from_name: Cool Hand Luke

subject: [WikiEN-l] Naughty/violent pictures

body:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:39:58 -0000 (GMT), Tony Sidaway
<minorityreport at bluebottle.com> wrote:
> David Gerard said:
> > Christopher Mahan (chris_mahan at yahoo.com) [050216 14:27]:
> >> --- Arno M <redgum46 at lycos.com> wrote:
> >
> >> > It is not an encycopedia's task to do PR for terrorists,
> >> > especially
> >> > ones who are as ruthless as these.
> >
> >> Then Auschwitz pics are out of the question, right?
> >
> >
> > I don't know if anyone's working on code for the inline vs link user
> > option, but it would probably beat the fork that appears to be coming
> > on the issue.
>
> Are forks such a bad idea?  It would solve the child-safe problem.  The
> adult Wikipedia could possibly also drop a lot of the trivia that are
> mostly of interest to children.  TV show episode guides, comics, games and
> the like.  Presumably article and history information could still be
> interchanged.
>

Duplicated efforts, divergent versions, and a fewer eyeballs: forks
are an exceptionally bad idea.

If it's terribly important to have whole articles without requiring
users to click to separated images, I suggest template-driven
transclusion as used on [[Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse]].

A more intuitive method of transclussion was made by Violet/riga. It
involves titling the images based on the article name and using
{{PAGENAME}} in the image tag so that alternate versions (ie
"Autofellatio (no pictures)") will still show the caption but break
the image. I've just added a demonstration of this technique on my
userpage ([[User:Cool Hand Luke]]) since it's no longer on
Violetriga's.

Using this sort of technique we avoid forking (both versions are
generated from the same stock), and we give even technically unsavvy
users the choice whether to see the image or not by simply clicking a
link. Furthermore, addressing the concern some have over linking
images, we don't deny readers the ability to see a whole article with
images in context.

I believe giving users an actual choice is much better than lecturing
them about how incompetent they are with their web browser or
chastising them for looking up a topic in the first place.

I'm one of those that might read autofellatio, but would look it up
without the expectation, much less a desire, to see that trashy
copyrightvio.


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: JAY JG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Naughty/violent pictures

body:
>From: "Tony Sidaway" <minorityreport at bluebottle.com>
>Are forks such a bad idea?

Yes, forks are a bad idea, because the text in the forked articles
inevitably diverges.  You would end up with different articles on the same
subject contradicting each other.

Jay.


from_name: Jim Trodel

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 19, Issue 87

body:
> From: "Karl A. Krueger" <kkrueger at whoi.edu>
> For what it's worth, I don't think this fuss is really about
> autofellatio, any more than it was about clitorises (clitorides?) when
> the fuss was over the article [[Clitoris]].  ...
>
> Rather, the issue here seems to me to be whether Wikipedia needs some
> kind of rules under which people's work will be deleted or hidden away
> on the grounds of being "offensive".  I hold that it does not; indeed,
> that such rules would harm the project.  Existing ad-hoc practices work
> just fine for selecting the work that should be included, on the basis
> of accuracy, style, neutrality, copyright, and other such rules.
>
I agree - however, the argument here is being made that linking to a
image that is beyond the bounds is NPOV despite the voting and actions
by Jimbo.

> > 2) Students *should* have access to educational articles of this type.
> > I have a distinct memory of looking up "fellatio" in a dictionary at
> > my school library. I had no stomach for asking my mom or dad what the
> > word meant - and I didn't trust my fellow students enough to take them
> > at their word. I didn't need a picture to understand (though I may
> > have wanted one).
>
> In holding that students should have access (presumably via Wikipedia)
> to definitions and descriptions of fellatio, you've already placed this
> ideal of Wikipedia where it would be blocked by censorware and other
> processes that seek to "protect" children from "indecency".
>
I think if we are reasonable in the inclusion of images such that they
meet an stardard of providing educational or instructional information
- over time, such objectsions would be overcome, and wikipedia would
become an exception to such blocks - just as full volumes of
encylopedias are available at every school library even though they
contain articles on things labeled "indecent" and responsible parents,
like me (I have 4 children) would fight for the right of wikipedia to
be included in schools against those would ban it based on a few
articles (its value outweighing the risk). However, by including
images like those discussed here, I can't even make that argument to
myself.

> The presence or absence of images would not, then, control whether
> Wikipedia were accessible to those students.

I think it could - especially as censorware controls become more
finely tunable (if that is such a word).

> Offense is not a good criterion on which to judge whether material
> should be presented in an encyclopedia.  If it were, we would be unable
> to cover adequately any number of subjects which offend people.
>
But offense to a great number of people is good critera for deciding
whether something could be included as a link or inline.

Images are much more powerful communicators than text. To include
graphic images that provide no educational or encyclopedic content and
would offend most people in the article without a link or warning
would be IMHO foolish. And to provide it through the link should
satisfy (but for some reason doesn't) those that want to claim
censorship and NPOV.

Jim
--
Jim (trodel at gmail.com) [[User:Trodel]]


from_name: Puddl Duk

subject: [WikiEN-l] The Censorship Lie

body:
--- Tony 'the [[Energizer Bunny]]' Sidaway
<minorityreport at bluebottle.com> wrote:

> Puddl Duk said:
> >
> >
> > Wikipedia image policy 'suggests' discussing
> > objectionable images before adding. This wasn't
> done
> > for the autofellatio image.
>
> The situation has changed since then; there really
> has been no successful
> move to get rid of that picture to date, to my
> surprise.

I guess I would intemperate this differently; there
has been no successful move to _keep_ the image.

And I think the poll is flawed, the link option
retains the image at wikipedia.  This is wrong.

> It seems to me
> that unless Jimbo ups and deletes it (and you won't
> see any complaints
> from me if he does), the picture will be there in
> one form or another for
> a while.  One solution to this might be that Jimbo
> himself lists it for
> deletion, because this might shift the stalement
> that has occurred on IfD
> each time it has been listed before.
>
Good points, maybe after the in-line option is
defeated the existing policy can be implemented to
delete the image. Won't reflect the poll exactly, but
the poll is flawed.

I would like to see this policy developed further,
getting community consensus before adding
objectionable material is good, and doesn't require censorship.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250


from_name: Karl A. Krueger

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Autofellatio - NO to that image

body:
On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 09:58:33AM -0800, Christopher Mahan wrote:
> Stomping you foot may work in a bar with cute guys. Most of use are
> neither cute or in a bar.

Snide, sexist comments may work in a bar with incompetent guys.

Most of us are neither incompetent, nor in a bar.

--
Karl A. Krueger <kkrueger at whoi.edu>


subject: [WikiEN-l] The Censorship Lie

body:
>From: "Tony Sidaway" <minorityreport at bluebottle.com>

>Zoney said:
> >
> > re: Vandalism. Yes that's not our fault.
>
>Yes it is.  We let *anybody* edit our site and we make no effort to defer
>edits until they have been checked for suitability.  The result is our
>responsibility.

That's an odd argument.  It reminds me of the argument some people make when
they say women who wear "provocative" clothing are "asking for it."

Jay.


subject: [WikiEN-l] The Censorship Lie

body:
>From: Christopher Mahan <chris_mahan at yahoo.com>

>An encyclopedia is an exposition, a knowledge book, of mankind's
>experience on this planet. All subjects are by definition required.

All *encyclopedic* subjects.  What I ate for lunch is also part of mankind's
experience on this planet, but it should not be recorded in Wikipedia.

Jay.


subject: [WikiEN-l] The Censorship Lie

body:
--- Puddl Duk <puddlduk at yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> --- Tony 'the [[Energizer Bunny]]' Sidaway
> <minorityreport at bluebottle.com> wrote:
>
> > Puddl Duk said:
> > >
> > >
> > > Wikipedia image policy 'suggests' discussing
> > > objectionable images before adding. This wasn't
> > done
> > > for the autofellatio image.
> >
> > The situation has changed since then; there really
> > has been no successful
> > move to get rid of that picture to date, to my
> > surprise.
>
> I guess I would intemperate this differently; there
> has been no successful move to _keep_ the image.
>
> And I think the poll is flawed, the link option
> retains the image at wikipedia.  This is wrong.
>
>
> > It seems to me
> > that unless Jimbo ups and deletes it (and you
> won't
> > see any complaints
> > from me if he does), the picture will be there in
> > one form or another for
> > a while.  One solution to this might be that Jimbo
> > himself lists it for
> > deletion, because this might shift the stalement
> > that has occurred on IfD
> > each time it has been listed before.
> >
> Good points, maybe after the in-line option is
> defeated the existing policy can be implemented to
> delete the image. Won't reflect the poll exactly,
> but
> the poll is flawed.
>
> I would like to see this policy developed further,
> getting community consensus before adding
> objectionable material is good, and doesn't require
> censorship.
>
This policy should be applied to speedy deletes; when
a troll gets a temporary account to upload his
collection of porn, diapers, url stamped vibrator
images, etc... and doesn't bother to seek community
opinion on the matter, the images could be speeded.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Jochen Magnus

subject: [Wikitech-l] Update of download.wikimedia.org/archives/de/

body:
Sorry for my bothersome insisting on this topic:

When will be an database update for the german wikipedia be available?
Since de.wikipedia has exceeding the 200'000 article limit, I want to
write an article for our newspaper referring to this. But not before the
mirror (http://lexikon.rhein-zeitung.de/) of our online service has been
updated ;-)

jo


from_name: NSK

subject: top posting (was Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: new user)

body:
On Wednesday 16 February 2005 12:57, Zoney wrote:
> Oh, and with gmail, it's great for keeping/searching back through old

Unfortunately, I have tried gmail and it is not compatible with my browser.

--
NSK
http://portal.wikinerds.org


subject: [WikiEN-l] The Censorship Lie

body:
>From: Christopher Mahan <chris_mahan at yahoo.com>
>--- JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >From: Christopher Mahan <chris_mahan at yahoo.com>
> >
> > >An encyclopedia is an exposition, a knowledge book, of mankind's
> > >experience on this planet. All subjects are by definition
> > required.
> >
> > All *encyclopedic* subjects.  What I ate for lunch is also part of
> > mankind's
> > experience on this planet, but it should not be recorded in
> > Wikipedia.
>
>What you ate for lunch is of little interest to anyone except maybe
>your health care provider, and then not much at that. But what
>50,000,000 people ate for lunch would be very encyclopedic.

Are you proposing an article listing the specific lunch details of
50,000,000 individuals?

Many subjects are simply too trivial to be listed in an encylopedia.

Jay.


body:
On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 01:17:34PM -0500, Jim Trodel wrote:
> "Karl A. Krueger" <kkrueger at whoi.edu> wrote:
> > Rather, the issue here seems to me to be whether Wikipedia needs some
> > kind of rules under which people's work will be deleted or hidden away
> > on the grounds of being "offensive".  I hold that it does not; indeed,
> > that such rules would harm the project.  Existing ad-hoc practices work
> > just fine for selecting the work that should be included, on the basis
> > of accuracy, style, neutrality, copyright, and other such rules.
>
> I agree - however, the argument here is being made that linking to a
> image that is beyond the bounds is NPOV despite the voting and actions
> by Jimbo.

Setting up "bounds" on the basis solely of offense is not NPOV and is
not legitimate for Wikipedia.  There are, however, perfectly good
legitimate criteria which exclude some of the same images which also
offend people.

Note, for instance, that Jimbo did not defend his unlinking of the image
on the basis of its offending people, and specifically disclaimed that
motive:  see [[Talk:Autofellatio#Raul's convo]].

Here's another approach:

The class of images I suspect more people are concerned about is not the
class "offensive images", but rather the class "gratuitously offensive
images".  Most everyone recognizes that there is also a class of
"informative images which also offend some people" -- for instance,
internal organs, caterpillars, swastikas, hammer-and-sickles, Abu
Ghraib, Jesus fish, etc., and that we must use these images in articles
where they are relevant.

For an image to be gratuitously offensive, it has to be gratuitous; that
is, not appreciably informative.  But ... if an image is not appreciably
informative, then it has no business being in an encyclopedia article in
the first place.  (The same standard applies to external links:  we
remove useless ones, not because they are offensive but because they are
useless clutter.)

The "offensiveness" criterion cancels out, since we have no use for
uninformative images, be they offensive or no.

So the argument basically comes down to a case-by-case decision by
editors of whether each individual image is informative -- or, better,
which of a number of image options is the most informative.  This is
what happens already.

> > The presence or absence of images would not, then, control whether
> > Wikipedia were accessible to those students.
>
> I think it could - especially as censorware controls become more
> finely tunable (if that is such a word).

(It is.  "Your eyes are lode-stars, and your tongue sweet air / More
tunable than lark to shepherd's ear" -- Shakespeare, "A Midsummer
Night's Dream".)

Unfortunately, the state of the world today is that "offensive" text is
much easier for automated systems such as censorware to recognize than
"offensive" images.  It is easier for a program to pattern-match the
word "fellatio" than a picture of same.

> > Offense is not a good criterion on which to judge whether material
> > should be presented in an encyclopedia.  If it were, we would be unable
> > to cover adequately any number of subjects which offend people.
>
> But offense to a great number of people is good critera for deciding
> whether something could be included as a link or inline.

I'm not so sure.  If the image is informative, then hiding it behind a
link relegates it to a second-class status.  It has, to me, connotations
of sneakiness or dirtiness:  "Heh-heh, do you *really* want to see?"

I believe this matter was extensively hashed out in the matter of the
[[Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse]] article, where presentation of
a "censored" or "images suppressed" version of an article was rejected.
The talk-page and VfD discussions surrounding that article cluster are
informative.

> Images are much more powerful communicators than text. To include
> graphic images that provide no educational or encyclopedic content and
> would offend most people in the article without a link or warning
> would be IMHO foolish. And to provide it through the link should
> satisfy (but for some reason doesn't) those that want to claim
> censorship and NPOV.

If an image has no educational or encyclopedic content, then it doesn't
belong on Wikipedia at all, regardless of whether it offends people.

--
Karl A. Krueger <kkrueger at whoi.edu>


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] The Middle Way, was Re: naughty pictures

body:
There is a middle ground that satisfies the great majority of the Earth's
population. An extreme "left" position that insists on videos of intercourse
is just as far from that middle ground as a "right" position that eliminates
all information about birth control.

Fred

>> Ooh! If Wikipedia decides as a community it will not display explicit photos
>> of sexual acts, then I won't stop editing, but I'm afraid I'll have to stop
>> recommending it to most of the people I currently recommend it to.
>>
>> Pretty soon, no matter what we do, *noone* is going to recommend Wikipedia.


from_name: Lane, Ryan

subject: [Wikitech-l] External Authentication - Hacking IP Address

body:
Do you mean pulling account information from an external source to use for
the users? If so, my latest LDAP Authentication patch added that support to
AuthPlugin, and added hooks into the core code (it also added hooks for
modifying the Login Template, adding users, updating the external source,
etc).

V/r,

Ryan Lane
Naval Oceanographic Office

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	wikitech-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
> [SMTP:wikitech-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Marcus Kazmierczak
> Sent:	Wednesday, February 16, 2005 12:29 AM
> To:	Wikimedia developers
> Subject:	Re: [Wikitech-l] External Authentication - Hacking IP
> Address
>
>
> Tom, that sounds like exactly what I am looking for.
> I'm very interested in the patch if you could make it
> available.
>
> Depending on how the user/lookup table works, I
> could tie that to an environment variable set by
> Apache which stores the username.
>
> A modification also to the AuthPlugin.php page can
> use that username to query a database which stores
> real name, e-mail address, etc...
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


list: foundation-l

from_name: jellings

subject: [Foundation-l] Import question

body:
I have a text file of dictionary terms - word, definition plus another
file of word, synonyms - since I already have it in this format it
would be a lot easier to import it.

I CAN reformat the file, but to enter it manually would take too long
(there are over 20,000 entries in the dictionary file alone, more in
the synonyms).

I do not have a complete understanding of the database schema so the
answer may be obvious to others; any insight would be helpful.

I will also subscribe to the other list.

Thanks again.

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 07:51:58 -0800 (PST), Rich Holton
<rich_holton at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> --- jellings <jellings at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > Sorry in advance if this is the wrong list to post this to.
> >
> > I would like to know about importing csv files into an existing wiki.
> >
> > I have tried to find the documentation for doing so but have not had
> > much luck.
> >
> > If anyone could point me in the right direction I would appreciate
> > it.
> >
> > Thanks in advance.
> >
> > --
> > john
>
> John,
>
> I've forwarded your question to the wikitech mailing list
> (<wikitech-l at wikimedia.org>). That's probably the best place for this
> kind of question.
>
> However, I'm not sure you've given enough information for a good
> answer. What are you trying to import? What information is in the CSV
> fields?
>
> -Rich Holton
> en.wikipedia:User:Rholton
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
>

--
john


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Import question


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [WikiEN-l] Naughty/violent pictures

body:
David Gerard said:
> Christopher Mahan (chris_mahan at yahoo.com) [050216 14:27]:
>> --- Arno M <redgum46 at lycos.com> wrote:
>
>> > It is not an encycopedia's task to do PR for terrorists,
>> > especially
>> > ones who are as ruthless as these.
>
>> Then Auschwitz pics are out of the question, right?
>
>
> I don't know if anyone's working on code for the inline vs link user
> option, but it would probably beat the fork that appears to be coming
> on the issue.

Are forks such a bad idea?  It would solve the child-safe problem.  The
adult Wikipedia could possibly also drop a lot of the trivia that are
mostly of interest to children.  TV show episode guides, comics, games and
the like.  Presumably article and history information could still be
interchanged.


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Mark Williamson

subject:
avoiding forks (was Re: [Wikipedia-l] public service ads in
	Wikipedia?)

body:
I strongly disagree.

Mark

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:44:26 -0500, Sj <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
> It would be wonderful and appropriate to list contributors at the
> bottom of each page.  Wikitravel seems to have a nice patch for this,
> which also lists the latest contributor; I wonder if it would be easy
> to backport to the trunk of mediawiki.  (wondering also if Evan is
> reading this :)
>
> +sj+
>
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:29:26 +0100, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 01:26:55 +1100, David Gerard
> > <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> > > I use my full name (rather than a net handle) on Wikipedia because it seems
> > > more proper, and also the credit clearly then goes to ME ME ME ME ME.
> > > Have they seen the history pages? It's usually clear which two or three
> > > editors are primarily responsible for an article text.
> >
> > Less clear than it might be. On a minor page you have to check about
> > 10 edits to see that there are 1 or 2 people who wrote almost
> > everything. On pages with much traffic it's more like checking 50 to
> > find 5 of them.
> >
> > Andre Engels
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Proposal for the application for a grant that has
	to be applied for before the 20th

body:
IIRC such mails should go to only Wiktionary-l and Foundation-l.

Mark

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 21:16:31 +0100, Gerard Meijssen
<gerardm at myrealbox.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> I have posted http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IFAP it is an outline for a
> proposal for a $45.000,- grant. We need to apply before the 20th of this
> month. Please, do understand that if we apply for this grant, we have to
> spend money the way we describe. It does not help if you think we should
> not spend the money. We either do or we do not apply and, that way we do
> not benefit and neither do the people who benefit most who are
> incidentally not the people who get paid.
>
> This proposal aims to achieve three things:
> * cooperation with the Open Office org by creating a dictionary
> integrated into wiktionary for languages they work on. This is a win win
> situation
> *a dictionary and translations dictionary that helps translators and
> students of languages; wiktionary is a many to many dictionary
> *better functionality for wiktionary that will prevent a lot of double
> work and removes the need for running bots to share our work.
>
> I hope we agree that this is a feasible project and that we can move
> forward with this proposal.
>
> Thanks.
>     GerardM
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Configuring wikipedia Error

body:
Hi Mr Bodamer,

This mail belongs more appropriately on Wikitech-l, I believe.

Mark

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 21:40:20 +0100, Ralf.Bodamer at t-systems.com
<Ralf.Bodamer at t-systems.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> if i set up the wiki i receive the following error. Can one tell me how to
> solve the Problem?
>
> MediaWiki 1.3.10 installation
> Please include all of the lines below when reporting installation problems.
>
> Checking environment...
> PHP 4.3.10: ok
> PHP server API is apache2handler; ok, using pretty URLs (index.php/Page_Title)
> Have XML / Latin1-UTF-8 conversion support.
> PHP is configured with no memory_limit.
> No zlib support.
> Couldn't find GD library or ImageMagick; image thumbnailing disabled.
> Installation directory: /wwwapp/wiki/wiki
> Script URI path: /wiki
> Notice: Constant NS_MEDIA already defined in /wwwapp/wiki/wiki/includes/Namespace.php on line 8
>
> Notice: Constant NS_SPECIAL already defined in /wwwapp/wiki/wiki/includes/Namespace.php on line 9
>
> Notice: Constant NS_MAIN already defined in /wwwapp/wiki/wiki/includes/Namespace.php on line 12
>
> Notice: Constant NS_TALK already defined in /wwwapp/wiki/wiki/includes/Namespace.php on line 13
>
> Notice: Constant NS_USER already defined in /wwwapp/wiki/wiki/includes/Namespace.php on line 14
>
> Notice: Constant NS_USER_TALK already defined in /wwwapp/wiki/wiki/includes/Namespace.php on line 15
>
> Notice: Constant NS_WP already defined in /wwwapp/wiki/wiki/includes/Namespace.php on line 16
>
> Notice: Constant NS_WIKIPEDIA already defined in /wwwapp/wiki/wiki/includes/Namespace.php on line 17
>
> Notice: Constant NS_WP_TALK already defined in /wwwapp/wiki/wiki/includes/Namespace.php on line 18
>
> Notice: Constant NS_WIKIPEDIA_TALK already defined in /wwwapp/wiki/wiki/includes/Namespace.php on line 19
>
> Notice: Constant NS_IMAGE already defined in /wwwapp/wiki/wiki/includes/Namespace.php on line 20
>
> Notice: Constant NS_IMAGE_TALK already defined in /wwwapp/wiki/wiki/includes/Namespace.php on line 21
>
> Notice: Constant NS_MEDIAWIKI already defined in /wwwapp/wiki/wiki/includes/Namespace.php on line 22
>
> Notice: Constant NS_MEDIAWIKI_TALK already defined in /wwwapp/wiki/wiki/includes/Namespace.php on line 23
>
> Notice: Constant NS_TEMPLATE already defined in /wwwapp/wiki/wiki/includes/Namespace.php on line 24
>
> Notice: Constant NS_TEMPLATE_TALK already defined in /wwwapp/wiki/wiki/includes/Namespace.php on line 25
>
> Notice: Constant NS_HELP already defined in /wwwapp/wiki/wiki/includes/Namespace.php on line 26
>
> Notice: Constant NS_HELP_TALK already defined in /wwwapp/wiki/wiki/includes/Namespace.php on line 27
>
> Notice: Constant NS_CATEGORY already defined in /wwwapp/wiki/wiki/includes/Namespace.php on line 28
>
> Notice: Constant NS_CATEGORY_TALK already defined in /wwwapp/wiki/wiki/includes/Namespace.php on line 29
>
> Fatal error: Cannot redeclare class namespace in /wwwapp/wiki/wiki/includes/Namespace.php on line 57
>
> Thanks,
> Best Regards
> Ralf Bodamer
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Sj

body:
It would be wonderful and appropriate to list contributors at the
bottom of each page.  Wikitravel seems to have a nice patch for this,
which also lists the latest contributor; I wonder if it would be easy
to backport to the trunk of mediawiki.  (wondering also if Evan is
reading this :)

+sj+

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:29:26 +0100, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 01:26:55 +1100, David Gerard
> <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> > I use my full name (rather than a net handle) on Wikipedia because it seems
> > more proper, and also the credit clearly then goes to ME ME ME ME ME.
> > Have they seen the history pages? It's usually clear which two or three
> > editors are primarily responsible for an article text.
>
> Less clear than it might be. On a minor page you have to check about
> 10 edits to see that there are 1 or 2 people who wrote almost
> everything. On pages with much traffic it's more like checking 50 to
> find 5 of them.
>
> Andre Engels

--


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject: [WikiEN-l] Model of decorum: the zero-revert rule

body:
I had this rewarding interchange with Professor Rubenstein:

Also, thank you for your explanation on Cultural Relativism -- now I see
that it was a misunderstanding and I am sorry I was curt. I responded to
you on the talk page and hope you will continue the conversation,
Slrubenstein </wiki/User:Slrubenstein>  | Talk
</wiki/User_talk:Slrubenstein>  22:53, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Steve had reverted one of my edits. (You know what a rarity that is, for
ME to get reverted; oh, the pain, the pain, as Dr. Smith used to say.)
My first impulse was to revert him right back, after all, I get up to
reverts per 24 hours, may as well use up my quota, eh?

But a sudden thought seized me: why not refuse to revert at all? Check
it out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cultural_relativism#Deletion_by_SLR

Instead of making an enemy, I solidified an old friendship. It's all
about team-building, folks.

Uncle Ed


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Fwd: [Foundation-l] Import question

body:
To clarify on my original post:

I have a text file of dictionary terms - word, definition plus another
file of word, synonyms - since I already have it in this format it
would be a lot easier to import it.

I CAN reformat the file, but to enter it manually would take too long
(there are over 20,000 entries in the dictionary file alone, more in
the synonyms).

I do not have a complete understanding of the database schema so the
answer may be obvious to others; any insight would be helpful.

Rich Holton wrote:
> Forwarded from Foundation-l:
>
>
> --- jellings <jellings at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 10:02:24 -0500
>>From: jellings <jellings at gmail.com>
>>To: foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>>Subject: [Foundation-l] Import question
>>
>>Hi
>>
>>Sorry in advance if this is the wrong list to post this to.
>>
>>I would like to know about importing csv files into an existing wiki.
>>
>>I have tried to find the documentation for doing so but have not had
>>much luck.
>>
>>If anyone could point me in the right direction I would appreciate
>>it.
>>
>>Thanks in advance.
>>
>>--
>>john
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


from_name: Stirling Newberry

subject:
Article ownership Re: avoiding forks (was Re: [Wikipedia-l] public
	service ads in	Wikipedia?)

body:
On Feb 15, 2005, at 3:49 PM, the Epopt of Boskone wrote:

>> NSK said:
>>> Have you ever wondered why I rarely edit at Wikipedia?
>>> it's  because I know that nobody will know that an article or
>>> paragraph
>>> was written  by me.
>>
>> Good grief, is that what it's all about?
>
> And I thought /I/ was arrogant and self-centered....

What is is all about is that the dispute resolution process on
wikipedia is often unpleasant, particulary when dealing with organized
groups of poves. One of the reasons that many people want article
ownership is that it is very stressful dealing with cranks and others
who have severely misguided views of the world. If people need an
example, see CSTAR's trials on Bell's Theorum or Xtar's having to deal
with a pove on the Australian Liberal Party.  A large part of the
problem is that often a knowledgeable person must, at length, explain
basic concepts to people who are unwilling to listen - it moves the
activity from "editing for lots of people", which is to say a high
leverage of a writer's time - to "dealing with nasty ignorant people
retail", which is to say a low leverage of a writer's time. A large
part of the problem is that the general equation that someone is
unpleasant when they are wrong is not a sound assertion from an
epistemological stand point, and that numerical superiority of
organized groups generates a great deal of hostility very quickly,
simply because those with numerical superiority have much less
incentive to engage in discussion, but, on the contrary, have every
incentive to try and engage in time wasting behavior.

I feel that NSK is wrong on article ownership, but I do think he has a
point, because it is one made to me by several other people who have
considered editing wikipedia, and who use it as a resource, but are not
willing to deal with some of the problems that it has currently.

There are many pages which are "owned" now by small cabals of editors,
because they can revert away anyone who disagrees with them. In the
spirit of "no formalized page ownership" this should be addressed. My
proposal is tighten the revert rule to be content based, that is three
reverts of particular content in a day is the limit, in each direction,
and that after that people making further reverts are blocked.  Then
create categories for RFC and reverting, requiring that someone
reverting an article place the article in one of the categories based
on the reason for the revert. This isn't that much more work, and will
automatically create a tracking system which is better than searching
edit summaries and better than relying on RFC. The RFC process as is
would remain in place as a way of giving a more detailed explanation of
the source of the dispute. I feel the more "automatic" we make the
process of "raising a red flag" on an article, the more it will be done
rather than edit warring it out.

Commitment to an open process of consensus means, I think, that we
examine where that process is not yet acceptable to people who are
able, energetic and knowledgeable, and who we want as contributors.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Conforming to the Chinese Line, was The Censorship Lie

body:
This is particularly touchy situation as we need to address the attitudes of
the Chinese population as a whole, not those of the tiny minority which
rules the country.

Fred

> From: "Tony Sidaway" <minorityreport at bluebottle.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 20:35:24 -0000 (GMT)
> To: <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The Censorship Lie
>
> Maybe we're not going to be available to a billion
> Chinese people (the fastest growing web population in the world, I
> believe) because some of  the things we say offend quite a lot of them,
> particularly the ones who decide whether a cybercafe gets shut down.  What
> do we do, cave in?


subject: [WikiEN-l] Reply to Tony, David, and Christiaan

body:
Bill Konrad said:
>
> Tony Sidaway wrote:
>
>> Bill Konrad said:
>>> It's a bit of a  broad exageration to claim ALL editors would have to
>>> bowlderize ALL of their  edits.
>>
>> No, it's absolutely true.  Just one goes and vandalizes the article on
>> the American Revolution, on one day, and you'll have school governors
>> freaking out.
>
> Huh? What does the ever-present problem with vandalism have to do with
> placing images potentially offensive to many behind a link instead of
> inline  (or what you seem to characterize as "bowlderizing")?

Both of them are unacceptable for classroom materials.  Getting the well
behaved users to politely bowdlerize their contributions in order to fly
under the school board radar would not solve the problem because the
presence of badly behaved users and casual vandals will still produce an
environment too unpredictable for classroom use.
>
> Both may pose  problems to school administrators and
> parents regarding the suitability of  Wikipedia for children, but the
> vast majority of vandalism is not much  different from what is scrawled
> on bathroom walls or heard in the  schoolyard.

Those actions are also subject to sanction in schools.

> Given that most such
> vandalism is quickly removed, it is of an  entirely different nature
> than more or less permanent content sanctioned by  the community.

Absolutely.  The two are distinct problems, but both render live Wikis and
other volatile web environments unsuitable for use in schools.
Using a filtered Wiki is much more sensible.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Naughty/violent pictures

body:
Nicholas Knight said:
> Tony Sidaway wrote:
>> Are forks such a bad idea?  It would solve the child-safe problem.
>> The adult Wikipedia could possibly also drop a lot of the trivia that
>> are mostly of interest to children.  TV show episode guides, comics,
>> games and the like.  Presumably article and history information could
>> still be interchanged.
>
> Can you think of any more ways to be insulting to adults whose
> interests  differ from your own?

I withdraw my insulting suggestion (which was not intended as it has been
received) unreservedly.


from_name: Pedro Medeiros

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: xml wiki representation

body:
Jim Higson wrote:
> A while ago I started some experimental client software that took the output
> from wiki2xml, I got sidetracked but now I've got some more time I'm
> wanting to get back to it.
>
> A few questions:
>
> I've searched the list and see there is now a proper flex/bison parser. The

Speaking of which, why have a flex/bison parser? Wouldn't it be better
if mediawiki created XML pages directly, like an "atom feed" or "rss"
button? Mediawiki already carries a HTML engine for rendering wikitext
to HTML, wouldn't it be easy to, with little modification, make it
output XML (or even Docbook/XML) instead of HTML?

Cheers,
Pedro.


from_name: Jake Waskett

subject: [WikiEN-l] proxy blocked

body:
Hi Folks

The IP 62.252.192.12 is a transparent proxy server, owned by the UK cable
company NTL.

It is presently blocked by Jayjg: Autoblocked because you share an IP address
with "JonGwynne". Reason "violation of 3RR".

Could someone unblock this IP please?

Jake


from_name: Delirium

body:
Stirling Newberry wrote:

> I feel the more "automatic" we make the process of "raising a red
> flag" on an article, the more it will be done rather than edit warring
> it out.

Something like this would help a great deal, I think.  I've been in a
few disputes where I was pretty certain that if the wider community was
aware of the dispute, my position was pretty obviously the way to go,
but the problem was that I was fighting with the very small group of
people who cared about the page, who had very particular views.  A
common way to resolve this in the past has been emailing wikien-l (or
the appropriate language list) asking people to take a look at the
article, but as Wikipedia gets bigger this method doesn't scale very
well, and also tends to result in a lot of content discussion on the
list that should really be on the talk pages.

-Mark


subject: [WikiEN-l] The Censorship Lie

body:
--- Tony Sidaway <minorityreport at bluebottle.com>
wrote:

> Puddl Duk said:
> >
> > --- Tony 'the [[Energizer Bunny]]' Sidaway
> > <minorityreport at bluebottle.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> The situation has changed since then; there
> really
> >> has been no successful
> >> move to get rid of that picture to date, to my
> >> surprise.
> >
> > I guess I would intemperate this differently;
> there
> > has been no successful move to _keep_ the image.
>
> It has survived two attempts to delete it, so it
> follows that there have
> been two very successful attempts to keep it.

'Very successful'??? I thought the majority vote was
to delete. And the consensus should be whether to
keep, not whether to delete.  It makes a difference.

> >
> > And I think the poll is flawed, the link option
> > retains the image at wikipedia.  This is wrong.
>
> The image is still on Wikipedia so it makes sense to
> link to it there.
> The poll was formulated after the results of the
> first VfD made it plain
> that there was at that time no consensus to delete.

Resulting in the minority ruling to keep an
objectionable image.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250


from_name: Alex Y. Kwan

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Quenya language request, and Chinese Wikipedia
	again

body:
Hello,

Felix Wan wrote:
> Someone signed on Meta.  There are some support beside opposition in the
> mailing list.  Alex Kwan on this list edited my introduction to the test
> site: <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Test-WP/zh-yue> with an anonymous
> IP.  We can expect him to contribute more when he is back from vacation.

I am back and *cough* am female.

> People may still disagree, but at least that will be better than arguments
> without any backup.

Yep.

little Alex


from_name: Felix Wan

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Quenya language request,
	and Chinese Wikipedia again

body:
On Tue, February 15, 2005 11:44 pm, Alex Y. Kwan said:
> Hello,
>
> Felix Wan wrote:
>
>> Someone signed on Meta.  There are some support beside opposition in
>> the mailing list.  Alex Kwan on this list edited my introduction to the
>> test site: <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Test-WP/zh-yue> with an
>> anonymous IP.  We can expect him to contribute more when he is back from
>> vacation.
>
> I am back and *cough* am female.
>
Welcome back.  I really like the Cantonese "koei5", the genderless third
person pronoun... ^_^;  Written Mandarin has made unnecessarily distinct
writings of the word "ta1".  Let's not make the same mistake, and let's
never try that for Cantonese "nei5"/Mandarin "ni3".

Meanwhile, I am trying to recruit new volunteers for the project:
http://www.cantonese.org.cn/bbsxp/ShowForum.htm?forumid=6

Let's see the response.  Also, go ahead to edit anything on the test site:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Test-WP/zh-yue

>> People may still disagree, but at least that will be better than
>> arguments without any backup.
>
> Yep.
>
> little Alex
>


from_name: Andre Engels

subject: >>: Re: [Foundation-l] And blocked again

body:
Aphaia:
> But I have to point out Japanese Wikipedia lack administrative issues
> in general. I assume no one will join the discussion on this matter
> except some users. We can't change their attitude instantly. So I ask
> Walter to be patient as much as possible for him. A dormant project
> like Japanese Wikipedia can't react to things if they are so of urgent
> and importance.

I think you made a bad choice of words there. I would not want to call
such a succesful project as the Japanese wp (according to the
statistics having over 100 major contributors and 4000 edits a day)
'dormant' in any way. Still, I do understand that there is a problem
here, and I hope you can solve it. It might be a kind of
self-fulfilling prophecy too - if you have only a few administrators,
they will be considered important and have a lot of work. If you have
more of them, that will be much less the case.

Andre Engels


from_name: Bill Konrad

body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
> Bill Konrad said:
>>
>>
>> Do I deny the assertion that ALL editors would have to bowlderize ALL
>> their  edits?
>
> Nitpicking.

Well, you were making a huge generalization, when in fact there is probably
less than a small fraction of 1% of the articles in Wikipedia that might
require some sort of special treatment. That seems a rather large nit.

Bkonrad


subject:
Article ownership Re: avoiding forks (was Re: [Wikipedia-l]
	public service ads in	Wikipedia?)

body:
On Feb 16, 2005, at 3:31 PM, Delirium wrote:

> Stirling Newberry wrote:
>
>> I feel the more "automatic" we make the process of "raising a red
>> flag" on an article, the more it will be done rather than edit
>> warring it out.
>
> Something like this would help a great deal, I think.  I've been in a
> few disputes where I was pretty certain that if the wider community
> was aware of the dispute, my position was pretty obviously the way to
> go, but the problem was that I was fighting with the very small group
> of people who cared about the page, who had very particular views.  A
> common way to resolve this in the past has been emailing wikien-l (or
> the appropriate language list) asking people to take a look at the
> article, but as Wikipedia gets bigger this method doesn't scale very
> well, and also tends to result in a lot of content discussion on the
> list that should really be on the talk pages.
>
> -Mark
>

That list is, in fact, part of the problem.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Sin-chiaⁿ

body:
Hello,

Mark Williamson wrote:
>>Xin1cheng1 kuai4le4! (Happy Chinese New Year!)
>>(Xin1cheng1 is a cognate in Cantonese but not used in this expression.)

Felix:
>>I meant zheng1 as in zheng1yue4 (first lunar month).
>>
>>Did I misread it?  ^_^

LOL, though I certainly did. Thought you meant "spring" ("new spring" is
often used for "new year").

Mark Williamson wrote:
> Nei5 m4 duk6cou3. / ?????(?)

nei mo duk cou (????).

little Alex


from_name: Jim Trodel

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: The Censorship Lie

body:
> From: "Karl A. Krueger" <kkrueger at whoi.edu>
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 01:17:34PM -0500, Jim Trodel wrote:
> > "Karl A. Krueger" <kkrueger at whoi.edu> wrote:
> > > Rather, the issue here seems to me to be whether Wikipedia needs some
> > > kind of rules under which people's work will be deleted or hidden away
> > > on the grounds of being "offensive".  I hold that it does not; indeed,
> > > that such rules would harm the project.  Existing ad-hoc practices work
> > > just fine for selecting the work that should be included, on the basis
> > > of accuracy, style, neutrality, copyright, and other such rules.
> >
> > I agree - however, the argument here is being made that linking to a
> > image that is beyond the bounds is NPOV despite the voting and actions
> > by Jimbo.
>
> Setting up "bounds" on the basis solely of offense is not NPOV and is
> not legitimate for Wikipedia.  There are, however, perfectly good
> legitimate criteria which exclude some of the same images which also
> offend people.
>
> Note, for instance, that Jimbo did not defend his unlinking of the image
> on the basis of its offending people, and specifically disclaimed that
> motive:  see [[Talk:Autofellatio#Raul's convo]].
>
> Here's another approach:
>
> The class of images I suspect more people are concerned about is not the
> class "offensive images", but rather the class "gratuitously offensive
> images".  Most everyone recognizes that there is also a class of
> "informative images which also offend some people" -- for instance,
> internal organs, caterpillars, swastikas, hammer-and-sickles, Abu
> Ghraib, Jesus fish, etc., and that we must use these images in articles
> where they are relevant.

I agree in fact this is a much better description of what I meant
earlier - "gratitiously offensive image" - this would meet that
description - and although it does convey the meaning that it can be
done. Text in the article actually explains that it can be done with a
flexible enough person who is well endowed. There is no additional
information given by the image (unless one -from Missouri- says, I
don't believe the text, show me). In which case a link would suffice
for that person.

...
> Unfortunately, the state of the world today is that "offensive" text is
> much easier for automated systems such as censorware to recognize than
> "offensive" images.  It is easier for a program to pattern-match the
> word "fellatio" than a picture of same.
>
Don't some censorware do their job based on a page by page analysis
rather than a entire domain block - if not - maybe I have a new
project to work on :)

...
> I'm not so sure.  If the image is informative, then hiding it behind a
> link relegates it to a second-class status.  It has, to me, connotations
> of sneakiness or dirtiness:  "Heh-heh, do you *really* want to see?"
>
Or it could mean - "some find this objectionable, are you sure you
want to see it." which is what it does mean in this case.

> I believe this matter was extensively hashed out in the matter of the
> [[Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse]] article, where presentation of
> a "censored" or "images suppressed" version of an article was rejected.
> The talk-page and VfD discussions surrounding that article cluster are
> informative.
>
I know - I lurked that discussion for sometime and still don't
understand why it was defeated. I, for one, would prefer to read the
article (especially as an editor without having to conciously ignore
the images - or block all images with my browser - as has been
suggested).

**It seems perfectly reasonable to provide alternatives to people
especially if the upkeep is non-existent or minimal.**

...
> If an image has no educational or encyclopedic content, then it doesn't
> belong on Wikipedia at all, regardless of whether it offends people.

Agreed - and I don't see the encyclopedic content of even the pencil drawing.

Jim (trodel at gmail.com) [[User:Trodel]]


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: The Censorship Lie

body:
I know but they are user based controls not Server based and most
users have no clue how to do any of the things required: 1) Find them,
2) Install them, 3) Launch them, 4) Edit the initial settings, or 5)
Modify the settings later. And teaching them would be quite time
consuming.

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 20:37:51 -0000 (GMT), Tony Sidaway
<minorityreport at bluebottle.com> wrote:
> Jim Trodel said:
> > I don't see how technical reasons should drive the decision then if the
> > proposed compromise is reasonable - why not just let it stand that way
> > until the finer controls become available.
>
> I use the finer controls every day.  They're freely available and very
> easy to use.
>
>

--
Jim (trodel at gmail.com)
"Our love may not always be reciprocated, or
even appreciated, but love is never wasted"
- Neal A Maxwell
---Intersted in Gmail - let me know I have invites---


body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:

> Now that you have clarified your intention it is evident that this is a
> Wiktionary matter.
>
> This might be raised in [[Wiktionary:Beer parlour]], but I suspect that
> it would not receive a warm reception.  While the words which are not
> yet in Wiktionary might be welcomed there would remain the question of
> how do you propose to reconcile your contributions with the words that
> we already have.  To the extent that any upload may be possible it
> should also be done at a rate that is slow enough to allow others to ask
> questions about each of your contributions.

Perhaps by first entering a
> small sample of your files you could develop the confidence of the
> Wiktionary community that your contributions are acceptable.

Here is a sample (pretty straightforward):

Definition table:

D000092|Acetohexamide|A sulfonylurea hypoglycemic agent that is
metabolized in the liver to 1-hydrohexamide.

Synonym table:

D000092|D000092
D000092|D000093
D000092|D000094

>
> Ec (en:Wiktionary sysop)


body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
>
> Take a look at maintenance/importUseModWiki.php and change the importer
> part to read from your format.
>

Thanks Brian I will look into that.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Naughty/violent pictures

body:
The Cunctator said:
>
> I adore Handel and good fresh brussels sprouts, but really.
> Contemporary and popular art and culture are not trivia for children.
>
Okay, you got me. :)

This list doesn't need that can of worms opened up so I'm apologising for
the suggestion I made.


from_name: Nicholas Knight

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: RK, naughty pictures, and how better to flame
 me

body:
Christopher Mahan wrote:
> --- The Cunctator <cunctator at kband.com> wrote:
>
>
>>...
>>Pretty soon, no matter what we do, *noone* is going to recommend
>>Wikipedia.
>>...
>
>
> I wouldn't be so sure. You might see company executives, legislators,
> lawyers, doctors, elected officials, newspaper editors-in-chief still
> quite interested in telling their peers.
>
> And geeks. Don't forget the 600,000,000 geeks out there. (1 in 10,
> roughly)

This geek won't be recommending Wikipedia anytime soon.


subject: [WikiEN-l] The Censorship Lie

body:
Jim Trodel said:
>
> ==QUESTION=Why is the compromise offered by those that find such
> material offensive, i.e. "To not include it inline but make it
> accessible by a link" not considered a reasonable?
>
I don't know anyone who doesn't think it's reasonable.  Inlining is far
better, however, for technical reasons that I outlined earlier.
Hopefully it will be generally possible in a not-too-distant future
version of Wikipedia to let the user control what he sees using
server-side controls instead of his browser controls; I do not expect this
to appease those who seem to want a bowdlerpedia, however.


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
We are not in a position to stop government filtering, but we should
nevertheless not violate mores held by the vast majority of the Chinese
people. I can't say what those are, but we need to pay attention. It is
clear to me that some of what we do does violate American mores. It is the
young who consult encyclopedia and if what we do must be shielded from
children then we are failing.

Fred

> From: "Tony Sidaway" <minorityreport at bluebottle.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 23:00:02 -0000 (GMT)
> To: <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Conforming to the Chinese Line, was The Censorship Lie
>
> Fred Bauder said:
>> This is particularly touchy situation as we need to address the
>> attitudes of the Chinese population as a whole, not those of the tiny
>> minority which rules the country.
>>
> Sure, but if you don't satisfy the rulers you may not get through to the
> people.  Same old quandary. Obviously Wikipedia provides an excellent
> model for a solution--someone with the approval of the Chinese government
> just takes selected Wikipedia content and filters it.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Zoney

subject: [WikiEN-l] The Censorship Lie

body:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 11:09:16 -0500, Jim Trodel <trodel at gmail.com> wrote:
> The question is not one of Censorship but of Editorial Control and are
> the photos, etc helping us meet our mission - which is to become an
> trusted encyclopedic source of information.
>
> Two thoughts:
> 1) The assumption that adults would not be offended by seeing this
> photo inline is naive - just because I want to learn about something
> doesn't mean I want to see it performed (whether that be autofellatio
> or beheadings or whatever) - in fact IMHO wanting to learn about
> something by going to an encylopedia should imply that a scholarly or
> educational view of the subject is desired - for a Mass Media
> interpretation - one would just use google (or their favorite search
> engine). And if one really wanted to see it - use an image search.
>
> 2) Students *should* have access to educational articles of this type.
> I have a distinct memory of looking up "fellatio" in a dictionary at
> my school library. I had no stomach for asking my mom or dad what the
> word meant - and I didn't trust my fellow students enough to take them
> at their word. I didn't need a picture to understand (though I may
> have wanted one).
>
> =Summary=
> I have been using wikipedia for some time (though I only recently
> started actively editing) and am concerned that the mission to provide
> a repository of generally accessible information is being changed so
> that it won't be generally acceptable (and thus not accessible
> either). The great thing about a web based encyclopedia is that with
> one click can provide additional information about a subject (or see a
> picture of it, etc) for those that want it. These arguments about
> using your browser correctly, accusations of censorship, etc miss the
> point and the mission of wikipedia.
>
> Like James, I have been recommeding wikipedia to many (though in my
> case it is adults aged 30-70 with most in the 50-70 range*). If we
> can't come to a concensus that includes a 1) generally acceptable
> standard with 2) links to the additional (possibly offensive
> material), I won't be able to keep making that recommendation.
>
> ==QUESTION==
> Why is the compromise offered by those that find such material
> offensive, i.e. "To not include it inline but make it accessible by a
> link" not considered a reasonable?
>
> Jim (trodel at gmail.com) [[User:Tr?del]]
>
> *These are generally intelligent people who usually already have a
> computer but they have heard of spyware, viruses, porn, etc. and are
> not sure they want to make the transition to "always on" access to the
> internet. "Won't people be able to snoop into my computer?" is a
> typical question. Currently, I setup firefox, install spyware
> protection software, install a web-meeting software so if they have a
> problem they can call me and I can help, and setup bookmarks based on
> their interest, which currently always include wikipedia.
>
> > "Regarding the recent brouhaha over the photos, what
> > I'll say is this.  If Wikipedia decides as a community
> > it will display explicit photos of sexual acts, then I
> > won't stop editing, but I'm afraid I'll have to stop
> > recommending it to most of the people I currently
> > recommend it to (normally families with bright teenage
> > children, given my work in a high school).  You can
> > call me, my friends, and my acquaintances all the
> > names you like (compare us to Nazis, if Godwin will
> > let you), but those are the cold hard facts."
> >
> > I agree with these sentiments, James.
> >

Is anyone listening? I do not understand why some do not seem to
accept the perfectly sensible points expressed above.

I think people are losing sight of the fact that the more involved
Wikipedians, and more intensive Internet users generally, are *not*
representative of the real world. (If our content does indeed reflect
the majority of Wikipedians, rather than a sizable minority or vocal
minority)

We *do* need to moderate/self-censor, and not to our own standards,
but with a view as to what the general reading public expects.

And we damn well have to do that whether we agree with the "general
public" or "mainstream" or whatever you want to call the "reasonable
common denominator" (I say this without intending to suggest that
perhaps a majority of Wikipedians don't agree with such views).
Neither is there need to start arguing about the fact that what's
acceptable to some isn't acceptable to others. By and large, as
regards the controversial stuff that has been discussed, it's damn
well obvious what the majority of the reading public will expect/want.

So it comes down to some Wikipedians acting against their own
viewpoints if we wish to continue to provide an encyclopaedia that is
suitable for general access.

Zoney

P.S. By all means I will switch to a more moderated fork if that
situation ever does arise. I consider some of the current
controversies quite unacceptable.

Also re: Vandalism. Yes that's not our fault. But again I say it's
quite unacceptable to allow quite so catastrophic IMAGE vandalism. I'm
not offering a solution unfortunately, but I do not believe that means
I can't express how big an impact this problem has.
--
~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...


from_name: Giovanni

subject: [Wikitech-l] Poll Extension

body:
Hi,
I would like to know if there is some extension to insert in my installation a poll.
Thanks,

Giovanni putignano

SCAI - Tradizioni del Sud
http://stores.ebay.it/tradizionidelsud
http://www.tradizionidelsud.com


from_name: Tony Sidaway

body:
Bill Konrad said:
> Tony Sidaway wrote:
[...]
>>
>> Absolutely.  The two are distinct problems, but both render live Wikis
>> and other volatile web environments unsuitable for use in schools.
>> Using a filtered Wiki is much more sensible.
>
>
> But still don't see how anything you said here validates your earlier
> assertion that all editors would have to bowlderize all their edits.
>
Do you deny that it's true?  Would an encyclopedia containing entries for
Dirty Sanchez and Donkey punch *really* be acceptable for classroom use?
Would not all edits by all users have to conform to standards acceptable
in a classroom environment?


body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
> Fred Bauder said:
>
>>People from Saudi Arabia (or Brooklyn) come here and see all those
>>things already, but even in Manhattan don't see anyone sucking their
>>own cock (unless they go very far out of their way). There is a
>>reasonable middle ground. A deliberate choice to not occupy that middle
>>ground is to fail in our primary mission.
>
>
> I agree completely.  Meet Mr Browser.

Tell you what. Go get 75% of the internet population to use your
extraordinarily non-fine-grained mechanism 100% of the time, and I'll
drop my objection to inlining the image. Agreed?


subject: [WikiEN-l] The Censorship Lie

body:
Zoney said:
>
> re: Vandalism. Yes that's not our fault.

Yes it is.  We let *anybody* edit our site and we make no effort to defer
edits until they have been checked for suitability.  The result is our
responsibility.


from_name: Rich Holton

subject:
Article ownership Re: avoiding forks (was Re: [Wikipedia-l]
	public service ads in Wikipedia?)

body:
--- Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:

> Stirling Newberry wrote:
>
> > I feel the more "automatic" we make the process of "raising a red
> > flag" on an article, the more it will be done rather than edit
> warring
> > it out.
>
> Something like this would help a great deal, I think.  I've been in a
>
> few disputes where I was pretty certain that if the wider community
> was
> aware of the dispute, my position was pretty obviously the way to go,
>
> but the problem was that I was fighting with the very small group of
> people who cared about the page, who had very particular views.  A
> common way to resolve this in the past has been emailing wikien-l (or
>
> the appropriate language list) asking people to take a look at the
> article, but as Wikipedia gets bigger this method doesn't scale very
> well, and also tends to result in a lot of content discussion on the
> list that should really be on the talk pages.
>
> -Mark

How about a "Special:Active Pages" that would list the top 'n' most
active pages -- where active would be defined as number of edits over a
period of time, where adjacent edits by the same user are treated as
one edit.

Would this help in the sort of situation you're referring to? Or is
edit activity not a good measure?

-Rich Holton
(en.wikipedia:User:Rholton)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
All your favorites on one personal page ? Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com


body:
People from Saudi Arabia (or Brooklyn) come here and see all those things
already, but even in Manhattan don't see anyone sucking their own cock
(unless they go very far out of their way). There is a reasonable middle
ground. A deliberate choice to not occupy that middle ground is to fail in
our primary mission.

Fred

> From: "Tony Sidaway" <minorityreport at bluebottle.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 23:38:10 -0000 (GMT)
> To: <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Conforming to the Chinese Line, was The Censorship Lie
>
> Fred Bauder said:
>> We are not in a position to stop government filtering, but we should
>> nevertheless not violate mores held by the vast majority of the Chinese
>> people. I can't say what those are, but we need to pay attention. It is
>> clear to me that some of what we do does violate American mores. It is
>> the young who consult encyclopedia and if what we do must be shielded
>> from children then we are failing.
>
> You're very kind, but I'm not that young any more. :)
>
> The above seems to be a recipe for a rather glum document.  No miniskirts,
> no bikinis, no women's bare faces, no uncovered female hair.  And that's
> just Islam and Judaism.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject:
Child porn and wikipedia (was [WikiEN-l] Re: Autofellatio - NO
	to	that image)

body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
> geni said:
>
>>>Someone informed me that the law of Florida doesn't allow us to get
>>>rid of the bit of child porn at [[Lolicon]].  Perhaps we should get a
>>>second opinion from the Foundation's lawyers.  I would be happy to see
>>>that trash off the website; at least the autofellatio guy is a
>>>grown-up doing it for fun.
>>
>>US law allows simulated child porn at present (ie drawings, cgi, young
>>looking models etc).
>>
>
> Well I won't make a big deal of it, but I do think it's absolutely vile.

And why is your evaluation of the image at Lolicon as "trash" and "vile"
any more valid than my evaluation of the Autofellatio image as "crap"?


from_name: Karl A. Krueger

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: The Censorship Lie

body:
On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 03:55:26PM -0500, Jim Trodel wrote:
> "Karl A. Krueger" <kkrueger at whoi.edu> wrote:
> > The class of images I suspect more people are concerned about is not the
> > class "offensive images", but rather the class "gratuitously offensive
> > images".  Most everyone recognizes that there is also a class of
> > "informative images which also offend some people" -- for instance,
> > internal organs, caterpillars, swastikas, hammer-and-sickles, Abu
> > Ghraib, Jesus fish, etc., and that we must use these images in articles
> > where they are relevant.
>
> I agree in fact this is a much better description of what I meant
> earlier - "gratitiously offensive image" - this would meet that
> description - and although it does convey the meaning that it can be
> done.

I agree.  Images can be doctored, after all.  Images taken from porn are
somewhat less than authoritative -- I believe airbrushing and other
image doctoring practices are relatively common there.

If the issue here is proof that the act is possible, a citation to a
reputable source on the subject would be more worthwhile.

I don't think that the "proof that it's possible" argument is a very
serious reason to include the image.  We don't include pictures of
caterpillars in order to prove that caterpillars exist.

> > Unfortunately, the state of the world today is that "offensive" text is
> > much easier for automated systems such as censorware to recognize than
> > "offensive" images.  It is easier for a program to pattern-match the
> > word "fellatio" than a picture of same.
> >
> Don't some censorware do their job based on a page by page analysis
> rather than a entire domain block - if not - maybe I have a new
> project to work on :)

Yes, for instance, according to their Web lookup tool, Cyber Patrol does
not block Wikipedia but does block /wiki/Autofellatio.  I don't know if
that block is by URL or by content, though.

> I, for one, would prefer to read the article (especially as an editor
> without having to conciously ignore the images - or block all images
> with my browser - as has been suggested).

Blocking images at the browser is an excellent way for users to take
charge of their own browsing experience, whenever they knowingly go to
a site or page that might present something they don't want to see.
It is not an extreme measure and should not be characterized as such;
it is a perfectly normal feature of the software.

(It is also much easier than doing it on the server side, since it is a
matter of setting a preference rather than altering program code.)

> **It seems perfectly reasonable to provide alternatives to people
> especially if the upkeep is non-existent or minimal.**

What kind of alternative are you looking for?

If it is an option of turning images on or off entirely, that already
exists, as noted above.  Insisting that the programmers have to put
this function in the MediaWiki code, when users can already do it on the
browser, strikes me as failure of the user to take responsibility.

The user who insists, "I don't WANNA change my browser settings, it's
too HAAARD, you SERVER PEOPLE have to quit sending me all these dirty
pictures" is, simply, whining.  The request for the image is sent by the
browser.  The server simply fulfills that request ... and the browser
can be easily set not to make that request, if the user so chooses.

If it is an option of *selectively* turning off "offensive" images, then
the upkeep is neither nonexistent nor minimal -- indeed, it would be a
crippling source of constant disputes.

> > If an image has no educational or encyclopedic content, then it doesn't
> > belong on Wikipedia at all, regardless of whether it offends people.
>
> Agreed - and I don't see the encyclopedic content of even the pencil
> drawing.

Fair enough.  That's what we have IfD for.

--
Karl A. Krueger <kkrueger at whoi.edu>


subject: [WikiEN-l] The Middle Way, was Re: naughty pictures

body:
Fred Bauder wrote:
> There is a middle ground that satisfies the great majority of the Earth's
> population. An extreme "left" position that insists on videos of intercourse

I'm rather extreme left-wing with all that entails relative to the vast
majority of the Earth's and Wikipedia's population, and you certainly
don't see me insisting on any such thing.

I'll defend its right to exist with my life if absolutely neccessary,
but I'm certainly not going to insist that it either exist or be placed
on Wikipedia.


body:
On Wed, February 16, 2005 4:50 pm, Mark Williamson said:
> Hi Felix,
>
> I think one thing that would help would be to add more to the list of
> topics. This would make it easier for incoming users, and there would be a
> wider range. Include perhaps links to famous people from Gwangdung and
> Hongkong and Macao, specific locales within Hongkong and
> Gwangchao, (ie, famous neighbourhood, districts, buildings, and
> landmarks, maybe also suburbs, nearby mountains, rivers, bays, ...)
>
Good idea.  I will work on it.

> I would do this myself but I'm not sure so much on famous things, and
> I don't know if there's a difference between the Guanhua-Baihuawen
> names for people and places and things and the Cantonese name for things.
>
Never mind trying.  If you make a mistake, other people will correct it.
Alex K is back.  *She* will surely help a lot.  ^_^

> Another issue is do we want to include extremely divergences like
> Toishanwa, or do they need even a separate Wikipedia?
>
Let's see how divergent it is if someone really writes in Toishanwa.
There is already much opposition to the one written in Standard Cantonese.
Let's worry about those things later.

Felix Wan


body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
> Bill Konrad said:
>
>>Tony Sidaway wrote:
>>
>>>Bill Konrad said:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Do I deny the assertion that ALL editors would have to bowlderize ALL
>>>>their  edits?
>>>
>>>Nitpicking.
>>
>>Well, you were making a huge generalization, when in fact there is
>>probably  less than a small fraction of 1% of the articles in Wikipedia
>>that might  require some sort of special treatment. That seems a rather
>>large nit.
>
>
> Absolutely not.  *All* articles and *all* edits and *all* editors would
> have to check their edits to make sure they conformed to whatever K12
> standards we decided to adopt.  There would be absolutely no exceptions.

I find your lack of pants^H^H^H^H^Hfaith in our editors' common sense
disturbing.


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] The Censorship Lie

body:
> If some information is missing, then people will wonder what else is
> missing. And that will lead to mistrust. And to be a mistrusted
> encyclopedia is worse than reformatting the hard drives.

What information is lost if we don't include the image?

--
geni


from_name: Mark Williamson

subject:
avoiding forks (was Re: [Wikipedia-l] public service ads in
	Wikipedia?)

body:
Why would John Lott vandalise his own article? Isn't that kind of the
opposite of what most celebrities do to their own articles?

Anyhow, I think most academics that are somehow repelled by Wikipedia
other than because of the basic concept (many of them complain about
how chaotic it is) is because they don't want their work to be mixed
and mashed with that of others.

The way it works in academia in general is John Smith writes "An
Introduction To Introductions", with all his expertise and theses and
opinions and all the basic information organised /his/ way, and then
year or two later Jack Doe decides he could do it better (at least in
his POV) and writes "Introductions: An Introductory Reader".

They will both have their ups and downs but what John Smith likes best
about it is that he has one book that he wrote all by himself that he
can brag about and Jack Doe has his own book too and can brag about it
unceasingly.

If an article is edited by all the top experts in the field, unless
there is some other purpose behind it (ie, a more generalised work
where each expert contributes from their more specific area of
interest and/or expertise), they will not get as much pleasure out of
it, and there is a much smaller chance that they will write it.

This stems from the basic desire of everybody to be famous, at least a
little bit in some way shape or form.

There is no Wiki solution to this problem.

Rather than us getting over their problems for them, we should stay
exactly as we are and wait for them to change, which they probably
will at some point (if we paid a couple of well-known academians in
every field a little bit to tell everybody how great Wikipedia is and
to contribute some, it would go a long way)

Mark

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 21:46:29 -0000 (GMT), Tony Sidaway
<minorityreport at bluebottle.com> wrote:
> Sj said:
> > It would be wonderful and appropriate to list contributors at the
> > bottom of each page.
>
> Might be better if this was a "Special:".  Unless I see Marvin Minsky's
> name in the list of contributors to an article to AI, or whatever, the
> names of the contributors aren't going to help a lot, and I really can't
> see fripperies like that persuading tenured professors, published authors
> and so on, who aren't already interested in the concept, to contribute
> their bits.
> Having said that, the reason I got interested in Wikipedia was that I was
> looking up the firearms researcher John Lott.  As it happened, a person on
> an IP number that corresponded to the institute that employs John Lott
> started to vandalize the John Lott article. An editor subsequently
> reported on [[WP:ViP]] that the person identified himself as John Lott.
> Now that was quite a fascinating introduction to the immediacy of
> Wikipedia and to the organic, self-repairing nature of the system.
> I was hooked.
>
> It was also nice to see that one or two people I knew from Usenet had
> found their way here.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] The Censorship Lie

body:
> Well, the information the image provides would be lost, I suppose.
> However, generally people aren't suggesting we don't include the images
> at all, but merely include them as links, so it would seem to be
> impossible for any information to be lost---exactly the same information
> will be present, just navigable in a different manner.  Sort of like how
> old-style books that had figure plates instead of inline figures (due to
> the printing methods used) did not have less information, merely
> information in a different order.

What information does the immage provide that cannot already be found
in the article?

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] new user

body:
S.M.Sabri S.M.Ismail wrote:
> From: "NSK" <nsk2 at wikinerds.org>
>
>> On Wednesday 16 February 2005 18:29, Karl A. Krueger wrote:
>>
>>> It's a sign of recognition to other neo-Nazis.
>>> For other numerical examples, compare 420, 93, 42, 23, or 17.
>>
>> I suggest that all users using neo-Nazi numbers be monitored by the
>> sysops,
>> and in case we find they are inserting Nazi POV, or displaying Nazi
>> symbols,
>> or generally promoting Nazism in Wikipedia, then they should be banned
>> forever (and notify authorities etc if possible).
>
>
> Ooh, 23 and 42. Just the numbers I like to use online.
> regards, sabre23t =^.^=

Ah, those examples were of OTHER [[Shibboleth]]-like numbers. I'm not
familiar with 93, 23, or 17, but 420 and 42 have nothing to do with
neo-Nazis (the former is a reference to pot, and the latter is The
Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything from [[The Hitchhiker's
Guide to the Galaxy]]; I'm fairly certain the fact that one is 10x the
other is coincidence).


from_name: zero 0000

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: We should not not abide by personal and secret
	decisions

body:
I wish to bring to your attention that RK is continuing
to edit Judaism-related articles in open contempt of the
Arbitration Committee ruling that forbids him to.  This is
despite that fact that the AC has agreed to hear an appeal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=RK

Who is going to enforce the ruling?

Zero.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


body:
Hi Felix,

I think one thing that would help would be to add more to the list of
topics. This would make it easier for incoming users, and there would
be a wider range. Include perhaps links to famous people from
Gwangdung and Hongkong and Macao, specific locales within Hongkong and
Gwangchao, (ie, famous neighbourhood, districts, buildings, and
landmarks, maybe also suburbs, nearby mountains, rivers, bays, e??)

I would do this myself but I'm not sure so much on famous things, and
I don't know if there's a difference between the Guanhua-Baihuawen
names for people and places and things and the Cantonese name for
things.

Another issue is do we want to include extremely divergences like
Toishanwa, or do they need even a separate Wikipedia?

Mark

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:45:53 -0800 (PST), Felix Wan
<felixwiki at earthsphere.org> wrote:
> On Tue, February 15, 2005 11:44 pm, Alex Y. Kwan said:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Felix Wan wrote:
> >
> >> Someone signed on Meta.  There are some support beside opposition in
> >> the mailing list.  Alex Kwan on this list edited my introduction to the
> >> test site: <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Test-WP/zh-yue> with an
> >> anonymous IP.  We can expect him to contribute more when he is back from
> >> vacation.
> >
> > I am back and *cough* am female.
> >
> Welcome back.  I really like the Cantonese "koei5", the genderless third
> person pronoun... ^_^;  Written Mandarin has made unnecessarily distinct
> writings of the word "ta1".  Let's not make the same mistake, and let's
> never try that for Cantonese "nei5"/Mandarin "ni3".
>
> Meanwhile, I am trying to recruit new volunteers for the project:
> http://www.cantonese.org.cn/bbsxp/ShowForum.htm?forumid=6
>
> Let's see the response.  Also, go ahead to edit anything on the test site:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Test-WP/zh-yue
>
> >> People may still disagree, but at least that will be better than
> >> arguments without any backup.
> >
> > Yep.
> >
> > little Alex
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Tietew

subject: [Foundation-l] Blocking on Japan

body:
I stopped proxyblockbot temporarily.
At least, until proper blocking policy of open proxies is
settled, I do not restart it.

In past, most of wikimedia projects had blocked open proxies
automatically using MediaWiki feature.
cf. [[User:Proxy blocker]]

I don't know why and when the feature is disabled. Could anyone
explain or show a pointer for discussion about it?

--[ Tietew ]-------------------------------------------------------
Mail: tietew at tietew.net / tietew at raug.net
Web : http://www.tietew.net/  (Tietew Windows Lab.)
PGP fingerprint: 26CB 71BB B595 09C4 0153  81C4 773C 963A D51B 8CAA


subject: [Foundation-l] Blocking on Japan


body:
zero 0000 wrote:
> I wish to bring to your attention that RK is continuing
> to edit Judaism-related articles in open contempt of the
> Arbitration Committee ruling that forbids him to.  This is
> despite that fact that the AC has agreed to hear an appeal.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=RK
>
> Who is going to enforce the ruling?

The ban from editing Judaism related articles was stayed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RK_2/Proposed_decision#Temporary_staying_of_previously_issued_ban


from_name: sannse

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Autofellatio - NO to that image

body:
Christopher Mahan wrote:

> Stomping you foot may work in a bar with cute guys. Most of use are
> neither cute or in a bar.

If you have to resort to pathetic, sexist put-downs, to respond to valid
concerns... then you really are loosing the argument - and all of my
respect.

--sannse

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.8 - Release Date: 14/02/05


body:
> Just how far do we take open source and liberty? Are we going to have
> [[Child Pornography]] complete with pictures and links, just because
> someone thinks we should?

Can't have pictures since that goes against the law in the state of florida.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Naughty/violent pictures

body:
> To some people, such "gutter" is everyday life. They too have a need
> for  an informative and complete encyclopedia.
>
> Why do you think so many 19 year old american soldiers coming back
> from iraq are fubared in the head? Because they went from lily-white
> to scaping the bottom of the human barrel in 2 weeks.

Can you provide evidence for this claim?

> If all wikipedia ever does is help war survivors cope, that will be
> reason enough to have built it.

Can you provide evidence that this is posible?


body:
I wrote:
> Who is going to enforce the ruling?

Nicholas Knight <nknight at runawaynet.com> replied:
> The ban from editing Judaism related articles was stayed

Ok, sorry to raise a false alarm.  Zero.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
http://my.yahoo.com


from_name: Sj

subject: [WikiEN-l] Offensive content

body:
See for instance:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Offensive_content/sj-proposal

I think getting people to agree on npov information about pages and
media, and giving them options re: what to see, is an obvious win.
The default settings for anonymous users should be less in-your-face
about violence and sex than the settings for users who want everything
included in article pages.

SJ

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 19:24:59 +0100, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Though I have seen similar discussions on the topic for more than three
> years now, and expect no consensus anytime soon, I propose those
> interested to read http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Offensive_content
>
> And possibly comment
>
> Or come with new ideas.
>
> Thanks
>
> Anthere
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
+sj+
 _ _ :-------.-.--------.--.--------.-.--------.--.--------[...]


from_name: Pedro Medeiros

references:
<cuq5bq$5ps$1@sea.gmane.org> <cuvv0r$r95$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<42139357.8080305@pobox.com>

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
>
> Our present "parser" is a hack with a series of regexps and other
> horrors, whose steps often stomp on each other and produce hard to fix
> errors. It's not something to be emulated; rather it is our greatest
> shame. Currently we cannot guarantee that XHTML output will be
> well-formed, so changing it to a custom XML format would be a waste of
> time, as it would not be transformable.

But, still, a parser written in php is necessary. Albeit a better one.

> A character-by-character parser that can go from the beginning to the
> end and churn something out that's guaranteed to be well-formed should
> be less error-prone and easier to maintain. Whether flex/bison is the
> best route I cannot say, but it's worth exploring.

A proof-of-concept implementation might be a good thing to have around.
But if I may, I can't see how, for instance, a simple flex/bison parser
could adequately parse a set of varying extension languages, like the
one used in <math> tags, into valid XML (In this case, MathML, I guess).

The parser would have to be modular, so each parser module would be used
to translate a language. Well, this sparks some ideas.

> Having this parser output an internal XML format instead of XHTML
> directly means a) we can maintain semantic information that would be
> lost in HTML and b) we can keep the base _parser_ separate from the code
> that does things like check for page existence, format the URLs for
> local links, and perhaps template transclusions. This allows
> transformation to other formats (XHTML, DocBook?) with less crap than eg
> trying to rewrite all the HTML into DocBook.

I completely agree. My question was about the best way of doing that
parsing.

Cheers,
Pedro.


subject: [WikiEN-l] new user

body:
On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 11:26:05AM -0800, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Karl A. Krueger wrote:
> >
> >For other numerical examples, compare 420, 93, 42, 23, or 17.
> >
> Regretably, I'm not familiar with the numerical codes. Has anyone
> written an article on these in general?  Without this thread my tendency
> would have been to associate the number "88" with piano players. :-)

Well, we have a [[List of numbers]], and many of the articles for
numbers do discuss symbolic meanings.  I don't think we have an article
for numbers as bywords or signs of recognition.

For those specific numbers, see these articles:

	[[420 (drug culture)]]
	[[93 (number)]] or [[Aleister Crowley]]
	[[The Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything]]
	[[23 (number)]] or [[Discordianism]]
	[[Yellow Pig's Day]]

Please note that it is not reasonable to infer from this posting that I
am a stoned Thelemite hitchhiker Discordian mathematician.  :)

--
Karl A. Krueger <kkrueger at whoi.edu>


from_name: Rowan Collins

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Import question

body:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 19:07:49 +0100, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I suggest another list : wikitech-l at wikimedia.org

Actually, mediawiki-l would be an even better match (intended for all
the MediaWiki users out there, as opposed to the core MediaWiki and
Wikimedia developers and maintainers); but since Rich has forwarded
the message already, wikitech-l's good enough.

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Import question


from_name: Anthere

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: naughty pictures

body:
The Cunctator a ?crit:
> On 2/16/05 2:13 AM, "Anthere" <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>James Rosenzweig a ?crit:
>>
>>
>>>Regarding the recent brouhaha over the photos, what
>>>I'll say is this.  If Wikipedia decides as a community
>>>it will display explicit photos of sexual acts, then I
>>>won't stop editing, but I'm afraid I'll have to stop
>>>recommending it to most of the people I currently
>>>recommend it to (normally families with bright teenage
>>>children, given my work in a high school).  You can
>>>call me, my friends, and my acquaintances all the
>>>names you like (compare us to Nazis, if Godwin will
>>>let you), but those are the cold hard facts.
>>>
>>
>
> Ooh! If Wikipedia decides as a community it will not display explicit photos
> of sexual acts, then I won't stop editing, but I'm afraid I'll have to stop
> recommending it to most of the people I currently recommend it to.
>
> Pretty soon, no matter what we do, *noone* is going to recommend Wikipedia.
>
> Pretty much all we have to do for filtering is to take advantage of the
> categorization schema. This does not need to be a big deal.

Ya.

Ant


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: RK, naughty pictures, and how better to flame   me

body:
Ray Saintonge a ?crit:
> Anthere wrote:
>
>> I am currently in contact with some people to try to see what we could
>> do in schools (this would be in Burkina Faso for example). They are
>> thinking of "certified" version on cd rom. And when they mean
>> "certified", they do not really mean validation, they mean "leaving
>> aside content inapropriate for kids".
>
>
> Has Benin ever come under consideration?  Its unusually high level of
> press freedom for Africa (see
> http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/freedom_of_press.htm ) suggests
> that they might be more open to a product like ours.  Does anyone have
> any contacts there?

Yes

I

But not for a school :-)

I see that Burkina Faso is quite low
About Burkina... it is no use trying to make textbooks for kids, the
governement controls the content AND the printing of textbooks.
The NGO I am in contact with chose to gather resources, to be able to
purchase them over there.

>> Wikipedia with such multimedia ressource is just not for kids. I
>> proposed several months ago that we move toward filtering system (a
>> parent system to exclude display of certain pictures). Some people
>> have already worked something on meta on the topic. I am still interested.
>> If only, this could be unabled in school.
>> Right now, with no filter, making a second version with no shocking
>> pictures would just take too much time for anyone.
>> So, unless there is a filtering system which might be unable, I will
>> myself discorage use of wikipedia in schools.
>
>
> Couldn't the category system be used as the basis for a filtering
> system.  Thus something like [[Category:XXX]] could be applied to an
> article with a strongly objectionable picture that could be filtered out.

Nod.

Ant


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Import question

body:
Hi

I suggest another list : wikitech-l at wikimedia.org

Ant

jellings a ?crit:
> Hi
>
> Sorry in advance if this is the wrong list to post this to.
>
> I would like to know about importing csv files into an existing wiki.
> I have tried to find the documentation for doing so but have not had
> much luck.
>
> If anyone could point me in the right direction I would appreciate it.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Import question


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: management

body:
Christopher Mahan a ?crit:
> --- Tony Sidaway <minorityreport at bluebottle.com> wrote:

> Way too much personal information in there man.
>
> I say we put a feedback/kudos form or a guestbook or something like
> that.

Hmmmm, yeah, an idea to explore here :-)

ant


from_name: MilchFlasche瑋平

body:
So "Alex" could be "Alexandria"? :wink:

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:44:17 +0800, Alex Y. Kwan <litalex at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Felix Wan wrote:
> > Someone signed on Meta.  There are some support beside opposition in the
> > mailing list.  Alex Kwan on this list edited my introduction to the test
> > site: <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Test-WP/zh-yue > with an anonymous
> > IP.  We can expect him to contribute more when he is back from vacation.
>
> I am back and *cough* am female.
>
> > People may still disagree, but at least that will be better than arguments
> > without any backup.
>
> Yep.
>
> little Alex
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
2005, make signs happen!


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: The Censorship Lie

body:
Christopher Mahan a ?crit:
> --- geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>If some information is missing, then people will wonder what else
>>
>>is
>>
>>>missing. And that will lead to mistrust. And to be a mistrusted
>>>encyclopedia is worse than reformatting the hard drives.
>>
>>What information is lost if we don't include the image?
>
>
> What information is lost in a surgery manual if the images are
> removed?

Sorry, REAL information would be a movie.

As far as this picture is concerned, I am not exactly sure what the guy
is doing... Maybe trying to lick a wound ?


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Import question

body:
--- Rowan Collins <rowan.collins at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 19:07:49 +0100, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > I suggest another list : wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
>
> Actually, mediawiki-l would be an even better match (intended for all
> the MediaWiki users out there, as opposed to the core MediaWiki and
> Wikimedia developers and maintainers); but since Rich has forwarded
> the message already, wikitech-l's good enough.
>

Thanks, Rowan. I actually was going to direct the question to
mediawiki-l, but I noticed that the description there is "MediaWiki
announcements and site admin list", which doesn't sound like the right
place. But I also know that the actual subject matter is more in line
with a general technical support list.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to clarify that list's purpose.

-Rich

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


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Import question


subject: [WikiEN-l] Offensive content

body:
Though I have seen similar discussions on the topic for more than three
years now, and expect no consensus anytime soon, I propose those
interested to read http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Offensive_content

And possibly comment

Or come with new ideas.

Thanks

Anthere


from_name: wiki pedista

subject:
Stirling Newberry (was Article ownership Re: avoiding forks (was Re:
	[Wikipedia-l] public service ads in Wikipedia?))

body:
NSK said:
> Have you ever wondered why I rarely edit at
Wikipedia?
> it's  because I know that nobody will know that an
article or paragraph
> was written  by me.

That explains a lot. This person that continuously
makes
outrageous proposals, or just tries to plug his
marginal
project, isn't even a collaborator of Wikipedia.I know
this is an open list, but this lack of
self restrain is almost spam. I'm sure many of the
subscribers to the list are getting at least a bit
annoyed with him, but are too polite to say it.

Well, I am not polite enough. Stirling, if you don't
like our project and policies, please feel free not
to adopt them in yours, but leave us alone, and
stop making noise on the list.

Sorry to the rest of the list by this completely
unproductive message.

AstroNomer

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com


from_name: Stan Wiechers

subject: [Wikitech-l] embedding flash movies

body:
Hi all,

I'm looking for suggestions and best practices on how to embed flash
movies into the mediawiki.

Sample snippet we want to use:

<object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000"
codebase="http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swfl
ash.cab#version=7,0,0,0" width="950" height="600" id="main"
align="middle">
<param name="allowScriptAccess" value="sameDomain" />
<param name="movie"
value="http://nike-qa.ny.rga.com/blog/media/swf/main.swf" />
<param name="base" value="media/swf/" />
<param name="quality" value="high" />
<param name="bgcolor" value="#ffffff" />
<embed src=" swf/main.swf" base="blog/media/swf/" quality="high"
bgcolor="#ffffff" width="950" height="600" name="swf/main"
align="middle" allowScriptAccess="sameDomain"
type="application/x-shockwave-flash"
pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer"></embed>
</object>

We changed the variable $wgUserHtml to allow the tags used above and put
all the statements in one line.

The problem we have left is that all URLS within the HTML snippet are
translated.

<object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000"
codebase="http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swfl
ash.cab#version=7,0,0,0" width="950" height="600" id="main"
align="middle">

Turns into

<object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000"
codebase="http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cab
s/flash/swflash.cab#version=7,0,0,0" width="950" height="600"
id="main" align="middle">

The codebase attribute gets translated.

Is there a way to turn that off?

Appreciate your help,
Stan

This message is the property of R/GA Media Group Inc. and contains information which may be privileged or confidential. It is meant only for the intended recipients and/or their authorized agents. If you believe you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by forwarding this message to postmaster at rga.com, and destroy any printed or electronic copies of the message. Any unauthorized use, dissemination, disclosure, or copying of this message or the information contained in it, is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Thank you.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 19, Issue 87

body:
> Agreed.

Which is why it is od that no one has anaged to give a direct answer
to my question about what information the picture adds to the article.
--
geni


subject: [Wikipedia-l] It was NSK (was :Re: Stirling Newberry)

body:
Just made an ass of myself, worse that NSK ever had.
My apologies to Stirling Newberry.
I'll shut up for at least a year.

AstroNomer

--- Stirling Newberry <stirling.newberry at xigenics.net>
wrote:

> I know this is an open list, but the least one could
> ask is that if you
> are going to make attacks, you bother to make sure
> you are shooting at
> the right person.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
http://my.yahoo.com