body:
On 7/5/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
> The page was now deleted, in spite of no consensus, and in spite of a
> very large amount of blog coverage and a newspaper report in Politiken
> about it.

Slight majority in favor of keep in fact. on that basis I've undeleted.

--
geni


list: wikitech-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Travis Derouin

subject: [Wikitech-l] Pageview counters

body:
We are doing something similar, we've created a special page that
takes an article ID and increments the counter for that. We put in a 0
px image that references it, like this:

<img src="/imagecounter.gif?id=29204" height=0 width=0>

And use a rewrite rule in apache:

RewriteRule ^/imagecounter.gif(.*)$ /index.php/Special:Imagecounter$1 [L,PT]

You have to disable the code that increments the count though in
Article.php. SpecilImageCounter.php just looks like:

function wfSpecialImagecounter( $par )
{
        global $wgRequest, $wgSitename, $wgLanguageCode;
        global $wgDeferredUpdateList;
        $fname = "wfSpecialImagecounter";
        $id = $wgRequest->getVal("id");
        $t = Title::newFromID($id);
        if ($t != null)
                Article::incViewCount( $t->getArticleID() );
        $u = new SiteStatsUpdate( 1, 0, 0 );
        array_push( $wgDeferredUpdateList, $u );
        header('Content-type: image/gif');
        exit;
}

On 7/5/06, Ilmari Karonen <nospam at vyznev.net> wrote:
> ????????? ??????? wrote:
> >>An approximate and inaccurate pageview counter is better than none.
> >
> > We have something like this in Russian Wikipedia.
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ruwiki_pgcounter
>
> That's clever.  I can think of a couple of minor improvements, but the
> obvious one, if this was implemented on the English Wikipedia, would be
> to only insert the link randomly on, say, one page in 100.
>
> Of course, the sample will be biased since the trick only works with
> Javascript, but for many statistical purposes that is acceptable.
>
> --
> Ilmari Karonen
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


from_name: Domas Mituzas

subject: [Wikitech-l] Pageview counters

body:
> Are these logs actually kept?
Logs? What logs?

Domas


list: foundation-l

from_name: Eric R. Meyers

subject: [Foundation-l] The Perl Wiki, or Perl-Wikipedia

body:
Hello to The Wikimedia Foundation,

I'm a Systems Engineer in Pennsylvania, USA.  "Shalom" to Shlomi, in Israel,
at http://iglu.org.il, and a "Good Day" to Jacinta, in Australia, at
http://perl.net.au.

I don't know if Shlomi or Jacinta have read my very enthusiastic response to
Shlomi's post on the perl.advocacy usenet, but I've begun to research my idea
on Wikipedia, towards the creation of Perl-Wikipedia, "The Free Encyclopedia
of Perl."

I've just joined the <foundation-I at wikimedia.org> mailing list, and I'd like
to start a discussion with The Wikimedia Foundation on their mailing list,
and I'm also asking my two fellow Perl advocates to participate in this
discussion with me.

Shlomi and Jacinta both have valuable Wiki development expertise and their own
excellent perspectives on this matter of creating "The Perl Wiki," or
Perl-Wikipedia as I see it.

Shlomi Fish wrote in the perl.advocacy usenet:

> While I may be invoking Joel's Quarreling Kids Rule here[1], I think a
> central wiki for Perl may be a good idea, not only as a way to consolidate
> all these specialised wiki's, but also to be "The Perl Wiki" which
> everyone will refer to. We can have http://wiki.perl.org/ for easy linking
> and good Google Juice.
>

I responded to Shlomi:

	I believe that this http://wiki.perl.org, "The Perl Wiki," is an absolute
	requirement, not an option, and I'm fully available to contribute to its
	making.  Let's add a Wiki link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perl, right
	under the Website link to http://www.perl.org, and let's do it.

	I've learned a lot from Wikipedia, and I've also learned a lot about
	Wikipedia, and I just see this "The Perl Wiki" as a normal extension of
	Wikipedia, creating the Perl-Wikipedia, "The Free Encyclopedia of Perl."

	I've learned what happens on Wikipedia, where "Over 94% of all vandalism is
	removed within ten minutes" [1].  That's a very good statistic, and I've
	actually seen it happen.

	There are so many good things to come from this great idea.

	I'm in.

I'm an advocate of three global topics:

	1. The Religion called Christianity (PERSONAL TRUTH)
	2. The Free Encyclopedia called Wikipedia (PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE)
	3. The Programming Language called Perl (PERSONAL POWER)

I personally believe in and use, all three of them, all of the time.

As a result of my personal decision to commit to this next good public thing,
I've begun to learn what I need to learn, in order to make this great idea of
Shlomi's happen, for the sake of our global community.

Today I reviewed what I could find in Wikipedia, The Wikimedia Foundation, and
the new project policy at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/New_project_policy.

I want to help create a new global topic, or a new Wikipedia subtopic, called
The Free Encyclopedia of Perl, "'The Perl Wiki' that everyone will refer to,"
and I need everyone's help to decide how to engineer it "The Right Way."

What is "The Right Way" to create, establish or begin the foundation of "The
Free Encyclopedia of Perl?"

Should we simply expand upon Wikipedia's Perl entry already established at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perl, opening the door to exponential growth and
the possibly rapid consumption of The Wikimedia Foundation's valuable
resources, or should we add an external Wiki link in Wikipedia pointing out
to http://wiki.perl.org as "The Perl Wiki," which may or may not eventually
become Perl-Wikipedia in the future.

Whatever solution is found, I want "The Free Encyclopedia of Perl" to be
highly integrated with "The Free Encyclopedia," called Wikipedia, to get the
maximum synergy of out two very good things put together for the public good.

I've come to ask the people of The Wikimedia Foundation for their expert
opinions and guidance.  From what I've read today, advancing a new Wikimedia
Foundation project called Perl-Wikipedia to fruition could take years, so I
know that besides having this initial discussion, the external hosting of
http://wiki.perl.org, "The Perl Wiki," is probably the first stage of the
development towards my thoughts of Perl-Wikipedia, "The Free Encyclopedia of
Perl."

I look forward to all of your valuable contributions to this discussion.

Eric R. Meyers
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20060705/8a0fc6a2/attachment.pgp


body:
Hello to The Wikimedia Foundation,

I'm a Systems Engineer in Pennsylvania, USA.  "Shalom" to Shlomi, in Israel,
at http://iglu.org.il, and a "Good Day" to Jacinta, in Australia, at
http://perl.net.au.

I don't know if Shlomi or Jacinta have read my very enthusiastic response to
Shlomi's post on the perl.advocacy usenet, but I've begun to research my idea
on Wikipedia, towards the creation of Perl-Wikipedia, "The Free Encyclopedia
of Perl."

I've just joined the <foundation-I at wikimedia.org> mailing list, and I'd like
to start a discussion with The Wikimedia Foundation on their mailing list,
and I'm also asking my two fellow Perl advocates to participate in this
discussion with me.

Shlomi and Jacinta both have valuable Wiki development expertise and their own
excellent perspectives on this matter of creating "The Perl Wiki," or
Perl-Wikipedia as I see it.

Shlomi Fish wrote in the perl.advocacy usenet:

> While I may be invoking Joel's Quarreling Kids Rule here[1], I think a
> central wiki for Perl may be a good idea, not only as a way to consolidate
> all these specialised wiki's, but also to be "The Perl Wiki" which
> everyone will refer to. We can have http://wiki.perl.org/ for easy linking
> and good Google Juice.
>

I responded to Shlomi:

	I believe that this http://wiki.perl.org, "The Perl Wiki," is an absolute
	requirement, not an option, and I'm fully available to contribute to its
	making.  Let's add a Wiki link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perl, right
	under the Website link to http://www.perl.org, and let's do it.

	I've learned a lot from Wikipedia, and I've also learned a lot about
	Wikipedia, and I just see this "The Perl Wiki" as a normal extension of
	Wikipedia, creating the Perl-Wikipedia, "The Free Encyclopedia of Perl."

	I've learned what happens on Wikipedia, where "Over 94% of all vandalism is
	removed within ten minutes" [1].  That's a very good statistic, and I've
	actually seen it happen.

	There are so many good things to come from this great idea.

	I'm in.

I'm an advocate of three global topics:

	1. The Religion called Christianity (PERSONAL TRUTH)
	2. The Free Encyclopedia called Wikipedia (PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE)
	3. The Programming Language called Perl (PERSONAL POWER)

I personally believe in and use, all three of them, all of the time.

As a result of my personal decision to commit to this next good public thing,
I've begun to learn what I need to learn, in order to make this great idea of
Shlomi's happen, for the sake of our global community.

Today I reviewed what I could find in Wikipedia, The Wikimedia Foundation, and
the new project policy at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/New_project_policy.

I want to help create a new global topic, or a new Wikipedia subtopic, called
The Free Encyclopedia of Perl, "'The Perl Wiki' that everyone will refer to,"
and I need everyone's help to decide how to engineer it "The Right Way."

What is "The Right Way" to create, establish or begin the foundation of "The
Free Encyclopedia of Perl?"

Should we simply expand upon Wikipedia's Perl entry already established at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perl, opening the door to exponential growth and
the possibly rapid consumption of The Wikimedia Foundation's valuable
resources, or should we add an external Wiki link in Wikipedia pointing out
to http://wiki.perl.org as "The Perl Wiki," which may or may not eventually
become Perl-Wikipedia in the future.

Whatever solution is found, I want "The Free Encyclopedia of Perl" to be
highly integrated with "The Free Encyclopedia," called Wikipedia, to get the
maximum synergy of out two very good things put together for the public good.

I've come to ask the people of The Wikimedia Foundation for their expert
opinions and guidance.  From what I've read today, advancing a new Wikimedia
Foundation project called Perl-Wikipedia to fruition could take years, so I
know that besides having this initial discussion, the external hosting of
http://wiki.perl.org, "The Perl Wiki," is probably the first stage of the
development towards my thoughts of Perl-Wikipedia, "The Free Encyclopedia of
Perl."

I look forward to all of your valuable contributions to this discussion.

Eric R. Meyers
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20060705/8a0fc6a2/attachment-0001.pgp


list: wikimedia-l

body:
Hello to The Wikimedia Foundation,

I'm a Systems Engineer in Pennsylvania, USA.  "Shalom" to Shlomi, in Israel,
at http://iglu.org.il, and a "Good Day" to Jacinta, in Australia, at
http://perl.net.au.

I don't know if Shlomi or Jacinta have read my very enthusiastic response to
Shlomi's post on the perl.advocacy usenet, but I've begun to research my idea
on Wikipedia, towards the creation of Perl-Wikipedia, "The Free Encyclopedia
of Perl."

I've just joined the <foundation-I at wikimedia.org> mailing list, and I'd like
to start a discussion with The Wikimedia Foundation on their mailing list,
and I'm also asking my two fellow Perl advocates to participate in this
discussion with me.

Shlomi and Jacinta both have valuable Wiki development expertise and their own
excellent perspectives on this matter of creating "The Perl Wiki," or
Perl-Wikipedia as I see it.

Shlomi Fish wrote in the perl.advocacy usenet:

> While I may be invoking Joel's Quarreling Kids Rule here[1], I think a
> central wiki for Perl may be a good idea, not only as a way to consolidate
> all these specialised wiki's, but also to be "The Perl Wiki" which
> everyone will refer to. We can have http://wiki.perl.org/ for easy linking
> and good Google Juice.
>

I responded to Shlomi:

	I believe that this http://wiki.perl.org, "The Perl Wiki," is an absolute
	requirement, not an option, and I'm fully available to contribute to its
	making.  Let's add a Wiki link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perl, right
	under the Website link to http://www.perl.org, and let's do it.

	I've learned a lot from Wikipedia, and I've also learned a lot about
	Wikipedia, and I just see this "The Perl Wiki" as a normal extension of
	Wikipedia, creating the Perl-Wikipedia, "The Free Encyclopedia of Perl."

	I've learned what happens on Wikipedia, where "Over 94% of all vandalism is
	removed within ten minutes" [1].  That's a very good statistic, and I've
	actually seen it happen.

	There are so many good things to come from this great idea.

	I'm in.

I'm an advocate of three global topics:

	1. The Religion called Christianity (PERSONAL TRUTH)
	2. The Free Encyclopedia called Wikipedia (PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE)
	3. The Programming Language called Perl (PERSONAL POWER)

I personally believe in and use, all three of them, all of the time.

As a result of my personal decision to commit to this next good public thing,
I've begun to learn what I need to learn, in order to make this great idea of
Shlomi's happen, for the sake of our global community.

Today I reviewed what I could find in Wikipedia, The Wikimedia Foundation, and
the new project policy at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/New_project_policy.

I want to help create a new global topic, or a new Wikipedia subtopic, called
The Free Encyclopedia of Perl, "'The Perl Wiki' that everyone will refer to,"
and I need everyone's help to decide how to engineer it "The Right Way."

What is "The Right Way" to create, establish or begin the foundation of "The
Free Encyclopedia of Perl?"

Should we simply expand upon Wikipedia's Perl entry already established at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perl, opening the door to exponential growth and
the possibly rapid consumption of The Wikimedia Foundation's valuable
resources, or should we add an external Wiki link in Wikipedia pointing out
to http://wiki.perl.org as "The Perl Wiki," which may or may not eventually
become Perl-Wikipedia in the future.

Whatever solution is found, I want "The Free Encyclopedia of Perl" to be
highly integrated with "The Free Encyclopedia," called Wikipedia, to get the
maximum synergy of out two very good things put together for the public good.

I've come to ask the people of The Wikimedia Foundation for their expert
opinions and guidance.  From what I've read today, advancing a new Wikimedia
Foundation project called Perl-Wikipedia to fruition could take years, so I
know that besides having this initial discussion, the external hosting of
http://wiki.perl.org, "The Perl Wiki," is probably the first stage of the
development towards my thoughts of Perl-Wikipedia, "The Free Encyclopedia of
Perl."

I look forward to all of your valuable contributions to this discussion.

Eric R. Meyers
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20060705/8a0fc6a2/attachment.pgp>


body:
Hello to The Wikimedia Foundation,

I'm a Systems Engineer in Pennsylvania, USA.  "Shalom" to Shlomi, in Israel,
at http://iglu.org.il, and a "Good Day" to Jacinta, in Australia, at
http://perl.net.au.

I don't know if Shlomi or Jacinta have read my very enthusiastic response to
Shlomi's post on the perl.advocacy usenet, but I've begun to research my idea
on Wikipedia, towards the creation of Perl-Wikipedia, "The Free Encyclopedia
of Perl."

I've just joined the <foundation-I at wikimedia.org> mailing list, and I'd like
to start a discussion with The Wikimedia Foundation on their mailing list,
and I'm also asking my two fellow Perl advocates to participate in this
discussion with me.

Shlomi and Jacinta both have valuable Wiki development expertise and their own
excellent perspectives on this matter of creating "The Perl Wiki," or
Perl-Wikipedia as I see it.

Shlomi Fish wrote in the perl.advocacy usenet:

> While I may be invoking Joel's Quarreling Kids Rule here[1], I think a
> central wiki for Perl may be a good idea, not only as a way to consolidate
> all these specialised wiki's, but also to be "The Perl Wiki" which
> everyone will refer to. We can have http://wiki.perl.org/ for easy linking
> and good Google Juice.
>

I responded to Shlomi:

	I believe that this http://wiki.perl.org, "The Perl Wiki," is an absolute
	requirement, not an option, and I'm fully available to contribute to its
	making.  Let's add a Wiki link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perl, right
	under the Website link to http://www.perl.org, and let's do it.

	I've learned a lot from Wikipedia, and I've also learned a lot about
	Wikipedia, and I just see this "The Perl Wiki" as a normal extension of
	Wikipedia, creating the Perl-Wikipedia, "The Free Encyclopedia of Perl."

	I've learned what happens on Wikipedia, where "Over 94% of all vandalism is
	removed within ten minutes" [1].  That's a very good statistic, and I've
	actually seen it happen.

	There are so many good things to come from this great idea.

	I'm in.

I'm an advocate of three global topics:

	1. The Religion called Christianity (PERSONAL TRUTH)
	2. The Free Encyclopedia called Wikipedia (PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE)
	3. The Programming Language called Perl (PERSONAL POWER)

I personally believe in and use, all three of them, all of the time.

As a result of my personal decision to commit to this next good public thing,
I've begun to learn what I need to learn, in order to make this great idea of
Shlomi's happen, for the sake of our global community.

Today I reviewed what I could find in Wikipedia, The Wikimedia Foundation, and
the new project policy at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/New_project_policy.

I want to help create a new global topic, or a new Wikipedia subtopic, called
The Free Encyclopedia of Perl, "'The Perl Wiki' that everyone will refer to,"
and I need everyone's help to decide how to engineer it "The Right Way."

What is "The Right Way" to create, establish or begin the foundation of "The
Free Encyclopedia of Perl?"

Should we simply expand upon Wikipedia's Perl entry already established at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perl, opening the door to exponential growth and
the possibly rapid consumption of The Wikimedia Foundation's valuable
resources, or should we add an external Wiki link in Wikipedia pointing out
to http://wiki.perl.org as "The Perl Wiki," which may or may not eventually
become Perl-Wikipedia in the future.

Whatever solution is found, I want "The Free Encyclopedia of Perl" to be
highly integrated with "The Free Encyclopedia," called Wikipedia, to get the
maximum synergy of out two very good things put together for the public good.

I've come to ask the people of The Wikimedia Foundation for their expert
opinions and guidance.  From what I've read today, advancing a new Wikimedia
Foundation project called Perl-Wikipedia to fruition could take years, so I
know that besides having this initial discussion, the external hosting of
http://wiki.perl.org, "The Perl Wiki," is probably the first stage of the
development towards my thoughts of Perl-Wikipedia, "The Free Encyclopedia of
Perl."

I look forward to all of your valuable contributions to this discussion.

Eric R. Meyers
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20060705/8a0fc6a2/attachment-0001.pgp>


from_name: James Hare

body:
Welcome to the mailing list, Mr. Meyers

If you were to go through with this wiki, you aren't allowed to call it
Perl-Wikipedia, seeing as "Wikipedia" is a registered trademark.

--James

On 7/5/06, Eric R. Meyers <ermeyers at adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> Hello to The Wikimedia Foundation,
>
> I'm a Systems Engineer in Pennsylvania, USA.  "Shalom" to Shlomi, in
> Israel,
> at http://iglu.org.il, and a "Good Day" to Jacinta, in Australia, at
> http://perl.net.au.
>
> I don't know if Shlomi or Jacinta have read my very enthusiastic response
> to
> Shlomi's post on the perl.advocacy usenet, but I've begun to research my
> idea
> on Wikipedia, towards the creation of Perl-Wikipedia, "The Free
> Encyclopedia
> of Perl."
>
> I've just joined the <foundation-I at wikimedia.org> mailing list, and I'd
> like
> to start a discussion with The Wikimedia Foundation on their mailing list,
> and I'm also asking my two fellow Perl advocates to participate in this
> discussion with me.
>
> Shlomi and Jacinta both have valuable Wiki development expertise and their
> own
> excellent perspectives on this matter of creating "The Perl Wiki," or
> Perl-Wikipedia as I see it.
>
> Shlomi Fish wrote in the perl.advocacy usenet:
>
> > While I may be invoking Joel's Quarreling Kids Rule here[1], I think a
> > central wiki for Perl may be a good idea, not only as a way to
> consolidate
> > all these specialised wiki's, but also to be "The Perl Wiki" which
> > everyone will refer to. We can have http://wiki.perl.org/ for easy
> linking
> > and good Google Juice.
> >
>
> I responded to Shlomi:
>
>         I believe that this http://wiki.perl.org, "The Perl Wiki," is an
> absolute
>         requirement, not an option, and I'm fully available to contribute
> to its
>         making.  Let's add a Wiki link to
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perl, right
>         under the Website link to http://www.perl.org, and let's do it.
>
>         I've learned a lot from Wikipedia, and I've also learned a lot
> about
>         Wikipedia, and I just see this "The Perl Wiki" as a normal
> extension of
>         Wikipedia, creating the Perl-Wikipedia, "The Free Encyclopedia of
> Perl."
>
>         I've learned what happens on Wikipedia, where "Over 94% of all
> vandalism is
>         removed within ten minutes" [1].  That's a very good statistic,
> and I've
>         actually seen it happen.
>
>         There are so many good things to come from this great idea.
>
>         I'm in.
>
> I'm an advocate of three global topics:
>
>         1. The Religion called Christianity (PERSONAL TRUTH)
>         2. The Free Encyclopedia called Wikipedia (PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE)
>         3. The Programming Language called Perl (PERSONAL POWER)
>
> I personally believe in and use, all three of them, all of the time.
>
> As a result of my personal decision to commit to this next good public
> thing,
> I've begun to learn what I need to learn, in order to make this great idea
> of
> Shlomi's happen, for the sake of our global community.
>
> Today I reviewed what I could find in Wikipedia, The Wikimedia Foundation,
> and
> the new project policy at
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/New_project_policy.
>
> I want to help create a new global topic, or a new Wikipedia subtopic,
> called
> The Free Encyclopedia of Perl, "'The Perl Wiki' that everyone will refer
> to,"
> and I need everyone's help to decide how to engineer it "The Right Way."
>
> What is "The Right Way" to create, establish or begin the foundation of
> "The
> Free Encyclopedia of Perl?"
>
> Should we simply expand upon Wikipedia's Perl entry already established at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perl, opening the door to exponential growth
> and
> the possibly rapid consumption of The Wikimedia Foundation's valuable
> resources, or should we add an external Wiki link in Wikipedia pointing
> out
> to http://wiki.perl.org as "The Perl Wiki," which may or may not
> eventually
> become Perl-Wikipedia in the future.
>
> Whatever solution is found, I want "The Free Encyclopedia of Perl" to be
> highly integrated with "The Free Encyclopedia," called Wikipedia, to get
> the
> maximum synergy of out two very good things put together for the public
> good.
>
> I've come to ask the people of The Wikimedia Foundation for their expert
> opinions and guidance.  From what I've read today, advancing a new
> Wikimedia
> Foundation project called Perl-Wikipedia to fruition could take years, so
> I
> know that besides having this initial discussion, the external hosting of
> http://wiki.perl.org, "The Perl Wiki," is probably the first stage of the
> development towards my thoughts of Perl-Wikipedia, "The Free Encyclopedia
> of
> Perl."
>
> I look forward to all of your valuable contributions to this discussion.
>
> Eric R. Meyers
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
>


list: wikien-l

from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [WikiEN-l] Viral swarming teenage vanity spam

body:
The page was now deleted, in spite of no consensus, and in spite of a
very large amount of blog coverage and a newspaper report in Politiken
about it. Whether you like it or not (and I don't), it does meet the
WP:WEB criteria. This is part of a worrying and growing trend among
admins to do whatever they feel like when they close an AfD.
Overriding community opinion should only be done in exceptional
circumstances and with clear documentation of one's reasoning, which
can then be taken into policy discussions. Otherwise you end up with
completely arbitrary enforcement, and an ever growing tension between
admins and regular users.

There was a time when we called admins "janitors." When did we decide
to replace "jan-" with "ed-"?

Erik


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

body:
On 7/5/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Almost any form of edit count or tenure weighing would leave this a
> > clear consensus for delete.
>
> Evidences?

What criteria would you consider acceptable?

> in any case your current account doesn't appear to have any edits pre
> 21 March 2005

Um, I was editing frequently in November 2004 at the latest, if my
contribs don't reflect that then there has been dataloss, but I don't
see how thats material.   I'm not proposing that we treat people like
you with over 9k edits, and me with over 20k edits across accounts and
projects, or me who was active since the end of 2004 and you since the
beginning of 2004 differently.

Whats an edit? Whats a day? It's likely that you've put more work into
each of your edits than I have into mine... or perhaps it's likely
that I spent more hours of each of my days thinking about or working
on Wikimedia projects than you. No one can say.

I'm suggesting we treat users with zero edits, with 50 edits, with 100
edits, with different consideration from users with months of
experience.  Is that so hard to accept? Can you honestly say that
there is reason to automatically assume someone with 50 article edits
has any real experience unless they tell us so?  Or are you you too a
proponent of the "Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia... it's an
experiment in extreme democracy" school of thought?

Sure, all of us were new at some point... and quite a few of the
things I said early on were a waste of other people's time, if not
just overtly stupid.  Had I been named supreme ruler of Wikipedia in
my first week I would have no doubt screwed up it far worse than if I
were named supreme ruler today.  If you don't believe the same is true
of you, you need to take a look in the mirror and go find a good dose
of humble.

> Outdated.

Cite? There is also a single Dutch newspaper.  I too have been a part
of fluff stories in the press, do I get an article now?

> >With that in mind, how can you claim
> > that the article isn't an attempt to spread an idea as opposed to
> > merely documenting already popular idea?
>
> because all the pop culture centres of the internet have already been hit.

Wikipedia
The Free Pop culture centre of the internet that anyone can edit

Doesn't quite have the same ring to it. :) :)

There is a whole great big wide world out there beyond the internet,
slashdot, and blogs... I know that a lot of Wikipedians have a hard
time accepting it.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone hold the view that every single
piece of tripe that shows up as page filler in any print rag, or every
bit of glurge that blasts across a few million readerless blogs,
belongs in Wikipedia.   And yet we see these argued as solid reasons
whenever they make an easy argument to preserve the existence of the
arguers personal navel lint.


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Yury Tarasievich

subject: [Wikipedia-l] List of soccer players

body:
Pages which http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/06/en/ contains carry quite
a database on soccer players. Isn't this what you want? Or there is
http://rsssf.com, too.

----


body:
Hi James and Geni,

On 7/5/06, James Hare wrote:

> If you were to go through with this wiki, you aren't allowed to call it
> Perl-Wikipedia, seeing as "Wikipedia" is a registered trademark.

This was only my initial statement, expressing my personal opinion to the best
of my ability.  I personally envision it as Perl-Wikipedia, a merger of two
things that I strongly believe in, but "The Perl Wiki" would not be named
Perl-Wikipedia without The Wikimedia Foundation fully agreeing with the
project, after a good discussion which has only just begun.  I'm here to
investigate and discuss good ideas, and I know that I came to the right place
to do that.

On 7/5/06, geni wrote:

> There is a perl wikibook:
>
> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Perl

Good pointer, I'll have to look at all of the other Wikimedia content.  I'm
used to the encyclopedia which I refer to frequently, and I'll have to look
at the Wikibook as part of the total solution for what I'm trying to get.
Like I said, I know that I came to the right place.

Thanks,

Eric
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20060705/b0608bc5/attachment.pgp


body:
Hi James and Geni,

On 7/5/06, James Hare wrote:

> If you were to go through with this wiki, you aren't allowed to call it
> Perl-Wikipedia, seeing as "Wikipedia" is a registered trademark.

This was only my initial statement, expressing my personal opinion to the best
of my ability.  I personally envision it as Perl-Wikipedia, a merger of two
things that I strongly believe in, but "The Perl Wiki" would not be named
Perl-Wikipedia without The Wikimedia Foundation fully agreeing with the
project, after a good discussion which has only just begun.  I'm here to
investigate and discuss good ideas, and I know that I came to the right place
to do that.

On 7/5/06, geni wrote:

> There is a perl wikibook:
>
> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Perl

Good pointer, I'll have to look at all of the other Wikimedia content.  I'm
used to the encyclopedia which I refer to frequently, and I'll have to look
at the Wikibook as part of the total solution for what I'm trying to get.
Like I said, I know that I came to the right place.

Thanks,

Eric
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20060705/b0608bc5/attachment-0001.pgp


body:
Hi James and Geni,

On 7/5/06, James Hare wrote:

> If you were to go through with this wiki, you aren't allowed to call it
> Perl-Wikipedia, seeing as "Wikipedia" is a registered trademark.

This was only my initial statement, expressing my personal opinion to the best
of my ability.  I personally envision it as Perl-Wikipedia, a merger of two
things that I strongly believe in, but "The Perl Wiki" would not be named
Perl-Wikipedia without The Wikimedia Foundation fully agreeing with the
project, after a good discussion which has only just begun.  I'm here to
investigate and discuss good ideas, and I know that I came to the right place
to do that.

On 7/5/06, geni wrote:

> There is a perl wikibook:
>
> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Perl

Good pointer, I'll have to look at all of the other Wikimedia content.  I'm
used to the encyclopedia which I refer to frequently, and I'll have to look
at the Wikibook as part of the total solution for what I'm trying to get.
Like I said, I know that I came to the right place.

Thanks,

Eric
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20060705/b0608bc5/attachment.pgp>


body:
Hi James and Geni,

On 7/5/06, James Hare wrote:

> If you were to go through with this wiki, you aren't allowed to call it
> Perl-Wikipedia, seeing as "Wikipedia" is a registered trademark.

This was only my initial statement, expressing my personal opinion to the best
of my ability.  I personally envision it as Perl-Wikipedia, a merger of two
things that I strongly believe in, but "The Perl Wiki" would not be named
Perl-Wikipedia without The Wikimedia Foundation fully agreeing with the
project, after a good discussion which has only just begun.  I'm here to
investigate and discuss good ideas, and I know that I came to the right place
to do that.

On 7/5/06, geni wrote:

> There is a perl wikibook:
>
> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Perl

Good pointer, I'll have to look at all of the other Wikimedia content.  I'm
used to the encyclopedia which I refer to frequently, and I'll have to look
at the Wikibook as part of the total solution for what I'm trying to get.
Like I said, I know that I came to the right place.

Thanks,

Eric
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20060705/b0608bc5/attachment-0001.pgp>


body:
On 7/5/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/5/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The page was now deleted, in spite of no consensus, and in spite of a
> > very large amount of blog coverage and a newspaper report in Politiken
> > about it.

> Slight majority in favor of keep in fact. on that basis I've undeleted.

Thanks. Now get ready for the accusations of starting a "wheel war."

Erik


from_name: Sam Korn

body:
On 7/5/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> I don't frequent AfD so perhaps I get a skewed impression, but does
> anyone think that the prevalence of extremely hyperbolic "strong" voting
> is on the increase?

This along with unreasoned "speedy" votes.  "Speedy" does not mean
"because I really really think so".  There are circumstances where it
is appropriate, but they are rigidly defined.  People with half a
degree of sense should know not to vote like this.

--
Sam


body:
Hi Jeff,

On Wednesday 05 July 2006 17:02, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
> But be advised that if you import any of the XML dumps from
> download.wikimedia.org, then you
> will discover "Wikipedia" littered throughout, including ads for
> Wikimania, funding solicitation, etc. , so to
> remove any confusion, convert the word "Wikipedia" into an adjective by
> terming it a "Wikipedia Mirror"
> if you are mirroring their content - it its a new wiki not mirroring
> their content, "Wikipedia" is an restricted
> trademark.
>

I didn't come here two steal Wikipedia content, etc., from Wikimedia; instead,
I came here to learn, discuss, and find "The Right Way" to do something for
the global Perl community that everyone can agree with hopefully.  I have no
plans to do anything, download anything or mirror anything, I'm only a few
days into an idea, and I believe that I came to "The Right Place" to discuss
something with the Wikimedia experts, and to find out what can and can't be
done.

If I came to "The Wrong Place" to discuss ideas with the Wikimedia experts,
then please direct me to "The Right People" to talk to at Wikimedia.  I just
see a very good parallel for the needs of "The Perl Wiki," as what Wikipedia
has been doing for all of the topics under the sun.  Perl topics are just a
subset of All topics.  There is no sense in doing something different and
separate for the many varied topics in Perl, when Wikimedia has been coming
up with fantastic solutions for encyclopedic information and all topics in
general.  I don't know what can and can't be done yet, but I do know that
Wikimedia is doing "The Right Stuff," so that is why I'm here willing to
learn and discuss these integration problems, while personally risking
looking like an idiot in public. :)

Eric
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20060705/43ffbf9d/attachment.pgp


body:
Hi Jeff,

On Wednesday 05 July 2006 17:02, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
> But be advised that if you import any of the XML dumps from
> download.wikimedia.org, then you
> will discover "Wikipedia" littered throughout, including ads for
> Wikimania, funding solicitation, etc. , so to
> remove any confusion, convert the word "Wikipedia" into an adjective by
> terming it a "Wikipedia Mirror"
> if you are mirroring their content - it its a new wiki not mirroring
> their content, "Wikipedia" is an restricted
> trademark.
>

I didn't come here two steal Wikipedia content, etc., from Wikimedia; instead,
I came here to learn, discuss, and find "The Right Way" to do something for
the global Perl community that everyone can agree with hopefully.  I have no
plans to do anything, download anything or mirror anything, I'm only a few
days into an idea, and I believe that I came to "The Right Place" to discuss
something with the Wikimedia experts, and to find out what can and can't be
done.

If I came to "The Wrong Place" to discuss ideas with the Wikimedia experts,
then please direct me to "The Right People" to talk to at Wikimedia.  I just
see a very good parallel for the needs of "The Perl Wiki," as what Wikipedia
has been doing for all of the topics under the sun.  Perl topics are just a
subset of All topics.  There is no sense in doing something different and
separate for the many varied topics in Perl, when Wikimedia has been coming
up with fantastic solutions for encyclopedic information and all topics in
general.  I don't know what can and can't be done yet, but I do know that
Wikimedia is doing "The Right Stuff," so that is why I'm here willing to
learn and discuss these integration problems, while personally risking
looking like an idiot in public. :)

Eric
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20060705/43ffbf9d/attachment-0001.pgp


body:
Hi Jeff,

On Wednesday 05 July 2006 17:02, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
> But be advised that if you import any of the XML dumps from
> download.wikimedia.org, then you
> will discover "Wikipedia" littered throughout, including ads for
> Wikimania, funding solicitation, etc. , so to
> remove any confusion, convert the word "Wikipedia" into an adjective by
> terming it a "Wikipedia Mirror"
> if you are mirroring their content - it its a new wiki not mirroring
> their content, "Wikipedia" is an restricted
> trademark.
>

I didn't come here two steal Wikipedia content, etc., from Wikimedia; instead,
I came here to learn, discuss, and find "The Right Way" to do something for
the global Perl community that everyone can agree with hopefully.  I have no
plans to do anything, download anything or mirror anything, I'm only a few
days into an idea, and I believe that I came to "The Right Place" to discuss
something with the Wikimedia experts, and to find out what can and can't be
done.

If I came to "The Wrong Place" to discuss ideas with the Wikimedia experts,
then please direct me to "The Right People" to talk to at Wikimedia.  I just
see a very good parallel for the needs of "The Perl Wiki," as what Wikipedia
has been doing for all of the topics under the sun.  Perl topics are just a
subset of All topics.  There is no sense in doing something different and
separate for the many varied topics in Perl, when Wikimedia has been coming
up with fantastic solutions for encyclopedic information and all topics in
general.  I don't know what can and can't be done yet, but I do know that
Wikimedia is doing "The Right Stuff," so that is why I'm here willing to
learn and discuss these integration problems, while personally risking
looking like an idiot in public. :)

Eric
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20060705/43ffbf9d/attachment.pgp>


body:
Hi Jeff,

On Wednesday 05 July 2006 17:02, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
> But be advised that if you import any of the XML dumps from
> download.wikimedia.org, then you
> will discover "Wikipedia" littered throughout, including ads for
> Wikimania, funding solicitation, etc. , so to
> remove any confusion, convert the word "Wikipedia" into an adjective by
> terming it a "Wikipedia Mirror"
> if you are mirroring their content - it its a new wiki not mirroring
> their content, "Wikipedia" is an restricted
> trademark.
>

I didn't come here two steal Wikipedia content, etc., from Wikimedia; instead,
I came here to learn, discuss, and find "The Right Way" to do something for
the global Perl community that everyone can agree with hopefully.  I have no
plans to do anything, download anything or mirror anything, I'm only a few
days into an idea, and I believe that I came to "The Right Place" to discuss
something with the Wikimedia experts, and to find out what can and can't be
done.

If I came to "The Wrong Place" to discuss ideas with the Wikimedia experts,
then please direct me to "The Right People" to talk to at Wikimedia.  I just
see a very good parallel for the needs of "The Perl Wiki," as what Wikipedia
has been doing for all of the topics under the sun.  Perl topics are just a
subset of All topics.  There is no sense in doing something different and
separate for the many varied topics in Perl, when Wikimedia has been coming
up with fantastic solutions for encyclopedic information and all topics in
general.  I don't know what can and can't be done yet, but I do know that
Wikimedia is doing "The Right Stuff," so that is why I'm here willing to
learn and discuss these integration problems, while personally risking
looking like an idiot in public. :)

Eric
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20060705/43ffbf9d/attachment-0001.pgp>


from_name: George Herbert

body:
On 7/5/06, Zero <megamanzero521 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>[...]
>  That is utter nonsense to say that administrators should not
>  base their  decisons of that of a user's experience, paticularly
>  in mainspace. This  common practice of new editors who have
>  as little as below the 10 edit  mark or the like claim "I know
>  what is best for wikipedia" and "I know  what the encyclopedia
>   is all about." Such opinions should not be taken  seriously.

Nor should they be completely discounted.

Among other things, newbie editors are likely the purest voice we can
get from the user community (non-editing readers) as to what they care
about.

"What they care about" is not "What we should do" by any means, but
it's worth listening to.

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


body:
On 7/5/06, Redvers @ the Wikipedia <wikiredvers at yahoo.ie> wrote:
> Anyone want to be [[WP:BOLD]] and sent up
> [[Wikipedia:AfD_Patrol]]? Or do we prefer to sit here
> and bitch?

If nobody else gets to it, I may have some bandwidth later tonight.

There are some people I know have done stuff like this on and off,
informally.  Making it formal, naming it, giving it a tiny bit of
structure (even if that's just "put your name on the participants
list") is probably good to make sure that it consistently gets at
least a minimum effort every day.

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


body:
On Wednesday 05 July 2006 17:24, geni wrote:
> Closest would be the wikibooks thing. Other than that you would be
> looking to start a completely new project which is unlikely to work
> too well.

I didn't actually expect negativity towards what I believe will be a good
thing.  The immediate first impressions have brought reactions about
copyright and trademark violations, but I'm not here to steal.  I'm here to
use and emulate a very good thing.  I absolutely agree with you that part of
the solution will be a multitude of references to Wikibooks, but another part
of it will likely be Wikipedia-like encyclopedic topical references, and the
other Wikimedia components, which I will be investigating tonight.

Why would a completely new project be "unlikely to work too well?"

What is it that you are seeing that will limit me to just using Wikibooks?

Thanks,

Eric
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20060705/1dc36492/attachment.pgp


body:
On Wednesday 05 July 2006 17:24, geni wrote:
> Closest would be the wikibooks thing. Other than that you would be
> looking to start a completely new project which is unlikely to work
> too well.

I didn't actually expect negativity towards what I believe will be a good
thing.  The immediate first impressions have brought reactions about
copyright and trademark violations, but I'm not here to steal.  I'm here to
use and emulate a very good thing.  I absolutely agree with you that part of
the solution will be a multitude of references to Wikibooks, but another part
of it will likely be Wikipedia-like encyclopedic topical references, and the
other Wikimedia components, which I will be investigating tonight.

Why would a completely new project be "unlikely to work too well?"

What is it that you are seeing that will limit me to just using Wikibooks?

Thanks,

Eric
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20060705/1dc36492/attachment-0001.pgp


body:
On Wednesday 05 July 2006 17:24, geni wrote:
> Closest would be the wikibooks thing. Other than that you would be
> looking to start a completely new project which is unlikely to work
> too well.

I didn't actually expect negativity towards what I believe will be a good
thing.  The immediate first impressions have brought reactions about
copyright and trademark violations, but I'm not here to steal.  I'm here to
use and emulate a very good thing.  I absolutely agree with you that part of
the solution will be a multitude of references to Wikibooks, but another part
of it will likely be Wikipedia-like encyclopedic topical references, and the
other Wikimedia components, which I will be investigating tonight.

Why would a completely new project be "unlikely to work too well?"

What is it that you are seeing that will limit me to just using Wikibooks?

Thanks,

Eric
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20060705/1dc36492/attachment.pgp>


body:
On Wednesday 05 July 2006 17:24, geni wrote:
> Closest would be the wikibooks thing. Other than that you would be
> looking to start a completely new project which is unlikely to work
> too well.

I didn't actually expect negativity towards what I believe will be a good
thing.  The immediate first impressions have brought reactions about
copyright and trademark violations, but I'm not here to steal.  I'm here to
use and emulate a very good thing.  I absolutely agree with you that part of
the solution will be a multitude of references to Wikibooks, but another part
of it will likely be Wikipedia-like encyclopedic topical references, and the
other Wikimedia components, which I will be investigating tonight.

Why would a completely new project be "unlikely to work too well?"

What is it that you are seeing that will limit me to just using Wikibooks?

Thanks,

Eric
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20060705/1dc36492/attachment-0001.pgp>


from_name: Daniel P. B. Smith

body:
 >I think the problem with DRV and other processes that reivew
content is  the entire premise.
 >I reviewed a backlog previously to discover a  template. To my
horror,  it noted:

 >"The community is interested in process not content".

 >This is madness. - Randall Brackett

I am most definitely not a lawyer, but I think it's exactly the same
distinction as the distinction between a _trial_ and an _appeal._

(And in the legal world there are also phenomena such as jury
nullification and rogue judges...)


from_name: Александр Сигачёв

subject: [Wikitech-l] Pageview counters

body:
> An approximate and inaccurate pageview counter is better than none.

We have something like this in Russian Wikipedia.

See

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ruwiki_pgcounter

http://tools.wikimedia.de/~edwardspec/cgi-bin/top100_ng.cgi

--
Alexander Sigachov


from_name: Nick Jenkins

subject: [Wikitech-l] ParserTests code coverage report for Parser.php

body:
Hi All,

Decided to try have a play with a code coverage tool today, and
pointed it at parser.php whilst parserTests.php was being run.

The purpose of doing this is try and see if the code coverage of the
parserTests are good - and they are, at around 83% coverage - and also
to try and indicate if there are any areas that might potentially
benefit from a few more tests.

You can see the code coverage results online at:
http://files.nickj.org/MediaWiki/coverage/Parser.php.html and
http://files.nickj.org/MediaWiki/coverage/Sanitizer.php.html  (red =
not executed, blue = executed, grey = thinks it is not executable).

If you would like to reproduce these results, I've written up a quick
step-by-step how-to guide indicating what you need to do at:
http://nickj.org/MediaWiki_code_coverage_howto

All the best,
Nick.


body:
On 7/5/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
[snip]
> The concept of "suffrage" is not relevant to AfD, because *xfD is not a
> vote*.  Newbies flooding an AfD discussion and needing to be ignored is
> a Big Problem ... if you're one of those few silly billy closers who
> count votes and make poor decisions and let the side down badly.
>
> We let people edit articles with no community standing at all.  Why
> wouldn't we let them add evidence to an AfD discussion?  Newbies, it's
> true, don't usually contribute anything worthwhile to an AfD --- and if
> they don't, I'll ignore them on that particular discussion on that basis
> alone.  If a new user *does* have something of value to say, then I'll
> take their views into account, whether they have 50 article edits or 5000.
[snip]

A major part of the argument made both here and on the Wiki was that
the consensus of the community was ignored which is why the question
of whether the new users and folks with no article edits are part of
the community is material because they are, primarily, the folks whos
position did not prevail.

I didn't suggest that new users and complete outsiders can't offer
useful input, quite the contrary... I believe that we need to do more
to embrace outside expertise. But there is a huge difference between
considering outside input and giving stranger to our project equal
space on the puck of the [[ouiji board]] of democracy.

Put it to you another way, when you find some strange berries on the
ground outside of your  house, do you smell them, touch them, look
them up in an encyclopedia before eating them... or do you simply
grind them up, pull out a needle, and inject them into your veins?

Allowing unknown users equal access to inject their potentially
uninformed decisions into the control mix of the project is
effectively equivalent.

While we accept submissions promiscuously, that doesn't mean that we
must or should accept decision making in the same manner. If we did
Wikipedia may well have been voted into a giant hangman or wiki chess
game long ago. There is a fundamental difference between accepting a
gift from a stranger and more intimate interactions.

> > Almost any form of edit count or tenure weighing would leave this a
> > clear consensus for delete. Even more importantly, the arguments on
> > the delete side are far more compelling in my view:
> "Even more importantly"?  I'd say the argument of the alleged strength
> of the "delete" case (I haven't read the subpage myself) far outweighs
> any "they don't have suffrage!"-type comments.

I agree which is why I said it was more important. However, reasonable
people may disagree on the strength of the arguments, but that doesn't
translate into ignoring the community.

Since it's been claimed that the 'community' was ignored, I can only
conclude that the position was formed based on a by the numbers view.
My personal perspective is that by the numbers is never good no matter
what weighing games you play, but it's not material... the claim that
the community was ignored is not valid no matter how you measure the
AFD results. Even 'by the numbers' should recognize that meatpuppets,
and bleeding edge new users don't represent the "community". :)

Cheers.


from_name: Conrad Dunkerson

subject: [WikiEN-l] New York Times article

body:
* Mark Gallagher wrote:

> What I meant was, this handwavey "oh, oh, there's a problem, a terrible
> problem," without giving more details or (seemingly) doing anything to
> help fix it is Not Good.  It's like that old joke --- you can't trust
> the Church to fight evil, because if the Devil were vanquished and all
> men led sinless and happy lives, they'd be out of a job.  If all admins
> behaved blamelessly, then some of our critics would be out of a job ...

If all admins behaved blamelessly it'd be a miracle of unprecedented
scope. Never going to happen and not remotely my goal. I'm actually
against 'punishing' admins who mess up with de-sysoping and the like (in
most cases - there are always exceptions). I'd just like us to get to the
point where when an admin messes up there are at least as many others
willing to say so as there are egging them on.

> No-o ... not exactly.  I pointed out that, instead of damning all sysops
> to the end of time on the basis of the behaviour of one admin, you could
> instead take the matter up with the lady in question, and stand at least
> a decent change of fixing the problem ...

I don't 'damn all sysops based on the behaviour of one admin'... I 'damn'
many of them based on their lack of response to it, or outright support.
Admins being uncivil to 'troublemakers' (as in that case) from time to
time is human nature... not 'the problem'. Sooner or later even >I< will
say something annoying to someone... I know, hard to imagine, but it'll
happen. Admins being 'allowed' or even 'encouraged' to be uncivil is
another matter entirely. Though I will say that when another admin did so
recently a bunch of people stepped up and said 'not cool'... and the admin
conceded they might have a point. Was very heartening.

> Oh, there was another interaction: when you stated publicly on AN/I that
> anyone who closed an xfD on some basis other than a strict numerical
> count must be acting in bad faith.

It took me a while to figure out what you were talking about here. The
dread 'pi userbox' issue presumably? I believe such vague references to
supposed problems are called 'handwavery without giving details' or
something like that. :]

The 'strict numerical count' seems to be something you have projected onto
me, as I said nothing of the kind. Indeed, I didn't mention the 'count of
votes' at all. My objection there was that an admin should not close
deletion debates they were involved in and/or started... and certainly not
as 'delete' given an obvious and overwhelming consensus to keep. Strict
numbers nothing. When an impartial decision is required an
involved/clearly partisan admin is exactly the wrong person to be closing
the debate. That the close involved a 'creative' interpretation that 'keep
really means delete after copying the content' was just a profound
demonstration of WHY admins should never close debates they are partisan in.

The whole thing was just plain silly. It was the value of pi for frick's
sake. A number. Inside a rectangle. "Kill it! Outcast unclean!" :]

> Lookit, I can accept that you're doing what you think is the Right Thing
> to improve the behaviour on admins on Wikipedia (I didn't believe that,
> earlier, hence at least part of my aggression here).

Heh, well that's progress I suppose.

> But I think your
> approach is doomed to fail.

Maybe. Personally, I was predicting that it would all end with a public
stoning;

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=60846485

> You *do* have a point ... sometimes.  I think, however, that viewing
> yourself as one who "challenge[s] the admin community as a whole to
> confront the perceived double-standards" is what we generally refer to
> as "looking through rose-coloured glasses".

I've always wanted to get a pair of those. :]


body:
On Wednesday 05 July 2006 18:10, geni wrote:

> Apoligies you arived in the middle of a seperate discussion that has
> had some side effects.

No problem, I understand. :)

My point about not coming to copy or steal was that I have no interest in
being redundant, rather I want all new information to be extentions of the
current knowledge base, well integrated and highly interlinked with what
already has been done very well within Wikipedia.  I like Wikipedia a lot!

> Problems with finding an editorbase. The foundation doesn't have much
> in the way of a history of doing single issue projects. there appears
> to be a general bias against them amoung the various wikimedia editor
> bases since they tend to duplicat the work of either wikipedia or
> wikibooks.

What do you mean by an editorbase?  Do you simply mean people who will be
willing experts, authors and editors of content?  Perl has a well established
community of experts, authors and editors, and if "The Perl Wiki" is built
correctly, then they will come to take advantage of a very good thing and
extend it into an even better thing for themselves and others to learn from.
That has been the perl.advocacy usenet discussion, about building the central
reference Wiki, from the various specialized Wiki sites around the world, to
create the global wiki for the Perl community.  And Wikibooks will be a must
have component for the Perl community.  Something magic might happen.

I know what you mean about not having a history yet, but that doesn't mean
that there can't be a new precedent set here.  The people at Wikimedia are
doing something new in our information history, you are opening new doors,
and I think that I found a door that might possibly get to be opened someday,
not just for the Perl community, but for all global communities.  The reason
that I came to Wikimedia today is because I want to make sure that whatever I
want to do conforms to Wikimedia's wishes.  The last thing that I want to do
is have a negative impact upon what they have been doing so well.  Is their a
correct structure that will work, for us to work together?

What is an encyclopedia going to become, with Wikpedia setting a new
functional standard?  How much breadth and how much depth does Wikimedia want
in Wikipedia?  I don't think that Wikimedia has any real concern for the
breadth of topics, but I do want to understand the practical limits on the
depth of a particular topic, in this case, the Perl topic.  I do want to
understand how we might be able to work together correctly to set a new
standard.

> Setting up a new type of project within the foundation is a slow
> process. You best bet is probably either to stick with the articles on
> wikipedia and wikibooks or to start your own project on one of the
> various free wiki hosts or your own server.

I made reference to what I had learned about the new project policy, saying
that I was aware that it could take years to bring an idea to fruition.  But,
I don't see it as what you think of as a new project, but more of an
integration of all the Wikipedia components available to solve a Perl
community problem.  What can we do together in parallel?

Eric
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20060705/dd039943/attachment.pgp


body:
On Wednesday 05 July 2006 18:10, geni wrote:

> Apoligies you arived in the middle of a seperate discussion that has
> had some side effects.

No problem, I understand. :)

My point about not coming to copy or steal was that I have no interest in
being redundant, rather I want all new information to be extentions of the
current knowledge base, well integrated and highly interlinked with what
already has been done very well within Wikipedia.  I like Wikipedia a lot!

> Problems with finding an editorbase. The foundation doesn't have much
> in the way of a history of doing single issue projects. there appears
> to be a general bias against them amoung the various wikimedia editor
> bases since they tend to duplicat the work of either wikipedia or
> wikibooks.

What do you mean by an editorbase?  Do you simply mean people who will be
willing experts, authors and editors of content?  Perl has a well established
community of experts, authors and editors, and if "The Perl Wiki" is built
correctly, then they will come to take advantage of a very good thing and
extend it into an even better thing for themselves and others to learn from.
That has been the perl.advocacy usenet discussion, about building the central
reference Wiki, from the various specialized Wiki sites around the world, to
create the global wiki for the Perl community.  And Wikibooks will be a must
have component for the Perl community.  Something magic might happen.

I know what you mean about not having a history yet, but that doesn't mean
that there can't be a new precedent set here.  The people at Wikimedia are
doing something new in our information history, you are opening new doors,
and I think that I found a door that might possibly get to be opened someday,
not just for the Perl community, but for all global communities.  The reason
that I came to Wikimedia today is because I want to make sure that whatever I
want to do conforms to Wikimedia's wishes.  The last thing that I want to do
is have a negative impact upon what they have been doing so well.  Is their a
correct structure that will work, for us to work together?

What is an encyclopedia going to become, with Wikpedia setting a new
functional standard?  How much breadth and how much depth does Wikimedia want
in Wikipedia?  I don't think that Wikimedia has any real concern for the
breadth of topics, but I do want to understand the practical limits on the
depth of a particular topic, in this case, the Perl topic.  I do want to
understand how we might be able to work together correctly to set a new
standard.

> Setting up a new type of project within the foundation is a slow
> process. You best bet is probably either to stick with the articles on
> wikipedia and wikibooks or to start your own project on one of the
> various free wiki hosts or your own server.

I made reference to what I had learned about the new project policy, saying
that I was aware that it could take years to bring an idea to fruition.  But,
I don't see it as what you think of as a new project, but more of an
integration of all the Wikipedia components available to solve a Perl
community problem.  What can we do together in parallel?

Eric
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20060705/dd039943/attachment-0001.pgp


body:
On Wednesday 05 July 2006 18:10, geni wrote:

> Apoligies you arived in the middle of a seperate discussion that has
> had some side effects.

No problem, I understand. :)

My point about not coming to copy or steal was that I have no interest in
being redundant, rather I want all new information to be extentions of the
current knowledge base, well integrated and highly interlinked with what
already has been done very well within Wikipedia.  I like Wikipedia a lot!

> Problems with finding an editorbase. The foundation doesn't have much
> in the way of a history of doing single issue projects. there appears
> to be a general bias against them amoung the various wikimedia editor
> bases since they tend to duplicat the work of either wikipedia or
> wikibooks.

What do you mean by an editorbase?  Do you simply mean people who will be
willing experts, authors and editors of content?  Perl has a well established
community of experts, authors and editors, and if "The Perl Wiki" is built
correctly, then they will come to take advantage of a very good thing and
extend it into an even better thing for themselves and others to learn from.
That has been the perl.advocacy usenet discussion, about building the central
reference Wiki, from the various specialized Wiki sites around the world, to
create the global wiki for the Perl community.  And Wikibooks will be a must
have component for the Perl community.  Something magic might happen.

I know what you mean about not having a history yet, but that doesn't mean
that there can't be a new precedent set here.  The people at Wikimedia are
doing something new in our information history, you are opening new doors,
and I think that I found a door that might possibly get to be opened someday,
not just for the Perl community, but for all global communities.  The reason
that I came to Wikimedia today is because I want to make sure that whatever I
want to do conforms to Wikimedia's wishes.  The last thing that I want to do
is have a negative impact upon what they have been doing so well.  Is their a
correct structure that will work, for us to work together?

What is an encyclopedia going to become, with Wikpedia setting a new
functional standard?  How much breadth and how much depth does Wikimedia want
in Wikipedia?  I don't think that Wikimedia has any real concern for the
breadth of topics, but I do want to understand the practical limits on the
depth of a particular topic, in this case, the Perl topic.  I do want to
understand how we might be able to work together correctly to set a new
standard.

> Setting up a new type of project within the foundation is a slow
> process. You best bet is probably either to stick with the articles on
> wikipedia and wikibooks or to start your own project on one of the
> various free wiki hosts or your own server.

I made reference to what I had learned about the new project policy, saying
that I was aware that it could take years to bring an idea to fruition.  But,
I don't see it as what you think of as a new project, but more of an
integration of all the Wikipedia components available to solve a Perl
community problem.  What can we do together in parallel?

Eric
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20060705/dd039943/attachment.pgp>


body:
On Wednesday 05 July 2006 18:10, geni wrote:

> Apoligies you arived in the middle of a seperate discussion that has
> had some side effects.

No problem, I understand. :)

My point about not coming to copy or steal was that I have no interest in
being redundant, rather I want all new information to be extentions of the
current knowledge base, well integrated and highly interlinked with what
already has been done very well within Wikipedia.  I like Wikipedia a lot!

> Problems with finding an editorbase. The foundation doesn't have much
> in the way of a history of doing single issue projects. there appears
> to be a general bias against them amoung the various wikimedia editor
> bases since they tend to duplicat the work of either wikipedia or
> wikibooks.

What do you mean by an editorbase?  Do you simply mean people who will be
willing experts, authors and editors of content?  Perl has a well established
community of experts, authors and editors, and if "The Perl Wiki" is built
correctly, then they will come to take advantage of a very good thing and
extend it into an even better thing for themselves and others to learn from.
That has been the perl.advocacy usenet discussion, about building the central
reference Wiki, from the various specialized Wiki sites around the world, to
create the global wiki for the Perl community.  And Wikibooks will be a must
have component for the Perl community.  Something magic might happen.

I know what you mean about not having a history yet, but that doesn't mean
that there can't be a new precedent set here.  The people at Wikimedia are
doing something new in our information history, you are opening new doors,
and I think that I found a door that might possibly get to be opened someday,
not just for the Perl community, but for all global communities.  The reason
that I came to Wikimedia today is because I want to make sure that whatever I
want to do conforms to Wikimedia's wishes.  The last thing that I want to do
is have a negative impact upon what they have been doing so well.  Is their a
correct structure that will work, for us to work together?

What is an encyclopedia going to become, with Wikpedia setting a new
functional standard?  How much breadth and how much depth does Wikimedia want
in Wikipedia?  I don't think that Wikimedia has any real concern for the
breadth of topics, but I do want to understand the practical limits on the
depth of a particular topic, in this case, the Perl topic.  I do want to
understand how we might be able to work together correctly to set a new
standard.

> Setting up a new type of project within the foundation is a slow
> process. You best bet is probably either to stick with the articles on
> wikipedia and wikibooks or to start your own project on one of the
> various free wiki hosts or your own server.

I made reference to what I had learned about the new project policy, saying
that I was aware that it could take years to bring an idea to fruition.  But,
I don't see it as what you think of as a new project, but more of an
integration of all the Wikipedia components available to solve a Perl
community problem.  What can we do together in parallel?

Eric
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20060705/dd039943/attachment-0001.pgp>


from_name: Aphaia

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia visual identity guidelines

body:
On 6/30/06, Delphine M?nard <notafishz at gmail.com> wrote:

> First. At this stage, the Wikimedia Visual Identity guidelines do
> indeed apply to the Wikimedia Logo only.
>
> Second. There is a fundamental difference between the Wikimedia logo
> and the Wikipedia logo in this that the Wikimedia logo still needs to
> be established in the mind of the general public. It represents the
> organisation, and the wish behind the Wikimedia Identity guidelines
> was to make sure that no derivation of the logo would be used to ends
> that do not serve the organisation, or for misrepresentation. The
> Wikipedia logo is well established and recognizable, even when
> transformed.

I noticed today Wikimedia visual identity guidelines has no
translation, at least on the foundation site. For me it seems to
worthy to translate in several languages. Or not?

If we have translation(s) a certain policy, however, it will be useful
to determine whether the translation is as official as the original
one(s). Which case is that? Or can we simply say "as for all policies
of the Wikimedia Foundation, basically you should consider the
original one(s) as official"?

--
Aphaia
aka
Kizu Naoko
email: Aphaia @ gmail (dot) com


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

body:
On Wed, 5 Jul 2006 15:51:23 +0200, "Erik Moeller"
<eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:

>The page was now deleted, in spite of no consensus, and in spite of a
>very large amount of blog coverage and a newspaper report in Politiken
>about it.

There was strong consensus to keep among new, unregistered and
otherwise normally-ignored editors, and what looked to me like
consensus to delete (especially on balance of arguments) among editors
with any kind of history.

I am also uneasy when we keep something which is asserted to be of
massive global significance on the basis of a single reference, in a
publication which is hardly mainstream.  We kept The Game (game) on
the basis of one reference in one Flemish-language newspaper - which
hardly gives credibility to the idea of this as a massive global
phenomenon, as described in the article.  Actually the article should
say it is a game described in De. Morgen which blah blah blah... until
we get more references.  It stretches credibility somewhat that a
genuinely famous thing could escape all the special web sections of
all the mainstream newspapers and journals, including the BBC which
has frequent columns from the likes of Bill Thompson on things
happening on "teh Intarwebs".

Given that we are all internet users, many of us obsessively so, if we
have not heard of it then it may well be that the arm-wavers are wrong
about its significance.

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


from_name: Platonides Filas

subject: [Wikitech-l] New diff feature for Wikipedia

body:
Rob Church: a strong reliance upon text access is not too
brilliant for a project running on the toolserver at present.

Yes, it may be not too brilliant, but the TOOLserver doesn't intend to
be a nice set of always-on utils of beuty interface. It is a place
where *useful tools* (Wikimedia related) can run.

They don't try to be brilliant, they ttry to work. You can see how
heterogeneus they are, there's almost no two tools (of different
users) seeing _similar_. [1]
 We even have SQL-injectable scripts!

Not needing to ask the main site would be desirable? Agree. But
there's no better computer to have this (unless a toolserver-prime
were set at pmtpa)

Gmaxwell: As i previously explained, revisions are cached, so if you
could stress it with [[George W. Bush]] (note you only ask for the raw
code, it's simply passing it from DB), querying would be only once.

However, a 'search in last X revisions' (with a maximun) would be a
good feature :-)

Platonides

[1] Recently there have been tryings to list users & projects
(.about.me files and so)


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Ken Lay's death prompts confusion on Reuters

body:
On Jul 5, 2006, at 7:23 PM, Andrew Lih wrote:

> Mathias,
>
> Using the same Reuters story, CNN downgraded Wikipedia from
> 'confusion' to 'reeling'. Oh CNN, how far you have strayed from your
> original standards...
>
> Lay's death sends Wikipedia reeling
> Wednesday, July 5, 2006 Posted: 2246 GMT (0646 HKT)
> http://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/07/05/lay.wikipedia.reut/

Alexa shows CNN dropping like a lead balloon, No. 38 today (they are
ranked 27). Perhaps they welcome a dig at the competition. BTW we are
even with Amazon these days.

Fred


body:
Hi Erik,

On Wednesday 05 July 2006 18:23, Erik Moeller wrote:
> Hello Eric,
>
> as geni has explained, the Wikimedia Foundation tends to launch broad
> projects over narrow ones: Wikipedia over "an encyclopedia of birds",
> Wikinews over "a news site about health issues", Wikisource over
> "public domain novels", and so on.
>
No problem.  I understand Wikimedia's interest of breadth of topics in
Wikipedia, over depth of topics, but how do we correctly tie a
special-interest encyclopedia, "The Free Encyclopedia of Perl," into the main
general-purpose encyclopedia, "The Free Encyclopedia," and also to other
possible special-interest encyclopedias.  Do you know what I mean, and do now
you know where I'm trying to go with this WikiMedia-based hierarchy?  I don't
want to copy or steal, just emulate and extend.  I need to know the best
hierarchical structure that will integrate the various special-interest
information sources most effectively to avoid redundancy and bring about
synergy with the Wikimedia components such as Wikipedia, and now Wikibooks.

> Much of the content of an "encyclopedia of Perl" would likely have a
> place in our existing Wikipedia and Wikibooks projects. For source
> code, there's also an interesting wiki at:
> http://en.literateprograms.org/

Thanks, I'll take a look at that site.

So right now, if most of the Perl content would be in Wikibooks, then you'd
apparently have no problem with some editing under the Perl topic in
Wikipedia to organize and reference those Wikibooks, as long as we didn't go
too far into the great depth of the topic of Perl within Wikipedia?  We could
possibly find "The Right Way" to incrementally cooperate, working together
and agreeing which direction that we might go in the future?  There will be
external references to glue everything together, but as long as it gets glued
together, that's okay.  We can incrementally figure out "The Right Way" to do
things.

I didn't want to slam Wikipedia, by doing too much of the wrong or right
things, without Wikimedia having some clue as to what was happening
underneath the Perl topic.  Okay?

>
> What would be the justification for starting a new separate Wikimedia
> site just for Perl? Mind you, nothing will stop you from setting up
> your own site using the MediaWiki software (except maybe an aversion
> to PHP ;-). You can also use a wiki hosting service, like the ones
> listed at:
> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wiki_Science:How_to_start_a_Wiki

My real interest is integrating the depth of Perl knowledge with the breadth
of Wikipedia knowledge, creating Perl-Wikipedia, and "The Perl Wiki" will
eventually happen.  And yes, I do PHP-CGI too, and we're already aware of
MediaWiki in the perl.advocacy usenet group, because I know that it's
currently being used for the Australian Perl Wiki at http://perl.net.au,
which I referenced in my initial submission.

Eric
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20060705/e60a2dac/attachment.pgp


body:
Hi Erik,

On Wednesday 05 July 2006 18:23, Erik Moeller wrote:
> Hello Eric,
>
> as geni has explained, the Wikimedia Foundation tends to launch broad
> projects over narrow ones: Wikipedia over "an encyclopedia of birds",
> Wikinews over "a news site about health issues", Wikisource over
> "public domain novels", and so on.
>
No problem.  I understand Wikimedia's interest of breadth of topics in
Wikipedia, over depth of topics, but how do we correctly tie a
special-interest encyclopedia, "The Free Encyclopedia of Perl," into the main
general-purpose encyclopedia, "The Free Encyclopedia," and also to other
possible special-interest encyclopedias.  Do you know what I mean, and do now
you know where I'm trying to go with this WikiMedia-based hierarchy?  I don't
want to copy or steal, just emulate and extend.  I need to know the best
hierarchical structure that will integrate the various special-interest
information sources most effectively to avoid redundancy and bring about
synergy with the Wikimedia components such as Wikipedia, and now Wikibooks.

> Much of the content of an "encyclopedia of Perl" would likely have a
> place in our existing Wikipedia and Wikibooks projects. For source
> code, there's also an interesting wiki at:
> http://en.literateprograms.org/

Thanks, I'll take a look at that site.

So right now, if most of the Perl content would be in Wikibooks, then you'd
apparently have no problem with some editing under the Perl topic in
Wikipedia to organize and reference those Wikibooks, as long as we didn't go
too far into the great depth of the topic of Perl within Wikipedia?  We could
possibly find "The Right Way" to incrementally cooperate, working together
and agreeing which direction that we might go in the future?  There will be
external references to glue everything together, but as long as it gets glued
together, that's okay.  We can incrementally figure out "The Right Way" to do
things.

I didn't want to slam Wikipedia, by doing too much of the wrong or right
things, without Wikimedia having some clue as to what was happening
underneath the Perl topic.  Okay?

>
> What would be the justification for starting a new separate Wikimedia
> site just for Perl? Mind you, nothing will stop you from setting up
> your own site using the MediaWiki software (except maybe an aversion
> to PHP ;-). You can also use a wiki hosting service, like the ones
> listed at:
> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wiki_Science:How_to_start_a_Wiki

My real interest is integrating the depth of Perl knowledge with the breadth
of Wikipedia knowledge, creating Perl-Wikipedia, and "The Perl Wiki" will
eventually happen.  And yes, I do PHP-CGI too, and we're already aware of
MediaWiki in the perl.advocacy usenet group, because I know that it's
currently being used for the Australian Perl Wiki at http://perl.net.au,
which I referenced in my initial submission.

Eric
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20060705/e60a2dac/attachment-0001.pgp


body:
Hi Erik,

On Wednesday 05 July 2006 18:23, Erik Moeller wrote:
> Hello Eric,
>
> as geni has explained, the Wikimedia Foundation tends to launch broad
> projects over narrow ones: Wikipedia over "an encyclopedia of birds",
> Wikinews over "a news site about health issues", Wikisource over
> "public domain novels", and so on.
>
No problem.  I understand Wikimedia's interest of breadth of topics in
Wikipedia, over depth of topics, but how do we correctly tie a
special-interest encyclopedia, "The Free Encyclopedia of Perl," into the main
general-purpose encyclopedia, "The Free Encyclopedia," and also to other
possible special-interest encyclopedias.  Do you know what I mean, and do now
you know where I'm trying to go with this WikiMedia-based hierarchy?  I don't
want to copy or steal, just emulate and extend.  I need to know the best
hierarchical structure that will integrate the various special-interest
information sources most effectively to avoid redundancy and bring about
synergy with the Wikimedia components such as Wikipedia, and now Wikibooks.

> Much of the content of an "encyclopedia of Perl" would likely have a
> place in our existing Wikipedia and Wikibooks projects. For source
> code, there's also an interesting wiki at:
> http://en.literateprograms.org/

Thanks, I'll take a look at that site.

So right now, if most of the Perl content would be in Wikibooks, then you'd
apparently have no problem with some editing under the Perl topic in
Wikipedia to organize and reference those Wikibooks, as long as we didn't go
too far into the great depth of the topic of Perl within Wikipedia?  We could
possibly find "The Right Way" to incrementally cooperate, working together
and agreeing which direction that we might go in the future?  There will be
external references to glue everything together, but as long as it gets glued
together, that's okay.  We can incrementally figure out "The Right Way" to do
things.

I didn't want to slam Wikipedia, by doing too much of the wrong or right
things, without Wikimedia having some clue as to what was happening
underneath the Perl topic.  Okay?

>
> What would be the justification for starting a new separate Wikimedia
> site just for Perl? Mind you, nothing will stop you from setting up
> your own site using the MediaWiki software (except maybe an aversion
> to PHP ;-). You can also use a wiki hosting service, like the ones
> listed at:
> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wiki_Science:How_to_start_a_Wiki

My real interest is integrating the depth of Perl knowledge with the breadth
of Wikipedia knowledge, creating Perl-Wikipedia, and "The Perl Wiki" will
eventually happen.  And yes, I do PHP-CGI too, and we're already aware of
MediaWiki in the perl.advocacy usenet group, because I know that it's
currently being used for the Australian Perl Wiki at http://perl.net.au,
which I referenced in my initial submission.

Eric
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20060705/e60a2dac/attachment.pgp>


body:
Hi Erik,

On Wednesday 05 July 2006 18:23, Erik Moeller wrote:
> Hello Eric,
>
> as geni has explained, the Wikimedia Foundation tends to launch broad
> projects over narrow ones: Wikipedia over "an encyclopedia of birds",
> Wikinews over "a news site about health issues", Wikisource over
> "public domain novels", and so on.
>
No problem.  I understand Wikimedia's interest of breadth of topics in
Wikipedia, over depth of topics, but how do we correctly tie a
special-interest encyclopedia, "The Free Encyclopedia of Perl," into the main
general-purpose encyclopedia, "The Free Encyclopedia," and also to other
possible special-interest encyclopedias.  Do you know what I mean, and do now
you know where I'm trying to go with this WikiMedia-based hierarchy?  I don't
want to copy or steal, just emulate and extend.  I need to know the best
hierarchical structure that will integrate the various special-interest
information sources most effectively to avoid redundancy and bring about
synergy with the Wikimedia components such as Wikipedia, and now Wikibooks.

> Much of the content of an "encyclopedia of Perl" would likely have a
> place in our existing Wikipedia and Wikibooks projects. For source
> code, there's also an interesting wiki at:
> http://en.literateprograms.org/

Thanks, I'll take a look at that site.

So right now, if most of the Perl content would be in Wikibooks, then you'd
apparently have no problem with some editing under the Perl topic in
Wikipedia to organize and reference those Wikibooks, as long as we didn't go
too far into the great depth of the topic of Perl within Wikipedia?  We could
possibly find "The Right Way" to incrementally cooperate, working together
and agreeing which direction that we might go in the future?  There will be
external references to glue everything together, but as long as it gets glued
together, that's okay.  We can incrementally figure out "The Right Way" to do
things.

I didn't want to slam Wikipedia, by doing too much of the wrong or right
things, without Wikimedia having some clue as to what was happening
underneath the Perl topic.  Okay?

>
> What would be the justification for starting a new separate Wikimedia
> site just for Perl? Mind you, nothing will stop you from setting up
> your own site using the MediaWiki software (except maybe an aversion
> to PHP ;-). You can also use a wiki hosting service, like the ones
> listed at:
> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wiki_Science:How_to_start_a_Wiki

My real interest is integrating the depth of Perl knowledge with the breadth
of Wikipedia knowledge, creating Perl-Wikipedia, and "The Perl Wiki" will
eventually happen.  And yes, I do PHP-CGI too, and we're already aware of
MediaWiki in the perl.advocacy usenet group, because I know that it's
currently being used for the Australian Perl Wiki at http://perl.net.au,
which I referenced in my initial submission.

Eric
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20060705/e60a2dac/attachment-0001.pgp>


from_name: geni

body:
On 7/5/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> Is every random spammer who hits 'edit' automatically a member of the
> 'community'?
>
> Why would we give automatic suffrage to folks who have not yet
> demonstrated a significant degree of support or even understanding of
> the goals of the project?
>
> Why do I ask?
> Going down the VFD page it would appear that a large number, if not a
> majority, of the 'keep' voters have less than 50 article edits. Some
> have no article edits at all.
>
> Almost any form of edit count or tenure weighing would leave this a
> clear consensus for delete.

Evidences?

in any case your current account doesn't appear to have any edits pre
21 March 2005

>Even more importantly, the arguments on
> the delete side are far more compelling in my view: for example,
> Thatcher131's observation that "eon8 gets one hit on Google News and
> one hit on Lexis/Nexis; both are blog-related hits based solely on the
> claims of the website itself".

Outdated.

>With that in mind, how can you claim
> that the article isn't an attempt to spread an idea as opposed to
> merely documenting already popular idea?
>

because all the pop culture centres of the internet have already been hit.

--
geni


from_name: Rob Church

subject:
[Wikitech-l] [MediaWiki-CVS] SVN: [15354]
	trunk/phase3/includes/SpecialUndelete.php

body:
On 05/07/06, rotem at svn.leuksman.com <rotem at svn.leuksman.com> wrote:
> Revision: 15354
> Author:   rotem
> Date:     2006-07-05 12:50:50 -0700 (Wed, 05 Jul 2006)
>
> Log Message:
> -----------
> If we have user tool links even in the page history, we should have it also in the deleted history.

Do not forget to update the release notes. Please can all new
committers note this.

Rob Church


subject: [Wikitech-l] Pageview counters

body:
On 05/07/06, Neil Harris <neil at tonal.clara.co.uk> wrote:
> If this would not be practical, please let me know why.

The fact that we don't retain the logs is perhaps a wee bit prohibitive.

Rob Church


body:
There is a perl wikibook:

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Perl

--
geni


from_name: Jesse W

body:
On Jul 5, 2006, at 8:39 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
> On Jul 5, 2006, at 8:48 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>> On 7/5/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Alexa shows CNN dropping like a lead balloon, No. 38 today (they are
>>> ranked 27). Perhaps they welcome a dig at the competition. BTW we are
>>> even with Amazon these days.
>> Alexa's numbers are inconsistent. Don't count on them for anything.
> There certainly are some strange phenomena but there is a pattern.
> There is a generational change with canned goods going down and
> participatory sites going up.
CNN *is not* our competition!  Not even of Wikinews!  We are *tertiary*
sources, i.e. we summarize and coordinate what secondary sources make
of actual facts on the ground (i.e. primary sources).  We'd be
impoverished and in trouble without CNN, the Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy and all the rest of the "mainstream media" - We Don't Have
The Money To Pay Reporters - and even if we did, that's not our
purpose.

Jesse Weinstein


subject: [Wikitech-l] Pageview counters

body:
On 05/07/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> * why those are not kept

Last I heard, disk space. Logging each of ~11-12 thousand hits per
second => full disk.

> * whether they could be turned on for brief periods (like 24 hours) to
> allow periodic data collection

Possible, see below...

> * what alternative solutions might exist
>
> It seems like there are at least three different places where log data
> could be collected:
> * on the mysql database - probably very "expensive"

Forget it.

> * on mediawiki (ie, in php code) - probably much more attractive,
> could add tuning to only record every 10th or 100th hit or whatever

You can't "store" stuff in PHP, it would have to log to the file
system or elsewhere anyway.

> * on the "squids" (presumably, proxy servers) - no idea

Squid in this case refers to the Squid web caching software. "The
Squids" is our semi affectionate name for bundles of caching proxies
that stop millions of queries from killing the rest of our cluster.

> Is there absolutely no way that data could be collected at any of
> these points, even for short periods, and even filtered?

It's been thrown about before a lot, and a lot of "perhaps" is said,
but not a lot of work is done. Periodic statistics collection could
mean the sample is not quite consistent, but...meh.

There are lots of people stating it can be done, but not a lot of them doing it.

Rob Church


from_name: Eric R. Meyers

body:
On Wednesday 05 July 2006 20:51, Erik Moeller wrote:
> ...

Thank you very much.  Like I said, I came to learn from the experts, so I'll
study what you given to me.  Thanks for your time.

Sincerely,

Eric
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20060705/eef52a66/attachment.pgp


body:
On Wednesday 05 July 2006 20:51, Erik Moeller wrote:
> ...

Thank you very much.  Like I said, I came to learn from the experts, so I'll
study what you given to me.  Thanks for your time.

Sincerely,

Eric
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20060705/eef52a66/attachment-0001.pgp


body:
On Wednesday 05 July 2006 20:51, Erik Moeller wrote:
> ...

Thank you very much.  Like I said, I came to learn from the experts, so I'll
study what you given to me.  Thanks for your time.

Sincerely,

Eric
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20060705/eef52a66/attachment.pgp>


body:
On Wednesday 05 July 2006 20:51, Erik Moeller wrote:
> ...

Thank you very much.  Like I said, I came to learn from the experts, so I'll
study what you given to me.  Thanks for your time.

Sincerely,

Eric
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20060705/eef52a66/attachment-0001.pgp>


body:
On Jul 5, 2006, at 9:12 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
> On Jul 5, 2006, at 10:06 PM, Jesse W wrote:
>> CNN *is not* our competition!  Not even of Wikinews!  We are
>> *tertiary*
>> sources, i.e. we summarize and coordinate what secondary sources make
>> of actual facts on the ground (i.e. primary sources).  We'd be
>> impoverished and in trouble without CNN, the Stanford Encyclopedia of
>> Philosophy and all the rest of the "mainstream media" - We Don't Have
>> The Money To Pay Reporters - and even if we did, that's not our
>> purpose.
> We are, in a sense, parasitic on them and other original content
> providers.
Parasitic isn't the word I'd use...  Dependent, maybe.
> But they provide no significant opportunity for
> participatory input. Besides, they don't cover Pokeman nearly as well
> as we do.
Yes - those are benefits we provide, and they are important; but they
also have benefits we lack- personal/institutional authority and money
to hire investigators/reporters being big ones.

If you say that we should be aim to be a better first step in research
than CNN, I might agree with you - I think we can get to that; but we
certainly can't be a replacement.

We work best together.

Jesse Weinstein