subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki 1.6.4 released

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

MediaWiki 1.6.4 is a maintenance bug fix release, which rolls up some fixes to
additional minor problems and localization updates to the Spring 2006 quarterly
snapshot.

* Further improvements to Hebrew localisation
* (bug 5544) Fix redirect arrow in Special:Listredirects for right-to-left
  languages
* Replace "doubleredirectsarrow" with a content language check that picks
  the appropriate arrow
* Remove live debugging hack which caused errors with certain database names
* (bug 5510) Warning produced when using {{SUBPAGENAME}} in some namespaces
* (bug 5548) Improvements to Indonesian localisation [patch: Ivan Lanin]
* (bug 5403) Fix Special:Newpages RSS/Atom feeds
* (bug 3359) Add hooks on completion of file upload
* (bug 5184) CSS misapplied to elements in Special:Allmessages due to
  conflicting anchor identifiers
* (bug 5519) Allow sidebar cache to be disabled; disable it by default.
* Add $wgReservedUsernames configuration directive to block account creation/use
* (bug 5576) Remove debugging hack in session check
* (bug 5181) Update "nogomatch" for Slovak
* (bug 5594) Id translation up to '# Login and logout pages' section
* (bug 5536) Use content language for editing help link
* Minor improvements to English language files
* Improvements to German localisation files
* (bug 5628) Translations for MessagesHr.php
* (bug 5595, 5644) Localisation for Bosnian language (bs)
* (bug 5592) Actions are logged with the default language for the
   wiki, not the language of the user performing the operation.
* (bug 5646) Compare for identical types in wfElement()
* Fix for concurrency problem in job queue (image description page invalidation)
* (bug 5497) regeression in HTML normalization in 1.6 (unclosed <li>,<dd>,<dt>)
* (bug 5709) Allow customisation of separator for categories
* (bug 4834) Fix XHTML output when using $wgMaxTocLevel
* Improvements to update scripts; print out the version, check for superuser
  credentials before attempting a connection, and produce a friendlier error if
  the connection fails
* (bug 5005): Fix XHTML <gallery> output.
* (bug 5315) "Expires: -1" HTTP header made strictly valid (using 1970 date).
* (bug 4825): note in DefaultSettings.php about 'profiling' table creation
* Remove unneeded extra whitespace at top of Special:Categories
* Rewrite reassignEdits script to be more efficient; support optional updates to
  recent changes table; add reporting and silent modes
* Updated initStats maintenance script
* (bug 5723) Don't count pages linked to from the MediaWiki namespace as "wanted"
* (bug 5789) Treat "loginreqpagetext" as wikitext
* (bug 5796) We require MySQL >=4.0.14

Full release notes:
http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/tags/REL1_6_4/phase3/RELEASE-NOTES
http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/tags/REL1_6_4/phase3/HISTORY

Download:
http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/wikipedia/mediawiki-1.6.4.tar.gz

MD5 checksum:
3afc13074e29db9083fb73435e5e7371  mediawiki-1.6.4.tar.gz

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

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

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

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

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

- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEV8sJwRnhpk1wk44RAkmoAKC6egTg4YhnXbPSn9BhbjiSC3a8OgCgsL1T
SwVYtN4ftr3BBgBUsQWlgXw=
=HNzm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Babel template en-5

body:
On 02/05/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> Try the hebrew wikipedia. The interface is reversed.

Yes, I did once. What a brainf**** trying to find my way back again :)

Steve


list: foundation-l

from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [Foundation-l] RfC: A Free Content and Expression Definition

body:
On 5/2/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> Show me a case where we can get an ND license, but the prospect of
> getting a free license are zero

http://www.flickr.com/photos/archeon/139198283/

> show me cases where accepting an ND
> license wouldn't hurt our ability to obtain a free license.
>
I don't understand this request (or the relevance, for that matter).

Anthony


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] NPOV majorities/minorities

body:
On May 2, 2006, at 10:25 AM, Cheney Shill wrote:

> This regards Undue weight part of NPOV:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight
>
> There still seems to be a great deal of ambiguity, even among
> admins, as to what qualifies as a majority.  So here's a simple
> example to evaluate as a starting point.
>
> *View Moo has 3 sources that support it.
> *View Bark has 15 sources that support it.
>
> Which has the majority?  Should either be be dropped completely?
> Should either be reduced to a footnote or an "other views" section
> deeper within the article? Again, for simplicity, all the sources
> are equally reliable, reputable, and prominent.
>
> Other than all or most of the sources of either being non-notable
> or biased, are there any circumstances in which you would reverse
> the majority/minority or consider Moo and Bark equal?

Sometimes the quality of the sources may differ substantially with
one source representing scholarly opinion, the other reflecting
popular culture.

Fred

>
> ---------------------------------
> Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone  calls to 30+ countries for
> just 2?/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Philip Welch

subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
On May 2, 2006, at 2:14 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:

>> My point was that many people, including (apparently) myself and the
>> person who started this entire thread, never knew that "cruft" had
>> any meaning *apart from* "not suitable for inclusion in the
>> encyclopedia due to limited scope of interest"
>
> I know a certain racial epithet which is perfectly synonymous with
> some much nicer terms. You understand why we don't use the racial
> epithet.

Racial epithets, by definition, are *not* perfectly synonymous with
nicer terms because they have unnecessarily negative connotations.
Let's not mince words. If you call someone a nigger, you're implying
that their race makes them less valuable as a human being. If you
call someone black, all you're implying is that they happen to be of
African descent.

The only connotation "cruft" has is that we take a dismissive view
towards material that's not suitable for inclusion due to limited
interest. But this dismissive attitude is already present because
we're vouching for the deletion of this material in the first place.

According to Wikipedia, "In hacker jargon, cruft refers to extraneous
or low-quality things in general, or software code in particular."
Most of the content labeled "cruft" in AFD disputes is indeed
extraneous and low-quality. I don't see how calling something
"extraneous and low-quality" is in any way less insulting than
calling it "cruft". In fact, "extraneous and low-quality" is even
more devastating to a newbie than a technical term they may not fully
understand and only pick up the meaning via context.

"Cruft may also refer to useless junk or excess materials (including
obsolete computer hardware) that build up over time and have no
value." Cruft is also used in this sense, when we talk about cleaning
cruft out of an article. Things like trivia sections and external
links certainly display this property as well.

We delete things from Wikipedia because those things often are not
suitable for inclusion due to limited interest, extraneous, low-
quality, or because they build up over time and have no value. I'm a
big fan of civility, but I'm an even bigger fan of honesty. Wikipedia
has cruft, and when we delete it, we delete it because it is cruft.
Calling it "cruft" is, at worst, question-begging (because cruft, by
definition, is worthy of deletion--saying something's worthy of
deletion as an argument for its deletion-worthiness is question-
begging).

Is it offensive to call it "cruft"? No offensive than vouching for
its deletion. I guess we should abolish deletion for the same reason
saying "cruft" should be a thoughtcrime.

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


from_name: Kelly Martin

subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
On 5/2/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
> On May 2, 2006, at 9:01 AM, Kelly Martin wrote:
>
> > In my opinion calling content contributed in good faith by our valued
> > contributors "cruft" is incivil.  It sends the clear message that
> > their contributions, and by extension themselves, are valueless.  Why
> > can't you just say "Not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia due
> > to limited scope of interest"?
>
> My understanding was that "not suitable for inclusion in the
> encyclopedia due to limited scope of interest" was the definition of
> "cruft".

And "shit" can mean "fecal matter" or just "stuff I don't like".
Doesn't mean calling something "shit" when you really mean "stuff I
don't like" isn't incivil.

Kelly


subject: [WikiEN-l] Verifiability equating to notability

body:
On May 2, 2006, at 3:18 AM, Zoney wrote:

>>> According to his proposal, yes, it does.
>>>
>>> Of course, to be realistic you'd have to add in [[Wikipedia:Article
>>> size]].  An article just about a four-way stop would probably be
>>> better off merged with another article and redirected, unless it
>>> was a
>>> particularly interesting four-way stop.
>>
>> So [[Pullman, Washington]] would have detailed prose about each and
>> every single intersection? That's absurd.
>>
> There's little need to deliberately present such absurd options, that
> obviously aren't being suggested by others.
>
> The logical place to merge a sentence or two about an intersection
> is into
> the article for that route.

Great. Now every city street has its own article. Imagine:

---

 From [[Merman Drive, Pullman, Washington]]:

The drive goes past several apartment complexes, a coffee shop, and a
bar. The vast majority of the street's population consists of
[[Washington State University]] students.

Merman Drive intersects [[Terre View Drive, Pullman, Washington]] at
a [[four-way stop]]. This stop is at the same intersection as Zoe's
Cafe, the aforementioned coffee shop.

---

Shoot me now.

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


from_name: Cheney Shill

subject: [WikiEN-l] Checkuser verification errors

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote: On Mon, 1 May 2006 11:11:08 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:

>Tendentious by definition is POV pushing.

Really?  I have seen edit wars over minor nuances of phrasing that do
not represent one point of view or another, just stylistic

So, when you use tendentious, you mean edit warring?  How do you define tendentious?~~~~

---------------------------------
Get amazing travel prices for air and hotel in one click on Yahoo! FareChase


from_name: Birgitte SB

body:
--- Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:

> On 5/2/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
> > When each project has very limited fair use,
> pictures like logos or
> > screenshots should not be an issue, Gerard. As
> I've argued before,
> > there are going to be very, very few cases where a
> company will agree
> > to license their logo under something like CC-ND.
> Imagine such a
> > proposal being sent to Nike. "Dear Nike, we'd like
> to use your logo,
> > could you please license it under Creative Commons
> No-Derivatives"?
> > Corporate lawyers are all about risk minimization;
> seeing no benefit
> > in such an arrangement, most of them would flat
> our reject the idea, I
> > think.
> >
> The benefit would be that they get their logo in the
> Wikipedia article
> on Nike.  For logos, though, companies would
> probably insist on some
> sort of "educational use only" restriction.  CC-ND
> is just an example.
>
> Of course, they'd only get that benefit if Wikipedia
> decided not to
> use their image if they didn't give permission.  So
> there'd be a risk
> there, but personally I don't think the Nike article
> would be any
> worse without a picture of that swoosh.
>
> > The use of CC-ND for logos would actually be
> dangerous as it could
> > prevent us from looking for a better solution.
>
> How would it do that?  And what better solution is
> available now?
>

Couldn't someone just take a photograph of a sign
outside a company's headquarters?  I don't see why we
have to show the exact graphic of the logo, when we
can show it used in context and under GFDL.  I have
not followed this issue before so forgive me if this
has already been throughly discussed.

Birgitte SB

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
On May 2, 2006, at 3:32 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:

>> According to Wikipedia, "In hacker jargon, cruft refers to extraneous
>> or low-quality things in general, or software code in particular."
>> Most of the content labeled "cruft" in AFD disputes is indeed
>> extraneous and low-quality. I don't see how calling something
>> "extraneous and low-quality" is in any way less insulting than
>> calling it "cruft". In fact, "extraneous and low-quality" is even
>> more devastating to a newbie than a technical term they may not fully
>> understand and only pick up the meaning via context.
>
> I'm not a fan of inflicting hacker jargon on newbies. Why not just
> tell them in plain English that we have plenty of Pokemon articles,
> and we don't need any more random lists, but we'd love them to
> categorise some of the hundreds of articles in need of it.

We're not hunting down newbies and forcing them to participate in
deletion discussions. Deletion discussions take place within the
Wikipedia community, and like any community we have our jargon.

If someone wants to join that community, they have to learn the
jargon. Even the most welcoming communities work this way.

>> Is it offensive to call it "cruft"? No [more] offensive than
>> vouching for
>> its deletion. I guess we should abolish deletion for the same reason
>> saying "cruft" should be a thoughtcrime.
>
> Yes, it's offensive. The term does matter, as a term carries
> connotations that a simple act does not.

Again, what connotations does "cruft" carry other than something
being low-quality or otherwise worthy of deletion?

This is the same reasoning behind not using "janitor" or "secretary"
as job titles. I'd rather not participate in this sort of
euphemization*.

*A portmanteau of "euphemism" and "euthanization", defined by me as
"putting meaning to death by means of euphemisms".

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Babel template en-5

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:

>* different WPs seem to have different conventions on Wikitext markup.
>For example, French WP seems to put category and stub tags up the top,
>rather than at the bottom.
>
The Classic skin also has the category tags at the top.  Personally, I
like it like that.

Ec


body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

>On Mon, 1 May 2006 11:11:08 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:
>
>
>>POV pushing on Wikipedia is pushing an opinion that
>>is inconsistent with what verifiable sources provide.
>>
>>
>Really?  I have seen verifiable content soundly rejected by the active
>editors of an article on the grounds that, while verifiable, it
>represented such a minority view as to be essentially irrelevant -
>merely mentioning it accorded it undue weight.
>
Evidently, for some any view other than theirs represents an irrelevant
minority. :-)

Ec


from_name: Andre Engels

body:
2006/5/1, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com>:

> We recognize that the inclusion of this content is a violation of the
> other half the goal of the project. As a result it is only permitted
> to include fair use in English wikipedia where doing so compromises
> our ability to be a quality encyclopedia.

Yet when Wikisource wants to include ND to avoid compromising their
ability to be a source of original texts, you do not want to allow
them to do so? Also, does this statement mean that you are of the
opinion that the German Wikipedia, which does not allow fair use in
any form whatsoever, is not a quality encyclopedia?

As for texts that actually are under an ND license and that people
would want on Wikisource: What about the GNU/FDL license itself?
Surely, even if Wikimedia itself were under a different license, the
text of the license would be suitable to put on Wikisource? Yet, the
license of the license reads:

Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

ND, in other words.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Please participate in my survey

body:
The last (first) one was in Frankfurt. Probably not the moment to
accuse Wikimedia of US-centrism. :)

Steve

On 29/04/06, NSLE (Wikipedia) <nsle.wikipedia at gmail.com> wrote:
> Done. Too bad there's zero chance of most non-Northeastern US Wikipedians
> making the conference.


subject:
[WikiEN-l] The onward march of the meaning of "original
	research"

body:
On 02/05/06, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com> wrote:
> It is true that identifying plants and animals from photos is a bit
> of a minefield - very often the key characteristic(s) distinguishing
> a species from all others is not visible in the photo, so one might
> say that that makes it "unverifiable" without other info, such as
> a label on a cage. On the other hand, people who've worked with ToL

Well, I'd sort of say it doesn't matter. Take the simple case of an
animal whose sex can't be distinguished without close inspection.
There's no point captioning an image "Male ..." if you can't tell in
the photo. Perhaps we should just use captions like "A member of the
Red-horned Bat family, possible the Lesser" or something.

Steve


from_name: Joe Anderson

subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
I've recently received messages on my talk page calling me a 'hypocrite' as
I nominated something for deletion under the grounds of listcruft.

Basically, I campaign for civility around the Wikipedia and by calling
something -cruft I'm apparently uncivil.

Cruft is a term generally used on AfD - may it be fan or listcruft. It is
used so much, I never even realised it could be looked upon as uncivil!

IMO, calling me a hypocrite is a lot more uncivil (if not even a breach of
[[WP:NPA]]) than calling something listcruft.

I have no interest in making a big deal over this :D .

Thanks

--
Joe Anderson

[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject:
[WikiEN-l] The onward march of the meaning of
	"original	research"

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:

>On 02/05/06, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com> wrote:
>
>>We have plenty of disk space for uploaders to supply all the
>>relevant facts they know, and to qualify everything they're
>>uncertain about.
>>
>
>I agree, but are you actually proposing that all those "relevant
>facts" appear in the body of the article? I think every possible known
>factoid about the image should be kept on its image page, and only the
>most relevant should be brought into the article body.
>
I meant the image description page.

Stan


from_name: charles matthews

subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
"Joe Anderson" wrote

> Basically, I campaign for civility around the Wikipedia and by calling
> something -cruft I'm apparently uncivil.

That you are.

> Cruft is a term generally used on AfD - may it be fan or listcruft. It is
> used so much, I never even realised it could be looked upon as uncivil!

Well, your campaign has a long way to go.

> IMO, calling me a hypocrite is a lot more uncivil (if not even a breach of
> [[WP:NPA]]) than calling something listcruft.

It sounds timely, though. (Oh no, I'm about to type 'wake-up call', my
second-most-hated cliche after 'defining moment.)

> I have no interest in making a big deal over this :D .

Thank God for that.  That would only be to call attention to yourself.

Charles


from_name: GerardM

body:
Hoi,
Remembering previous conversations, you conveniently forget what to do
about logos of companies and similar info. For the English language
Wikipedia it is "not a problem" because the problem is hidden under
their "fair use". It is however really powerful information. People
KNOW organisations by their logos and it does make sense to have a way
to include these using a license that does allow for inclusion.

Also we have to consider what has the highest priority; informing
people or the information being free in all aspects. I agree with
Andre that there is a lot of information that is valid, that is
informative that makes a difference that we will not have as Free as
you would like.

Being dogmatic about it, denies you the opportunity of doing what we
aim to do and what should have priority in my opinion.

Thanks,
   GerardM

On 5/2/06, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2006/5/1, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com>:
>
> > We recognize that the inclusion of this content is a violation of the
> > other half the goal of the project. As a result it is only permitted
> > to include fair use in English wikipedia where doing so compromises
> > our ability to be a quality encyclopedia.
>
> Yet when Wikisource wants to include ND to avoid compromising their
> ability to be a source of original texts, you do not want to allow
> them to do so? Also, does this statement mean that you are of the
> opinion that the German Wikipedia, which does not allow fair use in
> any form whatsoever, is not a quality encyclopedia?
>
> As for texts that actually are under an ND license and that people
> would want on Wikisource: What about the GNU/FDL license itself?
> Surely, even if Wikimedia itself were under a different license, the
> text of the license would be suitable to put on Wikisource? Yet, the
> license of the license reads:
>
> Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
> of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
>
> ND, in other words.
>
>
> --
> Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
> ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
Ironic how your reply is uncivil.

I'm trying to simply ask for opinions as to whether or not calling something
cruft is uncivil. I'm sure the majority of AfDers would agree with me,
though I'm sure many editors would disagree.

Perhaps we could create a [civil] debate.

Also, if you think of my conduct as bad I ask you to comment at [[Wikipedia
talk:Community Justice]], where the council has the power to remove me as
chair if, I'm found to have done misconduct!

Once again, thanks.

Joe

On 5/2/06, charles matthews <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> "Joe Anderson" wrote
>
> > Basically, I campaign for civility around the Wikipedia and by calling
> > something -cruft I'm apparently uncivil.
>
> That you are.
>
> > Cruft is a term generally used on AfD - may it be fan or listcruft. It
> is
> > used so much, I never even realised it could be looked upon as uncivil!
>
> Well, your campaign has a long way to go.
>
> > IMO, calling me a hypocrite is a lot more uncivil (if not even a breach
> of
> > [[WP:NPA]]) than calling something listcruft.
>
> It sounds timely, though. (Oh no, I'm about to type 'wake-up call', my
> second-most-hated cliche after 'defining moment.)
>
> > I have no interest in making a big deal over this :D .
>
> Thank God for that.  That would only be to call attention to yourself.
>
> Charles
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Joe Anderson

[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
I accept that some may see it as uncivil, but I for one do not.

The fact I do not find it uncivil does not make me a hypocrite.

I will be more careful using it in the future though.

I find it interesting how it isn't AfD which is under question, but me.

On 5/2/06, Pete Bartlett <pcb21 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Joe wrote:
> >Ironic how your reply is uncivil.
>
> Yes I thought Charles wasn't quite up to his usual high standards,
> but we''ll let him off this time.
>
> >I'm trying to simply ask for opinions as to whether or not calling
> something
> >cruft is uncivil. I'm sure the majority of AfDers would agree with me,
> >though I'm sure many editors would disagree.
>
> If its not clear that AfD is often an uncivil place (including using
> -cruft etc),
> then you've been there too long!
>
> In an ideal wiki, editors taking part in AfD should be prepared for
> dealing with more than their fair share (bewildered, upset) newbies
> and should be extra specially careful not to bite them.
>
> It is a great shame so many don't -
> It costs us content, and more importantly, new contributors.
>
> Pcb21
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Joe Anderson <computerjoe.mailinglist at googlemail.com>
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, 2 May, 2006 4:21:19 PM
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Cruft
>
> Ironic how your reply is uncivil.
>
> I'm trying to simply ask for opinions as to whether or not calling
> something
> cruft is uncivil. I'm sure the majority of AfDers would agree with me,
> though I'm sure many editors would disagree.
>
> Perhaps we could create a [civil] debate.
>
> Also, if you think of my conduct as bad I ask you to comment at
> [[Wikipedia
> talk:Community Justice]], where the council has the power to remove me as
> chair if, I'm found to have done misconduct!
>
> Once again, thanks.
>
> Joe
>
> On 5/2/06, charles matthews <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >
> > "Joe Anderson" wrote
> >
> > > Basically, I campaign for civility around the Wikipedia and by calling
> > > something -cruft I'm apparently uncivil.
> >
> > That you are.
> >
> > > Cruft is a term generally used on AfD - may it be fan or listcruft. It
> > is
> > > used so much, I never even realised it could be looked upon as
> uncivil!
> >
> > Well, your campaign has a long way to go.
> >
> > > IMO, calling me a hypocrite is a lot more uncivil (if not even a
> breach
> > of
> > > [[WP:NPA]]) than calling something listcruft.
> >
> > It sounds timely, though. (Oh no, I'm about to type 'wake-up call', my
> > second-most-hated cliche after 'defining moment.)
> >
> > > I have no interest in making a big deal over this :D .
> >
> > Thank God for that.  That would only be to call attention to yourself.
> >
> > Charles
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Joe Anderson
>
> [[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Joe Anderson

[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
As said, I did not realise the term could be seen as uncivil, perhaps you
could assume good faith in not only the new member but in me?

On 5/2/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> Joe Anderson wrote:
> > I'm trying to simply ask for opinions as to whether or not calling
> something
> > cruft is uncivil. I'm sure the majority of AfDers would agree with me,
> > though I'm sure many editors would disagree.
> >
> I consider "-cruft" to be highly uncivil and IMO it also tends to be a
> good indicator that whoever's using the term doesn't have a strong
> argument to support his case for deletion beyond a personal lack of
> interest in the subject matter. I'm not an AfDer, though, and I suspect
> this philosophy is one of the reasons _why_ I'm not.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Joe Anderson

[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
Kelly Martin wrote:

>On 5/2/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
>
>
>>On May 2, 2006, at 9:01 AM, Kelly Martin wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In my opinion calling content contributed in good faith by our valued
>>>contributors "cruft" is incivil.  It sends the clear message that
>>>their contributions, and by extension themselves, are valueless.  Why
>>>can't you just say "Not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia due
>>>to limited scope of interest"?
>>>
>>>
>>My understanding was that "not suitable for inclusion in the
>>encyclopedia due to limited scope of interest" was the definition of
>>"cruft".
>>
>>
>And "shit" can mean "fecal matter" or just "stuff I don't like".
>Doesn't mean calling something "shit" when you really mean "stuff I
>don't like" isn't incivil.
>
Context can be everything.  Cheech and Chong enjoyed having really good
"shit" go [[Up in Smoke]]. :-)

Ec


from_name: Nick Boalch

subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
Joe Anderson wrote:
> I've recently received messages on my talk page calling me a 'hypocrite' as
> I nominated something for deletion under the grounds of listcruft.
>
> Basically, I campaign for civility around the Wikipedia and by calling
> something -cruft I'm apparently uncivil.

Personally I have come to strongly dislike the use of the word 'cruft'
on Wikipedia, particularly in AFD debates, because for most of the
people that use it it seems to mean essentially 'I'm not interested in
this topic, therefore it shouldn't be in the encyclopaedia' (or, the
more extreme cases, 'I don't know anything about this topic, therefore
I've jumped to the conclusion that it's non-notable').

Either way it's unhelpful.

Best wishes,

N.

--
Nicholas Boalch
School of Modern Languages & Cultures       Tel: +44 (0) 191 334 3456
University of Durham                        Fax: +44 (0) 191 334 3421
New Elvet, Durham DH1 3JT, UK               WWW: http://nick.frejol.org/


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
Perhaps I should withdraw the AfD over the fact I made a bad nomination.

On 5/2/06, Nick Boalch <n.g.boalch at durham.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> Joe Anderson wrote:
> > I've recently received messages on my talk page calling me a 'hypocrite'
> as
> > I nominated something for deletion under the grounds of listcruft.
> >
> > Basically, I campaign for civility around the Wikipedia and by calling
> > something -cruft I'm apparently uncivil.
>
> Personally I have come to strongly dislike the use of the word 'cruft'
> on Wikipedia, particularly in AFD debates, because for most of the
> people that use it it seems to mean essentially 'I'm not interested in
> this topic, therefore it shouldn't be in the encyclopaedia' (or, the
> more extreme cases, 'I don't know anything about this topic, therefore
> I've jumped to the conclusion that it's non-notable').
>
> Either way it's unhelpful.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> N.
>
> --
> Nicholas Boalch
> School of Modern Languages & Cultures       Tel: +44 (0) 191 334 3456
> University of Durham                        Fax: +44 (0) 191 334 3421
> New Elvet, Durham DH1 3JT, UK               WWW: http://nick.frejol.org/
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Joe Anderson

[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.


subject: [Foundation-l] Free advertising on Wikipedia

body:
2006/5/2, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com>:

> Maybe not, but one of our Prime Directives is "cite your source". This often
> requires multiple external links because there are multiple sources.
>
> One hopes that you would class this type of link as "necessary" but there
> seem to be people to whom this kind of thing is like a red rag to a bull and
> would set upon a radical link-ectomy without bothering to consider whether
> there is any conflicting policy.

Sure, if you cite your source, and this source is an internet page, it
should be linked. That seems clear to me. However, such a link I would
then expect to be recognizable as such - at least specifying that it
is a source rather than just a link, but preferably also which part of
the page it is a source for. I would not expect them to be between the
other external links; they also go with different rules (for example,
if a site with letters to and from presidents were linked on [[Harry
S. Truman]] as an external link, I would expect the link to go to an
overview of the available material from Truman, whereas if it were
linked as a source, I would expect to be taken to the specific letter
that was used as a source).

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
I was acting out of good faith, and I now admit listcruft was not the best
term.

However, I refuse to admit I wasn't following [[WP:AGF]] or [[WP:CIVIL]].

Thanks.

On 5/2/06, Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 5/2/06, Joe Anderson <computerjoe.mailinglist at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > I accept that some may see it as uncivil, but I for one do not.
>
> In my opinion calling content contributed in good faith by our valued
> contributors "cruft" is incivil.  It sends the clear message that
> their contributions, and by extension themselves, are valueless.  Why
> can't you just say "Not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia due
> to limited scope of interest"?
>
> Kelly
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Joe Anderson

[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
John, Not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia due to limited scope of
interest is pretty much what I thought it meant.

On 5/2/06, John Lee <johnleemk at gawab.com> wrote:
>
> Kelly Martin wrote:
>
> >On 5/2/06, Joe Anderson <computerjoe.mailinglist at googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I accept that some may see it as uncivil, but I for one do not.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >In my opinion calling content contributed in good faith by our valued
> >contributors "cruft" is incivil.  It sends the clear message that
> >their contributions, and by extension themselves, are valueless.  Why
> >can't you just say "Not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia due
> >to limited scope of interest"?
> >
> >Kelly
> >
> >
> What if what Joe took "cruft" to mean what you just said? After all,
> isn't that what it *does* mean? Why the stigmatism?
>
> John
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Joe Anderson

[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
By saying Only 91 edits. This is first to this namespace I was attempting to
insert fact without opinion.

On 5/2/06, Joe Anderson <computerjoe.mailinglist at googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> John, Not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia due to limited scope
> of interest is pretty much what I thought it meant.
>
>
> On 5/2/06, John Lee <johnleemk at gawab.com> wrote:
> >
> > Kelly Martin wrote:
> >
> > >On 5/2/06, Joe Anderson <computerjoe.mailinglist at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>I accept that some may see it as uncivil, but I for one do not.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >In my opinion calling content contributed in good faith by our valued
> > >contributors "cruft" is incivil.  It sends the clear message that
> > >their contributions, and by extension themselves, are valueless.  Why
> > >can't you just say "Not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia due
> > >to limited scope of interest"?
> > >
> > >Kelly
> > >
> > >
> > What if what Joe took "cruft" to mean what you just said? After all,
> > isn't that what it *does* mean? Why the stigmatism?
> >
> > John
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> Joe Anderson
>
> [[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.
>

--
Joe Anderson

[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
"Joe Anderson" wrote

> Ironic how your reply is uncivil.

Actually it wasn't.  It was pulling your leg a bit.

Charles


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
Philip Welch wrote:

>We're not hunting down newbies and forcing them to participate in
>deletion discussions. Deletion discussions take place within the
>Wikipedia community, and like any community we have our jargon.
>
The risk is too high that if they knew about these discussions they
might have a different opinion.

>If someone wants to join that community, they have to learn the
>jargon. Even the most welcoming communities work this way.
>
Yes, communities do have their jargon, but a welcoming community helps
guide the newbie through the jargon.  In the absence of a welcome they
just go away.

>>>Is it offensive to call it "cruft"? No [more] offensive than
>>>vouching for
>>>its deletion. I guess we should abolish deletion for the same reason
>>>saying "cruft" should be a thoughtcrime.
>>>
>>>
>>Yes, it's offensive. The term does matter, as a term carries
>>connotations that a simple act does not.
>>
>>
>Again, what connotations does "cruft" carry other than something
>being low-quality or otherwise worthy of deletion?
>
The connotation that anything contributed by the person who put the
material there is worthless.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
Joe Anderson wrote:

>I've recently received messages on my talk page calling me a 'hypocrite' as
>I nominated something for deletion under the grounds of listcruft.
>
>Basically, I campaign for civility around the Wikipedia and by calling
>something -cruft I'm apparently uncivil.
>
>Cruft is a term generally used on AfD - may it be fan or listcruft. It is
>used so much, I never even realised it could be looked upon as uncivil!
>
>IMO, calling me a hypocrite is a lot more uncivil (if not even a breach of
>[[WP:NPA]]) than calling something listcruft.
>
>I have no interest in making a big deal over this :D .
>
>
The length of the thread that followed suggests that the result was
contrary to your interest. :-)

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
How about a RfC in cruft in general?

On 5/2/06, charles matthews <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> "Joe Anderson" wrote
>
> > Ironic how your reply is uncivil.
>
> Actually it wasn't.  It was pulling your leg a bit.
>
> Charles
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Joe Anderson

[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
I agree

On 5/2/06, Pete Bartlett <pcb21 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Jargon such as "-cruft" and "nn" is not helpful for newbies.
>
> I think what gets peoples backs up more than that is the sight of 7 or 8
> people all writing the same thing (*'''Strong delete'''. NN listcruft
> ~~~~)
> on nomination after nomination. We get the message after three, ok!
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Joe Anderson <computerjoe.mailinglist at googlemail.com>
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, 2 May, 2006 5:08:07 PM
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Cruft
>
> John, Not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia due to limited scope
> of
> interest is pretty much what I thought it meant.
>
> On 5/2/06, John Lee <johnleemk at gawab.com> wrote:
> >
> > Kelly Martin wrote:
> >
> > >On 5/2/06, Joe Anderson <computerjoe.mailinglist at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>I accept that some may see it as uncivil, but I for one do not.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >In my opinion calling content contributed in good faith by our valued
> > >contributors "cruft" is incivil.  It sends the clear message that
> > >their contributions, and by extension themselves, are valueless.  Why
> > >can't you just say "Not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia due
> > >to limited scope of interest"?
> > >
> > >Kelly
> > >
> > >
> > What if what Joe took "cruft" to mean what you just said? After all,
> > isn't that what it *does* mean? Why the stigmatism?
> >
> > John
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Joe Anderson
>
> [[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Joe Anderson

[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
Joe Anderson wrote:

>How about a RfC in cruft in general?
>
It might need to be deleted as "RFC-cruft". :-)

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
At the time, I didn't realise that.

On 5/2/06, Neil Harris <neil at tonal.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Joe Anderson wrote:
> > John, Not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia due to limited
> scope of
> > interest is pretty much what I thought it meant.
> >
> >
>
> Unfortunately, the original meaning of the hacker term "cruft" is (at
> its most polite) "undiscarded technical clutter".
>
> -- Neil
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Joe Anderson

[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.


from_name: Neil Harris

subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
Joe Anderson wrote:
> John, Not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia due to limited scope of
> interest is pretty much what I thought it meant.
>
>

Unfortunately, the original meaning of the hacker term "cruft" is (at
its most polite) "undiscarded technical clutter".

-- Neil


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Photographers - bored and after target practice?

body:
David Gerard wrote:

Whoops, I read that as "bored after target practice"...

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 551 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060502/9d7046b7/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
Neil Harris wrote:

>Joe Anderson wrote:
>
>
>>John, Not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia due to limited scope of
>>interest is pretty much what I thought it meant.
>>
>>
>Unfortunately, the original meaning of the hacker term "cruft" is (at
>its most polite) "undiscarded technical clutter".
>
I started looking back into  where this term comes from and Google Book
Search gave me "...we meet with vaft galleries, along which, and out of
which, the lava has flowed, leaving the cruft entire."  They credit the
extract to the "Transactions of the Royal Society of Edimburgh" without
giving a date.  They also give only snippets of the work.  This is
apparently out of respect for copyrights.  The use of the long "S" in
typography was abandoned rather abrubtly around the year 1800.  Even
admitting that a few of the Scots' southrrn neighbours would consider
them a little backwards, this seems more like an example of Google-cruft.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] NPOV majorities/minorities

body:
 "Cheney Shill" wrote

>This regards Undue weight part of NPOV:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight

>There still seems to be a great deal of ambiguity, even among admins, as to
>what qualifies as a majority.  So here's a simple example to evaluate as a
>starting point.

*View Moo has 3 sources that support it.
*View Bark has 15 sources that support it.

>Which has the majority?  Should either be be dropped completely?  Should
>either be reduced to a footnote or an "other views" section deeper within
>the article? Again, for simplicity, all the sources are equally reliable,
>reputable, and prominent.

>Other than all or most of the sources of either being non-notable or
>biased, are there any circumstances in which you would reverse the
>majority/minority or consider Moo and Bark equal?

I think, given two or more 'respectable' views on a topic, one tries to
write the article in such a way as to leave the reader all the
decision-making. That, after all, is the aim of NPOV writing.  In cases
where that seems difficult by just alternating two sides of an argument,
there is probably some work to do in the composition of the article.  If you
like, simple 'debate' can be rather too transparent a structure, for the
sort of situation you outline.  Selection and arrangement of sources need to
do _more_ than just create some sort of verbal balance: it has to embody a
fair-minded approach also.

Charles


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
"Pete Bartlett" wrote

> The "spends too much time in the article namespace"
> criticism seen on RfAdminship is especially baffling to me.

That is definitely oppositioncruft.

Charles


body:
Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote: Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

>On Mon, 1 May 2006 11:11:08 -0700 (PDT), Pro-Lick wrote:
>
>>POV pushing on Wikipedia is pushing an opinion that
>>is inconsistent with what verifiable sources provide.
>>
>Really?  I have seen verifiable content soundly rejected by the active
>editors of an article on the grounds that, while verifiable, it
>represented such a minority view as to be essentially irrelevant - merely mentioning it accorded it undue weight.
>
Evidently, for some any view other than theirs represents an irrelevant
minority. :-)
Ec

I don't have any problem with the example JzG provides.  I was hoping when I wrote the POV line that there was already enough context.  I should have provided more.  So, for future consideration on the issue of what is and is not tendentious, my revised version:

POV pushing on Wikipedia is pushing an opinion that is inconsistent with what the majority of verifiable sources provide or disproportionate with how other verifiable minority views are presented.

That seems to summarize http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:POV_pushing well too.  The article goes a bit further and states that it applies if "only one point of view" is shown.  That article is not policy or guideline, however (which isn't a statement as to whether or not it should be).~~~~Pro-Lick

---------------------------------
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls.  Great rates starting at 1¢/min.


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki 1.6.5 released

body:
MediaWiki 1.6.5 rolls back a bogus fix which accidentally snuck into 1.6.4.

Full release notes:
http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/tags/REL1_6_5/phase3/RELEASE-NOTES
http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/tags/REL1_6_5/phase3/HISTORY

Download:
http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/wikipedia/mediawiki-1.6.5.tar.gz

MD5 checksum:
cc0611fa713d81303a3b9ea16f25a136  mediawiki-1.6.5.tar.gz

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

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

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

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

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

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060502/9294610b/attachment.pgp>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
The fact it was the first edit to the namespace is of importance. If I
observed, even if I agreed, I would post it.

On 5/2/06, charles matthews <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> "Pete Bartlett" wrote
>
> > The "spends too much time in the article namespace"
> > criticism seen on RfAdminship is especially baffling to me.
>
> That is definitely oppositioncruft.
>
> Charles
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Joe Anderson

[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
> We're not hunting down newbies and forcing them to participate in
> deletion discussions.

Yes, we are, every time we nominate one of their articles.

--
 Sean Barrett     | Eleven parts ammonium-nitrate
 sean at epoptic.org | fertilizer, one part fuel oil.


subject: [WikiEN-l] NPOV majorities/minorities

body:
Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote: On May 2, 2006, at 10:25 AM, Cheney Shill (Pro-Lick) wrote:

> This regards Undue weight part of NPOV:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight

Sometimes the quality of the sources may differ substantially with
one source representing scholarly opinion, the other reflecting
popular culture.
Fred

I definitely agree.  However, that's not the problem in this scenario.  I didn't intend this to be an RfA exam test question. From the responses I've gotten so far, I probably should clarify, but it also shows the great deal of ambiguity I mentioned regarding determining the majority/minority POV.

Restated:
 *View Moo has 3 sources that support it.
  *View Bark has 15 sources that support it.
 Under the assumptions that the sources are all independent of each other, all of equal quality, and they have already been discussed thoroughly and agreed upon as the sources that should be used to write a section of an article, which, if either, is the majority view that will be presented to the greatest extent in the section?  Should either not be presented?

---------------------------------
Blab-away for as little as 1?/min. Make  PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.


subject: [WikiEN-l] NPOV majorities/minorities

body:
Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote: On May 2, 2006, at 10:25 AM, Cheney Shill (Pro-Lick) wrote:

> This regards Undue weight part of NPOV:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight

Sometimes the quality of the sources may differ substantially with
one source representing scholarly opinion, the other reflecting
popular culture.
Fred

I definitely agree.  However, that's not the problem in this scenario.  I didn't intend this to be an RfA exam test question. From the responses I've gotten so far, I probably should clarify, but it also shows the great deal of ambiguity I mentioned regarding determining the majority/minority POV.

Restated:
 *View Moo has 3 sources that support it.
  *View Bark has 15 sources that support it.
 Under the assumptions that the sources are all independent of each other, all of equal quality, and they have already been discussed thoroughly and agreed upon as the sources that should be used to write a section of an article, which, if either, is the majority view that will be presented to the greatest extent in the section?  Should either not be presented?

---------------------------------
Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone  calls to 30+ countries for just 2?/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

body:
On 5/2/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
> When each project has very limited fair use, pictures like logos or
> screenshots should not be an issue, Gerard. As I've argued before,
> there are going to be very, very few cases where a company will agree
> to license their logo under something like CC-ND. Imagine such a
> proposal being sent to Nike. "Dear Nike, we'd like to use your logo,
> could you please license it under Creative Commons No-Derivatives"?
> Corporate lawyers are all about risk minimization; seeing no benefit
> in such an arrangement, most of them would flat our reject the idea, I
> think.
>
The benefit would be that they get their logo in the Wikipedia article
on Nike.  For logos, though, companies would probably insist on some
sort of "educational use only" restriction.  CC-ND is just an example.

Of course, they'd only get that benefit if Wikipedia decided not to
use their image if they didn't give permission.  So there'd be a risk
there, but personally I don't think the Nike article would be any
worse without a picture of that swoosh.

> The use of CC-ND for logos would actually be dangerous as it could
> prevent us from looking for a better solution.

How would it do that?  And what better solution is available now?

> I don't think there's
> any court in this world who would find copyright infringement if we
> add the logo of a company to an encyclopedia article.

I'd like to hear from some actual lawyers as to whether or not they
think that's true.  I find it to be an incredibly bold statement.
There are lots of jurisdictions in the world, and it's my intuition
that at least one of them must have some law against copying and
distributing a copyrighted logo in an encyclopedia.  But hey, I guess
I could be wrong about that.

> Our policies
> just need to allow making use of these exemptions to copyright law.
>
> Erik

Absolutely.  Whatever the "Free Content and Expression Definition" is,
it should certainly include Wikipedia (i.e. the entire content of each
article in the main namespace).

Anthony


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
In a decision it may have importance because there may be sockpuppetry. I
was not accusing the user of sockpuppetry.

On 5/2/06, Sue Reed <sreed1234 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Why is it important? Why should a first edit to the
> namespace be viewed any differently than a 100th edit to
> the namespace?
>
> Sue Anne
> User:Sreed1234
>
> --- Joe Anderson <computerjoe.mailinglist at googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > The fact it was the first edit to the namespace is of
> > importance. If I
> > observed, even if I agreed, I would post it.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Joe Anderson

[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Babel template en-5

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 02/05/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>> Speaking only for myself, I often try to talk to people from all the
>> different language editions of wikipedia.  I like to know what level of
>> English a person feels comfortable with so that I can try to accomodate
>> them as much as possible if necessary.  I enjoy taking the time to
>> review things that I have written, asking myself whether I have used an
>> obscure word when a common word would suffice, etc.
>
> Now that's a good point - WP's other than en. So perhaps someday a
> French speaker will realise he can chat to me in French on en, rather
> than in English. Probably a more likely scenario with less common
> languages though.
>

It's actually considered rude on hold conversations in one language on a
project written in another, simply for the reason that most other users
of that project won't be able to read what's being said. IIRC there was
some fuss about vote-stacking in other languages...

> I have to say, editing a Wikipedia where you don't speak the language
> at all is a pretty interesting experience - and not quite as pointless
> as it sounds. When you a good free image, it's probably worthwhile
> adding it to several different wikipedias, but it can be a real
> challenge for the following reasons:
> * the interface is totally in the foreign language (could this be a
> user setting?)

Yes. See [[Special:Preferences]]. I've got accounts (and have edited on)
 the French, German, Italian and Polish Wikipedias (doing image
replacement mostly), even though I have no understanding of Italian or
Polish, and can barely remember a few words of French and German from
school.

> * it's hard to know what to put as an edit summary - do you just leave
> it in English?

Babelfish? :)

> * different WPs seem to have different conventions on Wikitext markup.
> For example, French WP seems to put category and stub tags up the top,
> rather than at the bottom.

Different social customs as well.

> * no single login ;)
>

They're working on it ;-)

> It would be good if the barriers to English speakers contributing to
> non-English Wikipedias could be reduced somewhat. Or even if some
> mechanisms whereby in one hit you could alert all the talk pages of
> all the interwiki articles that link to/from this article that there
> is some juicy new image/chunk of text/piece of news that they might
> want to add.
>

Learning other languages would be a good start. I find it extremely
distasteful that native English speakers (especially certain people from
a country which shall not be named) expect that everyone speaks their
language, and worse, their particular version of it.

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 551 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060502/8d5b63fb/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
Joe Anderson wrote:

>>> I nominated something for deletion under the grounds of listcruft.
[...]
>>
>> Personally I have come to strongly dislike the use of the word 'cruft'
>> on Wikipedia, particularly in AFD debates, because for most of the
>> people that use it it seems to mean essentially 'I'm not interested in
>> this topic, therefore it shouldn't be in the encyclopaedia' (or, the
>> more extreme cases, 'I don't know anything about this topic, therefore
>> I've jumped to the conclusion that it's non-notable').
>>
>> Either way it's unhelpful.
>
> Perhaps I should withdraw the AfD over the fact I made a bad nomination.

Well, the fact that you perhaps expressed yourself poorly (I say
'perhaps' because people to lean either way on the usefulness of 'cruft'
as a descriptive term) doesn't mean the nomination itself was bad, or
made in bad faith.

Cheers,

N.

--
Nicholas Boalch
School of Modern Languages & Cultures       Tel: +44 (0) 191 334 3456
University of Durham                        Fax: +44 (0) 191 334 3421
New Elvet, Durham DH1 3JT, UK               WWW: http://nick.frejol.org/


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] NPOV majorities/minorities

body:
On 02/05/06, Cheney Shill <halliburton_shill at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Which has the majority?  Should either be be dropped completely?  Should either be reduced to a footnote or an "other views" section deeper within the article? Again, for simplicity, all the sources are equally reliable, reputable, and prominent.
>
> Other than all or most of the sources of either being non-notable or biased, are there any circumstances in which you would reverse the majority/minority or consider Moo and Bark equal?

There's probably more at stake than simply number of words, no? For
example, a very simple, even if exceptionally popular, theory, doesn't
really need 10 paragraphs explaining it. I'll take a bad example: Say
there are two schools of thought: one says that NASA was telling the
truth about the moon landings, and one (or a group of schools) that
says they were lying and it's faked somehow. How much can you say
about the first theory? It's widely supported, has references and so
on, but what is there to say about the "theory" that the moon landing
actually happened? Nothing - it's all covered at [[Apollo mission]] or
wherever. On the other hand, the various counter theories are
certainly interesting and worth covering - but you simply wouldn't
present them as if they had more legitimacy than they do.

If there are lots of interesting, legitimate theories, and a couple of
really crackpot ones, I would see no harm in giving the crackpot
theories their own articles, and giving them no more than a link, in
the style of. "In the 50s, some stranger theories arose, including
[[Giant M&Ms]], [[Borking Meatballs]] and the [[Google Premonition]]"
or something.

Steve


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

body:
On Mon, 1 May 2006 11:11:08 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:

>Tendentious by definition is POV pushing.

Really?  I have seen edit wars over minor nuances of phrasing that do
not represent one point of view or another, just stylistic
differences.

>POV pushing on Wikipedia is pushing an opinion that
>is inconsistent with what verifiable sources provide.

Really?  I have seen verifiable content soundly rejected by the active
editors of an article on the grounds that, while verifiable, it
represented such a minority view as to be essentially irrelevant -
merely mentioning it accorded it undue weight.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
Thanks Nick!

On 5/2/06, Nick Boalch <n.g.boalch at durham.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> Joe Anderson wrote:
>
> >>> I nominated something for deletion under the grounds of listcruft.
> [...]
> >>
> >> Personally I have come to strongly dislike the use of the word 'cruft'
> >> on Wikipedia, particularly in AFD debates, because for most of the
> >> people that use it it seems to mean essentially 'I'm not interested in
> >> this topic, therefore it shouldn't be in the encyclopaedia' (or, the
> >> more extreme cases, 'I don't know anything about this topic, therefore
> >> I've jumped to the conclusion that it's non-notable').
> >>
> >> Either way it's unhelpful.
> >
> > Perhaps I should withdraw the AfD over the fact I made a bad nomination.
>
> Well, the fact that you perhaps expressed yourself poorly (I say
> 'perhaps' because people to lean either way on the usefulness of 'cruft'
> as a descriptive term) doesn't mean the nomination itself was bad, or
> made in bad faith.
>
> Cheers,
>
> N.
>
> --
> Nicholas Boalch
> School of Modern Languages & Cultures       Tel: +44 (0) 191 334 3456
> University of Durham                        Fax: +44 (0) 191 334 3421
> New Elvet, Durham DH1 3JT, UK               WWW: http://nick.frejol.org/
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Joe Anderson

[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.


body:
2006/5/2, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com>:

> Show me a case where we can get an ND license, but the prospect of
> getting a free license are zero,  show me cases where accepting an ND
> license wouldn't hurt our ability to obtain a free license.

I already mentioned one: The text of the GNU/FDL and the GPL are
themselves under an ND license.

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


from_name: maru dubshinki

body:
On 5/2/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 03/05/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
> > Shoot me now.
>
> If it was done well, and linked to Google Maps or something, it would
> actually be kind of cool.
>
> Steve

Personally, I think this sort of thing would lead to a Wiktionary-like
thing, in which valid but extremely numerous data is moved to its own
project. Philip, would a Wikimap make you want to shoot yourself as
well?

~maru


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
Re: Listcruft

Take a look at [[Wikipedia:Listcruft]]. The definition here is not at all
uncivil, but actually a WikiEssay.

Thanks.

On 5/2/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 02/05/06, Pete Bartlett <pcb21 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Even worse is the "first to this namespace" bit.
> > It implies that you have to make 10 delete votes
> > or something before you are allowed to ask to keep
> > an article!
> >
> > The "spends too much time in the article namespace"
> > criticism seen on RfAdminship is especially baffling to me.
>
> IMHO these criticisms are really a way of forming an old boys' club,
> trying to keep newbies out by claims of "when you've passed your
> initiation, you too will have these wonderful privileges". And this is
> totally antithetical to the Wikipedia spirit.
>
> If there is suspected sockpuppetry, we should *say so*. We should say,
> "I believe this user is a sockpuppet, as evidenced by recent account
> creation and very few edits. Could a bureaucrat check this please".
> None of this discounting opinions simply due to apparent newness,
> please.
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Joe Anderson

[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.


from_name: Philip Welch

subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
On May 2, 2006, at 3:48 PM, Peter Ansell wrote:

>> We're not hunting down newbies and forcing them to participate in
>> deletion discussions. Deletion discussions take place within the
>> Wikipedia community, and like any community we have our jargon.
>>
>> If someone wants to join that community, they have to learn the
>> jargon. Even the most welcoming communities work this way.
>
> Not everyone thinks of Wikipedia as a "Hacker-type" community.

Yeah, me neither. But we got the word "cruft" from the hacker
community, so we might as well use it. "Cruft" is a word in the
Wikipedia community lexicon as well.

> I feel that it should be relevant to anyone. AfD is no exception to
> this.
> Especially as this is where newbies get their first taste of wikipedia
> bureaucracy. We should be especially careful not to bite the newbies
> in this or any other encounter they may have.

Not using the word "cruft" isn't going to fix our newbie-biting
problems. Using the word "cruft" isn't really going to hurt things,
either. What would help is if we told newbies, "Okay, the article you
contributed isn't quite what we're looking for. We think it's a bit
extraneous, and it tends to build up. We call it "cruft", and
generally we tend to delete it. If you're looking for a place you can
help, however..."

>> Again, what connotations does "cruft" carry other than something
>> being low-quality or otherwise worthy of deletion?
>
> If the meaning of the word cruft is simply used by people on AfD,
> whether nominators or others, because they lack respect for newbies,
> then it possibly has become a euphemism for something entirely
> different.

Again, I see no indication that this is even the case.

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
On May 2, 2006, at 5:11 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:

>> If someone wants to join that community, they have to learn the
>> jargon. Even the most welcoming communities work this way.
>>
> Yes, communities do have their jargon, but a welcoming community helps
> guide the newbie through the jargon.  In the absence of a welcome they
> just go away.

Okay, so we tell newbies what "cruft" means and that we don't mean it
as an insult to them.

>> Again, what connotations does "cruft" carry other than something
>> being low-quality or otherwise worthy of deletion?
>>
> The connotation that anything contributed by the person who put the
> material there is worthless.

How? "Cruft" refers to the content in question. I've contributed
cruft. I have never taken it to have that connotation, and unlike
many of us here, I have participated in AfD quite a bit in the past.

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
On May 2, 2006, at 6:11 PM, Sean Barrett wrote:

>> We're not hunting down newbies and forcing them to participate in
>> deletion discussions.
>
> Yes, we are, every time we nominate one of their articles.

No, we're not. They're the ones who choose to keep revisiting the
page they made (or, if they're quick learners, put it on their
watchlist) and they're the ones who go out of their way to protect
the page as if they owned it. Lots of people make an edit (or an
article) and then leave it to the rest of us to handle. Some people
choose to stay and stand guard. That's their choice--we're not
forcing them to do that.

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


body:
On May 2, 2006, at 4:06 PM, maru dubshinki wrote:

>>> Shoot me now.
>>
>> If it was done well, and linked to Google Maps or something, it would
>> actually be kind of cool.
>>
>> Steve
>
> Personally, I think this sort of thing would lead to a Wiktionary-like
> thing, in which valid but extremely numerous data is moved to its own
> project. Philip, would a Wikimap make you want to shoot yourself as
> well?

If it was a separate wiki, it would just make me feel a slight
malaise over our already-too-divided efforts.

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
On 5/2/06, Joe Anderson <computerjoe.mailinglist at googlemail.com> wrote:
> I accept that some may see it as uncivil, but I for one do not.

My opinion on this is that, in general, if a significant number of
people are offended by a term, to knowingly use it and risk offending
them should be taken as uncivility.

It's not clear to me that this is what happened here.  You weren't
deliberately uncivil as far as I can see.

>
> The fact I do not find it uncivil does not make me a hypocrite.
>
> I will be more careful using it in the future though.
>

Well, that's a very Wikipedian way to take it.  Thanks.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
On 02/05/06, Pete Bartlett <pcb21 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Even worse is the "first to this namespace" bit.
> It implies that you have to make 10 delete votes
> or something before you are allowed to ask to keep
> an article!
>
> The "spends too much time in the article namespace"
> criticism seen on RfAdminship is especially baffling to me.

IMHO these criticisms are really a way of forming an old boys' club,
trying to keep newbies out by claims of "when you've passed your
initiation, you too will have these wonderful privileges". And this is
totally antithetical to the Wikipedia spirit.

If there is suspected sockpuppetry, we should *say so*. We should say,
"I believe this user is a sockpuppet, as evidenced by recent account
creation and very few edits. Could a bureaucrat check this please".
None of this discounting opinions simply due to apparent newness,
please.

Steve


from_name: Bryan Derksen

body:
Philip Welch wrote:
> Great. Now every city street has its own article. [...] Shoot me now.
>
>
No one would hunt you down and force you to read such articles. :)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
On 5/2/06, Joe Anderson <computerjoe.mailinglist at googlemail.com> wrote:
> Re: Listcruft
>
> Take a look at [[Wikipedia:Listcruft]]. The definition here is not at all
> uncivil, but actually a WikiEssay.
>

One comment I'd like to make on this is that an essay is not a good
reason to propose articles for deletion.  In particular, while some
poorly defined lists tend to be deleted, there is no consensus that
lists *per se* are deletable.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
I realise that Tony, I was simply providing that link for a description of
Listcruft.

I have expanded my reasoning. IMO, you could say Delete as listcruft as
(whatever).

On 5/2/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 5/2/06, Joe Anderson <computerjoe.mailinglist at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Re: Listcruft
> >
> > Take a look at [[Wikipedia:Listcruft]]. The definition here is not at
> all
> > uncivil, but actually a WikiEssay.
> >
>
> One comment I'd like to make on this is that an essay is not a good
> reason to propose articles for deletion.  In particular, while some
> poorly defined lists tend to be deleted, there is no consensus that
> lists *per se* are deletable.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Joe Anderson

[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.


from_name: Sunder Thadani

body:
unsubscribe - mailing list

Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:  On 5/2/06, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> I think there's a big difference here between (most) images and (most)
> text.

I don't.
Man, this discussion stuff is easy! I don't even have to think.

> As Erik pointed out, for instance, a document which cannot
> legally be translated is not a free document. But translation doesn't
> apply to most images.

Well I've translated a few images from Dewiki, but translation isn't
the only valid alteration of an image. Derrived works are made
frequently of free images on english wikipedia. If you'd like I can
send you dozens of examples off list.

> The same applies, although to a lesser extent,
> for short quotes, which is the other place fair use is generally used.
>
> FWIW, I think the English Wikipedia should allow ND images as much as
> it should allow "fair use images". That is, much less than fair use
> is currently used, but still sometimes, when there is no other choice.

You've argued this before... Yet you haven't presented a situation
where we'd get "ND images or no other choice". All I've ever seen on
this front is the example of fat-ego photographers who want to pretend
to contribute to Wikipedia while simultaniously damaging the freedom
of the content that defines the project... and even in these cases,
we're not in a position where no other image is possible.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l at wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Mumbai is the 5th largest city in the World.
Mumbai is the Commercial capital of India.
Mumbai`s business language is English.
Mumbai is Money, and Money is Mumbai.
If interested [in money], please contact:
Sunder Thadani [Your Man In Mumbai]
Phone:91.22.2445 9165.
Mailto:sunder360 at yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------------.

---------------------------------
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls.  Great rates starting at 1¢/min.


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

body:
On 5/2/06, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Couldn't someone just take a photograph of a sign
> outside a company's headquarters?  I don't see why we
> have to show the exact graphic of the logo, when we
> can show it used in context and under GFDL.  I have
> not followed this issue before so forgive me if this
> has already been throughly discussed.

This is what is done on Dewiki.

It sounds good at first blush, but it's somewhat bogus from a legal
perspective... Just like bringing a camcorder into a movie theater
doesn't create a free movie, nor does aiming a still camera at a
copyrighted graphic create a truly free illustration.

The same argument can be applied many of the 'free' illustrations in
dewiki which are fair use in enwiki, from microsoft logos to pokemon
dolls. Jamesday made this argument to me about a year ago, and it is
what convinced me that fair use images have place in a free
encyclopedia. ... or rather, that we have no choice but to include at
least some legally complex material if we wish to be complete.

Not that the dewiki approach doesn't have any merit: a copyright
holder would look rather foolish in court trying to control your
distribution of a photograph an editor took from public property of a
sign outside their facilities...  And in parts of the world without
the equivalent of fair use, this might be the only defense you have
for using their copyrighted artwork.


from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
On 5/2/06, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> Remembering previous conversations, you conveniently forget what to do
> about logos of companies and similar info. For the English language
> Wikipedia it is "not a problem" because the problem is hidden under
> their "fair use". It is however really powerful information. People
> KNOW organisations by their logos and it does make sense to have a way
> to include these using a license that does allow for inclusion.

While en.wp has initially been extremely liberal in its application of
"fair use", a few other Wikipedias prohibit it entirely. I think it's
time that we work towards fair use / fair dealing policies on all
Wikimedia projects. This is going to be a bit tricky as we have to
distinguish between the law that applies to the uploader of the work,
and the law that applies to the Wikimedia Foundation which is hosting
the work.

I would appreciate a legal opinion on how to best achieve this - my
own feeling is that the fair use policies of a project like de.wp or
nl.wp should explain the legal situation in countries where these
languages are predominantly spoken, while allowing the freedoms
granted under U.S. law.

When each project has very limited fair use, pictures like logos or
screenshots should not be an issue, Gerard. As I've argued before,
there are going to be very, very few cases where a company will agree
to license their logo under something like CC-ND. Imagine such a
proposal being sent to Nike. "Dear Nike, we'd like to use your logo,
could you please license it under Creative Commons No-Derivatives"?
Corporate lawyers are all about risk minimization; seeing no benefit
in such an arrangement, most of them would flat our reject the idea, I
think.

The use of CC-ND for logos would actually be dangerous as it could
prevent us from looking for a better solution. I don't think there's
any court in this world who would find copyright infringement if we
add the logo of a company to an encyclopedia article. Our policies
just need to allow making use of these exemptions to copyright law.

Erik


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
On Tue, 2 May 2006 21:16:32 +0100, you wrote:

>One comment I'd like to make on this is that an essay is not a good
>reason to propose articles for deletion.  In particular, while some
>poorly defined lists tend to be deleted, there is no consensus that
>lists *per se* are deletable.

Indeed.  The listcruft essay is a reasonable and quite calm discourse
to explain to those whose pet list article has been nominated, why it
might be considered unencyclopaedic by some.  The problem is not with
the term listcruft, or with its definition, but with the necessarily
arbitrary definition of what constitutes listcruft.  Which is no
different from the problem of any other content of debatable
encyclopaedic merit, which problem is of course the reason why we
require a supermajority to delete.  One man's list of arbitrary
fictional objects selected by arbitrary criteria and sorted by other
arbitrary criteria is another man's fascinating list of seen-once Star
Trek sacrificial red shirt actors sorted by date of appearance.  And
who's to say who's right?

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


body:
On 5/2/06, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com> wrote:

> I already mentioned one: The text of the GNU/FDL and the GPL are
> themselves under an ND license.

The GFDL is a legal document which is essential to the operation of
the site. Similarly, the Creative Commons logos are non-free,
trademarked and coyprighted symbols used to identify Creative Commons
texts. We use these documents and buttons where we need them, e.g.,
the logos are allowed to stay on Wikimedia Commons even though they
are non-free.

If Wikisource allows other licenses than the GFDL, it should also host
their license texts, no matter what terms they are available under.
That is a matter of common sense.

Erik


subject:
[Foundation-l] English Wikipedia Version 1.0 logo copyrighted to
	foundation

body:
As part of the planned release of the English Wikipedia's "Version 1.0"
release, one editor had created a logo for the project based on the
Wikipedia globe, which would constitute a derivative work. I recently found
out that the logo, found at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WP1_0_Icon.png, was "released" under the
GFDL. As this is not possible due to the Foundation's policy, after
consulting with Anthere, I changed the copyright of the image to point to
the Foundation, as done in the Wikipedia logo page.

I'd like to know if this is enough to transfer ownership of the image to the
Foundation, or if there is something left to be done. We might need another
derivative logo for a planned test release, dubbed "Wikipedia 0.5" for now,
so I would also like to know if doing so would be possible, if it became
necessary for the responsible editorial team to do so.

Sincerely,

Titoxd.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Titoxd


from_name: Molu

subject: [WikiEN-l] WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 34, Issue 10

body:
While it is easy to AGF for calling contributions cruft, it's not so easy for that comment. Bias can creep into statement of pure facts through the process of selection of facts. However such behavious is expected in AfD. People who don't have a blood-thirst don't *usually* spend their time in the destructive passtime of deleting articles.

  Message: 8
Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 17:09:37 +0100
From: "Joe Anderson"
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Cruft
To: "English Wikipedia"
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

By saying Only 91 edits. This is first to this namespace I was attempting to
insert fact without opinion.

On 5/2/06, Joe Anderson wrote:
>
> John, Not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia due to limited scope
> of interest is pretty much what I thought it meant.
>
>
> On 5/2/06, John Lee wrote:
> >
> > Kelly Martin wrote:
> >
> > >On 5/2/06, Joe Anderson wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>I accept that some may see it as uncivil, but I for one do not.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >In my opinion calling content contributed in good faith by our valued
> > >contributors "cruft" is incivil. It sends the clear message that
> > >their contributions, and by extension themselves, are valueless. Why
> > >can't you just say "Not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia due
> > >to limited scope of interest"?
> > >
> > >Kelly
> > >
> > >
> > What if what Joe took "cruft" to mean what you just said? After all,
> > isn't that what it *does* mean? Why the stigmatism?
> >
> > John
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> Joe Anderson
>
> [[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.

---------------------------------
Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone  calls to 30+ countries for just 2?/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
On 02/05/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
> My point was that many people, including (apparently) myself and the
> person who started this entire thread, never knew that "cruft" had
> any meaning *apart from* "not suitable for inclusion in the
> encyclopedia due to limited scope of interest"

I know a certain racial epithet which is perfectly synonymous with
some much nicer terms. You understand why we don't use the racial
epithet. That's why certain people, myself included, discourage use of
offensive terms such as "cruft".

And because some people *don't* actually know this more technical
meaning of the term, so it's probably better to spell it out each
time.

Steve


body:
On 02/05/06, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com> wrote:
> We have plenty of disk space for uploaders to supply all the
> relevant facts they know, and to qualify everything they're
> uncertain about.

I agree, but are you actually proposing that all those "relevant
facts" appear in the body of the article? I think every possible known
factoid about the image should be kept on its image page, and only the
most relevant should be brought into the article body.

Steve


body:
On 5/2/06, Cheney Shill <halliburton_shill at yahoo.com> wrote:

> When the policy is used to remove legitimate information that is
> clearly correct, or to impede the daily work of contributors against
> all common sense, it is used against its original purpose and should
> be interpreted in that light. Policy is a means to an end, not an end
> in itself.
>
> I agree about the OR-verifiability relationship.  What confuses me in your statement is what you mean by "clearly correct" and "common sense".  Both of these are subject to POV (and OR) if left to judgement calls.  Are you restating what meets the verifiability policy with different words to help clarify or do you mean something else?~~~~Pro-Lick

No, verifiability is what it all boils down to. However, we need to
remain flexible in what exactly that means. Sources which are
unreliable for some statements are perfectly fine for others, e.g., a
blog might be fine as a source about itself and its own history, but
not necessarily about the issues it covers.

Erik


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
I'm not surprised...

  >Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 12:17:17 -0500
>From: "Kelly Martin"
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Cruft
>To: "English Wikipedia"
>Message-ID:

>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

>On 5/2/06, Joe Anderson wrote:
>> The fact it was the first edit to the namespace is of importance. If I
>> observed, even if I agreed, I would post it.

>Why? Why is it of importance? My first post to the Wikipedia
>namespace was an VfD *nomination* [1], and nobody pointed *that* out.
>[2]

>Kelly

>[1]
>[2]

---------------------------------
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger?s low  PC-to-Phone call rates.


subject: [WikiEN-l] WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 34, Issue 13

body:
Nothing absurd about it, deleting someone's contributions DOES send the signal that that particular contribution is considered valueless by the deleting authority (speedying admin or supermajority of AfD folks).

  Message: 1
Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 13:06:02 -0700
From: Philip Welch
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Cruft
To: English Wikipedia
Message-ID: <35E13D1F-87CA-4B4C-85E9-37998974110A at philwelch.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed

On May 2, 2006, at 9:01 AM, Kelly Martin wrote:

> In my opinion calling content contributed in good faith by our valued
> contributors "cruft" is incivil. It sends the clear message that
> their contributions, and by extension themselves, are valueless.

Reductio ad absurdum time:

"In my opinion, nominating content contributed by our valued
contributors is incivil. It sends the clear message that their
contributions, and by extension themselves, are valueless."

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail goes everywhere you do.  Get it on your phone.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
    I think the question of whether or not cruft is offensive has been already settled as many editors have considered it offensive. Whether or not a word is offensive is not decided by some mathematical analysis of whether it meets several convoluted linguistic criterias. If a word is considered offensive by a significant number of people, then it is offensive and it should be avoided, irrespective of whether it can *logically* be considered offensive. See [[Godwin's Law]].

  Using jargon on newbies is a tactic designed to hinder their participation in WIkipedia activities and should be discouraged. Whether or not the deletionists *hunt down* newbies and make them participate in AfD's, newbies *do* (and should), and it is not to the interests of the project to scare them off with jargon that conveys the impression that Wikipedia does not practice what it praches ("...anyone can edit").

  Molu

---------------------------------
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls.  Great rates starting at 1¢/min.


from_name: John Lee

subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
Kelly Martin wrote:

>On 5/2/06, Joe Anderson <computerjoe.mailinglist at googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I accept that some may see it as uncivil, but I for one do not.
>>
>>
>
>In my opinion calling content contributed in good faith by our valued
>contributors "cruft" is incivil.  It sends the clear message that
>their contributions, and by extension themselves, are valueless.  Why
>can't you just say "Not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia due
>to limited scope of interest"?
>
>Kelly
>
>
What if what Joe took "cruft" to mean what you just said? After all,
isn't that what it *does* mean? Why the stigmatism?

John


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-05-03

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

Running test Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)... FAILED!
Running test Magic Word: {{NUMBEROFFILES}}... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled... FAILED!
Running test Language converter: output gets cut off unexpectedly (bug 5757)... FAILED!
Running test HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML ordered list, closed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested ordered list, closed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!

Passed 303 of 313 tests (96.81%) FAILED!


from_name: Pete Bartlett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
>> We're not hunting down newbies and forcing them to participate in
>> deletion discussions.

>Yes, we are, every time we nominate one of their articles.

I know we already put {{afd}} tags on pages, but I think it should be
mandatory to alert article creators on their talk page that an afd
has been started on their article. It is amazing how often AfD debates
do not benefit from the opinion of the original creator.

Pete


from_name: Andre Engels

body:
2006/5/2, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com>:
> On 5/2/06, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I already mentioned one: The text of the GNU/FDL and the GPL are
> > themselves under an ND license.
>
> The GFDL is a legal document which is essential to the operation of
> the site. Similarly, the Creative Commons logos are non-free,
> trademarked and coyprighted symbols used to identify Creative Commons
> texts. We use these documents and buttons where we need them, e.g.,
> the logos are allowed to stay on Wikimedia Commons even though they
> are non-free.
>
> If Wikisource allows other licenses than the GFDL, it should also host
> their license texts, no matter what terms they are available under.
> That is a matter of common sense.

But might it not be a good idea to have the text of a license like the
GPL even if we don't have any material under it? Would not that be
well under the purpose of Wikisource?

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
On 03/05/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
> The only connotation "cruft" has is that we take a dismissive view
> towards material that's not suitable for inclusion due to limited
> interest. But this dismissive attitude is already present because
> we're vouching for the deletion of this material in the first place.

If you're taking a dismissive view, then perhaps you haven't given the
article the due consideration that it deserves. Before nominating an
article, we should really try and rationalise its place in the
encyclopaedia, and only if it really has no place, nominate it. Saying
"sorry, but we just can't make this topic work in Wikipedia" is not
the same as being dismissive. At all.

> According to Wikipedia, "In hacker jargon, cruft refers to extraneous
> or low-quality things in general, or software code in particular."
> Most of the content labeled "cruft" in AFD disputes is indeed
> extraneous and low-quality. I don't see how calling something
> "extraneous and low-quality" is in any way less insulting than
> calling it "cruft". In fact, "extraneous and low-quality" is even
> more devastating to a newbie than a technical term they may not fully
> understand and only pick up the meaning via context.

I'm not a fan of inflicting hacker jargon on newbies. Why not just
tell them in plain English that we have plenty of Pokemon articles,
and we don't need any more random lists, but we'd love them to
categorise some of the hundreds of articles in need of it.

> "Cruft may also refer to useless junk or excess materials (including
> obsolete computer hardware) that build up over time and have no
> value." Cruft is also used in this sense, when we talk about cleaning
> cruft out of an article. Things like trivia sections and external
> links certainly display this property as well.

And if it's genuinely used in this sense, that's one thing. But not on
a newly written article. And again, not dismissively.

> Is it offensive to call it "cruft"? No [more] offensive than vouching for
> its deletion. I guess we should abolish deletion for the same reason
> saying "cruft" should be a thoughtcrime.

Yes, it's offensive. The term does matter, as a term carries
connotations that a simple act does not. And even the act can be done
in a way without causing harm. You can ask someone to leave your
house, or you can physically push him out the door. Or even better,
use some tact.

Steve


body:
On 03/05/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
> Shoot me now.

If it was done well, and linked to Google Maps or something,  it would
actually be kind of cool.

Steve


from_name: Jesse W

subject: [WikiEN-l] Cruft

body:
On May 3, 2006, at 12:18 AM, Pete Bartlett wrote:

>>> We're not hunting down newbies and forcing them to participate in
>>> deletion discussions.
>> Yes, we are, every time we nominate one of their articles.
> I know we already put {{afd}} tags on pages, but I think it should be
> mandatory to alert article creators on their talk page that an afd
> has been started on their article.
Er. [[WP:OWN]]?  Images are an exception, as nearly all images are the
work of one or two people at most.  Articles are not.  Articles can,
and often are, watched.  Wikipedians ought to pay attention to their
watchlists if they wish to express opinions about their contributions.

> It is amazing how often AfD debates
> do not benefit from the opinion of the original creator.
It is not amazing.  Most people do not feel the need to continue to
respond to questions about their contributions to Wikipedia after they
have contributed them.  This is unsurprising.

I throughly oppose a requirement to notify people who have expressed
(through not using their watchlists) a desire not to continue
discussing their contributions.

Jesse Weinstein


from_name: Phil Boswell

body:
Joe Anderson wrote:
>
> When I'm using the term listcruft it is not intended to offend the
> author. Look at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of PS2 DVD9
> Games]].
>

I did and that deletion discussion is a catalogue of newbie biting and
nastiness of the kind which has given AFD its poor reputation.

You quote [[Wikipedia:Listcruft]], a personal essay, as if it were policy.
You have failed to note, furthermore, that the essay itself says that
holding a similar opinion should not be a *sole* reason for deletion...I
fail to see any other proffered by you or indeed any other "delete voter".

You then proceed to bite the newbie on the grounds that his request to keep
his article is his first edit to the Wikipedia namespace. Obviously this
will spur him on to edit that namespace further in the future, knowing that
he will receive such a warm and friendly reception...

You then say "IMO, listcruft is not uncivil"...well, I could make comments
about your appearance, your family and your personal habits...if they were
not uncivil "in my opinion", would that make them less offensive to you?
Once again, read the essay you quote as your justification for nomination,
which makes this exact point.

Quite frankly this nomination has made me quite annoyed, and I fail to
understand why you would open yourself to comment in this way...maybe you
simply cannot understand why anybody would be annoyed that their article
should be nominated for deletion on the somewhat shaky grounds of "I
wouldn't ever want to read it so get rid of it".
--
Phil
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Indefinite-block-and-desysopping-by-User%3ADanny-t1476246.html#a4205828
Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at Nabble.com.