from_name: Hsiang-Tai Chien

subject: [Foundation-l] KJ and Wikimania

body:
Good to see it happen. :)

H.T.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
> [mailto:foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf
> Of Jimmy Wales
> Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 2:22 PM
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Subject: [Foundation-l] KJ and Wikimania
>
> Gil, Angela and I are excited to announce that KJ will be
> spending 50% of her work time at Wikia over the next 6 months
> as a dedicated volunteer for Wikimania 2007.  KJ will be one
> of the main organizers of Wikimania 2007 and is responsible
> for Wikimania sponsorship. KJ is responsible for preparing
> sponsor proposals and will be spending time visiting the
> sponsors to discuss their proposals.
>
> Part of my goal with Wikia is to build a commercial
> enterprise that could contribute back to the foundation and
> I'm excited to see that starting to happen.
>
> --Jimbo
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>

___________________________________________________
 ??????? ? ????????????????
 http://messenger.yahoo.com.tw/


list: wikimedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

subject: [Foundation-l] KJ and Wikimania


list: wikien-l

from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Forget worries about [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:CITE]]...

body:
Omegatron wrote:
> On 1/25/07, Christopher Thieme <cdthieme at gmail.com> wrote:
>> ...NUKE [[WP:CIVIL]] as it's unworkable, increases uncivil conduct, and
>> encourages hypocrisy.
>
>
> How does it increase uncivil conduct?  Compare Wikipedia talk pages with
> *any* discussion forum or bulletin board.
>
> When aggression exists, [[WP:CIVIL]] does turn it into this snide
> through-the-teeth aggression.  "Thank you for contributing to our project
> (fuckhead)!  We really appreciate your contributions, but we've deleted them
> all (because you're an idiot).  Please read through all our policies before
> making further contributions (because you're clearly too dense to have
> absorbed them the first time)."
>

FFFFFFFFFFF   NNNN        NN      OOOOO      RRRRRRR     DDDDDD
FF            NN NN       NN     OO   OO     RR    RR    DD   DD
FF            NN NN       NN    OO     OO    RR     RR   DD    DD
FF            NN  NN      NN   OO       OO   RR    RR    DD     DD
FFFFFFF       NN   NN     NN   OO       OO   RR   RR     DD     DD
FF            NN    NN    NN   OO       OO   RRRRRR      DD     DD
FF            NN     NN   NN   OO       OO   RR   RR     DD     DD
FF            NN      NN  NN    OO     OO    RR    RR    DD    DD
FF            NN       NN NN     OO   OO     RR     RR   DD   DD
FF            NN        NNNN      OOOOO      RR      RR  DDDDDD

(There is no Cabal. The Cabal enforces civility, both on Wikipedia and
on the mailing list, by banhammer. There is no cabal.)

FFFFFFFFFFF   NNNN        NN      OOOOO      RRRRRRR     DDDDDD
FF            NN NN       NN     OO   OO     RR    RR    DD   DD
FF            NN NN       NN    OO     OO    RR     RR   DD    DD
FF            NN  NN      NN   OO       OO   RR    RR    DD     DD
FFFFFFF       NN   NN     NN   OO       OO   RR   RR     DD     DD
FF            NN    NN    NN   OO       OO   RRRRRR      DD     DD
FF            NN     NN   NN   OO       OO   RR   RR     DD     DD
FF            NN      NN  NN    OO     OO    RR    RR    DD    DD
FF            NN       NN NN     OO   OO     RR     RR   DD   DD
FF            NN        NNNN      OOOOO      RR      RR  DDDDDD

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 542 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20070126/ed890f1c/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] Troubling news on Citizendium

body:
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
> On 25 Jan 2007 at 02:25, "Alphax (Wikipedia email)"
> <alphasigmax at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>> Fastfission wrote:
>>>> Well, nobody has really called America the great melting pot earnestly
>>>> for some time now (see [[melting pot]]).
>>>>
>>> What does it say now that Bush used the term in his State of the Union
>>> speech? ;-)
>> Eh, so long as nobody calls America a wok...
>
> Multiple choice quiz:
>
> America is most like a...
>
> a) Melting pot
> b) Crock pot
> c) Frying pan
> d) Flame broiler
> e) Wok
>

f) Crucible?

(It was a reference to Paul Keating, btw.)

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 542 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20070126/4ecf9932/attachment-0001.pgp


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] table text is full

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

Travis Derouin wrote:
> We have reached the maximum table size limit of 4GB for our text table
> - what's the best way around or to fix this?

Well, the best is probably to use InnoDB tables instead of MyISAM. :)

But see the general documentation which shows a number of possible
issues and workarounds:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/full-table.html

Also consider using compression in MediaWiki to save space
($wgCompressRevisions to gzip newly saved revisions, and/or run
maintenance/storage/compressOld.php to perform batch compression.) But
fix the table first!

- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com / brion @ wikimedia.org)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFuv2twRnhpk1wk44RAuXaAJ95Vo66bjCOx+CBLONInaeyuje8tQCfV7Nn
l7/55qarL9U3NvEpnCbr//8=
=aFUU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] [Foundation-l] school articles : enough

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:

>On 1/25/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>The purpose of Wikipedia is not to make OTRS happy, any more than it
>>is to make Articles For Deletion happy.
>>
>>
>Every article on Wikipedia has a maintenance cost and a benefit to the
>project as a whole. It's reasonable for us to choose not to keep
>articles whose maintenance cost is greater than the benefit they
>provide.
>
Underlaying that would be the completely spurious notion that there is a
way of measuring this relationship.

Ec


from_name: Oldak Quill

subject: [WikiEN-l] David is on Channel 4 tonight re MS issue

body:
On 26/01/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> Did they use any in the broadcast? I've been searching their site, but there
> doesn't appear to be any report on MS or WP.

I half-watched the 1900 broadcast and didn't see anything.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


list: wikipedia-l

subject: [Wikipedia-l] school articles : enough

body:
Mark Williamson wrote:

>The thing about high schools is that they have alumni. A particularly
>large high school could have, I don't know, maybe 50,000 alumni? How
>off am I?
>
That seems high. If a school has 1,000 graduates each year it would take
50 years to reach that number.

Ec


from_name: Cheney Shill

subject:
[WikiEN-l] "Articles that do not cite reliable published
	sources will be deleted."

body:
--- George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 1/26/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Is this what we've come to? Being honest with our
> contributors doesn't
> > work, so we attempt to scare them with hollow threats?
> FFS.
>
> Whack someone over the head with [[WP:BITE]] ?

Why not just start applying the policy?  Set a time limit.
No RS, delete.  Maybe be nice and provide 1 last extended
deletion notice:  "This article will be deleted in x days
if no RS are cited."  That is, if it hasn't already been
uncited for several months.

It seems like there has been an extended and unstated
policy to create essentially article shells simply to get
the article count up and increase Wikipedia's popularity.
WP has a high enough count and popularity.  Why not start
actually focusing on content detail and enforcing the long
standing yet rarely applied policies?

The alternative seems to be to continue to be the rear end
of jokes about knowledge by consensus and hearsay like that
on the 1/24 Colbert Report until WP loses what trust it
has.

~~Pro-Lick
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick
http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)

--spam may follow--

____________________________________________________________________________________
8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news


from_name: David Gerard

subject:
[WikiEN-l] [Wikimediauk-l] David is on Channel 4 tonight re MS
	issue

body:
On 26/01/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 26/01/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> > I'm just getting ready for C4 to pick me up, take me to their office
> > and interview me for tonight's news re: the Microsoft-Wikipedia issue.
> > If someone could record it and throw us an MPEG afterwards, that would
> > be most helpful!

> I watched the news but didn't see anything. John Reid did say
> something stupid. :)

Apparently so ;-) My apologies to my fans. NO COKE AND CHICKS FOR ME.

Probably C4 or ITN will use the tape in six months as a [[dead
donkey]] ;-) Might end up on lunchtime news, watched avidly by bored
housewives and students. Perhaps we'll draw in a few more Susans.

- d.


body:
On 26/01/07, Sage Ross <ragesoss+wikipedia at gmail.com> wrote:

> Check out this article:
> http://www.tmcnet.com/news/2007/01/26/2285485.htm
> Apparently Mathias Schindler has been in contact with MS, giving a
> different line.

Yeah - that's my first reaction, compared with Mathias' - and my -
second reaction. I'd file that article under "conflict is news."

> For what it's worth, I don't see that Microsoft did anything obviously
> wrong.  At this point, we definitely need a clear and responsive
> system for coordinating paid editing.  We've recognized for a while
> now that paid editing will happen.  It will definitely be in our best
> interest to set up a system to facilitate it and give a sense of
> fairness to entities like MS who want to do things above-the-board.

Yeah. When I first heard about this, I (and half the blogosphere and
the tech press and then the mainstream press) reacted "WHAT ON EARTH."
Then Mathias contacted Doug and Rick, and cc'd me in and I responded
too. As I said, I think this particular issue is pretty much resolved
- Doug is monitoring the talk page, there's a LOT of editor eyes on it
now and it'll be a much better article in a few weeks.

The issue is what happens for all the other cases.

- d.


body:
On 26/01/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:

> Unfortunely it would be not be. It would mostly be small companies
> either going Waaa you deleted our article or complaining that we don't
> say how brilliant product X is. Did you ever see this:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:NewsMax_Media#Proposed_article_text
> How much time do you want to spend dealing with people who think that is NPOV?

Oh yeah. Unfortunately, I don't think we have the option, as a top 10
web site, not to. We do in fact need *something*, something that'll
work. That's why I posted to this list asking - doing nothing about
this isn't an option any longer.

- d.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] school articles : enough

body:
David Monniaux wrote:

>The Pok?mon articles do not generate angry complaints. They are used to
>mock Wikipedia, but are not a major target for libel and other issues
>taking up precious resources.
>
I generally consider the school articles relatively more important than
the Pok?mon articles, though the writing on the latter appears more
thorough.  Still I would oppose deleting either.  If the school articles
contain libel and other sundry vandalism remove the libel and
vandalism.  Stop using that asd an excuse for removing material that you
don't like.

Ec


from_name: David Goodman

subject: [Wikipedia-l] school articles : enough

body:
I'm following AfD mainly to keep from deleting scientists etc-- nn academic
is a very common reason, used sometimes without reading the article --and if
its not a scientist but a scholar in the humanities, where you cant say 120
papers published, it's much worse. (Seriously, Ive seen articles with 3
honorary doctorates get nominated not just for AfD but for speedy) So I do
see all the schools, and I tend to have a certain impatience about other
people's notable schools. (my own HS is in there of course, and the
elementary school just had a reunion, so maybe I will try it. )

In common-law based systems, the responsibility for keeping something like
AfD consistent is up to something like Deletion Review--which is just as bad
or worse, and 90% of the times decides to sustain deletions for the few that
people bother with--its much easier to wait a while and recreate. There are
some proposals for reform, so take a look.

In my opinion,about 1/2 the trouble with the real junk would be solved by
making first edits & edits from ip addresses not visible immediately.
Perhaps there's ,more that can be done programatically--spotting personal
names in ip-addressed edits, even spotting personal names in edits for
anything in the school category,  etc. Rejecting articles under 15 words.,
and whatever ingenuity can suggest. But these sort of approaches seem to be
against the ethos. --DGG

On 1/26/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/26/07, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Well, the good thing is that both those of us who would like to get
> > rid of many of these articles and those of us who would like to keep
> > them, agree that AfD isn't working :-)
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > On 26/01/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 26/01/07, Mark Wagner <carnildo at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On 1/26/07, J.L.W.S. The Special One <hildanknight at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > What, if any, are the notability criteria for schools?
> > >
> > > > The word "school" appears somewhere in the article.
> > > > Seriously.  There was a VfD a couple years back that garnered a
> large
> > > > number of "keep, schools are inherently notable" votes, even though
> > > > the article was a hoax and the school in question did not actually
> > > > exist.  Another VfD from around that time resulted in a "keep" for
> the
> > > > same reasons, when article was actually a vanity piece about a
> > > > one-person business that happened to have "school" as part of its
> > > > name.
> > >
> > >
> > > Yeah. It's an unfortunate reaction to various concerted efforts to
> > > purge the school articles. This is part of why the structure of en:wp
> > > AFD is demonstrably problematic.
>
> AFD illustrates a number of things, one of which is that there's no
> consensus on notability on a number of topics.
>
> I detest having to follow AFD closely to see if someone's trying to
> try another "establish a new consensus by deleting a bunch of things"
> runs.  I often forget to for a week and then find that something
> horrible happened while my attention was elsewhere.
>
>
>
> --
> -george william herbert
> george.herbert at gmail.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

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


subject: [Wikipedia-l] school articles : enough

body:
David Monniaux wrote:

>George Herbert wrote:
>
>
>>Can you describe in more detail what types of complaints?
>>
>>
>Typical complaints: an article (or a former version thereof) will, in
>increasing order of severity:
>* Contain true, but anecdotal or biasedly presented information on the
>school. (Example: three years ago, there was a party where students were
>drunk. Who cares? This happens everywhere.)
>* Contain false allegations against the school. Example: the school is a
>known drug trafficking spot.
>* Contain information on the private life of named individuals,
>especially minors. Example: calling a certain female student a slut,
>saying that such or such teacher is homosexual, or similar.
>* Contain libellious accusations against named individuals. Example: the
>principal was accused of statutory rape.
>
These are all things that can be removed from the article without
deleting the article.

Ec


body:
On 26/01/07, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.com> wrote:
> David Gerard stated for the record:

> > Probably C4 or ITN will use the tape in six months as a [[dead
> > donkey]] ;-) Might end up on lunchtime news, watched avidly by bored
> > housewives and students. Perhaps we'll draw in a few more Susans.

> Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name.

IT DOES NOW!!

*ahem*

- d.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] school articles : enough

body:
On 26/01/07, Mark Wagner <carnildo at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/26/07, J.L.W.S. The Special One <hildanknight at gmail.com> wrote:

> > What, if any, are the notability criteria for schools?

> The word "school" appears somewhere in the article.
> Seriously.  There was a VfD a couple years back that garnered a large
> number of "keep, schools are inherently notable" votes, even though
> the article was a hoax and the school in question did not actually
> exist.  Another VfD from around that time resulted in a "keep" for the
> same reasons, when article was actually a vanity piece about a
> one-person business that happened to have "school" as part of its
> name.

Yeah. It's an unfortunate reaction to various concerted efforts to
purge the school articles. This is part of why the structure of en:wp
AFD is demonstrably problematic.

- d.


from_name: geni

body:
On 1/26/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 26/01/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Unfortunely it would be not be. It would mostly be small companies
> > either going Waaa you deleted our article or complaining that we don't
> > say how brilliant product X is. Did you ever see this:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:NewsMax_Media#Proposed_article_text
> > How much time do you want to spend dealing with people who think that is NPOV?
>
>
> Oh yeah. Unfortunately, I don't think we have the option, as a top 10
> web site, not to. We do in fact need *something*, something that'll
> work. That's why I posted to this list asking - doing nothing about
> this isn't an option any longer.
>
>
> - d.
>

An open noticeboard is ah risky. An OTRS style thing could work if you
could find a way to recruit beyond the usual suspects (say hang out at
RFA for a few weeks and try and recruit anyone who passes or indeed
fails if you like the look of them).

Wider than we need to get the message out to companies and goverments
(did you get asked about the NIDA edits btw?) the first port of call
for complaints should be the talk page.

--
geni


body:
On 27/01/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:

> Wider than we need to get the message out to companies and goverments
> (did you get asked about the NIDA edits btw?) the first port of call
> for complaints should be the talk page.

NIDA? Oh dear. No. Do please tell.

(Nor did I hear about the Alcoa edits until a friend in Perth told me
on my blog.)

- d.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] school articles : enough

body:
David Monniaux wrote:

>But there's no reason we should have an article on my neighbouring
>highschool, unless we also want articles on every company or organization...
>
A reasonable criterion for companies would be the listing of its shares
on an important stock exchange.

Ec


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2007-01-27

body:
An automated run of parserTests.php showed the following failures:

This is MediaWiki version 1.10alpha (r19671).

Reading tests from "maintenance/parserTests.txt"...
Reading tests from "extensions/Cite/citeParserTests.txt"...
Reading tests from "extensions/Poem/poemParserTests.txt"...

  18 still FAILING test(s) :(
      * URL-encoding in URL functions (single parameter)
      * URL-encoding in URL functions (multiple parameters)
      * TODO: Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)
      * TODO: Link containing double-single-quotes '' (bug 4598)
      * TODO: message transform: <noinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)
      * TODO: message transform: <onlyinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)
      * BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled
      * TODO: HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)
      * TODO: HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)
      * TODO: HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)
      * TODO: HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)
      * TODO: Inline HTML vs wiki block nesting
      * TODO: Mixing markup for italics and bold
      * TODO: 5 quotes, code coverage +1 line
      * TODO: dt/dd/dl test
      * TODO: Images with the "|" character in the comment
      * TODO: Parents of subpages, two levels up, without trailing slash or name.
      * TODO: Parents of subpages, two levels up, with lots of extra trailing slashes.

Passed 489 of 507 tests (96.45%)... 18 tests failed!


body:
On 27/01/07, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.com> wrote:
> David Gerard stated for the record:
> > On 26/01/07, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.com> wrote:
> >> David Gerard stated for the record:

> >>> Probably C4 or ITN will use the tape in six months as a [[dead
> >>> donkey]] ;-) Might end up on lunchtime news, watched avidly by bored
> >>> housewives and students. Perhaps we'll draw in a few more Susans.

> >> Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name.

> > IT DOES NOW!!
> > *ahem*

> So ... C4 or ITN will use the tape in six months as a situation comedy
> from the 1990s?  I guess I'm missing something (which seems all too
> often to be the case when British humo(u)r is involved).

"dead donkey" = silly story, often a funny animal tale, used as filler
when they have a spare minute at the end after the sport and before
the weather.

- d.


body:
--- Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:

> Cheney Shill wrote:
> > Why not just start applying the policy?  Set a time
> limit.
> > No RS, delete.
> ...
> > It seems like there has been an extended and unstated
> > policy to create essentially article shells simply to
> get
> > the article count up and increase Wikipedia's
> popularity.
>
> I've created my share of stubs and this is not even
> remotely the reason
> why. In most cases it's because I went looking for an
> article, didn't
> find it, and wanted to get it started so that hopefully
> others would add
> more detail. Why should I care about Wikipedia's gross
> article count?
>
> Assume good faith, please.

OK.  AGF.  The stubs went nowhere.  It's not your falt.  It
may have even scared others away.  You tried, nothing
happened.  Time to let it go and AGF upon those deleting
it.

> > WP has a high enough count and popularity.  Why not
> start
> > actually focusing on content detail and enforcing the
> long
> > standing yet rarely applied policies?
>
> [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]] is not policy.

Problem is, under the scenario given, othing is verifiable
supports the articles.  That makes it a violation of
verifiablity, regardless of what guidelines you prefer, but
WP:V does just happens to mention reliable sources in its
1st sentence.  It's also a violation of original research
because there's nothing to show otherwise.  Let's not
forget NPOV, which states at the very top "... significant
views that have been published by a reliable source."

There's nothing stated in any policy or guideline about
giving stubs long-term policy exception status.

> > of jokes about knowledge by consensus and hearsay like
> that
> > on the 1/24 Colbert Report until WP loses what trust it
> > has.
>
> That's a false dilemma.

It's original research, I'll grant you that.  Nonetheless,
the jokes and increased publicity and stature thereof are
verifiable.

~~Pro-Lick
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick
http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)

--spam may follow--

____________________________________________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com


body:
On 1/27/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/26/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Wider than we need to get the message out to companies and goverments
> > (did you get asked about the NIDA edits btw?) the first port of call
> > for complaints should be the talk page.
>
> That's an obvious answer, but doesn't address how *we* find the complaint...
>
> Without a tag or category, or a central mechanisms, there's no way
> that I can think of for the volunteers to know a request was filed.

Issue a press release fast (while there is still media interest)
anounceing the email address for companies to complain to.

--
geni


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

body:
Did they use any in the broadcast? I've been searching their site, but there
doesn't appear to be any report on MS or WP.

On 1/26/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm just getting ready for C4 to pick me up, take me to their office
> and interview me for tonight's news re: the Microsoft-Wikipedia issue.
> If someone could record it and throw us an MPEG afterwards, that would
> be most helpful!
>
> Now to get tarted up for the camera ...
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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:
On 1/27/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 27/01/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Wider than we need to get the message out to companies and goverments
> > (did you get asked about the NIDA edits btw?) the first port of call
> > for complaints should be the talk page.
>
>
> NIDA? Oh dear. No. Do please tell.
>

Edited our entry about them.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0107/2460.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_on_Drug_Abuse#NIDA_and_Wikipedia

--
geni


body:
On 27/01/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/27/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:

> > Without a tag or category, or a central mechanisms, there's no way
> > that I can think of for the volunteers to know a request was filed.

> Issue a press release fast (while there is still media interest)
> anounceing the email address for companies to complain to.

You're volunteering to man it? How much sewage will you swim through
for Wikipedia? ;-)

- d.


body:
On 27/01/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/26/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 1/27/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:

> > > Without a tag or category, or a central mechanisms, there's no way
> > > that I can think of for the volunteers to know a request was filed.

> > Issue a press release fast (while there is still media interest)
> > anounceing the email address for companies to complain to.

> Hmm.  Who in the foundation would need to approve doing this?

I just forwarded Geni's suggestion to the comcom list, which is
probably a start ;-)

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] What is the fundamental goal of the project?

body:
Omegatron wrote:

>* free
>* (create an) encyclopedia
>* of the highest possible quality
>* (distribute) to every single person on the planet
>* in their own language
>
>In fact, these goals occasionally conflict.  For instance, machine
>translations are considered "worse than nothing" because of their poor
>quality, so it would seem that "of the highest possible quality" is
>more important than "in their own language".
>
No conflict at all.  What is produced by machine translations is often
not in anybody's own language. :-)

Ec


body:
On 27/01/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/27/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 27/01/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:

> > > Wider than we need to get the message out to companies and goverments
> > > (did you get asked about the NIDA edits btw?) the first port of call
> > > for complaints should be the talk page.

> > NIDA? Oh dear. No. Do please tell.

> Edited our entry about them.
> http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0107/2460.html
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_on_Drug_Abuse#NIDA_and_Wikipedia

And here I was thinking you meant the [[National Institute of Dramatic Art]] ...

- d.


list: foundation-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Promotion of Indian languages

body:
Yann Forget wrote:

>I just came back from a 3 weeks trip to India, where I got the
>opportunity for doing research for Wikimedia on two subjects:
>
>
>>1. Recruiting new volunteers for Indian languages projects, mainly Hindi
>>and Gujarati languages.
>>
>>
>My tentative to recruit new volunteers directly was not very successful,
>so it leads me to look for new ways of promotion. However I had a nice
>wikimeet with three Wikimedians in Ahmedadad. All three are computer
>students and only edit the English Wikipedia. Hopefully direct contact
>will enable us to work better together on a promotion campaign.
>
>
>>2. Contacting organisations and people who have some data which may be
>>suitable for Wikimedia projects, mainly Commons and Wikisource.
>>
>>
>I was able to get some documents on Gandhi not available outside India:
>a copy of the "Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi" (100 volumes!) and
>multimedia CDROMs.
>See http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Collected_Works_of_Mahatma_Gandhi
>
Sounds like your time was well spent.  Good effort!

Ec


body:
On 27/01/07, ? Firefoxman <enwpmail at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/26/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> > Would enough regular editors actually respond? That's the only thing
> > I'm wondering about.

> I would. Look at how many people respond to WP:DESK. I don't think we will
> have any problem with staffing the page.

That does give me hope. Although near 100% of questions there are
sincere and worth answering, as opposed to the amount of unjustifiable
whining that will come through this hypothetical channel ;-) I wonder
what its burnout rate will be ...

- d.


body:
On 1/27/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> That does give me hope. Although near 100% of questions there are
> sincere and worth answering, as opposed to the amount of unjustifiable
> whining that will come through this hypothetical channel ;-) I wonder
> what its burnout rate will be ...

That is why I suggested grabbing people fresh from RFA. We can't do
this with the usual suspects and we need a way to introduce people the
foundation rather than wikipedia side of things.

--
geni


body:
On 27/01/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/27/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> > That does give me hope. Although near 100% of questions there are
> > sincere and worth answering, as opposed to the amount of unjustifiable
> > whining that will come through this hypothetical channel ;-) I wonder
> > what its burnout rate will be ...

> That is why I suggested grabbing people fresh from RFA. We can't do
> this with the usual suspects and we need a way to introduce people the
> foundation rather than wikipedia side of things.

That's thoroughly evil. I like it.

- d.


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject:
[WikiEN-l] "Articles that do not cite reliable published sources
	will be deleted."

body:
Saw this when creating a redirect. Aren't we a little early for April Fool's?

Steve


from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject:
[WikiEN-l] "Articles that do not cite reliable
 published	sources will be deleted."

body:
Cheney Shill wrote:
> Why not just start applying the policy?  Set a time limit.
> No RS, delete.
...
> It seems like there has been an extended and unstated
> policy to create essentially article shells simply to get
> the article count up and increase Wikipedia's popularity.

I've created my share of stubs and this is not even remotely the reason
why. In most cases it's because I went looking for an article, didn't
find it, and wanted to get it started so that hopefully others would add
more detail. Why should I care about Wikipedia's gross article count?

Assume good faith, please.

> WP has a high enough count and popularity.  Why not start
> actually focusing on content detail and enforcing the long
> standing yet rarely applied policies?

[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]] is not policy.

> The alternative seems to be to continue to be the rear end
> of jokes about knowledge by consensus and hearsay like that
> on the 1/24 Colbert Report until WP loses what trust it
> has.

That's a false dilemma. While it's true that there are plenty of jokes
out there about it, there's also a lot of respect and admiration as
well. I don't see any big risk in continuing as we have been.


subject: [WikiEN-l] The downside of creating perfect articles

body:
On 1/26/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> As an aside, this is the other use for redlink farms - they're a
> really good way to find places to put sensible redirects.

Yeah. I can't help but feel that there ought to be an organised front
end to all of this, though. Like a committee that says "There shall be
a "Religion in X" article for every country. The list of countries is
stored [[here]]. Redirects of the following forms will be set up for
every country..."

I mean I know Wikipedia isn't run top-down, but would it hurt to have
a little management? Or should I say "leadership".

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

body:
On 1/26/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> Seriously, by a number of quite reasonable standards Wikipedia already
> _has_ become the best encyclopedia in the world. It's got more breadth,
> it's cheaper, its IP rights are more flexible, and it's probably more
> widely used than the old standbys like Britannica or World Book. It even
> has comparable levels of accuracy. I'm very, very happy with what
> Wikipedia has made of itself and have no desire to throw out any bits of
> baby on account of the bathwater that's still mixed in with it.

I bought EB on CD. Dunno if I didn't get the full edition or
something, but it doesn't come close to WP. I never use it, except for
idle speculation about where they get their ego from.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Tim O'Reilly blog on MS-WP thing

body:
http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/01/what_actually_i.html

I added two lengthy comments on the issue (nothing I haven't been
saying) basically asking for ideas.

I did take the opportunity for a dig at open-source/free software
advocates who flood our FOSS-related articles with advocacy and
rubbish, because they' re the people who make sure that [[Linux]] will
not be a featured article any time soon even if [[Microsoft]] is.

HEY ADVOCATES! PLEASE GO AWAY AND LEARN WHAT NEUTRALITY IS!

- d.


body:
Cheney Shill wrote:
> --- Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>> I've created my share of stubs and this is not even
>> remotely the reason
>> why. In most cases it's because I went looking for an
>> article, didn't
>> find it, and wanted to get it started so that hopefully
>> others would add
>> more detail. Why should I care about Wikipedia's gross
>> article count?
>>
>> Assume good faith, please.
>
> OK.  AGF.  The stubs went nowhere.  It's not your falt.  It
> may have even scared others away.  You tried, nothing
> happened.  Time to let it go and AGF upon those deleting
> it.

Er, wha? I never said the stubs went nowhere and I have no idea how you
derived that from what I wrote. It's possible some of the things I
started as stubs are still stubs but plenty of them have grown into full
articles since then.

I just hit random page a few times and checked the article histories of
all the non-stub articles I came across, and every single one of them
started out as a stub in their first few edits. This appears to be a
common pattern, try it out yourself.

>>> WP has a high enough count and popularity.  Why not
>> start
>>> actually focusing on content detail and enforcing the
>> long
>>> standing yet rarely applied policies?
>> [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]] is not policy.
>
> Problem is, under the scenario given, othing is verifiable
> supports the articles.  That makes it a violation of
> verifiablity, regardless of what guidelines you prefer, but
> WP:V does just happens to mention reliable sources in its
> 1st sentence.

And the very next sentence after that is "Editors should provide a
reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be
challenged, or it may be removed." This reduces the scope of the
policy's impact rather significantly.

>>> of jokes about knowledge by consensus and hearsay like
>> that
>>> on the 1/24 Colbert Report until WP loses what trust it
>>> has.
>> That's a false dilemma.
>
> It's original research, I'll grant you that.  Nonetheless,
> the jokes and increased publicity and stature thereof are
> verifiable.

No, it's worse than original research, it's a logical fallacy. You
stated that there were only two options:

1) Start deleting anything that doesn't have "reliable sources"
2) Be the butt of jokes and lose our credibility

It's simply not true that those are the only options, there are plenty
of others.


body:
Lol.

On 1/27/07, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/26/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Saw this when creating a redirect. Aren't we a little early for April Fool's?
> >
> Welcome to the shiny new perfect Wikipedia.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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:
On 1/26/07, Christopher Thieme <cdthieme at gmail.com> wrote:
> ...NUKE [[WP:CIVIL]] as it's unworkable, increases uncivil conduct, and
> encourages hypocrisy.
>
> And I am serious.

Presuming for a moment that you are, how would deleting [[WP:CIVIL]]
help the project?

Steve


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Gosh darn it,
	those spammers^Wmarketers will show us what for

body:
On 1/25/07, Geoffrey Burling <llywrch at agora.rdrop.com> wrote:
> Three or four years ago, Jimbo ranted about all of the external links he
> was finding in articles. IIRC, his point was that we didn't need any external
> links, that a Wikipedia article ought to stand on its own, and be better
> than any other website on the subject.

It's a value trade-off. For many stubs, there's already a perfect
article out there on the subject. Linking to it is great. What's the
additional value in spending hundreds of hours trying to get that one
obscure article up to the same quality?

Have a look at [[Club skifield]] (which I wrote). Follow the external
link. Is it really worth our (my) while attempting to write something
that surpasses the link in terms of quality, depth, comprehensiveness
of coverage? Practically speaking, who is going to be reading
Wikipedia that doesn't have access to the net, but needs that
information?

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] about my tragic "ban"

body:
On 1/27/07, Mark Ryan <ultrablue at gmail.com> wrote:
> This fellow's user page says he has been "banned". After a quick
> glance, I couldn't see any links to an arbitration or anything that
> would lead to a full ban. Has someone used the wrong block template
> for him?
>
> ~Mark
>

Community bans have been around for a while.

--
geni


from_name: Roberto Alfonso

subject: [WikiEN-l] An obscene example of remote loading

body:
Funny, in a tragic way: http://www.thagodz.com/search/wiki/Wikipedia

Regards,
RB


body:
On 1/27/07, Rich Holton <richholton at gmail.com> wrote:
> Wikipedia is not a web directory. There are (or were, at least) people
> who condense Wikipedia on CD/DVDs for use by those who don't have
> (reliable) internet access. This sort of distribution is a fundamental
> objective of the project. Suggesting that we don't need to include
> information because it's available elsewhere on the web suggests a
> misunderstanding of the project.

"Don't need to" is terribly simplistic. We don't have infinite
resources, or infinite time. If we did, everything would be simple.
But given that I can spend only finite per time working on Wikipedia,
where would you, the hypothetical pointy-haired boss of Wikipedia want
me to spend my time? Creating 10 stubs with 1 external link each, or
creating 1 article with 10 lines of text?

There are endless ways of contributing to Wikipedia. Just because one
chooses not to take up one of them doesn't mean one isn't
contributing...

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Who is "the Internet's premiere free encyclopedia"?

body:
Turns out it's www.encyclopedia.com. Anyone know what "premiere" means?

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] about my tragic "ban"

body:
On 1/27/07, Mark Ryan <ultrablue at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 27/01/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Community bans have been around for a while.
>
> Yeah, but there's no indication on the block log that it's a community
> ban, when there's (I think) a rule that you notate it when you block
> them.
>
> ~Mark

Problem is that a lot of blocks become post facto community bans.

--
geni


from_name: Gurch

subject: [Wikitech-l] table text is full

body:
Travis Derouin wrote:
> We have reached the maximum table size limit of 4GB for our text table
> - what's the best way around or to fix this?
>
> Travis

Delete all the useless stuff?

-Gurch


from_name: Daniel P. B. Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:LAME candidate

body:
On Jan 27, 2007, at 7:00 AM, wikien-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org wrote:

> From: Timwi <timwi at gmx.net>
>
> I would like to nominate [[User:I B Wright]]'s current endeavour on
> [[Pentagrid converter]] for [[WP:LAME]]. He keeps re-inserting a piece
> of text that is completely nonsensical. He claims that it's a
> "literary
> device" and insists that "all the vacuum-tube-savvy editors are happy
> with it". Four different people have already removed it (myself
> included) and he keeps reinserting it.
>
> Timwi

Specifically, it appears keeps reinserting a piece of text such that
the opening of the section, "The Pentode," reads:

"[Pentode? Are you quite sure? - Ed.] Absolutely. One UK company,
Mazda, produced a triode-pentode frequency changer, the AC/TP."

Just to make it clear, the interpolation "[Pentode? Are you quite
sure? - Ed.] Absolutely." appears in the text of the article itself,
not the discussion page. I don't see where he calls it a "literary
device," but I do see edit comments to the effect that "Reverted:
It's not inline discussion" and "Once again - IT'S *NOT* DISCUSSION."

But, hey, how can you argue with anyone whose username is "I. B.
Wright?"


from_name: SPUI

body:
Roberto Alfonso wrote:
> Funny, in a tragic way: http://www.thagodz.com/search/wiki/Wikipedia

http://www.askfactmaster.com/Twiki (not remote loading) is still funnier.


body:
> Stupid leechers. We should sue them for not complying with the GFDL.
>
> Mgm

"Thagodz WikiR is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.,
a US-registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity."
They should really fix that.
--Mets501


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject: [Wikipedia-l] school articles : enough

body:
Ray Saintonge schreef:
> David Monniaux wrote:
>
>
>> But there's no reason we should have an article on my neighbouring
>> highschool, unless we also want articles on every company or organization...
>>
>>
> A reasonable criterion for companies would be the listing of its shares
> on an important stock exchange.
>
> Ec
Hoi,
That would be true if only companies that are traded on stock exchanges
are notable. That is a fallacy in its own right.
Thanks,
    GerardM


body:
Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:

> Cheney Shill wrote:
>>> Cheney Shill wrote:
> >>> WP has a high enough count and popularity.  Why not
> >> start
> >>> actually focusing on content detail and enforcing the
> >> long
> >>> standing yet rarely applied policies?

> > Problem is, under the scenario given, nothing
> > verifiable
> > supports the articles.  That makes it a violation of
> > verifiablity, regardless of what guidelines you prefer,
> but
> > WP:V does just happens to mention reliable sources in
> > its 1st sentence.
>
> And the very next sentence after that is "Editors should
> provide a
> reliable source for material that is challenged or likely
> to be
> challenged, or it may be removed." This reduces the scope
> of the
> policy's impact rather significantly.

How does that reduce the scope of the policy?  That's now 3
sources, 2 policies (V & NPOV) and a guideline, that state
produce reliable sources or expect the material to be
deleted.  That's reinforcement, not reduction.

The question is how long should articles without reliable
sources be allowed to remain.  Should they be allowed to
linger indefinitely?

> No, it's worse than original research, it's a logical
> fallacy. You stated that there were only two options:

I agree there are more options and limiting it to 2 is a
fallacy.  Nonetheless, Wikipedia jokes and the rising
publicity and stature thereof are verifiable.  How you
reason with it is up to you.  One could reason that it
makes competing with Wikipedia easier and decreases the
liklihood that WP will be widely accepted as a reliable
source for citations.

~~Pro-Lick
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick
http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)

--spam may follow--

____________________________________________________________________________________
TV dinner still cooling?
Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.com/


body:
Eugene van der Pijll <eugene at vanderpijll.nl> wrote:

> Cheney Shill schreef:
> > Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> > > And the very next sentence after that is "Editors
> should
> > > provide a
> > > reliable source for material that is challenged or
> likely
> > > to be
> > > challenged, or it may be removed." This reduces the
> scope
> > > of the
> > > policy's impact rather significantly.
> >
> > How does that reduce the scope of the policy?
>
> Because it says there is only a problem if the material
> is doubtful. An
> unsourced statement that is not challenged and not likely
> to be
> challenged -- and that is not libelous if untrue, I
> should add -- is not
> to be removed, according to WP:V.

That makes it highly subjective.  What determines if it is
doubtful or or likely to be challenged?  To interpret WP:V
this way is basically to say its not policy.  There's no
point for it, not to mention it violates NPOV, so now we
have a pointless policy that violates NPOV.  Submit
whatever you like without sources.  It gets to stay if not
challenged.  And if the challenge gets to stay if it's not
challeneged.  So Wikipedia is a collection of unsourced
opinions and unsourced counter challenges.  Long live the
edit wars.

~~Pro-Lick
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick
http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)

--spam may follow--

____________________________________________________________________________________
No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail


from_name: Mark Ryan

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Well gee, abusive admins, abusive editors,
	and you don't care about the rules at all.

body:
As the lucky person who got to moderate Runechozo, I got called an
"abusive asshole" and also got a special "f*ck you", just for me.

It's my personal opinion that when people descend to such juvenile
name-calling when they don't entirely get their own way, they're
probably not the best people for Wikipedia anyway.

After that incident, I have absolutely no interest in investigating
this person's complaints any further. But could someone else look into
it, just so we can't give them the satisfaction of being able to say
we've ignored their request for help?

~Mark Ryan


body:
On 27/01/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> And here I was thinking you meant the [[National Institute of Dramatic Art]] ...

That's what I was thinking. Lots of arty actor types whining about how
their acting school is better than WAAPA. Nothing new there.

~Mark


subject: [WikiEN-l] about my tragic "ban"

body:
This fellow's user page says he has been "banned". After a quick
glance, I couldn't see any links to an arbitration or anything that
would lead to a full ban. Has someone used the wrong block template
for him?

~Mark


from_name: Omegatron

body:
On 1/25/07, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:

> I don't think it can be broken up, and no, when you broke it up you
> missed the word "effort", which contextualises the whole statement.

The word "effort" indicates that it's a goal to reach, instead of a
descriptive statement of what we already are, no?

> And
> those readings are your readings, not mine.

What are yours?

> I read your opinion on how it conflicts with itself.  Since I don't see
> on what basis the statement can be pulled apart, I'm not sure how it can
> be described as self-contradictory.  Did you happen to read the rest of
> my post?

Of course, but I don't see the relevance.  I don't see how JFK's
statement can be broken up in a way that conflicts with itself.

Of course I have a better reason for bringing this up than machine
translations.  A number of users are trying to change Wikipedia's
policy to prohibit *all* fair use and permission-only images, and
deleting scores of them.  Their rationale hinges around this concept
that we have a "primary goal" of creating free content, and a
"secondary goal" of writing a high-quality encyclopedia.  If the goals
can in fact be split into multiple sub-goals (which itself is
contentious), their subdivision seems completely wrong and backwards
to me, and they're destroying a ton of irreplaceable encyclopedic
content with it.

In the years I've been contributing to the project, I have always
understood that our goal is to create a neutral, reliable encyclopedia
"of the highest possible quality" that can be distributed as widely
and freely as possible.  "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia".  Copyleft,
free content is a tremendously important means to that end, but it
isn't the end itself.  We should use free content wherever possible,
but when no free content exists to suit our encyclopedic purpose, we
should still use whatever else we legally can and maximize the benefit
downstream users get from the project. Our goal is to create a
repository of "the sum of all human knowledge"; not "a collection of
copyright-free human knowledge".  (That's what Project Gutenberg is
for.)

Should we remove articles that haven't been translated into other
languages yet because it doesn't meet our subgoal of "in their own
language"?

Should we delete images of money, Nazi insignia, and coats of arms
because, while free content, they don't meet our subgoal of
redistributability and usefulness for every purpose?

Should we delete and paraphrase all quotations and excerpts because
they don't meet our subgoal of being free content?  Quotation is a
form of fair use copyright violation, too, yet I don't see any
fanatics with "Say 'NO' to quotation!" banners on their user pages.

Our goal is to write a useful, authoritative encyclopedia and make it
as distributable and accessible as possible.  We should be doing
everything we can to meet this goal.


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

> Cheney Shill wrote:
>
> >How does that reduce the scope of the policy?  That's
> now 3
> >sources, 2 policies (V & NPOV) and a guideline, that
> state
> >produce reliable sources or expect the material to be
> >deleted.  That's reinforcement, not reduction.
> >
> >The question is how long should articles without
> reliable
> >sources be allowed to remain.  Should they be allowed to
> >linger indefinitely?
> >
> In practice, yes, if:
> 1) The information looks likely to be correct; and

Problem is that's subjective.  How does one determine what
is or is not likely?

> 2) Even if it isn't, it doesn't matter all that much (not
> potentially  libelous, etc.); and

So, now we have the same subjectivity as 1) along with a
test:  If it causes legal problems, delete.

> 3) It looks likely that a source can be procured in the
> future.

Back to subjectivity.  How does one determine whether a
source is likely?

> Sometimes an article that's lingered for months with an
> unreferenced
> banner will be proposed for deletion, since that's taken
> as evidence
> against #3.  But there are plenty of things that linger
> unreferenced,
> even though everyone knows they're basically
> correct---and you can even
> roughly verify them by doing some google
> searches---because nobody's
> taken the time to edit them into a properly referenced
> article.  A bunch
> of stubs of locations and figures of classical antiquity
> fit this

So then it is no problem to put a warning that it will be
deleted in x days if no sources are added.  For the
articles that have easily found sources, these can be
readily found and added and the deletion warning will be
removed and the article remains.  Those that still fail to
produce sources are deleted.

> should be
> prominently tagged with the "unreferenced" banner, of
> course, so our
> readers know that they aren't considered good/reliable
> articles yet.

An indefinite banner stating the article is unreferenced,
i.e., citations needed, like {{fact}}.  If the banner also
says, as you say, "this is not conisdered a good/reliable
article yet", then sure.  As it is, it requires the reader
to decide whether or not the lack of sources is
significant.  Considering that signifiant, verifiable
sources is policy, it seems that the banner needs to be
more explicit, i.e., honest, in stating that the lack
thereof makes this article highly unreliable.

At this point, there seem to be 2 reasonable alternatives:
1) Create a time limited deletion warning permitting
deletion upon expiration without reliable sources.
2) Create an indefinite banner that clearly states that the
article/section is in a highly unreliable state should not
regarded as accurate.

~~Pro-Lick
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick
http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)

--spam may follow--

____________________________________________________________________________________
Have a burning question?
Go to www.Answers.yahoo.com and get answers from real people who know.


from_name: Nick Wilkins

subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:LAME candidate

body:
On 1/27/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't see where he calls it a "literary
> > device," but I do see edit comments to the effect that "Reverted:
> > It's not inline discussion" and "Once again - IT'S *NOT* DISCUSSION."
>
> I saw the phrase "literary device" - it must have been either on the
> article talk page, or his user talk page.
>
> Just block him under 3RR rule and forget about it.

The phrase is on his talk page, where no fewer than three editors have told
him that it is not encyclopedic.

-- Jonel


body:
Eugene van der Pijll <eugene at vanderpijll.nl> wrote:

> >  What determines if it is
> > doubtful or or likely to be challenged?
>
> Common sense. Most people have this, or it would not be
> common.

When http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense is no longer
unreferenced and has reliable sources, I'll consider
agreeing with that.

~~Pro-Lick
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick
http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)

--spam may follow--

____________________________________________________________________________________
Bored stiff? Loosen up...
Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.
http://games.yahoo.com/games/front


body:
On 27/01/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
> Would that person need to be an admin?
>
> Marc Riddell

No, of course not. :)

~Mark Ryan


body:
And don't forget to check their "donations" link in the navigation box.

RB


subject: [WikiEN-l] about my tragic "ban"

body:
On 27/01/07, LAWRENCE A TKALYCH <lat2000 at msn.com> wrote:

> As I have received a myriad of e-mails re:mthis issue, I will do my best to
> respond to you personally.

You'll be most pleased to know that Mr Tkalych is set to moderated and
nomail now.

- d.


from_name: Timwi

subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:LAME candidate

body:
I would like to nominate [[User:I B Wright]]'s current endeavour on
[[Pentagrid converter]] for [[WP:LAME]]. He keeps re-inserting a piece
of text that is completely nonsensical. He claims that it's a "literary
device" and insists that "all the vacuum-tube-savvy editors are happy
with it". Four different people have already removed it (myself
included) and he keeps reinserting it.

Timwi


from_name: Thomas Dalton

subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:LAME candidate

body:
> I would like to nominate [[User:I B Wright]]'s current endeavour on
> [[Pentagrid converter]] for [[WP:LAME]]. He keeps re-inserting a piece
> of text that is completely nonsensical. He claims that it's a "literary
> device" and insists that "all the vacuum-tube-savvy editors are happy
> with it". Four different people have already removed it (myself
> included) and he keeps reinserting it.

I think it needs to be lame on both sides of the argument to qualify
for WP:LAME. Thanks for the laugh, though! It looks like he's reverted
it 4 times - I suggest you report him under 3RR, that should stop him.


from_name: Rich Holton

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Gosh darn it,
 those spammers^Wmarketers will show us what for

body:
PeruvianLlama wrote:
> Rich Holton wrote:
>> And I don't appreciate your painting me as some sort of self-appointed
>> Wikipedia manager. There was nothing in my post to suggest that I
>> objected to your efforts. What I objected to was what I perceived as
>> your limited understanding of the nature of the project.
>
> I don't mean to put words in Steve's mouth, but... my understanding of
> what he wrote was that he was asking you (Rich) to put yourself in the
> hypothetical/pretend role of a Wiki-Manager, not that he meant you were
> already in such a role. Or to stick with the Dilbert analogy: he was
> asking you to put on a Pointy-Haired wig for a minute. He was not
> implying your hair was already pointy.  :)
>

Hmmm...Perhaps you're right. In which case, I apologize to Steve for
misunderstanding his intentions there.

-Rich


from_name: Delirium

body:
Cheney Shill wrote:

>How does that reduce the scope of the policy?  That's now 3
>sources, 2 policies (V & NPOV) and a guideline, that state
>produce reliable sources or expect the material to be
>deleted.  That's reinforcement, not reduction.
>
>The question is how long should articles without reliable
>sources be allowed to remain.  Should they be allowed to
>linger indefinitely?
>
>
In practice, yes, if:
1) The information looks likely to be correct; and
2) Even if it isn't, it doesn't matter all that much (not potentially
libelous, etc.); and
3) It looks likely that a source can be procured in the future.

Sometimes an article that's lingered for months with an unreferenced
banner will be proposed for deletion, since that's taken as evidence
against #3.  But there are plenty of things that linger unreferenced,
even though everyone knows they're basically correct---and you can even
roughly verify them by doing some google searches---because nobody's
taken the time to edit them into a properly referenced article.  A bunch
of stubs of locations and figures of classical antiquity fit this
description, for example.

I don't really see much harm to leaving them around, or much benefit to
deleting them in such cases, since they do provide information that with
some fairly high probability is correct, and in any case provide a good
base for a future editor to improve the article on.  They should be
prominently tagged with the "unreferenced" banner, of course, so our
readers know that they aren't considered good/reliable articles yet.

-Mark


subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:LAME candidate

body:
> I don't see where he calls it a "literary
> device," but I do see edit comments to the effect that "Reverted:
> It's not inline discussion" and "Once again - IT'S *NOT* DISCUSSION."

I saw the phrase "literary device" - it must have been either on the
article talk page, or his user talk page.

Just block him under 3RR rule and forget about it.


body:
"Thagodz Wiki is a multilingual, Web-based, free-content encyclopedia
project. The name is a portmanteau of the words wiki and
encyclopedia."

Brilliant... just pure genius... putting "wiki" and "encyclopedia"
together and getting "Thagodz Wiki" - just how do they do it?


body:
Cheney Shill wrote:
> --- Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
>> In practice, yes, if:
>> 1) The information looks likely to be correct; and
>
> Problem is that's subjective.  How does one determine what
> is or is not likely?

Subjectivity is not inherently a problem, and for a project like this
it's bound to happen at some point. In this case one determines whether
it's likely based on whether anyone actually challenges it. If nobody
challenges a bit of information then either everyone thinks it's likely
to be correct (that's good) or nobody has noticed it (not so good, but
also makes the issue not terribly urgent). Or perhaps nobody who's read
it feels qualified to judge it, but a citation probably wouldn't help in
that sort of situation.

>> 2) Even if it isn't, it doesn't matter all that much (not
>> potentially  libelous, etc.); and
>
> So, now we have the same subjectivity as 1) along with a
> test:  If it causes legal problems, delete.

If nobody has a problem with it then there's no problem with leaving it
in. Subjective but still quite useful.

>> 3) It looks likely that a source can be procured in the
>> future.
>
> Back to subjectivity.  How does one determine whether a
> source is likely?

One just thinks it when one reads the information. eg., "The article
says Mr. Foo died in 1975. I don't have access to a library to check
right now but he was pretty famous so there's probably obituaries in the
newspapers if nothing else." That's all that's needed, one doesn't have
to actually look it up.

If someone comes along who _doesn't_ think a source can be procured then
he can go ahead and challenge it, and others can then dig up a source or
otherwise try to convince him that one exists. Just like with the first
point, above.

>> Sometimes an article that's lingered for months with an unreferenced
>> banner will be proposed for deletion, since that's taken as evidence
>> against #3.  But there are plenty of things that linger unreferenced,
>> even though everyone knows they're basically correct---and you can even
>> roughly verify them by doing some google searches---because nobody's
>> taken the time to edit them into a properly referenced article.  A bunch
>> of stubs of locations and figures of classical antiquity fit this
>
> So then it is no problem to put a warning that it will be
> deleted in x days if no sources are added.

You're very good at reaching conclusions based on comments that don't
seem to remotely support them, I have no idea how you got this from what
Delirium wrote. :)

The problem I see with this sort of hard-and-fast deadline is that
there's no pressing need for it but a very real chance that it's going
to remove stuff that could well have been improved instead if it had
been allowed to sit around longer. The sorts of stubs Delirium mentioned
as an example probably aren't on many watchlists or the focus of many
people's academic interests, so even if the sources are out there it's
going to be hard to force people to dig them up in only X days. It's
hard to "force" anyone to do anything on Wikipedia, it's a volunteer
effort after all.

> At this point, there seem to be 2 reasonable alternatives:
> 1) Create a time limited deletion warning permitting
> deletion upon expiration without reliable sources.
> 2) Create an indefinite banner that clearly states that the
> article/section is in a highly unreliable state should not
> regarded as accurate.

I've got no problem with the banner approach, though I think "highly"
might be overstating the issue.


body:
Cheney Shill wrote:
> --- Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
>> In practice, yes, if:
>> 1) The information looks likely to be correct; and
>
> Problem is that's subjective.  How does one determine what
> is or is not likely?

Subjectivity is not inherently a problem, and for a project like this
it's bound to happen at some point. In this case one determines whether
it's likely based on whether anyone actually challenges it. If nobody
challenges a bit of information then either everyone thinks it's likely
to be correct (that's good) or nobody has noticed it (not so good, but
also makes the issue not terribly urgent). Or perhaps nobody who's read
it feels qualified to judge it, but a citation probably wouldn't help in
that sort of situation.

>> 2) Even if it isn't, it doesn't matter all that much (not
>> potentially  libelous, etc.); and
>
> So, now we have the same subjectivity as 1) along with a
> test:  If it causes legal problems, delete.

If nobody has a problem with it then there's no problem with leaving it
in. Subjective but still quite useful.

>> 3) It looks likely that a source can be procured in the
>> future.
>
> Back to subjectivity.  How does one determine whether a
> source is likely?

One just thinks it when one reads the information. eg., "The article
says Mr. Foo died in 1975. I don't have access to a library to check
right now but he was pretty famous so there's probably obituaries in the
newspapers if nothing else." That's all that's needed, one doesn't have
to actually look it up.

If someone comes along who _doesn't_ think a source can be procured then
he can go ahead and challenge it, and others can then dig up a source or
otherwise try to convince him that one exists. Just like with the first
point, above.

>> Sometimes an article that's lingered for months with an unreferenced
>> banner will be proposed for deletion, since that's taken as evidence
>> against #3.  But there are plenty of things that linger unreferenced,
>> even though everyone knows they're basically correct---and you can even
>> roughly verify them by doing some google searches---because nobody's
>> taken the time to edit them into a properly referenced article.  A bunch
>> of stubs of locations and figures of classical antiquity fit this
>
> So then it is no problem to put a warning that it will be
> deleted in x days if no sources are added.

You're very good at reaching conclusions based on comments that don't
seem to support them, I have no idea how you got this from what Delirium
wrote. :)

The problem I see with this sort of hard-and-fast deadline is that
there's no pressing need for it but a very real chance that it's going
to remove stuff that could well have been improved instead if it had
been allowed to sit around longer. The sorts of stubs Delirium mentioned
as an example probably aren't on many watchlists or the focus of many
people's academic interests, so even if the sources are out there it's
going to be hard to force people to dig them up in only X days. It's
hard to "force" anyone to do anything on Wikipedia, it's a volunteer
effort after all.

> At this point, there seem to be 2 reasonable alternatives:
> 1) Create a time limited deletion warning permitting
> deletion upon expiration without reliable sources.
> 2) Create an indefinite banner that clearly states that the
> article/section is in a highly unreliable state should not
> regarded as accurate.

I've got no problem with the banner approach, though I think "highly"
might be overstating the issue.


subject: [WikiEN-l] about my tragic "ban"

body:
On 27/01/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> Community bans have been around for a while.

Yeah, but there's no indication on the block log that it's a community
ban, when there's (I think) a rule that you notate it when you block
them.

~Mark


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Brandchannel claims hi brand marks for WP, YT

body:
Tim Starling wrote:
> Tagged {{db-web}} by an anon and speedied by Aaron Brenneman 6.5 hours
> later, which was 1.5 hours after Quarl removed the speedy tag,
> recommending AfD/prod in his edit summary. I think that counts as
> out-of-process deletion. How about I undelete it and clean it up a bit?
> Notable or not, the deleted text does have the tone of an advertisement.

IMO there's no need to ask in a case as clear as this, just go ahead and
do it. I've already started. :)


from_name: PeruvianLlama

body:
Rich Holton wrote:
> And I don't appreciate your painting me as some sort of self-appointed
> Wikipedia manager. There was nothing in my post to suggest that I
> objected to your efforts. What I objected to was what I perceived as
> your limited understanding of the nature of the project.

I don't mean to put words in Steve's mouth, but... my understanding of
what he wrote was that he was asking you (Rich) to put yourself in the
hypothetical/pretend role of a Wiki-Manager, not that he meant you were
already in such a role. Or to stick with the Dilbert analogy: he was
asking you to put on a Pointy-Haired wig for a minute. He was not
implying your hair was already pointy.  :)

Cheers,
 - PeruvianLlama


body:
On 1/27/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> Is there some place where changes to this statement are discussed that
> I'm unaware of, or is it just being jerked back and forth at individual
> whim?

Individual whim trumps consensus for GUI messages for some reason.
Something I abhor, as admins are *not* supposed to use their power in
this way.

Geni: Eh it's been a fairly standard reason to use it prods for some time
roughly translates as "we don't belive the author of this article.

There's a big difference between "This author has not cited his
sources" and "We don't believe this author". If the first is being
used as a euphemism for the second, this is a bit sloppy. No one
should ever be deleting material which is harmless (not libellous,
copyvio etc), useful (not vanity, nonsense etc) and totally
believable, even if it's not sourced.

Well, that's my take, and a hell of a lot closer to actual practice
than "All unsourced material will be deleted".

Steve


body:
On 1/27/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, we could say "Articles that do not cite reliable published
> sources might be deleted." But that's no incentive to actually cite sources.
> It's sad to see it makes no difference whatsoever.

Is this what we've come to? Being honest with our contributors doesn't
work, so we attempt to scare them with hollow threats? FFS.

Steve


from_name: David Goodman

body:
The deleted article may not have included the word "notable" in the
first sentence. articles have been sent to Speedy for that alone. -DGG

On 1/27/07, Tim Starling <tstarling at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> SJ wrote:
> > Worth a quick read.  Ranked by votes from a few thousand "branding
> > professionals and students".
> >
> > http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070126/wr_nm/brands_global_winners_dc
>
> It looks like nobody has noticed this, at least on this list. Brandchannel
> took this opportunity to hint to their readers that they might want to
> contest Wikipedia's deletion of their article.
>
> "(Incidentally, the brandchannel Wikipedia entry was deleted because it
> was declared "[a]n article about a real person, group of people, band,
> club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or
> significance of its subject." We'd like to think we do, in fact, assert
> the important or significance of our subject?and 90,000 subscribers like
> yourselves can't be wrong. If you agree, please consider launching what
> the site calls a deletion review.)"
>
> http://brandchannel.com/start1.asp?fa_id=352
>
> -- Tim Starling
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

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


list: commons-l

from_name: Brianna Laugher

subject:
[Commons-l] [Wikinews-l] Pushing User page photo's from
	wikinews to commons

body:
User portraits are welcome at Commons, as long as they have source and
licensing info. "Self-portrait of [[wn:user:foo]]. {{self|cc-by-2.5}}"
is sufficient (for example). I suggest putting them in
[[Category:Wikimedians]].

regards,
Brianna
commons:User:pfctdayelise

On 26/01/07, Brian W <bawolff at gmail.com> wrote:
> Note: this is in reference to the english wikinews
>
>
> We have tons of personal photo's of users for userpages. most of them
> are not licensed freely, if licensed at all (some of them even claim
> they are ''fair use'' which is a total load of ...). I personally
> think that they shouldn't be on wikinews whatsoever (as they'd
> probably also be on the user's page at wikipedia, etc, and we
> currently have no policy's regarding them, so it'd just be easier to
> make them go somewhere that already has a policy), so I propose:
>
> *All new self photo's for user pages go on commons, and follow their
> policies ([[Commons:Criteria for
> inclusion#Wikimedia_Commons_is_a_common_central_media_repository_of_all_Wikimedia_projects]])
>
> *old ones can stay [at wikinews], we won't delete them for now if
> there inproperly licensed as the user clearly wants them here, or
> decide what to do with them later
>
> *any new one's have to be at commons, or they go into the black abyss
> of death and doom.
>
> note: I'm cc-ing this commons-l, as it concerns them, and I have no
> idea if they'll like it or not, so if they say no, its not happening.
> its also posted on the wc at wikinews.
>
>
> --[[user:bawolff|Bawolff]]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikinews-l mailing list
> Wikinews-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
>


from_name: Brian Salter-Duke

body:
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 01:58:32PM -0500, Phil Sandifer wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 25, 2007, at 2:36 PM, Stan Shebs wrote:
>
> >Phil Sandifer wrote:
> >>I'd be similarly shocked if one could write a good article on high
> >>temperature physics or group theory while being totally dependent on
> >>published reliable sources, because those sources were never written
> >>for the purpose of being used to explain the concept to novices.
> >>
> >The best sources for general topics are textbooks actually; reliable,
> >and written to explain concepts. I find the introductions to
> >monographs
> >and papers as useful for WP as the bodies; at least the more
> >articulate
> >writers manage to get in a few words intelligible to the
> >nonspecialist. :-)
>
> I picked those examples precisely because there weren't good or
> usable textbooks for them. (Or, at least, I asked a random chemistry
> grad student I had nearby for two topics that would fit that bill and
> that's what she gave me. Damned if I know what the hell group theory
> is.)

[[Group theory]] is a branch of mathematics. That article has a rather
poor paragraph that points to how chemists us it. To a chemist, Group
Theory is a study of the symmetry of molecules or of crystals. The
latter is used in X-ray crystallography. The former is used in quantum
chemistry and molecular spectroscopy. We do not have an article on it
and we should. There are plenty of fairly simple (2nd year chemistry
undergrad level) books. The most famous is probably "Chemical
applications of Group Theory" by F. Albert Cotton (1963) which lead to
it being taught to undergrads. Plenty of people have tried to improve on
it since but most failed. I may have a go at an article.

Brian.

> -Phil
>
> ------------------------------

--
          Brian Salter-Duke            b_duke at bigpond.net.au
               [[User:Bduke]]  mainly on en:Wikipedia.
           Also on fr: Wikipedia, Meta-Wiki and Wikiversity


from_name: Christopher G. Parham

subject: [Wikipedia-l] school articles : enough

body:
On 1/27/2007 3:15 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:

>A reasonable criterion for companies would be the listing of its shares
>on an important stock exchange.
>
>Ec
>

Sadly our actual "notability guideline" explicitly reject that as a
criterion.
--Chris


from_name: Ashar Voultoiz

subject: [Foundation-l] need assistance for spam blacklist

body:
Aude wrote:
<snip>
> I'm new to IRC, trying to figure out what various channels are, and get the
> hang of it.  According to Wikipedia, "
> mIRC<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIRC>is the most popular IRC client
> on Windows based systems
> [ *citation needed* <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources>]."
> Is this true?

Hello Aude,

In the Windows world, mIRC is the most used client. It is good enough
for most people.

> I have looked over the list of channels,
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_channels  #wikimedia seems like the place
> to get hold of foundation/metawiki folks, though I see little activity
> there.

You can join several channels at the same time, #wikimedia is to talk
about the foundation, #wikipedia-en for the english wikipedia.

<snip>
> And, what do you mean by "!admin"?  the admin channel? or is that some IRC
> command?

This just means some people have made it so that when anyone write
"!admin" it will make some noise in their IRC client.

<snip>

--
Ashar Voultoiz - WP++++
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hashar
http://www.livejournal.com/community/wikitech/
IM: hashar at jabber.org  ICQ: 15325080


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Foundation-l] [Announcement] Welcome to Carolyn Doran

body:
The Foundation is pleased to announce the full hiring of Carolyn Doran
to the current team in St Petersbourg office.

Carolyn is not new ! She has been our part time accountant in the past
few months, but was working through an interim agency.

Carolyn is now a full time employee, and has seen her role evolve toward
new responsabilities. She now holds the role of the COO - please see job
description below. In short, the chief operations officer (COO) is
responsible for the overall administration and business operations.
Areas of responsibility include administration, personnel and fiscal
management. For now, she will be the person in charge of Barbara and
Danny (for his administrative role), and in the future, any new employee
working in the administrative area. The WMF board looks forward working
with her in this new capacity :-)

This position will be re-evaluated upon hiring our future permanent
Executive Director. I take the opportunity to mention we are moving
nicely in the direction of finding our new ED, with the recent decision
to hire a search firm to help us find the best candidate.

Carolyn may be found on irc under the pseudonym Carolyn. Please say
hello if you run into her online :-)

Florence Devouard
Chair of Wikimedia Foundation

--------

The board agreed upon the following job description.

I. Position summary
The chief operations officer (COO) is responsible for the overall
administration and business operations.
Areas of responsibility include administration, personnel and fiscal
management.
This is a full-time position, hired by and directly accountable to the
Executive Director,
or to the board of directors through its elected board chair in absence
of an Executive Director.

II. Responsibilities
1. Management and administration
a. Develop and administer operational administrative policies.
b. Provide information for evaluation of the organization's activities.

III. Fiscal
a. Ensure effective audit trails.
b. Approve expenditures.
c. Provide for proper fiscal record-keeping and reporting.
d. Submit monthly financial statements to the board of directors.

IV. Personnel
a. Administer board-approved personnel polices.
b. Provide for adequate supervision and evaluation of staff with
administrative role.

V. Board relations
a. Assist the board chair in planning the agenda and materials for board
meetings.
b. Initiate and assist in developing policy recommendations and in
setting priorities.

VI. Public relations
a. Ensure appropriate representation of WMF by all employees.


from_name: David Gerard

body:
On 27/01/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:

> Stupid leechers. We should sue them for not complying with the GFDL.

I suppose the Jason Scott solution is unlikely to pass Foundation
muster. It'd work, though.

- d.


from_name: Bryan Derksen

body:
Tim Starling wrote:
> That would be a cynical way of looking at it. There's no core policy issue
> at stake, the reason for deletion was a poor one. We're just responding to
> public criticism by taking a token step in the right direction.

Indeed. And even if this particular website _does_ turn out to be not
particularly notable (I haven't done much checking myself), the proper
way to deal with that IMO would be to redirect to the article on its
parent company [[Interbrand]] and perhaps add a section on it there.
Everyone wins.


from_name: Cheney Shill

subject:
[WikiEN-l] "Articles that do not cite reliable published
	sources will be deleted."

body:
Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:

> Cheney Shill wrote:
> > --- Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> >> In practice, yes, if:
> >> 1) The information looks likely to be correct; and
> >
> > Problem is that's subjective.  How does one determine
> what
> > is or is not likely?
>
> Subjectivity is not inherently a problem, and for a

2 more problems.  That?s subjective and and it?s not
policy.

> project like this
> it's bound to happen at some point. In this case one

At some point, we all die, so why wait?  I?m not following
your logic.

> determines whether
> it's likely based on whether anyone actually challenges
> it. If nobody
> challenges a bit of information then either everyone
> thinks it's likely
> to be correct (that's good) or nobody has noticed it (not
> so good, but
> also makes the issue not terribly urgent). Or perhaps

Unless lots of people have noticed via external searching
but no one has changed it and simply accepted it because
its in an encyclopedia and they AGF.  Have you heard of
this new fangled concept called a false dilemma?  I just
heard about it.  Something to do with logic.

> nobody who's read
> it feels qualified to judge it, but a citation probably
> wouldn't help in
> that sort of situation.

Or somebody not only felt qualified, but did judge, changed
it annonymously, assumed good faith, never bothered to
check back on it to challenge reversions, only to have it
changed back by the originator, a troll, vandal, an
innocent admin, etc.  This false dilemma concept sure puts
things in perspective.

> >> 2) Even if it isn't, it doesn't matter all that much
> (not
> >> potentially  libelous, etc.); and
> >
> > So, now we have the same subjectivity as 1) along with
> a
> > test:  If it causes legal problems, delete.
>
> If nobody has a problem with it then there's no problem
> with leaving it
> in. Subjective but still quite useful.

If?  And useful according to who?  Anyone who?s content
with fake information?  Spam?  Pure nonsense?  Having a
page in a something that calls itself an encyclopedia say
so?  How is it useful?

> >> 3) It looks likely that a source can be procured in
> the
> >> future.
> >
> > Back to subjectivity.  How does one determine whether a
> > source is likely?
>
> One just thinks it when one reads the information. eg.,
> "The article
> says Mr. Foo died in 1975. I don't have access to a
> library to check
> right now but he was pretty famous so there's probably
> obituaries in the
> newspapers if nothing else." That's all that's needed,
> one doesn't have
> to actually look it up.

Actually, one does "have to" look it up.  Which brings us
back to the point of this dicussion.  #1 policy NPOV
states:
"All [not some, not just those you decide are likely]
Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must [as
in "have to", this is not optional] be written from a
neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and
without bias all significant views that have been published
by a reliable source."

Also note the following in the NPOV policy:
"absolute and non-negotiable."

You may consider Foo famous, but 99.7% of the world may not
know who he is or where to find any information on him.
That makes it OR until one provides reliable sources that
show otherwise.


from_name: George Herbert

subject: [WikiEN-l] WIKIPEDIA IS A FRAUD

body:
On 1/27/07, Michael Smith <runechozo at gmail.com> wrote:
> I was abused, stalked, hounded, and the one who did it got off with nothing
> happening to him because you like beating up on people.And why? BECAUSE I
> WAS TRYING TO MAKE AN ARTICLE BETTER.

No, you've been blocked, and may well be banned now, because you can't
respond politely and in an adult and civil manner to complaints.

Until you understand that you entirely did this to yourself, I don't
see how you can continue participating in Wikipedia.

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


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

body:
Stupid leechers. We should sue them for not complying with the GFDL.

Mgm

On 1/27/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Thagodz Wiki is a multilingual, Web-based, free-content encyclopedia
> project. The name is a portmanteau of the words wiki and
> encyclopedia."
>
> Brilliant... just pure genius... putting "wiki" and "encyclopedia"
> together and getting "Thagodz Wiki" - just how do they do it?
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: K P

body:
I get feedback on my new articles by posting a request in the edit summary.
This way my stalkers know I've posted something new, go to it, and beautify
it for me.  It works well for me, as I'm spelling-challenged (I swear I use
my word processor and spell check before posting, it doesn't help) and
couldn't format a picture if my life depended upon it.  Also I'm
code-challenged (although I once wrote an operating system and can debug
anyone else's code).  People correct my formats, format my articles, add
details where necessary.


from_name: David Monniaux

subject: [Wikipedia-l] school articles : enough

body:
Ray Saintonge a ?crit :
> I generally consider the school articles relatively more important than
> the Pok?mon articles, though the writing on the latter appears more
> thorough.  Still I would oppose deleting either.  If the school articles
> contain libel and other sundry vandalism remove the libel and
> vandalism.  Stop using that asd an excuse for removing material that you
> don't like.
I personally don't give a shit about school articles per se.

If you're volunteering to patrol them, be my guest.


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Bryan Derksen wrote:

>Cheney Shill wrote:
>
>
>>It seems like there has been an extended and unstated
>>policy to create essentially article shells simply to get
>>the article count up and increase Wikipedia's popularity.
>>
>>
>I've created my share of stubs and this is not even remotely the reason
>why. In most cases it's because I went looking for an article, didn't
>find it, and wanted to get it started so that hopefully others would add
>more detail. Why should I care about Wikipedia's gross article count?
>
>Assume good faith, please.
>
Even if we accept Cheney's premise the practice he describes is likely
to be ineffectual.  It might work with a small website with less than a
hundred pages, but in a site with millions of pages the effect of these
meaningless stubs will be trivial.

>>The alternative seems to be to continue to be the rear end
>>of jokes about knowledge by consensus and hearsay like that
>>on the 1/24 Colbert Report until WP loses what trust it
>>has.
>>
>>
>That's a false dilemma. While it's true that there are plenty of jokes
>out there about it, there's also a lot of respect and admiration as
>well. I don't see any big risk in continuing as we have been.
>
When you're big the jokes are a natural part of the landscape.  You
can't do anything about them.

Ec


from_name: Thomas Dalton

body:
> I think the term for what you say is "double standard".  Are Wikipedia
> editors really that much more prone to Alzheimer's?

It doesn't take Alzheimer's for someone to make a mistake...
Britannica is made by employees that went through an interview process
and had their CVs examined, etc. Wikipedia is made by anyone and
everyone. Britannica may not be any more accurate, but it is more
reliable.


from_name: Mark Clements

subject: [Wikipedia-l] school articles : enough

body:
"Ray Saintonge" <saintonge at telus.net> wrote in
message news:45BB0196.7070204 at telus.net...
> Mark Williamson wrote:
>
> >The thing about high schools is that they have alumni. A particularly
> >large high school could have, I don't know, maybe 50,000 alumni? How
> >off am I?
> >
> That seems high. If a school has 1,000 graduates each year it would take
> 50 years to reach that number.
>

Well, that seems reasonable, in fact in England (where I'm from) I imagine a
high proportion of schools are older than 50 years.  The two that I know
about (mine - an
inner-city comp, founded in the 19th century, and the school my Girlfriend
teaches at, est. 1917) are significantly older!.

- Mark Clements (HappyDog)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] school articles : enough

body:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:

>Ray Saintonge schreef:
>
>
>>David Monniaux wrote:
>>
>>
>>>But there's no reason we should have an article on my neighbouring
>>>highschool, unless we also want articles on every company or organization...
>>>
>>>
>>A reasonable criterion for companies would be the listing of its shares
>>on an important stock exchange.
>>
>>
>Hoi,
>That would be true if only companies that are traded on stock exchanges
>are notable.
>
I said "a" reasonable criterion, not "the" reasonable criterion.  It
would be one of possibly several criteria that could serve independently
to justify an article.

>That is a fallacy in its own right.
>
I see no logical fallacy in such a criterion.

Ec


body:
> We are a tertiary resource.  If two Wikipedians used different sources
> to arrive at the same place it makes no difference in the way that it
> would for a secondary source.  Your argument is just strange.  It seems
> to make the specific source more important than the information itself.

I'm not making my point very well, sorry. I'll try again:

*Citing* reliable sources isn't very important. What is important is
*using* reliable sources.  When someone writes something from memory
and doesn't cite a source, the problem isn't that they haven't cited a
source, the problem is that they didn't use one.

Citing sources is just the easiest way to confirm that reliable
sources were used, it's not the important factor, it's just the way we
confirm the important factor.

Someone writing an article and expecting someone else to find the
sources is wasting their time, as the person finding the sources will
be doing all the work. The actual writing of an article is generally
the easy part, it's finding the information with is difficult. The
wiki concept is great at copyediting and making things easier to read,
and that's the only bit a writer that doesn't cite sources does.

Perhaps we should encourage people to start articles with just bullet
point facts and let the people that don't like research take over from
there. (Obviously, if someone wants to write the whole thing, no-one
will stop them, but we should make it clear that just doing the
research is useful work that can be done independently of the
writing.)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: WIKIPEDIA IS A FRAUD

body:
I think this discussion is over; please put Michael on moderation or
drop him from the list.

-george

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Michael Smith <runechozo at gmail.com>
Date: Jan 27, 2007 2:51 PM
Subject: Re: WIKIPEDIA IS A FRAUD
To: George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com>

Bullshit you fucking liar.

On 1/27/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/27/07, Michael Smith <runechozo at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I was abused, stalked, hounded, and the one who did it got off with nothing
> > happening to him because you like beating up on people.And why? BECAUSE I
> > WAS TRYING TO MAKE AN ARTICLE BETTER.
>
> No, you've been blocked, and may well be banned now, because you can't
> respond politely and in an adult and civil manner to complaints.
>
> Until you understand that you entirely did this to yourself, I don't
> see how you can continue participating in Wikipedia.
>
>
> --
> -george william herbert
> george.herbert at gmail.com
>

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


from_name: Daniel R. Tobias

subject: [WikiEN-l]  On Irish radio Today-FM today 12:15pm

body:
On 25 Jan 2007 at 11:03, "David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> Apparently http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swinford had stories about
> werewolves in the article, it got into the Irish edition of the Daily
> Mail and so I'm on Irish radio again. Site at http://www.todayfm.com/
> . Probably just a few minutes.

I've heard of [[Werewolves of London]], but not the ones of Swinford.

--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/


from_name: SonOfYoungwood at aol.com

subject:
[WikiEN-l] "Articles that do not cite reliable published
	sources will be ...

body:
In a message dated 1/27/2007 1:59:57 PM Central Standard Time,
bryan.derksen at shaw.ca writes:

> At  this point, there seem to be 2 reasonable alternatives:
> 1) Create a  time limited deletion warning permitting
> deletion upon expiration  without reliable sources.
> 2) Create an indefinite banner that clearly  states that the
> article/section is in a highly unreliable state should  not
> regarded as accurate.

I've got no problem with the banner  approach, though I think "highly"
might be overstating the  issue.

I agree with the banner approach.