from_name: SJ

body:
Hi Littlebtc,

We don't have good numbers for this, unfortunately.  I also don't
think they would be very telling, as streaming was not widely promoted
either of the past two years.  The right answer will depend largely on
how many people know it is available.

Perhaps you can do a poll of people who expect they would use it; I
would guess that at least 200 streams would be used if available and
well-promoted.  If you make remote participation a core element of the
conference, you could attract more interest than that.

--SJ

On 11/21/06, ?? <sst.dreams at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello everyone, I am Littlebtc, a member of Wikimania 2007 planning team.
>
> When we talk to sponsors about web streaming sponsorship,  they want
> to know how many people will use web streaming to watch the conference
> so that they can help us.
>
> So we'd like to know the amount of web streaming listener, or
> bandwidth of the streaming website during Wikimania 2006.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
++SJ


list: wikimedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

subject: [Foundation-l] About web streaming in Wikimania


list: foundation-l

from_name: geni

subject: [Foundation-l] wikicouncil

body:
On 11/22/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Maybe you are confusing board and staff here.
>

yes an no without board authority staff would have a somewhat different role.

> As long as we have an election system of some type, I feel there is
> little chance of that happening.

The board can to a large degree controls who has dealings with it. If
you limit elections to people who have had past roles in the area
around the board then the baord can pretty much limit elections to
insiders only.

> If you say so...

There would have been little point if you consider that most of them
had solid editing records so there was no way to use an editing record
to put yourself appart for another candidates.

>
> That comment makes no sense since I was myself elected. Afaik, I can
> work with Erik. I have already shared workloads with Oscar. And I do not
> think I ever had any trouble with Mindspillage. I did work with Kelly
> (something not everyone could claim being able to). Etc...
> But whether I am able to work with this person or not is irrelevant. I
> will not be forever on the board. I will quit it probably sooner than
> later. But I hope the Foundaiton will be there for many years to come,
> along with a network of more and more numerous chapters. I will have
> given at least 3 years of my time to the Foundation. I hope that this
> work is not given in vain.

Even if there are 9 places (I tend to feel that would be getting a bit
too big) the comunity will elect the people it wants. If you belive
that the people the comunity wants are a problem then the problem is
very serious indeed.

> Uh. Look again. In all good faith.
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Election_candidates_2006
>
> In France, we do a screening for presidential elections. Contrariwise to
> the USA, we have direct elections. But our candidates must receive the
> support of at least 500 political persona before having their candidacy
> accepted.

That isn't so much screening as haveing nomination procedures. It's
bottem up rather than top down and meant to keep out frivilious
candidates only. It does not mean that the goverment can hold any sway
over who is elected. you could not use it to inforce "people who have
had dealings with the area around the board only" if the community
decided to elect someone else.

However such a system tends to be buracratic and requires effort to
run and thus should not be adopted until there are too many candidates
running (no I don't know what too many is other than 60+ probably is
too many)

--
geni


subject: [Foundation-l] wikicouncil


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Foundation-l] wikicouncil

body:
geni wrote:
> On 11/21/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Amongst these 1000 people, how many really understand what the
>>Foundation is about ? I'd say very few. I have memories of editors
>>asking us repeatedly to block this person, mediate this conflict, decide
>>which article version was fine. And that is not at all what the
>>Foundation is about.
>
>
> Groovy so next time the deletion or not of [[Brian peppers]] will be
> left to the wikipedia community? Office actions will be limited to
> legal threats only? To those of us in the receiving end the line is
> somewhat less clear.

Maybe you are confusing board and staff here.

>>What really bugs me in the end, is this.
>>If we have at least 1000 people knowing about the Foundation, and caring
>>enough to vote for its board, we have far less people actually knowing
>>what is going on, and having an idea what the job encompasses.
>>
>>I am still perplex of the past election candidates. About half of them
>>were people I knew. People involved at various levels in the Foundation
>>itself or in local associations. They have a minimum knowledge about the
>>role of a board member, and at least, we know they are interested in
>>these administratives tasks. We may appreciate their job and
>>personnality more or less, but at least, they showed their willingness
>>of being involved.
>>
>>But about half of the candidates, I hardly know. Or did not know at all.
>>Because they had never been beyond their local project. Never tried to
>>get involved in making something like a press release, or helping on
>>otrs, or giving conferences, or giving a hand at Wikimania. Some had
>>done *nothing* at all at the organisational level.
>>Still, they get a lot of support from equally unknown people, because
>>they have a lot of edits, because they are nice and helpful generally.
>>They could be elected for these qualities regardless of the qualities
>>they could show on the board.
>
>
> Or perhaps they got votes precisely because they were outsiders. If we
> only elect people with past histories of dealing with the board will
> allow the board to a degree become self selecting.

As long as we have an election system of some type, I feel there is
little chance of that happening.

>>I can't help find that it is weird. I do not feel the board is *above*
>>people. It is another job. It is serving the project, just as editors
>>are serving the project, just as developers are serving the project.
>>Editors get sysops according to the quality of their work on the
>>project. Developers get more access according to the quality of their
>>work as developers. But board members... basically, there is no
>>requirement except that being appreciated/recognised by the largest
>>number of people for their activity as editors.
>>
>
>
> Nyet very few people if any ran on their background as editors.

If you say so...

>>I am not sure indirect elections thanks to a "wikiblob" are the best way
>>to solve this actually. There may be different ways to fix that. But the
>>current situation strikes me as non sustainable in the long term. Until
>>now, choices were great in the end :-) but if we expand the board with
>>for example 9 elected people (not very likely), I am more hesitant.
>>
>
>
> You think you would be unable to work with the kind of people the
> community wants in charge?

That comment makes no sense since I was myself elected. Afaik, I can
work with Erik. I have already shared workloads with Oscar. And I do not
think I ever had any trouble with Mindspillage. I did work with Kelly
(something not everyone could claim being able to). Etc...
But whether I am able to work with this person or not is irrelevant. I
will not be forever on the board. I will quit it probably sooner than
later. But I hope the Foundaiton will be there for many years to come,
along with a network of more and more numerous chapters. I will have
given at least 3 years of my time to the Foundation. I hope that this
work is not given in vain.

Anyway it will be sometime before any
> further elections can reasonably be held which provides an opertunity
> for makeing the board better known
>
>
>>Dunno. Maybe there should be requirements on candidates to show
>>involvment in organisational issues (but that's hard to measure). Or
>>maybe the candidates should go through a sort of screening procedure.
>>
>
>
> While that may be best practice in Iran I see no need to do that here.

Uh. Look again. In all good faith.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Election_candidates_2006

In France, we do a screening for presidential elections. Contrariwise to
the USA, we have direct elections. But our candidates must receive the
support of at least 500 political persona before having their candidacy
accepted.

ant


subject: [Foundation-l] wikicouncil


subject: [Foundation-l] out of your mind....

body:
If you had to cite organisations which share a lot with our, which
organisations would you cite ?

Key words here being
* rather young and still little organised
* very largely based on volunteer work
* with little money (not the pouring barrels some non profits get...)

We'd like to contact some "similar-like" organisations to share best
practices.

Do you have names to suggest (not necessarily limited to open source or
free software)

Ant


subject: [Foundation-l] out of your mind....


list: wikien-l

from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
On 21/11/06, niht-hr?fn <nihthraefn at gmail.com> wrote:

> The recent thread on the low numbers of women applying for ArbCom and
> subsequent discussion about systemic bias and under-representation of
> women has led me to wonder about the nature of gender-related
> systemic bias on the English Wikipedia. As far as "gender is
> irrelevant" goes, this is simply not true. Gender of editors really
> does matter as far as coverage and quality thereof goes. Most of the

I'm thinking of a conversation with a feminist friend who considers
Wikipedia hopelessly patriarchally biased and useless to harmful. I
pointed out we had recognised the systemic bias issue. I also asked
her to think about solutions that include the assumption that
Wikipedia is not going to go away.

- d.


from_name: 小犬

body:
Hello everyone, I am Littlebtc, a member of Wikimania 2007 planning team.

When we talk to sponsors about web streaming sponsorship,  they want
to know how many people will use web streaming to watch the conference
so that they can help us.

So we'd like to know the amount of web streaming listener, or
bandwidth of the streaming website during Wikimania 2006.


from_name: Łukasz Garczewski

subject: [Foundation-l] wikicouncil

body:
Oh for the love of God... You're all doing it again!

I remember when the committees were being set up nobody (!) knew exactly
what they were supposed to do. They had to organize themselves after
'incorporation'. That is a very wrong approach, IMO. Same thing is
happening now all over again.

So just stop for a second, OK?

I suggest we define issues and problems that would need
coordination/handling on meta-project level *first* and then try to
think of a way to deal with them. It may well be that some can be solved
simply by using the structures in place. For those that remain without
even the slightest idea on how to fix them we can move to actually
create something entirely new.

One example that comes to my mind right away is this:
* policy on sitenotice display (mandatory fundraising notices? or is
this up to each project?)

This could simply be ruled by WMF but would have little or no impact on
projects which are not represented on the foundation level (this list
for example). A Wikicouncil ruling would probably work better.

Try to think along those lines.

And *please* do the defining on-wiki. That's why we have meta for.

Note that I am a big fan of the Wikicouncil idea (i.e. a representative
body of some sort). But at the same time I believe that this is not
going to work properly unless we start out with the "whats" and not the
"hows".

I'm going to bed. *yawn*

--
TOR


subject: [Foundation-l] wikicouncil


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Brianna Laugher

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] [Foundation-l] contents under
	education/information licenses

body:
On 22/11/06, David Monniaux <David.Monniaux at free.fr> wrote:
> Artur Fija?kowski a ?crit :
> > copyrighted except of free educational use ?
> Er... Free or commercial, I said.
>
> Also, then, again, why not prohibit "fair use" content?

...But many of us would like to prohibit "fair use"
content...unfortunately our edicts don't have as much impact as other
people's. :)

Brianna
user:pfctdayelise


from_name: Puppy

subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
Sarah wrote:
> On 11/21/06, niht-hr?fn <nihthraefn at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Most of the
>> women I know spend one or two hours in the morning with a
>> straightening iron and a blow dryer. Wikipedia has http://
>> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowdryer and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
>> Hair_iron . These two articles are considerably out of date and do
>> not begin to encompass the complexities of these appliances (and
>> there is not even separate articles for straightening irons and
>> curling irons!). Compare to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer and
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television , the two appliances I have
>> known men to use most.
>>
>
> Keitel, your e-mail is itself a good example of bias. The women you
> know who spend two hours every morning with a straightening iron and a
> blowdryer need to find a good hairdresser. The cut is everything. :-)
>
> Seriously, it's kind of disturbing to see that women should be editing
> [[Blowdryer]] while the men get to grips with [[Arab-Israeli
> conflict]].
>
> Sarah
> _______________________________________________
>
>
Speaking as a woman who does not even own a blowdryer or curling iron, I
concur with Sarah - the cut is everything. I also am closer to losing my
temper than at any other time ever on Wikipedia. Keitel, your entire
email is insulting in the extreme. No one is claiming women handle all
the "serious" articles and men edit only Beer and NASCAR articles. You
are taking one tiny stereotype and applying it across the board. I
personally use a computer, I am a programmer by trade, and have not
touched a curling iron in 30 years. I know men who won't touch a
computer. If "most of the women" you know actually have more interest in
their hair than in current events, history, the rise and fall of
nations, influential novels, paradigms which have reshaped society, etc,
all I can say to you is that you need to meet some new women.

--pissed puppy, who doesn't care for stereotypes


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
Sarah wrote:
> On 11/21/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think it is probably very likely that most of Wikipedia's editing is
>> done by males, and I find it inconceivable that this wouldn't effect a
>> slant in the editing. That being said, I am not sure I know where the
>> "problem" lies, if we decide that it is a problem, and I am not sure
>> there is any sort of easy fix. I suspect that editing regularly on
>> Wikipedia caters primarily to activities which are often branded as
>> "masculine" in U.S. culture (aggressiveness, boldness, assertiveness,
>> argumentitiveness), and that would be something without an easy fix
>> (and its possible that any fixes would go directly against the
>> unplanned, unmanaged wiki spirit). But I don't know.
>>
>>
> I think female editors have a tendency to be demonized more readily
> than men if they assert themselves. A certain attack site is very keen
> on attacking women admins, and while that's partly to do with the
> personalities of the people who post there, I think there may also be
> a strain of sexism in it -- women admins getting above themselves,
> being viewed as aggressive rather than assertive. But I haven't
> noticed any serious bias in terms of editing.
>
> Sarah
> _______________________________________________
Simone de Beauvior once said there are two types of people: Human beings
and women, and that when women act like human beings, they are accused
of trying to be men.

-kc


from_name: Lars Aronsson

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] [Foundation-l] contents under
 education/information licenses

body:
David Monniaux wrote:

> The big problem is that, as things are now, if A uses photos from B in
> an advertisement, it is generally interpreted as B endorsing A.

If they really wanted to release an image, they could find a way.
They have solved more complicated problems than this, things that
really are rocket science.  Therefore, if they don't release any
images, this must be interpreted as a lack of will.  And so be it.
We cannot force them.  All we can do is to leave their articles
without proper illustrations.

Let me tell an odd story from Sweden: The website of the Swedish
parliament provides portrait photos of all 349 members.  These
photos are free for any use, and are now at Commons, e.g.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Gunilla_Carlsson.jpg
But the website of the Swedish government provides portrait photos
that are free for any use *until* the next election in 2010, after
which the full copyright returns to the photographer!  So the
government didn't buy the photos of themselves, they just rented
them for four years, http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/2000
Again, if they really wanted they could of course get photos
without this strange time limit.  It's a simple contract with the
photographer.  It's not rocket science.

--
  Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
Puppy wrote:
> Sarah wrote:
>
>> On 11/21/06, niht-hr?fn <nihthraefn at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Most of the
>>> women I know spend one or two hours in the morning with a
>>> straightening iron and a blow dryer. Wikipedia has http://
>>> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowdryer and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
>>> Hair_iron . These two articles are considerably out of date and do
>>> not begin to encompass the complexities of these appliances (and
>>> there is not even separate articles for straightening irons and
>>> curling irons!). Compare to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer and
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television , the two appliances I have
>>> known men to use most.
>>>
>>>
>> Keitel, your e-mail is itself a good example of bias. The women you
>> know who spend two hours every morning with a straightening iron and a
>> blowdryer need to find a good hairdresser. The cut is everything. :-)
>>
>> Seriously, it's kind of disturbing to see that women should be editing
>> [[Blowdryer]] while the men get to grips with [[Arab-Israeli
>> conflict]].
>>
>> Sarah
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
> Speaking as a woman who does not even own a blowdryer or curling iron, I
> concur with Sarah - the cut is everything. I also am closer to losing my
> temper than at any other time ever on Wikipedia. Keitel, your entire
> email is insulting in the extreme. No one is claiming women handle all
> the "serious" articles and men edit only Beer and NASCAR articles. You
> are taking one tiny stereotype and applying it across the board. I
> personally use a computer, I am a programmer by trade, and have not
> touched a curling iron in 30 years. I know men who won't touch a
> computer. If "most of the women" you know actually have more interest in
> their hair than in current events, history, the rise and fall of
> nations, influential novels, paradigms which have reshaped society, etc,
> all I can say to you is that you need to meet some new women.
>
> --pissed puppy, who doesn't care for stereotypes
>
>
>
Now you see what happens when I don't have a preview button. Apologies
to all for getting irritated...
-puppy, chastised by self


from_name: James Hare

subject: [Foundation-l] A great ruling for the community

body:
Not surprised, really, I've heard California's really cool with the
Internet.

On 11/22/06, Jeffrey V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>
> Brad Patrick wrote:
>
> >The California Supreme Court issued its ruling yesterday in the Barrett
> >v. Rosenthal case, one of the most closely watched cases involving the
> >Communications Decency Act section 230.  The Court came down strongly in
> >favor of internet freedom and immunity from liability for those within
> >the protection of Section 230.  This has significant implications for
> >"distributor" and "user" theories of liability/immunity.  Overall, this
> >decision is very good for Wikimedia Foundation projects, and our users.
> >
> >I encourage anyone interested to see the opinion at
> >http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S122953.PDF.
> >
> >
> >-Brad
> >_______________________________________________
> >foundation-l mailing list
> >foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> >
> >
> No help in Federal Court though, where most interstate litigations
> occur, just California, and their long arm
> statutes are very restrictive. In a state that already has SLAPP
> precedents, seems a natural next step for their
> supreme court. The dormant commerce clause will undoubtably govern those
> cases however for CDA 230.
>
> Jeff
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Tony Jacobs

subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
>From: Puppy <puppy at KillerChihuahua.com>
>I don't want to sound
>misogynistic here - certainly some men were more biased, some less, some
>not at all, and some were feminists. But they still didn't clean the
>kitchen.
>

If a man doesn't clean the kitchen, he's not a feminist.

GTBacchus

_________________________________________________________________
View Athlete?s Collections with Live Search
http://sportmaps.live.com/index.html?source=hmemailtaglinenov06&FORM=MGAC01


from_name: niht-hræfn

subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
On Nov 22, 2006, at 6:18, Puppy wrote:

> Puppy wrote:

>> No one is claiming women handle all
>> the "serious" articles and men edit only Beer and NASCAR articles.
>> You
>> are taking one tiny stereotype and applying it across the board. I
>> personally use a computer, I am a programmer by trade, and have not
>> touched a curling iron in 30 years. I know men who won't touch a
>> computer. If "most of the women" you know actually have more
>> interest in
>> their hair than in current events, history, the rise and fall of
>> nations, influential novels, paradigms which have reshaped
>> society, etc,
>> all I can say to you is that you need to meet some new women.
>>
>> --pissed puppy, who doesn't care for stereotypes
>>
>>

I didn't mean to imply this. I'm saying coverage of stereotypically
"women's" stuff (which many women wouldn't have a problem fixing up)
is not optimal. The women that I know who may happen to blowdry their
hair or straighten it also have computers and are interested in
history and literature. However, they don't edit Wikipedia while some
of the men I know do sometimes. I could probably have chosen a better
stereotypical subject to harp on... However, more important than our
coverage is how inviting we are to female editors, unless we wish to
argue that a male-dominated editing body will benefit us most in the
end. I think we should be equally concerned with how inviting we are
to older editors, more technophobic (if that's a good word) editors,
and such.

I wonder though, why [[Menstruation]], [[Menses]], [[Menstruum]],
[[Menstrual flow]], etc redirect to [[Menstrual cycle]] instead of
having their own articles, with menses just being mentioned (two
sentences) and the topics of menstruation near the end of the
article, almost as an afterthought.

--Keitei, who cares more about menstruation than your average woman
(and who doesn't blowdry her hair and rarely straightens or curls it
because the heat is horrible for the hair)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
niht-hr?fn wrote:
> On Nov 22, 2006, at 6:18, Puppy wrote:
>
>> Puppy wrote:
>>
>>> No one is claiming women handle all
>>> the "serious" articles and men edit only Beer and NASCAR articles.
>>> You
>>> are taking one tiny stereotype and applying it across the board. I
>>> personally use a computer, I am a programmer by trade, and have not
>>> touched a curling iron in 30 years. I know men who won't touch a
>>> computer. If "most of the women" you know actually have more
>>> interest in
>>> their hair than in current events, history, the rise and fall of
>>> nations, influential novels, paradigms which have reshaped
>>> society, etc,
>>> all I can say to you is that you need to meet some new women.
>>>
>>> --pissed puppy, who doesn't care for stereotypes
>>>
>
> I didn't mean to imply this. I'm saying coverage of stereotypically
> "women's" stuff (which many women wouldn't have a problem fixing up)
> is not optimal. The women that I know who may happen to blowdry their
> hair or straighten it also have computers and are interested in
> history and literature. However, they don't edit Wikipedia while some
> of the men I know do sometimes. I could probably have chosen a better
> stereotypical subject to harp on... However, more important than our
> coverage is how inviting we are to female editors, unless we wish to
> argue that a male-dominated editing body will benefit us most in the
> end. I think we should be equally concerned with how inviting we are
> to older editors, more technophobic (if that's a good word) editors,
> and such.
>
> I wonder though, why [[Menstruation]], [[Menses]], [[Menstruum]],
> [[Menstrual flow]], etc redirect to [[Menstrual cycle]] instead of
> having their own articles, with menses just being mentioned (two
> sentences) and the topics of menstruation near the end of the
> article, almost as an afterthought.
>
> --Keitei, who cares more about menstruation than your average woman
> (and who doesn't blowdry her hair and rarely straightens or curls it
> because the heat is horrible for the hair)
> _______________________________________________
>

Now women's health issues is important, and it would concern me should
they be neglected. Blow dryers probably gets neglected for the same
reason can opener is a stub - it simply isn't that notable a topic
compared to WWII, or menstruation. This is not to say that improving and
expanding such articles is not desirable - after all, we wish to be the
premier source of general information on everything - but it is not due
to gender bias, and to imply that it is to me is reinforcing the
"woman-as-empty-headed-shallow-person". Why all the variations on
"menstrual" point to one article is probably due to the fact that they
are so close to synonymous that to split them would be introducing
redundancy. The only subjects of which I am aware which are
over-subdivided, if you will, are politically or religiously charged
subjects. Hence, Abortion is an enormous cascade of articles, because
people have strong views, there is a legal debate, a religious debate,
etc - but no one is arguing about a woman's menstrual cycle. I could be
in error, but that is how it appears to me.

-kc-


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

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

Tony Jacobs stated for the record:
>> From: Puppy <puppy at KillerChihuahua.com>
>> I don't want to sound
>> misogynistic here - certainly some men were more biased, some less, some
>> not at all, and some were feminists. But they still didn't clean the
>> kitchen.
>>
>
>
> If a man doesn't clean the kitchen, he's not a feminist.

But not all men who clean the kitchen are feminists.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | Hunde, wollt ihr ewig leben?
 sean at epoptic.com | Friedrich der Gro?e, Kolin, 18 June 1757
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFZH2a/SVOiq2uhHMRAgZKAKCXFqUiJRyP/TE8lR5Yqcjn5swaLgCeKz+z
b2OyKW04+E+NEZNxQzMZ9BA=
=GRUC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
David Gerard wrote:
>
> Also, you know how any technical field laments the strange lack of
> women? Technical fields have had that strange lack of women for a
> hundred years and still there's no solution to what the heck is
> culling them so early.
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
>
This is not anything but anecdotal, however it may shed some light: when
I was in high school, I signed up for wood shop - and the instructor
ignored me. It was as though I were inaudible and invisible. He would
hand out materials for an assignment, except I didn't get any. If  stood
in front of him with my hands out, I did receive a cold stare until I
moved - but not a scrap of wood. If I reached for a tool, he grabbed it
first or took it out of my hands. If I asked a question, there was no
reply - none. This is not an exaggeration. I don't know how bad it is
now, but then... it was bad. I dropped out of shop. To this day I don't
know much about practical woodworking. In recent years, I have observed
meetings where women were ignored or dismissed. If a man said something
people responded to his words - if a woman said something then she got a
verbal pat on the head. In my office, where there were 57 people, mostly
men, the women cleaned the kitchen/break room always, and made the
coffee more often than men - including the head of the office, a woman
with a doctorate and 35 years in her field. It was easier than dealing
with trying to get the men to do any of it. And this is in software
development, a field with less earnings gap than almost any other field
in the US. So why do women leave technical fields? I'm guessing it is
because they are full of men, men with bias. I don't want to sound
misogynistic here - certainly some men were more biased, some less, some
not at all, and some were feminists. But they still didn't clean the
kitchen.

-kc-


from_name: dmehkeri at swi.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
> women admins getting above themselves, being viewed as aggressive
> rather than assertive.

In Kazakh Wikipedia, we don't let the woman to admin. And in Kazakh, only has
the single word for "aggressive", "assertive", and something else which in
english start a-double-s.

</borat>

I imagine the gender bias is very strongly tied to the, ah, computer nerd bias
(says the fool who just used an "XML tag" in his writing). It might not be very
enlightening to look at them separately. But this is an uneducated guess.

Regards,
Dan Mehkeri


from_name: David Monniaux

body:
Lars Aronsson wrote:

>If they really wanted to release an image, they could find a way.
>They have solved more complicated problems than this, things that
>really are rocket science.
>
>It's a simple contract with the photographer.  It's not rocket science.
>
>
This is, I'm afraid, a rather naive point of view. :-)

First hand experience with such projects (I've done some work with
aerospace people, that is, on jetliner avionics, see my professional
page for details) has showed me that red tape (bureaucracy, lawyers,
executives) is far more difficult to solve than technical issues.


from_name: Mark Wagner

subject: [WikiEN-l] Google Earth screenshots

body:
On 11/22/06, Bogdan Giusca <liste at dapyx.com> wrote:
> What should we do with the screenshots taken from Google Earth?
> I see that more and more of them are uploaded on en.wiki, for example
> to illustrate things such as high-schools or cities. But, does the
> fair-use claim hold up?

If they're not used in the article on Google Earth, shoot 'em.  The
only place the fair-use claim can hold up is if the screenshot is
being discussed *as a screenshot*.

--
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]


from_name: Sarah

subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
On 11/22/06, Puppy <puppy at killerchihuahua.com> wrote:
> -kc, who has run on enough about a social issue with no direct bearing
> on Wikipedia
>
Puppy for ArbCom. :-)


list: textbook-l

from_name: pikola Thierry

subject:
[Textbook-l] Illustrating wiktionaries and vocabulary learning
	wikibooks

body:
A short note for you to know about the next page:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Schemes

I think its content can be worthy for any wiktionary
or vocabulary learning wikibooks.

Regards,
Javier Carro.

___________________________________________________________________________
D?couvrez une nouvelle fa?on d'obtenir des r?ponses ? toutes vos questions !
Profitez des connaissances, des opinions et des exp?riences des internautes sur Yahoo! Questions/R?ponses
http://fr.answers.yahoo.com


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Making it easier for the public to help out

body:
On 11/22/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> When I say OTRS-like it's deliberate - this isn't going to be bolted
> on to the existing system for handling @wikimedia.org emails, but
> rather a seperate handling system which uses the same (or similar)
> software and concepts. Basically, just something that lets us see
> what's open, what's closed, what's being handled.

What's the need, exactly? Wikipedia is littered with "work to be done"
requests. Check out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_Portal/Opentask, fo
example. None of those tasks are really tracked, monitored,
prioritised - people just do them when they get to them. Is that not
the appropriate strategy for this as well?

> In the long run, I honestly see this taking pressure off main-OTRS -
> it means that the people who will jump through the extra hoop or three
> to contact us directly are likely to be those with a problem more
> significant that "OMG someone vandalised this page".

Cool :)

> I feel it would be nice, in many ways; logging IP addresses is
> defensible for contributions, but for something as trivial as a
> critical comment... IMO it's overkill. YMMV.

I agree, but attempting to hide IPs would be difficult (ie, require
changes to the software) and problematic (possibly allowing vandals to
get around blocks etc). Desirable, but not strictly necessary?

> An additional benefit of the "single flagging account" is that we can
> trivially go back and see how the system is being used, just by
> looking at the contributions of that single "user".

Logging everything on one central page would also have that advantage.

> I do honestly feel that preventing blocks from governing this gives us
> a net benefit - sure, we'll get some abuse, but we'll also get the
> opportunity for a lot of users who would otherwise be unable to
> participate to leave comments. (Think of AOL users, or those behind
> school rangeblocks, etc etc)

Maybe - you could be right. Anyway, this is a bit of a side issue. We
can certainly implement this a bit further down the track, can't we?

> Ask yourself this: would it have worked for Siegenthaler, or for some
> random hoax article in a walled garden? Talk-and-categorising would
> work, I suppose - same effective result as central flagging.

Yep.

> > Yeah, that would be a problem. A sufficiently loud warning "Please do
> > *not* leave any contact information here - your message will be made
> > public." should be able to cover that.
>
> How about "this article is about me, and..." cases?

Contact OTRS for that one. We can delimit specific cases that should
and should not be dealt with via this method (which needs a name). The
talk page is not the right place to go for "I am lawyer X. My client
is being slandered. You have until sunrise tomorrow or knees get
broken." type messages. It *is* the right place for "Napoleon wasn't
born in 1943 you twerps." type messages.

Steve


list: wikitech-l

subject: [Wikitech-l] Different sysop levels (Attn: Brion)

body:
On 11/22/06, Simetrical <Simetrical+wikitech at gmail.com> wrote:
> It's just that there's no edit count stored directly in the database
> at present (at least not that I can see in a quick glance at the
> schema).  You have to do a count, which is O(N).  An edit count could
> be added, presumably, if it were deemed useful, but I'm not the person
> to ask about whether that would slow things down or not, or otherwise
> be deemed undesirable.

Yeah. It would apparently have some use, if people keep making
requests for things which rely on it. Well, let's do this officially,
anyway:

Brion, may we please have an edit count field?

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
geni wrote:
> On 11/22/06, Tony Jacobs <gtjacobs at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> From: Puppy <puppy at KillerChihuahua.com>
>>> I don't want to sound
>>> misogynistic here - certainly some men were more biased, some less, some
>>> not at all, and some were feminists. But they still didn't clean the
>>> kitchen.
>>>
>>>
>> If a man doesn't clean the kitchen, he's not a feminist.
>>
>>
>
> You failed to say when though. Men generally will clean kitchens but
> only when they view them as unacceptably dirty. This is I suspect the
> problem.
>
They could have been theoretical feminists, eh?

And I worked there for almost nine years. No man ever cleaned the
kitchen, the entire time I was there. Every so often a woman would
mention a rotating roster, so the same people would not always be
cleaning the kitchen - but the men always shouted it down. Once we went
on strike - didn't clean. When the kitchen got too nasty, the men
started going out to lunch. One said, the refrigerator in the breakroom
is starting to smell. I said, why don't you clean it then? He said, I'm
not the maid. I said, we don't have a maid, who do you think has been
cleaning the kitchen? And he said, That's right, why don't you clean the
kitchen? No lie. He was one of the worst offenders though. He belonged
to some church which believed women should subjugate themselves to men,
and he had a hard time taking orders from women - not me, he didn't
report to me, but he did report to a woman. The situation worsened, and
everyone of the men was complaining. We kept asking, why don't you clean
it then? And one of the other men said, if we wait long enough one of
the women will clean it. He was an avowed feminist. Right. And four
women finally cleaned the kitchen when bigwigs from corporate were
coming. It seems the men were right - if they waited long enough, a
woman would do it. I went to the corporate office several times, and
guess who was cleaning the breakroom? A woman.

I'm not claiming my experience and observation hold true everywhere, but
there was a study a few years ago - two career households, who did most
of the housework - and, more tellingly, what the perception was. Men
evaluated the share of the housework they did. Women almost always
evaluated their share as larger than their significant others did - if
the man said 50/50, the woman would say something like 20/80, or 10/90.
Guess what? The men did a lot less than they thought. I cannot locate
the study but this seems similar:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2445(198111)43%3A4%3C865%3ADPWHEM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-K#abstract
"in order not to cross identity tension lines, today's professional
women are going through a process of role expansion (adding new
responsibilities without relinquishing old ones), rather than a process
of role redefinition "And its still true:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20060728/ai_n16635205..
Study after study bears this out. Women with careers simply do it all.
This study found that women doctors devote just as much time to patients
and workload as men doctors, yet devote a great deal more time to
domestic duties:
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1983.tb00629.x
So women with careers don't get equal support on the domestic front. And
this carries over to work - men simply don't realize for the most part
how much housework there is. It is done, you see. They "pitch in" and
feel they are supporting their wife - yet when their wife does domestic
chores, they do not view it as their wife "pitching in" and helping the
husband. I'm not sure how much of this is societal, how much is basic
differences. We cannot neglect the fact that it is women who bear
children, either - even if you take the minimum off from work, your
career suffers somewhat. If you have complications it suffers even more.
The average woman has gaps in her work history due to children, which a
man does not have. This helps keep the wage gap wide, and I think many
men - subconsciously or not - feel that if they are making 80% of the
money and the woman is making 20% of the money, then a little calculator
in his head, buried deep, figures that he only needs to do 20% of the
housework. A woman with the same degree and experience as a man makes
about 77% the salary, for the same education, experience, and hours at
work. Add in lost experience due to having a family, and the gap widens.
These statistics are US.

Perceptions are still off, also: a recent study shows that women are
currently *under* estimating the amount of housework men do:
http://www.careerjournal.com/columnists/workfamily/20050520-workfamily.html
which shows that women (on average, based on this study) believe men do
33% of the housework, but the men actually do an average of 39% of the
housework - but the men think they do an average of 42% of the
housework, so they are still overestimating their contribution. The
recent change to women underestimating the effort men put forth may be
discouraging to men, however - it seems likely.

It is a complex situation, and I think a little off topic. I don't know
if there is anything here which will illuminate the gender bias and/or
gender gap which we have on Wikipedia, or give insight as to how to
approach better balance. Does any of this cause women to value
themselves less? Do they do "cleanup" because they're used to it? Do
they shy away from ArbCom or B'crat because they are
non-confrontational? due to gender differences, or societal expectations
(Pavlovian training)? The email which started this thread talked about
"women's subjects" such as blow dryers and curling irons, and that was
written by a female, yes? That's horrifying to me.

I'm going off to see if Nail polish could use a "woman's touch" - heaven
forfend I actually put any chemistry into the darn article. (yes this is
sarcasm, I have no intention of editing Nail polish.)

-kc, who has run on enough about a social issue with no direct bearing
on Wikipedia


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
On Nov 22, 2006, at 11:47, Puppy wrote:

>  The email which started this thread talked about
> "women's subjects" such as blow dryers and curling irons, and that was
> written by a female, yes? That's horrifying to me.

I meant to dismiss the idea of subject coverage; to say that they
didn't have equal coverage, but that's not really an issue. Of course
it didn't work... and I'd say my tact was off, and for that I
apologize. I merely meant that if we had a significant teenage female
editing base as we do male, these subjects would perhaps be neglected
less.

However! The editorial aspects of women's roles as editors as it
plays into policy is far more interesting and pertinent.

--Keitei


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
Puppy wrote:
> [...] it seems people are focusing
> on cleaning rather than bias. I wrote about cleaning; I was attempting
> to illustrate underlying thought patterns and paradigms which led to the
> cleaning imbalance. It seems now the focus has moved to the cleaning,
> and that is my fault, I apologize for poor focus.
>
[[Systemic bias]] in the WP sense is more about article content and
quality rather than editor activities; for instance, we have more
extensive info on the presidents of the US than of Gabon, not as a
conscious decision but as side effect of being anglophone instead of
francophone, access to source material, etc. It seems tricky to identify
systemic bias that is gender-specific but not based on incorrect
stereotypes (puts me in mind of the old line about how there are only
two jobs that are single-gender - wet nurse and sperm donor :-) ), but
perhaps I'm unaware of articles that are obviously missing/stubly to others.

Stan


from_name: habj

subject: [Foundation-l] Česká Aikido Wikipedie

body:
Is the website called "?esk? Aikido Wikipedie" known to the WMF?
http://www.aikido.cz/wiki/doku.php
This website is about the Japanese martial art aikido, and is most
surely run by a private indivudual  who makes no money from it. Still
I wonder if the WMF objects to other websites using words like
"Wikipedie" in their names. I must say I reacted quite strongly when I
saw it.

/habj


subject: [Foundation-l] Česká Aikido Wikipedie


from_name: Pedro Sanchez

subject: [WikiEN-l] Google Earth screenshots

body:
On 11/22/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/22/06, Bogdan Giusca <liste at dapyx.com> wrote:
> > What should we do with the screenshots taken from Google Earth?
>
> Delete
>
> > I see that more and more of them are uploaded on en.wiki, for example
> > to illustrate things such as high-schools or cities. But, does the
> > fair-use claim hold up?
>
>
> not normaly.
> --
> geni
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

For what I see, they've been used decoratively, fialing criteria
"The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g.
identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate
relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a
purely decorative purpose."
at WP:FU

I'll take the example of schools

1. air pictures are useless to identify a subject, a picture of the
school front or characteristic buildings is better. This is also
related to

"No free equivalent is available or could be created that would
adequately give the same information. If unfree material can be
transformed into free material, it should be done instead of using a
"fair use" defense. For example, the information in a newspaper
article can easily be used as a basis of an original article and then
cited as a reference. Maps and diagrams can often be redrawn from
original sources, though simply "tracing" copyrighted material does
not make it free. Neither photographs nor sound clips, however, can
usually be "transformed" in this way. However, if the subject of the
photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken."

 A free alternative that identifies the school can be easily obtained,
so fair use holds water

2. No relevant sections deal with the images themselves.

So, delete


from_name: Jan Kulveit

subject: [Foundation-l] Česká Aikido Wikipedie

body:
Hi,

On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 12:10:59PM +0100, habj wrote:
> Is the website called "?esk? Aikido Wikipedie" known to the WMF?

most likely not.

> http://www.aikido.cz/wiki/doku.php
> This website is about the Japanese martial art aikido, and is most
> surely run by a private indivudual  who makes no money from it. Still
> I wonder if the WMF objects to other websites using words like
> "Wikipedie" in their names. I must say I reacted quite strongly when I
> saw it.
>

I would suggest not to react strongly, but use Hanlon's razor: most
likely the site owner thinks wikipedie is synonym of wiki, and is
completely unaware of WMF existence, and any trademark or intellectual
property issues.

Words like... Wikipedi_e_ is the word for Wikipedia in Czech (from
wiki+encykopedie), see cs:

The confusion is quite common in Czechia - even many journalists know just
about Wikipedia, not wikis in general, so when they write about some
wiki, they use terms like "version of Wikipedia" where "wiki" should go.

Proposed solution: I'll write a letter in Czech to the site owner,
explaining the situation politely.

Jan Kulveit ([[User:Wikimol]])


subject: [Foundation-l] Česká Aikido Wikipedie


body:
On 11/22/06, Mark Clements <gmane at kennel17.co.uk> wrote:
> ...and if that 'official method' doesn't work, you could always try logging
> it on Bugzilla....

Somehow, bugzilla does a really bad job of capturing "tongue in cheek"...

Steve


subject: [Foundation-l] promotion of free licenses

body:
>
>
>Does anyone know of cases where this has actually happened? Also, does
>> this relate to any particular legislation? I've only ever heard of
>> this sort of thing in consumer protection or trade practices
>> legislation.
>
>

As a member of the board of Wikimedia France, I had a meeting with the
head and the legal counsel of some society of authors, whose name I
shall leave unstated (the problems are not specific to them).

Their legal counsel told me that their stance is that all legal
conditions stating that the author cedes all rights for an unbounded
duration are abusive and that they were ready to fight that in court if
necessary.

These people have a very different point of view from ours.
Publishers try to have them sign agreements in which they sell their
works for a fixed pity sum for any use whatsoever.

We may consider "free of rights" content to be a Good Thing (TM), but to
them this is a Bad Thing (TM). To them, "free of rights content" ("libre
de droits" in French) means, for instance, cheap CDs and DVDs in which
you have 1000s of photos and other pictures that you can use without
paying royalties, that is, in practice, this means loss of income to
them. By "loss of income", I don't mean "loss of a little income in
an ocean of $$$", but I mean making it difficult to make ends meet at
the end of the month.

For almost everybody on this list (I'm leaving out Brad and Danny, sorry
folks), Wikipedia is a hobby project that we contribute to in our free
time. This is not the case of these people. Their works are their
livelihood. They're in a bad position, they feel shafted by the economic
powers, so they naturally have a tendency to be wary of evolutions that
may make their situation worse. That's human. When I discussed "free of
rights" stuff with them, I felt like somebody trying to promote Sauron
of Mordor to hobbits. Not a comfortable position, believe me.

This is something I'd like to stress : in most of our dealings as
representatives of Wikimedia France, we haven't encountered people who
acted against our wishes out of spite, but rather people who have to
deal with pressures (from their hierarchy, from economic powers,
from the legal system, etc.) and respond in a fairly understandable way.

As Delphine explained, going into a head to head confrontation is
counter-productive; one must at least try to understand why they act in
this way, and they often have a fairly good rationale from their point
of view. (I'm not saying we should accomodate each and every request
from people we disagree with, but at least we should try to consider
that they're often acting sensibly from their point of view.)

Trying to push radical ideas in an "all or nothing" approach tends to
lead to a lose-lose situation. In order to get something out of people,
they have to listen to what you say (yay! I feel like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_de_la_Palice ).
If you start becoming confrontational, they start getting
confrontational too, and they stop listening.

Besides, I feel very uncomfortable promoting what we do as "sensible".
We have ultra-stringent requirements about "free" content, yet we allow
GFDL content (which all the quirks of the GFDL, which makes it unusable
for many applications), and then we explain that we allow "fair use"
content, a very vaguely defined legal exception. As we say in France,
before pointing out the straw in someone else's eye, beware of not
having an entire woodblock in one's own. Our licensing policy is
inconsistent too, and people will not take it kindly if we ask that they
alter theirs whereas we are incapable of sorting out ours.

An important point is that for the last 150 years, French copyright law
has been (at least in theory, practice is different, see below) centered
around the idea of an *author* making a *work of the mind* which is his
*property*. The author then authorizes *each use* of the work.

(In practice, authors cede rights to publishers, but the contracts are
then supposed to delineate the limits of these cessions of rights. They
also cede their rights to societies who collect rights on their behalf.)

Law delineates what can and cannot be done in publishing contracts (CPI
L132-1 to L132-17). It prohibits indiscriminate ceding of rights (CPI
L131-1, L131-3). Law imposes that the author should be remunerated in
proportion to the use of his work (CPI L131-4), with some exceptions.

In comparison to that, support for the possibility of free licenses
seems to hinge on CPI L122-7-1.

I don't have the case law out of my head; certainly, getting a
comprehensive file on French case law with respect to the protection of
authors would probably involve paying a lawyer to research it. But,
indeed, there *are* protections against ceding all rights for any use,
that's a fact, and courts *have* ruled that some clauses in publishing
contracts were abusive. (Fundamentally, this is because
these contracts are unbalanced : on the one hand you have a
self-employed author, cartoonist, photographer etc. who has to pay the
bills at the end of the month, on the other hand a big corporation.) Our
beloved "free licenses" are largely untested in court, and I suspect
that how they interact with existing legislation could fill entire
doctoral theses in law...

Another important issue is that this whole debate is not
France-centered. "Copyright" as practiced in the US is largely an
American conception (though British law may be somewhat similar to some
extent, even though apparently the British recognize scanning images as
creating rights?). The Berne convention, which many countries
(including, somewhat recently, the US) have signed is based on 19th
century French ideas of the rights of authors (I reckon Victor Hugo
pushed for it. Yes, the guy who originally wrote the Hunchback of
Notre-Dame. :-) )

[ When I say CPI, I mean the French intellectual property code,
available on http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr . This is a very entertaining
reading. Plus, after a while, one is capable of peppering one's
conversation with "see CPI L122-5 third paragraph", a sure win in
academic cocktail parties.]


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
> It is a complex situation, and I think a little off topic. I don't know
> if there is anything here which will illuminate the gender bias and/or
> gender gap which we have on Wikipedia, or give insight as to how to
> approach better balance. Does any of this cause women to value
> themselves less? Do they do "cleanup" because they're used to it?

Do they, in fact, do more than their share of the "cleanup" here? The gender
roles around here might not be what we expect.

> Do they shy away from ArbCom or B'crat because they are
> non-confrontational? due to gender differences, or societal expectations
> (Pavlovian training)?

Is the gender ratio of b'crats or arbitrarors more male-biased than the gender
ratio of sysops? Of course it's not easy to determine gender from username, but
from a casual inspection of the lists, there don't seem to be that many female
sysops to begin with. If that's right, there's a glass ceiling at or before RfA
anyway.

Is the gender ratio of sysops different from the gender ratio of all RfA
candidates? Should be easy to do a casual inspection at least.

Exercise for the reader.

Is the gender ratio of RfA candidates different than the ratio of regulars?
Regulars versus casual users? Are female administrators more
non-confrontational? Don't know.

Exercise for the masochistic reader.

> The email which started this thread talked about
> "women's subjects" such as blow dryers and curling irons, and that was
> written by a female, yes? That's horrifying to me.

Maybe because chihuahuas hardly have any hair at all?

Dan


from_name: Nick Jenkins

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki 1.8.2 Installation

body:
> failed with error
> code "BLOB/TEXT column 'user_password' can't have a default value
> (localhost)".
>
> I think it may be my install of mysql, but I am not sure what to do if it
> is.
>
> My server is running the following
>
> Windows XP
> Apache/2.0.59 (Win32)
> PHP/5.1.6
> MySql version: 5.0.26-community-nt

Couldn't reproduce the error, using MySQL 5.0.22 on Linux:

--------------------------------------------
Welcome to the MySQL monitor.  Commands end with ; or \g.
Your MySQL connection id is 1609072 to server version: 5.0.22-Debian_0ubuntu6.06.2-log

Type 'help;' or '\h' for help. Type '\c' to clear the buffer.

mysql> CREATE TABLE `user1` (
    ->  user_id int(5) unsigned NOT NULL auto_increment,
    ->  user_name varchar(255) binary NOT NULL default '',
    ->  user_real_name varchar(255) binary NOT NULL default '',
    ->  user_password tinyblob NOT NULL default '',
    ->  user_newpassword tinyblob NOT NULL default '',
    ->  user_email tinytext NOT NULL default '',
    ->  user_options blob NOT NULL default '',
    ->  user_touched char(14) binary NOT NULL default '',
    ->  user_token char(32) binary NOT NULL default '',
    ->  user_email_authenticated char(14) binary,
    ->  user_email_token char(32) binary,
    ->  user_email_token_expires char(14) binary,
    ->  user_registration char(14) binary,
    ->  PRIMARY KEY user_id (user_id),
    ->  UNIQUE INDEX user_name (user_name),
    ->  INDEX (user_email_token)
    -> ) TYPE=InnoDB;
Query OK, 0 rows affected, 1 warning (0.05 sec)

mysql>
--------------------------------------------

However, other people have reported the same error you saw very recently in other PHP software that talks to MySQL:
* http://forums.cacti.net/about17670.html
* http://www.zen-cart.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-50340.html

Both of the above were running on Windows, which may or may not be coincidental.

>From the above forums, my best guess is either a strict mode problem, or a problem in the definition.

I tried enabling strict mode on my MySQL Linux install and restarting and retesting the table creation, but I couldn't get it to
give the error you saw; however, try this first: edit your my.cnf file and see if you can see a sql-mode line like this:
sql-mode="ANSI,TRADITIONAL"
... or something like this ...
sql-mode="STRICT_TRANS_TABLES,NO_AUTO_CREATE_USER,NO_ENGINE_SUBSTITUTION,STRICT_ALL_TABLES"

If it's there, try commenting out that line (with a "#" character), restarting MySQL (or rebooting), and retrying the install.

Now, if that doesn't work, you can either try:
* Select "Experimental MySQL 4.1/5.0 UTF-8" option in the "MySQL specific options:" section on the config page, and redo the setup.
* Make a backup copy of the "maintenance/tables.sql" file, then try editing the "maintenance/tables.sql" file, and anytime it says
"NAME-OF-FIELD tinyblob NOT NULL default ''," (where "NAME-OF-FIELD" will be many things, starting with "user_password"), delete the
"default ''" bit, and then save the file and retry. You will probably also need to make the same change for the "NAME-OF-FIELD blob
NOT NULL default ''," lines too.

... And then please let us know how you go (e.g. what does and does not work).

All the best,
Nick.


from_name: Steve Summit

subject: [WikiEN-l] Google Earth screenshots

body:
Bogdan Giusca wrote:
> What should we do with the screenshots taken from Google Earth?
> I see that more and more of them are uploaded on en.wiki, for example
> to illustrate things such as high-schools or cities.

I'd say delete them, *especially* the ones that are or contain
the map data.  (At least one of those looked like Mapquest or
Google Maps, bot of course it's the same issue.)

I'm sure the uploaders are well-meaning, and really want a
picture of their school or city in their articles, but there's
really no justification, and it sets a bad precedent, and
although Google might not complain, it can't be the sort of thing
they'd condone.


from_name: George Herbert

subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
On 11/22/06, Puppy <puppy at killerchihuahua.com> wrote:
> Stan Shebs wrote:
> > Puppy wrote:
> >
> >> [...] it seems people are focusing
> >> on cleaning rather than bias. I wrote about cleaning; I was attempting
> >> to illustrate underlying thought patterns and paradigms which led to the
> >> cleaning imbalance. It seems now the focus has moved to the cleaning,
> >> and that is my fault, I apologize for poor focus.
> >>
> >>
> > [[Systemic bias]] in the WP sense is more about article content and
> > quality rather than editor activities; for instance, we have more
> > extensive info on the presidents of the US than of Gabon, not as a
> > conscious decision but as side effect of being anglophone instead of
> > francophone, access to source material, etc. It seems tricky to identify
> > systemic bias that is gender-specific but not based on incorrect
> > stereotypes (puts me in mind of the old line about how there are only
> > two jobs that are single-gender - wet nurse and sperm donor :-) ), but
> > perhaps I'm unaware of articles that are obviously missing/stubly to others.
> >
> > Stan
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> >
> Article quality and content reflect the bias of their authors; whether
> internal  or external (access to sources, exposure to topics) that is
> the issue. Your example is of geographical/political bias. There is also
> religious bias (see my user page), and many other biases on Wikipedia.
> This thread is about gender bias, note the subject: wrt gender: as in,
> with regard to gender, ie; gender bias. It has expanded to note that
> there may be gender bias or at least gender imbalance within the editor
> pool on Wikipedia, and explored various possible reasons. Your email
> does not seem to be addressing any of that. I am not sure what you are
> saying with your email: are you saying that geopolitical bias is more
> rampant and deserves more attention than gender bias? Are you saying
> gender bias is hard to identify? Please clarify.
>
> -kc-

I would be curious; there's been a lot of hypothetical discussion on
these points, but I haven't seen much in the way of Wikipedia specific
gender bias issue claims made in the discussion.

I know it happens, in real life and in online discussions.  I can see
some areas where women might think the WP way of doing things was
biased.  But I would like to hear the specifics you are concerned
about.

Thanks...

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


from_name: David Gerard

body:
On 22/11/06, David Monniaux <David.Monniaux at free.fr> wrote:
> Lars Aronsson wrote:

> >If they really wanted to release an image, they could find a way.
> >They have solved more complicated problems than this, things that
> >really are rocket science.
> >It's a simple contract with the photographer.  It's not rocket science.

> This is, I'm afraid, a rather naive point of view. :-)
> First hand experience with such projects (I've done some work with
> aerospace people, that is, on jetliner avionics, see my professional
> page for details) has showed me that red tape (bureaucracy, lawyers,
> executives) is far more difficult to solve than technical issues.

You're still not convincing us that Wikimedia needs to change its
policies here, rather than waiting for them to realise that it's not
us nastily keeping them out. There's a world outside France.

- d.


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Foundation-l] wikicouncil

body:
?ukasz Garczewski wrote:

>I suggest we define issues and problems that would need
>coordination/handling on meta-project level *first* and then try to
>think of a way to deal with them. It may well be that some can be solved
>simply by using the structures in place. For those that remain without
>even the slightest idea on how to fix them we can move to actually
>create something entirely new.
>
>One example that comes to my mind right away is this:
>* policy on sitenotice display (mandatory fundraising notices? or is
>this up to each project?)
>
>This could simply be ruled by WMF but would have little or no impact on
>projects which are not represented on the foundation level (this list
>for example). A Wikicouncil ruling would probably work better.
>
>Try to think along those lines.
>
>And *please* do the defining on-wiki. That's why we have meta for.
>
>Note that I am a big fan of the Wikicouncil idea (i.e. a representative
>body of some sort). But at the same time I believe that this is not
>going to work properly unless we start out with the "whats" and not the
>"hows".
>
Your response is remarkable for being totally unrealistic, mostly
because it doesn't scale for such a large group.

There are a lot of very good ideas being presented in different places.
Each person raises issues in the place where he most hangs out: a
mailing list, a talk page, a village pump, meta, etc. There are many of
these on different projects, and in different languages. Each of these
pages is populated by different segment of the population. No-one can
keep up to them all, even if he limits himself to his own language.

The "hows" are the problem that needs to be addressed. A proposal can be
made on this list where all responses are very positive that a great
idea has been raised. (Worse still, if there are no responses at all;
does that mean that everyone agrees? I doubt it; more likely is that
nobody has the energy to apply the thought that the idea requires.) If a
dozen people respond favorably to an idea, and no-one objects how do we
take it to the next step? Who takes it to the next step? There is no
guarantee that if the same idea had been raised in another forum it
would have received the same support. The "how" really is important, and
a bigger challenge than the "what".

Ec


subject: [Foundation-l] wikicouncil


from_name: geni

body:
On 11/22/06, David Monniaux <David.Monniaux at free.fr> wrote:
> As a member of the board of Wikimedia France, I had a meeting with the
> head and the legal counsel of some society of authors, whose name I
> shall leave unstated (the problems are not specific to them).
>
> Their legal counsel told me that their stance is that all legal
> conditions stating that the author cedes all rights for an unbounded
> duration are abusive and that they were ready to fight that in court if
> necessary.
>

Of course. Free content is however you look at it a threat to at least
some of their members. If they can find a way to mess it up then they
have a duty to their memebers to use it.

>For almost everybody on this list (I'm leaving out Brad and Danny, sorry
>folks), Wikipedia is a hobby project that we contribute to in our free
>time. This is not the case of these people. Their works are their
>livelihood. They're in a bad position, they feel shafted by the economic
>powers, so they naturally have a tendency to be wary of evolutions that
>may make their situation worse. That's human. When I discussed "free of
>rights" stuff with them, I felt like somebody trying to promote Sauron
>of Mordor to hobbits. Not a comfortable position, believe me.

Then perhaps you are talking to the wrong people. Existing content
creators are amoung the group least likely to want to work with us.
Fortunetly for the most part there are other groups we can work with.

> Another important issue is that this whole debate is not
> France-centered. "Copyright" as practiced in the US is largely an
> American conception (though British law may be somewhat similar to some
> extent,)

Other than where required through the Berne Convention not so much

>even though apparently the British recognize scanning images as
>creating rights?

There has not been a relivant case in over a century so it is a bit of
a grey area but one I tend to feel best kept away from.

> The Berne convention, which many countries
> (including, somewhat recently, the US) have signed is based on 19th
> century French ideas of the rights of authors (I reckon Victor Hugo
> pushed for it. Yes, the guy who originally wrote the Hunchback of
> Notre-Dame. :-) )
>

Quite a number of major european writers pushed for it.
 --
geni


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] [MediaWiki-CVS] SVN:  [17800] trunk/phase3

body:
> Mark Clements wrote:
>> Is there a reason why replies to mediawiki-cvs are coming to wikitech-l
>> suddenly?  Or has that always been the case and up until now there just
>> haven't been any replies?

It's always been the case, but there haven't been many generally. I've
started commenting more frequently lately, as we've got some noobs on
board and it's I think a good chance to illustrate points.

Tim Starling wrote:
> I usually send my comments directly to the developer. It saves
> embarrassment, although of course it reduces the benefit to other developers.

Indeed, my purpose is pedagogical. It's I hope good for both the other
noobs and old fogies too. Don't feel singled out, Simetrical! :)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


body:
On 22/11/06, David Monniaux <David.Monniaux at free.fr> wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:

> >You're still not convincing us that Wikimedia needs to change its
> >policies here, rather than waiting for them to realise that it's not
> >us nastily keeping them out. There's a world outside France.

> I understand that this is a US-centric project, yes, and I'll advertise
> it as such.

Yes, because I'm an American writing from America. Don't be
ridiculous. The world doesn't divide into France and America either. I
realise there's a perennial France vs America attitude in WM France,
but that doesn't mean it isn't ridiculous.

- d.


subject: [Foundation-l] Česká Aikido Wikipedie

body:
I completely agree with Jans conclusions regarding the confusion
between the words "wiki" and "wikipedia" (the same is true is other
languages) and his conclusions in general.

> On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 12:10:59PM +0100, habj wrote:
> > Is the website called "?esk? Aikido Wikipedie" known to the WMF?
>
> most likely not.

Well, know it is ;-) and if the Foundation thinks it is something for
the Foundation to act on, please do. It just looks better than if a
random individual contacts the siteowner, than if a random person
(i.e. me) does so.

/habj


subject: [Foundation-l] Česká Aikido Wikipedie


from_name: Puppy

subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
dmehkeri at swi.com wrote:
>> It is a complex situation, and I think a little off topic. I don't know
>> if there is anything here which will illuminate the gender bias and/or
>> gender gap which we have on Wikipedia, or give insight as to how to
>> approach better balance. Does any of this cause women to value
>> themselves less? Do they do "cleanup" because they're used to it?
>>
>
> Do they, in fact, do more than their share of the "cleanup" here? The gender
> roles around here might not be what we expect.
>
>
>> Do they shy away from ArbCom or B'crat because they are
>> non-confrontational? due to gender differences, or societal expectations
>> (Pavlovian training)?
>>
>
> Is the gender ratio of b'crats or arbitrarors more male-biased than the gender
> ratio of sysops? Of course it's not easy to determine gender from username, but
> from a casual inspection of the lists, there don't seem to be that many female
> sysops to begin with. If that's right, there's a glass ceiling at or before RfA
> anyway.
>
> Is the gender ratio of sysops different from the gender ratio of all RfA
> candidates? Should be easy to do a casual inspection at least.
>
> Exercise for the reader.
>
> Is the gender ratio of RfA candidates different than the ratio of regulars?
> Regulars versus casual users? Are female administrators more
> non-confrontational? Don't know.
>
> Exercise for the masochistic reader.
>
>
>> The email which started this thread talked about
>> "women's subjects" such as blow dryers and curling irons, and that was
>> written by a female, yes? That's horrifying to me.
>>
>
> Maybe because chihuahuas hardly have any hair at all?
>
> Dan
>
> _______________________________________________
>
All excellent points, especially the hair bias.

This is just one aspect of gender bias, and it seems people are focusing
on cleaning rather than bias. I wrote about cleaning; I was attempting
to illustrate underlying thought patterns and paradigms which led to the
cleaning imbalance. It seems now the focus has moved to the cleaning,
and that is my fault, I apologize for poor focus.

I had to evaluate a remote hosting site once and took along a
subordinate male, and I would ask questions and he would get the
explanation. At the end of the visit, the person at the hosting facility
turned to the man and asked if he had any questions. Never asked me. The
bias is real, it is pervasive, and it is a problem. Again, I am not sure
how much this translates into how many women are editors, how many stand
for Admin, B'Crat, Arbcom, etc. I don't think it affects the promotion
ratio - but I haven't done the homework so I don't actually know. If it
does affect the promotion ratio we still aren't looking at the
underlying causes, which could range from gender bias in the
wp-population at large, to lack of experience in the women on a larger
scale - our entire society has fewer women in politics, roles of power,
etc. We reflect that. Do we reflect it 1-for-1? Is the ratio more
balanced, or less, than the society at large? I have no idea, would this
be something which would be worth looking at?

-kc-


from_name: Rob Church

subject: [Wikitech-l] [MediaWiki-CVS] SVN: [17847] trunk/phase3

body:
On 22/11/06, werdna at svn.wikimedia.org <werdna at svn.wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Revision: 17847
> Author:   werdna
> Date:     2006-11-22 03:51:49 -0800 (Wed, 22 Nov 2006)
>
> Log Message:
> -----------
> * (bug 7883) Added autoblock whitelisting feature, using which specific ranges can be protected from autoblocking. These ranges are specified, in list format, in the autoblock_whitelist system message.

Is this the best place for this to be specified?

> +* (bug 7883) Added autoblock whitelisting feature, using which specific ranges
> +   can be protected from autoblocking. These ranges are specified, in list format,
> +   in the autoblock_whitelist system message.

Nice and verbose. :D

> +                       $wlEntry = substr($line, 1);
> +                       $wlEntry = trim($wlEntry);

Investigate the trim() parameters a bit more, this should be able to
be cut down to one line.

> +/**
> + * Get the start and end of a range.
> + * @param $range The range to get the start and end for.
> + * @return array An array with the first element as the start of the range, as a long, and the second element as the end of the range, also as a long.
> + *
> + */
> +function wfRangeStartEnd( $range ) {
> +       list( $network, $bits ) = wfParseCIDR( $range );
> +       if ( $network !== false ) {
> +               $start = sprintf( '%08X', $network );
> +               $end = sprintf( '%08X', $network + (1 << (32 - $bits)) - 1 );
> +               return array($start, $end);
> +       }
> +       return false;
> +}

Wouldn't a better place for this be as a static function of the IP
class? (And isn't wfParseCIDR deprecated in favour of such a
function?)

> +/**
> + * Determine if a given integer IPv4 address is in a given CIDR network
> + * @param $addr The address to check against the given range.
> + * @param $range The range to check the given address against.
> + * @return bool Whether or not the given address is in the given range.
> + */
> +function wfIsAddressInRange( $addr, $range ) {
> +       $unsignedIP = IP::toUnsigned($addr);
> +       $startend = wfRangeStartEnd($range);
> +       $start = $startend[0];
> +       $end   = $startend[1];
> +
> +       return (($unsignedIP >= $start) && ($unsignedip <= $end));
> +}

Ditto above.

Rob Church


from_name: Andrew Gray

body:
On 22/11/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/22/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> > When I say OTRS-like it's deliberate - this isn't going to be bolted
> > on to the existing system for handling @wikimedia.org emails, but
> > rather a seperate handling system which uses the same (or similar)
> > software and concepts. Basically, just something that lets us see
> > what's open, what's closed, what's being handled.
>
> What's the need, exactly? Wikipedia is littered with "work to be done"
> requests. Check out
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_Portal/Opentask, fo
> example. None of those tasks are really tracked, monitored,
> prioritised - people just do them when they get to them. Is that not
> the appropriate strategy for this as well?

Hmm. I expect three resolutions: "vandalism removed", "page actually
labelled as crap", or "real problem being dealt with"; "resolving" one
of these should be trivially easy except in case 3. We're not actually
guaranteeing to *do* the remedial work, etc - just to ensure that the
page is flagged that it needs it. In many ways we're feeding
{{opentask}} rather than running alongside it...

We don't really need a tracking or prioritising system, but some way
of seeing if there is a backlog and how bad that backlog is would be a
very useful way of deciding if this system works or not.

> > An additional benefit of the "single flagging account" is that we can
> > trivially go back and see how the system is being used, just by
> > looking at the contributions of that single "user".
>
> Logging everything on one central page would also have that advantage.

True. Again, this is as much for judging uptake as it is for ease of operation.

> > I do honestly feel that preventing blocks from governing this gives us
> > a net benefit - sure, we'll get some abuse, but we'll also get the
> > opportunity for a lot of users who would otherwise be unable to
> > participate to leave comments. (Think of AOL users, or those behind
> > school rangeblocks, etc etc)
>
> Maybe - you could be right. Anyway, this is a bit of a side issue. We
> can certainly implement this a bit further down the track, can't we?

Yeah, most likely. I just *really* don't want to implement something
like this and then discover that it's giving massively unhelpful and
disconcerting you-have-been-blocked, etc, messages to users. This
would - to my mind - negate the entire "outreach" aspect of it.

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


subject: [Foundation-l] wikicouncil

body:
On 20/11/06, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com> wrote:

> *But the concept of a group of dedicated, trusted and
> respected Wikimedians from the community who can
> thoughtfully deliberate and help lead community
> matters... I'm willing to hear how people view this as
> a bad thing.
>
> Who is saying THAT is a bad thing?  Why don't you just
> do it?  Start Council meetings with an open
> invitation.  Work at recruiting people from smaller
> projects.  Ask people to list their top problems for a
> voluntary review.  Issue reccomendations.  Then once
> you know how it will work and what people want out of
> it ... Then get it formalized.  If that happens it
> then it would be "a formalization of what takes place
> already".  I think you should go for it.  I think
> wikicouncil, as a general concept, has potential.  I
> do not think we should trying to come up with a
> finished concept to write into the by-laws first,
> however.

Concur entirely. If people feel a cross-project body like this would
be useful, organise one; grab some people from here and there, sit
them down, and get them started. If it seems to fill a need, and it
works effectively, we can write it into the formal system. If not...
eh, it's never going to do any harm as an informal body.

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


subject: [Foundation-l] wikicouncil


body:
On 22/11/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:

> We don't really need a tracking or prioritising system, but some way
> of seeing if there is a backlog and how bad that backlog is would be a
> very useful way of deciding if this system works or not.

This would also one of those administrative backlogs that wouldn't
require admin rights to fix.

- d.


from_name: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
"David Gerard" wrote

> I'm thinking of a conversation with a feminist friend who considers
> Wikipedia hopelessly patriarchally biased and useless to harmful.

Interesting. I mean, potentially interesting if there is a feminist critique at the level of policy.

'Systemic bias' hasn't really got that far in elaborating a theory. We do know that 'no original research' effectively cuts out ethnographic material, thus excluding many 'undocumented' things. But that's a fairly obvious point. We tend to import public domain material that comes with a slant from at least 80 years ago. But I'm not aware of a serious and general analysis that is relevant.

Charles

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
On 22/11/06, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com
<charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> "David Gerard" wrote

> > I'm thinking of a conversation with a feminist friend who considers
> > Wikipedia hopelessly patriarchally biased and useless to harmful.

> Interesting. I mean, potentially interesting if there is a feminist critique at the level of policy.

Interesting in that one of the nastier bits of systemic bias to fix is
when you're pissing off people and you don't realise it.

(c.f. issues on foundation-l re: open content licences and possible
social unworkability in France.)

It was also interesting in that it was said as if she was quoting
someone else rather than composing the sentence as it was being said.
So yes, there might be a critique available.

Also, you know how any technical field laments the strange lack of
women? Technical fields have had that strange lack of women for a
hundred years and still there's no solution to what the heck is
culling them so early.

- d.


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
On Nov 21, 2006, at 6:55 PM, Fastfission wrote:

> On 11/21/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
>> I suspect the cause is simply that women have something else to do
>> with their time that they enjoy more. However, I also suspect enough
>> women will edit, that "women's subjects" will eventually be
>> adequately handled.
>
> Without meaning it to be a big point in this issue, I just want to
> point out that "Oh, women probably have better things to do!" has been
> a rationale to dismiss evidence of non-equal participation for a long,
> long time. Like, "Oh, but women get to know the joy of motherhood,
> which is far more exciting than politics or a good career," it sounds
> like a compliment on the surface of it but it usually masks explicit
> or implicit acceptance of a limiting status quo.
>
> I'm not trying to imply anything about Fred's personal views on this,
> but I just want to point out that I'm not sure this a fruitful
> approach and it is one with pretty bad precedents.
>
> I think it is probably very likely that most of Wikipedia's editing is
> done by males, and I find it inconceivable that this wouldn't effect a
> slant in the editing. That being said, I am not sure I know where the
> "problem" lies, if we decide that it is a problem, and I am not sure
> there is any sort of easy fix. I suspect that editing regularly on
> Wikipedia caters primarily to activities which are often branded as
> "masculine" in U.S. culture (aggressiveness, boldness, assertiveness,
> argumentitiveness), and that would be something without an easy fix
> (and its possible that any fixes would go directly against the
> unplanned, unmanaged wiki spirit). But I don't know.

It has been shown that we are eager to accept women in leadership
positions. I support encouragement of women but not discouragement of
men.

Fred


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
David Gerard wrote:
> Also, you know how any technical field laments the strange lack of
> women? Technical fields have had that strange lack of women for a
> hundred years and still there's no solution to what the heck is
> culling them so early.
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
>
>
If you are interested:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/v006kt042w30045r/

http://www.american.edu/sadker/thereportcard.htm

http://jte.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/53/2/168

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCG/is_2_30/ai_105478982

http://www.maec.org/beyond.html
And from this last link:

*GENDER BIAS IN STUDENT/TEACHER INTERACTIONS*

Although most teachers believe that they treat girls and boys the same,
research indicates that they frequently do not. Studies show that
teachers often exhibit differential behavior even though circumstances
do not warrant it. The teacher' sex seems to have little bearing on the
outcome; it is the sex of the student that seems to make a difference.
For example:

    * Male students receive more of the teacher's attention (acceptance,
      praise, criticism, and remediation) and are given more time to
      talk in class from pre-school through college.^8
    * Although differences among subject matter areas have not been well
      examined, recent research has found student-teacher interaction in
      science classes to be biased toward boys.^9
    * Sex is a factor in the assignment of students to ability groups in
      mathematics, and males are more likely to be assigned to the high
      ability group.^10
    * Males receive harsher punishment than girls even for the same or a
      similar offense.^11
    * Teachers ask boys more higher order questions than they ask girls.^12

Some researchers suggest that differences in treatment contribute to
girls' lower self-esteem, lower self-confidence, and reduced risk taking.


body:
On 21/11/06, Stan Shebs <stanshebs at earthlink.net> wrote:

> > So the problem here is that the euroskeptic opponent thinks this is
> > ESA's problem, and that ESA feels it has to go along with this idea.
> > That is: the problem you're describing is local politics rather than
> > that open content licences are problematic.
> >
> The significant point is that the complaint was taken seriously by
> anybody at all. If somebody in the US complained about a NASA photo in a
> supermarket ad, even the most timid NASA bureaucrat would feel safe in
> showing the letter around the office for a laugh, and then pitching it
> into the trash. The bureaucrat knows that even if the complainer somehow
> got the attention of a news reporter, it would be for a segment on all
> the nutjobs who waste NASA's time.

FWIW, NASA take it seriously enough that they explicitly prohibit it:

"If the NASA material is to be used for commercial purposes,
especially including advertisements, it must not explicitly or
implicitly convey NASA's endorsement of commercial goods or services."

(extract from the copyright notice on nix.nasa.gov, their main public
photograph archive)

They don't make any statements about political usage, but I suspect
they would be v. cagey were it used to "convey endorsement" in a
similar manner.

I assume the issue is not that Americans don't care about such things,
but rather that what is considered implying endorsement in the US and
in France are quite different things...

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


from_name: David Monniaux

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] [Foundation-l] contents
 under	education/information licenses

body:
David Gerard wrote:

>You're still not convincing us that Wikimedia needs to change its
>policies here, rather than waiting for them to realise that it's not
>us nastily keeping them out. There's a world outside France.
>
I understand that this is a US-centric project, yes, and I'll advertise
it as such.


body:
On 22/11/06, David Monniaux <David.Monniaux at free.fr> wrote:

> Another important issue is that this whole debate is not
> France-centered. "Copyright" as practiced in the US is largely an
> American conception (though British law may be somewhat similar to some
> extent, even though apparently the British recognize scanning images as
> creating rights?).

Idle sidenote time...

Sort of maybe it's not determined ask again get a different answer.

Routine photocopying is almost certainly not. Most photography almost
always is. Where you draw the line between them is ill-understood, but
some scans are - to my eyes - almost guaranteed to be copyrightable
under this concept.

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


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
Puppy wrote:
> Article quality and content reflect the bias of their authors; whether
> internal  or external (access to sources, exposure to topics) that is
> the issue. Your example is of geographical/political bias. There is also
> religious bias (see my user page), and many other biases on Wikipedia.
> This thread is about gender bias, note the subject: wrt gender: as in,
> with regard to gender, ie; gender bias. It has expanded to note that
> there may be gender bias or at least gender imbalance within the editor
> pool on Wikipedia, and explored various possible reasons. Your email
> does not seem to be addressing any of that. I am not sure what you are
> saying with your email: are you saying that geopolitical bias is more
> rampant and deserves more attention than gender bias? Are you saying
> gender bias is hard to identify? Please clarify.
>
I'm saying that I don't know of any significant systemic bias relating
to gender. Systemic bias can happen even when everybody has good
intentions and is on their best behavior, so it's orthogonal to editor
gender, editor behavior, etc. The original post mentioned scanty
coverage of blowdryers, perhaps not a great example for reasons already
discussed; are there better examples where topics of particular interest
to women are being overlooked?

(I'm assuming you're familiar with [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering
systemic bias]], which explains things better than I can. I note that
it's primarily geographical - should it have a gender subproject?)

Stan


from_name: jam at croftj.net

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Request For Logos

body:
Hello. I would like to call the attention
of any Wikipedia developer in this mailing
list. I have requested to switch the Wikipedia
logo of Chavacano Wikipedia cbk-zam.wikipedia.org
at the request for logos:

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

But it has not been switched since 2 or 3 weeks ago
when I made the request. Is there any developer
here who can switch? Also, I noticed there
are several requests there that have not been
responded by any developer. Sorry, if I have
to request developers attention here.

Thanks!

Weekejames
cbk-zam.wikipedia.org

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


subject:
[Wikitech-l] [MediaWiki-CVS] SVN: [17833]
	trunk/phase3/includes/Linker.php

body:
rotem at svn.wikimedia.org wrote:
> Reverting the addition of class names near
> the parameters: it doesn't seem to have a purpose, and breaks PHP
> 5.0.4 on my computer (PHP raises error when the parameters are set to
> null).

For reference, as of PHP 5 you can specify type requirements on function
parameters, to enforce that objects of the correct type are passed.
Unfortunately this is pretty limited; you can't allow 'type-X-or-null'
or other such conditions, nor I think can you specify non-object types.

Of course it's a runtime check, not compile-time, so probably doesn't
tell you anything that you wouldn't get from the fatal error trying to
call a nonexistent method. ;).

[I often wish that you *could* enforce type-X-and-not-null in languages
like Java at compile-time, though...]

http://www.php.net/manual/en/language.oop5.typehinting.php

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


subject: [Wikitech-l] generating Messages.php from message cache

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

Travis Derouin wrote:
> It seems like it's possible to edit the software messages by going to
> Special:Allmessages, clicking on a message, editing it and saving it.
>
> Is there any easy way to generate a MessagesXX.php file from what's
> the state of the message cache, so the messages can be moved between
> versions, or times when the messages are rebuilt?

There's a "PHP" link on Special:Allmessages which is supposed to show a
big PHP array literal of the message set. In theory you could
cut-n-paste that... in theory. ;)

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

iD8DBQFFZNY2wRnhpk1wk44RAqMMAKCzm2z2mRJyAdqZH8yQ/oEbAL86/QCeLYAE
z418sEm7augd2QJtR3LVu7s=
=JO7K
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


body:
David Gerard wrote:

>realise there's a perennial France vs America attitude in WM France,
>
In your imagination, there is.

I'm just stating the obvious: if we allow "fair use" content (an
exception specific to the United States and thus possibly only valid for
contents from US providers directed towards the US public) while at the
same time having "holier than thou" policies on "free content", we're
incoherent.

Our licensing position would be more coherent if we banned "fair use"
content from en:.


subject: [Wikitech-l] anonymous edits don't show up right away

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

Travis Derouin wrote:
> We're having an issue with anonymous editors not seeing their edits
> right away when the page is saved. Usually after refreshing a few
> times they appear, but not after. We're using Squid with a few backend
> apaches, is there a configuration setting to fix this, and if so, does
> it adversely affect performance?

Offhand I'd suspect that PURGEs aren't reaching the squids or aren't
taking proper effect...

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

iD8DBQFFZNbMwRnhpk1wk44RAjYBAJ9b/aFuDo3qX4M24Eo1Cx+GWWYgMQCfW8yI
6Xa30KIg8cnRjhdD+ohaGH8=
=ZfTC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
Keith Old wrote:
> [...]
>  I recall that in a Guardian exercise where
> experts reviewed articles in various areas, our fashion-related article was
> given a very low rating.
>
Ho ho ho, I can see the fireballs and pyroblasts heading your way now...

Stan


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
Stan Shebs wrote:
> Puppy wrote:
>
>> [...] it seems people are focusing
>> on cleaning rather than bias. I wrote about cleaning; I was attempting
>> to illustrate underlying thought patterns and paradigms which led to the
>> cleaning imbalance. It seems now the focus has moved to the cleaning,
>> and that is my fault, I apologize for poor focus.
>>
>>
> [[Systemic bias]] in the WP sense is more about article content and
> quality rather than editor activities; for instance, we have more
> extensive info on the presidents of the US than of Gabon, not as a
> conscious decision but as side effect of being anglophone instead of
> francophone, access to source material, etc. It seems tricky to identify
> systemic bias that is gender-specific but not based on incorrect
> stereotypes (puts me in mind of the old line about how there are only
> two jobs that are single-gender - wet nurse and sperm donor :-) ), but
> perhaps I'm unaware of articles that are obviously missing/stubly to others.
>
> Stan
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
Article quality and content reflect the bias of their authors; whether
internal  or external (access to sources, exposure to topics) that is
the issue. Your example is of geographical/political bias. There is also
religious bias (see my user page), and many other biases on Wikipedia.
This thread is about gender bias, note the subject: wrt gender: as in,
with regard to gender, ie; gender bias. It has expanded to note that
there may be gender bias or at least gender imbalance within the editor
pool on Wikipedia, and explored various possible reasons. Your email
does not seem to be addressing any of that. I am not sure what you are
saying with your email: are you saying that geopolitical bias is more
rampant and deserves more attention than gender bias? Are you saying
gender bias is hard to identify? Please clarify.

-kc-


from_name: Sarah

subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
On 11/22/06, Puppy <puppy at killerchihuahua.com> wrote:
> Article quality and content reflect the bias of their authors; whether
> internal  or external (access to sources, exposure to topics) that is
> the issue.

About the only time I was conscious of gender issues while editing was
when I briefly tried to edit one of the abortion-related articles. The
page was in the control of a few male editors, and they were very
aggressive, and absolutely certain they knew best. It's one of the few
occasions I've been genuinely angry when editing (as opposed to
irritated, which is a constant), because I got no sense at all that
they realized that maybe, just maybe, the issues were more nuanced
than they were able to understand. I had to withdraw from editing it
after a couple of days.

Sarah


body:
Andrew Gray wrote:

>They don't make any statements about political usage, but I suspect
>they would be v. cagey were it used to "convey endorsement" in a
>similar manner.
>
I think this is a bootstrapping issue.

It is well known that NASA photographs are available for everybody, so a
normal person should not construe that their being used in an
advertisement implies that NASA supports the product unless other
factors weigh in.

However, photos by CNES and other agencies in France have traditionally
been available on request. This means that if that photo is used in a
political or commercial campaign, assuming that traditional way of doing
things, then it is either used illegally (then the agency should sue,
and if it doesn't then it is to blame) or the agency agreed to the deal
(then the agency is to blame).

This means that if they were to free everything at once, during a
transition period (that is, until everybody gets used to their new way
of doing things, which can take a while) they would be exposed to blame.

(An interesting parallel: ever since Wikipedia was created, people not
used to Wikipedia's openness have blamed it continuously and said the
project would fail miserably. Only recently have people changed their
attitude and started to take Wikipedia's openness as a fact of life.
There's a transition period, which is not finished yet.)