subject: [Foundation-l] Special License

body:
On 1/10/07, Yoni Weiden <yonidebest at gmail.com> wrote:
> geni - we have over 50,000 articles - we ain't in our early stages :-)

No you are now moveing into the stage when you start to worry about
copyright (incerdentaly you don't have [[special:statistics]] set up
to show the number of images any chance of a fix?)

--
geni


list: wikimedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: geni

subject: [Foundation-l] Special License


list: foundation-l

from_name: Yoni Weiden

subject: [Foundation-l] Special License

body:
On 1/11/07, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The fact that Hebrew Wikipedia knows about these changes *now* instead of
> *much earlier when these changes actually happened* is kind of disturbing.

James - we heard of the letter that Jimbo released, but we decided that this
was a local policy of en Wikipedia rather that a binding policy to all
Wikimedia projects due to the fact that his letter was published on the en
mailing list only.

On 1/11/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/10/07, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The fact that Hebrew Wikipedia knows about these changes *now* instead
> of
> > *much earlier when these changes actually happened* is kind of
> disturbing.
>
> Most projects don't appear to pay to much attention to copyright in
> their early stages although I think commons is tending to reduce this.
>
> And en.wikipedia still has quite a few NC images on it:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Non-commercial_use_only_images

geni - we have over 50,000 articles - we ain't in our early stages :-)


subject: [Foundation-l] Special License


list: wikien-l

from_name: Oldak Quill

subject: [WikiEN-l] London pub meet report, Tue 9 Jan

body:
On 10/01/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> [sending separately to wikien-l and wikimediauk-l due to mail server weirdness]
>
>
> The Montagu Pyke is an unspeakably horrible beer barn, and we actually
> drank it out of the one real ale on tap. I was wondering if it was
> possible to accidentally unplug the jukebox, then the football
> (Arsenal v. Liverpool, 6-3, holy crap! [*]) started at a quite
> remarkable volume. Having enough people upstairs to block the fire
> exits, and the venue sucking like a hivemind of Dysons, we chose to
> follow Morwen's infallible ale detector to the Shakespeare's Head near
> Holborn tube station, another Wetherspoons but this time of the
> tolerable variety.
>
> (Fortunately, despite it *technically* having been the case that I was
> the one to declare that this would be a suitable venue, I used methods
> learnt from [[WP:ANI]] to put all blame onto James Forrester, who was
> conveniently not present. So that's all right then.)
>
> I got about a zillion shots on User:Arkady Rose's [[Canon Digital
> IXUS]] 400, and she'll probably be putting these up some time today or
> tomorrow. Loopzilla and Thryduulf got a pile too.
>
> We got LOTS of people along and this was really good and productive,
> despite the horrible first venue. Did anyone write up an attendance
> list?

Sorry I couldn't make it to this, was busy on Tuesday evening.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Entries for deletion.... issues from the Third
 World

body:
Andre Engels wrote:

>2007/1/10, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
>
>
>>>But what if what is written is that so-and-so once wrote an internet page
>>>(that a few hundred people have looked at). Do you really want to just keep
>>>
>>>
>>>that in if you found that he really has done so?
>>>
>>>
>>Again, this is a straw man argument.  It makes a statement about
>>something that many will find unacceptable and tries to apply the same
>>argument to more uncertain situations.
>>
>>
>Yes. And what's wrong with that? Either we have *some* notability criterium,
>or we have *none*. If we have none, then what criterium are you going to use
>to remove articles like the above? If we have some, then apparently you DO
>agree with me that 'notability' is a good criterium, and what we disagree on
>is the *level* of notability that is required. Which is a wholely different
>ballgame.
>
What makes notability a bad criterion is its high degree of
subjectivity.  It is so broad that it cannot stand alone.  What I
objected to in my previous message was the temptation to generalize.from
obvious cases to more difficult ones.

Ec


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Entries for deletion.... Notability

body:
Ian Tresman wrote:

>At 12:16 10/01/2007, you wrote:
>
>
>>I agree that notability should be judged by those familiar with the field.
>>
>>
>The only problem here, is that fields have sub-fields, and sub-fields
>have specialists.
>
I don't see this as a problem.  The person questioning the notability
would tag it in the subject where he thinks it belongs, which could be a
high level subject.  After that it's up to the project members to
determine if it belongs in a sub-category.

>I think an article subject is notable if someone has noted it in a
>reliable source(s).
>
How well do you know what the reliable sources are when you are outside
of your fields of interest?

>There is a danger of peers in a field assessing a controversial
>subject as non-notable for the wrong reasons, ie. confusing
>notability with importances.
>
That is a potential downside, but at least the debate is then between
those who have some familiarity with the subject.

Ec


subject: [Foundation-l] Special License

body:
On 1/11/07, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> When did it become Wikimedia-wide policy?

errr What? Are you saying that this:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-May/023760.html
is *not* an official Wikimedia policy? i.e. can the Hebrew Wiki's upload
non-commercial images? O_o
Yoni


subject: [Foundation-l] Special License


subject: [Foundation-l] Special License

body:
Well, that's something Danny will need to answer... or perhaps someone else
on the board...
Yoni

On 1/11/07, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Well, you mentioned when the new broke about non-commercial images, it was
> only an English Wikipedia policy because it was posted on WikiEN-l.
> However,
> apparently Danny informed the community that it's now a foundation-wide
> policy. When did it become Foundation-wide?
>
> On 1/10/07, Yoni Weiden <yonidebest at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 1/11/07, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > When did it become Wikimedia-wide policy?
> >
> >
> > errr What? Are you saying that this:
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-May/023760.html
> > is *not* an official Wikimedia policy? i.e. can the Hebrew Wiki's upload
> > non-commercial images? O_o
> > Yoni
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Special License


list: commons-l

from_name: Cool Cat

subject: [Commons-l] We'd like a better template message transclusion.

body:
I have actually been working on just that for some time now. All I currently
have is javascript hacks which would not even work if the person does not
have javascript enabled. Javascript is also slow, another reason to avoid
it. But I share your reason. See [[User talk:Cool
Cat/Sandbox<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cool_Cat/Sandbox>]]
for what I currently have. Feel free to edit that sanbox page.
    - Cool Cat

On 1/10/07, Robin Schwab <contact at robinschwab.ch> wrote:
>
> Fredrik Josefsson schrieb:
> > Ideally, the template message should change to show
> > whatever language the image in included into;
> > {{GFDL/es}} for Spanish Wikipedia, etc. Is it
> > possible? Or does it require complicated changes to
> > MediaWiki?
>
> Your wish is good and important. Could this be done by AJAX?
> It sould work the following way:
> 1. translation of the template if the image is used from another wiki
> like es:
> 2. If the image is viewed through commons it the language of the
> template sould be in the user interface language
>
> Note that I find it even more important to have this on
> Template:Information than on Template:GFDL
>
> Regards
>
>
> Robin
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20070111/2201ce3b/attachment.htm


subject: [Commons-l] Full-text book: A Guide to Inkscape

body:
You really didn't need the disclaimer. ;)
         - Cool Cat

On 1/5/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> http://tavmjong.free.fr/INKSCAPE/
>
> This is free as in beer, not speech, but may be useful to some of our
> budding illustrators. Inkscape itself is an open source vector
> graphics editor that is available for Windows, Linux and Mac OS X.
> --
> Peace & Love,
> Erik
>
> DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
> the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20070111/b31c3589/attachment.htm


body:
I really find this entire discussion unhelpful. Yelling at each other will
not solve software issues we face.

As for my stance (just to identify the problem): We currently have a mess
with "country" specific categories and galleries (Country names City names
and etc). It is very hard to follow what certain pages supposed to lead
to... (I can't read Arabic script for example).

What we want is multi-lingual page names. There are a few existing solutions
we may want to consider:

1. First one is {{DISPLAYTITLE:<title>}}. This Magic-word template if turned
on renames the title of the page no matter what it really is.
2. Then we also have class="multilingual" as it is used on
meta.wikimedia.org. You can see it in action at [[meta:Stewards/elections
2006-2 <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2006-2>]]. I do
not believe this feature is turned on on commons.
3. The combination of #1 and #2. class="multilingual" can be used to
manipulate the {{DISPLAYTITLE:}} usages and display title based on language
setting. I am not certain how well that would work.

Obviously a mediawiki rewrite to make it simpler and would be preferable.

      - Cool Cat

On 1/3/07, jfulrich at mailaka.net <jfulrich at mailaka.net> wrote:
>
> I agree.
>
>                 Laleena
>
> ---- Original Message ----
> From: bastique at bellsouth.net
> To: commons-l at wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Anglo-Saxonisation of the commons
> Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 21:16:03 -0500
>
> >It must have been a mental infarction.  Galleries are done using
> >native
> >language and redirects.  Categories have generally been done in
> >English.
> >
> >~~~~ (Cary)
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: commons-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
> >> [mailto:commons-l-bounces at wikimedia.org]On Behalf Of Brianna
> >Laugher
> >> Sent: Monday, January 01, 2007 7:43 PM
> >> To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List
> >> Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Anglo-Saxonisation of the commons
> >>
> >>
> >> On 02/01/07, Cary Bass <bastique at bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> > I am fairly certain that the policy on Commons is that cities and
> >other
> >> > localities are in the native language.  Therefore M?nchen and
> >Praha are
> >> > absolutely correct and the categories must be fixed.
> >>
> >> No...
> >> did you ever notice [[category:??]] ? (or even worse, maybe
> >> [[category:transport in ??]]?)
> >>
> >> Nobody likes enforcing English-only categories to further
> >Anglo-saxon
> >> supremism or the like, but until we have proper category
> >redirects...
> >>
> >> regards,
> >> Brianna
> >> user:pfctdayelise
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Commons-l mailing list
> >> Commons-l at wikimedia.org
> >> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
> >>
> >> --
> >> No virus found in this incoming message.
> >> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.2/613 - Release Date:
> >> 1/1/2007 2:50 PM
> >>
> >--
> >No virus found in this outgoing message.
> >Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.2/613 - Release Date:
> >1/1/2007
> >2:50 PM
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Commons-l mailing list
> >Commons-l at wikimedia.org
> >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20070111/f6497fdc/attachment.htm


subject: [Foundation-l] Special License

body:
special:statistics does work: *20,843* images (and I am proud to say we have
deleted 800+ images in the past week).
Yoni

On 1/11/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/10/07, Yoni Weiden <yonidebest at gmail.com> wrote:
> > geni - we have over 50,000 articles - we ain't in our early stages :-)
>
> No you are now moveing into the stage when you start to worry about
> copyright (incerdentaly you don't have [[special:statistics]] set up
> to show the number of images any chance of a fix?)
>
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Special License


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Andrew Garrett

subject: [Wikitech-l] User rights for ProtectionBot on en.wikipedia

body:
Personally, I think this should be a non-issue, as my own improvements have made the bot pretty much useless. They should be live within a couple of days, maybe a week, max. As soon as that rolls around, I can't see a hell of a lot of point to the bot.

Andrew Garrett
(werdna)


from_name: Nina Stratton

subject: [WikiEN-l] Could we tone down the language a bit?

body:
Good point Daniel, and I'll go you one better. psychosis doesn't necessarily
means schizophrenia, and vice versa. I know 4 schizophrenics personally who
are active and productive members of society with almost full-time positions
that have a high degree of responsibility. One of them is my driver. I have
another staff member who is schizophrenic, and also a gentle, wise, lovely
person. The current crop of medications are literally revolutionizing
peoples lives.

When most people are talking about psychosis, they're talking about a
psychotic episode. I've had three in my life, and I'm just plain old
bipolar. Even then, violence has a tendency to be turned inward (see Margot
Kidder, Patty Duke, Carrie Fisher, etc.). Usually it's just random, bizarre
actions with no violence attached. Statistically, violence from people with
psychiatric disabilities is no greater than the general public, but violence
towards the mentally ill is much higher per capita (world-wide).

As far as Wikipedia is concerned, I've seen major depression (a tendency to
isolate from the "real world", both on and off Wiki), social anxiety
disorder (same thing), Obsessive-Compulsive disorder (endless fiddling with
user pages, compulsive copy-editing and wikignoming), sociopathy (harassment
of other users), ADHD (me), bipolar disorder (again, me), and paranoia
(everywhere). That's just off the top of my head. As Fred said, however, you
simply can't diagnose a keyboard. That's the beautiful thing about the
Internet, (with all them pipes).

It's nuts that there is no article [[Stigma (mental health)]] on Wikipedia.
I might stub it this morning. There is a giant hole in the encyclopedia on
Mental Health-related topics that I've been meaning to get to. This
encyclopedia just doesn't build itself - no matter how much I stare at the
screen.:)

Nina

On 1/10/07, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yeah, and I'm not happy that people are clearly being idiots and instead
> of
> being understanding you're all
>
> "LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL STUPID IDIOT ROFLMAO GAHAHA GO
> BACK
> TO MYSPACE"
>
> Which is very unprofessional and gives all of us a bad image and makes God
> kill a kitten.
>
> Remember, though, I have 1,000,000,000-year contract to serve Wikimedia so
> I
> won't leave over this. It'd be stupid thing to leave over, though.
>
> On 1/10/07, Daniel P. B. Smith <wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com> wrote:
> >
> > Someone on this mailing recently started a thread:
> >
> > > Subject: [WikiEN-l] psychosis and wikipedia.
> > >
> > > I'd love to see some psychology-oriented individual do a case study
> > > on what
> > > kind of people are attracted to editing on Wikipedia.  What
> > > psychological
> > > defects lurk behind the computer screens and the keyboards.
> >
> > Could we please, please, _please_ try to tone down some of the use of
> > wildly exaggerated language and hype in this mailing list?
> >
> > Psychosis means "A severe mental disorder, with or without organic
> > damage, characterized by derangement of personality and loss of
> > contact with reality and causing deterioration of normal social
> > functioning."
> >
> > As in schizophrenia.
> >
> > It does _not_ mean a difficult person, a jerk, a bastard, an arrogant
> > adolescent, etc. Nor does it mean a person obsessed with an ideology
> > and a pitbull determination to inflict it on everyone.
> >
> > I'm no psychologist, but in my fifteen years as a USENET participant,
> > I have perhaps _twice_ seen postings that I thought might, in fact,
> > actually have been made by someone suffering from schizophrenia. I
> > have yet to see anything similar on Wikipedia.
> >
> > Words _do_ have meanings.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>


from_name: George Herbert

body:
On 1/10/07, Daniel P. B. Smith <wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com> wrote:
> Someone on this mailing recently started a thread:
>
> > Subject: [WikiEN-l] psychosis and wikipedia.
> >
> > I'd love to see some psychology-oriented individual do a case study
> > on what
> > kind of people are attracted to editing on Wikipedia.  What
> > psychological
> > defects lurk behind the computer screens and the keyboards.
>
> Could we please, please, _please_ try to tone down some of the use of
> wildly exaggerated language and hype in this mailing list?
>
> Psychosis means "A severe mental disorder, with or without organic
> damage, characterized by derangement of personality and loss of
> contact with reality and causing deterioration of normal social
> functioning."
>
> As in schizophrenia.
>
> It does _not_ mean a difficult person, a jerk, a bastard, an arrogant
> adolescent, etc. Nor does it mean a person obsessed with an ideology
> and a pitbull determination to inflict it on everyone.
>
> I'm no psychologist, but in my fifteen years as a USENET participant,
> I have perhaps _twice_ seen postings that I thought might, in fact,
> actually have been made by someone suffering from schizophrenia. I
> have yet to see anything similar on Wikipedia.
>
> Words _do_ have meanings.

There are also people who are clearly clinically mentally ill who
participate in Wikipedia; pointing that out isn't stigmatizing them.

It's easy to stigmatize them if you talk about it loosely, sure.  And
I have no problem with anyone who wants to clearly demarcate the
difference between "random jerk/flamer/vandal" and "paranoid,
schizophrenic, or otherwise mentally ill".

As an example of the actual mentally ill people we have around WP, one
regular complainer to Unblock-En-L has come around at least four or
five times, and each time large parts of his emails have been the
classic distinct "word salad" writing that is very typical of
moderately functioning schizophrenic writers.  Organized enough to
hold a coherent line of thought for a sentence or two, but then
immediately off into a completely unrelated topic, with no logical
bridge or connection.

My wife has worked with the mentally ill and has a significant amount
of college training in both clinical psych and neurobiology.  I showed
him this guy's email last time and she immediately without prior
context suggested that he was unmedicated or poorly medicated and
schizophrenic, without my telling her that I'd figured that out a
while ago.  Sometimes it's that obvious.

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


body:
That's fine. However, all users should be treated with the same respect and
courtesy. I think that's Fred's point. I've also seen word salads coming
from users who are very passionate about what they want to get across but
have only a glancing knowledge of the English language. Sometimes, they
change their subject in the middle of a sentence. One of my good friends who
is schizophrenic is an amateur historian who would be excellent on
Wikipedia. He's in recovery ([[Recovery model]] doesn't exist yet either),
however. You make an excellent point about poorly medicated/unmedicated
folks with psychiatric disabilities. It's a huge problem with the [[Public
mental health system]].

Nina

On 1/11/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/10/07, Daniel P. B. Smith <wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com> wrote:
> > Someone on this mailing recently started a thread:
> >
> > > Subject: [WikiEN-l] psychosis and wikipedia.
> > >
> > > I'd love to see some psychology-oriented individual do a case study
> > > on what
> > > kind of people are attracted to editing on Wikipedia.  What
> > > psychological
> > > defects lurk behind the computer screens and the keyboards.
> >
> > Could we please, please, _please_ try to tone down some of the use of
> > wildly exaggerated language and hype in this mailing list?
> >
> > Psychosis means "A severe mental disorder, with or without organic
> > damage, characterized by derangement of personality and loss of
> > contact with reality and causing deterioration of normal social
> > functioning."
> >
> > As in schizophrenia.
> >
> > It does _not_ mean a difficult person, a jerk, a bastard, an arrogant
> > adolescent, etc. Nor does it mean a person obsessed with an ideology
> > and a pitbull determination to inflict it on everyone.
> >
> > I'm no psychologist, but in my fifteen years as a USENET participant,
> > I have perhaps _twice_ seen postings that I thought might, in fact,
> > actually have been made by someone suffering from schizophrenia. I
> > have yet to see anything similar on Wikipedia.
> >
> > Words _do_ have meanings.
>
> There are also people who are clearly clinically mentally ill who
> participate in Wikipedia; pointing that out isn't stigmatizing them.
>
> It's easy to stigmatize them if you talk about it loosely, sure.  And
> I have no problem with anyone who wants to clearly demarcate the
> difference between "random jerk/flamer/vandal" and "paranoid,
> schizophrenic, or otherwise mentally ill".
>
> As an example of the actual mentally ill people we have around WP, one
> regular complainer to Unblock-En-L has come around at least four or
> five times, and each time large parts of his emails have been the
> classic distinct "word salad" writing that is very typical of
> moderately functioning schizophrenic writers.  Organized enough to
> hold a coherent line of thought for a sentence or two, but then
> immediately off into a completely unrelated topic, with no logical
> bridge or connection.
>
> My wife has worked with the mentally ill and has a significant amount
> of college training in both clinical psych and neurobiology.  I showed
> him this guy's email last time and she immediately without prior
> context suggested that he was unmedicated or poorly medicated and
> schizophrenic, without my telling her that I'd figured that out a
> while ago.  Sometimes it's that obvious.
>
>
> --
> -george william herbert
> george.herbert at gmail.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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] African maps

body:
Is anyone on that?

Nina

On 1/11/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/11/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6250225.stm
> >
> > "A collection of rare maps of Africa, dating from 1530 to 1915, has been
> > made available for free on the internet by Northwestern University in
> the
> > US. " Is this something we should be storing too? I think we should at
> least
> > make an effort to contact them about it...
> >
> > Mgm
>
> The format with which they appear on the net makes them hard/very hard
> to copy. Contacting may be only option
>
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>


from_name: Delirium

subject: [Foundation-l] Special License

body:
geni wrote:
> The line "if the usage is given for free of charge" would appear to
> conflict with past statements by the foundation figues and by en
> standards at least make the lisence non free.
>

Not to mention that it would conflict with our tagline, "Wikipedia, the
Free encyclopedia", especially in the languages that have a separate
word for free-as-in-freedom, since no definition of Free content I know
of includes non-commercial-only licenses.

-Mark


subject: [Foundation-l] Special License


body:
> A least one problem I envision with such MH Articles in WP is the fact
> that
> you would, in some cases, have patients writing the textbook. There are
> many
> aspects of mental, emotional, and behavioral conditions that are beyond
> some
> persons? ability to accept. In the very first month that I signed on as a
> WP
> editor I encountered such a problem. I wanted to upgrade an existing
> Article
> on a chemical dependency-related subject, and immediately encountered
> strong
> resistance from another editor. I was attempting to emphasize the disease
> component of the condition, but the editor refused to acknowledge this
> fact.
> Being very new to WP, after a least a week of back and forth with this
> editor, of endless diatribes by them, and every one on my edits being
> changed, I finally gave up, left the Article, and haven?t looked back
> since.
> I have practiced (one day I may get it right :-) ) in the fields of
> Clinical
> Psychology and Psychotherapy for 42 years now. I wanted to bring some
> expertise to the Articles in WP related to my fields, but have backed
> away.
>
> I would love to see more, well-written Articles on all aspects of MH in
> the
> encyclopedia. I believe they should be written by persons schooled in the
> fields, and should be written so that any sentient person could understand
> it. For me, the true measure of an ?expert? in something is his or her
> ability to explain it to someone who isn?t.
>
> I would also like to see links to biographies of persons in the
> encyclopedia
> who have suffered from these conditions.
>
> Some thoughts.
>
> Marc Riddell
>
> It's "consumers", not "patients". That cranky statement aside...

[[NAMI]] highlighted a study done on the stigma associated with psychiatric
disabilities and found that the population that had the most intransigent
prejudices against the mentally ill were mental health professionals
themselves. This is disappointing, but not surprising. Though study after
study showcases the success rate of the Recovery Model, few MHPs know it,
much less accept it or even understand it.

On a side note, many people reject the disease model of addiction. I myself
stopped drinking through [[Rational Recovery]]. A 29% success rate [[12 step
model]] simply didn't cut it for me.

Nina


from_name: James Hare

subject:
[Foundation-l] Spam-blacklist for URLs (on Wikimedia sites or
	otherwise)

body:
Well, I know there are local Spam Whitelists, so I guess the two go
hand-in-hand...

On 1/11/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> At present, Wikimedia operates a global spam URL blacklist, which
> lives on meta: and is editable only by Meta admins, which blocks URLs
> added to it from being added to any page.
>
> en:wp is also getting an imperial arseload of spammers. The people on
> the front lines, in the
> #wikipedia-spam and #wikipedia-spam-t channels, are finding things
> getting very difficult.
>
> At present, getting a URL added requires finding a meta admin, or
> adding it to [[m:Talk:Spam blacklist]] and hoping someone will get to
> it soon. And of course meta's admin requirements are very different to
> those on other wikis.
>
> Obviously, the present blacklist works globally because if a spam URL
> shouldn't be on one wiki, then it shouldn't be on the others either.
>
> But it would be nice to have a wiki-specific list as well as the
> global list. The upside of this would be being able to respond to spam
> much more quickly. The downside is consolidating the lists regularly
> and sensibly, which may turn out to be a damn nuisance - regularly is
> easy, sensibly requires thinking about every URL added and whether a
> local admin has been overenthusiastic in dealing with a spam problem
> when a temporary block would have sufficed.
>
> In the long-term, with our growing problems with spam, it's probably
> not very efficient to keep
> throwing the task onto a few meta admins, and to continually go
> through a two-step process to get sites added to it.
>
> So ...
>
> wikitech-l: Does this sound workable in our present setup, per
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/SpamBlacklist_Documentation ?
>
> foundation-l: How would we make the local <-> global thing workable?
> There's an automatic updater for trusted shared lists ... would that
> be enough?
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


body:
Holy Schmoley - is that what's going on? Well that sort of thing needs to be
taken off-Wiki in general. It is never cool to inquire about someone's
mental health when examining behavior - especially if it's in the third
person. That's just plain wrong. A general discussion like this one is fine
to me, but characterizing another person's behavior in terms of their mental
health is just...well...

It reminds of some editors I worked with who would mock each other's English
- in really bad English.:)

Nina

On 1/11/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
>
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Nina Stratton [mailto:ninaeliza at gmail.com]
> >Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 06:31 AM
> >To: 'English Wikipedia'
> >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Could we tone down the language a bit?
> >
> >That's fine. However, all users should be treated with the same respect
> and
> >courtesy. I think that's Fred's point. I've also seen word salads coming
> >from users who are very passionate about what they want to get across but
>
> >have only a glancing knowledge of the English language. Sometimes, they
> >change their subject in the middle of a sentence. One of my good friends
> who
> >is schizophrenic is an amateur historian who would be excellent on
> >Wikipedia. He's in recovery ([[Recovery model]] doesn't exist yet
> either),
> >however. You make an excellent point about poorly medicated/unmedicated
> >folks with psychiatric disabilities. It's a huge problem with the
> [[Public
> >mental health system]].
> >
> >Nina
>
> When we block someone, or restrict their editing, the discussion needs to
> be framed around behavior. This actually gives the person something to work
> with, feedback. Maintaining that discipline is hard, and we all break it
> from time to time, especially in private, but long discussions on the
> Administrators noticeboard about apparent psychiatric problems are not good.
> Most of us don't know what we're talking about, and those of us who do, know
> better.
>
> Fred
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>


body:
+! :)

Nina

On 1/11/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
>
>
> >A least one problem I envision with such MH Articles in WP is the fact
> that
> >you would, in some cases, have patients writing the textbook. There are
> many
> >aspects of mental, emotional, and behavioral conditions that are beyond
> some
> >persons? ability to accept. In the very first month that I signed on as a
> WP
> >editor I encountered such a problem. I wanted to upgrade an existing
> Article
> >on a chemical dependency-related subject, and immediately encountered
> strong
> >resistance from another editor. I was attempting to emphasize the disease
> >component of the condition, but the editor refused to acknowledge this
> fact.
> >Being very new to WP, after a least a week of back and forth with this
> >editor, of endless diatribes by them, and every one on my edits being
> >changed, I finally gave up, left the Article, and haven?t looked back
> since.
> >I have practiced (one day I may get it right :-) ) in the fields of
> Clinical
> >Psychology and Psychotherapy for 42 years now. I wanted to bring some
> >expertise to the Articles in WP related to my fields, but have backed
> away.
> >
> >I would love to see more, well-written Articles on all aspects of MH in
> the
> >encyclopedia. I believe they should be written by persons schooled in the
> >fields, and should be written so that any sentient person could
> understand
> >it. For me, the true measure of an ?expert? in something is his or her
> >ability to explain it to someone who isn?t.
> >
> >I would also like to see links to biographies of persons in the
> encyclopedia
> >who have suffered from these conditions.
> >
> >Some thoughts.
> >
> >Marc Riddell
>
> If that had become an arbitration case, the focus would be on use of
> reliable sources. Neither patients nor therapists count as reliable sources,
> however much personal or professional experience they have, or how incisive
> their insights.
>
> Fred
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>


from_name: Dan Collins

subject: [WikiEN-l] Adding personal profile into wikipedia?

body:
charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com wrote:
> "howard chen" wrote
>> 1. are there any policy about adding personal (not well known, no
>> public interest) profile into wikipedia?
>
> You'd better see [[WP:COI]] on this. Basically, on a User page is better.
>
>> 2. if there are name collisions, how to handle this?
>
> Disambiguation. What we call 'dab pages'.
>
> Charles
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
> Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
> Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
Are you guys sure that the user is subscribed, should ou CC the messages
to him? ~~~~

--
GnuPG key ID is 0x84189146 on subkeys.pgp.net

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 888 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20070111/3402f329/attachment.pgp


from_name: Ilmari Karonen

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Wrongfully blocked by admin who lies and on behalf
 of users trying to "own" articles

body:
George Herbert wrote:
> On 1/10/07, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.com> wrote:
>>
>> It's okay: we're laughing at him, not with him.
>
> This is both funny and dissapointing: I think we could use some
> strongly disagreeing, but fundamentally honest and non-trolling,
> critics to keep us all honest.
>
> I was hoping that Parker might turn out to be one, but alas...

Actually, I'm rather disappointed too.  I'd just about started to
develop some grudging respect for the guy, and then, poof, he goes and
blows it.  Sigh...

--
Ilmari Karonen


subject: [WikiEN-l] African maps

body:
Do you have a url?

Nina

On 1/11/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/11/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The format with which they appear on the net makes them hard/very hard
> > > to copy. Contacting may be only option
> >
> > I'm not sure what the legal issues would be with taking them straight
> > off the net, anyway. It looks like the BBC means free as in beer, not
> > speech.
>
> I doubt the BBC has even considered it.
>
> >While the copyright on a 16th century map has almost certainly
> > expired, the scanned version of it might be copyrighted (I'm no
> > expert, but I'm sure someone here can tell me whether or not scanned
> > images are copyrightable).
>
> The case under US law we generaly cite is:
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_Ltd._v._Corel_Corporation
>
> scanned images have not been found to be copyrightable underUS law.
>
> > It's probably best to contact them directly.
>
> Since getting them off the website would involve rather a lot of work
> yes. However it would probably be better if someone in the US did it.
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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] African maps

body:
Nevermind...:)

http://www.library.northwestern.edu/govinfo/collections/mapsofafrica/

Nina

On 1/11/07, Nina Stratton <ninaeliza at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Do you have a url?
>
> Nina
>
> On 1/11/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 1/11/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > The format with which they appear on the net makes them hard/very
> > hard
> > > > to copy. Contacting may be only option
> > >
> > > I'm not sure what the legal issues would be with taking them straight
> > > off the net, anyway. It looks like the BBC means free as in beer, not
> > > speech.
> >
> > I doubt the BBC has even considered it.
> >
> > >While the copyright on a 16th century map has almost certainly
> > > expired, the scanned version of it might be copyrighted (I'm no
> > > expert, but I'm sure someone here can tell me whether or not scanned
> > > images are copyrightable).
> >
> > The case under US law we generaly cite is:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_Ltd._v._Corel_Corporation
> >
> >
> > scanned images have not been found to be copyrightable underUS law.
> >
> > > It's probably best to contact them directly.
> >
> > Since getting them off the website would involve rather a lot of work
> > yes. However it would probably be better if someone in the US did it.
> > --
> > geni
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
>
>


from_name: Brianna Laugher

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Fwd: [Commons-l] We'd like a better template message
	transclusion.

body:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Fredrik Josefsson <fred_chessplayer at yahoo.se>
Date: 11-Jan-2007 05:06
Subject: [Commons-l] We'd like a better template message transclusion.
To: Commons-l at wikimedia.org

Please throw your suggestions on how the current
template translation could be better. Take
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:GFDL  . One
click should show the GFDL message in the desired
language, without bringing out a whole new page.
Ideally, the template message should change to show
whatever language the image in included into;
{{GFDL/es}} for Spanish Wikipedia, etc. Is it
possible? Or does it require complicated changes to
MediaWiki?

Are there other ways to improve this template
situation?

/ Fredrik

_________________________________________________________
Flyger tiden iv?g? F?nga dagen med Yahoo! Mails inbyggda
kalender. Dessutom 250 MB gratis, virusscanning och antispam. F? den
p?: http://se.mail.yahoo.com

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l at lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] African maps

body:
If no one else does it, I'll try to get on this tonight.

Nina

On 1/11/07, Mak <makwik at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Actually, I was shown this last night and it is possible to get the full
> resolution images at full size, you just have to mess around with the url
> a
> bit (basically, zoom in all the way, and at some point it says
> fullimage=false, and you just change it to fullimage=true). The images are
> huge and beautiful.
>
> One might argue, however, that since the edges of the paper are shown,
> they
> are images of three dimensional objects; however if someone is really
> worried about that they could just cut off the margins, although that
> decreases the value of the images somewhat.
>
> I think this /is/ something that it's conceivable the foundation could get
> sued over (IANAL), however in this case I think we'd be in the right,
> previous case law has gone with our side, and I think it's worth it to
> assert the larger communities right to freely see and use works which have
> entered the public domain. Also, can you just imagine how many images this
> would affect if the Foundation decided to get rid of all images which are
> similar to this (high quality images of closely held public domain two
> dimensional works)? We might as well shut down commons if that's the
> decision.
>
> Makemi
> _______________________________________________
> 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] African maps

body:
On 1/11/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6250225.stm
>
> "A collection of rare maps of Africa, dating from 1530 to 1915, has been
> made available for free on the internet by Northwestern University in the
> US. " Is this something we should be storing too? I think we should at least
> make an effort to contact them about it...
>
> Mgm

The format with which they appear on the net makes them hard/very hard
to copy. Contacting may be only option

--
geni


from_name: Marc Riddell

body:
> From: "Nina Stratton" <ninaeliza at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 05:04:38 -0800
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Could we tone down the language a bit?
>
> Good point Daniel, and I'll go you one better. psychosis doesn't necessarily
> means schizophrenia, and vice versa. I know 4 schizophrenics personally who
> are active and productive members of society with almost full-time positions
> that have a high degree of responsibility. One of them is my driver. I have
> another staff member who is schizophrenic, and also a gentle, wise, lovely
> person. The current crop of medications are literally revolutionizing
> peoples lives.
>
> When most people are talking about psychosis, they're talking about a
> psychotic episode. I've had three in my life, and I'm just plain old
> bipolar. Even then, violence has a tendency to be turned inward (see Margot
> Kidder, Patty Duke, Carrie Fisher, etc.). Usually it's just random, bizarre
> actions with no violence attached. Statistically, violence from people with
> psychiatric disabilities is no greater than the general public, but violence
> towards the mentally ill is much higher per capita (world-wide).
>
> As far as Wikipedia is concerned, I've seen major depression (a tendency to
> isolate from the "real world", both on and off Wiki), social anxiety
> disorder (same thing), Obsessive-Compulsive disorder (endless fiddling with
> user pages, compulsive copy-editing and wikignoming), sociopathy (harassment
> of other users), ADHD (me), bipolar disorder (again, me), and paranoia
> (everywhere). That's just off the top of my head. As Fred said, however, you
> simply can't diagnose a keyboard. That's the beautiful thing about the
> Internet, (with all them pipes).
>
> It's nuts that there is no article [[Stigma (mental health)]] on Wikipedia.
> I might stub it this morning. There is a giant hole in the encyclopedia on
> Mental Health-related topics that I've been meaning to get to. This
> encyclopedia just doesn't build itself - no matter how much I stare at the
> screen.:)
>
> Nina

A least one problem I envision with such MH Articles in WP is the fact that
you would, in some cases, have patients writing the textbook. There are many
aspects of mental, emotional, and behavioral conditions that are beyond some
persons? ability to accept. In the very first month that I signed on as a WP
editor I encountered such a problem. I wanted to upgrade an existing Article
on a chemical dependency-related subject, and immediately encountered strong
resistance from another editor. I was attempting to emphasize the disease
component of the condition, but the editor refused to acknowledge this fact.
Being very new to WP, after a least a week of back and forth with this
editor, of endless diatribes by them, and every one on my edits being
changed, I finally gave up, left the Article, and haven?t looked back since.
I have practiced (one day I may get it right :-) ) in the fields of Clinical
Psychology and Psychotherapy for 42 years now. I wanted to bring some
expertise to the Articles in WP related to my fields, but have backed away.

I would love to see more, well-written Articles on all aspects of MH in the
encyclopedia. I believe they should be written by persons schooled in the
fields, and should be written so that any sentient person could understand
it. For me, the true measure of an ?expert? in something is his or her
ability to explain it to someone who isn?t.

I would also like to see links to biographies of persons in the encyclopedia
who have suffered from these conditions.

Some thoughts.

Marc Riddell

>
> On 1/10/07, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, and I'm not happy that people are clearly being idiots and instead
>> of
>> being understanding you're all
>>
>> "LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL STUPID IDIOT ROFLMAO GAHAHA GO
>> BACK
>> TO MYSPACE"
>>
>> Which is very unprofessional and gives all of us a bad image and makes God
>> kill a kitten.
>>
>> Remember, though, I have 1,000,000,000-year contract to serve Wikimedia so
>> I
>> won't leave over this. It'd be stupid thing to leave over, though.
>>
>> On 1/10/07, Daniel P. B. Smith <wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Someone on this mailing recently started a thread:
>>>
>>>> Subject: [WikiEN-l] psychosis and wikipedia.
>>>>
>>>> I'd love to see some psychology-oriented individual do a case study
>>>> on what
>>>> kind of people are attracted to editing on Wikipedia.  What
>>>> psychological
>>>> defects lurk behind the computer screens and the keyboards.
>>>
>>> Could we please, please, _please_ try to tone down some of the use of
>>> wildly exaggerated language and hype in this mailing list?
>>>
>>> Psychosis means "A severe mental disorder, with or without organic
>>> damage, characterized by derangement of personality and loss of
>>> contact with reality and causing deterioration of normal social
>>> functioning."
>>>
>>> As in schizophrenia.
>>>
>>> It does _not_ mean a difficult person, a jerk, a bastard, an arrogant
>>> adolescent, etc. Nor does it mean a person obsessed with an ideology
>>> and a pitbull determination to inflict it on everyone.
>>>
>>> I'm no psychologist, but in my fifteen years as a USENET participant,
>>> I have perhaps _twice_ seen postings that I thought might, in fact,
>>> actually have been made by someone suffering from schizophrenia. I
>>> have yet to see anything similar on Wikipedia.
>>>
>>> Words _do_ have meanings.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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


from_name: Aerik Sylvan

subject: [Wikitech-l] Category Intersections: "Proof of Concept

body:
Markus Kr?tzsch wrote:

I did not follow this discussion, but it seems appropriate to point to the
> Semantic MediaWiki extension, which computes "implied categories"
> like "American actors" on request (it can combine unions, intersections,
> namespace membership, and further "semantic properties").
>
> We will assist in any effort towards developing an efficient way of doing
> this, since our current implementation is probably not fast enough for
> large
> wikis.

Hi Markus.  The semantic mediawiki extension is very cool, but I think the
main issue at this point is exactly what you said in your second paragraph:
An efficient way to do the data retrieval portion of this stuff
(specifically, for me, category intersections).  There are a few very neat
extensions (semantic mediawiki, DPL, a home brewed category intersections
special page I did for media wiki 1.4x) but they are not fast enough for a
large wiki.  This is the problem I'm trying to solve (for category
intersections, anyway), and then we can hash out interfaces etc.  I've got a
test script using a MySQL fulltext index that may be good enough, and if it
isn't, I'll do one using Lucene (the php version).

Maybe though, it's appropriate to talk about what features category
intersections and semantic mediawiki share, and see if we can't find (data
retrieval) solutions for both.  I'm not familar with the backend of semantic
mediawiki at all, so I can't comment on that.

Best Regards,
Aerik

Best Regards,
Aerik


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] African maps

body:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6250225.stm

"A collection of rare maps of Africa, dating from 1530 to 1915, has been
made available for free on the internet by Northwestern University in the
US. " Is this something we should be storing too? I think we should at least
make an effort to contact them about it...

Mgm


from_name: David Gerard

subject:
[Commons-l] [Foundation-l] Board meeting in Rotterdam later
	this week

body:
On 11/01/07, Husky <huskyr at gmail.com> wrote:

> You're right abut that, but we do we have a similar page on the Dutch
> Wikipedia:
> http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Beleid_voor_gebruik_van_media
> (literally translated: Policies on the use of media)
> It's basically just a short introduction to the most important rules (every
> image on Wikipedia should be allowed to distribute, copy, modify, even for
> commercial purposes) and a few 'Frequently Asked Questions'. I might
> translate this someday to English, it might be a nice addition to
> Commons:Licensing.

Do you have a Dutch-language equivalent of the reuse how-to?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Reuse

(The English-language version now appears almost useful.)

- d.


subject: [Foundation-l] Board meeting in Rotterdam later this week


from_name: Mak

subject: [WikiEN-l] African maps

body:
Actually, I was shown this last night and it is possible to get the full
resolution images at full size, you just have to mess around with the url a
bit (basically, zoom in all the way, and at some point it says
fullimage=false, and you just change it to fullimage=true). The images are
huge and beautiful.

One might argue, however, that since the edges of the paper are shown, they
are images of three dimensional objects; however if someone is really
worried about that they could just cut off the margins, although that
decreases the value of the images somewhat.

I think this /is/ something that it's conceivable the foundation could get
sued over (IANAL), however in this case I think we'd be in the right,
previous case law has gone with our side, and I think it's worth it to
assert the larger communities right to freely see and use works which have
entered the public domain. Also, can you just imagine how many images this
would affect if the Foundation decided to get rid of all images which are
similar to this (high quality images of closely held public domain two
dimensional works)? We might as well shut down commons if that's the
decision.

Makemi


subject: [Commons-l] Commons:Reuse on GPL/LGPL content

body:
I just edited the bit on GPL/LGPL. I took out two paragraphs about how
authors should license their works (since this is the FAQ for outside
*reusers*) and rewrote the rest as follows:

====
GNU GPL and LGPL

The GNU General Public License (GPL) and Lesser General Public License
(LGPL) are computer software licenses and are not usually used for
text or media. However, some content on Commons (e.g. icons or
screenshots from computer programs) is under the GPL or LGPL.

For simple redistribution of such material, including altered
versions, (a) release your version under the same license (b) supply
the source version, i.e. something as editable as what you started
with (e.g. image file, GIMP .xcf file, etc.).

Note that the GNU General Public License (GPL) and the GNU Free
Document License (GFDL) are not compatible with each other. That means
that content licensed under the GFDL as well as content licensed under
the GPL can't be used together simultaneously in the same "work" ?
e.g. GPL computer program source embedded in GFDL explicatory text.
However, a GPL image in a GFDL text page is usually regarded as an
aggregation of two works rather than a single work.
====

Could the professionally legally querulous please comment on this?
It's grossly simplified, but is it likely to mislead?

- d.


subject: [Foundation-l] Commons:Reuse on GPL/LGPL content


body:
On 11/01/07, effe iets anders <effeietsanders at gmail.com> wrote:
 It is very hard to
> explain to people why one project thinks the use of NC (not to speak of fair
> use) is allowed, and why other projects state it isnt. It's not even a
> question of local law, it is about what is allowed by the GFDL license.

No projects allow NC, do they? English Wikipedia hasn't allowed them
for some time.

These links may be useful:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing/Explaining_why_Derivative_Work_and_Commercial_Use_must_be_allowed

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2006-April/000163.html
post from Jimbo re: justifying the "no NC/ND" requirement

BTW http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing lacks a Dutch
translation! Perhaps making at least a summary of the English one
would be useful.

A lot of small communities are struggling
> with this, and I think it would be very wise of the Foundtaioin to help
> those communities, to help especially the Dutch language wikipedia-community
> in this, as we have already enough to fight over, by getting a legal advice
> with an expert, and make a choise in result of that. An advice would require
> in my opinion a same amount of efford, so I really urge to "rules" from
> above, although I am usually no big fan of that.

I have made similar requests on behalf of Wikimedia Commons, and they
have gone unheeded, so I guess yours will as well. We all muddle
through as best we can. As much as we'd like to appeal to "experts",
the sad fact is that many little details are not clear for anyone,
even lawyers. Sometimes the only way you find out how the LawTM should
be interpreted is by taking someone to court. Probably we don't want
to find out that badly. :)

cheers,
Brianna
user:pfctdayelise


from_name: Husky

body:
On 1/11/07, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> BTW http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing lacks a Dutch
> translation! Perhaps making at least a summary of the English one
> would be useful.

You're right abut that, but we do we have a similar page on the Dutch
Wikipedia:
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Beleid_voor_gebruik_van_media
(literally translated: Policies on the use of media)

It's basically just a short introduction to the most important rules (every
image on Wikipedia should be allowed to distribute, copy, modify, even for
commercial purposes) and a few 'Frequently Asked Questions'. I might
translate this someday to English, it might be a nice addition to
Commons:Licensing.

-- Hay Kranen / [[User:Husky]]


from_name: Marco Chiesa

body:
Brianna Laugher wrote:

>No projects allow NC, do they? English Wikipedia hasn't allowed them
>for some time.
>
>
>
The Italian language wikipedia allows a plethora of  licenses for
images, included NC, copyrighted with permission (we ask the copyright
owner to mail OTRS for this) and some cases of fairuse as allowed by the
Italian law. We do also allow PD images with are not allowed on commons.

Marco


from_name: Carlos

subject: [Wikitech-l] slowness today

body:
Domas Mituzas wrote:
> We had some slowness today, where after some temporary issue cluster ended
> up spending >50% of it's time working on Spanish wikipedia template. We
> nuked the template (es.wikipedia site was also turned off at some moment),
> so now it is all up and running.
>
> The template was used for adding a single line of text, though it took 20
> seconds to render. ;-)
>
> We'll probably have to do something about that.
>
> Cheers for now,
> Domas

Can we do temporary edits to the template to make it semi-functional
(only a couple of switchs), or it can't be touched until you finish
investigating?

--


from_name: Ian Tresman

body:
>How well do you know what the reliable sources are when you are outside
>of your fields of interest?

Technically all Wikipedia editors are outside their field since they
are all generally anonymous. That leaves common sense which is
generally described in WP:NOTABLE.

Regards,
Ian Tresman


body:
At present, Wikimedia operates a global spam URL blacklist, which
lives on meta: and is editable only by Meta admins, which blocks URLs
added to it from being added to any page.

en:wp is also getting an imperial arseload of spammers. The people on
the front lines, in the
#wikipedia-spam and #wikipedia-spam-t channels, are finding things
getting very difficult.

At present, getting a URL added requires finding a meta admin, or
adding it to [[m:Talk:Spam blacklist]] and hoping someone will get to
it soon. And of course meta's admin requirements are very different to
those on other wikis.

Obviously, the present blacklist works globally because if a spam URL
shouldn't be on one wiki, then it shouldn't be on the others either.

But it would be nice to have a wiki-specific list as well as the
global list. The upside of this would be being able to respond to spam
much more quickly. The downside is consolidating the lists regularly
and sensibly, which may turn out to be a damn nuisance - regularly is
easy, sensibly requires thinking about every URL added and whether a
local admin has been overenthusiastic in dealing with a spam problem
when a temporary block would have sufficed.

In the long-term, with our growing problems with spam, it's probably
not very efficient to keep
throwing the task onto a few meta admins, and to continually go
through a two-step process to get sites added to it.

So ...

wikitech-l: Does this sound workable in our present setup, per
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/SpamBlacklist_Documentation ?

foundation-l: How would we make the local <-> global thing workable?
There's an automatic updater for trusted shared lists ... would that
be enough?

- d.


subject:
[Wikitech-l] Spam-blacklist for URLs (on Wikimedia sites or
	otherwise)


from_name: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com

body:
"howard chen" wrote
> 1. are there any policy about adding personal (not well known, no
> public interest) profile into wikipedia?

You'd better see [[WP:COI]] on this. Basically, on a User page is better.

> 2. if there are name collisions, how to handle this?

Disambiguation. What we call 'dab pages'.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


from_name: Bryan Tong Minh

body:
On 1/11/07, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
> BTW http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing lacks a Dutch
> translation! Perhaps making at least a summary of the English one
> would be useful.
>

NielsF has started working on that, and I have continued his work,
although I am only half way through :(
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NielsF/Commons:Licentiebeleid
I invite everybody who speaks Dutch to start translating.

Bryan


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject: [Wikitech-l] InnoDB & other DB related issues

body:
On 1/11/07, howard chen <howachen at gmail.com> wrote:
> 1. I see quite a lot fo mediawiki's tables use auto-increment as
> primary key but we know that this is no good for innodb, do you guy
> aware of this problem?

The only reason I can think that someone would say that autoincrement
is bad w/ Innodb is because innodb is always clustered on the primary
key. In some applications the use of autoincrement can result in poor
locality. In our usage, I don't see why autoincrement would result in
any worse locality than any other choice. Also, the use of sparse
primary keys w/ Innodb results in poor packing and wasted space.


body:
We have far too few active Dutch translators on Commons. Actually
none, considering the fact that I do not much translation stuff.

Bryan

On 1/11/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/01/07, Husky <huskyr at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You're right abut that, but we do we have a similar page on the Dutch
> > Wikipedia:
> > http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Beleid_voor_gebruik_van_media
> > (literally translated: Policies on the use of media)
> > It's basically just a short introduction to the most important rules (every
> > image on Wikipedia should be allowed to distribute, copy, modify, even for
> > commercial purposes) and a few 'Frequently Asked Questions'. I might
> > translate this someday to English, it might be a nice addition to
> > Commons:Licensing.
>
>
> Do you have a Dutch-language equivalent of the reuse how-to?
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Reuse
>
> (The English-language version now appears almost useful.)
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Michael Billington

body:
On 1/10/07, J.L.W.S. The Special One <hildanknight at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I agree that notability should be judged by those familiar with the field.
>
> If an article on Jeremy Silman were to be nominated for deletion, we
> should ask several chess players to determine whether he's notable.
>
> If an article on Xiaxue were to be nominated for deletion, we should
> ask Singaporeans, and those familiar with the blogosphere, whether
> she's notable.

That's why deletion sorting is so useful, we get those familiar with the
field to give their opinion. The more wikiprojects we can get involved the
better :)

Michael Billington


from_name: dmehkeri at swi.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] ONE! HUNDRED! MILLION! EDITS!

body:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jackyl&diff=100000000

Cheers,
Dan


from_name: Jeff Raymond

body:
dmehkeri at swi.com wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jackyl&diff=100000000
>

Wow, great edit, too.

-Jeff


from_name: senpai

body:
Here:

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aiuto:Copyright_immagini

you can find all the licenses that we allows.

Senpai
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marco Chiesa" <chiesa.marco a gmail.com>
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l a lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 11:46 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board meeting in Rotterdam later this week

> Brianna Laugher wrote:
>
>>No projects allow NC, do they? English Wikipedia hasn't allowed them
>>for some time.
>>
>>
>>
> The Italian language wikipedia allows a plethora of  licenses for
> images, included NC, copyrighted with permission (we ask the copyright
> owner to mail OTRS for this) and some cases of fairuse as allowed by the
> Italian law. We do also allow PD images with are not allowed on commons.
>
> Marco
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l a lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


body:
Here:

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aiuto:Copyright_immagini

you can find all the licenses that we allows.

Senpai
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marco Chiesa" <chiesa.marco at gmail.com>
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 11:46 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board meeting in Rotterdam later this week

> Brianna Laugher wrote:
>
>>No projects allow NC, do they? English Wikipedia hasn't allowed them
>>for some time.
>>
>>
>>
> The Italian language wikipedia allows a plethora of  licenses for
> images, included NC, copyrighted with permission (we ask the copyright
> owner to mail OTRS for this) and some cases of fairuse as allowed by the
> Italian law. We do also allow PD images with are not allowed on commons.
>
> Marco
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] One way inter-languages links?

body:
On 10/01/07, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com
<charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Gurch wrote

> > There are some automated bots that look for such things and add the
> > appropriate links, but they don't operate on all languages, especially
> > not the smaller ones.

> It's a transitive closure. Should be a nice clean programming exercise. At least in the absence of non-reflexivity (i.e. by interwiki links alone you can return to some Wikipedia at a different article).

Ah, but there are such links! There are en: articles that link to two
de: articles and cases where two de: articles link to the same en:
article. So even a 1-1 relationship may not be valid and would require
a human editor who speaks both languages well enough in a non-trivial
number of cases.

- d.


body:
>
> dmehkeri at swi.com wrote:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jackyl&diff=100000000
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Dan
>
> Only 100 million edits according to the edit IDs, which actually misses
> out a lot of early history. According to Special:Statistics, we passed
> 100 million edits some time ago and we now have over 103 million, and
> even that is only since July 2002. There's another year and a half
> (which admittedly wasn't that active) of editing on top of that.
>

I'm Canadian and I was talking in metric, i.e 104857600 American edits.

Dan


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Daniel P. B. Smith [mailto:wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 06:04 PM
>To: wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] Could we tone down the language a bit?
>
>Someone on this mailing recently started a thread:
>
>> Subject: [WikiEN-l] psychosis and wikipedia.
>>
>> I'd love to see some psychology-oriented individual do a case study
>> on what
>> kind of people are attracted to editing on Wikipedia.  What
>> psychological
>> defects lurk behind the computer screens and the keyboards.
>
>Could we please, please, _please_ try to tone down some of the use of
>wildly exaggerated language and hype in this mailing list?
>
>Psychosis means "A severe mental disorder, with or without organic
>damage, characterized by derangement of personality and loss of
>contact with reality and causing deterioration of normal social
>functioning."
>
>As in schizophrenia.
>
>It does _not_ mean a difficult person, a jerk, a bastard, an arrogant
>adolescent, etc. Nor does it mean a person obsessed with an ideology
>and a pitbull determination to inflict it on everyone.
>
>I'm no psychologist, but in my fifteen years as a USENET participant,
>I have perhaps _twice_ seen postings that I thought might, in fact,
>actually have been made by someone suffering from schizophrenia. I
>have yet to see anything similar on Wikipedia.
>
>Words _do_ have meanings.

We don't diagnose people, we go by their behavior. Some of the behavior we see is symptomatic of mental illness. This mailing list is for the purpose of discussing the problems we see, one of which is a variety of disruptive and grossly unproductive behavior. Out solution is to address behavior problems, not to diagnose and treat. As to schizophrenia, most schizophrenics have trouble getting online or participating when they get there. That's why they are not seen.

Fred


from_name: Rob

subject: [WikiEN-l] African maps

body:
On 1/11/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm not sure what the legal issues would be with taking them straight
> off the net, anyway. It looks like the BBC means free as in beer, not
> speech. While the copyright on a 16th century map has almost certainly
> expired, the scanned version of it might be copyrighted (I'm no
> expert, but I'm sure someone here can tell me whether or not scanned
> images are copyrightable). The site doesn't seem to say what the
> copyright status is.
>
> It's probably best to contact them directly.

Looks like these are in the clear.

"Northwestern does not claim any copyright to these images or the
original maps."

http://www.library.northwestern.edu/govinfo/collections/mapsofafrica/contact.htm


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Club of New York

body:
They moved my 26 January trip... instead of NYC, I am going to
Washington, DC.

On the evening of 31 January, the free culture group at NYU will be
hosting a party, probably this would be good for a joint meeting?

Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
>> On 12/26/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>>> I will be in New York on the 26th of January and the 1st and 2nd of
>>> February.  (i.e. two Fridays in a row).
>>> Maybe the timing will be right for me to join the festivities...
>
>
> Any developments on this?
>
> "Newyorkbrad"
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>


from_name: SPUI

subject: [WikiEN-l] African maps

body:
geni wrote:
> On 1/11/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6250225.stm
>>
>>"A collection of rare maps of Africa, dating from 1530 to 1915, has been
>>made available for free on the internet by Northwestern University in the
>>US. " Is this something we should be storing too? I think we should at least
>>make an effort to contact them about it...
>>
>>Mgm
>
>
> The format with which they appear on the net makes them hard/very hard
> to copy. Contacting may be only option
>

I've had some success with hacking the URL, but it likes to break randomly:

http://ansel.library.northwestern.edu/ImageServer/index.jsp?action=&res=1&x=0&y=0&viewheight=6000&viewwidth=10000&rotation=0&fullimage=false&rootelement=&stylesheetpath=&useplugin=false&title=%2Fdimages%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fafrmaps%2Finu-afrmap-4333843-recto-ah.jp2&filename=%2Fdimages%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fafrmaps%2Finu-afrmap-4333843-recto-ah.jp2&returnurl=&imgclickx=0&imgclicky=0&vpContentsOffsetX=0&vpContentsOffsetY=0&requestId=2&previousRes=0&imgClickX=0&imageserver%3Fres=1&imgClickY=0&thumbnailActionSelect=thumbclick&imageActionSelect=imageclick%2Czoomin

It may also be possible to get at the stored jpeg2.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Club of New York. Upcoming Planning.

body:
> I e-mailed Mr. Wales to enquire what his plans were more precisely so that I
> could have a better ability to plan an event.  That was about a week ago.
> Needless to say, I haven't heard in response.

Just as a hint for the future.  If you email me something directly from
a mailing list and retain "WikiEN-l" in the title, then it gets filtered
into my mailing list inbox, which I scan frequently, but I do not end up
reading everything there, and things could be overlooked.


body:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Nina Stratton [mailto:ninaeliza at gmail.com]
>Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 06:31 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Could we tone down the language a bit?
>
>That's fine. However, all users should be treated with the same respect and
>courtesy. I think that's Fred's point. I've also seen word salads coming
>from users who are very passionate about what they want to get across but
>have only a glancing knowledge of the English language. Sometimes, they
>change their subject in the middle of a sentence. One of my good friends who
>is schizophrenic is an amateur historian who would be excellent on
>Wikipedia. He's in recovery ([[Recovery model]] doesn't exist yet either),
>however. You make an excellent point about poorly medicated/unmedicated
>folks with psychiatric disabilities. It's a huge problem with the [[Public
>mental health system]].
>
>Nina

When we block someone, or restrict their editing, the discussion needs to be framed around behavior. This actually gives the person something to work with, feedback. Maintaining that discipline is hard, and we all break it from time to time, especially in private, but long discussions on the Administrators noticeboard about apparent psychiatric problems are not good. Most of us don't know what we're talking about, and those of us who do, know better.

Fred


from_name: David Goodman

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Entries for deletion.... Notability

body:
I see the following problems.
1. At the beginning of WP decisions were made to have some categories
of things notable: subway and train stations, villages in the US and
Canada, individual numbered highways etc., and to have very low bars
for characters in computer games, high schools, porn stars, and so on.
These are so much the part of WP that they cannot be removed, and it
sounds & is absurd to have very different and enormously higher
standards for college professors, classical musicians, etc.  Similarly
there are very low bar to entries for individual books, etc, except
there are less people working to fill in these categories.

2. What is personally notable to different people is very different. I
would be well served by an encyclopedia eliminating quite a number of
things. And similarly for each of you, except they'd be different.
2a. Thus, WP like any general encyclopedia will have areas that will
not seem significant to an individual. An example mentioned is
chemical compounds. When WP was started, there was no free source
giving the information. Now there is PubChem, but the chemists intend
the WP coverage to be both wider and deeper and more understandable,
and I think they are succeeding. The same is true of individual plant
and animal species. (I was initially skeptical of both, but looking at
good recent examples convinced me otherwise. Details for a separate
discussion, because I'm on the projects in these areas.)

3. there are attempts to set objective standards, but they tend to be
inflexible, and sometimes the very opposite of common sense.  For
these, see the detailed subpages of WP:N.  But the general guidelines
of WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, are actually subject to very wide differences
of interpretation, especially NPOV.
3a.  But let's start a separate discussion of each.

4. It is now the case, btw, that many people are no longer anonymous.
 I used an acronym at first, and I have enough edits that would need
changing that I'm stuck with it, but I'm about to put my true name on
the user page. (it's DGG)

5. For Ian: the initial decision was made to accept to accept all
broadcasting towers as notable. Do you agree?
5a. This decision was one of the few reversed, and all but the true
landmarks are being removed through AfD.
5b. Several people have said that all high school teachers should be
notable, and all individual elementary schools, and all bus stops.
5c. I've seen it said that every individual person on earth should
have  an article about them.
5d. Noted in a reliable source is not sufficient: everyone living in
the US in 1930 and before is listed in the published parts of the US
Census, a very reliable source. Similarly for every book and pamphlet
and magazine article ever published (& the number is similar as well).
The price of every stock on the market for every weekday is listed in
reliable sources. The time each train stops at each station is listed
in reliable sources. Every individual automobile ever registered is
listed in reliable sources. Every individual piece of property every
sold is listed in reliable sources.

6. Things worth including in an article but not worth a separate
article. The current  practice seems to make a redirect from their
names  if they have names, or to include them in a list. There are
also things redirected to Wiktionary or Wikisource

7. Many things which one would think included sufficiently in the web
are much better handled in Wiki, because the web results are mainly
totally unreliable blogs.

8. So, in short, there is a dilemma between having flexible standards
set in general words that can be interpreted strictly or narrowly
depending upon individual prejudice, and and having fixed standards
that include or exclude arbitrarily, which may well not accord with
common sense.
8a.There was a long discussion of whether to include Bush's
forthcoming speech. The discussion was still going on when he gave the
speech, which clearly was notable, & put an end to the discussion.

--David Goodman

PS: consider the shades of meaning between: notable, noteworthy,
important, significant, useful


body:
>A least one problem I envision with such MH Articles in WP is the fact that
>you would, in some cases, have patients writing the textbook. There are many
>aspects of mental, emotional, and behavioral conditions that are beyond some
>persons? ability to accept. In the very first month that I signed on as a WP
>editor I encountered such a problem. I wanted to upgrade an existing Article
>on a chemical dependency-related subject, and immediately encountered strong
>resistance from another editor. I was attempting to emphasize the disease
>component of the condition, but the editor refused to acknowledge this fact.
>Being very new to WP, after a least a week of back and forth with this
>editor, of endless diatribes by them, and every one on my edits being
>changed, I finally gave up, left the Article, and haven?t looked back since.
>I have practiced (one day I may get it right :-) ) in the fields of Clinical
>Psychology and Psychotherapy for 42 years now. I wanted to bring some
>expertise to the Articles in WP related to my fields, but have backed away.
>
>I would love to see more, well-written Articles on all aspects of MH in the
>encyclopedia. I believe they should be written by persons schooled in the
>fields, and should be written so that any sentient person could understand
>it. For me, the true measure of an ?expert? in something is his or her
>ability to explain it to someone who isn?t.
>
>I would also like to see links to biographies of persons in the encyclopedia
>who have suffered from these conditions.
>
>Some thoughts.
>
>Marc Riddell

If that had become an arbitration case, the focus would be on use of reliable sources. Neither patients nor therapists count as reliable sources, however much personal or professional experience they have, or how incisive their insights.

Fred


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Entries for deletion.... issues from the Third
	World

body:
Metafailures.

Metafailure type I.
 the way to avoid junk is screening before inclusion. It has been
considered, but rejected because of time required. Possibly this
should be re-examined, because we may be spending equal time in
removing them afterwards.

Metafailure type II,
The way to get articles for areas not adequately covered is to form
organized Projects.  There are projects for India, for Islam, etc; if
a project doesn't have enough members, recruit more. If it's not doing
enough, make suggestions there. (These projects can also serve to
scree deletions in their subjects.)

DGG
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.


from_name: K P

subject: [WikiEN-l] Good Articles is a mess...time for a clean sweep.

body:
On 1/11/07, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Any comments?
>
> 1) Use the Good Article Review page.  Seriously.  If you want to see
> long-term traction on what you want to do, you're best off demonstrating
> it
> rather than having someone accuse you of being disruptive.
>
> 2) I was the one who brought up the problem with [[Captain Falcon]] at
> FAC.
> That sort of thing, lately, has been the exception, not the rule -
> generally
> speaking, articles that lack references the way that one did don't get
> passed.
>
> 3) Keep in mind, if you decide to sweep through, that the GA criteria has
> tightened considerably.  Articles without references are routinely
> delisted
> from the candidacy page almost immediately.  Considering that we're still
> finding unsourced FAs from a few years ago, I think it's in good shape for
> a
> relatively new process.
>
> Just don't be rash.  I doubt the GA regulars want poor articles listed any
> more than you do.
>
> -Jeff

I've seen science "good" articles (organisms mostly) that are not even
intelligible, contain incorrect information, have words mispelled, repeat
information, duplicating the same sentence a couple of times, and appear to
be written by someone who knows nothing about the subject (for example one
GA discussing a member of the Aster family that referred to the ray flowers
as petals, and, no, not saying they looked like petals, but a mention of how
many petals each inflorescence has). Being a  more casual process is okay,
but this can translate into loosening of standards over time and maintaining
some standards is important, too.  An occasional sweep might help--as people
get offended and hostile when their GA status is challenged.  I've quit
looking at them and just do FAC and FAR, instead, because it's not so
frustrating as often.

KPScum


from_name: gwern branwen

subject: [WikiEN-l] African maps

body:
On 1/11/07, SPUI <drspui at gmail.com> wrote:
> geni wrote:
> > On 1/11/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6250225.stm
> >>
> >>"A collection of rare maps of Africa, dating from 1530 to 1915, has been
> >>made available for free on the internet by Northwestern University in the
> >>US. " Is this something we should be storing too? I think we should at least
> >>make an effort to contact them about it...
> >>
> >>Mgm
> >
> >
> > The format with which they appear on the net makes them hard/very hard
> > to copy. Contacting may be only option
> >
>
> I've had some success with hacking the URL, but it likes to break randomly:
>
> http://ansel.library.northwestern.edu/ImageServer/index.jsp?action=&res=1&x=0&y=0&viewheight=6000&viewwidth=10000&rotation=0&fullimage=false&rootelement=&stylesheetpath=&useplugin=false&title=%2Fdimages%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fafrmaps%2Finu-afrmap-4333843-recto-ah.jp2&filename=%2Fdimages%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fafrmaps%2Finu-afrmap-4333843-recto-ah.jp2&returnurl=&imgclickx=0&imgclicky=0&vpContentsOffsetX=0&vpContentsOffsetY=0&requestId=2&previousRes=0&imgClickX=0&imageserver%3Fres=1&imgClickY=0&thumbnailActionSelect=thumbclick&imageActionSelect=imageclick%2Czoomin
>
> It may also be possible to get at the stored jpeg2.

$ wget -r http://fedora.library.northwestern.edu/inu-afrmaps/

This would seem to work. You simply have to follow the proxy server's
redirect to find the original directory, which is fortunately publicly
viewable. I however do not have the spare disk space to check that
this would download them all - the 148 files would eat up a
distressing amount of space.

--Gwern


from_name: Thomas Dalton

subject: [WikiEN-l] African maps

body:
> The format with which they appear on the net makes them hard/very hard
> to copy. Contacting may be only option

I'm not sure what the legal issues would be with taking them straight
off the net, anyway. It looks like the BBC means free as in beer, not
speech. While the copyright on a 16th century map has almost certainly
expired, the scanned version of it might be copyrighted (I'm no
expert, but I'm sure someone here can tell me whether or not scanned
images are copyrightable). The site doesn't seem to say what the
copyright status is.

It's probably best to contact them directly.


from_name: Luna

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wiki violation that did NOT happen, man!

body:
On 1/8/07, RCTLocoWikiSpam <rctlocomotionwikipeida at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> As they didn't request any unblocking, I get a message that sayd "This
> user
> is no longer a member of Wikipedia." They said it's against Wikipedia
> policy
> to remove any semi-protected tags while still protected in this park as
> the
> Wikipedia police still have not got back to me about my so call wiki
> violation in the park.
>

Unfortunately, we aren't mind readers; if you'd like for anybody to look
into this, we need to know a few things:
*Your Wikipedia account name
*The account name the admin who blocked you
*The exact reason given for blocking
*Your current IP address

All of this information should be visible when you try to edit, and load the
"you've been blocked" screen. I suggest that you copy and paste to avoid any
typos.

-Luna


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Foundation-l] Fundraising and site notice

body:
rfrangi at libero.it wrote:

>>>Anthony wrote:
>>>7 months ago, we had a "cash at the end of the year" of 500 000 dollars.
>>>
>>>
>>Plus $78,415 in Google stock.  Plus $50,000 in accounts receivable.
>>Plus $400,000 in computer equipment and software.
>>
>>
>$400.000 in HW/SW? I would not count them, because it's something you can't spend. And that value decreases every day (If you don't buy new hw/sw)
>
That's a peculiar view of accounting.  I agree that fixed assets are not
particularly liquid, but then selling them would severely hinder our
ability to maintain a website.  These are already depreciated values,
and are converted to expenses over the useful life of the hardware.
This is a much more realistic way to handle hardware costs since it
reflects the fact that servers can remain operational for several
years.  This is much more useful for medium to long range planning for
replacement strategies.

There is nothing alarming about accounts receivable.  A balance sheet is
a snapshot of the organization's finances at a given time.  Receivables
accrue as services are rendered, and invoices are often issued when
predetermined accrual periods are over.  If a good client has accrued a
liability at the end of the fiscal year it should appear on the
financial statements as it has.  An invoice can be issued in the
following week, and payment received in the week after that.  That will
not change the published balance sheet, but those funds are very soon
spendable.

Google stacks are actively traded on the stock exchange, and there is no
indication that these are restricted assets.  Without commenting on the
wisdom of such a move, the Foundation could submit them to a broker for
sale and have its cash within a week.  In my mind that's highly spendable.

It was good to see that official financial statements were finally
produced.  That certainly satisfies my own previous complaints, and I
prefer not to make my satisfaction an excuse for further complaints.  I
can read financial statements, and see no cause for alarm.  Regular
quarterly statements would be nice, and there would be no need to have
these interim statements audited, but that's more a suggestion than a
complaint.

Ec


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] African maps

body:
On 1/11/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The format with which they appear on the net makes them hard/very hard
> > to copy. Contacting may be only option
>
> I'm not sure what the legal issues would be with taking them straight
> off the net, anyway. It looks like the BBC means free as in beer, not
> speech.

I doubt the BBC has even considered it.

>While the copyright on a 16th century map has almost certainly
> expired, the scanned version of it might be copyrighted (I'm no
> expert, but I'm sure someone here can tell me whether or not scanned
> images are copyrightable).

The case under US law we generaly cite is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_Ltd._v._Corel_Corporation

scanned images have not been found to be copyrightable underUS law.

> It's probably best to contact them directly.

Since getting them off the website would involve rather a lot of work
yes. However it would probably be better if someone in the US did it.
--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] African maps

body:
On 1/11/07, Nina Stratton <ninaeliza at gmail.com> wrote:
> Do you have a url?
>
> Nina
>

Da it is included in the BBC article.

http://www.library.northwestern.edu/govinfo/collections/mapsofafrica/
--
geni


from_name: James Hare

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Club of New York

body:
Very good

On 1/11/07, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>
> They moved my 26 January trip... instead of NYC, I am going to
> Washington, DC.
>
> On the evening of 31 January, the free culture group at NYU will be
> hosting a party, probably this would be good for a joint meeting?
>
> Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
> >> On 12/26/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> >>> I will be in New York on the 26th of January and the 1st and 2nd of
> >>> February.  (i.e. two Fridays in a row).
> >>> Maybe the timing will be right for me to join the festivities...
> >
> >
> > Any developments on this?
> >
> > "Newyorkbrad"
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>


from_name: luqman64 at gmail.com

subject: [Commons-l] (no subject)

body:
--
Muhammad Luqman
Economic Journalist
Associated Press of Pakistan (APP)
1/A, LDA Flats, China Chowk, Lahore (Pakistan).
Phone (Off): +92429201566-67,
Home: +92427159533
Cell: +923004858295
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20070111/d96d7330/attachment.htm


from_name: Christopher Thieme

body:
I recently came across two articles in the last 24 hours that were
candidates for Featured Article status.  Both asserted that because they
were GAs, FA was the logical next step.

Only one big problem...

The articles literally sucked and shouldn't have been GAs in the first
place.

The GA criteria is a good criteria, but it's only as strong a standard
as the standards applied by the most lenient promoting editor.   Either the
process needs to be reformed, or more oversight over the GA list is needed.
I also fear there are many articles masquerading as GAs that have not gone
through the process legitimately.  Either someone unilaterally promoted
their article to GA, or nominated for GA and had a friend do the promoting.
These are usually obvious from my observations.

I'm intending to go through the GA list later this evening and into the
night and sweep out a lot of the non-GA-worthy articles.  Delisting en masse
articles that are blatantly not meeting the requirements of the criteria.
Sure it might look slightly arbitrary, unilateral and subjective...but then
again, the entire process is just that.  I'll try to do this as objectively
as possible, with plenty of notes as to why these articles should have
failed GA.

I estimate that an objective clean sweep might remove at least 10-20% of the
articles currently listed at GA.  10%, or about 170 articles, would be a
good conservative estimate.

Any comments?

If anyone wants to join me in this endeavour, many hands do make light
work.  For instance, I'm not much of a science or mathematics guy.  But my
forte is geography, literature, history, philosophy and social sciences.  So
if we can have a few people with various expertise join in, this might work
out for the better.

Regards,

Christopher D. Thieme
cdthieme at gmail.com
User:ExplorerCDT


from_name: howard chen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Adding personal profile into wikipedia?

body:
1. are there any policy about adding personal (not well known, no
public interest) profile into wikipedia?

2. if there are name collisions, how to handle this?

thanks.


from_name: Delirium

subject: [Foundation-l] Back to basics

body:
David Gerard wrote:

>I'm using this message and quoting "It does not say 'share freely
>unless the unfree content is better.'" when removing "fair use" pics
>we have a free replacement for ;-D
>
>
I'd say it depends on just how good the replacement it is.  Fair use is
an integral portion of describing the "sum of human knowledge"---surely
you wouldn't want to write an encyclopedia in which you could never
include a single quote from any book ever published?  We could in theory
paraphrase them all to avoid relying on fair use, but that's often a
pretty poor replacement.  Fair-use for images is not fundamentally
different, though the degree and judgment calls are often different.

-Mark


subject: [Foundation-l] Back to basics


body:
Good Articles should not go a strenous process like Featured Articles simply
because they're merely good articles, not judged like a dog at a dog show.
However, I agree with concerns that the process for making an article GA is
far too unilateral. Maybe it can be nominated for five days -- if there's no
(valid) objection after that time, then it can be promoted.

On 1/11/07, Christopher Thieme <cdthieme at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I recently came across two articles in the last 24 hours that were
> candidates for Featured Article status.  Both asserted that because they
> were GAs, FA was the logical next step.
>
> Only one big problem...
>
> The articles literally sucked and shouldn't have been GAs in the first
> place.
>
> The GA criteria is a good criteria, but it's only as strong a standard
> as the standards applied by the most lenient promoting editor.   Either
> the
> process needs to be reformed, or more oversight over the GA list is
> needed.
> I also fear there are many articles masquerading as GAs that have not gone
> through the process legitimately.  Either someone unilaterally promoted
> their article to GA, or nominated for GA and had a friend do the
> promoting.
> These are usually obvious from my observations.
>
> I'm intending to go through the GA list later this evening and into the
> night and sweep out a lot of the non-GA-worthy articles.  Delisting en
> masse
> articles that are blatantly not meeting the requirements of the criteria.
> Sure it might look slightly arbitrary, unilateral and subjective...but
> then
> again, the entire process is just that.  I'll try to do this as
> objectively
> as possible, with plenty of notes as to why these articles should have
> failed GA.
>
> I estimate that an objective clean sweep might remove at least 10-20% of
> the
> articles currently listed at GA.  10%, or about 170 articles, would be a
> good conservative estimate.
>
> Any comments?
>
> If anyone wants to join me in this endeavour, many hands do make light
> work.  For instance, I'm not much of a science or mathematics guy.  But my
> forte is geography, literature, history, philosophy and social
> sciences.  So
> if we can have a few people with various expertise join in, this might
> work
> out for the better.
>
> Regards,
>
> Christopher D. Thieme
> cdthieme at gmail.com
> User:ExplorerCDT
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>


from_name: Keitei

body:
On Jan 11, 2007, at 15:52, Christopher Thieme wrote:

> I recently came across two articles in the last 24 hours that were
> candidates for Featured Article status.  Both asserted that because
> they
> were GAs, FA was the logical next step.
>
> Only one big problem...
>
> The articles literally sucked and shouldn't have been GAs in the first
> place.
>
> The GA criteria is a good criteria, but it's only as strong a standard
> as the standards applied by the most lenient promoting editor.
> Either the
> process needs to be reformed, or more oversight over the GA list is
> needed.
<snip/>
> Any comments?

Personally, I think GA needs less, less, less oversight. If it sucks,
remove the GA status. GA is not FA-in-training; it's a designation
for decent articles which aren't exceedingly amazing, but are
accurate, reasonably complete, "good" articles. Apparently it was
meant to have none of the bureaucracy FAC has... Ha...

I agree the process needs to be reformed, but I'd say that the
standards need to be less uptight and less FA-wannabe. Promoting an
article to GA should not be complex and neither should delisting it.
FA and GA have separate places in the 'pedia for a reason.

--keitei