from_name: Michael Turley

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

body:
On 7/3/05, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> JAY JG wrote:
> >>
> >> Obviously, I wouldn't have ever hit edit if I *knew* it did that.
> >
> > Why is that "obvious"?  Why on earth would you hit the edit button when
> > you were banned from editing?
>
> He already said that. He wanted to re-read the block page. That is a
> perfectly legitimate thing to want. Also, by the GFDL, users *must* be
> able to retrieve the source code of a page. This, too, is a perfectly
> legitimate thing to want. Both cases *must not* renew a block.
>
> I know that most of you think Nathan is just an attention-seeking troll,
> but I think a lot of you would do good if you learnt to "see through"
> the emotional bits and look at the factual things underneath.
>
> Timwi

Well said.

As I've been reading the posts on this topic, I've become increasingly
concerned about the nearly complete lack of empathy some people have
for those on the wrong side of a block.  Others on this mailing list
are excellent in their patience and tolerance, but at least a few are
making all admins look very bad indeed by their dismissive attitudes.

--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused


list: foundation-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Dori

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimania 2005! Jimbo, Ward, RMS, and 300 of you...

body:
On 7/3/05, SJ <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
> ppps -- If you can't come, but still want to participate, there will
> be audio streaming, IRC backchannels, and regular podcasts available
> of conference events.  You can sign up or ask for details on the
> remote-particpation page:
>     http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania:Remote_participation

Could someone take a camera and capture everything, making it all
available for download afterwards (hopefully under a free license)?
I'm sure there will be plenty of interests from those of us who can't
make it, and I'm personally not all that interested in a live
audio/video stream.

Dori


list: wikimedia-l


list: wikien-l

from_name: Timwi

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Wikipedia is *already* written from a scientific POV

body:
Nathan J. Yoder wrote:
>>Most?  I would say that the creationists are a significant minority; I
>>don't believe that they're a majority, at least not yet.
>
> About 40% believe it

	# 45% believe that God created human beings pretty much in their
	  present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so
	# 37% believe that human beings have developed over millions of
	  years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided the
	  process.

That's 82%, which I call "most".

	When asked by name whether they believe in or lean more towards
	the "theory of creationism" or the "theory of evolution", 57%
	indicated creationism, 33% indicated evolution, and 10%
	responded "not sure."

Again, 57% I call "most".

> I should also note I love timwi's qualifier of "most" which isn't
> based on actual statistics

It is. See above.

> and is just a blatant attempt at America bashing

No less blatant than your attempts at administrator bashing ;-).

Timwi


from_name: Tim Starling

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

body:
I like the games, personally. A long time ago, I considered writing a
special games extension for MediaWiki, for the purposes of encouraging
social interaction and community building. I didn't get around to it,
but I'm happy that it happened anyway. Of course it would be better if
it was on a separate wiki, and I'd be happy to set up such a wiki on the
Wikimedia servers, if the community is in favour. Perhaps it could be in
a subdirectory.

The problem with putting it on wikicities is mostly psychological. It's
on the wrong side of the virtual boundary which surrounds our homey
little region of cyberspace. I know some people *want* it outside the
boundary, I would ask them to be tolerant.

It would be outside our mission to offer these games to anyone other
than Wikipedia editors. I wouldn't want to see it become an
independently advertised Wikimedia project. We can put up barriers to
entry which discourage outsiders, for example requiring a Wikipedia
account. The user interface is probably the biggest barrier -- honestly,
who would play chess on a wiki other than a Wikipedian? It's very quaint.

-- Tim Starling


from_name: Phil Sandifer

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

body:
I've just blocked myself to check on how this process works. Among
other things, the page includes the following line:

"If you need to see the wiki text of an article, you may wish to use
the Export pages feature." Export pages is a live link.

So the GFDL problems are nil.

-Snowspinner

On Jul 3, 2005, at 1:25 PM, Timwi wrote:

> JAY JG wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Obviously, I wouldn't have ever hit edit if I *knew* it did that.
>>>
>> Why is that "obvious"?  Why on earth would you hit the edit button
>> when you were banned from editing?
>>
>
> He already said that. He wanted to re-read the block page. That is
> a perfectly legitimate thing to want. Also, by the GFDL, users
> *must* be able to retrieve the source code of a page. This, too, is
> a perfectly legitimate thing to want. Both cases *must not* renew a
> block.
>
> I know that most of you think Nathan is just an attention-seeking
> troll, but I think a lot of you would do good if you learnt to "see
> through" the emotional bits and look at the factual things underneath.
>
> Timwi
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Wouter Steenbeek

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Is Aphaia around again?!

body:
What the hell! I just discovered the test wiki article
http://meta.wikimedia.org/Test-wp:Seeltersk/Fr?iske_Sproake has disappeared!
This can impossibly be done by the author, who can only erase the text. So
either this is a kind of database error, or a moderator on meta: deleted it!
There is one main suspect.

WHY on earth do such things happen? Can those test wikis /never/ be left in
peace?

Wouter

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Webmessenger doet het altijd en overal http://webmessenger.msn.com/


body:
Nathan J. Yoder wrote:

> P.S.  Reply to the list, not just me.

Nathan, may I suggest you reply to the list only, and not to people
privately? It can be seen as intrusive.

Thanks,
Timwi


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Thoughts on the process of requesting adminship

body:
JAY JG wrote:
>> From: Timwi <timwi at gmx.net>
>>
>> I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I was just trying
>> to say that if there are more admins, then it will be easier to keep
>> problem users with administrative privileges under control,
>
> But that's never been a problem, has it?  And that's because there's a
> process that ensures that admins are not "problem users". What you're
> proposing is to do away with the process, make just about everyone
> admins, and then fix the inevitable problem of "problem users with
> administrative privileges" by creating even more admins to deal with them.

That is entirely correct - but you're making it sound worse than it is.
We are *already* allowing just about everyone to edit, and then we fix
the inevitable problem of "problem users" simply by having enough
"sensible" editors to deal with them. We have already shown that this
process works well!

My proposal is to fix a completely different problem -- namely the fact
that the current "process that ensures that admins are not problem
users" excludes a load of users who wouldn't be problem users, but
people oppose their adminship because they have some vague fear that
they may somehow turn bad.

(I find it amazing that I have to argue for the wiki principle here; the
only arguments I am using are extensions of all the arguments all of you
use when you tell normal people about wiki and they are sceptical that
it would work.)

Timwi


from_name: Sam Korn

subject: [WikiEN-l] And this is why personal attacks need to be defined

body:
> Oh I should add that I didn't actually know this second block was in
> place until I tried editing my own user page and it was auto-reset, so
> yeah, it's kind of hard to argue it's not a bug.

Then go and do the correct thing, and make a request on bugzilla.
Stop giving us earache.

Sam


from_name: JAY JG

body:
>From: Timwi <timwi at gmx.net>
>
>JAY JG wrote:
>>>From: Timwi <timwi at gmx.net>
>>>
>>>I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I was just trying to
>>>say that if there are more admins, then it will be easier to keep problem
>>>users with administrative privileges under control,
>>
>>But that's never been a problem, has it?  And that's because there's a
>>process that ensures that admins are not "problem users". What you're
>>proposing is to do away with the process, make just about everyone admins,
>>and then fix the inevitable problem of "problem users with administrative
>>privileges" by creating even more admins to deal with them.
>
>That is entirely correct - but you're making it sound worse than it is. We
>are *already* allowing just about everyone to edit, and then we fix the
>inevitable problem of "problem users" simply by having enough "sensible"
>editors to deal with them. We have already shown that this process works
>well!
>
>My proposal is to fix a completely different problem -- namely the fact
>that the current "process that ensures that admins are not problem users"
>excludes a load of users who wouldn't be problem users, but people oppose
>their adminship because they have some vague fear that they may somehow
>turn bad.

We allow editors great latitude because the whole point of Wikipedia is to
allow editors to edit, in order to create a great encyclopedia.  However,
the point of Wikipedia is not to create admins; therefore the latitude
allowed in that area is significantly less, though we still have over 500
admins, which I suspect is perhaps 10 times as many as any other online
community/project.

>(I find it amazing that I have to argue for the wiki principle here; the
>only arguments I am using are extensions of all the arguments all of you
>use when you tell normal people about wiki and they are sceptical that it
>would work.)

I find it amazing that people still keep thinking the goal of Wikipedia is
to create a giant online Wikipedia community which personifies Wikipedia
principles.  In fact, that is a means to the goal, which is creating an
encyclopedia.  To the extent that the principles help further the goal, they
are worth implementing, regardless of the inevitable negative side effects
they cause.  However, when enforcement of these principles in other areas
will inevitable add even more headaches, with no perceivable improvement to
the process of creating an encyclopedia, then we have to prioritize.

Wikipedia is about creating an encyclopedia, not promulgating an ideology.

Jay.


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Inputbox extension (search, create) operational

body:
Guaka:
> Would it be feasible to allow something like preload=de:Berlin to get
> articles from other languages, or even other Wikimedia projects?

Other languages are, technically speaking, separate projects, so that's
basically the same thing. Kate is currently working on interwiki
transclusion, perhaps she might be interested in pursuing this.

>>gives you a modified introduction, which is useful when creating custom
>>edit pages. The two parameters only work when the page does not exist yet.

> This only shows when the article doesn't exist yet. Is that a feature?

It's a known limitation. It should probably be shown on all pages.

Erik


from_name: Nathan J. Yoder

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

body:
> That may, strictly speaking, fulfill the requirements of the GFDL
> (indeed you could also use &action=raw&ctyle=text/css if you're techy),
> but it is the completely wrong approach by all principles of UI design
> and user expectation. (Notice especially that you admitted that, in
> order to see that link, you have to have your block renewed again...)

 You're right about the UI thing, it's expected that things work a
certain way--so expecting users to know abot that XML export feature
isn't a safe bet (especially when that feature is only mentioned AFTER
your block gets renewed). Plus there's the assumption that hitting
'edit page' wouldn't actually renew anything, so since that's the
easiest method of getting the source, that's why I did.

He didn't even address the fact that someone may want to read the
block page or again and that the person may not even know about the
block yet when they hit edit.

I also notice that no one has made an argument for why it should work
that way, since it's clearly only meant to thwart block evasion (which
this is not a case of).

I don't think he's willing to acknowledge that it's a bug no matter
what as he appears to be acting in bad faith.  I think it's pretty
clear that he's being disengenuous along with the other admins
defending the same idea without valid justification (just childish
retorts), so really it's insane to reblock me for calling an admin
disingenuous when it's not only true, but is a description of their
behavior as it pertains directly to the current circumtsance (read:not
a personal attack).

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


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

body:
On 7/3/05, JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Wikipedia is about creating an encyclopedia, not promulgating an ideology.

I agree with your point about not focusing on admins, although I think
that end is best served by making many people admins as it dillutes
any unintended power of adminship.

I wanted to make a comment specifically to what I quoted above. Please
pardon me for taking you out of context.

There were already a number of good encyclopedias before Wikipedia
came about. You can not separate Wikipedia the encyclopedia from
Wikipedia the ideology.  I do not think this is a bad idea.

Even as a non-editor you can not be completely ignorant of the
Wikipedia ideology if you are to effectively use our resources, since
the results of vandalism and POV pushers will always end up visible
once in a while and because the inner workings of the project are so
useful by themselves (it's very handy to have some ability to ask
questions of the person who wrote the text you are reading).


body:
JAY JG wrote:
>>
>> What tanglble (not philosophical) benefits in terms of creating a better
>> encyclopedia would being able to edit freely provide? Well, duh, you
>> have more freedom and therefore are better able to help.
>
> So, nothing specific comes to mind then?

I think I've been specific enough, but fine, I'll be more specific.
Fighting vandalism using the rollback button, using "delete" to be able
to move page to where a lonely redirect is sitting, protecting pages
where other people are having an edit war, blocking users with obvious
violations of 3RR, ...  That enough yet?

>>> Disagree.  Admin is a position of increased responsibility and trust;
>>> trust must be earned.
>>
>> This is exactly the "we have to assume everyone's guilty" argument I
>> already refuted.
>
> It's easy to refute strawman arguments; that's the reason people make
> them in the first place.

 From what you wrote later in the e-mail, I assume you think this is a
strawman argument because you are supposedly not actually assuming
anyone's guilty. But then my other argument kicks in that you have no
reason to lock someone out of something that would be useful to them for
helping Wikipedia if you don't even believe they're guilty of anything.

>> Trust must be earned, I agree; but distrust must be
>> earned too. We are currently requiring too much trust for people to
>> become admins, and we are distrusting new users undeservedly.
>
> Your opinion is interesting; I see no evidence that it reflects
> reality.

I have given evidence of this further down in my posting.

> New users are, in fact, able to completely modify just about
> any part of Wikipedia they want.  This is a huge amount of trust that
> already creates huge vandalism problems.  What you are asking for is for
> them to be given special powers to do things like easily reverting pages
> and blocking users.

No, I am not asking for that. My proposal does not include anyone
gaining administrative privileges without trust from any existing admin
(quite in contrast to the editing privileges, which you get without
anyone's trust).

>>> Not only is this easily gamed,
>>
>> It's no more easily gamed than normal editing privileges are. You just
>> get them! If you do bad things, you lose your editing privileges.
>
> Huh?  This is nothing like normal editing privileges.  Even you admit as
> much, since you specify that people must be nominated by an existing
> admin.  If you think these powers should be no different than other
> editing abilities, why not simply argue that they beome part of the
> "basic package"?

I guess it's my turn to call this a strawman argument. You said "this is
easily gamed", I responded to that argument. Now you're responding with
an argument that is attacking a perceived inconsistency in my approach.

The reason we can't make them part of the "basic package" is that there
always needs to be a level "above" which isn't part of the "basic
package". That doesn't mean that we need to treat the "top level" as
such an elitist position as we do. (Yes, I know, there's also the level
of "developer", but it doesn't count because it has powers to do
irreversible things.)

>>> but only having a few hundred edits means that other people
>>> evaluating the editor have little to go on when trying to assess
>>> whether or not they will abuse being an admin.
>>
>> Again, the "guilty until proven innocent" mentality. You have no
>> reason to believe that anyone (who hasn't even nominated themselves)
>> is going to abuse anything, especially not if they haven't abused
>> their already-present editing privileges already.
>
> No, not "guilty until proven innocent". Rather "reserve judgement,
> because the jury is still out".  That's simply prudent commonsense.

It's the same "prudent common sense" that makes people who don't know
about wikis sceptical that such a system would work. There is no need to
"reserve judgement" if you can just test the person, by giving them the
privileges and seeing if they abuse them or not. Then you can pass
judgement based on actual facts rather than guessing. Reserving
judgement about granting the privileges makes sense only if the
privileges allow you to do something irreversible.

>>> As has been pointed out, there are already plenty of admins, 500 and
>>> growing, more than enough,
>>
>> I'm afraid "we already have 500 admins, more than enough" is an even
>> worse reason to vote "oppose" than "this user doesn't have enough
>> edits". Why should we deny anyone adminship just because we already
>> have 500 of them?
>
> No-one has voted oppose on those grounds; but you are proposing that way
> more people be made admins, without any sort of consensus process for
> making them so, because we somehow need even more people with these
> powers than already have them.

You are repeating the same argument that you made above: "We shouldn't
make more people admins because we already have enough." But not only
have I refuted this argument already (it doesn't hurt to have more if
they don't abuse it), it is also a strawman argument because it is not
refuting any argument I made (I never said we "need" more of them).

>>> and there is a process of voting them in which ensures that they are
>>> generally quite sensible.
>>
>> Again, so you're assuming that people are "unsensible" until you're
>> convinced otherwise.
>
> No, I simply don't know if they're sensible.

Right, but you're also denying them the chance to show you that they are.

> I do know that the majority of new editors are "not sensible" in that
> they are not familiar with Wikipedia policies and norms, and
> therefore regularly violate them.  Some editors learn the ropes
> quickly; others never do, even after tens of thousands of edits,
> either because they are unable to learn them, or unwilling to do so.

Right, so just because some of these people exist, others should be
denied adminship because there is a vague chance they might be one of
them. Is that what you're saying?

There is nothing wrong with violating a policy in good faith as long as
you learn your mistake and don't do it again.

>> I do have my reasons for posting this proposal; I believe that there
>> *is* a problem. Of course most current admins won't see the problem
>> because they're already admins. If it's too hard for a new user to
>> become admin, current admins wouldn't have to care, but it means there
>> *is* a problem.
>
> Huh?  The problem is it's too hard for new users to become admin,
> therefore it *is* a problem?  That's entirely circular.

You're making it sound circular, but it isn't. As soon as someone who
deserves admin powers (because they know the policies, they won't abuse
any powers, they always act in good faith, etc.) cannot get them
(because people vote "oppose -- not enough edits"), there is a problem.

>>> Changes to current processes which are currently working well make no
>>> sense,
>>
>> If a user with >600 edits, >1.5 edits per day, nominated by an
>> existing admin, and absolutely no history of trouble or ill-behaving
>> for over a year, cannot become admin, the current process is clearly
>> *not* working well.
>
> Why not?

Because this user should be an admin.

It seems to me (please correct me if I'm wrong) that most of your
argumentation is to oppose the idea of abolishing the adminship votes
altogether. But what do you think about my first proposal, to just make
it so that you cannot vote "oppose" based on number of edits or any
other criterion that isn't indicative of bad faith or other problematic
behaviour?

Timwi


from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dutch-Low Saxon .. Node you are wrong just acceptit

body:
You're actually very wrong in saying that I had never heard of these
dialects before this discussion.

That's where you're wrong in your beliefs about me. You assume in your
whole ideas about my involvement in languages on Wikipedia that I
don't, or can't, know anything about the majority of the languages.
But nearly all of the languages I've been involved in are ones I've
heard of before, and quite often I've read a lot about them.

I've been subscribed to lowlands-l for months now, well before this
discussion started, and I've seen a lot of back-and-forth discussion
about Low Saxon from people in Germany and the Netherlands.

Certainly, being a native speaker does not mean you know _about_ your
language. A rural farmworker in Montana will not know how many people
speak English worldwide, and he probably wouldn't know that English is
a SVO language. He probably also wouldn't know about Scots, a language
closely related to English, or about English pidgins and creoles
spoken in Africa, the Carribean, and beyond.

Mark

On 03/07/05, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
> Mark Williamson wrote:
>
> >Servien, at this point you have gone beyond even a distortion of
> >reality to pure fantasy.
> >
> Node a couple of native speakers are telling you constantly you are
> wrong. And you who had never heard of the dialects before this
> discussion is all of a sudden accusing native speakers of
> fantasizing???????? You are going way to far. First me, than Wouter and
> now Servien are telling you you are wrong. Why can't you just accept the
> fact that you are wrong and that one person cannot know about every
> language in the world. There is a reason people specialize you know.
>
> <skipped rest of nonsense>
>
> Walter/Waerth
>

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


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

body:
Not being fluent in Low Saxon or Dutch (I never claimed I was), I
cannot read what you said and know the meaning with complete accuracy.

But I get the idea that you're saying that you think that this
discussion should be in Dutch and Low Saxon, at least in the second
sentence.

I honestly have to disagree with this. It should either be in any
language, as policy says, or in Low Saxon exclusively. There's no
reason why it should be in Dutch *and* Low Saxon.

---

Obviously, Walter's message was not directed at me, but I can
understand it better than Kasper's.

"Ja Guaka die Node EU zegt alle talen te spreken dus dan begrijpt ie dit
ook wel. Anyway kan je het NDS-NL ook steunen  met je stem?"

I don't recall ever having said that I speak these languages. Please
kindly find me a quote where I do. And, it's "node ue" or just "node",
not "node eu".

Mark

guaka at no-log.org wrote:

>>Servien, at this point you have gone beyond even a distortion of
>>reality to pure fantasy. Speech varieties cannot develop separately if
>>they're spoken 4km apart from one another (an example I gave earlier
>>in the thread), unless there's a huge geographical barrier between
>>them.
>>
>>
>
>Mark, het wordt nu wel erg irritant en ik denk dat je het toch aan
mensen over moet
>laten die wel weten waar ze het over hebben.
>
>Misschien dat deze discussie gewoon in het Nederlands en nds (en een
klein beetje
>Duits) moet worden gevoerd.
>
>

Mark

On 03/07/05, guaka at no-log.org <guaka at no-log.org> wrote:
> > Servien, at this point you have gone beyond even a distortion of
> > reality to pure fantasy. Speech varieties cannot develop separately if
> > they're spoken 4km apart from one another (an example I gave earlier
> > in the thread), unless there's a huge geographical barrier between
> > them.
>
> Mark, het wordt nu wel erg irritant en ik denk dat je het toch aan mensen over moet
> laten die wel weten waar ze het over hebben.
>
> Misschien dat deze discussie gewoon in het Nederlands en nds (en een klein beetje
> Duits) moet worden gevoerd.
>

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


from_name: BERNICEHAZEL at aol.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] re: Cassandra Wimbs

body:
Greetings,

    I am a member of the NY Assn of Black Journaists. I may have to update my
membership but I would like to share this with nyabg.org.

Cassandra Wimbs


body:
> Most of the time I prefer to avoid those hot-tempered arguments but this time I'd like to share a few things that crossed my mind while reading the e-mails on the Dutch Low Saxon issue. I hope I can keep it reasonably short.
>
> 1. Of course, Wikipedias should try to unite as many people as possible and transcend minor variations in languages (e. g. British and American English share one Wikipedia).
>
> 2. Of course, the regional variants of Low Saxon form a dialect continuum, i. e. mutual intelligibility decreases with increasing distance.
>
> 3. Of course, in linguistics national borders don't equal language barriers.
>
> 4. However, in real-life political borders in Europe have throughout the centuries left clear marks on the way people speak and write. New words and idioms entered the dialects almost always via Standard German or Standard Dutch respectively. Whenever speakers of Low Saxon dialects write something down, they fall back on the languages they were taught writing in - that is either Dutch or German. Furthermore, all Low Saxon speakers in the Netherlands are confronted with Standard Dutch every single day while those living east of the border deal with Hochdeutsch day after day. Thus, speech varieties can and do develop separately if they're spoken 4 km apart from one another - even if that's only the size of a Wal-Mart parking lot in Arizona.
>
> 5. Of course, splitting nds into Dutch and German editions will not eliminate the difficulties a person from Pommeria will face in trying to understand the vernacular speech of someone from East Frisia. But it will reduce the overall spectrum the Low Saxon Wikipedia has to cover now.
>
> When I first read the request for a Dutch Low Saxon Wikipedia I considered it a little far-fetched myself. But it's a matter of fact that we can't expect people from the Netherlands to adapt to the "German" lexicon and way of spelling used in nds if they want to contribute. Accordingly, any "Dutch" orthography and loan words like "pagina" or "kreeren" would simply appear strange and "foreign" to anyone living in Germany.
>
> So I've come to the conclusion that while it might appear an inappropriate solution from a scholarly (or ivory tower?) perspective to set up a separate Wikipedia for Low Saxon in the Netherlands, it is a very workable solution from a real world perspective.

I really do not think that this is the solution. I'm sure there is a
better one, than dividing people up by nation -- this is not what
Wikipedia does, we have subdomains for languages, not countries.
nds-nl would be a subdomain for a country, rather than a distinct
language.

Loanwords such as "pagina" can be converted with conversion software,
along with orthography. Also, if it's so true that these languages are
difficult to understand each other, what's the deal with Lowlands-l
and people talking to each other in LS all the time, both from Germany
and the Netherlands?

I think that a great deal of it is that if you want to be able to
understand a speech variety similar to your own, you'll understand it
a great deal more than if you don't want to understand it.

Some people would look at the Scots sentence "Scots is a Germanic leid
that's spak in the Scots lallans an in Northern Irland, whaur it's
kent as 'Ullans' in offeical circles, bit by ordinar fowks as 'Scotch'
or 'Scots'." and say "That's absolutely incomprehensible.", because
they don't really want to understand it. But it's very clear to me,
without having studied Scots, what it means. "leid" is not a word I
learnt growing up, but its meaning is very clear from context ("Scots
is a ... leid", "leid that's spak"). The same is true of "kent". I
never learned this word in school or at home. But it's quite clear
from context that it means "called".

In spoken language, I would most likely not really be able to
understand that, but in written language I can read it with not much
trouble at all. Certainly, nearly all the words are spelt differently
than I would spell their English counterparts, but it's obvious which
words they're cognate to. I certainly wouldn't say it's "difficult"
for me to read either.

Mark


from_name: Andrew Gray

subject: [WikiEN-l] Read what the homeopaths are writing

body:
On 03/07/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:

> > "Homoeopathic medicine deliberately mimics or provokes the symptoms of a
> > patient's disease to strengthen the body's ability to heal itself."
> >
>
> Ah! So by setting fire to myself, I can heal my burns? Or by amputing a
> limb, it will cause another one to grow back? Wonderful!

Whilst I do agree it's a bit odd, you're attacking the wrong problem
there - the discussion is the response to diseases, not to physical
trauma. Physical trauma may often lead to infection and thence
diseases, but it's very much a different context.

(not that I believe in homeopathy, but still)

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


body:
Rebecca wrote:
>
>>There is no fundamental reason not to apply soft security to
>>adminship.
>
> That it's unnecessary, for starters. What we have now works fine.
> Changing that creates a whole lot of security problems that we just
> don't need - particularly with no compelling reason to change in the
> first place.

You are asserting that "what we have now works fine" even though I have
already mentioned numerous times why I think it does *not* work fine. I
have provided what I think is a compelling reason to change in the first
place.

> What purpose does this serve? It builds adminship up into some sort of
> huge thing that it isn't.

I think you misunderstood the proposal then. Imagine you're a writer for
a proprietary encyclopedia, let's say Encarta. This is a prestigious
position, because they use strict criteria to select their editors. To
be an editor on Wikipedia is less of a "thing" because anyone can come
in and edit. Consequently, lowering the bar for entry to adminship will
make adminship into less of a "thing".

(Incidentally I also think the concept of "adminship" should be renamed
to something less prestigious-sounding, perhaps "priv" (after
LiveJournal) or "high-ID" (after eMule), or perhaps an entirely made-up
initially-meaningless name, but that's food for another discussion some
other time.)

> If you generally behave yourself and make a few good edits, you
> become an admin.

No, you don't -- that's what I've been saying all the time. You need a
ridiculous amount of edits to become an admin (apparently more than 642
and more than 1.7 per day), no matter how well you generally behave
yourself throughout a whole year.

> It also isn't very helpful to continually hang an axe over the head
> of good users, in regard to their adminship in this case.

I don't think my proposal is advocating anything of the sort, unless you
would refer to the current threat of being blocked for inappropriate
behaviour as "hanging an axe over their head" too.

> The Open Directory Project continually hung an axe over people - and
> they left as a result, in droves. Let us not make the same mistake.

I suppose we're doing the other extreme (high bar for entry to adminship
and even higher bar for getting "axed out" of adminship) - and we have
rather few good admins as a result (500 out of 25500, less than 2%,
isn't very much for something that's supposedly "no big deal"). That's
the mistake on the other side of the spectrum...

> If someone isn't doing something *seriously* wrong, their only *need*
> to have anything to do with meta stuff at all is to request
> adminship.

So according to that, having "only" 600 edits is "doing something
seriously wrong"...

> Somehow I suspect this would be a lot more trouble than it's worth. If
> someone is that antisocial that they're not trusted enough to become
> an admin, then perhaps they should look to themselves. Wikipedia is
> not group therapy.

Here, for once, I agree with you. People should not be admins unless
they're willing to learn what it takes to be a good admin. But if
someone already *has* the qualification to be a good admin, simply by
being a normal average rational sensible reasonable common-sense human
being with no history of any wrongdoing, they should be an admin.

>>One of the advantages of making adminship more open would be that more
>>people would learn to be skillful, neutral administrators.
>
> Where is the problem that would warrant this?

Agree here too. But this is not an argument against my proposal. :)

Greetings,
Timwi


body:
>From: Timwi <timwi at gmx.net>
>
>JAY JG wrote:
>>>
>>>What tanglble (not philosophical) benefits in terms of creating a better
>>>encyclopedia would being able to edit freely provide? Well, duh, you
>>>have more freedom and therefore are better able to help.
>>
>>So, nothing specific comes to mind then?
>
>I think I've been specific enough, but fine, I'll be more specific.
>Fighting vandalism using the rollback button, using "delete" to be able to
>move page to where a lonely redirect is sitting, protecting pages where
>other people are having an edit war, blocking users with obvious violations
>of 3RR, ...  That enough yet?

None of that actually helps write an encyclopedia, but rather, it helps
administer it (or in the words of one list member "dominate other editors").

>>It's easy to refute strawman arguments; that's the reason people make them
>>in the first place.
>
>From what you wrote later in the e-mail, I assume you think this is a
>strawman argument because you are supposedly not actually assuming anyone's
>guilty. But then my other argument kicks in that you have no reason to lock
>someone out of something that would be useful to them for helping Wikipedia
>if you don't even believe they're guilty of anything.

They're not locked out of anything that helps them create or edit
encyclopedia articles.  They simply don't have access to admin functions.
To use a rather extreme analogy, there's a reason most countries have fairly
strict gun ownership restrictions, even though they don't consider most
citizens guilty of anything, or likely to go on shooting sprees.

>>New users are, in fact, able to completely modify just about any part of
>>Wikipedia they want.  This is a huge amount of trust that already creates
>>huge vandalism problems.  What you are asking for is for them to be given
>>special powers to do things like easily reverting pages and blocking
>>users.
>
>No, I am not asking for that. My proposal does not include anyone gaining
>administrative privileges without trust from any existing admin (quite in
>contrast to the editing privileges, which you get without anyone's trust).

Since, under your proposal, adminship will be open to just about anyone, it
amounts to the same thing.

>The reason we can't make them part of the "basic package" is that there
>always needs to be a level "above" which isn't part of the "basic package".

A level above?  Whatever happened to "assume good faith"?  Why, that's
positively un-wiki!

As soon as you argue that there is *any* reason to restrict these powers,
all your arguments about Wikipedia "assume good faith" principles fly out
the window.  Now what you're really arguing is not that these restrictions
violate Wikipedia principles, but that in your opinion the bar for admins is
set too high; that's an entirely different argument.  And once you start
talking about principles, "Assume good faith" is just one.  "Consensus" is
another.

>That doesn't mean that we need to treat the "top level" as such an elitist
>position as we do.

Right.  Your argument is about the bar being set too high. As I have pointed
out many times, with over 500 admins already, the bar clearly isn't set all
that high.

>(Yes, I know, there's also the level of "developer", but it doesn't count
>because it has powers to do irreversible things.)

There's a level above admin and below developer as well, bureaucracts, who
have the ability to create and (I believe) uncreate admins.  Since that's
also "reversible", shouldn't that be added to the abilities?

>>No, not "guilty until proven innocent". Rather "reserve judgement, because
>>the jury is still out".  That's simply prudent commonsense.
>
>It's the same "prudent common sense" that makes people who don't know about
>wikis sceptical that such a system would work. There is no need to "reserve
>judgement" if you can just test the person, by giving them the privileges
>and seeing if they abuse them or not. Then you can pass judgement based on
>actual facts rather than guessing. Reserving judgement about granting the
>privileges makes sense only if the privileges allow you to do something
>irreversible.

No, it also makes sense if the abilities are not ones needed to create or
write articles, but rather merely needed to administer the project.  Very
little is truly irreversible, but the amount of effort it takes to repair
damage goes up exponentially with each power added; prudence balances the
damage that can be done with the benefit the power adds.  Adding admin
powers to hundreds of new editors, who have gone through almost no vetting
process, will inevitably create all sorts of damage which will almost
certainly outweigh any tangible benefits to the project.

>You are repeating the same argument that you made above: "We shouldn't make
>more people admins because we already have enough."

Nonsense.  I'm saying we don't need to change the process for making admins,
because we have enough for now, and we are making lots more all the time.  A
year from now we will have well over 600 admins, in two years likely well
over 800.  We're making people admins all the time.

>But not only have I refuted this argument already (it doesn't hurt to have
>more if they don't abuse it),

You can't "refute" an argument by inserting a huge (and likely erroneous)
conditional statement in your "refutation".  Yes, it doesn't hurt to have
more IF they don't abuse it; but the whole process of creating admins is
geared towards ensuring that new admins will not be the ones likely to abuse
admin powers, and that's just the process you want to remove.

>>>>and there is a process of voting them in which ensures that they are
>>>>generally quite sensible.
>>>
>>>Again, so you're assuming that people are "unsensible" until you're
>>>convinced otherwise.
>>
>>No, I simply don't know if they're sensible.
>
>Right, but you're also denying them the chance to show you that they are.

Nonsense.  They can edit productively and comment sensibly, and in so doing
build a track record that indicates they are likely to be a sensible admin
as well.

>>I do know that the majority of new editors are "not sensible" in that
>>they are not familiar with Wikipedia policies and norms, and
>>therefore regularly violate them.  Some editors learn the ropes
>>quickly; others never do, even after tens of thousands of edits,
>>either because they are unable to learn them, or unwilling to do so.
>
>Right, so just because some of these people exist, others should be denied
>adminship because there is a vague chance they might be one of them. Is
>that what you're saying?

What is this "denied adminship"?  You say it as if its a fundamental right.
As for "vague chance", try "high likelihood if we relax they requirements in
the way you suggest".

>>>I do have my reasons for posting this proposal; I believe that there *is*
>>>a problem. Of course most current admins won't see the problem because
>>>they're already admins. If it's too hard for a new user to become admin,
>>>current admins wouldn't have to care, but it means there *is* a problem.
>>
>>Huh?  The problem is it's too hard for new users to become admin,
>>therefore it *is* a problem?  That's entirely circular.
>
>You're making it sound circular, but it isn't. As soon as someone who
>deserves admin powers (because they know the policies, they won't abuse any
>powers, they always act in good faith, etc.) cannot get them (because
>people vote "oppose -- not enough edits"), there is a problem.

Nonsense.  No-one "deserves" admin powers; this is some sort of spillover
from modern Western society's culture of entitlement, and sounds
uncomfortably like those editors who get on Wiken-l and complain that their
"right" to edit Wikipedia and rights to free speech on Wikipedia are being
suppressed.  And if editors haven't edited very much, then we can't tell if
they "know the policies,
"won't abuse any powers", and "always act in good faith," because we haven't
seen them in enough situations to be able to make an informed decision on
that.

How far would you take this argument?  Would you say that someone who has
made 20 edits, none of them policy violations, deserves admin powers?  How
about 1 edit?  But no, you're not saying that, because you've already said
that new editors should not automatically get them.  Again, it becomes
apparent that your argument is not that any fundamental principles are being
violated at all, but rather that the bar is being set too high for your
liking.

>>>>Changes to current processes which are currently working well make no
>>>>sense,
>>>
>>>If a user with >600 edits, >1.5 edits per day, nominated by an existing
>>>admin, and absolutely no history of trouble or ill-behaving for over a
>>>year, cannot become admin, the current process is clearly *not* working
>>>well.
>>
>>Why not?
>
>Because this user should be an admin.

Again, I remind you that assertions are neither arguments nor proofs.

>It seems to me (please correct me if I'm wrong) that most of your
>argumentation is to oppose the idea of abolishing the adminship votes
>altogether.

Yes.  That, and breaking up admin functions and adding them to the basic
package.

>But what do you think about my first proposal, to just make it so that you
>cannot vote "oppose" based on number of edits or any other criterion that
>isn't indicative of bad faith or other problematic behaviour?

As stated above, the former is shorthand for "I don't know enough about this
editor yet to trust him with admin powers", and the latter is highly
subjective and easily gamed.  I would only support this if "support" votes
were subject to the same restrictions.

Jay.


from_name: Mark Ryan

body:
Sorry, I appear to have forgotten to send this reply to Anonymouse to
the actual mailing list, and instead sent it to Anonymouse alone. I
note that I haven't received a reply to it in the 16 hours since I
sent it to him or her.
-----

First off, who is Marmot? Who is Kurita77? I don't know. I'm the list
administrator; I make sure it is used appropriately. I'm not here to
make judgments about the actions of people on Wikipedia; I'm here to
facilitate meaningful and constructive discussion.

You were incredibly rude. As a result, you were moderated, but not
banned. You are still free to send emails to the list, and, like I
said, if they are civil then they will fairly quickly reach the list.
This email of yours I am replying to now was not civil, and would not
have got through. Please try a little harder next time to be civil. As
for your claim that moderated users never get heard from once they get
placed under moderation, maybe you don't realise that NJ Yoder is also
currently moderated and the last few emails from him that have arrived
on the mailing list have gone through the moderation process and been
approved by the mailing list administrators. It's not what you say
that's important to me, it's how you say it.

You claim that your alleged personal attacks were the truth. So you're
saying it's the absolute truth that one Wikipedian is a fat hag who
constantly fellates another Wikipedian? I'm sorry, but that is so out
of line that I do not accept any arguments of censorship or freedom of
speech or anything like that as persuasive. If you have a point to
make, it is more than possible to make it without personally attacking
people in that manner.

As for your worries of people hunting you down and blocking you on
Wikipedia for what is said here, you shouldn't worry about that. As
far as I am concerned, although WikiEN-l is expressly *about*
Wikipedia, it is entirely separate *from* Wikipedia, and anything
which goes on one should not have a bearing on the user's
participation in the other. In this way, a user who gets blocked on
Wikipedia proper is not automatically banned from the Mailing List,
and vice-versa. Having said that, the fact that the mailing list is
independent means that in *extreme* cases action must be taken in
order to stop spam, abuse or inane repetition. In my view, yours is
the second most extreme case I have seen in the last year of being the
administrator of this mailing list. However, since that last case I
have taken a more liberal approach and instead moderated you instead
of banning you from subscribing to the mailing list outright. This is
because I see considerable value in what you say, and want you to help
thresh out the discussion, just not without abusively kicking other
people in the guts in the process.

So if you would please get over the accusations of thuggery and
censorship on my part, and back on topic in a civil manner, hopefully
we can actually get somewhere and maybe even lift the veil of
moderation.

~Mark Ryan
WikiEN-l Mailing List Administrator

On 7/2/05, A. Nony Mouse <temoforcomments4 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Oh give me a fucking break and stop lying.
>
> "If you construct your messages with meaning and civility,
> they will be readily accepted onto the mailing list, regardless of
> what you are arguing. This moderation is to maintain respectful
> conversation on the mailing list, not to censor your views."
>
> Been there. Seen that. Once you have "moderated" someone, they're never
> heard from again. It doesn't matter if they send a one-line "I agree with
> user X" email, it NEVER fucking makes it through moderation.
>
> This is ALL about censorship. You do it solely to ensure that dissent is
> never heard, the exact same thing you did to Marmot for dissenting about the
> way Admins cover up each other's crimes.
>
> I'll freely admit that YOU could construe what I said as personal attacks.
> You know what? They were also the truth. Just as what I'm saying NOW is the
> truth, but you'll try to ban me for it anyways.
>
> That's why I'm anonymous. Because I don't trust 90% of this list's
> membership not to go hunting through the Wikipedia userbase trying to find
> my account and block it out of spite.
>
> Civility will be had when you start behaving civilly yourselves. The way you
> have treated Yoder, the way you have treated Marmot, and the way you treated
> Kurita77 were anything BUT civil.
>
> Oh wait, I forgot. Policy only fucking matters when there's an admin
> wielding it. And heaven forbid that a user point out when the Admins are
> acting like a bunch of power-mad thugs, or even come to this list with a
> good-faith request to get their account back.
>
> "I may be forced to make mailing list subscriptions by
> approval only, which would have the effect of hindering community
> participation in the mailing list. As I'm sure you appreciate how
> undesirable an outcome that would be, I'm sure you will respect my
> requests."
>
> You've already destroyed community participation on the mailing list, so I
> don't see how I could do any more damage than you've already done. Like I
> just said, you'll get my respect back when you stop acting like a bunch of
> power-mad thugs and start acting like Wikipedians again.
>
> A.Nony Mouse
>
> >From: Mark Ryan <ultrablue at gmail.com>
> >Reply-To: Mark Ryan <ultrablue at gmail.com>,English Wikipedia
> ><wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> >To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] SHOWCASING Abuses of Admin Power
> >Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 17:57:17 +0800
> >
> >For the public record, this user is not "booted off the list". Rather,
> >he or she is mdoerated, with postings to be approved by moderators.
> >Here is an email I sent to this anonymous user:
> >
> >----
> >
> >You (and your other two accounts) have been moderated on WikiEN-l
> >because you were rude and abusive to others. The WikiEN-l mailing list
> >information page is at the following URL:
> >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> >You must have seen this page to subscribe your accounts to the mailing
> >list. You will notice down the bottom it says "[u]sers who are
> >extremely disruptive or uncivil may be banned from the mailing list by
> >the [mailing list] administrators". As I am sure you will freely
> >concede, your messages were very rude towards certain other
> >subscribers of the mailing list. Here are a couple of examples from
> >your messages:
> >
> >"you are nothing but a fascist hag anyways"
> >"Give Gerard my regards if you can be bothered to stop fellating him
> >long enough to speak."
> >"running around like a complete fat fool"
> >"you idiots spend your time jerking off"
> >"power-mad cretins"
> >
> >In view of this extreme lack of civility on your part, you are hereby
> >moderated on this mailing list. Any messages you now send to the
> >mailing list will be held for approval by one of the list's
> >moderators. If you construct your messages with meaning and civility,
> >they will be readily accepted onto the mailing list, regardless of
> >what you are arguing. This moderation is to maintain respectful
> >conversation on the mailing list, not to censor your views.
> >
> >If, however, you continue to create new anonymous accounts (we're up
> >to 3 now), I may be forced to make mailing list subscriptions by
> >approval only, which would have the effect of hindering community
> >participation in the mailing list. As I'm sure you appreciate how
> >undesirable an outcome that would be, I'm sure you will respect my
> >requests.
> >
> >~Mark Ryan
> >WikiEN-l Mailing List Administrator
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >On 7/2/05, A. Nony Mouse <tempforcomments3 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Whoops! Looks like somebody didn't like the truth told of them, they
> >booted
> > > me off the list for speaking truth to power.
> > >
> > > You wanted abuse of power? There you have it JT.
> > >
> > > Seems to happen a lot around here and on Wikipedia. Speak truth to the
> > > circle-jerk of power mad fools known as Admins, get booted.
> > >
> > > Ambi is the Red Queen of arbcom - running around like a complete fat
> >fool,
> > > screaming "Orf Wiv is 'ead" whenever a case comes before her. She gets
> >some
> > > sadistic pleasure from it I'm sure.
> > >
> > > The rest of ArbCom isn't any better. Never do they actually talk to
> >anyone
> > > involved in a case. Never do they let little things like facts get in
> >the
> > > way of their witch hunts.
> > >
> > > Ambi posts up a message that her say-so ought to be considered basis
> >enough
> > > for banning Marmot, whose only crime was exposing the Adminship
> > > self-protection racket for what it was, and you all just sit there
> > > applauding.
> > >
> > > I think you proved Marmot's case FOR him.
> > >
> > > An arbitration request comes up and someone adds an extra name to it,
> >and
> > > all of a sudden the original name on the arbitration request isn't even
> > > MENTIONED in the final verdict and an innocent user who (and I checked
> >the
> > > log to be sure) has not used a single naughty word is banned.
> > >
> > > Yoder gets caught in an infinite ban loop by an Admin who was involved
> >in
> > > his case, and you idiots spend your time jerking off saying "well you
> > > shouldn't have crossed an admin" and calling him names  rather than
> >paying
> > > attention to what was going on. And you're STILL DOING IT.
> > >
> > > And then there's what you did a couple days ago to Kurita77. A new user
> > > comes in, reads the tutorials, makes edits, and you ban him for the
> >crime of
> > > knowing too much? I was watching that. Poor kid didn't do anything wrong
> >but
> > > you spent your time harassing him, one of you sends him crank emails,
> >and
> > > before you know it we have a user screaming profanities.
> > >
> > > Not his fault. YOUR fault.
> > >
> > > There's a reason I post these sentiments anonymously. It's because you
> > > power-mad cretins would like nothing more than to get ahold of anyone
> >who
> > > dares to speak the truth about you around here. You'd ban my Wikipedia
> > > account just out of spite if you knew who I was. And I know you WAY too
> >well
> > > for you to claim otherwise, JT.
> > >
> > > Come on. Prove me wrong. Show some sense. Show for even ONE SECOND that
> >you
> > > actually respect the policies and procedures of Wikipedia.
> > >
> > > Biting the newbies, attacking anyone who's not part of your inner circle
> > > jerk, and insulting new users once you've bitten them isn't doing you
> >any
> > > favors.
> > >
> > > A. Nony Mouse.
> > >
> > > >>
> > > >and your a sockpuppet but that's beyond the point, I would be
> >interested in
> > > >seeing an iota of proof of any of these accusations, that would support
> > > >your case, and the case of the longwinded Nathan J. Yoder much better
> >than
> > > >these unceasing tireless rants.
> > > >
> > > >-Jtkiefer
> > > >_______________________________________________
> > > >WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > >WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > > >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Don't know what Meegos are? Click to find out. http://meegos.msn.ie
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> >_______________________________________________
> >WikiEN-l mailing list
> >WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Create a cute, funny or sexy Meego - click for more info!
> http://meegos.msn.ie
>
>


from_name: Servien Ilaino

body:
Hi Mark,

It is not a "linguistic constructed world" as you call it because I
don't plan on constructing a common language to be used on nds-nl.
Everyone will be free to use his or her own dialect.

You're correct by saying Dutch-Low Saxon speakers can mostly
understand each other, because Dutch-Low Saxon tends more towards
Dutch and German-Low Saxon tends way more towards German (as suggested
in the name) in fact the Low Saxon used isn't even Low Saxon, it's
Missingsch.

It is not preposterous to split up the Low Saxon by border, if people
in the Netherlands understand the German-Low Saxon better they're
welcome to go there, but I dought that they in fact will understand
the German-Low Saxon version, since ALL Dutch-Low Saxon dialect use an
orthography based on Dutch and mostly use words from Dutch. Of course
you can't always understand one another like some Twents words won't
be used in Stellingwarfs etc. but this problem is smaller on the Dutch
side.

The two languages on either sides of the border have evolved
differently as result of Dutch and German influences, the Wikipedia
isn't actually in "Low Saxon" it's also called "Plattdeutsch" refering
only to the German-Low Saxon dialects, thus not including Dutch, which
you can see because they're not mutually understandable even if you
change the orthography. That's why I want to create a Dutch-Low Saxon
Wikipedia.

There are more dialects in the Netherlands than only Stellingwarfs and
Grunnings, like Twents, Sallaands and Veluws etc. the people who live
on the Veluwe understand Grunnings Twents and Stellingwarfs mostly and
vice versa, this isn't the case with the Low Saxon-German dialects.
(With a few exceptions along the borderlines.)

You said: "German and Dutch aren't really mutually comprehensible when
spoken, but when written you can get at least the gist of what the
other person is saying."

You're half right, if German and Dutch LS-dialects are writting down
they still wouldn't be able to understand each other even if they had
a common orthography because on the other side of the border they use
a lot of German words, if you read on the website, there is even a
category saying if they don't know the LS word they should use German,
and this happens a lot, and makes it incomprehensible for Dutch-LS
speakers if don't didn't study German! (As result most Dutch-LS users
use the Dutch version.

Servien Ilaino

2005/7/3, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com>:
> Hi Servien,
>
> There is a major fallacy in your argument.
>
> That is that you are saying "...is even different in Dutch-Low Saxon..."
>
> But there is no absolute division of dialects.
>
> In your artificial linguistic constructed world you'd like everybody
> to believe in, all Dutch speakers of Low Saxon can understand one
> another and speak identically, and all German Low Saxon speakers can
> understand one another and speak identically, yet German Low Saxon
> speakers and Dutch Low Saxon speakers can't understand one another.
>
> But this is not the case. The fact of the matter is, Low Saxon itself
> is a dialect continuum. A man from one side of the Dutch-German border
> can perfectly understand the Nedersaksisch of a man from the other.
> Yet you would split them into "Dutch Low Saxon" and "German Low Saxon"
> categories. This is preposterous.
>
> Another huge problem with the current Low Saxon Wikipedia is that it
> seems it's written in Missingsch rather than "real" Low Saxon. I would
> like to find out more about this particular issue, though.
>
> Wouter has said before that people on opposite sides of the border can
> understand each other well enough, but that a Pommersch speaker can't
> understand a speaker of t Grunnings, and for this reason Germany and
> the Netherlands need different Wikipedias based on nation for Platt,
> rather than on actual solid linguistic distinctions.
>
> Obviously, a speaker of Pommersch can't understand a speaker of
> Grunnings, but a speaker of Oostfreesk and Stellingwarfs should be
> able to have a conversation with few difficulties.
>
> Also, it is a common linguistic principle that intelligibility is
> greatly increased in the written word. I could not, for my life,
> understand Derek Ross if he told me about Scotland in Scots, yet if he
> wrote it down I would be able to understand it at a good level. A
> speaker of Navajo and a speaker of Western Apache can only understand
> each other a little bit, but the written word is almost completely
> mutually comprehensible. German and Dutch aren't really mutually
> comprehensible when spoken, but when written you can get at least the
> gist of what the other person is saying.
>
> Recently, somebody filed a request on the requests for new languages
> page for a Triestin Wikipedia. Almost the whole world considers
> Triestin to be a dialect of Venet, yet this person and his supporters
> consider it to be a different language.
>
> So I asked for a sample from two independent sources. The samples were
> nearly identical. I posted them, and he said "Well, I would translate
> it this way" even though both of my translations were provided by
> native speakers. His "alternative" translation was still nearly
> identical, and those differences that WERE added could be explained as
> purposeful linguistic manipulations to make it more different from
> Venet. (Similarly, Bokm?l and Nynorsk have various acceptable variant
> forms. In many cases, there are forms in Bokm?l which are identical to
> forms in Nynorsk. Often, people [especially Nynorsk-users]
> purposefully avoid forms similar to Bokm?l to make their writing more
> distinctly Nynorsk)
>
> The main problem is how to solve a dialect continuum. Creating
> separate Wikipedias based on national borders is just ignoring the
> problem. Oostfreesk speakers and Pommersch speakers will still not be
> able to understand each other. Oostfreesk and Stellingwarfs speakers
> will still be able to understand each other. Teh world will keep on
> turning. And we will have side-stepped the problem rather than
> attempting to look for a workable solution.
>
> Mark
>
> On 03/07/05, Servien Ilaino <nl2b at europe.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi Mark,
> >
> > It's quite ununderstandable, it's not just the orthography, but in Germany
> > they use different words so you have to know that dialect to understand it.
> > I can understand the first sentence, but the second sentence is very hard to
> > understand, the first part of this sentence is understandable as well, at
> > "veet nu Bescheed" it's completely ununderstandable for any Low Saxon
> > speaker in the Netherlands: "Man de Bezeukers vun de Lezung miet Hartmut
> > Cyriacks un Peter Niszen veet nu Bescheed euver den plattduutschen Harry
> > Potter. De Kulturvereen "PEP" un de Stadtbeukerie Kelinghuzen harrn de
> > baaiden Plattmakers inlaodt, un dat veer en heel gode Idee..."
> >
> >  The first sentence of that text is even different in Dutch-Low Saxon: "Wie
> > weet nog wat en teuvernaor is? Dat et Platduutse woord deurveur "Sauwberer"
> > is, bin de meeste minsen waorschynlik al vergeten. (Plattdeutsch: "Wokeen
> > veet noch, vat en Teuverer is? Dut ole plattduutsche Wort veur "Zaauberer"
> > hebbt de mehrsten Luud maaist vergeten.")
> >
> > Hope you get my point now...
> >
> > Servien Ilaino
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Mark Williamson"
> > To: wikipedia-l at wikimedia.org
> > Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Dutch-Low Saxon test-mainpage
> > Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 17:00:59 -0700
> >
> > >
> > > Hi Servien,
> > >
> > > Please check out
> > >
> > http://s87257573.onlinehome.us/ks/index.php?title=HP_op_Platt&variant=ks-de
> > > and tell me what you think of the conversion.
> > >
> > > It's obviously not perfect but I'm still working on it.
> > >
> > > Any tips for improvements (ie, specific spelling errors) are welcome.
> > >
> > > Mark
> > >
> > > On 02/07/05, Servien Ilaino wrote:
> > > > Sorry it's suppose to be
> > > >
> > http://nds.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruker:Servien/Heufdbladsyde
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Servien Ilaino"
> > > > To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > > > Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dutch-Low Saxon test-mainpage
> > > > Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2005 10:11:47 -0500
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > I requested Dutch-Low Saxon a few weeks ago and I kind of made my
> > > > own
> > > > > mainpage for Wikipedia (if it ever gets created that is...) but
> > > > anyway...
> > > > > for people who like to check it out here is the link:
> > > > > http://nds.wikipedia.org/Bruker:Servien/Heufdbladsyde
> > > > >
> > > > > Please post any suggestions and stuff, like to read some comments.
> > > > >
> > > > > Question: On Wikipedia-L posts are mostly grouped together, but how
> > > > do
> > > > > you do that? (messages below each other like on wikipedia ": and ::
> > > > and
> > > > > :::" to show those are the replies. I hope you kind of understand
> > > > it
> > > > > because I don't really know how to explain it myself haha.)
> > > > >
> > > > > Servien Ilaino!
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > ___________________________________________________________
> > > > > Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
> > > > > http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > > > >
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > ___________________________________________________________
> > > > Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
> > > > http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
> > > QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
> > > POSSIT MATERIARI
> > > ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> >  --
> >
> > ___________________________________________________________
> > Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
> >  http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
>
> --
> SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
> QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
> POSSIT MATERIARI
> ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


body:
>From: Timwi <timwi at gmx.net>
>
>Rebecca wrote:
>>
>>>There is no fundamental reason not to apply soft security to
>>>adminship.
>>
>>That it's unnecessary, for starters. What we have now works fine.
>>Changing that creates a whole lot of security problems that we just
>>don't need - particularly with no compelling reason to change in the
>>first place.
>
>You are asserting that "what we have now works fine" even though I have
>already mentioned numerous times why I think it does *not* work fine. I
>have provided what I think is a compelling reason to change in the first
>place.

Your argument boils down to this; it's not working fine because I think the
bar is set too high.

>>The Open Directory Project continually hung an axe over people - and
>>they left as a result, in droves. Let us not make the same mistake.
>
>I suppose we're doing the other extreme (high bar for entry to adminship
>and even higher bar for getting "axed out" of adminship) - and we have
>rather few good admins as a result (500 out of 25500, less than 2%, isn't
>very much for something that's supposedly "no big deal"). That's the
>mistake on the other side of the spectrum...

Ah, but how many regularly active editors?  Probably no more than 1000.

Jay.


body:
And of course, since people disagree with me, I should change my
opinion? Isn't that what a difference of opinion is? Disagreement?

Until somebody convinces me of what they're trying to say, I will not
change my opinion.

Boris came very close to convincing me. He made a real, logical
argument, responding individually to each of my points, which you,
Wouter, and Servien have yet to do.

Surely, as native speakers, since you know so much more about your
language than do Boris and I, you should really be very well equipped
to do as Boris did, and since you are obviously not stupid, those two
factors should combine to make your argument very convincing.

Yet, until now, most of this has been you telling me why my opinion
should be less valued, and Wouter repeating over and over the initial
reasons given for a separate nds-nl wiki, without giving full
responses and rebuttals to the points I made.

Obviously, neither you nor anybody else is obliged to respond in such
a manner, but it certainly goes towards reaching an agreement much
more than what you have done so far.

Mark

On 03/07/05, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >But I get the idea that you're saying that you think that this
> >discussion should be in Dutch and Low Saxon, at least in the second
> >sentence.
> >
> >I honestly have to disagree with this. It should either be in any
> >language, as policy says, or in Low Saxon exclusively. There's no
> >reason why it should be in Dutch *and* Low Saxon.
> >
> >---
> >
> >Obviously, Walter's message was not directed at me, but I can
> >understand it better than Kasper's.
> >
> You really really really really do not get it do you??????? No one has
> argued for your POV. You are the only one arguing it! We have had a
> couple of  native speakers argue against you. A couples of others have
> argued against you and you still go on. Please read what everybody has
> said. Forgot what stupid braindead me said. Look at the arguments of others.
>
> Walter/Waerth
>

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


from_name: Jtkiefer

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

body:
Even though I know this isn't a dev list, the first solution that I
coudl think of for this would be to have a view source button that
wouldn't be an edit window, that way you'd run no risk of renewing the
block, it would also make it easier for general users who just want to
look at the source and not have to worry about accidentally hitting the
save page button.  I think the whole block issue may be a psychological
issue as well, I forget who brought it up before but there does seem to
be a certain lack of empathy for people on the wrong side of the block
which is something that should be rectified or we risk the chance of
alienating potentially useful editors to wikipedia.

-Jtkiefer


body:
Also, it seems to me that Walter, Wouter, and Servien are intent on
ignoring the issue of nds.wiki being in Missingsch rather than real
nds. But this is a real issue, and we need to deal with it. I have
personally received complaints from members of lowlands-l about
nds.wiki being in Missingsch, which is not actually Low Saxon but
rather a "contact variety".

Surely, mutual intelligiblity would be increased very much if this
huge problem were solved. I'm sure one of the main problems is the
fact that it's written in Missingsch.

Perhaps before starting nds-nl.wiki, somebody should start
real-nds.wiki, and after that we can see if things are any better.

Mark

On 03/07/05, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> And of course, since people disagree with me, I should change my
> opinion? Isn't that what a difference of opinion is? Disagreement?
>
> Until somebody convinces me of what they're trying to say, I will not
> change my opinion.
>
> Boris came very close to convincing me. He made a real, logical
> argument, responding individually to each of my points, which you,
> Wouter, and Servien have yet to do.
>
> Surely, as native speakers, since you know so much more about your
> language than do Boris and I, you should really be very well equipped
> to do as Boris did, and since you are obviously not stupid, those two
> factors should combine to make your argument very convincing.
>
> Yet, until now, most of this has been you telling me why my opinion
> should be less valued, and Wouter repeating over and over the initial
> reasons given for a separate nds-nl wiki, without giving full
> responses and rebuttals to the points I made.
>
> Obviously, neither you nor anybody else is obliged to respond in such
> a manner, but it certainly goes towards reaching an agreement much
> more than what you have done so far.
>
> Mark
>
> On 03/07/05, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >But I get the idea that you're saying that you think that this
> > >discussion should be in Dutch and Low Saxon, at least in the second
> > >sentence.
> > >
> > >I honestly have to disagree with this. It should either be in any
> > >language, as policy says, or in Low Saxon exclusively. There's no
> > >reason why it should be in Dutch *and* Low Saxon.
> > >
> > >---
> > >
> > >Obviously, Walter's message was not directed at me, but I can
> > >understand it better than Kasper's.
> > >
> > You really really really really do not get it do you??????? No one has
> > argued for your POV. You are the only one arguing it! We have had a
> > couple of  native speakers argue against you. A couples of others have
> > argued against you and you still go on. Please read what everybody has
> > said. Forgot what stupid braindead me said. Look at the arguments of others.
> >
> > Walter/Waerth
> >
>
> --
> SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
> QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
> POSSIT MATERIARI
> ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE
>

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Thoughts on the process of requesting adminship

body:
David Gerard wrote:

>
>
>The idea is that an overwhelming majority may *indicate* consensus. For
>RFA, that's taken to mean >80%; 75-80% is at bureaucrat discretion.
>
>
>- d.
>
>
    Hopefully we have to have trust in the bureacrats when it comes to
RFA's that are 75-80% because those are the ones that are normally
controversial and pose a real challenge on the decision of whether they
should be approved or not.  For the most part I trust the bureacrats to
make the decision but would have no problem letting them know if I ever
disagreed with their decision.

       -Jtkiefer


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 24, Issue 22

body:
J.F. de Wolff wrote:

>
>
> It seems Weyes has left. What a disgrace. We've never had such a
> diligent RC patroller, and he was more right than wrong in his crusade
> against excessive external links. That's another one gone after RickK.
> Why on earth do we fail the Wikipedians who do so much to protect our
> project from vandals, cranks and idiots?
>
> Jfdwolff

                                                            Two words:

                                                        _*ONLY HUMAN

*_    -Jtkiefer


from_name: Rob

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

body:
Yes, because accidentally forgetting to trim a bunch
of quoted text is exactly the same thing as calling
someone a "fascist hag".  Duly noted.

Skyring skyring at gmail.com:

Hmmm. Six lines of post and a couple of a hundred of
quoted material.
Perhaps you should examine the log in your own eye,
brother, before
pointing out the speck in another's!

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


body:
Dan Grey wrote:
> On 03/07/05, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Adminship stopped being about being a well behaved editor and not
>>abusing the tools long ago...
>
> There's a difference?

I think you misunderstood. I think he meant: adminship stopped being
about X long ago, where X is a well-behaved editor who doesn't abuse the
administrative tools.

And I quite agree. Adminship is primarily about getting more Support
votes than Oppose votes. Currently there is little relation between an
"oppose" vote and an indication of ill behaviour or abuse of the tools.

Timwi


subject: [WikiEN-l] more active censorship

body:
>From: "Nathan J. Yoder" <njyoder at energon.org>
> > No, it's supposed to work that way.  It's doing exactly what it is
>intended
> > to do.
>
>No, it's supposed to protect against block evasion, how is it doing
>that in this case?

Attempts to edit while you are blocked are attempts to evade the block.

>What purpose does it serve exactly?

Protects against block evasion.

>Do you
>realize that if someone doesn't realize that they're blocked and they
>hit edit it automatically resets it?

Yes.

> > Why is that "obvious"?  Why on earth would you hit the edit button when
>you
> > were banned from editing?
>
>I already explained this a million times now, I was doing it to check
>the information on the block page again and to see if I could still
>get the source for a certain page (read only).  It'd also be helpful
>to see when it expires.

When you're blocked, the best idea is to take a break instead.  The whole
point is for you too cool off and consider your actions.

Jay.


list: wiktionary-l

from_name: Andrew Dunbar

subject:
[Wiktionary-l] Re: [Wikitech-l] en.wiktionary.org temporarily
	broken

body:
On 7/1/05, Muke Tever <muke at frath.net> wrote:
> Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The reason for this is that like in a paper dictionaray we only want correct
> > spellings and an incorrect spelling should result in a "not found" message.
>
> In the US, and probably in other places where spelling is not phonetic,
> one of the most common uses for a dictionary (if not the most common)
> is to find what the correct spelling of a word is.  If there is not
> "spell check" in the form of redirects or see-unders, then the Wiktionary
> is useless for this.

Only as useless as a paper dictionary already is.

Hippietrail.

>        *Muke!
> --
> website:     http://frath.net/
> LiveJournal: http://kohath.livejournal.com/
> deviantArt:  http://kohath.deviantart.com/
>
> FrathWiki, a conlang and conculture wiki:
> http://wiki.frath.net/
> _______________________________________________
> Wiktionary-l mailing list
> Wiktionary-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
>

--
http://linguaphile.sf.net


from_name: James Gibbon

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Read what the homeopaths are writing

body:
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 00:15:26 +0930
Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Ah! So by setting fire to myself, I can heal my burns? Or by amputing
> a limb, it will cause another one to grow back? Wonderful!
>

I don't think that burns, or the loss of a limb are normally
considered diseases, but perhaps they are by some.

James


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Tomer Chachamu

subject: [Wikitech-l] Filters missing from "User contributions" page

body:
On 03/07/05, Nyenyec N <nyenyec at gmail.com> wrote:
> Do I see correctly that the filters from the "User Contributions"
> pages have been removed?
>
> Why?
>
> I think this is a problem for Wikipedias which tie voting rights to
> e.g. 200 contributions in the article space, such as de.wikipedia.org.
>
> That feature was *extremely* useful, e.g. to see if someone was ever
> rude on "User talk" pages before deciding about nominating them to
> admin status, etc.
>
> Will the filter be re-added?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MediaWiki_1.5_bugs#Missing_items_from_User_Contributions_page

The little selection bar thingy that allows you to just see specific
contributions such as to talk pages, user pages, et cetera is now
missing from the Special:Contributions pages.
[[User:JarlaxleArtemis| ?  Jarlaxle]] July 2, 2005 22:13 (UTC)

:this feature has been removed.  sorry.  —kate
::Why has it? How am I supposed to view my images mixed in with
article edits!? [[User:Thorpe|? Thorpe ?]] 3 July 2005 14:06 (UTC)

::That feature was ''extremely'' useful. Will it be re-added? Thanks,
[[User:Nyenyec|nyenyec]] [[User talk:Nyenyec|☎]] 3 July
2005 15:32 (UTC)

::Presumably, it was buggy. I prefer Wikipedia to be stable, which it
now, finally, seems to be. The development team deserves a big cookie
for all of there recent work, thank you! :)
[[User:Func|<tt>func</tt>]][[User_talk:Func|<tt>(talk)</tt>]] 3 July
2005 15:41 (UTC)


body:
On 7/3/05, Nathan J. Yoder <njyoder at energon.org> wrote:
> How is a majority vote NOT consensus?

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/consensus

A majority is not consensus.  True consensus requires a unanimous decision.

As the community size becomes large the probability of a unanimous
decision becomes infinitesimal and the ability of one member to block
a decision becomes a target for disruption. Because of this it is
often advantageous to use a near-consensus system in place of a true
consensuses system.  A correctly working near consensus system
achieves the most of the ethical grant of power of a true consensus
system, but with a reduced vulnerability to obstruction.

For many of our votes in the community, Wikipedia uses a two stage
near-consensus process which is highly effective.  For example, VFD:
Members of the community state both their 'vote' and their position
and have an ability to discuss their votes and change their votes in
an open environment that is free of true coercion. Once the vote is
complete, a trusted and experienced member of the community studies
the votes and looks for a highly substantial majority one way or
another, attempts to exclude votes which were probably made in bad
faith or are really voting about something unrelated to the issue. If
this person fails to find a clear consensus they take the action which
is the least harming and most reversible.  The result of that decision
and who made it is visible to the entire community who are entitled to
ask reasonable questions about the decision, and furthermore the
decision can be unilateral undone by any other member in the trusted
subset, after which another stage of near-consensus decision making
may take place.

This process works beautifully as long as a few simple criteria are met.

One is that we don't worry too much about lone objectors, because by
paying too much attention to them grant we would grant them a
fantastic disruptive power... and that in a large open community the
probability of a true lone objector actually having a valid complaint
is fairly low because at least one other person is usually willing to
carry the flag of the oppressed.

The second requirement is that there clearly be a safe way to fail...
Consensus decision making fails when inaction is potentially worse
than action.  I think in general the community realizes this, so you
see the nearness of required consensus vary from subject to subject.


from_name: Skyring

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: Wikipedia is *already* written from a scientific
	POV

body:
On 7/3/05, Nathan J. Yoder <njyoder at energon.org> wrote:

> I just love the double standard here.  Apparently unless an admin does
> something extreme, they should not only not get blocked, but they
> should keep their admin status.  But if I make anything that could be
> construed as a "personal attack", I get blocked.  It's kind of strange
> that the admins are held to a _lower_ standard than the users are.

The same attitude prevails to a greater or lesser extent through any
similar human community and it is hardly fair to expect WP to be some
sort of Utopia. Hypocrisy, double standards, nepotism and so on are to
be expected and the difficult part is not to find instances of such
things occurring but to find it admitted openly.

--
Peter in Canberra


from_name: Fastfission

subject: [WikiEN-l] Creationism and pseudoscience

body:
I don't think it's our place to debate the merits of such
classification. Then it will be Creation biologists say, "Look, we can
falsify this! Now can we not be pseudoscience?" and then someone over
here saying, "Nyaahh, I don't buy it."

That's original research in my book. Hence I think it is better to
say, "The majority of the mainstream scientific community considers
creation science to be pseudoscience." And perhaps explain why.

That way, we don't have to rely on individual Wikipedian assessments
of evidence, philosophy, etc. And it's also not *our* problem.
Somebody complains, "But I don't think it is pseudoscience!" then we
carefully say, "Well, that's great, but as you can see, it's not about
what you and I think, it's about the scientific community writ at
large."

As for Tom Cruise, he's not part of the mainstream scientific
community. It can easily be noted on the [[Scientology]] page that
they consider psychiatry to be pseudoscientific, but this is not a
view shared by the mainstream medical community at all.

By making this about large community opinions -- which are not so
impossible to source as one might at first think -- rather than
individual evaluations, we punt the entire problem into a different
domain of expertise. Which is where it should be in the first place.

How, you might ask, do we measure these things? For creation science,
it is easy to cite large numbers of influential and well-regarded
scientists who have classified as such (Stephen J. Gould is an easy
one -- an expert in his field, universally regarded by scientists as a
good spokesman for science on this question, etc.). For psychiatry,
the fact that many major universities offer programs in psychiatry is
a pretty good indication of its status in the academic medical
community.

It only becomes contentious if we try to debate *why* Harvard and MIT
have programs in evolutionary biology and not creationism and programs
in psychiatry and debate whether or not *we think* they have such for
good reasons.

FF

On 7/1/05, Leif Knutsen <vyer at earthlink.net> wrote:
> I think that if a field of inquiry, or a theory if you will, is to be called "pseudoscience," then it has to be explained by what criteria it is distinct from "real" science or protoscience.  And then the rebuttal from those who believe it is real science must be presented as well.
>
> The argument for creationism (which I don't buy) is that the fossil record and other physical evidence leaves unanswered questions in the "theory" of evolution.  Hence, they argue, you can't reject creationism as a valid form of scientific inquiry.  The fallacy is that if one explanation doesn't explain everything, then all other explanations are equally valid.
>
> I think it is important to have an article about pseudoscience, but it would be more interesting and readable, and less contentious, if we omitted examples altogether.  Tom Cruise recently characterized psychiatry as a "pseudoscience" and would undoubtedly list it as an example here.  There'd be a big argument, and the article wouldn't improve much.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Timwi

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

body:
JAY JG wrote:
>>
>> Obviously, I wouldn't have ever hit edit if I *knew* it did that.
>
> Why is that "obvious"?  Why on earth would you hit the edit button when
> you were banned from editing?

He already said that. He wanted to re-read the block page. That is a
perfectly legitimate thing to want. Also, by the GFDL, users *must* be
able to retrieve the source code of a page. This, too, is a perfectly
legitimate thing to want. Both cases *must not* renew a block.

I know that most of you think Nathan is just an attention-seeking troll,
but I think a lot of you would do good if you learnt to "see through"
the emotional bits and look at the factual things underneath.

Timwi


list: commons-l

from_name: Angela

subject: [Commons-l] Re: Licensing information transcluded from the Commons

body:
On 7/3/05, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:

> Other than the small hidden sentence "This file is a shared upload and
> may be used by other projects.", there seems to be no indication that
> the image is actually on a different server.

That can be changed at [[MediaWiki:Sharedupload]]. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Sharedupload for example which
makes it fairly clear the information is from the commons.

Angela.


body:
As I said, I'm perfectly happy with saying that most -- the vast
majority, perhaps, but I don't know -- of homeopathic practices and
beliefs are considered pseudoscientific. I'd add a little nuance that
some of the medical community have found some inspiration in its model
of symptoms, but that generally this is still incorporated into the
standard medical model (that is, just taking the "like helps like"
approach doesn't mean they are abandoning any other medical methods or
understandings). Which seems to be the state of things, as I
understand them.

Putting something like that in the homeopathy article -- or even the
pseudoscience article -- would be great and from a NPOV. But that sort
of nuance can't be accomodated through our categorization technology,
which is why I don't think we should be using categories for something
like this.

FF

On 7/3/05, Haukur ?orgeirsson <haukurth at hi.is> wrote:
> Yes, I see. I suppose that's a fairly typical
> introduction to homeopathy. It sounds sort of
> plausible and somewhat interesting. Here's a
> sample pro-homeopathy article that starts like
> this:
[snip]


from_name: Roman Maurer

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

body:
Hello!

I recently noticed that Slovene common image descriptions have also
English text, eg.: http://sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slika:Evo7glyph.png

Is this a bug or somebody's intention?
--
	Pozdrav,
	  Roman


body:
On 7/3/05, A. Nony Mouse <temoforcomments4 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Oh give me a fucking break and stop lying.
>
> "If you construct your messages with meaning and civility,
> they will be readily accepted onto the mailing list, regardless of
> what you are arguing. This moderation is to maintain respectful
> conversation on the mailing list, not to censor your views."

A-N-M should learn the difference between speaking the truth and
making abusive comments. I personally was offended by his (I presume
it's a he) description of an ArbComm member in physical terms (among
other equally uncilvil terms scattered throughout). For one thing,
it's no business of anyone here what an editor looks like. We might
construct mental images to go along with the names, and some of us (eg
SlimVirgin) might even co-operate in this charade, but WP is pretty
much a construct of thoughtstuff alone, and it's the product of our
minds that is important.

Ambi might be many things, but a fool she most certainly is not.

As to the rest of the diatribe, its good points (and there are a few)
are obscured by the abuse.

--
Peter in Canberra


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Wikipedia is *already* written from a scientific POV

body:
Alphax wrote:

> Whoa whoa wait a minute before you start getting heavy-handed.  [etc.]

Sorry if I was being unclear. The first thing I said was that most
Americans are Christians. The 82% figure supports this.

The second thing I said was that most Americans believe in some form of
Creationism or other. That's the 57% in the other survey.

All figures were taken from [[Evolution poll]] and not out of my sleeve.

I find it interesting that people here seem to regard my assertion as an
insult and immediately rush to America's defense.

Timwi


body:
On 7/3/05, Rob <gamaliel8 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Or instead, we could give the trolls what they
> actually deserve and kick them off the list, that way
> we don't have the list overwhelmed with troll posts
> that we have to pick through to get to the actual
> discussions here.  Turning the other cheek only goes
> so far.

Hmmm. Six lines of post and a couple of a hundred of quoted material.
Perhaps you should examine the log in your own eye, brother, before
pointing out the speck in another's!

--
Peter in Canberra


from_name: Alfio Puglisi

body:
On Sun, 3 Jul 2005, Roman Maurer wrote:

>Hello!
>
>I recently noticed that Slovene common image descriptions have also
>English text, eg.: http://sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slika:Evo7glyph.png
>
>Is this a bug or somebody's intention?

It's intentional, see

http://www.archivum.info/wikitech-l at wikimedia.org/2005-07/msg00023.html

Alfio


from_name: Alphax

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

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

Tim Starling wrote:
> I like the games, personally. A long time ago, I considered writing a
> special games extension for MediaWiki, for the purposes of encouraging
> social interaction and community building. I didn't get around to it,
> but I'm happy that it happened anyway. Of course it would be better if
> it was on a separate wiki, and I'd be happy to set up such a wiki on the
> Wikimedia servers, if the community is in favour. Perhaps it could be in
> a subdirectory.
>

Actually, some of the more "fun" activities/games (eg. N degrees of
seperation, Wikifun, etc.) are quite useful - people involved go through
articles, often improving them on the way.

> The problem with putting it on wikicities is mostly psychological. It's
> on the wrong side of the virtual boundary which surrounds our homey
> little region of cyberspace. I know some people *want* it outside the
> boundary, I would ask them to be tolerant.
>

Alternatively, limit it to user subpages :)

> It would be outside our mission to offer these games to anyone other
> than Wikipedia editors. I wouldn't want to see it become an
> independently advertised Wikimedia project. We can put up barriers to
> entry which discourage outsiders, for example requiring a Wikipedia
> account. The user interface is probably the biggest barrier -- honestly,
> who would play chess on a wiki other than a Wikipedian? It's very quaint.
>

Yep, absolutely. Again, moving it into user sub-pages (or an obscure
part of the Wikipedia namespace, using templates, tables, piped links,
math markup, and other bits of obscure wiki-markup) would solve part of
this problem.

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

iD8DBQFCx7n4/RxM5Ph0xhMRA74KAKCL1wcFSfL7UCSEjx9qtdwtEf0g0wCgl0Dk
hxk3AAT27dEX6CEhcCe6h8U=
=YqhK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


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

body:
Phil Sandifer wrote:
> I've just blocked myself to check on how this process works. Among
> other things, the page includes the following line:
>
> "If you need to see the wiki text of an article, you may wish to use
> the Export pages feature." Export pages is a live link.
>
> So the GFDL problems are nil.

That may, strictly speaking, fulfill the requirements of the GFDL
(indeed you could also use &action=raw&ctyle=text/css if you're techy),
but it is the completely wrong approach by all principles of UI design
and user expectation. (Notice especially that you admitted that, in
order to see that link, you have to have your block renewed again...)

Timwi


body:
H? Wouter!

Bedankt voor 't commentaar! Dacht even die draait helemaal door, af en
toe heeft ie wel wat zinnige feiten maar merendeels is onzin... ik
probeerde uit te leggen hoe 't zit met de overheid dat die ook invloed
uitoefenen maar hij begrijpt er volgens mij geen ruft van!

Servien

2005/7/3, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net>:
> Mark Williamson wrote:
>
> >Servien, at this point you have gone beyond even a distortion of
> >reality to pure fantasy.
> >
> Node a couple of native speakers are telling you constantly you are
> wrong. And you who had never heard of the dialects before this
> discussion is all of a sudden accusing native speakers of
> fantasizing???????? You are going way to far. First me, than Wouter and
> now Servien are telling you you are wrong. Why can't you just accept the
> fact that you are wrong and that one person cannot know about every
> language in the world. There is a reason people specialize you know.
>
> <skipped rest of nonsense>
>
> Walter/Waerth
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Interviki sorting

body:
????????? ??????? wrote:
> We can display interwiki links ordered by language list in a MediaWiki
> message. Thus within each project it will be possible to adjust any
> uniform sorting: order by language names (latin names, then cyrillic,
> then hieroglyph...) or order by language codes or have ahead a few
> "major" languages.
>
> And if this "MediaWiki:Interwikiorder" is empty then list will be
> formed like now.
>
> Will it be useful feature?

I always felt that the inter-wiki links should just be sorted by the
software in one pre-defined way. I find it highly unprofessional that
some Wikipedias use a different sorting than other Wikipedias. For
example, the Hungarian Wikipedia places (or placed, it's been some time)
the English link (if any) at the top and sorted the rest alphabetically.
I quite strongly disagree to such a scheme, but not knowing Hungarian, I
cannot participate in any discussion about it.

Timwi