subject: [WikiEN-l] Drive-by deletion

body:
1. Noone is questioning your right to revert (or maybe
even delete) 'Peter is gay'.
2. There are specific people consistently deleting
articles that have real content. For example, schools.
They have consitently failed to gain concensus to
delete all school articles, and so are listing every
school individually, counting on the fact that noone
can be bothered to vote on every one. The fact that
each one is often a stub at this stage makes it easier
still to delete them, and allows them to make the case
that there is precident for deleting more schools.

The point is that this is contentious, because not
only is real information about real things (not 'Peter
is gay') is being lost, and furthermore, only admins
can even see what is was that was lost.
Mark R.

--- Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:

> I've only been skimming this thread, but I think
> people proposing
> policies upon policies are missing what actually
> makes wikipedia work:
> people just do things that need to be done.  When I
> see a crap article
> that says "peter is gay", I hit 'delete', I don't
> list it on a page and
> request permission to delete it.  I don't think most
> other people do
> either (or even read this list or the millions of
> policy pages).
>
> It's true people should exercise discretion, but if
> an article that has
> about 8 words in it was "unfairly" deleted, it's not
> like Wikipedia has
> lost an irreplaceable masterwork.  There is no
> prohibition against
> creating a new article in its place (and while
> you're at it, if you made
> it better it wouldn't even be a question).  If there
> are specific people
> consistently deleting questionable things, you could
> leave a message on
> their talk page asking them about it.
>
> Some of the arguments over "unfairly deleted" VfD
> articles seem to have
> a similar misconception that we're deleting all
> possible articles at
> that location, while we're only deleting the one
> that's actually there.
> If there's an incoherent article with no useful
> information at a
> location of a famous person or entity, it's still
> appropriate to delete
> it.  Someone can later create an actual article at
> that location, which
> then wouldn't be deleted.
>
> But the main point is that Wikipedia works by people
> doing what they
> think is reasonable, and talking to people who are
> doing things they
> disagree with, not by a bunch of policy mumbo-jumob.
>  I've taken to not
> even reading policy pages anymore, because there are
> literally thousands
> of them, and most of them are incredibly long and
> intricate.  I don't
> know what the hell deletion policy is anymore: there
> must be at least 10
> pages on the subject, and 100 proposals to replace
> it with a new set of
> policies.
>
> -Mark
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com


list: wikitech-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: NSK

subject: [Wikitech-l] Go

body:
On Friday 22 October 2004 07:53, Erik Moeller wrote:
> proposes an alternative UI modeled somewhat after Everything2. But the two
> buttons do different things, which are both useful, therefore both should
> continue to be supported.

I propose to get rid of Go and implement this behaviour:
1. User types and clicks Search (the only button)
2. Go's code is executed. If it has a result, it brings the article together
with a link at the top "Show more relevant search results...".
3. If Go's code does not find a result, Search code is executed.

--
NSK
Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org
Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org
Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org
Project Manager of http://maatworks.wikinerds.org


list: wikien-l

from_name: Iain Scott

subject: [WikiEN-l] Drive-by deletion

body:
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 16:02:51 +0200, Jens Ropers <ropers at ropersonline.com> wrote:
> I also ain't certain if "''Prelimiary'' deletion" is a good title, as
> the word could be seen to imply that things always got revised and/or
> undeleted later (when our aspiration should be that the fewest
> "Preliminary deletion" cases get promoted to VfD).
>
>
There was a recent sugestion (with respect to another policy) to call
this sort of "intermediate" deletion process "Early deletion".

cheers,
Iain


from_name: Mark Ramm

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki licensing

references:
<EPEJIODJLBDLEHGHIEADOEFABEAB.gbildson@limepeer.com>
	<200410222020.23586.nsk2@wikinerds.org>
	<9f02ca4c0410221105cc6d41a@mail.gmail.com>
	<200410222154.10980.nsk2@wikinerds.org>

body:
> It is always a good idea to keep records with contact information in case
> relicensing is desired. This is normal practice in many professional
> opensource projects.

<Sarcasm>You mean like Linux, Apache, Gnome, etc. <Sarcasm>  Please
show me where this is "normal practice" except where the intention
from the beginning was to release an extended proprietary version.

I think many people choose the GPL because they don't want to see
their work incorporated into proprietary projects. And I am certain
that some of the developers of MediaWiki feel that way.

So, I think you are going to be out of luck here, even if you are
somehow able to track down every person who ever contributed to the
project, because some of them are committed to the ideals of free
software.

If you just want to USE an extended version of the software with your
own code that's fine, the GPL allows that.  With the GPL you are
always free to modify the code, and use it however you wish.  And it
goes without saying that you are  always free 'not to distribute' your
modifications. But if you do distribute them you must allow those same
rights to the recipients.

--Mark Ramm-Christensen


from_name: Mark Richards

subject: [WikiEN-l] Drive-by deletion

body:
I don't agree that joke material should be included,
but anything that is factual, verifiable and neutral
should be allowed. For example, the person with the
longest fingernails should certainly have an article.
Mark

--- NSK <nsk2 at wikinerds.org> wrote:

> On Saturday 23 October 2004 00:19, Mark Richards
> wrote:
> > there is still the issue that 'notablity' is
> > inherently POV.
>
> Yes it is. Even the most stupid and useless post may
> be considered as
> important or funny by some people.
>
> For example, I have accepted this:
>
> http://nerdypc.wikinerds.org/index.php/Trr_post
>
> This was posted at Wikipedia (not by me) and was
> deleted.
>
> However, I considered it interesting and funny; So I
> imported it in my wiki
> and I contacted the elYsiun community about it.
>
> See:
>
> http://www.elysiun.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=31298
>
> If this thing was not posted on WP I would never
> learn about it. I still don't
> understand why it was deleted. If you search the
> elYsiun forum you will find
> much discussion about the Trr post. Surely some
> people consider it funny or
> interesting.
>
> In the same way, Quantum Gravity is considered as
> interesting by a small
> number of people, however you do have an article
> about it. In some way, WP
> could become a great forum for the publication of
> content not available
> elsewhere, but you limit yourselves in the "canon of
> knowledge".
>
> If you accept "nonnotable" articles and categorise
> them in a proper way (and
> hiding them from the main search), your reputation
> will not suffer. Good
> reputation does not necessarily means that "stupid"
> content shouldn't be
> allowed. The Guinness Records Book is full of
> content that I consider stupid
> or noninteresting to me ("the person with the
> longest nails! oh yeah... who
> cares?") but it's true, factual, useful for research
> and excitement and I
> know that many other people are considering this
> information as important. I
> do not think that GRB is a bad publication just
> because I am uninterested in
> part of its content: I just don't read this part. In
> the same way WP can
> become a great pool of trivia and "strange"
> information that could attract
> even more contributors who have specialised
> knowledge in areas totally
> unknown to most people. As long as you label this
> material as "trivia" or
> "just a joke page" or whatever, it's fine (of course
> the labelling should not
> be offending and should be NPOV).
>
> --
> NSK
> Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org
> Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org
> Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org
> Project Manager of http://maatworks.wikinerds.org
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

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


from_name: Jens Ropers

subject: [Wikitech-l] Go

body:
I propose a layout like this (use a proportional font here):

Search
+---------------+  ____
|               | (_Go_)
+---------------+

  Advanced_search
  ---------------

* Clicking Go after filling in the text box works as before.
* Clicking Go without filling in the box produces a JavaScript message:
"Please enter a search query before clicking Go."
   (Don't use the current message, which unduly emphasizes the "error"
aspect of it.)
* Clicking on the "Advanced search" <u>link</u> will take you to the a
advanced search feature (where you can modify the tick-boxes and so
forth).

Yes, granted, if you want to do an advanced search it's one more click
than before, but it's A LOT less ambiguous -- see [[KISS principle]].

On 22 Oct 2004, at 14:44, Rowan Collins wrote:

> A related issue (apologies if this is also mentioned elsewhere
> already; bug 655 is sort of related) is that we have an "advanced
> search" feature, but no "advanced search" link to access it with. That
> is, if you get a successful results page, you can modify the
> tick-boxes for "search in these namespaces" and "show redirects"; but
> this is only available *after* you have already performed a search
> with [your] default options. Clicking "Go" or "Search" with no query
> doesn't lead to the form either, it just gives an error telling you to
> "try another query":
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=&fulltext=Search
>
> So perhaps, if we're going to redesign that little bit of UI, we
> should include a link labelled "advanced search" or somesuch, which
> returns a blank form with these options available. And error messages
> could be prepended to this form as well.
>
> On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 15:08:30 +0300, NSK <nsk2 at wikinerds.org> wrote:
>> On Friday 22 October 2004 07:53, Erik Moeller wrote:
>>> proposes an alternative UI modeled somewhat after Everything2. But
>>> the two
>>> buttons do different things, which are both useful, therefore both
>>> should
>>> continue to be supported.
>>
>> I propose to get rid of Go and implement this behaviour:
>> 1. User types and clicks Search (the only button)
>> 2. Go's code is executed. If it has a result, it brings the article
>> together
>> with a link at the top "Show more relevant search results...".
>> 3. If Go's code does not find a result, Search code is executed
>
> --
> Rowan Collins BSc
> [IMSoP]
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: Andrew Lih

subject: [WikiEN-l] Stopping to speedy speedy deletions

body:
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 05:49:43 +0300, NSK <nsk2 at wikinerds.org> wrote:
> On Friday 22 October 2004 05:13, Andrew Lih wrote:
> > 1) This is quite contrary to Wikipedia's policy to "be bold"
>
> If "be bold" means anarchy without organisation and process then I think
> that's a bad policy that should be repealled ASAP.

Well my point is that "be bold" should work both ways, not just for
adding things. There should be some boldness in expunging things too.

-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Drive-by deletion

body:
Plus, reasonable people disagree on what is
reasonable. I think an article about a school is a
reasonable thing for an encyclopedia that has no space
concerns, other people (who appear to me to be
otherwise reasonable) think that this is totally
unreasonable. We need policies to mediate so that
things like vfd are not used as a battleground.
Mark

--- NSK <nsk2 at wikinerds.org> wrote:

> On Saturday 23 October 2004 00:51, Delirium wrote:
> > But the main point is that Wikipedia works by
> people doing what they
> > think is reasonable
>
> This statement has a big assumption behind her: That
> *all* people who are in
> WP are reasonable, intelligent, good and can
> exercise their freedom in the
> right way.
>
> Policy, law, leaders, etc are the partial solutions
> that society has found to
> help solving the problem of unavailability of
> reasonable, intelligent and
> good humans.
>
> If you wanted WP to become a place run by reasonable
> people and not by policy,
> you would need to transform it into an "elite club"
> where only reasonable
> people can join.
>
> --
> NSK
> Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org
> Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org
> Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org
> Project Manager of http://maatworks.wikinerds.org
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Drive-by deletion

body:
The point is that deletion undermines this process by
removing the review and improve function that makes
wikis work.
Mark

--- Andrew Lih <andrew.lih at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 01:23:22 +0300, NSK
> <nsk2 at wikinerds.org> wrote:
> >
> > If you wanted WP to become a place run by
> reasonable people and not by policy,
> > you would need to transform it into an "elite
> club" where only reasonable
> > people can join.
>
> You are proposing filter first, publish later.
>
> The wiki way is publish first, filter later.
>
> It may be counterintuitive, but it has worked, and
> by all indications,
> continues to work.
>
> -Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

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


from_name: csherlock at ljh.com.au

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Caching issues

body:
csherlock at ljh.com.au wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I find that I'm updating articles and the changes are not always being
> reflected straight away. Has anyone else been having this problem?
>
> TBSDY

All,

I forgot to note: click on edit of the page, then change action=edit to
action=purge fixes the issue. This, however, is only a workaround.

TBSDY


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Caching issues

body:
Jens Ropers wrote:
> I'm still comprehensively mystified by Polytarp's email though.
> I mean, WHAT was he getting cranked up about? What was he on about? As
> far as I could tell, TBSDY's email was a perfectly valid post raising a
> real problem. Can anyone see how Polytarp could have found fault with
> that? Because, egads, I can't.
>
> -- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]]
>     www.ropersonline.com
>
> On 21 Oct 2004, at 17:20, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>
>> Sherlock,
>>
>> Please refrain from making personal remarks to other list participants.
>> ESPECIALLY when the 'other guy' seems to have started it.
>>
>> Ed Poor
>> List Admin Emeritus
>>
>> On 21 Oct 2004, at 08:10,
>> csherlock at ljh.com.au wrote:
>>
>>> Please, and don't let the door hit you on the way out.
>>>
>>> Polytarp! wrote:
>>>
>>>> That's it.
>>>> Your message, Kerlock, is the straw that broke the camel's back.
>>>> I'm unsubscribing from this nonsense list.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 12:45:41 +1000,
>>>> csherlock at ljh.com.au
>>>> <csherlock at ljh.com.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> I find that I'm updating articles and the changes are not always being
>>>>> reflected straight away. Has anyone else been having this problem?
>>>>>
>>>>> TBSDY

Polytarp is a troll.

TBSDY


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: MediaWiki licensing

references:
<EPEJIODJLBDLEHGHIEADOEFABEAB.gbildson@limepeer.com>	<200410222020.23586.nsk2@wikinerds.org>	<5E72D996-2460-11D9-93C0-000A95DAA284@pobox.com>
	<200410222306.43203.nsk2@wikinerds.org>
	<clc17h$j7i$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
On Oct 22, 2004, at 3:22 PM, Ashar Voultoiz wrote:
> NSK wrote:
>> If I am not mistaken, some parts of MediaWiki code are released in
>> the public domain. Is there any list showing where the PD code is and
>> which parts are GPL?
>
> According to the README, contributions by Lee Crocker and Erik Moeller
> are placed under the public domain. You will have to check cvs logs
> :o)

This is true only to the limited extent that this code is not derived
from and does not contain others' copyrighted code. You might find a
few untainted lines here and there if you spend a long time looking.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20041022/3a350d92/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject: [WikiEN-l] Sites that claim to be serious need Managers

body:
NSK wisely observed:

> Sites that claim to be serious and wish to compete with
> Britannica need motivated committed editors, proof readers,
> maintainers, sysops and policy makers, i.e. organisation and
structure.

In other words, some Managers must spring forth from the waves as Dawn
spreads her rosy fingers...

And where on God's green earth will such mythological unselfish beings
materialize? I misdoubt that [[natural selection]] is any more likely to
bring about such [[speciation]] than [[spontaneous generation]]; the
[[irreducible complexity]] of the tasks points to the need for
[[intelligent design]].

... and my plate is full to the overflowing as it is. Oh well, they say
if you want anything done, ask a busy man ;-)

Let me think about this over the weekend, and if I think I'm up to the
task, I'll take a crack at it.

Uncle Ed
World's Smartest Man (or, a modest man with much to be modest about)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Drive-by deletion

body:
On Friday 22 October 2004 06:26, Carson, David wrote:
> (ever read an EULA when installing software?)

I do and I think it's a Good Thing (tm) to do that. Do you know that by just
submitting content to a site you can give to the site's admin the copyright
of your work? This may happen with some auction sites and some ISP userpages,
for example.

But I know most people don't read these things; So that's why the basic policy
needs to be short.

> These ideas have been suggested before, but are so far out of alignment
> with the philosophy that Wikipedia was founded under that they will
> never be implemented. A "no anon editing" Wikipedia can only be done as
> a fork, I think.

Wikinfo does not allow anons, I think, neither my wikis. Allowing anons is
more appropriate for "anything goes" wikis where they don't expect quality
work, but for wikis where good organised content is desired, allowing anons
is not a good idea IMO.

Forcing people to have accounts in the wiki is useful to me because it
provides:
1. Better privacy: Users' IP addresses don't show up in the wiki. I really
don't understand why MediaWiki publishes IP addresses to everyone. That's a
"bug" IMO: It should display "Anonymous No. 48367" to users and the IP only
to sysops. Anons should get a distinguishing number based on their IP, so
that users can recognise whether an anon is the same as another anon, but the
IP should be restricted to sysops. That's a very important privacy issue.
2. Better copyright management: I have zero chances of contacting an anon and
asking for permission to publish his or her edits under another license. With
user accounts it is more easier to switch licenses because I might be able to
contact them and ask whether they agree.
3. Better antitrollness: Abusive users seem to love anon editing, but the
requirement for an account could keep them out of the wiki, especially if the
account needs to be validated from an email address and we require them to
give us their real names.
4. Better reputation: Readers would be more happy to know that articles are
edited by a united community rather than by random anons who don't know each
other and don't conform to a policy or some standards.

--
NSK
Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org
Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org
Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org
Project Manager of http://maatworks.wikinerds.org


subject: [WikiEN-l] Drive-by deletion

body:
Thanks for your work on this. :)
As regards #2 of the proposal (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Preliminary_Deletion#Proposal )
however:
I really think doing the same voting there as is done on VfD proper is
rather bad idea. (If you're doing the same thing, then why not do it at
VfD in the first place?)

'''Since but a single Keep vote would move a case over to VfD, there is
no point in anybody voting Delete.'''

Thus, just:

10 List an item at Wikipedia:Purgatory.
20 WAIT a certain number of days (to be determined)
20 IF Nobody has voted Keep on the article THEN delete it.
30 ELSEIF move the case to VfD

Does that not make more sense?
I mean, what's the use in even a million users voting keep on a case at
[[Wikipedia:Purgatory]] if but a single vote moves the case over to VfD
anyway? It's just a wast of time at that stage. If and only if a case
has moved to VfD proper, then it makes sense to vote on it.

On 22 Oct 2004, at 15:22, John Lee wrote:

> I wrote up a proposal based on this: [[Wikipedia:Preliminary
> Deletion]]. Don't know if it'll take off or not...
>
> John Lee
> ([[User:Johnleemk]])
>
> Jens Ropers wrote:
>
>> On 22 Oct 2004, at 12:45, John Lee wrote:
>>
>>> I believe if we got some intermediary stage of deletion up, it would
>>> solve a lot of our woes regarding this. Basically it would be a
>>> condensed version of VfD - perhaps with a period of time lasting
>>> only two or three days. The moment an article gets a single keep
>>> vote, it goes to VfD. If by the time is up there has not been a
>>> single keep vote, then there's obviously no point in keeping it, is
>>> there? That way, we don't speedy dubious entries, we don't waste
>>> time and effort keeping obvious bunk entries on VfD for a full week,
>>> and everyone's happy.
>>>
>>> John Lee
>>
>>
>> If I read you correctly you're proposing that the "middle road"
>> semi-speedy deletion thing you're proposing there just lists
>> nominated articles for a time and that no one actually should/need to
>> vote to delete them there? I.e. delete votes are unnecessary as
>> not-voted-on articles listed in that place would get deleted
>> automatically and but a single "keep" vote would cause the case to be
>> moved to VfD proper?
>>
>> I was initially opposed to yet another tool, but this one could
>> actually work and take some strain off VfD.
>> I've even got an idea what to call this thing:
>> [[Wikipedia:Purgatory]].
>>
>> -- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]]
>>     www.ropersonline.com
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Drive-by deletion

body:
Oh good grief, I hope this never gains any traction -
who would 'filter' applications? You? Me? (!) Having
people wander in randomly and contribute is key to the
success of WP.
Mark

--- NSK <nsk2 at wikinerds.org> wrote:

> On Saturday 23 October 2004 01:27, Andrew Lih wrote:
> > You are proposing filter first, publish later.
> > The wiki way is publish first, filter later.
>
> Perhaps the wiki way can be applied to articles but
> not to people. I see
> nothing wrong with filtering new applications for
> user accounts. Not everyone
> can be a good contributor to a wiki and most people
> care more about
> themselves and their private interests rather than
> the WP, it is makes
> perfect sense to filter people who want to join.
>
> The wiki way doesn't need to be extremist: Centrist
> solutions work better.
>
> --
> NSK
> Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org
> Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org
> Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org
> Project Manager of http://maatworks.wikinerds.org
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


subject: [WikiEN-l] Drive-by deletion

body:
I also ain't certain if "''Prelimiary'' deletion" is a good title, as
the word could be seen to imply that things always got revised and/or
undeleted later (when our aspiration should be that the fewest
"Preliminary deletion" cases get promoted to VfD).

On 22 Oct 2004, at 15:22, John Lee wrote:

> I wrote up a proposal based on this: [[Wikipedia:Preliminary
> Deletion]]. Don't know if it'll take off or not...
>
> John Lee
> ([[User:Johnleemk]])
>
> Jens Ropers wrote:
>
>> On 22 Oct 2004, at 12:45, John Lee wrote:
>>
>>> I believe if we got some intermediary stage of deletion up, it would
>>> solve a lot of our woes regarding this. Basically it would be a
>>> condensed version of VfD - perhaps with a period of time lasting
>>> only two or three days. The moment an article gets a single keep
>>> vote, it goes to VfD. If by the time is up there has not been a
>>> single keep vote, then there's obviously no point in keeping it, is
>>> there? That way, we don't speedy dubious entries, we don't waste
>>> time and effort keeping obvious bunk entries on VfD for a full week,
>>> and everyone's happy.
>>>
>>> John Lee
>>
>>
>> If I read you correctly you're proposing that the "middle road"
>> semi-speedy deletion thing you're proposing there just lists
>> nominated articles for a time and that no one actually should/need to
>> vote to delete them there? I.e. delete votes are unnecessary as
>> not-voted-on articles listed in that place would get deleted
>> automatically and but a single "keep" vote would cause the case to be
>> moved to VfD proper?
>>
>> I was initially opposed to yet another tool, but this one could
>> actually work and take some strain off VfD.
>> I've even got an idea what to call this thing:
>> [[Wikipedia:Purgatory]].
>>
>> -- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]]
>>     www.ropersonline.com
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: jjbowks at ne.rr.com

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Need suggestion for presenting Wikipedia and MediaWiki
	at McAuliffe Conference Center and NHAWLT Conference

body:
Hi,
what would be best to install MediaWiki on a
laptop or do screen shots? Or maybe some other
idea I haven't thought of yet for presenting
Wikipedia to a group of 80 to 120 educators...

I'll be presenting at the McAuliffe and NHAWLT
conferences this year and would like to show how
Wikipedia and MediaWiki can be useful in
education.

I can't depend on going online at the conference
center... although this would be ideal... but if I
can prepare to run a local database for the sake
of showing how the editing process takes place
and how easy it is to add articles and make
corrections, additions etc... I think running it
on a Laptop with Linspire 4.5 may be doable,
although I'd certainly take your suggestions
seriously (the DELL laptop has 30Gb drive with
256Mb RAM, and I can put Apache and PHP,
and I'd need MySQL on it, of course.

There was a fellow Wikipedian who had made
available a Wiki-engine that would run a
downloaded wiki database on Windows XP.
I tried it on a Compaq and I remember it was
pretty slick... I can borrow a Gateway with
128MB  and 30Gb harddrive with XP which
may run this if I can get a hold of the program...
does anyone remember what this may have been?
It was posted here, I downloaded it and tried it
last year with good results... this would mean
I wouldn't have to install MediaWiki on the
DELL laptop.

The other option is to just do a Presentation with
OpenOffice or PowerPoint, including screenshots.
But this by itself wouldn't have the impact of having
the working model to present.

What do you suggest doing, has anyone presented
Wikipedia to a large audience and could we make
available if there isn't already a list of suggestions
when presenting Wikipedia and MediaWiki.

I appreciate your help in getting things thought out.

With regards,
Jay B.


from_name: Rick

subject: [WikiEN-l] Drive-by deletion

body:
This would be great if it weren't for such users as Anthony DiPierro, who will, out of reflex, vote to keep any and every article ever written.  He is on record as saying that every person and every company ever in existence should be kept, regardless of their notability or the notability of the articles written about them.

RickK

Jens Ropers <ropers at ropersonline.com> wrote:
On 22 Oct 2004, at 12:45, John Lee wrote:

> I believe if we got some intermediary stage of deletion up, it would
> solve a lot of our woes regarding this. Basically it would be a
> condensed version of VfD - perhaps with a period of time lasting only
> two or three days. The moment an article gets a single keep vote, it
> goes to VfD. If by the time is up there has not been a single keep
> vote, then there's obviously no point in keeping it, is there? That
> way, we don't speedy dubious entries, we don't waste time and effort
> keeping obvious bunk entries on VfD for a full week, and everyone's
> happy.
>
> John Lee

If I read you correctly you're proposing that the "middle road"
semi-speedy deletion thing you're proposing there just lists nominated
articles for a time and that no one actually should/need to vote to
delete them there? I.e. delete votes are unnecessary as not-voted-on
articles listed in that place would get deleted automatically and but a
single "keep" vote would cause the case to be moved to VfD proper?

I was initially opposed to yet another tool, but this one could
actually work and take some strain off VfD.
I've even got an idea what to call this thing: [[Wikipedia:Purgatory]].

-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]]
www.ropersonline.com

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting vs. improving

body:
Which is ABSOLUTELY against policy.

RickK

"Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
To sum up: I think VfD is a waste of time, and I prefer not to
participate in these votes. If an article is VfD'ed, and I think the
topic is important enough, I'll just revise it and remove the 'notice'
(with a comment in the edit summary or on the talk page explaining my
improvements).

Ed Poor, aka "Uncle Ed"
Stubborn Pioneer of Excellence in Writing
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting vs. improving

body:
So is deleting things simply because you think they
are 'not notbale'.
Mark

--- Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Which is ABSOLUTELY against policy.
>
> RickK
>
> "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> To sum up: I think VfD is a waste of time, and I
> prefer not to
> participate in these votes. If an article is VfD'ed,
> and I think the
> topic is important enough, I'll just revise it and
> remove the 'notice'
> (with a comment in the edit summary or on the talk
> page explaining my
> improvements).
>
> Ed Poor, aka "Uncle Ed"
> Stubborn Pioneer of Excellence in Writing
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com


subject: [Wikitech-l] Go

references:
<9JKKP26xpVB@erik_moeller>
	<9f02ca4c0410220544779dc5e5@mail.gmail.com>
	<9C3B7BB4-242C-11D9-8822-0003931DCE20@ropersonline.com>

body:
On Friday 22 October 2004 16:16, Jens Ropers wrote:
> * Clicking Go without filling in the box produces a JavaScript message:
> "Please enter a search query before clicking Go."

Why not implement this:
1. User types nothing
2. User clicks Go
3. Random page code is executed

--
NSK
Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org
Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org
Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org
Project Manager of http://maatworks.wikinerds.org


subject: [WikiEN-l] Drive-by deletion

body:
On Friday 22 October 2004 16:21, John Lee wrote:
> The resolution is always the same: Forcing anons to
> register before editing is not a tenable idea.

Then, perhaps anon edits should be moderated.

--
NSK
Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org
Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org
Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org
Project Manager of http://maatworks.wikinerds.org


from_name: Rowan Collins

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Users and groups based security

body:
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 17:20:33 +0200, Ashar Voultoiz <hashar at altern.org> wrote:

> I am currently implementing a new user rights management system. I just
> commited a simple showcase in cvs wich is not usefull at all :o)
>
> The system is actually:
>
> Create or edit a group
> Assign to each group some functions (reading page, moving page, read
> diffs, access to specific special page).
>
> Then lookup and edit an user and assign him in some groups.
[...]
> Users can probably part of several groups.

This sounds like a good, solid approach. One thing that might be worth
considering (you may not want to code it fully straight away, but
maybe bear it in mind while designing the architecture, so that it's
feasible) is defining relationships between groups. e.g.:

* inheritance: Define permissions["Sysop"] = permissions["Logged in
user"] + delete, undelete, protect, ...
** no need to explicitly change rights of all groups if you change the
rights of a more general group; e.g. adding a globally usable Special:
page shouldn't require changes to the permissions for group "Sysop" as
well as group "Logged in user"
** another way of looking at this is: "Sysop" implies "Logged in user"

* cumulative: Define permissions["Sysop"] = delete, undelete, protect
** leave the wiki-organiser to assume that all users with "Sysop"
status will also have "Logged in user" status in order to do the more
mundane tasks
** this is the easier way to go, and is useful anyway for things like
permissions["trusted SQL-savvy user"]="Special:AskSQL" which shouldn't
imply any other rights, just be added to them

I hope this message isn't too waffly, and you get the general drift of
what I'm on about. Like I say, these are mainly just eventual aims to
keep in mind since you're essentially designing from scratch, rather
than immediate to-do items.

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


subject: [WikiEN-l] Drive-by deletion

body:
I also vote "keep" more often than you vote "delete".  Have you EVER voted "delete"?

RickK

Anthony DiPierro <anthonydipierro at hotmail.com> wrote:
Maybe I should put this on my talk page, because there are a few people out
there (RickK, who votes delete more than I vote keep, comes to mind) who
insist on incorrectly making the claim that I vote keep on everything, and
some people apparently believe their lies.

Anthony

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!


from_name: Ashar Voultoiz

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: mediawiki evaluation

references:
<cl2900$c2$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<cl2gag$ert$1@sea.gmane.org>	<20041019193709.GD982@jeluf.mine.nu>
	<cl6hhm$l2n$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<9f02ca4c0410201443465f136d@mail.gmail.com>

body:
Rowan Collins wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 22:24:22 +0200, Ashar Voultoiz <hashar at altern.org> wrote:
>
>>Amethyst is just a hack of monobook using a dark css. We probably want
>>to enhance the skin system to have one layout declined in several color
>>themes.
>
>
> Actually, although there isn't a 2-stage UI for selecting them like
> you propose, as far as I understand the current skin system, you very
> much can have two skins which differ only in their CSS: skins based on
> SkinPHPTal simply define where their template is, and where their
> styles are. You could very easily name these to make the associations
> clear (e.g. "Chick (light)", "Chick (dark)", "Chick (nokia)").
>
> Last time I looked, there was a template called "Amethyst.pt" which
> appeared to be just an out of date version of "MonoBook.pt", as was
> "WikimediaWiki.pt"; if there is no immediate plan to make these
> distinct, they should be deleted and the relevant .php files told to
> use MonoBook.pt instead. As in:
>
> class SkinAmethyst extends SkinPHPTal {
>     function initPage( &$out ) {
>         SkinPHPTal::initPage( $out );
>         $this->skinname  = 'amethyst';
>         $this->stylename = 'amethyst';
> -       $this->template  = 'Amethyst';  #reference to unnecessary copy
> +      $this->template = 'MonoBook'; #reference to same template
>     }
> }

Hello,

Your above example exactly reflect my mind on this matter. Unfortunatly
I am working on a new user rights management system actually and I am
afraid to commit anything right now. I am sure someone else can provide
a patch for it, or I will eventually do it later. :o)

Amethyst skin can safely be deleted from cvs, it's just a test that I
should not have commited to HEAD anyway (fix RELEASE-NOTES as well).

cheers,

--
Ashar Voultoiz - WP++++
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hashar


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Wikitech-l] Go

body:
NSK wrote:

>On Friday 22 October 2004 07:53, Erik Moeller wrote:
>
>
>>proposes an alternative UI modeled somewhat after Everything2. But the two
>>buttons do different things, which are both useful, therefore both should
>>continue to be supported.
>>
>>
>
>I propose to get rid of Go and implement this behaviour:
>1. User types and clicks Search (the only button)
>2. Go's code is executed. If it has a result, it brings the article together
>with a link at the top "Show more relevant search results...".
>3. If Go's code does not find a result, Search code is executed.
>
No.  "Search" is used for more than just finding one article.  If I
search for a term it can be just as much to see which articles make
reference to the term so that I can decide whether I should create a
link from there.  "Go" is used when you want to see that particular
article.  If there must be only one let it be "Search" which should
continue to function as it always has.

Ec


body:
Victor Fari?a wrote:
> Hello ...
> I am wondering if there are any plans or discussions about enhanced
> the security of the wiki in a user/groups based, for example to let an
> editor protect his pages from view/modify other users that the ones he
> designate (with a special tag or something) ... I think that this is a
> feature not very useful at wikipedia sites, but yes on my wikis used
> mainly for projects development .
>
> thanks, regards

Hello,

I am currently implementing a new user rights management system. I just
commited a simple showcase in cvs wich is not usefull at all :o)

The system is actually:

Create or edit a group
Assign to each group some functions (reading page, moving page, read
diffs, access to specific special page).

Then lookup and edit an user and assign him in some groups.

Simple example:

Built in groups:
  Anonymous
  LoggedIn
  L33t Admin

Wich have the following rights:
  Anonymous : Read, Edit, Diff, Special:RecentChanges, Special:Login
  LoggedIn : Read, Edit, Diff, Move, Special:RecentChanges, Special:Logout,
  L33t Admin : everything

One can build a bureaucrat group that only allow access to
Special:MakeSysop.

Users can probably part of several groups.

The work is ongoing, users / groups can be edited and I am implementing
the security layer that will query for permission and either allow
access or deny it. I am not willing to commit anything until it's
somehow working and that I have fixed some trivial bugs.

cheers,

--
Ashar Voultoiz - WP++++
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hashar


from_name: Giovanni

subject: [Wikitech-l] Error in page render

body:
Starting from today morning, on the status bar of my browser I get an error
about the rendering of the page.
You can try at http://www.programmiamo.it. Before today it was right, only
today suddendly it has gone wrong.
Can someone help me?

Giovanni Putignano


from_name: Delirium

subject: [WikiEN-l] Drive-by deletion

body:
I've only been skimming this thread, but I think people proposing
policies upon policies are missing what actually makes wikipedia work:
people just do things that need to be done.  When I see a crap article
that says "peter is gay", I hit 'delete', I don't list it on a page and
request permission to delete it.  I don't think most other people do
either (or even read this list or the millions of policy pages).

It's true people should exercise discretion, but if an article that has
about 8 words in it was "unfairly" deleted, it's not like Wikipedia has
lost an irreplaceable masterwork.  There is no prohibition against
creating a new article in its place (and while you're at it, if you made
it better it wouldn't even be a question).  If there are specific people
consistently deleting questionable things, you could leave a message on
their talk page asking them about it.

Some of the arguments over "unfairly deleted" VfD articles seem to have
a similar misconception that we're deleting all possible articles at
that location, while we're only deleting the one that's actually there.
If there's an incoherent article with no useful information at a
location of a famous person or entity, it's still appropriate to delete
it.  Someone can later create an actual article at that location, which
then wouldn't be deleted.

But the main point is that Wikipedia works by people doing what they
think is reasonable, and talking to people who are doing things they
disagree with, not by a bunch of policy mumbo-jumob.  I've taken to not
even reading policy pages anymore, because there are literally thousands
of them, and most of them are incredibly long and intricate.  I don't
know what the hell deletion policy is anymore: there must be at least 10
pages on the subject, and 100 proposals to replace it with a new set of
policies.

-Mark


from_name: sannse

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Anthony does not vote "Keep" on everything

body:
dpbsmith at verizon.net wrote:

> Just for the record: I personally have strong disagreements with Anthony
> regarding what things should be deleted. But he does not vote "keep" on
> everything, he can articulate a rationale for what he does (the phrase
> "method in his madness" comes to mind) and, in fact, he recently supported a
> speedy-deletion decision of mine in Votes for Undeletion.

Just for the record - as this discussion seems to have followed on from
my last - I did *not* say (or imply) that Anthony does, did or will.  My
point was only that a system that is able to be influenced by one person
alone probably will be.  Anthony's name was not in my post.

--sannse


from_name: Thomas R. Koll

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki / PHP / SQL / Web Developer

body:
On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 11:21:39AM -0400, Greg Bildson wrote:
> I checked with the last person that posted a similar request so apologies if
> this email breaks the rules ...

He didn't. I think it a good idea if jobs concering mediawiki are kept
among the devs or almost devs like me (guess who got the last job...)

But the point why no one might want the job is the location,
but tell us if it's not a requirement anymore.

ciao, tom
--
== Weblinks ==
* http://shop.wikipedia.org - WikiReader Internet zu kaufen
* http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:TomK32
* http://www.hammererlehen.de - Urlaub in Berchtesgaden


body:
Sorry to disappoint you Ed, but I think that NSK was suggesting himself.
  ;-)

Ec

Poor, Edmund W wrote:

>NSK wisely observed:
>
>
>>Sites that claim to be serious and wish to compete with
>>Britannica need motivated committed editors, proof readers,
>>maintainers, sysops and policy makers, i.e. organisation and
>>
>>
>structure.
>
>In other words, some Managers must spring forth from the waves as Dawn
>spreads her rosy fingers...
>
>And where on God's green earth will such mythological unselfish beings
>materialize? I misdoubt that [[natural selection]] is any more likely to
>bring about such [[speciation]] than [[spontaneous generation]]; the
>[[irreducible complexity]] of the tasks points to the need for
>[[intelligent design]].
>
>... and my plate is full to the overflowing as it is. Oh well, they say
>if you want anything done, ask a busy man ;-)
>
>Let me think about this over the weekend, and if I think I'm up to the
>task, I'll take a crack at it.
>
>Uncle Ed
>World's Smartest Man (or, a modest man with much to be modest about)
>
>


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: WikiData: A rant

body:
Magnus Manske wrote:
<snip stop depressing!>
> As good "wiki-fiddlers" (thanks so much, Register!) we would like to see
> every change in WikiData on the wikipedia pages real soon. Like, now.
> So the information that something changes, and what changed, has to pass
> from the data site to the display site. There are two ways to do that:
> push or pull.
>
> PUSH means the data site will notify the display site that something has
> changed, and the display needs to be updated. For that, the data site
> has to know which pages of the display site are affected by which
> change. Then, it has to notify the display site of this. Bad things:
> * Needs basically a cache of *all* queries *ever* asked of the data
> site, as well as their results
> * Has to recalculate *all* of these after *every* change to find which
> queries produce different results
> * Won't work if the display site is offline
> * Won't work well with non-wikipedias
>
> That can't be it.
<snip PULL>

Hello,

I would personally PUSH datas from the wikidata to the content
publishers (like wikipedia).

A lot of blog systems have a feature known as trackback. When someone
publish an article wich contain reference to other blogs, its blog
system will send a ping (known as XML/RPC ping) to the referenced blogs
alerting them that their news got reused somewhere.

Simple example:
  Blog slashdot publish a news about nasa discovering martians.

  MartianFan001 wich is part of a "Life on mars foundation" decide to
publish a news about it and reference slashdot.

  JohnDoe who like things about mars decide to publish a news on his
personal blog and his article is something like:

  <<The mars foundation [http://marsfoundation/newsid/113] report a news
originally posted by [http://slashdot/?newsid=123912 slashdot] about
life on Mars !>>

He submits that news to its blog engine that parse links and try to send
pings to marsfoundation and slashdot saying :
   johndoe.com/newsid=5 reference your article !

When receiving this ping, marsfoundation and slashdot blogs can update
their trackback list:

slashdot news #123912 referenced by:
     "GeekHideout", "Nerds.com", "Mars foundation"

Marsfoundation news 113 referenced by:
   News referenced by:
     "JohnDoe"

So when some site wants to use wikidatas, it sends a query to the
wikidata server associated with their internal reference (ex: name of
the wikipedia article and language). Wikidata then send them the
requested data and the wikidata internal reference.

When a wikidata is changed, the site send ping to every site referencing
  that set of data with the update. From there the site using data will
answer wikidata with a code:
  1/ data change acknowledged.
  2/ no more need for this data, remove me.
  3/ doesnt answer.

If it doesnt answer, there could be a system that queue the ping so it
can be sent later (and eventualy be dropped after x days).

I believe the PULL method will generate too much traffic for datas wich
are probably not meant to be changed between each view. Datas about
species are probably much more stables than nasdaq stocks.

cheers,

--
Ashar Voultoiz - WP++++
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hashar


subject: [WikiEN-l] Drive-by deletion

body:
NSK wrote:

>On Friday 22 October 2004 22:39, Mark Richards wrote:
>
>
>>Most problematic edits actually come
>>from logged in users.
>>
>>
>
>Probably because the account registration process does not require valid email
>addresses and other info.
>
>I think the registration process should be a bit more difficult to discourage
>disruptive users.
>
They would not be the only ones discouraged.  The first people
discouraged would be the timid ones who are not completely comfortable
making any kind of live edits.  The disruptive individuals are more
thick-skinned than that and might last a little longer.

Our time is better spent in making the timid ones feel at home.

Ec


body:
NSK wrote:

>On Friday 22 October 2004 22:57, Mark Richards wrote:
>
>
>>No one has ever heard of it.
>>Deletion is much more fun.
>>
>>
>I think people need to realise that deleting something does not improve WP. On
>the other hand, re-writing an article does improve WP. I imagine people
>prefer deletion because it is easier or because they enjoy "being a cop".
>
Ahh!  The thrill of police brutality.

Ec


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Wikitech-l] Go

body: I propose to change the buttons from "Go", "Search" to "Go, "Chess"  ;-)


body:
Rowan Collins wrote:
>>Users can probably part of several groups.
>
> This sounds like a good, solid approach. One thing that might be worth
> considering (you may not want to code it fully straight away, but
> maybe bear it in mind while designing the architecture, so that it's
> feasible) is defining relationships between groups. e.g.:
>
> * inheritance: Define permissions["Sysop"] = permissions["Logged in
> user"] + delete, undelete, protect, ...
> ** no need to explicitly change rights of all groups if you change the
> rights of a more general group; e.g. adding a globally usable Special:
> page shouldn't require changes to the permissions for group "Sysop" as
> well as group "Logged in user"
> ** another way of looking at this is: "Sysop" implies "Logged in user"
>
> * cumulative: Define permissions["Sysop"] = delete, undelete, protect
> ** leave the wiki-organiser to assume that all users with "Sysop"
> status will also have "Logged in user" status in order to do the more
> mundane tasks
> ** this is the easier way to go, and is useful anyway for things like
> permissions["trusted SQL-savvy user"]="Special:AskSQL" which shouldn't
> imply any other rights, just be added to them
>
> I hope this message isn't too waffly, and you get the general drift of
> what I'm on about. Like I say, these are mainly just eventual aims to
> keep in mind since you're essentially designing from scratch, rather
> than immediate to-do items.

Hello,

Actually each group need to be assigned every needed rights. There is
nothing like inheritance / cumulation. So one have to:

Anonymous = permission(read)
LoggedIn = permission(read, write)
Sysop = permission(read, write, delete)
Bureaucrat = permission(makesysop)

This way bureaucrat account is only to make sysop.

We want 1.4beta to be out by the end of the year and I personally would
like to get the user right system in 1.4 (as it's a big new feature).
As I am slowly coding it, I will try to keep it as simple as possible
and then we can enhance it with inheritance later in 1.4.x versions .

cheers,

--
Ashar Voultoiz - WP++++
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hashar


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: [Fwd: Re: Wikizionario e-mail]

body:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> Can someone please do something with this ??
>    Thanks, GerardM
>
> PS also asked as per standard on Commons:Non-development tasks for
> developers
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject:     Re: Wikizionario e-mail
> Date:     Wed, 20 Oct 2004 12:53:07 +0000
> From:     rfrangi at coopetition.it <rfrangi at coopetition.it>
> To:     GerardM <gerardm at myrealbox.com>
>
>
>
> Hi GerardM,
> if you already know someone to contact and can arrange it would be nice.
> Otherwise can you direct me to someone to contact?
>
> The name spaces should be as follows:
> for it.wiktionary.org -> Wikizionario
> for it.wikiquote.org -> Wikiquote
> for it.wikibooks.org -> Wikibooks

[Adding rfrangi at coopetition.it to cc]

Hello Gerard,

I updated the sitename as proposed by rfrangi. Looks like it works :o)

cheers,

--
Ashar Voultoiz - WP++++
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hashar


from_name: Simon Pulsifer

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion and notability

body:
I don't post to the mailing list much, but deletion
has recently become an area of great interest to me.

First off I don't think VfD is "broken." I think it is
wonderful and in an ideal world every article would be
given as much scrutiny as those of VfD receive.  At
least 99% of deletion decisions are valid.

I do, however, see some worrying trends. My concern is
over the issue of notability.  In the past the
articles listed on VfD were there because they were
pure fiction, vanities, nonsense, or advertising. In
recent months, however, an increasing number of
articles are being listed because simply because they
are seen as not being notable enough for an
encyclopedia.

This is despite there being nowhere in What Wikipedia
is not, Wikipedia:Deletion policy, or Wikipedia:Vanity
articles where articles on non-notable things listed
as being eligible for deletion.  There is no consensus
that things that are well-known but not notable should
eligible for deletion.

Originally non-notable things and people were not
deleted simply because they were not well known, but
rather because articles on non-famous individuals,
neologisms, garage bands, etc. are unverifiable and
prone to bias.  Over time "non-notable things should
be deleted because they inevitably violate Wikipedia's
goal of a neutral and high quality encyclopedia" was
simplified to just "non-notable things should be
deleted."  With the original reasoning being lost the
definition for what is not notable has increasingly
been set by wholly arbitrary criteria.  There are at
least two users, for instance, who today vote to
delete anything to do with fictional worlds and the
only justification they feel is necessary is to
declare these things "not notable" or "fancruft".

For the most part things that are well known, but
considered by some not to be notable, do not get
consensus for deletion. Those not getting deleted are
also a problem because they clog VfD and waste
everyone's time.  Those occasional ones that do
receive consensus for deletion are an even greater
problem because content is being removed from
Wikipedia counter to existing policy and against the
consensus of all but the small VfD community.

There has been an attempt to add lack of notability as
a reason for deletion (see [[Wikipedia:Importance]]).
This effort seems to have failed and there is no
current policy for deleting non-notable things, other
than vanity articles.

I have recently been doing the majority of the
removing of articles from VfD/Old.  I am no longer
going to delete articles that receive consensus for
deletion purely because they are not notable.  Rather
I propose moving them to [[Wikipedia:List of articles
awaiting a policy to be deleted]]. Articles that do
not meet any of the 30 criteria listed on What
Wikipedia is not and the Deletion policy page should
be set aside.  When and if new policies are worked out
that provide a justification for deleting these
articles they can then be quickly deleted.

- SimonP

___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!  http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com


from_name: Phil Sandifer

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion and notability

body:
This page has no basis in any deletion policy, which says nothing about
criteria for deletion on VfD. It notes only that rough consensus on VfD
is grounds for deletion.

-Snowspinner

On Oct 22, 2004, at 12:44 PM, Simon Pulsifer wrote:

> I don't post to the mailing list much, but deletion
> has recently become an area of great interest to me.
>
> First off I don't think VfD is "broken." I think it is
> wonderful and in an ideal world every article would be
> given as much scrutiny as those of VfD receive.  At
> least 99% of deletion decisions are valid.
>
> I do, however, see some worrying trends. My concern is
> over the issue of notability.  In the past the
> articles listed on VfD were there because they were
> pure fiction, vanities, nonsense, or advertising. In
> recent months, however, an increasing number of
> articles are being listed because simply because they
> are seen as not being notable enough for an
> encyclopedia.
>
> This is despite there being nowhere in What Wikipedia
> is not, Wikipedia:Deletion policy, or Wikipedia:Vanity
> articles where articles on non-notable things listed
> as being eligible for deletion.  There is no consensus
> that things that are well-known but not notable should
> eligible for deletion.
>
> Originally non-notable things and people were not
> deleted simply because they were not well known, but
> rather because articles on non-famous individuals,
> neologisms, garage bands, etc. are unverifiable and
> prone to bias.  Over time "non-notable things should
> be deleted because they inevitably violate Wikipedia's
> goal of a neutral and high quality encyclopedia" was
> simplified to just "non-notable things should be
> deleted."  With the original reasoning being lost the
> definition for what is not notable has increasingly
> been set by wholly arbitrary criteria.  There are at
> least two users, for instance, who today vote to
> delete anything to do with fictional worlds and the
> only justification they feel is necessary is to
> declare these things "not notable" or "fancruft".
>
> For the most part things that are well known, but
> considered by some not to be notable, do not get
> consensus for deletion. Those not getting deleted are
> also a problem because they clog VfD and waste
> everyone's time.  Those occasional ones that do
> receive consensus for deletion are an even greater
> problem because content is being removed from
> Wikipedia counter to existing policy and against the
> consensus of all but the small VfD community.
>
> There has been an attempt to add lack of notability as
> a reason for deletion (see [[Wikipedia:Importance]]).
> This effort seems to have failed and there is no
> current policy for deleting non-notable things, other
> than vanity articles.
>
> I have recently been doing the majority of the
> removing of articles from VfD/Old.  I am no longer
> going to delete articles that receive consensus for
> deletion purely because they are not notable.  Rather
> I propose moving them to [[Wikipedia:List of articles
> awaiting a policy to be deleted]]. Articles that do
> not meet any of the 30 criteria listed on What
> Wikipedia is not and the Deletion policy page should
> be set aside.  When and if new policies are worked out
> that provide a justification for deleting these
> articles they can then be quickly deleted.
>
> - SimonP
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW
> Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
> http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: John Lee

subject: [WikiEN-l] Drive-by deletion

body:
I disagree. The anon should have explained how it was relevant already,
through the entry. If the entry shows no sign of notability, it should
be VfDed.

What frustrates me the most about the current process is the lack of an
intermediary stage between speedy deletes and VfDs. We get articles
which are 100% delete on VfD, so having them there is a waste of time,
processor cycles, whatever. But if we speedy them, then anthony and the
inclusionist gang whine up our asses to restore them, as deleting them
wasn't in line with policy. And I agree. I only speedy the real crap,
the real stuff that is 100% proven unencyclopedic, such as entries made
up of phrases such as "i do pot", "i am in love with u", "green cheese",
obvious user tests, etc. (contrary to what many inclusionists have
claimed, there are *many* articles created everyday which are clearly
unworthy of inclusion)

I believe if we got some intermediary stage of deletion up, it would
solve a lot of our woes regarding this. Basically it would be a
condensed version of VfD - perhaps with a period of time lasting only
two or three days. The moment an article gets a single keep vote, it
goes to VfD. If by the time is up there has not been a single keep vote,
then there's obviously no point in keeping it, is there? That way, we
don't speedy dubious entries, we don't waste time and effort keeping
obvious bunk entries on VfD for a full week, and everyone's happy.

John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])

Mark Richards wrote:

>Yes, the red links give away the deletion, but there
>is no way to know WHAT was deleted. I do not agree
>that the author of the article should be responsible
>for explaining why it is relevant - I believe the
>would be deletor should have to prove why it fits the
>criteria for deletion.
>
>I also think that one week is not enough. The problem
>is that too many articles are listed inapropriately,
>not the speed of the process.
>
>Mark
>
>--- "J.F. de Wolff" <jfdwolff at doctors.org.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Mark Richards wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Yes, rapid fire drive-by-deletion is out of
>>>
>>>
>>control.
>>
>>
>>>People list articles within minutes of their
>>>
>>>
>>creation,
>>
>>
>>>without doing even basic due dilligence to see
>>>
>>>
>>whether
>>
>>
>>>they meet the criteria for deletion.
>>>Mark
>>>
>>>
>>The problem is that Vfd is presently very slow (one
>>week is really very
>>long). Also, if the math articles are legit, the
>>author should aim to make
>>as clear as possible how relevant it is! Sometimes a
>>few words are enough
>>to give some context.
>>
>>Btw the presence of many red links is a good
>>predictor of an article's VfD
>>death :-)
>>
>>
>>JFW
>>
>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>WikiEN-l mailing list
>>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
>http://vote.yahoo.com
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>


subject: [Wikitech-l] Error in page render

body:
I've tried to reset [[Monobook.js]] page but the problem is the same.
I've also checked other messages that I've modified yesterday but I've not
resolved yet.

Giovanni Putignano

> There are a few errors in your [[Monobook.js]]
> (http://www.programmiamo.it/wiki/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Monobook.js)
that can be fixed by
> properly escaping single quotes. E.g., change this line
>
>   ta['ca-edit'] = new Array('e','Puoi modificare questa pagina. Usa
l'anteprima prima di
> salvare.');
>
> to
>
>   ta['ca-edit'] = new Array('e','Puoi modificare questa pagina. Usa
l\'anteprima prima di
> salvare.');


list: wikipedia-l

subject: [Wikipedia-l] tlh and gu logos updated

body:
Hello,

Wikipedia servers are now updated to use the new logos for tlh: and gu:

--
Ashar Voultoiz - WP++++
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hashar


subject: [Wikitech-l] Go

body:
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 20:50:25 +0300, NSK <nsk2 at wikinerds.org> wrote:
> 1. A Search Box with the following elements in it:
...
> 5. A "Random page" link under the link above.
> 6. The "Random page" link will be removed from the navigation box to make room
> for something else or to remove excessive cluttering

I don't see how "Random page" can really be classed as "search";
whereas the link's current location, under the heading "navigation",
seems to make perfect sense to me; so why move it? If it ain't broke,
don't fix it!

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Stopping too speedy deletions

body:
Eric B. and Rakim wrote:

> csherlock:
>
>> Firstly, deleted articles are not permanently deleted. We can retrieve
>> them. See [[Wikipedia:Undeletion policy]]. Secondly, if an admin is
>> making consistent deletions and not listening to others, they can be
>> de'sysoped after a request from other wikipedia editors. Just go talk to
>> the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee]]. See also
>> [[Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator_abuse]].
>
>
> Ok. Lets talk about reality. :) Will something happen to the admin who
> deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geno%27s_steaks that Anthony
> DiPierro mentioned? A reprimand even? Or what about the unjust deletions
> that Charles Matthews spotted? Does anyone even know which admins did
> the deletions?
>
> I'm not bloodthirsty, just think that something has to be done. In this
> case someone should tell the admins "You really shouldn't do that.". So
> that it stops.
>
> To those who realise too speedy deletions is a problem, but do not like
> my proposal: Do you have a better idea?

Yes, let's look at reality. The deletion log says that Theresa Knott
speedily deleted this entry. Do you have any evidence that Theresa has
done this consistently and frequently? Have you left a message on her
user page asking her to consider not removing deletions so quickly but
put them on VfD, as is per policy? (I notice, incidently, that Theresa
realised her mistake and restored the deletion). Also, Charles Matthews
has also not mentioned specifically what the article names were that
were deleted. I can't investigate unless I know the article names! I
can't even check the deletion log because there are far too many
entries. I'm not saying it didn't happen, however perhaps if he were to
say what articles were deleted without consensus from VfD then we would
be able to look into these issues further.

All the talk of injustice here is really quite silly, IMO. Do you have
hard figures and a long list of abuse by numerous administrators? I
never saw much of an issue before I became an admin, and I was working
on the board for quite some time and (apparently) contributed over 5,000
edits in that time. Another thing I'd like you to consider is that these
instances of an administrator causing issues quite possibly might be
examples of honest mistakes. If you notice these things happening, and
you feel a bit off-put but don't want to confront an administrator, I'm
quite happy to talk to the administrator who made the deletion. My
username is Ta bu shi da yu. We are mostly all reasonable people who
want Wikipedia to succeed. There is no need for such a fuss! I'm quite
sure we can work things out and resolve these issues amicably.

My only other comment is that perhaps administrators need some more
education and help with admin'ing. Maybe an administrator's
messageboard, along the lines of the Irish and Australian Wikipedians'
messageboard would do the trick? Currently, apart from the mailing list
which I only check off and on, we don't have such a forum that I am
aware of.

TBSDY


subject: [Wikipedia-l] namespaces changes (da: it:)

body:
Hello,

As requested on meta:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Non-development_tasks_for_developers

I made the following changes to the sitename (which is also the project
namespace):

da.wikibooks -> Wikibooks
it.wiktionary -> Wikizionario
it.wikiquote -> Wikiquote
it.wikibooks.org -> Wikibooks

If any community need such a change, please post the request on meta:
  http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Non-development_tasks_for_developers

cheers,

--
Ashar Voultoiz - WP++++
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hashar


subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: Slaves out of sync

body:
Posted to the Wikipedia misc. list.

TBSDY

> I've just heard that ariel, our master DB server, recently ran out of
> disk space. Writes to the binlogs stopped but it kept committing to
> its local disk, thereby putting all the slaves irreversibly out of
> sync. This is a nasty failure mode that we previously weren't aware
> was possible.
>
> To resync the slaves, we will have to put the site into read-only
> mode for maybe 6-12 hours. I'm hoping this will be done as soon as
> possible, because in the meantime, we will have poor performance. The
> slaves used to share the read load. Also, if ariel dies, we'll be
> down to periodic backups, meaning data loss and days of downtime.
>
> Search will be disabled until the slaves are resynced, and other
> emergency optimisation measures such as watchlist caching might also
> need to be used.
>
> -- Tim Starling


from_name: NSK

subject: [WikiEN-l] Drive-by deletion

body:
On Friday 22 October 2004 16:36, John Lee wrote:
> That was tried with Nupedia, Wikipedia's forefather. There's a reason
> why Wikipedia exists today and Nupedia doesn't, you know...

IMO the open "anything goes" model of WP is more suited for non-serious sites
that just accept anything. This kind of sites attract mostly the popular
masses that just want to push POVs or do something creative in their weekends
(i.e. they work just for their own satisfaction and not for the common good).

Sites that claim to be serious and wish to compete with Britannica need
motivated committed editors, proof readers, maintainers, sysops and policy
makers, i.e. organisation and structure. Serious sites should not be very
friendly to the uneducated masses (i.e. disallow anon editing) and rely
mostly on a small but very effective group of well-educated volunteers who do
their work for a greater good and not just for themselves. For example,
editing of scientific articles could be limited to university students or
holders of a B.Sc. degree. However, I do recognise that it is extremely
difficult to find this kind of volunteers and maintain a huge site only by
their own work.

--
NSK
Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org
Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org
Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org
Project Manager of http://maatworks.wikinerds.org


subject: [WikiEN-l] RE: Stopping too speedy deletions

body:
Eric B. and Rakim wrote:

> Andrew Lih:
>
>>
>> 1) This is quite contrary to Wikipedia's policy to "be bold"
>>
>> 2) Before instituting these hard metrics to de-admin someone, one
>> should have hard metrics indicating this is truly a problem. It's not
>> clear
>> it is.
>
>
> Wikipedia's policy to "be bold" only applies for non-admin actions.
> Deletions, bannings and other admin privilegied actions aren't
> included. Not even reversions part of "be bold" anymore I think. :)

I strongly disagree. An admin is basically just a registered user who
has proven himself/herself to have made excellent edits and conducted
himself/herself in an excellent manner. These "privileges" are just
extra actions made available to them. Just like how registered users
have a watchlist, permanent user talk page, etc. There's a reason why
admins can always override each other's actions. It's like a wiki within
a wiki. While users can revert one another, admins can have their own
dirty fights as well. There's little difference, just that most users
don't need to prove themselves to gain access to the powers they make
use of.

It's all part of the wiki philosophy. Be bold in everything. If you make
a mistake, learn from it. Purposely avoiding mistakes means you will
never learn. I'm not condoning the actions of admins who devalue the
powers given to them, but there's a reason why admins can always undo
one another's actions.

>
> Is this truly a problem? I don't know and it is impossible for someone
> without adminship to ever find out. But considering the number of
> mailing list posts that pop up it seem to be a problem.

We're a large community. Statistics show that there will always be
problems. The more people in a community, the more the problems. Show me
some cold hard numbers, then we can talk.

>> Unfair; sysops who do a lot of speedy deletions are more likely to be
>> awarded "points".
>> It's the ratio of mistakes to good actions that counts, not the number
>> of mistakes.
>
>
> When someone goes to a trial IRL, he or she can't say "But look! I
> gave the children presents! Doesn't that make up for I robbed a bank?"
>
> Or to put it in Wikipedia terms; A productive writer will be banned
> just as fast as a non-productive one if both continue to personal
> attack their peers.

Your analogy is fatally flawed. Robbing a bank is an intentional action;
deleting an article of dubious status is not necessarily so. Rather, a
correct analogy would be, "Ok, so maybe I had a mishap while driving.
But I've been a good driver for 20 years." Don't courts give lesser
sentences for good conduct? Don't prison systems have parole for those
who conduct themselves in a good manner? Your analogy doesn't wash;
robbing a bank is not tantamount to deleting an article one wasn't sure
about.

>
> Ideally, the system maybe should include good deeds too. But that
> would make it way to complicated. Besides, the number of points needed
> for de-adminship would have to be so sufficently large that it would
> only affect those admins that repeatedly have failed and not learnt
> from their mistakes.

So basically, assume I've been an admin for 10 years. I've speedy
deleted a million articles (considering how fast we're growing, not
unlikely). Maybe 5% of them were wrong. That's 50,000 articles. I'd get
in trouble anyway. Your proposed system rewards admins who chicken out
of speedy deletes. Even if 95% of their deletes were on the level, they
get in trouble for the other 5%, which were easily restored by other
admins. I'm sure we've all, as editors, made mistakes in at least 5% of
our edits. Have we gotten in trouble for these mistakes? No, people just
reverted our mistakes, and kept going. This is a wiki. There's no big
deal as long as the admins are self-patrolling, which they are, since
all admins can undo the actions of other admins.

>
> csherlock:
>
>> Firstly, deleted articles are not permanently deleted. We can retrieve
>> them. See [[Wikipedia:Undeletion policy]]. Secondly, if an admin is
>> making consistent deletions and not listening to others, they can be
>> de'sysoped after a request from other wikipedia editors. Just go talk to
>> the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee]]. See also
>> [[Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator_abuse]].
>
>
> Ok. Lets talk about reality. :) Will something happen to the admin who
> deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geno%27s_steaks that Anthony
> DiPierro mentioned? A reprimand even? Or what about the unjust
> deletions that Charles Matthews spotted? Does anyone even know which
> admins did the deletions?

Why should they be reprimanded for an honest mistake? As long as they
realise it's a mistake, scolding or rebuking them is not necessary any
more than chiding an anon who realises his mistake and apologises for
creating a substub. Again, this is a wiki. We are self-policing.

> To those who realise too speedy deletions is a problem, but do not
> like my proposal: Do you have a better idea?

Yes, I do. See my other recent mail to the list.


subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki licensing

body:
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 20:20:23 +0300, NSK <nsk2 at wikinerds.org> wrote:
> Note: All copyright holders should agree with this. How many (C) holders are
> there?

That may not be an easy question to answer, let alone actually turn
into a list of contact details for permission. For instance, I'm
pretty sure there's the odd snippet of code that I wrote in there [and
if not, I hope there will be soon ;)] which will have been checked in
to CVS by someone else - but as far as I know, this doesn't mean I've
assigned my share of the copyright to that person, or released it to
the public domain. I'm not sure what kind of search would definitively
identify all such minor contributors, and unless I'm mistaken, that
would be required for a fully legal re-licensing.

Not that I'm stating an opinion for or against alternative licensing,
it's just that *to my understanding* a fully legal re-licencing of a
collaborative project where contributors haven't been made to reassign
copyright is more than a little tricky. The same problem has caused
much consternation amongst those who believe the GFDL is unnecessarily
restrictive for Wikipedia's content.

Out of interest, why is it that the GPL doesn't fit your needs?

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

body:
Thanks Ashar :)
Great job.

Thanks,
    Gerard

Ashar Voultoiz wrote:

> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>
>> Hoi,
>> Can someone please do something with this ??
>>    Thanks, GerardM
>>
>> PS also asked as per standard on Commons:Non-development tasks for
>> developers
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject:     Re: Wikizionario e-mail
>> Date:     Wed, 20 Oct 2004 12:53:07 +0000
>> From:     rfrangi at coopetition.it <rfrangi at coopetition.it>
>> To:     GerardM <gerardm at myrealbox.com>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi GerardM,
>> if you already know someone to contact and can arrange it would be
>> nice. Otherwise can you direct me to someone to contact?
>>
>> The name spaces should be as follows:
>> for it.wiktionary.org -> Wikizionario
>> for it.wikiquote.org -> Wikiquote
>> for it.wikibooks.org -> Wikibooks
>
>
> [Adding rfrangi at coopetition.it to cc]
>
> Hello Gerard,
>
> I updated the sitename as proposed by rfrangi. Looks like it works :o)
>
> cheers,
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion and notability

body:
I think the fact that Wikipedia describes itself as "The Free
Encyclopedia" provides a somewhat convincing reason to be an
encyclopedia.

-Snowspinner

On Oct 22, 2004, at 7:02 PM, NSK wrote:

>> On Oct 22, 2004, at 12:44 PM, Simon Pulsifer wrote:
>> I do, however, see some worrying trends. My concern is
>> over the issue of notability.
>
> There is absolutely no reason why WP should try to become an
> encyclopedia. In
> my site wikinerds.org I use the term "knowledge base" to describe my
> wikis,
> meaning that any kind of knowledge is accepted there.
>
> I suggest WP to do the same: Stop trying to compete with Encyclopaedia
> Britannica and become a "neutral factual verifiable knowledge base".
>
> I should also note that many WP articles in scientific and technical
> subjects
> have so little information that they are useful only to the general
> public
> who is totally ignorant of such things, while the scientists and
> technologists who have the knowledge will probably think that WP "is
> just
> another popular non-scientific site" and turn to other more specialised
> resources. WP should try to become less popularistic (articles in
> musical
> albums and movies shine, but many articles on hard science and
> technology
> just aren't good).
>
> --
> NSK
> Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org
> Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org
> Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org
> Project Manager of http://maatworks.wikinerds.org
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


references:
<75b85fe40410210011c25d2c4@mail.gmail.com>
	<clb8g0$d7d$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<9f02ca4c04102208417c9a1788@mail.gmail.com>
	<clbcf9$pn9$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
> Actually each group need to be assigned every needed rights. There is
> nothing like inheritance / cumulation. So one have to:
>
> Anonymous = permission(read)
> LoggedIn = permission(read, write)
> Sysop = permission(read, write, delete)
> Bureaucrat = permission(makesysop)
>
> This way bureaucrat account is only to make sysop.

Actually, I think this is probably like my "cumulative" approach, I
just didn't explain it very well; what I meant is that if a user is
assigned to two groups, they will gain both sets of rights:
* User:A has group "Sysop" -> permission(read, write, delete)
* User:B has groups "Sysop", "Bureaucrat" -> permission(read, write,
delete) + permission(makesysop)
Or do you mean that a bureaucrat would actually need to log out and
then log in with a different account which could make sysops but not
edit pages?

By the way, any chance that while we're redesigning we can be
consistent with terminology and get rid of this "An Administrator is
someone with Sysop status" nonsense in favour of just calling the
status flag "Admin"? [I know, this isn't as uncontroversial as I'm
making out, it's just a personal bug-bear]

> We want 1.4beta to be out by the end of the year and I personally would
> like to get the user right system in 1.4 (as it's a big new feature).
> As I am slowly coding it, I will try to keep it as simple as possible
> and then we can enhance it with inheritance later in 1.4.x versions .

Agreed.

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


subject: [Wikitech-l] Error in page render

body:
> It's probably a caching issue. Try pressing CTRL-F5 in your browser to get
a fresh copy of the
> page. I did so, and I no longer receive the error message when viewing
>
>   http://www.programmiamo.it/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page

Thanks, now it works fine.

Giovanni Putignano


subject: [Wikipedia-l] slow hardware

body:
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 19:59:40 +0300, NSK <nsk2 at wikinerds.org> wrote:
> I notice that the WP site is very slow. I think WP is a victim of its growth.
>
> Have you thought of cooperating with some service like Coral? Or, you could
> just build your own version of it.

Various ways of distributing the server load are indeed always being
considered. If you look at the diagram on
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_servers you will see that
while not *geographically* distributed, the current system is not
exactly what you'd call "flat". :D

I believe further proposed enancements include the purchase of "squid"
proxy servers in different countries (I tihnk somebody was in the
process of trying this in France), with some kind of geographical
server selection. There was also talk of using something called "Super
Sparrow", or a similar solution, which is also related to this issue.

The biggest problem, though, and why we can't simply piggy-back a
general-use replication network like Coral seems to be, is that by its
very nature, Wikipedia content is not static, and it is imperative
that we can keep track of what version is being served to whom. In the
current setup, the software is able to flush out-of-date pages from
the various 'squid' caches when they are edited, so that things like
removal of vandalism won't take an arbitrary amount of time to filter
through to normal users. Any wider distribution system needs to retain
this per-article control.

Plus, a lot of the slow-down is from people using inherently
un-distributable features like editing pages, or refreshing their
watchlists. It *might* be possible to create some kind of
wikiP2Pedia[tm], where the database itself was more widely
distributed, but it would be no simple feat of software engineering...

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


from_name: Michael Snow

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Drive-by deletion

body:
John Lee wrote:

> I only speedy the real crap, the real stuff that is 100% proven
> unencyclopedic, such as entries made up of phrases such as "i do pot",
> "i am in love with u", "green cheese"

Okay, just please don't speedy delete [[Green Cheese missile]].

--Michael Snow


subject: [Wikitech-l] Go

body:
On Friday 22 October 2004 18:43, David Iberri wrote:
> That's unintuitive, IMO. Besides, we already have a "Random page" link in
> the toolbar.

You could remove that link and make space for something else.

--
NSK
Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org
Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org
Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org
Project Manager of http://maatworks.wikinerds.org


subject: [Wikipedia-l] slow hardware

body:
I notice that the WP site is very slow. I think WP is a victim of its growth.

Have you thought of cooperating with some service like Coral? Or, you could
just build your own version of it.

Dr. Stallman in his proposal for a universal learning resource explained why
this scheme is preferred.

--
NSK
Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org
Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org
Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org
Project Manager of http://maatworks.wikinerds.org


from_name: csherlock at ljh.com.au

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Fwd: Slaves out of sync

body:
Yow! I don't know how so many posts happened... sorry guys!

TBSDY

csherlock at ljh.com.au wrote:
> Posted to the Wikipedia misc. list.
>
> TBSDY
>
>> I've just heard that ariel, our master DB server, recently ran out of
>> disk space. Writes to the binlogs stopped but it kept committing to
>> its local disk, thereby putting all the slaves irreversibly out of
>> sync. This is a nasty failure mode that we previously weren't aware
>> was possible.
>>
>> To resync the slaves, we will have to put the site into read-only
>> mode for maybe 6-12 hours. I'm hoping this will be done as soon as
>> possible, because in the meantime, we will have poor performance. The
>> slaves used to share the read load. Also, if ariel dies, we'll be
>> down to periodic backups, meaning data loss and days of downtime.
>>
>> Search will be disabled until the slaves are resynced, and other
>> emergency optimisation measures such as watchlist caching might also
>> need to be used.
>>
>> -- Tim Starling


list: foundation-l

subject: [Foundation-l] servers

body:
Since you copied to me specifically... personally, I would prefer dual Opterons for web servers and have advocated that option. There are pros and cons to each option, so it's not an obvious choice either way and not something anyone is likely to get really unhappy about.

Pro-dual something:
*Less port and rack space use per box.
*One dual Opteron was tried and did well, hasn't been properly benchmarked so views on how well differ.

Con-dual something:
*We have a crude ping-type load balancing system at present and the single dual box initially grabbed a disproportionate amount of traffic until its priority was adjusted.
*Filling  rack with dual CPU 1U boxes is sometimes said to be unadvisable for heat/power reasons.
*We had single CPU P4s initially to get plenty of boxes so losing one single box wouldn't do much harm. Inertia favors buying more of the same, as does the load balancing issue.
*A bit more expensive per CPU. Whether that's worth it for performance isn't currently known.

There's also a fair bit of agreement that we're not really happy with the cost of 1U rackmount boxes compared to commodity systems when it comes to the page builders (Apaches). There's a fair chance that we would try the commodity supercomputer approach once we switch from renting racks to renting a room, which is likely to happen once we have filled the second rack. At that point the prices for a room and a rack are about the same and the room is more flexible.

The Opterons are used in part because 64 bit is mandatory to use more than 2GB of RAM for MySQL's InnoDB buffers. So, all database servers are likely to be dual Opteron until we have some pressing reason to switch. I don't recall anyone having a different view on this (though having written it, I'm probably about to find out that someone does disagree and I missed it or forgot it:)).

When it comes to donated equipment, we'd simply accept whatever was offered and raise the priority on getting the load balancing sorted out if necessary. There's work on that proceeding, though at a slow pace since it's not currently urgent.

It's rare for me to read the lists. I just happened to see your question after my mail rules broke and I was sorting by hand. BCCs are usually an unreliable way to attract my attention - the rules treat them like any other list post and file them in a place I'm unlikely to read. Please send a non-BCC copy to me if you really do need a my comments on something.


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] servers


subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki licensing

body:
Would you be willing to sell MediaWiki 1.3.7 (the stable version as published
in wikipedia.sf.net) or any next version, together with the MediaWiki
Handbook (as available from meta.wikipedia.org) under a license similar to
the modified BSD license? and for how much?

Note: All copyright holders should agree with this. How many (C) holders are
there?

--
NSK
Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org
Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org
Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org
Project Manager of http://maatworks.wikinerds.org


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: pi-eyed

body:
On Friday 22 October 2004 19:58, Henry H. Tan-Tenn wrote:
> I've never tried this: I suppose one could put the value itself in a
> template (protected) but leave the page proper open for annotation.

I think this is the best solution for all numbers that don't need to be
edited. I do like this idea.

--
NSK
Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org
Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org
Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org
Project Manager of http://maatworks.wikinerds.org


subject: [Wikipedia-l] slow hardware

body:
Sorry I forgot to include a link to Coral which is:
http://www.scs.cs.nyu.edu/coral/

--
NSK
Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org
Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org
Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org
Project Manager of http://maatworks.wikinerds.org


subject: [Wikitech-l] Go

body:
On Friday 22 October 2004 20:13, David Iberri wrote:
> Sure, but that doesn't make things any more clear for the casual user. The
> aptly-titled "Random page" link is very intuitive. But it's not at all
> obvious to a newbie that they can fetch a random page by clicking "Go".

I do recognise that it may be a bit unintuitive to the newbie, but some text
could be added under the search box to explain this feature.

--
NSK
Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org
Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org
Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org
Project Manager of http://maatworks.wikinerds.org


subject: [Wikitech-l] Error in page render

body:
On Friday 22 October 2004 20:17, David Iberri wrote:
> It's probably a caching issue. Try pressing CTRL-F5 in your browser to get

Depending on your browser you might need to press CTRL+R.

--
NSK
Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org
Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org
Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org
Project Manager of http://maatworks.wikinerds.org


subject: [WikiEN-l] Drive-by deletion

body:
Actually I was proposing something just like VfD, only with a shorter
turnover and a single keep vote moves it to the real VfD. So, generally,
yeah. That's not exactly what I had in mind, but come to think of it,
that's exactly what my proposal implies.

John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])

Jens Ropers wrote:

> On 22 Oct 2004, at 12:45, John Lee wrote:
>
>> I believe if we got some intermediary stage of deletion up, it would
>> solve a lot of our woes regarding this. Basically it would be a
>> condensed version of VfD - perhaps with a period of time lasting only
>> two or three days. The moment an article gets a single keep vote, it
>> goes to VfD. If by the time is up there has not been a single keep
>> vote, then there's obviously no point in keeping it, is there? That
>> way, we don't speedy dubious entries, we don't waste time and effort
>> keeping obvious bunk entries on VfD for a full week, and everyone's
>> happy.
>>
>> John Lee
>
>
> If I read you correctly you're proposing that the "middle road"
> semi-speedy deletion thing you're proposing there just lists nominated
> articles for a time and that no one actually should/need to vote to
> delete them there? I.e. delete votes are unnecessary as not-voted-on
> articles listed in that place would get deleted automatically and but
> a single "keep" vote would cause the case to be moved to VfD proper?
>
> I was initially opposed to yet another tool, but this one could
> actually work and take some strain off VfD.
> I've even got an idea what to call this thing: [[Wikipedia:Purgatory]].
>
> -- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]]
>     www.ropersonline.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Drive-by deletion

body:
That would be illegal screwing with VfD. Anthony has gotten into trouble
with this before; see his RFAr case. Although the arbitrators didn't
condemn straight keep voting (in other words, they didn't take issue
with him voting keep for every article proposed on VfD), they did make
it clear that voting against the general consensus without providing a
reason (the manner of voting, to use an arbitrator's phrase) is not
condoned.

So inclusionists who intend to sabotage such a process would have to be
handled somehow. All this is based on how I understood Anthony's case;
if I'm mistaken, please forgive and correct me.

John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])

sannse wrote:

> John Lee wrote
>
> >I believe if we got some intermediary stage of deletion up, it would
> solve a lot of our
> >woes regarding this. Basically it would be a condensed version of VfD
> - perhaps
> >with a period of time lasting only two or three days. The moment an
> article gets a
> >single keep vote, it goes to VfD. If by the time is up there has not
> been a single keep
> > vote, then there's obviously no point in keeping it, is there? That
> way, we don't speedy
> >dubious entries, we don't waste time and effort keeping obvious bunk
> entries on
> >VfD for a full week, and everyone's happy.
>
> This could be a really good idea. But... what's the betting that
> someone will make it a policy to vote "keep" to *every* nomination?
>
> Almost certain I would say
>
> --sannse
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [Wikitech-l] Go

body:
On Friday 22 October 2004 20:31, John Lee wrote:
> Sorry for butting in, but as a user, I personally think that

Hey, personally I don't think that you need to say "Sorry for ..." etc before
telling us your opinion, no matter whether you agree or disagree with others.
I believe more participation is good and more diversity in opinions is great.

That said, I think that it would be better to have this setup:

1. A Search Box with the following elements in it:
2. A text input box
3. A "Go" button after the text input box which first runs the "Go" code and
then the "Search" code, and includes a link "View more relevant search
results" somewhere where the full search results can be viewed.
4. An "Advanced Search" link under the text input box
5. A "Random page" link under the link above.
6. The "Random page" link will be removed from the navigation box to make room
for something else or to remove excessive cluttering

--
NSK
Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org
Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org
Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org
Project Manager of http://maatworks.wikinerds.org


subject: [Wikipedia-l] slow hardware

body:
On Friday 22 October 2004 20:40, Mark Williamson wrote:
> Wikipedia is almost never quite that slow, we were having some
> problems where all but one of the database servers were offline for a
> bit, thus the really sluggishly slowness.

You are right that WP is not always slow, but I had noticed that lately its
performance was depressing. Today it's better but not perfect, it is still
much slower than other websites.

In any case, I think the implementation of a distributed scheme is of great
importance.

--
NSK
Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org
Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org
Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org
Project Manager of http://maatworks.wikinerds.org


subject: [Wikitech-l] Go

body:
On Friday 22 October 2004 20:52, Rowan Collins wrote:
> I don't see how "Random page" can really be classed as "search";

The idea is that the navigation box should contain the most important/useful
links only.

Try putting in some additional links in navigation and you will notice it's
very cluttered.

There should never be too many links in a single box.

I think you could also have a box "secondary actions" with the "random page",
"help", "community portal", and such kind of links there, under the
"navigation" box.

--
NSK
Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org
Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org
Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org
Project Manager of http://maatworks.wikinerds.org