from_name: Marjon Bakker

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia, Kennisnet, and me

body:
Hi all,

You probably do not know me, I'm Galwaygirl from the Dutch Wikipedia and
I have some news to tell you. I went to Wikimania and I met Jan-Bart de
Vreede and Annemiek Nederpel from the Kennisnet Foundation (the Internet
organisation for Dutch schools). Jan-Bart was a speaker at Wikimania.
(http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimania05/Presentation-JB1)

The week after Wikimania, Jan-Bart asked me to go to work for Kennisnet.
Kennisnet has some initiatives regarding ways to use Wikipedia in
classrooms. Jan-Bart was looking for someone from the Dutch Wikipedia
community to work with.

That someone turned out to be me, much to my surprise. So now I'm
working for Kennisnet as a part-time freelancer (yes, I'm getting paid).
I will be working on my own account, not as a representative of the
nl.wikipedia community, although it may sometimes prove impossible to
keep things absolutely separate.

There are several things I will be doing for Kennisnet, basically it
comes down to this:
*I'll write a simple, easy-to-use manual that Kennisnet can make
available for students and teachers. This manual could be published on
the Dutch Wikipedia as well.
*I'll participate in talks about how to use Wikipedia in classrooms.
*When Wikipedia is actually starting to get used in classrooms, I will
answer specific questions from both students and teachers.

I thought this might interest some of you. Personally, I'm really exited
about this, as it is a wonderful turn in my "career". :-)

Thanks for your attention,

Regards,

Galwaygirl
(http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gebruiker:Galwaygirl)


list: wikimedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Timwi

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Wiki dump organization

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
>
> First, "since 23rd June" and "past 23rd June" mean about the same thing.

He meant "until 23rd June" or "before 23rd June". He made the same
mistake three times, and it was obvious at least to me what he meant.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Time spent in page rendering

body:
Evan Martin wrote:
>
> Why not cache prerendered versions of all pages?

As Brion already mentioned, we're already doing this, but even more:

> One tricky part is that writes to page B can affect page A if page A
> has a link to B.  A reverse index of links would solve this, though I
> don't know how bit it'd be.

We have a table, 'links' I think, which stores all links between pages.
The 'from' of each link is the numerical page ID (so we don't need to
update it when the page is moved), and the 'to' is the namespace and
title (so we don't need to update it either when a page is moved because
we really do want the link to continue to go to the old title). The only
overhead incurred is that when saving an edit, we need to update this
table with the links that were added or removed from the article, and
when an article gets deleted links to the deleted page may need to be
moved to 'brokenlinks' (another table; its purpose should be obvious
now) and links from that deleted page need to be deleted.

So yeah, we already have a reverse index of links, and we already use it
in a lot of places (the most user-visible one being
[[Special:Whatlinkshere]]).

There are separate tables for 'categorylinks', 'imagelinks' and others
that I can't think of now.

Timwi


list: foundation-l

from_name: Sabine Cretella

body:
Hi Marjon,

this is really great news :-)

Please keep me updated about this - I had a teacher from a grammar
school asking me about using wikipedia and the other projects in the
classroom and I already told him a bit about Kennisnet (he is member of
one of the translator's lists I am a member of, that's why we are
connected). I suppose it will be very important to learn form your and
your colleagues experiences. Maybe it would be also a good idea to get
you two into direct contact.

And I know, teaching is fun - so really: have fun :-)

Ciao, Sabine

Marjon Bakker wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> You probably do not know me, I'm Galwaygirl from the Dutch Wikipedia
> and I have some news to tell you. I went to Wikimania and I met
> Jan-Bart de Vreede and Annemiek Nederpel from the Kennisnet Foundation
> (the Internet organisation for Dutch schools). Jan-Bart was a speaker
> at Wikimania.
> (http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimania05/Presentation-JB1)
>
> .....

> I thought this might interest some of you. Personally, I'm really
> exited about this, as it is a wonderful turn in my "career". :-)
>
> Thanks for your attention,
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Galwaygirl
> (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gebruiker:Galwaygirl)

___________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger: chiamate gratuite in tutto il mondo
http://it.beta.messenger.yahoo.com


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Assisting Google's language recognition?

body:
Dori wrote:
> On 9/10/05, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
>
>>Evan Martin wrote:
>>
>>>We've upped the rate a bit.  Please let me know if it causes any problems.
>>
>>You're making this sound like you work for Google and have some say or
>>control over this, but you seem to specifically avoid saying this
>>explicitly (or I missed it). Could you clarify this?
>
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2005-August/031229.html

Thanks!


body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> Jeremy Dunck wrote:
>
>> According to the hardware orders page[1], a major bottleneck is page
>> rendering.
>>
>> Does any phase of this stand out?  DB fetch?  Text parse?
>> Request/Response bandwidth?
>
> Depends on the page. On most pages the biggest chunks of rendering time
> are in handling links. (On most pages most of the markup is links, so...)

Do we still query the database for all these links to decide whether
they exist and (depending on user settings) whether they are stubs? As I
recall, someone once had an idea to write a simple, light-weight daemon
for this that uses a dictionary data structure (I presume they were
thinking of a DAWG (directed acyclic word graph)) for this.

There are many algorithms available to generate DAWGs; I wrote one in
Java once, but it's slow, you can probably find a faster one in a faster
language. Or has this idea been scrapped for some reason?

Timwi


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: new mailing list: issues-l

body:
Lars Aronsson wrote:
> Kate wrote:
>
>>i have create a new mailing list, issues-l
>>(http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/issues-l).  notifications of
>>new site issues will be sent to this list.  developers might want to
>>subscribe to it.
>
> What stupid name is that for a list, and what on earth are "new
> site issues" supposed to mean?  A have an issue with this name.
> Doesn't wikitech handle technical issues, foundation-l handles
> policy issues, and juriwiki-l legal issues?  Search
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_list for the word issue,
> and it pops up on every mailing list there is.

I completely agree. I also don't get what this does that this mailing
list and BugZilla (in combination) don't already do.

This is not to say that it's a bad idea or anything, just that I don't
understand the idea, and that the name "issues-l" does not give me the
slightest clue.

Timwi


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Phroziac

subject: [Wikipedia-l] new request for ASL/English wikipedia

body:
What about making a font with pictures of hands doing the signs, and
making users download that?

On 9/10/05, Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/8/05, Phroziac <phroziac at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Uhm, why does that need it's own wiki? Couldn't the videos just be
> > added to en wiki?
> > And also, can't most deaf people (in english speaking countries)
> > read/write english?
>
> ASL is not English.  It has its own distinct grammar and vocabulary.
> But I question whether videos of signed language are worth the
> bandwidth and space required to store them.
>
> Kelly
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
signature


list: wikien-l

from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Cruft

body:
Personally I hate the word "cruft". It has been said earlier. One
person's cruft is another person's essential info. We don't
neccessarily need to sweep it up and hide it, but I don't think we
should have a bunch of mediocre stubs hanging around when in the case
of Pokemon they can be put in a list and break out if there's actually
a good amount of info for an article.

I'd also like the fact that there's a general page creation attitude.
People prefer creating articles over improving existing ones, which
means a lot of minor facts and bits of information are put in their
own stubs when, really, they could be helpful in helping along an
existing article.

We should encourage people to find a home for their factoids in
existing articles and cut down on stubs where possible and needed.

True stubs can be improved, but when you're article ends up at AfD,
you already made a mistake. Good stubs have enough info to show the
subject can sustain a seperate article.

I've ranted enough for now,
Sleep tight.

Mgm

On 9/10/05, James D. Forrester <james at jdforrester.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Phroziac wrote:
> > Anyone in favor of banning the word cruft from vfd? They might as well
> > just be saying crap...
>
> Seconded.
>
> Oh, and top-posting should be made a bannable offence. :-)
>
> ~~~~
> - --
> James D. Forrester
> Wikimedia : [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]
> E-Mail    : james at jdforrester.org
> IM (MSN)  : jamesdforrester at hotmail.com
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFDIzMzkn3kUxZyJx0RApAAAJ45+OFed7U4rohgutdyQP6+cVY7qQCgjeAn
> tGMvSEGIxHbUyIio8182Ob4=
> =BRg2
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
Oh, wow. Well, just ignore my complete and total ignorance of ASL.

On 9/10/05, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> That would be like making a font with every single English word as a
> separate letter.
>
> Not feasible.
>
> Mark
>
> On 10/09/05, Phroziac <phroziac at gmail.com> wrote:
> > What about making a font with pictures of hands doing the signs, and
> > making users download that?
> >
> > On 9/10/05, Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 9/8/05, Phroziac <phroziac at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Uhm, why does that need it's own wiki? Couldn't the videos just be
> > > > added to en wiki?
> > > > And also, can't most deaf people (in english speaking countries)
> > > > read/write english?
> > >
> > > ASL is not English.  It has its own distinct grammar and vocabulary.
> > > But I question whether videos of signed language are worth the
> > > bandwidth and space required to store them.
> > >
> > > Kelly
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > signature
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
> QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
> POSSIT MATERIARI
> ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
signature


body:
Jeremy Dunck wrote:
> On 9/10/05, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
>
>>Do we still query the database for all these links to decide whether
>>they exist and (depending on user settings) whether they are stubs? As I
>>recall, someone once had an idea to write a simple, light-weight daemon
>>for this that uses a dictionary data structure (I presume they were
>>thinking of a DAWG (directed acyclic word graph)) for this.
>
> I'm not familiar with DAWG, but why wouldn't a nested sparse hash work?
> link[from-id][to-title] = 0 if no link, 1 if link.

Well, firstly, we're not interested in links between pages here, but
merely in whether a page exists and if so, whether a page is a "stub".

The answer to your question is that a hash table uses much more memory.
It says on the page you linked to that it has "2 bits per entry
overhead", so the entire hash table would be the size of the list of all
article titles plus 2 bits times the number of articles. A DAWG is
usually much smaller than the size of the list of all entries.

The downside, of course, is that in a hash you can store any value with
all the keys, while a DAWG is just a binary (yes/no) decider.

Timwi


from_name: Ryan Norton

subject: [WikiEN-l] Article deletion

body:
>>
>
> So you don't think that any articles need to be deleted (outside of
> candidates for speedy deletion), ever?
>

You realize you just described what a wiki is right there...

> Thanks,
RN


subject: [WikiEN-l] Article deletion

body:
(Well, the wikiway, anyway)

Ryan


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Wikipedia-l] New request for Cantonese Wikipedia: vote at 29-6

body:
Mark Williamson wrote:

>Fuzzyhead, I encourage you to re-read the forwarded message.
>
>Perhaps you see it in terms of "Chinese Wikipedia" and "Chinese
>language issues", however the reality is very different.
>
>Somebody who was born with and has always lived with Mandarin is just
>as much an interested or a disinterested party as Jimbo, David Gerard,
>Angela, or Ray Saintonge.
>
Hmmm!  I have not significantly participated in this discussion except
in the occasional side discussion.  I hope that my failure to so act is
consistent with the level of new light that I can cast on the subject.

>I think
>I'm going to do some tipping off of my own if you don't mind (or even
>if you do), as so far the poll seems to indicate that non-Chinese are
>much more in favour of a separate Cantonese WP.
>
That's ominous.

Ec


from_name: Fastfission

subject: legal paranoia (was Re: [WikiEN-l] Encarta article list)

body:
Well, that's implicit in any reasoned legal judgment about these things.
It's not just a case of whether one would win on the merits in the end or
not, it's whether the opponent has good reason to think that they might win
as well. If that's the case, you're in trouble no matter how it goes down,
unless you've got a lot of money to burn for a the purposes of principle.
The goal of all of our work should be to keep ourselves not only in a
situation where we would win should we ever go to court, but also so that
the people who would have motivation to sue us would have no reason to
believe they could win.

This is why I consider our "fair use" policy in general to be preemptive --
it's a policy of announcing, "Hey, this is what we'll say, and we'll
probably win, so don't even try it." It's as close as we can get, in the
confines of the current copyright law, of being at all secure in these
things, since "fair use" is only a defensive claim (you can't sue somebody
for obstructing your "fair use" of their materials, as a counter-example).

If the legal-types think that Encarta or whomever would have a good reason
to think they could win such a case, then I'd defer to them. These lists are
probably useful but they aren't essential to the project, and the principle
they stand for is not, in my mind, really something worth the hassle (in
comparison with the other things this project stands for).

FF

On 9/10/05, steve v <vertigosteve at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I wonder to what degree some of the lawyers (the
> cautious half) were taking into consideration the
> pragmatic issue of getting drowned in legal fees,
> rather than the legal merits of the issue.
>
> A commie (as in 'mercial) encyclopedia might have an
> interest in suing Wikipedia, even if it is on the
> apparent flimsy basis of a claimed "derivative work,"
> (from a list, no less).
>
> I hear lawyers can cost a lot of money.
> SV
>
> --- Andrew Lih <andrew.lih at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 8/18/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
> > wrote:
> > > Andrew Lih wrote:
> > >
> > > >For example, as part of my research, I have
> > several "article lists"
> > > >from Encarta, Britannica and some other CD-ROM
> > encyclopedias, but I've
> > > >hesitated to make them public or contribute them
> > to WP, for exactly
> > > >this reason. Talking to a few lawyer folks on my
> > campus has
> > > >effectively convinced me I would not have a
> > strong case for fair
> > > >use/fair dealing. I'm willing to (and would like
> > to be) proved wrong.
> > > >
> > > But the only way to prove you wrong would involve
> > having the whole
> > > matter end up in court.
> >
> > I know, case law sucks, doesn't it? Such is the
> > nature of fair use. :)
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
> http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: charles matthews

subject: [WikiEN-l] Article deletion

body:
It has never been pretty; but the current complaints on the deletion
mechanism seem to be about Gresham's Law.  Roughly speaking, the 'clueless
newbie' approach is orthogonal to the 'right stuff' for the job, which is to
know what help constructs WP, and what is fluff or actually detrimental.

What to do?  If GL is the basis reason - the people with informed judgement
being also those who can easily find better things to do on the site, then
it needs configuring.  Subdivide by type of reason for deletion?  By area of
topic?  A smaller 'room' can be a friendlier atmosphere.

It seems to me that a basic point that borderline cases are _not_ the most
significant; a marginal keep is one that is not great for WP.

Charles


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Cruft

body:
> but because it is
> used in a way to imply that people who think things are not notable are
> basing the standard of notability on a notion of physical limitations.
> It
> becomes hollow and meaningless; it becomes synonymous with the error of
> thinking that just because you *can* have an article about every
> elementary
> school in the country means that you *should*.
>
> Wikipedia is not paper... but it still is an encyclopedia!
>
Yes, but you do realize a lot of this "cruft", esp. the misc facts in
articles are what helps make wikipedia popular/interesting :)?

Ryan


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: One Where We Blew It

body:
Nobody's protesting the use of *humor* of course. But the nomination should
at least be comprehensible. It's really not that much harder to write
"Clearly a vanity page; non-notable bartender in Eugene, Oregon" than it is
to write "vanity". It's clearly not efficiency which is driving poor
nominations.

FF

On 9/10/05, Geoff Burling <llywrch at agora.rdrop.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Phroziac wrote:
>
> > What really bugs me is the deletionists who don't just say to delete
> > it and tell why. They have to include personal attacks, and lame
> > comments that just tend to make people mad. I've even witnessed admins
> > doing this.
> >
> I see your point, Phroziac, but there are a couple of other issues
> to consider:
>
> * A surprising number of times, an article listed on AfD so squarely
> (& if I may say it, routinely) fits the criteria that the entire
> argument for deletion can be summed up in one or two words. An article
> about (for example) a bartender in Eugene, Oregon that mixes a mean
> gimlet is not worth an entry in Wikipedia based on that information
> alone; depending on my mood at the time, I might explain that tending
> bar does not make a person worthy of inclusion, or just label it as
> "vanity" & move on to the next item.
>
> * Many times, again, the reasons for deletion are so clear that
> there is little more to be said. If I encounter a situation like this
> would it be better to write "Delete. I agree" after my vote than to just
> add "Delete"?
>
> * Some of these nominations for deletion are so poorly written that
> they beg to be made fun of -- or otherwise get under my skin. I find
> that I tend to respond to these nominees much in the spirit that they
> are written in: if a vanity article is written in Leet Speak, I'll
> likely substitute one or two e's with a "3" in my a comment. If an
> article is written professionally, I'll give it more respect.
>
> * One thing that puzzles me is that if an article is nominated for
> failing to establish notability, but the subject is notable & this
> claim is repeated on AfD, then why doesn't the articles' supporters
> make the needed improvements to the article immediately? Not only
> would this immediately improve Wikipedia for end users, but it may
> accelerate a consensus towards Keep? (I've withdrawn nominations
> for articles in these cases.)
>
> * And lastly, sometimes I contribute a vote/opinion about an article
> if only one or two other persons have contributed, even if all I
> have written is "Delete": I don't want someone wikilawyering a clear
> choice for deletion because not enough people have expressed an
> opinion about the article. (And I've made the opposite contribution,
> too.)
>
> In short, sometimes a detailed argument is needed on AfD; other times,
> it's a case of "Fish. Barrel. Gun."
>
> Geoff
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Cruft

body:
>
> "Wiki is not paper" is often cited -- but it's a stronger argument for
> merging information than leaving small articles separate: since Wiki
> is not paper, redirects are easy, and we do not have to worry about
> someone having to pull out separate volumes and flip pages if directed
> elsewhere. We don't have to make sure there's a scrap of information
> at every conceivable search term; that's what redirects and the search
> function are for. Articles that are "cruft" on their own (and I do try
> to use the term only jokingly!) can be a helpful bit of detail in a
> larger picture.

"Wiki is not paper" is such an unfortunate phrase. Not because of what it
stands for -- the fact that we're actually *not* limited by physical
informational constraints, which is a wonderful thing -- but because it is
used in a way to imply that people who think things are not notable are
basing the standard of notability on a notion of physical limitations. It
becomes hollow and meaningless; it becomes synonymous with the error of
thinking that just because you *can* have an article about every elementary
school in the country means that you *should*.

Wikipedia is not paper... but it still is an encyclopedia!

FF


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] SVG re-enabled

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> I've turned SVG upload and rendering back off for now.
>
> rsvg/librsvg doesn't seem to provide any ability to shut off inclusions
> of image files from the filesystem, nor does the current filter prevent
> such uploads. This could be abused at a minimum to read an image with a
> known filename from the restricted internal wiki, given knowledge of the
> filesystem layout on the server (which is easy to get given our open
> documentation).

I've hacked in an embargo on external file references in librsvg, so
it's back on. Whee!

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: One Where We Blew It

body:
I can agree, but i wasn't actually referring to that. I'm referring to
things like (and directly quoting here)...

Get a grip.
Wow. I thought this was an encyclopedia.
Next will be an article on the old lady who gives out boxes of raisins
instead of candy on Halloween.

On 9/10/05, Geoff Burling <llywrch at agora.rdrop.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Phroziac wrote:
>
> > What really bugs me is the deletionists who don't just say to delete
> > it and tell why. They have to include personal attacks, and lame
> > comments that just tend to make people mad. I've even witnessed admins
> > doing this.
> >
> I see your point, Phroziac, but there are a couple of other issues
> to consider:
>
> * A surprising number of times, an article listed on AfD so squarely
> (& if I may say it, routinely) fits the criteria that the entire
> argument for deletion can be summed up in one or two words. An article
> about (for example) a bartender in Eugene, Oregon that mixes a mean
> gimlet is not worth an entry in Wikipedia based on that information
> alone; depending on my mood at the time, I might explain that tending
> bar does not make a person worthy of inclusion, or just label it as
> "vanity" & move on to the next item.
>
> * Many times, again, the reasons for deletion are so clear that
> there is little more to be said. If I encounter a situation like this
> would it be better to write "Delete. I agree" after my vote than to just
> add "Delete"?
>
> * Some of these nominations for deletion are so poorly written that
> they beg to be made fun of -- or otherwise get under my skin. I find
> that I tend to respond to these nominees much in the spirit that they
> are written in: if a vanity article is written in Leet Speak, I'll
> likely substitute one or two e's with a "3" in my a comment. If an
> article is written professionally, I'll give it more respect.
>
> * One thing that puzzles me is that if an article is nominated for
> failing to establish notability, but the subject is notable & this
> claim is repeated on AfD, then why doesn't the articles' supporters
> make the needed improvements to the article immediately? Not only
> would this immediately improve Wikipedia for end users, but it may
> accelerate a consensus towards Keep? (I've withdrawn nominations
> for articles in these cases.)
>
> * And lastly, sometimes I contribute a vote/opinion about an article
> if only one or two other persons have contributed, even if all I
> have written is "Delete": I don't want someone wikilawyering a clear
> choice for deletion because not enough people have expressed an
> opinion about the article. (And I've made the opposite contribution,
> too.)
>
> In short, sometimes a detailed argument is needed on AfD; other times,
> it's a case of "Fish. Barrel. Gun."
>
> Geoff
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
signature


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

body:
Phroziac wrote:

>What about making a font with pictures of hands doing the signs, and
>making users download that?
>
>
Hoi,
Sign languages are more complicated than just pictures of hands. Facial
expressions are part of the language. So making a font is not
applicable. By the way, there is a font for "wording". So it is possible
to show this text in a font with hands indicating the characters.

Thanks,
    GerardM

>On 9/10/05, Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On 9/8/05, Phroziac <phroziac at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Uhm, why does that need it's own wiki? Couldn't the videos just be
>>>added to en wiki?
>>>And also, can't most deaf people (in english speaking countries)
>>>read/write english?
>>>
>>>
>>ASL is not English.  It has its own distinct grammar and vocabulary.
>>But I question whether videos of signed language are worth the
>>bandwidth and space required to store them.
>>
>>Kelly
>>


from_name: Angela

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Fwd: RE: request for permission to use a screen shot
	from a digital map to illustrate an article on wikipedia

body:
> >There will be no problem in granting permission to use this image for a
> >contribution to such an admirable venture as Wikipedia (my opinion).  It
> >fulfils all the criteria to be classed as non-profit and educational.  Can
> >you give me the title or subject of the article and I will send a formal
> >letter giving permission as a Word attachment.

This is not sufficient permission for Wikipedia. We need permission
for the image to be usable under a free license, such as the GFDL. It
needs to be reusable commercially, not only by Wikipedia, but by
anyone who wants to make use of the content for any purpose. Although
Wikipedia itself is non-commercial and educational, re-use of it might
not be.

See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-23/Noncommercial_images>

Angela.


from_name: Andrew Lih

body:
On 9/10/05, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
>
> Fact is that any attempt to create a wikipedia for other chinese
> languages  has been torpedo'ed (or they tried to) sofar by mandarin
> speakers. Who seem to agree with the Beijing government that any atempt
> to create information in another Chinese language should be surpressed,
> fact is it is an official policy by the Chinese government to discourage
> the use of anything but Mandarin. Question is should we adhere by the
> policies created in Beijing or use our own independent mindset?

It is comments like these that worry me, because it means there is
very little knowledge about the ZH.wikipedia community, and of Chinese
language/culture. Chinese is not a language owned by the "Beijing
government."

Waerth, as someone who lives in Asia, you might know that most Chinese
in SE Asia don't like to be referred to as "overseas Chinese" for
exactly this reason. The term "Nanyang Chinese" is mostly preferred,
which basically means Chinese of the Southern Seas. They are not tools
or satellites of Beijing, and do not have any allegiance politically
to the People's Republic of China. So it is fallacious to turn this
into a political issue.

To reaffirm this - at the Wikimania conference, there were as many
Chinese Wikipedians from outside the PRC than from inside - Malaysia,
Taiwan, Hong Kong, Germany, United States. We all got along
swimmingly.

Next week, there will be a meetup of Hong Kong Wikipedians, and we'll
be sure to discuss the issue of Cantonese Wikipedia. If you're in the
neighborhood, stop by. :)
(http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:%E8%81%9A%E4%BC%9A/2005%E9%A6%99%E6%B8%AF%E7%B6%AD%E5%9F%BA%E4%BA%BA%E8%81%9A%E6%9C%83)

I trust you and Node_ue will agree it is a legitimate thing to
discuss, and that the opinion of Hong Kong folks has some relevance to
the Cantonese Wikipedia discussion. But I would not be surprised to
hear objection even to that.

> And yes
> the fact that all ZH.Wikipedians feel that they should be heard on the
> issue makes me feel it is a political issue rather than a normal one.

To my knowledge, "all ZH.Wikipedians" have not collectively come out
with a position on the matter. Nor are they likely to, given the
over-generalization.

> Why do Mandarin speakers feel they have to block
> requests for other sinetic languages? It beats me .... apart from being
> told by their government to be against it.

Again, see above. Your equating a Mandarin speaker to a PRC citizen is
simply wrong, and likely offensive to many ZH.Wikipedians.

-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)


body:
On 8/18/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Andrew Lih wrote:
>
> >For example, as part of my research, I have several "article lists"
> >from Encarta, Britannica and some other CD-ROM encyclopedias, but I've
> >hesitated to make them public or contribute them to WP, for exactly
> >this reason. Talking to a few lawyer folks on my campus has
> >effectively convinced me I would not have a strong case for fair
> >use/fair dealing. I'm willing to (and would like to be) proved wrong.
> >
> But the only way to prove you wrong would involve having the whole
> matter end up in court.

I know, case law sucks, doesn't it? Such is the nature of fair use. :)


from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Cruft

body:
Phroziac wrote:

>Anyone in favor of banning the word cruft from vfd? They might as well
>just be saying crap...
>
>
Aye. A VfD that's justified on the basis of the article being "cruft" is
completely inadequate, it's the same as saying "delete this 'cause I
don't think it should be here." A "speedy keep" policy that invalidates
VfDs where the nominator didn't adequately justify why he was proposing
the article for deletion would be great.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Article deletion

body:
Alphax wrote:

>So you don't think that any articles need to be deleted (outside of
>candidates for speedy deletion), ever?
>
>
>
Not speaking for Phroziac, of course, but what's wrong with that?
Articles could still be merged and redirected without VfD, so any
information that's not speediable would still find its proper place in
Wikipedia.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Cruft

body:
>>
>
> Excuse me while I go and add articles on all the monsters from Dungeons
> and Dragons then...

I fail to see a problem with this (besides copyright issues if you want
to add stats, for example).... after all, we have an article for each
pokemon.

>
> Thanks,
RN


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: One Where We Blew It

body:
Remeber if you make legit deletions harder on VFD you will simply end
up with a stealth increase of speedy delete.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Cruft

body:
>>
>
> As a criterion for new articles, I agree. But the trouble is that
> people use it
> for pushing junk into existing articles. Take [[Ark of the Covenant]]
> recently:
> should a sensible article like this include stuff about it being an
> extraterrestrial communications device and an early example of a
> capacitor, just
> because its verifiable that people have said it was? There is a junk
> science /
> psuedo science problem.

If the sources are credible, then yes. If it gets too big, make a
daughter article. Problem solved.

Ryan


from_name: Walter van Kalken

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] New request for Cantonese Wikipedia:... I missed
	a mail

body:
Mark Williamson wrote:

>>It is comments like these that worry me, because it means there is
>>very little knowledge about the ZH.wikipedia community, and of Chinese
>>language/culture. Chinese is not a language owned by the "Beijing
>>government."
>>
>>
Judging at node's reaction I missed a mail. Can someone please send it
to me ... thx :)

Waerth/Walter


subject: [WikiEN-l] Article deletion

body:
No, afd just needs to *die*. I still don't see why anyone thought
renaming it would fix the problems.

On 9/11/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> charles matthews wrote:
> > It has never been pretty; but the current complaints on the deletion
> > mechanism seem to be about Gresham's Law.  Roughly speaking, the
> > 'clueless newbie' approach is orthogonal to the 'right stuff' for the
> > job, which is to know what help constructs WP, and what is fluff or
> > actually detrimental.
> >
> > What to do?  If GL is the basis reason - the people with informed
> > judgement being also those who can easily find better things to do on
> > the site, then it needs configuring.  Subdivide by type of reason for
> > deletion?  By area of topic?  A smaller 'room' can be a friendlier
> > atmosphere.
> >
> > It seems to me that a basic point that borderline cases are _not_ the
> > most significant; a marginal keep is one that is not great for WP.
> >
>
> I'd actually like to see AfD split by topic area, as recently happened
> with the Reference Desk (and happened with the Village Pump long ago).
>
> --
> Alphax                      |   /"\
> Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
> OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
> http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
signature


from_name: JAY JG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Article deletion

body:
>From: Phroziac <phroziac at gmail.com>
>
>No, afd just needs to *die*. I still don't see why anyone thought
>renaming it would fix the problems.

I can't imagine why anyone would imagine it needs to die, or what they
imagine would handle the dozens of silly articles added to Wikipedia each
day which rightfully should be deleted.  Let's try to remember that 90% of
the articles nominated for deletion should, without question, be deleted.
The fact that some people feel the "culture" at AfD has become "toxic" is
perhaps an issue that should be addressed, but let's not continue to assert
that AfD needs to go simply based on the 10% of nominations that are more
controversial.

Jay.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Article deletion

body:
>From: MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com>
>
>Renaming fixed the who democratic vote mentality peoplel get when
>seeing "Votes for deletion" and think there's a need for a majority
>instead of a concensus.

Ultimately there's little difference, at least on Wikipedia, where
"consensus" is defined as some sort of large majority, ranging from 66% to
80% depending on the situation.

Jay.


list: commons-l

from_name: petrus barbygere

subject: [Commons-l] sysops cadidature

body:
I am cadidadate to be syspos

Pour tout vous dire ma principale raison pour soliciter votre
confiance est mon confort personel. Je pense ?tre un assez gros
contributeur ici [1], et qui dit gros contributeur dit erreurs
et donc statut d'adminstrateur car pourquoi laissez faire ?
d'autre ce que l'on peut faire soi-m?me ? Le nombre des
contributions ne font pas, aujourd'hui un administrateur. Aussi,
vu que beaucoup des administrateurs de langue fran?aise sont
occup?s par des t?ches "sup?rieures", je m'engage ? ?tre ici,
sur commons, comme je le suis wikip?dia, un adminsitrateur au
service des autres contributeurs. Pour moi wikimedia commons
doit ?tre exemplaire dans le sens o? les fichiers que nous
proposons doivent ?tre absolument "libre" (et si possible en
haute d?finition pour les images). Je n'ai pas d'appareil photo
et toutes les images que j'ai upload? ici sont compatibles avec
commons avec une utilisation la plus large possible. Je ne suis
pas parano avec les droits d'auteurs. Je ne suis pas juriste,
mais je connais un peu le droit de la propri?t? intellectuelle,
le respecte et veux le faire respecter. Mais je souhaite aussi
en profiter pleinement et vous en faire profiter lorsque
celui-ci m'y autorise.

en: : For all to tell you my principal reason for soliciter your
confience is my personel comfort . I think i have made lots of
contributions here [2], and when you contribute a lot you make
lots of mistakes and why let do with other what one can do
yourself? The number of the contributions do not make, today an
sysop. Also, considering many the administrators of French
language are occupied by "higher" tasks, I engage with being
here, on commons, as I am to in wikip?dia, a sysop with the
service of the other contributors. For me wikimedia commons must
be exemplary in the direction where the files which we propose
must be absolutely "free" (and if possible into high d?finition
for the images). I do not have a camera and all the images which
I upload? here are compatible with commons policy with the
broadest possible use. I am not parano with the royalties. I am
not a lawyer, but I know a little the right of the intellectual
property, respects it and want to make it respect. But I also
wish to benefit from it fully and to make some to you profit
when this one authorizes me there. (P.S. : i make this
translation myself, if you want do do it best, please do it !)

to vote :
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Administrators/Requests_and_votes/Petrusbarbygere&action=edit


subject: [WikiEN-l] Article deletion

body:
>From: Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com>
>
>But yes, splitting it up would probably not fix anything. SO how about
>called it "articles for merging"?

That would be un-helpful, since the majority of intentions and outcomes are
for deletion.  Yes, sometimes the consensus is for merging the article, but
that's not the most typical outcome.  Neologisms, original research, rants,
advertisements, pet theories, bands that are planning to record their first
CD any day now, [[List of flags featuring one or more stars and the colors
red, blue, and white]] etc. don't qualify under Speedy deletion rules, but
still have no place in an encyclopedia.

Jay.


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [Wikitech-l] [Fwd: [Wikipedia] DICT protocol]

body:
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Wikipedia] DICT protocol
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 19:12:12 +0200
From: kael <kael at alussinan.org>
To: jwales at wikia.com

Dear Sir,

I would like to suggest you at Wikimedia to use the DICT protocol [1]
which allows to query dictionaries and databases [2].

For example, thanks to the _Dict Firefox extension_ [3] it's possible to
write an url like the following one : dict://dict.org/d:encycplopedia .

There is a DICT server which allows to query the french Wikipedia
dict://mali.geekcorps.org/d:wikipedia e.g. [4].

It would be really great if we could query Wikimedia content with this
protocol.

BTW, while searching for http://google.com/search?q=wikipedia+dict I
found a lot of websites reproducing Wikipedia content with Google Ads. I
am wondering if they comply with the GNU GFDL license.

[1] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2229.txt
[2] http://www.dict.org
[3] http://dict.mozdev.org
[4] http://mali.geekcorps.org/mediawiki/index.php/Wik2dict

Cheers,

--
kael


body:
I have always maintaied the a reasonable prima facie case for fair use
is enough to sustain us as long as the copyright owner doesn't complain.
A reasonable case would include having paid some attention to the law.

If or when he complains he will at least raise the standards.  Reviewing
the circumstances and complying with his request at that point will cost
us nothing.  We would only need to consider legal costs if we chose to
resist at that point..

Of course there are always people who are willing to start law suits
without any merit whatsoever; you can do nothing to prevent  those.

Ec

steve v wrote:

>I wonder to what degree some of the lawyers (the
>cautious half) were taking into consideration the
>pragmatic issue of getting drowned in legal fees,
>rather than the legal merits of the issue.
>
>A commie (as in 'mercial) encyclopedia might have an
>interest in suing Wikipedia, even if it is on the
>apparent flimsy basis of a claimed "derivative work,"
>(from a list, no less).
>
>I hear lawyers can cost a lot of money.
>SV
>
>--- Andrew Lih <andrew.lih at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>On 8/18/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Andrew Lih wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>For example, as part of my research, I have
>>>>
>>>>
>>several "article lists"
>>
>>
>>>>from Encarta, Britannica and some other CD-ROM
>>>
>>>
>>encyclopedias, but I've
>>
>>
>>>>hesitated to make them public or contribute them
>>>>
>>>>
>>to WP, for exactly
>>
>>
>>>>this reason. Talking to a few lawyer folks on my
>>>>
>>>>
>>campus has
>>
>>
>>>>effectively convinced me I would not have a
>>>>
>>>>
>>strong case for fair
>>
>>
>>>>use/fair dealing. I'm willing to (and would like
>>>>
>>>>
>>to be) proved wrong.
>>
>>
>>>But the only way to prove you wrong would involve
>>>
>>>
>>having the whole
>>
>>
>>>matter end up in court.
>>>
>>>
>>I know, case law sucks, doesn't it? Such is the
>>nature of fair use. :)
>>
>>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: One Where We Blew It

body:
Phroziac wrote:

>I can agree, but i wasn't actually referring to that. I'm referring to
>things like (and directly quoting here)...
>
>Get a grip.
>Wow. I thought this was an encyclopedia.
>Next will be an article on the old lady who gives out boxes of raisins
>instead of candy on Halloween.
>
Wasn't there a song about a little old lady from Pasadena?

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: One Where We Blew It

body:
Ryan Norton wrote:

> On Saturday, September 10, 2005, at 05:07  PM, Phroziac wrote:
>
>> I can agree, but i wasn't actually referring to that. I'm referring to
>> things like (and directly quoting here)...
>>
>> Get a grip.
>> Wow. I thought this was an encyclopedia.
>> Next will be an article on the old lady who gives out boxes of raisins
>> instead of candy on Halloween.
>
> "If this gets kept, I'm adding an article for my Enormous Penis
> Syndrome support group (our members are growing!)."

Ahh!  So you're the one who mixes Viagra with the Hallowe'en candy. :-)

Ec


body:
Fastfission wrote:

>This is why I consider our "fair use" policy in general to be preemptive --
>it's a policy of announcing, "Hey, this is what we'll say, and we'll
>probably win, so don't even try it." It's as close as we can get, in the
>confines of the current copyright law, of being at all secure in these
>things, since "fair use" is only a defensive claim (you can't sue somebody
>for obstructing your "fair use" of their materials, as a counter-example).
>
This is very true, but there have been cases of costs being awarded when
valid fair use claims were improperly attacked.

Ec


from_name: Dan Grey

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Cruft

body:
On 10/09/05, Kat Walsh <mindspillage at gmail.com> wrote:
> More on mergism and "cruft": what I don't quite understand is the
> opposition many people have to merging small articles into larger
> ones: schools into school district articles, fictional characters into
> book articles, city landmarks into city articles.

I would imagine because smaller articles are more likely to be
expanded (people may look at a long article on lots of things and say
"ooo, that's long enough already").

>
> With some articles you suggest merging and the creators respond as if
> you wanted to delete the article entirely. I regard merging as an
> improvement: information wants context, in order to be useful; maybe
> it doesn't add to your article count, but it adds to the usefulness of
> the encyclopedia.

You don't have to merge articles to provide context!

>
> "Wiki is not paper" is often cited -- but it's a stronger argument for
> merging information than leaving small articles separate: since Wiki
> is not paper, redirects are easy, and we do not have to worry about
> someone having to pull out separate volumes and flip pages if directed
> elsewhere. We don't have to make sure there's a scrap of information
> at every conceivable search term; that's what redirects and the search
> function are for. Articles that are "cruft" on their own (and I do try
> to use the term only jokingly!) can be a helpful bit of detail in a
> larger picture.
>
> It doesn't really *hurt* to have lots of small trivial articles (I'm
> deliberately ignoring referencing issues here; dpbsmith already made
> that position perfectly clear), but it's a case where the whole is
> indeed generally greater than the sum of its parts. Not only that, a
> large article which gets many visitors is far easier to maintain --
> keep updated, patrol for vandalism, etc. -- than a collection of small
> articles which get relatively few visitors each.

I'd argue the opposite - vandalism is harder to spot in oft-edited
pages, as if it's not picked up quickly, it's hidden on watchlists by
newer edits. It's well-known that collections of smaller articles are
easier to maintain.

Also, readers would most likely only read the same pieces of
information in a large merged article as they would have seperate
smaller ones - there's no particular reason why larger articles should
be updated more. If anything the opposite - larger articles often look
more "complete".

> Where such an article can't be merged into something larger, it's
> probably because it is too trivial for the next broader level of
> detail and probably shouldn't be included at all (for example, I
> wouldn't even be worth mentioning in my university's article: it would
> rightly get deleted were a sentence about me to be added) -- or if it
> should be included, indicative that we have a big gaping hole
> somewhere in our coverage and need to write the article for the next
> broader level (for example, an individual folk song from a country on
> which there is no "music of X" article yet).

What should and shouldn't be an article is covered by wp:verifiability and NOR.

Dan


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Cruft

body:
On 11/09/05, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> A "speedy keep" policy that invalidates
> VfDs where the nominator didn't adequately justify why he was proposing
> the article for deletion would be great.

Start that policy then - if you see a silly listing, don't hesistate
to remove it. It's only going to end with a gazillion keep votes.

Dan


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Cruft

body:
On 11/09/05, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> "Wiki is not paper" is such an unfortunate phrase. Not because of what it
> stands for -- the fact that we're actually *not* limited by physical
> informational constraints, which is a wonderful thing -- but because it is
> used in a way to imply that people who think things are not notable are
> basing the standard of notability on a notion of physical limitations...

What is this "standard of notability" anyway? I prefer Jimbo's guide
to what should and should not be in: if the information is verifiable
(ie it's been published somewhere, and most people who are going to
interested in it can access it), and it's not original research, it
deserves a place.

The point of [[m:wiki is not paper]] is that while it could be thought
that including all that information would need a lot of resources to
do, it doesn't: the Wikimedia servers have room for tens of *billions*
words on their harddrives.

Dan


subject:
Using 'publish this page' to develop WMF website content on Meta
	(was Re: [Foundation-l] a crazy idea...)

body:
On 10/09/05, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> The current situation really is not good at all. I also agree that it is time
> for the MediaWiki help pages to move. A wiki just for MediaWiki should be
> set-up at mediawiki.org. The test junk should also be moved to one or more test
> wikis (test.mediawiki.org could be used to test developing MediaWiki features,
> while test.wikimedia.org could be used for the test wiki junk currently on
> meta).

mediawiki.org already exists, actually - and it's one of the
nicest-looking and most usable wikis around. Sadly though, a lot of
MediaWiki info is still on meta.

This gives rise to a problem I hate, which also happens on the WMF
wiki: one moment you're on mediawiki.org, you click a link, and
suddenly you're on a different website (meta). Eh?

Dan


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: a crazy idea...

body:
On 10/09/05, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote: I wonder if
> something like a namespace "foundation" could be created within meta,
> which would clearly mention these pages are "official" (whatever that
> means" while others may reflect other opinions.

I think that could be quite confusing - the people who I imagine look
for Wikimedia Foundation info probably don't understand the concept of
"namespaces".

Personally, I think a seperate WMF website is vital. The WMF is the
legal entity that owns and effectively controls everything else
Wikimedia - we need a high-quality presentation of what the WMF is and
what it does, and also provides a professional-quality point of
contact, especially for members of the media . The WMF wiki provides
this, in my opinion.

Dan


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: a crazy idea...


from_name: Arno M

subject: [WikiEN-l] RickK deleted his talk page

body:
Just out of curiosity, I may be missing something here, but what is the big problem
with a guy deleting or erasing his own talk page?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gregory Maxwell" <gmaxwell at gmail.com>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] RickK deleted his talk page
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 16:08:58 -0400

>
> On 6/21/05, JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I think de-sysopping would be like kicking him when he's down.  Most people
> > who leave when upset return anyway.
>
> Agreed here, we should just restore the page and only consider
> desysoping if shows malicious intent by continuing to redelete the
> page.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

--
_______________________________________________

Search for businesses by name, location, or phone number.  -Lycos Yellow Pages

http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.asp?SRC=lycos10


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Cruft

body:
I beg to differ, Dan.
My local mailbox is verifiable but certainly not worth a place in Wikipedia.

On 9/11/05, Dan Grey <dangrey at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/09/05, Kat Walsh <mindspillage at gmail.com> wrote:
> > More on mergism and "cruft": what I don't quite understand is the
> > opposition many people have to merging small articles into larger
> > ones: schools into school district articles, fictional characters into
> > book articles, city landmarks into city articles.
>
> I would imagine because smaller articles are more likely to be
> expanded (people may look at a long article on lots of things and say
> "ooo, that's long enough already").
>
> >
> > With some articles you suggest merging and the creators respond as if
> > you wanted to delete the article entirely. I regard merging as an
> > improvement: information wants context, in order to be useful; maybe
> > it doesn't add to your article count, but it adds to the usefulness of
> > the encyclopedia.
>
> You don't have to merge articles to provide context!
>
> >
> > "Wiki is not paper" is often cited -- but it's a stronger argument for
> > merging information than leaving small articles separate: since Wiki
> > is not paper, redirects are easy, and we do not have to worry about
> > someone having to pull out separate volumes and flip pages if directed
> > elsewhere. We don't have to make sure there's a scrap of information
> > at every conceivable search term; that's what redirects and the search
> > function are for. Articles that are "cruft" on their own (and I do try
> > to use the term only jokingly!) can be a helpful bit of detail in a
> > larger picture.
> >
> > It doesn't really *hurt* to have lots of small trivial articles (I'm
> > deliberately ignoring referencing issues here; dpbsmith already made
> > that position perfectly clear), but it's a case where the whole is
> > indeed generally greater than the sum of its parts. Not only that, a
> > large article which gets many visitors is far easier to maintain --
> > keep updated, patrol for vandalism, etc. -- than a collection of small
> > articles which get relatively few visitors each.
>
> I'd argue the opposite - vandalism is harder to spot in oft-edited
> pages, as if it's not picked up quickly, it's hidden on watchlists by
> newer edits. It's well-known that collections of smaller articles are
> easier to maintain.
>
> Also, readers would most likely only read the same pieces of
> information in a large merged article as they would have seperate
> smaller ones - there's no particular reason why larger articles should
> be updated more. If anything the opposite - larger articles often look
> more "complete".
>
>
> > Where such an article can't be merged into something larger, it's
> > probably because it is too trivial for the next broader level of
> > detail and probably shouldn't be included at all (for example, I
> > wouldn't even be worth mentioning in my university's article: it would
> > rightly get deleted were a sentence about me to be added) -- or if it
> > should be included, indicative that we have a big gaping hole
> > somewhere in our coverage and need to write the article for the next
> > broader level (for example, an individual folk song from a country on
> > which there is no "music of X" article yet).
>
> What should and shouldn't be an article is covered by wp:verifiability and NOR.
>
>
>
> Dan
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Cruft

body:
No, I was talking about the public mailbox on the end of the street
which everyone in the neighbourhood uses. It's very much accessible
and verifiable.

On 9/11/05, Ryan Norton <wxprojects at comcast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >
> > Excuse me while I go and add articles on all the monsters from Dungeons
> > and Dragons then...
>
> I fail to see a problem with this (besides copyright issues if you want
> to add stats, for example).... after all, we have an article for each
> pokemon.
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> RN
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Cruft

body: What is top posting anyway?


subject: [WikiEN-l] Article deletion

body:
Renaming fixed the who democratic vote mentality peoplel get when
seeing "Votes for deletion" and think there's a need for a majority
instead of a concensus.

Seperating in topics, only makes listing something for deletion a bigger pain.


from_name: Snowspinner

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Cruft

body:
On Sep 11, 2005, at 5:01 AM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
>>
> OR? How so. I could say a lot of things about the box anyone going
> there could verify. No original research needed. Aren't articles about
> bus stops basicly the same?

"Anyone going there" is why it's original research. There's no
published source. The only way to verify the mailbox is to go to your
town and repeat your research on the mailbox.

It should also be noted that I, at least, consider lone websites to
not be verifiable. That is, if you created a website all about your
mailbox, I still wouldn't consider it verifiable, because it's too
ephemeral a source. Verifiability, to me, requires some degree of
permanence - multiple websites, or existence on a website that is
extremely unlikely to fold without a trace like an online peer
reviewed journal.

-Snowspinner


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Cruft

body:
On 11/09/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> OR? How so. I could say a lot of things about the box anyone going
> there could verify. No original research needed. Aren't articles about
> bus stops basicly the same?

Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOR, and also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Fame_and_importance#Discussion_of_Jimbo.27s_no
which specifically addresses your question.

Dan


from_name: William M Connolley

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Cruft

body:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005, Dan Grey wrote:
> What is this "standard of notability" anyway? I prefer Jimbo's guide
> to what should and should not be in: if the information is verifiable
> (ie it's been published somewhere, and most people who are going to
> interested in it can access it), and it's not original research, it
> deserves a place.

As a criterion for new articles, I agree. But the trouble is that people use it
for pushing junk into existing articles. Take [[Ark of the Covenant]] recently:
should a sensible article like this include stuff about it being an
extraterrestrial communications device and an early example of a capacitor, just
because its verifiable that people have said it was? There is a junk science /
psuedo science problem.

-W.

William M Connolley | wmc at bas.ac.uk | http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/wmc/
Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | (01223) 221479
If I haven't seen further, it's because giants were standing on my shoulders


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Cruft

body:
On 11/09/05, Ryan Norton <wxprojects at comcast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >
> > Excuse me while I go and add articles on all the monsters from Dungeons
> > and Dragons then...
>
> I fail to see a problem with this (besides copyright issues if you want
> to add stats, for example).... after all, we have an article for each
> pokemon.

And just make sure that the context is explained, eg
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al%27kesh&diff=8993035&oldid=8716249.

(Yes, I had previoulsy edited the article and neglected to do this!)

Dan


from_name: Fastfission

body:
But I'd imagine those probably fell under the category of obviously
frivolous lawsuits. By their very nature, one can't avoid those. But
I'm fairly sure that in most fair use cases, the defendant doesn't get
a whole lot, and often doesn't even have their legal fees paid for in
the end. That's the impression I got from Lessig's book, anyway.

But I'd be interesting in reading any caselaw where people have won in
such instances, if you could send me any references.

FF

On 8/18/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Fastfission wrote:
>
> >This is why I consider our "fair use" policy in general to be preemptive --
> >it's a policy of announcing, "Hey, this is what we'll say, and we'll
> >probably win, so don't even try it." It's as close as we can get, in the
> >confines of the current copyright law, of being at all secure in these
> >things, since "fair use" is only a defensive claim (you can't sue somebody
> >for obstructing your "fair use" of their materials, as a counter-example).
> >
> This is very true, but there have been cases of costs being awarded when
> valid fair use claims were improperly attacked.
>
> Ec
>
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] RickK deleted his talk page

body:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gregory Maxwell" <gmaxwell at gmail.com>
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] RickK deleted his talk page
> Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 16:08:58 -0400
>
> >
> > On 6/21/05, JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > I think de-sysopping would be like kicking him when he's down.  Most people
> > > who leave when upset return anyway.
> >
> > Agreed here, we should just restore the page and only consider
> > desysoping if shows malicious intent by continuing to redelete the
> > page.

On 11/09/05, Arno M <redgum46 at lycos.com> wrote:
> Just out of curiosity, I may be missing something here, but what is the big problem
> with a guy deleting or erasing his own talk page?

User talk pages often have discussions on them which are useful for
future reference.

Dan


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Cruft

body:
On 9/11/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
> > On 9/11/05, Ryan Norton <wxprojects at comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >>>Excuse me while I go and add articles on all the monsters from Dungeons
> >>>and Dragons then...
> >>
> >>I fail to see a problem with this (besides copyright issues if you want
> >>to add stats, for example).... after all, we have an article for each
> >>pokemon.
> >>
> >>
> >>>Thanks,
> >>
> >>RN
> >>
> >
> > No, I was talking about the public mailbox on the end of the street
> > which everyone in the neighbourhood uses. It's very much accessible
> > and verifiable.
> >
>
> That would be Original Research.
>
> --
> Alphax                      |   /"\
> Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
> OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
> http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
OR? How so. I could say a lot of things about the box anyone going
there could verify. No original research needed. Aren't articles about
bus stops basicly the same?


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Cruft

body:
 > The point of [[m:wiki is not paper]] is that while it could be thought
> that including all that information would need a lot of resources to
> do, it doesn't: the Wikimedia servers have room for tens of *billions*
> words on their harddrives.

Yes, I know that. My point is that *nobody is claiming otherwise*. We
all KNOW that we COULD have articles about all of our individual iPod
contents from a software and hardware point of view. That's not why
people object to topics they think are unencyclopedic.

FF


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Cruft

body:
The copyright issues might be the biggest pain in the neck in the end
with this stuff, in the end. Some of our articles contain very
detailed plot summaries, extended quotations, stat information, etc.,
of copyrighted sources which could plausibly be argued to infringe on
the future marketability of the copyright holder. There's also the
question of whether most of our Pok?mon articles count as "criticism
and analysis" or if they aren't just summaries and re-written stat
sheets. But that's a bigger problem than the "cruft" one.

(I recently wrote a first draft of copyright policy on en.Wikiquote
with this in mind, as I realized that it not having one of its own was
probably a bad idea since it seems to me the second most likely of the
Wiki projects to have major copyright infringement issues. Anybody who
is interested and has some time to burn, feel free to take a look at
[[Wikiquote:Copyrights]] when you get a chance.)

FF

On 9/11/05, Ryan Norton <wxprojects at comcast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >
> > Excuse me while I go and add articles on all the monsters from Dungeons
> > and Dragons then...
>
> I fail to see a problem with this (besides copyright issues if you want
> to add stats, for example).... after all, we have an article for each
> pokemon.
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> RN
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Foundation-l] press officer

body:
Hi,

I finally took 5 mn to translate a description of role of press officer
which I initially wrote for the french association. After writing it, I
thought it could also fit the Foundation Press Officer job...

I would appreciate that people react on it. And especially will be happy
to read what Elian thinks, if she considers it fits her role or not, if
stuff is missing etc...

Thanks for your feedback

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

Ant


subject: [Foundation-l] press officer


from_name: Daniel P. B. Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: [OT] Top posting

body:
> From: MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com>
>
> What is top posting anyway?

A handy stick with which older netizens can beat newbies.

At some time in the mid-1990s, many people without USENET access
acquired it. Some USENET oldtimers resented this. One characteristic
of the newbies was many of them used some piece of software,
Microsoft Outlook Express perhaps, was configured in such a way that
by default if you just typed a reply it went at the top of the
message, above the material to which it was replying.

At about that time, in some newsgroups, people started viciously
attacking the practice of "top-posting" and asserting that it was bad
netiquette.

I've participated in USENET since about 1990. At that time, bottom
posting was the norm but top posting was not at all uncommon. It was
a matter of personal style and nobody ever commented on it. It is
simply not true that there was any prohibition on it.

There is an unofficial RFC 1855, e.g. http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/
rfc1855.html which is sometime quoted as deprecating top-posting. But
it is clear from context that the point of the RFC is _primarily_
concerned with _not_ quoting the the entire original ("It is
extremely bad form to simply reply to a message by including all the
previous message: edit out all the irrelevant material"), and the
fact that it mentions putting the summary at the top seems
incidental. The actual text is:

"If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just
enough text of the original to give a context. This will make sure
readers understand when they start to read your response. Since
NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the postings
from one host to another, it is possible to see a response to a
message before seeing the original. Giving context helps everyone.
But do not include the entire original!"

It is very much like splitting an infinitive. Don't split infinitives
if you know your copy will be edited by someone who thinks there's
something wrong with splitting infinitives. But do know that these
people have nothing to back themselves up with; even Fowler's English
Usage sees nothing wrong with it.

Similarly if you are participating in a group that contains people
that dislike top-posting, don't do it. But don't be gulled into
believing that there's more here than personal taste.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Article deletion

body:
Phroziac wrote:
> No, afd just needs to *die*. I still don't see why anyone thought
> renaming it would fix the problems.

But die to be replaced with what?

Deletion is absolutely necessary.  A community process for deletion is
absolutely necessary.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Article deletion

body:
JAY JG wrote:
> That would be un-helpful, since the majority of intentions and outcomes
> are for deletion.  Yes, sometimes the consensus is for merging the
> article, but that's not the most typical outcome.  Neologisms, original
> research, rants, advertisements, pet theories, bands that are planning
> to record their first CD any day now, [[List of flags featuring one or
> more stars and the colors red, blue, and white]] etc. don't qualify
> under Speedy deletion rules, but still have no place in an encyclopedia.

Exactly.  And we don't want to add these things to the Speedy rules,
either.  (Well, maybe a few... ;-))

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Cruft

body:
I know it is bad form to quote an entire post just to say "me too" but I
wanted to say that Daniel is right on the money here, and displays what
I think of as true Wikipedia spirit.  We have to have a passion to *get
it right* or we'll be full of rampant nonsense.

A list like this can be useful and educational but it *has* to be
approached in the way Daniel discusses: complete intolerance for
additions that do not adhere to the rudiments of scholarship.

--Jimbo

Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:
> OK, this fool will walk in, donning asbestos suit, etc.
>
> There are contributors, who enjoy contributing to
> Wikipedia, who do not embrace or understand the
> rudiments of scholarship.
>
> Here's what I mean by "rudiments.
>
> "List of people believed to have been affected by bipolar disorder"
> which was originally just a completely unsourced
> list of raw names; confirmed, plausible, asserted,
> and unlikely, all mixed together. It was nominated for
> deletion, and consensus was that it was OK _provided
> that_ the list confined itself to names for which there
> was _a verifiable source citation._ I.e. it is OK to tell the
> reader that the source was Kay Redfield Jamison's book
> and let the reader decide how credible Jamison is.
>
> The opening paragraph was rewritten to say "This is a list
> of people accompanied by verifiable source citations," etc.
>
> On a fairly regular basis, people will simply add names to
> the list with no explanation or citation. OR, they will add
> names accompanied with statements like "he has been very
> open about this" or "it's been in the news" or "One of his
> songs is entitled 'Lithium.'" I've been fairly pestiferous
> about removing unsourced entries, usually moving them
> to Talk with an explanation, and trying to half-coach the
> people who added them.
>
> And indeed some of them have been surprised that I
> mean exactly what I say, and that while "Adam Ant:
> Has spoken openly on television about his condition"
> will not do, a web reference to an arts.telegraph article,
> "Adam and his fall," is just fine.
>
> Other have felt that the onus was somehow on _me_
> to research and provide references for the names _they_
> had added, thought I was questioning their honesty
> when they asserted the existence of references, etc.
>
> Now, all this is fine as far as it goes. There are some
> inexperienced contributors, I try to police the article
> a bit, I try to help a bit, I try to coach a bit, some of
> the inexperienced contributors "get it," some of them
> don't. The article slowly improves over time. All
> Wiki-good.
>
> The problem occurs when you have a topic area that
> attracts a very large volume of contributions from
> editors who do _not_ get the idea of what it means
> for an article to be well-researched, thorough, and
> accurate.
>
> Wikipedia depends on the notion that bad articles
> will get improved. That implies a certain kind of
> balance or equilibrium.
>
> I believe the "cruft" label, which I don't like and
> try to avoid using myself, is shorthand for
> "topic area in which low-quality articles are being
> created faster than they are being improved."
>
> Such topic areas _are_ problems. The solution
> isn't clear.
>
> Wikipedia works only when _most_ articles are
> in at least a quarter-decent state, and articles
> that are really just drafts or placeholders or
> article _requests_ disguised as articles are a relatively
> small proportion of the whole.
>
>
> --
> Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith at verizon.net
> "Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
> Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
> Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Cruft

body:
Dan Grey wrote:
> What is this "standard of notability" anyway? I prefer Jimbo's guide
> to what should and should not be in: if the information is verifiable
> (ie it's been published somewhere, and most people who are going to
> interested in it can access it), and it's not original research, it
> deserves a place.

Just to be clear, I'm not 100% sure this is my position.  :-)

My position most certainly is that, *fortunately*, a lot of really
difficult issues *are* resolved by verifiability and no original
research.  Those two rules knock out a huge swath of certifiable
nonsense without even breaking a sweat.

There is now a magazine article (Florida Trend) which gives my mother's
name, and tells about the school which she founded, where I attended as
a child.  This information is now verifiable (it is in a magazine) and
the original research was done by a professional journalist (plus I can
personally vouch for it being true, for whatever that may be worth).

Even so, I do not think we should have an article about my mother.
She's a dear sweet wonderful person, to be sure, but not encyclopedic.

This is a case where I'm going to go with Kat Walsh (Mindspillage) and
say that I'm a "merge-ist".  Does the tidbit about my mom's school
deserve a separate article?  Absolutely not.  Does it belong somewhere
in the encyclopedia?  Sure.  Where?  In the article about me.

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Lingala Wikipedia

body:
Mark Williamson wrote:
> He doesn't appear to be "actively working to get more people
> involved". Bombo is not a more experienced Wikipedian than Themalau or
> Moyogo, as far as I can tell, and as I already noted he can speak
> nearly no Lingala and seems to enjoy posting long articles entirely in
> French.

Have you tried asking him to stop?  Or asking him what he's doing?

>>The point is, I see no reason for *us* to interfere.  If the other users
>>have a complaint, then that's a different matter.
>
>
> So, I'm not important enough? How are other users different from me? I
> am a user on the Lingala Wikipedia, and frankly I'm a bit insulted by
> that remark.

WikiLove, please.  I'm not trying to insult you.  You mentioned 3 users,
you did not mention yourself as a user.

If you *are* a user, then I would recommend to you that rather than
complaining to the mailing list to try to get Bombo desysopped, you ask
him what he's doing, and offer some helpful and kind suggestions to him
that you think might be better.

> And the same is true for many other languages -- English speakers
> wanting to help out on the Irish or Scottish Gaelic Wikipedias, German
> speakers wanting to help out on the Plattduutsch Wikipedia, French
> speakers wanting to help on the Breton Wikipedia, Spanish speakers
> wanting to help on the Basque Wikipedia... yet none of them has a
> bilingual user interface. Why?

I don't know.  It strikes me as a good idea, at least on a temporary basis.

>>Ok, well, I'm quite sure they'll do as they see fit.  Trust them.
>
>
> What about what I do, and what I see fit? As a Lingala Wikipedian, I
> don't understand why my opinion should count for less than any other
> user's.

I wasn't aware that you considered yourself a member of that community.
My apologies for that.

--Jimbo


body:
I wrote:
>> This is why I'm opposed to rampant voting on everything.  The only
>> valid purpose for a vote in Wikipedia is actually as a *poll*
>> which seeks to build community consensus.  Deliberately excluding
>> some interested parties is a great way to "win" a vote, but it is
>> not a great way to get buy-in from the entire community.

Phroziac wrote:
> Actually, Jimmy, aren't they to determine consensus, not build it?

Super duper excellent question which allows me a nice spot to explain
how I see this.

I think that all polls should be attempts to *build* consensus.
Consensus means something loosely like "general agreement by nearly
everyone except the lunatics and trolls".  "nearly everyone" because
otherwise we have paralysis, and "except the lunatics and trolls"
because consensus is not a suicide pact.

What do I mean, in this context, by "build consensus"?

Suppose there is a poll about whether to include Photo A or Photo B at
the top of an article.  Imagine for the moment that everyone agrees that
there isn't room for both, and further that going with neither is not a
helpful option.  In a case like this, a poll can be used to *build
consensus* on the theory that most people aren't so pigheaded as to
continue edit warring after the vote.

My position on many such issues would be: "Well, I like A better than B.
 But I looked at the poll and I see that 80% of the users liked B better
than A.  So, ok, I'll defer to the majority.  I won't edit war about it."

In such a case, we now have a consensus on A.  Yes, I still think B
would have been better, but the poll has helped me to accept that A will
be fine to leave in the article.

Polls are non-binding.  Some people have taken to saying that voting is
banned in Wikipedia, and I don't disagree with them on the substance of
what they are saying.  I would phrase it differently, though: there is
no rule in Wikipedia which says that polls *are* binding, it is a social
matter, and there can be many different possible times in which a person
ought to ignore a poll.  (At their own social peril, of course.)

Why is this important?

A poll which is thought to be binding can easily be designed in a way
which is divisive despite getting a majority on one side.  If you
approach a poll as being a great way to get people to agree on
something, then you take an entirely different approach to considering
what options should be voted on.

--Jimbo


body:
Mark Williamson wrote:
> Jimbo, my whole point in informing an international mailinglist, and
> ALL people who listed themselves as Cantonese speakers (including a
> few who ended up voting against a Cantonese Wikipedia), was that it
> seemed to me unfair to give Mandarin-only users an extra tip-off when
> no other community got one.

Makes zero sense to me.  Mandarin-only speakers are affected by this,
and deserve a voice.

> Zy26, "oppose", from "Northeast China" [zhongguo dongbei] (a
> Mandarin-speaking area)
> BenBenI, "oppose", from Chengdu (a Mandarin-speaking city)
> Alexcn, "oppose", from Nanjing (a Mandarin-speaking city)

And these people should be silenced?

> If Kosovo wants to be internationally recognised as completely
> independent from Serbia, who should vote on it? All of Serbia, or just
> Kosovars? Certainly, if it is up to ALL of Serbia, they will remain
> part of Serbia, while if it is up to the Kosovars only, they may very
> well not.

This is a wildly inaccurate analogy.

Here's a better analogy: if Kosovars want a separate *wikipedia* from
the Serbians, for political reasons rather than linguistic reasons, who
should vote on it?  All of Serbian Wikipedia?  Or just Kosovars?  (Or,
my position, everyone who takes an interest, with the poll widely
advertised to everyone who might be affected, including Bosnians,
Croatians, etc.)

> Before the vote, everyone who wanted a Cantonese Wikipedia was
> thinking, "what's the holdup?? how is it that andrew lih and
> shengjiong ran over us with a steamroller in the court of Jimbopinion,
> but we had the majority and we cited sources to support our argument
> when they didn't???". That was the motivation for the vote, to have
> something that screamed for attention by giving a concrete message of
> how many people support it, that would be difficult to ignore.

You raise many valid points, to be sure.  But it is pretty easy to
ignore a poll which is admittedly rigged to exclude those most likely to
dissent.

--Jimbo


body:
Mark Williamson wrote:
> Are you referring specifically to this case?
>
> If so, what other options are there? The way I see it, there are two
> rigidly opposed options:
>
> 1) Cantonese Wikipedia;
> 2) No Cantonese Wikipedia.

I agree with you that these are fairly rigid alternatives.

> So I don't see what was missed. I informed Cantonese speakers, and the
> international community. What's missing?

You did not inform Mandarin speakers.  That's a pretty egregious error.

--Jimbo


body:
Walter van Kalken wrote:
> It doesn't happen many times but I kinda agree with node on this issue.
> Never before has it been made an issue that people from another
> languagewikipedia should be informed when a new languagewikipedia from a
> related language is being requested. Never in the two years that I have
> been on wikimediaprojects has it been an issue.

It has never been an issue because I have never before seen a case in
which someone deliberately rigged a poll by not including relevant
people in the announcement.

--Jimbo


body:
Stirling Newberry wrote:
> You wonder why people don't trust you, this is why, you are not
> trustworthy. The question as to whether Catonese is a separaete
> *written* language is precisely the question that needs to be decided
> by the community.

I don't think the personal attack was necessary, but nonetheless, I
think it is worth noting that using a vote-stacked poll is extremely
counter-productive and unpersuasive.

The *real* question here is not about polls or communities.  Let's
imagine for a moment that somehow the US and UK governments got into a
fight, let's imagine even that it's a war.  And let's imagine that in
the aftermath, there is a huge community vote to split into two English
Wikipedias: American English and British English.  And let's further
imagine that there is a huge majority.

Well, we still wouldn't split the two, because it's still lunacy to split.

Having said that, of course there are borderline cases and complexities.

What I would like to hear is *nothing* about Node's rigged poll, but
about some very simple practical questions.

Those in favor of the split claim that the two languages *in written
form* (as well as spoken form) are mutually unintelligible.  Node has
produced some testimony to that effect.  I would like to hear more about
that, especially from (for example) Andrew Lih.

--Jimbo


body:
Mark Williamson wrote:
>>This was definitely POV vote stacking and was intellectually
>>dishonest yes. Biased, unwiki and loaded with personal attacks.
>
>
> OK. Then you tell me, when I set up a poll, who am I supposed to tell?
> Am I supposed to post to the village pump of every Wikipedia??

I would recommend that you think about who is likely to be interested,
and inform them.  I would not complain at all if no one posted to the
Hungarian Wikipedia village pump.

> And how is vote stacking loaded with personal attacks?

It assumes that Mandarin speakers are dishonest or politically
motivated, and not just a little bit, but to the extent that their voice
should be silenced.  That's a personal attack.

I trust Cantonese speakers.  I trust Mandarin speakers.  Careful
thoughtful reasoned discussion will help us all come to a consensus
about this.  Silencing people deliberately not informing them of a vote
that you know to be relevant to them does not help.

--Jimbo


body:
Marjon Bakker wrote:
> I thought this might interest some of you. Personally, I'm really exited
> about this, as it is a wonderful turn in my "career". :-)

Cool!

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Cruft

body:
On Sep 11, 2005, at 12:26 PM, Pawe? Dembowski wrote:

>> What you are proposing is primary source information.  Wikipedia is
>> not a primary source.  It is basically a tertiary (and to a small
>> extent, secondary) source.  This is what no original research means:
>> don't do research that no-one has done before.  I'd say someone
>> _doing_ research on a bus stop makes it fairly noteworthy...
>> Sam
>>
>
> The primary source of bus stop information is my local bus company's
> website. Basing articles on their schedule would not be original
> research.

There is also a practical, though I think unwritten, rule against
articles that can never be anything more than stubs.

-Snowspinner


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Image copyright question: NYT images pre 1922 that are
 claimed to be copyrighted

body:
I frequently make use of an online database, made available to me at
no cost by my local public library system, which contains not merely
the full text but the actual page images of The New York Times back
to 1857.

Obviously there's no problem with short quotes from the text, but
what about images prior to 1923?

EVERY piece of material downloaded from this database, back to 1857,
contains a notice like this:

"Display Ad 7--No Title. New York Times (1857-Current file); Aug 30,
1888; [database name] Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851
- 2001) pg. 8. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.
Further reproduction prohibited without permission."

I'd syllogize that a) everything published before 1923 is in the
public domain, and b) everything that appears in The New York Times
has been publisheded, ergo c) this is in the public domain, and that
the notice is just boilerplate, presumably put on everything because
it is easier and less risky to put it on everything than to attempt
to determine which things are under copyright (after all, a few more
Sonny Bono laws and this may BE copyrighted again), and that I can
safely ignore it, that I use the image freely, and that no permission
is required.

Comments?

--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith at verizon.net
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/


from_name: Geoff Burling

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: One Where We Blew It

body:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005, Phroziac wrote:

> I can agree, but i wasn't actually referring to that. I'm referring to
> things like (and directly quoting here)...
>
> Get a grip.
> Wow. I thought this was an encyclopedia.
> Next will be an article on the old lady who gives out boxes of raisins
> instead of candy on Halloween.
>
When I started writing my letter, it was to agree with you. (I agree
with the general condemnation of "cruft", for example.)

But the more I thought about what's been said here, & the lack of
specific examples, I found I didn't know what or who anyone here
was complaining about. I've followed AfD for about a week, argued
to keep & delete articles (sometimes against the prevailing consensus),
& haven't found many examples of objectionable behavior or language.
So I ended up writing a screed that argued the opposing case.

It helps to be precise. Otherwise, I, for one, find it easy to
introduce for consideration lots of possible, but irrelevant, cases
while discussing this matter.

Geoff


subject: [WikiEN-l] RickK deleted his talk page

body:
> On 11/09/05, Arno M <redgum46 at lycos.com> wrote:
> > Just out of curiosity, I may be missing something here, but what is the big problem
> > with a guy deleting or erasing his own talk page?
>
> User talk pages often have discussions on them which are useful for
> future reference.
>
>
> Dan
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
And seeing as Rick was a very active admin, having his talk page on
file for people who cannot read deleted entries is particularly
useful.

--Mgm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Article deletion

body:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005, Alphax wrote:

> Bryan Derksen wrote:
> > Alphax wrote:
> >
> >> So you don't think that any articles need to be deleted (outside of
> >> candidates for speedy deletion), ever?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > Not speaking for Phroziac, of course, but what's wrong with that?
> > Articles could still be merged and redirected without VfD, so any
> > information that's not speediable would still find its proper place in
> > Wikipedia.
> >
>
> Alright, let's rename AfD to "Article for Merge and Redirecting" (AfMR).
> Now all we can argue about^W^W^Whave to decide is where to redirect the
> articles to.
>
I admit I've only read a few pieces of this discussion, but has anyone
proposed redefining "AfD" to be the abbreviation for "Articles for
Discussion"? That would move the process even further from appearing
to be Wikipedia's variant of being the law West of the Pecos.

Geoff


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Cruft

body:
On 11/09/05, William M Connolley <wmc at bas.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005, Dan Grey wrote:
> > What is this "standard of notability" anyway? I prefer Jimbo's guide
> > to what should and should not be in: if the information is verifiable
> > (ie it's been published somewhere, and most people who are going to
> > interested in it can access it), and it's not original research, it
> > deserves a place.
>
> As a criterion for new articles, I agree. But the trouble is that people use it
> for pushing junk into existing articles. Take [[Ark of the Covenant]] recently:
> should a sensible article like this include stuff about it being an
> extraterrestrial communications device and an early example of a capacitor, just
> because its verifiable that people have said it was? There is a junk science /
> psuedo science problem.
>
> -W.

I think Jimbo once used the example of flat earthers - the view is so
soundly rejected by the vast majority of the world that it doesn't
deserve mention in [[Earth]] (I have no idea if it is mentioned or not
- I just recall that being the example!).

But if we were to apply policy here - the NPOV covers this - it would
tell us that we should present that point of view, but give it
coverage proportional to how widely held that view is. So [[Ark of the
Covenant]] would have a line or two saying "a small minority of
[whoever] believe it's ET's telephone, and here's there 'evidence'"
tucked away at the end. If the PoV pusher(s) want more than that, then
put them through Dispute resolution, eventually culminating in an
arbcom case if needed.

Dan


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Image copyright question: NYT images pre 1922 that are
	claimed to be copyrighted

body:
Personally, I interpret the ProQuest, JSTOR, Lexis Nexis, and similar
databases which contain lots of material published pre-1923 (or
otherwise public domain, i.e. the text of U.S. statutes) in two ways:

1. The material probably isn't copyrighted. Though Bridgeman v. Corel
was just about 2-D artwork, I don't see why the same rationality
wouldn't apply here. Copyright, in the U.S. anyway, is not a reward
for putting in effort, it is a pact in exchange for creative activity.
Scanning a 2-D newspaper page is not a creative activity. If the
materials are in the public domain, simple reproduction of them
(however costly) does not create a proprietary copyright (see the
Westlaw cases as well, which I think are mentioned in the [[Westlaw]]
article).

2. While you're probably not violating intellectual property law in
taking public domain images from their database, you probably are
violating their terms of service, which is probably grounds to block
you from their database or revoke your library privileges or something
that. So do it at your own risk. I doubt they would care very much
unless you were systematically removing articles from them and
creating your own service.

(Just as an aside, JSTOR is a great source for hi-res, public domain
images of scientists and science experiment results. I was able to get
a huge cache of pictures of and relating to Einstein in this way,
which are now on Commons. ProQuest's image quality is very bad since
they scanned them in from microfilm, which makes them worse than a
photocopy of a photocopy.)

Also, re: Sonny Bono: as I understand it (someone correct me if I'm
wrong), it didn't put anything which WAS in the public domain into the
private domain, it just made it so that things which were SUPPOSED to
enter into the public domain did NOT. Which is very sad, but at least
it doesn't open anyone up for litigation.

FF

On 9/11/05, Daniel P. B. Smith <dpbsmith at verizon.net> wrote:
> I frequently make use of an online database, made available to me at
> no cost by my local public library system, which contains not merely
> the full text but the actual page images of The New York Times back
> to 1857.
>
> Obviously there's no problem with short quotes from the text, but
> what about images prior to 1923?
>
> EVERY piece of material downloaded from this database, back to 1857,
> contains a notice like this:
>
> "Display Ad 7--No Title. New York Times (1857-Current file); Aug 30,
> 1888; [database name] Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851
> - 2001) pg. 8. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.
> Further reproduction prohibited without permission."
>
> I'd syllogize that a) everything published before 1923 is in the
> public domain, and b) everything that appears in The New York Times
> has been publisheded, ergo c) this is in the public domain, and that
> the notice is just boilerplate, presumably put on everything because
> it is easier and less risky to put it on everything than to attempt
> to determine which things are under copyright (after all, a few more
> Sonny Bono laws and this may BE copyrighted again), and that I can
> safely ignore it, that I use the image freely, and that no permission
> is required.
>
> Comments?
>
> --
> Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith at verizon.net
> "Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
> Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
> Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Mark Ryan

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Wikien-l Mailing List

body:
Roomity were subscribed to WikiEN-l and not moderated (which indicates
they subscribed more than a couple of months ago). I have moderated
that address, stopped them from receiving mails from the list and
banned the address (so if they unsubscribe and attempt to re-subscribe
they will be unsuccessful).

~Mark Ryan

On 9/10/05, Cormac Lawler <cormaggio at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/10/05, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > roomity.com have been attempting to subscribe to the lists,
> > including ones which are not publicly archived like the mediation one.
>
>
> Can someone (eg. Brion) block ban this address <maillist at roomity.com>
> from all of the lists? Or does it have to be done individually? I also
> got a direct mail from that address (with slightly different text to
> what Ray got) as a result of some posts to the wiki-research-l list,
> and i see they are subscribed to the foundation-news-l list, which I
> monitor (but can't ban anyone, unless they spam the list). (Nudging Sj
> who can do this at least.)
>
> Cormac
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Worldtraveller

subject: [WikiEN-l] A plug and a query

body:
First the plug: I have made a WikiReader.  I decided to do it because
there seem to be a load of them in the pipeline and none finished, so I
thought I would see if I could put together a simple one on a fairly
narrow topic and put a PDF up for downloading.  Info and the PDF are at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Worldtraveller/Decade_Volcanoes_WikiReader

and I'd really appreciate any comments on what could be improved, whether
you like the style and layout etc.

The query is, who runs the Wikipedia Cafepress shop?  It would be quite
nice to offer WikiReaders for sale there once a few have been created.

Cheers,
WT