from_name: Christopher Larberg

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Press inquiry

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

On 6/27/05, Joyce Lee <joyce at cmlink.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am emailing from Hong Kong and I am the Photo Editor of Hong Kong
> Tatler magazine. Our magazines cover the business, cultural, social
> and sporting life and our readers are generally affluent, well-
> educated individuals who are active in social circles in Hong Kong.
> Please have a look at our website for more information About us
> (www.cmlink.com)
>
> We are working on the local article in August and we are planning to
> use the image of "Moorehead as Endora on bewitched?" to illustrate
> the sidebar of the story. We like to give the credit of this image.
> If you can provide the hi-rez image to us we would be appreciated.
>
> Please let us know.
>
> Many thanks
> Joyce Lee
The image in question
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Moorehead_as_Endora.jpg) is a
copyrighted image; neither the Wikimedia foundation nor any Wikipedia
contributors own the copyright to it. As the image page indicates, the
use of the image on Wikipedia is held to be fair use under United
States copyright law. This may not be true for your magazine,
especially since it is based in China, which almost certainly has
copyright laws different from those of the U.S. To learn more about
copyrights on Wikipedia, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights. Your best recourse
would be to contact the owner or owners of the copyright to
"Bewitched."

As a side note, I speak in no official capacity for Wikipedia or the
Mediawiki Foundation; I am simply a volunteer. Any official
correspondence should be directed to the Foundation Board of Trustees
(http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Board_of_Trustees).

--Christopher Larberg (a.k.a. Slowking Man)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCwQGuCYNOh7qrRhoRAu1/AJ4p3nLO/rHItVFliGy8lmDOVhT+FgCeOYIJ
Ibj2kuajVH6rx971XyPezIU=
=u32B
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


list: wiktionary-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Wiktionary-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Why do we have them??

references:
<849f98ed050624192248f4d56@mail.gmail.com>	<d9iqlu$5u7$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<42BFB569.9040706@telus.net>	<42BFBE62.4000302@gmail.com>	<op.ss1am5112okkek@arcadia.hsd1.co.comcast.net>
	<ba1b6b9f050627163862e2c550@mail.gmail.com>

body:
Andrew Dunbar wrote:

>I would recommend the more technical word "orthography" over
>"spelling". I've done a very small number of articles on the English
>Wiktionary covering the most recent German spelling reform and I'm
>pretty sure I've used (''pre-1998'') and (''post-1998'') though I know
>this leaves a year uncovered in between because I wasn't sure of the
>dates. I've also done one or two for the old Russian orthograpy, I
>think 1908 was the year of change but I can't be sure. I've seen
>people using "pre-revolutionary" and "post-revolutionary" spelling,
>but I'd want to be 100% positive that there were no other reforms
>before or after the revolution to use such narrow terms.
>
The most important reform was introduced in 1917 by the Karensky
government. See [[w:Reforms of Russian orthography]]

Ec


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Wouter Steenbeek

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Request for creation of Dutch-Low Saxon (nds-nl)

body:
>To find out about such a matter as orthographic variants does not
>require the study of a language for its own sake, but rather an
>analysis of interlinear texts in the same dialect using two different
>orthographies. This does not require even the most basic knowledge of
>the language.
>
> > Do you notice the length of
> > the list yourself?
>
>Yes. But:
>
> >> Spelling can easily be converted, see
> >>
>http://s87257573.onlinehome.us/ks/index.php?title=Nds-test&variant=ks-de
> >> (obviously there are some shortcomings, but these can be fixed with a
> >> little programming).
>
>You haven't commented on the test yet.
>
Sorry, but this on really sucks. Needs some more programming. I don't doubt
you could fix this with a better converting program, but that's far from
ideal: imo, if you get enough people behind this project, we don't need such
a program at all.

Wouter

_________________________________________________________________
Altijd in contact met de kleinkinderen: MSN Messenger
http://messenger.msn.nl/


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Test wikipedia policy

body:
>Hi all, I have a few questions about our policy towards test Wikipedias.
>
>1) Can there be a test Wikipedia without a specific request for the
>creation of a Wikipedia in that language? Examples:
>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Test-wp/enm/ (Middle English),
>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Test-wp/Skandinavisk/Hovudside (Unified
>Scandinavian), http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Test-wp/mis-ryu/
>(South-Central Okinawan).
>
>2) Should it become a requirement to have a test Wikipedia before a
>new Wikipedia can be created??
>
>3) Once a Wikipedia is actually created, is there a policy to delete
>the test Wikipedia? For example with fiu-vro, I transferred all the
>articles and gave credit on talkpages; for sco: I transferred all
>articles. Clearly, having all these pages on meta now is just taking
>up space.
>
>Mark
>
Aren't test wikis your invention? Then you should tell us so. Imo, a test
wiki is desirable, but should not be obligatory for the creation of a new
Wikipedia. And while a test wiki in a language that has no request yet
should not be deleted at once, I think someone willing to create a new
Wikipedia should always request it properly, so if he/she makes a test wiki
he should put a request on the page immediately. Finally, it seems to me
nothing but logical that test wikis are removed when the real wikipedia has
been created. The moderators should bother to transfer the articles.

Wouter

_________________________________________________________________
Altijd in contact met de kleinkinderen: MSN Messenger
http://messenger.msn.nl/


from_name: Angela

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Test wikipedia policy

body:
On 6/28/05, Wouter Steenbeek <musiqolog at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Imo, a test
> wiki is desirable, but should not be obligatory for the creation of a new
> Wikipedia. And while a test wiki in a language that has no request yet
> should not be deleted at once, I think someone willing to create a new
> Wikipedia should always request it properly, so if he/she makes a test wiki
> he should put a request on the page immediately. Finally, it seems to me
> nothing but logical that test wikis are removed when the real wikipedia has
> been created. The moderators should bother to transfer the articles.

I agree with Wouter. In addition, I think there should be some sort of
policy on what is allowed a test wiki. It shouldn't be a place for
wikis to start up in languages that have been completely rejected by
the community. For example, if there's no consensus on Sindarin, it
shouldn't be able to get around that decision by setting up on Meta.
The test wiki area needs to be strictly for wikis which do have a real
possibility of becoming Wikipedia languages. It also needs to be made
clear that the test area is only for new languages, not for new wiki
ideas, or we'll end up with content like
http://scratchpad.wikicities.com/wiki/Bevelheads:Home and the other
pages at Scratchpad all over Meta, which I don't think would be useful
or appropriate.

Angela.


list: foundation-l

from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Foundation-l] Proposal for new project: Faith Wiki

body:
Sean Turvey:
> Please be advised that I have posted a proposal for a new project. The
> proposed name is Faith Wiki. The address is
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_new_projects#Faith_Wiki

 From the description: "This project would encompass all religions
present and past. History, sacred text (ie. Bible, Quran, Book of Kells,
etc.), beliefs, leaders, and essays."

History: Wikipedia
Sacred text: Wikisource, Wikiquote
Beliefs: Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wikiquote
Leaders: Wikipedia, Wikiquote
Essays: Wikisource (if notable and free content)

What is the justification for a new project?

Best,

Erik


list: wikimedia-l


list: wikien-l

subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright and Britannica Article List

body:
Fastfission wrote:

>>It is also of interest that in a later ruling on costs Wiredata was
>>awarded $91,765.28 in legal fees. To a large extent this was because
>>there was an attempt to extent rights beyond what was avaiable in
>>copyrights, and a recognition that the defendant in such cases is often
>>at a disadvantage. "When the prevailing party is the defendant, who by
>>definition receives not a small award but no award, the presumption in
>>favor of awarding fees is very strong. See Diamond Star Building Corp.
>>v. Freed, 30 F.3d 503, 506 (4th Cir. 1994). For without the prospect of
>>such an award, the party might be forced into a nuisance settlement or
>>deterred altogether from enforcing his rights.
>>
>>
>
>I want to just note -- I'm not a lawyer of any kind, but I believe in
>a number of circumstances there are times in which such sorts of
>counter-suits, getting legal fees back, etc., are NOT guaranteed, and
>I'm pretty sure that defenses of "fair use" generally don't get you
>that ("fair use" is what you use in your defense -- it is not asserted
>as an offensive "right" you can claim is infringed in current US
>copyright law). At least, that's what I took away from Lessig's book,
>_Free Culture_, which makes the argument in part that nuisance
>settlements are a very common way for unreasonable copyright claims to
>be threatened and enforced against clear fair use activities (you can
>read it online if you are interested in what I am talking about -- see
>the section on the kid who got sued by the RIAA just for writing a
>better Windows networking client).
>
>Which is just to say -- at the moment, you can't rely on the threat of
>counter-suit and so forth to necessarily deter lawsuits, as I
>understand it. (Personally I think this is one of the MAJOR problems
>with current copyright law -- it makes defending principles punitively
>expensive, and has gone too far to emphasize the "monopoly" aspect of
>copyright law without remembering the "limited" part, but I'm hardly
>the first to make such an observation).
>
>
This was not a matter of a countersuit.  The copyright issue was already
won by the defendants when they sought to recover costs.  In Online
Policy Group v. Diebold
http://www.eff.org/legal/ISP_liability/OPG_v_Diebold/20040930_Diebold_SJ_Order.pdf
Diebold was ordered to pay costs because it had misused copyright.

I don't think that a firm with big bucks at stake is going to be
deterred by legal fees, or the threat of being required to pay the
opponent's legal fees.  Defendants' difficulties are not limited to
copyright law.  Any defendant faced with a contingency chasing lawyer is
going to be at a disadvantage.  A plaintiff and his contingency paid
lawyer should be held jointly liable for a winning defendant's fees in
the same amount as the lawyer would have received if he had won.  :-)

Ec


from_name: david at bruehlmeier.com

subject: [Foundation-l] Access Wikipedia through SMS

body:
Dear Wikipedians,

a few weeks ago, my wife and I were hiking through the beautiful Swiss Alps and
had a lively discussion about the definition of some absurd term. All we had
with us was a cell phone. This was the birth of our idea: Wouldn't it be great
if the Wikipedia content was accessible sending a simple SMS?

This is how we figured it might work: Send an SMS with the keyword (the term you
want to look up) to a special number. The server will then access Wikipedia and
return the abstract of the article. You will only get as much as will fit into
an SMS, but in many cases, this will be enough.

In the first release of this service, the 'abstract' could be just whatever the
article starts with. In the future, there might even be a specialized way in
the Wikipedia to add such SMS-abstracts to an article.

I wrote this idea to Swisscom Mobile and got the answer that they would actually
be interested to offer such a service. However, there would have to be a
standardized gateway by Wikipedia to their Vodaphone live service. Other than
that, it would not be implemented. The responsible manager made it clear that
the phone company would not implement such a gateway, but that it would have to
be done by Wikipedia.

And this is why I am writing this post. I am unable to go any further than this,
because this is beyond my technical capabilities. All I can do is offer this
idea and offer the contact with Swisscom Mobile. Perhaps someone can pick this
up and make it happen? I think it would be a real win-win situation for both
Wikipedia as well as any phone company that might choose to offer such a
service.

Best regards,
David Bruehlmeier
(from Switzerland, but not affiliated in any way with Swisscom! :-)


from_name: Mark Williamson

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Middle-Earth Wikipedia (was Re: Re: Why do we have
	them??)

body:
Yes, we can.

I did that to a certain degree on sh:... I would link from the
Cyrillic version of an article to the Latin version with, for example,
[[hr:sh:Astronomija]]. The name on the interwiki is for the Croatian
Wikipedia, yet it goes to the Srpskohrvatski Wikipedia.

Mark

On 28/06/05, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
> "Mark Williamson" <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote in
> message news:849f98ed050627143841a440ca at mail.gmail.com...
> [heavy snippage]
> >... Quenya, Sindarin, Cirth, and Tengwar have
> > some degree of followers (to be sure, I sometimes wish Tolkien had
> > combined all his languages into Tolkienish --- it's too bad the
> > Tolkien languages fanbase is sort of divided over so many different
> > languages)
>
> So why not have one "Middle-Earth languages" wikipedia, which can accept
> articles written in any or all of the above?
>
> I would assume that the problem of overlapping titles would not arise since
> the titles would necessarily be different even between languages using the
> same script.
>
> Which raises a question: is it possible to come up with a system which
> replicates the functionality of inter-wiki links between pages within the
> same wiki?
> --
> Phil
> [[en:User:Phil Boswell]]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE


body:
Well if this is the case why not split it up on "dialect" rather than
country? We can have a Pommersch Wikipedia, an Oostfries Wikipedia, a
Stellingwarves Wikipedia, a Gruningens Wikipedia...

Since there are actually differences from dialect to dialect, instead
of a sudden change when you cross from Germany to the Netherlands or
viceversa, it would be ignoring the problem of dialect differences to
split it up based on countries.

Mark

On 28/06/05, Wouter Steenbeek <musiqolog at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Sure, it sucks.
> >
> >Note that the second text should probably suck more, since it's
> >already in Dutch orthography (if you select the other option at the
> >top of the page, it'll convert it to German).
> >
> >While a lot of people behind a project does inevitably make it more
> >viable, I think that it's still best to try to avoid a division of
> >labour whenever possible.
> >
> >Mark
>
> Well, I would agree with you if the Dutch and German variants were all more
> similar. If this separate wiki is created, efforts will only be duplicated
> when on both versions an article on the same topic has been written in the
> same main variant.
>
> Wouter
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Nieuw: Beeld en geluid met MSN Messenger 7.0 http://messenger.msn.nl/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
While we should aggressively defend our rights, avoiding litigation
is a wise policy. For one thing, particular judges don't necessarily
follow the law that you think they will. Additionally although you
may eventually get costs, you first must pay costs. I'm still not
sure about the list of Britannica articles, but I am sure that our
own method of generating endless article titles is probably more
comprehensive than any list like that. I know that when I want to
start a new article I don't look the topic up in Britannica first. So
I think the list is probably worthless for our purposes anyway.

Fred

On Jun 28, 2005, at 3:38 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:

> This was not a matter of a countersuit.  The copyright issue was
> already won by the defendants when they sought to recover costs.
> In Online Policy Group v. Diebold http://www.eff.org/legal/
> ISP_liability/OPG_v_Diebold/20040930_Diebold_SJ_Order.pdf Diebold
> was ordered to pay costs because it had misused copyright.
> I don't think that a firm with big bucks at stake is going to be
> deterred by legal fees, or the threat of being required to pay the
> opponent's legal fees.  Defendants' difficulties are not limited to
> copyright law.  Any defendant faced with a contingency chasing
> lawyer is going to be at a disadvantage.  A plaintiff and his
> contingency paid lawyer should be held jointly liable for a winning
> defendant's fees in the same amount as the lawyer would have
> received if he had won.  :-)
>
> Ec


from_name: Robert Scott Horning

subject:
[Foundation-l] meta-discussion for new project proposals (was
 Proposal for new project: Faith Wiki)

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

> Sean Turvey:
>
>> Please be advised that I have posted a proposal for a new project.
>> The proposed name is Faith Wiki. The address is
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_new_projects#Faith_Wiki
>
>
> What is the justification for a new project?
>
> Best,
>
> Erik

I think it is time to have a serious meta-discussion regarding what it
going to take in order for the Wikimedia Foundation to accept a whole
new project, and what guidelines should be in place, as well as a
roadmap for what would have to be accomplished in order for such a
project to move from a "gee, this would be a cool idea" to "here is the
server space, let's roll!"  By a meta-discussion, I don't mean on
meta.wikimedia.org, but a discussion about proposal discussions.

The new project proposal page is getting swamped with ideas of varying
qualities, and the only criteria that I see for getting culled from that
page is strictly because it is an old idea... and that a rather
arbitrary decision as well.  Other than Wikinews recently, I don't see
much movement (or even desire from the board) to actually grant a
project a green light to start up and be given a separate co-equal
project space as a peer to Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wikisource, etc.

I guess I'm asking to formalize this process, and to let people trying
to propose new projects realize just how difficult it can be to get a
major project started.  Wikinews did just about everything right, IMHO,
when that project proposal came about, and I would like to see that any
new project that is started have to go through similar standards before
it become an official Mediawiki Foundation project.

Steps I would suggest include:

1) Project description template filled out, including:
** More detailed project propsal made on a separate article on meta
(largely done for most new project proposals now, although of varying
quality)
** Sample "front page" of what the project would look like if it were
given a green light.
** Licensing issues in the disucssion, particularly if not specifically
the GFDL.
** Technical requirements, including what changes to software would have
to be made to make the project successful.
** Funding sources to help with basic startup costs, or who might be
willing to help sponsor the new project (goes with the earlier
earmarking discussion on this list).

2) Sponsorship of proposal by MediaWiki users.  This is mainly to show
widespread community support for the idea, and that it won't languish in
lack of use once started.
** A "threshhold" value be established before projects can move beyond
this point.  For example, 10 registered users agreeing to sponsor the
idea, and > 60% favor vs. oppose (or some other figure... this is just
an example).
** Advertisement of the proposal, on this list as well as in other
forums and contexts.  Also... spamming discouraged when doing this sort
of advertisement.  Try to search and find the potential community for
the project proposal idea.
** Respond to comments regarding proposal

3) Review by "proposal committee".  This is a new step, but I am
suggesting that a group of "veteran" Wikimedia (from all projects) users
help review project proposals that get to this stage (having passed the
earlier threshold requirements).
**Suggest to the project proposer ways to help improve the proposal
submission, review technical aspects, and in general help clean up the
proposal into something that can easily be digested by the board.  Yes,
I am volunteering.
**It would also be the job of this group to cull out and remove
languishing proposals on a the new proposal page, subject to general
concensus.  They should establish formal guidelines for what gets
removed and potentially what can be reinstated.
**Establishing a new "accepted project" page to (hopefully) get wider
review by the Wikimedia community of projects that have passed the new
requirements.  These would be considered "serious" propsals that are on
their way to become a new project, and should be put to a higher standard.
** The proposal committee would be doing some of the advertising at this
point, including front-page meta links to the new proposal, and formal
notification on this list (and other mediawiki lists, as appropriate).
** It should be possible for a proposal to die at this stage as well,
although a good proposal with popular support should survive this stage.

4) Formal presentation to the Wikimedia board.  While board members can
(and likely will) be involved in the earlier stages, this is the formal
stage where the board gives official comment regarding the status of the
project.  It can be sent back for more discussion, killed outright at
the discression of the board, or accepted.

5) The project has been accepted and is a peer to existing MediaWiki
projects.  Server space is found and content is being added to the new
project.

---------

Any other ideas on what process a project should go through to become
accepted?  What should the criteria be for being removed from the new
project proposal page?  Do we want to encourage/discourage anybody from
making these proposals?  What general guidelines should there be for new
project proposals beyond those already listed on Meta?  How can we keep
the board from getting flooded with new ideas, but have a chance to
review really good new ideas?

--
Robert Scott Horning


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] 3RR penalty is a block and not a ban -> problems

body:
I agree with the others here. It's just common sense to block people
who are trying to avoid their punishment by sockpuppeting. Just make
sure they really are the same as best you can.

--Mgm

On 6/27/05, Nyenyec N <nyenyec at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I tried to clarify this on several pages, e.g. on
> [[Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy]], but I got no answer so far.
>
> I'll try to be short:
>
> - For a 3RR violation an admin can *block* a user but cannot ban him
> - The rules for blocking don't mention that the block can be extended
> or known socks of the same user can be blocked if the block is
> violated
>
> Therefore, a user blocked under 3RR can argue that:
> - No admin can extend the block after 24 hours if he doesn't continue
> the revert war
>   (Since this is an option only for bans but not blocks)
> - No admin can block him when he returns through a known sock
>
> I think this wasn't the intention of those, who formulated the rules
> and the penalties for evading the block after a 3RR violation should
> be extended based on WP:BAN.
>
> I've learned that several admins do interpret the policies this way,
> i.e. that they have the right to block the known sock and have the
> right to extend the block.
>
> I think this should be fixed.
>
> Thanks,
> [[User:Nyenyec]]
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Anthere

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Request for creation of french-german european
	dialect

body:
Mark Williamson a ?crit:
> Ze un bon blag Anter, me a-t-il la pertinenz a wikipedia-l? ;)
>
> Mark

Je le crois Mark...

Ant


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: de.wikipedia reaches 250.000 articles

body:
Wonderful :-)

Next milestone might be fr becoming third before ja, but we are still
very small in comparison of en and de ;-)

ant

Raphael Wiegand a ?crit:
> Hello,
>
> A few seconds ago, de.wikipedia passed the 250.000 article mark. After
> having been standing still at about 249.990 articles for more than an
> hour thanks to deleting sysops, {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} rushed over the
> magic 250k at 00:13 CEST with more than 20 articles created in less than
> 120 seconds. The "official" number 250.000 is [[de:M?nchgut]] by
> [[de:Benutzer:Fristu]] - congratulations!
>
> rd
> b


from_name: Sj

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia turns a few heads in Bhutan, China

body:
Wikipedia snagged some Bhutani coverage this week, though it seems to
have been written a few months ago...  A journalist writing  for
/kuensel online/, "Bhutan's daily news site," cheerfully noted the
existence of a Dzongkha Wikipedia.

 http://www.kuenselonline.com/article.php?sid=5656
 http://dz.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilst_Ooli

Meanwhile the Chinese government is developing a editable encyclopedia
of  Chinese history, including all extant documents from before 1911.
According to Xinhuanet, "Volunteers may register at www.china-can.com
to become an intern editor, assistant editor or editor."

The site is designed for "50 billion words and 35 million media
files"; I'm guessing that's a British billion...  so around 100 TB.
>From the looks of their website, however, they're just getting off the
ground (and relearning html lessons from 1998)

 http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-06/23/content_3125788.htm
 http://www.china-can.com/index.htm

-- SJ


list: wikitech-l

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: en.wikipedia.org open for business

body:
/everyone release their breath.

;-)

Brion Vibber a ?crit:
> Woo, that was fun!
>
> Good news: We've got our BiggestWiki upgraded, in less time than I
> feared (under 24 hours!) and the servers still live. The scripts have
> gotten some additional stress-testing from problems that didn't show up
> on the dozens of wikis we upgraded yesterday (but of course we're real
> glad we fixed the problems revelaed on _them_ first!)
>
> I'll write up some more notes in a bit.
>
> It's all downhill from here, folks.
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


subject: [Foundation-l] meta-discussion for new project proposals

body:
Elisabeth Bauer wrote:

> Robert Scott Horning wrote:
>
>> I think it is time to have a serious meta-discussion regarding what
>> it going to take in order for the Wikimedia Foundation to accept a
>> whole new project, and what guidelines should be in place, as well as
>> a roadmap for what would have to be accomplished in order for such a
>> project to move from a "gee, this would be a cool idea" to "here is
>> the server space, let's roll!"
>
>
> [snipped good suggestions]
>
> Sorry to say this, but in my opinion we shouldn't accept any new
> projects at all for the next two years but instead work on improving
> the existing ones. There's enough work to do and even the time we
> discuss new projects would be better invested in discussing and
> solving our current problems.
>
> greetings,
> elian

I would have to, for the most part, agree.  The point I was trying to
make is that the new project proposal page is getting filled, and either
it gets shut down entirely with a note (no more new proposals are going
to be accepted, period), or that those new proposals be given a chance
to move forward.  It is at least possible for a new idea to come up that
might grab the attention of the board.

So should there be a moritorium on new projects?  Should that kill the
whole new project proposal page entirely?  Are the people proposing
these new project simply wasting their time?

 From what you are suggesting, elian, is that yes, they are wasting
their time in futility because none of those projects are ever going to
be accepted.  And projects that have been on that page for more than a
few months are being culled, so most of those are really brand-new
project proposals.  From my brief time of watching that page on Meta,
the number of proposals has substantially increased, somewhat
proportional to the overall growth of the Wikimedia projects in general.

I am suggesting that perhaps there are some good ideas out there, but
the people who have a germ of an idea they want to come forward with
should have to put some effort into getting that idea made into a full
project.  Mind you, this is an idea killing proposal, not a project
generator engine.  At each stage of the process I outlined, there would
be a way to get rid of weak ideas for new projects, or things that
simply don't fit in with the larger community.  Each stage is a way to
politely say "no" to somebody and try to discourage them from going
forward with a new project, but give some little bit of encouragement if
the idea does seem to be remarkable.  Also to try and keep what is often
new members of the wikimedia community involved and hopefully join with
existing projects, redirecting their energy and at least letting them
know that they are welcome to share their ideas, no matter how different
they may be from the rest of the community.

At the moment, there are only two levels to creating a project:  1) The
project proposal page and 2) When the server is turned on and people are
adding content.

This creates problems and is sending a message that nobody, particularly
the board, is really going to take anything on that project proposal
page seriously.  It also creates a disconnect between the board and the
community at large that IMHO shouldn't be there.  It should also be bold
and blunt that new project ideas are not likly going to happen, while
from reading everything on the new project proposal page seems to
suggest the exact opposite.  At least a slightly discouraging "look at
wikicities" note is in the talk page, but there could be more.

And perhaps even this mailing list isn't exactly the appropriate place
to announce a new project idea, at least in the initial stages.  You are
correct that often it is a waste of time and bandwidth to have to deal
with new project proposals, where most of them will be shot down anyway.
 Again, this is usually by people new to Wikipedia, or relatively so and
have begun to branch out a little bit, discovering Meta, the new project
page, and this mailing list.  I would argue that these are exactly the
kind of people we need to encourage, and try to get them involved with
the other existing projects as much as possible.  These also tend to be
somewhat creative, and people who the word "no" doesn't discourage.  A
formal process will actually cut down on the number of postings to this
mailing list, and will be only for projects that pass the first few
"roadblocks".

There must be some point between absolutely nothing new will be created
and every crazy proposal will be accepted with server space.  If it is
going to take a couple of years for a proposal to meander from initial
concept to final green light, perhaps that would be better.  I do
believe that new project ideas that are sent through a formal process
are going to be healthier projects in the long term, and have a larger
support community to maintain and add content.  Wikispecies is one of
those that could have greatly benefited from a process like this, where
the basic ideas on how it would have been put together could have been
refined before it was turned loose.  Ditto with the 9/11 memorial site.
 Perhaps even with Wikibooks, although I personally like that project.

--
Robert Scott Horning


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Test wikipedia policy

body:
On 6/27/05, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I agree with Wouter. In addition, I think there should be some sort of
> policy on what is allowed a test wiki. It shouldn't be a place for
> wikis to start up in languages that have been completely rejected by
> the community. For example, if there's no consensus on Sindarin, it
> shouldn't be able to get around that decision by setting up on Meta.

Meta is its own project; it isn't clear to me that other Wikipedias
need to tell it how to handle its own deletion policy.  Sindarin
couldn't set up an encyclopedia worth of pages on Meta, because the
normal RfD process would get rid of them.  But it could have an
effective page demonstrating what a Sindarin Main Page would look like
-- such a page would inevitably have a discussion about Sindarin WP
(and its lack of consensus) on its discussion page.

> The test wiki area needs to be strictly for wikis which do have a real
> possibility of becoming Wikipedia languages.

Why not open that space to test wikis of all varieties?  Anything
which might become its own project, or which does not clearly belong
in any one existing project, could have a text space to help clarify
what its goals would be, and to inform discussion about it.

For instance,  http://scratchpad.wikicities.com/wiki/Bevelheads:Home
is too specific to be a separate project, but looks as though it would
have much excellent, specific information for Wikipedia.  Some of it
might be too detailed for "Wikipedia as of 2005", but I imagine that
Wikipedia as of 2010 will have found elegant ways to handle that level
of detail on every subject.

--
+sj+


from_name: Thomas Gries

body: congrats, honestly !


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] _Show changes_ button destroys edit summary

body:
Phil Boswell wrote:
> I like the new "Save changes" feature, but the current installation on
> enwiki seems to destroy the edit summary, which AFAICT is a bad thing.
>
> How come this didn't show up before?

I have not been able to reproduce this. Can you narrow down the
circumstances of when it occurs?

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20050628/f733b585/attachment.pgp>


subject: [Wikitech-l] Upgrade status

body:
monk at zoomcon.com wrote:
> why there is still a problem with be language file on commons? I just
> can't understand... What I mean:
> in previous version of LanguageBe.php there was no translation for
> "Main page" so when I logon on commons (I have belarusian interface
> language set) I had "Main page" in left navigation bar along with
> belarusian strings for other pages. But in May new version of
> LanguageBe.php (with "Main page" and some other stuff already
> translated) was submitted to both 1.4 and HEAD branches.
>
> But for these months I have still seen "Main page" in left bar.... and
> even after upgrade to 1.5 I still see it! :(( why?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Mainpage/be

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20050628/eecfc5e0/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Phil Boswell

subject: [Wikitech-l] Non-integral number of pages on watchlist

body:
I can only assume that some quirk of the migration to version 1.5 has
produced the message which graces the top of my watch-list this morning:

  You have 2,630.5 pages on your watchlist (including talk pages); ...

Huh?!? What's the spare half-page for?
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]
I'd also like to know why Outlook Express thinks that "wtachlist" should be
spelled "titlist" (sic :-)


from_name: Andrew Lih

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Chinese history


body:
I like the new "Save changes" feature, but the current installation on
enwiki seems to destroy the edit summary, which AFAICT is a bad thing.

How come this didn't show up before?

HTH HAND
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Wikitech-l] en.wikipedia.org open for business

body:
(everyone, to Brion) "For he's a jolly good fellow..."

Magnus

Brion Vibber wrote:

> Woo, that was fun!
>
> Good news: We've got our BiggestWiki upgraded, in less time than I
> feared (under 24 hours!) and the servers still live. The scripts have
> gotten some additional stress-testing from problems that didn't show up
> on the dozens of wikis we upgraded yesterday (but of course we're real
> glad we fixed the problems revelaed on _them_ first!)
>
> I'll write up some more notes in a bit.
>
> It's all downhill from here, folks.
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Wikitech-l mailing list
>Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: Andrew Dunbar

references:
<849f98ed050624192248f4d56@mail.gmail.com>
	<d9iqlu$5u7$1@sea.gmane.org> <42BFB569.9040706@telus.net>
	<42BFBE62.4000302@gmail.com>
	<op.ss1am5112okkek@arcadia.hsd1.co.comcast.net>

body:
I would recommend the more technical word "orthography" over
"spelling". I've done a very small number of articles on the English
Wiktionary covering the most recent German spelling reform and I'm
pretty sure I've used (''pre-1998'') and (''post-1998'') though I know
this leaves a year uncovered in between because I wasn't sure of the
dates. I've also done one or two for the old Russian orthograpy, I
think 1908 was the year of change but I can't be sure. I've seen
people using "pre-revolutionary" and "post-revolutionary" spelling,
but I'd want to be 100% positive that there were no other reforms
before or after the revolution to use such narrow terms.

The case of English "color" vs "colour" is a special case because it's
not due to unilateral reform. It's due to a division in the language.
Outside the US, all dictionaries list the so-called "British" spelling
first. In the US, all dictionaries use the US spelling first. Thus
there are two traditions. Very very few dictionaries are aimed at both
the "British" and US markets simultaneously. The ones I have seen are
aimed at Europeans or Asians learning English, seem to be all produced
outside the US, and give the British spelling first. The same goes for
pronunciations.

So with English there exists tension between the spellings, in the
other languages there is an accepted progression from one spelling to
the next. Over the next few years we may see a parallel due to the
1998 German reform not being embraced on all sides. It Switzerland the
new spelling is in and everybody uses it. In Germany a lot of people
don't want it anymore. But unlike English, German has a language
authority, Duden, who makes the major dictionary.

Hippietrail.

On 6/28/05, Muke Tever <muke at frath.net> wrote:
> Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > In Ultimate Wiktionary, we want to have it a user preference that will
> > allow you to select what languages you want to add. The languages that
> > will be allowed to start with will be the ones that have a language
> > code. Within a language there will be room for distinct spellings. There
> > will also be room for old spellings; this is particularly relevant for
> > the Dutch language as it will have new spelling rules that will be
> > published on October 15 and will be the official spelling from August 1
> > 2006 onwards.
>
> How will the distinct spellings be handled?  Not the same way [[color]]
> and [[colour]] are on en: I hope?
>
>
>
> --
> website:     http://frath.net/
> LiveJournal: http://kohath.livejournal.com/
> deviantArt:  http://kohath.deviantart.com/
>
> FrathWiki, a conlang and conculture wiki:
> http://wiki.frath.net/
> _______________________________________________
> Wiktionary-l mailing list
> Wiktionary-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
>

--
http://linguaphile.sf.net


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Pseudoscience category - GSPOV

body:
Alternative medicine might involve things like strong suggestion and
placebos, and actually work. Quack medicine involves cleaning out the
last assets of the victim and their family.

Fred

On Jun 28, 2005, at 9:23 AM, Habj wrote:

> During the course in oncology, our teachers told us that many of their
> patients also sought for some alternative method of various kinds.
> They were not at all against it - they said the alternative people
> gave the patients something they badly needed, both for better
> prognosis and for quality of life - often not a very long period of
> time. That thing the alt.med. stuff can give in that situation, is
> hope...


subject: [Wiktionary-l] Language counts

body:
The two ways to do it are:
1) Parse the database. This is very difficult due to a myriad of article formats
and a very large number of articles in which the format is just broken. I did
however develop a parser just good enough to count articles and translations
by language for the non-broken examples. Sadly the hard drive on which the
code lived was destroyed in a grey-out or power surge.

2) Use of templates. On Wiktionary there is quite a bit of "anarchy" or
"democracy" at present so it's very difficult to introduce new features and
also to have such features used for their proposed purpose without being
extended. Also people losing interest in their new ideas, and the fact that
there are *so many* articles their to go back through and classify after
agreeing on a way to do so.

I think the best way would be to a) come to an agreement of how to make
a language-tracking template. b) Create a new parser that can find
language headings in their various variant forms. c) Use the data created
by the parser with a bot to tag all the existing articles. d) Make the new
tags compulsory.

Actually a better way again might be possible with input from the devs
once Wiktionary is big enough for them to take notice (: Perhaps the
new Styles support coming might also bring along something that helps
us on en.wiktionary ?

Hippietrail

On 6/28/05, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> Yes there is a way to find the number of articles in a given language
> and the number of languages on a wiktionary, check out the 271 languages
> on the nl.wikipedia http://nl.wiktionary.org/wiki/Categorie:taal. You
> will also find that all words that are categorised have a number. All
> articles are categorised. :) The way it is implemented is thanks to a
> great suggestion from an en.wiktionarian. It was however not possible to
> implement this on the English wiktionary because some deemed it
> un-lexicological.
>
> It is done by using templates when a language is indicated. eg {{-en-}}
> for an English language word.
>
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> James R. Johnson wrote:
>
> >Is there any way to add some tag to the wiktionary so that we can get a
> >count of the number of different languages we have on a wiktionary, and the
> >number of words in each?  For example:
> >
> >
> >
> >On EN:
> >
> >
> >
> >This wiktionary has:
> >
> >English:    50,345 words
> >
> >German:   4,211 words
> >
> >Japanese: 123 words
> >
> >Spanish:  422 words
> >
> >?..
> >
> >??.
> >And so on.
> >
> >
> >
> >Is that somehow possible by adding a language tag, say [[lang:en]] and have
> >the tags identified per wiktionary, so that en shows up as Ingl?s on
> >Spanish, Englisch on German, etc.?
> >
> >
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >
> >
> >James
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiktionary-l mailing list
> Wiktionary-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
>

--
http://linguaphile.sf.net


from_name: MHart

subject: [Wikitech-l] Webservices API

body:
>> Now, while the amaroK server <-> Wikipedia server is locked by a secret
key, the amaroK client <-> amaroK server probably isn't. Anybody can
make a request to the amaroK server, claiming to be amaroK -- an abuse
then DoSs the entire amaroK user base when it hits the maximum requests
for the amaroK key. <<

>> Well, that just pushes the problem from one server to another. It
doesn't change the overall analysis I gave. <<

I would phrase it as pushing the problem from Wikipedia to the app provider.
Your statement about the client/amaroK key security as being "probably
insecure" is speculation, and ultimately, that isn't Wikipedia's problem.
You obviously have no control over other people's server or key security,
and trying to secure public information is generally impossible anyway.
People will find a way around the limitations of a public API. Google's
webservices API make it easy to query and parse the results, but Google's
HTML page returns are very clean and easy to parse anyway, making it simple
to build a webservice that just scrapes the page.

Wikipedia is also clean html, and a scraper is simple to make. But you have
to ignore those sorts of people. Make it easy for legit users to access what
they need and ignore the people that are going to ignore your rules anyway.
Introduce stricter controls when it becomes clearly necessary, but not
before.

- MHart
- http://taxalmanac.org


subject: [Wikitech-l] Bogus accounts?

body:
Very likely a bot either preparing to spam or being tested.

- MHart

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gordon Joly" <gordon.joly at pobox.com>
To: "Wikimedia developers" <wikitech-l at wikimedia.org>
Cc: "Gordon Joly" <gordon.joly at pobox.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 6:24 AM
Subject: [Wikitech-l] Bogus accounts?

>
> What is all this? Is this a "bot"????? Or a special feature of the
> database?
>
> http://www.dead-pubs-society.org.uk/index.php?title=Special:Listusers
>
>
>    1. 02c438
>    2. 0546a3
>    3. 05c56c
>    4. 0a0fd3
>    5. 0dcd65
>    6. 0e5ad8
>    7. 0f4a18
>    8. 0fb003
>    9. 109ac9
>   10. 1125ee
>   11. 112f3e
>
> [...] (truncated)
>
> There are 102 bogus users in all.
>
>
> --
> Gordo, The Landlord, Dead Pubs Society
> http://www.dead-pubs-society.org.uk/
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject: [WikiEN-l] Rights at Wikipedia (was: Silly mailing lists)

body:
Responding to:

-> <sarcasm> Way to go, Wikipedia! Good job
-> treating volunteer editors who are simply
-> standing up for their rights like criminals. </sarcasm>

It's a common mistake to assert that anyone has rights at Wikipedia.
Aside from the technical matter of "sysop rights", Wikipedia grants no
rights whatsoever.

Wikipedia is a volunteer organization, and I think I speak for the
English part of that organization when I say that volunteers here have
no rights or privileges. Wikipedians have only duties, voluntarily
assumed.

Our duty as volunteers is to create a free encyclopedia filled with
accurate, neutral articles for the benefit of the general public.

Anyone is welcome to join us, as long as they come to help us create
this kind of encyclopedia. Others will be shown to the door.

Ed Poor


from_name: Laura K Fisher

body:
On Jun 28, 2005, at 7:22 AM, Habj wrote:
> I encourage everyone who take part in this debate, to study the
> category tree in and around the category "Pseudoscience". Actually,
> there is one Category "Quackery" and another one called "Alternative
> medicine". Quackery is a sub-category to Alternative medicine, but
> while Quackery is also a sub-category to Pseudoscience Alternative
> medicine is a sub-category to Medicine.

I guess I'm not sure how I would define "Quackery."  Both pseudoscience
and alternative medicine are clear, but some of the members of
[[Category:Quackery]], like [[Chelation therapy]] I'd put in
[[Category:Alternative medicine]] as it's currently a therapy under
study rather than one proven to not work.  I think that Quackery
shouldn't be a subcategory of Alternative medicine.  The articles that
do use Alternative medicine to promote their Quackery should belong to
both categories, but in my opinion not all members of the Quackery cat
are also Alternative medicine.

>
> Quackery and alternative medicine is not the same. In Great Britain,
> healers etc. are often welcomed to work in the hospitals. That is
> alternative medicine/complementary medicin, choose what term you like
> best. The German ex-med-doctor (forgot his name) who claim that cancer
> is pure psychological and cancer patients should leave the normal
> health care and go to him for some kind of therapy, is a definity
> quack.
>
> As I said before, I see the Pseudoscience category as a "scrap bin"
> for those who don't want to take the time to distinguish one thing
> from the other.

I don't think that pseudoscience is a scrap-bin any more than
alternative medicine is a scrap-bin for valid alternative treatments.
It's simply a way of grouping ideas outside of the mainstream.  I also
agree with the previous poster who said that they shouldn't be used as
warning labels at the bottom of the article.  They often are, but a
well written article in either pseudoscience or alternative medicine or
quackery will make it clear why it has been placed in that category
because it will present both points of view on the theory.

Laurascudder


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Middle-Earth Wikipedia

body:
Yann Forget wrote:

>Hi,
>
>Le Tuesday 28 June 2005 11:46, Phil Boswell a ?crit :
>
>
>>"Mark Williamson" <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote in
>>message news:849f98ed050627143841a440ca at mail.gmail.com...
>>[heavy snippage]
>>
>>
>>>... Quenya, Sindarin, Cirth, and Tengwar have
>>>some degree of followers (to be sure, I sometimes wish Tolkien had
>>>combined all his languages into Tolkienish --- it's too bad the
>>>Tolkien languages fanbase is sort of divided over so many different
>>>languages)
>>>
>>>
>>So why not have one "Middle-Earth languages" wikipedia, which can accept
>>articles written in any or all of the above?
>>
>>
>I don't think there should be any Wikipedia in any of the Tolkien languages.
>Tolkien is a wonderful author, but Wikipedia is not here to host this kind of
>languages. But maybe in Wikicities ?
>
I would also be happy to rid Wiktionary of this sort of thing.  The
supporters of these languages seem to have only questionable contact
with reality.  Tolkien was a learn?d man whose philological studies
helped to make his stories more vibrant, but sometimes people need to be
reminded tha "Lord of the Rings" was a work of _fiction_.  The languages
developed there are also works of fiction with no credibility in the
real world, and no basis for development beyond the context of Tolkien's
books.  That being said, any attempt at building an encyclopedia in
these languages must falter when it needs to develop vocabulary for
concepts that are alien to Middle Earth.

It is fitting that Wikipedia have an article giving an outline of these
languages, and that Wikibooks might even give an outline of the
grammar.  Apart from that can we at least try to find some separation
between the real and fantasy world?

Ec


body:
On Jun 28, 2005, at 9:43 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:

> Alternative medicine might involve things like strong suggestion and
> placebos, and actually work. Quack medicine involves cleaning out the
> last assets of the victim and their family.
>
> Fred

That's the best way to put the distinction I've heard.

I strongly disagree with a merge and think that Quackery should be a
subcat of Medicine instead of Alternative medicine.  One can dupe
patients with unnecessary traditional-type therapies as much as one can
with alternative ones.

Laurascudder


from_name: JAY JG

subject: [WikiEN-l] bug in the new software upgrade? edit collisions

body:
>From: actionforum at comcast.net
>
>There seems to be a huge increase in people "deleting" each others edit to
>talk pages.  Since it has
>happened in different page communities, and I have even deleted the
>comments of others
>unwittingly without being notified of edit conflicts.  I suspect a bug in
>the new software.  Is anyone
>else seeing this?
>            -- thanx,  Silverback

This was moderately common even before the upgrade.

Jay.


body:
>From: "Tony Sidaway" <minorityreport at bluebottle.com>
>
>Nothing good can come from enouraging editors to use socks and proxies to
>evade blocks.  Where this has happened in the past I've found that
>escalating blocks on all offending sources tires the miscreant out.

I agree that nothing good comes of it (encouraging editors to use socks and
proxies to evade blocks), and that escalating blocks often tire the
miscreants out.  Also, socks created for the purpose of evading 3RR can be
immediately blocked indefinitely.  However, the more persistent ones seem to
have almost limitless energy; blocks combined with page protection is often
the only way of cooling them off.

Jay.


from_name: Milos Rancic

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Wider help needed for future software on sr,
	sh (and probably bs)

body:
Ikavian can be included in sh:, hr: and bs: Wikipedia (via simple
dictionaries and markup). But, we need in the future three new
Wikipedias in the future (Kaykavian, Chakavian and Torlakian), because
those languages are very different from Shtokavian (which is the base
of Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian; and which is has dialects Ekavian,
Iyekavian and Ikavian).

However, it is not Serbian dialect. Only Croats and Bosniaks use
Ikavian. So, we can implement it on sh:, hr:, and bs:, but not on sr:.
(As well as Ekavian should not be implemented on hr: and bs: because
they are not speak Ekavian.)

Mark, are you interested in making workgroup for that?

On 6/28/05, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> Although it is not official in any capacity, I think it's unfair to
> completely exclude Ikavian.
>
> For the unititiated, Ikavian (confusingly similar in name to both
> Ekavian and Iyekavian!) is the 3rd variety of Serbo-Croatian, the
> oft-forgotten outcast stepsister of the Ekavian and Iyekavian
> variants.
>
> It has no official consideration anywhere in the world, but then again
> neither does Sicilian but we have a Sicilian Wikipedia.
>
> Mark
>
> On 27/06/05, Milos Rancic <millosh at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I saw that some people are interested in SC/S/C/B problematic and I
> > would ask all of them for some attention.
> >
> > 0. For people who don't know problematics, just to say that Serbian
> > language is written in two alphabets (Cyrillic and Latin) and it has
> > two standard variants (Ekavian and Iyekavian). Cyrillic and Latin are
> > not geographic specific (in Belgrade, Podgorica or Banja Luka you can
> > find both), but Ekavian and Iyekavian are. There are around 8 millions
> > of Ekavian speakers and around 2 millions of Iyekavian speakers.
> > Ekavian is used in Serbia (but officially, both standard variants are
> > equal in Serbia), Iyekavian is used in Republika Srpska (the part of
> > Bosnia and Herzegovina; officially, both standard variants are equal)
> > and Montenegro (only Iyekavian standard is official). It can be said
> > that all of that can be implemented for sh: and that bs: can implement
> > only Latin<->Cyrillic conversion.
> >
> > Zhengzhu did a lot of work until now and we are waiting for the first
> > implementation of his software on sr:. The software is based on his
> > previous work on Chinese problem.
> >
> > 1. Zhengzhu would implement the basic part of software for sr: (which
> > would be used on sh:, too; and maybe on bs:). However, it is just the
> > beginning of the work and I think that all of that issue would need
> > some help from the people (both: contributors and developers) who are
> > interested in linguistics.
> >
> > 2. The first implementation of the software (on sr:) should be
> > implemented in month or two (as I know). Implementation assumes:
> >
> > a) Keeping sr: policy that articles should be written in Cyrillic and
> > using Cyrillic-based syntax (in the sense of the starting alphabet).
> >
> > b) Writing in Ekavian and/or specific syntax for marking
> > Ekavian-Iyekavian variants. Also, Ekavian-Iyekavian dictionary would
> > be used for automatic conversion and admins would have possibility to
> > update dictionary.
> >
> > c) General conversion would work in both ways, but we don't want to
> > mix Latin, Cyrillic, Ekavian and Iyekavian (it is chaotic, silly for
> > average user, as well as it is not standard).
> >
> > d) All changes are on the read level. There would not be any change on
> > the write level in MediaWiki.
> >
> > 3. It can be said that "classic" implementation of Zhengzhu's software
> > would be the next step and (as I think) it would be finished in the
> > next couple of months. Implementation assumes:
> >
> > a) Possibility for writing in different alphabets and variants.
> >
> > b) Conversion would be implemented on the write and read level.
> > Database would be written in Ekavian Cyrillic with markup; when
> > contributor writes something in Iyekavian or Ekavian Latin, it would
> > be converted into Ekavian Cyrillic.
> >
> > 4. The next step is Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia where more complex (but
> > more linguistically interesting) rules should be added.
> >
> > I think that almost all people on the lists know that Serbian,
> > Croatian, Bosnian and Serbo-Croatian standards have minimal linguistic
> > differences. The most of differences are cultural and political. So,
> > we should be very careful with any decision related to that problem.
> > Actually, sr:, hr: and bs: should not be forced to become one
> > Wikipedia never.
> >
> > But, we can work on sh: with a lot of care.
> >
> > First of all, at sh: should be implemented extended Zhengzhu's
> > software; which would take care about different standard variants
> > (four Serbian, two Bosnian and one Croatian).
> >
> > Less complex is implementation of S<->C<->B dictionaries. More complex
> > is starting to work on syntax (and maybe stylistic) differences. That
> > step assumes that we would need help from educated people in
> > linguistics.
> >
> > Also, database should not stay in Ekavian Cyrillics (as exclusive
> > Serbian standard). We should make some kind of meta-alphabet and
> > meta-orthography for writing data into database.
> >
> > And the last problem which I noticed are naming conventions. Would it
> > be in Latin? Would it be in Serbian variant? Would it be in Iyekavian?
> > Would it be...? This set of problems assumes that we need to make good
> > political solutions.
> >
> > It is not good to make any kind of majorization. We can say that the
> > most of Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks and Montenegrins write in Latin
> > alphabet (around 50% of Serbs and Montenegrins, 90% of Bosniaks and
> > 100% of Croats), but it would be very bad to implement sh: interwiki
> > links etc. in Latin alphabet because around 1/3 of speakers would
> > think that is is majorization. It can be said that maybe 60% of all
> > speakers are Ekavians, but all Croatians, Bosniaks and Montenegrins
> > are Iyekavians. Language policy in former Yugoslavia failed on
> > principle "Ekavian and Latin Serbo-Croatian language for all people in
> > Yugoslavia" (note that Slovenians and Macedonians have different
> > languages!). Only military partially implemented that principle.
> >
> > 5. When I am talking about linguistics and technical implementation, I
> > have clear solution. Any cultural/political problem which can be
> > solved in those ways -- can be easily done.
> >
> > For example, we can call Serbo-Croatian in the sense of it's
> > linguistic base: Shtokavian; even two letter ISO code (sh) is correct
> > :) We have a lot of naming problems if we want to name the language
> > correct: correct name in English translation is "Serbo-Croatian,
> > Croato-Serbian, Croatian or Serbian, Serbian or Croatian" (because
> > Serbian construction was "Serbo-Croatian" and Croatian construction
> > was "Croatian or Serbian"). But, where are Bosniaks and Montenegrins
> > in that name?
> >
> > I wanted to say that we can make little clever tricks for a number of
> > problems, but there is a big field of other cultural and political
> > problems. And if people here think that we are enough strong to work
> > on that problems, I would need a lot of help.
> >
> > I think that the first step toward that solution is to make a
> > workgroup of Wikipedians who are interested to work on that problems.
> > The focus of that group should not be any (N)POV question nor the
> > question of the sense of existence of sr:, hr: and bs:; but only
> > making the solution which can allow possibility that people from sr:,
> > hr: and bs: can work together.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
> --
> SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
> QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
> POSSIT MATERIARI
> ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] In the interests of transparency

body:
>From: Mark Ryan <ultrablue at gmail.com>
>
>In the interests of transparency in mailing list admin actions, I have
>placed two recent contributors to the list (DANIEL RAY and Henry
>Kissinger) on moderation (i.e. their messages require list admin
>approval) because their messages to the mailing list appear to be
>gibberish. If anyone feels this is unwarranted, please contact me or
>one of the other mailing list administrators.

As I said in an earlier e-mail, these were most likely [[breaching
experiment]s.  The list gets enough nonsense from regular contributors (like
myself :-) ) as it is, please do not hesitate to moderate those whose
actions are so obviously detrimental.

Jay.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Pseudoscience category - GSPOV

body:
On Jun 28, 2005, at 10:22 AM, Haukur ?orgeirsson wrote:
> I don't see how this is a workable distinction.
> It's not the treatments that are sincere or not
> - it's their practitioners. I'm sure there are
> lots of sincere homeopaths - but who's to say
> that there aren't a few who know that the remedies
> don't work (better than any placebo) but sell
> them anyway?
>
> Likewise, how do you know that [[Jomanda]] wasn't
> sincere and acting in good faith? And how can you
> know that practitioners of [[Chelation therapy]]
> aren't sincere? Both are currently in the quackery
> category.

I believe my point was that the practitioners of [[Chelation therapy]]
are quite sincere and include a good number of serious research
scientists and physicians.  I'm not really sure why it's in Quackery
except that perhaps some uses might qualify as an alternative
treatment, in which case it illustrative of the apparently total
confusion between the two categories.

Laurascudder


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Requests for adminship reform

body:
"Rebecca" <misfitgirl at gmail.com> wrote in
message news:530912670506242235423de22f at mail.gmail.com...
[snip]
> ... We've had three admins face disciplinary action
> over admin abuses before, all leading to de-sysopping, and more
> recently, one that was emergency de-sysopped after going on a deleting
> rampage.

Is there a specific place where this kind of thing is recorded so that the
interested (and the curious and the plain nosy :-) can familiarise
themselves with the history of the situation?

I hear a lot of references to occurrences like this, but if you happen to be
away at the time (or like me have no access outside of work hours) it can be
difficult to catch up with what has (or has not) happened, which can make it
in turn difficult to make a rational decision should one be called for.
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


from_name: Sean Turvey

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: foundation-l Digest, Vol 15, Issue 22

body:
My idea for Faith Wiki was to have a place for people to be able to think
and discuss. I guess in some strange way, I have provided that. IMHO it
would be very wrong to limit any proposals. Proposals leads to discussion,
discussion leads to thinking. Instead of limiting proposals maybe the board
could decide upon a time limit or a minimum activity level with the
discussions before the proposal changes from an "idea" to an actual
proposal.

I unfortunately have not been able to convey the scope of my idea to the
people who have responded. I am not going to rescind my proposal as I feal
it would be an extremely valuable service. I however have been introduced to
a fledgling site called
Religion-Wiki<http://religion.wikicities.com/wiki/Talk:Main_Page>.
Though the description is smaller in scope than what I can conceive, I have
been in contact with the project leader and she can see it expanding well
past the origional concept. I will concentrate on that rather than
attempting to compete with it.

Sean


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: latin numerals at ml

body:
"Anthere" <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:42C035D4.2070509 at yahoo.com...
> Hi
>
> Bijee left me a message on my talk page about numerals on Malayalam.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAnthere&diff=15858603&oldid=15772378
>
> What do you think ?

I think he likely means "Arabic numerals"...IANALinguist but I find it hard
to believe that the Malayalam Wikipedia is using **Roman** numerals :-)
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


subject: [WikiEN-l] Bug in the new software upgrade? Won't stay logged in

body:
I'm finding that I can't stay logged in on the new version; I log in
successfully, but as soon as I go to an article, I'm logged out again.  Is
anyone else experiencing this?

Jay.


from_name: actionforum at comcast.net

body:
There seems to be a huge increase in people "deleting" each others edit to talk pages.  Since it has happened in different page communities, and I have even deleted the comments of others unwittingly without being notified of edit conflicts.  I suspect a bug in the new software.  Is anyone else seeing this?
           -- thanx,  Silverback


body:
Haukur ?orgeirsson wrote:

>>And in the end, maybe what it comes down to is: Categories should not
>>serve as "warning" flags. They are meant to just be taxonomic devices.
>>
>>
>Agreed. If someone reads an article on, say,
>homeopathy and only realizes when she sees the
>categories at the bottom that the thing doesn't
>work then there's something wrong with the article
>(incidentally I think [[homeopathy]] makes the
>"doesn't work" part fairly clear as it is).
>
The degree of doubt that there might be about homeopathy does indeed
belong in the article on the topic.  We are, of course, in no position
to make a final determination that it either works or doesn't work.
Either position would be pseudoscientific.  We can establish that a
dominant segment of mainstream science believes that it doesn't work.
Once that point has been established there is no need to revisit the
issue ad nauseam.  If the major premise is questionable than so too are
any ideas derived from it.

>As for the "alternative medicine" category then I
>suppose "medicine that has not been proven to work"
>or some such would be more accurate. I for one would
>actually prefer "quack medicine" since "alternative"
>has some undeserved positive connotations and implies
>that quackery is somehow a viable alternative to actual
>medicine.
>
"Alternative medicine" is excellent as an NPOV category without
introducing a needlessly pejorative term like "quack".  "Not proven to
work" within the rules of mainstream science is already implicit in the
term "alternative".  The concepts "not proven to work" and "proven not
to work" are very different, and quackery would have more kinship with
the latter.  I can just as easily see that "quack medicine" has
undeserved negative connotations, while "alternative" adequately warns
the user to proceed at his own risk.  The credibility of the various
practices that come under this heading is wildly variable, and some may
indeed qualify as quackery, but certainly not all.

Ec


from_name: Kelly Martin

body:
On 6/28/05, JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
> I'm finding that I can't stay logged in on the new version; I log in
> successfully, but as soon as I go to an article, I'm logged out again.  Is
> anyone else experiencing this?

I had this happen (before the upgrade) at a hotel.  I suspect it was
due to a misconfigured proxy server.

Kelly


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Middle-Earth Wikipedia (was Re: Re: Why do we have
	them??)

body:
"Mark Williamson" <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote in
message news:849f98ed050627143841a440ca at mail.gmail.com...
[heavy snippage]
>... Quenya, Sindarin, Cirth, and Tengwar have
> some degree of followers (to be sure, I sometimes wish Tolkien had
> combined all his languages into Tolkienish --- it's too bad the
> Tolkien languages fanbase is sort of divided over so many different
> languages)

So why not have one "Middle-Earth languages" wikipedia, which can accept
articles written in any or all of the above?

I would assume that the problem of overlapping titles would not arise since
the titles would necessarily be different even between languages using the
same script.

Which raises a question: is it possible to come up with a system which
replicates the functionality of inter-wiki links between pages within the
same wiki?
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


from_name: Robert Scott Horning

subject:
[Foundation-l] meta-discussion for new project proposals (was
	Proposal for new project: Faith Wiki)

body:
Yann Forget wrote:

>Hi,
>
>Le Tuesday 28 June 2005 14:52, Elisabeth Bauer a ?crit :
>
>
>>Robert Scott Horning wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I think it is time to have a serious meta-discussion regarding what it
>>>going to take in order for the Wikimedia Foundation to accept a whole
>>>new project, and what guidelines should be in place, as well as a
>>>roadmap for what would have to be accomplished in order for such a
>>>project to move from a "gee, this would be a cool idea" to "here is the
>>>server space, let's roll!"
>>>
>>>
>>[snipped good suggestions]
>>
>>Sorry to say this, but in my opinion we shouldn't accept any new
>>projects at all for the next two years but instead work on improving the
>>existing ones. There's enough work to do and even the time we discuss
>>new projects would be better invested in discussing and solving our
>>current problems.
>>
>>
>
>I agree 100% with this.
>I think we have enough problems to solve for the time being.
>IMO we should make it clear that no new projects will be accepted for at least
>a year. I have the feeling that we are running forward instead of trying to
>solve existing problems.
>
>
>
>>greetings,
>>elian
>>
>>
>
>Regards,
>Yann
>
>
Did you even read what I wrote?  I never even suggested that new
projects should be created, certainly not immediately.  I'm just
suggesting that some sort of structure be put into place to permit a new
project to be made...eventually.  The current process is a mess, and
many people in the Wikimedia community (including many who don't bother
to read this mailing list) are clammoring to have some new project or
new aspect of Wikimedia enhanced or changed.  This is precisely to help
avoid future problems.

I am specifically pointing out the Sean Turvey is an example of somebody
we don't want to discourage (or shouldn't) from participating in
existing projects... or solving the problems that you are talking about.
 I think there is some merit to his proposal, but there needs to be some
education in terms of what Wikimedia and its projects are all about.
 There also needs to be some sort of outlet vent to let ideas ferment
and take shape, and I believe that the project proposal page is one way
to do that.  I hope that Sean hasn't been discouraged from refining his
ideas, and I believe that there is a place for much of what he is
proposing.  Based on his last message, he may have already left, which
is our loss, not his.

I guarentee that ignoring the new project proposals completely is going
to be a gradual death to Wikimedia and eventually Wikipedia.  Most
groups are desparate for fresh blood and new ideas, and by killing that
avenue completely, it will have an overall chilling effect on the rest
of all Wikimedia projects.  The current success of Wikipedia and other
related projects is attracting many new people, and there should not be
an elite attitude that somehow these new "recruits" are somehow less
valuable.  That some of their energies could be redirected, perhaps, but
don't stop the process completely.  And be honest to the people
proposing these projects, that a well thought out proposal is going to
be necessary in order to succeed, which will take time and a lot of
effort if they want to see it happen.  Right now I don't see that
honesty, and from the apparent attitude here that they should never even
bother trying.

--
Robert Scott Horning


from_name: Sulev Iva

subject: [Wikipedia-l] switch Võro logo

body:
Hi,
Can some developer switch the logo for the V?ro Wikipedia?
It is uploaded, protected and ready to switch:
http://fiu-vro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wiki.png

Thanks, --V?rok 00:35, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)


subject: [Wikitech-l] switch Võro logo


from_name: Wouter Steenbeek

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Request for creation of Dutch-Low Saxon (nds-nl)

body:
>Sure, it sucks.
>
>Note that the second text should probably suck more, since it's
>already in Dutch orthography (if you select the other option at the
>top of the page, it'll convert it to German).
>
>While a lot of people behind a project does inevitably make it more
>viable, I think that it's still best to try to avoid a division of
>labour whenever possible.
>
>Mark

Well, I would agree with you if the Dutch and German variants were all more
similar. If this separate wiki is created, efforts will only be duplicated
when on both versions an article on the same topic has been written in the
same main variant.

Wouter

_________________________________________________________________
Nieuw: Beeld en geluid met MSN Messenger 7.0 http://messenger.msn.nl/


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedias in Philippine languages/political
	considerations

body:
I just have to comment on what Guaka said.

Regarding the languages of the Philippines, there are only two actual choices at present for the starting language in new Wikipedias in Philippine languages: English and Tagalog, since the Cebuano and Kapampangan wikipedias are still in the initial stages of work and besides as will be discussed below, speakers of Philippine languages who access the Internet tend to be conversant in either or both English and Tagalog.  As a native speaker of Waray-Waray (a.k.a. Waray or Samar-Leyte Visayan) one of the Philippine languages, and the one who made the proposal for a wiki in Waray-Waray in the "requests for new languages" section let me speak for myself why English is a lesser evil than Tagalog as a start-up language even though I understand and am able to use both.  (A third possibility could be Spanish but even fewer Filipinos speak Spanish than those who speak English).

Firstly, many Filipino nationals and citizens (as opposed to a "native speaker of the 'Filipino' language" which is really Tagalog initially renamed as "Pilipino" and later repackaged as "Filipino" for the purposes of making it easier to force it on the non-Tagalog ethnic groups of the Philippines) are competent in both English and Tagalog, and most of those who have access to the Internet are fairly conversant in their use of English.  Besides most software in use in the Philippines is in English, not Tagalog.  As a practical matter, for computer users who are native speakers in Philippine languages other than Tagalog, it is of little consequence whether the start-up language is English or Tagalog.  Which leads me to the second consideration.

The next consideration is that citizens/nationals of the Philippines use Tagalog because of the pervasive and pernicious myth that one can't be a Filipino unless one uses Tagalog.  In other words, they use it because they have been brainwashed to believe that to be Filipino is synonymous with being Tagalog.  As one who was born in the Philippines I can attest that this belief is pervasive.  To use Tagalog as a start-up language in new wikipedias for other Philippine languages would be a tacit statement of approval of this policy.  This in good conscience I cannot do, and I know that neither Bentong (who proposed the Cebuano Wikipedia) nor Edwin (the proposer for the Kapampangan Wikipedia) accepts this.

While I agree in principle with Guaka that it is a good idea to choose the "starting languages" of new Wikipedias, I would rather that the person or persons making the proposal/proposals choose the "starting languages".

Regarding the paucity of articles in the Cebuano and Kapampangan wikipedias, I'll leave it to the native speakers to explain that.  I can only speak for myself.  For political reasons, I prefer English as the start-up language if my request for a wiki in Waray-Waray is approved because I can easily translate the English into my native language and also because I am firmly opposed to the current national language policy of the Philippines which is to promote Tagalog at the expense of the other equally worthy indigenous languages of the archipelago.

Regards,

--Harvey Fiji
[en:Harvzsf]
[es:Harvzsf]

Guaka <guaka at no-log.org> wrote:
On Mon, 2005-06-27 at 17:45 -0700, Mark Williamson wrote:
> While I am in general against imposing restrictions on the creation of
> new Wikipedias, from what I have observed so far those with test
> Wikipedias seem to be more successful: Cebuano and Kapampangan are
> growing very very slowly (didn't have test Wikipedias), while Scots
> and V?ro are growing very quickly. Though, to be fair, those requests
> were around longer as well and so had more of a chance to develop a
> wider support base.

V?ro and Scots are spoken in countries that have significantly a higher
number of internet connections in general, and broadband connections
specifically. And you only need one active native speaker with a
broadband connection to have quick growth...

And, where people have more knowledge of the English language. For
languages of the Philippines it would probably have been better to start
with another language than English.
I think it would be a good idea to wisely choose the "starting language"
of new Wikipedias. If people can understand the interface they will be
more tempted to add or change something...

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


from_name: Alphax

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Switch to MediaWiki 1.5

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

David 'DJ' Hedley wrote:
> Why do you find it hard to not disable the caps lock button? Also, judging
> by the details of the e-mail message, why do you feel it necessary to use a
> ghost mail client to mail the list?
>

Beware of smelly under-bridge dwellers!

- --
Alphax
OpenPGP key: 0xF874C613 - http://tinyurl.com/cc9up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,'
and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.' - C. S.
Lewis
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCwKjb/RxM5Ph0xhMRAt3aAKCp0qdG+/29NG+41iumrBkBgBVQKwCfbNpu
9ABQL9D3rPRHc+gsEZ/guag=
=uit7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
Yes, the merge is a bad idea. Quack medicine should be merged with
fraud rather.

Fred

On Jun 28, 2005, at 10:16 AM, Laura K Fisher wrote:

>
> On Jun 28, 2005, at 9:43 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>
>> Alternative medicine might involve things like strong suggestion
>> and placebos, and actually work. Quack medicine involves cleaning
>> out the last assets of the victim and their family.
>>
>> Fred
>>
>
> That's the best way to put the distinction I've heard.
>
> I strongly disagree with a merge and think that Quackery should be
> a subcat of Medicine instead of Alternative medicine.  One can dupe
> patients with unnecessary traditional-type therapies as much as one
> can with alternative ones.
>
>
> Laurascudder
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Guaka

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Test wikipedia policy

body:
On Mon, 2005-06-27 at 17:45 -0700, Mark Williamson wrote:
> While I am in general against imposing restrictions on the creation of
> new Wikipedias, from what I have observed so far those with test
> Wikipedias seem to be more successful: Cebuano and Kapampangan are
> growing very very slowly (didn't have test Wikipedias), while Scots
> and V?ro are growing very quickly. Though, to be fair, those requests
> were around longer as well and so had more of a chance to develop a
> wider support base.

V?ro and Scots are spoken in countries that have significantly a higher
number of internet connections in general, and broadband connections
specifically. And you only need one active native speaker with a
broadband connection to have quick growth...

And, where people have more knowledge of the English language. For
languages of the Philippines it would probably have been better to start
with another language than English.
I think it would be a good idea to wisely choose the "starting language"
of new Wikipedias. If people can understand the interface they will be
more tempted to add or change something...


subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright and Britannica Article List

body:
Judges are indeed unpredictable.  Success can often depend on the whims
of court scheduling.  What I find in the popular view of law is a clear
violation and a clear penalty with no intermediate steps or grey areas
in between.  In reality there are several steps between an allegedly
infringing act and an appelate court decision.  At each step along the
way our position must be reevaluated.  I think that the reasonable doubt
about the copyrightability of the Britannica list should take us through
the first step.  If a take down order is issued, that's when we would
need to review the matter.

Whether the Britannica list is worthless for our purposes is debatable.
When I started I would look at our software generated most wanted list
to see if anything there interested me, and I started a number of
articles that way.  I can see the EB list being used that way,
especially by newbies.  The list just shows what we don't have; it does
not suggest that the potential contributor seek out the Britannica
article.  If instead it inspires someone to research an otherwise
obscure historical personage, then we all benefit.

Ec

Fred Bauder wrote:

> While we should aggressively defend our rights, avoiding litigation
> is a wise policy. For one thing, particular judges don't necessarily
> follow the law that you think they will. Additionally although you
> may eventually get costs, you first must pay costs. I'm still not
> sure about the list of Britannica articles, but I am sure that our
> own method of generating endless article titles is probably more
> comprehensive than any list like that. I know that when I want to
> start a new article I don't look the topic up in Britannica first. So
> I think the list is probably worthless for our purposes anyway.
>
> Fred
>
> On Jun 28, 2005, at 3:38 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> This was not a matter of a countersuit.  The copyright issue was
>> already won by the defendants when they sought to recover costs.   In
>> Online Policy Group v. Diebold http://www.eff.org/legal/
>> ISP_liability/OPG_v_Diebold/20040930_Diebold_SJ_Order.pdf Diebold
>> was ordered to pay costs because it had misused copyright.
>> I don't think that a firm with big bucks at stake is going to be
>> deterred by legal fees, or the threat of being required to pay the
>> opponent's legal fees.  Defendants' difficulties are not limited to
>> copyright law.  Any defendant faced with a contingency chasing
>> lawyer is going to be at a disadvantage.  A plaintiff and his
>> contingency paid lawyer should be held jointly liable for a winning
>> defendant's fees in the same amount as the lawyer would have
>> received if he had won.  :-)
>>
>> Ec
>


from_name: Gordon Joly

subject: [Wikitech-l] Bogus accounts?

body:
What is all this? Is this a "bot"????? Or a special feature of the database?

http://www.dead-pubs-society.org.uk/index.php?title=Special:Listusers

    1. 02c438
    2. 0546a3
    3. 05c56c
    4. 0a0fd3
    5. 0dcd65
    6. 0e5ad8
    7. 0f4a18
    8. 0fb003
    9. 109ac9
   10. 1125ee
   11. 112f3e

[...] (truncated)

There are 102 bogus users in all.

--
Gordo, The Landlord, Dead Pubs Society
http://www.dead-pubs-society.org.uk/


subject: [Foundation-l] License that cannot be used in advertisements

body:
GerardM wrote:

>There are plenty of lovely pictures of this event. The only
>restriction is in the use of the photos. The pictures can be used for
>practically any use except for the fact that they may not be used in
>advertisements. So, it is not allowed to advertise for baby-formula
>and show a picture of little princess Alexia.
>
Strictly speaking that restriction would be contrary to GFDL.

>The pictures can be used in a commercial context, educational and
>informative is explicitly OK it is just advertisements that are
>disallowed.
>
>My question: is this a restriction that we can make when we use
>material like this on our Wikimedia projects ..
>
I doubt it.  Tracing and evaluating these usages, and determining what
is advertizing is probably more than anyone wants to do.  Allowing our
material to be used in any context saves a lot of problems.

>By law it is not allowed anyway to use pictures of members of the
>royal family in advertisements. So it is explicitly stating what all
>the people from the Netherlands should already know.. (it is assumed
>that everyone knows the law .. :)  )
>
Is this a matter of copyright or of the law about the Royal Family?
What would be the status of an unofficial picture taken through a
papparazo's telephoto lens if he chose to realease that picture under GFDL?

Ec


from_name: Haukur Þorgeirsson

body:
> And in the end, maybe what it comes down to is: Categories should not
> serve as "warning" flags. They are meant to just be taxonomic devices.

Agreed. If someone reads an article on, say,
homeopathy and only realizes when she sees the
categories at the bottom that the thing doesn't
work then there's something wrong with the article
(incidentally I think [[homeopathy]] makes the
"doesn't work" part fairly clear as it is).

I think rejecting this particular useful category
on grounds of the NPOV-policy is a bit too much.
Almost every category could be questioned by
someone. For a random example I see that the
article on the Church of Jesus Christ of the
Latter-day Saints is in the "Christian denominations"
category. There are Christians that think Mormons
aren't Christians.

As for the "alternative medicine" category then I
suppose "medicine that has not been proven to work"
or some such would be more accurate. I for one would
actually prefer "quack medicine" since "alternative"
has some undeserved positive connotations and implies
that quackery is somehow a viable alternative to actual
medicine.

So, don't forget to take the Grumpy Scientist Point
of View into account :)

Regards,
Haukur ?orgeirsson (User:Haukurth)


from_name: Joyce Lee

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Press inquiry

body:
Hi,

I am emailing from Hong Kong and I am the Photo Editor of Hong Kong
Tatler magazine. Our magazines cover the business, cultural, social
and sporting life and our readers are generally affluent, well-
educated individuals who are active in social circles in Hong Kong.
Please have a look at our website for more information About us
(www.cmlink.com)

We are working on the local article in August and we are planning to
use the image of "Moorehead as Endora on bewitched?" to illustrate
the sidebar of the story. We like to give the credit of this image.
If you can provide the hi-rez image to us we would be appreciated.

Please let us know.

Many thanks
Joyce Lee

Communication Management Ltd.
1808 Hong Kong Plaza
188 Connaught Road West Hong Kong
Tel:(852) 2859-4419
Fax:(852) 2858-2671
E-mail: joyce at cmlink.com


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Middle-Earth Wikipedia (was Re: Re: Why do we
	havethem??)

body:
>From: "Phil Boswell" <phil.boswell at gmail.com>
>So why not have one "Middle-Earth languages" wikipedia, which can accept
>articles written in any or all of the above?
>
Well, Quenya and Sindarin are as far apart as Latin and French, or almost
so. We can't use them on one Wikipedia. Just create Quenya first, if we are
to create Tolkien pedias at all.

Wouter

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Webmessenger overal en altijd beschikbaar http://webmessenger.msn.com/


body:
Haukur ?orgeirsson wrote:

>Habj wrote:
>
>"Quackery and alternative medicine is not the same. In Great Britain,
>healers etc. are often welcomed to work in the hospitals. That is
>alternative medicine/complementary medicin, choose what term you like
>best. The German ex-med-doctor (forgot his name) who claim that cancer
>is pure psychological and cancer patients should leave the normal
>health care and go to him for some kind of therapy, is a definity
>quack."
>
>By my definition quack medicine is a remedy falsely presented as
>having curative powers. In this sense the overwhelming majority
>of "alternative medicine" is quackery. Homeopaths, for example,
>sell people water and tell them that it will cure their illness.
>
"Falsely presented" is a point that would need to be proven.  Do you
have evidence that homeopathic medicines are not curative, or that they
are just water?  That may very well be the case, but I would not be
prepared to jump to that conclusion.  Making definitive statements about
these practices requires more than parroting the opinions of their
opponents.

>If you want to make a distinction between alternative medicine
>and quackery would you object if I moved [[homeopathy]] to the
>quackery category?
>
>
I would.

Ec


from_name: Gerrit Holl

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Test wikipedia policy

body:
Hi,

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Test-wp/Skandinavisk seems to be in
"Skandinavisk". What is this language? I can't find information
about it on either the English or the German or the Dutch Wikipedia.
Is it an attempt to create a unified Scandinavian (Swedish-Danish-Norwegian,
I assume?) language, thus artificial? Or is it a historical language?
The test wiki doesn't seem to be very vivid.

I really like the idea of test wiki's. I think it should become an
obligatory step in the process of creating a wiki. One should prove a
wiki can be active.

regards,
Gerrit.

--
Weather in Twenthe, Netherlands 28/06 10:55:
	18.0?C Few clouds partly cloudy wind 2.2 m/s E (57 m above NAP)
--
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of
unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the
military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of
misplaced power exists and will persist.
    -Dwight David Eisenhower, January 17, 1961


body:
>From: Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com>
>
>On 28/06/05, JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm finding that I can't stay logged in on the new version; I log in
> > successfully, but as soon as I go to an article, I'm logged out again.
>Is
> > anyone else experiencing this?
>
>This has happened intermittently for quite a while, but there seems to
>have been an upsurge recently - though I note it seems to have begun
>happening again before the new version changed over, so I don't know
>if it was related.

Yes, it used to be occasional before, now it's consistent.  Also, it only
happens with Firefox, not IE.

Jay.


body:
Fred Bauder wrote:

> Alternative medicine might involve things like strong suggestion and
> placebos, and actually work. Quack medicine involves cleaning out the
> last assets of the victim and their family.

We could as easily be talking about the pricing policies of major
pharmaceutical companies. :-)

Ec


body:
>From: Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com>
>
>On 6/28/05, JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm finding that I can't stay logged in on the new version; I log in
> > successfully, but as soon as I go to an article, I'm logged out again.
>Is
> > anyone else experiencing this?
>
>I had this happen (before the upgrade) at a hotel.  I suspect it was
>due to a misconfigured proxy server.

Hmm. I'm not using a proxy server.

Jay.


from_name: Yann Forget

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Middle-Earth Wikipedia

body:
Hi,

Le Tuesday 28 June 2005 11:46, Phil Boswell a ?crit :
> "Mark Williamson" <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote in
> message news:849f98ed050627143841a440ca at mail.gmail.com...
> [heavy snippage]
>
> >... Quenya, Sindarin, Cirth, and Tengwar have
> > some degree of followers (to be sure, I sometimes wish Tolkien had
> > combined all his languages into Tolkienish --- it's too bad the
> > Tolkien languages fanbase is sort of divided over so many different
> > languages)
>
> So why not have one "Middle-Earth languages" wikipedia, which can accept
> articles written in any or all of the above?

I don't think there should be any Wikipedia in any of the Tolkien languages.
Tolkien is a wonderful author, but Wikipedia is not here to host this kind of
languages. But maybe in Wikicities ?

Yann

--
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclop?die libre
http://www.forget-me.net/pro/ | Formations et services Linux


body:
>From: actionforum at comcast.net
>
> > >From: actionforum at comcast.net
> > >
> > >There seems to be a huge increase in people "deleting" each others edit
>to
> > >talk pages. Since it has
> > >happened in different page communities, and I have even deleted the
> > >comments of others
> > >unwittingly without being notified of edit conflicts. I suspect a bug
>in
> > >the new software. Is anyone
> > >else seeing this?
> > > -- thanx, Silverback
> >
> > This was moderately common even before the upgrade.
>I never had it happen before the upgrade, and never deleted other edits
>myself.  I had edit
>conflicts occur more often before the upgrade, this seems to be happening
>when edit conflicts
>should be occurring.   I can recall only one edit conflict occuring since
>the upgrade, and given
>what was going on, on these talk pages, more should have been happening.
>Perhaps, I just had a coincidental multiple occurrance of rare behavior
>that was present before
>the upgrade.

I saw it about once a week for several months before the upgrade, usually
happening to other people (not me).

Jay.


from_name: monk at zoomcon.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] Upgrade status

body:
Hello Brion,

Sunday, June 26, 2005, 11:14:07 AM, you wrote:

> Commons has been upgraded:
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Version

why there is still a problem with be language file on commons? I just
can't understand... What I mean:
in previous version of LanguageBe.php there was no translation for
"Main page" so when I logon on commons (I have belarusian interface
language set) I had "Main page" in left navigation bar along with
belarusian strings for other pages. But in May new version of
LanguageBe.php (with "Main page" and some other stuff already
translated) was submitted to both 1.4 and HEAD branches.

But for these months I have still seen "Main page" in left bar.... and
even after upgrade to 1.5 I still see it! :(( why?

--
Best regards,
 monk                            mailto:monk at zoomcon.com


from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia turns a few heads in Bhutan, China

body:
These Dzongkha-speaking heads... any chance that they'll do anything
on the Dzongkha Wikipedia?

By the way,      since that's been noted, we might want to clean
dz.wiki up (Gilst Ooli is a pagename left over from when it was
squatted).

Mark

On 28/06/05, Sj <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Wikipedia snagged some Bhutani coverage this week, though it seems to
> have been written a few months ago...  A journalist writing  for
> /kuensel online/, "Bhutan's daily news site," cheerfully noted the
> existence of a Dzongkha Wikipedia.
>
>  http://www.kuenselonline.com/article.php?sid=5656
>  http://dz.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilst_Ooli
>
> Meanwhile the Chinese government is developing a editable encyclopedia
> of  Chinese history, including all extant documents from before 1911.
> According to Xinhuanet, "Volunteers may register at www.china-can.com
> to become an intern editor, assistant editor or editor."
>
> The site is designed for "50 billion words and 35 million media
> files"; I'm guessing that's a British billion...  so around 100 TB.
> >From the looks of their website, however, they're just getting off the
> ground (and relearning html lessons from 1998)
>
>  http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-06/23/content_3125788.htm
>  http://www.china-can.com/index.htm
>
> -- SJ
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE