to anyone else, or is it just me?
>
> Does anyone have any idea why it is happening?

This has happened to me on Commons, but never on en. It is
odd. On Commons it seems to happen consistently when I create
a new category from a category redlink. I think. You could try
filing a bug report as I think there actually is a bug. Any
special circumstances or repeatability in your case?

Justinc


from_name: Jeff V. Merkey

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Infinite Block
	byAbusiveAdmin/Extortion/Harassment/Fraudulent
	use of WikipediaAbuse Emails

body:
Hi Fred and All,

In answer to both questions, the page is Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey.  The
Talks pages througout the history section and the article are both
litered with excertps from the sealed settlement agreement.   Delete the
page and rollback to the content Wales and I agreed to and lock it, then
case closed and I can get back to editing.    Please consider this.
It's going to take about 35 days total to get an order to take it down (
and I will get the order).  How about just accept this proposal, do what
Wales and I originally agreed to, and lock the page back to the
stipulated content, remove the entire history section (or hide it from
the public) to remove the settlement language.  Then I can happily get
back to editing and not have to worry with that page again.

Thanks,

Jeff


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Surrogate pair hack

body:
Tim Starling wrote:
> MySQL 5.0 does not reject the surrogate characters between U+D800 and
> U+DFFF. This means we can store characters above the BMP either by setting
> the character set to UTF-8 and inserting CESU-8, or by setting the character
> set to UCS-2 and inserting UTF-16.

Sorry, I didn't realise that this subject has already been discussed on this
list:

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2005-October/031977.html

Except Brion called it pseudo-UTF-8 instead of CESU-8.

-- Tim Starling


from_name: Brown, Darin

subject: [WikiEN-l] RE: copyright and NOR policies re: math and science

body:
> > I want to write an article which relies heavily on scientific
> > publications. (I will of course cite the relevant articles at the end
> > of `my' wikipedia article). What I have in mind is a summary of their
> > work, maybe one of ten sentences copied literally. Do I need the
> > permissions of the authors of these article (one author is already
> > dead) or could I avoid that problem in simply not copying even a
> > single sentence verbatim?
> >
> >
> > Or without their explicit permission I simply could not write about
> > the subject?
> >
>
> You may quote these authors without their permission, to some extent.
> >From [[WP:Wikipedia:Fair use]];
>
> "Brief, attributed quotations of copyrighted text may be used to
> illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or
> idea. In general, extensive quotation of copyrighted news materials
> (such as newspapers and wire services) is not fair use and is
> prohibited by Wikipedia policy. Extensive quotation from copyrighted
> media such as movie scripts is also prohibited, as previous "fair use"
> case law has established that such usage may infringe on the future
> earnings of the copyright holder (i.e. on their ability to publish a
> book of said quotations)."
>
> In general, try not to use copyrighted work under fair use unless
> really necessary. You can present the same facts as a copyrighted text
> using your own words without violating copyrights. It's the creative
> work that is protected, not the facts.  Also, remember that Wikipedia
> requires attribution whenever fair use is used.

But in many fields, esp. mathematics and some scientific fields, the
distinction between "facts" and "creative work" or "ideas" isn't so
clear-cut.  A previous poster seemed to imply, if I understand correctly,
that one cannot write, e.g. "E = mc^2" without attributing fair use to
Einstein.  This seems ridiculous to me.  In mathematics, there often is no
way to "paraphrase" a result, so that you are presenting "the facts" but not
the "creative work".  For example, suppose someone in analytic number theory
proves yet another technically tedious result on the zeta function.  Just
imagine an expression full of integrals and special functions that goes on
for an entire line (or more).  By the above interpretation, how is one to
present this result without violating copyright?  After all, there is no way
to "paraphrase" the equation.  And what about a proof?  One can always
paraphrase a proof, but at the end of the day, you're really violating
copyright in spirit under the above interpretation as much as if you copied
verbatim.

The math community generally approaches things from a different angle -- the
issue is not viewed as a copyright issue (no one is making tons of money off
their research papers) so much as a research, peer review, and intellectual
respect issue.  If someone uses another's result in their paper, you must
reference them -- not so much for copyright as for rigour and peer review.
If you are using someone's proof in a textbook, it's generally good to
attribute it, but this is a matter of subjectivity -- most proofs that are a
notch or two below research-level have saturated the collective
consciousness (at least among some handful of people), and no attribution is
given at all.  Even on relatively recent topics which are no more than 50
years old, (within the span of copyright) a typical textbook has few direct
references, except when a result or argument is sufficiently novel or
original.  No one is running around getting express "permission" from anyone
whose work they want to quote.  Providing references to every single
statement made would just be ridiculous.

This brings me to another point that I don't think was addressed when I
brought it up -- many people seem to think that NOR means that every single
mathematical argument in wikipedia requires a reference to the published
literature.  Again, this is ridiculous.  Some arguments are simply not
special enough to warrant publication.  We know how to integrate, take
limits, find upper bounds, play with inequalities, etc.  We don't have to
publish everything like this to know it's right.  If an argument can be
easily verified to be true _by a professional in the field_, it should be
acceptable at wikipedia, without reference to the literature.

darin


from_name: Guettarda

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Previews

body:
>
> News to me. If the database is too busy, you should get a timeout screen
> or
> a "cannot contact database server" error message.
>
> We don't know exactly why this problem happens, but it's probably caused
> by
> loss or temporary unavailability of session data. Brion says we still got
> these reports when we put sessions in NFS, so memcached can't explain the
> problem in its entirety, but nonetheless I'd be inclined to think the
> current increase in reports is due to load on the memcached servers. We
> should probably try installing memcached on another 10 or 15 servers and
> see
> if that fixes the problem.
>
> A closely related problem is being spontaneously logged out if you didn't
> select the "remember me" checkbox when you logged in.
>
> -- Tim Starling

I've noticed that problem since the upgrade - sometimes a second or third
submit does it, sometimes it never works and I just copy the edit to
notepad, close Firefox, and try again. I'd say it happens maybe every third
edit. This is very different from the timeout messages.

Ian (Guettarda)


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Webcomics/Deletion again

body:
On 10/26/05, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm half-tempted to nominate a short but reasonably notable bio I
> wrote this afternoon for deletion, simply to see if anyone would
> concur with "nn, d" ([[Fleury Mesplet]], eighteenth century French
> printer with silly name = obscure), but I fear that it might be a
> little obviously Making A Point.

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

 There was an article about a famous professor that was copied directly from
a magazine article in Vanity Fair. It was nominated for deletion and
received quite a few "Delete. Vanity" votes (I guess it *was* an article in
*Vanity* Fair. It eventually was deleted as a copyvio and several months
later recreated as a non-copyvio.


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

body:
"the concern for the welfare of others, the need to be treated with
respect, and the need to be welcomed in a culture - are all things my
people share with yours." - Karla McLaren,

I feel that this is the essence of the Unification Movement - which
finds itself firmly in both camps: the metaphysical, because
Unificationists espouse a belief in God and the afterlife and the
skeptical, because Unificationism declares itself as refusing to be tied
to "blind faith".

I'm a software engineer, and my boss relies on me to be "skeptical" when
testing other people's programs. "Billy said it works? Well, I'll
believe that when I see it." Then Billy refuses to believe that it
DOESN'T work, unless I can reproduce the error right in front of his
eyes - and he still won't be fully convinced until he himself can make
it fail.

My personal question is whether any faith can stand the scrutiny of
critical thinking. And my answer is yes, but that makes me a rare bird
indeed. Even people in my church think I'm a bit kooky for being so
hard-headed.

My work at Wikipedia has often involved what McLaren called speaking to
people in in their own language: she said, "If we want to successfully
communicate with someone, we've got to understand not just their
language, but the cultural context from which their language springs.
>From what I've seen in both the New Age and the skeptical cultures, this
understanding is absent."

I'm Wikipedia's best Mediator (or have been so far - I have high hopes
for RedWolf's new crew) because I'm really good at translating one
"language" to another - not German to French of course, but the context
of assumptions (or "baggage"). How else could a man in a "cult" gain the
trust of a bunch of atheists? Jimbo gave me root access to the server,
the Cunctator nominated me for Admin, people are constantly coming to my
user talk page asking me to mediate their article disputes - and I don't
mean how to format the Simpsons' infobox, I mean the real hard stuff.

Oh, well, I'm just rambling. I didn't have anything in particular to
say. Sorry I wasted your time, I just thought David Gerard picked an
interesting web link and thought I'd throw out a few comments:

http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-05/new-age.html

Uncle Ed


subject: [WikiEN-l] Webcomics/Deletion again

body:
Andrew Venier wrote

> One point that may be overlooked -- the sheer size and number of articles
> is not so much of a burden for Wikimedia -- which has ample resources --
> but it might be an issue for any potential downstream users of the
> content.

But that is much more about how easy it is to filter what is there, than
restricting what is created.

Charles


subject: [WikiEN-l] New Ideas for AfD

body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>On 10/26/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/26/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikispam at inbox.org> wrote:

>> > If an actual no-foolin' expert dissents, then there isn't consensus in the
>> > first place.

>> And if an actual no-foolin' expert supports the consensus?

> Supports what consensus? I just said, if people can't come to a general
>agreement, then there *is* no consensus. You seem to be mistaking majority
>with consensus.

"Consensus" is AFD jargon for "66% delete votes, for any reason or
none." Really. It is.

I'm seeing myself describe how it actually works on AFD/VFU at present
and people here seem incredulous. Go to AFD, participate in the
"discussions" and see for yourself if you don't believe what I'm
saying.

- d.

- d.


from_name: Koltwills at aol.com

body:
In a message dated 10/26/2005 4:01:02 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com writes:

Colleges are dispensers of job training, warehouses that sell  knowledge.

You go there to get certified. They used to be  places where you went to
get an Education.

There's more to  being an educated person than stuffing your head full of
data and  info that which is useful in your career. Go to DeVry if you
want  vo-tech training.

They even took Logic out of the curriculum. You  don't learn obvious,
classically tried and true things like the  syllogism. What's that, it
sounds dirty ("jism").

* All men  are mortal.
* Socrates is a man.
* Therefore, Socrates is  mortal.

If A is true, than B is true.
But B is not  true!
Then A could not POSSIBLY be true.

And that's the simple  stuff. Don't forget the rhetorical fallacies like
ad hominem, guilt  by association, non sequitor, circular argument, and
dozens of others  which are STILL BEING USED today.

The worst part is that  Wikipedians use these fallacies on talk pages.

Ed  Poor

I agree.

It is a sad thing to say that people just don't -- and too often even  can't
-- think/reason anymore, but it's true.  Critical  thinking skills simply are
not taught/honed anymore -- certainly not in  this nation's public education
system.  I daresay the same is very  likely true in our institutions of higher
learning.

(I must say, though, I detested logic class.  Boring as  hell.)

These days, people are as intelligent (potentially, at least) as they  ever
were; they're just dull-witted and undisciplined.

I've come to realize that discussing points of contention with some
Wikipedians is as pointless as would be ramming their heads against a  brick wall.  I
used to think some of them were being  argumentative/purposely obtuse just for
the hell of it

And while many of them are, I now know, of course, that a lot of  them,
unfortunately, just don't get it.

When I encounter that sort of thing, if I'm not in the mood to  continue to
engage them, I just throw up my hands, leave it be, and then  go back later and
fix things. (Like "Melanin.")

The more popular/widely known Wikipedia becomes, the more frequently
sloppily written contributions will appear.  I don't have a lot  of respect for what
this nation's educational institutions and world  schlock culture are
producing these days.  Wikipedia will continue to  attract mediocre, limited minds
with lots of rigid opinions backed by  precious little real knowledge,
understanding or  perspective.  Syntax, grammar and spelling -- even, to some  extent,
article structure -- can be fixed relatively easily with some  dedicated copy
editing.  But a populist idea like Wikipedia in the  hands of anyone with
access to a computer and an ISP is doomed from  the start as a reliable source of
authoritative information.

That's all there is to it.

But the idea IS a luminous one -- isn't it? :p

Wikipedia runs the gamut from stellar to squalid. I love it. I hate  it.

Right now, I can live with that.  And when I decide I  can't/won't any
longer, then I'll simply vote with my web browser and  leave.

'S as simple as that.

K


from_name: Alphax

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Tim Starling wrote:
> Christopher Maloney wrote:
>
>>As most of you probably know, China has recently blocked (again)
>>access to Wikipedia.  I've gotten around their Great Firewall by
>>installing tor, but now, I find that my edit access to pages is
>>blocked, because I appear to be coming from an open proxy.
>>
>>I don't understand why my edit access is blocked, even though I'm
>>logged in as a valid user (Klortho).  I'm sure there's a good reason,
>>but I don't understand it.  Anyway, is there any way around this?  I
>>certainly hope so, because it seems ironic to me that Wikipedia, in
>>effect, puts up an additional barrier to Chinese people wanting to
>>express themselves (in addition to the censorship by the government,
>>that is).
>
>
> I just created [[Wikipedia:Advice to Tor users in China]] to answer this
> question:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advice_to_Tor_users_in_China
>

Isn't Tor back-tracable by timing attack in China due to the size of the
network, making any "anonymity" useless?

- --
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQEVAwUBQ188orMAAH8MeUlWAQi9Agf/a6LjgQrOLvD9khGIJrc8emPKB4fqgh0H
mBTWWNHZ1PB8YBxMf8H1onaZ0SsIPc8Fp3dcrTDAHHPUZh39Aw24mSbLGblVAnfE
tooCXSx2bUHAFPS9yZqqVgosED5n7swYKpu3gCPjuGIEiLHY3bg51OVQzykpwrNm
f2X6iNeX5Uszj4E/KZeCzXofzHHQEINfGd5idg/Vyjhbt2UZfjRcNOpxqwXAOZ7U
N91HZ0n1rQvZj1918eA+HhVnqV22OPyfN6WU4mATghU2RMwX3Cc+QXmiijyWqhUm
ka+9Sw06HIpqGbrqMd5WSH7oijyDVoeZY9eepAOtgqDM4fn9LVSXzQ==
=Brqk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject:
Our exponentially increasing costs (was Re: [Foundation-l] Re:
	Answers.com and Wikimedia Foundation to Form New Partnership)

body:
On 10/26/05, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> --- Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> > It might at some point pay to look at selling some of the older servers
> > to buy newer ones. This would have two benefits:
> >
> > 1. we are now exclusively buying dual-opterons for apache webserving,
> > these are significantly more powerful _in the same physical space_ than
> > our single-pentiums -- therefore, we can save a lot of rack space at the
> > colo by replacing. (This space is not especially expensive, though, in
> > the grand scheme of things.)
> >
> > 2. In addition to saving physical space, there is a fair amount of dev
> > time which goes into working with 124 servers (the current count, I
> > believe, except not all of them are installed just now) which could be
> > reduced if we were running on half the number of servers. Wikipedia
> > traffic is growing faster than Moore's Law, but even so, Moore's Law
> > should make it possible for us to do more with fewer boxes.
> >
> > The first benefit can be quantified, the second cannot. (How much money
> > should we be willing to spend to save the developers some time? My
> > answer is: a LOT. Developer time is not free to us, it is infinitely
> > expensive. What I mean by that is that it is a lot more cost effective
> > to have volunteer devs working in a well-funded and exciting environment
> > where they can play with cutting-edge technology, than it is to
> > eventually be forced to hire devs to work with boring and annoying old
> > hardware.)
> >
> > ----
> >
> > My suspicion is that by the time we are seriously ready to get rid of
> > some old machines, they will have minimal market value. Dunno.
>
> If that is the case, then we could donate the machines to other free
> content/software projects that are still much, much smaller than us.
>
> -- mav

Or to schools without internet access, with Wikipedia pre-installed. :)

By the way, I have to take issue with the statement that volunteer developer
time is infinitely expensive. At the most it's slightly less expensive than
the cost to hire someone to do the task (and c'mon, who wouldn't want to
work for Wikimedia?). Otherwise, we're doing something wrong.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Arbitration Committee elections, 2005

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Kelly Martin wrote:
> On 10/25/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Prove it. I haven't seen any of these voteing blocks.
>
>
> Then you're not watching.  The existence of voting blocks is quite
> evident in RfA.
>
>

Not to mention AfD.

- --
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQEVAwUBQ18+T7MAAH8MeUlWAQhXXAf9FDUmoCuu4UiIIwrmCcNNDW35As0b8ZRH
viumaJG9Wk4reD9u5WK4FREkwbCw2wog7m6M3yJc+uuZudodYle+0/a8fmJ6sWX2
WToUSheJnMS8tAjeAD73V8vSuWO3azTpjEZKnc4z7MavMx2ylMWrxNTIwJeJfwh3
no8jYXwxAheZRq4T5L+RPdj4fIPFXr4kVoasF9Qw1mxdiB06SRfcKoeYuJ+pP2Mv
qxWFi/8HX3Ho02nq8auGIHSh1ct/efghPdT9uWNRhDZJDxXAWbG6EXJY+8VRh5Cd
jxHu12wWnZpWJ2rTwYZFPu4B/EmD8uBmivEhCTujpflrhG8fkKXvyg==
=6dE8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] In The News - new name needed

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Andrew Gray wrote:
> On 25/10/05, Fl Celloguy <flcelloguy at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Hmm... I like Current Events better than News Desk or Current News.
>>[[WP:CN]] should stay for clueless newbies.
>
>
> Yes, this seems a better idea. [[WP:CE]], [[Wikipedia:Current
> Events]]. ([[Wikipedia:News Desk]] sounds more appropriate for
> something handling Wikipedia in the media...)
>

Excellent, can we have a proper article at [[Current events]] now
instead of something that should rightly belong in the Wikipedia namespace?

- --
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQEVAwUBQ18/V7MAAH8MeUlWAQiXRgf/aiVp7Lm1mnUkggPpPTleyMS0d8WonMjv
g65VBt0YiebrSY+hmrw3BBO9FVFmfuGr5Pnfxr/1V92MuHen0I0kwNuyNW1a1wWs
SUU3VMQAk+NnhqxwkYgQ2xQhYkMuko+2aTjTgPkShBgPH6/Pi0i1Vq+7QTwcXPBO
qF6DPwxgA0G4/hzgk8daLooySNq2PQCLXLm81War2mEJWniizuingvkOPk1d3agi
cY+/jsUh30JB9swkhzF+pIM3t4aDFq/VpQ+zuYzfVQff8J+Fvi9IG462Lv+9j2xR
FK7T7/+46l4ECJbO+rtnT1aiPSfretaTKuOXfm9/DjuMc5wXK6HKOg==
=6JAN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unnecessary nudity on [[Hogtie bondage]]

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Sean Barrett wrote:
>>I looked the image used to illustrate [[Miniskirt]] is not Featured
>>Picture quality: it fails to capture the edginess or the sexiness that
>>this garment evokes in the popular imagination. However, it does the job
>>by illustrating what a miniskirt looks like -- & it is a free image.
>
>
> Sexiness is considered by many to be utterly intolerable.  See the
> "discussion" about the (professional, high-quality) picture that Bomis
> licensed GFDL for our use in the [[Bikini]] article.  It was lynched
> explicitly /because/ it was a good picture.  The attractiveness of the
> model was the stated reason for deleting it.
>

Oh noes! Can't possibly have anything remotely attractive! Quick, remove
all the featured pictures and hit the stylesheets with an eggbeater!
While we're at it, better add IE-only HTML extensions and Javascript,
and re-implement the edit page in Flash.

- --
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQEVAwUBQ19Au7MAAH8MeUlWAQhdlAgArfGVHZosdcFmGCkTTHyCPWNo3IP/3EbO
L9yMg9H6EqyMfJROWGzs6AZ/ufUv3VIGIqckVZ3SNnOs3v/hP17Fg/Oi50uZNsG6
fJMOdCIw7c86lKyZVjHoyFLnRmJ/BxEN1UodPYT0tFqWLcbZlDnToIxLnrz32D/R
+seoJtyrNsh2InZSrmPEHBDRyAxJCoHKtJiI/GUB5Wd1tPx5u3FAU0Wijiczl7iM
54S9r34IckW2Mwzacyd/tgDvs7aI4Y6+dhze5fN2jNUbpGkGHqstb8ZapXgaMER8
7nBGzLeP30VZaNThk0CElpPB8fM/7ElpTjqVzs5DQQD7cuea3BpzHw==
=NVLk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion again

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> On 10/25/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>>Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>>
>>>On 10/24/05, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
>>>
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>>Ok if you cant do that why are all webcomics notable?
>>>
>>>
>>>Because Wikipedia has no space requirements. We have plenty of room to
>>>include all webcomics. To choose to include some, but not others, would
>>>allow us to make a statement about what is worthwhile and what isn't. It
>>>would violate NPOV. Further, the only people who are going to come
>>
>>across
>>
>>>the article are those who are specifically looking for it. Keeping the
>>>article in the encyclopedia provides useful information to those people,
>>
>>and
>>
>>>doesn't hurt anyone else. If any webcomics are notable, then all
>>
>>webcomics
>>
>>>are notable.
>>>
>>
>>By your logic: If any people are notable, then all people are notable.
>
>
>  By my logic all people are notable, yes.
>
> Excuse me while I write articles on Anthony DiPierro, Justin Cormack,
>
>>and the rest.
>
>
>  Notability is different from verifiability (and no original research), and
> in any case non-famous (living) people have a legal right to privacy. So if
> you can find public, verifiable information about me or Justin in
> respectable secondary sources, I personally think it should be included in
> Wikipedia.

Can you find public, verifiable information about these webcomics in
respectable secondary sources?

- --
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQEVAwUBQ19BgrMAAH8MeUlWAQgmFgf+KPgHNLbGit0rZ1BJNIJh/EV5KZVkiKoP
ohTqLc0o8afXYonqeqZrq9LLQO4/pQwHsrYNlGgEdRbUiYB3I6kSjVW2W42m8MFa
ZjpNqmpFW+o+q9XXp3hYwFqkudqeNDlVnaOmPqT1NgSqkykL/jV4qXFsBHVSAbfE
jbXQ+ZiEMlnU83nUDNF0fHj/jeyJ3qkcyJxQcYUwBkS8Ze2MGUhwJz+EQCzzgl5x
c2Wz/ujJDiVTHUwA7RPaO239eOqpqIGWJV/T3nIFxXkqnrPNZoXHfXCBVvw3U4dj
wQWgrSxP+3DoUMW4/B7KHPYXM5TmKJLTV/+/R7eC3cKI9Ey8/GroUA==
=QvRB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----