from_name: freakofnurture

subject: [Wikitech-l] Tor and "X-Forwarded-For"

references:
<3538731.post@talk.nabble.com> <4421E514.2000009@vyznev.net>
	<3545291.post@talk.nabble.com> <dvt3an$u20$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<3551513.post@talk.nabble.com> <4422C157.6040003@vyznev.net>
	<3554503.post@talk.nabble.com> <3564576.post@talk.nabble.com>
	<4423DEDF.7050604@vyznev.net>

body:
Ilmari Karonen wrote:
>
> I think you've got your templates mixed up above.  {{SharedIP}} is the
> "This IP address is shared by multiple users." template, used on talk
> pages of IPs that should not be blocked for long periods.  It's the
> generic template from which {{AOL}} was forked.  I agree with Phil that
> it shouldn't be substed, but the folks at [[Wikipedia:Template
> substitution]] seem to think otherwise.
>
I suppose you're right about the mixup, but since the issue involves IPs
that are indefinitely blocked, any relevant information could be added
instead to the {{openproxy}} template, and any other templates used in cases
where it's necessary to block an IP indefinitely or for an unusually long
duration. Again, the block message gets viewed every time somebody tries to
edit, while the IP's talk page (generally) only gets viewed when somebody
clicks the "new messages link" due to a new message, which might include a
vandal warning, or the addition of the a specific block notice, indefinite
or otherwise. Note that when one is editing (or attempting to edit)
anonymously, he/she doesn't have a "My talk" link up in the top right as one
would when signed in.

--freakofnurture
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Tor-and-%22X-Forwarded-For%22-t1325932.html#a3579271
Sent from the Wikipedia Developers forum at Nabble.com.


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Justin Cormack

subject: [WikiEN-l] Next step in "fair use" cleanup?

body:
On 24 Mar 2006, at 12:30, Steve Bennett wrote:

>> We dont accept "with permission" images, and we dont accept anything
>> that is not verifiable by someone else. So there would be supporting
>> documentation somewhere for that case.
>
> Could every editor be obliged to attempt to find that supporting
> documentation for every image in every article they edit? I really
> doubt it.

For everything other than self-created pictures, yes. If the uploader
cant produce documentation, delete the image.

So for example this blatent copyvio

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2012legacymap.jpg

Randomly claimed as PD and promo needs a detailed justification
(of course there isnt one as it is simply a lie).

Justinc


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] That other encyclopedia

body:
On 3/24/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> Seen this?
>
> http://store.britannica.com/jump.jsp?itemID=114&itemType=CATEGORY&iMainCat=4&iSubCat=114&sort=1&dpid=14
>
> You can get the full Britannica DVD for US$25!
>
> At that sort of price, I'm tempted to get one myself, not least to say
> to journalists that I'm not only a fan but I bought a copy ...
>
> And they're clearing this at US$20:
>
> >http://store.britannica.com/shopping/product/detailmain.jsp?itemID=247&itemType=PRODUCT&iProductID=247

They appear to be trying to undercut us. They also appear to be suceeding.

--
geni


from_name: Steve Block

subject: [WikiEN-l] Original research

body:
If reliable sources can't be cited, does that make the information
original research?  I mean, I can document periods of my life citing my
website and other online sources, but those aren't reliable, are they?
Therefore I'm creating original research, aren't I?

Steve Block

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.1/291 - Release Date: 24/03/06


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki converter (follow-up)

body:
Magnus Manske wrote:
> Brion, please refrain from quoting half-sentences of mine, which gives
> the impression I said something I didn't.
>
> There is no legal necessity for the "list authors" feature. I never said
> that. I said that it is currently very inconvenient to fulfil the
> demands of the GFDL, because you have to download the entire wikipedia,
> including history, to correctly publish a single article. What good is
> it to have an open license if taking advantage of that is a PITA? (I'm
> talking non-geeks here, and geeks who have a slow machine/internet
> connection/etc.)

Okay, I quoted the entire paragraph to show that you said exactly what I thought
you said.

Now, I ask again the same thing for the same reasons: please ask Brad Patrick,
the foundation's legal counsel, about this to see if it's actually true.

> If you want to contribute something that is actually helpful, please run
> the one little SQL query I asked you to run, and tell us how many
> seconds it takes.  Maybe run it again ignoring anons. If it take 2
> seconds, the feature could be activated (for the time being, of course);
> if it takes 30 seconds, activating it on Wikipedia is certainly out of
> the question.

For database performance issues I leave this in Domas's hands, since he'll just
turn it off if he thinks it's a problem anyway.

A quick test in isolation on lomaria showed 'George W. Bush' taking about a
second and 'Wikipedia:Sandbox' about 4 seconds. As frequently hit pages they may
be better in cache already; Sandbox results were much faster after that first
hit. Random-access could lead to cache churn, check with Domas.

EXPLAIN shows use of a temporary table, not necessarily a good sign but not too
bad if it fits in memory:

mysql> EXPLAIN SELECT DISTINCT rev_user,rev_user_text FROM revision WHERE
rev_page=3414021;
+----------+-------+------------------------+---------+---------+------+-------+------------------------------+
| table    | type  | possible_keys          | key     | key_len | ref  | rows  |
Extra                        |
+----------+-------+------------------------+---------+---------+------+-------+------------------------------+
| revision | range | PRIMARY,page_timestamp | PRIMARY |       4 | NULL | 42114 |
Using where; Using temporary |
+----------+-------+------------------------+---------+---------+------+-------+------------------------------+
1 row in set (0.02 sec)

More worrying than the time it takes is the amount of data it churns out: 8965
rows for George W. Bush, 21528 rows for Wikipedia:Sandbox. That's only going to
get longer as time goes on, and it's unsustainable in the long term. (That's
possibly why the GFDL explicitly *doesn't* require a list of every contributor.)

It's still a lot with accounts only: 2664 rows for GWB and 6569 for the sandbox.

So even if it's fast enough for the moment, I'd much prefer if we had something
that fit clear requirements. If the idea is for every random person grabbing
pages off our site to have the minimal GFDL requirements, I'm not so sure this
fits the bill.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060324/cbb43486/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Steve Bennett

body:
On 3/24/06, Ilmari Karonen <nospam at vyznev.net> wrote:
> D, who only corrects a typo in an unrelated part of the article, could
> hardly be expected to know that the fair use claims made implictly by B
> and explicitly by C are in fact bogus.  Unless, perhaps, the copyright
> violation was _really_ blatant and obvious; but if one were to argue
> that, one might as well argue that anyone who read the article without
> fixing it is also liable.  I doubt either argument would actually fly.

I'm not sure what a "blatant" copyright violation would be. There's
always the chance that the copyright owner of any image gave
permission to Wikimedia to use it - an editor who simply edits the
article cannot know whether that is true or not.

Steve


from_name: Ilmari Karonen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Year articles - en: versus de:

body:
Phil Boswell wrote:
> David Gerard-2 wrote:
>
>>An interesting point that came up in conversation with presroi on IRC.
>>Compare:
>>
>>    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974
>>    http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974
>>
>>Anyone interested in writing up our year articles as decent history
>>articles, as well as the lists of stuff?
>
> You will note that they have removed the lists of births and deaths to
> separate articles.
>
> What are the odds that if anybody tried this on :en: the resulting articles
> would be on AFD in a heartbeat as "listcruft"?

Perhaps.  On the other hand, someone _could_ just write up a guideline
about it and submit it to a consensus poll.  I expect it might pass
quite easily, given how awkward the year articles currently are, and,
once approved, would pacify even the strictest policy wonks.

There _are_ other methods for getting things done besides being bold,
you know.  Sometimes they can even be more effective.

--
Ilmari Karonen


from_name: Theresa Knott

subject: [WikiEN-l] 7-year old pool shark: notable or not?

body:
My personal opinion is that if he's notable enough that you can find
several sources then he should go in. Verifiability is the key for me.
As the boy is so young we need to be particularly sensitive to how the
article is written. It should concentrate on his pool career only , no
info on his school or home address for example.

Theresa

On 3/24/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> I've come across a report of a 7-year old pool player who's winning in
> tournaments against adults and who's also able to perform several pool
> trick shots. It wouldn't make for an incredibly large article, but I'd
> like to get a general feel about what most people feel about such an
> article.
>
> Would it make any difference if I first saw him in "Ripley's Believe
> it or Not"? I hope not, as I'm sure I can find other sources.
>
> Mgm
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Guettarda

subject: [WikiEN-l] Editor's guides

body:
On 3/24/06, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/24/06, Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Is there such a thing as editors' guides to specific areas?
> >
> > For example, the Trinidad and Tobago article attracts people all the
> time
> > who add "new" information which is already contained in some subarticle.
> > They don't expect the level of depth of Trinidad and Tobago articles
> that
> > exist, so they just add something that's "missing", probably unaware of
> what
> > exists.
> >
> > It would be nice if there was some way to add an "editors guide" -
> something
> > like "Interested in editing articles related to Trinidad and
> Tobago?  Browse
> > our articles on the topic".  Yeah, I realise that the "obvious" answer
> is
> > "that's what categories are for", but there're two problems with
> categories
> > - one is that they are too opaque (there are too many sub-sub-sub
> > categories) and another is that the category link at the bottom of the
> page
> > is too obscure - it's too far down the page and not eye-catching
> enough.  I
> > am thinking of something that could go in a box like the Sister Links
> box
> > (or in that box).  Something friendly and eyecatching, something aimed
> at
> > capturing new editors and pointing them to the type of page they might
> have
> > something to add to - or if nothing else, preventing them (maybe) from
> > adding trivia when we already have a whole article.
> >
> > Is there anything like this?  Do other people see it as something
> > potentially useful?
> >
> > Ian
>
> Isn't this what Portals are for? I mean they have to-dos, links to
> relevant topics and wikiprojects and requested articles and all of
> that stuff. We don't have a [[Portal:Trinidad and Tobago]], but we do
> have, say [[Portal:Netherlands]] and [[Portal:Iran]].
>
> --Oskar

I haven't seen a portal that really achieves what I am talking about - they
are good entrees to the subject, but they are really information guides.
One of the best WikiProjects I know is the Cricket WikiProject (which
actually has a pretty good Editors Guide, though not exactly along the lines
of what I am thinking of, at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cricket/contribute.  The
Cricket Portal is really impressive, and it points to the WikiProject, but
only secondarily.  In addition, creating a Portal simply for the purpose of
pointing readers towards an "editors' guide" dilutes the Portal idea.  Even
starting a WikiProject just to create an editors' guide seems to be a bit
cart-before-horse.

Ian


subject: [WikiEN-l] Notability and juggling

body:
Hi all,
  I really, really struggle with the idea of "notability" and
attempting to work out how much information is "tolerated" in
Wikipedia before people start nominating it for deletion with various
words ending in "-cruft".

So, a concrete example. I would be tempted to add more information on
juggling tricks into Wikipedia. There is already an excellent juggling
wiki (http://www.jugglingdb.com/jugglewiki/), but this poses no
obstacle: our mythical African Wikipedia reader may not have access to
the net.

So, it is almost unarguable that [[cascade (juggling)]] has no place
in WP. This is the most basic juggling pattern, and a term that many
are likely to know.

Next down the notability scale, we have [[reverse cascade]], [[shower
(juggling)]] and [[fountain (juggling)]]. Basic patterns that deserve
to be documented.

Now, how about [[machine (juggling)]], [[Mills Mess]] and
[[Rubinstein's Revenge]]? These are more advanced tricks that a
non-juggler is unlikely to know. He may recognise the first two, but
probably not the third.

Continuing, [[crossed-arms cascade]], [[contortionist (juggling)]] and
[[penguin (juggling)]] would represent even less well-known moves,
that are however known to almost all jugglers.

Even more obscure, how about [[Luke's Lobotomy]], [[Time-reversed
Mills Mess]] or [[Manham's Mangle]]? These are unknown to anyone
except serious jugglers, and very unlikely to be seen in a performance
for a general audience.

And to take one final leap, how about [[Seven Ball Marden's Mayem]],
[[Turbo Wally Walk]], [[Mountain Tennis]] or even [[Hermine
(juggling)]]? I haven't heard of any of these, I found them on
jugglewiki. The last one has possibly never been attempted by anyone
other than its inventor, yet is documented thoroughly with video
footage.

So, my question is: where should the line be drawn on inclusion into
"the sum of all human knowledge", and on what basis? Also, is that
basis really documented anywhere, or does it all come down to the
caprices of the editors who one day decide that these tricks aren't
"notable", and that this jugglecruft (I swear this word will be used)
has to die?

Thanks all for any comments, advice etc.

Steve


body:
> We dont accept "with permission" images, and we dont accept anything
> that is not verifiable by someone else. So there would be supporting
> documentation somewhere for that case.

Could every editor be obliged to attempt to find that supporting
documentation for every image in every article they edit? I really
doubt it.

Steve


from_name: Magnus Manske

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> Magnus Manske wrote:
>
>> Brion, please note that this is not about my latest cute little script.
>> AFAIK, there is currently *no* way to publish the GWB article as
>> demanded by the GFDL
>>
> [snip]
>
> Would you mind talking to our legal counsel about that? It would be crazy of us
> to go splashing in features for "legal" reasons that don't actually exist.
>
Brion, please refrain from quoting half-sentences of mine, which gives
the impression I said something I didn't.

There is no legal necessity for the "list authors" feature. I never said
that. I said that it is currently very inconvenient to fulfil the
demands of the GFDL, because you have to download the entire wikipedia,
including history, to correctly publish a single article. What good is
it to have an open license if taking advantage of that is a PITA? (I'm
talking non-geeks here, and geeks who have a slow machine/internet
connection/etc.)

If you want to contribute something that is actually helpful, please run
the one little SQL query I asked you to run, and tell us how many
seconds it takes.  Maybe run it again ignoring anons. If it take 2
seconds, the feature could be activated (for the time being, of course);
if it takes 30 seconds, activating it on Wikipedia is certainly out of
the question.

Magnus

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060324/f9c5b11f/attachment.pgp>


body:
On 24 Mar 2006, at 13:03, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

> I've come across a report of a 7-year old pool player who's winning in
> tournaments against adults and who's also able to perform several pool
> trick shots. It wouldn't make for an incredibly large article, but I'd
> like to get a general feel about what most people feel about such an
> article.
>
> Would it make any difference if I first saw him in "Ripley's Believe
> it or Not"? I hope not, as I'm sure I can find other sources.

It doesnt sound very interesting to  me. I think what you have said
above
is about all that can be said. But maybe thats differing interests.

Of all the articles wikipedia doesnt have, why choose that one?

Justinc


from_name: Domas Mituzas

subject: [Wikitech-l] Distributed process pool (fwd)

body:
Hello,
> If we get accurate statistics on what kinds of processes these are and
> what quantity of resources they consume, we might be able to integrate
> these considerations into the simulation environment we'll be using to
> evaluate various architechtures for distributed hosting.

We're doing some of this action for links processing, where delays
can be tolerated, but that's more for serializing pagelinks load.
Though nature of wikis does not allow lags for most operations - if
edits were async (I'd love if they could be..), multiple people would
be editing same pages and of course, getting conflicts. Async
communication for conflict resolution would be somewhat difficult.
And other actions, such as diffs, views, whatever, all need to be
synchronized. Of course, distributed caching helps a lot, and our aim
should be better efficiency of it, but still, we've got to be in sync.

As for distribution, I'd like to see some of application
synchronization primitives (like message cache state, db server lag,
etc) being pushed to app servers rather than pulled from db/memcache.
But that's already fighting miliseconds :)

As for architecture, there're not that many low hanging fruits at the
moment that would be easy to solve by distribution. If anyone sees it
otherwise, please tell :)

Domas


subject: [WikiEN-l] That other encyclopedia

body:
On 3/24/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> Free as in beer, you mean. I've heard that 1911 was the best though, and
> that lots of stuff that /was/ in that version has been trimmed or
> removed since, due to a lack of paper.

Yeah, I hear their article on neurolinguistic programming was much
less controversial than ours...

Steve


body:
KWH wrote:
> On 3/23/06, "Matt Brown" <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Fair enough.  Is it required that the original uploader provide the
>>fair use rationale, or can someone else?  If we require the original
>>uploader, that might be a problem.  If you're not the original
>>uploader, but provide a rationale, are you thereby assuming
>>responsibility for a copyright lawsuit?
>
> I've done a bit of thinking on this, and I believe that whoever
> includes the image tag in the article would be responsible for
> preparing a work containing the fair use material. If User A uploads
> the image, B puts it in the article, and then C breezes by and puts a
> fair use justification, then B would probably be responsible; but if D
> comes by and corrects a typo in the article and leaves the image tag
> in, then D could become responsible.

As a non-American with little knowledge of U.S. law, I'd nonetheless
find it unlikely that in your scenario D could be liable.  The way I'd
expect a court to see it, should it ever come to that, is that whoever
made the (implicit or explicit) claim that "this image may be fairly
used in that article", or acted based on such a claim made by another,
_when they should've known better_, would be liable.

D, who only corrects a typo in an unrelated part of the article, could
hardly be expected to know that the fair use claims made implictly by B
and explicitly by C are in fact bogus.  Unless, perhaps, the copyright
violation was _really_ blatant and obvious; but if one were to argue
that, one might as well argue that anyone who read the article without
fixing it is also liable.  I doubt either argument would actually fly.

As for the liability of B, that would rather depend on what, if any,
description A provided when they uploaded the image.  If A claimed the
image was PD-self, and the image was such that B would've had no reason
to doubt that claim, then it would be A's fault for misleading B.  But
even than C might still be held liable, since, in providing the fair use
rationale, they could be assumed to have been aware that A's claim was
invalid.

Of course, in practice there'd be a lot more to it than that.  For
example, a court might certainly debate about exactly how much due
diligence an editor could be expected to apply in verifying claims made
by other editors.  And certainly lawyers would be expected to make all
sorts of claims and counterclaims, however weak, just in case they might
get lucky.  Not to mention the possibility of local laws that might
explicitly create a presumption of "should've known better" on certain
individuals that in other jurisdictions might have no such
responsibility.  Or...

In any case, the practical guideline I would draw from all this is to
use common sense in making or acting upon fair use claims, and to assume
that one _might_ assume liability in doing so if one did not apply due
diligence.  "Trust, but verify."

--
Ilmari Karonen


body:
Domas Mituzas schrieb:
> Magnus,
>
>
>> history. I could probably demonstrate by requesting the history of GWB
>> with limit=100000 a few dozen times simultanously, but I won't for
>> obvious reasons.
>>
>
> Instead of writing additional feature for that you could just
> restrict limit on page history :)
>
I'm not sure I follow the joke here.
Yes, obviously we have to limit the limit (sorry;-) on history.
My feature costs much less in time of database access and, especially,
rendering.
>
>> Could you do me a favor? Run a SELECT DISTINCT on all authors of GWB
>> manually and take the time. This should represent the worst-case
>> scenario. I'm curious about how long that takes.
>>
>
> Worst case scenario is that revision would have to be loaded into
> memory, instead of safe haven on our slow i/o :) That would mean that
> we'd need twice more memory for all DB servers.
>
I don't follow this either, sorry. Until we have a concrete number on
how long the GWB page (or a similar one) takes for that query,
speculation if futile IMHO.
>
>> There are ways to limit this. AFAIK, it is not (strictly) necessary to
>> list IPs in the author list, so one could add "WHERE rev_user_id>0" to
>> the query. That should take care of the anon vandals, which in the
>> case
>> of GWB should be quite a percentage.
>>
>
> Not anymore. On the other hand, that'd require scanning some index
> anyway, :)
>
There's still be plenty of anons from before protection.
But, if it isn't cheaper anyway, OK.
>
>> It might also be possible to put an absolute limit into the query. But
>> that is a question the the legal guys.
>>
> Would not help.
>
OK.
>
>> Brion, please note that this is not about my latest cute little
>> script.
>> AFAIK, there is currently *no* way to publish the GWB article as
>> demanded by the GFDL short of downloading the *entire* en.wikipedia
>> including all old revisions, installing MediaWiki, importing the whole
>> thing and then run the query locally. Not exactly what I'd call
>> user-friendly...
>>
>
> Maybe we should write author xml streams during backup process, but
> we should not solve this issue by running it all on our main db servers.
>

Well, not on out "main" (=master) servers; it doesn't require writes.
Or do you, with "main", mean the slave servers? If so, what other
database servers besides "main" do we have?
If there would be a database/apache server group dedicated to a (future)
API in general, that would be great indeed !

And the author information will be outdated as soon as someone edits the
article after the backup.
Or do you mean inside the backup XML stream, for the "current version"
dump? That would be an improvement, but no solution to aveage Joe who
"wants these three pges as PDF".

Magnus

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060324/354ec51f/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [WikiEN-l] Notability and juggling

body:
This is a basic editing question.  Create separate articles for
everything you can verify.  Don't stand for any nonsense about
"reliable" sources--a good juggling website should be reliable enough,
whatever brain-damaged nonsense may have been stuffed into various
guidelines).  Create a general article on juggling techniques and
refer to the other articles in it.  Include in that article some less
well known (but still documented) juggling tricks.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Tor and "X-Forwarded-For"

references:
<3538731.post@talk.nabble.com>
	<4421E514.2000009@vyznev.net>	<3545291.post@talk.nabble.com>
	<dvt3an$u20$1@sea.gmane.org>	<3551513.post@talk.nabble.com>
	<4422C157.6040003@vyznev.net>	<3554503.post@talk.nabble.com>
	<3564576.post@talk.nabble.com>

body:
freakofnurture wrote:
> Phil Boswell wrote:
>>Ilmari Karonen wrote:
>>>
>>>It might be useful to add a mention to the {{SharedIP}} template.  To
>>>make the change effective, we'd also need to have a bot fix all the
>>>substed instances of that template.
>>
>>This is where I manfully suppress my opinion of the mad rush to SUBSTitute
>>every damn template on the wiki...
>>Does anyone recall what the actual point of having templates was?
>>Oh yes: so we could update stuff in a single place and have it propagate
>>automatically.
>
> The [[Template:Openproxy]] message that is placed on the IP's user_talk page
> is primarily for our own convenience, as it adds that IP to
> [[Category:Wikipedia:Blocked_open_proxies]]. We generally use the template
> call "{{openproxy}}" as the block summary, like this:
> * 09:11, March 18, 2006 Freakofnurture blocked "213.216.199.14 (contribs)"
> with an expiry time of indefinite (Tor {{openproxy}})
> When somebody attempts to edit from that IP, they are presented with the
> [[MediaWiki:Blockedtext]] page, and on this page, the "$2" is replaced by
> the block reason, which in this case expands into the _current_ revision of
> the {{openproxy}} template. So I don't think we need to run an "unsubsting
> bot" anytime soon. Especially whatever is on the user_talk will only be read
> by the first user of that IP who sees the orange "new messages" banner on
> their screen, and never again.

I think you've got your templates mixed up above.  {{SharedIP}} is the
"This IP address is shared by multiple users." template, used on talk
pages of IPs that should not be blocked for long periods.  It's the
generic template from which {{AOL}} was forked.  I agree with Phil that
it shouldn't be substed, but the folks at [[Wikipedia:Template
substitution]] seem to think otherwise.

--
Ilmari Karonen


from_name: Keith Old

subject: [WikiEN-l] That other encyclopedia

body:
On 3/24/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Seen this?
> >
> >
> > http://store.britannica.com/jump.jsp?itemID=114&itemType=CATEGORY&iMainCat=4&iSubCat=114&sort=1&dpid=14
> >
> > You can get the full Britannica DVD for US$25!
> >
> > At that sort of price, I'm tempted to get one myself, not least to say
> > to journalists that I'm not only a fan but I bought a copy ...
> >
> > And they're clearing this at US$20:
> >
> >
> > http://store.britannica.com/shopping/product/detailmain.jsp?itemID=247&itemType=PRODUCT&iProductID=247
> >
> > Anyone with dreams of a printed Wikipedia 1.0 should look at this and
> > think how we can get there.
> >
> >
> > - d.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
I can actually have access to the academic edition through the Canberra
public library system for free through my Library card. For me, Britannica
is the free encyclopedia that I can't edit. It comes in handy for
researching articles from time to time though.

Regards

*Keith Old*


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] Notability and juggling

body:
I would drop them all into an article on juggling tricks/juggling
moves. Perhaps a seperate one for cascades. Without reading them, I
think the articles on most moves are too small to warrant their own
article. Drop them together in a larger article and redirect the
existing names to the new article/list.

Mgm

On 3/24/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>  I really, really struggle with the idea of "notability" and
> attempting to work out how much information is "tolerated" in
> Wikipedia before people start nominating it for deletion with various
> words ending in "-cruft".
>
> So, a concrete example. I would be tempted to add more information on
> juggling tricks into Wikipedia. There is already an excellent juggling
> wiki (http://www.jugglingdb.com/jugglewiki/), but this poses no
> obstacle: our mythical African Wikipedia reader may not have access to
> the net.
>
> So, it is almost unarguable that [[cascade (juggling)]] has no place
> in WP. This is the most basic juggling pattern, and a term that many
> are likely to know.
>
> Next down the notability scale, we have [[reverse cascade]], [[shower
> (juggling)]] and [[fountain (juggling)]]. Basic patterns that deserve
> to be documented.
>
> Now, how about [[machine (juggling)]], [[Mills Mess]] and
> [[Rubinstein's Revenge]]? These are more advanced tricks that a
> non-juggler is unlikely to know. He may recognise the first two, but
> probably not the third.
>
> Continuing, [[crossed-arms cascade]], [[contortionist (juggling)]] and
> [[penguin (juggling)]] would represent even less well-known moves,
> that are however known to almost all jugglers.
>
> Even more obscure, how about [[Luke's Lobotomy]], [[Time-reversed
> Mills Mess]] or [[Manham's Mangle]]? These are unknown to anyone
> except serious jugglers, and very unlikely to be seen in a performance
> for a general audience.
>
> And to take one final leap, how about [[Seven Ball Marden's Mayem]],
> [[Turbo Wally Walk]], [[Mountain Tennis]] or even [[Hermine
> (juggling)]]? I haven't heard of any of these, I found them on
> jugglewiki. The last one has possibly never been attempted by anyone
> other than its inventor, yet is documented thoroughly with video
> footage.
>
> So, my question is: where should the line be drawn on inclusion into
> "the sum of all human knowledge", and on what basis? Also, is that
> basis really documented anywhere, or does it all come down to the
> caprices of the editors who one day decide that these tricks aren't
> "notable", and that this jugglecruft (I swear this word will be used)
> has to die?
>
> Thanks all for any comments, advice etc.
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Notability and juggling

body:
On 3/24/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Why exactly *do* we suggest merging separate short articles together
> into one big article, anyway? To create "the perfect article"?
>

Two reasons:

(a) improves the information density of our articles.
(b) the average Wikipedian is less likely to support the deletion of
an article about several several related subjects than one about a
single, rather obscure, subject.


from_name: Matt R

body:
--- Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
> >> We dont accept "with permission" images, and we dont accept anything
> >> that is not verifiable by someone else. So there would be supporting
> >> documentation somewhere for that case.
> >
> > Could every editor be obliged to attempt to find that supporting
> > documentation for every image in every article they edit? I really
> > doubt it.
>
> For everything other than self-created pictures, yes. If the uploader
> cant produce documentation, delete the image.

I don't think that's a good idea. I've uploaded numerous images after
negotiating a free license with the copyright holder, for which there is no
supporting documentation other than my assertion (barring private emails).

(One sharp fellow PGP-signed his agreement to license some photos under the
GFDL. I couldn't verify his key through the web of trust, though, nor could I
find *absolute* proof that he was the copyright holder. We have to start
trusting at some point...)

-- Matt

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto
Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com

___________________________________________________________
NEW Yahoo! Cars - sell your car and browse thousands of new and used cars online! http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/


body:
I've come across a report of a 7-year old pool player who's winning in
tournaments against adults and who's also able to perform several pool
trick shots. It wouldn't make for an incredibly large article, but I'd
like to get a general feel about what most people feel about such an
article.

Would it make any difference if I first saw him in "Ripley's Believe
it or Not"? I hope not, as I'm sure I can find other sources.

Mgm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Original research

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 3/24/06, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
>> If reliable sources can't be cited, does that make the information
>> original research?  I mean, I can document periods of my life citing my
>
> Depends what "can't" means. Information that has been published, but
> for which you do not have access to the source, is not original
> research.

I mean there are no reliable sources, not that I can't personally access
them.

>> website and other online sources, but those aren't reliable, are they?
>> Therefore I'm creating original research, aren't I?
>
> Arguably yes, but that's more of a collateral damage case than what
> WP:NOR is really trying to prevent. The information would more likely
> be removed for violating WP:V.

Well, I'm going by ''Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to
refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not
been published already by a reputable source. In this context it means
unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas;
or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data,
statements, concepts, or arguments that, in the words of Wikipedia's
co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical
interpretation".''

So creating a narrative which doesn't exist elsewhere, for example
citing blog entries to create a story, that's clearly original research,
yes?

Steve Block

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.1/291 - Release Date: 24/03/06


from_name: Sue Reed

subject: [WikiEN-l]  Next step in "fair use" cleanup?

body:
I could use a little input. I've been working on trying to
clear out the copyrighted or no source images from pages
about Olympic athletes.

A user had uploaded an image to the page on Mellisa
Hollingsworth-Richards, which he sourced as coming from
TSN.CA (similar to ESPN.com). I marked it for deletion as a
copyright violation, added it on IfD, sent him a note on
his talk page, and noted it on the picture. A few minutes
later, he deleted the picture from the page and uploaded a
new picture - this one taken directly from CBC.ca (another
clear copyright violation). I again marked it for deletion
and followed the other steps.

The user has now referred to me as a ninny on my talk page,
which I really don't mind all that much. Another user, on
the IfD page has said that the image should be kept ...
whether or not it's a copyright violation.

I could use a little feedback in whether I'm headed in the
right direction or not, as I frequently run into this very
same issue on other pages. Uploaders try to claim the
images as "fair use" even if they're taken directly from a
copyrighted source.

Sue Anne
[[User:Sreed1234]]


body:
On 3/24/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> I've come across a report of a 7-year old pool player who's winning in
> tournaments against adults and who's also able to perform several pool
> trick shots. It wouldn't make for an incredibly large article, but I'd
> like to get a general feel about what most people feel about such an
> article.
>
> Would it make any difference if I first saw him in "Ripley's Believe
> it or Not"? I hope not, as I'm sure I can find other sources.

Put him in a single article with all the other pool players. :)

Seriously, though, since I don't really understand why we impose
artificial limits on which articles should be in or out, I have no
idea.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] That other encyclopedia

body:
On 3/24/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> They appear to be trying to undercut us. They also appear to be suceeding.

What are they undercutting exactly? For a second there, I thought I
was going to find Britannica selling Wikipedia on DVD for $30, and
Britannica on DVD for $20. Now *that* would be an interesting
marketing strategy!

Steve


body:
On 3/24/06, Ilmari Karonen <nospam at vyznev.net> wrote:
> High-resolution scans of every page of a recently published bestselling
> graphic novel?  The current U.S. #1 album as Ogg files?  A full-length
> Theora stream of a movie currently in theaters?  A Microsoft Office XP
> install CD image, with key?

Ok, well I was thinking in terms of images embedded within an article.
You win the "thinking outside the box" prize. :)

Steve


list: foundation-l

from_name: amgine at saewyc.net

subject: [Foundation-l] Sister Project Cooperation

body:
>> Thus the article about Wikisource in Wikipedia
>> should follow Wikipedia
>> rules about articles in its principal namespace.  In
>> that context
>> Wikisource is no different than someone whose
>> biography appears in
>> Wikipedia.
>>
>> Eclecticology
>>
>>
>
> Just to be clear here.  This is not about sister
> project articles but rather the ~3-6 words that
> accompany the logos at the bottom of the Main Page and
> various other community pages.
>
> I agree Wikipedia articles about sister projects in
> the article namespace should follow normal rules for
> any such article.
>
> Birgitte SB

The Communications Committee has begun to build a tool on Meta,
[[m:Slogans]], which will be a repository for a simple description and
slogan for each project in a language. These should be from the community
itself, and would be the preferred text for a Sister project template.

There's a lot of work to be done to complete the list of course, but I
encourage people to help out if only to add your project's description and
slogan.

Amgine


list: wikimedia-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] Original research

body:
On 3/24/06, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
> If reliable sources can't be cited, does that make the information
> original research?  I mean, I can document periods of my life citing my

Depends what "can't" means. Information that has been published, but
for which you do not have access to the source, is not original
research.

> website and other online sources, but those aren't reliable, are they?
> Therefore I'm creating original research, aren't I?

Arguably yes, but that's more of a collateral damage case than what
WP:NOR is really trying to prevent. The information would more likely
be removed for violating WP:V.

(as I understand it)

Steve


list: wikipedia-l

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] MediaWiki converter to Plain Text, XML, DocBook,
 PDF

body:
Nicolas Weeger schrieb:
>> A long, long time ago, I started writing a PHP script to convert
>> MediaWiki markup into XML. I believe it is now feature-complete and
>> relatively reliable. Not only can it process a single wiki text, but a
>> list of articles, taking the text from any MediaWiki-based site online.
>> It uses the same method to replace templates.
>>
>
> Great thing!
>
> Question: will it generate internal links, ie if i select [[wikipedia]]
> and [[Jimmy Wales]] as articles, will the links between be "internal",
> or to the site?
> It'd be great to have the result xml as "self-contained" as possible.
>
Short answer : It does use self-contained links, and ignores all others.

Long answer:
The XML that is generated in the first step doesn't care about link
targets at all. The actual output function in the second step (e.g. to
DocBook) handles that, so it can be adapted to the format.

Maybe I should turn all non-internal links into external ones (back to
the wiki). However, that would also create link to non-existing articles
(or I'll have to check each of them across the web, resulting in
bandwidth hell ;-)
> *dreams of having, on MediaWiki, a way to select articles efficiently
> and exporting directly*
>
Soon. Maybe not on Wikipedia (performance reasons), but otherwise - soon.

BTW, I have the parsing times way down by now. [[Biology]] is converted
in 0.5 seconds, not counting the times it has to load sources of
article/templates from the web. This might become a MediaWiki parser
replacement after all...

Magnus

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20060324/24e02351/attachment.pgp


body:
On 24 Mar 2006, at 14:01, Matt R wrote:

> --- Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
>>>> We dont accept "with permission" images, and we dont accept
>>>> anything
>>>> that is not verifiable by someone else. So there would be
>>>> supporting
>>>> documentation somewhere for that case.
>>>
>>> Could every editor be obliged to attempt to find that supporting
>>> documentation for every image in every article they edit? I really
>>> doubt it.
>>
>> For everything other than self-created pictures, yes. If the uploader
>> cant produce documentation, delete the image.
>
> I don't think that's a good idea. I've uploaded numerous images after
> negotiating a free license with the copyright holder, for which
> there is no
> supporting documentation other than my assertion (barring private
> emails).
>
> (One sharp fellow PGP-signed his agreement to license some photos
> under the
> GFDL. I couldn't verify his key through the web of trust, though,
> nor could I
> find *absolute* proof that he was the copyright holder. We have to
> start
> trusting at some point...)

You are supposed to forward such emails to the foundation - there is
a special
email address for this. You dont have to post them on the wiki.

Verifiability is vital.

Justinc


references:
<fb7fdd9c0603240503g11fdacd1vaa7a4c90985f3165@mail.gmail.com>
	<CD027201-4C8B-4344-B37C-9F70D9DE7DBC@specialbusservice.com>
	<4423FEDA.8050700@vyznev.net>

body:
On 24 Mar 2006, at 14:14, Ilmari Karonen wrote:

> Justin Cormack wrote:
>> On 24 Mar 2006, at 13:03, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
>>> I've come across a report of a 7-year old pool player who's
>>> winning in
>>> tournaments against adults and who's also able to perform several
>>> pool
>>> trick shots. It wouldn't make for an incredibly large article,
>>> but I'd
>>> like to get a general feel about what most people feel about such an
>>> article.
>>>
>>> Would it make any difference if I first saw him in "Ripley's Believe
>>> it or Not"? I hope not, as I'm sure I can find other sources.
>>
>> It doesnt sound very interesting to  me. I think what you have said
>> above is about all that can be said. But maybe thats differing
>> interests.
>
> If he appeared on Ripley's Believe it or not, there presumably _is_
> more
> that can be said, even if it might not be interesting to you.
> Unless of
> course he appeared in a _very_ short segment.

I cant tell - I have no idea what Ripley's Believe it or not is. I guess
we have an article on it somewhere though...

Assuming its a TV program, their research standards may not be high. I
would want other sources.

And a seven year old being talanted is hardly news round here is it?

Justinc


body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> I'm not sure what a "blatant" copyright violation would be. There's
> always the chance that the copyright owner of any image gave
> permission to Wikimedia to use it - an editor who simply edits the
> article cannot know whether that is true or not.

High-resolution scans of every page of a recently published bestselling
graphic novel?  The current U.S. #1 album as Ogg files?  A full-length
Theora stream of a movie currently in theaters?  A Microsoft Office XP
install CD image, with key?

In general, something that anyone would be expected to recognize
immediately and that no-one could possibly assume to have been released
under a free license without extraordinary evidence.

--
Ilmari Karonen


subject: [WikiEN-l] Notability and juggling

body:
On 3/24/06, Ilmari Karonen <nospam at vyznev.net> wrote:
> As for things like [[Hermine (juggling)]], that could fall foul of our
> original research and verfiability policies if there are no secondary
> sources to confirm the claims of the inventor.  If included, it should
> at least be worded carefully.

Well, the video
(http://unknownjuggling.tripod.com/october/hermine.WMV) is pretty
conclusive  that it's possible :) He doesn't claim that anyone else
does it, though.

Anyway, I certainly don't propose that every trick that anyone invents
in their backyard should be documented in WP.

Why exactly *do* we suggest merging separate short articles together
into one big article, anyway? To create "the perfect article"?

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Original research

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 3/24/06, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
>> Well, I'm going by ''Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to
>> refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not
>> been published already by a reputable source. In this context it means
>> unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas;
>> or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data,
>> statements, concepts, or arguments that, in the words of Wikipedia's
>> co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical
>> interpretation".''
>>
>> So creating a narrative which doesn't exist elsewhere, for example
>> citing blog entries to create a story, that's clearly original research,
>> yes?
>
> Imagine you have three blogs which refer to a sequence of events. One
> blog has events A and B, and the other two have C, and D and E
> respectively. You simple sequence those events in chronological order,
> referring copiously. I don't believe it's a "novel" narrative to
> create an article which simply documents that the sequence of events
> A, E, B, C, D took place.
>
> If you start saying B took place because of E (although no blog
> specifically said that), or start drawing parallels between events A/E
> and C/D, then you start heading into dangerous territory.

Okay, but imagine you have one blog, which describes said blogger doing
a, b and c.  Is that permissable?  Because if it is, then it's
permissable to game Wikipedia, to my mind, in that anything documented
online is fair game.

To my mind, a novel narrative is one that can not be verified
independent of the events themselves.

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.1/291 - Release Date: 24/03/06


subject: [WikiEN-l]  That other encyclopedia

body:
David Gerard wrote:

Seen this?

http://store.britannica.com/jump.jsp?itemID=114
<http://store.britannica.com/jump.jsp?itemID=114&itemType=CATEGORY&iMainCat=
4&iSubCat=114&sort=1&dpid=14>
&itemType=CATEGORY&iMainCat=4&iSubCat=114&sort=1&dpid=14

You can get the full Britannica DVD for US$25!

At that sort of price, I'm tempted to get one myself, not least to say
to journalists that I'm not only a fan but I bought a copy ...

And they're clearing this at US$20:

http://store.britannica.com/shopping/product/detailmain.jsp?itemID=247
<http://store.britannica.com/shopping/product/detailmain.jsp?itemID=247&item
Type=PRODUCT&iProductID=247> &itemType=PRODUCT&iProductID=247

Anyone with dreams of a printed Wikipedia 1.0 should look at this and
think how we can get there.

- d.

Well, the first thing we need to do is to figure out where we are,
especially as we have passed the point where we can just say "We have
1,000,000 articles!" and that gives us more weight. From now on, the raw
number is going to matter less and less and our quality is what will become
the yardstick to measure us.

In an often-neglected corner of the project namespace, the
[[Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team]] has quietly been assessing
articles, and has made several lists of articles that are in great shape and
those that need improvement. Since any encyclopedia should have articles
that comprise a "core", several editors have gone through and assessed all
the articles listed on [[Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics]].
There's a few good ones, but there's some that need vast improvement. An
example would be the [[Toy]] article. Now, who would like to publish on
paper an article that looks more like a list than anything else? That's just
a start. All the articles with a "Start" as their assessment are not usable
in Wikipedia 1.0 and need some tender and caring love.

Then there's also independent WikiProjects. All active WikiProjects have now
been contacted, and have been asked for listings of articles that they
consider to be of high quality. The results we have are available at
[[Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/WikiProject full article list]].
However, as you can see, there's still gaps-we need to have some projects
answer, and there's others that we just need to prune. However, the
centralized article list also tells us which projects are active, some of
them dishing out FAs at a constant rate.

That said, this is nowhere even close to being done: there's still quite a
bit of work to do. Look at the lists I've given and those given at
[[Wikipedia:Article assessment]] to look at what's the most urgent to fix.
Better yet, go and help violet/riga with the current topic at
[[Wikipedia:Article assessment/African countries]], as it looks rather
empty. Overall, there's plenty of things to do and too few hands to do it,
and you get the same warm, fuzzy sensation you feel when you're being a
rogue admin...

Titoxd.


from_name: Sean Barrett

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Sue Reed stated for the record:

> I could use a little feedback in whether I'm headed in the
> right direction or not, as I frequently run into this very
> same issue on other pages. Uploaders try to claim the
> images as "fair use" even if they're taken directly from a
> copyrighted source.
>
> Sue Anne
> [[User:Sreed1234]]

Sue, you are absolutely in the right.

I speedy-deleted the latest version as a blatant copyvio from a
commercial source.  I'm now standing by, waiting to be called a ninny
... let's see if a short sharp slap with the cluebat will cure him of
his fondness for personal attacks.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | You'll be sort of surprised what there
 sean at epoptic.org | is to be found once you go beyond 'Z'
                  | and start poking around! --Dr. Seuss
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEJHwiMAt1wyd9d+URAgPmAJ4wU8L21hArLlTJQ59/UY2M9MwjiwCeJEmY
/6gdCofO+s056+WhMg5BWm8=
=Q08t
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Notability and juggling

body:
On 3/24/06, Ilmari Karonen <nospam at vyznev.net> wrote:
> I didn't mean the claim that it was possible: the video should document
> that pretty well.  I meant the claim that he invented it, and that the
> name he coined for it is accepted.  Those would need verification, or,
> in its absence, should at most be documented as claims of one person only.
>
> In this particular case I wouldn't put the bar very high, but we're to
> take his claims at face value, we at least ought to be able to point to
> another source and say "Well, at least this other guy agrees with him."

Ah, interesting, I hadn't thought of that. I actually hadn't thought
of questioning the claim - in this particular case, the guy (a very
creative, young juggler from the US) created a named series of tricks
for each letter of the alphabet, Hermine being the 8th.

But there are probably hundreds of better known tricks that I would
focus on first.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Original research

body:
On 3/24/06, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
> Well, I'm going by ''Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to
> refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not
> been published already by a reputable source. In this context it means
> unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas;
> or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data,
> statements, concepts, or arguments that, in the words of Wikipedia's
> co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical
> interpretation".''
>
> So creating a narrative which doesn't exist elsewhere, for example
> citing blog entries to create a story, that's clearly original research,
> yes?

Imagine you have three blogs which refer to a sequence of events. One
blog has events A and B, and the other two have C, and D and E
respectively. You simple sequence those events in chronological order,
referring copiously. I don't believe it's a "novel" narrative to
create an article which simply documents that the sequence of events
A, E, B, C, D took place.

If you start saying B took place because of E (although no blog
specifically said that), or start drawing parallels between events A/E
and C/D, then you start heading into dangerous territory.

These rules were drawn up to ward off kooks, historical revisionists
etc. Not good faith attempts are documenting uncontroversial, but
little documented facts. IMHO.

Steve


body:
On 3/24/06, Ilmari Karonen <nospam at vyznev.net> wrote:
> I'd say claimed self-made images are often the worst cases.  If you
> can't find a source online, what can you do but trust the uploader?  Or,
> even if you do find an online source, how do you know that the uploaded
> _isn't_ the creator if the other site doesn't document _its_ sources in
> sufficient detail?

Is it arguable that if someone falsely claims to have made an image
and releases that under GFDL, and we use and distribute that image,
then the copyright violation is his, not ours?

Steve


body:
--- Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
> On 24 Mar 2006, at 14:01, Matt R wrote:
>
> > --- Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
> >>>> We dont accept "with permission" images, and we dont accept
> >>>> anything
> >>>> that is not verifiable by someone else. So there would be
> >>>> supporting
> >>>> documentation somewhere for that case.
> >>>
> >>> Could every editor be obliged to attempt to find that supporting
> >>> documentation for every image in every article they edit? I really
> >>> doubt it.
> >>
> >> For everything other than self-created pictures, yes. If the uploader
> >> cant produce documentation, delete the image.
> >
> > I don't think that's a good idea. I've uploaded numerous images after
> > negotiating a free license with the copyright holder, for which
> > there is no
> > supporting documentation other than my assertion (barring private
> > emails).
>
> You are supposed to forward such emails to the foundation - there is
> a special
> email address for this. You dont have to post them on the wiki.

Really? I've never heard of this before. It'd be pointless anyway: If I'm
willing to lie when I assert that I've corresponded with someone about
such-and-such a license for an image, what's to stop me from forwarding a
fabricated email exchange to the Wikimedia Foundation?

At some point you have to trust someone. I propose that it's OK to trust
trustworthy Wikipedians.

-- Matt

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto
Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com

___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com


body:
--- Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 3/24/06, Matt R <matt_crypto at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > Really? I've never heard of this before. It'd be pointless anyway: If I'm
> > willing to lie when I assert that I've corresponded with someone about
> > such-and-such a license for an image, what's to stop me from forwarding a
> > fabricated email exchange to the Wikimedia Foundation?
>
> It's more work.

Not that much more work. You could do it with a couple of one-liner emails.

-- Matt

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto
Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com

___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com


from_name: Arwel Parry

body:
In message
<fb7fdd9c0603240503g11fdacd1vaa7a4c90985f3165 at mail.gmail.com>,
MacGyverMagic/Mgm
<macgyvermagic-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org> writes
>I've come across a report of a 7-year old pool player who's winning in
>tournaments against adults and who's also able to perform several pool
>trick shots. It wouldn't make for an incredibly large article, but I'd
>like to get a general feel about what most people feel about such an
>article.
>
>Would it make any difference if I first saw him in "Ripley's Believe
>it or Not"? I hope not, as I'm sure I can find other sources.
>
>Mgm

Well, I created an article on [[Rhys Campbell Murphy]] a few weeks ago -
he's a 5-year old Scottish golfing prodigy who's recording better scores
than Tiger Woods did at his age, and he's featured on UK TV.

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


from_name: Rob Church

body:
On 24/03/06, Magnus Manske <magnus.manske at web.de> wrote:
> Well, not on out "main" (=master) servers; it doesn't require writes.
> Or do you, with "main", mean the slave servers? If so, what other
> database servers besides "main" do we have?
> If there would be a database/apache server group dedicated to a (future)
> API in general, that would be great indeed !

I take "main" to refer to the production SQL servers; the master and
whatever slaves we happen to have right now (and Domas would know all
about them better than I).

I'd venture that if we are going to start offering an API etc. then we
are going to need the hardware to back it up, so requesting a few
servers dedicated for this sort of task isn't as arrogant as it might
appear. :)

Rob Church


subject: [WikiEN-l] Notability and juggling

body:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
>>
>>So, it is almost unarguable that [[cascade (juggling)]] has no place
>>in WP. This is the most basic juggling pattern, and a term that many
>>are likely to know.
>>
[snip]
>>
>>And to take one final leap, how about [[Seven Ball Marden's Mayem]],
>>[[Turbo Wally Walk]], [[Mountain Tennis]] or even [[Hermine
>>(juggling)]]? I haven't heard of any of these, I found them on
>>jugglewiki. The last one has possibly never been attempted by anyone
>>other than its inventor, yet is documented thoroughly with video
>>footage.
 >
 > I would drop them all into an article on juggling tricks/juggling
 > moves. Perhaps a seperate one for cascades. Without reading them, I
 > think the articles on most moves are too small to warrant their own
 > article. Drop them together in a larger article and redirect the
 > existing names to the new article/list.

I wouldn't, but I suspect this comes down to the mergist / "divisionist"
(just coined that) philosophical difference.  The way I see it, Wiki is
hypertext, and I see no reason to defeat the purpose of hypertext by
lumping independent topics into a single monolithic article.

I any case, I also see no reason not to include most of those -- at
least the ones that are documented in independent secondary sources and
can be considered established.  Having those articles does not interfere
with the rest of Wikipedia, and, given their fairly neutral subject
matter, should not present significant maintainability issues.

As for things like [[Hermine (juggling)]], that could fall foul of our
original research and verfiability policies if there are no secondary
sources to confirm the claims of the inventor.  If included, it should
at least be worded carefully.

--
Ilmari Karonen


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
My apology for misunderstanding  the question.  I agree with you about
the tagline.

Ec

- Essjay - wrote:

>I believe that the issue of concern has been confused: We're not worried
>about the articles, we're worried about the slogans that are used on the
>various main pages. Either Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia" or it is
>not; it's not the place of Wikiquote to decide on a new tagline, any more
>than it is appropriate for Wikiquote to change the Wikipedia logo to another
>one. By the same token, it is not the place of Wikipedia to decide if
>Wikisource is "the free library" or not; whatever is the official slogan of
>Wikisource is what needs to be put in the little box on the main page that
>links to all the other projects.
>
>Essjay
>
>On 3/24/06, Birgitte Arco <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>Thus the article about Wikisource in Wikipedia
>>>should follow Wikipedia
>>>rules about articles in its principal namespace.  In
>>>that context
>>>Wikisource is no different than someone whose
>>>biography appears in
>>>Wikipedia.
>>>
>>Just to be clear here.  This is not about sister
>>project articles but rather the ~3-6 words that
>>accompany the logos at the bottom of the Main Page and
>>various other community pages.
>>
>>I agree Wikipedia articles about sister projects in
>>the article namespace should follow normal rules for
>>any such article.
>>
>>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Notability and juggling

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 3/24/06, Ilmari Karonen <nospam at vyznev.net> wrote:
>
>>As for things like [[Hermine (juggling)]], that could fall foul of our
>>original research and verfiability policies if there are no secondary
>>sources to confirm the claims of the inventor.  If included, it should
>>at least be worded carefully.
>
> Well, the video
> (http://unknownjuggling.tripod.com/october/hermine.WMV) is pretty
> conclusive  that it's possible :) He doesn't claim that anyone else
> does it, though.

I didn't mean the claim that it was possible: the video should document
that pretty well.  I meant the claim that he invented it, and that the
name he coined for it is accepted.  Those would need verification, or,
in its absence, should at most be documented as claims of one person only.

In this particular case I wouldn't put the bar very high, but we're to
take his claims at face value, we at least ought to be able to point to
another source and say "Well, at least this other guy agrees with him."

--
Ilmari Karonen


subject: [WikiEN-l] Notability and juggling

body:
On 3/24/06, Ilmari Karonen <nospam at vyznev.net> wrote:
>
> I didn't mean the claim that it was possible: the video should document
> that pretty well.  I meant the claim that he invented it, and that the
> name he coined for it is accepted.  Those would need verification, or,
> in its absence, should at most be documented as claims of one person only.
>
> In this particular case I wouldn't put the bar very high, but we're to
> take his claims at face value, we at least ought to be able to point to
> another source and say "Well, at least this other guy agrees with him."

I think the substantive point to document here is that such a move
does exist in the world of juggling.  Whether we call the article by a
certain name or credit one particular guy with inventing it is
something to be dealt with by normal editing, but we don't want to be
in a position where we say "we've seen strong evidence of this
juggling move but we can't document it because the name by which the
source knows it may be ideosyncratic.  Let's get all human knowledge
*into* the encyclopedia, and once it's there we can argue about what
name to call things.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Notability and juggling

body:
On 3/24/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/24/06, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> > You appear to be asking for a cure for blithering idiocy. There is no cure
> > for such, particularly on AFD.
>
> Sure there is - well written policy helps. Even if 10 blithering
> idiots vote to delete a page, if the 11th points to the rule which
> clearly rules out deletion in the particular case, then hopefully the
> admin is sensible enough to ignore the 10. If the 11th is only
> screaming "use common sense!" then he won't get far.

In my early days at Wikipedia I was told about an editor who, in
closing AfDs, actually decided to go by the deletion policy.  He got
into quite a lot of trouble.


body:
Justin Cormack wrote:
>
> For everything other than self-created pictures, yes. If the uploader
> cant produce documentation, delete the image.

I'd say claimed self-made images are often the worst cases.  If you
can't find a source online, what can you do but trust the uploader?  Or,
even if you do find an online source, how do you know that the uploaded
_isn't_ the creator if the other site doesn't document _its_ sources in
sufficient detail?

Okay, you can choose _not_ to trust the uploader and instead nominate
the image at IFD.  But that's hardly assuming good faith.

For a specific recent example, see [[Image:JP4.jpg]] on enwiki.  Or, for
that matter, [[Image:Teabagging.jpg]] and the ensuing IFD debate at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2006_January_21

--
Ilmari Karonen


from_name: Benjamin Webb

subject:
[Foundation-l] Rodovid.org, family tree wiki,
	wishes to become a wiki project

body:
Thankyou for your suggestions. I am currently reworking the proposal page at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Rodovid.org/new your comments would be
appreciated.

Benjamin Webb

On 24/03/06, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
>
> Benjamin Webb wrote:
>
> >I have not yet recived any real reply about this project. I would like to
> >hear from someone whether it could actually become a wikimedia project,
> and
> >what would need to happen before it could. Any comments would be
> apreciated.
> >
> >Benjamin Webb (User:Bjwebb on wikipedia, meta, commons, wikibooks,
> rodovid
> >and wikitree)
> >
> >P.S. It has a meta page at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Rodovid.org
> >
> >
> What really needs to happen now is to refine the proposal page and get
> it into a position that spells out in clear langauge what all of the
> objectives of the project are, and perhaps even what some initial
> policies might be.
>
> I would suggest comparing it to the following pages for a similar level
> of completeness before you get much further:
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiversity/Modified_project_proposal
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews&oldid=87446  (to
> compare to how Wikinews did its proposal back elsewhen)
>
> After this, the proposal pages need to be translated into at least four
> other major Wikimedia languages like Russian, Spanish, French, Chinese,
> etc.  The full list of suggested langauges is at:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/New_project_policy
>
> Afterward a voting page needs to be set up and some advertisements for
> voting on the project need to be put on Goings-on for Meta and several
> Village Pumps on various projects.  For the Wikiversity vote, I set up a
> series of ads to be translated on
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiversity/Vote
>
> This really made it easy to go to the various Wikimedia websites and
> drop a note informing people that the vote was taking place.  The idea
> here is that you need to involve as many Wikimedia users in the decision
> making process as possible, and to remember that not everybody speaks
> English.  Indeed the non-English speaking group of Wikimedia users is so
> substantial that it really makes no sense to start a new major project
> without a major effort to get input from these other language groups.
>
> After that, you should have a legitimate answer or some solid input from
> Wikimedia users in general over if the idea is a good one or not.  Due
> to the nature of this project, widespread input is especially
> recommended.  Mind you, all of the above steps are outlined in the
> official New Project Policy, as approved by the Wikimedia Foundation
> board.  The examples I cite are from successful projects that at least
> have the attention of the board and very substantial community support.
>
> If you want some assitance on this, feel free to e-mail me privately or
> hit my user talk page on Wikibooks (the best way to get ahold of me).
> Most members of the special projects committee (of which I'm not a
> part) would also be willing to help you out as well in terms of general
> assistance or to answer questions about this process.
>
> --
> Robert Scott Horning
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Original research

body:
On 3/24/06, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
> Okay, but imagine you have one blog, which describes said blogger doing
> a, b and c.  Is that permissable?  Because if it is, then it's
> permissable to game Wikipedia, to my mind, in that anything documented
> online is fair game.

No, of course it's not. Blogs aren't generally good sources anyway - I
was just ignoring that fact for convenience :)

> To my mind, a novel narrative is one that can not be verified
> independent of the events themselves.

Well, I don't see that any "narrative" can be "verified" as such,
other than by reference to someone who's already published it. "Novel"
I would restrict to something controversial...

Steve


from_name: Ilmari Karonen

body:
Justin Cormack wrote:
> On 24 Mar 2006, at 13:03, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
>>I've come across a report of a 7-year old pool player who's winning in
>>tournaments against adults and who's also able to perform several pool
>>trick shots. It wouldn't make for an incredibly large article, but I'd
>>like to get a general feel about what most people feel about such an
>>article.
>>
>>Would it make any difference if I first saw him in "Ripley's Believe
>>it or Not"? I hope not, as I'm sure I can find other sources.
>
> It doesnt sound very interesting to  me. I think what you have said
> above is about all that can be said. But maybe thats differing interests.

If he appeared on Ripley's Believe it or not, there presumably _is_ more
that can be said, even if it might not be interesting to you.  Unless of
course he appeared in a _very_ short segment.

--
Ilmari Karonen


body:
On 3/24/06, Matt R <matt_crypto at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Really? I've never heard of this before. It'd be pointless anyway: If I'm
> willing to lie when I assert that I've corresponded with someone about
> such-and-such a license for an image, what's to stop me from forwarding a
> fabricated email exchange to the Wikimedia Foundation?

It's more work.

Steve


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Original research

body:
Yes, the criteria is whether the information is published in a
reliable source, not its accuracy. So no matter how accurate you are
it remains original research.

Fred

On Mar 24, 2006, at 6:09 AM, Steve Block wrote:

> If reliable sources can't be cited, does that make the information
> original research?  I mean, I can document periods of my life
> citing my
> website and other online sources, but those aren't reliable, are they?
> Therefore I'm creating original research, aren't I?
>
> Steve Block
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.1/291 - Release Date:
> 24/03/06
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Notability and juggling

body:
On 3/24/06, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> You appear to be asking for a cure for blithering idiocy. There is no cure
> for such, particularly on AFD.

Sure there is - well written policy helps. Even if 10 blithering
idiots vote to delete a page, if the 11th points to the rule which
clearly rules out deletion in the particular case, then hopefully the
admin is sensible enough to ignore the 10. If the 11th is only
screaming "use common sense!" then he won't get far.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Original research

body:
Now you are getting into citing published material. However, doing so
to advance a novel idea would remain original research.

Fred

On Mar 24, 2006, at 7:04 AM, Steve Block wrote:

> So creating a narrative which doesn't exist elsewhere, for example
> citing blog entries to create a story, that's clearly original
> research,
> yes?
>
> Steve Block


subject: [WikiEN-l] Notability and juggling

body:
On 3/24/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the substantive point to document here is that such a move
> does exist in the world of juggling.  Whether we call the article by a
> certain name or credit one particular guy with inventing it is
> something to be dealt with by normal editing, but we don't want to be
> in a position where we say "we've seen strong evidence of this
> juggling move but we can't document it because the name by which the
> source knows it may be ideosyncratic.  Let's get all human knowledge
> *into* the encyclopedia, and once it's there we can argue about what
> name to call things.

I think I've been misquoted somewhere :) This particular trick (which
I know next to nothing about, because no one has ever talked about
it), is afaik, simply a rather odd combination of flailing arms and
balls that one guy came up with once, called Hermine, and decided to
publish on the web. As such, it is not, IMHO, interesting enough to be
in WP.

However, applying your above argument to something more common like
ass catches (the "World Juggling Federation" insists on calling them
"blind catches"), I would tend to agree with you.

I would love to document the "thoroughly impossible trick" (genuinely
called that - google it!) 5 balls juggled overhead, straight into 5
balls behind the back, straight back into 5 balls overhead, with no
transition throws. Ouch! (and yes, there is footage of someone
actually doing it) It would be kind of cool to have an article on
[[db97531]] (again, actually called that).

Interesting thing I now realise with juggling is that verifiability is
easy - jugglers have a history of videotaping their creations to prove
to other jugglers that they can actually do it.

Well all of the above is somewhat encouraging. I will try slowly
adding more articles and see what happens. Is it considered
[[WP:POINT]] to nominate your own article on AfD, just to test the
waters? I really don't want to write 20 articles and have them all
deleted several months down the track.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Radio Wales interview as ogg

body:
On 3/24/06, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> It's just you ;-p
>
> I made a .wav capture of the RealAudio, then cut it to length in Audacity
> (http://audacity.sourceforge.net/ - damn cool program), then made that into
> an Ogg. I listened to both the .wav and the Ogg and couldn't hear much
> difference on earbud headphones. I can email you a higher quality MP3 if
> you like - drop me a line to dgerard at gmail.com .

No, it's ok, I managed to hear it all, but it just had this weird
fading in and out. Not suddenly glitches, but just like someone
walking in and out of a room, so the volume goes up and down. Not a
big deal.

Steve


body:
On 3/24/06, Matt R <matt_crypto at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > Really? I've never heard of this before. It'd be pointless anyway: If I'm
> > > willing to lie when I assert that I've corresponded with someone about
> > > such-and-such a license for an image, what's to stop me from forwarding a
> > > fabricated email exchange to the Wikimedia Foundation?
> >
> > It's more work.
>
> Not that much more work. You could do it with a couple of one-liner emails.

But anyway, couldn't the foundation just reply to the original email
and check? I mean, unless you went to all the trouble of creating a
fake email account with the person's name?

Steve


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] That other encyclopedia

body:
On 3/24/06, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> geni (geniice at gmail.com) [060325 00:08]:
> > On 3/24/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > http://store.britannica.com/jump.jsp?itemID=114&itemType=CATEGORY&iMainCat=4&iSubCat=114&sort=1&dpid=14
> > > You can get the full Britannica DVD for US$25!
>
> > They appear to be trying to undercut us. They also appear to be suceeding.
>
>
> Undercutting? I'd say it's the price point for an DVD encyclopedia. The de:
> DVD is EUR10,- (about US$12). Encarta is US$45. The regular price of the EB
> DVD is US$50. If we put up ISOs of a finished product en:, US$10 plus
> postage sounds like a price point someone could sell them at for
> convenience (4.7GB is slooow even on common present broadband) and a small
> profit.
>
>
> - d.

look at the price for the condensed paper version. We would have a
hard time matching that.

--
geni


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject: [WikiEN-l] Original research

body:
Keith D. Tyler wrote:

>
>2. I call Boeing Field on the phone and ask them how many planes fly in and out
>every day.
>
Thanks, but no thanks. This has all kinds of verifiability problem -
who answers the phone? Are they working from records, or BSing you
from memory so as to get you to hang up and stop bothering them?
What if I call them later, and get a different answer; do I delete
your number as out of date, or start accumulating a long list of
answers from random phone calls?

There are millions of good print resources in the world; I'd be
happy if people actually finished the job of representing their
content in WP, rather than fool around with marginal cases.

Stan


body:
Justin Cormack wrote:
> On 24 Mar 2006, at 14:14, Ilmari Karonen wrote:
>>Justin Cormack wrote:
>>>
>>>It doesnt sound very interesting to  me. I think what you have said
>>>above is about all that can be said. But maybe thats differing
>>>interests.
>>
>>If he appeared on Ripley's Believe it or not, there presumably _is_
>>more that can be said, even if it might not be interesting to you.
>>Unless of course he appeared in a _very_ short segment.
>
> I cant tell - I have no idea what Ripley's Believe it or not is. I guess
> we have an article on it somewhere though...
> Assuming its a TV program, their research standards may not be high. I
> would want other sources.

It's a TV program, and their research standards probably aren't all that
high.  I'm just saying that they probably _did_ say more about the kid
than Mgm did in his original post.

> And a seven year old being talanted is hardly news round here is it?

Well, no.  The question is, though, is it encyclopedic.  :-)

--
Ilmari Karonen


from_name: Sam Korn

subject: [WikiEN-l] That other encyclopedia

body:
On 3/24/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> look at the price for the condensed paper version. We would have a
> hard time matching that.

Well, let's not try until we're better than them then.  That gives us
an extra selling point.

--
Sam


subject: [WikiEN-l] A Solution to the Image Problem

body:
On 3/24/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> That's a very important point.  Simply saying, "because it's policy"
> gets people to dig in their heels.  Many of these are young guys who are
> then reminded of mom or dad telling them to clean their rooms or mow the
> lawn.  They are testing their independance all the way.

Maybe just saying "so we don't get sued" would be simpler than saying
it's policy?

Steve


from_name: Darren Ray

subject: [WikiEN-l] That other encyclopedia

body:
Good value, but do you see Britannica as a direct competitor that you feel
the need to make constant reference too. I see them as very different.

Darren Ray

On 3/24/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Seen this?
>
>
> http://store.britannica.com/jump.jsp?itemID=114&itemType=CATEGORY&iMainCat=4&iSubCat=114&sort=1&dpid=14
>
> You can get the full Britannica DVD for US$25!
>
> At that sort of price, I'm tempted to get one myself, not least to say
> to journalists that I'm not only a fan but I bought a copy ...
>
> And they're clearing this at US$20:
>
>
> http://store.britannica.com/shopping/product/detailmain.jsp?itemID=247&itemType=PRODUCT&iProductID=247
>
> Anyone with dreams of a printed Wikipedia 1.0 should look at this and
> think how we can get there.
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Notability and juggling

body:
On 3/24/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> In my early days at Wikipedia I was told about an editor who, in
> closing AfDs, actually decided to go by the deletion policy.  He got
> into quite a lot of trouble.

That's somewhat amusing.  I remember the same story, and my automatic
assumption that that admin was *you*...

--
Sam


from_name: Robert Scott Horning

subject:
[Foundation-l] Rodovid.org, family tree wiki,
 wishes to become a wiki project

body:
michael_irwin at verizon.net wrote:

>Robert Scott Horning wrote:
>
>
>
>>After that, you should have a legitimate answer or some solid input from
>>Wikimedia users in general over if the idea is a good one or not.  Due
>>to the nature of this project, widespread input is especially
>>recommended.  Mind you, all of the above steps are outlined in the
>>official New Project Policy, as approved by the Wikimedia Foundation
>>board.  The examples I cite are from successful projects that at least
>>have the attention of the board and very substantial community support.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>So Wikiversity has received authority to proceed?
>
>http://en.wikiversity.org/
>
>Still reports wiki as nonexistent.
>
>Unless the geneology project wishes to be in limbo for a couple of years
>they might better advised to ignore the advertised Foundation "policies".
>
>Has any wikimedia project ever been approved by the Board by following
>the advertised policies and procedures?
>
>Do they (the geneology project) have competing projects initiated at
>wikicities.com?
>
>Perhaps they could establish a reference book on geneology at wikibooks
>or an appropriate learning portal at wikiversity prototype and proceed
>while awaiting committee shuffling  and participant selection process to
>gain legitimacy by grandfathering.
>
>lazyquasar
>
>
Based on comments from several board members (you can chime in if you
want to) it looks like Wikiversity will likely be formally started as an
independent project sooner or later.  I don't know what the current
hang-up is all about, but this is simply something that takes time.

Or for that matter, if Wikiversity is shot down for reasons other than
liability to the Wikimedia Foundation, I don't think that any other new
project proposal could ever be initiated by ordinary users and become a
full sister project.  I was simply trying to point out that if you want
to have a successful new project proposal, you should try to meet or
exceed proposal quality standards set by some previous projects.  Having
an inferior proposal is only going to increase the likelyhood of its
rejection and raise more questions by the board before it is accepted.

--
Robert Scott Horning


from_name: slimvirgin at gmail.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Original research

body:
On 3/24/06, Keith D. Tyler <keith at keithtyler.com> wrote:
> To me, "original research" is when I perform an investigative task involving the
> scientific or statistical methods to get information that has not been
> determined before.
>
> Here's some examples.
>
> 1. I drive up to Seattle, and stand outside Boeing Field, and count the number
> of planes that fly in and out over the period of a day.
>
> 2. I call Boeing Field on the phone and ask them how many planes fly in and out
> every day.

> To me, 1 is clearly OR, and 2 is not ...
>
> For some reason, though, contacting an authoritative source is OR, but finding a
> book from an authoritative source is not.
>
That's because if you cite a published source, readers can easily
check that it says what you say it does. They can't easily check that
the guy on the phone told you 500 planes fly in and out every day.

Sarah


from_name: Oskar Sigvardsson

subject: [WikiEN-l] Editor's guides

body:
On 3/24/06, Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:
> Is there such a thing as editors' guides to specific areas?
>
> For example, the Trinidad and Tobago article attracts people all the time
> who add "new" information which is already contained in some subarticle.
> They don't expect the level of depth of Trinidad and Tobago articles that
> exist, so they just add something that's "missing", probably unaware of what
> exists.
>
> It would be nice if there was some way to add an "editors guide" - something
> like "Interested in editing articles related to Trinidad and Tobago?  Browse
> our articles on the topic".  Yeah, I realise that the "obvious" answer is
> "that's what categories are for", but there're two problems with categories
> - one is that they are too opaque (there are too many sub-sub-sub
> categories) and another is that the category link at the bottom of the page
> is too obscure - it's too far down the page and not eye-catching enough.  I
> am thinking of something that could go in a box like the Sister Links box
> (or in that box).  Something friendly and eyecatching, something aimed at
> capturing new editors and pointing them to the type of page they might have
> something to add to - or if nothing else, preventing them (maybe) from
> adding trivia when we already have a whole article.
>
> Is there anything like this?  Do other people see it as something
> potentially useful?
>
> Ian

Isn't this what Portals are for? I mean they have to-dos, links to
relevant topics and wikiprojects and requested articles and all of
that stuff. We don't have a [[Portal:Trinidad and Tobago]], but we do
have, say [[Portal:Netherlands]] and [[Portal:Iran]].

--Oskar


from_name: Alex Schenck

subject: [Foundation-l] Something really needs to be done to Meta

body:
I'm going to be blunt. Meta right now totally sucks.

We need to do something about Meta. It COULD be a very useful resource as it
once was, but the current state that it is in is totally unacceptable. It's
uncategorized, unorganized, mostly unutilized, and is not used the way it's
supposed to be.

Today, I went through about 10% of all Meta articles (by hand) and
categorized them, deleted them, or did things to them that needed to be
done. It's a very good start, but I need help. I'm therefore asking for that
help.

If people would be kind enough to help me out, I would greatly appreciate
it. I want Meta to be usable again.

--Alex


from_name: - Essjay -

body:
I'd love to help; maybe something along the lines of a wikiproject page to
get us started, with an outline of what it is you propose to do (that is, an
outline of what you did today, and how best to do it) would help?

Essjay

On 3/24/06, Alex Schenck <linuxbeak at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm going to be blunt. Meta right now totally sucks.
>
> We need to do something about Meta. It COULD be a very useful resource as
> it
> once was, but the current state that it is in is totally unacceptable.
> It's
> uncategorized, unorganized, mostly unutilized, and is not used the way
> it's
> supposed to be.
>
> Today, I went through about 10% of all Meta articles (by hand) and
> categorized them, deleted them, or did things to them that needed to be
> done. It's a very good start, but I need help. I'm therefore asking for
> that
> help.
>
> If people would be kind enough to help me out, I would greatly appreciate
> it. I want Meta to be usable again.
>
> --Alex
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
Essjay
-----
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay
Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia
http://www.wikipedia.org/


from_name: freakofnurture

body:
Maybe [[en:user:bobblewik]] is ashamed of what our year articles look like? I
hadn't thought about it before, but it might explain a subset of his
pathological edits.

--freakofnurture
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Year-articles---en%3A-versus-de%3A-t1331561.html#a3583346
Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at Nabble.com.


body:
I'm all for a project page. There is a *lot* to do, and I think it
might take several days to just organize a starting plan.
That being said, let's get started.

-Alex

>I'd love to help; maybe something along the lines of a wikiproject page to
>get us started, with an outline of what it is you propose to do (that is, an
>outline of what you did today, and how best to do it) would help?
>
>Essjay


body:
I was not aware that the genealogy wiki on wikicities existed. I have added
a comment on their watercooler about Rodovid. I sincerly hope that there is
no friction between the two projects.

Benjamin Webb

On 24/03/06, michael_irwin at verizon.net <michael_irwin at verizon.net> wrote:
>
> Robert Scott Horning wrote:
>
> >After that, you should have a legitimate answer or some solid input from
> >Wikimedia users in general over if the idea is a good one or not.  Due
> >to the nature of this project, widespread input is especially
> >recommended.  Mind you, all of the above steps are outlined in the
> >official New Project Policy, as approved by the Wikimedia Foundation
> >board.  The examples I cite are from successful projects that at least
> >have the attention of the board and very substantial community support.
> >
> >
> >
>
> So Wikiversity has received authority to proceed?
>
> http://en.wikiversity.org/
>
> Still reports wiki as nonexistent.
>
> Unless the geneology project wishes to be in limbo for a couple of years
> they might better advised to ignore the advertised Foundation "policies".
>
> Has any wikimedia project ever been approved by the Board by following
> the advertised policies and procedures?
>
> Do they (the geneology project) have competing projects initiated at
> wikicities.com?
>
> Perhaps they could establish a reference book on geneology at wikibooks
> or an appropriate learning portal at wikiversity prototype and proceed
> while awaiting committee shuffling  and participant selection process to
> gain legitimacy by grandfathering.
>
> lazyquasar
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [WikiEN-l] Public Library of Science

body:
PLoS is a great resource. My favorite example for the value of free
content research is actually an example of a PLOS/Wikipedia synergy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorilla#Natural_tool_use_by_all_the_.22great_apes.22

The photos demonstrating natural tool use by a female gorilla come
from a PLoS Biology journal. Such use of photos by researchers in
Wikipedia is of course only possible because of the free license. The
synergies will only increase as we and others create new projects like
Wikiversity where they can emerge.

Erik


body:
On 3/24/06, Sue Reed <sreed1234 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I could use a little input. I've been working on trying to
> clear out the copyrighted or no source images from pages
> about Olympic athletes.
>
> A user had uploaded an image to the page on Mellisa
> Hollingsworth-Richards, which he sourced as coming from
> TSN.CA (similar to ESPN.com). I marked it for deletion as a
> copyright violation, added it on IfD, sent him a note on
> his talk page, and noted it on the picture. A few minutes
> later, he deleted the picture from the page and uploaded a
> new picture - this one taken directly from CBC.ca (another
> clear copyright violation). I again marked it for deletion
> and followed the other steps.

This is absolutely the right way to do things.

> The user has now referred to me as a ninny on my talk page,
> which I really don't mind all that much. Another user, on
> the IfD page has said that the image should be kept ...
> whether or not it's a copyright violation.

Utter nonsense.

> I could use a little feedback in whether I'm headed in the
> right direction or not, as I frequently run into this very
> same issue on other pages. Uploaders try to claim the
> images as "fair use" even if they're taken directly from a
> copyrighted source.

It's generally unlikely that photos from news websites are fair use,
as the value to the holder is diminished considerably.

Of course, to be fair use it ipso facto must be copyrighted, else we
wouldn't have to claim fair use.

Note IANAL.

--
Sam


from_name: Jay R. Ashworth

body:
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 01:11:23PM -0800, Brion Vibber wrote:
> So even if it's fast enough for the moment, I'd much prefer if we
> had something that fit clear requirements. If the idea is for every
> random person grabbing pages off our site to have the minimal GFDL
> requirements, I'm not so sure this fits the bill.

Any comment, then, brion, on whether it might make it into the mainline
distribution, which presumably has less strict requirements on such
things?

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?