body:
I am guessing -- guessing -- on the German-orthography spelling:

As 'n mins ni vaak (waak?) genog b??ten k?mp sal i ok ni h?l br??n
w?rden mer sal i spirwit blifen/bliefen.

My attempt at Dutch-orthography for the earlier text:

Lyk zo kanst dat in 'n por (paor?) dialekten vun de Unner-Elv (in
Hamborg un Umto) ok zegen. "Vat" kan dor in zukse vaelen lyk as "dat"
un "de" bruken. Ik do dat ok vaken, man to meest ven ik snakken do.

Mark

On 05/07/05, Servien Ilaino <servien at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Boris,
>
> The orthography used in that text seems to me is de Algemeyne
> Neddersassische Schryvwys'... I also used to use it, but people don't
> seem to understand it quite as well in the Netherlands and Germany, I
> must honestly say I understand the ANS writing system way better then
> the one you used at the bottom (of course there are words which are
> completely unknown to me...)
>
> Here is a sample of DLS in ANS writing system:
> As 'n mins ny vaak genog buyten kump sal y ok ny h?yl bruyn w?yrden
> mer sal y spyrwit blyven.
>
> And here in the traditional one:
> As 'n mins nie vaok genog buut'n kump zal ie ok nie heul bruun wurd'n
> mer zal ie spierwit bliev'n/blyv'n.
>
> This is the one I use:
> As 'n mins nie vaok genog buten kump sal ie ok nie heul bruun wurden
> mer sal ie spierwit blyven. (it's a mixture of the traditional one and
> a little from ANS, I don't use the apostrophes because like in the
> word blyv'n is pronounced as "bliem" and this is confusing because
> bak'n [bake] is also pronounced differently like "bakng".)
>
> (Translation of the text:
> If a person doesn't go outside much then he won't have a tanned look,
> but will be pale white.)
>
> Servien
>
> 2005/7/5, Boris Lohnzweiger <BorisLohnzweiger at web.de>:
> >
> > > Ahh wait, I see here the accusation is that it's in "Patentplatt", which is "based on Missingsch.
> >
> > Ok "Patentplatt" or "Fernsehplatt" (TV Platt) as it is called sometimes - that really seems to happen. I think that word is less misleading. Of course, different people will have different views on what is unique and what is not. Languages like German or French have had established unified standards for centuries, so there is hardly ever any doubt what's linguistically correct or not at de: or fr:. Obviously, at nds: you don`t have that degree of unambiguousness. I would really appreciate any efforts to improve the linguistic quality of the Low Saxon Wikipedia. After all, it is still at an early stage. Unfortunetaly, I can't really help here for, being a native in High German, I'd probably only worsen the problem of "Patentplatt".
> >
> >
> > > A sample of 'real' Low Saxon written in "AGS" orthography:
> > > Lyk so kanst dat in 'n paar dialekten vun de ?nner-Elv' (in Hamborg un kuntray) ook seggen.  "Wat" kan daar in s?kse vellen lyk as "dat" un > "dey" bruken.  I dou dat ook vaken, man tou meyrst wen ik snakken dou.
> >
> > Where does that come from? The vocabulary is mostly alright. But the spelling looks awfully articifial to me. Never before have I seen anyone using "y" in written Platt. And why should you write "v" when you say "f". Just too make look "less German"? Also, the diphtong "ou" might somehow reflect the pronounciation but is certainly not usually used in Northern Germany. And why should one want to use "kk" instead of "ck"? Just because it's written that way in the Netherlands?? And why is there an apostrophe in " Elv' "? Just because the word is "Elbe" in High German. Complete nonsense, in my humble opinion. I don't want to comment comment on the "real Platt" word "kuntray" but the "I" at the beginning of the last sentence is either Bavarian or English but surely not Platt.
> >
> > Coming from the "?nner-Elv'" myself, let me try it:
> >
> > Liek so kannst dat in'n poor Dialekten vun de ?nnerelv (in Hamborg un ?mto) ook seggen. "Wat" kann dor in d?sse/s?kse F?llen liek as "dat" un "de" bruken. Ick/Ik do dat ook faken, man tomeest wenn ick/ik snack.
> >
> > Hmm...
> >
> > Boris
> >
> > Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com>, wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org schrieb am 05.07.05 08:34:13:
> >
> > Hi Boris,
> >
> > I'm a bit perplexed as this accusation has been made by a number of
> > people on Lowlands-l, most of the accusers being native speakers of
> > Low German, and at least one (RF Hahn) also speaking Missingsch. Ahh
> > wait, I see here the accusation is that it's in "Patentplatt", which
> > is "based on Missingsch".
> >
> > Accusations: "Unalike the Laich Saxon edeetion whase warkers dinna
> > actually ken the leid.
> > (It's oor Jonny's pet plaint, his windmill faes, an that richtly.)"
> >
> > "It doesn't help that language competency is wanting in the current
> > WikiPlatt team.  Those folks are enthusiastic, and I laud that.  But
> > they don't know the language well enough.  Much or most of it is
> > "Patentplatt" (based on Missingsch), i.e. invented on the basis of
> > German.  I am not at all opposed to introducing technical neologisms,
> > but there needs to be first of all a firm grasp of the basic language,
> > the grammar and the authentic idiom."
> >
> > Information on Patentplatt: "The number of Lowlands Saxon speakers ...
> > would be large if it included people who are somewhat conversant ...
> > and it would be even larger if it included those who ... can really
> > only manage lexically, idiomatically and grammatically deficient,
> > German-based, "made-up Platt" (Patentplatt)."
> >
> > This is very concerning, and is clearly a major factor in the
> > difficulty people from the Netherlands are having reading NDS.wiki. I
> > just dashed off an e-mail to Ron to remind him that he is always
> > welcome to "fix" the Patentplatt, because of course it's Wikipedia.
> >
> > Obviously, this isn't the only factor, and I'm not sure if it's even
> > the greatest factor. But, I feel that we should explore that.
> >
> > A sample of 'real' Low Saxon written in "AGS" orthography:
> >
> > Lyk so kanst dat in 'n paar dialekten vun de ?nner-Elv' (in Hamborg un
> > kuntray) ook seggen.  "Wat" kan daar in s?kse vellen lyk as "dat" un
> > "dey" bruken.  I dou dat ook vaken, man tou meyrst wen ik snakken dou.
> >
> > Hmm...
> >
> > Best
> > Mark
> >
> > On 04/07/05, Boris Lohnzweiger <BorisLohnzweiger at web.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Mark!
> > >
> > > I was quite perplexed to read that they write Missingsch in the Low Saxon Wikipedia. So I just went there and checked out ten random pages. Having grown up in a rural area near Hamburg, it`s easy for me tell apart Low Saxon from Missingsch. The whole issue seems to be very exaggerated. All ten articles I've read were without a doubt in Plattd??tsch. Of course single articles might not be - I haven`t checked the whole Wikipedia. However, one can note that depending on the subject of the article the share of words that very closely resemble standard German words or are even identical (in writing !) is sometimes quite high. But this is a usual phenomenon in Low Saxon. Generally speaking, the more scientific a text gets the closer it comes to Hochdeutsch. Surely, sometimes this can lead to the fact that certain passages of articles don`t look too much like Platt. This can been seen very clearly in this article: http://nds.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptilia . It has two sections, both written by the same author, as far as I can tell. The first ("Nordd??tsche Slangen") is very "pure" Low Saxon. The second ("Systematik") looks very much like standard German, due to its topic. I think even without knowing both languages in detail you can easily tell the difference. But this is not to be confused with Missingsch. You just couldn`t say that differently or more "real", if you want.
> > >
> > > I don`t who actually brought up this Missingsch issue (native speaker? hobby linguist?). But as a matter of fact, nds-WP is written in Low Saxon. If individual pages are in other languages (which to some degree happens in many Wikipedias) the guys at nds can certainly cope with that. However,  I disbelieve that this part of the reason native speakers of Low Saxon in the Netherlands ask for a separate WP.
> > >
> > > Boris
> > >
> > > Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com>, wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org schrieb am 04.07.05 01:38:06:
> > >
> > > Also, it seems to me that Walter, Wouter, and Servien are intent on
> > > ignoring the issue of nds.wiki being in Missingsch rather than real
> > > nds. But this is a real issue, and we need to deal with it. I have
> > > personally received complaints from members of lowlands-l about
> > > nds.wiki being in Missingsch, which is not actually Low Saxon but
> > > rather a "contact variety".
> > >
> > > Surely, mutual intelligiblity would be increased very much if this
> > > huge problem were solved. I'm sure one of the main problems is the
> > > fact that it's written in Missingsch.
> > >
> > > Perhaps before starting nds-nl.wiki, somebody should start
> > > real-nds.wiki, and after that we can see if things are any better.
> > >
> > > Mark
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________________
> > > Mit der Gruppen-SMS von WEB.DE FreeMail k?nnen Sie eine SMS an alle
> > > Freunde gleichzeitig schicken: http://freemail.web.de/features/?mc=021179
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
> > QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
> > POSSIT MATERIARI
> > ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________________
> > Mit der Gruppen-SMS von WEB.DE FreeMail k?nnen Sie eine SMS an alle
> > Freunde gleichzeitig schicken: http://freemail.web.de/features/?mc=021179
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Skyring

subject: [WikiEN-l] more active censorship

body:
On 7/5/05, Nathan J. Yoder <njyoder at energon.org> wrote:

> So what exactly is the purpose in reblocking the original account that
> was already blocked to begin with?

It's a bug and should be fixed.

The sign on the shop door says "Back in five minutes", but every time
you peer into the empty shop the shopkeeper gets a snit and waits
another five.

--
Peter in Canberra


subject: [WikiEN-l] more active censorship

body:
On 7/5/05, JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >From: "Nathan J. Yoder" <njyoder at energon.org>
> >
> > > Well, that's not really accurate, but most blocked users can no longer
> >us a
> > > different Userid to avoid the block, precisely because Wikipedia blocks
> >the
> > > IP address when attempts are made to do this.  That wasn't the case
> >before
> > > the IP blocker was added.
> >
> >You're not listening at all.  I was editing only with my User:Njyoder
> >account, not a sock puppet nor logged out.  If you block a username, it
> >has _always_ been the case that that username can't edit.
>
> Right.  This feature stops sockpuppet editing (at least for fixed IP
> addresses).

No it doesn't. The IP is already blocked. The IP address CANNOT edit.

> > > If only that were the case.  In practice, blocked editors edit all the
> >time;
> > > this simply stops the ones with fixed IP addresses from editing with
> > > sockpuppets.
> >
> >As stated above, it also renews it for non-sock puppets.  This is how
> >it currently works:
> >
> >1.  Admin blocks User:foo.
> >2.  User:foo logs in as User:foo.
> >3.  User:foo hits 'edit page.'
> >4.  User:foo block is renewed for another 24 hours.
> >
> >So what exactly is the purpose in reblocking the original account that
> >was already blocked to begin with?
>
> Because the system can't tell whether you were trying to get around the
> block or simply doing something odd with no intent of actually editing when
> you hit the "edit" button.  What, again, was the net effect of this?  Your
> valid block was extended for a few more hours?

That's the point. You have just conceded that even if an editor was
"simply doing something odd with no intent of actually editing" the
block is extended for another 24 hours. Or a week or a month or
whatever.

I think that this is a bug. What do you think?

--
Peter in Canberra


subject: [WikiEN-l] more active censorship

body:
On 7/5/05, JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >From: Skyring <skyring at gmail.com>
> >
> >On 7/5/05, Nathan J. Yoder <njyoder at energon.org> wrote:
> >
> > > So what exactly is the purpose in reblocking the original account that
> > > was already blocked to begin with?
> >
> >It's a bug and should be fixed.
> >
> >The sign on the shop door says "Back in five minutes", but every time
> >you peer into the empty shop the shopkeeper gets a snit and waits
> >another five.
>
> No, it's more liked you've been tossed out of the shop for trespassing, but
> whever the shop door says "back in five minutes" you feel a need to go in
> and look around to see if the owner is back.  Then when you're tossed out
> again for trespassing, you complain that you weren't planning to steal
> anything, you were just trying to find the owner.

If the door is locked, you can't go in, no matter how many times you
rattle the knob.

--
Peter in Canberra


subject: [WikiEN-l] more active censorship

body:
On 7/5/05, JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >From: Skyring <skyring at gmail.com>
> >
> >On 7/5/05, JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >From: "Nathan J. Yoder" <njyoder at energon.org>
> > > >
> > > > > Well, that's not really accurate, but most blocked users can no
> >longer
> > > >us a
> > > > > different Userid to avoid the block, precisely because Wikipedia
> >blocks
> > > >the
> > > > > IP address when attempts are made to do this.  That wasn't the case
> > > >before
> > > > > the IP blocker was added.
> > > >
> > > >You're not listening at all.  I was editing only with my User:Njyoder
> > > >account, not a sock puppet nor logged out.  If you block a username, it
> > > >has _always_ been the case that that username can't edit.
> > >
> > > Right.  This feature stops sockpuppet editing (at least for fixed IP
> > > addresses).
> >
> >No it doesn't. The IP is already blocked. The IP address CANNOT edit.
>
> No, as far as I know IPs are not immediately blocked, only userids.

On checking, I see that this is so. Fair enough.

Nevertheless, as NYJ noted:

"1.  Admin blocks User:foo.
2.  User:foo logs in as User:foo.
3.  User:foo hits 'edit page.'
4.  User:foo block is renewed for another 24 hours."

You don't seem to be addressing this point.
>
> > > Because the system can't tell whether you were trying to get around the
> > > block or simply doing something odd with no intent of actually editing
> >when
> > > you hit the "edit" button.  What, again, was the net effect of this?
> >Your
> > > valid block was extended for a few more hours?
> >
> >That's the point. You have just conceded that even if an editor was
> >"simply doing something odd with no intent of actually editing" the
> >block is extended for another 24 hours. Or a week or a month or
> >whatever.
> >
> >I think that this is a bug. What do you think?
>
> I think the likelihood of a true positive is vastly greated than that of a
> false positive, regardless of the many protestations of innocence on the
> part of those who get blocked by this.  I also think it's easy enough to get
> an admin to reverse the block if you have a reasonable story as to how it
> happened.

So this bug doesn't stop users from editing, because they are already
blocked, and it doesn't work anyway because all the editor has to say
is "my cat ran over the keyboard", regardless of whether he intended
to attempt to edit or not.

I think that this is a bug. What do you think?

--
Peter in Canberra


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Kate

subject: [Wikitech-l] statistics now available

body:
webalizer statistics and access breakdowns by country are now available for
all Wikimedia projects:

* http://www2.knams.wikimedia.org/stats/
* http://www2.knams.wikimedia.org/country-stats/

if there are any suggestions for other statistics that may be useful to
generate, we could look at providing those too.

kate.


subject: [WikiEN-l] more active censorship

body:
On 7/5/05, JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >From: Skyring <skyring at gmail.com>
> >
> > > Well, that's not really accurate, but most blocked users can no longer
> >us a
> > > different Userid to avoid the block, precisely because Wikipedia blocks
> >the
> > > IP address when attempts are made to do this.  That wasn't the case
> >before
> > > the IP blocker was added.
> >
> >I'm talking about the same logged-in user.
>
> I'm talking about the same user, using a different login, or no login.

Yes, I've pointed this out. Why did you move away from addressing
NYJ's valid point?

> That's what the system was designed to prevent.

Is it? Seems like a bug to me, as it does more than what you claim.

> > > >How so? A blocked user CANNOT edit.  If you already have absolute
> >protection, then you don't need any more. Surely this is plain common
> >sense.
> >
> > > If only that were the case.  In practice, blocked editors edit all the
> >time;
> > > this simply stops the ones with fixed IP addresses from editing with
> > > sockpuppets.
> >
> >No it doesn't. In such a case they CANNOT edit. The system stops them.
>
> Um, that's right, they can't edit.  Why say "No it doesn't" when you mean
> "Yes it does."?

It doesn't STOP people from editing. The car has no engine, remember?
It's not going anywhere.

> >The fact that the block is reset doesn't stop them editing. They can't
> >edit anyway.
>
> The block is reset because attempts to avoid blocks (e.g. by creating new
> userids and attempting to edit with them, or attempting to edit without
> logging in) are violations of the block, and the general rule is that
> attempts to violate blocks reset the timer.

Yes, but as you've pointed out, it doesn't work, and as NJY noted, it
affects the original, logged in user.

> >Please address the point.
>
> I have.  You asked what it was for, and what it prevents. I've explained
> both.  It works effectively to prevent a certain kind of sockpuppetry.

That's NOT the point. See my first contribution in this thread. Why do
you keep on trying to evade the point? NJY, despite what other
failings he might have, raised a valid point, and you've just spent
three hours waffling about other things.

> It
> is not completely effective, and may have other side effects.

Thanks. It's a bug, wouldn't you say?

--
Peter in Canberra


from_name: Nicolay A. Vasiliev

subject: [Wikitech-l] Dump uploading trouble

body:
Wow! You are quite right! Thanks and sorry my carelessness.

Brion Vibber wrote:

> Nicolay A Vasiliev wrote:
>
>> Hello there!
>>
>> I am trying to upload the Norwegian wikibooks dump. When I upload the
>> 20050623_cur_table.sql I get an error message "ERROR at line 1: Unknown
>> command '\'." Does anyone know what happens and how can I solve it?
>
>
> The files are compressed; can you confirm you're uncompressing them
> before they get into MySQL?
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


from_name: Nathan J. Yoder

subject: [WikiEN-l] more active censorship

body:
> Actually, I have.  It's an alleged phenomenon, and if it happens in the real
> world, it's extremely rare, and caused by completely unnecessary activity.
> The solution is simple; go cool off for a day.  And if you simply must hang
> around, then don't hit edit.

It's not an alleged phenomenon any admin can create a test account and
reproduce the behavior.  I've already presented perfectly valid
reasons why someone would hit 'edit page' which you haven't addressed
(even snowspinner acknowledged you haven't)

And no, saying you "should go cool off for a day" doesn't actually
address them if you read them and it's also imposing a requirement on
the person to counter a BUG. You REALLY keep avoiding this and
absolutely insist on using examples (e.g. sock puppets) that aren't
applicable to this.  Ther is no "disguise" and logs can easily prove
that.

> I think it's a feature that's working quite well, and that might *in very
> rare circumstances* provide a minor inconvenience to a banned user who is,
> at the very least, doing something odd and unnecessary.

You don't seem to understand something, regardless of how rare it is,
this is something that can be fixed in the software.  All it takes is
a few lines of code added in the right place(s) and it wouldn't renew
it if they were logged into their regular account.  I'm not sure if
you just don't understand VERY basic programming concepts or if you're
being deliberately obtuse, since this is something that can be fixed
whilst causing 0% false negatives.  The is literally no drawback to
fixing the code, other than however much time it takes to make the fix
itself.

> His *claim* is that he got innocently caught; I've pointed out that for
> every *claim* of innocence, there are hundreds who are validly blocked, that
> there was no need for him to do what he did to get caught in the first
> place, and that if he was indeed innocently caught the "punishment" is minor
> and the fix easy.

Yeah, the fix is easy--by correcting the code, that's something which
you keep overlooking.  You seem to be using this mistaken philosophy
that if a bug occurs in code, that the users of the software should be
forced to work around it and the bug itself should never be fixed in
the code.

> Concientious admins tend to either leave a message about the block or
> remove the second autoblock when it happens, in practice.

Even if that's true, it really doesn't mean you should continually be
forced to do a human-based work around rather than fixing the code.
The code can easily distinguish between an account that was originally
blocked and a new account, some time this week I'll just submit a
patch for it so this can stop.

----------------------------------------------
Nathan J. Yoder
http://www.gummibears.nu/
http://www.gummibears.nu/files/njyoder_pgp.key
----------------------------------------------


subject: [WikiEN-l] more active censorship

body:
On 7/5/05, JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >From: Skyring <skyring at gmail.com>

> >If the door is locked, you can't go in, no matter how many times you
> >rattle the knob.
>
> Turns out that people keep getting kicked out of the shop for a day for
> disruptive behaviour, and the doors are automatically locked and their 24
> hour ban is automatically renewed when the alarm system sees them trying to
> get back in wearing different disguises.  Now some new guy kicked out for a
> day for disruption gets caught by the alarm system, and he says "but I
> wasn't trying to sneak in in disguise and disrupt like those other people, I
> was coming in openly and making note of your inventory so I could buy it
> legally when I'm allowed back in".  So, he writes 500 abusive e-mails to the
> owners of the shop, insisting that he has been unjustly locked out, and
> demanding that the employee on duty at the time should be punished, claming
> that the alarm system is broken, and insisting that the shop is a disgrace.
> Another guy who has been kicked out for disrupting the shop  has also been
> regularly writing the owners, generally whining and complaining about how
> terrible the shop is, how rude their employees are, how they practice
> favoritism to their regular customers, and how much better are the shops
> that he frequents.  He takes up the cause of the first complainant, making
> erroneous claims, and insisting that the alarm systems are faulty, and need
> to be fixed right away so no-one is ever locked out like this again.
>
> What a tragedy.  Maybe they should both take their business elsewhere.

Do you have nothing better to do, Jay? Go help your mother with the laundry.

--
Peter in Canberra


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Giuseppe DAngelo

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Makkel'k!

body:
Veerder lykt et myn 'n goed idee ?m hierover te disk?ssieern in et
NDS, k?'w drekt sien wies NDS goed genog is ?m dit te verstaon haha!
:-)

Groetnis!
Servien!

Makkel'k!

Tot siens(?)

pippu d'angelo, canberra

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi, antispam, antivirus, POP3


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Used-with-permission images, a modest proposal

body:
Theo Clarke wrote:

>My understanding from museum and gallery folks is that the photography is a creative act.  This is substantiated by the variations that are possible in the representation of the object (if only variations of intensity and hue).  In the case of the page with the ruler and scale, the placing of those elements is a matter of selection so the image involves demonstrable creativity.  So, the image depicted on the page of the book is out of copyright but any reproduction of that image can be copyright.  Most museums have a fiduciary duty to their trustees to protect the assets of the museum; this includes intellectual property.
>
>
The polite expression for what they have been telling you is "bullshit".

The minor variations that you cite are often of no consequence to the
user who can remove the so-called creative effects by changing browser
settings or cropping out the ruler.  This should effectively remove the
"copyright" material from the picture.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Game-playing on Wikipedia

body:
Alphax wrote:

>Skyring wrote:
>
>
>>As for the games, if they aren't consuming significant resources and
>>they reduce stress, then keep them by all means. Just find some way to
>>stop them clogging up RC. And make sure that people don't come here
>>just to play games. There are a zillion game sites on the net - let's
>>not make WP games TOO enthralling!
>>
>>
>"You have been blocked by (someone) for 24 hours. Reason: excessive game
>playing. Make some edits to articles, damnit!"
>
>
I find this issue endlessly amusing.  What could be a better and more
legitimate way of expressing a POV than a chess move?  And what could be
a better evaluation of that POV than a lost game?

Ec


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [WikiEN-l] Game-playing on Wikipedia

body:
--- Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> We also have administrators who make no edits in the main namespace.

Almost all of which still perform janitorial tasks that help us toward our
primary goal.

> Comradeship and relaxation are important aspects of building and
> maintaining a community.

The purpose of that community is to generate and maintain content.

> It is inappropriate to squelch a harmless activity because if we all
> stopped doing every but the activity harm would be caused.

It is not harmless if it misdirects a sizable part of the community away from
our primary goals.

> Do you suggest we remove all mention of Wikimania from the site?
> After all.. a conference is completely unnecessary for the direct
> goals of Wikipedia.

A large part of Wikimania is hacking sessions and WikiJam activities. So that
is a completely invalid example.

-- mav

____________________________________________________
Yahoo! Sports
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com


from_name: James D. Forrester

body:
Alphax wrote:

> Haukur ?orgeirsson wrote:
>
> > Look at this link:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LindisfarneFol27rIncipitMatt.jpg
> >
> > You'll see that there's a link to the British Library
> > page from which the image was snatched. Following that
> > link you'll see that the British Library claims copyright
> > on the image. As far as I know this may well hold up
> > under British law (evil as that would be).
> >
>
> The photograph is of a book over 1000 years old, so the art itself is in
> the public domain. The photograph on the library website is of the book,
> framed by a ruler and colour scale. And then, a nice little " Copyright
> ? The British Library" down the bottom. Now AFAICT (and IANAL), there is
> nothing creative about that photograph. I find their claim of copyright
> spurious, to say the least.

First off, I should point out that I, too, am not a lawyer. :-)

A great many^W^Wall museums in the United Kingdom seen to operate (and
instruct their lawyers to do so, too) under the belief that the
copyright laws are suspended, and perpetual copyright reigns forth in
its place, on images of any and all objects owned by the institution. It
seems to work like this:

 * You can see what we show for free.
   (This has nothing to do with copyright law, just Arts Council rules.)
 * But you can't take pictures, because we say so.
   (This is a by-law thing, and has nothing to do with copyright law.)
 * When the museum has photographs taken, this is quite a business.
   (This is logistics, and has nothing to do with copyright law.)
 * The photographs are made using the museum's money, staff, and time.
   (This is irrelevant to copyright law; what counts is.)

Thus, the only way of getting a photograph of an object owned by a
museum is through 'piggy-backing' on the money and time that the museum
has spent; they feel that, because of this, they should be entitled to
money for each viewing, or whatever.

To the best of my knowledge, this desire for recompense does not seem to
be borne out in law[*]. I would be grateful for a correction by anyone
more knowledgeable than me, especially one from a museum which practices
this principle.

[*] - The relevant law is the Copyright, Designs And Patents Act 1988,
      http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_1.htm

Yours sincerely,
--
James D. Forrester
Wikimedia : [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]
E-Mail    : james at jdforrester.org
IM (MSN)  : jamesdforrester at hotmail.com


body:
Haukur ?orgeirsson wrote:

>For the record I think the idea that the British Library
>can copyright this image to be evil. There are lots of
>pictures of old artworks at their website which I'd love
>to plunder. But it would be nice to establish the legal
>status of doing so under British law.
>
>And that's right, there's a nasty little Copyright tag
>there at the bottom of the page. They also have a copyright
>statement in English:
>
>http://www.kb.dk/elib/ophavsret/index-en.htm
>
>As for Danish copyright laws it seems from my non-lawyer
>reading that they "protect" any photograph, regardless
>of creativity. I hope this sort of non-sense wouldn't
>hold up in a Danish court but I really don't know if
>it would.
>
Many of these things cannot be settled without going to court in each
separate country, and the putative copyright holders know that the mere
idea of landing in court can be a deterrent even when the chance of the
court upholding the copyright is negligible.

Lego is a good example of a Danish company that actively pursues
intellectual property rights against Megablocks in one country after
another, and consistently loses.

Ec


from_name: Haukur Þorgeirsson

body:
> The photograph is of a book over 1000 years old, so the art itself is in
> the public domain. The photograph on the library website is of the book,
> framed by a ruler and colour scale. And then, a nice little " Copyright
> ? The British Library" down the bottom. Now AFAICT (and IANAL), there is
> nothing creative about that photograph. I find their claim of copyright
> spurious, to say the least.

Ah, but you see - British copyright laws may
not require any creativity for a work to become
copyrighted, unlike U.S. laws. Look at these
definitions from the laws:

-----------------------------------------------
"photograph" means a recording of light or other radiation on any medium
on which an image is produced or from which an image may by any means be
produced, and which is not part of a film;

In this Part "artistic work" means?
 (a) a graphic work, photograph, sculpture or collage, irrespective of
artistic quality,
-----------------------------------------------

I am not a lawyer either. I'm not even British.

For the record I think the idea that the British Library
can copyright this image to be evil. There are lots of
pictures of old artworks at their website which I'd love
to plunder. But it would be nice to establish the legal
status of doing so under British law.

Another example. Look at the second picture on the
[[Sleipnir]] article. I got it from the Danish Royal
Library here:

http://base.kb.dk/pls/hsk_web/hsk_vis.side?p_hs_loebenr=4&p_sidenr=194&p_illnr=1&p_frem=2&p_tilbage=2&p_navtype=rel&p_lang=eng

And that's right, there's a nasty little Copyright tag
there at the bottom of the page. They also have a copyright
statement in English:

http://www.kb.dk/elib/ophavsret/index-en.htm

As for Danish copyright laws it seems from my non-lawyer
reading that they "protect" any photograph, regardless
of creativity. I hope this sort of non-sense wouldn't
hold up in a Danish court but I really don't know if
it would.

When I've asked questions about such things in the past
I'm told that since the Wikipedia servers are in the U.S.
we can rely on U.S. laws (in this case Bridgeman v. Corel).
I'm fine with that personally, and it would be almost
impossible to revert that policy by now. But people should
at least be aware of the issues that may arise for someone
publishing Wikipedia outside of the U.S. They're potentially
more serious than a few clearly tagged used-with-permission
images would be.

Regards,
Haukur


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: statistics now available

body:
Frieda Brioschi wrote in gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.technical:

> What is
>
"italy.wikipedia.org<http://www2.knams.wikimedia.org/stats/italy.wikipedia.org/>"
> ?

statistics are generated based on URLs accessed by users.  so, probably
someone does not know where it.wp is :-) in the future, it should be
filtered by the list of actual languages.

kate.


from_name: Ryan Kaldari

subject: [Wikitech-l] Automatic Unit Conversion (Patch for Bug 235)

body:
I think that perhaps there is an opportunity to implement a more
broadly useful feature here: content substitution based on user prefs.
What if we came up with a more generic way to implement this type of
behavior which could also be applied to other situations in which
content is region or preference specific? Besides units of measurement,
this could also be applied to date and time formats. For example:

the plane was shot at {{time|21:30|9:30 pm}} on {{date|15
January|January 15}} causing the loss of {{measurement|89 liters|23
gallons}} of fuel.

Each user could then specify their preferred format:
time: 24-hour clock
date: European format
measurement: metric

This would solve several problems:
* The 12-hour/24-hour time debate (see Manual of Style (dates and
numbers))
* Would no longer have the awkward convention of making all dates into
links just so they are formatted a certain way
* Would no longer have to show both standard and metric measurements
everywhere in article contents, which makes them far less easy to read.

Of course how or if this feature is actually used would be up to each
wiki, but I imagine it could find a lot of different uses. Just a
thought.

Ryan Kaldari


from_name: Theo Clarke

body:
My understanding from museum and gallery folks is that the photography is a creative act.  This is substantiated by the variations that are possible in the representation of the object (if only variations of intensity and hue).  In the case of the page with the ruler and scale, the placing of those elements is a matter of selection so the image involves demonstrable creativity.  So, the image depicted on the page of the book is out of copyright but any reproduction of that image can be copyright.  Most museums have a fiduciary duty to their trustees to protect the assets of the museum; this includes intellectual property.

Theo

On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 09:50:15 +0100, James D. Forrester wrote:
>?Alphax wrote:
>
>>?Haukur ?orgeirsson wrote:
>>
>>>?Look at this link:
>>>
>>>?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LindisfarneFol27rIncipitMatt.jpg
>>>
>>>?You'll see that there's a link to the British Library
>>>?page from which the image was snatched. Following that
>>>?link you'll see that the British Library claims copyright
>>>?on the image. As far as I know this may well hold up
>>>?under British law (evil as that would be).
>>>
>>
>>?The photograph is of a book over 1000 years old, so the art
>>?itself is in
>>?the public domain. The photograph on the library website is of
>>?the book,
>>?framed by a ruler and colour scale. And then, a nice little "
>>?Copyright
>>???The British Library" down the bottom. Now AFAICT (and IANAL),
>>?there is
>>?nothing creative about that photograph. I find their claim of
>>?copyright
>>?spurious, to say the least.
>>
>?First off, I should point out that I, too, am not a lawyer. :-)
>
>?A great many^W^Wall museums in the United Kingdom seen to operate
>?(and
>?instruct their lawyers to do so, too) under the belief that the
>?copyright laws are suspended, and perpetual copyright reigns forth
>?in
>?its place, on images of any and all objects owned by the
>?institution. It
>?seems to work like this:
>
>?* You can see what we show for free.
>?(This has nothing to do with copyright law, just Arts Council
>?rules.)
>?* But you can't take pictures, because we say so.
>?(This is a by-law thing, and has nothing to do with copyright law.)
>?* When the museum has photographs taken, this is quite a business.
>?(This is logistics, and has nothing to do with copyright law.)
>?* The photographs are made using the museum's money, staff, and
>?time.
>?(This is irrelevant to copyright law; what counts is.)
>
>?Thus, the only way of getting a photograph of an object owned by a
>?museum is through 'piggy-backing' on the money and time that the
>?museum
>?has spent; they feel that, because of this, they should be entitled
>?to
>?money for each viewing, or whatever.
>
>?To the best of my knowledge, this desire for recompense does not
>?seem to
>?be borne out in law[*]. I would be grateful for a correction by
>?anyone
>?more knowledgeable than me, especially one from a museum which
>?practices
>?this principle.
>
>?[*] - The relevant law is the Copyright, Designs And Patents Act
>?1988,
>?http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_1.htm
>
>?Yours sincerely,


from_name: Frieda Brioschi

subject: [Wikitech-l] statistics now available

body:
What is "italy.wikipedia.org<http://www2.knams.wikimedia.org/stats/italy.wikipedia.org/>"
?
 Frieda

 On 7/5/05, Kate <keturner at livejournal.com> wrote:
>
> webalizer statistics and access breakdowns by country are now available
> for
> all Wikimedia projects:
>
> * http://www2.knams.wikimedia.org/stats/
> * http://www2.knams.wikimedia.org/country-stats/
>
> if there are any suggestions for other statistics that may be useful to
> generate, we could look at providing those too.
>
> kate.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Scandinavian copyright laws

body:
Bishonen wrote:

> Swedish copyright law affords protection to photographs *iff* there
> is artistic input ("verksh?jd") in the creation of them, explicitly
> not to mere reproductions of two-dimensional images. The Nordic
> countries are normally keen to coordinate things in this sphere, so
> it's hard to believe they would vary drastically.

For those photographs which don't include artistic
input the "protection" period is 50 years, rather
than 70 years. Danish law is indeed similar. As is,
I think, German law.

I've included the relevant articles from the Danish
code below. Basically article 1 says that a work is
protected if it is, in a wide sense, a work of art.
Article 70 says that if a photograph qualifies as
an artwork the normal laws apply. If it doesn't
qualify then the author nevertheless has a monopoly
for 50 years.

Regards,
Haukur

- - -

? 1. Den, som frembringer et litter?rt eller kunstnerisk v?rk, har
ophavsret til v?rket, hvad enten dette fremtr?der som en i skrift eller
tale udtrykt sk?nlitter?r eller faglitter?r fremstilling, som musikv?rk
eller scenev?rk, som filmv?rk eller fotografisk v?rk, som v?rk af
billedkunst, bygningskunst eller brugskunst, eller det er kommet til
udtryk p? anden m?de.

Stk. 2. Kort samt tegninger og andre i grafisk eller plastisk form udf?rte
v?rker af beskrivende art henregnes til litter?re v?rker.

- - -

? 70. Den, som fremstiller et fotografisk billede (fotografen), har eneret
til at r?de over billedet ved at fremstille eksemplarer af det og ved at
g?re det tilg?ngeligt for almenheden.

Stk. 2. Retten til et fotografisk billede varer, indtil 50 ?r er forl?bet
efter udgangen af det ?r, da billedet blev fremstillet.

Stk. 3. Bestemmelserne i ? 2, stk. 2-4, ?? 3, 7, 9, 11 og 11 a, ? 12, stk.
1, stk. 2, nr. 5, og stk. 3, ?? 13-16, ? 17, stk. 1, 3 og 5, ? 18, stk. 1
og 2, ? 19, stk. 1 og 2, ?? 20, 21 og 23, ? 24, stk. 1 og 2, og ?? 25, 27,
28, 30-31, 33-35, 39-47, 49-58 og 60-62 finder tilsvarende anvendelse p?
fotografiske billeder. Er et fotografisk billede genstand for ophavsret
efter ? 1, kan denne ogs? g?res g?ldende.


from_name: Gerrit Holl

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Makkel'k!

body:
Giuseppe DAngelo wrote:
> Veerder lykt et myn 'n goed idee ?m hierover te disk?ssieern in et
> NDS, k?'w drekt sien wies NDS goed genog is ?m dit te verstaon haha!
> :-)

Geen probleem, zolang man me niet froagt self in NDS te spreek'n (-:

Moi,
Gerrit.

--
Weather in Twenthe, Netherlands 05/07 09:25:
	14.0?C Scattered clouds partly cloudy wind 3.6 m/s SW (57 m above NAP)
--
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of
unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the
military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of
misplaced power exists and will persist.
    -Dwight David Eisenhower, January 17, 1961


from_name: Matt Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Weyes

body:
On 7/5/05, David 'DJ' Hedley <spyders at btinternet.com> wrote:
> We say that he is, because:
>
> * His IP initially matched that of Enviroknot, both on the mailing list and
> on Wikipedia.
> * He instantly edited on the same topics as Enviroknot.
> * On these topics he edited on, he shared an opinion with Enviroknot, which
> was a minority opinion anyway.

You forgot "We've already seen this before".  Kurita77 was not the
first user who magically showed up from Enviroknot's IP, instantly
interested in exactly the same articles as Enviroknot, and claiming
not to be a sockpuppet.  This partially explains the abrupt reaction.

-Matt


from_name: Alphax

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Haukur ?orgeirsson wrote:
> Look at this link:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LindisfarneFol27rIncipitMatt.jpg
>
> You'll see that there's a link to the British Library
> page from which the image was snatched. Following that
> link you'll see that the British Library claims copyright
> on the image. As far as I know this may well hold up
> under British law (evil as that would be).
>

The photograph is of a book over 1000 years old, so the art itself is in
the public domain. The photograph on the library website is of the book,
framed by a ruler and colour scale. And then, a nice little " Copyright
? The British Library" down the bottom. Now AFAICT (and IANAL), there is
nothing creative about that photograph. I find their claim of copyright
spurious, to say the least.

- --
Alphax
OpenPGP key: 0xF874C613 - http://tinyurl.com/cc9up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,'
and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.' - C. S.
Lewis
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCyeik/RxM5Ph0xhMRA0eoAKCmkc4oLlEUeRN8WmPQGi0XwcvVEQCgmoRO
TuC9mE+oDS6LRT9B4voZsfs=
=wyyV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Phil Boswell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: more active censorship

body:
"Nathan J. Yoder" <njyoder at energon.org> wrote in
message news:787052431.20050702212907 at energon.org...
>> Just read, don't edit.
> That misses the whole point, which is that it shouldn't have been
> doing that in the first place as it's a bug.  Obviously, I wouldn't
> have ever hit edit if I *knew* it did that.

So how come you keep posting to say "hey it did it again"?
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


from_name: sannse

subject: [Wikitech-l] statistics now available

body:
This is great stuff, thanks Kate.

Is there a page for the overall picture? The total hits etc. for all
Wikimedia projects together?

If not, that would be a useful one.

--sannse

Kate wrote:
> webalizer statistics and access breakdowns by country are now available for
> all Wikimedia projects:
>
> * http://www2.knams.wikimedia.org/stats/
> * http://www2.knams.wikimedia.org/country-stats/
>
> if there are any suggestions for other statistics that may be useful to
> generate, we could look at providing those too.
>
> kate.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>


body:
sannse wrote in gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.technical:

> Is there a page for the overall picture? The total hits etc. for all
> Wikimedia projects together?

i've added another page at

  http://www2.knams.wikimedia.org/stats/00-all-projects/

for the aggregate statistics.  (they'll appear the next time the statistics
are run, which should be about 15 minutes from now).

> If not, that would be a useful one.

> --sannse

kate.


from_name: thomas Armstrong

subject: [Wikitech-l] How to remove cache feature

body:
Hi.

I'm modifying Mediawiki code to show some extra data, but they are not displayed
because of cache feature of Mediawiki. In order to solve this, I must
'Edit > Preferences
> Clear Cache' constantly on my browser, but I don't want my Wiki users to do this.

Is there any way to remove this feature?

Thank you very much.


from_name: Boris Lohnzweiger

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dutch-Low Saxon test-mainpage

body:
> Ahh wait, I see here the accusation is that it's in "Patentplatt", which is "based on Missingsch.

Ok "Patentplatt" or "Fernsehplatt" (TV Platt) as it is called sometimes - that really seems to happen. I think that word is less misleading. Of course, different people will have different views on what is unique and what is not. Languages like German or French have had established unified standards for centuries, so there is hardly ever any doubt what's linguistically correct or not at de: or fr:. Obviously, at nds: you don`t have that degree of unambiguousness. I would really appreciate any efforts to improve the linguistic quality of the Low Saxon Wikipedia. After all, it is still at an early stage. Unfortunetaly, I can't really help here for, being a native in High German, I'd probably only worsen the problem of "Patentplatt".

> A sample of 'real' Low Saxon written in "AGS" orthography:
> Lyk so kanst dat in 'n paar dialekten vun de ?nner-Elv' (in Hamborg un kuntray) ook seggen.  "Wat" kan daar in s?kse vellen lyk as "dat" un > "dey" bruken.  I dou dat ook vaken, man tou meyrst wen ik snakken dou.

Where does that come from? The vocabulary is mostly alright. But the spelling looks awfully articifial to me. Never before have I seen anyone using "y" in written Platt. And why should you write "v" when you say "f". Just too make look "less German"? Also, the diphtong "ou" might somehow reflect the pronounciation but is certainly not usually used in Northern Germany. And why should one want to use "kk" instead of "ck"? Just because it's written that way in the Netherlands?? And why is there an apostrophe in " Elv' "? Just because the word is "Elbe" in High German. Complete nonsense, in my humble opinion. I don't want to comment comment on the "real Platt" word "kuntray" but the "I" at the beginning of the last sentence is either Bavarian or English but surely not Platt.

Coming from the "?nner-Elv'" myself, let me try it:

Liek so kannst dat in'n poor Dialekten vun de ?nnerelv (in Hamborg un ?mto) ook seggen. "Wat" kann dor in d?sse/s?kse F?llen liek as "dat" un "de" bruken. Ick/Ik do dat ook faken, man tomeest wenn ick/ik snack.

Hmm...

Boris

Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com>, wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org schrieb am 05.07.05 08:34:13:

Hi Boris,

I'm a bit perplexed as this accusation has been made by a number of
people on Lowlands-l, most of the accusers being native speakers of
Low German, and at least one (RF Hahn) also speaking Missingsch. Ahh
wait, I see here the accusation is that it's in "Patentplatt", which
is "based on Missingsch".

Accusations: "Unalike the Laich Saxon edeetion whase warkers dinna
actually ken the leid.
(It's oor Jonny's pet plaint, his windmill faes, an that richtly.)"

"It doesn't help that language competency is wanting in the current
WikiPlatt team.  Those folks are enthusiastic, and I laud that.  But
they don't know the language well enough.  Much or most of it is
"Patentplatt" (based on Missingsch), i.e. invented on the basis of
German.  I am not at all opposed to introducing technical neologisms,
but there needs to be first of all a firm grasp of the basic language,
the grammar and the authentic idiom."

Information on Patentplatt: "The number of Lowlands Saxon speakers ...
would be large if it included people who are somewhat conversant ...
and it would be even larger if it included those who ... can really
only manage lexically, idiomatically and grammatically deficient,
German-based, "made-up Platt" (Patentplatt)."

This is very concerning, and is clearly a major factor in the
difficulty people from the Netherlands are having reading NDS.wiki. I
just dashed off an e-mail to Ron to remind him that he is always
welcome to "fix" the Patentplatt, because of course it's Wikipedia.

Obviously, this isn't the only factor, and I'm not sure if it's even
the greatest factor. But, I feel that we should explore that.

A sample of 'real' Low Saxon written in "AGS" orthography:

Lyk so kanst dat in 'n paar dialekten vun de ?nner-Elv' (in Hamborg un
kuntray) ook seggen.  "Wat" kan daar in s?kse vellen lyk as "dat" un
"dey" bruken.  I dou dat ook vaken, man tou meyrst wen ik snakken dou.

Hmm...

Best
Mark

On 04/07/05, Boris Lohnzweiger <BorisLohnzweiger at web.de> wrote:
>
> Hi Mark!
>
> I was quite perplexed to read that they write Missingsch in the Low Saxon Wikipedia. So I just went there and checked out ten random pages. Having grown up in a rural area near Hamburg, it`s easy for me tell apart Low Saxon from Missingsch. The whole issue seems to be very exaggerated. All ten articles I've read were without a doubt in Plattd??tsch. Of course single articles might not be - I haven`t checked the whole Wikipedia. However, one can note that depending on the subject of the article the share of words that very closely resemble standard German words or are even identical (in writing !) is sometimes quite high. But this is a usual phenomenon in Low Saxon. Generally speaking, the more scientific a text gets the closer it comes to Hochdeutsch. Surely, sometimes this can lead to the fact that certain passages of articles don`t look too much like Platt. This can been seen very clearly in this article: http://nds.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptilia . It has two sections, both written by the same author, as far as I can tell. The first ("Nordd??tsche Slangen") is very "pure" Low Saxon. The second ("Systematik") looks very much like standard German, due to its topic. I think even without knowing both languages in detail you can easily tell the difference. But this is not to be confused with Missingsch. You just couldn`t say that differently or more "real", if you want.
>
> I don`t who actually brought up this Missingsch issue (native speaker? hobby linguist?). But as a matter of fact, nds-WP is written in Low Saxon. If individual pages are in other languages (which to some degree happens in many Wikipedias) the guys at nds can certainly cope with that. However,  I disbelieve that this part of the reason native speakers of Low Saxon in the Netherlands ask for a separate WP.
>
> Boris
>
> Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com>, wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org schrieb am 04.07.05 01:38:06:
>
> Also, it seems to me that Walter, Wouter, and Servien are intent on
> ignoring the issue of nds.wiki being in Missingsch rather than real
> nds. But this is a real issue, and we need to deal with it. I have
> personally received complaints from members of lowlands-l about
> nds.wiki being in Missingsch, which is not actually Low Saxon but
> rather a "contact variety".
>
> Surely, mutual intelligiblity would be increased very much if this
> huge problem were solved. I'm sure one of the main problems is the
> fact that it's written in Missingsch.
>
> Perhaps before starting nds-nl.wiki, somebody should start
> real-nds.wiki, and after that we can see if things are any better.
>
> Mark
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Mit der Gruppen-SMS von WEB.DE FreeMail k?nnen Sie eine SMS an alle
> Freunde gleichzeitig schicken: http://freemail.web.de/features/?mc=021179
>
>

--
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

_________________________________________________________________________
Mit der Gruppen-SMS von WEB.DE FreeMail k?nnen Sie eine SMS an alle
Freunde gleichzeitig schicken: http://freemail.web.de/features/?mc=021179


from_name: Patrick Collison

subject: [Wikitech-l] statistics now available

body:
Cool stuff. Is there any chance you could configure webalizer to
report UA statistics, or would this fall afoul of privacy policies?

Patrick

Le 5 juil. 05 ? 08:31, Kate a ?crit :

> webalizer statistics and access breakdowns by country are now
> available for
> all Wikimedia projects:
>
> * http://www2.knams.wikimedia.org/stats/
> * http://www2.knams.wikimedia.org/country-stats/
>
> if there are any suggestions for other statistics that may be
> useful to
> generate, we could look at providing those too.
>
> kate.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>


references:
<2583498.C2AASQV7m5@rose.local> <42CA628F.6020105@tiscali.co.uk>
	<1155616.LkAQvMWUZ4@rose.local>

body:
Kate wrote:
  > i've added another page at
>
>   http://www2.knams.wikimedia.org/stats/00-all-projects/
>
> for the aggregate statistics.  (they'll appear the next time the statistics
> are run, which should be about 15 minutes from now).
>

thanks Kate, that's great

--sannse


from_name: Bishonen

body:
Haukur ?orgeirsson wrote

<snip>

> As for Danish copyright laws it seems from my non-lawyer
> reading that they "protect" any photograph, regardless
> of creativity. I hope this sort of non-sense wouldn't
> hold up in a Danish court but I really don't know if
> it would.

Swedish copyright law affords protection to photographs *iff* there
is artistic input ("verksh?jd") in the creation of them, explicitly
not to mere reproductions of two-dimensional images. The Nordic
countries are normally keen to coordinate things in this sphere, so
it's hard to believe they would vary drastically.

Bishonen


from_name: Michael Turley

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Weyes

body:
Failing to admin a volatile user is not a failure.  A volatile user
not recognizing the reasons for a delay in granting him additional
powers; that is a failure.  Weyes's volatility has been proven by his
abrupt departure.

Note that several users who voted "oppose" to his admin candidacies
also said he'd be a good candidate in the future.  There were enough
that if they changed their votes, he would have been adminned both
times.  He also received a lot of compliments for his RC patrol work,
even in some oppose votes.

Like it or not, administrators are the "official face" of Wikipedia to
the general editing public.  Recently, many admins, and even some
arbitrators seem to have forgotten this, and have been less civil than
is generally expected from someone in such a position.  Since
de-adminning is near impossible for simple incivility (and incivility
among admins is frequently excused by other admins as "part of a tough
job"), it is becoming more difficult to become an admin because at
least some users want Wikipedia to have an indefatigably friendly
face.  For some reason, some admins think this push for higher
standards is an anti-admin cabal, rather than a legitimate, good faith
effort by concerned individuals to improve Wikipedia.  If you have a
devil in the field, you need a lot more saints surrounding him if you
don't want him seen.

Want adminship to be easier to get, and closer to "no big deal"?  Be
sure that the admins that are in place are always on their best
behavior, and *always* admonish those who aren't, even if there isn't
any formal punishment.  Stop excusing incivility for any reason
whatsoever.

--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused

On 7/4/05, J.F. de Wolff <jfdwolff at doctors.org.uk> wrote:
>
>
> Instead of supporting this chap's RC work, he gets ranted at for coming
> down too hard on obvious trolls, spammers etc.
>
> JFW
>
> Michael Turley wrote:
>  >>
>  >>
>  >> It seems Weyes has left. What a disgrace. We've never had such a diligent
>  >> RC patroller, and he was more right than wrong in his crusade against
>  >> excessive external links. That's another one gone after RickK. Why on earth
>  >> do we fail the Wikipedians who do so much to protect our project from
>  >> vandals, cranks and idiots?
>  >>
>  >> Jfdwolff
>  >
>  >I'm genuinely curious: in what way do you assign his absence to a
>  >failure of ours?


from_name: Kate

body:
Patrick Collison wrote in gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.technical:

> Cool stuff. Is there any chance you could configure webalizer to
> report UA statistics, or would this fall afoul of privacy policies?

unfortunately, our access logs do not contain information on user-agents.
it may be possible to change that, but it's non-trivial...

> Patrick

kate.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: (fwd) bishonen exercises abuse of admin power

body:
On 7/2/05, Phil Sandifer <sandifer at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> -Snowspinner
>
> On Jul 1, 2005, at 1:13 PM, Nathan J. Yoder wrote:
>
> >> You're correct - the second block is an IP address block, designed to
> >> prevent people from just creating a new account.
> >>
> >
> > Yes, which why this isn't functioning properly.  It should only renew
> > it if the person tries it while not logged in or if they create/use
> > another account (a sock puppet) to try to edit (in other words--if
> > they try to evade the block). That's not what I was doing though, I
> > was logged in as User:Njyoder the entire time and didn't realize until
> > later that by hitting 'edit' it automatically renewed it.
>
>
> Ah, I see. Perhaps you would like to look at the Mediawiki code and
> fix this problem then, because, honestly, you're the one who cares.
>
> -Snowspinner

This utterly dismissive attitude toward a complaint is very harmful to
Wikipedia, even if you don't believe the complaint is legitimate.  You
should have either directed him to the developer's list, or civilly
stated your opinion whether this was a desirable bug or feature, or
simply left it to others to discuss.

--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: Password reminder from Wikipedia

body:
I just received a password reminder, shouldn't such a thing be
verified before it's given? BTW, I could still login with my usual
password this morning. While the message was sent 11 hours ago. Also
the IP resolves to Munich Germany, nowhere near my location. Has this
been looked into already?

Someone (probably you, from IP address 84.154.85.157)
requested that we send you a new Wikipedia login password.
The password for user "MacGyverMagic" is now "**********".
You should log in and change your password now.


from_name: Mark Bergsma

subject: [Wikitech-l] statistics now available

body:
sannse wrote:
> This is great stuff, thanks Kate.
>
> Is there a page for the overall picture? The total hits etc. for all
> Wikimedia projects together?
>
> If not, that would be a useful one.

I made a few graphs with total requests/s and total bandwidth (different
colors per cluster) a few weeks ago. They are linked off
http://ganglia.wikimedia.org

--
Mark

mark at nedworks.org


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Validation feature

body:
Magnus Manske wrote:
> Now that 1.5 is running, and the big bugs bite^W are on the verge of
> extinction, I feel it is my duty to introduce some new ones. :-)
>
> Did anyone look into the validation feature again? I have fixed what
> seemed to be the most pressing problems.

It was last modified June 22. If you've made changes since, I don't
think they got checked in. :)

> I'm not sure about performance,
> but I'm pretty sure it doesn't load the whole table into memory at any
> point.

Well, about that...

	# Reads all revision information of the specified article
	function prepareRevisions( $id ) {
		global $wgDBprefix;
		$this->rev2date = array();
		$this->date2rev = array();
		$sql = "SELECT * FROM {$wgDBprefix}revision WHERE rev_page='{$id}'";
		$res = wfQuery( $sql, DB_READ );
		while( $x = wfFetchObject( $res ) ) {
			$this->rev2date[$x->rev_id] = $x;
			$this->date2rev[$x->rev_timestamp] = $x;
		}
	}

That function gets called in validatePageForm, showDetails, and
showList. As near as I can tell there's basically nothing you can touch
in the validation feature that won't try to load the complete revision
history of the page -- which may be thousands or tens of thousands of
revisions for certain pages.

It may not have to load up the page text anymore, but that's still a lot
of records and a lot of fields being scraped off the database's disk and
dumped into memory on the web server.

That's the first function defined in the file, so there may be other
interesting problems lower down as well that need attention, but it's a
big one.

> There has been a request for the feature on the German mailing list, and
> I'd wager it won't stay the only one, on many lists.
>
> Should we
> * sit back and wait for it to mend itself magically
> * let everyone have a final look and turn it on to see what happens
> * turn it on right now

It must not be turned on until it's been fixed.

(I would also recommend moving it out of the core code and making it an
extension if possible.)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20050705/20d56342/attachment.pgp>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Weyes

body:
On 7/5/05, A. Nony Mouse <temoforcomments4 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> You know something?
>
> The behaviors of admins like Weyes could easily have become - the "many
> admins, and even some arbitrators" (read: just about ALL of the current
> Arbitration Committee as well as the now-retired "Red Queen") who have
> forgotten about civility and more generally about paying attention to
> Wikipedia policy - is what I've been talking about.
>
> But instead of seeing them dealing with the issue, I've been getting almost
> nothing but nasty responses from the "go away we don't want to hear about
> it" inner Admin clique.
>
> How does that grab you? What does that say about the current Admin clique?
>
> A. Nony Mouse

Your reply "grabs me" as considerably more critical than my own
message was intended to be.

I don't see a clique, and I don't see any significant abuses of
policy, but I do occasionally see excuses for harsh conduct where no
excuses should be.

--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused


from_name: Haukur Þorgeirsson

subject:
[WikiEN-l] British Copyright Law (Was: Used with permission images
	etc.)

body:
Thank you, Andrew. That seems very clear
(not to mention evil). I've just got one
remaining question. At the time the picture
in question became featured it was argued
that while the original photo (with the
ruler and all) was copyrighted a derived
work using only the manuscript part of the
image would not be (presumably because of
Bridgeman v. Corel).

So my question is: Would this cropping help
at all under British law?

Regards,
Haukur


from_name: Dori

subject: [Wikitech-l] statistics now available

body:
On 7/5/05, Kate <keturner at livejournal.com> wrote:
> webalizer statistics and access breakdowns by country are now available for
> all Wikimedia projects:
>
> * http://www2.knams.wikimedia.org/stats/
> * http://www2.knams.wikimedia.org/country-stats/
>
> if there are any suggestions for other statistics that may be useful to
> generate, we could look at providing those too.
>
> kate.

Thanks to whomever worked on getting these done. They're great!

Could they be put on an easier to remember address? The old ones were under:
http://wikimedia.org/stats/<project name> (e.g.
http://wikimedia.org/stats/en.wikipedia.org/)


body:
On 7/5/05, A. Nony Mouse <temoforcomments4 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Haven't you noticed by now?
>
> This utterly dismissive attitude by users like sandifer/Snowspinner and
> GMaxwell is typical of the inner admin clique - they really, truly, DO NOT
> CARE unless it involves them staying in power.
>
> Anything that would mean they would have to pay attention to the rules and
> policies, or do their job properly, or admit they were wrong... forget it.
>
> And it's the users - the same users we rely on to write an encyclopedia -
> that are hurt by their constant, dismissive, arrogant attitude.
>
> Admins are not "better" than other editors. They are editors with a couple
> extra buttons.
>
> There are too many Admins today who have forgotten that and seem to think
> that Adminship is a license to throw their weight around and lord it over
> all the "common folk" editors.
>
> A. Nony Mouse

You're generalizing in such a way as to not criticize individual
behaviors, but the people behind them, and you appear to be assuming a
lot of bad faith regarding their attitudes.

In doing so, you're making it difficult to consider both your
criticisms or your suggestions seriously.  The instinctive response to
accusations and insults is defense.  You're triggering a strong wall
of resistance for the changes you desire before you even propose them.

I suggest more civility and reasoned discourse, as they are much more
likely to be productive.
--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused


from_name: Rowan Collins

body:
Kate <keturner at livejournal.com> wrote:
>Frieda Brioschi wrote:
>> "italy.wikipedia.org<http://www2.knams.wikimedia.org/stats/italy.wikipedia.org/>"?

> statistics are generated based on URLs accessed by users.  so, probably
> someone does not know where it.wp is :-) in the future, it should be
> filtered by the list of actual languages.

If someone fixes that, perhaps a list of domains rejected as not being
real projects could be generated? It could be useful to know if there
are "bad" URLs that an awful lot of people are trying to enter...

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


from_name: Habj

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Password reminder from Wikipedia

body:
Isn't this very simple? The verification is, that the password is sent
not to any emailadress but to your emailadress, that you have
registered at Wikipedia that goes together with your user account. Why
don't you log out and try to log in as me, Habj - then you see exactly
how this has happened.

It seems reasonable, IMO, that both passwords should be valid for a
while. Otherwise, I could disturb you by over and over again trying to
log in as you and ask for new passwords, and thereby stopping you from
logging in until you have had the possibility to check your e-mail.

/Habj

On 7/5/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> I just received a password reminder, shouldn't such a thing be
> verified before it's given? BTW, I could still login with my usual
> password this morning. While the message was sent 11 hours ago. Also
> the IP resolves to Munich Germany, nowhere near my location. Has this
> been looked into already?
>
> Someone (probably you, from IP address 84.154.85.157)
> requested that we send you a new Wikipedia login password.
> The password for user "MacGyverMagic" is now "**********".
> You should log in and change your password now.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Re: statistics now available

body:
Rowan Collins wrote in gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.technical:

> Kate <keturner at livejournal.com> wrote:
>>Frieda Brioschi wrote:
>>>
"italy.wikipedia.org<http://www2.knams.wikimedia.org/stats/italy.wikipedia.org/>"?

>> statistics are generated based on URLs accessed by users.  so, probably
>> someone does not know where it.wp is :-) in the future, it should be
>> filtered by the list of actual languages.

> If someone fixes that, perhaps a list of domains rejected as not being
> real projects could be generated? It could be useful to know if there
> are "bad" URLs that an awful lot of people are trying to enter...

it is now filtered based on langlist and some other non-language domains.
the majority of invalid domains appear to be <fullname>.wikipedia.org and
various language aliases or country codes (ger, dk).

kate.


body:
On 05/07/05, thomas Armstrong <tarmstrong at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm modifying Mediawiki code to show some extra data, but they are not displayed
> because of cache feature of Mediawiki. In order to solve this, I must
> 'Edit > Preferences
> > Clear Cache' constantly on my browser, but I don't want my Wiki users to do this.
>
> Is there any way to remove this feature?

I was going to suggest finding the option for disabling the cache in
DefaultSettings.php, but if clearing your browser cache clears the
problem, it's clearly not MediaWiki's internal caching features that
are your problem in the first place.

What you need to do is track down where in the code the HTTP headers
like If-Modified-Since, Expires, Cache-Control, etc are dealt with,
and set it to tell the browser "never cache this page". Of course,
this will increase the load on your server rather dramatically, but if
it's a low-traffic site that may not be a problem.

By the way, you shouldn't have to clear your whole browser cache every
time, you can usually hold down Shift or Control to "force refresh"
the current page - see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bypass_your_cache for
instructions for common browsers.

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


from_name: Andrew Gray

body:
On 05/07/05, Haukur ?orgeirsson <haukurth at hi.is> wrote:

IANAL, but I'm sitting in a UK law library just now...

> Ah, but you see - British copyright laws may
> not require any creativity for a work to become
> copyrighted, unlike U.S. laws. Look at these
> definitions from the laws:

...

> For the record I think the idea that the British Library
> can copyright this image to be evil. There are lots of
> pictures of old artworks at their website which I'd love
> to plunder. But it would be nice to establish the legal
> status of doing so under British law.

Reading through "The Modern Law of Copyright and Designs" (a wonderful
book, which keeps quoting poetry at unexpected moments) [1], we find
that copyright in a photograph requires it to be both original and
artistic. Artistic, however, is explicitly defined - any photograph is
considered to be artistic irrespective of nature.

So, original. (3.37) "It is clear, first, that the mere fact that the
work is in part derived from antedecent material does not deny it
originality; a drawing of St. Pauls cathedral may be copyright even
one might say most of the credit ought to go to Sir Christopher Wren."

(3.56) "Originality presupposes the exercise of substantial
independent skill, labour, judgement and so forth. For this reason it
is submitted that a person who makes a photograph merely [a footnote
here emphasises "merely"] by placing a drawing or painting on the
glass of a photocopying machine and pressing the button gets no
copyright at all, but he might get a copyright if he employed skill
and labour in assembling the thing to be photographed, as where he
made a montage."

So, photocopying Magna Carta [2] doesn't give me a copyright over the
end product, but photographing Magna Carta artistically displayed with
a selection of other historical artifacts from the c13th would. No
problems there.

(3.56 again) "It will be evident that in photography there is room for
originality in three respects. First, there is originality ... which
resides in such specialities as angle of shot, light and shade,
exposure, effects obtained by means of filters, developing techniques
etc. ... Secondly, there may be creation of the scene or subject to be
photographed. We have already mentioned photo-montage, but a more
common instance would be arrangement or posing of a group; this might
also involve work in setting up or controlling the illumination of the
subject to be photographed. Thirdly, a person may create a worthwhile
photograph by being at the right place at the right time."

The third coverage, whilst v. important for news photographs, is not
relevant here. It comes down to the first two.

We can assume that the original photograph was made by a professional,
that it was planned to some degree, the material was handled
carefully, &c. This allows us to say, as a result, that originality
probably subsists in the first part - the "artistic" section, as it
were. The photograph, as described, is not just of the book; it is of
"the book, framed by a ruler and colour scale". This is *certainly*
covered under the second part. The existence of a colour scale implies
a technical attention to detail sufficient to class as "skill, labour,
&c."; it's not a hurriedly tossed-off snap by someone with a Polaroid.

So, yeah. This is almost certainly covered by that copyright, which as
far as I can tell would then subsist in the British Library - it's an
original work under British copyright law.

I hope this has been clear. If not, please let me know and I'll teach
myself some more and then explain it again...

Oh, and the obvious follow-on question - can we use it in the UK under
fair dealing? No.

> When I've asked questions about such things in the past
> I'm told that since the Wikipedia servers are in the U.S.
> we can rely on U.S. laws (in this case Bridgeman v. Corel).
> I'm fine with that personally, and it would be almost
> impossible to revert that policy by now. But people should
> at least be aware of the issues that may arise for someone
> publishing Wikipedia outside of the U.S. They're potentially
> more serious than a few clearly tagged used-with-permission
> images would be.

I have wondered about this - recently we've started having servers in
France, and elsewhere, if memory serves. Does this then require
simultaneous compliance with French law?

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

[1] When 'Omer smote 'is bloomin' lyre,
       He'd 'eard men sing by land an' sea;
   An' what he thought 'e might require,
       'E went an' took?the same as me!     - it seemed appropriate...
[2] Erp. The thought alone of what the National Archives would do to
me for contemplating that sort of copying...


subject: [Wikitech-l] Page output

body:
On 05/07/05, Nicolay Vasiliev <nvasiliev at whiteriversoft.com> wrote:
> is the wfProfileOut( $fname ) calling - I can't find the concrete
> wfProfileOut declaring because there is a lot of functions with the same
> name in different files.

This doesn't answer your main question, but I think it will eliminate
one mistake you've made: wfProfileIn() and wfProfileOut() are global
functions called in pretty much every function to aid developers in
debugging and improving the code. I think "profiling" in this context
is about collecting data about the time various functions take to
complete. Anyway, it's nothing you need to know about to answer your
question.

Thinking about your main question, though, I wonder if it would be
better to describe what you are actually trying to do. I mean, there
must indeed be a point where the output is finally "printed" to the
HTTP connection, but presuming you are hoping to modify that output in
some way, there may be an earlier stage of processing which your
modification would conceptually fit into more neatly.

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


from_name: Nicolay A. Vasiliev

subject: [Wikitech-l] Page output

body:
Hello there!

Can you suggest me at which moment the content of generated page will be
printed? I mean, which function of MediaWiki is responsible for final
page output. I found the "output" function in OutputPage.php, but there
is the wfProfileOut( $fname ) calling - I can't find the concrete
wfProfileOut declaring because there is a lot of functions with the same
name in different files.

Help me please.

TIA


from_name: Nicolay Vasiliev

subject: [Wikitech-l] Page output


body:
On 05/07/05, Habj <sweetadelaide at gmail.com> wrote:
> Isn't this very simple? The verification is, that the password is sent
> not to any emailadress but to your emailadress, that you have
> registered at Wikipedia that goes together with your user account.

This is absolutely correct, and reasonably standard practice; what
better verification could there be? There are password reminder
questions, but IMHO these either boil down to "you forgot your
password, what's your password?" [be it the same one or a secondary
"backup" password] or helpfully assist anyone trying to guess their
way into your account.

> It seems reasonable, IMO, that both passwords should be valid for a
> while.

In fact, IIRC, both passwords are valid indefinitely - there is no
reason for an "I forgot my password" feature to disable normal use of
the account. If the randomly generated password from the e-mail is
used, you have the chance to set it to something you haven't
forgotten; but if you haven't forgotten the original after all, don't
bother.

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


from_name: Michael White

subject: [WikiEN-l] addition

body:
I have just visited your MICHAEL WHITE page. Have you thought of adding a
piece about Michael White the biographer? See
michaelwhite.com.au


from_name: Fastfission

subject: [WikiEN-l] Non-free images, there has to be a better way

body:
I'm coming into this a bit late, but the silliest thing about this
policy is that the two types images currently allowed under Wikipedia
policy are one with a free license, and ones without any free license
at all except our somewhat dubious pro-active claim of fair use (fair
use in the U.S. can only be used in defense, it cannot be used
offensively).

Now I understand the importance of having free licenses, but I think
it is very silly that images licensed for non-commercial use are
singled out as "non-free" while slapping "fair use" on anything seems
to get by without so much as the raising of an eyebrow most of the
time.

Let us say this is about content providing -- i.e., we don't provide
things that others can't use. I don't see why "fair use" images would
be any different in this respect -- the individual user is going to
have to evaluate whether their particular use of the image is still
covered by fair use, whether they want to take that gamble, etc. If
non-profit Wikipedia feels comfortable using copyrighted images of
Mickey Mouse and claiming fair use, great, but any future for-profit
encyclopedia is going to have to answer for themselves. "Fair use" is
just as conditional on context and use as any "permission for anything
non-commercial" -- perhaps even worse, since pre-emptively claiming
fair use is playing with legal fire as it is.

If we are only going to provide "totally free" content, we should
eliminate all fair use images as well. If we are not going to do that,
we should not worry so much about images which are licensed under
relatively free licenses -- i.e., free for use with acknowledgement,
free for use in non-commercial settings, free for use just on
Wikipedia, etc.

Claiming "fair use" in general seems legally problematic to me in
general but I'm not a lawyer. I could imagine a very clever Disney
lawyer saying, "Well, Wikipedia gives the impression that its content
is 'free', and puts our images right next to the rest of their 'free'
content. If Wikipedia was just trying to make their own non-profit
encyclopedia, that would be one thing, but since they are also trying
to provide an open-source, re-distributable content, they are actually
in the business of telling people our copyrighted work is of
questionable legal status, which we must affirm to the contrary."
Whether such an argument would hold or not is not something I know,
but it would be a messy thing nonetheless. And rest assured Disney
Corp. would be no more worried about the "legions" of nasty e-mails
they might get from Wikipedians than Microsoft Corp. does from the
Open-Source movement members.

FF

On 7/4/05, Maury Markowitz <maury at sympatico.ca> wrote:
> During May I wrote an article on the IBM 1360. This machine is
> historically important, it was the first (commercial) terabit store.
> None of them exist any more, they were all decommissioned in the 1980s
> and scrapped. I spent a week getting permission from the UCal to use
> some of their images, images that really helped make the article, and
> added these on June 2nd.
>
> AFTER posting the images I went back to change the image info on one of
> them. I was shocked to see a notice saying they would be deleted,
> although there was no date given. Needless to say I was more than a
> little pissed off that I was only told about this AFTER going through
> the effort. There was no notice of this, at least at the time, on either
> the main page or the upload page. I wrote about this in the image
> discussion page.
>
> More recently I went back to the article and found all the images
> deleted. The deleter added a note, but as far as I can tell did so AFTER
> deleting them ( I can't get history on the image itself, of course).. He
> stated I should have tagged them differently. Yes, well, thanks for
> that,  maybe someone should have told me that in the month between me
> uploading them and them being deleted so I could have actually DONE that.
>
> My complaint here is the completely arbitrary and largely invisible
> nature of this decision and its ramifications. The entire dicussion
> appears to have take place offline. If there was a public online
> dicussion, it was rather well hidden. I certainly was not privvy to it
> until AFTER the decision was made. Further, reading over the discussion
> here, it seems no dissenting views were considered. Nor is there any
> real reason given, other than "we don't like them". I asked for someone
> to explain it to me, but no one did, and they were simply deleted.
>
> What's particularily baffling is that the deleter suggested I simply
> re-tag them to PermissionAndFairUse. This strikes me as absolutely
> rediculous. First of all, why are these OK and not ones used with
> permission? And if these are OK, why didn't it say so in the warning on
> the Permission tag? And finally why didn't anyone bother to tell anyone
> the answers to these, and all the other questions?
>
> Maury
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Andrew Venier

body:
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:

>The chess championship is a way for users to interact in a way that is
>not related to disputes.
>
>
It seems somewhat counterproductive in this regard as its very presence
has led to considerable disputes.  Perhaps there are less contentious
ways of promoting unity?


subject: [WikiEN-l] SHOWCASING Abuses of Admin Power

body:
On 7/3/05, Dan Grey <dangrey at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 03/07/05, Michael Turley <michael.turley at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 7/2/05, Dan Grey <dangrey at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > To Rob - it's not turning the other cheek. Trolls only post to get a
> > > reaction - the fundamental truth is that it's pure attention seeking,
> > > how ever it's dressed up on the surface.
> > >
> > > Ignore them - totally - and they don't get they want, they very
> > > rapidly get bored, and bugger off :-)
> > >
> > >
> > > Dan
> >
> > Keep in mind, however, that this is probably the rudest possible thing
> > you can do.  It's really important to apply this only to the very
> > worst of trolls.
> >
>
> I *really * don't care about pissing off trolls, minor or major. We're
> here to write an encyclopaedia, nothing more.
>
>
> Dan
>
> PS Apols to Michael, who's going to get this twice - I keep hitting
> reply, instead of reply to all. D'oh.
>

Inciting trollish behavior results results in far more time consumed
in the administrative overhead of dealing with the trolls, leaving
less time for writing and editing.

If attacks and trolls roll off like water off a duck's back, then are
followed with polite responses, things never escalate.  Fewer will
come to admins (and to this list) for redress if they're always
treated with courtesy and respect, even if such is undeserved.  If we
bury them in courtesy and respect, most will come to see a better way.

Attacks and counter-attacks on even terms creates hard feelings and
squabble.  Attacks and counter-attacks where one person holds
disproportionate power over the other creates resentment, revolt, and
subversion.  Avoid the cycles of emotional conflict and we'll all have
more time for writing and editing.

--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused

Apologies to Dan Grey, as I've also hit "reply" instead of "reply to all".


subject: [WikiEN-l] More on British Copyright and used-with-permission images

body:
Thank you again, Andrew. I think your
latest letter clears up the remaining
doubt.

I think most of us here would agree that
we would have an excellent [[lex ferenda]]
case for using a picture of this priceless
medi?val manuscript. According to Andrew's
sources, on the other hand, it seems that
the [[lex lata]] in Britain is very much
against our interests.

Now, when this picture was submitted into
Wikipedia no-one bothered to ask for permission,
assuming on the basis of U.S. law that the use
was legal anyhow. It is possible that such
permission could be obtained. Would that be
useful or would we rather forego having the
image at all? (It could possibly be replaced
by a scan from an old out of copyright
mediocre quality black-and white photo.)

Or should we continue to blithely ignore the
law outside of the U.S. amidst heartfelt
proclamations of "free" meaning "free for
anyone in the world"?

Regards,
Haukur


from_name: Aerik Sylvan

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Validation feature

body:
I've only looked into it enough to get a basic understanding, and I
honestly only have a rough understand of the issues with it, but love
the concept and agree that this could be used in a variety of ways on
many wikis.  I'm going to use it for ratings on my wiki.

I'd be happy to help "fix" it (write code) but unfortunately need some
more detailed guidance on what exactly needs to be done.

Best Regards,
Aerik Sylvan

Magnus Manske wrote:

>Now that 1.5 is running, and the big bugs bite^W are on the verge of
>extinction, I feel it is my duty to introduce some new ones. :-)
>
>Did anyone look into the validation feature again? I have fixed what
>seemed to be the most pressing problems. I'm not sure about performance,
>but I'm pretty sure it doesn't load the whole table into memory at any
>point.
>
>There has been a request for the feature on the German mailing list, and
>I'd wager it won't stay the only one, on many lists.
>
>Should we
>* sit back and wait for it to mend itself magically
>* let everyone have a final look and turn it on to see what happens
>* turn it on right now
>?
>
>Magnus
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Wikitech-l mailing list
>Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: ilooy

subject: Ladino Wiki ( [Wikipedia-l] New Language Ladino

body:
Hey all!
I'd like to formally request a Ladino Wiki
lad.wikipedia.org and lad.wiktionary.org
for the Ladino/Judeo-Spanish with ISO 639
code of 'lad'. The Ladino Komunita is quite
alive and going through a renewal of sorts.
There are live broadcasts in Ladino in Spanish
and Israeli radio/tv and quite few periodicals
are written in it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladino_language

With regards,
Jay B.
en:User:ILVI

--

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/How_to_start_a_new_wikipedia
Find your language
"Go to your language's Wikipedia on List of Wikipedias. If your
language is not on the list, then contact wikipedia-l
(http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l) to ask for
its creation. Then, list it on requests for new languages. In your
posting, you should list some information. This might include the name
of the language, the language code, and the number of people who can
speak it."


subject:
[WikiEN-l] British Copyright Law (Was: Used with permission
	images etc.)

body:
On 05/07/05, Haukur ?orgeirsson <haukurth at hi.is> wrote:
> Thank you, Andrew. That seems very clear
> (not to mention evil). I've just got one
> remaining question. At the time the picture
> in question became featured it was argued
> that while the original photo (with the
> ruler and all) was copyrighted a derived
> work using only the manuscript part of the
> image would not be (presumably because of
> Bridgeman v. Corel).
>
> So my question is: Would this cropping help
> at all under British law?

My understanding is that this is a misunderstanding, if that makes any sense.

Editing a photograph creates a new copyrighted work, this much is true
- there is originality and skill involved. However, this copyrighted
work may itself _still be an infringing work_; the new copyright
doesn't magically cancel that out.

"...the fact that the defendant has himself added enough by way of
skill, labour & judgement to secure copyright for his effort does not,
under the present law, settle the question whether he has infringed.
Rather the issue is whether a substantial part of the plaintiff's work
survives in the defendant's so as to appear to be a copy of it. It is
not relevant to ask whether it is a substantial part of the
defendant's work." (Cornish & Llewelyn, 'Intellectual Property', 5th
edn; 11-09)

If the newly copyrighted work is itself infringing, then even though
we're licensed to use the new one, we're still infringing on the
original copyright by republishing it.

I can see where the argument is coming from, but I would be very
loathe to use it in court - as we've seen, the photograph is
copyrighted both by virtue of the "skill" in taking it and in the
choice of composition. Merely removing the context of the composition
from play, in this photograph,  is not enough to anull the copyright,
even if we assume that it such anulling could legally be done.

(There are also - possibly - the issues of moral rights to consider,
as you're editing the context in which the photograph was made; this
might be held to be derogatory treatment of the original, though this
is a sidenote and I wouldn't place much strength in it.)

I sympathise with Alphax's stance ("spurious, to say the least"), but
British copyright law is rather insistent in dealing with photography,
for various historical reasons. Yes, you could argue in court that
this is a non-infringing photo, and I'd wish you well... but I
wouldn't want to bet any money on the success of your defence.

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


from_name: David Benbennick

body:
On 7/5/05, Rowan Collins <rowan.collins at gmail.com> wrote:
> Not really - it's no easier to guess than your "real" one (probably
> harder, unless you're paranoid enough to use properly pseudo-random
> strings rather than something vaguely word or number like), and only
> you ever knew it.

I use a random password, taken from /dev/random.  I highly recommend
it; it's just as easy to remember and much safer.

> Since exactly one random password + one "real" password can be active
> at any time, it's equivalent to halving the odds of picking the right
> one randomly.

Not quite.  The random password has been sent out by email, so it is
stored and archived who-knows-where.


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

body:
On 7/5/05, Theo Clarke <wiki at tignosis.com> wrote:
> My understanding from museum and gallery folks is that the photography is a creative act.  This is substantiated by the variations that are possible in the representation of the object (if only variations of intensity and hue).
[snip]

I'm not aware of how it works around the world, but in the US we are
very generous with extending copyright to photographs and in general
to many non-artistic works which simply required a lot of effort to
produce.

And archival grade photography certainly does require a lot of effort
to produce: There are several interacting axis of decision on which a
compromise must be struck, mostly involving lighting.  In general
lighting which operates efficiently enough to produce sufficient light
generally tends to only operate at a few wavelegnths. Depending on the
media used in the art this can cause a dramatically incorrect
rendition of the colors.  So the photographer is often left trying to
fix these compromises with their choice in film and the channel gain
settings on the digital rig. It often requires specific knowledge of
the behavior of the paints in use to get it right.

In short, don't be so quick to discount the work. If we can grant
copyright on any work which is purely function (as is some software),
then there is no rational reason that copyright can not equally be
extended to an archival grade photograph.

As far as I can tell this position is strongly supported by caselaw in
the US, and I think that it would be a fair position on Wikipedia to
make an effort to preferentially make use of made-by-wikipedian and
truly PD photographs of PD artwork when such alternatives are
available.

That said, the problem is big enough that it would be unreasonable to
try to make a full correction at this time. I think we just need to
start with the position that we prefer works made by wikipedians and
will replace works not made by wikipedians with works by wikipedians
as such choices come along.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] commons: Image description on non-English wikipedias

body:
On 05/07/05, Gerrit Holl <gerrit at nl.linux.org> wrote:
> Alfio Puglisi wrote:
> > Kate's code probably takes commons' page HTML code
> > instead of the wikicode (otherwise templates wouldn't work), so it's not
> > easy to change this.
>
> What if {{GFDL}} is tranported from commons to a local language site,
> and expanded there? So on nl:, we would get [[nl:Template:GFDL]], on de
> [[de:Template:GFDL]], etc. Would probably require software tweaks as
> well...

I think the fundamental reason why this doesn't already happen is that
it requires a kind of "semi-raw" format for the included text:
currently, the text is rendered as HTML on commons, and then included;
if it wasn't, *all* the links would refer to local pages, and you'd
get spurious categories, links to non-existent or irrelevant pages,
etc.

The ideal solution would be to have licence templates expanded
locally, but everything else expanded on commons. Or rather, the
*ideal* solution would be to store licence information as
language-independent metadata, descriptions in multiple languages, and
use something like the "content negotiation" in HTTP to determine what
to include or display... :)

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]