body:
On Mon, Jan 01, 2007 at 07:42:20PM +0000, Rob Church wrote:
> [Side note for anyone actually following this thread: I really hate
> arguing with people before the end of a year, as I always like to kid
> myself that I can make a fresh start in the next. This issue is
> dragging on and on, and both sides are essentially regurgitating the
> same opinions. I welcome any third party review on my attitude (feel
> free to email it to me) if it has been inappropriate during this
> particular thread.]

They're morons; you're just fine.

Happy This Year.  :-)

(Well, I was *going* to make this off-list, but the list configuration
has 'better' ideas for me, and I'm too lazy to retype it.  So be it.)

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


list: wikipedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: jklein at electronic-boardroom.com

subject: [Wikipedia-l] contact Jimmy Wales

body:
How do I send him an email? I have a unique search engine methodology for
financial services and for managing change, complexity and risk that could
uniquely work with his ventures. Further, I literally wrote the book on
Electronic Trading, past, present and 'next chapter' in the global money
business. Because of Mr. Wales' background as an options and futures trader
and both of us knowing the Oxford Internet Institute, I  would like to see
how we can proceed further together before my other contacts tailor my mass
implementation.  Thank you.
www.EvolutionOfTrading.com
www.electronic-boardroom.com/trademarkuses.html
The Evolution of Trading: How Technology and Governance are Changing
Finance in the 21st Century by June Klein, CEO Technology & Marketing
Ventures, Inc.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .


from_name: Katie

subject: [Wikipedia-l] contact Jimmy Wales

body:
On Jan 1, 2007, at 16:01, jklein at electronic-boardroom.com wrote:

> How do I send him an email?

jwales at wikia.com

Keitei
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keitei


list: wikien-l

from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject:
[WikiEN-l] [Wikimediauk-l] London pub gathering Tue 2-Jan-06
	(that's tomorrow)

body:
I'm arriving in the UK next Sunday, leaving on Wednesday.  A fairly
booked schedule, but would love to meetup with the wikimedia uk crowd. :)

David Gerard wrote:
> On 01/01/07, James Forrester <jdforrester at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Re. tomorrow, how about meeting in central London - such as the
>> Montague Pike (reasonable Wetherspoons on Charing Cross Road between
>> Tottenham Court Road and Liecester Square) at 17:30 or thereabouts?
>> If this is OK with you, can you send an e-mail to wikimediauk-l and
>> the usual gang/etc. with invites? That'd probably be quickest!
>
>
> You heard him :-) Bunch of us are meeting down the pub, so Wikipedians
> in London are most welcome. Chris Sherlock (Ta bu shi da yu),
> Brassratgirl and Austin Hair are in town as well. I'll be along around
> 6:30 or 7ish after work.
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediauk-l at wikimedia.org
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
>


list: foundation-l

from_name: GerardM

subject: [Foundation-l] Illegal IP blocking on the Dutch wikipedia

body:
Hoi,
Slashdot has the following ..
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/01/1248251
Thanks,
    GerardM

On 1/1/07, annabel <tijmplant at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Waerth,
>
> Ronalvd has the support of the sysops on wikipedia NL. He is doing a great
> job by blocking open proxies of which we get a lot of vandalism.
> Surely he doesn't block all open proxies (only the ones we need to block).
> Please contact him for a solution, instead of posting to this mailing list.
>
> Greetings,
> Annabel (@wikipedia.be)
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> 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
>


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Ray Saintonge

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

body:
Marc Riddell wrote:

>>From: Ray Saintonge
>>
>>Marc Riddell wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I admit I am also frustrated by the countless hours editors spend weeding
>>>out countless incidents of nonsensical, and at times malicious, vandalism.
>>>My background is sixties Berkeley - I am the antithesis of autocratic
>>>bullshit. Yet, I believe, some parameters must be set to achieve a goal. A
>>>protest without some order is merely chaos - and achieves nothing. And,
>>>ultimately, what or who you are protesting wins.
>>>
>>>
>>It seems like Mario Savio became discouraged and frustrated a long time
>>ago.  If a vandal's goal is to sow chaos he is accomplishing that very
>>well..  Surely some vandals may be performing an act of protest, but I
>>don't think that that tranche provides the really tenacious vandals who
>>just get a thrill out of competing in a cat and mouse game.
>>
>>Sticking to principles consistent with what the new left wanted in the
>>60s was not an easy task.  Principles served on a plate of squalor can
>>be very unappetizing.  It's amazing how over the long run the
>>establishment absorbs it all.
>>
>>
>Mario Savio and I were close friends - and, emotionally, still are. He was
>frustrated every moment that I knew him - it was his fuel. But, he was
>never, never, discouraged.
>
No offense intended.  As a person who is Savio's junior by only two
months, that seems close enough to make us contemporaries.  The general
points in his famous speech did resonate well-beyond UC Berkeley.  If I
try to reflect on those times now all I get is questions.

>Wikipedia, itself, is the protest.
>
Hmmm!  While many valuable contributors could be seen as natural
protesters, I wouldn't call the project itself a protest.  I hope you
are not judging things on the basis of the vandals and other
objectionable sorts, because I certainly don't see them as forming the
mainstream of what is happening.  They certainly know how to make
themselves very visible and annoying, but one would not judge a society
by the antics of its mischievous kids.

What to me takes it beyond protest is that we do have many who are
trying to make positive contributions without generating a lot of
noise.  Maybe, unlike the 1960s, some of us have given up the hope that
existing institutions, like the universities, could be reformed, and are
setting the groundwork for new institutions.  The Rochdale College
experiment may have been premature.  It perhaps tried too much to play
in the backyard of corporate structures.  We sometimes give too much
credit to those of our colleagues whose marvellous intentions are not
matched by realistic evaluations of the opponent.

Ec


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Trent Mera

subject: [Wikitech-l] problem with mwdumper

body:
When I run:

java -jar mwdumper.jar -?format=sql:1.5 enwiki-latest-pages-articles.xml.bz2 | c:\wamp\mysql\bin\mysql -u wikiuser -p wikidb

I get:

Exception in thread "main" java.io.FileNotFoundException: -?format=sql:1.5 (The system cannot find the file specified)
        at java.io.FileInputStream.open(Native Method)
        at java.io.FileInputStream.<init>(Unknown Source)
        at java.io.FileInputStream.<init>(Unknown Source)
        at org.mediawiki.dumper.Tools.openInputFile(Unknown Source)
        at org.mediawiki.dumper.Dumper.main(Unknown Source)

Please help!


from_name: Luna

subject: [WikiEN-l] Opinions sought: linking source-access dates per MoS?

body:
On 1/1/07, Christopher Thieme <cdthieme at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> 1.) That dates consisting of a day and month should be wikilinked to
> interface with user preferences.
> (per:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29
> )
>
> 2.) That things should only be linked if they're relevant to the context
> (of
> the article).
> (per:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context
> )

I'm inclined to agree; so long as the article itself is internally
consistent, it doesn't seem like a Big Deal to me.

If it's really that important, why not modify the template to do the linking
automatically, anyway?

Just my two cents,
-Luna


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] problem with mwdumper

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

Trent Mera wrote:
> When I run:
>
> java -jar mwdumper.jar -?format=sql:1.5
> enwiki-latest-pages-articles.xml.bz2 | c:\wamp\mysql\bin\mysql -u
> wikiuser -p wikidb
>
> I get:
>
> Exception in thread "main" java.io.FileNotFoundException:
> -?format=sql:1.5 (The system cannot find the file specified) at

You seem to have typed some kind of long-dash character instead of a
regular hyphen.

If you copy-pasted it from a wiki page or web page, the page may have a
bad character in it, so please check.

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

iD8DBQFFmb5BwRnhpk1wk44RAqDPAJ9/TytvGU53bPtmjXG28YB3jfNSPwCeOttM
MVSfu4jDDXBU4TIYMVAIeTo=
=/z92
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: oscar

body:
a quote from gerardm's link:

***quote:***
I can't speak for Wikipedia's spam blocking process, but I operate a Wiki
that is well known enough to get a lot of spam. I block that fairly
effectively. Seven pieces of true spam have gotten through over the two and
a half years since I implemented the first version of my spam blocking, but
I had almost half my site overwritten at one point before that, so I take it
pretty seriously. I fully understand why many Wiki owners have decided to
make their Wikis read only rather than deal with it and why others have
resorted to required logons, confirmations of the existence of a human, and
other measures. Some useful factoids:

   1. The volume of Wikispam attacks on my site more than doubled last
   month. I'm sure that Wikipedia gets a great deal more volume than I do and
   that they probably saw a similar percentage rise.
   2. Most Wikispam is focused on raising the Google ranking of one or
   more web sites. In the past a huge portion of the volume has been focused
   around pornography sites. This months most commonly advertised site is a
   search engine called Rollyo. Minor editorial: please boycott that search
   engine and its associated blog.
   3. Wikispam has a fairly predictable content and submission profile.
   While many Wikis have resorted to logins and address blocking, I've found
   the content so predictable that I actually removed my IP-based address
   blocking last month.
   4. One of the more predictable aspects of Wikispam is that it is often
   generated from many machines via robot attacks. One presumes that the
   attacker is not paying to use all of these different machines (e.g.
   that the machines have been hijacked).
   5. The middle east (and more specifically, Quatar, Kuwait, and the UAE
   in general) has proven to be a major source of robot attacks. I don't know
   if this means anything, but it suggests that machines in that part of the
   world are either poorly secured or have been effectively targeted by robot
   builders. I also get a lot of robot attacks through (presumably South)
   Korea.

I don't want to make any great claims, at least in part because I don't want
to increase the attack frequency on my site or get slashdotted, but my
software has been very effective in blocking almost everything that the
spammers throw at me. I don't currently block any countries and am reluctant
to publicly reveal the rules I use for the blocking, but do block about a
dozen IP addresses that have been used enough to suggest that they are
directly associated with individual spammers.

***end of quote***

happy new year :-P
oscar

ps the case of thailand and waerth specifically is now being discussed at
the dutch list, and i do hope we find a solution soon

On 1/1/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hoi,
> Slashdot has the following ..
> http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/01/1248251
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
>
>
> On 1/1/07, annabel <tijmplant at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Waerth,
> >
> > Ronalvd has the support of the sysops on wikipedia NL. He is doing a
> great
> > job by blocking open proxies of which we get a lot of vandalism.
> > Surely he doesn't block all open proxies (only the ones we need to
> block).
> > Please contact him for a solution, instead of posting to this mailing
> list.
> >
> > Greetings,
> > Annabel (@wikipedia.be)
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation, its Board of Trustees, nor of Wikimedia Nederland
and its Board.


subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement

body:
Hoi,
I have learned from some organisations who also do things that can be
considered as charitable. They told me that as a consequence of the Gates
Foundation and its activities many things are no longer accepted because
this notion of giving away and consequently forcing people to buy into
upgrade schemes etc is not accepted any more in the same way as it used to
be.

As to libraries and their software, I just read the other day of another
great open source project that targets the administration of libraries and
is really efficient at this. I forgot its name ..

Thanks,
    GerardM

On 1/1/07, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
> On 12/31/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> > Anthony wrote:
> >
> > >Interesting...  They're donating computers pre-loaded with Windows and
> > >providing technical support and training.  Would they still donate the
> > >computers if the library told them they intended to install Linux on
> > >them?  Maybe.  But would they still provide the free technical support
> > >and training for those libraries?  Somehow I doubt it (although it
> > >would be really cool if they did).
> > >
> > Why would those libraries _want_ to install Linux?  The primary reason
> > for free software evaporates when they are spared the costs of
> > proprietary licences.
> >
> I'm sure entire books have been written on why one should use free
> software rather than no-cost software.  If you really have trouble
> finding information on this let me know and I'll do a better search
> for some resources.  Or maybe someone else can provide us with some?
>
> But for the purposes of this discussion, it's enough for me to merely
> point out that the software license being given to the libraries does
> not entitle that library to free upgrades.  That alone should be
> enough reason to prefer Linux, if all other things were equal.  the
> clear strategy here of Microsoft, if not the Gates Foundation, is to
> give it away for free, get 'em hooked, and then start charging.
>
> Of course, all other things aren't equal.  If the library gets free
> support from the Gates Foundation with Windows, and doesn't get free
> support with Linux (which tends to be more costly to support in the
> first place), then it's going to be really hard for them to choose
> Linux.
>
> If the Gates Foundation really wants to help the libraries, then they
> should help the libraries free themselves from relying on the
> continued charity of Microsoft.
>
> Anthony
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement


from_name: David Ashby

body:
On 1/1/07, Christopher Thieme <cdthieme at gmail.com> wrote:
> Howdy y'all
>
> Right now an article I'm working on getting FA-status for is at a point of
> complying with ambiguous and contradictory MoS provisions.  A user who
> objects to an article undergoing an FA-candidacy does so on the grounds that
> dates in citations stating when internet sources are accessed by an article
> contributor should be wikilinked.
>
> The two completing MOS provisions are:
>
> 1.) That dates consisting of a day and month should be wikilinked to
> interface with user preferences.
>  (per:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29
> )
>
> 2.) That things should only be linked if they're relevant to the context (of
> the article).
>  (per:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context
> )
>
> I think it's ridiculous to link source-access dates as it's just too much
> (linking, that is), it adds no understanding to the article, and I don't
> think it's relevant to the context of the article.  While I understand the
> need to deal with user preferences (which doesn't really add or subtract
> information or make it easier to convey or comprehend by transforming 17
> August to August 17) Do we really expect a user to sit back and say "Let's
> see what happened on the day so-and-so accessed this source he's citing?"
>
> I would appreciate it greatly if you could help resolve this issue and
> give your comments on which guideline should win out on the talk pages of
> the MoS articles I cited above, or here via e-mail.
>
> While I'm at it, I extend my best wishes to all of you for a happy "Feast of
> the Circumcision of Our Lord"...the only reason we celebrate the new year on
> January 1st, and hoping that 2007 is better than 2006.

IMHO, linking the *access dates* for sources is 100% worthless.
Adds nothing to the content, and could conceivably confuse a user.

-David


from_name: Damian Finol

subject: [Foundation-l] 4 wishes for Year 2007

body:
Hello,

Good writeup Florence, I think you pretty much summarized what's going
on with the Foundation and it's projects.

And I agree with lots of things, we need to work on what needs help
(like committees) and allow more sustainability without compromising
what the foundation and it's projects are all about.

Wishing we can work many issues throughout this year, 2007, and making
2007 the Year of the Wiki,

Damian Finol
Caracas, Venezuela.


subject: [Foundation-l] 4 wishes for Year 2007


from_name: Ryan Wetherell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Not so broken after all, perhaps

body:
On 1/1/07, Gurch <matthew.britton at btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> Meh, that was only an email. I bet that misspelling's lurking somewhere
> in one of our Featured Articles :/
>
> -Gurch

I just fixed "rediculed" in [[Canberra Centre]], [[Jonathan Moyo]],
[[Beer pong variations]], and [[Thaksin Get Out]].  Maybe it's because
I'm a pretty good speller or something, but "rediculous" just /looks/
awkward.

--Ryan

--
[[en:User:Merovingian]]


list: commons-l

from_name: Gregory Maxwell

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

body:
On 1/1/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> Seems to lack a unified argument. First complains about people
> ignoring copyright and then complains about people not ignoring but
> buying the rights cheaply.

For the most part folks on Dpreview were not impressed:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1032&message=21449131&q=theregister&qf=m

The author freely intermixed sever distinct phenomenon.

[snip]
> It also appears to stick exlusively to US law which I would argue is
> something of an error

More like sticking exclusively to his misconceptions of copyright,
such as the idea that it exists to enable him to make a living in his
choice of professions. :)

On 1/1/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>I note that free-content is not quite mentioned. I am somewhat pleased
>that many photographers' sense of entitlement *is* mentioned.
[snip]

Sure, although it makes me wonder why the By and By-Sa 2.5 revision CC
licenses are so popular, since they don't demand attribution to the
photographer at all so long as the work has been submitted by someone
to a site whos terms of service designate someone else to receive
attribution...


from_name: Gurch

body:
Dan Collins wrote:
> Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
>> On 31 Dec 2006 at 17:54, Luna <lunasantin at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I suppose we could use {{CURRENTSECOND}} to transclude 1 of 60
>>> sub-templates, which in turn contain something around 200 #ifexist:
>>> statements to transclude the various AfD sub-pages.
>> This will fail on the occasions when a leap second is inserted, as
>> this is the 61st second of its minute.
>>
>>
> Which is a whole once every 4 years, IIRC

I can't remember how frequent it is, but surely that doesn't matter:
just have the 61st sub-template transclude everything. In my opinion
this whole idea is fairly rediculous anyway, though.

-Gurch


from_name: Rob Church

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Regarding the "change size" indicator in change
	lists

body:
On 01/01/07, Omegatron <9ybf94w02 at sneakemail.com> wrote:
> "Bluntness", if that's what we're calling it now, only makes things worse, and I
> see it a lot when developers are involved.

When I say "being blunt", I mean calling a bad idea a bad idea from
the get-go, and not messing around.

> of the site.  No one should get a special exemption to be an asshole to other
> Wikipedians just because they know PHP.

Are you calling me an asshole?

Are you calling some other developer(s) assholes?

> Shouldn't that have been implemented *before* going live with this feature?

It wasn't deemed necessary at the time, because we didn't realise
users would get so up in arms about it.

> What's a Subversion log?

The log of commits to the Subversion repository.

> some of us know how to write CSS, some of use know about rodent biology.  More
> love and understanding and less arrogance, elitism, and belligerence, please.

Oh, for goodness' sake...

> or know how to access and understand Mediawiki's CVS or whatever it is.  There's
> no centralized place on the site where new features are announced ("You'll be
> noticing a new addition to the watchlists starting today; it tells you this and
> that and does this and that").  There's no centralized discussion point where
> people can present their ideas for features and have those features critiqued by
> the people who are actually going to use them.  There's no test site where

You're saying we should have some sort of centralised updates page?

"There's no centralized discussion point where people can present
their ideas for features" -- BugZilla, when it comes down to being up
to us to get it written. Prior to that, discussion can take place
somewhere in the Wikipedia namespace.

Could I just remind you here that MediaWiki is not written just for
the English Wikipedia. It is written to benefit every single Wikimedia
wiki, in every single language that we support. It often happens that
features are added because the English Wikipedia asks for them, but it
often happens that feature requests come from other Wikipedias, and
they have an absolute right to ask for things, and an absolute right
to have their requests taken into consideration, too.

> features are auditioned before going live.  Things just go live randomly, in
> ways that may or may not be optimal for the site, and no one even knows where to
> complain.

Well, apparently, you do.

> That's fine.  But these numbers are similar to those changes.  Only a few people
> want or use them, but they're on by default.  Like implementing your "ugly as
> sin" diffs for the entire site by default, and then telling people they need to
> change their user CSS to remove them.  It should be the other way around.

"Only a few people want or use them". Well, it's always the ones
who're complaining who are the loudest. I'm pretty sure there are
hundreds of users who find the information useful, and haven't once
complained. I know for a *fact* that users of many other language
wikis absolutely love the feature.

> Something like this should be a user preference.  "Edit your user CSS" is NOT a
> user interface.  Wikipedia editors are supposed to be regular people; not
> hackers.  The site is supposed to be easy to edit, to avoid systemic bias, but
> it just gets more and more technical and more difficult to use all the time.

We have established that you would like some sort of user preference.
We have established that you do not like CSS.

> Easy-to-use wiki markup has been abandoned in favor of HTML-esque tags for
> everything, article source code is cluttered with ref tags and table markup and
> on and on.  (I don't think refs or tables are bad, of course; I just think they
> were not fully thought through, and implemented in a rush without much feedback
> from the non-hackers who have to use them.  There are better solutions out there
> in the proposals bins that have just been ignored.)

I really find this hilarious, and I'm not being rude here...it's the
*editors* who were pushing for the longest time for us to implement a
lot of conditionals, etc. and other "fancy features" to use in markup.
And eventually, after much protesting of a point that is very much
like yours, we caved in, and it was implemented.

> I don't even see what these numbers are useful for.  Maybe if someone lies in an
> edit summary and says "small change" while the numbers say "big change", but
> that's about it.  It doesn't give me any useful information about the diff
> except in that case.   They don't actually tell how big the edit is, as some
> have said; they just tell how much the page has changed in size.  That's a
> pretty meaningless metric.  It may even be harmful; giving a false sense of
> security for low numbers.  Changing

Of what use is the minor edit marker? Of what use are edit summaries,
really? How can you be absolutely certain what happened in an edit
without viewing the diff?

You can't. Like edit summaries and like minor edit flags, this
information is PURELY ADVISORY. As I've said somewhere else; we offer
factual information - WHO changed WHAT, WHEN they did it, and HOW MUCH
they appear to have changed. We then offer information that the user
is trusted to provide - namely WHAT THEY CHANGED and WHY, and whether
they consider it IMPORTANT.

If you don't personally see a benefit to this, fine. But we've been
asked to implement it for some time, by several different users, and
we've implemented it. Apparently *someone* finds it useful.

> A much, much more useful solution would be to expand the automatic edit summary
> feature for all edits, as has been suggested several times for a few years.  We
> finally got a limited auto edit summary feature recently
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Automatic_edit_summaries), which is

As above, edit summaries are only advisory; automatic edit summaries
should be viewed more as a cover-up for laziness or momentary
forgetfulness than as the output of some fantastic artificial
intelligence engine.

You are entitled to suggest further improvements to any aspect of
MediaWiki, including ideas for the types of additional automatic edit
summaries we could plausibly provide. You know, I think, where to make
this suggestion.

[Side note for anyone actually following this thread: I really hate
arguing with people before the end of a year, as I always like to kid
myself that I can make a fresh start in the next. This issue is
dragging on and on, and both sides are essentially regurgitating the
same opinions. I welcome any third party review on my attitude (feel
free to email it to me) if it has been inappropriate during this
particular thread.]

Rob Church


from_name: Thomas Dalton

body:
> I can't remember how frequent it is, but surely that doesn't matter:
> just have the 61st sub-template transclude everything. In my opinion
> this whole idea is fairly rediculous anyway, though.

The 61st should just be a redirect to the 60th (or 60th to the 59th -
does it go 0-59 or 1-60?). It does seem rather overly complicated. How
would people know which template to add their AfD nom to?


from_name: Christopher Thieme

body:
Howdy y'all

Right now an article I'm working on getting FA-status for is at a point of
complying with ambiguous and contradictory MoS provisions.  A user who
objects to an article undergoing an FA-candidacy does so on the grounds that
dates in citations stating when internet sources are accessed by an article
contributor should be wikilinked.

The two completing MOS provisions are:

1.) That dates consisting of a day and month should be wikilinked to
interface with user preferences.
 (per:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29
)

2.) That things should only be linked if they're relevant to the context (of
the article).
 (per:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context
)

I think it's ridiculous to link source-access dates as it's just too much
(linking, that is), it adds no understanding to the article, and I don't
think it's relevant to the context of the article.  While I understand the
need to deal with user preferences (which doesn't really add or subtract
information or make it easier to convey or comprehend by transforming 17
August to August 17) Do we really expect a user to sit back and say "Let's
see what happened on the day so-and-so accessed this source he's citing?"

I would appreciate it greatly if you could help resolve this issue and
give your comments on which guideline should win out on the talk pages of
the MoS articles I cited above, or here via e-mail.

While I'm at it, I extend my best wishes to all of you for a happy "Feast of
the Circumcision of Our Lord"...the only reason we celebrate the new year on
January 1st, and hoping that 2007 is better than 2006.

Regards,
Christopher D. Thieme
(User: ExplorerCDT)


from_name: Parker Peters

subject: [WikiEN-l] POV on Israel

body:
And about the "muslims only" zones in Medina and other cities in Saudi
Arabia as well?

And how about the laws criminalizing any religion but Islam?

Please, stop. You're just digging an even bigger hole for yourself.
Dishonesty does not serve the project well.

Parker

On 12/31/06, Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu- <tariqabjotu at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ugh... sigh... I guess my last message didn't get read. Please carry on
> this dispute elsewhere.
>
> -- Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu-
>
> P.S. However, the sign is referring to two different places -- Mount
> Arafat and the city of Makkah (and similarly the cities of Ta'if and
> Riyadh for the other part). But please, let's abandon this topic...
>
> Silas Snider wrote:
> > On 12/31/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> > <snip />
> >
> >> To be more precise the turn off to the left is to "Arafat Makkah", the
> >> actual holy site in Mecca.  The sign going to the right has two arrows,
> >> which suggests two lanes.  Why, in a country that is predominantly
> >> Muslim, would the infidel minority get two lanes while the dominant
> >> religious group get only one?  Traffic control can be a serious problem
> >> at the time of the Hajj.
> >>
> >
> > I'm sorry, but I'm having a little bit of trouble understanding the
> > reason for saying this. The assertion that you seem to be disputing is
> > that non-Muslims are not allowed in Mecca. You reply with a) a
> > technical nit-pick about non-Muslims being allowed into Mecca, just
> > not Arafat Makkah, and what seems to be a complaint about traffic
> > problems during the Hajj. I, and everyone who gets a full inbox of
> > this stuff would, I think, appreciate every byte of the message to be
> > full of meaningful information that is apropos to the topic.
> >
> > To answer point (a) above, would you still object if the statement was
> > that non-Muslims are not allowed into "Arafat Makkah". With this
> > statement, Oldak Quill's point is still valid -- the comparison to
> > Apratheid is better made with the Saudis than with Israel.
> >
> >
> >> The Latter Day Saints do not allow non-Mormons into their inner temple
> >> in Salt Lake City, and I find no reason to be upset about that.
> >>
> >
> > This is a bad analogy for two reasons:
> > 1. Two wrongs do not make a right -- just because the Latter Day
> > Saints go around prohibiting people from entering their inner temple
> > doesn't give me moral grounds on which to do the same thing.
> >
> > 2. The reason I'm not (being a non-Mormon) allowed into the temple of
> > the Latter Day Saints has to do with it being private property, giving
> > them the right to arbitrarily refuse entrance to anyone they choose,
> > much like my home. The reason I'm not (being a non-Muslim) allowed to
> > enter Arafat Makkah is because the government of Saudi Arabia has
> > passed a law forbidding it.
> >
> >
> >> The photo adds no commentary, and is accompanied by a misleading title.
> >> Looking further into the website gives me the impression that it is run
> >> by fundamentalist hate mongers.
> >>
> >
> > However much you may object to the website housing the photo, you have
> > nto yet offered a shred of evidence to negate the assertion that
> > non-Muslims are not allowed into Arafat Makkah. If you really need a
> > more neutrally  captioned photo, see
> >
> http://www.theraptureisathand.com/blog/index.php/2006/12/13/mecca-youre-not-welcome/
> > (though this site might be considered that of religious hate mongers as
> well)
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Silas Snider
> >
> >
> >> Ec
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> >> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Rory Stolzenberg

body:
On 1/1/07, Christopher Thieme <cdthieme at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Howdy y'all
>
> Right now an article I'm working on getting FA-status for is at a point of
> complying with ambiguous and contradictory MoS provisions.  A user who
> objects to an article undergoing an FA-candidacy does so on the grounds
> that
> dates in citations stating when internet sources are accessed by an
> article
> contributor should be wikilinked.
>
> The two completing MOS provisions are:
>
> 1.) That dates consisting of a day and month should be wikilinked to
> interface with user preferences.
> (per:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29
> )
>
> 2.) That things should only be linked if they're relevant to the context
> (of
> the article).
> (per:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context
> )
>
> I think it's ridiculous to link source-access dates as it's just too much
> (linking, that is), it adds no understanding to the article, and I don't
> think it's relevant to the context of the article.  While I understand the
> need to deal with user preferences (which doesn't really add or subtract
> information or make it easier to convey or comprehend by transforming 17
> August to August 17) Do we really expect a user to sit back and say "Let's
> see what happened on the day so-and-so accessed this source he's citing?"
>
> I would appreciate it greatly if you could help resolve this issue and
> give your comments on which guideline should win out on the talk pages of
> the MoS articles I cited above, or here via e-mail.
>
> While I'm at it, I extend my best wishes to all of you for a happy "Feast
> of
> the Circumcision of Our Lord"...the only reason we celebrate the new year
> on
> January 1st, and hoping that 2007 is better than 2006.
>
> Regards,
> Christopher D. Thieme
> (User: ExplorerCDT)
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

Linking of full dates isn't done for the sake of readers who want to view
the articles on the dates. MediaWiki only displays the date according to the
preferences of a user when the dates are linked in the wikitext. Full dates
are an exception to WP:CONTEXT.


from_name: Cary Bass

body:
It must have been a mental infarction.  Galleries are done using native
language and redirects.  Categories have generally been done in English.

~~~~ (Cary)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: commons-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
> [mailto:commons-l-bounces at wikimedia.org]On Behalf Of Brianna Laugher
> Sent: Monday, January 01, 2007 7:43 PM
> To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Anglo-Saxonisation of the commons
>
>
> On 02/01/07, Cary Bass <bastique at bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > I am fairly certain that the policy on Commons is that cities and other
> > localities are in the native language.  Therefore M?nchen and Praha are
> > absolutely correct and the categories must be fixed.
>
> No...
> did you ever notice [[category:??]] ? (or even worse, maybe
> [[category:transport in ??]]?)
>
> Nobody likes enforcing English-only categories to further Anglo-saxon
> supremism or the like, but until we have proper category redirects...
>
> regards,
> Brianna
> user:pfctdayelise
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.2/613 - Release Date:
> 1/1/2007 2:50 PM
>
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.2/613 - Release Date: 1/1/2007
2:50 PM


from_name: Marc Riddell

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

body:
> From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 17:37:32 -0800
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR (contd)
>
> Marc Riddell wrote:
>
>>> From: Ray Saintonge
>>>
>>> Marc Riddell wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I admit I am also frustrated by the countless hours editors spend weeding
>>>> out countless incidents of nonsensical, and at times malicious, vandalism.
>>>> My background is sixties Berkeley - I am the antithesis of autocratic
>>>> bullshit. Yet, I believe, some parameters must be set to achieve a goal. A
>>>> protest without some order is merely chaos - and achieves nothing. And,
>>>> ultimately, what or who you are protesting wins.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> It seems like Mario Savio became discouraged and frustrated a long time
>>> ago.  If a vandal's goal is to sow chaos he is accomplishing that very
>>> well..  Surely some vandals may be performing an act of protest, but I
>>> don't think that that tranche provides the really tenacious vandals who
>>> just get a thrill out of competing in a cat and mouse game.
>>>
>>> Sticking to principles consistent with what the new left wanted in the
>>> 60s was not an easy task.  Principles served on a plate of squalor can
>>> be very unappetizing.  It's amazing how over the long run the
>>> establishment absorbs it all.
>>>
>>>
>> Mario Savio and I were close friends - and, emotionally, still are. He was
>> frustrated every moment that I knew him - it was his fuel. But, he was
>> never, never, discouraged.
>>
> No offense intended.  As a person who is Savio's junior by only two
> months, that seems close enough to make us contemporaries.  The general
> points in his famous speech did resonate well-beyond UC Berkeley.  If I
> try to reflect on those times now all I get is questions.
>
>> Wikipedia, itself, is the protest.
>>
> Hmmm!  While many valuable contributors could be seen as natural
> protesters, I wouldn't call the project itself a protest.  I hope you
> are not judging things on the basis of the vandals and other
> objectionable sorts, because I certainly don't see them as forming the
> mainstream of what is happening.  They certainly know how to make
> themselves very visible and annoying, but one would not judge a society
> by the antics of its mischievous kids.
>
> What to me takes it beyond protest is that we do have many who are
> trying to make positive contributions without generating a lot of
> noise.  Maybe, unlike the 1960s, some of us have given up the hope that
> existing institutions, like the universities, could be reformed, and are
> setting the groundwork for new institutions.  The Rochdale College
> experiment may have been premature.  It perhaps tried too much to play
> in the backyard of corporate structures.  We sometimes give too much
> credit to those of our colleagues whose marvellous intentions are not
> matched by realistic evaluations of the opponent.
>
> Ec

The analogy I was making in stating that Wikipedia is the protest was in
reference to my previous statement that some parameters must be set to
achieve a goal; that a protest without some order is merely chaos - and
achieves nothing. All of this had to do with placing some restrictions on
User identification. I had & have left the issue of vandals behind some time
ago.

Marc
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: James Hare

subject: [Foundation-l] Free Resources

body:
I don't know if Wikimedia needs subdomains or email accounts, but the photos
would be great!

On 1/1/07, Asher Heimermann <resourcesofsheboygan at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> The Resources of Sheboygan Commission said that they will donate free
> resources to The Wikimedia Foundation.
>
>   Some of the resources will be:
>
>   * Free subdomains
>   * Free email
>   * Free photos
>
>   The Resources of Sheboygan Commission said that they will pay the $500
> in the costs to provide the resources.
>
>
>   Yours Truly,
>       Asher Heimermann
>       Board Member
>       The Resources of Sheboygan Commission
>       www.roscfriends.tripod.com
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> __________________________________________________
> 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
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Free Resources


from_name: Bryan Tong Minh

subject: [Foundation-l] Donation of DVDs to Wikimedia Foundation Projects

body:
Big files can be uploaded through Eloquence. It is somewhere on the
Commons-l mail list.

Bryan

On 1/1/07, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/1/07, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
> > There is also the comparatively minor issue of trying to convert the
> > files from MPEG format to OGG or other patent-free (or compatable with
> > the GFDL) formats, but I think we can find some individuals to help out
> > with that on the various Wikimedia projects.  That is not the major
> > issue at the moment.
>
> Conversion is trivial. There are some technical burps related to
> handling large files (right now max file size on commons is set to
> ~20megs) which we will need to iron out for other content.
>


from_name: Anders Wegge Jakobsen

body:
"Omegatron" <9ybf94w02 at sneakemail.com> writes:

> [For the record, this was a response to
> http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1085 ]
>
> [Civility:]
>
> Rob Church <robchur at ...> writes:
>
> > We might not implement their letter, but the spirit of the ideas of
> > keeping civil and assuming good faith *are* applied at the development
> > level; we just reserve the right to be blunt.

> Being blunt or dismissive is completely contrary to the letter and spirit of
> WP:CIV.  Things like:

> * Rudeness
> * Judgmental tone
> * Belittling contributors because of their skills
> * Personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater
>   conflict and stress

 Well, if you think so, you should probably never have posted the mail
I'm replying now.

 I'll not go into details, but you have a serious amount of
attitude-readjustment to do, before it's safe for you to discuss
tecnical issues again. Your "I'm not a developer, so I alone know what
the users want"-tone, does not exactly help either.

 So, in short:

 * Never impose organization on something that doesn't need it.
 * Never mistake your opinion for the norm.
 * Never *ever* treat a developer as a low-class individual.

 Learn that, and we can talk.

--
// Wegge
<http://geowiki.wegge.dk/wiki/Forside> - Alt om geocaching
Bruger du den gratis spamfighther ser jeg kun dine indl?g *EN* gang.


body:
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 21:04:54 -0500
From: "Rory Stolzenberg" <rory096 at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Opinions sought: linking source-access dates
       per MoS?
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
Message-ID:
       <10011a3a0701011804p1d129e95pdf50af7eab570d12 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

On 1/1/07, Rory Stolzenberg" <rory096 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ... Full dates are an exception to WP:CONTEXT.
>

And just where does WP:CONTEXT or any other guideline say that?  From my
reading it doesn't.  Exceptions to rules or guidelines can't solely exist in
the lacunae of convention and consensus, they need to be explicitly
written.  Until it's written as a de jure exception to WP:CONTEXT, I'd very
much inclined to disagree with the above statement.

Regards,
Christopher D. Thieme
(User:ExplorerCDT)

P.S. Is it just me or does Wikipedia need a policy house-cleaning to fix up
these contradictions and ambiguities? ~cdt


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [Wikipedia-l] contact Jimmy Wales

body:
-----Original Message-----
From: jklein at electronic-boardroom.com [mailto:jklein at electronic-boardroom.com]
Sent: Monday, January 1, 2007 02:01 PM
To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] contact Jimmy Wales

How do I send him an email? I have a unique search engine methodology for
financial services and for managing change, complexity and risk that could
uniquely work with his ventures. Further, I literally wrote the book on
Electronic Trading, past, present and 'next chapter' in the global money
business. Because of Mr. Wales' background as an options and futures trader
and both of us knowing the Oxford Internet Institute, I  would like to see
how we can proceed further together before my other contacts tailor my mass
implementation.  Thank you.
www.EvolutionOfTrading.com
www.electronic-boardroom.com/trademarkuses.html
The Evolution of Trading: How Technology and Governance are Changing
Finance in the 21st Century by June Klein, CEO Technology & Marketing
Ventures, Inc.

Best for your purpose is to join this mailing list at Wikia

http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/search-l

Fred


body:
On 1/1/07, Christopher Thieme <cdthieme at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 21:04:54 -0500
> From: "Rory Stolzenberg" <rory096 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Opinions sought: linking source-access dates
>        per MoS?
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID:
>        <10011a3a0701011804p1d129e95pdf50af7eab570d12 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 1/1/07, Rory Stolzenberg" <rory096 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > ... Full dates are an exception to WP:CONTEXT.
> >
>
> And just where does WP:CONTEXT or any other guideline say that?  From my
> reading it doesn't.  Exceptions to rules or guidelines can't solely exist
> in
> the lacunae of convention and consensus, they need to be explicitly
> written.  Until it's written as a de jure exception to WP:CONTEXT, I'd
> very
> much inclined to disagree with the above statement.
>
> Regards,
> Christopher D. Thieme
> (User:ExplorerCDT)
>
> P.S. Is it just me or does Wikipedia need a policy house-cleaning to fix
> up
> these contradictions and ambiguities? ~cdt
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

WP:DATE. "If a date includes both a month and a day, then the date should
almost always be linked to allow readers' date
preferences<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Preferences#Date_format>to
work, displaying the reader's chosen format." It's necessary for
technical reasons, not because people want to read the date articles.


from_name: Michael Bimmler

subject: [Wikipedia-l] contact Jimmy Wales

body:
On 1/1/07, Katie <katiefromuncyc at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 1, 2007, at 16:01, jklein at electronic-boardroom.com wrote:
>
> > How do I send him an email?
>
> jwales at wikia.com
Jimbo is probably overflooded with spam anyway, but could you please
use a non-machine-readable notation anyway? something like jwales at
wikia dot com would be just fine...

Thanks
Michael

>
> Keitei
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keitei
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] London pub gathering Tue 2-Jan-06 (that's tomorrow)

body:
On 01/01/07, James Forrester <jdforrester at gmail.com> wrote:

> Re. tomorrow, how about meeting in central London - such as the
> Montague Pike (reasonable Wetherspoons on Charing Cross Road between
> Tottenham Court Road and Liecester Square) at 17:30 or thereabouts?
> If this is OK with you, can you send an e-mail to wikimediauk-l and
> the usual gang/etc. with invites? That'd probably be quickest!

You heard him :-) Bunch of us are meeting down the pub, so Wikipedians
in London are most welcome. Chris Sherlock (Ta bu shi da yu),
Brassratgirl and Austin Hair are in town as well. I'll be along around
6:30 or 7ish after work.

- d.


from_name: Matthew Brown

body:
On 1/1/07, Christopher Thieme <cdthieme at gmail.com> wrote:
> And just where does WP:CONTEXT or any other guideline say that?  From my
> reading it doesn't.  Exceptions to rules or guidelines can't solely exist in
> the lacunae of convention and consensus, they need to be explicitly
> written.  Until it's written as a de jure exception to WP:CONTEXT, I'd very
> much inclined to disagree with the above statement.

IMO, you have it the wrong way round.  Rules and guidelines exist to
codify accepted practise, and frequently lag behind it.

-Matt


from_name: GerardM

body:
Hoi,
Well you know as well as I do that on the Dutch moderator mailing list often
discussions are held that do not really need to be confidential or limited
to the Dutch moderators. Then again by not having some discussions in the
open, often a lot less angry words are said. This in turn as you know and
agree helps to concentrate on what is most important.. the one thing you
sadly cannot be part of at the moment.. working on content.
Thanks,
     GerardM

On 1/1/07, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >ps the case of thailand and waerth specifically is now being discussed at
> >the dutch list, and i do hope we find a solution soon
> >
> >
> Which Dutch list? This should be a public discussion.
>
> Waerth
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


body:
On 01/01/07, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:

> I'm arriving in the UK next Sunday, leaving on Wednesday.  A fairly
> booked schedule, but would love to meetup with the wikimedia uk crowd. :)

OK, we'll do another one the following week :-D The other overseas
visitors are here for this week only.

(James F. and I were going down the pub anyway, and Phoebe and Austin
were in town, then Chris called me ... you know how it is.)

And I am SO not paying the bar tab this time.

- d.


from_name: Ligulem

body:
On 01.01.2007 21:35, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
>
> They're morons; you're just fine.
>

Amen.

Nice club thinking here on all sides.


from_name: Brion Vibber

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

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

Pat Gunn wrote:
> I reply specifically to Brion Vibber's message here:
>
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-December/012848.html
>
>
> I find it very unfortunate that Brion characterises
> people like me, who have been on the project for many
> years, as being uncaring about our values. I care deeply
> about the project, and feel that accepting advertising,
> whether it be for brand identity or a specific product,
> as unacceptable. The Spanish wikipedia and the many users
> who have put userboxen against advertisements (as ironic
> as that is) on their userpages should've taught Brion
> (and others involved) that the values of the community
> *do* have a substantial number of people who will never
> accept this kind of thing.

As I mentioned in chat, that's actually pretty much the point of my post.

Some people's preferences, beliefs, or values may not fully mesh with
the core values of free content that Wikipedia has staked itself on from
the beginning, and some of those people are going to be shocked to
discover that there are different values in play (as, apparently, you
have been shocked).

That doesn't make those other views wrong, and it doesn't necessarily
make the free content/free software-style ideals right. But, IMHO, it's
important to look at what those values are, and think about them, rather
than plowing ahead pretending we all believe the same thing, or fighting
over those other values and ignoring Wikipedia's actual core goals in
the process.

To me, this is the same issue as the overuse of "fair use" labeling for
materials which cannot be freely reused just for the sake of getting a
pretty picture. It's nice to have pretty pictures, but
Wikipedia/Wikimedia is built on a strict foundation of free content, and
leaning too far towards content that's "educational-use only" or
"Wikipedia-only" harms the core values of reuse, redistributability, and
freedom to make derivative works.

An extreme anti-commercial attitude, IMHO, can be similarly dangerous
when it reaches the point of pushing an unrelated ideology to the
detriment of the project's actual goals.

So can an extreme pro-commercial attitude, of course.

I'd like to hope we will strike an appropriate balance; pretending that
money doesn't exist isn't really helpful in a world where money is, in
fact, often exchanged for goods and services.

Thus it's a good thing for the community and the Foundation organization
to talk about this issue and actually figure out what's going to work
and what's appropriate *based on the needs and goals of the project*
instead of *what's going to make people with certain views angry when
they hear it*.

(This is all just my personal opinion, and should not be taken as
official WMF policy; I do not set WMF policy, nor do I necessarily even
know what it is. For all I know the board is crying out for my blood. :P)

> After reading some of the other
> comments on this list and chatting with a few folks, I
> understand that my concerns, while considered, will not be
> addressed. To me, Wikipedia (and related projects) are and
> must be noncommercial if I am to be involved - it is impossible
> to honestly educate with one hand while waving a billboard
> with the other.

Reasonable people can and do disagree on a) whether it's possible and b)
what constitutes billboard-waving.

IMHO maintaining free content is far more important than whether or not
there are advertisements on the web site that some people will see the
content on, even if I don't particularly like advertisements and would
strongly prefer never to have to see a banner ad.

That doesn't mean I think we *should* put up banner ads (though there
might be obvious financial advantages to doing so). It just means that
whatever we *do* see and do should be based on the actual situation.

There is, to me, a pretty clear difference between notices in a
fundraising event and traditional advertisement. I expect rational
people to be able to distinguish different degrees and qualities in this
way, and hold discussions in which advantages and disadvantages are
discussed.

An attitude of "not an inch!" is a matter of ideology, and IMHO where we
base decisions on ideology they should be due to the actual ideology the
project is based on, and not our personal ideologies as individuals.

If our personal ideologies turn out to be really, solidly, incompatible
with the project... then maybe we shouldn't stay.

But again, maybe I'm wrong. Don't take my word for it.

> I greatly regret the wrong turn the community
> has made here, for it is not something I will live with and
> stay.

On the other hand I'm glad we're finally talking openly about the
elephant in the room; if we're no longer tiptoeing about hoping nobody
says the "a"-word we might be able to make actual decisions as a community.

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

iD8DBQFFmgClwRnhpk1wk44RAnKnAJwJuYL4KCBzEgap32Ai5katgK7yoQCfWmbd
0A3+hJ+8FITNANm3KwAJLxs=
=1xiZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Andre Engels

body:
2007/1/1, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:

> Well you know as well as I do that on the Dutch moderator mailing list
> often
> discussions are held that do not really need to be confidential or limited
> to the Dutch moderators.

I don't know whether I should be glad that I don't need to be bothered with
this, or angry that again things are being arranged without me or anyone
else who doesn't happen to be a moderator even having a chance to have their
say. I guess I'll be both. Problem is that with already having given up
sysophood, and not being able to leave at all, I have little I can do
anyway.

--
Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels


body:
Hoi Walter,
For the record I am not on the nl-mods list.

I do value your contributions. It is sad to me that from a great prolific
writer with a huge standing, you are now someone who is completely sidelined
and out of the picture.

Thanks,
    GerardM

On 1/1/07, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
>
> It is very nice to see people discussing about a situation which they do
> not know off because they have never confronted it. This will lead to
> some rosy coloured decisions based on what is possible in the west. Not
> on what is possible in the rest of the world. Also Gerard you are not a
> mod and still on the nl-mods list! Which is a very strange situation.
> These kind of discussions involve all of the nl. community. Andre Engels
> who is not on that list is interested in that discussion as well. But he
> is not able to contribute. Is this the way we go on nl: ? The mods get
> to decide our future for us?
>
> And as you know I refuse to actively work on content. Only the bombings
> were an exception for me. But now if I have to go through so much
> trouble to do something, I am not a vandal remember, I might as well do
> nothing.
>
> Waerth
>
> >Hoi,
> >Well you know as well as I do that on the Dutch moderator mailing list
> often
> >discussions are held that do not really need to be confidential or
> limited
> >to the Dutch moderators. Then again by not having some discussions in the
> >open, often a lot less angry words are said. This in turn as you know and
> >agree helps to concentrate on what is most important.. the one thing you
> >sadly cannot be part of at the moment.. working on content.
> >Thanks,
> >     GerardM
> >
> >On 1/1/07, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>>ps the case of thailand and waerth specifically is now being discussed
> at
> >>>the dutch list, and i do hope we find a solution soon
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Which Dutch list? This should be a public discussion.
> >>
> >>Waerth
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>foundation-l mailing list
> >>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> >>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >_______________________________________________
> >foundation-l mailing list
> >foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: geni

body:
On 12/29/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/29/photojournalism_and_copyright/
>

Seems to lack a unified argument. First complains about people
ignoring copyright and then complains about people not ignoring but
buying the rights cheaply.

Indeed the existence of large search able databases would appear to be
a greater problem for his business model than the copyright apathetic
(true anti-copyright are in my experience pretty uncommon).

It also appears to stick exlusively to US law which I would argue is
something of an error

--
geni


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

body:
On 12/28/06, Ron Ritzman <ritzman at gmail.com> 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?
> (especially if the article is otherwise well written)
>

Browsing and looking for clusters. For example images with dogey
copyright stuff often appear on poor articles.

--
geni


from_name: Gurch

body:
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
> On Monday 01 January 2007 13:35, Gurch wrote:
>> I can't remember how frequent it is, but surely that doesn't matter:
>> just have the 61st sub-template transclude everything. In my opinion
>> this whole idea is fairly rediculous anyway, though.
>
> "Ridiculous".
>
> This particular misspelling is quickly turning into a major piss-me-off.

Meh, that was only an email. I bet that misspelling's lurking somewhere
in one of our Featured Articles :/

-Gurch


body:
On 31/12/06, Ligulem <ligulem at pobox.com> wrote:
> On 31.12.2006 19:07, Rob Church wrote:

> > ... discipline them accordingly.

> Yes, Mets501 was a bit bold adding the colors. But the colors are still
> in effect, so it can't be that bad.
> Repeat after me: Assume Good Faith.

You appear to have confused "assume good faith" with "assume good judgement".

> And nobody is perfect.

That's what AGF means, yes.

- d.


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

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

James Hare wrote:
> For the record, I'm asking about an apology for the poor communication,
> because that -was- rather minimal communication prior to the ad.

I will happily apologize for the poor communication; the fundraiser has
been run a bit chaotically, with lots of last-minute jumps and hurdles
and our communication and planning on the visible parts (such as the
site notice) have indeed been *abysmal*.

The notices for instance ought to have been prepared and translated a
week or two before they went up, which would have given a lot more time
for people to see what sort of stuff was actually going to be going up.

A proper, functioning fundraising committee involving the community
would also be super. That was supposed to happen, but apparently things
fell apart...

I really, really want us to do better on this next time.

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

iD8DBQFFmhH0wRnhpk1wk44RApFqAJ9ueIFMiK5xTYpPkojayrRHZvIy8QCfXawg
OP6DsnCpnqTkc/deVGTVAAQ=
=jpqn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2007-01-02

body:
An automated run of parserTests.php showed the following failures:

This is MediaWiki version 1.9alpha (r18764).
Reading tests from "/home/brion/src/wiki/phase3/maintenance/parserTests.txt"...
Running test TODO: Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Link containing double-single-quotes '' (bug 4598)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: message transform: <noinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: message transform: <onlyinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)... FAILED!
Running test Thumbnail image caption with a free URL... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887: A ISBN with a thumbnail... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887: A RFC with a thumbnail... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887: A mailto link with a thumbnail... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887: A <math> with a thumbnail- we don't render math in the parsertests by default,
so math is not stripped and turns up as escaped <math> tags.... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled... FAILED!
Running test Image caption containing another image... FAILED!
Running test Bug 3090: External links other than http: in image captions... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test Fuzz testing: image with bogus manual thumbnail... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Parsing optional HTML elements (Bug 6171)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Inline HTML vs wiki block nesting... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Mixing markup for italics and bold... FAILED!
Running test TODO: 5 quotes, code coverage +1 line... FAILED!
Running test TODO: dt/dd/dl test... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Images with the "|" character in the comment... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Parents of subpages, two levels up, without trailing slash or name.... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Parents of subpages, two levels up, with lots of extra trailing slashes.... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Don't fall for the self-closing div... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Always escape literal '>' in output, not just after '<'... FAILED!

Reading tests from "/home/brion/src/wiki/phase3/extensions/Cite/citeParserTests.txt"...

Reading tests from "/home/brion/src/wiki/phase3/extensions/Poem/poemParserTests.txt"...

   8 new PASSING test(s) :)
      * Prevent conversion with -{}- tags (language variants)
      * Prevent conversion of text with -{}- tags (language variants)
      * Prevent conversion of links with -{}- tags (language variants)
      * -{}- tags within headlines (within html for parserConvert())
      * Explicit definition of language variant alternatives
      * Adding explicit session-wise language variant mapping (A flag)
      * Adding explicit conversion rule for title (T flag)
      * Do not convert roman numbers to language variants
Passed 471 of 498 tests (94.58%)... FAILED!


from_name: Pat Gunn

body:
I reply specifically to Brion Vibber's message here:

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-December/012848.html

I find it very unfortunate that Brion characterises
people like me, who have been on the project for many
years, as being uncaring about our values. I care deeply
about the project, and feel that accepting advertising,
whether it be for brand identity or a specific product,
as unacceptable. The Spanish wikipedia and the many users
who have put userboxen against advertisements (as ironic
as that is) on their userpages should've taught Brion
(and others involved) that the values of the community
*do* have a substantial number of people who will never
accept this kind of thing. After reading some of the other
comments on this list and chatting with a few folks, I
understand that my concerns, while considered, will not be
addressed. To me, Wikipedia (and related projects) are and
must be noncommercial if I am to be involved - it is impossible
to honestly educate with one hand while waving a billboard
with the other.

I greatly regret the wrong turn the community
has made here, for it is not something I will live with and
stay. Y'all may want to keep a close eye on the Spanish
Wikipedia. Goodbye, all. You may do what you wish with my
accounts - I have left a note on my LSS project (to summarise
the foundation lists) that a new project head is needed.

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

If y'all want to see it continue, someone needs to pick up
the ball. Someone should take care of any OTRS replies I get.

It's actually, other than the end, been a pleasure working
with many of you - if any of you want to keep in touch,
I'm just an e-mail or IM away. It reminds me of the last
big social project I was on and how it slowly came to an end
through commercial entanglement after being acquired:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NoWonder

Goodbye.

---
Pat Gunn
mod: csna, bmcm, bmco, cooa, cona, clpd, coom
http://dachte.org


body:
We need to abandon the method of
let's-brag-about-our-matching-donors-in-the-god-damn-sitenotice as soon as
possible. It IS possible to thank them, but that's just too damn
advertisalicious.

We should also focus more on lobbying the kinds of folk that would not be
interested in being advertised, like Mr. Anonymo earlier in the fundraiser
or the UN.

If anything, do it for poor Improv here. We lost Improv because of money.
That's pathetic.

"It's not an advertisement, it's a thank you notice!" In other words... it's
not the truth :|, it's The Truth! :)

I am not leaving because my help is needed and I have a 1,000,000,000-year
contract to serve, but you really need to reconsider ways of getting
cash-money that don't involve pissing off the entire community. Not to
mention, that was real shit communication on your part, Wikimedia.

Let me know when you're ready to apologize.

On 1/2/07, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
>
> Thanks for all you have done for the projects and good luck in your
> further endeavours!
>
> Waerth
>
> >I reply specifically to Brion Vibber's message here:
> >
> >
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-December/012848.html
> >
> >
> >I find it very unfortunate that Brion characterises
> >people like me, who have been on the project for many
> >years, as being uncaring about our values. I care deeply
> >about the project, and feel that accepting advertising,
> >whether it be for brand identity or a specific product,
> >as unacceptable. The Spanish wikipedia and the many users
> >who have put userboxen against advertisements (as ironic
> >as that is) on their userpages should've taught Brion
> >(and others involved) that the values of the community
> >*do* have a substantial number of people who will never
> >accept this kind of thing. After reading some of the other
> >comments on this list and chatting with a few folks, I
> >understand that my concerns, while considered, will not be
> >addressed. To me, Wikipedia (and related projects) are and
> >must be noncommercial if I am to be involved - it is impossible
> >to honestly educate with one hand while waving a billboard
> >with the other.
> >
> >I greatly regret the wrong turn the community
> >has made here, for it is not something I will live with and
> >stay. Y'all may want to keep a close eye on the Spanish
> >Wikipedia. Goodbye, all. You may do what you wish with my
> >accounts - I have left a note on my LSS project (to summarise
> >the foundation lists) that a new project head is needed.
> >
> >http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LSS
> >
> >If y'all want to see it continue, someone needs to pick up
> >the ball. Someone should take care of any OTRS replies I get.
> >
> >It's actually, other than the end, been a pleasure working
> >with many of you - if any of you want to keep in touch,
> >I'm just an e-mail or IM away. It reminds me of the last
> >big social project I was on and how it slowly came to an end
> >through commercial entanglement after being acquired:
> >
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NoWonder
> >
> >Goodbye.
> >
> >---
> >Pat Gunn
> >mod: csna, bmcm, bmco, cooa, cona, clpd, coom
> >http://dachte.org
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >foundation-l mailing list
> >foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

body:
On 1/2/07, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> I am not leaving because my help is needed and I have a 1,000,000,000-year
> contract to serve, but you really need to reconsider ways of getting
> cash-money that don't involve pissing off the entire community. Not to
> mention, that was real shit communication on your part, Wikimedia.

A (few) dozen people is not our entire community.

I understand your desire to keep your friends happy, but of the people
who've left over this who speak languages that I understand, I'm not
seeing too much in the way of real objections to the advertising
within the context of the goals of our project. Instead I see some
confusion about what Wikimedia is actually about.  Brion's post really
spoke clearly about this sort of confusion.

For example, in the thread here we see Pat Gunn saying his farewell.
We don't see Pat going into why the things that have happened harm
Wikimedia...

The reason for this is that there isn't any harm that most of the
people listening here understand. You see, it's Pat's position that it
is not sufficient that Wikimedia be non-commercial; he believes that
it must be actively anti-commercial.

His position on commercial activity isn't surprising considering his
political alignment (he's a communist), nor do I think he's incorrect
for holding it, but I do think he is incorrect for expecting Wikimedia
to act against its primary objectives just to further the distantly
related political objectives of some of its participants.

There are a great many ideas out there, but it's nearly impossible to
build a productive organization around more than a tiny number of them
at once.

Wikimedia is about [[Free content]] for education, and increasing the
amount of knowledge available to the world.

Wikimedia is not about destroying the military industrial complex, or
putting Rupert Murdoc out of business... even though people who
advocate such things may consider the success of Wikipedia a necessary
part of achieving their goals.

People of many goals (including anti-commercialism as well as pure
unbridled capitalism) can often find common objectives with our own,
and when they do I sincerely hope that we can work with them to
further our own goals. It is important, however, to remember that just
because we share goals with differently-motivated parties, those goals
are not necessarily the goals of Wikimedia.  Our ability to cooperate
with as many people as possible depends on Wikimedia maintaining a
consistent and clear focus.

So while I am saddened to see people go, I also see it as a sign of
*decreasing* confusion. It is my belief that such departures were
always inevitable.. We could not prevent the loss even by accepting an
a dramatic shift in our mission, Just as we're losing Pat because
Wikimedia isn't anti-commercial... or we'd lose someone else (and
perhaps many more) if we were to make Wikimedia actively
anti-commercial.

In the past when I've had people threaten to leave because I argued
that we shouldn't accept their preferred free-as-in-no-lawsuit-yet
content, I've offered to help with some of the technical aspects of
setting up a fork around their rejected ideals. So far no one has
taken me up on this.  If any of the folks leaving because they are
disappointed that Wikimedia can't and won't adopt their political
agenda would like to start a fork, feel free to ask for my help.  Of
course, forks are bad... but when people refuse to cooperate towards a
single superordnate goal
(http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?SuperordinateGoal) our choices
are fairly limited.


from_name: David Strauss

body:
Though I'm glad you're sticking around, I'm sorry to hear your
discontent with current fundraising practices. Unfortunately, Wikipedia
(and other Wikimedia projects) now require significant money to run,
*far* more money than ever before:

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/What_we_need_the_money_for

Maybe I'm just cynical, but I don't believe in genuine altruism. People,
charities, and companies give money for all sorts of reasons. A few
individuals might get their kicks giving anonymously, but they're not in
the majority. In most cases, the recipient of the donation is
responsible for giving the payload: public recognition that the donor is
a good person, charity, or company. Even the hard-hearted robber barons
of the 19th century eventually succumbed to a need for acceptance by
offsetting their misdeeds with visible, public charity.

The more we limit recognition opportunities, the more we limit potential
donors. I think the limits you suggest will not provide sufficient
support for Wikimedia.

Fortunately, recognition doesn't conflict with the real goal of
Wikimedia: spreading free knowledge. There's no foreseeable slippery
slope to sponsor control of Wikimedia's content. I've worked in
publishing for over seven years, and I have yet to hear an advertiser
comment on content. I'm also on the board of directors for Texas Student
Publications, possibly the largest college media organization in the
world. I've been with Texas Student Publications for three years, and I
have never heard an advertiser request a content change. Finally, *even
if* a sponsor requested a content change, Wikimedia is far more likely
to tell them to buzz off if Wikimedia is financially healthy. The key is
diversity of sponsorship, not restriction of it.

The other side to public matching is encouragement of community
donations. Community donors want to feel good about helping Wikimedia,
and having a visible matching sponsor lets them know that they'll have
twice the effect. I think recognizing the matching sponsor actually
amplifies that effect. Knowing who matches the donation makes it more
tangible.

But despite my respect for your objection, I don't think anyone owes you
an apology.

David

James Hare wrote:
> We need to abandon the method of
> let's-brag-about-our-matching-donors-in-the-god-damn-sitenotice as soon as
> possible. It IS possible to thank them, but that's just too damn
> advertisalicious.
>
> We should also focus more on lobbying the kinds of folk that would not be
> interested in being advertised, like Mr. Anonymo earlier in the fundraiser
> or the UN.
>
> If anything, do it for poor Improv here. We lost Improv because of money.
> That's pathetic.
>
> "It's not an advertisement, it's a thank you notice!" In other words... it's
> not the truth :|, it's The Truth! :)
>
> I am not leaving because my help is needed and I have a 1,000,000,000-year
> contract to serve, but you really need to reconsider ways of getting
> cash-money that don't involve pissing off the entire community. Not to
> mention, that was real shit communication on your part, Wikimedia.
>
> Let me know when you're ready to apologize.
>
> On 1/2/07, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
>> Thanks for all you have done for the projects and good luck in your
>> further endeavours!
>>
>> Waerth
>>
>>> I reply specifically to Brion Vibber's message here:
>>>
>>>
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-December/012848.html
>>>
>>> I find it very unfortunate that Brion characterises
>>> people like me, who have been on the project for many
>>> years, as being uncaring about our values. I care deeply
>>> about the project, and feel that accepting advertising,
>>> whether it be for brand identity or a specific product,
>>> as unacceptable. The Spanish wikipedia and the many users
>>> who have put userboxen against advertisements (as ironic
>>> as that is) on their userpages should've taught Brion
>>> (and others involved) that the values of the community
>>> *do* have a substantial number of people who will never
>>> accept this kind of thing. After reading some of the other
>>> comments on this list and chatting with a few folks, I
>>> understand that my concerns, while considered, will not be
>>> addressed. To me, Wikipedia (and related projects) are and
>>> must be noncommercial if I am to be involved - it is impossible
>>> to honestly educate with one hand while waving a billboard
>>> with the other.
>>>
>>> I greatly regret the wrong turn the community
>>> has made here, for it is not something I will live with and
>>> stay. Y'all may want to keep a close eye on the Spanish
>>> Wikipedia. Goodbye, all. You may do what you wish with my
>>> accounts - I have left a note on my LSS project (to summarise
>>> the foundation lists) that a new project head is needed.
>>>
>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LSS
>>>
>>> If y'all want to see it continue, someone needs to pick up
>>> the ball. Someone should take care of any OTRS replies I get.
>>>
>>> It's actually, other than the end, been a pleasure working
>>> with many of you - if any of you want to keep in touch,
>>> I'm just an e-mail or IM away. It reminds me of the last
>>> big social project I was on and how it slowly came to an end
>>> through commercial entanglement after being acquired:
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NoWonder
>>>
>>> Goodbye.
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Pat Gunn
>>> mod: csna, bmcm, bmco, cooa, cona, clpd, coom
>>> http://dachte.org
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20070102/61ea68b4/attachment.pgp


body:
Though I'm glad you're sticking around, I'm sorry to hear your
discontent with current fundraising practices. Unfortunately, Wikipedia
(and other Wikimedia projects) now require significant money to run,
*far* more money than ever before:

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/What_we_need_the_money_for

Maybe I'm just cynical, but I don't believe in genuine altruism. People,
charities, and companies give money for all sorts of reasons. A few
individuals might get their kicks giving anonymously, but they're not in
the majority. In most cases, the recipient of the donation is
responsible for giving the payload: public recognition that the donor is
a good person, charity, or company. Even the hard-hearted robber barons
of the 19th century eventually succumbed to a need for acceptance by
offsetting their misdeeds with visible, public charity.

The more we limit recognition opportunities, the more we limit potential
donors. I think the limits you suggest will not provide sufficient
support for Wikimedia.

Fortunately, recognition doesn't conflict with the real goal of
Wikimedia: spreading free knowledge. There's no foreseeable slippery
slope to sponsor control of Wikimedia's content. I've worked in
publishing for over seven years, and I have yet to hear an advertiser
comment on content. I'm also on the board of directors for Texas Student
Publications, possibly the largest college media organization in the
world. I've been with Texas Student Publications for three years, and I
have never heard an advertiser request a content change. Finally, *even
if* a sponsor requested a content change, Wikimedia is far more likely
to tell them to buzz off if Wikimedia is financially healthy. The key is
diversity of sponsorship, not restriction of it.

The other side to public matching is encouragement of community
donations. Community donors want to feel good about helping Wikimedia,
and having a visible matching sponsor lets them know that they'll have
twice the effect. I think recognizing the matching sponsor actually
amplifies that effect. Knowing who matches the donation makes it more
tangible.

But despite my respect for your objection, I don't think anyone owes you
an apology.

David

James Hare wrote:
> We need to abandon the method of
> let's-brag-about-our-matching-donors-in-the-god-damn-sitenotice as soon as
> possible. It IS possible to thank them, but that's just too damn
> advertisalicious.
>
> We should also focus more on lobbying the kinds of folk that would not be
> interested in being advertised, like Mr. Anonymo earlier in the fundraiser
> or the UN.
>
> If anything, do it for poor Improv here. We lost Improv because of money.
> That's pathetic.
>
> "It's not an advertisement, it's a thank you notice!" In other words... it's
> not the truth :|, it's The Truth! :)
>
> I am not leaving because my help is needed and I have a 1,000,000,000-year
> contract to serve, but you really need to reconsider ways of getting
> cash-money that don't involve pissing off the entire community. Not to
> mention, that was real shit communication on your part, Wikimedia.
>
> Let me know when you're ready to apologize.
>
> On 1/2/07, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
>> Thanks for all you have done for the projects and good luck in your
>> further endeavours!
>>
>> Waerth
>>
>>> I reply specifically to Brion Vibber's message here:
>>>
>>>
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-December/012848.html
>>>
>>> I find it very unfortunate that Brion characterises
>>> people like me, who have been on the project for many
>>> years, as being uncaring about our values. I care deeply
>>> about the project, and feel that accepting advertising,
>>> whether it be for brand identity or a specific product,
>>> as unacceptable. The Spanish wikipedia and the many users
>>> who have put userboxen against advertisements (as ironic
>>> as that is) on their userpages should've taught Brion
>>> (and others involved) that the values of the community
>>> *do* have a substantial number of people who will never
>>> accept this kind of thing. After reading some of the other
>>> comments on this list and chatting with a few folks, I
>>> understand that my concerns, while considered, will not be
>>> addressed. To me, Wikipedia (and related projects) are and
>>> must be noncommercial if I am to be involved - it is impossible
>>> to honestly educate with one hand while waving a billboard
>>> with the other.
>>>
>>> I greatly regret the wrong turn the community
>>> has made here, for it is not something I will live with and
>>> stay. Y'all may want to keep a close eye on the Spanish
>>> Wikipedia. Goodbye, all. You may do what you wish with my
>>> accounts - I have left a note on my LSS project (to summarise
>>> the foundation lists) that a new project head is needed.
>>>
>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LSS
>>>
>>> If y'all want to see it continue, someone needs to pick up
>>> the ball. Someone should take care of any OTRS replies I get.
>>>
>>> It's actually, other than the end, been a pleasure working
>>> with many of you - if any of you want to keep in touch,
>>> I'm just an e-mail or IM away. It reminds me of the last
>>> big social project I was on and how it slowly came to an end
>>> through commercial entanglement after being acquired:
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NoWonder
>>>
>>> Goodbye.
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Pat Gunn
>>> mod: csna, bmcm, bmco, cooa, cona, clpd, coom
>>> http://dachte.org
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20070102/61ea68b4/attachment-0001.pgp


body:
Though I'm glad you're sticking around, I'm sorry to hear your
discontent with current fundraising practices. Unfortunately, Wikipedia
(and other Wikimedia projects) now require significant money to run,
*far* more money than ever before:

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/What_we_need_the_money_for

Maybe I'm just cynical, but I don't believe in genuine altruism. People,
charities, and companies give money for all sorts of reasons. A few
individuals might get their kicks giving anonymously, but they're not in
the majority. In most cases, the recipient of the donation is
responsible for giving the payload: public recognition that the donor is
a good person, charity, or company. Even the hard-hearted robber barons
of the 19th century eventually succumbed to a need for acceptance by
offsetting their misdeeds with visible, public charity.

The more we limit recognition opportunities, the more we limit potential
donors. I think the limits you suggest will not provide sufficient
support for Wikimedia.

Fortunately, recognition doesn't conflict with the real goal of
Wikimedia: spreading free knowledge. There's no foreseeable slippery
slope to sponsor control of Wikimedia's content. I've worked in
publishing for over seven years, and I have yet to hear an advertiser
comment on content. I'm also on the board of directors for Texas Student
Publications, possibly the largest college media organization in the
world. I've been with Texas Student Publications for three years, and I
have never heard an advertiser request a content change. Finally, *even
if* a sponsor requested a content change, Wikimedia is far more likely
to tell them to buzz off if Wikimedia is financially healthy. The key is
diversity of sponsorship, not restriction of it.

The other side to public matching is encouragement of community
donations. Community donors want to feel good about helping Wikimedia,
and having a visible matching sponsor lets them know that they'll have
twice the effect. I think recognizing the matching sponsor actually
amplifies that effect. Knowing who matches the donation makes it more
tangible.

But despite my respect for your objection, I don't think anyone owes you
an apology.

David

James Hare wrote:
> We need to abandon the method of
> let's-brag-about-our-matching-donors-in-the-god-damn-sitenotice as soon as
> possible. It IS possible to thank them, but that's just too damn
> advertisalicious.
>
> We should also focus more on lobbying the kinds of folk that would not be
> interested in being advertised, like Mr. Anonymo earlier in the fundraiser
> or the UN.
>
> If anything, do it for poor Improv here. We lost Improv because of money.
> That's pathetic.
>
> "It's not an advertisement, it's a thank you notice!" In other words... it's
> not the truth :|, it's The Truth! :)
>
> I am not leaving because my help is needed and I have a 1,000,000,000-year
> contract to serve, but you really need to reconsider ways of getting
> cash-money that don't involve pissing off the entire community. Not to
> mention, that was real shit communication on your part, Wikimedia.
>
> Let me know when you're ready to apologize.
>
> On 1/2/07, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
>> Thanks for all you have done for the projects and good luck in your
>> further endeavours!
>>
>> Waerth
>>
>>> I reply specifically to Brion Vibber's message here:
>>>
>>>
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-December/012848.html
>>>
>>> I find it very unfortunate that Brion characterises
>>> people like me, who have been on the project for many
>>> years, as being uncaring about our values. I care deeply
>>> about the project, and feel that accepting advertising,
>>> whether it be for brand identity or a specific product,
>>> as unacceptable. The Spanish wikipedia and the many users
>>> who have put userboxen against advertisements (as ironic
>>> as that is) on their userpages should've taught Brion
>>> (and others involved) that the values of the community
>>> *do* have a substantial number of people who will never
>>> accept this kind of thing. After reading some of the other
>>> comments on this list and chatting with a few folks, I
>>> understand that my concerns, while considered, will not be
>>> addressed. To me, Wikipedia (and related projects) are and
>>> must be noncommercial if I am to be involved - it is impossible
>>> to honestly educate with one hand while waving a billboard
>>> with the other.
>>>
>>> I greatly regret the wrong turn the community
>>> has made here, for it is not something I will live with and
>>> stay. Y'all may want to keep a close eye on the Spanish
>>> Wikipedia. Goodbye, all. You may do what you wish with my
>>> accounts - I have left a note on my LSS project (to summarise
>>> the foundation lists) that a new project head is needed.
>>>
>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LSS
>>>
>>> If y'all want to see it continue, someone needs to pick up
>>> the ball. Someone should take care of any OTRS replies I get.
>>>
>>> It's actually, other than the end, been a pleasure working
>>> with many of you - if any of you want to keep in touch,
>>> I'm just an e-mail or IM away. It reminds me of the last
>>> big social project I was on and how it slowly came to an end
>>> through commercial entanglement after being acquired:
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NoWonder
>>>
>>> Goodbye.
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Pat Gunn
>>> mod: csna, bmcm, bmco, cooa, cona, clpd, coom
>>> http://dachte.org
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20070102/61ea68b4/attachment.pgp>