subject: [WikiEN-l] Apologies to David Gerard...

body:
maru dubshinki wrote:

>On 4/17/06, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com> wrote:
>...
>
>
>>Coming in 2007, Dan Brown's _Jimbo Code_:
>>
>>"A WP:OFFICE action in the silent after-hour pages of Wikipedia
>>reveals a sinister plot to uncover a secret that has been protected by
>>a clandestine society since the days of Nupedia. The victim is a
>>high-ranking rouge admin of this ancient cabal who, in the moments
>>before being banned, manages to leave gruesome clues at the scene that
>>only his grandson, noted vandal Willy von Wheels, and Mr. Treason, a
>>famed troll, can untangle. The duo become both suspects and detectives
>>searching for not only Willy's grandfather's blocker but also the
>>stunning secret of the encyclopedia he was charged to protect. Mere
>>steps ahead of the ArbCom and the deadly competition, the mystery
>>leads Willy and Treason on a breathless flight through AFD, RFA, and
>>the edit history of [[Wikipedia]] itself."
>>
>>(with apologies to the Amazon.com review department)
>>
>>Kirill Lokshin
>>
>>
>Would it be spoiling the plot to mention that the secret the cabal is
>trying to suppress is nothing less than the destruction of the Sacred
>Vandalism in religion, and the hidden truth that Wikipedia is
>Communism?
>
He did say it was a "rouge" admin.

Ec


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Finally,
 we are exposed. Wikipedia is a CIA project. Or something like that

body:
Ben Lowe wrote:

>Yeah, it's only a matter of time before they discover those black-ops speedy
>deletions we were making in [[Category:Cambodia]] while we claimed we were
>trying to get [[Vietnam]] up to featured-article status.
>
Proh?as would not have given any greater credit to white-ops.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Georgia/Victoria

body:
Justin Cormack wrote:

>On 16 Apr 2006, at 18:11, Steve Bennett wrote:
>
>
>>On 16/04/06, Matt Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 4/16/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>So I'm not convinced that the rule "pragmatic disambiguation over
>>>>presumed importance" is applied all that consistency.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Sounds like some head-beating is necessary, but I already have way
>>>too
>>>much of this to do.
>>>
>>>
>>You're not talking about mine, are you? :) I'm happy to beat people
>>with a fixed rule, but I'd like more confirmation that this rule
>>actually exists and is accepted by the community. There is the
>>guideline on disambig pages, but it's fairly vague. A hard-line "a
>>city does *not* get priority over a cheese if most people would expect
>>the cheese" would be helpful.
>>
>>
>I would find it very odd that something named after something else
>should ever get priority.
>
>However obscure the original is, like Camembert, or Jethro Tull, I
>think it should be at the article place.
>
I agree.  Head-beating on this subject is too likely to result in
headcheese.  See http://www.cooks.com/rec/search/0,1-0,headcheese,FF.html

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Georgia/Victoria

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:

>On 17/04/06, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I would find it very odd that something named after something else
>>should ever get priority.
>>
>>However obscure the original is, like Camembert, or Jethro Tull, I
>>think it should be at the article place. (Actually Jethro Tull is
>>now a dab page).
>>
>>
>Ok, so you're in favour of us making a judgment about which page
>"deserves" the title as the main article? Personally, I feel that this
>is the more "encyclopaedic" road. The alternative, prioritising the
>page that most visitors/editors visit/expect, is the more "pragmatic"
>road.
>
>To me, the fact that "Camembert" pulls up a stub article on an
>entirely unremarkable commune in France is surprising. Perhaps a
>similar surprise to that that would be experienced by Americans
>visiting "Georgia" and finding the birthplace of Stalin. The question
>is, is this surprise good or bad?
>
>Alternatively put, is Wikipedia bound by the principle of least surprise?
>
The conflict does not simply lie in that principle, but in the fact that
not all people will be surprised in the same way.

Ec


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Platonides

subject: [Wikitech-l] Unusual stats on "empty" 1.6.3

body:
At a just-setup mediawiki-1.6.3:

There are 1,364 total pages in the database. This includes "talk" pages,
pages about Mywiki, minimal "stub" pages, redirects, and others that
probably don't qualify as content pages. Excluding those, there are 0 pages
that are probably legitimate content pages.

0 files have been uploaded.

There have been a total of 3 page views, and 0 page edits since the wiki was
setup. That comes to 0.00 average edits per page, and 0.00 views per edit.

The job queue length is 0.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Georgia/Victoria

body:
Justin Cormack wrote:

>On 17 Apr 2006, at 11:54, Steve Bennett wrote:
>
>
>>Alternatively put, is Wikipedia bound by the principle of least
>>surprise?
>>
>>
>Actually I am probably in favour of the principle of most surprise. Let
>people find out about stuff they dont know about. If we put Georgia the
>country at Georgia, people might get interested in a country with a
>cuisine based around pomegranates and walnuts. They can speculate as
>to why Jethro Tull named themselves after an agriculturalist, and
>learn about the lesser known [[Claude L?vi-Strauss]].
>
Lesser known?  The anthropologist is clearly better known.

Ec


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [WikiEN-l] Apologies to David Gerard...

body:
The way I interpret is that a system at an IP the Wikitruth people
believe to belong to David Gerard made a large download (probably a
scraping, possibly a series of Mediawiki XML downloads via the
Special:Export feature)  of their wiki.  They thought they'd make a
wry joke out of it.

Bizarrely, some of the numbskulls at Wikipedia Review have interpreted
the sign on that site mentioning David, along with Orlowski's comment
that he believes it to be run by "Skip...[a] 30-year-old Silicon
Valley IT professional...along with a dozen other Wikipedia
administrators", to mean that David is involved, and constructed a
strange conspiracy theory that has David Gerard, and by extension the
entire Wikipedia Cabal, running WikiTruth as a kind of humor site.


list: foundation-l

from_name: Dirk Riehle

subject: [Foundation-l] [Wikitech-l] Google Summer of Code

body:
At 17.04.2006, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>Dirk Riehle wrote:
>
> >>can falter.  Additionally, as the Mozilla note mentioned,
> >>contributions that aren't part of the mainline will likely bitrot.  (I
> >>don't have a solution to this; just a cautionary note.)
> >>
> >>
> >Well, the main solution is to create an ecosystem where people get
> >hired to work (full-time) on providing such extensions (or additions
> >to the mainline) to MediaWiki. Only this setup can provide some continuity.
>...
>What could be more important is to ensure that anything done for free
>stays free.  It would be shameful to have volunteer efforts tied up by
>someone else's patents.

Is that mostly a legal concern? (I.e. ambiguity of OSS licenses?)

I firmly believe that "commercial open-source software" won't fly in
the long run; most companies won't reach escape velocity. (Commercial
OSS defined here as software where a company keeps control over the
software, e.g. MySQL's dual-license model. MySQL is a notable
exception where it works because they got into the game early.)

What you need is an Eclipse Foundation like setup where large
corporations/system integrators make money on complementary services
and therefore can afford "altruistic" contributions to a real
open-source project like MediaWiki. Well, not only "afford" but "have to". :-)

Dirk


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: maru dubshinki

subject: [WikiEN-l] Apologies to David Gerard...

body:
On 4/17/06, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com> wrote:
...
> Coming in 2007, Dan Brown's _Jimbo Code_:
>
> "A WP:OFFICE action in the silent after-hour pages of Wikipedia
> reveals a sinister plot to uncover a secret that has been protected by
> a clandestine society since the days of Nupedia. The victim is a
> high-ranking rouge admin of this ancient cabal who, in the moments
> before being banned, manages to leave gruesome clues at the scene that
> only his grandson, noted vandal Willy von Wheels, and Mr. Treason, a
> famed troll, can untangle. The duo become both suspects and detectives
> searching for not only Willy's grandfather's blocker but also the
> stunning secret of the encyclopedia he was charged to protect. Mere
> steps ahead of the ArbCom and the deadly competition, the mystery
> leads Willy and Treason on a breathless flight through AFD, RFA, and
> the edit history of [[Wikipedia]] itself."
>
> (with apologies to the Amazon.com review department)
>
> Kirill Lokshin

Would it be spoiling the plot to mention that the secret the cabal is
trying to suppress is nothing less than the destruction of the Sacred
Vandalism in religion, and the hidden truth that Wikipedia is
Communism?

~maru
SOLLOG KNEW THAT THE TRUTH ABOUT WIKIPEDIA WOULD BE DISCOVERED ONE DAY.


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] EOL style in Subversion

body:
I notice a few new files recently have been checked in with DOS line endings.

While Subversion does provide for conversion of EOL sequences for the local
operating system style, unlike CVS it's not set by default for newly added
files. Some quick directions on turning it on:

http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Subversion/auto-props

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060417/ccee3960/attachment.pgp>


subject: [Wikitech-l] broken documentation links

body:
?var Arnfj?r? Bjarmason wrote:
> I deleted that stuff because we were running out of space and it was
> taking up a lot.
>
> It could be set up elsewhere, but was anyone actually using that stuff?

FYI, I tried running phpdoc over the current code and found it breaking the
memory limit of 256 megabytes I have set on my server.

We might want to consider a new documentation parser that can handle our code. :)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060417/f3c3cf86/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Nathaniel Sheetz

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Finally,
	we are exposed. Wikipedia is a CIA project. Or something like that

body:
Don't you get it?  The US is the only evil force in the world today (just
ask the New York Times or the Daily Mirror), so it follows that something as
diabolical as Wikipedia could only have originiated from one place.

Nathaniel

On 4/17/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> US intelligence? Why do people like this always focus on the US?
> We couldn't have done this with the help of so many other countries'
> secret intelligence ops.
>
> Mgm
>
> On 4/17/06, Josh Gordon <user.jpgordon at gmail.com> wrote:
> > This would be Les Sachs writing. See:
> >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive90#Accusations
> > of libel and fraud in article space
> >
> > --
> > --jpgordon ????
> >
> >
> >
> > On 4/17/06, Mathias Schindler <neubau at presroi.de> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.gossip.celebrities/msg/9f1da2e6d4ad21f3?&hl=en&q=insubject%3Awikipedia
> > >
> > > Wikipedia and the CIA - How US Intelligence Can Embed in Wikipedia,
> > > Plant Propaganda, Delete Facts, Deceive and Attack US Citizens
> > >
> > > Wikipedia An Ultimate Trojan Horse for CIA and US Government on the
> > > Internet
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Nathaniel C. Sheetz
http://www.personal.psu.edu/ncs124


subject: [WikiEN-l] Apologies to David Gerard...

body:
On 4/17/06, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ...manages to leave gruesome clues at the scene that
> only his grandson, noted vandal Willy von Wheels, and Mr. Treason, a
> famed troll, can untangle.

With the inevitable breathtaking climax filmed in Trenton, New Jersey,
no expense spared.  Docket number available on request.


from_name: Evan Prodromou

subject:
[Foundation-l] Corporate contributions (was Re: [Wikitech-l] Google
	Summer of	Code)

body:
On Sun, 2006-16-04 at 15:52 +0200, Dirk Riehle wrote:

> Well, the main solution is to create an ecosystem where people get
> hired to work (full-time) on providing such extensions (or additions
> to the mainline) to MediaWiki. Only this setup can provide some continuity.

As far as I know, there are 1-2 programmers working for Wikimedia and
more people working at Wikia on MediaWiki. I just talked today with Jack
Herrick of wikiHow who'd like to see their additions fed back to
MediaWiki.

There are a lot of MW installations out there, and a lot of people
hacking MW code for fun and profit.

>  But for that to work the MediaWiki
> community needs be accepting of (corporate) contributions (assuming
> they follow the licenses and community spirit).

I'm pretty sure that this isn't a problem whatsoever. To be sure, the
main focus of MW has been and will always be Wikimedia's sites, but I
know that the MW team has been very welcoming of patches and additions
at least from Wikitravel in the past.

I think the most likely patches and changes to be accepted are going to
be security and/or performance patches, or extensions that can be easily
plugged and unplugged. Radical changes to the behaviour of the software,
or stuff that's "unwiki", or stuff that is unstable or slows down the
software, is probably not going to get accepted.

> Are there any examples or even defined processes (on meta?) that I
> could look up?

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_extensions

I think just adding a patch to a bug on bugzilla is the fastest way to
get something added to the codebase.

~Evan

--
Evan Prodromou <evan at prodromou.name>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20060417/7e7d70d5/attachment.pgp


body:
On Sun, 2006-16-04 at 15:52 +0200, Dirk Riehle wrote:

> Well, the main solution is to create an ecosystem where people get
> hired to work (full-time) on providing such extensions (or additions
> to the mainline) to MediaWiki. Only this setup can provide some continuity.

As far as I know, there are 1-2 programmers working for Wikimedia and
more people working at Wikia on MediaWiki. I just talked today with Jack
Herrick of wikiHow who'd like to see their additions fed back to
MediaWiki.

There are a lot of MW installations out there, and a lot of people
hacking MW code for fun and profit.

>  But for that to work the MediaWiki
> community needs be accepting of (corporate) contributions (assuming
> they follow the licenses and community spirit).

I'm pretty sure that this isn't a problem whatsoever. To be sure, the
main focus of MW has been and will always be Wikimedia's sites, but I
know that the MW team has been very welcoming of patches and additions
at least from Wikitravel in the past.

I think the most likely patches and changes to be accepted are going to
be security and/or performance patches, or extensions that can be easily
plugged and unplugged. Radical changes to the behaviour of the software,
or stuff that's "unwiki", or stuff that is unstable or slows down the
software, is probably not going to get accepted.

> Are there any examples or even defined processes (on meta?) that I
> could look up?

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_extensions

I think just adding a patch to a bug on bugzilla is the fastest way to
get something added to the codebase.

~Evan

--
Evan Prodromou <evan at prodromou.name>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20060417/7e7d70d5/attachment-0001.pgp


body:
On Sun, 2006-16-04 at 15:52 +0200, Dirk Riehle wrote:

> Well, the main solution is to create an ecosystem where people get
> hired to work (full-time) on providing such extensions (or additions
> to the mainline) to MediaWiki. Only this setup can provide some continuity.

As far as I know, there are 1-2 programmers working for Wikimedia and
more people working at Wikia on MediaWiki. I just talked today with Jack
Herrick of wikiHow who'd like to see their additions fed back to
MediaWiki.

There are a lot of MW installations out there, and a lot of people
hacking MW code for fun and profit.

>  But for that to work the MediaWiki
> community needs be accepting of (corporate) contributions (assuming
> they follow the licenses and community spirit).

I'm pretty sure that this isn't a problem whatsoever. To be sure, the
main focus of MW has been and will always be Wikimedia's sites, but I
know that the MW team has been very welcoming of patches and additions
at least from Wikitravel in the past.

I think the most likely patches and changes to be accepted are going to
be security and/or performance patches, or extensions that can be easily
plugged and unplugged. Radical changes to the behaviour of the software,
or stuff that's "unwiki", or stuff that is unstable or slows down the
software, is probably not going to get accepted.

> Are there any examples or even defined processes (on meta?) that I
> could look up?

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_extensions

I think just adding a patch to a bug on bugzilla is the fastest way to
get something added to the codebase.

~Evan

--
Evan Prodromou <evan at prodromou.name>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20060417/7e7d70d5/attachment.pgp>


body:
On Sun, 2006-16-04 at 15:52 +0200, Dirk Riehle wrote:

> Well, the main solution is to create an ecosystem where people get
> hired to work (full-time) on providing such extensions (or additions
> to the mainline) to MediaWiki. Only this setup can provide some continuity.

As far as I know, there are 1-2 programmers working for Wikimedia and
more people working at Wikia on MediaWiki. I just talked today with Jack
Herrick of wikiHow who'd like to see their additions fed back to
MediaWiki.

There are a lot of MW installations out there, and a lot of people
hacking MW code for fun and profit.

>  But for that to work the MediaWiki
> community needs be accepting of (corporate) contributions (assuming
> they follow the licenses and community spirit).

I'm pretty sure that this isn't a problem whatsoever. To be sure, the
main focus of MW has been and will always be Wikimedia's sites, but I
know that the MW team has been very welcoming of patches and additions
at least from Wikitravel in the past.

I think the most likely patches and changes to be accepted are going to
be security and/or performance patches, or extensions that can be easily
plugged and unplugged. Radical changes to the behaviour of the software,
or stuff that's "unwiki", or stuff that is unstable or slows down the
software, is probably not going to get accepted.

> Are there any examples or even defined processes (on meta?) that I
> could look up?

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_extensions

I think just adding a patch to a bug on bugzilla is the fastest way to
get something added to the codebase.

~Evan

--
Evan Prodromou <evan at prodromou.name>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20060417/7e7d70d5/attachment-0001.pgp>


from_name: Blackcap

subject: [WikiEN-l] wikitruth.info (Slashdot story)

body:
On 4/17/06, Ben Yates <bluephonic at gmail.com> wrote:I think the answer is the
former, but every time attacks are answered

> with mockery rather than thought I get nudged toward the latter.
>

It wasn't my intention to answer their criticisms by mocking them, in fact,
I didn't mean to mock them at all. I'm entirely in agreeance with you that
mockery isn't helpful to solving disputes, but I wasn't after curing the
troubles but merely adding in a bit of ironic humor.


from_name: Aphaia

subject:
[Foundation-l] Wikimedia Privacy Policy: Update to account for
	CheckUser access

body:
On 4/14/06, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> The Privacy policy at
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy is now out of date,
> since it precedes the large scale use of "CheckUser" and claims only
> "developers" have access to the IPs of logged in users.
>
> I am suggested a revised version at
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Angela/Privacy_policy (see
> http://tinyurl.com/nbguc for a diff from the current version).

To gather feedbacks widely, would it better to translate into core
langs (means Es, Fr, Ja and Zh following a recent agreement on
translation subcom) before the Board discuss it? Or not, currently I'
m not sure - most of people who are interested in the Foundation
matters seem not to hesitate in English discussion, but privacy policy
affects not only such active users but all who access the website.

As for particular langs, I assume Ja version will be necessary to
gather JA folks, or not - even with JA translated version, no feedback
will come out from them. Or not. I have no sure predictions on those
people, confess I.
?????????????? > all other active users on JA*

I'd like to know possibilities on each langs mentioned on the above.
Other langs' cases are also appreciate, specially suggestion like "you
forgot XXX and why you shouldn't have missed it".

> The main changes are to these two paragraphs:
>
> "IP addresses of users, derived either from those logs or from records
> in the database are frequently used to correlate usernames and network
> addresses of edits in investigating abuse of the wiki, including the
> suspected use of malicious "sockpuppets" (duplicate accounts),
> vandalism, harassment of other users, or disruption of the wiki."
>
> "It is the policy of Wikimedia that personally identifiable data
> collected in the server logs, or through records in the database via
> the CheckUser feature, may be released by the system administrators or
> users with CheckUser access, in the following situations:"

--
Aphaea@*.wikipedia.org
email: Aphaia @ gmail (dot) com


from_name: Ben Yates

body:
I don't agree with wikitruth, but there doesn't seem to be anything
particularly ironic about them using a wiki: they're anti-wikipedia,
not anti-wiki or anti-free-software.

On 4/17/06, Blackcap <snoutwood at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/16/06, Daniel P. B. Smith <wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com> wrote:
>
> > In its words: "We want you to read this website, not be locked in a
> > full-on piss-battle over changing varying articles to reflect the
> > whims and madness of a thousand people. Wikis do work, make no
> > mistake, but they ultimately only work when you have a small amount
> > of people doing the editing. Sure, it progresses a little slower...
> > but it progresses."
> >
> > See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony
> >
>
> I love it when anti-Wikimedia sites use the MediaWiki engine. Makes my day.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Ben Yates
Wikipedia blog - http://wikip.blogspot.com


body:
Sure, but none of their criticisms are about the developers; they're
all about the editors and admins.  Don't get me wrong -- I've read
through the site, and sometimes they seem like assholes -- but I think
that the question deserves serious thought: are attack sites like this
just a product of the huge wikipedia userbase, or are wikipedia's
problems severe enough that WikiTruth is an understandable response?
I think the answer is the former, but every time attacks are answered
with mockery rather than thought I get nudged toward the latter.

On 4/17/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/18/06, Ben Yates <bluephonic at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't agree with wikitruth, but there doesn't seem to be anything
> > particularly ironic about them using a wiki: they're anti-wikipedia,
> > not anti-wiki or anti-free-software.
>
> It's not so much that they are using a wiki. It is that they are using
> software they it primarily designed to run Wikipedia and Wikipedia
> projects. Thus they accept our developers at least know what they are
> doing.
>
> --
> geni
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Ben Yates
Wikipedia blog - http://wikip.blogspot.com


from_name: Angela

subject:
[Foundation-l] [Translators-l] Wikimedia Privacy Policy: Update
	to account for CheckUser access

body:
On 4/17/06, Aphaia <aphaia at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/14/06, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The Privacy policy at
> > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy is now out of date,
> > since it precedes the large scale use of "CheckUser" and claims only
> > "developers" have access to the IPs of logged in users.

> To gather feedbacks widely, would it better to translate into core
> langs (means Es, Fr, Ja and Zh following a recent agreement on
> translation subcom) before the Board discuss it?

Yes, that would be great, as long as translators are aware that
changes may be needed after they make the initial translation.

Angela.


from_name: Arwel Parry

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikis and Wikipedia reviewed on UK tv

body:
Channel five's "The Gadget Show" reviewed Wikis and Wikipedia in this
week's show (repeated Saturday morning, about 1115). What they said can
be found at
http://gadgetshow.five.tv/jsp/5gsmain.jsp?lnk=401&featureid=142&description=WIKI!&show=s4e12&section=Features

Unfortunately, since the show went out [[The Gadget Show]] has had to be
protected...

Arwel Parry


body:
On 4/17/06, Ben Yates <bluephonic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Fair enough; sorry.

No bother :)


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

body:
US intelligence? Why do people like this always focus on the US?
We couldn't have done this with the help of so many other countries'
secret intelligence ops.

Mgm

On 4/17/06, Josh Gordon <user.jpgordon at gmail.com> wrote:
> This would be Les Sachs writing. See:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive90#Accusations
> of libel and fraud in article space
>
> --
> --jpgordon ????
>
>
>
> On 4/17/06, Mathias Schindler <neubau at presroi.de> wrote:
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.gossip.celebrities/msg/9f1da2e6d4ad21f3?&hl=en&q=insubject%3Awikipedia
> >
> > Wikipedia and the CIA - How US Intelligence Can Embed in Wikipedia,
> > Plant Propaganda, Delete Facts, Deceive and Attack US Citizens
> >
> > Wikipedia An Ultimate Trojan Horse for CIA and US Government on the
> > Internet
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
Fair enough; sorry.

On 4/17/06, Blackcap <snoutwood at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/17/06, Ben Yates <bluephonic at gmail.com> wrote:I think the answer is the
> former, but every time attacks are answered
>
> > with mockery rather than thought I get nudged toward the latter.
> >
>
> It wasn't my intention to answer their criticisms by mocking them, in fact,
> I didn't mean to mock them at all. I'm entirely in agreeance with you that
> mockery isn't helpful to solving disputes, but I wasn't after curing the
> troubles but merely adding in a bit of ironic humor.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Ben Yates
Wikipedia blog - http://wikip.blogspot.com


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-04-18

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!

Passed 300 of 303 tests (99.01%) FAILED!


from_name: Justin Cormack

subject: [WikiEN-l] Georgia/Victoria

body:
On 18 Apr 2006, at 00:03, Ray Saintonge wrote:

> Justin Cormack wrote:
>> learn about the lesser known [[Claude L?vi-Strauss]].
>>
> Lesser known?  The anthropologist is clearly better known.

Its an old joke. Perhaps from a novel by David Lodge. Or Malcolm
Bradbury. Who may be the same person, according to graffiti at
the University of East Anglia. Or my memory is failing.

Justinc


from_name: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason

subject: [Wikitech-l] broken documentation links

body:
I deleted that stuff because we were running out of space and it was
taking up a lot.

It could be set up elsewhere, but was anyone actually using that stuff?


from_name: geni

body:
On 4/18/06, Ben Yates <bluephonic at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't agree with wikitruth, but there doesn't seem to be anything
> particularly ironic about them using a wiki: they're anti-wikipedia,
> not anti-wiki or anti-free-software.

It's not so much that they are using a wiki. It is that they are using
software they it primarily designed to run Wikipedia and Wikipedia
projects. Thus they accept our developers at least know what they are
doing.

--
geni


body:
On 4/18/06, Ben Yates <bluephonic at gmail.com> wrote:
> Sure, but none of their criticisms are about the developers; they're
> all about the editors and admins.  Don't get me wrong -- I've read
> through the site, and sometimes they seem like assholes -- but I think
> that the question deserves serious thought: are attack sites like this
> just a product of the huge wikipedia userbase, or are wikipedia's
> problems severe enough that WikiTruth is an understandable response?

No. Some are due simply to wikipedia's size (succeed and some people
will attack you). However a lot are due to people falling out with
Wikipedia on a personal level. They are not "assholes" just people who
for one reason or another can't work too well with the Wikipedia
community (ok there are some exceptions). When blocked they look for
someone to blame. The cabal, rogue admins the system whatever.

> I think the answer is the former, but every time attacks are answered
> with mockery rather than thought I get nudged toward the latter.
>

The problem is a lot of the stuff comes from people we know and have
long since become fed up with. A lot of the rest is just the same
repeated acusations that we all know and love .

Once you extract the namecalling from wikitruth what you are left with
are the standard critism of WP:OFFICE and Jimbo. Their Vandalism
exposed article is outdated (particularly in the case of
en.wikipedia). I suspect they probably do have an admin on board.
Other than wishing they would follow the GFDL I don't really care.

--
geni


body:
Overall a pretty good write-up.

In reading that the George W. Bush article is locked up and
untouchable, I have to remind myself that the author of that piece is
talking about occasional users, and sure enough, it is not possible
for a casual user to edit the article.  So he's right.  There are good
reasons for the compromise we have made here, but it's valid
criticism.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Search index needs to be updated?

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> Yep, I'll work this in to the dump process which I'm about to restart this
> evening with a more even size split. (The way a lot of larger wikis took a long
> time made it diffcult to get smaller, easier wikis done regularly.)

I'm splitting the dumps to four threads now, for huge/large/medium/small-size
wikis each: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Brion_VIBBER/Dump_build_split

Currently just the small ones are running in Tampa while I test that it's all
still working properly.

As a note: the langlinks and externallinks tables are now included as sql dumps.
Some may find these useful or interesting.

externallinks has an el_index field which swaps the order of the components in
the hostname, making it easier to count parent domains if one wants to make some
aggregate listings.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060418/060a8e70/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Shinjiman

subject: [Wikitech-l] Cross-namespace templates

body:
Steve Bennett <stevage at ...> writes:

>
> Hi all,
>   A half-serious feature request. Would it be possible to extend
> Wikimedia to allow templates that have effects in other namespaces?
> The most obvious application would be for adding text to another
> user's talk page without actually having to edit it. It would
> certainly make talk discussions easier than the current situation...
>
> Alfred writes on Bertie's talk page:
> Hello, your latest addition sucks
>
> Bertie replies on her talk page:
> {{usertalk|Alfred|No it doesn't. You're mean.}}
>
> This template makes the text appear on the talk page, but also somehow
> makes an elegant link to the discussion appear on Alfred's talk page.
>
> There may be other ways of solving this particularly awkward
> situation, in which either you have to monitor other users' talk
> pages, copy the entire conversation back and forth, or create two
> separate conversation halves at different locations.
>
> Steve
>

I think the other namespaces can be included as a template, for example to
include a Wikipedia namespace page, use {{Wikipedia:includepagename}}, and for
the main namespace, use {{:includepagename}}. The only thing that using {{}}
without any namespace will point to Template namespace in default.

But using this method on the main namespace, user talk namespace, it will
include the whole discussion onto the page that used.

regards
Man


from_name: Robert Scott Horning

subject:
[Foundation-l] Stewards
	are	ignoring	requests	for	CheckUser	information?

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:

>Robert Scott Horning wrote:
>
>
>
>>You mean to tell me that if you are using the internet in China (or
>>Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, or North Korea), that the government of those
>>countries has no clue about not only what IP address you are using, but
>>also what websites you are accessing?
>>
>>
>>
>Not North Korea; since it makes internet generally unavailable it
>doesn't need to worry about monitoring. :-)
>
>Beyond that, it takes considerable manpower, resources and
>sophistication to sift through masses of internet material to winnow out
>whatever might be significant to these governments.  A great deal of
>meaningless drivel is communicated on the internet, as any kid with an
>MSN account will easily prove.  How much seriousness does one attach to
>the goofy plots that might be expressed there.
>
>A friend who is currently teaching in Qatar recently had to seek medical
>help, and as a result commented that the doctors there are not as good
>as their equipment.  I suspect that this situation is not limited to
>medicine.
>
I am not talking goofy communication here and impossible communications
resoruces.  I am instead talking about a specific person who has
contributed to a project like zh.wikipedia, where their activities and
writings have been clearly identified as potentially subversive by the
government and are the specific target of a formal police investigation.
 The resources of even a small country can be devoted to tracking down
and individual like this... or even a small-town police departpent.
 More below:

>>I am telling you that regardless
>>of where you are from, the government is going to know not only the
>>activities that you do within that country, but most major governments
>>will be capable of monitoring their citizens that are living outside of
>>their countries as well.  It isn't that difficult of a task, and nothing
>>that the Wikimedia Foundation could do, including deliberate deleting of
>>all logs is going to change that.  The checkuser information in
>>particular is not going to stop any government (or even corporate
>>monitoring... as in your immediate supervisor could do this as well)
>>
>>
>>from being able to find out what your on-line activites have been.
>
>
>>I fail to see how checkuser information falling into the wrong hands is
>>going to cause a problem in this situation.  Really.  If a government
>>entity wants to find out that User:Chinese_Protestor who has posted over
>>2000 edits in zh.wikipedia is actually using a certain internet cafe in
>>downtown Beijing, they don't need to have access to the checkuser
>>facilities to find that information out, nor to even identify exactly
>>who that user is.  I don't even need to do that if I really cared to
>>find out who that person is.  On top of that, how can you be absolutely
>>sure that some user that is a "trusted user" by whatever standard you
>>are discussing isn't already a steward, but also a government agent who
>>is using the checkuser access to monitor dissidents?  And won't be in
>>the future?
>>
>>
>>
>To be effective any such CIA agent is not going too blow his cover by
>telling everyone.  To the rest of us his behaviour will seem perfectly
>normal, and perhaps even better than average.
>
I have absolutely no idea where the CIA comes into this situation.  We
are not talking foriegn agents but rather domestic police surveilence.
 And they don't even need to "blow their cover" to get this information.

A polite letter to the Wikimedia Foundation is all that is really needed
after the person has been identified.  And every edit is clearly linked
to a specific registered or unregistered user anyway, and that is up for
public display and the scanning of page history logs is not logged other
than as a simply page request.  The exact legal process to force this
information out of the Foundation is irrelevant, and I can think of
several ways that even the Chinese government can get this sort of
information even though official channels, and be considered
"acceptable" by U.S. courts, assuming that users are trying to get some
level of protection by having to go through international diplomatic
channels to slow down the process.  Fine, but the information can still
be obtained by a government agency and the Foundation would be powerless
to not give this information.

As far as trying to "build a level of trust" on-line, this is something
that American police departments do all of the time for fighting some
on-line crimes, and I even know personally a local law enforcement agent
who has done this recently, and he works for a small-town police
department with only 80 officers in the entire department.  His goal is
to catch would-be child predetors, and to catch them in the process of
solicitation of a minor for sex acts.  And it works, which is the
surprising thing.

The argument as for why this information is kept so private is because
some would-be Wikimedia user who posted something as totally innocent as
a translation of something on fr.wikipedia or en.wikipedia, that clearly
has been vetted for being NPOV, but is contrary to the local political
orthodoxy and as a result the user could get arrested for doing that
translation or even executed.  Obviously this would happen in places
where things like free speech rights common in the EU or USA are not
respected, and has been expressed as a concern for Chinese speakers in
part because of official government actions by the PRC to block all
Wikimedia IP addresses for zh.wikipedia.

Assuming that individual citizens can get around web blocks like the
great internet wall of China, there is no reason to not also believe
that local police officers couldn't do the same thing.  And China
clearly has the manpower necessary to not only monitor its citizens
using zh.wikipedia in all aspects, but this is also something they have
a vested interest in looking at because it is a form of political
expression, and a very public forum.  Because of the way the MediaWiki
software works, they don't even have to catch the specific IP packets,
but only build a private list of pages to watch, and what users have
certain political leanings that may or may not be acceptable to the
Party.  From this perspective, it would be incredibly stupd on the part
of the Chinese government to not have a police officer of some sort or
at least a loyal party member who is a current administrator on
zh.wikipedia.  And it would be impossible for anybody on the Foundation
board to distinguish between ordinary Chinese citizens and this
government representative, in terms of who gets checkuser privileges.

If in the process of doing legitimate checkuser scans fighting vandalism
they also let it slip and do a couple of scans for a political dissident
or two, how would anybody else know, even if the scans are logged?  That
wouldn't even blow the "cover" of the person you are talking about.  And
if it is uncovered that they work for the government, is that reason to
get them de-sysoped?  Legally that would really put the Wikimedia
Foundation in a bind if they tried to revoke checkuser privileges to
official government agents, once discovered, for any government.  I'm
not even sure if it could be stopped if an official request was made to
allow somebody to have this option.

--
Robert Scott Horning


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [Wikitech-l] Cross-namespace templates

body:
On 18/04/06, Shinjiman <shinjiman at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the other namespaces can be included as a template, for example to
> include a Wikipedia namespace page, use {{Wikipedia:includepagename}}, and for
> the main namespace, use {{:includepagename}}. The only thing that using {{}}
> without any namespace will point to Template namespace in default.
>
> But using this method on the main namespace, user talk namespace, it will
> include the whole discussion onto the page that used.

Hmm, it might be interesting even to have a way of including *part* of
another page, specified with the #anchor notation. Then at the very
least you could have code that looked like this:

==Topic==
{{otheruser:Topic}}
:reply 1
:::reply 3

That would be interesting...especially if each time the other user
replied on their own talk page, the {{otheruser:topic}} template
detected the change, and triggered a "you have new messages" banner.

Once that was set up, the last missing piece of the puzzle would be a
way to automatically insert the ==Topic== {{otheruser:topic}} template
on your own page when messaging other users. That could even be done
with javascript if necessary.

Well! Seems feasible to me as a user. Any opnions from developers?

Steve


from_name: Platonides

subject: [Wikitech-l] Cross-namespace templates

body:
I think that if you get the new messages message (don't really know if
changing a template triggers it) you would get it whenever the other page
changes. No matter if you only want a piece.
I think it'd be easier to extend the meassage alert for more pages so you'd
have normal watchlist plus warning watched pages that triggers it.
On the other hand there are people who asks to answer on the original page
to mantain the discussion joined. They add it to watchlist and (I guess)
don't work too bad for them or would go on with it :P
Maybe some of them can point something here?

"Steve Bennett" <stevage at gmail.com> escribi?
en el mensaje
news:f1c3529e0604172319q730e6c5dy3dbcebbf03f75936 at mail.gmail.com...
> On 18/04/06, Shinjiman <shinjiman at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> I think the other namespaces can be included as a template, for example
>> to
>> include a Wikipedia namespace page, use {{Wikipedia:includepagename}},
>> and for
>> the main namespace, use {{:includepagename}}. The only thing that using
>> {{}}
>> without any namespace will point to Template namespace in default.
>>
>> But using this method on the main namespace, user talk namespace, it will
>> include the whole discussion onto the page that used.
>
> Hmm, it might be interesting even to have a way of including *part* of
> another page, specified with the #anchor notation. Then at the very
> least you could have code that looked like this:
>
> ==Topic==
> {{otheruser:Topic}}
> :reply 1
> :::reply 3
>
> That would be interesting...especially if each time the other user
> replied on their own talk page, the {{otheruser:topic}} template
> detected the change, and triggered a "you have new messages" banner.
>
> Once that was set up, the last missing piece of the puzzle would be a
> way to automatically insert the ==Topic== {{otheruser:topic}} template
> on your own page when messaging other users. That could even be done
> with javascript if necessary.
>
> Well! Seems feasible to me as a user. Any opnions from developers?
>
> Steve


from_name: Phil Boswell

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Why Wikipedia should not be a random collection of
 facts

body:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
>
> Science is facts; just as houses are made of stones, so is science made
> of facts; but a pile of stones is not a house and a collection of facts
> is not necessarily science.
>                 -- Henri Poincaire
>
> Now apply this to Wikipedia:
>
> s/science/article/
>
> QED.
>
...and your point is?

If this is yet another attempt to have fictional entities booted off
Wikipedia, I'm sure I'll not be alone in getting rather annoyed.
--
Phil
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Why-Wikipedia-should-not-be-a-random-collection-of-facts-t1456839.html#a3970969
Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at Nabble.com.


body:
> No so sure about that. For example, it might be a great move to omit
> the requirement for sleep.

It could lead to a race condition where mood goes bad, making difficult to
work with it. ;)


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

body:
On 4/18/06, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
> As a note: the langlinks and externallinks tables are now included as sql dumps.
> Some may find these useful or interesting.

Thanks Brion.
I'm delighted you manage to remain as responsive as you do with so
many responsibilities.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Cross-namespace templates

body:
On 18/04/06, Platonides <Platonides at gmail.com> wrote:
> On the other hand there are people who asks to answer on the original page
> to mantain the discussion joined. They add it to watchlist and (I guess)
> don't work too bad for them or would go on with it :P

Right - those people are taking definitely a suboptimal solution
(monitoring someone else's talk page??), for the sake of cohesion. It
would be good if you don't have to make that trade-off.

Incidentally, that strategy works really badly for users who receive a
lot of messages, such as vandals or Jimbo. Ever tried leaving Jimbo a
message and waiting to see if he replies to it? :) (not a slur on
Jimbo, just everyone uses his talk page as a general discussion
forum...)

Steve


from_name: Jimmy Wales

body:
Ben Yates wrote:
> Sure, but none of their criticisms are about the developers; they're
> all about the editors and admins.  Don't get me wrong -- I've read
> through the site, and sometimes they seem like assholes -- but I think
> that the question deserves serious thought: are attack sites like this
> just a product of the huge wikipedia userbase, or are wikipedia's
> problems severe enough that WikiTruth is an understandable response?

I think we should approach all criticisms with an active mind and judge
the criticism on its own merits.  What I have managed to see of
WikiTruth (it seems to be down a lot) suggests strongly to me that it is
a joke or prank by some banned wikipedia users rather than a serious
attempt at criticism.

Was me stepping into the Brian Peppers thing and saying that, yes, we
will follow deletion policy and not have out-of-policy multiple votes
wrong?  Opinions may differ and we can and should and *have* had long
discussions about it.  Was it wrong for Sam Korn to act boldly to remove
the Lolicon image?  Opinions again may differ and we can and should and
*have* had long discussions about it.

But it is pretty difficult to sustain the argument that our normal
process of give-and-take and editorial judgment is censorship.  Does
Wikipedia delete things?  Absolutely we do, and with good reason.

Notice that WikiTruth is reprinting an attack article written about my
little girl, and then ask yourself if this is good faith criticism or
trollng.

--Jimbo


from_name: Fastfission

body:
Only the US intelligence services would waste resources and time on
something as relatively insignificant in world affairs as Wikipedia
;-)

FF

On 4/17/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> US intelligence? Why do people like this always focus on the US?
> We couldn't have done this with the help of so many other countries'
> secret intelligence ops.
>
> Mgm
>
> On 4/17/06, Josh Gordon <user.jpgordon at gmail.com> wrote:
> > This would be Les Sachs writing. See:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive90#Accusations
> > of libel and fraud in article space
> >
> > --
> > --jpgordon ????
> >
> >
> >
> > On 4/17/06, Mathias Schindler <neubau at presroi.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.gossip.celebrities/msg/9f1da2e6d4ad21f3?&hl=en&q=insubject%3Awikipedia
> > >
> > > Wikipedia and the CIA - How US Intelligence Can Embed in Wikipedia,
> > > Plant Propaganda, Delete Facts, Deceive and Attack US Citizens
> > >
> > > Wikipedia An Ultimate Trojan Horse for CIA and US Government on the
> > > Internet
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Dirk Riehle

body:
> >What you need is an Eclipse Foundation like setup where large
> >corporations/system integrators make money on complementary services
> >and therefore can afford "altruistic" contributions to a real
> >open-source project like MediaWiki. Well, not only "afford" but
> "have to". :-)
> >
> >
>As much as I support open source concepts I have to admit that most of
>it remains untested in the courts.  Patents can be a bigger problem than
>copyrights because they cover the ideas rather than just the expression
>of the idea.  The first person to the patent office has an advantage
>even over others who may have had the idea earlier.

That's why you need a proper setup. The Eclipse Foundation, for
example, requires signing away any claims based on patents used in
source code contributions before they get accepted. It should be the
same for MediaWiki and related contributions.

Dirk


from_name: Guettarda

subject: [WikiEN-l] Bounties for editors

body:
On 4/18/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 4/18/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yeck, why do people use AfD in this way? Debate the point, refute it,
> > gain consensus and drive it into the ground, by all means. But don't
> > simply call the mayor and get it bulldozed on a technicality...
> >
> > Steve
>
> It forces the debate to be concluded and it forces those who want it
> kept too debate.

I agree with Geni.  The creation of a page is a proposal, which may or may
not be accepted or acceptable to the community.  I voted "Keep" despite the
fact that I am not certain that I favour the idea, because I prefer that it
be a discussion, not a vote.  *fD creates votes, it forces you to pick a
side...

Ian


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Stephen Forrest

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dutch chapter

body:
On 4/18/06, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think I speak for most of the Dutch Wikipedians if I say:
> * Neither the Dutch Wikimedia Foundation (Stichting Wikimedia
> Nederland) nor the Dutch Wikimedia Association (Vereniging Wikimedia
> Nederland) has the right to influence the content and procedures of
> the Dutch Wikipedia
> * The board of neither has any formal special position on the Dutch Wikipedia
> * At least the Dutch Wikimedia Foundation should not be allowed to
> speak in name of the Dutch Wikipedia
> * The Wikimedia Foundation is hereby requested not to give the Dutch
> Wikimedia Foundation the status of chapter or any similar status

I don't mean to dredge up grievances, but I'm just wondering where all
this is coming from.  Have either of these two organisations
_attempted_ to obtain some formalised special role?  Even if the Dutch
Wikimedia Foundation were a "chapter" (whatever that means) why would
such status give it any rights over [[:nl]]?

Is there any precedent, anywhere, for "Wikimedia
Foundation/Association for country X" having a formalised special role
at "Wikipedia for language Y", where country X is strongly associated
with language Y?

I certainly hope not.  At the very least, this would breach the
linguistic/national separation we're tried hard to maintain.  The only
mildly plausible argument I could ever see made would be for legal
issues specific to a country, but even these wouldn't be specific to a
language.  The hate speech laws in Germany, for example, would apply
as much to contributors to [[:en]] as they would to [[de:]].

Steve


from_name: Matt R

subject: [WikiEN-l] Bounties for editors

body:
The following link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Now_Hiring

is to a deletion debate on a page for bounties (cash etc) for bits of work on the project. I believe such a page would be a good thing. Arguments in favour follow:

It's worked fine, as far as I can tell, on the German edition since last July, and in a number of free software/open source communities. Some people have argued that selfless altruism is the ideal goal for Wikipedian motives. I disagree. Altruism is good if you can get it, but most people work on Wikipedia for a variety of additional reasons: for fun, to practice a language, to gain a reputation, to socialise, to document their POV, and so on. We don't need to worry so much about motives, but rather whether people follow policy in their editing. We should encourage reward systems where we can do so without compromising our goals.

Others have argued that the lure of cash would cause people to pay others to insert their bias and such. Of course, this is a risk with or without a bounty board, but at least we can monitor and police this page. Moreover, Wikipedia mechanisms are quite robust against POV pushers, regardless of motivation. We deal daily with people with strong views on religion, politics, ethics etc, yet we cope well -- and as we probably all know, people get more passionate about these things than any financial pressure could induce.

Wikipedians will always be volunteers. But cash is useful for Wikipedians. For example, we now demand, and rightly, reliable sources for facts. But it's the case that acquiring reliable sources can be an expensive activity.

-- Matt
[[User:Matt Crypto]]


subject: [WikiEN-l] Another tricky "acceptable source" question

body:
On 4/18/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>   I have access to a report published by Gartner (a giant in the
> database research world). As I understand, it's publicly available -
> for a significant cost. I also believe that I am allowed to privately
> distribute it under certain circumstances, probably including
> verifying that I'm not making up stuff supposedly in it.
>
> It's an incredibly detailed analysis of 20 or ETL tools, and would be
> very useful for articles such as [[Extract, transform, load]] and
> articles on individual ETL tools. But, is it verifiable?
>
> Steve

If it's published, it should count.  "Easily available" isn't a criterion.
Is it likely to be in university libraries?  Is it something that
professionals in the field are likely to have?  Then it easily meets WP:V,
IMO

Ian


subject: [WikiEN-l] Bounties for editors

body:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Now_Hiring
> >
> > is to a deletion debate on a page for bounties (cash etc) for bits of work on the project. I believe such a page would be a good thing. Arguments in > favour follow:
>
> Yeck, why do people use AfD in this way? Debate the point, refute it,
> gain consensus and drive it into the ground, by all means. But don't
> simply call the mayor and get it bulldozed on a technicality...

I think people use deletion (Misc-fD, in fact) this way to force a decisive debate. I agree in general that it's not good, but an opponent might equally argue that the act of creating the page was bulldozing ahead without consensus (it's been debated before to a limited extent on the "foundation bounty board" page without consensus).

-- Matt


from_name: Jesse W

body:
On Apr 18, 2006, at 12:00 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 18/04/06, Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:
>> If it's published, it should count.  "Easily available" isn't a
>> criterion.
>> Is it likely to be in university libraries?  Is it something that
>> professionals in the field are likely to have?  Then it easily meets
>> WP:V,
>> IMO
>
> Likely? I'm not sure. They could probably track down a copy with a bit
> of effort. But yeah, I suppose it is "verifiable", with full citation
> details.
And quotes!  Don't forgot about quoting the bits that back up what you
are claiming.  While this is nice for web pages, it's particularly
important for less accessible sources; it lets the job of verification
be divided between subject experts - who can judge if the provided
quotes back up what they claim to back up, and wiki gnomes who can
verify that the provided quotes do actually exist in the cited sources
and are not mistyped or fake.  Quotes are your friends! ;-)

Jesse Weinstein


subject: [Wikitech-l] What is required to "fix search"?

body:
On 13/04/06, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
> > I understand that searching is a difficult problem best left to
> > Google, but is there a way where it could at least be hacked to check
> > for articles whose name matches the search string verbatim?
>
> Click the "go" button or hit "enter" when searching.

I noticed a related problem today. The Wikipedia search box in FireFox
performs a "search" not a "go". Hence if you search for a term that
has been defined recently, you get nuttin'.

How about this: On the search results screen, simply provide a link to
the term, behaving differently if the term actually has an article
behind it. Currently, you see this:

>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You searched for "aouoeau" [Index]

However, the colour of the link is identical whether aouoeau exists or
not. Perhaps it could be modified as follows:

>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
No page with that title exists.
You can create this article or request it.

Results 1-20...

or alternatively
>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The page <a href...>Swiss National Museum</a> exists.

Results 1-20...

----

That way, you get the best of both worlds, the search index can be
left broken, and the functionalities of "go" and "search" are
combined, with a minimum of effort.

What say you?

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Bounties for editors

body:
On 4/18/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yeck, why do people use AfD in this way? Debate the point, refute it,
> gain consensus and drive it into the ground, by all means. But don't
> simply call the mayor and get it bulldozed on a technicality...
>
> Steve

It forces the debate to be concluded and it forces those who want it
kept too debate.

--
geni


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Mediawiki Fulltext-Search

body:
Homer Simpson wrote:
> I implemented a fulltext search in wiki by using the Lucene classes to index
> and search the wiki SQL Tables. At the moment I simply use the following
> query to select the articles I want to search in:
>
> "SELECT * FROM cur WHERE cur_namespace=0"

There is no "cur" table in current versions of MediaWiki. It's obsolete, and
left over from an upgrade from an old version.

> To prevent finding already deleted articles I compare the results with the
> results I get using the following query:
>
> "SELECT * FROM archive WHERE ar_title='searchterm'"

This is a poor practice, and also your query is wrong.

Check page, and don't forget to use page_namespace.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060418/85c55d48/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Alex Regh

body:
Hi!
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 09:21:00 -0700, Josh Gordon wrote:

>This would be Les Sachs writing. See:

That would be this person:
>Dr. Les Sachs sought asylum in Holland after a vindictive American court banned him from writing about Patricia Cornwell, a political ally and major contributor to the Bush Administration, whom he accused of plagiarism and other misdeeds.  Sach's complaint over the abuse of judicial power for political purposes is based on his personal experience as a targeted victim.*  His report outlines the mechanism by which his banning was accomplished.

>I am a peaceful, gentle man. I was one of America's most educated citizens, a successful writer. But I dared to criticize a wealthy friend of the George Bush family, the right-wing extremist author Patricia Cornwell, who has neo-Nazi inclinations and a life of scandal to match. (See the online "Patricia Cornwell Biography - Crime, Bribery, Scandal and Mental Illness"). [http://cornwell-scandal.tripod.com/pcbio.html, accessed May 31, 2005]
from http://www.tulanelink.com/tulanelink/judicialrefugee_05a.htm

I think that answers about all questions one might have ... If I can find an
onion, I might even shed a tear for him.

Alex
(Who just loves conspiracy theories - although, I must say, using the CIA is a
bit outdated)
--
If you don't go over the top,
you can't see what's on the other side.
        --- Jim Steinman ---

Alex' Assorted Homepages: www.alexsite.de


subject: [WikiEN-l] Bounties for editors

body:
On 18/04/06, Matt R <matt_crypto at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> The following link:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Now_Hiring
>
> is to a deletion debate on a page for bounties (cash etc) for bits of work on the project. I believe such a page would be a good thing. Arguments in favour follow:

Yeck, why do people use AfD in this way? Debate the point, refute it,
gain consensus and drive it into the ground, by all means. But don't
simply call the mayor and get it bulldozed on a technicality...

Steve


from_name: Philip Welch

subject: [WikiEN-l] Bounties for editors

body:
On Apr 18, 2006, at 8:40 AM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

> You're absolutely right. People on a tight budget like me would be
> very much interested in financial compensation for certain jobs. As
> long as it results in articles following policy, I don't see the
> problem.

My concern is getting Wikipedia written faster and better. If people
make money along the way, more power to them. It's worked on Deutsche
Wikipedia and it can work here.

If we reject this policy, incidentally, we'd also have to reject all
of Larry Sanger's contributions--he was a paid editor-in-chief during
his tenure.

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


from_name: Arwel Parry

body:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 03:35:36 +0100, Tony Sidaway
<f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:

> Overall a pretty good write-up.
>
> In reading that the George W. Bush article is locked up and
> untouchable, I have to remind myself that the author of that piece is
> talking about occasional users, and sure enough, it is not possible
> for a casual user to edit the article.  So he's right.  There are good
> reasons for the compromise we have made here, but it's valid
> criticism.

Actually I thought they were more than fair to us - the "test" they put in
about Jon Bentley owning a cottage on Mars wasn't fixed in "a few hours" -
it was nine days later...
--
Arwel Parry
http://www.cartref.demon.co.uk/


from_name: Matt Brown

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Why Wikipedia should not be a random collection of
	facts

references:
<4441C072.5060209@gmail.com> <3970969.post@talk.nabble.com>
	<b0oa429od623f6luoerpj59u9mhffcvjkc@4ax.com>

body:
On 4/18/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> Mind you, only the other day I was doing RC patrol when someone
> created an article on a subject which was not only factual, but had
> not been mentioned on YTMND *or* FARK.
>
> It was a newbie's first article, of course - he'll learn...

Ah, now I know what I've been doing wrong all these years.  Nary a
fictional subject in the bunch.

-Matt


subject: [WikiEN-l] Bounties for editors

body:
On Apr 18, 2006, at 2:45 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:

> I think rejecting any policy on the grounds that it may produce POV
> edits is flawed. Quite simply, the value of POV edits is not
> particularly high to anyone, unless they're being paid to maintain
> them. Any article will, over time, represent the POV of all its
> contributors, not just one. So, just as one NPOV crimefighter working
> on a Pokemon fan article (with apologies) will eventually see his work
> completely eroded, a nefarious POV pusher working on an otherwise
> neutral article will see his evil deeds go to waste. Wikipedia works
> because overall most articles have mostly more or less neutral
> contributors mostly contributing. (I couldn't get any more hedges into
> that sentence...)

Even if people *do* buy NPOV edits, they'll have wasted their money
when those edits are deleted.

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


from_name: Andre Engels

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dutch chapter

body:
I think I speak for most of the Dutch Wikipedians if I say:
* Neither the Dutch Wikimedia Foundation (Stichting Wikimedia
Nederland) nor the Dutch Wikimedia Association (Vereniging Wikimedia
Nederland) has the right to influence the content and procedures of
the Dutch Wikipedia
* The board of neither has any formal special position on the Dutch Wikipedia
* At least the Dutch Wikimedia Foundation should not be allowed to
speak in name of the Dutch Wikipedia
* The Wikimedia Foundation is hereby requested not to give the Dutch
Wikimedia Foundation the status of chapter or any similar status

Thank you.

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


from_name: Jeremy Dunck

subject: [Wikitech-l] Seagate perpendicular drives

body:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060418-6622.html

Cheetah 15K.5 up to 300 GB.


from_name: Homer Simpson

subject: [Wikitech-l] Mediawiki Fulltext-Search

body:
Hello,

I implemented a fulltext search in wiki by using the Lucene classes to index
and search the wiki SQL Tables. At the moment I simply use the following
query to select the articles I want to search in:

"SELECT * FROM cur WHERE cur_namespace=0"

To prevent finding already deleted articles I compare the results with the
results I get using the following query:

"SELECT * FROM archive WHERE ar_title='searchterm'"

where "searchterm" is replaced once by every result I get with the first
query. I use a Java-Application to throw out all results that appear in both
tables.

But for some reason a few articles are not contained in the cur table, but
they are appearing as articles in wiki. These articles can be found in a
third table called "searchindex". I cannot use this table for searching
because its not possible to filter it by namespaces like it is in the cur
table.

To get to the point: My problem is, that I cannot figure out a query that
selects not only all articles with a zero namespace in the cur table, but
also those which are only appearing in the searchindex table. I already
tried the query recommended by the mediawiki database documentation of the
searchindex table, but it cant find these few articles with this query
either.

Greetings
Marcel


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] Bounties for editors

body:
You're absolutely right. People on a tight budget like me would be
very much interested in financial compensation for certain jobs. As
long as it results in articles following policy, I don't see the
problem.

Mgm

On 4/18/06, Matt R <matt_crypto at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> The following link:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Now_Hiring
>
> is to a deletion debate on a page for bounties (cash etc) for bits of work on the project. I believe such a page would be a good thing. Arguments in favour follow:
>
> It's worked fine, as far as I can tell, on the German edition since last July, and in a number of free software/open source communities. Some people have argued that selfless altruism is the ideal goal for Wikipedian motives. I disagree. Altruism is good if you can get it, but most people work on Wikipedia for a variety of additional reasons: for fun, to practice a language, to gain a reputation, to socialise, to document their POV, and so on. We don't need to worry so much about motives, but rather whether people follow policy in their editing. We should encourage reward systems where we can do so without compromising our goals.
>
> Others have argued that the lure of cash would cause people to pay others to insert their bias and such. Of course, this is a risk with or without a bounty board, but at least we can monitor and police this page. Moreover, Wikipedia mechanisms are quite robust against POV pushers, regardless of motivation. We deal daily with people with strong views on religion, politics, ethics etc, yet we cope well -- and as we probably all know, people get more passionate about these things than any financial pressure could induce.
>
> Wikipedians will always be volunteers. But cash is useful for Wikipedians. For example, we now demand, and rightly, reliable sources for facts. But it's the case that acquiring reliable sources can be an expensive activity.
>
>
> -- Matt
> [[User:Matt Crypto]]
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
Peaceful and gentle? I must've missed the memo.
Accusing people of plagiarism and what not tends to not get you
friendly replies and I'm pretty sure the Bush administration had
nothing to do with it. They wouldn't care if an author wins a court
case.

Anyone who calls someone names and rants about their political
preferences and supposed neo-Nazi sympathies is vindictive and
probably has issues of their own.

Mgm
On 4/18/06, Alex Regh <Alex.Here at gmx.net> wrote:
> Hi!
> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 09:21:00 -0700, Josh Gordon wrote:
>
> >This would be Les Sachs writing. See:
>
> That would be this person:
> >Dr. Les Sachs sought asylum in Holland after a vindictive American court banned him from writing about Patricia Cornwell, a political ally and major contributor to the Bush Administration, whom he accused of plagiarism and other misdeeds.  Sach's complaint over the abuse of judicial power for political purposes is based on his personal experience as a targeted victim.*  His report outlines the mechanism by which his banning was accomplished.
>
> >I am a peaceful, gentle man. I was one of America's most educated citizens, a successful writer. But I dared to criticize a wealthy friend of the George Bush family, the right-wing extremist author Patricia Cornwell, who has neo-Nazi inclinations and a life of scandal to match. (See the online "Patricia Cornwell Biography - Crime, Bribery, Scandal and Mental Illness"). [http://cornwell-scandal.tripod.com/pcbio.html, accessed May 31, 2005]
> from http://www.tulanelink.com/tulanelink/judicialrefugee_05a.htm
>
> I think that answers about all questions one might have ... If I can find an
> onion, I might even shed a tear for him.
>
> Alex
> (Who just loves conspiracy theories - although, I must say, using the CIA is a
> bit outdated)
> --
> If you don't go over the top,
> you can't see what's on the other side.
>        --- Jim Steinman ---
>
> Alex' Assorted Homepages: www.alexsite.de
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Bounties for editors

body:
On 18/04/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> You're absolutely right. People on a tight budget like me would be
> very much interested in financial compensation for certain jobs. As
> long as it results in articles following policy, I don't see the
> problem.

As I see it, the *only* problem is whether Wikipedia wants to gain a
reputation as "having to" pay its editors, or something. We certainly
can't stop people making private deals. All we can control is whether
it happens in the Wikipedia namespace or not.

We already have WP:BOUNTY - I don't see a problem here.

Steve


body:
On 18/04/06, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
> If this is yet another attempt to have fictional entities booted off
> Wikipedia, I'm sure I'll not be alone in getting rather annoyed.

I read [[Dalek]] for the first time today - what a great article, and
what a fantastic way to make something pretty obscure and fancrufty
approachable to non-fans. Maybe if other fancrufty articles took it as
a model, there'd be less resentment...

Steve


body:
On 18/04/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually I was thinking more along the lines of "Why trivia sections
> need to die"... not the stuff in them, but the existence of them as
> "piles of unsorted facts".

They need to die in the same way that unwikified articles need to die.
Not by being deleted, but by being fixed. But we've had that
discussion before. Suffice to say that The Perfect Article does not
have a Trivia section.

Steve


body:
Hi all,
  I have access to a report published by Gartner (a giant in the
database research world). As I understand, it's publicly available -
for a significant cost. I also believe that I am allowed to privately
distribute it under certain circumstances, probably including
verifying that I'm not making up stuff supposedly in it.

It's an incredibly detailed analysis of 20 or ETL tools, and would be
very useful for articles such as [[Extract, transform, load]] and
articles on individual ETL tools. But, is it verifiable?

Steve


from_name: Tels

subject: [Wikitech-l] broken documentation links

body:
Moin,

On Tuesday 18 April 2006 03:04, ?var Arnfj?r? Bjarmason wrote:
> I deleted that stuff because we were running out of space and it was
> taking up a lot.
>
> It could be set up elsewhere, but was anyone actually using that stuff?

Well, I tried :)

Actually, I wanted to find documentation on the Parser class, it's
functions and members. However, the automatic documentation feature
doesn't seem to offer much more then "this function does exist and has
the following params".

I expected a lot more text like: what does it do? What are the params
actually? what some possible values? etc.

So, I am not sure if the autogenerated doc is very usefull at all. It's a
start, but in the end I just looked in the source whenever I wanted to
see how something really works :)

best wishes,

Tels

--
 Signed on Tue Apr 18 18:55:02 2006 with key 0x93B84C15.
 Visit my photo gallery at http://bloodgate.com/photos/
 PGP key on http://bloodgate.com/tels.asc or per email.

 "Given enough time, all legal battles in the tech industry will invoke
 the DMCA. This generally means that all constructive arguments have
 ended." NialScorva's law

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 481 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060418/965fa734/attachment.pgp>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Bounties for editors

body:
I prefer it is tried first before we judge what "might" happen. So far
I've seen no significant problems with the idea yet.

On 4/18/06, Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/18/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 4/18/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Yeck, why do people use AfD in this way? Debate the point, refute it,
> > > gain consensus and drive it into the ground, by all means. But don't
> > > simply call the mayor and get it bulldozed on a technicality...
> > >
> > > Steve
> >
> > It forces the debate to be concluded and it forces those who want it
> > kept too debate.
>
>
> I agree with Geni.  The creation of a page is a proposal, which may or may
> not be accepted or acceptable to the community.  I voted "Keep" despite the
> fact that I am not certain that I favour the idea, because I prefer that it
> be a discussion, not a vote.  *fD creates votes, it forces you to pick a
> side...
>
> Ian
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
Not all books can be found for free in a library. They're still verifiable.
I think authority on the subject would thrump cost in this case
anyway, if cost even played a role.

Mgm

On 4/18/06, Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/18/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >   I have access to a report published by Gartner (a giant in the
> > database research world). As I understand, it's publicly available -
> > for a significant cost. I also believe that I am allowed to privately
> > distribute it under certain circumstances, probably including
> > verifying that I'm not making up stuff supposedly in it.
> >
> > It's an incredibly detailed analysis of 20 or ETL tools, and would be
> > very useful for articles such as [[Extract, transform, load]] and
> > articles on individual ETL tools. But, is it verifiable?
> >
> > Steve
>
>
> If it's published, it should count.  "Easily available" isn't a criterion.
> Is it likely to be in university libraries?  Is it something that
> professionals in the field are likely to have?  Then it easily meets WP:V,
> IMO
>
> Ian
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Rupert Millard

subject: [Wikitech-l] Automatic time zone selection

body:
Hi everyone.

Firstly, I hope I don't sound a complete crank and I'm sorry for the
length of this email.

I'd like to add automatic time zone selection to Mediawiki. On the
English Wikipedia, I think it is entirely appropriate that signatures
include the time in UTC all year round. However, I help to run a wiki
called ganfyd, which is based in the UK and I want the signatures on
that to be in local time i.e. GMT in the winter, and BST in the summer,
changing automatically as required. I have done this as a one time fix
for ganfyd, but would like to offer a general solution to the Mediawiki
community. Before I do it though, I just want to make sure what I'm
offering is wanted, and also that I'm going about it in a sensible way.

What I envisage implementing is the following:

Defining two different time zones: An installation time zone and user
time zones. The installation time zone could be different to the server
time zone, which I expect would be necessary for Wikimedia wikis which
are run on the same server but want different time zones. The
installation time zone would be used for all signature times, and could
be decided either by editing a page in the Mediawiki namespace or
changing a setting LocalSettings.php, I haven't decided yet. Advice anyone?

Having both server time zones and user time zones specified by one of:
1) a description such as UTC
2) an offset from UTC of the form +00:00 (for compatibility with
existing user preferences)
3) a DST aware geographical description such as "Europe/London"
(and all the others here: http://uk2.php.net/manual/en/timezones.php)

The English Wikipedia installation time would be set to UTC.
Ganfyd would be set to Europe/London.
Some European Wikipedias might be set to Europe/Paris, or Brussels or
somewhere like that.

If the server time is set to Europe/London for example, and all that was
shown in signatures, they would become horribly bloated. I would have
them display UTC or BST depending on what time of year the page was saved.

Ideally, a server knows what UTC is, but if it doesn't have it right,
I'd allow for a correction in LocalSettings.php, so the rest of the
features will work as planned.

I plan to do all this without using the new functions that came along in
PHP 5.1.0, since ganfyd runs on PHP 4.4.2, and I can't change that.

Can anyone foresee any problems with this approach?

Best wishes,

Rupert


from_name: Tomer Chachamu

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Fund-raising suggestion

body:
How can we prevent the advocate from knowing which side contained the donor?

Do we really want people to be able to pay to get an "express service"
in the dispute resolution process?

On 4/9/06, Ian Tresman <it at knowledge.co.uk> wrote:
> My earlier post on policy clarification leads me to suggest a good
> way to raise a continuous stream of money.
>
> If I had the option, I would stump up a $50 donation in an instant,
> to acquire an "advocate" to ensure that policy is followed, while I
> attempted to edit an article "by the rules". The advocate would NOT
> take the side of the donor.
>
> At the moment, administrators can quickly assess contraventions of
> 3RR (three revert rule) and vandalism. Other issues on policy are
> typically judged by consensus which depends on the knowledge and
> experience of editors on policy. There is often a conflict of
> interest, and often poor understanding of policy.
>
> I envisage policy advocates, who would initially take a short online
> test to assess their competence, and may then be called upon to
> uphold policy, either on a question by question basis, or on an
> article by article basis.
>
> If there are only a limited number of such advocates, their services
> could be acquired by bidding.
>
> At no time will an advocate take sides, and nor is an advocate
> guaranteed to resolve a dispute. But in those cases where they can, I
> think their services would be invaluable.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dutch chapter

body:
2006/4/18, Stephen Forrest <stephen.forrest at gmail.com>:

> I don't mean to dredge up grievances, but I'm just wondering where all
> this is coming from.  Have either of these two organisations
> _attempted_ to obtain some formalised special role?

The issue is that both have been created. The Association explicitly
states in its regulations that it has no influence on the content of
the sites. The Foundation's regulations are based on the
Association's, but this specific regulation was, apparently on
purpose, taken out. Which led some people on Wikipedia to fear that
the Foundation DID intend to influence Wikipedia, or that it could be
FORCED to do so even if it did not want to.

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


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Foundation-l] Fwd: [Wikipedia-l] Dutch chapter

body:
I'm forwarding this to foundation-l as it seems to be the more
relevant list. Thread so far at:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2006-April/thread.html#44205

Erik

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com>
Date: Apr 18, 2006 4:52 PM
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dutch chapter
To: wikipedia-l at wikimedia.org

I think I speak for most of the Dutch Wikipedians if I say:
* Neither the Dutch Wikimedia Foundation (Stichting Wikimedia
Nederland) nor the Dutch Wikimedia Association (Vereniging Wikimedia
Nederland) has the right to influence the content and procedures of
the Dutch Wikipedia
* The board of neither has any formal special position on the Dutch Wikipedia
* At least the Dutch Wikimedia Foundation should not be allowed to
speak in name of the Dutch Wikipedia
* The Wikimedia Foundation is hereby requested not to give the Dutch
Wikimedia Foundation the status of chapter or any similar status

Thank you.

--
Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] Bounties for editors

body:
On 18/04/06, Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with Geni.  The creation of a page is a proposal, which may or may
> not be accepted or acceptable to the community.  I voted "Keep" despite the
> fact that I am not certain that I favour the idea, because I prefer that it
> be a discussion, not a vote.  *fD creates votes, it forces you to pick a
> side...

Hmm, with the *fD's being as overloaded as they are, I don't like the
idea of abusing them more this way. *fD is supposed to be about
deleting articles, not attraction attention to debates that need to be
had. And deleting the article wouldn't exactly stop the debate being
had again next week anyway...whereas having the debate and gaining
consensus that it was a bad idea would.

Steve


body:
On 18/04/06, Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:
> If it's published, it should count.  "Easily available" isn't a criterion.
> Is it likely to be in university libraries?  Is it something that
> professionals in the field are likely to have?  Then it easily meets WP:V,
> IMO

Likely? I'm not sure. They could probably track down a copy with a bit
of effort. But yeah, I suppose it is "verifiable", with full citation
details.

Thanks for the replies!

Steve


from_name: Ian Tresman

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Fund-raising suggestion

body:
At 20:49 18/04/2006, you wrote:
>2006/4/18, Tomer Chachamu <the.r3m0t at gmail.com>:
> > How can we prevent the advocate from knowing which side contained
> the donor?
> >
> > Do we really want people to be able to pay to get an "express service"
> > in the dispute resolution process?
>
>I don't think we do... At least I would not want anything that looks
>like sponsor influence on content.

I'm just saying that I would; and I guess that it doesn't matter if
the advocate knows who the sponsor is, as it doesn't matter if an
administrator or arbitrator knows who brings a regular case to their attention.

I just feel that my time can be better spend editing articles, rather
than having spent 80% of my time arguing over them.

And it can't hurt to try it out?

Regards,
Ian Tresman


subject: [Wikitech-l] Mediawiki Fulltext-Search

body:
Homer Simpson wrote:
> > I implemented a fulltext search in wiki by using the Lucene classes to
> index
> > and search the wiki SQL Tables. At the moment I simply use the following
> > query to select the articles I want to search in:
> >
> > "SELECT * FROM cur WHERE cur_namespace=0"
>
> There is no "cur" table in current versions of MediaWiki. It's obsolete,
> and
> left over from an upgrade from an old version.
>
> > To prevent finding already deleted articles I compare the results with
> the
> > results I get using the following query:
> >
> > "SELECT * FROM archive WHERE ar_title='searchterm'"
>
> This is a poor practice, and also your query is wrong.
>
> Check page, and don't forget to use page_namespace.

Thanks, I did'nt think about left over tables from older versions. I am at
home, so I can't check the tables, but I don't remember any page_namespace
field, but I'll check that again.

Again thanks for your fast answer
Marcel


from_name: Jay R. Ashworth

subject: [Wikitech-l] Cross-namespace templates

body:
On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 10:09:32PM +0200, Steve Bennett wrote:
> To continue to reply to myself, some other uses this kind of thing would have:
>
> Reporting copyvios: simply place the {{copyvio}} template on the page,
> and it would add it to the list of copyvios automatically
> Good article nominees: add the name of the page to the [[WP:GAN]] and
> it would add {{GAnominee}} to the page itself
> ...and lots of similar ideas: {{prod}}, vandal templates (eg,
> {{test4}} could automatically add text to [[WP:AN/I]]), ...

If I correctly understand both a) what you mean, and b) how it works,
the new INCLUDEONLY/NOINCLUDE stuff will permit that (you can create a
template which causes the page into which you include it to be placed
in a category, that is).

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274

     A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
     Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

     A: Top-posting.
     Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet and in e-mail?


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Fund-raising suggestion

body:
2006/4/18, Tomer Chachamu <the.r3m0t at gmail.com>:
> How can we prevent the advocate from knowing which side contained the donor?
>
> Do we really want people to be able to pay to get an "express service"
> in the dispute resolution process?

I don't think we do... At least I would not want anything that looks
like sponsor influence on content. If one wants something back from a
Wikipedia donation, we can give them a diskette with Wikipedia
articles, or help in setting up their own Wiki, but giving money
should not improve one's possibilities of getting material one wants
into Wikipedia.

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


from_name: Siyabonga Khawula

subject: [WikiEN-l] allow me to edit

body:
hi
Can you please allow me to edit in wikipedia because The computer says I am Blocked. can you mplease unblock me.

my IP number is 146.230.128.29.

Thank you

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Please find our disclaimer at http://www.ukzn.ac.za/disclaimer
--------------------------------------------------------------------
<<<<gwavasig>>>>


subject: [Wikitech-l] Cross-namespace templates

body:
On 18/04/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hmm, it might be interesting even to have a way of including *part* of
> another page, specified with the #anchor notation. Then at the very
> least you could have code that looked like this:
>
> ==Topic==
> {{otheruser:Topic}}
> :reply 1
> :::reply 3

To continue to reply to myself, some other uses this kind of thing would have:

Reporting copyvios: simply place the {{copyvio}} template on the page,
and it would add it to the list of copyvios automatically
Good article nominees: add the name of the page to the [[WP:GAN]] and
it would add {{GAnominee}} to the page itself
...and lots of similar ideas: {{prod}}, vandal templates (eg,
{{test4}} could automatically add text to [[WP:AN/I]]), ...

All these situations would basically reduce the amount of work
involved in fairly menial tasks, by requiring you to only edit one
page instead of two. In many of them, a similar effect could be
achieved by expanding either the category or "what links here"
functionality to allow text comments. For example, perhaps you could
somehow link to another user's page with the text "I have replied
[[user:foo|here]]", with that link being self-destroying. Or, if you
could add a page to a copyright violation category with a little bit
more information, then the need to manually report the copyvio to
[[WP:copyvio]] is eliminated.

Opinions welcome, even if they're "no, it's useless", "no, it's a bad
idea", or "no, it can't be done". :)

Steve


from_name: Johan Bos

body:
I agree with Andre. Nor the Dutch foundation, nor the Dutch association has
a broad support in Dutch community. The community has hardly any influence
to the foundation and the association. A lot of users are complaining.

The foundation and the association could do a great job for our project, but
as soon as they get any special power to the encyclopedia, there will come
troubles.

So, I have no problem with the foundation and the association, but they
shouldn't have any power to the Wikimedia Projects and they shouldn't have
any official position within WMF.

Johan Bos (nl:Jcb)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Erik Moeller" <eloquence at gmail.com>
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 8:29 PM
Subject: [Foundation-l] Fwd: [Wikipedia-l] Dutch chapter

> I'm forwarding this to foundation-l as it seems to be the more
> relevant list. Thread so far at:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2006-April/thread.html#44205
>
> Erik
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com>
> Date: Apr 18, 2006 4:52 PM
> Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dutch chapter
> To: wikipedia-l at wikimedia.org
>
>
> I think I speak for most of the Dutch Wikipedians if I say:
> * Neither the Dutch Wikimedia Foundation (Stichting Wikimedia
> Nederland) nor the Dutch Wikimedia Association (Vereniging Wikimedia
> Nederland) has the right to influence the content and procedures of
> the Dutch Wikipedia
> * The board of neither has any formal special position on the Dutch
> Wikipedia
> * At least the Dutch Wikimedia Foundation should not be allowed to
> speak in name of the Dutch Wikipedia
> * The Wikimedia Foundation is hereby requested not to give the Dutch
> Wikimedia Foundation the status of chapter or any similar status
>
> Thank you.
>
> --
> Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
> ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Anthere

body:
Hi

Which are the reasons why the Foundation and the association have little
support ? People ? Bylaws ? Goals ?

Ant

Johan Bos wrote:
> I agree with Andre. Nor the Dutch foundation, nor the Dutch association has
> a broad support in Dutch community. The community has hardly any influence
> to the foundation and the association. A lot of users are complaining.
>
> The foundation and the association could do a great job for our project, but
> as soon as they get any special power to the encyclopedia, there will come
> troubles.
>
> So, I have no problem with the foundation and the association, but they
> shouldn't have any power to the Wikimedia Projects and they shouldn't have
> any official position within WMF.
>
> Johan Bos (nl:Jcb)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Erik Moeller" <eloquence at gmail.com>
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 8:29 PM
> Subject: [Foundation-l] Fwd: [Wikipedia-l] Dutch chapter
>
>
>
>>I'm forwarding this to foundation-l as it seems to be the more
>>relevant list. Thread so far at:
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2006-April/thread.html#44205
>>
>>Erik
>>
>>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>From: Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com>
>>Date: Apr 18, 2006 4:52 PM
>>Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dutch chapter
>>To: wikipedia-l at wikimedia.org
>>
>>
>>I think I speak for most of the Dutch Wikipedians if I say:
>>* Neither the Dutch Wikimedia Foundation (Stichting Wikimedia
>>Nederland) nor the Dutch Wikimedia Association (Vereniging Wikimedia
>>Nederland) has the right to influence the content and procedures of
>>the Dutch Wikipedia
>>* The board of neither has any formal special position on the Dutch
>>Wikipedia
>>* At least the Dutch Wikimedia Foundation should not be allowed to
>>speak in name of the Dutch Wikipedia
>>* The Wikimedia Foundation is hereby requested not to give the Dutch
>>Wikimedia Foundation the status of chapter or any similar status
>>
>>Thank you.
>>
>>--
>>Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
>>ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels
>>_______________________________________________
>>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>>Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>>_______________________________________________
>>foundation-l mailing list
>>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

body:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 08:55:13 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:

>If this is yet another attempt to have fictional entities booted off
>Wikipedia, I'm sure I'll not be alone in getting rather annoyed.

Don't worry, the balance is in no danger of tipping towards factual
subjects any time soon.

Mind you, only the other day I was doing RC patrol when someone
created an article on a subject which was not only factual, but had
not been mentioned on YTMND *or* FARK.

It was a newbie's first article, of course - he'll learn...
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG