from_name: james duffy

subject: [WikiEN-l] capitalisation

body:
I had an interesting conversation today with a publisher and an academic on
the issue of capitalisation. They made the following observations:

1. Capitalisation rules seem to differ between American English and British
English (or rather American English and all forms of english other than AE).
Whereas the former seems nowadays to be following a 'minimal use of caps'
policy, non-AE english uses caps far more often.

2. This issue has caused considerable problems with American students who
come to Europe for summer courses. Europeans see the non-use of caps as
'semi-literate' and regularly dock students marks for it. Americans see non
AE use of caps as 'ludicrous' and over the top. (I know from personal
experience that the few caps english of AE users has caused bitter anger in
my university, where lecturers 'hit the roof' at AE users' insistence of
lower-casing names of organisations, electoral processes, governmental
offices, etc.)

3. Within many academic areas, a major battle has been waged on this issue.
To the resentment of non-AE users, AE capitalisation rules increasingly tend
to be followed. The reason is purely economic. Publishers see the US as
their biggest market, and so publish books in AE or in non-AE but following
some of the characteristics of AE in areas like capitalisation. (This has
infuriated many non AE-using authors. Last week, one British English author
threatened to sue her publisher for 'rewriting' her textbook in AE when it
was aimed at a UK market. She accused them of 'dumbing down english to suit
Americans'. Some authors, according to the publisher I was talking to, have
insisted in their contracts that their books /not/ be rewritten in AE, even
when an edition is launched in the US. (American authors may well equally
have insisted that their books not be turned into non-AE. As the publisher I
was speaking to is British she has no knowledge of such contracts if they
exist in the US).

If this is the case (and both the publisher and academic said so, while both
expressing their dislike of AE capitalisation trends and what the latter
called the 'wholescale manging of non-AE to suit publishers' profits by
trampling over the language use of everyone who isn't American') that does
explain the rows over capitalisation on wiki, and how it is AE users like
Ec, Mav and Zoe who are so 'anti' capitalisation while it is users of other
forms of english other than AE (Tannin, myself, etc) who want it. For if
Mav, Ec etc were taught one set of rules on capitalisation usage, we were
taught a different one and are infuriated by what, going by what we were
taught, seems to be wiki's insistence on wrong use of capitals and non-use
of capitals where they should be used.

In the circumstances, we should apply to the same policy as we apply in
general to American english versus British english, ie, respect difference
and allow users to set the policy in an individual article, based on /their/
usage of capitals in /their/ version of english. As most of the capitals
issue involves AE users changing capitalisation applied by non AE users like
Tannin in articles the non AE users have written (like on birds), it
suggests that that process should stop and the rules on capitalisation
should be amended accordingly. The issue is already causing enough rows
outside wiki, with the increasing application of AE rules by publishing
houses and style books causing major anger (the publisher said one author
called it 'American linguistic imperialism', with AE rules being applied
even though they conflict with all the grammar books used outside the US.)
The best solution is not to enforce AE capitalisation rules but simply to
recognise that different english users worldwide use different rules on this
issue and to leave it to users, depending on their linguistic culture, to
decide on capitalisation just as they decide on spelling in American
English, British English or the various subsets of the latter (Hiberno
English, Australian English, etc.)

JT

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Axel Boldt

subject: [WikiEN-l] One concern regarding filters

body:
--- Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:

> And just to be a little more provocative, the same goes for fair use
> (I don't know what Jimbo's mom has to say about that, though): By
> endorsing fair use, we defend this principle. By rejecting it, we
give
> the opponents of fair use an opportunity to say: "Oh well, look at
> Wikipedia, they have built a free encyclopedia of 3 million articles
> without stealing any content with that so called fair use thing. So
why
> not get rid of it altogether?"

I can turn that one around. Suppose we freely use fair use materials.
"I have heard from my dear constituents, the media conglomerates, that
the Wikipedia people have built a free encyclopedia of 3 million
articles, much of it stolen as so-called 'fair use'. We need to put an
end to this immediately."

As you might have guessed, I don't see the two topics of filtering and
fair use as analogous at all. If we don't filter, and schools
eventually block us, we'll get a tremendous boost of positive publicity
out of it, and the school blockers will look like the idiots they are.
On the other hand, if we allow fair-use materials, and fair-use is
eventually limited by law or court interpretation, then we don't get
anything positive out of it, indeed quite the opposite.

Axel

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Marco Krohn

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Fair use

body:
On Wednesday 11 June 2003 19:10, Jason Richey wrote:
> This discussion is making my head spin...  Let me see if I can get the
> basics in order for myself (please, let me know if I don't have it
> right):
>
> * Everyone basically agrees that the text (not including quotes, which
>   I don't intend to discuss here) of Wikipedia is okay, even if the
>   text refers to an image that is fair use.

yes.

> * Everyone agrees that The en Wikipedia has some images that we are
>   legally allowed to use (on the website) under fair use assuming that
>   we don't claim they are GFDL.

legally to use wrt "fair use": yes.
But illegal to use because we are mixing GFDL and non-free content which is
forbidden by GFDL. Note: Erik does not agree with this interpretation of
GFDL.

> * Most everyone agrees that there is little chance that we can get the
>   copyright holders of every image to switch to a GFDL license.  This
>   said, some people say that we can't distribute the images with the
>   GFDL products, as it would violate the license.

yes.

> * Most everyone has decided what they think, and will argue his/her
>   opinion until the cows come home (and then some).

yes ;-)

> If I understand correctly, the problem is most evident when we
> consider printed formats (like grandma's encyclopedia).  I don't think
> that anyone has argued that we can distribute fair use images if we go
> to a printed (combined) work.  So, fair use images should not be in a
> printed version.

well, they shouldn't be in Wikipedia at all IMHO, but you are right with
saying that a printed version is not allowed using "fair use" images.

best regards,
   Marco

--
Marco Krohn
Theoretical Physics
University of Hannover


from_name: Vicki Rosenzweig

subject: [WikiEN-l] Just to throw this out there...

body:
At 03:14 PM 6/11/03 -0700, Ray wrote:

>To be effective any kind of flagging system must avoid subjective
>determinations.  Words like "explicit" and "mature" can lead to some
>serious disagreements that can't easily be resolved.  The following
>spectrum can be more objectively determined for photographs.
>    1. Contains images of sex acts
>    2. Contains close-up images of genitals
>    3. Contains whole-body nudity
>    4. Contains partial nudity
>    5. Shows people in underclothes
>    6. Shows suggestive photos of fully clad people

I'm not convinced that this doesn't just move the subjectivity. Even
"sex acts" is open to argument--is one woman licking another's
breast a sex act, for example? (I assume we agree that a photo of
a nursing infant does not contain a sex act.) Was I partially nude
at the clinic this morning, in underwear, t-shirt, and a hospital gown?
(Yes, it's street legal, but this is New York State, so that doesn't
mean a great deal.) In particular, what are "suggestive photos"?
I doubt we'd manage a more objective definition for that than Potter
Stewart's famous "I know it when I see it."
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org


from_name: Geoffrey Thomas

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Filtering, etc.

body:
groan...I have to retype this reply because I accidentally closed the window...

Christopher Mahan saith:
> --- Geoffrey Thomas <geoffreyerffoeg at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Christopher Mahan wrote:
> > >Perhaps not, in fact, because the majority of people in the world
> > >want an unbiased source, and almost everyone knows that education
> > >material is biased. Being banned from schools might actually be to
> > >the project's benefit.
> >
> > Mff. I go to a school. I want Wikipedia there.
> >
> > If educational material is biased, all the more reason for an NPOV
> > Wikipedia available from schools to independently verify the
> > story given to us from the textbooks. And [[There is no Cabal]]
> > of teachers intentionally giving us biased facts. I think I'm
> > missing your logic somehow - could you explain how it would
> > help the 'pedia if it were banned from schools?
>
> The most effective and deadly weapons are banned from civilian hands
> (Armored personnel vehicles, Combat aircraft, heat-guided rocket
> launchers, grenades, C-4, full-auto M-16s (the list goes on)), and
> they are the ones professionals prefer, because of their
> effectiveness in their intended area of use.

Suppose you were designing a heat-guided launcher for profit. Would
you allow it only to launch rockets, and then be marketed solely
to professionals? Or would you instead enable launching water balloons
for the citizens, and allow rocket-mode for the professionals only?
For profit, I would choose the latter - more customers. But I'm still
not _destroying_ the rocket-launching mechanism. I'm _disabling_ it
for those who should only launch water-balloons. Same with the Wikipedia.
We don't need to _remove_ potentially "dangerous" content. We merely
need to _restrict_ it for those who shouldn't/wouldn't see it.

> Likewise the W, as a comprehensive resource of unbiased, in-depth,
> well-referenced and pored over the world over tool of learning and
> referencey,

a what?? a "pored over the world over tool of learning and referencey"!?

>             would make any entity that is unconfortable with anthing
> except their own version of the truth du jour wish to curtail its use
> among the more tender member of its society.

So we _allow_ the truth du jour to show in Wikipedia, but block the truth
de la nuit*. Don't misunderstand me - I am fundamentally _not_ for censorship.
I just think we need proactive smart censorship to defend from dumb censorship
(think: school blocking software). If we want the Wikipedia to grow, we need
to make it available in as many places as we can - and a prime place is in
schools, whose role is, like the Wikipedia, to educate mankind.

*nuit=night, it's a word play/double-entendre

> I would rather the W become famous among leading geneticists and PHDs
> in history than among 9 graders.

How'd you guess my grade!?

To become famous among geneticists and Ph.D.'s, it must first become
famous among the ninth-graders. We grow up, you know, and we _are_ the
leading geneticists and Ph.D.'s twenty years hence. The more the general
knowledge we have, the more the specific knowledge we can in the future
learn - or create. Many famous persons in history have taught themselves
Latin, or calculus, or something of the sort at a young age. The Wikipedia
makes this easy. Opening it to 9th-graders will _increase_ the likelihood
of the Wikipedia becoming famous among the famous.

Yes, I said _opening_. Again, the point of self-censorship is to create
_more_ readership in the Wikipedia. No, this isn't some "war is peace"
backwards talk. Either we censor now or somebody will do it for us.

> I would *like* 9 graders to be able to use it, but not at the expense
> of seeming to the rest of the world to be a water-pistol in a world
> of precision-guided munition.

If we censor properly, do so only where necessary, not actually _remove_
content, and continue as we have been doing, we'll seem to the world like a
tachyon-positron-laser-beam-parallel-universe-three-second-destroyer in
contrast to ordinary, *boring* precision-guided munitions <yawn>. And yes, we'll
seem like water-pistols to students, but in a world of drippy faucets. At
least we won't be a disconnected faucet.

-[[User:Geoffrey]] Thomas

P.S. One of the reasons I'd like to censor is for my own preference, for
example, when looking at the articles [[User:Viking]] edited when a ban
was called for...and I realized suddenly what the articles were about...

P.P.S. What's Sifter, and is it relevant to this? Has any work been done
on that?

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com


from_name: Walter Vermeir

subject: [Wikitech-l] tech problem user login

body:
I have a problem whit a new account from a user on the dutch Wikipedia.

He can not login. A new password recieved by use of the "forget password"
does not work.

I have requested a new password for that user and asked to forwarded it to
my. It does not work also.

Can a develloper fix it please?

User "Roel"
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gebruiker:Roel

"Iemand (waarschijnlijk uzelf) vanaf IP-adres 62.166.105.192 heeft verzocht
u een nieuw wachtwoord voor Wikipedia NL toe te zenden. Het nieuwe
wachtwoord
voor gebruiker "Roel" is "FNp1tsN". Advies: nu aanmelden
en uw wachtwoord wijzigigen."

--
Contact: walter AT wikipedia.be
Ook een artikeltje schrijven? WikipediaNL, de vrije GNU/FDL encyclopedie
http://www.wikipedia.be


from_name: Anthere

body:
--- Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
> >Toby Bartels wrote:
> >
> >>>Here's a set of flags that I think would work
> well enough for the
> >>>felching article:
> >>>
> >>>sexuality
> >>>mature content
> >>>slang
> >>>
> >>>I don't see how those are very controversial.
> >>>
> >>"mature content" will definitely cause problems.
> >>You imply in the rest of what you write (not only
> in this post)
> >>?what some would consider to be appropriate only
> for the mature?,
> >>but not only does "mature content" not say this
> literally,
> >>but also (as somebody else pointed out) that's
> extremely broad,
> >>and includes [[Christianity]].  So it won't be of
> much use.
> >>
> >
> >Well, I don't agree.  The standards for what we
> mean by mature content
> >can be spelled out in sufficient detail and in an
> NPOV way so that
> >controversy is minimized.
> >
> >But I'm not invested in that particular phrase.
> Perhaps we could use
> >'explicit sexual content' to distinguish it from
> 'sexuality'.
> >
> >>If I were writing the Wikipedia code, I wouldn't
> spend my time
> >>on writing support for these flags; that's better
> done (if at all)
> >>by another project that operates on top of
> Wikipedia
> >>
> >
> >But this is important for Wikipedia the website,
> not just for
> >others.
> >
> >Some people in this debate have taken a very POV
> position, i.e. that
> >wikipedia should shove this stuff down people's
> throats, and if
> >they're too prudish to deal with it, too bad ha ha.
>  I don't agree.
> >
> To be effective any kind of flagging system must
> avoid subjective
> determinations.  Words like "explicit" and "mature"
> can lead to some
> serious disagreements that can't easily be resolved.
>  The following
> spectrum can be more objectively determined for
> photographs.
>     1. Contains images of sex acts
>     2. Contains close-up images of genitals
>     3. Contains whole-body nudity
>     4. Contains partial nudity
>     5. Shows people in underclothes
>     6. Shows suggestive photos of fully clad people
>
> There is a gradation here, and that gives a greater
> opportunity to
> choose how much is acceptable.  Putting these in
> some coding system
> would allow these to be presented with only a few
> alpha-numeric characters.
>
> Ec

It that for the piano ankles ? :-)

4. should be more precise, I think in most cultures,
seeing a naked hand is fine, seing a naked face not
always so.
Or naked hair
Or legs
Or tummy (look, it IS very hot these days here :-))

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com


from_name: Christopher Mahan

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Filtering, etc.

body:
--- Geoffrey Thomas <geoffreyerffoeg at yahoo.com> wrote:
> groan...I have to retype this reply because I accidentally closed
> the window...

I feel for you man...

>
> Christopher Mahan saith:
> > --- Geoffrey Thomas <geoffreyerffoeg at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Christopher Mahan wrote:
> > > >Perhaps not, in fact, because the majority of people in the
> world
> > > >want an unbiased source, and almost everyone knows that
> education
> > > >material is biased. Being banned from schools might actually
> be to
> > > >the project's benefit.
> > >
> > > Mff. I go to a school. I want Wikipedia there.
> > >
> > > If educational material is biased, all the more reason for an
> NPOV
> > > Wikipedia available from schools to independently verify the
> > > story given to us from the textbooks. And [[There is no Cabal]]
> > > of teachers intentionally giving us biased facts. I think I'm
> > > missing your logic somehow - could you explain how it would
> > > help the 'pedia if it were banned from schools?
> >
> > The most effective and deadly weapons are banned from civilian
> hands
> > (Armored personnel vehicles, Combat aircraft, heat-guided rocket
> > launchers, grenades, C-4, full-auto M-16s (the list goes on)),
> and
> > they are the ones professionals prefer, because of their
> > effectiveness in their intended area of use.
>
> Suppose you were designing a heat-guided launcher for profit. Would
> you allow it only to launch rockets, and then be marketed solely
> to professionals? Or would you instead enable launching water
> balloons
> for the citizens, and allow rocket-mode for the professionals only?
> For profit, I would choose the latter - more customers. But I'm
> still
> not _destroying_ the rocket-launching mechanism. I'm _disabling_ it
> for those who should only launch water-balloons. Same with the
> Wikipedia.
> We don't need to _remove_ potentially "dangerous" content. We
> merely
> need to _restrict_ it for those who shouldn't/wouldn't see it.

[sarcasm] Is that why F-16 jet-fighters come in a non-military
version? [/sarcasm] hum sorry.

> > Likewise the W, as a comprehensive resource of unbiased,
> in-depth,
> > well-referenced and pored over the world over tool of learning
> and
> > referencey,
>
> a what?? a "pored over the world over tool of learning and
> referencey"!?

pored over: looked over, investigated, viewed in detail.

the world over: all over the world

referencey: my bad. Typo. should be "reference".

>
> >             would make any entity that is unconfortable with
> anthing
> > except their own version of the truth du jour wish to curtail its
> use
> > among the more tender member of its society.

> So we _allow_ the truth du jour to show in Wikipedia, but block the
> truth
> de la nuit*. Don't misunderstand me - I am fundamentally _not_ for
> censorship.
> I just think we need proactive smart censorship to defend from dumb
> censorship
> (think: school blocking software). If we want the Wikipedia to
> grow, we need
> to make it available in as many places as we can - and a prime
> place is in
> schools, whose role is, like the Wikipedia, to educate mankind.

> *nuit=night, it's a word play/double-entendre

Being french, I got your ref.

I want to block no truth, but I want to be NPOV.
Schools are not there to educate mankind. Schools are there to make
people efficient workers.
Libraries and bookstores educate people (which is to say people
educate themselves.) (and by extension, encyclopedias are effectively
self-education-enablers, so it would make twisted sense for them to
be banned from schools).

As far as where to put the W where it can be seen by the most people
in the world, I think http://www.wikipedia.org/ was a pretty good
spot already.

> > I would rather the W become famous among leading geneticists and
> PHDs
> > in history than among 9 graders.
>
> How'd you guess my grade!?

The luck of the Irish, I guess.

> To become famous among geneticists and Ph.D.'s, it must first
> become
> famous among the ninth-graders. We grow up, you know, and we _are_
> the
> leading geneticists and Ph.D.'s twenty years hence. The more the
> general
> knowledge we have, the more the specific knowledge we can in the
> future
> learn - or create. Many famous persons in history have taught
> themselves
> Latin, or calculus, or something of the sort at a young age. The
> Wikipedia
> makes this easy. Opening it to 9th-graders will _increase_ the
> likelihood
> of the Wikipedia becoming famous among the famous.

Yes, but ninth graders don't have access to the same computing
resources scientists do, so should supercomputer manufacturers make
computers for nine-graders first? You use the right tool for the job.

I envision the W will in a few years become the peer-reviewed of all
peered-reviewed resources, with article histories going back years,
with references and cross-references that would make the most wizened
librarian teary-eyed.

> Yes, I said _opening_. Again, the point of self-censorship is to
> create
> _more_ readership in the Wikipedia. No, this isn't some "war is
> peace"
> backwards talk. Either we censor now or somebody will do it for us.

Like they censored Linux.

Anyway, censorship is bad, but most especially self-censorship.

> > I would *like* 9 graders to be able to use it, but not at the
> expense
> > of seeming to the rest of the world to be a water-pistol in a
> world
> > of precision-guided munition.
>
> If we censor properly, do so only where necessary, not actually
> _remove_
> content, and continue as we have been doing, we'll seem to the
> world like a
>
tachyon-positron-laser-beam-parallel-universe-three-second-destroyer
> in
> contrast to ordinary, *boring* precision-guided munitions <yawn>.
> And yes, we'll
> seem like water-pistols to students, but in a world of drippy
> faucets. At
> least we won't be a disconnected faucet.

If the article is censored yet not removed, access must be restricted
somehow. who controls the access? Jimmy? Sysops? the US Secretary of
Education? a rabbi? a consortium?

If the access is not controlled, it might as well not be there.

=====
Christopher Mahan
chris_mahan at yahoo.com
818.943.1850 cell
http://www.christophermahan.com/

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com


body:
--- Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:
> Practically, there is one problem that has not been
> sufficiently addressed
> in the previous discussion; Axel touched upon it,
> and I'd like to try to
> spell it out more clearly.
>
> F I L T E R S   A R E   B A D.
>
> OK, here's the complex version. Wikipedia is built
> by persons with a
> fairly progressive mindset, and I believe most of us
> agree that it's a bad
> idea to shield young eyes from so-called "dangerous"
> content, *especially*
> in an encyclopedia, that filters don't work properly
> etc.
>
> If we, as Wikipedia, offer a convenient filtering
> option for schools and
> libraries, we effectively endorse the strategy of
> having those filters in
> place. We say: "Yeah, we know, you have to operate
> under these standards,
> so, here's a checkbox you have to click to make sure
> they are followed."
>
> If we, as Wikipedia, refuse to do so, we effectively
> challenge these
> schools and libraries to ban an encyclopedia. They
> may get away with
> banning porn sites easily, but an *entire*
> encyclopedia? Just because it
> discusses sexual content on some of its pages? I bet
> the ACLU would love
> to challenge that on first amendment grounds.
>
> If you dislike mandatory filters for schools and
> libraries, not having
> them as a part of Wikipedia is a very good strategy
> to combat them.
> Wikipedia is a highly important project that may
> well become the center of
> a future lawsuit in defense of free speech. I don't
> think we should
> effectively endorse the use of mandatory filters
> just because of Jimbo's
> mother.
>
> And just to be a little more provocative, the same
> goes for fair use (I
> don't know what Jimbo's mom has to say about that,
> though): By endorsing
> fair use, we defend this principle. By rejecting it,
> we give the opponents
> of fair use an opportunity to say: "Oh well, look at
> Wikipedia, they have
> built a free encyclopedia of 3 million articles
> without stealing any
> content with that so called fair use thing. So why
> not get rid of it
> altogether?"
>
> Our decisions, our rules, affect the world outside
> of Wikipedia.
> Specifically, our openness and tolerance can make
> the world more open and
> tolerant. Never for a second believe that we are not
> important enough to
> have such an effect.
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik

I support you here Erik

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com


from_name: koyaanis qatsi

subject: [WikiEN-l] RE: filtering, etc.

body:
Eclecticology writes:

>Sounds like KQ has blown his cover.  Now we all know
>he's a scriptwriter for "Saturday Night Live". :-)

You mean the email would have been funny at 30 words,
but I let it ramble on to 1500?  ;-)

cheers,

kq

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com


body:
--- Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:
> Theoretically, I have no objections against building an open
> filtering
> system for Wikipedia, that is, one where several, differing
> standards can
> be implemented in parallel (such as my team certification model).
> Of
> course, nobody of the current developers other than myself is
> particularly
> invested in that idea, so it will probably not get built unless
> some
> unforseen incident allows me to spend large amount of time on the
> Wikipedia codebase (particularly one that does not involve a
> kidnapping
> and programming at gunpoint).
>
> Practically, there is one problem that has not been sufficiently
> addressed
> in the previous discussion; Axel touched upon it, and I'd like to
> try to
> spell it out more clearly.
>
> F I L T E R S   A R E   B A D.
>
> OK, here's the complex version. Wikipedia is built by persons with
> a
> fairly progressive mindset, and I believe most of us agree that
> it's a bad
> idea to shield young eyes from so-called "dangerous" content,
> *especially*
> in an encyclopedia, that filters don't work properly etc.
>
> If we, as Wikipedia, offer a convenient filtering option for
> schools and
> libraries, we effectively endorse the strategy of having those
> filters in
> place. We say: "Yeah, we know, you have to operate under these
> standards,
> so, here's a checkbox you have to click to make sure they are
> followed."
>
> If we, as Wikipedia, refuse to do so, we effectively challenge
> these
> schools and libraries to ban an encyclopedia. They may get away
> with
> banning porn sites easily, but an *entire* encyclopedia? Just
> because it
> discusses sexual content on some of its pages? I bet the ACLU would
> love
> to challenge that on first amendment grounds.
>
> If you dislike mandatory filters for schools and libraries, not
> having
> them as a part of Wikipedia is a very good strategy to combat them.
>
> Wikipedia is a highly important project that may well become the
> center of
> a future lawsuit in defense of free speech. I don't think we should
>
> effectively endorse the use of mandatory filters just because of
> Jimbo's
> mother.
>
> And just to be a little more provocative, the same goes for fair
> use (I
> don't know what Jimbo's mom has to say about that, though): By
> endorsing
> fair use, we defend this principle. By rejecting it, we give the
> opponents
> of fair use an opportunity to say: "Oh well, look at Wikipedia,
> they have
> built a free encyclopedia of 3 million articles without stealing
> any
> content with that so called fair use thing. So why not get rid of
> it
> altogether?"
>
> Our decisions, our rules, affect the world outside of Wikipedia.
> Specifically, our openness and tolerance can make the world more
> open and
> tolerant. Never for a second believe that we are not important
> enough to
> have such an effect.
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik

Your opinions mirror mine on these matters.

=====
Christopher Mahan
chris_mahan at yahoo.com
818.943.1850 cell
http://www.christophermahan.com/

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: filtering, etc.

body:
Hum

I don't know what "Saturday Night Live" is

but that sure was something :-)

(side note : OJ Simpson does not trouble me much, but
I would remove Clinton from meta:crime, unzipping is
no crime. I would put it back for not assuming maybe
:-))

--- Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Sounds like KQ has blown his cover.  Now we all know
> he's a scriptwriter
> for "Saturday Night Live". :-)
> Ec
>
>
> koyaanis qatsi wrote:
>
> >Nonetheless, for the sake of argument, let's assume
> >that applying categories to our articles for the
> sake
> >of filtering them from the innocent eyes of
> children
> >can be handled without controversy, in spite of the
> >general controversy already stirred up on the
> mailing
> >list.  Let us assume also that it can be done
> without
> >running afoul of NPOV, and that this wikipedia
> decree
> >of what is and is not Safe and Good and Morally
> Just
> >for children to know will be accepted and endorsed
> by
> >wikipedians in general.  So, let's set about
> >categorizing articles.
> >
> >Given that a category scheme with, say, 3million
> >categories would be worse than useless for the
> purpose
> >of filtering content, we'll set a few categories.
> One
> >of them, as Jimbo has indicated, will be Crime.
> What
> >articles are relevant to crime?  Koyanis Qatsi
> >nominates [[George W. Bush]] for his cocaine habit,
> >but Powaqqatsi says "wait, wait, that's hearsay; we
> >can't include that."  Ok, a fair point.  Two paths
> >diverged in a POV debate, and which does wikipedia
> >take?  Let's say wikipedia decides that the
> metadata
> >crime can be added to any article with a mention of
> a
> >crime, whether it's been proven or not.  So mav
> writes
> >an article on the well-known layabout gadfly KQ,
> >because he has it on good faith from a friend that
> KQ
> >has once been convicted of jaywalking; and then he
> >adds the metadata:crime to the article.  KQ
> >"retaliates" and adds crime to the articles on
> Bromide
> >and Arsenic, because they've been used in some
> crimes
> >he knows about, and children shouldn't have such
> >notions of poisoning put into their heads.  Well,
> >AxelBoldt worked 812 hours apiece on those
> articles,
> >and he won't have his work censored, so he adds
> >metadata:crime to [[Sid Davis]] because, hell, it
> does
> >mention molestation.  Oh, this is going great.
> >Anthere adds metadata:crime to [[O.J. Simpson]];
> Bryan
> >Derksen removes it because he was found innocent in
> >criminal court; Brion Vibber restores it because he
> >was found guilty in civil court.  [[24]] steps in
> and
> >says "why should crime in the U.S. be the deciding
> >factor?  What about crime in the U.K., or Bhutan,
> or
> >the Apache nation?"  So Henry Kissinger gets
> >metadata:Crime because Chile wants him extradited
> to
> >stand trial for war crimes.  Jimbo steps in and
> adds
> >crime to the Clintons for their -gate and for
> Bill's
> >tendency to keep his zipper down, and Ed Poor adds
> the
> >metadata to the articles on lead pipes, knives,
> >swords, Sherman tanks, and letter openers (a
> mystery
> >crime favorite).
> >
> >It's a ridiculous situation.  Wikipedia comes to
> its
> >senses and says "wait, the only articles that will
> get
> >the metadata:crime will be articles on *people* who
> >have been tried for and convicted of a crime."  A
> >better path.  (though, I might add, still one that
> is
> >provably illogical, given that courts reviewing the
> >same evidence as other courts often overturn
> verdicts,
> >and so even facts of a crime are open to
> >interpretation).  Anyway, so metadata:crime is
> >inserted into articles on [[Randal Dale Adams]],
> later
> >tried again and proven innocent, and [[Jesus
> >Christ]]--no appeal for him--and [[Nelson
> Mandela]],
> >that agitator and limerock miner.  Nice look, the
> >squint.  Pizza Puzzle adds it to [[Adolf Hitler]]
> but
> >Notheruser says "wait, wait, he was never tried and
> >convicted; he committed suicide and didn't have a
> >chance to defend himself."  So the label is
> removed,
> >and is removed from [[Richard Nixon]] and [[Lee
> Harvey
> >Oswald]], and [[Jack the Ripper]].  Hey, this works
> >great.
> >
> >sarcastically, bitterly, but still with a point.
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com


from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
Theoretically, I have no objections against building an open filtering
system for Wikipedia, that is, one where several, differing standards can
be implemented in parallel (such as my team certification model). Of
course, nobody of the current developers other than myself is particularly
invested in that idea, so it will probably not get built unless some
unforseen incident allows me to spend large amount of time on the
Wikipedia codebase (particularly one that does not involve a kidnapping
and programming at gunpoint).

Practically, there is one problem that has not been sufficiently addressed
in the previous discussion; Axel touched upon it, and I'd like to try to
spell it out more clearly.

F I L T E R S   A R E   B A D.

OK, here's the complex version. Wikipedia is built by persons with a
fairly progressive mindset, and I believe most of us agree that it's a bad
idea to shield young eyes from so-called "dangerous" content, *especially*
in an encyclopedia, that filters don't work properly etc.

If we, as Wikipedia, offer a convenient filtering option for schools and
libraries, we effectively endorse the strategy of having those filters in
place. We say: "Yeah, we know, you have to operate under these standards,
so, here's a checkbox you have to click to make sure they are followed."

If we, as Wikipedia, refuse to do so, we effectively challenge these
schools and libraries to ban an encyclopedia. They may get away with
banning porn sites easily, but an *entire* encyclopedia? Just because it
discusses sexual content on some of its pages? I bet the ACLU would love
to challenge that on first amendment grounds.

If you dislike mandatory filters for schools and libraries, not having
them as a part of Wikipedia is a very good strategy to combat them.
Wikipedia is a highly important project that may well become the center of
a future lawsuit in defense of free speech. I don't think we should
effectively endorse the use of mandatory filters just because of Jimbo's
mother.

And just to be a little more provocative, the same goes for fair use (I
don't know what Jimbo's mom has to say about that, though): By endorsing
fair use, we defend this principle. By rejecting it, we give the opponents
of fair use an opportunity to say: "Oh well, look at Wikipedia, they have
built a free encyclopedia of 3 million articles without stealing any
content with that so called fair use thing. So why not get rid of it
altogether?"

Our decisions, our rules, affect the world outside of Wikipedia.
Specifically, our openness and tolerance can make the world more open and
tolerant. Never for a second believe that we are not important enough to
have such an effect.

Regards,

Erik


body:
--- Vicki Rosenzweig <vr at redbird.org> wrote:
> At 03:14 PM 6/11/03 -0700, Ray wrote:
>
>
> >To be effective any kind of flagging system must
> avoid subjective
> >determinations.  Words like "explicit" and "mature"
> can lead to some
> >serious disagreements that can't easily be
> resolved.  The following
> >spectrum can be more objectively determined for
> photographs.
> >    1. Contains images of sex acts
> >    2. Contains close-up images of genitals
> >    3. Contains whole-body nudity
> >    4. Contains partial nudity
> >    5. Shows people in underclothes
> >    6. Shows suggestive photos of fully clad people
>
> I'm not convinced that this doesn't just move the
> subjectivity. Even
> "sex acts" is open to argument--is one woman licking
> another's
> breast a sex act, for example? (I assume we agree
> that a photo of
> a nursing infant does not contain a sex act.)

Personal memories of what "explicit" might be.

I breastfed for months when living in the US.
In public places, I have been told several times what
I was doing was "indecent", and "could you just not go
please to the restrooms to do 'that'".

I assume we agree that nursing a baby while sitting on
the toilet seat is certainly not a pleasant picture.
Do we ? Yet, it was suggested, when I answered there
was no chair in the restrooms.

I was not spreading my nudity. However I was not
hiding under a huge shawl, as if I was doing a
shameful act (and removing air from the baby). I was
discreet and it was nobody's business.

But, yes, I was told *I* could be responsible of
giving "bad" thoughts (sexual thoughts) to some
people.

There are no limits to what we can assume people might
label "to be censored". Which is why I am against *us*
defining what could be censored.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com


from_name: Toby Bartels

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Filtering, etc.

body:
Geoffrey Thomas wrote in part:

>We don't need to _remove_ potentially "dangerous" content. We merely
>need to _restrict_ it for those who shouldn't/wouldn't see it.

Very well.  But we have no content that anybody shouldn't see.
(As for wouldn't, they have control over that themselves.)
Disagree?  Then the burden of proof lies with you, I think.

>Yes, I said _opening_. Again, the point of self-censorship is to create
>_more_ readership in the Wikipedia. No, this isn't some "war is peace"
>backwards talk. Either we censor now or somebody will do it for us.

Where is the indication of this, by the way?
The motivation so far is just so much speculation.

>If we censor properly, do so only where necessary,

Thus, nowhere. ^_^

>P.S. One of the reasons I'd like to censor is for my own preference, for
>example, when looking at the articles [[User:Viking]] edited when a ban
>was called for...and I realized suddenly what the articles were about...

I'd like to hear about your experience looking for those articles.
And how you'd have done things differently if they'd come up blocked.

>P.P.S. What's Sifter, and is it relevant to this? Has any work been done
>on that?

Sifter is a (now apparently defunct) project of Larry Sanger's
to place another site (the Sifter) on top of Wikipedia;
it would contain only those articles that had been chosen ("sifted")
by a team of editors as accurate, peer-reviewed content.
The process can be adapted to any group that wants to manage the content
for any reason (as had been discussed when it was active).
And Jimbo has indicated in the past a willingness to pay for such
(it would be bandwidth, since Wikipedia itself has the data).
Edupedia (LittleDan's term) could be built on this model.

I'm pretty sure that Sifter fell apart because people lost interest,
not because there was any difficulty in doing what had to be done.
So as long as y'all don't lose interest ... welcome, Edupedia!
Certified educational and unobjectionable for your child. ^_^

-- Toby


body:
LittleDan wrote:

>That creates a paradox. Any one scheme for censorship (or even flagging) is
>POV, while a lack of one is also POV. We're stuck. So let's choose the choice
>which will broaden our audience the most: flagging built into the software.

Failing to categorify content is POV???
Where's the bias?

-- Toby


from_name: Tomasz Wegrzanowski

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Fair use

body:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:10:21AM -0700, Jason Richey wrote:
> This discussion is making my head spin...  Let me see if I can get the
> basics in order for myself (please, let me know if I don't have it
> right):
>
> * Everyone basically agrees that the text (not including quotes, which
>   I don't intend to discuss here) of Wikipedia is okay, even if the
>   text refers to an image that is fair use.
>
> * Everyone agrees that The en Wikipedia has some images that we are
>   legally allowed to use (on the website) under fair use assuming that
>   we don't claim they are GFDL.

no, it's not legal because of gfdl.
i'm also not sure if most of these celebrity photos are really under
fair use at all


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [WikiEN-l] Please edit [[Wikipedia:Book sources]]

body:
James D. Forrester wrote:

>>My favourite online bookseller -- Advanced Book Exchange
>>(http://www.abebooks.com) -- is not listed, & if appropriate I think this
>>website should be included.
>>
>>
>
>Sadly, as their books are second hand, ABE don't seem to offer an ISBN reference (each book lot has its own local ID instead). Because of this, we couldn't add it (AFAICT; IMBW and if so, someone please correct me :-)).
>

Of course we could add a link; it just wouldn't be ISBN-indexed, so
you'd want to add a note telling the user that they'll have to search
the book by title / author manually.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


from_name: martin at myreddice.freeserve.co.uk

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: One concern regarding filters

body:
Eloquence> "By endorsing fair use, we defend this principle"

I'd prefer to defend the principle of open content. That's what's in Wikipedia's
mission statement. We've come together, from diverse walks of life, with all kinds of
mutually contradictory belief systems, and united around that goal. Let's not distract
ourselves by bringing all kinds of other ideas. To my mind, we should evaluate
everything by a single question - "What will help us achieve our goal of making a
collaborative, online, accessible, open content, accurate, unbiased and
comprehensive encyclopedia?".

If someone can convince me that content filters will help us, or hinder us, in that
goal, then I'll listen carefully and "vote" accordingly. But arguments about protecting
children, or how content filters should be scrapped, are irrelevant - I didn't sign on to
Wikipedia to protect children, nor to scrap content filters. Tell me instead about how
content filters will make Wikipedia more accessible, or how they will make Wikipedia
less comprehensive. Tell me about how getting more children on Wikipedia will
improve the possibilities for collaboration, or tell me how it's impossible to do content
filtering in an unbiased way. Those are the arguments that are worth making...

Martin "MyRedDice" Harper


from_name: Lee Pilich

subject: [WikiEN-l] Writing to AOL about Michael

body:
If I wanted to write to AOL about Michael (which I do - I don't suppose
it'll do much good, but it's worth a go), what info would they want  apart
from an account of his activities? I'm guessing they'd need IP numbers he's
used in conjunction with edit times, is that right? I was half-way through
writing a message to them before I realised all I had identity-wise was
"it's some guy who calls himself 'Michael', or 'NOFX', or 'Weezer', or...".

Incidentally, I don't think that my writing to AOL (assuming that I do
indeed write) should stop other people writing to them as well.

lp (camembert)
WikiKarma: a tad more at [[Michael Nyman]]


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
Point your link at:

http://dogbert.abebooks.com/abe/BookSearchPL

ABE gives the option of finding books published before the ISBN system was
instituted.

Fred

> From: Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com>
> Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 00:29:36 -0700
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Please edit [[Wikipedia:Book sources]]
>
> James D. Forrester wrote:
>
>>> My favourite online bookseller -- Advanced Book Exchange
>>> (http://www.abebooks.com) -- is not listed, & if appropriate I think this
>>> website should be included.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Sadly, as their books are second hand, ABE don't seem to offer an ISBN
>> reference (each book lot has its own local ID instead). Because of this, we
>> couldn't add it (AFAICT; IMBW and if so, someone please correct me :-)).
>>
>
> Of course we could add a link; it just wouldn't be ISBN-indexed, so
> you'd want to add a note telling the user that they'll have to search
> the book by title / author manually.
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


body:
I have edited Booksources and put a functioning link in that searchs ABE for
ISBN. It links to advanced search page and is also functional for searching
for books without ISBNs. However the ISBN link does not reach the edited
page unless it has a valid ISBN. Please consider allowing access to the page
using some link like ISBN n/a

Fred

> From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net>
> Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 02:25:43 -0600
> To: <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Please edit [[Wikipedia:Book sources]]
>
> Point your link at:
>
> http://dogbert.abebooks.com/abe/BookSearchPL
>
> ABE gives the option of finding books published before the ISBN system was
> instituted.
>
> Fred
>
>> From: Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com>
>> Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>> Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 00:29:36 -0700
>> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Please edit [[Wikipedia:Book sources]]
>>
>> James D. Forrester wrote:
>>
>>>> My favourite online bookseller -- Advanced Book Exchange
>>>> (http://www.abebooks.com) -- is not listed, & if appropriate I think this
>>>> website should be included.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sadly, as their books are second hand, ABE don't seem to offer an ISBN
>>> reference (each book lot has its own local ID instead). Because of this, we
>>> couldn't add it (AFAICT; IMBW and if so, someone please correct me :-)).
>>>
>>
>> Of course we could add a link; it just wouldn't be ISBN-indexed, so
>> you'd want to add a note telling the user that they'll have to search
>> the book by title / author manually.
>>
>> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject: [Wikitech-l] New username validation

body:
--- Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu> wrote:
> Eclecticology wrote:
>
> >Far? seems to be confounding the
> >two ideas, and he currently has the link from
> [[en:Libetarianism]]
> >pointing to [[fr:lib?ralisme]] as though the two
> were equivalent.
>
> You seem to be assuming the [[fr:lib?ralisme]]
> is equivalent to [[en:Liberalism]].
> My understanding is that it's actually
> closer in meaning to [[en:Libertarianism]],
> though [[en:Classical liberalism]] might be even
> better.
>
> But I'm not sure either. ^_^
>
>
> -- Toby

Ola ! You are not making it easier Toby :-)

Far? was listed as a *vandal* for linking
[[fr:lib?ralisme]] to [[en:Libertarianism]].

It is a fraudulent move, right ;-)
No ?

I find curious that some editors are *vandals* on one
wiki, and regular editors not causing any pb on
another (I downgraded him at annoying user level, but
that is just terminology in this case I fear).

That confort me in the opinion that vandalism (and
banning) are or relative value.

Was Helga also said to be a vandal on the german wiki
?

Anthere

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com


list: wikipedia-l

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: [Wikitech-l] Re: Fair use

body:
Axel Boldt wrote:

>I guess that's what it all comes down to. Here's how I would try to
>convince a non-technical judge of my interpretation: "Assuming Mr. Toby
>is correct, the New York Times could freely take one of Wikipedia's
>GFDL images taken by Mr. Mav and use it to illustrate a front page
>article of its web version, without any license problems or negative
>repercussions. But if they were to include the image into their paper
>version, they'd have to license the whole article (newspaper?) under
>GFDL. Your honor, isn't that obviously bollocks, isn't the distribution
>medium a mere technical detail, since anybody can simply print out the
>web version?"
>  -- "Yes of course, oh eloquent attorney."

This seems to me like a reasonable argument that the NYTimes could make
to allow themselves to use mav's photo on their front page.
They'd have to argue that the front page is a *compilation*.
And if they really did include with mav's photo
everything that they'd need for the GFDL to apply when it's alone
(text of the licence, link to a source that hasn't been smudged, etc),
then I'd be inclined to let them get away with it.

-- Toby


from_name: Jimmy Wales

body:
(This policy stuff should really be over on wikipedia-l, not here,
so I am cc:'ing).

Toby Bartels wrote:
> It came up long before in discussion of album covers.
> It seems doubtful that our usage of these images
> is truly "fair use" in the first place
> (a separate issue from whether it violates the GFDL).

It doesn't seem doubtful to me.  See Kelley v. ArribaSoft on
thumbnails:
http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/IP/copyright/kelly_v_arriba_soft.htm

And also: "On the other hand, in Nunez v. Caribbean International News
Corp.,*fn22 the First Circuit found that copying a photograph that was
intended to be used in a modeling portfolio and using it instead in a
news article was a transformative use."

It's a very complicated issue, and although I've spent many hours
reading court cases, I still can't say with any certainty on lots of
questions.

But the album cover example seems pretty squarely fair use.

> It shuts out hardly any users, relatively speaking,
> since it doesn't shut out any readers or writers.
> What it shuts out is forkers, and others that would reproduce Wikipedia.
> This is why it's important that we not claim that all image files
> are covered under the GFDL, since many are no such thing.
> IOW, it's the separation of the free images from the proprietary ones
> that we need to be working on.

This I agree with completely.

Also, *where possible*, and I think this is more cases than people
commonly realize, we should be replacing fair use images with pure GNU
FDL images.

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Fair use


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Fair use

body:
Marco Krohn wrote:
> well, they shouldn't be in Wikipedia at all IMHO, but you are right with
> saying that a printed version is not allowed using "fair use" images.

A printed version could easily use "fair use" images and could still
be distributed under the GNU FDL.  All that would be needed would be a
prominent explanation in the book that it is an aggregation of
independent works, under paragraph 7, and an indication by each image
of what it's status is.

--Jimbo


body:
Axel Boldt wrote:
> I guess that's what it all comes down to. Here's how I would try to
> convince a non-technical judge of my interpretation: "Assuming Mr. Toby
> is correct, the New York Times could freely take one of Wikipedia's
> GFDL images taken by Mr. Mav and use it to illustrate a front page
> article of its web version, without any license problems or negative
> repercussions. But if they were to include the image into their paper
> version, they'd have to license the whole article (newspaper?) under
> GFDL. Your honor, isn't that obviously bollocks, isn't the distribution
> medium a mere technical detail, since anybody can simply print out the
> web version?"
>   -- "Yes of course, oh eloquent attorney."

And then the judge would rule that *either* is appropriate.  The NYT
could use a GNU FDL image in at least 2 ways without causing any
problems for the copyright status of the rest of the paper.

1.  If appropriate, their use could be fair use.  For example, if
there were writing an article about Wikipedia's GNU FDL image
collection, and wanted to report on it by showing examples of what is
in it, this would likely pass fair use muster.

2.  If they didn't have a fair use angle, they could post the photo
with an explanation that it is GNU FDL, and that the paper was
aggregating independent works under clause 7 of the GNU FDL.  They'd
have to comply with all the other terms of the license, of course, but
if they did, there would be no way anyone could seriously claim that
there were violating GNU FDL if they didn't place their other content
in the same paper under GNU FDL.

--Jimbo


body:
Toby Bartels wrote:
> This seems to me like a reasonable argument that the NYTimes could make
> to allow themselves to use mav's photo on their front page.
> They'd have to argue that the front page is a *compilation*.
> And if they really did include with mav's photo
> everything that they'd need for the GFDL to apply when it's alone
> (text of the licence, link to a source that hasn't been smudged, etc),
> then I'd be inclined to let them get away with it.

I think that's exactly right.  They would be in compliance with the
GNU FDL.


body:
Toby Bartels wrote:
> If you spell it out in such a way that it includes explicity sexual
> content but not explicit religious content, then how is this NPOV,
> given an earlier poster (Ec?) that considers the latter harmful to
> kids.  (And if Ec is joking, I have a friend that seriously believes
> that about Christianity in particular.)

End users can adjust it however they like, so what's the problem?

> If ?explicit sexual content? is what you meant all along by "mature
> content", then let's say "explicit sexual content".

No, it isn't what I meant all along.  It's by far the biggest problem
category that we have right now, but of course other things can be
included.

> >But this is important for Wikipedia the website, not just for
> >others.
>
> Is it?  If we have an Edupedia website built on a Sifter model,
> then schools can block Wikipedia as long as they don't block Edupedia.

And that would be very unfortunate, I think.

--Jimbo


in_reply_to: <8ndrRnUxpVB@erik_moeller>; from erik_moeller@gmx.de on Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 11:44:00PM +0200

body:
A very eloquent statement.  For just this once, I'm speechless, since
I agree with everything you say here, at least at the moment, despite
the fact that I've been arguing the other side for several days now.

So I'll shut up for a little while and think this over.  :-)

Erik Moeller wrote:

> Theoretically, I have no objections against building an open filtering
> system for Wikipedia, that is, one where several, differing standards can
> be implemented in parallel (such as my team certification model). Of
> course, nobody of the current developers other than myself is particularly
> invested in that idea, so it will probably not get built unless some
> unforseen incident allows me to spend large amount of time on the
> Wikipedia codebase (particularly one that does not involve a kidnapping
> and programming at gunpoint).
>
> Practically, there is one problem that has not been sufficiently addressed
> in the previous discussion; Axel touched upon it, and I'd like to try to
> spell it out more clearly.
>
> F I L T E R S   A R E   B A D.
>
> OK, here's the complex version. Wikipedia is built by persons with a
> fairly progressive mindset, and I believe most of us agree that it's a bad
> idea to shield young eyes from so-called "dangerous" content, *especially*
> in an encyclopedia, that filters don't work properly etc.
>
> If we, as Wikipedia, offer a convenient filtering option for schools and
> libraries, we effectively endorse the strategy of having those filters in
> place. We say: "Yeah, we know, you have to operate under these standards,
> so, here's a checkbox you have to click to make sure they are followed."
>
> If we, as Wikipedia, refuse to do so, we effectively challenge these
> schools and libraries to ban an encyclopedia. They may get away with
> banning porn sites easily, but an *entire* encyclopedia? Just because it
> discusses sexual content on some of its pages? I bet the ACLU would love
> to challenge that on first amendment grounds.
>
> If you dislike mandatory filters for schools and libraries, not having
> them as a part of Wikipedia is a very good strategy to combat them.
> Wikipedia is a highly important project that may well become the center of
> a future lawsuit in defense of free speech. I don't think we should
> effectively endorse the use of mandatory filters just because of Jimbo's
> mother.
>
> And just to be a little more provocative, the same goes for fair use (I
> don't know what Jimbo's mom has to say about that, though): By endorsing
> fair use, we defend this principle. By rejecting it, we give the opponents
> of fair use an opportunity to say: "Oh well, look at Wikipedia, they have
> built a free encyclopedia of 3 million articles without stealing any
> content with that so called fair use thing. So why not get rid of it
> altogether?"
>
> Our decisions, our rules, affect the world outside of Wikipedia.
> Specifically, our openness and tolerance can make the world more open and
> tolerant. Never for a second believe that we are not important enough to
> have such an effect.
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Filtering, etc.

body:
Axel Boldt wrote:
> Now my real point. "Young people are constantly exposed to half-truths
> about sexuality by smirking older boys in the schoolyard, by the media,
> by internet porn sites. In Wikipedia, we cover those topics in a
> respectful, truthful and neutral way. Take it or leave it."

Again, very eloquent, and I'm listening.  (But not speaking for a
couple of days, while I digest this.)

--Jimbo


body:
Axel-

> I can turn that one around. Suppose we freely use fair use materials.
> "I have heard from my dear constituents, the media conglomerates, that
> the Wikipedia people have built a free encyclopedia of 3 million
> articles, much of it stolen as so-called 'fair use'. We need to put an
> end to this immediately."

Sure, anyone could call fair use in our articles piracy, but that would be
like calling Wikipedia pornographic because we have a photo of a clitoris.
Each statement is believable only to persons who are retarded or the
givers or recipients of bribes. Wikipedia is a not-for-profit
encyclopedia, it is *exactly* the kind of project that fair use has been
created for. The above is therefore hardly a useful statement to effect
any political outcome, and would probably have the reverse psychology
results that obvious vested interest statements tend to have: drive more
people to Wikipedia.

Anyone fighting fair use is fighting an uphill struggle. By explicitly
prohibiting fair use, we would support that struggle. And I can only
emphasize once again: We lose nothing by allowing fair use -- those who
want to commercialize Wikipedia can easily filter out the contents that do
not meet their prospective use. But the irony lies in the fact that
cracking down on "piracy" and fair use does provide an incentive to create
more open content -- GNU people are secretly smiling when they hear that
China is doing another public CD destruction, because they know that
nothing will drive free software adoption more.

It is this fundamental conflict of interest that tends to cloud the
judgment. In the end, it does not matter where the content comes from, as
long as it is freely available. International copyright codes contain
provisions for copying certain valuable information for educational
purposes. We should do so where reasonably possible -- *with restrictions*
because fair use is more narrow than the rights granted by the FDL. But
cracking down on fair use altogether is an irresponsible, extremist
position that will not support the cause of providing free education to
the masses. And frankly, your arguments so far that we don't need any of
those fair use images have been tragically weak. You won't get Don
Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein to pose again in front of the camera, you
know. And if we just link to a site containing the picture, that site will
face the same fair use concerns that we would face by hosting it -- only
it would not be able to state that it is a free encyclopedia with 130,000
articles and a clearly educational mission. And probably a decent team of
lawyers by the time such problems come up.

Regards,

Erik


subject: [Wikitech-l] New username validation

body:
Anth?re wrote:

>Far? was listed as a *vandal* for linking
>[[fr:lib?ralisme]] to [[en:Libertarianism]].

Well, I don't know what a [[fr:vandal]] is,
but a good faith attempt at an interwiki link
can't make somebody a [[en:vandal]]. ^_^

-- Toby


from_name: James D. Forrester

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

On Wednesday, 11th June, 2003, at 17:59, Geoffrey Burling wrote:

> Out of curiosity, is there a criteria for which booksellers
> we include?

Well, it has to have a site that uses ISBNs as the key to reference books in the URLs (otherwise, how do we generate a link to them for a particular book?)

> My favourite online bookseller -- Advanced Book Exchange
> (http://www.abebooks.com) -- is not listed, & if appropriate I think this
> website should be included.

Sadly, as their books are second hand, ABE don't seem to offer an ISBN reference (each book lot has its own local ID instead). Because of this, we couldn't add it (AFAICT; IMBW and if so, someone please correct me :-)).

[Snip]

Yours,
- --
James D. Forrester
<mailto:jon at eh.org> | <mailto:csvla at dcs.warwick.ac.uk>
<mailto:jamesdforrester at hotmail.com> | <mailto:james at jdforrester.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0

iQA/AwUBPugpppJ95FMWcicdEQJi/QCePnKJM8c2oz9aNli+xyBj1UHehUUAnRU3
cXaAnXHNVouF8QILhS16RZhB
=cqDb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


body:
limholt at excite.com wrote:

>LittleDan wrote:

>>That creates a paradox. Any one scheme for censorship (or even flagging) is
>>POV, while a lack of one is also POV. We're stuck. So let's choose the choice
>>which will broaden our audience the most: flagging built into the software.

>
>Toby Bartels wrote:

>Failing to categorify content is POV???
>Where's the bias?

--
>
>I accept Dan's point. The idea that all types of material MUST be available without filtering (py parents for example) is a POV about how children should be educated. This is a very slippery kind of concept, sort of like the difference between 'freedom OF religion' and 'freedom FROM religion.
>
Close, but not quite.

The point of view is *not* that children should be educated in
such-and-such a way, but rather that people who want to be restrictive
about the material that people (not necessarily just children!) have
access to should set up those restrictions *themselves*; that it is not
part of Wikipedia's mission to censor material about certain topics, but
that our license allows anyone who wishes to to create a derivitive work
which is more limited in scope and more targeted in audience.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


body:
Fred Bauder wrote:

>I have edited Booksources and put a functioning link in that searchs ABE for
>ISBN. It links to advanced search page and is also functional for searching
>for books without ISBNs. However the ISBN link does not reach the edited
>page unless it has a valid ISBN. Please consider allowing access to the page
>using some link like ISBN n/a
>
[[Special:Booksources]] should do it.

Hmm, for some reason this doesn't display the custom text unless an ISBN
has been given. Erik?

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


from_name: Cafemusique - Scott Rollins

subject: [WikiEN-l] capitalisation

body:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2003, Ray Saintonge wrote:

> I would add that Canadian usage is trending toward St-Mary (with a
> hyphen) in response to developing a common usage for French and English.

It is?  I don't think I've ever seen that used in English, except for
(perhaps) Quebec.  I would think it's FAR too early to notice a trend
there.

Perhaps in official circles, but I certainly haven't seen it in general
usage (except, as I say, perhaps in Quebec, where there is a much greater
tendancy to borrow from French).

Cafemusique
wikipedian at vivace.homelinux.net


body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

>>Hmm, for some reason this doesn't display the custom text unless an ISBN
>>has been given. Erik?
>>
>>
>
>Most of the URLs on [[Wikipedia:Book sources]] stop working properly if
>they do not get passed the MAGICNUMBER variable. Therefore the
>[[Wikipedia: Book sources]] text is only displayed when an ISBN number is
>passed, otherwise the hardcoded text is used.
>
Humble idea: strip out the paths from the URLs, so they go to the sites'
front pages.

This could fail in some cases, perhaps, but it's just a thought.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


subject: [Wikitech-l] New username validation

body:
Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu> wrote:
Anth?re wrote:

>Far? was listed as a *vandal* for linking
>[[fr:lib?ralisme]] to [[en:Libertarianism]].

Well, I don't know what a [[fr:vandal]] is,
but a good faith attempt at an interwiki link
can't make somebody a [[en:vandal]]. ^_^

---------

key word : good faith ;-) Toby

^_^ (borrow it in good faith)

(Well, I have been said I was a vandal on en, so what do I know after all ?)

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20030612/c87c533e/attachment.html>


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: filtering, etc.

body:
Anthere wrote:

>Hum
>
>I don't know what "Saturday Night Live" is
>
>but that sure was something :-)
>
SNL is a popular American variety entertainment show that has been on
late Saturday nights since 1975.  Some of the satires and other comedy
are quite good.  You may be able to find some pirate versions of the
skits on the Internet.

Ec


subject: [Wikitech-l] New username validation

body:
Guillaume Blanchard <gblanchard at arcsy.co.jp> wrote:
> Anth?re wrote:
>
> >Far? was listed as a *vandal* for linking
> >[[fr:lib?ralisme]] to [[en:Libertarianism]].
>
> Well, I don't know what a [[fr:vandal]] is,
> but a good faith attempt at an interwiki link
> can't make somebody a [[en:vandal]]. ^_^
>
> -- Toby

Far? is not listed as a "vandal" on the french Wikipedia, but as
"problematic editor".

Aoineko

------

True.

*I* removed him from the *vandalism page*, to downgrad him to the *problematic users* :-)

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20030612/512f85d4/attachment.html>


from_name: limholt at excite.com

body:
LittleDan wrote:

>>That creates a paradox. Any one scheme for censorship (or even flagging) is
>>POV, while a lack of one is also POV. We're stuck. So let's choose the choice
>>which will broaden our audience the most: flagging built into the software.

Toby Bartels wrote:

>Failing to categorify content is POV???
>Where's the bias?

--

I accept Dan's point. The idea that all types of material MUST be available without filtering (py parents for example) is a POV about how children should be educated. This is a very slippery kind of concept, sort of like the difference between 'freedom OF religion' and 'freedom FROM religion.

LouI

_______________________________________________
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!


body:
I think it is better if they go the advanced search page for the various
sites.

Fred

> From: Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com>
> Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 09:04:37 -0700
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Please edit [[Wikipedia:Book sources]]
>
> Erik Moeller wrote:
>
>>> Hmm, for some reason this doesn't display the custom text unless an ISBN
>>> has been given. Erik?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Most of the URLs on [[Wikipedia:Book sources]] stop working properly if
>> they do not get passed the MAGICNUMBER variable. Therefore the
>> [[Wikipedia: Book sources]] text is only displayed when an ISBN number is
>> passed, otherwise the hardcoded text is used.
>>
> Humble idea: strip out the paths from the URLs, so they go to the sites'
> front pages.
>
> This could fail in some cases, perhaps, but it's just a thought.
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: tarquin

subject: [Wikitech-l] interlanguage self-links

body:
Sorry to drag this up again.

But please could someone look into this:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&atid=411195&aid=746048&group_id=34373

I've just had to interlink the following pages:

[[de:Erdalkalimetalle]] [[eo:Teralkala metalo]]
[[ja:アルカリ土類金属]]
[[zh:%E7%A2%B1%E5%9C%9F%E9%87%91%E5%B1%9E]] [[fr:M?taux
alcalino-terreux]] [[en:Alkaline earth metal]]

and frankly, I've proceeded as if the above feature was already working
because culling the self-link from each page would have taken me
forever. So all those pages link to themselves.


from_name: Axel Boldt

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Fair use

body:
--- Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> wrote:
> Marco Krohn wrote:
> > well, they shouldn't be in Wikipedia at all IMHO, but you are right
> > with saying that a printed version is not allowed using "fair use"
> > images.
>
> A printed version could easily use "fair use" images and could still
> be distributed under the GNU FDL.  All that would be needed would
> be a prominent explanation in the book that it is an aggregation of
> independent works, under paragraph 7, and an indication by each image
> of what it's status is.

But something doesn't become an "aggregation" just because the author
says so; it's a matter of law. If it's a derivative work, then it's not
an aggregation, per paragraph 7 GFDL. Now "derivative work" is a
technical term defined in 17 U.S.C. sec. 101 and probably further in
case law. The question then is whether illustrating text with a photo
creates a derivative work of the text. I'm not a lawyer and I don't
want to play one on TV, so I'll shut up.

Axel

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com


body:
--- Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> wrote:
> Toby Bartels wrote:

> > If we have an Edupedia website built on a Sifter model,
> > then schools can block Wikipedia as long as they don't block
> > Edupedia.
>
> And that would be very unfortunate, I think.

There's one question we haven't investigated yet: would our filtering
really lower the likelihood that schools will eventually block us
completely?

I doubt that we could ever create a system that even comes close to
preventing school kids from getting the Wikipedia content they want.
At one point, a school administrator will find objectionable content in
Wikipedia, will investigate the filtering option with the various
categories, and will realize that kids can still get to the
objectionable pages, e.g. by typing in the direct URL. Then our whole
domain will be blocked.

Axel

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com


from_name: Daniel Mayer

body:
Anthere wrote:
>.....
>There are no limits to what we can assume people
>might label "to be censored". Which is why I am
>against *us* defining what could be censored.

You hit the nail on the head (sic. you are 100% right,
IMO). That is why we need a bunch of external team
certification/sifter projects setting their own
criteria. Let them deal with these issues and let us
get back to business writting a complete, accurate and
NPOV encyclopedia.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com


from_name: Stevertigo

body:
> The point of view is *not* that children should be educated in
> such-and-such a way, but rather that people who want to be restrictive
> about the material that people (not necessarily just children!) have
> access to should set up those restrictions *themselves*; that it is not
> part of Wikipedia's mission to censor material about certain topics, but
> that our license allows anyone who wishes to to create a derivitive work
> which is more limited in scope and more targeted in audience.

Yeah, I agree - and I think that LD is in agreement - that setting up a
means for parents to "protect" children is not unreasonable. They already
do. What we dont want is for Netnanny to censor us. So then we should have a
scalable protection scheme.

But we could do all of that - and still be censored by CS, NN and others...
We would be then trying fit into a mold set by other parameters - CORPORATE
parameters - and this would be cross to our original purpose - which is
based on freedom and minimalist rules. Its what drives the WP.

WikiLove to all
-SM


body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>Toby Bartels wrote:

>>If you spell it out in such a way that it includes explicity sexual
>>content but not explicit religious content, then how is this NPOV,
>>given an earlier poster (Ec?) that considers the latter harmful to
>>kids.  (And if Ec is joking, I have a friend that seriously believes
>>that about Christianity in particular.)

>End users can adjust it however they like, so what's the problem?

If end users have to adjust for themselves
which articles are labelled "mature content",
then (depending on what this means), either:
* We abandon NPOV for the label at any single given moment,
  and instead the next person to come along adjusts it to their own POV,
  without any security that this will last more than a minute; or
* The user can't use the "mature content" label
  without going through the whole site and labelling everything.
(The first bullet point assumes a single global labelling,
while the second assumes individual labelling for each content provider.)

>>If ?explicit sexual content? is what you meant all along by "mature
>>content", then let's say "explicit sexual content".

>No, it isn't what I meant all along.  It's by far the biggest problem
>category that we have right now, but of course other things can be
>included.

If "explicit sexual content" is a single *category*,
then why not just label it "explicit sexual content"
and label the *other* categories *different* things?
Why bring them all under "mature content"?

In responding to this, your position seems to have gotten a lot stranger.
Perhaps you just forgot that the above two comments
are not an objection to the scheme in general (that's elsewhere),
but instead just an objection to making "mature content"
one of the labels used (alongside "sex" and ... I forget the other one).

>>>But this is important for Wikipedia the website, not just for
>>>others.

>>Is it?  If we have an Edupedia website built on a Sifter model,
>>then schools can block Wikipedia as long as they don't block Edupedia.

>And that would be very unfortunate, I think.

Unfortunate, I suppose.  But would it cause significant harm?
Keeping in mind the opposition that categorising Wikipedia has aroused,
which opposition is not to be found against Edupedia,
that may be the optimal solution.

-- Toby


body:
LouI wrote:

>Toby Bartels wrote:

>>LittleDan wrote:

>>>That creates a paradox. Any one scheme for censorship (or even flagging) is
>>>POV, while a lack of one is also POV. We're stuck. So let's choose the choice
>>>which will broaden our audience the most: flagging built into the software.

>>Failing to categorify content is POV???
>>Where's the bias?

>I accept Dan's point. The idea that all types of material MUST be available
>without filtering (py parents for example) is a POV about how children should
>be educated.

It would be ... if Wikipedia were in the business of educating children.

>This is a very slippery kind of concept, sort of like the
>difference between 'freedom OF religion' and 'freedom FROM religion'.

I don't understand the analogy;
it might help if I knew your opinion on freedom from religion,
since as it is I can't even tell which way you go on that!

-- Toby


body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:

>Anthere wrote:

>>There are no limits to what we can assume people
>>might label "to be censored". Which is why I am
>>against *us* defining what could be censored.

>You hit the nail on the head (sic. you are 100% right,
>IMO). That is why we need a bunch of external team
>certification/sifter projects setting their own
>criteria. Let them deal with these issues and let us
>get back to business writting a complete, accurate and
>NPOV encyclopedia.

Keeping in mind that many of "us"
will want to work on a Sifter/Edupedia project.

-- Toby


from_name: Daniel Ehrenberg

body:
--- Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu> wrote:
> Daniel Mayer wrote:
>
> >Anthere wrote:
>
> >>There are no limits to what we can assume people
> >>might label "to be censored". Which is why I am
> >>against *us* defining what could be censored.
>
> >You hit the nail on the head (sic. you are 100%
> right,
> >IMO). That is why we need a bunch of external team
> >certification/sifter projects setting their own
> >criteria. Let them deal with these issues and let
> us
> >get back to business writting a complete, accurate
> and
> >NPOV encyclopedia.
>
> Keeping in mind that many of "us"
> will want to work on a Sifter/Edupedia project.
> -- Toby

Also that the programming would probably be much
harder if a seperate database and web interface had to
be created for approval.
--LittleDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com


body:
--- Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu> wrote:
> LouI wrote:
> >I accept Dan's point. The idea that all types of
> material MUST be available
> >without filtering (py parents for example) is a POV
> about how children should
> >be educated.
>
> It would be ... if Wikipedia were in the business of
> educating children.
>
> >This is a very slippery kind of concept, sort of
> like the
> >difference between 'freedom OF religion' and
> 'freedom FROM religion'.
>
> I don't understand the analogy;
> it might help if I knew your opinion on freedom from
> religion,
> since as it is I can't even tell which way you go on
> that!
> -- Toby

Freedom from religion is the censorship of pagan
religions (even though there is really nothing wrong
with them), accused cults, "destructive" faiths like
some fundimentalist Islam, and otherwise "barbaric"
religions. Some say that these religions do not lead
to anything constructive and just destroy things. I
don't believe in it, but we must acknowledge that many
do. Since this POV is held almost exclusively by
Fundimentalist Christians, I suggest that we use their
POV about what should be blocked. I'm just trying to
be realistic here; if we blocked [[christianity]],
that may be more NPOV, but not practical for the
dominant wetern world. Remember: this filter is only
optional. It is not forced on anyone.
--LittleDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com


body:
--- Stevertigo <stevertigo at attbi.com> wrote:
> > The point of view is *not* that children should be
> educated in
> > such-and-such a way, but rather that people who
> want to be restrictive
> > about the material that people (not necessarily
> just children!) have
> > access to should set up those restrictions
> *themselves*; that it is not
> > part of Wikipedia's mission to censor material
> about certain topics, but
> > that our license allows anyone who wishes to to
> create a derivitive work
> > which is more limited in scope and more targeted
> in audience.
>
> Yeah, I agree - and I think that LD is in agreement
> - that setting up a
> means for parents to "protect" children is not
> unreasonable. They already
> do. What we dont want is for Netnanny to censor us.
> So then we should have a
> scalable protection scheme.
>
> But we could do all of that - and still be censored
> by CS, NN and others...
> We would be then trying fit into a mold set by other
> parameters - CORPORATE
> parameters - and this would be cross to our original
> purpose - which is
> based on freedom and minimalist rules. Its what
> drives the WP.
>
> WikiLove to all
> -SM

I think that if Edupedia were put on a completely
seperate domain, we wouldn't be censored. I don't
think Wikipedia will be censored either, as NetNanny
probably doesn't take extra care to look at
encyclopedias for blocking.
-LD

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com


body:
--- Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Anthere wrote:
> >.....
> >There are no limits to what we can assume people
> >might label "to be censored". Which is why I am
> >against *us* defining what could be censored.
>
> You hit the nail on the head (sic. you are 100%
> right,
> IMO). That is why we need a bunch of external team
> certification/sifter projects setting their own
> criteria. Let them deal with these issues and let us
> get back to business writting a complete, accurate
> and
> NPOV encyclopedia.
>
> -- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

Well, only a few people want to work on the [[Republic
of Ireland]] ariticle, maybe it should be moved off to
a seperate 'Irepedia'.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com


body:
--- Axel Boldt <axelboldt at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> wrote:
> > Toby Bartels wrote:
>
> > > If we have an Edupedia website built on a Sifter
> model,
> > > then schools can block Wikipedia as long as they
> don't block
> > > Edupedia.
> >
> > And that would be very unfortunate, I think.
>
> There's one question we haven't investigated yet:
> would our filtering
> really lower the likelihood that schools will
> eventually block us
> completely?
>
> I doubt that we could ever create a system that even
> comes close to
> preventing school kids from getting the Wikipedia
> content they want.
> At one point, a school administrator will find
> objectionable content in
> Wikipedia, will investigate the filtering option
> with the various
> categories, and will realize that kids can still get
> to the
> objectionable pages, e.g. by typing in the direct
> URL. Then our whole
> domain will be blocked.
>
> Axel

No, Edupedia would be on a seperate domain
(edupedia.org, not yet owned) to prevent just that
blocking.
-ld

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Writing to AOL about Michael

body:
camembert wrote:
>If I wanted to write to AOL about Michael (which I
>do - I don't suppose it'll do much good, but it's
>worth a go), what info would they want apart
>from an account of his activities? I'm guessing
>they'd need IP numbers he's used in conjunction with
>edit times, is that right?

Yep. They will know who was assigned which of their
IPs at certain times. That is unless those cheap
bastards at AOL use proxies (in which case many people
would be using the same IP at the same time - IIRC how
proxies work).

>I was half-way through writing a message to them
> before I realised all I had identity-wise was
>"it's some guy who calls himself 'Michael', or
> 'NOFX', or 'Weezer', or...".

That may be a problem if unique IPs are not assigned
to individual users on at least a dial-up session
basis.

>Incidentally, I don't think that my writing to AOL
>(assuming that I do indeed write) should stop other
>people writing to them as well.

Please post your message somewhere and I'll help make
a general boilerplate for use in these types of
situations. Then it will be easy for dozens of us to
complain. That should get some attention.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com


from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
Brion-
> Fred Bauder wrote:

>> I have edited Booksources and put a functioning link in that searchs ABE
>> for ISBN. It links to advanced search page and is also functional for
>> searching for books without ISBNs. However the ISBN link does not reach the
>> edited page unless it has a valid ISBN. Please consider allowing access to
>> the page using some link like ISBN n/a
>>
> [[Special:Booksources]] should do it.

> Hmm, for some reason this doesn't display the custom text unless an ISBN
> has been given. Erik?

Most of the URLs on [[Wikipedia:Book sources]] stop working properly if
they do not get passed the MAGICNUMBER variable. Therefore the
[[Wikipedia: Book sources]] text is only displayed when an ISBN number is
passed, otherwise the hardcoded text is used. An alternative would be an
additional dynamically fetched page like [[Wikipedia:Book links]] for
linking to booksellers without specifying an ISBN. My preference would be
to hide the special page from the list of special pages, since I do not
see why a static list should be handled in the form of a special page at
all (and why it should deserve exposure in our list of special pages);
[[Wikipedia:Book links]] could be created by anyone so inclined without it
being dynamically fetched.

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Zoe

body:
--- Daniel Ehrenberg <littledanehren at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Freedom from religion is the censorship of pagan
> religions (even though there is really nothing wrong
> with them), accused cults, "destructive" faiths like
> some fundimentalist Islam, and otherwise "barbaric"
> religions. Some say that these religions do not lead
> to anything constructive and just destroy things. I
> don't believe in it, but we must acknowledge that
> many
> do. Since this POV is held almost exclusively by
> Fundimentalist Christians

Hardly!

Zoe, who doesn't think this discussion belongs here
anyway

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deb for sysop

body:
--- james duffy <jtdirl at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Given her immense workload and quality of her
> contributions to wiki, I would
> like to propose Deb to be a sysop. She is one of the
> best contributors to
> wiki; thorough, factual, straight-thinking, etc. I
> think the high standards
> of excellence she has contributed to wiki would make
> her an ideal sysop and
> it is a pleasure to nominate her. In fact I had
> always presumed she was one
> until she asked me as a sysop to do something
> because she could not do it
> herself. That I believe should be rectified
> immediately.
>
> JT.

I second the nomination.

Zoe

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deb for sysop

body:
I object - on the grounds that Deb may be a CIA agent - attempting to
corrupt the collegiality and freedoms inherent to Wikipedias lack-of-command
structure. Just because she "hasnt gotten into any rows" with people doesnt
mean much. Agents are trained to keep a low profile.

-Steven MacGrievin'


from_name: Jens Frank

subject: [WikiEN-l] Writing to AOL about Michael

body:
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 01:47:00AM +0100, Lee Pilich wrote:
> If I wanted to write to AOL about Michael (which I do - I don't suppose
> it'll do much good, but it's worth a go), what info would they want  apart
> from an account of his activities? I'm guessing they'd need IP numbers he's
> used in conjunction with edit times, is that right? I was half-way through
> writing a message to them before I realised all I had identity-wise was
> "it's some guy who calls himself 'Michael', or 'NOFX', or 'Weezer', or...".
>
> Incidentally, I don't think that my writing to AOL (assuming that I do
> indeed write) should stop other people writing to them as well.

Sometimes he is working without being logged in. We have some IPs that
belonged to Michael at certain times. The problem: Those are IPs of
proxy servers, not the IPs of his dial up connection. Tracking those IPs
down to a user could prove to be a difficult task.

	JeLuF


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Content-encoding: gzip

body:
The last batch of fun upgrades included use of gzip compression on
cached pages where browsers accept it. I'm happy to report that this
seems to have decreased the bandwidth usage of the English-language
Wikipedia by up to roughly 25%.

Data from http://www.wikipedia.org/stats/usage_200306.html

         kilobytes / hits   = kb/hit
2003-06-01 6392951 / 619534 = 10.319 \
2003-06-02 7908928 / 793065 =  9.973  |
2003-06-03 8267879 / 822025 = 10.058  | mean 10.1
2003-06-04 7513917 / 755482 =  9.946  | range 0.37
2003-06-05 7347843 / 723717 = 10.153  |
2003-06-06 6300476 / 614552 = 10.252  |
2003-06-07 5159151 / 503097 = 10.255  |
2003-06-08 5732741 / 566484 = 10.120 /
    -- gzip cache activated: --
2003-06-09 5376987 / 726971 =  7.396 \
2003-06-10 5442685 / 732897 =  7.426  | mean 7.6
2003-06-11 5735325 / 765204 =  7.495  | range 0.85
2003-06-12 6362049 / 772002 =  8.241 /

These counts include pages, images, css, everything. (But not the other
languages, mailing list, or database dump downloads.)

The bandwidth usage did go up a bit today, so it remains to be seen just
how stable the effect is. A number of things can affect it:

* Since caching, and thus sending of gzipped cached pages, is currently
only done for anonymous users, an increase in activity by registered
users would tend to reduce the overall percentage of savings

* Lots of editing and loading of dynamic pages, which are not
compressed, would do the same

* A large increase in brief visits by newbies drawn in by a link or news
mention would increase the relative bandwidth used by linked items
(logo, style sheet, etc) which are not additionally compressed

* Lots of work with new images might increase bandwidth usage.

Other thoughts:
- So far, no one's complained about being unable to read pages due to
pages being sent compressed when they shouldn't. (There was in fact a
bug to this effect which made the wiki unusable with Safari, but I don't
know if anyone but me noticed before I fixed it. :)

- Since gzipping is done only at cache time, this should use very little
CPU. IIRC the gzip was one of the faster steps when I was test profiling
this ;) and the number of times gzipping is done should not generally
exceed the number of edits * some factor regarding creation/deletion
rates and number of links per page. (More of course when the cache has
to be regenerated en masse.)

- The page cache presently stores both uncompressed and compressed
copies of pages, which is space inefficient, though we're not presently
hurting for space on larousse. Someone suggested storing just the
compressed pages, then in the relatively rare case a browser won't
accept gzipped pages, we can unzip it on the fly.

- We could offer either as default or as an option to compress
dynamically generated pages as well, which could shave some more
percentage points off the bandwidth usage. Might be a help for the modem
folks who do log in. :)  However I'm not sure how much this would affect
CPU usage; in any case there's no urgency for this, it's just something
we might do if we have the cycles to burn (I don't think we do just now,
but we might one day).

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


from_name: Thomas Corell

subject: [Wikitech-l] Small development question

body:
Hi,

someone requested that a button 'remove article from watchlist' on the
SpecialWatchlist - page woud be helpful.
I have also activated the option put everything you edit in the watchlist,
and I agree with the usefullness of such a button.

A little look in the code showed me, that SpecialWatchlist uses the
funktions beginRecentChangesList, recentChangesLine and endRecentChangesList.

The question is: would it be better to include the button in these
functions (additional parameter etc.) or would it be better to make 'extra'
functions for the watchlist?

I hope some of the developers can give me a hint.
--
Smurf

smurf at AdamAnt.mud.de
-------------------------  Anthill inside! ---------------------------


from_name: Guillaume Blanchard

subject: [Wikitech-l] New username validation

body:
> Anth?re wrote:
>
> >Far? was listed as a *vandal* for linking
> >[[fr:lib?ralisme]] to [[en:Libertarianism]].
>
> Well, I don't know what a [[fr:vandal]] is,
> but a good faith attempt at an interwiki link
> can't make somebody a [[en:vandal]]. ^_^
>
> -- Toby

Far? is not listed as a "vandal" on the french Wikipedia, but as
"problematic editor".

Aoineko


from_name: james duffy

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deb for sysop

body:
Given her immense workload and quality of her contributions to wiki, I would
like to propose Deb to be a sysop. She is one of the best contributors to
wiki; thorough, factual, straight-thinking, etc. I think the high standards
of excellence she has contributed to wiki would make her an ideal sysop and
it is a pleasure to nominate her. In fact I had always presumed she was one
until she asked me as a sysop to do something because she could not do it
herself. That I believe should be rectified immediately.

JT.

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail


from_name: Oliver Pereira

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deb for sysop

body:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, james duffy wrote:

> Given her immense workload and quality of her contributions to wiki, I
> would like to propose Deb to be a sysop. She is one of the best
> contributors to wiki; thorough, factual, straight-thinking, etc. I think
> the high standards of excellence she has contributed to wiki would make
> her an ideal sysop and it is a pleasure to nominate her. In fact I had
> always presumed she was one until she asked me as a sysop to do
> something because she could not do it herself. That I believe should be
> rectified immediately.

Seconded. For her to have made it into the top 50 of the "most active
Wikipedians" list without getting into any noticeable rows with anyone is
quite an achievement. :)

Oliver

+-------------------------------------------+
| Oliver Pereira                            |
| Dept. of Electronics and Computer Science |
| University of Southampton                 |
| omp199 at ecs.soton.ac.uk                    |
+-------------------------------------------+


from_name: Dante Alighieri

subject: [WikiEN-l] Let's ban 'em all. Any objections?

body:
At 04:06 PM 6/12/2003, you wrote:
>Freedom from religion is the censorship of pagan
>religions (even though there is really nothing wrong
>with them), accused cults, "destructive" faiths like
>some fundimentalist Islam, and otherwise "barbaric"
>religions. Some say that these religions do not lead
>to anything constructive and just destroy things. I
>don't believe in it, but we must acknowledge that many
>do. Since this POV is held almost exclusively by
>Fundimentalist Christians, I suggest that we use their
>POV about what should be blocked. I'm just trying to
>be realistic here; if we blocked [[christianity]],
>that may be more NPOV, but not practical for the
>dominant wetern world. Remember: this filter is only
>optional. It is not forced on anyone.
>--LittleDan

Well, I'm not certain that I agree with your /definition/ of freedom FROM
religion, but I certainly like the way it sounds. I say we ban all
dangerous cults and barbaric religions. I also think that Christianity,
Islam, and Judaism (and any other monotheistic religions I can find...
maybe there's some Zoroastrianists out there) should be first to be banned.
This would, of course, be rapidly followed by all the polytheistic
religions. Next come the animists. Lastly, any "miscellaneus" religions
that don't fit any of the above schema should also be banned. Once those
are out of the way, I'm sure we will all be better off.

-----
Dante Alighieri
dalighieri at digitalgrapefruit.com

"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their
neutrality in times of great moral crisis."
    -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321