from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] RE: Short URLs

body:
Kerim Friedman wrote:
> So is there anyway I can convert to a more stable structure for my
> URLs, such as what you recommend, without loosing links that already
> exist to current pages?

One thing that's easy to maintain is to set up a 404 error handler
script. This will let any real files through without having to poke
around adding exceptions.

In .htaccess something like:

   ErrorDocument 404 404.php

Then in your 404.php you have it redirect something like:

   <?php
   $url = "/wiki/" . $_REQUEST['REQUEST_URI'];
   header( "Location: $url" );
   ?>

I don't vouch for the correctness or security of that snippet, but
something like that.

You might be able to do something similar with a scary rewrite rule.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20050709/0bd5d460/attachment.pgp>


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [WikiEN-l] The ongoing trolling

body:
Mark Ryan wrote:
> Perhaps it was a poor choice of words on my part. Replace "troll" with
> "problem user". Ruy Lopez is moderated on this mailing list, which you
> were probably unaware of. I approved his post above, but did not
> notice the text: "those of you not coming to this list to kiss the ass
> of Ayn Rand reading porn magnate Jimbo Wales". Had I seen this text, I
> would have rejected the post and requested it be reformulated to
> comply with this list's informal civility policy.

There's an interesting consequence of having some readers on moderation
-- because the moderators filter out or help them correct their worst
behavior, they end up with a better reputation on the list than they
would earn on their own merits.

I'm glad the post made it through because it illustrates my point better
than anything I could have written myself.

--Jimbo


from_name: Geoff Burling

subject: [WikiEN-l] A Perhaps OT Post -- My Wikipedia Talk

body:
On Sat, 9 Jul 2005, David Gerard wrote:

> Geoff Burling (llywrch at agora.rdrop.com) [050709 03:59]:
>
> > * Another person afterwards buttonholed me, & proposed Yet
> > Another Method of stablizing Wikipedia content for the 1.0
> > release. I tried to assure him that David Gerard had the issue
> > well in hand, & was working towards a workable implementation that
> > would likely be released in 12 months' time.
>
>
> Hah. It's stalled at the validation feature, which is stalled at Brion not
> liking the present code :-) But the code is getting some work and appears
> to be moving forward, which is good.
>
> What was his Yet Another suggestion?
>
To ask people to rate the articles, then based on an algorythm that
would measure the rating against how many changes had been made to
the article in the last time period.

By the word "rating", he appeared to suggest a method not as
comprehensive as what I've seen discussed on the relevant meta page --
& didn't demonstrate any interest in my attempt to explain what work
had already been done. Or maybe it was that we've hashed out this
issue many times, & proposed many Yet Another Methods ourselves,
& I wasn't all that interested in listening to a suggestion from
someone who had only heard of Wikipedia that night & all he knew
was what I had told him.

I hope the latter was not the case: I would hate to discover that
someone had come up with a good idea, & due to my own prejudices I
failed to give it a fair hearing.

Geoff


subject: [WikiEN-l] Non-free images, there has to be a better way

body:
Haukur ?orgeirsson wrote:
> Again, I'm sorry for making that typo. The system
> in question is the [[IBM 1360]].

Fair enough.

> According to the uploader all IBM 1360 units have now
> been disassembled. Obtaining a free image may not be
> possible. We certainly don't have any now. This is an
> article which would greatly benefit from having pictures.

I reckon we ought to consider that a friendly challenge.

Believe me, I'm very sympathetic with the points you've been raising.
I'm trying to wrap my mind around the right way to say what I think
about it.

--Jimbo


from_name: Haukur Þorgeirsson

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Shouldn't we kick paedophiles off Wikipedia? - No,
	we shouldn't.

body:
> By way of example - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LuxOfTKGL and

This seems fine. The user is clearly not
encouraging anyone to commit crimes. Nor
does he admit to any of his own. He wants
some laws to be changed but that's not a
crime.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zanthalon.

This seems fine too and quite similar.

- - -

I don't think we should throw anyone out for
what they *are*. If you can show some troubling
diffs where these users violate a Wikipedia
policy that would be more relevant.

IANAL and IANJ.

Regards,
Haukur


body:
Zoney wrote:
> a) Fair use? We're using a news broadcaster's photos for our *news
> coverage* without permission? Hah! Yeah right that's fair use!

You are right that this was wrong.  I would say that it was still
legally fair use *for us*, i.e. not a legal problem, but my position is
that just because it is legal, this is not enough for us to use something.

It is a particularly good example of excessive use of fair use because
there were and are a great many free images available on the web yesterday.

> I would suggest there's a clear anti-copyright agenda* at play in
> allowing "fair use" images to continue to be used at Wikipedia.

Well, I wouldn't say that.  I would say that I do personally take the
position that "fair use" _is a good policy_.  The legal rights of
copyright holders should not extend so far as to be able to forbid all
uses, particularly of the sort encompassed by fair use.

So I think it's important for our global mission to stand up for fair
use as a principle, but at the same time, using it as a crutch because
we can, or to say we don't care about downstream reusers is a mistake.

> At the moment, yes people are harsh on untagged images. But mostly if
> the image is relevant - and someone tags it fair use - it stays.

I think we should only use pictures under fair use if it is *cleanly*
fair use and if the photo is of significant historical importance and
there is no possibility of getting a free alternative.  (Not "it would
be difficult" but "no possibility".)  This is not our current policy and
not something that's coming from me as a directive, but I think it's the
right direction for us to move as we mature.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: A Perhaps OT Post -- My Wikipedia Talk

body:
On Sat, 9 Jul 2005, Jimmy Wales wrote:

> Anthere wrote:
> >> I found it noteworthy that there are so few records of Presentations
> >> in the US. Is it because none of us Americans know about this page
> >> (my defense), or that none of us have tried to give a formal talk
> >> about Wikipedia?
> >
> >
> > I might possibly dare say because many presentations in the usa are
> > handled by Jimbo ?
>
> And I hardly ever give presentations in the US.  A few, yes, but I give
> a lot more presentations in Europe than the US.  Strange but true.
>
Based on the response I got Thursday, I'd venture to say that there
is a lot of interest in the US about Wikipedia. Giving talks like this
is an easy way to encourage more people to join, & raise awareness.

And I hope someone with the technical knowledge does act on my suggestion
about writing articles for money. I don't know if it would pay more than
the price of a dinner out, but if a Wikipedian has gained the experience,
& likes to share what she/he learned, then why not get paid for it?

Geoff


body:
Haukur ?orgeirsson wrote:
> Are you at all concerned that we are
> systematically ignoring the law in
> several European countries?

I support that different languages have different policies.  For
example, German Wikipedia does not allow fair use at all (or perhaps in
a very limited way).

And yes, it does concern me.  It's a balancing act.

> There are still oodles of untagged images.

Well, it's about time that they just be deleted wholesale.  But I know
there's been a diligent ongoing project to tag them.  I wouldn't want us
to disrupt that valuable work by getting draconian all of a sudden.

> Why should eliminating by-permission images
> have a higher priority than cleaning up
> fair-use images?

Perhaps because there are few of them. :-)

I'm listening, believe me.  I'm sure you'll agree these are complex
issues with many delicate legal and social ramifications for the project.

--Jimbo


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Andrew Venier

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: URLs

references:
<6019986.1hDDKoznoz@rose.local>
	<damlqj$ujg$1@sea.gmane.org>	<1120854811.17465.31.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<damrst$d2u$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<1120863576.17465.62.camel@localhost.localdomain>

body:
Just a couple of comments on this

Rob Lanphier wrote:

>Ok, that's good.  What about the ramifications for relative URL handling
>in RFC 2396?
>http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396
>
>I haven't found any immediate problems, but it would take me a while
>reading through the BNF to figure out if there are places where it
>breaks.
>
>Not that it's a huge deal if relative URLs don't work, since MW can
>always just stick to absolute references, but its one area where things
>can go wrong.
>
>
>
Just a comment in passing: RFC 3986 obsoletes RFC 2396

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt

The one specific prohibition of double slash in the path is at the start
of path when the URI has no authority segment.

>>>but it does fight typical conventions, which is kind of a bad
>>>thing.  For example, it appears that Apache throws away extra slashes,
>>>as can be seen here:
>>>http://apache.org///foundation////faq.html
>>>http://apache.org/foundation/faq.html
>>>IIS seems to do the same thing:
>>>http://www.microsoft.com////windowsserversystem///default.mspx
>>>
>>>
>>I assure you that Apache does not throw away extra slashes. I have
>>already done the necessary programming to do URLs such as those I have
>>mentioned. The examples you mentioned don't say anything about the
>>webservers themselves because both URLs are obviously mappings to a
>>filesystem (whether virtual or not); it is that filesystem that throws
>>away the extra slashes (which you can easily test: Both Linux and
>>Windows allow you to put double-/ resp. double-\ in a path and it won't
>>complain).
>>
>>Compare:
>>	http://www.livejournal.com/manage/index.bml
>>and
>>	http://www.livejournal.com/manage//index.bml
>>
>>They show the same page because the path is a mapping to a filesystem,
>>but the pages are different because the individual strings on it are
>>retrieved from codes that are based on the path. Those codes contain
>>only single slashes, so the second page is missing those strings. This
>>clearly shows that it's the filesystem and not Apache that "throws away"
>>double-slashes.
>>
>>
>
>Ok, that's good.
>
>Still, I maintain that assigning unique semantics to "//" versus "/"
>when used in that part of a URL doesn't have a lot of precedent, which
>also means that there's probably a lot of places it can break.  I admit
>that's a vague criticism, but I just have a bad gut feeling about going
>down that road.
>
>
FWIW, I share your bad gut feeling.  Superfluous slashes in the path may
be used as an evasion technique, and some security packages (for
example, mod_security for Apache) normalize the path, stripping out the
extra slashes.  While this particular case might not pertain to our
installation at this time, it is an example of the kind of unforseen
problems that may lie down this road.


from_name: Norath Norath

subject: [WikiEN-l] The ongoing trolling

body:
--- Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:

> Norath Norath wrote:
> > I am sure that you believe that allowing these
> admins
> > to make any decision they like, without reference
> to
> > community made policy, is for the best, but if
> this is
> > true, it would be more honest simply to say that
> from
> > now on, policy is irrelevant and admins can simply
> > block whomever they like.
>
> Straw man argument.  I obviously don't support that
> and nothing that I
> said could lead any reasonable person to think so.
>
> Like I said, if you have something serious to say,
> I'm all for it.  But
> making up random garbage as a form of protest is
> just pointless.
>
> Please?
>
> --Jimbo

So let me understand you, you are saying that if an
admin made a block that was not supported by community
made policy, you would do something about it?

If not, why do you not have the courage of your
convictions to change the policy, or make clear that
it does not apply?

It's a serious question, and I hope you will not just
blow it off again with a flippant reply.

Norrath

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


body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Hmmm!  Mickey Mouse is a cartoon character, and his historical
> importance is as a cartoon character.  So I would ask is a picture of
> someone dressed in a Mickey Mouse suit really a picture of Mickey Mouse?
> ;-)

Your objection to my point is completely valid.  It is of course true
that a photo of someone in a Mickey Mouse suit is not as academically
good as a scan of a cartoon of Mickey Mouse.

--Jimbo


body:
Anthere wrote:
>> I found it noteworthy that there are so few records of Presentations
>> in the US. Is it because none of us Americans know about this page
>> (my defense), or that none of us have tried to give a formal talk
>> about Wikipedia?
>
>
> I might possibly dare say because many presentations in the usa are
> handled by Jimbo ?

And I hardly ever give presentations in the US.  A few, yes, but I give
a lot more presentations in Europe than the US.  Strange but true.

--Jimbo


from_name: Jack Lynch

subject: [WikiEN-l] The ongoing trolling

body:
We need better ways of catagorising one another than troll, admin,
left -right, or whatever. These are ambiguous terms, and with the
possible exception of "admin", each person who uses them defines them
differently.

Rather than labeling each other, I'd say it is better to label the
''conduct''. If someone says or does something rude, I think it is the
job of others (particularly admins, and in this case list admins) to
respond to that in a proper manner. Assumably admins themselves would
be above any improper conduct themselves, but unfortunately were all
human. I think this current problem is not so much the act of
whistleblowing, but of how it is responded to. Personally, I would not
have allowed the numerous threads of complaints regarding edit warring
/ page-blocking @ [[feces]], for example (and chose not to read or
respond to them ;)

Jack (Sam Spade)

Perhaps it was a poor choice of words on my part. Replace "troll" with
"problem user".

~Mark


from_name: Timwi

subject: [WikiEN-l] Empathisation vs. systematisation

body:
Skyring wrote:
>
> Someone was talking about EQ, which I've since forgotten whether it
> stands for Emotion or Empathy.

Empathisation. Its complement is systematisation.

I've looked around on Wikipedia and it seems that the concept isn't as
well-known or widespread as I thought it was: Wikipedia doesn't cover it.

I used EQ as an abbreviation for "empathisation quotient", and SQ as an
abbreviation for "systematisation quotient". These terms are used by
researchers in developmental psychology, particularly autism-related
research. People usually tend to have an average value of both, but
people who have a high value for one tend to have a low one for the
other. People with noticeably low EQs and high SQs are said to have
[[Asperger's syndrome]]. People with *extremely* low EQs (and typically
correspondingly higher SQs) are autists. Women tend to have a higher
average EQ than men, making them more suitable for tasks involving
contact with other people, while men tend to have a higher average SQ,
making them more suitable for technical subjects (IT, mathematics and
natural sciences, that sort of thing). Of course, there are also high-SQ
women and high-EQ men. They aren't even particularly rare (although
autism is pretty rare in females).

People with high SQs tend to favour logical, consistent and predictable
sytems, such as computers and the Internet. Hence why their incidence on
Wikipedia is higher than in the general population, and hence why
Wikipedians are on average less empathisational than the general population.

Concepts whose understanding requires a broad understanding of human
emotional response, such as the concept of "personal attacks",
"civility" and stuff like that, which isn't measurable in numbers or
cannot be objectively defined, is difficult for these people. Purely
logical thinking, on the other hand, is difficult for people on the
other side of the spectrum -- most [[logical fallacy|logical
fallacies]], for example, are an emptional response as opposed to a
systematic conclusion, especially things like [[appeal to authority]]
(if a highly-regarded expert favours something, it feels more plausible)
and [[appeal to popularity]] (if everyone thinks it's right, it feels
more plausible).

Incidentally, it also tends to be the systematisers who challenge
pointless social conventions and question their validity. It's probably
thanks to them that, for example, agnosticism is no longer a crime
punishable by death, although the people at the time found the idea of
tolerating it quite abhorrent (an emotional response). In general,
systematisers seem to have less prejudice and other societally-imposed
preconceptions, which is why I personally think they deserve much more
attention to have their opinions heard than they currently get, even (or
perhaps especially) when they are unable to shape it into a
socially-accepted form that is palatable to the empathisers.

Timwi


from_name: Jon

subject: [WikiEN-l] Shouldn't we kick paedophiles off Wikipedia?

body:
I've recently noticed that we have a small number of self-confessed paedophile Wikipedians - who, as you can imagine, edit paedophile-related articles apologising for paedophilia, encouraging us to accept it as normal. Should we not kick these people out of Wikipedia. At the very least they are encouraging others to commit crimes (by arguing that paedophilia is perfectly acceptable).

By way of example - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LuxOfTKGL and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zanthalon.

I know Wikipedia is a broad church, full of people with different backgrounds and beliefs. But whichever way you look at it, paedophilia is against societal norms. As it is we have to warn teachers and parents that Wikipedia is not child-safe because of certain explicit images - do we also want to have to tell them it isn't child-safe as we welcome paedophiles as equals?

(Incidentally, the developers would be well-advised to do IP checks on these users and tell the police whatever they find out, as it is clear that self-confessed paedophiles need to be watched very carefully.)

Jon (jguk)

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PCcalling worldwide with voicemail


from_name: Chris Jenkinson

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

Jon wrote:
> I've recently noticed that we have a small number of self-confessed paedophile Wikipedians - who, as you can imagine, edit paedophile-related articles apologising for paedophilia, encouraging us to accept it as normal. Should we not kick these people out of Wikipedia. At the very least they are encouraging others to commit crimes (by arguing that paedophilia is perfectly acceptable).
>
> By way of example - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LuxOfTKGL and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zanthalon.
>
> I know Wikipedia is a broad church, full of people with different backgrounds and beliefs. But whichever way you look at it, paedophilia is against societal norms. As it is we have to warn teachers and parents that Wikipedia is not child-safe because of certain explicit images - do we also want to have to tell them it isn't child-safe as we welcome paedophiles as equals?
>
> (Incidentally, the developers would be well-advised to do IP checks on these users and tell the police whatever they find out, as it is clear that self-confessed paedophiles need to be watched very carefully.)
>
> Jon (jguk)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and must remain balanced. We don't say
whether paedophilia is right or wrong, we say what it is, why people may
do it, what causes them to do it, and society's views on it.

If these people are making statements saying paedophilia is morally
right, or in fact, morally wrong, then that is not acceptable. If they
are providing encylopediac information relating to why people may be
paedophiles, etc. I think that is beneficial for Wikipedia.

Be careful of using emotive language, and banning people for their
thoughts is not what I'd like to see. Ban people for their actions, but
not for what they think.

Chris

- --
Chris Jenkinson
chris at starglade.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFC0AuOEq6+ijeBrJ8RAvceAJ9GOw+isv9G8DUER3JVetKIgcctKQCbBkvJ
aKfVwAljND/SB2HuPUcv8nE=
=N9Lm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Writing with our readers in mind

body:
Do we have anywhere a statement that editors should think of their readers when writing? For me, that's commonsense: whether at work, speaking or writing to different clients, or chatting with friends, I always bear in mind who I am communicating with and trying to use words, language and style that suits them.

However, increasingly I see other editors deciding they prefer an "academic" style. What this means is that, if you are an academic in the field being discussed, you can understand what they are saying. However, if you are not, the articles remain impenetrable - and attempts to tweak them so they are more intelligible to the vast majority of readers get rebuffed.

It would be useful (if we don't already have it somewhere that I've missed) to have a firm statement that says articles should be written to be as intelligible to as many of our readers as possible, with our readers being anyone potentially searching for English-language information on the internet.

Jon (jguk)

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PCcalling worldwide with voicemail


from_name: Skyring

subject: [WikiEN-l] The ongoing trolling

body:
On 7/9/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> It's really quite simple.

<snip>

Thanks, MGM! You had to include the *whole* Ruy Lopez preachment in
your reply? (Bound copies available soon on Amazon, profits to a good
cause, pre-order now!)

I'm not buying into the Khmer Rouge/GRUNK/FUNK/Railroad issue on any
side, but I think that Ruy Lopez, whatever his political views, has
amply demonstrated that he knows what he is talking about. This isn't
a case of vandalism, this is a case of POV and should be settled on
the discussion page rather than an endless revert war of the "I will
revert you twice a day, for the rest of history if needs be. Plus I
have more allies than you, so your attempts to restalinise this
article must fail." Adam Carr variety.

--
Peter in Canberra


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: more active censorship

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Timwi wrote:
>
>>He already said that. He wanted to re-read the block page. That is a
>>perfectly legitimate thing to want. Also, by the GFDL, users *must* be
>>able to retrieve the source code of a page.
>
> I have no comment about the rest of this thread, but I wanted to point
> out that this is not true.  What is required by the GFDL is *not* that
> people be able to retrieve the source, but that they are able to get a
> "Transparent" copy.

Fine, but that clearly doesn't make it an illegitimate thing to want
access to the source text, especially as it's available to tech-savvy
people (via Special:Export or ?action=raw).

Timwi


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

Jon wrote:
> Do we have anywhere a statement that editors should think of their readers when writing? For me, that's commonsense: whether at work, speaking or writing to different clients, or chatting with friends, I always bear in mind who I am communicating with and trying to use words, language and style that suits them.
>
> However, increasingly I see other editors deciding they prefer an "academic" style. What this means is that, if you are an academic in the field being discussed, you can understand what they are saying. However, if you are not, the articles remain impenetrable - and attempts to tweak them so they are more intelligible to the vast majority of readers get rebuffed.
>
> It would be useful (if we don't already have it somewhere that I've missed) to have a firm statement that says articles should be written to be as intelligible to as many of our readers as possible, with our readers being anyone potentially searching for English-language information on the internet.

Could you provide some examples?

I personally would quite like to see a "layman's introduction" to some
articles, with more technical details later. This got discussed a bit on
the philosophy wikiproject:
 -->
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy#The_Philosophically_Illiterate

Chris

- --
Chris Jenkinson
chris at starglade.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFC0A4rEq6+ijeBrJ8RAgG9AKDWf77RZumaLrlnqqybup6pr78GGgCfWgAa
E1Makm1dyxMk49HxFLUt1jQ=
=838D
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Shouldn't we kick paedophiles off Wikipedia?

body:
There are very few views that are viewed as so taboo as paedophilia. And let's be honest here - you wouldn't ask either of those two users to babysit for you, so let's stop the nonsense about "open-mindedness". I'm not open-minded about grown men wanting to have sex with pre-pubescent girls - and I imagine that goes for 99%+ of the population.

As far as you asking me not to be emotive about it - that's silly - who wouldn't be emotive about it (and I'm not even a parent)!

Let me ask the question again - is Wikipedia a haven for paedophiles? If so, I can see many parents banning their children from using it - to the detriment of us all.

Jon

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----Hash: SHA1Jon wrote:> I've recently noticed that we have a small number of self-confessed paedophile Wikipedians - who, as you can imagine, edit paedophile-related articles apologising for paedophilia, encouraging us to accept it as normal. Should we not kick these people out of Wikipedia. At the very least they are encouraging others to commit crimes (by arguing that paedophilia is perfectly acceptable).>  > By way of example - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LuxOfTKGL and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zanthalon.>  > I know Wikipedia is a broad church, full of people with different backgrounds and beliefs. But whichever way you look at it, paedophilia is against societal norms. As it is we have to warn teachers and parents that Wikipedia is not child-safe because of certain explicit images - do we also want to have to tell them it isn't child-safe as we welcome paedophiles as equals?>  > (Incidentally, the developers would be well-advised
 to do IP checks on these users and tell the police whatever they find out, as it is clear that self-confessed paedophiles need to be watched very carefully.)>  > Jon (jguk) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and must remain balanced. We don't saywhether paedophilia is right or wrong, we say what it is, why people maydo it, what causes them to do it, and society's views on it.If these people are making statements saying paedophilia is morallyright, or in fact, morally wrong, then that is not acceptable. If theyare providing encylopediac information relating to why people may bepaedophiles, etc. I think that is beneficial for Wikipedia.Be careful of using emotive language, and banning people for theirthoughts is not what I'd like to see. Ban people for their actions, butnot for what they think.Chris

- --Chris Jenkinsonchris at starglade.org-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.orgiD8DBQFC0AuOEq6+ijeBrJ8RAvceAJ9GOw+isv9G8DUER3JVetKIgcctKQCbBkvJaKfVwAljND/SB2HuPUcv8nE==N9Lm-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

---------------------------------
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos. Get Yahoo! Photos


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

Jon wrote:
> There are very few views that are viewed as so taboo as paedophilia. And let's be honest here - you wouldn't ask either of those two users to babysit for you, so let's stop the nonsense about "open-mindedness". I'm not open-minded about grown men wanting to have sex with pre-pubescent girls - and I imagine that goes for 99%+ of the population.
>
> As far as you asking me not to be emotive about it - that's silly - who wouldn't be emotive about it (and I'm not even a parent)!
>
> Let me ask the question again - is Wikipedia a haven for paedophiles? If so, I can see many parents banning their children from using it - to the detriment of us all.

(your reply appeared very messed up - what email client are you using?)

No, I wouldn't want them to babysit my children, but then again, that's
not Wikipedia is about!

Let me be clear - I am totally against all kinds of paedophilia and
child-molesting, I find it abhorrent and anyone who commits an act of
this kind deserves to face trial. But that's not what we're talking
about here!

Wikipedia is not a "paedophile haven", that comment is absolutely
ludicrous. Wikipedia is/should be a neutral source of information on all
things, including paedophilia. It's not our role to tell people what to
believe, it's to give others the information in a fair and unbiased way
so they can make up their own minds what to believe. I think it's wrong
- - but Wikipedia is not a platform for my beliefs. If these people are
using Wikipedia as a soapbox, that is not on. But if they are adding in
encyclopediac content, that is absolutely fine by me.

Chris

- --
Chris Jenkinson
chris at starglade.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFC0BHBEq6+ijeBrJ8RAmovAJ9ha3WdqqePKfUDGFBB/nkmTlxcFgCeNv3R
gHpWbYQvq8M7riqqF+cG6HA=
=XAgN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Angels

body:
I have always had trouble with the way supernatural or paranormal
fauna (mystical lifeforms) are catagorised and discussed on the
wikipedia. The articles :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legendary_creature

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghosts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_deities

and many more, need clean up and co-ordination as well as discussion
on a single hub page. I'm not sure if it is appropriate to discuss
articles here, but I thought it was a good place to request assistance
for the bigger picture, particularly in choosing a name for where this
can all be done in a utilitarian yet NPOV manner.

Jack (Sam Spade)


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Servien Ilaino

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dutch-Low Saxon test-mainpage

body:
Dit artikel is best goed te lesen, ik begryp sowat alles! Mer... a'j
dan weer naor "Diskuschoon" gaot dan verstao'k der weer niks van! Et
sal wel an et dialekt liggen, mer die ? en die ?o ensovorts...
waarklik onleesbaor!!

P.S. Ik het ok 'n test-wp an-emaokt sie:
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/test-wp/nds-nl/, heet der iemand nog
advies hoe um de nds-nl Wikipedia rapper an kun maoken, b.v. 'n
berichtjen sturen?

Servien!

2005/7/9, Boris Lohnzweiger <BorisLohnzweiger at web.de>:
>
> > Ron has done quite a job on the article [[Katt]], in a huge effort to
> convert it from Patentplatt to real Platt.
>
> Hi Mark!
>
> Nice job. As far as I'm able to able to judge, the overall language quality of the article was clearly improved. But I think it's an exaggeration to say the article was written in a fake Platt before and is "real" now. Authenticity is often a matter of perspective. Most of the alterations made are not so much about real vs. phony but rather a matter of spelling, dialect differences or even a matter of taste. Some changes aren't really necessary e. g. replacing the very common "mooken" by a seldomly used "m?ken". One thing I really can't grasp is why Ron/Reinhard introduces the letter "?" (which is never used in Germany), e. g. when replacing the authentic Platt word "?kelnaam" by a weird-looking "?kelnaam" for no visible reason.
>
> Best,
> Boris
>
>
>
> Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com>, wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org schrieb am 08.07.05 01:18:55:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Ron has done quite a job on the article [[Katt]], in a huge effort to
> convert it from Patentplatt to real Platt.
>
> Diff: http://nds.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katt&diff=21797&oldid=18531
>
> Mark
>
> On 06/07/05, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Boris,
> >
> > I personally think that if in that sample the only extreme differences
> > are "mer" and the future tense, this should not be insurmountable.
> >
> > Brazilian and Iberian Portuguese similarly have some vast differences
> > in verb conjugations (although they use the same orthography...), yet
> > they have a single Wikipedia.
> >
> > I'm sure many Portuguese people are a little bit annoyed when they see
> > people using the second-person singular conjugations for both
> > second-person singular and second-person plural... but then, they're a
> > little bit used to it since Portuguese often visit Brazilian websites,
> > read Brazilian books, watch Brazilian movies... and vice-versa but to
> > a lesser degree.
> >
> > Nevertheless, the fact alone that you were able to identify it as the
> > future tense (as opposed to just completely not knowing) counts for
> > something.
> >
> > Surely, although it might be a bit annoying at first, such a
> > linguistic difference as use or non-use of the future tense is
> > surmountable.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > On 05/07/05, Boris Lohnzweiger <BorisLohnzweiger at web.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Servien!
> > >
> > > Thanks for informing me about that. I must admit, I've never heard or read about ANS. So, like the name suggests that's supposed to work in but countries? A good idea for sure. However (and that's a big however), as far as I can tell noboby in Germany ever writes that way. Just have a look a websites from Germany written in nds. You won't ever find all those y's and v's there. Neither in Plattd??tsch literature you can find in book stores in Northern Germany. While that ANS spelling system might be a good thing in theory, I think you just couldn't re-educate thousands of people in order to have one single nds Wikipedia. But I guess I don't have to convince _you_ anyway.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the sample phrase. Here's my try:
> > >
> > > "Wenn <or "As"> en Minsch nich faken noog ruut <"na buten" would also work> k?mmt ward he ook nich <equivalent for "h?yl" would be "heel" but is usually not used here> bruun <future tense "w?yrden" also omitted here> s?nnern blievt witt. <Note: I can`t really think of a word for "pale" now - you could possibly take "bleek" (without "witt" in that case) but I'm not 100% sure here>
> > >
> > > Even though I have tried to stick to your wording as closely as possible, I think the differences are quite tremendous here. They go far beyond spelling. What was most striking to me was the use of the future tense in your sample phrase. The Plattd??tsch I know just doesn't have that - just like in spoken High German where that tense is not used either. But also the word "mer" (that's like "maar" in Dutch, isn't it?) wouldn`t be understood by readers in Germany. Other differences are less severe, of course. E. g. "genog" instead of "noog" would surely be understood, especially since we have "genug" in German. But take "kump" (do you speak an "?" or an "u" there?) for "k?mmt" for example or even "ie/y" instead of "he". If the decision about a Dutch Low Saxon Wikipedia were in my hands and I had to make that decision solely based on this one example - I would most definately create it! Not because I want to separate Dutch and German wikipedians - it's the 21st century and thank God we're good neighbours - but only of the language facts.
> > >
> > > Boris
> > >
> > > Servien Ilaino <servien at gmail.com>, wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org schrieb am 05.07.05 15:33:43:
> > >
> > > Hi Boris,
> > >
> > > The orthography used in that text seems to me is de Algemeyne
> > > Neddersassische Schryvwys'... I also used to use it, but people don't
> > > seem to understand it quite as well in the Netherlands and Germany, I
> > > must honestly say I understand the ANS writing system way better then
> > > the one you used at the bottom (of course there are words which are
> > > completely unknown to me...)
> > >
> > > Here is a sample of DLS in ANS writing system:
> > > As 'n mins ny vaak genog buyten kump sal y ok ny h?yl bruyn w?yrden
> > > mer sal y spyrwit blyven.
> > >
> > > And here in the traditional one:
> > > As 'n mins nie vaok genog buut'n kump zal ie ok nie heul bruun wurd'n
> > > mer zal ie spierwit bliev'n/blyv'n.
> > >
> > > This is the one I use:
> > > As 'n mins nie vaok genog buten kump sal ie ok nie heul bruun wurden
> > > mer sal ie spierwit blyven. (it's a mixture of the traditional one and
> > > a little from ANS, I don't use the apostrophes because like in the
> > > word blyv'n is pronounced as "bliem" and this is confusing because
> > > bak'n [bake] is also pronounced differently like "bakng".)
> > >
> > > (Translation of the text:
> > > If a person doesn't go outside much then he won't have a tanned look,
> > > but will be pale white.)
> > >
> > > Servien
> > >
> > > 2005/7/5, Boris Lohnzweiger <BorisLohnzweiger at web.de>:
> > > >
> > > > > Ahh wait, I see here the accusation is that it's in "Patentplatt", which is "based on Missingsch.
> > > >
> > > > Ok "Patentplatt" or "Fernsehplatt" (TV Platt) as it is called sometimes - that really seems to happen. I think that word is less misleading. Of course, different people will have different views on what is unique and what is not. Languages like German or French have had established unified standards for centuries, so there is hardly ever any doubt what's linguistically correct or not at de: or fr:. Obviously, at nds: you don`t have that degree of unambiguousness. I would really appreciate any efforts to improve the linguistic quality of the Low Saxon Wikipedia. After all, it is still at an early stage. Unfortunetaly, I can't really help here for, being a native in High German, I'd probably only worsen the problem of "Patentplatt".
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > A sample of 'real' Low Saxon written in "AGS" orthography:
> > > > > Lyk so kanst dat in 'n paar dialekten vun de ?nner-Elv' (in Hamborg un kuntray) ook seggen.  "Wat" kan daar in s?kse vellen lyk as "dat" un > "dey" bruken.  I dou dat ook vaken, man tou meyrst wen ik snakken dou.
> > > >
> > > > Where does that come from? The vocabulary is mostly alright. But the spelling looks awfully articifial to me. Never before have I seen anyone using "y" in written Platt. And why should you write "v" when you say "f". Just too make look "less German"? Also, the diphtong "ou" might somehow reflect the pronounciation but is certainly not usually used in Northern Germany. And why should one want to use "kk" instead of "ck"? Just because it's written that way in the Netherlands?? And why is there an apostrophe in " Elv' "? Just because the word is "Elbe" in High German. Complete nonsense, in my humble opinion. I don't want to comment comment on the "real Platt" word "kuntray" but the "I" at the beginning of the last sentence is either Bavarian or English but surely not Platt.
> > > >
> > > > Coming from the "?nner-Elv'" myself, let me try it:
> > > >
> > > > Liek so kannst dat in'n poor Dialekten vun de ?nnerelv (in Hamborg un ?mto) ook seggen. "Wat" kann dor in d?sse/s?kse F?llen liek as "dat" un "de" bruken. Ick/Ik do dat ook faken, man tomeest wenn ick/ik snack.
> > > >
> > > > Hmm...
> > > >
> > > > Boris
> > > >
> > > > Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com>, wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org schrieb am 05.07.05 08:34:13:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Boris,
> > > >
> > > > I'm a bit perplexed as this accusation has been made by a number of
> > > > people on Lowlands-l, most of the accusers being native speakers of
> > > > Low German, and at least one (RF Hahn) also speaking Missingsch. Ahh
> > > > wait, I see here the accusation is that it's in "Patentplatt", which
> > > > is "based on Missingsch".
> > > >
> > > > Accusations: "Unalike the Laich Saxon edeetion whase warkers dinna
> > > > actually ken the leid.
> > > > (It's oor Jonny's pet plaint, his windmill faes, an that richtly.)"
> > > >
> > > > "It doesn't help that language competency is wanting in the current
> > > > WikiPlatt team.  Those folks are enthusiastic, and I laud that.  But
> > > > they don't know the language well enough.  Much or most of it is
> > > > "Patentplatt" (based on Missingsch), i.e. invented on the basis of
> > > > German.  I am not at all opposed to introducing technical neologisms,
> > > > but there needs to be first of all a firm grasp of the basic language,
> > > > the grammar and the authentic idiom."
> > > >
> > > > Information on Patentplatt: "The number of Lowlands Saxon speakers ...
> > > > would be large if it included people who are somewhat conversant ...
> > > > and it would be even larger if it included those who ... can really
> > > > only manage lexically, idiomatically and grammatically deficient,
> > > > German-based, "made-up Platt" (Patentplatt)."
> > > >
> > > > This is very concerning, and is clearly a major factor in the
> > > > difficulty people from the Netherlands are having reading NDS.wiki. I
> > > > just dashed off an e-mail to Ron to remind him that he is always
> > > > welcome to "fix" the Patentplatt, because of course it's Wikipedia.
> > > >
> > > > Obviously, this isn't the only factor, and I'm not sure if it's even
> > > > the greatest factor. But, I feel that we should explore that.
> > > >
> > > > A sample of 'real' Low Saxon written in "AGS" orthography:
> > > >
> > > > Lyk so kanst dat in 'n paar dialekten vun de ?nner-Elv' (in Hamborg un
> > > > kuntray) ook seggen.  "Wat" kan daar in s?kse vellen lyk as "dat" un
> > > > "dey" bruken.  I dou dat ook vaken, man tou meyrst wen ik snakken dou.
> > > >
> > > > Hmm...
> > > >
> > > > Best
> > > > Mark
> > > >
> > > > On 04/07/05, Boris Lohnzweiger <BorisLohnzweiger at web.de> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Mark!
> > > > >
> > > > > I was quite perplexed to read that they write Missingsch in the Low Saxon Wikipedia. So I just went there and checked out ten random pages. Having grown up in a rural area near Hamburg, it`s easy for me tell apart Low Saxon from Missingsch. The whole issue seems to be very exaggerated. All ten articles I've read were without a doubt in Plattd??tsch. Of course single articles might not be - I haven`t checked the whole Wikipedia. However, one can note that depending on the subject of the article the share of words that very closely resemble standard German words or are even identical (in writing !) is sometimes quite high. But this is a usual phenomenon in Low Saxon. Generally speaking, the more scientific a text gets the closer it comes to Hochdeutsch. Surely, sometimes this can lead to the fact that certain passages of articles don`t look too much like Platt. This can been seen very clearly in this article: http://nds.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptilia . It has two sections, both written by the same author, as far as I can tell. The first ("Nordd??tsche Slangen") is very "pure" Low Saxon. The second ("Systematik") looks very much like standard German, due to its topic. I think even without knowing both languages in detail you can easily tell the difference. But this is not to be confused with Missingsch. You just couldn`t say that differently or more "real", if you want.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don`t who actually brought up this Missingsch issue (native speaker? hobby linguist?). But as a matter of fact, nds-WP is written in Low Saxon. If individual pages are in other languages (which to some degree happens in many Wikipedias) the guys at nds can certainly cope with that. However,  I disbelieve that this part of the reason native speakers of Low Saxon in the Netherlands ask for a separate WP.
> > > > >
> > > > > Boris
> > > > >
> > > > > Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com>, wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org schrieb am 04.07.05 01:38:06:
> > > > >
> > > > > Also, it seems to me that Walter, Wouter, and Servien are intent on
> > > > > ignoring the issue of nds.wiki being in Missingsch rather than real
> > > > > nds. But this is a real issue, and we need to deal with it. I have
> > > > > personally received complaints from members of lowlands-l about
> > > > > nds.wiki being in Missingsch, which is not actually Low Saxon but
> > > > > rather a "contact variety".
> > > > >
> > > > > Surely, mutual intelligiblity would be increased very much if this
> > > > > huge problem were solved. I'm sure one of the main problems is the
> > > > > fact that it's written in Missingsch.
> > > > >
> > > > > Perhaps before starting nds-nl.wiki, somebody should start
> > > > > real-nds.wiki, and after that we can see if things are any better.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mark
> > > > >
> > > > > _________________________________________________________________________
> > > > > Mit der Gruppen-SMS von WEB.DE FreeMail k?nnen Sie eine SMS an alle
> > > > > Freunde gleichzeitig schicken: http://freemail.web.de/features/?mc=021179
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
> > > > QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
> > > > POSSIT MATERIARI
> > > > ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > >
> > > > _________________________________________________________________________
> > > > Mit der Gruppen-SMS von WEB.DE FreeMail k?nnen Sie eine SMS an alle
> > > > Freunde gleichzeitig schicken: http://freemail.web.de/features/?mc=021179
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >
> > > ______________________________________________________________
> > > Verschicken Sie romantische, coole und witzige Bilder per SMS!
> > > Jetzt bei WEB.DE FreeMail: http://f.web.de/?mc=021193
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >
> >
> > --
> > SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
> > QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
> > POSSIT MATERIARI
> > ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE
> >
>
>
> --
> SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
> QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
> POSSIT MATERIARI
> ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Mit der Gruppen-SMS von WEB.DE FreeMail k?nnen Sie eine SMS an alle
> Freunde gleichzeitig schicken: http://freemail.web.de/features/?mc=021179
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Dallan Quass

subject: [Wikitech-l] Feedback request on "structured namespaces"

body:
I apologize if this is not the right forum to discuss this topic.

I'm planning to hire someone to make the following modifications to
the MediaWiki source code (1.5 beta version).  I'd be interested in
getting feedback from this list about the the major change that I want
implemented: "structured namespaces."  I want to keep the
implementation as simple as possible in order to reduce development
costs, and also want to keep things in the spirit of where MediaWiki is
going long-term, in case you wanted to eventually fold the code for
structured namespaces into the main codebase.

And in case someone from this list is interested in working on the
project for me, I've included the other changes I need someone
to make as well.

Thanks in advance for looking this over,

-dallan

General requirement: In order make it easier for me to update to later
MediaWiki versions in the future, as few changes to the existing
scripts should be made as possible.  Instead, the modifications should
be implemented generally by adding hooks into the existing functions
that call out to new classes and functions.

Major Changes: structured namespaces

You'll notice that several types of Wikipedia pages (e.g., countries
and US states) have infoboxes to display particular data elements.  I
want to carry this one step further by assigning a specific structure
to certain namespaces.  All pages in a "structured namespace" would
contain data elements that conform to the specific schema/DTD that has
been assigned to that namespace.  The data would be included in the
page content before the regular text of the page.  This affects how
the page is displayed and how it is edited.  Special functions would
be associated with the namespace for page display and editing, as
described below.  The "diff" view to compare two versions of a page
would not need a new function.  By saving data elements at the top of
a page in a pretty-printed XML format, diffs running over the entire
page (including both data element and regular text portions) should
make reasonable sense to the user.

Specifically, I would like four enhancements made in this area:

(1) When a page in a structured namespace is displayed, a call-out to
a namespace-specific display function is made to display the data
elements on the page.  The regular text of the page (after the data
element portion) is then displayed using the existing functionality.

(2) When a page in a structured namespace is edited, a call-out to a
namespace-specific edit function is made to generate HTML form fields
for editing the data elements on the page.  The regular text of the
page is then placed in the normal edit textbox using the existing
functionality.

(3) Before previewing or saving an edited page in a structured
namespace, a call-out to a namespace-specific generation function is
made to generate the XML to insert into the page from the user-entered
data.  In addition, the generation function may generate errors, in
which case if the user pressed "save" the "preview" page should be
shown instead (i.e., save should be disallowed if there are errors),
and the errors should be listed on the preview page.

(4) When a page in a structured namespace is saved, a call-out to a
namespace-specific propagation function is made to propagate data
elements to related pages if necessary.  This callout should be handed
both the current as well as the previous version of the data elements
for the page.  Suppose for example that a structured namespace
contained pages for places, that one of the data elements on a place
page was its enclosing "parent" place, and that another of the data
elements on a place page was a list of subordinate "child" places
which was non-user-editable - that the way to edit this list of child
places was through changing the parent place of a child.  Then if
someone were to change the parent place of a child, it would need to
be removed from the list of children in the previous parent place and
added to the list of children in the new parent place, so the
propagation function would read the page for the previous parent
place, update its list of child places, then read the page for the new
parent place and update its list of child places.  The propagation
function must be done in the same transaction as the page save, so
that either both succeed or both fail.  It must also be called as
part of page deletion.

Other changes:

(1) Display, edit, generation, and propagation functions for a "given
name" structured namespace.  This namespace contains the following data
element.
* Related names: one or more names.

When displayed, each related name displays as a link to another "given
name" page (the page is possibly non-existent).  In editing, the names
should be entered as a list, one per line.  To validate, ensure that
names contain only alphabetic characters, spaces, and single quotes,
no wiki/html markup.  No propagation is needed.

(2) Display, edit, generation, and propagation functions for a
"surname" structured namespace.  This namespace contains the same
elements and functions as the "given name" namespace.

(3) Display, edit, generation, and propagation functions for a "place"
structured namespace.  This namespace contains the following data
elements.
* Preferred name
* Parent: link to title of the parent (enclosing) place; e.g., for US
States, this is the title of the USA country page.  This page must exist.
* Date range: start - end year
* Type of place: country, state, province, county, city, etc.
* Previous parents: list of links to titles of previous parent places, along
with a year range (from - to) for which this was the parent.  Each of these
pages must exist
* All names: a list of all variant names/common misspellings and their
sources (i.e., the atlas/gazetteer giving this name as the name of the
place) that this place has been known by over time.
* Latitude and longitude
* Population
* See-also places: a list of links to related places and the reason that
each is related to this place.  Each of these pages must exist.
* Child/subordinate places: A list of links to all places that list this
place as their Parent, shown grouped by Type.

This is the most complex namespace.  To be a little more precise, an XML
grammer for the data elements is:

element place {
	element preferredname { text },
	element parent { text },
	element daterange {
		element from { text  },
		element to { text }
	},
	element type { text },
	element previousparents {
		element previousparent {
			element parent { text },
			element from { text }?,
			element to   { text }?
		}*
	},
	element allnames {
		element allname {
			element name { text },
			element source { text }?
		}+
	},
	element latitude { text },
	element longitude { text },
	element population { text },
	element see_also_places {
		element see_also_place {
			element place { text },
			element reason { text }?
		}*
	},
	element childplaces {
		element childplace {
			element place { text },
			element type { text }
		}*
	}
}

Display should show these data elements in an infobox on the
right-hand side of the screen.  Editing previous parents, all names,
and see-also places should use textboxes, listing one entry per row,
with |'s separating the fields on a row.  (I think this makes editing
these complex fields relatively easy.)  Validation should parse the
textbox rows and ensure that numeric fields are numeric.  Also, no
wiki/html markup should be allowed in any of the data elements.  Child
places cannot be user-edited.  Instead, they are derived from upon
each place's Parent place, and propagated as described in the
introduction.

(4) Display, edit, generation, and propagation functions for a "resource"
structured namespace.  This namespace contains the following data elements.
* Category(s): one or more of: census, birth, marriage, death, obituary,
etc.
* Access: one of: web site, web form, microfilm, book, etc.
* Place(s): one or more place pages.  The place pages must exist.
* Surname(s): one or more surname pages.  The surname pages do not have to
exist.
* Year range: from - to: both must be 4-digit years, with from <= to
* Coverage: one of: good, fair, poor, or unknown
* Location:
  - if Access is web site or web form, this must be a URL;
  - otherwise this can be anything.

Display should show these elements in an infobox on the right-hand
side of the screen.  Edit function creates a multi-select list for
category, a drop-down list for access and coverage, textboxes for
places and surnames (with one entry per line), text fields for from
and to years, and a textbox for location (no wiki/html formatting
in any data element).  No propagation is necessary.

(5) New skin - need a new CSS skin (describe later).

(6) Need a "special page" that displays all pages in the surname
namespace.  This should use the AllPages special page script,
restricted to pages in the surname namespace.  The only difference is
that I want the URL for this "all surname pages" to have just a single
parameter, which is the starting name (from=).

(7) Only registered users should be able to create/edit pages in the 4
namespaces mentioned above.

(8) Only sysops should be able to create/edit pages in other namespaces
(outside of the 4 namespaces mentioned above).

(9) User registration should require email confirmation.  That is, as
part of the registration process, an email should be sent to the user
containing a special URL that they need to click on in order to complete
their registration.

(10) There is an extension to MediaWiki that allows daily digest emails
to be sent instead of an email for every page change.  You need to
install this option and make sure that if the user elects to be notified
of changes to pages in their watchlist, that they are sent digests rather
than separate emails for each page changed.

(11) Full-text search: Add a "special page" that provides full-text
searching of pages by calling a REST-based search interface that I
will provide.  Essentially, you'll make an HTTP call with a URL that
includes the user-entered search string, namespace, start#, and
the #results to display.  You will passed back an XML result set
containing a total count along with a list of PageURLs and context
strings to display.


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] wikien-l info page text rewritten a bit

body:
    http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

I've rewritten the text a bit (tighten it up, emphasise certain
details, etc). The 'how to post' bit now specifically addresses
blocked users. The following para warns of what happens to uncivil
emails. The 'rules' bit at the end is written as a general
expectation.

The really annoying people don't read anyway, but at least this should
set expectations appropriately :-)

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: more active censorship

body:
JAY JG wrote:

> Wikipedia is obviously a terribly flawed system filled with software
> that causes terrible hardships to validly blocked users, and admins
> abusing their power and just itching to "dominate" other editors.

Bishonen was doing absolutely the opposite of "dominating" other
editors. Sticking her tongue out at Nathan and keeping the block would
have been an example of "dominating"; instead, she lifted the ban after
its intended expiry time.

A temporary block is only valid for its allocated timeframe. A 24-hour
block is no longer valid after 24 hours.

You seem to have an attitude that sees Nathan as the wrong-doer, and you
seem to think that Nathan is complaining about being blocked. But he
never did. I think he understands the reasons for his block, and he is
genuinely trying to change his ways to prevent the same from happening
again. This is laudable behaviour, especially for someone who was indeed
validly blocked. When the 24 hours are up, these people *must* be given
a fair chance to show that they are changing their ways and that they
will edit in even better faith than before.

What you are saying essentially amounts to saying that once you have
been validly blocked, you are considered a "bad user" and do not have
any grounds to complain if your block is unfairly extended beyond the
original 24 hours.

Timwi


from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: [Wiktionary-l] Changing username

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> This tool has not been reviewed for security, and in fact a cursory
> glance does reveal some potential problems. (Additionally we have
> general concerns about database impact of renaming users with long edit
> histories.)
>
> It should not have been turned on at this stage and I'm disabling it for
> now, so an announcement of availability is probably premature. :)

Fixed and re-enabled. Only users with less than 5000 edits may be renamed.

-- Tim Starling


from_name: Wouter Steenbeek

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Natural languages and new Wikipedias;
	Chinook Jargon?

body:
>From: Boris Lohnzweiger <BorisLohnzweiger at web.de>

>Just like you, Tomasz, I expect and hope many of the minor WPs to grow in
>the future. But I doubt that e. g. Interlingue, Nauruan, Yiddish, Lojban,
>Klingon, Volap?k, Hawaiian, Aromanian, Manx, Gothic, Pali, Aramaic,
>Choctaw, Hiri Motu or Muscogee will ever reach that critical mass where
>they can rightly be considered as encyclopedias. In my opion, that's a fact
>we must not overlook when discussing about new language editions of
>Wikipedia.

Now let me mingle in this discussion.

I am a dreamer, though sometimes a cynical one, but I am. I doubt as well
that all of those wikipedias (or indeed /any/ of them) will ever grow to an
acceptable level. On the other hand, it's nice that they exist and they must
be given several chances, as long as they don't become a vandal refuge. I
deem it more important that we avoid the creation of Wikipedias like these
in the future, but imo, we /must/ have an encyclopaedia in all of them, at
any case the natural languages, some day. We'd just reach the right people.
By the way, I think 1,000 articles can be enough for a basical Wikipedia,
considering the existence of a list of articles all Wikipedias should have
(http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_articles_all_languages_should_have)
of that length, though 10,000 is of course much more desirable. At li: we
are now going towards 1000 articles, and I must admit that writing the
articles I came across a lot of information I was not aware of.

Wouter

_________________________________________________________________
Direct antwoord op je vragen: gebruik MSN Messenger http://messenger.msn.nl/


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: more active censorship

body:
JAY JG wrote:
>
> No, it's more liked you've been tossed out of the shop for trespassing,
> but whever the shop door says "back in five minutes" you feel a need to
> go in and look around to see if the owner is back.  Then when you're
> tossed out again for trespassing, you complain that you weren't planning
> to steal anything, you were just trying to find the owner.

In your example, the customer performs the forbidden act ("trespassing")
twice. It therefore bears no relation to the situation at hand.

The more I read from you, Jay, the more I notice that it is full of
strawmen. Which is kind of ironic, because you were usually the one who
most vocally told other people they were setting up strawmen, especially
without explaining why you think they are strawmen.

Timwi


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: more active censorship

body:
Phil Sandifer wrote:
>
> On Jul 4, 2005, at 2:55 PM, Nathan J. Yoder wrote:
>
>> As stated above, it also renews it for non-sock puppets.  This is how
>> it currently works:
>>
>> 1.  Admin blocks User:foo.
>> 2.  User:foo logs in as User:foo.
>> 3.  User:foo hits 'edit page.'
>> 4.  User:foo block is renewed for another 24 hours.
>
> It should probably be noted that in general, the user:foo block is
> renewed very quickly. In your case, last time it was renewed within  the
> first minute of the block, meaning your block didn't get extended  by
> more than a few seconds.

Huh? For that to be true in general, you would have to assert that every
blocked user attempts to hit "edit" at least once every minute.

Timwi


body:
>From: Tim Starling <t.starling at physics.unimelb.edu.au>
>I don't think he's the one losing perspective. You can hardly compare
>two languages based on the number of articles in their Wikipedia
>editions. We currently have only 195 articles in Urdu, and I'll do
>whatever is necessary to support its growth into the hundreds of
>thousands. But a Wikipedia written in Klingon is a complete waste of
>time whether it has 100 articles or 100,000. You may as well write it in
>ROT13-encoded English. The measure of success should be information
>transfer, not information content.

Strongly disagreed. That point of view would make most Wikipedias wastes of
time. Everyone speaking Limburgic can read Dutch better. Virtually everyone
speaking Welsh, Navajo, and Maori can read English better. Everyone able to
read Bambara is supposed to read French as well. Wikipedias contribute to
the status of a language and the community it is spoken by. The fact that
Klingon is (probably) noone's native language makes a difference, but not
entirely a substantial one: it is a nice thing to have, and it can and will
benefit the Klingon speaking communities which often meet and use the
language quite prominently. It becomes a diiferent story when noone reads
it, even when reaching a high number of articles.

Wouter

_________________________________________________________________
Speel online games via MSN Messenger http://messenger.msn.nl/


from_name: Kerim Friedman

subject: [Wikitech-l] RE: Short URLs

body:
See below..

On 7/9/05, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:

> I'm under the impression that WordPress URLs tend to look like
> "/archives/2005/07/09/some-kind-of-topic", with the rewritten area
> segregated out into its own space ('archives') -- exactly the kind of
> thing I recommend for the wiki.
>
> Your WordPress blog seems to follow this convention. :)

So they do. In fact, the permalink structure and redirects are
generated from within WordPress, so I didn't even have to think about
this. When I was installing MediaWiki for the first time I was under
the impression that such a structure required me to actually have my
wiki stored in a folder called "wiki" rather than the top level
domain. I now understand these things better ... somewhat.

>
> Probably your search table is corrupt. Run 'REPAIR TABLE searchindex'.

That fixed the problem! Thanks!

So is there anyway I can convert to a more stable structure for my
URLs, such as what you recommend, without loosing links that already
exist to current pages?

Kerim


from_name: Chad Perrin

subject: [WikiEN-l] The ongoing trolling

body:
On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 10:02:00PM +0800, Mark Ryan wrote:
> notice the text: "those of you not coming to this list to kiss the ass
> of Ayn Rand reading porn magnate Jimbo Wales". Had I seen this text, I

Wait.  There's something wrong with reading, now?  I mean, I've heard
people complain about porn, and while I don't really understand the
complaint, at least I'm used to it.  What's wrong with reading?

(leaving aside questions of accuracy)

--
Chad Perrin
[ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]


subject: [WikiEN-l] The ongoing trolling

body:
On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 11:41:07PM +1000, David Gerard wrote:
> [2] http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Fountainhead_Earth - inspired by Kurt
>     from #wikipedia, God love him, who argued that Rand had *conclusively
>     disproved* the work of mere know-nothing mathematicians like Godel and
>     Turing. At which point he was kicked. TODAY'S FEATURED ARTICLE ON
>     UNCYCLOPEDIA!

I've seen that.  It's a hoot.

--
Chad Perrin
[ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]


subject: [WikiEN-l] The ongoing trolling

body:
On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 07:59:26AM +1000, Skyring wrote:
> On 7/10/05, Dan Grey <dangrey at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 08/07/05, Ruy Lopez <ruy.lopez at mail.com> wrote:
> > >Lots.
> >
> > A wise man once said to me: if you can't write it on the back of a
> > postcard, it's not worth saying.
>
> I'll bet that wise man wasn't Thomas Jefferson.

. . . or Henry David Thoreau, or me for that matter.

On the other hand, I do get Dan Grey's point.

--
Chad Perrin
[ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]


body:
I agree, and this brings up the subject of Nazi wikipedians, or
satanists, or communists and anarchists for that matter. People are
allowed to be themselves, so long as it doesn't break a rule. Being
these things isn't against our rules.

Jack (Sam Spade)

On 7/9/05, Haukur ?orgeirsson <haukurth at hi.is> wrote:
> > By way of example - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LuxOfTKGL and
>
> This seems fine. The user is clearly not
> encouraging anyone to commit crimes. Nor
> does he admit to any of his own. He wants
> some laws to be changed but that's not a
> crime.
>
>
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zanthalon.
>
> This seems fine too and quite similar.
>
> - - -
>
> I don't think we should throw anyone out for
> what they *are*. If you can show some troubling
> diffs where these users violate a Wikipedia
> policy that would be more relevant.
>
> IANAL and IANJ.
>
> Regards,
> Haukur
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] The ongoing trolling

body:
> I think "insensitive clod" is exactly the sort of comment we're
> discouraging here.

The phrase is jocular. See [[Slashdot subculture]].

Regards,
Haukur


from_name: Ruy Lopez

subject: [WikiEN-l] The ongoing trolling

body:
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Url: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20050709/6a48543c/attachment.diff


body:
>From: Tim Starling <t.starling at physics.unimelb.edu.au>

>Wouter Steenbeek wrote:
> > Strongly disagreed. That point of view would make most Wikipedias wastes
> > of time. Everyone speaking Limburgic can read Dutch better. Virtually
> > everyone speaking Welsh, Navajo, and Maori can read English better.
> > Everyone able to read Bambara is supposed to read French as well.
> > Wikipedias contribute to the status of a language and the community it
> > is spoken by. The fact that Klingon is (probably) noone's native
> > language makes a difference, but not entirely a substantial one: it is a
> > nice thing to have, and it can and will benefit the Klingon speaking
> > communities which often meet and use the language quite prominently. It
> > becomes a diiferent story when noone reads it, even when reaching a high
> > number of articles.
>
>I have trouble relating to this. What do you think Wikipedia's goals are
>(or should be)? Why do you contribute to Wikipedia?
>
Do you mean I should withdraw from Wikipedia because I am wasting time?

Wouter

_________________________________________________________________
Nieuw: Download nu MSN Messenger 7.0 http://messenger.msn.nl/


from_name: Mark Ryan

subject: [WikiEN-l] The ongoing trolling

body:
On 7/9/05, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> I do regret that Jimbo was not more sensitive to your feelings. I
> don't know why Adam Carr can do no wrong in his eyes. I don't find
> him that good an editor to start with.
>
> Fred

I feel that's uncalled for. The correct response was to ignore the
troll, not counter his insult with an insult levelled against another
Wikipedia contributor.

~Mark


subject: [WikiEN-l] Thoughts on having an automatic double-redirect fixer

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

Hi,

Perhaps, when doing moves, there could be a checkbox which would
automatically fix any double-redirects which would arise as a result of
the move?

This would save time, as the person doing the move wouldn't have to go
through all the redirects created and update them, as the software could
automatically do that, attributing it to the person who did the move.

What are people's thoughts on this?

Chris

- --
Chris Jenkinson
chris at starglade.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFC0DaPEq6+ijeBrJ8RAsfgAKCv34GuK005wy31KrET0w/+iP0kjgCghFu8
cOLDyIQWA2jTnEz76YwXUsc=
=m/Ah
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


body:
>From: Tim Starling <t.starling at physics.unimelb.edu.au>

>Wouter Steenbeek wrote:
> >> I have trouble relating to this. What do you think Wikipedia's goals
>are
> >> (or should be)? Why do you contribute to Wikipedia?
> >>
> > Do you mean I should withdraw from Wikipedia because I am wasting time?
>
>No, I mean that I have trouble relating to it, and I'm wondering why you
>contribute to Wikipedia. I'm waiting with curiosity and an open mind.
>Don't be ashamed of your beliefs.

I agree with you that Wikipedia's /main/ goal is still to spread as much
information as possible to the world's population, in their native language
wherever possible. When Wikipedias are too small to provide full information
to the reader, he can enhance this information with bigger Wikipedias.

Besides, I think the Wikipedia phaenomenon is a tool to make languages
emancipate and being used aside. A language is one of the most important
culture bearers there are, and fictional languages are culture bearers as
well, even more so than IALs, and as real and existant as the latter group.
Though you might think an encyclopaedia in a language noone speaks is no
use, in my opinion it is, when someone reads it. Klingon and possibly Quenya
and Sindarin Wikipedia(s) will never make out more than only a small part of
the whole collection of Wikipedias, so I think we should view it/them as (a)
side project(s), secondary or even tertiary, but in no way useless, that is,
if it/they ever grow(s) to a considerable magnitude.

Wouter

_________________________________________________________________
Gebruik MSN Webmessenger op je werk en op school
http://webmessenger.msn.com/


from_name: Haukur Þorgeirsson

body:
> I agree, and this brings up the subject of Nazi wikipedians, or
> satanists, or communists and anarchists for that matter. People are
> allowed to be themselves, so long as it doesn't break a rule. Being
> these things isn't against our rules.

Well put, Jack. And besides, there's no way
we can stop paedophiles, nazis etc. from editing.
We could forbid them to state their bias on their
user page but that would be counterproductive.

Many people state their bias on their user page,
be it religious, political or more personal.
This is sometimes useful for other editors -
it can help to know where someone is coming
from.

Knowing someone is a paedophile, for example,
alerts others to places where she may be letting
her personal desires cloud her judgment.

Other people prefer to be as anonymous as
possible and give no personal information
on their user page to make sure that they
are judged entirely on the  merits of their
edits. That's fine too.

Regards,
Haukur


subject: [WikiEN-l] The ongoing trolling

body:
Perhaps it was a poor choice of words on my part. Replace "troll" with
"problem user". Ruy Lopez is moderated on this mailing list, which you
were probably unaware of. I approved his post above, but did not
notice the text: "those of you not coming to this list to kiss the ass
of Ayn Rand reading porn magnate Jimbo Wales". Had I seen this text, I
would have rejected the post and requested it be reformulated to
comply with this list's informal civility policy.

~Mark

On 7/9/05, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> Ruy Lopez is not a troll.
>
> Fred


body:
I agree with Wouter, of course WP is meant to distribute information
but it helps to "emancipate" a language like for example Limburgish
and Low Saxon (and if Dutch-Low Saxon is created than the community
will also benefit greatly)

If you just write in the national language of a country lets say Dutch
or German, then people won't be bothered to write it in that language
but if you give them the opportunity to have their own Wiki and let
them write in their own (regional) language I think Wikipedia would
certainly gain some respect from the user... may be this is difficult
for a English person to understand (I'm not sure) since everything in
the world is in English from alarm clocks to faxes and the label "Made
in China".

So I also think that Klingon and Quenya should be allowed even if
they're not natural languages, neither is Esperanto and the same goes
for the extint languages but if people prefer that to English, Dutch,
German or French or what ever I think it's a good thing, not a
negative point.

Servien

P.S.: Off-topic: I added the test-wp for Dutch-Low Saxon on
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test-wp/nds-nl/

2005/7/9, Wouter Steenbeek <musiqolog at hotmail.com>:
>
>
> >From: Tim Starling <t.starling at physics.unimelb.edu.au>
>
> >Wouter Steenbeek wrote:
> > >> I have trouble relating to this. What do you think Wikipedia's goals
> >are
> > >> (or should be)? Why do you contribute to Wikipedia?
> > >>
> > > Do you mean I should withdraw from Wikipedia because I am wasting time?
> >
> >No, I mean that I have trouble relating to it, and I'm wondering why you
> >contribute to Wikipedia. I'm waiting with curiosity and an open mind.
> >Don't be ashamed of your beliefs.
>
> I agree with you that Wikipedia's /main/ goal is still to spread as much
> information as possible to the world's population, in their native language
> wherever possible. When Wikipedias are too small to provide full information
> to the reader, he can enhance this information with bigger Wikipedias.
>
> Besides, I think the Wikipedia phaenomenon is a tool to make languages
> emancipate and being used aside. A language is one of the most important
> culture bearers there are, and fictional languages are culture bearers as
> well, even more so than IALs, and as real and existant as the latter group.
> Though you might think an encyclopaedia in a language noone speaks is no
> use, in my opinion it is, when someone reads it. Klingon and possibly Quenya
> and Sindarin Wikipedia(s) will never make out more than only a small part of
> the whole collection of Wikipedias, so I think we should view it/them as (a)
> side project(s), secondary or even tertiary, but in no way useless, that is,
> if it/they ever grow(s) to a considerable magnitude.
>
> Wouter
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Gebruik MSN Webmessenger op je werk en op school
> http://webmessenger.msn.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] The ongoing trolling

body:
I think "insensitive clod" is exactly the sort of comment we're
discouraging here.

Jack (Sam Spade)

On 7/9/05, Skyring <skyring at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/10/05, Mark Ryan <ultrablue at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Had I seen this text, I
> > would have rejected the post and requested it be reformulated to
> > comply with this list's informal civility policy.
>
> Can we have an informal length policy, too?
>
> I had to replace my scroll wheel a couple of times on that trek. And
> then some insensitive clod made a reply, quoting the whole bloody lot.
> Cripes.
>
> --
> Peter in Canberra
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


list: textbook-l

from_name: Robert Scott Horning

subject: [Textbook-l] Forking of Wikipedia content on Wikibooks

body:
I've already put up some discussion on this topic at the staff lounge:

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Staff_Lounge#Forking_of_Wikipedia_content

This e-mail is mainly to advertise the larger issue to those who might
read this list but don't frequent the Staff Lounge (I'm not sure exactly
how many that is.)

The general gist of what I'm trying to propose is under what
circumstances can content from a Wikipedia article be used as a seed to
start an expanded Wikibook.  A Wikibook about Nikola Tesla was started,
in part, due to an edit war on Wikipedia where some Wikipedia editors
wanted to add content, but it keeps getting cut due to the fact that the
article already is quite large.

The Wikibook, titled "The Biography of Nikola Tesla", was IMHO a rather
well put together Wikibook with title page, about 7 "chapters", and a
couple of appendices.  Indeed, other than the fact that it was the
subject of an edit war at Wikipedia I thought it was a very well
organized Wikibook, particular in comparison to most of the rest of the
content on Wikibooks.  It was a little sparse on content for Wikibooks,
but that should be something that happens over time to expand and is
precisely the purpose of Wikibooks.  This Wikibook was ungraciously
deleted over my objections because of a simple majority vote of those on
the delete page.

I guess that I'm trying to modify the deletion policy somewhat to allow
*some* forking of Wikipedia content, provided that the content on
Wikibooks really is an expansion of the Wikipedia article and not just
some POV fight or fork of Wikipedia content.  The nature of Wikibooks
certainly allows almost any article on Wikipedia to be turned into a
book, provided there are interested parties willing to write the
content.  Forbidding any fork would, in effect, kill almost any Wikibook
stub right now.

--
Robert Scott Horning


from_name: Dan Grey

body:
On 09/07/05, Jon <thagudearbh at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> It would be useful (if we don't already have it somewhere that I've missed) to have a firm statement that says articles should be written to be as intelligible to as many of our readers as possible, with our readers being anyone potentially searching for English-language information on the internet.
>
> Jon (jguk)

I guess you can't force people to write in a certain style.

But it's daft to write an encyclopaedia in an academic style. No
academic in his right mind would refer to Wikipedia - I don't mean any
offense, but that's just not it's place. They go to journals and
texts.

What it is useful - what it should be aiming for - is to make subjects
understandable to the 99.99% of the world that *isn't* expert in that
field.

Dan


from_name: Mark Williamson

body:
Boris,

Ron's justification is given below. According to him, such
distinctions are made in "better" Platt publications.


from_name: Jack Lynch

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Angels

body:
I created a wikiproject

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject:Spiritual_Fauna

anyone who would like to help is welcome.

Jack (Sam Spade)

On 7/9/05, Jack Lynch <jack.i.lynch at gmail.com> wrote:
> I have always had trouble with the way supernatural or paranormal
> fauna (mystical lifeforms) are catagorised and discussed on the
> wikipedia. The articles :
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legendary_creature
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghosts
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_deities
>
> and many more, need clean up and co-ordination as well as discussion
> on a single hub page. I'm not sure if it is appropriate to discuss
> articles here, but I thought it was a good place to request assistance
> for the bigger picture, particularly in choosing a name for where this
> can all be done in a utilitarian yet NPOV manner.
>
> Jack (Sam Spade)
>


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Loving Administrative Re-education Therapy by David
	Gerard

body:
Norath Norath (norath2005 at yahoo.com) [050709 15:05]:

> The evidence is clear - you are out of control, and
> nobody has the courage to do anything about it. You
> will not tollerate anyone attempting to hold you
> accountable to the policies that the community has
> empowered you to ADMINISTER.

Considering the adverse community reaction has been zero and the positive
community reaction has been quite a few, I suggest you are completely out
of touch with the community whose name you are invoking.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] The ongoing trolling

body:
On 08/07/05, Ruy Lopez <ruy.lopez at mail.com> wrote:
>Lots.

A wise man once said to me: if you can't write it on the back of a
postcard, it's not worth saying.

Dan


body:
Geoff Burling (llywrch at agora.rdrop.com) [050709 03:59]:

> * Another person afterwards buttonholed me, & proposed Yet
> Another Method of stablizing Wikipedia content for the 1.0
> release. I tried to assure him that David Gerard had the issue
> well in hand, & was working towards a workable implementation that
> would likely be released in 12 months' time.

Hah. It's stalled at the validation feature, which is stalled at Brion not
liking the present code :-) But the code is getting some work and appears
to be moving forward, which is good.

What was his Yet Another suggestion?

- d.


list: foundation-l

from_name: Jean-Baptiste Soufron

subject: Fwd: [Foundation-l] Fair Use and Registered Trademarks

body:
D?but du message r?exp?di? :

> De : Michael Hart <hart at pglaf.org>
> Date : 9 juillet 2005 19:27:27 HAEC
> ? : Jean-Baptiste Soufron <jbsoufron at gmail.com>
> Objet : R?p : [Foundation-l] Fair Use and Registered Trademarks
> R?pondre ? : "Michael S. Hart" <hart at pobox.com>
>
>
> On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Jean-Baptiste Soufron wrote:
>
>
>> Well, trademark law has limited applications, mainly to commercial
>> matters. And I don't see how using the 1911 public domain
>> encyclopedia can infringe the Britannica trademark. They can
>> pretend it does, but to sum it up, Britannica is a work, the title
>> of this work and a trademark.
>>
>> Once the work is public domain, anybody is entitled to reproduce
>> it under under its right title since this title is itself part of
>> the work.
>>
>> Thus, the trademark only protects Britannica from competitive uses
>> (like if someone tries to launch a Britannica book collection).
>>
>> Basically, the reproduction Britannica 1911 edition is not using
>> the trademark Britannica, but the title Britannica.
>>
>> It is always important to remember that Trademark Law is much more
>> restrictive than Copyright Law.
>>
>> I cc Michael Hart in case he remembers anything about this
>> settlement with Britannica.
>>
>
> We never had to make any settlement with Britannica, or with Oxford,
> when they complained about "The Oxford Book Of English Verse," as they
> never asked us to.  Oxford *did* blow some smoke about the OED, but it
> was just that, and a decade ago, as I recall.
>
> I think we will post the first page of the original OED, to test
> the winds,
> esp. since I own a first edition, and can thus prove it is from 1888.
>
> We should be able to publish nearly all of the first edition,
> except those
> few volumes published after 1922. . .I can send a list, if you like.
>
> I should add that PG has TWO different teams working on the
> Britannica,
> and the other one mentions the name much more.
>
> I got one message from the ex-CEO of Britannica, whom I know through
> other means, and explained that I had had nothing to do with the
> second one.
>
> mh
>
>
>
>>
>> Jean-Baptiste Soufron
>>
>> Le 6 juil. 05 ? 14:09, Robert Scott Horning a ?crit :
>>
>>
>>> I've come across a potential legal issue that has an impact
>>> across several Wikimedia projects that I'd like to bring up for
>>> general discussion.
>>> I've been trying to find a home for the 1911 Wikipedia (for more
>>> details, see the new project page), and I've been attempting to
>>> move it to Wikisource, with the following discussion at the
>>> Scriptorium: http://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource%
>>> 3AScriptorium#1911_Wikipedia
>>> The larger issue I am seeking input from the regulars of this
>>> mailing list is in regards to proper use of registered trademarks
>>> for larger projects. In this case it is how a registered
>>> trademark can be properly used or avoided when a project is tied
>>> to something that inevitably has strong references to registered
>>> trademarks.
>>> In this case it is in reference to the 1911 edition of the
>>> Encyclopedia Britannica, where a whole sub project is going to be
>>> based on content from that set of volumes.  This issue could also
>>> deal with How-to books in Wikibooks or even Star Trek or Star
>>> Wars trivia entries in Wikipedia, which is again why I'm posting
>>> this issue here rather than other Foundation lists.
>>> In particular for the Encyclopedia Britannica, this issue already
>>> came up with Project Gutenberg where Encyclopedia Britannica's
>>> legal team forced Project Gutenberg into a policy statement.
>>> Keep in mind that prior to this official statement, Project
>>> Gutenberg routinely referenced the associated text with the
>>> Encyclopedia Britannica by name.  What resulted was the following:
>>>    "The Project Gutenberg Encyclopedia is a reproduction of a 1911
>>>    edition of a famous encyclopedia. The text has not been updated.
>>>    Although the text is in the public domain in the United
>>> States, the
>>>    original publisher still has a valid trademark in the original
>>> title
>>>    of the encyclopedia. The original publisher offered Project
>>>    Gutenberg a license to use the trademark, but the terms of the
>>>    license were not consistent with the volunteer noncommercial
>>> nature
>>>    of Project Gutenberg or its primary goal of distributing
>>> electronic
>>>    text with the fewest possible restrictions. In order to avoid the
>>>    possibility of trademark infringement, all references to the
>>>    original title and the original publisher have been changed or
>>>    deleted. Because of numerous references embodying possible
>>>    trademarks, the entire preface has been omitted. The original
>>>    publisher of the 1911 print encyclopedia was not and is not
>>> involved
>>>    in any way with the creation, editing or distribution of the
>>> Project
>>>    Gutenberg Encyclopedia. Any errors which may have occurred in the
>>>    conversion to electronic form can not be attributed in any way to
>>>    the original publisher. In order to avoid possible future
>>> trademark
>>>    infringements or confusion in the minds of the public, this
>>>    electronic version should be referred to as the Project Gutenberg
>>>    Encyclopedia. The name of the original print encyclopedia
>>> should not
>>>    be used in any way in connection with this electronic text."
>>> I am suggesting that the Wikimedia Foundation follow the lead of
>>> Project Gutenberg in this case and try to avoid implied
>>> endorsement by also avoiding the use of registered trademarks
>>> when possible.  The real question then is how and in what cases
>>> should registered trademarks be omitted?  Obviously there
>>> shouldn't be much of a problem for a Wikipedia article about a
>>> company, but it gets into grey areas when you get into a
>>> collection of articles that could be refered to by using a
>>> registered trademark, such as Ford mussle cars or kinds of SPAM.
>>> Obviously each Wikimedia project will end up having to deal with
>>> this issue independently on the fine points, but it wouldn't hurt
>>> to establish some general policy guidelines either.  Any general
>>> assistance would be appreciated.
>>> --
>>> Robert Scott Horning
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Michael Turley

subject: [WikiEN-l] Thank you RickK

body:
On 7/9/05, Tony Sidaway <minorityreport at bluebottle.com> wrote:
> Alphax said on July 5:
>
> > Michael Turley wrote:
> >> I'm always disappointed when I hear of people leaving, but I'd rather
> >> have an unstable person leave because of a failed admin nomination than
> >> promote an unstable person to adminship.  At least this way, the
> >> instability has only driven a single user away.
>
> > Um, you seem to forget the case of RickK - an unstable admin who left
> and deleted pages when they went...
>
> This is a great inflated bubble of an argument.
>
> Firstly we're told that RickK was unstable.  No evidence is presented.
>
> Secondly we're told that RickK "deleted pages" when he went.
>
> Well actually all RickK did when he went was delete his user space
> articles.   As he was a member in good standing when he left, he was
> surely entitled to do so.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=RickK&page=
>
> I object strongly to the characterisation of RickK as an unstable
> administrator.  He was one of the best we've had, he worked long and hard,
> and he finally decided he'd had enough.  I wish he would come back, but if
> he's had enough then we should be thanking him for his long and faithful
> service.  Which I do gladly.  Thank you RickK.

If you read back, you will find that I did not refer to RickK as
unstable, because I think that would be quite an overstatement of
certain personality traits.  I want to make sure that no one mistakes
that for my comment.  The accusations that he deleted pages are not
mine, either.

However, to leave in a huff twice over perceived insults indicates a
certain degree of impulsiveness that could be described in other, less
neutral ways depending on one's perception and past interaction with
him.  Between RickK and another admin, I was almost driven from
Wikipedia within days of registering my user name because I perceived
this as a place that was, behind the scenes, not very attractive.
Tony Sidaway was actually instrumental in keeping me from obsessing
over some of the interpersonal conflicts and directing me toward my
current, much more zen-like attitude toward Wikipedia.

Keeping in mind that administrators are the day-to-day face of
Wikipedia to the general public and the editors at large, especially
new users who arrive every day, I stand by my comments quoted above
regarding my preference of unstable persons leaving rather than being
promoted to adminship.

--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

body:
FWIW, I agree with you guys. We shouldn't throw people out for what
they do or believe in if it's not breaking any wikipedia rules. Anyone
can make a good wikipedian as long as they abide by our policies.

--Mgm

On 7/9/05, Jack Lynch <jack.i.lynch at gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree, and this brings up the subject of Nazi wikipedians, or
> satanists, or communists and anarchists for that matter. People are
> allowed to be themselves, so long as it doesn't break a rule. Being
> these things isn't against our rules.
>
> Jack (Sam Spade)
>
> On 7/9/05, Haukur ?orgeirsson <haukurth at hi.is> wrote:
> > > By way of example - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LuxOfTKGL and
> >
> > This seems fine. The user is clearly not
> > encouraging anyone to commit crimes. Nor
> > does he admit to any of his own. He wants
> > some laws to be changed but that's not a
> > crime.
> >
> >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zanthalon.
> >
> > This seems fine too and quite similar.
> >
> > - - -
> >
> > I don't think we should throw anyone out for
> > what they *are*. If you can show some troubling
> > diffs where these users violate a Wikipedia
> > policy that would be more relevant.
> >
> > IANAL and IANJ.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Haukur
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] The ongoing trolling

body:
Ruy Lopez (ruy.lopez at mail.com) [050709 15:25]:

> If I would say I'm surprised Wales has weighed in the way he did on this
> matter, I would be lying.  I have seen the way he has treated even admins
> like Secretlondon.  I have seen how only admins like 172 get their
> adminship removed.  Not to mention all of the users who have not become
> admins (not like anyone who falls on the side of the political spectrum
> that Secretlondon or 172 does could ever become an admin nowadays).

I largely agree with 172 and Secretlondon politically, and Jimbo and I get
along fine. I wonder why that is.

> Or perhaps I'll just come out and say it: those who are politically
> pro-labor, anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist, what is sometimes called
> the left, are, I wouldn't even say marginalized on Wikipedia, but
> attacked.  Those who are anti-labor, pro-capitalist and pro-imperialist,
> or what is sometimes called the right, are given adminship, made
> bureaucrats and whatnot.

At this point I stopped reading, because you're transparently talking
delusional rubbish.  I 'm a stereotypical Guardian-reading It's-Grim-Up-North-
London [1] wet socialist liberal, I probably disagree with Jimbo on everything
politically, and I consider Ayn Rand and Objectivism material for standup
comedy [2]. But somehow we get along and work together pretty well on the
actual project of writing an encyclopedia. I wonder why that is. Do you
have any hypotheses?

(I think here of Usenet newsgroup aus.politics, back when it was marginally
readable, where the division was not between left and right but between
the sane and the crackpots.)

> And why wouldn't it be so?  Wales himself is a capitalist, and an
> American.  What kind of encyclopedia would one expect to result from the
> structure put in place by an American millionaire after all the money he
> made on pornography and whatnot?  Wales sometimes feels he has to
> position himself above the fray, but the history is clear.  Meaning his
> actions, such as the attack on Secretlondon, not his noting how he was
> enthralled with Ayn Rand as a student and that sort of thing, although
> I'll consider those sorts of things as circumstantial evidence.

If you aren't Xed, you're channelling him. Actually, I don't think you are;
I do think there's a rich well of nutters out there. But [[Crank (person)]]
explains the phenomenon as applied to the Internet admirably.

- d.

[1] [[Private Eye]]
[2] http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Fountainhead_Earth - inspired by Kurt
    from #wikipedia, God love him, who argued that Rand had *conclusively
    disproved* the work of mere know-nothing mathematicians like Godel and
    Turing. At which point he was kicked. TODAY'S FEATURED ARTICLE ON
    UNCYCLOPEDIA!


from_name: El C

subject: [WikiEN-l] Thank you RickK

body:
I echo that, strongly. Thank you, RickK, for everything (which is A LOT).

El_C

>I object strongly to the characterisation of RickK as an unstable
>administrator.  He was one of the best we've had, he worked long and hard,
>and he finally decided he'd had enough.  I wish he would come back, but if
>he's had enough then we should be thanking him for his long and faithful
>service.  Which I do gladly.  Thank you RickK.