from_name: Andre Engels

subject: [Foundation-l] Mozart's works released

body:
2006/12/14, Pat Gunn <pgunn at dachte.org>:
>
> In case anybody missed it,
> Mozart's complete works were recently published on the
> internet by the (Austria-based) International Mozart Foundation.
>
> http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2006-12-11T185118Z_01_L11804081_RTRUKOC_0_US-ARTS-MUSIC-MOZART.xml
>
> I'm not sure what license it's under. If it's a free one
> (or PD-equivalent), then it's similar in a sense to several
> ideas raised in Jimbo's idea drive sometime back.

Unfortunately, I went to the website, and you cannot even get into the
website without answering 'Ja' to the statement " Ich erkl?re ausdr?cklich,
dass ich diese Website nur zum pers?nlichen Studium verwende und Kopien nur
zu meinem eigenen privaten Gebrauch anfertige." (my translation: "I declare
that I will use this website only for personal studies and only make copies
for my own private use"). In other words, the material is free only as in
beer.

> A thought:
> If it is freely licensed, to what extent should the foundation
> consider republishing its content on WMF projects? Should WM
> avoid possibly stepping on the toes of other projects, avoiding
> duplicating any free conttent they make, or should it try to
> collect everything (and possibly give prominent credit) that falls
> under its mission? The general question may apply to other groups
> like Project Gutenberg's works.
>

I think the latter is too broad and the first too narrow. What I think
should answer the question is: Does copying to Wikimedia give any
substantial gains? I think we should restrict ourselves to two groups of
works in this perspective:
1. What we ourselves need, so that whatever we are already doing (Wikipedia,
Wiktionary and Wikibooks in particular) is done even better. This would for
example include many photographs, because we can use them in articles/books.
2. What can benefit from the specific capabilities and expertise of
Wikimedia. Our main specific capability is community involvement. If there
is a clear advantage of putting the material in a wiki or something similar
to putting it on a 'normal' website or in an FTP directory, then it is
something that would probably be good to put it on Wikimedia. Others (like
Project Gutenberg) are usually better if the main goal is to get existing PD
material onto the web. But when the project involves commenting on parts of
the work, creating some kind of low-level indexing or combining various
works and/or new additions into a new work, then Wikimedia's background is a
great plus.

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


list: wikimedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

subject: [Foundation-l] Mozart's works released


list: commons-l

from_name: geni

subject: [Commons-l] Wikimedia Foundation's help to the projects

body:
On 12/14/06, Yann Forget <yann at forget-me.net> wrote:
> For my practical use, is a photograph taken in India in 1908 by a Indian
> photographer is public domain in USA (first published in India)?
> and if it is taken in 1920?

eh probably.

>in 1945?

Probably not or at least it would be so compelx to show that it is PD
that it would be unlikely to be worth the effort.

>and if the photographer is American (first
> published in USA)?

Probably, probably, probably not.

>and if the photographer is from a third country,
> England, for example?

It depends
--
geni


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Jared Williams

body:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikitech-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
> [mailto:wikitech-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Aerik Sylvan
> Sent: 14 December 2006 08:06
> To: wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Category Intersections (again)
>
> Okay, I've got some better numbers (and a better method of
> building the
> category intersections table from an existing database).
>
> I build a table with 2.6 million records, all the pages from
> the snapshot I
> had.  It's 90% populated with categories (this will make more
> sense in a
> minute) and I'm still getting good results from intersections
> queries.  For
> instance:
>
> Showing rows 0 - 1 (2 total, Query took 0.3459 sec) SQL
> query: SELECT *
> FROM `pageindex`
> WHERE MATCH (catlist
> )
> AGAINST ( '+Living_People +People_from_Maine +1956_births'
> IN BOOLEAN
> MODE
> )
> LIMIT 0 , 30
>
> (which has two results, btw, Cynthia McFadden and David Kelley).
>
> This takes consistently a third of a second.  Not bad.  And that's for
> 2.6million rows.  I think we should restrict it to just current
> articles in the
> main namespace, but that's my opinion.
>
> I figured out a better way to populate the table, too:
>
> UPDATE pageindex,categorylinks SET pageindex.catlist=CONCAT_WS(' ',
> pageindex.catlist,categorylinks.cl_to) WHERE (
> pageindex.pageid=categorylinks.cl_from AND INSTR(pageindex.catlist,
> categorylinks.cl_to) =0)
>
> You have to run this query for a number of times equal to the greatest
> number of distinct categories a page has.  Most pages have
> less than 7, but
> a few apparently have outrageous numbers.  After doing a lot
> of searching
> around for a solution to concatenating multiple rows into one
> value, I think
> this is pretty good.

MySQL has GROUP_CONCAT() if that's what your after.

Jared


list: wikien-l

from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [WikiEN-l] Finding out what to take photos of

body:
On 12/13/06, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> So suppose an article has no picture, and a contributor wishes to add a
> picture to that one specific thing. What are the odds that this specific
> contributor gets a realistic chance of taking a photograph of the topic
> of that specific article, be it a celebrity, a sight or a building?

You could also to to the toolserver:

http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/missing_images.php

scan a category, and list only the ones with missing images.

Except you can't, toolserver databases are still down :-(

Magnus


list: foundation-l

from_name: Anthere

subject: [Foundation-l] fundraising: call for help (URGENT)

body:
Hello

As roughly announced last week, the fundraiser will start *tomorrow*.
A bunch of things still need to be fixed, and in particular, WE NEED
HELP to translate the fundraising page.

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/User:DavidStrauss/Fundraising

We need it at minimum for tomorrow in english, german, french, spanish,
swedish, japanese, italian, dutch...

Please help us with the translation.

The page in on Foundation because it requires html (will not work on
meta) and is using rather complex templates. If you need help and more
generally, please contact Danny (dwool ATTTT wikimedia.org).

These are the most urgent languages, others are welcome as well of
course. Please coordinate either with Danny or with Aphaia and transcom.

Thank you for your help

Anthere


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 12/14/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
>> The Mother Category:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_requested_photographs
>
> For 20 points, what's the commons equivalent?
>

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Picture_requests

--
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: 542 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061214/191f23c0/attachment.pgp


subject:
[Foundation-l] [Commons-l] Wikimedia Foundation's help to the
	projects

body:
On 12/14/06, David Monniaux <David.Monniaux at free.fr> wrote:
> * In many cases, copyright questions may be resolved only on a
> case-by-case basis.

So we redefine the question to one that is somewhat more posible to
answer and in some ways more useful.

What are the common areas of free images?

Answers will include such things as works of the US federal goverment
and it's agencies. Crown copyright over a certian age (depends on the
type of material) and anything over 185 years old (old living person
is currently 115) other than a few oddities like peter pan and the KJV
within the UK.

--
geni


from_name: Claudi Meneghin

subject: [Wikitech-l] How could I activate the 'import' feaure, please?

body:
Dear Sirs,
  could you please be so kind to tell me how I could activate the  'import' feaure at Lombard wikipedia? It looks like it has never been  activated, since the beginning. The error message while opening the  page:
  http://lmo.wikipedia.org/wiki/special:import
  is:
  'No transwiki import sources have been defined and direct history uploads are disabled.'
  I guess I should ask bugzilla, but could you please recall me the exact  URL? I already did that for the 'portal' namespace, but a lot of time  went by since then.
  Thank you so much. Cheers,
  Claudi

---------------------------------
 D?couvrez une nouvelle fa?on d'obtenir des r?ponses ? toutes vos questions ! Profitez des connaissances, des opinions et des exp?riences des internautes sur Yahoo! Questions/R?ponses.


from_name: Steve Bennett

body:
On 12/14/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> The Mother Category:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_requested_photographs

For 20 points, what's the commons equivalent?

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Categories (was: Hello)

body:
On 12/14/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> It didn't evolve into an unfocused mess -- it started as an unfocused
> mess. As did Wikipedia. We don't necessarily need a small committee of
> experts to "fix" the "problems" of Wikipedia.
>
> One of the things that makes Wikipedia great is its flexibility.

My understanding is that most processes in WP start small and
unfocussed, spread out to become large and unfocussed, then are slowly
refine and are distilled to become small and focussed again. For
example, a policy document usually starts with some rant by an
individual. It expands as other individuals join in the ranting. Then
common sense starts to emerge. Finally, it can be reduced to a couple
of sentences that are actually helpful.

With categories, I think we've got to the "huge mess" stage, but I
don't see a lot of distillation or refining going on.

> > I would like to take the discussion back to my original question: May I
> > include both a main category and a subcategory in the same article? I would
> > like to accomplish this without creating an edit war with another editor who
> > thinks it?s wrong.

On a practical level, it's obviously very useful to have both the cat
and supercat on an article sometimes. The prohibition on this
presupposes some mediawiki treatment of sub/supercats that just
doesn't exist.

Steve


from_name: The Cunctator

subject: [WikiEN-l] Top posting poll; was Re: MONGO and the ArbCom

body:
On 12/14/06, Mark Wagner <carnildo at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/14/06, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
> > On 14 Dec 2006 at 15:16, "Alphax (Wikipedia email)"
> > <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Poll: Should top-posting be grounds for moderation?
>
> M I i N d T- E p R o W s E t A i V n E g - i P s O t S h T e I o N n G l F
> y O w R a M y E to go. :-)
>
>
>


from_name: Dave Grogan

subject:
[Wikitech-l] can I add parameters to hooks used by
 twoextensions(spellchecker and svn blame-like view)

body:
>>> I was under the impression that the article was never saved if the
> content
>>> hasn't changed, and therefore the hook wouldn't trigger in that
> situation
>>> anyway.
>> No new revision is saved but the hook is run.  See Article.php, lines
>> 1285-90 and 1359-63 in v1.8.2.
>
> Is 'ArticleSave' also run?  If not, you could set a variable in ArticleSave
> and check for it in ArticleSaveComplete.  If it _is_ run then that sounds
> like an error.

ArticleSave is also run.

In reference to ArticleSaveComplete hook run in Article.php:
> So does that mean that the $article passed to the function contains an
> invalid state - i.e. current content but old revision ID?  Or is the whole
> object the pre-save version of the page?  To be honest, both of those sound
> like a mistake.

The $article is the pre-save version of the page:
  - mContent contains the pre-saved text
  - mLatest is one revision behind
  - mRevision corresponds to the outdated mLatest
    - mCurrent is set to true (outdatedly)
  - mLastRevision is similar to mRevision but its mText is null

> Either way, my point still stands - this should be fixed (in whatever way is
> appropriate) by patching the Article class, not by adding an extra hook
> parameter.

If Article's mLatest and mRevision were updated to reflect the new state
of the article and mLastRevision represented the revision that the user
loaded in order to change the page, that would work great for me.  We're
talking about changing parameters - existing extensions relying on the
current behavior will break.


from_name: Yann Forget

body:
Anthere a ?crit :
> Yann Forget wrote:
>  > Hi,
>  >
>  > I think that there are several areas where the projects would benefit
>  > from a more proactive help from the Foundation. I will speak about
> two here:
>  >
>  > 1. Legal counselling.
>  >
>  > Some projects (mainly Commons and Wikisource) need more input about
>  > copyright issues from knowledgeable persons. I have asked twice to
>  > juriwiki-l specific issues for Wikisource without receiving an answer,
>  > even an acknowledgement that my request was received. Another concrete
>  > example: Commons and Wikisource would benefit most from a cross table
>  > about copyright rules, which countries use "most favourable rule apply",
>  > etc.
>
> For various reasons, which are controversial, some consider the
> Foundation should not give such advice. As such, your requests will
> probably not meet answers.

Is there any possibility between professional legal advice and no advice
at all? Here we don't need professional legal advice, but rather general
information about how copyright laws from different countries works
together.

For my practical use, is a photograph taken in India in 1908 by a Indian
photographer is public domain in USA (first published in India)? and if
it is taken in 1920? in 1945? and if the photographer is American (first
published in USA)? and if the photographer is from a third country,
England, for example? (Indian copyright law is "public domain 60 years
after publication" for photographs and sound recordings).

>  > 2. Helping small projects. It seems that some projects have a difficult
>  > start. Indian languages projects are my first examples. I will go to
>  > India in January, and I would like to use this opportunity to recruit
>  > new contributors. The Foundation could help coordinate this kind of
>  > recruitement.
>
> Why not. Practically speaking, how do you think the Foundation could
> help ? What do you mean by "coordination" here ? Example of things we
> could do ?

As Mickael Bimmer mentionned, the coordination might be the work of the
language subcommittee. I subscribed to the list and created an account
on the wiki. ;o)

More generally, I would like to know how far the Foundation as an
organisation is willing to get involved into active promotion for small
projects and new languages. Can the recruitement be made in the name of
the Foundation or not? Can I make leaflets saying "the Wikimedia
Foundation is looking for new contributors for Indian languages"?

> Ant

Regards,

Yann


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Foundation's help to the projects


from_name: David Monniaux

body:
Yann Forget wrote:

>For my practical use, is a photograph taken in India in 1908 by a Indian
>photographer is public domain in USA (first published in India)? and if
>it is taken in 1920? in 1945? and if the photographer is American (first
>published in USA)? and if the photographer is from a third country,
>England, for example? (Indian copyright law is "public domain 60 years
>after publication" for photographs and sound recordings).
>
Two major problems here:
* In many cases, copyright questions may be resolved only on a
case-by-case basis. For instance, in many countries, copyright only
protects "works of the mind" with no exhaustive and clear definition of
what a work of the mind is, and it is possible that certain technical
photographs are not works of the mind that can be protected by
copyright. However, deciding whether this is the case for a particular
photograph will entail examining details related to the photographic
process, and thus no clear-cut global answer can be provided.

* In many cases, what we intend to do simply has not been tested in
court. People often mistakenly believe that there are things that are
"legal" vs things that are "prohibited" and thus that lawyers can tell
us which is which. In reality, there are things clearly legal, those
clearly illegal, and things in between for which a lawyer may only give
some kind of educated guess of whether that would fly in court (which in
turn depends on how well we argue our case in court).

Both of this clash with the expectations of many of our users and
admins, that is, to get black and white "yes / no" answers to legal queries.


from_name: Damian Finol

subject: [Foundation-l] wikipedia.it

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

I think we can put in an option or something that can detect the feed
and prompt the user with a message saying "Warning: you are acccesing
Wikipedia through a non-endorsed website, please visit the real italian
wikipedia at http://it.wikipedia.org  or something.

?Ing. Damian Finol.
Ingeniero en Inform?tica
Caracas, Venezuela
58-414-4999218

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFgcGeBJnO54tRUmoRAiCaAJwNxSCBu/18JVdCWdQJEV5dR3sbGgCfdjP3
FUtYUnYh7OPje5mAi+0Y7YE=
=3JnP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [Foundation-l] wikipedia.it


from_name: Walter Vermeir

subject: [Foundation-l] wikipedia.it

body:
Michael Bimmler <mbimmler at ...> writes:

>
> I just heard (and saw), that when going to wikipedia.it, there is now
> a grey banner at the head, stating "hosted by yepa and a link to
> http://wikipedia.it/disclaimer.html". I wonder a bit, whether this has
> been discussed with italian wikipedia community and whether WMF is all
> right with this (after all this is probably the way through which most
> italians access itwiki, rather than via it.wikipedia.org)
>
> Michael

Considering that the domain "wikipedia.it" is not the owned by the Wikimedia
Foundation it is already fantastic it points to the Italian Wikipedia and with
only that relative discrete banner on the top.

I believe that domain used to point to a totally irrelevant website in the
past. Good commercial move from the owner of that domain.

--
Contact: walter AT wikizine DOT org
Wikizine.org - news for and about the Wikimedia community


subject: [Foundation-l] wikipedia.it


from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
On 12/14/06, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I don't believe you understand how useful it would be
> to just have some one say "That particular case is
> unknown.  The most similar case to this is Foobar."
> Even if there were a table of questions that people
> have asked in the past with yes/no/unknown and no
> futher advice would be extremely helpful.  I think it
> a false expectation of yours that we are expecting
> clearcut answers.  Really we have been mucking through
> copyright questions as best we can for some time; we
> are all well aware there are often not answers only
> arguments.  Just being able to eliminate some
> arguments as invalid would be very helpful.

Aside from the potential issues with the WMF "officially" giving such
advice to the communities, Brad (our GC and ED) simply doesn't have
the time to do this. Let's brainstorm about how we can get juriwiki-l
going, i.e. a functioning, community-driven group of advisors with
demonstrable legal expertise.

At the moment juriwiki-l is configured so that postings from the
outside are moderated and replied to by a group of insiders. Is there
any real issue, from a legal point of view, with making it a public
mailing list? This is perhaps something Brad can answer.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.


from_name: Timwi

subject: [WikiEN-l] Hello

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
> "No use for it" and "no help to anyone" are still different questions.
> We need to distinguish between the content itself and how we organise
> it.  Huge categories are subject to the law of diminishing returns.  If
> a Google search gives you 1,000,000 hits it doesn't help anyone to go
> through them all, so you develop strategies to seriously trim the results.

You appear to be comparing Google search results with a Category page,
which do not compare at all because Google search results are not
organised and don't have subcategories.

The current situation is something like this: Category X has no articles
and 20 sub-categories, all the articles that "are an X" are in one of
those sub-categories.

The proposed change is: Category X contains all the articles that "are
an X", while also containing the 20 sub-categories, listed prominently
at the top of the page.

I don't think anyone can reasonably deny that this is strictly an
improvement, no matter how little. Someone who *really wants* the entire
list of X'es can now have it, and someone who doesn't can still browse
the sub-categories as before. Nothing has been taken away.

Timwi


from_name: Wiki-XMZL

subject: [WikiEN-l] Problems Connecting to Wiki

body:
Hello,

I love wikipedia so it was a shock to me when 4 weeks ago I couldn't access
it on my computer. Sadly it continued to be unreachable for 2 more weeks, at
which point I began searching the net for possible Wikipedia downtime.
Nothing came up...

Now it has been 3-4 weeks and I have asked many people (about 10) who call
all access Wikipedia within a few seconds, but it just won't work for me! I
even tried it on 4 different browsers.....So far NO luck..

So what is going on? Did wiki accidentally ban me? Is my PC messed up
royally? Any help needed alot, I'm desperate and I want my Wikipedia!!!!

thanks

~XMZL
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Problems-Connecting-to-Wiki-tf2824720.html#a7884985
Sent from the English Wikipedia mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


subject: [WikiEN-l] First fair use criterium

body:
I've just had an idea.

One of the "problems" cited for "replaceable" fair-use images is that
they give the (false) impression that an image is no longer needed for
the relevant article, right?

Well, maybe it would make sense to mark nonfree images in the article
somehow. A red border, perhaps.

I know the following suggestion requires extra coding, but I imagine it
would be possible to have a tag on the image description page (which, in
the case of the English Wikipedia, would be transcluded through some of
the copyright-status templates), which would cause the image thumbnails
in articles to have an extra CSS class specifier. Then extra styling can
be added for that CSS class specifier, e.g. red border or background. Or
it can be neutral by default but still enable CSS wizards to add
something to their own user CSS.

Discuss. :)

Timwi


subject: [Foundation-l] wikipedia.it

body:
On 12/14/06, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> On 12/14/06, Michael Bimmler <mbimmler at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Oh, I didn't know that. If this is so, yes, then it would be a major
> > step forward (I thought we had had a banner-free redirect before, but
> > this seems to be wrong)
>
> It's a step backwards. A "Hosted by Yepa" message above all Wikipedia
> pages misleads people. A website that is clearly not Wikipedia does
> not.

Useing the logo without permission would appear to be a pretty clear
copyvio. The person would also appear to be live fetching. Time to to
pass a note to the devs.

--
geni


subject: [Foundation-l] wikipedia.it


from_name: Raimond Spekking

body:
Claudi Meneghin schrieb:
> Dear Sirs,
>   could you please be so kind to tell me how I could activate the  'import' feaure at Lombard wikipedia? It looks like it has never been  activated, since the beginning. The error message while opening the  page:
>   http://lmo.wikipedia.org/wiki/special:import
>   is:
>   'No transwiki import sources have been defined and direct history uploads are disabled.'
>   I guess I should ask bugzilla, but could you please recall me the exact  URL? I already did that for the 'portal' namespace, but a lot of time  went by since then.
>   Thank you so much. Cheers,

You has to open a bug at http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/ section "Wikimedia"

Please name the Wikimedia projects you want to import from.

Raymond.

-------------- 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/wikitech-l/attachments/20061214/fbe1adee/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Brad Patrick

subject: [Foundation-l] wikipedia.it

body:
we will do this - would an italian speaker translate this please and
post it back?

Damian Finol wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I think we can put in an option or something that can detect the feed
> and prompt the user with a message saying "Warning: you are acccesing
> Wikipedia through a non-endorsed website, please visit the real italian
> wikipedia at http://it.wikipedia.org  or something.
>
>
> ?Ing. Damian Finol.
> Ingeniero en Inform?tica
> Caracas, Venezuela
> 58-414-4999218
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFFgcGeBJnO54tRUmoRAiCaAJwNxSCBu/18JVdCWdQJEV5dR3sbGgCfdjP3
> FUtYUnYh7OPje5mAi+0Y7YE=
> =3JnP
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] wikipedia.it


from_name: Michael Bimmler

subject: [Foundation-l] wikipedia.it

body:
I just heard (and saw), that when going to wikipedia.it, there is now
a grey banner at the head, stating "hosted by yepa and a link to
http://wikipedia.it/disclaimer.html". I wonder a bit, whether this has
been discussed with italian wikipedia community and whether WMF is all
right with this (after all this is probably the way through which most
italians access itwiki, rather than via it.wikipedia.org)

Michael


subject: [Foundation-l] wikipedia.it


from_name: Aerik

subject: [Wikitech-l] Category Intersections (again)

body:
Jared Williams <jared.williams1 at ...> writes:

>
> MySQL has GROUP_CONCAT() if that's what your after.
>
> Jared
>

Whoo-hoo!!  Thanks!  It's amazing (and a little sad) that I didn't find this
while googling around for a solution.

Anybody else got any feedback about this proposal?  I'm taking the lack of
criticism as a good sign.  The implementation of this would obviously be very
straightforward... figuring out the most efficient place to update the category
intersections table is one question, and I figure trying to get some consensus
on a UI for it might be a hurdle :-).

Best Regards,
Aerik


subject: [Foundation-l] wikipedia.it

body:
On 12/14/06, Walter Vermeir <walter at wikipedia.be> wrote:
> Michael Bimmler <mbimmler at ...> writes:
>
> >
> > I just heard (and saw), that when going to wikipedia.it, there is now
> > a grey banner at the head, stating "hosted by yepa and a link to
> > http://wikipedia.it/disclaimer.html". I wonder a bit, whether this has
> > been discussed with italian wikipedia community and whether WMF is all
> > right with this (after all this is probably the way through which most
> > italians access itwiki, rather than via it.wikipedia.org)
> >
> > Michael
>
> Considering that the domain "wikipedia.it" is not the owned by the Wikimedia
> Foundation it is already fantastic it points to the Italian Wikipedia and with
> only that relative discrete banner on the top.
>
> I believe that domain used to point to a totally irrelevant website in the
> past. Good commercial move from the owner of that domain.
>
Oh, I didn't know that. If this is so, yes, then it would be a major
step forward (I thought we had had a banner-free redirect before, but
this seems to be wrong)
Michael
> --
> Contact: walter AT wikizine DOT org
> Wikizine.org - news for and about the Wikimedia community
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] wikipedia.it


from_name: Gianluigi Gamba

subject: [Foundation-l] wikipedia.it

body:
"www.wikipedia.it" is currently owned by a person that has no
relationship neither with Wikimedia Italia nor with the community of
it.wiki users.
Up to now, the attempts to establish a contact in order to have the
domain back ended up in silence.
Until yesterday the link pointed to a webmail login page (the same you
can currently see at "www.wikinews.it").

Bye,
G.

Michael Bimmler ha scritto:
> I just heard (and saw), that when going to wikipedia.it, there is now
> a grey banner at the head, stating "hosted by yepa and a link to
> http://wikipedia.it/disclaimer.html". I wonder a bit, whether this has
> been discussed with italian wikipedia community and whether WMF is all
> right with this (after all this is probably the way through which most
> italians access itwiki, rather than via it.wikipedia.org)
>
> Michael
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>


subject: [Foundation-l] wikipedia.it


subject: [Foundation-l] wikipedia.it

body:
On 12/14/06, Michael Bimmler <mbimmler at gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh, I didn't know that. If this is so, yes, then it would be a major
> step forward (I thought we had had a banner-free redirect before, but
> this seems to be wrong)

It's a step backwards. A "Hosted by Yepa" message above all Wikipedia
pages misleads people. A website that is clearly not Wikipedia does
not.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.


subject: [Foundation-l] wikipedia.it


subject: [Foundation-l] wikipedia.it

body:
On 12/14/06, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> On 12/14/06, Michael Bimmler <mbimmler at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Oh, I didn't know that. If this is so, yes, then it would be a major
> > step forward (I thought we had had a banner-free redirect before, but
> > this seems to be wrong)
>
> It's a step backwards. A "Hosted by Yepa" message above all Wikipedia
> pages misleads people. A website that is clearly not Wikipedia does
> not.
Well... An ad-free redirect (as in wikipedia.de) would surely be the
best way (and what we shall want to achieve). But a redirect with a
banner is certainly better than a redirect to some anonymous webmail
thing. And besides, there is a link in the banner where it is
explained, that content is under free license and what Wikipedia is
etc.
Michael
> --
> Peace & Love,
> Erik
>
> DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
> the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] wikipedia.it


from_name: Rob Church

subject: [Wikitech-l] Adding user_editcount field

body:
On 14/12/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> First it was section redirection, now it's an editcount field in the
> database! What next, 40kV through the chair?

As has been pointed out before, we've had some problems convincing
users to purchase the required hardware; the 50kV-via-genitals kit
didn't sell well at all.

Rob Church


from_name: elvis at chan.de

subject: [Foundation-l] Mozart's works released

body:
Quoting Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com>:

> If you'd like, I can upload some Mozart manuscript images to commons
> tonight. They are difficult to read and, until we have lilypond
> support in wikisource, I don't see them as being especially useful.

if there are no copys online in the moment, then please do this. (not
all but a handfull perhaps)

when we can use them for something other than just illustrations, the
rest should follow.


subject: [Foundation-l] Mozart's works released


from_name: James Hare

subject: [Foundation-l] wikipedia.it

body:
In other news,

http://wikipediafoundation.org

On 12/14/06, Utente:M7 (M/) <mario.m7 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2006/12/15, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com>:
> > we will do this - would an italian speaker translate this please and
> > post it back?
>
> >> Warning: you are acccesing
> >> Wikipedia through a non-endorsed website, please visit the real italian
> >> wikipedia at http://it.wikipedia.org
>
> ===========================
> Attenzione: stai accedendo a Wikipedia da un sito
> che usa un marchio di propriet? altrui senza autorizzazione.
> Per favore utilizza l'indirizzo ufficiale di Wikipedia
> http://it.wikipedia.org/
> ===========================
>
> Please note that this is a slightly improved version, endorsed also
> by Frieda and other Italian wikipedians.
> The meaning is:
>
> Warning: you are accessing Wikipedia through a site that is using
> a copyrighted trademark without permission.
> Please visit the official Wikipedia site at  http://it.wikipedia.org/
>
> --
> Ciao,
> M/
> [ http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:M7 ]
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] wikipedia.it


from_name: Bryan Tong Minh

body:
I can help translating to Dutch. I do however have not an accound on wikimedia.

Bryan
[[m:User:Bryan]], [[commons:User:Bryan]]

On 12/14/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hello
>
> As roughly announced last week, the fundraiser will start *tomorrow*.
> A bunch of things still need to be fixed, and in particular, WE NEED
> HELP to translate the fundraising page.
>
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/User:DavidStrauss/Fundraising
>
> We need it at minimum for tomorrow in english, german, french, spanish,
> swedish, japanese, italian, dutch...
>
> Please help us with the translation.
>
> The page in on Foundation because it requires html (will not work on
> meta) and is using rather complex templates. If you need help and more
> generally, please contact Danny (dwool ATTTT wikimedia.org).
>
> These are the most urgent languages, others are welcome as well of
> course. Please coordinate either with Danny or with Aphaia and transcom.
>
> Thank you for your help
>
> Anthere
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Office actions

body:
Really? I didn't know allowing everyone in the world to edit with exposing
yourself as really optional was accountable.

On 12/14/06, Earle Martin <wikipedia at downlode.org> wrote:
>
> On 14/12/06, Matthew Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I suspect in many circumstances Danny will not be able to respond to
> > such questions, since he doesn't want an official decision of the
> > Foundation on record.
>
> I thought this project was founded on accountability.
>
>
> --
> Earle Martin
>             http://downlode.org/
> http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Foundation-l] wikipedia.it

body:
And wikipedia.cl was just reported. With Google Ads on top.

We can always claim not to have google ads on our site.

Okay, we may need to do a DRASTIC action.

Ant


subject: [Foundation-l] wikipedia.it


subject: [Foundation-l] wikipedia.it

body:
Actually at the bottom but nevertheless *bad*.
I mean the .it-thing was "only" (remark the "...")a message by whom
the website is hosted.
But google ads for something absolutely unrelated is really not acceptable imho.
Everybody thinks now, that they are from us
what can be done?
michael

On 12/14/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> And wikipedia.cl was just reported. With Google Ads on top.
>
> We can always claim not to have google ads on our site.
>
> Okay, we may need to do a DRASTIC action.
>
>
> Ant
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] wikipedia.it


subject: [Foundation-l] wikipedia.it

body:
On 12/14/06, Michael Bimmler <mbimmler at gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually at the bottom but nevertheless *bad*.
Withdrawn, I didn't catch the ones at the bottom at first sight.
Still, bottom and top is even worse.
Michael


subject: [Foundation-l] wikipedia.it


from_name: geni

subject: [Foundation-l] wikipedia.it

body:
On 12/14/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/14/06, Gianluigi Gamba <gigamb at tin.it> wrote:
> > "www.wikipedia.it" is currently owned by a person that has no
> > relationship neither with Wikimedia Italia nor with the community of
> > it.wiki users.
> > Up to now, the attempts to establish a contact in order to have the
> > domain back ended up in silence.
> > Until yesterday the link pointed to a webmail login page (the same you
> > can currently see at "www.wikinews.it").
>
>
> Wikinews too?
>
> Gee.. they just happened to coincidently come up with all these names
> on their own....

I seem to recall such domains can change hands for a few hundred $
certialy I ran across someone trying to sell .co.il at one point

--
geni


subject: [Foundation-l] wikipedia.it


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

body:
That thing has been down for a long time. What does it take to fix it?

Mgm

On 12/14/06, Magnus Manske <magnusmanske at googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/13/06, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> > So suppose an article has no picture, and a contributor wishes to add a
> > picture to that one specific thing. What are the odds that this specific
> > contributor gets a realistic chance of taking a photograph of the topic
> > of that specific article, be it a celebrity, a sight or a building?
>
> You could also to to the toolserver:
>
> http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/missing_images.php
>
> scan a category, and list only the ones with missing images.
>
> Except you can't, toolserver databases are still down :-(
>
> Magnus
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Office actions

body:
Let me just start by saying that I am completely in favour of
[[WP:OFFICE]] (I for one have no intention of paying the legal bills
we would undoubtedly incur if we had no such system in place).

But...

Take for example Pacific Western University.  This is a verifiably
unaccredited school, there are numerous credible reports in the press
about people being disciplined after claiming its degrees, it is not
in the accreditation database, it is listed in several sources as a
diploma mill.  A university it ain't.

Here's a typical example of external coverage:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE1D81E30F937A15754C0A961948260

Look up the "unaccredited correspondence school" in the press report
and you get an article on what appears to be a legitimate school
offering various degree programmes.  No mention of accreditation.

The article was stubbed and OFFICEd, no doubt in response to
complaints from the school or its alumni.  No problem with that, the
history sows some, ahem, problematic content.  But well over a month
ago I asked Danny if we could at least add {{unaccredited}}.  No
response.

Where is the mechanism for review and feedback in respect of OFFICEd
pages?  I can't find any.  Should I be bold, ignore all rules and add
{{subst:unaccredited}} in the lead, as I have done for every other
unaccredited school article I've found being whitewashed by its
students?  Right now we provide a directory entry for an institution
multiply identified as a diploma mill, which makes no mention
whatsoever even of the trivially verifiable fact of its being
unaccredited.  Doesn't look good, does it?

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


from_name: Edward Z. Yang

subject: [Wikitech-l] New Extension - The wiki NMA... WhatsDown

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

Yedidia Klein wrote:
> I just wrote a new extension, see here:
>
> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:WhatsDown
>
>
> I'll be happy to get feedback from the list about this extension.
>
> seems to me that it's very useful (although I don't think that it'll
> replace HP Open View :))

This extension will murder performance. You cannot do the socket
connection at runtime without incurring significant delays in page serving.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFgfgmqTO+fYacSNoRAlGaAJ444Mp6MKTa1w3gdAjXJqpCPq57tgCePvY4
3VBccRRkfXqsGu4Q7Znu/M4=
=Q5Du
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [Foundation-l] wikipedia.it

body:
On 12/14/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> I seem to recall such domains can change hands for a few hundred $
> certialy I ran across someone trying to sell .co.il at one point

ah here we are:

http://www.dnforum.com/showthread.php?t=176966&highlight=wikipedia

--
geni


subject: [Foundation-l] wikipedia.it


from_name: Michiel Sikma

subject: [Foundation-l] wikipedia.it

body:
On December 14, 2006, at 6:19 PM, Michael Bimmler wrote:

> I just heard (and saw), that when going to wikipedia.it, there is now
> a grey banner at the head, stating "hosted by yepa and a link to
> http://wikipedia.it/disclaimer.html".

This is terrible. It's a blatant misuse of the Wikipedia brand, which
stands for free and neutral information without conditions. It does
not stand for advertisements. This big banner is an advertisement and
therefore an endorsement. How can anybody trust the information in
the Italian Wikipedia to be neutral if it has a big commercial label
on it?

> I wonder a bit, whether this has
> been discussed with italian wikipedia community and whether WMF is all
> right with this (after all this is probably the way through which most
> italians access itwiki, rather than via it.wikipedia.org)

Hmm. So when going to it.wikipedia.org, there is no banner. Yet, when
going to www.wikipedia.it, there is. So that means that
www.wikipedia.it is really a fork of the Italian Wikipedia, except
with that one extra banner added to the top? I'm not sure whether it
is, but that would be a misuse of the Wikipedia brand, I recon, since
our logo and name cannot simply be used by whoever wants to use it.

I really do want some more information on this, because I personally
am adamantly against things like this and feel that the Foundation
also would be, as it directly contradicts the essence of Wikipedia.

Michiel Sikma
michiel at thingmajig.org


subject: [Foundation-l] wikipedia.it


subject: [Wikitech-l] [Bug 8242] subcategories established too fast?

body:
On 14/12/06, Dan Jacobson <jidanni at jidanni.org> wrote:
> P.S., Odd that one needs to click to confirm purges: alas this also
> thus requires a perl LWP script then to accomplish in batch mode.

No, it's not odd; it prevents bots, etc. spidering (and thus
following) links to purge page caches which are injected into some
wiki pages where caches have caused problems in the past. On a large
site like Wikipedia, automated purging would cause perpetual
invalidation of the cache, and defeat the whole object.

To do a mass purge, one can update the value of $wgCacheEpoch (this
would also be accomplished by touching LocalSettings.php where that
file was generated by a more recent installer, but I suspect your wiki
was established long before that was the case) in LocalSettings.php.

Rob Church


from_name: Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz

subject: [Foundation-l] wikipedia.it

body:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On 12/14/06, Gianluigi Gamba <gigamb at tin.it> wrote:
>> "www.wikipedia.it" is currently owned by a person that has no
>> relationship neither with Wikimedia Italia nor with the community of
>> it.wiki users.
>> Up to now, the attempts to establish a contact in order to have the
>> domain back ended up in silence.
>> Until yesterday the link pointed to a webmail login page (the same you
>> can currently see at "www.wikinews.it").
>
>
> Wikinews too?
>

Well, I think there is arbitration court or committee with *.it domains,
where one can apply to get back squatted domains. At least there is such
a court in Poland for *.pl domains.

--
Tomasz "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedysta:Polimerek
http://www.poli.toya.net.pl/
http://www.ptchem.lodz.pl/pl/TomaszGanicz.html


subject: [Foundation-l] wikipedia.it


subject: [Foundation-l] wikipedia.it

body:
They are free to download the *content* and adapt it to their purposes
according to the GFDL.
Not to use our logo and trademark without any agreement nor any
authorization as it's happening now.
Can we use this point to get the squatted domain?

Bye,
G. (aka Paginazero)

Brad Patrick ha scritto:
> "Fork" is not the right word.  They own a domain extension in the TLD for
> Italia.  We would like it.  This use is absolutely not a WMF project.
>
>
>


subject: [Foundation-l] wikipedia.it


from_name: Damian Finol

subject: [Foundation-l] wikipedia.it

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

Hello,

ICANN (The guys who oversee domain names) have a pretty good working
relationship with the WIPO and registrants have to agree to be liable
under the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (like the Warsaw
thing airline carriers print in the back of your airline ticket), this
policy oversees com/net/name/org/biz and I think Info, plust a bunch of
country code top-level domains.

Here's the procedure and rules:

http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp.htm

Maybe Brad can take a look at it and see what the WMF Can do about the
squatters.

Regards,
?Ing. Damian Finol.
Ingeniero en Inform?tica
Caracas, Venezuela
58-414-4999218

Stephen Bain wrote:
> On 12/15/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Okay, we may need to do a DRASTIC action.
>
> I'm sure people at the Foundation are aware of this, but for the
> list's benefit, the Foundation internationally registered several of
> the trademarks recently through WIPO, and as far as I can tell at
> least "Wikimedia" and "Wikipedia" are now registered trademarks in
> several countries including Italy.
>
> I'm not familiar with all of the methods for dealing with domain name
> registration in other countries, but does the fact that these
> squatters are squatting with registered trademarks (registered in the
> country that the domain is registered in) help us?
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFgfa0BJnO54tRUmoRArSlAKDbCmT35miU82MbUWAdnhCPAuJfcACfa6A5
4TLhx/1j8E3hRR727kXa0ww=
=aZ3f
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [Foundation-l] wikipedia.it


from_name: Ilia Alshanetsky

subject: [Wikitech-l] PHP 5.2.1RC1 testing

body:
Hello!

You are receiving this email because your project has been select to
take part in a new effort by the PHP QA Team to make sure that your
project still works with PHP versions to-be-released. With this we
hope to make sure that you are either aware of things that might
break, or to make sure we don't introduce any strange regressions.
With this effort we hope to build a better relation between the PHP
Team and the major projects.

If you do not want to receive these heads-up emails, please reply to
me personally and I will remove you from the list; but, we hope that
you want to actively help us making PHP a better and more stable tool.

The first release candidate of PHP 5.2.1 was released today, it can
be downloaded from http://downloads.php.net/ilia/. The focus of this
release has been primarily stabilization with many bug fixes and very
features being added, so a short release cycle is anticipated. If you
discover any (we hope not) please notify PHP's QA team at "php-
qa at lists.php.net".

In case you think that other projects should also receive this kinds
of emails, please let me know privately, and I will add them to the
list of projects to contact.

Best Regards,

Ilia Alshanetsky
5.2 Release Master


from_name: Ilmari Karonen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Off-article linkspamming

body:
A wrote:
> I have noticed an emerging trend for linkspammers to spam their sites on
> article talk pages, user pages and user talk pages, especially after failing
> to get their spam placed in an article itself.

Well, if they do, they're no gaining much by it, at least not in terms
of PageRank.  All external links on talk pages have the rel="nofollow"
attribute set, which means they are not counted by search engines.

--
Ilmari Karonen


body:
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>  > Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
>  > >
>  > > http://mailformat.dan.info/tools/check.html
>  >
>  > Bug report: I just submitted one of my emails to your checker. It said
>  > I didn't have a date header, from header or subject line - the message
>  > had all three.
>
> Since you're on Gmail, the most likely problem is (as documented in the
> information about getting a full dump of a message, headers and all, at
> the bottom of the page) that you copied-and-pasted the message with a
> blank line above the headers, the way Gmail presents it when you view
> the message source.  The MIME-parsing library I use follows the
> standards and regards the headers as ending with the first blank line,
> meaning that it treats the headers as part of the body instead.  Delete
> the blank line from the top of the message in the input box and it
> should work.

I would say this is a bug in the checker.  If presented with a message
that _begins_ with a blank line, it should either:

a) assume the blank line is there by mistake and remove it, or

b) treat the message as not having any headers, in which case it should
notify the user of this and not bother with further header checks.

--
Ilmari Karonen


from_name: Parker Peters

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Admins who pretend to quit (was Re: MONGO and the
	ArbComm)

body:
On 12/14/06, M Roget <mroget at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/13/06, Sarah (slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> >On 12/12/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com
> <http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>> wrote:
> >*> On 12/12/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster at gmail.com
> <http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>> wrote:
> *>* >>
> *>* >> On 12/12/06, Luna <lunasantin at gmail.com
> <http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>> wrote:
> *>>*> > MONGO: I lost count.
> *>* >> Slimvirgin: at least 3 instances, one of which was "if you don't
> ban this
> *>* >> user I'm leaving."
> *>* >> FloNight: at least 2 instances.
> *
> >I left once for about a week, and I believe FloNight left once too.
> >Please get your facts straight.
>
> If you were serious about leaving and not just pretending to in order to
> elicit a reaction why didn't you ask to by desysopped when you quit?
>
> Michel
> ___

After looking back at the affair, it seems to me that Slim and Flo's
"leaving" was a ruse to get another admin punished for attempting to mend
fences with one of Wikipedia's detractors.

Parker


from_name: M Roget

body:
On 12/13/06, Sarah (slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
>On 12/12/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com
<http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>> wrote:
>*> On 12/12/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster at gmail.com
<http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>> wrote:
*>* >>
*>* >> On 12/12/06, Luna <lunasantin at gmail.com
<http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>> wrote:
*>>*> > MONGO: I lost count.
*>* >> Slimvirgin: at least 3 instances, one of which was "if you don't ban this
*>* >> user I'm leaving."
*>* >> FloNight: at least 2 instances.
*
>I left once for about a week, and I believe FloNight left once too.
>Please get your facts straight.

If you were serious about leaving and not just pretending to in order to
elicit a reaction why didn't you ask to by desysopped when you quit?

Michel


subject: [WikiEN-l] Office actions

body:
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 14:25:44 -0600, bbatsell
<wikipedia at theskeptik.com> wrote:

>**If you are able to edit this page, please discuss all
>changes and additions on the talk page first.** Do not remove
>protection from this article unless you are authorized by the
>Wikimedia Foundation to do so."

I think you are right.  I will be bold but cautious...

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


body:
On 12/13/06, Sarah (slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:

> >On 12/12/06, George Herbert <
> george.herbert at gmail.com <http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>> wrote:
> >*> On 12/12/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster at gmail.com <http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>
> > wrote:
> *>* >>
> *>* >> On 12/12/06, Luna <lunasantin at gmail.com <http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>> wrote:
> *>>*
> > > MONGO: I lost count.
> *>* >> Slimvirgin: at least 3 instances, one of which was "if you don't ban this
> *>* >> user I'm leaving."
> *>* >> FloNight: at least 2 instances.
>
> *
> >I left once for about a week, and I believe FloNight left once too.
> >Please get your facts straight.
>
>  If you were serious about leaving and not just pretending to in order to
elicit a reaction why didn't you ask to by desysopped when you quit?

Michel


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject: [Foundation-l] Mozart's works released

body:
On 12/14/06, elvis at chan.de <elvis at chan.de> wrote:
> Quoting Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com>:
> > If you'd like, I can upload some Mozart manuscript images to commons
> > tonight. They are difficult to read and, until we have lilypond
> > support in wikisource, I don't see them as being especially useful.
>
> if there are no copys online in the moment, then please do this. (not
> all but a handfull perhaps)
>
> when we can use them for something other than just illustrations, the
> rest should follow.

Here you go...

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Mozart_Sonate_(manuscript).djvu

If you don't have it already, you'll need the djvu plugin.

For Windows/Mac:
http://www.lizardtech.com/download/dl_download.php?detail=doc_djvu_plugin&platform=win

or the Free Software one for Linux:
http://djvulibre.djvuzone.org/
(or just use your friendly package manager to install djvulibre)

Both plugins are very nice pieces of software.


subject: [Foundation-l] Mozart's works released


from_name: Darren Ong

subject: [WikiEN-l] First fair use criterium

body:
Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
I've just had an idea.

One of the "problems" cited for "replaceable" fair-use images is that
they give the (false) impression that an image is no longer needed for
the relevant article, right?

Well, maybe it would make sense to mark nonfree images in the article
somehow. A red border, perhaps.

I know the following suggestion requires extra coding, but I imagine it
would be possible to have a tag on the image description page (which, in
the case of the English Wikipedia, would be transcluded through some of
the copyright-status templates), which would cause the image thumbnails
in articles to have an extra CSS class specifier. Then extra styling can
be added for that CSS class specifier, e.g. red border or background. Or
it can be neutral by default but still enable CSS wizards to add
something to their own user CSS.

Discuss. :)

Timwi

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I think the point is that if there is a good fair use image, people won't be motivated to generate free content. It's not an issue of people thinking that copyrighted images are free. If there's already a good picture on an article about  X on the wikiarticle, red-bordered or no, I'm less likely to be bothered about trying to obtain a good free-content image of X.

excelsior\ ik-?sel-se-er, eks-?kel-se-or\ [Latin] : to reach higher

---------------------------------
 All New Yahoo! Mail ? Tired of Vi at gr@! come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you.


from_name: Fastfission

body:
On 12/12/06, M Roget <mroget at gmail.com> wrote:
> Can we have a rule that states that any admin who "quits" Wikipedia to
> protest this or that is automatically desysopped? It's one thing to take a
> wikibreak or to leave because of real life time commitments but any admin
> who quits in order to make a point has abdicated their responsibilities.
> There seems to be a trend of admins announcing their departure only to come
> back in a few days after dozens of people have posted supportive statements
> on their talk page. Call me cynical but this looks like manipulative
> trolling to me and automatic desysopping would create a disincentive. If
> someone really intends to leave they won't care about being desysopped -
> they'll even request that it be done but if somone is just pretending to
> leave an automatic desysopping will make them think twice.

It's of course manipulative (it is common on all internet forums ?
"Goodbye, internet! I quit!") but that's not necessarily a good reason
to de-sysop. The temptation to make a big stink and slam the door on
the way out is always going to be there. I'm not sure adding
punishments to something which was already provoked by acrimony would
solve much or help much. Usually such huffs are made in a moment of
high emotions; I think we should all be allowed a little slack in
things we do and say when we are upset. For repeat-repeat-repeat
offenders it might be a sign of inability to cooperate with others,
but I suspect that's relatively rare, definitely not worth making a
new rule about.

It's manipulative but most people see it for what it is. I don't think
it has any real negative effects on the 'pedia or the community. I
think that adding punishments probably would, in the long run. Better
to just add it to the neverending list of "annoying things people do
on the internet" and leave it at that.

FF


from_name: Michael Snow

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

> On 12/14/06, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't believe you understand how useful it would be
>> to just have some one say "That particular case is
>> unknown.  The most similar case to this is Foobar."
>> Even if there were a table of questions that people
>> have asked in the past with yes/no/unknown and no
>> futher advice would be extremely helpful.  I think it
>> a false expectation of yours that we are expecting
>> clearcut answers.  Really we have been mucking through
>> copyright questions as best we can for some time; we
>> are all well aware there are often not answers only
>> arguments.  Just being able to eliminate some
>> arguments as invalid would be very helpful.
>
> Aside from the potential issues with the WMF "officially" giving such
> advice to the communities, Brad (our GC and ED) simply doesn't have
> the time to do this. Let's brainstorm about how we can get juriwiki-l
> going, i.e. a functioning, community-driven group of advisors with
> demonstrable legal expertise.
>
> At the moment juriwiki-l is configured so that postings from the
> outside are moderated and replied to by a group of insiders. Is there
> any real issue, from a legal point of view, with making it a public
> mailing list? This is perhaps something Brad can answer.

In the context of rethinking the various internal, private mailing
lists, I'm not sure whether it will be considered appropriate to
continue juriwiki-l in its present form. As Anthere noted, the list is
not all that active at present. However, it has had sporadic use and a
variety of sensitive subjects were discussed there with an expectation
of confidentiality. So I would strongly oppose simply converting it to a
public list and making the accompanying archives public.

If a public list dedicated to legal issues is thought desirable, it
should be launched separately. We had wikilegal-l before, but that too
dwindled into oblivion.

--Michael Snow


from_name: Thomas Dalton

body:
> Oddly enough, the g-mail default is to top post.  How 'bout that?

The only alternative is putting the cursor at the bottom of the email
to start with, which would thoroughly confuse people. It would also
encourage more overquoting - at least when you top post and overquote
at the same time, it's easy enough to ignore. Having to scroll through
an entire conversation to reach the message is very annoying
(especially if someone is replying to a digest email...).

Not top-posting has to be a concious decision, you can't enforce it by
default cursor positioning.


body:
> > M I i N d T- E p R o W s E t A i V n E g - i P s O t S h T e I o N n G l F
> > y O w R a M y E to go. :-)

You just stole at least a minute, probably two, of my life trying to
decipher your email, and I want them back.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Office actions

body:
Hmmm... the template on the page suggests you can edit it, as long as
you discuss the changes first. The [[WP:OFFICE]] page clearly states
not to edit the article at all. Personally, I would leave the article
completely alone until you manage to contact Danny...


from_name: Earle Martin

subject: [WikiEN-l] Office actions

body:
On 14/12/06, Matthew Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> I suspect in many circumstances Danny will not be able to respond to
> such questions, since he doesn't want an official decision of the
> Foundation on record.

I thought this project was founded on accountability.

--
Earle Martin
            http://downlode.org/
http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/


from_name: Walter Vermeir

subject: [Foundation-l] wikipedia.it

body:
Anthere schreef:
> And wikipedia.cl was just reported. With Google Ads on top.
>
> We can always claim not to have google ads on our site.
>
> Okay, we may need to do a DRASTIC action.
>
>
> Ant

Maybe if asked by the WMF will google suspend the google ad account used
on that website.

--
Contact: walter AT wikizine DOT org
Wikizine.org - news for and about the Wikimedia community


subject: [Foundation-l] wikipedia.it


from_name: Yedidia Klein

body:
I just wrote a new extension, see here:

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

I'll be happy to get feedback from the list about this extension.

seems to me that it's very useful (although I don't think that it'll
replace HP Open View :))

--Yedidia


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject: [WikiEN-l] First fair use criterium

body:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
> *cough* <blink> tags around a giant red "PLEASE FIND A FREE REPLACEMENT"
> are the only way to do it.
>
Shhh! That's for the secret Phase 2 of the campaign.... Jimbo-approved
even, but it's so secret he has to deny it if asked...

:-)

Stan


from_name: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Off-article linkspamming

body:
A wrote

> I have noticed an emerging trend for linkspammers to spam their sites on
> article talk pages, user pages and user talk pages, especially after failing
> to get their spam placed in an article itself. [[WP:SPAM]] does not have a
> clearly formulated policy on this from what I can see.

It will all fall under [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest]], though. At the level of generalities, if posted links are serving purposes that do not chime with Wikipedia's, one can deduce a likely COI.

That doesn't do more than give some sort of framework, of course.

Charles

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


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 21:48:36 -0800, Ray Saintonge
><saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>There is certainly a strong
>>element of he-said-she-said, but I wouldn't worry about that.  That can
>>be constrained by keeping both sides from carrying on endlessly.
>>
>>
>You have a mechanism for this?  In my experience both sides will rush
>to Wikipedia every time their preferred expert drops some new pearl of
>wisdom, in an attempt to make their side the more compelling overall
>within the argument.
>
Requiring references is still key.  Be that as it may, long and
convoluted argments about such topics only make the average reader's
eyes glaze over. Sometimes too a detailed debunking may not even be
needed.  Such an approach tends to give them ammunation to engage in
even more outrageous theorizing.  Sometimes the best thing that you can
say in opposition is that we have been unable to find any study of the
subject in mainstream scientific publications.- period.

In reality, most scientists don't have the time to waste on researching
such subjects.  Admitting openly and honestly that this is the case is
so much more believable than speculating about why the practice is so
much nonsense, thereby looking just as foolish as the proponents.  It
seems that debunkers have this fear that whenever a screwball theory
goes unchallenged the masses will immediately see it as true.  Sometimes
the most effective technique for debunking is a stone wall.

>>It is not the function of Wikipedia to be either promoting or debunking
>>theories.  Doing either of these would be jumping on one side's POV
>>bandwagon.  I tried to look up aetherometry just to see what it is but
>>we currently do not have an article about it.
>>
>>
>Yes, exactly that.  We deleted Aetherometry after endless arguments
>because the theory itself was unpublished and lacked any independent
>discussion.
>
While I have no intention to spend time researching this subject, the
term at least has enterred the vocabulary, and some individual is
probably credited with its "discovery".  Others are also likely to run
across the term, and wonder what the hell it is.  Such a topic may never
result in more than a stub, and that's fine.  The study of these dead
ends of science is an important part of the history of science.


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> I'm finally going ahead and adding a user_editcount field to the user table.
>
> This is primarily meant to be used in heuristic checks such as:
> * ability to set an edit count trigger for 'autoconfirmed' user group
> * SUL migration primary account determination
>
> As of r18325 the field is simply added, and incremented on edit (with
> lazy initialization). It's not yet used to read anything, but I wanted
> to slip it in there before we do database updates for other recently
> added fields (recentchanges rc_old_len/rc_new_len fields) to avoid
> having to do an extra master switch on the live machines.
>
> Since people looooove their edit counts and there's toolserver crud for
> it anyway, we may give in and allow this value to be displayed
> somewhere. Sigh. :P
>

First it was section redirection, now it's an editcount field in the
database! What next, 40kV through the chair?

--
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: 542 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20061215/baf7600a/attachment.pgp>


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-12-15

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: 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"...

Reading tests from "/home/brion/src/wiki/phase3/extensions/Poem/poemParserTests.txt"...

   6 new PASSING test(s) :)
      * <poem>
      *   <poem> with recursive parsing
      *   <poem> with leading whitespace
      * Horizontal rule
      *   nested <poem><nowiki>
      *   nested <poem><nowiki> with formatting
Passed 458 of 477 tests (96.02%)... FAILED!


subject: [WikiEN-l] Office actions

body:
Stephen Bain wrote:

>On 12/15/06, Earle Martin <wikipedia at downlode.org> wrote:
>
>
>>On 14/12/06, Matthew Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I suspect in many circumstances Danny will not be able to respond to
>>>such questions, since he doesn't want an official decision of the
>>>Foundation on record.
>>>
>>>
>>I thought this project was founded on accountability.
>>
>>
>Editors are accountable for their own actions.
>
>The Foundation rightly does not want to be accountable for other
>people's actions.
>
This is all fine, but Office actions should not be a technique for
sweeping issues under the rug indefinitely.  If someone has made a
statement that may be libellous, and it is so alleged by a person who
may be affected a bit of time needs to be taken to gather the
appropriate verifiability.

If an educational institution is not accredited we do need to mention
which list(s) of accredited institutions we have checked to back our
position.  But note too that we are supporting a negative position.  If
they are accredited they should have no problem establishing that.  A
failure to find their name on any reliable list, combined with their
refusal to answer about their accreditation would be very difficult for
them to sustain in any litigation.

I have no idea who if anyone has been threatening lawsuits, but students
and alumni would likely not have standing for this.  Perhaps the
university administration?  Surely the foundation is not responsible for
the legal defence of its editors, but a plaintiff is likely to want to
make the Foundation at least a co-defendent in a law suit, It should be
prepared to defend itself against groundless, vexatious, or SLAPP
lawsuits.  If it ends up defending an editor at the same time so much
the better.

Ec


from_name: Utente:M7 (M/)

subject: [Foundation-l] wikipedia.it

body:
2006/12/15, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com>:
> we will do this - would an italian speaker translate this please and
> post it back?

>> Warning: you are acccesing
>> Wikipedia through a non-endorsed website, please visit the real italian
>> wikipedia at http://it.wikipedia.org

===========================
Attenzione: stai accedendo a Wikipedia da un sito
che usa un marchio di propriet? altrui senza autorizzazione.
Per favore utilizza l'indirizzo ufficiale di Wikipedia http://it.wikipedia.org/
===========================

Please note that this is a slightly improved version, endorsed also
by Frieda and other Italian wikipedians.
The meaning is:

Warning: you are accessing Wikipedia through a site that is using
a copyrighted trademark without permission.
Please visit the official Wikipedia site at  http://it.wikipedia.org/

--
Ciao,
M/
[ http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:M7 ]


subject: [Foundation-l] wikipedia.it


subject: [WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>
>>Sometimes too a detailed debunking may not even be
>>needed.  Such an approach tends to give them ammunation to engage in
>>even more outrageous theorizing.  Sometimes the best thing that you can
>>say in opposition is that we have been unable to find any study of the
>>subject in mainstream scientific publications.- period.
>>
>>
>Exactly so.  And the same should really apply to those parts of the
>theory which have not been published outside of the walled garden of
>its proponents.
>
>Which gives you a short article saying that this theory is propounded
>by so-and-so but lacks the legitimacy of publication or discussion in
>any peer-reviewed sources.
>
Gee!  We almost agree!

Perhaps we don't even need to get into the "parts of the theory".  If
their primary theory makes no sense at all it follows that what is
derived from that also makes no sense.

Ec


from_name: Brianna Laugher

subject:
[Commons-l] [Wikisource-l] Wikimedia Foundation's help to the
	projects

body:
Yes, we have explicitly asked for help on several occasions, and none
is forthcoming. Muddle through as best you can, since we have no other
choice.

cheers
Brianna
user:pfctdayelise

On 14/12/06, Yann Forget <yann at forget-me.net> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think that there are several areas where the projects would benefit
> from a more proactive help from the Foundation. I will speak about two here:
>
> 1. Legal counselling.
>
> Some projects (mainly Commons and Wikisource) need more input about
> copyright issues from knowledgeable persons. I have asked twice to
> juriwiki-l specific issues for Wikisource without receiving an answer,
> even an acknowledgement that my request was received. Another concrete
> example: Commons and Wikisource would benefit most from a cross table
> about copyright rules, which countries use "most favourable rule apply",
> etc.
>
> 2. Helping small projects. It seems that some projects have a difficult
> start. Indian languages projects are my first examples. I will go to
> India in January, and I would like to use this opportunity to recruit
> new contributors. The Foundation could help coordinate this kind of
> recruitement.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Yann
> --
> http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
> http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclop?die libre
> http://fr.wikisource.org/ | Biblioth?que libre
> http://wikilivres.info | Documents libres
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikisource-l mailing list
> Wikisource-l at mail.wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
>


subject: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Foundation-l] Mozart's works released

body:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Pat Gunn <pgunn at dachte.org>
Date: 15-Dec-2006 01:26
Subject: [Foundation-l] Mozart's works released
To: foundation-l at wikimedia.org

In case anybody missed it,
Mozart's complete works were recently published on the
internet by the (Austria-based) International Mozart Foundation.
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2006-12-11T185118Z_01_L11804081_RTRUKOC_0_US-ARTS-MUSIC-MOZART.xml

I'm not sure what license it's under. If it's a free one
(or PD-equivalent), then it's similar in a sense to several
ideas raised in Jimbo's idea drive sometime back.

A thought:
If it is freely licensed, to what extent should the foundation
consider republishing its content on WMF projects? Should WM
avoid possibly stepping on the toes of other projects, avoiding
duplicating any free conttent they make, or should it try to
collect everything (and possibly give prominent credit) that falls
under its mission? The general question may apply to other groups
like Project Gutenberg's works.

---
Pat Gunn
mod: csna, bmcm, bmco, cooa, cona, clpd, coom
http://dachte.org
"Let's put it this way: if you need to ask a lawyer whether
what you do is "right" or not, you are morally corrupt.
Let's not go there. We don't base our morality on law."
        -- Linus Torvalds
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l at wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


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

body:
On 14/12/06, Magnus Manske <magnusmanske at googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 12/13/06, Bryan Tong Minh <bryan.tongminh at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Is there no way you can upload using your own commons login name?
>
> I already thought about extending commonshelper so it accepts commons
> user name and password. The upload bot could then use that for
> uploading.
>
> Of course, any user of the tool then would have to give this
> information to my tools, without knowing what else I do with that (I
> won't, of course, but short of the toolserver admins, noone can
> actually confirm that).
>
> OTOH, as long as I keep it optional, would such a mechanism be acceptable?

Is there any other toolserver tool that requests or uses user's passwords?
I really dislike the idea. I don't think the convenience outweighs the
possible security problems and I don't think we should keep putting
bricks onto temporary solutions: obviously the function should be
performed by MediaWiki. But then, we already rely on CheckUsage, so...
sigh...

Another possibility is that we ask for upload-from-url to be enabled
on Commons. (I can't remember if it is an actual feature yet or just a
mooted one.) Then CommonsHelper could be more or less single click,
right?

It has been suggested that allowing upload-from-url will bring
torrents of copyvios. Undoubtedly it will, but we get torrents of
copyvios already. Upload-from-url should allow us to track the true
origin of images much more easily (assuming that info is made
available!). At the moment it is a lot of guesswork and hunches.

cheers
Brianna


body:
On 15/12/06, Eugene Zelenko <eugene.zelenko at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > In case anybody missed it,
> > Mozart's complete works were recently published on the
> > internet by the (Austria-based) International Mozart Foundation.
> > http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2006-12-11T185118Z_01_L11804081_RTRUKOC_0_US-ARTS-MUSIC-MOZART.xml
> >
> > I'm not sure what license it's under. If it's a free one
> > (or PD-equivalent), then it's similar in a sense to several
> > ideas raised in Jimbo's idea drive sometime back.
> >
> > A thought:
> > If it is freely licensed, to what extent should the foundation
> > consider republishing its content on WMF projects? Should WM
> > avoid possibly stepping on the toes of other projects, avoiding
> > duplicating any free conttent they make, or should it try to
> > collect everything (and possibly give prominent credit) that falls
> > under its mission? The general question may apply to other groups
> > like Project Gutenberg's works.
> >
> > ---
> > Pat Gunn
>
> It's great news, but some restrictions apply :-( See
> http://nma.redhost24-001.com/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=41&Itemid=50&lang=en
> for details. So, no blind copy, please.

Yes, sorry I was a bit hasty in fwding. They are discussing on
foundation-l at the moment about whether or not it can be appropriate
for Wikimedia, and how so. See
http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-December/012138.html
.

Brianna


subject: [Foundation-l] Mozart's works released

body:
Pat Gunn wrote:
> In case anybody missed it,
> Mozart's complete works were recently published on the
> internet by the (Austria-based) International Mozart Foundation.
> http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2006-12-11T185118Z_01_L11804081_RTRUKOC_0_US-ARTS-MUSIC-MOZART.xml
>
> I'm not sure what license it's under. If it's a free one
> (or PD-equivalent), then it's similar in a sense to several
> ideas raised in Jimbo's idea drive sometime back.
>

I think it would be a good use of the million bucks that was being
thrown around to FREE this and other archives of
out-of-copyright-held-hostage works; one the one hand, these people
deserve recognition and reward for making this available, but on the
other they put these illegal and immoral usage restrictions on it.

--
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: 542 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20061215/166497d5/attachment.pgp


subject: [Foundation-l] Mozart's works released

body:
Pat Gunn wrote:
> In case anybody missed it,
> Mozart's complete works were recently published on the
> internet by the (Austria-based) International Mozart Foundation.
> http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2006-12-11T185118Z_01_L11804081_RTRUKOC_0_US-ARTS-MUSIC-MOZART.xml
>
> I'm not sure what license it's under. If it's a free one
> (or PD-equivalent), then it's similar in a sense to several
> ideas raised in Jimbo's idea drive sometime back.
>

I think it would be a good use of the million bucks that was being
thrown around to FREE this and other archives of
out-of-copyright-held-hostage works; one the one hand, these people
deserve recognition and reward for making this available, but on the
other they put these illegal and immoral usage restrictions on it.

--
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: 542 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20061215/166497d5/attachment-0001.pgp


subject: [Foundation-l] Mozart's works released

body:
Pat Gunn wrote:
> In case anybody missed it,
> Mozart's complete works were recently published on the
> internet by the (Austria-based) International Mozart Foundation.
> http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2006-12-11T185118Z_01_L11804081_RTRUKOC_0_US-ARTS-MUSIC-MOZART.xml
>
> I'm not sure what license it's under. If it's a free one
> (or PD-equivalent), then it's similar in a sense to several
> ideas raised in Jimbo's idea drive sometime back.
>

I think it would be a good use of the million bucks that was being
thrown around to FREE this and other archives of
out-of-copyright-held-hostage works; one the one hand, these people
deserve recognition and reward for making this available, but on the
other they put these illegal and immoral usage restrictions on it.

--
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: 542 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20061215/166497d5/attachment.pgp>


subject: [Foundation-l] Mozart's works released

body:
Pat Gunn wrote:
> In case anybody missed it,
> Mozart's complete works were recently published on the
> internet by the (Austria-based) International Mozart Foundation.
> http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2006-12-11T185118Z_01_L11804081_RTRUKOC_0_US-ARTS-MUSIC-MOZART.xml
>
> I'm not sure what license it's under. If it's a free one
> (or PD-equivalent), then it's similar in a sense to several
> ideas raised in Jimbo's idea drive sometime back.
>

I think it would be a good use of the million bucks that was being
thrown around to FREE this and other archives of
out-of-copyright-held-hostage works; one the one hand, these people
deserve recognition and reward for making this available, but on the
other they put these illegal and immoral usage restrictions on it.

--
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: 542 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20061215/166497d5/attachment-0001.pgp>


from_name: Dan Jacobson

subject: [Wikitech-l] [Bug 8231] In commons, don't say alt="".

body:
b> Is there some _particular place_

< I think he is talking about image pages.

Well, lots of places, e.g.,

$ GET http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Pressed_flowers|
grep -c 'alt=""'
13

Anyways I read these pages on various devices, all with image
downloading turned off, and I would like to know (at) what (point in
the text) I am missing (seeing something, though I don't want to look
at it anyway, I just want to know it was there and what it was).


body:
b> The chances are, this is just caches being a bit slow to clear. A
b> normal refresh would probably have caused it all to appear as it
b> should.

Indeed, it turns out the problem "went away by itself", without even
before me needing to push the purge buttons offered to me. So it is
still a problem (race conditions), but one that doesn't last for long.

P.S., Odd that one needs to click to confirm purges: alas this also
thus requires a perl LWP script then to accomplish in batch mode.


from_name: luke brandt

subject: [Foundation-l] Non-commercial images

body:
Peter van Londen wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> My first post on this list.
>
> We have once again a debate on the dutch wikipedia about licenses of
> images.
> This one particular is non-commercial. The debate is about if images that
> can only be used non-commercially are compatible with the GFDL-license of
> the wikipedia.
>
> Based on this post about Resolutions about images from Anthere (8/16/06)
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-August/009230.html in
> which is stated that
> 1) Non commercial and non-derivative: resolution dropped: to be expected,
> recommendations publiced by blogs from Jimbo
> 2) Fair use to be forbidden for use in Wikipedia: resolution dropped,
> because there was no vote.
>
> Question 1: Jimbo will you make recommendations on the NCND-subject as was
> mentioned?
>
> Based on this answer from Eloquence/Erik Moeller:
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-August/009231.html.
> Erik disagreed.
>
> Question 2: Erik will you bring this issue up in a board meeting, now you
> are part of the board?
>
> In my opinion licenses of images should be compatible with the license of
> the Wikipedia. But there is some doubt...
>
> Question 3: Is it possible that you can license the text with GFDL and
> license the accompanying images with non-free-enough licenses at the same
> time.
>
> I think this is an issue that should be decided by the board, as this is an
> issue for all wikimedia-projects.
>
> Kind regards
> Londenp

Hi Peter,

>From what I understand (but please someone correct me if I misunderstood
the reports) the Wikimedia Board didn't vote last time these matters
were raised because it prefers to allow autonomy.

At present there is a debate (in which other list subscribers may also
be interested) on various "fair use" topics (including non-commercial
licenses) on the EN Wikipedia:-

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

Also see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

and this analysis:-

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Do_fair_use_images_violate_the_GFDL%3F

Hope that will help a bit for the Netherlands Wikipedia

luke


subject: [Foundation-l] Non-commercial images


from_name: David Gerard

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Completely unreasonable block and behavior by admin
	friends of Itaqallah to win a content dispute

body:
On 15/12/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> geni wrote:
> > On 12/13/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:

> >> I am here PRECISELY to discuss and remedy problems with Wikipedia.

> > evidences?

> He used to be a sysop. {{citation needed}}

And is definitely not "Michael Smith" or the Artist Formerly Known As
Many Things Including Enviroknot. {{citation needed}}

- d.


body:
On 14/12/06, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 14/12/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:

> > First it was section redirection, now it's an editcount field in the
> > database! What next, 40kV through the chair?

> As has been pointed out before, we've had some problems convincing
> users to purchase the required hardware; the 50kV-via-genitals kit
> didn't sell well at all.

I'm sure we can leverage the [[Dancing pigs problem]] to our benefit.

- d.


from_name: Parker Peters

body:
I've asked Jimbo to step in and stop you and David Gerard from trying to
flame me.

Parker

On 12/14/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> geni wrote:
> > On 12/13/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I am here PRECISELY to discuss and remedy problems with Wikipedia.
> >
> > evidences?
> >
>
> He used to be a sysop. {{citation needed}}
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
>


body:
Elapsed time between when message was written, and when message reached
list: 26 hours.
]
Oh, the irony that someone named Alphax spends all his time flaming the
messenger rather than dealing in good faith with the problems brought up.

Parker

On 12/14/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Parker Peters wrote:
> > I'd respond to this, as I think this is a very good point, but the
> > censorists have decided my messages shall all vanish into the ether.
> >
>
> Oh, the irony...
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Office actions

references:
<5fb3o251ibvnjflns0pifu7ao6f8hg3d7t@4ax.com>
	<42f90dc00612141222u6bece7aen8cba66dc48ca2018@mail.gmail.com>
	<7de99f2d0612141442r3f0edc55i58156ebd09edbdbc@mail.gmail.com>
	<f30e42de0612141709j76bd64a4v4eda9b2c287839c8@mail.gmail.com>
	<7de99f2d0612150536g4080b6c0y99aad9c13aef022e@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On 12/15/06, Earle Martin <wikipedia at downlode.org> wrote:
>
> On 15/12/06, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 12/15/06, Earle Martin <wikipedia at downlode.org> wrote:
> > > On 14/12/06, Matthew Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I suspect in many circumstances Danny will not be able to respond to
> > > > such questions, since he doesn't want an official decision of the
> > > > Foundation on record.
> > >
> > > I thought this project was founded on accountability.
> >
> > Editors are accountable for their own actions.
> >
> > The Foundation rightly does not want to be accountable for other
> > people's actions.
>
> I have no idea where you got the idea that I was asking the Foundation
> to be responsible for other people's actions. I'll quote you again the
> text (quoted above) that I was replying to:
>
> "Danny... doesn't want an official decision of the Foundation on record."
>
> In this case, it was an "office action", which appears to generally
> equate to "putting stuff in the memory hole".
>
> Is it Foundation policy to hide official decisions of the Foundation?
> Or is it Danny policy? Either way, it appears that the management of
> this project is asymptotically approaching that of the Open[sic]
> Directory Project.
>
> --
> Earle Martin

Given that the risk of violating an Office action is Danny having you
banned/desysopped/draped in sackcloth and ashes, I think that the boundaries
of Office actions need to be spelled out pretty clearly. Hiding them is not
good for the project.

Parker


subject: [WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

body:
On 14/12/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> Daniel R. Tobias wrote:

> > Hey, let's try and set a new list record for most consecutive
> > repetitions of the list footer trailing at the bottom of an
> > insufficiently-trimmed top-posted reply!

> Poll: Should top-posting be grounds for moderation?

No, because that makes work for the moderators. We should instead
declare open season on such offenders!

("But my email program makes me top-post!" "Then get a keyboard with
arrow keys. *BLAM*")

- d.


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

references:
<457EFDF2.5030905@KillerChihuahua.com>	<BFED0585-0D94-43FA-B5BB-5E22A12B5104@waterwiki.info>	<lo0un252neiq4cchotk8qkd0ob78976qug@4ax.com>	<457F5066.7030507@gmail.com>	<picvn2htapil2hktq8a2qftpns7uk09g4m@4ax.com>	<38a7bf7c0612130123k34e5ad32l4aff73e249bc001f@mail.gmail.com>	<4580625E.4060203@telus.net>	<d9v0o25f6upqovmngpl6d7gh0upeirjloo@4ax.com>	<4580E5B4.9050001@telus.net>
	<4u12o2dqm3bgajn58fu2jsgnqr3rou8c9g@4ax.com>
	<458254F5.6070602@telus.net>

body:
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 23:55:33 -0800, Ray Saintonge
<saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

>Sometimes too a detailed debunking may not even be
>needed.  Such an approach tends to give them ammunation to engage in
>even more outrageous theorizing.  Sometimes the best thing that you can
>say in opposition is that we have been unable to find any study of the
>subject in mainstream scientific publications.- period.

Exactly so.  And the same should really apply to those parts of the
theory which have not been published outside of the walled garden of
its proponents.

Which gives you a short article saying that this theory is propounded
by so-and-so but lacks the legitimacy of publication or discussion in
any peer-reviewed sources.

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


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] Off-article linkspamming

body:
WP:COI is mainly about article namespace. It's perfectly acceptable for
someone to post links to their own website on their userpage if they are a
useful and otherwise non-spamming contributor to the project. When they're
writing articles about themselves, any such links or articles can be removed
per MFD and new prod rules for userpages.

Mgm

On 12/14/06, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com <
charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> A wrote
>
> > I have noticed an emerging trend for linkspammers to spam their sites on
> > article talk pages, user pages and user talk pages, especially after
> failing
> > to get their spam placed in an article itself. [[WP:SPAM]] does not have
> a
> > clearly formulated policy on this from what I can see.
>
> It will all fall under [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest]], though. At the
> level of generalities, if posted links are serving purposes that do not
> chime with Wikipedia's, one can deduce a likely COI.
>
> That doesn't do more than give some sort of framework, of course.
>
> Charles
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
> Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
> Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>