subject: [Wikitech-l] Lucene updater daemon

body:
I've set up an indexing update daemon for the Lucene search indexes,
which accepts updates sent from a MediaWiki extension hook over XML-RPC.

One of the main reasons for doing it this way is that the page text
storage changes in MediaWiki 1.5 would make it much harder for a
separate app to get the text by poking directly at the database. Another
of course is that it'll just be easier to push out updates and to handle
page deletions.

Some quick notes:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Brion_VIBBER/MWDaemon#Updater_daemon

Right now it's just running, indexing new updates. I'll re-pull old
pages and copy out the indexes later today, and set up the regular
pause-and-copy job.

The maintenance script 'luceneUpdate.php' can be used to poke the daemon
for status, to flush indexes, and to stop/start the update applier
thread for queued updates.

If this somehow breaks the site overnight, somebody check for the
include of MWSearchUpdateHook.php in CommonSettings and take it out.
The daemon's log file is in /usr/local/mwsearch/MWUpdater.log on maurus.

-- 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/20050707/22a71a91/attachment.pgp>


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] Abuse of admin powers by David Gerard and Snowspinner

body:
Norath Norath (norath2005 at yahoo.com) [050707 06:44]:

> User:Norrath was block by David Gerard for "admitted
> sockpuppet and role account". This account is indeed a
> sockpuppet of a user in good standing, created to
> protest other blocks caaried out abusively by
> Snowspinner. The account was declared as a sockpuppet,
> in accordance with Wikipedia policy (which does not
> prohibit this) and the only edits were polite
> questions to Snowspinner about why he did not follow
> policy.

Role accounts are not allowed on en:. And part of declaring the sock is
saying who it is. Edits aren't anonymous on Wikipedia and particularly not
in the project pages.

(The account declared itself a sock and role account in an edit to
[[User talk:Sam Spade]].)

> It is outrageous that admins block users simply for
> making legitimate requests for explanation from other
> admins about why they did not follow policy.

If you are another admin then I am Enviroknot.

> Please help.

You can tell my abusiveness by the fact that I disappeared this email when
I saw it in the queue. Oh, wait.

- d.


list: wikitech-l

subject: [Wikitech-l] What browser should MacOS 9 users use?

body:
Wikimedia Foundation (board at wikimedia.org) [050707 05:31]:

> Forwarding from OTRS in the hope someone on this list has more of an idea
> about these problems than the board do.

> ---- Forwarded message from Dani?l----

> > Hello Angela, Jimbo & Florence,
> > With the upgrade to MediaWiki 1.5 the Dutch Wikipedia was converted to
> > UTF-8. This has caused that people using Mac OS 9 are now unable to edit
> > the Wiki, because:
> > * Netscape 4.5 is unsupported
> > * Internet Explorer 5 doesn't support Unicode and vandalises pages
> > Opera 6 seems to support Unicode, is reported to be extremely unstable
> > on
> > Mac OS9.
> > I'm not a MacOS user, so perhaps I have forget a browser that runs on
> > OS9,
> > but this currently looks like an unsolvable problem.
> > Do you have any experience with this?

There's a version of Mozilla 1.3 for MacOS 9, and someone did a contrib
version of Mozilla 1.3 with a pile of Mozilla 1.4 stuff backported (I
forget who). It's fat and slow (I used it on a Performa 5200, aka iTurd -
famous as "the worst Macintosh ever made"), but it's stable and works just
fine.

- d.


from_name: Kate

subject: [Wikitech-l] URLs

body:
hi,

in 1.5, we have the possibility of changing URLs used for projects.

previously, there were two forms of URLs:

        - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
        - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&action=edit

we now have the choice to replace "action=" with a new path:

        - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
        - http://en.wikipedia.org/edit/Main_Page

however, at the same time, we could implement a change in the way domain
names are used, that has been discussed several times in the past:

        - http://wikipedia.org/en/article/Main_Page
        - http://wikipedia.org/en/edit/Main_Page

as well as being nicer from a technical perspective, i think this reduces
the disconnection between different languages of the same project.  so, i'd
like to propose that we move to the last form of URLs at some point.

does anyone have comments on or object to this change?

kate.


body:
A. Nony Mouse (temoforcomments4 at hotmail.com) [050707 06:52]:

> I'd love to.
> Unfortunately, Gerard has made perfectly clear that any contradiction of
> his behavior is punishable by summary banning from Wikipedia. So, I could
> theoretically revoke such a block, but (a) Gerard or one of his flunkies
> would just reestablish it anyways and (b) they would impose penalties upon
> my own account for doing so.

If you're an admin, then I'm Enviroknot. As it happens, you are. Back to
moderation you go.

- d.


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Webservices API

body:
Magnus Manske wrote:
> Jimmy Wales wrote:
>>No one has said anything negative about what I'm proposing yet (that
>>I've seen) but I should make clear that I'm not at all talking about
>>making our free content costly for proprietary applications.  It is only
>>the hammering of our (expensive) servers that I'm worried about.
>>
>>If Microsoft or Apple wants to mirror Wikipedia and hit their own
>>servers, that's fine.
>
> On a technical note, Brion announced that the XML produced by
> Special:Export will be out new "dump" format, together with an import
> script. Coincidentially, I recently wrote an extension that can list the
> titles of articles changed since date/time X. Working together, these
> two parts could enable mirrors to keep their databases up-to-date with
> only a few hours/minutes delay to the "live" server, and without having
> to transfer the whole database once every two weeks (which was the
> release cycle, right?).

Magnus, we've had this for a few months actually. See extensions/OAI for
the client/server database updater system, which we're currently using
somewhat experimentally for a couple clients. Wikimedia plans to offer
this as a value-add service to commercial mirrors generally (and I hope
for non-profit mirrors, though you'd have to talk to Jimbo to know
what's up).

This uses the OAI-PMH[1] wrapper protocol to pull page updates,
formatted using the Special:Export XML schema.

(The client portion currently works only on a local 1.4 installation
though it's independent of the server version. I'll be tuning it up for
1.5 when I have a chance in the next few weeks.)

[1] http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/openarchivesprotocol.html

-- 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/20050707/93f80dd3/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Fastfission

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

body:
On 7/6/05, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com> wrote:
> On the other hand, I would estimate 90% of those images are also
> effectively serving as free advertising for their respective
> copyright holders. Companies pay all kinds of money to get their
> logos displayed on the front pages of websites with far fewer eyeballs
> and much less reputation; band managers and book agents don't want
> their client's WP articles to be the only ones without attractive
> visuals, and rising stars don't want paparazzi-style candid
> shot to be the first thing that WP readers see about them.

You really think so? Most of those that I've seen don't even have
their ultimate source listed. They say things like, "Taken from such
and such website," where such and such website is usually violating
copyright. They don't say things like, "If you're interested in a
larger picture of this, contact Getty Images" or something like that.

The "copyright infringement that really serves as advertising" is an
argument which I think is partially valid a lot of the time. But I've
never heard it hold up in court. And I only find it somewhat plausible
here -- I don't know if this would be as likely to happen with images
as it would with something like music, a medium in which the use of
one part may encourage further legal use or the purchase of the entire
whole. I don't see a lot of "benefit" given to most of the "fair use"
pictures in the category. More plausibly I see a lack of harm, which
is even more difficult to argue in court (and often irrelevant
anyway).

The more I think about this, the more I think that sitting on ~20,000
copyrighted images is a time-bomb waiting to go off. I see some
distant future in which Wikipedia gets taken down with a cease and
desist -- of course, some intrepid person would no doubt create a
"totally free" mirror which would continue, but at what overall cost?
Personally I think an un-illustrated article is better than one which
puts us in a highly compromised legal position -- most of the articles
in print AND online encyclopedias are unillustrated, we wouldn't be
doing anything wrong in that respect.

 But anyway. I'm not a lawyer, and certainly not a copyright lawyer. I
might -- if nobody objects -- make a few informal e-mails to some
academics who I do consider bonafide experts in this subject and ask
them their thoughts on these questions, which I'll happily relay to
the list. But I won't do that immediately, so if someone has any
objections, please let me know (I should note, I will make no gestures
that I represent WP in any way).

FF


subject:
[Wikitech-l] PHP 5.0.4 problem with
	1.4.4:	array_key_exists()argument error

body:
MHart wrote:
>>> Well first, 1.4.5 is the current 1.4 release. :) Try that before
>
> continuing... <<
>
> I thought 1.4.5 was still in beta... I'll try 1.4.5, thanks.

No, 1.4.5 would never have been in beta; it's a stable release. (1.5 is
currently in beta, now at 1.5beta3.) Try 1.4.6 now, it was just released
with some bug fixes and a security update.

>>> Check the database server hostname/IP, port, database name, username,
>
> and table prefix. Check that the server is online and accepting
> connections. Check that the GRANTs on the database are correct. <<
>
> Everything is correct. I'm not using table prefixes. I can run the
> config without any trouble. It connects, updates the schemas, no errors.
> Generates LocalSettings and I copy it in - and get the page with errors.

Funny characters in any of those parameters? Have you tried manually
running through the set of queries? Debug logging?

-- 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/20050707/9509db49/attachment.pgp>


body:
Norath Norath (norath2005 at yahoo.com) [050707 07:00]:

> This is not a 'role account', nor can I find any
> mention of a prohibition on them.

[[User talk:Sam Spade]] (why the account exists)
[[meta:Role account]] (redirected from [[Wikipedia:Role account]]

> This account was
> blocked because it asked questions about another
> administrator. Your actions only justify my legitimate
> fear of raising these issues with my other account.

If your questions are of value you can ask them with your name. Otherwise
you're just attempting to troll from cover.

- d.


from_name: Skyring

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Hi

body:
On 7/7/05, A. Nony Mouse <temoforcomments4 at hotmail.com> wrote:

> And yes, for reference, 3RR does indeed essentially mean that if two editors
> decide an article should look a certain way, and only one opposes them, then
> the two editors "win" unless more editors come along or it winds up in
> Arbitration.
>
> Yet another case of seemingly "neutral" policies being a disaster.
>
> I hereby propose an alternate policy: Page-based 3RR. If the same phrase is
> reverted from a page three times in 24 hours, then that PAGE shall be locked
> for a week and all editors involved in the reverts shall receive a 12-hour
> block to cool off.
>
> What do you think? I know it's not perfect (it still doesn't address WHICH
> version should be locked to, but that's a losing decision either way) but it
> gets us away from the current "hey if we get one more guy than they have
> then we can provoke an edit war, get them all 3RR blocked, and we're free
> and clear to make the article say what we want it to say" nonsense and into
> a more neutral stance.

Well, I didn't want to be in the position of publicly criticising a
specific editor, but I guess you've placed me there now, so I'll add
that it isn't just this one editor who relies on the gang mentality.

I think your proposal has merit. It is the reversions to the article
that matter, not who made them, but I think that the two editors who
make the initial change and the first revert should be exempted from
any general blocking (unless, of course, they keep on reverting)
otherwise we'd never make any progress.

--
Peter in Canberra


body:
On 7/7/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:

>  And part of declaring the sock is
> saying who it is. Edits aren't anonymous on Wikipedia and particularly not
> in the project pages.

Beg pardon? Edits aren't anonymous?

Since when?

--
Pete, who can show you a long list of anonymous edits on just about
any article you care to name.


from_name: Angela

body:
On 7/7/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

> AFAIK we have not yet received any official take-down orders.

We have received official DMCA takedown notifications. The most recent
that I remember was [[Concentration measurements]] which although
being fairly quickly redirected on Wikipedia has already been mirrored
on Answers.com.

Angela.


subject: [WikiEN-l] The sandbox incubator

body:
On 6/30/05, Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:

> Ever since WikiChess became popular and accepted on Wikipedia, the
> sandbox has turned into an incubator for new "wikigames". The problem
> with this is that, as long as a page is a subpage of the sandbox, it is
> very difficult to delete it, because it is regarded as "legitimate
> playground."

A subpage of the sandbox is now on VFD, so I guess we'll find out just
how difficult it is to delete it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Sandbox/Chess

Angela.


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: pie: against redundancy

body:
People say that "Wiki" is derived from the Hawai'ian word wikiwiki.

However, I have an inside source that says that Ward Cunningham got it
from an unabridged dictionary. "Wiki" or "Wicky" is from the
Anglo-Saxon "wici", which comes from the Proto-Germanic root
"*hveik-", which is from the Proto-Indo-European root "*weigh-"

Mark

On 07/07/05, Ros' Haruo <rosharuo at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 23:50:13 +0200
> > From: Boris Lohnzweiger
> > Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Dutch-Low Saxon test-mainpage
> > To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > Message-ID: <1278463972 at web.de>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> >
> >
> > Dear Wouter,
> >
> > I can't help but disagree. In my opinion, using Proto-Indo-European for the new Wikipedia is the only viable option. Additional benefit: we could finally close many redundant editions of Wikipedia like en:, fr:, es: ....
> >
> > Boris
>
> So what is Proto-Indo-European for "wiki" anyway?
>
> Haruo aka dzidzelalic
> _______________________________________________
> 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


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

body:
Unfortunately, Servien, the current consensus among linguists is that
a protolanguage from more than 5000 years ago is difficult to
reconstruct, and from over 10000 years is entirely impossible.

Thus, at best, we'd be able to have Proto-Indo-Finnic (?... that's
provided that, as many have hypothesised and even "proven",
Finno-Ugric is demonstrably the closest relative of Indo-European),
but certainly not Pangaean.

Mark

On 07/07/05, Servien Ilaino <servien at gmail.com> wrote:
> Now you're just talking mierda! Why would anyone wan't to use a
> language that's dead! :s of course Old LS would be kind of cool, but
> no one would use it. (must admit I understand this text better than
> I'd probably understand it in New GLS haha) but if you are going to
> talk bout stuff like this then why just not delete all Wikipedia's and
> start a complete new one in the language of Pagaea! :p
>
> Servien
>
> 2005/7/7, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com>:
> > Oops. Make that "Ihm wurde auf einem B?ren von der Regierung gebundet"
> > and "Ihm wurde eine L?ge von der Regierung erz?hlt".
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > On 06/07/05, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Wouter, I disagree. Old Saxon is, in my belief, mutually
> > > comprehensible with all other early West Germanic languages. We should
> > > thus use Common West Germanic. Though not attested, with a little
> > > effort we should be able to write in it. In fact, even writing in our
> > > native languages, we should be able to easily bridge the dialect
> > > barrier between Frisian and English and Scots and Swedish with just
> > > some orthographic conversion and a little extra effort. Obviously, the
> > > numerous Norman loanwords in English may be difficult, so I propose
> > > instead to use NoNorman when writing English, ie "firststuff" instead
> > > of "element", "birdlore" instead of "ornithology", "atomic" with
> > > "uncleftish", "beholding" rather than "theory", "manlore" (or the more
> > > PC "personlore" or "humanlore") rather than "anthropology",
> > > "animallore" rather than "zo?logy". We should also avoid indirect and
> > > idiomatic speech -- "passed away" should be instead "died", "Er wurde
> > > zu einem B?ren von der Regierung aufgebunden." should be instead "Er
> > > wurde zu von der Regierung _gelogen_."
> > >
> > > Of course, all system messages and all pages in the Wikipedia
> > > namespace would have to be written in Common West Germanic.
> > >
> > > Mark
> > >
> > > On 06/07/05, Wouter Steenbeek <musiqolog at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Dear fellow list subscribers,
> > > >
> > > > After a few very nasty e-mails, overseeing the battle field, I cannot
> > > > conclude but that no-one will change his view by someone else's arguments.
> > > > Therefor we should not bother to meet inbetween, but rather on neutral
> > > > ground: let us return to where it all begun. We can eliminate both most
> > > > spelling and most dialectical differences by... returning to Old Saxon. This
> > > > strong sonorous language will unite the fierce but noble people of the
> > > > Saxons which have been suppressed by Francs for far too long.
> > > >
> > > > Latad uns farenigan undar thia sprak?, thia lang lidan ena was. ?s, Sachson,
> > > > siad fardelad thur Frankon ewan lang, enda thur hart farenigadat duvoliskit
> > > > werk w?s nu siad fardelid tot op tha bena. Ni langar sallad s? uns
> > > > undardrukan: V?, dat adelt folk, gad w?rum nah unsaron brunnon en herstellad
> > > > allat hwat so lang fargetan, farnederad enda undardrukad is. Lang livad
> > > > Sachson, lang liva Sachsa sprako. Enda nu, makad ena nija Wikipedia for
> > > > unsara gedachta utwerkon konnon!
> > > >
> > > > Iar bestar friond Wouter.
> > > >
> > > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > > Altijd in contact met de kleinkinderen: MSN Messenger
> > > > http://messenger.msn.nl/
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
> >
>

--
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


from_name: Travis Derouin

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: URLs

body:
>(however, using the old URLs would likely redirect to the newer style,
> were it implemented.)

It would be best if the redirects were 301 redirects too, I'm not sure
how the Squid servers are set up, but it's pretty easy doing this in
Squid (http://wiki.ehow.com/Implement-Redirects-in-Squid).

This will have an interesting effect on Google Page Rank too. Right
now the current main page has a PR of 9, unless someone at Google
speeds up the process, there'll probably be a delay in transferring
the PR from the old URL to the new URLs, so for awhile the main page
(and all the others) might appear to have a PR of 0, if it matters.

Travis


subject: [Wikitech-l] URLs

body:
> however, at the same time, we could implement a change in the way domain
> names are used, that has been discussed several times in the past:
>
>         - http://wikipedia.org/en/article/Main_Page
>         - http://wikipedia.org/en/edit/Main_Page

This isn't an objection since Alexa isn't accurate anyway, but this
would prevent the "Where do people go on wikipedia.org?" at
<http://alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&url=wikipedia.org>
from working.

I'm not sure what other examples there are of a subdomain having any
relevance to external sites. Google Adsense used to give more
information if you split your site by subdomains, but now lets you
track directories as well as subdomains. Not that that would be a
relevant point for Wikimedia projects, but are there any other
external stats that people use that do need Wikipedia to have
subdomains?

Angela.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Ladino Wiki - What is the next step forward?

body:
On 7/7/05, ilooy <ilooy.gaon at gmail.com> wrote:

> What is the next step forward?

The next step is to find some people willing to pledge their support
to the proposal. They need to be people who  can write in this
language and are committed to editing there if the wiki is set up.
These people should sign up at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages#Ladino

Angela.


from_name: Norath Norath

body:
The account was not created to circumvent a block. It
was created to protect the identity of a user in good
standin from negative consequences from the admins
involved. Their actions only confirm how well founded
that fear was.

I cannot contact them privately, since the account is
blocked and I do not have an email address attached to
it, so I am raising it here, as instructed on the
block page.

I have cited the relevant sections of policy. They are
clearly in breach of it

I am still waiting for any constructive suggestions.

Norrath

--- MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 7/6/05, Norath Norath <norath2005 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > User:Norrath was block by David Gerard for
> "admitted
> > sockpuppet and role account". This account is
> indeed a
> > sockpuppet of a user in good standing, created to
> > protest other blocks caaried out abusively by
> > Snowspinner.
>
> Regardless of whether a block was within policy or
> not, creating
> another account to circumvent it is against policy.
> This is especially
> what the list was made for and if you asked to be
> unblocked while
> citing relevant sections of policy, I'm sure you
> could get a lot more
> admins to unblock you if you contacted them
> privately, than when you
> go straight to accusations of abuse.
>
> --Mgm
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

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


body:
This is true, except that this is not a role account.
It is used only by me, and only for the purpose of
asking a question to an admin about a block. That was
the only reason for the account being blocked
indefinately.

Narruth

--- "Nathan J. Yoder" <njyoder at energon.org> wrote:

> > Regardless of whether a block was within policy or
> not, creating
> > another account to circumvent it is against
> policy. This is especially
> > what the list was made for and if you asked to be
> unblocked while
> > citing relevant sections of policy, I'm sure you
> could get a lot more
> > admins to unblock you if you contacted them
> privately, than when you
> > go straight to accusations of abuse.
>
> It wasn't an account created to circumvent it.  From
> what I understand
> is that it's an account used by multiple people (a
> role account) and
> in this case the person using it was someone else
> asking questions
> about the block on their behalf.
>
> David Gerard cited a non-existent ban on role
> accounts as the basis
> for the block and since it was demonstrated that
> there is no such
> thing, he hasn't bothered responding.  Furthermore,
> snowspinner has
> now justified it by openly saying that admins can
> block for whatever
> they wish, even if it's not in policy.
>
> It seems to be standard policy on this list that if
> an admins claims
> are refuted, they just stop responding completely so
> as to avoid
> making themselves look worse.  When I asked Fred
> Bauer (sp?) that he
> present an actual link of evidence of where I
> refused to cite sources
> in regards to my arb case (it was used as evidence
> against me even
> though it was fabricated out of thin air), he just
> completely ignored
> it and only focused on the part about personal
> attacks.  The thing
> about personal attacks was dropped when he realized
> that his theory
> wasn't followed by most wikipedia users, including
> admins (no
> consensus).
>
> I came across something interesting recently (a
> comment from David
> Gerard):
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Proposal/13&diff=18218110&oldid=18212788
>
> Apparently when it comes to speedy deletions simply
> specifying a
> personal attack is too ambiguous, but when it comes
> to the personal
> attacks policy, it's something that "any reasonable
> person" (his idea
> of what admins are supposed to be) would know.
> Complete
> disconfirmation bias.
>
> I think a lot of this could be solved if the admins
> actually tried to
> see what the actual consensus on their actions was.
> A lot of the
> things done by the more abusive admins would fail
> basic tests of
> consensus and they know this very well, which is why
> they refuse to
> ever poll on the matter.   The best most recent
> example is
> snowspinner's "we don't need policy to block people"
> theory which was
> used to censor someone on Wikipedia asking about
> blocks.
>
> I think the solution is to create a Wikipedia: space
> page to watch
> admin abuse (like an admin abuse notice board or
> somesuch) that
> compiled wonderful examples of what they had done.
> It could also hold
> votes regarding self-invented policy by admins that,
> even if
> unofficial, could at least demonstrate that they are
> clearly doing
> things outside of consensus.  I have no doubt that
> when that was
> demonstrated they'd start trying to invalidate all
> the various votes
> for asinine reasons (especially as per the
> self-invented "lets remove
> blank oppose votes" policy).
>
> ----------------------------------------------
> Nathan J. Yoder
> http://www.gummibears.nu/
> http://www.gummibears.nu/files/njyoder_pgp.key
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

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


from_name: Mattis Manzel

subject: [Wikitech-l] Multiple language setup

body:
Edward,

Not quiete what you are looking for but maybe interesting nonetheless.
Make sure to check out the language filters at the very end of the page
in different combinations.

http://www.emacswiki.org/cw-de/MultilingualExperiment

Mattis Manzel

edward molasses schrieb:

>Hello everyone,
>
>I am trying to setup a dictionary using MediaWiki and I was wondering what the
>best way is to go about setting it up as a multiple language dictionary (i.e.
>each definition has translations in 4 other languages). I have heard about the
>Ultimate Wikitionary which would be perfect, but I have to set something up
>temporarily until that has been developed. From what I understand from
>Wikimedia MetaWiki pages, the way to do it is to have separate installations
>for each language and using InterWiki links to make definitions link to their
>corresponding translations.
>
>My questions are: am I correct about a multiple install being the recommended
>way to setup a multilanguage wiki?
>
>Is it okay to do it using multiple installations on the same server? Or is it
>necessary to have a domain name for each installation?
>
>Any help or suggestions would be much appreciated, thank you,
>Andrew.
>_______________________________________________
>Wikitech-l mailing list
>Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>
>

___________________________________________________________
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - Jetzt mit 1GB Speicher kostenlos - Hier anmelden: http://mail.yahoo.de


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Hi

body:
On 7/7/05, Michael Turley <michael.turley at gmail.com> wrote:

> If we kept the "standard" 3RR in addition to a new page based revert
> rule, one editor certainly could not hold pages hostage.  I didn't see
> anything in the previous proposal that suggested throwing away the old
> (but actually pretty young) 3RR rule.

I think it would be implicit.

I don't agree with locking a page for a set period of time, especially
if the change is a small one or the page is under development and only
a small section is controversial. By way of example, the dispute could
be over something like the BC/BCE problem and everything else in the
article is non-contentious.

Perhaps a page should be locked while the dispute is sorted out,
perhaps not. It really depends on the circumstances, and as it stands
it's up the admins to use common sense (or whatever else) to make a
decision on this. I can't see any reason to change that.

The idea behind the 3RR is to bring edit wars to a halt by blocking
out one or two editors in a dispute. But the problem is that victory
will go to whoever can whistle up more editors, and in theory we could
get edit wars going on for tens of reverts, with no individual editor
reverting more than a couple of times per day, and I presume that this
already occurs in some instances, notably religion, sex or politics.

More to the point, the final shape of the article will depend not on
truth or NPOV or some other wikivirtue, but on sheer numbers, and I
can't see this as being right and proper.

--
Peter in Canberra


body:
In fact, it would appear that Platt is not even the native language of
Heiko Evermann. See http://nds.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruker:HeikoEvermann
, where German is listed as native, but Platt is listed as "bannig
gode", and a Hamburger.

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


body:
> I don't recall ever having to sign up
> on the meta in order to get the
> sub-domain going, but if this is
> the new procedure then it is already
> underway. What would be the next
> step after this?

For natural languages, once there are five supporters and no
objections from anyone, you can ask a developer (via wikitech-l or on
IRC) to create it.

Angela


body:
On 7/7/05, Norath Norath <norath2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> You have clearly not read the policy. For the record,
> it clearly says that protecting identity is a
> legitimate use for multiple accounts.
> Norath
>
> Multiple accounts have legitimate uses. For example,
> prominent users may wish to experience Wikipedia to
> understand how the community functions for those new
> to the community. In particular, some have suggested
> that Jimbo should get, and edit from, a sock puppet
> account. Perhaps he does.

He's currently leading the chess championship, but don't go telling
everyone that.

--
Pete, seeing things in black and white terms


from_name: MHart

subject:
[Wikitech-l] PHP 5.0.4 problem with 1.4.4:
	array_key_exists()argument error

body:
>> Well first, 1.4.5 is the current 1.4 release. :) Try that before
continuing... <<

I thought 1.4.5 was still in beta... I'll try 1.4.5, thanks.

>> Check the database server hostname/IP, port, database name, username,
and table prefix. Check that the server is online and accepting
connections. Check that the GRANTs on the database are correct. <<

Everything is correct. I'm not using table prefixes. I can run the config
without any trouble. It connects, updates the schemas, no errors. Generates
LocalSettings and I copy it in - and get the page with errors.

More info - I'm moving the wiki from one machine (old Desktop box) to
another (DL360 w/4.5 gig mem, dual XEON and RAID drives - woo hoo!), and the
script location and database name changed, although the wiki name did not.
I'll change the db name back to the original and try it again. It's also on
a different distribution (Fedora Core 4 instead of Mandrake 10.1), and a
different PHP version (5.0.4 instead of 4.3.8).

- MHart


from_name: Nathan J. Yoder

body:
> Regardless of whether a block was within policy or not, creating
> another account to circumvent it is against policy. This is especially
> what the list was made for and if you asked to be unblocked while
> citing relevant sections of policy, I'm sure you could get a lot more
> admins to unblock you if you contacted them privately, than when you
> go straight to accusations of abuse.

It wasn't an account created to circumvent it.  From what I understand
is that it's an account used by multiple people (a role account) and
in this case the person using it was someone else asking questions
about the block on their behalf.

David Gerard cited a non-existent ban on role accounts as the basis
for the block and since it was demonstrated that there is no such
thing, he hasn't bothered responding.  Furthermore, snowspinner has
now justified it by openly saying that admins can block for whatever
they wish, even if it's not in policy.

It seems to be standard policy on this list that if an admins claims
are refuted, they just stop responding completely so as to avoid
making themselves look worse.  When I asked Fred Bauer (sp?) that he
present an actual link of evidence of where I refused to cite sources
in regards to my arb case (it was used as evidence against me even
though it was fabricated out of thin air), he just completely ignored
it and only focused on the part about personal attacks.  The thing
about personal attacks was dropped when he realized that his theory
wasn't followed by most wikipedia users, including admins (no
consensus).

I came across something interesting recently (a comment from David
Gerard):
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Proposal/13&diff=18218110&oldid=18212788

Apparently when it comes to speedy deletions simply specifying a
personal attack is too ambiguous, but when it comes to the personal
attacks policy, it's something that "any reasonable person" (his idea
of what admins are supposed to be) would know.  Complete
disconfirmation bias.

I think a lot of this could be solved if the admins actually tried to
see what the actual consensus on their actions was.  A lot of the
things done by the more abusive admins would fail basic tests of
consensus and they know this very well, which is why they refuse to
ever poll on the matter.   The best most recent example is
snowspinner's "we don't need policy to block people" theory which was
used to censor someone on Wikipedia asking about blocks.

I think the solution is to create a Wikipedia: space page to watch
admin abuse (like an admin abuse notice board or somesuch) that
compiled wonderful examples of what they had done.  It could also hold
votes regarding self-invented policy by admins that, even if
unofficial, could at least demonstrate that they are clearly doing
things outside of consensus.  I have no doubt that when that was
demonstrated they'd start trying to invalidate all the various votes
for asinine reasons (especially as per the self-invented "lets remove
blank oppose votes" policy).

----------------------------------------------
Nathan J. Yoder
http://www.gummibears.nu/
http://www.gummibears.nu/files/njyoder_pgp.key
----------------------------------------------


from_name: Michael Turley

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Selective blocking (was: Abuse of admin powers by
	David Gerard and Snowspinner)

body:
On 7/7/05, Poor, Edmund W <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> I expected the new software to include the feature we've all been asking
> for, that would block a user from "all pages but his own talk page" - or
> "all pages but a few specific ones". The purpose of this was to enable a
> user to protest a block - without having to create a new account or find
> a new ISP.
>
> Pending development of this feature, why not:
> (1) Unblock the user account.
> (2) Requent the user to confine his edits to his user talk page (and
> possibly a short list of other pages)
> (3) Watch his contribs, and instantly revert and edits outside his
> assigned scope.
> (4) Re-block his account if #3 becomes tedious.
>
> This is bending over backwards to be fair. And I wouldn't mind being the
> first to try it - if enough others think the experiment is worth trying.
>
> Kindly ol' Uncle Ed (User:Ed Poor)
> Chairman (pro tem), Mediation Committee
> Admin, Bureaucrat, Developer Emeritus, wikien-l admin, etc., etc.

Since you mentioned "if enough others think the experiment is worth
trying", I'll mention that I think this idea is a good one, and well
worth trying.

--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused


body:
> I expected the new software to include the feature we've all been asking
> for, that would block a user from "all pages but his own talk page" - or
> "all pages but a few specific ones". The purpose of this was to enable a
> user to protest a block - without having to create a new account or find
> a new ISP.

Since the months old bug report regarding the reblock thing isn't
going anywhere, I was planning on submitting a patch for it myself
over the next week or so.  I may implement this "partial block" as a
patch too.  These seem like they should be fairly simple to implement,
if anyone else has any other ideas for experimental features related
to this that are fairly simple I could do those too.

----------------------------------------------
Nathan J. Yoder
http://www.gummibears.nu/
http://www.gummibears.nu/files/njyoder_pgp.key
----------------------------------------------


from_name: Phil Boswell

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: URLs

body:
"Kate" <keturner at livejournal.com> wrote in message
news:6019986.1hDDKoznoz at rose.local...
> in 1.5, we have the possibility of changing URLs used for projects.

[examples snipped]

For the sake of lowering blood-pressure all around, should be assume that
these new formats are **in addition** to those currently in use?

I like them, but I echo the concerns of those worried about breaking inward
links.

Actually I like the possiblity of specifying links in more than one way to
allow maximal flexibility. If we **can** handle it, then we **should**
handle it. The principle of "least surprise" should come into pre-emptive
action here.
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


list: foundation-l

from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject:
[Foundation-l] Issues regarding admin(s?) on wikinews,	effects:
	globally

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>Ilya Haykinson wrote:
>
>
>>Ok, I'm really confused. There has indeed been some heated editing on
>>Wikinews which caused the departure of one admin (who I hope will come
>>back someday) and the temporary banning of another for violating the
>>3RR -- not an unusual thing.
>>
>>
>Why is 3RR regarded as bannable policy on Wikinews?  It seems unlikely
>to be needed at this early stage, and certainly if it was adopted
>incautiously from English Wikipedia, this is a decision which should be
>reconsidered.
>
>
I'm happy to say that after going through our deletion process 3RR was
deleted from Wiktionary.  During the discussion there was only one
incident mentioned where it might have been a factor, and on
investigation even that one turned out to be factually doubtful.

The underlying issue is not so much the specifics of the 3RR, as it is a
question of how policies become policies.  Some time ago someone acting
in perfectly good faith managed to import the policy from Wikipedia.  He
evidently was acting pro-actively to solve what he felt could be an
eventual problem.  There was no current problem.  Their might not be
such a problem for a long time.

A rule proposal for a non-eixting problem is not likely to get much
attention, but if it sits there unquestioned for a year or more until a
relevant occasion arises it will be assumed that it is official policy
just because it has never been questioned.  Literalists, who perhaps
were not even there when the proposal was first made, then try to
enforce the rule; that's when the arguments start.

To be workable, rules must reflect a community, not the other way
around.  Wikipedia, as the senior project, has developed many rules
which (presumably ;-) ) work there.  There is no doubt a story there
about each one, but the fact that the rule had an 80% vote in favour on
Wikipedia is not a convincing argument when trying to adopt the same
rule on Wikinews or Wiktionary.  If anything it will breed resentment
and crieas of cabalistic behaviour.

There has to be an art to acting boldly.  Acting boldly and decisively
is often a necessity to prevent a project from descending into
paralysis, but the person doing so better have a damn good reason for
doing it if challenged.  At least some elements of it should be
reversible if the challenge turns out to have some validity.  Acting
boldly does not mean acting hastily, but acting only after others have
had an opportunity to be heard.

Ec


list: wikimedia-l


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia India: new mailing list

body:
Thanks to Jeronim, there is a new mailing list for discussions of a
potential Wikimedia chapter in India, and more generally for
discussion of all the Indian language Wikimedia projects.

The mailing list is at
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l and is
moderated by http://kn.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hpnadig

Please see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_India_chapter for
early discussions on the chapter and
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Promoting_the_Indian_languages_projects
for more recent discussions on promotion of these projects.

Angela.


from_name: edward molasses

subject: [Wikitech-l] Multiple language setup

body:
Hi Mattis,

It is a bit different from what I am looking for, but it is an interesting
idea I hadn't thought of before. Thanks for mentioning it!

Andrew.

On Wednesday 06 July 2005 11:49 pm, Mattis Manzel wrote:
> Edward,
>
> Not quiete what you are looking for but maybe interesting nonetheless.
> Make sure to check out the language filters at the very end of the page
> in different combinations.
>
> http://www.emacswiki.org/cw-de/MultilingualExperiment
>
> Mattis Manzel
>
> edward molasses schrieb:
> >Hello everyone,
> >
> >I am trying to setup a dictionary using MediaWiki and I was wondering what
> > the best way is to go about setting it up as a multiple language
> > dictionary (i.e. each definition has translations in 4 other languages).
> > I have heard about the Ultimate Wikitionary which would be perfect, but I
> > have to set something up temporarily until that has been developed. From
> > what I understand from Wikimedia MetaWiki pages, the way to do it is to
> > have separate installations for each language and using InterWiki links
> > to make definitions link to their corresponding translations.
> >
> >My questions are: am I correct about a multiple install being the
> > recommended way to setup a multilanguage wiki?
> >
> >Is it okay to do it using multiple installations on the same server? Or is
> > it necessary to have a domain name for each installation?
> >
> >Any help or suggestions would be much appreciated, thank you,
> >Andrew.
> >_______________________________________________
> >Wikitech-l mailing list
> >Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - Jetzt mit 1GB Speicher kostenlos - Hier
> anmelden: http://mail.yahoo.de
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: URLs

body:
Phil Boswell wrote in gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.technical:

> "Kate" <keturner at livejournal.com> wrote in message
> news:6019986.1hDDKoznoz at rose.local...
>> in 1.5, we have the possibility of changing URLs used for projects.

> [examples snipped]

> For the sake of lowering blood-pressure all around, should be assume that
> these new formats are **in addition** to those currently in use?

old URLs will not stop working.  that would be bad, of course, given the
number of links to the current URLs, both internally and externally...

(however, using the old URLs would likely redirect to the newer style, were
it implemented.)

kate.


from_name: Domas Mituzas

subject: [Wikitech-l] URLs

body:
> does anyone have comments on or object to this change?

Instead of having some name->ip mapping in future distributed
datacenter deployments we'd have to deal with url-based redirection,
what would involve external redirectors or internal hacks.

We should keep it as simple as possible for a while :)
Until we really know what we're doing.

Domas


body:
Fastfission wrote:

>The more I think about this, the more I think that sitting on ~20,000
>copyrighted images is a time-bomb waiting to go off. I see some
>distant future in which Wikipedia gets taken down with a cease and
>desist -- of course, some intrepid person would no doubt create a
>"totally free" mirror which would continue, but at what overall cost?
>Personally I think an un-illustrated article is better than one which
>puts us in a highly compromised legal position -- most of the articles
>in print AND online encyclopedias are unillustrated, we wouldn't be
>doing anything wrong in that respect.
>
>
There are two important perspectives on this, the per item perspective
and the overall perspective.

Periodically, each and every item needs to be reviewed, and the fact
that one meets today's criteria for inclusion does not imply that it
will meet those same criteria next year.

The overall perspective will look at such things as the proportion of
fair use images to total images, or any tendency to narrowly draw fair
use images from a single source.  Applying this requires a intuitive
sense of judgement because the parameters are more fluid.  It probably
makes sense if we are to have a separate article for each Disney
character that each such article would have one necessarily free use
image of the character. Beyond that there is no precise rule that can be
established, but we do know that there is some imprecise point out there
which will be over the top.

The straw that breaks the camel's back does not function in isolation.

Ec


subject: [Wikitech-l] statistics now available

body:
It wouldn't surprise me if the US figures were even lower.  There's
already been a comment about the hits for South Africa being
ridiculously low.  The US national domain, .us, is relatively uncommon,
and many people from other countries use a .com, .org, .net or even .gov
domain.  One wonders to what extent that has been factored into the
statistics.

Ec

Jimmy Wales wrote:

>It's a little hard to read here in plain text, but there are some
>interesting things to observe.  First, as I have personally felt for a
>long time, Wikipedia is most popular (per capita) in German-speaking
>countries.  In Germany, for example, there were .3749 pageviews per
>person (for whatever time period Kate studied, a day?), as compared to
>.2519 in the United States.
>
>--Jimbo (sitting in Germany at the moment)
>
>CH	SWITZERLAND	3257554	1.50%	7,489,370	0.434957012
>DE	GERMANY	30918990	14.60%	82,468,000	0.37492106
>AT	AUSTRIA	2597402	1.20%	8,184,691	0.317348816
>FI	FINLAND	1497528	0.70%	5,223,442	0.286693717
>IL	ISRAEL	1736050	0.80%	6,276,883	0.276578359
>CA	CANADA	8732647	4.10%	32,805,401	0.266195405
>NL	NETHERLANDS	4132982	1.90%	16,407,491	0.251896039
>US	UNITED STATES	67764804	31.90%	296,202,709	0.228778475
>JP	JAPAN	25753169	12.10%	127,333,002	0.202250545
>SE	SWEDEN	1814517	0.90%	9,001,774	0.201573268
>SG	SINGAPORE	764117	0.40%	4,425,720	0.172653715
>BE	BELGIUM	1762902	0.80%	10,364,388	0.170092243
>NO	NORWAY	758707	0.40%	4,593,041	0.165186202
>AU	AUSTRALIA	2927652	1.40%	20,090,437	0.145723659
>UK	UNITED KINGDOM	7746798	3.70%	60,441,457	0.128170272
>FR	FRANCE	7241067	3.40%	60,424,213	0.119837175
>DK	DENMARK	630803	0.30%	5,432,335	0.116120048
>HK	HONG KONG	779969	0.40%	6,898,686	0.113060516
>PL	POLAND	4327531	2.00%	38,635,144	0.112010221
>PT	PORTUGAL	966668	0.50%	10,566,212	0.091486713
>CL	CHILE	1239153	0.60%	16,136,137	0.076793659
>IT	ITALY	4139186	2.00%	58,103,033	0.071238725
>ES	SPAIN	2587800	1.20%	43,209,511	0.059889592
>PE	PERU	1649896	0.80%	27,925,628	0.059081787
>MY	MALAYSIA	880847	0.40%	23,953,136	0.036773765
>AR	ARGENTINA	1432035	0.70%	39,537,943	0.036219259
>MX	MEXICO	2594245	1.20%	106,202,903	0.024427251
>PH	PHILIPPINES	1674005	0.80%	87,857,473	0.019053644
>BR	BRAZIL	3353760	1.60%	186,112,794	0.01802004
>CN	CHINA	2498070	1.20%	1,306,313,812	0.001912305
>IN	INDIA	1400545	0.70%	1,080,264,388	0.001296484
>
>


from_name: Jimmy Wales

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

body:
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.

The actual readable text presented in your browser *is* the transparent
version.  You can cut and paste it into a generic text editor.

So whether or not this is a bug or a feature, there are zero license
implications at stake here.

--Jimbo


from_name: Brian

subject: [Wikitech-l] URLs

body:
That won't change. Google's site search work's for directories as well e.g,
site:www.wikipedia.org/en/article/
<http://www.wikipedia.org/en/article/><http://wikipedia.org/en/article/Main_Page>

On 7/7/05, Andrew Venier <avenier at venier.net> wrote:
>
> Angela wrote:
>
> >>however, at the same time, we could implement a change in the way domain
> >>names are used, that has been discussed several times in the past:
> >>
> >> - http://wikipedia.org/en/article/Main_Page
> >> - http://wikipedia.org/en/edit/Main_Page
> >>
> >>
> >
> >This isn't an objection since Alexa isn't accurate anyway, but this
> >would prevent the "Where do people go on wikipedia.org?<http://wikipedia.org?>"
> at
> ><http://alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&url=wikipedia.org>
> >from working.
> >
> >I'm not sure what other examples there are of a subdomain having any
> >relevance to external sites. Google Adsense used to give more
> >information if you split your site by subdomains, but now lets you
> >track directories as well as subdomains. Not that that would be a
> >relevant point for Wikimedia projects, but are there any other
> >external stats that people use that do need Wikipedia to have
> >subdomains?
> >
> >
> Personally, I like being able to Google-search with parameters like
> "site:en.wikipedia.org <http://en.wikipedia.org>" to return results only
> from one wikipedia.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

body:
On 7/6/05, Norath Norath <norath2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> User:Norrath was block by David Gerard for "admitted
> sockpuppet and role account". This account is indeed a
> sockpuppet of a user in good standing, created to
> protest other blocks caaried out abusively by
> Snowspinner.

Regardless of whether a block was within policy or not, creating
another account to circumvent it is against policy. This is especially
what the list was made for and if you asked to be unblocked while
citing relevant sections of policy, I'm sure you could get a lot more
admins to unblock you if you contacted them privately, than when you
go straight to accusations of abuse.

--Mgm


body:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:

>>* it increases pressure to get free alternative images, where possible

> [This] point is important. There are many qualified photographers
> on wikipedia. Many of the PUI which are being deleted are photographs
> of common objects,  which almost anyone can replace, or public places
> which many people can replace.

Yes.  The image which prompted me to issue the decree about this was an
illustration of the article [[Blinds]] which was clearly a professional
photo used by alleged "fair use" apparently from a manufacturer, as I
recall.  Blinds are readily available for us to photograph, and the
photo we have there now (from Stock.Xchng, which may or may not be
problematic as a well-known separate issue) is just as nice... and free.

--Jimbo


body:
Haukur ?orgeirsson wrote:
> This argument is getting a bit tired. Do you have an
> [[IBM 360]] in your backyard?

Someone appparently does:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:IBM360-65-1.corestore.jpg

GNU FDL.

So you see, giving up too easily is a bad idea.

> It is a simple matter for downstream users
> not to include images tagged used-with-permission.
> Wikipedia articles very rarely rely on the images
> in their main text.

Yes, but the point is: if we have a non-free image, it "scratches the
itch" and reduces the incentive for someone to be heroic and find a way
to get us a free image.  So if we have tons of non-free or fair-use
images that people can't reuse, we have a nicer website, but we make the
resource less nice for people who want to reuse it.

> And, sadly, it seems that Jimbo's fatwah against UWP has
> increased the number of far-fetched rationalizations for
> fair use on Wikipedia.

I consider this quite unfortunate.  I think that our use of fair-use
should be restricted solely to pictures of absolute historical
importance for which there is no possibility of a free alternative.  But
this is not a decree because this is an ongoing process of evolution at
this point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fair_use_images

A quick scan of these reveals a number of highly dubious images which we
could either (a) do without or (b) replace with a freely licensed
alternative easily enough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1987_Cadillac_Seville.JPG

I should imagine that if we desperately need a boring photo of a 1987
Cadillac Seville, one can be located on the streets easily enough.

--Jimbo


from_name: Kelly Martin

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: Selective blocking (was: Abuse of admin powers by
	David Gerard and Snowspinner)

body:
On 7/7/05, Tim Starling <t.starling at physics.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
> I could do a quick hack to allow blocked users to edit their own talk
> page, if that's what you want. It's a much simpler feature to the other
> thing I'm working on at the moment, i.e. per-article blocking.

Some people will use that to replace their talk pages with technically
challenging content (e.g. two megabyte uploads, or pages filled with
hundreds of animated images).  But I think we can deal with that in
the long run.

Kelly


subject: [WikiEN-l] The ongoing trolling

body:
Jane Halliwell wrote:
> However...those bad apples are not the worst of it. The problem is with
> all the good apples. They remain quiet and unwilling to punish the bad
> apples, because they fear possible retribution. So the bad apples are
> allowed to rot, and stink up the place.

It may be noted for the record that I don't fear retribution from any
admins, ok?  And I watch this constant ongoing trollfest and I tire of
it.  You show me good evidence of an administrator abusing their admin
powers, and the ArbCom not acting on it, and I'll do something.  This is
my promise to the community, my final role here, to prevent
authoritarian cliques from controlling the process.

But, I see essentially no evidence of this, and a whole ton of whining.

One thing that is absolutely 100% notably absent from these complaints
is links to diffs and actual examples of admin abuse.

In my opinion, it is getting very close to time to simply kick a handful
of you off the mailing list unless you get serious about providing
specific examples, including diffs and pointers to block logs.

> I quit Wikipedia weeks ago.
>
> Or...did I? (evil laugh)

It's exactly this kind of comment that leads me to the conclusion:
dishonest troll who intends only to waste our time.

So, get serious.  Send a serious complaint about a specific incident or
please just go away.

--Jimbo


from_name: Andrew Venier

subject: [Wikitech-l] URLs

body:
Angela wrote:

>>however, at the same time, we could implement a change in the way domain
>>names are used, that has been discussed several times in the past:
>>
>>        - http://wikipedia.org/en/article/Main_Page
>>        - http://wikipedia.org/en/edit/Main_Page
>>
>>
>
>This isn't an objection since Alexa isn't accurate anyway, but this
>would prevent the "Where do people go on wikipedia.org?" at
><http://alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&url=wikipedia.org>
>from working.
>
>I'm not sure what other examples there are of a subdomain having any
>relevance to external sites. Google Adsense used to give more
>information if you split your site by subdomains, but now lets you
>track directories as well as subdomains. Not that that would be a
>relevant point for Wikimedia projects, but are there any other
>external stats that people use that do need Wikipedia to have
>subdomains?
>
>
Personally, I like being able to Google-search with parameters like
"site:en.wikipedia.org" to return results only from one wikipedia.


from_name: Ros’ Haruo

body:
Ah, but in etymology "to come from" does not equate to "to be". And of
course in PIE we don't talk in roots, but in egregiously fully
inflected words.

On 7/7/05, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> People say that "Wiki" is derived from the Hawai'ian word wikiwiki.
>
> However, I have an inside source that says that Ward Cunningham got it
> from an unabridged dictionary. "Wiki" or "Wicky" is from the
> Anglo-Saxon "wici", which comes from the Proto-Germanic root
> "*hveik-", which is from the Proto-Indo-European root "*weigh-"
>
> Mark

Haruo
--
Meet the Whole World Halfway ? Learn and Use Esperanto!
www.lernu.net
Mia TTTejo : http://www.scn.org/~lilandbr/


subject: [WikiEN-l] The sandbox incubator

body:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
> I'm surprised that the Sandbox is "VfD resistant" in the first place - I
> would have thought anything sandbox-related would be deliberately
> ephemeral and of no lasting value, and hence eminently deleteable. The
> template on there even says that Sandbox contents are wiped every 12
> hours, wouldn't this apply to Sandbox subpages too?

Totally.  That's the whole point of a "Sandbox" -- even the name
suggests that a random breeze or rainstorm might blow or wash the entire
thing away.

--Jimbo


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

body:
In the discussion on setting up Ladino, Angela gave some useful
information which included that (paraphrasing from memory) "for
natural languages, once there are five supporters and no objections,
it can be set up".

I'm interested in how the standards differ for "unnatural languages",
and/or what the line of demarcation is (or are there several). I'm
also interested in what happens if there *is* an objection to a
particular language. As an Esperantist (but not denaska) I always see
a red flag in the phrase "natural languages", since subjectively to me
Esperanto is quite as natural as my original native langauge, English,
and much more natural than my attempts at, say, Dutch. But the case I
have in mind is Chinook Jargon. I've been talking up the idea of a
Chinuk Wawa Wikipedia on CJ mailing lists, and there is some favorable
response. But is it a "natural language"? (And if not, what hoops does
it have to jump through to get a wiki?) It started out, after all, as
sort of the Esperanto of the Northwest Coast. Now it survives in
actual spoken use mainly on the Grand Ronde Reservation in Oregon,
though there are hundreds of people around the world who use it to
some extent in writing (including on the web), most of whom use a form
closer to the original pidgin than to the creole now spoken at GR; but
all these people consider themselves in some sense members of a single
language community.

Haruo
--
Meet the Whole World Halfway ? Learn and Use Esperanto!
www.lernu.net
Mia TTTejo : http://www.scn.org/~lilandbr/


from_name: Servien Ilaino

body:
Now you're just talking mierda! Why would anyone wan't to use a
language that's dead! :s of course Old LS would be kind of cool, but
no one would use it. (must admit I understand this text better than
I'd probably understand it in New GLS haha) but if you are going to
talk bout stuff like this then why just not delete all Wikipedia's and
start a complete new one in the language of Pagaea! :p

Servien

2005/7/7, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com>:
> Oops. Make that "Ihm wurde auf einem B?ren von der Regierung gebundet"
> and "Ihm wurde eine L?ge von der Regierung erz?hlt".
>
> Mark
>
> On 06/07/05, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Wouter, I disagree. Old Saxon is, in my belief, mutually
> > comprehensible with all other early West Germanic languages. We should
> > thus use Common West Germanic. Though not attested, with a little
> > effort we should be able to write in it. In fact, even writing in our
> > native languages, we should be able to easily bridge the dialect
> > barrier between Frisian and English and Scots and Swedish with just
> > some orthographic conversion and a little extra effort. Obviously, the
> > numerous Norman loanwords in English may be difficult, so I propose
> > instead to use NoNorman when writing English, ie "firststuff" instead
> > of "element", "birdlore" instead of "ornithology", "atomic" with
> > "uncleftish", "beholding" rather than "theory", "manlore" (or the more
> > PC "personlore" or "humanlore") rather than "anthropology",
> > "animallore" rather than "zo?logy". We should also avoid indirect and
> > idiomatic speech -- "passed away" should be instead "died", "Er wurde
> > zu einem B?ren von der Regierung aufgebunden." should be instead "Er
> > wurde zu von der Regierung _gelogen_."
> >
> > Of course, all system messages and all pages in the Wikipedia
> > namespace would have to be written in Common West Germanic.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > On 06/07/05, Wouter Steenbeek <musiqolog at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Dear fellow list subscribers,
> > >
> > > After a few very nasty e-mails, overseeing the battle field, I cannot
> > > conclude but that no-one will change his view by someone else's arguments.
> > > Therefor we should not bother to meet inbetween, but rather on neutral
> > > ground: let us return to where it all begun. We can eliminate both most
> > > spelling and most dialectical differences by... returning to Old Saxon. This
> > > strong sonorous language will unite the fierce but noble people of the
> > > Saxons which have been suppressed by Francs for far too long.
> > >
> > > Latad uns farenigan undar thia sprak?, thia lang lidan ena was. ?s, Sachson,
> > > siad fardelad thur Frankon ewan lang, enda thur hart farenigadat duvoliskit
> > > werk w?s nu siad fardelid tot op tha bena. Ni langar sallad s? uns
> > > undardrukan: V?, dat adelt folk, gad w?rum nah unsaron brunnon en herstellad
> > > allat hwat so lang fargetan, farnederad enda undardrukad is. Lang livad
> > > Sachson, lang liva Sachsa sprako. Enda nu, makad ena nija Wikipedia for
> > > unsara gedachta utwerkon konnon!
> > >
> > > Iar bestar friond Wouter.
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Altijd in contact met de kleinkinderen: MSN Messenger
> > > http://messenger.msn.nl/
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > 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
>


from_name: Skyring

subject: [WikiEN-l] RE: Request to mailing list WikiEN-l rejected

body:
On 7/7/05, A. Nony Mouse <temoforcomments4 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> That now makes FOUR times that Gerard has denied a message claiming
> "personal attack" because it was critical of his constant abuses of power.

Can't win, can you? Criticise someone and they take it personal.

Personally, I think David's work deserves a medal.

--
Pete, suggesting something tasteful with Golden Oakleaves, Swords, and Diamonds


subject: [Wikitech-l] statistics now available

body:
Kate wrote:
> webalizer statistics and access breakdowns by country are now available for
> all Wikimedia projects:
>
> * http://www2.knams.wikimedia.org/stats/
> * http://www2.knams.wikimedia.org/country-stats/

This is a table of the 31 highest-pageview countries, but sorted on a
per-capita basis, using population figures from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population

It's a little hard to read here in plain text, but there are some
interesting things to observe.  First, as I have personally felt for a
long time, Wikipedia is most popular (per capita) in German-speaking
countries.  In Germany, for example, there were .3749 pageviews per
person (for whatever time period Kate studied, a day?), as compared to
.2519 in the United States.

--Jimbo (sitting in Germany at the moment)

CH	SWITZERLAND	3257554	1.50%	7,489,370	0.434957012
DE	GERMANY	30918990	14.60%	82,468,000	0.37492106
AT	AUSTRIA	2597402	1.20%	8,184,691	0.317348816
FI	FINLAND	1497528	0.70%	5,223,442	0.286693717
IL	ISRAEL	1736050	0.80%	6,276,883	0.276578359
CA	CANADA	8732647	4.10%	32,805,401	0.266195405
NL	NETHERLANDS	4132982	1.90%	16,407,491	0.251896039
US	UNITED STATES	67764804	31.90%	296,202,709	0.228778475
JP	JAPAN	25753169	12.10%	127,333,002	0.202250545
SE	SWEDEN	1814517	0.90%	9,001,774	0.201573268
SG	SINGAPORE	764117	0.40%	4,425,720	0.172653715
BE	BELGIUM	1762902	0.80%	10,364,388	0.170092243
NO	NORWAY	758707	0.40%	4,593,041	0.165186202
AU	AUSTRALIA	2927652	1.40%	20,090,437	0.145723659
UK	UNITED KINGDOM	7746798	3.70%	60,441,457	0.128170272
FR	FRANCE	7241067	3.40%	60,424,213	0.119837175
DK	DENMARK	630803	0.30%	5,432,335	0.116120048
HK	HONG KONG	779969	0.40%	6,898,686	0.113060516
PL	POLAND	4327531	2.00%	38,635,144	0.112010221
PT	PORTUGAL	966668	0.50%	10,566,212	0.091486713
CL	CHILE	1239153	0.60%	16,136,137	0.076793659
IT	ITALY	4139186	2.00%	58,103,033	0.071238725
ES	SPAIN	2587800	1.20%	43,209,511	0.059889592
PE	PERU	1649896	0.80%	27,925,628	0.059081787
MY	MALAYSIA	880847	0.40%	23,953,136	0.036773765
AR	ARGENTINA	1432035	0.70%	39,537,943	0.036219259
MX	MEXICO	2594245	1.20%	106,202,903	0.024427251
PH	PHILIPPINES	1674005	0.80%	87,857,473	0.019053644
BR	BRAZIL	3353760	1.60%	186,112,794	0.01802004
CN	CHINA	2498070	1.20%	1,306,313,812	0.001912305
IN	INDIA	1400545	0.70%	1,080,264,388	0.001296484


from_name: Ashar Voultoiz

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: URLs

body:
Kate wrote:
>         - http://en.wikipedia.org/edit/Main_Page
Looks nice.

>         - http://wikipedia.org/en/article/Main_Page
>         - http://wikipedia.org/en/edit/Main_Page
>
> as well as being nicer from a technical perspective, i think this reduces
> the disconnection between different languages of the same project.  so, i'd
> like to propose that we move to the last form of URLs at some point.

It will add another level of complexity the day we want to split the
cluster by languages (like en: hosted in florida, ja: hosted in japan,
fr: hosted in europe).

wikipedia.org would probably point to a redirector, if it fails all
languages would be impacted.

Even if the change is made, the worse is that we still have to support
the old lang.project.org schema. So we will have to handle two systems :(

Looks useless.

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


subject:
[Wikitech-l] PHP 5.0.4 problem
	with1.4.4:	array_key_exists()argument error

body:
Well, I finally got it working... sort of... and it was indeed what Brion
said - database connection errors - thanks Brion. Don't know how or why I
could get the configuration running as well as see a valid page after
turning on errors to client.... maybe I dreamed all that.

PHP 5 comes with mysql turned off - the opposite of the prior versions. If
you do an upgrade, it breaks mysql by turning it off. I think I accidentally
did an upgrade... or Fedora did it automatically or something.

I tried recompiling/reconfiguring, had to install lots of junk for that, but
didn't really have any problems until I ran into libxml2 - the php configure
couldn't find the xml2-config file... because it didn't exist :-)  I grabbed
libxml2 and configured it and it created the needed file... but php config
STILL couldn't find it, even when I set the path for it. [sigh]  I was about
ready to give up on Fedora 4 and switch to Mandrake or Debian...

But I had one last thing to try... I removed PHP 5 and tried PHP 4.11 RPM.
If you try to install it from the Fedora GUI, Fedora will instead grab the
latest version - 5 again! D'oh!

So, I removed THAT one using yum, downloaded and saved RPMs for php,
php-pear, and php-mysql 4.11-2.5 versions (there's a 2.6 for php and pear,
but only 2.5 for mysql), then ran rpm -i on the 3 packages. Restarted httpd
and presto - everything is working great.

FYI for anyone who needs remote connections (a dl360 sounds like a 747, and
4 of them sounds like an airport runway...) I started using vncserver with
this Fedora release, and wow... I start vncserver from a shell and access
the Fedora box with my Windows XP machine running vnc listening viewer. The
vncserver and listener is actually an auto-login X session and BLAZING
fast - better than xwin32 or exceed or anything else I've ever used. You
have to edit xstartup config generated by running vncserver and uncomment a
couple of lines - that way you get an auto-login. It's super-easy, just
connect vnc to ip.address:1 or :2 or :3 or whatever display your vncserver
connected to - no messy configs.

- MHart


subject: [Wikitech-l] Webservices API

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> A separate policy for proprietary client-side apps would have to be
> policed on the honor system; someone could always have their client
> claim to be amaroK and we'd never be the wiser. :)

Perhaps.  But imagine a scenario: Microsoft decides to add Wikipedia
content on the fly for all users of Microsoft Media Player or whatever
it would be.  (Or Apple and iTunes, for example).  We're pretty joyous
about this in general (free information for everyone!) but it seems a
bit unfair for us to have to foot the bill for the servers and bandwidth.

Now, if hypothetically, Apple were to include Wikipedia data by pulling
it and pretending to be amoraK, presumably we would have some legal
course of action, and of course the PR for them would be disastrous.

No one has said anything negative about what I'm proposing yet (that
I've seen) but I should make clear that I'm not at all talking about
making our free content costly for proprietary applications.  It is only
 the hammering of our (expensive) servers that I'm worried about.

If Microsoft or Apple wants to mirror Wikipedia and hit their own
servers, that's fine.

> Blocking a client-side app that identifies itself with a unique
> user-agent or key, but behaves badly, would be easy. Blocking an app
> that behaves badly _and_ pretends to be legitimate software is a harder
> problem. (Sometimes you can distinguish between the real and the fake
> app by its behavior or a quirk of its HTTP submission formatting,
> sometimes that might not be easy.)

It seems unlikely that a popular proprietary app would do something so
bad; legitimate companies would have too much to lose.  It is of course
possible that a spammer or smalltimer might do something malicious, but
I don't suppose there is any way to prevent that.

--Jimbo


from_name: Elisabeth Bauer

body:
Aphaia wrote:

> In my opinion, it depends, and if Wikinews is suffered already by edit
> wars (I don't know if it would be or not),  it would be helpful. But
> we could go in a softer way prausibly.
>
> An editor has proposed recently on Wikqiuote a modified version of
> 3RR, instead of blocking two involved party, protect the page in
> question, and invite editors to its talk. After a while, a sysop
> unprotect the page, and if then someone try to ignore on-going
> discussion and make an edit not reflecting the latest discussion
> intentionally, (except a genuine newcomer), then blocking his or her
> account cumlatively (first 24 hours, then 48 hours ...)
>
> It is not the official policy yet, and still its early and
> experimental stage, but seems to work fairly. Just for your
> information.

Just curious: Edit-wars on wikiquote happen about which subjects? I can
hardly imagine an edit-war on wikiquote.

greetings,
elian


from_name: Angela

subject:
[Foundation-l] Issues regarding admin(s?) on wikinews,
	effects: globally

body:
On 7/7/05, Elisabeth Bauer <elian at djini.de> wrote:

> Just curious: Edit-wars on wikiquote happen about which subjects? I can
> hardly imagine an edit-war on wikiquote.

Often the same topics as Wikipedia - http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Abortion

Most problems seem to be with newcomers removing critical quotes about
people or things they don't like to see criticised rather than with
long term users edit warring, but occasionally there are POV issues
similar to those Wikipedia has.

Angela.


from_name: Przykuta

subject: [Foundation-l] we did it

body:
We have 2M arts now :))))

Przykuta


subject: [Foundation-l] we did it

body:
We have 2M arts now :))))

Przykuta


from_name: Mark Bergsma

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: URLs

body:
Ashar Voultoiz wrote:
> It will add another level of complexity the day we want to split the
> cluster by languages (like en: hosted in florida, ja: hosted in japan,
> fr: hosted in europe).

We're already doing that based on source IP, and may even start doing
that based on network topology (BGP info). Splitting based on subdomain
is not likely to be needed.

> wikipedia.org would probably point to a redirector, if it fails all
> languages would be impacted.

No, things would stay the same.

> Even if the change is made, the worse is that we still have to support
> the old lang.project.org schema. So we will have to handle two systems :(
>
> Looks useless.

That's just a matter of rewrite rules.

--
Mark

mark at nedworks.org


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Wikitech-l] Webservices API

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>No one has said anything negative about what I'm proposing yet (that
>I've seen) but I should make clear that I'm not at all talking about
>making our free content costly for proprietary applications.  It is only
> the hammering of our (expensive) servers that I'm worried about.
>
>If Microsoft or Apple wants to mirror Wikipedia and hit their own
>servers, that's fine.
>
>
On a technical note, Brion announced that the XML produced by
Special:Export will be out new "dump" format, together with an import
script. Coincidentially, I recently wrote an extension that can list the
titles of articles changed since date/time X. Working together, these
two parts could enable mirrors to keep their databases up-to-date with
only a few hours/minutes delay to the "live" server, and without having
to transfer the whole database once every two weeks (which was the
release cycle, right?).

Magnus

P.S.: Please note that the extension is not fully functional yet, as it
lacks information about page moves/deletion, and image upload/deletion.
-------------- 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/20050707/5af1bde8/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Fastfission wrote:

>On 7/7/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>There are two important perspectives on this, the per item perspective
>>and the overall perspective.
>>
>>Periodically, each and every item needs to be reviewed, and the fact
>>that one meets today's criteria for inclusion does not imply that it
>>will meet those same criteria next year.
>>
>>
>
>Of course, with 14,449 images tagged as fair use (I figured out a way
>to get a rough estimate using "What Links Here" and playing with the
>numbers in the URL*), this seems extraordinarily impractical. (To our
>credit, we have a whopping 46,520 pages tagged as GDFL).
>
>(Which to me says, if we are not going to purge all of them, then we
>should try and subcategorize them into smaller fair use categories,
>similar to those used for book covers and so forth, but expand to
>other relatively "safe" things such as "historical images" and
>"headshots" and "large scientific instruments" or something like
>that.)
>
That seems sensible.  Can't we just adapt the existing category system
for this purpose?

>>Beyond that there is no precise rule that can be
>>established, but we do know that there is some imprecise point out there
>>which will be over the top.
>>
>>The straw that breaks the camel's back does not function in isolation.
>>
>>
>
>This is somewhat true, but it should be remembered that we are dealing
>here purely with hypotheticals, that in "real life" it would come down
>to the discretion likely of one person (a circuit court judge, unless
>these are jury trials, but for some reason I don't think there are,
>but I might be remembering wrong).
>
IIRC this may be within the exclusive jurisdiction of federal courts,
and may fly below the level of jury trials.

One also has to distinguish between civil and criminal infringement.
Criminal infringement is a highly unlikely scenario because of the need
to prove wilfulness and outright refusal to comply when there is no
doubt about the person's copyrights.  There would also need to be
"commercial advantage or private financial gain".  That would require a
level of stupidity beyond what our most ardent copyright crusaders would
exhibit.

For civil infringements, which can only be based on specific items, the
claimant needs to jump through a few hoops before he gets his big payoff.
    He needs to have issued a takedown notice.
    He needs to have registered his copyright.  This is not needed for
simply owning the copyright, but is needed to start an infringement action.
    He needs to sort out which court has jurisdiction and where the
possible trial would take place
    He needs to counter any reasonable fair use defense that we may
raise at trial.
    He needs to elect to have statutory penalties apply.  This one's a
no-brainer since a claim on profits would get him laughed out of court,
and actual damages to him will likely be negligible.

All this is for statutory damages in the range of $500 to $20,000.  The
courts could even reduce the damages to $200.  How risk tolerant will
the person be when there is a strong possibility that the legal expenses
may far outweigh a $200 recovery.

This is not an argument for a you-can't-catch-us attitude.  It is a
strong argument against copyright paranoia.

Ec


from_name: SJ

subject: [Foundation-l] Social issues for the newer projects

body:
Michael, thanks for starting such an interesting thread.

On 7/7/05, Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:

> So, in that respect, Wikinews is quickly growing beyond the point where
> the effect you mention is highly significant. I also think that in terms
> of "quality content", the community has produced some excellent material
> so far - on par with the best Wikipedia has to offer.

Surely you exaggerate.  The pinnacle of Wikinews content is still a
hasty, impressionist memo next to Wikipedia's nuanced and excellent
monographs.

But that's just my opinion, and I mainly read in English.  It there
any way to decide this objectively?  Now there is.  We're having an
international media contest at Wikimania, with categories for
articles, text modules, and news created in the last year (along with
images, sound, and video).  Submit the best news content for review,
and we can compare lineups.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania:Competitions

Cheers,
   SJ

> While babies are cute and innocent, they can't do much besides screaming,
> consuming food, and excreting waste products. ;-)

But they are great at attracting attention.
--


from_name: Norath Norath

subject: [WikiEN-l] The ongoing trolling

body:
I have been permanently blocked by David Gerard for
asking Snowspinner why he blocked two other users,
apparently with no reason in policy. I suppose you
will put this message down to 'wild trolling' by users
with no justification. If asking an admin why he is
breaking policy is trolling, then yes, I am.

Norrath

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


from_name: Fastfission

body:
On 7/7/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> There are two important perspectives on this, the per item perspective
> and the overall perspective.
>
> Periodically, each and every item needs to be reviewed, and the fact
> that one meets today's criteria for inclusion does not imply that it
> will meet those same criteria next year.

Of course, with 14,449 images tagged as fair use (I figured out a way
to get a rough estimate using "What Links Here" and playing with the
numbers in the URL*), this seems extraordinarily impractical. (To our
credit, we have a whopping 46,520 pages tagged as GDFL).

(Which to me says, if we are not going to purge all of them, then we
should try and subcategorize them into smaller fair use categories,
similar to those used for book covers and so forth, but expand to
other relatively "safe" things such as "historical images" and
"headshots" and "large scientific instruments" or something like
that.)

> Beyond that there is no precise rule that can be
> established, but we do know that there is some imprecise point out there
> which will be over the top.
>
> The straw that breaks the camel's back does not function in isolation.

This is somewhat true, but it should be remembered that we are dealing
here purely with hypotheticals, that in "real life" it would come down
to the discretion likely of one person (a circuit court judge, unless
these are jury trials, but for some reason I don't think there are,
but I might be remembering wrong).

FF

*For future reference, one can see this link to see what I did:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&limit=440&offset=14000&target=Template%3AFairuse
If you click, "Next 440", you'll see there are 9 more on top of that
14440. Whether that is exactly accurate or not depends on the behavior
of "What Links Here" with Templates, of course, but this is probably
pretty close to the right number, da? Am I not clever? ;-)