from_name: Steve

body:
On 1/10/07, Stirling Newberry <stirling.newberry at xigenics.net> wrote:
>
> This would move the battle from one place to hundreds of places. In
> general, spreading a problem over more articles is less good than
> having one central place to discuss whether the article should be
> included in the main space. More over, it would burden article
> authors even more in attempting to maintain articles. This is a
> general habit of of the pedia where arguments at the meta level are
> dumped on editors because the meta level gets tired of the argument.
> Editor time is undervalued as it is, spending it to avoid meta-level
> arguments is a sign of failure at the meta-level.

1) I don't see how article maintenance would be slightly changed. People
would revert irrelevant additions. How is this different from what happens
today? If you're saying that for some reason the load would spike, I'd
definitely be interested to hear your reasoning.

2) Its "dumped" on them because they are more likely to be somewhat
sufficiently self-informed on the topic. Not because editors upstairs are
'tired' of it. Oh contraire, AfD wouldn't let that 'burden' go without a
fight!

Notability is, in fact, a two way protection. It protects the quality
> of the pedia, and it protects the people below the threshold of
> notability from being attacked in a wikipedia article, and having
> that vault to the top of a google search. Since people have been
> denied employment based on google searches, it would not take very
> long for this to cause a problem.
>

You've taken my 'extreme argument' case as a literal proposition. Tisk tisk.
All I meant to illustrate was that the 'notability' issue, even taken to its
extreme (All articles are notable) produces very few problems. At present,
notability is held as sacred and its defenders fierce.

-S

On Jan 10, 2007, at 1:06 AM, Steve wrote:
>
> > To me the issue of notability has always been a bloated one. I'll
> > even go so
> > far as to say that Wikipedia's quality wouldn't change
> > substantially if we
> > could rewind history and expunge notability as an issue ever.
> >
> > The primary fear is that WP will become "cluttered". However,
> > articles that
> > are objectively not-notable will have very little connectivity with
> > any
> > other articles. Therefore, non-notable articles will only exist within
> > small, obscure pockets.
> >
> > It's akin to the logic Google uses to determine the weight of a
> > site with
> > its PageRank system, which gives notable weight to sites linked to.
> >
> > Let's suppose for fun that the burden of notability shifted from
> > article
> > creation to inter-article linkage. So, I could create an article about
> > myself. But when I attempted to inject it into [[Philadelphia]],
> > I'd have to
> > prove that my article was substantially relevant to anyone
> > interested in the
> > subject of Philadelphia. If the decision to link to me was made by
> > philly
> > watchers/readers, I'd venture to guess you're already talking a
> > more diverse
> > and subject-intelligent crowd than the regulars at AfD. Of course,
> > these
> > kinds of edits are routine--they are reverted just as routinely.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


list: wikipedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: David Gerard

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Entries for deletion.... issues from the
	ThirdWorld

body:
On 09/01/07, Marek Najmajer <marqoz at wp.pl> wrote:

> I've been reading some of your meassages or votes for entry deletion, and
> I'm getting more and more sad.
> You are trying to have a 'clean' worthfull encyclopaedia with assurance
> there is no meaningless article in it.
> It could be understood in case of written, printed book which looks great in
> the bookshelf (I like books anyway).

I agree with all of this, but the people doing it aren't reading here.
You'd need to get into discussing it on [[:en:WT:AFD]] to reach the
people on en:wp who are working this way.

- d.


list: wikien-l

from_name: Steve Summit

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Wrongfully blocked by admin who lies and on behalf
	of users trying to "own" articles

body:
Someone claiming to be "Parker Peters" wrote:
> Are you really Abi, or are you David?
>
> I'm filing an error report with Gmail now, don't worry. I seem to have a lot
> of these this morning. I guess this is why gmail is still "beta."
>
> On 1/10/07, Abigail Brady^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HDavid Gerard wrote:
>>...

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.  This is so pathetic it's almost funny.


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject: [Wikitech-l] User rights for ProtectionBot on en.wikipedia

body:
On 1/10/07, Ligulem <ligulem at pobox.com> wrote:
[snip]
> We are currently discussing giving this user account only the
> permissions from the group "registered" (or "bots") *plus* the protect
> permission alone (instead of the whole sysop group set of permissions).
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/ProtectionBot#Access_rights_for_protection_bot
>
> Do we need a new user group for this on en.wikipedia? Maybe a new group
> "protect", containing the protect permission alone?
>
> If we can show consensus for this, would a site admin/developer do this
> for us?

If the operator of the bot is not trusted enough to have access to
deletion or blocking, why do you trust him enough to have access to
protection?

Mediawiki isn't built around fine-grained security.


from_name: Rob Church

subject:
[Wikitech-l] [MediaWiki-CVS] SVN: [19054]
	branches/werdna/restrictions-separation/includes/Parser.php

body:
On 10/01/07, werdna at svn.wikimedia.org <werdna at svn.wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Revision: 19054
> Author:   werdna
> Date:     2007-01-09 23:50:41 -0800 (Tue, 09 Jan 2007)

One observation here - that change appears to alter the parser so that
it may cause database writes on each execution.

A parse operation is supposed to be a "read" type operation, so this
sort of thing is probably not good design...

Rob Church


subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki as a Wikimedia project

body:
On 10/01/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> The two admins that I know off do NOT do any programming.. they do NOT
> do any hardcore system management. They create an environment, build
> communities, hold hands for newbies and they are nice people. All
> relevant requirements for the job.

Christ, keep yer hair on!

Seriously, though, this sounds rather similar to the job that Wikia
employed a few people (Sannse and Mindspillage) to perform some time
ago, and it'll probably be a growing trend as wiki culture refines
itself.

Rob Church


from_name: Zordsdavini iz Litvy

subject: [Wikipedia-l] new wikis

body:
Hello,
I don't understand why new wikis are nor been creating. The people will go
out of this because some of them are waiting for the year...

Arns Udov???

--
Ok^ ek^ besla ikv Olmok Vzauep^evk
:)


subject:
[Wikitech-l] [MediaWiki-CVS] SVN: [19047]
	branches/werdna/restrictions-separation/maintenance

body:
On 10/01/07, werdna at svn.wikimedia.org <werdna at svn.wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Revision: 19047
> Author:   werdna
> Date:     2007-01-09 22:22:04 -0800 (Tue, 09 Jan 2007)
>
> Log Message:
> -----------
> Add two fields for support of planned features. pr_user for restricting a single user, and pr_expiry for having time-limited protection

Er, per-user?

Please explain further...this sounds to me like taking MediaWiki
somewhere we don't want it to go.

Rob Church


from_name: Chris Picone

body:
And to think I almost fell for you guys...

On 1/10/07, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
> Someone claiming to be "Parker Peters" wrote:
> > Are you really Abi, or are you David?
> >
> > I'm filing an error report with Gmail now, don't worry. I seem to have a lot
> > of these this morning. I guess this is why gmail is still "beta."
> >
> > On 1/10/07, Abigail Brady^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HDavid Gerard wrote:
> >>...
>
> I don't know whether to laugh or cry.  This is so pathetic it's almost funny.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Steve Bennett

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Category Intersections: "Proof of Concept Page"
	feedback, please?

body:
On 1/6/07, Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu> wrote:
> > Of course, some difficult to anticipate factors are that if category
> > intersections are adopted and become popular, we will likely see a movement
> > towards more implied categories ("Americans" and "Actors" instead of
> > "American Actors")
>
> This is why people want the intersections, so the system should be able
> to scale efficiently enough for it.

Indeed, what we probably want is a way to formalise these "implied
categories". Like creating a category "American actors" which simply
contains the text "Category:Americans Category:Actors", and having the
whole thing work just as you'd expect.

Steve


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] New mail servers leave

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

Mark Bergsma wrote:
> Mark Bergsma wrote:
>
>> Ok, so the problem is that there is indeed a redirect from the old
>> address to the new address, but some message article numbers seem to
>> have changed by the rebuild of the archive - at least for this month.
>>
>> However if I look at LSS for December 2006, those addresses seem to
>> work. Hopefully the same will hold for all or most of the older messages
>> in the archive.
>
> Ok maybe I didn't look that well - for previous months you don't seem to
> get a 404, but the message IDs seem to refer to totally different
> messages - which is not too helpful.

The short answer is that Mailman's archiving system sucks; we've had
problems sometimes in the past when rebuilding archives and it's pretty
annoying.

Since it assigns URLs on the basis of a count of messages from the
beginning of the list, a rebuild can change *every number after* some
particular weird message which gets processed differently by a new
version of the software.

An example I encountered a couple years ago was forwarded messages; the
embedded 'From' header got counted as a separate message in earlier
versions of Mailman from our olden days, but not by newer versions (or
something along those lines), breaking the numbering when the lists got
rebuilt after a couple years.

With a lot of tweaking and rebuilding, it is sometimes possible to
restore the old numbering by removing or inserting fake messages. :P

Not sure how worth it it is.

(What I'd *prefer* to see is a stable archiving system which generates
URLs based on internal properties of the message or an explicitly stored
ID number at receive time, so they aren't dependent on what else is in
the archive at rebuild time.)

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

iD8DBQFFpSUMwRnhpk1wk44RAjslAJ4tIcVYLf06VnORVYW0IDVinvlYJACgyJA/
vMrcVptgV5kMDvmyZwYczIk=
=KjZw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [Wikitech-l] Use binary to represent varchar rather than UTF8

references:
<b66ddc900701090914k309b6844r9dc0fe7ce0bcef61@mail.gmail.com>
	<eo0nsu$c90$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<b66ddc900701091847p1cd536a4pdffd6fe51ca34c5c@mail.gmail.com>
	<ba1b6b9f0701092031t7dc90126ud1cf440a4f2d4cad@mail.gmail.com>
	<b66ddc900701100226i3d0f554ble9c82bf2ddfe4058@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On 1/10/07, howard chen <howachen at gmail.com> wrote:
> besides fully UTF8 support, using binary will have the advantages of
> saving space for indexes, so will it also alter the decision?

It is possible that when MySQL gets unicode support beyond UCS-16 it
will come in the form of UTF-8, which is what we currently use packed
into those binary fields.

This isn't that all unlikely. Supporting non-BMP characters without
dealing with variable length characters requires UCS-32, and I think
that even MySQL users would balk at another needless 2x increase in
the size of their ASCII data. Since the effort required to work with
UTF-16 (i.e. the two byte variable length encoding) is similar to
UTF-8, it may make sense to go all the way to UTF-8 and get the space
savings for ASCII.

It's also possible that by the time MySQL has support for non-BMP
characters, it may have support for functional indexes, allowing the
index to operate on a different datatype than the row... (although a
straightforward type conversion would kill one of the primary
advantages of using a real string type: collation which isn't total
nonsense)

(and please trim your replies)


subject: [Wikitech-l] New SVN committer

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

Added Ivan Lanin (ivanlanin), working on Indonesian localization updates.

- -- 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

iD8DBQFFpSeGwRnhpk1wk44RArk7AKDAq3EUskYmu8VBMAaCuakf2M9dbwCgnPL8
rNlswd9CEoG+471bFkWCGSU=
=65Zk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Lars Aronsson

references:
<b66ddc900701090914k309b6844r9dc0fe7ce0bcef61@mail.gmail.com>
	<eo0nsu$c90$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<b66ddc900701091847p1cd536a4pdffd6fe51ca34c5c@mail.gmail.com>
	<ba1b6b9f0701092031t7dc90126ud1cf440a4f2d4cad@mail.gmail.com>

body:
Andrew Dunbar wrote:

> I'm sure mediawiki will make use of proper utf-8 support when
> mysql has proper utf-8 support. Our users want to use Unicode
> characters beyond plane 1 and the current mysql utf-8 support
> does not make this possible.

In addition to going beyond plane 1, is there any established
practice for how to do Unicode "properly"?

Sorry if this is off topic, since Wikipedia is already doing
UTF-8.  I have a couple of other projects in Latin-1 that need to
be converted to UTF-8.  Is the time ripe?  It seems that Perl 5.8
and MySQL 5 have far better Unicode support than earlier versions.
But is it still a bit early?  I'm sending my mail in UTF-8 with
Pine 4.64, and I know some people have problems with this.

--
  Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se


list: foundation-l

from_name: Husky

subject: [Foundation-l] Board meeting in Rotterdam later this week

body:
Florence wrote:
> * Legal issues (saturday morning). Planning of the most urgent things to
> deal with, in particular but not restricted to, trademarks, licence
> inforcing, domain names, privacy policy...
I would like to suggest that it would be nice if the board could also
formulate an advice to the projects concerning the use of non-commercial
images? That has been endlessly debated on many projects (esp. the Dutch
Wikipedia) and any kind of advice would be immensly helpful.

I'll also be there friday evening. I'll try to bring a packet of
stroopwafels ;)

-- Hay Kranen / [[User:Husky]]

On 1/10/07, Florence Devouard <anthere at anthere.org> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> As mentionned quickly in previous emails, the board is having a meeting
> in Rotterdam friday, saturday and sunday.
>
> There will be as well formal or informal meeetings from today till
> sunday, with professionals, potential partners, or wikipedians; Some of
> us will visit our facility of Amsterdam, or Kennisnet, or our bank in
> Belgium. Consequently, most board members and some foundation employees
> will be hard to talk with on mailing lists or irc this week. We'll be
> back all fresh and full of news next week.
>
> Agenda for this first meeting of the year is very roughly going along
> those lines.
>
> * Budget and finances (friday morning). Essentially reporting on the
> last fundraising. Planification of next fundraising. Brainstorming over
> our "business model" (endowment etc). In short, generally planning the
> financial strategy for the coming year.
> * Audit (friday end of afternoon). Planning audit of this financial year
> and implementation of some of the suggestions made by the auditors.
> We'll also meet with Dedalus.
> * Legal issues (saturday morning). Planning of the most urgent things to
> deal with, in particular but not restricted to, trademarks, licence
> inforcing, domain names, privacy policy...
> * Personnel issues (saturday afternoon). Discussion about all the
> possible job openings for 2007, prioritize and identify/discuss possible
> candidates. Office organization. Staff relationships and roles.
> Volunteers jobs etc...
> * Technical summit (sunday).
> * Brainstorming on quality (sunday)
>
> These are the biggest bits. There are also other issues, which we may or
> may not discuss according to time availability. Most issues on current
> agenda are in relation to points number 1 and 2 of our general guideline
> for year 2007 (sustainability and quality). I hope sunday in particular
> will be an opportunity to discuss and draft directions for points 3 and
> 4 (outreach and recognition by non profit world), to expand further in
> the coming year.
>
> As already mentionned, there is a wikimeet on friday evening as well :-)
> and hopefully many stroopwafels during the time in Rotterdam.
>
> See you next week on this very list for more.
>
>
> Florence Devouard
> Chair Wikimedia Foundation
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletions and double jeopardy

body:
On 1/10/07, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> BTW, double jeopardy is already in existence in a practical sense see
> WP:SALT and you dont see many people complaining that its existense
> goes against the "consensus" model, why is it different for keeping
> articles?
>
> Peter

Salting is only one side of the story. It helps keeing deleted stuff
deleted.
However, it has no effect on kept material.

Mgm


from_name: Jerome Banal

subject: [Foundation-l] Fundraising and site notice

body:
Hello,

Take the "Monthly expense budget" and don't forget to add the "June '07"
parts; that will give you the expected monthly expense budget for June,
which should be the figure you quoted. The reserve is of course on budget we
will need in the future, not on the current budget.

Budget is rising quickly because we have more and more people coming looking
at WP, so we need bigger bandwidth, because we need more people to help on
MediaWiki as it is becoming more complex and we see more and more useful
features missing, etc.

PS: By the way, it is indeed "at least". If it was not diffused before, it
has been diffused at that date. So you might have heard about it before
elsewhere, but in any case you have /at least/ been able to heard about it
at that date (after that, you can have missed it, but that's another
problem).

Regards,
Jerome

2007/1/9, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org>:
>
> On 1/9/07, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Our auditors recommanded to increase cash reserve to at least 3
> > ($875,000), preferrably 6 months ($1,650,000) of operating expenses for
> > fiscal security.
> >
> By the way, I have no idea where those two numbers came from.  I've
> seen http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/What_we_need_the_money_for,
> but nowhere on that page do I see where the monthly operating expenses
> are budgeted at $275,000.
>
> Does the board plan on following the auditor's recommendation, and if so,
> how?
>
> Anthony
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


body:
Uses? How about [[:Intersection:FA-Class hurricane articles:: Top-importance
hurricane articles|Top-Importance FA-Class hurricane articles]] in the
English Wikipedia, providing links for
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Tropical_c
yclone_articles_by_quality_statistics and its 320+ siblings? That page needs
28 intersections to be fully linked, and other big projects within
[[WP:1.0/I]] will need probably as many.

Titoxd

-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew Flaschen [mailto:matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 12:03 AM
To: Wikimedia developers
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Category Intersections: "Proof of Concept Page"
feedback, please?

Samuel Wantman wrote:
>> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Category Intersections: "Proof of Concept Page"
>>  feedback, please?
>> Message: 6
>>
>> Steve Bennett wrote:
>>
>> That shouldn't even be necessary.  That just creates the semantic
>> problems we have.  It could be as simple as
>>
>> [[:Intersect:American|Actors|Link text]]
>>
>> That reminds me.  What about category unions?
>
> Rick Block and I spent some time discussing the syntax for intersections
> (see [[Wikipedia:Category intersection]]  or the shortcut
> [[WP:CI]]).  Since there can be more than two categories involved, and
> you'd still want to pipe how it was displayed, we came up with:
>
> [[:Intersection:Actors::Americans::Living people|Living American actors]]

You're right.  That's better, because you don't always have to have link
text (though you probably should).

> The only thing missing would be unions of only some of the
> subcategories, for instance, the union of Comedy films and Drama films, or

> Poets and Novelists.  For most topics these do not seem very significant.

I'm fairly sure people would come up with uses.  It shouldn't be much
additional work to do this if intersections are already being done.

Matthew Flaschen


from_name: howard chen

body:
On 1/10/07, Ashar Voultoiz <hashar at altern.org> wrote:
> howard chen wrote:
> > in all table creation statments, such as
> >
> > CREATE TABLE `categorylinks` (
> >   `cl_from` int(8) unsigned NOT NULL default '0',
> >   `cl_to` varchar(255) binary NOT NULL default '',
> >   `cl_sortkey` varchar(255) binary NOT NULL default '',
> >   `cl_timestamp` timestamp(14) NOT NULL,
> >   UNIQUE KEY `cl_from` (`cl_from`,`cl_to`),
> >   KEY `cl_sortkey` (`cl_to`,`cl_sortkey`(128)),
> >   KEY `cl_timestamp` (`cl_to`,`cl_timestamp`)
> > ) TYPE=InnoDB;
> >
> >
> > why use binary to represent varchar, not UTF8?
>
> Brion answered that earlier:
>
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/mediawiki-l/2006-February/010267.html
>
> To quote him, utf8 in database will mostly:
>
> * Make indexes larger (3 bytes per character)
> * Cause failures if you use characters outside the BOM in page titles,
> usernames, etc.
>
> cheers,
>
> --
> Ashar Voultoiz - WP++++
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hashar
> http://www.livejournal.com/community/wikitech/
> IM: hashar at jabber.org  ICQ: 15325080
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>

i would like to know if `wikipedia` is going to use this method in the future?


subject: [WikiEN-l] One way inter-languages links?

body:
On 1/10/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > i just thought that, since all the inter-lang links are stored in the
> > database, so either the links exist or not, I don't know why there
> > will be one-way link.
>
> They're not stored directly in the database, they're stored in the
> source code for the articles just like links within one wiki. The only
> way one wiki code detect the links to their article on other languages
> articles would be to read every single article on that wiki. Not
> practical.
>
> The bots do quite a good job on the large wikis, I think.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>

but i can find the link the database dump?

06-12-03 03:54:43 done Wiki interlanguage link records.
langlinks.sql.gz 25.1 MB

http://download.wikipedia.com/enwiki/20061130/

regards,


subject: [Wikitech-l] slowness today

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

Rob Church wrote:
> On 10/01/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>> It would also be good if trusted users (say, anyone whose login is
>> over four days old) could run SQL directly on the en: database. I have
>> a few outer joins I really really need to check.
>
> In an ideal world, you could use the toolserver for it.
>
> The problem with trusting people to run even select queries on the
> English Wikipedia database is that trust does not equal sufficient SQL
> ability to write queries which do not suck up all our time, even with
> Tim's natty timeout script.

Rob may be too young to remember, but back when dinosaurs ruled the
earth we used to have [[Special:Asksql]] where anyone could run
read-only queries on the wiki database.

Then... only sysops.

Then... only developers.

Then... we took it out entirely and run things directly on the database
when we need to.

Getting the toolserver was *super awesome* because it lets people run
those fun queries and grind *someone else's server* into little metallic
flakes instead of the production machines. :)

- -- 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

iD8DBQFFpTbNwRnhpk1wk44RAoElAKDfbozOPQKVlsb4VpUUdZ1FLhFqXgCfZM7Q
yno63GHZxX4EfuG4mznQOL0=
=qu1y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Marc Riddell

subject: [WikiEN-l] psychosis and wikipedia.

body:
> From: Gurch <matthew.britton at btinternet.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 13:19:18 +0000
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] psychosis and wikipedia.
>
> Marc Riddell wrote:
>>
>>> From: "Christopher Thieme" <cdthieme at gmail.com>
>>> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>>> Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 00:43:31 -0500
>>> To: WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
>>> Subject: [WikiEN-l] psychosis and wikipedia.
>>>
>>> I'd love to see some psychology-oriented individual do a case study on what
>>> kind of people are attracted to editing on Wikipedia.  What psychological
>>> defects lurk behind the computer screens and the keyboards.  Why do I ask?
>>> Because in the last month (including right now), I've gotten in spats, edit
>>> wars, content disputes, with people who would be poster children for
>>> narcissitic personality disorder and one of several temporal lobe disorders,
>>> respectively.
>>>
>>> Something like that would probably explain a lot about the bitterness,
>>> control issues, the incessant desire to be "right", etc. that some people
>>> have when approaching the subject of editing.
>>>
>>> Just a crazy idea. (no pun intended).
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Christopher D. Thieme
>>
>> An interesting (and tempting ;-) ) notion. The problem is, for the study to
>> be at all valid, the person conducting it could not be a part of the
>> Wikipedia Community. And, for such a person to gain access to the data, they
>> would need to sign on as a member of the Community. Still an interesting
>> idea, though.
>>
>> Marc Riddell
>
> Not necessarily. All pages on Wikipedia are viewable by anyone, with or
> without an account; same goes for the public mailing lists and IRC
> channels. Creating an account would be a good idea if someone wanted to
> conduct a survey of some kind (this has been done before), but if they
> don't actually involve themselves in any project work they're hardly
> "part of the community". So there's nothing to stop an "outsider" having
> a good look at things, except that the policies and processes would be
> unfamiliar to them, and might need a little explanation.
>
> -Gurch

OK. I?m, learning. If such a study were to be considered, my first question
would be:

What is its purpose?

        Curiosity? I wonder what?, who?, why?, ?? Perfectly valid reasons.
Or,

        Diagnosis? To diagnose existing symptoms of problems that are
presenting. Also perfectly valid.

For such a diagnostic study to be done successfully there would need to be a
consensus of the Community that such problems do exist. Without this
consensus, it would be like a therapist trying to convince a patient that
they have a problem!

Or, it could be merely an intellectual exercise (also perfectly valid) :-).

Marc
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Marek Najmajer

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Entries for deletion.... issues from theThirdWorld

body:
On 10/01/07 David Gerard answered to Marek Najmajer:
> I agree with all of this, but the people doing it aren't reading here.
> You'd need to get into discussing it on [[:en:WT:AFD]] to reach the
> people on en:wp who are working this way.

Thank you very much.
I hope you didn't take it to your heart.
I'm happy I'm not alone.
Thank you for pointing where the proper addressee of my 'Declaration of
Wikipedicity' is hidden.

Marek

> On 09/01/07, Marek Najmajer <marqoz at wp.pl> wrote:
>
>> I've been reading some of your meassages or votes for entry deletion, and
>> I'm getting more and more sad.
>> You are trying to have a 'clean' worthfull encyclopaedia with assurance
>> there is no meaningless article in it.
>> It could be understood in case of written, printed book which looks great
>> in
>> the bookshelf (I like books anyway).
>


from_name: geni

body:
On 1/10/07, Jerome Banal <jerome.banal at gmail.com> wrote:
> Budget is rising quickly because we have more and more people coming looking
> at WP, so we need bigger bandwidth, because we need more people to help on
> MediaWiki as it is becoming more complex and we see more and more useful
> features missing, etc.
>

There are other users of mediawiki out there. Perhaps we could see
what they are up to development wise.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] London pub meet report, Tue 9 Jan

body:
The Montagu Pyke is an unspeakably horrible beer barn, and we actually
drank it out of the one real ale on tap. I was wondering if it was
possible to accidentally unplug the jukebox, then the football
(Arsenal v. Liverpool, 6-3, holy crap! [*]) started at a quite
remarkable volume. Having enough people upstairs to block the fire
exits, and the venue sucking like a hivemind of Dysons, we chose to
follow Morwen's infallible ale detector to the Shakespeare's Head near
Holborn tube station, another Wetherspoons but this time of the
tolerable variety.

(Fortunately, despite it *technically* having been the case that I was
the one to declare that this would be a suitable venue, I used methods
learnt from [[WP:ANI]] to put all blame onto James Forrester, who was
conveniently not present. So that's all right then.)

I got about a zillion shots on User:Arkady Rose's [[Canon Digital
IXUS]] 400, and she'll probably be putting these up some time today or
tomorrow.

We got LOTS of people along and this was really good and productive,
despite the horrible first venue. Did anyone write up an attendance
list?

- d.

[*] http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/league_cup/6246893.stm


from_name: Abigail Brady

body:
On 1/10/07, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
> Naohiro has now left another threat on my discussion page.
>
> You really are a bunch of crazy egomaniacs aren't you?
>
> Bob

Hello folks.  I see here that Parker Peters has sent an email to the
list, but it is written in the character of Bob, and signed "Bob" at
the end.  Parker Peters then replied to it, in character as Parker
Peters, and the quoting was changed to make it appear as if the e-mail
address for Bob had sent it.

Now, a cynical person would say this constitutes clear evidence that
both email addresses are being operated by the same person, and they
messed up and lost track of who they were logged in as at the time.
In fact, not just cynical people.  Even naive people would think this.

End the charade please, someone.  It's unbecoming to argue with
yourself on a mailing list.

--
Abi


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] London pub meet report, Tue 9 Jan (resend)

body:
Did this go through the first time? (Gmail helpfully refuses to show
you your own messages to a list or even give you an option ...)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>
Date: 10-Jan-2007 11:07
Subject: London pub meet report, Tue 9 Jan
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>, wikimediauk-l at wikimedia.org

The Montagu Pyke is an unspeakably horrible beer barn, and we actually
drank it out of the one real ale on tap. I was wondering if it was
possible to accidentally unplug the jukebox, then the football
(Arsenal v. Liverpool, 6-3, holy crap! [*]) started at a quite
remarkable volume. Having enough people upstairs to block the fire
exits, and the venue sucking like a hivemind of Dysons, we chose to
follow Morwen's infallible ale detector to the Shakespeare's Head near
Holborn tube station, another Wetherspoons but this time of the
tolerable variety.

(Fortunately, despite it *technically* having been the case that I was
the one to declare that this would be a suitable venue, I used methods
learnt from [[WP:ANI]] to put all blame onto James Forrester, who was
conveniently not present. So that's all right then.)

I got about a zillion shots on User:Arkady Rose's [[Canon Digital
IXUS]] 400, and she'll probably be putting these up some time today or
tomorrow.

We got LOTS of people along and this was really good and productive,
despite the horrible first venue. Did anyone write up an attendance
list?

- d.

[*] http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/league_cup/6246893.stm


body:
On 10/01/07, Abigail Brady <morwen at evilmagic.org> wrote:

> Hello folks.  I see here that Parker Peters has sent an email to the
> list, but it is written in the character of Bob, and signed "Bob" at
> the end.  Parker Peters then replied to it, in character as Parker
> Peters, and the quoting was changed to make it appear as if the e-mail
> address for Bob had sent it.
> Now, a cynical person would say this constitutes clear evidence that
> both email addresses are being operated by the same person, and they
> messed up and lost track of who they were logged in as at the time.
> In fact, not just cynical people.  Even naive people would think this.
> End the charade please, someone.  It's unbecoming to argue with
> yourself on a mailing list.

But it was smart enough to fool him; surely you can't expect him to
believe it's not smart enough to fool us too.

I am not going to block the addresses (as yet), but I am going to
hereby point and laugh.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] test, please ignore

body:
[[uncyclopedia:Nobody cares|There is nothing to read here]].

- d.


subject: [Wikitech-l] mailing list weirdness

body:
I just tried sending an email to both wikien-l and wikimediauk-l (both
addresses in the From: line). I then got a message back saying the
message was in the moderation queue because "Message has implicit
destination". I'm a moderator on wikien-l, so I looked at the message
and it had no subject and no body. Huh?

Sending a message to wikien-l on its own worked fine ...

- d.


body:
[sending separately to wikien-l and wikimediauk-l due to mail server weirdness]

The Montagu Pyke is an unspeakably horrible beer barn, and we actually
drank it out of the one real ale on tap. I was wondering if it was
possible to accidentally unplug the jukebox, then the football
(Arsenal v. Liverpool, 6-3, holy crap! [*]) started at a quite
remarkable volume. Having enough people upstairs to block the fire
exits, and the venue sucking like a hivemind of Dysons, we chose to
follow Morwen's infallible ale detector to the Shakespeare's Head near
Holborn tube station, another Wetherspoons but this time of the
tolerable variety.

(Fortunately, despite it *technically* having been the case that I was
the one to declare that this would be a suitable venue, I used methods
learnt from [[WP:ANI]] to put all blame onto James Forrester, who was
conveniently not present. So that's all right then.)

I got about a zillion shots on User:Arkady Rose's [[Canon Digital
IXUS]] 400, and she'll probably be putting these up some time today or
tomorrow. Loopzilla and Thryduulf got a pile too.

We got LOTS of people along and this was really good and productive,
despite the horrible first venue. Did anyone write up an attendance
list?

- d.

[*] http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/league_cup/6246893.stm


from_name: Philip Sandifer

body:
It went through.

And jeez, WTF is Liverpool's problem?

-Phil

On Jan 10, 2007, at 6:16 AM, David Gerard wrote:

> Did this go through the first time? (Gmail helpfully refuses to show
> you your own messages to a list or even give you an option ...)
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>
> Date: 10-Jan-2007 11:07
> Subject: London pub meet report, Tue 9 Jan
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>, wikimediauk-
> l at wikimedia.org
>
>
> The Montagu Pyke is an unspeakably horrible beer barn, and we actually
> drank it out of the one real ale on tap. I was wondering if it was
> possible to accidentally unplug the jukebox, then the football
> (Arsenal v. Liverpool, 6-3, holy crap! [*]) started at a quite
> remarkable volume. Having enough people upstairs to block the fire
> exits, and the venue sucking like a hivemind of Dysons, we chose to
> follow Morwen's infallible ale detector to the Shakespeare's Head near
> Holborn tube station, another Wetherspoons but this time of the
> tolerable variety.
>
> (Fortunately, despite it *technically* having been the case that I was
> the one to declare that this would be a suitable venue, I used methods
> learnt from [[WP:ANI]] to put all blame onto James Forrester, who was
> conveniently not present. So that's all right then.)
>
> I got about a zillion shots on User:Arkady Rose's [[Canon Digital
> IXUS]] 400, and she'll probably be putting these up some time today or
> tomorrow.
>
> We got LOTS of people along and this was really good and productive,
> despite the horrible first venue. Did anyone write up an attendance
> list?
>
>
> - d.
>
>
> [*] http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/league_cup/6246893.stm
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Ian Tresman

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Entries for deletion.... Notability

body:
Notability means different things to different people. What I find
notable, someone else won't and vice versa.

What's important, it that the article is written well.

Wikipedia's strength is that it has more articles than any other
encyclopedia. It also has "Good article status" and "Featured article
status" to further indicate quality.

As long as someone finds a subject notable, I'm not going to disagree
with them, and as long as it conforms to WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, then
that should be fine with everyone.

Regards,

Ian Tresman
   33 Reginald Street, Derby  DE23 8FR
   Tel: 01332 265566. email: it at knowledge.co.uk
   Fax: 0870 167 1951. http://www.tresman.co.uk/ian/


from_name: Peter Ansell

body:
On 10/01/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> The fact that concensus can (and does) change is an important
> principle on Wikipedia. Any kind of double jeopardly rule would go
> against that, however restricted its application. I don't think it's
> worth it.
>

The fact that vandals continuously increase an editors load means that
we get them. Why is it different for people who continuously want to
remove information against previous decisions? A rolling consensus
only has so many useful purposes. There are only so many times an
editor will say the same things in a discussion before they just give
up on Wikipedia as a messy bureaucratic system.

If the community aspect is less important than always being able to
challenge the current situation than so be it, but dont say that you
didn't realise that the community could be hurt by the decision.

BTW, double jeopardy is already in existence in a practical sense see
WP:SALT and you dont see many people complaining that its existense
goes against the "consensus" model, why is it different for keeping
articles?

Peter


from_name: Jay R. Ashworth

subject: [Wikitech-l] mailing list weirdness

body:
On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 04:05:46PM +0000, David Gerard wrote:
> From: dgerard at gmail.com
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>,
> <wikimediauk-l at wikimedia.org>,
> Subject: test 2, ignore

I don't know if it's just a copying artifact... but look *very*
carefully at that To header...  the trailing comma may break header
parsers...

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


from_name: A. Özgür Erdemli

subject: [Foundation-l] Special License

body:
cc-by-sa only says give credit to owner (by) and keep the license same (sa
or share alike). It does not limit the type of usage. But in this case there
are some limitations.

You cannot limit type of usage. i.e. you cannot say non-comercial or
comercial but free of charge, or educational only etc. You just shouldt care
where it will be used and how it will be used. Only things you can request
is attribution and keeping the license same, which means keep the image
free.

Non-commercial use does not only mean selling the picture but also using the
picture in a commercial material.

To understand it I can give an example. Lets say I write a book and use an
image from wikipedia which has one of the proper free licenses. I can sell
this book and make money. This is allowed. But I must say in my book that
this picture has this free license. So anyone can use that image from my
book, anywhere, without asking me or paying money to me. And it will be all
legal. So that image will have still that freedom to be used freely. Person
A will copy from Person B. C will copy from B. D from C. That image will
serve to people as long as it exists.

So idea is, you let the picture coppied as much as it needed and keep it
stii be coppied to forever.

So your license is like cc-by-sa with some more limitations. You should
eliminate those additional limitations.

Dbl2010

On 1/10/07, Yoni Weiden <yonidebest at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Even though usage must be given for free? i.e the pictures cannot be sold
> commercially? Does this mean cc-by-sa doesn't allow to sell the images as
> well?
> Yoni
>
>
> On 1/10/07, Dariusz Siedlecki <datrio at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 1/10/07, Yoni Weiden <yonidebest at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > My question is this: We have a custom-made picture license created
> along
> > > time ago. It reads (I translated it to English from Hebrew):
> > >
> > > "This image was created by user:user-name. Free use for educational
> > > purposes, with appropriate attribution is allowed. You may use this
> > image
> > > for any purpose (incl. commercial use) if the usage is given for free
> of
> > > charge to the wide public, with appropriate attribution."
> >
> > I think yes, it sounds like CC-By-SA.
> >
> > --
> > Pozdrawiam,
> > Dariusz Siedlecki
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Special License


from_name: Andre Engels

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Entries for deletion.... issues from the Third
	World

body:
2007/1/10, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
>
>
> >But what if what is written is that so-and-so once wrote an internet page
> >(that a few hundred people have looked at). Do you really want to just
> keep
> >that in if you found that he really has done so?
> >
> Again, this is a straw man argument.  It makes a statement about
> something that many will find unacceptable and tries to apply the same
> argument to more uncertain situations.

Yes. And what's wrong with that? Either we have *some* notability criterium,
or we have *none*. If we have none, then what criterium are you going to use
to remove articles like the above? If we have some, then apparently you DO
agree with me that 'notability' is a good criterium, and what we disagree on
is the *level* of notability that is required. Which is a wholely different
ballgame.

--
Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels


from_name: Dariusz Siedlecki

subject: [Wikitech-l] mailing list weirdness

body:
Somebody also called me today and mentioned they couldn't send a
message to wikimediapl-l and wikipl-l. No idea what was the problem,
but if it wasn't the only case, I'm reporting it.

(and although I'm a moderator of both list, I didn't get any error)

On 1/10/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> I just tried sending an email to both wikien-l and wikimediauk-l (both
> addresses in the From: line). I then got a message back saying the
> message was in the moderation queue because "Message has implicit
> destination". I'm a moderator on wikien-l, so I looked at the message
> and it had no subject and no body. Huh?
>
> Sending a message to wikien-l on its own worked fine ...
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>

--
Pozdrawiam,
Dariusz Siedlecki


from_name: Gurch

subject: [Wikitech-l] slowness today

body:
Domas Mituzas wrote:
> Just an update on the issue - it appears Spanish users took the template
> from Italians. Though on it.wikipedia it runs in ~1s, it runs 20s on
> Spanish, so obviously, just "taking teh template" didn't work that well.
>
> We're further looking (and enjoying) the problem.
>
> Cheers,
> Domas
>
> http://dammit.lt/

Are the Italians still using their version? Would it perhaps be wise to
advise them not to, to avoid future problems? :)

-Gurch


from_name: Steve Block

body:
David Gerard wrote:
> follow Morwen's infallible ale detector to the Shakespeare's Head near
> Holborn tube station, another Wetherspoons but this time of the
> tolerable variety.

This was a much better choice if you ask me, and might be one to
bookmark if we ever do it again.  I really enjoyed myself.

> We got LOTS of people along and this was really good and productive,
> despite the horrible first venue. Did anyone write up an attendance
> list?

I didn't, but from memory Jimbo, Morwen, yourself, myself, Gordo,
Psychonaut, Whouk, Edward, Thryduulf, AJR, steve from openstreetmap, Tim
Starling, Angela, Theresa Knott, um, Geni, Andrew Gray?.  I didn't
really circulate well and was half cut by the time we were in a quiet
enough pub to do introductions. Apologies to those I have left off,
because there most definitely was more people.

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.8/621 - Release Date: 09/01/07 13:37


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

body:
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 11:18:22 +0000, "David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com>
wrote:

>I am not going to block the addresses (as yet), but I am going to
>hereby point and laugh.

Oh please block the addresses.  If we needed any further evidence that
"Parker Peters" is trolling us, that surely provided it.

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


from_name: Gary Kirk

body:
+ 1
:)

On 1/10/07, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:
> > follow Morwen's infallible ale detector to the Shakespeare's Head near
> > Holborn tube station, another Wetherspoons but this time of the
> > tolerable variety.
>
> This was a much better choice if you ask me, and might be one to
> bookmark if we ever do it again.  I really enjoyed myself.
>
> > We got LOTS of people along and this was really good and productive,
> > despite the horrible first venue. Did anyone write up an attendance
> > list?
>
> I didn't, but from memory Jimbo, Morwen, yourself, myself, Gordo,
> Psychonaut, Whouk, Edward, Thryduulf, AJR, steve from openstreetmap, Tim
> Starling, Angela, Theresa Knott, um, Geni, Andrew Gray?.  I didn't
> really circulate well and was half cut by the time we were in a quiet
> enough pub to do introductions. Apologies to those I have left off,
> because there most definitely was more people.
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.8/621 - Release Date: 09/01/07
> 13:37
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>

--
Gary Kirk


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Wrongfully blocked by admin who lies and on behalf
 of users trying to "own" articles

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

James Hare stated for the record:
> No need to kick them while they're down.

It's okay: we're laughing at him, not with him.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | Power corrupts. Absolute power is really cool.
 sean at epoptic.com |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFpVSP/SVOiq2uhHMRAmNDAJ4+wBKl3w9eQlv32/SseaCkwvyH4ACeMWb0
ZbKnpvax1nnIIYpHN6fDyxw=
=D8Ap
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Domas Mituzas

subject: [Wikitech-l] slowness today

body:
Just an update on the issue - it appears Spanish users took the template
from Italians. Though on it.wikipedia it runs in ~1s, it runs 20s on
Spanish, so obviously, just "taking teh template" didn't work that well.

We're further looking (and enjoying) the problem.

Cheers,
Domas

http://dammit.lt/


subject: [WikiEN-l] psychosis and wikipedia.

body:
On 10/01/07, Christopher Thieme <cdthieme at gmail.com> wrote:

> I'd love to see some psychology-oriented individual do a case study on what
> kind of people are attracted to editing on Wikipedia.  What psychological
> defects lurk behind the computer screens and the keyboards.  Why do I ask?
> Because in the last month (including right now), I've gotten in spats, edit
> wars, content disputes, with people who would be poster children for
> narcissitic personality disorder and one of several temporal lobe disorders,
> respectively.
> Something like that would probably explain a lot about the bitterness,
> control issues, the incessant desire to be "right", etc. that some people
> have when approaching the subject of editing.

I was given 'CyberSelfish' by Paulina Borsook (written 2000) for
Christmas. Just finished reading it. It was about annoying dot-com
technolibertarians, but it explained AFD for me perfectly.

- d.


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki 1.9.0 released

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

January 10, 2007

MediaWiki 1.9.0 is the quarterly release snapshot for Winter 2007. While
the code has been running on Wikipedia for some time, installation and
upgrade bits may be less well tested. Bug fix releases may follow in the
coming days or weeks.

MediaWiki is now using a "continuous integration" development model with
quarterly snapshot releases. The latest development code is always kept
"ready to run", and in fact runs our own sites on Wikipedia.

Release branches will continue to receive security updates for about a
year from first release, but nonessential bugfixes and feature
development happen will be made on the development trunk and appear in
the next quarterly release.

Those wishing to use the latest code instead of a branch release can
obtain it from source control:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Download_from_SVN

1.9 includes a number of compatibility fixes since 1.8 as well as many
bug fixes and some new features, so all users who can run PHP 5 are
strongly encouraged to upgrade.

There are no changes from 1.9.0rc2 to 1.9.0 final except the version number.

Full release notes:
http://svn.wikimedia.org/svnroot/mediawiki/tags/REL1_9_0/phase3/RELEASE-NOTES

Download:
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=34373

MD5 checksums:
cb58560858e2b85ac7b94097ad3e4531  mediawiki-1.9.0.tar.gz

SHA-1 checksums:
c60e212ae5c02501405d91014db6c53499fafa39 mediawiki-1.9.0.tar.gz

Before asking for help, try the FAQ:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:FAQ

Low-traffic release announcements mailing list:
(Please subscribe to receive announcements of security updates.)
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-announce

Wiki admin help mailing list:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l

Bug report system:
http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/

Play "stump the developers" live on IRC:
#mediawiki on irc.freenode.net

- -- 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

iD8DBQFFpVY9wRnhpk1wk44RAuaLAKDZMiz0XUxIEUdbB6/b90ETuPDKZgCcDM50
N2xH6gBQ5AW5ncvhvRRitGk=
=Uomr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [Wikitech-l] slowness today

references:
<NMENLBGDKAFGBDHEPOBNGELEDGAA.erikzachte@infodisiac.com>
	<pan.2007.01.10.00.31.16.8480@ask.com>
	<9ab06f7e0701100408h7fcc7ffbpa976ecbb108912ff@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On 10/01/07, Domas Mituzas <midom.lists at gmail.com> wrote:

> Just an update on the issue - it appears Spanish users took the template
> from Italians. Though on it.wikipedia it runs in ~1s, it runs 20s on
> Spanish, so obviously, just "taking teh template" didn't work that well.

Obviously, with the fantastically stupid^Wcreative things people are
doing with templates, we need to write a Template Virtual Machine just
for running templates. Or design a mask for a FPGA that will execute
template code directly in the hardware. Also, Visual Basic for
MediaWiki needs to be implemented. Don't forget the BUFFEROVERFLOW()
function for full Windows compatibility.

- d.


from_name: teun spaans

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimeet Rotterdam with board

body:
Hi Brad,

Frankly, Rotterdam is awful. If you have time, do pay a visit to
Delft, it's about a quarter of an hour away by train or car. Lovely
old center.

teun

On 1/10/07, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello:
>
> I am writing from Rotterdam, where I arrived this morning.  You all know
> this, but I wanted to point out that there are two Tulip Hotels; one is
> white and right next to the Erasmus Bridge, literally next to the water,
> which is where the Board is meeting this week; the other is the Golden
> Tulip Hotel, which is the tall black one, and, presumably, where the
> meetup will be.
>
> If I am wrong, I am sure Oscar or someone else will correct me.
>
> -Brad
>
> PS - Rotterdam is fabulous!  Other than the fact I am soaking wet from
> getting caught in the rain, it is a very cool place.
>
> effe iets anders wrote:
> > Hi all!
> >
> > apperently everybody forgot to mention it in here, so i'll do it anyway,
> > sorry that it is this late :) Coming friday, that is january 12th, the
> > Wikimedia Foundation Board is in the Netherlands for a Board Meeting, and
> > from 20.00h CET on, they will attend to an open WikiMeet. The location will
> > be the Golden Tulip Hotel (near the Erasmus Bridge), and the meetup will
> > have no formal character. Of course I hope to see a lot of you guys who are
> > able to attend :)
> >
> > Greetings from Holland,
> >
> > Lodewijk
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Wikitech-l] slowness today

body:
David Gerard wrote:
> On 10/01/07, Domas Mituzas <midom.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Just an update on the issue - it appears Spanish users took the template
>> from Italians. Though on it.wikipedia it runs in ~1s, it runs 20s on
>> Spanish, so obviously, just "taking teh template" didn't work that well.
>
>
> Obviously, with the fantastically stupid^Wcreative things people are
> doing with templates, we need to write a Template Virtual Machine just
> for running templates. Or design a mask for a FPGA that will execute
> template code directly in the hardware. Also, Visual Basic for
> MediaWiki needs to be implemented. Don't forget the BUFFEROVERFLOW()
> function for full Windows compatibility.
>
>
> - d.

Meh, just expose all PHP functions directly. What could possibly go
wrong? :)

-Gurch


subject: [WikiEN-l] psychosis and wikipedia.

body:
Marc Riddell wrote:
>
>> From: "Christopher Thieme" <cdthieme at gmail.com>
>> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>> Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 00:43:31 -0500
>> To: WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
>> Subject: [WikiEN-l] psychosis and wikipedia.
>>
>> I'd love to see some psychology-oriented individual do a case study on what
>> kind of people are attracted to editing on Wikipedia.  What psychological
>> defects lurk behind the computer screens and the keyboards.  Why do I ask?
>> Because in the last month (including right now), I've gotten in spats, edit
>> wars, content disputes, with people who would be poster children for
>> narcissitic personality disorder and one of several temporal lobe disorders,
>> respectively.
>>
>> Something like that would probably explain a lot about the bitterness,
>> control issues, the incessant desire to be "right", etc. that some people
>> have when approaching the subject of editing.
>>
>> Just a crazy idea. (no pun intended).
>>
>> Regards,
>> Christopher D. Thieme
>
> An interesting (and tempting ;-) ) notion. The problem is, for the study to
> be at all valid, the person conducting it could not be a part of the
> Wikipedia Community. And, for such a person to gain access to the data, they
> would need to sign on as a member of the Community. Still an interesting
> idea, though.
>
> Marc Riddell

Not necessarily. All pages on Wikipedia are viewable by anyone, with or
without an account; same goes for the public mailing lists and IRC
channels. Creating an account would be a good idea if someone wanted to
conduct a survey of some kind (this has been done before), but if they
don't actually involve themselves in any project work they're hardly
"part of the community". So there's nothing to stop an "outsider" having
a good look at things, except that the policies and processes would be
unfamiliar to them, and might need a little explanation.

-Gurch


body:
At 12:16 10/01/2007, you wrote:
>I agree that notability should be judged by those familiar with the field.

The only problem here, is that fields have sub-fields, and sub-fields
have specialists.

I think an article subject is notable if someone has noted it in a
reliable source(s).

There is a danger of peers in a field assessing a controversial
subject as non-notable for the wrong reasons, ie. confusing
notability with importances.

We have articles on obscure chemical compounds, obscure villages in
obscure countries, and obscure ideas in obscure publications.

Thank goodness that www.google.com doesn't have a "notability"
criteria, or most of its pages would disappear.

Regards,

Ian Tresman


from_name: Stirling Newberry

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Entries for deletion.... issues from the
	ThirdWorld

body:
My counter examples are two I ran across while skimming random
articles. One was an outright fraud and had been up for months, and
had been reflexively linked into other articles on the same topic.
The other consists of articles *plural* from RoTK that were linked
into Chinese history and linked as China stubs.

There is a great deal of automatic linking in and clean up behavior
which is harder to rip out in case of a bad article than even
increasingly cumbersome process of deletion. The pedia's community is
good at making articles look good. This is a feature. We should not
abuse that trust by telling people that they can put anything in it
they like.

Editor time is not free, and should not be spent simply because of
meta-failure to deal with issues.

On Jan 10, 2007, at 8:51 AM, Steve wrote:

> On 1/10/07, Stirling Newberry <stirling.newberry at xigenics.net> wrote:
>
> 1) I don't see how article maintenance would be slightly changed.
> People
> would revert irrelevant additions. How is this different from what
> happens
> today? If you're saying that for some reason the load would spike, I'd
> definitely be interested to hear your reasoning.


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [Wikitech-l] New mail servers leave many broken links

body:
On 10/01/07, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com> wrote:

> The transfer of the the mailing list archives have
> resulted in broken links throughout the projects.  Can
> this somehow be fixed on the server side?  Can we
> possibily keep copies of all archives up till now in
> both places? If the links themselves have to be edited
> is this something that can be done by a bot?  I don't
> think it is a good idea to leave these links as 404
> errors.

It's an appallingly bad idea and needs fixing, yes. Rewrite rule on
mail.wikipedia.org / mail.wikimedia.org ?

- d.


from_name: Abigail Brady

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Wrongfully blocked by admin who lies and on behalf
	of users trying to "own" articles

body:
On 1/10/07, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
> Are you really Abi, or are you David?
>
> I'm filing an error report with Gmail now, don't worry. I seem to have a lot
> of these this morning. I guess this is why gmail is still "beta."
>
> Parker

Liar, liar, pants on fire.

--
Abi


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Entries for deletion.... issues from the Third
 World

body:
Robert Brockway wrote:

>On Mon, 8 Jan 2007, J.L.W.S. The Special One wrote:
>
>
>>While working on articles about Singaporean movies, I've encountered a
>>similar problem: difficulty finding references due to systemic bias.
>>
>>Some seem to have the impression that Singaporean = non-notable. I've
>>seen articles on many Singaporean topics, which no Singaporean would
>>contest the notability of, get nominated for deletion, under the claim
>>of non-notability.
>>
>>That Wikipedia suffers from systemic bias is not surprising.
>>
>>
>I'm afraid I've seen this also.  Non-US articles appear much more likely
>to come up for AfD.
>
>But it's not just geographic.  The Maui Cluster Scheduler actually came up
>for deletion with a result of "no concensus".  This is a piece of software
>that is an integral component of high performance clusters the world over.
>One voter apparently wanted it deleted because it was not useful for his
>home PC.  At the very best this is parochial.
>
Not geographic?  This could be a recognition that Hawaii is not a state
like the others.  A clear argument for Hawaiian independence. :-)

>I'm glad this topic has come up for discussion.  IMHO the entire deletion
>process (including speedy deletion) needs to come up for review.  It's too
>easy for articles to come up for AfD.
>
>It was interesting to sit in a Greater Toronto Area Linux User Group
>meeting recently and hear people list many (IMHO) reasonable articles that
>had been deleted.  This was a spontaneous discussion.  I bet if so many
>people in Toronto are concerned about the deletion process that we aren't
>alone.
>
I agree.  Unfortunately the most zealous deletionists are not the ones
participating in this discussion; they're so busy dealing with backlog
that they don't have time to discuss improvements to the policy.  This
whole topic is a recurring theme that we never seem able to escape.  The
process does need review from the ground up followed by bold action.  A
very substantial portion of proposed deletions will probably need to
happen anyway; most inclusionists recognize that.  The ones that are
really controversial remain a minority.  Giving the benefit of any
doubt  to support a more detailed review of the article should  be the
first choice.  Tagging uncertain articles so that deletion proposals can
be brought immediately to the attention of any relevant WikiProject or
Study Group where Wikipedians interested in the subject area can review
it in the light of the current state of knowledge in that field would be
very helpful.

Ec


subject: [Wikitech-l] slowness today

references:
<NMENLBGDKAFGBDHEPOBNGELEDGAA.erikzachte@infodisiac.com>
	<pan.2007.01.10.00.31.16.8480@ask.com>
	<9ab06f7e0701100408h7fcc7ffbpa976ecbb108912ff@mail.gmail.com>
	<45A4DE8B.8060207@btinternet.com>

body:
Hi!

Are the Italians still using their version? Would it perhaps be wise to
> advise them not to, to avoid future problems? :)

Some of discussions so far (I'm not that much of an expert of wiki
templates, and my eyes start bleeding when I read them):

 <Splarka> hmm, the calls on {{Interproyecto/leeParametro}} on es were a lot
more messy than {{Interprogetto/leggiParametro}} on it.wp...
 <domas> yay, we have someone who actually understands templates
 <Splarka> on itwp it just passed one parameter each time...
 <domas> splarka: feel free to write your analysis to wikitech-l
 <Werdna> done.
 <Werdna> I'm also doing some optimisation in Parser.php
 <Werdna> to convert one query per template to one query per
cascade-protected page.
 <Splarka> but the es version uses 6 or 7 parameters
 <NotACat> Splarka: could you paste the code for those templates to
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~xyrael/pastebin do you think? unless they're on a
wiki somewhere, obviously;-)
 <Splarka> which include 2 magicwords, 1 parserfunction, and 5 or 6
parameter defaultings
 <Splarka> NotACat:
 <Splarka>
http://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plantilla:Interproyecto/leeParametro&action=edit
 <Splarka>
http://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Interprogetto/leggiParametro&action=edit
 <Splarka> a typical call to each:
 <Splarka>
-->{{Interproyecto/leeParametro|nolink={{{1}}}|{{{1|}}}|{{{nombre|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}|{{{{{{1}}}_idioma|{{{idioma|}}}}}}|{{{{{{1}}}_etiqueta|{{{etiqueta|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}|{{#ifeq:{{{1|}}}|no*||*}}|{{{{{{1}}}_objeto|}}}|{{{{{{1}}}_preposicion|{{{preposicion|}}}}}}}}<!--
 <Splarka> -->{{Interprogetto/leggiParametro|{{{1|}}}}}<!--
 <Splarka> I have a feeling that might be the difference
 <Splarka> domas: I avoid wikimedia email lists like the plague they are,
sorry ^_^

So, for the record and for the plague, read above ;-)

Domas


body:
The "Parker Peters" and "Bob Petrovich" addresses have been placed on
moderation. Please don't continue adding to this thread.

- d.


from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] new wikis

body:
I've thought this was a good idea for a while.

You can set up a Singlish Test-WP here:
http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/singlish/

Mark

On 10/01/07, J.L.W.S. The Special One <hildanknight at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd suggest a Singlish Wikipedia and Singlish Wiktionary.
>
> On 1/10/07, Dan Collins <en.wp.st47 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Zordsdavini iz Litvy wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > > I don't understand why new wikis are nor been creating. The people will go
> > > out of this because some of them are waiting for the year...
> > >
> > > Arns Udov???
> > >
> > If you wnat to make a new wiki with the WikiMedia foundation, visit
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_new_projects
> >
> > --
> > GnuPG key ID is 0x84189146 on subkeys.pgp.net
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Written with passion,
> J.L.W.S. The Special One
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.


from_name: Walter van Kalken

body:
Stan Shebs wrote:

>Steve wrote:
>
>
>>There's no reason to pit pedia and library against one another, and simply
>>because the possibility exists that you can find said newspaper subscription
>>in a library doesn't create a reason against duplicating that information in
>>pedia. There are interested parties outside Londoners and Bostonians.
>>
>>
>>
>I think you mistake my meaning - I was saying that books and newspapers
>are an excellent, if unfashionable :-) , source of information worth
>adding to WP. Doesn't everybody else type into WP with book propped open
>in lap, or newspaper spread on floor?
>
>
>
I wish this were true ...... by (insert your deity here) I wish. This
was true of myself when I was still writing articles. I even went out
and bought more books on the subjects I was writing about to compare the
facts. But then you all of a sudden have to defend yourself against some
kiddie who only reads websites and found this one site on the net who
refutes your claims and because he cannot read books it is impossible to
convince him, even though you can quote 10 books as a source and he only
one derelict website the other kiddies will side with him because it is
on the web so it must be the truth.

This is one of the reasons why I lost faith in community processes. The
masses can so many times be convinced of a wrong thing it is
unbelievable. Just because the masses say something or believe something
it isn't always the truth you see. On wikipedia what the masses think is
the truth is the truth.

Waerth


from_name: Simetrical

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Category Intersections: "Proof of Concept Page"
	feedback, please?

body:
On 1/10/07, Samuel Wantman <wantman at earthlink.net> wrote:
> I'm not certain that category unions are nearly as critical.  Since all
> these "index" categories (Americans, Actors, Poets, Writers, etc...) would
> be fully populated, they would already contain the union of all their
> sub-categories.  The only thing missing would be unions of only some of the
> subcategories, for instance, the union of Comedy films and Drama films, or
> Poets and Novelists.  For most topics these do not seem very significant.

Not as important as intersections, no.  But while I've been bitten for
spouting off about stuff I'm ignorant of before, surely calculating a
union would be cheaper than calculating an intersection anyway?


from_name: Ligulem

subject: [Wikitech-l] User rights for ProtectionBot on en.wikipedia

body:
On en.wikipedia we have a discussion about giving a user account sysop
group membership at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/ProtectionBot

We are currently discussing giving this user account only the
permissions from the group "registered" (or "bots") *plus* the protect
permission alone (instead of the whole sysop group set of permissions).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/ProtectionBot#Access_rights_for_protection_bot

Do we need a new user group for this on en.wikipedia? Maybe a new group
"protect", containing the protect permission alone?

If we can show consensus for this, would a site admin/developer do this
for us?


from_name: Zordsdavini iz Litvy

subject: [Wikipedia-l] new wikis

body:
No, You don't understand I speak about:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Approved_requests_for_new_languages
The people who are waiting very long time. There are these requests:

   - 1.1 Wikipedia<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Approved_requests_for_new_languages#Wikipedia>
      - 1.1.1 Belarus?an Normat?ve (Orthography Revison of
1959)<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Approved_requests_for_new_languages#Belarus.C4.B1an_Normat.C4.B1ve_.28Orthography_Revison_of_1959.29>
      - 1.1.2 Kabyle<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Approved_requests_for_new_languages#Kabyle>
      - 1.1.3 Dolomitic
Ladin<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Approved_requests_for_new_languages#Dolomitic_Ladin>
      - 1.1.4 Lower
Sorbian<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Approved_requests_for_new_languages#Lower_Sorbian>
      - 1.1.5 Saterlandic<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Approved_requests_for_new_languages#Saterlandic>
      - 1.1.6 Karakalpak<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Approved_requests_for_new_languages#Karakalpak>
      - 1.1.7 Crimean
Tatar<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Approved_requests_for_new_languages#Crimean_Tatar>
      - 1.1.8 Latgalian<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Approved_requests_for_new_languages#Latgalian>
   - 1.2 Wikisource<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Approved_requests_for_new_languages#Wikisource>
      - 1.2.1 Lithuanian<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Approved_requests_for_new_languages#Lithuanian>
      - 1.2.2 Ancient
Greek<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Approved_requests_for_new_languages#Ancient_Greek>
   - 1.3 Wikiquote<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Approved_requests_for_new_languages#Wikiquote>
      - 1.3.1 Ido Wikiquote (4
support)<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Approved_requests_for_new_languages#Ido_Wikiquote_.284_support.29>
   - 1.4 Wiktionary<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Approved_requests_for_new_languages#Wiktionary>
      - 1.4.1 Cebuano Wiktionary and Wikibooks (7
support)<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Approved_requests_for_new_languages#Cebuano_Wiktionary_and_Wikibooks_.287_support.29>
      - 1.4.2 Pangasinan<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Approved_requests_for_new_languages#Pangasinan>
      - 1.4.3 Ilokano (5
support)<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Approved_requests_for_new_languages#Ilokano_.285_support.29>
      - 1.4.4 Zazaki<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Approved_requests_for_new_languages#Zazaki>
   - 1.5 Wikibooks<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Approved_requests_for_new_languages#Wikibooks>
      - 1.5.1 Cebuano<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Approved_requests_for_new_languages#Cebuano>
   - 1.6 MediaWiki
Site<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Approved_requests_for_new_languages#MediaWiki_Site>
      - 1.6.1 Hebrew MediaWiki Site (14 support [7 native speakers]; 1
      oppose)<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Approved_requests_for_new_languages#Hebrew_MediaWiki_Site_.2814_support_.5B7_native_speakers.5D.3B_1_oppose.29>

Arns Udov???

2007/1/10, J.L.W.S. The Special One <hildanknight at gmail.com>:
>
> I'd suggest a Singlish Wikipedia and Singlish Wiktionary.
>
> On 1/10/07, Dan Collins <en.wp.st47 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Zordsdavini iz Litvy wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > > I don't understand why new wikis are nor been creating. The people
> will go
> > > out of this because some of them are waiting for the year...
> > >
> > > Arns Udov???
> > >
> > If you wnat to make a new wiki with the WikiMedia foundation, visit
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_new_projects
> >
> > --
> > GnuPG key ID is 0x84189146 on subkeys.pgp.net
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Written with passion,
> J.L.W.S. The Special One
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
Ok^ ek^ besla ikv Olmok Vzauep^evk
:)


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] psychosis and wikipedia.

body:
On 1/10/07, Nina Stratton <ninaeliza at gmail.com> wrote:
> I like the article on extroverts and attention seekers that Luna brought up,
> but it doesn't really address certain cultural factors. The current
> veneration of celebrities in general, is almost a world-wide phenomenon now.
> Many people hold the view that any celebrity is good, and that celebrities
> are to be envied wholesale. That makes Wikipedia a target for anyone wanting
> their "one minute of fame".
>

Plenty of productive ways of getting low level fame on wikipedia.
While the multiple author thing means that featured articles are not
that good a way of getting it featured pictures are.

>
> I honestly believe that most vandals come here expecting to get into the
> news the next day, because Wikipedia has become so high profile. It's the
> folks who come here sub-consciously craving negative attention that are the
> real problem. Those are people who are typically very wounded, and there is
> definitely some Psychology working there.
>

The Herostratus approach? I feel that this one only applies to a
limited number of our more persistent Vandals.

--
geni


from_name: Luiz Augusto

subject: [Wikitech-l] New mail servers leave

body:
On 1/10/07, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> --- Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Excuse me this seems to have been fixed already.
> Thanks!
>
> Birgitte SB

lol, the mail.wikimedia is now redirectiong to a 404 error on
lists.wikimedia (example:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-January/013026.html )


from_name: Jerome Banal

body:
Hello Anthony,

Just guesses:

June is taken as a reference because the budget is made from June to June.
Accountants are giving advices for fiscal year so they will be checked at
the end of the fiscal year. In June 2007, they will look again at figures
and see if there are indeed X months of cash reserve. Based on "current
expense", those of June 2007 .

If you look at
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/28/Wikimedia_2006_fs.pdf,
you will see that "Internet hosting" (I guess it is hosting + bandwidth) was
40k$ in 2005 (June 2004 to June 2005, I presume). It was 189k$ in 2006 (June
2005 to June 2006?).
It was already more than a 4fold increase. I don't know much about bandwidth
cost, I have never had to deal with these kind of budget. I can presume that
higher bandwidth links are more costly cause they don't sell much of
them...Three years ago, a home fiber link was awfully costly compared to an
ADSL2+, although delivering just a few time more bw. Simply because you had
millions of the later and just a handful of the former.

Please just assume good faith, the presentation may be a bit fuzzy but I
doubt the board is trying to diddle us and I think they have work hard to
define these goals :)

Regards,
Jerome

2007/1/10, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org>:
>
> On 1/10/07, Jerome Banal <jerome.banal at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Take the "Monthly expense budget" and don't forget to add the "June '07"
>
> > parts; that will give you the expected monthly expense budget for June,
> > which should be the figure you quoted.
>
> Did you try it?  Because I did several times, and I only just now
> figured out what must be going on.
>
> Monthly expense budget $75,500
>
> Goals for bandwidth: ???  Right now the budget is $12,500.  There are
> at least four different figures for the new "budget" (do you see why
> this can't be called a budget?).  I see $50,000, $30,000, $62,000,
> $100,000, and $74,000 (which you get when you calculate
> $137,000-$75500+$12,500).  So let's go with $74,000, and pretend it
> makes sense that bandwidth costs will go up sixfold?
>
> Goals for hosting and operations: $38,000.  But then the calculation
> that is made acts as though this is in addition to the current
> $13,900.  So let's call it $52,000 total.  Hosting costs are expected
> to nearly quadruple, I guess.
>
> Goals for hiring: $100,000.  Let's assume this means $100,000 in
> addition to the current goals.  Now we get the magic $275,000 number.
>
> Am I getting this right?  Is this the actual budget for the next
> fiscal year?  Is there a reason this can't just be put in a normal
> form of a budget?
>
> > The reserve is of course on budget we
> > will need in the future, not on the current budget.
> >
> Presumably, though I would also think it would be the immediate
> future, not 5 months in the future.  I also still don't see a budget
> for FY '07-08.  I see a bunch of "goals".  So if the goal is to spend
> $275,000/month, I guess the budget will be to spend even more, in case
> the goal isn't reached.
>
> > Budget is rising quickly because we have more and more people coming
> looking
> > at WP, so we need bigger bandwidth, because we need more people to help
> on
> > MediaWiki as it is becoming more complex and we see more and more useful
> > features missing, etc.
> >
> Traffic is not going to quadruple (or increase 6-fold) in 5 months.
> It's taken about a year for it to merely double.
>
> > PS: By the way, it is indeed "at least". If it was not diffused before,
> it
> > has been diffused at that date.
>
> Except, I'm saying it wasn't diffused at that date.  In fact, $900,000
> is between the low and the high reserve, so it isn't even diffused at
> this date according to those numbers.
>
> > So you might have heard about it before
> > elsewhere, but in any case you have /at least/ been able to heard about
> it
> > at that date (after that, you can have missed it, but that's another
> > problem).
> >
> I haven't at least been able to heard about...huh?  What are we talking
> about?
>
> Anthony
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Delphine Ménard

body:
On 1/10/07, teun spaans <teun.spaans at gmail.com> wrote:

> Frankly, Rotterdam is awful. If you have time, do pay a visit to
> Delft, it's about a quarter of an hour away by train or car. Lovely
> old center.

Ah.. Vermeer's view of Delft...

Delphine
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Vermeer-view-of-delft.jpg
--
~notafish
NB. This address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to
this address will probably get lost.


from_name: Rory Stolzenberg

subject: [Foundation-l] Special License

body:
On 1/10/07, Dariusz Siedlecki <datrio at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/10/07, Yoni Weiden <yonidebest at gmail.com> wrote:
> > My question is this: We have a custom-made picture license created along
> > time ago. It reads (I translated it to English from Hebrew):
> >
> > "This image was created by user:user-name. Free use for educational
> > purposes, with appropriate attribution is allowed. You may use this
> image
> > for any purpose (incl. commercial use) if the usage is given for free of
> > charge to the wide public, with appropriate attribution."
>
> I think yes, it sounds like CC-By-SA.
>
> --
> Pozdrawiam,
> Dariusz Siedlecki

No, CC-BY-SA's only restrictions on reuse is that it requires attribution
(the SA is a restriction on derivatives). This is a weird in-between thing
between free licenses that exist and NC, as this DOES allow use if the
product they're making money on is making money but not from the user (ie,
supported by ads), but DOESN'T allow people to use it in something that's
being sold to make money, which CC-BY-SA, GFDL, etc, do allow.


subject: [Foundation-l] Special License


subject: [Wikitech-l] slowness today

body:
On 1/10/07, Gurch <matthew.britton at btinternet.com> wrote:
> Yes, and I'd like to see what happens if we make all anonymous users
> stewards. It's a wiki, after all!

That's silly.  It would be so much simpler if we just publicized the
root password for all the servers and permitted anyone full physical
access to the server clusters.  Ideally we'd also pay for express
plane flights for anyone to visit the servers to fiddle with them
manually, to lower barriers to entry.


from_name: Guillaume Paumier

body:
On 1/9/07, effe iets anders <effeietsanders at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all!
>
> apperently everybody forgot to mention it in here, so i'll do it anyway,
> sorry that it is this late :) Coming friday, that is january 12th, the
> Wikimedia Foundation Board is in the Netherlands for a Board Meeting, and
> from 20.00h CET on, they will attend to an open WikiMeet. The location
> will
> be the Golden Tulip Hotel (near the Erasmus Bridge), and the meetup will
> have no formal character. Of course I hope to see a lot of you guys who
> are
> able to attend :)
>
> Greetings from Holland,

And I guess it's a coincidence if this board retreat happens in
stroopwafelsland...

Teh Dutch Cabal has stricken again ! :D

--
Guillaume Paumier
[[m:User:guillom]]
http://www.wikimedia.org


subject: [WikiEN-l] New bot up for RFA

body:
On 1/9/07, Gary Kirk <gary.kirk at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This just occurred to me. I'm probably wrong, but there you go...
> This bot is on RfA. So surely, whatever it does, it needs sysop
> privileges. Therefore, releasing the code does nothing to help vandals
> as vandals don't have sysop accounts...
> Or is that just misguided?
>
> On 1/9/07, dmehkeri at swi.com <dmehkeri at swi.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >I'm sure if you asked the guy he'll give you the code, but keeping
> the
> > code
> > > >concealed may be a good thing because it'll stave off the bot being
> > > >compromised for some time.
> > >
> > > Yup.  You really think that Wiki folks would keep it quiet if there
> > > wasn't a plausible reason?  Come on!
> > >
> >
> > We already have several open bot frameworks, it's purportedly an easy
> task
> > to
> > whip up a vandalbot. There's even a similar transclusion-checking bot
> that
> > was
> > made open source. And surely making MediaWiki itself open source was
> even
> > more
> > dangerous, and yet, there you go.
> >
> > And finally of course there's argumentum ad Jimbo.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
>
>
> --
> Gary Kirk

No, see the answer to question 11 on the RfA. The function adding the
protection tags can be easily changed to vandalize articles instead. The
code to actually do the protection would be unused.


from_name: George Herbert

body:
On 1/10/07, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> James Hare stated for the record:
> > No need to kick them while they're down.
>
> It's okay: we're laughing at him, not with him.

This is both funny and dissapointing: I think we could use some
strongly disagreeing, but fundamentally honest and non-trolling,
critics to keep us all honest.

I was hoping that Parker might turn out to be one, but alas...

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


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] psychosis and wikipedia.

body:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Christopher Thieme [mailto:cdthieme at gmail.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2007 10:43 PM
>To: WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] psychosis and wikipedia.
>
>I'd love to see some psychology-oriented individual do a case study on what
>kind of people are attracted to editing on Wikipedia.  What psychological
>defects lurk behind the computer screens and the keyboards.  Why do I ask?
>Because in the last month (including right now), I've gotten in spats, edit
>wars, content disputes, with people who would be poster children for
>narcissitic personality disorder and one of several temporal lobe disorders,
>respectively.
>
>Something like that would probably explain a lot about the bitterness,
>control issues, the incessant desire to be "right", etc. that some people
>have when approaching the subject of editing.
>
>Just a crazy idea. (no pun intended).
>
>Regards,
>Christopher D. Thieme

No need to do research. Open to all, Wikipedia attracts its share, at least, of users with both mild and serious psychological problems. Certain psychoses are so debilitating that the symptoms preclude editing, but persons suffering from classic paranoia and sociopathy (these are not necessarily the correct current diagnostic labels) are certainly able to edit and, at times, do, as well as numerous users with a variety of neurotic problems (another term not currently in as a diagnostic label). These conditions lie behind much of the disruptive behavior seen on Wikipedia. We do not attempt to diagnose users; we deal with them based on their behavior. This may involve simple blocking of "vandals", drawn out arbitration cases, or calling the police.

There is an essay I originally wrote, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy, which explores some of these questions.

Fred


subject: [WikiEN-l] Using paragraphs from wikipedia on other websites

body:
On 1/9/07, Ilmari Karonen <nospam at vyznev.net> wrote:
>
> Rory Stolzenberg wrote:
> > On 1/8/07, mwookie <peter at iriselements.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> 1) If I include several paragraphs from the text in my website, does my
> >> entire site need to be licensed under the GFDL or just that page, or
> just
> >> the "text" versus the layout, links, etc.?
> >
> > 1) None of the text you write yourself has to be under the GFDL, only
> the
> > text that you quote.
>
> I don't think that's quite true.  The GFDL says, in section 1:
>
>    A "Modified Version" of the Document means any work containing the
>    Document or a portion of it, either copied verbatim, or with
>    modifications and/or translated into another language.
>
> And in section 4 ("Modifications"):
>
>    You may copy and distribute a Modified Version of the Document under
>    the conditions of sections 2 and 3 above, provided that you release
>    the Modified Version under precisely this License . . .
>
> Thus, a work, such as a web page, containing portions of a GFDL work
> must generally in itself be licensed under the GFDL.
>
> Section 7 ("Aggregation with independent works") does, however, say:
>
>    A compilation of the Document or its derivatives with other separate
>    and independent documents or works, in or on a volume of a storage or
>    distribution medium, is called an "aggregate" if the copyright
>    resulting from the compilation is not used to limit the legal rights
>    of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit.
>    When the Document is included in an aggregate, this License does not
>    apply to the other works in the aggregate which are not themselves
>    derivative works of the Document.
>
> However, it's not entirely obvious at what point a document ceases to be
> "independent".  Certainly the pages of a web site can, in most cases, be
> considered independent documents, but it's not at all clear to me
> whether a distinct section of a single web page, like what you have on
> your site, can in fact be considered an independent document.
>
> If you do wish to stand by the claim that it can, I believe your case
> would be strengthened by making sure that the section in question in
> fact makes sense even if taken off the page; in particular, it should
> probably carry a title of its own, so that someone reading the section
> out of context will still be able to tell what it is about.
>
> --
> Ilmari Karonen

If he's clearly showing that he's quoting text from another source, I don't
think that would be considered part of the document, rather it would be an
aggregate work. If he made the GFDL text very much a part of the text he
writes, then I agree that it would probably require the entire thing to be
GFDL. However, I get the impression that he doesn't intend to do that.


from_name: rfrangi at libero.it

body:
> > Anthony wrote:
> > 7 months ago, we had a "cash at the end of the year" of 500 000 dollars.
> >
> Plus $78,415 in Google stock.  Plus $50,000 in accounts receivable.
> Plus $400,000 in computer equipment and software.

$400.000 in HW/SW? I would not count them, because it's something you can't spend. And that value decreases every day (If you don't buy new hw/sw)

Roberto (Snowdog)

------------------------------------------------------
Passa a Infostrada. ADSL e Telefono senza limiti e senza canone Telecom
http://click.libero.it/infostrada10gen07


from_name: Andre Engels

body:
2007/1/10, Ian Tresman <it at knowledge.co.uk>:
>
> At 12:16 10/01/2007, you wrote:
> >I agree that notability should be judged by those familiar with the
> field.
>
> The only problem here, is that fields have sub-fields, and sub-fields
> have specialists.
>
> I think an article subject is notable if someone has noted it in a
> reliable source(s).

I tend to disagree. I have reliable sources giving the date of birth and
death of my great-(x many) grandparents, as well as a few other facts of
their lifes. Does that make them notable? I think the internet archive is a
reliable source on the content of webpages. Does that mean every webpage on
the internet archive is notable enough to get an article on Wikipedia? Every
separate game of chess that has its notation published? Lab rat #2687?

There is a danger of peers in a field assessing a controversial
> subject as non-notable for the wrong reasons, ie. confusing
> notability with importances.

I think that's not confusion, I think 'notability' is indeed very close to
'importance' in its meaning. At worst, one can say that 'important' is too
high a level of notability to draw the line.

We have articles on obscure chemical compounds, obscure villages in
> obscure countries, and obscure ideas in obscure publications.

I have nothing against the first two (and no country is obscure, in my
opinion), although we should be more than a database, so there should be
more than generalities about the chemical compound. The last is exactly the
kind of thing I would like to see removed from Wikipedia. Just because
someone has written something sometime does not mean it should be in
Wikipedia. If their ideas have been influential, that's another story. But
then there should be non-obscure publications discussing them as well.

Thank goodness that www.google.com doesn't have a "notability"
> criteria, or most of its pages would disappear.
>

That depends on the type of notability criterium that has been used, and its
level. Also, we are not here to replace Google. Google tries to index
everything. I don't think that's our task. Our task is writing an
encyclopedia.

--
Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels


from_name: Katie

body:
On Jan 10, 2007, at 1:04, Stan Shebs wrote:
> Doesn't everybody else type into WP with book propped open
> in lap, or newspaper spread on floor?
>
> Stan

Guilty as charged... though I'd like to think Wikipedia would be much
better if everybody did this, which negates ?ber-geek feelings.

Keitei
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keitei


from_name: Seth Anthony

subject: [Foundation-l] NEH grant

body:
I'd be interested in helping to prepare an application, particularly
if we can brainstorm a specific innovative project that would help
improve the quality of our content.

-- Seth

On 1/8/07, Sage Ross <ragesoss+wikipedia at gmail.com> wrote:
> In the past there was some effort put into grant writing, but I'm not
> sure if any grant applications ever got submitted.  In any case, it's
> been quite a while since anything was done on Meta about grants:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants
>
> There is a new NEH grant that looks like something appropriate for
> Wikimedia (or at least for English Wikipedia, through Wikimedia):
> http://www.neh.gov/grants/guidelines/Digital_Partnership.html
>
> From the program description, they want:
> "...proposals for innovative, collaborative humanities projects using
> the latest digital technologies for the benefit of the American
> public, humanities scholarship, and the nation's cultural
> institutions. These grants will support collaborations among
> libraries, museums, archives, universities, and other cultural
> organizations that may serve as models for the field. We encourage
> projects that explore new ways to share, examine, and interpret
> humanities collections in a digital environment and to develop new
> uses and audiences for existing digital resources."
>
> It almost looks like it was written with Wikipedia in mind.  The grant
> range is $50,000 to $350,000 over two years; not enormous, but it
> seems worth the time of some Wikimedian grant writers.
>
> With some creativity, there are probably some other NEH and possibly
> NSF grants that Wikimedia might have a shot at as well.
>
> -User:Ragesoss
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] NEH grant


from_name: Andrew Dunbar

subject: [Wikitech-l] Use binary to represent varchar rather than UTF8

references:
<b66ddc900701090914k309b6844r9dc0fe7ce0bcef61@mail.gmail.com>
	<eo0nsu$c90$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<b66ddc900701091847p1cd536a4pdffd6fe51ca34c5c@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On 1/10/07, howard chen <howachen at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/10/07, Ashar Voultoiz <hashar at altern.org> wrote:
> > howard chen wrote:
> > > in all table creation statments, such as
> > >
> > > CREATE TABLE `categorylinks` (
> > >   `cl_from` int(8) unsigned NOT NULL default '0',
> > >   `cl_to` varchar(255) binary NOT NULL default '',
> > >   `cl_sortkey` varchar(255) binary NOT NULL default '',
> > >   `cl_timestamp` timestamp(14) NOT NULL,
> > >   UNIQUE KEY `cl_from` (`cl_from`,`cl_to`),
> > >   KEY `cl_sortkey` (`cl_to`,`cl_sortkey`(128)),
> > >   KEY `cl_timestamp` (`cl_to`,`cl_timestamp`)
> > > ) TYPE=InnoDB;
> > >
> > >
> > > why use binary to represent varchar, not UTF8?
> >
> > Brion answered that earlier:
> >
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/mediawiki-l/2006-February/010267.html
> >
> > To quote him, utf8 in database will mostly:
> >
> > * Make indexes larger (3 bytes per character)
> > * Cause failures if you use characters outside the BOM in page titles,
> > usernames, etc.
> >
> > cheers,
> >
> > --
> > Ashar Voultoiz - WP++++
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hashar
> > http://www.livejournal.com/community/wikitech/
> > IM: hashar at jabber.org  ICQ: 15325080
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> >
>
> i would like to know if `wikipedia` is going to use this method in the future?

I'm sure mediawiki will make use of proper utf-8 support when mysql has proper
utf-8 support. Our users want to use Unicode characters beyond plane 1 and the
current mysql utf-8 support does not make this possible.

Andrew Dunbar (hippietrail)

> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>

--
http://linguaphile.sf.net