body:
On 5/10/06, jf_wikipedia at mac.com <jf_wikipedia at mac.com> wrote:
> On May 10, 2006, at 2:09 PM, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> >> One possibility would be to restrict the addition to people to the
> >> main category "Criminals" and request that people are added to a
> >> specific sub-category of[[:Category:Criminals]]. And if such sub-
> >> category does not exists, either to create a new subcat, or simply
> >> not adding a category.
> >>
> > Hmm, did you go ahead and implement that?  Because it seems to be the
> > case right now.
>
> I removed all people from the main category, and added these to the
> appropriate sub-cat.
>
Seems like a good interim solution, if not a permanent one.  Thanks.

Now what sub-category would Thoreau go under?  Tax evaders?  Or is
that the same as tax resisters, a category Thoreau is already in?

Anthony


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Andrew Gray

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia-X-Files

body:
On 10/05/06, Matt R <matt_crypto at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> I've got a feeling that the factorisation of an RSA number (either [[RSA-200]]
> or [[RSA-640]], I forget which) was scooped by Wikipedia last year; or at
> least, I couldn't find any public announcement that predated it at the time.

We beat the media by a day or so on the death of... damn, I completely
forget. Famous feminist who died last year. We removed the claim,
though, since we couldn't get a source until the story was confirmed
on the Monday morning...

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


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Timwi

subject: [Wikitech-l] title case mapping and Wiktionary links

body:
> (Someone might ask, "Why provide an interactive question and a link;
> why not just quietly redirect?"  But that defeats the purpose of being
> caseful and makes it difficult or impossible to create a second entry
> with the other case.  If you're going to redirect in this case, you
> might as well turn on $wgCapitalLinks and be done with it.)

I cannot follow this line of reasoning. The purpose of "being caseful",
as you call it, is to have (1) correct article titles, and (2) the
potential capability of having separate entries differing only in their
capitalisation. Neither of two have anything to do with redirects.

I would favour an approach where, if the user visits a title that
doesn't exist but the same title with different capitalisation does
exist, the software pretends there was a redirect, and displays the
"redirected from" message that allows you to click back to the original
title in case you actually need to create a separate article. I would
actually favour the same approach on Wikipedia too.

Timwi


from_name: Cheney Shill

subject: [WikiEN-l] NPOV majorities/minorities

body:
jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:

    No, you're not. Editor consensus does not override policy, though, at
    times, new editors have attempted to re-write policy to allow this.

Actually, the view that editor consensus does override policy is being imposed by existing admins in the articles I've worked on.  In one article, there were at least 3 admins actively involved and all claiming that.~~~~Pro-Lick

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.


list: foundation-l

from_name: Birgitte SB

subject:
[Foundation-l] The status of smaller languages on the Wikimedia
	Commons

body:
--- Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

> Birgitte SB wrote:
>
> >--- Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>You do not get my point. When policies are to be
> changed, when the way
> >>things work are to be changed, this is when you
> should inform the
> >>communities in advance. Some careful marketing
> communication is what is
> >>needed. Marketeers call it customer relations. And
> you /need /to inform
> >>your customers; when you do, you talk to all your
> customers when you
> >>don't you have to deal with them one at a time and
> you may find that
> >>customers do no longer give you their custom.
> Given how busy you are,
> >>you would not even notice.
> >>
> >>
> >I disagree with this sentiment in general terms.
> If
> >the "customers" are not making an effort to watch
> the
> >pages where policy decisions are disscused, they
> >should not expect to courted by those wishing to
> >change policy.  The community that is actually
> doing
> >the work of maintaining a project should have the
> >ability to set policy without going out of their
> way
> >to court the fly-by-night users of the project.  I
> do
> >not think it is wise to try and alienate the less
> >active userbase, but it is unrealistic to wait for
> >their reaction before making any decisions.
> >
> This seems like a somewhat frigid approach.  It's
> true enough that
> policies are developped by the most active members,
> but many policies
> should allow for viable alternatives.  If a newcomer
> has a different way
> of doing things that does not conform with
> established formatting norms
> there should be room to develop those ideas without
> his being pilloried
> because he does things differently.  "Ignore all
> rules" should always
> remain a viable policy.  This does not mean that we
> need to accept every
> bit of idiocy that comes along.  Nor does it mean
> that core principles
> must be abandoned.  Good rules support existing
> practice rather than
> shape it.  Poor rules, even by the most active
> members, tend to be
> ignored as people go ahead and do their own things.
>
> Almost all rules should be open to change, because a
> community thrives
> on new ideas.  Very few rules should be the subject
> of persistent
> enforcement.
>

I believe you misunderstand me here.  I strongly
believe that most policies should be up for
reevaluation.  Many things seem like great ideas, or
seem as though they would naturally go hand in hand
until you actually start *working* on them.  Newcomers
who active on a project are certainly welcome in my
view.  I see them as future established users.  I
think you have hit the nail on the head with "Good
rules support existing practice rather than shape it."
 The problem with the original suggestion is such
advertisement would atract people who have no
understanding of existing practice. That is my
concern.  I feel anyone familar with existing practice
will be aware of policy disscussion through the normal
in-project channels.

> >The English Wikisource recently made a major change
> to
> >it's incluson guidelines (which involves the
> eventual
> >deletion of around 200 pages).  We held open
> >disscusion for over three weeks, and the material
> is
> >now being slowly phased out without a mass
> deletion.
> >Although there was a small amount of advertising
> >amoung people with a specific interest, the
> >participants in the disscusion did not vary from
> the
> >regular editors.  I cannot agree that it should
> have
> >been advertised at large across projects.  I am
> very
> >happy with the way we have handled this situation
> >which quite at odds with your sentiments.
> >
> I presume you're referring to the source code
> articles.  With many of
> these the contributors haven't been around for a
> long time, and that's
> probably an indicator of a failed sub-project.
> Still, the safe and fair
> approach is to give personal notice to any
> contributors that are still
> around, and leaving them ample time to respond.
>
You are correct although it also included the
exclusion of most all reference data.  It was not due
to inactivity so much as impracticality of managing
it.  But I do not see a need for great detail here.

> >It would not be productive during a major policy
> >disscussion to issue an invitation to people who
> have
> >no idea how a project operates on a day-to-day
> basis.
> >The community which actually *works* on a project
> >needs to be the ones to set policy.  If the people
> you
> >consider "customers" find that the community no
> longer
> >serves their needs, they should work to carve out
> such
> >a niche themselves.  These projects are all
> operating
> >with a limited amount of volunteers and I cannot
> >imagine any of them would ignore the corcerns of
> >people willing to get their hands dirty.  But when
> >someone has the mindset that they are a "customer"
> and
> >want to reallocate these existing voluteers to take
> >care of their pet issues, well I won't be so
> impolite
> >as to express what I think of that.  Now they are
> >welcome to share these concerns.  Many people can
> >vouch that I am willing to drop my current project
> to
> >help them deal with issue I agree is important when
> >they bring to my attention.  But to say projects
> >should not attempt to set policy unless they
> >personally invite over all the people who are
> standing
> >on the sidelines is ridiculous.  Even if such
> people
> >are the most informed, intelligent, reasonable
> people
> >on earth, they will not be a useful addition to
> policy
> >disscusions until they have worked within the
> project
> >and achieved such understanding that can only be
> >gained by experience.  The fact that infrequent
> users
> >may not *like* the communities policy descision is
> not
> >reason enough to hold off on any decision till they
> >have been consulted.
> >
> I don't know about the applicability or implications
> of the term
> "customers", but I can certainly discuss the matter
> without using it.
>
> Most people have little interest in getting involved
> in policy matters.
> They may be interested in specific content areas,
> and see unending
> debates about policy as a total waste of time.  They
> continue to work
> well on their specialty, and will only discuss
> policy when their own
> area is affected.  That's fine.  For them the
> discussion _starts_ at
> that point.
>
> I very strongly believe in the autonomy of the
> projects; I had a big
> argument with a significant Wikipedian about that
> during the earliest
> days of Wikisource.  Although it would be patently
> ridiculous to invite
> absolutely everyone to participate in some of these
> discussions, it is
> just as ridiculous and even unjust and arrogant to
> suggest that informed
> Wikimedians cannot make useful contributions to a
> current debate.
> Absence of input may not be a valid reason to hold
> off decisions, but it
> is a valid reason to hold off enforcement in
> inappropriate circumstance.
>
> Ec
>

I have not really experienced "unending debates about
policy".  Most proposals actually need little debate
at all.  Maybe that is a scale issue.  I really am
open to hear anyone interested in Wikisource to come
add a voice to policy discussions.  But I would expect
them to keep an eye on the Scriptorium.  Most
everything that applies to Wikisource on a broader
sense is disscused there.  Maybe I am wrong, but
imagine a large scale advertisment would attract
people who are more interested that Wikisource does
something they believe it should than *how* it does
something.  I am very much interested in the more
pragmatic input which I believe requires some
familarity with how Wikisource operates.

Birgitte SB

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [WikiEN-l] The lovely world of celebrities

body:
On 5/10/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 10 May 2006 17:02:28 -0400, you wrote:
>
> > If you had a Wikipedia article about you, wouldn't
> >you be concerned about it?
>
> If there was one about me I'd AfD it - why would anyone want to know
> about me?
>
That completely avoids the question though.  Even celebrities don't
like to be publically criticised, we just happen to have a right to do
it anyway.

What I'm saying is, while I think the public's right to know about Ann
Coulter outweighs any embarrassment she might suffer, I don't blame
her for being concerned over the way she's depicted.  I don't even
find it particularly surprising or "interesting".

Anthony


subject: [WikiEN-l] How to become wiki-notable

body:
On 5/10/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/10/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Heh, good call.
> >
> > (I've often speculated about what is the least effort I would need to
> > go to do do something notable enough to get a Wikipedia article.
>
> Assumeing you want to do something that would not completly mess up
> the rest of your life politician may be an option. Some of the less
> major olympic sports might be worth a try.
>
How about being a hero?  If you rescue a woman and child from a
burning building are you notable?  Either way, I still don't
understand this notability thing.

Anthony


subject: [WikiEN-l] Regarding "civility"

body:
Wiliam J. Clinton wrote:
> I was disgusted, but not terribly surprised, to see that six members of the
> Arbitration Committee -- Dmcdevit, Fred Bauder, JamesF/James D. Forrester,
> Sean Barrett/The Epopt, Charles Matthews and Jayjg -- condone hate speech
> and hateful epithets directed at the mentally disabled, and consider
> condemnation of that hate speech to be unacceptable behavior on Wikipedia --
> behavior, in fact, so unacceptable that they say they find it a compelling
> reason to punish me.

I stopped reading here because there were no links to any actual
evidence. I scrolled through the rest of the posting and found no links
at all.

Try again.

Timwi


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] systemic bias

body:
On Wed, 10 May 2006 16:37:10 +0200 (CEST), you wrote:

>Before you put grease on your slipperly slope, I'd like to note,
>that I definitely plead for respect towards Christians as well.
>Since the majority within the Wikipedia community is Christian,
>I don't see much disrespect towards them.

I think you'll find that there is a very strong rationalist presence
on WP, and even among those who identify as Christian, few would
consider it worthwhile censoring [[Life of Brian]].

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


from_name: charles matthews

subject: [WikiEN-l] Regarding "civility"

body:
Regarding civility indeed: User:Monicasdude is being sanctioned under a
pending ArbCom decision for repeated use of phrases such as "aggressive
ignorance", "remarkably arrogant and foolish", "bad faith".

Charles


subject: [WikiEN-l] Is this NPOV?

body:
On Wed, 10 May 2006 08:54:10 -0700, you wrote:

>IMO, the isssue is not one of "undue weight" or discrepancies of size
>between articles of religions leaders, providing of course that
>material used to support the article is well sourced and referenced,
>the article is not too self-serving and it is written in a neutral
>voice.

Up to a point.  When a quote from an adherent hosted on a blog site is
given equal weight with a documentary by the BBC; and when commentary
is included to the effect that the BBC's documentary is biased because
the Church of England is content to see the competition knocked; then
I suspect that the definition of NPOV is being stretched.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wasting Time. The most efficient way :)


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Is this NPOV?

body:
On 5/10/06, Jossi Fresco <jossifresco at mac.com> wrote:
> A simple Goggle
> test shows that Simon Kimbangu draws 44 results in search (first two
> results are from Wikipedia!),

Sure his relgion is africa based. One top of that it is based in the
DRC. So not many of it's adhearents are going to be in a position to
write about it online.

--
geni


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [Wikitech-l]External link on document [files://xxx] don’t work, please help

body:
On 5/10/06, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
> The real problem isn't that you can't tell MediaWiki to render
> file://foo as a link, but that a lot of modern browsers won't show
> such links for various security reasons.
>
> See http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgUrlProtocols.

Can you elaborate on that? Which browsers won't show them, and in
which contexts? Also your URL didn't work.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Admins without validated e-mail addresses (was: RfAs)

body:
On 5/10/06, Guillaume Paumier <guillom.pom at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I might agree with you if you replace "don't" with "refuse upon repeated
> request".
>
> +1

Actually I thought about this some more, and I don't agree after all.
It would seem reasonable to put on your talk page "My email is not
validated. If you want to undo something I've done and can't get in
touch with me, just undo it". Or, anyway, if someone is on WP as often
as they have their email open (as I do, for example), then it would
seem pointless.

Forcing people to behave the same as the way you (general) behave is
just small minded, unless it seriously gets in the way of their
responsibilities.

Steve


body:
On 5/10/06, Pete Bartlett <pcb21 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Guilliame wrote:
> >As for myself, most of the time emails are sent from people who are unfamiliar
> >with our talk pages system, and for who it's simpler to send an email.
> >Most frequent email being : "Why have you deleted my article ?"
>
> I accept this is a good reason for demanding email turned on.

Someone needs to be pointed to an FAQ, and the best thing is that they
email an admin and wait for a reply? They'd do better to keep looking.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia-X-Files

body:
On 5/10/06, Matt R <matt_crypto at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> I've got a feeling that the factorisation of an RSA number (either [[RSA-200]] or [[RSA-640]], I forget which) was scooped by Wikipedia last year; or at least, I couldn't find any public announcement that predated it at the time.
>
> Incidentally, factorisations of challenge numbers are one of those exceedingly rare occasions where researchers can publish original research on Wikipedia without it being a problem for us.

Because readers can verify the fact by multiplying the numbers together?

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Regarding "civility"

body:
On 5/8/06, Wiliam J. Clinton <monicasdud at gmail.com> wrote:

I got this far, and thought, why would I keep reading?

Steve


from_name: Rob Church

body:
On 10/05/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> Can you elaborate on that? Which browsers won't show them, and in
> which contexts? Also your URL didn't work.

1. Google for it. Someone did a load of tests with a load of different
browsers once. Check the old FAQ on Meta.

2. Doesn't surprise me. Nevertheless, I'm sure if you're competent
enough to use MediaWiki, you're probably competent enough to use a
search engine, and MediaWiki.org has one of those.

Rob Church


subject: [Wikitech-l] [MediaWiki-CVS] SVN: [14158] trunk/phase3

body:
On 10/05/06, hashar at svn.leuksman.com <hashar at svn.leuksman.com> wrote:
> Die with a backtrace when using User::isBureaucrat User::isDeveloper User::isSysop
> Related to #2498 and helps a bit bug 700: Code quality issues (tracking)

Why not grep the existing extension files, etc. and the rest of the
code, and remove them all now? Seems wasteful to keep dud code in the
source and hold back on removing it until winter.

Rob Church


from_name: jayjg

subject: [WikiEN-l] NPOV majorities/minorities

body:
> On 5/10/06, jf_wikipedia at mac.com <jf_wikipedia at mac.com> wrote:
>
> On May 10, 2006, at 10:18 AM, Cheney Shill wrote:
>
> > Basically, it's an argument that you can apply policy however the
> > current majority of an article sees fit.
>
> My understanding is different. Editor's consensus cannot be used to
> bypass policy
>
> See:
>
> "NPOV is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policy pages. The
> other two are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original
> research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of
> material that is acceptable in the main namespace. Because the three
> policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in
> isolation from one other, and editors should therefore try to
> familiarize themselves with all three. The three policies are also
> non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by
> editors' consensus."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPOV
>
> I am missing something?
>
> -- Jossi

No, you're not.  Editor consensus does not override policy, though, at
times, new editors have attempted to re-write policy to allow this.

Jay.


from_name: Peter Jacobi

subject: [WikiEN-l] Is this NPOV?

body:
Hi Jossi, All,

> A simple Goggle
> test shows that Simon Kimbangu draws 44 results in search (first two
> results are from Wikipedia!), while "Sathya Sai Baba draws 364,000
> results, and Prem Rawat 219,000 results.

Yes, but this only demonstrates a bias towards online sources.

Quite often, when I stumble by accident into an article,
perhaps interwiki-ing from/to de.wikipedia, I find dozens
of weblinks and not a single book given, even when they are
easy to find, even for me.

At some point of time we must stop trying to evolve
into a backup copy of the WWW and draw from other
sources.

Regards,
Peter

--
Echte DSL-Flatrate dauerhaft f?r 0,- Euro*!
"Feel free" mit GMX DSL! http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl


from_name: Matt R

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia-X-Files

body:
Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/10/06, Matt R <matt_crypto at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > I've got a feeling that the factorisation of an RSA number (either [[RSA-200]] or [[RSA-640]], I forget which) was scooped by Wikipedia last year; or
> > at least, I couldn't find any public announcement that predated it at the time.
> >
> > Incidentally, factorisations of challenge numbers are one of those exceedingly rare occasions where researchers can publish original research on
> > Wikipedia without it being a problem for us.

> Because readers can verify the fact by multiplying the numbers together?

Yes, or at least some can ;-)

-- Matt


from_name: Guettarda

subject: [WikiEN-l] How to become wiki-notable

body:
On 5/10/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
> On 5/10/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/10/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Heh, good call.
> > >
> > > (I've often speculated about what is the least effort I would need to
> > > go to do do something notable enough to get a Wikipedia article.
> >
> > Assumeing you want to do something that would not completly mess up
> > the rest of your life politician may be an option. Some of the less
> > major olympic sports might be worth a try.
> >
> How about being a hero?  If you rescue a woman and child from a
> burning building are you notable?  Either way, I still don't
> understand this notability thing.

Sleep with a celebrity?  Be born into the family of a celebrity (Suri Cruise
had an article for 8 days)


subject: [WikiEN-l] NPOV majorities/minorities

body:
On 5/10/06, Cheney Shill <halliburton_shill at yahoo.com> wrote:
> jf_wikipedia at mac.com wrote:
>
>     On May 10, 2006, at 10:18 AM, Cheney Shill wrote:
>     > Basically, it's an argument that you can apply policy however the
>     > current majority of an article sees fit.
>
>     My understanding is different. Editor's consensus cannot be used to
>     bypass policy
>
>     See:
>
>     "NPOV is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policy pages. The
>     other two are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original
>     research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of
>     material that is acceptable in the main namespace. Because the three
>     policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in
>     isolation from one other, and editors should therefore try to
>     familiarize themselves with all three. The three policies are also
>     non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by
>     editors' consensus."
>
>     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPOV
>
>     I am missing something?
>
> No, except that we agree completely.  I'm not, nor have I ever argued, that consensus should bypass policy.  I'm simply repeating the claim made by Fastfission and the majority of admins and users I've had contact with while editing that consensus is more important than policy.  Fastfission seemed to be paraphrasing the beginning of the consensus guideline that says "Wikipedia works by building consensus." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus  I'm not sure when that was put in or if it was snuck in at some point, but given what the rest of the guideline states, not to mention policies, it's definitely taken out of context.  Maybe the fix is simply removing that sentence.  This view seems so prevalent, however, it probably wouldn't be taken seriously unless Jimmy himself emailed every admin with an attached photo of a clue bat.
>
> Anyway, I'm open to suggestions on how to solve it.~~~~Pro-Lick

Content policies have far less leeway than other policies.

Jay.


from_name: Ilmari Karonen

body:
Pete Bartlett wrote:
>>Arwel wrote:
>
>>I agree that all admins /should/ to have a valid email
>>contact address, and really ought to be de-adminned if they don't
>>provide one.
>
> Once again assumes that the set of all admins is equal to the
> set of admins who get involved in contentious actions.
>
> We really must stamp out this false assumption.
>
> There are many many admins who never do something sufficiently contentious
> to warrant the use of email. I personally have made admin actions numbering
> in the hundreds and have _never_ been emailled about them.

We currently instruct blocked users to contact the blocking admin by
e-mail if they wish to dispute the block or find themselves blocked as
"collateral damage".  For such people, finding that the admin who
blocked them refuses to accept e-mail is adding insult to injury.

I agree that, for admins who never block users and never perform any
even potentially controversial admin actions, an e-mail address is not
absolutely necessary.  I do believe that's a rather small minority.

--
Ilmari Karonen


subject: [WikiEN-l] Regarding "civility"

body:
Dude, Tony Sidaway can get away with being an aggressive inclusionist
because (a) he is almost always right, (b) he's been here since
forever and has earned the right through sheer hard work and (c) he
does not make gratuitous personal attacks.

You appear to fail on all three counts.

And even Tony has been hauled up in front of ArbCom.

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


body:
On Wed, 10 May 2006 17:02:28 -0400, you wrote:

> If you had a Wikipedia article about you, wouldn't
>you be concerned about it?

If there was one about me I'd AfD it - why would anyone want to know
about me?

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


from_name: Steve Block

subject: [WikiEN-l] Admins without validated e-mail addresses

body:
Arwel Parry wrote:

> Anyway, yes, I agree that all admins /should/ to have a valid email
> contact address, and really ought to be de-adminned if they don't
> provide one.

Mark me as another approving of this if don't is replace by hasn't after
repeated requests.  I think this also got strong consensus at that admin
standards poll Radiant set up at the turn of the year.  Is it worth
trying to roll this out?

Steve block

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.5.5/335 - Release Date: 09/05/06


subject: [WikiEN-l] Regarding "civility"

body:
On 5/10/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> (b) he's been here since forever

As far as I can figure his first edits were 1st nov 2004 as Minority
Report. You predate that. I predate that. Generaly the "been here
forever" tag is probably best resurved for the likes of Fred Bauder (1
November 2002)

--
geni


from_name: Prasad J

subject: [WikiEN-l] WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 34, Issue 89

body:
On 10/05/06, Earthhope Action Network <contact at earthhopenetwork.net> wrote:
> *Hey,*
> *Can one of you good folk give me a hand? I am blocked indefinitely and
> believe it is time for me to be unblocked and given another chance to show I
> can be a normal and friendly editor on Wikipedia. Can someone help me
> please?*
> **
> *Maggie User:thewolfstar*
> **
> *Margie Laupheimer*
>
Hi Thewolfstar,
I was an indefinitely blocked user too,but I edited (am still editing
infact) a sister-project of Wikipedia. Wikinews to be exact. After
around 3 weeks spent editing there,and over 130 decent edits with no
bad-faith editing, the blocking Administrator himself was convinced
that I had changed my ways and unblocked me-so now I'm contributing
constructiovely again. Maybe you could try something like that?
Working on another Wikimedia project. After a while have someone else
post your results on Administrators' Noticeboard to let people know
about your activities.

>


subject: [WikiEN-l] (no subject)

body:
On 10/05/06, Harish Ganesan <kamehameha87 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> The blocking policy was violated. I wrote in trivia
> under Tony Banks (football player) that he is known
> for his etopps 2001 card, which is the highest priced
> in etopps history. Then user PS2pcGAMER just erased it
> and did not allow me to edit anymore. This is in no
> way a commercial thing. I was posting trivia, that is
> all. It is an interesting fact.
>
> What is your Wikipedia ID?For what duration are you blocked?You need to include relevant details for someone to check it out.
>


body:
On 5/10/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> Heh, good call.
>
> (I've often speculated about what is the least effort I would need to
> go to do do something notable enough to get a Wikipedia article.

Get a gun start killing people (idealy kids) in a first world
anglophile nation. Or just kill one person of significance. In terms
of short term effort crime is probably your best bet. Second would be
dying in some notable way. Throw yourself under GWB's motercade or
something.

Assumeing you want to do something that would not completly mess up
the rest of your life politician may be an option. Some of the less
major olympic sports might be worth a try.

> What's sad is my father and my best friend are both notable enough, as
> is my mother if all academics are notable.

They are not. All academics above a certian level are generaly
accapted as notable

> I work for a notable
> company, producing a notable product. I have participated in notable
> events, been photographed by a notable photographer, ...but I'm not
> notable. Guess the best I can do for my ego is sneak a photo of myself
> in somewhere, pretending I'm an innocent bystander who got in the way
> of a photo...)
>
> Steve

Find somewhere near you with an article then take a photo of yourself
next to some monument there and upload it to wikipedia.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Regarding "civility"

body:
On 10/05/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/10/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> > (b) he's been here since forever
>
> As far as I can figure his first edits were 1st nov 2004 as Minority
> Report. You predate that. I predate that. Generaly the "been here
> forever" tag is probably best resurved for the likes of Fred Bauder (1
> November 2002)

As usual, I think you missed the underlying point entirely, which was
that Sidaway's long-term contributions to the project and the
community serve to explain why there is so much good will for him; he
has become a VestedContributor. This wouldn't excuse any serious
behaviour which set out to harm the encyclopaedia, of course, or
interrupt its creation, which is why he has not been above arbitration
at times.

People may joke about the cabal, but the reality is that there *is* a
group of people who call the shots in different areas, on a day to day
basis. And nobody really cares because they're being useful and
productive.

Rob Church


body:
On 10/05/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/10/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Heh, good call.
> >
> > (I've often speculated about what is the least effort I would need to
> > go to do do something notable enough to get a Wikipedia article.
>
> Get a gun start killing people (idealy kids) in a first world
> anglophile nation. Or just kill one person of significance. In terms
> of short term effort crime is probably your best bet. Second would be
> dying in some notable way. Throw yourself under GWB's motercade or
> something.

Welcome to Wikipedia. We endorse mindless violence and a disregard for
others in exchange for free-licencing of contributions and a brief
altruistic feeling.

> Assumeing you want to do something that would not completly mess up
> the rest of your life politician may be an option. Some of the less
> major olympic sports might be worth a try.

What? Politicans DON'T have messed-up lives? I want some of what you're smoking.

> They are not. All academics above a certian level are generaly
> accapted as notable

Irony is to die for.

Rob Church


from_name: Ashar Voultoiz

body:
Rob Church wrote:
> On 10/05/06, hashar at svn.leuksman.com <hashar at svn.leuksman.com> wrote:
>
>>Die with a backtrace when using User::isBureaucrat User::isDeveloper User::isSysop
>>Related to #2498 and helps a bit bug 700: Code quality issues (tracking)
>
>
> Why not grep the existing extension files, etc. and the rest of the
> code, and remove them all now? Seems wasteful to keep dud code in the
> source and hold back on removing it until winter.

Hello,

I looked at the extensions in our trunk and found the following:

$ egrep -iR 'is(Bureau|Devel|Sysop)' *
ShowProcesslist.php:            if ( !$wgUser->isDeveloper() ) {
Userip.php:                             if ( ! $wgUser->isSysop() ) {
$

The call in Userip.php is only made if $wgVersion match 1.4. I am not
sure ShowProcesslist.php is worse migrating it, we probably have to make
the extension add some rights but I am too lazy to do it tonight.

The reason I have put traceback is that when 1.7 is out (in some
months), extensions coder will have a clean error log (just like PHP5 is
raising E_STRICT error when using var which was valid in PHP4).

Feel free to remove them in trunk though :) That was just a proposal.

cheers,

--
Ashar Voultoiz - WP++++
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hashar
http://www.livejournal.com/community/wikitech/
IM: hashar at jabber.org  ICQ: 15325080


body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> Can you elaborate on that? Which browsers won't show them, and in
> which contexts? Also your URL didn't work.

Firefox at least:
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Firefox_:_Issues_:_Links_to_Local_Pages_Don't_Work

--
Ashar Voultoiz - WP++++
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hashar
http://www.livejournal.com/community/wikitech/
IM: hashar at jabber.org  ICQ: 15325080


subject: [Wikitech-l] SVN:  [14157] trunk/phase3

body:
brion at svn.leuksman.com wrote:
> Revision: 14157
> Author:   brion
> Date:     2006-05-10 12:58:17 -0700 (Wed, 10 May 2006)
>
> Log Message:
> -----------
> We require PHP 5 now, make sure the installer requires this.
> Uncertain of the exact minimum version requirement; checking for 5.0.0+

Can we start committing code using protected / private / public stuff
for classes ? The try { } catch {} looks great too :)

--
Ashar Voultoiz - WP++++
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hashar
http://www.livejournal.com/community/wikitech/
IM: hashar at jabber.org  ICQ: 15325080


subject: [WikiEN-l] We need a policy against vote-stacking

body:
On 5/10/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
> On May 8, 2006, at 11:04 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> >> Because then the judges (closing admins) have discretionary power,
> >> and in that situation, decisions are made by admin aristocracy, not
> >> consensus.
> >
> > Consensus already requires interpretation by admins, who have
> > discretinary power to ignore it.
>
> That power is strictly limited to upholding policy and Office
> actions. There's a difference between admins interpreting consensus,
> and abandoning consensus while delegating decision-making power to
> admins alone. The latter is utterly unacceptable.

As you point out, when consensus conflicts with policy, admins should
upload policy. Classic example, 20 people "vote" to maintain the
copyvio image...a sensible admin ignores them.

Steve


body:
On 5/10/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
> On May 9, 2006, at 12:07 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> > It can be established with logic if we define what we mean by notable,
> > and some up with some guidelines. This has helped a lot with articles
> > on music groups.
>
> You suggest we devise a Grand Unified Theory to judge notability of
> Wikipedia articles, and develop it until there are no false positives
> or false negatives  (or else some process, be it admin fiat or
> consensus, will have to overrule when the policy fails). That
> obviously will never happen--at least not until years after Wikipedia
> is completed anyway.

Is the man who suggests organising his bookshelf suggesting a Grand
Unified Theory of organisation? No. I'm suggesting we improve it.
There is room for improvement.

Steve


from_name: Daniel R. Tobias

body:
On 9 May 2006 at 21:43, "Earthhope Action Network" <contact at earthhopenetwork.net> wrote:

> *Can one of you good folk give me a hand? I am blocked indefinitely and
> believe it is time for me to be unblocked and given another chance to show I
> can be a normal and friendly editor on Wikipedia. Can someone help me
> please?*

Quoting back an entire digest of this list beneath your top-posted
message (not actually a reply to anything in it) is not a
particularly good way to "show [you] can be... friendly".

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Regarding "civility"

body:
On 5/10/06, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
> As usual, I think you missed the underlying point entirely,

Not really. You know I dissagree with certian parts of the underling
point (come on it's one of wikipedia's rules Tony Sidaway and Geni
will dissagree on almost everything).

I was more noting the the defintion of being here forever appears to
be shofting somewhat.

> People may joke about the cabal, but the reality is that there *is* a
> group of people who call the shots in different areas, on a day to day
> basis. And nobody really cares because they're being useful and
> productive.

Yes and no. While it is partly true. The areas so controled are not A1
critical. Wikipedia can in the short term at least function without
them. Those areas which are are controlled by no one.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Category:Criminals // Category:American Criminals

body:
On 5/10/06, jf_wikipedia at mac.com <jf_wikipedia at mac.com> wrote:
> My concern is that people are using Category:Criminals //
> Category:American Criminals as a way to push negative POVs aginst
> such persons (regardless if the person is alive or dead). The reason
> for  my concern is that it indiscriminately group people as diverse
> as  person that was convicted from stealing a pair of jeans at Wal-
> Mart with serial killers, rapists and the like.

I believe there's already a guideline on this, or at least on the use
of lists of such things. I think we actually have a guideline against
the creation of vilification lists - vilification categories should
probably go with it.

Now, how about "notorious criminals"? Hmm.  "Famous criminals"? Might
be different - at least you're saying the person's crime has to be
famous.

Steve


body:
On 5/10/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> > If you had a Wikipedia article about you, wouldn't
> >you be concerned about it?
>
> If there was one about me I'd AfD it - why would anyone want to know
> about me?

Heh, good call.

(I've often speculated about what is the least effort I would need to
go to do do something notable enough to get a Wikipedia article.
What's sad is my father and my best friend are both notable enough, as
is my mother if all academics are notable. I work for a notable
company, producing a notable product. I have participated in notable
events, been photographed by a notable photographer, ...but I'm not
notable. Guess the best I can do for my ego is sneak a photo of myself
in somewhere, pretending I'm an innocent bystander who got in the way
of a photo...)

Steve


body:
On 5/10/06, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>you're probably competent enough to use a
> search engine, and MediaWiki.org has one of those.

Oh, don't get me started...

:)

(or is MediaWiki.org's up to date)

Steve


from_name: Molu

subject: [WikiEN-l] Verifiability equating to notability

body:
Please go ahead. All the information in available on the net nicely catalogued, and even the images may qualify for fair use. A complete database of MTG cards will be a popular section in WIkipedia. If they're taken to AfD, rest assured at least I will be voting Keep.

  molu

    On Thu, 11 May 2006 00:10:58 +0930 "Alphax (Wikipedia email)" wrote:

  >Steve Bennett wrote:
>> On 5/10/06, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>>> It's just as easy to say that "being a city isn't notable" or "being a
>>> high school district isn't notable" or "being a Pokemon card isn't
>>> notable" or "being a Korean children's science-fiction film directed
>>> by Kim Cheong-gi and starring Shim Hyung-rae isn't notable" or "being
>>> a seiy? isn't notable".
>>
>> Being a Pokemon card produced by the official makers of Pokemon is
>> pretty notable.

>Well, in that case, I'll start adding individual MTG cards. And here I
>rarity"...

---------------------------------
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger?s low  PC-to-Phone call rates.


body:
On 5/10/06, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/05/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/10/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Heh, good call.
> > >
> > > (I've often speculated about what is the least effort I would need to
> > > go to do do something notable enough to get a Wikipedia article.
> >
> > Get a gun start killing people (idealy kids) in a first world
> > anglophile nation. Or just kill one person of significance. In terms
> > of short term effort crime is probably your best bet. Second would be
> > dying in some notable way. Throw yourself under GWB's motercade or
> > something.
>
> Welcome to Wikipedia. We endorse mindless violence and a disregard for
> others in exchange for free-licencing of contributions and a brief
> altruistic feeling.
>

No. But due to our notabilty requirements on some level reflecting the
media, killers in first would countries get noticed. For maxium
visibilty make sure your victems are white, minors and female.

For a rather extream example more people have herd of [[Eric Harris
and Dylan Klebold]] than [[Lars Onsager]]

> > Assumeing you want to do something that would not completly mess up
> > the rest of your life politician may be an option. Some of the less
> > major olympic sports might be worth a try.
>
> What? Politicans DON'T have messed-up lives? I want some of what you're smoking.
>

They mess up thier lives somewhat less then serial killers. A
backbench MP who servers for only one term may well walk away with
only minor scars. A back bench EMP may do even better.

--
geni


from_name: Rudy Koot

subject: [WikiEN-l] (no subject)

body:
Harish Ganesan wrote:
> The blocking policy was violated. I wrote in trivia
> under Tony Banks (football player) that he is known
> for his etopps 2001 card, which is the highest priced
> in etopps history. Then user PS2pcGAMER just erased it
> and did not allow me to edit anymore. This is in no
> way a commercial thing. I was posting trivia, that is
> all. It is an interesting fact.

Sorry, but it seems that you were neiter blocked, nor has your addition
to the trivia section been reverted.

Ruud


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 5/10/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>> It's just as easy to say that "being a city isn't notable" or "being a
>> high school district isn't notable" or "being a Pokemon card isn't
>> notable" or "being a Korean children's science-fiction film directed
>> by Kim Cheong-gi and starring Shim Hyung-rae isn't notable" or "being
>> a seiy? isn't notable".
>
> Being a Pokemon card produced by the official makers of Pokemon is
> pretty notable.

Well, in that case, I'll start adding individual MTG cards. And here I
am thinking that "notability" had some meaning of "significance" or
"rarity"...

> In any case, there is widespread support for the idea
> that certain types of entities escape notability criteria and are
> included for completeness.  Less support for actually formalising what
> those entities might be :)
>
>> Click on random page a few times.  I don't see an indisputable claim
>> to notability for any of the articles I managed to hit.
>
> Heh. "Random page" has never been used as a sign of what a good page
> *should* be.
>

It's a great way to find things to prod/speedy though.

>> I don't know of a poll to determine if your speculation as to the
>> Wikipedia editors opinion is correct.  In fact, I think a significant
>> portion of Wikipedia editors *does* feel that we should have a
>> Wikipedia article on all chemists.  Not that I think inclusion in
>> Wikipedia should be decided by a poll in the first place.
>>
>> I'd bet there are less than a million chemists in the world.  Not that
>> it matters, I don't see any reason why being in a group which consists
>> of "millions" does not amount to notability.
>
> I'm confused by what is meant by "chemist" here. To me it normally
> means a pharmacist - someone who has a pharmacology degree and sells
> headache pills to customers. If you're talking about published
> academics, that's different...
>

A chemist would be a person who practices chemistry; a pharmacist is
someone who practices pharmacy.

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 551 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060511/ad25c028/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] Is this NPOV?

body:
On 5/11/06, jf_wikipedia at mac.com <jf_wikipedia at mac.com> wrote:
>
> On May 10, 2006, at 12:21 PM, Peter Jacobi wrote:
>
> > Quite often, when I stumble by accident into an article,
> > perhaps interwiki-ing from/to de.wikipedia, I find dozens
> > of weblinks and not a single book given, even when they are
> > easy to find, even for me.
> >
> > At some point of time we must stop trying to evolve
> > into a backup copy of the WWW and draw from other
> > sources.
>
> I agree, Peter.
>
> Too much emphasis is given to online sources. IMO, nothing beats a
> trip to the library.
>
> -- Jossi

That depends. In areas where things change books in libaries can be
horibly dated.

--
geni


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-05-11

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

Running test Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)... FAILED!
Running test Magic Word: {{NUMBEROFFILES}}... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled... FAILED!
Running test Language converter: output gets cut off unexpectedly (bug 5757)... FAILED!
Running test HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML ordered list, closed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested ordered list, closed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!

Passed 303 of 313 tests (96.81%) FAILED!


subject: [WikiEN-l] (no subject)

body:
Rudy Koot wrote:
> Harish Ganesan wrote:
>
>>The blocking policy was violated. I wrote in trivia
>>under Tony Banks (football player) that he is known
>>for his etopps 2001 card, which is the highest priced
>>in etopps history. Then user PS2pcGAMER just erased it
>>and did not allow me to edit anymore. This is in no
>>way a commercial thing. I was posting trivia, that is
>>all. It is an interesting fact.
>
>
> Sorry, but it seems that you were neiter blocked, nor has your addition
> to the trivia section been reverted.

You must mean the contributions you made anonymously using the IP
169.229.80.218. Looks like you did linkspam several other articles. You
have already been unblocked however.

Ruud


body:
First of all naming a category Criminals violates NPOV. Change it to something like People convicted of crime by a court. Then create any (objective and NPOV) subcategories you like and categorise articles into these. However we do not restrict categorisation into a parent category, such articles have to be manually recategorized.

  Molu

  On Wed, 10 May 2006 12:35:37 -0700, jf_wikipedia at mac.com wrote:

>I would like to hear your opinion on these categories and their
>compliance with [[Wikipedia:Categorization of people]]
>(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people)

>My concern is that people are using Category:Criminals //
>Category:American Criminals as a way to push negative POVs aginst
>such persons (regardless if the person is alive or dead). The reason
>for my concern is that it indiscriminately group people as diverse
>as person that was convicted from stealing a pair of jeans at Wal-
>Mart with serial killers, rapists and the like.

>See for example the bio of [[Ron_Karenga]] (http://en.wikipedia.org/
>wiki/Ron_Karenga). In his biography it is described that "in 1965,
>and in 1971 was convicted of felony assault of two of the group's
>female members, for which he spent time in prison", so he was added
>to the Category:Criminals. That IMO, is not acceptable.

>One possibility would be to restrict the addition to people to the
>main category "Criminals" and request that people are added to a
>specific sub-category of[[:Category:Criminals]]. And if such sub-
>category does not exists, either to create a new subcat, or simply
>not adding a category.

>I am interested to hear what other editors think on this matter, and
>what can be done to curtail abuse of this category.

>-- Jossi

---------------------------------
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger?s low  PC-to-Phone call rates.


from_name: Philip Welch

body:
On May 10, 2006, at 3:01 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:

> Guess the best I can do for my ego is sneak a photo of myself
> in somewhere, pretending I'm an innocent bystander who got in the way
> of a photo...)

Actually, there are pictures of me on Wikipedia, mainly modeling
certain gestures on [[Gesture]].

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


subject: [WikiEN-l] WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 34, Issue 98

body:
That would be *very* few. Only those who have access to water-cooled mainframes they can use for personal purposes. Numbers which are factorised now are immensely huge, far beyond the capability of Windows Calculator. I think posting a factorisation of such a number without sources would have to be deleted as not being reasonably verifiable.

  molu

  Message: 11
Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 21:28:22 +0000 (GMT)
From: Matt R
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia-X-Files
To: English Wikipedia
Message-ID: <20060510212822.34571.qmail at web25015.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Steve Bennett wrote:

> On 5/10/06, Matt R wrote:
> > I've got a feeling that the factorisation of an RSA number (either [[RSA-200]] or [[RSA-640]], I forget which) was scooped by Wikipedia last year; or
> > at least, I couldn't find any public announcement that predated it at the time.
> >
> > Incidentally, factorisations of challenge numbers are one of those exceedingly rare occasions where researchers can publish original research on
> > Wikipedia without it being a problem for us.

> Because readers can verify the fact by multiplying the numbers together?

Yes, or at least some can ;-)

-- Matt

---------------------------------
Get amazing travel prices for air and hotel in one click on Yahoo! FareChase


from_name: Mark Gallagher

body:
G'day Pete,

> There are many many admins who never do something sufficiently contentious
> to warrant the use of email. I personally have made admin actions numbering
> in the hundreds and have _never_ been emailled about them.
>
> Only if you are going to go round contentiously banning people do you need
> your email available....

I (like to think I) have never gone around "contentiously banning
people", but I receive emails about Wikipedia all the time ... sometimes
even when I'm on wikibreak.

Perhaps I just have an open, inviting face?

--
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.5.5/335 - Release Date: 9/05/2006


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] How to become wiki-notable

body:
On 5/11/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> How about being a hero?  If you rescue a woman and child from a
> burning building are you notable?

Not really. You might be able to dig out a few local news reports but
that is about it. Save around 3000 people then it appears you probably
do get an article [[Rick Rescorla]].

--
geni


body:
http://www.google.com/trends?q=wikipedia%2C+USA&ctab=0&date=all&geo=all

  Most graphs containing wikipedia look the same way. Wikipedia climbes from the bottom to overtake the competitor very recently.

  Molu

---------------------------------
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger?s low  PC-to-Phone call rates.


list: commons-l

from_name: Brianna Laugher

subject:
[Commons-l] Implementing a "soft block" (blocked from uploading
	only)

body:
Hello,

The ability to block a user from uploading only would be unbelievably
useful on the Commons. Blocking users alltogether is a bit silly for
(suspected) copyright violators/repeat offenders, since we want them
to still be able to add copyright info to image description pages.

EugeneZelenko just raised it again on the VP but I thought I would
raise it here since maybe a few more 'dev-types' read the mailing
list.

>From my extremely limited knowledge of MediaWiki, it seems like the
solution would be to create a usergroup 'bannedupload', and the only
different permission they have is ['upload'] = false.

But I don't know who has permission to change user groups (ie
add/remove people). Probably Bureaucrats by default since they make
sysops and bots. We would actually want this permission for
administrators, since they can block users, blocking uploads is a
lesser action. Seems like that might be trickier...

Any solution or comments are welcome here and/or at
http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4995 .

Brianna


body:
Ah, here we come back to our original argument. It is not possible to provide reasoning for inclusion or exclusion in this case, because the sole point here is notability. I think all MTG cards are notable, you think they are not. It is a pure-and-simple difference of perception about what Wikipedia should be. You assert the cards aren't notable, which means they should be deleted, to which I reply saying they are notable, which means they should not be deleted. No reasoning exists, no debates are possible because it's a matter of personal opinion. In this situation what avenue is left to us except counting votes to determine consensus?

  Molu

  On Thu, 11 May 2006 17:11:27 +1000, Mark Gallagher wrote:

>G'day Molu,

>> Please go ahead. All the information in available on the net nicely
>> catalogued, and even the images may qualify for fair use. A complete
>> database of MTG cards will be a popular section in WIkipedia. If
>> they're taken to AfD, rest assured at least I will be voting Keep.

>No, you won't, because AfD is not a vote. You may be arguing in favour
>of keep, but rest assured that your mere presence will not be enough to
>have any influence --- you'll have to actually provide some semblance of
>reasoning.

>--
>Mark Gallagher
>"What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
>- Danger Mouse

---------------------------------
Blab-away for as little as 1?/min. Make  PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.


from_name: John Lee

body:
Pete Bartlett wrote:

> <snip>
>
>>Last but not least, I've received emails from blocked editors asking me
>>to unblock them because admin X had blocked them "unfairly".
>>
>>
>
>Ditto
>These last two are better off done in public.
>
>
>
Well, it's an easy way to get an admin's attention when you're blocked.
Some blocked users may not be aware of {{unblock}}.

John


from_name: Mathias Schindler

body:
Google has released a great tool which lets you explore how other
people search. Or something like that.

It's free and it's fun. And of course, it is pointless :)

http://www.google.com/trends?q=wikipedia%2C+britannica%2C+encyclopedia&ctab=0&date=all&geo=DE


from_name: Phil Boswell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia-X-Files

body:
Pete Bartlett wrote:
>
> ---- Original Message ----
> From: Chris L?er <chris at zandria.net>
>>Many people must have known that this gene therapy patient died.
>>His/her relatives, hospital staff. I would guess that one of them
>>called a news reporter, who couldn't use the information because the
>>caller was anonymous and the official sources were still denying it.
>>So he decided to post it to Wikipedia and see what happened.
> Sounds like the medical profession needs its own equivalent to Popbitch.
>
Sounds like some of them think they have found such an alternative :-)
--
Phil
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Wikipedia-X-Files-t1590502.html#a4336430
Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at Nabble.com.


from_name: Steve Summit

body:
Minh Nguyen proposed:
>> {{#ifeq: [[{{NAMESPACE}}:{{lcfirst:{{PAGENAME}}}}]] |
>> {{:{{NAMESPACE}}:{{lcfirst:{{PAGENAME}}}}}} | | Did you mean
>> '''[[{{NAMESPACE}}:{{lcfirst:{{PAGENAME}}}}]]'''? }}

I replied:
> Oh!  Splendid!  I didn't know about those.  I'll... try this out.
> Thanks very much.

With a bit of tweaking (see below), this seems to work perfectly.
If you're curious, see

	http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cypriot
	http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Tamper
and
	http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nowordatall

for a demonstration.

I had to remove the explicit {{NAMESPACE}}: tag.  For whatever
reason, in the main namespace, that caused the comparison to
always be false, making the page always seem to exist, whether
it did nor not.  But removing the tag makes it work perfectly
for the main namespace.  (Removing the tag breaks it in the other
direction for the other namespaces, making the link almost always
fail, and the comparison always true, and the page therefore
never seeming to exist.  But that's actually a good thing, in
this context, since we probably don't want to display "Did you
mean?" for minorly-different capitalizations in the various
project namespaces.)

At some point, once Tim recovers from (or becomes inured to) his
horror at sending us down this slippery slope in this hell-bent
handbasket, we can think about introducing a proper built-in
{{exists:}} operator, to eliminate the need for the bizarre
compare-the-substitution-to-the-redlink hack.  (Though I *am*
appreciative of whoever devised it...)


body:
G'day Pete,
> Mark wrote:
>
>>I (like to think I) have never gone around "contentiously banning
>>people", but I receive emails about Wikipedia all the time ... sometimes
>>even when I'm on wikibreak.
>
>>Perhaps I just have an open, inviting face?
>
> Out of interest, what sort of emails do you get?

Oh, you know.  "ADMIN X HAS ABUSED HIS POWER", "You deleted article Y.
Could you please explain why?", "YOU THINK YOU CAN BLOCK ME?  I'M AT
UNIVERSITY, I AM.  YOU CAN'T BLOCK SHIT."  "Could you please intervene
at Z, I'm having trouble with some problem users."

It's a mixed bag.

<snip/>

--
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.5.5/335 - Release Date: 9/05/2006


from_name: Andrey Fedorov

subject: [Commons-l] Book Reference Commission

body:
Hi All,

Apologies in advance if this has been brought up already, but is there any
specific reason wikipedia doesn't use book references as a source of income?
Personally, and for many others I'm sure, this would make wikipedia a lot
more convenient, as a lot of times I'm looking up the same books I buy on
Amazon as topics I'm looking up on wikipedia. For example, I recently bought
Proofs From The Book, referenced here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schroeder-Bernstein_theorem

Had there been a direct link, I would have saved myself about 10 seconds of
opening an Amazon tab and searching for the book, and made Wikipedia a buck
or two.

It would also make good sense for there to be a strong correlation between
repeat customers on Amazon and frequent visitors on wikipedia (I know I am
both...).

Cheers,
Andrey
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20060511/f2674bb3/attachment.htm


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Is Wikipedia ok?

body:
On 5/11/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>   Hate to be the one asking that annoying question (and I don't have
> IRC access here) but just wondering whether I'm the only one seeing
> odd Wikipedia behaviour today/yesterday. The most common symptom is
> page timeout, but have also seen pages locked for editing
> (temporarily), and fr.wikipedia.org even delivered me a page in print
> mode when it wasn't requested.

To reduce our bandwidth costs in Tampa we've had to move image file
traffic for European visitors to the Amsterdam proxy squids. At the
moment they're overloaded, we're still working out how to rebalance
things there.

Everything works great here in America. :)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject:
[Foundation-l] The status of smaller languages on the Wikimedia
 Commons

body:
Birgitte SB wrote:

>--- Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Birgitte SB wrote:
>>
>>
>>Almost all rules should be open to change, because a
>>community thrives
>>on new ideas.  Very few rules should be the subject
>>of persistent enforcement.
>>
>>
>I believe you misunderstand me here.  I strongly
>believe that most policies should be up for
>reevaluation.  Many things seem like great ideas, or
>seem as though they would naturally go hand in hand
>until you actually start *working* on them.  Newcomers
>who active on a project are certainly welcome in my
>view.  I see them as future established users.  I
>think you have hit the nail on the head with "Good
>rules support existing practice rather than shape it."
> The problem with the original suggestion is such
>advertisement would atract people who have no
>understanding of existing practice. That is my
>concern.  I feel anyone familar with existing practice
>will be aware of policy disscussion through the normal
>in-project channels.
>
Fair enough.

>I have not really experienced "unending debates about
>policy".  Most proposals actually need little debate
>at all.  Maybe that is a scale issue.  I really am
>open to hear anyone interested in Wikisource to come
>add a voice to policy discussions.  But I would expect
>them to keep an eye on the Scriptorium.  Most
>everything that applies to Wikisource on a broader
>sense is disscused there.  Maybe I am wrong, but
>imagine a large scale advertisment would attract
>people who are more interested that Wikisource does
>something they believe it should than *how* it does
>something.  I am very much interested in the more
>pragmatic input which I believe requires some
>familarity with how Wikisource operates.
>
Maybe we're not as far apart as I suspected.  All the more reason to sit
down for a chat in Boston. :-)

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Is this NPOV?

body:
On 5/11/06, Jossi Fresco <jossifresco at mac.com> wrote:
>
> On May 10, 2006, at 4:14 PM, geni wrote:
>
> >> Too much emphasis is given to online sources. IMO, nothing beats a
> >> trip to the library.
> >>
> >> -- Jossi
> >
> > That depends. In areas where things change books in libaries can be
> > horibly dated.
>
> Maybe. But in WP, I would argue that we are better off with an
> outdated description from a reputable source, than a recent report
> from an online source that has not an established reputation.
>
> Of course, if we have a reputable on-line source, that is another
> matter.
>
> -- Jossi

What if I know the book source is outdated?

--
geni


from_name: Pete Bartlett

body:
----- Original Message ----
From: Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com>
>> Anyway, yes, I agree that all admins /should/ to have a valid email
>> contact address, and really ought to be de-adminned if they don't
>> provide one.

>Mark me as another approving of this if don't is replace by hasn't after
>repeated requests.  I think this also got strong consensus at that admin
>standards poll Radiant set up at the turn of the year.  Is it worth
>trying to roll this out?

The messages yesterday show that most uses of email are unwiki and
should be being _discouraged_ not encouraged. The exception to this
is blocking, where the blockee needs email as his own user talk page
and this mailing list may not sufficient avenues.

Thus the proposal must only apply to admins who block /not/ all admins.

Pete


from_name: Chad Perrin

subject: [Wikitech-l] Is Wikipedia ok?

body:
On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 12:43:04PM +0300, Domas Mituzas wrote:
>
> > On second thoughts I don't think it's printable mode, it looks like
> > some lower-cost fallback mode where the skin isn't used. All the
> > MediaWiki interface is missing, and the images are laid out in a
> > simpler way (text then image then text...).
>
> Or just failed to load .css file from squid - styling is done
> separately from documents with content.

I was going to offer the same possible explanation.  It sounds more like
lacking CSS than anything else from the description.

--
Chad Perrin [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
"It's just incredible that a trillion-synapse computer could actually
spend Saturday afternoon watching a football game." - Marvin Minsky


body:
----- Original Message ----
From: John Lee

  >I've been emailed by newbies who weren't aware of the existence of talk pages.

The monobook skin is designed by long-established users for long-established
users. It'd be great to make it more newbie friendly.

>Even if you don't plan to block on a regular (or even irregular) basis, you undoubtedly will have
>to block at one time or another eventually

Well here yet again is an example of equating "blocking admins" with "all admins".
I have been an admin for three years. I've blocked precisely one person (myself, to see what
happened), so your assertion just isn't true.

>, and it's better to have a valid email address prepared
>for that eventuality. I can't see any downside at all to this.

The proposal is to retroactively force admins into having an email address and de-admin them
if they don't. Admins who've previously prefered to keep their Wikipedia activities on Wikipedia
are being told that is not allowed. That is a downside.

A further downside is that email fosters

- distrust - witness the dis-ease when Raul conducted the discussion about whether to spam-block
the Wikitruth website via email.

- unilateral behaviour - obviously if one person has the information only one person can act on.

>If the
>concern is "unwiki" uses of email, well, I'm not entirely convinced of the efficacy of discouraging
>admins from having valid email addresses WRT handling this >ostensible problem.

I'm not going so far as actively discouraging it, indeed I am comfortable with it being encouraged
despite the downsides outlined above. However it is unreasonable to *demand* it.

Pete


subject: [Wikitech-l] Is Wikipedia ok?

body:
On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 01:09:36PM +0200, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 5/11/06, Chad Perrin <perrin at apotheon.com> wrote:
> > > Or just failed to load .css file from squid - styling is done
> > > separately from documents with content.
> >
> > I was going to offer the same possible explanation.  It sounds more like
> > lacking CSS than anything else from the description.
>
> I hadn't realised that CSS could add elements like the toolbars on the
> top and side, but there you go.

CSS is meant as a replacement for basically all presentation stuff in
web markup.  As such, it handles stuff like font formatting, layout
stuff previously handled by tables, positioning, and so on.  With a
tweaked CSS file, you could make Wikipedia pages entirely
unrecognizable.

--
Chad Perrin [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
"The first rule of magic is simple. Don't waste your time waving your
hands and hopping when a rock or a club will do." - McCloctnick the Lucid


subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright question - illegal publications

body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:

>On 5/10/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>
>
>>While there is an author and the "heirs and assigns"  (a debtor for
>>example) of an organization which may have legal claims there is
>>miniscule chance that any of them would come forth. I know of no
>>clause which excludes illegal publications from copyright protection.
>>If the article has substantial historical importance it would fall
>>under fair use.
>>
>>
>My thought was that the copyright in the US might have elapsed due to
>publication without a copyright notice.  But that's dependent on the
>status in the country of first publication, unless the work was
>published in the US within 30 days of that.
>
>OTOH, it would be tempting to use the strategy of "just do it and see
>if anyone complains", especially as this work seems to be the type
>that would stand alone and not taint other parts of the corpus.
>
In 1943 Palestine was still under British occupation.  The Ottomans were
already out of there.  Successor legislation would lie either with
Jordan or Israel.  Life +50 should apply if the newspaper was published
in Jordan or the Occupied Territories; life + 70 should apply in Israel
proper.

The illegality of the publication should not affect things unless the
publication was itself a copyright violation.  Another thing to look at
is whether the authors are given personal credit for their work, or
whether the entire publication is really the work of one identified
person.  In such cases one might need to check on what happened to the
author.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright?

body:
Mark Wagner wrote:

>On 5/8/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Guettarda wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 5/3/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>SPUI has repeatedly tagged http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sbekele
>>>>as a copyvio of http://www.cbsintl.com/people.htm.  I refused to
>>>>speedy it on that basis, so SPUI blanked it and added the copyvio
>>>>template.  Sbekele self-identifies as Sophia Bekele, CEO of CBS
>>>>International, and therefore presumably the copyright owner.  Since
>>>>this is user space, and the content is an "about us" bio, not
>>>>commercial content, I think that blanking and deletion are a bit
>>>>excessive.  On the other hand, copyright is copyright I guess.  What
>>>>does the panel think?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Yeah, it's a copyvio.  Since the user doesn't appear to have explicitly
>>>released the material under a GFDL-compatible license, and since the user
>>>has not provided an proof that they are who they say they are, it's correct
>>>to consider it a copyvio.  Please note, the original says:
>>>
>>>*Copyright (c) 1997-2005 CBS International All rights reserved.*
>>>
>>>
>>Such notices are irrelevant to the determination of whether something is
>>copyright, except perhaps in establishing when the copyright will
>>expire, but that problem is moot until 2067.
>>
>>Release under GFDL is implicit whenever anyone saves an edit.  Why
>>should it be any more explicit in this case?
>>
>>
>Because they may not own the copyright in the first place.  If you
>don't own the copyright, you can't release your contributions under
>the GFDL -- it's why we delete copy-and-pastes from Britannica.
>
It wasn't stated before that the material was from Britannica.  I was
under the impression that it was from another source.  In the more
general situation when a person grants a license under GFDL it includes
a prima facie claim that he has the right to make that grant.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright?

body:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:

>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>
>>Whether she is who she says she is is more problematic.  What kind of
>>proof are you looking for?  Can we ever be sure that anyone who posts
>>with his "real" name is identifying himself truthfully?  "Assume good
>>faith" favours keeping the material.  If you doubt the good faith, you
>>would do better by trying to contact the person through independant
>>channels.
>>
>>
>"Assume good faith" ignores one important fact: people lie.
>
The general statement that "people lie" is true enough, but the majority
don't usually lie.  In specific circumstances it would be unjust to
begin with the assumption that that person lied.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] NPOV majorities/minorities

body:
Cheney Shill wrote:

>Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>    Cheney Shill wrote:
>
>very fact that you turned a non-ambiguous scenario into an ambiguous scenario is evidence that the process itself is far too ambiguous. It's not just you; I have not gotten 1 straight answer on this. Are we not supposed to be judging and reporting on the facts as they are, not as we think they should be?~~~~Pro-Lick
>    >
>    Reporting yes; judging no.
>
>So we should "report" the facts as we think they should be, not as they are?
>
"Reporting facts" is a subtle variation from "reporting on the facts".
We only report opinions and points of view which we attempt to
consolidate into a neutral point of view.  Reporting the facts
themselves could very well be original research.

>     Ambiguity is a fact of life; learn to live with it!
>
>So is bias.  Yet we have something called NPOV.  So is rumor and hoax, yet we have verifiability.  It appears there are contributors having learning issues living with policy.~~~~Pro-Lick
>
NPOV has plenty of room for ambiguity.  If everyone saw things the same
way NPOV would be redundant.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] NPOV majorities/minorities

body:
Cheney Shill wrote:

>Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>    I still think you've entirely missed the point of what I mean by
>    "social interaction." Wikipedia works because people come together,
>
>Then don't use "social interaction".  How about some words that generally encapsulate whatever it is your point is?  After reading the current reply, I didn't see any other point.
>
To me it's clear that "social interaction" does "generally encapsulate"
his point, which was very well phrased.

>    Wikipedia works because people come together
>    contribute information, edit information, squabble over it, have
>    little arguments, e-mail each other, organize list serves, organize
>    chats, use elaborate guidelines and rule structures to get what they
>
>Again, that's why you think it works.  Repeating this over and over isn't the same as verifiability.  I think you're mistaking the means with the end.  We've been over this.  Source it.  I'm not interested in socializing about it.
>
Scholarly opposing points of view will engage in verifiability wars.
Social interaction is indeed a means for approaching an end that is only
rarely reached, if it exists at all.

>    All of this would fall under "social interaction" in the standard
>
>So your point is "social interaction".  Start a new email thread with that subject and enjoy.  You won't have to "exhaust" yourself for my social development because I won't be socially interacting with it.  This email subject is very clearly about applying existing policy and how consensus obstructs and interferes with doing so.  I do appreciate you providing an interactive case study.~~~~Pro-Lick
>
While I find social interaction to be an inteeesting process, I don't
gove a damn about your social development.  When we lament that
"consensus obstructs and interferes" with the application of policy we
have clearly lost our ability to apply common sense.  It suggests that
policy should prevail no matter how ridiculous the results.

Ec


from_name: Elliott F. Cable

subject: [Wikitech-l] Is Wikipedia ok?

body:
See this:
http://meta.enterwiki.net/
Just an example of the power of CSS (-:

On May 11, 2006, at 3:12 AM, Chad Perrin wrote:

> On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 01:09:36PM +0200, Steve Bennett wrote:
>> On 5/11/06, Chad Perrin <perrin at apotheon.com> wrote:
>>>> Or just failed to load .css file from squid - styling is done
>>>> separately from documents with content.
>>>
>>> I was going to offer the same possible explanation.  It sounds
>>> more like
>>> lacking CSS than anything else from the description.
>>
>> I hadn't realised that CSS could add elements like the toolbars on
>> the
>> top and side, but there you go.
>
> CSS is meant as a replacement for basically all presentation stuff in
> web markup.  As such, it handles stuff like font formatting, layout
> stuff previously handled by tables, positioning, and so on.  With a
> tweaked CSS file, you could make Wikipedia pages entirely
> unrecognizable.
>
> --
> Chad Perrin [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
> "The first rule of magic is simple. Don't waste your time waving your
> hands and hopping when a rock or a club will do." - McCloctnick the
> Lucid
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] NPOV majorities/minorities

body:
Cheney Shill wrote:

>I'm not, nor have I ever argued, that consensus should bypass policy.  I'm simply repeating the claim made by Fastfission and the majority of admins and users I've had contact with while editing that consensus is more important than policy.  Fastfission seemed to be paraphrasing the beginning of the consensus guideline that says "Wikipedia works by building consensus." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus  I'm not sure when that was put in or if it was snuck in at some point, but given what the rest of the guideline states, not to mention policies, it's definitely taken out of context.  Maybe the fix is simply removing that sentence.  This view seems so prevalent, however, it probably wouldn't be taken seriously unless Jimmy himself emailed every admin with an attached photo of a clue bat.
>
>Anyway, I'm open to suggestions on how to solve it.~~~~Pro-Lick
>
In other words you would gut the policy by removing its most important
feature.  Consensus guides the _proper application_ of policies, or more
importantly principles.  While principles should remain fairly stable,
policies should be more adaptable.

Ec


from_name: Guettarda

subject: [WikiEN-l] How to become wiki-notable

body:
On 5/11/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 5/11/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > I'm sure the *shortest* road would involve something about you that we
> > don't know about.
>
> Hmm, I don't think my juggling skills are going to set the world on
> fire anytime soon. :)
>
> Actually I've got one - a protest that gets wide attention. The guy
> who dressed up as batman in Buckingham Palace probably got an article.
> I bet that's it - not too much effort, big publicity/notoriety.

How about: create an anti-Wikipedia website, publicise it through Wikipedia,
make lots of noise about "abuses" in WP, use Wikipedia to increase the
stature of your anti-WP website...


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [WikiEN-l] How to become wiki-notable

body:
On 5/11/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> Sure, if I was born to Princess Di, I probably wouldn't have to do
> anything at all. But from where I am now, what's the shortest road to
> doing something worthy enough to get a whole article about me?

I'm sure the *shortest* road would involve something about you that we
don't know about.  For a reasonably intelligent person it's probably
not that hard if you're dedicated enough.  How hard depends a lot on
your field of expertise though.  If your field of expertise involves
creating popular geeky websites, for instance, joining the ranks of
[[Raph Levien]] and [[Rusty Foster]] probably isn't that hard.  If
your field is not as popular to Wikipedia admins, then you'd have to
work on this more in your spare time.

Anthony


subject: [WikiEN-l] How to become wiki-notable

body:
On 5/11/06, Russell Blackford <russellblackford at bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> Wikipedia has a systemic bias to do with anything to do with the media and
> entertainment (including professional sport). The easiest way, it seems,
> is
> to write some articles for a popular-ish magazine with a print run of
> 5000+.
> That isn't beyond the bounds of human possibility for anyone who has the
> skills to be a regular Wikipedia editor. Almost everyone I know over the
> age
> of 30 meets that criterion.
>
> Somewhat harder, but still do-able, is to write some obscure and ephemeral
> novels that nonetheless appear in mass market paperback editions, with
> sales
> of over 5000.
>
> Ironically, you can meet those criteria while not being considered notable
> for important articles in academic journals, or even important academic
> books, which commonly have print runs of less than 5000 but may end up
> having a lot more long-term, real-world impact.

Yeah, that's really sad.  I didn't realise there was this disparity between
publication in the popular press and publication for academics.  But it
makes some sense - publishing something in a magazine gets you noticed


from_name: Cheney Shill

subject: [WikiEN-l] NPOV majorities/minorities

body:
Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
    gove a damn about your social development. When we lament that
    "consensus obstructs and interferes" with the application of policy we
    have clearly lost our ability to apply common sense. It suggests that
    policy should prevail no matter how ridiculous the results.

Yet policy is determined by consensus, so you're arguing that consensus is unable to determine policy that will not provide ridiculous results.

Provide some actual examples where policy alone prevailed and the results were ridiculous.~~~~Pro-Lick

---------------------------------
Blab-away for as little as 1?/min. Make  PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.


from_name: Daniel R. Tobias

body:
On 10 May 2006 at 16:53, "Mark Wagner" <carnildo at gmail.com> wrote:

> We're not yet more popular than sex, though:
>
> http://www.google.com/trends?q=wikipedia%2C+sex%2C+drugs%2C+rock+and+roll&ctab=0&date=all&geo=all

However, we're more popular than Jesus:

http://www.google.com/trends?q=wikipedia%2C+jesus&ctab=0&date=all&geo=all

And, more popular than the Beatles too:

http://www.google.com/trends?q=wikipedia%2C+beatles&ctab=0&date=all&geo=all

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] NPOV majorities/minorities

body:
Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

    Cheney Shill wrote:
    >I'm not, nor have I ever argued, that consensus should bypass policy. I'm simply repeating the claim made by Fastfission and the majority of admins and users I've had contact with while editing that consensus is more important than policy. Fastfission seemed to be paraphrasing the beginning of the consensus guideline that says "Wikipedia works by building consensus." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus I'm not sure when that was put in or if it was snuck in at some point, but given what the rest of the guideline states, not to mention policies, it's definitely taken out of context. Maybe the fix is simply removing that sentence. This view seems so prevalent, however, it probably wouldn't be taken seriously unless Jimmy himself emailed every admin with an attached photo of a clue bat.
    >
    >Anyway, I'm open to suggestions on how to solve it.~~~~Pro-Lick
    >
    In other words you would gut the policy by removing its most important
    feature. Consensus guides the _proper application_ of policies, or more
    importantly principles. While principles should remain fairly stable,
    policies should be more adaptable.

In actual words, consensus is a guideline, not policy.  The importance of the sentence is your opinion.  It actually contradicts the rest the guideline itself, which means that the guideline should be truncated to that one sentence only or that sentence needs to go.~~~~Pro-Lick

"It is assumed that editors working toward consensus are pursuing a consensus that is consistent with Wikipedia's basic policies and principles - especially NPOV."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_vs._other_policies

---------------------------------
Blab-away for as little as 1?/min. Make  PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.


from_name: Prasad J

subject: [WikiEN-l] Is this NPOV?

body:
> Why don't you guys put this question to a few Indian Wikipedians and guage the reaction? As I said, I am from India and I can assure you he is a revered person here. This issue may be seen by Hindu Wikipedians (there are quite a few on Wikipedia) as a show of disrespect to Shree Sathya Sai Baba and may. Please let the matter rest.
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia in the pop culture

body:
I'm running into an increasing number of mentions of Wikipedia in pop-
cultural contexts these days.  Two recent examples:

In Simpsons Comics #117, there is this exchange:

Lisa: Say, aren't you Hank Scorpio, the criminal mastermind?

Hank: I prefer the term "Entrepreneurial mastermind", but yes, that's
me.

Lisa: You blackmailed the federal government into giving you control
of the American east coast.  Now everyone thinks you are dead.

Hank: Aren't you adorable?  We're all about to be shot as escaped
prisoners, and you're reciting my entry in the Wikipedia.  I hope
you're proud of her, Homer.  She's great!

The other was on a recent Colbert Report on Comedy Central, where
Colbert was talking about Sigmund Freud, and proudly announced that
he had prepared for the segment by reading Freud's *entire* Wikipedia
entry, even the accurate parts.

I think Wikipedia has achieved the pop-cultural status of being
suitable for mention in humorous (and not entirely flattering)
contexts; it seems to have a connotation something like "I've
achieved a shallow, superficial, and quite likely inaccurate
understanding of a subject the lazy way... and I'm damn proud of it!"

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


from_name: geni

body:
On 5/11/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/11/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Get a gun start killing people (idealy kids) in a first world
> > anglophile nation. Or just kill one person of significance. In terms
> > of short term effort crime is probably your best bet. Second would be
> > dying in some notable way. Throw yourself under GWB's motercade or
> > something.
>
> That's a lot of effort. Actually I suspect that causing a
> Seigenthalergate would be the easiest.

Doubtful. You would have to be rather lucky. Most bio errors don't
have that effect.

> Which level? How many papers do you need?

Equivert to UK proffessor

> Yep. Best to make it look accidental, lest anyone catch onto my devillish plan.

Personal I tend to avoid uploading photos that contian people that can
be linked to me in any way shape or form.
--
geni


from_name: jf_wikipedia at mac.com

body:
On May 11, 2006, at 12:19 AM, Molu wrote:

> First of all naming a category Criminals violates NPOV. Change it
> to something like People convicted of crime by a court. Then create
> any (objective and NPOV) subcategories you like and categorise
> articles into these. However we do not restrict categorisation into
> a parent category, such articles have to be manually recategorized.
>
>   Molu

Would you be kind enough to suggest moving [[:Category:Criminals]] to
[[:Category:People convicted of crime]]?

-- Jossi


subject: [WikiEN-l] How to bring back people who don't want to bother?

body:
On May 11, 2006, at 7:26 AM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

> The fundamental problem in my view is that some people think their
> right to free speech somehow trumps policy, and that policy should not
> in any case be interpreted to include how users interact with each
> other.

I have observed that behavior in many contributors (asserting a right
to free speech, to bypass policy), newbies and experienced editors.
That is one of the myths that we need to clarify once and for all.

-- Jossi


subject: [WikiEN-l] Are these userbox templates NPOV?

body:
Prasad J <prasad59 at gmail.com> wrote: I noticed that there exists a userbox template {{User America fan}}-
to indicate that the concerned user supports the U.S. However,

It's POV, contributes nothing to the encyclopedic content, and it should be speedy deleted.

The views expressed here are those of a U.S. born, raised, and current citizen.~~~~Pro-Lick

---------------------------------
Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone  calls to 30+ countries for just 2?/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.


from_name: Steve Bennett

body:
On 5/10/06, Ilmari Karonen <nospam at vyznev.net> wrote:
> We currently instruct blocked users to contact the blocking admin by
> e-mail if they wish to dispute the block or find themselves blocked as
> "collateral damage".  For such people, finding that the admin who
> blocked them refuses to accept e-mail is adding insult to injury.

Do you agree with me that email is not necessarily a quicker way to
reach certain admins? I can't be the only editor who checks my
Wikipedia mail more frequently than my email? :)

> I agree that, for admins who never block users and never perform any
> even potentially controversial admin actions, an e-mail address is not
> absolutely necessary.  I do believe that's a rather small minority.

A simple solution: if a user complains that they couldn't reach an
admin because he hadn't validated his email address, *and* that admin
had already been warned about it, then punishment (desysopping,
temporarily or permanently) could be discussed. Otherwise, it seems
excessive.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] The lovely world of celebrities

body:
On 5/11/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> Get a gun start killing people (idealy kids) in a first world
> anglophile nation. Or just kill one person of significance. In terms
> of short term effort crime is probably your best bet. Second would be
> dying in some notable way. Throw yourself under GWB's motercade or
> something.

That's a lot of effort. Actually I suspect that causing a
Seigenthalergate would be the easiest.

> They are not. All academics above a certian level are generaly
> accapted as notable

Which level? How many papers do you need?

> Find somewhere near you with an article then take a photo of yourself
> next to some monument there and upload it to wikipedia.

Yep. Best to make it look accidental, lest anyone catch onto my devillish plan.

Steve


from_name: Guillaume Paumier

body:
On 5/11/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I can't be the only editor who checks my
> Wikipedia mail more frequently than my email? :)

you aren't :)

wikipediholism is such a severe disease... I've just discovered
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Hotel_Wikipedia

~~~~ ;)

On 5/11/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 5/10/06, Ilmari Karonen <nospam at vyznev.net> wrote:
> > We currently instruct blocked users to contact the blocking admin by
> > e-mail if they wish to dispute the block or find themselves blocked as
> > "collateral damage".  For such people, finding that the admin who
> > blocked them refuses to accept e-mail is adding insult to injury.
>
> Do you agree with me that email is not necessarily a quicker way to
> reach certain admins? I can't be the only editor who checks my
> Wikipedia mail more frequently than my email? :)
>
> > I agree that, for admins who never block users and never perform any
> > even potentially controversial admin actions, an e-mail address is not
> > absolutely necessary.  I do believe that's a rather small minority.
>
> A simple solution: if a user complains that they couldn't reach an
> admin because he hadn't validated his email address, *and* that admin
> had already been warned about it, then punishment (desysopping,
> temporarily or permanently) could be discussed. Otherwise, it seems
> excessive.
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Guillom
"Je sers la science et c'est ma joie" - Basile le Disciple
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guillom


body:
On 5/11/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
> Actually, there are pictures of me on Wikipedia, mainly modeling
> certain gestures on [[Gesture]].

Better [[Gesture]] than [[Penis]] ... !

Steve


body:
Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
    "Divisive or inflammatory" userboxen are being deleted every day; it's
    easier to make the case that "I hate X" is divise or inflammatory than
    it is to make the same case against "I love X". That's the reason for
    the perceived bias.

So, rather than delete, make more userboxes with "love" and "fan" in them.  Woo hoo.  See how long it takes "I love America Spying On Me" or "AmericaWiretapFan" or "LoveAmericanIntelligence" to get deleted.  I'm assuming that "LoveAmericansOnTheirKnees" would be widely accepted. ;)~~~Pro-Lick

---------------------------------
Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone  calls to 30+ countries for just 2?/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.


from_name: Matt Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright status of GPS coordinates

body:
On 5/11/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> If a collection of facts contains a creative selection or arrangement, it
> is copyrightable.

The selection or arrangement of those facts is, more precisely.  The
individual facts themselves are still not protected.

-Matt


from_name: Robert Rapplean

subject: [Wikitech-l] Threads: any plans

body:
On 5/9/06, Phil Harnish <philharnish at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure about anyone else following this conversation, but I
> applied to this project for the Google Summer of Code. It sounds like
> you put a lot of thought into the subject and I would be pretty
> interested to hear some of your ideas (or a see demo).

Always happy to explain it to people.  I've submitted an abstract to the
Wikimania conference for a 30 minute presentation, will be releasing a
podcast explaining the idea some time around the beginning of next month,
and have quite a bit of design work done in a wiki at http://www.
consensusengine.org/wiki

I already dropped a rather long description of it on this list, so I'll send
you more details in person.  I really need to update the base content of the
main site, too, and will probably do that as I build the content for the
podcast.

-Robert


subject: [WikiEN-l] How to become wiki-notable

body:
On 5/11/06, Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:
> How about: create an anti-Wikipedia website, publicise it through Wikipedia,
> make lots of noise about "abuses" in WP, use Wikipedia to increase the
> stature of your anti-WP website...

Apparently while that's enough to get your website into the
encyclopedia, it's not enough to get yourself into the encyclopedia.

Anthony


body:
On 5/11/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
> This site http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=9179 says "Do
> not re-post this data on other web sites without permission of the
> submitter." My question is, are GPS coords subject to copyright? Are
> we not entitled to republish interesting coords on the basis that they
> are "information" rather than an "expression"?
>
One GPS coordinate isn't subject to copyright.  A collection of ones
that someone finds interesting probably is.

Anthony


from_name: Ben Lowe

body:
I'm sure a lawyer such as Mr. Abramson or a font of knowledge such as Mr.
Smith can confirm this, but it is my understanding that lists of factual
information are ineligible for copyright; a work must be an "original work
of authorship."  Phone books, for instance, are not eligible for copyright.
I would imagine this list falls under the same blanket of ineligibility (an
insecurity blanket?).

Ben

On 5/11/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
> On 5/11/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > This site http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=9179 says "Do
> > not re-post this data on other web sites without permission of the
> > submitter." My question is, are GPS coords subject to copyright? Are
> > we not entitled to republish interesting coords on the basis that they
> > are "information" rather than an "expression"?
> >
> One GPS coordinate isn't subject to copyright.  A collection of ones
> that someone finds interesting probably is.
>
> Anthony
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>