subject: [Foundation-l] Belarusan Wikipedia

body:
Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com>
writes:

[...]

> You say that the Belarus Wikipedia has a large
> problem.  I am not doubting you on that issue.
> However there are many ways to approach any problem,
> and I find global arbitration commitee to be a
> direction I cannot support WMF taking.

Whatever solution is taken in the end, in my view it would be crucial
to have such issues resolved in a transparent and public process with
clear-cut rules. I don't have too much insight into the Belarusan
crisis. However, the suddenness of the decision after months of
complete silence is what strikes me.

To the average mortal Wikipedian, the langcom and the board are black
boxes. You can spend months or years discussing the pros and cons of a
certain proposal, and then, at some random moment,- Wham! - like
divine intervention, there will be a decision. This decision with be
final, without any possibility of appeal.

I know that Wikipedia-is-no-a-democracy. But still, in the Wikisphere,
most decisions are taken in a transparent manner and /can/ be appealed
and, if justified, reversed. The same should be true for the language
creation/closure process.

Thanks,

Thanks,

Johannes


list: wikimedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Johannes Rohr

subject: [Foundation-l] Belarusan Wikipedia


list: foundation-l

from_name: GerardM

subject: [Foundation-l] Belarusan Wikipedia

body:
Hoi,
Well, if you want to call it the "committee of final appeal" that would work
for me too.

What the WMF ruled upon was that the project did not represent; what
be.wikipedia was supposed to represent. The project did not represent the
Belarus language. When people abuse a project and it is proven to have
content that is systematically incompatible with for instance the NPOV
notions, the WMF will have to react at some stage. It should be abundantly
clear that what the core values are of, for instance Wikipedia, are not
things that can be disregarded by a community. When they want to have a
Conservapedia or a communistipedia they can have it on their own servers
without the Wikipedia name and trademark attached to it.

It is the same with the licensing of pictures; here too the board has laid
down the law. It is made clear that the wriggle room is finite. As a
consequence this is not a departure from how things were done, a committee
as I suggested would only take on issues that have a gravitas where without
such a procedure a project would be deleted or where a large part or all of
the content gets removed because of whatever the reasons are that make it
deemed to be necessary.

Thanks,
     GerardM

On 3/29/07, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I am afraid I must disagree.  Abitration in general is
> often entered into voluntarily.  I cannot see what
> abitration has to do with final appeals either.  Or
> when WMF started making rulings on the content of its
> projects that might need to be appealled.
>
> You say that the Belarus Wikipedia has a large
> problem.  I am not doubting you on that issue.
> However there are many ways to approach any problem,
> and I find global arbitration commitee to be a
> direction I cannot support WMF taking.
>
> BirgitteSB
>
>
> --- GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > The notion of something like a global arbitration
> > committee IS that it is to
> > be disturbing. Only when there is something of so
> > much gravitas that
> > something like the end of a living project is
> > considered, it provides a
> > final way to address an issue. The last thing you
> > want is to get to the
> > stage where such a body gets involved !!
> >
> > The people in the old Belarus wikipedia have known
> > for a very long time that
> > there point of view is unpalatable to many and that
> > it goes completely
> > against how things are done in all other projects.
> > When asked, the language
> > committee has advised and the board has decreed. For
> > such issues it is good
> > to allow for one last and final appeal because some
> > of the reactions show
> > that some people did not even want to consider that
> > their actions were seen
> > in such a stark light.
> >
> > With arbitration committees it is not about agreeing
> > voluntarily to
> > recognising its authority. The choice is more one of
> > having an appeal or not
> > having an appeal. Without an appeal a decision once
> > made would be final.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >      GerardM
> >
> >
> > On 3/29/07, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I find the idea of a global arbitration committe
> > > disturbing.  I cannot imagine that all the
> > projects
> > > would voluntarily agree to enter it's
> > juristiction.
> > > And if it is imposed by WMF, it would really blur
> > the
> > > issue of whether WMF has control of content or
> > not.
> > >
> > > Can we not work on a global mediation committee as
> > a
> > > more solid solution?
> > >
> > > BirgitteSB
> > >
> > > --- GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > First of all this is an unusual situation. The
> > > > language committee has been
> > > > given the task to decide things that have to do
> > with
> > > > languages. We have
> > > > published what our basic guide lines are. A
> > language
> > > > has to have some status
> > > > and based on this we make a decision.
> > > >
> > > > For the Belarus language uses the code be and
> > bel
> > > > are available. There was a
> > > > group of people who high jacked these codes and
> > did
> > > > not allow people to use
> > > > the official orthography. There was a really
> > vibrant
> > > > incubator project for
> > > > the Belarus language as officially written in
> > > > Belarus. Given the guide
> > > > lines, the old project was parked under a
> > different
> > > > code that is conforming
> > > > to the standard.
> > > >
> > > > When you say that there is a dead lock in the
> > > > creation of projects, you are
> > > > mistaken. There is a message file for Belarus
> > and
> > > > this is what is required.
> > > > We do allow for languages to be started in the
> > > > Incubator, but we cannot
> > > > promote them to full projects until there is a
> > > > message file. This is
> > > > probably some four minutes of work per language.
> > > > Until there is a message
> > > > file, and the first amount of effort has gone in
> > > > localisation, people can
> > > > work in the Incubator. The only thing that is
> > dead
> > > > locked is the promotion
> > > > to full project status.
> > > >
> > > > When you state that it would be preferable that
> > > > people collaborate, you are
> > > > right. People did choose not to do that. Might
> > was
> > > > right, and possession was
> > > > 2/3 of ownership. This mentality is inconsistent
> > > > with the way the Wikimedia
> > > > Foundation works and consequently there was a
> > need
> > > > for a solution to this
> > > > knotty problem. It is sad that it had to be this
> > > > way. Given that it has not
> > > > been deleted has more to do with the fact that
> > we
> > > > allow for a procedure that
> > > > is to be written of an 'global arbitration
> > > > committee'  and with the wish
> > > > that people finally decide to collaborate than
> > with
> > > > the fact that we should
> > > > allow for political wikipedias. Politically
> > > > motivated projects are anathema
> > > > to the Wikimedia Foundation.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >      GerardM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 3/29/07, Johannes Rohr <jorohr at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't know if this is the right place for my
> > > > complaint, but I was
> > > > > taken by complete surprise by what has
> > happened to
> > > > the Belarusan
> > > > > Wikipedia, i.e. the replacement of the
> > existing
> > > > bewiki (in "classical"
> > > > > orthography by the incubator project in
> > > > ("normative" orthography).
> > > > >
> > > > > For one, there has, as far as I see, no formal
> > > > request to close the
> > > > > existing bewiki
> > > > > (cf.
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects
> > > > ).
> > > > > To me it seems that the closure of a large,
> > active
> > > > > wiki must not go ahead without a prior
> > proposal
> > > > and debate.
> > > > >
> > > > > Second, given the deadlock in the new
> > languages
> > > > creation process, I am
> > > > > more than surprised, that for the new bewiki
> > an
> > > > exception was
> > > > > possible.
> > > > >
> > > > > Third, the most desirable path to be taken
> > would
> > > > have been to have a
> > > > > single bewiki which accepts both variants,
> > just as
> > > > enwiki accepts both
> > > > > British and American English. Have there been
> > > > serious efforts in this
> > > > > direction, prior to the current decision? A
> > > > Belarusan user says at
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Special_projects_subcommittees/Languages#Lack_of_transparency
> > > > >
> > > > > ,----
> > > > > | That was the only cause, by which it was
> > used
> > > > mostly in be.wiki; but
> > > > > | both systems were allowed to be used, and
> > > > so-called "current" variant
> > > > > | was also used there by minority which
> > preferred
> > > > it, and they didn't
> > > > > | have any obstacles to contribute;
> > administration
> > > > welcomed contributors
> > > > > | in all grammar versions.
> > > > > `----
> > > > >
> > > > > If this is true, I don't see, why the closure
> > of
> > > > the old bewiki was
> > > > > inevitable.
> > > > >
> > > > > Even if the two camps cannot be reconciled, I
> > > > don't believe that the
> > > > > closure of the existing project was necessary.
> > The
> > > > proponents of the
> > > > > Belarusan normative wikipedia had requested
> > > > bel.wikipedia.org rather
> > > > > than be.wikipedia.org. Both projects could
> > have
> > > > existed in
> > > > > parallel. This may be an ugly solution, but
> > the
> > > > current one is even
> > > > > uglier.
> > > > >
> > > > > Next, what strikes me is an apparent lack of
> > > > transparency. At
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Belarusian_normative
> > > > > I read:
> > > > >
> > > > > ,----
> > > > > | The normative Belarusian Wikipedia has been
> > > > created at
> > > > > | be.wikipedia.org, with the alternative
> > > > Belarusian Wikipedia moved to
> > > > > | be-x-old.wikipedia.org by decision of the
> > board
> > > > of trustees on
> > > > > | recommendation by the language subcommittee.
> > > > > `----
> > > > >
> > > > > I would say, that those who take such a
> > drastic
> > > > decision, that risks
> > > > > to deter a large number of committed authors,
> > > > should be required to
> > > > > deliver a full explanation of their decision.
> > The
> > > > above brief
> > > > > announcement is clearly insufficient.
> > > > >
> > > > > And lastly, if I understand the announcement
> > at
> > > > > http://be.wikipedia.org correctly, the old
> > bewiki
> > > > has been frozen, but
> > > > > no decision has been taken concerning its
> > future.
> > > > This is just totally
> > > > > incomprehensible to me. If langcom and the
> > board
> > > > of trustees make a
> > > > > dramatic and far-reaching decision, they
> > should
> > > > make a /full/
> > > > > decision, not a halfhearted one, which
> > essentially
> > > > leaves the existing
> > > > > conflict open.
> > > > >
> > > > > Forth,
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > http://www.infoe.de/
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > > > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > > > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> > > No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
> > > with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
> > > http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > >
> >
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
> in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
> http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Belarusan Wikipedia


from_name: Mohamed Magdy

subject: [Foundation-l] Again, a note on recent resolution..

body:
Sorry if it is a duplicate of any previous messages but it is important.

I have a question.. is it possible to change pages like this [1] or it
is rock-solid unchangeable?

> An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals.

Why base such a policy on expectations? what happens if there are no
pictures of such notable individuals for.. say 10 years? why not allow a
low resolution photo of that individual instead of leaving the article
without a photo where that photo is important in articles talking about
that individual..

It isn't very good to rely on the unknown (reasonably expect)..

That about this particular issue..another thing is how these pages are
made..I mean, shouldn't such pages be agreed on by a great number of the
contributers to all Wikimedia projects and not by "Passed with 7
supporting" only? I, of course could be wrong on how things people
agreed to work on it..IMO this kind of things aren't to be agreed on by
only the 7 members but it should be publicly announced like the fund
raiser...

[1] = http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy

Mohamed Magdy~alnokta


from_name: Carl Fürstenberg

subject:
[Foundation-l] Robert Mugabe's daughter - news story originating
	from Wikipedia?

body:
geniice in #wikipedia posted this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28news%29#Robert_Mugabe.27s_daughter_-_news_story_originating_from_Wikipedia.3F

I notified #wikimedia and got the response I should post it here.

Content is as follow:

Yesterday in the House of Commons, [[James Duddridge]] MP asked the
following question of [[Ian McCartney]], government minister.
[http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmtoday/cmdebate/04.htm]
(link will change soon)

"Can the Minister confirm that [[Robert Mugabe]]'s daughter, Bona
Mugabe, is currently studying at the London School of Economics, and
if so, can he say who is paying?"

The reply "On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I
understand that that is the case. On the second part, I am not certain
so I cannot answer. I will write to the hon. Gentleman and place a
copy in the Library of the House. In response to the hon. Member for
Cotswold I said, without prompting, that we should seriously consider
extending the travel ban to children and other members of the family."

This made the news, with several dozen stories
[http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&ned=uk&q=bona+mugabe].

Subsequently, it appears this is completely false. Here's an account
which shows the retraction and also official anger from Zimbabwe
[http://www.newzimbabwe.com/pages/chatunga5.16183.html],

*"Sikhanyiso Ndlovu, Zimbabwe's Minister of Information told New
Zimbabwe.com that the original claims by McCartney were "part of the
many lies they have been peddling about Zimbabwe".

*He said: "This is just one of a thousand lies they have been peddling
against Zimbabwe. The British government continues to make so many
statements which are untrue, obnoxious and concocted.

*"I am glad to note that the minister has withdrawn his false claims.
He should be embarrassed with himself and his government. But we
prefer to let him stew in his malicious lies which must be positioned
in the bigger plot to unsettle the elected government of Zimbabwe."

The story has been officially denied by the London School of Economics
- she is not studying there, but nonetheless the result of the false
story is that [http://www.guardian.co.uk/zimbabwe/article/0,,2043658,00.html]
the travel ban against Mugabe's family will be extended.

Now this part is somewhat speculative, but it appears likely, given
that the story is entirely false, and that Mugabe's daughter is NOT
studying at LSE at all, that the original source of the false
information is Wikipedia. An anonymous IP, using the Swedish ISP Labs2
inserted the following text on 4th November
2006:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Mugabe&diff=85665104&oldid=85227651]

"Their children however are not included to the EU travel sanctions,
in fact Bona Mugabe has entered an elite social sciences university
([[London School of Economics]]) in the [[United Kingdom]] in
September 2006 Formerly [http://www.lse.ac.uk/directory/students/ LSE
Student Email Directory] now only accessible through
[https://lfylive.lse.ac.uk/lfy/up/uPortal/render.userLayoutRootNode.uP
LSE for You] "

In fact the student directory is fully publicly accessible - "LSE for
You" access isn't required, and Mugabe's name is not there.

This information remained in the article, untouched until it was
removed by another anonymous IP with no other edits
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Mugabe&diff=115342005&oldid=115331571],
on March 15th. But this time the anon IP was in the LSE itself
[http://whois.domaintools.com/158.143.22.118], and likely able to
verify the truth of the Swedish IP's claim.

The information is still still in many wikipedia mirrors, such as
answers.com[http://www.google.co.uk/search?num=100&hl=en&q=bona+mugabe+london+school+economics&meta=]

In summary, it appears that we have an entirely baseless claim that
remained in wikipedia for five months (the information was added back
yesterday, but following the initial news stories, not the dodgy claim
about the email directory), and is still extant on the web in mirrors.
This claim has I believe led an MP to make a question in Parliament,
followed by a false statement by a minister, and now a minor
diplomatic incident. This is the only plausible explanation, as
statements in wikipedia tend to be treated as knowledge, so anyone
reading the article (such as an MP) between November and March 15 (or
still now, on mirror sites), would 'know' that Bona Mugabe was at the
LSE, handy 'knowledge' for use in Parliamentary debates on Zimbabwe.

The other explanation, that LSE is lying, and that Bona Mugabe is
actually studying there, is implausible as there are thousands of
students there, and it would be implausible that following an official
denial, one of those students (at what is a Universities known for its
politics) would not call their bluff. There's just no way they could
lie about this. [[User:Nssdfdsfds|Nssdfdsfds]] 08:38, 27 March 2007
(UTC)
::And the ''other other'' explanation is that there are vast potential
sources of misinformation in the world outside of Wikipedia.  It does
not seem unlikely that this is just a rumor which both the article
poster and the MP heard.--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] 01:10, 29 March 2007
(UTC)

:It is also of course possible that the IP was going off of a rumour
on another website or thought he'd seen her, or whatever, rather than
that he deliberately made it up. But we probably are the ones
incidentally to blame for publicizing it. Not really much we can do
about that sort of thing though, other than try futilely to convince
people that we aren't supposed to be perfect. --[[User:tjstrf|tjstrf]]
<small>[[User talk:tjstrf|talk]]</small> 01:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

::A google search shows no sources for the information outside of
Wikipedia. [[User:Nssdfdsfds|Nssdfdsfds]] 13:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


list: wikien-l

from_name: Stan Shebs

subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting hammered in a tv interview is not fun

body:
Slim Virgin wrote:
> On 3/29/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
>
>> It needs to be clear up and down the line that the arbitration committee will support people who remove unsourced information, as long as they are nice about it. But these things should never come to us, people who resist removal of unsourced information should be clued in long before it comes to that.
>>
>>
> The other solution is to stop publishing biographies of living
> persons, or at least to offer subjects deletion on request.
>
> By hosting living bios, and by inviting anyone in the world to edit
> them, we're encouraging bad editing in a quantity we have no hope of
> controlling.
>
Wouldn't really work though, because people would just add the
problematic material in other articles. I don't have any bios on my
watchlist these days, but still see additions of hearsay about celebs
visiting cities and national parks, music video shoots in the desert,
and the like.

Stan


from_name: Tomasz Ganicz

subject: [Foundation-l] Belarusan Wikipedia

body:
2007/3/29, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
> Hoi,
> First of all this is an unusual situation. The language committee has been
> given the task to decide things that have to do with languages. We have
> published what our basic guide lines are. A language has to have some status
> and based on this we make a decision.
>

It is really difficuilt to evaluate if the decission was right or
wrong, as we don't know the arguments pro or against this decission.
Anyway I think there is big mistake no to inform general public about
such the deccission.

My questions are:
*Did anybody checked how large is population using old and new
Bielarussian spelling?
*What is a history of the change of spelling? When and how it was implemented?
*What are the common differences between them?
*Which one is more valid from scientific point of view?
*Who and how did  make an expertise on which spelling is more valid?
*Was the Bielarus Goverment officials contacted?
*Did they push to make this decission?

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


subject: [Foundation-l] Belarusan Wikipedia


subject: [Foundation-l] Belarusan Wikipedia

body:
Hoi,
If anything, we assume good faith and we want to be inclusive. However, when
the warnings are given and not heeded, then at some stage there will be a
moment where it is a final yes or no. By providing such a mechanism it
should be clear that it will be a do or die. In the final analysis it is the
board where the buck stops.

The idea is to prevent, if at all possible, to get to that stage.

When it comes to what the existing arbitration committees do, I have not
followed any of them. What I do understand is that when people do not accept
the involvement of an arbitration committee, a decision is still reached.

Thanks,
     GerardM

On 3/29/07, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I agree that WMF should withdraw support from projects
> that violate copyright or NPOV priciples.
>
> Perhaps the concern is just coming from the name.  My
> main problem is with this is the idea of the kind of
> specific rulings and remedies that I have seen on wiki
> type "Arbitration Committee".  I don't think the WMF
> can start a mechanism for those kind of rulings
> without crossing the line of controling the content.
>
> I think it is only safe in all or nothing decisions.
> A community is either supported by WMF servers or not.
> Obviousily there must be warnings that a community is
> in danger, but there cannot be any sort of rulings
> outside of "Yes" or "No".  As long this route of
> appeal limited to that, I do not see a problem.
>
>
> BirgitteSB
>
> --- GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Well, if you want to call it the "committee of final
> > appeal" that would work
> > for me too.
> >
> > What the WMF ruled upon was that the project did not
> > represent; what
> > be.wikipedia was supposed to represent. The project
> > did not represent the
> > Belarus language. When people abuse a project and it
> > is proven to have
> > content that is systematically incompatible with for
> > instance the NPOV
> > notions, the WMF will have to react at some stage.
> > It should be abundantly
> > clear that what the core values are of, for instance
> > Wikipedia, are not
> > things that can be disregarded by a community. When
> > they want to have a
> > Conservapedia or a communistipedia they can have it
> > on their own servers
> > without the Wikipedia name and trademark attached to
> > it.
> >
> > It is the same with the licensing of pictures; here
> > too the board has laid
> > down the law. It is made clear that the wriggle room
> > is finite. As a
> > consequence this is not a departure from how things
> > were done, a committee
> > as I suggested would only take on issues that have a
> > gravitas where without
> > such a procedure a project would be deleted or where
> > a large part or all of
> > the content gets removed because of whatever the
> > reasons are that make it
> > deemed to be necessary.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >      GerardM
> >
> > On 3/29/07, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I am afraid I must disagree.  Abitration in
> > general is
> > > often entered into voluntarily.  I cannot see what
> > > abitration has to do with final appeals either.
> > Or
> > > when WMF started making rulings on the content of
> > its
> > > projects that might need to be appealled.
> > >
> > > You say that the Belarus Wikipedia has a large
> > > problem.  I am not doubting you on that issue.
> > > However there are many ways to approach any
> > problem,
> > > and I find global arbitration commitee to be a
> > > direction I cannot support WMF taking.
> > >
> > > BirgitteSB
> > >
> > >
> > > --- GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > The notion of something like a global
> > arbitration
> > > > committee IS that it is to
> > > > be disturbing. Only when there is something of
> > so
> > > > much gravitas that
> > > > something like the end of a living project is
> > > > considered, it provides a
> > > > final way to address an issue. The last thing
> > you
> > > > want is to get to the
> > > > stage where such a body gets involved !!
> > > >
> > > > The people in the old Belarus wikipedia have
> > known
> > > > for a very long time that
> > > > there point of view is unpalatable to many and
> > that
> > > > it goes completely
> > > > against how things are done in all other
> > projects.
> > > > When asked, the language
> > > > committee has advised and the board has decreed.
> > For
> > > > such issues it is good
> > > > to allow for one last and final appeal because
> > some
> > > > of the reactions show
> > > > that some people did not even want to consider
> > that
> > > > their actions were seen
> > > > in such a stark light.
> > > >
> > > > With arbitration committees it is not about
> > agreeing
> > > > voluntarily to
> > > > recognising its authority. The choice is more
> > one of
> > > > having an appeal or not
> > > > having an appeal. Without an appeal a decision
> > once
> > > > made would be final.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >      GerardM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 3/29/07, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I find the idea of a global arbitration
> > committe
> > > > > disturbing.  I cannot imagine that all the
> > > > projects
> > > > > would voluntarily agree to enter it's
> > > > juristiction.
> > > > > And if it is imposed by WMF, it would really
> > blur
> > > > the
> > > > > issue of whether WMF has control of content or
> > > > not.
> > > > >
> > > > > Can we not work on a global mediation
> > committee as
> > > > a
> > > > > more solid solution?
> > > > >
> > > > > BirgitteSB
> > > > >
> > > > > --- GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hoi,
> > > > > > First of all this is an unusual situation.
> > The
> > > > > > language committee has been
> > > > > > given the task to decide things that have to
> > do
> > > > with
> > > > > > languages. We have
> > > > > > published what our basic guide lines are. A
> > > > language
> > > > > > has to have some status
> > > > > > and based on this we make a decision.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For the Belarus language uses the code be
> > and
> > > > bel
> > > > > > are available. There was a
> > > > > > group of people who high jacked these codes
> > and
> > > > did
> > > > > > not allow people to use
> > > > > > the official orthography. There was a really
> > > > vibrant
> > > > > > incubator project for
> > > > > > the Belarus language as officially written
> > in
> > > > > > Belarus. Given the guide
> > > > > > lines, the old project was parked under a
> > > > different
> > > > > > code that is conforming
> > > > > > to the standard.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When you say that there is a dead lock in
> > the
> > > > > > creation of projects, you are
> > > > > > mistaken. There is a message file for
> > Belarus
> > > > and
> > > > > > this is what is required.
> > > > > > We do allow for languages to be started in
> > the
> > > > > > Incubator, but we cannot
> > > > > > promote them to full projects until there is
> > a
> > > > > > message file. This is
> > > > > > probably some four minutes of work per
> > language.
> > > > > > Until there is a message
> > > > > > file, and the first amount of effort has
> > gone in
> > > > > > localisation, people can
> > > > > > work in the Incubator. The only thing that
> > is
> > > > dead
> > > > > > locked is the promotion
> > > > > > to full project status.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When you state that it would be preferable
> > that
> > > > > > people collaborate, you are
> > > > > > right. People did choose not to do that.
> > Might
> > > > was
> > > > > > right, and possession was
> > > > > > 2/3 of ownership. This mentality is
> > inconsistent
> > > > > > with the way the Wikimedia
> > > > > > Foundation works and consequently there was
> > a
> > > > need
> > > > > > for a solution to this
> > > > > > knotty problem. It is sad that it had to be
> > this
> > > > > > way. Given that it has not
> > > > > > been deleted has more to do with the fact
> > that
> > > > we
> > > > > > allow for a procedure that
> > > > > > is to be written of an 'global arbitration
> > > > > > committee'  and with the wish
> > > > > > that people finally decide to collaborate
> > than
> > > > with
> > > > > > the fact that we should
> > > > > > allow for political wikipedias. Politically
> > > > > > motivated projects are anathema
> > > > > > to the Wikimedia Foundation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > >      GerardM
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 3/29/07, Johannes Rohr <jorohr at gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't know if this is the right place
> > for my
> > > > > > complaint, but I was
> > > > > > > taken by complete surprise by what has
> > > > happened to
> > > > > > the Belarusan
> > > > > > > Wikipedia, i.e. the replacement of the
> > > > existing
> > > > > > bewiki (in "classical"
> > > > > > > orthography by the incubator project in
> > > > > > ("normative" orthography).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For one, there has, as far as I see, no
> > formal
> > > > > > request to close the
> > > > > > > existing bewiki
> > > > > > > (cf.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects
> > > > > > ).
> > > > > > > To me it seems that the closure of a
> > large,
> > > > active
> > > > > > > wiki must not go ahead without a prior
> > > > proposal
> > > > > > and debate.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Second, given the deadlock in the new
> > > > languages
> > > > > > creation process, I am
> > > > > > > more than surprised, that for the new
> > bewiki
> > > > an
> > > > > > exception was
> > > > > > > possible.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Third, the most desirable path to be taken
> > > > would
> > > > > > have been to have a
> > > > > > > single bewiki which accepts both variants,
> > > > just as
> > > > > > enwiki accepts both
> > > > > > > British and American English. Have there
> > been
> > > > > > serious efforts in this
> > > > > > > direction, prior to the current decision?
> > A
> > > > > > Belarusan user says at
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Special_projects_subcommittees/Languages#Lack_of_transparency
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ,----
> > > > > > > | That was the only cause, by which it was
> > > > used
> > > > > > mostly in be.wiki; but
> > > > > > > | both systems were allowed to be used,
> > and
> > > > > > so-called "current" variant
> > > > > > > | was also used there by minority which
> > > > preferred
> > > > > > it, and they didn't
> > > > > > > | have any obstacles to contribute;
> > > > administration
> > > > > > welcomed contributors
> > > > > > > | in all grammar versions.
> > > > > > > `----
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If this is true, I don't see, why the
> > closure
> > > > of
> > > > > > the old bewiki was
> > > > > > > inevitable.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Even if the two camps cannot be
> > reconciled, I
> > > > > > don't believe that the
> > > > > > > closure of the existing project was
> > necessary.
> > > > The
> > > > > > proponents of the
> > > > > > > Belarusan normative wikipedia had
> > requested
> > > > > > bel.wikipedia.org rather
> > > > > > > than be.wikipedia.org. Both projects could
> > > > have
> > > > > > existed in
> > > > > > > parallel. This may be an ugly solution,
> > but
> > > > the
> > > > > > current one is even
> > > > > > > uglier.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Next, what strikes me is an apparent lack
> > of
> > > > > > transparency. At
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Belarusian_normative
> > > > > > > I read:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ,----
> > > > > > > | The normative Belarusian Wikipedia has
> > been
> > > > > > created at
> > > > > > > | be.wikipedia.org, with the alternative
> > > > > > Belarusian Wikipedia moved to
> > > > > > > | be-x-old.wikipedia.org by decision of
> > the
> > > > board
> > > > > > of trustees on
> > > > > > > | recommendation by the language
> > subcommittee.
> > > > > > > `----
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I would say, that those who take such a
> > > > drastic
> > > > > > decision, that risks
> > > > > > > to deter a large number of committed
> > authors,
> > > > > > should be required to
> > > > > > > deliver a full explanation of their
> > decision.
> > > > The
> > > > > > above brief
> > > > > > > announcement is clearly insufficient.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And lastly, if I understand the
> > announcement
> > > > at
> > > > > > > http://be.wikipedia.org correctly, the old
> > > > bewiki
> > > > > > has been frozen, but
> > > > > > > no decision has been taken concerning its
> > > > future.
> > > > > > This is just totally
> > > > > > > incomprehensible to me. If langcom and the
> > > > board
> > > > > > of trustees make a
> > > > > > > dramatic and far-reaching decision, they
> > > > should
> > > > > > make a /full/
> > > > > > > decision, not a halfhearted one, which
> > > > essentially
> > > > > > leaves the existing
> > > > > > > conflict open.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Forth,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > http://www.infoe.de/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > > > > > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > > > > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> > > > > No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
> > > > > with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
> > > > > http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > > > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > > > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> > > Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
> > > in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
> > >
> >
> http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > >
> >
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Don't pick lemons.
> See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
> http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Belarusan Wikipedia


from_name: Christiano Moreschi

subject: [WikiEN-l] More concerns about wide scale article protection

body:
I rather think all of this misses the point. Vandalism to our most popular
articles is not really a problem: new users/anons editing those articles
isn't a problem either. Reverts are easy.

Something we should really think about, though, is semi-protecting our
quality articles; GAs and/or FAs. The current state of affairs, where
quality articles deteriorate very rapidly if no one is looking after them
due to people introducing questionable junk that isn't out-and-out
vandalism, is not acceptable. Semi-protection would help here, because those
responsible for introducing this kind of material - often trivia - are
usually anons.

Moreschi

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Hotmail is evolving - check out the new Windows Live Mail
http://ideas.live.co.uk


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Brion Vibber

subject:
[Wikitech-l] GFDL-wikititle updated (resolves importDump.php
 failures with enwiki-20070206 XML Dumps)

references:
<460B86B1.8070306@wolfmountaingroup.com>	<460BBCFC.1080405@wikimedia.org>
	<euh747$ome$1@sea.gmane.org>

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

Platonides wrote:
> Brion Vibber wrote:
>> The page_title field is limited to 255 bytes; you should probably check
>> if your namespaces are set up properly. If they are not, the
>> 'Wikipedia:' portion will be injected into the main title instead of
>> being used in the namespace as designed.
>
> Having WikiGadugi as ns:project may be making trouble here. Shouldn't it
> be translated into proper namespace id per the namespaces tag? Hmm, you
> seem to have (the same) content both on WikiGadugi:* and Wikipedia:*...

Ok, I think I found why I couldn't reproduce the bug; 'wikipedia' is set
up as an interwiki prefix on my test wiki, which leads to somewhat funny
behavior on import. (The prefix is stripped.) Using the actual namespace
selection also produces the correct behavior (correct namespace
interpolation).

A quick note on namespaces and import: currently mwdumper interprets
namespace prefixes and numbers purely according to the <siteinfo>
namespace list; importDump.php and Special:Import interpret them
according to the local wiki's configuration.

In theory it would be possible to do a match-by-number for the wiki's
import as well, though it's not clear that's always desirable. (For
instance for custom namespaces it could produce garbage, with utterly
mismatched namespaces.)

Swapping the name to a same-length one which is not a registered prefix,
I do get the Null failure. Will poke about to work around that.

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

iD8DBQFGDCGFwRnhpk1wk44RAjXyAKDOw5BgDsstuxc/q2w31kz/qz2UrgCgyF+a
lDZXLhClGAt5NBqslcniqlQ=
=MoAK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: teun spaans

subject:
[Foundation-l] Robert Mugabe's daughter - news story
	originating from Wikipedia?

body:
I suppose a question in uk-parliament based on false wiki-info, followed by
a false answer, and an unnecessary diplomatic incident would make a good
article on wikinews? ;-)

On 3/29/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 29/03/07, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't have any magic solutions, but I can't sit by and dismiss such
> > concerns by throwing the entire responsibility on our users.
>
>
> Oh, it's easy. We just add "Wikipedia is not a source of killer
> questions for parliamentary point-scoring" to [[WP:NOT]]. And someone
> from Wikinews might want to ask said parliamentarian what on earth
> they were thinking.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Foundation-l] Language Prevention Committee created

body:
On 29/03/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> We do not like to bang on the drums of what we have achieved. We do not even

Perhaps that is because you have so far pretty much prevented any new
languages from being created? Who would want to bang on the drums of
that?

Mark

--
Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.


body:
Andre, I hope by now you can guess the response.

"Hoi,

The policy was created to help the new Wikis so we do not have similar
problems as before. We only require this of them and then they can
have their new Wikis." or somesuch, basically as you said before, "Our
policy is policy because it is policy". At this point, I don't expect
anything else from these people.

The langcom seems to think they know better than the community and
they seem unwilling to hear our input at all.

Mark

On 29/03/07, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2007/3/27, Sabine Cretella <sabine_cretella at yahoo.it>:
>
> > Andre, now that reaction is a bit silly, don't you think? We are not
> > fighting here - we are trying to make sure projects really have a good
> > chance.
>
>
> By not letting them start?!?
>
> People can work on the contents on incubator without problems,
> > but it is also relevant to make sure the UI is there.
>
>
> If they can work on the incubator without problems, surely they can also
> work on a separate wiki without problems?
>
> Then again: when we started nap.wikipedia people wanted to create
> > contents, I was the only admin that could edit the UI, but I had my
> > problems with that since I had to edit everything more than once not
> > being native, but the only techie that was around for that langauge.
> > Still we have some localization problems since not anybody can work on
> > it and who does has limited time - just not even a handful of people can
> > edit the UI ... so Incubator (and for now Betawiki) is a great place to
> > make sure things work out fine.
>
>
> Well, nobody stops you from doing the same thing on your own wiki, do they?
>
> As for Neapolitan now it is too late to
> > get people to work there. They simply don't see the reason why they
> > should do things there and so we are still with a half-way (in the mean
> > time probably 3/4) localized UI - and that does not help the language.
>
>
> So it is the fault of the neapolitans to not see  that they should do it? If
> they don't see the need, might that not mean that there is less need than
> you consider it to be?
>
> Small wikipedias do work and function in a different way than big ones
> > do. There are often language issues related as well: what if there is
> > programming needed to get the chars right? Even one and half a year
> > after having started the nap.wikipedia we still don't have a solution
> > for the '' (double quote that causes italic script) that we find within
> > a word - we have to write ' instead of the single quote ... that is
> > plain annoying. And: I am the only one who could hurry after the
> >
> programmers to do that stuff and I don't have time to do so ... so we go
> > along with that. By requiring certain stuff to be done first you avoid
> > that kind of mess and you avoid people to have that really bad
> > experience that new editors get annoyed since they cannot write like
> > they should/would. By doing the localization + some creation of contents
> > first: well we can make sure newbies do not have to deal with such
> > issues. (how would I love to see English with such an issue ... and how
> > would I like to see how long it takes to have it solved).
>
>
> Well, if  the Neapolitan Wikipedia  asks to be put on hold until the double
> quote problem is solved, surely people will listen? Because basically,
> that's what's happening to the wanted new Wikipedias - they are being put on
> hold until their problems are solved. So if that's best for them, won't it
> be best for nap: too?
>
> It is not just a "we play the hard way" thigie - it is a "let's make
> > sure that potential editors that are not wikiphile find their way
> > through the wiki" and let the communities build up easier. Of course in
> > the beginning all seems to be somewhat more difficult, but all that is
> > done before the project is acutally an own wiki will help it afterwards
> > to have a nicer way to go, an easier job to build communities etc.
>
>
> If they start now, they have more time to do that. Instead we are keeping
> them third-class citizens 'for their own good'. Well, I don't see any good
> in it. If people are having problems getting their way around the wiki and
> building a community if there is no localization, they will have even more
> problems doing so when they have only the incubator to go with.
>
> I repeat: we are not sacrificing any language, we are trying to make
> > sure they can survive and grow more easily.
>
>
> Well, helping them to survive and grow is NOT done best by keeping them
> small until we think they are ready to grow, in my opinion. Why not give
> them the little opportunities we can give them now now, and the greater
> opportunities we can give them later later? Won't 6 months of slow growth
> followed by a bloom work better than 6 months of doing nothing followed by a
> bloom?
>
> Who knows me should know
> > that I am all for new languages, but it does not make sense if the
> > communities afterwards have to hassle with thousands of issues they were
> > not aware of and they don't even know with who to talk.
>
>
> And how is forcing them to wait helping one iota with that?
>
> These people
> > most of the time are simply left alone and that has nothing to do with
> > "our own little fights".
>
>
>  So in other words, now to start you have to have finished already? Is that
> what you're saying?
>
> If you need an example for a wikipedia that instead of localising in
> > their language localises into another one ... just to have something
> > similar since there seems to be nobody able to create their UI, please
> > let me know ... I will happily show you the project. I did not bring up
> > that issue up to now, but probably it is time to do so in order to show
> > why certain requests are legitimate.
>
>
> What does that show? To me, what it shows is that people want the best they
> can get, and prefer to work in a non-ideal interface rather than working in
> nothing at all. If you know such a wikipedia, why not offer them to close
> down their Wikipedia and reopen it once there's a good localisation? That's
> what you are doing with the new Wikipedias, basically.
>
> Thank you for your understanding
>
>
> No, I still don't understand a iota. Yes, I do understand that having a
> localized interface is a good thing, and that it's a good thing to have
> people work on that. But I do not understand that it is so important that
> it's better to tell people to wait for it than to have them happily work
> with something subobtimal.
>
> --
> Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
> ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.


from_name: Robert Brockway

subject:
[Foundation-l] Robert Mugabe's daughter - news story
 originating from Wikipedia?

body:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007, Gregory Maxwell wrote:

> On 3/29/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>> If a minister is going to make a statement before parliament based on
>> reading something on Wikipedia, that's his problem, not ours.
>> Wikipedia articles sometimes contain errors, we, of course, work to
>> reduce them as much as possible, but we'll never eliminate them
>> completely. If this minor diplomatic incident really was a result of
>> the Wikipedia article, then the blame falls squarely on the minister
>> in question, nowhere else.
>
> IMHO, "it's your fault for believing us", while true, is not fair or
> realistic as our only response to such issues.

While I do agree with this point, an MP making a statement in parliament
should be double checking all facts (don't they have staff to do this?).
Verification from a primary source (ie, LSE) should have been sought.

I'll point out that IMHO anon edits do more harm to WP than good.  If
people care about the project let them create an account - it takes
perhaps 30 seconds?

Rob

--
Robert Brockway B.Sc.        Phone:          +1-905-821-2327
Senior Technical Consultant  Urgent Support: +1-416-669-3073
OpenTrend Solutions Ltd      Email:          support at opentrend.net
                              Web:            www.opentrend.net
Contributing Member of Software in the Public Interest


references:
<460B86B1.8070306@wolfmountaingroup.com>	<460BBCFC.1080405@wikimedia.org>	<euh747$ome$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<460C2186.8000805@wikimedia.org>

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

Brion Vibber wrote:
> Swapping the name to a same-length one which is not a registered prefix,
> I do get the Null failure. Will poke about to work around that.

As of r20828 on trunk, invalid titles are now skipped over with a
warning during import.

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

iD8DBQFGDCn/wRnhpk1wk44RAvy1AJ9GZgSIE1/PxZC8Y1ngZJqQwAU0YACgyPhN
6iT05lMuehXLNl4rZt/lR2s=
=059y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Marc Riddell

subject: [WikiEN-l] BLP - a case study

body:
on 3/29/07 3:23 PM, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com at
charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com wrote:

> We have _never_ allowed general arguments on respectfulness to condition what
> we will allow in enWP.

What on earth is a "general argument on respectfulness"?

Marc Riddell


from_name: Arbeo M

body:
2007/3/27, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
>
> Hoi,
> What is required is that some localisation has to have happened. It does
> not
> say full localisation. At this moment it is not possible to localise in
> the
> first place. The notion that a policy should be changed because there is a
> current stumbling block is silly.

The subcommittee's efforts to develop a framework that leads to less "mess"
than we've had in the past are praiseworthy. That's why I'm not speaking out
against the subcommittee in general. But bearing in mind the fact that we
don't live in a perfect world, I believe large parts of the Community would
expect the subcommittee's members to opt for the lesser of two "evils" if
necessary, i. e.

either
1) having a number of flourishing new wikis providing real benefit to people
who don't happen to speak Dutch, German or the like - without a localized
interface right from the start

or
2) not having _any_ progress in terms of multilingualism at all

I never denied that having the interface translated beforehand is the
preferable option but we must not lose sight of the primary objective
- which is content not software. Besides that, IMHO a reasonable degree of
accessibility has always been a vital factor to Wikipedia's success. Let's
keep on improving the technical side but let's watch out not to choke off
all positive new input, too.

--Arbeo


body:
2007/3/27, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
>
> It is not acceptable that new languages are getting a
> substandard service.

I'm sure if we'd ask those who've had to wait far too long already, most of
them would happily prefer "substandard service" over what they're getting at
the moment (i. e. no service at all), wouldn't they?

--A.


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

body:
On 3/29/07, Robert Brockway <rbrockway at opentrend.net> wrote:
> While I do agree with this point, an MP making a statement in parliament
> should be double checking all facts (don't they have staff to do this?).
> Verification from a primary source (ie, LSE) should have been sought.
>
> I'll point out that IMHO anon edits do more harm to WP than good.  If
> people care about the project let them create an account - it takes
> perhaps 30 seconds?

We've never demonstrated that turning off anon-page creation made a
substantial improvement on enwiki... I wouldn't make claims like yours
without seeing it.

Think of it this way, if you see a little error you'd like to correct,
why would you also want to jump through a login hoop.. after all
you're doing US a favor.

If instead you'd like to put in some amusing piece of vandalism, you'd
probably jump through a dozen hoops to pull it off. Some crackers will
spend weeks of work sometimes to deface a single webpage...

In any case, the harm caused by vandalism itself is very minor. The
harm caused by our current practice of always instantly distributing
anonymous edits to the entire world, is what is actually of concern.


from_name: Ilario Valdelli

subject: [Foundation-l] board resolution

body:
I don't know outside, but in Italy and in Switzerland the quotation is
not illegal.

It's important instead to define what is a "quotation".

Ilario

On 3/29/07, Pedro Sanchez <pdsanchez at gmail.com> wrote:
> About the board resolution and wikiquote.
>
> It says that now projects can't hold nonfree content unless they
> develop an exemption policy.
>
> Wikiquotes host mostly content under some sort of exemption (for
> instance, when quoting from TV series). Is the resolution meaning that
> all wikiquotes have to develop a specific EDP for TEXT ?
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] board resolution


from_name: John Lee

subject: [WikiEN-l] Daniel Brandt & other banned users posting still

body:
On 3/29/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/29/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't see why a banned user would need to edit the wiki to complain.
> We
> > have multiple email addresses to which complaints can be addressed.
> > This way, the banning policy is upheld and the complaint is taken into
> > consideration. Both policies would be upheld without any conflict
> occuring
> > that would need us to put one policy over the other.
>
> I agree. If we have banned a user, it's presumably because they're
> more trouble than they're worth. There are avenues to complain if they
> need it.
>
> (in case anyone is confused, my previous post was summarising
> consensus, not my view...)
>
> Steve
>

Since it takes many voices to reach a new consensus, I'll just chip in my
two cents and state i agree with Mgm - the banning policy exists to
discourage intolerable troublemakers from editing onwiki. Once you are
banned, any presumption of good faith is gone, because you need to be
absolutely intolerable to be banned - that's why all your edits are reverted
on sight, and only the decent ones restored. A similar presumption should
exist with regard to comments by banned users on articles where they are the
subject - but rather than convoluting policy and creating an exception to
the general presumption of bad faith, why not just direct such users to our
normal offwiki channels for subjects of articles?

Johnleemk


from_name: Slim Virgin

body:
On 3/29/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
> It needs to be clear up and down the line that the arbitration committee will support people who remove unsourced information, as long as they are nice about it. But these things should never come to us, people who resist removal of unsourced information should be clued in long before it comes to that.
>
The other solution is to stop publishing biographies of living
persons, or at least to offer subjects deletion on request.

By hosting living bios, and by inviting anyone in the world to edit
them, we're encouraging bad editing in a quantity we have no hope of
controlling.

Sarah


body:
Hoi,
At issue is that by creating new languages now without getting them
localisation, we provide them with a substandard service in the first place.
It has been proven hard to rectify this.

So we are choosing out of two evils. I am quite unhappy with the result but
it is one where multiple parties can effect a change. In the end, the amount
of effort needed by the developers is the same. It is just that creating a
language file should be part of allowing a new project in the Incubator,
failing that it has to be done and some localisation has to be seen done
prior to a project getting the royal treatment.

Thanks,
    GerardM

On 3/29/07, Arbeo M <arbeo.wiki at googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> 2007/3/27, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
> >
> > It is not acceptable that new languages are getting a
> > substandard service.
>
>
> I'm sure if we'd ask those who've had to wait far too long already, most
> of
> them would happily prefer "substandard service" over what they're getting
> at
> the moment (i. e. no service at all), wouldn't they?
>
> --A.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


body:
2007/3/28, Sabine Cretella <sabine_cretella at yahoo.it>:
>
> Thank God there is no such thing as a language prevention committe ...
> they would have quite a bunch of problems with me and my colleagues. Or
> was there one created lately I did not know of? whoops ... that must
> then have happened while I was around to talk aobut languages and Open
> Source and Open Content in universities ... well... probably it is
> better to believe that some people are day dreaming and simply see
> things that are not there.
>
> /me veeery ironic
>
> Sabine

Sabine, in previous contexts we've been able to see that you _are_ an
advocate of multilingualism. But please be realistic and check out what
_tangible_ results your committee (which I'm sure was created with the best
of intensions, no irony here) has brought about in the recent four and a
half months. As far as I can see the only outcome in terms of new wikis is
one French Wikiquote (French not exactly being a "new language"). IMHO, the
subcommittee should shift its focus from theory to producing actual results
now, for the sake of those who cannot yet benefit from the great things we
have to offer. Wouldn't that be a more rewarding experience to the langcom
members, too?

Regards,
--Arbeo

Mark Williamson schrieb:
> > It is now. The Language Prevention Committee (Langprevcom for short)
> > won't allow you to have your new Wiki until you have a localised
> > messages file. But then they probably won't allow it anyways for some
> > other reason, and you will have to wait several billion years.
> >
> > Mark
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] BLP - a case study

body:
on 3/29/07 2:58 PM, Oldak Quill at oldakquill at gmail.com wrote:

> Respect is too vague and variable a notion for a multicultural venture
> like Wikipedia to base policy on. Particular customs in the UK in
> medicine and funeral care which are considered respectful to the dead
> probably aren't considered respectful in some cultures, religions and
> traditions.
>
> The closest we can do is to act in the spirit of respect.

I'm not sure what you mean exactly by the "spirit" of respect, but I think
I'll take it ;-)

Respect is an attitude reflected, in part, by our behavior toward another
being. This respect should not be determined by which society or culture
this being happened to be born into.

Respect is something which cannot be legislated or regulated; it is part
civility and part empathy - the ability to respect another being should be
built in to us all.

Marc Riddell

--
* Practice random acts of tolerance. *


body:
On 3/29/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The other solution is to stop publishing biographies of living
> > persons, or at least to offer subjects deletion on request.
> >
> > By hosting living bios, and by inviting anyone in the world to edit
> > them, we're encouraging bad editing in a quantity we have no hope of
> > controlling.
>
> That would leave a major hole in our coverage. There has been talk of
> deleting articles about people that are only slightly notable at their
> request, but that just results in arbitrary definitions of how notable
> you have to be to not be allowed to have your article removed.
>
We're going to have more than a major hole in our coverage if we lose a lawsuit.

The ideal thing would be to come up with a working definition of
"borderline notable" and to give those people the right to have their
bios deleted on request. But this being Wikpedia, we'll never agree on
a definition.

Another good idea is not to allow living bios on people who have not
already had a bio published by a reliable source. That would massively
reduce our coverage, but it would solve almost all of our problems.
The published bios would establish notabilty and would act as sources
for our own bio, so we've have fewer errors.

Below that is the option to allow all living bios to be deleted on request.

The most drastic would be to stop publishing living bios of any kind.

The worst option is to continue as we are, where a huge number of
living bios are either vanity articles or attack pages.


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Bruce McMahan

references:
<grsl03tvq058c3anqijb6bt1tqkv592tqr@4ax.com>
	<79F48F7E-1A56-4540-A993-E28AE456F908@gmail.com>
	<0rtm035qqrihehpr920clatnqpgd0v2gpv@4ax.com>
	<165821F0-1F67-4B0F-BF02-B788CE60F929@gmail.com>

body:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 12:39:38 -0400, Phil Sandifer
<Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:

>> Fine, but it's still a primary source, and I have not yet found any
>> secondary sources which have picked this up as significant.  Like
>> Zeleny's allegations over Min Zhu, really.

>A primary source would be the court documents or the video. A news
>story about it is a secondary source. Not that the primary/secondary
>distinction seems to be useful for most of our purposes, since A)
>it's misused about half the time it comes up, and B) it has very
>little to do with reliability.

In this case I would say the newspaper is the primary source of the
story.  It draws on other primary sources for parts of it, but the
story is clearly based on novel synthesis by the paper; investigative
journalism is not a secondary source according to my understanding.

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


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] Bruce McMahan

references:
<grsl03tvq058c3anqijb6bt1tqkv592tqr@4ax.com>
	<79F48F7E-1A56-4540-A993-E28AE456F908@gmail.com>
	<0rtm035qqrihehpr920clatnqpgd0v2gpv@4ax.com>
	<165821F0-1F67-4B0F-BF02-B788CE60F929@gmail.com>
	<mesn03dsvnennoajpklmfer1vb0tpb2pnd@4ax.com>

body:
On 29/03/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:

> In this case I would say the newspaper is the primary source of the
> story.  It draws on other primary sources for parts of it, but the
> story is clearly based on novel synthesis by the paper; investigative
> journalism is not a secondary source according to my understanding.

This is verging on "editorial decisions are original research."

- d.


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] CheckUser access requests? Huh?

body:
On 3/29/07, NSLE (Wikipedia) <nsle.wikipedia at gmail.com> wrote:
> Uhm, is it just me, or is
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Checkuser_requestsa
> very, very bad idea? I think it's fairly obvious why it probably
> wasn't so
> bright to make that an open, free-for-all page. Especially if the
> community's not going to have any say and it'll just be the Arbs appointing
> Checkusers, then what exactly is the use of that page? The arbs could have
> easily just approached people and announce it. This will probably degenerate
> into a farce - I already see at least one name on there who hasn't even been
> contributing very long to this project, and isn't an admin.
>
> NSLE

Because the usal people to recriut are busy so it is time to bring in
people from outside that group.

--
geni


from_name: Steve Bennett

body:
On 3/29/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't see why a banned user would need to edit the wiki to complain. We
> have multiple email addresses to which complaints can be addressed.
> This way, the banning policy is upheld and the complaint is taken into
> consideration. Both policies would be upheld without any conflict occuring
> that would need us to put one policy over the other.

I agree. If we have banned a user, it's presumably because they're
more trouble than they're worth. There are avenues to complain if they
need it.

(in case anyone is confused, my previous post was summarising
consensus, not my view...)

Steve


from_name: GerardM

body:
Hoi,
We do not like to bang on the drums of what we have achieved. We do not even
mind when when it is not perceived that we have achieved anything at all. If
things go well, it should not really matter because it detracts from what
our organisation is there for; ie creating and providing free content.

When you prefer that that there is a steady stream of languages that start
providing good content, you are in good company as that is what we aim to
achieve. However, the thing we do not want is have more situations like with
the Belarus Wikipedia, something that has cost us a lot of time. There are
however several other situations we are trying to resolve. The absence of
message files is the easiest to resolve. It just needs a developer to do so.

Thanks,
    GerardM

On 3/29/07, Arbeo M <arbeo.wiki at googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> 2007/3/28, Sabine Cretella <sabine_cretella at yahoo.it>:
> >
> > Thank God there is no such thing as a language prevention committe ...
> > they would have quite a bunch of problems with me and my colleagues. Or
> > was there one created lately I did not know of? whoops ... that must
> > then have happened while I was around to talk aobut languages and Open
> > Source and Open Content in universities ... well... probably it is
> > better to believe that some people are day dreaming and simply see
> > things that are not there.
> >
> > /me veeery ironic
> >
> > Sabine
>
>
> Sabine, in previous contexts we've been able to see that you _are_ an
> advocate of multilingualism. But please be realistic and check out what
> _tangible_ results your committee (which I'm sure was created with the
> best
> of intensions, no irony here) has brought about in the recent four and a
> half months. As far as I can see the only outcome in terms of new wikis is
> one French Wikiquote (French not exactly being a "new language"). IMHO,
> the
> subcommittee should shift its focus from theory to producing actual
> results
> now, for the sake of those who cannot yet benefit from the great things we
> have to offer. Wouldn't that be a more rewarding experience to the langcom
> members, too?
>
> Regards,
> --Arbeo
>
>
>
> Mark Williamson schrieb:
> > > It is now. The Language Prevention Committee (Langprevcom for short)
> > > won't allow you to have your new Wiki until you have a localised
> > > messages file. But then they probably won't allow it anyways for some
> > > other reason, and you will have to wait several billion years.
> > >
> > > Mark
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Robert Horning

subject:
[Foundation-l] Robert Mugabe's daughter - news
 story	originating from Wikipedia?

body:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On 3/29/07, Robert Brockway <rbrockway at opentrend.net> wrote:
>
>> While I do agree with this point, an MP making a statement in parliament
>> should be double checking all facts (don't they have staff to do this?).
>> Verification from a primary source (ie, LSE) should have been sought.
>>
>> I'll point out that IMHO anon edits do more harm to WP than good.  If
>> people care about the project let them create an account - it takes
>> perhaps 30 seconds?
>>
>
> We've never demonstrated that turning off anon-page creation made a
> substantial improvement on enwiki... I wouldn't make claims like yours
> without seeing it.
>
> Think of it this way, if you see a little error you'd like to correct,
> why would you also want to jump through a login hoop.. after all
> you're doing US a favor.
>
> If instead you'd like to put in some amusing piece of vandalism, you'd
> probably jump through a dozen hoops to pull it off. Some crackers will
> spend weeks of work sometimes to deface a single webpage...
>
> In any case, the harm caused by vandalism itself is very minor. The
> harm caused by our current practice of always instantly distributing
> anonymous edits to the entire world, is what is actually of concern.
>

I have wondered if it might be something useful for some of our projects
to have a "published" page that would be a snapshot of the regular page
that most of the people who have worked on and tried to develop the
content on that page could say is slightly more authoritative than the
general "draft" page.  I'm not talking anything fancy here, but perhaps
something like a "publish" tab for an admin or other trusted user that
would create a permalink to the current version of the page.  The
"draft" page would still be editable as normal, and it would be
considered pro forma for users to request a particular page to get this
published status.  Perhaps something on the talk pages for more
controversial content like the George W. Bush article, where the active
content developers would decide what version is more or less ready for
prime time and free of most vandalism.

While this is something that could be gamed by vandals, I think it would
be quite a bit harder to produce some of the raw garbage such as what
was added to this article about Robert Mugabe.  At the very least,
articles that generally aren't watched (or seldom watched) would have a
stable version that wouldn't necessarily require constant vigilance by
the vandalism patrol to keep them current.  And you could diff the draft
from the published article to help spot some of the vandals like this
individual and the one that massacred the Siegenthaler article as well.

Certainly something needs to happen here, as like it or not, Wikipedia
is being taken much more seriously than it was a few years ago.  I know
the Wikipedia 1.0 crew is trying other methods to come up with quality
articles to showcase, but more could be done.  And we have to somehow
balance the need to expand the user base for Wikimedia projects with
trying to come up with quality content.

Allowing anon editing is merely one tool to try and encourage new people
to come in and join our projects.  The more steps they have to go
through in order to become considered full members of our community, the
harder it will be to get people to help us out.

-- Robert Horning


from_name: Oldak Quill

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Brandt elsewhere (was Daniel Brandt & other banned
	users posting still)

body:
On 29/03/07, Denny Colt <wikidenny at gmail.com> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy#Brandt_posting_HERE
>
> And now Brandt is accusing Thatcher131 of Libel on the Banning Policy page.

Well, he's banned anyway. This doesn't change the discussion that took
place concerning WP:AUTO.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: Bryan Derksen

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
> I edited out the bad bit, but I left in the previous line:
>
> "Ellen Fanning is married and has two young sons."
>
> There is no source.  Is it even true?  Well, I asked her, and it is
> true.  But there is no source.
>
> I hope the horse I am beating is still alive: we have to be absolutely
> ruthless about removing "I think I heard it somewhere"
> pseudo-information from Wikipedia, and especially from biographies.

But even you, even now in this very instance you're using as an example
of what you think should be done, _didn't_ ruthlessly remove the
unsourced information. If you really believe that we have to be
absolutely ruthless about removing all unsourced information why did you
deliberately leave the married-with-two-young-sons thing in?

I think the reason is that our one truly fundamental goal is to write a
good, free encyclopedia, and that while attempting to source everything
is a good means to that goal if we were to take it to the extreme it
would actually start to move us farther away from it. If we were to
actually follow through with the absolute full extent of the
only-sourced-statements ideal it would devastate Wikipedia's current
contents and IMO raise such a barrier to editing that new work would
slow to a crawl. We have to consider these costs and find a compromise
position that tries to minimize them.


subject:
[Wikitech-l] Article hit rates -- research at the University of
	Minnesota

body:
On 29/03/07, Reid Priedhorsky <reid at umn.edu> wrote:
> Tim Starling wrote:
> > Reid Priedhorsky wrote:
> >> Dear Wikitechnicians,
> >>
> >> My name is Reid Priedhorsky, and I'm a Ph.D. student at GroupLens
> >> Research, which is the human-computer interaction group at the
> >> University of Minnesota.
> >>
> >> We are currently working on some research which is investigating
> >> Wikipedia contribution and vandalism. To this end, statistics on the
> >> view rate of different articles would be extremely helpful to us --
> >> something along the lines of Leon Weber's WikiCharts tool, but with a
> >> larger limit (ideally all 1.7 million articles).
> >
> > Producing such statistics will be a Google Summer of Code project this
> > summer. If you can't wait that long, then we can give you a sampled,
> > anonymised log stream to analyse.
>
> Yes, summer would be too late: anonymised logs would be be excellent for
> our purposes. Does "stream" mean that we would need to write a program
> to listen to the real-time log stream, or could you give us files?
>
> Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>  > Greetings, describe for me what you ideal data would look like.
>
> Ideal data would be log files that just looked like:
>
>    Main Page\t1169499304.066
>
> i.e., article titles as they appear in the XML dumps and request time.
>
> A close second choice would be simply-anonymized logs, e.g.:
>
>    sq18.wikimedia.org 1715898 1169499304.066 0 - TCP_MEM_HIT/200 13208
> GET http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page NONE/- text/html - - -
>
> If the logs still contains duplicates due to requests being forwarded
> between squids, we'd need pointers on how to resolve those.
>
> Please let me know what the next step is. Thanks for your help!
>
> Reid

Just a small aside: please keep us up-to-date on the outcome of the
research over on the Wiki-research-l mailing list. It's always
interesting (and potentially useful) to see how Wikipedia is used.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: Risker

body:
I like the "raise the notability bar" idea that Doc has, and perhaps Slim
Virgin's threshhold might be the right course.  I recently stumbled into a
biography stub on a person I would certainly have thought was not
particularly notable. The article required about five minutes of work to
clean up - and thought that would be the end of it.  As it turns out, it was
loaded with commercial links and open proxy editors (some of whom were
apparently being paid to add the commercial links). So what started out to
be a five minute project took several hours of work. I am sure there are
thousands of articles like this, and it is demotivating to editors to have
to work this hard to clean up an article that is of questionable value in
the first place.

Risker

On 3/29/07, Stan Shebs <stanshebs at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Slim Virgin wrote:
> > On 3/29/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
> >
> >> It needs to be clear up and down the line that the arbitration
> committee will support people who remove unsourced information, as long as
> they are nice about it. But these things should never come to us, people who
> resist removal of unsourced information should be clued in long before it
> comes to that.
> >>
> >>
> > The other solution is to stop publishing biographies of living
> > persons, or at least to offer subjects deletion on request.
> >
> > By hosting living bios, and by inviting anyone in the world to edit
> > them, we're encouraging bad editing in a quantity we have no hope of
> > controlling.
> >
> Wouldn't really work though, because people would just add the
> problematic material in other articles. I don't have any bios on my
> watchlist these days, but still see additions of hearsay about celebs
> visiting cities and national parks, music video shoots in the desert,
> and the like.
>
> Stan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: K P

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Bauer DRV question - history (was Wikimedia
	Foundation sued)

body:
On 3/27/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 27/03/07, Cary Bass <cbass at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> > Blog entries are bad sources and BLP violations.
>
>
> See, this is the sort of rule that if applied without thought leads to
> occasional stupid results.
>
>
> - d.

It's actually, imo, the sort of rule that if thoughtlessly not applied leads
to bad results.  All the stuff about a published book being posted on a blog
is a non-starter, you may link to the blog, but it's the published book that
is the source.  Blogs are opinion pieces, no matter who is writing the blog,
they are under no obligation to support their OPINION in a factual or
netural way.

You get around this by quoting the blog if someone else besides its author
has decided that what is written in the blog is notable, as I suggested in a
prior post.  By all means, link to the blog, but don't include the blog at
all, unless some other reliable source considers what is said in the blog
notable.

KP


subject: [WikiEN-l] Bruce McMahan

references:
<grsl03tvq058c3anqijb6bt1tqkv592tqr@4ax.com>
	<79F48F7E-1A56-4540-A993-E28AE456F908@gmail.com>
	<0rtm035qqrihehpr920clatnqpgd0v2gpv@4ax.com>
	<165821F0-1F67-4B0F-BF02-B788CE60F929@gmail.com>
	<mesn03dsvnennoajpklmfer1vb0tpb2pnd@4ax.com>
	<D566EB4C-0F22-4444-8DAF-80BF49F3857D@gmail.com>

body:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 13:43:42 -0400, Phil Sandifer
<Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:

>> In this case I would say the newspaper is the primary source of the
>> story.  It draws on other primary sources for parts of it, but the
>> story is clearly based on novel synthesis by the paper; investigative
>> journalism is not a secondary source according to my understanding.

>Original research by a reputable and significant source (i.e. this
>paper) is reportable.

Maybe.  If it's judged significant.  Which, in this case, it clearly
is not, since nobody else seems to be running with it.  Have you read
their follow-up stories?  It looks *awfully* like a vendetta.

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


body:
Slim Virgin wrote:
> We're going to have more than a major hole in our coverage if we lose a lawsuit.

Why? Aside from requiring us to take down whatever libelous
misinformation we lost the case over (which we would want to do
_anyway_), what limitation would it put on Wikipedia's coverage?

> The ideal thing would be to come up with a working definition of
> "borderline notable" and to give those people the right to have their
> bios deleted on request. But this being Wikpedia, we'll never agree on
> a definition.

Largely because IMO such a thing is impossible to define in anything
like an objective manner.

> Another good idea is not to allow living bios on people who have not
> already had a bio published by a reliable source. That would massively
> reduce our coverage, but it would solve almost all of our problems.

It would leave at least one really massive problem though; we'd lack
coverage of everyone who doesn't already have a bio published by a
reliable source (for whatever value of "reliable source" gets settled
on). For a resource that's claiming to be a general encyclopedia this
would be a _massive_ omission.

> The worst option is to continue as we are, where a huge number of
> living bios are either vanity articles or attack pages.

If that's the worst option you can think of you're suffering from a
drastic lack of imagination. We could get rid of BLP entirely, for
example, and start encouraging original research into geneology. :)
Also, I'd like to know how you know that there's a "huge number" of
vanity articles and attack pages on Wikipedia. We already have a lot of
policies and a lot of editors working against those things, most of the
problems I've seen slip through the cracks have been pretty trivial
cases (like this one).


from_name: Pedro Sanchez

subject: [Foundation-l] Board Resolution + Wikiquote (was: board resolution )

body:
So,  I see several wikiquotes really confused about this. Can the
board clarify a little bit about the specific case of wikiquotes?
Since wikiquotes are much more likely needing to use EDPs, can we have
some pointers?

On 3/29/07, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> On 3/29/07, Aphaia <aphaia at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3/29/07, Pedro Sanchez <pdsanchez at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Wikiquotes host mostly content under some sort of exemption (for
> > > instance, when quoting from TV series). Is the resolution meaning that
> > > all wikiquotes have to develop a specific EDP for TEXT ?
> >
> > As long as the language project would like to host such copyrighted
> > materials, I think so.
>
> How?  Exceptions are supposed to be 1) to illustrate historically
> significant events; 2) to include identifying protected works such as
> logos, or 3) to complement (within narrow limits) articles about
> copyrighted contemporary works.
>
> 2 seems out, 3 seems out.  Does 1 cover quotes about historically
> significant events?
>
> Or is the whole EDP resolution terribly biased toward images?
>
> Anthony
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: The Cunctator

body:
On 3/29/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/29/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
> > It needs to be clear up and down the line that the arbitration committee
> will support people who remove unsourced information, as long as they are
> nice about it. But these things should never come to us, people who resist
> removal of unsourced information should be clued in long before it comes to
> that.
> >
> The other solution is to stop publishing biographies of living
> persons, or at least to offer subjects deletion on request.
>
> By hosting living bios, and by inviting anyone in the world to edit
> them, we're encouraging bad editing in a quantity we have no hope of
> controlling.

I know, let's just shut Wikipedia down!

That would  TOTALLY solve all our problems.

I hope that proposal was an early April Fool's.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Bruce McMahan

references:
<grsl03tvq058c3anqijb6bt1tqkv592tqr@4ax.com>
	<79F48F7E-1A56-4540-A993-E28AE456F908@gmail.com>
	<0rtm035qqrihehpr920clatnqpgd0v2gpv@4ax.com>
	<165821F0-1F67-4B0F-BF02-B788CE60F929@gmail.com>
	<mesn03dsvnennoajpklmfer1vb0tpb2pnd@4ax.com>
	<D566EB4C-0F22-4444-8DAF-80BF49F3857D@gmail.com>
	<m60o035nfl688ukj3a06la90rihp49ckjp@4ax.com>

body:
On 29/03/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> Maybe.  If it's judged significant.  Which, in this case, it clearly
> is not, since nobody else seems to be running with it.  Have you read
> their follow-up stories?  It looks *awfully* like a vendetta.

This argument is not valid. Significance of a particular item of
information cannot be judged based upon the number of papers which run
with the story. There are many factors which influence whether a
newspaper reports an item of information, regardless of its factual
accuracy and significance. Perhaps the most important of these factors
is that almost all newspapers have a political point of view which
influences the perceived significance of some information.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
> geni wrote:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28news%29#Robert_Mugabe.27s_daughter_-_news_story_originating_from_Wikipedia.3F
>
> So that's the best example I have seen in a while.

I don't see it as a good example, myself. The edit in question was
referenced with an appropriate and well-formatted external source, so a
policy of "instantly nuke any unsourced statements" would have failed to
catch this. It would instead be covered by a "nuke any statements that
the cited sources reveal to be false" policy, which I'm pretty sure we
already have in spirit even if not in letter.

James Duddridge could have checked the source that was right there in
the article, I have no idea why he felt the need to ask Ian McCartney
for confirmation instead.


body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Bryan Derksen wrote:
>> But even you, even now in this very instance you're using as an example
>> of what you think should be done, _didn't_ ruthlessly remove the
>> unsourced information. If you really believe that we have to be
>> absolutely ruthless about removing all unsourced information why did you
>> deliberately leave the married-with-two-young-sons thing in?
>
> I asked her personally and she said it was true, and at that moment I
> assumed we can find a source quickly enough and and I know that bringing
> the section in question to the attention of good editors will bring
> about quick positive change.
>
> I am not advocating some kind of weird radical knee jerk attempt to take
> out every single thing in Wikipedia TODAY that does not have a source.

Sorry, I interpreted "we have to be absolutely ruthless about removing
"I think I heard it somewhere" pseudo-information from Wikipedia" to
mean something along those lines. I guess I'm a bit knee-jerk about
reacting to knee-jerk reactions.

Thanks for clarifying your position, it sounds much more reasonable this
way (ie, more like my own philosophy :)


body:
geni wrote:
> On 3/30/07, John Lee <johnleemk at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Or alternatively, we could just get to work on stable versions. The BLP
>> articles most prone to such mishaps rarely have many edits anyhow.
>
> Yeah but the ones they do get are mostly from IPs.

Shouldn't cause a problem for stable versions, which I assume will at
the very least not be flaggable by anonymous editors.


body:
On 3/29/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
> If the information does not have a specific source attached to it such as a page in a book or the equivalent, it is unsourced. You are not obligated to read whole books when no page is given. The priority needs to go to 4) Remove all unsourced harmful or extremely dubious sounding material
> >from biographies, and unsourced harmful material from other articles and probably extends to removing such material when that is all that is in the article, even if it is sourced.
>
The problem with living bios goes beyond unsourced material.
Everything in a bio could be sourced and it might still be an unfair
portrait of the person. Then there's the problem of Wikpedia editors
hunting down every tiny bit of published material from decades ago,
thereby reviving stories that were long dead, or posting something
that was published only in a local newspaper, thereby turning it into
an international story.

But if you try to remove material like that from a bio, or delete a
bio entirely because it's inherently unfair, a great hue and cry goes
up about censorship, and a revert war begins.

Sarah


subject: [WikiEN-l] BLP - a case study

body:
On 29/03/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Marc Riddell wrote:
>
> >on 3/28/07 1:03 PM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm at macgyvermagic at gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >
> >>No. Dead people should be treated with equal respect to living ones.
> >>
> >>
> >I agree. And the key word, I believe, that should guide any Article on any
> >person - living or dead - is RESPECT.
> >
> Exactly.  That's much better than basing a distinction on the simple
> fact that the dead can't sue.
>
> Ec

Respect is too vague and variable a notion for a multicultural venture
like Wikipedia to base policy on. Particular customs in the UK in
medicine and funeral care which are considered respectful to the dead
probably aren't considered respectful in some cultures, religions and
traditions.

The closest we can do is to act in the spirit of respect.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: William Pietri

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellen_Fanning
>
> This article said that "She is the sister of [[Powderfinger]] frontman
> and solo artist, [[Bernard Fanning]]."
>
> Not true.
>
> She asked me about this on television.  I danced around it as best I
> could, but basically it was not fun. :(
>
> Fortunately, this bit of incorrect information was not negative.  But it
> made it hard for me to make a positive image for us.
>

I'm all for a push for improving biographies, but were there
alternatives to dancing?

It seems to me that an interviewer will for years to come be able to
easily find something in Wikipedia that is obviously wrong. Treating
that a a problem is accepting a negative premise, which I understand to
be a PR mistake.[1] When people catch us in errors, aren't we better off
going with positive responses that begin with, "Yes, exactly..."?

That's what I do when people grumble to me about something on Wikipedia,
although admittedly I've never tried it with a TV reporter.

William

[1] for example, http://www.transmediagroup.com/crisismgmt.asp


body:
geni wrote:
> On 3/30/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>> geni wrote:
>>> On 3/30/07, John Lee <johnleemk at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Or alternatively, we could just get to work on stable versions. The BLP
>>>> articles most prone to such mishaps rarely have many edits anyhow.
>>> Yeah but the ones they do get are mostly from IPs.
>> Shouldn't cause a problem for stable versions, which I assume will at
>> the very least not be flaggable by anonymous editors.
>
> We don't have stable version.

No, but John was suggesting that when the feature is implemented it will
help with this sort of thing. I thought your comment "but the ones they
do get are mostly from IPs" was objecting to that, I couldn't see
anything else it might be referring to.


list: wikipedia-l

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old

body:
On 29/03/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> The language committee was asked how to deal with it. We found that there is
> little or no chance to get this "orthography" recognised by the current
> ISO-639 standard. The standard allows for a private label; we selected an
> arbitrary label. From my personal point of view, there should be no be-x-old
> wikipedia in the first place; I would see it moved outside of the Wikimedia
> Foundation.

Could you explain how this orthography was consistent and formalised
enough for an entire Wikimedia project to use it and yet is not
recognised by the standard? It seems unusual that such an orthography
can be used enough to have this level of recognition (to the extent
that it displaces the formal orthography) and yet not be recognised by
the standard.

Has the Norwegian solution been considered (seperate Bokm?l and
Nynorsk Wikipedias) as a soltution to the Belarussian problem?

Wikimedia needs to be pragmatic. No standard is perfect.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] BLP - a case study

body:
"Oldak Quill" wrote

> On 29/03/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> > Marc Riddell wrote:

> > >on 3/28/07 1:03 PM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm at macgyvermagic at gmail.com wrote:

> > >>No. Dead people should be treated with equal respect to living ones.

> > >I agree. And the key word, I believe, that should guide any Article on any
> > >person - living or dead - is RESPECT.

> > Exactly.  That's much better than basing a distinction on the simple
> > fact that the dead can't sue.

> > Ec

> Respect is too vague and variable a notion for a multicultural venture
> like Wikipedia to base policy on.

Certainly. While the dead cannot themselves sue, read [[Julian Bell]] for the high-profile case of [[Hong Ying]]; in which a Chinese court found that the dead could be defamed (by a work of fiction).

We have _never_ allowed general arguments on respectfulness to condition what we will allow in enWP.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam


from_name: Ron Ritzman

body:
On 3/29/07, NSLE (Wikipedia) <nsle.wikipedia at gmail.com> wrote:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Checkuser_requestsa

First, let's fix this link... http://tinyurl.com/yq72lb

What I want to know is why they don't just open up checkuser to more
admins? Anybody who is trusted with tools that allow him to make pages
go away (including the main page) and keep anybody they want from
editing would not be trusted with checkuser. Or is it a matter of the
technical knowledge needed to properly interpret checkuser results?

Then again, admins have, or should have, enough knowledge about
networking to know what IP ranges to block to get rid of a troublesome
troll+socks but minimize the effect on innocent editors.


from_name: xaosflux

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

I hoping that once the bugfix gets activated to add a namespace
selector to [[Special:Protected pages]] it will be a lot easier to
spot issues like this.

en: xaosflux

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Erica" <fangaili at gmail.com>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 10:57 AM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] More concerns about wide scale article
protection

>I believe there are 2 points to consider, one that's pretty easy to
> fix, and another of a more philosophical matter:
>
> 1. The fact that there are currently too many protected and
> semi-protected articles. I've been going through these and
> unprotecting those that had been protected for too long. If there
> was no discussion on the talk page, or I just figured it was time
> for
> unprotecting, I did so. Most of them appear to be just fine--no
> instant vandalism or edit wars. Yesterday I unprotected an article
> that had been fully protected since *October*.. le sigh. Hopefully,
> with the protection end-date feature, that will never happen again.
> ...
> Erica
> User:Fang Aili

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.2

iQA/AwUBRgxdINRQDZCQNK6YEQLlxQCg75C9f+PO3RnHaVO7Q35XTjMYhSQAoIIB
5vCEB0b4HOODN9AVEx5qXWc5
=9ig5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----