from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] Proposal: commons.wikimedia.org

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

>I propose that the current Project Sourceberg is integrated into a larger
>"Wikimedia Commons".
>
I fail to see the purpose for this.

>Said "Wikimedia Commons" should reside at commons.wikimedia.org and be a
>repository for
>- images
>- public domain texts
>- otherwise freely licensed documents
>- music, artistic works (but see below)
>
Public domain texts are doing just fine at Wikisource.

>All material in the commons would have to be licensed under one of several
>licenses, not necessarily the FDL, but all allowing at the very least free
>distribution and commercial use.
>
No problem with this

>For texts, modification rights would also
>be a requirement.
>
There is no legal restriction to modifying public domain texts, but it
would be good to have a reasonably stable semi-protected version of a
text so that the reader could rely on its accuracy.  I believe in a more
editable parallel edit box which could contain annotations and commentary.

>There would be NO fair use material on
>commons.wikimedia.org.
>
That's an extremist position.

>Material would be eligible for inclusion in the Commons if it is useful to
>at least ONE Wikimedia project. This includes plausible *future*
>usefulness.
>
>The Commons Community would apply commons sense .. excuse me, common
>sense, to determine which files are eligible for inclusion, i.e. if a band
>is notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia, and their MP3s are
>freely licensed, they can be deposited;
>
Common sense is not as common as you think.  The arguments will continue
to be endless.

>if a file is highly referenced
>from the outside and causes unbearable bandwith costs, it can be removed.
>The larger and more popular a file, the more pressing needs to be its
>rationale for inclusion.
>
This seems like a self-defeating approach

>I propose that we shall build an interface between the files residing in
>the Wikimedia Commons, and other Wikipedia projects, so that it will be
>possible to easily reference a file in the commons, like so:
>
>[[Image:co:Airplane.jpg|200 px|A very nice airplane]]
>[[Media:co:listen.mp3]]
>
>This would not create a copy of the file or auto-generated thumbnails on
>the local server (e.g. en:). However, [[Image:Airplane.jpg]] could be used
>to describe the file in the local language and context (we should probably
>rename the Image: namespace to File: in the long term, because it is also
>used for other description pages.)
>
I don't mind this, but before this can work effectively we need to have
the unified log-in issue solved.

>All new uploads would automatically go to the commons unless the uploader
>explicitly chooses not to send them there (e.g. for material which is
>clearly only relevant to one project, only allowed under certain
>jurisdictions ..).
>
Sometimes it's difficult to know whether illustrations may be used in
one project only.  The recent Wikisource contribution "Advanced
Automation for Space Missions" includes many illustrations that came
with the original publication.  It's conceivable that some of these
could be used to illustrate other articles.

>The commons wiki itself should of course be multilingual as Project
>Sourceberg and Meta are. There are some features which we should enter
>into our software development roadmap to facilitate the transition to
>using the commons:
>- user interface languages can be set in the preferences
>- automatic import of source information from the commons to the
>description page of the local wiki
>- better interlanguage handling in a single wiki installation
>- friendly user interfaces for multi file uploading, automatic addition of
>uploaded files to a category etc. - things that make life easier for
>people not familiar with Wikipedia
>- automatic gallery generation for multiple images of one category
>
These are all fine, but we still don't have a functioning system for
categorization, so that should be developed first to the point where
people are comfortable using it in at least one live project.

>What are the advantages of this system?
>
>- Central place to resolve licensing issues
>- Less time wasted on locating relevant files
>- Less time wasted on re-uploading files
>- A place for things like image galleries that go beyond the needs of a
>single article (e.g. 10 different pictures of the same airplane)
>- We can actively solicit contributions specifically to the commons from
>people who are not interested in contributing on a regular basis
>- We can provide the largest such respoitory of freely licensed material,
>with a quality control mechanism that other such projects lack (the
>community)
>- We further establish our name beyond being merely the largest, greatest
>encyclopedia ever
>- We benefit from the positive connotations of the term "commons" and
>appeal more directly to altruism, which will be beneficial when we ask for
>donations
>- We create a very real consciousness for the copyleft idea which so far
>is missing especially for images, where many people simply upload whatever
>they find on the net.
>- We can use this platform to become more politically relevant in the
>ongoing discourses about copyright law.
>
These are potentially all true.

>What are the downsides?
>
>- The user interface is likely to be a bit clunky at first. We can fix
>that.
>- This project can exceed Wikipedia in costs if it is successful. I
>believe prominent fundraisers will cover us, if not, we can fix this by
>limiting the scope of the commons.
>- People will upload all sorts of things which we don't want. We can fix
>that the same way we deal with Wikipedia articles we don't want.
>
Smaller projects tend to do this better, and with less animosity.

>- Changes to the software will be very specific to our needs, other
>MediaWiki sites will probably be unable to interface directly with the
>commons. Maybe we can authorize other projects on an individual basis to
>interface with us.
>
This need not be a downside.

>I believe that we should not work on a temporary fix to the licensing
>(tagging) problem, but address this issue in one fell swoop instead. More
>generally, if we want to do this, I would suggest for Jimbo to authorize
>me to set up a roadmap on Meta for the implementation. That roadmap would
>also be a place for volunteers to list themselves for specific tasks that
>need to be completed. This will have to be a community effort among
>developers, sourcebergers, wikibookers, wikipedians etc.
>
>I believe we can launch the Wikimedia Commons within about 3 months, maybe
>less, if we work together. Let me know your thoughts and possible
>improvements to this concept.
>
I suppose that if people want to work on this project they should do so.
 For those of us involved in other projects such as Wikisource, we
should just wait and see how it goes before we agree to merge with this.

Eric also added a number of paragraphs in the Wikisource Scriptorium.
 Many of the arguments there extend what he has said above.  I will only
quote one section.

> "We have worked hard to build this community, we shouldn't have to
> give it up."
>
> Abandoning what has been done so far will not be necessary. The name
> change can be largely automated, and let's face it, "Project
> Sourceberg" is not a killer brandname. Beyond the software changes,
> what would effectively happen is that things like the Main Page would
> have to be redesigned to accommodate different media, but current
> content could in many cases simply be moved to new locations. Compared
> with, say, the change of the Italian Wikipedia from UsemodWiki to
> Phase III, the changes would be mostly cosmetic, especially thanks to
> the great internationalization work you have already done here.

Whether "Project Sourceberg" is a killer brand name doesn't matter since
it isn't being used.  That was a suggested working name before it became
a reality, as was the actual name "Wikisource".  "Wikisource" won on an
early vote.  Insisting on using "Project Sourceberg" seems to be
somewhat of a slight.

The big advantage of smaller projects is that they can develop their own
ways of dealing with problems.  Yes we have copyright issues at
Wikisource, but none of those involve pictures.  Internationalization,
as you have observed, is important to us, but it would be seriously
damaged if we had to deal with all these other issues about licensing
pictures..  Our Main Page is just fine, and we certainly don't need any
automated name changes.  We don't need to accomodate different media,
and we don't need to move current content.

So yes, go ahead and do what you want to develop the Wikimedia Commons,
but don't use that as an excuse to mount a hostile takeover of Wikisource.

Ec


list: wikipedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Proposal: commons.wikimedia.org


from_name: Imran Ghory

subject: [Wikipedia-l] BBC TV coverage

body:
We got about a minutes worth of coverage on BBC's ClickOnline show in a
discussion about wikis.

The show was broadcast on BBC World TV (available in 200 countries to
about 250 million people) at 20:30 on Thursday, but is getting repeated
at the following times,

Saturday 01:30 / 07:30
Monday 16:30
Tuesday 01:30 / 08:30
Wednesday 13:30

(All times in GMT)

In the UK it's available on BBC News 24 at the following times,

Saturday 20 March 8:30pm
Sunday 21 March 4:30am
Sunday 21 March 4:30pm
Monday 22 March 1:30am  (**Also on BBC 2 at this time**)
Saturday 27 March 8:30pm
Sunday 28 March 4:30am
Sunday 28 March 4:30pm
Monday 29 March 1:30am

Available online (very very low quality) at,

Real:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/cta/progs/04/click_online/18mar.ram

Windows Media:

http://stream.servstream.com/ViewWeb/BBCWorld/File/worl_click_180304_show.asx?Media=15398

The section on wikis is at roughly 18 minutes.

Imran
--
http://bits.bris.ac.uk/imran


from_name: Kurt Jansson

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> I propose that the current Project Sourceberg is integrated into a larger
> "Wikimedia Commons".
>
> Said "Wikimedia Commons" should reside at commons.wikimedia.org and be a
> repository for
> - images
> - public domain texts
> - otherwise freely licensed documents
> - music, artistic works (but see below)

I think this is a great idea, and I hope there will be enough people
keeping an eye on all the media that will get uploaded and check them
for copyvios.

BTW, from the Creative Commons newsletter:

> *Search Engine Prototype
>
> More big news. The prototype [1] of our CC-enabled search engine is now
>  available. It still needs some polish, but it's the first glimpse of
> our dream world, where you can search for noncommercial music and
> photos and culture to re-use as easily as finding out the weather.
>
> [1] <http://search.creativecommons.org/>

Kurt

--
http://leihnetzwerk.de -- Vielleicht hat Dein Nachbar das Buch, das Du
                           schon immer lesen wolltest - leih es Dir aus!
http://wikipedia.de    -- Die freie Enzyklop?die
http://jansson.de      -- Icke


list: wikien-l

from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [WikiEN-l] [[New Haven, Connecticut]]

body:
Rick wrote:
> But what do we do in the future if an editor insists on adding two
>or three stores or restaurants and won't let the ads be removed?

Is it really an 'ad'?  I'd say it's only an 'ad' if the person
inserting it is trying to promote her or her own business, or the
business of a client, and that there's no reason for the information
to be there otherwise.

Of course even if it isn't an ad, that doesn't mean that it
necessarily should go in the article, but depending on the entire
context of the situation, perhaps it should.

I think it will only rarely ever be the case that there's an actual
irreconcilable difference between reasonable parties to a discussion.
Usually there will be a way to improve the article generally in a way
that is satisfactory to both sides.

If one party is actually being completely unreasonable, and will not
compromise, then of course it ends up eventually in mediation and
arbitration, right?

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: An odd webpage - did Michael write it?

references:
<KAPKGHMHLFCFDJAA@mailcity.com>
	<5S9trXEf+iWAFwt2@cartref.demon.co.uk>
	<405A4A26.7060509@hotmail.com>
	<9R0c7FX7OlWAFwdV@cartref.demon.co.uk>

body:
I think he should be encouraged to email me and chat about it.
Sometimes that's helpful.

Arwel Parry wrote:

> In message <405A4A26.7060509 at hotmail.com>, Tim Starling
> <ts4294967296-PkbjNfxxIARBDgjK7y7TUQ at public.gmane.org> writes
> >Arwel Parry wrote:
> >>Michael is still around. I was on meta about three days ago when he
> >>turned up and I had an entertaining 20 minutes or so blocking half a
> >>dozen users he created and clearing up the mess once I confirmed to my
> >>satisfaction that it was him!
> >
> >Michael's obsession with Wikipedia defies reason. For 9 months, he has
> >been adding information about several bands to Wikipedia, only to have
> >it consistently and rapidly removed. First to the English wiki, then to
> >meta, simple and even on es and pl using a machine translator.
>
> I'm relieved there's no such thing as an English-to-Welsh machine
> translator!
>
> >When he's not posting inaccurate information about bands, he's making
> >fun of Hephaestos or other administrators. Ordinary wikipediholics like
> >ourselves at least have something to show for our efforts. Will Michael
> >eventually realise how much time he's wasting and do something useful
> >with his life? Or will his obsession continue throughout adulthood?
>
> At least his user names are quite easy to spot (I didn't think George W.
> Bush would really spend time contributing to meta about "Death by Streo"
> (sic)...). I do hope he'll grow up some day soon, though.
>
> --
> Arwel Parry
> http://www.cartref.demon.co.uk/
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Erik Moller and Anthere

body:
Yes, please, let's all just yell at Cunctator, it keeps the
peace much better.  ;-)

The Cunctator wrote:

> On 3/18/04 10:20 AM, "Timwi" <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
>
> > Erik Moeller wrote:
> >
> >> Fred-
> >>
> >>> He's kind of in the wrong
> >>
> >> I would appreciate it if you would keep your input to yourself
> >
> > So are we censoring the mailing list as well now? :-)
> >
> Wow, you guys sure get grumpy at each other when I'm not around to direct
> all the fire.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Karl Eichwalder

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Gnutella

in_reply_to:
<ziaw56pifa2n.dlg@kimmeringer.de> (Lothar Kimmeringer's message
	of "Thu, 18 Mar 2004 23:06:48 +0100")

body:
Lothar Kimmeringer <wikipedia at kimmeringer.de> writes:

> The idea sounds interesting but I think you will run into problems
> on the long term when there are many different versions of the
> same document circling around in this network because it has
> been edited at Wikipedia.

But versions not asked for will expire automatically - and the best
version of an article will survive.  At least, this is how GNUnet is
supposed to work.

GNUnet is also a P2P network system.

--
                                                         |      ,__o
                                                         |    _-\_<,
http://www.gnu.franken.de/ke/                            |   (*)/'(*)


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
I think in such cases (cases currently in arbitration, or just out), Wik
too, protection is inappropriate as we (the arbitration committee) need to
see what's happening with these folks so we can refine our remedies.

Fred

> From: "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:40:08 -0500
> To: <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Alternative medicine needs healing
>
> Mr. Natural Health is back, and already in an edit war (with
> MykReeve). I protected the page.
>
> Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Rick

subject: [WikiEN-l] [[New Haven, Connecticut]]

body:
Yeah, right.

RickK

Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> wrote:
If one party is actually being completely unreasonable, and will not
compromise, then of course it ends up eventually in mediation and
arbitration, right?

--Jimbo

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040319/3f7b5864/attachment.htm


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject: [WikiEN-l] Alternative medicine needs healing

body:
Ed to Fred:

Page re-reverted and de-protected, as requested.


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Setup error - file not found

body:
On Mar 19, 2004, at 10:03, Derek L. wrote:
> After the configuration process, I moved the local settings file to
> main wiki
> directory as specified (http://www.mindvector.dreamhost.com/wiki/),
> and followed
> the link from the configuration screen.  Instead of the wiki as
> expected, I
> recieved a 404 error in IE.  Using Mozilla I went to the wiki
> directory, and
> found that http://www.mindvector.dreamhost.com/wiki/ was redirected to
> http://www.mindvector.dreamhost.com/wiki/index.php/Wiki/index.php and
> the
> message "No input file specified." is displayed.

An extra "/index.php" is being appended to your URLs for reasons
unknown. Another Dreamhost user reported the same problem:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/mediawiki-l/2004-March/000231.html

My suggestion, which doesn't seem to have fixed it completely:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/mediawiki-l/2004-March/000248.html

I can only assume there's something funny about Dreamhost's Apache or
PHP configuration, but I'm not sure what it is... :(

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


from_name: Daniel Mayer

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
>The goal of Wikisource is to be a text respository.
>Text is only a subset of the larger group of media,
>and there is no reason to have a specific repository
>exclusively for text and a combined repository for
>other media. Either they should all be combined or
>they should all be split up.

Wikibooks is already more than just textbooks - why can't Wikisource be about
more than just text?

Just expand the focus of Wikisource instead of creating a new project.

-- mav

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
http://mail.yahoo.com


from_name: Geoff Burling

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia in the news

body:
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004, Rick wrote:

> http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/18/1079199302793.html
>
> "John Dalton recommends kuro5hin for on the ground insights into what's
> happening in Spain. He also recommends wikipedia on Madrid attacks:
> "The quality of this article is really opening my eyes to the power
> of collaborative media."
>
On a related note, there was an AP wire story this morning about the
death of print encyclopedias. Even the CD-ROM encyclopedias are falling
on hard times, according to this article by May Wong.

The article mentions two reasons why the Web is considered a better
resource:
1. Google's usefulness, &
2. Multimedia -- this article concludes with a quote from the president
of the Associatino for Library Service to Children: "Kids can hear and
see Martin Luther King deliver his 'I have a Dream' speech, and there's
nothing in a book that can do that."

I guess my lack of skills with Multimedia make me the 21st cnetury
equivalent of a buggy whip manufacturer. ;-)

Geoff


body:
Mr. Natural Health is back, and already in an edit war (with
MykReeve). I protected the page.

Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed


body:
On Mar 19, 2004, at 10:34, Brion Vibber wrote:
> On Mar 19, 2004, at 10:03, Derek L. wrote:
>> After the configuration process, I moved the local settings file to
>> main wiki
>> directory as specified (http://www.mindvector.dreamhost.com/wiki/),
>> and followed
>> the link from the configuration screen.  Instead of the wiki as
>> expected, I
>> recieved a 404 error in IE.  Using Mozilla I went to the wiki
>> directory, and
>> found that http://www.mindvector.dreamhost.com/wiki/ was redirected to
>> http://www.mindvector.dreamhost.com/wiki/index.php/Wiki/index.php and
>> the
>> message "No input file specified." is displayed.
>
> An extra "/index.php" is being appended to your URLs for reasons
> unknown. Another Dreamhost user reported the same problem:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/mediawiki-l/2004-March/000231.html
>
> My suggestion, which doesn't seem to have fixed it completely:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/mediawiki-l/2004-March/000248.html
>
> I can only assume there's something funny about Dreamhost's Apache or
> PHP configuration, but I'm not sure what it is... :(

I've poked at it a little bit more...

You can get it to bring up an edit page like so:
http://www.mindvector.dreamhost.com/wiki/index.php?
title=Pagename&action=edit

but it thinks it's editing "Wiki/index.php" instead of the requested
"Pagename". I'm not sure why, but it looks like the PATH_INFO is coming
out all wrong.

Try setting this in LocalSettings:
$wgArticlePath = "$wgScript?title=$1";

and remove these lines from index.php:
if( isset( $_SERVER['PATH_INFO'] ) ) {
	$title = substr( $_SERVER['PATH_INFO'], 1 );
} else {
	$title = $_REQUEST['title'];
}

See if that helps...

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 8, Issue 52

body:
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004, Dan Miller wrote:
>
> > It's another thing to have a link or entry that does
> > nothing more than
> > promote the business. I removed an external link to
> > a listing of a local
> > chain of restaurants for that reason. From your
> > description, Nunh-huh is
> > doing nothing more than providing free advertising.
> >
> > Geoff
> >
>
> I disagree.  Imagine [[Las Vegas]] without mentioning
> the MGM Grand, or [[Chicago]] without mentioning
> Wrigley Field.  Private enterprises compose an
> essential part of the character of many places, and
> avoiding them emasculates the articles.
>
Well, those fall into the first category: they have cultural
or social value. I cited as an example of such a case Powell's
Books in Portland.

What I'm against is (for example) listing
all of local coffee shops for Eugene, Oregon, with nothing
more than addresses and business hours. Not only does something
like that erode our non-profit status, it leads into a tangle
that can only end in frustration -- e.g., someone sees her/his
favorite coffee shop is left out for reasons she/he refuses
to accept, & ends up suing Wikipedia because by listing said
business Wikipedia is implicitly not recommending this vendor.

It's a fine line, but a clear line. And it's another issue I'll
probably lose, as I did concerning schools.

Geoff


subject: [WikiEN-l] [[New Haven, Connecticut]]

body:
Be nice to get our backlog of serious problems so cleared up that we could
deal with something as light and fun as this. I think whoever wants the
three pizza places should let us test em out. Fly us in, put us up, etc.

Fred

From: Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com>
Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 09:07:54 -0800 (PST)
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] [[New Haven, Connecticut]]

Yeah, right.

RickK

Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> wrote:
If one party is actually being completely unreasonable, and will not
compromise, then of course it ends up eventually in mediation and
arbitration, right?

--Jimbo

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mailtag_us/*http://mail.yahoo.com>  -
More reliable, more storage, less spam
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040319/32061614/attachment.htm


from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
Ray-
> Erik Moeller wrote:

>> I propose that the current Project Sourceberg is integrated into a larger
>> "Wikimedia Commons".
>>
> I fail to see the purpose for this.

The goal of Wikisource is to be a text respository. Text is only a subset
of the larger group of media, and there is no reason to have a specific
repository exclusively for text and a combined repository for other media.
Either they should all be combined or they should all be split up.

I believe combining them is the more useful approach, because:
- There is often a transparent transition from text to other types of
media
- The requirements are very similar in terms of standards for inclusion,
licensing etc.
- A larger project will benefit from a larger community where people who
have previously only dealt in images will also help with the annotation
and proofreading of text, and vice versa.
- In terms of marketing and attracting newcomers, it is much easier to get
people to join a larger project; the more interesting content there is,
the more motivation there will be to participate. Someone might come to
the site to get an MP3 but get hooked on Goethe in the process of finding
it.

For the same reason I don't want Wikipedia to be split into a "mathematics
encyclopedia", an "encyclopedia of fictional worlds", an "encyclopedia of
Internet terms", I believe a true commons of all forms of media makes more
sense than an artificial split that would be more the result of our
project history than a logical separation.

>> For texts, modification rights would also
>> be a requirement.

> There is no legal restriction to modifying public domain texts, but it
> would be good to have a reasonably stable semi-protected version of a
> text so that the reader could rely on its accuracy.

This problem can be addressed by using the Meatball principle of
FileReplacement:
http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?FileReplacement

You would have two edit boxes, but one would not actually be an edit box,
it would just show the document source. The document source would be
automatically replaced with whatever is in the edit box if either a) a
sysop pushes a button, b) the article has remained "idle" for a certain
time, e.g. 24 hours, and the changes are therefore believed to be
acceptable.

>> There would be NO fair use material on
>> commons.wikimedia.org.

> That's an extremist position.

Hardly. I am the person who most actively spoke out in favor of fair use
on the mailing list and elsewhere, and I implemented the current fair use
policy on Wikipedia. The reason there would be no fair use material on the
commons site is that we cannot assume such material to be legally usable
for all Wikimedia projects. We would still allow fair use on the projects
which currently allow it, but files would be uploaded locally instead of
to the commons. This approach has numerous advantages.

>> if a file is highly referenced
>> from the outside and causes unbearable bandwith costs, it can be removed.
>> The larger and more popular a file, the more pressing needs to be its
>> rationale for inclusion.

> This seems like a self-defeating approach

How so?

> I don't mind this, but before this can work effectively we need to have
> the unified log-in issue solved.

Not necessarily, we can implement the Commons without single sign-on
(which is a large undertaking because of article histories, dupes,
different domain names etc.). When you upload a file, the server would
authenticate you to the Commons, where you would be identified e.g. as
"Ray at Simple-Wikipedia". This would be the name showing up on the Commons
recent changes page and the Simple recent changes page (the latter
possibly suppressed through a checkbox).

> Sometimes it's difficult to know whether illustrations may be used in
> one project only.

As I said, when in doubt, material should go to the commons.

> These are all fine, but we still don't have a functioning system for
> categorization, so that should be developed first to the point where
> people are comfortable using it in at least one live project.

Agreed.

>> - People will upload all sorts of things which we don't want. We can fix
>> that the same way we deal with Wikipedia articles we don't want.

> Smaller projects tend to do this better, and with less animosity.

Less animosity is certainly true because there are less people involved,
but I see no evidence that the standards that develop are better as well.
To the contrary, the more people are involved, the more likely there will
be an ongoing refinement of our standards based on user input. For
example, the Wikipedia inclusion standards are quite sophitisticated and
useful.

> The big advantage of smaller projects is that they can develop their own
> ways of dealing with problems.

I fail to see how being part of the Wikimedia Commons would no longer
allow you to develop "your own ways" of dealing with problems. You are
setting up a false dichotomy between the Wikimedia community at large and
Wikisource, in fact you actually speak of a "hostile takeover".

I do not understand where this assumption of hostility comes from and find
it quite puzzling. Is that an attitude shared by other members of the
Wikisource project?

It was always my understanding that we were part of a larger undertaking
that transcends individual projects - hence the Wikimedia Foundation -,
and if it makes logical sense to combine certain efforts, we should do so.
Creating a global commons of free media certainly seems like a worthwhile
goal.

All best,

Erik


from_name: Tim Starling

body:
Arwel Parry wrote:
> Michael is still around. I was on meta about three days ago when he
> turned up and I had an entertaining 20 minutes or so blocking half a
> dozen users he created and clearing up the mess once I confirmed to my
> satisfaction that it was him!

Michael's obsession with Wikipedia defies reason. For 9 months, he has
been adding information about several bands to Wikipedia, only to have
it consistently and rapidly removed. First to the English wiki, then to
meta, simple and even on es and pl using a machine translator. When he's
not posting inaccurate information about bands, he's making fun of
Hephaestos or other administrators. Ordinary wikipediholics like
ourselves at least have something to show for our efforts. Will Michael
eventually realise how much time he's wasting and do something useful
with his life? Or will his obsession continue throughout adulthood? I
don't know.

-- Tim Starling


subject: [WikiEN-l] [[New Haven, Connecticut]]

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>Rick wrote:
>
>>But what do we do in the future if an editor insists on adding two
>>or three stores or restaurants and won't let the ads be removed?
>>
>Is it really an 'ad'?  I'd say it's only an 'ad' if the person
>inserting it is trying to promote her or her own business, or the
>business of a client, and that there's no reason for the information
>to be there otherwise.
>
>Of course even if it isn't an ad, that doesn't mean that it
>necessarily should go in the article, but depending on the entire
>context of the situation, perhaps it should.
>
>I think it will only rarely ever be the case that there's an actual
>irreconcilable difference between reasonable parties to a discussion.
>Usually there will be a way to improve the article generally in a way
>that is satisfactory to both sides.
>
>If one party is actually being completely unreasonable, and will not
>compromise, then of course it ends up eventually in mediation and
>arbitration, right?
>
The problem in this kind of situation arises when an editor sees no
solution but to remove what he views to be offending material.  The
person whose material is being removed understandably sees that removal
as an offensive act.

Some people tend to view some of this local information as
non-encyclopedic, but sometimes it is exactly what gives flavour to a
place.  Even those of us who condemn the excesses of capitalism can
recognize that certain commercial enterprises play an important social
and cultural role in their respective communities.  If one were to
extrapolate Rick's argument that the mention of the pizza restaurants
constitutes advertising, then we should also delete the Disneyland
article because it is effectively advertising for the theme park.
 Imagine the arguments if someone tried to delete that article.

Ec


subject: [Wikitech-l] Templates + parameters = metadata

body:
As most of you know, the MediaWiki namespace is quickly becoming a generic
template system with parameters. Currently it only supports unnamed
parameters, e.g. {{country|Germany|82 million}}, but it is my
understanding that named parameters, e.g.
{{country|name=Germany|population=82 million}}, are firmly planned.

What this particular query would do is use the "Template:Country" page,
which would be the box which is currently manually entered for each
country article on Wikipedia, and replace certain variables in it ($name,
$population) with the assigned parameters.

>From named parameters it is a relatively small step to searchable
metadata.

I am thinking of a new table called METADATA

| template_name | parameter_name | parameter_value | page_id |
|------------------------------------------------------------|
| country       | name           | Germany         | 23923   |
| country       | population     | 82 million      | 23923   |
| country       | name           | United States   | 4834    |
| country       | population     | 290 million     | 4834    |

What this means:

The page 23923 ([[Germany]]) includes the text
{{country|name=Germany|population=82 million}}

The page 4834 ([[United States]]) includes the text
{{country|name=United States|population=290 million}}

Upon saving a page, all template calls would be parsed, and the METADATA
table would be updated accordingly.

Lastly, we would need a page Special:MetadataSearch, which would include a
search form like this:

-----------------------------------------
Template  : [country.......^]

Parameter : [               ]
Value     : [equals ^] [                ]
AND (*)  OR ( )  AND NOT ( )

Parameter : [               ]
Value     : [equals ^] [                ]
AND ( )  OR ( )  AND NOT ( )

etc.

ORDER BY  : [numerical value ^]
SORT ORDER: [ascending       ^]
-----------------------------------------

It would of course run the appropriate query on the METADATA table. In
most cases I believe this would be fairly fast as most templates would
only appear on hundreds of pages, limiting the search space dramatically.

Now we could do things like:
* Show me all countries with a population larger than X
* Show me the country with the top-level domain .FR
* Show me all countries that use the US dollar as currency, but do not
speak English as an official language
etc., of course generically for all kinds of templates.

As an extra bonus, it would be neat to be able to transclude the results
of these queries dynamically on a page, so I could have

[[List of countries by population]]

which would be dynamically generated from such a query.

Advantages of this system:
* Metadata is entered naturally, immediately associated with visible
output
* Very high flexibility

We can theoretically extend this relatively easily to allow for invisible
metadata that is not directly associated with a template:

{{data:person|firstname=Alfred|lastname=Wallace|birthyear=1823}}

Whether we want to do this is another question. I am leaning against it
because I feel it violates basic wiki principles -- cause and effect
should be visible to the user. But if we establish the metadata and
article separation I alluded to in an earlier post we may reconsider this.

This proposal is directly relevant to the image copyright tagging problem,
which can now be solved relatively easily:

{{
image
license=[[GNU Free Documentation License]] |
source=photograph taken by [[User:Dogmaster3000]]
}}

This text could be auto-inserted into the page based on form data during
upload (don't forget to update the METADATA table as well). Now we can
query for images under a specific license, uploaded by a specific user
etc.

There is of course some overlap with the category system here, but I feel
it is minimal. On the other hand, I think that in terms of implementation,
the strategies needed here are similar to those for keeping the LINKS
tables up to date, so maybe a shared implementation makes sense.

Let me know what you think. I'd be especially interested in Tim's opinion
as he is the main developer behind the template system.

I feel there is still a lot of potential in templates, and basic
programmability should also be considered. Having stuff like optional
parameters and loops would open a whole new range of possibilities. For
the typical user, things will become easier, not harder, as they now just
have to speak one syntax - {{template|foo=bar}} - and can use it to
influence data in very complex dynamic layouts.

All best,

Erik


subject: [WikiEN-l] [[New Haven, Connecticut]]

body:
My concern was not with some place that claims to have invented the hamburger: it was just that the original poster was adding off-the-cuff pizza places that, at least as far as was indicated in the article, had no particular significance except possibly to the poster.  To me, this is POV: "These are the places you should eat at, not any others."

RickK

"John C. Penta" <pentaj2 at UofS.edu> wrote:

I think the whole idea of 'encyclopedic'-ness is becoming a barrier to Wikipedia.

I have to agree with Erik; include these places. For those who know the Jersey Shore, imagine an article on the area _without_ including something on the Stone Pony. I live here...Not including the Stone Pony would leave a gaping hole. Not including the Hilltop Steakhouse in a similar article on Boston would be similar.

Yeah, you'd get all the facts, but you'd miss a lot of the character.

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040319/da654bab/attachment.htm


from_name: Angela

subject: [WikiEN-l] ATTN: Admin: Mistake to delete

body:
 --- Peter Jaros <rjaros at shaysnet.com> wrote: > Could
an admin delete the 2nd version of [[Image:Two
> polar bears
> sparring.jpg]]?  It's identical to the next
> (current) version.  Me
> being silly.
>
> Is there a better place to post this request?  I
> couldn't find it.

As it is an exact duplicate of another image, it is a
candidate for speedy deletion
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion),
and can therefore be listed on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Speedy_deletions.

Other image deletions can be requested at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_for_deletion

Angela.

___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
your friends today! Download Messenger Now
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html


from_name: Peter Jaros

body:
On Friday, March 19, 2004, at 03:32 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:

> Daniel-
>> Wikibooks is already more than just textbooks - why can't Wikisource
>> be
>> about more than just text?
>
> It certainly can and should. Given the technical changes I've described
> that would be necessary to integrate this into the other projects,
> however, I would very much be in favor of also changing the name of the
> project, which is a minor change in comparison.

Note that Wikisource is a very different project from the others.
We're not building an encyclopedia or a dictionary or any other kind of
book.  It's just a repository of anything GFDL.  I like your current
idea, Erik.

Peter

                                   -- ---<>--- --
                         A house without walls cannot fall.
            Help build the world's largest encyclopedia at Wikipedia.org
                                   -- ---<>--- --


from_name: Neil Harris

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

<<lots of excellent stuff>>

Erik:

This stuff is awesome. This is very similar to some work I have been
doing for the Kendra project, which is a metadata project for linking
everything to everything else using the Semantic Web, with a Wiki
interface for "semantic boostrapping", and the short-term goal of
providing a way of providing better sales channels for the indie music
industry as a demonstrator.

I agree that every piece of markup should have a visible display, so
that there is "closure" from a user-interface point of view. Templates
are the obvious way of doing this, and they also provide a natural place
to add the metadata that describes the "class" (in an OWL./RDF sense)
that the template refers to.

One way of getting around the "invisible" markup problem would be to add
a visible hover-box which would only appear over a piece of text when
the user hovered over it, and to use a very subtle visuai hint to show
that this was available.

Another is to generate text from the template, so that

{{data:person|firstname=Alfred|surname=Wallace|birthyear=1823}}

would actually have the same display effect as

[[Alfred Wallace]], (born [[1823]])

To do this right, some forms of "smart" template should be written as PHP code, not as Wiki templates.
The person template is a really good example: it could handle special cases such as display of names for cultures which put the personal and family names in the order "FAMILY personal", and also help sort personal names correctly by surname, rather than by ASCII collating order. However, 99% of templates can be done right just with macro generation.

-- Neil


from_name: Derek L.

body:
I have installed the latest release candidate according to the automatic install
instructions, and the setup appears to have at least partially failed.

After the configuration process, I moved the local settings file to main wiki
directory as specified (http://www.mindvector.dreamhost.com/wiki/), and followed
the link from the configuration screen.  Instead of the wiki as expected, I
recieved a 404 error in IE.  Using Mozilla I went to the wiki directory, and
found that http://www.mindvector.dreamhost.com/wiki/ was redirected to
http://www.mindvector.dreamhost.com/wiki/index.php/Wiki/index.php and the
message "No input file specified." is displayed.

So the Wiki is there?, but somehow is confused as to exactly where 'there' is it
appears.

D.


from_name: Anthere

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Mediation board

body:
Peter Jaros a ?crit:
> On Thursday, March 18, 2004, at 02:49 PM, Anthere wrote:
>
>> What is your opinion Peter ? What do you think mediation is ? How can
>> it help ? Do you think your opinion is welcome to build it, or is it a
>> closed black box? Do you think mediation organisation should be
>> invisible to non mediators ? Where do you suggest we discuss english
>> wikipolitics from now on ?
>
>
> On the contrary, I feel that mediation itself is important and should be
> an integral part of the Wikipedia community.  I just think that this
> squabble about the deletion of a thread most of us know nothing about
> doesn't need to be discussed here.  Based on Erik's description of the
> thread as he saw it, I personally don't see what the big deal is.  From
> what *I* know, it was useless when he found it.
>
> If, on the other hand, it *was* useful to certain people who knew what
> it meant, I'm fairly certain the large majority of the subscribers to
> this list *didn't* know what it meant.
>
> I'm sorry.  I don't mean to take sides.  It's not my business.  But
> that's my point: I don't think its the business of most of us.
>
> Again, I don't mean mediation, I just mean this argument.
>
> Peter

I am sorry that you did not understand what that argument was really
about Peter :-)


from_name: Nicolas Weeger

subject: [Wikitech-l] Geoffrin's status? And Wiktionary, too

body:
> I know that I've heard this several times since Wiktionary was started.
> The only thing that's needed is for someone who wants them to take the
> initiative and get working on them.

Ok, I want to start working on fr (or other? wiktionary. How do i setup
fr.wiktionary.org?

> Ec

Nicolas


from_name: John C. Penta

subject: [WikiEN-l] [[New Haven, Connecticut]]

body:
----- Original Message -----
From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
Date: Friday, March 19, 2004 3:20 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] [[New Haven, Connecticut]]

> Some people tend to view some of this local information as
> non-encyclopedic, but sometimes it is exactly what gives flavour
> to a
> place.  Even those of us who condemn the excesses of capitalism
> can
> recognize that certain commercial enterprises play an important
> social
> and cultural role in their respective communities.  If one were to
> extrapolate Rick's argument that the mention of the pizza
> restaurants
> constitutes advertising, then we should also delete the Disneyland
> article because it is effectively advertising for the theme park.
> Imagine the arguments if someone tried to delete that article.

I think the whole idea of 'encyclopedic'-ness is becoming a barrier to Wikipedia.

I have to agree with Erik; include these places. For those who know the Jersey Shore, imagine an article on the area _without_ including something on the Stone Pony. I live here...Not including the Stone Pony would leave a gaping hole. Not including the Hilltop Steakhouse in a similar article on Boston would be similar.

Yeah, you'd get all the facts, but you'd miss a lot of the character.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Setup error - file not found

body:
The fix in your 2nd reply appears to fix the problem, I'll keep poking around
and see if it sticks.  I'll fwd this thread to the Dreamhost tech guys, they are
actually pretty good at fixing problems in their setup (when they can).

Anyone looking for decent hosting could do worse than use them.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] power structures

body:
May international wikipedias have a different power
structure than the english one ?

Will all the stewards currently listed on meta have
these powers over all wikipedias or just the english
one ?

Do they need to have knowledge of sql queries and
linux stuff ?

regards ant

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


body:
Daniel-
> Wikibooks is already more than just textbooks - why can't Wikisource be
> about more than just text?

It certainly can and should. Given the technical changes I've described
that would be necessary to integrate this into the other projects,
however, I would very much be in favor of also changing the name of the
project, which is a minor change in comparison.

Wikisource is presently not an established name; outside of Wikipedia's
servers there are about 700 Google hits on it, and most of them appear to
be Wikipedia mirrors or irrelevant hits (referring to WikiSource as the
source of a wiki page). In comparison, my modest weblog "infoAnarchy"
results in 50,900 hits, about 20,000 outside the server of the project. So
I think we can safely establish that changing the name would not cause
much grief, as it isn't very popular to begin with.

I prefer "Wikimedia Commons" because:
- It is more clearly about open content, and taps into the emerging
concept of a "creative commons"
- It would feed all other Wikimedia projects with content, and as such,
should be clearly marked as a *Wikimedia* project
- This would also give additional prominence to the Wikimedia brandname
which it currently lacks.
- The name benefits from the "media" in Wikimedia, which is exactly what
the project is about.

I find Wikisource to be a nondescript and confusing name. It is hard to
see a music file or an image as a "source", there are many other meanings
of that word that people will think of first. In the case of Wikibooks,
the *original* impression (it's just about textbooks) didn't match the
name. Here the proposed changes do not really fit well under the old name.

>From a marketing perspective, I find it much easier to imagine getting the
word out how you can contribute your photos, music, texts to the Wikimedia
Commons, than doing the same with "Wikisource".

If Ray's argument wins that the two projects should be kept separate for a
while at least, this will also require a different name for the transition
phase, and a decision which one to use after it.

Regards,

Erik


list: textbook-l

from_name: Tomer Chachamu

subject: [Textbook-l] Study help desk

body:
Hello! It's my first posting here :)

I think the "study help desk" should be removed from the left sidebar;
it is almost never used.

r3m0t


from_name: Mikhail Capone

subject: [Wikitech-l] "Log out" right above the "search field"

body:
Am I the only one who things that having the "log out" link right above
the search field isn't the best UI decision?

--
Mikhail / http://MikeCapone.blogspot.com


subject:
[Wikitech-l] "Sonderzeichen" found in WP-de and a plea for
	conservatism

body:
Karl-
> In WP-de you can read if you try editing an article:

>     Sonderzeichen: ? ? ? ? ? ? ? * [ | ] { }

> Please, disable this "help" now;

This is not an issue for wikitech-l. All user interface texts can be
edited. Look here:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MediaWiki-Namespace-Text

This one is here:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning

Someone added the list, someone else can remove it. The messages are
protected by default.

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Karl Eichwalder

body:
In WP-de you can read if you try editing an article:

    Sonderzeichen: ? ? ? ? ? ? ? * [ | ] { }

Please, disable this "help" now; there is already much to much clutter
all over the (edit) pages.  As a long time user, I know about the
license stuff; I do not want to read it again and again and esp., do not
yell at me using bold text.

Software or interface changes must not happen on a day-by-day base -
every 6 months is enough.  I asked for such a cooperation some weeks
ago, but it was refused.  Can we work a policey that fits for the more
conservative users, too?

--
                                                         |      ,__o
                                                         |    _-\_<,
http://www.gnu.franken.de/ke/                            |   (*)/'(*)


subject:
[Wikitech-l] Re: "Sonderzeichen" found in WP-de and a plea for
	conservatism

in_reply_to:
<95ENb$TxpVB@erik_moeller> (Erik Moeller's message of "20 Mar
	2004 05:09:00 +0100")

body:
erik_moeller at gmx.de (Erik Moeller) writes:

> This is not an issue for wikitech-l. All user interface texts can be
> edited. Look here:
> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MediaWiki-Namespace-Text

Thanks for the info.

> This one is here:
> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning

They also do not know, that '<p>' means "paragraph open".

> Someone added the list, someone else can remove it. The messages are
> protected by default.

Thus I must send a plea to them.

--
                                                         |      ,__o
                                                         |    _-\_<,
http://www.gnu.franken.de/ke/                            |   (*)/'(*)


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Peter Jaros wrote:

> On Friday, March 19, 2004, at 03:32 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
>
>> Daniel-
>>
>>> Wikibooks is already more than just textbooks - why can't Wikisource be
>>> about more than just text?
>>
>> It certainly can and should. Given the technical changes I've described
>> that would be necessary to integrate this into the other projects,
>> however, I would very much be in favor of also changing the name of the
>> project, which is a minor change in comparison.
>
> Note that Wikisource is a very different project from the others.
> We're not building an encyclopedia or a dictionary or any other kind
> of book.  It's just a repository of anything GFDL.

It's primarily a repository of public domain texts.  Although it is
subject to GFDL rules, those texts form a very small part of its
contents.  Non-text material is also very limited there.  It's only
people seeking to dump embarasing material from Wikipedia that make it a
"repository of anything GFDL"

Personally, just like Encyclopedia Brittanica is a major competitor of
Wikipedia, I would see Wikisource as eventually becoming a competitor of
Project Sourceberg.  Having all these other complications that others
want to add from the outside would only make that goal more difficult.

I don't see Peter's name among the registered users of Wikisource; I'll
take that as a reflection of how much he knows what he's saying.

Ec


body:
Mikhail Capone wrote:

> Am I the only one who things that having the "log out" link right
> above the search field isn't the best UI decision?

I had never thought about it, and it's never been a problem for me.
 Still, I can see where a person a person who has fine motor skill
difficulties could accidentally log out when try to place the cursor in
the search field.

Ec


subject:
[Wikitech-l] Re: "Sonderzeichen" found in WP-de and a plea
	for	conservatism

body:
Timwi wrote:

> Karl Eichwalder wrote:
>
>> Software or interface changes must not happen on a day-by-day base -
>> every 6 months is enough.
>
> Developers are volunteers. They make changes in their free time.
> Understandably, they would be deterred from doing any development if
> they would have to wait for 6 months (do you know just how long that
> is?) for their changes to go live.

I admit that I had never considered that requiring a little patience was
an act of cruelty to developers. :-)

The rate at which software changes are applied should probably depend on
the nature of the change.  Changes that have a high impact on the way
that most of us non-techies do things should be made permanent only
after the most careful consideration of the human engineering aspects.
 Other, changes that operate mostly in the background can probably be
implemented more quickly.

People can be very uncomfortable with sudden changes.  The recent sudden
appearance of suggested details in the edit summary box may have been
technologically very simple, but reactions need to be anticipated when
the broad population of users unexpectedly run into such changes.

Ec


from_name: Michael Snow

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Proposal: commons.wikimedia.org

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

>What are the downsides?
>
>- The user interface is likely to be a bit clunky at first. We can fix
>that.
>- This project can exceed Wikipedia in costs if it is successful. I
>believe prominent fundraisers will cover us, if not, we can fix this by
>limiting the scope of the commons.
>- People will upload all sorts of things which we don't want. We can fix
>that the same way we deal with Wikipedia articles we don't want.
>- Changes to the software will be very specific to our needs, other
>MediaWiki sites will probably be unable to interface directly with the
>commons. Maybe we can authorize other projects on an individual basis to
>interface with us.
>
If I may suggest another complication--I think using the name "Wikipedia
Commons", or a variation on it, such as a commons.wikimedia.org URL,
will give some people the impression that material there is licensed
under one of the Creative Commons licenses. If this source repository is
not going to restrict itself to any one license, its name should not
suggest that it does.

For that reason, I prefer the Wikisource name, and I agree with mav that
it seems like we could just expand our existing project instead of
starting a new one. I'm not terribly familiar with the activity on
Wikisource, but if Ec thinks the commons project would just compete with
it, he's in a good position to know. Why should we dissipate our energy
on setting up duelling projects?

--Michael Snow


from_name: Brion Vibber

references:
<shoeqsqilz.fsf@tux.gnu.franken.de> <405BCE45.6000005@neovoid.org>
	<405C9147.8070504@telus.net>

body:
On Mar 20, 2004, at 10:45, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Mikhail Capone wrote:
>> Am I the only one who things that having the "log out" link right
>> above the search field isn't the best UI decision?
>
> I had never thought about it, and it's never been a problem for me.
> Still, I can see where a person a person who has fine motor skill
> difficulties could accidentally log out when try to place the cursor
> in the search field.

Gwicke is working on a new design, based vaguely on the layout for
Plone:
http://wiki.aulinx.de/Main_Page

Please comment!

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: "Log out" right above the "search field"

references:
<shoeqsqilz.fsf@tux.gnu.franken.de> <405BCE45.6000005@neovoid.org>
	<c3hs55$ce7$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
Timwi wrote:
> Mikhail Capone wrote:
>
>> Am I the only one who things that having the "log out" link right
>> above the search field isn't the best UI decision?
>
>
> Am I the only one who thinks that people should stop hitting "Reply" on
> a message that they're not actually replying to? :/

Touch?.

I thought that deleting the subject and body didn't leave anything; oops.

--
Mikhail / http://MikeCapone.blogspot.com


subject:
[Wikitech-l] Re: [Intlwiki-l] The Proxy blocker;
	important notice to all Wikipedias

body:
On Mar 20, 2004, at 11:29, Walter Vermeir wrote:
> I have discovered there is now a robot active on I believe all
> Wikipedias whit the name "Proxy blocker".
>
> It blocks automaticly all users who are using a open proxy server.
>
> It looks like a action form the English Wikipedia.

Tim plugged this experimentally into the wiki in response to a massive
spambot attack a few days ago that worked through open proxies. It's
not a vigilante robot, but an automated part of the wiki that runs a
check when a given IP address first makes an edit. (This should have
been announced; if it wasn't, I hope Tim will remember to do so next
time.)

Of course if any wikis decide they don't want this, we'll be happy to
disable it for you.

I should point out that _proxies_ are not a problem, but _open proxies_
are often a serious security risk. They are usually simply
misconfigured, and like open mail relays are taken advantage of by
spammers and malware to disguise their attack vector. A proxy meant as
a firewall but left completely open may also allow external attackers
to get at internal servers which were intended to be better secured.

> This is likely a violation of the blocking policy on most Wikipedias
> so inform your users about this and discuss it.
>
> To trigger the Proxy Blocker go to http://www.publicproxyservers.com
> and  use a "transparent" proxy.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] power structures

body:
Anthere wrote:

>May international wikipedias have a different power
>structure than the english one ?
>
I think that each project should have its own structure, not just the
international wikipedias.

>Will all the stewards currently listed on meta have
>these powers over all wikipedias or just the english
>one ?
>
I looked through that and I found it unclear.  I'm not quite sure what
the correct term is anymore.  "Steward" seems acceptable, as is the
present "bureaucrat".  "Honorary developer" strikes me as misleading.

I agree with Tim that developers should not be meddling in the politics
of the individual projects.  Doing so can damage their credibility.  I
agree with the duties that Tim would allocate to developers, though I
would add to that the duty to deal with bug issues and other technical
matters.  Since their are not enough developers to allow each project to
have its own private developer, each project should have at least one of
the developers be its "assigned" developer.  That developer would have
the task of occasionally reviewing bug reports on the project, and
attempting to deal with them.  If he finds himself being asked
"political" questions his only option would be to refer those question
to the appropriate person - most likely the bureaucrat for the project.

In a new project the developer is also both a sysop and a bureaucrat.
 It is in his own best interest to delegate these powers as soon as
possible.  (Note: I prefer to avoid semantic distinctions between
"rights" and "powers")

Each project should have at least one bureaucrat, and that bureaucrat
rights should be assigned on a per project basis.  This does not prevent
a project from having more than one bureaucrat.  Being a bureaucrat on
the tamil wikipedia would be pointless is I don't understand Tamil.

The key asset that a bureaucrat brings to a project is the ability to
view the project at the big picture level.  Like the chief justice of a
court or the speaker of a legislature, his vote counts for no more than
that of his coleagues.  He is just there to insure that things get done,
and if one of those tasks is creating further sysops, it can become
clear to the members that he will carry out the will of the members when
so asked.  A modicum of mediation skills and common sense can be helpful
to a person in this position.

Ec


body:
Brion Vibber wrote:

> On Mar 20, 2004, at 10:45, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> Mikhail Capone wrote:
>>
>>> Am I the only one who things that having the "log out" link right
>>> above the search field isn't the best UI decision?
>>
>> I had never thought about it, and it's never been a problem for me.
>> Still, I can see where a person a person who has fine motor skill
>> difficulties could accidentally log out when try to place the cursor
>> in the search field.
>
> Gwicke is working on a new design, based vaguely on the layout for Plone:
> http://wiki.aulinx.de/Main_Page
>
> Please comment!

Pretty, and it will deal with Mikhail's concern.  I do, nevertheless,
find that the print in the top banner could be 1 point bigger.  The
black on orange is a little difficult to see.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] "Wikipedic"

body:
Daniel P.B.Smith wrote:

> [snippages]
>
>> the original poster was adding off-the-cuff pizza places that, at
>> least as far as was indicated in the article, had no particular
>> significance except possibly to the poster.
>> RickK
>>
>> "John C. Penta" <pentaj2 at UofS.edu> wrote:
>>
>> I think the whole idea of 'encyclopedic'-ness is becoming a barrier
>> to Wikipedia.
>>
>> I have to agree with Erik; include these places. For those who know
>> the Jersey Shore, imagine an article on the area _without_ including
>> something on the Stone Pony. I live here...Not including the Stone
>> Pony would leave a gaping hole. Not including the Hilltop Steakhouse
>> in a similar article on Boston would be similar.
>>
>> Yeah, you'd get all the facts, but you'd miss a lot of the character.
>
>
> I plead guilty to personal inconsistency on this. ("I am large, I
> contain multitudes...") I thought RickK was right about the inclusion
> of Sally's Apizza and Pepe's Pizza. On the other hand, some time ago
> Angela slapped me _very, very_ gently on the wrist for mentioning by
> name all two of the lodging options available in Lancaster, Wisconsin
> (population 4070); the specific sentence was "Lancaster accommodations
> include the Best Western Welcome Inn (608-723-4162) and the lovely
> Maple-Harris Bed and Breakfast 608-723-4717, 888-216-0888." Well, the
> Best Western is fine, but the Maple-Harris _is_ lovely. (Anyway, we
> settled for replacing the sentence with external links to the lodging
> sections of the City of Lancaster website)
>
> Clearly, certain kinds of articles, particularly those about towns and
> universities (and university towns!) tend to acquire a certain
> "community" flavor. Obviously this is because the people most likely
> to contribute are present/former residents/students, who have an
> emotional attachment to the place. Equally obviously, the mention of
> specific commercial establishments is apt to be perceived as
> "advertising" by outsiders, whereas in many cases the motivation for
> placement is just affection for the establishment. I certainly do not
> have any business connection with Maple-Harris, for example.
>
> Of course, the problem is that merely mentioning an establishment may
> be evocative of local color to people that know the town, but doesn't
> do much for outsiders. It's true that I'm not a proper judge of
> whether Sally's Apizza is "encyclopedic" or not. But unfortunately
> it's equally true that mentioning it in an article on New Haven
> doesn't do a thing to convey anything about New Haven to me.
>
> So... what we probably have here in the New Haven article is people
> from New Haven writing things about New Haven that are mostly to be
> appreciated by people _from_ New Haven. Which is probably why this
> sort of thing is faintly annoying to outsiders.
>
> (By the way, for the record, the current article on Boston does _not_
> mention the Hilltop Steakhouse. Nor Jake Wirth's, nor the Union Oyster
> House, nor Durgin-Park, nor the much-missed Jack and Marion's in
> Brookline, home of the Empire State Skyscraper Sandwich... Ah, Jack
> and Marion's... What care I about lunch counters and pizza joints in
> New Haven,  Jack and Marion's was a cultural icon of the first water.
> Say, get this--their menu, well, see, it had these red stars next to
> certain items and when you tried to figure out what it meant and
> looked at the bottom of the menu, it said "Red star indicates good
> profit item for Jack and Marion's--please order!" Yes, indeed, Jack
> and Marion's is surely worthy of an entire Wikipedia article of its
> own, perhaps two... but I digress. Or do I?)
>
> I'm not quite sure where I'm going with this, but clearly Wikipedia is
> no more (and no less) like a print encyclopedia than email is like
> traditional ink-on-dead-tree-USPS "snail mail."
>
> I'm beginning to wonder whether we should recognize a division between
> "high encyclopedic" (as in Diderot, Britannica, etc.) and "low
> encyclopedic" (as in "Encyclopedia of Beer," "Ohio State Football
> Encyclopedia," "The Mammoth Encyclopedia of Science Fiction").
> Certainly there seem to be things which are not "encyclopedic" but
> which are nevertheless "wikipedic."

That's a well written analysis of the situation.  Trivia, rather than
the "high encyclopedic", is what attracts people.  Why Napoleon is
always pictured with his hand inside his jacket can inspire more
curiousity than all his battlefield victories put together.  That The
Guinness Book of Records should be a consistent best seller is a fact
that should tell us something.  Most of us are not likely to ever visit
New Haven (I did pass a Sunday afternoon there 20 years ago, so I've
exceeded my quota)  We're even less likely to visit the mentioned
pizzerias.  The image of students lined up outside the pizzeria in this
McLuhanistic hot medium evokes an image that's as strong as anything
that Proust might ever have written.  My own experience with the
Bhagirath Palace hotel in Delhi, India would be as unflattering as the
desciption by V. S. Naipaul, but mentioning it should not be read as an
advertisement.

The guardians of the high encyclopedic need to get a life.  The function
of the high encyclopedic is merely to inform and instruct.  The low
encyclopedic has the honorable task of dilighting and inspiring.

Ec


subject: [Wikitech-l] Dead squids?

body:
I've taken these addresses out of the list of squids to purge on page
update:
168.143.185.151 - larousse in San Diego, now offline
217.172.186.123 - ??, doesn't respond on port 80

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Wikitech-l] META keywords

body:
I have commited META keyword generation to CVS. They are generated from
both the good and broken links for each page. The maximum number of
keywords generated is 10 now.

Just letting you know,
Magnus


body:
Michael Snow wrote:

> If I may suggest another complication--I think using the name
> "Wikipedia Commons", or a variation on it, such as a
> commons.wikimedia.org URL, will give some people the impression that
> material there is licensed under one of the Creative Commons licenses.
> If this source repository is not going to restrict itself to any one
> license, its name should not suggest that it does.

My complaints have not been about Erik's basic "Wikmedia Commons" (not
"Wikipedia Commons") but about its proposed merger with Wikisource.  I
think that his fundamental idea is excellent.  Attention needs to be
paid on techniques that will allow a sharing of information between
projects and between languages.  I can see how the misinterpretation of
"Commons" that you cite might arise , but the image that it evoked from
me was quite different, and is based on a meaning of "Commons" that has
been around for much longer:  the town square where everyone comes
together to share what unites them.

> For that reason, I prefer the Wikisource name, and I agree with mav
> that it seems like we could just expand our existing project instead
> of starting a new one. I'm not terribly familiar with the activity on
> Wikisource, but if Ec thinks the commons project would just compete
> with it, he's in a good position to know. Why should we dissipate our
> energy on setting up duelling projects?

"Compete" does not exactly describe my concern.  It's more a clash of
visions.  I happen to think that allowing multiple visions is a great
asset to our whole Wiki family.  I see Wikisource as more akin to an
improved Project Gutenberg, and given the similarity in name formats, I
would venture the guess that those who first proposed the Project
Sourceberg name had something similar in mind.  Although I would not
support such a move, a similar argument could be put forth to merge the
Commons with Wiktionary -- after all the words which are its focus have
a common utility to all the projects.

The Wikimedia Commons needs to develop its own identity.  In the
unlikely event that other projects want to merge merge with it at a
later time that should be allowed, but only after a consensus has been
reached among the members of that project.

Perhaps too, the Wikimedia Commons can begin the move toward unified logins.

Ec


from_name: Daniel P.B.Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] "Wikipedic"

body:
[snippages]
> the original poster was adding off-the-cuff pizza places that, at
> least as far as was indicated in the article, had no particular
> significance except possibly to the poster.
> RickK
>
> "John C. Penta" <pentaj2 at UofS.edu> wrote:
>
> I think the whole idea of 'encyclopedic'-ness is becoming a barrier to
> Wikipedia.
>
> I have to agree with Erik; include these places. For those who know
> the Jersey Shore, imagine an article on the area _without_ including
> something on the Stone Pony. I live here...Not including the Stone
> Pony would leave a gaping hole. Not including the Hilltop Steakhouse
> in a similar article on Boston would be similar.
>
> Yeah, you'd get all the facts, but you'd miss a lot of the character.

I plead guilty to personal inconsistency on this. ("I am large, I
contain multitudes...") I thought RickK was right about the inclusion
of Sally's Apizza and Pepe's Pizza. On the other hand, some time ago
Angela slapped me _very, very_ gently on the wrist for mentioning by
name all two of the lodging options available in Lancaster, Wisconsin
(population 4070); the specific sentence was "Lancaster accommodations
include the Best Western Welcome Inn (608-723-4162) and the lovely
Maple-Harris Bed and Breakfast 608-723-4717, 888-216-0888." Well, the
Best Western is fine, but the Maple-Harris _is_ lovely. (Anyway, we
settled for replacing the sentence with external links to the lodging
sections of the City of Lancaster website)

Clearly, certain kinds of articles, particularly those about towns and
universities (and university towns!) tend to acquire a certain
"community" flavor. Obviously this is because the people most likely to
contribute are present/former residents/students, who have an emotional
attachment to the place. Equally obviously, the mention of specific
commercial establishments is apt to be perceived as "advertising" by
outsiders, whereas in many cases the motivation for placement is just
affection for the establishment. I certainly do not have any business
connection with Maple-Harris, for example.

Of course, the problem is that merely mentioning an establishment may
be evocative of local color to people that know the town, but doesn't
do much for outsiders. It's true that I'm not a proper judge of whether
Sally's Apizza is "encyclopedic" or not. But unfortunately it's equally
true that mentioning it in an article on New Haven doesn't do a thing
to convey anything about New Haven to me.

So... what we probably have here in the New Haven article is people
from New Haven writing things about New Haven that are mostly to be
appreciated by people _from_ New Haven. Which is probably why this sort
of thing is faintly annoying to outsiders.

(By the way, for the record, the current article on Boston does _not_
mention the Hilltop Steakhouse. Nor Jake Wirth's, nor the Union Oyster
House, nor Durgin-Park, nor the much-missed Jack and Marion's in
Brookline, home of the Empire State Skyscraper Sandwich... Ah, Jack and
Marion's... What care I about lunch counters and pizza joints in New
Haven,  Jack and Marion's was a cultural icon of the first water. Say,
get this--their menu, well, see, it had these red stars next to certain
items and when you tried to figure out what it meant and looked at the
bottom of the menu, it said "Red star indicates good profit item for
Jack and Marion's--please order!" Yes, indeed, Jack and Marion's is
surely worthy of an entire Wikipedia article of its own, perhaps two...
but I digress. Or do I?)

I'm not quite sure where I'm going with this, but clearly Wikipedia is
no more (and no less) like a print encyclopedia than email is like
traditional ink-on-dead-tree-USPS "snail mail."

I'm beginning to wonder whether we should recognize a division between
"high encyclopedic" (as in Diderot, Britannica, etc.) and "low
encyclopedic" (as in "Encyclopedia of Beer," "Ohio State Football
Encyclopedia," "The Mammoth Encyclopedia of Science Fiction").
Certainly there seem to be things which are not "encyclopedic" but
which are nevertheless "wikipedic."

--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith at verizon.net alternate:
dpbsmith at alum.mit.edu
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/


from_name: Timwi

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Templates + parameters = metadata

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

> As most of you know, the MediaWiki namespace is quickly becoming a generic
> template system with parameters. Currently it only supports unnamed
> parameters, e.g. {{country|Germany|82 million}}, but it is my
> understanding that named parameters, e.g.
> {{country|name=Germany|population=82 million}}, are firmly planned.

All your ideas are pretty impressive, and I firmly support your
implementation plan.

However, I would like to call for some thought on the syntax. I think
using the "=" and "|" characters alone to separate things might be
problematic, because both of these characters should be allowed to occur
within a variable's value, too.

Admittedly, the "=" isn't too much of a problem, because if you have
something like, {{stuff|thing=E=mc?}}, it is easy to say that the first
"=" character separates the variable name from the value, and all other
"="s are part of the value. However, with the |, that's not quite so
easy. Maybe, analogous to {{ ... }}, we should have ||? (Yes, I know,
table syntax uses it too, and maybe we sometimes want a table inside a
variable's value, but since tables are clearly surrounded by {| ... |},
the parser shouldn't have any problems knowing which "||" is which.

For readability, spaces around the "=" should be allowed.

Thus, my suggested syntax would be:

{{image
|| license = [[GNU Free Documentation License|GNU FDL]]
|| source  = photograph taken by [[User:Dogmaster3000|]]
}}

Rock on!
Timwi


from_name: A

from_email: A

subject: [WikiEN-l] the mediation committe is a failure

body:
The mediation committee has refused to mediate in any
circumstance or issue for which I am a participant.
What is the point of this committee, if it refuses to
even attempt mediation with some of the supposedly
more "mediationally-challenged" users?

I think everyone on the mediation committee should be
asked to resign, so that we can get some users who
actually want to mediate and facilitate discussion. It
seems clear to me that these people only took the
position because they saw it as a way of becoming
"super-sysops" -- not because they really wanted to
undertake the effort of mediation.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


body:
Mikhail Capone wrote:

> Am I the only one who things that having the "log out" link right above
> the search field isn't the best UI decision?

Am I the only one who thinks that people should stop hitting "Reply" on
a message that they're not actually replying to? :/


body:
Karl Eichwalder wrote:

> Software or interface changes must not happen on a day-by-day base -
> every 6 months is enough.

Developers are volunteers. They make changes in their free time.
Understandably, they would be deterred from doing any development if
they would have to wait for 6 months (do you know just how long that
is?) for their changes to go live.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] A few more commons ideas

body:
On Mar 20, 2004, at 16:56, Erik Moeller wrote:
> In my original proposal I suggested that images on the commons would
> have
> to be referenced as
>
> [[Image:co:Airplane.jpg]]
>
> I realize now that this is not necessary.

Also note that co: is the language prefix for the Corsican Wikipedia,
http://co.wikipedia.org/

Please try to avoid two- and three-letter codes, as many of them will
conflict with existing or future language codes.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:

>I can see how the misinterpretation of
>"Commons" that you cite might arise , but the image that it evoked from
>me was quite different, and is based on a meaning of "Commons" that has
>been around for much longer:  the town square where everyone comes
>together to share what unites them.
>
Well, that image is where Creative Commons got the idea too, of course.
But why invite confusion, especially if we include things under CC
licenses, as Erik's proposal would allow? Better to have a distinct name
that causes no misunderstandings. Since the commons is land for the use
of the whole community, how about the equivalent in water? i.e.
"Wikimedia Reservoir". The original sense of "source" is water-based, too.

>> I'm not terribly familiar with the activity on
>> Wikisource, but if Ec thinks the commons project would just compete
>> with it, he's in a good position to know. Why should we dissipate our
>> energy on setting up duelling projects?
>
>"Compete" does not exactly describe my concern.  It's more a clash of
>visions.
>
(Ray Saintonge also wrote:)

> Personally, just like Encyclopedia Brittanica is a major competitor of
> Wikipedia, I would see Wikisource as eventually becoming a competitor
> of Project Sourceberg.

This statement from your previous post was part of the reason I
expressed myself as I did. If I misunderstood your meaning, I apologize.

>Perhaps too, the Wikimedia Commons can begin the move toward unified logins.
>
This I would wholeheartedly endorse. For me personally, and I know of
others, the biggest thing that inhibits participating in multiple
Wikimedia projects is the nuisance (mixed with a little laziness) of
having to log in separately to each one.

--Michael Snow
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20040320/813d00ed/attachment.htm


from_name: Adam Corey

subject: [Wikipedia-l] dump file forbidden

body:
hi all,

i'm trying to download the english old dump file, however i appear to
be forbidden.  (gasp.)  can someone point me in the right direction for
getting access to this file?

thanks so much.

adam


from_name: Christopher Mahan

body:
--- A [name omitted for privacy reasons] <wikilir at yahoo.com> wrote:
> The mediation committee has refused to mediate in any
> circumstance or issue for which I am a participant.
> What is the point of this committee, if it refuses to
> even attempt mediation with some of the supposedly
> more "mediationally-challenged" users?

> I think everyone on the mediation committee should be
> asked to resign, so that we can get some users who
> actually want to mediate and facilitate discussion. It
> seems clear to me that these people only took the
> position because they saw it as a way of becoming
> "super-sysops" -- not because they really wanted to
> undertake the effort of mediation.

Asked to resign? Who will take their place?

Not me, oh no siree, I can't be bothered. I work full time and have a
life. I usually just delete commments in the mailing list (except
Jimbo and this one, which was luckily at the top.) The precious free
time I spend on Wikipedia, I add stuff to articles. Am still trying
to figure out the inner workings of the Hyundai group...

Of course, the mediation committee should be able to ban users who
are not willing to enter into discussion. That goes without saying.
This way, if a user ignores the mediation committee, no more w for them.

=====
Christopher Mahan
chris_mahan at yahoo.com
818.943.1850 cell
http://www.christophermahan.com/

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


subject: [Wikitech-l] META keywords

body:
Magnus Manske a ?crit :

> I have commited META keyword generation to CVS. They are generated from
> both the good and broken links for each page. The maximum number of
> keywords generated is 10 now.

What is the syntax of those keywords?
Is there a was to query articles based on'em?

> Just letting you know,
> Magnus

Nicolas


body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> On Mar 20, 2004, at 10:45, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> Mikhail Capone wrote:
>>
>>> Am I the only one who things that having the "log out" link right
>>> above the search field isn't the best UI decision?
>>
>>
>> I had never thought about it, and it's never been a problem for me.
>> Still, I can see where a person a person who has fine motor skill
>> difficulties could accidentally log out when try to place the cursor
>> in the search field.
>
>
> Gwicke is working on a new design, based vaguely on the layout for Plone:
> http://wiki.aulinx.de/Main_Page
>
> Please comment!

Nice! It still needs some color and font size tweaking, and I can't seem
to easily find "my watchlist", but it seems like a very useable and
readable layout.

I'd also enjoy - and consider using as default - the _Cologne Blue_
theme if there was a way to make the "quickbar" into a
frame/floating/fixed space (sorry for the lack of correct terminology).

I wish I had HTML/CSS skills and could propose a "patch", but alas...

--
Mikhail / http://MikeCapone.blogspot.com


body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

>Michael-
>
>
>>Well, that image is where Creative Commons got the idea too, of course.
>>But why invite confusion,
>>
>>
>I don't think the name invites confusion. It would be quite ironic if the
>name "commons" became proprietary because "Creative Commons" adopted it.
>
I'm not at all suggesting that we avoid "commons" because it's proprietary.

>It is not desirable for the term "commons" to be merely associated with a
>set of licenses, to become in effect a legalistic term
>
Nor is it in any danger of that. Whether we use it or not, "commons"
will always have plenty of other meanings and uses. But it's worth
noting that if you Google the word, the Creative Commons site is the
first hit.

>It is much more desirable for the image of a commons
>in the digital age to be firmly etched into the mind of the Internet
>public as one of a set of content which may be freely used with limited or
>no restrictions.
>
I would think that the choice of name should serve the agenda of
promoting the project, instead of having the project serve the agenda of
promoting the name.

--Michael Snow
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20040320/422d2a32/attachment.htm


in_reply_to:
<c3hs7f$ce7$2@sea.gmane.org> (timwi@gmx.net's message of "Sat,
	20 Mar 2004 16:41:03 +0000")

body:
Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> writes:

> Developers are volunteers.

Writers are volunteers - so what's your point?

> They make changes in their free time. Understandably, they would be
> deterred from doing any development if they would have to wait for 6
> months (do you know just how long that is?) for their changes to go
> live.

Many a lot writers (and readers) depend on the system.  The system
isn't there to make (some) developers happy instantly.  Widen your
view!  These days it takes years until a new Emacs version will hit the
shelves.  Do you know how often Knuth updates his system?

Only little children and children of the beat generation want to have
all things NOW - later on, you may recognize time is not linear.

Sure, fixing bugs is important and must done as fast as possibile.  I'm
still hoping someone sees my point.

--
                                                         |      ,__o
                                                         |    _-\_<,
http://www.gnu.franken.de/ke/                            |   (*)/'(*)


from_name: Camille Constans

subject: [Wikitech-l] DB status on wikimedia -> Jimbo

body:
Hello,

Space left on db server :

[shaihulud at suda data]$ df -h
-Filesystem            Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/sda2              66G   58G  4.2G  94% /
/dev/sda1              99M   15M   80M  16% /boot
none                  2.0G     0  2.0G   0% /dev/shm

As you see, we'll have soon a problem in few months or few weeks. Brion enabled gzip compression on old for en, but now it's not enough. I took a look at french wikipedia, it's growing at around 100 Mo per week.... And it's only the fourth wikipedia, en, de and ja must grow faster...

Our actual server is too small, and the system disk is too slow. We cant enable full search cause of this poor disks speed. Proc are idle most of time.

If Geoffrin is not back very soon, I would like to think about getting a new server quickly now, every day we must move old binlogs to other servers.

And It will be nice to get a server with a faster disk system, thinking about a raid10, as geoffrin, but with 15000 rpm disks this time. With a such db server, we could be quiet for some months, maybe some years :)

My 2 cents


from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
Timwi-
> However, I would like to call for some thought on the syntax.

Agreed. The syntax needs to be unambiguous. Two pipes would probably do
the trick, although the similarity to the table syntax could cause real
confusion, especially when the output is a table.

Maybe a smarter syntax could be used that uses newlines intelligently:

{{
country
name => Germany
population => 82 million

''(as of 2004)''
}}

Here a line that begins with a valid variable name followed by a => is
interpreted as the key, and everything that follows as the value.

The double-pipes could be used for a single-line notation, e.g.

{{ country || name => Germany || population => 82 million }}

Regards,

Erik


subject: [Wikitech-l] New feature: ~~~~~ -> date/time

body:
On Mar 20, 2004, at 19:42, Timwi wrote:
> I have just committed a trivial change to Parser.php. We replace "~~~"
> with [[User:Username|Username]], and "~~~~" with that, followed by the
> date/time. Now, "~~~~~" inserts just the date/time, without the
> username.

May I submit that that is just too many ~s?

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


body:
Michael Snow wrote:

> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>>I can see how the misinterpretation of
>>"Commons" that you cite might arise , but the image that it evoked from
>>me was quite different, and is based on a meaning of "Commons" that has
>>been around for much longer:  the town square where everyone comes
>>together to share what unites them.
>>
> Well, that image is where Creative Commons got the idea too, of
> course. But why invite confusion, especially if we include things
> under CC licenses, as Erik's proposal would allow? Better to have a
> distinct name that causes no misunderstandings. Since the commons is
> land for the use of the whole community, how about the equivalent in
> water? i.e. "Wikimedia Reservoir". The original sense of "source" is
> water-based, too.

For the time being I will consider "Wikimedia Commons" as a provisional
working title for Erik's proposal.  I don't really have strong feelings
about the name.  My concern in this debate has been primarily with the
preservation of the Wikisource project.  The "Wikimedia Pool" could be
interesting, and "Wikimedia Matrix" would certainly get people
wondering! :-)

Erik's footnote on another message is informative

>I actually typed "wikisource" without thinking, referring to wiki
>source code, not to the Wikisource project. I think that illustrates my
>point about the name being ambiguous nicely.
>
These different interpretations of "source" do indeed speak to a clash
of visions.  A non-techie would seldom think in terms of source "code".
 As a practising bibliomaniac it's more natural for me to think of
sources in terms of what I might find in old bookstores.

>>  I'm not terribly familiar with the activity on
>>> Wikisource, but if Ec thinks the commons project would just compete
>>> with it, he's in a good position to know. Why should we dissipate our
>>> energy on setting up duelling projects?
>>
>>"Compete" does not exactly describe my concern.  It's more a clash of
>>visions.
>>
> (Ray Saintonge also wrote:)
>
>> Personally, just like Encyclopedia Brittanica is a major competitor
>> of Wikipedia, I would see Wikisource as eventually becoming a
>> competitor of Project Sourceberg.
>
............................Oops! did I really say it that way?  I meant
Project Gutenberg. :-[

> This statement from your previous post was part of the reason I
> expressed myself as I did. If I misunderstood your meaning, I apologize.
>
>>Perhaps too, the Wikimedia Commons can begin the move toward unified logins.
>>
> This I would wholeheartedly endorse. For me personally, and I know of
> others, the biggest thing that inhibits participating in multiple
> Wikimedia projects is the nuisance (mixed with a little laziness) of
> having to log in separately to each one.

If the WC (pun noted but not originally intended), as a totally new
project were to initiate the unified log-in from the beginning it would
not have new ambiguities of its own, and could at least stop the
situation from getting worse.  It could begin by making sure that anyone
joining that project either tranfers his existing name or chooses a new
name that does not conflict with a name that already exists on any of
the projects.  As the family of projects grows delaying a solution to
this issue only gives it a chance to get worse.

Ec


body:
Christopher Mahan wrote:

>--- A [name omitted for privacy reasons] <wikilir at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>The mediation committee has refused to mediate in any
>>circumstance or issue for which I am a participant.
>>What is the point of this committee, if it refuses to
>>even attempt mediation with some of the supposedly
>>more "mediationally-challenged" users?
>>
>>I think everyone on the mediation committee should be
>>asked to resign, so that we can get some users who
>>actually want to mediate and facilitate discussion. It
>>seems clear to me that these people only took the
>>position because they saw it as a way of becoming
>>"super-sysops" -- not because they really wanted to
>>undertake the effort of mediation.
>>
Maybe we just look at mediation in different ways.  Any person that the
parties will listen to should be able to act as a mediator, and if he
can find a solution by his informal means the Wikipedia will be the
richer by that.  Hopefully we can all do that from time to time, as when
we see an edit war in progress and try to forge some middle ground.

Going through the mediation committee is a little more formal, and asks
for help when one or both parties becomes obstinate.  I don't see
mediation of a particular case as a committee effort, but as the work of
one person who has drawn that assignment.  Neither do I see mediators as
"super-sysops".  Any additional "rights" that they may have thereby
should be limited to what is needed to maintain confidentiality, and to
manage their work load.

I wonder from your post whether you are really talking about the
*arbitration* committee.

>Asked to resign? Who will take their place?
>
It would not be a realistic solution.

>Not me, oh no siree, I can't be bothered. I work full time and have a
>life. I usually just delete commments in the mailing list (except
>Jimbo and this one, which was luckily at the top.) The precious free
>time I spend on Wikipedia, I add stuff to articles. Am still trying
>to figure out the inner workings of the Hyundai group...
>
Many of us are in similar situations.  I do so without even spending
time worrying about Hyundai.

>Of course, the mediation committee should be able to ban users who
>are not willing to enter into discussion. That goes without saying.
>This way, if a user ignores the mediation committee, no more w for them.
>
Giving mediators the right to ban would validate the "super-sysop"
charge.  Reporting a serious refusal to co-operate would be perfectly
acceptable.

Ec

>


body:
Brion Vibber wrote:

> On Mar 20, 2004, at 10:45, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> Mikhail Capone wrote:
>>
>>> Am I the only one who things that having the "log out" link right
>>> above the search field isn't the best UI decision?
>>
>> I had never thought about it, and it's never been a problem for me.
>> Still, I can see where a person a person who has fine motor skill
>> difficulties could accidentally log out when try to place the cursor
>> in the search field.
>
> Gwicke is working on a new design, based vaguely on the layout for Plone:
> http://wiki.aulinx.de/Main_Page

Perfect! ... except the colours. :)


references:
<shoeqsqilz.fsf@tux.gnu.franken.de> <c3hs7f$ce7$2@sea.gmane.org>
	<sh1xnn9ze4.fsf@tux.gnu.franken.de>

body:
Karl Eichwalder wrote:

> Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> writes:
>
>>Developers are volunteers.
>
> Writers are volunteers - so what's your point?

So do you want to restrict writers to only being able to update their
articles every 6 months too?

> The system isn't there to make (some) developers happy instantly.

I'm afraid if it doesn't, then development won't get ahead. That's just
the way it is.

Timwi


body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

>Ray-
>
>we're not going to come to an agreement on this. Since the Commons
>platform has to work anyway before we can merge Wikisource into it, I
>agree that it makes sense to postpone this discussion until we have the
>basic technology working.
>
Agreed, with relief.  You mentioned at least 3 months for this in one of
your comments.  I'm sure that Wikisource can use that time valuably. :-)

>However, I do not agree that a merge requires
>consensus. Whenever there is no consensus for either option, a real vote
>is what is called for. If only a slim majority favors a merge, we should
>of course make more concessions to those who do not.
>
It was not my intent to open the consensus vs. voting debate; we're both
familiar enough with it to know that we don't need to go there at this
time..  Suffice it to say that I was refering to some functional
decision making process.  The proposal would fundamentally change the
nature of Wikisource.  The participants at Wikisource would be just as
resentful of having their fate decided by outsiders, as the participants
at the German Wikipedia would be if the English speakers started making
decisions for them.

Ec


from_name: Nick Reinking

body:
> May I submit that that is just too many ~s?
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~, ~ ~~~~~.

--
Nick Reinking -- eschewing obfuscation since 1981 -- Minneapolis, MN


from_name: Geoff Burling

body:
On Sat, 20 Mar 2004, Ray Saintonge wrote:

> Giving mediators the right to ban would validate the "super-sysop"
> charge.  Reporting a serious refusal to co-operate would be perfectly
> acceptable.
>
Heck, I'm still accessing the Internet from a dialup connection -- & I
have to share the single phone line with my wife (who plays card games
for hours on Yahoo). Most days I don't feel as if I'm even a full
sysop -- no matter how many privileges I might be granted on Wikipedia!

Geoff


subject: [Wikitech-l] META keywords

body:
Nicolas Weeger wrote:

> Magnus Manske a ?crit :
>
>> I have commited META keyword generation to CVS. They are generated
>> from both the good and broken links for each page. The maximum number
>> of keywords generated is 10 now.
>
>
> What is the syntax of those keywords?
> Is there a was to query articles based on'em?

<meta name="keywords" value="some keywords here">

They seem to improve the search engine ratings (including Goggle,
despite claims of the opposite). Some Wikipedia mirror sites already get
higher ratings than the original wikipedia (seen for de.wikipedia). I'm
trying to even the score ;-)

Magnus


body:
Brion Vibber wrote:

> Gwicke is working on a new design, based vaguely on the layout for Plone:
> http://wiki.aulinx.de/Main_Page
>
> Please comment!

I like it! Even the orange, though I wouldn't necessarily associate that
color with an encyclopedia - *any* encyclopedia ;-)

I also had a weird glitch on the Talk page - see there.

Magnus


body:
Ray-

we're not going to come to an agreement on this. Since the Commons
platform has to work anyway before we can merge Wikisource into it, I
agree that it makes sense to postpone this discussion until we have the
basic technology working. However, I do not agree that a merge requires
consensus. Whenever there is no consensus for either option, a real vote
is what is called for. If only a slim majority favors a merge, we should
of course make more concessions to those who do not.

Regards,

Erik