from_name: GerardM

subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!

body:
Hoi,
You must have been living under a rock to have missed the concept of a
doctrine by the board that will disallow many licenses and practices. NC and
ND will be explicitly prohibited. Fair use will only be possible when a
community accepts an EDP or Exemption Doctrine Program. The EDP will even
need to be ratified by legal council ..

Images without information about copyright or license (Public Domain does
not have a license) will be disallowed.

Thanks,
    GerardM

On 3/1/07, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
> On 2/28/07, Yonatan Horan <yonatanh at gmail.com> wrote:
> > This reminds me of an idea I had that might not be feasible. Make a
> > commons-like project for fair use pictures that all wikipedias can use
> and
> > disable local uploads at all wikipedias. That way, only absolutely must
> fair
> > use pictures will be accepted (logos, stamps, pictures of historical
> events
> > that are unreplaceable, etc.) and there won't be fair use pictures of
> living
> > people and of other things for which fair use isn't a must. That way you
> > won't have all the inconsistencies with, for example, Spanish Wikipedia
> > users asking why en can use fair use pictures of, say, music albums
> while
> > they can't because they have local uploading disabled and only upload to
> > commons. This way you'd also get people who are knowledgeable in the
> area of
> > fair use and policies regarding fair use on wikipedia taking care of
> > pictures rather than different people having different views on
> different
> > projects. This way you'd also have one central fair use policy that is
> > consistent amongst all the projects which will take care of the whining
> as I
> > mentioned above and will also make sure that fair use that isn't really
> a
> > must isn't in use on other projects (from my personal experience, this
> is
> > what is going on on the Hebrew Wikipedia which currently has, IMHO, the
> most
> > lax fair use policies out of any other project). Of course the problem
> is
> > that you'd have to find people willing to monitor such a project, which
> you
> > might not find as readily available as people for a project such as
> commons
> > that deals with free content and there's also the hassle of starting up
> a
> > new project (which some may deem unnecessary).
> >
> > -Yonatan
> >
> The much bigger problem is getting the key members of the various
> projects to agree on a standard definition of what is and what isn't
> acceptable.  I don't see that happening any time soon, unless some
> decision is made at the board level forcing the various projects to
> adopt a certain standard.
>
> IIRC, the board was opposed to making such a decision the last time it
> was polled on such an idea.  But I could be mistaken there.
>
> An argument against even having a standard definition is that the
> different language encyclopedias have very different communities of
> users when it comes to what is legal and what isn't legal for them to
> distribute without permission (in some cases there is an argument that
> certain users wouldn't even be able to legally *contribute* to certain
> articles).  Once you've entered the realm of using unlicensed images
> created in the last century or so you've taken the position that it's
> OK to create an encyclopedia which some portion of your user-base
> cannot legally distribute (and possibly contribute to).  This is
> acceptable, I think, but it relies on balancing the benefits and
> drawbacks., and these benefits and drawbacks vary from community to
> community.  The English Wikipedia for example has a much greater
> proportion of users who are able to use certain images than the French
> Wikipedia, for example.
>
> Anthony
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


list: wikimedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!


list: foundation-l

from_name: Anthony

subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!

body:
On 3/1/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> Why allow something that for good reasons is not allowed yet.. Allowing
> anonymous uploads is a nice vector of stuff that will be of debatable
> quality. It will not be possible to ask questions about the material..
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
>
Well, if images with anonymous authors aren't allowed, then please
delete all 129 images uploaded by User:Anthony on commons.  I'm pretty
sure they all have anonymous authors.  Maybe one or two don't, though.

Anthony


subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: sigmaman

subject: [Wikipedia-l] [Foundation-l] a new free image!

body:
Gotcha. Thank you.

On 2/28/07, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2007/2/28, sigmaman <sigmaman at gmail.com>:
> >
> > Just curious, what makes the GFDL different from CC's Sharealike
> license,
> > in
> > general terms? Is the GDFL more restrictive? If you could point me to
> some
> > sort of resource, I'd be happy to research myself, but I haven't been
> able
> > to locate a lof about the GFDL, except for some elements relating to
> > printing manuals, and, of course, Wikipedia.
> >
>
> If you copy something under CC-SA, you need to include a statement that it
> is under that license. If you copy something under the GFDL you need to
> include the full text of the license.
>
> --
> Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
> ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Barcex

subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!

body:
Besides this proposal is not viable because having a "fair use" repository
does not seem to be "fair use" I have to note that the Spanish-language
Wikipedia been enforcing the "only free material" policy for at least two
years, and closed its local upload recently (about 7 months ago). So the
eswiki users asked "why en can use fair use pictures of, say, music albums
while they can't" before closing local upload.

Barcex

2007/2/28, Yonatan Horan <yonatanh en gmail.com>:
>
> That way you
> won't have all the inconsistencies with, for example, Spanish Wikipedia
> users asking why en can use fair use pictures of, say, music albums while
> they can't because they have local uploading disabled and only upload to
> commons.
>


subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!

body:
Besides this proposal is not viable because having a "fair use" repository
does not seem to be "fair use" I have to note that the Spanish-language
Wikipedia been enforcing the "only free material" policy for at least two
years, and closed its local upload recently (about 7 months ago). So the
eswiki users asked "why en can use fair use pictures of, say, music albums
while they can't" before closing local upload.

Barcex

2007/2/28, Yonatan Horan <yonatanh at gmail.com>:
>
> That way you
> won't have all the inconsistencies with, for example, Spanish Wikipedia
> users asking why en can use fair use pictures of, say, music albums while
> they can't because they have local uploading disabled and only upload to
> commons.
>


list: wikien-l

from_name: Marc Riddell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
on 2/28/07 5:27 PM, William Pietri at william at scissor.com wrote:

> Some people argue that ADHD is an adaptive trait, just not in the modern
> context. And as Jameson shows pretty well in "Touched with Fire:
> Manic-Depressive Illness and the Artistic Temperament," even things that
> we clearly consider maladaptive can be channeled into outlets with
> substantial societal value, even when they are personally harmful.
> Another good example is Temple Grandin, a high-functioning autistic
> whose substantial successes are rooted directly in her autism. And in my
> own field, top-performing computer people are notoriously quirky.
>
> I would be unsurprised to learn that a disproportionate share of
> Wikipedia contribution comes from people with traits considered
> diagnosable by what the Aspberger's community somewhat sneeringly refer
> to as "neurotypicals". And not in spite of their differences, but
> because of them.

William,

Please be careful how seriously you take Jameson?s book. But that?s a thread
for a different Mailing List.

As for ADHD: it is obscene how some therapists and the pharmaceuticals have
exploited this condition. ADHD used to be called by another name: boredom.

The focus of my work is the treatment of human psychosocial disorders,
regardless of the person?s profession or occupation. The disorders you refer
to are blocks to creative expression and productivity; they are not
conditions to be exploited for the benefit of some end product.

A great many of the persons I have worked with over the years have been
artists of various disciplines; many of which have been stage and screen
performers - some of these developed into actors. These persons came to me
seeking help with specific problems occurring in their lives. As it is most
often with the persons I work with, it wasn?t so much the present issues,
but their inability to cope with the feelings and emotions these issues
elicited. During the course of our work together, not only did their
personal lives improve, but they also found that their work had vastly
improved ? the performer had become an artist. And, even more importantly,
the person had become pain free. These artists found the emotions required
by the honest rendering of their characters were more honest and believable.
They did, through their own personal confrontation with these emotions, no
longer fear, and, therefore, block them. To be more honest and effective the
artist must confront their own personal issues (blocks) with the feelings
and emotions required by the scene (or role). The person must be able to
accept and allow those feelings without fear or reservation. This presents
to the person ? not to the artist, who is first a person. If a person allows
them self to feel the feelings that elicit that emotion, the result can be
infinitely more believable. Indeed, in any work toward a goal, if the person
is preoccupied with the feelings and emotions the journey toward that goal
is producing, the goal itself takes a back seat.

Marc Riddell


subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
>> on 2/28/07 8:39 AM, John Lee at johnleemk at gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Well, kind of the idea of creating a new class of users involved with the
>>> English WP was to create a new "top" so we wouldn't need to rely on the
>>> mandate coming from Jimbo who, I think, is a bit isolated from the things
>>> that go on in WP on a daily basis.

On 2/28/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:

>> John,
>>
>> I just don't see how a group can lead - without a group leader.

on 2/28/07 5:48 PM, George Herbert at george.herbert at gmail.com wrote:

> It doesn't have to be leader-singular in the appointive sense.  People
> who are leaders in some sense just rise to the top; participation in
> WP:AN, WP:ANI, these mailing lists, policy discussions at the Village
> Pump, etc.
>
> A rough consensus democracy can evolve among such leaders if they play
> nicely together and feel empowered to do things.  Someone will
> probably end up as more equal than the rest, but that doesn't have to
> be a formal executive power position, it can be consensus-leader soft
> power.
>
> This is not a necessary or natural evolution of empowered leader
> groups, though.  Some are dysfunctional or just don't rise to that
> level of leadership due to personal or organizational issues.

George,

What I am talking about is the case where the recognized leader of an
organization (and WP has one) says, "I see there is a problem within this
organization. Someone come up with some solutions. I will back you."

Marc


from_name: Jossi Fresco

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

body:
On Feb 27, 2007, at 11:17 PM, Rich Holton wrote:

> I assume that these others were
> watching recent changes, or had the page on their watchlist and their
> attention was drawn by my edit (as Adam recounts, above).

That happens to me quite often as well. An article in my watchlist
that did not showed up there for months, suddenly lights up, I check
the edit, add a new tidbit, a new source perhaps. Tthat attracts a
few edits from other editors, only to disappear for a few months and
so on...

-- Jossi


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Oscar Quintanilla

subject: [Wikitech-l] reclamation

body:
monsieurs, je ne veut plus recevoir desmails de
wikitech
merci

probando txtos

___________________________________________________________________________
D?couvrez une nouvelle fa?on d'obtenir des r?ponses ? toutes vos questions !
Profitez des connaissances, des opinions et des exp?riences des internautes sur Yahoo! Questions/R?ponses
http://fr.answers.yahoo.com


from_name: Plyd

subject: [Wikitech-l] reclamation

body:
Bonjour,

Vous pouvez vous d?sincrire sur
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

You can unsuscribe yourself on
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Cordialement,
Plyd

On 3/1/07, Oscar Quintanilla <chicoguerra58 at yahoo.fr> wrote:
> monsieurs, je ne veut plus recevoir desmails de
> wikitech
> merci
>
> probando txtos
>


from_name: Andrew Dunbar

subject: [Wikitech-l] article get section count?

body:
On 3/1/07, Ashar Voultoiz <hashar at altern.org> wrote:
> Travis Derouin wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Is there a function that already exists in the codebase that returns
> > the # of sections in an article? I can't seem to find it.
> > article::getSection takes a parameter for the ith section, but if you
> > want to iterate over an article searching for a particular section,
> > it's not clear how many sections there are. Similarily, it'd be great
> > to have a function that return the section based on the section name,
> > like getSectionByName or similar.
> >
> > Travis
>
> Hello Travis,
>
> The parser does not report it. As sections are based on header, you can
> count the headers, this is done somewhere in the huge
> Parser::braceSubstitution method.
>
>  $m = preg_split(
>     '/(^={1,6}.*?={1,6}\s*?$)/m',
>     $text,
>     -1,
>     PREG_SPLIT_DELIM_CAPTURE
>   );
>
> Fromm there, count($m) gives you the number of heading and thus the
> number of section. You will have to play with that code a bit :)

Actually both headings and blocks (the parts of sections between the
headings) are also regexed in a couple of places in Parser.php/formatHeadings

I'm not sure if it should be centralized into a function.

Andrew Dunbar (hippietrail)

> cheers,
>
> --
> Ashar Voultoiz - WP++++
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hashar
> http://www.livejournal.com/community/wikitech/
> IM: hashar at jabber.org  ICQ: 15325080
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>

--
http://linguaphile.sf.net


from_name: Nicholas Moreau

subject: [Foundation-l] Creative Commons for all new WMF sites?

body:
Here's a thought... could all new Wikimedia sites, no matter what language
or project, be created under a Creative Commons license, instead of GFDL? We
of course cannot change existing sites over to that slimmer, trimmer
license, but it would be a good idea for any new works.

Nick


list: commons-l

from_name: Brianna Laugher

subject: [Commons-l] recent legal issues in France

body:
Thanks to Wikimedia France for investigating these things for us and
keeping us up to date!

The need for a 'happy slapping' law does sound like a nasty
development... tut tut kids these days...

cheers
Brianna
user:pfctdayelise

On 01/03/07, David Monniaux <David.Monniaux at free.fr> wrote:
> Two legal changes in France, one working for us, one against us:
>
> 1) Wartime copyright extensions
>
> Before 1995, the normal duration of copyright in France was 50 years
> after the death of the author, or after publication in the case of
> collective or anonymous works. However, there were special extensions
> meant to compensate the world wars. Due to European "harmonization" of
> laws, the normal duration was extended to 70 years (following Germany, I
> think). The lingering question was whether the war extensions still
> applied. The French Court of Cassation
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Cassation> said they didn't (at
> least in the case where extensions didn't start to elapse before 1995,
> but those who did will be over in 2009 or so). A yet unsolved question
> is the case of the 30 year extensions for authors killed in action (the
> only major author that comes to mind is Antoine de Saint Exup?ry
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_de_Saint_Exup%C3%A9ry>, of /Little
> Prince/ fame).
>
> Wikimedia France is having its counsel investigate the exact
> implications of this evolution. In any case, it seems that the situation
> is better for us.
>
> For the curious, the relevant articles are in the Code of intellectual
> property, L123-1, -8, -9 and -10, and in rulings 280 and 281 of the
> Court of Cassation, first civil chamber, for 2007.
>
> 2) Repression of 'happy slapping'
>
> The French parliament has just passed a law aimed at preventing
> delinquence. Among a gazillion of measures on diverse issues more or
> less related to delinquence, the Senate passed an amendment aimed at
> repressing 'happy slapping'. 'Happy slapping' is basically youngsters
> beating up people, filming the scene with cell phones, and broadcasting
> the movie in order to humiliate the victim.
>
> Unfortunately, the wording of the amendment was broad, and basically
> criminalized against filming or broadcasting the film of certain kinds
> of violences, unless one does so for gathering evidence for legal
> proceedings, or as part of the normal work of a *profession* whose goal
> is to inform the public.
>
> In short, they have outlawed normal citizens (not professional
> journalists) video reporting on certain kinds of violences. This could
> prove a problem for Wikipedia, Commons and Wikinews contributors; for
> instance, if reporting on police violence.
>
> Wikimedia France contacted officials, who claimed that this was not the
> intent; the only target was happy slapping, and that if we had called
> them earlier they would have the amendment altered.
>
> Now, several good things can still happen :
> * The opposition has had the law sent for constitutional review. It is
> possible that this article will get constitutional "reservations of
> interpretation" that will clarify the situation of non professionals.
> * The government will perhaps clarify the issue; that is, make it clear
> that the intent of this article is not to punish non professionals
> reporting on events with a goal to inform the public.
> * Even if the law is accepted as is, prosecutors may get orders not to
> enforce it against non professionals who merely meant to inform.
> * Judges may also decide the same, if they feel there is a superior need
> of freedom of speech.
>
> Finally, do not forget that there are legislative elections 3 months
> away or so, and this law may go 'pschitt' if the current opposition wins.
>
> In any case, I don't expect actual prosecution of "citizen journalists",
> though I envision as a credible possibility that overzealous police may
> want to get rid of undesirable reporters using this law. Even if you are
> prosecuted or sentenced in the end,  being taken into police custody is
> intimidating enough.
>
> Wikimedia France tries to get informed on that issue.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>


body:
Yes, but that's because they have money rolling in to fund the physical and
legal move. And I'm sure there's different things involved with a charity
and what essentially is a small business.

It wouldn't be smart to burn money like that, right after the world hears
"Wikipedia to close in three months".

Nick

Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 06:07:36 -0800 (PST)
> From: Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Job: Volunteer Coordinator
>
> Place of incorporation did not stop Wikia from moving.
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Job: Volunteer Coordinator


from_name: Rob Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:ATT

body:
On 3/1/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
> Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> >I do like the change. "Verifiability" was always terribly ambiguous
> >and misleading. It never meant you had to verify the facts. It meant
> >that if someone else wanted to verify them, they had a starting point.
> >
> Exactly.  Nothing more, nothing less.
>
> >But it didn't really mean that either.
> >
> Why not?
>
> > "Attributability" is much cleaner.
> >
> It looks like some kind of semantic game.  Capable of being attributed?
> It suggests that we don't need to make an attribution, only assert that
> it is possible.  Actually attributed statements (or attributions) are
> then verifiable.
>
> Ec

"Verify" in the old sense meant patently false material was to be given
equal weight with provable facts; this allowed for "obsolete and depracated"
sources were abused to give '"equal weight"


from_name: Oldak Quill

body:
On 28/02/07, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
> The need for a 'happy slapping' law does sound like a nasty
> development... tut tut kids these days...

Rather, tut tut lawmakers these days...

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: Yury Tarasievich

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Conspicuous only in its absence (was Moldavian)

body:
As a side note, I'd like to know what's expected of people who are the
human outcome, sort of, stemming from the events 80 years apart. In
wikipedia context, too.


from_name: wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Hypothetical question about how certain admin behavior
	would be handled on Wikipedia

body:
An... interesting... situation has arisen on another Wiki. (Yesyesyes some of you can guess but never mind). Mind you, it _is not Wikipedia_ and it is young, small, and its policies far from codified. It involves a sysop (they call them sysops there) who was given sysop privileges for the purposes of editing a protected page. (I told you, it's not Wikipedia!).

The sysop is arguably aligned with the Wiki's official point of view (yes, it has one).

The sysop is an active editor of a different page, one that is not protected.

The page also has an active non-sysop editor who is arguably not as well aligned, perhaps detectably opposed, to the site's official point of view. But I don't think he is perceived as a problem editor by most users there. He is civil, his changes are well supported by sources, he adds a lot of uncontroversial content, etc. There was a lot of back-and-forth editing, but neither of them would have even been close to being violation of Wikipedia's 3RR. (This site doesn't have any such rule).

In order to prevail in the dispute, the sysop blocked the non-sysop.

For three months.

(No, the non-sysop in question is _not_ me).

What I want here is: which of our policies here would such an admin be violating, and what is people's best and most realistic judgement of what, in practice, would be the likely course of events if a Wikipedia admin did that. (I'm thinking: an RFC, an overwhelming yelling-at by other admins, and perhaps a warning. I'm thinking that a _pattern_ of such behavior really could get someone de-adminned eventually... but how many actual incidents do you think it would take for that to happen?)


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:ATT

body:
How did that happen without me knowing about it?
Anyway, the "key step of superceding WP:RS" as someone called it can only be
done if it's included in the page.
You don't want people to cite any random website.

Mgm

On 3/1/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
> Rob Smith wrote:
>
> >On 2/28/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> The aim was
> >>to get rid of the word "verifiability." This was causing confusion for
> >>new editors because they thought it meant they had to check that
> >>material was true, which is what "verify" usually means, rather than
> >>simply checking that it had been published elsewhere.
> >>
> >>
> >Hmm. The Latin root of verify means "true"; amazing the policy read
> >"verifiable, not true".  Like in the English language, just what the hell
> >did that ever mean, anyway?
> >
> What is verifiable is what was actually said;  that implies nothing
> about the substantive truth of the statement.  It allows us to maintain
> NPOV by including verifiable but contradictory statements on both sides
> of an issue.  Only rarely are they both true.
>
> Ec
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject: [WikiEN-l] Correction to New Yorker Article

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> On 3/1/07, fangaili at gmail.com <fangaili at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I consider it a big deal. If Essjay had only misrepresented himself within
>> Wikimedia, that would be one thing. But he also went outside the Wikimedia
>> community and presented himself (several times) as someone he is not, with
>> credentials he does not have.
>>
> ...
>
>> I have great respect for the work Essjay has done. However, misrepresenting
>> himself to outside entities is simply unacceptable.
>>
>
> I agree. I find Ryan's behavior unacceptable and unconscionable.
>
I find myself looking on it as "foolish" rather than "unacceptable".
There *are* stalkers and freaks who go after WP editors, and our
attitude has generally been that if it's not happening on WP itself,
it's not our problem. So I can understand why Essjay thought of the
false identity idea as a way to protect himself, and I might well have
done it myself when I was his age, not thinking through all the possible
ramifications. And he's not violating any WP policy, right?

I'm not even sure we *could* write a policy requiring truthfulness on WP
user pages. What if I said I worked at a job until 1993, and somebody
out to get me calls the company and they report my last day as 4 Jan
1994? Should that be a bannable offense? Do we want to get into whether
my intent was to misrepresent, or simply a faulty memory? In any case,
somewhere we should counsel that deliberately providing false personal
info on oneself is a Very Bad Idea, with all sorts of possible
consequences, and that it's better to not say anything at all.

Stan


body:
Rob Smith wrote:
> On 3/1/07, Stan Shebs <stanshebs at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> I'm not even sure we *could* write a policy requiring truthfulness on WP
>> user pages. What if I said I worked at a job until 1993, and somebody
>> out to get me calls the company and they report my last day as 4 Jan
>> 1994? Should that be a bannable offense? Do we want to get into whether
>> my intent was to misrepresent, or simply a faulty memory? In any case,
>> somewhere we should counsel that deliberately providing false personal
>> info on oneself is a Very Bad Idea, with all sorts of possible
>> consequences, and that it's better to not say anything at all.
>>
>> Stan
>>
>
>
> What about the perception he was rewarded for doing so?
>
"Perception"? You mean punish people because third parties misperceive
things? So if I revert pro-Serbian POV, and the Belgrade press twists an
offhand remark on my user page into evidence of Albanian sympathies and
so I clearly have nasty motives and clearly WP is biased against Serbs,
that I should be banned?

He may not know it yet, but Essjay has bigger problems than his
reputation in WP - since this is now all over the net, it's going to
affect his employability forever. John Draper's resume once crossed my
desk, and I thought, OK, this guy looks good, but then a colleague says,
"Don't you recognize the name? That's Cap'n Crunch!", and after that I
really found it hard to treat it like any other resume, even though I
didn't actually consider him to be a bigtime evildoer.

Stan


from_name: William Pietri

body:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> I find myself looking on it as "foolish" rather than "unacceptable".
>> There *are* stalkers and freaks who go after WP editors [...]
>>
>
> While that is all absolutely true, it doesn't explain why he chose a
> fake identity with a PhD and a tenured professorship. I can't see any
> reason for that other than to get people to respect him more, which is
> rather disappointing, to say the least. I take anything someone says
> about themselves under a pseudonym with a pinch of salt, but I still
> wouldn't expect that kind of deception.
>

That's a great point.

Does anybody have numbers handy on his areas of contribution? If he
never worked on the articles that he claimed false credentials in, then
it would be a different thing for me.

William

--
William Pietri <william at scissor.com>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Hypothetical question about how certain admin
	behavior	 would be handled on Wikipedia

body:
For the record, the actual way it was handled there, their Jimbo-Wales-like-figure, who does deign to intervene in the affairs of mortals, unblocked the non-sysop, called the action overzealous, and complimented both parties (but "particularly" the sysop), on their contributions to the project.

I'm still interested in peoples' answers to my hypothetical.


body:
On 3/1/07, fangaili at gmail.com <fangaili at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/28/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >     He was
> > >     described in the piece as "a tenured professor of religion at a
> > >     private university" with "a Ph.D. in theology and a degree in
> canon
> > >     law."
> >
> > Where did those claims come from? I haven't seem them anywhere before.
>
>
> My mistake, here
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Essjay/History1&direction=next&oldid=13506363
>
>
> -----
>
> I find the lack of discussion on this disturbing. Normally I would not
> post
> to the list, but I must say something. I have read the discussion on
> Jimbo's
> talk page (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#The_New_Yorker_quotes_you
> )
> and the linked pages. Some people are very concerned about Essjay's
> actions,
> but others think it is no big deal.
>
> I consider it a big deal. If Essjay had only misrepresented himself within
> Wikimedia, that would be one thing. But he also went outside the Wikimedia
> community and presented himself (several times) as someone he is not, with
> credentials he does not have.
>
> This can only damage Wikipedia's reputation, especially since Essjay is
> one
> of our most trusted users. It also damages the community, because some
> people will find it difficult to trust him, and the leadership that
> supports
> him (i.e. Jimbo).
>
> I have great respect for the work Essjay has done. However,
> misrepresenting
> himself to outside entities is simply unacceptable.
>
> I wish to know if the community will sweep this under the rug, or if we
> will
> discuss it before it gets buried in Jimbo's archives. Does anyone here
> care?

Well you have this, about 1 week before appointed to Arbcom

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&diff=prev&oldid=105988059#Pwned.21

"I love my job" after stating here "I've been pretty upfront about using
disinformation"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay/Archives/52#Profiles_don.27t_mesh
...


body:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> I find myself looking on it as "foolish" rather than "unacceptable".
>> There *are* stalkers and freaks who go after WP editors, and our
>> attitude has generally been that if it's not happening on WP itself,
>> it's not our problem. So I can understand why Essjay thought of the
>> false identity idea as a way to protect himself, and I might well have
>> done it myself when I was his age, not thinking through all the possible
>> ramifications. And he's not violating any WP policy, right?
>>
>
> While that is all absolutely true, it doesn't explain why he chose a
> fake identity with a PhD and a tenured professorship. I can't see any
> reason for that other than to get people to respect him more, which is
> rather disappointing, to say the least. I take anything someone says
> about themselves under a pseudonym with a pinch of salt, but I still
> wouldn't expect that kind of deception.
>
He made a comment at one point referring to would-be stalkers trying to
find a professor matching the description, but not being able to pin
down an actual person to go after, which suggests that maybe his
strategy was accomplishing its intended purpose.

One of the interesting aspects of this is that there are hundreds of
user pages with obviously-ridiculous claims, purported English
professors that can't speel and the like, and yet nobody cares about
those. It's like there is some line past which the person's
self-description matters - it's not just admin status, because I think
we would be just as troubled if we were to discover that a non-admin
editor with 40K edits and 20 featured articles was not the person we
thought. I've noticed that when I see an editor doing lots and lots of
good work, but the user page is blank, I'm intensely curious to know
more about the editor personally.

Stan


from_name: Angela

body:
On 3/1/07, Nicholas Moreau <nicholasmoreau at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, but that's because they have money rolling in to fund the physical and
> legal move. And I'm sure there's different things involved with a charity
> and what essentially is a small business.

Wikia is incorporated in Delaware - it doesn't mean the office needs
to be there.

Is it really sensible to be looking for more staff in St. Pete when
most of the people who used to be based there now aren't? Last time I
was in the office, it was inhabited by Jimmy, Michael, Terry, and
Danny. Michael and Terry now work from home. Jimmy is usually
travelling and rarely in that office. That just leaves Danny, who only
moved there because the office was there, and Carolyn and whoever
joined since. I know Brion is moving there, but again *because* the
office is there, so that's not a reason to keep the office there.
Unless Wikimedia becomes more accepting of remote working, I think it
is disadvantageous to keep it based in St Pete, especially now the
search for a CEO is on.

Angela


body:
On 3/1/07, Stan Shebs <stanshebs at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Erik Moeller wrote:
> > On 3/1/07, fangaili at gmail.com <fangaili at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I consider it a big deal. If Essjay had only misrepresented himself
> within
> >> Wikimedia, that would be one thing. But he also went outside the
> Wikimedia
> >> community and presented himself (several times) as someone he is not,
> with
> >> credentials he does not have.
> >>
> > ...
> >
> >> I have great respect for the work Essjay has done. However,
> misrepresenting
> >> himself to outside entities is simply unacceptable.
> >>
> >
> > I agree. I find Ryan's behavior unacceptable and unconscionable.
> >
> I find myself looking on it as "foolish" rather than "unacceptable".
> There *are* stalkers and freaks who go after WP editors, and our
> attitude has generally been that if it's not happening on WP itself,
> it's not our problem. So I can understand why Essjay thought of the
> false identity idea as a way to protect himself, and I might well have
> done it myself when I was his age, not thinking through all the possible
> ramifications. And he's not violating any WP policy, right?
>
> I'm not even sure we *could* write a policy requiring truthfulness on WP
> user pages. What if I said I worked at a job until 1993, and somebody
> out to get me calls the company and they report my last day as 4 Jan
> 1994? Should that be a bannable offense? Do we want to get into whether
> my intent was to misrepresent, or simply a faulty memory? In any case,
> somewhere we should counsel that deliberately providing false personal
> info on oneself is a Very Bad Idea, with all sorts of possible
> consequences, and that it's better to not say anything at all.
>
> Stan

What about the perception he was rewarded for doing so?


from_name: fangaili at gmail.com

body:
On 2/28/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >     He was
> >     described in the piece as "a tenured professor of religion at a
> >     private university" with "a Ph.D. in theology and a degree in canon
> >     law."
>
> Where did those claims come from? I haven't seem them anywhere before.

My mistake, here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Essjay/History1&direction=next&oldid=13506363

-----

I find the lack of discussion on this disturbing. Normally I would not post
to the list, but I must say something. I have read the discussion on Jimbo's
talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#The_New_Yorker_quotes_you)
and the linked pages. Some people are very concerned about Essjay's actions,
but others think it is no big deal.

I consider it a big deal. If Essjay had only misrepresented himself within
Wikimedia, that would be one thing. But he also went outside the Wikimedia
community and presented himself (several times) as someone he is not, with
credentials he does not have.

This can only damage Wikipedia's reputation, especially since Essjay is one
of our most trusted users. It also damages the community, because some
people will find it difficult to trust him, and the leadership that supports
him (i.e. Jimbo).

I have great respect for the work Essjay has done. However, misrepresenting
himself to outside entities is simply unacceptable.

I wish to know if the community will sweep this under the rug, or if we will
discuss it before it gets buried in Jimbo's archives. Does anyone here care?

Sincerely,

Fang Aili


from_name: NSLE (Wikipedia)

subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:ATT

body:
There wasn't a lot of publicity, even on-wiki, though.

On 01/03/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/28/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Weird, WP:OR (No original research) and WP:V (Verifiability) have been
> > merged into WP:ATT (Attribution). When exactly did this happen? I'm
> > surprised there wasn't any discussion on this list.
> >
> Hi Steve, the merge process started about four months ago. It was a
> simple merge with no changes, and the list was informed. The aim was
> to get the two policies on one page, tighten the writing a little, and
> get rid of the word "verifiability." This was causing confusion for
> new editors because they thought it meant they had to check that
> material was true, which is what "verify" usually means, rather than
> simply checking that it had been published elsewhere.
>
> Sarah
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Robert Horning

subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!

body:
GerardM wrote:
> Hoi,
> You must have been living under a rock to have missed the concept of a
> doctrine by the board that will disallow many licenses and practices. NC and
> ND will be explicitly prohibited. Fair use will only be possible when a
> community accepts an EDP or Exemption Doctrine Program. The EDP will even
> need to be ratified by legal council ..
>
> Images without information about copyright or license (Public Domain does
> not have a license) will be disallowed.
>
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
Yeah, I guess I was living under a rock or something here myself.  This
is a very new philosophy coming out that the board is going to be very
directly involved with "global" policies that directly affect the
content of each project.  The idea that each one of the 200 or so
"active" Wikimedia projects will each have to submit some sort of "EDP"
to legal counsel, overcoming language and local legal issues too, seems
to be something so absurd as to be unworkable as well.

Who is paying for this legal counsel?  The WMF?  Individual users?
"local" chapters?  And what does "ratified" mean in this context?

I don't see any problem with the board coming out and saying that NC and
ND images need to be eventually removed, with strong encouragement that
individual projects stop accepting any new images that violate this
philosophy and set a reasonable timeline to eventually remove all such
content on their local projects.

I also don't see a problem with establishing a general philosophy akin
to the NPOV and No original research "pillars" that are generally in
most Wikimedia projects which would also strongly discourage fair use
images.  The devil is in the details here, and if the WMF wants to get
into trying to establish individual policies for each project, the WMF
also accepts liability for such policies.  I'm not so sure that
increasing WMF liability is necessarily a good course of action here.

This top down attitude is something that I'm not very comfortable with,
particularly when we are mainly dealing with voluntary community leaders
here, especially when it comes to working with the nearly 5,000
individual administrators who would bear the brunt of trying to
implement both the culling of this content and watching over individual
projects to make sure this sort of content doesn't creep back in.  I'm
guessing that it is this group to whom the policy is really going to
matter anyway.  All of these admins, with perhaps a few exceptions, are
the most experienced of Wikimedia users and are largely the ones who
perform the day to day tasks that make the projects what they are.
Certainly they are helping to build the infrastructure and other aspects
of the projects that help support content development.

-- Robert Horning


subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!


body:
On 3/1/07, Stan Shebs <stanshebs at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> He may not know it yet, but Essjay has bigger problems than his
> reputation in WP - since this is now all over the net, it's going to
> affect his employability forever. John Draper's resume once crossed my
> desk, and I thought, OK, this guy looks good, but then a colleague says,
> "Don't you recognize the name? That's Cap'n Crunch!", and after that I
> really found it hard to treat it like any other resume, even though I
> didn't actually consider him to be a bigtime evildoer.

As  *fangaili *obsreved above,

This can only damage Wikipedia's reputation... the community.... and the
leadership that supports him...


body:
Anthony wrote:
> On 3/1/07, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Hm. Methinks it is rather odd that an international organization does not have its head office in
>> or near a world city. I mean, other than the cool wikijob and the nice weather what does St Pete /
>> Tampa have in terms of services (including connections to like-minded organizations; not to
>> mention easy access to consulates)?
>>
> Lack of income taxes is a nice feature.  The cost of living is much
> more reasonable than say San Francisco or New York City, and you get
> much more living space for that money.  There are quite a few beaches
> and parks, which I suppose goes along with the relatively nice
> weather.  Unemployment is very low here right now.  Internet access is
> fairly good - we have Fios available in lots of places and EVDO is
> available throughout the Tampa Bay area.
>
> Just a quick list off the top of my head.  Personally it doesn't
> matter to me all that much where I live, so what I can offer in this
> category is pretty limited.
>
> If money were no object I'd probably live in New York City.  Actually,
> if I really had the money to live anywhere I'd probably go snowbird
> and spend some time in NYC, some in Florida, some in Arizona, etc.
>
> Oh well, hope I was able to help a bit.
>
> Anthony
>

A few years back, the Boy Scouts of America moved their national
headquarters from New Jersey (near NYC) to Texas for what I think were
reasons very similar to those listed above.  I don't know all of the
particulars of this matter, but the needs of non-profit organizations is
quite a bit different than what a for-profit company may want to be
involved with.  Certainly non-profit groups don't have nearly the money
to pay people to live in these major cities where the cost of living is
insanely high, even by 1st world standards.

Wikia may have moved to San Francisco in part because that is the heart
of Silicon Valley and has some real potential in terms of venture
capital and computer-related business partnerships.  I don't think
having Wikipedia go commercial is necessarily a long-term goal of the WMF.

I've only been to St. Petersburg, FL once, but I loved the area and felt
it was a very comfortable place to have a family and have much of the
normal everyday items you would like if you have a modest income.  It
certainly is not in the middle of rural America by any means but rather
a medium sized city with the usual cultural and professional sports
opportunities of similar sized cities.

-- Robert Horning


body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
> --- Carolyn Doran <cdoran at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>> What reason would we have to be near a consulate?
>> ~ C
>>
>
> Any organization that claims to be international in scope, would ideally be based in close
> proximity to representatives from many national governments. Of course, that is not the only thing
> to consider.
>
> -- mav
>
I hardly consider that to be a major issue for an organization that is
founded upon and relies upon electronic communication for most of its
activity.  In America (assuming that this means the WMF must stay in the
USA) that really leaves just a very limited number of cities you could
put it in:  New York City and Washington, DC.  In California, while
there are many consulates there, they tend to be split up between Los
Angeles and San Francisco in roughly equal proportions depending on the
country involved.  And for smaller countries they will only have an
embassy or consulate in DC or NYC.

For those particular situations where face to face meetings are
absolutely required, you can easily fly from St. Pete to one of those
two cities anyway at a modest cost, or even to the country who you are
trying to deal with directly.  I would presume that any such meeting
would be a very rare exception anyway and would not be at all necessary
in terms of day to day operations of the foundation.  Certainly the cost
of an airline flight would be trivial compared to the increased cost of
daily living in either of these two cities for what would realistically
be of marginal improved value for the foundation.

-- Robert Horning


from_name: phoebe ayers

body:
On 3/1/07, Robert Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
>
> Anthony wrote:
> > On 3/1/07, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hm. Methinks it is rather odd that an international organization does
> not have its head office in
> >> or near a world city. I mean, other than the cool wikijob and the nice
> weather what does St Pete /
> >> Tampa have in terms of services (including connections to like-minded
> organizations; not to
> >> mention easy access to consulates)?
> >>
> > Lack of income taxes is a nice feature.  The cost of living is much
> > more reasonable than say San Francisco or New York City, and you get
> > much more living space for that money.  There are quite a few beaches
> > and parks, which I suppose goes along with the relatively nice
> > weather.  Unemployment is very low here right now.  Internet access is
> > fairly good - we have Fios available in lots of places and EVDO is
> > available throughout the Tampa Bay area.
> >
> > Just a quick list off the top of my head.  Personally it doesn't
> > matter to me all that much where I live, so what I can offer in this
> > category is pretty limited.
> >
> > If money were no object I'd probably live in New York City.  Actually,
> > if I really had the money to live anywhere I'd probably go snowbird
> > and spend some time in NYC, some in Florida, some in Arizona, etc.
> >
> > Oh well, hope I was able to help a bit.
> >
> > Anthony
> >
>
> A few years back, the Boy Scouts of America moved their national
> headquarters from New Jersey (near NYC) to Texas for what I think were
> reasons very similar to those listed above.  I don't know all of the
> particulars of this matter, but the needs of non-profit organizations is
> quite a bit different than what a for-profit company may want to be
> involved with.  Certainly non-profit groups don't have nearly the money
> to pay people to live in these major cities where the cost of living is
> insanely high, even by 1st world standards.
>
> Wikia may have moved to San Francisco in part because that is the heart
> of Silicon Valley and has some real potential in terms of venture
> capital and computer-related business partnerships.  I don't think
> having Wikipedia go commercial is necessarily a long-term goal of the WMF.

Indeed. However, though I don't know about Wikia's particular reasons, there
are also possible cultural reasons for being someplace like San Francisco,
as well as business ones: you can't turn around in this area (Northern
California/Silicon Valley) without running into someone who is passionate
about social software, wikis, Internet startups and the like and who has
some great new idea about the above. It seems like something relevant is
going on every day, and media coverage is good -- even the regular newspaper
covers detailed news from the tech world.


body:
On 3/1/07, Robert Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
>
> Anthony wrote:
> > On 3/1/07, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hm. Methinks it is rather odd that an international organization does
> not have its head office in
> >> or near a world city. I mean, other than the cool wikijob and the nice
> weather what does St Pete /
> >> Tampa have in terms of services (including connections to like-minded
> organizations; not to
> >> mention easy access to consulates)?
> >>
> > Lack of income taxes is a nice feature.  The cost of living is much
> > more reasonable than say San Francisco or New York City, and you get
> > much more living space for that money.  There are quite a few beaches
> > and parks, which I suppose goes along with the relatively nice
> > weather.  Unemployment is very low here right now.  Internet access is
> > fairly good - we have Fios available in lots of places and EVDO is
> > available throughout the Tampa Bay area.
> >
> > Just a quick list off the top of my head.  Personally it doesn't
> > matter to me all that much where I live, so what I can offer in this
> > category is pretty limited.
> >
> > If money were no object I'd probably live in New York City.  Actually,
> > if I really had the money to live anywhere I'd probably go snowbird
> > and spend some time in NYC, some in Florida, some in Arizona, etc.
> >
> > Oh well, hope I was able to help a bit.
> >
> > Anthony
> >
>
> A few years back, the Boy Scouts of America moved their national
> headquarters from New Jersey (near NYC) to Texas for what I think were
> reasons very similar to those listed above.  I don't know all of the
> particulars of this matter, but the needs of non-profit organizations is
> quite a bit different than what a for-profit company may want to be
> involved with.  Certainly non-profit groups don't have nearly the money
> to pay people to live in these major cities where the cost of living is
> insanely high, even by 1st world standards.
>
> Wikia may have moved to San Francisco in part because that is the heart
> of Silicon Valley and has some real potential in terms of venture
> capital and computer-related business partnerships.  I don't think
> having Wikipedia go commercial is necessarily a long-term goal of the WMF.

Indeed. However, though I don't know about Wikia's particular reasons, there
are also possible cultural reasons for being someplace like San Francisco,
as well as business ones: you can't turn around in this area (Northern
California/Silicon Valley) without running into someone who is passionate
about social software, wikis, Internet startups and the like and who has
some great new idea about the above. It seems like something relevant is
going on every day, and media coverage is good -- even the regular newspaper
covers detailed news from the tech world.

>From what I've seen Boston and Seattle are similar, but I've never been
anywhere else in the U.S. (and I've been to most of it) that has close to
the tech-centeredness of these three cities. I don't know if St. Pete has
anything comparable, community-wise, but I doubt it. Of course the price one
pays for this is astronomical rent, and as others have pointed out that
might not be the wisest thing to do with our limited money. However,
certainly a lot of good talent, from programmers to publishers to venture
capitalists, gets attracted to San Francisco and similar areas, which is one
possible reason to move -- an in-person volunteer community could be built
around the office as well as an online one.

-- phoebe


from_name: Aude

body:
As I have made clear on Jimbo and Essjay's talk pages, I am deeply concerned
about the "no big deal" attitude conveyed by Jimbo, considering the fact
that Essjay is serving on Arbcom and other positions of trust.  I would be
way more comfortable continuing with Wikipedia, if Essjay would step down
from Arbcom and allow time for this to shake out and the community to regain
trust in him.

Regards,
Aude

On 3/1/07, fangaili at gmail.com <fangaili at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/28/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >     He was
> > >     described in the piece as "a tenured professor of religion at a
> > >     private university" with "a Ph.D. in theology and a degree in
> canon
> > >     law."
> >
> > Where did those claims come from? I haven't seem them anywhere before.
>
>
> My mistake, here
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Essjay/History1&direction=next&oldid=13506363
>
>
> -----
>
> I find the lack of discussion on this disturbing. Normally I would not
> post
> to the list, but I must say something. I have read the discussion on
> Jimbo's
> talk page (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#The_New_Yorker_quotes_you
> )
> and the linked pages. Some people are very concerned about Essjay's
> actions,
> but others think it is no big deal.
>
> I consider it a big deal. If Essjay had only misrepresented himself within
> Wikimedia, that would be one thing. But he also went outside the Wikimedia
> community and presented himself (several times) as someone he is not, with
> credentials he does not have.
>
> This can only damage Wikipedia's reputation, especially since Essjay is
> one
> of our most trusted users. It also damages the community, because some
> people will find it difficult to trust him, and the leadership that
> supports
> him (i.e. Jimbo).
>
> I have great respect for the work Essjay has done. However,
> misrepresenting
> himself to outside entities is simply unacceptable.
>
> I wish to know if the community will sweep this under the rug, or if we
> will
> discuss it before it gets buried in Jimbo's archives. Does anyone here
> care?
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Fang Aili
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Aude


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimania 2007: Call for Participation

body:
On 3/1/07, habj <sweetadelaide at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2007/3/1, Jakob Voss <jakob.voss at nichtich.de>:
> >
> > This year's conference will be held from August 3-5, 2007 in
> > Taipei, Taiwan at Chien Tan Overseas Youth Activity Center
> > <http://www.cyh.org.tw/center/center_bu.php?loginno=&buid=B>.
>
>
> Is that url correct? I can reach http://www.cyh.org.tw/ but not the url
> above.
>
> /habj

I can't reach it. To send the CFP to outside lists, I just replaced it with
the Wikimania URL: http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page for
more information.

-- phoebe


subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:ATT

body:
On 3/1/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> The concept is simple and clean. All material published by Wikipedia
> must be attributable -- that is, it must be possible to attribute the
> material to a reliable source, which tells us it's not a Wikipedian's
> original research. But not all material must actually be attributed.
> It needs a source only if it's challenged, or if it's the kind of
> thing that's likely to be challenged (including contentious material
> in BLPs where sourcing is particularly important), and if it's a
> quotation.
>
> This way of formulating policy helps to clarify that not every single
> sentence in Wikipedia ("the sky is blue") needs a source. Editors have
> to use their common sense to ask themselves "is this something that's
> likely to be challenged?" and if the answer's yes, they should add a
> source.
>
> Forget the issue of "verifying" whether material is true. That's
> entirely unconnected to checking whether it has already been
> published, which is the only thing the policy's concerned about.
>
> Sarah

Thank you Slim.  Now, how do we actually define an "obsolete or deprecated"
source?  Does the original author have to deprecate themself, or by what
standard can it be considered deprecated?  Secondly, one man's obsolete is
another man's current news.  When current scholarship renders a half century
of reputable, WP:ATT, etc citations obsolete, although some material from
the older literate *still* has value, how do we mark as obsolete and
deprecated older citations that are errantly being used to refute newer
scholarship?

Thank you.


from_name: GerardM

subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!

body:
Hoi,
Why allow something that for good reasons is not allowed yet.. Allowing
anonymous uploads is a nice vector of stuff that will be of debatable
quality. It will not be possible to ask questions about the material..
Thanks,
    GerardM

On 3/1/07, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
> On 3/1/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > You must have been living under a rock to have missed the concept of a
> > doctrine by the board that will disallow many licenses and practices.
>
> Guilty as charged, though that rock is actually a mound of income tax
> forms.  February through April are busy months for me.
>
> > Images without information about copyright or license (Public Domain
> does
> > not have a license) will be disallowed.
> >
> Interesting.  Will anonymous authors be allowed?
>
> Anthony
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!


body:
Jeff Raymond wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:
>
>
>> I was most amused to see Daniel Brandt ranting about it, considering
>> that avoiding Brandt's blatant stalking and harassment of editors was
>> one of the main reasons for Essjay doing it.
>>
>
> While there is some irony there, I suspect many "this isn't a big deal"
> people are, well, missing the point.  If Essjay simply said "I'm a guy
> who's initials are S.J. from Location, and my specialty is in religious
> areas," and then it turns out that he's R.J from Different Location, then
> there's no real problem - he created a pseudonym and sent people off-track
> in a whole different area.  The problem comes when he claimed to be a
> tenured professor, a PhD even.  His expert opinion was then solicited in
> discussions
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Five_solas&diff=prev&oldid=15002257),
> probably giving extra weight to it, and he even made a claim of being one
> of Wikipedia's "foremost experts" on the subject
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Confession&diff=prev&oldid=15674330),
> which I posit was possibly blatantly false given his true education
> levels, and certainly not a statement he could make an educated stab at.
>

Wow. This combined with the letter to a professor claiming tenured
professorhood suggests that this went well beyond merely evading
stalkers, and Geni's point that the deception starts well before Brandt
doesn't improve the situation.

The initial lie isn't so good, although I could wave that aside as a
youthful mistake. But what appears to be a continuing pattern of
deception, including about the initial deception, makes it hard to know
where some actual truth starts. It certainly makes Wikipedia look pretty
bad to the guy on the street.

William

--
William Pietri <william at scissor.com>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] What makes a good article?

body:
On 2/28/07, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> occasionally get hammered out, usually consisting of an introductory
> sentence or two that uses the word "informally" to signal that this
> isn't technically the correct definition, but more of a hand-wavy
> intuition about the subject.  I think that can be done for more
> articles, but it's kind of a slow process, and the mathematicians do
> have a point that we don't want to write inaccurate pop-math either.

Hmm. Readability is more important than accuracy and precision for the
first few sentences. Why not something like: "Smith's theorem states
that there are no six digit prime numbers. More precisely, it states
that there is no real number n, 100000<= n <= 999999 such that...."?

> Actually this happens a lot in political science articles too, in my
> experience.  The first sentence defining a fairly simple topic will
> often contain at least several jargon words I don't know, in the
> interests of treating with extreme precision some legal obscurity
> (especially legal fictions).

As long as there is both a readable summary and an accurate, concise
summary in the opening paragraph, everyone's interests are served.

Steve


from_name: Slim Virgin

subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:ATT

body:
On 3/1/07, Rob Smith <nobs03 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/1/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> > Steve Bennett wrote:
> > > "Attributability" is much cleaner.
> > >
> > It looks like some kind of semantic game.  Capable of being attributed?
> > It suggests that we don't need to make an attribution, only assert that
> > it is possible.  Actually attributed statements (or attributions) are
> > then verifiable.
> >
The concept is simple and clean. All material published by Wikipedia
must be attributable -- that is, it must be possible to attribute the
material to a reliable source, which tells us it's not a Wikipedian's
original research. But not all material must actually be attributed.
It needs a source only if it's challenged, or if it's the kind of
thing that's likely to be challenged (including contentious material
in BLPs where sourcing is particularly important), and if it's a
quotation.

This way of formulating policy helps to clarify that not every single
sentence in Wikipedia ("the sky is blue") needs a source. Editors have
to use their common sense to ask themselves "is this something that's
likely to be challenged?" and if the answer's yes, they should add a
source.

Forget the issue of "verifying" whether material is true. That's
entirely unconnected to checking whether it has already been
published, which is the only thing the policy's concerned about.

Sarah


from_name: Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Hypothetical question about how certain admin
	behaviorwould be handled on Wikipedia

body:
This is what SHOULD happen if the situation arose on En-WP:

(1) The non-sysop would post an "unblock" template or on the unblock list,
and would get unblocked, either immediately or after some discussion on ANI.
(2) The sysop would be asked the reasons for the block.  If the reasons were
plausible, even if incorrect, the sysop would probably get scolded and told
by his or her peers on ANI never to do anything like this again.  If there
were no plausible justification, or it happened more than once, the
situation would be a candidate for RfC and if that didn't resolve it RfAr
based on violation of the blocking policy.
(3) Desysopping would not generally occur for a first offense of anything,
absent extreme circumstances.  However, you indicate that on this other
wiki, sysop privileges were conferred temporarily to allow editing of this
one protected page.  Presumably such temporary or ad hoc privileges could be
withdrawn as readily as they were conferred.
(4) There would be a discussion about whether the page in question could be
unprotected.

And now you've got me curious what other Wiki we are talking about.  I have
minimal experience anywhere outside En-WP.

Newyorkbrad

On 3/1/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
>
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com [mailto:wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com]
> >Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2007 11:25 AM
> >To: wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >Subject: [WikiEN-l] Hypothetical question about how certain admin
> behavior     would be handled on Wikipedia
> >
> >An... interesting... situation has arisen on another Wiki. (Yesyesyes
> some of you can guess but never mind). Mind you, it _is not Wikipedia_ and
> it is young, small, and its policies far from codified. It involves a sysop
> (they call them sysops there) who was given sysop privileges for the
> purposes of editing a protected page. (I told you, it's not Wikipedia!).
> >
> >The sysop is arguably aligned with the Wiki's official point of view
> (yes, it has one).
> >
> >The sysop is an active editor of a different page, one that is not
> protected.
> >
> >The page also has an active non-sysop editor who is arguably not as well
> aligned, perhaps detectably opposed, to the site's official point of view.
> But I don't think he is perceived as a problem editor by most users there.
> He is civil, his changes are well supported by sources, he adds a lot of
> uncontroversial content, etc. There was a lot of back-and-forth editing, but
> neither of them would have even been close to being violation of Wikipedia's
> 3RR. (This site doesn't have any such rule).
> >
> >In order to prevail in the dispute, the sysop blocked the non-sysop.
> >
> >For three months.
> >
> >(No, the non-sysop in question is _not_ me).
> >
> >What I want here is: which of our policies here would such an admin be
> violating, and what is people's best and most realistic judgement of what,
> in practice, would be the likely course of events if a Wikipedia admin did
> that. (I'm thinking: an RFC, an overwhelming yelling-at by other admins, and
> perhaps a warning. I'm thinking that a _pattern_ of such behavior really
> could get someone de-adminned eventually... but how many actual incidents do
> you think it would take for that to happen?)
>
> One, but as you say, its not Wikipedia.
>
> Fred
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
Essjay's main contributions to Wikipedia are administrative tasks, which I
still hold in high regards.

I was interested in seeing his article contributions and found out he
actually rarely works in the main namespace.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay/Archives/52#You.27re_famous_on_Slashdot_today-
February 8, 2007

His top article contributions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathedral_of_the_Assumption_in_Louisville<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathedral>(58)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman Catholic
Church<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman>(24)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Archdiocese_of_Louisville
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman> (10)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_College<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre>(9)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deacon (9)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush (9)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass (9)

Though he's edited topics relating to his "credentials", these contributions
are not all that numerous and don't concern me too much.

-Aude

On 3/1/07, William Pietri <william at scissor.com> wrote:
>
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
> >> I find myself looking on it as "foolish" rather than "unacceptable".
> >> There *are* stalkers and freaks who go after WP editors [...]
> >>
> >
> > While that is all absolutely true, it doesn't explain why he chose a
> > fake identity with a PhD and a tenured professorship. I can't see any
> > reason for that other than to get people to respect him more, which is
> > rather disappointing, to say the least. I take anything someone says
> > about themselves under a pseudonym with a pinch of salt, but I still
> > wouldn't expect that kind of deception.
> >
>
> That's a great point.
>
> Does anybody have numbers handy on his areas of contribution? If he
> never worked on the articles that he claimed false credentials in, then
> it would be a different thing for me.
>
>
> William
>
>
> --
> William Pietri <william at scissor.com >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Aude


from_name: Gwern Branwen

in_reply_to:
<45E72ED6.7060600@scissor.com> (William Pietri's message of "Thu,
	01 Mar 2007 11:51:50 -0800")

body:
William Pietri <william at scissor.com> writes:

> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>> I find myself looking on it as "foolish" rather than
    "unacceptable".
>>> There *are* stalkers and freaks who go after WP editors [...]
>>>
>>
>> While that is all absolutely true, it doesn't explain why he
   chose a
>> fake identity with a PhD and a tenured professorship. I can't
   see any
>> reason for that other than to get people to respect him more,
which is
>> rather disappointing, to say the least. I take anything someone
   says
>> about themselves under a pseudonym with a pinch of salt, but I
   still
>> wouldn't expect that kind of deception.
>>
>
> That's a great point.
>
> Does anybody have numbers handy on his areas of contribution? If
  he
> never worked on the articles that he claimed false credentials
in, then
> it would be a different thing for me.
>
> William

Hard to say. He doesn't do too much in the main namespace, and
most of that is reversion or related to administrative tasks (see
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Essjay&namespace=0>);
if one wanted to find that sort of thing, one can look at his
early contributions
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20050803105743&limit=500&target=Essjay&namespace=0>)
where quite a few edits related to ecclesiastical articles are
listed.  This of course in no wise proves that he abused his faux
authority or anything - but on that note, a subpage of his
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay/Letter>) makes for
interesting reading.

--
Gwern
Inquiring minds want to know.


subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:ATT

body:
Weird, WP:OR (No original research) and WP:V (Verifiability) have been
merged into WP:ATT (Attribution). When exactly did this happen? I'm
surprised there wasn't any discussion on this list.

Steve


body:
On 3/1/07, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
> On 3/1/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3/1/07, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > However,
> > > certainly a lot of good talent, from programmers to publishers to
> venture
> > > capitalists, gets attracted to San Francisco and similar areas, which
> is one
> > > possible reason to move -- an in-person volunteer community could be
> built
> > > around the office as well as an online one.
> > >
> > > -- phoebe
> >
> > I think that is better handled by regional chapters.
> >
> That's a good point.  If you think about it, there's no reason that an
> in-person volunteer community can't exist in San Francisco anyway.
>
> Whether or not the WMF moves its headquarters to San Francisco, it
> sounds like an excellent place to start up a local users group (or
> whatever the wiki-centric term for that would be).
>
> Anthony

That's certainly true -- the office definitely isn't a requirement for such
a local group, it's just one of the possible things that could happen with a
move. And as I said, I'm not that familiar with St. Pete -- it sounds from
Danny's message like there's a nice community there as well.

Anyway, organizing a greater-SF Bay meetup has been on my to-do list for
months now :) If anyone is interested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/San_Francisco_2

-- phoebe


from_name: Robert Leverington

body:
Please realize that happy slapping is only done by a very small
minority of children and it is unfair to place stereotypes just
because of the actions a few.
Robert.

On 01/03/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 28/02/07, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The need for a 'happy slapping' law does sound like a nasty
> > development... tut tut kids these days...
>
>
> Rather, tut tut lawmakers these days...
>
> --
> Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>


body:
Sheldon Rampton wrote:
> Stan Shebs wrote:
>
>
>> I find myself looking on it as "foolish" rather than "unacceptable".
>> There *are* stalkers and freaks who go after WP editors, and our
>> attitude has generally been that if it's not happening on WP itself,
>> it's not our problem.
>>
>
> No, it's unacceptable. Essjay didn't merely misrepresent himself on
> his user page (behavior that in and of itself might not be so bad).
> He made the situation much, much worse by LYING TO A REPORTER while
> acting as a spokesperson for Wikipedia. Moreover, he did this to a
> reporter at The New Yorker, which is a famous stickler for factual
> accuracy. No serious journalist will trust him ever again. I'm
> frankly amazed that Jimbo would say he doesn't have a problem with this.
>
That's a good point - I've only been paying attention to the on-WP
aspect. While we can't regulate all editors' user pages, we can
certainly set a higher standard for people who are given out as
"spokespersons".

I can see more than a little embarassment for the New Yorker here too.
Retired professors tend to have left a long trail behind them - I talked
casually with one the other day, took just ten minutes with Google to
reconstruct his professional career given only last name and a mention
of a couple of his research interests. I wonder how NYer managed not to
take any interest in independently looking up any of Essjay's background.

Stan


subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:ATT

body:
On 3/1/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Steve, the merge process started about four months ago. It was a
> simple merge with no changes, and the list was informed. The aim was
> to get the two policies on one page, tighten the writing a little, and
> get rid of the word "verifiability." This was causing confusion for
> new editors because they thought it meant they had to check that
> material was true, which is what "verify" usually means, rather than
> simply checking that it had been published elsewhere.

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't complaining about not being notified :)

I do like the change. "Verifiability" was always terribly ambiguous
and misleading. It never meant you had to verify the facts. It meant
that if someone else wanted to verify them, they had a starting point.
But it didn't really mean that either. "Attributability" is much
cleaner.

Steve


from_name: geni

body:
On 3/1/07, Nicholas Moreau <nicholasmoreau at gmail.com> wrote:
> Here's a thought... could all new Wikimedia sites, no matter what language
> or project, be created under a Creative Commons license, instead of GFDL? We
> of course cannot change existing sites over to that slimmer, trimmer
> license, but it would be a good idea for any new works.
>
> Nick

Would create problems with translations and other tanswiki stuff.

Creative commons also has it's own issues. People have problems
understanding the lisence mixes

CC-by-ND-NC
CC-by-Sa-NC
CC-by-ND
Founder's copyright
Developing nations CC
CC wiki licence
It gets messy

Secondly creative commons tends to be more interested in the author
rather than the reuser. The FSF tends to operate the other way around.

CC lisences also have a tendacy not to quite do what they say on the
tin which can lead to people being missled.

At the present time the proposed LGFDL looks like a better bet.
--
geni


body:
On 3/1/07, Husky <huskyr at gmail.com> wrote:
> The new GFDL looks like an interesting development, but i think we should at
> least look at the possibility of dual-licensing new projects under GFDL and
> CC-BY-SA (the same as with pictures on commons).
>

Given that this could result in people createing derivatives we could
not use I do not think this is a very good course of action.

--
geni


from_name: Pilotguy

body:
This is very disappointing. Consider all the high-level positions that
Essjay holds, now including ArbCom, and with that in mind, look at this
situation. It is harder now to trust someone who has done something like
this. How are we supposed to know that he says who he is now?

On 3/1/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/1/07, William Pietri <william at scissor.com> wrote:
> > Thomas Dalton wrote:
> > >> I find myself looking on it as "foolish" rather than "unacceptable".
> > >> There *are* stalkers and freaks who go after WP editors [...]
> > >>
> > >
> > > While that is all absolutely true, it doesn't explain why he chose a
> > > fake identity with a PhD and a tenured professorship. I can't see any
> > > reason for that other than to get people to respect him more, which is
> > > rather disappointing, to say the least. I take anything someone says
> > > about themselves under a pseudonym with a pinch of salt, but I still
> > > wouldn't expect that kind of deception.
> > >
> >
> > That's a great point.
> >
> > Does anybody have numbers handy on his areas of contribution? If he
> > never worked on the articles that he claimed false credentials in, then
> > it would be a different thing for me.
> >
> >
> > William
>
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Five_solas&diff=prev&oldid=15002257
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vicarius_Filii_Dei&diff=15429458&oldid=15429444
>
>
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Pilotguy
pilotguy.wikipedia at gmail.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pilotguy

http://pilotguy.wordpress.com


from_name: Jeff Raymond

body:
David Gerard wrote:

> I was most amused to see Daniel Brandt ranting about it, considering
> that avoiding Brandt's blatant stalking and harassment of editors was
> one of the main reasons for Essjay doing it.

While there is some irony there, I suspect many "this isn't a big deal"
people are, well, missing the point.  If Essjay simply said "I'm a guy
who's initials are S.J. from Location, and my specialty is in religious
areas," and then it turns out that he's R.J from Different Location, then
there's no real problem - he created a pseudonym and sent people off-track
in a whole different area.  The problem comes when he claimed to be a
tenured professor, a PhD even.  His expert opinion was then solicited in
discussions
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Five_solas&diff=prev&oldid=15002257),
probably giving extra weight to it, and he even made a claim of being one
of Wikipedia's "foremost experts" on the subject
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Confession&diff=prev&oldid=15674330),
which I posit was possibly blatantly false given his true education
levels, and certainly not a statement he could make an educated stab at.

I've edited for a very long time with a nickname I use across the
internet, and with my real name readily available.  When I've been
interviewed by a newspaper for Wikipedia, I used my real name.  If he felt
worried about trolls and maliciousness, then that's fine, but that's also
not a free pass to misrepresent one's education levels, and to continue up
the Wikimedia ladder after it's been revealed.  The line in the sand is
pretty clear here - no one would have said a peep if minor,
inconsequential facts were blurred for the sake of anonyminity.  When you
start working advanced degrees and tenureship into the equation, well...

-Jeff Raymond
BA, History and Political Science
And nothing else.


from_name: Sheldon Rampton

body:
Stan Shebs wrote:

> I find myself looking on it as "foolish" rather than "unacceptable".
> There *are* stalkers and freaks who go after WP editors, and our
> attitude has generally been that if it's not happening on WP itself,
> it's not our problem.

No, it's unacceptable. Essjay didn't merely misrepresent himself on
his user page (behavior that in and of itself might not be so bad).
He made the situation much, much worse by LYING TO A REPORTER while
acting as a spokesperson for Wikipedia. Moreover, he did this to a
reporter at The New Yorker, which is a famous stickler for factual
accuracy. No serious journalist will trust him ever again. I'm
frankly amazed that Jimbo would say he doesn't have a problem with this.

I've looked at Essjay's rationale and the rather weasely way he tries
to pretend he didn't quite lie, but the fact is that he did. Let's
call a spade a spade. By his own account, he spent eight hours being
interviewed by a reporter and knowingly led her to believe that he
possessed academic credentials which he did not in fact possess.
Moreover, the details of the original New Yorker story show that
during the interview, he elaborated on the fictions in his user page
so that he could perpetuate the deception. He told the reporter that
he was a teacher who "often takes his laptop to class, so that he can
be available to Wikipedians while giving a quiz."

As for the notion that this is somehow acceptable as a form of self-
defense against "stalkers and freaks," I don't buy it. I happen to be
a writer of controversial books, and I've even gotten a few threats
myself as a result, but nevertheless I write under my own name.
Moreover, someone who wants to conceal their identity with a
pseudonym can easily do so without assuming false academic
credentials. Pretending that he was a professor didn't help conceal
his identity. It was just a lie, and there's no excuse for it.

--------------------------------
|  Sheldon Rampton
|  Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org)
|  Author of books including:
|     Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
|     Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
|     Mad Cow USA
|     Trust Us, We're Experts
|     Weapons of Mass Deception
|     Banana Republicans
|     The Best War Ever
--------------------------------
|  Subscribe to our free weekly list serve by visiting:
|  http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html
|
|  Donate now to support independent, public interest reporting:
|  https://secure.groundspring.org/dn/index.php?id=1118
--------------------------------


from_name: Yonatan Horan

subject: [Commons-l] King of the FlickrLickrs

body:
You should probably edit
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Flickr_images accordingly then
once the discussion here is over.

-Yonatan

On 2/20/07, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/20/07, samuli at samulilintula.net <samuli at samulilintula.net> wrote:
> > > Erik, if a Flickr user misclicked on the dropdown and selected the
> > > wrong license unknowingly and unintentionally they did not make a
> > > valid release under that license.  Not only would such an accidental
> > > and uncompensated release have zero legal standing, it is terrible
> > > from a position of ethics.
> >
> > IIRC, and it has been a short while since I uploaded images with
> > FlickrLickr, a FlickrLickr user *does not* select any license from a
> > dropdown box.
>
> Please re-read what I wrote. You've misunderstood me and I'm not sure
> how to clarify other than to say that I'm speaking about Flickr users
> and not flickrlickr users.
>
> > > Furthermore, there are *many* copyright violations on Flickr.  Flickr
> > > refuses to take complaints from third parties so it is no wonder the
> > > accumulate.  A second human review is a good sanity check against
> > > situations where the flickr user is not really the copyright holder.
> >
> > Yes, but this chance has already once been reviewed by a FlickrLickr
> user.
> > A second checks is just as silly an idea as double checking all images
> > uploaded directly to Commons.
>
> We've seen some copyvios from flickr. I've not personally used
> FlickrLickr, does it make it easy to see other uploads from the same
> person? Thats a typical place to look for signs of trouble.
>
> > Well, I'm not going to touch any of those images I uploaded with
> > FlickrLickr. Re-checking them is a waste of time, tagging them was a
> > stupid move, and I'll let someone else choke on work no one has time to
> > do.
>
> No one asked you to.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20070301/608652fd/attachment.htm


from_name: Husky

body:
The new GFDL looks like an interesting development, but i think we should at
least look at the possibility of dual-licensing new projects under GFDL and
CC-BY-SA (the same as with pictures on commons).

-- Husky / Hay Kranen

On 3/1/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/1/07, Nicholas Moreau <nicholasmoreau at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Here's a thought... could all new Wikimedia sites, no matter what
> language
> > or project, be created under a Creative Commons license, instead of
> GFDL? We
> > of course cannot change existing sites over to that slimmer, trimmer
> > license, but it would be a good idea for any new works.
> >
> > Nick
>
> Would create problems with translations and other tanswiki stuff.
>
> Creative commons also has it's own issues. People have problems
> understanding the lisence mixes
>
> CC-by-ND-NC
> CC-by-Sa-NC
> CC-by-ND
> Founder's copyright
> Developing nations CC
> CC wiki licence
> It gets messy
>
> Secondly creative commons tends to be more interested in the author
> rather than the reuser. The FSF tends to operate the other way around.
>
> CC lisences also have a tendacy not to quite do what they say on the
> tin which can lead to people being missled.
>
> At the present time the proposed LGFDL looks like a better bet.
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Anthony

body:
On 3/1/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/1/07, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> > However,
> > certainly a lot of good talent, from programmers to publishers to venture
> > capitalists, gets attracted to San Francisco and similar areas, which is one
> > possible reason to move -- an in-person volunteer community could be built
> > around the office as well as an online one.
> >
> > -- phoebe
>
> I think that is better handled by regional chapters.
>
That's a good point.  If you think about it, there's no reason that an
in-person volunteer community can't exist in San Francisco anyway.

Whether or not the WMF moves its headquarters to San Francisco, it
sounds like an excellent place to start up a local users group (or
whatever the wiki-centric term for that would be).

Anthony


from_name: daniwo59 at aol.com

body:
I moved to St. Pete because the office is there. I was hesitant--the very
idea of moving out of a big city (New York) to a medium sized city in Florida
was somewhat daunting.

Let me tell you--I love it. I have made a few close friendships, and I feel
that I am a part of the town (a euphemism for "the various local bartenders
know  me by name"). In a formal, office sense, we are a small organization, and
will  be so for the foreseeable future. In a town like St. Pete, we are a
fixture. We  stand out. We are the big kids on the block.

I've recently been talking to a local college that wants to organize a  group
of volunteers to help us in so many of the tasks that need help. I don't
know that we would get that kind of support in a big city, with so many groups
competing for that help. And I believe we've only scratched the surface of how
the local town can help us.

Besides, it is nice to know that Jimmy and Michael are right around the
corner and will be popping in to help as needed.

All I miss is the snow.

Danny

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


from_name: George Herbert

body:
On 3/1/07, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> Angela wrote:
> > That just leaves Danny, who only
> > moved there because the office was there, and Carolyn and whoever
> > joined since. I know Brion is moving there, but again *because* the
> > office is there, so that's not a reason to keep the office there.
>
> But that would also be true of just about everywhere else being
> proposed.  Some people are proposing San Francisco, but neither Brion
> nor Danny (nor Jimmy) lived in SF, either, so if the headquarters were
> there they would've had to move to get to it.  We're an international
> organization, and even our U.S. members are scattered across the U.S.,
> so *anywhere* will be somewhere the vast majority of us don't live.

I was going to suggest a more global-warming-proof location, given
both sea level rise and hurricane issues for St Petersberg, but I'm
typing this from the San Francisco region having already lived through
several earthquakes and waiting for another major one on the fault 4
miles from my house...  Something about glass houses comes to mind 8-)

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


from_name: Josh Gordon

body:
I will consider criticism of Essjay particularly valid when it is
accompanied by a general call to eliminate pseudonymous editing of
Wikipedia. The vast majority of editors on Wikipedia are anonymous,
and I'm sure they have their various reasons, but anyone whose persona
is not congruent with their real personality is doing exactly what
Essjay did, on one level or another.

I don't expect a lot of support for this position, but it's the
logical extension of the outcry against Essjay's charade.

On 3/1/07, Stan Shebs <stanshebs at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Sheldon Rampton wrote:
> > Stan Shebs wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I find myself looking on it as "foolish" rather than "unacceptable".
> >> There *are* stalkers and freaks who go after WP editors, and our
> >> attitude has generally been that if it's not happening on WP itself,
> >> it's not our problem.
> >>
> >
> > No, it's unacceptable. Essjay didn't merely misrepresent himself on
> > his user page (behavior that in and of itself might not be so bad).
> > He made the situation much, much worse by LYING TO A REPORTER while
> > acting as a spokesperson for Wikipedia. Moreover, he did this to a
> > reporter at The New Yorker, which is a famous stickler for factual
> > accuracy. No serious journalist will trust him ever again. I'm
> > frankly amazed that Jimbo would say he doesn't have a problem with this.
> >
> That's a good point - I've only been paying attention to the on-WP
> aspect. While we can't regulate all editors' user pages, we can
> certainly set a higher standard for people who are given out as
> "spokespersons".
>
> I can see more than a little embarassment for the New Yorker here too.
> Retired professors tend to have left a long trail behind them - I talked
> casually with one the other day, took just ten minutes with Google to
> reconstruct his professional career given only last name and a mention
> of a couple of his research interests. I wonder how NYer managed not to
> take any interest in independently looking up any of Essjay's background.
>
> Stan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
--jpgordon ????


from_name: Christopher G. Parham

body:
On 3/1/2007 5:12 PM, geni wrote:
>
>> At the very least, he owes the Wikipedia community an apology for this
>> misrepresentation.
>> --
>> Peace & Love,
>> Erik
>>
> Got one:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&diff=prev&oldid=111847534
>
While it is good of him to apologize for any hurt caused, it would be
better to acknowledge that this hurt was not incidental but the result
of a wrongful and inappropriate action on his part. The stance he is
taking at the moment is that his actions were appropriate, and that any
damage done was unforeseeable or otherwise excusable. In my view, this
stance is not justified by the facts and is indicative of continuing
poor judgment. I would be very much comforted if Essjay amended it.

--Chris


body:
And what about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Robbie31? Essjay claimed he
was gay and he was "in a long-term relationship with his partner, Robbie..."
How are we to know if this guy is for real too? His few contributions don't
add up.

On 3/1/07, Christopher G. Parham <cparham at fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
> On 3/1/2007 5:12 PM, geni wrote:
> >
> >> At the very least, he owes the Wikipedia community an apology for this
> >> misrepresentation.
> >> --
> >> Peace & Love,
> >> Erik
> >>
> > Got one:
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&diff=prev&oldid=111847534
> >
> While it is good of him to apologize for any hurt caused, it would be
> better to acknowledge that this hurt was not incidental but the result
> of a wrongful and inappropriate action on his part. The stance he is
> taking at the moment is that his actions were appropriate, and that any
> damage done was unforeseeable or otherwise excusable. In my view, this
> stance is not justified by the facts and is indicative of continuing
> poor judgment. I would be very much comforted if Essjay amended it.
>
> --Chris
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Pilotguy
pilotguy.wikipedia at gmail.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pilotguy

http://pilotguy.wordpress.com