from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject:
[Foundation-l] Concerns over en.wikipedia.org ArbCom Election
 Process

body:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Alphax (Wikipedia email) schreef:
>> I actually see two problems with the current round of arbcom elections:
>>
>> 1. We're not using a secret ballot, which makes voting too easily
>> influenced by peer pressure
>>
>> 2. I don't believe that there are enough suitable candidates to fill the
>> vacant positions, and that the community will do a very poor job of
>> chosing the right people. Arbcom on en: is supposed to be made up of
>> senior, trusted, respected members of the community, but most of the
>> candidates could be described as anything but.
>>
>> So, like several people, I shall continue to boycott the current round
>> of elections.
> Hoi,
>  From where I stand, the English language Wikipedia arbcom, is very much
> an issue of the English Wikipedia community. However, the arguments that
> apply for the Arbcom elections are very much the same for the Steward
> elections. The voting is done in a similar way and from the way you
> approach it, you cannot know the people who stand for office like the
> people who know them from their native projects.
>

... and being "open", we're having exactly the same problems as with
Arbcom elections. People saying nasty things about candidates etc.

> Effeietsanders for instance has his roots very much in the Dutch
> language projects. I have got to know him a great guy. He is senior in
> the Dutch realm, he is trusted and he is respected. There is however no
> chance for you to know him like I do.

Doesn't mean I can't voice my opinion though. Stewards are also rather
more global than arbitrators, and don't have as much influence. Also,
you might want to check how I've voted wrt. stewards.

> You can boycott the Steward collections because you do not believe
> people to have these qualities then again how do you know?

No.

> You also have to measure people by a certain
> yardstick. Never mind your sterling remark that got so many people
> incensed because of the sensitivity towards women (was it a joke?),

That was a mistake, but all we can do about the past is learn from it.

> I still believe and trust that even people like yourself will rise to
> the occasion and prove to do better than expected and do good in a
> role as arbcom member or steward.
>

Again, stewards are very different to arbitrators. Arbitrators on en:
are directly appointed by Jimbo, and there is a quota to be filled -
it's not like we can say "oh, it doesn't matter that nobody got elected,
we've got enough to cover". We WILL have 5 new arbitrators whether we
like it or not; I don't know if you've experienced it on the projects
you're active on, but my experience on en: Wikipedia is that people vote
for their friends, and that stupid people tend to have lots of friends
who will vote for them, because the votes are visible to everyone.

> What do you achieve by applying this "I vote with my feet" logic? The
> vote will still go ahead. You earn some more "malcontent" points. You
> /will /be able to say, "I always said it would be no good" when the
> arbcom does things that you disapprove off. This is a negative behaviour
> that does get you nowhere. When you do not want to vote, do not vote.
> Voting does not necessarily get you the results that you want, but that
> is exactly what voting is meant to do.
>

... what good has it done people who opposed things they didn't agree
with all throughout history?

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20061208/fcbdda41/attachment.pgp


list: foundation-l

source: pipermail-mbox

body:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Alphax (Wikipedia email) schreef:
>> I actually see two problems with the current round of arbcom elections:
>>
>> 1. We're not using a secret ballot, which makes voting too easily
>> influenced by peer pressure
>>
>> 2. I don't believe that there are enough suitable candidates to fill the
>> vacant positions, and that the community will do a very poor job of
>> chosing the right people. Arbcom on en: is supposed to be made up of
>> senior, trusted, respected members of the community, but most of the
>> candidates could be described as anything but.
>>
>> So, like several people, I shall continue to boycott the current round
>> of elections.
> Hoi,
>  From where I stand, the English language Wikipedia arbcom, is very much
> an issue of the English Wikipedia community. However, the arguments that
> apply for the Arbcom elections are very much the same for the Steward
> elections. The voting is done in a similar way and from the way you
> approach it, you cannot know the people who stand for office like the
> people who know them from their native projects.
>

... and being "open", we're having exactly the same problems as with
Arbcom elections. People saying nasty things about candidates etc.

> Effeietsanders for instance has his roots very much in the Dutch
> language projects. I have got to know him a great guy. He is senior in
> the Dutch realm, he is trusted and he is respected. There is however no
> chance for you to know him like I do.

Doesn't mean I can't voice my opinion though. Stewards are also rather
more global than arbitrators, and don't have as much influence. Also,
you might want to check how I've voted wrt. stewards.

> You can boycott the Steward collections because you do not believe
> people to have these qualities then again how do you know?

No.

> You also have to measure people by a certain
> yardstick. Never mind your sterling remark that got so many people
> incensed because of the sensitivity towards women (was it a joke?),

That was a mistake, but all we can do about the past is learn from it.

> I still believe and trust that even people like yourself will rise to
> the occasion and prove to do better than expected and do good in a
> role as arbcom member or steward.
>

Again, stewards are very different to arbitrators. Arbitrators on en:
are directly appointed by Jimbo, and there is a quota to be filled -
it's not like we can say "oh, it doesn't matter that nobody got elected,
we've got enough to cover". We WILL have 5 new arbitrators whether we
like it or not; I don't know if you've experienced it on the projects
you're active on, but my experience on en: Wikipedia is that people vote
for their friends, and that stupid people tend to have lots of friends
who will vote for them, because the votes are visible to everyone.

> What do you achieve by applying this "I vote with my feet" logic? The
> vote will still go ahead. You earn some more "malcontent" points. You
> /will /be able to say, "I always said it would be no good" when the
> arbcom does things that you disapprove off. This is a negative behaviour
> that does get you nowhere. When you do not want to vote, do not vote.
> Voting does not necessarily get you the results that you want, but that
> is exactly what voting is meant to do.
>

... what good has it done people who opposed things they didn't agree
with all throughout history?

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20061208/fcbdda41/attachment-0001.pgp


list: wikimedia-l

body:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Alphax (Wikipedia email) schreef:
>> I actually see two problems with the current round of arbcom elections:
>>
>> 1. We're not using a secret ballot, which makes voting too easily
>> influenced by peer pressure
>>
>> 2. I don't believe that there are enough suitable candidates to fill the
>> vacant positions, and that the community will do a very poor job of
>> chosing the right people. Arbcom on en: is supposed to be made up of
>> senior, trusted, respected members of the community, but most of the
>> candidates could be described as anything but.
>>
>> So, like several people, I shall continue to boycott the current round
>> of elections.
> Hoi,
>  From where I stand, the English language Wikipedia arbcom, is very much
> an issue of the English Wikipedia community. However, the arguments that
> apply for the Arbcom elections are very much the same for the Steward
> elections. The voting is done in a similar way and from the way you
> approach it, you cannot know the people who stand for office like the
> people who know them from their native projects.
>

... and being "open", we're having exactly the same problems as with
Arbcom elections. People saying nasty things about candidates etc.

> Effeietsanders for instance has his roots very much in the Dutch
> language projects. I have got to know him a great guy. He is senior in
> the Dutch realm, he is trusted and he is respected. There is however no
> chance for you to know him like I do.

Doesn't mean I can't voice my opinion though. Stewards are also rather
more global than arbitrators, and don't have as much influence. Also,
you might want to check how I've voted wrt. stewards.

> You can boycott the Steward collections because you do not believe
> people to have these qualities then again how do you know?

No.

> You also have to measure people by a certain
> yardstick. Never mind your sterling remark that got so many people
> incensed because of the sensitivity towards women (was it a joke?),

That was a mistake, but all we can do about the past is learn from it.

> I still believe and trust that even people like yourself will rise to
> the occasion and prove to do better than expected and do good in a
> role as arbcom member or steward.
>

Again, stewards are very different to arbitrators. Arbitrators on en:
are directly appointed by Jimbo, and there is a quota to be filled -
it's not like we can say "oh, it doesn't matter that nobody got elected,
we've got enough to cover". We WILL have 5 new arbitrators whether we
like it or not; I don't know if you've experienced it on the projects
you're active on, but my experience on en: Wikipedia is that people vote
for their friends, and that stupid people tend to have lots of friends
who will vote for them, because the votes are visible to everyone.

> What do you achieve by applying this "I vote with my feet" logic? The
> vote will still go ahead. You earn some more "malcontent" points. You
> /will /be able to say, "I always said it would be no good" when the
> arbcom does things that you disapprove off. This is a negative behaviour
> that does get you nowhere. When you do not want to vote, do not vote.
> Voting does not necessarily get you the results that you want, but that
> is exactly what voting is meant to do.
>

... what good has it done people who opposed things they didn't agree
with all throughout history?

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20061208/fcbdda41/attachment.pgp>


body:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Alphax (Wikipedia email) schreef:
>> I actually see two problems with the current round of arbcom elections:
>>
>> 1. We're not using a secret ballot, which makes voting too easily
>> influenced by peer pressure
>>
>> 2. I don't believe that there are enough suitable candidates to fill the
>> vacant positions, and that the community will do a very poor job of
>> chosing the right people. Arbcom on en: is supposed to be made up of
>> senior, trusted, respected members of the community, but most of the
>> candidates could be described as anything but.
>>
>> So, like several people, I shall continue to boycott the current round
>> of elections.
> Hoi,
>  From where I stand, the English language Wikipedia arbcom, is very much
> an issue of the English Wikipedia community. However, the arguments that
> apply for the Arbcom elections are very much the same for the Steward
> elections. The voting is done in a similar way and from the way you
> approach it, you cannot know the people who stand for office like the
> people who know them from their native projects.
>

... and being "open", we're having exactly the same problems as with
Arbcom elections. People saying nasty things about candidates etc.

> Effeietsanders for instance has his roots very much in the Dutch
> language projects. I have got to know him a great guy. He is senior in
> the Dutch realm, he is trusted and he is respected. There is however no
> chance for you to know him like I do.

Doesn't mean I can't voice my opinion though. Stewards are also rather
more global than arbitrators, and don't have as much influence. Also,
you might want to check how I've voted wrt. stewards.

> You can boycott the Steward collections because you do not believe
> people to have these qualities then again how do you know?

No.

> You also have to measure people by a certain
> yardstick. Never mind your sterling remark that got so many people
> incensed because of the sensitivity towards women (was it a joke?),

That was a mistake, but all we can do about the past is learn from it.

> I still believe and trust that even people like yourself will rise to
> the occasion and prove to do better than expected and do good in a
> role as arbcom member or steward.
>

Again, stewards are very different to arbitrators. Arbitrators on en:
are directly appointed by Jimbo, and there is a quota to be filled -
it's not like we can say "oh, it doesn't matter that nobody got elected,
we've got enough to cover". We WILL have 5 new arbitrators whether we
like it or not; I don't know if you've experienced it on the projects
you're active on, but my experience on en: Wikipedia is that people vote
for their friends, and that stupid people tend to have lots of friends
who will vote for them, because the votes are visible to everyone.

> What do you achieve by applying this "I vote with my feet" logic? The
> vote will still go ahead. You earn some more "malcontent" points. You
> /will /be able to say, "I always said it would be no good" when the
> arbcom does things that you disapprove off. This is a negative behaviour
> that does get you nowhere. When you do not want to vote, do not vote.
> Voting does not necessarily get you the results that you want, but that
> is exactly what voting is meant to do.
>

... what good has it done people who opposed things they didn't agree
with all throughout history?

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20061208/fcbdda41/attachment-0001.pgp>


list: wikien-l

from_name: The Cunctator

subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
On 12/8/06, Daniel P. B. Smith <wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com> wrote:
> > From: "The Cunctator" <cunctator at gmail.com>
> >
>
> > If someone says that in Episode X of Show Y this happened, I can't
> > imagine
> > why I wouldn't believe it.
> >
> > And I can imagine any number of ways by which if I *had* to I could
> > verify
> > such claim, including going to the production company or the Museum of
> > Television and Radio or asking on craigslist to view such episode.
>
> If someone (e.g. 68.80.254.34) says:
>
> "Third floor of College Hall at Penn has an Episcopalian Chapel. On
> the wall states that Penn was founded by the Anglican Church of
> England. Go there and read it," would you say that "I can't imagine
> why I wouldn't believe it?"
>
> Anyone _could_ travel to Philadelphia and visit College Hall. Does
> that make the fact verifiable?

Yes.

>
> How about this one.
>
> In the 1960s, I _know_ that someone at Digital, and I'm _almost
> certain_ it was Alan Kotok, told me that one of the reasons why DEC
> changed its name from DEC to Digital was that they wanted to head off
> a potential trademark dispute with the Dairy Equipment Corporation of
> Madison, Wisconsin ("DEC International.") I put in our article on
> Digital. Someone challenged it and removed it. I couldn't find a
> source. I emailed Alan Kotok about a year ago, asking if he
> remembered it.
>
> My source is Alan Kotok. It's too bad that he didn't remember it, and
> even sadder that he is now deceased. But I'm sure it's true and I'm
> almost sure I heard it from him. Should I put it back in the article?
> I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't believe me.

No, you shouldn't. Considering that your source disagreed with you.


from_name: Thomas Dalton

subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
> You've just answered your own question.

Getting lucky is hardly a good method of verifying something... If it
can't be verified promptly then we have a problem.


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Rob wrote:
>
>> In regards to the rest of the article, I'm kind of torn here.
>> Obviously we need sources for comparisons or claims of influence.  On
>> the other hand, if a fictional trial obviously resembles a US military
>> court martial, why can't we just say that?
>>
> It won't be "obvious" to those who are unfamiliar with the operations of
> a US military court martial.
>

Dude, I've seen hundreds on TV! The TV series JAG is a documentary, right?

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061208/3b46eb6c/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
Abigail Brady wrote:
> On 12/8/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>> Since there are only two such occasions it should not be difficult to
>> identify the two episodes.
>
> Ah, but how do you source the fact that it isn't seen in any other episodes?
> This is not a facetious question by the way.
>

Good point. One possibility is to source every episode which *doesn't*
show this happening, which is somewhat burdonsome. Another is to say
that it *did* occur twice (and source the episodes); discovery and proof
of other occurences is left as an exercise the reader. The third option
is to find a secondary source which claims this, and (again) let the
reader determine if it's valid or not; after all, we don't present The
Truth, only what is verifiable; and the fourth option is to just remove
the bloody thing as being too much of a pain in the proverbial.

> Do we have something against academic fraud: such as, say, adding
> something as a "Source", apparently without having read it, or even
> having a good idea of its contents from other sources,
>

As in, a comeback against editors who do it? I think it's called
"blocked for subtle vandalism" :)

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061208/e4050121/attachment.pgp


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Anne Milton (was Re: Attack blogs in WP:LIVING
	articles)

body:
David Boothroyd wrote:
> No new posts, so I'm taking the liberty of summing up.
>

Hello! Politician discussing what gory details should be in the article
about another politician! Conflict of interest, anyone?

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061208/83da5066/attachment.pgp


from_name: ATR

subject:
[Foundation-l] Great Job! was Re: Audited financial statements
	released!

body:
Congrats Brad!  Also to Danny Wool, Michael Davis and to your
auditing team!

This statement is a great tool that will help us justify asking for the
money that I personally feel is desperately needed to make WMF
a stable organization in the coming year so that WMF has sufficient
hardware resources, bandwidth and a very basic staff for its incredible
stature as one of the world's top websites providers.

As you said in your announcement with the release of the financial
statement,  Brad, WMF is like Myspace, Youtube, etc., but the most
AMAZING difference to me is NOT only that WMF is an NPO charity,
but it was done on less than 1/1000th of the resources that these gigantic
corporate entities have without adverts!!! This is something every WMF
project volunteer (and all you guys on staff, the board, committees, etc.)
should be incredibly proud of and should help all their friends, relatives,
etc. know as  a fact. WMF volunteers in all the projects and friends
should spread the word that WMF needs help and has proven that it is
a responsible organization that has managed its meager resources to
date extremely well demonstrating incredible growth and potential.

As someone who has worked/volunteered in the NPO field for over 25 years
I can't imagine anyone thinking that creating & running a multibillion
dollar
organization on less than a million dollars a year would be possible,
but WMF volunteers (and by volunteers I mean not only people like Jimmy,
the other board members and you Brad, but everyone who has contributed
to in any way to what we are doing here) have proven it can be done so far,
but this is only just a short period of time, and it seems obvious to
someone
like me that WMF has a desperate need for resources and that we must
make the public aware of in the upcoming fundraiser if all the WMF
projects are to survive; there are hardware and human resources that
are desperately needed to make WMF a stable, ongoing entity.

Imagine if  we just point this out and ask for help, a simple sincere
request, not, oh, we have some multibillion dollar entity that is giving
us a matching grant, but we are just a "little" group of folks that have
done miraculous things because the power of volunteerism shows that
people are more important than corporations and that all WMF needs,
let us say, at least $12M a year to do this without burnout or continual
server overload (I am just using these figures as illustrative amounts,
not anything that has been approved by the Board or being stated in my
role as Chair of the Fundraising Committee). That is just a $1,000,000
a month! Compared to the amount of money that Yahoo or Google
spend just on corporate advertising this is nothing, really. I am just
suggesting we need to put the incredible progress of Wikipedia into
context of the internet environment in which it finds itself so that
potential
donors can see what has been done to date with very limited resources.

It is very clear to me that WMF sincerely needs help on a very basic level.
I understand that at present we are receiving approximately $2K a day in
unsolicited donations, it is obvious that a lot more money is needed on an
ongoing basis and the public needs to know this, hopefully in the next few
days we will get everything together to make a cogent appeal to the public
to donate in our upcoming fundraiser that will keep you, Brad, and the rest
of the staff surviving and help you all find more needed help which is
really
a absolute minimum, buy more servers, pay for more bandwidth and make
WMF an organization that has a bright and stable future so that all of us
and many more people can contribute to and use the incredible free knowledge
base that is being continually developed, upgraded and must be maintained
for future generations.

As we already know to a limited extent, the public is generous and a lot
of people have contributed their modest, individual contributions to show
that Wikipedia is something they want to give their money to; WP is and
can continue to be a viable way to develop and maintain this permanent
knowledge base in a non-commercial context without advertising or
corporatism. These small donations can add up to millions, and I hope and
pray our "public" shows that it wants to support WMF much more and
make a difference in an over commercialized environment where WMF
stands for principles of free speech, free association and volunteerism
which, as you and I discussed at Wikimania, are fundamental to free access
to free knowledge for all.

WMF shows that people of many countries and languages can work
together through the internet to create a new and permanent home for free
knowledge for all. Hopefully this audited statement will encourage a lot
more generosity to make that a bit more of a permanent reality.

Thank you again Brad, and everyone else who has contributed, to
helping make that something of a possiblity.

Alex T Roshuk
Chair pro-tem, Fundraising Committee

The statements herein are my personal opinion and do not represent and
are not to be construed as "official" statements of the Fundraising
Committee
or the WMF of which said Committee is a part.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Patrick" <bradp.wmf at gmail.com>
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
Cc: "Mili Protic" <mprotic at gsscpa.com>; "Melanie Cloran"
<mcloran at gsscpa.com>; <rcaton at gsscpa.com>
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 6:18 PM
Subject: [Foundation-l] Audited financial statements released!

| Dear Wikimedia Foundation community:
|
| It is my pleasure to announce the public release of audited financial
| statements of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. for fiscal years 2004, 2005
| and 2006 inclusive.  This represents a significant step forward in the
| life of the Foundation.  Our audit firm, Gregory Sharer & Stuart
| (www.gsscpa.com), worked with us for the past several months to help us
| comply with all of the requirements such an audit demands.  We assumed
| this responsibility ourselves, to demonstrate to the community and the
| world that the Foundation has complied with its obligations under law
| and generally accepted accounting principles.
|
| I want to specially thank the members of the audit team, Michael Davis
| and Danny Wool, and our auditors Rick Caton, Mili Protic, and Melanie
| Cloran for their hard work, patience, and good natured approach to this
| unusual organization.  We appreciate their efforts.
|
| Links to the financial statements and management letter:
|
|
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/28/Wikimedia_2006_fs.pdf
|
<http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/28/Wikimedia_2006_fs.pdf>
|
| and
|
|
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/6/69/Wikimedia_2006_Mgmt_Letter.pdf
|
<http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/6/69/Wikimedia_2006_Mgmt_Letter.pdf>
|
| Wikimedia Foundation continues to grow at an astonishing rate.  In the
| coming days, you will see more information about the fundraiser we are
| planning, which will include the opportunity to have donations made to
| the Foundation matched by generous individuals and companies who support
| our efforts.  With our audit complete, Wikimedia Foundation is now
| listed as a charitable organization at Guidestar (www.guidestar.org) and
| its partner sites, which will extend our visibility in the
| not-for-profit community.
|
| You will also see "what it takes to run Wikipedia for a year" - a
| glimpse of the financial challenges we face trying to maintain our role
| as a top website on the planet, with a skeleton staff and
| ever-increasing demand for the educational content created by you, our
| community of editors and contributors.  Anonymous visitors will also be
| reminded that Wikimedia Foundation is a *charitable organization*,
| something which distinguishes us from the YouTubes and MySpaces spoken
| in the same breath as Wikipedia as the "Web 2.0" vanguard.  We aren't
| for sale.  There won't be a Wikipedia IPO.  We can't be bought by a
| company, any more so than the Red Cross or Amnesty International.
|
| What sets us apart is our mission, vision and community.  What keeps us
| going, though, requires an growing infrastructure, staff, and money.
|
| On behalf of the Foundation,  thank you!
|
| Brad Patrick
| Interim Executive Director & General Counsel
| Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
|
| _______________________________________________
| foundation-l mailing list
| foundation-l at wikimedia.org
| http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] First fair use criterium

body:
Ken Arromdee wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Dec 2006, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>>> Unless you want to commit a felony and stalk them, it's pretty much
>>> impossible to get non-fair use images for small time actors who don't visit
>>> premieres or award ceremonies.
>> The dozens of celbs (major and minor) uploaded to commons by user
>> Towpilot serves as a fine counter example.
>
> That only proves he can get pictures of dozens of celebrities.
>
> Unless you have some reason to believe that those dozens are typical of
> celebrities in general and it's as easy to get pictures of the rest as it
> is to get pictures of those, it proves nothing.
>
> I can walk into a bookstore and come out with a stack of $1 books.  Does that
> mean that given any particular book, you can probably find it for $1?
>

Can you find a *first-edition hardcover signed by the author* for $1?
That's the sort of distinction we're talking about here.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061208/5048597e/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] First fair use criterium

body:
geni wrote:
> On 12/7/06, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> A photo of a building in the town over is an "unfree" image on Wikipedia
>> currently.  I can't get over to said building to take a picture until,
>> say, next Saturday.  The "unfree" picture harms nothing.  It does not
>> detract from the project's goal, it does not harm anything.  Furthermore,
>> said building is an architectural wonder, with unique arches and windows.
>> Removal of the image until next week does harm to the project, as the
>> unfree image illustrates the object in ways words simply cannot.  The
>> unfree image, in this case, is not harming at all, but rather helping.
>>
>
> Are we talking wikipedia only, non comercial use only or claimed fair
> use because I'm haveing a hard time seeing how any fair use claim
> could be legit. In which case it is a copyvio. Copvios are a dirrect
> threat to wikipedians and depending on how courts find wikipedia.
>

I am the only person here who thinks that:

1. "Fair use" of copyrighted content is *allowed* by US law, provided
it's done under condtions, so it's *not* an infringement of copyright?

2. Despite the fact that we're "allowed" (provided point 1 is true) to
use these images, it's still *better* not to (where possible)?

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061208/bcefe458/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
> Define "promptly," then?  Because I nkow a few articles I recently
> finished that use materials only available in one library across the
> country from me.  Will verification of those sources not be prompt enough
> for someone in, say, Chicago?

It doesn't need to be promptly verifiable by everyone. A TV show that
can't be seen legally is not verifiable by anyone. We shouldn't be
relying on illegal copies and fansite summaries for our sources.

I wish I could think of a way to make it work - I'm very active in
WikiProject Stargate and we use episodes as sources all the time - but
a source no-one can access is not verifiable.


list: wikitech-l

subject: [Wikitech-l] Block message

body:
Titoxd at Wikimedia wrote:
> No, they (or rather, we, as I do it too) do it because 31 is a prime number,
> while 24 is not. See [[User:Drini/31 hours]].
>

Excuse me while I dig the primes out of my public key and use that
number of seconds...

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20061208/d554cab5/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Foundation-l] Welcome to our three new board members

body:
On 12/8/06, Sean Whitton <sean at silentflame.com> wrote:
> You make some strong arguments, but when you say the 'majority of the
> board' coming from the community, how many is this? Additionally, how
> many of these are elected and how many are selected, so to speak?

Anthere and I were directly elected. Kat and Oscar received the second
and the third most votes in the recent election, but the election was
formally only for one member to replace Angela. We decided that rather
than having an immediate new election, it would be best to recognize
those two individuals as Board members. Their terms, like mine, will
expire in July 2007.

--
Peace & Love,
Erik

Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
> How does that follow? And the goalposts are moving -- just because there
> aren't commercially available copies doesn't make watching a copy of a show
> illegal, much as the recording industry would like it to be so.
>
> See Betamax v. Universal<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._v._Universal_City_Studios>

You can make copies for personal use, showing them to anyone else
would be illegal. We can't rely on people having seen the show or
recorded it themselves when it was originally aired.

> Again, what "illegal copies"?

I'm not sure I understand the question... The only copies you can get
hold of after a show airs and before it is released on DVD are
illegal.

> Obviously someone is accessing the sources. You have a strange definition of
> "no-one".

Yes, they accessed them once when it was shown on TV. Saying that
people having seen in on TV counts as verifying it would be like
saying you can cite "People seeing him outside the supermarket" as the
source of the fact that a certain celebrity shops there on the grounds
that anyone that was at the supermarket on that day can verify it.


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
Could you point me in the direction of a legal copy of some recent TV
shows, then?

If someone recorded it, they might be able to show it to a few friends
in the privacy of their own home, but much more than that and it's
distributing a copyrighted work, and that's illegal.


from_name: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
"Thomas Dalton" write

> > You've just answered your own question.
>
> Getting lucky is hardly a good method of verifying something... If it
> can't be verified promptly then we have a problem.

But Cunc dealt with this. 'Verifiable' is an in-principle thing. It is distinct from saying everyone can do homebrew fact-checking on anything mentioned. Verifiability on Wikipedia can't simply be a sceptics' charter: that really would be a problem.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
> But Cunc dealt with this. 'Verifiable' is an in-principle thing. It is distinct from saying everyone can do homebrew fact-checking on anything mentioned. Verifiability on Wikipedia can't simply be a sceptics' charter: that really would be a problem.

Verifiable means we can actually verify it to be true. Not in
principle, but in practise. The whole point of verifiable sources is
that we can be sure we don't have things stated on Wikipedia that
aren't true - some vague kind of hypothetical verifiability doesn't
help that.


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
> My friend has a bunch at his home.

That means your friend, and maybe a few people that know him can
verify it. That's not enough - it needs to be verifiable by a large
number of people, otherwise it could be a simple hoax.


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
"Thomas Dalton" wrote

> > But Cunc dealt with this. 'Verifiable' is an in-principle thing. It is distinct from saying everyone can do homebrew fact-checking on anything mentioned. Verifiability on Wikipedia can't simply be a sceptics' charter: that really would be a problem.

> Verifiable means we can actually verify it to be true. Not in
> principle, but in practise. The whole point of verifiable sources is
> that we can be sure we don't have things stated on Wikipedia that
> aren't true - some vague kind of hypothetical verifiability doesn't
> help that.

No, that's not what we mean, and has never been what we mean. And you seem to be conflating things. We don't talk (much) about "verifiable sources": we base everything on "reliable sources". We talk about verifiable edits, really: we want to constrain editors into only adding material that is verifiable, from reliable sources, accessible to them. Some of the most reliable sources, in the scholarly sense, are some of the least accessible to the general public. (And, frankly, reliability of newspaper reports can vary inversely with circulation. And scholarly monographs with the best information on particular matters are apparently now printed in runs as low as 300.)

So when you say "Verifiable means we can actually verify it to be true", that is not the kind of statement on which so much can be built.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
> You mean, drive through verification? Instant gratification? I'm sorry,
> how prompt would you consider acceptable?

Something where you have some control over the timescale. Waiting for
some TV scheduler to decide to show it again is completely out of your
control. Maybe prompt is the wrong choice of word - you should be able
to actively verify it, rather than waiting for it to be verified for
you.


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
> No, that's not what we mean, and has never been what we mean. And you seem to be conflating things. We don't talk (much) about "verifiable sources": we base everything on "reliable sources". We talk about verifiable edits, really: we want to constrain editors into only adding material that is verifiable, from reliable sources, accessible to them. Some of the most reliable sources, in the scholarly sense, are some of the least accessible to the general public. (And, frankly, reliability of newspaper reports can vary inversely with circulation. And scholarly monographs with the best information on particular matters are apparently now printed in runs as low as 300.)
>
> So when you say "Verifiable means we can actually verify it to be true", that is not the kind of statement on which so much can be built.

For an edit to be verifiable it has to be verifiable by someone other
than the person that made the edit. We're not talking about
reliability of sources - it's obvious that a TV show is a perfectly
reliable primary source - we're talking about whether someone else can
come along and check that what the original editor said is true
(assuming the source is right - a wikipedia article can never be more
reliable than the sources it uses). It's not necessary that everyone
be able to verify it, but a reasonable number of reasonably
unconnected people should be able to, otherwise we're open to any
number of hoaxes.


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
On 12/8/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> I mean, what proof do I have that the half-life of Polonium-210 is actually
> 138.376 days? Maybe it's really 139.24 days. Maybe Polonium-210 doesn't EVEN
> EXIST.
>
> Only a few select people with access to Polonium-210 can verify that
> information.

Nyet pretty common in  certian aplications for removeing static charges.
--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
> I mean, what proof do I have that the half-life of Polonium-210 is actually
> 138.376 days? Maybe it's really 139.24 days. Maybe Polonium-210 doesn't EVEN
> EXIST.

It's not difficult to get access to a scientific paper or a textbook
that states the half-life. You don't have to be able to verify that
something is true, you need to be able to verify that the source given
really says when it's being claimed it says.


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
> The copies stored on my TiVo are -- MPAA's wish list to the contrary --
> perfectly legal.

Sure, that's legal.

> My TiVo is attached to a very large [[storage area network]].

That probably isn't. Distributing a copyrighted work is illegal -
that's pretty much the entire point of copyright law.


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
> That's like saying a published book is not a verifiable source because I
> can't make more copies and pass those around to wouldbe checkers. If you
> don't have a copy of the book I used, you're going to have to borrow it.
> Some of the more addicted Wikipedians have even been known to *buy*
> books in order to use them as references!

You don't need to make a copy of a book in order to read it, you can
find an existing copy - probably in the library.


from_name: Daniel R. Tobias

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: Request to mailing list Wikichix-l rejected

body:
On 6 Dec 2006 at 16:08, "Jim Schuler" <jim62sch at gmail.com> wrote:

> This is not, however, the proper way to deal with the issue.  In effect, the
> editors who subscribe to wikichix have caved in to the intimidation by
> creating their own mailing list.  Imagine if Rosa Parks, no matter how tired
> she was, caved in to intimidation that December day in 1955.  Imagine if
> Marin Luther King had given in to intimidation and not called for the
> Montgomery Bus Boycott.  Caving in resolves nothing.

It seems like there ought to be something along the lines of
[[Godwin's Law]] regarding attempts to analogize people involved in a
current debate or controversy with Rosa Parks or Martin Luther King.

--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
> Similarly, maybe only a few people have access to Star-Gate episode #23. But
> if they say that in that episode Cmdr. Pickett gets eaten by a Florgbernian
> Rumpox, then I'm willing to ASSUME GOOD FAITH.

In which case, your source isn't the episode, it's those few people
that watched the episode. The episode is reliable, those few people
are not. Therefore, you do not have a reliable source.


from_name: David Boothroyd

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Anne Milton (was Re: Attack blogs in WP:LIVING
 articles)

body:
Sean Barrett writes:
>David Gerard stated for the record:
>
>  > I'm just amazed I'm having to explain to someone who's *in politics*
>  > that learning to play nice with others is more likely to get you what
>  > you want.
>
>Wandering off topic, but: I'm not really surprised.
[snip subsequent gratuitous politician-abuse]

I'm disappointed.

I do not edit Wikipedia as a politician. I assumed when it said that
people would be judged on the merits of their contributions, and that
evidence of bias in real life was no evidence of biased editing, that
this meant what it said. But no, because I happen to be involved in
politics, every edit I make is apparently viewed through a prism. I
profoundly resent Guy Chapman insinuating that I want the Tim Ireland
blog in Anne Milton's article because of political bias.

It seems when I registered a name under a variant of my initials, and
then gave a bit of biographical information on my userpage so that
people would know who I was (which some kind soul then moved into the
article space), this was a severe mistake and I should have tried to
remain anonymous. Not only was I put on the 'hive mind' hit list with
my photo and real name, I got threatened with legal action and with
political revenge when I defended an article against a vandal. So I
change my username to a different one to try to get away from this.
No, fat chance.

If it's really the situation that people who are members of political
parties have a 'Conflict of Interest' in editing political articles,
then how much more do they have in dealing with other Wikipedians with
different politics? William M. Connolley, Arbitrator Forrester and now
Guy Chapman are supporters of other parties and have not regarded
themselves as conflicted when dealing with me.
--
David Boothroyd - http://www.election.demon.co.uk
david at election.demon.co.uk (home)
dboothroyd at westminster.gov.uk (council)


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
> Why should I believe a scientific paper or textbook?

You don't have to believe it. If you choose not to believe the source,
that's fine, but we have a policy on what sources we consider
reliable. A few fans of a TV show is not on that list.

If you disagree with Wikipedia's definition of reliable, you should
try and get consensus to change it. Until you do, that's the
definition we go by, and by that definition, a scientific paper is
reliable, a random fan of a TV show is not.


from_name: Bence Damokos

subject: [Wikitech-l] ImportFreeImages Extension

body:
Hi
Great extension.

Unfortunately it has problems with improper file names (on a search for
Budapest , I get this message:"The filename "On+Vaci+Utca%2C+Budapest.jpg"
contains characters that are not allowed in page titles. Please rename the
file and try uploading it again.", maybe an option to rename the file would
be nice).

And maybe  the link to the original image, should be changed to the
description page of the image?

And I don't know, if its possible, but maybe such a one click import would
be useful to implement on commons, so that local wiki images can be imported
in this way (maybe with an intermediate step with the option to change the
description, possibly using suggestions from the Commonshelper).

Again, I must say you have done a wonderful job, and I have to say I was
amased by the speed of it (just one click and the image is uploaded!).

Keep up the good work

Regards, Bence

On 12/8/06, Travis Derouin <travis at wikihow.com> wrote:
>
> I've converted some code we've been using into an extension for importing
> properly licensed photos from flickr into a Mediawiki installation:
>
> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ImportFreeImages
>
> It makes use of the phpFlickr package for the API calls.
>
> Feel free to play around with it here:
>
> http://wikidiy.com/mediawiki-1.8.2/index.php/Special:ImportFreeImages
>
> Travis
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: Anthony

subject: [Foundation-l] Audited financial statements released!

body:
Huh?

On 12/8/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> But the condition of the bet was that I am supposed to comment, and because
> of that, you're supposed to do an Irish jig.
>
> On 12/8/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > 25 minutes have passed and Anthony DiPiero has not commented.  I win my
> > bet!
> >
> > On 12/8/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 12/8/06, Puppy <puppy at killerchihuahua.com> wrote:
> > > > You got cups? And all you had to do was months and months of digging
> > > > through records and spreadsheets, trying to reconcile the mess.
> > > >
> > > > Erik Moeller wrote:
> > > > > On 12/9/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Our audit firm, Gregory Sharer & Stuart
> > > > >> (www.gsscpa.com), worked with us for the past several months to
> > help
> > > us
> > > > >> comply with all of the requirements such an audit demands.
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > They also gave us cool free cups. Don't forget the cups! ;-)
> > >
> > > The foundation should go to Cafe Press and create a "WikiMedia
> > > Foundation's Finances got Audited, and All I got was this Lousy Cup"
> > > Coffee mug.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > -george william herbert
> > > george.herbert at gmail.com
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Brad Patrick
> > General Counsel & Interim Executive Director
> > Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
> > bradp.wmf at gmail.com
> > 727-231-0101
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
> For an edit to be verifiable it has to be verifiable by someone other
> than the person that made the edit. We're not talking about
> reliability of sources - it's obvious that a TV show is a perfectly
> reliable primary source - we're talking about whether someone else can
> come along and check that what the original editor said is true
> (assuming the source is right - a wikipedia article can never be more
> reliable than the sources it uses). It's not necessary that everyone
> be able to verify it, but a reasonable number of reasonably
> unconnected people should be able to, otherwise we're open to any
> number of hoaxes.

In fact, the policy is even stronger. [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] says:

""Verifiable" in this context means that ***any reader*** should be
able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been
published by a reliable source." (emphasis mine)

I'm not sure if I agree with that policy, but that's what the policy says.

"Any reader" cannot verify that Cmdr. Pickett gets eaten by a Florgbernian
Rumpox in Stargate episode 23 if said Stargate episode isn't publicly
available for viewing.


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

body:
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 22:18:22 +0000, David Boothroyd
<david at election.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>I assumed when it said that
>people would be judged on the merits of their contributions, and that
>evidence of bias in real life was no evidence of biased editing, that
>this meant what it said.

Indeed it does.  And yet you steadfastly refuse to believe those who
tell you that your *contributions* (including on Talk) are the
problem, choosing instead to blame some notional external factors.
Funny, that.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


body:
Guy Chapman writes:
>On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 22:18:22 +0000, David Boothroyd
><david at election.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>  >I assumed when it said that
>  >people would be judged on the merits of their contributions, and that
>  >evidence of bias in real life was no evidence of biased editing, that
>  >this meant what it said.
>
>Indeed it does.  And yet you steadfastly refuse to believe those who
>tell you that your *contributions* (including on Talk) are the
>problem, choosing instead to blame some notional external factors.
>Funny, that.

When you brought this issue to the mailing list your very second
sentence was "We know from other evidence that Fys is an active member
of the Labour party; this may or may not be considered relevant."
You clearly did consider it relevant otherwise you wouldn't have
mentioned it at all.

I have asked you again and again why you continue to insinuate that
my preference for including the disputed material in Anne Milton is
due to political bias, and for you to substantiate your view. You
have not. The time is past due for you to apologise for that. There
is no finding that I am a POV editor for the very good reason that
I am not.

I have steadfastly refused to retaliate in kind by saying that your
known opposition to my politics has influenced your judgment. Nor
have I told you to "fuck off" as you have told me. I think you know
me well enough to know that I will not give up on this. I think you
also know you owe me an apology.
--
David Boothroyd - http://www.election.demon.co.uk
david at election.demon.co.uk (home)
dboothroyd at westminster.gov.uk (council)


from_name: Andrew Gray

body:
On 08/12/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com> wrote:

> Links to the financial statements and management letter:
>
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/28/Wikimedia_2006_fs.pdf
> <http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/28/Wikimedia_2006_fs.pdf>

Curiosity compels me to ask: how exactly did we wind up with 187
shares of Google stock? Either this is a routine investment, or a
hilariously wacky story, and I can't decide which one I want it to
be...

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
"The Cunctator" wrote

> We talk about both verifiability and reliability.

True.

> You are not the end authority on Wikipedia.

True.

I think I missed your point.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
 "Thomas Dalton" wrote

> For an edit to be verifiable it has to be verifiable by someone other
> than the person that made the edit. We're not talking about
> reliability of sources - it's obvious that a TV show is a perfectly
> reliable primary source - we're talking about whether someone else can
> come along and check that what the original editor said is true
> (assuming the source is right - a wikipedia article can never be more
> reliable than the sources it uses). It's not necessary that everyone
> be able to verify it, but a reasonable number of reasonably
> unconnected people should be able to, otherwise we're open to any
> number of hoaxes.

The _actual policy_ is based on the concept of a reliable published source. Now, there is a big quibble over 'reliable' and a smaller quibble over 'published'. One of the quibbles over 'published' would be to address the point about tiny numbers of hard copies, or other such issues.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


body:
David Boothroyd wrote

> If it's really the situation that people who are members of political
> parties have a 'Conflict of Interest' in editing political articles,

Not as such, in fact. I mean, I don't think membership of a mass-membership party sets up COI by itself. Membership of a smaller, more targeted campaigning organisation is more of a concern ...

> then how much more do they have in dealing with other Wikipedians with
> different politics?

Well, only if they see the world in very polarised terms.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


body:
Charles Matthews writes:
>  > then how much more do they have in dealing with other Wikipedians with
>  > different politics?
>
>Well, only if they see the world in very polarised terms.

Unfortunately, our Mr Chapman does.
--
David Boothroyd - http://www.election.demon.co.uk
david at election.demon.co.uk (home)
dboothroyd at westminster.gov.uk (council)


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
Abigail Brady wrote:

>On 12/8/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Since there are only two such occasions it should not be difficult to
>>identify the two episodes.
>>
>>
>Ah, but how do you source the fact that it isn't seen in any other episodes?
>This is not a facetious question by the way.
>
We can't prove a negative, and a single counter example will disprove
the claim.  In the history of Fermat's Last Theorem the maddenining
thing was thatfor three centuries  nobody could find the example to
prove him wrong.  Proving him right took an enormous effort by many many
people, and I still help but feel that a simple elegant proof is just
around the corner.  In law this is the fundamental reason why a
defendant should not be required to prove his innocence.

To say "There are no such episodes" is presumptuous.  However, even
though it sounds weasely, one can note that he has been unable to find
any such episode.

>Do we have something against academic fraud: such as, say, adding
>something as a "Source", apparently without having read it, or even
>having a good idea of its contents from other sources,
>
That would be a different matter.

Ec


from_name: Steve Summit

subject: [WikiEN-l] new Google Earth tie-in (!!)

body:
If you use Google Earth, check out the brand-new "Geographic Web" layer.
Did we have anything to do with that?


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-12-09

body:
An automated run of parserTests.php showed the following failures:

Reading tests from "/home/brion/src/wiki/phase3/maintenance/parserTests.txt"...
Running test TODO: Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Link containing double-single-quotes '' (bug 4598)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Template with thumb image (with link in description)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: message transform: <noinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: message transform: <onlyinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Parsing optional HTML elements (Bug 6171)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Inline HTML vs wiki block nesting... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Mixing markup for italics and bold... FAILED!
Running test TODO: 5 quotes, code coverage +1 line... FAILED!
Running test TODO: dt/dd/dl test... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Images with the "|" character in the comment... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Parents of subpages, two levels up, without trailing slash or name.... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Parents of subpages, two levels up, with lots of extra trailing slashes.... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Don't fall for the self-closing div... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Always escape literal '>' in output, not just after '<'... FAILED!

Reading tests from "/home/brion/src/wiki/phase3/extensions/Cite/citeParserTests.txt"...
Running test Simple <ref>, no <references/>... FAILED!
Running test Simple <ref>, with <references/>... FAILED!
Running test <ref> with a simple template... FAILED!
Running test <ref> with a <nowiki>... FAILED!
Running test <!--comment--> in a <ref> (bug 5384)... FAILED!
Running test <references> after <gallery> (bug 6164)... FAILED!
Running test {{REVISIONID}} on page with <ref> (bug 6299)... FAILED!
Running test Blank ref followed by ref with content... FAILED!
Running test Regression: non-blank ref "0" followed by ref with content... FAILED!
Running test Regression sanity check: non-blank ref "1" followed by ref with content... FAILED!

Passed 441 of 471 tests (93.63%)... FAILED!


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
The Cunctator wrote:

>On 12/8/06, Daniel P. B. Smith <wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com> wrote:
>
>
>>If the episode has _not_ been published on commercial videos, then
>>IMHO it is not verifiable. Of course, published print sources that
>>describe the episode are fine.
>>
>>
>Of course it's verifiable. Verifiable means "able to be verified", not
>"commercially available."
>
Absolutely.  The person citing the episode may have taped it when it was
broadcast.  That's certainly legal when someone is time shifting.  If
the episode has not yet been made commercially available, I'm sure that
the producers still have the episode in their archives somewhere.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
Thomas Dalton wrote:

>>Of course it's verifiable. Verifiable means "able to be verified", not
>>"commercially available."
>>
>>
>But how can you verify it? You would have to be lucky and find it
>being shown on TV, and it's often a long time after the first showing
>before any subsequent showings.
>
Nobody is saying that verifying has to be easy.

Ec


body:
On 12/9/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com> wrote:
> Our audit firm, Gregory Sharer & Stuart
> (www.gsscpa.com), worked with us for the past several months to help us
> comply with all of the requirements such an audit demands.

They also gave us cool free cups. Don't forget the cups! ;-)
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
Thomas Dalton wrote:

>>No, that's not what we mean, and has never been what we mean. And you seem to be conflating things. We don't talk (much) about "verifiable sources": we base everything on "reliable sources". We talk about verifiable edits, really: we want to constrain editors into only adding material that is verifiable, from reliable sources, accessible to them. Some of the most reliable sources, in the scholarly sense, are some of the least accessible to the general public. (And, frankly, reliability of newspaper reports can vary inversely with circulation. And scholarly monographs with the best information on particular matters are apparently now printed in runs as low as 300.)
>>
>>
>For an edit to be verifiable it has to be verifiable by someone other
>than the person that made the edit. We're not talking about
>reliability of sources - it's obvious that a TV show is a perfectly
>reliable primary source
>
I've seen interesting documentaries on sasquatch sightings. Area 51 and
perpetual motion machines. :-)

I would venture to say that more than 300 people have recorded each and
every Stark Trek episode.  i.o.w. Stark Trek episodes are more
verifiable than academic monographs. ;-)

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
Stan Shebs wrote:

> That's like saying a published book is not a verifiable source because I
>
>can't make more copies and pass those around to wouldbe checkers. If you
>don't have a copy of the book I used, you're going to have to borrow it.
>Some of the more addicted Wikipedians have even been known to *buy*
>books in order to use them as references!
>
That's when the wikiholism gets serious. :-)

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:

>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>
>>Rob wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In regards to the rest of the article, I'm kind of torn here.
>>>Obviously we need sources for comparisons or claims of influence.  On
>>>the other hand, if a fictional trial obviously resembles a US military
>>>court martial, why can't we just say that?
>>>
>>>
>>It won't be "obvious" to those who are unfamiliar with the operations of
>>a US military court martial.
>>
>>
>Dude, I've seen hundreds on TV! The TV series JAG is a documentary, right?
>
So is CSI.

Ec


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] One hell of a month to take off

body:
There's an undo command in diffs that allows to revert an edit without
touching edits made after it. (if they don't conflict).

Mgm

On 12/9/06, Luna <lunasantin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Arbcom elections are up. Autoblocking has some new features (can be
> disabled, can also whitelist certain ranges).
>
> I got to pet a kitten, also. *nod*
>
> Welcome back. =D
>
> On 12/8/06, ikiroid <ikiroid at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > So I went on wikibreak from November 10 to now, and I come back to find
> > GNAA
> > deleted, Esperanza nominated for deletion, and half a million
> wikiprojects
> > created. Did I miss anything else big?
> >
> > Iki
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [Wikitech-l] Redirect to section

body:
I have implemented a "redirect to section" feature. It requires
JavaScript, with the old behaviour maintained for non-JS browsers.

Use it wisely -- remember that a link from one page to the middle of
another will typically be unexpected and surprising behaviour for the
reader, especially when the source link has no # in it. This feature is
regularly requested, and so I implemented it on that basis. I'm sure there
are good applications, but some amount of common sense at the editorial
level is required.

-- Tim Starling


from_name: Aphaia

body:
On 12/8/06, florencedevouard <anthere at anthere.org> wrote:
> Dear Community,
>
> A few days ago, I wrote you a "short" email to give you feedback on the last board meeting, which occured in Florida. Reference: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-December/011869.html
>
> As I promised, we welcome today 2 new board members, whom most of you already know, Mindspillage and Oscar (also known irl as Kat Walsh (us citizen, lady), Oscar van Dillen (dutch citizen, gentleman). Welcome to you both.

I would like to know it before ... as we were informed about Patrick
Brad as coming interim ED. Well, Promotion subcom will be working to
update [[Wikimedia:Board of Trustees]] properly? Or new borad members
would like to edit it directly for now? Or it will appear after
December 15?

I put a brief note on the Home. Copyediting will be appreciated.

Well, and I would like the Board to give us priorities for
translators, since around December 15, we have several things need to
manage including:
- Information about new board
- Fundraising
- Audited (and huge) ducuments, perhaps need a PDF editor
- Disclaimer (translation ongoing)

If we have a sorted list on the items above, I will be more than happy
and expect we translators can work the most effectively ... when we
are back (now 2:02 am, I go to bed now ......)

n8,
--
KIZU Naoko
  Wikiquote: http://wikiquote.org
  * Nessuna poesia prima di noi *


body:
florencedevouard wrote:
> Tim Shell has chosen to resign from the board, effective 15th of
> december. At this date, he will be replaced by Jan-Bart de Vreede.

Out with one financial supporter of the Foundation and in with another. It
seems my calls for democratic selection of Board members fell on deaf ears.

I have nothing against Jan-Bart personally, just as I had nothing against
Tim Shell. No doubt there were other factors that went into his selection
besides his role in the Kennisnet hosting arrangement. But I have trouble
believing that he would have been selected without it. I oppose his Board
membership on principle, just as I continue to oppose that of Michael Davis.

-- Tim Starling


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Andre Engels

subject: [Wikipedia-l] New in the Pywikipediabot framework

body:
There is a new version available for download of the Python Wikipediabot
framework. I would advise most people using the framework on Wikimedia wikis
(who does not get it through CVS) to update, because the old version will
not be able to read the allpages special page correctly. Also, those who use
it on a Windows system are advised to download version 2.5 of Python (if
they are still using an older version), because colours are now working for
Windows, but only under Python 2.5. Downloading 2.5 is also advised for
anyone (on any system) who wants to use xml dumps with the bot.

To save space, the current distribution does not include the wordlists,
because they are very large files. Those who want to use
spellcheck.pyshould download them from
http://pywikipediabot.cvs.sourceforge.net/pywikipediabot/pywikipedia/spelling/separately.
Wordlists exist for Dutch and English; wordlists in other
languages are still welcome.

Recent changes in the bot (from the last month, only the most important are
given:

==new bots==
* commonslink.py. This searches for a page with the same name in commons,
and links to it. Currently only working on English and Portuguese Wikipedias
* delete.py. Deletes a group of pages.
==important bugfixes==
* Because of some changes in the wikimedia code, the bot wasn't able to read
[[Special:Allpages]] any more.
* Bot messed up categories or interwikis within <noinclude> tags (the > of
the noinclude was moved to after the categories/interwikis)
==user interface==
* More bots use colour highlighting
* Colours can now be used on Windows systems as well. This requires Python
2.5.
* Transliterated text is now coloured yellow; the stars to denote that
something has been transliterated are only used when using a Windows version
that does not support colours.
==interwiki==
* New option -subcat: When pages are found using -cat, pages from
subcategories are included as well.
==weblinkchecker==
* Does not hang on getting hit by the spamfilter
* Gives less false positives
==various==
* cosmetic_changes.py removes misplaced and extraneous spaces in
wiki-linking syntax
==aids for bot writers==
* in pagegenerators there is now PrefixingPageGenerator, yielding all pages
of which the title starts with a certain text.

--
Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels


from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> For an edit to be verifiable it has to be verifiable by someone other
>> than the person that made the edit. We're not talking about
>> reliability of sources - it's obvious that a TV show is a perfectly
>> reliable primary source
>>
> I've seen interesting documentaries on sasquatch sightings. Area 51 and
> perpetual motion machines. :-)

And they're perfectly reliable primary sources *about the
documentaries*. About sasquatch and Area 51, on the other hand, they're
secondary sources of perhaps more questionable reliability.

The "reliability" of a source is highly context-sensitive. I don't think
anyone's proposing to use Star Trek episodes as sources for articles
about real-world physics. :)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061209/4ce8d665/attachment.pgp


from_name: zero 0000

subject: [WikiEN-l] Nazi userboxes

body:
> On 30 Nov 2006 at 13:37, "john ask me later" <bockspur at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Is it Wikipedia's job to enforce local law all around the world?  Do
> we need to check for Iranian IP addresses and suppress images of
> women not wearing veils, ...

Women in Iran don't wear veils.

Just thought I'd clear that up ;-).

Zero.

____________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Music Unlimited
Access over 1 million songs.
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited


from_name: Jim Schuler

body:
On 12/8/06, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
>
> On 6 Dec 2006 at 16:08, "Jim Schuler" <jim62sch at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This is not, however, the proper way to deal with the issue.  In effect,
> the
> > editors who subscribe to wikichix have caved in to the intimidation by
> > creating their own mailing list.  Imagine if Rosa Parks, no matter how
> tired
> > she was, caved in to intimidation that December day in 1955.  Imagine if
> > Marin Luther King had given in to intimidation and not called for the
> > Montgomery Bus Boycott.  Caving in resolves nothing.
>
> It seems like there ought to be something along the lines of
> [[Godwin's Law]] regarding attempts to analogize people involved in a
> current debate or controversy with Rosa Parks or Martin Luther King.
>
> --
> == Dan ==

Whatever.  Of course, there should be a form of Godwin's Law for attempts to
analogize analogies one dislikes with Godwin's Law.

--
Jim
http://iacobomus.blogspot.com/


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject: [WikiEN-l] new Google Earth tie-in (!!)

body:
On 12/9/06, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
> If you use Google Earth, check out the brand-new "Geographic Web" layer.
> Did we have anything to do with that?

Yes.

Like it?


list: commons-l

from_name: Eugene Zelenko

subject: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Wikitech-l] ImportFreeImages Extension

body:
Hi!

> I've converted some code we've been using into an extension for importing
> properly licensed photos from flickr into a Mediawiki installation:
>
> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ImportFreeImages
>
> It makes use of the phpFlickr package for the API calls.
>
> Feel free to play around with it here:
>
> http://wikidiy.com/mediawiki-1.8.2/index.php/Special:ImportFreeImages

It's great news! Should we bug developers to install extension on
Commons as soon as possible?

With best regards,
Eugene.


from_name: Daniel P. B. Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
> From: "The Cunctator" <cunctator at gmail.com>
>
> On 12/8/06, Daniel P. B. Smith <wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com> wrote:
>>> From: "The Cunctator" <cunctator at gmail.com>
>>>
>>
>>> If someone says that in Episode X of Show Y this happened, I can't
>>> imagine
>>> why I wouldn't believe it.
>>>
>>> And I can imagine any number of ways by which if I *had* to I could
>>> verify
>>> such claim, including going to the production company or the
>>> Museum of
>>> Television and Radio or asking on craigslist to view such episode.
>>
>> If someone (e.g. 68.80.254.34) says:
>>
>> "Third floor of College Hall at Penn has an Episcopalian Chapel. On
>> the wall states that Penn was founded by the Anglican Church of
>> England. Go there and read it," would you say that "I can't imagine
>> why I wouldn't believe it?"
>>
>> Anyone _could_ travel to Philadelphia and visit College Hall. Does
>> that make the fact verifiable?
>
> Yes.

It seems to me, then, that

--you have a different definition of "verifiable" than Wikipedia
currently has;

--you do not accept the current verifiability policy;

--you believe that information based solely on the personal testimony
of an individual Wikipedian is acceptable content.


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
I think that this takes the original research ban a little too far.  We
are talking here about a place and a directly observable fact about the
place.  The original research here was done by the people who put the
information own the wall.  Any Wikipedian who cares to (I'm sure we have
plenty of Wikipedians in or near Philadelphia.) can go there and take a
photo of the wall for verification.  It fits in fine with a policy of
having people go out and take their own photos of whatever to replace
fair use photos.  IOW when should original research be used as grounds
for rejecting a photo?

Ec

James Hare wrote:

>In order for information not to be original research, it has to be
>published. That's why visiting the college and finding out for yourself
>unfortunately constitutes original research.
>
>On 12/9/06, Daniel P. B. Smith <wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>From: "The Cunctator" <cunctator at gmail.com>
>>>
>>>On 12/8/06, Daniel P. B. Smith <wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> If someone (e.g. 68.80.254.34) says:
>>>>
>>>>"Third floor of College Hall at Penn has an Episcopalian Chapel. On
>>>>the wall states that Penn was founded by the Anglican Church of
>>>>England. Go there and read it," would you say that "I can't imagine
>>>>why I wouldn't believe it?"
>>>>
>>>>Anyone _could_ travel to Philadelphia and visit College Hall. Does
>>>>that make the fact verifiable?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Yes.
>>>
>>>
>>It seems to me, then, that
>>
>>--you believe that information based solely on the personal testimony
>>of an individual Wikipedian is acceptable content.
>>


from_name: James Hare

subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
In order for information not to be original research, it has to be
published. That's why visiting the college and finding out for yourself
unfortunately constitutes original research.

On 12/9/06, Daniel P. B. Smith <wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com> wrote:
>
> > From: "The Cunctator" <cunctator at gmail.com>
> >
> > On 12/8/06, Daniel P. B. Smith <wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com> wrote:
> >>> From: "The Cunctator" <cunctator at gmail.com>
> >>>
> >>
> >>> If someone says that in Episode X of Show Y this happened, I can't
> >>> imagine
> >>> why I wouldn't believe it.
> >>>
> >>> And I can imagine any number of ways by which if I *had* to I could
> >>> verify
> >>> such claim, including going to the production company or the
> >>> Museum of
> >>> Television and Radio or asking on craigslist to view such episode.
> >>
> >> If someone (e.g. 68.80.254.34) says:
> >>
> >> "Third floor of College Hall at Penn has an Episcopalian Chapel. On
> >> the wall states that Penn was founded by the Anglican Church of
> >> England. Go there and read it," would you say that "I can't imagine
> >> why I wouldn't believe it?"
> >>
> >> Anyone _could_ travel to Philadelphia and visit College Hall. Does
> >> that make the fact verifiable?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> It seems to me, then, that
>
> --you have a different definition of "verifiable" than Wikipedia
> currently has;
>
> --you do not accept the current verifiability policy;
>
> --you believe that information based solely on the personal testimony
> of an individual Wikipedian is acceptable content.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Daniel R. Tobias

subject: [WikiEN-l] Astroturfing -- fabricating your own sources

body:
On 8 Dec 2006 at 09:09, Luna <lunasantin at gmail.com> wrote:

> Assuming your summary of events is accurate, it seems that the source isn't
> neutral. That being the case, I'm of the opinion that it might be reliable
> in some cases, but not in others. For example, I doubt you'd find many
> objections to using a company's own information page, when looking for the
> date a company was founded; for more complex or potentially controversial
> information, however, getting information from third party, neutral sources
> is probably preferred.

Even such simple things as founding dates could in some cases be
subject to spin, manipulation, and debate.  A company or organization
with a complex history (with mergers, splits, acquisitions,
reorganizations, buying the rights to a name from a completely
different entity and renaming the parent company accordingly, etc.)
can have several different dates that can with some logic be claimed
as their "founding date", and an official corporate site will use the
one that their marketing flacks think fits their current desired
image; if they want to emphasize that they've been around a while
they use the earlier of the possible dates, while if they want to
claim to be all new and different they use the newer one.  However,
Wikipedia should never be beholden to the current corporate image as
opposed to the true facts.

--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:

>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>
>>The Cunctator wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 12/8/06, Daniel P. B. Smith <wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>If the episode has _not_ been published on commercial videos, then
>>>>IMHO it is not verifiable. Of course, published print sources that
>>>>describe the episode are fine.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Of course it's verifiable. Verifiable means "able to be verified", not
>>>"commercially available."
>>>
>>>
>>Absolutely.  The person citing the episode may have taped it when it was
>>broadcast.  That's certainly legal when someone is time shifting.  If
>>the episode has not yet been made commercially available, I'm sure that
>>the producers still have the episode in their archives somewhere.
>>
>>
>You haven't read the lede of [[Doctor Who missing episodes]] then.
>
Clearly the BBC was once run by Daleks who did not want the public to
know about their nefarious plots.  Rampant extermination was their solution.

The sentence, "Unlike other series, however, Doctor Who is fortunate
enough to have all of its missing episodes surviving in audio form,
recorded off-air by fans at home, and to have every 1970s episode
existing in some form." becomes a strong argument in favour of pirate
recordings.

There is something fundamentally wrong with the notion that broadcasters
are the sole authority over verifying whether something did or did not
happen, even in a fictional context.  There is always a risk that the
[[Fourth Estate]] will itself become what it sought to cure.

I must stop this because I feel a rant coming on about the effects of
proprietary protections on massive archives. ;-)

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com wrote:

>"Thomas Dalton" wrote
>
>
>>I think it's best to stop talking in terms of original research and
>>talk about reliability of sources (which is the main reason the OR
>>rule exists, it's a special case of WP:RS).
>>
>>
>
>Historically that's quite wrong. 'Original research' came into policyland as a Jimbo intervention against cranks on the science pages. 'Citing sources' was one of things that floats up from the frontline areas of highly contentious pages. 'Verifiability' was an attempt to amalgamate NOR and 'cite sources'; and RS is a needed guideline to support our notion of verifiability.
>
>It is not exactly satisfactory that our policies have this kind of path-dependence (in some sense one has to understand why they got there). But the history does have a role to play in explaining things. Especially because consensus on policies is hardly perfect.
>
Well understated!

I too remember the context of the original original research dictum.
Historical antecedents are too easily forgotten.  What has 2,000 years
of biblical misinterpretation done for us?  I have no problem with
path-dependence but perhaps I interpret that concept differently to
allow different standards for different kinds information; this allows
for stricter standards in living biographies but more flexibility in
matters of fiction.

The prohibition on original research has roots in not wanting people to
make things up, not just in observable facts but also in novel
interpretations that may harbour a hidden logical fallacy.  Hoaxes owe
their success to people who make superficially credible arguments.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
Thomas Dalton wrote:

>>I think that this takes the original research ban a little too far.  We
>>are talking here about a place and a directly observable fact about the
>>place.  The original research here was done by the people who put the
>>information own the wall.  Any Wikipedian who cares to (I'm sure we have
>>plenty of Wikipedians in or near Philadelphia.) can go there and take a
>>photo of the wall for verification.  It fits in fine with a policy of
>>having people go out and take their own photos of whatever to replace
>>fair use photos.  IOW when should original research be used as grounds
>>for rejecting a photo?
>>
>>
>I think it's best to stop talking in terms of original research and
>talk about reliability of sources (which is the main reason the OR
>rule exists, it's a special case of WP:RS).
>
>The source being used in the article is not the writing on the wall.
>The source is the few Wikipedians that have seen the writing. While
>the writing is probably reliable, the few Wikipedians are not. If
>someone took a picture, then we could use that picture as the source,
>and that picture *is* reliable, so everything is ok.
>
Some kinds of information are inherently more reliable.  Compare
    1. I saw the inscription on the wall, and
    2. The image of Jesus appeared on that wall and remained for an hour.

Unlike the image the inscription is easily more verifiable, and will
remain so for an extended amount of time.  Eventually, many things
deteriorate beyond use.  Much 19th century material crumbles on sight
because it was produced on acidic paper.

>I think a lot of the disagreements in this thread boil down to people
>not understanding what the source in a particular situation is. If we
>only know something because a Wikipedian found it out from somewhere,
>then the source is the Wikipedian, not the somewhere they found it out
>from. A piece a information is only as reliable as the least reliable
>connection from the primary source to the article. If a source is
>published in such a way that anyone can verify it then the last
>connection (the author of the article) becomes reliable, as we can
>repeat their work (as it's a completely reliably connection, we
>usually ignore it and just reference the source directly).
>
Let's not be simplistic here.  I completely agree that information is
only as reliable as the weakest link in the information chain, but that
does not imply that the weakest link is necessarily the most recent
one.  The fact that I read what I claim in the "Da Vinci Code" is
immediately verifiable.

Ec


from_name: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
Stan Shebs wrote

> Thomas Dalton wrote:
> > In fact, the policy is even stronger. [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] says:
> >
> > ""Verifiable" in this context means that ***any reader*** should be
> > able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been
> > published by a reliable source." (emphasis mine)
> >
> I've always taken that just to mean that classified documents and the
> like are out of bounds. We don't require that our references be
> available as books on tape for the benefit of illiterate Wikipedians, or
> that references are only English-language because not every reader knows
> French - it might take some effort, but every reader can learn a foreign
> language or hire a translator.

The drsfting of that is clearly too strong, in a sense. But 'be able' cannot anyway be replaced by the notion that this is always easy: it is still an 'in principle' formulation.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


from_name: Luna

body:
Daniel P. B. Smith <wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com> wrote:
>Corporate spinmeisters are quite fond of concocting warm and fuzzy
"origins" tales, and other stories that confirm the company's
preferred view of disputes involving lawsuits, patents, priorities,
and the like.

Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
>Even such simple things as founding dates could in some cases be
subject to spin, manipulation, and debate.

Blargh, good points. :) I may be too trusting. In the absence of alternative
sources, I suppose we'd have no choice, but that seems to bring up
notability questions in turn (if we're planning to open that can of worms on
this poor old thread). I like "trust, but verify," as a general sort of
guideline, there.


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Nazi userboxes

body:
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
> On 30 Nov 2006 at 13:37, "john ask me later" <bockspur at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> If the IP address is german or austria then wiki can remove the swastika
>> image and
>> any reference to holocaust denial since they violate local laws, otherwise
>> it's
>> a personal page; ignore it.
>
> Is it Wikipedia's job to enforce local law all around the world?  Do
> we need to check for Iranian IP addresses and suppress images of
> women not wearing veils, and check for Chinese IP addresses and
> suppress politically incorrect references to Tibet, Fulan Gong, or
> Tiananmen Square?
>

No, no, and no.

Please note that this thread is now offically closed and anyone who
makes further comments will find that their posts aren't making it to
the list.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061209/dba62320/attachment.pgp


from_name: Thomas Dalton

subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
> I've seen interesting documentaries on sasquatch sightings. Area 51 and
> perpetual motion machines. :-)

I said primary source - a documentary about area 51 is not a primary
source about area 51. It is a primary source about the documentary
itself, however, and in that respect is completely reliable. If the
documentary says "XYZ" then you can be absolutely sure the documentary
says "XYZ" - reliability is generally trivial for primary sources.


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
> I'm sure I don't agree with it. I worked on the verifiability policy a while
> ago to get it to a rational place. Clearly *any reader* can't check every
> source used on Wikipedia -- some people just don't have access to the
> Widener Library, for example, or read French.

An excellent example. I think it basically boils down to how much work
you need to put in to verifying it. As someone else said, it doesn't
need to be easy to verify, but it does need to be possible. For some
people it will take an unreasonable amount of effort, so it's not
really verifiable for them, but as long as some people can verify it
with a reasonable amount of effort, that's fine.

We should probably move this conversation to the policy talk page if
we want to gather consensus to change that sentence.

> "Any reader" cannot verify that Cmdr. Pickett gets eaten by a Florgbernian
> > Rumpox in Stargate episode 23 if said Stargate episode isn't publicly
> > available for viewing.
>
> We had been talking about commercially available, not publicly available.
> Those are two different things.

An unreleased episode is neither commercially available or publicly
available. It's only available to those people that recorded it.
Copyright law allows you to record things off the TV for personal
viewing, it doesn't allow you to distribute it to others.


from_name: Kurt Maxwell Weber

subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
On Saturday 09 December 2006 08:17, James Hare wrote:
> In order for information not to be original research, it has to be
> published. That's why visiting the college and finding out for yourself
> unfortunately constitutes original research.

It IS published...on the wall.
--
Kurt Weber
<kmw at armory.com>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061209/6682114a/attachment.pgp


from_name: Delphine Ménard

body:
On 12/9/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> Next big milestones to achieve:
>
> -- Stable revisions
> -- Single user login
> -- Complete financial security
> -- At least 1,000 featured articles on every Wikipedia
> -- The completion of Nupedia's third article.

Man, I thought Nupedia was dead. Are you sure you didn't mean the
completion of City Sandy Hom's first article?

/me is lost.

Delphine


subject: [WikiEN-l] The vexed issue of sources

body:
Just like Ketchikan, Alaska's "liquid sunshine" gauge.

On 12/9/06, Kurt Maxwell Weber <kmw at armory.com> wrote:
>
> On Saturday 09 December 2006 08:17, James Hare wrote:
> > In order for information not to be original research, it has to be
> > published. That's why visiting the college and finding out for yourself
> > unfortunately constitutes original research.
>
> It IS published...on the wall.
> --
> Kurt Weber
> <kmw at armory.com>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] The WikiChix debate gets noticed...

body:
The inhabitants of the looney bin called Wikipedia Review seem to
have taken notice of the recent discussion in this list regarding a
women-only mailing list, and that provoked some of them into wild
theorizing regarding how such a list is bound to be dominated by
transsexuals and "shemales"...

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5302

--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/


from_name: Anthere

body:
Ah but...
In the mug, there was a pen and post-its.
Plus it was nicely wrapped.

The unfortunate thing is that the mug has a fancy metal thing at the
handle. So it can not go in the microwave :-(

Ant

Puppy wrote:
> You got cups? And all you had to do was months and months of digging
> through records and spreadsheets, trying to reconcile the mess.
>
> Erik Moeller wrote:
>
>>On 12/9/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Our audit firm, Gregory Sharer & Stuart
>>>(www.gsscpa.com), worked with us for the past several months to help us
>>>comply with all of the requirements such an audit demands.
>>>
>>
>>They also gave us cool free cups. Don't forget the cups! ;-)
>>


from_name: Brianna Laugher

body:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Travis Derouin <travis at wikihow.com>
Date: 09-Dec-2006 07:57
Subject: [Wikitech-l] ImportFreeImages Extension
To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l at wikimedia.org>

I've converted some code we've been using into an extension for importing
properly licensed photos from flickr into a Mediawiki installation:

http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ImportFreeImages

It makes use of the phpFlickr package for the API calls.

Feel free to play around with it here:

http://wikidiy.com/mediawiki-1.8.2/index.php/Special:ImportFreeImages

Travis
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l