from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Foundation-l] Global Text Project

body:
FYI - we need to talk to these people.

http://globaltext.org/

Global Text Project

    * The goal is to create a free library of 1,000 electronic
textbooks for students in the developing world
    * The library will cover the range of topics typically encountered
in the first two years of a university's undergraduate programs
    * The global academic community and global corporations will be
engaged in creating and sponsoring this library

The project will create open content electronic textbooks that will be
freely available from a Web site. Distribution will also be possible
via paper, CD, or DVD. Our goal initially is to focus on content
development and Web distribution, and we will work with relevant
authorities to facilitate dissemination by other means when bandwidth
is unavailable or inadequate. Thus, while the goal, educating the
disadvantaged, is the same as that of the $100 laptop project, we are
not tied to a particular device or medium.

We have experience with developing a free textbook, XML: Managing Data
Exchange. This project started in January 2004 when a graduate class
at the University of Georgia wrote the first version of the book.
Subsequent graduate and undergraduate classes at the University of
Georgia and elsewhere have improved and extended the book. It has been
used as the XML text in a variety of classes, and in each case the
class has been required to leave the book in better shape that they
received it at the beginning of the term.

Experience with this project and the success of WikiBooks has
convinced us that we can further develop the idea of free and open
content books to increase the value of these books to students,
particularly those who cannot afford paper-based textbooks. We want to
add several innovations to improve the quality of the books.

--
Peace & Love,
Erik


list: textbook-l

source: pipermail-mbox

subject: [Textbook-l] Global Text Project


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Global Text Project


list: wikien-l

from_name: Neil Harris

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: [Wikitech-l] BC vs BCE era names

body:
Sam Korn wrote:
> On 9/5/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 05/09/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The problem really is that making a policy here requires us to make a
>>> decision.  Yes, *us*.  This is enormously different to normal article
>>> writing, where we just report what others have said.  We have to make
>>> a decision about which is correct, yet we can't, because to do so
>>> would be to break our principle of neutrality (though not NPOV, which
>>> is related but different).
>>> In short, we're stuffed.
>>>
>> Oh, I dunno. I understand there's a technical solution^Wworkaround on offer ...
>>
>
> Yes, it's a great workaround... until people say "but this article
> displays BC[E] when users aren't signed in.  THAT'S AN ABUSE OF NPOV."
>
> Neat as this technical workaround is, it's nowhere close to a solution
> and indeed will not be.
>
>
Try geolocation on the basis of source IP, and select CE north of the
Mason-Dixon line, and AD below?

-- Neil, no, of course I'm not serious, on DIES MARTIS ANTE DIEM X KAL.
SEP. MMDCCLIX A. V. C.


from_name: Stephen Streater

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Semi-solid evidence that process is in
	fact	dangerous to Wikipedia

body:
On 5 Sep 2006, at 03:28, Matt Brown wrote:

> On 9/4/06, Sage Ross <ragesoss+wikipedia at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Answering "Who Writes Wikipedia?" in terms of number of surviving
>> words is,
>> no doubt, better than using edit counts.
>
> If you rank Wikipedia editors by edit count, the bots win; in second
> place are the editors who function in a very bot-like manner, by
> constantly fixing small issues here and there, often with software
> assistance.
>
> I also bet that if you ranked editors by surviving words in the
> encyclopedia (not project or talk) you might be quite surprised to see
> who ranks high.  People get noticed on Wikipedia for participating in
> project-space, for one reason or another, not for their article
> contribs.

In [[Mathematics]] we actually discuss important changes and
reach consensus. Who actually puts up the definitive version
is fairly random and depends on who happens to be around
at the time. So measures of changes to the article are not an
accurate measure of contributions.


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Cluesticks needed regarding WP:BLP and WP:RS

body:
On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 16:35:01 -0400, Rob <gamaliel8 at gmail.com> wrote:

>* A man who posted nude pictures of himself on websites whose domains
>he registered advertising himself as a $200-an-hour gay prostitute can
>not be identified as a prostitute.

Seemingly absurd, but actually fixable as long as reliable secondary
sources call him that.

>* The Financial Times cannot be used as a source in an article about a
>journalist because they "report on finances issues" and thus are
>"unreliable" when it comes to other matters.

Complete bollocks.  The FT carries general news as well, and has
particularly high journalistic standards.  Name the article.

>* The Columbia Journalism Review is a reliable source.  A blog run by
>the Columbia Journalism Review on the website of the Columbia
>Journalism Review is not.

Seems fair.

>* The New Republic, among other reputable, long-standing publications,
>cannot be used as a source because they are "too partisan".

Reliable in respect of one party's view of something and if balanced
from the other perspective, I'd say.

>* Partisan organizations and publications, even long-standing and
>reputable ones, cannot be used in an article at all, even to
>substantiate the fact that there is partisan criticism of the subject
>of the article.  I'm not taking about someone objecting to "John Doe
>did this bad thing", I'm talking about people objecting to the article
>saying "X, Y, and Z criticize John Doe, saying this thing he did may
>have been bad."

Please give details.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Leaving the project

body:
On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 12:55:01 -0400, "John Lyden"
<rasputinaxp at gmail.com> wrote:

>Head cleared, and all that. I'm definitely done with the project for a
>long time.

We'll miss you.

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


from_name: Oskar Sigvardsson

subject: [WikiEN-l] My irrelevant hatnote disambiguation policy

body:
On 9/5/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> Personally, I think it's fine as is - an italicised single line saying
> "look here for other meanings" - and should be left the heck alone.

Amen, brotha!

--Oskar


body:
On 9/5/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 05/09/06, Richard Holton <richholton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 9/5/06, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I do think that many times such notes can be wildly out of place. A
> > > perfect example somebody mentioned eariler is this thread is
> > >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beirut&diff=21961432&oldid=21810147
> > >
> > > Clearly an inappropriate "hatnote"
> > >
> > > But, again. make a disambig-page and you're fine. No need for anything
> > > else.
>
> > That example didn't require a disambiguation note. Who would mistakenly go
> > to Beirut when looking for "Beer Pong"? Assuming good faith, whoever placed
> > this "hatnote" has a serious misunderstanding of the concept.
>
> Presumably, someone who knows the game is called "Beirut" but has
> never heard of "Beer Pong". Drinking games tend not to have very
> well-standardised nomenclature.
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
>   andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk

BTW, I just looked at that article ([[Beer Pong]], that is), and it's
a freakshow! It's got diagrams and everything, and it is rivaling many
featured articles in length. Either someone has waaaaaaaaaay to much
time on their hands, or something very fishy is going on. I'm tempted
to put a comment in the wikitext that says "Attention! Many other
articles need help! Don't waste time here!" or something ;)

--Oskar


body:
Mark Gallagher wrote:
> G'day Alphax,
>
>
>> Akash Mehta wrote:
>> [fixed top posting]
>>
>
> w00t!
>
>
>>> But isn't that taken for granted, that we must blindly accept, while
>>> accepting as little as possible, that Christianity is the dominant
>>> religion?
>>>
>> No. It accepts the historical fact that Christianity was the major
>> influencing religion in Western Europe (and from there, the "Western
>> world") for the better part of 1700 years.
>>
>
> 1700 years?  I've got a note here saying the "Common Era" has lasted
> 2006 years ... but I admit, your number is far closer to what my history
> and religion teachers all told me.
>
> How strange!
>
>
>
The /Anno Domini/ system was actually first invented in 525 CE, so it's
been in use for 1481 years so far. Of course, the epoch of the era
defined by that system was backdated by 525 years, so we can still be in
the 2006th year of an era that has only been meaningfully defined for
less than 1500 of those years.

-- Neil, on Seshhanbeh, 1385 Shahrivar 14.


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Jay R. Ashworth

subject: [Wikitech-l] Sybase port

references:
<ed340t$1hn$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<200609042159.08811.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
	<edisr0$gdq$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 12:01:21AM -0400, Mark K wrote:
> I would appreciate your further comments on how challenging you think this
> might be since I don't know the other DBMS products. You mention testing my
> changes on them, but wouldn't my changes only be for the Sybase code?
> Testing / Learning other DBMS's might be more than I can take on.

Porting a DBMS based app to a new DBMS?  Porting it to the 4th database
will likely be a lot less taxing than porting to the *second*, but
still probably somewhere between non-trivial and highly non-trivial.

Your best bet might well be to track down the guy who did the PostGres
patches, and talk to them.

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

	The Internet: We paved paradise, and put up a snarking lot.


from_name: Stephen Bain

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Fwd: [Wikipedia-l] Essays on the future of the
	projects

body:
On 9/5/06, SJ <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
> David Gerard notes that on wikien there are many such essays; and I
> believe there are also quite a number on de:wp.  Are there any efforts
> to gathering/organizing these essays, similar to efforts to organize
> policy?

As I understand it, most essays used to be on meta, whereas nowadays
they are often created on the "home" project of their author. My
speculation is that its a function of meta becoming less of a place
for broad, generalist discussion about the projects and more about
coordination.

I'm not aware of any global efforts to gather essays, although some
users do keep their own lists. MeatballWiki
(http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?MeatballWiki) of course is a
goldmine for this sort of thing.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-09-06

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

Running test TODO: Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Link containing double-single-quotes '' (bug 4598)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Template with thumb image (with link in description)... FAILED!
Running test Template infinite loop... FAILED!
Running test TODO: message transform: <noinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: message transform: <onlyinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Parsing optional HTML elements (Bug 6171)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Inline HTML vs wiki block nesting... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Mixing markup for italics and bold... FAILED!
Running test TODO: 5 quotes, code coverage +1 line... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML Hex character encoding.... FAILED!
Running test TODO: dt/dd/dl test... FAILED!

Passed 412 of 429 tests (96.04%) FAILED!


from_name: maru dubshinki

body:
On 9/5/06, ScottL <scott at mu.org> wrote:
> Guettarda wrote:
> > Actually one of the major issues in the dispute is whether BC/AD violates
> > NPOV because it requires Wikipedia to make an assertion the Jesus is the
> > Messiah/God. BCE/CE merely describes the condition, and thus does what the
> > NPOV policy asks.
>
>  If I am not mistaken the beginning and ends of the months etc were
> originally set up based on astrological principals. Would it violate
> NPOV (since we would then be making astrological assertions) to keep
> using months?
>
> SKL

But those astrological measurements are objective and empirically
verifiable in a way that AD/BC is not, and often track significant
events, such as the changing of the pole star.

~maru


list: foundation-l

from_name: Rory Stolzenberg

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Youth Camp?

body:
As a 15 year old myself (as of 22 minutes ago, EST), I completely agree with
geni.  The best thing about being a 14 year old on Wikipedia is that nobody
treats you as inferior or different, you can just be a member of the
community.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ageism.

On 9/5/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 9/6/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Thoughts?
>
> I tend to feel that one of the major attractions of wikipedia to
> younger people is that we treat them like everyone else regardless of
> age.
>
> --
> geni
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Youth Camp?


from_name: ScottL

body:
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
> On 9/6/06, ScottL <scott at mu.org> wrote:
>>    According to [[March]], the month is named after Mars the god of war.
>>   The fact that he is the god of war is empirically verifiable?
>>
>> SKL
>
> Are you asking if it's independently verifiable whether in Roman
> times, Mars was considered the God of War? Certainly it is, pick up
> any book on ancient roman mythology, and there you will find "Mars is
> the God of War" somewhere in it.
>
> This seems obvious. Why did you ask?
>
> --Oskar

   No I was just applying the logic that using the AD/BC system implies
that Jesus is god means that using the names of the months imply that
the Roman Gods were gods as well.

SKL


from_name: Aphaia

subject: [Foundation-l] Can a wikimedia-b list be setup

references:
<44FD30F5.2050208@wolfmountaingroup.com>
	<44FD5557.3010804@gmail.com> <44FD9BA5.5050107@wolfmountaingroup.com>

body:
??????????????????????????

On 9/6/06, Jeffrey V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Foundation,
>
> Can we setup a wkimedia-b list (that's b for "business related") that is
> **NOT** moderated by community members but by Foundation employees
> for business entities to use to post business ralated matters. To be
> honest, while I understand the community spilling over and attempting
> to control the content of foundation-l, there are legitimte business
> intreactions with your group that can and do go on and a list for
> that would be more condusive and less disruptive of business related
> activities.
>
>
> Jeff
>
> >_______________________________________________
> >foundation-l mailing list
> >foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
Kizu Naoko
  Wikiquote: http://wikiquote.org
  * vivemus, mea Lesbia, amemus *


subject: [WikiEN-l] Consensus is dying...

body:
On 9/3/06, Akash Mehta <draicone at gmail.com> wrote:
> But what did you intend as a definitive threshold? To ensure accuracy
> for any important decision it would have to be around 90%. Surely if
> one person raises a valuable point, and one that is worth voting 'not
> yet' for, at least 10% will follow. But 90% will help reduce the
> effect of mild sockpuppet use etc. Then again, if we allow experienced
> users to strike votes, we should be going for 95%...

The person who proposes the consensus poll sets the threshold in the
static contract. If the threshold is set too low, then people will
vote "not yet" and the contract can then be withdrawn and the person
can then try again with a higher threshold. It's a little awkward to
change what's in the static contract, but in practice people will
probably come to realise that a certain percentage will work most of
the time.

The beauty of the consensus poll model is that the voting choices are
"yes" and "not yet", in which case the person can propose changes to
the action plan so they are happy (providing that standards of
behaviour are maintained so that people work constructively in editing
the plan).

So the substance of the proposal is always reacting to what people
actually want to achieve. If 10% of people aren't happy, then the
proposal is continuously tweaked until enough people are happy.

(Really, tweaking continues until enough people are happy to satusfy
the cloture threshold, at which point the proposal is locked, and the
final consensus is judged a set time after this point.)

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


from_name: Andrew Lih

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Youth Camp?

body:
Sigh... let's not go "fundamentalist" on this.

No one is rounding up youth and forcing them to participate only in
camps. It's an *option* for youth who would like to meet other youth
do something fun. It's just another choice in the spectrum of
Wikimedia efforts.

-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)

On 9/6/06, Rory Stolzenberg <rory096 at gmail.com> wrote:
> As a 15 year old myself (as of 22 minutes ago, EST), I completely agree with
> geni.  The best thing about being a 14 year old on Wikipedia is that nobody
> treats you as inferior or different, you can just be a member of the
> community.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ageism.
>
> On 9/5/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 9/6/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Thoughts?
> >
> > I tend to feel that one of the major attractions of wikipedia to
> > younger people is that we treat them like everyone else regardless of
> > age.
> >
> > --
> > geni
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Youth Camp?


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Youth Camp?

body:
Of course, but we should make sure it's actually something that people would
want to be part of before devoting a lot of effort to it. Frankly, I don't
think that many kids on Wikipedia would be interested in a course called
"Everything you know about Pokemon, and where to put it," and probably even
less would be able to get there.

On 9/6/06, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Sigh... let's not go "fundamentalist" on this.
>
> No one is rounding up youth and forcing them to participate only in
> camps. It's an *option* for youth who would like to meet other youth
> do something fun. It's just another choice in the spectrum of
> Wikimedia efforts.
>
> -Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
>
> On 9/6/06, Rory Stolzenberg <rory096 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > As a 15 year old myself (as of 22 minutes ago, EST), I completely agree
> with
> > geni.  The best thing about being a 14 year old on Wikipedia is that
> nobody
> > treats you as inferior or different, you can just be a member of the
> > community.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ageism.
> >
> > On 9/5/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 9/6/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > I tend to feel that one of the major attractions of wikipedia to
> > > younger people is that we treat them like everyone else regardless of
> > > age.
> > >
> > > --
> > > geni
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Youth Camp?


from_name: Mark Clements

subject: [Wikitech-l] Rating Articles Extension

body:
"Simetrical" <Simetrical+wikitech at gmail.com>
wrote in message
news:7c2a12e20609051655s35c52d71sac58a05bcd1003e7 at mail.gmail.com...
> On 9/5/06, Travis Derouin <travis at wikihow.com>
wrote:
> > I hadn't thought that far ahead! What license are Wikipedia extensions
> > usually released with? GPL?
>
> All MediaWiki extensions have to be GPLd.  Possibly altogether, but
> definitely if you want them on SVN/Wikimedia projects.  AFAIK.

Actually, I'm not sure that's true.  So long as your extension doesn't
include any MW (or other GPL) code then it can be distributed under whatever
license you like.  If you distribute the extension _with_ MediaWiki, then I
imagine that changes things and GPL must be used, but an independent
distribution that only consists of your own code can surely use any license,
even though you also need to install MediaWiki for it to be of any use.

Of course, if you want the code to be available in MediaWiki SVN then it
will need to be GPL, although I think this is more a matter of policy than a
legal requirement (so long as the above conditions remain true).

But then, ianal...

- Mark Clements (HappyDog)


body:
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
> On 9/6/06, ScottL <scott at mu.org> wrote:
>>    No I was just applying the logic that using the AD/BC system implies
>> that Jesus is god means that using the names of the months imply that
>> the Roman Gods were gods as well.
>>
>> SKL
>
> Ahh, I see your logic. I apologise for the misunderstanding.
>
> However, I think your logic is flawed. Months have names, given names,
> that are pretty much universally accepted (I realise that they arn't
> completly universally accepted, but pretty much), the same as (for
> instance) weekdays are. I'm writing this here on a beautiful wednesday
> morning, but by recognizing that fact I'm not affirming the greatness
> of Odin (see [[Wednesday]]). My own name, Oskar, happens to mean
> "Spear of the Gods", but unlike most spears, I'm remarkably un-skinny
> (I am fairly pointy though). These are names, and even do they do mean
> something, they mean nothing. If you know what I mean.
>
> However, this is not necessarily the case with AD/CE. I understand how
> someone might look at it that way, but there are some very crucial
> difference. First, and foremost, is that there are obviously people
> who do find it offensive. Many people. That's why the whole CE thing
> was invented (and btw, when I was studying history in English here in
> northern Europe, CE was all we ever used, so it's not like it's
> unheard of in academia), because many people find AD to be offensive.
>
> I think a much better PC-analogy for the AD/CE thing than names of
> months is the introduction of the title (is it a title?) Ms. While it
> wasn't invented by modern feminists, it was certainly popularized
> because there is something blatantly sexist in English (and many other
> languages) titles. So we decided that this was wrong, and thus Ms. was
> introduced. And now everyone is comfortable with it, it's not in the
> least controversial at all. I think it's the same with years. There is
> something deeply eurocentric with using AD, since you are infact
> affirming the existance of God, so we have a nice little non-offensive
> alternative. Why not use it? Because people may have difficulty
> understanding it? Unless you are very thick indeed, it won't take long
> to understand. And it's not like we avoid using technical language and
> jargon for other subjects (pick a random non-trivial article on maths
> or chemistry, you'll see what I mean), so why not for history?
>
> I realise that I may not be convincing anyone, but I this is how I
> feel. AD is obviously controversial, so why not use CE? It's so neat!
>
> --Oskar

   Well I still think it should be a preference setting.  Especially
since, as someone else pointed out, CE is not without controversy.  I
mean what makes it common?  What makes it an era?  If you want to remove
Christianity from the equation then you are opening it up.  I think the
"common" era started with the industrial revolution.  I also think we
may be reaching the end of it and going into a new era.  I suspect the
black death is an event that changed the world enough to base a date
system on it.  So what makes that time period about 2000 years ago so
special that everything after it is one era and it is common?  What
unifies those dates?  No fair using religious movements which may have
started at the time either.

   But, this is all just for fun at this point.  Unless the technical
solution is not forth coming, and I also like the idea that the default
(as with variations of English spelling) goes to the first significant
editor.

SKL


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

body:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
> On 9/5/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>>  On 9/5/06, Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Actually one of the major issues in the dispute is whether BC/AD
>>> violates
>>> NPOV because it requires Wikipedia to make an assertion the Jesus is the
>>>
>>> Messiah/God.  BCE/CE merely describes the condition, and thus does what
>>> the
>>> NPOV policy asks.
>>
>>  No, it merely requires our readers to assume Jesus was born in the year
>> 0. The dating method doesn't state anything about his supposed
>> God/Messiah-ness.
>>
>> Mgm
>>
> Even if it is based on Christian beliefs, it doesn't require users to
> believe it to actually use it.
>

You cannot understand the Western world without understanding the
influence of Christianity. BC/AD is part of that history; people are
still free to draw their own conclusions.

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060906/11aaddaa/attachment.pgp


body:
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
> I'd like to note that there were infact a techincal solution
> implemented a while ago using templates. I believe you posted
> {{adce|2006}}, and it would pick the right one after how you had
> configured your CSS.
>
> However, it died a quiet death at TFD.
>
> --Oskar

   Did this thread start with an announcement that a technical solution
was forthcoming or am I on crack?  As an aside I was not arguing that
your points were flawed.  I was just saying that both alternatives are
legitimately objectionable, and I reject the notion that one of more so
than the other.

   We do this with date formatting and ISBN numbers you would think it
would not be that hard (though I think you would have to wikify them
all).  See now I have to go back and re-read the start of the thread.

SKL


body:
Akash Mehta wrote:
[fixed top posting]
> On 9/5/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/5/06, Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Actually one of the major issues in the dispute is whether BC/AD violates
>>> NPOV because it requires Wikipedia to make an assertion the Jesus is the
>>> Messiah/God.  BCE/CE merely describes the condition, and thus does what the
>>> NPOV policy asks.
>>>
>> Falls appart when you considder the islamic calender and the like
>> cuases simular problems for CE.
>>
>
> But isn't that taken for granted, that we must blindly accept, while
> accepting as little as possible, that Christianity is the dominant
> religion?
>

No. It accepts the historical fact that Christianity was the major
influencing religion in Western Europe (and from there, the "Western
world") for the better part of 1700 years.

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060906/f0269404/attachment.pgp


body:
Akash Mehta wrote:
> Well, the E should really be an option for political correctness, but
> at the same time we can't force it upon users since there must be many
> Christians out there who believe that 'before christ' is more
> appropriate than 'before common era'.

There are non-Christians who believe this too, because the claim that
it's a "common era" is patently false.

> If there was an option in
> preferences, and the <bc> / <ad> tags displayed the correct variation
> appropriately it would be best.
>

You're free to display it however you want.

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060906/1846077d/attachment.pgp


from_name: geni

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Youth Camp?

body:
On 9/6/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thoughts?

I tend to feel that one of the major attractions of wikipedia to
younger people is that we treat them like everyone else regardless of
age.

--
geni


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Youth Camp?


list: wikipedia-l

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Edits by project and country of origin

body:
David Gerard wrote:
> The vocabulary of English is *ridiculously* large compared to other
> European languages. The grammar is somewhat simpler. Pity about the
> spelling.

   Pity about the spelling :)

   This made me smile.  Thanks.

SKL


subject: [WikiEN-l] Does openness dull the bleeding edge?

body:
On 9/6/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think that, quite often, professional physicists have a lower
> exposure and awareness of the pervasiveness and often quite insane
> energy levels some of the physics cranks project.
>

I dunno I've herd professional physicists complain about clearing
their inboxes of cranks every day.

>
> Normal people generally see 9/11 conspiracy kooks for what they are,

Don't bet on it.

> but often don't spot the physics kooks, and unwrapping the damage can
> take forever.

to be expected. Most people accept that modern physics is wierd so
don't know how to screen out rubish.
--
geni


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Youth Camp?

body:
On 9/6/06, Rory Stolzenberg <rory096 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Of course, but we should make sure it's actually something that people would
> want to be part of before devoting a lot of effort to it. Frankly, I don't
> think that many kids on Wikipedia would be interested in a course called
> "Everything you know about Pokemon, and where to put it," and probably even
> less would be able to get there.

That's why I think as a start, it would be good to run this as a youth
session for a few days before Wikimania rather than depending a
dedicated gettogether. Just like Hacking Days is a magnet for technie
types to join together to learn, there could be a preconference track
for younger folks who can decide for themselves if it's something
they're into.

Even if it's simply skills development, done in the context of
Wikimania, it could get younger folks excited and involved. Some ideas
might include - working with Wikimedia Commons, using Wikipedia in
studies, media literacy, workshops on particular tasks. From a public
relations angle, it's something that can show the Wikipedia community
giving back to help train younger folks with the skills that have
become second nature to Wikipedians.

In fact, very few of these things are specific to being "youth" but
rather providing a nurturing environment to recruit and train a
younger generation of Wikipedians. (Actually, for Wikimania 2007, this
might be good thing to do for the conference in general - tutorial
tracks for folks who would like to learn the nuts and bolts of certain
tasks.)

Given recent questions about scalability of consensus, the poisonous
RfA proceedings and trivia creeping into every corner of Wikipedia, we
should be looking into more ways to keep the community healthy.

-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Youth Camp?


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Youth Camp?

body:
Just an idea, and probably not a new one:

I'm consistently amazed by the amount of participation by young people
in our projects. Ranging from featured article writing to
organizational tasks, their participation covers the whole gamut of
activities Wikimedia has to offer -- and many of them do it with
passion and skills that should make any adult blush.

Would it be worth considering to organize national (perhaps also
annual) conferences specifically targeted at youths participating in
Wikimedia, and those who might do so in the future? Such a venue would
be very different from the more serious Wikimania. It could be a
summer camp, with music and some non-wiki activities (films, sports,
..).

Topics would be handled in a more participatory, workshop style manner
than typical conference sessions. They could include:
- How to write really good articles?
- How to do research in libraries?
- What is this copyright stuff all about?
- My POV, your POV, NPOV?
- Where's Willy? How to find and fight vandals
- Jimbo's campfire stories
- Write your own news with Wikinews
- Celebrity hunt: Wikimedia Commons needs you
- Everything you know about Pokemon, and where to put it

OK, perhaps I'm not really good at defining the topic scope. But you
get the idea. ;-)

Ideally, workshop leaders themselves should be youths with experience
in Wikimedia, with some adult help to explain the more complex issues
of law, policy and technology.

If we consider this a good idea, another question is whether we should
do it in conjunction with other organizations like Creative Commons or
the FSF. The closest thing to such an event I've participated in was
the "Berlin 05" youth festival last year, where both Wikimedia and the
Chaos Computer Club were present. (See
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_05 for brief information about
that event in German.)

A festival or camp might have more of a long term future with support
from multiple organizations, an international make-up, and an annual
schedule like Wikimania. A "Free Culture Youth Festival" might be a
suitably generic framework. But a more focused Wiki-Camp might have
its benefits, too.

Thoughts?

--
Peace & Love,
Erik


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Youth Camp?


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Youth Camp?

body:
I think the idea of having courses and workshops on these topics is great,
but we shouldn't be targeting it towards youth specifically; it needlessly
singles them out and makes them different, and people of all ages can learn
from things like this.  Yes, it's good to train and nurture a new generation
of Wikipedians, but there's no reason for it to be a younger generation of
Wikipedians.  It should be targeted to the community as a whole, not just
youths.

On 9/6/06, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 9/6/06, Rory Stolzenberg <rory096 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Of course, but we should make sure it's actually something that people
> would
> > want to be part of before devoting a lot of effort to it. Frankly, I
> don't
> > think that many kids on Wikipedia would be interested in a course called
> > "Everything you know about Pokemon, and where to put it," and probably
> even
> > less would be able to get there.
>
> That's why I think as a start, it would be good to run this as a youth
> session for a few days before Wikimania rather than depending a
> dedicated gettogether. Just like Hacking Days is a magnet for technie
> types to join together to learn, there could be a preconference track
> for younger folks who can decide for themselves if it's something
> they're into.
>
> Even if it's simply skills development, done in the context of
> Wikimania, it could get younger folks excited and involved. Some ideas
> might include - working with Wikimedia Commons, using Wikipedia in
> studies, media literacy, workshops on particular tasks. From a public
> relations angle, it's something that can show the Wikipedia community
> giving back to help train younger folks with the skills that have
> become second nature to Wikipedians.
>
> In fact, very few of these things are specific to being "youth" but
> rather providing a nurturing environment to recruit and train a
> younger generation of Wikipedians. (Actually, for Wikimania 2007, this
> might be good thing to do for the conference in general - tutorial
> tracks for folks who would like to learn the nuts and bolts of certain
> tasks.)
>
> Given recent questions about scalability of consensus, the poisonous
> RfA proceedings and trivia creeping into every corner of Wikipedia, we
> should be looking into more ways to keep the community healthy.
>
> -Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Youth Camp?


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Youth Camp?

body:
On 9/6/06, Rory Stolzenberg <rory096 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the idea of having courses and workshops on these topics is great,
> but we shouldn't be targeting it towards youth specifically; it needlessly
> singles them out and makes them different, and people of all ages can learn
> from things like this.  Yes, it's good to train and nurture a new generation
> of Wikipedians, but there's no reason for it to be a younger generation of
> Wikipedians.  It should be targeted to the community as a whole, not just
> youths.

Refer to earlier post.

Sometimes young folks like to hang out with young folks.

-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Youth Camp?


subject: [Foundation-l] Business Related List

body:
Arbeiter in der ganzen Welt,
nope,

Hello Wikipedians,
please remember one old our axiom right now.

  DONT FEED A TROLL

and be wise enough ignore taunts of Mr. Jeff V. Merkey. He will find
his own community, somewhere else, and it will be not our business at
all in my precognition.

Cheers,

On 9/6/06, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
> Michael Bimmler wrote:
>
> >On 9/5/06, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Luiz Augusto wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Sorry Jeffrey V. Merkey but all of your messages related to machine
> >>>translations in a project >OUTSIDE< of Wikimedia Foudation is reported as
> >>>Spam by me, using "Report Spam" button on Gmail system.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>As said, A business related list is needed. This posting is a good
> >>example why...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >If you have a high-priority and/or important business question, which
> >you want to be answered by nobody but Foundation officials, why don't
> >you just write an email to the Foundation? There is board at wikimedia
> >dot org and bpatrick at wikimedia dot org (Brad Patrick, general
> >counsel & Interim Executive Director WMF) for your convenience.
> >
> I do this all the time with Brad and those emails dont make it to this list.
>
> >I
> >don't think that you can prohibit community members from expressing
> >themselves when using a mailing list. There is private email for
> >business purposes.
> >
> >
>
> I am not trying to prohibit anyone from expressing themselves, in fact,
> it's the other way
> around, I am often the target of folks oppressing my expressions for
> purely political reasons.
> I have no problem using the foundation list for progress on African
> languages and other programs, but a business
> oriented list would be a better solution. The problem with the community
> moderator concept
> here is there may be other businesses spring up and when a non-employee
> threatens to moderate
> or does moderate someone on such a list, there are some issues
> potentially created for the foundation.
> Issues I would rather not deal with.
>
> Jeff
>
> >Michael
> >
> >
>
>
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
Kizu Naoko
  Wikiquote: http://wikiquote.org
  * vivemus, mea Lesbia, amemus *


subject: [Foundation-l] Business Related List


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Youth Camp?

body:
On 9/6/06, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih at gmail.com> wrote:
> So in a similar way, we could have a week before Wikimania where we
> gather the youth to have a special camp, which takes advantage of
> Wikipedians who might be able to show up.

One caveat: Wikimania is already a pretty big event, with the Hacking
Days before then .. I fear volunteer burn-out since it's likely going
to be some of the same people who would attend both events.

Having different locations (e.g. have the YC in EU when WM is in US,
etc.) would allow for different volunteers to participate in the
organization of both events, taking off some of the strain. And
Wikimedians who can't make it to Wikimania because it's too far away
might be able to attend, as helpers, their local YC.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Youth Camp?


subject: [Foundation-l] Edits by project and country of origin

body:
I talked with Indian editors why they prefered Enwiki and not so much
Hindi, which population is very large.

Each of them had different reasons, but no one mentioned caste
directly. If I recall correctly,

- If he or she writes in English, he would write to a broader audience
than in the Indian language. (Now you have to be aware that Enwiki is
the most frequently translated project among us). To spread
information, Enwiki is the most powerful tool on this project.
- Hindi is surely a big language, and he or she can speak it fruently,
but it isn't his or her native language at all; not attractive,
actually. In this point of view, writing in English as the second
language is more acceptable than writing in Hindi as the second
language for their nationalism.
- Of course, he or she is interested in their native language project.
But it is not so much a fun to work on a small project for some folks,
yes). On Enwiki he or she can find more easily  chances of
collaboration.
- And infrastructure. There are surely many so-and-so language
speakers, but they have no PC at home; and if they have, bandwidth is
narrow and edit is not confortable (I know an editor who was then
living in Thailand. He declined my nomination just because of the same
reason; "PPP on SLIP is too much hard for me to use sysop priviledge"
said he)

Some will be improved with good promotion, others will need efforts
extended from our virtualworld community. And it would be a possible
task and challange for the Foundation, but for that, a careful and
thoughtful approach, collaboration of other organizations both local
and global etc will be expected.

On 9/5/06, Przykuta <przykuta at o2.pl> wrote:
>
> > >
> >
> > I would suggest that it's due to the caste system; the educated rich see
> > the native languages as being used by the lower castes and don't want
> > anything to do with them?
> >
>
> Caste system is a closed system, Wikipedia is not. We can use bots to write articles in native languages. However number of articles is not a big problem. The big problem is number of users who know that languages.
>
> Przykuta
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
Kizu Naoko
  Wikiquote: http://wikiquote.org
  * vivemus, mea Lesbia, amemus *


from_name: Milos Rancic

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia vs. Ebay on Alexa

body:
On 9/5/06, SJ <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/5/06, Milos Rancic <millosh at mutualaid.org> wrote:
>
> > Hehe... I started to think as a company's manager: may we give to our
> > users some more services so we can make our growth better? ;)
>
> Sure.  Better community-development tools (basic optional profiling),
> better skin options (more than one functional skin with support),
> better interface options (list of last-visited pages, top-of-watchlist
> available as part of the sidebar), better editing options (click on a
> paragraph for simple wysiwyg editing without a new page-load)....
> "email this page/image to a friend" options for trusted users...
> better dump options for those wanting to do their own thing with
> subsets of WP content (say, running an xml parser on dumps and
> providing the resultset)

I mean: blog inside of user space; possibility to write papers
(original research) inside of user space and to link it from Wikipedia
articles; better organization of user space; better permissions inside
of MediaWiki; something like writely.com: user should have a
possibility to write an article/paper inside of her/his user space and
to announce it just to couple of people for reading or reading and
writing; email at wikipedia.org + webmail interface inside of MW;
calendar integrated into MW or good templates for calendars.

I was not talking about better primary attributes of MW :)


body:
On 9/6/06, Andy Rabagliati <andyr at wizzy.com> wrote:
>
> But you can brutalise English and still be understood, which I gather is
> not the case for Chinese.

Grammar for Chinese is very simple, with no conjugation of verbs. But
learning the first 1,000 characters can be a pain. :) For those not
used to tonal languages, pronunciation is often challenging.

Add on top of that - there are a wide variety of computer input
methods for Chinese, so sitting down in front of the random computer
may or may not allow you to enter Chinese they way you're used to.

But for zh:I was surprised to see the bulk of contributions coming
from HK, and so many from NL...

zhwiki (1.5%): HK: 28.6%, TW: 25.9%, US: 13.7%, NL: 8.2%, CN: 6.1%,
DE: 3.6%, BE: 2.3%, CA: 2.0%, FR: 1.3%, MO: 1.2%, JP: 1.2%, all
others: 5.9%

-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)


from_name: Richard Holton

body:
On 9/5/06, Milos Rancic <millosh at mutualaid.org> wrote:
>
> On 9/5/06, SJ <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 9/5/06, Milos Rancic <millosh at mutualaid.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Hehe... I started to think as a company's manager: may we give to our
> > > users some more services so we can make our growth better? ;)
> >
> > Sure.  Better community-development tools (basic optional profiling),
> > better skin options (more than one functional skin with support),
> > better interface options (list of last-visited pages, top-of-watchlist
> > available as part of the sidebar), better editing options (click on a
> > paragraph for simple wysiwyg editing without a new page-load)....
> > "email this page/image to a friend" options for trusted users...
> > better dump options for those wanting to do their own thing with
> > subsets of WP content (say, running an xml parser on dumps and
> > providing the resultset)
>
> I mean: blog inside of user space; possibility to write papers
> (original research) inside of user space and to link it from Wikipedia
> articles; better organization of user space; better permissions inside
> of MediaWiki; something like writely.com: user should have a
> possibility to write an article/paper inside of her/his user space and
> to announce it just to couple of people for reading or reading and
> writing; email at wikipedia.org + webmail interface inside of MW;
> calendar integrated into MW or good templates for calendars.
>
> I was not talking about better primary attributes of MW :)
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

Let's all remember that we don't need to achieve any particular Alexa
ranking. It's good to be a popular site, but that's the result of working to
achieve the mission; it's not the mission itself.

-Rich
[[W:en:User:Rholton]]


from_name: Birgitte SB

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Youth Camp?

body:
--- Andrew Lih <andrew.lih at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 9/6/06, Rory Stolzenberg <rory096 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I think the idea of having courses and workshops
> on these topics is great,
> > but we shouldn't be targeting it towards youth
> specifically; it needlessly
> > singles them out and makes them different, and
> people of all ages can learn
> > from things like this.  Yes, it's good to train
> and nurture a new generation
> > of Wikipedians, but there's no reason for it to be
> a younger generation of
> > Wikipedians.  It should be targeted to the
> community as a whole, not just
> > youths.
>
> Refer to earlier post.
>
> Sometimes young folks like to hang out with young
> folks.
>
> -Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
>

Also lets not forget that young people have much
longer holidays than most people.  I would think
younger people are more likely to be able to attend
and event a week before Wikimania.

Although I do wonder whether we really want to take on
being responsibile for minors.  It would require a lot
more effort than just producing Wikimania does.  I
think if we can partner with a group that has
experience and a good reputation with the "youth camp"
issues, then it would be great for us to provide the
Wikimedia aspect.  If we are doing this on our own
however I think it would be too risky of a
proposition.

Birgitte SB

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Youth Camp?


subject: [WikiEN-l] Anons banned from creating articles

body:
On 9/6/06, Akash Mehta <draicone at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Well, I'm sure 1000 sysops dedicated to the task could do it, but we
> simply can't afford to dedicate a sysop to a specific task unless we
> sign up another 100 to make sure the 1000 don't make any mistakes, and
> yet another 100 to cover the gap left by the 100 who were originally
> sysops and were promoted to bureaucrat to handle the rights allocation
> of 1000 sysops, yet another 100 to refine policy so that less
> experienced users can work more efficiently and take care of the work
> not done by the 1300 odd who are now dedicated to sysop tasks...
>
> If I, as an admin, were asked to dedicate myself to a particular task as a
condition of being an admin, I would just stop being an admin. Would you
want to be an admin if all you could do was check articles created by
non-logged-in users?

I have to agree with those who suggest that we won't see that big of an
increase in the number of junk articles created. But if we do, the solution
will not be to dedicate humans to cleaning up the mess.

-Rich
[[W:en:User:Rholton]]


body:
On 9/6/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 06/09/06, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > But for zh:I was surprised to see the bulk of contributions coming
> > from HK, and so many from NL...
>
> So Wikipedia isn't firewalled from HK, just from mainland China?
>
> I'm not surprised Taiwan's contribution level is comparable.

Right - Hong Kong is completely free media-wise and Internet-wise.
Wikipedia's never been blocked there and nor will it be anytime soon.

As for Taiwan, I'm surprised they don't make up a larger percentage,
since they have 3x the population and, from what I know, are more
focused on study in Chinese language than in HK.

-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)

Stats:
zhwiki (1.5%): HK: 28.6%, TW: 25.9%, US: 13.7%, NL: 8.2%, CN: 6.1%,
DE: 3.6%, BE: 2.3%, CA: 2.0%, FR: 1.3%, MO: 1.2%, JP: 1.2%, all
others: 5.9%


list: commons-l

from_name: Anthony

subject: [Commons-l] proposed policy - Commons:Trademarks

body:
On 9/6/06, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
> It's pretty simple: I propose we formalise the policy of not accepting
> trademarks, regardless of their copyright status.
>

Why?


body:
On 9/6/06, ScottL <scott at mu.org> wrote:
> maru dubshinki wrote:
> > On 9/5/06, ScottL <scott at mu.org> wrote:
> >> Guettarda wrote:
> >>> Actually one of the major issues in the dispute is whether BC/AD violates
> >>> NPOV because it requires Wikipedia to make an assertion the Jesus is the
> >>> Messiah/God. BCE/CE merely describes the condition, and thus does what the
> >>> NPOV policy asks.
> >> If I am not mistaken the beginning and ends of the months etc were
> >> originally set up based on astrological principals. Would it violate
> >> NPOV (since we would then be making astrological assertions) to keep
> >> using months?
> >>
> >> SKL
> >
> > But those astrological measurements are objective and empirically
> > verifiable in a way that AD/BC is not, and often track significant
> > events, such as the changing of the pole star.
> >
> > ~maru
>
>  According to [[March]], the month is named after Mars the god of war.
>  The fact that he is the god of war is empirically verifiable?
>
> SKL

That some Greeks and Romans believed that he was the god of war is
verifiable, yes, but that has nothing to do with what I said.

~maru


from_name: Jossi Fresco

body:
On Sep 5, 2006, at 1:35 PM, Rob wrote:

> Of course I fully support the spirit and motives behind BLP and
> obviously I see the urgent need to make sure serious allegations
> against living people are fully and reliably sourced.  But people are
> stretching BLP far beyond what it should be used to combat - unsourced
> and unreliable assertions.  Now people are using it to remove all
> sorts of critical information that would reasonably be included and to
> further their own ideological agendas.  Some examples, all typed in
> with presumably a straight face.
The pendulum effect? Now that we are being more responsible in what
we allow in articles about LP, it is only natural that some will
attempt exploit it.
>
> * A man who posted nude pictures of himself on websites whose domains
> he registered advertising himself as a $200-an-hour gay prostitute can
> not be identified as a prostitute.
Was this reported in a reliable source (this person being called a
prostitute?). If not, this is OR.

> * The Financial Times cannot be used as a source in an article about a
> journalist because they "report on finances issues" and thus are
> "unreliable" when it comes to other matters.
Nonsense
> * The Columbia Journalism Review is a reliable source.  A blog run by
> the Columbia Journalism Review on the website of the Columbia
> Journalism Review is not.
Only if the Columbia Journalism Review has editorial control of the
blog. Otherwise, I would agree that it is not a RS.

> * The New Republic, among other reputable, long-standing publications,
> cannot be used as a source because they are "too partisan".
Nonsesne
> * Partisan organizations and publications, even long-standing and
> reputable ones, cannot be used in an article at all, even to
> substantiate the fact that there is partisan criticism of the subject
> of the article.  I'm not taking about someone objecting to "John Doe
> did this bad thing", I'm talking about people objecting to the article
> saying "X, Y, and Z criticize John Doe, saying this thing he did may
> have been bad."
Only if X, Y and Z and notable people, and the partisan orgs and pubs
are so.

As you  can see many of your examples above, could be argued with
existing policies, and have been argued as such in the past. Nothing
new here.

>
> In addition to well-intentioned people wildly misapplying BLP and RS,
> we may have handed a powerful new weapon to POV warriors, who wish to
> sanitize all the articles about their ideological fellow travelers.  A
> well-meaning user has created the "Libel Protection Unit", but this is
> the same person who thinks that you are libeling someone by quoting
> something said by the "unreliable" Financial Times, and among the
> people he's unwittingly recruited for his new group and have eagerly
> signed up are some notorious POV warriors and at least one certified
> troll.  I realize that what I'm writing may not show much good faith,
> but based on what I've seen from some of these folks and the
> statements I've noted above, I fear that this LPU will do much to
> remove legitimate material from the encyclopedia and do little to
> protect us from actual libel.  Some people have weighed in with
> sensible remarks, like Jmabel at [[Wikipedia talk:Libel-Protection
> Unit]], but I think more people should do so before this gets out of
> hand.
This is ungrounded paranoia. If you think that this new "unit" is a
threat to WP, join in  and help make it better, as some of us are
attempting to do.

-- Jossi


body:
On 9/6/06, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 06/09/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> >
> > Why?
>
> This is answered on the Talk page.
>
The talk page suggests that anything restricted by trademark law is
non-free.  That would mean that pretty much every page about any
product in any language Wikipedia is non-free, as the pages invariably
mention the product name.

I'd say that's moved out of the realm of reasonableness.

> Also to resolve the uneasy situation of especially German copyright
> law, which appears to consider many designs "PD-ineligible" which
> other countries would not. We have had many repetitive arguments about
> this issue and a clear policy statement should cut a lot of them down.
>
Are you sure this would resolve that situation?  Are all of these
designs registered trademarks?

Commons is global, and I don't think an image should be ineligible for
commons simply because it is public domain in a single country.  But
that's just my opinion.  If things are decided the opposite way I
still don't see the big deal.

> Lest this sound terribly anti-dewiki, it's not about trying to catch
> them out. It's about making our policies more in line with our
> ultimate aim, to provide freely usable media. If we're doling out
> trademarks, *regardless of their copyright status* we're not really
> achieving that.
>
I disagree strongly with that statement.  Even if you restrict it
severely to just registered trademarks, I still don't agree.

By this line of thinking do you also want to exclude all images of
living people from the commons, because images of people are not
completely free to use in any context.  Just as you can't use someone
else's trademark to sell a product, you can't use their photograph
either.  And some jurisdictions even extend this right to publicity
after death.  So we couldn't even keep pictures of some dead people on
commons.

I suppose this is a slippery slope argument, but slippery slope
arguments are pretty easy to defeat.  Just explain why trademarked
images are less free than images of living people, or modify your
proposal to exclude images of living people from commons too.

And if your proposal, with that modification, is accepted, then I
propose we start a Wikipedia Commons (note the "p") to put images
which can be freely used in an encyclopedia, even if they can't be
used on a bottle of dish detergent.

Anthony


from_name: Travis Derouin

subject: [Wikitech-l] Spam: How to delete all users with no edits

body:
Ha.

This works.

DELETE  FROM user WHERE user_id NOT IN (SELECT DISTINCT(rev_user) FROM
revision);
DELETE  FROM user_rights WHERE ur_user NOT IN (SELECT user_id FROM user);

Of course if this first one didn't work, you might be gambling on the
2nd..... muhahah - just kidding.

Travis

On 9/6/06, HeinzJ <h-j.luecking at t-online.de> wrote:
> Maybe all users would be blown away if the SQL would work ;-)
>
> HeinzJ
>
>
> Travis Derouin schrieb:
> > Do you know if the user_touched has been set to anything other than
> > null for these accounts?
> >
> > Something like
> >
> > DELETE FROM user, user_rights WHERE ur_user = user_id AND user_id NOT IN
> >  (SELECT UNIQUE(rev_user) FROM revision)
> >
> > Although I'm totally not responsible if this blows away users that
> > have registered. :)
> >
> > Travis
> >
> >
> > On 9/5/06, HeinzJ <h-j.luecking at t-online.de> wrote:
> >> At the moment we have a spam-problem. People or PCs are adding dayly
> >> users with no edits. Mostly they look like TheUserViagra with the Email
> >> TheUserViagra at someGMX.net
> >>
> >> I would like to delete all users with no edits before updating to
> >> mediawiki 1.71 and adding a CAPTCHA into the add new user dialog.
> >>
> >> Who have some Ideas?
> >>
> >> - SQL clauses
> >> - ....
> >>
> >>
> >> THX, HeinzJ
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikitech-l mailing list
> >> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> >> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> >>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


body:
On 9/6/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 06/09/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
> > And if your proposal, with that modification, is accepted, then I
> > propose we start a Wikipedia Commons (note the "p") to put images
> > which can be freely used in an encyclopedia, even if they can't be
> > used on a bottle of dish detergent.
>
> You mean, a service project designed to hold common images used on the
> Wikipedias so that they don't have to keep duplicate images on the
> projects? That's a great idea, and we should propose it to the
> Foundation immediately! I wonder if we need to change anything in the
> software to support it.
>
I assume you're being sarcastic, as Wikimedia commons does exactly
this, but just thought I'd mention it because in your first post to
this thread you seem to like the idea of restricting trademarked
images.

Anyway, thinking about this more I have to say that providing free
images for people to use on their bottles of dish detergent is at
least currently outside the scope of Wikimedia.  The same could be
said of most other products too.  So unless trademark law restricts
the ability to use an image on textbooks, or encyclopedias, or
dictionaries, or newspapers, or quote books, or species directories,
then I don't see the problem with it being on commons.  Ironically,
the only image I can think of which this would restrict is the same
image which isn't even free wrt copyright law and would probably
continue to get grandfathered in anyway - the Wikimedia logo.

Anthony


from_name: Mark Gallagher

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Semi-solid evidence that process is in
 fact	dangerous to Wikipedia

body:
G'day Ray,

>>AFD is only as toxic as you make it. We should all start by quiting 2-letter
>>nominations (NN) using lone jargon words (cruft, non-notable, etc) and start
>>explaining or reasoning based on references, google searches and specific
>>reasons that can be argued. If newbies come across reasonably argued
>>discussions in AFD the process would work a lot better.
>
> Why should we expect newbies to have a doctorate in wiki-lawyering?
> Reasonable arguments should not depend on the ability to cite policy cruft.

Nononononono!  *Regulars* should do this.  When a newbie comes along to
an AfD subpage he will then, hopefully, see a reasonable argument for
why his article should be deleted (rather than "vanispamcruftisement by
nn scoundrel, and my vote as nominator is speedy delete without
references ~~~~").

--
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse


body:
G'day Alphax,

> Akash Mehta wrote:
> [fixed top posting]

w00t!

>>But isn't that taken for granted, that we must blindly accept, while
>>accepting as little as possible, that Christianity is the dominant
>>religion?
>
> No. It accepts the historical fact that Christianity was the major
> influencing religion in Western Europe (and from there, the "Western
> world") for the better part of 1700 years.

1700 years?  I've got a note here saying the "Common Era" has lasted
2006 years ... but I admit, your number is far closer to what my history
and religion teachers all told me.

How strange!

--
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse


from_name: Oskar Sigvardsson

body:
On 9/6/06, ScottL <scott at mu.org> wrote:
> maru dubshinki wrote:
> > On 9/5/06, ScottL <scott at mu.org> wrote:
> >> Guettarda wrote:
> >>> Actually one of the major issues in the dispute is whether BC/AD violates
> >>> NPOV because it requires Wikipedia to make an assertion the Jesus is the
> >>> Messiah/God. BCE/CE merely describes the condition, and thus does what the
> >>> NPOV policy asks.
> >>  If I am not mistaken the beginning and ends of the months etc were
> >> originally set up based on astrological principals. Would it violate
> >> NPOV (since we would then be making astrological assertions) to keep
> >> using months?
> >>
> >> SKL
> >
> > But those astrological measurements are objective and empirically
> > verifiable in a way that AD/BC is not, and often track significant
> > events, such as the changing of the pole star.
> >
> > ~maru
>
>    According to [[March]], the month is named after Mars the god of war.
>   The fact that he is the god of war is empirically verifiable?
>
> SKL

Are you asking if it's independently verifiable whether in Roman
times, Mars was considered the God of War? Certainly it is, pick up
any book on ancient roman mythology, and there you will find "Mars is
the God of War" somewhere in it.

This seems obvious. Why did you ask?

--Oskar


from_name: Matt Brown

body:
As posted on the talk page: copied here for those not following there:

I would '''strongly''' disagree with any attempt to bar depictions of
products on Commons.  If Commons goes down the road of prohibiting any
content where there may be any restriction on its use under any
circumstances, the project will prove utterly worthless for my use,
and many others'.  The fact is that almost any product of humankind in
recent times has some kind of restriction on use, somewhere.
Manufactured objects, almost certainly, especially if they have
visible trademarks on them (which almost all do, these days) or a
distinctive design (whether considered copyrighted or design protected
in another way).  This covers pictures of cars, computers, electronic
devices of all kinds, buildings, and nearly everything I can think of.

Pictures of living people also have restrictions on them.  In some
jurisdictions, there is in fact no way for any model release or
contract to remove all restrictions; the person depicted still has
some rights over the image.  Pictures which contain living people even
incidentally are also restricted, especially if no model release or
contract has been signed.  The picture as a whole is PROBABLY legally
non-problematic, but if cropped down to show only a person or group as
the main subject would be a problem.

Also, in many countries, creators have inalienable moral rights over
their creations that cannot be signed away.  These are legal
restrictions over and above those of the GFDL or other free license.

If commons goes down the road that any restrictions on use at all
except those specified by GFDL or CC-By-SA are unacceptable, then
Commons will be a repository only for public-domain art (but beware of
those copied without the consent of the current owner!), pictures of
landscapes and growing things (but even then, beware!  Some landscape
features have been trademarked ...) and suchlike.  That Commons is
nearly useless to me, and I will not use it or contribute to it.

-Matt


from_name: Jeffrey V. Merkey

body:
Kim Bruning wrote:

>On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 12:41:30AM +0900, Aphaia wrote:
>
>
>>?$B$X$=$,Cc$r$o$+$9$H$O$3$&$$$&$3$H$r$$$&$N$+$H;W$&;d!#
>>
>>
>
>I'm not sure I can quite interpret that. Nevertheless, I second the remark.
>
>
>
It's not a topic that requires a vote from the community or even is
relevant to the
community. It was a question of creating a segregated list for business
related postings
that quite frankly, don't involve the community.

:-)

Jeff


body:
On 9/6/06, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 06/09/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > Anyway, thinking about this more I have to say that providing free
> > images for people to use on their bottles of dish detergent is at
> > least currently outside the scope of Wikimedia.
>
> So you propose to change (or make more specific) the [[Commons:Project
> scope]]. I am not necessarily opposed to that either. I just dislike
> living in perpetual limbo-land and with the lack of guidance from
> on-high, making concrete policies is one way to resolve it.
>
Actually, I don't see anything in the project scope that needs to be
changed.  It says it right in the project scope: commons is for media
that is "useful for some Wikimedia project".  The purpose is not to
collect images to use on your products.

> But anyway, I note that we've (the collective Wikimedia community,
> that is) abolished WikipediaOnly permissions. Do you support that or
> not?

Yes, I support that.

> Because you can use those in Wikipedia et al, yet we require
> stronger permissions.

You can legally use them in Wikipedia, but you can't use them in any
other encyclopedia.  That's the problem.  Furthermore, they *are*
banned from Wikipedia, not just the commons.  Trademarked images
*aren't* banned from Wikipedia.  Do you think they should be?

> We also abolished non-commercial (NC) clauses,
> even though Wikipedia itself is a non-commercial enterprise. Do you
> support that?
>
Actually I think it's debatable whether or not Wikipedia is a
non-commercial enterprise.  They're non-profit, but they do engage in
commerce under the definition in US law.  But anyway, I'd go back to
my comment about Wikipedia-only permissions.  NC-only images are
banned in Wikipedia, not just commons.

> I am not trying to be paranoid here, but I feel uneasy that we
> recognise a (2D) video cover design is not free and yet somehow we
> accept the infamous "Pringles photo" (
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Pringles_(aka).jpg ) simply
> because the original object is 3D. And also
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:BibelTV-logo.jpg ... doesn't
> seem quite right.
>
> Brianna

IMO the Pringles photo is restricted by copyright and is not free.
The pringles can design is a 2D work which is not freely licensed.

The Bibel TV logo is trickier.  I think it's a borderline case,
because it's somewhat free in many jurisdictions.  But this has far
more to do with copyright law than it does with trademark law.

In what jurisdictions is it legal to put the Bibel TV logo in an
encyclopedia article?  Presumably Germany (not copyrightable) and the
United States (fair use), but I don't know the complete answer to this
question, and I think the answer to it is the key to whether or not
it's an acceptable image.

Anthony


from_name: Bryan Derksen

body:
Jossi Fresco wrote:
> On Sep 5, 2006, at 1:35 PM, Rob wrote:
>> * A man who posted nude pictures of himself on websites whose domains
>> he registered advertising himself as a $200-an-hour gay prostitute can
>> not be identified as a prostitute.
> Was this reported in a reliable source (this person being called a
> prostitute?). If not, this is OR.

Based on this description of the situation, he's calling _himself_ a
prostitute and we're citing a primary source for that. Doesn't look like
OR to me.

>> * The Columbia Journalism Review is a reliable source.  A blog run by
>> the Columbia Journalism Review on the website of the Columbia
>> Journalism Review is not.
> Only if the Columbia Journalism Review has editorial control of the
> blog. Otherwise, I would agree that it is not a RS.

Depends on what it's being used as a source for. A person's blog can
almost always be used as a reliable source for what a person has said on
their blog.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060906/55839e37/attachment.pgp


body:
On 9/6/06, ScottL <scott at mu.org> wrote:
>    No I was just applying the logic that using the AD/BC system implies
> that Jesus is god means that using the names of the months imply that
> the Roman Gods were gods as well.
>
> SKL

Ahh, I see your logic. I apologise for the misunderstanding.

However, I think your logic is flawed. Months have names, given names,
that are pretty much universally accepted (I realise that they arn't
completly universally accepted, but pretty much), the same as (for
instance) weekdays are. I'm writing this here on a beautiful wednesday
morning, but by recognizing that fact I'm not affirming the greatness
of Odin (see [[Wednesday]]). My own name, Oskar, happens to mean
"Spear of the Gods", but unlike most spears, I'm remarkably un-skinny
(I am fairly pointy though). These are names, and even do they do mean
something, they mean nothing. If you know what I mean.

However, this is not necessarily the case with AD/CE. I understand how
someone might look at it that way, but there are some very crucial
difference. First, and foremost, is that there are obviously people
who do find it offensive. Many people. That's why the whole CE thing
was invented (and btw, when I was studying history in English here in
northern Europe, CE was all we ever used, so it's not like it's
unheard of in academia), because many people find AD to be offensive.

I think a much better PC-analogy for the AD/CE thing than names of
months is the introduction of the title (is it a title?) Ms. While it
wasn't invented by modern feminists, it was certainly popularized
because there is something blatantly sexist in English (and many other
languages) titles. So we decided that this was wrong, and thus Ms. was
introduced. And now everyone is comfortable with it, it's not in the
least controversial at all. I think it's the same with years. There is
something deeply eurocentric with using AD, since you are infact
affirming the existance of God, so we have a nice little non-offensive
alternative. Why not use it? Because people may have difficulty
understanding it? Unless you are very thick indeed, it won't take long
to understand. And it's not like we avoid using technical language and
jargon for other subjects (pick a random non-trivial article on maths
or chemistry, you'll see what I mean), so why not for history?

I realise that I may not be convincing anyone, but I this is how I
feel. AD is obviously controversial, so why not use CE? It's so neat!

--Oskar


body:
On 9/6/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> In what jurisdictions is it legal to put the Bibel TV logo in an
> encyclopedia article?  Presumably Germany (not copyrightable) and the
> United States (fair use), but I don't know the complete answer to this
> question, and I think the answer to it is the key to whether or not
> it's an acceptable image.
>
Thinking about this some more, I see two possible answers to get out
of "limbo-land".

1) If an image is useable under the rules of more than one project
(such as German Wikipedia and English Wikipedia), then it can be in
commons.

OR

2) If an image is useable under the rules of every single project,
then it can be in commons.

I could see arguments for either policy.  But the restrictions
certainly shouldn't be tighter than that.  If an image is useable
under the rules of every single project, then it certainly should be
allowed in commons.

Are trademarked, but public domain, images disallowed (per se) from any project?

Anthony


from_name: Jeff V. Merkey

body:
effe iets anders wrote:

>Hmmm, who are you referring to as "someone of the foundation who
>should be moderating the list"? I don't think that someone is
>availeble, especially when I see how much work they already have.
>Further I find it hard to imagine business-proposals that should be
>discussed on some list, but not by the Wikimedia-communities. If the
>argument would be "high-traffic" I could follow your redenation,
>although I would have still my doubts, but I am afraight I lost you
>here totally. You seem to suggest either that you want to discuss
>things behind the back of the communities because they would be
>disturbing the process, but then I am wondering why it should be on a
>emaillist at all, or you seem to suggest that the communities are
>anyway incompetent to understand or discuss the proposals, and I find
>that very insulting to the people who make up these communities.
>Maybe you could clarify which of the two you mean, or which other
>meaning you had in mind.
>
>Lodewijk
>
>
>
A suggestion for a list where people building businesses around
Wikipedia could discuss
business related issues with a similiar mindset. That's all. Issues
like: How do we keep MediaWiki
synced up to always work with dumps. How can we help the foundation
create revenue
generating opportunities. Schedules for conferences for business people
who are using
Wikipedia content in business and for funded education programs. How do
we rally funding
for project X proposed by Community member 'X'. That sort of thing.

Jeff


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Youth Camp?

body:
On 9/6/06, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Also lets not forget that young people have much
> longer holidays than most people.  I would think
> younger people are more likely to be able to attend
> and event a week before Wikimania.
>
> Although I do wonder whether we really want to take on
> being responsibile for minors.  It would require a lot
> more effort than just producing Wikimania does.  I
> think if we can partner with a group that has
> experience and a good reputation with the "youth camp"
> issues, then it would be great for us to provide the
> Wikimedia aspect.  If we are doing this on our own
> however I think it would be too risky of a
> proposition.

I agree, that's why a session before Wikimania with maybe 12-16 folks
would be an ideal start. If we're talking 50-100, then I agree -
having to manage that many teenagers under one roof would be daunting.
We'd need the help of an academic institution that has experience
running a summer program or something similar.

-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Youth Camp?


body:
I'd like to note that there were infact a techincal solution
implemented a while ago using templates. I believe you posted
{{adce|2006}}, and it would pick the right one after how you had
configured your CSS.

However, it died a quiet death at TFD.

--Oskar

On 9/6/06, ScottL <scott at mu.org> wrote:
> Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
> > On 9/6/06, ScottL <scott at mu.org> wrote:
> >>    No I was just applying the logic that using the AD/BC system implies
> >> that Jesus is god means that using the names of the months imply that
> >> the Roman Gods were gods as well.
> >>
> >> SKL
> >
> > Ahh, I see your logic. I apologise for the misunderstanding.
> >
> > However, I think your logic is flawed. Months have names, given names,
> > that are pretty much universally accepted (I realise that they arn't
> > completly universally accepted, but pretty much), the same as (for
> > instance) weekdays are. I'm writing this here on a beautiful wednesday
> > morning, but by recognizing that fact I'm not affirming the greatness
> > of Odin (see [[Wednesday]]). My own name, Oskar, happens to mean
> > "Spear of the Gods", but unlike most spears, I'm remarkably un-skinny
> > (I am fairly pointy though). These are names, and even do they do mean
> > something, they mean nothing. If you know what I mean.
> >
> > However, this is not necessarily the case with AD/CE. I understand how
> > someone might look at it that way, but there are some very crucial
> > difference. First, and foremost, is that there are obviously people
> > who do find it offensive. Many people. That's why the whole CE thing
> > was invented (and btw, when I was studying history in English here in
> > northern Europe, CE was all we ever used, so it's not like it's
> > unheard of in academia), because many people find AD to be offensive.
> >
> > I think a much better PC-analogy for the AD/CE thing than names of
> > months is the introduction of the title (is it a title?) Ms. While it
> > wasn't invented by modern feminists, it was certainly popularized
> > because there is something blatantly sexist in English (and many other
> > languages) titles. So we decided that this was wrong, and thus Ms. was
> > introduced. And now everyone is comfortable with it, it's not in the
> > least controversial at all. I think it's the same with years. There is
> > something deeply eurocentric with using AD, since you are infact
> > affirming the existance of God, so we have a nice little non-offensive
> > alternative. Why not use it? Because people may have difficulty
> > understanding it? Unless you are very thick indeed, it won't take long
> > to understand. And it's not like we avoid using technical language and
> > jargon for other subjects (pick a random non-trivial article on maths
> > or chemistry, you'll see what I mean), so why not for history?
> >
> > I realise that I may not be convincing anyone, but I this is how I
> > feel. AD is obviously controversial, so why not use CE? It's so neat!
> >
> > --Oskar
>
>    Well I still think it should be a preference setting.  Especially
> since, as someone else pointed out, CE is not without controversy.  I
> mean what makes it common?  What makes it an era?  If you want to remove
> Christianity from the equation then you are opening it up.  I think the
> "common" era started with the industrial revolution.  I also think we
> may be reaching the end of it and going into a new era.  I suspect the
> black death is an event that changed the world enough to base a date
> system on it.  So what makes that time period about 2000 years ago so
> special that everything after it is one era and it is common?  What
> unifies those dates?  No fair using religious movements which may have
> started at the time either.
>
>
>    But, this is all just for fun at this point.  Unless the technical
> solution is not forth coming, and I also like the idea that the default
> (as with variations of English spelling) goes to the first significant
> editor.
>
> SKL
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Youth Camp?

body:
On 9/6/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/6/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 06/09/06, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Although I do wonder whether we really want to take on
> > > being responsibile for minors.  It would require a lot
> > > more effort than just producing Wikimania does.  I
> > > think if we can partner with a group that has
> > > experience and a good reputation with the "youth camp"
> > > issues, then it would be great for us to provide the
> > > Wikimedia aspect.  If we are doing this on our own
> > > however I think it would be too risky of a
> > > proposition.
> >
> >
> > I can just imagine the writeup from Andrew Orlowski! The event doesn't
> > have to have happened for me to be able to write it ...
> >
> >
>
> Well how about an OAP camp? after a lot of OAPs have IP we would like to have.

Forgive my ignorance, but OAP?

I assume it's not this you mean:
http://www.oaps.org/

-Andrew


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Youth Camp?


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Youth Camp?

body:
On 9/6/06, Rory Stolzenberg <rory096 at gmail.com> wrote:
> As a 15 year old myself (as of 22 minutes ago, EST)

Happy birthday! :-)

> I completely agree with
> geni.  The best thing about being a 14 year old on Wikipedia is that nobody
> treats you as inferior or different, you can just be a member of the
> community.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ageism.

As Andrew pointed out, a Youth Camp could be a good way for people of
the same age to hang out and have fun. That doesn't mean that they
aren't welcome at Wikimania, not at all. One other advantage of a YC
is that you can get sponsorships and help from existing Youth
Organizations all over the world.

I think we should ask the young members of the community if they are
interested in such an event. I want to wait for some further comments
in this discussion, but if there are none, I'll start a straw poll on
Meta to gauge general interest.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Youth Camp?


body:
Michael Bimmler wrote:

>On 9/6/06, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>(...) That sort of thing.
>>
>>
>>
>And why can't this be open to the community as well? You know, the
>wiki principle (at least that's what I thought), is "keep everything
>transparent which does not need to be secret". The aims of this list
>as described by you do not seem to need any special privacy/secret
>status.
>Michael
>
>
>
>
You know, I did not want to address this on this list, but it appears I
will have to in order
for folks to get it.

Business 101

1. Businesses have goals with involve creating revenue and positive
growth, in almost all ways identical to
the communities eventual goals.
2. Businesses are protected by laws and have legal obligations to their
customers, partners, the Foundation,
and other entities and they MUST comply with and protect the rights of
these parties.
3. Businesses make decisions based upon goals which are designed to
promote their objectives.
4. Wikipedia centric businesses would be expected to have goals which
promote wikipedia content
in education, business, and attempt to promote the spread of Wikipedia's
pervasive content and create
opportunties to grow Wikipedia in a positive financial growth model to
create and support new communities
and expand the power and reach of the existing communities.
5. The goals of the Community will be expected to be at odds with the
goals of financial growth at times.
6. The community is in fact an "entity" of sorts, separate and distinct
from the Foundation, and any
business ventures which attempt to promote its goals.
7. Businesses and ventures promoting Wikipedia will have a fiduciary
duty to protect the investments of the
Foundation and any investors funding such efforts.
8. Millions of dollars may in time be invested in such endeavors.
9. When a faction of the community decides it does not like a particular
business venture or someone involved, and
resorts to disruptive behavior or other actions to derail or interfere
with the Foundations projects in the real world,
it's not disruption, it's "tortious inteference" and it's actionable
will expose the foundation and community to problems
with investors or stakeholders in these efforts. In other words, it
would call into conflict a balancing of the ventures
fiduciary duty vs. their stated goals in support of the community
iteself. Many ventures would simply back away and make
a decision dealing with the Community is too great a business risk and
simply stop supporting it or fork Wikipedia and try to
steam roller over the Foundation. This is not condusive to positive
growth or the ultimate goal of promoting Wikipedia
and creating opporunities for explosive growth for the foundation.
10. Companies do not make agreements with anonymous email accounts on
gmail or accounts on Wikipedia, they make agreements
with organized entities and identifiable indivduals and stake holders.
11. A business related list would be a good venue. Certainly, the
community could provide input, but such a list would need
moderation by a representative of the Foundation, not a community member
who has no fiduciary duty or responsiblity
to the Foundations policies. Community members should ABSOLUTELY be
allowed participation as they are the
heart and soul of the basic nature of the opporutnities. They should not
be running the list or any other element beyond
their suggestions and contributions to creating new ventures. In other
words, when a non-employee or person without fiduciary
duty attempts to disrupt or lobby against such an effort OUTSIDE of
FOUNDATION CHANNELs, they are out on a limb
and expose all the parties to liablity.

Hope that explains it.

All my love,

Jeff


from_name: Gordon Joly

body:
At 15:01 +0200 5/9/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
>On 9/5/06, Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>  Actually one of the major issues in the dispute is whether BC/AD violates
>>  NPOV because it requires Wikipedia to make an assertion the Jesus is the
>>  Messiah/God.  BCE/CE merely describes the condition, and thus does what
>  > the
>>  NPOV policy asks.
>
>
>No, it merely requires our readers to assume Jesus was born in the year 0.
>The dating method doesn't state anything about his supposed
>God/Messiah-ness.
>
>Mgm
>_

Yeah, and he was born on the 1st January in that year.

:-)

And the whole world celebrated the millennium one year early, I don't
think we will sort this out before the heat death of the Universe!

Gordo

--
"Think Feynman"/////////
http://pobox.com/~gordo/
gordon.joly at pobox.com///


from_name: David Gerard

body:
On 06/09/06, Andy Rabagliati <andyr at wizzy.com> wrote:

> I find that I can simplify my English - short sentences, easy words,
> repeat for emphasis - and can be easily understood by a non-native
> speaker.

Oh no! You mean http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Foreigner was *right*?

- d.


body:
On 9/6/06, ScottL <scott at mu.org> wrote:
>
>
> Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
> > I'd like to note that there were infact a techincal solution
> > implemented a while ago using templates. I believe you posted
> > {{adce|2006}}, and it would pick the right one after how you had
> > configured your CSS.
> >
> > However, it died a quiet death at TFD.
> >
> > --Oskar
>
>    Did this thread start with an announcement that a technical solution
> was forthcoming or am I on crack?

You are not on crack (actually, how the hell do I know, you might be),
I'm just saying that at one point, there were indeed another technical
solution.

> As an aside I was not arguing that
> your points were flawed.  I was just saying that both alternatives are
> legitimately objectionable, and I reject the notion that one of more so
> than the other.

You are indeed correct, this is hard to argue with.

>    We do this with date formatting and ISBN numbers you would think it
> would not be that hard (though I think you would have to wikify them
> all).  See now I have to go back and re-read the start of the thread.
>
> SKL

;)


from_name: Andrew Whitworth

subject: [Textbook-l] Problem with NPOV

body:
Good point on the religious books, there is a fine line between POV and NPOV
that I don't think many people follow when it comes to their faith. After
all, a person wouldn't be a member of a particular religion if they didnt
think that religion was the "undisputable truth". I've been watching those
books you mention reasonably closely, and while I think there are a few NPOV
and cleanup issues here and there, I dont think either book is exactly in
need of deletion.

There is a difference in saying what a particular group believes, and what
people ''should'' believe. So long as they stay with the first option, they
can be on wikibooks.

--Whiteknight

>What do you think of
>http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Christianity/Living_as_a_Christian and
>http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Imamat_or_Successorship_After_the_Last_Prophet_of_God#Successorship?
>
>I noticed there are more and more users who contribute to books that are
>made with strongly islamic point of view (we already have some texts about
>islam: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Category:Islam), with nicks like
>"Truebeliever", "Believer" etc. I'm afraid that we might attract some
>zealots who see us as a good place to develop propaganda. Generally, I
>think that we should think how we should treat books about religious
>topics.
>
>--
>Piotr 'Derbeth' Kubowicz
>Jabber id: derbeth at jabber.wp.pl
>
>Pom?? Wikibooks stworzy? najwi?kszy zbi?r otwartych podr?cznik?w!
>http://pl.wikibooks.org/
>
>Opera - the fastest browser on Earth! http://www.opera.com/
>_______________________________________________
>Textbook-l mailing list
>Textbook-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l


from_name: Sage Ross

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Semi-solid evidence that process is in fact
	dangerous to Wikipedia

body:
> > Answering "Who Writes Wikipedia?" in terms of number of surviving words is,
> > no doubt, better than using edit counts.  But it is also may not be the best
> > approach for the future, if we are really switching to a "quality over
> > quantity" mentality.  At the least, there should be careful choices about
> > what kinds of articles to analyze, before we put too much weight on results
> > like these.  My intuition is that Featured Articles and Good Articles have a
> > significantly larger portion of established editors as the main
> > contributors, even by the word count metric.
> >
> > -Ragesoss
>
>    FA's and to some extent Good Articles are not the reason that we are
> #17 on the most visited sites.  If those were the only articles we had I
> doubt we would have 1% of the readership that we currently enjoy.  I
> think articles past a specific size or maybe size and age woudl be a
> better metric, though a random sampling of 10k non-stub articles woudl
> probbly give us what we want.
>
> SKL

I think (as I said in the reply that seems to have gotten lost in the
flood) that level of citation (citations per unit length, or similar)
would be a good parameter for choosing the sample.  With regard to
what makes us the #17 most-visited site, you are right (of course).
It's defintely not the FA's and GA's.  But high-quality articles (by
whatever idiosyncratic measure each reader uses) are going to be
responsible for future growth in readership and attracting the the
most capable  and knowledgable editors, (probably) more so than
continued growth in the number and size of the unverified articles and
content that good anons typically add.

As anecdotal evidence, I was talking to a new professor at my school
yesterday (a historian of molecular biology) who was gushing over the
Rosalind Franklin article (props to User:Wobble).  He's now thinking
about coordinating some of his course assignments with WikiProject
History of Science.

To repeat what I say on the "expert rebellion" pages, I think we are
handling the transition from a quantity-emphasis to a quality-emphasis
the right way (i.e., slowly).  The leaving experts either have a
different set of priorities (i.e., they think that the real-life
authority of editors should matter), or are leaving because of
problems that we are working on (i.e., edit creep and the inability to
preserve a "good" version).  But metrics like AaronSW's are important
for determining how fast we should change policy/software to favor
ease of participation vs. verifiability and/or stability.

I guess ideally, we could have a measure based on each type of sample:
random articles, FA's, GA's, long articles, old articles,
high-citation articles, most-visited articles.
-Ragesoss


from_name: Andy Rabagliati

body:
On Mon, 04 Sep 2006, David Gerard wrote:

> [greatly oversimplified history]
>

I speak French to a reasonable degree, and have travelled to plenty of
places where English is not the first language.

I find that I can simplify my English - short sentences, easy words,
repeat for emphasis - and can be easily understood by a non-native
speaker.

I think English is one of the easier languages to speak and be
understood, and probably one of the hardest to speak as a native.
Things like collective nouns add no extra information, but considerably
add to the vocabulary.

But you can brutalise English and still be understood, which I gather is
not the case for Chinese.

Cheers,    Andy!


from_name: Kelly Martin

body:
On 9/6/06, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
> Would it be possible to get this data for Commons? It would be
> immensely interesting and possiby useful, to see if we have obvious
> language gaps that need filling amongst our admins.

Greg has promised me numbers for *all* projects, but I don't know when
he'll be able to get them to me.

> Also, are the numbers in brackets (eg - enwiki (48.0%)) percentages of
> total edits to all Wikimedia projects, all Wikipedias, or all the
> Wikipedias listed?

All projects listed.

Kelly