body:
On 4/22/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/22/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> >>  Under the Communications Decency Act
> > >which provides a general exemption from third party liability to
> > >online information providers, this exemption does not extend to
> > >liability for publication by agents of the provider.  A Wikipedia
> > >administrator who uses his special powers to publish defamatory
> > >content or copy copyright-infringing content would tend to advance the
> > >case against Wikipedia for third-party liability.
> > >
> > The fallacy there is in suggesting that all admins are agents of
> > Wikipedia.  There is nothing in any description of admins that allows
> > them to do anything on any site outside of a particular project.  A
> > Wikipedia admin does not thereby receive the right to be an admin on any
> > sister project or even on a Wikipedia in any other language.  Perhaps
> > you should review the meaning of "agent".
>
>
> I use the term loosely.  If someone entrusted with the ability to see
> unpublished content then uses that ability to cause it to be
> published, then the organisation's task of showing that it took
> reasonable steps to prevent publication is made more difficult, for it
> most demonstrate that it reasonably believed that this person would
> not do so.  If our admins are chosen through a popularity contest in
> which their loyalty to the aims and interests of the Foundation,
> rather than the community, is not examined, I think it would be very
> difficult to argue that such a belief was reasonable.  Basically we
> let any mutt off the street act as an administrator,  irrespective of
> his views on, or knowledge of liability, copyright, or anything else
> relevant, or his commitment to act in the interests of the Foundation.
>

I don't see any reason that Wikimedia has a responsibility to "take
reasonable steps to prevent the publication" of libelous information
in the first place.

In fact, I think the Foundation would be perfectly within its rights
to allow *everyone* to see the content of these allegedly libelous
historical versions.  In fact, considering the fact that most libelous
versions of articles are never deleted in the first place, to argue
otherwise would essentially make the entire concept of a wiki a legal
impossibility.

Anthony


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [WikiEN-l] Libel chill

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> If the recent dispute had been guided by these principles it might not
> have become as heated.  When a long-standing editor asks for an
> explanation, and is told to ask the lawyers we aren't reading the same
> page anymore.  It is quite understandable that people will react with a
> "Them's fightin' words" attitude.

I disagree quite significantly.  If a longstanding editor asks for an
explanation, and is told to ask the lawyers, I absolutely do NOT think
that it is understandable AT ALL that "them's fightin' words" is the
attitude in response.  That is just silly.  We've been working together
for a long time now.

I think Erik, in this case, would agree.  If the response had been
"Actually, Erik, do me a favor and leave this one protected, I can't
explain why at the moment, but please ask Brad if you need more
information, perhaps he can give it" then there would have been no
explosion.

> The person wielding the WP:OFFICE
> cudgel needs to be sensitive to the community as well as the
> complainant.  He needs to know from experience that any hint of secrecy
> underlying his actions will raise the temperature of flames by several
> degrees.

No, actually, I think the community understands that temporarily not all
information can always be made immediately public.

What got things wound up in this case was not the secrecy, but a wildly
disproportionate and unfair blocking and desysopping, when a
reprotection with a note of "Please ask me before unprotecting this one,
there are important issues here" would have done the job just fine.

--Jimbo


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Jay R. Ashworth

subject: [Wikitech-l] Dumps

body:
On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 05:32:19PM -0400, Ivan Krstic wrote:
> Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> [...]
> > Explaining to you why that is is such a large task that I almost
> > despair of attempting it.  But, short version: that's like saying "I'd
> > like to put a 900 horse Indy engine in my mini-pickup, because I think
> > I could haul a bigger trailer that way".
>
> Nonsense. As far as the raw amount of data goes, even the English
> Wikipedia can be handled by entry-level server hardware. What kills
> Wikipedia is the volume of requests, and there's no reason to believe
> that the OP will get even a fraction of Wikipedia's; there's nothing
> inherently wrong with his idea.

Yeah, but the *traffic* is part of the reason why the 'pedia is
*useful*; it's Metcalfe's Law incarnate.  Pinching it off, and
particularly to be "just another feature" on some other website...?

Well, why bother?

> Mark Jaroski wrote:
> > That's almost a better comparison with the nearly half a
> > million article WP database.
>
> The English Wikipedia alone has close to 1.1 million articles.

I guess at that scale, it doesn't matter as much if that's
only the main namespace.

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274

     A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
     Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

     A: Top-posting.
     Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet and in e-mail?


list: textbook-l

subject: [Textbook-l] Wikibooks - removal of games walkthrough books

body:
We have to draw a line somewhere, and we can argue internally endlessly
without getting much resolution.  So a useful technique is to try really
hard to reference some external standards.

> 1. What about guides to games that are not video or computer games?
> These can include guides on how to play chess and go (which we already
> have), bridge, whist, etc.. together with suitable strategies;
> conceivably this may also include more modern games such as risk or
> monopoly or cluedo. To my mind, guides on well-known intellectual games
> such as these have educational value and are worth keeping, but your
> comments would be welcome.

My question would be whether or not there exist classes at accredited
institutions on the subject which use something similar _as a textbook_.

Notice how this works: first, we can be quite broad in what constitutes
a textbook, for example at my sister's cooking school, they use a
cookbook for a textbook, no question.

But in virtually every university, there are classes on Shakespeare
which use Hamlet as material, but not as _textbook_ per se.

I am unaware of any course at any accredited institution which teaches
risk or monopoly or clue.  Chess and go, probably, but I actually don't
know.  Doom?  No.

> 2. Your comments included a direct reference to wikibooks having
> textbooks suitable for "elementary school, high school, or college
> courses" (and I'm not sure what age groups you meant by "college" as it
> seems to mean different things in the US from what it means in the UK).
> I trust this list was not meant to be exhaustive and that you would
> agree that textbooks related to professional learning (eg accountancy),
> adult learning (eg cookery) and (if not covered by "college") university
> learning are suitable for wikibooks.

Yes!  I think we should be quite broad about it.  The key point is that
there have to be some kind of courses offered by some kind of serious
institution of learning.

--
#######################################################################
#    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
#    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
#######################################################################


from_name: Ivan Krstic

subject: [Wikitech-l] Dumps

body:
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
[...]
> Explaining to you why that is is such a large task that I almost
> despair of attempting it.  But, short version: that's like saying "I'd
> like to put a 900 horse Indy engine in my mini-pickup, because I think
> I could haul a bigger trailer that way".

Nonsense. As far as the raw amount of data goes, even the English
Wikipedia can be handled by entry-level server hardware. What kills
Wikipedia is the volume of requests, and there's no reason to believe
that the OP will get even a fraction of Wikipedia's; there's nothing
inherently wrong with his idea.

Mark Jaroski wrote:
> That's almost a better comparison with the nearly half a
> million article WP database.

The English Wikipedia alone has close to 1.1 million articles.

--
Ivan Krstic <krstic at fas.harvard.edu> | GPG: 0x147C722D


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Anthere

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Indefinite block and desysopping by User:Danny

body:
sannse wrote:

>>It would be *talking*.
>>
>>
>>Anthere
>
>
>
> Talking of talking... I wonder whether you have talked to Danny and the
> others involved in this to find out whether he /did/ talk to people
> before blocking Erik?

I know he did not talk to Erik
I hope he did not talk to too many people to lead to a collective
decision of blocking and unsysoping Erik on several projects, because it
would not be just a mistake in the heat of a tough action he had to
implement for the Foundation, but rather a planned cabal :-)

  By the reasoning above that seems a reasonable
> thing to do before condemning him for not doing so.  Baring in mind that
> he might feel that those conversations were confidential and that he is
> obliged not to pass on details of course.
>
> --sannse

Confidential conversations ?
Errrr...
To board members ?
Yeah

Sannse. I totally support Danny in what he did on the article itself. He
did it for the good of the project and the good of the Foundation. And
he did it upon the recommandation of one of our most trusted legal
counsellors. If that was not clear, I totally support that and I
absolutely trust Brad for the advice given.

However, what I object to is the fact of blocking undefinitly and mostly
unsysoping editors we have known for years (and who were trusted by
enough editors not so long ago that they could have been right now board
member instead of myself), for what seems to me either a mistake from
the editor, or more likely the willingness to make a point. I know it is
rather frowned upon to do something only to *make a point*. But bear in
mind that Danny was acting under his editor account to implement a
Foundation decision, which some editors are perfectly in their right
(imho) to object to.
Very few people have been unsysoped in the past years. When such a
decision was taken, it was really because of a very serious misdeed. And
never on several projects at a time.

I read carefully the emails of the past few days. I read three criticisms.
The first is that we should have talked to him privately only. The
second is that he was right to do that. The third you just raise is that
he might have reasons to behave this way which are confidential.

I will try to answer to these three reasons.

I know Danny is bold, bolder than I could ever be. I understand fully he
was under pressure and I can understand why he did so. That's okay.
But I do not agree. Could I have told him privately I did not agree ?
Certainly so.
But the fact is that everything Danny does in the name of the Foundation
is perceived as being approved by the Foundation. On the english
wikipedia, Danny is largely the hand and the voice of the Foundation.
I do not wish that editors feel that the Foundation can simply ban
forever and desysop on all projects someone just for making a point.
And if I simply told Danny that I disagree with this in private,
publicly, the Foundation would appear as supportive. Well, I let others
their opinion, but I *request* that it is respected that *I* am an adult
and *I* have the right to have an opinion. If I say nothing, it appears
I support something I object to in reality.

Collective does not mean stopping to have an opinion. It does not mean
keeping one's opinion for oneself and nodding obediently to what the
boss or to what the employee says.

My freedom of speech have been reduced considerably since I was elected
on the board. There should be a limit.

Second, boldness. Some of you consider what Danny did is fine. You are
perfectly entitled to think so. That's fine with me. I just have a
different opinion.

Third, confidentiality.
I will make it short. In this precise case, I feel I know enough of the
situation to understand why Danny did this. And as I already said above,
the action on the page was perfectly fine with me.
Now, if there are confidential reasons why he blocked and desysoped Erik
as the voice of the Foundation, I feel I should know them and I should
agree with them. The alternative is simply resignation from the board.

ant


subject: [Wikitech-l] Dumps

body:
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> Pinching it off, and
> particularly to be "just another feature" on some other website...?
> Well, why bother?

You're welcome to ask the Rhein Zeitung[0] or any of the other sites
that do this and find it a rather popular feature. Either way, you gave
an unnecessary, condescending reply to a very simple inquiry.

[0] http://lexikon.rhein-zeitung.de/

--
Ivan Krstic <krstic at fas.harvard.edu> | GPG: 0x147C722D


from_name: geni

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Unjustified block for 3RR by User:Freakofnurture of
	user:SSS1108 and user:Andries regarding [[Sathya Sai Baba]]

body:
On 4/22/06, Andries Krugers Dagneaux <andrieskd at chello.nl> wrote:
>
> I admit that user:SSS108 and I [[user:Andries]] have been edit warring
> about the article [[Sathya Sai Baba]], but none of us violated the three
> revert rule. There are many disagreements between us, but the latest
> revert war was about a totally new addition and was only two reverts
> old, so the blocking by [[User:Freakofnurture]] with the stated reason
> of violating the three revert rule was completely unjustified.
>
> Can you please unblock us? Thanks in advance.
>
> Sincerely yours, Andries Krugers Dagneaux [[user:Andries]]
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

You reverted twice on the 24th as well thus you have 4 reverts in 24 hours

--
geni


from_name: sannse

body:
Anthere wrote:

> Confidential conversations ?
> Errrr...
> To board members ?
> Yeah
>

No, they would likely not be confidential to you of course - which is
why I asked whether you had talked to him before publicly attacking him
(twice)

--sannse


from_name: trevor

subject: [Wikitech-l] Dumps

body:
Hi Everyone

I would like to know if there is someone who could setup the dumps on my site www.snoobab.com. I will pay for your time.

Thanks,

Trevor


subject: [Wikitech-l] Dumps

body:
On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 06:18:10PM -0400, Ivan Krstic wrote:
> Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> > Pinching it off, and
> > particularly to be "just another feature" on some other website...?
> > Well, why bother?
>
> You're welcome to ask the Rhein Zeitung[0] or any of the other sites
> that do this and find it a rather popular feature. Either way, you gave
> an unnecessary, condescending reply to a very simple inquiry.

I've never been afraid of being elitist, or wrong.

Though I don't think this reply was either.

But I'm stickin with "how does installing an always out of date copy of
something already available somewhere else on the web do anyone any good?"

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274

     A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
     Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

     A: Top-posting.
     Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet and in e-mail?


from_name: Andries Krugers Dagneaux

body:
I admit that user:SSS108 and I [[user:Andries]] have been edit warring
about the article [[Sathya Sai Baba]], but none of us violated the three
revert rule. There are many disagreements between us, but the latest
revert war was about a totally new addition and was only two reverts
old, so the blocking by [[User:Freakofnurture]] with the stated reason
of violating the three revert rule was completely unjustified.

Can you please unblock us? Thanks in advance.

Sincerely yours, Andries Krugers Dagneaux [[user:Andries]]


from_name: Platonides

subject: [Wikitech-l] Dumps

body:
What do you mean?
Providing you the ability of make dumps of your data or ''installing''
wikipedia dumps on your site?


list: foundation-l

from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject: [Foundation-l] Optional advertisement on wikipedia

body:
On 4/22/06, Tony Bruguier <tony.bruguier at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm new to this list, so please forgive me if I mess up. There's been
> some talk about advertisement on wikipedia or not. Why not make it
> optional, so that each user decides if he/she wants to see the
> advertisement? That way, users can "support" wikipedia or not. I don't
> think that'd be a sell out.

I think this is a fantastic idea, (although I'm sure it's been heard
before), especially if we defaulted it to off and made it a user
preference.

But there are a lot of other issues with advertising beyond the
community issues, such as the impact on the foundations charitable
non-profit status.

In any case, such a move might be a way to start further exploring
advertising without upsetting the community or bringing in enough
money to cause huge tax complications. It would also give editors who
don't donate money because they feel they already donate time a way of
helping out with the server bottom line. I suspect would avoid much of
the risk of donations going down because people believe we are ad
supported, although I don't have enough data to determine how many of
our donors are editors/have accounts. It would be nice to collect that
data in the future.

I'd guess the open questions would be:

1) How would this impact the charitable non-profit status of WMF?
2) Will the advertising programs be okay with only showing the ads to
some small fraction of our users?

Software wise this would be fairly straightforward to implement, and
could even be done to a limited extent by the users without developer
involvement (by inserting the advertising code in the users
monobook.js).


list: wikimedia-l


body:
-----Original Message-----
From: geni [mailto:geniice at gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 7:33 PM
To: English Wikipedia; andrieskd at chello.nl
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Unjustified block for 3RR by User:Freakofnurture
of
> Sincerely yours, Andries Krugers Dagneaux [[user:Andries]]
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

You reverted twice on the 24th as well thus you have 4 reverts in 24
hours

--
geni

I thought that the counter in the three revert rule would be reset to
zero if the revert is completely unrelated to other reverts, which was
clearly the case here, but I may be mistaken.

Andries


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [WikiEN-l] Ian McKellen's article - a challenge

body:
This is worth taking very seriously, not only as a complaint about an
unbalanced biographical article, but as informed criticism of
Wikipedia.

McKellen himself has a good deal of internet savvy and, during filming
of the Lord of the Rings movies, ran an excellent blog complete with
his own photographs taken during the production, and very well written
diary entries about the history and geography of the area of New
Zealand used for filming and production.  For a time it was my
favorite website to visit.  Looking at it again, I see that he now has
a very good autobiography up there.


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Indefinite block and desysopping by User:Danny

body:
On 22/04/06, Brian Salter-Duke <b_duke at octa4.net.au> wrote:
> I like to understand what is going on in some detail. Naturally I have
> wondered about whether I should at some point aim to become an administrator.
> What is going on here makes me think that I would need very strong persuasion
> indeed to even consider it. Basically one should not have to put up with what
> Erik has had inflicted on him. Now of course I have no problem with the

There are lots of good reasons not to put your hand up to become an
administrator. But to be fair, this was a really exceptional example,
and far from "par for the course".

HTH.

Steve


body:
On 22/04/06, Andries Krugers Dagneaux <andrieskd at chello.nl> wrote:
> I thought that the counter in the three revert rule would be reset to
> zero if the revert is completely unrelated to other reverts, which was
> clearly the case here, but I may be mistaken.

Yep, read the rules [[WP:3RR]] - 3 reverts to the same article,
regardless of relatedness. I agree, it's not totally intuitive, but
the goal as a whole is to reduce reverts, not to encourage game
playing.

Steve


body:
sannse wrote:
>
> Anthere wrote:
>
>
>>Confidential conversations ?
>>Errrr...
>>To board members ?
>>Yeah
>>
>
>
> No, they would likely not be confidential to you of course - which is
> why I asked whether you had talked to him before publicly attacking him
> (twice)
>
> --sannse

Of course, it is hard to guess what is confidential until one knows it
exists... unless one is prescient, which I am not.

I think... trust is not something which can be commanded. It exists or
it does not exist. I take my lesson on this and I take a break to
digest. I recommand you digest as well. There is a lesson for everyone here.

Florence (<---- not Anthere)


subject: [Wikitech-l] Dumps

body:
Hi

I would someone to install the dumps on my site. Basically I would like to
feature an encyclopaedia on my site. I would of course give all the credit
to Wikimedia. You are probably saying why not just link to them but this
would give my site a nice feature. I am a new site and looking for new
features to make my site be worthwhile for companies to advertise on. Any
improvements will be paid using paypal.

Many thanks,

Trevor

www.snoobab.com

---- Original Message -----
From: "Platonides" <Platonides at gmail.com>
To: <wikitech-l at wikimedia.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 7:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Dumps

> What do you mean?
> Providing you the ability of make dumps of your data or ''installing''
> wikipedia dumps on your site?
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wheel warring

body:
On 4/22/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
> On Apr 20, 2006, at 3:01 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> > How's this for a definition:
> > X blocks
> > Y unblocks
> >
> > If X disagrees with Y's unblock, then Y has wheel warred. If X
> > reinstates the block, then X has wheel warred too.
> >
> > This covers the situation where X makes a mistake and Y fixes it - X
> > agrees with the mistake, and no damage is caused. If Y fears that X
> > may accuse him of wheel warring, he shouldn't be undoing X's actions.
> > (or should be prepared for the consequences)
>
> I would argue that X has the prerogative to reblock here, since Y
> wheel-warred (something that should not have happened) and after
> something that should not have happened, it's generally acceptable to
> reinstate the status quo ante.

But X's block is clearly dissputed. Thus the status quo is no block.
Wikipedia defults to doing nothing.

--
geni


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Wheel culture (was:Indefinite block and
	desysopping...)

body:
On 4/22/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
> On Apr 20, 2006, at 2:53 PM, Kelly Martin wrote:
>
> > No, we don't.  50% of admin actions in March 2006 were performed by 29
> > of our nearly 900 admins; 90% by 170.  We could probably lose 500
> > admins without any real impact on our ability to get administrative
> > work done.  Note also that sending articles to AfD or prod doesn't
> > require an admin.
>
> Here's an interesting question: assuming those statistics are the
> same each month, is it the same 29 admins each month, or does it turn
> over? Some months/days I really dig into CSD and PROD backlog, other
> months/days I'm too busy with real life to devote that much time.

The top group are probably those killing pictures.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Why the uproar over wikitruth

body:
On 4/22/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>>  Under the Communications Decency Act
> >which provides a general exemption from third party liability to
> >online information providers, this exemption does not extend to
> >liability for publication by agents of the provider.  A Wikipedia
> >administrator who uses his special powers to publish defamatory
> >content or copy copyright-infringing content would tend to advance the
> >case against Wikipedia for third-party liability.
> >
> The fallacy there is in suggesting that all admins are agents of
> Wikipedia.  There is nothing in any description of admins that allows
> them to do anything on any site outside of a particular project.  A
> Wikipedia admin does not thereby receive the right to be an admin on any
> sister project or even on a Wikipedia in any other language.  Perhaps
> you should review the meaning of "agent".

I use the term loosely.  If someone entrusted with the ability to see
unpublished content then uses that ability to cause it to be
published, then the organisation's task of showing that it took
reasonable steps to prevent publication is made more difficult, for it
most demonstrate that it reasonably believed that this person would
not do so.  If our admins are chosen through a popularity contest in
which their loyalty to the aims and interests of the Foundation,
rather than the community, is not examined, I think it would be very
difficult to argue that such a belief was reasonable.  Basically we
let any mutt off the street act as an administrator,  irrespective of
his views on, or knowledge of liability, copyright, or anything else
relevant, or his commitment to act in the interests of the Foundation.

The recent fuss over Office actions demonstrates amply that even quite
well established administrators feel that they can challenge and
disregard the interests of the Foundation.


from_name: Redvers @ the Wikipedia

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fair use image galleries in articles

body:
Hi folks. I'd like to solicit your opinions of fair
use image galleries in articles.

In the area I edit in most (British television
history), many of the subjects have a long visual
history of changing logos and graphic design. This is
usually reflected in the illustrations in the
articles.

However, a couple of them - [[UTV]] and [[HTV]] for
instance - have grown little galleries of fair use
images at the foot of the article.

I see two potential problems here.

The first is that these stills are all taken from
various hobby sites on the subject. Whilst the hobby
sites don't hold the copyright on the images, they did
do all the hard work in capturing the images and
uploading them in the first place. They are often not
credited, and, if they are, they're rarely credited
with a clickable link (which would seem to be the
absolute least an uploader could do).

The second is that "fair use" clearly has limits -
somewhere. The current logo of a company is almost
always fair use. Previous logos, in context, are
likely to be fair use. But a gallery of 6 or 8 images,
without accompanying text, seems to be right on the
borders of fair use and senseless copyright
infringement.

I'm wary of taking this up directly with the editors
in question as people are remarkably attached to their
fair use images. Of the three people I've contacted in
the past about fair use images possibly being misused,
one changed usernames, one quit the 'pedia instantly
on the grounds that I was a pedantic fucking cunt (a
direct quote), and one blanked his talk page without
replying.

One day, fair use image policy is going to cause an
explosive RfC... but I'd rather my name wasn't on it.

:"REDVERS"

___________________________________________________________
Switch an email account to Yahoo! Mail, you could win FIFA World Cup tickets. http://uk.mail.yahoo.com


from_name: Mark Jaroski

subject: [Wikitech-l] Dumps

references:
<BAY24-DAV4ED55ACDB804A2A8DB777B6B80@phx.gbl>
	<e2dp4q$rke$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<BAY24-DAV86A64672DC80BB3D687AAB6B80@phx.gbl>
	<20060422175606.GB31083@cgi.jachomes.com>

body:
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> Explaining to you why that is is such a large task that I almost
> despair of attempting it.  But, short version: that's like saying "I'd
> like to put a 900 horse Indy engine in my mini-pickup, because I think
> I could haul a bigger trailer that way".

Why settle?  Rolls Royce makes a 29,000hp jet engine called
the E200.

That's almost a better comparison with the nearly half a
million article WP database.

--
--
=================================================================
-- mark at geekhive dot net --


from_name: Kernigh

subject: [Textbook-l] Vandalism at en.wikibooks

body:
Piotr "Derbeth" Kubowicz <derbeth at ...> writes:

> I don't see much sense in maintaining such list,
> we just block such accounts infinitely and can't do
> anything else.

I introduced the list as an alternative to Template:WoW
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Vandalism_in_progress#Template:WoW

-- [[Wikibooks:en:User:Kernigh]]
   http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User:Kernigh


body:
On 4/22/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
> On Apr 20, 2006, at 3:49 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> > Would it be worth asking less active admins to consider handing in
> > their mops, on the understanding that they can ask for them back
> > without having to go through RfA again? Just to keep the number of
> > mops out there down a bit?
>
> What's the point? Are we running out of mops?

It might reduce the risk of abuse of administrator powers such as that
which is apparently taking place on wikitruth.  I'm not convinced that
it's feasible, though.


body:
On 22/04/06, Will (Zsinj) Bumgarner <wbzsinj at gmail.com> wrote:
> What I don't understand is when people look themselves up and see
> erroneous information, they don't just go and fix it. It's as if they
> have something to prove by saying "Wikipedia sucks" instead of
> contributing to the effort and making Wikipedia better.

I've made this remark before, but anyway: Imagine you're a newbie to
Wikipedia. You end up there from google, clicking straight to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_mckellan . Now, tell me, what can you
see on the screen, as you read the article, tells you that you could
*right this instant* edit the article to fix any changes?

There is not the slightest indication. Only the bold text "edit this
page" in very small print up the top, in the sort of tab that most
people will filter out mentally. Even the tagline "From Wikipedia, the
free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit" got edited in favour of
stripping this simple fact out.

Most people have a vague idea that random internet people write
Wikipedia. Fewer would realise that they can, without any registration
at all, edit the page they're seeing, and get an instant result, right
now.

Steve


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Who wins

body:
On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 14:47:56 -0400, you wrote:

>The problem with libelous crap is not that, prior to Siegenthaler, we
>allowed it. It is that prior to Siegenthaler and continuing to the
>present, we have been insufficiently skilled at catching it and
>fixing it. We know and have always known what libelous crap looks
>like. We do not need to try to make a definition of verifiability
>that a trained monkey could follow - especially not when that
>definition is wrong.

I mostly agree.  We apply insufficient scepticism to critical comments
about some subjects - if it's fashionable to knock them, criticisms
get an easy ride.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


from_name: Brian Salter-Duke

body:
On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 09:17:13PM -0700, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Matt R wrote:
>
> >Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com>:
> >
> >
> >>On 4/20/06, Matt R <matt_crypto at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com>:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>That does not excuse reversion without discussion.  Even taking as an
> >>>>assumption that Danny had been acting on his own behalf, Erik's
> >>>>actions could easily have been the start of a wheel war, and were
> >>>>inappropriate by any reasonable standard.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>Yet, equally, that does not excuse the indefinite blocking of a
> >>>Wikipedian in
> >>>good-standing.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Except he wasn't an Wikipedian in good standing; he had attempted to
> >>start a wheel war.
> >>
> >>
> >What you are arguing is untenable. Even if we agree with your
> >interpretation that Erik was starting a wheel-war, an indefinite block was
> >not an appropriate reaction by any reasonable standard (to use your
> >phrase). We kick people off
> >the project in a limited set of circumstances: when it's clear that they
> >are hindering
> >us more than they are helping us. Danny, for all the good work that he no
> >doubt
> >does, did the wrong thing here. For him to acknowledge this in a public
> >forum would
> >be reassuring.
> >
> Danny's silence in this series of threads has been very loud.  He, more
> than anyone else, is in a position to quell the flames with one short post.

> Ec

I am not an administrator and have only been around since the last day
of October last year. I have been on this list for a few months because
I like to understand what is going on in some detail. Naturally I have
wondered about whether I should at some point aim to become an administrator.
What is going on here makes me think that I would need very strong persuasion
indeed to even consider it. Basically one should not have to put up with what
Erik has had inflicted on him. Now of course I have no problem with the
OFFICE block and I do not disagree one little bit with what Jimbo has said
recently, but neither he or Danny have given even a hint about why Erik's
block was justified or apologised if it was not. We do not want or need
the full story, but we do want a hint. Administrators are volunteers. The
mushroom principle should not apply here (keep people in the dark and
throw shit over them).

[[Bduke]]

--
         Brian Salter-Duke (Brian Duke) b_duke at octa4.net.au
       Post: 626 Melbourne Rd, Spotswood, VIC, 3015, Australia
    Phone 03-93992847. http://members.iinet.net.au/~linden1/brian/
Honorary Researcher Fellow, Dept. of Medicinal Chemistry, Monash Univ.


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's two kinds of material:
	"derivative/compiled" and "original/group-authored."

body:
On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 13:00:58 -0400, you wrote:

>On the other hand category "B" is where you find some of the material
>that can be found "only in Wikipedia," covering subject areas that
>aren't covered by other encyclopedias

If it can be found "only in Wikipedia" then it violates [[WP:NOR]].
There are things which can be found in no other encyclopaedia, but can
be found outside WP.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wheel warring

body:
On 22/04/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
> I would argue that X has the prerogative to reblock here, since Y
> wheel-warred (something that should not have happened) and after
> something that should not have happened, it's generally acceptable to
> reinstate the status quo ante.

At first glance that seems reasonable, if you accept my definition of
a wheel war being reverting an action in a way that the originating
admin wouldn't agree with.  But really, once that's happened, it would
be better for some third/neutral/senior admin to step in.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wheel warring

body:
On 22/04/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> But X's block is clearly dissputed. Thus the status quo is no block.
> Wikipedia defults to doing nothing.

We should probably keep this discussion general, about admin actions
in general. What if X's action was an unblock, for example? Or a page
unprotect...

Steve


body:
On 22/04/06, maru dubshinki <marudubshinki at gmail.com> wrote:
> Guideline, pretty sure.

Yep, [[WP:AUTO]]. IMHO we'd be better off with a strict "don't edit
your own article" policy, telling people to suggest changes on the
talk page. One reason is that by editing the page directly, you reduce
the ability of other people to shape your text for NPOV without
offending you.  For example, you add the sentence "Joe Bloggs's latest
film enjoyed considerable success in Asia and Australia". A separate
author might simple have written "Joe Bloggs' latest film was released
in Asia and Australia", but they wouldn't necessarily want to start a
discussion over it...

Basically, any time you edit your article directly, your feelings risk
being hurt, and that's going to affect the way other users behave. By
keeping you out of the article altogether, the normal wikipedia
processes can function better, while you provide input from the
sidelines.

Steve


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Foundation-l] Indefinite block and desysopping by User:Danny

body:
Michael R. Irwin wrote:

>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>
>>That's remarkably inconsistent of you.  You begin by complaining about
>>excessive secrecy then contradict yourself by supporting a piece of
>>totalitarian trash that would impose just that, notably in forbidding
>>people who have received information requests from letting anyone know
>>that they have received such requests.  When it comes to circumventing
>>laws the U.S. Patriot Act is fair game.
>>
>>
>Personally I think the wikimedia
>projects are quite valuable and useful in undercutting the
>justifications used for the activation of the totalitarian trash
>embodied in the Patriot Act.  Thus, IMHO, any contemplated acts of civil
>disobedience likely to bring swift and accurate reprisals from the
>powers that be in the U.S. are best done elsewhere away from wikimedia
>sponsored projects.   This is true whether you, I or others are good
>little wikimedians just wishing to avoid trouble at any price or all out
>patriots just itching to score some effective points on the
>totalitarians currently in charge.
>
Effective resistance is more a matter of opportunity than
premeditation.  If I have not been served with a gag order I can't
resist it.  I am not one of those who would avoid trouble at any price,
but manipulating circumstances for the sole purpose of spurring the
patriotism police into action is still trolling.

>If you are a U.S. voter I will point out that it is likely to be more
>effective voting representatives into office who will take out the
>totalitarian trash rather than resisting smart missiles launched by the
>U.S. military from hundreds of miles away or secret warrants or
>decisions made out of view of the public, allegedly for the benefit of
>the U.S. public.
>
Good luck!

>If you are not a U.S. citizen, I should point out that large social
>systems with lots of momentum often take large aggregate inputs and time
>to change course.  A choice to actively resist U.S.G. totalitarian trash
>may be a life or death altering decision that is effectively irrevocable
>for the next few decades or centuries.
>
Those of us outside the US see these things more clearly.  It's easier
to see the whole forest when you're standing outside of it.

>>>I suggest the community members present on the Foundation-L mailing list
>>>consider a placebo vote regarding whether the Wikimedia Foundation
>>>should issue an apology to Eric and reimburse him for the long distance
>>>calls necessary to recover his editing priveleges.
>>>
>>>
>>"Placebo vote" sounds like an interesting concept.  I interpret such a
>>vote as one designed to make people feel good without accomplishing
>>anything. :-)
>>
>>
>If it makes Eric aware that he is still a valued member of the larger
>local community of participants even after an alleged or actual error or
>two then it will have accomplished quite a bit.  There is no "edit
>boldly" or initiative without an occasional mistake.    This could
>probably be supported by reference to Murphy's law, thermodynamic
>maximization of entropy, original sin, or something if I were not
>feeling so lazy at the moment.
>
Perhaps "vote of confidence" might have been a better term.  Entropy in
a volunteer organization becomes manifest when it substitutes rules for
principles.

>People unfamilar with law as
>it is practiced in the United States have a tendency towards gullibility
>when a well educated lawyer in a crisp three piece suit getting paid big
>bucks gives them free advice.   ...  It turns out that a lawyer
>representing his client is apparently free (of consequences) to give
>others poor legal advice (lie or attempt to deceive people other than
>his client regarding matters of law) if it serves the interests of their
>official paying client or some other similar self serving mumbo jumbo.
>
There is an element of institutionalized chutzpah to it all.  Lawyers
play a large role in writing laws.  And what lawyer turned judge would
recuse himself for conflict of interest in a case that attacks the
privileges of his profession?

It's fascinating to observe how otherwise normal rebels who regularly
confront elitism in the professions will still pusilanimously pepper
their comments with "IANAL".

>Drat!  I forgot to ask whether his firm does business with Bomis or
>Wikia or other businesses owned, operated or invested in by members of
>the stacked Board.  Maybe next time.
>
>Hmm ... also forgot to ask whether he volunteers time as an editor at
>any Wikimedia projects or operates any investigatory sock puppets. ....
>Maybe the time after the next time minus negative three or four?
>
I think that I would prefer an approach that does not make one lawyer a
scapegoat for his entire industry.

>I guess what I should have or could have asked is:   In your
>professional opinion, would it reduce current or future legal
>liabilities and/or expenses if different guidelines (from the apparently
>nonexistent ones or the ones currently in use) regarding conflicts of
>interest or potential conflicts of interest were developed and
>implemented by the Wikimedia Foundation?
>
Is this really the stuff for lawyers' opinions?  In all fairness to
lawyers people who ask them questions are more often looking for
certainty instead of mere opinion.  A relatively honest lawyer after due
research may tell them that a certain course of action has a 99% chance
of not leading to a lawsuit, but the client is not satisfied with the 1%
risk so he rejects the more profitable course of action out of fear.  It
really comes down to people making decisions and accepting the
responsibility and consequences of those decisions without looking for
someone else (like a lawyer) to blame when things go sour.

>>I am often highly critical of the current management format, but I can
>>also see enough dangers in a totally democratic system to be wary of
>>such a model.
>>
>>
>I also would be skeptical of a "pure" "democracy" of one sock puppet one
>vote.    I doubt it is even feasible to set up such a structure up as a
>U.S. liability limited non profit or for profit corporation.  It is my
>understanding that U.S. law requires specific accountable points of
>contact when filing for the legal priveleges granted to regulated legal
>organizations.   However, there is a wide range of lattitude left to the
>individual registered organization in the U.S. regarding how they
>"manage" their own affairs within the constraints of the law.   The
>dichotomy of our current and past discussion alternating between
>unilateral bandwidthianism (the guy with control of the centralized
>editing bandwidth makes the rules) and total chaos (one sock puppet one
>vote) barely scratches the surface of the range of possibilities
>available in the good old USA.
>
U.S. corporate structures are governed by state law.  It says something
when a state like Delaware has corporate headquarters completely out of
proportion to its population.  Voting in profit corporations is
democratically on a one share one vote basis; you can buy as many
sockpuppets as you can afford.  I don't really have a solution to
suggest about how Wikimedia should be run.  In the early days there were
many sceptics who could not imagine such a scheme as viable, and look
where it ranks now within the top 20 websites in the world.  Wikiholics
(even just American ones) are not typical of their ambient populations.
It's a gang of people with insanely strong individual POVs trying to
bring NPOV to the world.  Go figure!

Ec


body:
On 22/04/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
> On Apr 20, 2006, at 3:49 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> > Would it be worth asking less active admins to consider handing in
> > their mops, on the understanding that they can ask for them back
> > without having to go through RfA again? Just to keep the number of
> > mops out there down a bit?
>
> What's the point? Are we running out of mops?

Yep. Or more to the point, the mop-provider is saying "when people
start actually using the mops, I'll give out some more" or something.
People make false assumptions based on the fact that we have 800 or so
admins. If we only had 100 admins, apparently we would still get
nearly as much work done, but people would make different judgments
about them.

Fwiw, I don't have a problem with having marginally active admins. But
you do relatively often see comments like "we already have 800 admins,
we don't really need any more", to which someone always replies "see
the copyvio backlog". That discussion *would* work better if there
were only 100...

Steve


from_name: Alvaro

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Subject: Re:  Indefinite block and desysopping by,
	User:Danny

body:
Merci, Anthere, to have put an end to this psychodrama.
I expect everyone will get lessons for the future from all of that ;D

Alvaro


subject: [WikiEN-l] Libel chill

body:
On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 16:52:15 -0400, you wrote:

>WP:OFFICE should be done publicly.  I am certain that at least old time
>Wikipedians would have enough of a clue to not act like jerks if we
>can't explain right away what is going on.

I think this is a valid point.  Many of us new boys see WP in a
fundamentally different way from how the old-timers see it.  There are
two ways this can go: the newbies come to realise that they are not in
a free-speech free-for-all, or the policies change.  I hope the former
prevails.  I have learned much from watching old-time Wikipedians at
work; if we lose sight of the fact that Wikipedia is supposed to be an
encyclopaedia, it will become - well, something less.

I was a researcher on H2G2 for a long time.  I became frustrated with
the bureaucratic process of publishing and peer review - but actually
it was quite good at preventing crap form being published in the
edited Guide.  It was just frustratingly slow to get updates
recognised.  WP is much better in that respect, but it's also a lot
easier for POV pushers and obsessives like YTMNDers to hijack
articles.  I wish I had an answer.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wheel warring

body:
On 22/04/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
> An unblock or unprotect cannot exist without a block or protect.
> Unblocks and unprotects are by definition reversions.

Hmm. Admin A protects a page then forgets about it. Two weeks later,
Admin B notices the error and unprotects it. Admin C quickly jumps on
him, and reprotects it. You're not going to argue that B is at fault,
while C is simply restoring order in the force, are you...

(again my definition works: A would not object to B's action, hence B
is not WWing. But B would object to C's action, so C is WWing).

Steve


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

body:
On 4/22/06, Will (Zsinj) Bumgarner <wbzsinj at gmail.com> wrote:
> What I don't understand is when people look themselves up and see
> erroneous information, they don't just go and fix it. It's as if they
> have something to prove by saying "Wikipedia sucks" instead of
> contributing to the effort and making Wikipedia better.
>
> --Zsinj
> _______________________________________________
Well, in this particular case I would say that Sir Ian is kind of busy
with paying work. He's not in the line of work that gives him the time
to hang around Wikipedia. Sure, a blog can be done, but writing
articles even the ones about yourself requires looking up sources and
pushing off POV pushers and fans.

As for unbalanced: I still have no idea what people's fascination is
with celeb's sexuality. Anything more than a line unbalances an
article. Say what their sexuality is if relevant, put in a source and
go on. We don't need entire sections on the subject unless the subject
himself has frequently discussed it.

Mgm


from_name: Ilmari Karonen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wheel culture

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
> As a rule of thumb suspensions of privileges that exceed 24-hours should
> be considered punitive.  When there are dangerous uncertainties about
> things that are happening 24 hours will be enough time to investigate.
> If after a best effort this still isn't enough one extend the time 24
> hours at a time.

I'd say that depends.  An indefinite block of a vandalism-only account,
made on the basis that "nothing good has ever come from this user, and
most likely nothing ever will", is not punitive but preventative.

--
Ilmari Karonen


from_name: William Allen Simpson

subject: [Wikitech-l] 2006 Apr 20 drastic slowdown postmortem

body:
Tim Starling wrote:
> What is "local time"? Please state your times in UTC. The page you link to
> doesn't go back as far as April 20, and it doesn't appear to have any
> archive links.
>
Sorry, had no idea that site didn't keep an archive.

> In any case, there's not much point in complaining about slow response times
> a day after the fact. As I told you before, the best place to contribute to
> this sort of thing is on #wikimedia-tech.
>
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034991.html
>
Wouldn't want to bother anybody during an outage, as I'm sure that folks
are busy.  The point of a postmortem is to figure out how to prevent the
same from happening in the future.

Besides, IRC isn't a very conducive for planning, email exchange is much
preferable.

> There are no other clusters which fill the same role as pmtpa. Go to this page:
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Profiling/20051208
>
For failover, every cluster needs its own copy of the SQL database (slaved),
and its own apache servers, and its own squid.

After all, ISP customers aren't calling support because they cannot edit,
it's because they aren't getting pages served.

> and tell me how fast the site would be if every one of those Database::query
> or memcached::get calls required a couple of transatlantic RTTs. Using
> centralised caches improves the hit rate, and keeping them within a few
> kilometres of the apache servers makes the latency acceptable.
>
Strawman.  Are the Tampa apache's using some sort of memcache shared
between them?  Then, how do the Seoul apache's share that?

>> Also, the DNS stopped serving inverse addresses.  Compare:
> [...]
>> That 84.40.24.22 inverse is only at 2 DNServers both located on the same
>> subnet (very bad practice):
>
> Maybe you should complain to whoever owns those servers.
>
Since they appear to be serving your net, apparently you either own them,
or you are paying for them one way or another.

I've noted that the ns0, ns1, and ns2 for wikimedia are located far apart,
presumably your clusters.  Good practice.

>> However, that loss of DNS responses from the same subnet leads to the
>> conclusion the subnet might be under congestive collapse.  That is, this
>> lag might not be produced by wikimedia itself, but a problem with the
>> link to or within the facility.
>
> I very much doubt it. Did you try testing for packet loss by pinging a
> Wikimedia server?
>
Yes, of course, for most folks that's the first thing to do!  (100% loss.)
Then, traceroutes from various looking glasses to see whether the problem
is path specific.  (Showed a couple of those earlier.)

Again, something caused all the squid and apaches to stop getting bytes
and packets in.  I saved the ganglia .gifs, would you prefer I sent them
as attachments?

> Our MRTG stuff is still down following the loss of larousse, but you can
> still use these:
>
> http://ganglia.wikimedia.org/
> http://tools.wikimedia.de/~leon/stats/reqstats/
> https://wikitech.leuksman.com/view/Server_admin_log
>
That ganglia is RRDTool, which isn't too bad.  Would be nice to see the
interface byte and packet counts for the switches and upstream routers.
That would have told more about the bottleneck, assuming it was a link
issue.  Could have been something else, but hard to know without data.

In this case, the dip shows up on all clusters, even though it probably
only affected Tampa.  That's because all measurement is from one place.

Whenever I've setup a POP, I like to have an NTP chimer, MRTG, and a
separate DNS instance all running (usually on the same box).  That way,
even when the main site is down, the others are still running and
collecting data.  I find that customers may not like the fact the mail
servers are down, but as long as they can still fetch data from elsewhere,
they're less likely to be completely unhappy.

You've got a bastion at several clusters, where would the documentation be
for what you're running at each?

I've looked at https://wikitech.leuksman.com/view/All_servers, but its
hopelessly sparse (and out of date).


body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 22/04/06, Brian Salter-Duke <b_duke at octa4.net.au> wrote:
>
>>I like to understand what is going on in some detail. Naturally I have
>>wondered about whether I should at some point aim to become an administrator.
>>What is going on here makes me think that I would need very strong persuasion
>>indeed to even consider it. Basically one should not have to put up with what
>>Erik has had inflicted on him. Now of course I have no problem with the
>
> There are lots of good reasons not to put your hand up to become an
> administrator. But to be fair, this was a really exceptional example,
> and far from "par for the course".

True, but it's a pretty scary example.  It seems to me that if it can
happen to someone like Eloquence, it can happen to anyone (except
_maybe_ Jimbo, I guess).  And most of us don't have Eloquence's
reputation to back us up.

--
Ilmari Karonen


body:
On 22/04/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> As for unbalanced: I still have no idea what people's fascination is
> with celeb's sexuality. Anything more than a line unbalances an
> article. Say what their sexuality is if relevant, put in a source and
> go on. We don't need entire sections on the subject unless the subject
> himself has frequently discussed it.

I agree. I have my own ideas why such paragraphs get written but I'll
keep them to myself. In general, unless you can honestly start the
paragraph with "X's sexuality has been fiercely debated", then
anything beyond "According to some biographers, X was gay" is probably
too much.

Steve


body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> I've made this remark before, but anyway: Imagine you're a newbie to
> Wikipedia. You end up there from google, clicking straight to
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_mckellan . Now, tell me, what can you
> see on the screen, as you read the article, tells you that you could
> *right this instant* edit the article to fix any changes?

Well, without trying to undermine your general point, I have to note
that the [edit] links at the top of each section are a pretty good hint.

Mind you, the prominence of the "sign in / create account" link at the
top of the page may be contributing to the assumption that, just as on
many other sites, one must go through a registration process before
being allowed to edit.  Maybe we should add the text "(optional)" to
that link?

--
Ilmari Karonen


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Wheel culture (was:Indefinite block
	and	desysopping...)

body:
Zero wrote:
> geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote: On 4/22/06, Philip Welch  wrote:
>>On Apr 20, 2006, at 2:53 PM, Kelly Martin wrote:
>>
>>>No, we don't.  50% of admin actions in March 2006 were performed by 29
>>>of our nearly 900 admins; 90% by 170.  We could probably lose 500
>>>admins without any real impact on our ability to get administrative
>>>work done.  Note also that sending articles to AfD or prod doesn't
>>>require an admin.
>>
>>Here's an interesting question: assuming those statistics are the
>>same each month, is it the same 29 admins each month, or does it turn
>>over? Some months/days I really dig into CSD and PROD backlog, other
>>months/days I'm too busy with real life to devote that much time.
>
>>The top group are probably those killing pictures.
>
> What do you mean, "Killing pictures"....?  Massive image deletions...?- Zero

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAT:ORFU et al.

--
Ilmari Karonen


subject: [WikiEN-l] [[WP:NOT EVIL]]

body:
We've been known to have the occasional editor for whom subtlety is not
a strong suit. ;-)
Ec

Fred Bauder wrote:

>Including information that has the effect of being hurtful or
>embarrassing to another person when there is very little information
>content added is the issue.
>
>This is probably going to be a stretch for us, a rather subtle
>matter. There is a dark side to published information. Some of it is
>quite hurtful without adding appreciably to the body of human knowledge.
>
>Fred
>
>On Apr 22, 2006, at 2:50 AM, herostratus at comcast.net wrote:
>
>
>>An proposal that might slightly reduce the need for out-of-process
>>actions (e.g., Brian Peppers, Lolicon pic):
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT_evil
>>
>>


body:
Redvers @ the Wikipedia wrote:
>
> The second is that "fair use" clearly has limits -
> somewhere. The current logo of a company is almost
> always fair use. Previous logos, in context, are
> likely to be fair use. But a gallery of 6 or 8 images,
> without accompanying text, seems to be right on the
> borders of fair use and senseless copyright
> infringement.

Without seeing any particular examples, my opinion would be that a
gallery of past logos used to document the evolution of the visual
identity of the company in question generally ought to be acceptable
fair use.

(I had a detailed fair use rationale here, but decided to snip it since
it's exactly the same as for logos on Wikipedia in general.  Basically,
such historical logo galleries have educational value, and do not
negatively affect the market value of the works in question.)

--
Ilmari Karonen


body:
John Lee wrote:
> Redvers @ the Wikipedia wrote:
>>
>>In the area I edit in most (British television
>>history), many of the subjects have a long visual
>>history of changing logos and graphic design. This is
>>usually reflected in the illustrations in the
>>articles.
>
> Fair use galleries are verboten unless each image in the gallery has its
> subject discussed by the article. I quote from the Copyright Act of
> 1976, 17 U.S.C. ? 107: "...the fair use of a copyrighted work, including
> such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means
> specified by that section, for purposes such as /criticism, comment,
> news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use),
> scholarship, or research/, is not an infringement of copyright." If the
> gallery fulfills these requirements (the images and article content must
> be considered together), then the fair use is permissible. This hardly
> ever happens, however. And as with most copyright issues...better safe
> than sorry.

We're talking about galleries of historical company logos in an article
about the company.  I'd say such use should count as "comment", and
probably as "teaching, scholarship or research".

But I suppose the real issue is not how either of us interprets those
words, but how they've been interpreted in court.  Any real lawyers here
who'd care to comment?

--
Ilmari Karonen


body:
On 22/04/06, Pete Bartlett <pcb21 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>  I fear you are barking up Tom Cruise's tree rather
> than Sir Ian McKellan's! The latter has been a high-profile campaigner

Guilty as charged.

Steve


from_name: Arwel Parry

subject: [WikiEN-l] The Economist on New Media

body:
This week's "Economist" (www.economist.com) has a survey of New Media.
Unfortunately the section about wikis is "premium content". So, to
paraphrase:

"When people express scepticism about participatory media, they usually
have people like Brian Chase in mind...", there then follows a
column-long retelling of the Seigenthaler case

"For the most part, it is much more worthwhile to dwell on the
phenomenal opportunities than on the poison pens..." - gives details of
en.wikipedia doubling in size last year, 12 times bigger than the print
Britannica, more visitors that the NY Times and CNN, and only 5 years
old. Describes what wikis are, but also notes that Wikipedia is atypical
of most wikis because of its size and number of contributors.

Asks how Wikipedia manages to work, quotes Robert McHenry's "faith-based
encyclopedia", quotes Jimbo on <1% of editors doing half the total edits
and besides site democracy there's  the occasional aristocracy and
monarchy when quick action is needed. Reports on reaction to "Nature's"
comparison with EB: "Jorge Cauz, Britannica's president, claimed victory
because Wikipedia had 'a third more errors'. Privately, however,
Britannica's editors were shocked to have to concede that their creation
contained any errors at all. Total accuracy, after all, is the main
selling point for the old media.". Reports EB's rebuttal and Nature's
refutation. "But if it [Nature] did get it wrong, it is not clear why it
would have erred more for Britannica than for Wikipedia. Mr Hoiberg [EB
editor-in-chief] puts a brave face on it, claiming that 'our model,
although not perfect, is the best.'"

Goes on to contrast the reaction to the Nature episode - Britannica
instinctively regards Wikipedia as a threat, whereas Wikipedians do not
reciprocate. Quotes Jimbo as being a big fan of EB's work and glad that
Brockhaus seems to be doing better than ever. The Economist contrasts
this to the "joyful reaction of Wikipedia's detractors to Brian Chase,
the dodgy biographer (whose article was literally one in a million)".
Reports McHenry's public restroom analogy and ends with the rather nice
sentiment "One wonders whether people like Mr McHenry would prefer there
to be no public lavatories at all."

--
Arwel Parry
http://www.cartref.demon.co.uk/


subject: [WikiEN-l] A more lighthearted take on the problem...

body:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WikedpediaRKB.jpg

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


from_name: Tim Starling

body:
William Allen Simpson wrote:
> Time to time, I'm sure we've all noticed that wikipedia slows to a crawl.
> Such as last night (local time), for about 15-20 minutes, reading was poor,
> writing was nearly impossible, see:
>
>   April 20, 2006, 10:36 pm http://www.thewritingpot.com/wikistatus/

What is "local time"? Please state your times in UTC. The page you link to
doesn't go back as far as April 20, and it doesn't appear to have any
archive links.

In any case, there's not much point in complaining about slow response times
a day after the fact. As I told you before, the best place to contribute to
this sort of thing is on #wikimedia-tech.

http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034991.html

> I tried looking at the site from various views.  What struck me was that
> no matter where I looked from here in the US, east or west or central, all
> traffic seems to go to Florida, even when the servers are not responding.
>
> No failover to other clusters?

There are no other clusters which fill the same role as pmtpa. Go to this page:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Profiling/20051208

and tell me how fast the site would be if every one of those Database::query
or memcached::get calls required a couple of transatlantic RTTs. Using
centralised caches improves the hit rate, and keeping them within a few
kilometres of the apache servers makes the latency acceptable.

> Also, the DNS stopped serving inverse addresses.  Compare:
[...]
> That 84.40.24.22 inverse is only at 2 DNServers both located on the same
> subnet (very bad practice):

Maybe you should complain to whoever owns those servers.

[...]
> However, that loss of DNS responses from the same subnet leads to the
> conclusion the subnet might be under congestive collapse.  That is, this
> lag might not be produced by wikimedia itself, but a problem with the
> link to or within the facility.

I very much doubt it. Did you try testing for packet loss by pinging a
Wikimedia server?

> Is there any other data that might correspond?
>
> Does anybody have clues or notes on what actually might have been
> happening at the time?  RTG/MRTG?

Our MRTG stuff is still down following the loss of larousse, but you can
still use these:

http://ganglia.wikimedia.org/
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~leon/stats/reqstats/
https://wikitech.leuksman.com/view/Server_admin_log

-- Tim Starling


from_name: cwarner

subject: [WikiEN-l] Blocked by Administrator (abuse of power)

body:
Thank you. I appreciate the support. In all honesty, i'm tired of
fighting. As much as I like Wikipedia my latest dealings have proven
that it's a source like many others that cannot be trusted for its
actual content. It doesn't mean that I will not continue to fight for
what's right when and where I can. However, this fight and the cost in
time it requires is not something I'm prepared to continue.

I will exhaust the avenues and after that cease contribution or editing
to the article in question and move on. In the advent that anyone wants
to compile a list of rogue administrators please let me know. I'm also
considering creating a GPL program that monitors such administrators,
their edits and activity on Wikipedia.

-c

On Sat, 2006-04-22 at 15:17 -0400, TGGG85 at aol.com wrote:
> Hey Chris! You might be glad that you are not alone in all of the nonsense. I
> was blocked by an Administrator who accused me of VANDALISM without showing
> any proof. What kind of drugs are these people taking? This is an example of
> what happens when the wrong people are entrusted with power. They become petty
> tyrants.
>    Most of the Administrators are fair people. There are some who abuse their
> priviliege of power and it appears that you have encountered one. So, my
> advice is to persist with your protest and find some allies. You have found one in
> me.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


body:
The links in question don't criticize Lou Dobbs, they don't hold any
views at all. If you believe they do, please point them out.

The link by Peter Hart I agree with and never removed, the two links in
dispute are Dobbswatch.com which is a redirect to a personal section of
blog.nam.org which is not allowed under Wikipedia guidelines and the
Opinion Journal.

-c

On Sat, 2006-04-22 at 15:50 -0600, Fred Bauder wrote:
> I think the external links critical of Lou Dobbs which you repeatedly
> removed are quite appropriate. They are a bit dated, but are sharp
> criticisms of Lou Dobbs from substantial sources. You were relying
> too much on detailed parsing of a Wikipedia guideline and edit
> warring over it. I love Lou Dobbs and agree with him about illegal
> immigration and many other things, but he is very much an
> outrageously point of view reporter;  our article needs a few links
> which sharply criticize him.
>
> Fred
>
> On Apr 22, 2006, at 12:32 PM, cwarner wrote:
>
> > I've been blocked by an Administrator who is clearly abusing his
> > administrative rules in regards to 3RR. He's reverted a change I've
> > made
> > in regards to the Lou Dobbs article located here
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lou_Dobbs please also see the following
> > discussion
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lou_Dobbs#Removed_Dobbswatch.com_.
> > 26_Opinion_Journal.
> >
> > He claims there is concensus; there is none. The article section in
> > question has been tagged with the NPOV Dispute tag and submitted for a
> > request for arbitration here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RFAR
> >
> > I've followed the guidelines of Wikipedia and have been banned
> > subsequently for doing so. Through out this process I have been
> > threatened numerous times for following the guidelines set forth by
> > Wikipedia policy.
> >
> > This hasn't gone without notice as others have said the same thing
> > (see
> > discussion) as well as having my reverts, reverted by parties who took
> > the time to read the discussion (see diffs).
> >
> > I'm posting here as i've been blocked and protocol has allowed me this
> > option. I will exhaust every avenue within Wikipedia guidelines until
> > they are no more to exhaust.
> >
> > Administrators should not abuse their power and that is exactly
> > what is
> > taking place here. This is my public notice of such activity.
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Christopher Warner
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 22/04/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>As for unbalanced: I still have no idea what people's fascination is
>>with celeb's sexuality. Anything more than a line unbalances an
>>article. Say what their sexuality is if relevant, put in a source and
>>go on. We don't need entire sections on the subject unless the subject
>>himself has frequently discussed it.
>
> I agree. I have my own ideas why such paragraphs get written but I'll
> keep them to myself. In general, unless you can honestly start the
> paragraph with "X's sexuality has been fiercely debated",

"...in some bar somewhere after six beers."

Sorry, couldn't resist. :)  In general I pretty much agree with you on this.

--
Ilmari Karonen


body:
> Do you have any suggestions on how to improve the administrative
> selection process?
>

Administrators should not be selected merely on how long they've been
around Wikipedia. They should be summarily appointed Administrators
based on their edit history and general practice towards Wikipedia
Guidelines. That doesn't seem to be the case, so from all the email i've
received it seems that Wikipedia operates more on a nobility system.
Which if true, will overtime prove Wikipedia to be a poor source of
information.

> > Most of the Administrators are fair people. There are some who abuse
> > their priviliege of power and it appears that you have encountered
> > one. So, my advice is to persist with your protest and find some
> > allies. You have found one in me.
> >
>
> Claims of abuse will be heard and dealt with fairly, provided that you
> bring evidence with you.
>

I'm not sure this is true anymore. I'm banned based on the 3RR rule
except the fact is that an Administrator disregarded other rules in
order to do so. It's easy for me though, I simply no longer need to
participate on Wikipedia and will make sure others know of my experience
by pointing them to the relevant links.

This, obviously not to take away from Wikipedia but in the long run
instead of things working themselves out. They will become worst.

-c


subject: [WikiEN-l] Libel chill

body:
Elisabeth Bauer wrote:
> Steve Bennett schrieb:
>
>>I would be curious to know - not necessarily with examples - whether
>>we have had legal threats related to articles that did meet WP:V. That
>>is, we published something which was by all accounts true, and had
>>verifiable sources to back it up - and yet was deemed offensive by
>>some miffed party.
>
> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tron_(Hacker)

Also stumbled across what looks like a recent example:

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

(See also discussion on Jimbo's talk page.)

--
Ilmari Karonen


from_name: Delirium

body:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> I'd guess the open questions would be:
>
> 1) How would this impact the charitable non-profit status of WMF?
>

The general rule is that a non-profit organization should have at least
one-third of its annual income come from a combination of: governmental
donations, donations from other public charities, and small (less than
2% of total income each) donations from the general public and private
charities (large donations can still have the first 2% counted).  If
that all adds up to less than 1/3, things get considerably more complicated.

Whether advertising income would cause a problem depends on how much we
expect to get, and how much in large donations from private individuals
and charities we typically get.

-Mark


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

body:
On 4/23/06, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> > I'd guess the open questions would be:
> >
> > 1) How would this impact the charitable non-profit status of WMF?
> >
>
> The general rule is that a non-profit organization should have at least
> one-third of its annual income come from a combination of: governmental
> donations, donations from other public charities, and small (less than
> 2% of total income each) donations from the general public and private
> charities (large donations can still have the first 2% counted).  If
> that all adds up to less than 1/3, things get considerably more complicated.
>
> Whether advertising income would cause a problem depends on how much we
> expect to get, and how much in large donations from private individuals
> and charities we typically get.

Hmm. Well, iff we actually had a good handle on our donation income
stream we could control the advertising to avoid crossing that line
(just disable it even for users that have it on if it's bringing in
too much).. but I don't get the impression that we have enough
visability into our future donations. :)


from_name: Tony Sidaway

body:
On 4/22/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
> The Prodigy case is irrelevant, because the CDA was passed after that
> case.  In fact, section 230 of the CDA was created in large part as a
> response to the Prodigy case.  See [[Section 230 of the Communications
> Decency Act]].

Well, almost.  The common law elements of the Prodigy case stand if
the elements of the statutory exemption of CDA 230 are not satisfied.
It is *probably* the case that Wikipedia can *sometimes* satisfy CDA
230, but not always.  If someone is trusted with access to sensitive
information in order to facilitate the smooth running of Wikipedia and
then proceeds to publish that information, then a plaintiff, having
notified Wikipedia of defamation and then seen the defamation
published via a leak by a Wikipedia administrator to WikiTruth
*might* argue that Wikipedia did not take all reasonable steps to
limit damage, and a court might accept this as a prima facie case for
third party liability.

This is hypothetical, but I think it demonstrates that Wikitruth, if
its purported evidence of Wikipedia admin collusion is correct,
represents a fairly serious problem for Wikipedia.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Libel chill

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>
>>If the recent dispute had been guided by these principles it might not
>>have become as heated.  When a long-standing editor asks for an
>>explanation, and is told to ask the lawyers we aren't reading the same
>>page anymore.  It is quite understandable that people will react with a
>>"Them's fightin' words" attitude.
>>
>>
>I disagree quite significantly.  If a longstanding editor asks for an
>explanation, and is told to ask the lawyers, I absolutely do NOT think
>that it is understandable AT ALL that "them's fightin' words" is the
>attitude in response.  That is just silly.  We've been working together
>for a long time now.
>
How you say things makes all the difference.  A dismissive attitude can
very easily be seen as hostile.  People react that way when the person
responding does not appear to have assumed good faith.

>I think Erik, in this case, would agree.  If the response had been
>"Actually, Erik, do me a favor and leave this one protected, I can't
>explain why at the moment, but please ask Brad if you need more
>information, perhaps he can give it" then there would have been no
>explosion.
>
Yes, that's my point.  Words like "do me a favor" and "please" can go a
long way.

>>The person wielding the WP:OFFICE
>>cudgel needs to be sensitive to the community as well as the
>>complainant.  He needs to know from experience that any hint of secrecy
>>underlying his actions will raise the temperature of flames by several
>>degrees.
>>
>>
>No, actually, I think the community understands that temporarily not all
>information can always be made immediately public.
>
Nobody's even saying that it has to be ALL information.  A general
explanation like, "The subject of this article has complained about it;
it has been temporarily taken offline while we verify the facts."  This
doesn't even mention the specific points that were complained about.

>What got things wound up in this case was not the secrecy, but a wildly
>disproportionate and unfair blocking and desysopping, when a
>reprotection with a note of "Please ask me before unprotecting this one,
>there are important issues here" would have done the job just fine.
>
Probably, but that's the sort of sensitivity I'm talking about.  The
perception of secrecy can have a greater effect than the secrecy itself.

Ray


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikitruth

body:
On 4/22/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
> If they infringe copyrigh or engage in defamation they're on their own
> if they have to defend themselves in court.  Republishing copyvio
> material is not a violation of GFDL since GFDL could not apply to the
> original short-lived copyvio.

GFDL is a straw man. I'm talking about third party liability.  Suppose
I grant a servant access to my post, and one day someone sends me a
copy of the latest Harry Potter novel in an envelope. Having opened
the envelope and recognised the nature of its contents, I may take
steps to dispose of it.

But suppose that, instead of disposing of it, I place it within reach
of someone whom I have reason to believe may wish to betray me.

Then I have contributed to any action that may be taken by that person
to publish the work without authorization.

A similar argument applies to defamation.  The onus is on me, as
custodian of my own post, to demonstrate that I do not recklessly
dispose of it.  Whilst I shouldn't be expected to take responsibility
for any and every illegal act that is perpetrated by my servants, once
I become aware that such an act may take place, I should take
reasonable steps to prevent it.  The problem is the word "reasonable".
 If a defamatory statement is published, a plaintiff may well have an
apprehension that this is because I have been reckless, even if I
haven't,  and much time and money may be spent by both sides in
deciding the issue.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wheel warring

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:

>On 22/04/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I would argue that X has the prerogative to reblock here, since Y
>>wheel-warred (something that should not have happened) and after
>>something that should not have happened, it's generally acceptable to
>>reinstate the status quo ante.
>>
>>
>At first glance that seems reasonable, if you accept my definition of
>a wheel war being reverting an action in a way that the originating
>admin wouldn't agree with.  But really, once that's happened, it would
>be better for some third/neutral/senior admin to step in.
>
Better still for the two parties to start a dialogue.  Both have
established opening positions; they might still find common ground.  If
that doesn't work, then bring in the third person.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wheel warring

body:
Ugh, when do we get to the part where I have to figure out whether a car
loaded with apples going north can beat a train loaded with figs going in
the same direction?

The basic problem is one of ego. For a place that prides itself on
collegiality among editors, and particularly among administrators, we simply
step on one another's toes too often. I don't see why we need to have all
this parsing and ABC'ing when what we really need is to tug on a few ears
and remind each other that it's rarely polite to undermine someone without
so much as a word.

k

On 4/23/06, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 4/23/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > So, clearly a definition of "reverting any administrative action counts
> > as wheel-warring" doesn't work.
>
> It's because it focuses on the "what" - it needs to look at the "why".
>
> Take the example above of A blocking and B unblocking. Why did B
> unblock? Was it because the block was some sort of mistake (blocking
> the wrong range, or blocking an AOL proxy for too long, etc) or was it
> because B disagreed with A's interpretation of the user's edits? If
> there was such a disagreement, then why did B not discuss the block
> with A? It's that part which most people find problematic, the attack
> on someone's judgement, not the actual action of unblocking.
>
> --
> Stephen Bain
> stephen.bain at gmail.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Zero

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wheel warring

body:
I believe Ray's assesment identifies the crux of the problem. Both parties on opposing sides of said debate need to engage in discussion regarding the matter. Hopefully through dispute resolution or the introduction of a third party, the conflict will be satisfied.

Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote: Steve Bennett wrote:

>On 22/04/06, Philip Welch  wrote:
>
>
>>I would argue that X has the prerogative to reblock here, since Y
>>wheel-warred (something that should not have happened) and after
>>something that should not have happened, it's generally acceptable to
>>reinstate the status quo ante.
>>
>>
>At first glance that seems reasonable, if you accept my definition of
>a wheel war being reverting an action in a way that the originating
>admin wouldn't agree with.  But really, once that's happened, it would
>be better for some third/neutral/senior admin to step in.
>
Better still for the two parties to start a dialogue.  Both have
established opening positions; they might still find common ground.  If
that doesn't work, then bring in the third person.

Ec

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---------------------------------
Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone  calls to 30+ countries for just 2?/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.


from_name: Hagen

subject: [Wikitech-l] Wikipedia's Success Factors

body:
Wikipedia: Success factors

Wikipedia's success mainly depend on its users - the Wikipedians. In
theory, everybody can be a Wikipedian. This thread is supposed to find
out if the theory holds true in practice.

The idea is that the Wiki-community of Wikipedians is a special group
of people, who have special characteristcs. To account for these
special characteristics, I have provided the following Factor
Model:

User factors: - Openness - Neutrality -
Flat hierarchy- Computer Skills - Motivation -

Knowledge factors: - Tacit & Explicit knowledge - Fast changing rate - Peer
review

Technology factors: - Easy usability - Fast access - Infinite reach,
multilingual - Flexible structure - Safe

All these factors play together to accomplish the goal of succesful
knowledge creation and knowledge sharing.

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Success_factors

Comments, feedback and own ideas are very welcome!
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Wikipedia%27s-Success-Factors-t1494058.html#a4049259
Sent from the Wikipedia Developers forum at Nabble.com.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia's Success Factors

body:
Wikipedia: Success factors

Wikipedia's success mainly depend on its users - the Wikipedians. In
theory, everybody can be a Wikipedian. This thread is supposed to find
out if the theory holds true in practice.

The idea is that the Wiki-community of Wikipedians is a special group
of people, who have special characteristcs. To account for these
special characteristics, I have provided the following Factor
Model:

User factors: - Openness - Neutrality -
Flat hierarchy- Computer Skills - Motivation -

Knowledge factors: - Tacit & Explicit knowledge - Fast changing rate - Peer
review

Technology factors: - Easy usability - Fast access - Infinite reach,
multilingual - Flexible structure - Safe

All these factors play together to accomplish the goal of succesful
knowledge creation and knowledge sharing.

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Success_factors

Comments, feedback and own ideas are very welcome!
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Wikipedia%27s-Success-Factors-t1494063.html#a4049267
Sent from the Wikipedia General forum at Nabble.com.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's Success Factors

body:
Wikipedia: Success factors

Wikipedia's success mainly depend on its users - the Wikipedians. In
theory, everybody can be a Wikipedian. This thread is supposed to find
out if the theory holds true in practice.

The idea is that the Wiki-community of Wikipedians is a special group
of people, who have special characteristcs. To account for these
special characteristics, I have provided the following Factor
Model:

User factors: - Openness - Neutrality -
Flat hierarchy- Computer Skills - Motivation -

Knowledge factors: - Tacit & Explicit knowledge - Fast changing rate - Peer
review

Technology factors: - Easy usability - Fast access - Infinite reach,
multilingual - Flexible structure - Safe

All these factors play together to accomplish the goal of succesful
knowledge creation and knowledge sharing.

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Success_factors

Comments, feedback and own ideas are very welcome!
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Wikipedia%27s-Success-Factors-t1494067.html#a4049275
Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at Nabble.com.


from_name: Justin Cormack

body:
On 22 Apr 2006, at 21:40, Ilmari Karonen wrote:
>
> Without seeing any particular examples, my opinion would be that a
> gallery of past logos used to document the evolution of the visual
> identity of the company in question generally ought to be acceptable
> fair use.

*If* you are talking about the evolution of the company logo.

*Not* if you are just talking about the company.

Do we have articles about the history of individual company logos?
Not in these cases (yet). So not fair use. Just pretty copyvio pics.

Justinc


body:
On 4/23/06, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com> wrote:
> I personally would not object to advertisement, as long as it's not
> intrusive (popups, flashing, pushing a significant portion of the
> article away from first page, etc.) and editorial independence is
> safeguarded. However, I do know that there also exist Wikipedia
> editors who do fiercely oppose it, and we might simply lose some of
> them.

No one who isn't some profit all costs would want that. Look at
mediawiki sites like wikia.com to see how advertising can be
integrated into mediawiki without being obnoxious.

> Having said that, I see some practical difficulty with your proposal.
> Would anonymous visitors and people who have not changed their
> settings see the advertisements? If yes (opt-out system), then I fear
> that the abovementioned people will still have the same strong
> objections. If no (opt-in system), then I doubt whether the amount of
> money generated by such advertising would be worth the trouble taken.

It isn't an opt in systems if anons get it by default.
I'd propose a fully opt in system for two strong reasons:

1) We can be reasonably confident that an opt-in system will not have
a substantial negative impact on the normal flow of donations.
2) It's the only solution which isn't likely to enrage some people.

There may be a place in the world for opt-out advertising, but it's a
fundamentally different issue.

> As said before, I personally think some simple advertisement would be
> a good way to raise some money, but I also know there is quite some
> resistance in the community about it. Or rather, there was such
> resistance a few years ago. Of course attitudes may have changed since
> then.

There is a lot of resistance, for some good reasons and for some bad
reasons. The absolutely enormous income possible from advertising
could have a tremendous impact, it could allow positive development
unparalleled in the world of free content... but it could also  create
a shift away from our most honorable goals.  I think people are right
to fear it.

But just because site wide, always on, reader impacting,
advertisements carry risks we find unacceptable, that doesn't mean we
must avoid minor things like opt-ins advertising for editors.

It's like the cafepress shop... doesn't bring in much money, but it
doesn't hurt either.. an no one seems to be leaving over it.


from_name: oscar

subject: [Foundation-l] Waerth's stewardship

body:
my suggestion as to policy would be to add the following paragraph to the
stewards-page:
---
Any abuse, or even the threatening of abuse, of the steward-rights, will
lead to an immediate and permanent removal of these.
---
oscar

On 3/24/06, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
>
> At the request of Oscar from the Netherlands wikipedia, I have temporarily
> removed Waerth's status as a Steward, pending the resolution of his
> conflict
> with the nl.wikipedia community. I do this with a heavy heart, and
> recognize
> that something like this has never been done before, however, it became
> necessary in order to thwart Waerth's threats to override his own block
> on  nl.wiki.
>
> I would be grateful to receive the comments and suggestions of other
> stewards on this matter, especially because the circumstances
> are  unprecedented.
>
> Please let's not turn this into a flame fest, but rather a productive
> discussion of what policy should be.
>
> Danny
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Waerth's stewardship


from_name: John Lee

body:
Redvers @ the Wikipedia wrote:

>Hi folks. I'd like to solicit your opinions of fair
>use image galleries in articles.
>
>In the area I edit in most (British television
>history), many of the subjects have a long visual
>history of changing logos and graphic design. This is
>usually reflected in the illustrations in the
>articles.
>
>However, a couple of them - [[UTV]] and [[HTV]] for
>instance - have grown little galleries of fair use
>images at the foot of the article.
>
>I see two potential problems here.
>
>The first is that these stills are all taken from
>various hobby sites on the subject. Whilst the hobby
>sites don't hold the copyright on the images, they did
>do all the hard work in capturing the images and
>uploading them in the first place. They are often not
>credited, and, if they are, they're rarely credited
>with a clickable link (which would seem to be the
>absolute least an uploader could do).
>
>The second is that "fair use" clearly has limits -
>somewhere. The current logo of a company is almost
>always fair use. Previous logos, in context, are
>likely to be fair use. But a gallery of 6 or 8 images,
>without accompanying text, seems to be right on the
>borders of fair use and senseless copyright
>infringement.
>
>I'm wary of taking this up directly with the editors
>in question as people are remarkably attached to their
>fair use images. Of the three people I've contacted in
>the past about fair use images possibly being misused,
>one changed usernames, one quit the 'pedia instantly
>on the grounds that I was a pedantic fucking cunt (a
>direct quote), and one blanked his talk page without
>replying.
>
>One day, fair use image policy is going to cause an
>explosive RfC... but I'd rather my name wasn't on it.
>
>:"REDVERS"
>
>
>
>
Fair use galleries are verboten unless each image in the gallery has its
subject discussed by the article. I quote from the Copyright Act of
1976, 17 U.S.C. ? 107: "...the fair use of a copyrighted work, including
such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means
specified by that section, for purposes such as /criticism, comment,
news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use),
scholarship, or research/, is not an infringement of copyright." If the
gallery fulfills these requirements (the images and article content must
be considered together), then the fair use is permissible. This hardly
ever happens, however. And as with most copyright issues...better safe
than sorry.

John


from_name: Kernigh

subject: [Textbook-l] Wikibooks - removal of games walkthrough books

body:
Jimmy Wales <jwales at ...> writes:
> But in virtually every university, there are classes on Shakespeare
> which use Hamlet as material, but not as _textbook_ per se.

I do not understand. High school and university students in parts of
the United States do read printed copies of Hamlet. Those are
textbooks, no?  I think that Hamlet is an obvious example of a
textbook.

> ...  The key point is that
> there have to be some kind of courses offered by some kind of serious
> institution of learning.

Some courses assign essays praising the fall of communism. Some
courses assign the Communist Manifesto. Wikibooks do not want essays
(Wikibooks is not a blog), and they do not want source texts. This
"key point" will not help anyone remove "game walkthrough books".

> I am unaware of any course at any accredited institution which teaches
> risk or monopoly or clue.  Chess and go, probably, but I actually don't
> know.  Doom?  No.

[[b:Doom]] http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Doom is a project that I
worked on recently. I had discovered that some IP users had copied
some Wikipedia articles into the Doom book. These new Doom submodules
had the usual metaphorical ocean of red links, the various broken
template calls, the use of nonexistant images and categories... and
there was credit to Wikipedia in the edit history, but not in the book
itself.

I spent some time searching Wikipedia and eventually found that these
two Wikipedia articles were copied:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gameplay_of_Doom
  (deleted from Wikipedia because of the transwiki to Wikibooks)
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_enemies_in_Doom
  (kept at Wikipedia, but forked to Wikibooks)

They now form 5 modules in the Wikibook of Doom.

Thus I had explored the Wikibook of Doom and the Wikipedia
articles of Doom. By then I knew that Wikipedia had much more
information about Doom than what I would suspect:
* http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special:Prefixindex/Doom/
  The Wikibook of Doom contains 10 subpages.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Doom
  Wikipedia contains *51 articles* about Doom, plus 9 subcategories.

On average, the Wikipedia articles seem to be longer than the Doom
submodules.  The Wikipedia articles also contain more images. Thus,
Wikipedia has at least 6 times, probably at least 12 times, as much
information about Doom as the Wikibook of Doom does. Also, the larger
half (5 modules) of the Wikibook is information moved or copied from
Wikipedia. Several other computer and video game Wikibooks, though not
all of them, are like this. Why?

These gaming wikis all have MediaWiki server software and use the GNU FDL:
* Gameinfo           - http://gameinfo.wikia.com
* Encyclopedia Gamia - http://egamia.com
* Strategy Wiki      - http://strategywiki.net

However none of these are sister projects of Wikipedia. Thus English
Wikipedia designates *English Wikibooks* as the preferred place for
game guides.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CVG wrote:
> Articles on computer and video games should give an encyclopedia
> overview of what the game is about, not a detailed description
> of how to play it. Such topics should be moved to Wikibooks
> computer and video games bookshelf.

(None of this explains why Wikipedia has so many computer and video
game guide authors.)

So, what I think that we need is a mechanism to move computer and video
game guides from Wikibooks to any of these gaming wikis. Currently, I
cannot move a guide; I must fork it.

I suggest that it is time to move some or all of them to other wikis,
for no reason (related to institutions of learning or otherwise)
except that we have too many of them, and that gaming wikis are
better locations for them.

-- [[Wikibooks:en:User:Kernigh]]
   http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User:Kernigh
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kernigh
   http://gameinfo.wikia.com/wiki/User:Kernigh