from_name: Hamish McConnochie

subject: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 29, Issue 54

body:
Next Wikimania;
How about Wellington, New Zealand? The most wired city in the worlds
most wired country (NZ has the highest captia of internet users in the
world).

User:Hamedog

On 17/08/06, foundation-l-request at wikimedia.org
<foundation-l-request at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Send foundation-l mailing list submissions to
>        foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>        http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>        foundation-l-request at wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>        foundation-l-owner at wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of foundation-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: Wikimania 2007 - get ready for the third edition. (Anthere)
>   2. Re: Foundation's position on non-free images (Anthere)
>   3. Re: Foundation's position on non-free images (Erik Moeller)
>   4. Re: Foundation's position on non-free images (geni)
>   5. Re: Wikimania 2007 - get ready for the third edition.
>      (Alphax (Wikipedia email))
>   6. Re: bylaws (second call) (Anthere)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 23:44:17 +0200
> From: Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimania 2007 - get ready for the third
>        edition.
> To: foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <ec03gl$3rf$1 at sea.gmane.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Damian Finol wrote:
> > Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> >
> >>Kelly Martin wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>On 8/16/06, Delphine M?nard <notafishz at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Wikimania 2006 just closed its doors a week or so ago, and it is
> >>>>already time to think about the next edition.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>Actually, it was time to do that about six months ago.  We really need
> >>>to be planning these things more aggressively.  In my opinion, we
> >>>should know where the next year's Wikimania is going to be before we
> >>>start the planning for the current year.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>Good Point,
> >>
> >>Greg mentioned this this morning as well this was a hot topic of
> >>discussion that needed addressing.
> >>
> >>A few suggestions I'll put on the main site:
> >>
> >>Polynesian Language Institute, Hawaii
> >>Sidney, Australia. (great place but very expensive for a lot of folks)
> >>Vancouver, BC (vansterdam)
> >>Salt Lake City, Utah (UofU)
> >>Mexico City
> >>Cayman Islands
> >>Dussledorf, FRG
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>foundation-l mailing list
> >>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> >>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> >
> > Greetings,
> >
> > I love those cities a couple of comments though:
> >
> > USA: Doing it in the USA is great, however there is a VISA issue when it
> > comes to people not from the WAIVER Program (Mostly non-europeans). This
> > year Berkman and Harvard where really good and provided an invitation
> > letter that helped many people get their Visa (Although in most of Latin
> > America appointments for Visa interviews are given within 5-6 month of
> > calling)
> >
> > The one I like the most of all those cities, Is Mexico City, although I
> > think some place like Cancun would be better (Mexico City is a great
> > city and all but it's really, really overcrowded and maybe a bit
> > unsafe). Cancun has a lot of hotels and there are a lot of Flights
> > coming and going, plus it's in a central location for people in the
> > Americas and Europe (Most people from Europe will connect in Miami or
> > DFW). Not to mention, Cancun is Mexico's tourist city so many hotels and
> > locals can speak English.
> >
> > I would love to say Rio De Janeiro In Brasil, but Americans will need a
> > visa to enter Brasil.
> >
> > Either way, I think just like the World Cup and the Olympics, Wikimania
> > should jump continents, Last year it was Europe, this year was North
> > America, next year should be either Asia or Latin America.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
>
> Good point. Kelly is right as well that we should be planning ahead.
>
> Ultimately, choices will depend a lot on the quality of the bid.
> It will also help that the organisers of the first two wikimania are
> involved in the choice of next city, as they are primary sources of
> information to identify what was best in both locations.
>
> Just after Wikimania, a discussion took place to identify the good sides
> and the bad sides of Wikimania 2006. Obvious important points to
> consider for the future are the visa issue, the cost of travel for most
> participants, the easiness to reach the city (international airport) etc...
> More specifically, whilst Boston was identified as a very pretty place
> where it was real cool to hang out, it appears that the participants had
> less opportunities (or did not identified these opportunities) to hang
> out together than in Frankfurt. Amongst reasons, the fact the conference
> took place in two different buildings, the dorms were in yet another
> place, the "village pump" was not clearly labelled as such etc...
> Good points were the common breakfast/lunch area, in that big room where
> people could chat.
>
> Next Wikimania should be particularly careful to choose locations where
> people can stay together and have full opportunities to "bump" in other
> editors every minute. By the way, we suggested a wall where pictures of
> participants could be pasted as the conference proceeds (to facilitate
> recognition between participants).
>
> A big point in any cases will be to identify the "size" of the audience.
> One does not have the same requirements and the same timeline for a
> conference of 400 people or 1000 people, or even more. We will need to
> see how we want that to evolve.
>
> Last, as for the past two years, an important point in selecting the
> city was to check whether there was a local team of very motivated
> wikipedians on the spot, to help organising. It is not so obvious now
> that this should be amongst a primary motive to select a city. It may be
> that we choose to outsource more of the organisation (as opposed to
> heavily rely on volunteers).
>
> In any cases, the organisation is not an easy task, kudos to those who
> did the job this year. But it all begins with bids :-)
>
> ant
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 23:57:12 +0200
> From: Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Foundation's position on non-free images
> To: foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <ec048s$60j$1 at sea.gmane.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> Good question.
>
> Two resolutions were proposed on this matter by some contributors.
>
> Let me copy them below, as well as the outcome.
>
> -----------
> Resolution:NDNC
> Proposed by : contributor, copied by Anthere
>
> Motion to vote: Angela 05:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
> Motion Seconded: Anthere
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation aims to promote free and collaborative content
> Non-commercial and non-derivative licenses are not compatible with the
> notion of free content supported by the Wikimedia Foundation and the
> Free Software Foundation, as defined at freecontentdefinition.org
>
> In order to clarify this situation, the Board resolves that:
> Content under "non-derivative" or "non-commercial" licenses is not
> sufficiently free to allow use on Wikimedia projects. Content dual
> licensed under one of these with a free license continues to be acceptable.
>
> Outcome: The resolution dropped was dropped at a meeting 5 aug 2006. The
> conclusion was essentially that the board should not get involved in
> that (not a policy) but that recommandations would be suitable. It was
> concluded that Jimbo would blog about it.
>
> ----------
>
> Resolution:Fair Use
> Proposed by : an editor, copied by Anthere
>
>
> Given that fair-use content has been widely tolerated for historical
> reasons on the Wikimedia Foundation's projects
> Given that fair-use content is, by essence, non-free
> Given that the Wikimedia Foundation objectives are to promote free
> material in the whole world, not only in the United States of America
> where the fair-use can apply
> Outcome of the resolution: Given that free content is now widely
> available for all the Wikimedia's Foundation projects through Wikimedia
> Commons
> The board resolves :
>        ?       That starting from today (insert date), no fair use content shall be
> added to the Wikimedia Foundation's projects
>        ?       and that the existing fair-use content shall not be deleted until
> replaced by free content
>
> Outcome: the resolution was inactive for two months with no motion to
> vote. It was consequently dropped.
>
>
> --------------
>
> I think this resumes pretty well the position of the Foundation on the
> issue :-)
>
> I will actually say it more plainly.
> I think the projects are not (should not be) managed by the Foundation.
> The Foundation supports the projects, which is very different. Jimbo or
> others may provide some guidance, but it is not the role of the
> Foundation to say "fair use is allowed" or "fair use is not allowed".
>
> Ant
>
>
> ----------Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz wrote:
> > Tisza Gergo wrote:
> >
> >>There is an ongoing debate in the Hungarian Wikipedia community about
> >>image license policies. I didn't find anything about the Foundation's
> >>position on the issue (except for the rather vague [[m:Foundation
> >>issues]]), so I'll try to ask here:
> >
> >
> > The same is on Polish :-) I think there should be an official Foundation
> > policy about it. When we were asking people from Foundation around 1
> > year ago, the answers where different from one person to another, and
> > then two groups of users (pro fair-use and anti fair-use) were using
> > these diffrent answers as a key argument. Finally, someone asked simple
> >   question: do we really want to make Polish Wikipedia to constantly
> > break Polish Law?
> >
> >
> >>1) Which copyright law should be followed? The Hungarian law, the law of
> >>the United States or both? (And what about France and the Netherlands,
> >>where IIRC some of the Wikimedia servers are hosted?) This is an
> >>important question, as Hungarian copyright law is a lot more restrictive
> >>(there is no fair use, and works made by the government remain
> >>copyyrighted).
> >
> >
> > On Polish Wikipedia it was decided that due to:
> > a) vast majority of contributors live in Poland
> > b) we don't want to give an impression that Polish Wikipedia ignores
> > Polish law
> >
> > we have to strictly follow Polish law.
> >
> > In fact, no matter where the servers are placed, when you contribute to
> > any webpage from Polish territory, you have to follow Polish law. You
> > are making copyright violation by sending from Polish territory pictures
> > or text - no matter where is it going to be published. So, the question
> > is where you are - not where is the server.
> >
> > In Poland something similar to fair use is allowed, but using it in any
> > encyclopedia requires:
> > a) only educational purposes (Wikipedia can be used for non-educational,
> > even strictly commercial purposes)
> > b) documented attempt to obtain the copyright's owner permission
> >
> > Therefore, technically, fair use in Wikipedia circumstances is rather
> > useless if you want to follow Polish law, and therefore we have decided
> > not to allow any fair use materials.
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 00:21:39 +0200
> From: "Erik Moeller" <eloquence at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Foundation's position on non-free images
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
>        <b80736c80608161521q750d94eaye8f997df3d128c61 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 8/16/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I think the projects are not (should not be) managed by the Foundation.
> > The Foundation supports the projects, which is very different. Jimbo or
> > others may provide some guidance, but it is not the role of the
> > Foundation to say "fair use is allowed" or "fair use is not allowed".
>
> I'll state for the record my disagreement with that. I think copyright
> policy should be made on the Foundation level in cooperation with the
> projects. The current situation is an unsustainable mess.
>
> Erik
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 23:35:48 +0100
> From: geni <geniice at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Foundation's position on non-free images
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
>        <f80608430608161535j68490dc8o6031cca5a48a676b at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2; format=flowed
>
> On 8/16/06, Tisza Gerg? <tgergo at inf.elte.hu> wrote:
> I cannot speak for the foundation but I deal with copyright stuff
> rather a lot on en and from time to time other wikis
>
> > 1) Which copyright law should be followed? The Hungarian law, the law of
> > the United States or both? (And what about France and the Netherlands,
> > where IIRC some of the Wikimedia servers are hosted?) This is an
> > important question, as Hungarian copyright law is a lot more restrictive
> > (there is no fair use, and works made by the government remain
> > copyyrighted).
> >
> United States law must be followed. Following other more restrictive
> laws appears to be the choice of individual project (the works made by
> the goverment thing is a red herring works made by the US goverement
> are still PD and works made by almost any other goverment are not).
>
>
>
>
> > 2) What are the rules, if any, for non-free images? Should we follow
> > [[Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy]], or is every community free to create its
> > own policies about non-copyleft media content?
> >
>
> As long as the policy stays within US law it appears communities are
> free to do what they like. That said the foundation retains the right
> to remove any image at any time.
>
> > 3) Is it acceptable to use, in a way similar to fair use, images which
> > are illegal in the strict sense, but safe to use?
>
> As far as US law goes no. Outside that I think the choice reverts to
> the indivdual project
>
>
>
> --
> geni
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 10:06:49 +0930
> From: "Alphax (Wikipedia email)" <alphasigmax at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimania 2007 - get ready for the third
>        edition.
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <44E3BA21.1060901 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> > Kelly Martin wrote:
> >
> >> On 8/16/06, Delphine M?nard <notafishz at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Wikimania 2006 just closed its doors a week or so ago, and it is
> >>> already time to think about the next edition.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Actually, it was time to do that about six months ago.  We really need
> >> to be planning these things more aggressively.  In my opinion, we
> >> should know where the next year's Wikimania is going to be before we
> >> start the planning for the current year.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > Good Point,
> >
> > Greg mentioned this this morning as well this was a hot topic of
> > discussion that needed addressing.
> >
> > A few suggestions I'll put on the main site:
> >
> > Polynesian Language Institute, Hawaii
> > Sidney, Australia. (great place but very expensive for a lot of folks)
>
> It's spelt "Sydney", and there's already a lot of discussion at
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimania_2007/Australia and
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AWNB#Wikimania wrt. this.
>
> --
> Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
> Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
> "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
> Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: signature.asc
> Type: application/pgp-signature
> Size: 569 bytes
> Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
> Url : http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20060817/58b55413/attachment-0001.bin
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 03:10:16 +0200
> From: Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] bylaws (second call)
> To: foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <ec0fit$273$1 at sea.gmane.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Lars Aronsson wrote:
> > Brad Patrick wrote:
> >
> >
> >>- With such a diluted definition of 'member' what is the real
> >>  point of being a 'member'?
> >
> >
> > There was a decision point back in 2002 or so, where Wikipedia was
> > still more or less Jimbo's private property, and the question was
> > where to put it.  Many Germans and other Europeans wanted a
> > membership association, but Jimbo went for a foundation.  Later
> > (in 2004) the German national chapter was structured exactly like
> > the membership association (Verein) that they had wanted also for
> > the international body.  There is a fundamental difference between
> > the two kinds of organization, but I think this was more clear to
> > the Germans than it was to Jimbo or most Americans.
> >
> > (This seems to be a European/American cultural divide.  When I
> > look at an article such as the [[New England Anime Society]] the
> > *first* question I ask is *how many members* do they have?  And
> > this is not answered.  This is like not knowing the annual
> > turnover for a business or the population of a city.  Is it
> > thousands or millions?)
> >
> > However, one fundamental requirement for a membership association
> > was also missing.  The word "Verein" means union, a get-together
> > of equals.  The corresponding verb "sich vereinen" means "to
> > unite", to team up.  And there simply was nobody who equalled
> > Jimbo.  The German Wikipedians could get together as equals to
> > form their national chapter.  Their elected board was only
> > slightly more into Wikipedia than the rest.  There was nobody
> > there with the God-like status of Jimbo.
> >
> > I think the only way Wikipedia could have been turned into a real
> > membership association is if a global "chapter" of wikipedians had
> > been formed in 2002, without Jimbo, and then started to negotiate
> > with Jimbo about the future rights to domain names and servers.
> > As we all know, this didn't happen.
> >
> > This leaves Jimbo with the decision, and it is a fact that his
> > position is more like that of Bill Gates, Andrew Carnegie, or
> > Alfred Nobel.  One day he finds himself in possession of something
> > that should live on after him, and there really is little point in
> > his family to inherit it.  What do you do in such a situation?
> > You start a foundation.  Its bylaws is your last will. If a board
> > member needs to leave, the rest of the board must find a new board
> > member.  Many newspapers are owned by foundations, so it makes
> > sense for a web media venture as well.
> >
> > The fact that two out of five board members should be elected by
> > the community is merely a curious detail of the Wikimedia
> > Foundation.  This is not expected from a foundation.  Foundations
> > are used for purposes where democracy is not an issue. And in fact
> > the Wikimedia Foundation works perfectly alright without
> > democracy, as does the Nobel Foundation.  The former only needs to
> > keep the servers running.  The latter only needs to find the best
> > scientists.  Both tasks can be accomplished with a handful of
> > administrators and a network of experts.  These small tasks are
> > independent of the whole body of article-editing or science that
> > they serve.
> >
> >
> >>Is it political so members have control of the organization in
> >>some way? Philosophical, in that we have 'card carrying' members
> >>to prove allegiance to something?
> >
> >
> > The German chapter fills both roles, as far as I can see.
>
> I thought your summary of the past very accurate and clear.
>
> Just a couple of comments regarding your last big paragraph.
> Your premise that the two members be elected from the community is a
> curious detail, because WMF is a Foundation and elected members are not
> expected in a Foundation, is incorrect.
>
> The WMF is not really a Foundation, but by name. It is in reality nearer
> to be an association.
>
> The second point is that the goal of the WMF support goes far beyond
> from merely keeping the servers running.
>
> ant
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
> End of foundation-l Digest, Vol 29, Issue 54
> ********************************************
>


list: wikimedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox


list: foundation-l

from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject: [Foundation-l] Foundation's position on non-free images

body:
On 8/16/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'll state for the record my disagreement with that. I think copyright
> policy should be made on the Foundation level in cooperation with the
> projects. The current situation is an unsustainable mess.

Has the foundation not set the policy? If not carved on stone tablets
then through the actions of those on its board and in its employ.

1) Thou shall not upload content which will place the foundation in legal peril.
2) Wikimedia projects are Free Content.

These decisions leave a lot of grey area which must be navigated by
the projects, true, but that is really a fact of life. Copyright, and
especially international copyright, are not clear black and white
matters which can be easily codified in a policy document.

Because the WMF merely provides a forum and some fertilizer for
community of people around the world to come together and create
perpetually free educational content, we really can't expect it to
step in and make decisions over every image.  Not only would it not
scale, but it would fundamentally change the nature of the foundation
from providing infrastructure and support for a charitable purpose to,
effectively, authoring and controlling the authoring of the content
itself.

On enwiki the issue is currently 'solved' in the sense that the people
working on it are consistently and reliably doing the right thing.
We're still buried under a pile of bad decisions made in the past and
we're still challenged by the constant influx of new problem
content... but at least we are soundly moving in the right direction.
 Given time enwiki will be completely straightened out... the bigger
question is how to develop a culture and a community of folks
addressing these issues on other problems.


from_name: Jeff V. Merkey

subject: [Foundation-l] Removal of Cherokee Translators from Wikimedia

body:
Aphia made the following edit:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Translation&diff=prev&oldid=410586

then left the following comments on my talk page:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jmerkey

== [[Translators]] ==

I remove your website from the list by consensus of Promotion &
Translation subcommittee. The list is a list of translators, not a
website. You can't use meta for advertising your site.

Thank you for your understanding,
--[[User:Aphaia|Aphaia]] 17:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:Removal of a community of translators from wikimedia seems counter
productive to the foundations goals.  I'll discuss it on the foundation
mailing list and see if the broader community agrees with your actions.
[[User:Jmerkey|Jmerkey]] 17:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Aphia's contributions shows no such discussion occurring anywhere
discussing such an action:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Aphaia

I personally could care less, I am translating content as a service to
the Native Community and the Foundation.  I find it odd that Angela who
supposedly is public relations for a firm whose purpose and goals are to
promote the creation of new communities and her triumverate of
associates are so bent on running off contributors to other languages
they peronally don't like.    Concensus from whom?   a triumverate of three?

At any rate, discussion is open on the topic.   If having a Cherokee
based community website is so offensive, I'll maintain it off site and
the ANA and Federal Government finanacial contributors are welcome to
help us with the program.

Jeff


from_name: Robert Scott Horning

subject:
[Foundation-l] Wikimania 2008 and reflecting on what Wikimania
 is all about

body:
geni wrote:

>On 8/17/06, Delphine M?nard <notafishz at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On the subject of size. I am personally not in favour of an
>>*international Wikimedia conference* (keywords international and
>>Wikimedia) that will hold more than 500 people, ever. The reason for
>>this were clear last year, but even clearer this year, ie. opening the
>>conference to 1000 people makes it, in my opinion, lose the
>>"Wikimedia" touch, by bringing many people in who have in the end
>>nothing to do with Wikimedia.
>>
>>
>
>With the number of contributers we have (heck we have well over 1000
>admins across the various project) 1000 does not seem to be an
>illogicaly high number in future.
>
>
I do hope that Wikimania never gets to the size of mega-conferences like
Comdex (which collpased under its own weight).  Still, as has been
pointed out above, the number of Wikimedia participants has grown
considerably, and there are more that 250 "active" Wikimedia projects
right now with signficant content.  Getting even one rep from each one
would be quite an undertaking at the moment.

--
Robert Scott Horning


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Sabine Cretella

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Neapolitan double apostrophe (was Apple's
 Wiki	Server brings WYSIWYG to wiki)

body:
Andrew Dunbar schrieb:
> On 8/17/06, Sabine Cretella <sabine_cretella at yahoo.it> wrote:
>
>>> So if it substitutes letters which are not pronounced, what are those
>>> unpronounced letters in 'o and 'a? My guess is that they are a special
>>> exception which are always written 'o and 'a perhaps historically having
>>> had an official letter. If this is the case we could say the rule is:
>>>
>>>
>> lo + la + le (plural form) d''e also exists
>>
>>> A double apostrophe occurs when contraction is made with the definite
>>> articles, these being always written with an apostrophe.
>>>
>>> So my further questions:
>>> a) Is there a "full spelling" for 'o and 'a?
>>>
>>>
>> it is not used - you only find it in veeeery old texts. nowadays they
>> only use 'o, 'a and in plural form 'e
>>
>
> I just found 'a, 'e, and 'o on en.wiktionary. I am going to add la,
> le, and lo as
> alternative spellings and mark them as obsolete. Would you say this is
> correct?
>
they are not alternative spellings - they are antique Neapolitan like
other stuff is Old English - so they should not be combined with actual
Neapolitan.
>
>>> b) Are there any words besides 'o and 'a which take an apostrophe even
>>> when not part of a contraction?
>>>
>>>
>> yes - 'nfrumma,
>>
>> 'mbrugli?
>>
>
> English Wiktionary also includes 'a = from, 'e = of, 'llustr? = to illustrate,
> 'ntr?llece = vivaciously, 'nzularch?a = jaundice
>
'a = from? well it is not used here like this

when you
I am from Naples = So 'e Napule.

but: consider that nap or Neapolitan officially stands for a very huge
region with many varieties of the language. It is not so simple ...
there is that Neapolitan that was used before Italian became the
official language of this reagion and that one, with some adaptations,
is the basis we use - people could well not accept this way of writing
and create their own way of doing it (there is no law that determins how
Neapolitan must be written) - I have some articles on nap.wikipedia that
are not in standard Neapolitan, but that we explicitly allow in order to
have people not get annoyed (that's why we wait so much for multilingual
mediawiki ... it would then become much easier to have various versions
of a language in one wikipedia - for languages like Neapolitan that
makes sense).

>
>> also there it substitutes a letter - in all cases the substituted letter
>> is a vowel (as much as I have in mind now
>>
>> and there's the article ll' used in front of a vowel
>>
>> sorry, but things come in mind while writing and imagining sentences -
>> consider that I know some grammar rules, but I don't know all of them -
>> my Neapolitan comes from everyday use when talking with people in this
>> region. The few rules I know help me to write as correctly as possible
>> and according to Carmine who proofreads my texts they are quite well and
>> getting always better - during the last ones there were only some really
>> minor changes. If we need further, more exact information I need to find
>> out where I can get a grammar book - it is impossible to find it here
>> where I live (that might seem strange, but it is like that).
>>
>
> No problem. Linguists create grammars by interviewing people who speak
> them and it apparently works best if these informants can't analyse their
> language grammatically. We're going very well so far! (-:
>
Well, yes, but should we do this here on the tech-list? Wouldn't it make
sense to have it on the Neapolitan list or by private mail maybe
including some other people that potentially know more than me about
Neapolitan grammar? I mean: I compare the Neapolitan way with Italian,
German, English, French - the languages where I really learnt the grammar.

Hmmm ... I was interrupted here ... I know I wanted to write something
more, but do not really recall that now  - sorry.

Best, Sabine
Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale!
 http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com


from_name: Brad Patrick

body:
geni wrote:
> On 8/17/06, Delphine M?nard <notafishz at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On the subject of size. I am personally not in favour of an
>> *international Wikimedia conference* (keywords international and
>> Wikimedia) that will hold more than 500 people, ever. The reason for
>> this were clear last year, but even clearer this year, ie. opening the
>> conference to 1000 people makes it, in my opinion, lose the
>> "Wikimedia" touch, by bringing many people in who have in the end
>> nothing to do with Wikimedia.
>>
>
> With the number of contributers we have (heck we have well over 1000
> admins across the various project) 1000 does not seem to be an
> illogicaly high number in future.
>
The barrier to entry to edit in your pajamas is far different from the
barrier to entry of international travel for many, if not most,
contributors or admins.  We also skew heavily towards students.  The
difference among people from our different pockets of interest was
obvious from this year's conference, and our international delegations
were tiny.  We must do a much better job of international visitation,
scholarships, and the like.


from_name: Amgine

body:
On 17-Aug-06, at 10:42 AM, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:

> Concensus from whom?   a triumverate of three?
>
> At any rate, discussion is open on the topic.   If having a Cherokee
> based community website is so offensive, I'll maintain it off site and
> the ANA and Federal Government finanacial contributors are welcome to
> help us with the program.

The promotions and translations subcommittee is an element of the
Communications Committee. It's open to *individuals* to be involved,
and they have a discussion list.

Your translators are undoubtedly welcome to be involved in group, as
people. But websites are not people.

Amgine

-------------- next part --------------


from_name: Axel

subject: [Wikitech-l] Dajoo: a Java-based offline editor/viewer

body:
On 8/17/06, mingli yuan <mingli.yuan at gmail.com> wrote:
> The project is now in the early stage, and you can download and try it
> at  http://sourceforge.net/projects/dajoo/
Hi

Very interesting project.
Maybe we can work together on a Java based offline editor and
Mediawiki parser renderer?

My main project page is here:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/plog4u

I'm also trying to create a Javascript based version with the help of the
Google Web Toolkit "Java to JavaScript" translator.

I created a client-side GWT based wikipedia syntax renderer and editor demo:
* http://bliki.info/wiki/
Current GWT based source code download:
* http://bliki.info/wiki/download/info.bliki.wiki.zip

--
Axel Kramer
GWT Wiki Blog: http://www.groovy-news.org/e/page/axelclk
German: http://www.bliki.info/roller/page/axelclk


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject:
[Foundation-l] Wikimania 2008 and reflecting on what Wikimania
 is	all about

body:
Delphine M?nard wrote:

>I have read the numerous comments on the fact that we should be
>planning Wikimania well in advance, and I fully agree that choosing
>the city for Wikimania 2008 sometime at the end of 2006 or beginning
>of 2007 makes perfect sense, and we have started working on it.
>
Perhaps the cities who are about to make bids could indicate a
preference for 2007, 2008 or even 2009.  There seems to be some informal
support for a three region rotation, but no-one would be so insistent as
to force it upon a region that does not want it or is incapable of
providing a basic infrastructure for Wikimania.  By the time Wikimania
2007 rolls around it might be possible to have the 2009 list reduced to
serious candidates, and the attendees in 2007 could contribute their ideas.

>On the subject of size. I am personally not in favour of an
>*international Wikimedia conference* (keywords international and
>Wikimedia) that will hold more than 500 people, ever. The reason for
>this were clear last year, but even clearer this year, ie. opening the
>conference to 1000 people makes it, in my opinion, lose the
>"Wikimedia" touch, by bringing many people in who have in the end
>nothing to do with Wikimedia. Mind you, I find the interaction with
>other organisations and people with different web, collaborative,
>knowledge experiences very fruitful and interesting, but this year
>showed a trend that I wish we did not facilitate too much. There were
>many many local (as in US) people who had but a far fetched interest
>in our projects, and thus did not pertain to the "Wikimedia Community"
>or had no intention of ever pertaining to it.
>
These are all important factors, and although I would not want to jump
to judgement about the optimum size.  Perhaps a local quota of 50% might
help.  I found it mildly annoying to ask someone his user name, only to
find out that he did not edit at all.  Perhaps that might be solved with
another quots, at least the very simple solution of a different name
badge colour for Wikimedians and unaffiliated visitors would help.

Some have also suggested a Problem Solving Day, probably on the Thursday
if we continue with the same format.  This would be closed to all but
Wikimedians.  As I understand it this day between Hacking Days and the
main conference is already used by developpers to discuss their
technical problems.  This day could also be used to equal advantage by
other interest groups.  (Thinkers' Thursday? :-) )

>My dream is that Wikimedia got their hands on enough money in due time
>to provide scholarships to far away contributors wherever they may be
>and make sure that the core attendance of the conference is filled
>with Wikimedians.
>
That would be nice, as would serious help with visas.

>Basically the real question is what do we want Wikimania to be? Is it
>the ultimate wiki conference? Is it the Wikimedia conference? Is it a
>free knowledge or access to knowledge conference? Is it an open source
>conference? Is it all of that? Some of that?
>
This topic could fill a conference session, and is probably the kind of
thing that should be scheduled.

>In my opinion, and in an ideal world, Wikimania would probably almost
>be booked solid before registration even happens, because we have
>managed to bring in all the people that count in the Wikimedia
>community.
>
Including the ones from the developed countries?  As someone who
travelled from the opposite coast of North America there are still
personal budgetting considerations that can delay taking positive steps
to register.

>In short, I do not think that Wikimania would benefit from becoming a
>huge thing that everyone would attend because they happened to be in
>the neighborhood.
>
At least one day in the conference that is more public than the others
can help.  That can be the day for keynote speeches or for revealing
policy initiatives that need to be publicized.

Ec


from_name: valdelli at bluemail.ch

subject: [Foundation-l] WG: Wikimania 2007 - get ready for the third edition.

body:
IMHO in Official requirements for bidding cities should be
specified
that town in country with local Wikimedia chapter are "strongly"
supported in the final choice.

IMHO the first problem is an organizational problem and if the
Wikimedia's town is supported by a local chapter and other
external
chapters it means that WMF could confide in a group already
present
and organized.

At moment I could read a lot of proposed towns without connection
with local chapters (i.e. Geneva) which are only a "nice to have".
In
this moment these proposals seems to be only a brainstorming.

Regards

Ilario

----Messaggio originale----
Da: notafishz at gmail.com
Data: 16.08.06 17.28
A: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"<foundation-l at wikimedia.
org>,
<wikipedia-l at wikimedia.org>, "Wikimedia Translators"<translators-
l at wikimedia.org>
Oggetto: [Foundation-l] Wikimania 2007 - get ready for the third
edition.

Dear all,

Wikimania 2006 just closed its doors a week or so ago, and it is
already time to think about the next edition.

As happened in 2005 and 2006, the city hosting Wikimania in 2007
will
be chosen among whichever candidate cities dare/deign/want to
participate in the "hosting Wikimania" contest.

All information concerning how to launch a bid for your
city/location
can be found on meta:

*http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2007
*http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2007/Bids
*http://meta.wikimedia.
org/wiki/Wikimania_2007/Official_requirements_for_bidding_cities

Please follow the instructions on that last page to build your
bid.
The Wikimania 2007 organizing team stays at your disposal for any
questions you might have concerning the bidding process and/or the
bidding requirements.

Happy bidding!

Delphine


from_name: Cormac Lawler

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikiversity

body:
On 8/17/06, Amgine <amgine at saewyc.net> wrote:
>
> On 16-Aug-06, at 12:00 PM, Cormac Lawler wrote:
>
> > So, if there's a conclusion to this mail, it would be: I'm not arguing
> > for a simple dismissal about all we know and have learned about NPOV.
> > I'm simply saying that it will not _always_ be a useful policy to
> > impose throughout the process of learning. I'm yearning for a better
> > concept - or perhaps we simply have to invest NPOV with new meaning in
> > order to tailor it to Wikiversity's particular identity.
>
> As you're aware, I'm extremely bothered by this approach to defining
> Wikiversity. It seems to me to say "let's not put any strictures on
> Wikiversity, no requirements or expectations, but let it grow
> organically." This sound nifty in theory, but results in nothing
> because there are no expectations, no hurdles, nothing to accomplish.
> You can't even measure if it has accomplished this nothingness.
>
> Wikversity should have goals. They should be measurable. The project
> needs to meet the minimum standards of the Wikimedia Foundation;
> fundamental in this is a commitment to avoiding support of any one
> POV, to be verifiable (where this is an option) and to be free.
>
> Throwing crap at a wall until some of it sticks means you deal with a
> lot of crap. Let's be a bit more discerning than that, please.
>

I expect Wikiversity to provide the world with quality educational
resources, as well as a space within which to learn. No, scratch that,
*everybody* expects (or should expect) this to be the case.

I'm not arguing that material will aim to be "non-NPOV". I've been
instead saying that we should be flexible enough to allow for various
types of material within different pedagogical frameworks to combine
in order to provide for a real education. However, throughout this
discussion, I've been thinking about ways in which to manage this
complexity, and make it explicitly a part of the introduction to
Wikiversity. Can you either trust us to work this out, or will you
help in developing this yourself?

Cormac


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikiversity


from_name: Nathan Carter

body:
On 8/17/06, Tisza Gerg? <tgergo at inf.elte.hu> wrote:
>
> 1) Which copyright law should be followed? The Hungarian law, the law of
> the United States or both? (And what about France and the Netherlands,
> where IIRC some of the Wikimedia servers are hosted?) This is an
> important question, as Hungarian copyright law is a lot more restrictive
> (there is no fair use, and works made by the government remain
> copyyrighted).

There is a fiar amount of debate in various communities with regards to
this.
In my opinion there are two possible options:
- Follow copyright laws of the US because that is where the foundation (who
in essence maintains control over the projects) is located.
- Follow copyright laws of the country in which the content we are claiming
fair use for was created. The content is protected under that country's
copyright laws.

The second is messy and probably unsustainable.

2) What are the rules, if any, for non-free images? Should we follow
> [[Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy]], or is every community free to create its
> own policies about non-copyleft media content?

I think each community has it's own media rules. I am a believer that free
content should be sought first, with fair use only if absolutely necessary.

3) Is it acceptable to use, in a way similar to fair use, images which
> are illegal in the strict sense, but safe to use? (Eg. under the
> Hungarian law, logos or book covers probably cannot be used without
> proper permission, which is often impossible to obtain - the copyright
> holder cannot be contacted, or doesn't understand a problem, or just
> doesn't care. On the other hand, it's obvious that no one will sue
> Wikipedia for advertising him or his product, especially when that
> advertising would be legal in most countries.)

I wouldn't be too sure there. Some are quite happy to excercise their
copyright rights and jump to litigation.

Cheers,
Nathan


from_name: mingli yuan

body:
Hi, buddies. Thanks for your information on the grammar.

I'm not an expert on parser, I just translate some MediaWiki PHP code
into Java. I did not take a fully test on the parser, but it seems to
work normally on several articles I copy from Wikipedia. Now only a
subset of the MediaWiki Markup is supported, including heading,
horizontal rule, internal links, list, quotes and tables. The parser
might be very buggy now.

I think a 100% complete compatibility with Mediawiki is very
difficult, and in fact dose not make sense. If only a subset of the
grammar is supported, it still would be usable and useful in most
cases.

According to the interoperability, I am using the Mwapi from MwJed,
and it works very well.


from_name: Aphaia

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimania 2007 - get ready for the third edition.

body:
On 8/17/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Good point. Kelly is right as well that we should be planning ahead.

/me nods. A int'l conference I know, which usually gather 1,000 people
or so, is scheduled 3 years before. And honestly I doubt we can say it
is steadily growing ... (who cares for aesthetics in this world? Heh,
but it is another problem). For your information, the conf. is
regurarly trilingual. English, French or German. The local language
isn't included as its official language. Some tracks are provided
English a/o local language translation.

I also attended a US based convention, formerly held in Milwaukee
then, but now seemed to move to Indianapolice. I am aware of danger to
present myself geeky for now, it could be another good reference... As
an US based event, it is monolingual, but its coordinations in several
spheres is awasome. Over 10 hotels were occupied by participants, 2
hotels and public convention halls in city serves the convention.
Registration begins in the fall before one year (so organizers have a
pool of money beforehand), printed program is sent before one month of
convention, etc.  See http://gencon.org

> Just after Wikimania, a discussion took place to identify the good sides
> and the bad sides of Wikimania 2006.

Sorry interception, but I prefer to say "have taken", "have been
taking" or just "is ongoing" ... because I have now many things to
discuss about its linguistic aspects ... I am now strongly hesitant to
call it an intenational event in its full meaning. I know most of
"int'l" computer related conf. are monolingual but Wikimania is not
only a specific-computer science-related-topic- oriented conference
but also aiming to a community event? And as a humanist who studies
philosophy, an int'l conf or session I have attended and first imagine
is at least bilingual. So, you won't be realized the monolinguality of
Wikimania beaten me heavily. It was really a shock when I learned not
only the ongoing conference at Boston but also Frankfurterkonferenz
had been also monolingual (de facto English), since I have read
possible interpretation and translation were discussed by mailinglist
.....

Besides my personal impression, as English speaker as
a foreign language, I found many "it would be much greater if ..."
like sorts at conference. Like transription providing for at least
keynotes (planeries). Due to the current workload, currently I have no
enough time to summarize my proposal for universal access to Wikimedia
things for "ESAFL/ESASL", so I expect you as those to input your
opinion frankly, and also expect the next year conf. is greatly
progressing at this point.

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


body:
I think Fred and others have addressed this point enough on the status
Wikigadugi as a part of the greater Wikimedia community. Water off a
ducks back. I have translations to do and I don't see how this
interferes with that, so my apologies to the list. Aphia's actions
reflect on her and not me or any value I bring to the community. I need
to focus on those things which are important. More work to do ...

:-)

All my love,

Jeff


body:
James Hare wrote:

>I'm going to wait for Aphaia's rebuttal before commenting.
>
>
>
No worries. I already know what's going on here, and it's somewhat
meaningless to my true mission for the preservation of my people's
language and those of the other tribes who are one generation away from
lossing them forever. Too much time gets wasted on these types
of issues. I am a 46 year old man and I have fewer years ahead then
behind to waste time on these purile issues of who gets to push an admin
button on whom.

Don't waste any more brain cycles on it. We all have more important
concerns to focus on.

All my love,

Jeff


from_name: liu haokai

subject: [Wikitech-l] An error occur when send a mail

body:
Well, can I conclude that the problem is that the Mediawiki submit a UTF-8
mail address. I refered the database of my mediawiki, and the mail address
is stored in UTF-8.

2006/8/16, Platonides <Platonides at gmail.com>:
>
> "liu haokai" wrote:
> >A email can be sent through the following script, sure, the mail address
> >has
> > been replaced by an existing one:
> > <?php
> > // The message
> > $message = "Line 1\nLine 2\nLine 3";
> >
> > // In case any of our lines are larger than 70 characters, we should use
> > wordwrap()
> > $message = wordwrap($message, 70);
> >
> > // Send
> > mail('caffinated at example.com', 'My Subject',
> > $message);
> > ?>
> >
> > I wonder is the problem related to the UTF-8 email address?
>
> Mail addresses shouldn't be utf-8. As SMTP protocol is 7-bit ascii (unless
> the server has 8bitmime extension, which i think only applies for the
> content), a utf-8 email with non us-ascii chars (those which fall outside
> the 7-bit) could be rejected by the server, and probably should, as it has
> no mean of knowing if the next server is going to accept this protocol
> violation, and as the smtp specification says the user part of email
> shouldn't be touched, i wouldn't accept it.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


body:
Anthere wrote:

>Good point. Kelly is right as well that we should be planning ahead.
>
>Ultimately, choices will depend a lot on the quality of the bid.
>It will also help that the organisers of the first two wikimania are
>involved in the choice of next city, as they are primary sources of
>information to identify what was best in both locations.
>
>Just after Wikimania, a discussion took place to identify the good sides
>and the bad sides of Wikimania 2006. ...
>More specifically, whilst Boston was identified as a very pretty place
>where it was real cool to hang out, it appears that the participants had
>less opportunities (or did not identified these opportunities) to hang
>out together than in Frankfurt. Amongst reasons, the fact the conference
>took place in two different buildings, the dorms were in yet another
>place, the "village pump" was not clearly labelled as such etc...
>Good points were the common breakfast/lunch area, in that big room where
>people could chat.
>
It can be difficult to define these human intangibles that are not a
part of the formal structure of a conference.  The courtyard in
Frankfort quickly became a natural place for people to gather, but it
took longer for this to develop around the Harkness Commons at Harvard.
Getting out to the restaurant area at Harvard Square or Massachusetts
Avenue seemed more awkward and distant than in Frankfurt.  I don't know
how much this can be planned.  Having cold drinks available 24/7 can be
a plus even if it means putting money into a machine.

Boston can indeed be a pretty city, but Wikimaniacs are not very good
tourists when it comes to mere sightseeing.  On our tourism Tuesday it
is a reflection of our way of life that those remaining after lunch
should soon find ourselves at a convenient gelateria for yet another
2-hour informal meeting. :-)

>In any cases, the organisation is not an easy task, kudos to those who
>did the job this year. But it all begins with bids :-)
>
Ditto!


body:
Sorry, I tried to save it then instead of sending ...  and failed to
include the most important part for me.

As translation coordinator, I would like to apologize all non native
English speakers who attended the past two conferences for your any
inconvinience, and deeply appreciate your patience, not uproaring
about it in public. To unignorable extent, it was my fault to fail to
pay full attention on both two conference, and I thank all of
translators who helped those two always. I wouldn't like to accuse
anyone, those who organized conferences, and at least for the latest,
I assure them most of participants enjoyed it greatly in general. But
as one of people who credited for those organization, I feel necessity
to confess my works weren't perfect, and guilty for your
inconvinience, if any.

Your comment, suggestion for improvement will be welcome,

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


from_name: Jay R. Ashworth

body:
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 05:12:22PM +0200, Steve Bennett wrote:
> > A URL-like thing that was typed without any particular surrounding
> > syntax (it gets autolinked).  Similar lookahead would presumably be
> > necessary for RFCs, ISBNs, and PMIDs (okay, that's enough to convince
> > me to agree that they should be ditched :) ).  In general, a lookahead
> > of no more than one character is considered desirable.
>
> What can I say, I don't like these "freelinks". They just don't seem
> clean. Normal text which spontaneously turns into a link without any
> special punctuation or anything. Hmm.

Parsers don't have to be single pass... and ours isn't now.

Is it?

> > He *seems* to be saying that you'd have to make special rules for each
> > allowed HTML tag, and presumably each allowed attribute and property
> > thereof, and maybe even every combination of them (!).  Would there be
> > any advantage in leaving those out of the grammar and keeping Parser
> > and Sanitizer separate as they are now?
>
> I don't get why we even allow HTML tags, other than convenience. It's
> not like the final output of the encyclopaedia is guaranteed to bear
> any resemblance to a web page...
>
> For instance, why do we support <b>? We have '''... It's just not
> clean. (I dare someone to reply that ''' is semantic markup...heh.)

It is; I believe it renders as <strong>, not <bold>.

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

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


body:
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 09:46:23AM +0200, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 8/17/06, Jay R. Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote:
> > Fine, but a) those are not the only problems he's having, and b) No
> > [[Flag Day]]s.
>
> Ok, that's the third time you've used the expression "flag day" on
> this list. After the second time, I looked it up and wasn't
> enlightened. What the hell do you mean? :)

For our purposes here, a Flag Day would be any change in the parser
that would require a pass over all article bodies to change markup from
an old to a new style, in whatever degree... as well as requiring
changes in people's heads, and any code which otherwise deals with
wikitext.

I don't think that a Flag Day for some exceedingly esoteric
construction which needs to be cleaned up to make a formal parser
necessary is completely impossible, but it would have to be pretty
negligible, pretty important, or both... it goes back to that circle I
mentioned.

And clearly, brion thinks that the absolute (never) is called for,
which means that what I think doesn't matter -- and he's better
informed than I am.

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

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


body:
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:

>On 8/16/06, Sue Reed <sreed1234 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>There is something strange and geeky about me mentioning the World Science
>>Fiction convention on a wikimedia email list, but it fits the situation.
>>They have a really great system of organizing and planning future
>>conferences several years in advance. The convention is coming up for this
>>summer in Los Angeles, the 2007 convention location was chosen by popular
>>vote last year, and the 2008 convention location will be chosen at this
>>year's convention.
>>
>>
>What you neglect to mention is the wonderful way in which the Worldcon
>rotation operates. For those not in the know; the Worldcon operates in
>a four year cycle, roughly speaking, and though the actual voting is
>only one year ahead, the submissions have to be verified much earlier,
>and actual campaigning usually starts four years in advance.
>
I don't think that a general vote at Wikimania is a practical way to
choose a future year's conference site.  There are too many practical
details to be considered which normally are only active in the
background.  For a world-wide organization such as ours local bias would
be a much bigger factor than for a conference with national scope.

Ec


body:
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 08:53:34AM +0100, Neil Harris wrote:
> Just to mention this again...

And I'm glad you did, Neil, because I don't reacall having seen it
before.

> [[Packrat parser]]s implement PEGs in linear time. The basic idea is
> brute-force top-down matching with memoization to prevent a
> combinatorial explosion: this seemingly naive approach actually performs
> very well in practice, and the amount of memory consumed is surprisingly
> small, by the standards of modern computers. They can be compiled into
> native code using a parser-generator approach, and can usually be sped
> up/slimmed down quite considerably using a bit of hackery, where small
> but common special case parts of the grammar can be replaced by
> hand-written code using fast algorthms such as regexps.
>
> There are a number of GPL'd implementations of packrat parsers already
> available in a variety of languages.

Sounds worth looking into.  Do you have any experience working with
them?  Who's the Hot Guy on this topic?

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

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


body:
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 05:21:00PM +0200, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 8/17/06, Simetrical <Simetrical+wikitech at gmail.com> wrote:
> > It's at the bottom of the English [[Flag Day]] article:
>
> My bad. I should make it a separate article - the two concepts are
> only coincidentally related.

I added it; you'll note my edit comment, querying whether it was time
for a forman disambig page.  I didn't put it up top because it seemed
awfully cluttered up there already.

More details are in the linked Jargon file entry.

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

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


from_name: Simetrical

body:
On 8/17/06, Jay R. Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote:
> Parsers don't have to be single pass... and ours isn't now.
>
> Is it?

Nope.

> It is; I believe it renders as <strong>, not <bold>.

Nope.  It used to render as <strong>, but it was used as <b>, so it
was changed to output <b>.  Dedication to semantic content includes
the ability to recognize when content does *not* have semantic value,
and use non-semantic tags.  The "semantic web" is not people replacing
<b> with <strong> and <s> with <del>, so that they aren't using
deprecated markup; it's people using tags to add meaning to the
content.  If you aren't adding meaning, you shouldn't use semantic
tags, and in practice, '' and ''' are not used in any way exclusively
to denote emphasis, but rather to denote all sorts of things.

As a concrete example of this, people using screenreaders complained
that all sorts of words would be incongruously emphasized (movie
titles, loan words, you name it).  Therefore, they were changed to the
non-semantic <i> and <b>, which are typically not emphasized by
screenreaders (although they may be by some).


body:
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 09:52:39AM -0400, Simetrical wrote:
> On 8/17/06, Jay R. Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote:
> > Well that's fine... but *getting from Eric's example to yours* is a
> > problem of semantics: what did the user *mean*.  Without disambiguating
> > rules, there may be no way to tell.
>
> There is in a WYSIWYG editor, because the user will make sure that
> what's displayed is what he wants.  :)

Quite so.  :-)

> > Fine, but a) those are not the only problems he's having, and b) No
> > [[Flag Day]]s.
>
> a) They're the only problems he's having with constructing a formal
> grammar, which is all I was talking about, and b) why not, provided i)
> the current parser is kept as a legacy and modified to convert to the
> XML format rather than straight to HTML and ii) the XML can be
> converted into roughly the current wikitext on demand for those who'd
> prefer to work with it?  The goal would still be accomplished, in that
> reusers would have a much easier time dealing with our data (yes, I
> know that's not my original stated goal).

Well, if you could guarantee a perfect roundtrip from XML to WT, sure,
I guess.  But I don't know that WT is structurally clean enough to make
that workable.

> But c) I can see we're likely never going to agree on even this
> watered-down version of my argument, and d) what we think probably
> doesn't matter unless one of us is willing to try writing up an
> implementation, so e) I think it's best to drop this line of
> discussion (again, and yes I know I was the one who re-brought it up).

Hee.  Yeah; probably.

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

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


body:
Brad Patrick wrote:

>The barrier to entry to edit in your pajamas is far different from the
>barrier to entry of international travel for many, if not most,
>contributors or admins.  We also skew heavily towards students.  The
>difference among people from our different pockets of interest was
>obvious from this year's conference, and our international delegations
>were tiny.  We must do a much better job of international visitation,
>scholarships, and the like.
>
The difference among people from our different pockets of interest is
the difference in their pockets.  :-)   Sorry, I couldn't help it. :-P

Ec


from_name: Kelly Martin

subject:
[Foundation-l] WG: Wikimania 2007 - get ready for the third
	edition.

body:
On 8/17/06, valdelli at bluemail.ch <valdelli at bluemail.ch> wrote:
> In 2006 Toronto said that there was no Chapter in Canada to support
> the initiative.

There was no chapter in Cambridge, either.  There are lots of
Wikimedians in both locations.  Cambridge won out for other reasons
entirely.

I think the presence of dedicated local Wikimedians is important, but
Chapter support is absolutely not required.

Kelly


body:
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 11:05:52AM +0100, Rob Church wrote:
> http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4979. Windows-based SMTP
> servers can't handle the "John Smith <john at smith.org>" email address
> format, and croak on it. The workaround in comment #2 on the
> referenced URL should help.

Windows SMTP servers violate RFC2822, huh?

What a surprise.

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

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


body:
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 01:27:16PM -0400, Simetrical wrote:
> On 8/17/06, Jay R. Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote:
> > Parsers don't have to be single pass... and ours isn't now.
> >
> > Is it?
>
> Nope.
>
> > It is; I believe it renders as <strong>, not <bold>.
>
> Nope.  It used to render as <strong>, but it was used as <b>, so it
> was changed to output <b>.  Dedication to semantic content includes
> the ability to recognize when content does *not* have semantic value,
> and use non-semantic tags.  The "semantic web" is not people replacing
> <b> with <strong> and <s> with <del>, so that they aren't using
> deprecated markup; it's people using tags to add meaning to the
> content.  If you aren't adding meaning, you shouldn't use semantic
> tags, and in practice, '' and ''' are not used in any way exclusively
> to denote emphasis, but rather to denote all sorts of things.
>
> As a concrete example of this, people using screenreaders complained
> that all sorts of words would be incongruously emphasized (movie
> titles, loan words, you name it).  Therefore, they were changed to the
> non-semantic <i> and <b>, which are typically not emphasized by
> screenreaders (although they may be by some).

Aha!

Got it.  Excellent point.

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

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


from_name: Kim Bruning

subject: [Foundation-l] board, babysitting, speaking engagements, etc.

in_reply_to:
<453b6e50608121614l1ab49fe4w5476847f3aac6c3@mail.gmail.com>;
	from notafishz@gmail.com on Sun, Aug 13, 2006 at 01:14:13AM +0200

body:
On Sun, Aug 13, 2006 at 01:14:13AM +0200, Delphine M?nard wrote:
> Resending in the thread, sorry for the mishap.
>
> This return on investment could be on an "assume good faith" basis,
> ie. if a speaker is offered XXX dollars per year to give speeches,
> they might want to make a donation to the Foundation one day or the
> other, or at least be in a position where they can attest their talk
> has brought something to the Foundation, may it be contacts (and hence
> potential sponsors that turn into real sponsors), a great press
> coverage (and hence an increase in donations) etc.

Surprisingly, doing the right speech at the right location might also
further our objectives much more than any amount of money might buy us. :-P

Pecunia non olet, but next to getting money (which is very important,
for sure!) , I think a speech or activity that furthers our objectives
directly can also often be very useful.

read you soon,
	Kim Bruning

--
[Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment]
gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key  FEF9DD72
5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A  01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72


list: wikipedia-l

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Translate gnu text

body:
The Foundation's interpretation of the GFDL has been that the two
critical elements of compliance with the license are as you say. You
must have a link to the "live" original article so the history can be
viewed (which allows authorship to be determined) and the link to the
GFDL license itself.

I don't quite follow how the second part of your question is different.
Do you mean "language" as in your choice of words, or as in Spanish,
Swahili, etc.?

Thomas Pedersen wrote:
> If I want to use a GFDL text (which I have edited a bit) on my site I have
> to
> * Link to the original aricle
> * Use the same license GFDL
>
>
> But if I want to translate a original GFDL text to my language and use it,
> is it enough to do the same as above ?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Foundation-l] Unsubscribe Mirwin Please

body:
Michael R. Irwin wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Could someone please tell me how to unsubscribe from this  Foundation-L
> mailing list?   I need a link to the automated description form or
> action from a list admin.   Either is very useful and will make me much
> happier than usual.

I've unsubscribed you.

> My apologies but I could not find the proper form at:
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo
>
> Curiously I also cannot seem to get subscribed to Wikiversity-L but I
> shall take that up with Cormac or the other guy (there is one and he is
> active at Wikiversity but I simply cannot remember his handle at the
> moment).
>
> A private email to mirwin account at wikiversity is also useful and
> acceptable if we wish to avoid further cluttering this list with trivia.
>
> Thanks,
> mirwin
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^-- see this link :)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20060817/cde3a1e8/attachment.pgp


body:
Michael R. Irwin wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Could someone please tell me how to unsubscribe from this  Foundation-L
> mailing list?   I need a link to the automated description form or
> action from a list admin.   Either is very useful and will make me much
> happier than usual.

I've unsubscribed you.

> My apologies but I could not find the proper form at:
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo
>
> Curiously I also cannot seem to get subscribed to Wikiversity-L but I
> shall take that up with Cormac or the other guy (there is one and he is
> active at Wikiversity but I simply cannot remember his handle at the
> moment).
>
> A private email to mirwin account at wikiversity is also useful and
> acceptable if we wish to avoid further cluttering this list with trivia.
>
> Thanks,
> mirwin
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^-- see this link :)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20060817/cde3a1e8/attachment-0001.pgp


body:
Michael R. Irwin wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Could someone please tell me how to unsubscribe from this  Foundation-L
> mailing list?   I need a link to the automated description form or
> action from a list admin.   Either is very useful and will make me much
> happier than usual.

I've unsubscribed you.

> My apologies but I could not find the proper form at:
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo
>
> Curiously I also cannot seem to get subscribed to Wikiversity-L but I
> shall take that up with Cormac or the other guy (there is one and he is
> active at Wikiversity but I simply cannot remember his handle at the
> moment).
>
> A private email to mirwin account at wikiversity is also useful and
> acceptable if we wish to avoid further cluttering this list with trivia.
>
> Thanks,
> mirwin
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^-- see this link :)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20060817/cde3a1e8/attachment.pgp>


body:
Michael R. Irwin wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Could someone please tell me how to unsubscribe from this  Foundation-L
> mailing list?   I need a link to the automated description form or
> action from a list admin.   Either is very useful and will make me much
> happier than usual.

I've unsubscribed you.

> My apologies but I could not find the proper form at:
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo
>
> Curiously I also cannot seem to get subscribed to Wikiversity-L but I
> shall take that up with Cormac or the other guy (there is one and he is
> active at Wikiversity but I simply cannot remember his handle at the
> moment).
>
> A private email to mirwin account at wikiversity is also useful and
> acceptable if we wish to avoid further cluttering this list with trivia.
>
> Thanks,
> mirwin
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^-- see this link :)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20060817/cde3a1e8/attachment-0001.pgp>


from_name: George Herbert

subject:
[Foundation-l] Wikimania 2008 and reflecting on what Wikimania
	is all about

body:
On 8/17/06, Delphine M?nard <notafishz at gmail.com> wrote:
> On the subject of size. I am personally not in favour of an
> *international Wikimedia conference* (keywords international and
> Wikimedia) that will hold more than 500 people, ever. The reason for
> this were clear last year, but even clearer this year, ie. opening the
> conference to 1000 people makes it, in my opinion, lose the
> "Wikimedia" touch, by bringing many people in who have in the end
> nothing to do with Wikimedia. Mind you, I find the interaction with
> other organisations and people with different web, collaborative,
> knowledge experiences very fruitful and interesting, but this year
> showed a trend that I wish we did not facilitate too much. There were
> many many local (as in US) people who had but a far fetched interest
> in our projects, and thus did not pertain to the "Wikimedia Community"
> or had no intention of ever pertaining to it.

And yet all those US people whose involvement in en.wikipedia.org is
significant and who should be allowed to come to a conference, if they
are interested.

The foundation has competing interests with the conference: one
predominantly huge-sized project, and the whole of everything
including the much smaller ones and the global picture.

If the interests of the two collide to some degree, there are
solutions: split the conference into World and US conferences,
dual-track the conference, etc.

Rather than artificially constraining the size of Wikimania,
structural solutions and a review of the goals of the conference and
foundation are in order.

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


from_name: James Hare

body:
I'm going to wait for Aphaia's rebuttal before commenting.

On 8/17/06, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>
>
> Aphia made the following edit:
>
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Translation&diff=prev&oldid=410586
>
> then left the following comments on my talk page:
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jmerkey
>
> == [[Translators]] ==
>
> I remove your website from the list by consensus of Promotion &
> Translation subcommittee. The list is a list of translators, not a
> website. You can't use meta for advertising your site.
>
> Thank you for your understanding,
> --[[User:Aphaia|Aphaia]] 17:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
>
>
> :Removal of a community of translators from wikimedia seems counter
> productive to the foundations goals.  I'll discuss it on the foundation
> mailing list and see if the broader community agrees with your actions.
> [[User:Jmerkey|Jmerkey]] 17:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
>
>
>
> Aphia's contributions shows no such discussion occurring anywhere
> discussing such an action:
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Aphaia
>
> I personally could care less, I am translating content as a service to
> the Native Community and the Foundation.  I find it odd that Angela who
> supposedly is public relations for a firm whose purpose and goals are to
> promote the creation of new communities and her triumverate of
> associates are so bent on running off contributors to other languages
> they peronally don't like.    Concensus from whom?   a triumverate of
> three?
>
> At any rate, discussion is open on the topic.   If having a Cherokee
> based community website is so offensive, I'll maintain it off site and
> the ANA and Federal Government finanacial contributors are welcome to
> help us with the program.
>
> Jeff
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Edward Z. Yang

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

Steve Bennett wrote:
> In particular, I don't think ''' is *ever* used to add emphasis. It's
> used to highlight key words, or occasionally to point out that a
> linked article has Lots Of Good Stuff, but due to those meanings, we
> tend to avoid using it for emphasis. Italics ('') are probably 50/50
> emphasis or album titles....

The use of bold to indicate emphasis in typographic circles is strongly
discouraged.

In terms of italics, they should be used for emphasis, though the
tags are more suited for the task. Although most major style guides
(such as MLA) recommend the use of italics for book titles, it is
technically improper to mark them with  since this precludes a simple
CSS change to change the style from one format to another. Ideally, it
would probably be .

Now, if any editor actually wants to type that all out...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFE5LgGqTO+fYacSNoRAqoFAJ9MgGKX1ZGyhhftNbtVI2HoTgpENgCeJiOH
ldQ9rP3fjMMq4IDbcFk/EWU=
=LPIi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


body:
On 8/17/06, Edward Z. Yang <edwardzyang at thewritingpot.com> wrote:
> Although most major style guides
> (such as MLA) recommend the use of italics for book titles, it is
> technically improper to mark them with <i> since this precludes a simple
> CSS change to change the style from one format to another. Ideally, it
> would probably be <span class="book">.
>
> Now, if any editor actually wants to type that all out...

More like <cite class="book">.  Too bad IE doesn't support generated
content; then we could have <cite class="article"> as well, with
auto-quotes.  :)


from_name: Ron Hall

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> On 8/17/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I guess the smallest we could do it would be {{t|Gone with the Wind}}
> > - it's not inconceivable.
>
> Heh, it's actually only 2 characters longer than the corresponding raw
> wikitext: ''Gone with the Wind''. But so much uglier.
>
    But think of the power that you can potentially bring
    {{u|Gone With the Wind}} - underline it
    {{uc|Gone With the Wind}} - Uppercase it
    {{r|Gone With the Wind}} - Reverse it
    {{sup|Gone With the Wind}} - Super script it
    {{r,sup|Gone With the Wind}} - Reverse and Superscript it
    {{s|Gone WIth teh Wind}} - Sub-Title

    and so on and so on.

    I jest of course.....maybe.

    r


from_name: Jeff V. Merkey

body:
Sabine Cretella wrote:

>Amgine schrieb:
>
>
>>On 17-Aug-06, at 10:42 AM, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Concensus from whom?   a triumverate of three?
>>>
>>>At any rate, discussion is open on the topic.   If having a Cherokee
>>>based community website is so offensive, I'll maintain it off site and
>>>the ANA and Federal Government finanacial contributors are welcome to
>>>help us with the program.
>>>
>>>
>>The promotions and translations subcommittee is an element of the
>>Communications Committee. It's open to *individuals* to be involved,
>>and they have a discussion list.
>>
>>Your translators are undoubtedly welcome to be involved in group, as
>>people. But websites are not people.
>>
>>
>>Amgine
>>
>>
>>
>Thank you Amgine! I talked with Aphaia yesterday about this. Fact is: if
>we allow one website to be there we also have to allow others - we very
>much welcome Cherokee translators if they give us a direct contact. Now
>that on meta enotif is enabled they could simply create an account and
>activate notification and just set up a translator's profile. They will
>then get an e-mail if their discussion page is changed.
>
>Imagine what would happen if we allowed for websites to be there - links
>like:
>http://translatorscafe.com/
>http://proz.com
>http://gotranslators.com/
>
>would appear sooner or later - and their reasoning would be: "well there
>are so many translators who would like to help for free". There of
>course we can find translators if we ask them - but it is not the case
>to put links to any website into a list of translators only because
>there are many translators to be found ... well I could also add my own
>translator's portal - there are plenty of people who helped with
>Wikimania 2005 - I always kept this apart because my portal has nothing
>to do with the foundation. The only thing these translators have is a
>tag "Translator for Wikimania 2005" that allows me to find them
>immediately if I have to ask someone for help.
>
>Jeff, please don't understand this wrong - we really talked quite some
>time about that. It was not "just a decision taken because of some kind
>of a strange mood".
>
>Best,
>
>Sabine
>Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale!
> http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
Then why was the name of the translator removed along with the website?
You removed not only the website, but the name of the translator
as well (both entries were removed and were unrelated to one another). I
really could care less if the website is there or not. I get massive
traffic and search engine scraping on the site and it matters little if
its listed on your translators page or not.

Do you have an explanation for this as well?

quote:

"...we very much welcome Cherokee translators if they give us a direct contact..."

Jeff


from_name: Delphine Ménard

subject:
[Foundation-l] Wikimania 2008 and reflecting on what Wikimania is
	all about

body:
I have read the numerous comments on the fact that we should be
planning Wikimania well in advance, and I fully agree that choosing
the city for Wikimania 2008 sometime at the end of 2006 or beginning
of 2007 makes perfect sense, and we have started working on it.

Just for the record though, Wikimania 2006 was only the second
edition, and I wish people would remember that when planning 2006, we
did not even know whether it was going to happen at all. So please
keep that in perspective. There is room for improvement, and I believe
Wikimedia has done a good job in trying to keep everyting into
consideration for the next editions.

On the subject of size. I am personally not in favour of an
*international Wikimedia conference* (keywords international and
Wikimedia) that will hold more than 500 people, ever. The reason for
this were clear last year, but even clearer this year, ie. opening the
conference to 1000 people makes it, in my opinion, lose the
"Wikimedia" touch, by bringing many people in who have in the end
nothing to do with Wikimedia. Mind you, I find the interaction with
other organisations and people with different web, collaborative,
knowledge experiences very fruitful and interesting, but this year
showed a trend that I wish we did not facilitate too much. There were
many many local (as in US) people who had but a far fetched interest
in our projects, and thus did not pertain to the "Wikimedia Community"
or had no intention of ever pertaining to it.

My dream is that Wikimedia got their hands on enough money in due time
to provide scholarships to far away contributors wherever they may be
and make sure that the core attendance of the conference is filled
with Wikimedians.

Basically the real question is what do we want Wikimania to be? Is it
the ultimate wiki conference? Is it the Wikimedia conference? Is it a
free knowledge or access to knowledge conference? Is it an open source
conference? Is it all of that? Some of that?

In my opinion, and in an ideal world, Wikimania would probably almost
be booked solid before registration even happens, because we have
managed to bring in all the people that count in the Wikimedia
community.

I would hate to see Wikimania be taken away from the Wikimedians. I
would hate for it to be so big that you would not have a clue who this
or that person is, or worse, that some people would come to Wikimania
and ask "what is Wikipedia?".
I believe we have shown the world that we can put together interesting
programs and that we should use this opportunity to make sure we
provide different events, aiming at different publics. I would love to
see a Wikimedia Academic Conference, or a Wikimedia Wiki Practices
Conference. I would also love to see more regional Wikimedia
conferences, such as the Chinese and Dutch edition this year who would
bring together people who did not make it to the international
conference or who need to concentrate in a language or on specific
projects.

In short, I do not think that Wikimania would benefit from becoming a
huge thing that everyone would attend because they happened to be in
the neighborhood.

Delphine

--
~notafish


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

Ron Hall wrote:
>     But think of the power that you can potentially bring
>     {{u|Gone With the Wind}} - underline it
>     {{uc|Gone With the Wind}} - Uppercase it
>     {{r|Gone With the Wind}} - Reverse it
>     {{sup|Gone With the Wind}} - Super script it
>     {{r,sup|Gone With the Wind}} - Reverse and Superscript it
>     {{s|Gone WIth teh Wind}} - Sub-Title
>
>     and so on and so on.
>
>     I jest of course.....maybe.

I do hope your jesting.  That would totally kill the whole point of
switching to an uglier syntax.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFE5L4DqTO+fYacSNoRAkH4AJ96FVkbrKoLBx9cP/OEjADqoPVsOgCgibXj
pAhqJXLsguoaQQ3jQfAiBhA=
=T05k
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Amgine

references:
<44E4AA84.7090105@wolfmountaingroup.com>	<2A080EDA-D759-4579-B76E-B9C0922BAC9D@saewyc.net>	<44E4CCB2.6030205@yahoo.it>
	<44E4D853.50406@wolfmountaingroup.com>
	<44E4ED92.7020802@wolfmountaingroup.com>

body:
On 17-Aug-06, at 3:28 PM, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>>
> Well, as I said, I really could care less, and since a response
> does not
> appear to be forthcoming to my question, I'll simply plod along and
> get
> back to
> my translating work and MediaWiki enhancements. I have a talk page
> is on
> meta and I am placing my **individual** name removed by Aphia
> back as a Cherokee translator (Aphia does not respond to any of my
> questions on any site and is a non-responsive translation
> coordinator).
> I've enabled notification, and since you have stated I am welcome as a
> Cherokee translator as in individual, I'll certainly be available.
>
> Jeff

Such good-faith assumptions should not go unrewarded. Aphaia is not
in US CDT (-5 UTC); she is in fact in +9 UTC, and may soon be waking
up. Of course I am sure that you're completely opposed to expecting
people who are not in your cultural milieu/timezone/language to
respond promptly and immediately to an ettiquette demand from you,
and that you will retract your caddish insensitive remarks. Unless
you really do want to sound that way, in which case I apologize.

Amgine

-------------- next part --------------


body:
Edward Z. Yang wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Ron Hall wrote:
> >     But think of the power that you can potentially bring
> >     {{u|Gone With the Wind}} - underline it
> >     {{uc|Gone With the Wind}} - Uppercase it
> >     {{r|Gone With the Wind}} - Reverse it
> >     {{sup|Gone With the Wind}} - Super script it
> >     {{r,sup|Gone With the Wind}} - Reverse and Superscript it
> >     {{s|Gone WIth teh Wind}} - Sub-Title
> >
> >     and so on and so on.
> >
> >     I jest of course.....maybe.
>
> I do hope your jesting.  That would totally kill the whole point of
> switching to an uglier syntax.
>
    But look at the power of the richness of the options. Literally
could reduce everything to a single syntax
    with a bazillion options. Of course in might start looking like lisp
(bad lisp for sure), but think of the shortened
    learning curve.

    Yes I'm still jesting. I lurk in the darkness just waiting for odd
things like this to indeed make a pseudo-point about
    how with only a slight exaggeration someone might get the idea that
I "foolishly" float here. Yes it is ugly and even bad.
    I'm sure a better solution will be found.

    r


body:
On 8/17/06, Aphaia <aphaia at gmail.com> wrote:

> Sorry interception, but I prefer to say "have taken", "have been
> taking" or just "is ongoing" ... because I have now many things to
> discuss about its linguistic aspects ... I am now strongly hesitant to
> call it an intenational event in its full meaning. I know most of
> "int'l" computer related conf. are monolingual but Wikimania is not
> only a specific-computer science-related-topic- oriented conference
> but also aiming to a community event? And as a humanist who studies
> philosophy, an int'l conf or session I have attended and first imagine
> is at least bilingual. So, you won't be realized the monolinguality of
> Wikimania beaten me heavily. It was really a shock when I learned not
> only the ongoing conference at Boston but also Frankfurterkonferenz
> had been also monolingual (de facto English), since I have read
> possible interpretation and translation were discussed by mailinglist

For the record, simultaneous translation is an enormous budget,
especially when it comes to many languages. The question is always,
which of the chicken or the egg comes first. ie. Would providing
translation in say 5 languages actually bring enough people who speak
those languages to make it worthwhile? Or would the so many people
speaking one language present at the conference would make it
worthwhile to have translation in that language? It is a tough call.
In an ideal world, we'd be very very rich and could provide audio
guides for every single language represented.

Although I find a ratio of 50% international / 50% local interesting,
I believe a higher ratio of local people makes Wikimania lose its
"international" meaning altogether.

> Besides my personal impression, as English speaker as
> a foreign language, I found many "it would be much greater if ..."
> like sorts at conference. Like transription providing for at least
> keynotes (planeries). Due to the current workload, currently I have no
> enough time to summarize my proposal for universal access to Wikimedia
> things for "ESAFL/ESASL", so I expect you as those to input your
> opinion frankly, and also expect the next year conf. is greatly
> progressing at this point.

I believe I can be hardly taxed of monolinguism activism myself, but I
still believe that Wikimania in English, wherever it happens, makes
perfect sense. That we facilitate the coming of speakers who do not
speak English, and make sure they can express themselves in their own
language, sure. That we provide translation for the language of the
country that hosts the conference, why not. But in the end, English
should remain the main language, even if we need to make sure that it
is never an obstacle for people to come.

Delphine
--
~notafish


list: wikien-l

from_name: Steve Summit

subject: [WikiEN-l] rationale behind policy (was: CITE nazis)

body:
Mark Gallagher wrote:
> The reasoning is the most important *part* of any policy.  This is
> because rules only exist to make you think before you break them; when
> you know the reasoning behind a particular rule, it's so much easier to
> think along the right lines...

Indeed.  Very good point.

But this reminds me of an idea I had yesterday for ordinary
pages, which might apply to policy and other project-space pages
too.  Right now, for every page, there's an associated talk page.
What if every page had *two* associated pages, "Talk" and
"Rationale"?  Talk would be as it is now, but Rationale would
be a mostly-static (or at any rate as static as the main page)
description of *why* the main page says what it says, and why
it does not say the things it does not say.  That is, it would
contain the distilled consensus of everything you'd want a
would-be editor of the article to see, but which mere readers
would have no need for.

Today, talk pages sort of perform this function, but they're
so free-wheeling, and so subject to various ad-hoc kinds of
archiving, that it's an arbitrarily hard problem for a new editor
(who's trying to be responsible) to discover whether there's any
precedent or prior argument behind a change he's about to make,
that might be controversial or have been tried before and decided
against.

(Adding these hypothetical Rationale pages would be a sweeping
change, of course, and I'm not seriously proposing doing it,
but it's an idea to think about.)


body:
>
> Dunno about the others, {{sup|...}} behaves exactly as you describe,
> on en at least.
>
    Really?!? I'm gonna hafta' dig deepa' wid this stuff :)

>
> One possible benefit of such templates is that they become documented
> in a predictable place. Simply search for template:sup and you'll find
> what it does, and when to and not to use it. How would you find out
> what <sup> did?
>
    Same way I learned just about every other tag/directive/class, etc.
    I read a book (or two or seven). I'm a great believer in reading then
    doing, though there is no experience quite like the one afforded by
    raw empiricalism (warts and all). There is no better teacher than
    making a mistake and no better student that the one that admits the
    error and learns from it. As Piet Hein said (and I paraphrase)
    "The secret to success is to err and err and err, but less and less
and less."

    But that's just me.

    r


list: commons-l

from_name: Brianna Laugher

subject: [Commons-l] Rethinking [[COM:DEL]]

body:
On 17/08/06, Florian Straub <Flominator at gmx.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 10:51:19 +1000 "Brianna Laugher" <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Flominator/Deletion_proposal
> >
> > That's quite nice. Having the discussion on the image talk page is
> > good because at the moment discussions are very separated from the
> > images. However when we delete the image, would we then keep the talk
> > page? That's a little odd.
>
> An alternative would be "subst:"ing the discussion page into the deletion discussion when deleting an image. What would be the problem in keeping the discussion at all?

Do you mean *not* keeping the discussion? It's necessary to keep the
discussion to refer to similar discussions, multiple requests (if an
earlier one is keep, or if an image is uploaded multiple times), so
that people from other wikis can come and find out why their favourite
picture has been deleted, as can uploaders who only visit every 6
months.

Keeping orphan talk pages around would be weird. I don't really like that idea.

> Another idea would be to discuss the deletion request right within the image and to automatically categorize them by day.

What do you mean, "within the image"?

cheers,
Brianna


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Thai Wikipedia freezes

body:
[LiM] Manop wrote:
> Recently I have a problem accessing to Thai Wikipedia (
> http://th.wikipedia.org). It froze many times with blank white pages with no
> any single HTML code when I viewed the source. I need to reload two or three
> times before the text came out. I also wrote on the Village Pump in Thai WP
> several days ago, but seems no one has discussed about this problem yet.

This should be fixed now; one of the servers had a bad copy of the old Thai
language file leftover.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20060817/72945d85/attachment.pgp


references:
<44E4AA84.7090105@wolfmountaingroup.com>	<2A080EDA-D759-4579-B76E-B9C0922BAC9D@saewyc.net>	<44E4CCB2.6030205@yahoo.it>
	<44E4D853.50406@wolfmountaingroup.com>

body:
Jeff V. Merkey wrote:

>>Jeff, please don't understand this wrong - we really talked quite some
>>time about that. It was not "just a decision taken because of some kind
>>of a strange mood".
>>
>>Best,
>>
>>Sabine
>>Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale!
>>http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com
>>_______________________________________________
>>foundation-l mailing list
>>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Then why was the name of the translator removed along with the website?
>You removed not only the website, but the name of the translator
>as well (both entries were removed and were unrelated to one another). I
>really could care less if the website is there or not. I get massive
>traffic and search engine scraping on the site and it matters little if
>its listed on your translators page or not.
>
>Do you have an explanation for this as well?
>
>quote:
>
>"...we very much welcome Cherokee translators if they give us a direct contact..."
>
>Jeff
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
Well, as I said, I really could care less, and since a response does not
appear to be forthcoming to my question, I'll simply plod along and get
back to
my translating work and MediaWiki enhancements. I have a talk page is on
meta and I am placing my **individual** name removed by Aphia
back as a Cherokee translator (Aphia does not respond to any of my
questions on any site and is a non-responsive translation coordinator).
I've enabled notification, and since you have stated I am welcome as a
Cherokee translator as in individual, I'll certainly be available.

Jeff