from_name: James Hare

body:
Exactly, Aphaia, it could really be much worse.

On 12/29/06, Aphaia <aphaia at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/29/06, Michael Bimmler <mbimmler at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Okay. And sure you know how to get in contact with the whole
> > community?
>
> So a report from a certain portion might be useful ;) I would like to
> introduce another view we find on the community, I mean, a community
> of a certain language speakers as a part of the whole Wikipedia
> community; Japanese editors.
>
> I have seen no complaint, no grudges anywhere as far as I know - on
> Village pump, mailinglist   and some external usergroups. (I haven't
> access irc recently, but perhaps there was no reaction). Some was
> impressed by the generocity of Virgin and it is perhaps an exceptional
> reaction; It is obvious most of editors on the Japanese projects
> simply did not care for it. They have been fascinated in their daily
> concerns instead - editwar, disputes, votes and of course, editing
> articles.
>
> What we as editors' community pursue here and now on the project is
> both sustainability and neutrality in my opinion, and I cannot think
> one time donation and one time expression of gratitude hurt the
> neutrality.  If we were asked to make a favor to donors on our
> content, it were a serious damage, but here and now I haven't seen
> such threatening.
>
>
> --
> KIZU Naoko
>   Wikiquote: http://wikiquote.org
>   * Nessuna poesia prima di noi *
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


list: wikimedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

subject: [Foundation-l] This is not an Advertisement


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Dan Jacobson

subject: [Wikitech-l] [Bug 8383] Sidebar first line blank

body:
>> P.S., what's the blank line at the top of MediaWiki:Sidebar all about?
> There...isn't one?
On a virgin 1.7.1 installation
$ wget -O - ...../index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sidebar\&action=raw|nl -b a
should show the first line is blank.


list: wikien-l

from_name: Ilmari Karonen

subject: [WikiEN-l] More drama

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> I seem to have caused a bit of a stir on the AfD for the article Ghost
> ramp.  I commented that if the Keep advocates don't fix the
> fundamental problems identified with the article at its previous AfD
> two months ago - which are: no reliable source for the name, no
> reliable source for the description and all the inclusions sourced to
> maps and satellite photos, i.e. original research - then I will delete
> it as original research.

Without discussing the actual reliability of the sourcing -- which, it
seems to me, would require evaluating the quality of the huge mass of
references provided for the article -- I'd just like to say that I don't
believe AfD is really an appropriate way of dealing with incorrect
article titles, which is what this nomination really seems to be about.

I doubt anyone would deny that there are such things as unused ramps and
highways, and the nominator himself has since started a separate article
on [[Unused highways]] and advocated a redirect or merge there.  As it
happens, I find this a reasonable solution; it's just that I wish it had
been proposed on [[WP:RM]], where it really belongs, in the first place.

Of course, this kind of thing does happen, often starting with a "delete
or at least rename" nomination.  I've done it myself in the past: see
[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinkadecimal]].  "Rename" is indeed a
valid conclusion for an AfD debate, and may often be a good compromise
solution.  I just wish more people would consider that option _before_
taking the matter to AfD.

--
Ilmari Karonen


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: David Still

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Editing time statistics

body:
Hi,

The best statistics that I'm aware of would be these, which
unfortunately don't appear to include the duration of visits/edits:
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/Sitemap.htm

One thing you might want to consider is that some users also take to
editing offline. It's not uncommon for people working on featured
article candidates, or just generally copyediting, to print out the
article and do much of the work offline. Similarly, a lot of time can
be spent researching articles, which wouldn't be counted either.

It'd be a very interesting kind of statistic to have, but
unfortunately we'd only be able to measure one very arbitrary aspect
of it: how long people tend to make rolling series of edits at
Wikipedia. That wouldn't be a complete picture, and probably wouldn't
be useful either. :(

Cheers,
David

On 12/29/06, Jacky PB <dpotop1 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
> First of all, I wish all of you a very happy new year.
>
> Now, my question:
> Are there statistics on how much time users spend
> editing wikipedia? For instance, when a user edits at
> least once every 15-25 minutes for 10 hours, I would
> say he/she spent 10 hours editing, which is cool.
>
> I saw people doing better, and regularly. These people
> are the true pillars of wikipedia.
>
> Yours,
> Dpotop
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Matthew Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] OK, so DRV *is* broken

references:
<7267p2php71rri38m6etjr7sbhsd7fk1av@4ax.com>
	<4593C6BA.6030102@internationalhouseofbacon.com>
	<j4q7p2huovhq4jft1p1insbnvflft1q2uc@4ax.com>
	<4593E99E.2080500@internationalhouseofbacon.com>

body:
On 12/28/06, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:
> Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> > A pity the effort has been devoted instead to arguing for its
> > retention despite its not meeting our standards, then.  I await with
> > baited breath the reliable external source for "big" in this context.
>
> I do strongly suggest being militant about it.  AnonEMouse knows a lot
> about the porn articles, he might have some input as to sourcing it.

I'd guess a good plan to source such a list would be to find an
authoritative source - e.g. a trade journal - listing publications
that cater to this market.  One could then define the list as being
'models who have appeared in publications classified as 'big bust' in
Adult Industry Journal', or something like that.  Of course,
equivalents would have to be found in other worldwide markets, but I
would imagine that similar things can be found elsewhere.

-Matt


subject: [WikiEN-l] How do "deletionists" find articles to delete?

body:
Ron Ritzman wrote:
> I understand that new articles get close scrutiny but just how do
> deletable articles that have been around for a while come to the
> attention to those who regularly nominate articles for deletion?

I don't know if I qualify for "regularly", or for "deletionist", but I
did recently nominate [[Forss Fagerstr?m]], which had been around since
April.  How did I find it?  Well, someone copied it over to the Finnish
Wikipedia, someone else there noticed it and nominated it for deletion,
and a user (one of the few) opposing its deletion there commented that
it shouldn't be deleted since the topic already exists on the English
Wikipedia.

Yes, nominating the English article for deletion at that point is
definitely a Nasty Deletionist Trick(TM).  Then again, the article is
utterly unencyclopedic, even if it _is_ actually fairly well written.

--
Ilmari Karonen


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7

body:
George Herbert wrote:
>
> I see people claiming this, but the fact is that the majority of PROD
> nominations go uncontested and result in a deletion.
>
> PROD is working.  So is A7, but PROD seems to be far less controversial...

Call me cynical if you like, but I rather suspect the main reason for
this is that the waiting period is short enough that most "drive-by"
article creators don't even notice the PROD until it's over and the
article is gone.  So, in that respect, there's little difference between
PROD and just speedy deleting the article outright.  (Other differences
do exist, and are quite significant, of course.)

Then again, maybe I should just be happy that it does work.  Never look
a gift horse in the mouth, and all that...

--
Ilmari Karonen


subject: [Wikitech-l] Move page showing double redirects

body:
Simetrical wrote:
> On 12/28/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Or if we really want to go the whole hog, could the move page just fix
>> the double redirects automatically?
>
> Is there any reason we don't do this?

There are cases where you don't really want this, perhaps because you
intend to start a new article at the original title and want (most of)
the existing redirects to point there.

Still, I'd support this as an optional feature, for example as a
checkbox on the page move form (maybe even checked by default).

--
Ilmari Karonen


list: foundation-l

from_name: Daniel Mayer

body:
--- Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hmm, I think you may be missing something pretty important.  In fact, the
> definition of community is the single most difficult thing to agree upon.
> What is my community, your community, etc. does not have answers.  The Board
> retreat could not answer it with the 25 people who were there.  The Board
> itself cannot agree on the meaning.  Certainly, though, you do not have the
> hubris to think that this thing called Wikimedia exists only for editors, to
> the exclusion of the millions of people who view it every day?  I view the
> orthodox idea that the community consists of, and can only consist of,
> editors as being at least as insulting as the opposite would be to Horning.
> Millions of people *read* the site, and do not contribute a comma.  And
> that's okay!   Generators *and* consumers of free culture must be
> incorporated.  If we are philosophically opposed as people who differ on
> whether a sound is made when a tree falls in  forest, so be it.

If we are going to reach for a definition of what our community is, I do not think it would be
hubris to say that it includes everybody who helps us toward our goal of making free content
available to everybody in the world in a language they can understand. That would certainly
include all editors but also includes everybody who donates or even those who spread the word
about our projects and our goals. Extending that to all regular readers is not much of a leap
since they are sharing in the proceeds of our goal and furthering it just by tuning in and giving
our editors a practical reason to edit well.

-- mav

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


subject: [Wikitech-l] Meta Chr2syl Cherokee Unicode Extensions

body:
Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> Simetrical wrote:
>> On 12/28/06, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chr2syl
>>>
>> As Rob said, file them in our Bugzilla, but be prepared to explain why
>> you need a separate C utility for efficient conversion.  Wouldn't
>> script variants be ideal for this, if there's an algorithmic way to
>> convert from Latin to Sequoyah and back?  We already do that for
>> Chinese and Serbian, and it allows people to view things in Latin if
>> they prefer.
>
> In would agree that a php based version would be preferable. Let's hold
> off on integrating it
> until I can get one written, or someone on MediaWiki development can
> volunteer to convert the
> C program to php. Either way, you guys let me know.

The program actually looks quite simple and easy to port, it's just that
the code is rather messy.  The only nontrivial part *seems* to be where
it tries to guess whether a given piece of input is Cherokee or English.

--
Ilmari Karonen


list: commons-l

from_name: Stan Shebs

subject:
[Commons-l] "How the anti-copyright lobby makes big business
 richer"

body:
David Gerard wrote:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/29/photojournalism_and_copyright/
>
>
Heh, a more articulate version of the complaints I heard in the late
1990s from software engineers at compiler companies, when GCC started
putting them out of business. Today, compiler companies are an obscure
bit of computing history.

Stan


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [Commons-l] oh no, not again

body:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_28#Category:Administrators_open_to_recall.E2.80.8E

- d.


subject: [Commons-l] oh no, not again

body:
On 29/12/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_28#Category:Administrators_open_to_recall.E2.80.8E

Excuse me, Gmail's address autocomplete just assisted me in shooting
my own foot off. This was meant for wikien-l. Sorry about that.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] oh no, not again


subject: [Wikipedia-l] New ideas for fundraising needed. Start here!

body:
What about a fundraising drive featuring matched gifts? :D

On the other hand, I *do* have a thought, but I doubt that it would be
much use for fundraising. The idea is simply this:

Many newspapers in Australia (and surely a number of other Western
nations) release little trinkets with their (extremely popular) Sunday
editions. Would it be possible to take a project such as Wikipedia 0.5
or Wikipedia 1.0, review it to ensure that the WMF is satisfied with
its quality, and then invite a few national newspapers to release it
for a certain fee?

I'm fairly certain that there would be some interest from publishers
in doing this, but I'm very wary of both the cost of replication and
the fee that would have to be charged; the idea loses its lustre when
it costs so much that no publisher will touch it, and I'm afraid that
might happen.

Any thoughts on this?

Cheers,
David Still
(User:Daveydweeb)

On 12/29/06, Patrick Hall <pathall at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Perhaps we can get going on creative new ideas for fundraising!
> > > Post your idea below:
> > > --->
>
> What about selling printed volumes of featured articles organized by topic?
>
> I don't really know anything about the economics of publishing... but
> the foundation might come out on top, no?
>
> -Pat
> User:Babbage
>
> --
> Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -pkd
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Deathphoenix

subject: [WikiEN-l] User:Virgin United creates article for Virgin Unite

body:
My first instinct about User:Virgin United was that it was a troll looking
to incite a reaction or perform a breaching experiment. Now that CheckUser
has verified it to be another Wikipedian (presumably one of good standing?),
the troll moniker might not apply, but certainly the breaching experiment
would.

On 12/28/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/28/06, Gregory Kohs <thekohser at gmail.com> wrote:
> Re: User:Virgin United
>
> > Let the OFFICE spin begin.
>
> I'm not in the office, but here's my "spin".
>
> So the account has been checked via checkuser and has been confirmed
> to be another Wikipedian.
>
> I don't fully understand why he would have done this, so I'm not just
> going to step out and say it.
>
> This subject has caused a huge amount of controversy and people are
> using it as an excuse to antagonize endlessly on the wiki.
>
> I think it would be beneficial to the community if the guilty party
> would admit it here.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Rob Church

body:
On 29/12/06, Ilmari Karonen <nospam at vyznev.net> wrote:
> There are cases where you don't really want this, perhaps because you
> intend to start a new article at the original title and want (most of)
> the existing redirects to point there.
>
> Still, I'd support this as an optional feature, for example as a
> checkbox on the page move form (maybe even checked by default).

Could use the job queue for it, although I'm pretty sure there was
some previous discussion either on this list or the bug tracker
regarding the issue, where the consensus was to let the user do the
cleanup.

Rob Church


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] pda extension ?

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 09:52:52AM +1100, Stephen Bain wrote:
>> Nostalgia should work fairly well on a small screen:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_digital_assistant?useskin=nostalgia
>>
>> It would be possible to develop a skin especially for small screens.
>
> Though, as I've noted, merely turning off CSS interpretation seems to
> work quite nicely...  Are there any handheld browsers that a) will
> interpret CSS in the first place and b) will *not* let you turn that
> off?

Howdy folks with weird devices:

If you want this stuff to work right on your device, donate one and any
necessary subscriptions to the Foundation and we'll test and tweak until
we figure it out.

Otherwise we've got no way to test, unless you're willing to work
closely with a developer to tweak and test (and report problems later).

If you are so willing, please let me know.

- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFlVJywRnhpk1wk44RAigCAJ0bJIG982PZ7r2qsu6gz0OwjOgxfwCglSQW
HzFIvg0Wy6FIfvHfdYcvdTg=
=1YBW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
On 12/29/06, rfrangi at libero.it <rfrangi at libero.it> wrote:
> For the next fundriasing WMF says: "to run our projects we need to
> raise X$ in the next two weeks." Without doublings, ads, and stuff.

That would be giving too much credit to the small number of people
complaining about the 50x24 logo now. We actually have no idea if the
community at large likes or dislikes the current fundraising strategy
of the Foundation, and if they would prefer or disapprove of the model
you suggest. If we want to make the community happy, we should ask
them what they want to do.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.


subject: [WikiEN-l] I assume these are all in their articles?

body:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/magazinemonitor/index.html#a007948

- d.


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR (contd)

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

>Jeff Raymond wrote:
>
>
>>Not to mention a good academic paper has less stringent "reliable"
>>standards than a Wikipedia entry.
>>
>>
>No, I don't think it does - or if it does it's not relevant.  We will
>allow sources of varying degrees of reliability as long as overall
>there are one or two really solid sources for the core premise of the
>article (because, unlike academic papers, we don't allow original
>research).  But as long as the subject itself is fundamentally
>supported by good, credible sources, it's not necessary to cite
>Britannica for every trivial fact.
>
Where I have difficulty is in finding that this view still rests on a
number of highly subjective notions:  "reliability", "really solid",
"good, credible", "trivial".  ven leaving aside "original research" and
how we view that there is still a wide gap in how we understand these
subjective terms.  If I use the academic paper as a reference point it's
considerably more than what we might find in popular publications, and
noticeably less than what is wanted by those who view each article as an
isolated whole that strives for independence from the rest of the
encyclopedia.

Ec


from_name: Jay R. Ashworth

subject: [Wikitech-l] pda extension ?

body:
On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 09:52:52AM +1100, Stephen Bain wrote:
> Nostalgia should work fairly well on a small screen:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_digital_assistant?useskin=nostalgia
>
> It would be possible to develop a skin especially for small screens.

Though, as I've noted, merely turning off CSS interpretation seems to
work quite nicely...  Are there any handheld browsers that a) will
interpret CSS in the first place and b) will *not* let you turn that
off?

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274


from_name: Gary Kirk

subject: [Foundation-l] Is the Wikimedia Foundation a ''Game''?

body:
Don't troll. If you have suggestions, please speak up. Messages like
yours help no-one.

On 12/29/06, ROSC <resourcesofsheboygan at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Just because logo of Virgin Unite is on The Wikimedia Foundation websites,
> everyone has the make a big deal.
>
>   Everyone who is in The Wikimedia Foundation wants money for the Foundation
> and always seems to ask or has new fundrasing tips or news.
>
>   If the Foundation needs the donations, they would need listen to these
> fuckers to are in their 90's and has nothing better to do then play a
> "Game"!
>
>   This is just a game! I will no logger support the Foundation if this
> happens!
>
>  __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
Gary Kirk


from_name: David Ashby

subject: [WikiEN-l] oh no, not again

body:
On 12/29/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 09:10:39 +0000, "David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_28#Category:Administrators_open_to_recall.E2.80.8E
>
> Best way forward, IMO.  It's a troll's charter.

This nom's not going to change it, however.  There's pretty strong "no
consensus" shaping up right now.

-david


from_name: Ryan Wetherell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Slight adjustment for PROD

body:
On 12/29/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have an idea for PROD. You know when someone PRODs an article, and then
> the PROD tag is removed, you have to then take it to AFD because the author
> of the article doesn't want the article to be deleted? Well, I think that in
> order for the PROD to be justifably removed, the author *must* state an
> acceptable (at the very least) reason that the article shouldn't be PRODed.
> If it's acceptable-at-the-very-least, then it can be taken to AFD. If
> there's no reason or the reason given is not reasonable (for example, if the
> stated reason was "Because Jimbo has a beard"), then the removal can be
> reverted.
>
> How does this sound?

I just reverted a PROD tag removal, and justified it on the talk page
by saying that there had been no changes to the content of the
article, and no stated opposition to the PROD.  This is okay, right?

--Ryan

--
[[en:User:Merovingian]]


from_name: David Strauss

body:
You missed Brion's point. It doesn't matter if it's actually an ad.

Besides, your definition of ad labels almost all forms of sponsorship
and underwriting "advertising."

Bruno Martelli wrote:
> Hi everyone.
>
> I have read Brion Vibber's long message yesterday. I appreciated the
> frankness of the message: however, I have a different opinion, and I would
> like to explain that below.
>
> His analysis could maybe (roughly) summarized as follows: "we need the
> money, we really need it, we understand that a little adv is annoying, but
> it's really tiny, it's not exactly advertising, and it's only for one
> day".
>
> 1) A company pays and gets some webspace with its name and
> hopefully a logo in it. This is proper 100% advertising. The same one
> which every big company does every day all over the world on TV, web,
> magazines, etc.
>
> 2) The icon is thin, should we deduce that the advertising is just
> tiny and harmless? When measuring the impact of it, one should look at
> all parameters: the adv is tiny on
> each page, little in time (1 day), but really enormous in number
> of web pages (some millions: every page on every project!). Summing all
> up, it is a huge advertising campaign, reaching many thousands of
> people.
>
> 3) Reaching many thousands of people (editors and readers) with a little
> annoying message. That is what it is, concretely. There is a name for
> things like that, which everyone knows and detests: it's "spam". Don't we
> all detest spam? I think so, there should be no need of discussion about
> that.
>
> 4) For this simple reason I disagree with the choice of the WMF of putting
> name and logo of a donating company on each page. We editors do our little
> constant work everyday against self-promotion on the encyclopedia. We say
> "no" to unknown artists, tourist agencies, little companies who simply try
> to write few lines about themselves on a single page. Recently, a message
> (was it from the WMF?) was written in order to wake the troops: "we
> are losing the battle against self-promotion!". In the meanwhile, we see
> a big company spammed *everywhere*... One could argue that promotion
> "inside" the encyclopedia is different from "outside", but the web page is
> the same.
>
> 5) We need the money. Ok, but how much? Of course I have no idea of the
> answer. My humble opinion is however that we shouldn't spread names and
> logos all over the encyclopedia. Donations from big companies have to
> be encouraged, but they should be thanked in a single appropriate page,
> not in the main namespace. Of course we will get less money from each of
> them, but we could stress this fact when asking for funds: "following our
> policies, we have no ads: please be generous". Some very well known NG
> Organizations apply this policy since years, and they are still alive and
> in good health.
>
> A thing is maybe worth saying to avoid misunderstandings. I know
> what the GFDL says, I am not by far "anti-commercial" or whatever like. I
> am happy that more people earn some money thanks to our work: this kind of
> license is simply magic.
>
> That's all.
>   best,
>
>  Bruno Martelli AKA Ylebru (from it:wiki)
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20061229/61b72dc2/attachment.pgp


body:
You missed Brion's point. It doesn't matter if it's actually an ad.

Besides, your definition of ad labels almost all forms of sponsorship
and underwriting "advertising."

Bruno Martelli wrote:
> Hi everyone.
>
> I have read Brion Vibber's long message yesterday. I appreciated the
> frankness of the message: however, I have a different opinion, and I would
> like to explain that below.
>
> His analysis could maybe (roughly) summarized as follows: "we need the
> money, we really need it, we understand that a little adv is annoying, but
> it's really tiny, it's not exactly advertising, and it's only for one
> day".
>
> 1) A company pays and gets some webspace with its name and
> hopefully a logo in it. This is proper 100% advertising. The same one
> which every big company does every day all over the world on TV, web,
> magazines, etc.
>
> 2) The icon is thin, should we deduce that the advertising is just
> tiny and harmless? When measuring the impact of it, one should look at
> all parameters: the adv is tiny on
> each page, little in time (1 day), but really enormous in number
> of web pages (some millions: every page on every project!). Summing all
> up, it is a huge advertising campaign, reaching many thousands of
> people.
>
> 3) Reaching many thousands of people (editors and readers) with a little
> annoying message. That is what it is, concretely. There is a name for
> things like that, which everyone knows and detests: it's "spam". Don't we
> all detest spam? I think so, there should be no need of discussion about
> that.
>
> 4) For this simple reason I disagree with the choice of the WMF of putting
> name and logo of a donating company on each page. We editors do our little
> constant work everyday against self-promotion on the encyclopedia. We say
> "no" to unknown artists, tourist agencies, little companies who simply try
> to write few lines about themselves on a single page. Recently, a message
> (was it from the WMF?) was written in order to wake the troops: "we
> are losing the battle against self-promotion!". In the meanwhile, we see
> a big company spammed *everywhere*... One could argue that promotion
> "inside" the encyclopedia is different from "outside", but the web page is
> the same.
>
> 5) We need the money. Ok, but how much? Of course I have no idea of the
> answer. My humble opinion is however that we shouldn't spread names and
> logos all over the encyclopedia. Donations from big companies have to
> be encouraged, but they should be thanked in a single appropriate page,
> not in the main namespace. Of course we will get less money from each of
> them, but we could stress this fact when asking for funds: "following our
> policies, we have no ads: please be generous". Some very well known NG
> Organizations apply this policy since years, and they are still alive and
> in good health.
>
> A thing is maybe worth saying to avoid misunderstandings. I know
> what the GFDL says, I am not by far "anti-commercial" or whatever like. I
> am happy that more people earn some money thanks to our work: this kind of
> license is simply magic.
>
> That's all.
>   best,
>
>  Bruno Martelli AKA Ylebru (from it:wiki)
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20061229/61b72dc2/attachment-0001.pgp


body:
You missed Brion's point. It doesn't matter if it's actually an ad.

Besides, your definition of ad labels almost all forms of sponsorship
and underwriting "advertising."

Bruno Martelli wrote:
> Hi everyone.
>
> I have read Brion Vibber's long message yesterday. I appreciated the
> frankness of the message: however, I have a different opinion, and I would
> like to explain that below.
>
> His analysis could maybe (roughly) summarized as follows: "we need the
> money, we really need it, we understand that a little adv is annoying, but
> it's really tiny, it's not exactly advertising, and it's only for one
> day".
>
> 1) A company pays and gets some webspace with its name and
> hopefully a logo in it. This is proper 100% advertising. The same one
> which every big company does every day all over the world on TV, web,
> magazines, etc.
>
> 2) The icon is thin, should we deduce that the advertising is just
> tiny and harmless? When measuring the impact of it, one should look at
> all parameters: the adv is tiny on
> each page, little in time (1 day), but really enormous in number
> of web pages (some millions: every page on every project!). Summing all
> up, it is a huge advertising campaign, reaching many thousands of
> people.
>
> 3) Reaching many thousands of people (editors and readers) with a little
> annoying message. That is what it is, concretely. There is a name for
> things like that, which everyone knows and detests: it's "spam". Don't we
> all detest spam? I think so, there should be no need of discussion about
> that.
>
> 4) For this simple reason I disagree with the choice of the WMF of putting
> name and logo of a donating company on each page. We editors do our little
> constant work everyday against self-promotion on the encyclopedia. We say
> "no" to unknown artists, tourist agencies, little companies who simply try
> to write few lines about themselves on a single page. Recently, a message
> (was it from the WMF?) was written in order to wake the troops: "we
> are losing the battle against self-promotion!". In the meanwhile, we see
> a big company spammed *everywhere*... One could argue that promotion
> "inside" the encyclopedia is different from "outside", but the web page is
> the same.
>
> 5) We need the money. Ok, but how much? Of course I have no idea of the
> answer. My humble opinion is however that we shouldn't spread names and
> logos all over the encyclopedia. Donations from big companies have to
> be encouraged, but they should be thanked in a single appropriate page,
> not in the main namespace. Of course we will get less money from each of
> them, but we could stress this fact when asking for funds: "following our
> policies, we have no ads: please be generous". Some very well known NG
> Organizations apply this policy since years, and they are still alive and
> in good health.
>
> A thing is maybe worth saying to avoid misunderstandings. I know
> what the GFDL says, I am not by far "anti-commercial" or whatever like. I
> am happy that more people earn some money thanks to our work: this kind of
> license is simply magic.
>
> That's all.
>   best,
>
>  Bruno Martelli AKA Ylebru (from it:wiki)
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20061229/61b72dc2/attachment.pgp>


body:
You missed Brion's point. It doesn't matter if it's actually an ad.

Besides, your definition of ad labels almost all forms of sponsorship
and underwriting "advertising."

Bruno Martelli wrote:
> Hi everyone.
>
> I have read Brion Vibber's long message yesterday. I appreciated the
> frankness of the message: however, I have a different opinion, and I would
> like to explain that below.
>
> His analysis could maybe (roughly) summarized as follows: "we need the
> money, we really need it, we understand that a little adv is annoying, but
> it's really tiny, it's not exactly advertising, and it's only for one
> day".
>
> 1) A company pays and gets some webspace with its name and
> hopefully a logo in it. This is proper 100% advertising. The same one
> which every big company does every day all over the world on TV, web,
> magazines, etc.
>
> 2) The icon is thin, should we deduce that the advertising is just
> tiny and harmless? When measuring the impact of it, one should look at
> all parameters: the adv is tiny on
> each page, little in time (1 day), but really enormous in number
> of web pages (some millions: every page on every project!). Summing all
> up, it is a huge advertising campaign, reaching many thousands of
> people.
>
> 3) Reaching many thousands of people (editors and readers) with a little
> annoying message. That is what it is, concretely. There is a name for
> things like that, which everyone knows and detests: it's "spam". Don't we
> all detest spam? I think so, there should be no need of discussion about
> that.
>
> 4) For this simple reason I disagree with the choice of the WMF of putting
> name and logo of a donating company on each page. We editors do our little
> constant work everyday against self-promotion on the encyclopedia. We say
> "no" to unknown artists, tourist agencies, little companies who simply try
> to write few lines about themselves on a single page. Recently, a message
> (was it from the WMF?) was written in order to wake the troops: "we
> are losing the battle against self-promotion!". In the meanwhile, we see
> a big company spammed *everywhere*... One could argue that promotion
> "inside" the encyclopedia is different from "outside", but the web page is
> the same.
>
> 5) We need the money. Ok, but how much? Of course I have no idea of the
> answer. My humble opinion is however that we shouldn't spread names and
> logos all over the encyclopedia. Donations from big companies have to
> be encouraged, but they should be thanked in a single appropriate page,
> not in the main namespace. Of course we will get less money from each of
> them, but we could stress this fact when asking for funds: "following our
> policies, we have no ads: please be generous". Some very well known NG
> Organizations apply this policy since years, and they are still alive and
> in good health.
>
> A thing is maybe worth saying to avoid misunderstandings. I know
> what the GFDL says, I am not by far "anti-commercial" or whatever like. I
> am happy that more people earn some money thanks to our work: this kind of
> license is simply magic.
>
> That's all.
>   best,
>
>  Bruno Martelli AKA Ylebru (from it:wiki)
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20061229/61b72dc2/attachment-0001.pgp>


from_name: James Hare

subject: [Foundation-l] Be bold!

body:
Yeah, they were being *really* bold to put advertisements, albeit very small
and pathetic and not really advertising much, on Wikimedia projects.

On 12/29/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Michiel Bontenbal wrote:
> > Being bold has always been an guiding principle in Wikimedia projects.
> > Starting from scratch, we've come a very long way by believing in what
> we
> > thought was possible. We made possible what seemed impossible, just by
> > simply doing it.
> >
> > Many in the board seem to believe that a Wikipedia without showing
> sponsor's
> > logo's is impossible. I don't believe that. I think a Wikipedia without
> > sponsor's logo's is possible, as it has been in the past.
> >
> > I would like to ask the Board to boldly believe in the future. Don't
> give in
> > to demands from sponsors or donors, don't give in to the principle of
> > independence, not just a tiny little bit.
> >
> > Please live up to that guiding principle of being bold!
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Michiel Bontenbal
> > (nl:Gebruiker:Bontenbal<http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gebruiker:Bontenbal
> >
>
> One may argue that the board was precisely being *bold* in setting up
> matching donations...
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Be bold!


from_name: Plyd

body:
On 12/29/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> * Poker/Hands (linked 1 time)
> * Ace-to-six low (linked 3 times)
> * Deuce-to-seven low (linked 7 times)
>
> Or if we really want to go the whole hog, could the move page just fix
> the double redirects automatically? Or maybe at least add them to some
> list that a bot is constantly monitoring?

On 12/29/06, Ilmari Karonen <nospam at vyznev.net> wrote:
> Still, I'd support this as an optional feature, for example as a
> checkbox on the page move form (maybe even checked by default).

To the proposition given by Steve, I would add "Correct all double
redirects", to prevent not wanted pages to be re-redirected
automatically.

Like this :
> * Poker/Hands (linked 1 time - [[correct]])
> * Ace-to-six low (linked 3 times - [[correct]])
> * Deuce-to-seven low (linked 7 times - [[correct]])
[[Correct double redirects for these pages]]

Plyd


subject:
[WikiEN-l] USA Today: Mass collaboration could change way companies
	operate

body:
Wonder if we'll get any calls about this:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/kevinmaney/2006-12-26-wikinomics_x.htm

"The "company," as we've known it for almost a century, is about to go
the way of vinyl albums, floppy disks and perked coffee. It is about
to get wikified. Or starfished. Or cracked open like a beehive hit
with a baseball bat. Depending on whom you ask."

(It's a prerelease review of the book 'Wikinomics', which I expect
everyone doing press will be expected to be an instant expert on the
day of its release, Jan 3.)

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Slight adjustment for PROD

body:
On 12/29/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I just reverted a PROD tag removal, and justified it on the talk page
> > by saying that there had been no changes to the content of the
> > article, and no stated opposition to the PROD.  This is okay, right?
>
> I don't think so, no. You don't have to give an explanation to remove a PROD.

That just doesn't seem right to me.

--Ryan

--
[[en:User:Merovingian]]


body:
At the end of the day, users could choose to not see the sitenotice if
they have JavaScript enabled, and possibly through their skin.js file
too? The Foundation needs money to keep the whole shebang up, and
yesterday was just one way. Company makes donation, Foundation thanks
them through sitenotice. Simple, neutrality was never affected.

On 12/29/06, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> On 12/29/06, rfrangi at libero.it <rfrangi at libero.it> wrote:
> > For the next fundriasing WMF says: "to run our projects we need to
> > raise X$ in the next two weeks." Without doublings, ads, and stuff.
>
> That would be giving too much credit to the small number of people
> complaining about the 50x24 logo now. We actually have no idea if the
> community at large likes or dislikes the current fundraising strategy
> of the Foundation, and if they would prefer or disapprove of the model
> you suggest. If we want to make the community happy, we should ask
> them what they want to do.
> --
> Peace & Love,
> Erik
>
> DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
> the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
Gary Kirk


subject: [WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR (contd)

body:
David Gerard wrote:

>On 29/12/06, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
>
>>zero 0000 wrote:
>>
>>
>>>  Someone who can read music should be able to report from
>>>  a musical score that it is in E-flat, even though that requires
>>>  specialist knowledge.
>>>
>>>
>>Agree with you.  But Wikipedia isn't the place for them to report that.
>>  We aren't a place for original research.  The place for them to report
>>that is in their criticism of the score published in some other source.
>>  We summarise it.  That's how it works.
>>
>>
>That *is* summarising it. Summarising the obvious should not require
>teaching J. Random Querulous the basics of your field because they
>want a source for your observation that "the sky is blue" based on the
>wavelength of the light from it tending to be more like 400nm than
>700nm.
>
An NOR extremist could likely ask for a citation that would convince
those who believe that light is in particles rather than waves. :-)

Saying that a musical work is in E-flat is not criticism; it's meta-data
where there is a high degree of probability that subject-educated
readers will draw the same conclusion from identical data contained in
the musical score.  Other information that could constitute original
research in a musical context when it is not put there by the composer
would be terms like "andante" or "allegro" to indicate the speed of the work

>>> What the policy *should* require
>>>  (somehow) is that anyone who can read music will agree that
>>>  the score is in E-flat.  The fundamental skills of the field
>>>  should be assumed, and the policy should reflect that, imo.
>>>
>>>
>>No, again that isn't right.  We don't record the truth, we summarise
>>sources.  What we do is allow the reader to check we have summarised the
>>source accurately.
>>
>>
>This may be the case in some extreme interpretation, but I really
>don't see that it is in this one.
>
Yes.  The fact is that most situations are not extreme.  We put in a lot
of effort arguing about the extremes when the reality is that most of
the extremes are of limited consequence.  The entire anal process of
building a unified field theory of epistemology results in a
considerable waste of time.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Slight adjustment for PROD

body:
On 12/29/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 29/12/06, Ryan Wetherell <renardius at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I just reverted a PROD tag removal, and justified it on the talk page
> > by saying that there had been no changes to the content of the
> > article, and no stated opposition to the PROD.  This is okay, right?
>
>
> Uh, not really. The whole point is that you disagree by just removing
> it. If the original PRODder cares *that much* they can take it to AFD.
>
> (Although if you are the original author, you should probably try to
> address the issue as best you can.)
>
>
> - d.

Okay, I kind of get the justification part.  But I was under the
assumption that one actually has to work on the page if they want to
take the tag off.  A tag says:

> You may remove this message if you improve the article, or if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason.

The former hadn't been done.

--Ryan

--
[[en:User:Merovingian]]


subject: [WikiEN-l] Slight adjustment for PROD

body:
On 12/29/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 29/12/06, Ryan Wetherell <renardius at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 12/29/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I just reverted a PROD tag removal, and justified it on the talk page
> > > > by saying that there had been no changes to the content of the
> > > > article, and no stated opposition to the PROD.  This is okay, right?
>
> > > I don't think so, no. You don't have to give an explanation to remove a PROD.
>
> > That just doesn't seem right to me.
>
>
> It is. The whole point is that PROD is for uncontested deletion - a
> lightweight process to take the load of obvious-but-not-quite-speedy
> rubbish off AFD. If the original PRODder really thinks it should be
> dead, they can bother with an AFD.
>
> PROD is intended to be lightweight - that's its main point. It doesn't
> need complication - an AFD is not *that* hard to make.
>
>
> - d.

So then, should I revert myself and AFD the article?

--Ryan

--
[[en:User:Merovingian]]


subject: [WikiEN-l] Slight adjustment for PROD

body:
On 12/29/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> "You may remove this message if you improve the article, or if you otherwise
> object to deletion of the article for any reason."
>
> When people opt for the latter, what I'm proposing is that they must offer a
> reason that makes sense or they can be reverted.

Yes, I'd like that as well.  Just objecting to the PROD is too easy an
excuse to remove it.  It's not hard at all to give a sentence about
why you think an article is important.

--Ryan

--
[[en:User:Merovingian]]


subject: [WikiEN-l] Slight adjustment for PROD

body:
On 12/29/06, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com
<charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> "Ryan Wetherell" wrote
>
> > On 12/29/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I have an idea for PROD. You know when someone PRODs an article, and then
> > > the PROD tag is removed, you have to then take it to AFD because the author
> > > of the article doesn't want the article to be deleted? Well, I think that in
> > > order for the PROD to be justifably removed, the author *must* state an
> > > acceptable (at the very least) reason that the article shouldn't be PRODed.
> > > If it's acceptable-at-the-very-least, then it can be taken to AFD. If
> > > there's no reason or the reason given is not reasonable (for example, if the
> > > stated reason was "Because Jimbo has a beard"), then the removal can be
> > > reverted.
> > >
> > > How does this sound?
> >
> > I just reverted a PROD tag removal, and justified it on the talk page
> > by saying that there had been no changes to the content of the
> > article, and no stated opposition to the PROD.  This is okay, right?
>
> Would 'this is never a PROD in a million years' be an acceptable reason? It is how I have felt a couple of times. Bear in mind the tendency on the site for people to think that material should be deleted, if _they_ can't see what it is for. Whereas PROD should be for material that, in effect, no one without a direct and personal connection could see what it is for.
>
> Charles

Yes, any reasonable* objection should be welcome.

--Ryan

* "I'm removing this PROD tag because Joe, who tagged it, is a
blundering idiot." is not reasonable.

--
[[en:User:Merovingian]]


subject: [WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR (contd)

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

>Steve Block wrote:
>
>
>>Wikipedia isn't the place for them to report that.
>> We aren't a place for original research
>>
>>
>Reporting the key signature of a score is not really OR, though.  It's
>a trivial fact verified from a reliable source.  If there are
>absolutely no secondary sources about the piece at all, then of course
>we can't have an article, but if they exist and simply forget to
>mention the key signature then there is no real problem reporting it
>since any editor *can* cross-check it without specialist knowledge
>(albeit with additional work).
>
That sounds very much like sucking and blowing at the same time.  On the
one hand you admit it's not really OR, and then proceed with
consequences based on its being OR.

Ec


from_name: Mark Ryan

body:
On 29/12/06, Jeroenvrp <wikipedia at xs4all.nl> wrote:
> I will ask the Foundation to make an official excuse to the community about
> forcing these site notices and about not directly informing the communities.

The Wikimedia Foundation board has semi-regular elections. If you are
unhappy with the decisions they make, vote differently next time.
Don't blankly defy what they have decided on behalf of all Wikimedia
projects, out of some misguided sense of self-importance. That will
just get you emergency desysopped more quickly.

I asked you in IRC to explain why you were edit warring against the
wishes of the Foundation, and you did not respond.

It's one thing to disagree with what the Foundation has decided to go
with for this fundraiser. It is quite another to take it upon yourself
to prevent the Foundation from implementing that decision on your
local project. You should be taking a long, hard look at whether you
can continue to participate in Wikimedia projects if you have such
trouble accepting decisions of the Wikimedia Foundation, who it should
not be forgotten have to pay all the bills.

~Mark Ryan


subject: [WikiEN-l] Slight adjustment for PROD

body:
On 12/29/06, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com
<charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> "Ryan Wetherell" wrote
>
> >  Just objecting to the PROD is too easy an
> > excuse to remove it.  It's not hard at all to give a sentence about
> > why you think an article is important.
>
> My story about PROD: User:Arthur Rubin stuck one on [[Hillel Furstenberg]] shortly after I made it. With some nonsense about 'no assertion of notability' and then some other nonsense about not meeting [[WP:PROF]]. As far as I can see, Furstenberg meets each of the six criteria in section 1 of WP:PROF. So my reason for objecting to a PROD on an article about someone who is a member of both the US and Israeli Academies of Sciences is that the thing was ludicrous. Please bear in mind the number of people with time on their hands.
>
> Charles

And you justified yourself in the edit summary when you removed it;
that's good enough.  I hope that's somewhat in-line with what James
Hare is suggesting.

--Ryan

--
[[en:User:Merovingian]]


subject: [WikiEN-l] Slight adjustment for PROD

body:
On 12/29/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> So, is "I don't think this should be deleted." a reasonable objection?

Yes or no.  I'm thinking it's a circumstantial thing.

--Ryan

--
[[en:User:Merovingian]]


subject: [WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR (contd)

body:
David Gerard wrote:

>On 28/12/06, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Every single thing you've said here is a reason not to act. Are you content
>>with the way things are now as pertains to User Pages?
>>
>>
>I am, actually. Mostly they're a very good indicator of what someone
>is like *and* how seriously to take their contributions. Red-link user
>page is one step above anonymous. Etc.
>
>I could do with a few zillion less userboxes, but even those are
>helpful, e.g. someone with 200 userboxes is probably a step or two
>below anonymous.
>
I agree.  How something is said on a user page can be more important
than what is said.  A handful of user boxes that don't require scrolling
to see them all can have a much higher impact.

A study of the psychology of user pages could be fascinating.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Slight adjustment for PROD

body:
On 12/29/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > So, is "I don't think this should be deleted." a reasonable objection?
> >
> > Yes or no.  I'm thinking it's a circumstantial thing.
>
> If it's not simple to decide if something is reasonable, then the
> system won't work.

It's not necessarily unreasonable, just bad.  That is, I would hope
people could put some more effort into an objection.

--Ryan

--
[[en:User:Merovingian]]


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] RFC

body:
On 12/29/06, cohesion <cohesion at sleepyhead.org> wrote:
> I haven't completely given up on it, but it is kinda crappy. My big
> complaint is that when you do want to go and comment, you end up on a
> talk page with a million comments and no distillation of the issue. I
> think that could be solved with a simple little template maybe. When
> people are coming from RFC they don't really want to read ten thousand
> words in my opinion...

Not always true. Cluey people sometimes add a section like this to the
talk page:

==Request for comment==
I've posted a request for comment. The issue is [...]. Those who
believe that [...]. The opposing argument is [...]. RFC'ers place your
comments here:
*...

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Slight adjustment for PROD

body:
On 12/29/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 29/12/06, Ryan Wetherell <renardius at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So then, should I revert myself and AFD the article?
>
>
> If it hasn't been improved sufficiently and you think it still belongs
> dead, sure :-)
>
>
> - d.

Just found out it's a copyvio... now what?!  My instinct is to go the
regular {{copyvio|url}} + dated WP:CP route, but that would be kind of
silly if the article was going to be dumped anyway.

--Ryan

--
[[en:User:Merovingian]]


from_name: rfrangi at libero.it

body:
> Gary Kirk wrote:
> At the end of the day, users could choose to not see the sitenotice if
> they have JavaScript enabled, and possibly through their skin.js file
> too?

Sorry. Integralism works in a different way (If you don't want to see it, no one should see it).

Roberto (Snowdog)

------------------------------------------------------
Passa a Infostrada. ADSL e Telefono senza limiti e senza canone Telecom
http://click.libero.it/infostrada29dic06


from_name: Simetrical

body:
On 12/29/06, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
> Could use the job queue for it, although I'm pretty sure there was
> some previous discussion either on this list or the bug tracker
> regarding the issue, where the consensus was to let the user do the
> cleanup.

Why the job queue?  Even if you have several dozen redirects, it
should surely still be fast enough to do immediately.


body:
Hi,
  Would it be possible to improve the post-move page text to actually
show the double redirects, rather than just asking the mover to check
for them? In particular, could it show *just* the double redirects,
and not all the other links? It's not very obvious, particularly to
the novice, which of the following links are "bad":

Rank of hands (poker) (redirect page)
    * Draw poker
    * Poker
    * Poker/Hands (redirect page)
          o Talk:Poker
    * Bug (poker)
    * Ace-to-six low (redirect page)
          o Draw poker
          o Stud poker
          o Five-card stud
    * Deuce-to-seven low (redirect page)
          o Draw poker
          o Kansas City
          o List of poker terms
          o Deuce
          o Jennifer Harman
          o Dewey Tomko
          o Billy Baxter (poker player)

A trimmed-down display like the following would be much more helpful:

* Poker/Hands (linked 1 time)
* Ace-to-six low (linked 3 times)
* Deuce-to-seven low (linked 7 times)

Or if we really want to go the whole hog, could the move page just fix
the double redirects automatically? Or maybe at least add them to some
list that a bot is constantly monitoring?

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] More drama

body:
On 12/29/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> I seem to have caused a bit of a stir on the AfD for the article Ghost
> ramp.  I commented that if the Keep advocates don't fix the
> fundamental problems identified with the article at its previous AfD
> two months ago - which are: no reliable source for the name, no
> reliable source for the description and all the inclusions sourced to
> maps and satellite photos, i.e. original research - then I will delete
> it as original research.

I think you're wrong here. To my mind, if there is an interesting
topic worth writing about, the lack of an official accepted term
should *not* inhibit us from writing about it. We avoid neologisms
where possible - but if not possible, we should use the least
neologistic word possible. I'm sure there are plenty of examples of
this, particularly when we're writing on topics which may never have
been discussed in English before.

In this case, I would be inclined to rename the page "List of
incomplete onramps and offramps". In any case, if you're nominating a
page for deletion because you don't like the name, shame on you...

Steve


subject: [Wikitech-l] [Commons-l] UI design on image pages

body:
On 12/29/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 29/12/06, Chris McKenna <cmckenna at sucs.org> wrote:
> > Is it technically possible to include a blank {{information}} template on
> > the image description page for new uploads? Or maybe redesign the upload
> > page to have several input fields corresponding to the template rather
> > than one single free-form box as now? Would this require a hack to
> > MediaWiki?
>
>
> Not sure. cc: to wikitech-l for opinions.

I don't think there's any way to do this without some code changes,
no.  It would, however, probably be a good idea to make those code
changes, specifically the possibility for distinct input fields.  I
suggest you (or someone) open a bug report.

> (Did the German UI review
> cover Image: pages?)

Not as I recall.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Slight adjustment for PROD

body:
On 12/29/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 29/12/06, Ryan Wetherell <renardius at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 12/29/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 29/12/06, Ryan Wetherell <renardius at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > So then, should I revert myself and AFD the article?
>
> > > If it hasn't been improved sufficiently and you think it still belongs
> > > dead, sure :-)
>
> > Just found out it's a copyvio... now what?!  My instinct is to go the
> > regular {{copyvio|url}} + dated WP:CP route, but that would be kind of
> > silly if the article was going to be dumped anyway.
>
>
> Ahahaha! I'm not sure ... keep it prodded and mark it copyvio and
> delete it and kill it with a stick screaming "AIEEEEEEEEEEE" maybe ;-p
>
>
> - d.

Kept the PROD, added the copyvio.  I'm guessing it will just sit there.

--Ryan

--
[[en:User:Merovingian]]


from_name: Jeff V. Merkey

body:
David Gerard wrote:

>On 29/12/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On 29/12/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>>The Catalan wp responded to it in a rather delightful way, by taking
>>>advantage of the presence of the "Day of the Holy Innocents" (Iberian
>>>equivalent of April 1) to treat it all as a grand joke -
>>>http://ca.wikinews.org/wiki/Imatge:Wiki-ca-Innocents.png is a copy of
>>>the modified logo that went up, and both ca.wnews and es.wnews ran
>>>news stories saying we were going to charge 20 EUR for editing and
>>>float on the NASDAQ ;-)
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>Darnit, outdone! /me rushes off to steal the story for UnNews
>>
>>
>
>
>http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/UnNews:Wikimedia_Foundation_to_introduce_paid_editing
>
>
>- d.
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
Oh brother!

Jeff


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [Commons-l] "How the anti-copyright lobby makes big business richer"

body:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/29/photojournalism_and_copyright/

I note that free-content is not quite mentioned. I am somewhat pleased
that many photographers' sense of entitlement *is* mentioned.

(Mind you, I already get phone calls from journalists who can't work
out what the hell is where on the typical image description page. The
current format *sucks* for reusers, even when they find their image.
Anyone want to work out an Image: page that looks more like something
you'd see in a commercial photo archive, or on Flickr?)

- d.


from_name: niht-hræfn

subject: [WikiEN-l] oh no, not again

body:
On Dec 29, 2006, at 12:35, David Ashby wrote:

> On 12/29/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 09:10:39 +0000, "David Gerard"
>> <dgerard at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/
>>> Log/2006_December_28#Category:Administrators_open_to_recall.E2.80.8E
>>
>> Best way forward, IMO.  It's a troll's charter.
>
> This nom's not going to change it, however.  There's pretty strong "no
> consensus" shaping up right now.
>
> -david

Is there any precedent (which hasn't been completely defunct) as to
how to deal with such institutions as it were? Administrators open to
recall isn't a category in the normal sense, and deleting the
category doesn't necessarily disband the practice. I'd doubt anyone
is objecting to the organization of these administrators, but instead
to the practice of recalling (and all its idiosyncrasies). One can't
really delete a practice, so I'd say it needs a separate more suited
procedure for reforming and/or getting rid of it. However, the only
similar situation that comes to my mind is the Esperanza deal, and
I'd say MfD wasn't suited for that either...

--keitei


from_name: Oldak Quill

body:
On 29/12/06, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> I am happy to see that the Wikimedia Foundation has the decency to
> publicly thank those who make a difference. And I think you should see
> that too.
> Thanks,
>     GerardM

The problems are not about accepting or publically thanking Virgin
Unite, it was the way Virgin Unite was thanked. Some users were
concerned by the way in which they were thanked. According to an
earlier post (was it dannywo or Brad?) we were contractually obliged
to thank them in this way.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


subject: [Wikitech-l] pda extension ?

body:
On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 09:37:54AM -0800, Brion Vibber wrote:
> Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> > Though, as I've noted, merely turning off CSS interpretation seems to
> > work quite nicely...  Are there any handheld browsers that a) will
> > interpret CSS in the first place and b) will *not* let you turn that
> > off?
>
> Howdy folks with weird devices:
>
> If you want this stuff to work right on your device, donate one and any
> necessary subscriptions to the Foundation and we'll test and tweak until
> we figure it out.
>
> Otherwise we've got no way to test, unless you're willing to work
> closely with a developer to tweak and test (and report problems later).
>
> If you are so willing, please let me know.

I'd be happy to do rendering testing on Mediawiki with the Blackberry
(and for that matter, Opera mini) browsers on my 7100i, and am equipped
to produce digipix of the results.  With some negotiation with friends,
I can probably also do tests on a Sidekick (2, I thiny, but maybe 3)
and a Treo 650 (Verizon).

Of course, as quoted above, I think the default rendering of WP on my
Blackberry is perfectly usable.  :-)

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274


from_name: Chris McKenna

body:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006, David Gerard wrote:

> (Mind you, I already get phone calls from journalists who can't work
> out what the hell is where on the typical image description page. The
> current format *sucks* for reusers, even when they find their image.
> Anyone want to work out an Image: page that looks more like something
> you'd see in a commercial photo archive, or on Flickr?)

Looking at a typical image I've uplaoded to Commons
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:43040-CastleCary-01.jpg
I cannot see how the layout can be improved on for the elements a resuer
needs:
Picture
Description (including source)
License

I acutally think this is easier to find the information on, particualrly
re licensing, than on Flickr. I have no experience of commercial photo
archives, so I don't know how they operate.

What about the current layout do journalists not understand/not like?

--
Chris 'Awkward' McKenna

cmckenna at sucs.org
www.sucs.org/~cmckenna

The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes,
but with the heart

Antoine de Saint Exupery


from_name: Birgitte SB

body:
--- Jeroenvrp <wikipedia at xs4all.nl> wrote:

> Op donderdag 28 december 2006 21:42, schreef Brion
> Vibber:
> > JeroenVP for instance has made clear that he does
> not care about the
> > core values of Wikipedia at all (making knowledge
> available to the
> > public as free content) but only cares about not
> ever seeing anything he
> > perceives as an "advertisement".
>
> I assume the above statement is a way to polarise
> the discussion ever more and
> I will ignore these remarks.
>
> > It's about free/open educational content. It's
> about making materials
> > open and available for use by the public,
> including the creation of
> > derivative works and redistribution.
>
> Exactly, but you you miss the point completely
> Brion. It's advertisement at a
> location where the free content is CREATED, not
> redistributed/mirrored.
> Actually I don't care about if people make money
> with Wikipedia content, the
> same applies for Linux distributions, but we are
> talking about advertisement
> on the location where the content is created. That
> kills our reliability, so
> far we have that allready. It's not about
> business-models, websites, but
> about the source off the free content. Any
> connection to what kind of
> company, religion, political party, government,
> whatever... will harm one of
> the basic principles of this great project.
>

There is no difference between where the content is
created and distributed and consumed.   It is all the
the same place.  The high number of hits logged by
Wikimedia websites would not be happening if the
primary consumption of the content took place at the
mirrors.  The success of Wikimedia is due to this
elimination this idea that content is something to be
created and then distibuted to consumer.  In Wikimedia
creation and consumption are combined and anyone is
welcome to either create or consume (or both!) from
the same outlet.

I want to explain were I think the general opposition
to advertisement comes from.  While brion is correct
that free-content is not against commercialism; free
content is against consumerism.  Advertising is a
large part of the culture of consumerism.  This is a
culture that *is* at odds with the ideas of Wikimedia.
 This is where I believe the strong reaction against
ads stems from more than anti-commercialism.

I think it is natural for people with a strong dislike
for the consumer culture to make there way to
Wikimedia.  It is natural that these people suddenly
seeing a multinational coporation in the site-notice
would have a bad reaction.  I think the reasoning
behind the sitenotice display is sound and I support
the decision.  But perhaps I would have been upset if
I had not already expected to see coporate matching
donors.  It is hard to say, I am really not that
radical.  At the same time I have seen many people who
I think are radical in their related areas defend this
sitenotice.  This makes me think the bulk of the
reaction is really due to the surprise factor. Maybe
the lesson here is that there is a need for better
internal new releases.

I think Brad's annoucement of the beginning of the
fundraising drive was very good.  If it had had a
footer silmilar to what the Wikimania Tapai team has
been doing, encouraging people to forward it and
spread it to other lists, maybe there would have been
less uproar.  It is sometimes hard to remember how
much of a communication problem still remains within
this organiztion.  Six months ago it was nearly
impossible to know what happening at the Foundation
level.  Now there are annoucements, reports, and even
timetables!  But this is not being spread much through
the larger community.  I think the LSS is a great step
forward, perhaps it is time to not only list this on
meta but make weekly "deliveries" to the village pumps
of small communities and ask any larger communities
with internal news programs to host within those
programs.

Birgitte SB

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


subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement

body:
On 28/12/06, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> --- Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > 5) Could the board please communicate all
> > decisions which are sensitive
> > > among the wikipedians, timely to all relevent
> > mailinglists?
> >
> > I second this request.
> >
> > > 6) Has there ever been an open call to all
> > wikipedians to provide
> > > suggestions to the foundationboard of ways to
> > receive money?
> >
> > Not formally, I think.
> >
> > --
> > Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)
> >
>
> 5)No, just follow this list.

I was not requesting that the same post be sent to all mailing lists:
of course people should look here for this kind of information. I was
requesting that such sensitive agreements should be communicated to
the community (via this list) in a timely fashion. Apologies if this
was unclear: I didn't interpret number 5 as simply sending to all
mailing lists.

> 6)Yes
>
> This is the mailing list you subscribe to to be aware
> of things that affect all Wikimedia communities.  If
> you are part of another mailing list that you think
> would be sensitive to an issue here, you should
> forward the message along to that list.  There is also
> now a summary service on meta which you could point
> people towards.
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LSS/foundation-l-archives
>
> At the beginning of the drive there was an
> announcement on this list of the fund raising drive
> which included many details you seem to have been
> unaware of.  But the general idea of matching donors
> had been discussed here much earlier.
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LSS/foundation-l-archives/2006_12_10-16
> "Brad Patrick announced the opening of the latest
> fundraising"
>
>
> There have been many messages asking for people to
> help with fundraising.  Announcing the creation of the
> Fundraising Committee and asking interested people to
> sign up (Certainly an open call).  Even more general
> questions asking for fundraising ideas both before and
> after the Committee was started.  Any fundraising
> discussions seemed to be met with questions about the
> audit and budget.  It seems to me that the current
> drive began as soon as the audit was released because
> of a real need of money that has probably been put off
> because the community requested the WMF not take part
> in any overt fundraising until the audit documents
> were released.
>
> Anyone has been subscribed to this list should be
> aware of all this.  Anyone who wishes to be aware of
> these sorts of things should subscribe or read the LSS
> including links.  I think most people who have
> subscribed to list did so because they were blindsided
> by some decision in the past and wanted to make sure
> they stayed informed in the future.  I know I did.  I
> sympathize that you feel blindsided, but it can only
> be up to you to ensure that you are informed of these
> things.
>
> Birgitte SB

I have been subscribed to this list for about a year and read (or
skim) everything which passes through it. There has not, before a
couple of days ago, been an explicit mention of the agreement with
Virgin Unite.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement


from_name: Steve Block

subject: [WikiEN-l] RFC

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 12:57:06 +0000, Steve Block
> <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
>> Is Requests for comments broken?  I'm curious as to how many people on
>> the list have followed one and given comment recently, as I've had one
>> up a while now and had no outside input.
>
> I looked at it (more than once).  I think that 0-0-0-Destruct-0 has
> some [[WP:OWN]] issues.
>
> For what it's worth I also think the disputed text should be out
> unless we can find an *independent* source for its significance and
> interpretation.

That would have been more helpful posted at the talk page.  I've now had
to resort to filing a mediation request.  I don't do rouge.  Have to say
I find the whole advocacy process a bloody farce too, why on earth do we
allow trolls and pov pushers to have people speak for them?  Still,
colour me sore and pissed off.

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.29/608 - Release Date: 29/12/06


from_name: Anthere

body:
Patrick Hall wrote:
>>>Perhaps we can get going on creative new ideas for fundraising!
>>>Post your idea below:
>>>--->
>
>
> What about selling printed volumes of featured articles organized by topic?
>
> I don't really know anything about the economics of publishing... but
> the foundation might come out on top, no?
>
> -Pat
> User:Babbage

Hiya Pat.

That's indeed a great idea. Not only to bring up money, but simply... to
further disseminate knowledge ;-)

Why has not that been done yet ?
Well, first because paper publishing or DVD publishing is not really our
business, so we need partnerships to do that. Surely, our tiny office
can not take in charge shipping books all over the world.
But there is a second much more important reason: liability. As you
know, our content is not (yet) perfect. One may find copyright
violations, so-called defamation etc...
and whilst it is easy to quickly fix an online article when a problem is
reported, it is not the case for a book. As a result, the legal
consequences of the Foundation being a publisher may be HUGE. We do not
want to take that risk. Really not. Imagine we get sued and we have to
pay 2 millions dollars for a mistatement in an paper article ?

What to do then ? Having independand publishers take that risk for us.
Big companies will not do it. They also have too much to lose.
But small companies are willing to risk it.

We currently have one such company in France, and hopefully this company
will do DVD versions of our content.

Yet, *this* company will sell the product, so how do we get the money?

The answer is "brand licensing strategy"

The idea is to charge other companies for the right to use our brand
names and trademarks in creating derivative products. Any sale of a
product using our brands must come with royalties.

This strategy is of limited use as of today, but expansion is to expect.
The drawbacks of this strategy are essentially the following ones.
First, there are many unauthorized uses. Most of the time, they come
from a misunderstanding and can be fixed simply by a discussion.
Sometimes, not. Until now, we have not chosen to go legal against
misuses, but at some point, we might have to do it. We'll probably will
have to make a BIG example one day. But we need to choose that example
carefully, and be really really efficient to win that case.
All this will cost money and professional help. Either it will be done
by our legal counsel, or hopefully, by a pro-bono lawyer.

Second, if we want to actually use our trademarks, we need to secure the
trademarks. To REALLY secure them, and in sufficient countries.
Which means additional costs in terms of securing them and to pay people
to manage them.

There is no moves as of today to go against people misusing the brand. I
think no one is making big fat money with our brands, so it does not
appear urgent. But we definitly need to plan for this.

However, we are actually working to secure the brands. It was on the
agenda of last board meeting, we decided on which brands to secure and
where, in priority. Securing the brand is a TOP priority.

Hopefully, once we have strong and well protected brands, we'll be able
to draw significant money from them, in particular for publishing.
I believe this will be uncontroversial. For example, a DVD of the
english wikipedia may be sold by the third party 10 dollars, and the
third party will give us a 1 dollar royalty.

German association have been doing something similar in the past 2 years
at least, and it is quite successful. I believe it is a very important
direction. It can provide good money with rather little effort. We'll
probably need to fight a bunch a misusers at some point in the future.
We may meet come complaints if we start putting the Wikipedia logo on
toilet paper, but it is likely many brand uses will be uncontroversial.
And once the brands are secured, this is likely to just be easy renewal.

BUT, first step is brand securing.

Some time ago, I listed here some ideas of some directions to collect
money. I hope the discussion here will help finding more ideas and
deepening them.

http://blog.anthere.org/

Anthere


subject:
[Commons-l] "How the anti-copyright lobby makes big business
	richer"

body:
On 29/12/06, Chris McKenna <cmckenna at sucs.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Dec 2006, David Gerard wrote:

> > (Mind you, I already get phone calls from journalists who can't work
> > out what the hell is where on the typical image description page. The
> > current format *sucks* for reusers, even when they find their image.
> > Anyone want to work out an Image: page that looks more like something
> > you'd see in a commercial photo archive, or on Flickr?)

> What about the current layout do journalists not understand/not like?

Finding the author/uploader or even being able to work out which bit
of the interface is the username. Working out that clicking on that
will take them to the uploader's user page. If the uploader has a
userpage on Commons at all. Etc.

- d.


body:
David Gerard wrote:

> Anyone who thinks they're an "inclusionist" should do Special:Newpages
> patrol some time. OH MY GOODNESS THE FIREHOSE OF CRAP!
>

I think anyone who uses a speedy tag should have to do an hour of this.
  Might make people realise what the speedy tags really are for.

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.29/608 - Release Date: 29/12/06


from_name: Jerome Banal

subject: [Foundation-l] Meta Chr2syl Cherokee Unicode Extensions

body:
Hi Jeff,

You have to open a ticket on Bugzilla, similar to this one:
http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7269

Regards,
Jerome

2006/12/28, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com>:
>
>
> I need this extension:
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chr2syl
>
> installed on the Cherokee Wikipedia.  Is there a page somewhere on meta
> for this purpose to request Brion to install the
> extension for editing in Sequoyah Syllabary?   I did not see a page for
> requesting extensions installed.  I know when I install
> extensions, I have to do it from the unix login and its not normally
> possible to install them from the web interface.
>
> Any assistance would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks
>
> Jeff
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Jacob Pappe

subject: [Wikitech-l] calling setRef on template from an extension

body:
I'm working with a MediaWiki instance that uses lots of custom extensions,
some of which affect the skin.  What is the best way to get a hold of the
template that will be rendered so that I can set() or setRef() things that
my custom skin will use to display?

The obvious solution to me is to insert a hook at the beginning of the
execute function that hands in &$this.  I was just wondering if anybody had
a more elegant solution.

Thanks for any help,

Jacob Pappe


subject: [WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR (contd)

body:
zero 0000 wrote:

>   Someone who can read music should be able to report from
>   a musical score that it is in E-flat, even though that requires
>   specialist knowledge.

Agree with you.  But Wikipedia isn't the place for them to report that.
  We aren't a place for original research.  The place for them to report
that is in their criticism of the score published in some other source.
  We summarise it.  That's how it works.

>  What the policy *should* require
>   (somehow) is that anyone who can read music will agree that
>   the score is in E-flat.  The fundamental skills of the field
>   should be assumed, and the policy should reflect that, imo.

No, again that isn't right.  We don't record the truth, we summarise
sources.  What we do is allow the reader to check we have summarised the
source accurately.

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.29/608 - Release Date: 29/12/06


subject: [WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR (contd)

body:
Matthew Brown wrote:
> On 12/19/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>> All these things are sliding scales. It's easy to objectively say "all
>> the victims were women". It's just *harder* to objectively say "all
>> the papers supported notion X". Maybe it's ok. Maybe it isn't.
>
> For one thing, if a source exhaustively lists all X, it's a definitive
> claim that can be sourced.  Stating that all of them have something in
> common is simply a collation and editing function, IMO.
>
> A database search like that described is different; it's not
> definitive and not a single source that can be cited.  It's headed
> into original research to deem the results definitive and decisive;
> there is no guarantee whatsoever that the results have to be
> exhaustive and complete.
>

Funny you discuss this.  At
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taylor_Allderdice_High_School&oldid=96979271
I've got someone asserting in the article that "a search of WorldCat
reveals that as of 2006 Taylor Allderdice remains one of fewer than
sixty high schools in the world to have its newspaper archived on
microfilm in a major library."  I agree this is original research, but
can't find anyone to back me up. Fancy popping your head in and
discussing the point?

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.29/608 - Release Date: 29/12/06


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

body:
rfrangi at libero.it schreef:
>> Gary Kirk wrote:
>> At the end of the day, users could choose to not see the sitenotice if
>> they have JavaScript enabled, and possibly through their skin.js file
>> too?
>>
>
> Sorry. Integralism works in a different way (If you don't want to see it, no one should see it).
>
> Roberto (Snowdog)
Hoi,
I am happy to see that the Wikimedia Foundation has the decency to
publicly thank those who make a difference. And I think you should see
that too.
Thanks,
    GerardM


body:
David Gerard wrote:

>On 29/12/06, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Oh brother!
>>
>>
>
>
>Note edit summary for article's creation.
>
>(It's amazing the Fair Use a satirical site can get away with under US law.)
>
>
>
This came from the the Larry Flint vs. Jerry Fallwell lawsuit in the
1980's. I agree its going over the line.

Jeff

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Listspace

body:
Gurch wrote:

>
> You may find this previous discussion on the subject helpful:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shyam_Bihari/List_Namespace

Ta.

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.29/608 - Release Date: 29/12/06


subject: [WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR (contd)

body:
On 29/12/06, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
> zero 0000 wrote:

> >   Someone who can read music should be able to report from
> >   a musical score that it is in E-flat, even though that requires
> >   specialist knowledge.

> Agree with you.  But Wikipedia isn't the place for them to report that.
>   We aren't a place for original research.  The place for them to report
> that is in their criticism of the score published in some other source.
>   We summarise it.  That's how it works.

That *is* summarising it. Summarising the obvious should not require
teaching J. Random Querulous the basics of your field because they
want a source for your observation that "the sky is blue" based on the
wavelength of the light from it tending to be more like 400nm than
700nm.

> >  What the policy *should* require
> >   (somehow) is that anyone who can read music will agree that
> >   the score is in E-flat.  The fundamental skills of the field
> >   should be assumed, and the policy should reflect that, imo.

> No, again that isn't right.  We don't record the truth, we summarise
> sources.  What we do is allow the reader to check we have summarised the
> source accurately.

This may be the case in some extreme interpretation, but I really
don't see that it is in this one.

- d.


body:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006, David Gerard wrote:

> On 29/12/06, Chris McKenna <cmckenna at sucs.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Dec 2006, David Gerard wrote:
>
>>> (Mind you, I already get phone calls from journalists who can't work
>>> out what the hell is where on the typical image description page. The
>>> current format *sucks* for reusers, even when they find their image.
>>> Anyone want to work out an Image: page that looks more like something
>>> you'd see in a commercial photo archive, or on Flickr?)
>
>> What about the current layout do journalists not understand/not like?
>
>
> Finding the author/uploader or even being able to work out which bit
> of the interface is the username. Working out that clicking on that
> will take them to the uploader's user page. If the uploader has a
> userpage on Commons at all. Etc.
>

Well the {{information}} template that is the encouraged standard has a
prominent field for Author. In that all of my images that I upload are
shown as:
Author - Chris McKenna (Thryduulf)

With my username linking to my Commons user page. Looking at the newly
uplaoded files this appears to be better than average. Taking two as
examples:
Image:OldPegasusBridge.jpg - This is a file that has been copied from
en.wp and altough it uses the {{information}} template it has little
information in it. I was the one who added the link to the user page on en
of the author as I happened to recognise it (I also noticed it belonged in
another category).

The other is Image:Calzolari, Icilio - Piazza della Scala.gif
This is a PD-old file of a square in Milan, taken ca.1880-1890. It doesn't
use the {{information}} template, but does have most of the information.
The author is Icilio Calzolari, which you find out through following the
link which redirects to a category with a description in Italian. It
appears that this person does not have an article on en.wp or it.wp

I am not certain that a redesign of the page is needed, but perhaps
mandatory use of the {{information}} template - possibly with an
auto-generated link to the userpage of teh uploader if this is possible.

Is it technically possible to include a blank {{information}} template on
the image description page for new uploads? Or maybe redesign the upload
page to have several input fields corresponding to the template rather
than one single free-form box as now? Would this require a hack to
MediaWiki?

--
Chris 'Awkward' McKenna

cmckenna at sucs.org
www.sucs.org/~cmckenna

The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes,
but with the heart

Antoine de Saint Exupery


from_name: James Hare

subject: [Foundation-l] Attempt at a compromise (Re: Advertising)

body:
What I'd like is a link to a list of donors, and big sponsors like Mr.
Anonymo and Virgin Unite can be listed by the top then following that is a
generic list of the other donors. I also like how there's a thank-you letter
on the WMF wiki for Virgin Unite.

On 12/29/06, Tom Holden <thomas.holden at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think it is worth remembering that both sides of this discussion
> ultimately want the same thing, namely for the WMF's assorted projects
> to retain the independence (both financial and otherwise) they need
> for their continued success. One side has maybe been guilty of
> threatening to throw their toys out of the pram, but the other side
> has equally damaged their position by adopting a rather patronising
> tone.
>
> Proposing that "editors who don't like it just leave" is never a valid
> solution. There will always be people with differing opinions to the
> Foundation, and it is vital for the continued success of the project
> that these people feel there is a forum where their views will be
> seriously considered. We will always need every editor we can get. The
> gradual reform of WMF's political structure from (benevolent)
> dictatorship to democracy is obviously a key part of this process.
>
> Now having Virgin's name and logo on every page is certainly not the
> end of the world. Wall Street bankers are not yet rubbing their hands
> together with glee. That said it does represent a significant change
> in the WMF's fund-raising strategy. Whether or not Virgin hoped to
> benefit from their donation, the fact is that the message both
> increases brand awareness and gives the brand positive connotations.
> Contrary to the repeated dogmatic assertions of some on this list,
> like it or not this is effectively advertising. (Think of the last few
> Honda adds say. Not a purchasable product in sight...) Rightly or
> wrongly, I like many others feel this should have had more public
> discussion a significant time before the event.
>
> It is important to remember that people's objections to advertising go
> a long way beyond just "they're annoying" or "they're the tools of the
> capitalist scum". There is a real risk of them introducing biases and
> distortionary pressures which would severely damage the credibility of
> the WMF's projects. Furthermore, it is always dangerous for a site to
> mix its factual content with advertising, as one can easily be
> mistaken for the other. I'm sure you could all think of many further
> arguments, which, broadly, is why WMF has shied away from advertising
> in the past.
>
> Certainly though it is only polite to thank our donors. However, it is
> just as important we thank Paul from Michigan who gave $2 as it is we
> thank Virgin who gave $200,000 (or however much it was). The way WMF
> has traditionally done this is by posting a thank you notice along
> with a link to a list of donors. I do not see any reason why this is
> not as adequate for Virgin as it is for Paul from Michigan. If I was
> to give an ordinary (non-matching) donation of $200,000 would I get a
> day long thank you notice?
>
> In future I propose that matched donation days be advertised by
> something like the following:
> "All donations today will be matched by a
> (corporate/charity/individual) third party sponsor. The WMF offers
> them and all its other donors its sincerest thanks."
>
> I really do not believe this would have any significant impact on our
> ability to attract matching donors, and it would certainly have spared
> us the past few days of arguments here and elsewhere.
>
> As for further funding ideas, I still think our best bet is to
> continue on towards becoming a devolved, democratic, membership based
> organization. I would much rather give a regular donation to a UK
> charity in exchange for the benefits and rights of membership, than a
> one off donation to an organization that will spend the money without
> the guarantees of a written constitution and full democratic
> accountability, and I am sure many would agree with me.
>
> Yours in peace,
>
> Tom Holden
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Commons-l] UI design on image pages

body:
On 29/12/06, Chris McKenna <cmckenna at sucs.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Dec 2006, David Gerard wrote:
>> On 29/12/06, Chris McKenna <cmckenna at sucs.org> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 29 Dec 2006, David Gerard wrote:

>>>> (Mind you, I already get phone calls from journalists who can't work
>>>> out what the hell is where on the typical image description page. The
>>>> current format *sucks* for reusers, even when they find their image.
>>>> Anyone want to work out an Image: page that looks more like something
>>>> you'd see in a commercial photo archive, or on Flickr?)

>>> What about the current layout do journalists not understand/not like?

>> Finding the author/uploader or even being able to work out which bit
>> of the interface is the username. Working out that clicking on that
>> will take them to the uploader's user page. If the uploader has a
>> userpage on Commons at all. Etc.

> Well the {{information}} template that is the encouraged standard has a
> prominent field for Author. In that all of my images that I upload are
> shown as:
> Author - Chris McKenna (Thryduulf)

Yes, that's useful. Though for images one is not the original creator
of, a reuser may want to contact the original uploader in the hope of
a better-quality image.

(The image in question was a public-domain image scanned at web size
from a book published almost a hundred years ago. So the uploader
would be the person to contact for a better-quality scan.)

It should be easy enough to make "Original uploader:" clearly stated
on the page.

> I am not certain that a redesign of the page is needed,

I think it could really do with some UI review. I was having trouble
over the phone even directing her to the place with the link to the
uploader's user page when we both had the page in front of us on our
computers. To a technophobe, the stuff below the image appears to be
technical gibberish in UI terms.

> but perhaps
> mandatory use of the {{information}} template - possibly with an
> auto-generated link to the userpage of teh uploader if this is possible.

Putting {{information}} templates on all Commons pages without them
would also be good.

> Is it technically possible to include a blank {{information}} template on
> the image description page for new uploads? Or maybe redesign the upload
> page to have several input fields corresponding to the template rather
> than one single free-form box as now? Would this require a hack to
> MediaWiki?

Not sure. cc: to wikitech-l for opinions. (Did the German UI review
cover Image: pages?)

- d.


body:
On 29/12/06, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:

> > Anyone who thinks they're an "inclusionist" should do Special:Newpages
> > patrol some time. OH MY GOODNESS THE FIREHOSE OF CRAP!

> I think anyone who uses a speedy tag should have to do an hour of this.
>   Might make people realise what the speedy tags really are for.

I think the problem is that, doing their level best in good faith to
deal with the FIREHOSE OF CRAP, they get punch-drunk from repeatedly
being hit over the head with the sum total of human stupidity and
eventually scream "AIEEEE IT'S ALL CRAAAAP KILL IT ALL KILL IT WITH A
STICK!!!"

Which is probably not good.

So A7 needs to be much less grey-area that it appears to be in
practice. This will reduce stress for all.

- d.


from_name: jkelly at fas.harvard.edu

subject: [Commons-l] Anglo-Saxonisation of the commons

body:
   Hi,

Quoting Patrick-Emil Z?rner <paddyez at yahoo.de>:

> I am quite appalled about how things have a nasty tendency to a nasty
> outcome on commons. M?nchen is being moved to Munich, Praha is moved
> to Prague,... and all on a specious kind of based argumentation. I
> know how the cities are called. I have seen the traffic signs! The
> cities are actually called M?nchen, Praha,...

  There's no reason why we shouldn't have a gallery at both [[Munich, Germany]]
and [[M?nchen, Deutschland]].  If people aren't interested in maintaining both,
then I suppose we could get really worked up about which one is the redirect and
which one is the actual gallery, but it is a pretty trivial thing to argue over.
 Categories are different, and should use English, with the goal of eventually
translating based on user preferences.

                     Jkelly