from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
William Pietri wrote:

>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>
>>It is not a simple matter that editing for money is wrong.  What is
>>wrong is editing to impose a particular point of view, or to insure a
>>favorable article for the paying company.  How we treat biased editing
>>should have no connection with the payment arrangements between the
>>company and the editor.  Biased editing is wrong whether or not the
>>person is being paid.
>>
>>
>This is true, but paid editing opens up a can of worms that I don't
>think we have near the resources to deal with. In the US, PR is a $4
>billion industry, growing at 9% annually. And that's a tiny fraction of
>the $500 billion that will be spent on advertising and marketing this
>year in the US.
>
Sure.  But I think that the PR industry is most successful when it can
control the message, and when nobody is so openly disagreeing with them
as happens here.

>I know many editors feel like we are an unstoppable legion, and when I
>look at what has been accomplished, I feel that way too. But I think we
>would be wise to avoid assuming that we can overmatch that kind of
>money. Indeed, the decision to turn on nofollow is an admission that we
>can't even keep out those bottom-feeders of the marketing world, the
>link spammers.
>
That they can overmatch us with their superior funding only works when
we accept that as a criterion.  It's much easier to demand
substantiation for a company's claims here than by putting up picket
lines to block entrance into the company's headquarters.

>>In the Almeda case, would the edits somehow have
>>been any better if they were by an unpaid person?
>>
>>
>I'm sure there will be fewer of them.
>
Sure, but that's still only one article.  Were they involved in any
other articles?  Sooner or later the company has to arrive at the
conclusion that such a tactic is not cost-effective.  The smart ones
will find more collaborative ways of dealing with us.

>It is the very rare editor who will turn up daily to push for POV
>distortion. But as anybody who has ever talked to a telemarketer knows,
>people will do all sorts of things for money that they would never do on
>their own. Suddenly they're "just doing their job". Sure, it makes them
>miserable, and it makes the people they deal with miserable. But when
>you're two months behind on the car payment and your kid needs new
>shoes, you can learn to live with that.
>
>We do not need those people editing on Wikipedia.
>
I suppose I do telemarketers a favour by dealing with them abruptly;
that gives them an opportunity to get at other victims more quickly.
Perhaps the socially responsible thing should be to keep them on the
line longer talking about anything but their product. :-)

True enough that we don't need those who would edit out of desparation,
but I still see these as a small minority.

>>It discourages people from
>>declaring their conflicts, and has them looking for ways to circumvent
>>Wikipedia policy.
>>
>>
>Any scrutiny at all does that. By making it clear that reputable editors
>and reputable companies should stay well away from conflict-of-interest
>for-pay editing, I believe many fewer people will even try, keeping the
>number of bad edits that slip through lower than if we have a gray area.
>
The reputable companies are less likely to go too far because they
understand the consequences.  Almeda's success does not depend on being
reputable.  Some companies could very easily provide indirect payment to
an employee by letting go home an hour early so that he can edit the
company's Wikipedia article from his home computer.

We can only control internal processes and rules.  I can't see how
attempts to establish criteria based on a person's outside life can ever
get anywhere.  We have had a thread on the verification of a person's
credentials.  One can at least see a potential benefit to claiming
certain credentials; that benefit can be a motivation for verifying
those credentials.  By contrast, what apparent benefit is there to
expressing a conflict of interest.

>>In the long run there is benefit to be derived from paid editing.  Take
>>this example which may be more suited to Wikibooks.  [...]
>>
>>
>If I thought we were lacking for edits on topics of commercial interest,
>I'd find this more persuasive. But I don't think our coverage of, say,
>companies or products or bands is lacking in raw contributions.
>Wikibooks is welcome to make up their own rules, naturally.
>
My example of software manuals was only the first thing to leap to mind.

>>There is no benefit to be derived for anyone from maintaining perpetual
>>confrontation with the for-profit sector.
>>
>>
>I don't think we need to make it a perpetual confrontation.
>
>If we tell people paid editing is forbidden, most people will get this.
>PR people already get that with journalists just fine. Lobbyists and
>political contributors get it less, but I think that's precisely because
>the fuzzier rules allow plenty of room for the amoral or cash-hungry to
>justify it to themselves. Continuously arguing with full-time paid PR
>people over exactly how distorted they can get away with being, that's
>perpetual confrontation.
>
I'm far more partial to finding accomodations than blindly saying "No!"
I'm perhaps more concerned about cutting off positive opportunities.

Ec


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Rob Smith

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Trust vs. Credentials (was Re: Accountability:
	bringing back a proposal I made nearly 2 years ago)

body:
On 3/11/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I to insist that popular editor A cite his sources? In other words,
> would being liked become more important than editing courageously? Or
> rather (because it probably is more important at the moment), would
> that priority become formalized?
>
> Sarah

I think we already know the answer to thiis question.


list: foundation-l

from_name: Florence Devouard

subject: [Foundation-l] a tought

body:
maybe because it is sunday...

I was having a look at the press a few minutes ago, and I saw Essjay
real name plastered everywhere, and referred to a "fake", fired from
Wikipedia and fired from Wikia.

To be honest, whatever the degree of his mistake, my heart grieves for
him. He did not deserve to be shamed publicly in this way. I feel very
very sorry for him.

ant


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] a tought


from_name: Michael Bimmler

subject: [Foundation-l] a tought

body:
On 3/11/07, Florence Devouard <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> maybe because it is sunday...
>
> I was having a look at the press a few minutes ago, and I saw Essjay
> real name plastered everywhere, and referred to a "fake", fired from
> Wikipedia and fired from Wikia.
>
> To be honest, whatever the degree of his mistake, my heart grieves for
> him. He did not deserve to be shamed publicly in this way. I feel very
> very sorry for him.
>
True. Consider also (amongst other things) the impact this might have
on his future possibilities, as every future employer might find this
story in news archives  and will read about him "being fired"," having
lost the trust of the community", "having obtained high positions by
making misleading statements about his academic positions" etc. (note:
please don't start yet another flame war about this, I'm just quoting
what I found in newspapers, not assessing the quotes on their merits).

Michael

> ant
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] a tought


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [WikiEN-l] UK's Mail on Sunday article

body:
On 3/11/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/03/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> Er, excellent editors to [[Edwina Currie]] please ...

It's been significantly improved already. That article was indeed
rubbish, and appears to even have been vandalized at the time the
subject viewed it. :-( As a short term measure, methinks we need to
crank up the Living People patrol (i.e. make it more visible, perhaps
even put it in the sitenotice for a while).

Unfortunately, the load time for
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Living_people
is very slow - perhaps Brion or Gregory can figure out some caching
tweaks to make it scale better?
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic


subject: [WikiEN-l] Trust vs. Credentials (was Re: Accountability:

body:
On 3/11/07, Daniel P. B. Smith <wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com> wrote:
> I assume people know how this works on eBay. Feedback comments and
> ratings are wildly, wildly, wildly inflated.

Indeed, we should caution against a positive/negative system with
visible metrics. What I propose is structured, positive-only social
commentary that is not transaction-driven but relationship-driven and
is not evaluated numerically.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic


from_name: Thomas Dalton

body:
I'd just dread the effect it would have on RfA... It's pretty much a
certainty that you'll see "'''Oppose''' Not enough people trusting" on
an RfA within a week of this becoming widely used. Even worse will be
the "Trusts too many people", "Trusts too few people", "Trusts
User-I-don't-like, so must have bad judgement", etc. opposes.

In general, I think this idea would turn Wikipedia into a popularity contest.


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: J.L.W.S. The Special One

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia to seek proof of credentials (Sify.com,
	India)

body:
Wikipedia's "seeking proof of credentials" has also been reported in
the Sunday Times.

On 3/10/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 09/03/07, Frederick Noronha <fred at bytesforall.org> wrote:
>
> > http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14405629
> > Wikipedia to seek proof of credentials
>
>
> This is still a matter of tremendous community discussion on en:wp.
> See wikien-l recently. There's disagreement and discussion of (1)
> whether it's a good idea at all (2) whether it's workable if it is a
> good idea. All still ongoing.
>
> (Personally I suspect it isn't needed - after the Essjay controversy,
> no editor of good faith is going to put a false claim on their user
> page. The community outrage makes it clear that that's something one
> *just doesn't do* - and that that was an implicit rule even if it
> wasn't an explicit one.)
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
Written with passion,
J.L.W.S. The Special One


from_name: Gwern Branwen

body:
"K P" <kpbotany at gmail.com> writes:
.....
> University professors are not as out of touch with the real
  world as
> some may think.  They know what Wikipedia is.  No scientist the
world over,
> no matter how famous, has ever refused me anything that I needed
for work on
> Wikipedia.  This will probably not hold true for all Wikipedia
editors, and
> I have enough access to peer reviewed journals that I haven't
asked for a
> lot of articles.  But I have spend a lifetime reading scientific
literature
> and requesting information from professors.  I have *never* had
a request
> refused.  Scientists communicate their research to the
world--it's an almost
> universal aspect of the profession.
>
> Wikipedia editor is the only credential anyone needs to ineract
on behalf of
> Wikipedia with a university professor.  Essjay's creation was
for his own
> ego.  Wikipedia went astray in giving any respect to Essjay
based on his own
> self-proclaimed credentials.  But the press were the responsible
parties who
> had an obligation to fact check what they printed.  I wish
people wouldn't
> inflated themselves.  But I think that who people are is of far
  less
> importance than the results of their editing on Wikipedia.  And
the last I
> can judge with my own OR.
>
> KP

I'll second this. In my editing, I've contacted a number of
computer scientists or similar persons (like Richard P. Gabriel or
Steven D.  Carter), and when I've gotten a reply, they have
uniformly been helpful and answered my questions (indeed, perhaps
more helpful than I deserved).

--
Gwern
Inquiring minds want to know.


body:
On 3/11/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd just dread the effect it would have on RfA...

You can't kill what's already dead.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Brianna Laugher

subject: [Wikitech-l] Image slideshow extension wanted

body:
I thought of this some time ago:
http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5383

and I still think it would be nifty :)

cheers
Brianna
user:pfctdayelise

On 11/03/07, Ian Tresman <it at knowledge.co.uk> wrote:
> I hope this request is admissible for the list.
>
> I'm after a MediaWiki slideshow extension, and found a Javascript
> version under the GNU license at http://www.barelyfitz.com/projects/slideshow/
>
> But my knowledge of extensions is not good enough to convert this
> into an extension.
>
> Would someone else oblige... I'm willing to pay, and the resulting
> extension would remain under GNU and freely available to everyone.
>
> The extension would create a new <slideshow> tag. It would not need
> the "Slideshow Wizard" (described on the Web site above) that creates
> the slideshow, as it is quite easy to do this manually.
>
> And the one main improvement to the extension would be to be able to
> specify images either as a URL, or as a Wiki image, eg;.
> Image:picture.jpg (using the modest sized image, rather than the
> uploaded larger sized image. The option to restrict URLs to certain
> domains would prevent the use of inappropriate off-size images.
>
> I think this extension would be a useful additional.
>
> Regards,
> Ian Tresman
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] 10 Things You Did Not Know About Wikipedia

body:
On 3/11/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> Agree with Geni. The point you're making here is a bit tortured and
> explained in a very convoluted way. Something like "No change in
> Wikipedia is permanent" would be better, with explanation about how it
> can be undone etc.

I have made this point in exactly this way many times in person and
observed the enlightenment on people's faces. Perhaps it is something
that works better from face-to-face, but nevertheless, I'd be cautious
not to rely only on "insider opinion" as to whether this line of
argument "clicks" or not.

> "5. We are deeply committed to quality. "
> Just not true IMHO. "Quality" seems to be a byproduct of a system,
> rather than a "commitment" as such. Everyone wants a quality
> encyclopaedia. That's just a given.

"Byproduct of a system" sounds very tautological to me, kind of like
"effect of a cause." But something about your criticism nevertheless
rang true: "A deep commitment to quality", even if correct, sounds
more like PR than a truly counterintuitive revelation. I've changed it
now to the self-deprecating phrase "We are a bunch of quality-obsessed
policy wonks", which I think conveys the same information. :-)

My main point here is that people are often surprised that we actually
have all those crazy policies & processes; they seem to often think
that Wikipedia is basically operating by some minimal Darwinian
ruleset, with anonymous editors assembling works quietly and truth
occasionally rising to the top unpredictably. In presentations, I see
a lot of surprise when I give people examples of AfD and FAC
discussions, etc.

> 6. "We don't want you to trust us." - could be explained a lot better.
> Why not just explain it as "We try and synthesise other information
> for you in a useful way. Sometimes we get it wrong, so check the
> sources for yourself."

I don't think that entirely captures the reality of the situation.
It's not just about "getting it wrong", it's about our vulnerability
to genuine bad faith editing which, as has been shown, sometimes
_does_ remain undetected for months. It is unfortunately the truth
that any article may be complete crap at the time you view it. There
may be no sources to check, there may just be a 72 pt banner
announcing the alleged sexual preference of a 14 year old high school
student named Josh. Vandalism may, of course, be much more subtle.

We must be completely upfront about this as long as we haven't
addressed it (cf. stable version discussions etc.). This is not a
minor problem, it is _the_ key problem for many people writing about
or using Wikipedia.

> 7. "We're not alone" - I don't like equating this "movement for Free
> Knowledge" with the Wikimedia Foundation. You could make reference to
> "competitors" in this movement. Like MIT recently announcing that it's
> putting all its course material online for free.

There are indeed many non-Wikimedia projects that could be mentioned
here. The list of projects got longer than I expected, making it a bit
hard to fit more mentions in. I'll have to tweak it a bit.

> "9. We're not a dictatorship. " - I dispute this. Jimbo is quite
> clearly, explictly, unambiguously the ultimate arch-dictator of
> Wikipedia. He has never renounced this right, and occasionally
> exercises it. Now, fortunately, some dictators are benevolent... :)

Jimmy has a special community role in the _English_ Wikipedia, which
is however not legally anchored in any way. The only legally anchored
authority is that of the Board of Trustees and anyone it chooses to
delegate legal powers to. Of course, it would be unwise to exercise
that authority unless absolutely necessary.

There is definitely some lingering confusion and some inconsistency
about this, partially due to Jimmy's past double role as Chair and
President of the Wikimedia Foundation (he is neither today). But
that's the present situation.

> Also no mention that the encyclopaedia isn't written by priveleged
> "editors" known as "admins".

The admin misunderstanding is definitely common. There's probably an
equal or greater number of Wikipedia readers who've never heard of
admins in the first place, so I'm not sure it would make sense to
explain it in the context of a list like this one.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic


list: commons-l

from_name: Platonides

subject: [Commons-l] Yotophoto (free image search engine) developments

body:
Brianna Laugher wrote:
> Platonides wrote:
>>> 2) Most images will have an intermediate preview (probably in a pop-up
>>> lightbox). From here we can provide a link to *both* the Commons and
>>> Wikipedia pages for an image. What do you think?
>> I don't think this is a good idea. I assume he said it thinking on
>> "articles linking here", a link to CheckUsage would be ok, but to
>> wikipedia...
>> 1-Which wikipedia?
>
> Presumably English, or any that were indexed. Currently not all WMF
> material is indexed. And the interface is in English.
>
>> 2-Why wikipedia and not Wiktionary or Wikibooks?
>
> Because Wikipedia has a much higher profile and beyond that a much
> higher USAGE of images than either of these projects. He is not trying
> to strategically promote Wikipedia - he's providing links to where the
> image was used.
My point is that en.wikipedia is not better than other project. Checkusage
would point to en if it's used. A user searching Annone_Veneto-Stemma.png
wouldn't be benefitted by a link to en.wikipedia.

>> b) The image is fair use. No good for a copyleft search engine.
>
> They seem to have been smart enough to exclude fair use images. Search
> for yourself and see if you can find any.
Redundant. Almost all images not fair use should be on commons.

>> That if you upload to commons (not local upload), your image will also
>> be on the image search engine, can also encourage some people for the
>> free licenses instead of the -nc, etc.
>
> Yes, although it also indexes the NC and ND Creative Commons licenses
> that some other sites use. :(
I meant it as an argument for people which "want people to use it, but
are afraid of giving commercial permission" and stuck on local uploads.

>> A suggestion for them: What about making available a search from
>> image-hash (eg md5, sha1...) to allow a backwards search? (Where did
>> this free imjage came from?)
>
> that's way useful for us, but I don't know it would be so useful for J
> Random ImageSearchEngineUser. [why doesn't google images have such a
> feature?]

It can be on advanced options. If it's useful for anyone, why not add
it? It's only one extra key field on the db.


from_name: David Gerard

body:
On 11/03/07, William Pietri <william at scissor.com> wrote:

> Well, there is also the problem of a Wikipedia administrator writing to
> professors as a fellow professor. That was pretty bad in my mind, and
> could have also led to a public black eye even if the media had checked
> credentials.

This is a falsehood on the part of the person writing the email. This
is not a problem that can be addressed with any sort of credentialing
system on the site itself.

> For completeness, some also see using false credentials in an editing
> dispute as a problem. Personally, I haven't yet seen a case where it
> actually ended up harming the articles.

It's hard enough to get editors to listen to experts when they damn
well should be smart enough to. "Actually, the opinion you came to by
a process of anal revelation is not in fact as good as the opinion of
this here famous expert on the matter." "FUCK YOU I WON'T DO WHAT YOU
TELL ME! DELETE THE EXPERT AS NON-NOTABLE!"

- d.


subject:
[WikiEN-l] [Wikipedia-l] Accountability: bringing backa
	proposal I made nearly 2 years ago

body:
On 11/03/07, William Pietri <william at scissor.com> wrote:

> It's obviously not something I'm worried about, but how would you
> address Essjay's "disinformation keeps the crazies away" argument?

Um, I would point at what actually happened as evidence this does not
work against a borderline sociopath like Brandt. Saying truthfully
what you are prepared to reveal is a better idea.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Almeda University paying for positive Wikipedia edits

body:
On 11/03/07, William Pietri <william at scissor.com> wrote:

> A rule against paid conflict-of-interest editing means that we can
> explain very clearly why something isn't allowed. We can have a nice
> FAQ, a clear WP:NOPAY redirect, a simple decision flow chart. We can
> explain it to the media, to editors, to companies. We can make it an
> electric fence that people fear to touch.

Please write this up on a page as simply, clearly and unambiguously as
you can. I'm just forwarding your email to the comcom list as an
excellent example of just what we need.

- d.


from_name: Delirium

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> I've written a draft of some insights which I think could be helpful
> to readers, new editors, and journalists alike:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:10_Things_You_Did_Not_Know_About_Wikipedia
>

This may be a matter of judgment and who the target audience is, but in
my experience #1 and #2 aren't really things people don't know about
Wikipedia.  People get lots of things wrong about us, but that Wikipedia
is a free-content encyclopedia run by a non-profit organization is
usually gotten right.

-Mark


from_name: Ian Tresman

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Notability changes from Jimbo's view

body:
At 16:17 11/03/2007, you wrote:
>Hoi,
>I am sure that Jimbo does not want to be considered as the yardstick whereby
>everything is measured. Worthiness is this new word created by the American
>television guy and it means whatever you make it.
>
>There are many facts that are verifiable. that do not attract attention,
>with secondary sources providing a consensus that it is likely to be true
>that are absolutely not enough to merit a mention in Wikipedia (I drank
>coffee yesterday .. today's cup of coffee I drank alone so that one does not
>count). If you call this balderdash than you will agree with me that it is
>fine not to annotate every cup of coffee that has been drunk in pleasant
>company.
>
>If you do not agree, you may request a new project called Wikicoffee.

I'm sure that Jimbo had some basic criteria for Wikipedia, and while
I'm sure he doesn't care whether we use yardsticks are meter sticks,
he might care that we are measured in some form.

I agree that we shouldn't document every cup of coffee. But I would
like the opportunity, somewhere, to read a summary of someone's ideas.

Regards,
Ian Tresman


body:
On 3/11/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> I am definitely lingeringly confused. To be honest, I don't have the
> faintest idea what his role is these days.

Anything he does which the community permits him to get away with. ;-)

> What does it mean when he tells the
> press that we're going to implement a credentials model?

IIRC, what he said is that the community is discussing it.

> Who's your audience?

People with _very little_ knowledge about Wikipedia. It's a lowest
common denominator list.

Thanks to Planet Wikimedia, I just saw a link to the revamped
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Press_Kit which goes more into
"common misunderstandings" and includes the admin issue.

--
Peace & Love,
Erik

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic


from_name: GerardM

body:
Hoi,
I am sure that Jimbo does not want to be considered as the yardstick whereby
everything is measured. Worthiness is this new word created by the American
television guy and it means whatever you make it.

There are many facts that are verifiable. that do not attract attention,
with secondary sources providing a consensus that it is likely to be true
that are absolutely not enough to merit a mention in Wikipedia (I drank
coffee yesterday .. today's cup of coffee I drank alone so that one does not
count). If you call this balderdash than you will agree with me that it is
fine not to annotate every cup of coffee that has been drunk in pleasant
company.

If you do not agree, you may request a new project called Wikicoffee.

Thanks,
  GerardM

On 3/11/07, Ian Tresman <it at knowledge.co.uk> wrote:
>
> In the old days, Jimbo described "Verifiability" as the criteria for
> inclusion in Wikipedia, and this was endorsed by the description of
> "Notability".
>
> Not any more. "Notability" has been redefined as equating
> to:  worthiness, "attracting attention", supported by secondary
> sources, popularity, consensus, or perceived truth.
>
> And articles that are not considered "note-worthy", or balderdash,
> are now deleted, rather than described as such.
>
> Is this what Jimbo wants?
>
> Regards,
> Ian Tresman
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


body:
On 11/03/07, Platonides <Platonides at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 2) Most images will have an intermediate preview (probably in a pop-up
> > lightbox). From here we can provide a link to *both* the Commons and
> > Wikipedia pages for an image. What do you think?
>
> I don't think this is a good idea. I assume he said it thinking on
> "articles linking here", a link to CheckUsage would be ok, but to
> wikipedia...
> 1-Which wikipedia?

Presumably English, or any that were indexed. Currently not all WMF
material is indexed. And the interface is in English.

> 2-Why wikipedia and not Wiktionary or Wikibooks?

Because Wikipedia has a much higher profile and beyond that a much
higher USAGE of images than either of these projects. He is not trying
to strategically promote Wikipedia - he's providing links to where the
image was used.

> b) The image is fair use. No good for a copyleft search engine.

They seem to have been smart enough to exclude fair use images. Search
for yourself and see if you can find any.

> That if you upload to commons (not local upload), your image will also
> be on the image search engine, can also encourage some people for the
> free licenses instead of the -nc, etc.

Yes, although it also indexes the NC and ND Creative Commons licenses
that some other sites use. :(

> A suggestion for them: What about making available a search from
> image-hash (eg md5, sha1...) to allow a backwards search? (Where did
> this free imjage came from?)

that's way useful for us, but I don't know it would be so useful for J
Random ImageSearchEngineUser. [why doesn't google images have such a
feature?]

cheers
Brianna


subject: [Foundation-l] BitTorrent Downloads of enwiki Images

body:
> http://en.wikigadugi.org
>
> I am using them.

Your site appears to be down, so I can't see how you're using them.
Your main home page, however, describes it simply as a Wikipedia
Mirror. If that's all you're doing, then what is the issue? We all
know how mirrors work and what the legal requirements are - there are
detailed instructions at [[WP:MIRROR]].


from_name: Marc Riddell

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Trust vs. Credentials (was Re:
	Accountability:	bringing back a proposal I made nearly 2 years ago)

body:
on 3/11/07 5:19 PM, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com at
charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com wrote:

> Our conduct rules reward staying out of conflicts

Charles,

Do you consider a debate to be a conflict?

Marc


from_name: stvrtg

body:
On 3/11/07, William Pietri <william at scissor.com> wrote:

> Almeda University is an unaccredited degree-by-mail "university" that
> grants degrees for "life experience". They are run from Florida via an
> Idaho PO Box on behalf of a corporation registered in the island nation
> of Nevis (a place notable mainly for its lack of corporate
> transparency). In most of the US, it's illegal to use their degrees for
> anything more than a place mat. They have been repeatedly ordered to
> stop operating in various states, and they once gave a degree to a dog.

ROFL. Best laugh all day.

I agree this was an excellent find by Randywombat.
I think someone should call a newspaper on this one - a case where Wikipedia
is reliable, where only the paid marketers dont think so.

-Stevertigo

Salient points:

One of my clients is suffering with a negative Wikipedia review. Attempts to
change the Wikipedia write-up have been short lived.

Wikipedia does not require facts to print slanderous comments. Their only
"burden of proof" is that someone read it in a newspaper somewhere.

Looking for an individual that can review and the Wikipedia comments on an
ongoing basis.
You will need to log in once daily to see if somebody reverted to slanderous
comments.
If they had, you will change them back to valid / positive comments.

The pay for this is $2600/year or $50.00 per week and it's ONGOING.

You may need the ability to log in with different IP addresses and/or
different accounts.

And even though Wikipedia has almost crushed Almeda, you should know that
Almeda University is a very well-run and consumer-friendly organization.

First, I am getting another editor to change the Almeda write up to a
positive one. Once this is accomplished, what I need from you is to
continually (daily) look at and update (if needed) the Wikipedia Almeda
University review.


from_name: geni

body:
On 3/11/07, William Pietri <william at scissor.com> wrote:
>     On Wikipedia editing for pay is, in most cases, strictly forbidden.
>     The only exception is for [insert exceptions we absolutely can't
>     live without here].

That would be edits made by foundation employees.

--
geni


body:
> "Trusted by untrustworthy people." We'd end up being deliberately
> horrible to certain editors in the hope they wouldn't add our names to
> their "web of trust." ;-D

The friend of my enemy is my enemy...


list: textbook-l

from_name: Andrew Whitworth

body:
I got this same exact message in my inbox, so i would say it's a distributed
thing. I made the mistake of sending back a positive reply ("yes, i would
like to help with a project that promotes wikibooks") before reading this
post to textbook-l.

I think we need to give serious consideration to the fact that it's not
necessarily "spam" but instead a genuine (if misguided) offer of help and
support.

--Andrew Whitworth (Whiteknight)

>From: Robert Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net>
>Reply-To: Wikimedia textbook discussion <textbook-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>To: Wikimedia textbook discussion <textbook-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [Textbook-l] [Fwd: Wikibooks e-mail]Link spamming
>Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 19:57:17 -0700
>
>Martin Swift wrote:
> > Hi Rob and gang,
> >
> >
><snip>
> > Perhaps, we should rather have the server administrator send a single,
> > to-the-point email stating that this person has been in breach of the
> > terms of usage (I'm assuming there are such) and that continued abuse
> > will result in being barred from using the server.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Martin
> >
>OK, here is the original e-mail:
>
><MESSAGE>
>
>(from bushi_bashir2010 at yahoo.com)
>
>Hi there,
>
>I hope this email will find you in good health.  I am working on a website
>of "Computer Networking".
>
>I need to have Unique articles for my website on any topic of computer
>networking, hardware, wireless networking
>computer troubleshooting, data communication etc.
>
>In return I will give you permanent credit in the form of a link to your
>URL with every article you provide for my website.
>
>I will also promote your Computer Networking related books on my website if
>you allow me. Hopefully you will get good traffic towards your website(s)
>through my website.
>
>I will be very much thankful to you if you can provide me any kind of help
>in this regard.
>Looking forward to have a positive reply from you.
>
>Best Regards
>
></MESSAGE>
>
>If you are talking about a server administrator, who might that be?  This
>was sent via the web interface on en.wikibooks, of which I'm an
>administrator there.
>
>My main point is that I believe that this individual has likely spammed
>privately several individuals on not only Wikibooks but other Wikimedia
>projects as well.  This must have been a fairly tedious process, as the
>MediaWiki interface is not really set up to send bulk e-mails, but there
>are some motivated individuals.
>
>My experience with yahoo is that they don't really care when these things
>get sent, and shutting down the account will do little good, as least from
>their perspective.  This is a throw-away e-mail account that is here one
>day and gone the next.  I know, I've made a few myself (mainly as an
>anti-spam measure when I've used them).  Still, I suppose that in this case
>it might be worth it to try.
>
>-- Robert Horning
>
>P.S. I forgot the Wikimedia mailing list server strips off all
>attachments.... this was previously a forwarded message.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Textbook-l mailing list
>Textbook-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l

_________________________________________________________________
Get a FREE Web site, company branded e-mail and more from Microsoft Office
Live! http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Want to Begin by Complaining about Suspected
	Sockpuppet Account

body:
> I've been having a lot of problems on Wikipedia lately.  I also notice  that
> admins apply double standards.  Now I've been accused of beginning a
> "sockpuppet" account, and I want to begin by complaining about a suspected
> "sockpuppet" account myself.
>
> Wikipedia needs improvement.  There's no doubt about it.  The  mechanisms in
> place at the moment do not function well and seem too difficult to  use.
> Moreover, it's too much for someone who doesn't want to have to spend  too much
> time with the political part of the organization as he already has  another
> organization and other things to do.  I think I want it to end with  a good
> approach to the Arbitration Committee if necessary, and I've refrained so  far
> because I haven't wanted to "illustrate a point."  However, even the  rules get
> questionable descriptions and arbitrary applications.
>
> Ideas/Help?

Could you be a little more specific? If you suspect someone of being a
sockpuppet, you need to say who, otherwise no-one can do anything
about it. What parts in particular do you think need improving? (You
are certainly right, things aren't perfect, and never will be, but we
need to be specific about what is wrong if we are going to improve
anything.)


from_name: Guettarda

subject: [WikiEN-l] Joan Finney photo - final appeal

body:
On 3/11/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/12/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
> > To any and all.
> >
> > I am still trying to determine if there are copyright issues with the
> Joan
> > Finney - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Finney - photo which is
> linked to
> > her Article via Find-A-Grave. To recap what I've accomplished thus far:
> >
> > 1) I contacted the person who originally uploaded it to the Find-A-Grave
> > site, and he said he thought the photo wasn't copyrighted.
> >
> > 2) I have emailed the Find-A-Grave site twice and still have received no
> > reply.
> >
> > It's a terrific photo, and I think it would look great on her Article
> page.
> > My question is: couldn't someone just go ahead and upload it - and if
> there
> > are issues down the line - they can be dealt with then?
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Marc Riddell
>
> I think this is not an approach that is good for wikipedia. I see no
> reason to adopt a copyright policy from youtube.
>
> Best bet might be to add something to requested images or use
> userboxes to try and find a wikipedian in the area.

I agree with Geni - unless the person who uploaded the image to Find-A-Grave
can show that it isn't copyright (which would probably mean that the image
was explicitly released under a free license or into the public domain) the
assumption should be that it is copyright.


from_name: stevertigo

body:
On 3/11/07, Mark Ryan <ultrablue at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If we were to tolerate paid editing to any extent, we'd run the risk
> of having WP:OWN situations developing.
>
> Volunteer editor: Stop inserting that statement about Michael Jackson
> being a loveable, friendly, fluffy ball of joy.
> Paid editor: I'm paid to do this. This is my job. STFU.
> Volunteer editor: Oh, okay. I'll just leave you to it, then.

But we probably already have paid editors, aside from the Microsoft guy.
The issue is whether they conform to our standards, and not those of some
other entity. Purely biased editing is easy to spot. Edits which aren't
purely
biased are... well... neutral.

-Stevertigo


from_name: Christophe Henner

subject: [Foundation-l] Translation Commitee's meeting report (2007/03)

body:
Hi folks,

On the 9th March 2007, at 8h00 UTC on #wikimedia-translation,
wikimedians had a meeting about the translation in the Wikimedia
projects
and about the TransCom in particular. 13 people participated at the
meeting, you can find the list of them on meta. [1] along with the
log.

Many issues have been talked during this two hours, and in my opinion
this kind of meeting is really productive. The issues were:
*The Translation Request page reform.
*The importance of translation among the projects communities
*How to inform the community of related and relevant issues about WMF
*Where to work?
*Recruitment of new volunteers and local coordinator

I will summarize the meeting, but if you have any question about the
meeting, the transcom or the translations, you're invited to join
#wikimedia-translation
channel on IRC (irc.freenode/net) and leave your question or to mail
"translators-l [at] lists.wikimedia [dot] org".

== The Translation Request page reform ==

On the last transcom meeting it has been raised problems with the
Translation Request page, next to this aphaia started to make a new
one. She has made a great
job and showed during the meeting what will probably be the future TR.
We talked about the organisation of the page, what to add, remove,
etc... the
page is still under construction and will be set up within the next weeks.

== The importance of translation among the projects communities ==
We all agreed that the translation was important to get more local
volunteers involved within the Wikimedia Foundation and the Chapters.
We talked about
how to get more people involved in the translations. There was many
problems interdependent. First we are actually outnumbered and the
translations of Press
Statement take many days, when they're translated. So we need to have
more translators, if we want more translators, we have to take time to
communicate with
the community. But we also need time to translate Press Statement.

== How to inform the community of related and relevant issues about WMF ==
So we have, and still are, talked on how to get more people involved.
We have listed what's
actually existing: LSS and the Wikizine. Actually none is mastered by a
committee, we discussed on how to get the transcom more involved.

During the meeting schiste putted a stress on a test make on the
french Wikipedia. Two announcement pages has been set up, one for the
foundation and the second for the local chapter.
As those pages have been created really recently and it needs a lot of
time , we will see in few weeks how to enhanced the use of this kind
of page.

== Where to work? ==
Actually the transcom does work on meta., and for translations it's
enough. But an issue has been raised, can't the TransCom become the
core committee between
the different communities and the foundation. On a first time we can
continue to translate the Press Statement, and the stuff from the
foundations, I do believe this
kind of translations needs to be easily reachable by the community.
meta. is a mess, newcomers can't find anything. If we want to have
more volunteers implicated in the foundation,
we need to be attractive. To get people involved we need to provide a
place where the community can find easily the main information, here
comes the idea of a "translation wiki".
It would be a wiki with important information, press statement,
foundation announcement, chapters report,  etc... translated in many
languages. A wiki of this kind would be a way to
tempt people, and get them involved either in the foundation or their chapter

== Recruitment of new volunteers and local coordinator ==
As written above, this is a more than important issue. In the next
weeks the Translation Committee will communicate with the local
projects in order to find new members and to involve some people
as local coordinator. The TransCom needs to have more volunteers to
translate statements faster, and to provide more information to the
communities.

This is a quick summary of a meeting of two hours, we spoke of some
other stuff, but there are the more important ones. I hope the
transCom will soon have new
members.

All the best

[1]http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications_subcommittees/Trans/meetings/2007-03

--
schiste


from_name: Mark Clements

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Checkered background (from [MediaWiki-CVS] SVN:
	[20065] trunk/phase3)

body:
"Brion Vibber" <brion at pobox.com> wrote in
message news:45F36F1D.8000004 at pobox.com...
>
> My general inclination to avoid having something as preference, but to
> stick to a sane default that people will more rarely want to change.
> There certainly are some benefits to indicating transparency, but
> perhaps it could be:
>
> a) less visually intrusive?
>
> b) a toggle on the actual page?
>
> c) some different kind of thing?
>
> Just some thoughts that might be worth exploring before tossing new
> prefs about.

A toggle on the page would be an excellent idea - defaulting to off (white
background), but possibly remembering it via a cookie.  Personally, I
encountered the checkered background whilst trying to view an image at a
larger size, and ended up having to save it to my local machine to see it
properly, so anything that avoids this is a good thing, in my book.

- Mark Clements (HappyDog)


body:
> But we probably already have paid editors, aside from the Microsoft guy.
> The issue is whether they conform to our standards, and not those of some
> other entity. Purely biased editing is easy to spot. Edits which aren't
> purely
> biased are... well... neutral.
>

I should add that certain policies like the almost defuct WP:RS, (now
WP:RSWP)
are laced with subjectives ("reliablility") and don't make it any easier for
us to tell
the difference between someone removing something for a legitimate reason
(like outlandish uncorroborated claims) and illegitimate reasons (like
misapplying BLP standards to regular articles) .

-Stevertigo


body:
On 3/11/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/12/07, Mark Ryan <ultrablue at gmail.com> wrote:

> Volunteer editor: Stop inserting that statement about Michael Jackson
> > being a loveable, friendly, fluffy ball of joy.
> > Paid editor: I'm paid to do this. This is my job. STFU.
> > Volunteer editor: Oh, okay. I'll just leave you to it, then.
>
> Volunteer editor: Stop inserting that statement about Michael
> Jacksonbeing a loveable, friendly, fluffy ball of joy.
> Paid editor: I'm paid to do this. This is my job. STFU.
> Volunteer editor: Exactly. See [[WP:PAID]]. I've asked you to stop
> once. If you continue you may be blocked.

Volunteer editor: Stop inserting that statement about Michael
Jacksonbeing a loveable, friendly, fluffy ball of joy.
Paid editor: But it helps balance out the child molestation stuff.
Volunteer editor: [[NPOV]] doesnt support that view.
Paid editor: But its ATT to his mother.
Volunteer editor: Its an opinion by his mother. See [[WP:WWIN]]
Paid editor: STFU!
Volunteer editor: Exactly. See [[WP:CIVIL]].

-Stevertigo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia:Paid editing

body:
On 3/11/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Sometimes it is useful to have a clear stick to beat people with.
> Rather than trying to figure out exactly which line they have been
> playing on the edge of they have crossed over.

Hard to disagree with the stick approach. But thats only if its clear what
their being beaten over the head for: Being paid? (in which case we just
might never know). Or violating the rules? In which case those rules would
be the ones cited, not WP:PAY. PAY has to be advisory, to get people to do
what the MS guy did which was to fully disclose.

Maybe it would be better to think of PAY as an accusative sort of thing:
    "Your consistent bucking of our rules suggests you are probably a paid
shill.
    We will muster our formidable resources to determine if this is true."
         "How dare you accuse me of being a shill!"
     "If the shoe fits buddy."

-Stevertigo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia:Paid editing

body:
PS: Suspected locus of shilldom : [[Net neutrality]]. Seriously.

-SV


subject: [Wikitech-l] RSS feeds for watchlists

body:
As I was stuck in a traffic jam the other day (yeah. interesting place to
think about MediaWiki stuff :P), an idea for adding RSS/Atom feed support
for watchlists (as requested on Bug 471) came to me. I have no clue how
feasible it is, so I'm just throwing the suggestion to gather comments. :)

Currently, the method the bug fixes use is to create a login cookie or
something similar for the RSS feed, which then faces authentication issues.
However, I thought it would be easier to provide a
*previously-authenticated* session token, which then is just plugged into
any feed aggregator (a la Google Calendar, to point to a similar
implementation).

The way it would be done is like this:

1) Our unhappy user wants to have a create a feed for his watchlist.

2) The user clicks on [[Special:Watchlist/feed]] (or another URL), which
then generates a random 128-character string. This URL is stored somewhere
in the database; perhaps as a user_feed_token field in the user table.

3) [[Special:Watchlist/feed]] returns the string, and gives the unhappy user
a link, of the following format:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Watchlist&target={{userID}
}&token={{token}}

4) The unhappy user adds the link to his aggregator.

5) The aggregator displays the watchlist.

6) The unhappy user becomes happy.

Watchlist data is obviously private; as a result, the token should be able
to be reset by the user if necessary, and only one token should be active at
any time, like it is done with email confirmation tokens. Also, the strength
of the token should be at least 128 characters, but it can be more if
necessary. I'm not sure whether to use the username or the user ID of our
happy/unhappy user; I thought the ID number would be more cryptic, but
that's minor. If the token is wrong, then the request fails gracefully; no
"wrong token error" is required.

Anyways, what do you all think? Comments? Flamebait?

Titoxd.


from_name: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Review

body:
"Rob Smith" wrote

> The Essjay affair can be summed up as: the guy was a victim of his own
> stupidity. Now how did that attract international mainstream media
> attention?

Go work on [[victim blaming]]. Oh sorry, that was tactless. Still, it's a great tactic.

Charles

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Dealing with juvenile vandalism

body:
On 3/10/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/03/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3/10/07, stvrtg <stvrtg at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I dont know how diffs could actually be made more concise in order to best
> > > fit, but it seems that we can at least indicate whether text has been added
> > > or removed
> > > and what text that is.
>
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:EnhanceHistory-ShowerJuggling.png
>
>
> ooh, nice option. Is that a funky bit of JavaScript? It should be
> considered for MediaWiki itself.

Totally.  But until then Ive added a suggestion for easy install at
User talk:Stevage/EnhanceHistory.user.js
I should be added to Wikipedia:Tools too.
-Stevertigo


from_name: Jim Wilson

body:
> Would someone else oblige... I'm willing to pay, and the resulting
> extension would remain under GNU and freely available to everyone.

GNU?  Why not MIT or BSD (something more business friendly)?*

> The extension would create a new <slideshow> tag. It would not need
> the "Slideshow Wizard" (described on the Web site above) that creates
> the slideshow, as it is quite easy to do this manually.

I'd think a Category would do this nicely.  So <slideshow category="Some
category"> would put out a slide show of all images which have been tagged
[[Category:Some category]]

-- Jim R. Wilson (jimbojw)

* I am not trying to start a which-OSS-license-is-better flame war, I'm just
asking. :)

On 3/11/07, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I thought of this some time ago:
> http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5383
>
> and I still think it would be nifty :)
>
> cheers
> Brianna
> user:pfctdayelise
>
> On 11/03/07, Ian Tresman <it at knowledge.co.uk> wrote:
> > I hope this request is admissible for the list.
> >
> > I'm after a MediaWiki slideshow extension, and found a Javascript
> > version under the GNU license at
> http://www.barelyfitz.com/projects/slideshow/
> >
> > But my knowledge of extensions is not good enough to convert this
> > into an extension.
> >
> > Would someone else oblige... I'm willing to pay, and the resulting
> > extension would remain under GNU and freely available to everyone.
> >
> > The extension would create a new <slideshow> tag. It would not need
> > the "Slideshow Wizard" (described on the Web site above) that creates
> > the slideshow, as it is quite easy to do this manually.
> >
> > And the one main improvement to the extension would be to be able to
> > specify images either as a URL, or as a Wiki image, eg;.
> > Image:picture.jpg (using the modest sized image, rather than the
> > uploaded larger sized image. The option to restrict URLs to certain
> > domains would prevent the use of inappropriate off-size images.
> >
> > I think this extension would be a useful additional.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Ian Tresman
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: shi zhao

subject: [Foundation-l] Planet Wikimedia: Add your blog feeds

body:
wikipedian blog :
http://www.google.com/reader/shared/user/10562095482036943678/label/wikipedian-blog

by KJ

2007/3/11, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org>:
> We have just launched http://planet.wikimedia.org/ , which is an
> aggregator for all on-topic wiki-related weblog (blog) posts by
> participants in Wikimedia projects. The planet can be found at:
>
> http://planet.wikimedia.org/
>
> To get added, please follow the instructions at:
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Planet_Wikimedia
>
> This is a kind of beta test, and right now, the planet is in the
> English language; however, I have prepared a process for requesting
> new languages to be set up here:
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Planet_Wikimedia/New_language
>
> So please add your support if you wish to aggregate blog posts in
> another language.
>
> Again, this is for on-topic posts, not for diary entries. All feeds
> must either point to a blog which is almost exclusively about wikis,
> or filtered (WordPress, Blogger and other common blog engines all
> support filtered feeds by categorizing your posts, e.g., adding the
> "wiki" category to all posts which you want to be included in the
> planet). If this makes you feel uncomfortable, you can (in addition or
> in substitution) add your blog to http://wikiblogplanet.com/ , which
> does not filter posts for on-topicness. WikiBlogPlanet is run
> independently by Nick Jenkins.
>
> I hope that this new tool will allow us to share useful and
> interesting information, as well as opinions, more effectively across
> project boundaries.
> --
> Peace & Love,
> Erik
>
> DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
> the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
>
> "An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
> free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
Chinese wikipedia: http://zh.wikipedia.org/
My blog: http://talk.blogbus.com
CNBlog: http://blog.cnblog.org/weblog.html
Social Brain: http://www.socialbrain.org/default.asp
cnbloggercon: http://www.cnbloggercon.org/

[[zh:User:Shizhao]]


subject: [WikiEN-l] [Foundation-l] Planet Wikimedia: Add your blog feeds


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] [Foundation-l] Planet Wikimedia: Add your blog
	feeds


body:
To any and all.

I am still trying to determine if there are copyright issues with the Joan
Finney - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Finney - photo which is linked to
her Article via Find-A-Grave. To recap what I've accomplished thus far:

1) I contacted the person who originally uploaded it to the Find-A-Grave
site, and he said he thought the photo wasn't copyrighted.

2) I have emailed the Find-A-Grave site twice and still have received no
reply.

It's a terrific photo, and I think it would look great on her Article page.
My question is: couldn't someone just go ahead and upload it - and if there
are issues down the line - they can be dealt with then?

What do you think?

Marc Riddell


subject: [WikiEN-l] UK's Mail on Sunday article

body:
"Slim Virgin" wrote

> http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=441432&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source=

Hmmm, so 2006 to get people to look at individual articles.

Peter Hitchens: if you'd copy-edited as many 1911EB articles as I have done, you'd have said something different. Even that work ('magisterial' is not a bad characterisation) is a curate's egg. For example [[Thomas Hood]] needed a short-back-and-sides.

Charles

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


body:
"Steve Bennett" wrote

> "5. We are deeply committed to quality. "
> Just not true IMHO. "Quality" seems to be a byproduct of a system,
> rather than a "commitment" as such.

Yeah. Some confusion here, surely.

If you actually want the ladies and gentlemen of the Press to use this thing, you have to edit out of it the mission statement stuff; and edit in more of the things they can borrow as a deadline looms.

Charles

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


from_name: Thomas Dalton

body:
> And how is that our business?  In some cases he may be using them, and
> others not.

None of it is our business, that's the main point people have been
trying to make.


from_name: Guillaume Paumier

subject:
[Foundation-l] [Translators-l] Translation Commitee's meeting
	report (2007/03)

body:
Good evening,

On 3/11/07, Christophe Henner <christophe.henner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> == Where to work? ==
> Actually the transcom does work on meta., and for translations it's
> enough. But an issue has been raised, can't the TransCom become the
> core committee between
> the different communities and the foundation. On a first time we can
> continue to translate the Press Statement, and the stuff from the
> foundations, I do believe this
> kind of translations needs to be easily reachable by the community.
> meta. is a mess, newcomers can't find anything. If we want to have
> more volunteers implicated in the foundation,
> we need to be attractive. To get people involved we need to provide a
> place where the community can find easily the main information, here
> comes the idea of a "translation wiki".
> It would be a wiki with important information, press statement,
> foundation announcement, chapters report,  etc... translated in many
> languages. A wiki of this kind would be a way to
> tempt people, and get them involved either in the foundation or their
> chapter

I don't see the problem with going on using meta for translation. If you
think translations are difficult to find on meta, you can create a
"translation portal" (it seems to me it already exists as [[m:TR]] but I may
be wrong). We are precisely closing some "peripheral" wikis because
information is split in many places and that makes it difficult to find it.
Opening yet another wiki will not attract more people, but it is a damn good
way to lose people on the road.

--
Guillaume Paumier
[[m:User:guillom]]
http://www.wikimedia.org


from_name: Simetrical

subject: [Wikitech-l] cache images once for everybody?

body:
On 3/11/07, Dan Jacobson <jidanni at jidanni.org> wrote:
> Just curious about ways to maybe save bandwidth for little mediawiki
> installations as well as wikipedia:
>
> Have the logos at the bottom of the screen, background images use the
> central wikimedia ones ("hotlinked") instead of the ones that come
> from the distribution .tar. And on the central wikimedia ones, have
> Expires: Jan 1 2036 etc. HTTP header. Result: one copy cached forever
> on the whole Internet? If one day regret Expires 2036, then just
> change the filename when needed. Or maybe expires 1 year form now,
> etc.
>
> Maybe also somewhat for .css.

That would be great if a) the Wikimedia Foundation had lots of
bandwidth and Squid resources to spare, and b) it never ever ever
would ever not have lots of bandwidth and Squid resources to spare
(since packaging things this way would be tantamount to a promise
never to remove them).  Also, it'll be fun when every MediaWiki
install on the Internet looks ugly every time the cluster goes down,
and I'm sure it would be viewed as very professional to have a
third-party wiki with zero users take ten seconds to fully load a
cache miss at peak hours.

It wouldn't work at all for CSS, since that changes on a regular basis.


from_name: Bartning at aol.com

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Study finds that Wikipedia has evolved from an
	oligarchy to a ...

body:
In a message dated 3/11/2007 1:02:38 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
kmw at outwardhosting.com writes:

Really,  Volume 1 of Popper's "The Open Society and its Enemies" is a
must-read.

Why don't you describe it for us briefly, your take on it?

Vincent

**************************************
 AOL now offers free
email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com.


subject: [WikiEN-l] 10 Things You Did Not Know About Wikipedia

body:
On 3/11/07, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> This may be a matter of judgment and who the target audience is, but in
> my experience #1 and #2 aren't really things people don't know about
> Wikipedia.  People get lots of things wrong about us, but that Wikipedia
> is a free-content encyclopedia run by a non-profit organization is
> usually gotten right.

I've seen rather a lot of "will google buy wikipedia?" blogs and forum threads.

--
geni


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] UK's Mail on Sunday article

body:
On 11/03/07, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com
<charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:

> Peter Hitchens: if you'd copy-edited as many 1911EB articles as I have done, you'd have said something different. Even that work ('magisterial' is not a bad characterisation) is a curate's egg. For example [[Thomas Hood]] needed a short-back-and-sides.

Go on, say that in a comment ;-)

- d.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Image slideshow extension wanted

body:
> Mediawiki is GPLed.

That's true, however that doesn't mean that software (such as extensions)
built on this framework must also be GPL - at least, I don't believe so.

Core devs, please correct me if I'm wrong there.  I know GPL applies to
derivative works, however I don't believe this applies to extensions.  If
I'm incorrect, and it _does_ apply to extensions, I'd very much like to know
since I've been releasing my MediaWiki extensions with an MIT style license.

-- Jim

On 3/11/07, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/11/07, Jim Wilson <wilson.jim.r at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Would someone else oblige... I'm willing to pay, and the resulting
> > > extension would remain under GNU and freely available to everyone.
> >
> > GNU?  Why not MIT or BSD (something more business friendly)?*
>
> Mediawiki is GPLed.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia:Paid editing

body:
On 11/03/07, William Pietri <william at scissor.com> wrote:

> Comments, questions, and suggestions are very welcome. From the
> discussion here, I know this isn't the only possible solution to the
> problem, so if you feel like this is going off in completely the wrong
> direction, I'd encourage (and probably contribute to) alternate approaches.

It's not quite accurate - not on en: but on other Wikipedias, they're
often push-started by people paid to write articles, e.g. by the
institute of the local language. I can see this sort of paid writing
not being a COI if the person is careful not to edit anything related
to their sponsor. I mention this as a real-life example that happens
now with no-one having any objection to it.

- d.


body:
On 11/03/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/11/07, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:

> > This may be a matter of judgment and who the target audience is, but in
> > my experience #1 and #2 aren't really things people don't know about
> > Wikipedia.  People get lots of things wrong about us, but that Wikipedia
> > is a free-content encyclopedia run by a non-profit organization is
> > usually gotten right.

> I've seen rather a lot of "will google buy wikipedia?" blogs and forum threads.

Yes. And the media *don't* understand it's all written by volunteers.
I use the phrase "It's a volunteer-driven nonprofit charity. There's
about ten staff who run the office and the web servers. But almost all
of it's volunteers all the way down." This actually has to be said!

- d.


body:
> On 3/12/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>> To any and all.
>>
>> I am still trying to determine if there are copyright issues with the Joan
>> Finney - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Finney - photo which is linked to
>> her Article via Find-A-Grave. To recap what I've accomplished thus far:
>>
>> 1) I contacted the person who originally uploaded it to the Find-A-Grave
>> site, and he said he thought the photo wasn't copyrighted.
>>
>> 2) I have emailed the Find-A-Grave site twice and still have received no
>> reply.
>>
>> It's a terrific photo, and I think it would look great on her Article page.
>> My question is: couldn't someone just go ahead and upload it - and if there
>> are issues down the line - they can be dealt with then?
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Marc Riddell

on 3/11/07 8:57 PM, geni at geniice at gmail.com wrote:
>
> I think this is not an approach that is good for wikipedia. I see no
> reason to adopt a copyright policy from youtube.

I'm sure you're right - I was grasping.
>
> Best bet might be to add something to requested images or use
> userboxes to try and find a wikipedian in the area.

I don't understand what either of these mean, Geni.
>
>
Marc


subject: [WikiEN-l] Almeda University paying for positive Wikipedia edits

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote

> How we treat biased editing
> should have no connection with the payment arrangements between the
> company and the editor.  Biased editing is wrong whether or not the
> person is being paid.

Both sentences are correct on some interpretation.

But: if there is an edit war, sanctions on a biased editor who is paid can and should be harsher (if there is any reasonable evidence that payment being made). And the difference between a fan and a flack tweaking the biography of a film star to read more favourably strikes me as important.

Charles

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


body:
Not to mention HTTPS - which would cause "This page contains both secure and
non-secure elements." dialogs.

On 3/11/07, Simetrical <Simetrical+wikilist at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/11/07, Dan Jacobson <jidanni at jidanni.org> wrote:
> > Just curious about ways to maybe save bandwidth for little mediawiki
> > installations as well as wikipedia:
> >
> > Have the logos at the bottom of the screen, background images use the
> > central wikimedia ones ("hotlinked") instead of the ones that come
> > from the distribution .tar. And on the central wikimedia ones, have
> > Expires: Jan 1 2036 etc. HTTP header. Result: one copy cached forever
> > on the whole Internet? If one day regret Expires 2036, then just
> > change the filename when needed. Or maybe expires 1 year form now,
> > etc.
> >
> > Maybe also somewhat for .css.
>
> That would be great if a) the Wikimedia Foundation had lots of
> bandwidth and Squid resources to spare, and b) it never ever ever
> would ever not have lots of bandwidth and Squid resources to spare
> (since packaging things this way would be tantamount to a promise
> never to remove them).  Also, it'll be fun when every MediaWiki
> install on the Internet looks ugly every time the cluster goes down,
> and I'm sure it would be viewed as very professional to have a
> third-party wiki with zero users take ten seconds to fully load a
> cache miss at peak hours.
>
> It wouldn't work at all for CSS, since that changes on a regular basis.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Trust vs. Credentials (was Re: Accountability:
	bringing back a...

body:
In a message dated 3/11/2007 2:19:59 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com writes:

> In  essence it *is* a popularity contest as Sarah suggests.  I have  no
> interest in learning how to expand my popularity or add others to  my
> list.

I would see it as an 'avoiding unpopularity'  contest, to some large extent.
Our conduct rules reward staying out of  conflicts, and staying very calm and
detached when you are in them. This makes  sense, to me. It's a working
environment.

It's worse than a modern academic environment.  Articles attack, don't
interrelate, citations get improperly cited and improperly ignored.  It's  worse
than the USENET because at least on there you can't get blocked, and I see  even
worse cases of unfairness there.  Wikipedia has only taken what's bad  with
the USENET it seems to me right now, and it's even gotten some unrealistic
publicity lately.

Vincent

**************************************
 AOL now offers free
email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com.


from_name: Michael Snow

body:
Andrew Lih wrote:

> First off, kudos to Erik as most of the ten are quite well written and
> help to enlighten.
>
> On 3/11/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>> On 3/11/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Agree with Geni. The point you're making here is a bit tortured and
>> > explained in a very convoluted way. Something like "No change in
>> > Wikipedia is permanent" would be better, with explanation about how it
>> > can be undone etc.
>>
>> I have made this point in exactly this way many times in person and
>> observed the enlightenment on people's faces. Perhaps it is something
>> that works better from face-to-face, but nevertheless, I'd be cautious
>> not to rely only on "insider opinion" as to whether this line of
>> argument "clicks" or not.
>
> I'd have to agree with the chorus here that #4 is likely too confusing
> because it's too technocratic. Read it again:
>
> "What you can do is make a copy of an article, and implicitly
> choose this copy to be the one shown to all readers by default. No
> existing copy is ever touched again, which allows us to backtrack as
> needed and to revert unwanted changes. It also allows you to refer to
> Wikipedia articles using something called a "permalink" in the bottom
> left corner -- a link to a copy of the article that will never change,
> for better or for worse."
>
> You're starting to talk about how a database works. Once you start
> talking database details to the layperson, you've lost 90% of your
> audience and, hence, the point.
>
> Also, I'm not sure what "the point" the reader should walk away with.
> Is it "Everything is preserved" or "Nothing is ever lost"? If so,
> change the point to be that.

"Changing Wikipedia does not rewrite history."

--Michael Snow


body:
In a message dated 3/11/2007 12:02:18 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dalton at gmail.com writes:

Could  you be a little more specific? If you suspect someone of being  a
sockpuppet, you need to say who, otherwise no-one can do  anything
about it. What parts in particular do you think need improving?  (You
are certainly right, things aren't perfect, and never will be, but  we
need to be specific about what is wrong if we are going to  improve
anything.)

I was able to file the complaint.  There was another group in a role
position a college I noticed besides the user I complained about,  PocklingtonDan,
who put me down in an election, vandalized an article I had  edited, and changed
a user page of someone who also agreed with him,  Stillstudying.

I don't think my complaint should fall on deaf ears.  I would like to  have a
better perception of the situation though.  LOL!

Vincent

**************************************
 AOL now offers free
email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com.


body:
On 3/11/07, Christophe Henner <christophe.henner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> As you can read on the very first lign of this section meta. is enough
> for translations :)

You are the one talking about a "translation wiki".

What I'm speaking about is wider. Actually we have big communities,
> but what about a core Community. Are we enough volounteer? No we're
> not. Is it easy for volounteers to get involved? Not at all. What I'm
> speaking about is linking the communities.
>
> This part is the long term part of the meeting. It's not something to
> do tommorrow but something we have to begin to set up.
>
> This part was "start reflexion", and I will continue to push it
> forward with the recruitment of the volounteer coordinator. We need
> more internal communication, and meta. is not right for this, it will
> be easier to have a main community wiki and then guide them where they
> can help.

Could you just explain *once* *why* meta is not "right for this"? Meta is
our central coordination wiki. Linking the communities is one of its goals.
If meta fails in that, improve it, it is a wiki.

--
Guillaume Paumier
[[m:User:guillom]]
http://www.wikimedia.org


body:
"K P" wrote

> In essence it *is* a popularity contest as Sarah suggests.  I have no
> interest in learning how to expand my popularity or add others to my
> list.

I would see it as an 'avoiding unpopularity' contest, to some large extent. Our conduct rules reward staying out of conflicts, and staying very calm and detached when you are in them. This makes sense, to me. It's a working environment.

> En.wiki just isn't that big on formalizing things, also, so implementing it
> probably would not occur.

Not the right things. You can't mean things like [[WP:MOSDAB]].

Charles

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


from_name: Ron Ritzman

body:
On 3/11/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:

> This is, if I remember rightly, [[User:John Wallace Rich]], who is a
> veterans' rights activist who has had trouble due to his promotion of
> his organisation on Wikipedia.  There is a sockpuppetry case against
> him:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/John_Wallace_Rich

I couldn't help notice this on his "sock puppet" account's talk page...

"I may be willing to believe, however, that you are, rather than John
himself, a friend or relation, but that would make you a Meatpuppet,
which is equally unallowable on Wikipedia. This account is also
self-admittedly a role account which is not allowed either; I
recommend that you create separate accounts for each person; it's not
too hard to log in and out. --Scott Wilson 17:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)"

On the one hand, he is being told that if the second account is a
"friend or relative" then he's a "meat puppet" which is not allowed.
On the other hand, if it's an account used by several if his family
members, then it's a "roll account" which is also not allowed and each
"family member" should make a separate account but if they did that
then that would make them "meat puppets" which would break the first
rule. It sounds like Mr. Rich is being told that he is the only person
in his house allowed to participate on WP.

I am not familiar with Mr. Rich or this KIA edit war but it looks like
he has been put in a "damned if he does and damned if he doesn't"
situation.


body:
On 11/03/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Not to mention that "free content", to most people, means exactly
> that: "free content." That is: "Hey, I can download it for free from
> the Interweb." I have seen  very few articles about Wikipedia which
> get the licensing part right. That said, that's one of those things
> you have to hammer into a person's head about 10 times before they
> understand it.

Creative Commons isn't helping either. "Oh, we'd love this on
Wikipedia, it's all Creative Commons!" YES, IT'S BY-NC-ND. ARGH.

The trouble is that CC have monopolised the mindshare for "freer than
all-rights-reserved" ... but pretty clearly couldn't give a hoot about
actual free content.

CC's aims are not only not our aims, they actively hinder our aims.
This is ... somewhat annoying.

- d.


from_name: Samuel Klein

subject: [Foundation-l] Accountability

body:
The community and Foundation responses to Essjay's unmasked roleplaying
have been rather disappointing.  Each time it comes up, every community
member has an opportunity to remind the world that Wikipedia does not
privilege credentials but rather quality of contribution; and that
Essjay's contributions and participation were acclaimed and emulated for
their consistency, reliability, sensibility and eloquence, not for claims
about his present work or past accomplishments.

I cringe at the overemphasis on "using credentials in content disputes" as
it relates to this particular case, since there are so many people who DO
use their credentials, real or otherwise, in misguided and harmful ways in
content disputes on Wikipedia every day -- including active editors and
admins who see it as their mission to 'normalize' the POV of the site
without consideration of others' perspectives.  Essjay's use in this
manner was tame and sporadic in comparison.

I blogged something about this:
   http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/sj/2007/03/08#a1437

But I was responding to a thread about accountability in general..

== Accountability and credentials ==

As to Anthony's proposal to validate credentials:

Wikipedia does not privilege editors with academic credentials. Nor are
academic credentials a special case of information about oneself on the
wiki.
     Therefore, if you want to create new policy about lying, involving
which chastises or otherwise punishes editors for not being truthful, be
sure to define the policy in a way neutral to the "academic-qualification"
nature of the facts in question.

Wikipedia does not require Real Names, nor does it privilege giving out
lots of personal information.  It also encourages and depends on
verification of FACTS, and not of PEOPLE.
     Therefore, if you want to set up a verification service for facts --
please do.  We would all support this.  If you want to set up a
verification service for people -- for real names, number of children,
age, weight, people slept with -- you can of course offer the ADP stamp of
personal-information approval... but I would hate to see it as an official
part of Wikipedia.

Finally, adminship is no big deal, and standards for admins should relate
directly to their ability to sensibly carry out editing and other policies.

And for most positions it should be confirmation enough to have explicit
"ask me no questions" pseudonymity...

SJ

On Fri, 9 Mar 2007, Kat Walsh wrote:

> On 3/5/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>> On 3/5/07, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>>> There are two parts to the suggestion: 1) marking some statements with
>>> a "verified credentials" tag, and 2) a "policy of gentle (or firm)
>>> discouragement for people to make claims like those that EssJay made,
>>> unless they are willing to back them up".
>>
>> I'm cross-posting this to wikipedia-l and foundation-l, because it may
>> very well become a Foundation-level issue at some point.
>>
>> I would support the following:
>>
>> 1) Any user can ask for his or her professional credentials to be verified.
>>
>> 2) Making up professional credentials is prohibited, and may result in
>> a ban. (This may or may not be covered by existing policy, but judging
>> from the Essjay case, it is probably not sufficiently clear.) This is
>> independent of whether or not the user asks for credentials to be
>> verified. We may investigate claims that are dubious when they are
>> pointed out to us.
>>
>> 3) Any user trusted on admin level or higher who makes a statement of
>> credentials on their user page must have them verified through a team
>> of volunteers designated to this role by the Wikimedia Foundation (we
>> may want to involve the chapters if this becomes international). The
>> process of verification could be similar to what Citizendium uses,
>> i.e.:
>> a) have an existing, credentialed user vouch for the credentials to be
>> correct based on personal knowledge,
>> b) respond to an email associated with a reliable institution, and
>> point us to a web page of that institution where their credentials are
>> listed,
>> c) point to someone associated with a reliable institution we can
>> contact to verify the credentials.
>>
>> We may extend this to regular users if it proves to scale well.
>>
>> 4) Users with verified credentials will get a little "Verified
>> credentials on <date>" marker on their user page, nothing more. This
>> marker would ideally be independent of the wikitext of the page, and
>> set in the user table instead.
>>
>> I am opposed to any marker of edit contributions and such -- users who
>> care about credentials can look them up, those who do not care should
>> not be bothered by them in discussions or contributions.
>
> As many others do I believe this is too bureaucratic, and I don't
> think it will ever be followed on a wide enough scale to be useful.
>
> I believe that for all but the most hardcore contributors it is too
> much bother; they won't do it. And among the more dedicated
> contributors, many will be against it. There's a reason we don't
> simply take experts at their word -- not because we do not respect
> expertise, but because for our purposes we need to know *where* the
> experts got what they know so that someone can independently verify
> it, no matter how reliable the contributor may personally be.
>
> And how reliable that person is does not necessarily match up to how
> well-qualified they are... or how much information they are willing to
> give. There are plenty of cranks who are more than happy to prove six
> ways from sunday that they have a load of letters after their names,
> in the hopes that you will be impressed enough to defer to their
> crankish viewpoint. And plenty of solid contributors who are
> uncredentialed, who aren't willing to go to the trouble, or who don't
> believe that it should be required and wouldn't want to use them to
> influence discussion anyway, who will not participate.
>
> Is it wrong to claim you are something you are not in order to
> influence decisions? Sure, and I don't condone that. But mandatory
> credential verification is not something I see as effectively
> addressing the problem. For whatever reason, some people make things
> up. Most people don't lie, and I do not think that telling everyone
> who says on their user page "hi, I live in Arizona, I have a Ph.D. in
> math, and I want to edit articles about graph theory" that they have
> to let someone check credentials is going to go over well -- nor is it
> necessary.
>
> Positions of personal-level trust are different -- checkusers, press
> contacts, and similar. And for those, I don't care about credentials,
> unless the credentials are in some way related to what they are doing
> -- just identity, that they are who they say they are. Already we ask
> that stewards prove they are over age 18; checkusers *should* be the
> same. I'm sure we will be more stringent about checking on the
> identities of press contacts in the future. It is reluctantly that I
> can accept restricting users from being able to fill these positions
> without proving identity, because I want to trust that people will not
> misrepresent themselves, but I recognize that they do not always do
> so.
>
> As for admins? I'm afraid it may even be counterproductive. It implies
> that credentials and identity are important to adminship. And this is
> exactly the wrong impression. It says that we care what kind of
> standing our admins have for adminship -- separate from their roles as
> content editors. (And many of the most well-regarded and prolific
> content editors are not admins.) There is nothing about adminship that
> needs special qualification other than experience with the site. I
> care that people who are contributing content are not backing up their
> statements with false authority -- false credentials, misquoted
> references, hoaxes, anything of the like -- regardless of their status
> as admins or not. There is nothing about the position of admin that
> requires us to know anything other than their history with the site.
> (The press likes to make a big deal about admins, but if we are doing
> something in response to press alone against our better judgment we
> are in a sad state.)
>
> Even assuming we all thought this was a great idea and we were all on
> board, who is going to be doing the checking? How deep is this going
> to be? Is someone who has a diploma mill Ph.D. still able to say "I
> have a a Ph.D." or will all instances needed to be marked with
> {{unaccredited}}?
>
> I am afraid this is a knee-jerk response, and I am also afraid that
> saying to the media that we are going to do it (and that is what has
> been said so far) foolishly commits us to something that may not be a
> good idea even if we had the resources to do it. And so even as I am
> for knowing the identities of those in positions of trust, I am
> against this proposal.
>
> -Kat
> who advises you to take all of the above with a grain of salt; she
> only has a BA, which no one here has personally checked up on
>
> --
> Wikimedia needs you: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising
> * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | (G)AIM:Mindspillage
> mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net | email for phone
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Accountability


subject: [Foundation-l] Accountability


body:
In a message dated 3/11/2007 4:16:55 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
guy.chapman at spamcop.net writes:

This is,  if I remember rightly, [[User:John Wallace Rich]], who is a
veterans'  rights activist who has had trouble due to his promotion of
his  organisation on Wikipedia.  There is a sockpuppetry case  against
him:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/John_Wallace_Ric
h

He  started a SSP case against two editors who are self-evidently no
socks, on  the ground hat both of them are in dispute with him over his
POV  edits.

The fact they were both against me, and one changed the others' page, did
seem suspicious.  It also appears the case has disappeared, and it involved  an
election.  What happened to it?  It doesn't even appear in the  archives, and
I don't see my evidence page anywhere now.  There's no record  of it.

Vincent

**************************************
 AOL now offers free
email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com.


body:
"David Gerard" wrote

> CC's aims are not only not our aims, they actively hinder our aims.
> This is ... somewhat annoying.

Yes, let's hit WP:10T with something about what kind of 'free' we mean: not as in speech and certainly not as in lunch but pretty much as in beer and outside the prison walls.

Charles

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


from_name: Ben Yates

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unusual articles in the wikipedia store

body:
I've made some merchandise for the cafepress store based on stuff in
[[Unusual articles]] -- http://www.cafepress.com/wikipedia/2480654 .
Let me know what you think.

Cheers

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


body:
Ray Saintonge wrote

> >I've seen rather a lot of "will google buy wikipedia?" blogs and forum threads.
> >
> If that ever happens the question of who gets the money would be
> interesting.

Well, I think each account should be given, say, 100 shares, and we should be able to trade them freely. After all, that is the market solution ...

Oh no, I think I have just invented the stockpuppet.

Charles

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


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

body:
On 3/11/07, Jim Wilson <wilson.jim.r at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Would someone else oblige... I'm willing to pay, and the resulting
> > extension would remain under GNU and freely available to everyone.
>
> GNU?  Why not MIT or BSD (something more business friendly)?*

Mediawiki is GPLed.


from_name: Gary Kirk

body:
Love it :)

On 11/03/07, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com
<charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Ray Saintonge wrote
>
> > >I've seen rather a lot of "will google buy wikipedia?" blogs and forum
> threads.
> > >
> > If that ever happens the question of who gets the money would be
> > interesting.
>
> Well, I think each account should be given, say, 100 shares, and we should
> be able to trade them freely. After all, that is the market solution ...
>
> Oh no, I think I have just invented the stockpuppet.
>
> Charles
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
> Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Gary Kirk


from_name: James Farrar

body:
On 11/03/07, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com
<charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Ray Saintonge wrote
>
> > >I've seen rather a lot of "will google buy wikipedia?" blogs and forum threads.
> > >
> > If that ever happens the question of who gets the money would be
> > interesting.
>
> Well, I think each account should be given, say, 100 shares, and we should be able to trade them freely. After all, that is the market solution ...
>
> Oh no, I think I have just invented the stockpuppet.

*groan*


from_name: Marc Riddell

body:
> On 3/12/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>> I don't understand what either of these mean, Geni.

on 3/11/07 9:43 PM, geni at geniice at gmail.com wrote:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_pictures
>
> and see if any of these people live in the right area:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_in_Kansas

Thanks a lot for these, Geni. It's a feisty picture of her, and I'm
determined to get it placed on her Article page - one way or another.

Thanks again,

Marc


from_name: Anthony

body:
On 3/11/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/11/07, William Pietri <william at scissor.com> wrote:
> >     On Wikipedia editing for pay is, in most cases, strictly forbidden.
> >     The only exception is for [insert exceptions we absolutely can't
> >     live without here].
>
> That would be edits made by foundation employees.
>

And the contests.  Don't forget the contests.

For those wondering why allowing paid editing might be a good idea,
take a look at this: [[Wikipedia:Danny's contest]]


from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
On 3/11/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/11/07, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> > This may be a matter of judgment and who the target audience is, but in
> > my experience #1 and #2 aren't really things people don't know about
> > Wikipedia.  People get lots of things wrong about us, but that Wikipedia
> > is a free-content encyclopedia run by a non-profit organization is
> > usually gotten right.
>
> I've seen rather a lot of "will google buy wikipedia?" blogs and forum threads.

Not to mention that "free content", to most people, means exactly
that: "free content." That is: "Hey, I can download it for free from
the Interweb." I have seen  very few articles about Wikipedia which
get the licensing part right. That said, that's one of those things
you have to hammer into a person's head about 10 times before they
understand it.

Maybe I need to create [[WP:100T]] which repeats {{:WP:10T}} 10 times ...
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic


subject: [Foundation-l] Accountability

body:
On 3/11/07, Samuel Klein <meta.sj at gmail.com> wrote:
> As to Anthony's proposal to validate credentials:
>
I made no such proposal.  I haven't even decided whether or not I
support Erik's proposal in that regard.  In fact, I'm not even sure
what the current proposal is, it seems to have been severely diluted.

Anthony


subject: [Foundation-l] Accountability


from_name: Iamunknown

subject: [Textbook-l] Class projects

body:
We have three ongoing class projects which most of you probably
already know about: Social and Cultural Foundations of American
Education, The Computer Revolution, and Ethnomedicine. I have posted
notes on the individual contributor's pages repeatedly particularly
about image use, but I get nothing even such as a reply. How can we
get in contact with these contributors? Or, how can we get in contact
with their group leader, professor, or whomever is in charge? They
need to know about copyrights relating to images. I ended up removing
all the untagged images I found in Ethnomedicine, left (hopefully)
kind notes on the uploaders pages referring them to Commons (where I
found related free images in all but one case), and have gotten no
reply. I'm flustered right now and cannot really think straight. Any
ideas about where to go from here?

-Iamunknown


subject: [WikiEN-l] Corporate Donors - Status?

body:
There's been a lot of talk about paid editors, but what about conflicts of
interest with Wikipedia when it accepts donations from corporations?   There's
already belief that the organization gives large companies a lot of  perks,
e.g. allowing them to upload their logo, even mentioning them in an  article,
but how do donations from them influence Wikipedia?

Vincent Bartning

**************************************
 AOL now offers free
email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com.


subject: [Wikitech-l] RSS feeds for watchlists

body:
One thing at a time, folks... otherwise we don't get anything. ;)

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Bennett [mailto:stevagewp at gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 10:56 PM
To: Wikimedia developers
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] RSS feeds for watchlists

On 3/12/07, Jim Wilson <wilson.jim.r at gmail.com> wrote:
> Could Categories be used for this?  So you 'watch' the Category, and
> vicariously are also set up to watch all articles in that category.

Well that would be less flexible than what I suggested. But probably a
lot easier to implement :)

Steve


from_name: Oldak Quill

subject: [WikiEN-l] UK's Mail on Sunday article

body:
On 11/03/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=441432&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source=

I love the graphic.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Corporate Donors - Status?

body:
In a message dated 3/11/2007 8:00:16 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
Bartning at aol.com writes:

There's  been a lot of talk about paid editors, but what about conflicts of
interest with Wikipedia when it accepts donations from  corporations?
There's
already belief that the organization  gives large companies a lot of  perks,
e.g. allowing them to upload  their logo, even mentioning them in an
article,
but how do donations  from them influence Wikipedia?

The readers don't hold the purse strings like in a regular encyclopedia,  and
that's one area where I see a major conflict of interest in the format of
Wikipedia as a source of information.  There's less incentive to write for  the
readers, and certainly it's deteriorated as far as I'm concerned.  I'd  say
that Wikipedia hit its peak sometime ago right now, not that it's  necessarily
in permanent decline, mind you, but it's going to take taking things  more
seriously or justice or something to correct the fall right now,  IMHO.

Vincent Bartning

**************************************
 AOL now offers free
email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com.


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

body:
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 19:01:32 +0000, "Thomas Dalton"
<thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:

>Could you be a little more specific? If you suspect someone of being a
>sockpuppet, you need to say who, otherwise no-one can do anything
>about it. What parts in particular do you think need improving? (You
>are certainly right, things aren't perfect, and never will be, but we
>need to be specific about what is wrong if we are going to improve
>anything.)

This is, if I remember rightly, [[User:John Wallace Rich]], who is a
veterans' rights activist who has had trouble due to his promotion of
his organisation on Wikipedia.  There is a sockpuppetry case against
him:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/John_Wallace_Rich

He started a SSP case against two editors who are self-evidently no
socks, on the ground hat both of them are in dispute with him over his
POV edits.

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


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Rename admins to janitors

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:

>On 3/11/07, Daniel P. B. Smith <wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com> wrote:
>
>
>>If you say "I edit the Wall Street Journal" it means something quite
>>different from "I edit Wikipedia."
>>
>>
>Exactly. However, if the Wall Street Journal writes "Daniel Smith is a
>Wikipedia editor", what do you think it means? What do you think they
>mean? How do you think most people interpret it?
>
>Rename "editors" to "writers" or "contributors".
>
Any renaming we do is unlikely to affect the practices of the Wall
Street Journal.

Ec