from_name: l'Omnivore Sobriquet

body:
Thanks !
    I'm waiting for a while, and will certainly take care in future possible
edits to expose my motivations in 'talk' pages in a more comprehensive way.
l'Omnivore Sobriquet

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Fentress (Asbestos)" <asbestos999 at gmail.com>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 3:52 PM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Is it welcome to recal my case in waiting ?

I've unblocked you, as I think the initial block wasn't warrented, and was
either way an over reaction. However, I have asked for a sock puppet check
to be run for your username, which may clear some things up a bit.

I'm also a little confused, as I couldn't find your initial block. Hopefully
another admin will tell me if I made a mistake anywhere.

Sam

--
Asbestos
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Asbestos

On 12/20/05, l'Omnivore Sobriquet <omnivore.sobriquet at wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> Messieurs-Dames,
>     With no reaction since Friday, my case for block-lifting is now buried
> in the crowd of messages in WikiEN-l, and I'm wondering if the many people
> here still have it in mind.
>
>     I'm pasting it below for an easier catch 'on the fly' by the
> interested wiki-admin, as it is to be found in my user Talk page as well
> (l?
> : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:L%27Omnivore_Sobriquet .)
>     The blocker was one Jayjg, who posted in wikien-l mere motivations,
> adressing a truncated version of my case, on 'points' that were indeed
> already adressed in the truncated part. (plus wild claims on the
> 'biographed''s behaviour.) That was Friday at 18:23 GMT, and it's pasted
> further below.
>     Then one Sam Fentress (Asbestos) posted a comment somewhat favorable
> to my case, although furthering on the truncated version. Same Friday at
> 20:11 GMT, pasted further below.
>     Then nothing, while I had finally my corrections posted here Saturday
> 14:27 GMT, which I paste at bottom although it doesn't add much, just
> saying
> to take my full text into account.
>
>     I must stress also that I had received no warning whatsoever prior to
> the block., which is an 'infinite' block.
>
>     In addition, I figure that I have no way of knowing whether the block
> is lifted, so I regularly hit some 'edit' button for a check. Do not
> resume
> imaginating 'fashions' about this, please.
> IP changes everytime, the last being 86.194.140.6
>
> So here you are folks, I just wondered about the 'noisy silence' going on
> about my case here; in my view, it has been a fast misjugdment from one of
> yours, that could be settled swiftly.
> Yours,
> l'Omnivore Sobriquet
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>
> /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> vendredi 16 d?cembre 2005 17:18 (i.e. 16:18 GMT)
>
> [WikiEN-l] My complaint about being blocked.
>
> My complaint about being blocked.
>
> Friday, 16 December 05
>
>                 Messieurs,
>
> I would like to register here my full disagreement about being blocked
> from Wikipedia. This is unfair, and as I appreciate it, unjustified.
>
> My IP address is 83.205.136.21.
>
> My user name is "L'Omnivore Sobriquet", and on Wednesday 14th of Dec I got
> blocked at 22:03 (Wiki time), with the message :
>
> "Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Jayjg.
> The reason given is:
> revert sockpuppet"
>
> Moderator Jayjg replied to my call for justifications with the single line
> :
>
> "You appear to be a userid created solely for the purpose of reverting
> articles; that is what your edits consist of.
>
> Jay. "
>
> Today, I see to my dismay that a new 24hours blocking has been
> auto-generated.
>
> I'm writing here to argue my case:
>
>
>
> By the time of the 'block', my contributions to Wikipedia totalled to
> only. two. One last Sunday, one Wednesday. In no way this can be seen as a
> basis for a trend. Two occurrences cannot be held as statistical. I argue
> that my contributions, numbering to only two, simply didn't "consist of"
> any
> behavioural pattern. Mr Jayjg writes that I "appear" . "created solely for
> the purpose". based on a total of only two occurrences, hardly a basis for
> purpose guesses or appearance lectures. The line of Jayjg consists solely
> of
> his own guessings on invented trends.
>
> More so, trends and fashions, guessed or not, shouldn't come into play
> when it comes to Wikipedia editions or users' accesses.
>
> Denis Diderot boasted loud enough about it : encyclopaedias are not
> hair-dressers' salons. Hurt as any innocent blocked user should be, I
> acknowledge here challengeable Ancient R?g?me ways, p?roraisons, and
> short-lived privilege abuses.
>
>
>
> However if explanations for my sole pair of independent editions may help,
> to erase the wrongful impression of - 'award-winning' - Jayjg, here they
> are:
>
>                 Both related to the file titled "Israel Shamir" (actually,
> early on Sunday and before creating an account and logging in, I made an
> edit on American WW2 aircraft production, deleting post-war F-86 Sabre
> from
> the list, making a total of 3 contributions in all from my PC, and
> certainly
> not 'revert sockpuppetting'.) Both were reverts. After a lengthy read of
> the
> controversies in the correspondent 'talk' page, I viewed the introduction
> paragraph of 'JohD' as already demonstrated as superior to the version
> seemingly endlessly reverted-to by a couple of Wikipedians. Also, the
> behaviour of these few Wikipedians - Jayjg and Denis Diderot (??!!!) - had
> been exposed as being on the verge of vandalism, according to Wiki
> guidelines.  My attitude has therefore been that 'the case is closed',
> that
> it's all well written and argued about in the talk page. There only
> remains
> to Wikipedia to let it show. My 'comments' just said that. A logical
> conclusion of the whole discussion page, as it reads. Therefore reverting
> was the minimal - yet justified - intervention, in order to let the
> hopefully virtuous Wikipedia process move on. So please do not be
> surprised,
> do not imagine hooliganism, if I simply feel very little need to invent
> some
> weak literature of mine and then to pour-in my low-key argumentation in
> endless talk pages, just to try to re-argue already well stated points.
> Hence the behaviour of those two first edits. "See talk" could have been a
> dryer comment for these.
>
> Impressions, however corrected, shouldn't come into argumentation here.
> But humans always appreciate !
>
>
>
> Please 'unblock' me at once.
>
> l'Omnivore Sobriquet
>
>
>
> ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>
> from JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com>
>
> vendredi 16 d?cembre 2005 19:22
>
> >From: "l'Omnivore Sobriquet" <omnivore.sobriquet at wanadoo.fr>
> >My complaint about being blocked.
> >
> >Friday, 16 December 05
> >
> >                 Messieurs,
> >
> >I would like to register here my full disagreement about being blocked
> from
> >Wikipedia. This is unfair, and as I appreciate it, unjustified.
> >
> >My IP address is 83.205.136.21.
> >
> >My user name is "L'Omnivore Sobriquet", and on Wednesday 14th of Dec I
> got
> >blocked at 22:03 (Wiki time), with the message :
> >
> >  "Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Jayjg.
> >The reason given is:
> >revert sockpuppet"
> >
> >Moderator Jayjg replied to my call for justifications with the single
> line
> >:
> >
> >  "You appear to be a userid created solely for the purpose of reverting
> >articles; that is what your edits consist of.
> >
> >Jay. "
>
> The userid made exactly two edits, both of them reverts of the same page,
> Israel Shamir.  It made no contributions elsewhere, even to the Talk: page
> of the article in question, and certainly appeared to be a revert
> sockpuppet.  Moreover, the subject of this article (Israel Shamir) has
> been
> consistently vandalizing it, in ways with which we have become all too
> familiar.  He also appealed for friends of his to come and revert the
> article for him on a Yahoo group called Shamir readers:
>
> From: Israel Shamir <ishamir at ...>
> Date: Sat Nov 26, 2005 12:12 pm
> Subject: Wiki ish314
>
> Dear friend, if you have time, you may help to fight a small internet war
> over Wikipedia, a popular website with many links. Obviously it is as
> dominated by philosemites as any other media, and they consistently
> demonise
> me in the entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Shamir When I, or
> some
> friends correct their most blatant lies, they change it back in no time at
> all. Afterwards, they refer to their own lies as if it is an objective
> source. Everybody can add, remove and edit any entry in the Wiki. I call
> those who has available time to make an effort and to re-conquer the site
> from philosemites. Shamir
>
> Even if this editor is not a sockpuppet, I'm quite skeptical that this
> userid was created with Wikipedia's goals and policies in mind.
>
> Jay.
>
>
> ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>
> from : Sam Fentress (Asbestos) <asbestos999 at gmail.com>
>
> vendredi 16 d?cembre 2005 21:10
>
> While I think it's quite likely that this user was recruited by Shamir,
> and
> also that he has edited before, I don't think one can say for sure whether
> he is a sock puppet -- you're better off having a developer check that.
>
> But as for blocking because he came to Wikipedia with an aim in mind... if
> we blocked every user who arrived at Wikipedia because of a bone to pick
> or
> a view to push, we'd be down the vast majority of our contributors. The
> only
> applicable policy is WP:NPOV, and you don't get blocked for a first
> offence
> under that. I wouldn't ever unblock without knowing the whole story, but I
> don't think I agree with this block's reasoning.
>
> Sam
>
> On 12/16/05, JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>         [edited, same as above. l'O.S.]
>
>
> ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>
> from : l'Omnivore Sobriquet <omnivore.sobriquet at wanadoo.fr>
>
> vendredi 16 d?cembre 2005 21:46
>
> Objet : Re: [WikiEN-l] My complaint about being blocked. Now you
> cancompare...
>
> hello, quick amendments:
>
> "It made no contributions elsewhere, even to the Talk: page of the article
> in question"
>     This has been well explained in the following of my message, it is a
> fine wiki-ethical usage all along. This is a truncation you're reading,
> rely
> on full version instead. (posted here 40 minutes before Jay's, your time)
>
> "and certainly appeared to be a revert sockpuppet"
>     It wasn't, and didn't appear as such then, as I explained in my
> message.
> Please don't  resort to "it's our experience that..." kind of argument;
> we're not meant to guess. The number of possible logical cases of
> behavours
> identical to mine while not being a internet sockpuppet is so high that in
> 25000 years time one still wouldn't have digested it. That you are 'not
> used
> to forsee' such or such is of no importance, concerning the veracity of
> being a such said sockpuppet. It may change a bit for the explanation of
> Jay's behaviour yes, reacting to some 'well known pattern', well known by
> a
> particuliar 'Wikipedia' staff and time etc., but changes stricly nothing
> on
> whether it is actual sockpupetting, created solely for the... etc.
>
> "Moreover, the subject of this article (Israel Shamir) has been
> consistently
> vandalizing it"
>     Not at all. See talk, see history; Shamir just intervened some three
> or
> five times if memory serves, weeks or months ago, civil and compliant at
> that. In fact we have one, possibly multiple, swift reverts from Jayjg
> and/or this Denis Diderot fame-seeker (shame-finder) without one word of
> an
> explanation, I repeat, without one word of explanation.
>
> "He also appealed for friends of his to come and revert the article for
> him
> on a Yahoo group called Shamir readers:"
>     It makes no mention of reverts.
>
> "Even if this editor is not a sockpuppet, I'm quite skeptical that this
> userid was created with Wikipedia's goals and policies in mind. > Jay."
>     Black magic again.
>
> I'm not wild-eyed by this all comrades, and Jay is not the devil
> incarnate.
> But I'm hurt and there should not be such a quasi-fetichist way for a
> wiki-reaction.
> So I'm waiting for good outcome, so I'm patient.
> l'Omnivore Sobriquet
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "JAY JG" <jayjg at hotmail.com>
>
>     [edited, idem - l'O.S.]
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: David Gerard

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: "Fair Use does not apply to DSM material or any
	other APA/APPI content." um, wtf?

body:
Sam Korn wrote:

>I think David meant to send this to WikiEN-l, rather than WikimediaUK-l.

D'oh!! Er, yes.

- d.


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Jiaming Xu

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: What's the IP address of Wikipedia's Amsterdam
	Server?

body:
Thank you! With Privoxy and this setting, though I didn't quite understand
the meaning of this snippet,
I now can access wikipedia like normal, and without adding Tor.

On 12/20/05, Tim Starling <t.starling at physics.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
>
> Jiaming Xu wrote:
> > I'm in China and my traffic seems to be routed to Wiki's Korea server
> which
> > is blocked. So I'm wondering what's the ip address of the amsterdam
> server
> > and whether i could use it to bypass the block.
>
> Please use 145.97.39.155 . We have several servers in Amsterdam, that is
> the
> address of the load balancer. You can use privoxy if you like, there's a
> configuration file snippet here:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advice_to_Tor_users_in_China
>
> -- Tim Starling
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Biographies of living persons - new draft guideline

body:
I've done a rewrite of the proposed guideline at

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/temp

It's rewritten very much in the style of a quickly usable guideline -
you should be able to get the whole idea from the intro, the rest is
details.

I've also tried to greatly tighten the writing from the original, but
it could do with more (e.g. the looong examples). Please hack away.

- d.


from_name: Sam Korn

subject: [WikiEN-l] SPOV threatens NPOV

body:
On 12/20/05, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> But let us assume that "creation science" is not science. How can we
> verify such a thing? By our own philosophical analysis of the methods?
> Sounds like original research to me.
>
> Better, in my mind, to attribute the judgment to something more
> reputable than other Wikipedian's analysis.

Exactly.

> And if asked to be defended, we would happily point to science
> textbooks which classify cats as mammals. We don't have to rely on an
> individual Wikipedian's take on things because we don't do original
> research. If there is any doubt -- for example, on the classification
> of a platypus -- we refer to the experts and happily defer any
> responsibility for getting it wrong ("If you disagree, take it up with
> THEM, not us. We don't make such decisiions"). Which is what we should
> do here as well. But unfortunately I seem to be the only one who sees
> it this way.

You're not.

--
Sam


body:
Matt Brown wrote:
>On 12/20/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

>> I've done a rewrite of the proposed guideline at
>>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/temp
>> It's rewritten very much in the style of a quickly usable guideline -
>> you should be able to get the whole idea from the intro, the rest is
>> details.

>I like it.  I'll see if I can improve.

Make it shorter! Omit needless words!

I'm still hacking away at it, so make your edits small to avoid a conflict ;-)

- d.


subject:
[WikiEN-l] I just did another interview - Dublin NewsRadio 106,
	2:20pm.

body:
Well, bugger! I can only hope we had a Dublin reader with a tape recorder ...

- d.

Not at the moment David -
Sorry about that
s

-----Original Message-----
From: David Gerard
Sent: 20 December 2005 13:14
To: 'Podcasts at newstalk106.ie'
Subject: Lunchtime shows on podcast?

Is the lunchtime show downloadable? I'm really after yesterday's.

- thanks, David.


subject: [WikiEN-l] A newbie on article prefill templating

body:
Matt Brown wrote:
>On 12/20/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:

>> Same template, *on* by default. This is for newbies. Note this was a
>> logged-in editor.

>Since only logged in editors can currently create articles anyway ...

I'd really really like anon page creation switched back on.

(a) A prefilled template would give guidance to editors of goodwill;
(b) editors of bad will are just creating accounts to write rubbish with anyway.

- d.


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: which html constructs are evil

references:
<87ek49j5y6.fsf@mat.ucm.es>
	<43A701CC.2020809@web.de>	<do8i3i$i3q$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<87lkyf3kp6.fsf@mat.ucm.es>

body:
Uwe Brauer wrote:

>>>>>>"Phil" == Phil Boswell  writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>
>   >> Uwe Brauer wrote:
>   >>>
>   >> All of them, according to wikimarkup purists.
>
>   Phil> ...which is really annoying when the perfectly legal (and
>   Phil> thoroughly documented)
 makes much more sense
>   Phil> than a simple ":" indentation. Maybe we should make it a
>
>Right, I find the : and :# :* especially annoying since, they only
>work for one single (long line) but not for a paragraph. That's why I
>prefer much
>
>

>
>

>over : etc. So I understand correctly the use of such constructs and
>

>
>

>
>

>
>
>Is ok?
>
>

IMHO blockquote is OK, as we do not have an equivalent in wiki markup.

We do, however, have wiki markup for lists, in which case wiki markup is
always preferred.
Same goes for tables (yes, the syntax is weird),
, bold/italics, dd/dt.

Magnus


subject: [Wikitech-l] Review feature

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

> Magnus Manske:
>
>> The new Review extension, which replaces the Validation feature, can be
>> seen in all its overwhelming beauty at
>>
>> http://magnusmanske.de/wikipeerdia/index.php
>
>
> Hey, this could actually work! I like that it's now in a box in the
> sidebar. The color codings could use some work - black on dark red
> isn't really readable. But I do like the idea of having a color-coded
> history.

Colors can be changed via CSS.
Actually, I tried to have the radio buttons in the sidebar with a
color-coded background, but it doesn't work. Anyone have an idea?

Magnus


from_name: English Wikipedia

subject: [WikiEN-l] {{fact}}

body:
Ah, but many talk page requests for citations get completely ignored.
IIRC this tag also adds the article to a category for fact checking --
nice that.

Jareth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jareth)

>Ilya N. wrote:
>
>
>
>>I think it's kind of annoying. If you need a citation, ask for it on the
>>talk page.
>>
>>
>
>
>


from_name: Domas Mituzas

subject: [Wikitech-l] attention for cluster users

body:
Please do not use NFS-mounted /home directory as temporary
directories for i/o intensive tasks, there's /tmp for that.

I had to kill wikistats, as it killed zwinger...

BR,
Domas


body:
And to me, it seems the snippet let me browse en.wikipedia.org without Tor,
but as of other wiki sites like http://download.wikimedia.org, I still need
to have Tor open. Don't know why.

On 12/20/05, Jiaming Xu <john.xu.1982 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thank you! With Privoxy and this setting, though I didn't quite understand
> the meaning of this snippet,
> I now can access wikipedia like normal, and without adding Tor.
>
>
> On 12/20/05, Tim Starling <t.starling at physics.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
> >
> > Jiaming Xu wrote:
> > > I'm in China and my traffic seems to be routed to Wiki's Korea server
> > which
> > > is blocked. So I'm wondering what's the ip address of the amsterdam
> > server
> > > and whether i could use it to bypass the block.
> >
> > Please use 145.97.39.155 . We have several servers in Amsterdam, that is
> > the
> > address of the load balancer. You can use privoxy if you like, there's a
> >
> > configuration file snippet here:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advice_to_Tor_users_in_China
> >
> > -- Tim Starling
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>


from_name: Fl Celloguy

body:
> > Apologies for my ignorance, but could someone explain what a pre-filled
> > template is? Is it just having default text in the create new article
>page?
> > I must have missed the beginning of the discussion. Thanks!
>
>Basically, just now, you click "Create this arricle", and you get a
>blank screen.
>
>The pre-filling idea is that when you click "Create this article", you
>get a screen with skeleton headings, a bit of boilerplate text...
>basically, as though someone had edited the page before you and added
>some boilerplate. It gives a framework to write around rather than
>just the terrifying whiteness.
>
>--
>- Andrew Gray
>   andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk

Thanks for the reply! This might have been mentioned already, but if we do
this, won't we get tons of newly created articles with just the text
template?

Flcelloguy
>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar ? get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Stable versions policy

body:
Magnus Manske wrote:
> Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) wrote:
>
>
>> Finally, I'd just like to let everyone remember where Wikipedia started.
>> The factor that's distinguished Wikipedia from basically every other
>> reference work on Earth has been its *absolutely* open nature.
>> Anyone can edit it! That's what's worked so well in ensuring such
>> a dynamic, comprehensive, deep and updated encyclopedia.
>>
>>
>>
> And with stable versions, that would change how?
> (Yes, it's a trick question: it wouldn't.)
>
> Magnus
Hoi,
When implementing something like "stable versions" make no difference,
if it means that people will still see the latest and greatest, what is
the point of stable versions? And if people DO get the stable version
and not the latest and greatest, how can you think it is a trick
question.. or are you the trickster ?
Thanks,
   GerardM


body:
Matt Brown wrote:

>Do you think prefilled templates should be switched on by default for
>established users? (those existing prior to implementing this feature,
>that is).

Depends if someone codes it that way ;-) As long as there's an off
switch, the screaming should die down reasonably quickly.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] {{fact}}

body:
May I just say that I really, really like [[Template:Fact]].

- d.


from_name: Cormac Lawler

body:
On 12/20/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, bugger! I can only hope we had a Dublin reader with a tape recorder ...
>
>
> - d.
>
>
> Not at the moment David -
> Sorry about that
> s
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Gerard
> Sent: 20 December 2005 13:14
> To: 'Podcasts at newstalk106.ie'
> Subject: Lunchtime shows on podcast?
>
> Is the lunchtime show downloadable? I'm really after yesterday's.
>
>
> - thanks, David.

You can get a CD copy of archived material for about ?50, apparently.
Anyone in Ireland can ring Newstalk106 reception 01 6445100 (+353 if
outside Ireland) and ask to be put through to the programme staff.
I'll be in Dublin on Thursday and see if I can wangle something out of
them.

Cormac


body:
> > Thanks for the reply! This might have been mentioned already, but if we
>do
> > this, won't we get tons of newly created articles with just the text
> > template?
>
>These will not be difficult to spot and delete :-). A handy cheat is
>to ensure the text template contains [[Category:Unchecked
>articles]]... or, for that matter, that it's automatically appended to
>the page afterwards.
>

I like this idea! True, it would be easy to spot articles like this, but
what if someone is just clicking "save" first before actually writing
something? The category should help - if anything slips through RC patrol,
then articles created with just that text will be listed at the category.
Ingenious. :-)

Flcelloguy
>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/


list: foundation-l

from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikiversity - courses

body:
Cormac Lawler wrote:

>On 12/20/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I think that the key thing that would distinguish Wikiversity from the
>>other projects is that it is about process while the others are about
>>product.
>>
>>In considering your suggested three foci I think that as long as we
>>can't get past the first one Wikiversity is just as well in Wikibooks.
>>The third is very far ahead of where we are.  It would be absolutely
>>forbidden in Wikipedia under the No Original Research  rule.  Making
>>that a part of Wikiversity before Wikiversity is ready for it could be
>>an invitation to all kinds of nutcase research that defies peer review.
>>Peer reviewers would need to be in place before original research could
>>take place.
>>
>>
>Well, I think peer review would grow out of having research hosted on
>Wikiversity. But until the research is peer reviewed, it shouldn't be
>considered an appropriate source for Wikipedia/books. I personally
>think the Wikimedia community is hampered by not having recourse to
>publishing research somewhere within Wikimedia (even though we all do
>- in Wikibooks!)
>
To make myself perfectly clear, I have never believed that "No Original
Research" should be a rule in an ideal wiki.  It became a real issue
when one individual sought to publish his offbeat theories in physics.
The issue is really a matter of when, not whether.

>>Your second focus is key to Wikiversity.but I would leave it simply at
>>"growing learning communities" without reference to specific tasks.
>>Getting tangled up in specific tasks and courses  leaves too much room
>>for Wikiversity to repeat the educational model established by
>>traditional universities.  The top down development of a course by a
>>"teacher" imposes a range of requirements on what's being done.  It does
>>nothing about revolutionizing the entire learning process.  "Courses"
>>are about the teacher rather than the learner.
>>
>>
>I agree that top-down course development shouldn't be where we're
>going, but I just meant that learning communities generally have to
>have some sort of goal (ie writing a good article, exploring the pros
>and cons of advertising, etc.) - that's all.
>
Yes, content will eventually escape from the process, but it must not
drive the process.  To quote McLuhan, "The medium is the message."

>>The name "Wikiversity" is just fine *because* it is about all learners
>>at all levels and all ages.  That's what universality is all about.
>>It's about life-long learning from kindergarten to post-graduate.  It's
>>about those who know a little bit more helping (not teaching) those who
>>know a little bit less.  I think that it's very encouraging that kids
>>can go into seniors' homes to teach about computers.  A book that I
>>recently acquired "What Video Games Have to Teach Us about Learning and
>>Literacy" by James Paul Gee.  He analyzes video game playing in terms of
>>36 "Learning principles".  The first of these is the "Active, Critical
>>Learning Principle" - "All aspects of the learning environment
>>(including the ways in which the semiotic domain is designed and
>>presented) are set up to encourage active and critical, not passive,
>>learning."
>>
>>
>Absolutely - the wiki-format is entirely geared towards active,
>critical learning. Learning by doing - experiential learning. That's
>the kind of learning that I'm personally talking about when I talk
>about wikiversity - not the acquisition and repetition of facts.
>
Great!  I think that we need to keep that ruthlessly in mind as this
thing develops.

>>Perhaps the first "course" to be offered in the Wikiversity should be
>>about learning, and how it happens.  If it is to have any such thing as
>>a core curriculum maybe that should be on it.
>>
>>
>Sounds good (I had already thought of this). Would you be willing to
>help out? (I am..)
>
Gingerly, yes.  I must however remain modest about what I can do.
What, currently is the best place to develop this idea?

Ec


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikiversity - courses


from_name: Federico Paparoni

subject: [Wikitech-l] Export pages

body:
Can someone tell me where i can find a DTD of the XML produced by "Export
pages" ?


from_name: Steve Bennett

body:
> I'd really really like anon page creation switched back on.
>
> (a) A prefilled template would give guidance to editors of goodwill;
> (b) editors of bad will are just creating accounts to write
> rubbish with anyway.

I am seeing a benefit to anons having to make contact with humans via
the AFC page. There is someone there to question their sources, suggest
alternative places for bad topics, etc.

Of course I have no experience with the "old way" (new pages patrol and
request for deletes?). But the "new way" has some positive attributes.

Steve


from_name: Jamie Bliss

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: {{if}} is dead on en:

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

David Gerard wrote:
> AzaToth has some code at [[m:User:AzaToth/Logic]] which makes the
> functions Mediawiki builtins and so isn't a Stupid Template Trick; now
> he wants to know (1) if this feature has a snowball's chance in hell (2)
> if this code is suitable.

My first thought when I saw the code was "OMG, not another syntax".
Would it be possible to implement this in a fashion similar to
GRAMMAR(ie, {{exp:add|2|5}}), using syntax already parsed and handled?

(BTW, I've filed and RFE for this, bug 4294
<http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4294>. Allows extensions
to handle such prefixes. The problem is that it is called on every brace
expansion, which I'm not sure the hook system was designed for. But last
time I introduced a new style of hooks, I got shot down, so I'll use them.)

- -- Jamie
- -------------------------------------------------------------------
http://endeavour.zapto.org/astro73/
Thank you to JosephM for inviting me to Gmail!
Have lots of invites. Gmail now has 2GB.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDqJV7hSTbi9X4m60RAn+OAKDn+vuzBUfgXCfyGQsrloNNIHo7bQCgnKTI
rFN67Bv5oDIMecqP4ndTLgg=
=lhYY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Ben Emmel

subject: [WikiEN-l] Checkuser for all admins

body:
I believe that giving CheckUser access to all admins would now qualify
adminship as a "big deal." I'm not sure if I would even want that
responsibility: misuse of the feature would be very easy to many.

And what would we do if abuse did happen, such as the public posting of
certain users' IP addresses? I don't think that a ArbCom decision could
properly punish such an individual. There are much many "real world"
consequences to the revelation of this type of information. De-sysopping
just wouldn't cut it, and neither would a year ban.

Yes, there would be some additional benefits to giving a greater access to
the CheckUser privileges. But I don't think the costs outweigh the benefits,
at least not right now.

--
Ben Emmel
Wikipedia - User:Bratsche
bratsche1 at gmail.com
"A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees."
-- William Blake


from_name: Tim Starling

body:
Jiaming Xu wrote:
> I'm in China and my traffic seems to be routed to Wiki's Korea server which
> is blocked. So I'm wondering what's the ip address of the amsterdam server
> and whether i could use it to bypass the block.

Please use 145.97.39.155 . We have several servers in Amsterdam, that is the
address of the load balancer. You can use privoxy if you like, there's a
configuration file snippet here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advice_to_Tor_users_in_China

-- Tim Starling


from_name: Guillaume Blanchard

subject: [Wikitech-l] Yet another reason to have a "stable article" system

body:
Magnus Manske wrote:

> Guillaume Blanchard wrote:
>
>> i all,
>> I made a proposal for a validation system at
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Aoineko/Validation.
>> Any comment are welcome!
>
> I have already implemented most of this as an extension. Exceptions:
> * Only one version can be stable/validated at any time.

Why? To save space into the DB?

> * History highlighting is not yet implemented.
>
> Why is this not in use?
> * Pages with templates are not stable. One has to cache the template
> versions at the moment they are declared stable/valid.
> * Tim is working on his own implementation.
>
> Magnus

What is the opinion of the community about the validation feature? The
French community heard from news-paper Jimbo wants this kind of feature
in the future but we wondering if there is already any roadmap or some
kind of official plan. Am I right if I say the article *reviewing*
(public grade) is an interred concept?

In what way the Tim's implementation differ from yours?

Aoineko / Guillaume Blanchard


subject: [Wikitech-l] Review feature

body:
On 12/20/05, Henning Heitk?tter <hheitkoetter at web.de> wrote:
> The input element has to be empty:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/dtds.html#dtdentry_xhtml1-transitional.dtd_input
>
> I'm not sure if this prohibits the use of "background-color" (probably
> not), but the placement of "yes" and "no" inside the input-element isn't
> valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional.

It works in Internet Explorer, so the coding must be invalid!

--
Sam


from_name: hunterda at adelphia.net

subject: [Wikitech-l] (no subject)

body: please take me off mailing list. Thank you


from_name: Sam Fentress (Asbestos)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Checkuser for all admins

body:
This may have been discussed before. If so, apologies.

Why not make the checkuser function available to all admins? There are
constant allegations of sockpuppetry, and I'm sure there are plenty of cases
of ballot-stuffing or fake-consensus-building which go unnoticed because
someone's suspicions weren't enough to both a developer with. Having the
function available to all admins would cut down on a lot of this
underhandedness.

If there is a problem concerning privacy, such as making IP addresses
available (I'm not sure exactly what the checkuser funcion shows), when
couldn't it be modified  to only show which users have been created by the
same IP (i.e., put in a name, and it shows you the other users)

If there is a problem concerning privacy for legitamate uses of alternate
accounts, such as keeping edits separate or not wanting to be stalked by
another user, then I'm sure it couldn't be too hard to modify the code to
show only those sockpuppets that have edited the same page. Even if we
accept that there are legitamate uses for alternate accounts, such accounts
ought never to edit the same page.

Any thoughts?

Sam

--
Asbestos
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Asbestos


from_name: Jonathan Leybovich

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Re: Yet another reason to have a "stable article"
	system

body:
Brian <brian0918 at ...> writes:
>
>
> Neil Harris wrote:
>
> >
> > We will probably need to have the ability to rate versions as being
> > "stable version candidates", otherwise it will be difficult to move
> > from an older stable version to a newer.
> >
> > By being able to rate/tag a newer version as a stable version
> > candidate, it could then be voted/rated/approved to either eventually
> > become the next stable version, or to be supplanted by another
> > candidate. Users should be able to see not only the history of all
> > versions, but of (say) all versions ever marked as stable, or the
> > larger set of versions marked as candidates for stability.
>
> For simple things like spelling errors, this system would be way too
> complicated for approving a newer stable version.
>

Hmmmm... that's an interesting corner case.  But I think regardless that Neil's
proposed review process is the way to go.  By vote or bureaucrat action, a
particular version of an article is nominated for review, users vote on it, and
if it is accepted it becomes the "stable" or "approved" version, with various
view privileges (e.g. always shown by default, with older AND newer versions
only accessible from a special tab).  The editing process continues "in the
background" however, with later additions to the article eventually converging
into a new review candidate, which then becomes the new approved version of the
article.  Using your example of the [[Christmas]] article, Brian, the version
which became "Featured" would be the one users see by default and remain that
way until an expanded or otherwise improved version of the article came along.
This process should also curb revision wars and make editing a much more
deliberative process, since editors will no longer be able to control what users
see by default by grabbing control of the top version of an article.

With that said, one problem I noticed with the current review feature
implementation (aside from allowing only 1 rating per user of an article, and
thus implicitly limiting each article to a single "stable" version) is that it
does not force users to vote on a particular revision (though I guess this could
be achieved by locking the article).  Thus you could get X votes for revision
1000, and Y votes for revision 1001, but the 2 sets of review data cannot be
aggregated because the revisions may be substantially different.


from_name: Ashar Voultoiz

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Skins for deletion: Amethyst

body:
Phil Boswell wrote:
<snip: brion>
>
> How difficult would it be to re-create as a MySkin specification?

Really easy! The amethyst skin reuse the monobook skin template. So you
can just upload the various pictures from ./skins/amethyst/ then use the
 ./skins/amethyst/main.css as your mySkin stylesheet.

Maybe we could recode some part of the skin system so one can use a html
layout then select a style to apply too. Then we could even create a
'Skin:' namespace and make those namespaces available in the preferences
automaticly :o)

> I tried it via
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&useskin=amethyst>:

I have made this skin using firefox 1.07, anything else isnt supported
(well firefox 1.5 should).

> * the logo text is reversed, or something funny

The logo text is black on transparent background, as the skin use a
black background, you see some gray pixels probably used for
antialiasing purposes.

> * the tabs are colliding with the logo

Probably need to move the logo down a bit.

> * the sitenotice is colliding with the tabs

> * links are in bright yellow, which is almost unreadable against a white
> ground, which is what the central panels use

I used yellow for links cause it looks great with the dark gray
background. The real problem here is that the central panels hardcode
the background color but do not hardcode the link colors.
I havent been able to find a link color that make links readeable with
the dark gray background and with a light background.

> * can't find the go/search box

I use google :o)

> * "cite this page" goes to a monobook page
> * actually all the links would do so: shouldn't it decorate the links with
> the "useskin=amethyst" action?

The URL parameter useskin=amethyst is not propagated to links (not sure
 we want to do that: caching issues?). I think there is a bug open for that.

> I really like the little icons. Is it possible to add those to monobook, via
> personal CSS?

See above :o)

cheers,

--
Ashar Voultoiz - WP++++
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hashar
http://www.livejournal.com/community/wikitech/
IM: hashar at jabber.org  ICQ: 15325080


from_name: Jon

subject: [WikiEN-l] [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons]]

body:
David's got it spot on when he says the most important thing is to reference everything - and with impeccable sources at that (though David obviously phrases it in his slight more to-the-point style). His suggested new name for the page is much better than its current location too.

  There is one other point in the project page which is important, I think. We have many articles on living persons who have chosen to put themselves in the public domain. This would include politicians, celebrities, pop stars and widely published authors. We also have articles on living persons who are notable, but who have not chosen to put their lives in the public domain. We really should be careful about what private information we publish about the latter. Some background information (eg where a subject was born, was educated, whether the subject is married and to whom) may be appropriate, but it's just not fair to publish more salacious details, even if true (eg affairs, spent convictions). I don't see this as encouraging SPOV over NPOV - private details that would show a subject in a positive light, but are really entirely irrelevant to the subject's notability should likewise be omitted. (At present we have no guideline that I'm awareness on relevance - NPOV, V and NOR will
 cover the rest.)

  Kind regards

  Jon

Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
  As is usual, David speaks good sense. The title was a nice introduction
to the topic, and is certainly true, but may send people down the wrong
path. David's point #2 is absolutely right on target and would deal
with most or possibly even all of the issues in this area quite well.

David Gerard wrote:
> I think my main objection to this is the current title:
> "Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons deserve special sensitivity".
> The very title pushes Sympathetic Point Of View, whatever the guideline
> content.
>
> I've suggested on the talk page:
>
> 1. Change title to [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons]]
>
> 2. Start with "Be very hardarsed with references in living persons'
> bios" and go from there.
>
> That is: the title should be what the guideline *concerns*. And the
> start should be the guideline itself in a sentence.
>
> Then we can work from there. NPOV, NOR, V. Past examples of why we need
> this. Don't fall into Sympathetic Point Of View. Etc.
>
> Does this sound workable?

To me it does.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---------------------------------
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Namespace changes ready for code review

body:
?var Arnfj?r? Bjarmason <avarab at ...> writes:
>
> Magnus's Rewiew extension is just that, and it doesn't make sense to
> make special considerations for extension in the main code by
> definition. If extensions want something from the main codebase their
> authors can add hooks to the main code and modify things with those
> hooks.
>

But this "extension" already has its own table in the data model!  Granted the
review/validate feature can be coded to capture different data than it does now,
but the presence of a VALIDATE table in the data model firmly entrenches the
notion that pages are validateable within the Mediawiki "ontology".  It thus
shouldn't be bad design to recognize and control this notion elsewhere in the
datamodel.


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [Foundation-l] Day 5 Fund Drive Report

body:
Copied from:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fund_drives/2005/Q4/Day_5
-------------------------------------------------------------

The equivalent of $12,494.80 USD was donated through PayPal on '''Day 5''' of the fund drive
(Tuesday 20 December). While this is a small decrease from Day 4 ($240.70), it does represent a
higher average per donation ($22.72 vs $20.28). A total of 550 donations were made on Day 5; the
largest was a $2000 anonymous donation made early in the day.

The first mail donations made during the fund drive have come in. A total of $75 has been received
so far at the Wikimedia office. MoneyBookers donations for Day 5 were about $80, bringing that
total to $383.38. We are still waiting for the first Dexia updates (those are mailed to the
foundation office).

Grand at the end of Day 5: '''$63,083.70'''

PayPal breakdown for Day 5:
 AUD    420.72    (315.75 USD)
 CAD 	362.49 	  (298.30 USD)
 EUR 	2,429.82  (2,951.48 USD)
 GBP 	328.86 	  (589.74 USD)
 JPY 	39,684.00 (358.54 USD)
 USD 	7,980.99
 Total 	12,494.80 USD

Copied from: http://fundraising.wikimedia.org/2005q4/index.php/2005-12-20/report/

==Selected donor comments==
Let's all thank everybody who donated on this day by reading their comments.

:From: http://fundraising.wikimedia.org/2005q4/index.php/2005-12-20/detail/

*"Information wants to be free" by anonymous
*"Knowledge is the future - thank you for sharing it! A true daily user" by anonymous
*"Wissen ist Macht. Und die Macht sollte beim Volk liegen und nicht bei
Verwertungsgesellschaften." by anonymous
*"Wikipedia embraces the spirit of the internet and every page is an investment for all human
knowledge" by Orion Pronk
*"Thank you from a poor student from Germany" by Dominik Pich
*"Wikipedia rocks." by anonymous
*"a wonderful resource - my kids find it indispensible for school" by erik hoel
*"Wikipedia ist ein tolles Nachschlagewerk f?r welches sich lohnt zu unterst?tzen." by anonymous
*"gift economies are beautiful things. and i know what a gift economy is thanks go wikipedia." by
anonymous
*"いつも豊富な知識を貰っています。どうもありがとう。"
by genta uemura
*"Used Wiki many times. A true encyclopedia. The truth shall set you free." by Higinio Sanchez
*"Wikipedia is an invaluable source of accessible information in the overclogged information
highway" by Anh-Thu Nguyen
*"Your work is really important" by anonymous
*"Wikipedia helps fulfill the internet's promise of democratization and equalization of
information." by anonymous
*"Knowledge is the key to freedom" by John Rosato
*"It is my honor and duty" by anonymous
*"Got Wiki?" by Jun Yan

Some of my personal favorites:
*"a small step for a better world" by Mathieu Francois
*"If Plato would have the internet he would constantly read Wikipedia." by anonymous
*"Best signal to noise ratio on the internet today" by Simon Pichette
*"I have an atrocious memory - Wikipedia fills in the blanks!" by Ian Henderson
*"For all the library late fees Wikipedia has saved me." by Jonathan Voris
*"Thank you! Truly... thank you!!" by Dominick Daoust
*"All of us are smarter than any off us!" by Michael Doherty
*"Knowledge will never be burnt again" by anonymous

-- Daniel Mayer

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


subject: [Foundation-l] Day 5 Fund Drive Report


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Day 5 Fund Drive Report


from_name: Henning Heitkötter

subject: [Wikitech-l] Review feature

body:
Magnus Manske schrieb:

>Colors can be changed via CSS.
>Actually, I tried to have the radio buttons in the sidebar with a
>color-coded background, but it doesn't work. Anyone have an idea?
>
>Magnus
>
The input element has to be empty:
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/dtds.html#dtdentry_xhtml1-transitional.dtd_input

I'm not sure if this prohibits the use of "background-color" (probably
not), but the placement of "yes" and "no" inside the input-element isn't
valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional.

mfg Henning


from_name: Ben Garney

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: [MediaWiki-CVS] extensions Tidy.php,NONE,1.1

body:
var Arnfjr Bjarmason wrote:

>Update of /cvsroot/wikipedia/extensions
>In directory sc8-pr-cvs1.sourceforge.net:/tmp/cvs-serv16873
>
>Added Files:
>	Tidy.php
>Log Message:
>* An extension that adds a tidy tab to all pages
>
>
>--- NEW FILE: Tidy.php ---
>(This appears to be a binary file; contents omitted.)
>
>
Is there a reason this is showing up as binary..? From a convenience
perspective,  I'd love to read the code. :) From a CVS standpoint,
though, is this an indication the file has the wrong mode?

Regards,
Ben Garney


body:
Is it worth having different templates for different sorts of articles?
Is it worth having a wizard?  "Is this an article about a person, place,
event...?" "So it's a person.  Are they alive or dead?" "Great, what
field are they most known in?" "Sport, eh? American, British, Jamaican?"
Take that far enough and it could spit out half the article, with
relevant templates, categories, stubs and pointers for you to read the
guidelines for that type of project.

Is this the road we want to go down?

Steve

> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Sam
> Fentress (Asbestos)
> Sent: Tuesday, 20th December 2005 8:41 PM
> To: preparing at psu.edu; English Wikipedia
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A newbie on article prefill templating
>
>
> Well, just to get the ball rolling, I created a possible
> version at [[Wikipedia:New article template]] (or should it
> have been on meta?). We're you thinking of something along
> those lines?


from_name: Andrew Gray

body:
On 20/12/05, Fl Celloguy <flcelloguy at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Apologies for my ignorance, but could someone explain what a pre-filled
> template is? Is it just having default text in the create new article page?
> I must have missed the beginning of the discussion. Thanks!

Basically, just now, you click "Create this arricle", and you get a
blank screen.

The pre-filling idea is that when you click "Create this article", you
get a screen with skeleton headings, a bit of boilerplate text...
basically, as though someone had edited the page before you and added
some boilerplate. It gives a framework to write around rather than
just the terrifying whiteness.

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


from_name: David Gerard

body:
Jon wrote:

> David's got it spot on when he says the most important thing is to
> reference everything - and with impeccable sources at that (though
> David obviously phrases it in his slight more to-the-point style).
> His suggested new name for the page is much better than its current
> location too.

The other thing I didn't like about the old one was it was mostly "don't
do this" - the /temp version aims to be "do this, do this."

The thing about guidelines is that only editors of good will will read
them, and only editors of good will and *clue* will take them in.
There's no point addressing editors of bad will, and editors who think
J. Random Blog is a solid reference (as opposed to a high-quality blog,
e.g. [[Groklaw]]) will need the gentle guidance of more clueful editors.

The other key thing is: Try really hard not to write anything that will
be wielded by idiots as a bludgeon. This is a lot of work and requires
experience of Wikipedia foolishness ...

> There is one other point in the project page which is important, I
> think. We have many articles on living persons who have chosen to put
> themselves in the public domain. This would include politicians,
> celebrities, pop stars and widely published authors. We also have
> articles on living persons who are notable, but who have not chosen
> to put their lives in the public domain. We really should be careful
> about what private information we publish about the latter. Some
> background information (eg where a subject was born, was educated,
> whether the subject is married and to whom) may be appropriate, but
> it's just not fair to publish more salacious details, even if true
> (eg affairs, spent convictions). I don't see this as encouraging SPOV
> over NPOV - private details that would show a subject in a positive
> light, but are really entirely irrelevant to the subject's notability
> should likewise be omitted. (At present we have no guideline that I'm
> awareness on relevance - NPOV, V and N OR will cover the rest.)

I'm not sure we need or want ABG (another bloody guideline) - we have
far too many as is - because no guideline can ever substitute for actual
editorial judgement.

In the case of the people you describe, we don't actually need to
consider fairness to the people - fairness to the article will do. If
it's relevant to why they have an article, or it's a notable incident in
itself, mention it; if not, it probably doesn't belong in the article.

- d.


body:
Guillaume Blanchard wrote:

> What is the opinion of the community about the validation feature? The
> French community heard from news-paper Jimbo wants this kind of feature
> in the future but we wondering if there is already any roadmap or some
> kind of official plan. Am I right if I say the article *reviewing*
> (public grade) is an interred concept?

en: is begging for it. We think it can be used to get en: or a subset up
to release quality, and we're envious of de: being on its third DVD
edition ;-)

- d.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Stable versions policy

body:
Neil Harris wrote:

> No, I believe that the core values are that Wikipedia is intended to
> be/become an encyclopedia, and that it should be free, as in freedom to
> use and make derivative works (and to fork, if necessary). Freedom to
> edit is hugely important, but secondary to those core goals.

Writing an encyclopedia is the goal, but we must be careful not to kill
the golden goose that gave us what we have so far.

I would like prefilled new article templates (presumably an option
logged-in editors could switch off) as I outlined on wikien-l:

 http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-December/034414.html

- and to switch article creation back on for anons on en:.

1. The editors of good will can see from the prefill what an article
should be shaped like and write better new articles.
   1a. Those it annoys can switch it off.
2. The editors of bad will are just creating login names anyway.

- d.


body:
Sam Fentress (Asbestos) wrote:

> Well, just to get the ball rolling, I created a possible version at
> [[Wikipedia:New article template]] (or should it have been on meta?). We're
> you thinking of something along those lines?

Something like that. Thank you! I'll have a fiddle with it later as per
the discussion so far on the list.

- d.


body:
Steve Bennett wrote:

> Is it worth having different templates for different sorts of articles?
> Is it worth having a wizard?  "Is this an article about a person, place,
> event...?" "So it's a person.  Are they alive or dead?" "Great, what
> field are they most known in?" "Sport, eh? American, British, Jamaican?"
> Take that far enough and it could spit out half the article, with
> relevant templates, categories, stubs and pointers for you to read the
> guidelines for that type of project.

Nah. Start simple - just some prefilled wikitext should be enough.

> Is this the road we want to go down?

That's why to start simple, to see if we need to. Something to help the
newbies and not annoy the experienced editors.

- d.


body:
Fl Celloguy wrote:

> Apologies for my ignorance, but could someone explain what a pre-filled
> template is? Is it just having default text in the create new article
> page? I must have missed the beginning of the discussion. Thanks!

Pretty much. I floated the idea here:

 http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-December/034414.html

I had one newbie who wrote a good first article with a lot of help from
the new article patrollers putting {{unreferenced}} and
{{uncategorised}} templates on their tentative article, and they said
something like this would have helped a *lot*. That blank article box is
*scary* if you've never seen it before.

- d.


body:
Cormac Lawler wrote:

> You can get a CD copy of archived material for about ?50, apparently.
> Anyone in Ireland can ring Newstalk106 reception 01 6445100 (+353 if
> outside Ireland) and ask to be put through to the programme staff.
> I'll be in Dublin on Thursday and see if I can wangle something out of
> them.

Heh. If you're a broke student or something, I'll pay you back if you do
get hold of it :-)

- d.


from_name: Robert Scott Horning

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikibooks criticism by non-Wikimedian

body:
I thought a very interesting and well-written (and sourced) blog entry
by Ben Crowell, a pioneer in e-book publishing, would be interesting
reading to the people on Foundation-l:

http://www.lightandmatter.com/article/infrastructure.html

It was also based in part on an interesting exchange I had with him on
slashdot before he wrote this entry:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=170873&cid=14234478

I think that much of what Mr. Crowell has to say about Wikibooks and
Wikipedia is a very valid critism, especially from somebody who is
outside of Wikimedia projects trying to locate some gems of quality that
may be useful.  It is also from somebody who has done more than just a
casual glance at what we are doing here, and comes from somebody who has
done what Wikibooks is claiming as an ultimate goal (but didn't use
Wikibooks to accomplish the task).

--
Robert Scott Horning


list: textbook-l

subject: [Textbook-l] Wikibooks criticism by non-Wikimedian


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Biographies of living persons - new draft guideline

body:
Anthere wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:

>> I've done a rewrite of the proposed guideline at
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/temp
>>  It's rewritten very much in the style of a quickly usable
>> guideline - you should be able to get the whole idea from the
>> intro, the rest is details.

> I left some comments on the initial version. One thing I would found
> useful is that a dual document is produced. One to be adressed to the
> editor (the guidelines) and one to be adressed to the one editing his
> biography. Sarah initial version was confusing both public, while
> David's one is now totally oriented toward regular editors.

The one for the public is [[Wikipedia:Autobiography]].

> Now, one thing that is imho, strongly missing in David version is
> somehow the description of HOW a person might feel when she discovers
>  very questionable statements about her all over the web... and has
> very little idea how Wikipedia works. She must really feel like a
> stranger falling in a strange land.
> I think that I can give this perspective, due to the number of times
> I had to answer one of these editors with a biography on OTRS. Some
> pretty cool, some totally abashed, some absolutely furious.
> While it is important to explain editors which guidelines to follow,
> it is also important to explain to them the dismay of those with
> biographies they perceive wrong (and which are sometimes wrong
> >actually).

Check the history - my first version at /temp included the paragraphs on
this from SlimVirgin's version; Morven changed them to instructions for
those who don't like their biography.

> There are always too sides in a dispute and in this, I believe very
> very much in Sarah empathic approach. And again, I say this from the
> perspective of one who has precisely to deal with some enraged people
> on OTRS, mishandled by an editor.
> It is important to remember these guys are most of the time acting in
>  all good faith.

Indeed. However, SlimVirgin's first version (and its title) leant too
much towards sympathetic point of view IMO. Which is not NPOV, not at all.

> Aside from this, I believe the paragraph about legal threats is
> problematic. I wish that it is reworked. As a reminder, the

I just cut'n'pasted that from Slim's version; please kill it if we
shouldn't have it, or rework it as is appropriate.

> Thanks a lot in any cases for all those working on these guidelines.
> Legal issues over biographies, most of you know this, are currently a
>  huge issue for the board, we really appreciate your help here to
> deal with this. The Foundation will suffer of any legal action,
> whether if right or wrong.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] {{fact}}

body:
Ilya N. wrote:

> I think it's kind of annoying. If you need a citation, ask for it on the
> talk page.

I think it has every right to be annoying. It also makes it clear to the
reader "ah, that's not verified. Oh yes, this is a work in progress,
isn't it."

- d.


body:
It's certainly best to stress positives: "DO this", "DO that", rather than negatives "DON'T DO this", "DON'T DO that" (as many a manager will tell you (and forget to take heed of!)).

  I wasn't proposing another guideline on Relevancy - and I agree there'd be no point in having one. We'd never agree on a definition anyway. Relevancy is an issue, though - what to include and exclude from any given article (call it notability or something else if you wish).

  Come the end of the day, commonsense, or editorial judgment as David refers to it as, can't be legislated for. But we do need good editors to fight the fight on controversial subjects to make commonsense prevail.

  Jon

David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
  Anthere wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:

>> I've done a rewrite of the proposed guideline at
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/temp
>> It's rewritten very much in the style of a quickly usable
>> guideline - you should be able to get the whole idea from the
>> intro, the rest is details.

> I left some comments on the initial version. One thing I would found
> useful is that a dual document is produced. One to be adressed to the
> editor (the guidelines) and one to be adressed to the one editing his
> biography. Sarah initial version was confusing both public, while
> David's one is now totally oriented toward regular editors.

The one for the public is [[Wikipedia:Autobiography]].

> Now, one thing that is imho, strongly missing in David version is
> somehow the description of HOW a person might feel when she discovers
> very questionable statements about her all over the web... and has
> very little idea how Wikipedia works. She must really feel like a
> stranger falling in a strange land.
> I think that I can give this perspective, due to the number of times
> I had to answer one of these editors with a biography on OTRS. Some
> pretty cool, some totally abashed, some absolutely furious.
> While it is important to explain editors which guidelines to follow,
> it is also important to explain to them the dismay of those with
> biographies they perceive wrong (and which are sometimes wrong
> >actually).

Check the history - my first version at /temp included the paragraphs on
this from SlimVirgin's version; Morven changed them to instructions for
those who don't like their biography.

> There are always too sides in a dispute and in this, I believe very
> very much in Sarah empathic approach. And again, I say this from the
> perspective of one who has precisely to deal with some enraged people
> on OTRS, mishandled by an editor.
> It is important to remember these guys are most of the time acting in
> all good faith.

Indeed. However, SlimVirgin's first version (and its title) leant too
much towards sympathetic point of view IMO. Which is not NPOV, not at all.

> Aside from this, I believe the paragraph about legal threats is
> problematic. I wish that it is reworked. As a reminder, the

I just cut'n'pasted that from Slim's version; please kill it if we
shouldn't have it, or rework it as is appropriate.

> Thanks a lot in any cases for all those working on these guidelines.
> Legal issues over biographies, most of you know this, are currently a
> huge issue for the board, we really appreciate your help here to
> deal with this. The Foundation will suffer of any legal action,
> whether if right or wrong.

- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Photos ? NEW, now offering a quality print service from just 8p a photo.


body:
Jon wrote:

> I wasn't proposing another guideline on Relevancy - and I agree
> there'd be no point in having one. We'd never agree on a definition
> anyway. Relevancy is an issue, though - what to include and exclude
> from any given article (call it notability or something else if you
> wish).

Yeah. I left notability carefully undefined.

The problem with the cancerous proliferation of guidelines and policy on
en: is that people keep trying to legislate cluefulness.

> Come the end of the day, commonsense, or editorial judgment as David
> refers to it as, can't be legislated for. But we do need good editors
> to fight the fight on controversial subjects to make commonsense
> prevail.

I think we've got lots of those ;-) That's why I emphasised right up top
that the goal is to get it *right*.

- d.


from_name: Wikipedia Romania (Ronline)

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Stable versions policy

body:
Hi,

I was quite surprised to see today in the Wikipedia Signpost that
the semi-protection policy had passed and I hadn't even heard
a poll was conducted on it.

I think it's really important that everyone is notified in a much more
organised manner about such important policy chances.

Now, the reason I'm writing here is because of the looming "stable
versions" policy. I think this is a policy that contravenes the principles
of Wikipedia, and I've raised this on the talk page
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Stable_versions)
It would be great if other people could comment on this policy.

Finally, I'd just like to let everyone remember where Wikipedia started.
The factor that's distinguished Wikipedia from basically every other
reference work on Earth has been its *absolutely* open nature.
Anyone can edit it! That's what's worked so well in ensuring such
a dynamic, comprehensive, deep and updated encyclopedia.

About a week ago, something quite signficant happened - anonymous
users were no longer allowed to start new articles. I said back then
that that wasn't such a major move, and it's isn't. However,
let's not let that become a slippery slope for all sorts of new
policies that seek to restrict the freedom, and by extension
the success, of Wikipedia.

At the Romanian Wikipedia, we have some of the most liberal
policies on blocking and vandalism. And, so far, there haven't
been any major problems - no media reports, no huge glaring
errors, etc.

Let's maintain Wikipedia's liberty!

Ronline


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Stable versions policy

body:
Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) wrote:

> [...] Do people not
>
>realise how anti-Wiki delayed editing is? The *core* values, the ones that
>are constantly advertised for Wikipedia, is that "anyone can edit it" and
>"edits are displayed immediately".
>
Those are tactics to build a free encyclopedia, not "core values".
Process is secondary to the result, not the other way around. If WP
were to be somehow finished tomorrow, and all editing was permanently
disabled as a result, I would be completely happy because the goal
was achieved.

Stan


from_name: Geoff Burling

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Defamatory Biographies - another problem looming
	forWikipedia?

body:
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005, David Gerard wrote:

> Geoff Burling wrote:
>
> > (And for the record, when I find an article with more than one stub tag
> > attached, I always reduce the number to one. Don't like it? Then turn
> > the stub into an article, & we'll both be happy.)
>
> PLEASE DON'T DO THIS. Different stubs are subcategories of different
> parent categories. Someone from a wikiproject about content will often
> go into that project's stub category and start work on stuff they find
> there.
>
Are you serious? To repeat myself, how many stub notices does Wikipedia
need on any given article? This is the silliest idea I've seen proposed
here -- including many I have proposed -- for these & probably many
more reasons:

-- having multiple stubs looks ugly
-- multiple stub notices gives the impression that we don't value the
intelligence of our readers (viz., "Hey, this is a stub, & I'm warning
you that you might not find all of the information you expect here! Hey,
this is a stub, & you might not find all of the information you expect
here! Hey, this is a stub, & you might not find all of the information
you expect here!" Some of us get the message the first time it's said.)
-- just how many people actually look for stubs in their area of interest?
I've seen anecdotal evidence that few people bother to chase down stubs.
(When I am on the hunt for a topic to work on, I'm as just as likely to
look under the more broad categories as under the stubs.)
-- this confuses meta-information (which should be on the Talk page)
with warnings to the reader (which should be on the article page) I
believe this falls under the category of "instruction creep". If an
there is a reason an article needs more than one stub notice, then
shouldn't they go on the talk page?

And last, & perhaps most important:
-- just exactly when was this policy dreamed up, debated, & voted on? I
I believe this is one of those situations where the Wikipedia directive
[[ignore all rules]] applies & AFAIK, this isn't even a rule.

Until reducing multiple stubs becomes a bannible offence, I will
continue to do it, based on my editorial discression. you have been warned.
>
[snip]

>  > When I used to do New Article Patrol on a regular basis, I found myself
> > wikifying new articles, rather than tagging them for deletion. (Despite
> > the kill-happy reputation of AfD, I found it far easier to subject these
> > articles to a scrubbing than listing them.) Then I saw David Gerard's
> > comment about 90% of new articles were dreck, & started to suspect my own
> > judgement. So I lost interest in that chore.*
>
>
> I didn't say 90%, I said 20-30%!
>
You're right. I went back & checked my log of Wiki-EN mail, & I
misremembered the figure. (I'm amazed, though, at how many people threw
around "90%" when talking about issues.) I sincerely apologize.

Geoff


from_name: Anthere

body:
David Gerard wrote:
> I've done a rewrite of the proposed guideline at
>
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/temp
>
> It's rewritten very much in the style of a quickly usable guideline -
> you should be able to get the whole idea from the intro, the rest is
> details.
>
> I've also tried to greatly tighten the writing from the original, but
> it could do with more (e.g. the looong examples). Please hack away.
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

I left some comments on the initial version.

One thing I would found useful is that a dual document is produced. One
to be adressed to the editor (the guidelines) and one to be adressed to
the one editing his biography. Sarah initial version was confusing both
public, while David's one is now totally oriented toward regular editors.

I think both documents are needed.

Now, one thing that is imho, strongly missing in David version is
somehow the description of HOW a person might feel when she discovers
very questionable statements about her all over the web... and has very
little idea how Wikipedia works. She must really feel like a stranger
falling in a strange land.

I think that I can give this perspective, due to the number of times I
had to answer one of these editors with a biography on OTRS. Some pretty
cool, some totally abashed, some absolutely furious.

While it is important to explain editors which guidelines to follow, it
is also important to explain to them the dismay of those with
biographies they perceive wrong (and which are sometimes wrong actually).

And it is also important for the newbies to understand what is gonna
happen to them, when they just feel like correcting what they think is
wrong.

Both sides are important to consider, not just one. Each time there is a
dispute, there are two sides. Not one person guilty of fixing his
biography and one side being in his full rights to "save" the
encyclopedia from the bad censor.

There are always too sides in a dispute and in this, I believe very very
much in Sarah empathic approach. And again, I say this from the
perspective of one who has precisely to deal with some enraged people on
OTRS, mishandled by an editor.

It is important to remember these guys are most of the time acting in
all good faith.

Aside from this, I believe the paragraph about legal threats is
problematic. I wish that it is reworked.
As a reminder, the FOundation may hold a responsability as a sort of
publisher, when informed, it does not make an effort to fix a lie or a
libel. But ultimately, the editor himself is liable. The editor is
responsible of what he writes.
Additionnaly, please remove phone numbers. Remove info-de, you are the
english wikipedia, NOT the german speaking wikipedia. Remove personal
email addresses as well, especially when they lead to Wikia (Wikia is
not the Foundation). And if we are talking about neutrality, also see
the one complaining side : the very expression "legal threat" is biaised :-)

Thanks a lot in any cases for all those working on these guidelines.
Legal issues over biographies, most of you know this, are currently a
huge issue for the board, we really appreciate your help here to deal
with this. The Foundation will suffer of any legal action, whether if
right or wrong.

ant


body:
On 20/12/05, Fl Celloguy <flcelloguy at hotmail.com> wrote:

> >The pre-filling idea is that when you click "Create this article", you
> >get a screen with skeleton headings, a bit of boilerplate text...
> >basically, as though someone had edited the page before you and added
> >some boilerplate. It gives a framework to write around rather than
> >just the terrifying whiteness.

> Thanks for the reply! This might have been mentioned already, but if we do
> this, won't we get tons of newly created articles with just the text
> template?

These will not be difficult to spot and delete :-). A handy cheat is
to ensure the text template contains [[Category:Unchecked
articles]]... or, for that matter, that it's automatically appended to
the page afterwards.

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


from_name: Kelly Martin

subject: [WikiEN-l] Checkuser for all admins

body:
On 12/20/05, Sam Fentress (Asbestos) <asbestos999 at gmail.com> wrote:
> This may have been discussed before. If so, apologies.
>
> Why not make the checkuser function available to all admins? There are
> constant allegations of sockpuppetry, and I'm sure there are plenty of cases
> of ballot-stuffing or fake-consensus-building which go unnoticed because
> someone's suspicions weren't enough to both a developer with. Having the
> function available to all admins would cut down on a lot of this
> underhandedness.

Do you really trust all admins that much?

> If there is a problem concerning privacy, such as making IP addresses
> available (I'm not sure exactly what the checkuser funcion shows), when
> couldn't it be modified  to only show which users have been created by the
> same IP (i.e., put in a name, and it shows you the other users)

I use CheckUser on a regular basis, and to be honest this would be
insufficient to make effective use of the CheckUser tool.

We have six editors with CheckUser rights on en (not including
stewards and developers); if more are needed the Arbitration Committee
may choose to extend CheckUser rights to additional parties.  Until
such time as the ArbCom is convinced of the need, it'll stay at six.

Kelly


from_name: Michael Snow

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Stable versions policy

body:
Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) wrote:

>On 12/21/05, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Articles are continuously edited over time. As time goes on, ever-newer
>>versions
>>will be marked as the stable version which is first shown to the public.
>>
>>
>Yes, but only after lengthened amounts of consensus...
>
>
>>If that means "no-one could edit them", then we already have that model! You
>>can't change a given revision on Wikipedia; you can only make a new
>>revision
>>based on it.
>>
>>But even worse, today when we freeze an article to show a stable revision,
>>*nobody* can edit it except an elite cabal of sysops. Is that "open"? Is
>>that
>>"free"?
>>
>>
>I haven't yet heard of anyone freezing an article to create a stable
>version. The concept of a stable version doesn't yet exist.
>
If you read Brion's message carefully, you will realize that the concept
of stable versions he refers to in the present system are commonly
called "protected pages". I trust you have heard of those.

--Michael Snow


from_name: Thomas Gries

subject:
[Wikitech-l]
	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_wiki_software

body:
I updated that page.
- because MediaWiki is now at version 1.5.3, and
- has email notification built-in (even when this is still disabled on
the major project sites).
T.


body:
Matt Brown wrote:

> Do you think that paragraph should be rewritten to be wholly from the
> perspective of how current editors should behave?  If so, we should
> create a new document from the perspective of 'So, you find someone's
> written about you on Wikipedia ...'
> And [[Wikipedia:Autobiography]] is not it, at least not in its current form.

A third one? Could do. What to call it?

[[Wikipedia:So you've just found the article about you ...]]

- d.


body:
Andrew Gray wrote:

> These will not be difficult to spot and delete :-). A handy cheat is
> to ensure the text template contains [[Category:Unchecked
> articles]]... or, for that matter, that it's automatically appended to
> the page afterwards.

I'd just put it in the template ;-)

- d.


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Obstetrician needed for 7 new Wikipedias

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>> Hoi,
>> Actually you misunderstand me. When you mix standards and the
>> difference between those standards disappears because of restraints
>> that YOU are under, it means that what you do is not up to standard.
>> Consequently it cannot be said that we implement the ISO-639 codes.
>> When we adopt the ISO-639-3 codes we have the SIL information
>> included. It is a custom to keep the two character ISO-639-1 codes as
>> well. This is in my opinion the only way out of this mess. NB We have
>> been using these codes already for over a year in Wiktionary.
>>
>> Yes I know. URL's are case insensitive. We can implement ISO-639-3
>> and we should do this. NB there are even standard formats to indicate
>> that a certain script is used as there are ISO codes for those too
>> (ISO 15924).
>>
>> So we either adopt a standard and do it right or we should not say
>> that we adopt a standard. If you want an official statement as to the
>> stability of the ISO-639-3, I think that I can get you that.
>
> One also needs to remember that ISO 639-3 still reserves a block of
> codes beginning with the letter "q" tha are user defined.  These can
> be used for languages that are not included in the standard.  The
> languages where that would be needed are not going to be the most
> popular or best known, and are unlikely to become big wikia.  If at
> some future time thay are given a standard code conversion should not
> be a huge operation.
>
> Ec
Hoi,
Many of the current Wiktionaries make use of the ISO-639-3 codes. Here
there is no relevance  as to the size of a prospective Wiki. We use the
code to indicate that a word is in a given language. I have extended the
data design of Ultimate Wiktionary to include room for a translation
framework. The idea is that is will help us manage the translation the
Mediawiki messages. Given that UW will be a Mediawiki application and
that we want the localisation for the languages that make use of it
(basically all of them) we need a way to manage the translations in a
structured way..

Please have a look at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Wiktionary_data_design#Managing_translations_for_Wikidata_and_other_fixed_texts
and give me your questions, your comments.

Thanks,
    GerardM


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Improve quality by reviewing all new articles

body:
Geoff Burling wrote:

>On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Stan Shebs wrote:
>
>
>
>>Heh, I guarantee you that I could create a ichthyological whopper,
>>pun intended, with pictures and citations from some of the rarer
>>books in my personal library, and it will slip right by you, plus
>>everyone else who doesn't happen to have those books to check. I bet
>>I could even get it into the day's DYK!
>>
>>But if you don't know enough to evaluate, say, the plausibility of
>>an article about the popular home aquarium fish Melanocetus, I'm
>>not going to take that as evidence you should not be editing the
>>encyclopedia; it just means that no one person can know enough to
>>be able to make accurate quick judgments on each new article. We
>>need better teamwork, not just individual prowess.
>>
>>
>One tool that I'm a little surprised that isn't used more often is
>to check whether any links exist to a supicious article. While this
>property is not entirely foolproof (a prankster can insert links
>either before or immediately after creating the article), this lack
>of reference to relevant articles will convince me to at least flag
>the article until I can find a way to conclusively prove its
>validity -- or arguable importance.
>
>Of course, this leads to the question if an article cannot be found
>by a casual reader then why should we care. Or maybe the Seigenthaler
>incident has already answered that.
>
When there are no links to an article, the subject is more likely to
find the article than anybody else. - He'll put his name in the
searchbox just to see if he's listed.  Why can't that kind of low llevel
vanity exist in high places?

Ec


body:
Mark Gallagher wrote:

> I pride myself on my knowledge of American history (it beats your
> knowledge of Australia, guaranteed), but there's no way in hell I'd
> have found anything suspect in him being implicated in the JFK
> assassination.   Thousands of alternative theories have been proposed,
> and how should a university student from Australia know if the name of
> some obscure American was or was not included amongst those theories?
> How about someone from Canada, the UK, Romania, France, New Zealand,
> South Africa, Brasil, Russia ... ?  How --- *why* --- should we know?

We Canadians do manage better the rest of you lot on that score.  I just
love it when a Canadian contestant on "Jeopardy" runs a US history
category, and leaves the citizens in the dust. 8-)

Ec


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Checkuser for all admins

body:
On 12/20/05, Sam Fentress (Asbestos) <asbestos999 at gmail.com> wrote:
> This may have been discussed before. If so, apologies.
>
> Why not make the checkuser function available to all admins? There are
> constant allegations of sockpuppetry, and I'm sure there are plenty of cases
> of ballot-stuffing or fake-consensus-building which go unnoticed because
> someone's suspicions weren't enough to both a developer with. Having the
> function available to all admins would cut down on a lot of this
> underhandedness.
>
> If there is a problem concerning privacy, such as making IP addresses
> available (I'm not sure exactly what the checkuser funcion shows), when
> couldn't it be modified  to only show which users have been created by the
> same IP (i.e., put in a name, and it shows you the other users)
>
> If there is a problem concerning privacy for legitamate uses of alternate
> accounts, such as keeping edits separate or not wanting to be stalked by
> another user, then I'm sure it couldn't be too hard to modify the code to
> show only those sockpuppets that have edited the same page. Even if we
> accept that there are legitamate uses for alternate accounts, such accounts
> ought never to edit the same page.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Sam
>

Cheackuser is pretty useless if you can't see IPs (are they the same
person or are they from the same uni for example). We have a lot of
admins. Frankly better safe than sorry.

Here is the full list of admins:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Listusers&group=sysop&limit=800&offset=0

How much do you really know about these people?

--
geni


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Stable versions policy

body:
On 12/20/05, Magnus Manske <magnus.manske at web.de> wrote:
>
> Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) wrote:
>
> >
> >Finally, I'd just like to let everyone remember where Wikipedia started.
> >The factor that's distinguished Wikipedia from basically every other
> >reference work on Earth has been its *absolutely* open nature.
> >Anyone can edit it! That's what's worked so well in ensuring such
> >a dynamic, comprehensive, deep and updated encyclopedia.
> >
> >
> And with stable versions, that would change how?
> (Yes, it's a trick question: it wouldn't.)
>
> Magnus

Oh, it would change very significantly. Under the first model, if stable
versions are to be locked, then obviously no-one could edit them, thus going
against the principle of Wikipedia. If the second proposal is to be adopted,
which involves creating a new namespace/subpage for stable versions, it
would still reduce the freedom of editors. Wikipedia was founded on the
principle that *anyone* could edit the encyclopedia, and that their edits
would be immediately seen. If the stable versions proposal becomes policy,
there will be two versions of each article. Of course, the stable version
would become the most respected version, while the "open" version would
become sort of a draft. Therefore, when someone makes an edit to the
editable version, his edit won't be immediately reflected in the stored
version, even if it's an update. And when there's two versions of an
article, readers will always choose the stable version, and thus, any edits
to the editable version basically become unnecessary until they become
incorporated into a new stable version, which according to the proposal,
takes a large amount of consensus. Thus, Wikipedia's open, immediate nature
becomes very cumbersome and it would become sort of like a Nupedia - a
peer-reviewed encyclopedia instead of a true open encyclopedia.

I think the proponents of these policies hide behind the fact that they are
only "minor changes", but I think that all of the new proposals - from
banning anons from creating articles, to semi-protection to stable versions,
are all slippery-slope attempts to somehow make Wikipedia more restricted to
combat vandalism. Combating vandalism is a worthy cause, but freedom comes
first. We're the free encyclopedia, after all.

Ronline


subject: [WikiEN-l] Now we're a cult ...

body:
Fastfission wrote:

>If people arguing on the internet means they have been inducted into a
>cult, then I'd better be off to get the Kool-Aid ready...
>
>FF
>
>On 12/17/05, charles matthews <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Charles Arthur (The Independent, London) this Thursday:
>>
>>http://technology.guardian.co.uk/opinion/story/0,16541,1667346,00.html .
>>
>>Charles
>>
We do have our Wikiholics. :-)

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Parascience subst. pseudoscience

body:
David Gerard wrote:

>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>
>>20,000 Google hits is not a characteristic of a neologism.
>>The difference is that "parascience" assumes good faith;
>>"pseudoscioence" does not.
>>
>>
>The other difference is that, as you'll see if you look through the
>search results, "parascience" has a different meaning entirely: the
>paranormal and [[anomalous phenomena]].
>
Yes, I did have that concern, which is why I would prefer the broader
term "alternat[iv]e science.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Checkuser for all admins

body:
On 20/12/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:

> Here is the full list of admins:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Listusers&group=sysop&limit=800&offset=0
>
> How much do you really know about these people?

743! Goodness, admin growth is fast - I remember noticing the
milestone of 500 back in July...

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


from_name: stevertigo

subject: [WikiEN-l] Checkuser for all admins

body:
--- Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com> wrote:

> Do you really trust all admins that much?

Certainly not. And I must say dont trust most Arbcom
members all that much either.

> > If there is a problem concerning privacy, such as
making IP addresses
> > available
> I use CheckUser on a regular basis, and to be honest
this would be
> insufficient to make effective use of the CheckUser
tool.

The point is to have some openness to the process.
Which users are these priveleged elite checking up on?
Thats what the public should know, provided any
specifically private data (like IP addresses) is
removed -- which is trivial to do.

> We have six editors with CheckUser rights on en (not
including stewards and developers); if more are needed
the
> Arbitration Committee may choose to extend CheckUser
rights to additional parties.  Until such time as the
ArbCom is convinced >of the need, it'll stay at six.

Thats sounds reasonable, but just for the record, when
exactly was the Arbcom empowered to grant this access
to specific users, and did this change follow the
normal protocol (ie. a decree)?

-Stevertigo

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


from_name: The Cunctator

body:
On 12/20/05, stevertigo <vertigosteve at yahoo.com> wrote:
> They seem to forget that NPOV is largely based on the
> use of relatively neutral terms, and that while the
> term "pseudoscience" has its place, and its not clear
> that it doesnt have too much of a place in Wikipedia.
> Why dont we use derogatively racist or sexist terms in
> writing articles? Social propriety? No, because the
> term itself is in violation of NPOV, and shapes any
> discussion around the term in a way which makes NPOV
> writing difficult.

I think the above displays the fundamental misunderstanding in
stevertigo's argument. The neutral point of view is *not* largely
based on the use of relatively neutral terms.

It is largely based on the use of accurate, specific, definable terms.

We don't use derogatively racist or sexist terms because they're
generally ill-defined, non-specific, and slang. But we do use terms
like [[Black]] and [[African-American]] in articles like [[Bill
Cosby]]. Note that those terms are defined.

Again, we use racial epithets where appropriate (e.g. the [[Richard
Pryor]] article, which I had to edit, since it failed to mention that
he was black...) and link to definitions.

Stevertigo may find it really upsetting that pseudoscience is the
accepted term for stuff that seems scientific but isn't (or isn't
accepted by scientists as scientific), but Wikipedia is not the place
to try to change culture to a person's way of thinking.


body:
--- The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/20/05, stevertigo wrote:
>> They seem to forget that NPOV is largely based on
the use of relatively neutral terms... Why dont we use
derogatively racist or sexist terms in writing
articles? Social propriety? No, because the term
itself is in violation of NPOV, and shapes any
discussion >>around the term in a way which makes NPOV
>>writing difficult.

> I think the above displays the fundamental
> misunderstanding in stevertigo's argument. The
neutral point of view is *not* largely based on the
use of relatively neutral >terms. It is largely based
on the use of
> accurate, specific, definable terms.

I believe (and responses may bear this out) that the
"fundamental misunderstanding" is yours. We can all
agree with "based on accurate, specific, definable
terms," but to say that choosing neutral terms is not
an element NPOV writing (or actually Good writing)
carries the problem of being largely incorrect.

> We don't use derogatively racist or sexist terms
because they're generally ill-defined, >non-specific,
and slang. But we do use
> terms like [[Black]] and >[[African-American]] in
articles like [[Bill >Cosby]]. Note that those terms
are defined.

True, but NPOV is a rather simple and powerful concept
which can solve the issue of terms quite definitively:
Does the term color the argument in a POV way for the
context of the article? Each of your given criteria
are subjective ("ill-defined, non-specific, and
slang"), and because each requires explanation,
qualification, and interpretation, lacks the basic and
powerful simplicity that an NPOV-based argument does
not lack.

> Again, we use racial epithets where appropriate
(e.g. the [[Richard Pryor]] article, which I had to
edit, since it failed to mention that he was black...)
and link to definitions.

Yes, in context. Pseudoscience appears to be used in a
general way which does not contain the term in
appropriate qualification and reference.

> Stevertigo may find it really upsetting that
pseudoscience is the
> accepted term for stuff that seems >scientific but
isn't (or isn't accepted by >scientists as
scientific), but

Yes, it has a definition -- one which is appropriate
to use in contexts of fraudulent science. But calling
something fraudulent is more definitive (and precise -
ie. 'well-defined, specific, and non-slang') than
calling something "pseudoscience" which after a
hundred thread-count discussion, still appears to be
not much more than an socially-acceptable epithet (in
these circles anyway).

'Cant make stuff up:' I can point out cases ('Iraq
disarmament crisis' comes to mind) where the term (the
name of an article even) that was most neutral (i.e.
acceptable to consensus) was one that someone (me in
that case) happened to conjure up. Wikipedia's 'global
localism' in a sense makes using neologisms proper,
when the common terms demonstrably fail to meet NPOV.
As of 2005, the world still contains localist cultures
and concepts --all of which are bound to have
conflicts (in a global context) with a
globalist-universalist ethos like NPOV. NPOV is a
rational too for resolving these, and special cases at
times require special terms.

> Wikipedia is not the place to try to >change culture
to a person's way of >thinking.

Giving 'all people free access to a wealth of
knowledge' doesnt have anything to do 'changing the
way people think?'  What have I been thinking all
these years?  Yikes! I should probably just go
somewhere else then.

Stevertigo

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


body:
David Gerard wrote:

>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>
>>The difference is that "parascience" assumes good faith;
>>"pseudoscioence" does not.
>>
>>
>And by the way, "pseudoscience" does not imply bad faith; it implies
>incompetence. The pseudoscientist frequently takes the label as a
>personal attack because they literally do not understand why what they
>do is not science at all, even though they sincerely believe in what
>they are doing.
>
>    http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-05/new-age.html
>
>- an article on why so many New Age advocates exhibit the reasoning
>skills of cheese. And feel so put-upon when people who know what science
>is point and say "pseudoscience": they literally don't understand what's
>pseudo- about it.
>
I have no significant problems with McLaren's article.  She's especially
right about the debate being a clash of cultures.  She does not use the
word "pseudoscience" even once in the entire article.  Her reference to
other words like "quack" or "fraud" is only to point out the damage that
such vocabulary can cause.  So when you want to insist on keeping the
word "pseudoscience" I begin to wonder whether you have seriously read
the very article that you recommend.

If "pseudoscience" implies incompetence that applies equally to the two
sides.  Why shouldn't they feel put-upon when you use such offensive
terminology to describe them.  Do the so-called scientists who use the
term "pseudo-" understand what's pseudo- any better.  Very few have made
any attempt to understand what they're talking about.

If the divide that McLaren so aptly describes is ever going to be
bridged its not going to be by name calling, but by respecting  the
views of others without judgement.  Only then can there be any progress
toward common solutions.

Ec


body:
Delirium wrote:

> David Gerard wrote:
>
>> And by the way, "pseudoscience" does not imply bad faith; it implies
>> incompetence. The pseudoscientist frequently takes the label as a
>> personal attack because they literally do not understand why what they
>> do is not science at all, even though they sincerely believe in what
>> they are doing.
>
> Well, it really is a personal attack; it means something akin to what
> "quack" means in medicine.  It occasionally gets slung around among
> scientists, especially when getting into flamewars about the relative
> merits of various of the "soft sciences", and is rarely considered
> anything but an attack.  For example, if I were to say, "although it
> uses many statistics, sociology is more of a pseudoscience than a
> proper science", it's pretty clearly an overt attack on sociology.

Now that McLaren is a convert it wouldn't do for them to criticize her
plans to get a "real" degree in sociology. :-)

Ec


body:
Fastfission wrote:

>The way to get around POV problems is not to create new terms, but to
>properly attribute the POV.
>
>Instead of saying "X is Y", you write, "X is considered Y by Z". NPOV,
>no problem. Changing it to "X is Q" changes nothing and misses the
>point.
>
Yes, aqssuming that "Z" is properly referenced so that the reader can go
to that source to determine whether Z gave any evidence for his point of
view.  Tracing these sources could be a tough job.

Ec