body:
Even ignoring the fact that claims of non-biased are meaningless for
non-verifyable articles ... It simply doesn't scale.

One shouldn't do something that would cause harm if everyone did it.
(He says while top posting, alas)

More than anything else people learn how to write Wikipedia by reading
Wikipedia... We now are seeing people write fair use criteria for
clearly free images because that's the examples they see.  We must
lead by example. While we can't find every problem we can not survive
if we adopt a policy of ignoring problems we've found simply because a
single case won't kill us.

This is a distinct issue from inclusion vs deletion.

Frankly, all mentions of deletion vs inclusion these days just become
an excuse for some of our contributors to express their hate for other
contributors.  All the particapants in these arguments are managing to
accomplish is the distruction of their respect from Wikipedians who
are not members of their clique. This factionalism serves no one.

On 1/3/07, Bogdan Giusca <liste at dapyx.com> wrote:
> Wednesday, January 3, 2007, 7:58:27 PM, The Cunctator wrote:
>
> > It's a perfectly fine, non-biased article that is hurting NOONE by its
> > existence and represents real effort by the contributors. Why does it need
> > to be deleted? WHY?
>
> That's not a valid argument. If I write a fine, non-bias article on myself,
> it wouldn't hurt NO ONE, either and it would be a real effort from me,
> the contributor, right?
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Parker Peters

subject: [WikiEN-l] Thousands of *awful* articles on websites

body:
On 1/3/07, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/3/07, Bogdan Giusca <liste at dapyx.com> wrote:
> >
> > Wikipedia has way too many articles on websites, webcomics and
> > other types of internet content -- likely thousands.
> >
> > The problem is that around 95% of those articles are not sourced (or
> > they are sourced from forum and blog posts) and at least 70% won't be
> > able to be sourced because they were never mentioned in the mainstream
> > press -- and probably very few were mentioned in books and journals.
> >
> > I deleted about 50 of them, which looked totally non-notable, but if I
> > had to apply the rules, at least 80% would have to be deleted for
> > lacking notability claims.
> >
> > Can anyone suggest any solution to this?
>
>
> Don't be such a deletion nazi.

I agree 100% with this sentiment.

Parker


from_name: The Cunctator

body:
On 1/3/07, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Even ignoring the fact that claims of non-biased are meaningless for
> non-verifyable articles ... It simply doesn't scale.

Where did nonverifiability come into the discussion?

>
> More than anything else people learn how to write Wikipedia by reading
> Wikipedia... We now are seeing people write fair use criteria for
> clearly free images because that's the examples they see.  We must
> lead by example. While we can't find every problem we can not survive
> if we adopt a policy of ignoring problems we've found simply because a
> single case won't kill us.

"We cannot survive"? Is someone predicting the imminent death of Wikipedia?
What problems are being ignored?

This is a distinct issue from inclusion vs deletion.
>
> Frankly, all mentions of deletion vs inclusion these days just become
> an excuse for some of our contributors to express their hate for other
> contributors.  All the particapants in these arguments are managing to
> accomplish is the distruction of their respect from Wikipedians who
> are not members of their clique. This factionalism serves no one.

Who is expressing hate for anyone?

On 1/3/07, Bogdan Giusca <liste at dapyx.com> wrote:
> > Wednesday, January 3, 2007, 7:58:27 PM, The Cunctator wrote:
> >
> > > It's a perfectly fine, non-biased article that is hurting NOONE by its
> > > existence and represents real effort by the contributors. Why does it
> need
> > > to be deleted? WHY?
> >
> > That's not a valid argument. If I write a fine, non-bias article on
> myself,
> > it wouldn't hurt NO ONE, either and it would be a real effort from me,
> > the contributor, right?
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


list: wikitech-l

from_name: David Gerard

subject:
[Wikitech-l] What are the strategies to defense DDOS or
	crazyrobots for wikipedia?

body:
On 03/01/07, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 03/01/07, Ron Hall <ron.hall at mcgill.ca> wrote:

> >     How big is the stick? And does it conform to current industry standards
> >     for sticks? You may need to upgrade to a brickbat or sledge hammer.

> We upgraded the stick from a 1.5m pole to a 2.5m ash stake last year,
> to appropriately scale to the needs of our user base. I believe we
> also trialled a distributed architecture whereby we had Mark, Domas
> and Kyle, all with sticks. Tests showed that if they kept the sticks
> moving, the effective spin-up time of the stick was eliminated when
> responding to attacks, however, their arms got tired more quickly,
> leaving them open to later attacks.

Uncyclopedia has implemented a fully automatic banstick:

    http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Image:Deletion_Award.gif

One of these is also VERY useful on Special:newpages patrol:

    http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Template:Burninator

And a packet of this:

    http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Image:Admin-pms.png

- d.


from_name: Jeff Raymond

body:
Bogdan Giusca wrote:

> Can anyone suggest any solution to this?

The sooner we start allowing blogs and other self-published publications
be reliable sources for these sorts of things, the better.

-Jeff


body:
Bogdan Giusca wrote:

> Imagine the spam we'd get then as "references". You know that a link
> from Wikipedia is pretty valuable for one's Google PageRank.

I struggle to be *that* concerned, quite frankly.  If something is a
useful reference, it's a useful reference, regardless of what it may do
for its pagerank.

-Jeff


list: foundation-l

from_name: Nicholas Moreau

subject: [Foundation-l] Awards show hate us

body:
We may be the 9th most viewed site in the US.

We may be the second Google result for about 90% of their winners.

But the Academy Awards, SAG Awards, and Golden Globes all rejected us from
their red carpets. Getting free photos of A-list celebrities is not as easy
as it should be.

In the forms, I honestly stated that we had a Rolling Stone photographer on
the docket to take pics, who incidentally was fine with working for us for
free.

Either that means Rolling Stone isn't as legendary a publication as it makes
itself out to be, or they don't trust us, or they don't want free content
images released, as that would peave off the WireImages of the world.

Just so everyone knows,
Nick

PS : Any British photographers on this list? I'm going to be trying for some
of those award shows soon.


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Awards show hate us


from_name: James Hare

subject: [Foundation-l] Awards show hate us

body:
Rrrr!

It's the anti-free content conspiracy cabal led by Bill Gates and his Army
of Overpriciteers!

(parody disclaimer for the unbelievably daft)

On 1/3/07, Nicholas Moreau <nicholasmoreau at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> We may be the 9th most viewed site in the US.
>
> We may be the second Google result for about 90% of their winners.
>
> But the Academy Awards, SAG Awards, and Golden Globes all rejected us from
> their red carpets. Getting free photos of A-list celebrities is not as
> easy
> as it should be.
>
> In the forms, I honestly stated that we had a Rolling Stone photographer
> on
> the docket to take pics, who incidentally was fine with working for us for
> free.
>
> Either that means Rolling Stone isn't as legendary a publication as it
> makes
> itself out to be, or they don't trust us, or they don't want free content
> images released, as that would peave off the WireImages of the world.
>
> Just so everyone knows,
> Nick
>
> PS : Any British photographers on this list? I'm going to be trying for
> some
> of those award shows soon.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Awards show hate us


from_name: Deathphoenix

subject: [WikiEN-l] Upcoming POV edits to narcissism articles

body:
Hi folks, apologies in advance if double-posting to here an [[WP:AN]] is
bad, but the following is an email sent by Sam Vaknin, an individual who has
had some problems with Wikipedia in the past, to members of some of his
mailing lists. The general gist is that he's asking his members to edit
[[List of further reading on narcissism and narcissistic personality
disorder]], [[Narcissism (psychology)]], and [[Narcissistic personality
disorder]]. Of course, some edits will be good, but I think the three
articles will see an increase in the number of edits in the next little
while, and hence, some higher scrutiny will be beneficial. I posted a
chopped-down version to [[WP:AN]], but the following is the full version,
minus the usual mailing list footers.

---
Dear members,

Many of you wrote to me to ask why there is no "Sam Vaknin" entry in the
Wikipedia (there is an entry for the late and great Tim Field and entries
for many other online personalities).

Once, there was a "Sam Vaknin" entry on the Wikipedia.

Anyone can edit Wikipedia entries, so my entry was hijacked by trolls and
flamers and consequently, it contained slander and libel.

I had to write many letters to James Wales and to the legal advisor of the
Wikipedia (including repeated threats of litigation) to get the entry
deleted.

Please do NOT initiate a new entry, as some of you suggested. I do NOT want
to be the subject an entry in the Wikipedia.

My deleted entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_Vaknin&action=edit

My views about the Wikipedia:

http://samvak.tripod.master.com/texis/master/search/?q=Wikipedia

BUT

There is something you can do.

The Wikipedia entries for Narcissism (Psychology) and Narcissistic
Personality Disorder are laughable and contain numerous inaccuracies, urban
legends and utter nonsense.

Some parts of the entries are borrowed verbatim from my work (without
attribution or credit, without my permission, and despite numerous protests
and notices of copyright infringement issued by my publisher). But about 60%
of the text require urgent revisions or outright deletion.

Anyone can edit the entries. All you have to do is click on the edit button
in the upper navigation bar of the article. You can change the text, add
external links, add references to literature, citations, and anything else
you deem relevant. I encourage to give it a try.

Click on these links:

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_%28psychology%29

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

Have a great year!

Sam Vaknin


body:
James Wales *shudder*

In any case, if -he- gets his article deleted because he petitioned Jimmy
Wales to, then why can't we apply this consistantly?

(You know who I'm talking about.)

On 1/3/07, Deathphoenix <originaldeathphoenix at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi folks, apologies in advance if double-posting to here an [[WP:AN]] is
> bad, but the following is an email sent by Sam Vaknin, an individual who
> has
> had some problems with Wikipedia in the past, to members of some of his
> mailing lists. The general gist is that he's asking his members to edit
> [[List of further reading on narcissism and narcissistic personality
> disorder]], [[Narcissism (psychology)]], and [[Narcissistic personality
> disorder]]. Of course, some edits will be good, but I think the three
> articles will see an increase in the number of edits in the next little
> while, and hence, some higher scrutiny will be beneficial. I posted a
> chopped-down version to [[WP:AN]], but the following is the full version,
> minus the usual mailing list footers.
>
> ---
> Dear members,
>
> Many of you wrote to me to ask why there is no "Sam Vaknin" entry in the
> Wikipedia (there is an entry for the late and great Tim Field and entries
> for many other online personalities).
>
> Once, there was a "Sam Vaknin" entry on the Wikipedia.
>
> Anyone can edit Wikipedia entries, so my entry was hijacked by trolls and
> flamers and consequently, it contained slander and libel.
>
> I had to write many letters to James Wales and to the legal advisor of the
> Wikipedia (including repeated threats of litigation) to get the entry
> deleted.
>
> Please do NOT initiate a new entry, as some of you suggested. I do NOT
> want
> to be the subject an entry in the Wikipedia.
>
> My deleted entry:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_Vaknin&action=edit
>
> My views about the Wikipedia:
>
> http://samvak.tripod.master.com/texis/master/search/?q=Wikipedia
>
> BUT
>
> There is something you can do.
>
> The Wikipedia entries for Narcissism (Psychology) and Narcissistic
> Personality Disorder are laughable and contain numerous inaccuracies,
> urban
> legends and utter nonsense.
>
> Some parts of the entries are borrowed verbatim from my work (without
> attribution or credit, without my permission, and despite numerous
> protests
> and notices of copyright infringement issued by my publisher). But about
> 60%
> of the text require urgent revisions or outright deletion.
>
> Anyone can edit the entries. All you have to do is click on the edit
> button
> in the upper navigation bar of the article. You can change the text, add
> external links, add references to literature, citations, and anything else
> you deem relevant. I encourage to give it a try.
>
> Click on these links:
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_further_reading_on_narcissism_and_narcissistic_personality_disorder
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_%28psychology%29
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder
>
> Have a great year!
>
> Sam Vaknin
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
hahaha... perhaps because he asked nicely? Well, that is a question for
James Wales and the Wikimedia Foundation.

On 1/3/07, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> James Wales *shudder*
>
> In any case, if -he- gets his article deleted because he petitioned Jimmy
> Wales to, then why can't we apply this consistantly?
>
> (You know who I'm talking about.)
>
> On 1/3/07, Deathphoenix <originaldeathphoenix at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi folks, apologies in advance if double-posting to here an [[WP:AN]] is
> > bad, but the following is an email sent by Sam Vaknin, an individual who
> > has
> > had some problems with Wikipedia in the past, to members of some of his
> > mailing lists. The general gist is that he's asking his members to edit
> > [[List of further reading on narcissism and narcissistic personality
> > disorder]], [[Narcissism (psychology)]], and [[Narcissistic personality
> > disorder]]. Of course, some edits will be good, but I think the three
> > articles will see an increase in the number of edits in the next little
> > while, and hence, some higher scrutiny will be beneficial. I posted a
> > chopped-down version to [[WP:AN]], but the following is the full
> version,
> > minus the usual mailing list footers.
> >
> > ---
> > Dear members,
> >
> > Many of you wrote to me to ask why there is no "Sam Vaknin" entry in the
> > Wikipedia (there is an entry for the late and great Tim Field and
> entries
> > for many other online personalities).
> >
> > Once, there was a "Sam Vaknin" entry on the Wikipedia.
> >
> > Anyone can edit Wikipedia entries, so my entry was hijacked by trolls
> and
> > flamers and consequently, it contained slander and libel.
> >
> > I had to write many letters to James Wales and to the legal advisor of
> the
> > Wikipedia (including repeated threats of litigation) to get the entry
> > deleted.
> >
> > Please do NOT initiate a new entry, as some of you suggested. I do NOT
> > want
> > to be the subject an entry in the Wikipedia.
> >
> > My deleted entry:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_Vaknin&action=edit
> >
> > My views about the Wikipedia:
> >
> > http://samvak.tripod.master.com/texis/master/search/?q=Wikipedia
> >
> > BUT
> >
> > There is something you can do.
> >
> > The Wikipedia entries for Narcissism (Psychology) and Narcissistic
> > Personality Disorder are laughable and contain numerous inaccuracies,
> > urban
> > legends and utter nonsense.
> >
> > Some parts of the entries are borrowed verbatim from my work (without
> > attribution or credit, without my permission, and despite numerous
> > protests
> > and notices of copyright infringement issued by my publisher). But about
> > 60%
> > of the text require urgent revisions or outright deletion.
> >
> > Anyone can edit the entries. All you have to do is click on the edit
> > button
> > in the upper navigation bar of the article. You can change the text, add
> > external links, add references to literature, citations, and anything
> else
> > you deem relevant. I encourage to give it a try.
> >
> > Click on these links:
> >
> >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_further_reading_on_narcissism_and_narcissistic_personality_disorder
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_%28psychology%29
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder
> >
> > Have a great year!
> >
> > Sam Vaknin
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
On 1/3/07, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com>
wrote:
>
> "The Cunctator" wrote
>
> > Who is expressing hate for anyone?
>
> You called someone a 'deletion nazi'? This should have been Game Over for
> your argument.

Oh, come on.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soup_Nazi


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

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

body:
Wikinews also accepts nd (I.e. Obnoxiously not free content) images,
so I'm not inclined to give any weight to their decisions.

Most of the opposition to gfdl images I see on commons are half truths
and simple misinformation.

As mentioned, the GFDL v2 draft does allow some reproduction without the text.

I just don't see why there is so much flak for the gfdls attempt to
ensure recipents know their rights vs cc's effort to promote their
brand and website (esp when the creative commons site promote licenses
which are not free content licenses and the majority of uses of cc
licenses are using the non free ones).

On 1/3/07, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
> geni wrote:
>
> >On 1/3/07, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>How so?  I will admit that the GFDL is written primarily for textual
> >>manipulation and content, but that is about like saying the GPL is lousy
> >>for copyright purposes in a book.  Other than the "authorship" clauses
> >>being blurred so much for video that it is hard to determine exactly who
> >>participated with the development of the video (motion pictures can
> >>sometimes involve hundreds of people in the production of one "work"),
> >>I'm not exactly sure what the issue is here.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >For that standard low res we video includeing a copy of the lisence is
> >a serious problem. the isue that the GNU logo itself appears to be
> >under the free art lisence is interesting complication although not
> >one most people will encounter.
> >
>
> I'll admit that the requirement for inclusion is a huge issue with the
> GFDL, and so significant that projects like Wikinews have decided to
> abandon the license entirely in part because of this issue.  For
> projects like Wikibooks, it is only a minor annoyance that only takes up
> a couple of extra pages when distributed elsewhere.
>
> It would be nice to have, in a future version of the GFDL, some optional
> clause that would allow for smaller works to simply provide a network
> location to a copy of the GFDL, instead of requiring the complete text,
> or something alone similar lines of thought.  Unfortunately, this is the
> wrong mailing list to try and get those sort of changes implimented.
>
> >
> >I'm not really thinking about semi professional or professional films
> >but well in my case narrated instructional slide shows. So the number
> >of people involved isn't a problem. The problems asside from incudeing
> >the lisence are:
> >
> >Has to be GFDL only since I can't figure out how the almagimation
> >stuff is meant to apply to videos. Free art  are and CC are out (thank
> >goodness for Wildebeests).
> >
> >Ok I've included the lisence now how long do I have to include it for?
> >10 sec? 1 min?
> >
> >
> This is a very good question.  In theory, one video frame might be all
> that is legally required, but that hardly seems to be fitting.  Clearly
> this is one area that the GFDL does fall flat on its face as it is not
> very clear what is needed here.
>
> --
> Robert Scott Horning
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Communications issues

body:
On 03/01/07, Michael Snow <wikipedia at earthlink.net> wrote:

> Lack of time, attention, and resources. Anyone who wants to try to
> resurrect the Wikimedia Quarto or do something similar is welcome to.
> There have been lots of suggestions about things Wikimedia could be
> doing, many of them useful, both as to communications and other issues.
> These are nice, but simply adding more tasks to an already overloaded
> to-do list doesn't produce a lot of progress. That's why we're asking
> for help. We need more people like Improv or BirgitteSB, who are willing
> to take a good idea and implement it. Ideas are cheap compared to action.

A mailing list for the weekly digests might be good.

- d.


subject: [Foundation-l] Communications issues


body:
This is my opinion about references: Each one to its own.

What that means is that depending on the topic, we should use sources that
are appropriate. Something like science and history should typically always
use peer reviewed publications, however webcomics do not have peer reviewed
publications about them. That would be an appropriate time to invoke sources
that would be more unorthodox for traditional scholarly subjects like
science: blogs. I, for one, would trust a web comic blog about web comics
because that's the best there is.

Likewise, just because something is appropriate for one subject, doesn't
mean it's appropriate for the next. If a web comic blog says that George
Washington crossed the Delaware and defeated the Hessians, we shouldn't cite
that web comic in our article about George Washington.

This brings up another point of debate: using primary sources. There are
times when primary sources are appropriate, and there are times when it's
not. When quoting what someone famous said, the primary source is *the best*
source for that information. That's what primary sources are for: pure facts
(like what someone said). And then there are the times when secondary
sources are more appropriate. Use those, then.

There really isn't a source, or type of source, that is perfect for every
kind of knowledge imaginable. Each one to its own.

On 1/3/07, Bogdan Giusca <liste at dapyx.com> wrote:
>
> Wednesday, January 3, 2007, 10:38:55 PM, Jeff wrote:
>
> > Bogdan Giusca wrote:
>
> >> Can anyone suggest any solution to this?
> > The sooner we start allowing blogs and other self-published publications
> > be reliable sources for these sorts of things, the better.
>
> Imagine the spam we'd get then as "references". You know that a link
> from Wikipedia is pretty valuable for one's Google PageRank.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Kurt Maxwell Weber

body:
On Wednesday 03 January 2007 16:20, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com wrote:
>
> No, since when has attaching 'Nazi' to something been an acceptable way to
> argue? Don't quote Seinfeld to me. I'm not American, I don't watch it. That
> goes also for others on the list. You 'come on'. Stop being an ethnocentric
> jerk.

Oh, grow up.

It was funny.  And appropriate.

If you're that thin-skinned that you find it upsetting, then you DESERVE to be
upset.
--
Kurt Weber
<kmw at armory.com>


from_name: Thomas Dalton

subject: [WikiEN-l] Google faking semantics

body:
> Those examples don't work.

The first one does, I think. The second one doesn't... oh well. There
are quite a few questions that google can parse, though.

> But it is interesting seeing the difference in the response of
> radius mars
>
> and
>
> radius of mars

The first one uses google's semantic fact finding feature, the second
one uses its calculator feature (which has lots of constants in it,
including astronomical values).


body:
Actually, no.

This is something that leaves the Wikipedia/Media foundation with some
serious legal problems, if one person's managed to get their bio deleted and
another person's having that prevented (I'm pretty sure I know who Mr. Hare
is referring to, too).

Parker

On 1/3/07, Deathphoenix <originaldeathphoenix at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> hahaha... perhaps because he asked nicely? Well, that is a question for
> James Wales and the Wikimedia Foundation.
>
> On 1/3/07, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > James Wales *shudder*
> >
> > In any case, if -he- gets his article deleted because he petitioned
> Jimmy
> > Wales to, then why can't we apply this consistantly?
> >
> > (You know who I'm talking about.)
> >
> > On 1/3/07, Deathphoenix <originaldeathphoenix at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi folks, apologies in advance if double-posting to here an [[WP:AN]]
> is
> > > bad, but the following is an email sent by Sam Vaknin, an individual
> who
> > > has
> > > had some problems with Wikipedia in the past, to members of some of
> his
> > > mailing lists. The general gist is that he's asking his members to
> edit
> > > [[List of further reading on narcissism and narcissistic personality
> > > disorder]], [[Narcissism (psychology)]], and [[Narcissistic
> personality
> > > disorder]]. Of course, some edits will be good, but I think the three
> > > articles will see an increase in the number of edits in the next
> little
> > > while, and hence, some higher scrutiny will be beneficial. I posted a
> > > chopped-down version to [[WP:AN]], but the following is the full
> > version,
> > > minus the usual mailing list footers.
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Dear members,
> > >
> > > Many of you wrote to me to ask why there is no "Sam Vaknin" entry in
> the
> > > Wikipedia (there is an entry for the late and great Tim Field and
> > entries
> > > for many other online personalities).
> > >
> > > Once, there was a "Sam Vaknin" entry on the Wikipedia.
> > >
> > > Anyone can edit Wikipedia entries, so my entry was hijacked by trolls
> > and
> > > flamers and consequently, it contained slander and libel.
> > >
> > > I had to write many letters to James Wales and to the legal advisor of
> > the
> > > Wikipedia (including repeated threats of litigation) to get the entry
> > > deleted.
> > >
> > > Please do NOT initiate a new entry, as some of you suggested. I do NOT
> > > want
> > > to be the subject an entry in the Wikipedia.
> > >
> > > My deleted entry:
> > >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_Vaknin&action=edit
> > >
> > > My views about the Wikipedia:
> > >
> > > http://samvak.tripod.master.com/texis/master/search/?q=Wikipedia
> > >
> > > BUT
> > >
> > > There is something you can do.
> > >
> > > The Wikipedia entries for Narcissism (Psychology) and Narcissistic
> > > Personality Disorder are laughable and contain numerous inaccuracies,
> > > urban
> > > legends and utter nonsense.
> > >
> > > Some parts of the entries are borrowed verbatim from my work (without
> > > attribution or credit, without my permission, and despite numerous
> > > protests
> > > and notices of copyright infringement issued by my publisher). But
> about
> > > 60%
> > > of the text require urgent revisions or outright deletion.
> > >
> > > Anyone can edit the entries. All you have to do is click on the edit
> > > button
> > > in the upper navigation bar of the article. You can change the text,
> add
> > > external links, add references to literature, citations, and anything
> > else
> > > you deem relevant. I encourage to give it a try.
> > >
> > > Click on these links:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_further_reading_on_narcissism_and_narcissistic_personality_disorder
> > >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_%28psychology%29
> > >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder
> > >
> > > Have a great year!
> > >
> > > Sam Vaknin
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
> Can anyone suggest any solution to this?

If they don't assert notability (something like "X readers", "Y
million hits a day", "recieved Z award" - it doesn't matter what the
X, Y and Z are, even "has 3 readers every week" is an assertion of
notability), then speedy them. If they do assert notability, but you
think they aren't notable anyway, then PROD them.

All websites are easy to source - you have the website itself. You're
not going to make a featured article from only a primary source, but
it's enough to save an article from deletion.


subject: [WikiEN-l] How different lanuages are being linked up?

body: see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Interlanguage_links


subject: [WikiEN-l] From the Spellfecker community on LiveJournal

body:
I thought "Wikian" was commonly accepted?

On 1/3/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> http://community.livejournal.com/spellfecker/49108.html
>
> Wikkan: A person who believes with a near religiously unshakeable
> faith anything that they see on wikipedia.
>
> (I have indicated our position on this ...)
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
On 03/01/07, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:

> Of you could "insert" additional scenes, or rearrange the order of the
> content in a variety of ways to create something very new.  BTW, this
> was a very popular technique for Russian filmakers during the early part
> of the 20th Century, where they would get hours of "stock footage" and
> with just some simple movie editing tools would "compile" new motion
> pictures.  This has also been a fairly common technique for some serial
> television programs, such as the television series [[JAG]] in some of
> its early seasons of production.

Roger Corman did the same thing - he burnt a house down with something
like twelve cameras around it and used the footage in several films in
a row. He complained in his autobiography that he hadn't known then
that people would one day get video recorders and compare them ;-)

- d.


from_name: Anthony

subject: [WikiEN-l] Google faking semantics

body:
On 1/3/07, Gurch <matthew.britton at btinternet.com> wrote:
> So Google has basically created a database of all Wikipedia's infoboxes,
> and is serving up entries from them as search results on its website?
> Does this count as mirroring our content? Are they in compliance with
> whatever rules apply to whatever it is they're doing?
>
Facts aren't copyrightable, and even to the extent any of this was
found copyrightable it would almost surely be fair use.

Anthony


from_name: Andrew Gray

subject: [WikiEN-l] Ephemeral nature of web pages - a silly idea?

body:
On 02/01/07, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:

> Or how about a Library of Congress-esque things for websites, where
> identified websites are selectively archived so they can exist for eternity
> (as opposed to Wayback Machine which seems to work as randomly picking
> pages).

Already in progress, in various forms... several national libraries
are slowly kicking "online legal deposit" (or something similar) into
place, and many countries have fiddled the copyright laws to permit
it.

(Denmark is the only one I know of fully up and running, but the
system is getting there)

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


body:
On 02/01/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> Problem is their lag time. It takes over 6 months for stuff to appear there
> by which time you are in deep trouble if it wasn't stored to begin with. It
> would be nice if every site that's referenced in Wikipedia is spidered
> automatically just like every site that's visited by a surfer with an Alexa
> toolbar.

We could, of course, ask them to add "any WP extlink" to their
spidering routines...

archive.org's six-month delay is intentional, but I suppose it could
be possible for them to display some form of "we have this site
archived on X date and just not displayed yet" identifier to the
date-selection page; this would obviate the "not known" problem whilst
meaning they don't have to publish it. hmm. If anyone wants to propose
it to them, free free.

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


body:
On 03/01/07, howard chen <howachen at gmail.com> wrote:
> for example, Chinese version of `Ronaldo` is at
>
> http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%BE%85%E7%B4%8D%E5%BA%A6
>
> how to link up its English, or Japanese version?

Add [[XX:pagename]] at the end of the page, where "XX" is the language
code (so en for English, jp for Japanese, fr for French, etc) and
"pagename" is the name for the page in that language. This will
display it with the interwiki links in the bar on the left-hand side.

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


subject: [Foundation-l] Communications issues

body:
On 03/01/07, Michael Snow <wikipedia at earthlink.net> wrote:

> > In the recent past, I remember a user answering to me and other
> > italians "Communities doesn't matter. Funding does. Capisce?".
> > How does this phrase should be interpreted?
> > Let's think about a new user who's starting to communicate with the
> > Foundation, and he's been answered in this way.
> > Obviously, I don't think this is an isolated case.
>
> I don't know who said it or how it was intended to be interpreted. At
> face value, it's certainly not an appropriate expression of the
> Foundation's position. However, I'm surprised that you would take a
> random comment like this, that sounds like it was made on IRC, as an
> authoritative statement.

It was indeed made on IRC, if my memory serves, during an extensive
multisided argument in #wikimedia which had been going on for an hour
or two. Can't quite remember who said it, but it was one comment among
many and it certainly wasn't The Foundation Line...

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


subject: [Foundation-l] Communications issues


from_name: Robert Scott Horning

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:

>Robert Scott Horning wrote:
>
>
>
>>Imagine, for the sake of the discussion here, that you have a production
>>of a TV episode like Star Trek that is available under the GFDL.
>>Assuming that video is available under a GPL-like distribution license,
>>you would be free to take all of the fancy special effects and replace
>>all of the scenes with William Shatner in them with an actor who
>>actually knows what he is doing.  :)
>>
>>
>>
>Anybody with the initiative to sell his kidney stones on eBay must have
>a great sense of humour; this is supported by his incomparable rendition
>of "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds.".  Some others of us might be happy
>to get rid of the special effects and keep Shatner in a medium that
>requires more imagination from the user.
>
>
At least with free/open source content you have the option of doing
both.  And more.  I'm really curious what will happen with "Steamboat
Willy" once it's copyright expires (if it ever does).

--
Robert Scott Horning
218 Sunstone Circle
Logan, UT 84321
(435) 753-3330
robert_horning at netzero.net


from_name: ~Pyb

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

body:
>
> I've translated it in french so more people can read, it wouldn't be
> bad to translate this email in the more language we can and spred it
> on village pump.
>
>
> --
> schiste

Why not making a new issue of Quarto with this letter, the financial
report, the draft of the provisional budget for 2007
(http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/What_we_need_the_money_for)... ?

~Pyb


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


body:
> It is a dead comic which was never mentioned in any newspaper, but
> you have to pay to read it. :-)

Sources don't have to be free, it's just prefered.

That article doesn't assert notability, though, so it should probably
be speedied.


from_name: geni

body:
On 1/3/07, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
> How so?  I will admit that the GFDL is written primarily for textual
> manipulation and content, but that is about like saying the GPL is lousy
> for copyright purposes in a book.  Other than the "authorship" clauses
> being blurred so much for video that it is hard to determine exactly who
> participated with the development of the video (motion pictures can
> sometimes involve hundreds of people in the production of one "work"),
> I'm not exactly sure what the issue is here.
>

For that standard low res we video includeing a copy of the lisence is
a serious problem. the isue that the GNU logo itself appears to be
under the free art lisence is interesting complication although not
one most people will encounter.

I'm not really thinking about semi professional or professional films
but well in my case narrated instructional slide shows. So the number
of people involved isn't a problem. The problems asside from incudeing
the lisence are:

Has to be GFDL only since I can't figure out how the almagimation
stuff is meant to apply to videos. Free art  are and CC are out (thank
goodness for Wildebeests).

Ok I've included the lisence now how long do I have to include it for?
10 sec? 1 min?
--
geni


body:
On 1/3/07, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com>
wrote:
>
> "The Cunctator" wrote
>
> > On 1/3/07, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com <
> charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > "The Cunctator" wrote
> > >
> > > > Who is expressing hate for anyone?
> > >
> > > You called someone a 'deletion nazi'? This should have been Game Over
> for
> > > your argument.
> >
> >
> > Oh, come on.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soup_Nazi
>
> No, since when has attaching 'Nazi' to something been an acceptable way to
> argue?

For a long time.

Don't quote Seinfeld to me. I'm not American, I don't watch it.

That's why I quoted it to you. If you quoted Oscar Wilde to me, I wouldn't
be upset if you gave me a Wikipedia link to understand the reference.

That goes also for others on the list. You 'come on'. Stop being an
> ethnocentric jerk.

Wow. I'm sorry I hurt your feelings.

I would note that "Game Over" comes from American video game culture, and
"jerk" comes from American slang.


from_name: Oldak Quill

body:
On 03/01/07, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> It's a perfectly fine, non-biased article that is hurting NOONE by its
> existence and represents real effort by the contributors. Why does it need
> to be deleted? WHY?

I've always thought the underlying justification for unnecessary
deletionism (the deleting of articles which are factually accurate and
verifiable) is elitism. IMO, it detracts from Wikipedia.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: Matthew Brown

body:
On 1/3/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> Because we have a policy that says we delete articles that don't
> assert notability.

No, we don't.

We have a policy that says that articles that do not assert notability
in certain areas (people, groups of people, web content) may be speedy
deleted.  Anything else goes to AFD, where the criteria are not
policy, but rough consensus is required to delete something.

-Matt


subject: [Foundation-l] Awards show hate us

body:
Have you also tried to contact any photogs? I know that celeb-websites/cable
shows often manage to get people on the carpet lines...

On 1/3/07, Nicholas Moreau <nicholasmoreau at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> We may be the 9th most viewed site in the US.
>
> We may be the second Google result for about 90% of their winners.
>
> But the Academy Awards, SAG Awards, and Golden Globes all rejected us from
> their red carpets. Getting free photos of A-list celebrities is not as
> easy
> as it should be.
>
> In the forms, I honestly stated that we had a Rolling Stone photographer
> on
> the docket to take pics, who incidentally was fine with working for us for
> free.
>
> Either that means Rolling Stone isn't as legendary a publication as it
> makes
> itself out to be, or they don't trust us, or they don't want free content
> images released, as that would peave off the WireImages of the world.
>
> Just so everyone knows,
> Nick
>
> PS : Any British photographers on this list? I'm going to be trying for
> some
> of those award shows soon.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Awards show hate us


body:
It's not funny if you're from Central Europe which suffered because of its
poverty and resulting government.

On 1/3/07, Kurt Maxwell Weber <kmw at armory.com> wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 03 January 2007 16:20, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com wrote:
> >
> > No, since when has attaching 'Nazi' to something been an acceptable way
> to
> > argue? Don't quote Seinfeld to me. I'm not American, I don't watch it.
> That
> > goes also for others on the list. You 'come on'. Stop being an
> ethnocentric
> > jerk.
>
> Oh, grow up.
>
> It was funny.  And appropriate.
>
> If you're that thin-skinned that you find it upsetting, then you DESERVE
> to be
> upset.
> --
> Kurt Weber
> <kmw at armory.com>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
Am I the only one who has realized this has turned from a discussion about
tubescruft into a discussion about how someone happened to allude to Nazism?

On 1/3/07, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com>
wrote:
>
> "The Cunctator" wrote
>
> > > No, since when has attaching 'Nazi' to something been an acceptable
> way to
> > > argue?
>
> > For a long time.
>
> No, it's not acceptable just because you accept it.
>
> Charles
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
> Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
> Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] "Oldak Quill" <oldakquill@gmail.com>

body:
On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 16:53:12 -0800, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.com>
wrote:

>''Ones'' and zeros? We had to make due with just zeros! I once coded an
>entire database management system using nothing but zeros....

Database?  Pah!  I remember when it was nothing but fields...

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


from_name: The Cunctator

body:
On 1/3/07, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com>
wrote:
>
> Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote
>
> > On Wednesday 03 January 2007 16:20, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.comwrote:
> > >
> > > No, since when has attaching 'Nazi' to something been an acceptable
> way to
> > > argue? Don't quote Seinfeld to me. I'm not American, I don't watch it.
> That
> > > goes also for others on the list. You 'come on'. Stop being an
> ethnocentric
> > > jerk.
> >
> > Oh, grow up.
> >
> > It was funny.  And appropriate.
> >
> > If you're that thin-skinned that you find it upsetting, then you DESERVE
> to be
> > upset.
>
> Actually, it wasn't funny. It wasn't even a joke, as far as I can see. It
> wss intended to re-open the old deletionist-inclusionist schism.

Schism? Wow. I didn't realize we were getting to religious levels here.
Bogdan's post was a bit, I felt, overblown about the inclusion of webcomics,
websites, and other web content in Wikipedia.

The Cunctator, having been a face of some eminence on enWP in the early
> days, pops up here again.

Well, thank you. I'm not sure "eminence" is a word anyone would ever use to
describe my face, though.

Welcome back, I say;

I didn't realize I had left.

> but please don't assume we're in the same timewarp as you.

Just a jump to the left....[1]

Matters such as reliable sourcing for articles are not now regarded as
> optional: we are more sensitive on the issue. Someone who posts here on the
> topic of unsourced articles about websites might expect a reasoned argument,
> in line with the current policies, rather than that.

The topic wasn't unsourced articles about websites, if I remember correctly.
Bogdan's complaint is primarily one of notability, I believe. There's also
been quite a reasonable discussion about the definition of an acceptable
source.

Furthermore Godwin's Law applies: call someone a Nazi, you LOSE the
> argument.

That's not Godwin's Law.

--tc

[1] Obligatory ethnocentric American pop-cultural reference.


from_name: cohesion

subject: [WikiEN-l] Google faking semantics

body:
On 1/3/07, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 03/01/07, cohesion <cohesion at sleepyhead.org> wrote:
> > It looks like google is pulling some information from wikipedia in a
> > pseudo semantic way,
> >
>
> I don't see how this is faking semantics. They are taking semantically
> tagged data and answering questions with it.

Well, the data isn't really semantically tagged at all, they are just
assuming things based on proximity.

Anyway, I don't think this is a bad thing at all, maybe if we knew
more about what they are looking for we could help the index out.
Helping people find information is what we're all about, right? :D

Judson
[[:en:User:Cohesion]]


from_name: Bogdan Giusca

body:
Wikipedia has way too many articles on websites, webcomics and
other types of internet content -- likely thousands.

The problem is that around 95% of those articles are not sourced (or
they are sourced from forum and blog posts) and at least 70% won't be
able to be sourced because they were never mentioned in the mainstream
press -- and probably very few were mentioned in books and journals.

I deleted about 50 of them, which looked totally non-notable, but if I
had to apply the rules, at least 80% would have to be deleted for
lacking notability claims.

Can anyone suggest any solution to this?


body:
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 12:58:27 -0500, "The Cunctator"
<cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:

>It's a perfectly fine, non-biased article that is hurting NOONE by its
>existence and represents real effort by the contributors. Why does it need
>to be deleted? WHY?

So you say.  How do I verify that it is non-biased?

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


body:
Wait. Disregard my question. Turns up there's no inconsistence -- it's that
the guy I was thinking of actually has a darn good article.

On 1/3/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 03/01/07, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Actually, no.
> >
> > This is something that leaves the Wikipedia/Media foundation with some
> > serious legal problems, if one person's managed to get their bio deleted
> and
> > another person's having that prevented (I'm pretty sure I know who Mr.
> Hare
> > is referring to, too).
>
> "Serious legal problems" cannot be fantasised into existence; we are
> under no legal bound to host someone's article or delete someone
> else's on request. We are not a court system or a legal system, bound
> by our own precedent; we're a private community with mutable community
> rules.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sam_Vaknin
> looks like an unambiguous delete decision to me by the community. We
> did it consistent with our own rules.
>
> And weren't you making a big song and dance about leaving three months
> ago?
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
>   andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Angela

body:
On 1/3/07, Bogdan Giusca <liste at dapyx.com> wrote:
> Wikipedia has way too many articles on websites, webcomics and
> other types of internet content -- likely thousands.
>
> The problem is that around 95% of those articles are not sourced (or
> they are sourced from forum and blog posts) and at least 70% won't be
> able to be sourced because they were never mentioned in the mainstream
> press -- and probably very few were mentioned in books and journals.
>
> I deleted about 50 of them, which looked totally non-notable

This seems a waste.  Just because something hasn't been written about
by the mainstream press doesn't make it worthless to people reading
Wikipedia.

http://internet.wikia.com/index.php?title=User:Angela&oldid=1943 shows
17 examples of pages you deleted today which I've rescued for the
Internet Wiki, but it's a shame so many hundreds like those are being
deleted every day rather than moved to a more suitable wiki or
rewritten to make them suitable for Wikipedia.

Angela


body:
Wednesday, January 3, 2007, 6:52:51 PM, Thomas wrote:

>> Can anyone suggest any solution to this?

> If they don't assert notability (something like "X readers", "Y
> million hits a day", "recieved Z award" - it doesn't matter what the
> X, Y and Z are, even "has 3 readers every week" is an assertion of
> notability), then speedy them. If they do assert notability, but you
> think they aren't notable anyway, then PROD them.

> All websites are easy to source - you have the website itself. You're
> not going to make a featured article from only a primary source, but
> it's enough to save an article from deletion.

Not always you can source them from the website.

For example, this webcomic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_in_Greytown

It is a dead comic which was never mentioned in any newspaper, but
you have to pay to read it. :-)


body:
On 03/01/07, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> This seems a waste.  Just because something hasn't been written about
> by the mainstream press doesn't make it worthless to people reading
> Wikipedia.
>
> http://internet.wikia.com/index.php?title=User:Angela&oldid=1943 shows
> 17 examples of pages you deleted today which I've rescued for the
> Internet Wiki, but it's a shame so many hundreds like those are being
> deleted every day rather than moved to a more suitable wiki or
> rewritten to make them suitable for Wikipedia.

I quite agree. Once an article is deleted it is no longer available to
anyone who doesn't have admin status. There doesn't seem to be a
co-ordinated effort among admins to sift through deleted articles to
find useful information and so this information is effectively lost.

Wikipedia's primary goal is to create free encyclopaedic content. IMO,
it is always more useful for us to rewrite an article than to delete
it wherever possible. If it is the case that the content is not
suitable for Wikipedia (which, as long as it has a certain level of
verifiability, is rare) then we should aim to put the content
somewhere else so that it remains usable and the free content movement
as-a-whole is benefited.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: Alex Powell

subject: [Wikitech-l] Falcon

body:
Hi,

I was reading about MySQL's Falcon engine (which appears to have reached an
alpha branch), and was wondering if anyone had tried it with Mediawiki, and
for that matter the whole Wikipedia dataset. Curious to know how it behaves,
and how much efficiency the compressed storage engine gets...

Alex


body:
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 18:53:30 +0000, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:

>This seems a waste.  Just because something hasn't been written about
>by the mainstream press doesn't make it worthless to people reading
>Wikipedia.

But it goes to the heart of what distinguishes an encyclopaedia from a
directory.  Transwiki is always an option, many of us will happily
undelete history for that purpose.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


body:
On 03/01/07, Bogdan Giusca <liste at dapyx.com> wrote:
> Wednesday, January 3, 2007, 8:53:30 PM, Angela wrote:
>
> > http://internet.wikia.com/index.php?title=User:Angela&oldid=1943 shows
> > 17 examples of pages you deleted today which I've rescued for the
> > Internet Wiki, but it's a shame so many hundreds like those are being
> > deleted every day rather than moved to a more suitable wiki or
> > rewritten to make them suitable for Wikipedia.
>
> Maybe there should be some way to mark the articles which are not
> notable for wikipedia, but are worthy to be included in internet.wikia.com
>
> For example, one would include "I7W" (non-notable website) as reason
> for deletion and a bot would monitor the deletion log and take the deleted
> articles marked that way and automatically post them on internet Wikia.

I don't really understand why an article would be useful for Internet
Wikia but not useful for us... Their aims seem to be encompassed by
our aims entirely.

I go to Internet Wikia to find some information out about a website
(eg. http://www.internet.com/). I want factually accurate, verifiable
information. Why shouldn't I use Wikipedia in this case? I know that
information from Wikipedia will be factually accurate and verifiable.
I know that Wikipedia does not operate within the constraints of a
traditional encyclopaedia so I hope to find at least a little
information about that website on Wikipedia.

The very purpose of Internet Wikia (providing "encyclopaedic" articles
about presumably major websites) could, and should, be served by
Wikipedia. Information is always enriched by being part of Wikipedia
because it links to information and articles on unrelated fields.
Conversely, Wikipedia is always enriched by having more information
(within certain constraints).

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: Rory Stolzenberg

subject: [WikiEN-l] Inline Wiktionary links

body:
On 1/2/07, Conrad Irwin <conrad.irwin at googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> When an obscure term is used in a body of text that has no Wikipedia
> article
> associated with it, the author of the article, at the moment, has to
> include
> the meaning of the word in the article itself. Would it not make sense to
> have a way of quickly making links to look up a word in Wiktionary,
> something like {{define|miscellany}}.
>
> Conrad
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

There is a way. Just type [[wikt:ENTRYNAME|]] (the ending pipe is the pipe
trick, so the "wikt" doesn't show in the text).


from_name: Dan Collins

subject: [WikiEN-l] Hope sucked out of Wikipedia, experts report

body:
David Gerard wrote:
> http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/UnNews:Hope_sucked_out_of_Wikipedia%2C_experts_report
>
> (I realised Esperanza had gone way off the rails when I got barnstar
> police showing up at my talk page to inform me of the correct usage of
> barnstars on my user page ... you know, those awards that were
> strictly between the awarder and awardee in the days before an
> overarching organization volunteered to help us soulless nerds with
> such tricky matters.)
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
God forbid we be forced to think for ourselves.

As for the article, it should be taken with a grain of salt. It is on
uncyclopedia after all. I liked the "geeks trying to impose a stark
impersonal monolithic bureaucracy", "deletionists and fun haters of the
world"...

--
GnuPG key ID is 0x84189146 on subkeys.pgp.net

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 888 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20070103/48d5a77d/attachment.pgp


from_name: Sherool

body:
On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 18:08:22 +0100, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> archive.org's six-month delay is intentional, but I suppose it could
> be possible for them to display some form of "we have this site
> archived on X date and just not displayed yet" identifier to the
> date-selection page; this would obviate the "not known" problem whilst
> meaning they don't have to publish it. hmm. If anyone wants to propose
> it to them, free free.

Actualy I don't think they physicaly get the data untill 6 months have
passed. The founder of the archive explained this in a interview with Nerd
TV[1]. Basicaly back in the day they started Alexa and the Internet
Archive at the same time. Alexa was for profit and the archive is
non-profit, and they had a contract between the two that once Alexa was
"done" with the data they collected (6 months delay to take the
"commercial edge" off it) it was handed over to the Internet Archive.
Alexa have since changed ownership, but the contract to supply data to the
archive remains in effect, so untill 6 months have passed it's actualy
Alexa, not the Internet Archive that have that data as I understand it.

1: <http://www.pbs.org/cringely/nerdtv/transcripts/004.html>

P.S. To increase the odds of a particular page getting archived (with the
caveant that some sites may include no-archive directives in theyr
robots.txt or meta HTML haders, such sites are not archived) visit it with
a browser that have the Alexa toolbar installed (yuck) or use Internet
Explorer (yuck) and choose Tools -> What's related (or some such), wich
will also cause Alexa to crawl the page as I understand it (they supply
that feature, dunno if it's in IE 7), or just put the url into the form at
<http://www.alexa.com/site/help/webmasters/#crawl_site>

--
[[:en:User:Sherool]]


body:
Wednesday, January 3, 2007, 7:05:16 PM, Ken wrote:

> On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, Bogdan Giusca wrote:
>> The problem is that around 95% of those articles are not sourced (or
>> they are sourced from forum and blog posts) and at least 70% won't be
>> able to be sourced because they were never mentioned in the mainstream
>> press -- and probably very few were mentioned in books and journals.

> Perhaps that means you need a broader view of what sourcing is.

Maybe I spent too much time editing history articles, where the source
credibility matters, but accepting blog/forum/usenet posts as valid
sources would be a great mistake, IMO.


from_name: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com

body:
"Oldak Quill" wrote

>Information is always enriched by being part of Wikipedia
> because it links to information and articles on unrelated fields.
> Conversely, Wikipedia is always enriched by having more information
> (within certain constraints).

I don't think that's right. Some apparently informative additions to Wikipedia are rightly regarded as adding nothing of value.

Reopening the whole deletionist/inclusionist thing, in the massively crude way that has happened in this thread, seems to me most regrettable.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


body:
"The Cunctator" wrote

> Who is expressing hate for anyone?

You called someone a 'deletion nazi'? This should have been Game Over for your argument.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


from_name: Anthony

subject: [WikiEN-l] Google faking semantics

body:
On 1/3/07, Gurch <matthew.britton at btinternet.com> wrote:
> I was thinking more about the restrictions we impose on mirror sites
> (including but not limited to the GFDL), but I accept your point that
> facts aren't copyrightable.

The GFDL is only enforcible to the extent of copyright law.  Not sure
what other restrictions you're talking about.  Trademark law doesn't
seem to apply here either, though.

> Whether a collection of Wikipedia infoboxes
> can be equated with a collection of facts is another matter, though; if
> that was true, surely it could be argued that the rest of the article is
> also no more than a collection of facts, and hence not subject to copyright?
>
An encyclopedia article is more than just a collection of facts.
Those facts are arranged in a particular manner, and expressed in a
particular way.  If you could somehow reduce the encyclopedia article
to the raw facts, and then re-express them in your own words and in a
random order, then you *might* be able to escape the copyright of the
original.  Of course even then, collections of facts are themselves
copyrightable *as a collection*, to the extent that the selection of
which facts to present is creative.

So an encyclopedia article is almost surely copyrightable, whereas a
single fact from an encyclopedia article is almost surely not.  In
between, is where lawyers make their money.

All of this is completely US-centric, of course.  I can't imagine a
jurisdiction where what Google is doing would actually result in a
copyright infringement lawsuit, but there are some pretty strange laws
out there.

Anthony


body:
Wednesday, January 3, 2007, 7:58:27 PM, The Cunctator wrote:

> It's a perfectly fine, non-biased article that is hurting NOONE by its
> existence and represents real effort by the contributors. Why does it need
> to be deleted? WHY?

That's not a valid argument. If I write a fine, non-bias article on myself,
it wouldn't hurt NO ONE, either and it would be a real effort from me,
the contributor, right?


body:
Wednesday, January 3, 2007, 8:53:30 PM, Angela wrote:

> http://internet.wikia.com/index.php?title=User:Angela&oldid=1943 shows
> 17 examples of pages you deleted today which I've rescued for the
> Internet Wiki, but it's a shame so many hundreds like those are being
> deleted every day rather than moved to a more suitable wiki or
> rewritten to make them suitable for Wikipedia.

Maybe there should be some way to mark the articles which are not
notable for wikipedia, but are worthy to be included in internet.wikia.com

For example, one would include "I7W" (non-notable website) as reason
for deletion and a bot would monitor the deletion log and take the deleted
articles marked that way and automatically post them on internet Wikia.


from_name: Deathphoenix

body:
Yes, the quality of that article is a lot better than this one before it was
deleted.

On 1/3/07, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Wait. Disregard my question. Turns up there's no inconsistence -- it's
> that
> the guy I was thinking of actually has a darn good article.
>
> On 1/3/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 03/01/07, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Actually, no.
> > >
> > > This is something that leaves the Wikipedia/Media foundation with some
> > > serious legal problems, if one person's managed to get their bio
> deleted
> > and
> > > another person's having that prevented (I'm pretty sure I know who Mr.
> > Hare
> > > is referring to, too).
> >
> > "Serious legal problems" cannot be fantasised into existence; we are
> > under no legal bound to host someone's article or delete someone
> > else's on request. We are not a court system or a legal system, bound
> > by our own precedent; we're a private community with mutable community
> > rules.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sam_Vaknin
> > looks like an unambiguous delete decision to me by the community. We
> > did it consistent with our own rules.
> >
> > And weren't you making a big song and dance about leaving three months
> > ago?
> >
> > --
> > - Andrew Gray
> >   andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
Wednesday, January 3, 2007, 8:56:12 PM, Ray wrote:

> Too many on these subjects, or too few on "good" subjects?

Too few on "good" subjects. And those that are on good subjects, are
not properly written. Also, probably up to a quarter are created by
their owners.

> If the subject is of trivial importance the sources should matter less.
> Since when did the mainstream press become obligatory?

Wikipedia still requires verifiability and reliable sources, right?


from_name: Ivan Krstić

subject:
[Wikitech-l] What are the strategies to defense DDOS or crazy
 robots for wikipedia?

body:
Jim Hu wrote:
> Even if you didn't want to do this at the wiki level, I don't think
> special equipment is needed.  If you know where the DDOS is coming
> from, you can block at the Apache level, the firewall level, or use
> throttling scripts.

Clearly you have no experience with real DDoS attacks, then. If a web
page falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make
a sound?

(For the zen-challenged: functioning servers aren't very useful when no
one can reach them.)

--
Ivan Krsti? <krstic at solarsail.hcs.harvard.edu> | GPG: 0x147C722D


from_name: David Gerard

body:
http://community.livejournal.com/spellfecker/49108.html

Wikkan: A person who believes with a near religiously unshakeable
faith anything that they see on wikipedia.

(I have indicated our position on this ...)

- d.


from_name: howard chen

subject:
[Wikitech-l] What are the strategies to defense DDOS or crazy
	robots for wikipedia?

body:
On 1/3/07, Kasimir Gabert <kasimir.g at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Howard,
>
> I am not sure that blocking msnbot from your wiki would accomplish
> much.  You should also block robots in /robots.txt, not in your
> LocalSettings.php file.  If you want to protect against DDoS, you can
> not do it at a wiki level.  You will need to buy special equipment
> that detects it on a lower level.  (Some links:
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/netsol/ns615/networking_solutions_sub_solution.html
> and http://www.juniper.net/solutions/service_provider/network_security/
> ).  If you want to protect against malicious bots, you will have to
> use something such as captchas to separate the humans from the bots.
>
> I hope that this helps,
> Kasimir Gabert
>
> On 1/2/07, Jim Hu <jimhu at tamu.edu> wrote:
> > This may be a bit extreme, but I added this to my LocalSettings.php
> >
> > $agent= " " . $_SERVER['HTTP_USER_AGENT'];
> > if ( strpos($agent,"msnbot") ) {
> >          exit;
> > }
> >
> > found the snippet via Googling.
> > =====================================
> > Jim Hu
> >
> >
> > On Jan 2, 2007, at 6:31 PM, howard chen wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Can share something abt in these area?
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > > Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> >
>
>
> --
> Kasimir Gabert
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>

that's correct.

i want to know what kind of software/hardware/techniques are currently
used by wikipedia in defending DDOS. (not just robots)

we think these kind of experience is very useful for other web sites, too.

thanks.


from_name: Gurch

subject: [WikiEN-l] Google faking semantics

body:
Mathias Schindler wrote:
> On 1/3/07, cohesion <cohesion at sleepyhead.org> wrote:
>> It looks like google is pulling some information from wikipedia in a
>> pseudo semantic way,
>>
>> http://www.google.com/search?c2coff=1&q=hd+dvd+capacity&btnG=Search
>>
>> from
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_DVD
>>
>> Am I just noticing this, or is it new?
>
> Well, the feature itself is not new. It seems, however, that google is
> now automatically parsing info-box information, in this case:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_media
>
> This way, http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2006-27,GGGL:en&q=Betamax+encoding
> is working too, since http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betamax contains
>
> Betamax Media type: 	Video recording media
> Encoding: 	Magnetic tape
> Developed by: 	Sony
> Usage: 	Video storage
>
> Try googling:
> Betamax Usage
> GD-ROM media type
> VHS encoding
>
> and so on (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Infobox_media)
>
> So in order to find more of these shortcuts, one should check the
> infoboxen on en.wp
>
> Mathias

So Google has basically created a database of all Wikipedia's infoboxes,
and is serving up entries from them as search results on its website?
Does this count as mirroring our content? Are they in compliance with
whatever rules apply to whatever it is they're doing?

Aside from that, something concerns me here. These snippets are
displayed right at the top of search pages, above the search results,
even when the Wikipedia article itself is nowhere near the top search
result. In other words, anyone who manages to sneak the right value in
at the critical moment when Google is re-indexing the page can achieve
an effect similar to a [[Googlebomb]], but even more powerful. How long
before people start craftily changing infobox labels and values in an
attempt to abuse this?

*blocks self for WP:BEANS violation*

-Gurch


body:
"The Cunctator" wrote

> On 1/3/07, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > "The Cunctator" wrote
> >
> > > Who is expressing hate for anyone?
> >
> > You called someone a 'deletion nazi'? This should have been Game Over for
> > your argument.
>
>
> Oh, come on.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soup_Nazi

No, since when has attaching 'Nazi' to something been an acceptable way to argue? Don't quote Seinfeld to me. I'm not American, I don't watch it. That goes also for others on the list. You 'come on'. Stop being an ethnocentric jerk.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


subject: [WikiEN-l] Google faking semantics

body:
Anthony wrote:
> On 1/3/07, Gurch <matthew.britton at btinternet.com> wrote:
>> So Google has basically created a database of all Wikipedia's infoboxes,
>> and is serving up entries from them as search results on its website?
>> Does this count as mirroring our content? Are they in compliance with
>> whatever rules apply to whatever it is they're doing?
>>
> Facts aren't copyrightable, and even to the extent any of this was
> found copyrightable it would almost surely be fair use.
>
> Anthony

I was thinking more about the restrictions we impose on mirror sites
(including but not limited to the GFDL), but I accept your point that
facts aren't copyrightable. Whether a collection of Wikipedia infoboxes
can be equated with a collection of facts is another matter, though; if
that was true, surely it could be argued that the rest of the article is
also no more than a collection of facts, and hence not subject to copyright?

-Gurch


body:
On 03/01/07, Bogdan Giusca <liste at dapyx.com> wrote:

> Maybe I spent too much time editing history articles, where the source
> credibility matters, but accepting blog/forum/usenet posts as valid
> sources would be a great mistake, IMO.

A one-size-fits-all approach to what constitutes a reliable source is
exceedingly foolish. The sourcing needs to match the subject matter.

(The news media is not "reliable". It's "easily verified", which is
not the same thing at all. Many blogs are a hell of a lot more
reliable for factual information than many newspapers.)

- d.


body:
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 14:38:55 -0600 (CST), "Jeff Raymond"
<jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:

>The sooner we start allowing blogs and other self-published publications
>be reliable sources for these sorts of things, the better.

Yes, you'll get rid of all those tiresome people who think Wikipedia
is an encyclopaedia and aspire to some kind of credibility, and you
can get on with the job of documenting crap off teh internets, a genre
for which there is a real paucity of verbiage based on other crap off
teh internets.

Wait, I think you just invented Fark.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


list: textbook-l

from_name: Erik Moeller

subject:
[Textbook-l] Fwd: [BP] Free mathematics textbook,
	TeX source with GFDL license

body:
FYI

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rob Beezer <beezer at ups.edu>
Date: Dec 28, 2006 2:19 AM
Subject: [BP] Free mathematics textbook, TeX source with GFDL license
To: bookpeople at pobox.upenn.edu

This is an announcement of Version 1.0 of

A First Course in Linear Algebra

a free textbook that has TeX source available under the terms of the GNU
Free Documentation License (GFDL).  The book's website is at
http://linear.ups.edu

This is a sophomore-level course typically for mathematics and science
majors who have finished calculus and plan to take further advanced
courses in mathematics.  However, calculus is not really a prerequisite.
 The book is notable for a careful approach and extensive hyperlinks to
previous definitions and theorems as new arguments are formulated.  It
should be suitable for independent study.

I've published the book in a variety of formats:

*  Downloadable PDF's with varying page formats (8.5 x 11, A4, etc),
some meant for printing, some meant for on-screen reading

*  MathML/XML which will render very well in Firefox if you add the
suggested fonts for mathematics

*  Print-on-demand through Lulu.com in paperback or with a coil binding
(split into two volumes) at a cost of about $25 or $30

If you maintain an online list of such books, adding a link to
http://linear.ups.edu  will help increase the book's visibility and
hopefully lead to a community of contributors who will work with me to
add new material and correct the inevitable mistakes and missteps.

Feedback and suggestions welcomed.

Rob

--
Robert A. Beezer
Professor
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science
University of Puget Sound
1500 N Warner
Tacoma, WA  98416-1043

beezer at ups.edu
http://buzzard.ups.edu

Voice:  253.879.3564
Fax: 253.879.3522

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent via the Book People mailing list.
Posting address:              bookpeople at pobox.upenn.edu
Admin. & unsubscribe address: bookpeople-request at pobox.upenn.edu
Charter & archive:            http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/bplist/

--
Peace & Love,
Erik

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


from_name: Mathias Schindler

subject: [WikiEN-l] Google faking semantics

body:
On 1/3/07, cohesion <cohesion at sleepyhead.org> wrote:
> It looks like google is pulling some information from wikipedia in a
> pseudo semantic way,
>
> http://www.google.com/search?c2coff=1&q=hd+dvd+capacity&btnG=Search
>
> from
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_DVD
>
> Am I just noticing this, or is it new?

Well, the feature itself is not new. It seems, however, that google is
now automatically parsing info-box information, in this case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_media

This way, http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2006-27,GGGL:en&q=Betamax+encoding
is working too, since http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betamax contains

Betamax Media type: 	Video recording media
Encoding: 	Magnetic tape
Developed by: 	Sony
Usage: 	Video storage

Try googling:
Betamax Usage
GD-ROM media type
VHS encoding

and so on (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Infobox_media)

So in order to find more of these shortcuts, one should check the
infoboxen on en.wp

Mathias


body:
On 1/3/07, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> I thought "Wikian" was commonly accepted?

Wikian is an editor of Wikia. Wikkan is a play on the word Wiccan.

Angela


subject: [WikiEN-l] Google faking semantics

body:
Mathias Schindler wrote:
> On 1/3/07, Gurch <matthew.britton at btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> So Google has basically created a database of all Wikipedia's infoboxes,
>> and is serving up entries from them as search results on its website?
>> Does this count as mirroring our content? Are they in compliance with
>> whatever rules apply to whatever it is they're doing?
>
> They are extracting mere facts, there is no copyright on facts. US law
> (AFAIK) does not know a copyright on databases as such (different in
> the EU). They are attributing the source along with a link on the
> wikipedia site. IMHO, they are compliant in both the legal and the
> moral part.
>
>> Aside from that, something concerns me here. These snippets are
>> displayed right at the top of search pages, above the search results,
>> even when the Wikipedia article itself is nowhere near the top search
>> result. In other words, anyone who manages to sneak the right value in
>> at the critical moment when Google is re-indexing the page can achieve
>> an effect similar to a [[Googlebomb]], but even more powerful. How long
>> before people start craftily changing infobox labels and values in an
>> attempt to abuse this?
>
> That would be pretty much pointless. In case you are worrying, you
> might want to help bring the "stable version" feature back to life...

How would I go about doing that? Also, when you say "back to life", are
you suggesting it is somehow "dead"? I was under the impression the devs
were planning to implement stable versions properly as soon as they
finished single login.


body:
Wednesday, January 3, 2007, 10:38:55 PM, Jeff wrote:

> Bogdan Giusca wrote:

>> Can anyone suggest any solution to this?
> The sooner we start allowing blogs and other self-published publications
> be reliable sources for these sorts of things, the better.

Imagine the spam we'd get then as "references". You know that a link
from Wikipedia is pretty valuable for one's Google PageRank.


list: commons-l

from_name: Robin Schwab

subject:
[Commons-l] Category renaming (was: Anglo-Saxonisation of the
	commons)

body:
In the recent days I noticed an increase in conflicts about category
renaming. Two cases: Category:Churches_in_Italy (and others) and
Category:Cities_and_villages_by_country

I think we would benefit from a formalized system for category
renamings. The damage is enormous if a well working category tree gets
destroyed or damaged. Currently all places worldwide are categorized as
cities independent of their size!

An idea could be that there must be a deletion request for the category
to be moved. What do you think of this?

Regards

Robin


body:
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote

> On Wednesday 03 January 2007 16:20, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com wrote:
> >
> > No, since when has attaching 'Nazi' to something been an acceptable way to
> > argue? Don't quote Seinfeld to me. I'm not American, I don't watch it. That
> > goes also for others on the list. You 'come on'. Stop being an ethnocentric
> > jerk.
>
> Oh, grow up.
>
> It was funny.  And appropriate.
>
> If you're that thin-skinned that you find it upsetting, then you DESERVE to be
> upset.

Actually, it wasn't funny. It wasn't even a joke, as far as I can see. It wss intended to re-open the old deletionist-inclusionist schism. The Cunctator, having been a face of some eminence on enWP in the early days, pops up here again. Welcome back, I say; but please don't assume we're in the same timewarp as you. Matters such as reliable sourcing for articles are not now regarded as optional: we are more sensitive on the issue. Someone who posts here on the topic of unsourced articles about websites might expect a reasoned argument, in line with the current policies, rather than that.

Furthermore Godwin's Law applies: call someone a Nazi, you LOSE the argument.

And "If you're that thin-skinned that you find it upsetting, then you DESERVE to be upset" is not only crass, offensive stuff, if typical enough of the depths to which this list has sunk. (Can we please please moderate some of these folk? This is becoming troll city.) It seems to be aimed at everyone who might not understand the context.

I really don't think I'm the one who is maturity-challenged here.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


body:
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/UnNews:Hope_sucked_out_of_Wikipedia%2C_experts_report

(I realised Esperanza had gone way off the rails when I got barnstar
police showing up at my talk page to inform me of the correct usage of
barnstars on my user page ... you know, those awards that were
strictly between the awarder and awardee in the days before an
overarching organization volunteered to help us soulless nerds with
such tricky matters.)

- d.


body:
"The Cunctator" wrote

> > No, since when has attaching 'Nazi' to something been an acceptable way to
> > argue?

> For a long time.

No, it's not acceptable just because you accept it.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


from_name: Andrew Gray

body:
On 03/01/07, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually, no.
>
> This is something that leaves the Wikipedia/Media foundation with some
> serious legal problems, if one person's managed to get their bio deleted and
> another person's having that prevented (I'm pretty sure I know who Mr. Hare
> is referring to, too).

"Serious legal problems" cannot be fantasised into existence; we are
under no legal bound to host someone's article or delete someone
else's on request. We are not a court system or a legal system, bound
by our own precedent; we're a private community with mutable community
rules.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sam_Vaknin
looks like an unambiguous delete decision to me by the community. We
did it consistent with our own rules.

And weren't you making a big song and dance about leaving three months ago?

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Google faking semantics

body:
On 1/3/07, Gurch <matthew.britton at btinternet.com> wrote:

> So Google has basically created a database of all Wikipedia's infoboxes,
> and is serving up entries from them as search results on its website?
> Does this count as mirroring our content? Are they in compliance with
> whatever rules apply to whatever it is they're doing?

They are extracting mere facts, there is no copyright on facts. US law
(AFAIK) does not know a copyright on databases as such (different in
the EU). They are attributing the source along with a link on the
wikipedia site. IMHO, they are compliant in both the legal and the
moral part.

> Aside from that, something concerns me here. These snippets are
> displayed right at the top of search pages, above the search results,
> even when the Wikipedia article itself is nowhere near the top search
> result. In other words, anyone who manages to sneak the right value in
> at the critical moment when Google is re-indexing the page can achieve
> an effect similar to a [[Googlebomb]], but even more powerful. How long
> before people start craftily changing infobox labels and values in an
> attempt to abuse this?

That would be pretty much pointless. In case you are worrying, you
might want to help bring the "stable version" feature back to life...


subject: [WikiEN-l] Google faking semantics

body:
On 1/3/07, Gurch <matthew.britton at btinternet.com> wrote:

> facts aren't copyrightable. Whether a collection of Wikipedia infoboxes
> can be equated with a collection of facts is another matter, though; if
> that was true, surely it could be argued that the rest of the article is
> also no more than a collection of facts, and hence not subject to copyright?

In case of doubt, only a judge can give you a preliminary answer as
long as there is a superior court.

Mathias


from_name: George Herbert

body:
On 1/3/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 14:38:55 -0600 (CST), "Jeff Raymond"
> <jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:
>
> >The sooner we start allowing blogs and other self-published publications
> >be reliable sources for these sorts of things, the better.
>
> Yes, you'll get rid of all those tiresome people who think Wikipedia
> is an encyclopaedia and aspire to some kind of credibility, and you
> can get on with the job of documenting crap off teh internets, a genre
> for which there is a real paucity of verbiage based on other crap off
> teh internets.
>
> Wait, I think you just invented Fark.

On good days, this keeps nutsy cruft away.

On bad days, people wave the knife around to the extent that even The
New York Times and books published by reputable publishers aren't
sufficiently reliable, and the unpopular topic of the day gets nuked
anyways.

Consistency apparently isn't our strong suit so far this year...

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


from_name: Kurt Maxwell Weber

body:
On Wednesday 03 January 2007 17:07, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com wrote:
>
> Actually, it wasn't funny. It wasn't even a joke, as far as I can see.

Tough shit.  The rest of us don't have to modify our behavior to satisfy the
irrational and capricious preferences of a few uptight jackasses.

> Furthermore Godwin's Law applies: call someone a Nazi, you LOSE the
> argument.

What a wonderful example of your misundertanding of Godwin's law.

Godwin's law is, essentially: "As the length of an argument on
$ELECTRONICCOMMUNICATIONSMEDIUM continues, the probability of a comparison
involving Nazi Germany approaches one."

That's not the exact formulation, of course, but that's the gist of it.
Nothing about "losing" the argument.  Nor should there be.

Why?

Because there are times when comparisons with Nazi Germany are quite apt--such
as in the case you're having a shitfit about.

> I really don't think I'm the one who is maturity-challenged here.

You're the one getting upset about stuff that doesn't matter...

--
Kurt Weber
<kmw at armory.com>


from_name: Chris McKenna

subject: [WikiEN-l] [Wikimediauk-l] London pub meet report

body:
I too took lots of photos (any that are any good will be online tomorrow
probably) and had a great evening in the pub with everyone followed by a
nice Chinese meal with Phoebe, Austin and Psychonaut (sorry, I can't
remember your real name).

As for next week, the sign on the door of the Montagu Pyke said it was
closed until the 6th (Saturday) so it should be open. Another option is
the Metropolitan Bar (aka the Met Bar), a large Weatherspoons above
(literally) Baker Street tube station. I've been to several successful
meets with a London Underground forum there, and there has never been any
issue with getting a seat.

On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, David Gerard wrote:

> James F. managed to pick the one pub in London that was closed for
> repairs. So we stuck an oblique sign on the window (which may still be
> there for all I know) and adjourned to the Chandos (?) near Leicester
> Square.
>
> Attendees: James Forrester, me, Phoebe (User:Brassratgirl), Austin
> Hair, User:Psychonaut, User:Morwen, Chris McKenna (User:Thryduulf),
> Chris Sherlock (User:Ta bu shi da yu) and his wife (they're doing
> Europe for their honeymoon) and Psychonaut's pet ferret. We got lots
> of photos on James' [[Casio Exilim]] EX-S600 camera, which I found the
> "get usable photos in really dim light" setting on. I did my best to
> be loud, drunk and embarrassing, except I am not susceptible to
> embarrassment. We had a marvellous time. Excellent stuff.
>
> Next week: what day depends on your schedule, Jimbo. Monday or Tuesday
> evening, and where are you staying? Not sure which pub either. Chandos
> has nice beer but was bloody impossible to find a seat in ... might
> see if the Montagu Pyke is open this time.
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediauk-l at wikimedia.org
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
>

--
Chris 'Awkward' McKenna

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

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

Antoine de Saint Exupery


from_name: Mark Clements

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

body:
"Ilmari Karonen" <nospam at vyznev.net> wrote in
message news:4595A54D.2070803 at vyznev.net...
> Plyd wrote:
> >
> > To the proposition given by Steve, I would add "Correct all double
> > redirects", to prevent not wanted pages to be re-redirected
> > automatically.
> >
> > Like this :
> >> * Poker/Hands (linked 1 time - [[correct]])
> >> * Ace-to-six low (linked 3 times - [[correct]])
> >> * Deuce-to-seven low (linked 7 times - [[correct]])
> > [[Correct double redirects for these pages]]
>
> That actually sounds like the best solution so far.  Maybe with a
> checkbox for each redirect, like on [[Special:Undelete]] or
> [[Special:Watchlist/edit]]?
>

Another solution is for MW to be a bit cleverer, and to follow double
(triple/quadruple/whatever) redirects automatically, which would make this a
non-issue.

To fix the speed issues involved in following these redirects when they are
encountered, the actual target of the redirect could be cached in the DB
(and this might be useful to do for other reasons too, e.g.
http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6934).

If an infinite loop is encountered the whole loop should be logged to the DB
in a 'recursive redirects' table, and shown on an associated redirect page
to be fixed.  If a user visits one of the pages in the loop then no
redirects are followed and the requested page is shown, with a suitable
error message allowing them to fix it there and then.

As far as I can see, from a user-interface point of view this is the ideal
solution to this and several other problems (I've always wondered why the
software doesn't handle double-redirects properly).  I don't know whether
the reason for only allowing single redirects is technical or just
historical, however I'm sure that if there are technical reasons they can be
overcome with a bit of creativity.

- Mark Clements (HappyDog)


body:
"Mark Clements" <gmane at kennel17.co.uk> wrote in
message news:enhgtv$1ro$1 at sea.gmane.org...
[SNIP]
> If an infinite loop is encountered the whole loop should be logged to the
DB
> in a 'recursive redirects' table, and shown on an associated redirect page
> to be fixed.
[SNIP]

Oops - I meant "associated special page", not "associated redirect page".

- Mark Clements (HappyDog)


from_name: Oldak Quill

subject: [WikiEN-l] Inline Wiktionary links

body:
On 02/01/07, Conrad Irwin <conrad.irwin at googlemail.com> wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> When an obscure term is used in a body of text that has no Wikipedia article
> associated with it, the author of the article, at the moment, has to include
> the meaning of the word in the article itself. Would it not make sense to
> have a way of quickly making links to look up a word in Wiktionary,
> something like {{define|miscellany}}.

Different words will be lost on different people. I've always wanted
some kind of javascript extension/tool where one can right-click a
word (or hold "D" and left click or something) and a small box will
open up with a Wiktionary definition of the word... Perhaps this has
already been written.

Most unknown words are technical and should be linked to their specific article.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: Thomas Dalton

body:
> It's a perfectly fine, non-biased article that is hurting NOONE by its
> existence and represents real effort by the contributors. Why does it need
> to be deleted? WHY?

Because we have a policy that says we delete articles that don't
assert notability. If you want to change the policy, then you know
what you have to do.


body:
for example, Chinese version of `Ronaldo` is at

http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%BE%85%E7%B4%8D%E5%BA%A6

how to link up its English, or Japanese version?

thanks.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Google faking semantics

body:
> Well, the data isn't really semantically tagged at all, they are just
> assuming things based on proximity.

It's tagged using the semantics of the English language. The idea
behind the "semantic web" is that we tag facts using a system easier
to parse (for a computer) than English, but if google can parse
English (in this limited context), then good for them.


from_name: Fredrik Josefsson

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

body:
bawolff <bawolff+wn at gmail.com> skrev:  Why not just edit stuff in the [[mediawiki:*]] namespace to make the
uploader field more prominent in the file history? Whomever uploaded
it is usually the author, and you don't need users to do the "right
thing" its automatic.

-bawolff

  It is difficult to implement this, as the developers have told me.

  I do think that if we want to develop this free stuff concept, our  software needs to be more user friendly. Wikipedia is getting big, but  it is still too complicated for ordinary people to do things that  should be simple, such as uploading files.

  The upload form which requires the user to copy and paste a template is  not something I'd expect every user to understand (for example my  grandparents, but maybe not my parents either). And the current  language translation of template is hardly optimal.

  Fredrik.

 __________________________________________________
Anv?nder du Yahoo!?
?r du tr?tt p? spam?  Yahoo! E-post har det b?sta spamskyddet som finns
http://se.mail.yahoo.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20070104/90b3b388/attachment.htm


from_name: zero 0000

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletionism

body:
> From: "The Cunctator" <cunctator at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Thousands of *awful* articles on websites
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> 	<dfd0b40701030958l119eb62dgd51274d0013cce4a at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> It's a perfectly fine, non-biased article that is hurting NOONE by
> its existence and represents real effort by the contributors. Why
> does it need to be deleted? WHY?

I agree 101%.  Deletionism seems to be a sort of mental disease.
Why do these people get so much pleasure from deleting articles
that are doing nobody any harm and are potentially helping
someone?  Do they squash ants for fun too?

Zero.

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


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
The Cunctator wrote:

>I would note that "Game Over" comes from American video game culture
>
It's much older than.  It appeared on pinball machines before video
games ever existed.

Ec


from_name: Matthew Flaschen

subject: [Wikitech-l] CoolDictionary.com

body:
CoolDictionary.com seems to be mirroring Wikipedia pages dynamically.
See for instance
http://www.cooldictionary.com/words/Portal:Current%20events.wikipedia.
I think one of the devs should block this, if possible.

Matthew Flaschen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 252 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20070104/80f96211/attachment.pgp>